ALBERT WHARF ES VOLUME 1: NON- TECHNICAL … · More specifically, ... plant trading as CEMEX UK Operations Ltd and has 42 full time employees (including 22 full time drivers and

ALBERT WHARFES VOLUME 1: NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY

July 2014

ENVIRON

Ptarmigan Riverside CW LLP and Ready Mixed Concrete (London) Ltd

Albert Wharf

Volume 1: Non-Technical Summary

Prepared for: Ptarmigan Riverside CW LLP and Ready Mixed Concrete (London) Ltd

London

Prepared by: ENVIRON

London, UK

Date: June 2014

Project or Issue Number:

UK11-17493

Contract No: UK11-17493 Issue: Final Author Sarah Cressy (signature):

Project Manager/Director Michelle Wheeler (signature):

Date: June 2014

This report has been prepared by ENVIRON with all reasonable skill, care and diligence, and taking account of the Services and the Terms agreed between ENVIRON and the Client. This report is confidential to the client, and ENVIRON accepts no responsibility whatsoever to third parties to whom this report, or any part thereof, is made known, unless formally agreed by ENVIRON beforehand. Any such party relies upon the report at their own risk.

ENVIRON disclaims any responsibility to the Client and others in respect of any matters outside the agreed scope of the Services.

Version Control Record

Issue Description of Status Date Reviewer Initials

Author Initials

1 First Issue for Client and Team Review June 2014 MW SC


ES Volume 1: Non-Technical Summary Albert Wharf

Contents Preface i

1 Introduction 1

1.1 The Site 1 1.2 EIA Process 4

2 Consultation and Scoping 8

3 Alternatives and Design Evolution 9

3.1 Do Nothing Scenario 9 3.2 Alternative Sites and Land Uses 9 3.3 Alternative Layout and Built Form 10

4 Proposed Development Description 12

4.1 Land Uses and Layout 12 4.2 Building Heights 20 4.3 Building Appearance 20 4.4 Access, Car Parking and Cycle Arrangements 20 4.5 Servicing and Waste Management 20 4.6 Landscaping and Public Realm 20 4.7 Resource Use, Emissions, Residues and Sustainability 22

5 Demolition and Construction Environmental Management 23

6 Summary of Potential Impacts 24

6.1 Socio-Economics 24 6.2 Historic Environment 26 6.3 Transport and Access 26 6.4 Air Quality 29 6.5 Noise and Vibration 31 6.6 Ground Conditions 33 6.7 Water Resources and Flood Risk 34 6.8 Ecology 36 6.9 Light Pollution 38 6.10 Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing 40 6.11 Wind 41 6.12 Telecommunications 43 6.13 Waste 43 6.14 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment 44 6.15 Cumulative Effects 47

List of Tables Table 1: Proposed Development Area Schedule 12

UK11-17493 Issue: Final ENVIRON



List of Figures Figure 1: Site Location 1

Figure 2: Surrounding Existing Land Uses 2

Figure 3: Site Redline Boundary 2

Figure 4: Existing Site Photographs 3

Figure 6: CEMEX Concrete Batching Plant Illustration 13

Figure 8: CEMEX Process Illustrations 14

Figure 9: General Arrangement Ground Floor 16

Figure 10: General Arrangement Fourth Floor 17

Figure 11: General Arrangement Eight Floor 18

Figure 12: North-South Section of Proposed Development Looking East 19

Figure 13: Landscaping Masterplan 21

Figure 14: Existing Site Habitats 37

Figure 15: Scheme Model in Wind Tunnel 41

Figure 16: Proposed Development as seen from South Bank Riverwalk at Ensign House looking north-west 46

Figure 17: Proposed Development as seen from Townmead Road/Hamble Street looking west 46

Figure 18: Location of Cumulative Schemes 47

UK11-17493 Issue: Final ENVIRON



Preface This Environmental Statement (ES) has been prepared on behalf of Ptarmigan Riverside CW LLP and Ready Mixed Concrete (London) Ltd (‘the Applicant’) in accordance with the statutory procedures set out in the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (SI 2011/1824) (‘the EIA Regulations’).

The ES relates to mixed use redevelopment proposals for Albert, Swedish and Comley’s Wharves (hereafter collectively referred to as ‘the Site’) which are located on the northern bank of the River Thames in South Fulham, London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (LBHF). The ES accompanies a full planning application (‘the Application’) made by the Applicant to the LBHF in respect of the redevelopment proposals for the Site.

The Applicant recognises that the Application falls within Schedule 2, Category 10(b) of the EIA Regulations as an ‘urban development project’ which, owing to its nature, scale and location, has the potential to give rise to significant effects on the environment. The Applicant has therefore commissioned an EIA for the Proposed Development, the findings of which are presented in this ES.

The ES comprises four volumes:

• Volume 1: Non-Technical Summary (NTS); • Volume 2: Environmental Statement Main Report; • Volume 3: Townscape, Heritage and Visual Amenity Assessment (THVAA);

• Volume 4A and 4B: Technical Appendices (including Preliminary Risk Assessment (PRA) and Flood Risk Assessment (FRA)); and

• Volume 4C: Transport Assessment (including Travel Plans), Construction Logistics Plan (CLP) and Delivery and Service Management Plan (DSMP)).

This document comprises Volume 1 of the ES.

In summary, the redevelopment proposals (‘the Proposed Development’) comprise a retained wharf operation across Comley’s and Swedish Wharves to accommodate a modernised and enhanced concrete batching plant to be operated by CEMEX, accompanied by a residential mixed-use development above the wharf operation.

The Application will be available for viewing at:

London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Planning Division, Environmental Services Department Town Hall Extension King Street London, W6 9JU

The ES comprising four volumes will be available for purchase at £10/CD copy at:

ENVIRON UK Ltd

Artillery House

11-19 Artillery Row

London, SW1P 1RT

UK11-17493 Issue: Final i ENVIRON



1 Introduction 1.1 The Site The Site of the Proposed Development is located within South Fulham on the northern bank of the River Thames, and centred on National Grid Reference 525849, 175770.

Figure 1: Site Location

More specifically, the Site is located within the South Fulham Riverside Regeneration Area which has been identified within the South Fulham Riverside Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) as an opportunity area for regeneration, providing new homes and jobs through the unlocking of unused and underused land and the reconnection of the local community with the River Thames.

The Site also lies within the Thames Policy Area and the Sands End Conservation Area (CA) which has the River Thames frontage as its focal point.

The Site’s immediate surroundings are of mixed character; however residential uses appear more prevalent as shown in Figure 2.

As shown in Figure 3, the Site is roughly square shaped and covers an area of approximately 1.45 ha of which 0.23 ha covers a portion of the River Thames

UK11-17493 Issue: Final 1 ENVIRON



Figure 2: Surrounding Existing Land Uses

Figure 3: Site Redline Boundary

The Site is currently occupied by three wharves comprising, from west to east, Albert Wharf, Swedish Wharf and Comley’s Wharf. The latter two wharves are designated Safeguarded Wharves under London Plan policy1. Figure 4 shows representative photographs of the Site.

1 Greater London Authority, January 2005. Safeguarded Wharves Implementation Report, London. GLA.




Northern Site Boundary With CEMEX Building on Comley’s Wharf and Fuel Storage Depot Entrance on Swedish Wharf

Southern Aerial View of CEMEX Concrete Batching Plant on Comley’s Wharf

Northern View of Car Auction on Albert Wharf on Western

Boundary South-Western Aerial View of Fuel Storage Depot on

Swedish Wharf

Northern View Fuel Storage Depot on Swedish Wharf and CEMEX Building on Comley’s Wharf

Southern Site Boundary With Car Auction, Fuel Storage Depot and CEMEX Batching Plant fronting the River Thames Figure 4: Existing Site Photographs




The key features of the three wharves are as follows:

• Albert Wharf, which covers an area of 0.21 ha, is in use as a car auction site trading as ‘Thameside Motor Auction’ and has four full time employees;

• Swedish Wharf, which covers an area of 0.55 ha, is in use as a fuel storage and transfer depot trading as ‘Fuel Oils Holdings Ltd’ and has two full time employees; and

• Comley’s Wharf, which covers an area of 0.44 ha, is in use as a concrete batching plant trading as CEMEX UK Operations Ltd and has 42 full time employees (including 22 full time drivers and five operators/administrative staff). The current target operating capacity of the plant is 53,000 tonnes (70,000 m3) per annum.

The Site is occupied by 12 low rise buildings (with the exception of the six storey CEMEX office block), areas of hardstanding and a number of large tanks and fuelling structures.

The Site supports very little natural or semi-natural habitat. Existing landscaping and vegetation comprises a small area of dense scrub located along the southern boundary adjacent to the River Thames and a small strip of ornamental planting along the northern boundary adjacent to Townmead Road.

Vehicular access to the Site is via an existing crossover from Wandsworth Bridge Road (A217) and from Townmead Road to the north.

Electrical supply cables, a gas main, a water main, a foul drainage station, telecommunication cables and, an electrical sub-station cross the Site or are located along the boundary.

1.2 EIA Process The Applicant has commissioned an EIA for the Proposed Development. The results of the EIA process are presented within this ES, which describes the potential impacts and likely effects of the Proposed Development during the demolition and construction stage and on completion and occupation of the Proposed Development.

This document is Volume 1 of the ES and comprises the NTS. The aim of the NTS is to summarise the content and main findings of the ES in a clear and concise manner to assist the public in understanding what the environmental impacts and significant effects of the Proposed Development.

ES Volumes 2 and 3 and the supporting technical appendices in Volume 4A and 4B provide a more detailed description of the Site, the characteristics of the Proposed Development and the findings of the ES.

1.2.1 Planning Policy Context The Proposed Development has been assessed within the context of relevant national legislation, regional and local planning policies. Planning policy has been considered in each technical chapter of the ES as appropriate for the consideration of potential impacts and likely effects.

In particular, the EIA has been undertaken by reference to the following documents:

• National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)2;

2 Department for Communities and Local Government. March. The National Planning Policy Framework. HMSO.




• London Plan (2011)3, Revised Early Minor Alterations (REMA) to the London Plan

(2013)4 and Further Alterations to the London Plan (FALP)5; and • LBHF Local Development Framework (LDF), comprising the Core Strategy (CS)6 and

the Development Management Local Plan (DM LP)7.

At the national level, the policies contained within the NPPF sets out Government's economic, environmental and social planning policies for England, and is a key driver in delivering sustainable development. On a local scale, the CS is the principal document of the LDF, it identifies the social, economic and environmental objectives for future development in LBHF.

The eastern part of the Site, Comley’s Wharf, benefits from an extant planning consent granted in February 2012 (2010/01792). This application was submitted by CEMEX UK Operations Ltd (CEMEX) and proposes the redevelopment of the wharf to modernise current operations on-site to achieve greater efficiencies, to deliver improved environmental performance and to increase target capacity to 80,000 m3 per year. The application has not yet been implemented. It is noted that as agreed with LBHF some of the planning conditions for this extant consent have been used as the basis for the setting of environmental performance levels associated with development now proposed.

