supp report on p2 consultation - chapter 21 earl pumping station

7/31/2019 Supp Report on P2 Consultation - Chapter 21 Earl Pumping Station

1/34

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

Supplementary reporton phase twoconsultation

Chapter 21 Earl Pumping Station


2/34

21 Earl Pumping Station

Thames Tunnel

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

List of contents

Page number

21 Earl Pumping Station .................................................................................. 21-121.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 21-121.2 Number of respondents ...................................................................... 21-121.3 Site selection ...................................................................................... 21-221.4 Alternative sites .................................................................................. 21-421.5 Management of construction works .................................................... 21-521.6 Permanent design and appearance .................................................. 21-1821.7 Management of operational effects .................................................. 21-2121.8 Our view of the way forward ............................................................. 21-29


3/34


List of tables

Page number

Table 21.2.1 Number of respondents who provided feedback on Earl PumpingStation ............................................................................................ 21-1

Table 21.3.1 Views on whether Earl Pumping Station should be our preferred site(Q2) ................................................................................................ 21-2

Table 21.3.2 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to selection of

the preferred site ............................................................................ 21-3Table 21.3.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to selection of our

preferred site .................................................................................. 21-3Table 21.3.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to shortlisted sites ...... 21-4Table 21.4.1 Suggested alternative sites to Earl Pumping Station ...................... 21-5Table 21.4.2 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to alternative sites .... 21-5Table 21.5.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right key issues in the site

information paper? (Q4a) ............................................................... 21-5Table 21.5.2 Do you agree that we have identified the right way to address the key

issues? (Q4b) ................................................................................. 21-6Table 21.5.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the identified key issues

during construction ......................................................................... 21-6T bl 21 5 4 Obj ti i d i l ti t th d


4/34


Table 21.5.13 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibrationduring construction ....................................................................... 21-12

Table 21.5.14 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposedto address the effects of noise and vibration during construction . 21-13

Table 21.5.15 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effectsduring construction ....................................................................... 21-14

Table 21.5.16 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposedto address the effects of socio-economic issues during construction 21-

14Table 21.5.17 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to townscape and visual

effects during construction............................................................ 21-15Table 21.5.18 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to transport and access

during construction ....................................................................... 21-15Table 21.5.19 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access

during construction ....................................................................... 21-16Table 21.5.20 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed

to address the effects of transport and access during construction .. 21-17

Table 21.5.21 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to water and flood riskduring construction ....................................................................... 21-18

Table 21.6.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right issues that have

infl enced o r permanent design for this site? (Q5) 21 18


5/34


Table 21.7.7 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the measuresproposed to address the effects on the historic environment during

operation ...................................................................................... 21-25Table 21.7.8 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to natural environment

(terrestrial) during operation ......................................................... 21-25Table 21.7.9 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed

to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) duringoperation ...................................................................................... 21-25

Table 21.7.10 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibrationduring operation ........................................................................... 21-26

Table 21.7.11 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposedto address the effects of noise and vibration during operation ..... 21-26

Table 21.7.12 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effectsduring operation ........................................................................... 21-27

Table 21.7.13 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposedto address socio-economic effects during operation .................... 21-27

Table 21.7.14 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to water and flood riskduring operation ........................................................................... 21-28

Table 21.7.15 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposedto address the effects on water and flood risk during operation ... 21-29


6/34


Supplementary report on phase two consultation 21-1


21.1 Introduction

21.1.1 This chapter covers the feedback comments received during phase two consultation regarding our preferred site Earl Pumping Station. The site would be used to connect the existing localCSO, known as the Earl Pumping Station CSO, to the main tunnel via the Greenwich connection tunnel. Earl Pumping Station was also our preferred site to intercept the Earl PumpingStation CSO at phase one consultation. For further information regarding the proposals for this site at phase two consultation, please refer to the Earl Pumping Station site informationpaper.

Structure of this chapter

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

section 21.2 Number of respondents

section 21.3 Site selection

section 21.4 Alternative sites

section 21.5 Management of construction works

section 21.6 Permanent design and appearance

section 21.7 Management of operational effects

section 21.8 Our view of the way forward.

21.1.3 In sections 21.3 to 21.7 we present details of the feedback comments raised, the types and the number of respondents, and our response to feedback comments. Where specific

objections, issues or concerns have been raised, the final column of the tables indicates whether, in response to the feedback received, we:

C are considering or proposing change or proposing additional mitigation1

to the proposals set out in our phase two consultation material

N do not propose to amend our proposals.

21.1.4 A full list of the phase two consultation material is set out in annex A to this report. Where a response contains a reference to our website, go to www.thamestunnelconsultation.co.ukfor further information, or to access the documents referenced.

21.2 Number of respondents

21.2.1 A total of 18 respondents provided feedback on Earl Pumping Station, of which eight were received after the close of phase two consultation. Table 21.2.1 sets out the different groupswho provided feedback for this site.

Table 21.2.1 Number of respondents who provided feedback on Earl Pumping Station

Statutory consultees Local authorities Landowners Community consultees Petitions

4 respondents- Design Council CABE (CABE)

- Consumer Council for Water(CCW)

- English Heritage (EH)

- Greater London Authority (GLA)

2 respondents- London Borough of Lewisham

(LBLew)

- London Borough of Southwark(LBS)

0 respondents 12 respondents 0 petitions

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


7/34



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

21.3 Site selection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

21.3.3 In this section, we set out the feedback comments received in relation to the selection of Earl Pumping Station as our preferred site, together with our responses. Our responses providerelevant details of the site selection process and its findings up to phase two consultation. Where appropriate we have also identified further work that we have undertaken in relation toour preferred site, such as the preparation of our Preliminary environmental information report(PEIR). As part of the project design development process, we continue to assess how theeffects arising from the proposed development can be addressed. The output of our assessment up to phase two consultation is contained in appendix T of the Design development reportand our PEIR(volume 24).

21.3.4 Where respondents commented on matters in relation to management of construction works, permanent design and appearance or the management of operational effects at EarlPumping Station, these comments are reported in sections 21.5 to 21.7.

