PEIR Addendum - Putney - Final

7/31/2019 PEIR Addendum - Putney - Final

1/41

Preliminary environmentalinformation reportAddendum to Volume 10:Putney Embankment Foreshore

Regulations 2 and 10 of the Infrastructure Planning(Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009


2/41


3/41

Volume 10: Putney EmbankmentForeshore Addendum

Page i

Thames Tunnel

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 10: Putney Embankment ForeshoreAddendum

List of contents

Page number

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

2 Potential changes to the proposed development ......................................... 3

2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 3

2.2 Operation ................................................................................................. 3

2.3 Construction ............................................................................................ 3

3 Topics with effects unchanged from phase two ........................................... 6

3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 6

3.2 Ecology terrestrial ................................................................................. 6

3.3 Land quality ............................................................................................. 7

3.4 Townscape and visual ............................................................................. 7

3.5 Water resources groundwater .............................................................. 8

3.6 Water resources surface water ............................................................. 8

3.7 Water resources flood risk .................................................................... 9

4 Topics with materially different effects from phase two ............................ 10

4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 10

4.2 Air quality and odour .............................................................................. 10

4.3 Ecology aquatic .................................................................................. 11

4.4 Historic environment .............................................................................. 13

4.5 Noise and vibration ................................................................................ 14

4.6 Socio-economics ................................................................................... 15

4.7 Transport ............................................................................................... 16

Appendix A Plans of potential changes to the proposed development at PutneyEmbankment Foreshore ................................................................................ 19

Appendix B Plans of the phase two proposed development at Putney BridgeForeshore........................................................................................................ 20

Appendix C Noise and vibration supporting tables ............................................ 21


4/41


Page ii

List of tables

Page number

Table C.1: Additional noise and vibration sensitive receptor locations, categories and

their values/sensitivities ........................................................................... 21

Table C.2: Noise and vibration summary of construction noise impacts and theirmagnitudes during construction at receptor PB1, Star & Garter Mansions................................................................................................................. 21

Table C.3: Noise and vibration summary of construction noise impacts and theirmagnitudes during construction at receptor PB2, 1-24 Kenilworth Court . 23

Table C.4: Noise and vibration summary of construction noise impacts and theirmagnitudes during construction at receptor PB3, 31-78 Kenilworth Courtand 1-10 Richmond Mansions ................................................................. 24

Table C.5: Noise and vibration summary of construction noise impacts and theirmagnitudes during construction at receptor PB4, St Marys Church ........ 25

Table C.6: Noise and vibration summary of construction noise impacts and theirmagnitudes during construction at receptor PB5, 1-67 Putney WharfTower ....................................................................................................... 26

Table C.7: Noise and vibration summary of construction noise impacts and theirmagnitudes during construction at receptor PB6, Residential moorings atPutney Pier .............................................................................................. 27

Table C.8: Noise and vibration summary of construction noise impacts and theirmagnitudes during construction at receptor PB7, Caf 2 Putney HighStreet (proposed) ..................................................................................... 28

Table C.9: Noise and vibration summary of construction noise impacts and theirmagnitudes during construction at receptor PB8, Ruvigny Mansions ...... 29

2Assessment floor level is for a worst case scenario, which is not necessarily thehighest floor level ..................................................................................... 29

Table C.10: Noise and vibration summary of construction noise impacts and theirmagnitudes during construction at receptor PB9, Ruvigny Gardens........ 30

Table C.11: Noise and vibration summary of construction noise impacts and theirmagnitudes during construction at receptor PB10, Boat Builders ............ 30

Table C.12: Vibration impacts - construction ............................................................ 31

Table C.13: Vibration and human response - construction ....................................... 33

Table C.14: Noise and vibration effects - construction ............................................. 35


5/41



Section 1: Introduction Page 1

1 Introduction

1.1.1 The Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR )1 relating to theThames Tunnel project was subject to phase two consultation from 4November 2011 to 10 February 2012. The PEIR included a preliminaryassessment of the likely significant effects of the proposed development atthe site then known as Putney Bridge Foreshore, presented in Volume 10of the PEIR .

1.1.2 Potential changes to the proposed development at Putney BridgeForeshore, renamed and referred to in this document as PutneyEmbankment Foreshore, are under consideration in response to phasetwo consultation feedback. These are the subject of targeted consultationand comprise:

a. Moving the proposed foreshore structure approximately 30m westfrom the phase two location.

b. Modifications to the proposed temporary slipway with associatedchanges to the movement of construction traffic.

1.1.3 Plans showing the potential changes are provided in Appendix A.

1.1.4 This document forms an Addendum to Volume 10 of the PEIR . Thepurpose of this Addendum is to describe the potential changes at this sitewhich are being considered in response to comments received duringphase two consultation and to identify whether these have the potential togive rise to likely significant environmental effects not identified in the

assessment presented at phase two consultation or which are materiallydifferent. This document does not repeat information from the earlierassessment where this is unchanged. This document should be read inconjunction with PEIR Volume 10 Putney Bridge Foreshore.

1.1.5 Section 2 of this document describes the potential changes to theproposed development at Putney Embankment Foreshore. Section 3deals with those topics where these changes are not anticipated to resultin likely significant environmental effects not already identified or materiallydifferent in the PEIR at phase two consultation. Section 4 contains anupdate to the preliminary assessment for environmental topics where thepotential changes to the proposed development have the potential togenerate likely significant environmental effects which were not previouslyidentified in the PEIR or which are materially different to those identified inthe PEIR published at phase two consultation.

