Supp Report on P2 Consultation - Chapter 23 Greenwich Pumping Station

7/31/2019 Supp Report on P2 Consultation - Chapter 23 Greenwich Pumping Station

1/50

110-RG-PNC-00000-000784 | May 2011

Supplementary reporton phase twoconsultation

Chapter 23 Greenwich PumpingStation


2/50

23 Greenwich Pumping Station

Thames Tunnel

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

List of contents

Page number

23 Greenwich Pumping Station ...................................................................... 23-123.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 23-123.2 Number of respondents ...................................................................... 23-223.3 Site selection ...................................................................................... 23-223.4 Alternative sites .................................................................................. 23-623.5 Management of construction works .................................................... 23-823.6 Permanent design and appearance .................................................. 23-3223.7 Management of operational effects .................................................. 23-3723.8 Our view of the way forward ............................................................. 23-45


3/50


List of tables

Page number

Table 23.2.1 Number of respondents who provided feedback on GreenwichPumping Station ............................................................................. 23-2

Table 23.3.1 Views on whether Greenwich Pumping Station should be our preferredsite (Q2).......................................................................................... 23-3

Table 23.3.2 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to selection of our

preferred site .................................................................................. 23-3Table 23.3.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to selection of our

preferred site .................................................................................. 23-4Table 23.4.1 Suggested alternative sites to Greenwich Pumping Station ........... 23-6Table 23.4.2 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the availability and

identification of alternative sites ...................................................... 23-8Table 23.4.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the availability and

identification of alternative sites ...................................................... 23-8Table 23.5.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right key issues in the site

information paper? (Q4a) ............................................................... 23-8Table 23.5.2 Do you agree that we have identified the right way to address the key

issues? (Q4b) ................................................................................. 23-9Table 23 5 3 Objections issues and concerns in relation to key issues during


4/50


Table 23.5.13 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposedto address the effects on the historic environment during construction

..................................................................................................... 23-15Table 23.5.14 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment

(aquatic) during construction ........................................................ 23-16Table 23.5.15 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment

(terrestrial) during construction ..................................................... 23-17Table 23.5.16 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed

to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) duringconstruction .................................................................................. 23-18

Table 23.5.17 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibrationduring construction ....................................................................... 23-19

Table 23.5.18 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposedto address the effects of noise and vibration during construction . 23-21

Table 23.5.19 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to open space andrecreation during construction ...................................................... 23-22

Table 23.5.20 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to planning anddevelopment during construction .................................................. 23-23

Table 23.5.21 Objections, issues and concerns to address the effects on planningand development during construction ........................................... 23-23

Table 23.5.22 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects

d ring constr ction 23 24


5/50


Table 23.6.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the permanent designand appearance of the site ........................................................... 23-33

Table 23.6.5 Design suggestions ...................................................................... 23-35Table 23.7.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right key issues in the site

information paper? (Q7a) ............................................................. 23-37Table 23.7.2 Do you agree that we have identified the right way to address the key

issues? (Q7b) ............................................................................... 23-37Table 23.7.3 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the identified key

issues during operation ................................................................ 23-38Table 23.7.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the identified key issues

during operation ........................................................................... 23-38Table 23.7.5 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the measures

proposed to address the key issues during operation .................. 23-39Table 23.7.6 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to air quality and odour

during operation ........................................................................... 23-39Table 23.7.7 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour

during operation ........................................................................... 23-39Table 23.7.8 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the historic

environment during operation ....................................................... 23-40Table 23.7.9 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historic environment

d ring operation 23 40


6/50


Supplementary report on phase two consultation 23-1


23.1 Introduction

23.1.1 This chapter covers the feedback comments received during phase two consultation regarding our preferred site Greenwich Pumping Station. This site would be used to connect to theexisting local combined sewer overflow (CSO), known as the Greenwich Pumping Station CSO, to the Greenwich connection tunnel, which would direct flows into the main tunnel. The sitewould also be used to drive the Greenwich connection tunnel.

23.1.2 At phase one consultation, Greenwich Pumping Station was presented as our preferred site to intercept the Greenwich Pumping Station CSO, and King Stairs Gardens was presented asour preferred site to drive the Greenwich connection tunnel. However, following a review of the tunnelling strategy, Greenwich Pumping Station was identified as our preferred site to drivethe Greenwich connection tunnel. In order to accommodate excavated material that would be generated from driving the connection tunnel, additional land known as Phoenix Wharf wasidentified adjacent to the Greenwich Pumping Station site, and presented together with Greenwich Pumping Station, as our preferred site at phase two consultation. For furtherinformation regarding the proposals for this site at phase two consultation, refer to the Greenwich Pumping Station site information paper.

Structure of this chapter

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

section 23.2 Number of respondents

section 23.3 Site selection

section 23.4 Alternative sites

section 23.5 Management of construction works

section 23.6 Permanent design and appearance

section 23.7 Management of operational effects.

Section 23.8 Our view of the way forward.

23.1.4 In sections 23.3 to 23.7 we present details of the feedback comments received, the types and total number of respondents, and our response to feedback comments. Where specificobjections, issues or concerns have been raised, the final column of the tables indicates whether, in response to the feedback received:

C we are considering or proposing change or additional mitigation1

to the proposals set out in our phase two consultation material

N we do not propose to amend our proposals.

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

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


7/50



23.2 Number of respondents

23.2.1 A total of 44 respondents provided feedback on Greenwich Pumping Station, of which seven were received after the close of phase two consultation. Table 23.2.1 sets out the differentgroups who provided feedback for this site.

Table 23.2.1 Number of respondents who provided feedback on Greenwich Pumping Station

Statutory consultees Local authorities Landowners Community consultees Petitions

7 respondents

- Design Council CABE (CABE)- Consumer Council for Water (CCW)

- English Heritage (EH)

- Environment Agency (EA)

- Greater London Authority (GLA)

- London Councils (LC)

- Port of London Authority (PLA)

1 respondent

- Royal Borough of Greenwich(RBG)

3 respondents 33 respondents 0 petitions

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

23.3 Site selection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

23.3.3 In this section, we set out the feedback comments received in relation to the selection of Greenwich Pumping Station as our preferred site, together with our responses. Our responsesprovide 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 inrelation 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 assesshow the effects arising from the proposed development can be addressed. The output of our assessment up to phase two consultation is contained in appendix V of the Design

development reportand our PEIR(volume 26).