Number of respondents

21.3.5 During the phase two consultation, respondents were asked to comment on the decision to select Earl Pumping Station as our preferred site to intercept the Earl Pumping Station CSO(see question 2 of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation). Table 21.3.1 sets out details of the different groupswho responded and were asked to select supportive, opposed/concerned or dont know/unsure. Tables 21.3.2 and 21.3.3 then detail the feedback comments received in relation to thissite. It should be noted that not all respondents who provided feedback comments selected supportive, opposed/concerned or dont know/unsure.

Table 21.3.1 Views on whether Earl Pumping Station should be our preferred site (Q2)

Respondent type Number of respondents

Total Supportive Opposed/concerned Dont know/unsure

Statutory consultees 0

Local authorities 1 1

- LBLew

Landowners 0

Community consultees 7 6 1

Petitions 0

Total 8 6 1 1


8/34



Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to our preferred site

Table 21.3.2 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to selection of the preferred site

Ref Supportive and neutral comments Respondent ID No. Our response

21.3.6 Support the use of the preferred site. GLA, LR9315, LR9447 3 Your support is noted and welcomed.

21.3.7 The preferred site is more suitable than anyshortlisted site.

7231, 8876 2

21.3.8 It is an industrial site. 7231 1 Your comment is noted. We took the fact that the site is industrial land

into consideration as part of our site selection process.21.3.9 The site is already owned by Thames Water,

which will entail some cost savings.7231, 7280, 7800, 7927, 8876 5 Agreed.

21.3.10 The site is sufficiently far away fromresidential areas/is not a residential area

7800 1 Your comment is noted. We took effect on residents into account as partof our site selection process, as well as the ability to mitigate likelysignificant effects.

21.3.11 Use of the site would have limited effects onthe local area and community.

7231 1

21.3.12 Not qualified to comment on this technicalmatter.

7927 1 The purpose of consultation is to explore as fully as possible what thosewith an interest in the project think about our proposals. We will haveregard to comments received from both technical and non-technicalconsultees.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to our preferred site

Table 21.3.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to selection of our preferred site

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

21.3.1 Object to the use of this preferred site. (LR)LBLew 1 The sites that we consulted on at phase two consultation have beenidentified through an extensive site selection process (see our Siteselection methodology paperon our website). We consulted on andagreed the methodology with key stakeholders including potentiallydirectly affected local authorities and utilised a multidisciplinaryapproach to assess potential CSO sites against engineering, planning,environmental, property and community considerations.

We recognise that, given the locations where we are seeking toconstruct and operate the tunnel, many of the shortlisted sites areconstrained. However, based on our assessment we consider that, onbalance, Earl Pumping Station is the most suitable site. This is becausewe own the majority of site and it is brownfield land. Although there are

residential properties close to the site, we consider that it would bepossible to mitigate any possible significant effects.

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

21.3.2 There are other more suitable alternativesites available in the local area - such as thebrownfield site in Surrey Quays, whichwould have less impact than the preferredsite and has not been considered byThames Water.

8876 1

21.3.3 One of the shortlisted sites, Foreshoreadjacent to the boat yard and St George'sSquare, is more suitable.

(LR)LBLew 1 Our re-assessment of sites prior to phase two consultation and ourreview of phase two consultation comments do not support the use ofForeshore, adjacent to boat yard and St George's Square as ourpreferred site. It is less suitable than our preferred site because it isclose to a larger number of residential properties that could be disrupted


9/34



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

by construction activities. It may also disrupt the Thames Path. It is likelythat the permanent structures required to operate the connection to thetunnel would be more visible in this location than at the preferred site.Sites in the foreshore also have increased construction costs.

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

21.3.4 Query why shortlisted sites have not beenidentified? EH, GLA, (LR)LBLew 3 The shortlisted sites were listed in the Earl Pumping Station siteinformation paper. Appendix T of the Phase two scheme developmentreportsets out all the sites that were assessed as part of the siteselection process, including the shortlisted sites.

21.3.5 Site selection needs to be reconsidered. (LR)LBLew 1 In identifying our preferred sites, we have followed the methodology setout in the Site selection methodology paper. We are confident that theselection of our preferred site is consistent with our site selectionmethodology.

Shortlisted sites

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to shortlisted sites

21.3.6 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the shortlisted sites.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to shortlisted sites

Table 21.3.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to shortlisted sitesRef Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID No. Our response

21.3.7 The shortlisted site Boat Yard, CalypsoWay, is unsuitable for the proposed use(s)because:

- it is the only boat yard for the two docksand could be required to maintain a largecapacity as the docks could be used forimportant events, such as the London2012 Olympics

- it would have a greater negative effect onlocal apartment prices

- it would be more costly to developriverside land which commands higher

prices than inland sites.

7231 1 Based on our assessment, we consider that Boat yard, Calypso Way ispotentially suitable as a CSO site; however, it is less suitable than ourpreferred site. This is because it would require the relocation of theexisting boat yard, which is likely to be more difficult to achieve than therelocation of the businesses adjacent to Earl Pumping Station. The siteis also near to residential properties that could be impacted on byconstruction works.

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

21.4 Alternative sites

21.4.1 During the phase two consultation, respondents were invited to suggest alternative sites that they thought should be used to intercept the Earl Pumping Station CSO instead of EarlPumping Station (please see question 3 of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation). The following sites were putforward as possible alternatives:


10/34



Table 21.4.1 Suggested alternative sites to Earl Pumping Station

Ref Alternative site suggestion Reasons Respondent ID No. Our response

Other sites

21.4.2 Brownfield sites in SurreyQuays

Have not been considered by ThamesWater and would cause lessdisruption.

8876 1 We have considered a significant number of brownfield sites in SurreyQuays, as set out in section 2 of appendix T of the Phase two schemedevelopment report. As a result of our assessment, we did not considerany of these sites suitable.

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

Supportive and neutral feedback comments

Table 21.4.2 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to alternative sites


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

7404 1 Your support is welcomed and noted.

