Supp Report on P2 Consultation - Chapter 9 King Georges Park

7/31/2019 Supp Report on P2 Consultation - Chapter 9 King Georges Park

1/48

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

Supplementary reporton phase twoconsultation

Chapter 9King Georges Park


2/48

9 King Georges Park

Thames Tunnel

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

List of contents

Page number

9 King Georges Park ....................................................................................... 9-19.1 Introduction ........................................................................................... 9-19.2 Number of respondents ........................................................................ 9-29.3 Site selection ........................................................................................ 9-29.4 Alternative sites .................................................................................... 9-59.5 Management of construction works ...................................................... 9-79.6 Permanent design and appearance .................................................... 9-299.7 Management of operational effects .................................................... 9-349.8 Our view of the way forward ............................................................... 9-42


3/48

9 King Georges Park

List of tables

Page number

Table 9.2.1 Number of respondents who provided feedback on King GeorgesPark .................................................................................................... 9-2

Table 9.3.1 Comments on whether King Georges Park should be our preferredsite (Q2) .............................................................................................. 9-3

Table 9.3.2 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to selection

of our preferred site ............................................................................ 9-3Table 9.3.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the selection of our

preferred site ...................................................................................... 9-4Table 9.4.1 Suggested alternative sites to King Georges Park............................. 9-5Table 9.4.2 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the availability and

identification of alternative sites .......................................................... 9-7Table 9.5.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right key issues in the site

information paper? (Q4a) ................................................................... 9-7Table 9.5.2 Do you agree that we have identified the right way to address the

key issues? (Q4b) ............................................................................... 9-8Table 9.5.3 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to measures

proposed to address the key issues during construction .................... 9-9Table 9 5 4 Objections issues and concerns in relation to the measures


4/48

9 King Georges Park

Table 9.5.14 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to thenatural environment (terrestrial) during construction ........................ 9-15

Table 9.5.15 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the naturalenvironment (terrestrial) during construction .................................... 9-15

Table 9.5.16 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures toaddress the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) duringconstruction ...................................................................................... 9-17

Table 9.5.17 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration

during construction ........................................................................... 9-18Table 9.5.18 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures

proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration duringconstruction ...................................................................................... 9-19

Table 9.5.19 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to openspace and recreation during construction ......................................... 9-20

Table 9.5.20 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to open space andrecreation during construction .......................................................... 9-20

Table 9.5.21 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measuresproposed to address the effects on open space and recreationduring construction ........................................................................... 9-21

Table 9.5.22 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to planning anddevelopment during construction ...................................................... 9-21

Table 9 5 23 Objections iss es and concerns in relation to socio economic


5/48

9 King Georges Park

Table 9.6.2 Please give us your views about our proposals for the permanentdesign and appearance of the site (Q6) ........................................... 9-29

Table 9.6.3 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to thepermanent design and appearance of the site.................................. 9-30

Table 9.6.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the permanentdesign and appearance of the site .................................................... 9-30

Table 9.6.5 Design suggestions .......................................................................... 9-32Table 9.7.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right key issues in the

site information paper? (Q7a) ........................................................... 9-34Table 9.7.2 Do you agree that we have identified the right way to address the

key issues? (Q7b) ............................................................................. 9-34Table 9.7.3 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to key

issues during operation .................................................................... 9-35Table 9.7.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to key issues during

operation........................................................................................... 9-35Table 9.7.5 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to measures to

address the key issues during operation .......................................... 9-35Table 9.7.6 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to air quality and

odour during operation ..................................................................... 9-36Table 9.7.7 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and

odo r d ring operation 9 36


6/48

9 King Georges Park

Table 9.7.17 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposedto address the effects on water and flood risk during operation........ 9-41


7/48

9 King Georges Park

Supplementary report on phase two consultation 9-1

9 King Georges Park

9.1 Introduction

9.1.1 This chapter covers the feedback comments received during phase two consultation regarding our preferred site King Georges Park. This site would be used to connect the existing localcombined sewer overflow (CSO), known as the Frogmore Storm Relief Buckhold Road CSO, to the main tunnel via a long connection tunnel, known as the Frogmore connection tunnel.King Georges Park would also receive the Frogmore connection tunnel, which would be driven from Dormay Street.

9.1.2 At phase one consultation, King Georges Park was also our preferred site to intercept the Frogmore Storm Relief Buckhold Road CSO. We proposed to connect the Frogmoreconnection tunnel directly to the main tunnel. However, following a ch ange of sites since phase one consultation, King Georges Park was subseque ntly identified as the preferred site toreceive the Frogmore connection tunnel and presented at phase two consultation. In response to stakeholder engagement, phase one consultation responses and scheme development,the extent and construction layout of t he site was also altered at phase two consultation to minimise impact on the local community and environment. For further in formation regarding theproposals for this site at phase two consultation, refer to the King Georges Park site information paper.

Structure of this chapter

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

section 9.2 Number of respondents

section 9.3 Site selection

section 9.4 Alternative sites

section 9.5 Management of construction works

section 9.6 Permanent design and appearance

section 9.7 Management of operational effects

section 9.8 Our view of the way forward.

9.1.4 In sections 9.3 to 9.7 we present details of the feedback comments raised, the types and total number of respondents, and our response to feedback comments. Where specificobjections, 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.

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

9.1.6 Where a response contains a reference to our website, go towww.thamestunnelconsultation.co.ukfor further information, or to access the documents referenced.

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


8/48


9/48

9 King Georges Park


Table 9.3.1 Comments on whether King Georges Park should be our preferred site (Q2)

Respondent type Number of respondents

Total Supportive Opposed/concerned Dont know/unsure

Statutory consultees 0

Local authorities 0

Landowners 5 5

Community consultees 19 10 8 1

Petitions 0

Total 24 10 13 1

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to our preferred site

Table 9.3.2 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to selection of our preferred site

Ref Supportive and neutral comments Respondent ID No. Our response

9.3.6 Support the use of the preferred site. GLA, LR9447 2 Your support is noted and welcomed.

9.3.7 Support the changes to the proposed use ofthe preferred site since phase oneconsultation; as a reception site,construction impact on the park has beenreduced.

LR13375, LR9236 2

9.3.8 Agree that the Frogmore Storm ReliefBuckhold Road CSO needs to beintercepted, and that the King Georges Parksite is a suitable location from which to doso.

8098, 8846 2 Your support is noted and welcomed.

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

8489 1 Your support is noted and welcomed. We took the effect on residentsinto account as part of our site selection process, as well as the ability tomitigate likely significant effects.