23.3.4 Where respondents commented on matters in relation to management of construction works, permanent design and appearance or the management of operational effects at GreenwichPumping Station, these comments are reported in sections 23.5 to 23.7.


8/50



Number of respondents

23.3.5 During phase two consultation, respondents were asked to comment on the decision to select Greenwich Pumping Station as our preferred site to intercept the Greenwich PumpingStation CSO and drive the Greenwich connection tunnel (see question 2 of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase twoconsultation). Table 23.3.1 sets out details of the different groups who responded to confirm whether they were supportive, opposed/concerned or dont know/unsure. Tables 23.3.2 and23.3.3 then detail the feedback comments received in relation to this site. It should be noted, that not all respondents who provided feedback comments confirmed whether they weresupportive, opposed/concerned or dont know/unsure.

Table 23.3.1 Views on whether Greenwich Pumping Station should be our preferred site (Q2)

Respondent type Number of respondents

Total Supportive Opposed/ concerned Dont know/unsure

Statutory consultees 0

Local authorities 0

Landowners 3 3

Community consultees 24 14 7 3

Petitions 0

Total 27 14 10 13

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to our preferred site

Table 23.3.2 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to selection of our preferred site

Ref Supportive and neutral comments Respondent ID No. Our response

23.3.6 Support the use of the preferred site. EH, 8673, 9063, 9079, LR9447 5 Your support is noted and welcomed.

23.3.7 Support the changes to the proposed use ofthe preferred site since phase oneconsultation.

9063, 9067 2

23.3.8 The site is currently vacant/derelict/available for redevelopment.

7679 1 Your comment is noted. However, the site is an operational pumpingstation within our ownership.

23.3.9 The site is already an operational ThamesWater site/is owned by Thames Water.

7108, 8673 2 Agreed.

23.3.10 Qualified support for the preferred siteincluded:

- the proposal must guarantee the legacy

of the area, including nearby listedstructures and the Creekside walkway

RBG, 7347, 7679 3 Our proposals will preserve adjacent heritage. Bringing the (currentlydisused) Beam Engine House back into use will encourage its long-termmaintenance. We also acknowledge that Greenwich Pumping Station is

an important heritage asset with a number of listed structures that canbe viewed from the existing public pedestrian routes adjacent to the site.However, the site is an operational sewage pumping station andtherefore has significant security and safety requirements that can onlybe ensured by preventing public access to the site. For this reason, wedo not consider it appropriate to open up public access to the site, orprovide a route alongside the Deptford Creek for public access.

- concern regarding inconvenience duringconstruction

Since selecting Greenwich Pumping Station as our preferred site, wehave begun assessing the likely significant effects arising from ourproposals. Our draft Code of construction practice(CoCP) sets out a


9/50




range of measures that would be adopted to minimise the effects ofconstruction works including dust, noise and vibration. The proposedmeasures contained within the draft CoCPare in line with best practiceguidelines. Details will be set out in the CoCPthat we will submit withour DCO application.

- with reluctance accept the use of this siteas a long connection tunnel drive site.

Your support is welcomed and noted. Based on our assessment weconsider that, on balance, Greenwich Pumping Station is the mostsuitable site.

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

Objections, issues and concerns

Table 23.3.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to selection of our preferred site

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

23.3.11 Object to the use of this preferred site;particular reasons included that althoughthere are no realistic alternatives, theproposal is unacceptable due to theproximity of the drop shaft to the DocklandsLight Railway (DLR) viaduct, unless this can

be resolved.

GLA, LR9187LO 2 The sites that we consulted on at phase two consultation have beenidentified through an extensive site selection process (see our Siteselection methodology paperon our website). We consulted on andagreed the methodology with key stakeholders including potentiallydirectly affected local authorities and utilised a multidisciplinaryapproach to assess potential CSO and long connection tunnel sites

against engineering, planning, environmental, property and communityconsiderations.

We recognise that, given the locations where we are seeking toconstruct and operate the tunnel, many of the shortlisted sites areconstrained. However, based on our assessment we consider that, onbalance, Greenwich Pumping Station is the most suitable site. This isbecause we own most of the site and although the Pumping Station i s aGrade II listed structure, the proposed location of our works (to the northof the pumping station site) greatly reduces any potential effect upon itssetting. The location of the railway and DLR is a factor that hasinfluenced our proposals for this site. We will continue our discussionswith relevant stakeholders including Transport for London (TFL) as partof our design development process. We do not consider the presence ofthe viaduct to be a factor that would preclude development at this siteand would take it into account in implementing our construction works at

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

23.3.12 Should use/consider an alternative site. LR9187LO 1

23.3.13 There are other more suitable alternativesites available in the local area, includingsome closer to the river.

8859LO 1

23.3.14 Alternative sites have not been properlyconsidered; in particular there have beeninsufficient comparisons with the preferredsite.

7308 1

23.3.15 Query why shortlisted sites have not beenidentified.

EH 1 The shortlisted sites were listed in the Greenwich Pumping Station siteinformation paper. Appendix V of the Phase two scheme developmentreportsets out all the sites assessed as part of the site selection processincluding the shortlisted sites.

23.3.16 The drive strategy and associated use of 13468, 9063 2 Due to the nature of the project, it is necessary to select a package of


10/50




this site needs to be reconsidered. tunnel sites, having regard to how they will work in combination and inrelation to the tunnel alignment and CSO connections. A tunnel sitecannot therefore be selected in i solation. Our assessment work hasconcluded that, based on the sites available, Greenwich PumpingStation is the most appropriate site to drive the Greenwich connectiontunnel to Chambers Wharf. The reasons for this selection are set out inappendix V of the Phase two scheme development report.

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

LR9184LO, 8554 2 Our site selection process has had regard to possible effects on thelocal area and community, and the environmental impact assessmentprocess will undertake further assessment and recommend anynecessary mitigation measures.

