Supp Report On P2 Consultation - Chapter 8 Dormay Street

110-RG-PNC-00000-000784 | May 2012
Supplementary report on phase two consultation

Chapter 8 Dormay Street
8 Dormay Street
Thames Tunnel Supplementary report on phase two consultation

List of contents
Page number
Dormay Street ................................................................................................ 8-1 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 Introduction ........................................................................................... 8-1 Number of respondents ........................................................................ 8-2 Site selection ........................................................................................ 8-2 Alternative sites .................................................................................... 8-4 Management of construction works ...................................................... 8-5 Permanent design and appearance .................................................... 8-18 Management of operational effects .................................................... 8-21 Our view of the way forward ............................................................... 8-28
8 Dormay Street
List of tables Page number Table 8.2.1 Number of respondents commenting on Dormay Street ..................... 8-2 Table 8.3.1 Views on whether Dormay Street should be our preferred site (Q2) .. 8-3 Table 8.3.2 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the selection of our preferred site ............................................................................ 8-3 Table 8.3.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to selection of our preferred site ...................................................................................................... 8-4 Table 8.4.1 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the availability and identification of alternative sites ................................................... 8-4 Table 8.5.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right key issues in the site information paper? (Q4a) ................................................................... 8-5 Table 8.5.2 Do you agree that we have identified the right way to address the key issues? (Q4b) ..................................................................................... 8-5 Table 8.5.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during construction .................................... 8-6 Table 8.5.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour during construction ......... 8-7 Table 8.5.5 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction site design and layout ........................................................................................... 8-7 Table 8.5.6 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effect on the historic environment during construction ........................................................................................ 8-8 Table 8.5.7 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address historic environment issues during construction ............... 8-8 Table 8.5.8 Objections, issues and concerns relating to the natural environment (aquatic) during construction .............................................................. 8-9 Table 8.5.9 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) during construction ........................................................................................ 8-9 Table 8.5.10 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction ......................................................... 8-10 Table 8.5.11 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction ...................................................................................... 8-11 Table 8.5.12 Objections, issues and concerns relating to socio-economic effects during construction ........................................................................... 8-13 Table 8.5.13 Objections, issues and concerns relating to structures and utilities during construction ........................................................................... 8-13 Table 8.5.14 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities during construction 8-14
8 Dormay Street
Table 8.5.15 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to transport and access during construction ............................................................... 8-14 Table 8.5.16 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access during construction ........................................................................... 8-14 Table 8.5.17 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access during construction .. 8-16 Table 8.5.18 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to water and flood risk during construction ........................................................................... 8-17 Table 8.5.19 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk during construction ....... 8-18 Table 8.6.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right issues that have influenced our permanent design for this site? (Q5) ......................... 8-19 Table 8.6.2 Please give us your views about our proposals for the permanent design and appearance of the site (Q6) ........................................... 8-19 Table 8.6.3 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site ............................................................... 8-19 Table 8.6.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site ............................................................... 8-20 Table 8.6.5 Design suggestions .......................................................................... 8-20 Table 8.7.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right key issues in the site information paper? (Q7a) ................................................................. 8-22 Table 8.7.2 Do you agree that we have identified the right way to address the key issues? (Q7b) ................................................................................... 8-22 Table 8.7.3 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during operation ...................... 8-23 Table 8.7.4 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to air quality and odour during operation ..................................................................... 8-23 Table 8.7.5 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour during operation................................................................................ 8-23 Table 8.7.6 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour during operation ........... 8-24 Table8.7.7 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) during operation........................................................................................... 8-24
Table 8.7.8 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation ............................................................. 8-25 Table 8.7.9 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation........................................................................................... 8-25 Table 8.7.10 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration during operation........................................................................................... 8-26
8 Dormay Street
Table 8.7.11 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to measures proposed to address the effects on planning and development during operation. 8-27 Table 8.7.12 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access during operation .......... 8-27 Table 8.7.13 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to water and flood risk during operation................................................................................ 8-27 Table 8.7.14 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk during operation ........... 8-28
8 Dormay Street
8
8.1
8.1.1
Dormay Street
Introduction
This chapter covers the feedback comments received during phase two consultation regarding our preferred site Dormay Street. This site would be used to connect the existing local combined sewer overflow (CSO), known as the Frogmore Storm Relief Bell Lane Creek CSO, to the main tunnel. This site would also be used to drive a long connection tunnel (known as the Frogmore connection tunnel) southwards to King Georges Park and northwards to Carnwath Road Riverside in order to connect the CSOs at Dormay Street and King Georges Park to the main tunnel. At phase one consultation, Bell Lane Creek was presented as our preferred site to intercept the Frogmore Storm Relief Bell Lane Creek CSO. It was proposed that the Frogmore connection tunnel would be connected directly to the main tunnel. However, following re-assessment and a change of potential sites since phase one consultation, Dormay Street was identified as the preferred site to intercept the Frogmore Storm Relief Bell Lane Creek CSO and drive the Frogmore connection tunnel. It was presented as our preferred site at phase two consultation. For further information regarding the proposals for this site at phase two consultation, refer to the Dormay Street site information paper. This chapter also presents feedback on alternative shortlisted sites to Dormay Street, which were identified at phase two consultation. These are: Bell Lane Creek (site 1) London Borough of Wandsworth Depot (site 2).
8.1.2
8.1.3
8.1.4
Where feedback comments were received on any of these shortlisted sites, they are presented in section 8.3 (site selection) and section 8.4 (alternative sites) of this chapter.
Structure of this chapter