9.3.10 Support for changes to the extent of thepreferred site since phase one consultation;the size of the site has been reduced and ithas been moved further away from thehistoric park gates off Buckhold Road(A218).

7785, 8535, LR9236 3 Your support is noted and welcomed.

9.3.11 Other supportive comments included thatresidents in the Wandsworth Borough havea fair selection of alternative open spaces toenjoy during the construction phase.

8098 1

9.3.12 Qualified support subject to disruption andnuisance during construction being kept to aminimum and an appropriate landscapingstrategy being agreed.

LBW 1 Since selecting King Georges Park as our preferred site, we havebegun assessing the likely significant effects arising from our proposals.Our draft Code of construction practice(CoCP) sets out a range ofmeasures that would be adopted to minimise the likely significant effectsof construction works including dust, noise and vibration. The proposed


10/48

9 King Georges Park



measures, which are contained in the draft CoCP, are in line with bestpractice guidelines. Details will be set out in the CoCPthat we willsubmit with our DCO application.

We are currently discussing landscaping proposals with the localplanning authority. An illustrative landscaping plan will be submitted withthe DCO application. Details will be secured through requirements(which are similar to planning conditions) in the DCO.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the selection of our preferred siteTable 9.3.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the selection of our preferred site

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

9.3.13 Object to the use of this preferred site. 9001, 9002, 9016 3 The sites that we consulted on at phase two consultation have beenidentified through an extensive site selection process (see our Siteselection methodology paperon our website). We consulted on andagreed the methodology with key stakeholders including potentiallydirectly affected local authorities and utilised a multidisciplinaryapproach to assess potential CSO sites against engineering, planning,environmental, property and community considerations.

We recognise that, given the locations where we are seeking toconstruct and operate the tunnel, many of the shortlisted sites areconstrained. However, based on our assessment we consider that, onbalance, King George's Park is the most suitable site. This is becausewe can directly intercept the CSO, which runs beneath the northern partof the park. The site is also further away from residential properties incomparison to the other shortlisted sites and would avoid the need forsignificant works in Broomhill Road and Buckhold Road (A218). Whilethe use of this site would mean the temporary loss of a section of KingGeorges Park, the vast majority of the park would remain in use.

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

9.3.14 Disagree with the selection of this preferredsite.

7006 1

9.3.15 This preferred site is generally unsuitable. 9001, 9002 2

9.3.16 Should use/consider an alternative site. 13384 1

9.3.17 There are other, more suitable alternativesites available in the local area, includingbrownfield sites.

7957 1

9.3.18 Query why shortlisted sites have not beenidentified?

EH, GLA 2 The shortlisted sites were listed in the King George's Park siteinformation paper. Appendix F of the Phase two scheme developmentreportsets out all the sites assessed as part of the site selection processincluding the shortlisted sites.

9.3.19 Site selection should use/prioritisebrownfield sites.

9454 1 We took brownfield versus greenfield/open space into account alongwith other considerations, as set out in the Site selection methodologypaper.

9.3.20 Site selection should avoid greenfield sitesand open space.

7957, 9454 2

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

9375LO, 13384, 7006, 8794, 9016 5 CSOs need to be intercepted along the line of the existing sewer thatflows into the River Thames. CSO interception sites need to be as closeto the line of the sewer as practicable so there are few options and amore localised approach is required. Given the location of the FrogmoreStorm Relief Buckhold Road CSO, it is not possible to avoid this built-up area.


11/48

9 King Georges Park


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

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

9340LO, 9375LO, 8794, 9016 4 Our site selection process has had regard to possible effects on thelocal area and community, and the environmental impact assessmentprocess will undertake further assessment and recommend anynecessary mitigation measures.

In particular, the environment and community assessments undertakenas part of site selection had regard to the number and nature of sensitivereceptors and possible impacts from traffic and in terms of noise, airquality and visual impact. We also considered impacts on employment

uses and possible conflict with planning policy seeking to protect localamenity.

For further details on the resul ts of the site selection process, refer toappendix F of the Phase two scheme development report.

9.3.23 Site selection should avoid commerciallyestablished areas.

7006 1 The location of CSO sites is constrained by the location of the existingcombined sewers, because the interception chambers have to be builton the existing sewers. The search area for the CSO sites is thereforelocalised around the vicinity of the existing sewer. Given that we had alimited search area in which to identify a suitable CSO site, we did notconsider it appropriate to exclude sites located in commerciallyestablished areas when compiling our longlist of sites. We consideredthe use of the land, including any designations, as part of theassessment.

9.3.24 Do not support the specific location of the

site. The site should be relocated from thepark entrance further into the park and awayfrom residential areas. The current positionof the site is less than 100m from ParkviewCourt. There is ample space on the KimberRoad playing fields.

9340LO, 9375LO, 8794 3 Sites have been selected on the basis of needing to intercept existing

CSOs. CSOs are in fixed locations and the site to intercept the CSOneeds to be on the line of, or in close proximity to, the sewer. Only thenorthern part of the park is close enough to the sewer to intercept theCSO.

9.3.25 Need more information on site selection,including the pros and cons for selecting thissite.

7689 1 The reasons for selecting King George's Park as our preferred site areset out in the relevant site information paper and appendix F of Phasetwo scheme development report.

Shortlisted sites

9.3.26 No feedback comments were received in relation to the shortlisted sites.

9.4 Alternative sites

9.4.1 During phase two consultation, respondents were invited to suggest alternative sites that they thought should be used to intercept the Frogmore Storm Relief Buckhold Road CSOinstead of King Georges Park (see question 3 of the phase two feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation). The following sites were put forwardas possible alternatives:

Table 9.4.1 Suggested alternative sites to King Georges Park

Ref Alternative site suggestion Reasons Respondent ID No. Our response

Shortlisted sites

9.4.2 Car park off Broomhill Road, to It is a brownfield site, which would 7957 1 We did identify and consider Car park off Broomhill Road, to rear of flats


12/48

9 King Georges Park


Ref Alternative site suggestion Reasons Respondent ID No. Our response

rear of flats facing ontoBuckhold Road (A218).

reduce the visual impact ofconstruction and permanent worksand could improve the site in the long-term.

facing onto Buckhold Road (A218). It is a shortlisted site but we considerour preferred site (King George's Park) more suitable to intercept theFrogmore Storm Relief Buckhold Road CSO because we can directlyintercept the CSO, which runs beneath the northern part of the park.King George's Park is also further away from residential properties andavoids the need for significant works in Broomhill Road and BuckholdRoad (A218). While the use of this site would mean the temporary loss ofa section of King Georges Park, the vast majority of the park would

remain in use.For further details on the results of the site selection process, refer toappendix F of the Phase two scheme development report.

