Supp Report on P2 Consultation - Chapter 19 Shad Thames Pumping Station

7/31/2019 Supp Report on P2 Consultation - Chapter 19 Shad Thames Pumping Station

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/supp-report-on-p2-consultation-chapter-19-shad-thames-pumping-station 1/43

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

Supplementary reporton phase twoconsultation

Chapter 19 – Shad Thames PumpingStation



19 Shad Thames Pumping Station

Thames Tunnel

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

List of contents

Page number

19 Shad Thames Pumping Station ................................................................. 19-1 19.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 19-1 19.2 Number of respondents ...................................................................... 19-1 19.3 Site selection ...................................................................................... 19-2 19.4 Alternative sites .................................................................................. 19-5 19.5 Management of construction works .................................................... 19-6 19.6 Permanent design and appearance .................................................. 19-25 19.7 Management of operational effects .................................................. 19-28 19.8 Our view of the way forward ............................................................. 19-38




List of tables

Page number

Table 19.2.1 Number of respondents who provided feedback on Shad ThamesPumping Station ............................................................................. 19-1

Table 19.3.1 Views on whether Shad Thames Pumping Station should be ourpreferred site (Q2) .......................................................................... 19-2

Table 19.3.2 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the selection of our

preferred site .................................................................................. 19-2 Table 19.3.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the selection of our

preferred site .................................................................................. 19-3 Table 19.3.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to shortlisted sites ...... 19-5 Table 19.4.1 Suggested alternative sites to Shad Thames Pumping Station ...... 19-5 Table 19.4.2 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to alternative sites .... 19-6 Table 19.5.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right key issues in the

site information paper? (Q4a) ......................................................... 19-7 Table 19.5.2 Do you agree that we have identified the right way to address

the key issues? (Q4b)..................................................................... 19-7 Table 19.5.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures

proposed to address the key issues during construction ................ 19-8 T bl 19 5 4 Obj ti i d i l ti t i lit d




Table 19.5.13 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measuresproposed to address the effects on the natural environment

(terrestrial) during construction ..................................................... 19-15 Table 19.5.14 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration

issues during construction ............................................................ 19-15 Table 19.5.15 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures

proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration duringconstruction .................................................................................. 19-16

Table 19.5.16 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economiceffects during construction............................................................ 19-17

Table 19.5.17 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measuresproposed to address socio-economic effects during construction 19-18

Table 19.5.18 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to structures andutilities during construction ........................................................... 19-19

Table 19.5.19 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measuresproposed to address the effects on structures and utilities duringconstruction .................................................................................. 19-20

Table 19.5.20 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport andaccess during construction ........................................................... 19-21

Table 19.5.21 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measuresproposed to address the effects of transport and access during

constr ction 19 23




Table 19.7.5 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measuresproposed to address the key issues during operation .................. 19-30

Table 19.7.6 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality andodour during operation ................................................................. 19-30

Table 19.7.7 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measuresproposed to address the effects of air quality and odour duringoperation ...................................................................................... 19-31

Table 19.7.8 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures

proposed to address the effects on the historic environment duringoperation ...................................................................................... 19-31

Table 19.7.9 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to land quality andcontamination during operation .................................................... 19-32

Table 19.7.10 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the naturalenvironment (terrestrial) during operation..................................... 19-32

Table 19.7.11 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measuresproposed to address the effects on the natural environment(terrestrial) during operation ......................................................... 19-33

Table 19.7.12 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise andvibration during operation ............................................................. 19-33

Table 19.7.13 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economiceffects during operation ................................................................ 19-34

Table 19 7 14 Objections iss es and concerns in relation to the meas res




Supplementary report on phase two consultation 19-1


19.1 Introduction

19.1.1 This chapter covers the feedback comments received during phase two consultation regarding our preferred site Shad Thames Pumping Station. This site would control the existingcombined sewer overflow (CSO), known as the Shad Thames Pumping Station CSO, which would not be intercepted by the main tunnel.

19.1.2 At phase one consultation, St John’s playground fronting Druid Street was presented as our preferred site to connect the Shad Thames Pumping Station CSO to the main tunnel.However, further technical work has established that there is no longer a need to connect the Shad Thames Pumping Station CSO to the main tunnel. Instead we propose to manage

storm flows by utilising existing storage in the sewers upstream of the pumping station and implementing works at Shad Thames Pumping Station to prevent it from pumping flows fromthe CSO into the River Thames. The site at Druid Street is therefore no longer required and works are instead proposed at the Shad Thames Pumping Station and Maguire Street, aspresented at phase two consultation. For further information regarding the proposals for this site at phase two consultation, refer to the Shad Thames Pumping Station site information paper .

Structure of this chapter

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

section 19.2 – Number of respondents

section 19.3 – Site selection

section 19.4 – Alternative sites

section 19.5 – Management of construction works

section 19.6 – Permanent design and appearance

section 19.7 – Management of operational effects

section 19.8 – Our view of the way forward.19.1.4 In sections 19.3 to 19.7 we present details of the feedback comments raised, the types and total number of respondents, and our response to feedback comments. Where specific

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

C – we are considering or proposing change or additional mitigation1 to that set out in our phase two consultation material

N – we do not propose to amend our proposals.

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

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

19.2 Number of respondents

19.2.1 A total of 37 respondents provided feedback on Shad Thames Pumping Station, of which eight were received after the close of phase two consultation. Table 19.2.1 sets out the differentgroups who provided feedback for this site.

Table 19.2.1 Number of respondents who provided feedback on Shad Thames Pumping Station

Statutory consultees Local authorities Landowners Community consultees Petitions

3 respondents

- Design Council CABE (CABE)

- English Heritage (EH)

- Greater London Authority (GLA)

1 respondent

- London Borough of Southwark(LBS)

3 respondents 30 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 plan and other documents as well as those mitigation measures set out in the PEIR .

http://www.thamestunnelconsultation.co.uk/








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

19.3 Site selection

19.3.1 A series of sites is required in order to build and operate the Thames Tunnel project. At phase one consultation, we identified Druid Street as our preferred site to intercept the ShadThames Pumping Station CSO according to our site selection process. 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 paper such as the engineering requirements for the size

of construction sites.

19.3.2 Since phase one consultation, we have undertaken scheme development work that has shown that by carrying out modifications and upgrades to Shad Thames Pumping Station, we donot need to intercept the Shad Thames Pumping Station CSO and connect it to the main tunnel . Therefore we have ceased our search for a suitable site to intercept the Shad ThamesPumping Station CSO and propose to use Shad Thames Pumping Station to undertake modification and upgrade works.

19.3.3 In this section, we set out the feedback comments received in relation to Shad Thames Pumping Station, together with our responses. Where appropriate, we have also identified furtherwork that we have undertaken in relation to this site, such as the preparation of our Preliminary environmental information report (PEIR ). As part of the project design developmentprocess, we continue to assess how the effects arising from the proposed development can be addressed. The output of our assessment up to phase two consultation is contained inappendix Y of the Design development report and in our PEIR (volume 2).

19.3.4 Where respondents have commented on matters in relation to management of construction works, permanent design and appearance or the management of operational effects at ShadThames Pumping Station, these comments are reported in sections 4.5 to 4.7.

Number of respondents

19.3.5 During phase two consultation, respondents were asked to comment on the decision to use Shad Thames Pumping Station to control the Shad Thames Pumping Station CSO (seequestion 2 of the phase two feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main Report). Table 19.3.1 sets out details of the different groups who responded and were asked to select

‘supportive’, ‘opposed/concerned’ or ‘don’t know/unsure’. Tables 19.3.2 and 19.3.3 then detail the feedback comments received in relation to this site. It should be noted that not allrespondents who provided feedback comments selected ‘supportive’, ‘opposed/concerned’ or ‘don’t know/unsure’.

Table 19.3.1 Views on whether Shad Thames Pumping Station should be our preferred site (Q2)

Respondent type Number of respondents

Total Supportive Opposed/concerned Don’t know/unsure

Statutory consultees 0

Local authorities 1 1

- LBS

Landowners 2 1 1

Community consultees 22 8 9 5

Petitions 0

Total 25 8 11 6

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to our preferred site

Table 19.3.2 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the selection of our preferred site

Ref Supportive and neutral comments Respondent ID No. Our response

19.3.6 Support the use of the site. EH, 8753, 8813 3 Your support is noted and welcomed.

19.3.7 Support the changes to the proposed use ofthe preferred site since phase one

7767, 8753, LR9447 3






consultation - specifically that they addressthe CSO issue without the need for thetunnel.

19.3.8 Support the identification of a new site sincephase one consultation/ Shad ThamesPumping Station is more suitable than thesite put forward at phase one consultation;in particular it avoids significantarchaeological impacts at Druid Street.