8.1.5 This chapter is organised as listed below, which reflects the structure of the phase two consultation feedback form: 8.1.6 8.1.7 section 8.2 Number of respondents section 8.3 Site selection section 8.4 Alternative sites section 8.5 Management of construction works section 8.6 Permanent design and appearance section 8.7 Management of operational effects section 8.8 Our view of the way forward.
In sections 8.3 to 8.7 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.
8.1.8 8.1.9
A full list of the phase two consultation material is set out in Annex A to this report. Where a response contains a reference to our website, go to www.thamestunnelconsultation.co.uk for further information, or to access the documents referenced.
Mitigation 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.
8-1
8 Dormay Street
8.2
8.2.1
Number of respondents
A total of 19 respondents provided comments on Dormay Street, of which seven were received after the close of phase two consultation. Table 8.2.1 sets out the different groups who provided feedback for this site. Table 8.2.1 Number of respondents commenting on Dormay Street Statutory consultees 5 respondents - Design Council CABE (CABE) - Consumer Council for Water (CCW) - English Heritage (EH) - Environment Agency (EA) - Greater London Authority (GLA) Local authorities 1 respondent - London Borough of Wandsworth (LBW) Landowner 0 respondents Community consultees 13 respondents Petitions 0 petitions
8.2.2
Feedback on this site was received in a number of forms, including feedback forms and correspondence (emails and letters).
8.3
8.3.1
Site selection
A series of sites is required in order to build and operate the Thames Tunnel project. To determine our preferred scheme, we are undertaking a site selection process using a methodology that was adopted after consultation with the relevant local authorities and statutory consultees. For further information on our methodology and process, refer to: Site selection project information paper, which sets out the process we followed to find and select our preferred sites Site selection methodology paper, which details the methodology used to select construction sites along the route of the main tunnel Site selection background technical paper, which provides supporting technical information to the Site selection methodology paper such as the engineering requirements for the size of construction sites. Site information papers, which provide summary information on each of our preferred sites, including the reasons for selecting them Phase two scheme development report, which describes how our proposals for the Thames Tunnel project have evolved and provides a detailed account of the site selection process for each of the preferred sites.
8.3.2
The results of the site selection process up to phase two consultation are set out in:
8.3.3
In this section, we set out the feedback comments received in relation to the selection of Dormay Street as our preferred site, together with our responses. Our responses provide relevant details of the site selection process and its findings up to phase two consultation. Where appropriate we have also identified further work that we have undertaken in relation to our preferred site, such as the preparation of our Preliminary environmental information report (PEIR). As part of the project design development process, we continue to assess how the effects arising from the proposed development can be addressed. The output of our assessment up to phase two consultation is contained in appendix E of the Design development report and our PEIR (volume 11). Where respondents commented on matters in relation to management of construction works, permanent design and appearance or the management of operational effects at Dormay Street, these comments are reported in sections 8.5 to 8.7.
8.3.4
Number of respondents
8.3.5 During the phase two consultation, respondents were asked to comment on the decision to select Dormay Street as our preferred site to intercept the Frogmore Storm Relief Bell Lane Creek CSO (see question 2 of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in Appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation). Table 8.3.1 sets out details of the different groups who responded and were asked to select supportive, opposed/concerned or dont know/unsure. Tables 8.3.2 and 8.3.3 then detail the feedback comments received in relation to this site. It should be noted that not all respondents who provided feedback comments selected supportive, opposed/concerned or dont know/unsure.
8-2
8 Dormay Street
Table 8.3.1 Views on whether Dormay Street should be our preferred site (Q2) Respondent type Statutory consultees Local authorities Landowners Community consultees Petitions Total Number of respondents Total 0 1 0 8 0 9 9 0 0 8 1 - LBW Supportive Opposed/concerned Dont know unsure
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to our preferred site Table 8.3.2 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the selection of our preferred site Ref 8.3.6 8.3.7 Supportive and neutral comments Support the use of the preferred site. Support the changes to the proposed use of the preferred site since phase one consultation. Support the identification of a new preferred site since phase one consultation/the preferred site is more suitable than the site put forward at phase one. Specifically, it does not interfere with Panorama Antennas. The preferred site is more suitable than any alternative sites - including Panorama Antennas. Agree that Frogmore Storm Relief Bell Lane Creek CSO needs to be intercepted, and that the Dormay Street site is a suitable location from which to do so. The site is already an operational Thames Water site/is owned by Thames Water. Proposals are compatible with existing industrial uses in the vicinity of the site. The site is sufficiently far away from residential areas/is not a residential area Qualified support for the preferred site included: - suitable arrangements being put in place with the LBW to manage the impacts on Respondent ID LBW, LR9447 LBW No. 2 1 Our response Your support is noted and welcomed.
8.3.8
8535, 8729, LR9154
8.3.9
8492
8.3.10
8098, 8846
Noted.
8.3.11 8.3.12
8681 8098
1 1
Agreed. Noted. One of the considerations taken into account as part of our site selection process was that our proposals would be compatible with existing uses at a site. Noted. As we develop our design for the site at Dormay Street we will continue to undertake discussions with the LBW to ensure that appropriate measures are put in place to address any effects on the operation of their depot.
8.3.13 8.3.14
8681 EH, GLA
1 2
8-3
8 Dormay Street
Ref
Supportive and neutral comments the LBW Depot.

- appropriate mitigation is undertaken.
Respondent ID
No.
Our response Since selecting Dormay Street as our preferred site, we have begun assessing the likely significant effects that may arise as a result of the works as part of an environmental impact assessment. This will set out measures necessary to mitigate any significant adverse effects that are identified. An Environmental statement, which records the findings of the environmental impact assessment, will accompany our DCO application. The initial environmental assessment work that has been carried out on the project is contained in the PEIR (volume 11), which is available on our website. As part of the phase two consultation, we have also sought feedback on the potential likely significant effects arising from our proposals and how the effects will be mitigated. Where possible, we will take feedback comments into account as we develop our proposals.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to our preferred site Table 8.3.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to selection of our preferred site Ref 8.3.15 Objections, issues and concerns One of the shortlisted sites is more suitable; qualified support for the shortlisted London Borough of Wandsworth Depot site (site 2); it has slightly greater archaeological potential than the preferred site, but will otherwise have a similar impact on heritage assets. Respondent ID EH No. 1 Our response Our re-assessment of sites prior to phase two consultation and our review of phase two consultation comments does not support the use of the LBW Depot as our preferred site. The LBW Depot is less suitable than our preferred site because of the effects construction activities would have on the operational LBW Depot site. It would be difficult to find a suitable alternative location for this facility. For further details on the results of the site selection process, including our assessment of shortlisted sites, refer to appendix E of the Phase two scheme development report.
Shortlisted sites
8.3.16 No feedback comments were received in relation to the shortlisted sites.
8.4
8.4.1
Alternative sites
During the phase two consultation, respondents were invited to suggest alternative sites that they thought should be used to intercept the Frogmore Storm Relief Bell Lane Creek CSO and to drive the Frogmore connection tunnel to King Georges Park and Carnwath Road Riverside instead of Dormay Street (see question 3 of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation). No alternative sites were suggested at phase two consultation. Respondents made the following comments in relation to the availability and identification of alternative sites: Supportive and neutral feedback comments Table 8.4.1 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the availability and identification of alternative sites Ref 8.4.3 Supportive and neutral comments Respondent ID No. 1 Our response Your support is welcomed and noted.
8.4.2
No alternative site is available; Thames 7404 Water has done its best to survey alternative sites.
8-4
8 Dormay Street
Objections, issues and concerns 8.4.4 No objections, issues and concerns were raised in relation to the availability and identification of alternative sites.
8.5
8.5.1 8.5.2
Management of construction works

This section sets out feedback comments received during the phase two consultation in relation to the management of construction works at Dormay Street. This includes the identification of site specific issues arising from construction activities and proposals to address the effects of these issues. During the phase two consultation, respondents were asked whether the site information paper had identified the right key issues associated with Dormay Street during construction and the ways to address these issues (see questions 4a and 4b of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation). The first part 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 8.5.1 and 8.5.2. Tables 8.5.3 to 8.5.19 detail the feedback comments received in relation to this site. It should be noted that not all respondents who provided feedback comments confirmed whether the right issues and the ways to address those issues had been identified. Table 8.5.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right key issues in the site information paper? (Q4a) Respondent type Statutory consultees Local authorities Landowners Community consultees Petitions Total Number of respondents Total 0 0 0 7 0 7 4 1 2 4 1 2 Yes No Dont know/unsure
Table 8.5.2 Do you agree that we have identified the right way to address the key issues? (Q4b) Respondent type Statutory consultees Local authorities Landowners Community consultees Petitions Total Number of respondents Total 0 0 0 7 0 7 6 0 1 6 1 Yes No Dont know/unsure
8-5
8 Dormay Street
8.5.3
The following sections set out the feedback comments received from respondents in connection with the identification of key issues associated with Dormay Street during construction 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 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 comments in relation to the identified key issues 8.5.4 8.5.5 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 No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to general 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 8.5.6 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to general comments on the measures proposed to address the key issues during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues Table 8.5.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during construction Ref 8.5.7 Objections, issues and concerns Construction impacts must be minimised at every stage of construction. Respondent ID GLA No. 1 Our response We have sought to avoid or eliminate potential effects wherever possible, both by developing robust technical solutions to potential issues such as odour, and through our proposals for the permanent site design and layout. We are also developing a Code of construction practice (CoCP) which will set out how we will manage our construction sites to minimise disruption to nearby communities. Measures proposed to address potential likely significant effects are being further developed and Outcome N
8-6
8 Dormay Street
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns
Respondent ID
No.
Our response Outcome considered as part of the environmental impact assessment. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application.
Air quality and odour