The environment and community assessments undertaken as part ofsite selection considered the number and nature of sensitive receptorsas well as possible likely significant effects from traffic and constructionworks including noise, air quality and visual impact. We also consideredlikely significant effects on employment uses and possible conflict withplanning policy seeking to protect local amenity. Accordingly, weconsider that the scale of possible likely significant effects on the localarea and community has been adequately considered.

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

23.3.18 The site should be developed for other

uses; Network Rail and Halliard PropertyCompany Ltd share aspirations for theredevelopment of Phoenix Wharf for amixed-use employment and residentialredevelopment. Initial pre-applicationdiscussions with the RBG regarding theseproposals have already commenced andare on-going.

8859LO 1 Using a site for the Thames Tunnel project does not preclude it from

other uses once construction of the project is complete. The footprint ofthe permanent works required for the operation of the project issignificantly smaller than the space required during its construction.Phoenix Wharf would only required during construction and allpermanent structures proposed would be located within the GreenwichPumping Station site. The area not permanently required could be usedfor other uses including those specified.

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

LR9184LO 1 Refer to paragraph 2.2.32 for our response to this feedback comment.

23.3.20 Do not support changes to the extent of thepreferred site since phase one consultation/

do not support the specific location of thesite. Specifically:

- it is not clear why an extension to thesite, in the form of acquiring land atPhoenix Wharf is required; ThamesWater should have fully investigated thepossibility of containing the work withinthe current boundary of the GreenwichPumping Station site and if this were notpossible, provide evidence as part of the

GLA, 8859LO, LR9187LO, 13468 4 We did identify and consider only utilising Greenwich Pumping Station tointercept the CSO and drive the long connection tunnel. In comparison

to Phoenix Wharf, we considered only using Greenwich Pumping Stationto be less suitable. A number of sites south of Greenwich PumpingStation have also been considered but have been dismissed for differenttechnical reasons. For further details on the results of the site selectionprocess, refer to appendix V of the Phase two scheme developmentreport.


11/50




phase two consultation

- has thought been given to the site to thesouth of Greenwich Pumping Station andhow this could be better connected to theactual construction site?

- Network Rail is looking at redevelopingPhoenix Wharf for mixed use

Construction of the tunnel in this location is not expected to compromisethe wider regeneration of the area.

- the sites Greenwich Pumping Station andPhoenix Wharf are severed by railviaduct and an existing public footpath,which will restrict the movement ofmaterials between the two sites and put astrain on the road network

Connectivity between the two sites was considered as part of the siteselection process. One of the reasons that we consider Phoenix Wharfmore suitable than other sites is because of the connectivity betweenthe two sites which can be achieved by transporting materials betweenthe railway arches. The connectivity between Greenwich PumpingStation and Phoenix Wharf is the best compared with other sitesconsidered.

Refer to appendix V of Phase two scheme development reportforfurther details.

- Phoenix Wharf has been included due toits siting to the north of GreenwichPumping Station without fullconsideration of the connectivity of thetwo sites

- note that the proposals entail utilising thewhole of the site currently occupied byJewson at the above address and that

demolition would be necessary toproceed with this project

Refer to paragraph 25.5.66 for our response to this feedback comment.

- the drop shaft is too close to the DLRviaduct.

The location of the railway and DLR is a factor that has influenced ourproposals for this site and we have discussed our approach with TfL andNetwork Rail as part of our design development process. We do notconsider the presence of the viaduct to be a factor that would precludedevelopment at this site and would take it into account in implementingour construction works at this site.

Shortlisted sites

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

23.4 Alternative sites

23.4.1 During phase two consultation, respondents were invited to suggest alternative sites that they thought should be used to intercept the Greenwich Pumping Station CSO and drive the

Greenwich connection tunnel instead of Greenwich Pumping Station (see question 3 of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase twoconsultation). The following sites were put forward as possible alternatives:

Table 23.4.1 Suggested alternative sites to Greenwich Pumping Station

Ref Alternative site suggestion Reasons Respondent ID No. Our response

Other sites

23.4.2 Greenwich Pumping Stationwithout Phoenix Wharf.

It appears that the Phoenix Wharf sitehas been included due to its siting tothe north of Greenwich Pumping

88590LO 1 We did identify and consider only utilising Greenwich Pumping tointercept the CSO and drive the long connection tunnel. In comparisonto using Pheonix Wharf, we considered that only using Greenwich


12/50



Ref Alternative site suggestion Reasons Respondent ID No. Our response

Station without full consideration tothe connectivity of the two sites - thesite to the south of GreenwichPumping Station is better connectedto the construction site. Equally, thepumping station could be utilisedmore efficiently so that it does notrequire the extension. More detailed

evidence is required regarding theneed for additional space.

Pumping Station is less suitable. For further details on the results of thesite selection process, refer to appendix V of the Phase two schemedevelopment report.

23.4.3 Convoys Wharf. Convoys Wharf should be used todrive the Greenwich connectiontunnel to Greenwich and toChambers Wharf since it is a largesite in a non-residential area with noextant planning permission. It is adeepwater wharf and would enablespoil and materials to be moved byriver.

7800 1 We did identify and consider Convoys Wharf to construct the longconnection tunnel. In comparison to our preferred site, we consideredthat Convoys Wharf is less suitable because, in addition to the site atConvoys Wharf, we would also need to use Greenwich Pumping Station(to intercept the CSO) and to excavate an additional temporary shaft.Using Greenwich Pumping Station with Phoenix Wharf would be moreefficient, cost less and reduce risks.

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

23.4.4 King's Stairs Gardens. Thames Water should reconsider thissite since it has direct river access.

8859LO 1 Using sites as CSO sites

Sites have been selected on the basis of the need to intercept existingCSOs. CSOs are in fixed locations and sites to intercept them need to

be on the line o f, or in close proximity to, the sewer. The suggestedalternative sites are considered to be too far away from GreenwichPumping Station CSO and therefore are not suitable for a CSOinterception site.

Using sites as long connection tunnel drive sites

In relation to using the sites as an alternative long connection tunneldrive sites:

- King's Stairs Gardens, Rotherhithe, sites with direct access to theRiver Thames and Beckton Sewage Treatment Works are too faraway from Greenwich Pumping Station to be utilised as longconnection tunnel drive sites and are therefore unsuitable.