Objections, issues and concerns

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

21.5 Management of construction works

21.5.1 This section sets out feedback comments received during the phase two consultation in relation to the management of construction works at Earl Pumping Station. This includes theidentification of site specific issues arising from construction activities and proposals to address the effects of these issues.

21.5.2 During the phase two consultation, respondents were asked whether the site information paper had identified the right key issues associated with Earl Pumping Station during constructionand the ways to address these issues (see questions 4a and 4b of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation). Thefirst part of question 4a and 4b asked respondents to select agree, disagree or dont know/unsure. Where respondents completed this part o f the question, the results are set out intables 21.5.1 and 21.5.2. Tables 21.5.3 to 21.5.21 detail the feedback comments received in relation to this site. It should be noted that not all respondents who provided feedbackcomments confirmed whether the right issues and the ways to address those issues had been identified.

Table 21.5.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right key issues in the site information paper? (Q4a)


Total Yes No Dont know/unsure


Local authorities 0

Landowners 0


Petitions 0

Total 6 5 1 0


11/34



Table 21.5.2 Do you agree that we have identified the right way to address the key issues? (Q4b)




Local authorities 0

Landowners 0


Petitions 0

Total 5 4 0 1

21.5.3 The following sections set out the feedback comments received from respondents in connection with the identification of key issues associated with Earl Pumping Station duringconstruction and our proposals to address these issues. Comments are organised under common themes. The themes are:

General themes:

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

Topic-based themes

Air quality and odour Construction working hours and programme Construction site design and layout Historic environment Land quality and contamination Lighting Natural environment (aquatic) Natural environment (terrestrial)

Noise and vibration Open space and recreation Planning and development

Socio-economic Structures and utilities Townscape and visual Transport and access Water and flood risk

General feedback comments on the identified key issues

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

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

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

Table 21.5.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the identified key issues during construction

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

21.5.5 Wish to register concerns regardingdisruption associated with construction.

LR9315 1 We took proximity to residential areas and the potentialeffect on residential amenity into account along with otherconsiderations, as set out in the Site selection methodologypaper.

In particular, the environment and community assessments

N


12/34




had regard to the number and nature of sensitive receptorsand possible impacts from traffic and in terms of noise, airquality and visual impact. We also considered impacts onemployment uses and possible conflict with planning policyseeking to protect local amenity.

However, it should be noted that the location of CSO sites isgoverned by the location of the existing combined sewers asthe interception chambers have to be built on the existing

sewers. Therefore the search area for CSO sites is limited tothe vicinity of the existing CSO. Working within theseconstraints, we have sought to avoid residential areas as faras possible.

General feedback comments on measures to address the key issues

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

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

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

Table 21.5.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during construction


21.5.7 Construction impacts must be minimised at

every stage of construction.

GLA 1 We have sought to avoid or eliminate potential effects

wherever possible, by developing robust technical solutionsto potential issues such as odour, and through our proposalsfor the permanent site design and layout.

We are also developing a CoCPthat will set out how wewould manage our construction sites to minimise disruptionto nearby communities. Measures proposed to addresspotential likely significant effects are being further developedand considered as part of the environmental impactassessment. We are undertaking an environmental impactassessment that will include a comprehensive assessmentof the likely significant effects arising from the proposals.The findings of the assessment, together with anyrecommendations for mitigation, will be available as part ofthe Environmental statementthat will be submitted with ourapplication.

N

Air quality and odour

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

Table 21.5.5 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to air quality and odour during construction


21.5.8 Proposals will ensure that odour is managedsatisfactorily.

7924 1 Your comments are noted and welcomed.


13/34



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

Table 21.5.6 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour during construction


21.5.9 It is not clear what the scale of air qualityand odour effects will be; the assessment todate is very vague, including:

- the site is located in an air qualitymanagement area and therefore Thames

Water will be expected to demonstrate thatproposals do not result in a reduction in airquality

- impacts from transport and construction.

(LR)LBLew 1 As part of our PEIR(volume 24, section 4) we assessed theair quality, traffic and residential amenity of the proposeddevelopment, based on a methodology that has beendiscussed and agreed with the local authority. The proposalsset out in our draft CoCPare included in the assessment

and acknowledge that the site is located in an air qualitymanagement area. While we acknowledge that this is apreliminary assessment, we believe that sufficientinformation was available for the purposes of our phase twoconsultation. We are undertaking an environmental impactassessment that will include a comprehensive assessmentof the likely significant effects arising from the proposals.The findings of the assessment, together with anyrecommendations for mitigation, will be available as part ofthe Environmental statementthat will be submitted with ourapplication.

N

21.5.10 Effect of construction traffic emissions on airquality.

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

preliminary assessment of likely significant effects outlinedin our PEIR(volume 24, section 4) stated that with thesemeasures in place we do not expect any significant local airquality effects arising from vehicle and plant emissions atthis site. We are preparing a full assessment of likelysignificant effects on air quality for submission in theEnvironmental statementas part of our DCO application.The assessment will include dispersion modelling that willassess the potential impacts of the construction phase at allproposed sites for the relevant short- and long-term NO2 andPM10 air quality objectives.

N

21.5.11 General effect of construction activities on

air quality.

(LR)LBS 1 N

21.5.12 Effect of odour arising from constructionactivities.

8876 1 We do not anticipate that the construction works would giverise to any significant odour effects, as stated in our PEIR(volume 24, section 4). We do not expect that sewageodours would be emitted during the sewer interceptionworks at this location. Our draft CoCPconfirms that an Airmanagement planwould be prepared and implemented foreach site, and proposed techniques would be in line withbest practice guidelines.

N

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

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


14/34



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

Table 21.5.7 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour during construction


21.5.14 More information is needed on air qualityand odour mitigation.

(LR)LBLew 1 Details of proposed mitigation measures for the site were setout in the PEIR(volume 24, section 4) as part of our phasetwo consultation. The PEIRstated that at this site nospecific mitigation measures in addition to the CoCPwouldbe required for air quality, odour or dust issues. We would

require our contractor to comply with the CoCPin theconstruction contract. Our Environmental statementwillprovide a full assessment of the likely significant effects ofconstruction on air quality, odour and dust and will besubmitted with our DCO application.