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to air quality and odour 8.5.8 8.5.9 8.5.10 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to air quality and odour during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to air quality and odour during construction. Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour 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 8.5.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour during construction Ref 8.5.11 Objections, issues and concerns The GLA and London Council's Best Practice Guidance (BPG) The control of dust and emissions from construction and demolition should be implemented. Respondent ID GLA No. 1 Our response We can confirm that the Best Practice Guidance has been taken into account in developing our proposals for this site. Our draft CoCP sets out measures for managing our works as well as details of the various regulatory regimes and guidance that we would need to comply with, such as the Control of Pollution Act 1974, the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, the Mayor of London's Ambient Noise Strategy 2004 and The control of dust and emissions from construction and demolition - Best Practice Guidance 2008, as well as various British Standards. Outcome N
Construction working hours and programme

8.5.12 No feedback comments were received in relation to construction working hours and programme.
Construction site design and layout

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to construction site design and layout 8.5.13 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to construction site design and layout. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction site design and layout Table 8.5.5 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction site design and layout Ref 8.5.14 Objections, issues and concerns Extent of construction site - any agreement in principle to transfer land should be for the minimum area necessary. Respondent ID LBW No. 1 Our response Outcome
The construction site layout has been developed to minimise N the site area and therefore the requirement for use/transfer of land.
8-7
8 Dormay Street
Ref 8.5.15
Objections, issues and concerns There should be a 5m exclusion from the bridge to the flood defence.
Respondent ID EA
No. 1
Our response We are continuing to develop the design of our proposed bailey bridge including investigating pile foundations that would ensure weight placed on the flood defence walls is within acceptable tolerances, and will do this in liaison with the Environment Agency.
Outcome N
Suggestions for construction site design and layout 8.5.16 No suggestions were received in relation to construction site design and layout.
Historic environment
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the historic environment 8.5.17 8.5.18 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 No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to the historic environment during construction. Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effect on the historic environment Table 8.5.6 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effect on the historic environment during construction Ref 8.5.19 Supportive and neutral comments Mitigation proposed to address the issues is satisfactory including the approach to buried heritage assets. Respondent ID EH No. 1 Our response Your comment is noted. Outcome N
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address historic environment issues Table 8.5.7 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address historic environment issues during construction Ref 8.5.20 Objections, issues and concerns More information is needed on historic environment mitigation, once a desk-based archaeological assessment and an assessment of the impact of the development on the listed building and the conservation area and their settings have been completed. Respondent ID EH No. 1 Our response An assessment of the likely significant effects on the historic environment is being completed as a part of our environmental impact assessment. We are consulting with English Heritage as a part of this process. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. Additionally, our draft CoCP provided at phase two consultation sets out a range of measures to safeguard the historic environment during construction. Such measures include confirmation that works close to listed buildings will be undertaken in accordance with all requirements set out in the Development Consent Order (DCO) and that protection measures, as required, will be put in place at the start of the works. We will also notify English Heritage and the LBW prior to undertaking works and will continue to engage with them closely on the planning of the works. Outcome N
8-8
8 Dormay Street
Land quality and contamination

8.5.21 No feedback comments were received in relation to land quality and contamination during construction.
Lighting
8.5.22 No feedback comments were received in relation to lighting during construction.
Natural environment (aquatic)

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) 8.5.23 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) Table 8.5.8 Objections, issues and concerns relating to the natural environment (aquatic) during construction Ref 8.5.24 8.5.25 Objections, issues and concerns Effect of noise on local wildlife, including migratory aquatic species. Effect on fish, particularly brown/sea trout and eel, from intervention in Bell Lane Creek. Effect of vibration of local wildlife, including migratory aquatic species. Respondent ID 8846 EA, 8846 No. 1 2 Our response Outcome
8.5.26
8846
Our preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects N on wildlife associated with the construction of the tunnel is set out in our PEIR (volume 11, section 5) which considered N the effects (including vibration) of the proposed development on aquatic ecology, including fish, in relation to Bell Lane Creek. At this site it would be necessary to construct a Bailey bridge to provide access between the two parts of the N site. The bridge would likely require a number of piles in the creek to optimise the span. It may also be necessary to strengthen the river wall. The project has been designed to minimise effects on wildlife and habitats where possible and, where likely significant effects have been identified, mitigation has been built into the design. The significance of effects of the development on aquatic habitats will be assessed and reported in the Environmental statement that will be submitted as part of the DCO application. The CoCP that will be submitted with the application will ensure that works would be undertaken in compliance with applicable legislation and relevant nature conservation policies and guidance, including the Mayor of Londons Biodiversity strategy and local biodiversity action plans. Where species are protected by specific legislation, approved guidance would be followed, appropriate mitigation proposed and any necessary licences or consents obtained.
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) 8.5.27 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. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) Table 8.5.9 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) during construction Ref 8.5.28 Objections, issues and concerns The Wandle Trust suggests two ways of mitigating potential impacts on migratory aquatic species and brown/sea trout and Respondent ID 8846 No. 1 Our response As part of our PEIR (volume 11, section 5) we assessed the likely significant construction effects, including vibration, of the proposed development at the Bell Lane Creek site on Outcome N
8-9
8 Dormay Street
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns eel: (i) undertake construction at a time of year that will minimise impact on species migration; and (ii) remove the Bell Lane sluice and associated weir to offset any impacts and enhance longer-term migration of these species.
Respondent ID
No.
Our response aquatic ecology, including fish. At this site it would be necessary to construct a Bailey bridge to provide access between the two parts of the site. The bridge would span the creek and is unlikely to require piles in the creek; however, it may also be necessary to strengthen the river wall. Many of the likely significant effects would be controlled through measures set out in our draft CoCP. We acknowledge that this is a preliminary assessment. We are preparing a full aquatic ecology assessment for submission within the Environmental statement as part of our DCO application. Ecological improvement opportunities for mitigation and enhancement will be set out in the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application.
Outcome
Natural environment (terrestrial)

