SUTTON ESTATE, CHELSEA - IEMA Estate Chelsea NTS... · SUTTON ESTATE, CHELSEA ... The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Jacobs. Use or copying

SUTTON ESTATE, CHELSEAENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT JULY 2015

Volume I - Non-Technical Summary

Environmental Statement

Volume 1 – Non-Technical Summary

Sutton Estate, Chelsea

Project no: KU048600

Document title: Environmental Statement Volume 1 - Non-Technical Summary

Revision: Final

Date: July 2015

Client name: Affinity Sutton Homes

Project manager: Hannah Greene

Author: Hannah Greene

Jacobs U.K. Limited

160 Dundee Street

Edinburgh

EH11 1DQ

United Kingdom

T +44 (0)131 659 1500

F +44 (0)131 228 6177

www.jacobs.com

© Copyright 2015 Jacobs U.K. Limited. The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Jacobs. Use or copying of

this document in whole or in part without the written permission of Jacobs constitutes an infringement of copyright.

Limitation: This report has been prepared on behalf of, and for the exclusive use of Jacobs’ Client, and is subject to, and issued in accordance with, the

provisions of the contract between Jacobs and the Client. Jacobs accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for, or in respect of, any use of, or reliance

upon, this report by any third party.

Document history and status

Revision Date Description By Review Approved

Final July 2015 Final version for issue H. Greene E. Bergin P. Marsden

Sutton Estate, Chelsea Environmental Statement

Volume 1 (of 4)

Page i

Sutton Estate Environmental Statement - Volume 1: Non–Technical Summary

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1

The Application ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1

The Environmental Impact Assessment Process ..................................................................................................................... 2

2. Consultation ............................................................................................................ 3

3. Existing Site Context .............................................................................................. 4

4. Key Features of the Proposed Development ........................................................ 5

Key features ............................................................................................................................................................................. 5

Phasing of the Proposed Development .................................................................................................................................... 7

5. Alternatives and Design Evolution ....................................................................... 9

6. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation ................................................................ 10

Air Quality ............................................................................................................................................................................... 10

Noise and Vibration ................................................................................................................................................................ 11

Water Resources ................................................................................................................................................................... 12

Ecology .................................................................................................................................................................................. 13

Socio-economics .................................................................................................................................................................... 13

Geology and Soils .................................................................................................................................................................. 16

Built Heritage .......................................................................................................................................................................... 17

Archaeology ........................................................................................................................................................................... 18

Townscape and Visual ........................................................................................................................................................... 19

Traffic, Transport and Access ................................................................................................................................................ 20

Waste ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 21

Cumulative effects .................................................................................................................................................................. 22

7. Next steps .............................................................................................................. 23

Sutton Estate, Chelsea Non-Technical Summary

Volume 1 (of 4)

Non-Technical Summary

Page 1

1. Introduction

The Application

1.1.1 Affinity Sutton Homes (ASH, ‘the Applicant’) proposes to redevelop part of the Sutton Estate in order to provide for its long-term regeneration.

1.1.2 The Estate is located between Fulham Road (shown as green below) and King’s Road (shown as red in the figure below), in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC).

1.1.3 The location of the site is shown in the Plate 1.1 below.

Plate 1.1 : Site location

1.1.4 The current layout of the Estate is shown in Plate 1.2 below. The planning application relates to land within the red line boundary, whilst the blue line boundary indicates property owned by Affinity Sutton Homes which does not form part of the application.

Sutton Estate, Chelsea Non-Technical Summary Volume 1 (of 4)

Non-Technical Summary Page 2

Plate 1.2 : Existing block arrangement

The Environmental Impact Assessment Process

Environmental Statement

1.2.1 The Proposed Development has been assessed under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011, as amended by the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Amendment) Regulations 2015. These are referred to as ‘the EIA Regulations’ in the rest of this document.

1.2.2 The Environmental Statement is a report of the findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process. The Environmental Statement assesses and reports upon the likely significant effects of the Proposed Development and how they can be mitigated.

1.2.3 This document provides a non-technical summary of the Environmental Statement (ES) prepared for the Proposed Development. The Environmental Statement has been produced in line with policy and legislation relating to planning and the environment.

1.2.4 The EIA process has been undertaken for the Applicant, Affinity Sutton Homes by Jacobs.


Volume 1 (of 4)


Page 3

1.2.5 The ES is part of the planning application for the Proposed Development. It is prepared in four volumes as follows:

Volume I – Non-technical summary (this document);

Volume II - Environmental Statement: Main text;

Volume III - Environmental Statement: Figures; and

Volume IV - Environmental Statement: Annexes and Supporting Documents.

1.2.6 Full details of all likely significant effects identified can therefore be found within Volumes II to IV of the Environmental Statement, along with information on all mitigation proposals. Volumes II to IV of the ES also provide details of the policy and legislative context relevant to the application, baseline conditions of the site and surrounding area, stakeholder consultation, and the assessment methodology used.

Scoping

1.2.7 Scoping is the process by which applicants set out what the Environmental Statement will cover in terms of topics and issues, and how it will be undertaken in terms of approach. A scoping report is submitted by the applicant to the local authority and stakeholders for their scoping opinion.

1.2.8 A scoping report for the Proposed Development was submitted to Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council (‘the Council’) for consideration in September 2013. A scoping opinion was provided by the Council in October 2013. As details of the Proposed Development evolved, an addendum to the scoping report was submitted to the Council in July 2014 after which the Council requested additional supporting studies. This ES has been produced in line with Council recommendations.

1.2.9 Topics scoped out of the assessment in agreement with the Council were: light spillage, solar glare, microclimate and electronic interference. These topics were scoped out as they were considered unlikely to give rise to significant environmental effects and it is not anticipated that these will cause different environmental impacts than those from the existing development.

2. Consultation

2.1.1 Consultation is an important aspect of the EIA process. Views of consultees help to focus technical studies and to identify specific issues which require further assessment.

2.1.2 Consultees involved in the EIA process have included the following:

Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council;

English Heritage;

Natural England;

Environment Agency; and

Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service.

2.1.3 These consultees and others have been involved beyond the EIA process in terms of the wider evolution of development proposals. These include Affinity Sutton Homes tenants, local resident groups, the Greater London Authority and Transport for London.

2.1.4 Affinity Sutton Homes held two rounds of consultation events, in June 2014 and January 2015, to present the proposals and gather feedback from tenants and the wider public.