1.1.6 Once targeted consultation at this site has been completed and feedbackconsidered, the proposed application for a Development Consent Orderfor the project will be published in accordance with Section 48 of thePlanning Act 2008. The information published at that stage will include anEnvironmental Information Report setting out findings from theEnvironmental Impact Assessment (EIA). That document will not

1 Thames Tunnel. Preliminary Environmental Information Report (2011). Available at:http://www.thamestunnelconsultation.co.uk/
http://www.thamestunnelconsultation.co.uk/http://www.thamestunnelconsultation.co.uk/http://www.thamestunnelconsultation.co.uk/


6/41



Section 1: Introduction Page 2

comprise an Environmental Statement for the purposes of the EIARegulations, and there is no requirement to provide an Environmental Statement as part of the Section 48 publicity material. The environmentalinformation that is voluntarily to be published at that stage is intended toassist in a fuller understanding of the nature and location of the proposed

development which Thames Water intends to seek development consentfor in due course, subject to considering responses received to the Section48 publicity. A full Environmental Statement will be submitted with theDevelopment Consent Order.


7/41



Section 2: Potential changes tothe proposed development

Page 3

2 Potential changes to the proposeddevelopment

2.1 Introduction2.1.1 This section identifies the potential changes to the proposed development

at Putney Embankment Foreshore, during operation and constructionwhich have been triggered by feedback from phase two consultation.Plans showing the potential changes are presented in Appendix A. Equivalent plans showing the phase two scheme are provided in AppendixB. The operational phase and the construction phase are addressed inturn.

2.2 Operation2.2.1 The proposed development at Putney Embankment Foreshore would

remain as presented in the PEIR , with the exception of the moving of thepermanent foreshore structure, including the drop shaft and other relatedinfrastructure, to the west of the original location presented in the PEIR .The changes would also include the reconfiguration of the shape of thestructure, the location of a local electrical and control kiosk upon theforeshore structure and the reduction in size of the main electrical andcontrol kiosk situated upon Watermans Green . The existing moorings onthe Putney Bridge slipway would be retained.

2.2.2 Nevertheless the operational scheme would remain located within thesame general area of the Embankment and Lower Richmond Road.

2.2.3 The permanent foreshore structure would be situated approximately 30mfurther west than the phase two location, and therefore closer to PutneyPier (approximately 25m from this structure), and directly opposite a twostorey modern building, currently a restaurant, on the Embankment.

2.2.4 The permanent foreshore structure would cover an area of approximately0.05 ha, compared to 0.04 ha in the phase two layout.

2.3 Construction2.3.1 The construction of the proposed development at Putney Embankment

Foreshore would remain as presented in the PEIR , including measureswithin the CoCP , with the exception of the following potential changes.

2.3.2 The total construction site area, as defined by the limit of land to beacquired or used would cover a larger area than the phase two l ayout:approximately 2.1 ha (with the main site being approximately 1.4 ha andthe site of the site of the temporary slipway approximately 0.7 ha),compared to a total area of approximately 1.7 ha previously (with the mainsite being approximately 1 ha and the temporary slipway approximately0.7 ha). The potential changes would lead to an increase of 0.1 ha in thearea of foreshore required for the temporary cofferdam compared to the


8/41




Page 4

phase two layout (approximately 0.4 ha compared to approximately 0.3 haat phase two).

2.3.3 The potential changes to the construction of the proposed development atPutney Embankment Foreshore are as follows:

a. The main construction working area would extend westwards toenable construction of the permanent foreshore structure in its revisedlocation.

b. The temporary slipway would be constructed from prefabricated steeland assembled on site.

2.3.4 Site setup for the main construction site would require the temporaryrelocation of one houseboat moored at Putney Pier. It is not confirmedwhere the houseboat would be relocated to, but one option could be fromthe eastern side of the pier to the west, adjacent to an existing houseboat.This option is considered in this Addendum .

2.3.5 The river boundary for the main construction area would be formed by acofferdam, as described in the PEIR . The temporary cofferdam would belarger to take in the move in the location of the permanent cofferdam tothe west; the eastern extent would be as per the PEIR . Due to thepotential shift of the permanent foreshore structure westwards, a longerconnection culvert would be required between the existing combinedsewer overflow and the drop shaft.

2.3.6 In terms of construction access, arrangements for the main site wouldremain as per the PEIR , with traffic accessing the site via the LowerRichmond Road and Embankment. The suspension of parking on the

Embankment to facilitate access would similarly still be required.2.3.7 The site of the temporary slipway, referred to as the Putney Embankment

Temporary Slipway, would remain located within the same general area ofthe Embankment.

2.3.8 Clearance and demolition for the temporary slipway would remain aspresented in the PEIR aside from the fact that dredging would not berequired for the temporary slipway, and some further pruning of treeswould be required along the increased length of the construction workingarea for the main site.

2.3.9 It may be necessary to remove six to eight boats from their existingmoorings opposite the temporary slipway site for short periods during theconstruction and removal of the temporary slipway. It is possible that themoorings may be temporarily relocated. This would be determined indiscussion with the Port of London (PLA), London Borough of Wandsworthand the mooring owner/occupiers.