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) 8.5.29 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 8.5.10 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction Ref 8.5.30 8.5.31 Objections, issues and concerns General effect of construction activities on local wildlife. Effect on bird habitats. Respondent ID 8681 8681 No. 1 1 Our response Outcome
Our preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects N on wildlife associated with the construction of the tunnel is set out in our PEIR (volume 11, section 6), which sets out N the effects on notable species, including bats and birds, and their habitats. The project has been designed to minimise likely significant effects on wildlife and habitats where possible and, where effects have been identified, mitigation has been built into the design. The significance of effects will be assessed and reported in the Environmental statement that will be submitted as part of the application. The CoCP that will be submitted with the application will ensure that works would be undertaken in compliance with applicable legislation and relevant nature conservation policies and guidance, including the Mayor of Londons Biodiversity strategy and local biodiversity action plans. Where species are protected by specific legislation, approved guidance would be followed, appropriate mitigation proposed and any necessary licences or consents obtained. We consider that we have undertaken a thorough and N comprehensive consultation exercise. We carefully considered the information we made available at our phase two consultation to ensure that consultees had sufficient information to respond to the consultation. This included our PEIR (volume 11, section 6), which sets out our initial assessment of likely significant effects on the
8.5.32
More information is needed on the effect of construction activities on the natural environment.
LR9491
8-10
8 Dormay Street
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response terrestrial ecology habitats and notable species of construction site activities comprising site mobilisation, including clearance activities, noise, vibration and lighting as a result of piling, ground excavation and construction traffic movements and the use of construction machinery, works within the foreshore and 24-hour tunnelling during the connection tunnel excavation. The proposals set out in our draft CoCP are included in the assessment. An assessment of the likely significant effects on the natural environment is being completed as a part of our environmental impact assessment. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. We are confident therefore that the information we have provided is sufficient.
Outcome
8.5.33
Should consider the importance of any existing buildings for protected species.
LR9447
Our preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects N on wildlife associated with the construction of the tunnel are set out in our PEIR (volume 11, section 6), which identifies the existing buildings on the site in terms of potential habitats. The significance of the effects of the development on habitats will be assessed and reported in the Environmental statement that will be submitted as part of our DCO application.
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) 8.5.34 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 8.5.11 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction Ref 8.5.35 Objections, issues and concerns Locate construction activities within the site to avoid sensitive and designated areas. Respondent ID LR9491 No. 1 Our response All construction activities would be contained within our proposed construction site. The proposed temporary bridge would span the creek and would be unlikely to require piles in the creek. It is not anticipated that construction would affect any other sensitive or designated areas nearby and we would comply with the provisions of the draft CoCP. We have already completed a range of surveys at this site as detailed in the PEIR (volume 11, section 6). Where our methodology for the Environmental statement, which has been agreed with the LBW, identifies the need for further surveys we will ensure that these are completed prior to submission of our DCO application. If our assessment of effects identifies the need for further site surveys prior to the commencement of construction they would be undertaken in accordance with all relevant guidelines and best practice. Outcome N
8.5.36
Undertake site surveys prior to the commencement of construction to identify sensitive species and habitats.
LBW
8-11
8 Dormay Street
Ref 8.5.37 8.5.38
Objections, issues and concerns Retention of other vegetation/habitat (buffer zone) during construction. Adopt suitable measures in the CoCP to avoid potential effects on the natural environment. Other natural environment mitigation included: - maximise opportunities to enhance biodiversity through an effective mitigation package - should take steps to secure the long-term protection of any protected species which may be impacted.
Respondent ID LBW LBW
No. 1 1
Our response
Outcome
8.5.39
LR9447, LR9491
The construction requirements for this site require the N removal of trees mainly on the north side of Bell Lane Creek. Details of proposed mitigation measures and initial ecology N surveys for the site were set out in the PEIR (volume 11, section 6) as part of our phase two consultation. Our PEIR also identifies that the likely significant effects on terrestrial ecology would be minor and recommends replacement tree N planting to re-provide ecological habitats. As we have completed our surveys we have confirmed the presence or absence of species and habitats and developed mitigation measures as necessary. An assessment of the likely significant effects on the natural environment is being completed as a part of our environmental impact assessment. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. We have produced a draft CoCP which sets out a range of measures that would be implemented to control and limit disturbance to safeguard habitats and vegetation during construction. Our contractor would be required to comply with the provisions of the CoCP.
Noise and vibration

8.5.40 No feedback comments were received in relation to noise and vibration during construction.
Open space and recreation

8.5.41 No feedback comments were received in relation to open space and recreation during construction.
Planning and development

8.5.42 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 8.5.43 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to socio-economic effects during construction.
8-12
8 Dormay Street
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects Table 8.5.12 Objections, issues and concerns relating to socio-economic effects during construction Ref 8.5.44 Objections, issues and concerns Detrimental effect on business operations. Respondent ID GLA No. 1 Our response As detailed in our PEIR (volume 11, section 10) the construction works would result in the temporary displacement of part of the LBWs civic amenity operations which operate from the northern and south western parts of the site. The magnitude of this impact is greatly limited by the fact that the LBW has acquired land together with Thames Water for the temporary relocation of part of the operations. Our approach to designing this site would also ensure that the LBW's operations are not compromised. Therefore the effects of the construction works are considered to be negligible. We will continue to discuss our proposals with the LBW to ensure that any design changes do not have a detrimental effect. Outcome N
Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects 8.5.45 8.5.46 No supportive or neutral 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 No objections, issues or concerns received in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects during construction.
Structures and utilities

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to structures and utilities 8.5.47 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 8.5.13 Objections, issues and concerns relating to structures and utilities during construction Ref 8.5.48 Objections, issues and concerns It is not clear what the scale of the effect will be; the assessment to date is very vague in particular in relation to the effects on settlement on the river wall and flood defences. Respondent ID EA No. 1 Our response Our PEIR (volume 11, section 10) sets out our preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of noise and vibration. In relation to vibration, the assessment considers events which have the potential to result in damage to buildings or structures and human response to vibration, based on the 'worst case' conditions that may arise during vibration intense activities within the site compound. The preliminary assessment concludes that it is unlikely that there would be any significant effects from vibration associated with our works. We will undertake an assessment of the impact of our works on the stability of the river wall and flood defences and, where necessary, we will provide strengthening to ensure the walls integrity is maintained. The assessment will be undertaken to industry best practice guidelines and to meet the approval of the Environment Agency and other relevant stakeholders. Outcome N
8-13
8 Dormay Street
Ref 8.5.49
Objections, issues and concerns Bell Lane sluice and the associated weir.
Respondent ID 8846
No. 1
Our response The project is aware of the weight restrictions along the bridge at The Causeway. We have undertaken further work to understand the weight restrictions and have concluded that it is unlikely that they would be exceeded. Therefore, there would be no need for structural reinforcements to the bridge.
Outcome N
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities 8.5.50 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 8.5.14 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities during construction Ref 8.5.51 Objections, issues and concerns Structural reinforcements are required to Bell Lane sluice and the associated weir. Respondent ID 8846 No. 1 Our response The project is aware of the weight restrictions along the bridge at The Causeway. We have undertaken further work to understand the weight restrictions and have concluded that it is unlikely that they would be exceeded. Therefore, there would be no need for structural reinforcements to the bridge. Outcome N
Townscape and visual

8.5.52 No feedback comments were received in relation to townscape and visual effects during construction.
Transport and access