2.1.5 In addition to having a dedicated Resident Liaison Manager who holds regular drop in sessions and who is contactable every week day, other engagement activities and communication channels with tenants have included:

A dedicated webpage set up to provide details on the Proposed Development;

A regular newsletter (‘Chelsea Chat’) providing information to the existing tenants about the proposals, including updates on progress and activities;

Tenant-only consultation sessions to provide information about the project and gather feedback on areas of concern;

Regular, ongoing coffee sessions hosted by Affinity Sutton Homes to encourage open discussion about the Proposed Development. The aim of these is to encourage those who do not usually engage to come and discuss the proposals with the Affinity Sutton Homes Resident Liaison Manager;

The Sutton Estate Redevelopment Steering Group, elected by the tenants, which meets monthly and helps to oversee the Proposed Development on behalf of the existing tenants;

Posters located around the Estate providing project updates and reminders of consultation events;

Site visits to other estates redeveloped by Affinity Sutton Homes;

A dedicated project email address, telephone number and Freepost address set up to enable tenants to communicate with Affinity Sutton Homes.

2.1.6 Details of consultation activities are provided in the Statement of Community Engagement, which is submitted as part of the planning application.

2.1.7 Consultation with statutory consultees and local residents will be ongoing throughout the demolition and construction of the Proposed Development.

3. Existing Site Context

3.1.1 The site of the Proposed Development is bounded by Marlborough Street to the north, Ixworth Place to the west, Cale Street to the south and Elystan Street to the east. The site is located in the Stanley Ward within the administrative boundaries of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. The area within the redline boundary is 1.5ha.

3.1.2 The Sutton Estate currently comprises 462 affordable rented dwellings, contained within 15 five-storey buildings. Two of these blocks are occupied by the Estate’s older tenants. The application boundary incorporates all the existing residential units on the Estate with the exception of two residential blocks which have commercial use at ground floor, in the south east corner of the Estate, known as Leverstock House (Block L) and Maylands House (Block M). The blocks included as part of the application are therefore Blocks A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, N and O.

3.1.3 The exterior of a typical accommodation block is shown in Plate 1.3 below.


Volume 1 (of 4)


Page 5

Plate 1.3 : Typical accommodation block on the existing Sutton Estate

3.1.4 The site was developed in 1913 by the William Sutton Housing Trust to supply low cost housing to residents in Chelsea.

3.1.5 The majority of the Sutton Estate provides social housing for Affinity Sutton Homes tenants. The decanting of Affinity Sutton Homes tenants in Blocks A-D commenced twelve years ago and was concluded in 2015. As flats became void in Blocks A-D, Affinity Sutton Homes offered units to RBKC for the provision of licenced temporary accommodation for homeless households on the Housing Register. These units are managed by SMART on behalf of RBKC. No private accommodation is currently allocated on the site.

4. Key Features of the Proposed Development

Key features

4.1.1 The Proposed Development comprises:

Demolition of the existing 383 residential dwellings in Blocks A-K and N-O;

Construction of 343 new residential dwellings, comprising 237 affordable (social rented) dwellings and 106 private sale residential dwellings;

Construction of a basement which will include car and motorcycle parking, storage areas, an energy centre, and plant areas including water tank room and pump room;

Provision of a community centre;

Provision of new retail floor space and workspace units;

Landscaping, including screen planting, ornamental planting and rolled turf; and

Construction of a new link road between Cale Street and Marlborough Street

4.1.2 Block L (Leverstock House) and Block M (Maylands House), are owned by Affinity Sutton Homes and comprise 79 affordable residential dwellings, but lie outside the red line boundary. It is intended to undertake some improvement works for these two retained buildings, but this will be subject to a separate planning application.



4.1.3 A summary of the accommodation on the proposed site is provided in Table 1.1. The total red line boundary covers approximately 1.5 hectares.

Table 1.1 : Summary of accommodation provision in the Proposed Development (NIA)

Tenure Affordable Private Overall

Number of

units

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 TOTAL Phase 2 Phase 4 TOTAL Totals

1-bedroom 71 47 26 144 11 3 14 158

2-bedroom 48 18 5 71 49 12 61 132

3-bedroom 15 5 0 20 12 7 19 39

4-bedroom 2 0 0 2 3 9 12 14

Totals 136 70 31 237 75 31 106 343

% of overall

(by tenure)

57% 30% 13% 100% 71% 29% 100%

4.1.4 In terms of design, the masterplan looks to reshape the existing Estate. It aims to improve routes and create better open space, whilst still retaining a sense of community, and incorporating heritage features from the current blocks. The layout proposed is less linear than the existing one, and creates street frontages, connectivity, and improves access to daylight. The layout of the new development will also provide a significant improvement from a personal safety perspective. The redeveloped Estate will include communal areas that are not accessible to the public. There will also be defined routeways through the Estate which are overlooked to provide passive surveillance and add to the sense of security on the Estate.

4.1.5 In terms of scale and height, the existing buildings comprise five storeys plus mansard roof, chimneys and lift overruns (circa 18.7m). These would be replaced with six storey blocks (ground floor plus five upper storeys) up to 20.3m, with some duplexes below extending to lower ground floor level

4.1.6 An artist’s impression of the completed development is shown in Plate 1.4 below.

Plate 1.4 : Artist’s impression of the courtyard from the south


Volume 1 (of 4)


Page 7

Phasing of the Proposed Development

4.2.1 Demolition and construction work is anticipated to commence in spring 2016 and will last for approximately seven years.

4.2.2 The indicative construction programme in Plate 1.5 shows the sequence of phases, and the likely relative duration of each phase.

Plate 1.5 : Indicative construction programme

4.2.3 Demolition and construction of the Proposed Development will be carried out in four phases to minimise disruption to existing tenants. The phasing of the Proposed Development is described in Table 1.2 and shown in Figure 1.3 in the Environmental Statement. The phasing has been carefully considered such that all existing tenants will be required to move once during the construction period; from their current home into a new home on the redevelopment. The decanting of Affinity Sutton tenants in Blocks A-D was concluded in 2015. Tenants that lived in Blocks A-D have been moved into void properties on the existing Estate or have elected to move off site. Some tenants have elected to move off the Estate.

Table 4.2 : Phasing of the Proposed Development

Phase Activities Location of

activities

Tenant decant Timing

Phase 1 Demolition of Blocks A to D

Demolition of the Estate

Office

Construction of new

residential buildings,

referred to as Cores 1 to 7

in Block One which

includes 136 affordable

social rent units

North and west of

the site, on

Marlborough

Street and

Ixworth Place.

Blocks A-D will be vacant

prior to construction. The

SMART tenants are in the

process of being found

alternative accommodation

and this process is being

managed by RBKC.

Residents in Blocks E, F,

G, H, I, N and O (partially)

move into in Phase 1

Start

Spring

2016

Finish

Autumn

2017



Phase Activities Location of

activities

Tenant decant Timing

Phase 2 Phase 2 will be divided into

three overlapping sub-phases

(2, 2a and 2b).

Phase 2

Construction of Cores 8-12

in Block One which

includes 75 private sale

units

Phase 2a

Construction of Core 13 in

Block One which includes

15 affordable social rent

units

Phase 2b

Construction of Cores 14

and 15 in Block Three

which includes 55

affordable social rent units

Phase 2 and 2a

is located in the

southwest of the

site on Cale

Street

Phase 2b is

located in the

north of the site

on Marlborough

Street

Tenants in existing Blocks

J and K will move into the

units constructed as part of

Phase 2B while tenants in

the existing Block O will

move to units constructed

in Phase 2A.

