Supp Report On P2 Consultation - Chapter 23 Greenwich Pumping Station

110-RG-PNC-00000-000784 | May 2011
Supplementary report on phase two consultation

Chapter 23 Greenwich Pumping Station
23 Greenwich Pumping Station
Thames Tunnel Supplementary report on phase two consultation

List of contents Page number 23 Greenwich Pumping Station ...................................................................... 23-1 23.1 23.2 23.3 23.4 23.5 23.6 23.7 23.8 Introduction ......................................................................................... 23-1 Number of respondents ...................................................................... 23-2 Site selection ...................................................................................... 23-2 Alternative sites .................................................................................. 23-6 Management of construction works .................................................... 23-8 Permanent design and appearance .................................................. 23-32 Management of operational effects .................................................. 23-37 Our view of the way forward ............................................................. 23-45
List of tables Page number Table 23.2.1 Number of respondents who provided feedback on Greenwich Pumping Station ............................................................................. 23-2 Table 23.3.1 Views on whether Greenwich Pumping Station should be our preferred site (Q2).......................................................................................... 23-3 Table 23.3.2 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to selection of our preferred site .................................................................................. 23-3 Table 23.3.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to selection of our preferred site .................................................................................. 23-4 Table 23.4.1 Suggested alternative sites to Greenwich Pumping Station ........... 23-6 Table 23.4.2 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the availability and identification of alternative sites...................................................... 23-8 Table 23.4.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the availability and identification of alternative sites...................................................... 23-8 Table 23.5.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right key issues in the site information paper? (Q4a) ............................................................... 23-8 Table 23.5.2 Do you agree that we have identified the right way to address the key issues? (Q4b) ................................................................................. 23-9 Table 23.5.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to key issues during construction .................................................................................... 23-9 Table 23.5.4 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during construction .............. 23-10 Table 23.5.5 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during construction .............................. 23-10 Table 23.5.6 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour during construction ....................................................................... 23-11 Table 23.5.7 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour during construction ... 2312 Table 23.5.8 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction working hours and programme .................................................................. 23-12 Table 23.5.9 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to construction site design and layout ......................................................................... 23-13 Table 23.5.10 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction site design and layout ..................................................................................... 23-13 Table 23.5.11 Objections, issues and concerns for construction site design and layout ............................................................................................ 23-14 Table 23.5.12 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historic environment during construction ....................................................................... 23-14
Table 23.5.13 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment during construction ..................................................................................................... 23-15 Table 23.5.14 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) during construction ........................................................ 23-16 Table 23.5.15 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction ..................................................... 23-17 Table 23.5.16 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction .................................................................................. 23-18 Table 23.5.17 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration during construction ....................................................................... 23-19 Table 23.5.18 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration during construction . 23-21 Table 23.5.19 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to open space and recreation during construction ...................................................... 23-22 Table 23.5.20 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to planning and development during construction.................................................. 23-23 Table 23.5.21 Objections, issues and concerns to address the effects on planning and development during construction ........................................... 23-23 Table 23.5.22 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects during construction ....................................................................... 23-24 Table 23.5.23 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effect during construction .................. 23-25 Table 23.5.24 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to structures and utilities during construction ....................................................................... 23-26 Table 23.5.25 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to townscape and visual effects during construction............................................................ 23-26 Table 23.5.26 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access during construction ....................................................................... 23-27 Table 23.5.27 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access during construction .. 2330 Table 23.5.28 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to water and flood risk during construction ....................................................................... 23-31 Table 23.6.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right issues that have influenced our permanent design for this site? (Q5) ..................... 23-32 Table 23.6.2 Please give us your views about our proposals for the permanent design and appearance of the site (Q6) ....................................... 23-32 Table 23.6.3 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site ........................................................... 23-33
Table 23.6.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site ........................................................... 23-33 Table 23.6.5 Design suggestions ...................................................................... 23-35 Table 23.7.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right key issues in the site information paper? (Q7a) ............................................................. 23-37 Table 23.7.2 Do you agree that we have identified the right way to address the key issues? (Q7b) ............................................................................... 23-37 Table 23.7.3 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the identified key issues during operation ................................................................ 23-38 Table 23.7.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the identified key issues during operation ........................................................................... 23-38 Table 23.7.5 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during operation .................. 23-39 Table 23.7.6 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to air quality and odour during operation ........................................................................... 23-39 Table 23.7.7 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour during operation ........................................................................... 23-39 Table 23.7.8 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the historic environment during operation ....................................................... 23-40 Table 23.7.9 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historic environment during operation ........................................................................... 23-40 Table 23.7.10 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) during operation ...................................................................................... 23-41 Table 23.7.11 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to natural environment (terrestrial) during operation ......................................................... 23-41 Table 23.7.12 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation ...................................................................................... 23-41 Table 23.7.13 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects during operation ........................................................................... 23-43 Table 23.7.14 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access during operation ........................................................................... 23-44 Table 23.7.15 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access during operation .. 23-44 Table 23.7.16 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to water and flood risk during operation ........................................................................... 23-44
23
23.1
23.1.1
Greenwich Pumping Station

Introduction
This chapter covers the feedback comments received during phase two consultation regarding our preferred site Greenwich Pumping Station. This site would be used to connect to the existing local combined sewer overflow (CSO), known as the Greenwich Pumping Station CSO, to the Greenwich connection tunnel, which would direct flows into the main tunnel. The site would also be used to drive the Greenwich connection tunnel. At phase one consultation, Greenwich Pumping Station was presented as our preferred site to intercept the Greenwich Pumping Station CSO, and King Stairs Gardens was presented as our preferred site to drive the Greenwich connection tunnel. However, following a review of the tunnelling strategy, Greenwich Pumping Station was identified as our preferred site to drive the Greenwich connection tunnel. In order to accommodate excavated material that would be generated from driving the connection tunnel, additional land known as Phoenix Wharf was identified adjacent to the Greenwich Pumping Station site, and presented together with Greenwich Pumping Station, as our preferred site at phase two consultation. For further information regarding the proposals for this site at phase two consultation, refer to the Greenwich Pumping Station site information paper.
23.1.2
Structure of this chapter

23.1.3 This chapter is organised as listed below, which reflects the structure of the phase two consultation feedback form: 23.1.4 section 23.2 Number of respondents section 23.3 Site selection section 23.4 Alternative sites section 23.5 Management of construction works section 23.6 Permanent design and appearance section 23.7 Management of operational effects. Section 23.8 Our view of the way forward.
In sections 23.3 to 23.7 we present details of the feedback comments received, the types and total number of respondents, and our response to feedback comments. Where 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 the proposals set out in our phase two consultation material N we do not propose to amend our proposals.
23.1.5
A full list of the phase two consultation material is set out in annex A to this report. Where a response contains a reference to our website, go to www.thamestunnelconsultation.co.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.
23-1
23.2
23.2.1
Number of respondents
A total of 44 respondents provided feedback on Greenwich Pumping Station, of which seven were received after the close of phase two consultation. Table 23.2.1 sets out the different groups who provided feedback for this site. Table 23.2.1 Number of respondents who provided feedback on Greenwich Pumping Station Statutory consultees 7 respondents - Design Council CABE (CABE) - Consumer Council for Water (CCW) - English Heritage (EH) - Environment Agency (EA) - Greater London Authority (GLA) - London Councils (LC) - Port of London Authority (PLA) Local authorities 1 respondent - Royal Borough of Greenwich (RBG) Landowners 3 respondents Community consultees 33 respondents Petitions 0 petitions
23.2.2
Feedback on this site was received in a number of forms, including feedback forms and correspondence (emails and letters).
23.3
23.3.1
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.
23.3.2
The results of the site selection process up to phase two consultation are set out in:
23.3.3
In this section, we set out the feedback comments received in relation to the selection of Greenwich Pumping Station as our preferred site, together with our responses. Our 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 V of the Design development report and our PEIR (volume 26). Where respondents commented on matters in relation to management of construction works, permanent design and appearance or the management of operational effects at Greenwich Pumping Station, these comments are reported in sections 23.5 to 23.7.
23.3.4
23-2
Number of respondents
23.3.5 During phase two consultation, respondents were asked to comment on the decision to select Greenwich Pumping Station as our preferred site to intercept the Greenwich Pumping Station CSO and drive the Greenwich connection tunnel (see question 2 of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation). Table 23.3.1 sets out details of the different groups who responded to confirm whether they were supportive, opposed/concerned or dont know/unsure. Tables 23.3.2 and 23.3.3 then detail the feedback comments received in relation to this site. It should be noted, that not all respondents who provided feedback comments confirmed whether they were supportive, opposed/concerned or dont know/unsure. Table 23.3.1 Views on whether Greenwich Pumping Station should be our preferred site (Q2) Respondent type Statutory consultees Local authorities Landowners Community consultees Petitions Total Number of respondents Total 0 0 3 24 0 27 14 10 13 14 3 7 3 Supportive Opposed/ concerned Dont know/unsure
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to our preferred site Table 23.3.2 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to selection of our preferred site Ref 23.3.6 23.3.7 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. The site is currently vacant/derelict/ available for redevelopment. The site is already an operational Thames Water site/is owned by Thames Water. Qualified support for the preferred site included: - the proposal must guarantee the legacy of the area, including nearby listed structures and the Creekside walkway Respondent ID EH, 8673, 9063, 9079, LR9447 9063, 9067 No. 5 2 Our response Your support is noted and welcomed.
23.3.8 23.3.9 23.3.10
7679 7108, 8673 RBG, 7347, 7679
1 2 3
Your comment is noted. However, the site is an operational pumping station within our ownership. Agreed. Our proposals will preserve adjacent heritage. Bringing the (currently disused) Beam Engine House back into use will encourage its long-term maintenance. We also acknowledge that Greenwich Pumping Station is an important heritage asset with a number of listed structures that can be viewed from the existing public pedestrian routes adjacent to the site. However, the site is an operational sewage pumping station and therefore has significant security and safety requirements that can only be ensured by preventing public access to the site. For this reason, we do not consider it appropriate to open up public access to the site, or provide a route alongside the Deptford Creek for public access. Since selecting Greenwich Pumping Station 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
- concern regarding inconvenience during construction
23-3
Ref
Supportive and neutral comments
Respondent ID
No.
Our response range of measures that would be adopted to minimise the effects of construction works including dust, noise and vibration. The proposed measures contained within 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. Your support is welcomed and noted. Based on our assessment we consider that, on balance, Greenwich Pumping Station is the most suitable site. For further details on the results of the site selection process including our assessment of shortlisted sites, refer to appendix V of the Phase two scheme development report.
- with reluctance accept the use of this site
as a long connection tunnel drive site.
Objections, issues and concerns Table 23.3.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to selection of our preferred site Ref 23.3.11 Objections, issues and concerns Object to the use of this preferred site; particular reasons included that although there are no realistic alternatives, the proposal is unacceptable due to the proximity of the drop shaft to the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) viaduct, unless this can be resolved. Should use/consider an alternative site. There are other more suitable alternative sites available in the local area, including some closer to the river. Alternative sites have not been properly considered; in particular there have been insufficient comparisons with the preferred site. Respondent ID GLA, LR9187LO No. 2 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 and long connection tunnel 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, Greenwich Pumping Station is the most suitable site. This is because we own most of the site and although the Pumping Station is a Grade II listed structure, the proposed location of our works (to the north of the pumping station site) greatly reduces any potential effect upon its setting. The location of the railway and DLR is a factor that has influenced our proposals for this site. We will continue our discussions with relevant stakeholders including Transport for London (TFL) as part of our design development process. We do not consider the presence of the viaduct to be a factor that would preclude development at this site and would take it into account in implementing our construction works at this site. For further details on the results of the site selection process, including our assessment of shortlisted sites, refer to appendix V of the Phase two scheme development report. The shortlisted sites were listed in the Greenwich Pumping Station site information paper. Appendix V of the Phase two scheme development report sets out all the sites assessed as part of the site selection process including the shortlisted sites. Due to the nature of the project, it is necessary to select a package of
23.3.12 23.3.13
LR9187LO 8859LO
1 1
23.3.14
7308
23.3.15
Query why shortlisted sites have not been identified.
EH
23.3.16
The drive strategy and associated use of
13468, 9063
23-4
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns this site needs to be reconsidered.
Respondent ID
No.
Our response tunnel sites, having regard to how they will work in combination and in relation to the tunnel alignment and CSO connections. A tunnel site cannot therefore be selected in isolation. Our assessment work has concluded that, based on the sites available, Greenwich Pumping Station is the most appropriate site to drive the Greenwich connection tunnel to Chambers Wharf. The reasons for this selection are set out in appendix V of the Phase two scheme development report. 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. The environment and community assessments undertaken as part of site selection considered the number and nature of sensitive receptors as well as possible likely significant effects from traffic and construction works including noise, air quality and visual impact. We also considered likely significant effects on employment uses and possible conflict with planning policy seeking to protect local amenity. Accordingly, we consider that the scale of possible likely significant effects on the local area and community has been adequately considered. For further details on the results of the site selection process, refer to appendix V of the Phase two scheme development report. Using a site for the Thames Tunnel project does not preclude it from other uses once construction of the project is complete. The footprint of the permanent works required for the operation of the project is significantly smaller than the space required during its construction. Phoenix Wharf would only required during construction and all permanent structures proposed would be located within the Greenwich Pumping Station site. The area not permanently required could be used for other uses including those specified. Refer to paragraph 2.2.32 for our response to this feedback comment.
23.3.17
The scale of effects on the local area and community resulting from the selection of this site is unacceptable/has not been properly considered.
LR9184LO, 8554
23.3.18
The site should be developed for other uses; Network Rail and Halliard Property Company Ltd share aspirations for the redevelopment of Phoenix Wharf for a mixed-use employment and residential redevelopment. Initial pre-application discussions with the RBG regarding these proposals have already commenced and are on-going. Disagree with/not commenting on site selection due to wider objections to the proposed solution and/or the need for the project. Do not support changes to the extent of the preferred site since phase one consultation/ do not support the specific location of the site. Specifically: - it is not clear why an extension to the site, in the form of acquiring land at Phoenix Wharf is required; Thames Water should have fully investigated the possibility of containing the work within the current boundary of the Greenwich Pumping Station site and if this were not possible, provide evidence as part of the
8859LO
23.3.19
LR9184LO
23.3.20
GLA, 8859LO, LR9187LO, 13468
We did identify and consider only utilising Greenwich Pumping Station to intercept the CSO and drive the long connection tunnel. In comparison to Phoenix Wharf, we considered only using Greenwich Pumping Station to be less suitable. A number of sites south of Greenwich Pumping Station have also been considered but have been dismissed for different technical reasons. For further details on the results of the site selection process, refer to appendix V of the Phase two scheme development report.
23-5
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns phase two consultation