N

21.5.15 No guarantee that the mitigation technologyproposed will be delivered or function asstated.

7924 1 If a DCO is granted we anticipate a series of requirements(similar to planning conditions) that would control thedevelopment. We expect that the mitigation measures setout in the Environmentalstatement that will besubmittedwith the application would form part of these requirements.In addition, we would require the contractor to comply withthe CoCPin the construction contract and to adoptappropriate measures to avoid creating statutory nuisances,where necessary.

N

21.5.16 Undertake an environmental impactassessment including an air qualityassessment.

(LR)LBS 1 We can confirm that we are completing an assessment ofthe effects on air quality and odour as part of ourenvironmental impact assessment. Preliminary findings werepublished in our PEIR(volume 24, section 4) at phase twoconsultation. We are consulting with local authorityenvironmental health officers as part of the process andhave agreed the methodology with the LBLew. The findingsof the assessment of likely significant effects, together withany recommendations for mitigation, will be available as partof the Environmental statementthat will be submitted withour DCO application.

N

21.5.17 Other air quality and odour mitigation,including:

- The GLA and London Council's BestPractice Guidance (BPG) The control of

dust and emissions from construction anddemolitionshould be implemented

- S106 should require baseline air qualitymonitoring and working group.

GLA, (LR)LBS 2 We can confirm that the Best Practice Guidance has beentaken into account in developing our proposals for this site.Our draft CoCPsets out measures for managing our worksas well as details of the various regulatory regimes and

guidance that we would need to comply with, such as theControl of Pollution Act 1974, the Environmental ProtectionAct 1990, the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, theMayor of London's Ambient Noise Strategy 2004 and Thecontrol of dust and emissions from construction anddemolition -Best Practice Guidance 2008, as well asvarious British Standards.

We will continue to liaise with the LBLew in respect of airquality monitoring and will consider the feasibility of aworking group.

N


15/34



Construction working hours and programme

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

Construction site design and layout

21.5.19 No feedback comments were received in relation to construction site design and layout.

Historic environment

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the historic environment

21.5.20 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the historic environment during construction.Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historic environment

21.5.21 No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to the historic environment during construction.

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

Table 21.5.8 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment during construction


21.5.22 Mitigation proposed to address the issues issatisfactory.

EH 1 Your comment is noted and welcomed.

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

Table 21.5.9 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment during construction


21.5.23 More information is needed on historicenvironment mitigation.

EH 1 An assessment of the likely significant effects on the historicenvironment is being completed as part of our environmentalimpact assessment. We are consulting with English Heritageas part of this process. The findings of the assessment oflikely significant effects, together with any recommendationsfor mitigation, will be available as part of the Environmentalstatementthat will be submitted with our DCO appli cation.

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

also notify English Heritage and the LBLew prior toundertaking works and would continue to engage with themclosely on the planning of the works.

N

Land quality and contamination

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

Lighting

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


16/34



Natural environment (aquatic)

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

21.5.26 No feedback comments were received in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) during construction.

Natural environment (terrestrial)

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

Table 21.5.10 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction

Ref Supportive and neutral comments Respondent ID No. Our response21.5.27 Site will have less environmental/ecological

impact than potential alternatives as it hasalready been used for industrial purposes.

7231 1 Your support is noted and welcomed.

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

Table 21.5.11 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction


21.5.28 More information is needed on the effect ofconstruction activities on the naturalenvironment (terrestrial)

LR9491 1 We consider that we have undertaken a thorough andcomprehensive consultation exercise. We carefullyconsidered the information that we made available at ourphase two consultation to ensure that consultees hadsufficient information to respond to the consultation.

Our PEIR(volume 24, section 6) sets out our initialassessment of likely significant effects of construction siteactivities on terrestrial ecology, including clearanceactivities, piling, ground excavation, construction trafficmovements, and the use of construction machinery thatwould produce noise, vibration and lighting effects. Weincluded the proposals set out in our draft CoCPin theassessment.

An assessment of the likely significant effects on the naturalenvironment is being completed as part of our environmentalimpact assessment. The findings of the assessment,together with any recommendations for mitigation, will beavailable as part of the Environmental statementthat will besubmitted with our DCO application. We are confidenttherefore that the information we have provided is sufficient.

N

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

LR9447 1 Our preliminary assessments of the likely significant effectson wildlife associated with the construction of the tunnel arecontained in our PEIR(volume 24, section 6) and identifypotential building habitats. The likely significant effects of thedevelopment on building habitats will be assessed andreported in the Environmental statementthat will besubmitted as part of our DCO application.

N

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

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


17/34



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

Table 21.5.12 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction


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

LR9491 1 All construction activities would be contained within ourproposed construction site. The site has not natureconservation designations.

N

21.5.32 Other natural environment mitigation:

- maximise opportunities to enhancebiodiversity through an effective mitigationpackage

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

LR9447, LR9491 2 Many of the effects during the construction phase would betemporary and we anticipate that the habitat would recover

following removal of the temporary structures. We do notbelieve that it is necessary to provide any compensationhabitat for the construction phase.

N

Noise and vibration

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to noise and vibration

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

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration

Table 21.5.13 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration during construction


21.5.34 It is not clear what the scale of noise andvibration effects will be; the assessment todate is very vague, including:

- the impact of construction noise has notbeen assessed in relation to the proposedresidential developments on surroundingand adjacent sites

- a traffic assessment is required in order tounderstand the expected impact ofconstruction traffic

- a full assessment of the noise andvibration effects on the existing andproposed residential properties is required.

(LR)LBS, (LR)LBLew 2 As set out in our Earl Pumping Station site information paperour contractor would be required to implement noise andvibration control measures at the site, in line with therequirements of the CoCP. The contractor would also need to gain approval from the local authority prior to theconstruction work through a Section 61 application underthe Control of Pollution Act that would set out specificworking methods and the measures to minimise noise andvibration as well as any appropriate monitoring measures.This would ensure that the noise levels are reasonable andbest practical means are applied. The measures would beagreed with local authority environmental health officers.