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to transport and access Table 8.5.15 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to transport and access during construction Ref 8.5.53 8.5.54 Supportive and neutral comments Support proposed use of barges to transport materials. Shared site access is acceptable. Respondent ID LBW LBW No. 1 1 Our response Your support is noted, however, we wish to clarify that we do not propose to use barges to transport materials to and from this site. Your support is noted and welcomed.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access Table 8.5.16 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access during construction Ref 8.5.55 Objections, issues and concerns Construction traffic will cause traffic congestion, particularly on Armoury Way (A217). Respondent ID GLA No. 1 Our response Access to this site is proposed via West Hill/Wandsworth High Street (A3), which links to Armoury Way (A217), as illustrated in the Dormay Street site information paper. We are reviewing the proposed routes that construction traffic would use as part of our on-going development of proposals for this site and preparation of our transport assessment. If the transport assessment identifies any potential likely significant effects arising from congestion, we will develop mitigation measures to minimise the effects of any Outcome N
8-14
8 Dormay Street
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response disruption, or possible junction improvements. In addition, we will be looking at cumulative impacts of transport volumes from other developments in the area as part of our environmental impact assessment. We are also developing a CoCP (a draft was provided as part of our phase two consultation), which will include requirements for a Traffic management plan to ensure that construction traffic is carefully controlled to minimise any potential likely significant effects on the road network, including access to the local area, as well as setting out construction traffic routes, site access/egress points, signage and monitoring procedures. As part of our PEIR (volume 11, section 12) we assessed the construction transport effects on pedestrian and cycle routes; bus and other public transport routes and patronage; parking; and highway layout, operation and capacity as well as the effects on residential amenity. As part of the assessment we have considered the effects of lorry and (where applicable) barge transport, based on a methodology that has been discussed and agreed with the LBW and Transport for London (TfL). We acknowledge that this is a preliminary assessment. We are preparing a full Transport assessment for submission as part of our DCO application. The Transport assessment will consider the cumulative effects of our works with other strategic developments in the local area and will be submitted as a part of our Environmental statement with our DCO application. We are aware of the existing weight restriction on The Causeway and this route would be used by light vehicles only.
Outcome
8.5.56
Existing weight restrictions on local roads and/or bridges will restrict their use by construction vehicles. Effect of construction traffic on road safety.
LBW
8.5.57
GLA
We will design site accesses and operate all of our N construction sites to ensure that they meet design, health and safety standards. We are developing a CoCP (a draft of which was provided as part of our phase two consultation), which will include requirements for a Traffic management plan to be prepared to ensure that construction traffic is carefully controlled to minimise any potential likely significant effects on the road network, including access to the local area, as well as setting out construction traffic routes, site access/egress points, signage and monitoring procedures. There will be a requirement to ensure the proposals do not endanger safe school access, where appropriate. The transport assessment will also review data relating to recent accidents. The proposals will be subject to independent external review by TfL and the local highway authority to ensure proposed highway layouts and vehicle movement arrangements are as safe as possible.
8-15
8 Dormay Street
Ref 8.5.58
Objections, issues and concerns Cumulative transport effects arising from other developments in the local area.
Respondent ID LBW
No. 1
Our response As part of our PEIR (volume 11, section 12) we assessed the construction transport effects on pedestrian and cycle routes; bus and other public transport routes and patronage; parking; and highway layout, operation and capacity as well as the effects on residential amenity. As part of the assessment we have considered the effects of lorry and (where applicable) barge transport, based on a methodology that has been discussed and agreed with the LBW and TfL. The PEIR was available as part of our phase two consultation. We acknowledge that this is a preliminary assessment. We are preparing a full Transport assessment for submission as part of our DCO application. The Transport assessment will consider the cumulative effects of our works with other strategic developments in the local area.
Outcome N
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access 8.5.59 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 8.5.17 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access during construction Ref 8.5.60 Objections, issues and concerns Complete a transport assessment. Respondent ID LBW No. 1 Our response We are preparing a Transport assessment that will be submitted as a part of our DCO application. This will include a detailed analysis of potential access routes and an assessment of the likely significant effects of construction traffic on local roads, together with mitigation that is required to minimise disruption resulting from our site traffic. We will work closely with TfL, the LBW, local residents and other interested groups to minimise the effects of traffic movements to and from the site. Outcome N
8.5.61
Use the river to transport more/all 8492, LR13375, LR9236 construction materials and spoil by means of conveyor belts to barges at Feathers Wharf. Despite the close proximity of a safeguarded wharf at Smugglers Way. This is a significant omission and steps should be taken to actively pursue this option. Use the river rather than roads to transport construction materials and excavated material, including consolidation centres at nearby barge/rail served sites; Smugglers Way Wharf. Use rail to transport materials including consolidation centres at nearby barge/rail GLA, LBW, 8535, 8978
8.5.62
8.5.63
GLA
As detailed in our site information paper, where practical and N cost-effective we will transport materials by barge. However, transporting materials by barge is not considered viable at this site because Bell Lane Creek is not suitable for efficient use of barges and the site is not adjacent or close to a suitable rail head. Therefore, it would be necessary to convey materials by road to a suitable nearby wharf or rail head. N However, nearer the time of construction we will consider whether there are any opportunities for further use of river transport as part of the project, and our contractor could also propose further use of the river to transport materials or consolidation centres. N With regard to any junction modifications, we are reviewing
8-16
8 Dormay Street
Ref 8.5.64
Objections, issues and concerns served sites. Other transport and access mitigation comments included: - Investigate the potential for transhipment from sites with no proposed barge movements
- negotiate with Cory Environmental Ltd
Respondent ID GLA, LBW
No. 2
regarding the use of Western Riverside Waste Transfer Station for the transhipment of spoil by barge; ensure there is no conflict with LBW Depot traffic
- agree modifications to the design of the
Our response the proposed routes that construction traffic would use as part of our on-going development of proposals for this site and preparation of our transport assessment. If the transport assessment identifies any potential effects arising from congestion we will develop mitigation measures to minimise the likely significant effects of any disruption, which may include bringing the majority of materials in and out of the site during non-peak periods or possible junction improvements at the Dormay Street/Armoury Way junction.
Outcome N
Dormay Street/Armoury Way junction with TfL.
Water and flood risk