- has thought been given to the site to the
Respondent ID
No.
Our response
south of Greenwich Pumping Station and how this could be better connected to the actual construction site?
- Network Rail is looking at redeveloping
Phoenix Wharf for mixed use

- the sites Greenwich Pumping Station and
Construction of the tunnel in this location is not expected to compromise the wider regeneration of the area. Connectivity between the two sites was considered as part of the site selection process. One of the reasons that we consider Phoenix Wharf more suitable than other sites is because of the connectivity between the two sites which can be achieved by transporting materials between the railway arches. The connectivity between Greenwich Pumping Station and Phoenix Wharf is the best compared with other sites considered. Refer to appendix V of Phase two scheme development report for further details.
Phoenix Wharf are severed by rail viaduct and an existing public footpath, which will restrict the movement of materials between the two sites and put a strain on the road network
- Phoenix Wharf has been included due to
its siting to the north of Greenwich Pumping Station without full consideration of the connectivity of the two sites
- note that the proposals entail utilising the
Refer to paragraph 25.5.66 for our response to this feedback comment.
whole of the site currently occupied by Jewson at the above address and that demolition would be necessary to proceed with this project
- the drop shaft is too close to the DLR
viaduct.
The location of the railway and DLR is a factor that has influenced our proposals for this site and we have discussed our approach with TfL and Network Rail as part of our design development process. We do not consider the presence of the viaduct to be a factor that would preclude development at this site and would take it into account in implementing our construction works at this site.
Shortlisted sites
23.3.21 No feedback comments were received in relation to the shortlisted sites.
23.4
23.4.1
Alternative sites
During phase two consultation, respondents were invited to suggest alternative sites that they thought should be used to intercept the Greenwich Pumping Station CSO and drive the Greenwich connection tunnel instead of Greenwich Pumping Station (see question 3 of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation). The following sites were put forward as possible alternatives: Table 23.4.1 Suggested alternative sites to Greenwich Pumping Station Ref 23.4.2 Alternative site suggestion Greenwich Pumping Station without Phoenix Wharf. Reasons It appears that the Phoenix Wharf site has been included due to its siting to the north of Greenwich Pumping Respondent ID 88590LO No. 1 Our response We did identify and consider only utilising Greenwich Pumping to intercept the CSO and drive the long connection tunnel. In comparison to using Pheonix Wharf, we considered that only using Greenwich
Other sites
23-6
Ref
Alternative site suggestion
Reasons Station without full consideration to the connectivity of the two sites - the site to the south of Greenwich Pumping Station is better connected to the construction site. Equally, the pumping station could be utilised more efficiently so that it does not require the extension. More detailed evidence is required regarding the need for additional space. Convoys Wharf should be used to drive the Greenwich connection tunnel to Greenwich and to Chambers Wharf since it is a large site in a non-residential area with no extant planning permission. It is a deepwater wharf and would enable spoil and materials to be moved by river. Thames Water should reconsider this site since it has direct river access. It is more appropriate due to closer proximity to the river. Allow excavated material to be transported by river. It is a less residential area so would have less effect on local residents and it is a riverside location. It is already industrial, unlike Greenwich which is an attractive area. Further from houses and flats, therefore less disruption to local residents.
Respondent ID
No.
Our response Pumping Station is less suitable. For further details on the results of the site selection process, refer to appendix V of the Phase two scheme development report.
23.4.3
Convoys Wharf.
7800
We did identify and consider Convoys Wharf to construct the long connection tunnel. In comparison to our preferred site, we considered that Convoys Wharf is less suitable because, in addition to the site at Convoys Wharf, we would also need to use Greenwich Pumping Station (to intercept the CSO) and to excavate an additional temporary shaft. Using Greenwich Pumping Station with Phoenix Wharf would be more efficient, cost less and reduce risks. For further details on the results of the site selection process, refer to appendix V of the Phase two scheme development report. Using sites as CSO sites Sites have been selected on the basis of the need to intercept existing CSOs. CSOs are in fixed locations and sites to intercept them need to be on the line of, or in close proximity to, the sewer. The suggested alternative sites are considered to be too far away from Greenwich Pumping Station CSO and therefore are not suitable for a CSO interception site. Using sites as long connection tunnel drive sites In relation to using the sites as an alternative long connection tunnel drive sites: - King's Stairs Gardens, Rotherhithe, sites with direct access to the River Thames and Beckton Sewage Treatment Works are too far away from Greenwich Pumping Station to be utilised as long connection tunnel drive sites and are therefore unsuitable. - Borthwick Wharf Foreshore and Deptford Church Street have been identified through the site selection process as suitable CSO interception sites. A smaller site is needed for CSO interception and therefore the suggested sites are not large enough to accommodate works associated with a long connection tunnel drive. If we used the suggested sites, we would still need to intercept the CSO, which would require a larger site than if we were using the site only to intercept the CSO.
23.4.4 23.4.5 23.4.6 23.4.7
King's Stairs Gardens. Rotherhithe. Other sites with direct river access. Borthwick Wharf Foreshore.
8859LO 9079 8859LO 7308, 7309
1 1 1 2
23.4.8
Beckton Sewage Treatment Works. Deptford Church Street.
7862
23.4.9
8554
23.4.10
Respondents also made the following comments in relation to the availability and identification of alternative sites:
23-7
Supportive and neutral feedback comments Table 23.4.2 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the availability and identification of alternative sites Ref 23.4.11 Supportive and neutral comments No alternative site is available; Thames Water has done its best to survey alternative sites. Respondent ID 7404 No. 1 Our response Your support is welcomed and noted.
Objections, issues and concerns Table 23.4.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the availability and identification of alternative sites Ref 23.4.12 Objections, issues and concerns Not an expert/not qualified/do not have the knowledge to comment. Respondent ID 7406, 8534 No. 2 Our response The purpose of consultation is to explore as fully as possible what those with an interest in the project think about our proposals. We will have regard to comments received from both technical and non-technical consultees.
23.5
23.5.1 23.5.2
Management of construction works