2.3.10 Prior to the commencement of the main construction works, the temporaryslipway would be constructed from prefabricated steel and assembled onsite (rather than a sheet piled granular filled structure, as presented in thePEIR ). This would require removal of part of the existing sloped slipway infront of the boat yard. The approximate area of the construction workingarea for the slipway would remain as per the PEIR at 0.7ha. Constructionwould utilise floating working platforms (rather than a filled temporary


9/41




Page 5

cofferdam, as presented in the PEIR ). The slipway would require theaugering of circular piles into the foreshore from a floating piling barge.

2.3.11 The temporary slipway would be constructed in broadly the same location,adjacent to Embankment, as presented in the PEIR , although theconstruction working area would move approximately 15m to the east, andthe eastern extent of the slipway would extend approximately 30m furthereast to create a longer structure (approximately 100 m compared to 85mat phase two). The area of the slipway would increase from 0.08ha from0.06ha. The longer structure could be accommodated in the sameworking area since the revised construction technique of a prefabricatedsteel structure would not require a temporary cofferdam, therefore allowingmore space for the slipway structure within the same working area.

2.3.12 Access arrangements for the construction of the temporary slipway wouldchange compared to those set out in the PEIR . Vehicle access to the sitewould be via Lower Richmond Road, turning into Glendarvon Street before

turning right into the Embankment and subsequently accessing the site(rather than via the Embankment as presented in the PEIR ). Vehicleswould exit the site via Embankment, turning into Thames Place and thenLower Richmond Road (as detailed in the PEIR ). The revised accessarrangements are required as the temporary slipway construction methoddoes not provide a working area in which to turn construction vehicles. Anumber of vehicle parking bays would need to be suspended along thesouthern end of Glendarvon Street to facilitate access to the temporaryslipway. This is in addition to the suspension of parking spaces on theEmbankment carriageway adjacent to the worksite required to create asafe working area, as identified in the PEIR .

2.3.13 For the purposes of this report, as stated in the PEIR , one vehiclemovement is defined as a single vehicle accessing or egressing the site.

2.3.14 Vehicle movements associated with the temporary slipway would berelatively low in number with a peak daily vehicle movement, averagedover a one month period, of approximately 6 vehicle movements. Inaddition there would be a small number of concrete deliveries(approximately two per day for two days).

2.3.15 It is proposed that barging would be used to import and remove fill for thetemporary cofferdam at the main CSO site, with peak daily barge

movements, averaged over a one month period of approximately 4barges. Overall vehicle movements would decrease from approximately8850 total movements to approximately 6700 total movements over theentire construction duration. Peak numbers would occur in late 2018 ratherthan early 2019.


10/41



Section 3: Topics with effectsunchanged from phase two

Page 6

3 Topics with effects unchanged from phasetwo

3.1 Introduction3.1.1 This section presents an update to the PEIR as it relates to Putney

Embankment Foreshore, taking account of the potential changes to theproposed development which are being considered in response tocomments made during phase two consultation. It addresses those topicswhere the potential changes under consideration are not likely to give riseto likely significant effects that are materially different compared to thosepresented in the PEIR published at phase two consultation.

3.2 Ecology terrestrial

3.2.1 The phase two assessment for terrestrial ecology can be found in Section6 of Volume 10 of the PEIR .

3.2.2 Potential changes to the proposed development of relevance to theterrestrial ecology assessment include a larger in-river constructionworking area for the main site and an increase in the number of trees thatwould require pruning.

3.2.3 Effects resulting from potential changes to the proposed developmenthave been assessed qualitatively based on professional judgement. Interms of effects on habitats, there would be an increase in the number oftrees to be pruned. However, it is not considered that the resultantsignificance of effects on habitats would change given the limitedtemporary loss of habitat. Effects therefore remain as negligible aspresented in the PEIR .

3.2.4 The potential changes would lead to a small increase in the area oftemporary landtake of intertidal habitats, which is used by wintering birdsfor foraging, therefore there would be an increased loss of foragingresource and the level of displacement would be greater. As stated in thePEIR , the value of the site for wintering birds and effects arising fromlandtake and disturbance will be assessed and reported in the

Environmental Statement .3.2.5 On the basis that the construction methods remain as presented in the

PEIR , and due to the fact that the loss of some overhanging branchesfrom adjacent trees is unlikely to prevent this habitat from being used bybats and birds in the long-term ( PEIR Volume 10 para 6.5.7), effects onbats and birds from temporary loss of habitat and temporary disturbancewould remain minor or negligible as detailed in the PEIR .

3.2.6 The operational phase has not been assessed, as in the PEIR , becausethe operational activity would remain limited to occasional maintenancevisits and there would be no operational lighting at the site.


11/41




Page 7

3.2.7 It is therefore considered that the potential changes to the proposeddevelopment would not result in material changes to the phase twoassessment of terrestrial ecology during construction or operation.

3.3 Land quality

3.3.1 The phase two assessment for land quality can be found in Section 8 ofVolume 10 of the PEIR .

3.3.2 Potential changes to the proposed development of relevance to the landquality assessment include the change in the location and area of thetemporary and permanent structures.

3.3.3 Effects resulting from potential changes to the proposed developmenthave been assessed qualitatively based on professional judgement. Thepotential changes to the development would not lead to the inclusion ofany known contaminative land uses within the site boundary, as identifiedin the baseline described within the 250m study area in the PEIR .Similarly the small change in the site location would not introduce anyadditional potential receptors that could be affected by the development.