Other sites

9.4.3 Dormay Street. If Thames Water needs to interceptthe Frogmore Storm Relief CSO thenit should be done underground andthe Dormay Street site used forpermanent sewer ventilation systemssince the site is further away fromresidential areas and more suitablefor proposed construction works.

7006 1 Sites have been selected on the basis of needing to intercept existingCSOs. CSOs are in fixed locations and the site to intercept the CSOneeds to be on the line of, or in close proximity to, the sewer. TheFrogmore Storm Relief has two CSOs that we need to intercept. Weprefer to use Dormay Street to intercept the Frogmore Storm Relief - BellLane Creek CSO and King George's Park to intercept the FrogmoreStorm Relief - Buckhold Road CSO. These two CSOs are not close toeach other so we need two sites, therefore Dormay Street is not analternative for the King George's Park site.

9.4.4 Kimber Road playing fields. It is a large, open site that can easily

accommodate the proposed works,and is further from residential areas.The site also has good road accessand would obviate the need forconstruction works within KingGeorge's Park.

9017LO,

9268LO,9340LO,9375LO, 8794,13372, 13384

7 Sites have been selected on the basis of needing to intercept existing

CSOs. CSOs are in fixed locations and the site to intercept the CSOneeds to be on the line of, or in close proximity to, the sewer. Thesuggested alternative sites are considered too far away from theFrogmore Storm Relief - Buckhold Road CSO and therefore are notsuitable as CSO interception sites.

9.4.5 Brownfield site nearHammersmith Bridge.

7287 1

9.4.6 Brownfield site. Would avoid blight and environmentaldamage to King George's Park, whichhas been nominated as a Site ofImportance for Nature Conservation(SINC) by Wandsworth Council.

7957 1 Sites have been selected on the basis of needing to intercept existingCSOs. CSOs are in fixed locations and the site to intercept the CSOneeds to be on the line of, or in close proximity to, the sewer. The searcharea for sites to intercept the CSO is therefore localised. In line with ourSite selection methodology paper, which we consulted on and agreedwith the potentially directly affected local authorities, we identified all

appropriate sites in the vicinity of the CSO and took brownfield versusgreenfield into consideration as part of the site selection process. Thesites considered are set out in appendix F of the Phase two schemedevelopment report. We consider our preferred site to be the mostsuitable of all sites considered.

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


13/48

9 King Georges Park


Supportive and neutral feedback comments

Table 9.4.2 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the availability and identification of alternative sites


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

7404 1 Your support is noted and welcomed.

9.4.9 No site is readily available that would causefewer impacts

GLA 1 Your support is noted and welcomed.

9.4.10 Not sure. 8817 1 Your comments are noted. We consider that King George's Park is themost appropriate site for intercepting the Frogmore Storm Relief -Buckhold Road CSO.

Objections, issues and concerns

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

9.5 Management of construction works

9.5.1 This section sets out feedback comments received during phase two consultation in relation to the management of construction works at King Georges Park. This includes theidentification of site specific issues arising from construction activities and proposals for addressing these issues.

9.5.2 During phase two consultation, respondents were asked whether the site information paper had identified the right key issues associated with King Georges Park during construction andthe ways to address these issues (see questions 4a and 4b of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation). The firstpart of question 4a and 4b asked respondents to select agree, disagree or dont know/unsure. Where respondents completed this part of the question, the results are set out in tables

9.5.1 and 9.5.2. Tables 9.5.3 to 9.5.31 detail the feedback comments received in relation to this site. It should be noted that not all respondents who provided feedback commentsconfirmed whether the right issues and the ways to address those issues had been identified.

Table 9.5.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right key issues in the site information paper? (Q4a)


Total Yes No Dont know/unsure


Local authorities 0

Landowners 2 2


Petitions 0

Total 14 9 4 1


14/48

9 King Georges Park


Table 9.5.2 Do you agree that we have identified the right way to address the key issues? (Q4b)


Total Yes No Dont know/unsure


Local authorities 0

Landowners 2 2


Petitions 0

Total 14 7 5 2

9.5.3 The following sections set out the feedback comments received from respondents in connection with the identification of key issues associated with King Georges Park 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 on measures to address the key issues

Topic-based themes

Air quality and odour

Construction working hours andprogramme

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

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

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

9.5.5 No objections, issues and concerns were received in relation to general comments on the identified key issues during construction.


15/48

9 King Georges Park


General feedback comments on measures to address the key issues

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

Table 9.5.3 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to measures proposed to address the key issues during construction

Ref Supportive and general comments Respondent ID No. Our response

9.5.6 Measures to address potential issues aresatisfactory.

7287 1 Your comment is noted and welcomed.

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

Table 9.5.4 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

9.5.7 Construction impacts must be minimised atevery stage of construction.

GLA 1 We have sought to avoid or eliminate potential effectswherever possible, both by developing robust technicalsolutions to potential issues such as odour, and through ourproposals for the permanent site design and layout.

We are also developing a CoCPthat will set out how wewould manage our construction sites to minimise disruptionto nearby communities. Measures proposed to addresspotential likely significant effects are being further developedand considered as part of the environmental impactassessment. The findings of the assessment, together withany recommendations for mitigation, will be available as part

of the Environmental statementthat will be submitted withour DCO application.

N

Air quality and odour

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

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

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

Table 9.5.5 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour during construction


9.5.9 Dust and dirt arising from constructionactivities.

9017LO, 9268LO, 9340LO, 9375LO, 7689,8794, 9016, LR13375

8 Our Managing construction project information paperanddraft CoCPset out how dust control measures and dustmonitoring equipment would be put in place to minimise

likely significant effects of dust from construction activities.Our draft CoCPconfirms that an Air management planwould be prepared and implemented for each site to controldust emissions, and proposed techniques would be in linewith best practice guidelines. Our preliminary assessment oflikely significant air quality effects as reported in our PEIR(volume 12, section 4) did not identify any significant effectson residential or other sensitive receptors (such as schools)near this site. We are undertaking an environmental impactassessment, which will include a comprehensiveassessment of the likely significant effects arising from the

N


16/48

9 King Georges Park



proposals. The findings of the assessment, together withany recommendations for mitigation, will be available as partof the Environmental statementthat will be submitted withour DCO application.