Start

Winter

2018

Finish

Autumn

2020

Phase 3 Demolition of Blocks O and

J and partial demolition of

Block K.

Construction of Core 16 in

Block Three, which

includes 31 affordable

social rented units and the

new community centre.

Centre of the site Tenants in the remaining

section of Block K will be

decanted into the new

units.

Tenants that have

previously moved off-site

but have registered an

interest in returning to the

new development, and

those tenants who were

originally decanted from

Blocks A-D will be eligible

for one of the new units.

At the end of Phase 3 all

tenants will have moved

into their new home.

Start

Autumn

2020

Finish

early

2022

Phase 4 Demolition of the remainder

of Block K

Construction of new

residential buildings

comprising of Core 20 of

Block Two which includes

31 units for private sale

with retail use at ground

floor and two workspace

units; and the 9 mews

houses which are referred

to as Cores Blocks 18 and

19 on plan. (Note that

there is no Core 17).

Southeast of the

site on Cale

Street, near the

sunken garden,

and adjacent to

Block L, which

will be retained

The Phase 4 units will be

for private market sale.

Start in

early

2022

Finish

early

2023


Volume 1 (of 4)


Page 9

5. Alternatives and Design Evolution

5.1.1 Currently, the residential dwellings located within Blocks A-D do not and cannot meet the minimum living standards under the Department of Communities and Local Government’s (DCLG) Decent Homes Standards and the Greater London Authority’s (GLA) space standards. The Proposed Development is aimed at meeting these standards to allow the dwellings to be lived in on a permanent basis.

5.1.2 A number of alternative options for the site have been considered. These are set out in the Development Appraisal that forms part of the planning application. Several options were considered to redevelop the site to meet the DCLG Decent Home Standards and GLA space standards. The options included:

Option 1 – do nothing;

Option 2a – refurbishment of Blocks A-D;

Option 2b – remodelling Blocks A-D;

Option 2c – lateral extension;

Option 2d – vertical extension;

Option 2e – new development on the site of Blocks A-D; and

Option 3 – redevelopment of the Estate (excluding Blocks L & M) (Partial Redevelopment).

5.1.3 As described above, the “do nothing” scenario, Option 1, was not acceptable since ASH is under legal obligation to provide appropriate accommodation for all their tenants and is required to ensure that all tenants are housed in accommodation which meets the appropriate standards. RBKC confirmed in 2009 that the “do nothing” scenario was not acceptable as it would mean that tenants remained in unfit premises that do not meet Decent Homes Standards.

5.1.4 The options were considered against the main objective of reproviding all existing affordable housing tenants with a new home which met Decent Homes Standards and the GLA’s space standards. Where possible Affinity Sutton Homes has, within all options, sought to maximise the amount of affordable floorspace. Technical and financial viability was also considered.

5.1.5 A quantitative appraisal of each option comprised assessment against: a number of objective measures which form part of the Mayor’s Design Standards; accessibility criteria; and sustainability and environmental performance criteria. Option 3 yielded the highest score under the sustainability and environmental performance criteria (which are of particular relevance to the EIA), and also yielded the greatest overall score.

5.1.6 Option 3 was the only option considered to meet technical and financial objectives and is therefore the most viable solution for the Sutton Estate. It is therefore the option that the Applicant and RBKC agreed should be progressed and which forms the basis of this planning application. The key reasons for the selection of this option is that it is the only option that is viable from both a technical and financial perspective; it maximises cross-subsidy from the private sale dwellings; it provides the best solution for the existing tenants, creating a balanced community; and the new development meets all current design and sustainability standards and criteria.

5.1.7 The design of this option has evolved and has been informed by consultation with the Council, stakeholders and the public. Consultation has covered matters such as floorspace, unit numbers, design, massing, layout, highway matters, landscaping, lighting and public realm.

5.1.8 The mix of units provided was determined in line with a Housing Needs Assessment undertaken by the Applicant.



6. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation

Air Quality

6.1.1 Chapter 5: Air Quality of the ES presents an assessment of potential impacts on air quality. The likely significant effects resulting from the demolition of existing buildings and construction and operation of the Proposed Development are assessed in accordance with the relevant and accepted guidance.

6.1.2 The assessment comprises a number of sections: namely construction and demolition dust; suitability of the site; impact of the development on local air quality; and emissions. These are summarised separately, and overall conclusions are presented. Principal air pollutants of concern from a human health perspective are nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter.

6.1.3 An appraisal of the of the potential dust levels associated with demolition and construction (including emissions from construction transport) shows that, although dust is likely to occur from site activities through demolition and construction, this can be reduced to Low risk through the application of appropriate mitigation measures. Providing the mitigation measures are in place and appropriately managed, it is unlikely that unacceptable dust impacts would occur to adjacent receptors during the construction stage, and therefore there a negligible effect is predicted.

6.1.4 An assessment of the suitability of the site for the type of development proposed shows that the predicted concentrations of nitrogen dioxide at some locations within the Proposed Development are above the Air Quality Objective (AQO), due to the high background concentration. However the largest change in annual mean nitrogen dioxide at any sensitive receptor from the combined emissions of road traffic and energy centre emissions leads to a small insignificant change in ambient concentration. Particulate matter concentrations as a result of the development are expected to be within the relevant AQOs for all modelled receptors.

6.1.5 The impact of the development on local air quality during its operation was assessed by considering the contributions from traffic and from the energy centre. This demonstrates that the forecast concentrations of nitrogen dioxide exceed the AQO at all of the assessed locations, due to the background concentration already being above the AQO. For particulate matter, the forecast concentrations are expected to be insignificant. The increases in nitrogen dioxide concentration due to emissions from the proposed energy centre are considered negligible.

6.1.6 During its operation the Proposed Development will result in negligible increases of annual emissions of nitrogen dioxide due to traffic. However, to lessen any such impact, the Proposed Development will include facilities for electric cars and bicycles to promote sustainable transport options. The development is located close to major public transport routes and is a 700m walk distance from South Kensington Underground Station.

6.1.7 The proposed energy centre is likely to lead to approximately 1,321kg of nitrogen dioxide being emitted per year. The proposed energy centre will contain highly efficient units burning natural gas and has been selected to minimise emissions from the Proposed Development. The use of natural gas as a fuel leads to lower emissions of this pollutant compared to alternative fuels, such as biofuels and biomass. The energy centre will house a catalytic converter to further reduce and minimise emissions. The selected boilers are very low emitters, and the flues have been combined to aid in the dispersion of the pollutants. Flues will terminate 3m above the roof level.