This section sets out comments received during phase two consultation in relation to the management of construction works at Greenwich Pumping Station. This includes the identification of site specific issues affecting construction activities and proposals to address these issues. During phase two consultation, respondents were asked whether the site information paper had identified the right key issues associated with Greenwich Pumping Station 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 23.5.1 and 23.5.2. Tables 23.5.3 to 23.5.28 detail the feedback comments received in relation to this site. It should be noted that not all respondents who provided feedback comments confirmed whether the right issues and the ways to address them had been identified. Table 23.5.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right key issues in the site information paper? (Q4a) Respondent type Statutory consultees Local authorities Landowners Community consultees Petitions Total Number of respondents Total 0 0 1 19 0 20 12 2 6 12 1 1 6 Yes No Dont know/unsure
23-8
Table 23.5.2 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 23.5.3 Number of respondents Total 0 0 1 20 0 21 8 2 11 8 2 1 10 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 Greenwich Pumping Station during construction and proposals to address these issues. Feedback comments are organised under common themes. The themes are: General themes: General feedback comments on key issues General feedback comments on measures to address the key issues
Topic-based themes Air quality and odour Construction working hours and programme Construction site design and layout Historic environment Land quality and contamination Lighting Natural environment (aquatic) Natural environment (terrestrial) Noise and vibration Open space and recreation Planning and development Socio-economic Structures and utilities Townscape and visual Transport and access Water and flood risk
General feedback comments on the identified key issues

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the identified key issues 23.5.4 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to general feedback comments on the identified key issues during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the identified key issues Table 23.5.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to key issues during construction Ref 23.5.5 23.5.6 Objections, issues and concerns The scale of potential effects has not been properly assessed and/or underestimated. Those that are unfamiliar with the local area must assume that Thames Water has Respondent ID 7406 7406 No. 1 1 Our response The key issues in the Greenwich Pumping Station site information paper are intended to provide a broad overview of potential effects and key issues associated with the site during construction. It is not, however, an exhaustive list. A Outcome N
23-9
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns correctly identified the right key issues.
Respondent ID
No.
Our response Outcome more detailed description of possible likely significant effects and the methodology through which they have been identified is and assessed is provided in other technical reports, including the PEIR (volume 26), the Design development report appendix V, the Phase two scheme development report, the Site selection methodology paper and the Site selection background technical paper. We are undertaking an environmental impact assessment, which will include a comprehensive assessment of potential likely significant effects arising from the proposals. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application.
General feedback comments on measures to address the key issues

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues Table 23.5.4 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during construction Ref 23.5.7 Supportive and neutral comments Measures to address potential issues are satisfactory. Respondent ID 7347 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 23.5.5 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during construction Ref 23.5.8 Objections, issues and concerns These are matters for experts to comment on/not qualified to comment. Other issues and comments in relation to measures to address construction issues included: - construction impacts must be minimised at every stage of construction - Thames Water should ensure a close relationship with local communities leading up to and during the works. Respondent ID 7406 No. 1 Our response Outcome
While we have a preferred project, the purpose of N consultation is to explore as fully as possible what those with an interest in the project think about our preference. We have sought to avoid or eliminate potential likely significant effects wherever possible, both by developing robust technical solutions to potential issues such as odour, and through our proposals for the permanent site design and layout. We are also developing a CoCP 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 a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. When construction begins we would arrange regular, ongoing liaison and face-to-face interaction between the community and the project team. We would ensure that N
23.5.9
GLA, 7406
23-10
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns
Respondent ID
No.
Our response occupiers of nearby properties are informed in advance of works taking place, including the duration of the activity. For tunnelling works, we would provide a website that has information on the forecast and actual progress of the tunnel boring machine (TBM). We would also notify properties and businesses along the route of the tunnel of the forecast timetable for the TBM. We would maintain a 24-hour telephone helpline service during the main construction period to handle enquiries and concerns from the general public.
Outcome
Air quality and odour

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to air quality and odour 23.5.10 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to air quality and odour during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour Table 23.5.6 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour during construction Ref 23.5.11 23.5.12 Objections, issues and concerns Effect of construction traffic emissions on air quality. General effect of construction activities on air quality. Respondent ID LC 7309 No. 1 1 Our response Outcome
We have set out measures in our draft CoCP that would be N adopted to limit vehicle and plant emissions, including using low emission vehicles, turning off engines when not needed and minimising vehicle movements around the site. Our preliminary assessment outlined in our PEIR (volume 26, section 4) set out that with these measures in place we do not expect any significant local air quality effects arising from vehicle and plant emissions at this construction site. We are preparing a full assessment for submission in the Environmental statement as part of our DCO application that 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. It is not anticipated that the construction works would give rise to any significant odour effects as set out in our PEIR (volume 26, section 4). It is not expected that sewage odours would be emitted during the sewer interception works at this location. Our draft CoCP confirms that air management plans would be prepared and implemented for each site and proposed techniques would be in line with best practice guidelines. We have completed a preliminary environmental assessment of the effects of the proposed development, which is set out in our PEIR (volume 26, section 4), which considers the likely significant effects of our construction in respect of air quality, dust, odour, noise and vibration, which N N
23.5.13 23.5.14
Effect of odour arising from construction activities. Effect of odour on residential amenity.
LC, LR9184LO 7308
2 1
23.5.15
General air pollution effects arising from construction activities.
7308
23-11
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response Outcome singularly or collectively might be classed as 'pollution'. This assessment did not identify any significant effects at residential or other sensitive receptors (such as schools) near this site. A full assessment of likely significant 'pollution' will be presented in the Environmental statement that we will submit with our DCO application. We have also produced a draft CoCP which sets out measures for managing our works, including sections on noise and vibration, and air quality as well as details of the various regulatory regimes and guidance that we would need to comply with, such as the Control of Pollution Act 1974, the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, the Mayor of London's Ambient Noise Strategy 2004 and The control of dust and emissions from construction and demolition - Best Practice Guidance 2008, as well as various British Standards. Our compliance with the applicable regulatory regime would be monitored by the RBG.
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour 23.5.16 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour during construction Table 23.5.7 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour during construction Ref 23.5.17 Objections, issues and concerns The GLA and London Council's Best Practice Guidance (BPG) The control of dust and emissions from construction and demolition should be implemented. Respondent ID GLA No. 1 Our response We can confirm that the Best Practice Guidance has been taken into account in developing our proposals for this site. Our draft CoCP sets out measures for managing our works as well as details of the various regulatory regimes and guidance that we would need to comply with, such as the Control of Pollution Act 1974, the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, the Mayor of London's Ambient Noise Strategy 2004 and The control of dust and emissions from construction and demolition - Best Practice Guidance 2008, as well as various British Standards. Outcome N
Construction working hours and programme

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to construction working hours and programme 23.5.18 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to construction working hours and programme. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction working hours and programme Table 23.5.8 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction working hours and programme Ref 23.5.19 Objections, issues and concerns The construction programme is too long/ concerned about the duration of Respondent ID 7309 No. 1 Our response The programming of works at all sites would be configured to minimise the duration of works and associated disruption Outcome N
23-12
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns construction.
Respondent ID
No.
Our response to the local area, where possible. The length of the construction period in the consultation documents comes from the PEIR (volume 26) and it is hoped that in many cases there will be periods during which there would be no activity or less intensive activity at some sites.
Outcome
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of construction working hours and programme 23.5.20 23.5.21 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effect of construction working hours and programme. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of construction working hours programme No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of construction working hours and programme.
Construction site design and layout

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to construction site design and layout Table 23.5.9 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to construction site design and layout Ref 23.5.22 Supportive and neutral comments Support the option to provide mooring arrangements for two barges adjacent to the excavated material storage. Respondent ID RBG No. 1 Our response Your suggestion is noted and we welcome your support.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction site design and layout Table 23.5.10 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction site design and layout Ref 23.5.23 Objections, issues and concerns Site layout appears to be unsuitable; the CSO shaft is too close to the DLR viaduct, and associated impacts are unacceptable. Respondent ID GLA, 9066 No. 2 Our response Outcome
The shaft has been located as far away from the DLR as N possible, but we are constrained by the fact that the DLR viaduct is located over an operational pumping station site. We believe that the works could be carried out safely, using equipment and methodologies that would be appropriate to working close to an operational railway, eg using cranes with restricted-movement jibs so that they could not swing over the DLR. Alternative sites are not possible because Greenwich Pumping Station is the location at which a number of incoming major sewers converge from different directions. The construction site layout has been developed to minimise N the site area. We are looking at options for the use of the site during construction that may mean the Coal Sheds would not need to be dismantled. C
23.5.24 23.5.25
Concerned about the extent of the construction site. Location of site support/welfare; cannot accept the proposed dismantling and reerection of the old Coal Sheds.
13468 EH
1 1
23-13
Suggestions for construction site design and layout Table 23.5.11 Objections, issues and concerns for construction site design and layout Ref 23.5.26 Suggestions for construction site design and layout Specific design amendments, including: - concerns about the removal of the Coal Shed roof - there appears to be plenty of scope to create a works office site under the existing structure
- use a conveyor to load tunnelling and drop
Respondent ID EA, EH, GLA, RBG, 7406
No. 5
Our response We are looking at options for the use of the site during construction that may mean the Coal Sheds would not need to be dismantled.
Outcome C
shaft excavated material directly onto barges located at the northern end of the site and possibly even further along the creek to a location north of Creek Road Bridge
- re-design the layout to take account of
We do not consider that barging from south of the railway is economically viable due the very low headroom under the footbridge over the creek, however barging from Phoenix Wharf is under consideration. The choice of barge loading system will be a matter for the contractor.
DLR viaduct.
The shaft has been located as far away from the DLR as N possible, but we are constrained by the fact that the DLR viaduct is located over an operational pumping station site. We believe that the works could be carried out safely, using equipment and methodologies that would be appropriate to working close to an operational railway, eg using cranes with restricted-movement jibs so that they could not swing over the DLR.
Historic environment
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the historic environment 23.5.27 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the historic environment during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historic environment Table 23.5.12 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historic environment during construction Ref 23.5.28 Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID No. 1 Our response Outcome
It is not clear what the scale of effects on the EH historic environment would be; the assessment to date is very vague, particularly regarding the removal of certain items within the Grade II listed Beam Engine House.
As outlined in our Greenwich Pumping Station site N information paper, Beam Engine House is currently empty, having been stripped out in the 1950s and the below-ground part filled in with rubble topped with concrete. We propose to replace the 1950s concrete topping with a new ground floor slab. The ventilation equipment would stand on the new floor, rather than being fastened to the existing walls/roof. The original building would be refurbished/ restored as needed to bring it back to good condition, in a manner agreed with the conservation officer. An assessment of the likely significant effects on the historic environment is being completed as a part of our environmental impact assessment. We are consulting with English Heritage as part of this process. The findings of the
23-14
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
23.5.29
Effect of construction activities on listed buildings including Beam Engine House, the pumping station, and Coal Sheds.
7406
Our response assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our application. The site includes the Grade II listed Coal Sheds and is adjacent to the Grade II listed pumping station and Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area, as detailed in our Greenwich Pumping Station site information paper. The layout of our works has been designed to wrap around the pumping station in recognition of its listed status. In response to feedback, we are looking at options for the use of the site during construction that may mean the Coal Sheds would not need to be dismantled. An assessment of the likely significant effects on the historic environment is being completed as a part of our environmental impact assessment. We are consulting with English Heritage as part of this process. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our application. Our draft CoCP (provided at phase two consultation) indicates that works close to listed buildings would be undertaken in accordance with all required consents and licences 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 RBG prior to undertaking works.
Outcome
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment 23.5.30 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 23.5.13 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment during construction Ref 23.5.31 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 a part of our environmental impact assessment. We are consulting with English Heritage as part of this process. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. Additionally, our draft CoCP (provided at phase two consultation) sets out a range of measures to safeguard the historic environment during construction. Such measures include confirmation that works close to listed buildings would be undertaken in accordance with all requirements set out in the DCO and that protection measures, as required, would be put in place at the start of the works. We would
23-15
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response also notify English Heritage and the RBG prior to undertaking works and will continue to engage with them closely on the planning. The indicative layout of the construction works is set out in the Greenwich Pumping Station site information paper. We are considering options which would mean that the Coal Sheds may not need to be dismantled during construction works. We will present an assessment of likely significant effects on the setting of these historic assets during the construction and operational phases in the Environmental statement.
Outcome
23.5.32
Locate construction works to minimise their effect on the setting and appearance of local heritage features, including retention of the listed Coal Sheds during construction.
7406
Land quality and contamination

