Supp Report On P2 Consultation - Chapter 7 Putney Bridge Foreshore

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

Chapter 7 Putney Bridge Foreshore
Thames Tunnel Supplementary report on phase two consultation

List of contents
Page number
Putney Bridge Foreshore ............................................................................. 7-1 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 Introduction ........................................................................................... 7-1 Number of respondents ........................................................................ 7-1 Site selection ........................................................................................ 7-2 Alternative sites .................................................................................... 7-9 Management of construction works .................................................... 7-11 Permanent design and appearance .................................................... 7-52 Management of operational effects .................................................... 7-64 Our view of the way forward ............................................................... 7-82
List of tables Page number Table 7.2.1 Number of respondents who provided feedback on Putney Bridge Foreshore ........................................................................................... 7-1 Table 7.3.1 Views on whether Putney Bridge Foreshore should be our preferred site (Q2) .............................................................................. 7-2 Table 7.3.2 Supportive and neutral comments feedback comments in relation to selection of our preferred site ......................................................... 7-3 Table 7.3.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to selection of our preferred site ...................................................................................... 7-5 Table 7.3.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to shortlisted sites .......... 7-9 Table 7.4.1 Suggested alternative sites to Putney Bridge Foreshore .................... 7-9 Table 7.4.2 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the availability and identification of alternative sites ............................... 7-11 Table 7.4.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the availability and identification of alternative sites ........................................................ 7-11 Table 7.5.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right key issues in the site information paper? (Q4a) ........................................................... 7-12 Table 7.5.2 Do you agree that we have identified the right way to address the key issues? (Q4b)............................................................................. 7-12 Table 7.5.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to key issues during construction ...................................................................................... 7-13 Table 7.5.4 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the key effects during construction . 7-13 Table 7.5.5 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during construction .................. 7-13 Table 7.5.6 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour during construction ................................................................. 7-15 Table 7.5.7 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour during construction ...................................................................................... 7-17 Table 7.5.8 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to construction working hours and programme ..................................... 7-18 Table 7.5.9 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction working hours and programme ......................................................... 7-18 Table 7.5.10 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to address the effects of construction working hours and programme ................................. 7-19 Table 7.5.11 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to construction site design and layout................................................... 7-20 Table 7.5.12 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction site design and layout ............................................................................. 7-20
Table 7.5.13 Suggestions for construction site design and layout ........................ 7-21 Table 7.5.14 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the historic environment during construction .......................................... 7-22 Table 7.5.15 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historic environment during construction....................................................... 7-22 Table 7.5.16 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment during construction ........................................................................... 7-24 Table 7.5.17 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to land quality and contamination during construction .................................................... 7-25 Table 7.5.18 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to lighting during construction ...................................................................................... 7-25 Table 7.5.19 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of lighting during construction ........ 7-26 Table 7.5.20 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) during construction ........................................ 7-27 Table 7.5.21 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) during construction ............................................................ 7-28 Table 7.5.22 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction ........................ 7-28 Table 7.5.23 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction .................................... 7-28 Table 7.5.24 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction ......................................................... 7-29 Table 7.5.25 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration during construction ........................................................................... 7-31 Table 7.5.26 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration during construction ...................................................................................... 7-34 Table 7.5.27 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to open space and recreation during construction .......................................................... 7-36 Table 7.5.28 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on open space and recreation during construction ........................................................................... 7-37 Table 7.5.29 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to socioeconomic effects during construction ............................................... 7-38 Table 7.5.30 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects during construction ................................................................ 7-38 Table 7.5.31 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects during construction .... 7-40
Table 7.5.32 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to structures and utilities during construction ............................................................... 7-41 Table 7.5.33 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities during construction ........................................................................... 7-42 Table 7.5.34 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to townscape and visual effects during construction...................................................... 7-43 Table 7.5.35 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on townscape and visual during construction ...................................................................................... 7-44 Table 7.5.36 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to transport and access during construction ........................................................ 7-44 Table 7.5.37 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access during construction ............................................................... 7-45 Table 7.5.38 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access during construction ...................................................................................... 7-48 Table 7.5.39 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to water and flood risk during construction ..................................................................... 7-51 Table 7.5.40 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk during construction ... 7-52 Table 7.6.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right issues that have influenced our permanent design for this site? (Q5) ......................... 7-52 Table 7.6.2 Please give us your views about our proposals for the permanent design and appearance of the site (Q6) ........................................... 7-53 Table 7.6.3 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site.................................. 7-53 Table 7.6.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site.................................................... 7-55 Table 7.6.5 Design suggestions .......................................................................... 7-59 Table 7.7.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right key issues in the site information paper? (Q7a) ........................................................... 7-64 Table 7.7.2 Do you agree that we have identified the right way to address the key issues? (Q7b) ....................................................................... 7-65 Table 7.7.3 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the identified key issues during operation............................................... 7-65 Table 7.7.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the identified key issues during operation .................................................................... 7-65 Table 7.7.5 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during operation ...... 7-66 Table 7.7.6 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during operation ...................... 7-66
Table 7.7.7 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to air quality and odour during operation ................................................... 7-66 Table 7.7.8 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour during operation ..................................................................... 7-67 Table 7.7.9 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour during operation................................................................................ 7-68 Table 7.7.10 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour during operation........................................................................................... 7-69 Table 7.7.11 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historic environment issues during operation ................................................ 7-69 Table 7.7.12 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment during operation........................................................................................... 7-70 Table 7.7.13 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to land quality and contamination during operation ........................................................ 7-71 Table 7.7.14 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) during operation ............................................ 7-71 Table 7.7.15 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) during operation ................................................................. 7-72 Table 7.7.16 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation ............................. 7-73 Table 7.7.17 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation ......................................... 7-73 Table 7.7.18 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation ............................................................. 7-73 Table 7.7.19 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration during operation................................................................................ 7-74 Table 7.7.20 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to open space and recreation during operation ............................................. 7-75 Table 7.7.21 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to open space and recreation during operation ............................................................... 7-75 Table 7.7.22 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to socioeconomic effects during operation .................................................... 7-75 Table 7.7.23 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects during operation .................................................................... 7-76 Table 7.7.24 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects during operation ......... 7-76
Table 7.7.25 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to structures and utilities during operation .................................................................... 7-77 Table 7.7.26 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities during operation........................................................................................... 7-77 Table 7.7.27 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to townscape and visual effects during operation .......................................................... 7-78 Table 7.7.28 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on townscape and visual during operation........................................................................................... 7-78 Table 7.7.29 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to transport and access during operation ............................................. 7-79 Table 7.7.30 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access during operation ................................................................... 7-79 Table 7.7.31 Objections, issues and concerns to address the effects of transport and access during operation ............................................. 7-80 Table 7.7.32 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to water and flood risk during operation ......................................................................... 7-80 Table 7.7.33 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk during operation................................................................................ 7-81
7 Putney Bridge Foreshore
7
7.1
7.1.1
Putney Bridge Foreshore

Introduction
This chapter covers the feedback comments received during phase two consultation regarding our preferred site Putney Bridge Foreshore. This site would be used to connect the existing local combined sewer overflow (CSO), known as the Putney Bridge CSO, to the main tunnel. Putney Bridge Foreshore was also our preferred site to intercept the Putney Bridge CSO at phase one consultation. In response to stakeholder engagement, phase one consultation responses and scheme development, the extent and construction layout of the site was altered at phase two consultation to minimise the impact on the local community and the environment. For further information regarding the proposals for this site at phase two consultation, refer to the Putney Bridge Foreshore site information paper.
Structure of this chapter

7.1.2 This chapter is organised as listed below, which reflects the structure of the phase two consultation feedback form: 1.1.1 section 7.2 Number of respondents section 7.3 Site selection section 7.4 Alternative sites section 7.5 Management of construction works section 7.6 Permanent design and appearance section 7.7 Management of operational effects section 7.8 Our view of the way forward.
In sections 7.3 to 7.7 we present details of the feedback comments raised, the types and total number of respondents, and our response to feedback comments. Where specific objections, issues or concerns have been raised, the final column of the tables indicates whether, in response to the feedback received: C we are considering or proposing change or additional mitigation1 to that set out in our phase two consultation material N we do not propose to amend our proposals.
7.2
7.2.1
Number of respondents
A total of 171 respondents provided comments on Putney Bridge Foreshore, of which ten were received after the close of phase two consultation. Table 7.2.1 sets out the different groups who provided feedback for this site. Table 7.2.1 Number of respondents who provided feedback on Putney Bridge Foreshore Statutory consultees 6 respondents - Design Council CABE (CABE) - Consumer Council for Water (CCW) - English Heritage (EH) - Environment Agency (EA) - Greater London Authority (GLA) - Port of London Authority (PLA) Local authorities 1 respondent - London Borough of Wandsworth (LBW) Landowners 3 respondents Community consultees 161 respondents Petitions 0 petitions
7.2.2
1
Feedback on this site was received in a number of forms, including feedback forms and correspondence (emails and letters).
Mitigation here refers to a wide range of measures set out in our phase two consultation proposals including for example, the Air management plan and other documents as well as those mitigation measures set out in the PEIR.
7-1
7.3
7.3.1
Site selection
A series of sites is required in order to build and operate the Thames Tunnel project. To determine our preferred scheme, we are undertaking a site selection process using a methodology that was adopted after consultation with the relevant local authorities and statutory consultees. For further information on our methodology and process, refer to: Site selection project information paper, which sets out the process we followed to find and select our preferred sites Site selection methodology paper, which details the methodology used to select construction sites along the route of the main tunnel Site selection background technical paper, which provides supporting technical information to the Site selection methodology paper such as the engineering requirements for the size of construction sites. Site information papers, which provide summary information on each of our preferred sites, including the reasons for selecting them Phase two scheme development report, which describes how our proposals for the Thames Tunnel project have evolved and provides a detailed account of the site selection process for each of the preferred sites.
7.3.2
The results of the site selection process up to phase two consultation are set out in:
7.3.3
In this section, we set out the feedback comments received in relation to the selection of Putney Bridge Foreshore as our preferred site, together with our responses. Our responses provide relevant details of the site selection process and its findings up to phase two consultation. Where appropriate we have also identified further work that we have undertaken in relation to our preferred site, such as the preparation of our Preliminary environmental information report (PEIR). As part of the project design development process, we continue to assess how the effects arising from the proposed development can be addressed. The output of our assessment up to phase two consultation is contained in appendix D of the Design development report and our PEIR (volume 10). Where respondents commented on matters in relation to management of construction works, permanent design and appearance or the management of operational effects at Putney Bridge Foreshore, these comments are reported in sections 7.5 to 7.7.
7.3.4
Number of respondents
7.3.5 During the phase two consultation, respondents were asked to comment on the decision to select Putney Bridge Foreshore as our preferred site to intercept the Putney Bridge CSO (see question 2 of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in Appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation). Table 7.3.1 sets out details of the different groups who responded and were asked to select supportive, opposed/concerned or dont know/unsure. Tables 7.3.2 and 7.3.3 then detail the feedback comments received in relation to this site. It should be noted that not all respondents who provided feedback comments selected supportive, opposed/concerned or dont know/unsure. Table 7.3.1 Views on whether Putney Bridge Foreshore should be our preferred site (Q2) Respondent type Statutory consultees Local authorities Landowners Community consultees Petitions Total Number of respondents Total 1 0 2 108 0 111 32 64 15 1 31 1 62 15 Supportive Opposed/concerned 1 - EA Dont know/unsure
7-2
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to our preferred site Table 7.3.2 Supportive and neutral comments feedback comments in relation to selection of our preferred site Ref 7.3.6 7.3.7 Supportive and neutral comments Support the use of the preferred site. Support the identification of a new preferred site since phase one consultation/the preferred site is more suitable than the site put forward at phase one. The preferred site is more suitable than any alternative site because: - it will have the least impact on surrounding residents and businesses - it is better than having works east of Putney Bridge which would disturb local businesses, including restaurants and bars - disruption would be much less - connections are better west of the bridge - there is better road access - the site is sufficiently far from residents of Putney Wharf, St Marys church or the river wall downstream of Putney Bridge - sites downstream of Putney Bridge are more exposed and have more difficult works access. The preferred site is more suitable than any of the shortlisted sites identified at phase one consultation. Thames Water has taken objections raised at phase one consultation into account in site selection. Agree that Putney Bridge CSO needs to be intercepted, and that the Putney Bridge Foreshore site is a suitable location from which to do so. Use of the site would have limited effects on the local area and community. Support for changes to the extent of the preferred site since phase one consultation, in particular the changes that ensure that the listed bridge and slipway are protected and impacts on residents of Kenilworth Court reduced. Respondent ID GLA, 7289, 7921, LR9447 7359 No. 4 1 Our response Your support is noted and welcomed.
7.3.8
9374LO, 7176, 7223, 8289, 8559
7.3.9
GLA
7.3.10
9042
Noted. We have considered the comments received at phase one consultation and where possible these have been incorporated into the revised proposals we presented at phase two consultation. Noted.
7.3.11
8098, LR9276
7.3.12
7176, 7251
Noted. Effect on residents was one of the considerations taken into account as part of our site selection process, as well as the ability to mitigate likely significant effects. Noted.
7.3.13
7275, 7921, 8219, 8535, 8587, 8986, 9102, 9144, LR9236
7-3
Ref 7.3.14
Supportive and neutral comments Qualified support for the preferred site included: - the site being a CSO interception site only
- inconvenience and disturbance to the
Respondent ID EH, PLA, 8224, 8546, 9159, 9253
No. 6
Our response Putney Bridge Foreshore will only be used as a CSO interception site.
public including in relation to use of the River Thames being minimised during and after construction
Since selecting Putney Bridge Foreshore as our preferred site, we have begun assessing the likely significant effects arising from our proposals. Our draft Code of construction practice (CoCP) sets out a range of measures that would be adopted to minimise the likely significant effects of construction works including dust, noise and vibration. The proposed measures contained in the draft CoCP are in line with best practice guidelines. Details will be set out in the CoCP that we will submit with our DCO application. Since selecting Putney Bridge Foreshore as our preferred site, we have begun assessing the likely significant effects that may arise as a result of the works as part of an environmental impact assessment. This will set out measures necessary to mitigate any likely significant adverse effects that are identified. An Environmental statement, which records the findings of the environmental impact assessment, will accompany our DCO application. The initial environmental assessment work that has been carried out on the project is contained within the PEIR (volume 10), which is available on our website. As part of the phase two consultation, we have also sought feedback on the potential likely significant effects arising from our proposals and how the effects will be mitigated. Where possible, we will take feedback comments into account as we develop our proposals. Prior to submitting our DCO application, we will continue to refine the construction site design and working methods. English Heritage's comments are noted and we welcome their support for this site. As English Heritage is aware, we are undertaking a historic environment assessment, which will assess likely significant effects on the setting of adjacent heritage assets, as part of our environmental impact assessment. This will identify any likely significant effects during construction and any mitigation required to address adverse effects. We consider that it will be possible to appropriately mitigate any adverse effects on surrounding heritage assets and in particular the Grade II listed Putney Bridge. Your comment is noted. Refer to paragraph 7.5.130 for our response this feedback comment. The points raised by HYC at meetings in December 2011 and January 2012 have been incorporated into HYCs feedback to phase two consultation. We are confident that all points raised have been addressed in sections 7.5 to 7.7 of this chapter.
- appropriate mitigation being undertaken
- further work being undertaken on
construction site design and working methods

- English Heritage accepts the use of this
site and the associated impacts on the historic environment given the wider public good the Thames Tunnel project can offer
- the PLA has no in principle objection in
terms of navigational safety