3.3.4 Thus the non-significant effects that were identified for receptors in thePEIR , would remain with the proposed changes to the phase two scheme.

3.3.5 It is therefore considered that the potential changes to the proposeddevelopment would not result in material changes to the phase twoassessment of land quality during construction or operation.

3.4 Townscape and visual

3.4.1 The phase two assessment for townscape and visual can be found inSection 11 of Volume 10 of the PEIR .

3.4.2 Potential changes to the proposed development of relevance to thetownscape and visual assessment include the increased extent of theconstruction working area and associated extent of hoardings, and thechange in location of the permanent foreshore structure and changes inthe location and size of the electrical and control kiosks. However, interms of the assessment of townscape and visual effects, the temporaryand permanent works would remain within the same general area of

Embankment and Lower Richmond Road. No new receptors wouldtherefore be introduced.

3.4.3 Effects resulting from potential changes to the proposed developmenthave been assessed qualitatively based on professional judgement.Construction activities and methods would remain as presented in thePEIR and, whilst the size of the construction working area would increase,this change is considered to be relatively small scale. Therefore it ispredicted that there would be no change in effects on the character of thesite, surrounding character areas or viewpoints during construction.

3.4.4 Whilst the location and configuration of the operational infrastructure,

including electrical and control kiosks, would be subject to a change of


12/41


13/41




Page 9

remain the same, with no changes in effects. In terms of the operationalassessment, the beneficial effects on water quality would not change.Moderate adverse geomorphological changes as a result of permanentland take during operation were predicted in the PEIR . It is consideredthat these effects would remain moderate adverse. All other effects

remain as reported in the PEIR .3.6.4 It is therefore considered that the potential changes to the proposed

development would not result in significant changes to the phase twoassessment of surface water during construction or operation.

3.7 Water resources flood risk

3.7.1 The phase two assessment for flood risk can be found in Section 15 ofVolume 10 of the PEIR . Potential changes to the proposed developmentof relevance to the flood risk assessment include the increased area of the

temporary cofferdam, marginal increase in the area of the permanentforeshore structure and the greater constriction in channel width from thepermanent foreshore structure, due to its potential location in a slightlynarrower part of the channel.

3.7.2 Effects resulting from potential changes in the scheme have beenassessed qualitatively based on professional judgement, drawing onmodelling undertaken for the phase two scheme.

3.7.3 Both the temporary and permanent structures would be designed tomaintain the existing flood defence level, as reported in the PEIR .Therefore flood risk to the site and adjacent areas from all sources (tidal,

fluvial and surface water) would be as reported in the PEIR . The potentialchanges would not affect any sewers apart from the planned interception,so would not give rise to a change in flood risk from sewers.

3.7.4 The flow within the River Thames at Putney Embankment Foreshorewould be modified by the presence of the temporary and permanentworks. Flood storage, flood levels and scour effects resulting frompotential changes in the proposed development, and in association withother Thames Tunnel project sites, would be modelled and reported in theEnvironmental Statement if the potential changes to the proposeddevelopment proceed. Impacts on water levels and associated floodstorage implications, and impacts with respect to scour on the river bedand associated flood defence integrity will be presented in the Level 2flood risk assessment (FRA) in the Environmental Statement for this site(as per the approach taken in the PEIR ).

3.7.5 The increased area of hard standing created by the permanent workscould lead to increased runoff and therefore flooding from surface waterduring operation. However, in the PEIR this effect was predicted to benegligible and it is considered that the minimal change in the area of thepermanent foreshore structure would not change this. All other effectswould be as set out in the PEIR .

3.7.6 It is considered that the potential changes to the proposed developmentare unlikely to result in any significant changes to the phase twoassessment of flood risk during construction or operation.


14/41



Section 4: Topics with materiallydifferent effects from phase two

Page 10

4 Topics with materially different effects fromphase two

4.1 Introduction4.1.1 This section presents an update to the PEIR as it relates to Putney

Embankment Foreshore, taking account of the potential changes to theproposed development which is being considered in response tocomments made during phase two consultation. It addresses those topicswhere the changes under consideration have the potential to give rise tomaterially different effects compared to those presented in the PEIR published at phase two consultation.

4.2 Air quality and odour

4.2.1 The phase two assessment for air quality can be found in Section 4 ofVolume 10 of the PEIR .

4.2.2 Potential changes to the proposed development of relevance to the airquality assessment include a limited number of vehicles accessing thetemporary slipway construction site along Glendarvon Street and exitingvia the Embankment (whereas in the PEIR both entry and exit was viaEmbankment). The location of various construction activities which couldgive rise to dust and emissions would also change due to the potentialchange in the location of the permanent foreshore structure and thecorresponding layout of the construction working area. Similarly, duringthe operation phase the location of the ventilation column would changedue to the re-location of the permanent foreshore structure, which isrelevant to the operational assessment of odour.

4.2.3 Effects resulting from potential changes to the proposed developmenthave been assessed qualitatively based on professional judgement,consistent with the methodology applied in the PEIR . Given the change inroute for vehicles accessing the construction site of the temporary slipway,which would be via Glendarvon Street, this residential street has beenincluded as a receptor in the assessment of the potential changes to theproposed development. The limited change in location of the main sitewould not require assessment of any additional receptors. The otherreceptors identified in the PEIR remain comprehensive and appropriate.