1.2.2 Impact Assessment Sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Site, which have the potential to be affected by the Proposed Development have been identified. The identified receptors include:

• Existing commercial and industrial occupants of the Site; • Existing community facilities, residential occupants and commercial occupants in

proximity to the Site; • Future residential and commercial occupants of the Proposed Development and

committed or reasonably foreseeable schemes in the immediate surroundings; • Potential archaeological assets on-site; • Setting of the Conservation Areas and listed buildings; • Short, Medium and Long distance views to and from the Site; • Local Air Quality; • Local Transport Infrastructure; • Pedestrians and uses of existing and proposed amenity areas; • Water Resources; • Ecological Receptors; and • Telecommunication and Radio Signal Receptions.

The EIA has considered the potential direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the Proposed Development:

3 Greater London Authority, 2011. The London Plan Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London. London. GLA.

4 Greater London Authority, 2013. Revised Early Minor Alterations to the London Plan. London. GLA. 5 Greater London Authority, 2014. Further Alterations to the London Plan. London. GLA. 6 London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, 2011. Core Strategy, Local Development Framework. London.

LBHF. 7 London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, 2013. Development Management Local Plan. LBHF.




• Direct impacts are those which arise as a direct consequence of a project action, e.g.

the loss of habitat; • Indirect impacts are those which arise as a result of the direct impacts, e.g. the decline

in the abundance of a species as a result of the loss of habitat; and • Cumulative impacts can occur in two ways; i) those which occur as a result of the

Proposed Development in combination with other committed developments within an agreed zone of influence, and ii) those which occur as a result of different types of impacts interacting i.e. the multiplying effect arising from noise, dust and visual impacts during construction.

As part of the EIA, an iterative approach has been adopted where potentially significant environmental impacts and effects have been avoided in the first instance through the initial design, and in subsequent design refinements and iterations. This has enabled many mitigation measures to be effectively designed into the Proposed Development, thereby reducing the need for further mitigation. Where impacts and effects remained following the mitigation by design process, further mitigation measures have been identified.

The ES has reported on the residual effects, which are those effects that remain following the incorporation of any identified mitigation measures.

The assessment of residual environmental effects is important in that it informs the determination by the planning authority of the overall acceptability of the proposal. Specific criteria have been developed to define the significance of an effect, wherever possible, defined and structured as transparently as possible using the criteria listed below:

• The sensitivity of the receptor (low, medium or high); • The magnitude of the potential impact (unknown, neutral, small, medium or high); • The likelihood of the effect occurring (unlikely, likely or certain); • The duration of the effect (short, medium or long term); • The geographical extent of the impacts (local, borough, regional, national or

international); and • The reversibility of the effect (reversible or irreversible).

The significance of residual effects has been evaluated with reference to definitive standards, accepted/published criteria and legislation, where available. Where it has not been possible to quantify potential impacts and residual effects, qualitative assessments have been carried out, based on expert knowledge and professional judgement.

In order to provide a consistent approach to the presentation of the significance of residual effects, the following terminology has been used throughout the ES to describe the type/nature of residual effect:

• Adverse - detrimental or negative effect to an environmental resource or receptor; • Neutral - an effect that on balance, is neither beneficial nor adverse to an

environmental resource or receptor; and • Beneficial - advantageous or positive effect to an environmental resource or receptor.

Where adverse of beneficial effects have been identified, they have been classified according to the following scale:

• Negligible - imperceptible effect; • Minor - slight, very short or highly localised effect;




• Moderate - limited effect (by magnitude, duration, reversibility, value and sensitivity of

receptor) which may be considered significant; and • Major - considerable effect (by magnitude, duration, reversibility, value and sensitivity

of receptor) which may be more than of a local significance or lead to a breach of a recognised environmental threshold, policy, legislation or standard).

Where relevant and possible, effects have also been assigned a geographic scale; for example, local, district or regional. Effects have been predicted as either 'significant' or 'not significant'. Significant effects are considered material to the planning decision process. Based on the above, residual effects of moderate and major scale may be considered significant. The assessment of the Proposed Development has been carried out against the current baseline conditions at the Site and supplemented by relevant surveys. In accordance with relevant best practise the Transport and Accessibility, Air Quality and Noise and Vibration assessments of the ES consideration has also been given to a future baseline of 2019, which represents the year in which the Proposed Development is anticipated to be fully completed




2 Consultation and Scoping Scoping is the term used in the EIA Regulations whereby the Applicant can request a formal opinion from the local planning authority on the content of the ES and the extent of the information to be considered in the assessments. The purpose of scoping is to focus the EIA on the environmental issues and potential impacts which need the most thorough attention, to identify those which are unlikely to need detailed study and to provide a means to discuss methods of impact assessment so as to reach agreement on the most appropriate.

An EIA Scoping Report, was submitted to LBHF on 24 May 2013 in support of a formal request for an EIA Scoping Opinion. LBHF consulted both statutory and non-statutory consultees during the course of the EIA Scoping process. LBHF issued an EIA Scoping Opinion on 29 August 2013 and confirmed the key issues which needed to be assessed in the EIA. LBHF agreed to scope Solar Glare out of the EIA as the Proposed Development was considered unlikely to generate significant environmental effects in relation to these issues.

Wide ranging pre-application consultation was also undertaken with the following stakeholders over the course of several months to review the emerging development proposals:

• LBHF; • GLA; • Port of London Authority (PLA); • English Heritage; • Environment Agency; • London & Newcastle; • Barratt Developments Plc; • Fulham Society; and • Secure by Design Officers.

During the design evolution process, two sessions were held with the LBHF Design Review Panel on 23 April and 20 May 2014. The design of the Proposed Development responds to the comments received during the consultation process, particularly in relation to the maximum height of the buildings; achieving agreed noise, air quality and vibration targets; and reactivation of the safeguarded wharves located on-site.

Extensive consultation with the local community was also undertaken as part of the pre-application process. Public exhibitions were held on 28 and 29 June 2013, and on 6 and 7 of June 2014 which provided a platform to share information on the emerging scheme proposals and to solicit response and feedback from interested and affected parties, the local community, local businesses and community representatives.




3 Alternatives and Design Evolution In accordance with the EIA Regulations and Best Practice Guidance, the ES includes a discussion of the alternative development options and various constraints and opportunities which influenced the ultimate design of the Proposed Development.

The brief for the scheme from the Applicant responds to the unique nature of the Site by requiring:

• the regeneration of the existing CEMEX concrete batching plant on Comley’s Wharf and its expansion onto Swedish Wharf; and

• the integration of the Site into the changing character of the area, in accordance with prevailing local policy aspirations, by means of an exemplar mixed use development.

The EIA has considered the ‘Do Nothing’ alternative, as well as alternative sites, land uses, layouts and façade treatments.

3.1 Do Nothing Scenario The 'Do Nothing' scenario is a hypothetical alternative conventionally considered, albeit briefly, in EIA as a basis for comparing the development proposal under consideration.

The principle of redevelopment of the Site has been established by virtue of local policy and in particular by the location of the Site within the SFR Regeneration Area. Furthermore part of the Site benefits from an extant planning consent granted in February 2012 (2010/01792) to re-develop the existing CEMEX batching plant with a new and improved plant and with a target operating capacity of 80,000 m3 per annum.

In the event that the Proposed Development is not delivered, the extant consent would be implemented by CEMEX and the remaining uses on Albert Wharf and Swedish Wharf would remain unchanged, as no alternative viable scheme would be likely to come forward. As such, wide ranging regeneration, environmental enhancement and increased cargo handling opportunities would be lost.

3.2 Alternative Sites and Land Uses No alternative sites have been considered by the Applicant for the following reasons:

• The Site is owned by the Applicant as opposed to alternative sites which are the property of a third party; and

• The Applicant is seeking to optimise the Site's potential in line with SFR SPD and the extant consent to increase capacity at the existing CEMEX concrete batching plant.

The proposed land uses (residential, retail, leisure and industrial) are in accordance with those described in the SFR SPD. The Applicant proposes to retain, re-activate and consolidate the two London Plan safeguarded wharves for cargo handling uses whilst introducing new residential, retail and leisure uses in a comprehensive mixed use scheme in a sustainable use of this brownfield site.

In light of the existing CEMEX operations on-site and CEMEX’s extant consent for enhancing capacity at Comley’s Wharf, no alternative industrial land uses have been considered by the Applicant. However, to demonstrate the long term viability and future proofing of the consolidated wharves, the feasibility of an alternative industrial land use on-site (namely a Materials Recycling Facility) has been demonstrated by the Applicant in ES Volume 2 in accordance with the PLA’s request.




3.3 Alternative Layout and Built Form An extensive selection of alternative site layout (including for the jetty element and mixed-use element); built form and massing; façade and balcony options were considered throughout the design of evolution of the Proposed Development. The alternatives were explored in the context of the Site’s environmental constraints and opportunities, as well as in consultation with LBHF, PLA, GLA and the local community.

The iterative nature of the EIA assisted in adoption of key considerations to minimise impacts on the local community and wider context. A selection of the mixed use layout alternatives considered during the process is shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Site Layout Options - Mixed Use Element

In respect of the consolidated wharves layout, the first principal strategy was to locate the wharf use at ground level in the central and eastern parts of the Site (to coincide as far as possible with the existing Swedish Wharf and Comley’s Wharf footprints) and to retain the existing Comley’s Wharf access point as the main entrance to the wharf use.

The second principal strategy of enclosing the consolidated wharves within a ‘Box’ structure was maintained throughout the design evolution, as it offers the optimum in terms of maximising the opportunities of the Site and the delivery of a truly mixed use scheme, in line with South Fulham Riverside SPD, as well as minimising environmental (air quality and noise) impacts of what would essentially be an industrial use on the consolidated wharves.

A number of alternative internal layout configurations within the Box were considered in consultation with CEMEX and their design consultant to optimise operational efficiencies and minimise the potential for environmental impacts; however given the key operational




parameters of a concrete production process these alternative configurations were not substantially divergent.

The proposed positioning of the residential, retail and leisure uses above the Box structure, evolved as a result of a lengthy iterative design process. During this process, the emerging CEMEX process and layout designs were assessed (by the technical EIA specialists) in conjunction with the emerging Box design principles (above) to ensure that there would be no future land use conflict, such as excessive noise breakout affecting future residential occupiers that would endanger the long term viability of CEMEX (and other cargo handling uses) at the safeguarded wharves.

This process resulted in the identification and consideration of a number of scheme design changes, proposed mitigation measures and operational controls including inter alia:

• The number of, positioning and scale of the residential blocks; • The location of different façade treatments for the residential units (i.e. at what height

and on what facades winter gardens, sealed units and balconies are provided); • The location (height and façade) of air intakes for the Box; • The location (height and façade) of exhausts for the Box; • The specifications for exterior doors to the Box; • The specifications for the Box ventilation system; • The method of storing and moving aggregates within the Box as part of the batching

process; • The structural solution of the Box and the residential accommodation above to reduce

vibration and reverberated noise; and • Different conveyor belt configurations and jetty equipment, to that now proposed.