- Borthwick Wharf Foreshore and Deptford Church Street have beenidentified through the site selection process as suitable CSOinterception sites. A smaller site is needed for CSO interception and

therefore the suggested sites are not large enough to accommodateworks associated with a long connection tunnel drive. If we used thesuggested sites, we would still need to intercept the CSO, whichwould require a larger site than if we were using the site only tointercept the CSO.

23.4.5 Rotherhithe. It is more appropriate due to closer

proximity to the river.

9079 1

23.4.6 Other sites with direct riveraccess.

Allow excavated material to betransported by river.

8859LO 1

23.4.7 Borthwick Wharf Foreshore. It is a less residential area so wouldhave less effect on local residentsand it is a riverside location.

7308, 7309 2

23.4.8 Beckton Sewage TreatmentWorks.

It is already industrial, unlikeGreenwich which is an attractivearea.

7862 1

23.4.9 Deptford Church Street. Further from houses and flats,therefore less disruption to localresidents.

8554 1

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


13/50



Supportive and neutral feedback comments

Table 23.4.2 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the availability and identification of alternative sites


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

7404 1 Your support is welcomed and noted.


Table 23.4.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the availability and identification of alternative sites


23.4.12 Not an expert/not qualified/do not have theknowledge to comment.

7406, 8534 2 The purpose of consultation is to explore as fully as possible what thosewith an interest in the project think about our proposals. We will haveregard to comments received from both technical and non-technicalconsultees.

23.5 Management of construction works

23.5.1 This section sets out comments received during phase two consultation in relation to the management of construction works at Greenwich Pumping Station. This includes the identificationof site specific issues affecting construction activities and proposals to address these issues.

23.5.2 During phase two consultation, respondents were asked whether the site information paper had identified the right key issues associated with Greenwich Pumping Station duringconstruction 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 twoconsultation). 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 23.5.1 and 23.5.2. Tables 23.5.3 to 23.5.28 detail the feedback comments received in relation to this site. It should be noted that not all respondents who providedfeedback comments confirmed whether the right issues and the ways to address them had been identified.

Table 23.5.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right key issues in the site information paper? (Q4a)


Total Yes No Dont know/unsure


Local authorities 0

Landowners 1 1


Petitions 0

Total 20 12 2 6


14/50



Table 23.5.2 Do you agree that we have identified the right way to address the key issues? (Q4b)


Total Yes No Dont know/unsure


Local authorities 0

Landowners 1 1


Petitions 0

Total 21 8 2 11

23.5.3 The following sections set out the feedback comments received from respondents in connection with the identification of key issues associated with Greenwich Pumping Station duringconstruction and 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 feedback comments in relation to the identified key issues

23.5.4 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to general feedback comments on the identified key issues during construction.Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the identified key issues

Table 23.5.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to key issues during construction

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

23.5.5 The scale of potential effects has not beenproperly assessed and/or underestimated.

7406 1 The key issues in the Greenwich Pumping Station siteinformation paperare intended to provide a broad overviewof potential effects and key issues associated with the siteduring construction. It is not, however, an exhaustive list. A

N

23.5.6 Those that are unfamiliar with the local areamust assume that Thames Water has

7406 1


15/50




correctly identified the right key issues. more detailed description of possible likely significant effectsand the methodology through which they have beenidentified is and assessed is provided in other technicalreports, including the PEIR(volume 26), the Designdevelopment reportappendix V, the Phase two schemedevelopment report, the Site selection methodology paperand the Site selection background technical paper. We areundertaking an environmental impact assessment, which will

include a comprehensive assessment of potential likelysignificant effects arising from the proposals. The findings ofthe assessment, together with any recommendations formitigation, will be available as a part of the Environmentalstatementthat will be submitted with our DCO appli cation.

General feedback comments on measures to address the key issues

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

Table 23.5.4 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during construction


23.5.7 Measures to address potential issues aresatisfactory.

7347 1 Your comment is noted and welcomed.

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

Table 23.5.5 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during construction


23.5.8 These are matters for experts to commenton/not qualified to comment.

7406 1 While we have a preferred project, the purpose ofconsultation is to explore as fully as possible what those withan interest in the project think about our preference.

N

23.5.9 Other issues and comments in relation tomeasures to address construction issuesincluded:

- construction impacts must be minimised atevery stage of construction

- Thames Water should ensure a closerelationship with local communities leadingup to and during the works.

GLA, 7406 2 We have sought to avoid or eliminate potential likelysignificant effects wherever possible, both by developingrobust technical solutions to potential issues such as odour,and through our proposals for the permanent site designand layout.

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

When construction begins we would arrange regular, on-going liaison and face-to-face interaction between thecommunity and the project team. We would ensure that

N


16/50




occupiers of nearby properties are informed in advance ofworks taking place, including the duration of the activity.

For tunnelling works, we would provide a website that hasinformation on the forecast and actual progress of the tunnelboring machine (TBM). We would also notify properties andbusinesses along the route of the tunnel of the forecasttimetable for the TBM.

We would maintain a 24-hour telephone helpline service

during the main construction period to handle enquiries andconcerns from the general public.

Air quality and odour

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

23.5.10 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

Table 23.5.6 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour during construction


23.5.11 Effect of construction traffic emissions on airquality.

LC 1 We have set out measures in our draft CoCPthat would beadopted to limit vehicle and plant emissions, including usinglow emission vehicles, turning off engines when not needed

and minimising vehicle movements around the site. Ourpreliminary assessment outlined in our PEIR(volume 26,section 4) set out that with these measures in place we donot expect any significant local air quality effects arising fromvehicle and plant emissions at this construction site. We arepreparing a full assessment for submission in the Environmental statementas part of our DCO application thatwill include dispersion modelling. Dispersion modelling willassess the potential impacts of the construction phase at allproposed sites for the relevant short- and long-term NO2 andPM10 air quality objectives.