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to water and flood risk 8.5.65 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 8.5.18 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to water and flood risk during construction Ref 8.5.66 Objections, issues and concerns Effect on flood risk, it may be necessary to provide compensatory flood storage. Respondent ID EA No. 1 Our response Our PEIR (volume 11, section 15) sets out a preliminary assessment of likely significant effects on flood risk (level one) in line with the requirements of national policy and considers flooding from the sea (and tidal sources); rivers; land and surface water runoff; and groundwater. As set out in our PEIR, the site is in flood zone 3 where there is a high probability of flood risk. However, our modelling to date indicates that neither the temporary works nor the operational project would affect flood risk and therefore we do not believe that it would be necessary to provide compensatory flood storage at this site. A level two flood risk assessment will be presented in the Environmental statement as part of our DCO application and will identify any appropriate mitigation. As our designs develop we will continue to review the construction effects on flood risk and to discuss our proposals with the Environment Agency. Outcome N
8.5.67
Proposals will result in river erosion and scour associated with any piling required to construct a Bailey bridge to span across Bell Lane Creek. The proposed temporary access bridge
EA
8.5.68
EA
Your comments are noted and we will consider the effects of N the proposed temporary structures on the river. If appropriate, as part of our design development we will consider whether there are alternative options to avoid temporary structures in the river. N
8-17
8 Dormay Street
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns across Bell Lane Creek from The Causeway site to Dormay Street will have an impact on flows and conveyance and that this will also need to be examined through hydraulic modelling, as further work required for the Environmental statement.
Respondent ID
No.
Our response
Outcome
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk 8.5.69 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 Table 8.5.19 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk during construction Ref 8.5.70 Objections, issues and concerns Improve the flood defences and also use opportunity for mitigation through retreating the flood defence line and creating tidal terraces Other water mitigation including: - minimise scour effects by either avoiding in channel structures which reduce conveyance and/or adversely affect hydraulics. If this is not possible, then any structures should be minimised to reduce impact, rather than reliance on mitigation through hard engineering techniques such as gabions - mitigation for any losses in floodplain storage on a no net loss basis - removal of Bell Lane Sluice and associated weir is also likely to significantly reduce the flood risk at the site and so could be part of a mitigation strategy for flooding. Respondent ID EA No. 1 Our response We anticipate that we would need to undertake strengthening works to the river wall. However, the land will be handed back to the LBW for use as a depot after our works are complete. Due to the constrained nature of the site, there is no opportunity to retreat the flood defence line. We would need to undertake some temporary works in Bell Lane Creek to stabilise the river wall, but we would seek to minimise these works and mitigate the effect on hydraulics and scour as far as possible. Floodplain modelling to date indicates that neither the temporary works nor the permanent scheme would affect flood risk and therefore we do not believe that it would be necessary to provide compensatory flood storage. The Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application will set out a full flood risk assessment including appropriate recommendations for mitigation in accordance with national policy. Outcome N
8.5.71
EA, 8846
8.6
8.6.1 8.6.2
Permanent design and appearance

This section sets out feedback comments received during the phase two consultation in relation to proposals for the permanent design and appearance of structures at Dormay Street that are required for the operation of the tunnel when it is in use (the operational phase). During the phase two consultation, respondents were asked to give their views on the identification of site specific issues that have influenced proposals for the permanent design of Dormay Street (please see question 5 of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation). The first part of question 5 asked respondents to select whether they agree, disagree or dont know/unsure. Where respondents completed this part of the question, the results are set out in the table below.
8-18
8 Dormay Street
Table 8.6.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right issues that have influenced our permanent design for this site? (Q5) Respondent type Statutory consultees Local authorities Landowners Community consultees Petitions Total 8.6.3 Number of respondents Total 0 0 0 6 0 6 5 1 0 5 1 Yes No Dont know/unsure
As part of the phase two consultation, respondents were also asked to comment on proposals for the permanent design and appearance of Dormay Street (please see question 6 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 dont know/unsure. Where respondents completed this part of the question, the results are set out in the table below. Table 8.6.2 Please give us your views about our proposals for the permanent design and appearance of the site (Q6) Respondent type Statutory consultees Local authorities Landowners Community consultees Petitions Total Number of respondents Total 0 0 0 6 0 6 4 1 1 4 1 1 Supportive Opposed Dont know/unsure
8.6.4 8.6.5
The following tables set out the comments received from respondents in connection with proposals for the permanent design and appearance of Dormay Street. It should be noted that not all respondents who provided feedback comments responded to the first part of questions 5 and 6. Feedback comments are organised under the following sub-headings: supportive and neutral feedback comments objections, issues and concerns design suggestions.
8.6.6
Where respondents commented on matters arising during the operational phase and the management of these effects (whether through design or by other means), these comments are reported in Section 8.7. Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site Table 8.6.3 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site Ref 8.6.7 Supportive and neutral comments The design/proposals are OK/fine/ acceptable. Respondent ID (LR)CABE No. 1 Our response Your comments are noted and welcomed.
8-19
8 Dormay Street
Ref 8.6.8 8.6.9 8.6.10
Supportive and neutral comments The design/proposals are good. Support the inclusion of biodiverse roof/ habitat wall. Other supportive comments: you have to do what is necessary for the benefit of all concerned.
Respondent ID 7404, 8846 LBW 7404
No. 2 1 1
Our response
Your comment is noted.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site Table 8.6.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site Ref 8.6.11 Objections, issues and concerns Need more information on design proposals including details of the parking area and the location of the existing Thames Water big black box relative to the new proposals. Respondent ID 8681 No. 1 Our response Details of our proposed site layout were provided in our site information paper. It is our understanding that the LBW intends to use the site as a depot following construction and we are currently liaising with them to discuss and agree the details of how this would be set out. Outcome N
Design suggestions
Table 8.6.5 Design suggestions Ref 8.6.12 Design suggestions Minimise/reduce the size of the area of the permanent site. Respondent ID 8492 No. 1 Our response Outcome
The drop shaft and the associated chambers and connection N culvert are laid out in accordance with the engineering requirements for intercepting the CSO and the technical constraints of the site, as detailed in our site information paper. The positioning also follows guidance from the LBW regarding the continued use of the maintenance depot and reducing the impact on its operations. As set out in the Site selection methodology paper, the layout of the permanent works would not interfere with the councils existing operations and would accommodate the councils proposed plans to expand the maintenance depot to encompass the northern end of Dormay Street. Your comments are noted and where appropriate will be taken into consideration in developing our proposals for this site. Design proposals for this site must, however, be compatible with its continued use as a maintenance depot. We are currently considering the provision of a new 4m wide strip on the south side of Bell Lane Creek from Dormay St to The Causeway, as required by the planning policies for the area set out in the adopted LBW Site Specific Allocations document. N
8.6.13
Design should allow the site to be used for other purposes once works associated with the Thames Tunnel project are complete.
8492
8.6.14
Improve or create new footpaths and cycle ways as part of the design, including a new riverside walk (4m wide) from the south side of Bell Lane Creek to Causeway Island. Proposals should use high quality materials and finishes. Design should include: - soft space for wildlife and in order to reduce the area of surface water runoff; include some tidal terraces
- capacity to accommodate change.
LBW, LR9154
8.6.15 8.6.16
8681 (LR)CABE, 8846
1 2
N C
8-20
8 Dormay Street
Ref 8.6.17
Design suggestions Specific design amendments included: - new riverside walk 4m wide on the south side of Bell Lane Creek from Dormay Street to The Causeway and position the electrical kiosk to allow for this; proposed bridge from Dormay Street to The Causeway should be left in place to provide permanent access to Causeway Island
- habitat creation opportunities for
Respondent ID EA, LBW, LR9491
No. 3
Our response
Outcome C
biodiversity and fish are high at this site. If any river-wall alterations or rebuilding is required, then reference to the Estuary Edges guidance provided by us should inform any new flood defence or river wall designs. 8.6.18 Designs should be environmentally friendly/ sustainable. LR9491 1 We agree that our development should be environmentally friendly and we have incorporated a brown roof on the flat area of the ventilation building roof to encourage biodiversity. Following completion of construction works, we expect that the site would continue to be used as a maintenance depot. The council also has plans to expand the maintenance depot to encompass the northern end of Dormay Street. We have incorporated a brown roof on the flat area of the ventilation building roof to encourage biodiversity. We are preparing a full aquatic ecology assessment for submission within the Environmental statement as part of our DCO application. Ecological improvement opportunities for mitigation and enhancement will be set out in the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application and this may include fendering. N
8.6.19
Other design mitigation included: - some indication has been given as to the after use of construction sites, these aspects should be kept under review to reflect needs and opportunities as they appear on completion of works, which in some cases would be ten years from now
- add further enhancements to the river wall
GLA, LBW
to provide biodiversity habitats in the form of fendering or similar.
8.7
8.7.1 8.7.2
Management of operational effects