23.5.33 No feedback comments were received in relation to land quality and contamination during construction.
Lighting
23.5.34 No feedback comments were received in relation to lighting during construction.
Natural environment (aquatic)

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) 23.5.35 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) Table 23.5.14 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) during construction Ref 23.5.36 Objections, issues and concerns Effect of construction activities on foreshore habitat(s), including: - the conditions at Borthwick Wharf are not similar to those in Deptford Creek, therefore you need to be wary when extrapolating survey data - the substrate and salinity at Borthwick Wharf are not similar to those in Deptford Creek, it is reasonable to suggest that species composition may be similar but productivity is likely to be much higher in Deptford Creek. Respondent ID EA, GLA No. 2 Our response As part of our PEIR (volume 26, section 5) we have assessed the likely significant construction effects of the proposed development on aquatic ecology, including the habitat of Deptford Creek. The PEIR considers the likely significant effects on the foreshore and River Thames and recognises a number of impacts, including those associated with a new mooring and any necessary channel reshaping or dredging. Many of the effects would be controlled through measures set out in our CoCP. It is also noted that many effects would be temporary and the habitat would recover following the removal of the temporary structures. We acknowledge that this is a preliminary assessment. We are preparing a full aquatic ecology assessment of likely significant effects for submission in the Environmental statement as part of our DCO application. We are not currently proposing river transport or dredging at this site. However, as shown in the site information paper, the contractor would retain the option to use river transport. If considered a viable option, there may be a requirement for some dredging, which would be undertaken in accordance Outcome N
23.5.37
Effect of dredging on the foreshore and river, particularly if dredging of Deptford Creek is required to facilitate its use during the tunnel construction process. The shortterm biodiversity impacts of dredging could
RBG
23-16
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns be balanced against the long-terms gains of a cleaner water environment.
Respondent ID
No.
Our response with appropriate mitigation measures.
Outcome
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) 23.5.38 23.5.39 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) during construction.
Natural environment (terrestrial)

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) 23.5.40 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to natural environment (terrestrial) during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) Table 23.5.15 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction Ref 23.5.41 Objections, issues and concerns More information is needed on the effect of construction activities on the natural environment. Respondent ID LR9491 No. 1 Our response We consider that we have undertaken a thorough and comprehensive consultation exercise. We carefully considered the information we made available at our phase two consultation to ensure that consultees had sufficient information to respond to the consultation. This included our PEIR (volume 26, section 6) which sets out our initial assessment of likely significant effects on terrestrial ecology from construction site activities including site clearance, piling, and wider construction activities. 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 a part of our environmental impact assessment. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. We are confident therefore that the information we have provided is sufficient. Our preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects on wildlife associated with the construction of the tunnel is set out in our PEIR (volume 26, section 6) which considered the effects on land-based habitats. The project has been designed to minimise effects on wildlife and habitats where possible and, where likely significant 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 the application. The CoCP that will be submitted with the application would Outcome N
23.5.42
General environmental/ecological impacts arising from construction activities.
8835
23-17
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response ensure that works are undertaken in compliance with applicable legislation and relevant nature conservation policies and guidance, including the Mayor of Londons Biodiversity strategy and local biodiversity action plans. Where species are protected by specific legislation, approved guidance would be followed, appropriate mitigation proposed and any necessary licences or consents obtained. Our preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects on wildlife associated with the construction of the tunnel is set out in our PEIR (volume 26, section 6) and it identified the existing buildings on the site in terms of potential habitats. 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 the application.
Outcome
23.5.43
Should consider the importance of any existing buildings for protected species.
LR9447
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) 23.5.44 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) Table 23.5.16 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction Ref 23.5.45 Objections, issues and concerns Locate construction activities within the site to avoid sensitive and designated areas. Respondent ID LR9491 No. 1 Our response Where possible, we will seek to locate our construction activities sensitively within our proposed construction site. Details of the measures that would be adopted for the construction will be set out in the CoCP to be submitted with our DCO application. Our contractor would be required to comply with the requirements of the CoCP. Details of proposed mitigation measures for the site and initial ecology surveys were set out in the PEIR (volume 26, section 6) as part of our phase two consultation. As we have completed our surveys, we have been confirming the presence or absence of species and habitats and developing 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. Outcome N
23.5.46
Other natural environment mitigation, LR9447, LR9491 including: - maximise opportunities to enhance biodiversity through an effective mitigation package - Thames Water should take steps to secure the long-term protection of any protected species which may be impacted
Noise and vibration

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to noise and vibration No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to noise and vibration during construction.
23-18
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration Table 23.5.17 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration during construction Ref 23.5.47 23.5.48 23.5.49 23.5.50 Objections, issues and concerns Noise and vibration from construction traffic. General noise effects arising from construction activities. General vibration effects arising from construction activities. Effect on quality of life/residential amenity. Respondent ID LC, LR9184LO LR9184LO, 7308 LR9184LO LC No. 2 2 1 1 Our response As set out in our Greenwich Pumping Station site information paper our contractor would be required to implement noise and vibration control measures at the site, in line with the requirements of the CoCP. The contractor would also have to gain approval prior to the construction work from the RBG 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 as well as any appropriate monitoring measures. This would ensure that the noise levels are reasonable and best practical means are applied. The measures would be agreed with local authority environmental health officers. Additionally we will implement best practice measures to minimise noise and vibration from plant and works including the selection of appropriate plant and equipment, siting of equipment, and use of enclosures to provide acoustic screens. Full details of the measures that will be adopted for the construction will be set out in the CoCP submitted with our DCO application. Our PEIR (volume 26, section 9) sets out our preliminary assessment of likely significant noise and vibration effects from construction site activities, noise from construction traffic on roads outside the site, including Glamis Road, and noise and vibration from operation of the site. The assessment embeds the proposals in our draft CoCP. The PEIR assessment used Defra's London noise maps. Our Environmental statement, which will be submitted with 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 RBG. Outcome N N N N
23.5.51
Effect of continuous (24-hour) working on noise and vibration impacts.
7406
Greenwich Pumping Station is proposed as a drive site for a N long connection tunnel. At this site there would be continuous tunnelling, although a proportion of our works would be undertaken in standard working hours, as detailed in our site information paper. A preliminary assessment of likely significant effects has been carried out which identifies that it is likely that there would be significant noise effects during the construction phase at this site, although no significant vibration effects are predicted. Our contractor would be required to implement noise and vibration control measures at the site, in line with the requirements of our CoCP. Our contractor would be required to gain approval prior to the construction work from the RBG
23-19
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response through a Section 61 application under the Control of Pollution Act that would set out specific working methods and the measures to minimise noise and vibration as well as any appropriate monitoring measures. The measures would be agreed with local authority environmental health officers. Additionally we would implement measures to minimise noise and vibration from plant and works including the selection of appropriate plant and equipment, siting of equipment, and the use of enclosures to provide acoustic screens. At this site the shaft and gantry crane would also be enclosed. Details of the measures that would be adopted for the construction will be set out in the CoCP to be submitted with our DCO application. At this site we anticipate that construction would last for five and a half years, 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 the PEIR (volume 26, section 9) most stages of work at this site have been assessed as having significant noise effects at receptors around the site, although no significant vibration effects are predicted. This preliminary assessment is based on a worst case assessment where the two noisiest activities in any stage happen concurrently and over the entire duration of the stage. This is a conservative approach and a full assessment of the likely significant effects will be set out in the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. Our Settlement project information paper provides information on our approach to controlling and limiting ground movement, which can cause settlement, associated with construction of the tunnel. It is acknowledged that construction of the tunnel will cause some small movements in the ground, the level of which will depend on a range of factors including the size and depth of construction works as well as existing ground conditions. The use of modern tunnelling methods and the depth of our tunnels, which are generally much deeper than most other tunnels under London, minimises the likelihood of any potential ground movement. We are assessing the potential likely significant effects of ground movement in advance of the works and, where necessary, will carry out protective measures. We will also monitor actual ground movement during and after the tunnelling to check that the ground is reacting as predicted. We will also carry out a defects survey on buildings located over, or close to, our tunnels and worksites where we consider this necessary. The method used for assessing
Outcome
23.5.52
Duration of construction and effects of associated noise and vibration.
7406
23.5.53
Other noise and vibration concerns and issue: noise and vibration levels and disruption to sediment.
9066
23-20
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response Outcome settlement is similar to that used for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, the Jubilee Line Extension, and Crossrail. As set out in our Greenwich Pumping Station site information paper our contractor would be required to implement noise and vibration control measures at the site, in line with the requirements of the CoCP. The contractor would also have to gain approval prior to the construction work from the RBG 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 as well as any appropriate monitoring measures. This would ensure that the noise levels are reasonable and best practice means are applied. The measures would be agreed with local authority 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, siting of equipment, and use of enclosures to provide acoustic screens. Full details of the measures that would be adopted for the construction phase will be set out in the CoCP to be submitted with our DCO application. Our PEIR (volume 26, section 9) sets out our preliminary assessment of noise and vibration from construction site activities, noise from construction traffic on roads outside the site, including Glamis Road, and noise and vibration from construction of the site. The proposals set out in our draft CoCP are included in the assessment. The PEIR assessment used Defra's London noise maps. Our Environmental statement, which will be submitted with our DCO application, will include an assessment of likely significant noise and vibration effects that will be completed in line with the methodology that is compliant with BS5228, BS6472 and BS7385 and has been agreed with the RBG.
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration 23.5.54 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effect of noise and vibration during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration Table 23.5.18 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration during construction Ref 23.5.55 Objections, issues and concerns More information is required on mitigation including: - more details on noise enclosure and the effect on sound reduction - details of how harm would be mitigated - more details on the acoustic properties of Respondent ID RBG No. 1 Our response Outcome
Our PEIR (volume 26, section 9) sets out our initial N 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 in our draft CoCP. The PEIR assessment used Defra's
23-21
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns the proposed temporary structure.
Respondent ID
No.
Our response London noise maps. Our Environmental statement, which will be submitted with our DCO application, will include a full assessment of likely significant noise and vibration effects that will be completed in line with the methodology that is compliant with BS5228, BS6472 and BS7385 and has been agreed with the RBG. 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 appropriate plant and equipment, siting of equipment, and use of enclosures to provide acoustic screens. Specific measures such as acoustic suppression systems, operation of equipment in a mode that minimises noise and shutting down equipment when not in use are also identified in our draft CoCP. Our contractor would be required to comply with the requirements of the CoCP. The draft CoCP also states that our contractor would be required to apply for Section 61 consents (s.61) under the Control of Pollution Act 1974. These would set out specific working methods and the measures to minimise noise and vibration as well as any appropriate monitoring measures to be agreed with local authority environmental health officers. As detailed in our Greenwich Pumping Station site information paper occasional extended working hours during phase two (drop shaft construction) would be required. This is because some activities, such as concrete pours for diaphragm walls, may take too long to complete during a standard working day but must be carried out in a single continuous operation. Extended working hours would only be used in circumstances such as these.
Outcome
23.5.56
Other noise and vibration mitigation suggestions including: if the drop shaft construction takes place prior to the construction of the temporary enclosure, the extended standard working hours should be resisted for this phase of the works.
GLA
Open space and recreation