N

23.5.12 General effect of construction activities onair quality.

7309 1

23.5.13 Effect of odour arising from constructionactivities.

LC, LR9184LO 2 It is not anticipated that the construction works would giverise to any significant odour effects as set out in our PEIR(volume 26, section 4). It is not expected that sewageodours would be emitted during the sewer interception

works at this location. Our draft CoCPconfirms that airmanagement plans would be prepared and implemented foreach site and proposed techniques would be in line withbest practice guidelines.

N

23.5.14 Effect of odour on residential amenity. 7308 1 N

23.5.15 General air pollution effects arising fromconstruction activities.

7308 1 We have completed a preliminary environmentalassessment of the effects of the proposed development,which is set out in our PEIR(volume 26, section 4), whichconsiders the likely significant effects of our construction inrespect of air quality, dust, odour, noise and vibration, which

N


17/50




singularly or collectively might be classed as 'pollution'. Thisassessment did not identify any significant effects atresidential or other sensitive receptors (such as schools)near this site. A full assessment of li kely significant 'pollution'will be presented in the Environmental statementthat we willsubmit with our DCO application. We have also produced adraft CoCPwhich sets out measures for managing ourworks, including sections on noise and vibration, and air

quality as well as details of the various regulatory regimesand guidance that we would need to comply with, such asthe Control of Pollution Act 1974, the EnvironmentalProtection Act 1990, the Health and Safety at Work Act1974, the Mayor of London's Ambient Noise Strategy 2004and The control of dust and emissions from constructionand demolition -Best Practice Guidance 2008, as well asvarious British Standards. Our compliance with theapplicable regulatory regime would be monitored by theRBG.

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

23.5.16 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 during construction

Table 23.5.7 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour during constructionRef Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID No. Our response Outcome

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

GLA 1 We can confirm that the Best Practice Guidance has beentaken into account in developing our proposals for this site.Our draft CoCPsets out measures for managing our worksas well as details of the various regulatory regimes andguidance that we would need to comply with, such as theControl of Pollution Act 1974, the Environmental ProtectionAct 1990, the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, theMayor of London's Ambient Noise Strategy 2004 and Thecontrol of dust and emissions from construction anddemolition -Best Practice Guidance 2008, as well asvarious British Standards.

N

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

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

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

Table 23.5.8 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction working hours and programme


23.5.19 The construction programme is too long/concerned about the duration of

7309 1 The programming of works at all sites would be configuredto minimise the duration of works and associated disruption

N


18/50




construction. to the local area, where possible. The length of theconstruction period in the consultation documents comesfrom the PEIR(volume 26) and it is hoped that in manycases there will be periods during which there would be noactivity or less intensive activity at some sites.

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

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

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

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

Construction site design and layout

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to construction site design and layout

Table 23.5.9 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to construction site design and layout


23.5.22 Support the option to provide mooringarrangements for two barges adjacent to theexcavated material storage.

RBG 1 Your suggestion is noted and we welcome your support.

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

Table 23.5.10 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction site design and layout


23.5.23 Site layout appears to be unsuitable; theCSO shaft is too close to the DLR viaduct,and associated impacts are unacceptable.

GLA, 9066 2 The shaft has been located as far away from the DLR aspossible, but we are constrained by the fact that the DLRviaduct is located over an operational pumping station site.We believe that the works could be carried out safely, usingequipment and methodologies that would be appropriate toworking close to an operational railway, eg using cranes withrestricted-movement jibs so that they could not swing overthe DLR. Alternative sites are not possible becauseGreenwich Pumping Station is the location at which anumber of incoming major sewers converge from differentdirections.

N

23.5.24 Concerned about the extent of the

construction site.

13468 1 The construction site layout has been developed to minimise

the site area.

N

23.5.25 Location of site support/welfare; cannotaccept the proposed dismantling and re-erection of the old Coal Sheds.

EH 1 We are looking at options for the use of the site duringconstruction that may mean the Coal Sheds would not needto be dismantled.

C


19/50



Suggestions for construction site design and layout

Table 23.5.11 Objections, issues and concerns for construction site design and layout

Ref Suggestions for construction site designand layout

Respondent ID No. Our response Outcome

23.5.26 Specific design amendments, including:

- concerns about the removal of the CoalShed roof - there appears to be plenty ofscope to create a works office site under

the existing structure

EA, EH, GLA, RBG, 7406 5 We are looking at options for the use of the site duringconstruction that may mean the Coal Sheds would not needto be dismantled.

C

- use a conveyor to load tunnelling and dropshaft excavated material directly ontobarges located at the northern end of thesite and possibly even further along thecreek to a location north of Creek RoadBridge

We do not consider that barging from south of the railway iseconomically viable due the very low headroom under thefootbridge over the creek, however barging from PhoenixWharf is under consideration. The choice of barge loadingsystem will be a matter for the contractor.

N

- re-design the layout to take account ofDLR viaduct.

The shaft has been located as far away from the DLR aspossible, but we are constrained by the fact that the DLRviaduct is located over an operational pumping station site.We believe that the works could be carried out safely, usingequipment and methodologies that would be appropriate toworking close to an operational railway, eg using cranes withrestricted-movement jibs so that they could not swing over

the DLR.

N

Historic environment

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the historic environment

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

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historic environment

Table 23.5.12 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historic environment during construction


23.5.28 It is not clear what the scale of effects on thehistoric environment would be; theassessment to date is very vague,particularly regarding the removal of certain

items within the Grade II listed Beam EngineHouse.

EH 1 As outlined in our Greenwich Pumping Station siteinformation paper, Beam Engine House is currently empty,having been stripped out in the 1950s and the below-groundpart filled in with rubble topped with concrete. We propose to

replace the 1950s concrete topping with a new ground floorslab. The ventilation equipment would stand on the newfloor, rather than being fastened to the existing walls/roof.The original building would be refurbished/ restored asneeded to bring it back to good condition, in a manneragreed with the conservation officer.

An assessment of the likely significanteffects on the historicenvironment is being completed as a part of ourenvironmental impact assessment. We are consulting withEnglish Heritage as part of this process. The findings of the

N


20/50


21/50




also notify English Heritage and the RBG prior toundertaking works and will continue to engage with themclosely on the planning.

23.5.32 Locate construction works to minimise theireffect on the setting and appearance of localheritage features, including retention of thelisted Coal Sheds during construction.

