Summary Report on Phase Two Consultation_FINAL

7/31/2019 Summary Report on Phase Two Consultation_FINAL

1/74

A

Thames Tunnel

Thames TunnelSummary report on

phase two consultationMay 2012


2/74


3/74

1

Thames TunnelSummary report on

phase two consultationMay 2012


4/74

Phase two consultation / Summary report 2

Contents

Foreword 4

1 Introduction 51.1 The project 5

1.2 Phase two consultation 51.3 Feedback received 7

2 Need, solution, tunnel route andalignment 8

2.1 Introduction 82.2 The need to signicantly reduce

the amount o sewage enteringthe River Thames 8

2.3 The tunnel as the right solution 92.4 Tunnel route 10

2.5 Alignment o the Abbey Mills route 102.6 Our view o the way orward 11

3 Other comments 11

4 The sites 12

5 Acton Storm Tanks 12

6 Hammersmith Pumping Station 14

7 Barn Elms 16

8 Putney Bridge Foreshore 19

9 Dormay Street 21

10 King Georges Park 23

11 Carnwath Road Riverside 28

12 Falconbrook Pumping Station 28

13 Cremorne Whar Depot 30

14 Chelsea Embankment Foreshore 34

15 Kirtling Street 35

16 Heathwall Pumping Station 37

17 Albert Embankment Foreshore 39

18 Victoria Embankment Foreshore 41

19 Blackriars Bridge Foreshore 43

20 Shad Thames Pumping Station 45

21 Chambers Whar 47

22 Earl Pumping Station 50

23 Deptord Church Street 5224 Greenwich Pumping Station 54

25 King Edward Memorial Park Foreshore 56

26 Bekesbourne Street 59

27 Abbey Mills Pumping Station 61

28 Beckton Sewage Treatment Works 63

29 Jews Row 64

30 Other works 6531 Consultation process 6531.1 Introduction 6531.2 Attendance at exhibitions 6531.3 Feedback on consultation inormation 6631.4 Feedback on the consultation process 6631.5 Our view o the way orward 67

32 Conclusions and next steps 6732.1 Introduction 6732.2 The need, solution, tunnel route

and alignment 6732.3 Outcomes or the preerred sites 6832.4 Next steps 68


5/74

3

Table 2.1 Statutory consultees and local

authorities who provided eedback on

the need or the project 8


authorities who provided eedback onthe proposed solution 9



our preerence or the Abbey Mills route 10

Table 2.4 Local authorities who provided

eedback on the alignment o the

Abbey Mills route 11


authorities who provided eedback

on Acton Storm Tanks 13

Table 6.1 Statutory consultees and localauthorities who provided eedback

on Hammersmith Pumping Station 17



on Barn Elms 17



on Putney Bridge Foreshore 19



on Dormay Street 22Table 10.1 Statutory consultees and local authorities

commenting on King Georges Park 24



on Carnwath Road Riverside 26



Falconbrook Pumping Station Riverside 29



on Cremorne Whar Depot 31



on Chelsea Embankment Foreshore 33



on Kirtling Street 35



on Heathwall Pumping Station 37


authorities who provided eedbackon Albert Embankment Foreshore 39



on Victoria Embankment Foreshore 41


authorities who provided eedbackon Blackriars Bridge Foreshore 43



Shad Thames Pumping Station 46



on Chambers Whar 47



on Earl Pumping Station 50

Table 23.1 Statutory consultees and localauthorities who provided eedback

on Deptord Church Street 52



on Greenwich Pumping Station 54



King Edward Memorial Park Foreshore 57



on Bekesbourne Street 59Table 27.1 Statutory consultees and local


on Abbey Mills Pumping Station 61



Beckton Sewage Treatment Works 53

Table 30.1 Statutory consultees who provided

eedback on Other works 65

Table 31.1 Attendance at exhibitions during

phase two consultation (question 15) 65

Table 31.2 Do you think you have been provided

with enough inormation and consultation

material on the project to enable you to

comment? (question 16) 66

Table 31.3 Other comments on the

Thames Tunnel project consultation

process (question 17) 66

List of tables


6/74


Foreword

Thank you to everyone who took the trouble and timeto take part in this consultation and have their say on

our proposals. We welcome the on-going dialogue withresidents, community and campaign groups, businesses,organisations and boroughs. All the inormationreceived is invaluable to us as we continue to developthe design o this critical inrastructure project.

Your ideas, views and inormation received during ourphase two consultation will support our aim to ensurethe nal design is the best solution to this problem,providing value or money with the least disruptionto Londoners and this vibrant, world-leading city.

Importantly, we have been provided with manyopportunities not only to address local groups,but also to talk to you individually about the needor the Thames Tunnel project. Finding constructionsites to support the project in a densely populatedcity was never going to be an easy task. In the phasetwo consultation we were able to provide much moredetailed inormation on our proposals and discuss howthe project could aect you. We have listened and,wherever possible, we have acted on your eedback.

This report is just a summary o your eedback.Our responses to your detailed comments can be

ound in the Main and Supplementary reports onphase two consultation. We expect to carry out ourSection 48 publicity later this year when we will publishour proposed application or development consentor the project. You will have at least six weeks tomake any comments.

We welcome the support we have received or ourproposals and we also understand where concernshave been raised. We know there are dicult decisionsto take and we are making every eort to limit the

impacts on communities and the environment as aras we can.

We are keen to keep talking to you, so i you haveany questions or concerns, please get in touch.

Richard Aylard CVO

External Aairs &Sustainability Director

Phil Stride

Head o London TidewayTunnels


7/74

5

1. Introduction

1.1 The project

1.1.1 The Thames Tunnel project is needed to help

substantially reduce the amount o untreatedsewage which enters the River Thames whenthe sewerage system exceeds its capacity.Projected population growth and new buildingsadd to the need urgently to address this problem.We are proposing to build the Thames Tunnel(the project) to capture the untreated sewagebeore it enters the River Thames. This willbring long-term benets or the environmentand people who use the river.

1.1.2 The project will help ensure that the UK complieswith the EU Urban Waste Water TreatmentDirective, and assist in meeting the objectiveso the EU Water Framework Directive.

1.1.3 It is expected that the Thames Tunnel projectwill shortly be designated a nationallysignicant inrastructure project that is subjectto the provisions o the Planning Act 2008.We are thereore ollowing the requirementso this Act and associated guidance, in so ar

as we are able to.

1.1.4 Beore we submit a Development ConsentOrder (DCO) application or the project,we want to understand the views o statutoryconsultees, local authorities, landowners andcommunity consultees. We have carried outour phase two consultation in accordancewith Sections 42 and 47 o the Planning Act2008. Our phase two consultation, whichwe undertook between 4 November 2011

and 10 February 2012, provided a secondopportunity or us to gather eedback.All the comments received have been careullyconsidered and, where possible, we will takethese into account as design developmentor the project continues.

1.1.5 Our Report on phase two consultation sets outthe process we ollowed in order to carry outour phase two consultation and analyse theeedback received. It sets out the eedback

we received together with our response to thecomments raised.

1.1.6 The Report on phase two consultation is inthree parts:

this summary report, a non-technicalsummary o eedback received, which identiesthe main eedback raised

the main report (including appendices), whichprovides an overview o the supportive andneutral eedback comments made, togetherwith objections, issues and concerns raised,and provides our responses to these issues

the supplementary report, which sets outcomprehensively and in detail all the eedbackcomments received, and our responses.

1.1.7 This summary report provides an overview o

the eedback received. Given the volume oresponses received, each chapter within thisreport identies the key or main points raised.As set out above, the Main and Supplementaryreports on phase two consultation providemore detail on the eedback received andour responses to the comments made.