4.2.4 Whilst some construction activities would move closer to some receptorsand further from others, these potential changes are limited in spatialextent and are not considered materially different in terms of theconstruction air quality assessment. Therefore effects associated withemissions from plant would remain as reported in the PEIR . Effects fromchanges in construction traffic routing associated with construction of thetemporary slipway would give rise to minor adverse effects fromconstruction traffic emissions on residential receptors in Glendarvon

Street. Therefore even with the addition of the receptors on Glendarvon


15/41


16/41




Page 12

4.3.6 Since construction effects on habitats assessed in the PEIR would notchange, effects on species arising from landtake and disturbance are notexpected to differ from those presented in the PEIR .

4.3.7 The potential changes to the proposed development would involve therelocation of one houseboat to a position slightly closer to the bank. Therelocation would cause disturbance to an additional area of river bed.However, since the new mooring location is associated with the existingPutney Pier, where disturbance is currently likely to be high, this would notelevate the minor adverse effect on designated sites and habitats, and thenegligible effects on fish and invertebrates associated with compactionand disturbance of the bed (as reported in Volume 10 of the PEIR at para5.5.24, 5.5.29 and 5.5.41). No effects on algae aquatic ecology receptorsare anticipated. Similarly, it is not expected that the relocation would giverise to any changes in the hydraulic regime in this area, since therelocated houseboat would be closer to the bank and therefore subject to

lower current velocities. No additional hydraulic effects on fish migrationare therefore anticipated. It is considered that the possible relocation ofthe eight moorings that may be removed during construction of thetemporary slipway would have similar negligible effects on all aquaticecology receptors, assuming that they would be relocated to an area withexisting moorings and associated disturbance. If however the mooringswere to be located in an area of previously undisturbed river bed and bankthen an assessment of effects would be undertaken and reported in theEnvironmental Statement should the potential changes proceed.

4.3.8 During operation, the area of permanent landtake from intertidal habitatswould increase to 0.05ha from 0.04ha. Given this is a marginal increasethe assessment of effects arising from permanent landtake on designatedsites and habitats are considered to remain minor adverse as reported inthe PEIR . The loss of this habitat as a resource for fish and invertebrateswould also remain negligible for the same reason.

4.3.9 Encroachment of the temporary cofferdam and permanent foreshorestructure into the River Thames may impact the hydraulic regime of theriver and affect the migratory movements of fish. Encroachment from thetemporary cofferdam would remain at approximately 40m as in the phasetwo layout, and would extend to the same point in the river, thereforealthough there would be a slight increase in area there would be no

change in impact. Encroachment from the permanent foreshore structurewould remain at approximately 13m, although this would occur in anarrower part of the channel so could have a greater effect. As in thePEIR , the effects associated with this potential impact will be assessedusing a predictive modelling technique and reported in the Environmental Statement . Modelling for the potential changes to the proposeddevelopment will be considered if they are progressed. Therefore noassessment of effects on fish migration is presented here.

4.3.10 Overall, whilst different and additional impacts have been introduced in theassessment as a result of the potential changes to the proposed

development, itself a material issue, it is considered that these impactswould not alter the overall effects on aquatic ecology receptors.


17/41


18/41


19/41




Page 15

moorings at Putney Pier (Table C.6) (with the latter also predicted toexperience significant vibration effects 4). This is compared to notsignificant effects predicted at these receptors in the PEIR assessment.In contrast, Nos. 1-24 Kenilworth Court (Table C.2), which was previouslypredic ted as having significant noise effects, is predicted to have not

significant effects, although vibration effects at this receptor would remainsignificant.

4.5.8 A qualitative assessment of the noise from construction traffic has beenmade. As stated in the PEIR, relatively high volumes of traffic are presenton Embankment and Lower Richmond Road, and as such a significanteffect is not anticipated for these routes. However due to the residentialnature of Glendarvon Road there are relatively low volumes of road trafficpassing through, it is considered that the increase in noise level wouldcreate a slight impact. These routes will be considered quantitatively forthe Environmental Statement .

4.5.9 Mitigation for the significant construction effects identified remains aspresented in the PEIR .

4.5.10 Construction effects for both noise and vibration for all other receptorsremain as predicted in the PEIR assessment, in terms of whether noiseand vibration effects are significant or not significant.

4.5.11 In terms of effects during operation, as detailed in para 9.6.3 of the PEIR ,it is considered that it would be possible to control noise emissions towithin appropriate noise limits defined by the local authority to preventsignificant effects. With such control measures in place, the minorlocational variations in operational equipment and maintenance activitywould not change the outcome of the operational assessment as reportedin the PEIR and no significant effects are identified at any receptors.

4.5.12 It is therefore considered that the potential changes to the proposeddevelopment, which would introduce new receptors and give rise todifferent effects on previously assessed residential receptors, would resultin material changes to the phase two noise and vibration assessmentduring construction

4.6 Socio-economics

4.6.1 The phase two assessment for socio-economics can be found in Section10 of Volume 10 of the PEIR .

4.6.2 The potential changes in the location of various construction activities, dueto the potential change in the location of the permanent foreshorestructure and layout of the construction working area, could give rise todust, emissions, noise and visual effects which would be relevant to thesocio-economic assessment. The change in location of public amenity

4 It should be noted that the levels of vibration predicted at the houseboats are based on the level of vibration

which would occur at the land location nearest to the location of the boats. The interface between the water andthe ground is likely to reduce the levels of vibration experienced by the houseboats. However, as the degree ofattenuation is difficult to predict a significant effect has therefore been identified as a worst case.