7406 1 The indicative layout of the construction works is set out inthe Greenwich Pumping Station site information paper. Weare considering options which would mean that the CoalSheds may not need to be dismantled during constructionworks. We will present an assessment of li kely significant

effects on the setting of these historic assets during theconstruction and operational phases in the Environmentalstatement.

C

Land quality and contamination

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

Lighting

23.5.34 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)

23.5.35 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 23.5.14 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) during construction


23.5.36 Effect of construction activities on foreshorehabitat(s), including:

- the conditions at Borthwick Wharf are notsimilar to those in Deptford Creek,therefore you need to be wary whenextrapolating survey data

- the substrate and salinity at BorthwickWharf are not similar to those in DeptfordCreek, it is reasonable to suggest thatspecies composition may be similar but

productivity is likely to be much higher inDeptford Creek.

EA, GLA 2 As part of our PEIR(volume 26, section 5) we haveassessed the likely significant construction effects of theproposed development on aquatic ecology, including thehabitat of Deptford Creek. The PEIRconsiders the likelysignificant effects on the foreshore and River Thames andrecognises a number of impacts, including those associatedwith a new mooring and any necessary channel reshapingor dredging. Many of the effects would be controlled throughmeasures set out in our CoCP. It is also noted that manyeffects would be temporary and the habitat would recoverfollowing the removal of the temporary structures. We

acknowledge that this is a preliminary assessment. We arepreparing a full aquatic ecology assessment of likelysignificant effects for submission in the Environmentalstatementas part of our DCO application.

N

23.5.37 Effect of dredging on the foreshore andriver, particularly if dredging of DeptfordCreek is required to facilitate its use duringthe tunnel construction process. The short-term biodiversity impacts of dredging could

RBG 1 We are not currently proposing river transport or dredging atthis site. However, as shown in the site information paper,the contractor would retain the option to use river transport.If considered a viable option, there may be a requirement forsome dredging, which would be undertaken in accordance

N


22/50




be balanced against the long-terms gains ofa cleaner water environment.

with appropriate mitigation measures.

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

23.5.38 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 measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic)

23.5.39 No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) during construction.

Natural environment (terrestrial)

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

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

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

Table 23.5.15 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction


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

LR9491 1 We consider that we have undertaken a thorough andcomprehensive consultation exercise. We carefullyconsidered the information we made available at our phasetwo consultation to ensure that consultees had sufficientinformation to respond to the consultation.

This included our PEIR(volume 26, section 6) which setsout our initial assessment of likely significant effects onterrestrial ecology from construction site activities includingsite clearance, piling, and wider construction activities. Theproposals set out in our draft CoCPare included in theassessment.An assessment of the likely significant effects on the naturalenvironment is being completed as a part of ourenvironmental impact assessment. The findings of theassessment, together with any recommendations formitigation, will be available as a part of the Environmentalstatementthat will be submitted with our DCO application.We are confident therefore that the information we haveprovided is sufficient.

N

23.5.42 General environmental/ecological impactsarising from construction activities.

8835 1 Our preliminary assessment of the likely significant effectson wildlife associated with the construction of the tunnel isset out in our PEIR(volume 26, section 6) which consideredthe effects on land-based habitats. The project has beendesigned to minimise effects on wildlife and habitats wherepossible and, where likely significant effects have beenidentified, mitigation has been built into the design. Thelikely significant effects of the development on habitats willbe assessed and reported in the Environmental statementthat will be submitted as part of the application.

The CoCPthat will be submitted with the application would

N


23/50




ensure that works are undertaken in compliance withapplicable legislation and relevant nature conservationpolicies and guidance, including the Mayor of London sBiodiversity strategyand local biodiversity action plans.Where species are protected by specific legislation,approved guidance would be followed, appropriatemitigation proposed and any necessary licences or consentsobtained.

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

LR9447 1 Our preliminary assessment of the likely significant effectson wildlife associated with the construction of the tunnel isset out in our PEIR(volume 26, section 6) and it identifiedthe existing buildings on the site in terms of potentialhabitats. The likely significant effects of the development onhabitats will be assessed and reported in the Environmentalstatementthat will be submitted as part of the application.

N

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

23.5.44 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 23.5.16 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction


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

LR9491 1 Where possible, we will seek to locate our constructionactivities sensitively within our proposed construction site.Details of the measures that would be adopted for theconstruction will be set out in the CoCPto be submitted withour DCO application. Our contractor would be required tocomply with the requirements of the CoCP.

N

23.5.46 Other natural environment mitigation,including:

- maximise opportunities to enhancebiodiversity through an effective mitigationpackage

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

LR9447, LR9491 2 Details of proposed mitigation measures for the site andinitial ecology surveys were set out in the PEIR(volume 26,section 6) as part of our phase two consultation. As wehave completed our surveys, we have been confirming thepresence or absence of species and habitats anddeveloping mitigation measures as necessary. Our draftCoCPsets out a range of measures that would beimplemented to control and limit disturbance, and relevantmeasures will be assessed in our Environmental statement.

N

Noise and vibration

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to noise and vibration

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


24/50



Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration

Table 23.5.17 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration during construction


23.5.47 Noise and vibration from construction traffic. LC, LR9184LO 2 As set out in our Greenwich Pumping Station siteinformation paperour contractor would be required toimplement noise and vibration control measures at the site,in line with the requirements of the CoCP. The contractorwould also have to gain approval prior to the construction

work from the RBG through a Section 61 application underthe Control of Pollution Act, which would set out specificworking methods and the measures to minimise noise andvibration as well as any appropriate monitoring measures.This would ensure that the noise levels are reasonable andbest practical means are applied. The measures would beagreed with local authority environmental health officers.

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

Our PEIR(volume 26, section 9) sets out our preliminary

assessment of likely significant noise and vibration effectsfrom construction site activities, noise from constructiontraffic on roads outside the site, including Glamis Road, andnoise and vibration from operation of the site. Theassessment embeds the proposals in our draft CoCP. ThePEIRassessment used Defra's London noise maps.

Our Environmental statement, which will be submitted withour DCO application, will include an assessment of likelysignificant noise and vibration that will be completed in linewith the methodology that is compliant with BS5228,BS6472 and BS7385 and has been agreed with the RBG.