1.2 Phase two consultation

What we consulted on

1.2.1 During phase two consultation, we consulted on:

the need or the project, including whethera tunnel is the most appropriate solution

our preerred tunnel route, including thedetailed alignment o the tunnel

our preerred sites or the construction andpermanent works

detailed proposals or our preerred sites,which take into account the results o our

phase one consultation and urther, moredetailed, technical work undertaken

the eects o the project, as reported in ourPreliminary environmental information report.

Whom we consulted

1.2.2 In accordance with Sections 42 and 47 o the2008 Act, and as set out in our Statementof community consultation (SOCC), we haveconsulted with the ollowing groups:

statutory consultees


8/74


local authorities, including potentially directlyaected local authorities and authorities thatare adjacent to local authorities where wepropose to undertake works

landowners, including property owners and

lessees o shortlisted sites, and occupiers oproperties above and adjacent to the potentialtunnel routes

community consultees, including the generalpublic, local property owners/occupiers,local businesses, community representativesand groups.

1.2.3 In anticipation that the project will becomea nationally signicant inrastructure project,on 2 November 2011, we notied the

Inrastructure Planning Commission oour intention to submit an application ordevelopment consent or the project andwe supplied our consultation materials to theCommission as i Section 46 o the PlanningAct 2008 applied. We also conrmed thatwe propose to provide an environmentalstatement in respect o the project as parto the application or development consentor the project as i Regulation 6(1)(b) o theInrastructure Planning (Environmental ImpactAssessment) Regulations 2009 applied.

How we consulted

1.2.4 Beore starting our phase two consultation,we re-consulted with local authorities andstatutory consultees on our drat revisedSOCC and Community consultation strategy.We published the SOCC in the London EveningStandardon 4 November 2011.

1.2.5 We sent out over 129,000 letters to properties

located a minimum o 250m rom theboundary o each preerred and shortlisted siteand within a broad corridor along the preerredtunnel route. The boundary was appliedfexibly, according to the scale and nature othe proposed works and taking into accountthe characteristics o the surrounding area.The letters set out our proposals, gave detailso exhibitions and contained a languagetranslation sheet, which provided details

on the language line services.

1.2.6 To publicise our consultation we also:

placed advertisements in local newspapers(in addition to the London Evening Standardon 4 November 2011)

posted site notices in the vicinity o each o our

preerred sites. These contained a site locationmap and described our proposals or the site

distributed leafets to all properties with a letterbox (businesses and residences) within 250mo each preerred site and, where our preerredsite has changed since phase one consultation,to all the shortlisted sites as well. We deliveredthese in advance o each local exhibition heldin that area.

1.2.7 For our phase two consultation we: held 57 days o exhibitions at 23 venues

provided inormation about ourproposals on our project website(www.thamestunnelconsultation.co.uk)

provided a ree phone number(0800 0721 086) or any questions,as well as a translation service

at the request o community groups, we

attended 48 meetings to discuss our proposals

we also produced project inormation paperson our proposals. These were available on ourwebsite and at exhibitions, local libraries andtown halls. The project inormation paperscovered topics such as options to reduce sewageentering the River Thames, tunnel route optionsand the proposed depth o the tunnel

Site inormation papers were also availableor our preerred sites. These set out:

| why a worksite is needed in theproposed location

| the shortlisted sites we have considered,including justication or our preerred site

| activities to be undertaken at eachphase o construction

| the potential eects o our works duringconstruction and how we propose to

address them| the design o our permanent works

| the potential eects o our worksduring operation and how we proposeto address them.


9/74

7

1.2.8 We sought to ensure that it was equallypossible or everyone to respond to ourconsultation and oered a range o solutionsor people requiring assistance. For example,consultation inormation was available in largeprint, braille or audio ormat upon request.

Our Customer Centre oered a telephoneservice to translate consultation materials intoany language on request. The language linewas used by those with an interest in theproject to translate the consultation materialinto a number o languages.

1.2.9 We conducted a health and saety audit onpotential exhibition venues to ensure that asuitable balance was struck between accessto the buildings and proximity to the residents

wishing to attend. All the exhibition locationsthat we used were accessible. Sta memberswere in attendance to acilitate access andassist the public.

1.2.10 Feedback could be submitted by means opaper or electronic eedback orms and byletter or email.

1.2.11 We have ollowed, and in many casesexceeded best practice, guidance and relevantlegal requirements when undertaking thisphase o consultation.

1.2.12 We responded to individual written queries andphone calls through phase two consultation.Our Customer Centre handled over 900 phonecalls and 850 written queries, in addition toeedback orms received.

1.2.13 We were responsive to requests or additionalexhibitions, holding a urther seven days oexhibitions at three venues, in addition to

those set out in our SOCC.

1.3 Feedback received

1.3.1 A total o 6,019 respondents providedeedback to our phase two consultationwith a total o 6,553 responses received:

Resident gives

eedback at

Deptord Church

Street Exhibition

Key:

Statutory consultees Local authorities Landowners

Community consultees* Petitions

* Community consultees as dened by Section 47 o the Planning Act 2008 weresub-divided into urther categories within question A o the eedback orm. The gurecombines those respondents who answered as local residents, organisation or other.

1.3.2 The respondents provided eedback in theollowing ways:

Key:

Feedback orms (online & hardcopy)

Correspondence Petitions

How we analysed the eedback received

1.3.3 We anticipated that a signicant amounto eedback would be submitted. As a result,we considered that a thematic approach to

analysing responses would be best since itwould provide a structure against which toanalyse all the eedback received.

5,841

131

17

21

9

4,636

1,374

9


10/74


1.3.4 We have broadly analysed eedback againstthe questions in the eedback orm. Anexception to this was where it was clearthat the comments made in response to aparticular question actually related to anotherpart or a question within the same part o

the eedback orm. This approach allowedeedback comments o a similar nature tobe grouped and presented together.

1.3.5 The eedback comments were urthergrouped by the theme(s) that they related to,which included transport, air quality and noiseand vibration themes, or example. Feedbackwas also categorised depending on whetherthe eedback raised supportive and neutralcomments or objections, issues and concerns.

1.3.6 The unique ID number o each respondentwas recorded with every comment; thisenabled us to systematically identiy whenthe same comment was made by more thanone respondent and present the volumeo eedback received on each theme.

1.3.7 We have sought to take account o allresponses, whether or not they were in theminority, to ensure a air representation o theull range o comments received. As such, wehave not presented the proportions or numbero respondents who made comments in avouror against a particular solution or thematicissue in this report. However, the numbers orespondents who commented on particularissues are identied in the Supplementaryreport on phase two consultation.

1.3.8 For urther detail on how we analysed theeedback received, reer to section 3.2 othe Main report on phase two consultation.

2. Need, solution, tunnelroute and alignment

2.1 Introduction

2.1.1 We asked or views on the need to reduce theamount o sewage entering the River Thames,a tunnel as the proposed solution, our preerred

tunnel route and the proposed tunnelalignment.

2.2 The need to signifcantly reducethe amount o sewage entering theRiver Thames

Number o respondents

2.2.1 A total o 674 respondents provided

comments on the need or the project.The respondents comprised:

Key:


Community consultees Petitions (0)

2.2.2 Table 2.1 identies the statutory consulteesand local authorities who provided eedbackon need or the project.

Statutory consultees Local authorities

Consumer Council or Water

Orange Telecom

London Borough oHammersmith and Fulham

London Borough o Southwark

Royal Borough o Greenwich

Sevenoaks District Council

Table 2.1 Statutory consultees and local authoritieswho provided eedback on the need or the project

Putney Bridge CSO

612

56

4

2


11/74

9

Feedback comments on the need tosignicantly reduce the amount o sewageentering the River Thames

2.2.3 Main supportive and neutral eedbackcomments raised by respondents included:

agreement that London needs to reducethe amount o untreated sewage enteringthe River Thames, in particular or theenvironmental and recreational benetsthis would bring

there is a need to update and uture prooour sewerage inrastructure

the issue should be addressed as soon as possible

although the project was supported in principle,

concerns were raised in relation to theproposed solution, tunnel route and proposedsites and the eects that will arise romaddressing the problem.