This section sets out feedback comments received during the phase two consultation in relation to the management of operational effects at Dormay Street. This includes the identification of site specific issues associated with the site once it is operational and proposals to address the effects of these issues. During the phase two consultation, respondents were asked whether the site information paper had identified the right key issues associated with Dormay Street once the site is 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 dont know/unsure. Where respondents completed this part of the question, the results are set out in tables 8.7.1 and 8.7.2. Tables 8.7.3 to 8.7.14 detail the feedback comments received in relation to this site. It should be noted that not all respondents who provided feedback comments confirmed whether the right issues and the ways to address those issues had been identified.
8-21
8 Dormay Street
Table 8.7.1 Q7a: Do you agree that we have identified the right key issues in the site information paper? (Q7a) Respondent type Statutory consultees Local authorities Landowners Community consultees Petitions Total Number of respondents Total 0 0 0 6 0 6 5 0 1 5 1 Yes No Dont know/unsure
Table 8.7.2 Do you agree that we have identified the right way to address the key issues? (Q7b) Respondent type Statutory consultees Local authorities Landowners Community consultees Petitions Total 8.7.3 Number of respondents Total 0 0 0 5 0 5 5 0 0 5 Yes No Dont know/unsure
The following sections set out the feedback comments received from respondents in connection with the identification of key issues associated with Dormay Street once the tunnel is operational. Feedback comments are organised under common themes. The themes are: General themes: General feedback comments on the key issues General feedback comments on measures to address the key issues
Topic based themes Air quality and odour Historic environment Land quality and contamination Lighting Natural environment (aquatic) Natural environment (terrestrial) Noise and vibration Open space and recreation Planning and development Socio-economic Structures and utilities Townscape and visual Transport and access Water and flood risk
8-22
8 Dormay Street
General feedback comments on the identified key issues

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the identified key issues 8.7.4 8.7.5 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to general comments on the key issues during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the identified key issues No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to general comments on the key issues during operation.
General comments on measures proposed to address the key issues

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address key issues raised Table 8.7.3 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during operation Ref 8.7.6 Supportive and neutral comments Measures to address potential issues are satisfactory. Respondent ID 7404 No. 1 Our response Your comment is noted and welcomed.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address key issues raised 8.7.7 No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to general comments on the measures proposed to address the key issues during operation.
Air quality and odour

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to air quality and odour Table 8.7.4 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to air quality and odour during operation Ref 8.7.8 Supportive and neutral comments Proposals will ensure that odour is satisfactorily managed. Respondent ID GLA No. 1 Our response Your support is noted and welcomed.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour Table 8.7.5 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour during operation Ref 8.7.9 Objections, issues and concerns Effect of odour arising from operation of the tunnel. Respondent ID (LR)CCW No. 1 Our response Outcome
Our preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of N odour associated with operation of the tunnel are set out in our PEIR (volume 11, section 4), which concludes that when the tunnel is operational no significant effects are predicted in relation to odour. The ventilation facilities would be designed to minimise the release of untreated air from the tunnel system and approximately 99 percent of the time during the average year air released from the tunnel would be treated and would not have any odours. This arrangement meets the Environment Agencys odour criteria. When the tunnel is empty the ventilation system would be operated so as to maintain a pressure lower than atmospheric pressure, which would prevent air leaving the tunnel. This would be achieved by extracting air at specific active ventilation facilities which are currently proposed at our sites at Acton Storm Tanks, Carnwath Road Riverside,
8-23
8 Dormay Street
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response Outcome Greenwich Pumping Station and Abbey Mills Pumping Station where the air would be treated before being released through a high ventilation column. When the tunnel fills with sewage the air path throughout the tunnel would gradually be lost and air would be displaced by the rising sewage levels. This air would pass through passive filters where it would be treated before being released. The maintenance regime would not alter the operation of the ventilation system.
Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour 8.7.10 No supportive or neutral 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 8.7.6 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour during operation Ref 8.7.11 Objections, issues and concerns Install equipment to monitor air quality and odour effects. Respondent ID GLA No. 1 Our response Use of air quality monitoring of equipment is proposed during the operation of the tunnel as set out in the Air management plan. Outcome N
Historic environment
8.7.12 No feedback comments were received in relation to the historic environment during operation.
Land quality and contamination

8.7.13 No feedback comments were received in relation to land quality and contamination during operation.
Lighting
8.7.14 No feedback comments were received in relation to lighting during operation.
Natural environment (aquatic)

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) 8.7.15 8.7.16 8.7.17 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) during operation. Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) Table8.7.7 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) during operation Ref 8.7.18 Objections, issues and concerns Provision of compensation habitat including an impounding structure in Bell Lane Creek would be the best area to intervene to Respondent ID EA No. 1 Our response As part of our PEIR (volume 11, section 5) we assessed the likely significant operational effects of the proposed development on aquatic ecology, including fish, in relation to Outcome N
8-24
8 Dormay Street
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns improve fish migration into the River Wandle.
Respondent ID
No.
Our response Bell Lane Creek. We acknowledge that this is a preliminary assessment. We are preparing a full aquatic ecology assessment for submission with the Environmental statement as part of our DCO application. Opportunities for ecological improvement and enhancement as well as recommendations for mitigation will be set out in the Environmental statement. We are considering compensation for the loss of habitat at a project-wide level.
Outcome
Natural environment (terrestrial)

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) Table 8.7.8 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation Ref 8.7.19 Supportive and neutral comments Support efforts to minimise the long-term impacts to biodiversity and secure improvements. Respondent ID LR9491 No. 1 Our response Your comment is noted and welcomed.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) 8.7.20 8.7.21 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) No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) Table 8.7.9 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation Ref 8.7.22 Objections, issues and concerns Other vegetation/habitat must be retained/ protected during construction. Provision of compensation habitat; put nesting and roosting boxes up. Respondent ID 9415 No. 1 Our response The existing site is an operational LBW Depot with limited vegetation/habitat. Any vegetation within Bell Lane Creek would be preserved where possible. As stated in para 6.1.3 of our PEIR (volume 11, section 6), significant operational effects on terrestrial ecology as a result of the tunnel operation and the infrequent maintenance visits are not anticipated therefore this has not been assessed. A full assessment will be presented in our Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. This will consider the likely significant effects of the development based on a methodology set out in our PEIR. Outcome N
8.7.23
7404
8.7.24
Maximise opportunities to enhance biodiversity through an effective mitigation package.
LR9491
Details of proposed mitigation measures and initial ecology N surveys were set out in the PEIR (volume 11, section 6) for the site as part of our phase two consultation. As completion of our surveys has taken place we are confirming the presence or absence of species and habitats and developing mitigation measures as necessary. A range of
8-25
8 Dormay Street
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response Outcome measures that would be implemented to control and limit disturbance, and relevant measures will be assessed in our Environmental statement that will be submitted as part of our DCO application. All permanent works will be located within the defined site boundary. N
8.7.25
Locate permanent works within the site to avoid sensitive and designated areas.
LR9491
Noise and vibration