20/41




Page 16

space created by the permanent foreshore structure is also of relevance tothe assessment.

4.6.3 The potential changes to the scheme introduce a number of residentialreceptors (at Glendarvon Street) and would result in the temporaryrelocation of one residential receptor (a moored houseboat to anotherlocation at Putney Pier).

4.6.4 Socio-economic effects resulting from potential changes to the proposeddevelopment have been assessed through qualitative assessment basedon professional judgement. Effects on users of the site and surroundingarea would remain as predicted in the PEIR , given the limited change inthe location of the site, the relocation of moorings and the fact thatconstruction methods would remain as detailed in the PEIR .

4.6.5 Amenity effects on residents and businesses, resulting from noise, airquality and visual effects during construction would remain as predicted inthe PEIR assessment, although the number of receptors would increasethe overall effects are still considered of moderate adverse significance.This is on the basis that the conclusions of the air quality and visualassessments would not change (despite the inclusion of an additionalresidential receptor on Glendarvon Street see Sections 4.2 and 3.4 ofthis Addendum ). The changes in the construction noise assessment (seeSection 4.5 of this Addendum ), whereby certain receptors would besubject to different effects from those presented in the PEIR (significantinstead of not significant, and vice versa), would not change the overallconclusion of construction amenity effects being of moderate adversesignificance on residential and business receptors.

4.6.6 In the operational phase, although the location of the public amenity spacewould slightly change, the space created would be of similar size andlayout to that assessed in the PEIR . Therefore, operational effects wouldremain unchanged from the PEIR , which identified minor beneficial effectsaccruing to users of the future public amenity space created by thepermanent foreshore structure.

4.6.7 It is therefore considered that the potential changes to the proposeddevelopment would not result in material changes to the phase twoassessment of socio-economic effects during construction or operation.

4.6.8 Overall, whilst new residential receptors have been introduced in theassessment as a result of the potential changes to the proposeddevelopment, itself a material issue, it is considered that the effects onthese new receptors would not alter the overall effects on residentialreceptors.

4.7 Transport

4.7.1 The phase two assessment for transport can be found in Section 12 ofVolume 10 of the PEIR .

4.7.2 Potential changes to the proposed development of relevance to the

transport assessment include limited potential changes in constructionaccess to the temporary slipway site: two entrances would be located


21/41




Page 17

opposite the boat builders, rather than the one entrance previouslyproposed. In addition vehicles would arrive via Glendarvon Street and exitvia Embankment and Thames Place, whereas previously both access andegress was via the Embankment and Thames place. Overall there wouldbe a reduction in total construction vehicle movements. There would be

no change in operational traffic movements or numbers. Effects duringconstruction have been assessed qualitatively based on professional judgement. The receptors outlined in the PEIR , which include pedestriansand cyclists in the local area and bus, rail, river and road users andparking provision, remain appropriate for assessment of effects frompotential changes in the scheme.

4.7.3 Routing along Glendarvon Street would impact on new receptors otherthan those stated in the PEIR as follows:

a. Residents on Glendarvon Street

b. Pedestrians and cyclists on Glendarvon Street

c. Road users on Glendarvon Street

d. On-street parking on Glendarvon Street

4.7.4 Due to the low number of construction vehicle trips routing alongGlendarvon Street, the effect on residents, pedestrians and cyclists andother road users is expected to be negligible.

4.7.5 Some suspension of parking on either side of the southern end ofGlendarvon Street would be needed to allow large vehicles to undertakethe right-turn in and left-turn out of Glendarvon Street. If required thissuspension of parking would have a minor adverse effect on parkingduring construction. The effect on parking on Glendarvon Street isexpected to be minor adverse. The overall effect on parking wouldtherefore remain minor adverse as reported in the PEIR , taking intoaccount of the suspension of parking that would still be required on theEmbankment.

4.7.6 It is not considered that the limited potential changes in accessarrangements and vehicle numbers would change the transport effectsreported in the PEIR .

4.7.7 Overall, whilst new receptors on Glendarvon Street have been introducedin the assessment as a result of the potential changes to the proposeddevelopment, itself a material issue, it is considered that the effects onthese new receptors would not alter the overall effects on receptors.


22/41



Appendices Page 18

Appendices


23/41



Appendix A: Plans of potentialchanges to the proposed

development

Page 19

Appendix A Plans of potential changes to theproposed development at Putney EmbankmentForeshore

Please see individual A3 drawings as follows:

A.1 Putney Embankment Foreshore - Targeted Consultation - Demolition and SiteClearance 1 - 110-DA-CVL-PWH12-000760

A.2 Putney Embankment Foreshore - Targeted Consultation - Demolition and SiteClearance 2 - 110-DA-CVL-PWH12-000761

A.3 Putney Embankment Foreshore - Targeted Consultation - Construction Phases

- Site Setup - 110-DA-CNS-PWH12-000762

A.4 Putney Embankment Foreshore - Targeted Consultation - Construction Phases- Shaft Construction and Tunnelling - 110-DA-CNS-PWH12-000763