EH, GLA, 8306, 8673, 9063, 9067, 9395,9475, LR9315, LR9447

10

19.3.9 Thames Water has taken objections raisedat phase one consultation into account insite selection.

LR8975, LR9315, LR9447 3 Your comment is noted. We have considered the comments received atphase one consultation and, where possible, have incorporated theminto the revised proposals we presented at phase two consultation.

19.3.10 The site is currently vacant/derelict/availablefor redevelopment.

8813 1 The proposed works would be within our existing operational pumpingstation with some works in Maguire Street adjacent to the site.

19.3.11 Qualified support for our chosen siteincluded:

- subject to the Mayor of London being re-assured as to the number of expectedspills at this CSO

GLA, LR13386LO, 9096 3 We can confirm that once the modifications at Shad Thames PumpingStation have been implemented, the average number of spills per yearwould reduce to four in a typical year.

- reassurance that, there will be nonegative outcomes as a result of notconnecting to the main tunnel, eg worsesewage control, odour and contamination

Undertaking these modifications would not exacerbate the currentsituation.

- minimise disruption for local residents. We note that the pumping station i s currently an operational site. A fullassessment of the effects of the scheme on a range of topics, includingnoise and vibration; air quality (including dust emissions) and odour; andtransport, based on a methodology that has been agreed with the LBSwill be provided with the Environmental statement that will be submittedwith our DCO application. Where effects are identified we would put inplace mitigation measures, in addition to the measures set out in ourdraft CoCP . We are also preparing a Health impact assessment that willexamine the effects of the proposed development on human health andwell-being and possible effects in the population. The findings of thisstudy will inform the design for this site, as well as mitigation measuresto address any significant effects.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to our preferred site

Table 19.3.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the selection of our preferred site

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

19.3.1 The preferred site put forward at phase oneconsultation, Druid Street, is more suitablebecause the new site location and strategyappears to downgrade the usefulness of theCSO system in this area, with the result that

7536 1 Since phase one consultation, our proposals in relation to the ShadThames Pumping Station CSO have changed. Instead of interceptingthe CSO at Druid Street and connecting it to the main tunnel asproposed at phase one consultation, we now propose to manage stormflows by utilising existing storage in the sewers upstream of the pumping






more sewage overflows will occur into theThames than at Druid Street.

station and undertaking works at Shad Thames Pumping Station toprevent it from pumping flows from the CSO into the River Thames.Works at Shad Thames Pumping Station would include modifications tothe pumps and internal pipe work, demolition of a building, constructionof a new building to house electrical equipment, and modifications to theexisting sewers outside the pumping station.

The proposed works would be smaller scale and take less time thanthose required to intercept the Shad Thames Pumping Station CSO, as

proposed at phase one consultation. Overall, our new proposal wouldresult in less disruption to the community in this area. We can confirmthat once the modifications at Shad Thames Pumping Station have beenimplemented, the average number of spills would be reduced to four in atypical year. These modifications would not exacerbate the currentsituation.

A full assessment of the likely significant effects of the proposals on arange of topics, including noise and vibration; air quality (including dustemissions) and odour; and transport, based on a methodology that hasbeen agreed with the LBS, will be provided with the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. Where effectsare identified we would put in place mitigation measures, in addition tothose set out in our draft CoCP .

We are also preparing a Health impact assessment that will examine theeffects of the proposed development on human health and well-beingand possible effects in the population. The findings of this study willinform the design for this site as well as mitigation measures to addressany significant effects.

19.3.2 Reasons for changing the proposals inrelation to the interception of the ShadThames Pumping Station CSO are unclear.

7598 1

19.3.3 Site selection should avoid sites inresidential and/or densely populated areas.

7767, 8198 2

19.3.4 Impact on residential amenity should beconsidered as part of the site selectionprocess.

(LR)LBS 1

19.3.5 The scale of effects on the local area andcommunity resulting from the selection ofthis site is unacceptable/has not beenproperly considered.

8650 1

19.3.6 Disagree with/not commenting on siteselection due to wider objections to theproposed solution and/or the need for theproject.

8002LO, 9395, 9475 3 Refer to paragraph 2.2.32 for our response to this feedback comment.

19.3.7 Need more information in order to commenton site selection.

8003LO, 9096 2 Instead of intercepting the flows from the Shad Thames Pumping StationCSO we now propose to manage the storm flows by utilising existingstorage in the sewers upstream of the pumping station and undertakingworks at the Shad Thames Pumping Station to prevent it from pumpingflows from the CSO into the River Thames. As we no longer propose tointercept the Shad Thames CSO and connect it to the main tunnel andpropose instead to modify the existing sewer network, we assessed this

worksite in the PEIR (volume 2) under Other works . Further informationwill be made available in the environmental impact assessment, whichwill include a further assessment and recommend any necessarymitigation measures in respect of residential and other local impacts.

19.3.8 Other concerns, issues and objectionsincluded:

- query whether there is an opportunity torelocate this pumping station toChambers Wharf and integrate it with the

8198, 9096, 9387 3 It is not possible to relocate the proposals at Shad Thames PumpingStation to Chambers Wharf because this station pumps flows from theShad Thames Pumping Station CSO into the River Thames. Thepumping station therefore needs to be located along the line of thesewer, as close to the river as possible.






work there, thereby minimising disruption

- hope and expect that specialists/best-in-field are advising on all aspects of theproject

We can confirm that we have employed experts in this field to advise usand assess our proposals.

- engineering assessment appears poor,given the major changes made such asat Druid Street.

Since phase one consultation, further monitoring, modelling and otherinformation on the Shad Thames Pumping Station CSO has becomeavailable, which has informed further work that has shown that

discharges from the CSO can be addressed through modifications toShad Thames Pumping Station.

Shortlisted sites

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to shortlisted sites

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

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to shortlisted sites

Table 19.3.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to shortlisted sites


19.3.10 Object to the inclusion or referencing of ashortlisted site as a possible alternative tothe preferred site. Use of Druid Street would

result in loss of public open space and playspace, and impact on amenity, archaeology,and enjoyment of open space.

(LR)LBS 1 Druid Street was not included as a shortlisted site in phase twoconsultation because we now propose to manage the storm flows fromthis CSO by modifying the existing sewer system. This means we no

longer need a construction site to intercept this CSO. As set out in theShad Thames Pumping Station site information paper , we have chosenthe pumping station to control the Shad Thames Pumping Station CSOand our proposed works would mainly be undertaken within this site..

19.4 Alternative sites

19.4.1 During phase two consultation, respondents were invited to suggest alternative sites that they thought should be used to control the Shad Thames Pumping Station CSO instead of ShadThames Pumping Station (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:

Table 19.4.1 Suggested alternative sites to Shad Thames Pumping Station

Ref Alternative site suggestions Reasons Respondent ID No. Our response

Shortlisted sites

19.4.2 Druid Street. The CSO system is more efficient at

this site. Shad Thames is the cheaperalternative but not necessarily thebest one.

8003LO, 7536,

8655

3 Druid Street was not included as a shortlisted site in our phase two

consultation because we now propose to manage the storm flows fromthis CSO by modifying the existing sewer system. This means we nolonger need a construction site to intercept this sewer. As set out in theShad Thames Pumping Station site information paper , we have chosenthe pumping station to control the Shad Thames Pumping Station CSOand our proposed works would mainly be undertaken within this site.

Other sites

19.4.3 River bed alongside the riverwalk.

Thames Water should connect arising main to the tunnel at Chambers

8002LO 1 The proposed works to control the Shad Thames Pumping Station CSOwould avoid the need for the larger scale works suggested here and







Table 19.5.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right key issues in the site information paper? (Q4a)


Total Yes No Don’t know/unsure


Local authorities 0

Landowners 1 1


Petitions 0

Total 13 8 3 2

Table 19.5.2 Do you agree that we have identified the right way to address the key issues? (Q4b)




Local authorities 0

Landowners 2 1 1


Petitions 0

Total 14 4 5 5

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

General themes:

General feedback comments on key issues

General feedback comments measures to address the key issues

Topic-based themes

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

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

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

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

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

19.5.6 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to general feedback 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 19.5.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during construction

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

19.5.7 Construction impacts must be minimised atevery stage of construction.

GLA 1 We have sought to avoid or eliminate potential likelysignificant effects wherever possible, by developing robusttechnical solutions to potential issues such as odour, andthrough our proposals for the permanent site design andlayout.

We are also developing a CoCP that will set out how wewould manage our construction sites in order to minimisedisruption to nearby communities. Measures proposed to

address potential likely significant effects are being furtherdeveloped and considered as part of the environmentalimpact assessment. The findings of the assessment,together with any recommendations for mitigation, will beavailable as part of the Environmental statement that will besubmitted with our DCO application.