The preferred option for the scheme as a whole would deliver a number of environmental advantages, as well as responding to the aspirations of the LBHF CS and SFR SPD. The preferred option responds to the existing Site conditions and environmental constraints, as well as those that would arise associated with the proposed land uses on-site, thus allowing residential and industrial uses to co-exist without adversely affecting each other.

The preferred option also responds to comments received during the consultation process, particularly in relation to: the maximum height of the buildings; achieving agreed noise, air quality and vibration targets; and reactivation of the safeguarded wharves located on-site.




4 Proposed Development Description The development proposals would comprise the following key elements:

• Demolition of the existing buildings and structures on Site, including the removal of oil storage tanks, associated equipment and the current CEMEX facilities;

• Development of a mixed use scheme which retains and consolidates existing wharf uses at ground level (including the re-activation of Swedish Wharf) with residential, leisure and commercial uses above at podium level.

The description of the Proposed Development as stated on the Application Form is:

‘Redevelopment of site to provide a mixed use scheme consisting of the erection of one five storey building facing Townmead Road, one part five/part six storey building facing Wandsworth Bridge Road, one part eight and part nine storey building around a raised podium and one thirteen storey building providing a total of 233 dwellings (use class C3) and ancillary gymnasium; together with site wide energy centre; 9,875 sq/m Safeguarded Wharf including 8,069 sqm (GIA) of concrete batching plant with ancillary offices (use class B2); 823 sq/m (GIA) of retail/café/restaurant/bar floorspace (use classes A1/A2/A3/A4); new Thames Path with associated lift/stair access (to both east and west of the Site); new jetty within the River Thames to serve the wharf; associated hard and soft landscaping; private open space; vehicular access and servicing facilities; car parking and cycle parking; and other works incidental to the proposals.’

4.1 Land Uses and Layout A summary of the floorspace for the Proposed Development is presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Proposed Development Area Schedule

Land Use Number of Units/Rooms

GEA (m2) GIA (m2) NIA (m2)

Industrial (B2) - 8,224 8,069 -

Residential (C1) 233 33,361 28,407 21,069

Ancillary Residential Uses - Gymnasium

- 485 468 468

Commercial/Retail (A1/A2/A3/A4) - 889 823 796

Plant and Servicing - 13,435 12,884 -

The industrial use is proposed on the safeguarded wharves and would comprise a CEMEX concrete batching plant to be contained within a 5 – 15 m high Box structure at ground level. The Box structure would only open to a working wharf area and a suspended jetty on the River Thames in the south and to Townmead Road in the north.

Supporting residential, retail and leisure uses would be delivered in seven blocks (A-G) around and above the Box structure at podium level.

Retail uses would be delivered along Wandsworth Bridge Road and along the new river walk on the southern side of the development to animate ground floor uses. This would be supplemented by a residents’ gymnasium.

A raised river walk would be delivered to complete the missing link of the Thames Path along the River Thames.




4.1.1 Industrial Element - CEMEX Concrete Batching Plant The Proposed Development would deliver 8,224 m2 (GEA) of industrial use (B2) to be operated as a cement batching plant and ancillary offices by CEMEX. This will lead to a substantial increase in storage and operational capacity for the plant. Furthermore a suspended jetty would be delivered to increase barge capacity. The proposed wharf use would deliver:

• an annual target production capacity of 90,000 m3 of Ready Mixed Concrete (RMC); • approximately 8,500 tonnes of on-site storage for aggregates; • increased space for aggregates recycling; • improved on-site vehicle tracking; and • improved facilities for the importation of aggregates and cement by River comprising a

consolidated wharf area and suspended jetty.

Figure 6 shows an illustration of the CEMEX concrete batching plant layout.

Figure 6: CEMEX Concrete Batching Plant Illustration

The batching plant would be supported by offices that would be located at first floor level and would be accessed via separate stairwells from Townmead Road at ground level.

The processes at the CEMEX concrete batching plant can be considered in three parts, as illustrated in Figure 7:

• Aggregate handling and bulk storage; • Cement handling and bulk storage; and • Concrete manufacture.




Water collection and recycling is also a key process as concrete would be manufactured with recycled water, where ever possible.

Aggregate Handling and Bulk Storage Cement Hangling and Bulk Storage

Concrete Manufacture

Figure 7: CEMEX Process Illustrations




4.1.2 Mixed-Use Element The Proposed Development would deliver 233 residential units in a range of studio, 1, 2 and 3 bedroom apartments and townhouses.

Five of the residential blocks (Blocks C-G) would be arranged around a central courtyard, with a gap between the riverside blocks to provide a visual link to the River Thames. A further two linear residential blocks (Blocks A and B) would face onto Wandsworth Bridge Road and Townmead Road respectively. In addition, as discussed above, retail and leisure uses would be delivered along Wandsworth Bridge Road, as well as along the new river walk on the southern side of the development to animate ground floor uses.

The distribution of land uses at ground, fourth and eighth floor level is shown in Figure 8 -10, and a cross section provided in Figure 11. At roof level, private roof terraces, PV panels and biodiverse/sedum roofs would be delivered.


Ptar

mig

an R

iver

side

CW

LLP

and

Rea

dy M

ixed

Con

cret

e (L

ondo

n) L

td

ES V

olum

e 1:

Non

-Tec

hnic

al S

umm

ary

Albe

rt W

harf

Figu

re 8

: Gen

eral

Arr

ange

men

t Gro

und

Floo

r

UK1

1-17

493

Issu

e: F

inal

16

EN

VIR

ON

Ptar

mig

an R

iver

side

CW

LLP

and

Rea

dy M

ixed

Con

cret

e (L

ondo

n) L

td

ES V

olum

e 1:

Non

-Tec

hnic

al S

umm

ary

Albe

rt W

harf

Figu

re 9

: Gen

eral

Arr

ange

men

t Fou

rth

Floo

r

UK1

1-17

493

Issu

e: F

inal

17

EN

VIR

ON

Ptar

mig

an R

iver

side

CW

LLP

and

Rea

dy M

ixed

Con

cret

e (L

ondo

n) L

td

ES V

olum

e 1:

Non

-Tec

hnic

al S

umm

ary

Albe

rt W

harf

Figu

re 1

0: G

ener

al A

rran

gem

ent E

ight

Flo

or

UK1

1-17

493

Issu

e: F

inal

18

EN

VIR

ON

Ptar

mig

an R

iver

side

CW

LLP

and

Rea

dy M

ixed

Con

cret

e (L

ondo

n) L

td

ES V

olum

e 1:

Non

-Tec

hnic

al S

umm

ary

Albe

rt W

harf

Figu

re 1

1: N

orth

-Sou

th S

ectio

n of

Pro

pose

d De

velo

pmen

t Loo

king

Eas

t

UK1

1-17

493

Issu

e: F

inal

19

EN

VIR

ON



4.2 Building Heights The Box structure would be 5- 15 m in height. Block heights above and around the Box structure would range from 5 - 9 storeys with one taller element of 13 storeys marking the south-eastern riverfront.

4.3 Building Appearance The material palette for the blocks would comprise metalwork, brick, masonry and glazing. These materials have been specified to respond to the surrounding context, to reflect the use of the Site as a working wharf and to aid wayfinding.

4.4 Access, Car Parking and Cycle Arrangements The Proposed Development aims to encourage cycle and pedestrian connections with the immediate and wider surroundings and enhance the Site’s permeability and accessibility.

Vehicular access to the Proposed Development would be at ground floor level via Townmead Road, with discreet entrances provided to the residential car park and to the CEMEX concrete batching plant. The CEMEX Box would also be accessible from the River Thames for the purpose of delivery of aggregates via the new jetty located on the riverfront.

Car parking would wrap around the Box structure at first and second floor levels to deliver 122 residential car parking spaces and 22 CEMEX car parking spaces, 15 motorcycle spaces would also be provided.

The Proposed Development would provide 356 cycle parking spaces of which 318 spaces would be for residential and visitor use, and 38 spaces would be for CEMEX and staff of the proposed commercial uses.

4.5 Servicing and Waste Management All of the servicing for the Proposed Development would take place in the service yard located at ground floor level (for the residential element) or within the CEMEX Box.

A Framework Delivery and Servicing Plan has been prepared for the Proposed Development, this document identifies likely servicing and delivery requirements of the Proposed Development, as well as management measures to help minimise congestion in the local area.

Waste arising from the residential and commercial elements would be stored within dedicated waste stores, before being transferred to bin stores located in the service yard at ground level where waste would be collected twice weekly by LBHF.

An Operational Management Plan would be prepared and would establish the essential management and operating systems and the required performance standards for the services that would be provided at the Proposed Development.

4.6 Landscaping and Public Realm The Proposed Development would deliver publicly accessible landscaped areas with private amenity areas in the form of gardens, balconies or wintergardens at first floor level and above, as shown in Figure 12.




Figure 12: Landscaping Masterplan

The principal public spaces within the Proposed Development would be as follows:

• A central courtyard at fourth floor level, dominated by a large raised central lawn delivering opportunities for seating and play;

• Two linear courtyards at third floor level, parallel to Wandsworth Bridge Court and Townmead Court used primarily for access to the residential units; and




• A Thames Riverside Walk to link up with the existing Thames Path, which would be

raised above the retained wharf operation.

Dedicated children and young person’s playspace would be provided at third floor level and fourth floor level; including a dedicated area of ‘off the shelf’ play items provided within the central courtyard. However, all the open space and amenity space throughout the Proposed Development, and in particular the raised lawn, would provide informal play and recreational opportunities for children and young people.

The existing Site has been defined as land of low ecological value; it is anticipated that the proposed landscaping plan, as well as the enhancements to the river frontage, will improve the biodiversity at the Site.

4.7 Resource Use, Emissions, Residues and Sustainability An Energy Strategy has been prepared for the Proposed Development in line with best practise guidance to reduce the energy consumption and CO2 emissions. Low carbon technology, energy-efficient equipment and good design would be incorporated into the Proposed Development (including the use of a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) and incorporation of 60 m2 of PV panels) to achieve a reduction of around 40.3 % CO2 emissions would be delivered, which represents an annual saving of 211.9 tonnes of CO2 per annum.

The Proposed Development aims to achieve a ‘Very Good; Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) rating for the industrial and retail space and a Level 4 rating under the Code for Sustainable Homes for the residential units.

Water minimisation measures would comprise the adoption of a water consumption rate of less than or equal to 105 litres/person/day for the residential units and the use of two 50 m3 rainwater harvesting tanks to supply CEMEX operations.

Surface water runoff from the Proposed Development would be attenuated through the provisions of biodiverse/sedum roofs, public open space and rainwater harvesting tanks.

The Proposed Development would generate approximately 140 m3 of waste per week. As noted above adequate dedicated storage space for recyclables and non-recyclables would be provided.