A.5 Putney Embankment Foreshore - Targeted Consultation - Construction Phases- Construction of other structure - 110-DA-CNS-PWH12-000764

A.6 Putney Embankment Foreshore - Targeted Consultation - Construction Phases- Temporary Slipway Construction - 110-DA-CNS-PWH12-000765

A.7 Putney Embankment Foreshore - Targeted Consultation - Permanent Works -110-DA-CNS-PWH12-000766

A.8 Putney Embankment Foreshore - Targeted Consultation - Temporary Slipway -110-DA-CNS-PWH12-000768


24/41



Appendix B: Plans of the phasetwo proposed development

Page 20

Appendix B Plans of the phase two proposeddevelopment at Putney Bridge Foreshore

Please see individual A3 drawings as follows:

B.1 Putney Embankment Foreshore - Demolition and Site Clearance 1 - 110-DA-CVL-PWH1X-000218

B.2 Putney Embankment Foreshore - Demolition and Site Clearance 2 - 110-DA-CVL-PWH1X-000219

B.3 Putney Embankment Foreshore - Construction Phases - Site Setup - 110-DA-CNS-PWH1X-000220

B.4 Putney Embankment Foreshore - Construction Phases - Shaft Constructionand Tunnelling - 110-DA-CNS-PWH1X-000221

B.5 Putney Embankment Foreshore - Construction Phases - Construction of otherstructures - 110-DA-CNS-PWH1X-000222

B.6 Putney Embankment Foreshore - Construction Phases - Slipway Construction -110-DA-CNS-PWH1X-000223

B.7 Putney Embankment Foreshore - Permanent Works - 110-DA-CVL-PWH1X-

000224B.8 Putney Embankment Foreshore - Temporary Slipway - 110-DA-CVL-PWH1X-000225


25/41



Appendix C: Noise and vibrationsupporting tables

Page 21

Appendix C Noise and vibration supporting tables

Table C.1: Additional noise and vibration sensitive receptorlocations, categories and their values/sensitivities

Ref Receptoraddresses

Buildinguse

Sensitivity

No. of noisesensitive

properties/areas

PB07 Ruvigny Mansions Residential High 15

PB08 Boat builders Retail Medium 1

PB09 Ruvigny Gardens Residential High 12

Table C.2: Noise and vibration summary of construction noise

impacts and their magnitudes during construction at receptor PB1,Star & Garter Mansions

Receptor No. of noisesensitive

properties

Value/sensitivity

Star & Garter Mansions 14 Residential

Activity Impact(noise level 1,

dBL Aeq )

Significancecriterion,

dBL Aeq

Magnitude/justification

Excessabove

criterion,dBL Aeq

Approx.activity

duration,months

Ground floor

TemporarySlipway works

46 70 -24 3

Enabling works 64 70 -6 5

Foreshore works 58 70 -22 17

Shaft sinking 58 70 -22 6Connectiontunnels

58 70 -22 3

4th Floor 2


56 70 -14 3

Enabling works 72 70 +2 5


Shaft sinking 68 70 -2 6


26/41




Page 22


properties

Value/sensitivity

Star & Garter Mansions 14 Residential


dBL Aeq )


dBL Aeq


Excessabove

criterion,dBL Aeq

Approx.activity

duration,months

Connectiontunnels

68 70 -2 3

1Construction noise only2

Assessment floor level is for a worst case scenario, which is not necessarily the highestfloor level


27/41




Page 23

Table C.3: Noise and vibration summary of construction noiseimpacts and their magnitudes during construction at receptor PB2, 1-

24 Kenilworth Court

Receptor No. of noisesensitiveproperties

Value/sensitivity

Nos. 1-24 Kenilworth Court 24 Residential

Activity Impact(noise level 1,dBL Aeq )

Significancecriterion,dBL Aeq


Excessabovecriterion,

dBL Aeq

Approx.activityduration,

monthsGround floor


45 75 -30 3




Connection

tunnels

63 75 -12 3

4th Floor 2


55 75 -20 3

Enabling works 75 75 0 5



Connection

tunnels

65 75 -10 3

1Construction noise only2Assessment floor level is for a worst case scenario, which is not necessarily the highestfloor level


28/41


29/41




Page 25

Table C.5: Noise and vibration summary of construction noiseimpacts and their magnitudes during construction at receptor PB4,

St Marys Church


Value/sensitivity

St Marys Church 1 Medium

Activity Impact(noiselevel 1,dBL Aeq )

AmbientbaselinedBL Aeq

Magnitude/ justification

Ground level


40 75 Construction noise does notexceed baseline ambient noiselevel over 3 months

Enablingworks


Foreshoreworks


Shaft sinking 52 75 Construction noise does notexceed baseline ambient noiselevel over 6 months

Connectiontunnels


1Construction noise only


30/41




Page 26

Table C.6: Noise and vibration summary of construction noiseimpacts and their magnitudes during construction at receptor PB5, 1-

67 Putney Wharf Tower


Value/sensitivity

Nos. 1-67 Putney Wharf Tower 67 Residential





dBL Aeq


monthsGround floor


40 75 -35 3




Connection

tunnels

51 75 -24 3

6th Floor 2


50 75 -25 3




Connection

tunnels

61 75 -14 3

1Construction noise only2Assessment floor level is for a worst case scenario, which is not necessarily the highestfloor level