9.5.10 Effect of construction traffic emissions on airquality.

13384 1 We have set out measures in our draft CoCPthat would beadopted to limit vehicle and plant emissions, including usinglow emission vehicles, turning off engines when not neededand minimising vehicle movements around the site. Our

preliminary assessment, which was outlined in our PEIR(volume 12, section 4), stated that with these measures inplace we do not expect any significant local air qualityeffects arising from vehicle and plant emissions at this site.We are preparing a full assessment for submission in theEnvironmental statementas part of our DCO application,which will include dispersion modelling. Dispersionmodelling will assess the potential impacts of theconstruction phase at all proposed sites for the relevantshort- and long-term NO2 and PM10 air quality objectives.We are undertaking an environmental impact assessment,which will include a comprehensive assessment of the likelysignificant effects arising from the proposals. The findings ofthe assessment, together with any recommendations formitigation, will be available as part of the Environmental

statementthat will be submitted with our DCO appli cation.

N

9.5.11 Effects on health arising from dust, odour,air pollution and reduced air quality.

9016 1 Our PEIR(volume 12, section 4) considered the likelysignificant effects of dust arising from the construction site.The report concluded that measures that will be contained inthe CoCPwould reduce the effects. While not a formalrequirement, we are also preparing a Health impactassessmentfor submission with the application, which willassess the full range of potential health and well-beingeffects of the project on identified vulnerable groups.

N

9.5.12 General air pollution effects arising fromconstruction activities.

9268LO 1 We have completed a preliminary environmentalassessment of the likely significant effects of the proposeddevelopment, which is set out in our PEIR(volume 12,section 4). This assessment considers the likely significanteffects of our construction in respect of air quality, dust,

odour, noise and vibration, which singularly or collectivelymight be classed as 'pollution'. It did not identify anysignificant effects on residential or other sensitive receptors(such as schools) near this site. A full assessment ofpotential 'pollution' will be presented in the Environmentalstatementthat we will submit with our DCO application. Wehave also produced a draft CoCPthat sets out measures formanaging our works, including sections on noise andvibration, and air quality as well as details of the variousregulatory regimes and guidance that we would need to

N


17/48

9 King Georges Park



comply with, such as the Control of Pollution Act 1974, theEnvironmental Protection Act 1990, the Health and Safety atWork Act 1974, the Mayor of London's Ambient NoiseStrategy 2004 and The control of dust and emissions fromconstruction and demolition-Best Practice Guidance 2008,as well as various British Standards.

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

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

Table 9.5.6 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address air quality and odour during construction


9.5.14 Mitigation proposed to address air qualityand odour issues is inadequate/insufficient.

7006 1 Details of proposed mitigation measures for the site were setout in the PEIR(volume 12, section 4) as part of our phasetwo consultation. The PEIRstated that no specific mitigationmeasures in addition to the CoCPwould be required at thissite for air quality, odour or dust issues. We would requireour contractor to comply with the CoCPin the constructioncontract. Our Environmental statementwill provide a fullassessment of the effects of construction on air quality,odour and dust. The findings of the assessment, together

with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available aspart of the Environmental statementthat will be submittedwith our DCO application.

N

9.5.15 The GLA and London Council's BestPractice Guidance (BPG) The control ofdust and emissions from construction anddemolitionshould be implemented.

GLA 1 We can confirm that the Best Practice Guidance has beentaken into account in developing our proposals for this site.Our draft CoCPsets out measures for managing our worksas well as details of the various regulatory regimes andguidance that we would need to comply with, such as theControl of Pollution Act 1974, the Environmental ProtectionAct 1990, the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, theMayor of London's Ambient Noise Strategy2004 and Thecontrol of dust and emissions from construction anddemolition-Best Practice Guidance2008, as well asvarious British Standards.

N

Construction working hours and programmeSupportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to construction working hours and programme

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


18/48

9 King Georges Park


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

Table 9.5.7 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction working hours and programme


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

9375LO 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 PEIRand we expect that in many cases there will

be periods during which there will be no or less intensiveactivity on some sites.

N

9.5.18 The site mobilisation period isunnecessary/unreasonable.

9375LO 1 Details of the proposed working hours for this site are setout in the site information paper and the draft CoCP. Thedraft CoCPwill be further developed for submission with ourDCO application. The site mobilisation period would last nolonger than one hour either side of standard working hours.The activities undertaken during this time are necessary toensure that construction activities can commence and becompleted in a timely manner. Activities undertaken duringthis time, such as refuelling, are not expected to cause anysignificant disruption to local residents and our contractorwould be required to keep disturbance to a minimum.

N

9.5.19 Proposed working hours are too long. 9017LO, 9268LO, 9340LO, 9375LO,

13372, 8794

6 We plan to carry out the majority of works within standard

working hours, which are 8am-6pm weekdays, and 8am-1pm Saturdays. Table 2.1 of our King Georges Park siteinformation paperdoes not propose continuous or extendedstandard hours for this site.

N

9.5.20 Extended working hours are unnecessary/unreasonable.

9017LO, 9268LO, 9340LO, 9375LO,13384, 8794

6 N

9.5.21 Concerned about weekend working hours/construction seven days a week.

9017LO, 9268LO, 9340LO, 9375LO, 8794 5 N

9.5.22 Concerned about overnight/24-hourworking.

9375LO, 13384, 8794 3 N

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

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

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

9.5.24 No objective, issues, concerns or suggestions were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of construction working hours and programme.

Construction site design and layoutSupportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to construction site design and layout

9.5.25 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to construction site design and layout.


19/48

9 King Georges Park


Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction site design and layout issues

Table 9.5.8 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction site design and layout


9.5.26 Extent of construction site; any agreement inprinciple to transfer land should be for thearea minimum necessary.

LBW, 9073 2 The construction site layout has been developed to minimiseits area.

N

Suggestions for construction site design and layout

Table 9.5.9 Suggestions for construction site design and layout

Ref Suggestions for construction site designand layout

Respondent ID No. Our response

9.5.27 Construction site layout should minimise theloss of open space and utilise the temporaryconstruction sites for the minimum periodpossible.

GLA, LR13375 2 Our design has been developed in order to minimise the loss of openspace and we are considering opportunities to improve other openspaces in the local area to compensate for the temporary loss. We havealso sought, and will continue to seek, to optimise our constructionprogramme at this site in order to reduce the time span.

Historic environment

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the historic environment

9.5.28 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 issues

Table 9.5.10 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historic environment during construction


9.5.29 Effect on the historic park or garden andprotection of the railings.

8978 1 As set out in our site information paper, our proposals forKing George's Park retain the historic gates and railings aswell as the area around the Sir John Young Memorial treeand bench. We recognise that these are valuable features ofthe park.

