Supp Report On P2 Consultation - Chapter 9 King Georges Park

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

Chapter 9 King Georges Park
9 King Georges Park
Thames Tunnel Supplementary report on phase two consultation

List of contents
Page number
King Georges Park ....................................................................................... 9-1 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 Introduction ........................................................................................... 9-1 Number of respondents ........................................................................ 9-2 Site selection ........................................................................................ 9-2 Alternative sites .................................................................................... 9-5 Management of construction works ...................................................... 9-7 Permanent design and appearance .................................................... 9-29 Management of operational effects .................................................... 9-34 Our view of the way forward ............................................................... 9-42
9 King Georges Park
List of tables
Page number
Table 9.2.1 Number of respondents who provided feedback on King Georges Park .................................................................................................... 9-2 Table 9.3.1 Comments on whether King Georges Park should be our preferred site (Q2) .............................................................................................. 9-3 Table 9.3.2 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to selection of our preferred site ............................................................................ 9-3 Table 9.3.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the selection of our preferred site ...................................................................................... 9-4 Table 9.4.1 Suggested alternative sites to King Georges Park ............................. 9-5 Table 9.4.2 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the availability and identification of alternative sites .......................................................... 9-7 Table 9.5.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right key issues in the site information paper? (Q4a) ................................................................... 9-7 Table 9.5.2 Do you agree that we have identified the right way to address the key issues? (Q4b)............................................................................... 9-8 Table 9.5.3 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to measures proposed to address the key issues during construction .................... 9-9 Table 9.5.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during construction .................... 9-9 Table 9.5.5 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour during construction ............................................................................. 9-9 Table 9.5.6 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address air quality and odour during construction ........ 9-11 Table 9.5.7 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction working hours and programme ......................................................... 9-12 Table 9.5.8 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction site design and layout ............................................................................. 9-13 Table 9.5.9 Suggestions for construction site design and layout ......................... 9-13 Table 9.5.10 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historic environment during construction....................................................... 9-13 Table 9.5.11 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment during construction ........................................................................... 9-13 Table 9.5.12 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of lighting during construction ........ 9-14 Table 9.5.13 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) during construction ............................................................ 9-15
9 King Georges Park
Table 9.5.14 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction ........................ 9-15 Table 9.5.15 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction .................................... 9-15 Table 9.5.16 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction ...................................................................................... 9-17 Table 9.5.17 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration during construction ........................................................................... 9-18 Table 9.5.18 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration during construction ...................................................................................... 9-19 Table 9.5.19 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to open space and recreation during construction ......................................... 9-20 Table 9.5.20 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to open space and recreation during construction .......................................................... 9-20 Table 9.5.21 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on open space and recreation during construction ........................................................................... 9-21 Table 9.5.22 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to planning and development during construction ...................................................... 9-21 Table 9.5.23 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects during construction ................................................................ 9-22 Table 9.5.24 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects during construction .... 9-23 Table 9.5.25 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to townscape and visual effects during construction...................................................... 9-24 Table 9.5.26 Objections, issues and concerns to address the effects on townscape and visual during construction ........................................ 9-24 Table 9.5.27 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to transport and access during construction ......................................... 9-24 Table 9.5.28 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access during construction ............................................................... 9-25 Table 9.5.29 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to proposals to address the effects of transport and access during construction ...... 9-26 Table 9.5.30 Objections, issues and concerns relating to water and flood risk during construction ........................................................................... 9-28 Table 9.5.31 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk during construction ...................................................................................... 9-28 Table 9.6.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right issues that have influenced our permanent design for this site? (Q5) ......................... 9-29
9 King Georges Park
Table 9.6.2 Please give us your views about our proposals for the permanent design and appearance of the site (Q6) ........................................... 9-29 Table 9.6.3 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site.................................. 9-30 Table 9.6.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site.................................................... 9-30 Table 9.6.5 Design suggestions .......................................................................... 9-32 Table 9.7.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right key issues in the site information paper? (Q7a) ........................................................... 9-34 Table 9.7.2 Do you agree that we have identified the right way to address the key issues? (Q7b)............................................................................. 9-34 Table 9.7.3 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to key issues during operation .................................................................... 9-35 Table 9.7.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to key issues during operation........................................................................................... 9-35 Table 9.7.5 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to measures to address the key issues during operation .......................................... 9-35 Table 9.7.6 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to air quality and odour during operation ..................................................................... 9-36 Table 9.7.7 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour during operation ..................................................................... 9-36 Table 9.7.8 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour issues during operation................................................................................ 9-36 Table 9.7.9 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation ......................................... 9-37 Table 9.7.10 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation ......................................... 9-37 Table 9.7.11 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation........................................................................................... 9-38 Table 9.7.12 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration during operation................................................................................ 9-38 Table 9.7.13 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to open space and recreation during operation ............................................................... 9-39 Table 9.7.14 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects during operation .................................................................... 9-39 Table 9.7.15 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to measures propose to address the effects of transport and access during operation ...... 9-40 Table 9.7.16 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to water and flood risk during operation ......................................................................... 9-41
9 King Georges Park
Table 9.7.17 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk during operation........ 9-41
9 King Georges Park
9
9.1
9.1.1
King Georges Park

Introduction
This chapter covers the feedback comments received during phase two consultation regarding our preferred site King Georges Park. This site would be used to connect the existing local combined sewer overflow (CSO), known as the Frogmore Storm Relief Buckhold Road CSO, to the main tunnel via a long connection tunnel, known as the Frogmore connection tunnel. King Georges Park would also receive the Frogmore connection tunnel, which would be driven from Dormay Street. At phase one consultation, King Georges Park was also our preferred site to intercept the Frogmore Storm Relief Buckhold Road CSO. We proposed to connect the Frogmore connection tunnel directly to the main tunnel. However, following a change of sites since phase one consultation, King Georges Park was subsequently identified as the preferred site to receive the Frogmore connection tunnel and presented at phase two consultation. In response to stakeholder engagement, phase one consultation responses and scheme development, the extent and construction layout of the site was also altered at phase two consultation to minimise impact on the local community and environment. For further information regarding the proposals for this site at phase two consultation, refer to the King Georges Park site information paper.
9.1.2
Structure of this chapter