2.2.4 Main objections, issues and concerns raisedby respondents included:

disagreement that there is a need toreduce the amount o sewage enteringthe River Thames

more inormation should be provided onthe extent o the problem; the need is notsuciently evidenced

consider that water quality in the River Thameshas already improved signicantly/it is notclear that there is a problem with water quality

whether the project is necessary given thatthe requency o overfows and volume o thedischarge is low

the costs associated with addressing this problemneed to be proportionate to the benets.

2.3 The tunnel as the right solution


2.3.1 A total o 2,854 respondents providedcomments on a tunnel as the right solution.The respondents comprised:

Key:


Community consultees Petitions

2.3.2 Table 2.2 identies the statutory consulteesand local authorities who provided eedbackon a tunnel as the right solution.



Crown Estate

English Heritage

London Councils

Greater London Authority

NATS En Route Saeguarding

NHS Barking and Dagenham

Orange Telecom

The Highways Authority

London Borough o

Hammersmith and FulhamLondon Borough o RichmondUpon Thames

London Borough o Ealing

Royal Borough o Greenwich

London Borough o Southwark

London Borough o WalthamForest

Sevenoaks District Council

Table 2.2 Statutory consultees and local authorities

who provided eedback on the proposed solution

Feedback comments on the tunnel as theright solution

2.3.3 The main supportive and neutral eedbackcomment raised by respondents includedagreement that the tunnel is the right solution.

2.3.4 Main objections, issues and concerns raised byrespondents included:

disagree that the tunnel is the right solution

unsure whether the tunnel is the right solution,how eective it will be and whether it onlytreats the symptoms but not the problem itsel

2,785

52

7

9

1


12/74


concerns that once the tunnel is operational,raw sewage will still enter the River Thames,despite the huge cost and disruption

query the reasons or choosing a tunnel as thesolution and how this is evidenced, including

the need or urther work to demonstrate thatthe tunnel is the right solution

concerns regarding the costs o the projectand how it will be unded, including queriesregarding the eects on customers bills.

2.4 Tunnel route


2.4.1 A total o 268 respondents provided comments

on the tunnel route. The respondents comprised:

Key:



2.4.2 Table 2.3 identies the statutory consulteesand local authorities who provided eedbackon the tunnel route.


English Heritage

Orange Telecom




who provided eedback on our preerence or the

Abbey Mills route

Feedback comments on the tunnel route


support or the:

|

Abbey Mills route| long connection tunnel connecting

Greenwich Pumping Station, DeptordChurch Street and Earl Pumping Stationto the main tunnel at Chambers Whar

| extension o the main tunnel toActon Storm Tanks.

the tunnel is the most practical and cost-eective solution

support the tunnel route, but do not agreewith proposed sites.


disagree with the preerred tunnel route

cost should not be the only determining actor

more inormation requested on the route

suggested modications to the Abbey Mills

route and an independent review.

2.5 Alignment o the Abbey Mills route

2.5.1 A total o 173 respondents providedcomments on the tunnel alignment.The respondents comprised:

Key:

Statutory consultees (0) Local authorities Landowners


237

27

2

2

150

21

2


13/74

11

2.5.2 Table 2.4 identies the local authorities whoprovided eedback on the tunnel alignment.

Local authorities


London Borough o Tower Hamlets

Table 2.4 Local authorities who provided eedback

on the alignment o the Abbey Mills route

Feedback comments on the tunnel alignment

2.5.3 The main supportive and neutral eedbackcomment raised by respondents includedagreement that the proposed tunnelalignment was the least disruptive.

2.5.4 Main objections, issues and concerns raised

by respondents included:

disagree with the preerred tunnel alignmentas it aects too many residents

more inormation requested on the alignment

concerns regarding the eect on buildingsand above and below ground inrastructure.Also concerns regarding the need to minimisepossible settlement, subsidence, damage andconstruction eects associated with tunnelling

under residential properties and to old andsensitive structures

suggestions or amendments to the constructionmethod, including ewer main tunnel drive sitesand using dierent tunnel boring machines.

2.6 Our view o the way orward

2.6.1 We recognise that some respondents haveconcerns about the need or the project andwhether a tunnel is the most appropriate

solution. We have given careul considerationto these comments and reviewed the detailedevidence contained in the Needs report.We still believe that it is essential to reduce theamount o sewage entering the River Thamesand that a tunnel represents the best way toachieve this.

2.6.2 Some o the concerns raised included detailedcomments on the design and constructiono the tunnel. These will, insoar as possible,

be taken into account as the design o thetunnel progresses.

2.6.3 We recognise that some respondents haveconcerns about our preerence or theAbbey Mills route and its alignment and preeralternative routes. Having considered thecomments received, we still consider that AbbeyMills remains the most appropriate route and

we thereore intend to pursue this option. As thedesign o the tunnel progresses, we will continueto rene its alignment and will discuss thisurther with the relevant stakeholders.

3. Other comments

3.1.1 We also received eedback that relates to othermatters not directly related to the questions

in our eedback orm.


support or the anticipated level o job creationassociated with the project

support or the revised air managementstrategy to avoid odour rom tunnel operationsand the associated reduction in the heighto the ventilation columns

support or the approach to environmentalassessment, including the decision hierarchy,food risk studies and consideration o impactsand opportunities, at individual sites andproject-wide

welcome the reduction in the number ooreshore sites with permanent structures.


the approach to environmental assessment,including the topics to be reported in theenvironmental statement, the level o detail tobe assessed, and the need to mitigate eects

the process that the Thames Tunnel project isollowing, including how the proposal will bedetermined and the role o local authorities

the approach to assessing transport impacts

the eects arising rom construction o

the project

detailed comments on technical documents andthe content o the proposed DCO application.


14/74


Our view o the way orward

3.1.4 We will take into account the detailedcomments that have been received as theproject develops. This includes reviewing thecomments received on the PEIR and related

documents as part o the environmentalimpact assessment process to ensure that,where appropriate, they are taken ully intoaccount in the preparation o theEnvironmental Statement.

3.1.5 We will continue to work with stakeholders,in relation to the permanent design andappearance o our sites as part o our designdevelopment. The ideas, views and inormationreceived during our phase two consultation will

help to ensure the nal design is the optimumsolution or each o our sites, and best meetsthe needs o local communities.

.

4. The sites

4.1.1 Most o the eedback that we received ocussedon the preerred sites on the Abbey Mills routewhich is summarised in this report. We also

received some comments regarding theshortlisted sites that we had considered. Detailso the eedback received in respect o theshortlisted sites is set out in the Supplementaryreport on phase two consultation.

4.1.2 We sought eedback on the ollowing mattersin relation to each site:

views on whether our preerred site is appropriate

whether an alternative site should be used and

i so, which whether we have identied the key issues

during the construction phase and appropriatemeasures to address them

our proposed design

whether we have identied the key issuesduring the operational phase and appropriatemeasures to address them.