Volume 1 (of 4)


Page 11

6.1.8 An overall assessment of the significance of the air quality impacts of the Proposed Development in relation to emissions of nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter has been made in line with the London Council Air Quality and Planning Guidance (Revised 2007). The guidance states that the conclusion as to the overall significance of the air quality impacts should be based on professional judgement, based on specified factors, and the basis for making this judgement should be set out clearly. On this basis it is concluded that the overall impact due to the Proposed Development is not significant. The increase in nitrogen dioxide as a result of the Proposed Development is negligible and the development will introduce a relatively low number of people to an area where air quality is above the air quality objective for nitrogen dioxide. It is therefore considered that the Proposed Development is acceptable from an air quality perspective.

6.1.9 The residual likely effects relating to the air quality are therefore considered not significant.

Noise and Vibration

6.2.1 Chapter 6: Noise and Vibration of the ES presents the assessment undertaken to determine the potential noise and vibration effects of the Proposed Development, including consideration of the suitability of the development in terms of both existing and future noise and vibration exposure.

6.2.2 In respect of construction the assessment considers noise and vibration impacts of proposed demolition and construction activities (including construction traffic) on existing noise sensitive receptors in the area, for example existing dwellings and public open spaces.

6.2.3 In respect of operation the assessment comprises the following components:

Constraints of the existing noise environment for residential development;

The potential noise impact of the equipment to be installed as part of the development known as ‘fixed plant’ (such as chillers, the energy centre and extraction fans) on nearby existing sensitive receptors;

The potential noise impact of fixed plant on sensitive receptors associated with the development, for example residents of the newly-constructed development; and

The potential noise and vibration impacts due to additional road traffic resulting from introduction of the development.

6.2.4 The assessment is informed by noise modelling based on a representative sample of receptors, manufacturers’ data on noise-emitting plant, qualitative methods and, where appropriate, professional judgement.

6.2.5 The assessment concludes that there is the potential for significant adverse noise and vibration effects during construction. These effects will be minimised by the use of appropriate mitigation measures such as use of low noise emission plant where possible and programming works so that the requirement for working outside normal working hours is minimised.

6.2.6 Noise and vibration limits are expected to be agreed with the Council, and via Section 61 agreements which enable a developer to apply for ‘Prior Consent’ for construction works within agreed limits. Applications for such consent are made to the Local Authority and contain a method statement of the works and the steps to be taken to minimise noise which provide the prior consent.

6.2.7 During operation, with appropriate selection of glazing, mechanical ventilation and plant (including the proposed mitigation measures), acceptable internal and external noise levels are achievable within the Proposed Development. The site is therefore considered suitable for residential development.



6.2.8 For the operation of the Proposed Development, no significant adverse effects are predicted. Whilst exact details of the mechanical services strategy and the associated type of plant for certain parts of the development have yet to be specified, from the information presently available it is considered that the noise output from such plant would be relatively minor and relatively easy to mitigate.

Water Resources

6.3.1 Chapter 7: Water Resources of the ES presents an assessment of the potential effects of the Proposed Development on surface water, groundwater and hydrogeology, with a focus on quality and quantity of water affected. Impacts on flood risk patterns are also considered.

6.3.2 A search area of 500m from the site boundary was used to inform the assessment of water resources, although where a hydrological connection renders it necessary, locations outside of the 500m area are considered.

6.3.3 Currently, the site is covered in around 90 percent impermeable surfaces (buildings and other hard surfaces such as concrete paving).

6.3.4 There are no waterbodies on or next to the site. The nearest waterbody is the River Thames, located 800m south of the site boundary. The River Thames is ‘heavily modified’ and has moderate ecological potential. The culverted River Westbourne (also known as the Ranelagh sewer) is located about 430m to the east of the site boundary and functions as a sewer. Groundwater is located under the site between 3.5m and 5.5m below ground level.

6.3.5 The site is located entirely within Flood Zone 1, which has a low flood risk.

6.3.6 A Flood Risk Assessment has been prepared and forms part of the ES. This indicates that with the implementation of the drainage design, which incorporates water storage/control measures (attenuation), and other mitigation measures, there will be no significant flood risk to the site. There will also be no increase in flood risk to the surrounding land.

6.3.7 The design of the Proposed Development has reduced the potential effects on water resources. This includes the incorporation of sustainable drainage techniques to reduce runoff, raising the ground floor level and basement entrance to prevent flooding, and staged construction of the basement.

6.3.8 While the site has low sensitivity in terms of water resources, in the absence of mitigation, there is potential for significant impacts during construction from concrete, oils, petrol and other pollutants to both the groundwater and the sewer network near the site.

6.3.9 All but two potential impacts during construction of the Proposed Development are minor or negligible. Those with moderate and therefore of likely significant impact are:

1) spillages and leakages of oil, fuel and other potentially polluting substances which could migrate into soil and groundwater, and

2) spillages and leakages of concrete at high pH water contaminated by contact with cementitous material which could impact groundwater or surface water systems.

6.3.10 Good practice construction measures (for example locating topsoil storage and waste disposal facilities away from drainage features and open pits) and the use of simple pollution control methods (for example the use of a wheel wash for vehicles at the site exit) will reduce the impacts of the Proposed Development on the water environment to non-significant levels.

6.3.11 All potential impacts during operation, and the associated likely impact significance, are minor or negligible. These would be mitigated by measures included in the drainage design such as oil interceptors for the parking area.


Volume 1 (of 4)


Page 13

6.3.12 The residual likely effects relating to the water environment are therefore considered not significant.

Ecology

6.4.1 Chapter 8: Ecology of the ES presents an assessment of the potential effect of the Proposed Development on the ecology of the site and surrounding area.

6.4.2 The assessment is based on a desktop review of available information, and field surveys comprising a Phase 1 Habitat Survey and bat activity surveys.

6.4.3 A search area of 2km from the site boundary was used to inform the existing baseline with species records and designated nature conservation sites.

6.4.4 The site mainly consists of buildings and paved areas. Vegetation on the site is limited to ornamental trees and shrubs which are located throughout the site with a cluster around the Estate Office. Fauna of note on the site is considered to be limited to bats and nesting birds, both of which present ‘less than local value’. The site has low ecological value for wildlife and is limited in its ability to support biodiversity.

6.4.5 No part of the site is designated for ecological interest. The nearest designation to the site is the River Thames and Tidal Tributaries Site of Importance to Nature Conservation (non-statutory designation) located 0.85km to the south of the Proposed Development. The Battersea Park Nature Area Local Nature Reserve (statutory designation) is located about 1.7km southeast of the site.

6.4.6 Significant effects on surrounding ecological designations during construction and operation are unlikely. This is because of the distance of the site from any designations, the absence of any ecological links (e.g. hydrological or habitat links) to designated sites and the low ecological value of the intervening habitats.

6.4.7 Mitigation in the form of nest checks will be required to avoid impacts and/or to avoid contravening legislation protecting breeding birds during site clearance.

6.4.8 Bat surveys found the site to have low or negligible suitability to support roosting bats, and to provide low value bat foraging habitat. It is possible however that bats could establish roosts prior to demolition. Further bat surveys will be carried out in 2015 to confirm the absence of bats and avoid contravening legislation.