- Thames Water must minimise effects on
recreational river users

- require reassurance regarding points
raised by Hurlingham Yacht Club (HYC) in December 2011.
7-4
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to our preferred site Table 7.3.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to selection of our preferred site Ref 7.3.15 Comments Object to the use of this preferred site. In particular, the Environment Agency is generally opposed in principle to the use of any foreshore sites along the Thames Tideway as this is likely to lead to a number of detrimental effects to flood risk management, biodiversity and recreation. However, we recognise the environmental benefits the Thames Tunnel project will deliver and there is a need to develop as near to the river as possible. Disagree with the selection of this preferred site. The preferred site is unsuitable because: - it is a family friendly environment - the foreshore and towpath are used very frequently for recreation - the permanent works will impinge upon the river - development will deter people from using the area Should use/consider an alternative site. Alternative sites have not been properly considered. Foreshore, adjacent to Putney Bridge and St Marys Church is more suitable. Respondent ID EA, 7501, 7815, 8396, 8587, 8869, 8998, 9001, 9002, 9072, 9266, 9399, LR13383 No. 12 Our response The sites that we consulted on at phase two consultation have been identified through an extensive site selection process (see our Site selection methodology paper on our website). We consulted on and agreed the methodology with key stakeholders including potentially directly affected local authorities and utilised a multidisciplinary approach to assess potential CSO sites against engineering, planning, environmental, property and community considerations. We recognise that, given the locations where we are seeking to construct and operate the tunnel, many of the shortlisted sites are constrained. However, based on our assessment we consider that, on balance, Putney Bridge Foreshore is the most suitable site. This is because it would not have a direct effect on the setting of the Grade II* listed St Marys Church, it would have better vehicular access than a site on the eastern side of Putney Bridge and would avoid a pedestrian area. It should be recognised that a foreshore site would always be required given the location of the Putney Bridge CSO, which needs to be intercepted. For further details on the results of the site selection process including our assessment of shortlisted sites, refer to appendix D of the Phase two scheme development report.
7.3.16 7.3.17
8195 7777, 7832, 8998, 9002
1 4
7.3.18 7.3.19 7.3.20
7993, 8672, 9001, 9002, LR13383 8402 9399, 9486
5 1 2 Our re-assessment of sites prior to phase two consultation and our review of phase two consultation comments does not support the use of Foreshore, adjacent to Putney Bridge and St Marys Church as our preferred site. This site is less suitable than our preferred site because the site has poor access, would be adjacent to the Grade II* listed St Marys Church, The Boathouse public house and the riverside walkway, and access would have to go through this area. The site would also have a greater impact upon the residential and commercial properties at Putney Wharf since residents would be in closer proximity to the works and would not benefit from the highway separation that exists between sites west of Putney Bridge and the adjacent residents. For further details on the results of the site selection process, including our assessment of shortlisted sites, refer to appendix D of the Phase two scheme development report. The shortlisted sites were listed in the Putney Bridge Foreshore site information paper. appendix D of the Phase two scheme development report sets out all the sites assessed as part of the site selection process including the shortlisted sites.
7.3.21
Query why shortlisted sites have not been identified.
EH, GLA
7-5
Ref 7.3.22
Comments The site selection methodology is incorrect/flawed/unjustified.
Respondent ID 7449
No. 1
Our response The sites on which we have consulted were identified through an extensive site selection process as set out in the Site selection methodology paper that is available on our website. This methodology was agreed with key stakeholders, including potentially directly affected local authorities, prior to its use. The paper explains how environmental, planning, engineering, property and community considerations were taken into account in the site selection process. Whether a site is brownfield or greenfield/open space was taken into account along with other considerations as set out in the Site selection methodology paper. CSOs need to be intercepted along the line of the existing sewer that flows into the River Thames. CSO interception sites need to be as close to the line of the sewer as practicable so there are few options and a more localised approach is required. In the case of the Putney Bridge CSO, the overflow point is located under Putney Bridge so it is not possible to avoid the foreshore of the River Thames, the riverside or the built-up area. There are also no vacant sites near the Putney Bridge CSO. We believe that our assessments, which have been carried out in accordance with the Site selection methodology paper, are comprehensively explained in appendix D of the Phase two scheme development report. Cost is one of the considerations that informs site assessments, but it is not an overriding factor that outweighs all other engineering, planning, environmental, community, property and wider economic considerations. Our site selection process has had regard to possible likely significant effects on the local area and community, and the environmental impact assessment process will undertake further assessment and recommend any necessary mitigation measures. The environment and community assessments undertaken as part of site selection considered the number and nature of sensitive receptors as well as possible likely significant effects from traffic and construction works including noise, air quality and visual impact. We also considered likely significant effects on employment uses and possible conflict with planning policy that seeks to protect local amenity. Accordingly, we consider that the scale of possible likely significant effects on the local area and community has been adequately considered. For further details on the results of the site selection process, refer to appendix D of the Phase two scheme development report. Refer to paragraph 2.2.32 for our response to feedback comments related to need and solution. In relation to interception of the Putney Bridge CSO, the Needs report
7.3.23 7.3.24 7.3.25 7.3.26 7.3.27 7.3.28 7.3.29 7.3.30 7.3.31
Site selection should use/prioritise brownfield sites. Site selection should avoid greenfield sites and open space. Site selection should not use sites within the River Thames foreshore Site selection should avoid sites on the riverside. Site selection should prioritise use of vacant sites. Site selection should avoid sites in residential and/or densely populated areas. Selection of this preferred site has been poorly justified/inadequately explained. Reasons for selecting this preferred site are flawed/questionable. The cost of using the site is too high/not cost-effective. The scale of effects on the local area and community resulting from the selection of this site is unacceptable/has not been properly considered.
8792, 9281 7832, 9055, 9281 EA, 8892, 9068, 9072 8869 7305 7205, 8640 8998 9399 8402
2 3 4 1 1 2 1 1 1
7.3.32
7815, 8402, 8662, 8895, 9068, 9191
7.3.33
Disagree with/not commenting on site selection due to wider objections to the proposed solution and/or the need for the
8083, 8195, 8545, 8662, 9351
7-6
Ref
Comments project. Specifically, the Putney Bridge CSO produces an insignificant amount of pollution compared to central and east London, and compared to other CSOs covered by the project. The cost and disruption from connecting the Putney Bridge CSO to the tunnel is therefore out of all proportion to any improvement in river quality. Site selection should avoid sites adjacent to or containing heritage assets; Thames Water has downplayed the significance of the historic environment in this location.
Respondent ID
No.
Our response identifies the Putney Bridge CSO as being within the category of CSOs which most urgently need to be addressed. Table 4.2 provides further details. Based on the Environment Agency's assessment, we therefore need to intercept this CSO.
7.3.34
EH, 8869
The location of CSO sites is constrained by the location of the existing combined sewers, because the interception chambers have to be built on the existing sewers. The search area for the CSO sites is therefore localised around the vicinity of the existing sewer. As set out in the Site selection methodology paper, sites have not been identified that would be located within London's World Heritage Sites (WHS); this is in recognition of the historic importance of these sites. Given that we had a limited search area to identify a suitable CSO site, we did not consider it appropriate to exclude sites based on whether they included or were adjacent to other designated heritage assets when compiling our longlist of sites. As part of the assessment the effect of our proposals of heritage designations was considered. With regard to Putney Bridge Foreshore, we recognise that our preferred site is located within the Putney Embankment Conservation Area and adjacent to the Grade II listed Putney Bridge. However, we consider that it will be possible to mitigate any likely significant effects arising from locating our site in close proximity to heritage assets. At phase one consultation, our preferred site at Putney Bridge was west or upstream of Putney Bridge. The proposals we presented at phase two consultation also show the site west or upstream of Putney Bridge. Putney Bridge CSO is located under Putney Bridge so the site needs to be located close to Putney Bridge to enable the two branches of the Putney Bridge CSO to be intercepted. We tested various locations for the drop shaft, which were different distances from Putney Bridge, having regard to environmental, planning, engineering, property and community considerations as set out in the Site selection methodology paper. On balance, we consider the site we put forward at phase two consultation is the most suitable. Refer to paragraph 7.3.20 for our response to this feedback comment.
7.3.35
Do not support changes to the extent of the preferred site since phase one consultation/do not support the specific location of the site. Specifically: - it is too close to Putney Bridge, with associated effects on traffic congestion
7729LO, 7205, 7359, 7750, 8502, 8576, 8774, 8825, 8944, 8945, 8982, 9262, 9281, LR13383
14
- it should not be on the western side of
Putney Bridge, and certainly not further west than previously proposed at phase one consultation
- the river wall immediately downstream of
Putney Bridge is weak and potentially unstable; any additional load by Putney Wharf would seriously damage the river
Our preferred site is located to the west of Putney Bridge. For further details on how we will address likely significant effects on structures arising from our works, refer to table 7.5.32 for our response.
7-7
Ref
Comments wall, underground car parks and residential and church buildings
- the site is bigger than at phase one
Respondent ID
No.
Our response
consultation
The size of the site presented at Putney Bridge Foreshore at phase one consultation is broadly the same as the site size presented at phase two consultation. Recreational use of the River Thames was taken into account along with other considerations as set out in the Site selection methodology paper. We are completing a navigational risk assessment to fully understand the likely significant effects of the scheme and will continue to liaise with the PLA and river users including local rowing clubs to develop appropriate mitigation. We are not proposing to use Watermans Green as part of the CSO construction site. A small permanent kiosk is proposed within the green. This is not a site selection matter. However, we are continuing to develop our design proposals for this site in light of feedback to phase two consultation. We will present our revised proposals for the permanent design of this site as part of our targeted consultation. The CSO interception site is not located in front of the Star and Garter. A temporary replacement slipway in proposed at this location. Since the replacement slipway is mitigation for loss of the existing slipway during construction, the location of the slipway has not been subject to the site selection process. The only sites that have been included on the final shortlist are located within the foreshore of the River Thames. Since we do not own the foreshore, we do not agree that there are alternative sites that could be used. We have a legal obligation under the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 to avoid foreseeable risks and eliminate hazards that may give rise to risks and reduce risks from any remaining hazards. These regulations have informed our proposals at Putney Bridge Foreshore. We do not agree that our proposals are too risky. Your comments are noted and we are currently considering the design for this site.
- the site is within the area of the River
Thames which is used by the sailing and rowing communities
- should avoid use of Waterman's Green - the promontory should be moved further
west - potentially adjacent to the pier
- the site is located closer to residential
properties, including Star and Garter Mansions.
7.3.36
Other concerns, issues and objections comments raised included: - understood that possible alternative sites have been sold by Thames Water for residential development
- the proposal is too risky
LBW, 7993, 8402
- recognise design changes since phase
one consultation but still concerned.
Shortlisted sites
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to shortlisted sites 7.3.37 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the shortlisted sites.
7-8
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to shortlisted sites Table 7.3.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to shortlisted sites Ref 7.3.38 Objections, issues and concerns The shortlisted site 1, Foreshore, end of Brewhouse Lane, is unsuitable for the proposed use(s) due to: - effects local amenity - effects on the environment - duration of construction works. Respondent ID 7256 No. 1 Our response Based on our assessment, we consider that while the Foreshore, end of Brewhouse Lane is potentially suitable as a CSO site is less suitable than our preferred site. This is because this site would cause greater adverse effects on multiple adjacent sensitive receptors, including St Mary's Church and Putney Wharf. For further details on the results of the site selection process, refer to appendix D of the Phase two scheme development report.
7.4
7.4.1
Alternative sites
During the phase two consultation, respondents were invited to suggest alternative sites that they thought should be used to intercept the Putney Bridge CSO instead of Putney Bridge Foreshore (see question 3 of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation). The following sites were put forward as possible alternatives: Table 7.4.1 Suggested alternative sites to Putney Bridge Foreshore Ref 7.4.2 Alternative site suggestions South of the river. Reasons It is a no brainer. Respondent ID 7212 No. 1 Our response Our preferred site is on the south of the River Thames (see Putney Bridge Foreshore site information paper and appendix D of the Phase two scheme development report). We did identify and consider this site. It is a shortlisted site but we consider our preferred site (Putney Bridge Foreshore) more suitable to intercept the Putney Bridge CSO because a site east of the bridge would cause greater adverse effects on the adjacent multiple sensitive receptors, including St Marys Church, a Grade II* listed building, which would be impacted upon both in appearance and setting. Furthermore, disruption may affect users of the church, including the childrens nursery group. The adjacent Putney Wharf development, the pedestrianised public open space and the Boathouse public house would also experience severe disruption and construction related impacts. The access is poor and would have to go through this area. For further details on the results of the site selection process, refer to appendix D of the Phase two scheme development report.
The preferred site
Shortlisted sites 7.4.3 Foreshore, adjacent to Putney Bridge and St Marys Church/further downstream of Putney Bridge. Should use brownfield sites, which minimise disturbance to existing businesses. Considered that site would result in less residential disturbance (Putney Wharf would be further away from the site in comparison to Kenilworth Court) and would have less effect on recreational river users, not result in closure of the slipway by Watermans Green and would minimise damage to Putney Bridge piers. It would also allow the safe use of full-sized barges, reducing need for road transport and would enable use of Brewhouse Lane rather than Putney High Street (A219). It would be a cheaper alternative. Any permanent structures would be more appropriate due to existing modern structures including a tall vent for the underground car park at Putney Wharf. 7304, 7305, 9068, 9069, 9262, 7303, 7306, 8760, 8774, 8825, 8914, 7028, 7205, 7256, LR13383, 9399 16
7-9
Ref 7.4.4
Alternative site suggestions Carnwath Road Riverside.
Reasons Is considered more suitable because it is a disused brownfield site and has an existing industrial wharf. The site therefore has better road and river access. Overall, it is considered the site would have less impact on neighbouring community and environment. It is a brownfield site. The visual impact of the works, specifically the ventilation shaft, would be less on this site.
Respondent ID 7302, 7750, 7777, 7806, 7832, 7950, 7923, 8396
No. 8
Our response None of the suggested alternative sites are feasible. Sites have been selected on the basis of needing to intercept existing CSOs. CSOs are in fixed locations and the site to intercept the CSO needs to be on the line of, or in close proximity to, the sewer. Putney Bridge CSO is located under Putney Bridge, so the CSO needs to be intercepted on the south side of the river. Carnwath Road Riverside is too far away from the Putney Bridge CSO and therefore is not suitable as a CSO interception site. Sites west of our preferred site are also too far away and therefore not considered suitable. Even if the CSO could be intercepted west of our preferred site, it is unlikely that the site would be acceptable due to the impact on recreational users of the River Thames.
Other sites
7.4.5 7.4.6
Sands End. Barnes Common.
7852 7777
1 1
7.4.7
Fulham Palace Gardens.
Further from residential areas and the 8800 site would be screened by trees on the Fulham side of the River Thames. Further from residential areas and the 9144 site would be screened by trees on the Fulham side of the River Thames. Site would be further from residential 7332, 7762, areas and businesses so would have 7768, 8450 less impact. Lower Richmond Road provides better site access than south of Putney Bridge. It would not affect the river taxi commuter service from Putney Pier. Also, the river wall immediately downstream of Putney Bridge is weak. Concerned that construction traffic would damage the river wall, underground car parks and residential and church buildings. 8458 8869, 7205 Thames Water should use brownfield sites, whether planning permission has been granted for other uses or not. 7256
7.4.8
Site west of the Thai Restaurant. Further upstream/west.
7.4.9
7.4.10 7.4.11 7.4.12
Beckton Sewage Treatment Works. Anywhere. Off the existing pier above the bridge.
1 2 1 This site is not considered suitable because we need to use a site which is closer to the Putney Bridge CSO; the CSO runs under Putney Bridge and therefore the suggested site is further away than our preferred site. Furthermore, using the pier may affect this heritage asset deleteriously. See paragraph 7.4.14 for a response to why a brownfield site is not suitable to intercept the Putney Bridge CSO. This area of land, known as Waterman's Green, which includes disused toilets, is too small for a CSO site. Our preferred site is adjacent to this area and a small permanent kiosk will be located there.
7.4.13
Adjoining disused gentleman's toilet.
It has been closed for over a decade with no economic or appropriate use found.
9281, 9207
7-10
Ref 7.4.14
Alternative site suggestions Brownfield site with good site access/road access is less congested. A site that will not impact so many residents. An area less utilised for so many activities. A less protected site.
Reasons These sites should be reconsidered.
Respondent ID 9001, 9002, 9072 8321LO 9072
No. 3
Our response CSOs need to be intercepted along the line of the existing sewer that flows into the River Thames. CSO sites need to be as close to the line of the sewer as practicable which means that there are few options and that a more localised approach is required. In the case of the Putney Bridge CSO, the overflow point is located under Putney Bridge so it is not possible to avoid this area or the foreshore of River Thames/the riverside. There are also no brownfield sites near the Putney Bridge CSO.
7.4.15 7.4.16 7.4.17
1 1 1
All foreshore and riverside sites should be protected from development.
8892
7.4.18
Respondents also made the following comments in relation to the availability and identification of alternative sites: Supportive and neutral feedback comments Table 7.4.2 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the availability and identification of alternative sites Ref 7.4.19 Supportive and neutral comments No alternative site is available; Thames Water have done their best to survey alternative sites. Unable to comment. Respondent ID 7404 No. 1 Our response Your support is welcomed and noted.
7.4.20
7256
The purpose of consultation is to explore as fully as possible what those with an interest in the project think about our proposals. We will have regard to comments received from both technical and non-technical consultees.
Objections, issues and concerns Table 7.4.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the availability and identification of alternative sites Ref 7.4.21 Objections, issues and concerns Not aware of the options. Respondent ID 7985 No. 1 Our response The shortlisted sites were listed in the Putney Bridge Foreshore site information paper. appendix D of the Phase two scheme development report sets out all the sites assessed as part of the site selection process including the shortlisted sites.
7.5
7.5.1 7.5.2
Management of construction works

This section sets out feedback comments received during the phase two consultation in relation to the management of construction works at Putney Bridge Foreshore. This includes the identification of site specific issues arising from construction activities and proposals to address the effects of these issues. During the phase two consultation, respondents were asked whether the site information paper had identified the right key issues associated with Putney Bridge Foreshore during construction and the ways to address these issues (see questions 4a and 4b of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation). The first part of question 4a and 4b asked respondents to select agree, disagree or dont know/unsure. Where respondents completed this part of the question, the results are set out in tables 7.5.1 and 7.5.2. Tables 7.5.3 to 7.5.40 detail the feedback comments received in relation to this site. It should be noted that not all respondents who provided feedback comments confirmed whether the right issues and the ways to address those issues had been identified.
7-11
Table 7.5.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right key issues in the site information paper? (Q4a) Respondent type Statutory consultees Local authorities Landowners Community consultees Petitions Total Number of respondents Total 0 0 2 82 0 84 44 21 19 1 43 1 20 19 Yes No Dont know/unsure
Table 7.5.2 Do you agree that we have identified the right way to address the key issues? (Q4b) Respondent type Statutory consultees Local authorities Landowners Community consultees Petitions 7.5.3 Number of respondents Total 0 0 2 79 0 29 1 31 1 19 Yes No Dont know/unsure
Total 81 29 32 20 The following sections set out the feedback comments received from respondents in connection to the identification of key issues associated with Putney Bridge Foreshore during construction and our proposals to address these issues. Feedback comments are organised under common themes. The themes are: General themes:
General feedback comments on key issues General feedback comments 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
7-12
General feedback comments on the identified key issues

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the identified key issues 7.5.4 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to general comments on the identified key issues during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the identified key issues Table 7.5.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to key issues during construction Ref 7.5.5 Objections, issues and concerns The number and/or type of key issues associated with the site is inconsistent with the decision to select it as the preferred site/indicates that this site should not have been selected. Respondent ID 7777 No. 1 Our response Outcome
The sites that we consulted on at phase two consultation N have been identified through an extensive site selection process (see our Site selection methodology paper on our website). We consulted on and agreed the methodology with key stakeholders including potentially directly affected local authorities and utilised a multidisciplinary approach to assess potential CSO sites against engineering, planning, environmental, property and community considerations. We recognise that, given the locations where we are seeking to construct and operate the tunnel, many of the shortlisted sites are constrained. However, based on our assessment we consider that, on balance, Putney Bridge Foreshore is the most suitable site. This is because it would not have a direct effect on the setting of the Grade II* listed St Marys Church, it would have better vehicular access than the sites to the east and would avoid a pedestrian area. It should be recognised that a foreshore site will always be required given the location of the Putney Bridge CSO, which needs to be intercepted. For further details on the results of the site selection process including our assessment of shortlisted sites, refer to appendix D of the Phase two scheme development report.
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 7.5.4 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the key effects during construction Ref 7.5.6 Supportive and neutral comments Measures to address potential issues are satisfactory. Respondent ID 8396 No. 1 Our response Your comment is noted and welcomed.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues Table 7.5.5 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during construction Ref 7.5.7 Objections, issues and concerns Measures to address potential issues are unsatisfactory/unconvincing. Respondent ID 8219, 8402, 8502 No. 3 Our response The measures set out in the Putney Bridge Foreshore site information paper are intended to provide a broad overview of how we intend to address potential issues associated with the site. Further information can be found in the draft CoCP Outcome N
7-13
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns
Respondent ID
No.
Our response and PEIR (volume 10). Measures proposed to address potential likely significant effects are being further developed and considered as part of the environmental impact assessment. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. The key issues set out in the site information paper are intended to provide a broad overview of likely significant effects and key issues associated with the site during construction. It is not, however, an exhaustive list. Further likely significant effects associated with the site and measures to address these are set out in the PEIR (volume 10). We are undertaking an environmental impact assessment, which will include a comprehensive assessment of likely significant effects arising from the proposals. The findings of the assessment together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application.
Outcome
7.5.8
Measures to address potential effects are unsatisfactory because the wrong/not all issues have been identified.
9372
7.5.9
More information is needed on: - measures to address issues
8402
We consider that we have undertaken a thorough and N comprehensive consultation exercise. As part of this, we carefully considered the information we made available at our phase two consultation to ensure that consultees had sufficient information to respond to the consultation. Our approach to producing material was that information should be made available to members of the community in an accessible form and detailed technical information be made available for technical consultees, which is consistent with the guidance provided by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) in their guidance on pre-application consultation. Information on proposed measures to address issues can be found in the PEIR (volume 10). Measures proposed to address potential likely significant effects are being further developed and considered as part of the environmental impact assessment. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. The cost of acquiring, constructing and operating each site is treated as commercially confidential information. While we continue to develop and revise our proposals we are not in a position to be able to comment further on cost for individual work areas. N
- costings.
7.5.10
Construction impacts must be minimised at
GLA
We have sought to avoid or eliminate potential likely
7-14
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns every stage of construction.
Respondent ID
No.
Our response significant effects wherever possible, both by developing robust technical solutions to potential issues such as odour, and through our proposals for the permanent site design and layout. We are also developing a CoCP which will set out how we will manage our construction sites to minimise disruption to nearby communities. Measures proposed to address potential likely significant effects are being further developed and considered as part of the environmental impact assessment. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application.
Outcome
Air quality and odour

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to air quality and odour 7.5.11 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 issues Table 7.5.6 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour during construction Ref 7.5.12 Objections, issues and concerns Potential effects will be greater than those set out in the consultation material in respect of effects on air quality. Respondent ID 8777 No. 1 Our response Outcome
As part of our PEIR (volume 10, section 4) we have N assessed the air quality, traffic and residential amenity of the proposed development, based on a methodology that has been discussed and agreed with the LBW. The PEIR, which covered air quality and odour topics, embeds the dust mitigation measures within the draft CoCP. While we acknowledge that this is a preliminary assessment, we believe that sufficient information was available for the purposes of our phase two consultation. We are preparing a full assessment for submission within the Environmental statement as part of our DCO application. Our Managing construction project information paper and draft CoCP set out how dust control measures and dust monitoring equipment would be put in place to minimise likely significant effects of dust from construction activities. Our draft CoCP confirms that an Air management plan will be prepared and implemented for each site to control dust emissions and proposed techniques would be in line with best practice guidelines. Our preliminary assessment of likely significant air quality effects, as reported in our PEIR (volume 10, section 4), did not identify any likely significant effects at residential or other sensitive receptors (such as schools) near this site. Further assessment of nearby properties will be undertaken as part of our on-going environmental impact assessment work and this will be N
7.5.13
Dust and dirt arising from construction activities.
7815, 8402, 8982, 9191
7-15
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response reported in the Environmental statement to be submitted with our DCO application.
Outcome
7.5.14
Effect of construction traffic emissions on air quality: - detailed response - effect on NO2 and PM10 levels.
7255, 8669, 8671, 8672, 8729, 8760, 8777, 10 8966, 9486, LR13383
7.5.15 7.5.16
Effect of construction site activities and plant 7354 emissions on air quality. General effect of construction activities on air quality due to loss of trees. 7901
1 1
We have set out measures in our draft CoCP that will be N adopted to limit vehicle and plant emissions, including using low emission vehicles, turning off engines when not needed and minimising vehicle movements around the site. Our preliminary assessment outlined in our PEIR (volume 10, N section 4) stated that with these measures in place we do not expect any significant local air quality effects arising from vehicle and plant emissions at this construction site. We are N preparing a full assessment for submission within the Environmental statement as part of our DCO application. This will include dispersion modelling. Dispersion modelling will assess the potential impacts of the construction phase at all proposed sites for the relevant short- and long-term NO2 and PM10 air quality objectives. The proposed loss of a single holly tree, which would be replaced, would not have a measurable impact on local air quality. Our PEIR (volume 10, section 4) considered the likely N significant effects of dust arising from the construction site. The report concluded that the likely significant effects of dust arising from construction would be reduced by the implementation of measures contained in the CoCP. While not a formal requirement, we are also preparing a Health impact assessment for submission with the application. The Health impact assessment will assess the full range of likely significant health and well-being effects of the project on identified vulnerable groups. It is not anticipated that the construction works will give rise N to any significant odour effects as set out in our PEIR (volume 10, section 4). It is not expected that sewage odours would be emitted during the sewer interception works at this location. Our draft CoCP confirms that air management plans will be prepared and implemented for each site, with proposed techniques in line with best practice guidelines. We consider that we have undertaken a thorough and N comprehensive consultation exercise. As part of this, we carefully considered the information we made available at our phase two consultation to ensure that consultees had sufficient information to respond to the consultation. This included our PEIR (volume 10, section 4) which sets out our initial assessment of likely significant effects on air quality from construction site activities comprising construction traffic on the road (air quality), emissions from barges (air quality), emissions from construction plant (air quality),
7.5.17
Effects on health arising from dust, odour, air pollution and reduced air quality.
7205, 8669, 8760
7.5.18
Effect of odour arising from construction activities.
8321LO, 7903, 8774, 8966, 8998
7.5.19
More information is needed on air quality and odour effects.
8321LO
7-16
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
7.5.20
General air pollution effects.
8402, 8672, 8760, 9020, 9068, 9151, 9207
Our response Outcome construction-generated dust. The proposals set out in our draft CoCP are included in the assessment. Odour is not addressed as it is not expected that there would be any likely significant construction effects. Further assessment will be undertaken as part of our on-going environmental impact assessment work and this, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be reported in the Environmental statement to be submitted with our DCO application. Our DCO application will also include a CoCP that will set out measures that must be implemented by our contractor to address the potential likely significant effects on air quality during construction. We are confident therefore that the information we have provided is sufficient. We have completed a preliminary environmental N assessment of the effects of the proposed development, which is set out in our PEIR (volume 10, section 4) that considers the likely significant effects of our construction in respect of air quality, dust, odour, noise and vibration, which singularly or collectively might be classed as 'pollution'. It did not identify any likely significant effects at residential or other sensitive receptors (such as schools) near this site. A full assessment of potential 'pollution' will be presented in the Environmental statement that we will submit with our DCO application. We have also produced a draft CoCP which sets out measures for managing our works, including sections on noise and vibration, and air quality as well as details of the various regulatory regimes and guidance that we would need to comply with, such as the Control of Pollution Act 1974, the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, the Mayor of London's Ambient Noise Strategy 2004 and The control of dust and emissions from construction and demolition - Best Practice Guidance 2008, as well as various British Standards. Our compliance with the regulatory regime applicable would be monitored by the LBW.
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour 7.5.21 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour effects during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour Table 7.5.7 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour during construction Ref 7.5.22 Objections, issues and concerns The GLA and London Council's Best Practice Guidance (BPG) The control of dust and emissions from construction and demolition should be implemented Respondent ID GLA No. 1 Our response We can confirm that the Best Practice Guidance has been taken into account in developing our proposals for this site. Our draft CoCP sets out measures for managing our works as well as details of the various regulatory regimes and Outcome N
7-17
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response guidance that we would need to comply with, such as the Control of Pollution Act 1974, the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, the Mayor of London's Ambient Noise Strategy 2004 and The control of dust and emissions from construction and demolition - Best Practice Guidance 2008, as well as various British Standards.
Outcome
Construction working hours and programme

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to construction working hours and programme Table 7.5.8 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to construction working hours and programme Ref 7.5.23 Supportive and neutral comments Supportive of changes to construction programme since phase one consultation. Respondent ID 8986 No. 1 Our response Your comment is noted and welcomed.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction working hours and programme Table 7.5.9 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction working hours and programme Ref 7.5.24 Objections, issues and concerns More information is needed on the construction programme. Respondent ID 8402 No. 1 Our response The overall project programme is set out in the Timing project information paper. Details relating to the site specific construction programme are set out in Putney Bridge Foreshore site information paper. The programming of works at all sites will be configured to minimise the duration of works and associated disruption to the local area where possible. The length of the construction period as set out in the consultation documents was the period assessed in the PEIR (volume 10) that works would be underway and it is hoped that in many cases there will be periods during which there will be no activity or less intensive activity on some sites. In our phase two consultation materials we have set out the likely working hours for the site. Most work at this site would take place in standard working hours, with a short period (three months) of continuous working to excavate the connection tunnel. Table 2.1 of our site information paper for this site does not identify extended standard hours as a proposal for this site. At most of our sites we plan to carry out the majority of works within standard working hours, which are 8am-6pm weekdays, and 8am-1pm Saturdays. We may occasionally need to carry out works outside of standard working hours for reasons such as undertaking large concrete pours, delivering abnormal, large and heavy loads at times when there is reduced traffic. There would be approximately six Outcome N
7.5.25
At four years, the construction programme is 7305, 9068, 9372 too long, concerned about the duration of construction.
7.5.26
Extended working hours are unnecessary/ unreasonable.
7205
7.5.27
Concerned about overnight/24-hour working hours.
7205
7-18
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response months of continuous working during phase three when the short connection tunnel is excavated and built. Construction working hours will be set out in the draft CoCP, which will be submitted with our DCO application. If a DCO is granted we anticipate a series of requirements (similar to planning conditions) that would control the development and expect that the requirements would stipulate that the development must be carried out in accordance with the agreed CoCP. We would also monitor our contractors to ensure that they are operating in line with the CoCP.
Outcome
7.5.28
No guarantee that the project will keep to these working hours.
9262
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of construction working hours and programme 7.5.29 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of construction working hours and programme. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of construction working hours and programme Table 7.5.10 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to address the effects of construction working hours and programme Ref 7.5.30 7.5.31 Objections, issues and concerns More information is needed on mitigation. Minimise the extent and duration of construction works. Respondent ID 9262 7296, 8662, 8944, 8986, 9068, 9069, 9486 No. 1 7 Our response We are developing a CoCP that will set out how we will manage our construction sites to minimise disruption to nearby communities and will be submitted with our DCO application. Further details regarding the CoCP are set out in the Managing construction project information paper and the draft CoCP published as part of our phase two consultation. Your comments are noted. We will complete our works at the earliest opportunity and shall continue to evaluate the best possible construction method to enable this. We are also developing a CoCP (a draft was provided as part of our phase two consultation), which will include requirements for a Traffic management plan to ensure that construction traffic is carefully controlled to minimise any potential effects on the road network including access to the local area, as well as setting out construction traffic routes, site access/egress points, signage and monitoring procedures. It is not possible to provide full operational timing of vehicle movements as this will be subject to further development by a contractor. Your comments are noted. We will complete our works at the earliest opportunity and shall continue to evaluate the best possible construction method to enable this. Outcome N N
7.5.32
Other working hours mitigation including: - can the planning schedules for lorries and barges be made available? - works should take place during a suitable time so as to not disturb residents and minimise any congestion on the local roads.
8977, 9069
7.5.33
The work should be carried out in as short a time as possible and alternative methods should be investigated so that the construction period is minimised.
8986, LR9164
7-19
Construction site design and layout