5 Demolition and Construction Environmental Management

The Proposed Development’s indicative development programme is based on the assumption that development works would commence during January 2016. For the purpose of the EIA, the development works are anticipated to be undertaken over a 42 month period, with completion targeted for June 2019.

Demolition and construction works have the potential to cause temporary adverse environmental impacts from noise, emissions to air, traffic movements, waste generation and accidental spills that could affect surface water runoff, soils and ground water. Likewise the works have the potential to create construction employment, make contributions to the local economy, assist in understanding archaeological resources at the Site and remediate ground contamination.

Detailed demolition and construction method statement and specifications have not yet been prepared for the Proposed Development and construction contractors have not yet been appointed. However, the ES has established the potential broad environmental impacts associated with the works and a framework has been developed for the management of these impacts to ensure that no significant effects arise.

The framework would form the basis for a Demolition Method Statement (DMS); Construction Method Statement (CMS); and a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) to be implemented during demolition and construction works. It is anticipated that the implementation of the DMS, CMS and CEMP would be secured by means of appropriately worded planning conditions. In addition to these documents, a Construction and Logistics Plan (CLP) and Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP) will be prepared and implemented on-site. It is noted that a Framework CLP also accompanies the Application.

The CEMP will be prepared in accordance with standard best practice and regulatory requirements, as well as the LBHF’s Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Document.

More specifically, the CEMP will define relevant policies, legislative requirements, thresholds/limits, procedures, roles and responsibilities for the implementation of environmental and management controls throughout the duration of the works. The CEMP will be discussed and agreed with the LBHF in advance of works commencing on-site.




6 Summary of Potential Impacts This section summarises the technical assessments that have been undertaken as part of the EIA and their key findings. The assessments have considered and, where relevant, follow best practice methodologies defined in relevant guidance; and where guidance is not defined, prudent professional judgement have been applied.

6.1 Socio-Economics This assessment considers the potential direct socio-economic impacts related to employment levels created by the Proposed Development, the potential indirect impacts to the local economy and the potential impacts associated with the new residential population on-site, including any impact on local social and community infrastructure.

6.1.1 Baseline The Site is located in the Sands End Ward. According to the 2011 Census the population for the ward was 12,175, for the LBHF was 182,493 and for London was 8,173,941.

There is a good range of community facilities within the local area around the Site including schools, healthcare and open space.

There are seven primary schools located within 1 km of the Site, two of which are within LBHF and five across the borough boundary in the London Borough of Wandsworth (LBW). Within these schools there are 338 surplus places. The closest secondary school to the Site is Hurlingham and Chelsea Secondary School. As such there are a total of 554 surplus places across LBHF in total and 1,217 surplus places within the LBW.

The nearest GP to the Site is the Sands End Health Clinic. There are 28 GPs within six GP surgeries within 1 km of the Site. The average list size across these surgeries is 1,388. The recommended average list size is 1,800 patients per GP according to local guidance.

There are several open spaces within 800 m of the Site. The nearest open space to the Site is South Park which has excellent play and sports facilities.

The Site currently accommodates a total of 48 jobs.

6.1.1 Demolition and Construction During the demolition and construction works, the following potential impacts would arise:

• Displacement/loss of employment on-site; • Creation of direct construction employment; and • Indirect impacts on the local economy through the construction supply chain.

The construction of the Proposed Development is estimated to generate 128 full time construction jobs. Construction employment is relatively mobile and therefore it is not particularly relevant to assess the potential impacts at the local level. However when assessed at the regional level, the likely direct and indirect effects of the construction works on employment would be Negligible. Employment opportunities arising through the demolition and construction stage could be maximised through the implementation of local employment and training initiatives. This would be achieved through engagement with the LBHF Economic Development Team to identify local initiatives.

Given that the existing CEMEX operations will return to the Site, the demolition and construction of the Proposed Development would only result in the loss of six full time jobs




on Swedish and Albert Wharves. This loss of employment on-site would be Negligible at the local level.

6.1.2 Completed Development Once completed, the Proposed Development would give rise to the following impacts:

• Delivery of new housing; • Creation of a new residential population; • Loss of existing employment on-site; • Increased demand for education and healthcare facilities; • Demand for playspace; and • Increased spending by workers, shoppers and residents in the local economy.

The Proposed Development would result in the loss of some existing businesses on-site. The commercial floorspace within the Proposed Development would accommodate approximately 50 additional jobs. Considering the loss of the six jobs currently located on Albert Wharf and Swedish Wharf and the retention of the 42 jobs at the CEMEX concrete batching plant, the net additional employment effect from the Proposed Development would be 44 jobs. It is therefore assessed that the direct effect of the Proposed Development would be permanent Minor Beneficial at the local levels and Negligible at the regional level. Employment opportunities arising in the commercial end uses could be maximised through the implementation of local employment and training initiatives. This would be achieved through engagement with the LBHF Economic Development Team to identify local initiatives.

The Site is located within the SFR Regeneration Area. The delivery of new housing would contribute toward housing targets set for this Regeneration Area, and the LBHF as a whole. The direct effect of the Proposed Development in terms of its contribution to meeting housing targets would be permanent Moderate Beneficial at the local level, and Minor Beneficial at the regional level.

The residents and employees living and working within the Proposed Development would contribute to the local economy through additional household and employee spending. It has been estimated the level of additional spending generated by the Proposed Development could be up to £3 million annually, a proportion of which could be captured locally. Therefore the spending generated by new residents and employees would be permanent Minor Beneficial at the local level, and Negligible at all other spatial scales.

The residential units would accommodate approximately 420 residents, of which it is estimated there would be nine primary school aged children and three secondary school aged children. There is sufficient capacity available locally within existing education and healthcare facilities to meet any potential increase in demand arising from the Proposed Development. Therefore the likely direct effect of the Proposed Development on demand for education and healthcare facilities would be Negligible at all spatial levels.

The Proposed Development would result in demand for 320 m2 of playable space. On-site provision will be made for 3,107 m2 of communal space which includes 380 m2 of playspace. Additional facilities suitable for older children are provided within the existing open spaces within 800 m from the Site. Therefor the likely direct effect of the Proposed Development on open space and playspace would be Negligible at all spatial levels.




6.2 Historic Environment This assessment considers the potential impacts of the Proposed Development on buried heritage remains at the Site. The assessment also considers remains within the foreshore and channel of the River Thames which might be partially or wholly below water.

6.2.1 Baseline No assets of Very High importance (‘significance’), that would warrant preservation in their existing position and state, have been identified within the Site.

The Site is considered to have:

• a high potential for well-preserved plant remains within the underlying soil layers; • a moderate potential for wetland remains such as trackways, fish traps, boats and

jetties within the underlying soil layers; • a moderate potential for later medieval field boundaries, land reclamation and water

management features within the Site; and • a high potential for earlier post-medieval remains such as former river walls, footings

of former wharf buildings.

6.2.2 Demolition and Construction During the demolition and construction works, there would be potential for the works to directly impact any surviving buried heritage remains on-site.

Furthermore, the construction of a new jetty, with piles in the River Thames has the potential to indirectly impact buried heritage remains by changing the flow of the river current. This could cause scouring of the river deposits on the foreshore and in the channel, as well as redeposition, potentially exposing previously unrecorded archaeological remains.

The environmental effect of the Proposed Development on buried heritage resources would be successfully mitigated through a programme of archaeological investigation and recording prior to and during construction. Furthermore geotechnical boreholes would be evaluated. Such a programme would reduce the residual effects to Negligible.

The construction based impacts of the proposed new jetty would be successfully mitigated as part of the above strategy.

6.2.3 Completed Development There is a potential for continued indirect impacts to buried heritage assets along the River Thames foreshore once development is completed. These would take the form of scour impacts arising from permanent changes to the river flow due to the presence of permanent in-river structures (e.g. jetty).

A programme of regular monitoring and recording would be implemented to reduce the adversity of effects. It is considered that through such a programme the residual effects would be reduced to Minor Adverse.

6.3 Transport and Access This assessment considers the potential transport and accessibility impacts of the Proposed Development on various means of transport at the Site and within the surrounding area, as well as the predicted associated effects on sensitive receptors both during construction and with the completed development in place.




The scope of the assessment was defined through extensive discussions with relevant authorities including the Local Highway Authority, Transport for London (TfL) and the Port of London Authority (PLA).

6.3.1 Baseline The Site is well served by a range of transport modes (buses, underground and overground rail) and benefits from ‘moderate to good’ existing public transport accessibility as defined by TfL’s Public Transport Accessibility Level methodology.

There is a well-established network of car club vehicles in the vicinity of the Site, as well as opportunities for walking and cycling including the Thames Path River Walk and the recently extended Barclays Cycle Hire Scheme.

6.3.2 Demolition and Construction The following potential direct demolition and construction impacts would arise:

• Changes to pedestrian footways and cycle lanes (e.g. temporary closures and diversions);

• Introduction of demolition and construction workforce that would require access to public transport facilities and a safe pedestrian and cycling environment;

• Changes in traffic flow and traffic composition across the local highway network as a result of the works primarily using heavy goods vehicles (HGVs); and

• Changes to river barge movements.

The following potential indirect demolition and construction impacts would arise:

• Changes to driver delay in the form of traffic congestion caused by site traffic and/or traffic associated with road diversions and deliveries;

• Creation of dust and dirt, for example the transfer of material from construction vehicles onto the public highway;

• Disruption caused by abnormal loads routing to/from the Site; • Changes to pedestrian delay, disruption to pedestrian amenity, increased fear and

intimidation caused by possible restrictions to pedestrian access, temporary footway narrowing or diversions; and

• Risk of traffic accidents.

Site hoardings, platforms and, where needed, barriers, would be erected and maintained throughout the demolition and construction stage in order to ensure pedestrian safety on footways. This in combination with the removal of HGV movements associated with existing Site uses during the peak period of construction activity and the implementation of best practice control measures (set out within the CLP and CEMP), the residual effect of construction traffic on pedestrians and cyclists would be temporary Negligible Adverse.

It is anticipated that the majority of construction personnel would travel to/from the Site by public transport. However based on experience of similar projects, it is expected that the overall increase in public transport users, including river services, due to the demolition and construction of the Proposed Development would be temporary Negligible Adverse.

Analysis of the traffic flows associated with the demolition and construction works indicates that peak construction activity would not represent a material change from normal day-to-day operations at the existing Site. As such, temporary effects would be Negligible Adverse.




The Applicant would use reasonable commercial endeavours to maximise the use of the River Thames during the demolition and construction stage. As such further detailed logistics planning would be undertaken by the Main Contractor once appointed. Notwithstanding this, given that no barge movements have been associated with the Site in recent years, the effect would be temporary Minor Beneficial.

The assessment concludes that in respect of the potential for indirect impacts, the demolition and construction of the Proposed Development would be unlikely to result in significant effects following the implementation of identified mitigation measures.

6.3.3 Completed Development Once completed, the following direct transport impacts would arise from the Development:

• Changes in traffic flows across the local highway network due to the newly introduced land uses and provisioning of car parking on-site;

• Introduction of a new residential population that would require access to public transport facilities and a safe pedestrian and cycling environment; and

• Changes to river barge movements.