N

Air quality and odour

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation air quality and odour

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

Objections, issues and concerns in relation air quality and odour

Table 19.5.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour during construction


19.5.9 Dust and dirt arising from constructionactivities.

7808 1 Our Managing construction project information paper anddraft CoCP set out how dust control measures and dustmonitoring equipment would be put in place to minimiselikely significant effects of dust from construction activitiesand measures that would be adopted to limit vehicle andplant emissions, including using low emission vehicles,turning off engines when not needed and minimising vehiclemovements around the site. Our draft CoCP confirms thatan Air management plan will be prepared and implementedfor each site to control dust emissions, and proposed

N

19.5.10 General effect of construction activities onair quality.

(LR)LBS 1 N






techniques would be in line with best practice guidelines.Further assessment will be undertaken as part of our on-going environmental impact assessment work and this willbe reported in the Environmental statement that will besubmitted with our DCO application, which will includedispersion modelling. Dispersion modelling will assess thepotential impacts of the construction phase at all proposedsites for the relevant short- and long-term NO2 and PM10 air

quality objectives.19.5.11 Effect of odour arising from construction

activities.7013 1 We do not anticipate that the construction works would give

rise to any significant odour effects. The majority of ourproposed works would be located within the existingpumping station building and the duration would be relativelyshort – similar to those normally undertaken by ThamesWater when maintaining and repairing sewers. We wouldtherefore be able to put appropriate measures in place tominimise any odours resulting from our proposed works. Ourdraft CoCP confirms that an Air management plan would beprepared and implemented for each site, and proposedtechniques would be in line with best practice guidelines.

N

19.5.12 Effect of odour on residential amenity. 7013 1 N

19.5.13 General air pollution effects arising fromconstruction activities.

8297, 8650 2 A full assessment of potential 'pollution' will be presented inthe Environmental statement that we will submit with our

DCO application. We have also produced a draft CoCP thatsets out measures for managing our works, includingsections on noise and vibration, and air quality, as well asdetails of the various regulatory regimes and guidance thatwe would need to comply with, such as the Control ofPollution Act 1974, the Environmental Protection Act 1990,the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, the Mayor ofLondon's Ambient Noise Strategy 2004 and “The control of dust and emissions from construction and demolition ” - BestPractice Guidance 2008, as well as various BritishStandards. Our compliance with the applicable regulatoryregime would be monitored by the LBS.

N

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

19.5.14 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.

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

Table 19.5.5 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour during construction


19.5.15 More information is needed on air qualityand odour mitigation.

7808 1 Our preliminary environmental assessment identified thatthrough the implementation of the CoCP no specificadditional mitigation measures would be required at this sitefor air quality, odour or dust issues. We would require ourcontractor to comply with the CoCP in the constructioncontract. We are undertaking an environmental impact

N






assessment, which will include a comprehensiveassessment of the likely significant effects arising from theproposals. The findings of the assessment, together withany recommendations for mitigation, will be available as partof the Environmental statement that will be submitted withour application.

19.5.16 Undertake an environmental impactassessment including air quality

assessment.

(LR)LBS 1 We can confirm that an assessment of the likely significanteffects on air quality and odour is being completed as part of

our environmental impact assessment. Preliminary findingswere published in our PEIR (volume 2) at phase twoconsultation. We are consulting with local authorityenvironmental health officers as part of the process andhave agreed the methodology with the LBS. The findings ofthe assessment, together with any recommendations formitigation, will be available as part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO appli cation.

N

19.5.17 Other air quality and odour mitigation,included the GLA and London Council'sBest Practice Guidance (BPG) “The control of dust and emissions from construction and demolition” should be implemented

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 CoCP sets out measures for managing our worksas well as details of the various regulatory regimes andguidance that we would need to comply with, such as theControl of Pollution Act 1974, the Environmental Protection

Act 1990, the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, theMayor of London's Ambient Noise Strategy 2004 and “The control of dust and emissions from construction and demolition ” - Best Practice Guidance 2008, as well asvarious British Standards.

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

N

- S106 to require baseline air quality

monitoring and working group. C

Construction working hours and programme

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to construction working hours and programme

19.5.18 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to construction working hours and programme.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the construction working hours and programme

Table 19.5.6 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction working hours and programme


19.5.19 The construction programme is toolong/concerned about the duration ofconstruction.

8650 1 The programming of works at all sites would be configuredto minimise the duration of works and associated disruptionto the local area where possible. The length of theconstruction period in the consultation documents comesfrom the PEIR and we expect that in many cases therewould be periods during which there would be no or lessintensive activity on some sites.

N






The proposed construction period for the works at this sitehas been significantly reduced from our proposal to interceptthe Shad Thames Pumping Station CSO at phase oneconsultation, and has been minimised as far as possible.

19.5.20 No weekend working. LR9122 1 At most of our sites we plan to carry out the majority ofworks within standard working hours, which are 8am-6pmweekdays, and 8am-1pm Saturdays. Work would notnormally be undertaken on a bank holiday unless there is a

specific reason - such as delivering abnormal, large andheavy loads at times when there i s not much traffic, orduring continuous tunnelling periods. Working hours inaddition to the standard working hours would be agreed withthe LBS and we would notify the local residents beforehand.

N

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of construction working hours and programme

19.5.21 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of construction working hours programme.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of the construction programme

Table 19.5.7 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of construction working hours and programme


19.5.22 Should restrict demolition work to betweenthe months of September and March so that

Wheat Wharf residents can use theirbalconies during the summer.

7808 1 Your comments are noted. We will consider whether it wouldbe possible to carry out the demolition work between

September and March.

C

Construction site design and layout

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


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the historic environment

19.5.24 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

Table 19.5.8 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historic environment during construction


19.5.25 Effect of construction activities on listedbuilding(s) or structure(s).

(LR)LBS, 7808 2 Wheat Wharf is located to the north of the pumping stationsite and is listed as Grade II. We are undertaking a historicenvironment assessment that will assess likely significanteffects on Wheat Wharf, as part of our environmental impactassessment and heritage assessment. This will identify anylikely significant effects during construction and anymitigation to address adverse effects.

Our draft CoCP (provided at phase two consultation)indicates that works close to listed buildings would beundertaken in accordance with all required consents and

N

19.5.26 Effect of construction activities on the settingof locally listed buildings.

(LR)LBS 1 N






licences and that protection measures, as required, wouldbe put in place at the start of the works. We would alsonotify English Heritage and the local planning authority priorto undertaking works.

19.5.27 Effect of construction activities onarchaeology.

(LR)LBS 1 An assessment of the likely significant effects on the historicenvironment is being completed as part of our environmentalimpact and heritage assessments. We are consulting withEnglish Heritage and the LBS as part of this process.

Our draft CoCP sets out a range of measures that would beadopted by our contractor in respect of archaeology,including procedures to ensure that construction workswould be appropriately monitored to identify and record anyarchaeological finds. A full assessment of the effects on thehistoric environment, together with any recommendations formitigation, will be set out in our Environmental statement and Heritage statement that will be submitted with our DCOapplication.

N

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

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

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

Table 19.5.9 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on historic environment during construction


19.5.29 More information is needed on mitigation,including the requirement for suitableaccess for archaeologists to excavate andrecord archaeological issues.

EH, (LR)LBS 2 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 o f the assessment inrespect of likely significant effects, together with anyrecommendations for mitigation, will be available as part ofthe Environmental statement that will be submitted with ourDCO application.

Additionally, our draft CoCP (provided at phase twoconsultation) sets out a range of measures to safeguard thehistoric environment during construction. Such measuresinclude confirmation that works close to listed buildingswould be undertaken in accordance with all requirements setout in the DCO and that protection measures, as required,would be put in place at the start of the works. As set out inour draft CoCP , we would put procedures in place to ensurethat construction works would be appropriately monitored toidentify and record any archaeological finds. We would alsonotify English Heritage and the LBS prior to undertakingworks and would continue to engage with them closely onthe planning of the works.

N

19.5.30 The LBS’s archaeologist should be EH 1 Your comments are noted we will continue to consult with N






consulted in respect of archaeologicalimpacts.

the LBS as our proposals develop.


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to land quality and contamination

19.5.31 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to land quality and contamination during construction.

Objections, issues and concerns

Table 19.5.10 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to land quality and contamination during construction


19.5.32 Potential for pollution incidents (such assewage leaks) during construction.

7013 1 The Environmental statement that will be submitted with ourDCO application will include a section on land quality. Thiswill take comments and information regarding the previoususe of the site and the potential for contamination intoaccount in developing a methodology for further groundinvestigations. Our methodology would be agreed inadvance with the LBS and the Environment Agency. Ifappropriate, further ground investigations would beundertaken prior to construction in order to identify anysources of contamination. Our Environmental statement willset out any recommendations for mitigation, in line with ourCoCP .

Our draft CoCP sets out how we would address anyidentified contamination during construction, in agreementwith the regulator, in order to remediate contamination andavoid exposing sensitive environmental receptors.