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to open space and recreation 23.5.57 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to open space and recreation during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to open space and recreation Table 23.5.19 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to open space and recreation during construction Ref 23.5.58 Objections, issues and concerns Duration of construction and associated effect on access to open space and other recreational amenities. Respondent ID 7309, 7308 No. 2 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 as far as possible. The length of the construction period set out in the consultation documents comes from the PEIR (volume 26) and it is hoped that in many cases there would be periods during which there would be no or less intensive activity at some sites. As part of our works a diversion to the existing footpath and Outcome N
23-22
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response cycle path would be provided to ensure that access to the wider area is maintained. We do not believe that our works would result in a detrimental effect on access to open space or other recreational amenities in the local area.
Outcome
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on open space and recreation No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effect on open space and recreation during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on open space and recreation 23.5.59 No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effect on open space and recreation during construction.
Planning and development

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to planning and development 23.5.60 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to planning and development during construction. Objections, issues and concerns Table 23.5.20 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to planning and development during construction Ref 23.5.61 23.5.62 Objections, issues and concerns Conflict with emerging regeneration proposals/future developments Not enough understanding by Thames Water of other developments planned in the Deptford area, and the charette plan (an attempt at a co-ordinated approach to developments in the local environment of Deptford Creek). Respondent ID GLA, 8859LO 7347 No. 2 1 Our response Construction of the tunnel in this location is not expected to compromise the wider regeneration of the area. We are aware of other developments near our proposed works and will continue to monitor planning applications as they come forward. We are undertaking a cumulative assessment as part of our environmental impact assessment that will consider strategic developments in the local area. This will be reported in our Environmental statement, which will accompany our DCO application. Outcome N N
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on planning and development 23.5.63 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on planning and development during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on planning development Table 23.5.21 Objections, issues and concerns to address the effects on planning and development during construction Ref 23.5.64 Objections, issues and concerns Need to take into account new development along the high road, like the Sillions/Merryweather site, Norman Road and between Norman Road and the entrance to the DLR station, all of which will contain housing. Respondent ID 8467 No. 1 Our response We are undertaking an environmental impact assessment, which will include a comprehensive assessment of likely significant effects arising from the proposals on existing and proposed residential developments. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. Outcome N
Socio-economic
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to socio-economic effects 23.5.65 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to socio-economic effects during construction.
23-23
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects Table 23.5.22 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects during construction Ref 23.5.66 Objections, issues and concerns Effect on the local economy and employment; in particular local businesses. Respondent ID LR9187LO No. 1 Our response As detailed in our PEIR (volume 26, section 10), two businesses located on the site would require relocation during construction. The Environmental statement that will be submitted as part of our DCO application will assess likely significant effects of business relocation. We will assist the directly affected businesses with finding alternative locations or premises to relocate. Landowners may have a statutory entitlement to claim compensation for the diminution on the value of their property due to the construction of the tunnel. In addition to the statutory process we have published an Exceptional hardship procedure which sets out how we will assess claims from householders who contend that they are suffering exceptional hardship as a result of being unable to sell their property because it is potentially impacted by the currently published Thames Tunnel project proposals. We have also published A guide to the Thames Tunnel compensation programme which sets out details of compensation that would be available during construction arising from damage or loss, for required protection measures, and for compulsory purchase. Your comments in relation to rat running are noted and will be taken into consideration in developing our transport plans for this site. We would put appropriate measures in place to control traffic in this area and do not believe that a police presence would be required. Outcome N
23.5.67
Effect on property prices.
LR9184LO, 8835
23.5.68
Proposals will create increased 7530 opportunities for anti-social behaviour and the police cannot keep a permanent presence on the street to deter rat running in the local area. Effect of construction activities on quality of life. Effect of construction activities on residential amenity. LR9184LO LR9184LO, 7309, 7406
23.5.69 23.5.70
1 3
Our PEIR (volume 26) provides a preliminary assessment of N the likely significant effects of the project on a range of topics, including noise and vibration, air quality (including dust emissions) and odour, and transport, based on a methodology that has been agreed with the RBG. A full assessment of likely significant effects will be provided in the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. Where likely significant effects are identified we would put mitigation measures in place 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 health and well-being and possible effects within the population. The findings of this study will inform the design for this site as well as mitigation measures to address any significant effects.
23-24
Ref 23.5.71 23.5.72 23.5.73
Objections, issues and concerns Proximity of the construction site to residential properties. The area around the constructions site is densely populated. Proximity of the construction site and the associated effect on the community and social amenities such as local schools. Extent and duration of construction works in a predominantly residential area. Effect of construction activities on the local community.
Respondent ID 7309 LC LC
No. 1 1 1
Our response Our site selection process, as detailed in our Site selection methodology paper included an assessment of the shortlisted sites against five 'community' considerations to help determine their suitability. They included 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 26, section 10) provides a preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of the project on residential amenity and concludes there could be significant effects, but that the effects are likely to vary during the works. We are preparing an Environmental statement that will be submitted as part of our DCO application. The Environmental statement will assess the likely significant effects of the proposed development and make recommendations for mitigation. We consider that we have undertaken a thorough and comprehensive consultation exercise. We carefully considered the information we made available at our phase two consultation to ensure that consultees had sufficient information to respond to the consultation. Details of our proposals were set out in our site information paper and a preliminary assessment of the likely significant socioeconomic effects was set out in our PEIR (volume 26, section 10). We are confident therefore that the information we have provided is sufficient.
Outcome N N N
23.5.74 23.5.75
7309 7406
1 1
N N
23.5.76
More information is needed on socioeconomic effects.
7309
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects 23.5.77 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 23.5.23 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effect during construction Ref 23.5.78 Objections, issues and concerns Provide appropriate compensation. Respondent ID LR9184LO No. 1 Our response Landowners may have a statutory entitlement to claim compensation for the diminution of the value of their property due to the construction of the tunnel. In addition to the statutory process we have published an Exceptional hardship procedure which sets out how we will assess claims from householders who contend that they are suffering exceptional hardship as a result of being unable to sell their property because it is potentially impacted by our currently published proposals. We have also published a Guide to the Thames Tunnel compensation programme which sets out details of compensation for damage or loss, required protection measures and compulsory purchase that Outcome N
23-25
Ref 23.5.79
Objections, issues and concerns Ensure acceptable minimal impacts on nearby residents.
Respondent ID GLA
No. 1
Our response would be available during construction. We have completed a preliminary assessment of the likely significant socio-economic effects of our proposed works and a full assessment will be provided as a part of our DCO application. Where significant effects are identified we will set out appropriate mitigation measures to minimise the effects of our works.
Outcome N
Structures and utilities

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to structures and utilities 23.5.80 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to structures and utilities during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to structures and utilities Table 23.5.24 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to structures and utilities during construction Ref 23.5.81 Objections, issues and concerns Effect on national rail and DLR viaducts. Respondent ID GLA No. 1 Our response The location of the railway and DLR is a factor that has influenced our proposals for this site. We will continue our discussions with relevant stakeholders including TfL as part of our design development process. We do not consider the presence of the viaduct to be a factor that would preclude development at this site and would take it into account in implementing our construction works. Outcome N
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities 23.5.82 23.5.83 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities during construction.
Townscape and visual

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to townscape and visual effects 23.5.84 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to townscape and visual effects during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to townscape and visual effects Table 23.5.25 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to townscape and visual effects during construction Ref 23.5.85 Objections, issues and concerns Effect of construction activities and structures on the character of the local area. Respondent ID 7862 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 that would ensure that the construction site would be well operated and maintained. Measures to minimise likely significant effects upon the character of the site during construction, such as using suitable screening around the construction site will be set out in the CoCP and Environmental statement to be Outcome N
23-26
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response submitted with our DCO application.
Outcome
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address effects on townscape and visual 23.5.86 23.5.87 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address effects on townscape and visual during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address effects on townscape and visual No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to the measures proposed to address effects on townscape and visual during construction.
Transport and access