6.4.9 The plant species Cotoneaster was recorded amongst introduced shrub within the garden of the Estate Office, which is classified as invasive species. Under legislation it is an offence to allow invasive plants to spread onto adjacent land, or to plant or encourage the spread of invasive plants outside of your property (in this case, the site). Mitigation in the form of good working practices is recommended to prevent spread of this species.

6.4.10 Landscaping is proposed as part of the construction phase of the Proposed Development that will enhance the ecology of the site. This will include the planting of native species, the use of green/brown roofs and creation of wildlife areas, including bird and bat boxes. These benefits are considered non-significant.

6.4.11 The residual likely effects relating to ecology are therefore considered not significant.

Socio-economics

6.5.1 Chapter 9: Socio-economics of the ES presents an assessment of the likely significant socio-economic effects associated with the Proposed Development.

6.5.2 A Health Impact Assessment and Equality Impact Assessment were also carried out in relation to the Proposed Development. These two assessments are not summarised in this Non-Technical Summary but are submitted as part of the ES.



6.5.3 The socio-economics assessment focused on four themes: 1) employment opportunities and business activity, 2) social infrastructure, 3) the supply and quality of affordable and market housing, and 4) community cohesion. The study area for the assessment varies for each theme, ranging from the application site itself to Greater London.

6.5.4 Local reports, internet sites such as National Statistics and 2011 census data were used to establish the baseline on current conditions. Data were obtained from Affinity Sutton Homes for 403 Affinity Sutton Homes tenants living on the site, and from RBKC for 60 SMART households living in temporary accommodation in Blocks A-D.

6.5.5 The proportion of older people living on the Sutton Estate (over 65) is higher than that in Kensington and Chelsea Borough as a whole, and than in London. Conversely, there is a high proportion of young people (5-15 years) within the population of the SMART accommodation.

6.5.6 The site is located within an urban area and as such there is an established social infrastructure surrounding the site, including educational, open space, community and health facilities. The only amenity space on the site is known as the “sunken garden”; this has been fenced off at the request of the tenants due to anti-social behaviour.

6.5.7 Affinity Sutton Homes own 28 retail units on the Estate which are all currently let to retail tenants. These retail units are at street level in Blocks L and M. The ward in which the Estate lies has a higher proportion of people in full time employment than the London and national averages and unemployment is lower than the average in Kensington & Chelsea, London and England.

6.5.8 Housing quality is an issue for the Sutton Estate. Block A-D (159 existing flats) of the Sutton Estate do not and cannot meet Decent Homes Standards and have been declared "not fit for purpose". They cannot be legally used as social rented housing on a permanent basis as they no longer meet today’s standards in terms of liveability, management, sustainability, permeability and visual quality. As at January 2015, when the Housing Needs Assessment was frozen for the purpose of the planning application, there were 69 SMART households in Blocks A-D.

6.5.9 The redevelopment of the Estate has the primary aim of improving the quality of housing for all existing Affinity Sutton Homes tenants. Design and operational features of the proposals relevant to the socio-economic assessment include: 1) the proposed quantity and split of affordable (social rented) and private market sale housing, 2) the provision of replacement communal open space (significantly exceeding that currently provided), 3) a new tenant-led community centre, 4) flexible retail space and 5) flexible employment space.

6.5.10 Demolition and construction of the Proposed Development will generate increased economic activity through capital and revenue expenditure as well as job creation, both directly and indirectly.

6.5.11 There will be negligible impacts on local businesses as there are no temporary bus diversions or temporary road closures required. Good practice measures during demolition and construction will help avoid any impacts for example on shoppers.

6.5.12 There will be a negligible effect on social infrastructure during construction as demand for facilities such as schools and health services will remain at a similar level.

6.5.13 During the construction period the demand for social infrastructure is unlikely to change, as the population of the Estate will remain at a similar level to that immediately prior to construction works commencing, as existing ASH residents will all remain on the Estate. Impacts on social infrastructure will therefore be negligible.


Volume 1 (of 4)


Page 15

6.5.14 The quantity, mix, and design of the affordable housing proposed is based on meeting the specific needs of the existing ASH tenants, all of whom will remain on the Estate. The primary purpose is to meet the housing need of the existing tenants, however there may be a small surplus (of 9 social rented units) which will contribute towards the wider annual need for 4,800 affordable housing units in the borough. The scheme will therefore have a minor beneficial effect on the number of currently available affordable housing units in the borough.

6.5.15 While the loss of approximately 69 SMART dwellings in Blocks A-D will reduce the stock of this type of temporary accommodation available to the Borough, it is acknowledged that these flats are made available for this use on a voluntary basis and so could be withdrawn at any time. Nevertheless, in terms of scale the 69 units which have been used for this purpose represent about 3% of the total number of households in temporary accommodation within RBKC. As such this is considered to be a minor adverse impact on the supply of temporary accommodation in RBKC, and therefore not significant.

6.5.16 The Estate has a ‘sunken garden’ which provides the only amenity space for tenants. This facility has been fenced off, at the request of the tenants for a number of years due to anti-social behaviour. As the ‘sunken garden’ is only removed in Phase 4, and all tenants will be in their new homes at the end of Phase 3, there will be no loss of amenity space within the Estate during the construction period.

6.5.17 There is an existing lounge area on site. This area will continue to be accessible to the tenants of these blocks until it is demolished as part of Phase 4. By this time the new Community Centre in Phase 3 will have been completed and will be available for use by all tenants of the Estate. Therefore there is no net loss of internal or external communal space within the Estate during the period of construction, resulting in a negligible effect on community cohesion.

6.5.18 During operation, the Proposed Development will generate a number of beneficial effects.

6.5.19 The proposed scheme will include flexible retail space and flexible employment space which is envisaged could be used as design space/artist studios. The increased permanent resident population is likely to increase spending at local shops around Chelsea Green. These economic impacts would have a minor and therefore non-significant beneficial effect on the local economy.

6.5.20 Operation of the Proposed Development is unlikely to significantly impact existing social infrastructure, including surrounding schools and health facilities. All social rented units to be developed on the Estate will accommodate existing tenants, and therefore there will be no additional demand for school places arising from these 237 units. The only potentially additional demand for school places will be from the proposed 106 new units for private sale. Calculations have been undertaken and it is estimated that there will 3.3 new pupils of primary school age and 0.59 pupils of secondary age. In the context of the anticipated increase in demand in pupils seeking places in the borough by 2023, the redevelopment is considered to have a negligible impact on demand for educational facilities which is not significant. Similarly, there will be no additional demand placed on healthcare provision from the redevelopment of the site and is considered to be negligible and not significant.

6.5.21 The private housing will generate additional demand on child play space of 100sqm. This minor adverse effect would be reduced to negligible through the payment of the Community Infrastructure Level charge which also goes towards health, education and other social infrastructure.