N

19.5.33 Potential for hazardous substances withinthe site boundary including asbestos.

7808 1 N

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on land quality and contamination

19.5.34 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on land quality and contamination during construction.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on land quality and contamination

Table 19.5.11 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on land quality and contamination during construction


19.5.35 More information is needed on mitigation, inparticular details of procedures for dealing

with any asbestos identified at the pumpingstation.

7808 1 Our draft CoCP sets out a series of objectives andmeasures that would be applied throughout the construction

period in order to:- set out standards and procedures for managing and

mitigating the impact of site activities during construction- maintain satisfactory levels of environmental protection - limit disturbance from construction activities and assure

all stakeholders that all construction impacts would bemanaged appropriately.

The land quality (9), the air quality (7), water resources (8)and waste management and resource use (10) sections ofthe draft CoCP outline the legislation, policy and measures

N






the contractor undertaking the work would be required tofollow. This includes a section on management of asbestoswaste. Application of the approaches and measures outlinedin the draft CoCP would ensure that contamination wouldnot pose a risk to human health during construction, either tothose undertaking the work or to local residents. Section 4 ofthe draft CoCP outlines the general way in which sites wouldbe operated, including avoiding and responding to pollution

incidents. Our contractor would be required to comply withthe CoCP , which will be submitted with our DCO application.

Lighting

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


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


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

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

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

Table 19.5.12 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during constructionRef Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID No. Our response Outcome

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

LR9491 1 We consider that we have undertaken a thorough andcomprehensive consultation exercise. We carefullyconsidered the information we made available at phase twoconsultation to ensure that consultees had sufficientinformation to respond to the consultation. We believe thatsufficient information is available regarding the operationphase in the consultation documents such as our draftCoCP and PEIR . We are confident therefore that theinformation we have provided is sufficient.

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 statement that will besubmitted with our DCO application. We are confidenttherefore that the information we have provided is sufficient.

N

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

LR9447 1 The likely significant effects of the development on habitatswill be assessed and reported in the Environmental statement that will be submitted as part of the application.

N

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

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





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

Table 19.5.13 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction


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

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

N

19.5.43 Other natural environment mitigation,including:

- maximise opportunities to enhancebiodiversity through an effectivemitigation package

- Thames Water should take steps tosecure the long-term protection of anyprotected species that may be impacted.

LR9447, LR9491 2 We have not identified the need to provide compensatoryland-based habitat at this site.

N

Noise and vibration

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to noise and vibration

19.5.44 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 19.5.14 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration issues during construction


19.5.45 Noise and vibration from above-groundconstruction activity as the courtyard isenclosed by high buildings, and smallamounts of noise echo and are amplified.

8003LO 1 As set out in our Shad Thames Pumping Station site information paper the contractor would be required toimplement noise and vibration control measures at the site,in line with the requirements of the CoCP . Our contractorwould be required to gain approval from the LBS 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.

The Environmental statement that will be submitted with ourDCO application will include an assessment of likelysignificant noise and vibration effects that will be completedin line with the methodology that is compliant with BS5228,BS6472 and BS7385 and has been agreed with the LBS.

Furthermore, we would implement best practice measures tominimise noise and vibration from plant and works, includingthe selection of appropriate plant and equipment and sitingof equipment. Full details of the measures that would beadopted for the construction works will be set out in theCoCP , which will be submitted with our DCO application.

N

19.5.46 Noise and vibration from construction traffic. 7808, 8237, 8297 3 N

19.5.47 General noise effects arising fromconstruction activities.

(LR)LBS, 7598, 8650 3 N

19.5.48 General vibration effects arising fromconstruction activities.

7808, 8650 2 N

19.5.49 Effect of continuous (24-hour) working on 7808 1 We do not propose any 24-hour working at the pumping N






noise and vibration impacts. station therefore this would not be an issue. Weacknowledge that the main tunnel, which would be drivenfrom Kirtling Street to Chambers Wharf, would pass by ShadThames under the River Thames at a depth ofapproximately 57m. As we would use modern tunnellingmethods and would generally be much deeper than mostother tunnels under London, we believe that the likelihood ofany potential ground movement or vibration at this site has

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

19.5.50 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 19.5.15 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration during construction


19.5.51 Mitigation proposed to address the issues isinadequate/insufficient.

8297, 8003LO 2 The Environmental statement that will be submitted with ourDCO application will include a full assessment of likelysignificant noise and vibration effects that will be completedin line with the methodology that is compliant with BS5228,BS6472 and BS7385 and has been agreed with the LBS. Ifsignificant noise and/or vibration effects are identified at a

site, we will set out appropriate mitigation measures toprovide appropriate attenuation.

Our draft CoCP sets 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 the mode that minimises noise and shuttingdown equipment when not in use are also identified in ourdraft CoCP . Our contractor would be required to comply withthe requirements of the CoCP . The draft CoCP also 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 to

minimise noise and vibration as well as any appropriatemonitoring measures to be agreed with local authorityenvironmental health officers.

N

19.5.52 Other noise and vibration mitigation,included:

- S106 obligations should make provisionfor baseline noise-monitoring and aworking group

- a high level of sound/vibration protection

GLA, (LR)LBS 2 The details of the noise control measures in our siteinformation paper at phase two consultation are included inour draft CoCP . The CoCP identifies a range of measuresthat our contractor would be required to implement duringconstruction, such as the selection of appropriate plant andequipment, siting of equipment, and use of enclosures toprovide acoustic screens. Our contractor would also be

N






will be required. required to gain approval from the LBS prior to theconstruction work through a Section 61 application under theControl of Pollution Act, which would set out specific workingmethods and measures to minimise noise and vibration aswell as any appropriate monitoring measures. The measureswould be agreed with local environmental health officers.

Full details of the measures that will be adopted for theconstruction will be set out in the CoCP that will be

submitted with our DCO application.


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


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

Socio-economic

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

19.5.55 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 19.5.16 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects during construction


19.5.56 Effect on property prices: we understandthat there is an Exceptional hardship procedure that can be followed should yourwork start to impact on property values.

7808, 8650 2 Landowners may have a statutory entitlement to claimcompensation for the diminution of the value of theirproperty due to the construction of the tunnel. In addition tothe statutory process we have published an Exceptional hardship procedure which sets out how we would assessclaims from householders who contend that they aresuffering exceptional hardship as a result of being unable tosell their property because it is potentially impacted by ourcurrently published proposals. We have also published aGuide to the Thames Tunnel compensation programme which sets out details of compensation that would beavailable during construction for damage or loss, requiredprotection measures and compulsory purchase.

N

19.5.57 Effect on ability to sell/rent property. 7808 1 N

19.5.58 Effect of construction activities on quality oflife.

7013 1 We note that the pumping station is currently an operationalsite. A full assessment of the effects on a range of topics,including noise and vibration; air quality (including dustemissions) and odour; and transport, based on amethodology that has been agreed with the LBS, will beprovided with the Environmental statement that will besubmitted with our DCO application. The findings of theassessment, together with any recommendations formitigation, will be available as part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our application.

N

19.5.59 Effect on residential amenity. (LR)LBS, 7013, 7767, 8297, LR9122 5 N






We are also preparing a Health impact assessment that willexamine the effects of the proposed development on humanhealth and well-being and possible effects in the population.The findings of this study will inform the design for this siteas well as mitigation measures to address any significanteffects.

19.5.60 Proximity of construction site to residentialproperties.

GLA, 7013 2 Our site selection process, as detailed in our Site selection methodology paper , included an assessment of the

shortlisted sites against five 'community' considerations tohelp determine their suitability. They included proximity tosensitive receptors (including residents and schools), socio-economic, health and equality considerations. Our Phase two scheme development report provides an overview ofhow each site was chosen.

We do not propose any works that would be likely to affectthe underground car parking near this site directly; however,we would need to rebuild the existing boundary wall with thepumping station, which is currently in a poor state of repair.The rest of our proposed works would mostly be locatedwithin the existing pumping station building in order tominimise any potential impacts on neighbouring properties.

The timescale for the works at this site is estimated at oneand a half years. The Environmental statement that we willsubmit as part of our DCO application will assess of theeffects on residential amenity and make recommendationsfor mitigation. It is unlikely that the construction works wouldresult in any significant socio-economic impacts.

N

19.5.61 The area around the constructions site isdensely populated.

7767 1 N

19.5.62 Extent and duration of construction works ina predominantly residential area

7767 1 N

19.5.63 More information is needed on socio-economic effects; will residential propertieson Curlew Street and the secure car park onGainsford Street be impacted?

7013 1 N

19.5.64 Effect of construction activities on the localcommunity.

8297 1 N

19.5.65 General disruption associated withconstruction activities.

7013, 7767, LR9122 3 N

19.5.66 Effect on immediate neighbouring residentshas not been properly addressed by thephase two consultation.

8655 1 N

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

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

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

Table 19.5.17 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects during construction


19.5.68 More information is needed on socio-economic mitigation.

9096 1 We believe that we have described a range of measuresthat would mitigate the effects of the construction at this site.In particular, our draft CoCP stated that our contractor wouldbe required to implement a range of best practice measuresto minimise noise and vibration from plant and works,including the selection of appropriate plant and equipment,siting of equipment, and use of hoardings to provideacoustic screens.