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to transport and access 23.5.88 No supportive or neutral feedback comments in relation to transport and access during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access Table 23.5.26 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access during construction Ref 23.5.89 Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID No. 1 Our response As part of our PEIR (volume 26, section 12) we have assessed 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 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 RBG 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. Any diversions to footpaths would be agreed with the RBG. As a part of this process we would be required to put suitable measures in place to ensure that any diversions are safe for all users. Outcome N
The potential transport effects will be greater 7108 than those set out in the consultation material. Increased traffic congestion has not been properly addressed by the phase two consultation; public access to the river pathway during the works. 7108
23.5.90
23.5.91
Proposed diversions of other footpaths are unsuitable as access is required to the builders merchant site to the north for excavated material storage and access will be required through the arches. Effect of disruption, diversion or closure of pedestrian or cycle route, including the important footpath currently running from Norman Road to the Ha'penny Hatch footbridge (and thence to Creekside). Construction traffic will cause traffic congestion. Construction traffic will exacerbate existing traffic congestion.
RBG
23.5.92
8859LO, 7679
23.5.93 23.5.94
GLA, LC 7406, 8829
2 2
Access to this site is proposed via Norman Road, as N illustrated in the site information paper. We are reviewing the proposed routes that construction traffic would use as part of N our transport assessment. If the transport assessment
23-27
Ref 23.5.95 23.5.96
Objections, issues and concerns Construction traffic will affect access to the local area. Effect of construction traffic on residential amenity.
Respondent ID 7347 LR9184LO, 7308, 7309
No. 1 3
Our response identifies any potential likely significant effects arising from congestion we will develop mitigation measures to minimise the effects of any disruption. We are also developing a CoCP (a draft was provided as part of our phase two consultation), which will include requirements for a Traffic management plan to ensure that construction traffic is carefully controlled in order to minimise any potential likely significant effects on the road network including access to the local area, as well as setting out construction traffic routes, site access/egress points, signage and monitoring procedures. As part of our PEIR (volume 26, section 12) we have assessed 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 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 RBG and TfL. The PEIR was available as part of our phase two consultation. We acknowledge that this is a preliminary assessment. We are preparing a full Transport assessment for submission as part of our DCO application. The Transport assessment will consider the cumulative effects of our works with other strategic developments in the local area. We do not envisage that construction traffic would cause any damage to local roads as, where possible, we would use the major road network which is designed and built to handle this type of traffic. We would monitor the likely significant effects on other roads used by our construction vehicles to ensure that any damage that is directly attributable to the project is quickly repaired. Measures to ensure the restoration of roads to their existing condition is set out in our draft CoCP (published at phase two consultation).
Outcome N N
23.5.97
Construction traffic will cause road damage from such sustained heavy duty use.
LC
23.5.98
Proposed site access is unsuitable; 8859LO inefficient connection between the site and Phoenix Wharf. No access under the viaduct is assumed.
We have carefully considered the options for access to the N site and believe that the proposed access is suitable, as the TfL road network is designed and built to handle this type of traffic. The railway viaduct has arches underneath it, and the public footpath rises above natural ground level towards the footbridge over Deptford Creek. We are considering how the design of our site can ensure that the transportation of excavated material (slurry) from the shaft to Phoenix Wharf could be piped so that it would not interrupt use of the footpath. Construction of a pipeline
23-28
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response Outcome under the footpath would mean that we would not need to transport materials by road between the two parts of the site. Our contractor would be required to put in place a Traffic management plan and any required highway layout modifications to facilitate access to the site and minimise disruption to the traffic. We do not believe that access to this site would be dangerous. We will continue to discuss our proposals with the local highway authority and our DCO application will demonstrate compliance with appropriate design and safety standards. N
23.5.99
Proposed site access is dangerous given proximity of the altered vehicular access under the DLR railway bridge to the pedestrian access to HHB.
RBG
23.5.100 Local roads on the Millennium Quay development are narrow and unsuitable for use by construction vehicles. 23.5.101 Effect of construction traffic on road safety.
8554
The site has good access to the major road network which is N designed and built to handle this type of traffic. We are reviewing the proposed routes that construction traffic would use as part of our transport assessment. We will design site accesses and operate all of our N 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), which will include requirements for a Traffic management plan to ensure that construction traffic is carefully controlled to minimise any potential likely significant effects on the road network including access to the local area, as well as setting out construction traffic routes, site access/egress points, signage and monitoring procedures. The transport assessment will also review data in relation to recent accidents. The proposals will be subject to independent external review by TfL and the local highway authority to ensure proposed highway layouts and vehicle movement arrangements are as safe as possible. We carefully considered the information we made available at our phase two consultation to ensure that consultees had sufficient information to respond to the consultation. The information was based on our preliminary transport assessment, which is still being developed, and we will be discussing the details further with TfL and the RBG to ensure that any likely significant transport effects are identified within the Environmental statement to be submitted as part of our DCO application. N
GLA
23.5.102 More information is needed on construction transport effects, including Creekside footpath and how materials are proposed to be transported from the Greenwich Pumping Station site to Phoenix Wharf.
8859LO, 7292, 7309
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access 23.5.103 No supportive or neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effect of transport and access during construction.
23-29
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access Table 23.5.27 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access during construction Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID 7307, 7679, 8534, 8835 No. 4 Our response 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, reinstatement of public rights of way as well as details on our working hours and the way we would manage our workforce. These measures have been taken into account in our preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of the project. Our site information paper (available at phase two consultation) sets out our proposed site accesses for the construction works. Where possible, we have sought to use existing access points to minimise the need for works in the highway and to minimise effects on existing trees. Our proposals include a separate entrance and exit for the Phoenix Wharf site to the north of the railway viaduct, and light vehicle and pedestrian only use of the existing access to the pumping station. As part of the design development for this site we have undertaken swept path and turning circle analysis to ensure that the proposed project complies with appropriate design and safety standards. Our testing has included articulated vehicles that would deliver tunnel lining segments, which are likely to be the largest vehicles that would visit this site. We consider the proposed site accesses to be appropriate for the proposed works. As set out in our Transport project information paper we would require most construction staff to travel to and from the site by public transport. At this site some on-site parking would be provided as some shift workers would not be able to use public transport to travel to and from the site for evening and early morning shifts. 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, reinstatement of public rights of way as well as details about our working hours and the way we would manage our workforce. These measures have been taken into account in undertaking our preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of the project. We are currently preparing an Environmental statement that will assess likely significant effects and we are discussing the details of the CoCP and framework Travel plan with the Outcome N
23.5.104 More information is needed on transport mitigation; what measures will be taken to minimise disruption?
23.5.105 Provide an alternative site access that is further from access to HHB; separate access points would be required for lorries to and from the site and adequate manoeuvring space would need to be demonstrated for articulated vehicles especially if segments are to be brought to site by road; traffic should be directed to the Creek Road entrance/exit rather than to Greenwich High Road.
RBG, 9079
23.5.106 Make alternative car parking provision. Although 80 to 90 per cent of workers are anticipated to use public transport adequate parking should also be provided on site.
RBG
23.5.107 Establish traffic management plans and a logistics strategy; detailed control over site access routes used by lorries, especially rat running by contractors. 23.5.108 Establish site travel plans.
RBG, 7530
RBG
23-30
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response RBG. Our contractor would be required to submit a detailed site specific Traffic management plan and Travel plan to TfL and the RBG for approval prior to commencing works. We do not currently propose to have works in the river or use river transport at this site.
Outcome
23.5.109 Undertake navigational assessment to identify potential effects of river transport on river users and structures. 23.5.110 Use the river to transport more/all construction materials and excavated material: - precedent for river transport has already been set by other nearby developments - balance between the amount of waterborne and vehicular traffic. Use of the creek will however affect traffic on creek road with the raising of the bridge - without a disproportionate increase in cost. 23.5.111 Use the river rather than roads to transport construction materials and excavated material; tidal nature of creek does not stop barges being moored and taken out once a day at high tide. 23.5.112 Other construction transport and access mitigation; Thames Water needs to do much more work with boroughs on minimising local disruption and agreeing site access routes etc.
PLA
LC, PLA, RBG, 7347, 8467, 8829, 8875, 9079, LR9236
GLA, PLA, 7292, 8181, 8534, 8875
Where practical and cost-effective we would transport N materials by barge. At this site transporting materials by barge would be difficult because of low bridges and the tidal nature of Deptford Creek. It may be feasible to use barges at Phoenix Wharf (ie north of the railway), since this avoids the very low headroom pedestrian footbridge across Deptford Creek just south of the railway bridge. However, special low headroom tugs would be needed to avoid the need to keep opening the Creek Road Bridge (A200), which would disrupt traffic on Creek Road. While we are unable to commit to using barges, the contractor may do so. N
LC
Your comment is noted. We are working closely with local authorities to develop our proposals and will continue to do so.
Water and flood risk

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to water and flood risk 23.5.113 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to water and flood risk during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to water and flood risk Table 23.5.28 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to water and flood risk during construction Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID 9066 No. 1 Our response As set out in our site information paper, we propose to move materials to and from this site by road. As such we do not propose to construct a campshed in Deptford Creek. Outcome N
23.5.114 Effect of temporary campshed and associated operational activities in the creek and concerns at the possible disruption to sediments during construction causing accumulation in places, which could disrupt the activities or even prevent them happening if sediment prevents access. 23.5.115 Clarification of whether dewatering would be required.
9066
Dewatering would be required at this site as part of the construction works.
23-31
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk 23.5.116 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effect 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 23.5.117 No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effect on water and flood risk during construction.
23.6
23.6.1 23.6.2
Permanent design and appearance