9.1.3 This chapter is organised as listed below, which reflects the structure of the phase two consultation feedback form: 9.1.4 section 9.2 Number of respondents section 9.3 Site selection section 9.4 Alternative sites section 9.5 Management of construction works section 9.6 Permanent design and appearance section 9.7 Management of operational effects section 9.8 Our view of the way forward.
In sections 9.3 to 9.7 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.
9.1.5 9.1.6
A full list of the phase two consultation material is set out in Annex A to this report. Where a response contains a reference to our website, go to www.thamestunnelconsultation.co.uk for further information, or to access the documents referenced.
Mitigation here refers to a wide range of measures set out in our phase two consultation proposals including for example, the Air management plan and other documents as well as those mitigation measures set out in the PEIR.
9-1
9 King Georges Park
9.2
9.2.1 9.2.2
Number of respondents
A total of 40 respondents provided feedback comments on King Georges Park, of which six were received after the close of phase two consultation. Table 9.2.1 sets out the different groups who provided feedback for this site. Feedback on this site was received in a number of forms, including feedback forms and correspondence (emails and letters). Table 9.2.1 Number of respondents who provided feedback on King Georges Park Statutory consultees 5 respondents - Design Council CABE (CABE) - Consumer Council for Water (CCW) - English Heritage (EH) - Environment Agency (EA) - Greater London Authority (GLA) Local authorities 1 respondent - London Borough of Wandsworth (LBW) Landowners 5 respondents Community consultees 29 respondents Petitions 0 petitions
9.3
9.3.1
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.
9.3.2
The results of the site selection process up to phase two consultation are set out in:
9.3.3
In this section, we set out the feedback comments received in relation to the selection of King Georges Park 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 F of the Phase two scheme development report and our PEIR (volume 12). Where respondents commented on matters relating to management of construction works, permanent design and appearance or the management of operational effects at King Georges Park, these comments are reported in sections 9.5 to - 9.7.
9.3.4
Number of respondents
9.3.5 During phase two consultation, respondents were asked to comment on the decision to select King Georges Park as our preferred site to intercept the Frogmore Storm Relief Buckhold Road CSO and receive the Frogmore connection tunnel from Dormay Street (see question 2 of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation). Table 9.3.1 sets out details of the different groups who responded and selected supportive, opposed/concerned or dont know/unsure. Tables 9.3.2 and 9.3.3 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.
9-2
9 King Georges Park Table 9.3.1 Comments on whether King Georges Park should be our preferred site (Q2) Respondent type Statutory consultees Local authorities Landowners Community consultees Petitions Total Number of respondents Total 0 0 5 19 0 24 10 13 1 10 5 8 1 Supportive Opposed/concerned Dont know/unsure
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to our preferred site Table 9.3.2 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to selection of our preferred site Ref 9.3.6 9.3.7 Supportive and neutral comments Support the use of the preferred site. Support the changes to the proposed use of the preferred site since phase one consultation; as a reception site, construction impact on the park has been reduced. Respondent ID GLA, LR9447 LR13375, LR9236 No. 2 2 Our response Your support is noted and welcomed.
9.3.8
Agree that the Frogmore Storm Relief 8098, 8846 Buckhold Road CSO needs to be intercepted, and that the King Georges Park 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; the size of the site has been reduced and it has been moved further away from the historic park gates off Buckhold Road (A218). Other supportive comments included that residents in the Wandsworth Borough have a fair selection of alternative open spaces to enjoy during the construction phase. Qualified support subject to disruption and nuisance during construction being kept to a minimum and an appropriate landscaping strategy being agreed. 8489
Your support is noted and welcomed.
9.3.9
Your support is noted and welcomed. We took the effect on residents into account as part of our site selection process, as well as the ability to mitigate likely significant effects. Your support is noted and welcomed.
9.3.10
7785, 8535, LR9236
9.3.11
8098
9.3.12
LBW
Since selecting King Georges Park 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
9-3
9 King Georges Park
Ref
Supportive and neutral comments
Respondent ID
No.
Our response measures, which are 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. We are currently discussing landscaping proposals with the local planning authority. An illustrative landscaping plan will be submitted with the DCO application. Details will be secured through requirements (which are similar to planning conditions) in the DCO.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the selection of our preferred site Table 9.3.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the selection of our preferred site Ref 9.3.13 9.3.14 9.3.15 9.3.16 9.3.17 Objections, issues and concerns Object to the use of this preferred site. Disagree with the selection of this preferred site. This preferred site is generally unsuitable. Should use/consider an alternative site. There are other, more suitable alternative sites available in the local area, including brownfield sites. Respondent ID 9001, 9002, 9016 7006 9001, 9002 13384 7957 No. 3 1 2 1 1 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, King George's Park is the most suitable site. This is because we can directly intercept the CSO, which runs beneath the northern part of the park. The site is also further away from residential properties in comparison to the other shortlisted sites and would avoid the need for significant works in Broomhill Road and Buckhold Road (A218). While the use of this site would mean the temporary loss of a section of King Georges Park, the vast majority of the park would remain in use. For further details on the results of the site selection process including our assessment of shortlisted sites, refer to appendix F of the Phase two scheme development report. The shortlisted sites were listed in the King George's Park site information paper. Appendix F of the Phase two scheme development report sets out all the sites assessed as part of the site selection process including the shortlisted sites. We took brownfield versus greenfield/open space 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. Given the location of the Frogmore Storm Relief Buckhold Road CSO, it is not possible to avoid this builtup area.
9.3.18
Query why shortlisted sites have not been identified?
EH, GLA
9.3.19 9.3.20 9.3.21
Site selection should use/prioritise brownfield sites. Site selection should avoid greenfield sites and open space. Site selection should avoid sites in residential and/or densely populated areas.
9454 7957, 9454 9375LO, 13384, 7006, 8794, 9016
1 2 5
9-4
9 King Georges Park
Ref 9.3.22
Objections, issues and concerns The scale of effects on the local area and community resulting from the selection of this site is unacceptable/has not been properly considered.
Respondent ID 9340LO, 9375LO, 8794, 9016
No. 4
Our response Our site selection process has had regard to possible effects on the local area and community, and the environmental impact assessment process will undertake further assessment and recommend any necessary mitigation measures. In particular, the environment and community assessments undertaken as part of site selection had regard to the number and nature of sensitive receptors and possible impacts from traffic and in terms of noise, air quality and visual impact. We also considered impacts on employment uses and possible conflict with planning policy seeking to protect local amenity. For further details on the results of the site selection process, refer to appendix F of the Phase two scheme development report. 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. Given that we had a limited search area in which to identify a suitable CSO site, we did not consider it appropriate to exclude sites located in commercially established areas when compiling our longlist of sites. We considered the use of the land, including any designations, as part of the assessment. 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. Only the northern part of the park is close enough to the sewer to intercept the CSO.
9.3.23
Site selection should avoid commercially established areas.
7006
9.3.24
Do not support the specific location of the 9340LO, 9375LO, 8794 site. The site should be relocated from the park entrance further into the park and away from residential areas. The current position of the site is less than 100m from Parkview Court. There is ample space on the Kimber Road playing fields. Need more information on site selection, 7689 including the pros and cons for selecting this site.
9.3.25
The reasons for selecting King George's Park as our preferred site are set out in the relevant site information paper and appendix F of Phase two scheme development report.
Shortlisted sites
9.3.26 No feedback comments were received in relation to the shortlisted sites.
9.4
9.4.1
Alternative sites
During phase two consultation, respondents were invited to suggest alternative sites that they thought should be used to intercept the Frogmore Storm Relief Buckhold Road CSO instead of King Georges Park (see question 3 of the phase two feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation). The following sites were put forward as possible alternatives: Table 9.4.1 Suggested alternative sites to King Georges Park Ref 9.4.2 Alternative site suggestion Car park off Broomhill Road, to Reasons It is a brownfield site, which would Respondent ID 7957 No. 1 Our response We did identify and consider Car park off Broomhill Road, to rear of flats
Shortlisted sites
9-5
9 King Georges Park
Ref
Alternative site suggestion rear of flats facing onto Buckhold Road (A218).
Reasons Respondent ID reduce the visual impact of construction and permanent works and could improve the site in the longterm.
No.
Our response facing onto Buckhold Road (A218). It is a shortlisted site but we consider our preferred site (King George's Park) more suitable to intercept the Frogmore Storm Relief Buckhold Road CSO because we can directly intercept the CSO, which runs beneath the northern part of the park. King George's Park is also further away from residential properties and avoids the need for significant works in Broomhill Road and Buckhold Road (A218). While the use of this site would mean the temporary loss of a section of King Georges Park, the vast majority of the park would remain in use. For further details on the results of the site selection process, refer to appendix F of the Phase two scheme development report. 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. The Frogmore Storm Relief has two CSOs that we need to intercept. We prefer to use Dormay Street to intercept the Frogmore Storm Relief - Bell Lane Creek CSO and King George's Park to intercept the Frogmore Storm Relief - Buckhold Road CSO. These two CSOs are not close to each other so we need two sites, therefore Dormay Street is not an alternative for the King George's Park site. 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. The suggested alternative sites are considered too far away from the Frogmore Storm Relief - Buckhold Road CSO and therefore are not suitable as CSO interception sites.
Other sites 9.4.3 Dormay Street. If Thames Water needs to intercept the Frogmore Storm Relief CSO then it should be done underground and the Dormay Street site used for permanent sewer ventilation systems since the site is further away from residential areas and more suitable for proposed construction works. It is a large, open site that can easily accommodate the proposed works, and is further from residential areas. The site also has good road access and would obviate the need for construction works within King George's Park. 7006 1
9.4.4
Kimber Road playing fields.
9017LO, 9268LO, 9340LO, 9375LO, 8794, 13372, 13384
9.4.5 9.4.6
Brownfield site near Hammersmith Bridge. Brownfield site. Would avoid blight and environmental damage to King George's Park, which has been nominated as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) by Wandsworth Council.
7287 7957
1 1 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. The search area for sites to intercept the CSO is therefore localised. In line with our Site selection methodology paper, which we consulted on and agreed with the potentially directly affected local authorities, we identified all appropriate sites in the vicinity of the CSO and took brownfield versus greenfield into consideration as part of the site selection process. The sites considered are set out in appendix F of the Phase two scheme development report. We consider our preferred site to be the most suitable of all sites considered.
9.4.7
Respondents also made the following comments in relation to the availability and identification of alternative sites:
9-6
9 King Georges Park
Supportive and neutral feedback comments Table 9.4.2 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the availability and identification of alternative sites Ref 9.4.8 Supportive and neutral comments No alternative site is available; Thames Water has done its best to survey alternative sites. No site is readily available that would cause fewer impacts Not sure. Respondent ID 7404 No. 1 Our response Your support is noted and welcomed.
9.4.9 9.4.10
GLA 8817
1 1
Your support is noted and welcomed. Your comments are noted. We consider that King George's Park is the most appropriate site for intercepting the Frogmore Storm Relief Buckhold Road CSO.
Objections, issues and concerns 9.4.11 No objections, issues and concerns were raised in relation to the availability and identification of alternative sites.
9.5
9.5.1 9.5.2
Management of construction works

This section sets out feedback comments received during phase two consultation in relation to the management of construction works at King Georges Park. This includes the identification of site specific issues arising from construction activities and proposals for addressing these issues. During phase two consultation, respondents were asked whether the site information paper had identified the right key issues associated with King Georges Park 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 9.5.1 and 9.5.2. Tables 9.5.3 to 9.5.31 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 9.5.1 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 12 0 14 9 4 1 9 2 2 1 Yes No Dont know/unsure
9-7
9 King Georges Park
Table 9.5.2 Do you agree that we have identified the right way to address the key issues? (Q4b) Respondent type Statutory consultees Local authorities Landowners Community consultees Petitions Total 9.5.3 Number of respondents Total 0 0 2 12 0 14 7 5 2 7 2 3 2 Yes No Dont know/unsure
The following sections set out the feedback comments received from respondents in connection with the identification of key issues associated with King Georges Park during construction and our proposals to address these issues. Feedback comments are organised under common themes. The themes are: General themes:
General feedback comments on key issues General feedback comments on measures to address the key issues
Topic-based themes Air quality and odour Construction working hours and programme Construction site design and layout Historic environment Land quality and contamination Lighting Natural environment (aquatic) Natural environment (terrestrial) Noise and vibration Open space and recreation Planning and development Socio-economic Structures and utilities Townscape and visual Transport and access Water and flood risk
General feedback comments on the identified key issues