4.1.3 Chapters ve to 30 set out who has provided

eedback on our preerred sites, their viewson our choice o site, and the main objections,concerns, and issues raised and supportive

and neutral eedback comments received oreach site. We also set out our view o the wayorward. For detailed eedback commentsraised in relation to each o our preerred sites,reer to the Supplementary report on phasetwo consultation.

4.1.4 In light o the eedback that we have received,we believe that no new inormation has beenhighlighted that would change the conclusionso our site selection process to date. The sitesthat we consulted on at phase two thereoreremain our preerred sites to construct theThames Tunnel.

5. Acton Storm Tanks

5.1.1 We are proposing to use parts o our existingpumping station and storm water tanks site orour construction works and to accommodatethe permanent building and structures requiredto operate the main tunnel. The site wouldreceive the main tunnel rom Carnwath RoadRiverside and connect the existing local CSO,known as the Acton Storm Relie CSO, to themain tunnel.


5.1.2 A total o 37 respondents provided comments onActon Storm Tanks. The respondents comprised:

Key:

Statutory consultees Local authorities LandownersCommunity consultees Petitions (0)

26

4

2

5


15/74

13


Design Council CABE


English Heritage

Environment Agency





who provided eedback on Acton Storm Tanks

Feedback on the selection and use o ourpreerred site

Site selection and alternative sites5.1.3 Main supportive and neutral eedback

comments raised by respondents included:

support use o this site, including changing the

use o the site since phase one consultation

the site is more suitable than any shortlistedor alternative sites.


reasons or selecting this preerred site arefawed/questionable; the site has only beenchosen because it is owned by Thames Wateror the associated cost benets, rather than

being the best site rom a technical point o view

the scale o eects on the local area andcommunity resulting rom the selectiono this site is unacceptable/has not beenproperly considered

alternative site suggestions, included ActonPark Industrial Estate and Barn Elms.

Management o construction works5.1.5 Main supportive and neutral eedback

comments raised by respondents included: proposed site access and construction trac

routes, in particular use o Warple Way,Canham Road and Stanley Gardens areappropriate

proposed working hours are reasonable.


concerns regarding the eects o construction

trac on the loss o on-street car parking atWarple Way, Stanley Gardens and CanhamRoad and residential amenity

concerns regarding odour, air quality and generalpollution during construction and how this wouldbe managed in order to protect amenity

concerns regarding the uture use o the widerActon Storm Tanks site

concerns regarding proposed working hours,including the potential or 24-hour working,and transparency regarding extended workinghours

concerns regarding noise and vibration romconstruction trac and general vibrationassociated with the works, including theneed to provide mitigation, such as soundattenuation measures

concern regarding the eect on qualityo lie and the proximity o the proposedwork to residential areas.

Permanent design and appearance5.1.7 Main supportive and neutral eedback


support or decommissioning the storm tanksand lling them with construction spoil

the proposals will allow the public ootpathto be widened

use o brick which is an appropriate and robustmaterial that matches the main material usedin the locality well.


the ventilation column(s) are too low/smalland should be increased to above roo levelto avoid any odour emission issues

the permanent buildings and structures arelocated too close to residential properties/should not be located in residential or builtup areas

need more inormation on proposals, includingwhat is proposed or the rest o the site;conrmation as to whether the public willbe given access to the site; and whether theremaining storm tanks can be used or suracewater storage to help alleviate associated

issues in west London.


16/74


Management o operational eects5.1.9 No main supportive and neutral eedback

comments, as dened in paragraph 1.1.7,were received.

5.1.10 Main objections, issues and concerns raised by

respondents included: concerns regarding the eect o odour arising

rom operation o the tunnel and therequirement to incorporate contingencymeasures in case the technology proposeddoes not unction as stated

require site management to control parkingassociated with maintenance works.


5.1.11 We have received a range o eedback on ourproposals or this site, including supportiveand neutral comments and objections, issuesand concerns. We have taken all commentsreceived into account in accordance with therequirements o the Planning Act 2008.

5.1.12 In light o the eedback that we have received,we believe that no new inormation has beenhighlighted that would change the conclusionso our site selection process to date. ActonStorm Tanks thereore remains our preerredsite to intercept the Acton Storm Relie CSOand receive the main tunnel rom CarnwathRoad Riverside. Additionally, no newinormation or issues have been identied thatwould undamentally change our proposals orthis site. Thereore we will continue to developthe proposals or this site that we published atphase two consultation.

5.1.13 The eedback we have received included

detailed comments on the construction andoperational eects o the proposeddevelopment and the measures we proposeto reduce and manage those eects. Detailedcomments were also made on our proposalsor the permanent design and appearanceo the site. Having regard to the eedbackreceived we are continuing to rene ourdetailed proposals or this site to improve thedesign and reduce the impacts on the local

community and environment. Currently weare considering the ollowing changes to thelayout and/or appearance o our proposals:

replacement o the proposed ventilationbuilding with a smaller an structure and ltersthat would be located in Storm Tanks 5 and6 with the shat

relocation o the ventilation column so it is

adjacent to Storm Tanks 5 and 6 widening o the ootpath on the southern

side o Canham Road

options or replacement parking.

5.1.14 In our Statement of community consultationwe recognised that we may need to amendour scheme ollowing phase two consultationand that i changes came orward we wouldconsider whether targeted consultation is

appropriate. We do not consider that thedegree o change in relation to this site or theeect on the local community would aectthe nature o the comments received duringphase two consultation in such a way as torequire urther consultation. On that basis,a round o targeted consultation on ourproposals or this site is not considerednecessary. We will progress with preparationo our application or a development consentorder and will incorporate the changes

reerred to in paragraph 5.1.13 i urther workdemonstrates that this is appropriate. Weintend to publicise our proposed application inaccordance with Section 48 o the PlanningAct 2008 later in 2012. Full details o ourproposed scheme will be set out in our DCOapplication and accompanying documents.

6. Hammersmith

Pumping Station6.1.1 We are proposing to use part o our existing

pumping station and part o a currently vacantsite known as Hammersmith Embankment/Fulham Reach at the corner o ChancellorsRoad and Distillery Road or our constructionworks and to accommodate the permanentstructures required to operate the main tunnel.The site would be used to connect the existing

local CSO, known as the HammersmithPumping Station CSO, to the main tunnel.


17/74

15


6.1.2 A total o 36 respondents provided commentson our Hammersmith Pumping Station site.The respondents comprised:

Key:

Statutory consultees Local authorities Landowners (0)



Design Council CABE


English Heritage

Environment Agency


National Grid



who provided eedback on Hammersmith

Pumping Station




support or the use o the preerred site; inparticular the use o a land-based site on landowned by Thames Water

the site is more suitable than any shortlisted oralternative sites because it is browneld; it isalready an operational site and it is available

or development

qualied support or the preerred site subjectto appropriate assessment and mitigation anddemonstration that it is necessary.


there are other more suitable alternative sitesavailable in the local area/alternative sites havenot been properly explored, including St Pauls

Playing Fields across the River Thames site selection should avoid sites in residential

or densely populated areas

alternative site suggestions, included urtherupstream and south o the River Thames.



the proposal will support redevelopment

o the site and/or surrounding area

the necessary works at this site can becoordinated with the phased mixed usedevelopment by St George plc o theHammersmith Embankment/FulhamReach site.


construction trac will exacerbate existing

trac congestion on Fulham Palace Road(A219) and Hammersmith Gyratory

use the river rather than road to transportconstruction materials and spoil, includingconsolidation centres at nearby barge/railserved sites

compatibility with existing planning permissionadjacent to/in the vicinity o the site.

Permanent design and appearance

6.1.7 The main supportive and neutral eedbackcomment raised by respondents was thatthe design proposals are acceptable.

6.1.8 The main objection, issue and concern raisedby respondents was that the proposals areunimaginative/bland, and should beenvironmentally riendly.