This section sets out feedback comments received during phase two consultation in relation to proposals for the permanent design and appearance of buildings and structures at Greenwich Pumping Station that would be 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 Greenwich Pumping Station (see question 5 of the phase two 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 23.6.1 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 1 18 0 19 14 2 3 14 1 1 3 Yes No Dont know/unsure
23.6.3
As part of the phase two consultation, respondents were also asked to comment on proposals for the permanent design and appearance of Greenwich Pumping Station (see question 6 of the phase two 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 23.6.2 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 1 17 0 18 12 0 6 12 1 5 Supportive Opposed Dont know/unsure
23.6.4 23.6.5
The following sections set out the feedback comments received from respondents in connection with proposals for the permanent design and appearance of Greenwich Pumping Station. 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:
23-32
23 Greenwich Pumping Station 23.6.6
supportive and neutral feedback comments objections, issues and concerns design suggestions.
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 23.7. Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site Table 23.6.3 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site Ref 23.6.7 23.6.8 23.6.9 23.6.10 Supportive and neutral comments The design/proposals are OK/fine/ acceptable. The design/proposals are good. The proposals will enhance the local area/provide some public benefit. Support proposals because there is a good case for the re-use of the listed Beam Engine House to house the Thames Water equipment. Other qualified support: proposals are fine, except for the effect on nearby buildings, local schools and church. The designs look good, but more information is needed on the effect on local church and school, traffic noise, congestion and air pollution. Support for specific design feature: bring the listed Beam Engine House back into use and minimise the impact on the setting of other heritage assets. Other supportive comments: - you have to do what is necessary for the benefit of all concerned. Respondent ID (LR)CABE, 7406, 7679, 8181 7404 8181 (LR)CABE No. 4 1 1 1 Our response Your comments are noted and welcomed.
23.6.11
7308
23.6.12
7309
23.6.13
EH
23.6.14
7404
Your comments are noted.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site Table 23.6.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site Ref 23.6.15 Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID No. 2 Our response Your comments are noted. As part of our design process we are seeking to enhance the setting of the listed pumping station and to bring the building back into use, thereby safeguarding its future. In developing designs for this site, we have considered the effect on the listed buildings as detailed in the Design development report and Greenwich Pumping Station site information paper. Furthermore, in Outcome C
Effect of design proposals on listed EH, 7108 building(s) and/or the setting of listed building(s): - taking steps to protect the listed building - justifying the dismantling and rebuilding of two Grade II listed Coal Sheds and the
23-33
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns adaptation of the listed Beam Engine House at Greenwich Pumping Station.
Respondent ID
No.
Our response response to feedback, we are considering options for the use of the site during construction that may mean the Coal Sheds would not need to be dismantled. An assessment of the impact of our proposals on the historic environment is being undertaken as part of the environmental impact assessment process. Preliminary findings of our assessment were included in the PEIR (volume 26), which was made available at phase two consultation. The complete assessment will be detailed in the Environmental statement to be submitted as part of our DCO application. We do not propose any structure in the River Thames.
Outcome
23.6.16
Size of structure(s) within the foreshore of the River Thames is too large/there should be no structures in the foreshore. Effect of permanent design and layout on residential amenity and quality of life.
9066
23.6.17
8554
Once the site works are complete, we do not believe that the N permanent works at this site would detrimentally affect the image of the area, residential amenity, quality of life or health. As set out in our PEIR (volume 26), our scoping assessment, which was agreed with the RBG, concluded that there would be no significant operational effects arising from the site. The information that we provided for phase two consultation was based on our current designs and is illustrative of the quality of the reinstatement. As a result of the findings of the consultation we may alter our designs for our DCO application. Any consent that is granted for the development would be based on a set of plans that we would be required to deliver and the RBG would be responsible for ensuring that we comply with the approved scheme. Some details may be subject to conditions that would require us to submit further information to the RBG for approval. The exact details would be agreed with the RBG at the time of construction to take account of current requirements. We believe that our proposals for this site will deliver a legacy for the local area by bringing a listed but redundant building back into use thereby preventing it falling into disrepair and safeguarding the character of the area. Although we require Phoenix Wharf during the construction phase, our proposals for the permanent operation of the site do not include this area which we understand will be made available for redevelopment. N
23.6.18
There is no guarantee that design proposals would be delivered.
7347
23.6.19
Proposals do not create anything for the future (legacy) or bring any benefit to the local area. Negative other comment: no reference to the Phoenix Wharf site.
7307
23.6.20
8859LO
23-34
Design suggestions
Table 23.6.5 Design suggestions Ref 23.6.21 Design suggestions Design should incorporate appropriate screening; query whether the two trees south of the Coal Sheds in the visual are the ones already existing on site. These trees (if left in place) would conceal both the construction works and permanent structures and buildings. Proposals should be in keeping with and blend into the character of the local area/ minimise visual impact. Respondent ID 7406, 7801 No. 2 Our response Outcome
The phase two consultation materials for this site show the N existing trees; therefore we can confirm that they would be retained. Following construction, the only visible permanent structure on site would be the drop shaft, which would be surrounded by hardstanding and fencing. The appearance of the drop shaft would be in keeping with the operational structures that presently form part of the pumping station. We are proposing minor external works to Beam Engine House, which include bringing the building back into use. We would ensure that the visible part of the drop shaft would be in keeping with the operational pumping station site. 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 also allows us to revise our designs in response to comments and concerns. Your comments are noted and will be taken into consideration where possible in developing our proposals for this site. Thames Water acknowledges that the Greenwich Pumping Station site is an important heritage asset with a number of listed structures that can be viewed from the existing public pedestrian routes adjacent to the site. However, the site is an operational sewage pumping station and therefore has significant security and safety requirements that can only be ensured by preventing public access to the site. For this reason Thames Water does not consider it appropriate to open up public access to the site or to provide a route alongside Deptford Creek for public access. As part of the development of our design proposals for this site we will consider any opportunities to open up views of the existing pumping station building. We do not believe that improvements to road junctions or to the river wall are required by our works. Furthermore use of the Deptford Creek is constrained by the rail bridge and the creeks tidal range and ecological value. As such we do not propose any changes to Deptford Creek as part of our works. We will consider whether it would be possible to provide visitor facilities at this site, but note that this is a matter for Thames Water to address as part of the operation of the N
23.6.22
EH
23.6.23
Final site design should be informed by local consultation/available for comment.
7801
23.6.24
Design should include: - SuDS. - open up a secure public access to a further section of the creek, taking in the Coal Sheds and to link with the Reefside section of Creekside path.
7347, 8181
N N
23.6.25
Proposals should enhance the local area with improvements to road junctions or the river wall. Design should provide suitable/more/ adequate landscaping and planting. Specific design amendments including: - is there a way of making the pumping station more observable? - pedestrian access to the creek adjacent the Greenwich pumping station and Phoenix Wharf sites to link with the recently constructed footpath adjacent to the neighbouring Skillions/Merryweather Place (43-81 Greenwich High Road) - ensure that the location and design of the ventilation plant minimises noise/odour impacts on nearby residents
7307
23.6.26 23.6.27
7801 (LR)CABE, GLA, RBG, 7307, LR9491
1 5
N N
23-35
Ref
Design suggestions - examine opportunities to enhance river uses using any structures required for this project - encourage further exploration into providing public access to parts of the site for education purposes, including the listed Coal Sheds - enhance the landscape setting and biodiversity offer across the site, offering improved access to the waterway in the process.
Respondent ID
No.
Our response existing pumping station. It is also relevant to consider how facilities might be incorporated within the Creekside Centre, which is sponsored by Thames Water to maximise the viability of this operation and minimise the need for further development on the pumping station site.
Outcome N
23.6.28
Other design mitigation includes: - the location and design of the ventilation plant should ensure that any noise/odour impacts on nearby residents are minimised - examine opportunities to enhance river uses using any structures required for this project - 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 - if the facility is to serve as a viable destination for school groups, adequate visitor facilities should be provided on site.
(LR)CABE, GLA
23.6.29
Existing trees on the site should be retained/ 7406 protected.
Your comments are noted. At this site we will seek to retain as many existing trees as possible. We anticipate that the trees along the southern boundary of the site and all but two trees along Norman Road would be retained. We agree that our development should be environmentally friendly and we have incorporated a brown roof on the flat area of the ventilation building roof to encourage biodiversity.
23.6.30
Designs should be environmentally friendly/ sustainable.
7801, LR9491
23-36
23.7
23.7.1 23.7.2
Management of operational effects

This section sets out feedback comments received during the phase two consultation in relation to the management of operational effects at Greenwich Pumping Station. This includes the identification of site specific issues associated with the site once it is operational and proposals to address the effects on these issues. During phase two consultation, respondents were asked whether the site information paper had identified the right key issues associated with Greenwich Pumping Station 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 23.7.1 and 23.7.2. Tables 23.7.3 to 23.7.16 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 them had been identified. Table 23.7.1 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 1 19 0 20 11 1 8 11 1 1 7 Yes No Dont know/unsure
Table 23.7.2 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 23.7.3 Number of respondents Total 0 0 1 19 0 20 13 1 6 13 1 1 5 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 Greenwich Pumping Station 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
23-37
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 23.7.3 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the identified key issues during operation Ref 23.7.4 Supportive and neutral comments The correct key issues have been identified. Respondent ID 9079 No. 1 Our response Your comment is noted and welcomed.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the identified key issues Table 23.7.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the identified key issues during operation Ref 23.7.5 Objections, issues and concerns The scale of potential effects has not been properly assessed and/or underestimated. Respondent ID 7308 No. 1 Our response The key issues set out in the site information paper are what we consider to be the most significant issues associated with Greenwich Pumping Station once the tunnel is operational. It is not, however, an exhaustive list, and further potential issues associated with the site are set out in the PEIR (volume 26). We are undertaking an environmental impact assessment, which will include a comprehensive assessment of likely significant effects arising from the proposals. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. See response at paragraph 23.3.11 above. Outcome N
23.7.6
Key issues identified for this site would not need to be addressed and/or could be better dealt with at other alternative sites. Although the correct issues have been identified, it is unreasonable to expect local residents to accept the scale disruption that will be caused.
7309
23.7.7
7308
We do not expect that there will be any significant disruption N once the tunnel is operational. Regular maintenance checks will be undertaken as part of the existing site maintenance routine. We expect to carry out a major internal inspection of the tunnel every ten years, which is likely to take several weeks.
23-38
General feedback comments on measures to address the key issues

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues Table 23.7.5 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during operation Ref 23.7.8 Supportive and neutral comments Measures to address potential issues are satisfactory. Respondent ID 7404, 7406, 9079 No. 3 Our response Your comment is noted and welcomed.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues 23.7.9 No objections, issues or concerns were received on general feedback comments on the measures proposed to address the key issues during operation.
Air quality and odour