N

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

9.5.30 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 9.5.11 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment during construction


9.5.31 More information is needed on historicenvironment mitigation.

EH 1 An assessment of the likely significant effects on the historicenvironment is being completed as part of our environmentalimpact assessment. We are consulting with English Heritageas part of this process. The findings of the assessment,together with any recommendations for mitigation, will beavailable as part of the Environmental statementthat will besubmitted with our DCO application.

Additionally, our draft CoCP(provided at phase two

N


20/48

9 King Georges Park



consultation) 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 DCOand that protection measures, as required,would be put in place at the start of the works. We wouldalso notify English Heritage and the LBW prior toundertaking works and would continue to engage with them

closely on the planning of the works.

Land quality and contamination

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

Lighting

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to lighting

9.5.33 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to lighting during construction.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to lighting issues

9.5.34 No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to lighting during construction.

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

9.5.35 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address lighting during construction.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of lightingTable 9.5.12 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of lighting during construction


9.5.36 Control the location and direction ofconstruction lighting.

LBW 1 As set out in our draft CoCPsite lighting would be providedto ensure the safety and security of the sites and would belocated and directed so as to minimise intrusion intooccupied residential properties and on sensitive areas.

N

9.5.37 Work with residents to agree appropriatelighting measures in the CoCP.

LR9236 1 We would continue to liaise with the LBW and stakeholderswhile preparing our CoCPfor submission with our DCOapplication. We will take comments received as part of thisconsultation into consideration in developing the document.

N

Natural environment (aquatic)

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

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

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

9.5.39 No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) during construction.

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

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


21/48

9 King Georges Park


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

Table 9.5.13 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) during construction


9.5.41 The wild fowl on the lake should beprotected from disturbance.

8978 1 Our preliminary assessment of the likely significant effectson wildlife associated with the construction of the tunnel isset out in our PEIR(volume 12, section 6). This assessmentconsidered the effects on the lake in its terrestrial habitats.The scheme has been designed to minimise effects of

disturbance on wildlife and habitats where possible. Whereeffects have been identified, mitigation has been built intothe design. The likely significant effects of the developmenton habitats will be assessed and reported in theEnvironmental statementthat will be submitted as part of ourDCO application.

The CoCPthat will be submitted with the application willensure that works comply with applicable legislation andwith relevant nature conservation policies and guidance,including the Mayors Biodiversity strategyand localbiodiversity action plans. Where species are protected byspecific legislation, approved guidance would be followed,appropriate mitigation proposed and any necessary licencesor consents obtained.

N

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

Table 9.5.14 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction


9.5.42 Support retention of trees; pleased that theBlack Poplar will be preserved.

LR13375 1 Your support is noted and welcomed.

9.5.43 Support for the replacement of trees. LR13375 1

9.5.44 The site will result in fewer trees being lost(may only need to remove three trees).

7785 1

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

Table 9.5.15 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction


9.5.45 Loss of mature trees and blossom trees. GLA, 9375LO, 8817, LR13375, LR9236,LR9491

6 We acknowledge that the proposals would result in the lossof trees at this site. As detailed in our site information paper and Design development report, we have reconfigured ourproposals for this site to avoid damage to the root zones ofthe most sensitive and valuable trees in the park. Our draftCoCPsets out how we would protect existing trees duringconstruction. Measures such as protective fencing andprohibition of storing material in the protected area would be

N


22/48

9 King Georges Park



implemented prior to works being undertaken as specified inBritish Standard BS5837, where practicable and inconsultation with the LBW tree officer.

9.5.46 General effect of construction activities onlocal wildlife.

LR9236 1 Our preliminary assessment of the likely significant effectson wildlife associated with the construction of the tunnel isprovided in our PEIR(volume 12, section 6), which sets outthe effects in terms of notable species, including bats andbirds, and their habitats. The scheme has been designed to

minimise effects on wildlife and habitats where possible and,where effects have been identified, mitigation has been builtinto the design. The likely significant effects will be assessedand reported in the Environmental statementthat will besubmitted as part of the application.

The CoCPthat will be submitted with the application wouldensure that works comply with applicable legislation andwith relevant nature conservation policies and guidance,including the Mayors Biodiversity strategyand localbiodiversity action plans. Where species are protected byspecific legislation, approved guidance would be followed,appropriate mitigation proposed and any necessary licencesor consents obtained.

N

9.5.47 Effect on other species, including LondonWetland Centre wildfowl.

7287 1 N

9.5.48 Effect on terrestrial habitat(s), includingpond and park wildlife.

9375LO 1 N

9.5.49 More information is needed on the effect of

construction activities on the naturalenvironment.

LR9491 1 We consider that we have undertaken a thorough and

comprehensive consultation exercise. We carefullyconsidered the information we made available at our phasetwo consultation to ensure that consultees had sufficientinformation to respond to the consultation. This included ourPEIR(volume 12, section 6) which included our initialassessment of likely significant effects of construction siteactivities on the terrestrial ecosystem, including si teclearance, tree removal and pruning, the movements ofconstruction workers and machinery, and constructionactivities that cause noise, vibration and lighting (includingpiling). The proposals set out in our draft CoCPare includedin the assessment.

An assessment of the likely significant effects on the naturalenvironment is being completed as part of our environmentalimpact assessment. The findings of the assessment,

together with any recommendations for mitigation, will beavailable as part of the Environmental statementthat will besubmitted with our DCO application. We are confidenttherefore that the information we have provided is sufficient.

N

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

9.5.50 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.


23/48

9 King Georges Park


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

Table 9.5.16 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures to address the ef fects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction


9.5.51 More information is needed on naturalenvironment mitigation.

LR9491 1 Details of proposed mitigation measures and initialecological surveys for the site were set out in our PEIR(volume 12, section 6) as part of our phase two consultation.As we have completed our surveys, we have confirmed thepresence or absence of species and habitats and developed

mitigation measures as necessary. Our draft CoCPsets outa range of measures that would be implemented to controland limit disturbance, and relevant measures will beassessed in our Environmental statement. The findings ofthe assessment, together with any recommendations formitigation, will be available as part of the Environmentalstatementthat will be submitted with our DCO application.

N

9.5.52 Retain trees during construction in line withBritish Standards.

LBW 1 Details of our proposed tree protection measures are set outin our draft CoCP, which has been developed in accordancewith British Standard BS5837. Our contractor wouldimplement the identified measures where practicable inconsultation with the LBW tree officer.