Management o operational eects6.1.9 The main supportive and neutral eedback

comment raised by respondents was that

the proposals would ensure that odour issatisactorily managed.

29

6

1


18/74


6.1.10 The main objection, issue and concern raisedby respondents was in relation to the eect oodour arising rom the operation o the tunneland the need to monitor the eects.


6.1.11 We have received a range o eedback on ourproposals or this site, including supportiveand neutral comments and objections, issuesand concerns. We have taken all commentsreceived into account in accordance with therequirements o the Planning Act 2008.

6.1.12 In light o the eedback that we have received,we believe that no new inormation hasbeen highlighted that would change the

conclusions o our site selection process todate. Hammersmith Pumping Stationthereore remains our preerred site tointercept the Hammersmith Pumping StationCSO. Additionally, no new inormation orissues have been identied that wouldundamentally change our proposals or thissite. Thereore we will continue to develop theproposals or this site that we published atphase two consultation.

6.1.13 The eedback we have received includeddetailed comments on the construction andoperational eects o the proposeddevelopment and the measures we proposeto reduce and manage those eects. Detailedcomments were also made on our proposalsor the permanent design and appearanceo the site. Having regard to the eedbackreceived we are continuing to rene ourdetailed proposals or this site to improve thedesign and reduce the impacts on the local

community and environment. Currently we areconsidering whether it is easible to locate allabove ground structures proposed at phasetwo consultation within the HammersmithPumping Station building or compound,with the exception o minor structures.

6.1.14 We will also continue to engage with thedevelopers o Hammersmith Embankment/Fulham Reach site to ensure that our proposalscan be accommodated with their proposalsor this site.

6.1.15 In our Statement of community consultationwe recognised that we may need to amendour scheme ollowing phase two consultationand that i changes came orward we wouldconsider whether targeted consultation isappropriate. We do not consider that thedegree o change in relation to this site or theeect on the local community would aectthe nature o the comments received duringphase two consultation in such a way as torequire urther consultation. On that basis,

a round o targeted consultation on ourproposals or this site is not considerednecessary. We will progress with preparationo our application or a development consentorder and will incorporate the changes reerredto in paragraphs 6.1.13-14 i urther workdemonstrates that this is appropriate. Weintend to publicise our proposed applicationin accordance with Section 48 o the PlanningAct 2008 later in 2012. Full details o ourproposed scheme will be set out in our DCOapplication and accompanying documents.

7. Barn Elms

7.1.1 We are proposing to use the south easterncorner o the Barn Elms Schools Sports Centreor our construction works and toaccommodate the permanent structures

required to operate the main tunnel. The sitewould be used to connect the existing localCSO, known as the West Putney Storm RelieCSO, to the main tunnel.


7.1.2 A total o 387 respondents provided commentson Barn Elms. The respondents comprised:


19/74

17

Key:




Design Council CABE


English Heritage

Environment Agency


London Borough oRichmond Upon Thames

London Borough oWandsworth


who provided eedback on Barn Elms

7.1.3 We note that a number o eedback commentswere received in relation to the use o this siteas a main tunnel drive site. These commentshave been reported in chapter 11, as they reerto the use o Barn Elms as an alternative maintunnel drive site to Carnwath Road Riverside.




support or the use o the site

support or the changes to the proposed use othe preerred site since phase one consultation;it would have less impact on the riverside andreduces the potential impacts on aboveground heritage assets, notable views and the

community

the site is a suitable size and/or has sucientcapacity to accommodate the proposals

support or changes to the extent o thepreerred site since phase one consultation,in particular the move to locate this site awayrom the River Thames, resulting in a reductiono impacts on the Thames environment

site should also be selected as a main tunneldrive site.


object to use o the site/consider that the siteis unsuitable

should use/consider an alternative site/thereare other more suitable alternative sites in thelocal area

unclear that clear that West Putney StormRelie CSO needs to be connected to the maintunnel

should not use greeneld sites/avoid sites inclose proximity to sensitive receptors includingthe Wetlands Centre, sites o special scienticinterest, primary schools and social housing.The use o browneld sites should be prioritised

alternative site suggestions, included CarnwathRoad Riverside or alternative browneld sites.

Barn Elms Exhibition

374

6

2

5


20/74




supportive or the changes to the constructionprogramme since phase one consultation

support or the use o screening duringconstruction

temporary loss o open space is acceptable,as there would be minimal damage to thegreeneld site

the preerred site is the least disruptive optionor the local community

the proposals will ensure that the Thames Pathis kept open.


concerns regarding proposed site access,including access through the sports elds andcommon land alongside the Beverley Brook

provide an alternative construction trac routeto and rom the site

concerns regarding noise, vibration, dust,dirt and air pollution arising rom constructionactivities and the eect o constructiontrac emissions on air quality and amenity

restrict or limit working hours whenconstruction and related vehicles can accesslocal roads including at school opening andclosing times

the construction programme is unclear, toolong and concerns regarding the duration oconstruction. The project should minimise the

extent and duration o construction works.Permanent design and appearance


the design/proposals are good

support or design proposals as limited landtake, no ventilation towers, the opportunity orthe structures to become objects o interest.


by respondents included:

consideration o the site design, includingthe scale o the permanent buildings andstructures, with a preerence or a design inthe orm o grass mounds

concerns regarding uture maintenance o thehabitat wall/use o habitat walls

the proposals are not in keeping with thenatural environment o Barn Elms and its localarchitecture. As currently proposed, the plans

are too dominant and intrusive and should bereduced in scale. Proposals should be inkeeping with and blend into the character othe local area in order to minimise visual impact

the design should incorporate appropriatescreening and landscaping.

Management o operational eects7.1.10 Main supportive and neutral eedback


the proposals will ensure that odour issatisactorily managed and mitigationproposed to address permanent air qualityand odour issues is satisactory

support or eorts to minimise the long-termimpacts to biodiversity and secure improvements.


the proposed site access is unsuitable and analternative could be provided, e.g QueenElizabeth Walk, which would reduce thepotential risk o vehicle accidents at thisrecreational site

concerns regarding potential air quality andthat odour eects will be greater than thoseset out in the consultation material.


7.1.12 We have received a range o eedback on our

proposals or this site, including supportive andneutral comments and objections, issues andconcerns. We have taken all commentsreceived into account in accordance with therequirements o the Planning Act 2008.

7.1.13 In light o the eedback that we have received,we believe that no new inormation has beenhighlighted that would change the conclusionso our site selection process to date. Barn Elmsthereore remains our preerred site to intercept

the West Putney Storm Relie CSO.


21/74

19

7.1.14 The eedback we have received includeddetailed comments on the construction andoperational eects o the proposeddevelopment and the measures we proposeto reduce and manage those eects. Detailedcomments were also made on our proposals

or the permanent design and appearanceo the site. Having regard to the eedbackreceived we are continuing to rene ourdetailed proposals or this site to improve thedesign and reduce the impacts on the localcommunity and environment. Currently weare considering the ollowing changes to thelayout and/or appearance o our proposals:

an alternative site access road

amendments to the scale and design o thepermanent structures.

7.1.15 In our Statement of community consultationwe recognised that we may need to amendour scheme ollowing phase two consultationand that i changes came orward we wouldconsider whether targeted consultation isappropriate. We consider that the degree ochange and the eect on the local communitymay aect the nature o the comments madeduring phase two consultation as the changeswe are considering may aect a dierentsection o the community. On that basis, around o targeted consultation on our revisedproposals or this site will begin on 6 June 2012and close on 4 July 2012. Any commentsreceived in response to our targetedconsultation will be taken into account inpreparing our application or a developmentconsent order. We intend to publicise ourproposed application in accordance with

Section 48 o the Planning Act 2008 laterin 2012. Full details o our proposed schemewill be set out in our DCO application andaccompanying documents.