N

23.5.48 General noise effects arising fromconstruction activities.

LR9184LO, 7308 2 N

23.5.49 General vibration effects arising from

construction activities.

LR9184LO 1 N

23.5.50 Effect on quality of life/residential amenity. LC 1 N

23.5.51 Effect of continuous (24-hour) working onnoise and vibration impacts.

7406 1 Greenwich Pumping Station is proposed as a drive site for along connection tunnel. At this site there would becontinuous tunnelling, although a proportion of our workswould be undertaken in standard working hours, as detailedin our site information paper. A preliminary assessment oflikely significant effects has been carried out whichidentifies that it is likely that there would be significant noiseeffects during the construction phase at this site, althoughno significant vibration effects are predicted.

Our contractor would be required to implement noise andvibration control measures at the site, in line with therequirements of our CoCP. Our contractor would be requiredto gain approval prio r to the construction work from the RBG

N


25/50




through a Section 61 application under the Control ofPollution Act that would set out specific working methodsand the measures to minimise noise and vibration as well asany appropriate monitoring measures. The measures wouldbe agreed with local authority environmental health officers.Additionally we would implement measures to minimisenoise and vibration from plant and works including theselection of appropriate plant and equipment, siting of

equipment, and the use of enclosures to provide acousticscreens. At this site the shaft and gantry crane would alsobe enclosed. Details of the measures that would be adoptedfor the construction will be set out in the CoCPto besubmitted with our DCO application.

23.5.52 Duration of construction and effects ofassociated noise and vibration.

7406 1 At this site we anticipate that construction would last for fiveand a half years, as detailed in our site information paper.During the construction period there would be varying levelsof noise and vibration associated with the different activitieson site. As detailed in the PEIR(volume 26, section 9) moststages of work at this site have been assessed as havingsignificant noise effects at receptors around the site,although no significant vibration effects are predicted. Thispreliminary assessment is based on a worst caseassessment where the two noisiest activities in any stage

happen concurrently and over the entire duration of thestage. This is a conservative approach and a fullassessment of the likely significant effects will be set out inthe Environmental statementthat will be submitted with ourDCO application.

N

23.5.53 Other noise and vibration concerns andissue: noise and vibration levels anddisruption to sediment.

9066 1 Our Settlement project information paperprovidesinformation on our approach to controlling and limitingground movement, which can cause settlement, associatedwith construction of the tunnel. It is acknowledged thatconstruction of the tunnel will cause some small movementsin the ground, the level of which will depend on a range offactors including the size and depth of construction works aswell as existing ground conditions. The use of moderntunnelling methods and the depth of our tunnels, which aregenerally much deeper than most other tunnels under

London, minimises the likelihood of any potential groundmovement.

We are assessing the potential likely significant effects ofground movement in advance of the works and, wherenecessary, will carry out protective measures. We will alsomonitor actual ground movement during and after thetunnelling to check that the ground is reacting as predicted.We will also carry out a defects survey on buildings locatedover, or close to, our tunnels and worksites where weconsider this necessary. The method used for assessing

N


26/50




settlement is similar to that used for the Channel Tunnel RailLink, the Jubilee Line Extension, and Crossrail.

As set out in our Greenwich Pumping Stationsiteinformation paperour contractor would be required toimplement noise and vibration control measures at the site,in line with the requirements of the CoCP. The contractorwould also have to gain approval prior to the constructionwork from the RBG through a Section 61 application under

the Control of Pollution Act, which would set out specificworking methods and the measures to minimise noise andvibration as well as any appropriate monitoring measures.This would ensure that the noise levels are reasonable andbest practice means are applied. The measures would beagreed with local authority environmental health officers.

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

Our PEIR(volume 26, section 9) sets out our preliminaryassessment of noise and vibration from construction site

activities, noise from construction traffic on roads outside thesite, including Glamis Road, and noise and vibration fromconstruction of the site. The proposals set out in our draftCoCPare included in the assessment. The PEIRassessment used Defra's London noise maps.

Our Environmental statement, which will be submitted withour DCO application, will include an assessment of likelysignificant noise and vibration effects that will be completedin line with the methodology that is compliant with BS5228,BS6472 and BS7385 and has been agreed with the RBG.

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

23.5.54 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effect of noise and vibration during construction.

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

Table 23.5.18 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration during construction


23.5.55 More information is required on mitigationincluding:

- more details on noise enclosure and theeffect on sound reduction

- details of how harm would be mitigated

- more details on the acoustic properties of

RBG 1 Our PEIR(volume 26, section 9) sets out our initialqualitative assessment of noise and vibration fromconstruction site activities, noise from construction traffic onroads outside the site and noise and vibration fromoperation of the site. The assessment embeds the proposalsin our draft CoCP. The PEIRassessment used Defra's

N


27/50




the proposed temporary structure. London noise maps.

Our Environmental statement, which will be submitted withour DCO application, will include a full assessment of likelysignificant noise and vibration effects that will be completedin line with the methodology that is compliant with BS5228,BS6472 and BS7385 and has been agreed with the RBG.

Our draft CoCPsets out a range of measures that would beadopted by our contractor to minimise noise and vibration

from plant and works including the selection appropriateplant and equipment, siting of equipment, and use ofenclosures to provide acoustic screens. Specific measuressuch as acoustic suppression systems, operation ofequipment in a mode that minimises noise and shuttingdown equipment when not in use are also identified in ourdraft CoCP. Our contractor would be required to comply withthe requirements of the CoCP. The draft CoCPalso statesthat our contractor would be required to apply for Section 61consents (s.61) under the Control of Pollution Act 1974.These would set out specific working methods and themeasures to minimise noise and vibration as well as anyappropriate monitoring measures to be agreed with localauthority environmental health officers.

23.5.56 Other noise and vibration mitigation

suggestions including: if the drop shaftconstruction takes place prior to theconstruction of the temporary enclosure, theextended standard working hours should beresisted for this phase of the works.