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

Our PEIR(volume 24, section 9) sets out our preliminaryassessment of noise and vibration from construction siteactivities, noise from construction traffic on roads outside thesite and noise and vibration from operation of the site, theassessment embeds the proposals in our draft CoCP. ThePEIRassessment used the Department for Environment,

N

21.5.35 Noise and vibration from construction traffic. (LR)LBLew 1 N

21.5.36 General noise effects arising fromconstruction activities.

(LR)LBS, 8876 2 N

21.5.37 Effect on quality of life/residential amenity. GLA 1 N


18/34




Food and Rural Affairs London noise maps.

The Environmental statementthat will be submitted with ourDCO application will include an assessment of likelysignificant noise and vibration that will be completed in linewith the methodology that is compliant with BS5228,BS6472 and BS7385 and has been agreed with the localauthority.

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration21.5.38 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration during construction.

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

Table 21.5.14 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration during construction


21.5.39 More information is needed on noise andvibration mitigation, including details of themethod and design for compaction works toreduce the noise and vibration impact.

(LR)LBS, (LR)LBLew 2 Our PEIR(volume 24, section 9) sets out our initialqualitative assessment of noise and vibration fromconstruction site activities, noise from construction traffic onroads outside the site and noise and vibration from theoperation of the site. The assessment embeds the proposalsin our draft CoCP. The PEIRassessment used Defra'sLondon noise maps.

The Environmental statementthat will be submitted with our

DCO application will include a full assessment of noise andvibration that will be completed in line with the methodologythat is compliant with BS5228, BS6472 and BS7385 andhas been agreed with the local authority. If significant noiseand/or vibration effects are identified, we will set outmitigation measures to provide appropriate attenuation.

Our draft CoCPsets out a range of measures that would beadopted by our contractor in order to minimise noise andvibration from plant and works, including the selection ofappropriate plant and equipment, siting of equipment anduse of enclosures to provide acoustic screens. Specificmeasures such as acoustic suppression systems, operationof equipment in a mode that minimises noise and shuttingdown equipment when not in use are also identified in ourdraft CoCP. Our contractor would be required to comply with

the requirements of the CoCP. The draft CoCPalso statesthat our contractor would be required to apply for Section 61consents under the Control of Pollution Act 1974. Thesewould set out specific working methods and measures tominimise noise and vibration as well as any appropriatemonitoring measures to be agreed with local environmentalhealth officers.

N

21.5.40 There should be a requirement in the S106to make provision for baseline noise

(LR)LBS, 7800 2 Your comment is noted and we will consider whether itwould be appropriate to include a working group in the

C


19/34




monitoring and a working group to monitor. CoCPthat will be submitted with our DCO application.

Open space and recreation

21.5.41 No feedback comments were received in relation to open space and recreation during construction.

Planning and development

21.5.42 No feedback comments were received in relation to planning and development during construction.

Socio-economicSupportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to socio-economic effects

21.5.43 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to socio- economic effects during construction.

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

Table 21.5.15 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects during construction


21.5.44 It is not clear what the scale of socio-economic effects will be; the assessment todate is very vague in respect of the actualeffect on businesses and their employees.

(LR)LBLew 1 Our PEIR(volume 24, section 10) provides a preliminaryassessment of the socio-economic effects of the scheme,building on the preliminary findings of a range of topicsincluding noise and vibration; air quality (including dustemissions) and odour; and transport, based on amethodology that has been agreed with the local authority.

The construction works would result in the displacement anddemolition of the three businesses currently at the site. Forthe purposes of this assessment, we consider that thebusinesses do not depend intrinsically on their location atthis site to attract business and would be able to carry the ircustomers with them to a new location in Lewisham or thesoutheast of London. Therefore, the effect of the scheme islikely to be low. In respect of effects on residential amenity,our PEIRstates that there is potential for significant effects.The Environmental statementthat will be submitted with ourDCO application will provide a full assessment of the likelysignificant effects of our proposed works, together withrecommendations for mitigation.

N

21.5.45 Temporary business relocation andassociated effects.

GLA 1 N

21.5.46 Detrimental effect on businessoperations/the actual effect on businessesand their employees.

(LR)LBLew 1 N

21.5.47 Effect of construction activities on residentialamenity.

(LR)LBS 1 N

21.5.48 Proximity of the construction site toresidential and commercial properties.

GLA 1 N

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

21.5.49 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address socio- economic effects during construction.Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of socio-economic issues

Table 21.5.16 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of socio-economic issues during construction


21.5.50 Provide alternative business premises. GLA, (LR)LBLew 2 Landowners may have a statutory entitlement to claimcompensation for the diminution of the value of theirproperty due to the construction of the tunnel. We have alsopublished a Guide to the Thames Tunnel compensation

N


20/34




programmewhich sets out details of compensation thatwould be available during construction for damage or loss,required protection measures and compulsory purchase.

Structures and utilities

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

Townscape and visual

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

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

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

Table 21.5.17 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to townscape and visual effects during construction


21.5.53 It is not clear what the scale of the effect willbe; the assessment to date is very vague.The very north-western corner of thepreferred site falls within the left lateralassessment area of the protected Londonpanorama view from Greenwich Park to StPauls Cathedral and therefore it will be

necessary to undertake a visual impactassessment in order to determine whatmitigation may be necessary if this site isselected.

EH 1 We are undertaking a townscape and visual impactassessment as part of our environmental impactassessment that will identify any likely significant effects ofour proposed construction activities. The findings of ourassessment of likely significant effects will be set out in theEnvironmental statementthat will be submitted with ourDCO application.

N

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

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

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

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

Transport and access

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to transport and access

Table 21.5.18 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to transport and access during construction


21.5.56 Supportive/general comments included:

- no concerns regarding commuter trafficgeneration or parking

- selected site does not impact on riversidewalk.

(LR)LBS, 7231 2 Your support is noted and welcomed.