8. Putney Bridge Foreshore

8.1.1 We are proposing to use the oreshore o theRiver Thames, to the west o Putney Bridge, or

our construction works and to accommodatethe permanent structures required to operatethe main tunnel. The site would be used toconnect the existing local CSO, known as thePutney Bridge CSO, to the main tunnel.


8.1.2 A total o 171 respondents provided commentson Putney Bridge Foreshore. The respondentscomprised:

Key:




Design Council CABE

Consumer Council or WaterEnglish Heritage

Environment Agency


Port o London Authority



who provided eedback on Putney Bridge Foreshore




support or the use o the preerred site/proposed site is the most suitable location

the preerred site is more suitable than anyalternative or shortlisted sites as it wouldcause less disruption to the local area andhas better access

support or changes to the extent o thepreerred site since phase one consultation.

6

3

161

1


22/74



opposition in principle to the use o anyoreshore structures along the tidal Thames,as this is likely to lead to a number o

detrimental eects o food risk management,biodiversity and recreation

concerns that the scale o eects on thelocal area and community resulting rom theselection o this site is unacceptable / has notbeen properly considered

site selection should avoid sites adjacent to orcontaining heritage assets

do not support changes to the extent o the

preerred site since phase one consultation/donot support the specic location o the site

query why shortlisted sites have not beenidentied

alternative sites suggested, including Foreshore,adjacent to Putney Bridge and St MarysChurch and Carnwath Road Riverside.

Putney Exhibition



it is an improvement on the site layout shownat phase one consultation

a temporary slipway will be installed giventhe prominence o river use at this location

the site is a suitable distance away rom

residential areas support or the proposed use o barges to

transport materials; ewer barges will be usingPutney Bridge.


the temporary slipway must be appropriateor the vessels using it and should be realignedby 180 degrees and moved eastwards o the

existing hardstanding outside Chas Newensacility

Putney Drawdock needs to be retained withthe acility to allow vessels to load alongsideduring construction; the alternative o includingWatermans Green in the site compound wouldminimise temporary encroachment into theRiver Thames

explore alternative methods o abrication

the eect o construction lighting on qualityo lie

concerns regarding dust, dirt, noise, vibrationand general air pollution eects arising romconstruction activities and the eect oconstruction trac emissions on air qualityand residential amenity given the proximityto residential properties

at our years, the construction programmeis too long

the eect o construction activities on localheritage and listed structures

the eect on river navigation and recreationalriver users (including the impact on the boatrace and other events) and the eect o bargemovements on river navigation and leisureriver users

concerns regarding potential structuraldamage including to Putney Whar

use river to transport more/all constructionmaterials and spoil.

Permanent design and appearance8.1.7 Main supportive and neutral eedback


support or the design proposals

there is a good appreciation o the uniquecharacter o this site and the design recognisesits current role as a place o gathering

the decision to site the promontory upstreamrom the bridge has allowed the slipway tobe retained; support the simple, orthogonalgeometry o its design


23/74

21

the idea o a permanent whar betweenPutney Pier and Putney Bridge is a good one.


the proposals are not in keeping with/do not

enhance and/or will have a negative eect onthe character or appearance o the local area

the structure(s) within the oreshore o theRiver Thames are too large/there should beno structures in the oreshore

object to attaching a second column to PutneyBridge; a metre high wall juxtaposed with theslipway is unacceptable

the size o permanent buildings and structures

should be reduced.


comment raised by respondents was thatthe proposals would ensure that odour issatisactorily managed.

8.1.10 The main objection, issue and concern raisedby respondents was in relation to the eecto odour and air quality arising rom theoperation o the tunnel upon residentialamenity.


8.1.11 We have received a range o eedback onour proposals or this site, including supportiveand neutral comments and objections, issuesand concerns. We have taken all commentsreceived into account in accordance withthe requirements o the Planning Act 2008.

8.1.12 In light o the eedback that we have received,we believe that no new inormation has beenhighlighted that would change the conclusionso our site selection process to date. PutneyBridge Foreshore thereore remains our preerredsite to intercept the Putney Bridge CSO.

8.1.13 The eedback we have received includeddetailed comments on the constructionand operational eects o the proposeddevelopment and the measures we propose

to reduce and manage those eects.Detailed comments were also made on ourproposals or the permanent design andappearance o the site. Having regard to theeedback received we are continuing to rene

our detailed proposals or this site to improvethe design and reduce the impacts on the localcommunity and environment. Currently weare considering the ollowing changes to thelayout and/or appearance o our proposals:

improvements to the permanent design andlayout o our proposals, specically the locationo the permanent works and the shape o theoreshore structure

the nature and location o the temporaryreplacement slipway

whether it would be possible to make urtheruse o the river or the transport o shat andshort tunnel excavated materials in order toreduce the number o lorries on local roads.

8.1.14 In our Statement of community consultationwe recognised that we may need to amendour scheme ollowing phase two consultationand that i changes came orward we wouldconsider whether targeted consultation isappropriate. We consider that the degree ochange and the eect on the local communitymay aect the nature o the comments madeduring phase two consultation as the changeswe are considering may aect a dierent

section o the community. On that basis,a round o targeted consultation on our revisedproposals or this site will begin on 6 June 2012and close on 4 July 2012. Any commentsreceived in response to our targetedconsultation will be taken into account inpreparing our application or a developmentconsent order. We intend to publicise ourproposed application in accordance withSection 48 o the Planning Act 2008 laterin 2012. Full details o our proposed scheme

will be set out in our DCO application andaccompanying documents.

9. Dormay Street

9.1.1 We are proposing to use land o DormayStreet or our construction works and toaccommodate the permanent structures

required to operate the main tunnel. The sitewould be used to connect the existing localCSO, known as the Frogmore Storm Relie Bell Lane Creek CSO, to the main tunnel.This site would also be used to drive a long


24/74


connection tunnel (known as the Frogmoreconnection tunnel) southwards to KingGeorges Park and northwards to CarnwathRoad Riverside, to connect the CSOs atDormay Street and King Georges Park tothe main tunnel


9.1.2 A total o 19 respondents provided commentson Dormay Street. The respondents comprised:

Key:




Design Council CABE


English Heritage

Environment Agency




who provided eedback on Dormay Street




support or the identication o a newpreerred site since phase one consultation/thepreerred site is more suitable than the site put

orward at phase one consultation

support or the use o site/Dormay Streetis the most suitable site

qualied support subject to suitablearrangements being put in place with theLondon Borough o Wandsworth to managethe impacts on the councils depot.


by respondents included: One o the shortlisted sites is more suitable;

qualied support or shortlisted LondonBorough o Wandsworth Depot (site 2); it hasslightly greater archaeological potential thanthe preerred site, but will otherwise have asimilar impact on heritage assets

Management o construction works9.1.5 No main supportive or neutral eedback

comments, as dened in paragraph 1.1.7,

were received.


use the river rather than road to transportconstruction materials and spoil, includingconsolidation centres at nearby barge/railserved sites or Smugglers Way Whar.Investigate the potential or transhipmentrom sites with no proposed barge movements

proposals will result in river erosion and scourassociated with any piling required to constructa Bailey Bridge to span across Bell Lane Creek

minimise scour eects by either avoidingin-channel structures which reduce conveyanceand/or adversely aect hydraulics. I thisis not possible, then any structures should beminimised to reduce impact, rather thanrelying on mitigation through hard engineeringtechniques such as gabions

need to agree modications to the design othe Dormay Street/Armoury Way junction.