In addition the following indirect or secondary impacts would arise:

• Changes to driver delay; • Changes to river barge movements; • Impacts on the pedestrian network including pedestrian delay, pedestrian amenity fear

and intimidation; • Additional demand on the cycle network; • Additional demand on public transport facilities; • Risk of traffic accidents; and • Creation of dust and dirt, for example the transfer of material from CEMEX vehicles

onto the public highway.

The Proposed Development is not expected to result in ‘severe residual impacts’ as identified by the NPPF, or a material net uplift in traffic flows. In relation to additional servicing traffic flows, it is considered that refuse collection vehicles (commercial waste contractors and LBHF) are already on the highway network surrounding the Site collecting refuse from neighbouring residential properties and at the existing on-site occupants with the predicted additional three Proposed Development movements considered to be negligible. On this basis, it is considered that the introduction of the Proposed Development would result in a Negligible Adverse effect on the highway network and on driver delay.

The Proposed Development would deliver 122 car parking spaces, 22 of which would be for the use of CEMEX. The circulation and storage of HGV’s within the Box has been a key consideration during the design evolution of the Proposed Development. As such the layout has been configured to both simplify the internal routing of the HGVs through the Box whilst also enabling CEMEX to safely store HGVs within the Box overnight. Furthermore, the Proposed Development has been set back from Townmead Road to provide appropriate space for vehicles accessing the Site to pull clear of the highway and not to disturb free flow of traffic.

The Proposed Development would enhance conditions for pedestrians, as well as providing a new pedestrian route in the form of the River Walk. Pedestrian routes would be lit and would benefit from good natural surveillance. Furthermore, although the Proposed




Development would increase demand for cycle facilities, it would deliver cycle parking on-site with the Applicant willing to make a contribution towards the Barclays Cycle Hire Scheme. Accordingly, the effect of the completed development on pedestrians and cyclists would be Moderate Beneficial.

The Proposed Development would introduce additional passengers on the public transport networks; however the scale of this change in combination with the existing capacity of the local networks would result in the Proposed Development having a Negligible Adverse effect on public transport.

The proposed CEMEX concrete batching plant would have a target capacity of 90,000 m3 per annum. At this level, some 15,000 tonnes of cement and 100,000 tonnes of aggregates could potentially be transported via the River Thames per annum, equating to approximately 161 barge movements per annum, which is a near trebling (factor of 2.8) of the historic baseline position without a corresponding uplift in HGV movements. The assessment therefore concludes that the Proposed Development would have a Major Beneficial effect on barge movements, which would be significant. The increased use in barge movements together with the operational management measures to be employed by CEMEX, would ensure no significant effects in respect of dust and dirt on the public highway.

The assessment concludes that in respect of pedestrian delay; Public Transport Accessibility Levels; accidents and safety, the Proposed Development would have No effect.

6.4 Air Quality This assessment considers the potential impacts of the Proposed Development on air quality, arising from the demolition and construction works and during operation of the Proposed Development, including emissions arising from the proposed energy centre and road traffic. It also considers the potential impacts associated with the operation of the CEMEX concrete batching plant, and the adjacent Fulham Wharf energy centre.

The scope of the assessment was defined through extensive discussions with the Environmental Quality Officer at the LBHF. Furthermore extensive modelling and consultation was undertaken with CEMEX and their design consultant to agree the performance standards and design parameters of the proposed CEMEX plant.

6.4.1 Baseline Existing air quality conditions have been characterised by means of the results of monitoring carried out by the LBHF and neighbouring boroughs, and information published by DEFRA. Reference has also been made to a local monitoring study, and to modelling studies carried out by DEFRA and King’s College.

Existing conditions within the study area show poor air quality, and concentrations of nitrogen dioxide exceed the annual mean objective at receptor locations adjacent to Townmead Road and Wandsworth Bridge Road. The Site lies within an Air Quality Management Area designated by the LBHF.

6.4.2 Demolition and Construction During the demolition and construction works, the following potential impacts would arise:

• Dust and fine particulate matter from on-site works; and • Emissions generated by road traffic and in particular HGVs.




Potential impacts were assessed using an approach recommended by the Institute of Air Quality Management (AQM), taking into account the sensitivity of the local area and the nature and duration of the works.

During construction a package of mitigation measures (to be set out within the CEMP) would be implemented to minimise dust emissions. However, the guidance recognises that, even with a rigorous dust management plan in place, it is not possible to guarantee that the dust mitigation measures would be effective all of the time, for instance under adverse weather conditions. The local community may therefore experience occasional, short-term dust annoyance. The scale of this would not normally be considered sufficient to change the conclusion that the temporary demolition and construction effects from the Proposed Development would be insignificant.

6.4.3 Completed Development The completed Development would give rise to the following air quality impacts:

• Emissions from the energy centres (within the adjacent Fulham Wharf development and the Proposed Development);

• Emissions from additional road traffic movements; • Emissions from the operation of the CEMEX concrete batching plant; and • The introduction of new residents into an area of existing poor air quality.

The operational impacts associated with road traffic and energy centre emissions were assessed using detailed dispersion modelling. Concentrations of the key air pollutants associated with road traffic and CHP/Boiler Plant emissions (nitrogen dioxide and fine particulate matter, were determined, with and without the Proposed Development, and also took into account two scenarios relating to future road traffic background emissions (reduction and non-reduction).

The assessment demonstrates that fine particulate emission concentrations from road traffic would remain well below compliance targets, with or without the Proposed Development, and that the effects at receptors would be Negligible.

Nitrogen dioxide emissions from road traffic are predicted to exceed the compliance targets at three receptors, should projected vehicle emissions reduce in the future, in line with official forecasts. However, should projected vehicle emissions not reduce between 2013 and 2019, then the compliance targets would be exceeded at all receptors. The effects would be Negligible to Slight Adverse.

The assessment of road traffic emissions on the air quality for residents living in the Proposed Development indicates potential exceedences of the nitrogen dioxide compliance targets at the lower floors of apartments facing directly onto Townmead Road and Wandsworth Bridge Road, if it is assumed that there would be no reduction in projected vehicle emissions. As a precautionary measure, the Proposed Development would provide ventilation intakes from the rear of these apartments on these two facades.

The energy centre within the Proposed Development, in combination with the energy centre at the adjacent Fulham Wharf development, would lead to an imperceptible increase in nitrogen dioxide concentrations As such the proposed plant would have a Negligible effect on local air quality.

The emissions arising from the CEMEX concrete batching plant were also considered. A number of measures to minimise both vehicle and fugitive dust emissions have been




incorporated into the design resulting in no significant impacts anticipated. A small number of receptors within the Proposed Development would be subject to Slight Adverse effects.

The Proposed Development is consistent with the NPPF. Furthermore, the Proposed Development does not conflict with the requirements of the London Plan or the LBHF Supplementary Planning Document, nor does it conflict with, or render unworkable, any elements of the Air Quality Action Plan. The assessment also concludes that the Proposed Development is ‘air quality neutral’ as defined within Policy 7.14 of the London Plan.

The overall operational air quality impacts of the Proposed Development are therefore judged to be insignificant. This conclusion takes account of the uncertainties in future projections, in particular with regard to road traffic emissions.

6.5 Noise and Vibration This assessment considers the potential noise and vibration impacts of existing conditions on the Proposed Development and the potential impacts generated by the Proposed Development on surrounding residential properties, during both the construction and operation/occupation of the Proposed Development.

It is informed by a series of environmental noise and vibration measurements, predicted traffic flows and extensive detailed noise and vibration modelling which have proactively informed the design proposals.

The scope of the assessment, methodologies adopted and target noise and vibration criteria for the Proposed Development were agreed in consultation with the LBHF’s Environmental Health Department. In the absence of relevant or comparable target criteria, appropriate criteria were developed based on professional experience and agreed with the LBHF.

Furthermore extensive consultations were had with CEMEX and their design consultant to agree the performance standards and design parameters of the proposed CEMEX plant.

6.5.1 Baseline The existing noise climate at the Site is dominated by road traffic noise from the immediate road network around the Site.

Existing sources of vibration on-site comprise the CEMEX concrete batching plan; however the existing plant would be removed and replaced by the Proposed Development.

6.5.2 Demolition and Construction Noise predictions were undertaken to provide an estimate of the noise emissions from the Site during the demolition and construction works at the nearest sensitive receptors.

The CEMP for the Proposed Development would provide best practicable means and control measures to reduce the potential for significant demolition and construction noise. With the proposed mitigation measures incorporated into the demolition and construction design process, noise levels are predicted to remain within the noise target criterion for all works and receptor locations resulting in temporary Moderate Adverse residual effects.

The assessment concludes that demolition and construction traffic flows would be within the typical daily variations in traffic flow and would therefore have No effect on road traffic noise.

Given the distance between the proposed demolition and construction works and the nearest sensitive receptors, the assessment concludes that there is a low potential for perceptible levels of vibration at existing receptor locations. With the implementation of mitigation




measures to be set out within a CEMP, the magnitude of the potential impacts would be reduced to an absolute minimum to ensure residual effects are temporary Negligible.

6.5.3 Completed Development The completed Development would deliver residential, commercial and industrial uses at the Site, with the potential to give rise to the following noise and vibration impacts:

• Noise from the CEMEX concrete batching plant and unloading of barges from the jetty; • Noise from additional traffic flows; • Noise from the new building services plant; • Tactile vibration from the CEMEX concrete batching plant; and • Structureborne noise associated with the CEMEX concrete batching plant that could be

transferred to on-site residential units.

The assessment took into account the effect of future development within the surrounding area to future-proof residential occupants of the Proposed Development from the likely future levels of noise.

Vibration and noise level measurements at comparable plant operating at existing CEMEX sites in Battersea, Stepney and Chiswick were undertaken for comparable activities and operations to those of the Proposed Development. This, together with vibration/noise emitting characteristics of internal sources provided by equipment manufacturers and the proposed internal layout of the CEMEX Box structure, formed the basis of the noise and vibration modelling.

The assessment concludes that the noise within on-site residential units would deliver the LBHF’s design criteria and thus Negligible effects are anticipated. Wintergardens or sealed windows would be installed at dwellings on façades most exposed to environmental noise, such as those on the riverside and along Wandsworth Bridge Road.

Subject to the implementation of mitigation, predicted changes in noise levels on the road network as a result of changes to traffic flows and from static and building services plant would have No to Negligible effects on existing and future sensitive receptors.

The noise levels within the proposed external amenity areas are predicted to be well below the LBHF required 55dB limit and accordingly, it is considered that these areas would provide a high quality, acoustically protected external environment. The only exception is the southern extent of the western courtyard space overlooking the River Thames, where levels of up to 60 dB are predicted. However suitable mitigation would be delivered to reduce noise levels to less than 55 dB and therefore meet the requirements of LBHF. Accordingly, the residual effects would be Negligible.