We are continuing to develop our CoCP and Environmental statement that will be submitted as part of our DCOapplication.

N

19.5.69 Minimise disruption and inconvenience toresidents, businesses and users of MaguireStreet and the surrounding area.

8673, 9063, 9067 3 N






Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to structures and utilities

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

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to structures and utilities

Table 19.5.18 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to structures and utilities during construction


19.5.71 Structural damage to Tower Bridge. 7598 1 The proposed works at Shad Thames Pumping Station are

unlikely to result in any structural damage to Tower Bridgedue to the distance from the site and the nature of the worksproposed.

N

19.5.72 Structural damage to residential buildingsincluding Wheat Wharf, which is a timberframed building; and concerns regardingvibration from works and construction trafficalong Maguire Street.

7808 1 Our Settlement project information paper providesinformation on our approach to controlling and limitingground movement, which can cause settlement, associatedwith construction of the tunnel. It is acknowledged thatconstruction of the tunnel would cause some smallmovements in the ground, the level of which would dependon a range of factors including the size and depth ofconstruction works as well as existing ground conditions.The use of modern tunnelling methods and the depth of ourtunnels, which are generally much deeper than most othertunnels under London, minimise the likelihood of anypotential ground movement.

We are assessing the potential likely significant effects ofground movement in advance of the works and, wherenecessary, would carry out protective measures. Theproposed works within the pumping station would be sitedsufficiently far away from Wheat Wharf to minimise anypotential settlement. We would, however, monitor anyground movement during our works and carry out a defectssurvey where we consider this necessary. We would monitoractual ground movement during and after the tunnelling tocheck that the ground is reacting as predicted. We wouldalso carry out a defects survey on buildings located over, orclose to, our tunnels and worksites where we consider thisnecessary. The method used for assessing settlement issimilar to that used for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, the

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

N

19.5.73 Possibility of ground movement and theassociated effect on buildings and structuresarising from construction activities andconcerns that creating the shaft for thesubmersible pump will destabilise the landmass to the detriment of Wheat Wharf.

7808 1 N

19.5.74 More information is needed on structuraleffects and how they would be assessedincluding assurances that the work that isproposed will not cause any damage giventhe fragile nature of Wheat Wharf we are notsure how best to demonstrate that damagewas caused as a result of Thames Wateractivity at its pumping station.

7808 1 N

19.5.75 Effect on sewers including concernsassociated with storing sewage in theexisting sewer causing heavy siltationleading to heavy maintenance problems.

8002LO 1 On-line storage of storm sewage flows is a widely-usedpractice and Thames Water has experience of theoperational and maintenance requirements of this type ofsystem.

N





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

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

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

Table 19.5.19 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities during construction


19.5.77 More information is needed on mitigation ofeffects on structures and utilities and howthey would be assessed.

7808 1 Our Settlement project information paper providesinformation on our approach to controlling and limiting

ground movement, which can cause settlement, associatedwith construction of the tunnel. It is acknowledged thatconstruction of the tunnel would cause some smallmovements in the ground, the level of which would dependon a range of factors including the size and depth ofconstruction works as well as existing ground conditions.The use of modern tunnelling methods and the depth of ourtunnels, which are generally much deeper than most othertunnels under London, minimise the likelihood of anypotential ground movement.

We are assessing the potential likely significant effects ofground movement in advance of the works and, wherenecessary, would carry out protective measures. Theproposed works within the pumping station would be sitedsufficiently far away from Wheat Wharf to minimise any

potential settlement arising from them. We would, however,monitor any ground movement during our works and carryout a defects survey where we consider it necessary. Wewould monitor actual ground movement during and after thetunnelling to check that the ground is reacting as predicted.We would also carry out a defects survey on buildingslocated over, or close to, our tunnels and worksites wherewe consider this necessary. The method used for assessingsettlement is the same as that used for the Channel TunnelRail Link, the Jubilee Line Extension, and Crossrail.

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

N

19.5.78 Mitigation proposed to address the issues is

inadequate/insufficient; for example, before-and-after surveys are unlikely to be helpful.

7808 1 We disagree that before-and-after surveys would be unlikely

to be helpful. In our Settlement project information paper and our Guide to the Thames Tunnel compensation programme we described the types of surveys that we wouldundertake in order to provide future protection for thesurrounding community. The studies may recommendparticular construction methods or, in a very limitedinstances, protection works. These measures are in line withbest practice guidelines and details will be set out in theCoCP that we will submit with our DCO application.

Our Guide to the Thames Tunnel compensation programme

N






sets out details of our compensation programme, whichgoes beyond the legal requirements, to ensure that peopleliving or working near our worksites would be protected inthe unlikely event that they are affected by our works. In theunlikely event of damage to property due to our constructionworks taking place nearby, disturbance compensation maybe available.

Townscape and visual19.5.79 No feedback comments were received in relation to townscape and visual effects during construction.


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to transport and access

19.5.80 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to transport and access during construction.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access

Table 19.5.20 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access during construction


19.5.81 It is not clear what the scale of the effect willbe/the assessment to date is very vague,particularly in respect of the impact ofconstruction vehicles using the A200.

GLA 1 We expect that the scale and duration of the works at ShadThames Pumping Station would be limited, and the numberof construction vehicles would be similar to those requiredfor refurbishment works in adjacent buildings. We arepreparing a full Transport assessment for submission as partof our DCO application.

N

19.5.82 Construction traffic will cause trafficcongestion.

(LR)LBS, 8297 2 We propose to access this site from Jamaica Road via ShadThames and Maguire Street, as illustrated in the siteinformation paper. We are reviewing the proposedconstruction traffic routes as part of our Transport assessment . If the Transport assessment identifies anypotential effects arising from congestion we will developmitigation measures to minimise the effects of anydisruption.

We are also developing a CoCP (a draft Part A wasprovided as part of our phase two consultation) that willinclude requirements for a Traffic management plan toensure that construction traffic is carefully controlled in order

to minimise any potential effects on the road network,including access to the local area, as well as setting outconstruction traffic routes, site access/egress points,signage and monitoring procedures.

We expect that the scale and duration of the works at ShadThames Pumping Station would be limited, and the numberof construction vehicles would be similar to those requiredfor refurbishment works in adjacent buildings. We arepreparing a full Transport assessment for submission as part

N

19.5.83 Construction traffic will exacerbate existingtraffic congestion.

8237 1 N

19.5.84 Construction traffic will affect access to thelocal area, for example to Vanilla andSesame Court Car Park.

7013, 8296, 8297 3 N

19.5.85 Alternative site access not via GainsfordStreet is required.

8237 1 N

19.5.86 Effect of disruption, diversion or closure of

roads on access to local amenities.

8650 1 N






of our DCO application.

19.5.87 Local roads are narrow and unsuitable forconstruction vehicles.

7767, 8306 2 We are reviewing the proposed routes that constructiontraffic would use as part of our transport assessment.

N

19.5.88 Loss of car parking will affect accessibility tothe local area and increase parkingpressure.

8296, 8650 2 Some on-street car parking would temporarily be lost duringconstruction. We are currently considering possiblealternative locations for replacement on-street parking andare working with the LBS on the need for and alternativepositioning of spaces, where appropriate.

N

19.5.89 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,that will include requirements for a Traffic management plan to ensure that construction traffic would be carefullycontrolled in order to minimise any potential effects on theroad network, including access to the local area, as well assetting out construction traffic routes, site access/egresspoints, signage and monitoring procedures. There would bea requirement to ensure that the proposals do not endangersafe access to schools.

We will also review data in relation to recent accidents in theTransport assessment . The proposals will be subject to

independent external review by Transport for London (TfL)and the local highway authority to ensure that proposedhighway layouts and vehicle movement arrangements areas safe as possible.

N

19.5.90 Effect of construction traffic on the safety ofpedestrians, cyclists and local residents.

(LR)LBS, 8813 2 N

19.5.91 Effect of construction traffic on residentialamenity.

(LR)LBS, 8237 2 N

19.5.92 More information is needed on transporteffects, in particular on Curlew Street, andwhether secure parking on Gainsford Streetwill be affected?

7013 1 We carefully considered the information we made availableat phase two consultation to ensure that consultees hadsufficient information to respond to the consultation. Theinformation was based on our preliminary transportassessment which is still being developed and we willdiscuss the details further with TfL and the LBS to ensurethat any significant transport effects are identified in the Environmental statement to be submitted as part of our DCOapplication. We do not expect there to be any significantimpact on Curlew Street and any proposed diverted trafficroutes would be in agreement with the LBS.