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to construction site design and layout Table 7.5.11 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to construction site design and layout Ref 7.5.34 7.5.35 Supportive and neutral comments Improvement to site layout shown at phase one consultation. Supportive of the proposal to install a temporary slipway given the prominence of river sports at this location. Respondent ID 8671, 8777, 8966 GLA No. 3 1 Our response Your support is noted and welcomed.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction site design and layout Table 7.5.12 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction site design and layout Ref 7.5.36 Objections, issues and concerns Site layout appears to be unsuitable; the design and construction of the proposed slipway are excessive for its function. Respondent ID LR9236 No. 1 Our response Outcome
In light of comments made during phase two consultation we C are considering alternative layouts for the provision of the temporary slipway. Our revised proposals for this site will be the subject of targeted consultation. The construction site layout has been developed to minimise N the area required. We consider that we have undertaken a thorough and comprehensive consultation exercise. We carefully considered the information we made available at our phase two consultation to ensure that consultees had sufficient information to respond to the consultation. We provided the construction site layouts within our site information papers, however, the detailed design has yet to be finalised. We are confident therefore that the information we have provided is sufficient. The cofferdam is necessary to enable construction of our works and its location is fixed by the need to intercept the existing CSO outfall that discharges under Putney Bridge. Our design approach is to provide a minimum size cofferdam to enable construction. Your comments are noted, the construction site layout has been developed to minimise its size and impact upon the local area while allowing the flexibility needed by a contractor. N
7.5.37
Extent of construction site; any agreement in LBW, 9073 principle to transfer land should be for the minimum necessary. More information is required on construction design, including a more detailed specification. 8402, 9069
7.5.38
7.5.39
Location/existence of cofferdam.
8944, 9068
7.5.40
Layout of construction phase works within the site; if any additional space is required the east end of Putney Embankment in front of Thai Square and the Star and Garter should be closed and used for construction purposes. Existence and/or size of structure(s) within the foreshore of the River Thames: - should minimise clutter
8861
7.5.41
7985, 8461, 8861, 9205
This site is required so that the existing CSO under Putney Bridge can be intercepted and its location has been chosen to minimise the impact on Putney High Street (A219) and Lower Richmond Road. The size of the foreshore structure
7-20
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID - consider whether work can be done intertidally - should consult with PLA, Thames Regional Rowing Club and local clubs on temporary slipway.
No.
Our response proposed has been minimised but it is required to accommodate the equipment proposed. We are preparing a Navigational risk assessment as part of our DCO application, the approach to which is being discussed with the PLA. Preliminary discussions with the PLA have also informed the design of the site. The design of the replacement slip way is being undertaken in discussion with the relevant users. Our revised proposals for this site will be the subject of targeted consultation. The size of the cofferdam is the minimum required to enable construction. This approach, which also allows direct transfer of materials to barges, avoids a longer construction period than sharing spaces such as the highway would require. We are preparing a Navigational risk assessment as part of our DCO application, which will consider the impact on all river users.
Outcome
7.5.42
Other negative comments: - works area is excessive and the approach will prolong the construction period - hazard to rowing.
8861, LR13383
Suggestions for construction site design and layout Table 7.5.13 Suggestions for construction site design and layout Ref 7.5.43 Suggestions for construction site design and layout Proposals should be in keeping with the character of the local area. Respondent ID 8966, 9069 No. 2 Our response The construction site will be bound by a site hoarding to minimise the impact on the character of the area. The finished design following construction is being developed to be in keeping with Putney Embankment. The size of the cofferdam structure proposed and temporary work site has been minimised but is required to accommodate the necessary working area. This site is required so that the existing CSO under Putney Bridge can be intercepted and its location has been chosen to minimise the impact on Putney High Street (A219) and Lower Richmond Road. The size of the cofferdam structure proposed has been minimised but is required to accommodate the necessary working area. Outcome N
7.5.44
Minimise the size of the area of the temporary site. Do not build into/minimise structures within the River Thames foreshore.
8944, 9068, 9069
7.5.45
8461
7.5.46
Specific construction site design amendment: - temporary slipway must be appropriate for vessels using it and should be realigned by 180 degrees and moved eastwards of the existing hardstanding outside Chas Newen's facility - Putney Drawdock needs to be retained with the facility to allow vessels to load alongside during construction to minimise temporary encroachment into the
EA, PLA, 8461, 8535, LR9236
In light of comments made during phase two consultation we C are considering alternative layouts for the provision of the temporary slipway. The layout of the permanent works area will be developed to ensure suitable provision is made to enable mooring of vessels for loading/unloading activities. Waterman's Green is excluded from the site for the majority of the construction. It is included at the final phase to allow the installation of the electrical and control kiosk. The layout of the temporary cofferdam would ensure that the working site would be protected from floods. Our revised proposals for this site will be the subject of
7-21
Ref
Suggestions for construction site design and layout Thames an alternative exists to include Watermans Green in the site compound - not possible to tie the cofferdam walls into the existing local flood defences unless you pile across the road. Reduce the size of the cofferdam.
Respondent ID
No.
Our response targeted consultation.
Outcome
7.5.47
8502
The extent of the cofferdam is guided by the scale of the construction activities that need to be undertaken in the foreshore. The cofferdam is required to be extended eastwards under Putney Bridge to enable the connection to the existing CSO. In relation to the comment on the location of the slipway please see the response at 7.5.46. Waterman's Green would be excluded from the site for the majority of the construction and would be included at the final phase to allow the installation of the electrical and control kiosk. The site would be fully secure within a site hoarding. We have proposed a finished design that does not include any of the temporary construction structures. The areas dedicated to site offices and storage are already compact and floating pontoons would require access points and disrupt the ability to utilise barge traffic in a constrained location between Putney Bridge and Pier. The detailed methods of fabrication are being reviewed across the project to ensure the optimal solution which includes minimising the works that need to be undertaken on site.
7.5.48
Other construction site mitigation suggestions: - alternative location for slipway

- avoid Waterman's Green - safe and secure site to avoid vandalism - temporary structures must not become
LBW, 9374LO, 8934, 8944, 8966, 9068, 9069, 9486
N N N N
permanent
- could floating pontoons (for site offices,
welfare, storage) be used to reduce the construction area

- explore alternative methods of
fabrication.
Historic environment
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the historic environment issues Table 7.5.14 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the historic environment during construction Ref 7.5.49 7.5.50 Supportive and neutral comments Effect of construction activities on the adjacent/nearby conservation area. Effect of construction activities on listed building(s). Respondent ID 8535 8535 No. 1 1 Our response Your support is noted and welcomed. Following feedback from phase one consultation we have sought to amend our designs so that likely significant effects on the Grade II* Listed St Marys church and the Putney Embankment Conservation Area, including the cobbled slipway, are reduced.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historic environment issues Table 7.5.15 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historic environment during construction Ref 7.5.51 Objections, issues and concerns Effect of construction activities on local Respondent ID No. Our response We recognise that the site is in close proximity to a number Outcome N
LBW, 7748, 7762, 8671, 8729, 8777, 8966, 8
7-22
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns heritage and listed structures including; Putney Embankment Conservation Area, the Grade II listed Putney Bridge, the Grade II* listed St Mary's Church, Grade II listed bollards and the 19th century drawdock and cobbled slipway. Effect of construction activities on the adjacent/nearby conservation area. Effect of construction activities on listed buildings including Grade II* St Mary's Church.
Respondent ID 9486
No.
7.5.52 7.5.53
LR13383 8535, 8662, 8986, 9486
1 4
Our response Outcome of locally historic and listed structures as detailed in our Putney Bridge Foreshore site information paper and the PEIR (volume 10, section 7). In designing the scheme, we have sought to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the Putney Embankment Conservation Area and to minimise likely significant effects on the setting of the Grade II listed Putney Bridge and the Grade II* listed St N Mary's Church. The Grade II listed bollards would also be re-located. In addition, we recognise the heritage value of N the 19th century drawdock and cobbled slipway and our construction works have been configured to ensure their preservation. We are undertaking a historic environment assessment, which will be reported in the Environmental statement. This will identify any likely significant effects of our proposed construction activities, including effects on the setting of historic assets, and any mitigation required to address such effects. Our draft CoCP (provided at phase two consultation) stated that works to or in the vicinity of listed buildings would be undertaken in accordance with all required consents and licences and that protection measures would be put in place at the start of the works. We would also notify English Heritage and the local planning authority prior to undertaking works. Our phase two consultation material included a preliminary N assessment of likely significant archaeological effects as detailed in the PEIR (volume 10, section 7). While the site is situated within a locally designated archaeological priority area, our preliminary assessment identified that no buried heritage assets of very high significance are anticipated that might merit a mitigation strategy of permanent preservation in situ. It is therefore considered that the likely significant environmental effects of the proposed development could be successfully mitigated by a suitable programme of archaeological investigation before and/or during construction to achieve preservation by record (through advancing understanding of asset significance). An assessment of the likely significant effects on the historic environment is being completed as a part of our environmental impact assessment. The findings would be reported as part of the Environmental statement that would support our DCO application. We are consulting with English Heritage as part of this process. Our draft CoCP sets out a range of measures that would be adopted by our contractor in respect of archaeology and a full assessment of the likely significant effects of the scheme on the historic environment, together with any
7.5.54
Effect of construction activities on archaeology.
8777
7-23
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response recommendations for mitigation, will be set out in our Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. As set out in our CoCP, we would put in place procedures for ensuring construction works are appropriately monitored to identify and record any archaeological finds.
Outcome
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment 7.5.55 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment Table 7.5.16 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment during construction Ref 7.5.56 Objections, issues and concerns More information is needed on historic environment mitigation. Respondent ID EH No. 1 Our response Outcome
An assessment of the likely significant effects on the historic N environment is being completed as a part of our environmental impact assessment. We are consulting with English Heritage as part of this process. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. Additionally, our draft CoCP (provided at phase two consultation) sets out a range of measures to safeguard the historic environment during construction. Such measures include confirmation that works close to listed buildings would be undertaken in accordance with all requirements set out in the DCO and that protection measures, as required, would be put in place at the start of the works. We would also notify English Heritage and the LBW prior to undertaking works and continue to engage with them closely on the planning of the works. The indicative layout of the construction works is set out in N the Putney Bridge Foreshore site information paper. The construction works would be in place for a limited period and would be removed once the construction has been completed. At this site we have located our works to minimise the effect on the setting and appearance of nearby listed structures including Putney Bridge and St Mary's Church, and Putney Embankment Conservation Area. We have completed a preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of our works on the historic environment, as set out in our PEIR (volume 10, section 7). Our Environmental statement, which will be provided as a part of our DCO application, will set out a full assessment of the likely significant effects on the setting of these historic assets during the construction and operational phases. This will identify any potential significant effects of our proposed construction activities, including effects on the setting of
7.5.57
Locate construction works to minimise their effect on the setting and appearance of local heritage features.
7762
7-24
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response historic assets.
Outcome
Land quality and contamination

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to land quality and contamination 7.5.58 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to land quality and contamination during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to land quality and contamination Table 7.5.17 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to land quality and contamination during construction Ref 7.5.59 7.5.60 Objections, issues and concerns There is existing contamination within the site boundary. There is potential for contamination within the site boundary. Respondent ID 8402 8402 No. 1 1 Our response As set out in the PEIR (volume 10, section 8) baseline conditions at the site have been assessed through the analysis of available desk-based data, a site walkover and preliminary intrusive ground investigations. The PEIR has identified that there would not be significant adverse effects on land quality during construction. In advance of construction, further ground investigations will be undertaken to identify any sources of contamination and mitigated as necessary. Further details will be provided within the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. Our draft CoCP sets out how any identified contamination would be addressed during construction, in agreement with the regulator to remediate contamination and avoid exposure of sensitive environmental receptors to it. Any remediation works on site would be undertaken to the relevant standards. Outcome N N
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on land quality and contamination 7.5.61 7.5.62 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on land quality and contamination during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on land quality and contamination No objections, issues, concerns or suggestions were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on land quality and contamination during construction.
Lighting
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to lighting 7.5.63 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to lighting during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to lighting Table 7.5.18 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to lighting during construction Ref 7.5.64 7.5.65 Objections, issues and concerns Effect of construction lighting on quality of life (disturbance from lighting). Concerned about light pollution arising from construction activities. Respondent ID 8986, 9486, LR9236 8944, 9068, 9069, LR13383 No. 3 4 Our response Outcome
As set out in our draft CoCP, construction lighting would be N provided to ensure the safety and security of the site and would be designed to comply with the provisions of BS5489, N CoCP for the Design of Road Lighting, where applicable. For example, the lighting would be located and directed so as to
7-25
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response minimise intrusion into occupied residential properties and on sensitive areas. Further details on lighting can also be found in our Managing construction project information paper. Additionally a Lighting management plan will be prepared by our contractor. The plan would set out appropriate lighting solutions for the site. We would anticipate that the plan would be agreed by the LBW, the Environment Agency and the PLA before the works commence, as part of the requirements (conditions) of any approval. As part of the site is within the foreshore we would agree appropriate lighting for this part of the site with the PLA. Where appropriate we would also provide lighting to the site boundary to ensure that safe routes are provided in line with industry standards. During working hours artificial lighting will be used as necessary. Part B of our CoCP, which will be available as part of our DCO application, will set out further details on lighting during construction. Our contractor would be required to implement the measures set out in the CoCP.
Outcome
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of lighting 7.5.66 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of lighting during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of lighting Table 7.5.19 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of lighting during construction Ref 7.5.67 Objections, issues and concerns Other lighting mitigation included: - invitation to tender documents should contain specs with specific requirements, to ensure that each company bids on the same basis and they must contain details of light levels etc - work with residents to agree the CoCP - lighting pollution should be contained by the latest technologies, baffles, domes and screens. More information is needed on lighting mitigation. Respondent ID 8944, 8986, 9068, 9069, 9486, LR9236 No. 6 Our response Outcome
7.5.68
9262
As set out in our draft CoCP, construction lighting would be N provided to ensure the safety and security of the site and would be designed to comply with the provisions of BS5489, CoCP for the Design of Road Lighting, where applicable. For example, the lighting would be located and directed so as to minimise intrusion into occupied residential properties and on sensitive areas. Further details on lighting can also be found in our Managing construction project information paper. Additionally a Lighting management plan will be prepared by our contractor. The plan would set out appropriate lighting N solutions for the site. We anticipate that the plan would be agreed by the LBW and the Environment Agency before the works commence, as part of the requirements (conditions) of any approval. As part of the site is located within the foreshore we would agree appropriate lighting for this part of the site with the PLA. Where appropriate we would also provide lighting to the site boundary to ensure that safe
7-26
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response routes are provided in line with industry standards. During working hours artificial lighting will be used as necessary. Part B of our CoCP, which will be available as part of our DCO application, will set out further details on lighting during construction. Our CoCP will set out a range of measures that our contractor would be required to implement. We will produce tender documents that comply with relevant European regulations and that ensure that we are able to comparatively assess proposals from contractors. We will consider whether it would be necessary to include further information to that set out in the CoCP in our tender documents. As set out in our draft CoCP, site lighting would be provided to ensure the safety and security of the sites and would be located and directed so as to minimise intrusion into occupied residential properties and on sensitive areas.
Outcome
7.5.69
Control the location and direction of construction lighting.
LBW
Natural environment (aquatic)

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) 7.5.70 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 7.5.20 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) during construction Ref 7.5.71 7.5.72 7.5.73 7.5.74 Objections, issues and concerns Encroachment into the River Thames foreshore. Effect on foreshore habitat(s), although of poor species diversity. Effect on river habitat(s) from the proposed slipway. Effect of dredging on foreshore and river. Respondent ID 8461 LR9491 EA, 7302 LBW, 8977 No. 1 1 2 2 Our response As part of our PEIR (volume 10, section 5) we have assessed the likely significant construction effects of the proposed development on aquatic ecology including the foreshore habitat. The PEIR considers the likely significant effects on the foreshore and River Thames and recognises a number of impacts, including those associated with a new mooring and any necessary channel reshaping or dredging. Many of the likely significant effects would be controlled through measures set out in our CoCP. It is also noted that many effects would be temporary and the habitat would recover following removal of the temporary structures. We acknowledge that this is a preliminary assessment. We are preparing a full aquatic ecology assessment for submission within the Environmental statement as part of our DCO application. Outcome N N N N
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address effects on the natural environment (aquatic) 7.5.75 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.
7-27
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on natural environment (aquatic) Table 7.5.21 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) during construction Ref 7.5.76 Objections, issues and concerns Provision of compensation habitat, including refuges for fish and other species. Respondent ID LR9491 No. 1 Our response Many of the effects during the construction phase would be temporary and it is anticipated that the habitat would recover following removal of the temporary structures. We do not believe that it is necessary to provide any compensation habitat for the construction phase of the works. Our draft CoCP sets out a range of measures to control and limit disturbance to habitats and species. Measures included in the draft CoCP include development of ecological management plans that will set out strategies for managing habitats and species as well as measures including controls on noise and vibration to protect fish. The plans will be informed by the findings of our aquatic ecology assessment. We will require our contractor to comply with the requirements of the CoCP. Outcome N
7.5.77
Establish ecological management plans.
LBW
Natural environment (terrestrial)

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) Table 7.5.22 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction Ref 7.5.78 Supportive and neutral comments Waterman's Green will be maintained as it currently exists. Respondent ID 7921 No. 1 Our response Your support is noted and welcomed. It is proposed to minimise the impact of the works upon Watermans Green.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) Table 7.5.23 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction Ref 7.5.79 7.5.80 Objections, issues and concerns Damage to trees arising from construction activities. Loss of mature trees, the value of which cannot be underestimated. They absorb carbon and pollution thus improving air quality, they help combat the urban heat island effect by reducing ambient temperature through evaporative cooling. Respondent ID 8662 7901, 8977, 9486 No. 1 3 Our response Outcome
The current proposal would result in the loss of a single holly N tree that would be replaced. There would be a requirement for pruning of some trees where branches extend into the N construction site. The approach to pruning and all safeguarding measures to protect the trees during construction would be undertaken as specified in British Standard BS5837, where practicable and based on consultation with the LBW tree officer. The permanent electrical and control kiosk would be located near the disused toilet block on Watermans Green to minimise the risk of damage to trees. Our draft CoCP sets out how we would protect existing trees during construction. Our preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects on wildlife associated with the construction of the tunnel is included in our PEIR (volume 10, section 6) which sets out N N
7.5.81 7.5.82
General effect of construction activities on local wildlife. Effect of construction activities on bats.
7832, 8977 7832
2 1
7-28
Ref 7.5.83 7.5.84 7.5.85
Objections, issues and concerns Effect on birds, including kingfisher, herons and green woodpeckers. Effect on terrestrial habitat(s) including effect on London Wetland Centre. Environmental/ecological impact on Putney Bridge, Putney High Street (A219), particularly caused by high traffic levels. Effect on Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC), including road alongside Beverley Brook and disruption to wildlife.
Respondent ID 8519 7832 8777
No. 1 1 1
7.5.86
8519
Our response the likely significant effects in terms of notable species, including bats and birds and their habitats, and the River Thames and Tidal Tributaries SINC. The project has been designed to minimise likely significant effects on wildlife and habitats where possible, where effects have been identified mitigation has been built into the design. The likely significant effects of the development on the SINC will be assessed and reported in the Environmental statement that will be submitted as part of the application. The CoCP, which will be submitted with the application, will ensure that works are undertaken in compliance with applicable legislation, and with relevant nature conservation policies and guidance, including the Mayor of Londons Biodiversity strategy and local biodiversity action plans. Where species are protected by specific legislation, approved guidance would be followed, appropriate mitigation would be proposed and any necessary licences or consents obtained. The nearest SSSI has been identified as the London Wetland Centre. It is not considered that the works at Putney Bridge Foreshore site would have a detrimental effect upon this SSSI. We consider that we have undertaken a thorough and comprehensive consultation exercise. As part of this, we carefully considered the information we made available at our phase two consultation to ensure that consultees had sufficient information to respond to the consultation. We believe that sufficient information is available regarding the construction phase within the consultation documents such as our draft CoCP and PEIR. We are confident therefore that the information we have provided is sufficient. Further assessment will be undertaken as part of our on-going environmental impact assessment work and this will be reported in the Environmental statement to be submitted with our DCO application. There are no existing buildings on the site but the significance of the effects of the development on all potential habitats will be assessed and reported in the Environmental statement that will be submitted as part of the application.
Outcome N N N
7.5.87
Effect of construction activities on Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).
7832
7.5.88
More information is needed on the effect of construction activities on the natural environment.
LR9491
7.5.89
Other natural environment issue; should consider the importance of any existing buildings for protected species.
LR9447
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) 7.5.90 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 7.5.24 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction Ref 7.5.91 Objections, issues and concerns More information is needed on mitigation; Respondent ID 9262 No. 1 Our response Details of proposed mitigation measures and initial ecology Outcome N
7-29
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns will existing trees and green areas be protected?
Respondent ID
No.
Our response surveys for the site were set out in the PEIR (volume 10, section 6) as part of our phase two consultation. As we have completed our surveys we have confirmed the presence or absence of species and habitats and developed mitigation measures as necessary. Our draft CoCP sets out a range of measures that would be implemented to control and limit disturbance, and relevant measures will be assessed in our Environmental statement. If a DCO is granted we anticipate a series of requirements (similar to planning conditions) that would control the development. We expect that the requirements would secure the provision of the mitigation measures set out in the Environmental statement that will be submitted with the application. The temporary slipway is a temporary measure to avoid disruption to users of the current slipway. The proposal includes removal of the temporary slipway once the existing slipway becomes available again after construction at this site is complete.
Outcome
7.5.92
No guarantee that the mitigation proposed will be delivered, should ensure temporary slipway will be removed.
EA
7.5.93 7.5.94
Retention of mature trees during construction. Retention of other vegetation/habitat during construction; holly bushes need to be protected. They are ancient and it is a local tradition to collect Christmas holly from these bushes.
8519, 8944, 9068, 9069, LR13383 9382
5 1
The current proposal would result in the loss of a single holly N tree that would be replaced. There would be a requirement for pruning of some trees where branches extend into the N construction site. The approach to pruning and all safeguarding measures to protect the trees during construction would be undertaken as specified in British Standard BS5837, where practicable and based on consultation with the LBW tree officer. The permanent electrical and control kiosk has been located near the disused toilet block on Watermans Green to minimise the risk of damage to trees. Our draft CoCP sets out how we would protect existing trees during construction. The majority of construction activities would be contained within our proposed construction site. As set out in our Putney Bridge Foreshore site information paper, limited additional construction activities will be required outside of the construction site. These include installation of equipment to monitor environmental matters such as noise, vibration and dust, protection works to third party structures (such as bridges), diversion of utilities, temporary connection to utilities, traffic management works, dredging and protection of the riverbed. We have already completed a range of surveys at this site as detailed in the PEIR (volume 10, section 6). Where our methodology for the Environmental statement, which has been agreed with the LBW, identifies the need for further surveys we will ensure that these are completed prior to submission of our DCO application. If our assessment of N
7.5.95
Locate construction activities within the site to avoid sensitive and designated areas.
LR9491
7.5.96
Undertake site surveys prior to the commencement of construction to identify sensitive species and habitats.
LBW
7-30
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response likely significant effects identifies the need for further site surveys prior to the commencement of construction these would be undertaken in accordance with all relevant guidelines and best practice. It is unlikely that there would be significant effects on ecology that would require compensation. Measures to address any adverse effects would be integral to the final design.
Outcome
7.5.97
Other natural environment mitigation: 8671, 8777, 8966, LR9447, LR9491 - maximise opportunities to enhance biodiversity through an effective mitigation package - Thames Water should take steps to secure the long-term protection of any protected species which may be impacted - essential that Thames Water continue to develop their working method proposals to reduce environmental impact.
Noise and vibration