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the identified key issues 9.5.4 9.5.5 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to general comments on the identified key issues during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the identified key issues No objections, issues and concerns were received in relation to general comments on the identified key issues during construction.
9-8
9 King Georges Park
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 9.5.3 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to measures proposed to address the key issues during construction Ref 9.5.6 Supportive and general comments Measures to address potential issues are satisfactory. Respondent ID 7287 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 9.5.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during construction Ref 9.5.7 Objections, issues and concerns Construction impacts must be minimised at every stage of construction. Respondent ID GLA No. 1 Our response We have sought to avoid or eliminate potential effects wherever possible, both by developing robust technical solutions to potential issues such as odour, and through our proposals for the permanent site design and layout. We are also developing a CoCP that will set out how we would 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 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 9.5.8 No supportive or neutral comments were received in relation to air quality and odour during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour Table 9.5.5 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour during construction Ref 9.5.9 Objections, issues and concerns Dust and dirt arising from construction activities. Respondent ID 9017LO, 9268LO, 9340LO, 9375LO, 7689, 8794, 9016, LR13375 No. 8 Our response 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 would 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 12, section 4) did not identify any significant effects on residential or other sensitive receptors (such as schools) near this site. We are undertaking an environmental impact assessment, which will include a comprehensive assessment of the likely significant effects arising from the Outcome N
9-9
9 King Georges Park
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns
Respondent ID
No.
Our response proposals. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. We have set out measures in our draft CoCP that would be 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, which was outlined in our PEIR (volume 12, 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 site. We are preparing a full assessment for submission in the Environmental statement as part of our DCO application, which 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. We are undertaking an environmental impact assessment, which will include a comprehensive assessment of the likely significant effects arising from the proposals. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. Our PEIR (volume 12, section 4) considered the likely significant effects of dust arising from the construction site. The report concluded that measures that will be contained in the CoCP would reduce the effects. While not a formal requirement, we are also preparing a Health impact assessment for submission with the application, which will assess the full range of potential health and well-being effects of the project on identified vulnerable groups. We have completed a preliminary environmental assessment of the likely significant effects of the proposed development, which is set out in our PEIR (volume 12, section 4). This assessment 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 significant effects on 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 that 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
Outcome
9.5.10
Effect of construction traffic emissions on air quality.
13384
9.5.11
Effects on health arising from dust, odour, air pollution and reduced air quality.
9016
9.5.12
General air pollution effects arising from construction activities.
9268LO
9-10
9 King Georges Park
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response 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
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour 9.5.13 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour Table 9.5.6 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address air quality and odour during construction Ref 9.5.14 Objections, issues and concerns Mitigation proposed to address air quality and odour issues is inadequate/insufficient. Respondent ID 7006 No. 1 Our response Outcome
Details of proposed mitigation measures for the site were set N out in the PEIR (volume 12, section 4) as part of our phase two consultation. The PEIR stated that no specific mitigation measures in addition to the CoCP would be required at this site for air quality, odour or dust issues. We would require our contractor to comply with the CoCP in the construction contract. Our Environmental statement will provide a full assessment of the effects of construction on air quality, odour and dust. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. We can confirm that the Best Practice Guidance has been taken into account in developing our proposals for this site. Our draft CoCP sets out measures for managing our works as well as details of the various regulatory regimes and guidance that we would need to comply with, such as the Control of Pollution Act 1974, the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, the Mayor of London's Ambient Noise Strategy 2004 and The control of dust and emissions from construction and demolition - Best Practice Guidance 2008, as well as various British Standards. N
9.5.15
The GLA and London Council's Best Practice Guidance (BPG) The control of dust and emissions from construction and demolition should be implemented.
GLA
Construction working hours and programme

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to construction working hours and programme 9.5.16 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to construction working hours and programme.
9-11
9 King Georges Park
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction working hours and programme Table 9.5.7 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction working hours and programme Ref 9.5.17 Objections, issues and concerns The construction programme is too long/concerned about the duration of construction. Respondent ID 9375LO No. 1 Our response The programming of works at all sites would be configured to minimise the duration of works and associated disruption to the local area where possible. The length of the construction period in the consultation documents comes from the PEIR and we expect that in many cases there will be periods during which there will be no or less intensive activity on some sites. Details of the proposed working hours for this site are set out in the site information paper and the draft CoCP. The draft CoCP will be further developed for submission with our DCO application. The site mobilisation period would last no longer than one hour either side of standard working hours. The activities undertaken during this time are necessary to ensure that construction activities can commence and be completed in a timely manner. Activities undertaken during this time, such as refuelling, are not expected to cause any significant disruption to local residents and our contractor would be required to keep disturbance to a minimum. We plan to carry out the majority of works within standard working hours, which are 8am-6pm weekdays, and 8am1pm Saturdays. Table 2.1 of our King Georges Park site information paper does not propose continuous or extended standard hours for this site. Outcome N
9.5.18
The site mobilisation period is unnecessary/unreasonable.
9375LO
9.5.19 9.5.20 9.5.21 9.5.22
Proposed working hours are too long. Extended working hours are unnecessary/ unreasonable. Concerned about weekend working hours/ construction seven days a week. Concerned about overnight/24-hour working.
9017LO, 9268LO, 9340LO, 9375LO, 13372, 8794 9017LO, 9268LO, 9340LO, 9375LO, 13384, 8794 9017LO, 9268LO, 9340LO, 9375LO, 8794 9375LO, 13384, 8794
6 6 5 3
N N N N
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of construction working hours and programme 9.5.23 9.5.24 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 No objective, issues, concerns or suggestions were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of construction working hours and programme.
Construction site design and layout

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to construction site design and layout 9.5.25 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to construction site design and layout.
9-12
9 King Georges Park
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction site design and layout issues Table 9.5.8 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction site design and layout Ref 9.5.26 Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID No. 2 Our response Outcome
Extent of construction site; any agreement in LBW, 9073 principle to transfer land should be for the area minimum necessary.
The construction site layout has been developed to minimise N its area.
Suggestions for construction site design and layout Table 9.5.9 Suggestions for construction site design and layout Ref 9.5.27 Suggestions for construction site design and layout Construction site layout should minimise the loss of open space and utilise the temporary construction sites for the minimum period possible. Respondent ID GLA, LR13375 No. 2 Our response Our design has been developed in order to minimise the loss of open space and we are considering opportunities to improve other open spaces in the local area to compensate for the temporary loss. We have also sought, and will continue to seek, to optimise our construction programme at this site in order to reduce the time span.
Historic environment
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the historic environment 9.5.28 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the historic environment during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historic environment issues Table 9.5.10 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historic environment during construction Ref 9.5.29 Objections, issues and concerns Effect on the historic park or garden and protection of the railings. Respondent ID 8978 No. 1 Our response Outcome
As set out in our site information paper, our proposals for N King George's Park retain the historic gates and railings as well as the area around the Sir John Young Memorial tree and bench. We recognise that these are valuable features of the park.
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment 9.5.30 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 9.5.11 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment during construction Ref 9.5.31 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 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 part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. Additionally, our draft CoCP (provided at phase two
9-13
9 King Georges Park
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response Outcome 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 would continue to engage with them closely on the planning of the works.
Land quality and contamination

9.5.32 No feedback comments were received in relation to land quality and contamination during construction.
Lighting
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to lighting 9.5.33 9.5.34 9.5.35 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to lighting during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to lighting issues No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to lighting during construction. Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of lighting No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address lighting during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of lighting Table 9.5.12 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of lighting during construction Ref 9.5.36 Objections, issues and concerns Control the location and direction of construction lighting. Respondent ID LBW No. 1 Our response 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. We would continue to liaise with the LBW and stakeholders while preparing our CoCP for submission with our DCO application. We will take comments received as part of this consultation into consideration in developing the document. Outcome N
9.5.37
Work with residents to agree appropriate lighting measures in the CoCP.
LR9236
Natural environment (aquatic)

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) 9.5.38 9.5.39 9.5.40 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) No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) during construction. Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) during construction.
9-14
9 King Georges Park
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) Table 9.5.13 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) during construction Ref 9.5.41 Objections, issues and concerns The wild fowl on the lake should be protected from disturbance. Respondent ID 8978 No. 1 Our response Outcome
Our preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects N on wildlife associated with the construction of the tunnel is set out in our PEIR (volume 12, section 6). This assessment considered the effects on the lake in its terrestrial habitats. The scheme has been designed to minimise effects of disturbance 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 habitats will be assessed and reported in the Environmental statement that will be submitted as part of our DCO application. The CoCP that will be submitted with the application will ensure that works comply with applicable legislation and with relevant nature conservation policies and guidance, including the Mayors Biodiversity strategy and local biodiversity action plans. Where species are protected by specific legislation, approved guidance would be followed, appropriate mitigation proposed and any necessary licences or consents obtained.
Natural environment (terrestrial)