N

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

19.5.93 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 19.5.21 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access during construction


19.5.94 More information is needed on mitigationincluding measures to protect residentialamenity

(LR)LBS 1 Details of the measures that would be employed to protectresidential amenity are set out in out draft CoCP . Ourcontractor would be required to comply with the CoCP ,which will be submitted with our DCO application.

N

19.5.95 Provide an alternative construction traffic

route to and from the site; would be lessdisruptive and safer if thetraffic/lorries/deliveries etc associated withthe work were routed both inwards andoutwards through Maguire Street and ShadThames onto Tooley Street rather thanoutwards via Gainsford Street. GainsfordStreet has a multi-story car park with limitedturning space into and out it.

LR13386LO 1 We propose to access this site from Jamaica Road via Shad

Thames and Maguire Street, as illustrated in the siteinformation paper. We are reviewing the proposedconstruction traffic routes as part of our Transport assessment . If the Transport assessment identifies anypotential effects arising from congestion we will developmitigation measures to minimise any disruption.

We are also developing a CoCP (a draft Part A wasprovided as part of our phase two consultation) that willinclude requirements for a Traffic management plan toensure that construction traffic is carefully controlled in orderto minimise any potential effects on the road networkincluding access to the local area, as well as setting outconstruction traffic routes, site access/egress points,signage and monitoring procedures.

N

19.5.96 Make provision for alternative car parking. (LR)LBS 1 We are investigating opportunities to provide alternative carparking for any suspended car parking required as a resultof our works. We will continue to consult with the LBS andwill report our conclusions in the Transport assessment thatwill be submitted with our DCO application.

N

19.5.97 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 Transport assessment that will be submitted with our DCO applicationwe will consider the likely significan t effects of our proposedapproach and, where appropriate, provide mitigation suchas on-site parking. Our contractor would also be required toagree a Transport management plan and a constructionTravel plan with TfL and the LBS.

N

19.5.98 Establish traffic management plans. 7808 1 Our draft CoCP (provided at phase two consultation) setsout a range of measures to manage construction traffic andways 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 thelikely significant effects of the scheme. We are currentlypreparing an Environmental statement that will identifyfurther mitigation measures for any significant adverse

N






effects identified. We are discussing the details of the CoCP and framework Travel plan with the LBS. Our contractorwould be required to submit a detailed site-specific Traffic management plan and Travel plan to TfL and the LBS forapproval prior to commencing works.

19.5.99 Complete a transport assessment. (LR)LBS 1 We are preparing a Transport assessment that will besubmitted as part of our DCO appli cation. It will include adetailed analysis of potential access routes and an

assessment of the likely significant effects of constructiontraffic on local roads, together with recommendations formitigation. We will work closely with TfL, the LBS, l ocalresidents and other interested groups to minimise the effectsof traffic movements to and from the site.

N

19.5.100 Use the river rather than road to transportconstruction materials and spoil.

8813 1 As detailed in our site information paper, where practicaland cost-effective we would transport materials by barge. Atthis site it is not possible to transport materials by barge asthe site is not next to the river and it would be necessary toconvey materials by road to a suitable nearby wharf.However, our contractor would consider any opportunitiesfor further use of river transport as part of the scheme.

N

19.5.101 Careful traffic management on the narrowlocal roads will need to be agreed with the

LBS.

GLA 1 We will continue to discuss our proposals with the LBS. N


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

19.5.102 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 19.5.22 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to water and flood risk during construction


19.5.103 Effect on flood risk including groundwaterflooding.

(LR)LBS 1 A level two flood risk assessment will be presented in the Environmental statement as part of our DCO application andidentify any appropriate mitigation. As our designs develop,we will review the likely signi ficant construction effects onflood risk in order to determine any requirements forcompensation. We note that the pumping station is anestablished built site and that the works are unlikely to affectthe flood regime in this area.

N

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

19.5.104 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

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





19.6 Permanent design and appearance

19.6.1 This section sets out feedback comments received during phase two consultation in relation to proposals for the permanent design and appearance of buildings and structures at ShadThames Pumping Station that are required for the operation of the tunnel when it is in use (the ‘ operational phase’).

19.6.2 During phase two consultation, respondents were asked to give their views on the identification of site specific issues that have influenced proposals for the permanent design of ShadThames Pumping Station (see question 5 of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation ). The first part of question 5asked respondents to select ‘agree’, ‘disagree’ or ‘don’t know/unsure’. Where respondents completed this part of the question, the results are set out in the table below.

Table 19.6.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right issues that have influenced our permanent design for this site? (Q5)


Total Yes No Don’t know/unsure Statutory consultees 0

Local authorities 0

Landowners 2 1 1


Petitions 0

Total 15 6 3 6

19.6.3 As part of the phase two consultation, respondents were also asked to comment on proposals for the permanent design and appearance of Shad Thames Pumping Station (see question6 of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation ). The first part of question 6 asked respondents to select ‘supportive’,‘opposed’ or ‘don’t know/unsure’. Where respondents completed this part of the question, the results are set out in the table below.

Table 19.6.2 Please give us your views about our proposals for the permanent design and appearance of the site (Q6)

Respondent type Number of respondents Total Supportive Opposed Don’t know/unsure


Local authorities 0

Landowners 2 1 1


Petitions 0

Total 14 5 5 4

19.6.4 The following sections set out the comments received from respondents in connection with proposals for the permanent design and appearance of Shad Thames Pumping Station. Itshould be noted that not all respondents who provided feedback comments responded to the first part of questions 5 and 6.

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

supportive and neutral feedback comments

objections, issues and concerns

design suggestions.

19.6.6 Where respondents have commented on matters arising during the operational phase and the management of these effects (whether through design or by other means), these commentsare reported in Section 19.7.





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

Table 19.6.3 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site


19.6.7 The reconfiguration is reasonable. Re-engineering the pumping is a satisfactorysolution as is retaining visual aspects ofexisting structure; as I understand it. Whathappens inside/on/under/behind is up to

Thames Water

7404, 7690, 8237 3 Your comments are noted and welcomed.

19.6.8 Support proposals because they provide asimple, modest extension to the pumpingstation that is visibly separate from the mainbuilding appears sensible given its tighturban context.

(LR)CABE 1

19.6.9 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 layout and appearance of the site

Table 19.6.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site


19.6.10 Effect of permanent design and layout onthe conservation area; the proposed designneeds to be discussed further.

(LR)LBS 1 As part of our design process we are taking the effect of ourworks on the Tower Bridge Conservation Area into account,although we note that our works would be within the existingpumping station site. An assessment of the impact of ourproposals on the historic environment is being undertakenas part of the environmental impact assessment process.Preliminary findings of our assessment were included in thePEIR (volume 2, section 7), which was made available atphase two consultation. The complete assessment will bedetailed in the Environmental statement to be submitted aspart of our DCO application.

N

19.6.11 The permanent buildings and structures aretoo large/tall.

7808, LR9122 2 Your comments are noted. The only permanent structureproposed at this site is the replacement building at the rearof the site, which would be lower than the existing building.We are considering whether we can reduce the height of the

buildings in response to feedback received during phase twoconsultation.

We believe the final design of the site would not have anegative effect on residential amenity or quality of life as theexisting pumping station annex is poorly maintained andheight of the proposed annex is lower than the existing one.

C

19.6.12 Effect on residential amenity and quality oflife, resulting from loss of light to home.

7536, LR9122 2 C

19.6.13 Need more information on design proposals,including external finishes of building anddetails of works to boundary wall.

8003LO, 9096 2 Further details of architectural design, materials and finisheswill be provided in the Design and access statement that willbe submitted as part of our DCO application.

N

Sh d Th P i S i





Design suggestions

Table 19.6.5 Design suggestions

Ref Design suggestions Respondent ID No. Our response Outcome

19.6.14 Design should incorporate appropriatescreening.

7801 1 Your comments are noted and will be taken intoconsideration, where appropriate, in developing ourproposals for this site. However, we note that our workswould be within the existing pumping station site.

The existing pumping station building would screen the

whole site from the street frontage and the boundary wallsscreen the rear of the site. Our proposed works would not bevisible from the street, except for some minor alterations tothe frontage of the pumping station building and a lower,less prominent replacement building to the rear of the site.This site is, and would remain, occupied by operationalbuildings. This does not provide sufficient scope forlandscaping, which is in keeping with the character of thisarea.

Your suggestions for design amendments are noted and willbe considered further to see whether these are feasible orappropriate, taking into account all other factors includingthe setting of the listed building and the character of theconservation area. We can also confirm that we would usedark brickwork at this site.

N

19.6.15 Design should providesuitable/more/adequate landscaping andplanting.

7801 1 N

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

9096 1 N

19.6.17 The final design should be distinctive and ofarchitectural merit/iconic/visually attractive.A building form of a vernacular expressionand muted tones could work well here but itshould be apparent from the ordering andscale of the fenestration that it is not aresidential building.