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to noise and vibration 7.5.98 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to noise and vibration during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration Table 7.5.25 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration during construction Ref 7.5.99 Objections, issues and concerns Noise and vibration from above ground construction activity, the cofferdam and the connecting tunnel. Noise and vibration from underground tunnelling. Noise and vibration from construction traffic. General noise effects arising from construction activities; the area is already noisy. General vibration effects arising from construction activities: - concern about vibrations caused by building the cofferdam - request for a survey to be carried out on Kenilworth Court before, during and after the work. Proximity to residential area/densely populated area. Concern regarding possible damage to river walls through vibration or river bed Respondent ID 9486, LR13383 No. 2 Our response As set out in our Putney Bridge Foreshore site information paper, the contractor would be required to implement noise and vibration control measures at the site, in line with the requirements of the CoCP; and to gain approval prior to the construction work from the LBW through a Section 61 application under the Control of Pollution Act which would set out specific working methods and the measures to minimise noise and vibration. This would ensure that the noise levels are reasonable and best practical means are applied. The measures would be agreed with local authority environmental health officers. Additionally, we would implement measures to minimise noise and vibration from plant and works, including the selection of appropriate plant and equipment, the suitable siting of equipment and the use of site enclosures to provide acoustic screening. Details of the measures to be adopted for the construction works will be set out in the CoCP to be submitted with our DCO application. Our Settlement project information paper provides information on our approach to controlling and limiting ground movement, which can cause settlement, associated with construction of the tunnel. It is acknowledged that construction of the tunnel will cause some small movements Outcome N
7.5.100 7.5.101 7.5.102
LR13383 7255, 7303, 7768, 8672, 8982 8321LO, 7205, 7762, 8402, 8458, 8576, 8640, 8774, 8986, 8998, 9069, 9207, 9486, LR13383 8321LO, 8944, 9068, 9069, 9486
1 5 14
N N N
7.5.103
7.5.104 7.5.105
7762, 7815 8986
2 1
N N
7-31
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns movement caused by the construction of the main tunnel. Effect of noisy construction activities on quality of life/ residential amenity.
Respondent ID
No.
7.5.106
7205, LR9236
Our response in the ground, the level of which will depend on a range of factors including the size and depth of construction works as well as existing ground conditions. The use of modern tunnelling methods and the depth of our tunnels, which are generally much deeper than most other tunnels under London, minimise the likelihood of any potential ground movement. We are assessing the potential likely significant effects of ground movement in advance of the works and, where necessary, will carry out protective measures. We will also monitor actual ground movement during and after the tunnelling to check that the ground is reacting as predicted. We will also carry out a defects survey on buildings located over, or close to, our tunnels and worksites where we consider this necessary. The method used for assessing settlement is similar to that used for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, the Jubilee Line Extension, and Crossrail. In the unlikely event of damage occurring to property due to our construction works taking place nearby, disturbance compensation may be available as detailed in our Guide to the Thames Tunnel compensation programme. The nearest residences to the site are flats at Kenilworth Court and Richmond Mansions, located to the south of the site. To the west of the site are the Star and Garter Mansions and to the southeast is the new Putney Wharf development. The potential for residential moorings situated to the northwest of the site at Putney Pier has also been identified and these have been included in the assessment. The residential properties and other sensitive receptors selected for the noise and vibration assessment are identified in our PEIR (volume 10, section 9) at Table 9.4.1 and were selected as being representative of the range of noise climates where sensitive receivers are situated around the site. Our PEIR (volume 10, section 9) sets out a preliminary qualitative assessment of noise and vibration arising from construction traffic, as well as above and below ground construction activities on sensitive receptors. The proposals set out in our draft CoCP are included in our assessment and have been completed in line with a methodology agreed with the LBW. It concludes that noise from barges would be limited and would mainly consist of engine noise from tug boats. For road traffic, the routes around the site all carry heavy traffic flows, except for Putney Embankment and Thames Place. The use of barges greatly reduces the number of lorry movements per day, and the noise impact associated with the increase in Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) traffic is therefore likely to be slight in magnitude. Our
Outcome
7-32
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response Environmental statement, which will be submitted with our DCO application, will assess noise and vibration in further detail.
Outcome
7.5.107
Effect of vibration on Putney Bridge which is a sensitive structure.
9486
Our PEIR (volume 10, section 9) has not identified Putney N Bridge as a sensitive receptor for the purposes of the noise and vibration preliminary assessment. However, we have considered more sensitive properties in the vicinity. Potential likely significant effects on the bridge will be considered by the third party infrastructure team, which is looking at all the bridges along the tunnel route. At this site the majority of our works would be undertaken N during standard working hours as detailed in our site information paper. There would be approximately three N months of continuous working during phase three when the short connection tunnel is excavated and built. As detailed in our PEIR (volume 10, section 9) the likely significant effects have not been quantitatively assessed as it is considered that no significant effects would arise from these activities. This is because the majority of these works would take place below ground and the tunnel would be constructed by a tunnel excavator (which generates less noise and vibration than a tunnel boring machine). A full assessment of the likely significant effects will be set out in the Environmental statement that is to be submitted with our DCO application. At this site we anticipate that construction would last for three and a half years, as detailed in our site information paper. This includes the time required to install and remove the temporary slipway. During the construction period there would be varying levels of noise and vibration associated with the different activities on site. As detailed in the PEIR (volume 10, section 9) at this site all stages of work have been assessed as having the potential to give rise to significant effects. A full assessment of the likely significant effects will be set out in the Environmental statement that is to be submitted with our DCO application together with recommendations for mitigation. We consider that we have undertaken a thorough and comprehensive consultation exercise. We carefully considered the information we made available at our phase two consultation to ensure that consultees had sufficient information to respond to the consultation. This included our PEIR (volume 10, section 9) which sets out our initial assessment of noise and airborne/groundborne vibration from construction site activities, noise from construction traffic on roads outside the site and noise and vibration from operation of the site, together with the assumptions that reflect the proposals in our draft CoCP. The PEIR N
7.5.108 7.5.109
Effect of working hours on noise and vibration impacts. Effect of continuous (24hr) working on noise and vibration impacts.
7303, 7768 7815
2 1
7.5.110
Duration of construction and effects of associated noise and vibration.
7303
7.5.111
More information is needed on noise and vibration effects.
8402
7-33
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response assessment used Defra's London noise maps. Our Environmental statement, which will be submitted with our DCO application, will include a noise and vibration section that will be completed in line with the methodology that is compliant with BS5228, BS6472 and BS7385 and which has been agreed with the LBW. Our DCO application will also include a CoCP that will set out measures that must be implemented by our contractor during the works to address the potential likely significant effects of noise and vibration. We are confident therefore that the information we have provided is sufficient.
Outcome
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address effects of noise and vibration 7.5.112 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects 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 7.5.26 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration during construction Ref 7.5.113 7.5.114 Objections, issues and concerns More information is needed on noise and vibration mitigation. Mitigation proposed to address noise and vibration issues is inadequate/insufficient: - need to continue to develop working method proposals to reduce the scale, environmental impact, noise and disruption arising from these works. Respondent ID 8760, 9262 8671 No. 2 1 Our response Outcome
Our PEIR (volume 10, section 9) sets out our initial N qualitative assessment of likely significant noise and vibration from construction site activities, noise from N construction traffic on roads outside the site and noise and vibration from operation of the site. The proposals set out in our draft CoCP are included in the assessment. The PEIR assessment used Defra's London noise maps. The Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application will include a full assessment of likely significant noise and vibration effects that will be completed in line with the methodology that is compliant with BS5228, BS6472 and BS7385 and which has been agreed with the LBW. If significant noise and/or vibration effects are identified at a site, we will set out appropriate mitigation measures to provide appropriate attenuation. Our draft CoCP sets out a range of measures that would be adopted by our contractor to minimise noise and vibration from plant and works including the selection of appropriate plant and equipment, siting of equipment, and use of enclosures and temporary stockpiles to provide acoustic screens. Specific measures such as acoustic suppression systems, operation of equipment in a mode that minimises noise and shutting down equipment when not in use are also identified in our draft CoCP. Our contractor would be required to comply with the CoCP. The draft CoCP also states that our contractor would be required to apply for Section 61 consents under the Control of Pollution Act 1974. These would set out specific working methods and the measures to minimise noise and vibration as well as any
7-34
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response appropriate monitoring measures, to be agreed with local authority environmental health officers.
Outcome
7.5.115
Enclosing/covering machinery to reduce noise leaving the site.
9486
As set out in our Putney Bridge Foreshore site information N paper our contractor would be required to implement noise and vibration control measures at the site, in line with the requirements of the CoCP. The contractor would also have to gain approval prior to the construction work from the LBW through a Section 61 application under the Control of Pollution Act which would set out specific working methods and the measures to minimise noise and vibration. This would ensure that the noise levels are reasonable and best practical means are applied. The measures would be agreed with local authority environmental health officers. Additionally, we would implement measures to minimise noise and vibration from plant and works including the selection of appropriate plant and equipment, the suitable siting of equipment and the use of site enclosures to provide acoustic screening. Full details of the measures to be adopted for the construction works at this site will be set out in the CoCP to be submitted with our DCO application. Our PEIR (volume 10, section 9) sets out a preliminary assessment of noise and vibration that assumes the use of site enclosures, and temporary stockpiles, where practicable and necessary, to provide acoustic screening. At this site a site hoarding of 2.4m is proposed. Our proposed working hours for this site were set out in the phase two consultation materials, as detailed in our Putney Bridge Foreshore site information paper. Most works at this site would be undertaken in standard working hours with continuous 24-hour working required only for the connection tunnel works. Our draft CoCP sets out a range of measures that would be adopted by our contractor to minimise noise and vibration from plant and works including the selection of appropriate plant and equipment, siting of equipment, and use of enclosures and temporary stockpiles to provide acoustic screens. Specific measures such as acoustic suppression systems, operation of equipment in a mode that minimises noise and shutting down equipment when not in use were also identified in our draft CoCP. Our preliminary assessment of noise and vibration has incorporated a number noise and vibration attenuation measures that would be adopted by our contractor. These measures are consistent with our draft CoCP and include: the selection appropriate plant and equipment, siting of equipment, use of site enclosures and stockpiles to provide N
7.5.116
Erect site hoarding of at least 2.4m for site boundaries close to residential properties
GLA, 9486
7.5.117
Restrict or limit working hours.
9486
7.5.118
Adopt suitable measures to control noise and vibration in the CoCP.
LR9236
7.5.119
Other noise and vibration mitigation will be 9486, LR13383 required including high levels of sound/vibration protection and a full building and drains survey should be carried out on Kenilworth Court before, during and after the work.
7-35
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response acoustic screening, careful programming and choice of transport routes. In light of the comments in response to our phase two consultation and as part of the process of preparing an Environmental statement we will consider whether there are different or further measures that would be appropriate for this site. Our Settlement project information paper provides information on our approach to controlling and limiting ground movement, which can cause settlement, associated with construction of the tunnel. It is acknowledged that construction of the tunnel will cause some small movements in the ground, the level of which will depend on a range of factors including the size and depth of construction works as well as existing ground conditions. The use of modern tunnelling methods and the depth of our tunnels, which are generally much deeper than most other tunnels under London, minimise the likelihood of any potential ground movement. We are assessing the potential likely significant effects of ground movement in advance of the works and, where necessary, will carry out protective measures. We will also monitor actual ground movement during and after the tunnelling to check that the ground is reacting as predicted. We will also carry out a defects survey on buildings located over, or close to, our tunnels and worksites where we consider this necessary. The method used for assessing settlement is similar to that used for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, the Jubilee Line Extension, and Crossrail.
Outcome
Open space and recreation

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to open space and recreation 7.5.120 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 7.5.27 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to open space and recreation during construction Ref 7.5.121 7.5.122 7.5.123 7.5.124 Objections, issues and concerns Temporary loss of public open space is unacceptable. There is a shortage of public open space in the local area. Effect of construction activities on the recreational enjoyment of open space. Duration of construction and associated effect on access to open space and other recreational amenities. Respondent ID 9486 7832, 7950 7750 7305 No. 1 2 1 1 Our response We acknowledge that the area of open space at Waterman's Green as well as the slipway and part of the Thames Path would be unavailable during our works. However, we propose alternative access to the River Thames and we note that use of Waterman's Green is limited. Our PEIR (volume 10, section10) concludes that the effects on open space would not be significant. While part of the Thames Path would be closed the works would only affect a short stretch of the path and therefore there are adjacent locations where the riverside can be enjoyed. Outcome N N N N
7-36
Ref 7.5.125
Objections, issues and concerns Effect on children/young people and teenagers arising from the loss of open space. The site is a very valuable recreational amenity for the local community. Duration of construction and associated effect on access to open space and other recreational amenities. Effect on access to and recreational enjoyment of the riverfront. Disruption to sports groups and other local clubs.
Respondent ID 7754
No. 1
Our response A full Environmental statement that assesses the likely significant effects of our development will be submitted as part of our DCO application.
Outcome N
7.5.126 7.5.127
7305, 7754, 7832, 7901, 7950, 8519, 8998 7305, 7969
7 2
N N
7.5.128 7.5.129 7.5.130
7305, 7747, 7754, 7985, 8519 8825, 9072, 9181, 9253
5 4 We acknowledge that the interception of the CSO will result in building in the foreshore. However, we are constrained as to where we can locate out works in this built-up area. We are completing a navigational risk assessment to fully understand the likely significant effects of the scheme and will continue to liaise with the PLA and river users, including local rowing clubs, to develop appropriate mitigation. We do not believe that our works would have a detrimental effect on the Boat Race, but would work with organisers to understand issues and to identify mitigation for the event.
N N
Effect on river navigation and recreational GLA, 13476, 7747, 7750, 7754, 7771, 14 river users. Locating the shaft at Putney 7839, 7852, 7901, 8546, 8825, 9205, 9253, 9262 would mean constructing an industrial jetty to accommodate industrial barge traffic. This would present a significant safety hazard for rowers and sailors of all ages and could undermine Putney's river-based culture. It is be vitally important that Thames Water engages early, and in detail, with the PLA, the Thames Regional Rowing Council and the local clubs (including TRC) on this specific issue. Effect on the Boat Race and other river events. Proximity of the preferred site to rowing clubs along the Putney embankment. Reach a commercial agreement to utilise the former public toilet space rather than installing equipment on Watermans Green. 7852, 9068, 9069, 9072, 9159, 9167, 9181, 8 9486 9159 8777 1 1
7.5.131 7.5.132 7.5.133
N N We are unable to use the disused toilets as these are owned N by a third party who has developed alternative proposals for their use.
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address effects on open space and recreation 7.5.134 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on open space and recreation during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address effects on open space and recreation Table 7.5.28 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on open space and recreation during construction Ref 7.5.135 Objections, issues and concerns Undertake fluvial modelling to establish the impact on the use of the river and riverfront. Respondent ID 8546 No. 1 Our response We are currently completing fluvial modelling and initial findings have informed our site design. The findings of this modelling will provide information that will allow us to fully establish whether the works would have a detrimental effect on the River Thames and will be reported as a part of our Outcome C
7-37
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response Environmental statement submitted with our DCO application. If results from the fluvial modelling indicated adverse river bed scour, the appropriate river bed scour protection will be installed as part of the construction stage. Your comment is noted. We will consider whether it is possible to provide moorings in this location as part of our design development work.
Outcome
7.5.136
Provide alternative/replacement jetty/ moorings/launch area for recreational river users.
9205
Planning and development

7.5.137 No feedback comments were received in relation to planning and development issues during construction.
Socio-economic
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to socio-economic effects Table 7.5.29 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to socio-economic effects during construction Ref 7.5.138 7.5.139 Supportive and neutral comments The site is a suitable distance away from residential areas. Supportive/general comment. Respondent ID 8576 8224 No. 1 1 Our response Your comment is noted. Your comment is noted.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects Table 7.5.30 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects during construction Ref 7.5.140 Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID No. 1 Our response Our PEIR (volume 10, section 10) provides a preliminary assessment of the likely significant socio-economic effects of the project, building on the preliminary findings of a range of topics including noise and vibration; air quality (including dust emissions) and odour; and transport, based on a methodology that has been agreed with the LBW. The Environmental statement that would be submitted with our DCO application will provide a full assessment of the likely significant effects of our proposed works. Outcome N
Potential socio-economic effects will be 8895 greater than those set out in the consultation material.
7.5.141 7.5.142 7.5.143
Detrimental effect on business operations. Effect on tourism and associated revenue from the annual boat race. Effect on the local economy and employment.
7302, 7305, 7732, 8502, 8671, 8777, 8966, 9002, 9068, 9069, 9072 7832, 9072 9002
11 2 1
As set out in our PEIR (volume 10, section 10) we believe N that any potential business amenity impacts would likely only affect a relatively small number of businesses at this site, N and we do not anticipate a loss of jobs as a result of the works. In relation to tourism effects associated with the N annual boat race, we are in discussions with Boat Race Company Ltd to ensure that construction would not affect this event. We acknowledge that this stretch of the river and riverside is well used. We will endeavour to minimise our construction work site area to minimise any inconvenience to recreational users of the river. The Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application
7-38
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response will assess the likely significant effects on businesses, the economy and tourism.
Outcome
7.5.144 7.5.145
Effect on property prices. Effect on ability to sell/ rent property.
8321LO, 9068, 9069, LR13383 8321LO, 9068, 9069, 9486
4 4
Landowners may have a statutory entitlement to claim N compensation for the diminution of the value of their N property due to the construction of the tunnel. In addition to the statutory process we have published an Exceptional hardship procedure which sets out how we will assess claims from householders who contend that they are suffering exceptional hardship as a result of being unable to sell their property because it is potentially impacted by the currently published Thames Tunnel project proposals. We have also published a Guide to the Thames Tunnel compensation programme which sets out details of compensation that would be available during construction for damage or loss, required protection measures and compulsory purchase. As set out in our draft CoCP (section 4.7) site security is an N important issue to us and we would ensure that all sites are secure and staffed for security on a 24-hour basis. All sites would have limited entry points and a boundary to minimise opportunities for unauthorised entry. We would also consult with local crime prevention officers to agree security proposals for each site and put in place regular liaison to review security effectiveness and responses to any incidents. The design of our site boundary would also ensure that there is adequate lighting (CoCP, section 4.6), to provide a safe route for the passing public and we would take precautions to avoid shadows cast by our site hoarding on surrounding footpaths and roads to deter the potential for muggings. Where agreed with the LBW we would also have remote CCTV monitoring. The site would be operated in line with all relevant health and safety standards and requirements, as detailed in our draft CoCP. In particular, our construction traffic would be controlled in line with measures set out in section 5 of our CoCP. The safety of other road users and the surrounding community is important to us. We will operate all of our construction sites to ensure that they meet all health and safety requirements. Our PEIR (volume 10) provides a preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of the project on a range of topics, including noise and vibration; air quality (including dust emissions) and odour; and transport, based on a methodology that has been agreed with the LBW. A full assessment will be provided with the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. Where likely significant effects are identified we would put in N
7.5.146
Proposals will create increased opportunities for crime, vandalism and antisocial behaviour.
9262
7.5.147
Health and safety issues associated with the construction site.
7732, 8774, 9191, 9262, 9486, LR13383
7.5.148 7.5.149 7.5.150
Effect on quality of life. Effect of construction activities on human health, both mental and physical. Effect of construction activities on residential amenity.
7205, 7815, 7901, 7950, 8760, 8966, 8986, 9207, 9486 9486 8640, 8671, 8774, 8966, 9069, 9072, 9135, 9191, 9372, LR13383
9 1 10
N N N
7-39
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response place mitigation measures to address these effects, in addition to the measures that were set out in our draft CoCP. We are also preparing a Health impact assessment that will examine the likely significant effects of the proposed development on human mental and physical health and well-being and possible effects within the population; the findings of this study will inform the design for this site as well as mitigation measures to address any likely significant effects. Our site selection process, as detailed in our Site selection methodology included an assessment of the shortlisted sites against five 'community' considerations to help determine their suitability. These included proximity to sensitive receptors (including residential and schools), socioeconomic, health and equality considerations. Our Phase two scheme development report provides an overview of how each site was chosen. Our PEIR (volume 10, section 10) provides a preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of the scheme on residential amenity and concludes that, given the relationship of the residential dwellings in relation to the proposed construction site area, any potential impacts on residential amenity are likely to affect a relatively small number of dwellings. The effects on users of the site are also likely to be limited. We are preparing an Environmental statement that will be submitted as part of our DCO application and will assess the likely significant effects of the proposed development.
Outcome
7.5.151
Proximity to residential properties, including Star and Garter Mansions, Kenilworth Court and Putney Wharf. The area around the construction site is densely populated. Proximity to and effect on community and social amenities such as the river. Extent and duration of construction works in a predominantly residential area. Effect of construction activities on the local community. General disruption associated with construction activities. Effect on immediate neighbouring residents has not been properly addressed by the phase two consultation.
GLA, 7205, 7255, 7304, 7771, 7815, 7901, 8966, 8986, 9068, 9069, 9262 7732, 7762, 9068, 9069, 9486 7305 7304, 8966, 9372 7985, 8502 8321LO, 7305, 8402, 9068, 9135 8777
12
7.5.152 7.5.153 7.5.154 7.5.155 7.5.156 7.5.157
5 1 3 2 5 1
N N N N N N
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects 7.5.158 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects Table 7.5.31 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects during construction Ref 7.5.159 7.5.160 7.5.161 Objections, issues and concerns More information is needed on socioeconomic mitigation. Adopt suitable measures in the CoCP. Provide adequate site hoarding and security. Respondent ID 9068, 9069, 9262, 9486, LR13383 LR9236 9068, 9069, 9262 No. 5 1 3 Our response We believe that we have set out a range of measures that would mitigate the likely significant effects of the construction at this site. In particular, our draft CoCP identifies that our contractor will be required to implement a range of measures at the site during construction, including best practice measures to minimise noise and vibration from plant and works including the selection of appropriate plant and equipment, siting of equipment, and use of hoardings to provide acoustic screens. Additionally our PEIR assessments take into account the mitigation measures set out in the CoCP and assume that the mitigation is Outcome N N N
7-40
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response implemented. We are continuing to develop our CoCP and the Environmental statement which will be submitted as part of our DCO application. Landowners may have a statutory entitlement to claim compensation for the diminution on the value of their property due to the construction of the tunnel. In addition to the statutory process we have published an Exceptional hardship procedure which sets out how we will assess claims from householders who contend that they are suffering exceptional hardship as a result of being unable to sell their property because it is potentially impacted by the currently published Thames Tunnel project proposals. We have also published A guide to the Thames Tunnel compensation programme which sets out details of compensation that would be available during construction arising from damage or loss, for required protection measures, and for compulsory purchase. The length of the construction period indicated in the phase two consultation documents is the maximum period that works would be underway. The programming of works at all sites will be configured to minimise the duration of works and associated disruption to the local area where possible.
Outcome
7.5.162
Provide appropriate compensation.
9262
7.5.163
Restrict or limit construction working hours.
9068, 9069
Structures and utilities