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to air quality and odour Table 23.7.6 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to air quality and odour during operation Ref 23.7.10 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 23.7.7 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour during operation Ref 23.7.11 Objections, issues and concerns Effect of odour arising from operation of the tunnel. Respondent ID (LR)CCW, 7406 No. 2 Our response Outcome
Our preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of N odour associated with operation of the tunnel are set out in our PEIR (volume 26, section 4), which concludes that when the tunnel is operational no significant effects are predicted in relation to odour. The ventilation facilities would be designed to minimise the release of untreated air from the tunnel system and approximately 99 per cent of the time during the average year air released from the tunnel would be treated and would not have any odours. This arrangement meets the Environment Agencys odour criteria. When the tunnel is empty the ventilation system would be operated so as to maintain a pressure lower than atmospheric pressure, which would prevent air from leaving the tunnel. This would be achieved by extracting air at specific active ventilation facilities which are currently proposed at our sites at Acton Storm Tanks, Carnwath Road Riverside, Greenwich Pumping Station and Abbey Mills Pumping Station where the air would be treated before being released through a high ventilation column. When the tunnel fills with sewage the air path throughout the tunnel would gradually be lost and air would be displaced by the rising sewage levels. This air would pass through passive filters where it would be treated before being released. 1 We consider that we have undertaken a thorough and N
23.7.12
More information is needed on air quality
7307
23-39
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns and odour effects including a diagram.
Respondent ID
No.
Our response Outcome 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, draft CoCP and Air management plan. We are confident therefore that the information we have provided is sufficient. Further assessment of likely significant effects will be undertaken as part of our on-going environmental impact assessment work and this will be reported in the Environmental statement to be submitted with our DCO application.
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour 23.7.13 23.7.14 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 key issues No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour during operation.
Historic environment
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the historic environment Table 23.7.8 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the historic environment during operation Ref 23.7.15 Supportive and neutral comments There will be limited/no permanent effect on listed building(s). Respondent ID 9079 No. 1 Our response Your support is noted and welcomed.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historic environment Table 23.7.9 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historic environment during operation Ref 23.7.16 Objections, issues and concerns Permanent effect on listed buildings or structures including concern about legacy for listed buildings. Respondent ID 7347, 7406 No. 2 Our response Bringing Beam Engine House back into operational use is considered to be a positive move to ensure the long-term well-being of the building. We are undertaking an assessment of likely significant effects on the historic environment as part of our environmental impact assessment that will identify any potential significant effects of our proposed operational activities on the setting of listed buildings and any mitigation required to address such effects. The environmental impact assessment will be reported in the Environmental statement as part of our application. Outcome N
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment 23.7.17 23.7.18 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment during operation.
23-40
Land quality and contamination

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

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) 23.7.21 23.7.22 23.7.23 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) during operation. 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 operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) Table 23.7.10 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) during operation Ref 23.7.24 Objections, issues and concerns Provision of compensation habitat, including consideration of restoration of Deptford Creek and creation of living wall. Respondent ID RBG No. 1 Our response We are not proposing to restore Deptford Creek or create a living wall. The river wall alongside the pumping station site dates from the 1860s when the pumping station was originally constructed, with later concrete raisings. Creation of a living wall could conflict with the heritage of the wall. Outcome N
Natural environment (terrestrial)

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) Table 23.7.11 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to natural environment (terrestrial) during operation Ref 23.7.25 Supportive and neutral comments Support for efforts to minimise the long-term impacts to biodiversity and secure improvements. Respondent ID LR9491 No. 1 Our response Your comments are noted and welcomed.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) 23.7.26 23.7.27 No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation. Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) 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 23.7.12 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation Ref 23.7.28 Objections, issues and concerns Provision of compensation habitat measures, including: - direct public access to the footpath from Respondent ID RBG, 7404 No. 2 Our response As stated in paragraph 6.1.3 of our PEIR (volume 26, section 6), we do not anticipate any significant operational effects on terrestrial ecosystems as a result of operations Outcome N
23-41
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns the Greenwich High Road development with landscaping linking sites that encourages diverse habitats and seeks to enhance the biodiversity value of the area - footbridges across Deptford Creek are desirable to improve accessibility to the open space. Any such bridges proposed for construction should be of a design that provides terracing that benefits biodiversity on the underside of the bridge with nooks and crannies to speed up colonisation by plants and small animals if possible - improvements to existing Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs) - planting within the site to encourage black redstarts - put nesting and roosting boxes up. Maximise opportunities to enhance biodiversity through an effective mitigation package and off-site compensation works at Greenwich High Street as part of green grid/green chain. Locate permanent works within the site to avoid sensitive and designated areas.
Respondent ID
No.
Our response and infrequent maintenance visits; therefore this has not been assessed. A full assessment will be presented in our Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. This will consider the effects of the development based on a methodology set out in our PEIR.
Outcome
23.7.29
RBG, LR9491
23.7.30
LR9491
Where possible, we will seek to locate our construction activities sensitively within our proposed construction site. Details of the measures that would be adopted for the construction will be set out in the CoCP to be submitted with our DCO application. Our contractor would be required to comply with the requirements of the CoCP.
Noise and vibration

23.7.31 No feedback comments were received in relation to noise and vibration during operation.
Open space and recreation

23.7.32 No feedback comments were received in relation to open space and recreation during operation.
Planning and development

23.7.33 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 23.7.34 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to socio-economic effects during operation.
23-42
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects Table 23.7.13 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects during operation Ref 23.7.35 Objections, issues and concerns Permanent business relocation and associated effects. Respondent ID LR9187LO No. 1 Our response The proposed development would require the permanent relocation of two businesses currently located on the northern part of the site. Given the nature of the existing businesses it is anticipated that alternative premises could be identified in the locality, meaning that jobs would likely be retained. We are currently in discussions with the businesses. Given the nature of the activities taking place on-site, it is likely that they could potentially be replicated at other sites within the area. The project layout does not preclude the redevelopment of the businesses once construction is complete, so there may be an opportunity for the businesses to return to the site at this time. Outcome N
23.7.36 23.7.37
Disturbance from future site maintenance activities. More information is needed on socioeconomic effects; specifically the impact on properties near Greenwich Pumping Station, and the effect of disruption from maintenance activities, how long, etc? Effect of site maintenance and operation on the local community.
8835 8835
1 1
23.7.38
7309
As set out in our site information paper vehicles required for N site maintenance would normally comprise a small van every three to six months. Periodically (approximately every N ten years) there would be a more detailed site inspection, which would require more vehicles, including two cranes. Given the infrequency of these inspections and the small number of vehicles involved we do not consider that there would be any effect. Furthermore all the vehicles would park on-site and all maintenance would take place in the pumping N station site.
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects 23.7.39 23.7.40 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 were received in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects during operation.
Structures and utilities

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

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

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to transport and access 23.7.43 No supportive or neutral feedback comments in relation to transport and access during operation.
23-43
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access Table 23.7.14 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access during operation Ref 23.7.44 Objections, issues and concerns More information is needed on operational transport effects, for example will the normal running/maintenance of the functional tunnel cause any disruption? How long is the regular maintenance expected to last? Respondent ID 8835 No. 1 Our response Outcome
We carefully considered the information we made available N at our phase two consultation to ensure that consultees had sufficient information to respond to the consultation. The information was based on our preliminary Transport assessment, which is still being developed, and we will discuss the details further with TfL and the RBG to ensure that any significant transport effects are identified in the Environmental statement to be submitted as part of our DCO application.
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access 23.7.45 No supportive or neutral feedback comments 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 23.7.15 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access during operation Ref 23.7.46 Objections, issues and concerns No guarantee that the mitigation proposals would be delivered including concerns around legacy for the area in which it is to be implemented, including listed items in the nearby site and Creekside Walkway. Take the opportunity to create a new permanent footpath; retention of the riverside/Creekside Walkway as a public access route. Respondent ID 7347 No. 1 Our response If a Development Consent Order is granted we would anticipate a series of requirements (similar to planning conditions) that would control the development. We expect that the requirements would ensure that the mitigation measures set out in the Environmental statement would be implemented. The site is an operational sewage pumping station and therefore has significant security and safety requirements that can only be ensured by preventing public access to the site. For this reason we do not consider it appropriate to open up public access to the site or to provide a route alongside the Deptford Creek for public access. Minor modifications to the existing site access are proposed at this site, which we believe would provide a safe vehicular access point to the site. Outcome N
23.7.47
7347, 9079
23.7.48
Provide alternative site access via Creek Road.
7292
Water and flood risk

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to water and flood risk 23.7.49 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 23.7.16 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to water and flood risk during operation Ref 23.7.50 Objections, issues and concerns Effect of site operations on activities in the creek and concerns at the possible disruption to sediments causing Respondent ID 9066 No. 1 Our response We do not propose any works to the creek. Where appropriate, likely significant effects will be assessed and recommendations for mitigation set out in the Environmental Outcome N
23-44
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID accumulation in places that could disrupt the activities or even prevent them happening if sediment prevents access. Disruption to sediments during construction could cause an accumulation which would affect the long-term activities of the Creekside Education Trust. 9066
No.
Our response statement that will be submitted with our DCO application.
Outcome
23.7.51
As set out in our site information paper we propose to move materials to and from this site by road. Therefore, we do anticipate any disruption to sediments that would affect the trust's activities.
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk 23.7.52 23.7.53 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 No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk during operation.
23.8
23.8.1 23.8.2
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. Greenwich Pumping Station therefore remains our preferred site to connect the Greenwich Pumping Station CSO to the Greenwich connection tunnel and to drive the Greenwich connection tunnel. 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 looking at options for use of the site during construction that could enable us to not have to dismantle, store and reinstate the listed coal sheds, which would reduce the impacts on the local community and environment. 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 paragraph 23.8.3 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.
23.8.3
23.8.4
23-45

Supp Report On P2 Consultation - Chapter 23 Greenwich Pumping Station

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

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 23 Greenwich Pumping Station

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

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

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

23 Greenwich Pumping Station

Thames Tunnel Supplementary report on phase two consultation

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

23 Greenwich Pumping Station

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

23 Greenwich Pumping Station

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

23 Greenwich Pumping Station

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

23 Greenwich Pumping Station

Greenwich Pumping Station

Structure of this chapter

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

23 Greenwich Pumping Station

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

23 Greenwich Pumping Station

23.3.8 23.3.9 23.3.10

7679 7108, 8673 RBG, 7347, 7679

- concern regarding inconvenience during construction

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

23 Greenwich Pumping Station

Supportive and neutral comments

- with reluctance accept the use of this site

as a long connection tunnel drive site.

Query why shortlisted sites have not been identified.

The drive strategy and associated use of

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

23 Greenwich Pumping Station

Objections, issues and concerns this site needs to be reconsidered.

GLA, 8859LO, LR9187LO, 13468

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

23 Greenwich Pumping Station

Objections, issues and concerns phase two consultation

Phoenix Wharf for mixed use

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

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

23 Greenwich Pumping Station

Alternative site suggestion

23.4.4 23.4.5 23.4.6 23.4.7

8859LO 9079 8859LO 7308, 7309

Beckton Sewage Treatment Works. Deptford Church Street.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

23 Greenwich Pumping Station

Management of construction works

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

23 Greenwich Pumping Station

General feedback comments on the identified key issues

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

23 Greenwich Pumping Station

General feedback comments on measures to address the key issues

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

23 Greenwich Pumping Station

Objections, issues and concerns

Air quality and odour

LC, LR9184LO 7308

General air pollution effects arising from construction activities.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

23 Greenwich Pumping Station

Objections, issues and concerns

Construction working hours and programme

Supplementary report on phase two consultation