Permanent design and appearance9.1.7 No main supportive or neutral eedback


9.1.8 The main objection, issue and concern raisedby respondents was the need to improve orcreate new ootpaths and cycle ways as part o

the design, including a new riverside walk (4mwide) on the south side o Bell Lane Creek tothe Causeway Island.

13

1

5


25/74

23


comment raised by respondents was supportor the eorts to minimise the long-termimpacts to biodiversity and secureimprovements.

9.1.10 No main objections, issues or concerns, asdened in paragraph 1.1.7, were receivedobjections, issues and concerns were raised:


9.1.11 We have received a range o eedback on ourproposals or this site, including supportiveand neutral comments and objections, issuesand concerns. We have taken all comments

received into account in accordance with therequirements o the Planning Act 2008.

9.1.12 In light o the eedback that we have received,we believe that no new inormation has beenhighlighted that would change the conclusionso our site selection process to date. DormayStreet thereore remains our preerred site tointercept the Frogmore Storm Relie Bell LaneCreek CSO and drive the Frogmore connectiontunnel southwards to King Georges Park andnorthwards to Carnwath Road Riverside, toconnect the CSOs at Dormay Street and KingGeorges Park to the main tunnel. Additionally,no new inormation or issues have beenidentied that would undamentally changeour proposals or this site. Thereore we willcontinue to develop the proposals or this sitethat we published at phase two consultation.

9.1.13 The eedback we have received includeddetailed comments on the construction andoperational eects o the proposed

development and the measures we proposeto reduce and manage those eects. Detailedcomments were also made on our proposalsor the permanent design and appearanceo the site. Having regard to the eedbackreceived we are continuing to rene ourdetailed proposals or this site to improve thedesign and reduce the impacts on the localcommunity and environment. Currently weare considering the ollowing changes to the

layout and/or appearance o our proposals:

relocating our permanent works, so that theyare set by back 4m rom Bell Lane Creek.This means that our proposals do notprejudice the potential uture developmento a riverside walkway

redesigning our temporary bridge to removethe piles or supports in the Creek, so the bridgewill now have a clear span

temporary junction improvements at ArmouryWay, Dormay Street and The Causeway toaccommodate construction trac.

9.1.14 In our Statement of community consultationwe recognised that we may need to amendour scheme ollowing phase two consultationand that i changes came orward we would

consider whether targeted consultation isappropriate. We do not consider that thedegree o change in relation to this site or theeect on the local community would aectthe nature o the comments received duringphase two consultation in such a way as torequire urther consultation. On that basis,a round o targeted consultation on ourproposals or this site is not considerednecessary. We will progress with preparationo our application or a development consentorder and will incorporate the changes reerredto in paragraph 9.1.13 i urther workdemonstrates that this is appropriate. Weintend to publicise our proposed applicationin accordance with Section 48 o the PlanningAct 2008 later in 2012. Full details o ourproposed scheme will be set out in our DCOapplication and accompanying documents.

10. King Georges Park

10.1.1 We are proposing to use the northern cornero King Georges Park or our constructionworks and to accommodate the permanentstructures required to operate the main tunnel.The site would be used to connect the existinglocal CSO, known as Frogmore Storm Relie Buckhold Road CSO, to the main tunnel via along connection tunnel, known as the Frogmore

connection tunnel. We would need a worksite toreceive the Frogmore connection tunnel, whichwould be driven rom Dormay Street.


26/74



10.1.2 A total o 40 respondents provided commentson King Georges Park. The respondentscomprised:

Key:




Design Council CABE


English Heritage

Environment Agency




commenting on King Georges Park


Site selection and alternative sites


support or the use o site/consider that KingGeorges Park is the most suitable site andreception site

support or changes to the extent o thepreerred site since phase one consultation;the construction impact on the park hasbeen reduced.


object to the use o the site/consider thatsite is unsuitable

query why shortlisted sites have not beenidentied

site selection should use/prioritise browneldsites/avoid greeneld sites and avoid sites inresidential and/or densely populated areas

alternative site suggestions, included KimberRoad playing elds and Dormay Street.



support or the retention and replacemento trees; pleased that the black poplar willbe preserved

the temporary loss o open space is acceptable.


concerns regarding overnight/weekend/24-hour working hours/ construction seven daysa week and the eect on quality o lie

concerns regarding dust, dirt, noise, vibrationarising rom construction activities andconstruction trac and the eect on qualityo lie and residential amenity

concerns regarding the temporary losso public open space, which is a valuablerecreational amenity and is designated asMetropolitan Open Land, in an area thathas a shortage o public open space andprivate gardens.

Permanent design and appearance10.1.7 No main supportive or neutral eedback



investigate the potential impacts on foodstorage in the park

historic gates and railings should be protected,preserved and re-used in the park

discussions need to take place regarding thepotential relocation o the park entrance to the

corner o Buckhold Road and Neville Gill Close.The design team should anticipate how theproposals could accommodate such a move.

29

5

5

1


27/74

25


comment raised by respondents was supportor the eorts to minimise the long-termimpacts to biodiversity and secureimprovements.


access will be required to the lake outfowor weekly maintenance

require level or level and volume or volumecompensation or any losses in the fuvialone per cent CC foodplain extent.


10.1.11 We have received a range o eedback onour proposals or this site, including supportiveand neutral comments and objections, issuesand concerns. We have taken all commentsreceived into account in accordance with therequirements o the Planning Act 2008.

10.1.12 In light o the eedback that we have received,we believe that no new inormation has beenhighlighted that would change the conclusionso our site selection process to date. KingGeorges Park thereore remains our preerredsite to intercept the Frogmore Storm Relie Buckhold Road CSO and receive theFrogmore connection tunnel, which wouldbe driven rom Dormay Street. Additionally,no new inormation or issues have beenidentied that would undamentally changeour proposals or this site. Thereore we willcontinue to develop the proposals or this sitethat we published at phase two consultation.

10.1.13 The eedback we have received includeddetailed comments on the constructionand operational eects o the proposeddevelopment and the measures we proposeto reduce and manage those eects. Detailedcomments were also made on our proposalsor the permanent design and appearance othe site. Having regard to the eedbackreceived and taking account o ongoingtechnical work, we are considering our detailed

design or this site which may lead to changesto the layout and/or appearance o ourproposals.

These would improve the design and reducethe impacts on the local community andenvironment. Currently we are considering theollowing changes to our proposals or this site:

incorporation o food alleviation measures

creating new pedestrian entrances to thenorth, west and/or east o our proposed sitewhich enables us to reduce the extent ohardstanding at the existing entrance toKing Georges Park and replace it with newsot landscaping

how we can re-use the existing historic gateswithin the park.

10.1.14 We are also continuing to develop our detailed

landscaping proposals or this site, inconsultation with our stakeholders.

10.1.15 In our Statement of community consultationwe recognised that we may need to amendour scheme ollowing phase two consultationand that i changes came orward we wouldconsider whether targeted consultation isappropriate. We do not consider that thedegree o change in relation to this site or theeect on the local community would aectthe nature o the comments received duringphase two consultation in such a way as torequire urther consultation. On that basis,a round o targeted consultation on ourproposals or this site is not considerednecessary. We will progress with preparation oour application or a development consentorder and will incorporate the changes reerredto in paragraphs 10.1.13 -14, i urther workdemonstrates that this is appropriate. Weintend to publicise our proposed application in

accordance with Section 48 o the PlanningAct 2008 later in 2012. Full details o ourproposed scheme will be set out in our DCOapplication and accompanying documents.