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to structures and utilities 7.5.164 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 7.5.32 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to structures and utilities during construction Ref 7.5.165 7.5.166 7.5.167 7.5.168 Objections, issues and concerns Risk of subsidence. Structural damage to bridges arising from construction activities. Structural damage to other structures including Putney Wharf. Respondent ID 9144 8944, 9068, 9069 9374LO, 8662, 8760, 8944, 9068, 9069, 9144, 9265 No. 1 3 8 1 Our response Our Settlement project information paper provides information on our approach to controlling and limiting ground movement, which can cause settlement, associated with construction of the tunnel. It is acknowledged that construction of the tunnel will cause some small movements in the ground, the level of which will depend on a range of factors including the size and depth of construction works as well as existing ground conditions. The use of modern tunnelling methods and the depth of our tunnels, which are generally much deeper than most other tunnels under London, minimise the likelihood of any potential ground movement. We are assessing the potential likely significant effects of ground movement in advance of the works and, where Outcome N N N N
Possibility of ground movement and the 9374LO associated effect on buildings and structures including damage from slippage/movement of the river bed to river bank. Structural damage to bridges arising from tunnelling. Structural damage to residential buildings 8944, 9068, 9069 8944, 9068, 9069
7.5.169 7.5.170
3 3
N N
7-41
Ref 7.5.171 7.5.172
Objections, issues and concerns arising from tunnelling.
Respondent ID
No. 5 1
Structural damage to other structures arising 8662, 8944, 8986, 9068, 9069 from tunnelling. Possibility of ground movement and 8986 associated effect on buildings and structures arising from tunnelling.
Our response necessary, will carry out protective measures. We will also monitor actual ground movement during and after the tunnelling to check that the ground is reacting as predicted. We will also carry out a defects survey on buildings located over, or close to, our tunnels and worksites where we consider this necessary. The method used for assessing settlement is similar to that used for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, the Jubilee Line Extension, and Crossrail. In the unlikely event of damage occurring to property because of our construction works taking place nearby, disturbance compensation may be available as detailed in our Guide to the Thames Tunnel compensation programme. Residential buildings on the Lower Richmond Road and on the foreshore of the River Thames east of Putney Bridge are located within the vicinity of the site. Our PEIR (volume 10, section 9) sets out our preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of noise and vibration, which includes an assessment of Star and Garter Mansions, Kenilworth Court, Richmond Mansions, St Mary's Church, Putney Wharf and others. In relation to vibration, the assessment considers events which have the potential to result in damage to buildings or structures and human response to vibration, based on the 'worst case' conditions that may arise during vibration intense activities within the site compound. We do not anticipate that any buildings, walls, bridges or other structures will suffer structural damage as a result of our works.
Outcome N N
7.5.173
Structural damage to residential buildings arising from vibrations from works traffic.
7255, 8944, 9068, 9069
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities 7.5.174 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities Table 7.5.33 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities during construction Ref 7.5.175 Objections, issues and concerns More information is needed on mitigation of effects on structures and utilities and how they would be assessed. Structural monitoring of buildings. Structural monitoring of other structures. Undertake protection works. The effect on the river wall needs to be assessed thoroughly by an expert structural engineering firm well in advance, rather than leaving it to guidelines for contractors. Respondent ID 9262 No. 1 Our response Our Settlement project information paper provides information on our approach to controlling and limiting ground movement, which can cause settlement, associated with construction of the tunnel. It is acknowledged that construction of the tunnel will cause some small movements in the ground, the level of which will depend on a range of factors including the size and depth of construction works as well as existing ground conditions. The use of modern tunnelling methods and the depth of our tunnels, which are generally much deeper than most other tunnels under London, minimise the likelihood of any potential ground movement. We are assessing the potential likely significant effects of Outcome N
7.5.176 7.5.177 7.5.178 7.5.179
8944, 9068, 9069 9374LO, 8986, 9144 9382 8662, 8883, 9265
3 3 1 3
N N N N
7-42
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response ground movement in advance of the works and, where necessary, will carry out protective measures. We will also monitor actual ground movement during and after the tunnelling to check that the ground is reacting as predicted. We will also carry out a defects survey on buildings located over, or close to, our tunnels and worksites where we consider this necessary. The method used for assessing settlement is similar to that used for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, the Jubilee Line Extension, and Crossrail. In the unlikely event of damage occurring to property because of our construction works taking place nearby, disturbance compensation may be available as detailed in our Guide to the Thames Tunnel compensation programme.
Outcome
Townscape and visual

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to townscape and visual effects 7.5.180 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 7.5.34 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to townscape and visual effects during construction Ref 7.5.181 Objections, issues and concerns Effect of construction activities, machinery and site hoarding on views from nearby flats. Respondent ID 8321LO, 8774, 8777, 9069, 9372, LR13383 No. 6 Our response Outcome
A preliminary assessment of likely significant townscape and N visual effects has been undertaken and is presented in the PEIR (volume 10, section 11). We are undertaking a townscape and visual impact assessment as part of our environmental impact assessment that will identify any likely significant effects of our proposed construction activities and any mitigation required to address such effects, for example well-designed, visually attractive hoardings or early planting to create visual screening where appropriate. Our draft CoCP also sets out measures to ensure that the likely significant townscape and visual effects of construction are minimised, for example, through protection of existing trees to BS5837 Trees in Relation to Construction Recommendations and the use of appropriate capped and directional lighting when required. The current proposal would result in the loss of a single holly N tree that will be replaced. We are undertaking a townscape and visual impact assessment as part of our environmental impact assessment that will identify any likely significant effects of our proposed construction activities. This will be submitted as part of the Environmental statement in our DCO application. The effect of construction activity on the character of the local area would be for a temporary period only. Our draft N
7.5.182
Loss of one holly tree within Waterman's Green - due to proximity to ventilation and control kiosk.
8777
7.5.183
Effect of construction activities and structures on the character of the local area.
7748, 7852, 8396, 8662, 8671, 8760, 8777, 8998, 9068, 9069, 9351
11
7-43
Ref 7.5.184
Objections, issues and concerns Effect of construction activities and structures on the character of the riverside/river frontage. Visual impact of construction activities on the character and appearance of local green space.
Respondent ID 7294, 7302, 7730, 7852, 8777, 9135
No. 6
7.5.185
7852
Our response CoCP sets out measures that would ensure that the construction site would be well operated and maintained. Measures to minimise likely significant effects upon the character of the site during construction, such as use of suitable screening around the construction site will be set out in the CoCP and Environmental statement to be submitted with our DCO application.
Outcome N
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on townscape and visual 7.5.186 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to measures to address the effects on townscape and visual during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on townscape and visual Table 7.5.35 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on townscape and visual during construction Ref 7.5.187 Objections, issues and concerns More information is needed on mitigation of townscape and visual effects. Respondent ID 8777 No. 1 Our response Outcome
A preliminary assessment of likely significant townscape and N visual effects has been undertaken and is presented in the PEIR (volume 10, section 11). We are developing this further with a townscape and visual impact assessment as part of the environmental impact assessment that will be submitted with our DCO application. This will identify any likely significant effects of our proposed construction activities, and any mitigation required to address such effects. Our draft CoCP (provided at phase two consultation) sets out a range of measures to safeguard the townscape and visual environment during construction, for example, the use of suitable screening around the construction site. Our draft CoCP sets out our approach to providing site hoardings and screens, which will be designed to reduce the impact of construction works on the local townscape. N
7.5.188
Above ground construction works should be screened.
LR13383
Transport and access

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation transport and access Table 7.5.36 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to transport and access during construction Ref 7.5.189 7.5.190 Supportive and neutral comments Proposed site access has a better works access than alternatives. Support proposed use of barges to transport materials; fewer barges will be using Putney Bridge and competing with the barges servicing the Foreshore site. Respondent ID 7223 PLA, LBW, 8986, 9073 No. 1 4 Our response Your comments are noted and welcomed.
7-44
Objections, issues and concerns in relation transport and access Table 7.5.37 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access during construction Ref 7.5.191 Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID No. 2 Our response As part of our PEIR (volume 10, section 12) we have assessed the likely significant construction transport effects of the proposed development on pedestrian and cycle routes; bus and other public transport routes and patronage; parking; and highway layout, operation and capacity as well as the likely significant effects on residential amenity. As part of the assessment we have considered the likely significant effects of lorry and (where applicable) barge transport, based on a methodology that has been discussed and agreed with the LBW and Transport for London (TfL). The PEIR was available as part of our phase two consultation. We acknowledge that this is a preliminary assessment. We are preparing a full Transport assessment for submission as part of our DCO application. The Transport assessment will consider the cumulative effects of our works with other strategic developments in the local area. Outcome N
The potential transport effects will be greater 8774, 8895 than those set out in the consultation material, need a realistic amount of traffic movement. Effect of construction traffic on residential amenity. Cumulative transport effects arising from other developments in the local area. 7732, 7768, 8671, 8774 LBW
7.5.192 7.5.193
4 1
7.5.194 7.5.195
Disruption to the use of the Thames Path caused by construction works or diversion. Effect of disruption, diversion or closure of the pedestrian or cycle route.
GLA, 9374LO, 7754, 7921, 7950, 8519, 8895, 8998, 9055, 9069 7305
10 1
We have carefully considered the possible options for the N temporary diversion of the Thames Path and cyclepath while developing our proposals. This route, as illustrated in the N Putney Bridge Foreshore site information paper, has been proposed because it is considered to be the best option for the temporary diversion. Any diversions would be agreed with the LBW and TfL. However, we will take into consideration the comments received to see if there are any alternative options. At this site we propose to use barges to bring in and take away material used to fill the cofferdam. This is expected to reduce the number of lorry visits to/from this site by approximately 45 per cent. Road access to this site is proposed via Putney Bridge Road, Putney High Street (A219) and Lower Richmond Road, as illustrated in the Putney Bridge Foreshore site information paper. Traffic associated with the construction of the temporary replacement slipway would also use the Putney Embankment and Thames Place. It is expected that at the peak of construction (primarily year three), an average of 15 lorries would visit (travelling to and from) the site each working day, as indicated in the PEIR (volume 10, section 12). In the context of existing traffic in the local area, the expected construction traffic is not considered to be significant. If the transport assessment identifies any likely significant N
7.5.196
Construction traffic will cause traffic congestion; query the level of congestion. Buses already back up along Lower Richmond Road and the junction won't work if new traffic is made to use it. Construction traffic will exacerbate existing traffic congestion on Lower Richmond Road and at the junction at Putney Bridge along Putney Embankment.
GLA, 8321LO, 7271, 7747, 7762, 7948, 8219, 8729, 8825, 8873, 8914, 8998, 9151, 9382, LR13383
15
7.5.197
9374LO, 7255, 7293, 7304, 7325, 7441, 7832, 7839, 8219, 8396, 8640, 8662, 8671, 8672, 8777, 8895, 8944, 8966, 8982, 8986, 9002, 9020, 9068, 9069, 9167, 9189, 9253, 9262, 9372, 9399, LR13383, LR9236 7754, 7839, 9069, 9189 7293, 9069
32
7.5.198 7.5.199
Proposed site access is unsuitable as a B road. Alternative site access is required, for example the direct route from the A3 via Putney High Street (A219).
4 2
N N
7-45
Ref 7.5.200 7.5.201
Objections, issues and concerns Effect of disruption, diversion or closure of roads on access to local amenities. Construction traffic will affect access to the local area.
Respondent ID 7732, 7754, 8966 7732, 8458, 8966
No. 3 3
Our response effects arising from congestion we will develop mitigation measures to minimise the effects of any disruption. We are also developing a CoCP (a draft was provided as part of our phase two consultation), which will include requirements for a Traffic management plan to ensure that construction traffic is carefully controlled to minimise any potential likely significant effects on the road network, including access to the local area, as well as setting out construction traffic routes, site access/egress points, signage and monitoring procedures. As part of our PEIR (volume 10, section 9) we have assessed the likely significant construction transport effects of the proposed development on pedestrian and cycle routes; bus and other public transport routes and patronage; parking; and highway layout, operation and capacity as well as the likely significant effects on residential amenity. As part of the assessment we have considered the likely significant effects of lorry and (where applicable) barge transport, based on a methodology that has been discussed and agreed with the LBW and TfL. The PEIR was available as part of our phase two consultation. We acknowledge that this is a preliminary assessment. We are preparing a full Transport assessment for submission as part of our DCO application. The Transport assessment will consider the cumulative effects of our works with other strategic developments in the local area. We do not envisage that construction traffic will cause any damage to local roads as, where possible, we will use the major road network which is designed and built to handle this type of traffic. We would monitor any effects on other roads used by our construction vehicles to ensure that any damage that is directly attributable to the project is quickly repaired. Measures to ensure the restoration of roads to their existing condition are set out in our draft CoCP that was published at phase two consultation.
Outcome N N
7.5.202
Construction traffic will cause road damage.
7839
7.5.203
Local roads are unsuitable for use by GLA, 8535, 9068, 9189 construction vehicles; busy junction and only a B road. Effect of proposed access route to the site on local bus services and location of bus stops. GLA
The site has good access to the major road network which is N designed and built to handle this type of traffic. Based on our current proposals for this site there will be no N effect on the westbound bus stop on Lower Richmond Road. A short closure of the eastbound bus stop (for a maximum of two months) will be required during ductwork installation along Lower Richmond Road footway. The effects of construction traffic on bus routes and patronage will be discussed with TfL and assessed in our Transport assessment that will be submitted with our DCO application.
7.5.204
7-46
Ref 7.5.205 7.5.206
Objections, issues and concerns Effect of construction traffic on road safety. Effect of construction traffic on pedestrian, cyclist and local resident safety.
Respondent ID GLA 9374LO
No. 1 1
Our response
Outcome
We will design site accesses and operate all of our N construction sites to ensure that they meet design, health N and safety standards. We are developing a CoCP (a draft of which was provided as part of our phase two consultation), which will include requirements for a Traffic management plan to ensure that construction traffic is carefully controlled to minimise any potential likely significant effects on the road network, including access to the local area, as well as setting out construction traffic routes, site access/egress points, signage and monitoring procedures. There will be a requirement to ensure the proposals do not endanger safe school access. The transport assessment will also review data relating to recent accidents. The proposals will be subject to independent external review by TfL and the local highway authority to ensure proposed highway layouts and vehicle movement arrangements are as safe as possible. We have discussed the use of the river for transporting materials with the PLA, which is the body responsible for regulating the use of the River Thames, and other river users in London. Discussions to date have concluded that our proposals will not have a detrimental effect on river navigation or commercial or leisure river users. We will be carrying out a survey of river usage and detailed risk assessments, the findings of which will be reported in our DCO application and will inform further discussions with the PLA. N
7.5.207
Effect of transporting materials by barge on river navigation and commercial river users, including impact on bridges. General effect of river transportation. Effect of works and barge movements on river navigation and leisure river users: - even more of a danger to the rowing training clubs based on the Putney Embankment - Boat Race and regatta such as the Eights Head, Fours Head and Schools Head. You have not considered the impact on commuters who use the River Thames. Effect of structures required to enable river transport (eg cofferdams) on river navigation and commercial river users. Effect of navigation restrictions on the River Thames on the size of barges that can be used to transport materials. The site is not suitable to enable the River Thames to be used to transport materials; the tide goes out a long way here and only persistent dredging (which would be costly, impractical, and unsightly) would allow access. More information is needed on construction
8219, 9068
7.5.208 7.5.209
8450 9374LO, 7305, 7747, 7754, 7839, 7901, 8825, 8861, 8934, 9068, 9069, 9159, 9167, 9262
1 14
N N
7.5.210 7.5.211
8450, 8729 LBW, 8219
2 2 The impact of the structure on navigation from this site is the subject of on-going studies and a navigational risk assessment. Where this is shown to have an adverse effect on navigational safety, we will amend our proposals or provide appropriate mitigation in agreement with the PLA.
N N
7.5.212
9068, 9262
7.5.213
9001, 9399
7.5.214
7921, 8502
We carefully considered the information we made available
7-47
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns transport effects such as traffic flows and the Thames Path diversion.
Respondent ID
No.
Our response at our phase two consultation to ensure that consultees had sufficient information to respond to the consultation. The information was based on our preliminary transport assessment, which is still being developed, and we will be discussing the details further with TfL and the LBW to ensure that any significant transport effects are identified within the Environmental statement to be submitted as part of our DCO application.
Outcome
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access 7.5.215 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access Table 7.5.38 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access during construction Ref 7.5.216 Objections, issues and concerns More information is needed on transport mitigation and transport management: - explanation for the need and use of the slipway and if it is to be more than temporary - can the planning schedules for lorries and barges be made available? Mitigation proposed to address transport and access issues is inadequate/ insufficient. Adopt measures to ensure site safety and security associated with construction traffic. There is no guarantee that the mitigation proposed will be delivered; can we have assurance that you will use barges? Respondent ID 7441, 8546, 8864, 8944, 8986, 9068, 9069, 9486 No. 8 Our response Outcome
7.5.217
9374LO, 9151
Our draft CoCP (provided at phase two consultation) sets N out a range of measures to manage construction traffic and how our contractor would operate the site, including sections on traffic and lorry management and control, road cleanliness, reinstatement of public rights of way as well as details about our working hours and the way we would manage our workforce. These measures have been taken into account in undertaking our preliminary assessment of N the likely significant effects of the project. We are currently preparing an Environmental statement that will assess likely significant effects and make recommendations for mitigation. N If a Development Consent Order is granted, we anticipate a N series of requirements (similar to planning conditions) that would control the development. We expect that the requirements would secure the provision of the mitigation measures set out in the Environmental statement that will be submitted with the application. Our footpath diversions will be designed to meet all appropriate design and safety standards and will be agreed with TfL and the LBW. In light of comments on phase two consultation we are considering traffic routes to and from the site. N
7.5.218 7.5.219
GLA, 9159 7839, 9189
2 2
7.5.220
Provide a suitable and safe Thames Path diversion with carefully designed pedestrian crossings and diversionary signage that are agreed with TfL. Provide an alternative construction traffic route to and from the site; enforce traffic routing to prevent the use of Putney High St and Oxford Road. Provide temporary replacement bus stops in agreement with TfL. Adopt appropriate site management
GLA
7.5.221
8671
7.5.222 7.5.223
GLA 9374LO, 7448, 7449, 8861
1 4
Your comment is noted. Where necessary to relocate bus stops this would be discussed with TfL. As set out in our Transport project information paper, we
N N
7-48
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns measures to control construction worker parking, for example no parking should be provided for contractors on the river front. Provide or encourage public transport for workers travelling to and from the site.
Respondent ID
No.
7.5.224
7448, 8535, 8944, 9020, 9068, 9069, 9151, 9207, 9486, LR13383
10
Our response Outcome would require most construction staff to travel to and from the site by public transport. As part of the Transport assessment that will be submitted with our DCO application we will consider the likely significant effects of our proposed N approach and, where appropriate, provide mitigation such as on-site parking. Our contractor would also be required to agree a Transport management plan and a construction Travel plan with TfL and the LBW. Our draft CoCP (provided at phase two consultation) sets N out a range of measures to manage construction traffic and how our contractor would operate the site, including sections N on traffic and lorry management and control, road cleanliness and reinstatement of public rights of way, as well as details about our working hours and the way we would manage our workforce. These measures have been taken into account in our preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of the project. We are currently preparing an Environmental statement that will assess likely significant effects and are discussing the details of the CoCP and framework Travel plan with the LBW. Our contractor would be required to submit a detailed site specific Traffic management plan and Travel plan to TfL and the LBW for approval prior to commencement of works. We are preparing a Transport assessment that will be submitted as a part of our DCO application. This will include a detailed analysis of potential access routes and an assessment of the likely significant effects of construction traffic on local roads, together with mitigation required to minimise disruption resulting from our site traffic. We will work closely with TfL, the LBW, local residents and other interested groups to minimise the effects of traffic movements to and from the site. We are undertaking fluvial modelling and preliminary findings have informed the design of the site. Further modelling will be used to refine the designs where appropriate, and will inform the Environmental statement, which will be part of our DCO application. The modelling studies will also support agreements with owners of third party assets, where relevant. We are preparing a Navigational risk assessment as part of our DCO application, the approach to which is being discussed with the PLA. Preliminary discussions with the PLA have also informed the design of the site. It is our intention to use the river to bring in and take away the materials required to fill the cofferdam, as detailed in our Putney Bridge Foreshore site information paper. However, it N
7.5.225 7.5.226
Establish traffic management plans to minimise any congestion on the local roads. Restrict or limit working hours when construction and related vehicles can access local roads.
LBW, 8671, 8777, 8977 768, 8219, 8914
4 3
7.5.227
Complete a transport assessment.
LBW
7.5.228
Undertake fluvial modelling to identify potential effects of river transport and associated structures on river flows.
PLA, 9253
7.5.229
Undertake a navigational assessment to identify potential effects of river transport on river users and structures. Use the river to transport more/all construction materials and spoil; lack of any barges during phases two to four requires
PLA, 8461, 8977, 9073, 9159
7.5.230
PLA, GLA, LBW, 9374LO, 7448, 7449, 8204, 8502, 8535, 8662, 8671, 8777, 8861, 8944, 8966, 9020, 9068, 9069,
24
7-49
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns further consideration. Use the river rather than roads to transport construction materials and spoil.
Respondent ID 9151, 9207, 9253, 9486, LR13383, LR9236 LBW, 7729LO, 7293, 7304, 7332, 7359, 8206, 8409, 8729, 8977, 9247, 9248, 9382
No.
7.5.231
13
Our response Outcome is not generally practical and cost-effective to transport all materials by barge, therefore we would still need to transport some materials by road. At this site, use of barges would C remove approximately 4,500 lorries from the road during the construction, as indicated in the PEIR (volume 10, section 12). As set out in our Transport project information paper, we are determining where our materials will come from and go to, so that the most sustainable and cost-effective transport routes and modes can be chosen. This includes consideration of rail, road and river transport. Our Transport strategy will set out the best transport solution for our sites and will be submitted as part of our DCO application. Where practical and cost-effective, we will transport materials by barge and additional barge movements are being considered at Putney Bridge Foreshore. C
7.5.232
Other transport and access mitigation comments included: investigate potential for transhipment from sites with no proposed barge movements to those with river access
LBW, 8934, 9068, 9253, 9486
- concerned at exactly how, where and at what angles the new temporary or permanent slip way will be built - need to straighten the angle of the temporary slipway from the Putney Embankment, which could be achieved by extending the flat areas and result in the length of the slipway extending
- Thames Water promised to pay for
In light of comments made during phase two consultation we C are considering alternative layouts for the temporary slipway.
independent experts hired by the foreshore group so far I am not sure if any have been engaged
- Peak hour traffic lights (temporary or
We have supported the agreed costs of independent experts N used by the Putney Working Group.
permanent) are installed at the Thai Square, Kenilworth Court & Waterman's Green road junction.
We are developing a CoCP (a draft was provided as part of our phase two consultation), which will include requirements for a Traffic management plan to ensure that construction traffic is carefully controlled to minimise any potential likely significant effects on the road network, including access to the local area, as well as setting out construction traffic routes, site access/egress points, signage and monitoring procedures. Our transport assessment will also identify any potential likely significant effects arising from congestion as well as mitigation measures to minimise the effects of any disruption, which may include the provision of a lightcontrolled junction. 8461 1 Our proposals will retain the historic slipway and create a new area of public realm in the foreshore. It is not currently part of our proposals to provide a permanent pier or new slipway on completion of our works bearing in mind the proximity of Putney Pier and the historic slipway.
7.5.233
Provide a new modern pier/slipway as legacy of works.
7-50
Ref 7.5.234
Objections, issues and concerns Use environmentally friendly vehicles.
Respondent ID 9020, 9151
No. 2
Our response Environmentally friendly vehicles are not currently a mainstream technology. However, we recognise that the project is not expected to begin for several years and that it will take a number of years to complete. Therefore we will encourage our contractor to investigate opportunities to utilise environmentally-friendly vehicles during construction.
Outcome N
Water and flood risk