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to noise and vibration 8.7.26 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 8.7.10 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration during operation Ref 8.7.27 Objections, issues and concerns It is not clear what the scale of operational noise and vibration effects will be, the assessment to date is very vague. Respondent ID 8681 No. 1 Our response Outcome
Our PEIR (volume 11, section 9) sets out a preliminary N assessment of the likely significant operational noise and vibration effects of the proposed project. No significant effects were identified, subject to appropriate noise control measures for equipment to ensure the targets in BS4142 are met. Therefore we do not expect any effect on occupiers of users of adjacent or nearby properties, businesses or facilities, or on any sensitive structures of equipment. The Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application will provide a full assessment of likely significant noise and vibration effects.
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration 8.7.28 8.7.29 No supportive or neutral comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration issues operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration during operation.
Open space and recreation

8.7.30 No feedback comments were received in relation to open space and recreation during operation.
Planning and development

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to planning and development 8.7.31 8.7.32 8.7.33 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to planning and development during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to planning and development No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to planning and development during operation. Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on planning and development No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on planning and development during operation.
8-26
8 Dormay Street
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on planning and development Table 8.7.11 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to measures proposed to address the effects on planning and development during operation Ref 8.7.34 Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID No. 1 Our response The permanent layout and design of the site would not interfere with the existing operations of the LBW depot, and would accommodate proposed plans to expand the maintenance depot to encompass the northern end of Dormay Street. Outcome N
Work with site developer(s) to accommodate GLA the Thames Tunnel project and future development; specifically ensuring that the site is available for productive uses, which are likely to be industrial/storage/distribution.
Socio-economic
8.7.35 No feedback comments were received in relation to socio-economic effects during operation.
Structures and utilities

8.7.36 No feedback comments were received in relation to structures and utilities during operation.
Townscape and visual

8.7.37 No feedback comments were received in relation to townscape and visual effects during operation.
Transport and access

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to transport and access 8.7.38 8.7.39 8.7.40 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 No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to transport and access during operation. Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access 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 8.7.12 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access during operation Ref 8.7.41 Objections, issues and concerns Take the opportunity to create a new permanent footpath. Respondent ID 8729 No. 1 Our response We are looking at ways of setting out or site so as not to preclude creation of a footpath along the south bank of Bell Lane Creek in the future. Outcome C
Water and flood risk

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to water and flood risk 8.7.42 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 8.7.13 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to water and flood risk during operation Ref 8.7.43 Objections, issues and concerns Effect on flood risk; it may be necessary to provide compensatory flood storage. Respondent ID EA No. 1 Our response Our PEIR (volume 11, section 15) sets out a preliminary assessment of likely significant effects on flood risk (level one) in line with the requirements of national policy and Outcome N
8-27
8 Dormay Street
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response Outcome considers flooding from the sea (and tidal sources), rivers, land and surface water runoff, and groundwater. As set out in our PEIR, the site is in flood zone 3 where there is a high probability of flood risk. Our modelling to date indicates that the operational project would not require compensatory flood storage in this location. However, as our designs develop we will review the permanent effects on flood risk to determine any requirements for compensation for storage. A level two flood risk assessment will be presented in the Environmental statement to be submitted as part of our DCO application with recommendations for mitigation.
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk 8.7.44 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water during operation Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk Table 8.7.14 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk during operation Ref 8.7.45 Objections, issues and concerns Contain site run-off. Respondent ID 8846 No. 1 Our response We are preparing a flood risk assessment for the site that will consider the operational requirements for drainage and surface water run-off. The assessment will be completed in accordance with the guidance set out in national policy, and (if appropriate) will ensure that site run-off is contained. The flood risk assessment will be submitted within our Environmental statement as part of our DCO application. We will consider a SuDS solution as part of our drainage design and, if deemed practical, will incorporate it into our permanent works. Your comment is noted. Ecological improvement opportunities for mitigation and enhancement will be set out in the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. Outcome N
8.7.46
Incorporation of Sustainable Urban Drainage 8846 Systems (SuDS), use of permeable materials. Other water mitigation comments included: removal of the weir at Bell Lane Sluice would reduce flood risk and bring massive additional benefits for the River Wandle (reinforcement of the structure would mean that Thames Water would have to make it passable for fish and other aquatic species). 8846
8.7.47
8.8
8.8.1 8.8.2
Our view of the way forward

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 into account in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act 2008. In light of the feedback that we received, we believe that no new information has been highlighted that would change the conclusions of our site selection process to date. Dormay Street therefore remains our preferred site to intercept the Frogmore Storm Relief Bell Lane Creek CSO and drive the Frogmore connection tunnel southwards to King Georges Park and northwards to Carnwath Road Riverside, to connect the CSOs at Dormay Street and King Georges Park to the main tunnel. Additionally, no new information or issues have been identified that would fundamentally change our proposals for this site. Therefore we will continue to develop the proposals for this site that we published at phase two consultation.
8-28
8 Dormay Street
8.8.3
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 manage those 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 will continue to refine our detailed proposals for this site to improve the design and reduce the impacts on the local community and environment. We are currently considering the following changes to the layout and/or appearance of our proposals: relocating our permanent works, so that they are set by back 4m from Bell Lane Creek. This means that our proposals do not prejudice the potential future development of a riverside walkway redesigning our temporary bridge to remove the piles or supports in the Creek, so the bridge will now have a clear span temporary junction improvements at Armoury Way, Dormay Street and The Causeway to accommodate construction traffic.
8.8.4
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 consultation is 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 phase two 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 will progress with preparation of our application for a development consent order and will incorporate the changes referred to in paragraph 8.8.3 if further work demonstrates that this is appropriate. We intend to publicise our proposed application 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 accompanying documents.
8-29

Supp Report On P2 Consultation - Chapter 8 Dormay Street

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Supp Report On P2 Consultation - Chapter 8 Dormay Street

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

Thames Tunnel Supplementary report on phase two consultation

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

Structure of this chapter

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

8535, 8729, LR9154

8681 EH, GLA

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

Supportive and neutral comments the LBW Depot.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

Management of construction works

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

General feedback comments on the identified key issues

General feedback comments on measures to address the key issues

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

Objections, issues and concerns

Air quality and odour

Construction working hours and programme

Construction site design and layout

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

Land quality and contamination

Natural environment (aquatic)

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

Natural environment (terrestrial)

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

Objections, issues and concerns

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

Ref 8.5.37 8.5.38

Respondent ID LBW LBW

Noise and vibration

Open space and recreation

Planning and development

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

Structures and utilities

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

Townscape and visual

Transport and access

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

Objections, issues and concerns

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

Respondent ID GLA, LBW

Dormay Street/Armoury Way junction with TfL.

Water and flood risk

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

Permanent design and appearance

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

Ref 8.6.8 8.6.9 8.6.10

Respondent ID 7404, 8846 LBW 7404

Your comment is noted.

8681 (LR)CABE, 8846

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

Respondent ID EA, LBW, LR9491

to provide biodiversity habitats in the form of fendering or similar.

Management of operational effects