6.5.22 The Proposed Development would improve the standard of accommodation for existing tenants. The 237 replacement social rented units will significantly improve the standard of accommodation for those existing tenants who will occupy all the new affordable dwellings. This is considered to be a major beneficial and therefore significant beneficial effect on the wellbeing of the current tenants.



6.5.23 Furthermore the 106 proposed dwellings for private sale will make a considerable contribution towards RBKC’s housing target of 750 dwellings per annum, making best use of brownfield urban land in one of the most highly accessible parts of London. This will provide a moderate beneficial and therefore significant beneficial effect on housing supply in the borough

6.5.24 A number of design features of the development will lead to improved community cohesion once the development is complete. This includes a new Community Centre, new community square and shared secure courtyards and a more open environment which is less oppressive and intimidating. In combination these design features are likely to generate a moderate beneficial and therefore significant beneficial effect on community cohesion.

6.5.25 The cumulative impact assessment found a moderate and therefore significant cumulative beneficial impact on the provision of affordable housing, and a major cumulative and therefore significant cumulative beneficial impact on the provision of market housing within RBKC.

6.5.26 A major significant cumulative beneficial impact will result from employment growth (both direct and indirect) which will arise from the construction activity associated with these developments.

6.5.27 Mitigation to be applied in respect of the adverse socio-economic impacts identified will comprise payment of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charge towards health, education and other social infrastructure, addressing the impacts on demand for social infrastructure.

6.5.28 In addition, to enhance potentially positive socio-economic impacts of the scheme, the Applicant will contribute towards training for construction skills to facilitate employment opportunities for local people. This commitment will be made through a Section 106 agreement.

6.5.29 Whilst the mitigation measures above will help improve the scheme, the residual impacts are considered to be unchanged. In summary, there will be no residual adverse significant effects from the scheme.

Geology and Soils

6.6.1 Chapter 10: Geology and Soils of the ES presents an assessment of the potential effects of the Proposed Development on the geology and soils of the site and surrounding area.

6.6.2 The assessment is based on a desktop review of available information on the current condition of soils and groundwater of the site, as well as information obtained from the Council and results of intrusive investigations commissioned by Affinity Sutton Homes.

6.6.3 The geology of the site includes Kempton Park Gravels over London Clay. Groundwater flows to the south of the site, toward the River Thames. The groundwater supports local water supply and is important as a source of water to flow to the River Thames.

6.6.4 Sensitive receptors include existing and future occupants of the site, construction workers, buildings and infrastructure and environmental receptors, such as groundwater.

6.6.5 Potential sources of contamination have been identified from historical, current and proposed land uses. The site has been used for residential purposes since 1830. Up to three air raid/bomb shelters are known to be present at the site. Prior to 1830 the site was used for agricultural purposes.


Volume 1 (of 4)


Page 17

6.6.6 Intrusive investigations targeted the potential sources of contamination, and found that lead is present in the shallow made ground. A potential risk to health and damage to buildings were identified as potential risks in the absence of mitigation as a result of soil gases, which are also present in the made ground. The potential for the accumulation of soil gas on site will be mitigated by removal of the ground at one particular location.

6.6.7 Potential impacts for both the demolition/construction phase and the completed development were identified. A measure of risk was determined for each, taking into consideration the likelihood of occurrence and the significance of effect (which is a reflection of receptor sensitivity and the magnitude of impact). Where the risk of significant impact is assessed to be moderate or greater, mitigation or management has been recommended where possible, to reduce the level of risk.

6.6.8 Measures would be put in place prior to excavation to reduce the risks of construction workers and surrounding residents and businesses being exposed to elevated lead soil. This would include, for example, the use of personal protective equipment, and the wetting of soil surfaces in dry conditions.

6.6.9 Other potential impacts during demolition and construction include accidental oil and fuel spills, exposure to asbestos, and runoff of water containing contaminants through excavation and piling. Mitigation measures proposed in respect of these impacts includes: implementation of pollution prevention guidance; implementation of safe fuel storage; undertaking piling works in accordance with Environment Agency and CL:AIRE guidance which is designed to protect groundwater during piling and ensure appropriate waste procedures are followed.

6.6.10 Impacts for the completed development were identified as impacts on human health and on buried structures and services from contaminated material within the shallow soils. Impacts on the former would be reduced by implementation of a remedial strategy, including installation of a cover layer in those areas of the development that will not be covered by buildings or hardstanding. Impacts on the latter would be mitigated through adoption of appropriate construction methods and materials.

6.6.11 Following mitigation, all impacts related to demolition and construction will be reduced to moderate/minor or lower risk levels. All of the impacts identified in relation to the completed development will be reduced to down to moderate/minor levels or lower post-mitigation.

6.6.12 The residual likely effects relating to geology and soils are therefore considered not significant.

Built Heritage

6.7.1 Chapter 11: Built Heritage of the ES presents an assessment of the likely effect on built heritage receptors, including their setting.

6.7.2 A study area of 250m was used to identify built heritage receptors that may be affected. Professional judgement was been used to scope out those built heritage receptors that will not be affected by the Proposed Development.

6.7.3 The design of the Proposed Development is important to minimising effects on built heritage during operation. Effects have been minimised through consultation and visual analysis, layout, height and massing, and appearance and materials. The design of the new blocks is sympathetic to the surrounding area.

6.7.4 The existing Sutton Estate is a non-designated heritage asset. However, the blocks have some historic value as they are an early example of social housing, but with limited architectural interest. Thirteen of fifteen blocks within the Estate will be demolished. This has been assessed as a moderate adverse during construction and therefore a significant adverse effect.



6.7.5 Before demolition, historic building recording will be carried out to mitigate the loss of the blocks identified as being part of the Sutton Estate. Nevertheless, the residual effect will remain significant.

6.7.6 The Proposed Development will see the retention of existing Blocks L and M and new development on the remainder of the site. There will be beneficial effects associated with the retention of Blocks L and M to the built heritage of the area, through the provision of new landscaped areas and high quality urban design. Given the extent of change from demolition, however, the operational effects on the Sutton Estate are also considered according to a reasonable worst case approach moderate and therefore significant adverse. National planning policy requires a balanced judgement of the scale of any harm or loss and the heritage value (in this case, a non-designated asset) versus public benefits.

6.7.7 In addition to the Estate itself, other built heritage assets were considered in terms of whether they would be positively or adversely affected. Most assets were found to experience nil to minor adverse effects during construction, and therefore non-significant effects. These included St Luke’s Church (Grade I), St Luke’s Registered Park and Garden (Grade II), and Chelsea Conservation Area. This is because of their relative distance from the site, the alignment of roads and/or viewing points, and the nature of the existing setting and/or the nature of their architectural and/or historic interest.

6.7.8 During operation, most of these same assets will experience non-significant minor beneficial to nil effects. The Proposed Development will lead to minor beneficial improvements in the setting (and therefore heritage value) of the following built heritage receptors during operation: St Luke’s Church; 18-68 (even) Sydney Street; and Chelsea Conservation Area.