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) Table 9.5.14 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction Ref 9.5.42 9.5.43 9.5.44 Supportive and neutral comments Support retention of trees; pleased that the Black Poplar will be preserved. Support for the replacement of trees. The site will result in fewer trees being lost (may only need to remove three trees). Respondent ID LR13375 LR13375 7785 No. 1 1 1 Our response Your support is noted and welcomed.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) Table 9.5.15 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction Ref 9.5.45 Objections, issues and concerns Loss of mature trees and blossom trees. Respondent ID GLA, 9375LO, 8817, LR13375, LR9236, LR9491 No. 6 Our response We acknowledge that the proposals would result in the loss of trees at this site. As detailed in our site information paper and Design development report, we have reconfigured our proposals for this site to avoid damage to the root zones of the most sensitive and valuable trees in the park. Our draft CoCP sets out how we would protect existing trees during construction. Measures such as protective fencing and prohibition of storing material in the protected area would be Outcome N
9-15
9 King Georges Park
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response implemented prior to works being undertaken as specified in British Standard BS5837, where practicable and in consultation with the LBW tree officer.
Outcome
9.5.46 9.5.47 9.5.48
General effect of construction activities on local wildlife. Effect on other species, including London Wetland Centre wildfowl. Effect on terrestrial habitat(s), including pond and park wildlife.
LR9236 7287 9375LO
1 1 1
Our preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects N on wildlife associated with the construction of the tunnel is provided in our PEIR (volume 12, section 6), which sets out N the effects in terms of notable species, including bats and birds, and their habitats. The scheme has been designed to minimise effects on wildlife and habitats where possible and, N where effects have been identified, mitigation has been built into the design. The likely significant effects will be assessed and reported in the Environmental statement that will be submitted as part of the application. The CoCP that will be submitted with the application would ensure that works comply with applicable legislation and with relevant nature conservation policies and guidance, including the Mayors Biodiversity strategy and local biodiversity action plans. Where species are protected by specific legislation, approved guidance would be followed, appropriate mitigation proposed and any necessary licences or consents obtained. We consider that we have undertaken a thorough and N comprehensive consultation exercise. We carefully considered the information we made available at our phase two consultation to ensure that consultees had sufficient information to respond to the consultation. This included our PEIR (volume 12, section 6) which included our initial assessment of likely significant effects of construction site activities on the terrestrial ecosystem, including site clearance, tree removal and pruning, the movements of construction workers and machinery, and construction activities that cause noise, vibration and lighting (including piling). The proposals set out in our draft CoCP are included in the assessment. An assessment of the likely significant effects on the natural environment is being completed as part of our environmental impact assessment. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. We are confident therefore that the information we have provided is sufficient.
9.5.49
More information is needed on the effect of construction activities on the natural environment.
LR9491
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) 9.5.50 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.
9-16
9 King Georges Park
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) Table 9.5.16 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction Ref 9.5.51 Objections, issues and concerns More information is needed on natural environment mitigation. Respondent ID LR9491 No. 1 Our response Details of proposed mitigation measures and initial ecological surveys for the site were set out in our PEIR (volume 12, 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. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. Details of our proposed tree protection measures are set out in our draft CoCP, which has been developed in accordance with British Standard BS5837. Our contractor would implement the identified measures where practicable in consultation with the LBW tree officer. Outcome N
9.5.52
Retain trees during construction in line with British Standards.
LBW
9.5.53 9.5.54
Any trees lost during construction must be replaced. Retain trees during construction, including roots undamaged.
8535 8535
1 1
We acknowledge that the proposals would result in the loss N of trees at this site. However, our plans for landscaping include planting new trees to replace those that would be N lost. As detailed in our site information paper and Design development report, we have reconfigured our proposals for this site to avoid damage to the root zones of the most sensitive and valuable trees in the park. Our draft CoCP sets out how we would protect existing trees during construction. Measures such as protective fencing and prohibition of storing material in the protected area would be implemented prior to works being undertaken as specified in British Standard BS5837, where practicable and in consultation with the LBW tree officer. All construction activities would be contained within our proposed construction site. We have produced a draft CoCP that sets out measures to safeguard habitats and vegetation during construction which our contractor would adhere to. We have already completed a range of surveys at this site as detailed in the PEIR (volume 12, section 6). Where our methodology for the Environmental statement, which has been agreed with the LBW, identifies the need for further surveys we would ensure that these are completed prior to submitting our DCO application. If our assessment of effects identifies the need for further site surveys prior to commencing construction, they would be undertaken in N N
9.5.55 9.5.56
Locate construction activities within the site to avoid sensitive and designated areas. Adopt suitable measures in the CoCP to avoid potential effects on the natural environment.
LR9491 LR9236
1 1
9.5.57
Undertake site surveys prior to commencing LBW construction to identify sensitive species and habitats.
9-17
9 King Georges Park
Ref 9.5.58
Objections, issues and concerns Other natural environment mitigation, including: - maximise opportunities to enhance biodiversity through an effective mitigation package - explore mitigation throughout the park, not just around the operational site - mature trees are good for noise and pollution levels.
Respondent ID 8817, LR9491
No. 2
Our response accordance with all relevant guidelines and best practice. Details of proposed mitigation measures and initial ecological surveys for the site were set out in the PEIR (volume 12, 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 CoCP will set out a range of measures that would be implemented to control and limit disturbance, and relevant measures will be assessed in our Environmental statement. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. No mature planting is proposed as this site.
Outcome N
Noise and vibration

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to noise and vibration 9.5.59 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 9.5.17 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration during construction Ref 9.5.60 9.5.61 9.5.62 9.5.63 Objections, issues and concerns General noise effects arising from construction activities. General vibration effects arising from construction activities. Concern that background noise will increase as a result of the works. Effect on quality of life/residential amenity. Respondent ID 9375LO, 8794, 8817, 9016, LR13375 13372, 13384, LR13375 8817 9268LO, 9340LO, LR9236 No. 5 3 1 3 Our response Outcome
As set out in our King George's Park site information paper, N the 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 be required to gain approval from the LBW prior to the construction work 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 environmental health officers. Additionally, we would implement best practice measures to minimise noise and vibration from plant and works including the selection of appropriate plant and equipment, suitable siting of equipment, and the use of enclosures to provide acoustic screens. Full details of the measures that would be adopted for the construction will be set out in the CoCP submitted with our DCO application. Our PEIR (volume 12, section 9) sets out our preliminary qualitative assessment of noise and vibration from construction site activities, noise from construction traffic on roads outside the site, and noise and vibration from operation of the site. The assessment embeds the proposals
9-18
9 King Georges Park
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response in our draft CoCP. The PEIR Assessment used Defra's London noise maps. Our DCO application will include an assessment of likely significant noise and vibration that will be completed in line with the methodology that is compliant with BS5228, BS6472 and BS7385 and has been agreed with the LBW. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as part of the Environmental statement. At this site our works would be undertaken during standard working hours, as detailed in our site information paper. During the construction period there would be varying levels of noise and vibration associated with the different activities on site. As detailed in our PEIR (volume 12, section 9), we have determined that most stages of work would not have significant effects, with the exception of potential construction vibration effects on 1- 20 Parkview Court. A full assessment of the effects will be set out in the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application, together with recommendations for mitigation.
Outcome
9.5.64 9.5.65
Effect of working hours on noise and vibration impacts. Duration of construction and effects of associated noise and vibration.
8794 9340LO, 9375LO
1 2
N N
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration issues construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration Table 9.5.18 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration during construction Ref 9.5.66 Objections, issues and concerns Erect site hoarding of at least 2.4m for site boundaries close to residential properties. Respondent ID GLA No. 1 Our response Our PEIR (volume 12, section 9) provides a preliminary assessment of noise and vibration which assumes the use of site enclosures, and temporary stockpiles, where practicable and necessary, to provide acoustic screening. This is in line with the proposals set out in our draft CoCP. At this site, we propose to use a site hoarding of 2.4m. 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 the use of enclosures and temporary stockpiles to provide acoustic screens. Specific measures such as acoustic suppression systems, operating equipment in a mode that minimises noise, and shutting down equipment when not in use are also identified in our draft CoCP. Outcome N
9.5.67
Adopt suitable noise and vibration control measures in the CoCP.
LR9236
9-19
9 King Georges Park
Open space and recreation

Supportive and feedback neutral comments in relation to open space and recreation Table 9.5.19 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to open space and recreation during construction Ref 9.5.68 9.5.69 Supportive and neutral comments Temporary loss of open space is acceptable. Other supportive comment. Respondent ID 9375LO 8729, LR13375 No. 1 2 Our response Your comment is noted and welcomed Your support is noted and welcomed.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to open space and recreation Table 9.5.20 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to open space and recreation during construction Ref 9.5.70 Objections, issues and concerns Potential effects on open space and recreation will be greater than those set out in the consultation material. Temporary loss of public open space, which is designated as Metropolitan Open Land 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. There is a lack of private gardens in the local area to compensate for the loss of public open space. Duration of construction and the associated effect on access to open space and other recreational amenities. The site is a very valuable recreational amenity for the local community. Other open space and recreation issues included: - disruption and nuisance to park users must be kept to a minimum - the lake should be protected during works. Respondent ID 9055 No. 1 Our response Our PEIR states that the construction works would result in the temporary loss of 0.2 hectares of the open space. This is equivalent to less than one per cent of the total area of King George's Park. Our preliminary assessment also considers the effects of the works on the amenity of park users and concludes that our works would only be likely to affect a small number of users in the northern end. The works would only utilise a very small part of the park; therefore, we believe that our works would not have a significant effect on the park, park users or nearby residents that dont have gardens, as there are other parts of the park that would be available for recreation use. Furthermore, once the works are complete, the area would be returned to the park. The Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application will provide a full assessment of our proposed works, together with appropriate mitigation to address any significant effects. We can confirm that the construction works would not impact on the lake. Outcome N
9.5.71
GLA, 13372, LR9491
9.5.72 9.5.73 9.5.74
9017LO, 9268LO, 9340LO, 9375LO 13384 13384
4 1 1
N N N
9.5.75
7957, LR9236
9.5.76 9.5.77
9017LO, 9268LO, 9340LO, 9375LO, 7957, 8794, LR9447 8729, LR13375
7 2
N N
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on open space and recreation 9.5.78 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.
9-20
9 King Georges Park
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on open space and recreation Table 9.5.21 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on open space and recreation during construction Ref 9.5.79 Objections, issues and concerns Adopt suitable measures in the CoCP to address effects on open space and recreation. Respondent ID LR9236 No. 1 Our response We believe that we have set out a range of measures that would mitigate the effects of construction at this site. In particular, our draft CoCP states that our contractor would be required to implement best practice measures to minimise noise and vibration from plant and works such as the selection of appropriate plant and equipment, suitable siting of equipment and the use of hoardings to provide acoustic screens. Additionally, our PEIR assessments take the mitigation measures set out in the draft CoCP into account and assume that the mitigation would be implemented. Your comments are noted. Our site information paper provides illustrations of how the open space could look once the works are complete. We will take the aims and objectives of the All London Green Grid into account as we develop our proposals for this site. We will continue to work with the LBW to develop a plan for re-instating the park. Outcome N
9.5.80
Other open space and recreation mitigation suggestions; re-instatement should improve quality and function of the open space consistent with the aims and objectives of the All London Green Grid; liaise with the LBW and park users to determine a good quality re-instatement of the park and public realm.
GLA
Planning and development