21/34



Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access

Table 21.5.19 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access during construction


21.5.57 Effect of disruption, diversion or closure ofpedestrian or cycle routes, in particular thecycle superhighway along Evelyn Street.

(LR)LBLew 1 As part of our PEIR(volume 24, section 12) we assessedthe likely significant construction transport effects onpedestrian and cycle routes; bus and other public transportroutes and patronage; parking; and highway layout,operation and capacity. As part o f the assessment we have

considered the effects of lorry and (where applicable) bargetransport, based on a methodology that has been discussedand agreed with the local authority and Transport for London(TfL). The PEIRwas available as part of our phase twoconsultation.

We acknowledge that this is a preliminary assessment. Weare preparing a full Transport assessmentfor submission aspart of our DCO application which will provide additionalinformation regarding likely significant effects on the localand major road network surrounding our site which includesLower Road. The Transport assessmentwill consider thecumulative effects of our works with other strategicdevelopments in the local area.

N

21.5.58 Effect of construction traffic on residentialamenity.

(LR)LBLew 1 N

21.5.59 Construction traffic will exacerbate existingtraffic congestion on Lower Road gyratory.

(LR)LBS 1 N

21.5.60 Cumulative transport effects arising fromother developments in the local area.

(LR)LBLew 1 N

21.5.61 Effect of construction traffic on the safety ofpedestrians, cyclists and local residents;Plough Way.

(LR)LBS 1 N

21.5.62 Loss of car parking will affect accessibility tothe local area and increase parking

pressure.

(LR)LBLew 1 Based on our vehicle swept path analysis, we would notneed to suspend any parking bays on Croft Street or Chilton

Grove. However, parking bays on both roads would have tobe suspended for a short period of time while utilitiesdiversions (Earl Sewer in Croft St, high voltage cable andlocal sewer in Chilton Grove) are carried out. Therefore, wedo not envisage that any current on-street parking would belost.

N

21.5.63 Effect of construction traffic on road safety. GLA 1 We will design site accesses and operate all of ourconstruction sites to ensure that they meet design, healthand safety standards. We are developing a CoCP(a draft ofwhich was provided as part of our phase two consultation),which will include requirements for a Traffic managementplanto ensure that construction traffic is carefully controlledto minimise any potential effects on the road networkincluding access to the local area, as well as setting out

construction traffic routes, site access/egress points,signage and monitoring procedures. There would be arequirement to ensure the proposals do not endanger safeschool access.

The transport assessment will also review data relating torecent accidents. The proposals will be subject toindependent external review by TfL and the local highwayauthority to ensure proposed highway layouts and vehiclemovement arrangements are as safe as possible.

N


22/34



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

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

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

Table 21.5.20 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access during construction


21.5.65 More information is needed on mitigationincluding whether replacement parking bays

will be provided.

(LR)LBLew 1 Our draft CoCP(provided at phase two consultation) setsout a range of measures to manage construction traffic and

ways in which our contractor would operate the site,including sections on traffic and lorry management andcontrol, road cleanliness, and reinstatement of public rightsof way, as well as details about our working hours and theway we would manage our workforce. We took thesemeasures into account in our preliminary assessment of theeffects of the scheme.

N

21.5.66 Provide suitable and safe footpathdiversions.

(LR)LBS 1 Our footpath diversions would be designed to meet allappropriate design and safety standards and would beagreed with TfL and the LBLew.

N

21.5.67 Provide an alternative site access; A200. (LR)LBS 1 The current pumping station site is constrained by numerousoperational facilities above and below ground, which meansthat the interception chamber and the connection culvertneed to be constructed between the dry weather flowpumping station and the storm pumping station. This rulesout Chilton Grove as a possible access/egress point andleaves Yeoman St and Croft Street as the only feasibleoptions. Our proposed access was illustrated in our siteinformation paper (section 2).

As detailed at Figure 2E of our site information paper, at thissite we propose that construction traffic would use the A200to access the A2.

N

21.5.68 Provide an alternative construction trafficroute to and from the site in order to avoidthe works proposed on Deptford Church St

as far as possible. Use of the A200 ispreferred to access the A2.

GLA, (LR)LBS 2 N

21.5.69 Adopt appropriate site managementmeasures to control construction workerparking, including cycle parking.

(LR)LBS 1 As set out in our Transport project information paper, wewould require most construction staff to travel to and fromthe site by public transport. As part of the Transportassessmentthat will be submitted with our DCO application,we will consider the effects of our proposed approach and,where appropriate, provide mitigation such as on-siteparking. Our contractor would also be required to agree a

Transport management planand a construction Travel planwith TfL and the local authority.

N

21.5.70 Use the river to transport more/allconstruction materials and spoil.

LR9236 1 As detailed in our site information paper, where practical andcost-effective we would transport materials by barge. At thissite it is not possible to transport materials by barge as it isnot next to the river it would be necessary to conveymaterials by road to a suitable nearby wharf. However, wewill consider any opportunities for further use of rivertransport as part of the scheme.

N

21.5.71 Use the river rather than roads to transportconstruction materials and spoil andconsider transhipping materials to and fromthe site to the safeguarded Convoys Wharf.

GLA 1 N


23/34



Water and flood risk

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

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

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

Table 21.5.21 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to water and flood risk during construction


21.5.73 Effect on flood risk including flooding from

groundwater.

(LR)LBS 1 Our PEIR(volume 24, section 15) provides a preliminary

assessment of the effects on flood risk (level one), in linewith the requirements of national policy, and considersflooding from the sea (and tidal sources); rivers; land andsurface water runoff; and groundwater. As stated in ourPEIR, the site is in Flood zone 3 where flood risk is high.Our modelling to date indicates that neither the temporarynor the operational scheme would affect flood risk.

A level two flood risk assessment will be presented in the Environmental statementas part of our DCO application andwill identify any appropriate mitigation. As our designsdevelop, we will review the construction effects on flood riskin order to determine any requirements for compensation.

N

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

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

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

21.5.75 No objections, issues, concerns or suggestions were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk issues during construction.