N

9.5.53 Any trees lost during construction must bereplaced.

8535 1 We acknowledge that the proposals would result in the lossof trees at this site. However, our plans for landscapinginclude planting new trees to replace those that would belost. As detailed in our site information paper and Designdevelopment report, we have reconfigured our proposals forthis site to avoid damage to the root zones of the mostsensitive and valuable trees in the park. Our draft CoCPsetsout how we would protect existing trees during construction.Measures such as protective fencing and prohibition ofstoring material in the protected area would be implementedprior to works being undertaken as specified in BritishStandard BS5837, where practicable and in consultationwith the LBW tree officer.

N

9.5.54 Retain trees during construction, includingroots undamaged.

8535 1 N

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

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

N

9.5.56 Adopt suitable measures in the CoCPtoavoid potential effects on the natural

environment.

LR9236 1 We have produced a draft CoCPthat sets out measures tosafeguard habitats and vegetation during construction which

our contractor would adhere to.

N

9.5.57 Undertake site surveys prior to commencingconstruction to identify sensitive species andhabitats.

LBW 1 We have already completed a range of surveys at this siteas detailed in the PEIR(volume 12, section 6). Where ourmethodology for the Environmental statement, which hasbeen agreed with the LBW, identifies the need for furthersurveys we would ensure that these are completed prior tosubmitting our DCO application. If our assessment of effectsidentifies the need for further site surveys prior tocommencing construction, they would be undertaken in

N


24/48


25/48


26/48

9 King Georges Park


Open space and recreation

Supportive and feedback neutral comments in relation to open space and recreation

Table 9.5.19 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to open space and recreation during construction


9.5.68 Temporary loss of open space isacceptable.

9375LO 1 Your comment is noted and welcomed

9.5.69 Other supportive comment. 8729, LR13375 2 Your support is noted and welcomed.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to open space and recreation

Table 9.5.20 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to open space and recreation during construction


9.5.70 Potential effects on open space andrecreation will be greater than those set outin the consultation material.

9055 1 Our PEIRstates that the construction works would result inthe temporary loss of 0.2 hectares of the open space. This isequivalent to less than one per cent of the total area of KingGeorge's Park. Our preliminary assessment also considersthe effects of the works on the amenity of park users andconcludes that our works would only be likely to affect asmall number of users in the northern end. The works wouldonly utilise a very small part of the park; therefore, webelieve that our works would not have a significant effect onthe park, park users or nearby residents that dont have

gardens, as there are other parts of the park that would beavailable for recreation use. Furthermore, once the worksare complete, the area would be returned to the park.

The Environmental statementthat will be submitted with ourDCO application will provide a full assessment of ourproposed works, together with appropriate mitigation toaddress any significant effects.

We can confirm that the construction works would notimpact on the lake.

N

9.5.71 Temporary loss of public open space, whichis designated as Metropolitan Open Land isunacceptable.

GLA, 13372, LR9491 3 N

9.5.72 There is a shortage of public open space inthe local area.

9017LO, 9268LO, 9340LO, 9375LO 4 N

9.5.73 Effect of construction activities on the

recreational enjoyment of open space.

13384 1 N

9.5.74 There is a lack of private gardens in thelocal area to compensate for the loss ofpublic open space.

13384 1 N

9.5.75 Duration of construction and the associatedeffect on access to open space and otherrecreational amenities.

7957, LR9236 2 N

9.5.76 The site is a very valuable recreationalamenity for the local community.

9017LO, 9268LO, 9340LO, 9375LO, 7957,8794, LR9447

7 N

9.5.77 Other open space and recreation issuesincluded:

- disruption and nuisance to park usersmust be kept to a minimum

- the lake should be protected duringworks.

8729, LR13375 2 N

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on open space and recreation

9.5.78 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on open space and recreation during construction.


27/48

9 King Georges Park


Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on open space and recreation

Table 9.5.21 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on open space and recreation during construction


9.5.79 Adopt suitable measures in the CoCPtoaddress effects on open space andrecreation.

LR9236 1 We believe that we have set out a range of measures thatwould mitigate the effects of construction at this site. Inparticular, our draft CoCPstates that our contractor wouldbe required to implement best practice measures tominimise noise and vibration from plant and works such as

the selection of appropriate plant and equipment, suitablesiting of equipment and the use of hoardings to provideacoustic screens. Additionall y, our PEIRassessments takethe mitigation measures set out in the draft CoCPintoaccount and assume that the mitigation would beimplemented.

N

9.5.80 Other open space and recreation mitigationsuggestions; re-instatement should improvequality and function of the open spaceconsistent with the aims and objectives ofthe All London Green Grid; liaise with theLBW and park users to determine a goodquality re-instatement of the park and publicrealm.

GLA 1 Your comments are noted. Our site information paperprovides illustrations of how the open space could look oncethe works are complete. We will take the aims andobjectives of the All London Green Grid into account as wedevelop our proposals for this site. We will continue to workwith the LBW to develop a plan for re-instating the park.

N

Planning and developmentSupportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to planning and development

9.5.81 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to planning and development during construction.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to planning and development

Table 9.5.22 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to planning and development during construction


9.5.82 Proposals will impact on local regenerationas they will make the area less desirable fornew developers, which goes against effortsto make Wandsworth and its shoppingcentre more attractive.

7006 1 We do not believe that construction of the tunnel in thislocation would compromise the wider regeneration of thearea or make it less desirable for developers. Our proposalsfor the permanent layout and design of the site have beensensitively designed to complement the existing park and wehave sought to incorporate a number of features that would

make this area attractive for park users. We are alsoreviewing the plans of development proposals to the north ofBuckhold Road (A218) to ensure that our permanent workswould make it easy for pedestrians to find their way in thesurrounding area.

N

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on planning and development

9.5.83 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on planning and development during construction.


28/48

9 King Georges Park


Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of planning and development

9.5.84 No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on planning and development during construction.

Socio-economic

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

9.5.85 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 9.5.23 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects during construction


9.5.86 Detrimental effect on business operations;busy shopping mall.

7006, 8817 2 We believe there is little, if any, potential for businesses inthe area to experience any significant socio-economiceffects as a result of the proposed development. As a resultof on-going discussions with local business owners, we didnot address impacts on businesses in our PEIR. Pendingthe results of these discussions and any further informationthat may be received, assessment of the effects onbusinesses could be made at a later stage and would bepresented in the Environmental statementthat will besubmitted with our DCO application.

N

9.5.87 Effect on the local economy andemployment; it will deprive the area of vitalin-flows of cash, businesses will suffer andthe area will be less desirable for newdevelopers.