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to planning and development 9.5.81 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to planning and development during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to planning and development Table 9.5.22 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to planning and development during construction Ref 9.5.82 Objections, issues and concerns Proposals will impact on local regeneration as they will make the area less desirable for new developers, which goes against efforts to make Wandsworth and its shopping centre more attractive. Respondent ID 7006 No. 1 Our response Outcome
We do not believe that construction of the tunnel in this N location would compromise the wider regeneration of the area or make it less desirable for developers. Our proposals for the permanent layout and design of the site have been sensitively designed to complement the existing park and we have sought to incorporate a number of features that would make this area attractive for park users. We are also reviewing the plans of development proposals to the north of Buckhold Road (A218) to ensure that our permanent works would make it easy for pedestrians to find their way in the surrounding area.
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on planning and development 9.5.83 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on planning and development during construction.
9-21
9 King Georges Park
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of planning and development 9.5.84 No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on planning and development during construction.
Socio-economic
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to socio-economic effects 9.5.85 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to socio-economic effects during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects Table 9.5.23 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects during construction Ref 9.5.86 9.5.87 Objections, issues and concerns Detrimental effect on business operations; busy shopping mall. Effect on the local economy and employment; it will deprive the area of vital in-flows of cash, businesses will suffer and the area will be less desirable for new developers. Respondent ID 7006, 8817 7006 No. 2 1 Our response We believe there is little, if any, potential for businesses in the area to experience any significant socio-economic effects as a result of the proposed development. As a result of on-going discussions with local business owners, we did not address impacts on businesses in our PEIR. Pending the results of these discussions and any further information that may be received, assessment of the effects on businesses could be made at a later stage and would be presented in the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. Our PEIR (volume 12) provides a preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of the scheme 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 of likely significant effects will be provided with the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. Where effects are identified we would put in place mitigation measures to address these effects, in addition to the measures that are 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 in the population. The findings of this study will inform the design for this site as well as mitigation measures to address any significant effects. Our site selection process, as detailed in our Site selection methodology paper, assessed the shortlisted sites against five 'community' considerations in order to determine their suitability, including proximity to sensitive receptors (including residential and schools), socio-economic, health and equality considerations. Our Phase two scheme development report provides an overview of how each site was chosen. Our PEIR (volume 12) provides a preliminary assessment of Outcome N
9.5.88 9.5.89
Effect of construction activities on quality of life. Effect of construction activities on residential amenity.
9017LO, 9340LO, 9375LO, 13372, 13384, 8794 9017LO, 9340LO, 13372, 9016
6 4
9.5.90 9.5.91 9.5.92
Proximity of the construction site to residential properties. The area around the constructions site is densely populated. Proximity to and effect on community and social amenities such as the shopping centre and school. Effect of construction activities on the local
GLA, 9268LO, 9340LO, 9375LO, 13372, 7006, LR9236 7006 7006, 7287
7 1 2
9.5.93
7006
9-22
9 King Georges Park
Ref 9.5.94
Objections, issues and concerns community. General disruption associated with construction activities.
Respondent ID 7006, 8794
No. 2
Our response the effects of the scheme on residential amenity and concludes that the effect on park users and residential amenity is unlikely to be significant. We acknowledge that there could be effects on the Penfold Day Centre and the Integrated Children's Centre. We do not expect that there would be any effect on the shopping centre or the school. We are preparing an Environmental statement that will assess the likely significant effects of the proposed development and identify recommendations for mitigation. The Environmental statement will be submitted as part of our DCO application.
Outcome
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects 9.5.95 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 9.5.24 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects during construction Ref 9.5.96 9.5.97 Objections, issues and concerns Adopt suitable measures in the CoCP to address potential socio-economic effects. Other socio-economic mitigation: generally keep disruption to a minimum. Respondent ID LR9236 8978 No. 1 1 Our response We believe that we have set out a range of measures that would mitigate the effects of construction at this site. In particular, our draft CoCP states that our contractor would 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 such as the selection of appropriate plant and equipment, suitable siting of equipment and the use of hoardings to provide acoustic screens. These measures would minimise the potential for disruption. Additionally, our PEIR assessments take the mitigation measures set out in the CoCP into account and assume that the mitigation would be implemented. We continue to develop our CoCP and Environmental statement and will submit them as part of our DCO application. The programming of works at all sites would be configured to minimise the duration of works and associated disruption to the local area where possible. The length of the construction period in the consultation documents comes from the PEIR and we expect that in many cases there will be periods during which there will be no or less intense activity on some sites. Outcome N N
9.5.98
Reduce or limit the duration of construction.
8978
Structures and utilities

9.5.99 No feedback comments were received in relation to structures and utilities during construction.
9-23
9 King Georges Park
Townscape and visual

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to townscape and visual effects 9.5.100 No supportive or neutral comments were received in relation to townscape and visual effects during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to townscape and visual effects Table 9.5.25 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to townscape and visual effects during construction Ref 9.5.101 Objections, issues and concerns Visual impact of construction activities on the character and appearance of local green space. Respondent ID 8817 No. 1 Our response The effect of construction activity on the character of the local area would be for a temporary period only. Our draft CoCP sets out measures to ensure that the construction site would be well operated and maintained. Measures to minimise likely significant effects on the character of the local area during construction, such as 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 9.5.102 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address effects on townscape and visual during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on townscape and visual Table 9.5.26 Objections, issues and concerns to address the effects on townscape and visual during construction Ref 9.5.103 Objections, issues and concerns Suitable landscaping and planting should be provided to limit effects on the local townscape. Respondent ID 8729 No. 1 Our response The site would be appropriately screened with hoarding to reduce potential likely significant effects on the local townscape. We are currently considering including early planting at some sites, where appropriate, to provide visual screening during construction. Following completion, a suitable landscaping scheme would be implemented to integrate the site into the wider park. As soon as we complete the main elements of construction, we would undertake the final landscaping works in order to establish planting as early as possible. Outcome N
Transport and access

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to transport and access Table 9.5.27 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to transport and access during construction Ref 9.5.104 Supportive and neutral comments Support proposed use of barges to transport materials; this should be a condition of the tender process. Respondent ID LBW, 9073, LR13375 No. 3 Our response Your support is noted and welcomed, however, we wish to clarify that we do not propose to use barges to transport materials to and from this site.
9-24
9 King Georges Park
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access Table 9.5.28 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access during construction Ref 9.5.105 Objections, issues and concerns It is not clear what the scale of transport effects will be, including the impact of construction vehicles using the adjacent Transport for London Route Network Wandsworth one-way system; the assessment to date is very vague. Effect of construction traffic on residential amenity. Cumulative transport effects arising from other developments in the local area. Respondent ID GLA No. 1 Our response Outcome
9.5.106 9.5.107
9017LO, 9268LO, 9340LO, 9375LO, 8794 LBW
5 1
As part of our PEIR (volume 12, section 12) we assessed N the likely significant construction transport effects on pedestrian and cycle routes; bus and other public transport routes and patronage; parking; and highway layout, operation and capacity as well as the likely significant effects on residential amenity. As part of the assessment we have considered the effects of lorry and (where applicable) barge transport, based on a methodology that has been discussed and agreed with the LBW and TfL. The PEIR was available as part of our phase two consultation. We acknowledge that this is a preliminary assessment. We are preparing a full Transport assessment for submission as part of our DCO application. The Transport assessment will consider the cumulative effects of our works with other strategic developments in the local area. As set out in the site information paper, the proposed access N to this site would not disrupt or divert any cycle routes.
9.5.108
Effect of disruption, diversion or closure of pedestrian or cycle routes; paths in Buckhold Road (A218) and around the north of the lake should be kept open. Construction traffic will cause traffic congestion particularly on the TLRN. Construction traffic will exacerbate existing traffic congestion. Contractors are expected to have consideration for the local residents and users of Neville Gill Close, and not impede the traffic flow to and from central Wandsworth. Construction traffic will affect access to the local area. Proposed site access it unsuitable; a construction site near the entrance of King Georges Park will be far too close to the residential properties at Park View Court.
8978
9.5.109 9.5.110
GLA 8794, 8817, LR13375
1 3
9.5.111 9.5.112
13372 9375LO
1 1
We propose to access this site via Buckhold Road (A218), as illustrated in the King George's Park site information paper. We are reviewing the construction traffic routes as part of the on-going development of our proposals for this site and our Transport assessment. We expect that at the peak of construction (year one), an average of eight lorries would visit (travelling to and from) the site each working day, as indicated in the PEIR (volume 12, section12). In the context of existing traffic in the local area, we do not consider that the construction traffic would be significant and would be unlikely to result in congestion on the TLRN. We are also developing a CoCP (a draft Part A was provided as part of our phase two consultation) that will include requirements for a Traffic management plan to ensure that construction traffic is carefully controlled in order to minimise 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. As part of our PEIR (volume 12, section 12), we have assessed the construction transport effects on pedestrian and cycle routes; bus and other public transport routes and patronage; parking; and highway layout, operation and capacity as well as the effects on residential amenity. As
9-25
9 King Georges Park
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response part of the assessment we have considered the effects of lorry and (where applicable) barge transport, based on a methodology that has been discussed and agreed with the LBW and TfL. The PEIR was available as part of our phase two consultation. We acknowledge that this is a preliminary assessment. We are preparing a full Transport assessment for submission as part of our DCO application. The Transport assessment will set out recommendations for mitigation and will consider the cumulative effects of our works with other strategic developments in the local area. We will design site accesses and operate all of our construction sites to ensure that they meet design, health and safety standards. We are developing a CoCP (a draft of which was provided as part of our phase two consultation that will include requirements for a Traffic management plan to ensure that construction traffic is carefully controlled in order to minimise 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. There would be a requirement to ensure the works would not endanger safe school access. We will also review data relating to recent accidents in the Transport assessment. The proposals will be subject to independent external review by TfL and the local highway authority to ensure that proposed highway layouts and vehicle movement arrangements are as safe as possible. As set out in the King Georges Park site information paper, we do not propose to transport materials by barge from this site; therefore, there would be no effect on navigation or commercial river users.
Outcome
9.5.113
Effect of construction traffic on road safety.
GLA
9.5.114
Effect of transporting materials by barge on river navigation and commercial river users.
9073
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access 9.5.115 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 9.5.29 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to proposals to address the effects of transport and access during construction Ref 9.5.116 Objections, issues and concerns Provide suitable and safe footpath diversions including the southern footway of Buckhold Road (A218) and the pathway around the north of the lake, which should be kept open for pedestrians. Provide an alternative construction traffic Respondent ID LR13375 No. 1 Our response Our site information paper set out the proposed footpath diversions through the park, which have been discussed with the LBW. Outcome N
9.5.117
LBW
We selected the proposed access route because of its proximity to the major road network and because it is the
9-26
9 King Georges Park
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns route to and from the site.
Respondent ID
No.
Our response most suitable location at which to access the park. Comments received at phase one consultation also prompted us to move the shaft location closer to Neville Gill Close. We have consulted on the proposed route with TfL and the LBW. We are reviewing the proposed routes as part of the on-going development of our proposals for this site and our Transport assessment. Our draft CoCP (provided at phase two consultation) sets out a range of measures to manage construction traffic and ways in which our contractor would operate the site, including sections 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 scheme. We are currently preparing an Environmental statement that will identify further mitigation measures if significant adverse effects are identified. We are also 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 commencing works.
Outcome
9.5.118
Establish traffic management plans; construction transport should avoid causing congestion to local traffic.
8978
9.5.119
Complete a transport assessment.
LBW
We are preparing a Transport assessment that will be N submitted as 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 any mitigation required to minimise disruption 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. Where practical and cost-effective we would transport materials by barge or rail. However, at this site we believe that it would not be viable to transport materials by barge or rail because it is not next to the river or a rail head and it would be necessary to convey materials by road to a suitable nearby wharf or rail head. However, nearer the time of construction, we would consider whether there are any opportunities to make further use of river transport, and our contractor could also propose further use of the river or consolidation centres. Where possible, we would accommodate construction vehicles on site. Our site information paper provides details of the site layout, but we acknowledge that it would be necessary to suspend some parking bays on Neville Gill Close to ensure that our construction vehicles could safely N
9.5.120
Use the river to transport more/all construction materials and excavated material. Use the river rather than roads to transport construction materials and spoil, consider a consolidation centre at nearby barge/rail served sites; Smugglers Way Wharf. Use rail to transport materials and include consolidation centres at nearby barge/rail served sites. Other transport and access mitigation comments included: - Investigate the potential for transhipment from sites with no proposed barge
LR9236
9.5.121
GLA, LBW, 8535
9.5.122
GLA
9.5.123
LBW
9-27
9 King Georges Park
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns movements to those with access to water transport - all construction vehicles should be accommodated on site.
Respondent ID
No.
Our response turn into and out of the site.
Outcome
Water and flood risk