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to water and flood risk 7.5.235 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to water and flood risk during construction Objections, issues and concerns in relation to water and flood risk Table 7.5.39 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to water and flood risk during construction Ref 7.5.236 7.5.237 Objections, issues and concerns Proposals will result in river erosion and scour. Respondent ID 9253 No. 1 3 Our response We are carrying out fluvial modelling of the temporary foreshore works to establish the likely significant effects of the development on the river, and will discuss the findings with the PLA and the Environment Agency. We are also undertaking scour modelling. Our design would incorporate mitigation measures to manage the temporary effects of our construction on the river taking into account the level of the spring tide flood. Our point of access would be higher than the flood level and we believe that flood events would be mitigated to ensure that we can operate a safe site. The temporary slipway is in a location that floods during some high tides. It will unfortunately be unavailable for use during these periods. If appropriate as part of our design development, we will consider whether there are alternative options to avoid temporary structures in the river. Where significant scour is predicted we would carry out preventative measures (such as placing riprap on the river bed), and in all locations the riverbed would be monitored and remedial works carried out if/as required. Barge loading will be carefully controlled to avoid spilling material into the river. The river bed will also be monitored throughout the construction period and if it is found that the river bed level is changing, corrective action will be taken to ensure that the current vessel movements at the HYC are not adversely affected by the works. Outcome N N
Effect of temporary structures within the LBW, 7901, 8729 river on river flows and currents which could be a safety hazard to rowers and sailors and undermine Putneys river-based culture. Possible eddying arising from construction activities and structures. 9253
7.5.238 7.5.239
1 2
N N
Other water issues: EA, 9253 - the location of the proposed temporary slipway - safety considerations during construction need to be taken into account as the road running alongside the site regularly floods at high spring tides, which would effectively make the worksite an island for a short amount of time - concerns that the pattern of river bedsediment will change during construction and restrict vessel movements at the Hurlingham Yacht Club (HYC).
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk 7.5.240 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk during construction.
7-51
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk Table 7.5.40 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk during construction Ref 7.5.241 Objections, issues and concerns What happens if the river bed changes during construction - how/who will put it right? Potential need to stabilise the foreshore through the use of some form of retaining structure and/or to reduce the impact of scour through bed hardening. Respondent ID 9253 No. 1 Our response Your comments are noted. We are undertaking scour modelling. The temporary works have been designed to minimise scour. Where significant scour is predicted we will carry out preventative measures (such as placing riprap on the river bed), and in all locations the riverbed will be monitored and remedial works carried out if/as required. Riprap presents a change in habitat rather than a loss of habitat. Recommended water mitigation measures will be provided as part of our Environmental statement which will be submitted with the application. Our draft CoCP sets out our approach to site drainage. We expect to discharge construction drainage in the local sewers via oil and silt interceptors. Outcome N
7.5.242
EA
7.5.243
Contain site runoff.
EA
7.6
7.6.1 7.6.2
Permanent design and appearance

This section sets out feedback comments received during the phase two consultation in relation to proposals for the permanent design and appearance of structures at Putney Bridge Foreshore that are required for the operation of the tunnel when it is in use (the operational phase). During the phase two consultation, respondents were asked to give their views on the identification of site specific issues that have influenced proposals for the permanent design of Putney Bridge Foreshore (please see question 5 of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation). The first part of question 5 asked respondents to select whether they agree, disagree or dont know/unsure. Where respondents completed this part of the question, the results are set out in the table below. Table 7.6.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right issues that have influenced our permanent design for this site? (Q5) Respondent type Statutory consultees Local authorities Landowners Community consultees Petitions Total Number of respondents Total 0 0 2 80 0 82 39 23 20 1 38 23 1 19 Yes No Dont know/unsure
7.6.3
As part of the phase two consultation, respondents were also asked to comment on proposals for the permanent design and appearance of Putney Bridge Foreshore (please see question 6 of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation). The first part of question 6 asked respondents to select supportive, opposed or dont know/unsure. Where respondents completed this part of the question, the results are set out in the table below.
7-52
Table 7.6.2 Please give us your views about our proposals for the permanent design and appearance of the site (Q6) Respondent type Statutory consultees Local authorities Landowners Community consultees Petitions Total 7.6.4 7.6.5 Number of respondents Total 0 0 2 81 0 83 36 30 17 1 35 1 29 17 Supportive Opposed Dont know/unsure
The following sections set out the comments received from respondents in connection with proposals for the permanent design and appearance of Putney Bridge Foreshore. It should be noted that not all respondents who provided feedback comments responded to the first part of questions 5 and 6. Comments are organised under the following sub-headings: supportive and neutral feedback comments objections, issues and concerns design suggestions.
7.6.6
Where respondents commented on matters arising during the operational phase and the management of these effects (whether through design or by other means), these comments are reported in section 7.7. Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site Table 7.6.3 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site Ref 7.6.7 7.6.8 7.6.9 Supportive and neutral comments The design/proposals are OK/fine/ acceptable. The design/proposals are good. Proposals are an improvement on those presented at phase one consultation specifically the reduced height of the ventilation columns. The proposals are in keeping with the local area. The proposals will enhance the local area/ provide some public benefit; the area around the slipway is currently rather shabby and in need of improvement. Proposals will create a new area of public/ open space. Support the inclusion of biodiverse roof/ habitat wall. Respondent ID LBW, 8450, 9372 7404, 7777, 8861 8587 No. 3 3 1 Our response Your comments are noted and welcomed.
7.6.10 7.6.11
LR9276 7223, 8098
1 2
7.6.12 7.6.13
7223, 7251, 8535, 8541 LBW
4 1
7-53
Ref 7.6.14
Supportive and neutral comments
Respondent ID
No. 1
Our response
Support proposals because: LR(CABE) - there is a good appreciation of the unique character of this site the design recognises its role today as a place of gathering - decision to site the promontory upstream from the bridge has allowed for the retention of the slipway; support the simple, orthogonal geometry of its design - it is a low-key design solution and materials proposed for the interception chamber under the bridge are suitable. Support for specific design features: - refurbishment and relocation of the Grade II listed bollards - agree with relocation from phase one - the idea of a permanent wharf between Putney Pier and Putney Bridge is a good one. This will be an attractive spot for viewing the bridge and Bishop's Park opposite, and will make a much better natural terminus for the popular embankment walk that effect - provision of a permanent quay - promontory is level with the top of the slipway. This would not be aesthetically pleasing as the slipway would go down behind it. Proposals are compatible with development proposals for the site. Other qualified support:- query whether river users will be happy - odour must be controlled - the site should look as good as possible. The designs look good, but more information is needed on the second ventilation shaft next to Putney Bridge. EH, 7223, 9486, LR13383
7.6.15
7.6.16 7.6.17
8219 7777, 8224, 9486
1 3 We note your comments in support of our design proposals. We believe that our design accommodates river user requirements, including the provision of a temporary slipway for the duration of construction works, reinstatement of the existing slipway and enhancement of the riverfront for leisure use. The location of the second ventilation shaft adjacent to Putney Bridge is shown on Figure 3D of the Putney Bridge Foreshore site information paper. The setting of the listed bridge has been one of our main concerns in the development of our proposals for this site. We need a smaller ventilation column in the area to meet our functional requirements. We will endeavour to ensure that the final design of this column is sympathetic to the style and scale of the existing lampposts on the bridge. Your comments are noted.
7.6.18
7777
7.6.19
Other supportive comments: - you have to do what is necessary for the
7404, 7777
7-54
Ref
Supportive and neutral comments benefit of all concerned - the design is better than the one proposed at Carnwath Road.
Respondent ID
No.
Our response
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site Table 7.6.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site Ref 7.6.20 7.6.21 7.6.22 7.6.23 Objections, issues and concerns Do not support the design. Proposals are unattractive/ugly. Proposals are unimaginative/bland. Proposals will create an eye-sore. Respondent ID 8206, 8219, 8545 7304, 7305, 7448, 7449, 7750, 7903, 8687 7407, 8402 7305, 7762, 8662, 9068, 9069 No. 3 7 2 5 Our response We note your comments on the design of our proposed project. The design follows our project-wide principles and takes into account comments made at phase one consultation, on-going discussions with consultees and our design review with the Design Council CABE. Our Design development report available as part of our phase two consultation sets out the principles that have informed our design in more detail. We are continuing to develop our design proposals for this site in light of feedback to phase two consultation and our revised proposals will be the subject of targeted consultation. Our public consultations to date have provided the opportunity for the local community to comment on our proposals for this site. We believe that we have undertaken an appropriate level of consultation that has provided significant opportunity for the community to comment on our proposals. Our staged approach to consultation also means that we have been able to revise our designs in response to comments and concerns. Your comments are noted. The images in the site information papers provided illustrations of the permanent design, with further details set out in the Design development report. The illustrations in the Putney Bridge Foreshore site information paper indicate that construction traffic would enter and leave the site via the junction of Putney Embankment and Lower Richmond Road. Some temporary junction modifications would be required to enable these movements. This approach has been proposed to ensure that the effects of construction traffic is minimised on the Putney Embankment. We appreciate that the Putney Embankment is a narrow carriageway. It is not proposed that two way construction vehicle movements would occur simultaneously. Construction vehicles would not exit the site while another was attempting to enter. We believe that the proposed development at this site will positively contribute to the embankment and riverfront through the creation of a new pedestrian area that will Outcome N N N N
7.6.24
Further consideration should be given to site design and layout, including through discussion with the community.
8546, 8671, 8777, 8966
7.6.25
Images and information in the site 7255, 7730, 8864 information papers are unrealistic/ misleading/incorrect. Your illustration shows this design is flawed. The embankment does not have two-way traffic and in fact it is not wide enough.
7.6.26
Proposals are not in keeping with/do not enhance and/or will have a negative effect on the character or appearance of the local
GLA, LBW, 9374LO, 7304, 7305, 7449, 7839, 7985, 8519, 8662, 8966, 8977, 9207
13
7-55
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns area: - the permanent structure appears somewhat unsympathetic to the alignment and character of the river/embankment - the promontory structure currently proposed will also be visually intrusive and have an uncomfortable relationship with the historic slipway - the large design of the permanent structure does not fit with the Victorian frontage. Effect on Putney Embankment Conservation Area. Effect on listed building(s) and/or setting of listed building(s). Design will have a negative effect on the character and setting of the riverside/river frontage. General effect on local heritage.
Respondent ID
No.
Our response overlook the river while retaining the slipway. We are currently reviewing the proposal following the comments received during phase two consultation, and will seek to ensure that appropriate materials will be used along the embankment to ensure the character and appearance of the Putney Embankment Conservation Area and the setting of listed buildings close to the site are preserved and enhanced.
Outcome
7.6.27 7.6.28 7.6.29
7448, 7449, 8966 8966 7305, 7777, 7915, 8616, 8800, 8966
3 1 6
N N N
7.6.30 7.6.31
8662, 8671
2 4 As set out in our site information paper, we are proposing to connect the Putney Bridge CSO to the main tunnel at this site. The CSO is located under Putney Bridge. As there are no land-based sites in this area where we could carry out our works, it is necessary to carry out works in the foreshore. We have sought to rationalise our permanent works footprint to minimise the size of the structure in the foreshore and will continue to consider whether there are opportunities to further reduce the size of the permanent structure. The ventilation columns and other structures have been designed to meet functional and health and safety requirements and need to be the size that we have identified to ensure that the tunnel can operate efficiently. Our approach to design of the ventilation column has been to use its height to make a positive feature or local landmark. The proposed ventilation column design and position is a subtle indication of the structure's role in improving the River Thames and in developing the final design we will take your comments into consideration. Areas required for the works are identified in our Site selection methodology background technical paper which sets out the minimum site size required for a CSO interception site; our preferred site meets the requirement. We believe that our regular maintenance van would not result in blockages to traffic. Vehicles required for our
N C
Size of structure(s) within the foreshore of 8623, 8966, 9068, 9069 the River Thames is too large/there should be no structures in the foreshore. The protrusion into the river to be constructed on the foreshore east of Putney Pier is the most significant of the structures to remain in place on completion of the Thames Tunnel project works.
7.6.32 7.6.33
The permanent buildings and structures are too large/tall. The ventilation column(s) are too high/big.
7915, 7985, 9073 8321LO, 7750, 7985, 8165, 8671, 8966
3 6
C C
7.6.34
The site is too small to accommodate the proposals, including requirements for maintenance without blocking traffic.
7762
7-56
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response periodic tunnel inspection (approximately once every ten years) would require access to enable two cranes to be brought to the site, which may require the temporary suspension of on-street parking on the carriageway in the vicinity of the site. We would discuss the timing of the inspection/maintenance and any suspensions with the LBW prior to undertaking the works. We are aware of the proximity of commercial and residential properties along the Lower Richmond Road, including Kenilworth Court, however, our preliminary environmental impact assessment has identified that there will be no significant adverse impacts on nearby residential properties as a result of the permanent layout and design of the site. We have undertaken modelling to test the effect of the structure on the flow of the river. We are liaising with the PLA to conduct a navigational risk assessment and will implement mitigation measures identified in the assessment.
Outcome
7.6.35
The permanent buildings and structures are located too close to residential properties/ should not be located in residential or builtup areas.
9073
7.6.36 7.6.37
Effect on river navigation and commercial river users (Thames Clippers etc). Effect on river navigation and recreational river users, slipway could cause wave rebound and may hamper use of the slipway.
8729 9253
1 1
N N
7.6.38
Do not support the location/layout of 8669, 8729, 8800, 8966, 9262 permanent facilities (electrical kiosk, building on Waterman's Green, proximity of ventilation column to scenic waterfront, businesses and residential properties, increase in amount of commercial traffic, safety issues and accidents related to increase in river traffic) on the site. Loss of or effect on open space. LR(CABE), 8669, 8966, 9207, 9281
Your comment is noted. We are currently considering the layout of our permanent facilities at this site. Our revised proposals for this site will be the subject of targeted consultation.
7.6.39
Our PEIR (volume 10, section 10) confirms that there would be a gain of public amenity space in this location, due to the extension of the river wall into the foreshore of the River Thames.
7.6.40
Effect on local recreation and leisure cyclists, rowers. The ventilation shaft is inappropriate for an area that is used for leisure and will reduce its recreational value. Effect on property prices and the ability to sell property.
7305, 7839, 7985
7.6.41
7255
The design of the site creates a new pedestrianised area N adjacent to the river, while maintaining access to the existing slipway. We believe that our design will enhance opportunities for recreation and enjoyment of the river in this area. Landowners may have a statutory entitlement to claim N compensation for the diminution of the value of their property due to the construction of the tunnel. Landowners include the council or local housing associations that own social housing in the area. In addition to the statutory process we have published an Exceptional hardship procedure which sets out how we will assess claims from householders who contend that they are suffering exceptional hardship as a result of being unable to sell their property because it is potentially impacted by our currently
7-57
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
7.6.42 7.6.43 7.6.44
Effect on residential amenity and quality of life. Proposals appear to be unsustainable/are not environmentally friendly.
7255 8671
1 1 12
Our response published proposals. We have also published a Guide to the Thames Tunnel compensation programme which sets out details of compensation that would be available during construction for damage or loss, required protection measures and compulsory purchase. We believe the final design of the site will not have a negative effect on residential amenity or quality of life. Your comments are noted and will inform the further development of our proposals for this site. The current proposal would result in the loss of a single holly tree that will be replaced. The permanent electrical and control kiosk has been located near the disused toilet block on Watermans Green to minimise the risk of damage to trees. We do not expect our proposals to have any effect on the Alan Thornhill sculpture or UBR stone. Following modification of scheme-wide air management proposals, the height of the ventilation column has been reduced from approximately 10m to approximately 5m. A separate, smaller diameter ventilation column (approximately 6m high) is also proposed adjacent to Putney Bridge and is necessary to ventilate the interception chamber located beneath the shore arch. Our proposals will make a positive contribution to the Putney Foreshore project by creating a new area of public realm. Further details of architectural design and treatment will be set out in the Design and access statement which will be submitted as a part of our DCO application. The ventilation columns have been designed to meet functional and health and safety requirements and need to be the size that we have identified to ensure that the tunnel can operate efficiently. Our approach to designing the ventilation column has been to use its height to make a positive feature or local landmark. The exact design and height of ventilation columns has not been determined and will be further explored as part of our on-going environmental assessment work. Your comments are noted.
Outcome
N C N
Need more information on design proposals: EH, 8671, 8760, 8777, 8810, 8944, 8966, 8986, 9068, 9069, 9486, LR13383 - effect on trees, Alan Thornhill sculpture, UBR stone, streetscape detailing of granite stonework at the junction of the Putney Embankment with the slipway down to the river
- architectural expression of stacks including
C C N
surfaces
- height of the vent and details of the
second vent, would it be like a lamppost?

- interception chamber to cap an existing
outfall beneath the closest arch of Putney Bridge

- possible interference with the Putney
C C C
Foreshore project
- is the second vent proposed to be
constructed against Putney Bridge? 7.6.45 Visual effect of ventilation columns and other permanent buildings and structures; it would be hard to conceal the ventilation shaft on this site as it is a conspicuous location. 7777, 8165, 8219, 9167 4
7.6.46
Design proposals cannot compensate for and/or are less important than the loss of or disruption to the site and surrounding area during construction. The grass on Watermans Green is not in good condition and can smell and would need to be replaced. Other negative comments:
9372
7.6.47
9382
Your comments are noted we will consider replacing the grass on Watermans Green as part of our proposals. A ventilation column adjacent to Putney Bridge would be
7.6.48
8219, 8729, 9486
7-58
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns - attachment of second column to Putney Bridge