Archaeology

6.8.1 Chapter 12: Archaeology of the ES presents an assessment of the potential impacts of the Proposed Development on archaeological remains.

6.8.2 A desktop analysis of archaeology was carried out for the site itself as well as archaeological features located within 100m (‘inner study area’) and 500m (‘outer study area’) from the site boundary.

6.8.3 Before the Sutton Estate was constructed, the area consisted of farmland forming part of Chelsea Common and was subsequently occupied by some residential properties, a post office and a distillery. It is likely that the physical evidence of these earlier landuses was removed through the construction of the Sutton Estate in 1913.

6.8.4 However, there is the potential for two archaeological assets to be located within the footprint of the Proposed Development site. The first is three underground air raid shelters constructed during the First World War. Because this type of asset is well understood the significance of this impact has been assessed as slight.

6.8.5 The second archaeological asset to be located within the footprint of the Proposed Development site is Marlborough Place, a 19th century development of residential properties around a triangular garden square. Again, the significance of this impact has been assessed as slight.

6.8.6 Twenty nine other archaeological assets are located within 500m of the site boundary. These archaeological assets mainly include public spaces, parks and roads. These are unlikely to be affected by the Proposed Development.

6.8.7 Four listed buildings are located within 100m of the site boundary. It is unlikely that these include archaeological remains that extend beyond the asset footprints and therefore no physical impact is predicted.

6.8.8 During operation, after recording any archaeological remains identified during construction of the Proposed Development, and publication of the results, no operation phase effects on archaeological remains are anticipated.


Volume 1 (of 4)


Page 19

6.8.9 The likelihood of finding unknown archaeological remains, particularly on the site, during demolition and construction is low. A programme of archaeological recording during construction will be undertaken to enable the examination and recording of any archaeological remains associated with the 18th century or earlier archaeological remains that may be present within the Proposed Development area. Any remains will be excavated and recorded in line with best practice.

6.8.10 The residual likely effects relating to archaeology are therefore considered not significant.

Townscape and Visual

6.9.1 Chapter 13: Townscape and Visual of the ES provides an assessment of the likely effects of the Proposed Development on townscape/landscape character and visual resource of the site and the surrounding area.

6.9.2 The study area used for the townscape and visual assessment extends 250m from the planning application boundary.

6.9.3 The assessment of effects on visual receptors is based on the selection of representative viewpoints, which were agreed with RBKC. Impacts on both daytime and night time views of the Proposed Development were considered. The assessment of effects on townscape is based on Townscape Character Areas (TCAs) and conservation areas. Four conservation areas lie within this area.

6.9.4 Nine TCAs were defined within the study area. TCAs to the northwest and south are defined by their heritage character; by contrast TCAs within the central and north eastern parts of the study area consist mainly of mansion blocks and philanthropic/high density housing.

6.9.5 The design process responded to considerations associated with townscape and visual receptors during the operational phase through, amongst other things, consultation, layout, massing, use of materials and landscaping. This was to create a development that responded to the site’s context.

6.9.6 The local townscape would be generally unaffected by the development during operation, and the Proposed Development is considered appropriate to its townscape context. This includes conservation areas such as Chelsea Conservation Area and St. Luke’s Garden.

6.9.7 During the demolition and construction phase, adverse effects on townscape and visual receptors would be partly mitigated through site hoardings to mask low level site operations. All practicable steps to reduce the adverse effects would be taken.

6.9.8 Construction impacts for three TCAs within sensitive townscape areas adjoining or close to the site would be significant adverse effects under the EIA Regulations. These are: Mansion Houses, Brick and Stucco Terraces and St. Luke’s Church and Gardens. There would also be significant adverse effects for the Chelsea Conservation Area and the registered garden at St Luke’s Church.

6.9.9 Construction would last for seven years, but is assessed in the context of the longer-term operation of the scheme.

6.9.10 For daytime views during operation, local visual effects would be mostly only slight adverse, generally resulting from changes in the roofline within the view. Views along St. Luke’s Street would be slightly more adversely affected resulting in a moderate adverse effect. These impacts would be considered non-significant in terms of the EIA Regulations.

6.9.11 The improved views for tenants of the existing Estate upon completion of the development represents a moderate beneficial effect, which is considered non-significant. Conversely, occupants of properties directly overlooking the site would experience a moderate adverse effect.

6.9.12 Local night time views would incur no discernible change during operation.



6.9.13 The important and historic view from Richmond to St. Paul’s Cathedral would not be affected during construction or operation.

6.9.14 During construction many visual receptors would experience moderate adverse effects as a result of cranes and roof top activity. Viewpoints within the Chelsea Conservation Area sited close to the site, tenants within the Estate and occupants of neighbouring properties directly facing the site would experience major adverse effects. The adverse effects would be considered significant adverse under the EIA Regulations.

6.9.15 No significant cumulative effects were identified with other developments in the vicinity.

Traffic, Transport and Access

6.10.1 Chapter 14: Traffic, Transport and Access of the ES provides an assessment of likely significant effects of the Proposed Development in relation to traffic, transportation and access. A full Transport Assessment has been produced to accompany this.

6.10.2 During construction, a range of issues were considered, including the phasing, construction staffing requirements and anticipated traffic generation. During operation, two scenarios were considered for the assessment of impact on traffic generation in 2023, namely with and without the Proposed Development.

6.10.3 The site is well connected to public transport, including bus, tube and ferry services. Cycle hire facilities are located near the site and the existing pedestrian facilities around the site are good. Parking is available in the surrounding roads and there are 24 car parking for Affinity Sutton Homes tenants, and 56 spaces for the private units on the site.

6.10.4 The Proposed Development will provide a new link road which will run through the site between Cale Street and Marlborough Street. Also, to facilitate access to the proposed mews houses and to allow servicing, a new mews street will also be created off the new link road. The design of the new link road and mews street will improve the pedestrian environment within the site. Approximately 552 secure bicycle parking spaces will be provided on the site and some additional cycle parking will be provided for visitors.

6.10.5 During construction, an additional approximately 26 vehicle movements per day will result from construction traffic. Based on existing traffic movements on Cale Street and Ixworth Place, the impact of additional construction traffic would be negligible.

6.10.6 Impacts on traffic movements, cyclists and pedestrians will be managed through the Demolition and Waste Management Plan (DWMP). A draft DWMP has been submitted for approval as part of this planning application. The final version of the DWMP will be produced by the contractor that is appointed to carry out the demolition works. In addition the appointed contractor will need to submit a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) to RBKC for approval prior to the commencement of the construction works. The requirement for these documents is secured through a planning condition. Significant residual impacts on traffic, transport and access during construction and operation are not anticipated. This is because demolition and construction work will be phased and only very small areas of local highway will be affected at any given time.