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to water and flood risk 9.5.124 No supportive or neutral comments were received in relation to water and flood risk during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to water and flood risk Table 9.5.30 Objections, issues and concerns relating to water and flood risk during construction Ref 9.5.125 Objections, issues and concerns Effect on flood risk due to the storage of excavated material, site support/welfare buildings, hoarding, workshop and a possible loss of level changes due to proposed access roads. Respondent ID EA, LR9236 No. 2 Our response Our PEIR (volume 12, section 15) sets out a preliminary assessment of likely significant effects on flood risk (level one) in line with the requirements of national policy and considers flooding from the sea (and tidal sources), rivers, land and surface water runoff, and groundwater. As set out in our PEIR the site is in flood zone 3a where there is a high probability of flood risk. We are currently in liaison with the Environment Agency and the LBW to determine suitable mitigation for any possible increase in flood risk due to our works. A level two flood risk assessment will be presented in the Environmental statement as part of our DCO application and will identify any appropriate mitigation. As our designs develop we will review the construction effects on flood risk to determine any requirements for compensation. We will determine the feasibility of SuDS for this site as part of our design development once we have completed soakaway tests and a contamination study. Outcome N
9.5.126
Other water issues, including request to assess the appropriateness of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS).
EA
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk 9.5.127 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk Table 9.5.31 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk during construction Ref 9.5.128 Objections, issues and concerns Contain site runoff. Respondent ID 8846, 8978 No. 2 Our response Our draft CoCP sets out our approach to site drainage. We expect to discharge construction drainage to the local sewers via oil and silt interceptors. We will determine the feasibility of SuDS for this site once we have completed soak-away tests and a contamination study as part of our design development. We would not affect the current operation of the lake; Outcome N
9.5.129
Incorporate SuDS.
LBW
9.5.130
Other water mitigation including:
EA, LBW
9-28
9 King Georges Park
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns - access required to lake outflow for weekly maintenance - compensatory flood storage elsewhere in park must be informed by ecological surveys - require level-for-level and volume-forvolume compensation for any losses in the fluvial 1%CC floodplain extent.
Respondent ID
No.
Our response therefore, current access arrangements to the hydraulic structures on the lake could continue during and following our construction period. Any compensatory flood storage required in the park would take full account of ecological issues. We are working with the Environment Agency to develop a solution that would not increase flood risk as part of the design development..
Outcome
9.6
9.6.1 9.6.2
Permanent design and appearance

This section sets out feedback comments received during phase two consultation relating to proposals for the permanent design and appearance of structures at King Georges Park that are required for the operation of the tunnel when it is in use (the operational phase). During 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 King Georges Park (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 agree, disagree or dont know/unsure. Where respondents completed this part of the question, the results are set out in the table below. Table 9.6.1 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 10 0 12 8 4 8 2 2 Yes No Dont know/unsure
9.6.3
As part of the phase two consultation, respondents were also asked to comment on proposals for the permanent design and appearance of structures at King Georges Park (see question 6 of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation). The first part of question 6 asked respondents to select supportive, opposed or dont know/unsure. Where respondents completed this part of the question, the results are set out in the table below Table 9.6.2 Please give us your views about our proposals for the permanent design and appearance of the site (Q6) Respondent type Statutory consultees Local authorities Landowners Community consultees Petitions Total Number of respondents Total 0 0 2 11 0 13 7 4 2 7 2 2 2 Supportive Opposed Dont know/unsure
9-29
9 King Georges Park The following sections set out the comments received from respondents in connection with proposals for the permanent design and appearance of structures at King Georges Park. It should be noted that not all respondents who provided feedback comments responded to the first part of questions 5 and 6. Feedback comments are organised under the following sub-headings: 9.6.6 supportive and neutral feedback comments objections, issues and concerns design suggestions.
9.6.4 9.6.5
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 9.7. Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site Table 9.6.3 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site Ref 9.6.7 9.6.8 9.6.9 9.6.10 9.6.11 9.6.12 9.6.13 9.6.14 Supportive and neutral comments The design/proposals are good. The proposals will enhance the local area/ provide some public benefit. Proposals are an improvement to the existing park layout. Proposals will result in an extension to the existing park. Support the inclusion of biodiverse roof/ habitat wall. Qualified support subject to good design and revised location of site in park. Support for a specific design feature: - provide services to support a mobile cafe. Other supportive comments included: - visual impact is minimal - you have to do what is necessary for the benefit of all concerned. Respondent ID 7404 7689 7785 7689 LBW 7957 (LR)CABE 7404, 8846 No. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 Our response Your support is noted and welcomed.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site Table 9.6.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site Ref 9.6.15 Objections, issues and concerns Making the site look nice will not reduce or compensate for its effects on air quality Respondent ID 7006, 8817 No. 2 Our response Your comments are noted. Our preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of odour associated with operation of the tunnel is set out in our PEIR (volume 12, section 4) and concludes that when the tunnel is operational, no significant effects are predicted in relation to odour. The ventilation facilities would be arranged to minimise the release of untreated air from the tunnel system and for approximately 99 per cent of the average year, air released from the tunnel would be treated and would not Outcome N
9-30
9 King Georges Park
Ref 9.6.16
Objections, issues and concerns Images and information in the site information papers are unrealistic/ misleading/incorrect because they do not portray the considerable disruption for the community.
Respondent ID 8817
No. 1
Our response have any odours. Your comments are noted. The images in the site information papers are illustrations of the permanent design, and further details are provided in the Design development report. The illustrations in our consultation material were intended to assist stakeholders in understanding our proposals. We believe that they are accurate representations of our designs at phase two consultation. Your comments are noted and we are considering how to change the permanent structures at this site from the proposals set out at phase two consultation. It should be noted that the CSO interception structures are informed by a number of functional requirements, which means that there are physical limits on how small we can make them while ensuring that they are still fit for purpose.
Outcome N
9.6.17
The permanent buildings and structures are too large/tall.
9073
9.6.18
The area of hard standing is too large and should be minimised as much as possible to reduce runoff rates and provide wider sustainability benefits; would like to see greater use of grass instead of hard paving surface upon reinstatement of the park. The permanent buildings and structures are located too close to residential properties/should not be located in residential or built-up areas.
EA, 8535
We are considering the opportunities for surfacing at this site N and how it would affect runoff rates. Where possible, we would use grass instead of hard surfaces. We will continue to discuss our proposals with the LBW. It should be noted, however, that we have a minimum hardstanding requirement for safe operation and maintenance of the site. The nearest residential properties are located approximately 30m from the working area and are separated by Buckhold Road (A218). Our PEIR (volume 12) stated that there would be no significant adverse impacts on nearby residential properties as a result of the permanent layout and design of the site. We acknowledge that the proposals would result in the loss of trees at this site. As detailed in our site information paper and Design development report, we have reconfigured our proposals for this site to avoid damage to the root zones of the most sensitive and valuable trees in the park. The site would also be landscaped on completion of the construction works, which would include planting new trees. We note that the Black Poplar tree would be protected. Our PEIR (volume 12, section 10) states that the area of park affected by our permanent works at the operational stage would be approximately 0.05 to 0.1 hectares, which is equivalent to less than half of one per cent of the total area of the park. The changes would result in the loss of an equivalent area of lawn and several mature trees and would change the character of the northern tip of the park. However, we would put measures in place to integrate our structures into the park setting so that the area could still be used for passive recreation purposes. Therefore, we do not believe that the works would result in a permanent loss of N
9.6.19
9340LO
9.6.20
The permanent design and layout of the site will result in the loss of or damage to trees.
LBW
9.6.21
The permanent design and layout of the site will result in the loss of or effect on open space.
LBW
9-31
9 King Georges Park
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response public open space or negatively affect designations that apply to the park. An overview diagram of the permanent layout and design of the site is provided in the site information paper. An assessment of sight lines and permeability through the site is provided in the townscape and visual assessment section of the PEIR (volume 12). Further details of architectural design and treatment will be set out in the Design and access statement that will be submitted as part of our DCO application.
Outcome
9.6.22
Need more information on design proposals including details of railings, permeability and sight lines, and an overview diagram.
8492, 8794
Design suggestions
Table 9.6.5 Design suggestions Ref 9.6.23 Design suggestions Design should provide suitable/more/ adequate landscaping and planting. Respondent ID LBW, 8535, 8978 No. 3 Our response The site would be landscaped upon completion of the construction works, including grass with new trees, and shrub and wildflower planting, all of which would make a positive contribution to the local environment. The site has been designed as a public open space, integrating with the surrounding park. Since phase one consultation, we have also relocated permanent structures eastwards, to reduce their impact on the historic gates and improve compatibility with the existing site context. Two ventilation columns are proposed on this site. 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 columns has been to use their height to make positive features or local landmarks. We believe that we have undertaken an appropriate level of public consultation that has provided significant opportunity for the local community to comment on our proposals. Our staged approach to consultation has also allowed us to revise our designs in response to comments and concerns. Permanent site access would be from Neville Gill Close. Access would be concealed behind a sliding gate and utilised for maintenance purposes only. The gate design is proposed to match the appearance of the existing railings in terms of scale, materials and finish. Your comments are noted and where possible will be taken into consideration in developing our proposals for this site. Outcome N
9.6.24
Proposals should be in keeping with and blend into the character of the local area/ minimise visual impact. The design should reflect the special landscape qualities and integrity of this former registered park, including the mature trees in the vicinity. Reduce the number of ventilation columns.
(LR)CABE, LR9236
9.6.25
GLA
9.6.26
Final site design should be informed by local consultation/available for comment.
LR9236
9.6.27
Design should include reinstatement of 8492 railings and other site protections that are as permeable as possible, to retain the open aspect of the park from Buckhold Road (A218). Specific design amendments included: - the existing recessed and hard paved (LR)CABE, GLA, LBW, LR9491
9.6.28
9-32
9 King Georges Park
Ref
Design suggestions entrance should be grassed and planted in part to compensate for the land taken by the tunnel installation - Relocate the existing entrance to park - include bat nesting on the external wall of the structures, drainage should not feed directly into the existing lake - ensure that the location and design of the ventilation plant minimise any noise/odour impacts on nearby residents
- an adaptable sloping platform that could
Respondent ID
No.
Our response We will consider the opportunity to relocate the access point to the park.
Outcome
C C
accommodate informal activities and local events; explore solutions for incorporating access ramps into the design. 9.6.29 Design should incorporate public art, for example an educational sculpture of a fish to highlight the sites links to the River Wandle and River Thames. Designs should be environmentally friendly/ sustainable. Other design mitigation included: - historic gates and railings should be protected, preserved and re-used in the park - the park should be left as an attractive area - future design should meet BAP targets - some indication has been given to the after use of construction sites, these aspects should be kept under review to reflect needs and opportunities as they appear on completion of works, which in some cases will be ten years from now - investigate the potential impacts on flood storage in the park
- discussions need to take place regarding
8846
Your comments are noted and will be taken into consideration in developing our proposals for this site.
9.6.30
LR9491
We agree that our development should be environmentally friendly and we have incorporated a brown roof on the electrical and control kiosk to encourage biodiversity. We have relocated our works to the east of the park to avoid disturbing the historic gated entrance. We would protect the historic gates during the works. Following the completion of the construction works, the site would be integrated into the existing park as a new area of public realm and landscaped open space. We will take all relevant policy and guidance into account in developing our proposals for this site, including BAP targets where appropriate. We have proposed a brown roof for the electrical and control kiosks to encourage biodiversity and help integrate the structure into the surrounding parkland. The construction site would be used as a park in future, which is consistent with its current use; therefore, we do not believe that it is necessary to review needs and opportunities in the future. Permanent site access would be from Neville Gill Close. Access would be concealed behind a sliding gate and used for maintenance purposes only. Our proposed gate design would match the appearance of the existing railings in terms of scale, materials and finish. We will consider the opportunity to relocate the access point to the park.
9.6.31
(LR)CABE, GLA, 8978, LR13375, LR9236, LR9491
N C N
C C
the potential relocation of the park entrance to the corner of Buckhold Road (A218) and Neville Gill Close. The design team should anticipate how the proposals could accommodate such a move; the successful scheme will rely on a good
9-33
9 King Georges Park
Ref
Design suggestions management and maintenance strategy.
Respondent ID
No.
Our response
Outcome
9.7
9.7.1 9.7.2
Management of operational effects