7006 1

9.5.88 Effect of construction activities on quality oflife.

9017LO, 9340LO, 9375LO, 13372, 13384,8794

6 Our PEIR(volume 12) provides a preliminary assessment ofthe likely significant effects of the scheme on a range oftopics, including noise and vibration, air quality (includingdust emissions) and odour, and transport, based on amethodology that has been agreed with the LBW. A fullassessment of likely significant effects will be provided withthe Environmental statementthat will be submitted with ourDCO application. Where effects are identified we would putin place mitigation measures to address these effects, inaddition to the measures that are set out in our draft CoCP.

We are also preparing a Health impact assessmentthat willexamine 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

9.5.89 Effect of construction activities on residentialamenity.

9017LO, 9340LO, 13372, 9016 4

9.5.90 Proximity of the construction site toresidential properties.

GLA, 9268LO, 9340LO, 9375LO, 13372,7006, LR9236

7 Our site selection process, as detailed in our Site selectionmethodology paper, assessed the shortlisted sites againstfive 'community' considerations in order to determine theirsuitability, including proximity to sensitive receptors(including residential and schools), socio-economic, healthand equality considerations. Our Phase two schemedevelopment reportprovides an overview of how each sitewas chosen.

Our PEIR(volume 12) provides a preliminary assessment of

N

9.5.91 The area around the constructions site isdensely populated.

7006 1

9.5.92 Proximity to and effect on community andsocial amenities such as the shoppingcentre and school.

7006, 7287 2

9.5.93 Effect of construction activities on the local 7006 1


29/48

9 King Georges Park



community. the effects of the scheme on residen tial amenity andconcludes that the effect on park users and residentialamenity is unlikely to be significant. We acknowledge thatthere could be effects on the Penfold Day Centre and theIntegrated Children's Centre. We do not expect that therewould be any effect on the shopping centre or the school.We are preparing an Environmental statementthat willassess the likely significant effects of the proposeddevelopment and identify recommendations for mitigation.The Environmental statementwill be submitted as part ofour DCO application.

9.5.94 General disruption associated withconstruction activities.

7006, 8794 2

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

9.5.95 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 9.5.24 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects during construction


9.5.96 Adopt suitable measures in the CoCPtoaddress potential socio-economic effects.

LR9236 1 We believe that we have set out a range of measures thatwould mitigate the effects of construction at this site. Inparticular, our draft CoCPstates that our contractor wouldbe required to implement a range of measures at the siteduring construction, including best practice measures tominimise noise and vibration from plant and works such asthe selection of appropriate plant and equipment, suitablesiting of equipment and the use of hoardings to provideacoustic screens. These measures would minimise thepotential for disruption. Additionally, our PEIRassessmentstake the mitigation measures set out in the CoCPintoaccount and assume that the mitigation would beimplemented.

We continue to develop our CoCPand Environmentalstatementand will submit them as part of our DCOapplication.

N

9.5.97 Other socio-economic mitigation: generallykeep disruption to a minimum.

8978 1 N

9.5.98 Reduce or limit the duration of construction. 8978 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 the

construction period in the consultation documents comesfrom the PEIRand we expect that in many cases there willbe periods during which there will be no or less intenseactivity on some sites.

N

Structures and utilities

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


30/48

9 King Georges Park


Townscape and visual

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to townscape and visual e ffects

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

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

Table 9.5.25 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to townscape and visual effects during construction


9.5.101 Visual impact of construction activities on

the character and appearance of local greenspace.

8817 1 The effect of construction activity on the character of the

local area would be for a temporary period only. Our draftCoCPsets out measures to ensure that the construction sitewould be well operated and maintained. Measures tominimise likely significant effects on the character of thelocal area during construction, such as suitable screeningaround the construction site, will be set out in the CoCPandEnvironmental statementto be submitted with our DCOapplication.

N

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

9.5.102 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 the effects on townscape and visual

Table 9.5.26 Objections, issues and concerns to address the effects on townscape and visual during construction

Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID No. Our response Outcome9.5.103 Suitable landscaping and planting should be

provided to limit effects on the localtownscape.

8729 1 The site would be appropriately screened with hoarding toreduce potential likely significant effects on the localtownscape. We are currently considering including earlyplanting at some sites, where appropriate, to provide visualscreening during construction. Following completion, asuitable landscaping scheme would be implemented tointegrate the site into the wider park. As soon as wecomplete the main elements of construction, we wouldundertake the final landscaping works in order to establishplanting as early as possible.

N

Transport and access

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to transport and access

Table 9.5.27 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to transport and access during construction


9.5.104 Support proposed use of barges to transportmaterials; this should be a condition of thetender process.

LBW, 9073, LR13375 3 Your support is noted and welcomed, however, we wish to clarify thatwe do not propose to use barges to transport materials to and from thissite.


31/48

9 King Georges Park


Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access

Table 9.5.28 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access during construction


9.5.105 It is not clear what the scale of transporteffects will be, including the impact ofconstruction vehicles using the adjacentTransport for London Route NetworkWandsworth one-way system; the

assessment to date is very vague.

GLA 1 As part of our PEIR(volume 12, section 12) we assessedthe likely significant construction transport effects onpedestrian and cycle routes; bus and other public transportroutes and patronage; parking; and highway layout,operation and capacity as well as the likely significant effects

on residential amenity. As part of the assessment we haveconsidered the effects of lorry and (where applicable) bargetransport, based on a methodology that has been discussedand agreed with the LBW and TfL. The PEIRwas availableas part of our phase two consultation.

We acknowledge that this is a preliminary assessment. Weare preparing a full Transport assessmentfor submission aspart of our DCO application. The Transport assessmentwillconsider the cumulative effects of our works with otherstrategic developments in the local area.

N

9.5.106 Effect of construction traffic on residentialamenity.

9017LO, 9268LO, 9340LO, 9375LO, 8794 5

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

LBW 1

9.5.108 Effect of disruption, diversion or closure ofpedestrian or cycle routes; paths inBuckhold Road (A218) and around the northof the lake should be kept open.

8978 1 As set out in the site information paper, the proposed accessto this site would not disrupt or divert any cycle routes.

N

9.5.109 Construction traffic will cause trafficcongestion particularly on the TLRN. GLA 1 We propose to access this site via Buckhold Road (A218),as illustrated in the King George's Park site informationpaper. We are reviewing the construction traffic routes aspart of the on-going development of our proposals for thissite and our Transport assessment.