The Proposed Development would meet the LBHF noise limits at all existing off-site sensitive receptors; in fact the proposals to enclose the CEMEX operations, which currently operate on an open site, would assist in reducing received noise from this source. Effects would be Negligible.

In addition to reducing the noise from the CEMEX operations, the Proposed Development would screen future sensitive receptors at Fulham Wharf from road traffic noise generated by Townmead Road and Wandsworth Bridge Road. The Proposed Development would therefore have No effect on these future sensitive receptors.

Modelling results indicate that subject to the implementation of the mitigation measures, resultant tactile vibration levels would be in line with the target criteria as detailed within




relevant guidance, and resultant structureborne re-radiated noise levels would meet the target levels agreed with the LBHF. Although an exceedance of this target is predicted as a result of the use of the Material Handler when clearing out the wedge pits, this effect would be mitigated via the management of wedge pit clearing to ensure activities are undertaken at less noise sensitive times i.e. during normal office hours. This requirement would be set out within the concrete batching plant’s Operational Management Plan, which would be secured by means of an appropriately worded planning condition. On this basis, the residual effect would be Moderate Adverse, but not significant.

6.6 Ground Conditions This assessment considers the geological and hydrogeological setting of the Site, the potential for ground contamination associated with past and current uses, as well as the potential risks arising during redevelopment.

6.6.1 Baseline There is a medium to high potential for contamination at the Site given its current use and long industrial history which includes a fuel depot and concrete works.

The Site has been identified as potentially contaminated by the LBHF under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

6.6.2 Demolition and Construction During the demolition and construction works, the following potential impacts could arise:

• Contaminated dust emissions, ground gases and/or odours generated during earthworks which could present a potential health risk to sensitive receptors;

• Direct contact with potentially contaminated soils and groundwater which could present a potential health risk to on-site workers;

• Accidental oil and fuel spills which could contaminate soil, groundwater and surface water;

• Infiltration of polluted runoff or disturbance of ground contamination (known or unexpected) which could affect ground and surface waters;

• Leaching of contaminants into the drainage network; and • Piling and ground disturbance which could create a pathway for any contaminants at

the surface (if present) into the underlying ground and affect controlled waters.

Supplementary geotechnical and environmental investigation works would be conducted across the entire Site to characterise ground conditions, inform the detailed structural design of the Proposed Development and determine the need for remediation. In addition, a minimum of three months gas and groundwater monitoring and would be carried out.

In light of the proposed mitigation measures that would be implemented as part of the Proposed Development, (site investigation and remediation (if required); piling risk assessment; safe working practices; Asbestos Management Survey; demolition, excavation and piling provisions, etc.) the predicted residual effects on human health and other sensitive receptors would be temporary Negligible Adverse.

In the event that contaminated soils are found at the Site, the Proposed Development would represent an opportunity to remove or remediate such soils, resulting in permanent Minor Beneficial effects.




6.6.3 Completed Development The completed Development would have the potential to give rise to the following impacts:

• Piling and foundations could create pathways through which contaminants could continue to migrate;

• Ground gases could ingress and present a potential health risk to site occupants; • Contamination of the drainage system could continue to occur from contaminated

groundwater infiltration; • Pathways could be created through which pollution of groundwater and the River

Thames could occur; • Future site users and residents could come into contact with contaminants; and • Neighbouring land could be affected if contaminant migration pathways are created by

the Proposed Development.

Once completed the Proposed Development would not introduce potential contamination sources or create contaminant-pathway-receptor pollution linkages on-site. The Site's drainage strategy would ensure that there is no adverse impact to the drainage system and would include the installation of an oil-water interceptor.

Accordingly the residual effects from the completed development are considered to be Negligible to Minor Beneficial.

6.7 Water Resources and Flood Risk This assessment considers the potential impacts of the Proposed Development on surface water quality and hydrology.

6.7.1 Baseline The nearest watercourse to the Site is the River Thames, which is partly within and also immediately to the south of the Site boundary. This stretch of the river is tidal and as such, the water quality of the river is not classified by the EA under the General Quality Assessment Scheme.

There are no licensed fresh surface water abstractions within the study area.

The Site is location within Flood Zone 3 but is defended from flooding by the TTD.

6.7.2 Demolition and Construction During the demolition and construction works, the following potential impacts could arise:

• Direct impacts of engineering works to the water environment including destruction of river bed habitat, scour and sediment mobilisation associated with the construction of the proposed jetty and re-enforcement to the riverwall;

• Contamination of surface water from silt-laden runoff across the construction site and from stockpiles;

• Contamination of surface water by polluting substances (e.g. fuels and chemicals) from accidental spillages and other wastes during general construction activity;

• Contamination of surface water from contaminated excavated material and mobilisation of contaminants during piling and de-watering operations; and

• Water consumption during the construction works.




Although there would be potential for sediment mobilisation at the river bed as a result of the jetty construction and river wall reinforcements, this would be temporary and occur over a relatively short timeframe. Furthermore as the River Thames is tidal at this point, there is continuous flux through the reach meaning that river bed sediments would re-equilibrate after construction works are complete. The composition of the tidal foreshore also reduces the potential for mobilisation. Accordingly, the residual effect on the river bed is considered to be temporary Negligible Adverse.

During the development works, management controls to minimise the risk of accidents, ensure safe handling and storage of potentially hazardous materials and prevent pollution would be implemented as part of a CEMP. The mitigation measures to be set out in the CEMP would also ensure that pollution pathways are not created and residual, temporary effects are significantly reduced. All runoff derived from construction drainage on-site would discharge into Thames Water combined sewers. Site investigations works would be undertaken in advance of earthworks commencing. In the event that contaminated soil and/or groundwater is found, the Site would be remediated in consultation with LBHF and the EA. Any remediation strategy would ensure that the residual effect on the surface water quality is reduced to Negligible Adverse.

Subject to the implementation of mitigation measures to prevent environmental impacts from water consumption and wastewater flows during the demolition and construction works, effects of the Proposed Development would be temporary Minor Adverse.


• Flooding of the Site from tidal, fluvial, artificial water bodies, groundwater and surface water;

• Increased surface water runoff volumes leading to flood risks off-site; • Changes to surface water quality as a result of sediment transport, river morphology,

navigation and flow conveyance from the introduction of the proposed jetty; • Changes to surface water quality from routine operations and discharges including

potential scour of the Thames river bed/bank from direct discharges; • Increase in water demand from the Site to supply the new occupants; and • Increase in discharge volumes of effluent to foul sewer.

The Site is at a low risk of flooding. Flood risks from other sources (pluvial, groundwater, sewers) are also been determined to be low. Post-development, this level of flood risk would be maintained by ensuring the defences remain in place and are upgraded as necessary through the project lifespan. Residual effects from flood risks to the Proposed Development would therefore be Negligible Adverse.

The Proposed Development would manage surface water runoff using sustainable drainage systems and would ensure site-derived runoff does not have an impact on flood risks on-site or elsewhere. Approximately 75 % of surface water runoff discharge would be direct to the River Thames, which is high sensitivity; however the magnitude of the impact would be small. In the context of the size of the River Thames, the residual effect of surface water runoff would be Negligible Beneficial.

The frequent use of the jetty during operation is likely to prevent significant sediment deposit at the margins of the jetty and therefore would maintain the channel capacity. In view of the width and depth of the river and the relatively limited width of tubular piles to be constructed




plus the overall context of the annual volumes of flux in the River Thames and the heavily-modified nature of the riparian environment, the magnitude of impacts is considered to be small. The residual effects from the jetty to the river once operational are therefore classified as Minor Adverse.

There would be no impacts to the river bed during operation as a result of the riverwall reinforcements as disturbance associated with the installation of the reinforcement ties would be temporary, with the trenches backfilled once the ties are in place. Accordingly, the residual effect on the river bed is considered to be Negligible Adverse.

To reduce the risk of surface water contamination from routine surface water runoff, once the Proposed Development is complete, oil interceptors would be incorporated as appropriate within the drainage systems of any access roads, car parking and delivery areas. The existing Trade Effluent Consent for the CEMEX concrete batching plant would be retained with no changes. The residual effects on surface water runoff quality would be Negligible Adverse.

The Proposed Development would increase the number of occupants on-site, and would therefore increase water demand and foul drainage requirements. It is proposed that these increases would be offset by the adoption of a variety of water-saving measures in order for the Proposed Development to meet relevant sustainability standards.

The magnitude of water supply impact is uncertain but considered to be so small as to be Negligible in the context of overall water resources for the Thames region.

Foul discharges would be to Thames Water sewers, which are low sensitivity. Whilst the Proposed Development would lead to an increase in foul drainage, this would be offset through proposed surface water management on-site which would greatly reduce the overall flow to combined sewers. The residual effect of foul drainage would therefore be Negligible Beneficial.

6.8 Ecology This assessment considers the potential impacts of the Proposed Development on ecological and nature conservation receptors at the Site and within the surrounding area.

Consultation with the EA was undertaken on the scope of the ecological surveys, ecological baseline conditions at the Site and the range of potential ecological enhancement options that could be delivered as part of the Proposed Development.

6.8.1 Baseline There are no statutory designated sites that will be directly or indirectly affected by the Proposed Development; however it is noted that the River Thames and Tidal Tributaries Site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation (SMINC) lies partially within the Site.

The Site is dominated by buildings and hardstanding (as shown in Figure 13) and is of overall low ecological value. The species recorded on-site are common and found in similar locations across London. Although the Site does not support any protected species, common species of bats were recorded commuting/foraging along the River Thames.

The only feature of any note is the tidal mud area alongside the River Thames foreshore. However, the tidal mud at this location is very restricted in size, being confined to a narrow strip, extending 10 m from the vertical riverwall and not more than 50 – 60 m either upstream or downstream. Furthermore, due to the tidal regime at this location the tidal muds will only be exposed during relatively short durations. In addition, both Swedish and Comley wharves




are currently fully operational with Comley’s Wharf having received regular barge and tug movements associated with the cargo handling in the past. Consequently the foreshore at this location has experienced disturbance from propeller scour and from barges grounding on the foreshore.

Figure 13: Existing Site Habitats

A preliminary invertebrate appraisal concluded that the tidal zone presents a significantly limited resource for invertebrates that are associated with tidal mud and makes only the smallest of contributions to the wider macrohabitat complement and consequently is of limited value to any avifauna.

Fishery data obtained from the EA recorded a number of species within this stretch of the River Thames, of particular note was the area around Wandsworth, which is known to be a key site for smelt spawning on the tideway.

6.8.2 Demolition and Construction During the demolition and construction works, the following potential impacts may arise:

• Loss of existing habitats on-site, including dense scrub and ornamental planting; • Temporary loss of existing habitats on-site, namely the river bed; • Disturbance (such as increased noise, dust generation, lighting, vibration and human

activity and vehicle movement) to terrestrial and aquatic species and habitats; • Temporary habitat creation for black redstart, due to a temporary abundance of bare

ground and rubble following demolition that is suitable for foraging and breeding individuals;

• Disturbance of sediment within areas which can function as nursery and foraging habitats for juvenile fish; and

• Accidental spillage resulting in pollution entering the River Thames.