This section sets out feedback comments received during phase two consultation in relation to the management of operational effects at King Georges Park. This includes the identification of site specific issues associated with the site once it is operational and our proposals for addressing these issues. During phase two consultation, respondents were asked whether the site information paper had identified the right key issues associated with King Georges Park 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 9.7.1 and 9.7.2. Tables 9.7.3 to 9.7.17 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 9.7.1 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 12 0 14 9 4 1 9 2 2 1 Yes No Dont know/unsure
Table 9.7.2 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 9.7.3 Number of respondents Total 0 0 2 12 0 14 9 3 2 9 2 1 2 Yes No Dont know/unsure
The following sections set out the feedback comments received from respondents in connection with the identification of key issues associated with King Georges Park 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
9-34
9 King Georges Park
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 identified key issues

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the identified key issues Table 9.7.3 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to key issues during operation Ref 9.7.4 Supportive and neutral comments The correct key issues have been identified. Respondent ID 7287 No. 2 Our response Your support is noted and welcomed.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the identified key issues Table 9.7.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to key issues during operation Ref 9.7.5 Objections, issues and concerns Measures to address potential issues are not a substitute for avoiding the issue in the first place. Respondent ID 7006 No. 1 Our response Outcome
We have sought to avoid or eliminate potential effects N wherever possible, by developing robust technical solutions to potential issues such as odour, and through our proposals for the permanent site design and layout.
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 9.7.5 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to measures to address the key issues during operation Ref 9.7.6 Supportive and neutral comments Measures to address potential issues are satisfactory. Respondent ID 7404 No. 1 Our response Your support is noted and welcomed.
Objections, issues and concerns 9.7.7 No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to general comments on measures to address the key issues during operation.
9-35
9 King Georges Park
Air quality and odour

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to air quality and odour Table 9.7.6 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to air quality and odour during operation Ref 9.7.8 Supportive and neutral comments Proposals will ensure that odour is satisfactorily managed. Respondent ID GLA No. 1 Our response Your support is noted and welcomed.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour Table 9.7.7 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour during operation Ref 9.7.9 Objections, issues and concerns Effect of odour arising from operation of the tunnel. Respondent ID (LR)CCW No. 1 Our response Outcome
Our preliminary assessment of the effects of odour N associated with operation of the tunnel is set out in our PEIR (volume 12, section 4), and concludes that when the tunnel is operational no significant effects are predicted in relation to odour. The ventilation facilities would be arranged to minimise the release of untreated air from the tunnel system and for approximately 99 per cent of the average year, air released from the tunnel would be treated and would not have any odours. This arrangement meets the Environment Agency 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 wastewater the air path throughout the tunnel would gradually be lost and air would be displaced by the rising wastewater levels. This air would pass through passive filters where it would be treated before being released.
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour 9.7.10 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour Table 9.7.8 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour issues during operation Ref 9.7.11 Objections, issues and concerns Use another technological solution for emissions such as diverting the ventilation elsewhere. Respondent ID 7006 No. 1 Our response Outcome
The ventilation columns must be located close to the N interception point to ensure maximum operational efficiency. If moved elsewhere, large underground air ducts would need to be installed from the shaft to the column.
9-36
9 King Georges Park
Historic environment
9.7.12 No feedback comments were received in relation to the historic environment during operation.
Land quality and contamination

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

9.7.15 No feedback comments were received in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) during operation.
Natural environment (terrestrial)

Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) Table 9.7.9 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation Ref 9.7.16 Supportive and neutral comments Support efforts to minimise the long-term impacts on biodiversity and to secure improvements. Respondent ID LR9491 No. 1 Our response Your support is noted and welcomed.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) Table 9.7.10 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation Ref 9.7.17 Objections, issues and concerns Loss of mature trees. Respondent ID 7957 No. 1 Our response We acknowledge that the proposals would result in the loss of trees at this site. As detailed in our site information paper and Design development report, we have reconfigured our proposals for this site to avoid damage to the root zones of the most sensitive and valuable trees in the park. We would replace the trees lost during construction with landscaping including native species. We would select species in consultation with the LBW tree officer. As stated in paragraph 6.1.3 of our PEIR (volume 12, section 6), we do not anticipate significant operational effects on terrestrial ecosystems as a result of operations and infrequent maintenance visits; therefore, this was not assessed. A full assessment will be presented in the Environmental statement for our DCO application. It will consider the likely significant effects of the development based on a methodology set out in our PEIR. Our proposals for reinstating the small part of the SINC that would be affected by the development have had regard to the park's status and would include native species in landscaping in order to enhance the value of the SINC. On balance, we believe that our proposals would not have a detrimental effect on the designation of the site.. Outcome N
9.7.18
Permanent effect on the SINC.
7957
9-37
9 King Georges Park
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) 9.7.19 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 9.7.11 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation Ref 9.7.20 9.7.21 Objections, issues and concerns Provide compensation habitat; put nesting and roosting boxes up. Maximise opportunities to enhance biodiversity through an effective mitigation package. Respondent ID 7404 LR9491 No. 1 1 Our response As stated in paragraph 6.1.3 of our PEIR (volume 12, section 6), we do not anticipate likely significant operational effects on terrestrial ecosystems as a result of the tunnel operation and the infrequent maintenance visits; therefore, this was not assessed. A full assessment will be presented in the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. This will consider the likely significant effects of the development based on a methodology set out in our PEIR. Measures to address likely significant adverse effects on land-based ecosystems during construction presented at phase two consultation will be promoted, for example selective tree planting and installation of bat boxes. We would integrate the species and location of new trees into the existing layout of the park. We will explore when to undertake such measures with the LBW. All permanent works would be located within the defined site boundary. Outcome N N
9.7.22
Locate permanent works within the site to avoid sensitive and designated areas.
LR9491
Noise and vibration