- a metre high wall juxtaposed with the
Respondent ID
No.
slipway is unacceptable.
Our response Outcome necessary to ventilate the interception chamber located beneath the shore arch. The new river wall would have timber-piled fenders, which C would complement the existing handrail and edge of the slipway. A smooth design transition between the existing and new river walls would also serve to prevent the accumulation of river debris and other flotsam. However, we are considering our proposals for this site and how the foreshore structure relates to the slipway. This is a matter that will be the subject of targeted consultation. The relationship of our proposed structure with the slipway is a matter that will be the subject of further design development for this site. Details will be available as part of our targeted consultation. Your comments are noted. N
7.6.49
Opposed to/not commenting on the design because the wrong site has been selected.
8587, 9281
Design suggestions
Table 7.6.5 Design suggestions Ref 7.6.50 Design suggestions Design should incorporate appropriate screening. Respondent ID 9068, 9069 No. 2 Our response We believe that the proposed development at this site will positively contribute to the embankment and riverfront through the creation of a new pedestrian area that will overlook the river while retaining the slipway. The Design Council CABE review stressed the importance of reflecting the simplicity and quality of the setting through a simple, orthogonal geometry design. The functional requirements of the tunnel and interception chamber mean that the permanent structure contains a lot of infrastructure meaning that there are very limited opportunities for planting at this site. However, we will consider your comments to see whether it is possible to include more planting as part of the scheme. Outcome N
7.6.51
Design should provide suitable/more/ adequate landscaping and planting.
7325, 7407
7.6.52
Improve the Thames Path as part of proposals. Proposals should provide some public benefit. Proposals should incorporate public/ open/ green space: - there is a token gesture of a few benches, but these could be improved. Is there a reason why it has to be squared off at the bridge end and not be parkland?
GLA
Our proposals at this site will improve the Thames Path as a N part of the reinstatement works and through the creation of a new area of riverside. The scheme has been designed to create a new area of public space at a point where the existing Putney Embankment is quite narrow. We believe that the proposed scheme will enhance the area and create a new area for leisure and recreation use for the public benefit. We will take your comments into account in revisiting our proposals, including investigation of opportunities to enhance existing footpaths and cycleways. N C
7.6.53 7.6.54
7448, 7449, 8966 GLA, 7325, 7448, 7684, 8206
3 5
7-59
Ref
Design suggestions - location and design of the ventilation plant should ensure that any noise/odour impacts on nearby residents are minimised
- an improved Thames Path and public
Respondent ID
No.
realm should be re-instated and suitable re-instatement of the river access facilities/slipway should be provided following liaison with river users. 7.6.55 7.6.56 Proposals should enhance the local area. Design should incorporate caf facilities if possible linking the 'Rocket' restaurant development and incorporating the disused WCs. Design should include: - public toilets - facility to increase the use of the space - safe riverside passageway connecting both sides of the bridge using tunnels - lighting features - preserve the Victorian slipway and the wooden posts there, just East of Putney pier - create a safe passage connecting the riverside path at both sides of the bridge. 7.6.58 Proposals should be in keeping with and blend into the character of the local area/ minimise visual impact. 7901, 8623, 8671, 8777, 8944, 8986, 9068, 9069, LR9236 9 7449 7448, 7449, 7684 1 3
Our response We will also consider how our project affects the slipway as a part of the reconsideration of our design for this site. We are unable to use the disused toilets as these are owned by a third party who has developed alternative proposals for their use. We note that lighting at this site would be limited to ensure that we create a safe environment. We will continue to explore options for permanent lighting at this site and will discuss our proposals with the LBW. We do not propose to create a passageway beneath Putney Bridge.
Outcome N
7.6.57
7448, 7449, 7839, 8519, 8671, 8777
N C C C C
N We believe that the proposed development at this site will positively contribute to the embankment and riverfront through the creation of a new pedestrian area that will overlook the river while retaining the slipway. We are currently reviewing the proposal following the comments received during phase two consultation, and will seek to ensure that appropriate materials will be used along the embankment to ensure the character and appearance of the Putney Embankment Conservation Area and the setting of listed buildings close to the site are preserved and enhanced. The ventilation columns and other structures have been designed to meet functional and health and safety requirements and need to be the size that we have identified to ensure that the tunnel can operate efficiently. Our approach to designing the ventilation columns has been to use its height to make a positive feature or local landmark. The proposed ventilation column design and position is a subtle indication of the structure's role in improving the River N
7.6.59
Ventilation columns, buildings and other structures should be underground/hidden/ as low as possible. Reduce the height/size of the ventilation column(s). Reduce the height of permanent buildings and structures.
9068, 9069
7.6.60 7.6.61
7901, 8760 LR13383, LR9236
2 2
N N
7-60
Ref 7.6.62 7.6.63
Design suggestions Reduce the size of permanent buildings and structures. Minimise/reduce the size of the area of the permanent site.
Respondent ID 8502, 8986, 9207 7901
No. 3 1
Our response Thames and in developing the final design we will take your comments into consideration. The layout and size of the site have been optimised for both functional and aesthetic purposes. The scale of the proposed structure projecting into the foreshore has been reduced in size and width since phase one consultation. The size of the permanent platform proposed is now much smaller in scale and protrudes less into the river than initially proposed.
Outcome C C
7.6.64
Reduce the area of hard standing.
8760
The shape and treatment of the permanent hardstanding C area is optimised for both functional and aesthetic purposes, while ensuring that encroachment into the river is minimised. Comments received by the GLA and the Desgin Council CABE stated that an improved public realm should be reinstated following completion of the construction activities. The permanent platform area is designed as a useable potential public space with linear granite paving, which is in keeping with the cobbled treatment of the slipway, but with a more accessible finish. Our proposals incorporate a new area of public realm, which would enhance this area in relation to the uses adjacent to the Putney Embankment. The potential public space would be created adjacent to Watermans Green, which may improve the Greens quality and create a more usable space. Our public consultations to date have provided the opportunity for the local community to comment on our proposals for this site. We believe that we have undertaken an appropriate level of consultation that has provided significant opportunity for the community to comment on our proposals. Our staged approach to consultation also means that we have been able to revise our designs in response to comments and concerns. N
7.6.65
Design should allow the site to be used for other purposes once works associated with the Thames Tunnel project are complete.
LBW
7.6.66
Final site design should be informed by local consultation/available for comment.
8671, 8777, 8861, 8966
7.6.67
Improve or create new footpaths and cycle ways as part of the design, including riverside access and safe passage under Putney Bridge.
8669, 8966, LR9236
The design of the site creates a new pedestrianised area N adjacent to the river, while maintaining access to the existing slipway. We believe that our design will enhance opportunities for recreation and enjoyment of the river in this area, however we do not propose a new footpath under Putney Bridge. Your comments are noted and will be taken into consideration, where possible, in developing our proposals for this site. We believe that a number of these matters are already addressed by our proposals for this site. We are not proposing to hold a design competition. Please refer to section 3 of the Design development report for further C
7.6.68
Proposals should use high quality materials and finishes, in keeping with surroundings, using non-slip granite and concrete, with Waterman's Green remaining as grass. The final design should be distinctive and of architectural merit/iconic/visually attractive.
EH, 9374LO, 8402, 8519, 8623, 8671, 8729, 8760, 8777, 8944, 8966, 8986, 9068, 9069 8402
14
7.6.69
7-61
Ref 7.6.70 7.6.71
Design suggestions Proposals should incorporate the opportunity for a design competition. Proposals should create something for the future (legacy). Design should include recreational facilities: - boat stop or ladder with vertical mooring rails on the wall
- permanent public moorings - reconstructed and improved slipway at the
Respondent ID 8671, 8777, 8861, 8966 LBW, 8409, 8777
No. 4 3
Our response information. However, we are regularly seeking advice on our emerging design proposals with statutory stakeholders and local interest groups, and have held two design reviews with the Design Council CABE. The PLA, Environment Agency and the LBW have all requested that the temporary slipway be removed when the construction works are completed. The existing slipway would be available for river access during operation. Therefore we do not propose to the retain the temporary slipway as a permanent feature, create any new public moorings or dredge the foreshore.
Outcome N C
7.6.72
GLA, 8161, 8944, 9068, 9069, 9205, 9253
N N N N N
Barn Elms boathouse

- dredge the foreshore in front of permanent
platform to assist with boat mooring

- leave the slipway as a permanent feature - suitable re-instatement of the river access
facilities/slipway should be provided following liaison with river users. 7.6.73 Specific design amendments include: - Putney drawdock needs to be retained
- railings, interpretation panels - electrical connection protected against
water
- move the cabinet onto the green and the
LR(CABE), EA, GLA, PLA, LBW, 7684, 8165, 8409, 8511, 8535, 8616, 8623, 8669, 8729, 8944, 8986, 9068, 9069, 9253, 9262, 9382, 9486, LR13383, LR9236, LR9491
25
Putney drawdock will be retained and would be available for river access during operation. Your comment is noted. We are currently considering the layout of our permanent facilities at this site as well as the use of railings and other items of street furniture which would contribute to the public realm.
N C C N N
column by bridge - include a fountain with seating

- consider opportunities for use of
spaces/vaults under bridge/use disused gentlemen's toilets

- locate the permanent structures near
The vaults under the bridge are owned by a third party who is developing proposals for their future use. Therefore we do not consider this area available for use. The permanent structures need to be located close to our CSO interception works and within the area indentified for the temporary construction works and therefore cannot be located on the east side of Putney Bridge under the current proposals. We note that we do not have the authority to make the new foreshore area a no smoking zone. Our proposals have been developed in consultation with the PLA, Environment Agency and the LBW and we do not propose to the create any new public moorings at the site. Ecological improvement opportunities for both mitigation and enhancement purposes will be set out in the Environmental
Putney Wharf where there are already modern structures
- consider making the area a no smoking
N N
zone
- floating pontoon along the edge of the
permanent platform
- include reed beds in the foreshore
structures
7-62
Ref
Design suggestions
- bat nesting opportunities on external walls - to minimise permanent encroachment into
Respondent ID
No.
Our response statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. The layout and size of the site has been optimised for both functional and aesthetic purposes. The scale of the proposed structure projecting into the foreshore has been reduced in size and width since phase one consultation. The size of the permanent platform proposed is now much smaller in scale and protrudes less into the river than initially proposed. The CSO shaft has been located away from Waterman's Green to avoid our permanent structures impacting upon the public drawdock.
Outcome C C
the Thames and reduce adverse hydraulic effects, alternatives exist to: a) Implement a temporary piled ramp instead of the infilled slipway adjacent to Putney Embankment; b) Locate the CSO shaft immediately adjacent to Watermans Green; c) With the location of the CSO broadly as shown, reduce the length, width and transition curve with the Putney Embankment; and d) Revise the layout to create a bullnose to the encroachment
- location and design of the ventilation plant
should ensure that any noise/odour impacts on nearby residents are minimised
We are aware of the proximity of residential properties to our N permanent facilities. Our preliminary environmental impact assessment has identified that there will be no significant adverse impacts on nearby residential properties as a result of the permanent layout and design of the site. The design of the site creates a new pedestrianised area N adjacent to the river, while maintaining access to the existing slipway. We do not propose a new pedestrian access downstream of the bridge. Your comment is noted. We are currently considering the layout of our permanent facilities at this site. C C
- permanent pedestrian walkway connecting
to steps on downstream side of bridge
- promontory should be moved westwards

- form would benefit from further refinement
to ensure that it enhances its setting in both visual and functional terms
- explore a more formal means of
terminating the northern end to more successfully address the relationship with Lower Richmond Road
- ventilation column used to signpost and
promote the Thames Tunnel project.
Our approach to designing the ventilation column has been to use its height to make a positive feature or local landmark. The proposed ventilation column design and position is a subtle indication of the structure's role in improving the River Thames and in developing the final design we will take your comments into consideration. 8219 8944, 9068, 9069, LR9491 1 4 Your comments are noted and will be taken into consideration in developing our proposals for this site. We agree that our development should be environmentally friendly and will determine the practicality of installing SuDS at this site. We do not expect our proposals to have any effect on the UBR stone.
7.6.74 7.6.75
Design should incorporate public art. Designs should be environmentally friendly/ sustainable and incorporate SuDS where possible. Other design mitigation included: - UBR stone must be protected
C C
7.6.76
GLA, LBW, 8861, 9382
7-63
Ref
Design suggestions - explore opportunities for horizontal fenders - grass in poor condition and would need to be replaced
- some indication has been given to the
Respondent ID
No.
Our response Your comments are noted and will be taken into consideration in developing our proposals for this site.
Outcome C N N
after use of construction sites, these aspects should be kept under review to reflect needs and opportunities as they appear on completion of works, which in some cases will be 10 years from now. 7.6.77 Existing trees on the site (including holly bushes) should be retained/ protected. A local historian has researched the subject and believes the hollies were planted in 1905 along with the ones in Wandsworth Park. 8519, 8671, 8944, 8966, 8986, 9068, 9069, 9253, 9382 9 The current proposal would result in the loss of a single holly N tree that would be replaced. There would be a requirement for pruning of some trees where branches extend into the construction site. The approach to pruning and all safeguarding measures to protect the trees during construction would be undertaken as specified in British Standard BS5837, where practicable and based on consultation with the LBW tree officer. The permanent electrical and control kiosk has been located near the disused toilet block on Watermans Green to minimise the risk of damage to trees. Our draft CoCP sets out how we would protect existing trees during construction.
7.7
7.7.1 7.7.2
Management of operational effects

This section sets out feedback comments received during the phase two consultation in relation to the management of operational effects at Putney Bridge Foreshore. This includes the identification of site specific issues associated with the site once it is operational and proposals to address the effects of these issues. During the phase two consultation, respondents were asked whether the site information paper had identified the right key issues associated with Putney Bridge Foreshore once the site is operational and the ways to address these issues (see questions 7a and 7b of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation). The first part of question 7a and 7b asked respondents to select agree, disagree or dont know/unsure. Where respondents completed this part of the question, the results are set out in tables 7.7.1 and 7.7.2. Tables 7.7.3 to 7.7.33 detail the feedback comments received in relation to this site. It should be noted that not all respondents who provided feedback comments confirmed whether the right issues and the ways to address those issues had been identified. Table 7.7.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right key issues in the site information paper? (Q7a) Respondent type Statutory consultees Local authorities Landowners Community consultees Petitions Total Number of respondents Total 0 0 2 78 0 80 51 16 13 1 50 1 15 13 Yes No Dont know/unsure
7-64
Table 7.7.2 Do you agree that we have identified the right way to address the key issues? (Q7b) Respondent type Statutory consultees Local authorities Landowners Community consultees Petitions Total 7.7.3 Number of respondents Total 0 0 2 75 0 77 41 19 17 41 19 2 15 Yes No Dont know/unsure
The following sections set out the feedback comments received from respondents in connection to the identification of key issues associated with Putney Bridge Foreshore once the tunnel is operational. Feedback comments are organised under common themes. The themes are: General themes:
General feedback comments on the key issues General feedback comments on measures to address the key issues
Topic-based themes Air quality and odour Historic environment Land quality and contamination Lighting Natural environment (aquatic) Natural environment (terrestrial) Noise and vibration Open space and recreation Planning and development Socio-economic Structures and utilities Townscape and visual Transport and access Water and flood risk
General feedback comments on the key issues

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the identified key issues Table 7.7.3 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the identified key issues during operation Ref 7.7.4 Supportive and neutral comments The correct key issues have been identified. Respondent ID 7255 No. 1 Our response Your comment is noted and welcomed.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the identified key issues Table 7.7.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the identified key issues during operation Ref 7.7.5 Objections, issues and concerns The number and/or type of key issues associated with the site is inconsistent with the decision to select it as the preferred Respondent ID 7777 No. 1 Our response Please refer to our response at paragraph 7.3.15 above. Outcome N
7-65
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns site/indicate that this site should not have been selected. Other operational issues include: - insufficient information has been provided on the alternatives - concur with other suggestions.
Respondent ID
No.
Our response
Outcome
7.7.6
8869
We consider that we have undertaken a thorough and comprehensive consultation exercise. As part of this, we carefully considered the information we made available at our phase two consultation to ensure that consultees had sufficient information to respond to the consultation. Further information regarding alternative sites can be found in the Putney Bridge Foreshore site information paper, Phase two scheme development report appendix D and the Site selection background technical paper and Site selection methodology paper.
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 7.7.5 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during operation Ref 7.7.7 Supportive and neutral comments Measures to address potential issues are satisfactory. Respondent ID 7404, 9253 No. 2 Our response Your comment is noted and welcomed.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues Table 7.7.6 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during operation Ref 7.7.8 Objections, issues and concerns Measures to address potential issues are unsatisfactory/unconvincing. Respondent ID 8760 No. 1 Our response The measures set out in the Putney Bridge Foreshore site information paper are intended to provide a broad overview of how we intend to address potential issues associated with the site. Further information can be found in the PEIR (volume 10). Measures proposed to address potential likely significant effects are being further developed and considered as part of the environmental impact assessment. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. Outcome N
Air quality and odour

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to air quality and odour Table 7.7.7 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to air quality and odour during operation Ref 7.7.9 7.7.10 Supportive and neutral comments Proposals will ensure that odour is satisfactorily managed. The site is already a busy road so the Respondent ID GLA 8541 No. 1 1 Our response Your support is noted and welcomed.
7-66
Ref
Supportive and neutral comments additional impact on air quality will be reduced in comparison to alternatives.
Respondent ID
No.
Our response
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour Table 7.7.8 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour during operation Ref 7.7.11 Objections, issues and concerns It is not clear what the scale of air quality and odour effects will be, the assessment to date is very vague. Respondent ID 8402, 8587 No. 2 Our response Our PEIR (volume 10, section 4) sets out the findings of a preliminary qualitative assessment of likely significant odour effects which identifies a negligible effect arising from operation of the tunnel. A further quantitative assessment of likely significant effects will be presented in the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. The assessment methodologies are based on best practice and were agreed with the LBW. We do not anticipate that any dust would arise from the operation of the tunnel or from general inspection and maintenance activities at this site. Outcome N
7.7.12
Dust and dirt arising from operational activities. Effect of odour arising from operation of the tunnel. Effect of odour on residential amenity.
8402
7.7.13
EH, 8321LO, 7303, 7852, 7993, 8402, 8587, 8760, 8966, 9068, 9069, 9167, 9486, LR13383 9374LO, 7205, 7930, 8662, 8800, 8944, 9068, 9069
14
7.7.14
Our preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of N odour associated with operation of the tunnel are set out in our PEIR (volume 10, section 4), which concludes that when the tunnel is operational no significant effects are predicted N in relation to odour. The ventilation facilities would be designed to minimise the release of untreated air from the tunnel system and approximately 99 per cent of the time during the average year air released from the tunnel would be treated and would not have any odours. This arrangement meets the Environment Agencys odour criteria. When the tunnel is empty the ventilation system would be operated so as to maintain a pressure lower than atmospheric pressure, which would prevent air from leaving the tunnel. This would be achieved by extracting air at specific active ventilation facilities which are currently proposed at our sites at Acton Storm Tanks, Carnwath Road Riverside, Greenwich Pumping Station and Abbey Mills Pumping Station where the air would be treated before being released through a high ventilation column. When the tunnel fills with sewage the air path throughout the tunnel would gradually be lost and air would be displaced by the rising sewage levels. This air would pass through passive filters where it would be treated before being released. We consider that we have undertaken a thorough and comprehensive consultation exercise. We carefully considered the information we made available at our phase two consultation to ensure that consultees had sufficient information to respond to the consultation. This included consultation documents such as our draft CoCP and PEIR. N
7.7.15
More information is needed on air quality and odour effects.
8760
7-67
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response We are confident therefore that the information we have provided is sufficient. Further assessment of likely significant effects will be undertaken as part of our on-going environmental impact assessment work and this will be reported in the Environmental statement to be submitted with our DCO application.
Outcome
7.7.16
General air pollution effects.
8402, 8662, 8760
We have completed a preliminary environmental N assessment of the effects of the proposed development, which is set out in our PEIR (volume 10, section 4) which considers the likely significant effects of our construction in respect of air quality, dust, odour, noise and vibration, which singularly or collectively might be classed as 'pollution'. A full assessment of potential 'pollution' will be presented in the Environmental statement that we will submit with our DCO application. Our compliance with the applicable regulatory regime will be monitored by the LBW. Our preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of N air pollution associated with operation of the tunnel are set out in our PEIR (volume 10, section 4), which concludes that when the tunnel is operational no significant effects are predicted in relation to air pollution. We do not anticipate any air pollution as we have developed an Air management plan to ensure the tunnel would be operated in such a way as to control odour. At this site we are proposing the use of a passive ventilation system that would draw air through the tunnel before cleaning it using carbon filters that would absorb possible odour before air leaves the ventilation equipment. After treatment, air from the tunnel would be discharged via a ventilation column, further mitigating any possible impacts on local air quality. It is proposed that in a typical year air would be exhausted for 12 hours in total, that is, an average of one hour per month. 100 per cent of the air would be treated. N
7.7.17
Effect on air quality arising from the operation of the tunnel.
7354, 7930, 8662, 9167, 9262
7.7.18
Other air quality and odour issue: for how many hours a month will it be emitting treated and non-treated vapours?
LR13383
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour Table 7.7.9 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour during operation Ref 7.7.19 Supportive and neutral comments Mitigation proposed to address the issues is satisfactory, for example all air pipes must have odour controls on them. Respondent ID 8502 No. 1 Our response Your comment is noted and welcomed.
7-68
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour Table 7.7.10 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour during operation Ref 7.7.20 Objections, issues and concerns More information is needed on mitigation, including for how many hours a month will it emit treated and non-treated vapours? Respondent ID 8944 No. 1 Our response Details of proposed mitigation measures were set out in the PEIR (volume 10, section 4) for the site as part of our phase two consultation alongside the operational proposals outlined in the Air management plan. It is proposed that in a typical year air would be exhausted for 12 hours in total, that is, an average of one hour per month. 100 per cent of the air would be treated. More details of the likely significant effects of operation on air quality and odour will be set out in the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application, including recommendations for mitigation. Outcome N
7.7.21
No guarantee that the mitigation technology proposed will be delivered or function as stated.
7255
The proposed odour control units will contain activated N carbon filters. This is standard technology used worldwide and in the UK. For example, the foul sewage pumping station for the Olympic Park in Stratford has just installed this type of odour control system. If a Development Consent Order is granted, we anticipate a series of requirements (similar to planning conditions) that would control the development. We expect that the requirements would secure the provision of the mitigation measures set out in the Environmental statement that will be submitted with the application. The tunnel ventilation system has a number of redundancies built in and works as a complete system so that, in the unlikely event of a failure at one site, the required through put of air can be maintained by increased ventilation elsewhere on the system. The systems will be monitored and replacements for elements such as the passive filters planned in advance of their life's end. We propose to use air quality monitoring equipment during operations, as set out in the Air management plan. N
7.7.22
Install equipment to monitor air quality and odour effects.
GLA
Historic environment
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the historic environment 7.7.23 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the historic environment during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historic environment issues Table 7.7.11 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historic environment issues during operation Ref 7.7.24 Objections, issues and concerns General effect on local heritage arising from the permanent maintenance and operation of the site. Respondent ID 7205, 8777, 9486 No. 3 Our response The operational site layout is provided in our Putney Bridge Foreshore site information paper, which also includes visualisations of the completed project. Our Design project Outcome N
7-69
Ref 7.7.25 7.7.26
Objections, issues and concerns Permanent effect on the conservation area. Permanent effect on listed building(s) or structure(s).
Respondent ID 7205, 8777, 9486 9486
No. 3 1
Our response Outcome information paper sets out our overall approach to design, N including respecting each site's individual context and N surroundings. Our approach to design has sought to preserve and enhance the setting of heritage assets at Putney Bridge Foreshore. However, we recognise the sensitivities of the area and the importance of protecting the character of the Putney Embankment Conservation Area. We will continue to develop our designs of the permanent structures and landscaping to ensure the effects of our works on the setting of historic assets is minimised. An assessment of likely significant effects on the setting of historic assets will be provided as a part of our Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. The operational site layout will be a matter for targeted consultation, which will be undertaken on our proposals for this site.
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment 7.7.27 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment Table 7.7.12 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment during operation Ref 7.7.28 Objections, issues and concerns Locate permanent structures to minimise their effect on the appearance and setting of local heritage assets. Ensure that permanent design and landscaping is sensitive to and in keeping with the appearance and setting of local heritage assets. Respondent ID 8777 No. 1 Our response The operational site layout is provided in our Putney Bridge Foreshore site information paper, which also includes visualisations of the completed project. Our Design project information paper sets out our overall approach to design, including respecting each site's individual context and surroundings. Our approach to design has sought to preserve and enhance the setting of heritage assets at Putney Bridge Foreshore. However, we recognise the sensitivities of the area and the importance of protecting the character of the Putney Embankment Conservation Area. We will continue to develop our designs of the permanent structures and landscaping to ensure the effects of our works on the setting of historic assets is minimised. This is a matter that will be the subject of targeted consultation for this site. An assessment of likely significant effects on the setting of historic assets would be provided as a part of our Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. Outcome C
7.7.29
8777
Land quality and contamination

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to land quality and contamination 7.7.30 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to land quality and contamination during operation.
7-70
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to land quality and contamination Table 7.7.13 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to land quality and contamination during operation Ref 7.7.31 Objections, issues and concerns There is potential for contamination within the site boundary. Respondent ID 8402 No. 1 Our response As set out in the PEIR (volume 10, section 8) baseline conditions at the site have been assessed through the analysis of available desk-based data, a site walkover and preliminary intrusive ground investigations. A preliminary assessment of the likely significant operational effects of the development identifies that it is not likely to result in significant effects. Design measures incorporated into the construction phase (investigation, soil and groundwater as necessary) as well as the placement of newly built hardstanding mean that no impacts on the public from preexisting contamination in the completed development are predicted. Outcome N
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on land quality and contamination 7.7.32 7.7.33 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on land quality and contamination during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on land quality and contamination No objections, issues, concerns or suggestions were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on land quality and contamination during operation.
Lighting
7.7.34 No feedback comments were received in relation to lighting during operation.
Natural environment (aquatic)