(LR)CABE 1 N

19.6.18 Specific design amendments include:

- retain the Victorian facade

7808, 8306, LR9491 3 N

- no requirement for windows facing Wheat

Wharf

C

- use dark brickwork on the Wheat Wharfside to minimise maintenance

C

- use sun tubes for natural lightingrequirements.

N

19.6.19 Other design mitigation included: someindication has been given to the after use ofconstruction sites, these aspects should bekept under review to reflect needs andopportunities as they appear on completionof works, which in some cases will be tenyears from now.

7808, GLA 2 N

19.6.20 Reduce the height of permanent buildings

and structures.

8655 1 The only permanent structure proposed at this site is the

replacement building at the rear of the site, which would belower than the existing building. We are considering whetherwe can reduce the height of the buildings in response tofeedback received during phase two consultation. The newelectrical equipment building and alterations to the pumpingstation have been designed to reflect the existing building’sform and function, and the character of the surroundingarea.

C

19.6.21 Final site design should be informed by local 7801 1 We believe that we have undertaken an appropriate level ofpublic consultation that has provided significant opportunity

N

19 Sh d Th P i St ti





Ref Design suggestions Respondent ID No. Our response Outcome

consultation/available for comment. for the local community to comment on our proposals. Ourstaged approach to consultation has also enabled us torevise our designs in response to comments and concerns.

19.6.22 Consider the impact on the outlook andprivacy of neighbouring residentialproperties.

(LR)LBS 1 Your comments are noted. However, we do not expect thatthe permanent works required at Shad Thames PumpingStation would have any impact on the privacy ofneighbouring properties. This matter was taken intoconsideration in our design development.

N

19.6.23 Designs should be environmentallyfriendly/sustainable.

7801, LR9491 2 We agree that our development should be environmentallyfriendly and will incorporate appropriate measures in ourdesign.

N

19.7 Management of operational effects

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

19.7.2 During phase two consultation, respondents were asked whether the site information paper had identified the right key issues associated with Shad Thames Pumping Station once the siteis operational 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 two consultation ). The first part of question 7a and 7b asked respondents to select ‘agree’, ‘disagree’ or ‘don’t know/unsure’. Where respondents completed this part of the question, the resultsare set out in tables 19.7.1 and 19.7.2. Tables 19.7.3 to 19.7.21 detail the feedback comments received in relation to this site. It should be noted that not all respondents who providedfeedback comments confirmed whether the right issues and the ways to address those issues had been identified.

Table 19.7.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right key issues in the site information paper? (Q7a)




Local authorities 0

Landowners 1 1


Petitions 0

Total 12 5 4 3

19 Sh d Th P i St ti





Table 19.7.2 Q7b: Do you agree that we have identified the right way to address the key issues? (Q7b)




Local authorities 0

Landowners 2 1 1


Petitions 0

Total 14 6 3 5

19.7.3 The following sections set out the feedback comments received from respondents in connection with the identification of key issues associated with Shad Thames Pumping Station oncethe tunnel is operational. Feedback comments are organised under common themes. The themes are:

General themes:

General feedback comments on the key issues


Topic-based themes




Lighting



Noise and vibration



Socio-economic





General feedback comments on the identified key issues

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

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

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

Table 19.7.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the identified key issues during operation


19.7.5 There are more key issues than thoseidentified in the site information paper.

8003LO 1 We have not identified any key issues associated with thissite once operational because we do not anticipate thatthere would be any difference in the effects to the existingpumping station.

N

19.7.6 No operational effects have been identified. 8650 1 N







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

Table 19.7.4 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during operation


19.7.7 Measures to address potential issues aresatisfactory.

7404, 7690 2 Your comment is noted and welcomed.

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

Table 19.7.5 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during operation


19.7.8 Measures to address potential effects areunsatisfactory because the wrong/not allissues have been identified.

8650 1 Given that the site is an operational pumping station, wedo not anticipate that the proposed works would have anyeffects. Our site information paper sets out the issues thatwe consider relevant.

N

19.7.9 Measures to address issues should beinformed by and take account of localconsultation and feedback.

8003LO 1 The Changes project information paper , whichsummarises the principal changes that have emerged fromphase one consultation, shows that we are listening to thefeedback we receive on our proposals and, wherepossible, are amending our proposals to reflect theconcerns raised. Further details can be found in the Phase two scheme development report.

This Report on phase two consultation sets out our viewon how we intend to respond to the feedback receivedduring this phase of consultation. When we submit ourDCO application for determination, it will be accompaniedby a Consultation report that will set out how we havetaken the feedback received across all phases ofconsultation into account.

N


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

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

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

Table 19.7.6 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour during operation


19.7.11 Effect of odour arising from operation of thetunnel.

(LR)LBS, 7013, 8650 3 Shad Thames Pumping Station would not form part of theproposed tunnel. Works would be limited to managing theexisting storage in the sewers upstream of the pumpingstation to prevent it from pumping flows from the CSO intothe River Thames. No new ventilation equipment isproposed as part of these works.

N

19.7.12 Effect of odour on residential amenity. 7013 1 N

19.7.13 General air pollution effects arising from the 8650 1 A full assessment of potential 'pollution' will be presented inthe Environmental statement that we will submit with our

N







operation of the tunnel. DCO application. Our compliance with the regulatoryregime applicable would be monitored by the LBS.

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

19.7.14 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

Table 19.7.7 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour during operation


19.7.15 More information is needed on air quality andodour mitigation.

9096 1 Shad Thames Pumping Station would not form part of theproposed tunnel. Works would be limited to managing theexisting storage in the sewers upstream of the pumpingstation to prevent it from pumping flows from the CSO intothe River Thames. No new ventilation equipment isproposed as part of these works.

Details of proposed mitigation measures (odour control) forthe wider project were set out in the Air management plan that formed part of our phase two consultation. Moredetails of the likely significant effects of operation on airquality and odour will be set out in the Environmental statement and will be submitted with our DCO application.

N

Historic environmentSupportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the historic environment

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

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historic environment

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

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

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

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

Table 19.7.8 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment during operation


19.7.19 Locate permanent structures to minimise their

effect on the appearance and setting of localheritage assets.

9096 1 The site layout and visualisations are provided in our Shad

Thames Pumping Station site information paper and ourDesign project information paper sets out the commondesign principles, which include respecting each site'sindividual context and surroundings. At this site our designsought to preserve and enhance the setting of the heritageassets.

N

19.7.20 Ensure that permanent design andlandscaping is sensitive to and in keepingwith the appearance and setting of local

(LR)LBS 1 Your comment is noted. The design of the permanentappearance of the structures is set out in our Shad Thames Pumping Station site information paper . The new

N







heritage features. electrical equipment building and alterations to thepumping station have been designed to reflect the existingbuilding’s form and function, and the character of thesurrounding area. We will continue to develop the designsin association with our conservation consultant and theLBS in order to address both functional and heritageaspects of the proposals.


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to land quality and contamination

19.7.21 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to land quality and contamination during operation.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to land quality and contamination

Table 19.7.9 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to land quality and contamination during operation


19.7.22 Potential for sewage leaks once the tunnel isoperational.

7013 1 This site is not connected to the tunnel; therefore we do not expectsewage spills to be an issue at this site.

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on land quality and contamination

19.7.23 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on land quality and contamination during operation.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on land quality and contamination

19.7.24 No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on land quality and contamination during operation.

Lighting

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


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


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

Table 19.7.10 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation


19.7.27 Support efforts to minimise the long-term

impacts to biodiversity and secureimprovements.

LR9491 1 Your comment is noted and welcomed.

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

19.7.28 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)

19.7.29 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on 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 19.7.11 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation


19.7.30 Provision of compensation habitat; putnesting and roosting boxes up.

7404 1 There is no need to provide compensatory land-basedhabitat at this site as it is one of our existing operationalproperties. We are preparing a full environmental impactassessment that will present the conclusions of ourassessments in the Environmental statement that will besubmitted with our DCO application.

N

19.7.31 Maximise opportunities to enhancebiodiversity through an effective mitigationpackage.

LR9491 1 N

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

LR9491 1 All permanent works would be located within the definedsite boundary.

N

Noise and vibration

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to noise and vibration

19.7.33 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 19.7.12 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration during operation


19.7.34 General noise effects arising from theoperation of the tunnel.

(LR)LBS, 8003LO 2 We are undertaking a noise and vibration assessment. Themethodology for the assessment has been agreed with the

LBS and is compliant with BS4142. The results of theassessment will be presented in the Environmental statement submitted with our DCO application. This willinclude mitigation measures for any significantenvironmental effects identified.