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to noise and vibration 9.7.23 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 9.7.12 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration during operation Ref 9.7.24 Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID No. 1 Our response Our PEIR (volume 12, section 9) sets out a preliminary assessment of the operational noise and vibration effects of the proposed scheme. No significant effects were identified, subject to appropriate noise control measures for equipment in order to meet the targets in BS4142. Therefore we do not expect any effect on occupiers or users of adjacent or nearby properties, businesses or 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 recommendations for mitigation. Outcome N
General noise effects; there is already a lot 8817 of loud noise in this area.
9-38
9 King Georges Park
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to the effects of noise and vibration 9.7.25 9.7.26 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 or concerns were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effect of noise and vibration during operation.
Open space and recreation

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to open space and recreation 9.7.27 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to open space and recreation during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to open space and recreation Table 9.7.13 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to open space and recreation during operation Ref 9.7.28 9.7.29 Objections, issues and concerns Permanent loss of public open space is unacceptable. Effect of changes to existing park features as it has been nominated as a SINC by the Wandsworth Council. Respondent ID LR9491 7957 No. 1 1 Our response Our PEIR (volume 12, section 10) identifies that the area of park affected by our permanent works at the operational stage would be approximately 0.05 to 0.1 hectares, which is equivalent to less than half of one per cent of the total area of the park. The changes would result in the loss of an equivalent area of lawn and several mature trees and would change the character of the northern tip of the park. However, we would put measures in place to integrate our structures into the park setting so that the area could still be used for passive recreation purposes. Therefore, we do not believe that the works would result in a permanent loss of public open space or negatively affect designations that apply to the park. Outcome N
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on open space and recreation 9.7.30 9.7.31 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on open space and recreation during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on open space and recreation No objections, issues or concerns received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on open space and recreation during operation.
Planning and development

9.7.32 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 9.7.33 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to socio-economic effects during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects Table 9.7.14 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects during operation Ref 9.7.34 9.7.35 Objections, issues and concerns Detrimental effect on business operations. Effect on the image and reputation of the local area; developers will leave the area. Respondent ID 7006 7006 No. 1 1 Our response We have completed a preliminary assessment of socioeconomic effects, including effects on businesses, as part of our PEIR (volume 12, section14). The scoping assessment Outcome N N
9-39
9 King Georges Park
Ref 9.7.36
Objections, issues and concerns Other socio-economic issue: no commercial impact assessment has been undertaken.
Respondent ID 7006
No. 1
Our response in the PEIR, which was agreed with the LBW, concluded that there would be no significant operational effects arising from the site. Therefore, we do not believe that the works would have a detrimental effect on business operations or cause developers to leave the area. We do not believe that it is necessary to complete a commercial impact assessment. The construction or operation of this site would not require the relocation of any homes or displace any residents. The scoping assessment in the PEIR, which was agreed with the LBW, concluded that there would be no significant operational effects arising from the site.
Outcome N
9.7.37 9.7.38
Proximity of operational site to residential properties at Parkview court. Proposals will require relocation of homes and cause population displacement.
9340LO 7006
1 1
N N
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects 9.7.39 9.7.40 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 No objections, issues or concerns received in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects during operation.
Structures and utilities

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

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

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to transport and access 9.7.43 9.7.44 9.7.45 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to transport and access during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access No objections, issues and concerns were received in relation to transport and access during operation. Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access Table 9.7.15 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to measures propose to address the effects of transport and access during operation Ref 9.7.46 Objections, issues and concerns Take the opportunity to create a new permanent footpath, for example a new entrance at the north end of the park. This would offer a better link to the new pedestrian walkway being created through the Wandsworth Business Village. Provide an alternative site access; Thames Water should only have right of access for operational purposes. Respondent ID 8729 No. 1 Our response As detailed in our site information paper, we would reinstate existing footpaths through the park and additional walkways to complement the permanent design of our works. We would also provide an access point from Neville Gill Close in order to access the park to carry out maintenance. We will consider the opportunity to create new pedestrian entrances near our site, in conjunction with the LBW. Outcome C
9.7.47
8492
9-40
9 King Georges Park
Water and flood risk

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to water and flood risk 9.7.48 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to water and flood risk during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to water and flood risk Table 9.7.16 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to water and flood risk during operation Ref 9.7.49 Objections, issues and concerns Effect on flood risk arising from the 340m loss in floodplain storage. Respondent ID EA No. 1 Our response Our PEIR (volume 12, section 15) sets out a preliminary assessment of effects on flood risk (level one) in line with the requirements of PPS25 and considers flooding from the sea (and tidal sources); rivers; land and surface water runoff; and groundwater. As stated in our PEIR, the site is in flood zone 3a where flood risk is high. We are currently investigating appropriate mitigation with the Environment Agency and the LBW in order to ensure that our permanent works do not increase flood risk. As our designs develop, we will review the effects of operations on flood risk in order to determine any requirements for mitigation. A level two flood risk assessment will be presented in the Environmental statement as part of our DCO application and will identify any appropriate mitigation. As our designs develop, we will review the effect of the permanent works on flood risk in order to determine any requirements for compensation or storage. We will determine the feasibility of SuDS for this site once we have completed soak-away tests and a contamination study and, where relevant, we will incorporate SuDS into our design. Outcome C
9.7.50
Other water issues, including a request to assess the appropriateness of all SuDS techniques.
EA
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk 9.7.51 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 9.7.17 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk during operation Ref 9.7.52 Objections, issues and concerns Incorporate SuDS. Respondent ID LBW No. 1 Our response We will determine the feasibility of SuDS for this site once we have completed soak-away tests and a contamination study and, where relevant, we will incorporate SuDS into our design. Outcome C
9.7.53
The lake should be protected from any contaminated site run-off.
LR13375
Our PEIR (volume 12, section 14) sets out a preliminary N assessment of surface water resources that concludes that it is unlikely that there would be any significant adverse effects that would require mitigation. The Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application will provide a full assessment of likely significant effects, together with
9-41
9 King Georges Park
Ref 9.7.54
Objections, issues and concerns Other water mitigation, including: - compensatory flood storage elsewhere in park must be informed by ecological surveys - level-for-level, volume-for-volume compensation for any losses in floodplain storage resulting from floodplain development. This would require land to be lowered elsewhere to avoid any net loss displacement and the donor site should be hydraulically linked and as close to the site as possible (upstream only).
Respondent ID EA, LBW
No. 2
Our response recommendations for mitigation. We would not affect the current operation of the lake; therefore, current access arrangements to the hydraulic structures on the lake could continue during and following construction. Any compensatory flood storage required in the park would take full account of ecological issues. We are working with the Environment Agency to develop a solution that would not increase flood risk as part of the design development.
Outcome N
9.8
9.8.1 9.8.2
Our view of the way forward

We received a range of feedback on our proposals for this site, including supportive and neutral comments and objections, issues and concerns. We took all comments received into account in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act 2008. In light of the feedback that we received, we believe that no new information has been highlighted that would change the conclusions of our site selection process to date. King Georges Park therefore remains our preferred site to intercept the Frogmore Storm Relief Buckhold Road CSO and receive the Frogmore connection tunnel, which would be driven from Dormay Street. Additionally, no new information or issues have been identified that would fundamentally change our proposals for this site. Therefore we will continue to develop the proposals for this site that we published at phase two consultation. 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 and taking account of on-going technical work, we are considering our detailed design for this site which may lead to changes to the layout and/or appearance of our proposals. These would improve the design and reduce the impacts on the local community and environment. We are currently considering the following changes to our proposals for this site: incorporation of flood alleviation measures creating new pedestrian entrances to the north, west and/or east of our proposed site which enables us to reduce the extent of hardstanding at the existing entrance to King Georges Park and replace it with new soft landscaping how we can re-use the existing historic gates within the park.
9.8.3
9.8.4 9.8.5
We are also continuing to develop our detailed landscaping proposals for this site, in consultation with our stakeholders. In our SOCC we recognised that we may need to amend our scheme following phase two consultation and that if changes came forward we would consider whether targeted consultation is appropriate. We do not consider that the degree of change in relation to this site or the effect on the local community would affect the nature of the comments received during phase two consultation in such a way as to require further consultation. On that basis, a round of targeted consultation on our proposals for this site is not considered necessary. We will progress with preparation of our application for a development consent order and will incorporate the changes referred to in paragraphs 9.9.3 and 9.9.4 if further work demonstrates that this is appropriate. We intend to publicise our proposed application in accordance with Section 48 of the Planning Act 2008 later in 2012. Full details of our proposed scheme will be set out in our DCO application and the accompanying documents.
9-42

Supp Report On P2 Consultation - Chapter 9 King Georges Park

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 9 King Georges Park

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

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

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

9 King Georges Park

Thames Tunnel Supplementary report on phase two consultation

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

9 King Georges Park

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

9 King Georges Park

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

9 King Georges Park

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

9 King Georges Park

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

9 King Georges Park

King Georges Park

Structure of this chapter

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

9 King Georges Park

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

Your support is noted and welcomed.

7785, 8535, LR9236

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

9 King Georges Park

Supportive and neutral comments

Query why shortlisted sites have not been identified?

9.3.19 9.3.20 9.3.21

9454 7957, 9454 9375LO, 13384, 7006, 8794, 9016

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

9 King Georges Park

Respondent ID 9340LO, 9375LO, 8794, 9016

Site selection should avoid commercially established areas.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

9 King Georges Park

Kimber Road playing fields.

9017LO, 9268LO, 9340LO, 9375LO, 8794, 13372, 13384

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

9 King Georges Park

Management of construction works

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

9 King Georges Park

General feedback comments on the identified key issues

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

9 King Georges Park

General feedback comments on measures to address the key issues

Air quality and odour

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

9 King Georges Park

Objections, issues and concerns

Effect of construction traffic emissions on air quality.

General air pollution effects arising from construction activities.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

9 King Georges Park

Objections, issues and concerns

Construction working hours and programme

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

9 King Georges Park

The site mobilisation period is unnecessary/unreasonable.

9.5.19 9.5.20 9.5.21 9.5.22

Construction site design and layout

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

9 King Georges Park

Supplementary report on phase two consultation