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) 7.7.35 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) Table 7.7.14 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) during operation Ref 7.7.36 7.7.37 7.7.38 Objections, issues and concerns Encroachment into the River Thames foreshore. Effect on foreshore habitat(s), although of poor species diversity. Effect on river habitat(s). Respondent ID 7777 LR9491 8662 No. 1 1 1 Our response By intercepting the CSO there would be improvements in water quality, and the improvements to the sewerage system capacity would result in far fewer low dissolved oxygen events and therefore fewer mass fish mortalities. As part of our PEIR (volume 10, section 5) we have assessed the likely significant operational effects of the proposed development on aquatic ecology. The PEIR considers the effects on the foreshore and River Thames and concludes the permanent structure would have a low negative impact given its small extent and that the improvements to river water quality would be a positive effect of the scheme. We acknowledge that this is a preliminary assessment. We are preparing a full aquatic ecology assessment for submission within the Environmental statement as part of our DCO application, Outcome N N N
7-71
Our response which will also consider the likely significant effects of the permanent structure on river flow and fish movements. We have sought to reduce the amount of foreshore that would be lost, however, this needs to be balanced with the engineering requirements of our works and the effect on the local townscape in this location. The loss of habitat in the foreshore contributes to an overall loss arising from the project across its in-river sites. Compensation for the loss of habitat is being considered at a project-wide level and the ecological improvement opportunities for mitigation and enhancement will be set out in the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) 7.7.39 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic)
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Outcome
Table 7.7.15 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) during operation Ref 7.7.40 Objections, issues and concerns Provision of compensation habitat, including refuges for fish and other species. Respondent ID LR9491 No. 1 Our response By intercepting the CSO there would be improvements in water quality, and the improvements to the sewerage system capacity would result in far fewer low dissolved oxygen events and therefore fewer mass fish mortalities. As part of our PEIR (volume 10, section 5) we have assessed the likely significant operational effects of the proposed development on aquatic ecology. The PEIR considers the effects on the foreshore and River Thames and concludes the permanent structure would have a low negative impact given its small extent and that the improvements to river water quality would be a positive effect of the scheme. We acknowledge that this is a preliminary assessment. We are preparing a full aquatic ecology assessment for submission within the Environmental statement as part of our DCO application, which will also consider the likely significant effects of the permanent structure on river flow and fish movements. We have sought to reduce the amount of foreshore that would be lost, however, this needs to be balanced with the engineering requirements of our works and the effect on the local townscape in this location. The loss of habitat in the foreshore contributes to an overall loss arising from the project across its in-river sites. Compensation for the loss of habitat is being considered at a project-wide level and the ecological improvement opportunities for mitigation and enhancement will be set out in the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. Outcome N
7.7.41
Given the accumulative land-take of a series LR9491 of structures along the River Thames, there should be considerations to secure significant positive gains for fish and other aquatic species.
7-72
Natural environment (terrestrial)

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) Table 7.7.16 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation Ref 7.7.42 Supportive and neutral comments Support efforts to minimise the long-term impacts to biodiversity and secure improvements. Respondent ID LR9491 No. 1 Our response Your comments are welcomed and noted.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) Table 7.7.17 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation Ref 7.7.43 Objections, issues and concerns Permanent loss of trees. Respondent ID 9486 No. 1 Our response Outcome
The current proposal would result in the loss of a single holly N tree that would be replaced. There would be a requirement for pruning of some trees where branches extend into the construction site. The approach to pruning and all safeguarding measures to protect the trees during construction would be undertaken as specified in British Standard BS5837, where practicable and based on consultation with the LBW tree officer. The permanent electrical and control kiosk has been located near the disused toilet block on Watermans Green to minimise the risk of potential damage to trees.
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) 7.7.44 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) Table 7.7.18 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation Ref 7.7.45 Objections, issues and concerns Trees must be retained/protected during construction. Respondent ID LBW No. 1 Our response Outcome
The current proposal would result in the loss of a single holly N tree that would be replaced. There would be a requirement for pruning of some trees where branches extend into the construction site. The approach to pruning and all safeguarding measures to protect the trees during construction would be undertaken as specified in British Standard BS5837, where practicable and based on consultation with the LBW tree officer. The permanent electrical and control kiosk has been located near the disused toilet block on Watermans Green to minimise the risk of potential damage to trees. As stated in para 6.1.3 of our PEIR (volume 10, section 6), significant operational effects on terrestrial ecology as a result of the tunnel operation and the infrequent maintenance visits are not anticipated therefore this has not been assessed. A full assessment will be presented in our N
7.7.46
Provision of compensation habitat; put nesting and roosting boxes up.
7404
7-73
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. This will consider the effects of the development based on a methodology set out in our PEIR. All permanent works would be located within the defined site boundary and will be positioned to reduce likely significant effects upon the historic public drawdock, Grade II listed Putney Bridge and the setting of the Grade II* listed St Mary's Church. As stated in para 6.1.3 of our PEIR (volume 10, section 6), significant operational effects on terrestrial ecology as a result of the tunnel operation and the infrequent maintenance visits are not anticipated therefore this has not been assessed. A full assessment will be presented in our Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. This will consider the effects of the development based on a methodology set out in our PEIR.
Outcome
7.7.47
Locate permanent works within the site to avoid sensitive and designated areas.
LR9491
7.7.48 7.7.49
Undertake an environmental impact assessment. Maximise opportunities to enhance biodiversity through an effective mitigation package.
8502 LR9491
1 1
N N
Noise and vibration

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to noise and vibration 7.7.50 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to noise and vibration during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration Table 7.7.19 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration during operation Ref 7.7.51 Objections, issues and concerns General noise effects arising from the permanent operation and maintenance of the site. General vibration effects arising from the permanent operation and maintenance of the site. Operational noise, including potential for noise from the kiosk on Waterman's Green. Respondent ID 8402, 8458 No. 2 Our response Outcome
7.7.52
8402, 8458
7.7.53
9068, 9069
Our PEIR (volume 10, section 9) sets out a preliminary N assessment of the likely significant operational noise and vibration effects of the proposed project. No significant effects were identified, subject to appropriate noise control N measures for equipment to ensure the targets in BS4142 are met. Therefore we do not expect any effect on occupiers or users of adjacent or nearby properties, businesses or N facilities, or on any sensitive structures or equipment. The Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application will provide a full assessment of likely significant noise and vibration effects together with any recommendations for mitigation.
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration 7.7.54 7.7.55 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration No objections, issues, concerns or suggestions were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration during operation.
7-74
Open space and recreation

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation open space and recreation Table 7.7.20 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to open space and recreation during operation Ref 7.7.56 Supportive and neutral comments Permanent loss of open space is acceptable. Respondent ID 8541 No. 1 Our response Your comment is noted.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation open space and recreation Table 7.7.21 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to open space and recreation during operation Ref 7.7.57 Objections, issues and concerns Permanent loss of public open space is unacceptable. Respondent ID 8662, 9486 No. 2 Our response Our PEIR (volume 10, section 11) confirms that there would be a gain of public amenity space in this location, due to the extension of the river wall into the foreshore of the River Thames. We have discussed the use of the river for transporting materials with the PLA, which is the body which is responsible for regulating the use of the River Thames, and other river users. We do not believe that our proposals will affect the Boat Race. We will be carrying out a survey of river usage and detailed risk assessments, the findings of which will be reported in our DCO application and will inform further discussions with the PLA. Outcome N
7.7.58 7.7.59
Effect on river navigation and recreational river users. Effect on the Boat Race and other river events.
13476 9486
1 1
N N
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on open space and recreation 7.7.60 7.7.61 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on open space and recreation effects during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on open space and recreation No objections, issues, concerns or suggestions were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on open space and recreation during operation.
Planning and development

7.7.62 No feedback comments were received in relation to planning and development during operation.
Socio-economic
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to socio-economic effects Table 7.7.22 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to socio-economic effects during operation Ref 7.7.63 Supportive and neutral comments Supportive/general comment: support the project provided that every effort can be made to minimise inconveniencing to the public in operational state. Respondent ID 8224 No. 1 Our response Your comment is noted. We do not believe that our completed project would cause any inconvenience for the local community.
7-75
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects Table 7.7.23 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects during operation Ref 7.7.64 7.7.65 7.7.66 Objections, issues and concerns Effect on property prices. Effect on quality of life causing inconvenience to many, many people. Effect on human health; no mention of health concerns for residents with asthma etc. Effect of the operational site on residential amenity. Proximity of the operational site to residential properties. Effect of site maintenance and operation on the local community. Disturbance from future site maintenance activities. Respondent ID 8321LO, 9068, 9069 7815 8774 No. 3 1 1 Our response Once the site works are complete we do not believe that the permanent works at this site would affect the image of the area; the ability to sell or rent property; residential amenity; quality of life or health. As set out in our PEIR (volume 10), our scoping assessment (agreed with the LBW) concluded that there would be no significant operational effects arising from the site. Outcome N N N
7.7.67 7.7.68 7.7.69 7.7.70
7930 7815 8998 LR9236
1 1 1 1 As set out in our site information paper, vehicles required for site maintenance would normally comprise a small van every three to six months. Periodically (approximately every ten years) there would be a more detailed site inspection, which would require more vehicles, including two cranes. Given the infrequency of these inspections and the low number of vehicles involved it is not considered that there would be any effect.
N N N N
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects 7.7.71 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects Table 7.7.24 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects during operation Ref 7.7.72 Objections, issues and concerns Use an alternative site not actively used by locals and non-locals. Will save construction time, money and affect fewer people. Provide alternative business premises. Provide appropriate compensation. Respondent ID 7305 No. 1 Our response Please refer to our response at paragraph 7.3.15 above. Outcome N
7.7.73 7.7.74 7.7.75
LR13383 9068, 9069
1 2 1
As we do not anticipate any likely significant operational socio-economic effects we do not believe that it would be necessary to provide compensation or business relocations. We are currently considering our design proposals for this site and will take into consideration suggestions for facilities that should be provided as a part of the project.
N N N
Other socio-economic mitigation 7449 suggestions: if you are to use this space you should give back a family friendly caf to the public.
Structures and utilities

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to structures and utilities 7.7.76 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to structures and utilities during operation.
7-76
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to structures and utilities Table 7.7.25 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to structures and utilities during operation Ref 7.7.77 Objections, issues and concerns Structural damage to residential buildings arising from vibrations from operational traffic. Respondent ID 7255 No. 1 Our response As set out in our site information paper, we expect to visit the site approximately once every three to six months to carry out inspections and maintenance of the ventilation and below ground equipment, and once every ten years to carry out a major internal inspection. This is likely to involve a visit by staff in a small van, or vehicles carrying two mobile cranes during the major internal inspection. We therefore do not anticipate any risk of structural damage to residential buildings from our operational traffic. Outcome N
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities 7.7.78 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities effects during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities Table 7.7.26 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities during operation Ref 7.7.79 Objections, issues and concerns Structural monitoring of other structures, including river walls. Respondent ID 8986 No. 1 Our response Our Settlement project information paper provides information on our approach to controlling and limiting ground movement, which can cause settlement, associated with construction of the tunnel. It is acknowledged that construction of the tunnel will cause some small movements in the ground, the level of which will depend on a range of factors including the size and depth of construction works as well as existing ground conditions. The use of modern tunnelling methods and the depth of our tunnels, which are generally much deeper than most other tunnels under London, minimise the likelihood of any potential ground movement. We are assessing the potential likely significant effects of ground movement in advance of the works and, where necessary, will carry out protective measures. We will also monitor actual ground movement during and after the tunnelling to check that the ground is reacting as predicted. We will also carry out a defects survey on buildings located over, or close to, our tunnels and worksites where we consider this necessary. The method used for assessing settlement is similar to that used for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, the Jubilee Line Extension, and Crossrail. In the unlikely event of damage occurring to property because of our construction works taking place nearby, disturbance compensation may be available as detailed in our Guide to the Thames Tunnel compensation programme. Outcome N
7-77
Townscape and visual

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to townscape and visual effects 7.7.80 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to townscape and visual effects during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to townscape and visual effects Table 7.7.27 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to townscape and visual effects during operation Ref 7.7.81 7.7.82 Objections, issues and concerns Visual effect of permanent buildings and structures on the local townscape. Effect of permanent structures and buildings on the character of the riverside/ river frontage. Respondent ID 7305, 8396 7730, 8396 No. 2 2 Our response The indicative site layout and visualisations for this site are provided in our Putney Bridge Foreshore site information paper, and our Design project information paper sets out the common design principles for each site, including respecting the context and surroundings of each site. A preliminary assessment of likely significant townscape and visual effects has also been undertaken and is presented in the PEIR (volume 10, section 11). Our approach to design has sought to preserve and enhance the setting of the site. Specific design measures at this site include designing the ventilation column as a feature, reducing the height of the main ventilation column from 10m to 6m and designing the smaller ventilation column to respect the setting and fabric of the Grade II listed bridge. However, we recognise the visual sensitivities of the area and the importance of protecting the character of the wider Conservation Area. We will continue to develop the design of the permanent structures to ensure visual effects from our works are minimised. An assessment of likely significant effects of the final design on townscape character and views will be presented in our Environmental statement, which will form part of our DCO application. Outcome N N
7.7.83
Effect of permanent structures and buildings on river views.
7730
A preliminary assessment of likely significant townscape and N visual effects has been undertaken and is presented in the PEIR (volume 10, section 11). We are developing this further with a townscape and visual impact assessment as part of our environmental impact assessment that will be submitted with our DCO application. This will identify any likely significant effects of our proposed operational development, and any recommendations for mitigation.
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on townscape and visual 7.7.84 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on townscape and visual during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on townscape and visual Table 7.7.28 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on townscape and visual during operation Ref 7.7.85 Objections, issues and concerns There is no guarantee that the mitigation proposed will be delivered. Respondent ID 7730 No. 1 Our response If a DCO is granted we anticipate a series of requirements (similar to planning conditions) that would control the Outcome N
7-78
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response development. We expect that the requirements would secure the provision of the mitigation measures set out in the Environmental statement that will be submitted with the application.
Outcome
Transport and access

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to transport and access Table 7.7.29 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to transport and access during operation Ref 7.7.86 Supportive and neutral comments Support proposed permanent site access. Respondent ID 8934 No. 1 Our response Your support is noted and welcomed.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access Table 7.7.30 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access during operation Ref 7.7.87 Objections, issues and concerns Effect of permanent structures on river navigation and commercial river users. Respondent ID 8450 No. 1 Our response Our permanent structures would be designed to minimise the effect on river navigation and other river users. Preliminary discussions with the PLA have also informed the design of the site. We are preparing a Navigational risk assessment as part of our DCO application, the approach to which is being discussed with the PLA which is the body responsible for the river and its users in London. As set out in our site information paper, vehicles required for site maintenance would normally comprise a small van every three to six months. Periodically (approximately every ten years) there would be a more detailed site inspection, which would require more vehicles, including two cranes. Temporary and limited parking bay suspension may be required for a short period to allow inspection and maintenance works. We would discuss the timing of the inspection/maintenance and any suspensions with the LBW prior to undertaking the works to limit the impact of temporary loss of parking in the locality and maintain accessibility in the local area. Given the infrequency of these inspections and the low number of vehicles involved we do not considered that there would be a traffic effect. Outcome N
7.7.88 7.7.89 7.7.90
Loss of car parking will affect accessibility to local area and increase parking pressure. Effect of traffic and vehicles required for site maintenance. Effect of disruption, diversion or closure of roads on access to local amenities.
8774 7255 7993
1 1 1
N N N
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access 7.7.91 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access during operation.
7-79
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access Table 7.7.31 Objections, issues and concerns to address the effects of transport and access during operation Ref 7.7.92 Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID No. 2 Our response The likely significant operational effects of the site in terms of transport are very limited, if any. Therefore we do not believe that it is necessary to provide any mitigation measures. This position will be reviewed as part of the process of preparing a Transport assessment for the site. If this identifies significant operational transport effects then appropriate mitigation would be proposed. Our proposals will retain the historic slipway as well as creating a new area of public realm in the form of the new structure in the foreshore. It is not currently part of our proposals to provide a permanent pier or a new slipway on completion of our works given the proximity of Putney Pier and the historic slipway. Outcome N
More information is needed on transport 8934, 8986 mitigation, for example an explanation for the need and use of the slipway and if it is to be more than temporary.
7.7.93
Take the opportunity to create new permanent footpath for example creating a safe passage connecting the riverside path at both sides of the Bridge. Provide a new modern pier/slipway as a legacy of the works.
8671, 8777
As set out in our site information paper our permanent works N would reinstate the existing Thames Path.
7.7.94
8934
Our proposals will retain the historic slipway as well as creating a new area of public realm in the foreshore. It is not currently part of our proposals to provide a permanent pier or a new slipway on completion of our works given the proximity of Putney Pier and the historic slipway. The existing public drawdock would be retained in its current location, and in its current form and width. Your comments are noted in respect of the different levels and we can confirm that this is a matter that has informed our current design and operational layout, in line with the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act and the need to ensure accessibility.
7.7.95
Other permanent transport and access mitigation: - consideration of a permanent slip way - ensure good access between different levels in the finished design.
8671, 8934
Water and flood risk

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to and flood risk 7.7.96 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to water and flood risk during operation Objections, issues and concerns in relation to and flood risk Table 7.7.32 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to water and flood risk during operation Ref 7.7.97 Objections, issues and concerns Concerns that the straight edge, which is perpendicular to the slipway, would cause high levels of wave rebound and may hamper the slipway use after construction. Respondent ID 8729, 9253 No. 2 Our response Your comments are noted and will be taken into consideration in developing our proposals for this site. We are carrying out fluvial modelling of the permanent foreshore works to establish the likely significant effects of the development on the river, and will discuss the findings with Outcome C
7-80
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response the PLA and the Environment Agency to ensure that our permanent works do not detrimentally affect the use of the slipway. The design of our operational layout is a matter that will be considered as a part of our targeted consultation for this site.
Outcome
7.7.98
Effect of permanent structures and operational activities on tidal flow.
8662
Tidal patterns have been taken into account in developing N our proposals for this site. Based on the studies that have been completed to date, this matter is not considered to be a constraint. We will continue to discuss our proposals with the PLA and the Environment Agency.
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk 7.7.99 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk Table 7.7.33 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk during operation Ref 7.7.100 Objections, issues and concerns What happens if the river bed changes following completion and how/who will put it right? Respondent ID 9253 No. 1 Our response Your comments are noted. We are undertaking scour modelling. The permanent works have been designed in such a way as to minimise scour. Where significant scour is predicted we will carry out preventative measures (such as placing riprap on the river bed), and in all locations the riverbed will be monitored and remedial works carried out if/as required. Riprap presents a change in habitat rather than a loss of habitat. Recommended water mitigation measures will be provided as part of our Environmental statement which will be submitted with the application. Your comments are noted. Our design addresses the issues associated with the level of the spring tide. However, we are unable to use the vaults as these are owned by a third party who has developed alternative proposals for their use. River dredging once our works are complete would be a matter for the Environment Agency and the PLA. Outcome N
7.7.101
Other water mitigation: - anything located on Waterman's Green may be subject to spring and surge tide flooding. Enclosure within vaults would help protect against this - dredge the foreshore in front of our permanent platform to assist with boat mooring.
8669, 9253
7-81
7.8
7.8.1 7.8.2 7.8.3
Our view of the way forward

We received a range of feedback on our proposals for this site, including supportive and neutral comments and objections, issues and concerns. We took all comments received into account in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act 2008. In light of the feedback that we received, we believe that no new information has been highlighted that would change the conclusions of our site selection process to date. Putney Bridge Foreshore therefore remains our preferred site to intercept the Putney Bridge CSO. The feedback we received included detailed comments on the construction and operational effects of the proposed development and the measures we propose to reduce and manage those effects. Detailed comments were also made on our proposals for the permanent design and appearance of the site. Having regard to the feedback received, we will continue to refine our detailed proposals for this site to improve the design and reduce the impacts on the local community and environment. We are currently considering the following changes to the layout and/or appearance of our proposals:. improvements to the permanent design and layout of our proposals, specifically the location of the permanent works and the shape of the foreshore structure the nature and location of the temporary replacement slipway whether it would be possible to make further use of the river for the transport of shaft and short tunnel excavated materials in order to reduce the number of lorries on local roads.
7.8.4
In our SOCC we recognised that we may need to amend our scheme following phase two consultation and that if changes came forward we would consider whether targeted consultation is appropriate. We consider that the degree of change and the effect on the local community may affect the nature of the comments made during phase two consultation as the changes we are considering may affect a different section of the community. On that basis, a round of targeted consultation on our revised proposals for this site will begin on 6 June 2012 and close on 4 July 2012. Any comments received in response to our targeted consultation will be taken into account in preparing our application for a development consent order. We intend to publicise our proposed application in accordance with Section 48 of the Planning Act 2008 later in 2012. Full details of our proposed scheme will be set out in our DCO application and the accompanying documents.
7-82

Supp Report On P2 Consultation - Chapter 7 Putney Bridge Foreshore

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Supp Report On P2 Consultation - Chapter 7 Putney Bridge Foreshore

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

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

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

Thames Tunnel Supplementary report on phase two consultation

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

7 Putney Bridge Foreshore

Putney Bridge Foreshore

Structure of this chapter

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

7 Putney Bridge Foreshore

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

7 Putney Bridge Foreshore

9374LO, 7176, 7223, 8289, 8559

7275, 7921, 8219, 8535, 8587, 8986, 9102, 9144, LR9236

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

7 Putney Bridge Foreshore

Respondent ID EH, PLA, 8224, 8546, 9159, 9253

- appropriate mitigation being undertaken

- further work being undertaken on

construction site design and working methods

- the PLA has no in principle objection in

terms of navigational safety

recreational river users

raised by Hurlingham Yacht Club (HYC) in December 2011.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

7 Putney Bridge Foreshore

8195 7777, 7832, 8998, 9002

7.3.18 7.3.19 7.3.20

7993, 8672, 9001, 9002, LR13383 8402 9399, 9486

Query why shortlisted sites have not been identified.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

7 Putney Bridge Foreshore

Comments The site selection methodology is incorrect/flawed/unjustified.

7.3.23 7.3.24 7.3.25 7.3.26 7.3.27 7.3.28 7.3.29 7.3.30 7.3.31

7815, 8402, 8662, 8895, 9068, 9191

8083, 8195, 8545, 8662, 9351

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

7 Putney Bridge Foreshore

- it should not be on the western side of

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

7 Putney Bridge Foreshore

- the site is within the area of the River

Thames which is used by the sailing and rowing communities

west - potentially adjacent to the pier

- the site is located closer to residential

properties, including Star and Garter Mansions.

LBW, 7993, 8402

- recognise design changes since phase

one consultation but still concerned.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

7 Putney Bridge Foreshore

The preferred site

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

7 Putney Bridge Foreshore

Alternative site suggestions Carnwath Road Riverside.

Respondent ID 7302, 7750, 7777, 7806, 7832, 7950, 7923, 8396

Sands End. Barnes Common.

Fulham Palace Gardens.