21.6 Permanent design and appearance

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

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

Table 21.6.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right issues that have influenced our permanent design for this site? (Q5)




Local authorities 0

Landowners 0


Petitions 0

Total 7 6 0 1


24/34



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

Table 21.6.2 Please give us your views about our proposals for the permanent design and appearance of the site (Q6)


Total Supportive Opposed Dont know/unsure


Local authorities 0Landowners 0


Petitions 0

Total 6 5 0 1

21.6.4 The following sections set out the comments received from respondents in connection with proposals for the permanent design and appearance of Earl Pumping Station. It should benoted that not all respondents who provided feedback comments responded to the first part of questions 5 and 6.

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

supportive and neutral feedback comments

objections, issues and concerns

design suggestions

21.6.6 Where respondents commented on matters arising during the operational phase and the management of these effects (whether through design or by other means), these comments arereported in section 21.7.

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

Table 21.6.3 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site


21.6.7 The design/proposals are good. 7404 1 Your comments are noted and welcomed.

21.6.8 Looks like the site will be much moreappealing to look at than the currentconstruction; specifically the view alongCroft Street

7231, 7800 2

21.6.9 Support the inclusion of biodiverse

roof/habitat wall.

7231 1

21.6.10 Support proposals because a building of theform and expression presented hasconsiderable potential. The suggestion of amasonry building to create a playfulexpression by incorporating extrudedbrickwork and a graduation of solid to voidacross its facade is particularly appealing.The suggested approach could work well to

(LR)CABE 1


25/34




discourage vandalism. A narrative about theThames Tunnel project and its importancefor London could be incorporated in thefacade, and a public route should bepreserved through the site.

21.6.11 Support the fact that part of the site issuitable for re-development.

GLA 1

21.6.12 Other supportive comments: you have to dowhat is necessary for the benefit of allconcerned.

7404 1 Your comment is noted.

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

Table 21.6.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site


21.6.13 The permanent buildings and structures arelocated too close to residentialproperties/should not be located inresidential or built-up areas.

7800 1 Your comments are noted. Since phase one consultation,we have relocated the drop shaft northwards towards thepumping station in order to maximise the distance fromhouses south of the site, while re flecting the functionalrequirements of the design.

N

21.6.14 Need more information on design proposals,including an artists impression.

8876 1 An artist's impression was provided in the site informationpaper for this site. Further information on the design

proposals can be found in the Design development report,appendix T, which was available at phase two consultation.

N

Design suggestions

Table 21.6.5 Design suggestions and improvements

Ref Design suggestions Respondent ID No. Our response Outcome

21.6.15 Design should incorporate appropriatescreening.

7801 1 Your comments are noted. We believe that the proposeddesign at this site provides sufficient screening and planting,given the site area.

We do not propose to make changes to the footpath orcycleway along Croft Street as part of our proposals,

We will consider how the existing building can be integratedinto the design as we develop our proposals for this site.

N

21.6.16 Design should providesuitable/more/adequate landscaping andplanting.

7801 1 N

21.6.17 Improve or create new footpaths and cycleways as part of the design; the footpathalong Croft Street should be widened.

(LR)LBLew 1 N

21.6.18 Specific design amendments included:

- integrate the existing building into thedesign because of its historic value.

8876, LR9491 2 N

21.6.19 Proposals should be in keeping with andblend into the character of the localarea/minimise visual impact.

(LR)LBLew, 8876 2 Landscaping proposals for the site have been confined tothe south-western portion of the site, in the area immediatelysurrounding the drop shaft structure. It is likely that thesouth-eastern part of the preferred site would be

C


26/34



Ref Design suggestions Respondent ID No. Our response Outcome

redeveloped in the future, in line with the adopted planningpolicy. We are currently considering the design of our site inorder to determine how the proposed above-groundstructures could best be integrated into the surroundingstreetscape.

A preliminary assessment of likely significant townscape andvisual effects has been undertaken and is presented in thePEIR(volume 24, section 11).

An assessment of the likely significant effects on thetownscape and visual impact is being completed as part ofour environmental impact assessment. The findings of theassessment, together with any recommendations formitigation, will be available as part of the Environmentalstatementthat will be submitted with our application.

21.6.20 Final site design should be informed by localconsultation/available for comment.

7801 1 We believe that we have undertaken an appropriate level ofpublic consultation that has provided significant opportunityfor the local community to comment on our proposals. Ourstaged approach to consultation has also allowed us torevise our designs in response to comments and concerns.

N

21.6.21 Designs should be environmentallyfriendly/sustainable.

7801, LR9491 2 We agree that our development should be environmentallyfriendly. The above-ground drop shaft structure would befinished with a biodiverse roof to provide ecological benefits.

N

21.6.22 Other design mitigation suggestionsincluded:

- ensure that the location and design of theventilation plant should ensure that anynoise/odour impacts on nearby residentsare minimised

GLA 1 Since phase one consultation, we have relocated the dropshaft northwards towards the pumping station in order tomaximise the distance from houses south of the site, whilemeeting the functional requirements of the design.

Design proposals for this site will be kept under review.

C

- some indication has been given to theafter use of construction sites, theseaspects should be kept under review toreflect needs and opportunities as theyappear on completion of works, which insome cases will be ten years from now.

N

21.7 Management of operational effects

21.7.1 This section sets out feedback comments received during the phase two consultation in relation to the management of operational effects at Earl Pumping Station. This includes theidentification of site specific issues associated with the site once i t is operational and proposals to address the effects of these issues.

21.7.2 During the phase two consultation, respondents were asked whether the site information paper had identified the right key issues associated with Earl Pumping Station once the site isoperational and the ways to address these issues (see questions 7a and 7b of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase twoconsultation). The first part of question 7a and 7b asked respondents to select agree, disagree or dont know/unsure. Where respondents completed this part of the question, the resultsare set out in tables 21.7.1 and 21.7.2. Tables 21.7.3 to 21.7.15 detail the feedback comments received in relation to this site. It should be noted that not all respondents who providedfeedback comments confirmed whether the right issues and the ways to address those issues had been identified.