We expect that at the peak of construction (year one), anaverage of eight lorries would visit (travelling to and from)the site each working day, as indicated in the PEIR(volume12, section12). In the context of existing traffic in the localarea, we do not consider that the construction traffic wouldbe significant and would be unlikely to result in congestionon the TLRN.

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 planto

ensure that construction traffic is carefully controlled in orderto minimise potential effects on the road network, includingaccess to the local area, as well as setting out constructiontraffic routes, site access/egress points, signage andmonitoring procedures.

As part of our PEIR(volume 12, section 12), we haveassessed the construction transport effects on pedestrianand cycle routes; bus and other public transport routes andpatronage; parking; and highway layout, operation andcapacity as well as the effects on residential amenity. As

N

9.5.110 Construction traffic will exacerbate existingtraffic congestion. Contractors are expectedto have consideration for the local residentsand users of Neville Gill Close, and notimpede the traffic flow to and from centralWandsworth.

8794, 8817, LR13375 3

9.5.111 Construction traffic will affect access to thelocal area.

13372 1

9.5.112 Proposed site access it unsuitable; aconstruction site near the entrance of KingGeorges Park will be far too close to theresidential properties at Park View Court.

9375LO 1

9 Ki G P k


32/48

9 King Georges Park



part of the assessment we have considered the effects oflorry and (where applicable) barge transport, based on amethodology that has been discussed and agreed with theLBW and TfL. The PEIRwas available as part of our phasetwo consultation.

We acknowledge that this is a preliminary assessment. Weare preparing a full Transport assessmentfor submission aspart of our DCO application. The Transport assessmentwill

set out recommendations for mitigation and will consider thecumulative effects of our works with other strategicdevelopments in the local area.

9.5.113 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 consultationthat will include requirements for a Traffic management planto ensure that construction traffic is carefully controlled inorder to minimise 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. There would be arequirement to ensure the works would not endanger safeschool access.

We will also review data relating to recent accidents in theTransport assessment. The proposals will be subject toindependent external review by TfL and the local highwayauthority to ensure that proposed highway layouts andvehicle movement arrangements are as safe as possible.

N

9.5.114 Effect of transporting materials by barge onriver navigation and commercial river users.

9073 1 As set out in theKing Georges Park site information paper,we do not propose to transport materials by barge from thissite; therefore, there would be no effect on navigation orcommercial river users.

N

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

9.5.115 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 9.5.29 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to proposals to address the effects of transport and access during construction


9.5.116 Provide suitable and safe footpathdiversions including the southern footway ofBuckhold Road (A218) and the pathwayaround the north of the lake, which shouldbe kept open for pedestrians.

LR13375 1 Our site information paper set out the proposed footpathdiversions through the park, which have been discussedwith the LBW.

N

9.5.117 Provide an alternative construction traffic LBW 1 We selected the proposed access route because of itsproximity to the major road network and because it is the

N

9 Ki G P k


33/48

9 King Georges Park



route to and from the site. most suitable location at which to access the park.Comments received at phase one consultation alsoprompted us to move the shaft location closer to Neville GillClose. We have consulted on the proposed route with TfLand the LBW. We are reviewing the proposed routes as partof the on-going development of our proposals for this siteand our Transport assessment.

9.5.118 Establish traffic management plans;

construction transport should avoid causingcongestion to local traffic.

8978 1 Our draft CoCP(provided at phase two consultation) sets

out 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. These measureshave been taken into account in our preliminary assessmentof the likely significant effects of the scheme. We arecurrently preparing an Environmental statementthat willidentify further mitigation measures if significant adverseeffects are identified. We are also discussing the details ofthe CoCPand framework Travel planwith the LBW. Ourcontractor would be required to submit a detailed sitespecific Traffic management planand Travel planto TfL andthe LBW for approval prior to commencing works.

N

9.5.119 Complete a transport assessment. LBW 1 We are preparing a Transport assessmentthat will besubmitted as part of our DCO appli cation. This will include adetailed analysis of potential access routes and anassessment of the likely significant effects of constructiontraffic on local roads, together with any mitigation required tominimise disruption from our site traffic. We will work closelywith TfL, the LBW, local residents and other interestedgroups to minimise the effects of traffic movements to andfrom the site.

N

9.5.120 Use the river to transport more/allconstruction materials and excavatedmaterial.

LR9236 1 Where practical and cost-effective we would transportmaterials by barge or rail. However, at this site we believethat it would not be viable to transport materials by barge orrail because it is not next to the river or a rail head and itwould be necessary to convey materials by road to a

suitable nearby wharf or rail head. However, nearer the timeof construction, we would consider whether there are anyopportunities to make further use of river transport, and ourcontractor could also propose further use of the river orconsolidation centres.

Where possible, we would accommodate constructionvehicles on site. Our site information paper provides detailsof the site layout, but we acknowledge that it would benecessary to suspend some parking bays on Neville GillClose to ensure that our construction vehicles could safely

N

9.5.121 Use the river rather than roads to transportconstruction materials and spoil, consider a

consolidation centre at nearby barge/railserved sites; Smugglers Way Wharf.

GLA, LBW, 8535 3 N

9.5.122 Use rail to transport materials and includeconsolidation centres at nearby barge/railserved sites.

GLA 1 N

9.5.123 Other transport and access mitigationcomments included:

- Investigate the potential for transhipmentfrom sites with no proposed barge

LBW 1 N

9 King Georges Park


34/48

9 King Georges Park



movements to those with access to watertransport

- all construction vehicles should beaccommodated on site.

turn into and out of the site.

Water and flood risk

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

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

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

Table 9.5.30 Objections, issues and concerns relating to water and flood risk during construction


9.5.125 Effect on flood risk due to the storage ofexcavated material, site support/welfarebuildings, hoarding, workshop and apossible loss of level changes due toproposed access roads.

EA, LR9236 2 Our PEIR(volume 12, section 15) sets out a preliminaryassessment of likely significant effects on flood risk (levelone) in line with the requirements of national policy andconsiders flooding from the sea (and tidal sources), rivers,land and surface water runoff, and groundwater. As set outin our PEIRthe site is in flood zone 3a where there is a highprobability of flood risk. We are currently in liaison with theEnvironment Agency and the LBW to determine suitablemitigation for any possible increase in flood risk due to ourworks.

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

N

9.5.126 Other water issues, including request toassess the appropriateness of SustainableUrban Drainage Systems (SuDS).

EA 1 We will determine the feasibility of SuDS for this site as partof our design development once we have completed soak-away tests and a contamination study.

C

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

9.5.127 No supportive or neutral feedback comments

Documents

Supp Report on P2 Consultation - Chapter 9 King Georges Park