The construction of the new jetty, which is required to improve the navigational access to the safeguarded wharves (Comley’s and Swedish), and works to the riverwall would result in the physical loss of a very small area of tidal foreshore (essentially the footprint of the piles). The impact on the River Thames SMINC, riverwall and foreshore habitat and the species that they support, would be Negative and significant at the local level only.

Following the implementation of mitigation measures (including the appropriate timing of demolition and piling works), the demolition and construction works would have No significant impact on statutory designated sites, breeding birds, bats or invertebrates.

Although the Site has been assessed to be of overall low ecological value, with hardstanding and buildings dominant, the loss of buildings and vegetation on-site would temporarily remove potential bird nesting habitat. As new habitats would take some time to establish, the demolition and construction works are considered to have a temporary Negative impact, which would be significant at the site level only.


• Disturbance (such as human activity, lighting and vehicle movement) to terrestrial and aquatic species and habitats;

• Creation of new habitats on-site; • Changes in surface water quality as a result of polluting run-off/discharges and/or

increased litter during the occupancy of the Proposed Development; and • Loss of existing habitats on-site, namely the river bed.

The completed development would have no significant impact on the statutory designated sites. However, potential impacts associated with the jetty, which would comprise shading of the tidal foreshore and erosion/deposition of material around piles, are likely to have a Negative impact, which would be significant at the site level only.

A range of appropriate mitigation and enhancement measures would be implemented to improve both terrestrial and aquatic habitats. The creation of new habitats would have a Positive impact which would be significant at the site level only.

6.9 Light Pollution This assessment considers the potential impacts of the Proposed Development in respect of obtrusive light or light pollution to sensitive receptors surrounding the Site due to artificial light which would be introduced to ensure safety and well-being of users of the Site. It also considers the potential impacts of existing lighting upon the future residents of the Proposed Development.

The scope of the assessment and lighting levels to be achieved were agreed in consultation with the LBHF.

6.9.1 Baseline Lighting measurements undertaken at the Site and within the surrounding area confirms that the Site is located within a well-lit area which is typical of its urban context.

6.9.2 Demolition and Construction The following potential impacts are likely during the demolition and construction stage of the Proposed Development:




• Demolition of existing buildings and consequent removal of existing sources of

illumination; • Installation of temporary floodlighting at the construction site which would likely include:

- Task lighting at height to allow construction of the Proposed Development; - Lighting of the contractors compounds; - Security lighting; and - Car Park lighting (if provided on-site).

The installation of temporary floodlighting has the potential to cause:

• Upward light causing sky glow; • Obtrusive light trespass into windows of sensitive residential receptors; • Source light intensity from floodlights directed at sensitive receptors causing glare; and • Spill light on sensitive ecological receptors.

The assessment concludes that Sky Glow due to floodlighting (including security lighting) during on-site works, particularly during the winter months (due to the reduced hours of daylight), would result in a temporary Minor Adverse effects on all residential, ecological and amenity receptors.

Light Trespass and Glare would be mitigated by the use of appropriate luminaires orientated to distribute light to the task and minimise light trespass outside the Site boundaries. The Proposed Development would therefore have a temporary Negligible effect to residential receptors at Battersea Reach and a temporary Minor Adverse effect at other residential, ecological and amenity receptors.


• Remodelled building form and landscape with potential light sources at different heights and locations. Potential new sources of obtrusive lighting would comprise: - Functional street lighting; - Amenity lighting of the communal spaces; - External task lighting associated with the CEMEX concrete batching plant and its

associated jetty Amenity Lighting along the Thames Path; - Lighting from Ground Floor Retail units; and - Lighting from residential units.

The new sources of obtrusive lighting would have the potential to cause:

• Upward light causing sky glow; • Obtrusive light trespass into windows of existing sensitive residential receptors; • Source light intensity from floodlights directed at sensitive receptors causing glare; and • Spill light on sensitive ecological receptors on the River Thames.

As none of the Proposed Development’s buildings would be deliberately illuminated, no building illuminance impacts are considered likely. As the CEMEX concrete batching plant would be contained within an enclosed Box structure it is considered unlikely that the internal lighting of the Box structure would give rise to significant impacts.




The completed development would remove the existing sources of obtrusive light from Comley’s Wharf but would in turn introduce a new built form with occupied residential units, lit amenity space, lit access points and task lighting at the CEMEX concrete batching. Considering the mitigation measures that would be adopted as part of the Proposed Development’s design, including the outline lighting strategy that accompanies the Application and the detailed lighting strategy that will be prepared, Negligible to Minor Adverse effects on residential, ecological and amenity receptors are anticipated, which are not considered to be significant as a result of the completed development.

6.10 Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing This assessment considers the potential impacts of the Proposed Development on:

• daylight and sunlight availability at adjacent existing residential properties; • daylight and sunlight availability to residential properties proposed on the Site; and • amenity areas and public open space proposed within the Site and surrounding the

Site.

6.10.1 Baseline The relatively low scale of development currently on-site and therefore open outlook, in particular from Speckman House, which is by far the largest of the neighbouring properties, means that existing daylight and sunlight availability to most neighbouring residential buildings is good.

The open nature of the outlook is not typical of that which would reasonably be expected in this urban environment, and in accordance with relevant guidelines a Notional Mirror Scheme, standing opposite Speckman House, has also been considered as an alternative to the existing baseline conditions.

6.10.2 Demolition and Construction The demolition of existing site buildings would have little noticeable effect on daylight to neighbouring residential buildings in terms of daylight and sunlight availability. Overshadowing would reduce when shadows are at their longest but would barely be relevant. The residual effect would be temporary Minor Beneficial.

As the buildings are built out daylight, sunlight and overshadowing would a constantly changing scenario. There could possibly be a short period when the combination of a rising building and external scaffold would create greater daylight, sunlight and overshadowing impact. However modern methods of construction diminish the need for external scaffold. The residual effect would be temporary Negligible Beneficial.

6.10.3 Completed Development The result of a great deal of design development with the architect has ensured that the Proposed Development would be as responsive as possible to the daylight and sunlight availability to neighbouring residential buildings when related to their baseline condition. The residual effects on surrounding residential receptors would be as follows:

• Daylight - Negligible, with Minor Adverse effects to Speckman House; and • Sunlight - Negligible, with Minor Adverse effects to Speckman House.

When consideration is given to the Notional Mirror Scheme, in accordance with relevant guidelines, the outcome of daylight and sunlight to all neighbouring residential properties, including Speckman House, would be:




• Daylight – Negligible; and • Sunlight - Negligible.

Analysis confirms that the Proposed Development’s residential accommodation would benefit from good daylight, with residual effects to 93.59 % of the accommodation analysed as Beneficial.

Sunlight availability to any Proposed Development in London is always difficult to achieve in accordance with relevant guidelines. Despite this, the proportion of main living rooms receiving sunlight would be commensurate with relevant guidelines, when consideration is given to the inevitable site and urban constraints. This inevitably leads to a Minor Adverse effect.

Similarly, the form and layout of the Proposed Development would minimise the effects of overshadowing. This would provide an outcome for the on-site amenity area with a good proportion of shade-free area (sunlight on the ground). This would be in compliance with relevant guidelines. The residual effect would be Beneficial.

Similarly, overshadowing to neighbouring private amenity areas would remain almost unaltered and in accordance with relevant guidelines. The residual effect would be Beneficial.

6.11 Wind This assessment considers the potential impacts of wind upon pedestrian comfort and pedestrian safety (of the general public passing the Site, as well as future occupants of the Proposed Development) and strong wind occurrences.

Wind tunnel testing of both the existing Site and Proposed Development was undertaken to quantify the wind microclimate at the Site prior to and post redevelopment. A photograph of the model in the wind tunnel is provided in Figure 14.

Figure 14: Scheme Model in Wind Tunnel




6.11.1 Baseline At the Site, the prevailing wind direction throughout the year is from the south-west. There is a secondary prevailing wind from the north-east during the spring.

Wind tunnel testing of existing receptor locations, confirm that existing wind conditions on-site and in the immediate surrounding area are suitable for a mix of sitting and standing activities.

6.11.2 Demolition and Construction The following potential impacts are likely during the demolition and construction stage of the Proposed Development:

• Increased windiness throughout the Site due to the reduction in shelter created by the removal of the existing buildings; and

• Reduction in the down-draughts from the facades of the existing CEMEX office building, resulting in a decrease in local wind speeds around the base of the building

The assessment concludes that the likely effects of the demolition and construction works, with the inclusion of a 2.4 m high site hoarding around the perimeter of the Site as proposed, would be Negligible Adverse at worst due to the type of activity undertaken during the works.


• A change in the general conditions around the perimeter of the Proposed Development due to the new building form and height; and

• An incompatibility between the local wind environment and the desired wind environment at newly created amenity space, building entrances or pedestrian thoroughfares.

The assessment concludes that during the windiest season, the predicted wind conditions within and around the completed Proposed Development at ground level would be suitable for sitting, standing/entrance use and leisure walking. Thoroughfares within and around the Site would be suitable for their desired use, representing a Negligible to Moderate Beneficial effect.

Building entrances would be suitable for standing/entrance use or sitting during the windiest season, representing a Negligible and Minor Beneficial effect at these receptor locations respectively.

Most amenity areas within the Site at podium and upper terrace level would be suitable for sitting during the summer season, with the exception of six receptor locations in the central courtyard at podium level and four receptor locations on terraces exposed to localised channelling of winds, where conditions would locally be suitable for standing/entrance use or (in one instance) leisure walking during the summer. The potentially adverse impacts could be readily mitigated by localised screening and landscaping to be delivered by the Proposed Development's landscape proposals, and the residual effect is therefore expected to be Negligible Adverse.

Occasional strong winds would occur at three receptor locations at ground level (mainly during the winter season); however as these areas are thoroughfares, such winds are not expected to cause a nuisance to pedestrians passing through. On the upper terraces, two receptor locations experience occasional strong winds. The proposed screening noted




above in relation to wind comfort would also be expected to reduce or eliminate the occurrence of strong winds at these locations. Furthermore, it can be noted that most occurrences of strong winds are expected to occur on the windiest days during the winter season, when amenity areas such as these would not regularly be in use.

6.12 Telecommunications This assessment considers the potential impacts and likely effects of the Proposed Development on local television (TV) and radio broadcast reception.

The assessment concludes that the Proposed Development is unlikely to cause any interference to digital terrestrial TV services (Freeview), based on the current good reception conditions and the lack of sensitive receptors utilising low mounted antenna systems in areas where signal shadowing could occur. During the Digital TV Switchover, DTT transmission powers increased and transmission modes changed to ensure better coverage in urban areas. The Proposed Development would therefore have No Effect on telecommunication receptors.

6.13 Waste This assessment considers the potential waste generation impacts of the Proposed Development, during both the demolition and construction works and upon completion and operation of the Proposed Development, in the context of sustainable waste management principles.