6.10.7 During operation, the effect of the Proposed Development on the existing road network would be minimal. This is because of the low level of parking provision proposed on site, the high level of public transport accessibility and local on-street parking restrictions.

6.10.8 In addition, there will be a negligible impact on public transport capacity, because the numbers of additional passengers would be small in context to existing patterns.


Volume 1 (of 4)


Page 21

6.10.9 A moderate and significant beneficial effect will result for pedestrians, because of improved access created by the new link road, mews street and overall improvement in public realm.

6.10.10 Cyclists will experience a minor beneficial residual effect due to new cycle parking.

6.10.11 A number of schemes were requested for consideration as cumulative schemes by RBKC. These have been reviewed within the Transport Assessment and it is considered that none of the cumulative developments would have any material impact on the surrounding local highway network of the Proposed Development.

6.10.12 A number of measures will be implemented to improve the transport effects of the Proposed Scheme. During demolition and construction, construction traffic routes and temporary site access arrangements will be agreed with the Council, and effective scheduling of deliveries will be undertaken. To minimise impacts on vehicle and pedestrian access temporary signage and advance warning of road closures will be used. A Draft Travel Plan has been drawn up to include improvements applicable to the highway network, pedestrians and cyclists. During operation, a Residential Travel Plan will be prepared detailing a package of measures and incentives to promote sustainable travel choices and reduce reliance on single occupancy vehicle travel.

6.10.13 All residual transport related construction effects will be negligible and therefore not significant, whilst during operation they will remain unchanged.

Waste

6.11.1 Chapter 15: Waste of the ES provides an assessment of waste likely to be produced by the Proposed Development, the likely impacts of this waste and how to minimise and manage it.

6.11.2 Estimated quantities of construction, demolition and excavation waste were obtained for the Borough and London. Figures relating to household waste, and information about waste collection services provided by the Council were also used to compile the baseline.

6.11.3 Design measures will be put in place to reduce waste during construction of the Proposed Development. These measures include avoiding excavation where possible, returning surplus material to suppliers, using simple structures, and using off-site construction where possible which allows for ease of waste to be collected, reused or recycled.

6.11.4 During demolition of the existing buildings on the site waste is likely to include various building materials, such as concrete, metal, glass, bricks, and timber and plasterboard. Through good practice, up to 85-95% of these materials can be re-used or recycled. Given the large volume of material created it is unlikely that all of the recovered material would be required on site. If 50% of the demolition material can be recovered and reused/recycled on site the remainder will need to be taken to local waste management facilities. Based on the small contribution this would have to the waste infrastructure in the wider area, the overall effect of handling demolition waste generated by the project can be viewed as being of minor/negligible significance

6.11.5 During construction, waste will include materials such as concrete, steel, tiles and bricks. Most of the construction waste will be re-used on site. Where this is not possible, materials will be recycled off-site. It is unlikely that the Proposed Development will have any significant adverse effect on current local waste management capacity. Therefore the overall effect of handling construction waste generated by the project can be viewed as being of negligible significance.



6.11.6 Waste during the operation of the Proposed Development is mainly limited to household waste, some of which will be recycled. A refuse strategy has been developed for the Proposed Development and is submitted as part of the Planning Application. It is estimated that the Proposed Development will generate less than 1% of the total municipal waste produced within RBKC in 2012/13. Therefore, the magnitude of operational waste from the Proposed Development is considered to be negligible, especially in view of the fact that there is already an Estate on site.

6.11.7 No significant effects are anticipated in relation to the cumulative schemes identified.

6.11.8 A draft DWMP is submitted with the Planning Application for Phase 1. This will provide a framework within which the environmental aspects of the decommissioning, removal of hazardous materials (including asbestos), soft stripping and demolition works will be managed for Phase 1. A CEMP, or series thereof, will serve a similar function for subsequent phases. This provides a guiding principle for managing waste during the construction process.

6.11.9 The Proposed Development will result in the generation of waste during the demolition, construction, operational phases. However with the design and construction methods and further mitigation proposed the amount of waste that will require removal from the Proposed Development site will be minimised. Given the relatively low tonnages arising during the construction and operation phases, this will have a negligible effect on the existing waste treatment capacity within Kensington and Chelsea.

6.11.10 The residual likely effects relating to waste are therefore considered not significant.

Cumulative effects

6.12.1 Two types of cumulative effects have been considered as part of the Environmental Statement. First, intra-project effects are those which arise from a combination of activities or impacts acting on a particular receptor. For example, the noise and air quality effects from construction could have a combined effect on residents on site and nearby. Chapter 16 of the ES considers which of the interactions between topics may result in significant intra-project cumulative effects.

6.12.2 During the demolition and construction period, the combined effects from noise, vibration, and visual impacts of construction were identified as likely to result in elevated adverse effects for existing and future members of the community, both on- and off-site.

6.12.3 Given the seven year duration of this period this was considered a significant adverse effect on the quality of life for members of the community, albeit temporarily.

6.12.4 Upon completion of the development it is considered that there would be elevated beneficial effects for Affinity Sutton Homes tenants. These are likely to include a major beneficial effect on housing quality, as well as an improved sense of community through the new community centre and communal environment. The new development will also offer an improved townscape, pedestrian access and cycle parking. These would contribute to the improved quality of life for the Affinity Sutton Homes tenants. Given that these benefits will be realised over a long-term period, this is considered to be a significant beneficial effect.

6.12.5 Significant beneficial effects are also predicted for the quality of life of new occupants of the private sale housing.

6.12.6 A second type of cumulative effect, namely inter-project effects, concerns those which arise from the same impact occurring from different locations – that is, from other proposed developments. Visual impacts could, for example, occur from the Proposed Development cumulatively with one or more other proposed developments in the wider area.


Volume 1 (of 4)


Page 23

6.12.7 Such effects identified include significant beneficial effects on socio-economics - specifically, on the provision of affordable housing and market housing within RBKC, and on direct and indirect employment growth.

6.12.8 Minor beneficial impacts on the built heritage setting of St Luke’s Church and on townscape and visual features are identified in relation to the nearby Royal Brompton Hospital redevelopment.

6.12.9 Minor negative effects may result from the increased pressure on existing waste facilities as a result of the demolition/construction and operation of the Proposed Development.

7. Next steps

7.1.1 Overall, it is considered that the EIA undertaken and the Environmental Statement that reports the outcome of this process, are robust and produced in accordance with relevant legislation, policy, guidance and consultation with key stakeholders.

7.1.2 The Environmental Statement is part of the planning application for the Sutton Estate, which will be determined by the Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council.

The Environmental Statement and planning application identify a series of controls which will ensure that the design, operation and construction mitigation measures identified will be implemented. One of the key mechanisms will be Demolition and Waste Management Plans and Construction Environmental Management Plans. A draft is submitted with the planning application for Phase 1 demolition. Final versions of these documents will be produced by the appointed contractor. The requirement for these documents would be secured through a planning condition.