N

19.7.35 General vibration effects arising from theoperation of the tunnel.

8650 1 N

19.7.36 More information is needed on noise andvibration.

8003LO 1 We consider that we have undertaken a thorough andcomprehensive consultation exercise. We carefullyconsidered the information we made available at phasetwo consultation to ensure that consultees had sufficientinformation to respond to the consultation. The Environmental statement that will be submitted with ourDCO application will include a noise and vibration sectionthat will be completed in line with the methodology that iscompliant with BS4142 and has been agreed with the LBS.We are confident, therefore, that the information we

provided is sufficient.

N

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

19.7.37 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration during operation.

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

19.7.38 No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration during operation.


19.7.39 No feedback comments were received in relation to open space and recreation during operation.







19.7.40 No feedback comments were received in relation to planning and development during operation.

Socio-economic

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

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

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

Table 19.7.13 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects during operation


19.7.42 Effect on residential amenity including CurlewStreet and Gainsford Street.

7013 1 A full assessment of likely significant effects will beprovided with the Environmental statement that will besubmitted with our DCO application. Where effects areidentified, we would put in place mitigation measures toaddress these effects, in addition to the measures set outin our draft CoCP.

We are also preparing a Health impact assessment thatwill examine the likely significant effects of the proposeddevelopment on human mental and physical health andwell-being and possible effects in the population. Thefindings of this study will inform the design for this site aswell as mitigation measures to address any significanteffects.

N

19.7.43 Disturbance from operations. (LR)LBS 1 N

19.7.44 More information is needed on socio-economic effects; can you reassure that therewill be no impacts to these areas (curlewStreet, Gainsford Street).

7013 1 N

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

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

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

Table 19.7.14 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects during operation


19.7.46 More information is needed on socio-economic mitigation.

7013 1 The site would remain an operational Thames Water siteand we do not consider that there would be any significantsocio-economic effects from the proposed works.

N


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to structures and utilities

19.7.47 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to structures and utilities during operation.Objections, issues and concerns in relation to structures and utilities

Table 19.7.15 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to structures and utilities during operation


19.7.48 More information is needed on risk ofsettlement/subsidence including any knockon effect from Chambers Wharf.

9096 1 We consider it unlikely that the improvement works to thispumping station would result in settlement as operationswould be similar to current operations. Chambers Wharfwould have a separate function that is unlikely to have any

N







combined effect on properties around this site.

Our Settlement project information paper providesinformation on our approach to controlling and limitingground movement, which can cause se ttlement, associatedwith construction of the tunnel. It is acknowledged thatconstruction of the tunnel would cause some smallmovements in the ground, the level of which would dependon a range of factors including the size and depth ofconstruction works as well as existing ground conditions.The use of modern tunnelling methods and the depth ofour tunnels, which are generally much deeper than mostother tunnels under London, minimise the likelihood of anypotential ground movement. We are assessing thepotential likely significant effects of ground movement inadvance of the works and, where necessary, would carryout protective measures. We would monitor actual groundmovement during and after the tunnelling to check that theground is reacting as predicted. We would also carry out adefects survey on buildings located over, or close to, ourtunnels and worksites where we consider this to berequired. The method used for assessing settlement is thesame as that used for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, theJubilee Line Extension, and Crossrail

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

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

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

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

Table 19.7.16 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities during operation


19.7.50 More information is needed on mitigation inrelation to settlement.

9096 1 We consider it unlikely that the improvement works to thispumping station would result in settlement as operationswould be similar to current operations. Chambers Wharf

would have a separate function that is unlikely to have anycombined effect on properties around this site.

Our Settlement project information paper providesinformation on our approach to protection against the likelysignificant effects of settlement associated with theconstruction of the tunnel. It is acknowledged thatconstruction of the tunnel would cause some smallmovements in the ground, the level of which would dependon a range of factors including the size and depth ofconstruction works as well as existing ground conditions.

N




p g



The use of modern tunnelling methods and the depth ofour tunnels, which are generally much deeper than mostother tunnels under London, minimise the likelihood of anypotential ground movement.

Our CoCP sets out a range of measures that would beadopted to control and limit the risk of subsidence from thetunnelling and construction works. This includes assessingpotential likely significant effects of ground movement inadvance and, where necessary, carrying out protectivemeasures. We would monitor actual ground movementduring and after the tunnelling to check that the ground isreacting as predicted. We would also carry out adilapidation/condition survey on buildings located over, orclose to, our tunnels and worksites where we consider thisto be required. These measures are in line with bestpractice guidelines and details will be set out in the CoCP that we will submit with our DCO application.

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


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

19.7.51 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

19.7.52 No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to townscape and visual effects during construction.

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

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

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

Table 19.7.17 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address effects on townscape and visual during operation


19.7.54 More information is needed on mitigation oftownscape and visual effects.

9096 1 A process of iterative design and assessment is on-goingand our commitment to good design will maximise the

beneficial effects on local views and townscape character.This includes careful design of built structures andassociated landscape design to ensure that they fit in withthe character of the area. We are developing this furtherwith a townscape and visual impact assessment as part ofthe environmental impact assessment that will besubmitted with our DCO application. This assessment willidentify any likely significant effects of the operationaldevelopment, and any mitigation required to address them.

N




p g



Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to transport and access

19.7.55 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to transport and access during operation.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access

Table 19.7.18 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access during operation


19.7.56 Effect of traffic and vehicles required for site

maintenance; more frequentmaintenance/repaired access to the site dueto increased capacity.

8650 1 As set out in our site information paper, we expect to

undertake inspection and maintenance of the mechanicaland electrical equipment approximately every three to sixmonths. This would be carried out within our site as part ofthe existing maintenance regime. We may also need tomake visits to the site for unplanned maintenance orrepairs, which may require use of mobile cranes and vansas is presently the case.

N

19.7.57 More information is needed on operationaltransport effects, for example what the newvehicle access on Maguire Street will be oncethe work is completed as this is a narrowroad.

9096 1 We carefully considered the information we made availableat our phase two consultation to ensure that consulteeshad sufficient information to respond to the consultation.The information was based on our preliminary transportassessment, which is still being developed, and we willdiscuss the details further with TfL and the LBS to identifyany significant transport effects in the Environmental statement that will be submitted as part of our DCO

application.

N

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

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

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

Table 19.7.19 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access during operation


19.7.59 More information is needed on transportmitigation for example access to CurlewStreet.

7013 1 Access for any maintenance of this site would be from theexisting access on Maguire Street. Therefore, we do notconsider that there would be any significant impact onCurlew Street during operations.

N


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

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

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

Table 19.7.20 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to water and flood risk during operation


19.7.61 Effect on flood risk and request to assess risk (LR)LBS, 8650 2 A level two flood risk assessment will be presented in the Environmental statement as part of our DCO application

N





of surface water flooding from run-off. and will identify any appropriate mitigation. As our designsdevelop, we will review the permanent effects on flood riskin order to determine any requirements for compensationor storage.

19.7.62 Concern of flood in event of failure of pumps (LR)LBS 1 Should the pumps fail at this site, sewage would bedischarged into the River Thames.

N

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

19.7.63 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk during operationObjections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk

Table 19.7.21 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk during operation


19.7.64 Incorporation of SuDS. (LR)LBS 1 We will determine the feasibility of SuDS for this site oncewe have completed soak-away tests and a contaminationstudy and, where relevant, will incorporate SuDS into oursite design.

N

19.8 Our view of the way forward

19.8.1 We received a range of feedback on our proposals for this site, including supportive and neutral comments and objections, issues and concerns. We took all comments received intoaccount in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act 2008.

19.8.2 In light of the feedback that we received, we believe that no new information has been highlighted that would change our decision to use Shad Thames Pumping Station to control theShad Thames Pumping Station CSO. Additionally, no new information or issues have been identified that would fundamentally change our proposals for this site. Therefore we willcontinue to develop the proposals for this site that we published at phase two consultation.

19.8.3 The feedback we received included detailed comments on the construction and operational effects of the proposed development and the measures we propose to reduce and managethose effects. Detailed comments were also made on our proposals for the permanent design and appearance of the site. Having regard to the feedback received, we have decided tochange our proposals for this site by reducing the height of the replacement building to the rear of the site and minimising the number of openings in the replacement building. Thesechanges will improve the design of our proposals and reduce the impacts on the local community and environment.

19.8.4 In our SOCC we recognised that we may need to amend our scheme following phase two consultation and that if changes came forward we would consider whether targeted consultationis appropriate. We do not consider that the degree of change in relation to this site or the effect on the local community would affect the nature of the comments received during phasetwo consultation in such a way as to require further consultation. On that basis, a round of targeted consultation on our proposals for this site is not considered necessary. We willprogress with preparation of our application for a development consent order and will incorporate the changes referred to in paragraph 19.8.3. We intend to publicise our proposedapplication in accordance with Section 48 of the Planning Act 2008 later in 2012. Full details of our proposed scheme will be set out in our DCO application and the accompanyingdocuments.

Documents

Supp Report on P2 Consultation - Chapter 19 Shad Thames Pumping Station