27/34



Table 21.7.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right key issues in the site information paper? (Q7a)




Local authorities 0

Landowners 0

Community consultees 6 6

Petitions 0

Total 6 6

Table 21.7.2 Do you agree that we have identified the right way to address the key issues? (Q7b)




Local authorities 0

Landowners 0


Petitions 0

Total 6 5 0 1

21.7.3 The following sections set out the feedback comments received from respondents in connection with the identification of key issues associated with Earl Pumping Station once the tunnelis operational. Feedback comments are organised under common themes. The themes are:

General themes:

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

Topic-based themes:

Air quality and odour Historic environment Land quality and contamination Lighting Natural environment (aquatic) Natural environment (terrestrial)

Noise and vibration

Open space and recreation Planning and development

Socio-economic Structures and utilities Townscape and visual Transport and access Water and flood risk


28/34



General feedback comments on the identified key issues

21.7.4 No feedback comments were received in relation to general comments on the key issues during operation.

General feedback comments on measures to address the key issues

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

Table 21.7.3 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during operation


21.7.5 Measures to address potential issues aresatisfactory.

7404 1 Your comment is noted and welcomed.

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

Table 21.7.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during operation


21.7.6 More information is needed on measures toaddress issues.

7927 1 We consider that we have undertaken a thorough andcomprehensive consultation exercise. We carefullyconsidered the information we made available at phase twoconsultation to ensure that consultees had sufficientinformation to respond to the consultation.

Our approach to producing material was that informationshould be made available to members of the community in

an accessible form and detailed technical information bemade available for technical consultees, which is consistentwith the guidance provided by the Department forCommunities and Local Government (DCLG) in theirguidance on pre-application consultation.

Information on proposed measures to address issues can befound in the PEIR(volume 24). Measures proposed toaddress potential effects are being further developed andconsidered as part of the environmental impact assessment.The findings of the assessment of li kely significant effects,together with any recommendations for mitigation, will beavailable as part of the Environmental statementthat will besubmitted with our DCO application.

N

Air quality and odour

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

Table 21.7.5 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to air quality and odour during operation


21.7.7 Proposals will ensure that odour issatisfactorily managed.

GLA, 7231 2 Your support is noted and welcomed.


29/34



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

Table 21.7.6 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour during operation


21.7.8 Dust and dirt arising from activitiesassociated with tunnel operations.

7927 1 We do not anticipate that there would be any dust arisingfrom the operation of the tunnel or from general inspectionand maintenance activities at this site.

N

21.7.9 Effect of odour arising from operation of thetunnel.

(LR)CCW 1 Our preliminary assessment of the effects of odourassociated with operation of the tunnel is set out in our PEIR

(volume 24, section 4), and concludes that when the tunnelis operational no significant effects are predicted in relationto odour. The ventilation facilities would be arranged tominimise the release of untreated air from the tunnel systemand for approximately 99 per cent of the average year, airreleased from the tunnel would be treated and would nothave any odours. This arrangement meets the EnvironmentAgencys odour criteria. When the tunnel is empty theventilation system would be operated so as to maintain apressure lower than atmospheric pressure, which wouldprevent air from leaving the tunnel. This would be achievedby extracting air at specific active ventilation facilities whichare currently proposed at our sites at Acton Storm Tanks,Carnwath Road Riverside, Greenwich Pumping Station andAbbey Mills Pumping Station where the air would be treated

before being released through a high ventilation column.When the tunnel fills with wastewater the air path throughoutthe tunnel would gradually be lost and air would bedisplaced by the rising wastewater levels. This air wouldpass through passive filters where it would be treated beforebeing released.

N

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

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

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

21.7.11 No objections, issues, concerns or suggestions were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour during operation.

Historic environment

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the historic environment

21.7.12 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to historic environment during operation.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historic environment

21.7.13 No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to historic environment during operation.


30/34



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

Table 21.7.7 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment during operation


21.7.14 Mitigation proposed to address permanenteffects on heritage assets is satisfactory.

EH 1 Your comment is noted and welcomed.

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

21.7.15 No objections, issues, concerns or suggestions were received in relation to the measures proposed to address historic environment issues during construction.

Land quality and contamination

21.7.16 No feedback comments were received in relation to land quality and contamination during operation.

Lighting

21.7.17 No feedback comments were received in relation to lighting during operation.

Natural environment (aquatic)

21.7.18 No feedback comments were received in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) during operation.

Natural environment (terrestrial)

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

Table 21.7.8 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to natural environment (terrestrial) during operation


21.7.19 Support efforts to minimise the long-termimpacts on biodiversity and secureimprovements.

LR9491 1 Your comment is noted and welcomed.

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

21.7.20 No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation.

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

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

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

Table 21.7.9 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation


21.7.22 Provide compensation habitat; put nestingand roosting boxes up. 7404 1 As stated in paragraph 6.1.3 of our PEIR(volume 24,section 6), we do not anticipate any significant operationaleffects on terrestrial ecosystems as a result of the tunneloperation and the infrequent maintenance visits; thereforethis has not been assessed. A full assessment will bepresented in our Environmental statementthat will besubmitted with our DCO application. This will consider thelikely significant effects of the development based on amethodology set out in our PEIR.

N


31/34




21.7.23 Locate permanent works within the site toavoid sensitive and designated areas.

LR9491 1 All permanent works would be located within the defined siteboundary.

N

21.7.24 Maximise opportunities to enhancebiodiversity through an effective mitigationpackage.

LR9491 1 Many of the effects during the construction phase would betemporary and we anticipate that the habitat would recoverfollowing removal of the temporary structures. We do notbelieve that it is necessary to provide any mitigation for theoperational phase of the works.

N

Noise and vibrationSupportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to noise and vibration

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

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration

Table 21.7.10 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration during operation


21.7.26 General noise effects arising from theoperation of the tunnel.

7927 1 Our PEIR(volume 24, section 9) sets out a preliminaryassessment of the likely significant operational noise andvibration effects of the proposed scheme. No significanteffects were identified, subject to appropriate noise controlspecifications f

supp report on p2 consultation - chapter 21 earl pumping station

Documents