28/74


11. Carnwath Road Riverside

11.1.1 We are proposing to use the land to the southo Carnwath Road and in the oreshore o the

River Thames or our construction works and toaccommodate the permanent building andstructures required to operate the main tunnel.The site would be used to drive the main tunnelto Acton Storm Tanks and receive the maintunnel rom Kirtling Street. We would also needa worksite to receive a long connection tunnel,which would be driven rom Dormay Street andknown as the Frogmore connection tunnel.This will connect the existing local CSOs atDormay Street and King Georges Park to the

main tunnel rom the site at Dormay Street.


11.1.2 A total o 3,138 respondents providedcomments on Carnwath Road Riverside.The respondents comprised:

Key:


Community consultees Petitions


Design Council CABE


English Heritage

Environment Agency


London CouncilsPort o London Authority


London Borough o RichmondUpon Thames



who provided eedback on Carnwath Road Riverside




support or the use o the preerred site

support or the identication o a newpreerred site since phase one consultation/thepreerred site is more suitable than the site putorward at phase one consultation

the site is a browneld site which is vacant/derelict/available or redevelopment.


object to the use o site/consider that the site isunsuitable

should use/consider an alternative site. Siteselection should avoid densely populated orresidential areas; site is close to sensitivereceptors, including schools and nurseries,commercially established areas

selection o this preerred site has been poorlyjustied/inadequately explained or is fawed/

questionable. Reasons included: the impact ouse o this site has been underestimated andwould cost too much

the scale o eects on the local area andcommunity resulting rom the selection o thissite is unacceptable

the preerred site put orward at phase oneconsultation, Barn Elms, is more suitable as itwould have less impact on the local area andwould enable CSO interception and tunnelling

activities to be undertaken at the same site.The reasons or changing the preerred sitesince phase one consultation are unclear

the site is too small and does not havesucient capacity to accommodate theproposals

site selection has been infuenced by pressurerom politicians, celebrities and Non-Governmental Organisations

alternative site suggestions, included Barn Elmsand Kirtling Street/Battersea Power Station/Nine Elms/Battersea.

3,105

21

3

7

2


29/74

27

impact o the proposals on the regenerationopportunity at Fulham Riverside.

Management o construction works


impacts on air quality will be less severebecause the site is already located on abusy road

the site will have less environmental/ecologicalimpact and will result in ew/ewer treesbeing lost

the preerred site is the least disruptive optionor the local community

the impact o the eects has been properlyaddressed as part o the phase twoconsultation

the proposals will improve the image andcharacter o the area.

Carnwath Road Exhibition

11.1.6 Main objections, issues and concerns raised by

respondents included:

concerns regarding the duration oconstruction and working hours, including lightpollution given 24-hour works at this site andthe eect on residential amenity and health

concerns regarding noise and vibration romconstruction works in a residential area andeects on amenity and health given theproximity o the works to neighbouring

residents and schools in terms o disruption concerns regarding the eects on the

regeneration o the local area, including thepotential or redevelopment o the site and theeects on local businesses, economy and jobs

concerns regarding potential landcontamination and potential or health eects

construction trac will exacerbate existingcongestion and aect access to amenities andresidential amenity. Local roads are unsuitable

or use by construction vehicles and concernsregarding the eect o trac on residentialamenity and the saety o other road users,including children, pedestrians and cyclists.

Permanent design and appearance

11.1.7 No main supportive and neutral eedbackcomments, as dened in paragraph 1.1.7, werereceived.

11.1.8 The main objection, issue and concern raised

by respondents relates to the scale and designo the proposed above ground structures,including the ventilation columns, and theeect on the surrounding area.

Management o operational eects11.1.9 Main supportive and neutral eedback


the proposals will ensure that odour issatisactorily managed and mitigationproposed to address permanent air quality

and odour issues is satisactory

not concerned by the permanent relocationo Carnwath Road Industrial Estate

the proposals will improve the image andcharacter o the area.


concerns regarding odour rom the operationo the tunnel and the eect on residential

amenity and quality o lie

the visual eect o permanent buildings andstructures on the character o the local areaand the eect on uture regeneration o thewider area.


11.1.11 We have received a range o eedback on ourproposals or this site, including supportive

and neutral comments and objections, issuesand concerns. We have taken all commentsreceived into account in accordance with therequirements o the Planning Act 2008.


30/74


11.1.12 In light o the eedback that we have received,we believe that no new inormation has beenhighlighted that would change the conclusionso our site selection process to date. CarnwathRoad Riverside thereore remains our preerredsite to drive the main tunnel to Acton Storm

Tanks and receive the main tunnel rom KirtlingStreet; and to receive the Frogmore connectiontunnel, driven rom Dormay Street. Additionally,no new inormation or issues have beenidentied that would undamentally changeour proposals or this site. Thereore we willcontinue to develop the proposals or this sitethat we published at phase two consultation.

11.1.13 The eedback we have received includeddetailed comments on the construction and

operational eects o the proposeddevelopment and the measures we propose toreduce and manage those eects. Detailedcomments were also made on our proposalsor the permanent design and appearance othe site. Having regard to the eedbackreceived we are continuing to rene ourdetailed proposals or this site to improve thedesign and reduce the impacts on the localcommunity and environment. Currently we areconsidering the ollowing changes to thelayout and/or appearance o our proposals:

replacement o the proposed ventilationbuilding with a smaller an structure and lters

relocation o the permanent above groundstructures to the eastern side o Whin Wharwhere they will provide a buer to thesaeguarded Hurlingham Whar, and areduction in the height o these buildings toapproximately 3.5 metres

relocation and redesign o the ventilationcolumn so it is also located at the eastern edgeo Whin Whar and by the river

provision o an area o landscaped open spacein part o the western section o the site with ariverside walkway

whether it would be possible to make urtheruse o the river or the import o sand andaggregates or secondary tunnel lining in order

to reduce the number o lorries on local roads.

11.1.14 In our Statement of community consultationwe recognised that we may need to amendour scheme ollowing phase two consultationand that i changes came orward we wouldconsider whether targeted consultation isappropriate. We do not consider that the

degree o change in relation to this site or theeect on the local community would aectthe nature o the comments received duringphase two consultation in such a way as torequire urther consultation. On that basis,a round o targeted consultation on ourproposals or this site is not considerednecessary. We will progress with preparation oour application or a development consentorder and will incorporate the changes

reerred to in paragraph 11.1.13, i urther workdemonstrates that this is appropriate. Weintend to publicise our proposed application inaccordance with Section 48 o the PlanningAct 2008 later in 2012. Full details o ourproposed scheme will be set out in our DCOapplication and accompanying documents.

12. FalconbrookPumping Station

12.1.1 We are proposing to use our existing pumpingstation and adjacent disused toilet block orour construction works and to accommodatethe permanent structures required to operatethe main tunnel. The site would be used toconnect the existing local CSO, known as theFalconbrook Pumping Station CSO, to the maintunnel.

Number o respondents12.1.2 A total o 22 respondents provided comments

on Falconbrook Pumping Station site. Therespondents comprised:


31/74

29

Key:




Design Council CABE


English Heritage




who provided eedback on Falconbrook Pumping

Station Riverside




support or the identication o a newpreerred site since phase one consultation.

The preerred site is more suitable because ithas ewer impacts and enables theredevelopment o Bridges Court Car Park

agree that Falconbrook Pumping Station CSOneeds to be intercepted, and that theFalconbrook Pumping Station site is a suitablelocation rom which to do so

the site is already an operational ThamesWater site/is owned by Tham

Documents

Summary Report on Phase Two Consultation_FINAL