31/41




Page 27


Residential moorings at Putney Pier


Value/sensitivity

Residential moorings 2 Residential





dBL Aeq


monthsGround floor


58 75 -17 3

Enabling works 77 75 +2 5

Foreshore works 77 75 +2 17


Connection

tunnels

70 75 -5 3



32/41




Page 28


Caf 2 Putney High Street (proposed)


Value/sensitivity

Caf 2 Putney High Street (proposed) 1 Medium




Ground Level



Enablingworks


Foreshoreworks


Shaft sinking 52 75 Construction noise does notexceed baseline ambient noiselevel over 6 months

Connectiontunnels




33/41




Page 29


Ruvigny Mansions


properties

Value/sensitivity

Ruvigny Mansions 15 Residential


dBL Aeq )


dBL Aeq


Excessabove

criterion,

dBL Aeq

Approx.activity

duration,

monthsGround Floor


50 65 -15 3




Connection

tunnels

38 65 -27 3

3rd Floor 2

Temporaryslipway works

60 65 -5 3




Connection

tunnels

48 65 -17 3

1Construction noise only2Assessment floor level is for a worst case scenario, which is not necessarily the highest

floor level


34/41




Page 30


Ruvigny Gardens

Receptor No. of noise

sensitiveproperties

Value/sensitivity

Ruvigny Gardens 12 Residential


dBL Aeq )


dBL Aeq


Excessabove

criterion,dBL Aeq

Approx.activity

duration,months

Ground FloorTemporaryslipway works

55 65 -10 3




Connectiontunnels

40 65 -25 3

1st Floor2

Temporaryslipway works

64 65 -1 3




Connectiontunnels

50 65 -15 3

1

Construction noise only2Assessment floor level is for a worst case scenario, which is not necessarily the highestfloor level


Boat Builders


Value/sensitivity

Boat Builders 1 Medium


35/41




Page 31




First Floor LevelTemporaryslipway works


EnablingWorks


ForeshoreWorks


Shaft Sinking 49 75 Construction noise does notexceed baseline ambient noiselevel over 6 months

ConnectionTunnels



Table C.12: Vibration impacts - construction

Ref Receptor Impact(highestpredictedPPV acrossall activities,mm/s)

Value/sensitivity Magnitude andjustification

PB1 Star & GarterMansions

0.2 High No impact:Below thresholdfor potentialcosmetic

damagePB2 Nos. 1-24

Kenilworth Court0.5 High No impact:

Below thresholdfor potentialcosmeticdamage

PB3 Nos. 31-78Kenilworth Courtand 1-10Richmond

Mansions

0.5 High No impact:Below thresholdfor potentialcosmetic

damagePB4 St Marys Church 0.7 Medium No impact:


36/41




Page 32

Ref Receptor Impact(highestpredictedPPV acrossall activities,mm/s)

Value/sensitivity

Magnitude andjustification

Below thresholdfor potentialcosmeticdamage

PB5 Nos. 1-67 PutneyWharf Tower

0.2 High No impact:Below thresholdfor potentialcosmeticdamage

PB6 Caf 2 PutneyHigh Street(proposed)

0.1 Medium No impact:Below thresholdfor potentialcosmeticdamage

PB7 Houseboats 1.0 High No impact:Below thresholdfor potentialcosmeticdamage

PB8 RuvignyMansions

0.5 High No impact:Below thresholdfor potentialcosmeticdamage

PB9 Ruvigny Gardens 0.3 High No impact:Below thresholdfor potentialcosmeticdamage

PB10 Boat Builders 0.3 Medium No impact:Below thresholdfor potentialcosmeticdamage


37/41




Page 33

Table C.13: Vibration and human response - construction

Ref Receptor Impact(highest

predictedVDV acrossall activities,m/s 1.75 )1

Value/sensitivity

Magnitude andjustification 2

PB1 Star & GarterMansions

0.2 1 High No impact; LowProbability ofAdverseComment

PB2 Nos. 1-24Kenilworth Court

0.6. 1 High Impact; AdverseCommentPossible

PB3 Nos. 31-78Kenilworth Courtand Nos. 1-10RichmondMansions

0.5 1 High Impact; AdverseCommentPossible

PB4 St Marys Church 0.5 Medium Non-residential -Impact; AdverseCommentPossible

PB5 Nos. 1-67 PutneyWharf Tower

0.3 1 High No impact; LowProbability ofAdverseComment

PB6 Residentialmoorings

0.7 High Impact; AdverseCommentPossible

PB7 Caf 2 PutneyHigh Street

(proposed)

0.2 Medium Non-residential -no impact Low

Probability ofAdverseComment

PB8 RuvignyMansions

0.2 High No impact; LowProbability ofAdverseComment

PB9 Ruvigny Gardens 0.2 High No impact; LowProbability ofAdverseComment


38/41




Page 34

Ref Receptor Impact(highestpredictedVDV acrossall activities,m/s 1.75 )1

Value/sensitivity

Magnitude andjustification 2

PB10 Boat Builders 0.2 Medium Non-residential -no impact LowProbability ofAdverseComment

1Worst affected floor2 Categorisation of magnitude as defined in PEIR Volume 5 Section 2


39/41


40/41


41/41

June 2012

110-RG-ENV-PWH12-000770

PEIR Addendum - Putney - Final

Documents

Transcript of PEIR Addendum - Putney - Final