GLA 1 As detailed in our Greenwich Pumping Station site

information paperoccasional extended working hours duringphase two (drop shaft construction) would be required. Thisis because some activities, such as concrete pours fordiaphragm walls, may take too long to complete during astandard working day but must be carried out in a singlecontinuous operation. Extended working hours would onlybe used in circumstances such as these.

N

Open space and recreation

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

23.5.57 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to open space and recreation during construction.

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

Table 23.5.19 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to open space and recreation during construction


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

7309, 7308 2 The programming of works at all sites would be configuredto minimise the duration of works and associated disruptionto the local area as far as possible. The length of theconstruction period set out in the consultation documentscomes from the PEIR(volume 26) and it is hoped that inmany cases there would be periods during which therewould be no or less intensive activity at some sites.

As part of our works a diversion to the existing footpath and

N


28/50




cycle path would be provided to ensure that access to thewider area is maintained. We do not believe that our workswould result in a detrimental effect on access to open spaceor other recreational amenities in the local area.

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

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

23.5.59 No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effect on open space and recreation during construction.

Planning and development

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to planning and development

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


Table 23.5.20 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to planning and development during construction


23.5.61 Conflict with emerging regenerationproposals/future developments

GLA, 8859LO 2 Construction of the tunnel in this location is not expected tocompromise the wider regeneration of the area.

N

23.5.62 Not enough understanding by ThamesWater of other developments planned in the

Deptford area, and the charette plan (anattempt at a co-ordinated approach todevelopments in the local environment ofDeptford Creek).

7347 1 We are aware of other developments near our proposedworks and will continue to monitor planning applications as

they come forward. We are undertaking a cumulativeassessment as part of our environmental impactassessment that will consider strategic developments in thelocal area. This will be reported in our Environmentalstatement, which will accompany our DCO application.

N

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

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

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

Table 23.5.21 Objections, issues and concerns to address the effects on planning and development during construction


23.5.64 Need to take into account new developmentalong the high road, like the

Sillions/Merryweather site, Norman Roadand between Norman Road and theentrance to the DLR station, all of which willcontain housing.

8467 1 We are undertaking an environmental impact assessment,which will include a comprehensive assessment of likely

significant effects arising from the proposals on existing andproposed residential developments. The findings of theassessment, together with any recommendations formitigation, will be available as a part of the Environmentalstatementthat will be submitted with our DCO appli cation.

N

Socio-economic

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

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


29/50



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

Table 23.5.22 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects during construction


23.5.66 Effect on the local economy andemployment; in particular local businesses.

LR9187LO 1 As detailed in our PEIR(volume 26, section 10), twobusinesses located on the site would require relocationduring construction. The Environmental statementthat willbe submitted as part of our DCO application will assesslikely significant effects of business relocation. We will assist

the directly affected businesses with finding alternativelocations or premises to relocate.

N

23.5.67 Effect on property prices. LR9184LO, 8835 2 Landowners may have a statutory entitlement to claimcompensation for the diminution on the value of theirproperty due to the construction of the tunnel. In addition tothe statutory process we have published an Exceptionalhardship procedurewhich sets out how we will assessclaims from householders who contend that they aresuffering exceptional hardship as a result of being unable tosell their property because it is potentially impacted by thecurrently published Thames Tunnel project proposals. Wehave also published A guide to the Thames Tunnelcompensation programmewhich sets out details ofcompensation that would be available during constructionarising from damage or loss, for required protection

measures, and for compulsory purchase.

N

23.5.68 Proposals will create increasedopportunities for anti-social behaviour andthe police cannot keep a permanentpresence on the street to deter rat running inthe local area.

7530 1 Your comments in relation to rat running are noted and willbe taken into consideration in developing our transport plansfor this site. We would put appropriate measures in place tocontrol traffic in this area and do not believe that a policepresence would be required.

N

23.5.69 Effect of construction activities on quality oflife.

LR9184LO 1 Our PEIR(volume 26) provides a preliminary assessment ofthe likely significant effects of the project on a range oftopics, including noise and vibration, air quality (includingdust emissions) and odour, and transport, based on amethodology that has been agreed with the RBG. A fullassessment of likely significant effects will be provided in theEnvironmental statementthat will be submitted with ourDCO application. Where likely significant effects are

identified we would put mitigation measures in place toaddress these effects, in addition to the measures that areset out in our draft CoCP.

We are also preparing a Health impact assessmentthat willexamine the likely significant effects of the proposeddevelopment on human health and well-being and possibleeffects within the population. The findings of this study willinform the design for this site as well as mitigation measuresto address any significant effects.

N

23.5.70 Effect of construction activities on residentialamenity.

LR9184LO, 7309, 7406 3


30/50


31/50




would be available during construction.

23.5.79 Ensure acceptable minimal impacts onnearby residents.

GLA 1 We have completed a preliminary assessment of the likelysignificant socio-economic effects of our proposed worksand a full assessment will be provided as a part of our DCOapplication. Where significant effects are identified we willset out appropriate mitigation measures to minimise theeffects of our works.

N

Structures and utilitiesSupportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to structures and utilities

23.5.80 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 23.5.24 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to structures and utilities during construction


23.5.81 Effect on national rail and DLR viaducts. GLA 1 The location of the railway and DLR is a factor that hasinfluenced our proposals for this site. We will continue ourdiscussions with relevant stakeholders including TfL as partof our design development process. We do not consider thepresence of the viaduct to be a factor that would precludedevelopment at this site and would take it into account in

implementing our construction works.

N

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

23.5.82 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

23.5.83 No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities during construction.

Townscape and visual

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

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

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

Table 23.5.25 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to townscape and visual effects during construction

Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID No. Our response Outcome23.5.85 Effect of construction activities and

structures on the character of the local area.7862 1 The effect of construction activity on the character of the

local area would be for a temporary period only. Our draftCoCPsets out measures that would ensure that theconstruction site would be well operated and maintained.Measures to minimise likely significant effects upon thecharacter of the site during construction, such as usingsuitable screening around the construction site will be setout in the CoCPand Environmental statementto be

N

G i h P i S i


32/50




submitted with our DCO application.

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

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

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

23.5.87 No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to the measures proposed to address effects on townscape and visual during c

Documents

Supp Report on P2 Consultation - Chapter 23 Greenwich Pumping Station