6.13.1 Baseline The existing site occupants and uses generate relatively low quantities of general municipal waste and industrial waste streams which are collected by the LBHF and private contractors.

6.13.2 Demolition and Construction The Proposed Development would generate demolition and excavation waste from on-site activities. It is anticipated that the:

• demolition and excavation of existing buildings at the Site would result in 20,000 m3 of waste (of which approximately 2,129 m3 of the concrete elements and 1,140 m3 of brickwork would be reused on-site), as well as approximately 43 tonnes of steel reinforcement, frame and metals; and

• construction works would result in 7,248 m3 of waste (an average of 201.3 m3 per month over the approximate 36 month construction period).

Where possible, materials would be re-used at site or recycled off-site. Furthermore the implementation of a construction site waste management plan and prudent site practices would facilitate the minimisation, re-use and recycling of waste to avoid unnecessary landfilling during the demolition and construction works. With the implementation of these mitigation measures, as well as the commitment to achieve wider sustainability targets, temporary Minor Adverse residual effects are predicted to arise at the site level, temporary Negligible Adverse effects at the local level, and temporary Negligible Adverse effects at the regional level.

6.13.3 Completed Development The Proposed Development would give rise to 53.59 m3 (10.72 tonnes) of household and 87.04 m3 (17.41 tonnes) of commercial and industrial waste per week. This represents a




substantial increase in quantities of waste compared to the existing site uses (approximately six times the current estimated level of site waste generation).

However it is considered that the provision of sufficient recycling and waste facilities within the Proposed Development, as well as the implementation of a Delivery Servicing Plan would facilitate greater levels of recycling to be achieved at the Site. Furthermore CEMEX would continue its current best practice off-site recycling practices. It is therefore considered that at a Site level the Proposed Development's residual effect on waste generation would be Minor to Moderate Adverse, and not significant. At the local/regional levels the increase would be Negligible Adverse.

6.14 Townscape, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment This assessment considers the potential for the Proposed Development to affect the townscape character and visual amenity of the existing Site, its existing and future surroundings, as well as the capacity of identified existing and future sensitive receptors to accommodate the likely change.

6.14.1 Baseline The Site is located at the southern edge of the LBHF between Townmead Road and the River Thames immediately east of Wandsworth Bridge. It is occupied by buildings of low architectural quality, with poor quality of frontages to adjacent roads and the river edge, and lack of public access across the Site.

The Site displays a utilitarian/industrial townscape character with the overall visual quality low. It has a significant detrimental effect on the townscape quality of the surrounding area and the significance of the Sands End CA in which the Site is located.

There is a clear division between the scale and form of development located on the riverside and that located further inland. The townscape character of the river is dominated by the large scale residential schemes which have been developed in recent years, although there are still some sites occupied by industrial uses or by relatively recent retail development.

The nearest significant public open space in the area around the Site (other than associated with the river) is South Park.

There are no significant heritage sensitivities. The Sands End CA, which covers the Site, is unusual in that it contains little built form of historic interest.

6.14.2 Demolition and Construction During the demolition and construction process, the most significant impacts would be associated with the presence of tower cranes and construction plant. Taking into account the best practice mitigation measures that would be adopted at the Site, the residual effects would be temporary Adverse and Minor to Moderate in significance with respect to the Site, surrounding townscape character areas, the Sands End Conservation Area and the setting of heritage assets and visual amenity, but not significant.

6.14.3 Completed Development The Proposed Development would replace a generally low quality built environment with a clearly ordered, high quality development that is appropriately scaled for its context. It would represent an appropriate response to its location and would be strongly beneficial in urban design and townscape terms.




The Proposed Development would redevelop the Site with a scheme of a high quality of design which retains the safeguarded wharves, and would improve the built edge to Wandsworth Bridge Road, Townmead Road and the river edge. It would also provide a new section of the river walk.

Upon completion, the overall scale of the Proposed Development would be comparable with nearby existing and emerging developments. Although it has some elements taller than nearby buildings, they are not taller by an order of magnitude. The manner in which the taller element, southern end of Block F, is located would help to break up the built edge along the riverside with an appropriately sited high point. The overall form and appearance of all blocks, but particularly A, D and F which have large glazed openings in the brick grid framework to their river facing elevations, would help to break up the scale of the development

The Proposed Development would therefore result in permanent change to the Site’s physical condition and character and permanent indirect changes to the townscape character of the study area, views of the Site and the setting of nearby heritage assets.

The Proposed Development would have a Beneficial effect with regard to townscape character area within which it is located, in terms of adding good quality architecture and providing urban design benefits within an overall form and scale which is consistent with the existing character of the wider riverside area. It would have a Beneficial effect, Minor to Moderate in significance, or Neutral effect with regard to other nearby townscape character areas.

The Proposed Development would have a Neutral or Beneficial effect, Minor to Moderate in significance, with regard to Conservation Areas, and locally listed buildings in the wider area around the Site. It would have a Moderate beneficial effect on the Sands End Conservation Area. In most cases, these heritage assets are experienced in a wider context which includes tall and large scale post-war and modern buildings, and the Proposed Development would be consistent with this.

In a range of views, the Proposed Development would appear as a suitably scaled building of good architectural quality, relating well to existing buildings and patterns of development evident in such views. The residual effect of these views would be Beneficial and Minor to Moderate in significance.

In medium to long range views from South Park, Putney Rail Bridge and by Battersea Rail Bridge the Proposed Development would not be visible or would be a Minor or Negligible visual presence.

The Proposed Development would relate well to the other residential apartment developments along the river front in terms of form, scale and appearance, in particular to Fulham Wharf, and would add to the regeneration of the riverside in this part of London. Figures 15 and 16 illustrates this conclusion.




Figure 15: Proposed Development as seen from South Bank Riverwalk at Ensign House looking north-west

Figure 16: Proposed Development as seen from Townmead Road/Hamble Street looking west




6.15 Cumulative Effects This assessment considers the potential cumulative impacts and likely effects associated with the Proposed Development. Two types of cumulative impacts and effects are considered:

• Intra-Project Effects (Type 1) - Combined effects of different types of impact, for example impact interactions arising from noise, dust and visual impacts during construction of the Proposed Development on a particular sensitive receptors. These are also known as ‘impact interactions’; and

• Inter-Project Effects (Type 2) - Combined effects generated from the Proposed Development together with other planned developments. These other developments may generate their own individually insignificant effects, but when considered together the effects could amount to a significant cumulative effect, for example, combined transport impacts from two or more (proposed) developments. These are referred to as ‘in-combination’ impacts.

6.15.1 Intra-Project Effects The implementation of a CEMP would reduce the magnitude of any adverse impact interaction so that overall, any Intra-Project effects would be temporary and short-term in nature, albeit there may be some peaks of Moderate Adverse effects when works are occurring immediately adjacent to residential properties.

In addition, intra-project cumulative impacts from potential traffic movement and noise and air quality emissions; and potential wind and overshadowing effects are considered unlikely.

6.15.2 Inter-Project Effects In terms of Inter-Project cumulative impacts, consideration was given to 14 schemes within the study area, as shown in Figure 17.

Figure 17: Location of Cumulative Schemes




The assessment concludes that the cumulative effects during the demolition and construction works would be:

• temporary Minor to Moderate Beneficial at a regional level with regard to construction related employment and indirect spending;

• None with regard to buried heritage assets; • temporary Negligible Adverse on pedestrian movement (including capacity,

severance, delay, amenity and fear and intimidation), cycle facilities and capacity, and public transport networks;

• temporary Minor Adverse on the local road network and traffic flows; • temporary Moderate Beneficial on barge movements; • temporary Negligible Adverse on air quality; • temporary Minor to Moderate Adverse with regard to noise and vibration effects at off-

site receptors; • None with regard to ground conditions; • temporary Negligible Adverse on surface water management and water resources; • temporary Negative on ecology and biodiversity at local level only; • temporary Minor Adverse with regard to sky glow, light trespass and glare; • temporary Negligible with regard to wind microclimate which implies that the wind

environment would be suitable for desired pedestrian activity around the sites; • temporary Negligible with regard to daylight and sunlight; • None with regard to telecommunication interference; • temporary Minor Adverse at local level and Negligible at regional level with regard to

waste generation; • temporary Adverse, Minor to Moderate in significance, with regard to surrounding

Townscape Character Areas and the Sands End CA; • temporary Adverse, Minor in significance with regard to the settings of Heritage

Assets; and • temporary Adverse, Minor to Moderate in significance with regard to townscape

views.

The assessment concludes that the cumulative effects during the completed development stage would be:

• Major Beneficial at the local level in terms of job creation, local economic development and the delivery of housing, subject to the implementation and provision of amenity space, educational and healthcare contributions; Moderate Beneficial at the borough level and Negligible at the regional level;

• None with regard to buried heritage assets; • Minor Adverse with regard to traffic flows, highway capacity and driver delay; • Major Beneficial with regard to the pedestrian environment in the regeneration area

(including movement, capacity, severance, delay, amenity and fear and intimidation); • Moderate Beneficial with regard to the cycling network in the regeneration area; • Minor Beneficial with regard to the public transport networks;




• Negligible to Slight Adverse with regard to nitrogen dioxide emissions at existing and

on-site receptors as a result of cumulative operational traffic flows and energy centre emissions;

• Negligible with regard to particulate matter at all receptors as a result of cumulative operational traffic flows and energy centre emissions;

• None to Negligible cumulative noise effects on on-site and off-site receptors from cumulative traffic noise levels;

• Negligible Beneficial with regard to ground conditions should remediation occur at the Proposed Development and cumulative schemes;

• Negligible or Minor Beneficial with regard to surface runoff management in the area; • Negligible Adverse with regard to flood risk in the local area; • Negligible Adverse with regard to water consumption and the need for foul water

treatment locally; • Positive on ecology and biodiversity at local level; • Minor Adverse with regard to Sky Glow and Light Trespass and Negligible with

regard to Glare; • Negligible to Minor Adverse at Speckman House, 34-36 Townmead Road,

Hurlingham Public House and Carnwath House; • Negligible to Minor Adverse with regard to daylight and sunlight at existing

residential receptors when the notional mirror image is considered at the Site; • Beneficial with regard to internal daylight at the Proposed Development, Hurlingham

Retail Park and Fulham Wharf, as well as existing and proposed amenity space; • Negligible at Fulham Wharf with regard to sunlight; • Negligible to Moderate Beneficial upon pedestrian wind microclimate conditions at

thoroughfares with conditions suitable for suitable for leisure walking, standing and sitting;

• Negligible to Minor Beneficial upon pedestrian wind microclimate conditions at building entrances with conditions considered suitable for standing and sitting;

• Negligible upon pedestrian wind microclimate conditions at podium amenity areas and upper terrace levels which are considered suitable for their intended use;

• None with regard to telecommunication interference; • Negligible to Minor Adverse with regard to waste generation at regional and local

levels respectively; and • Beneficial, Moderate in significance, with regard to the townscape, built heritage and

visual effects of the Proposed Development in the context of cumulative development.

In addition, the assessment considers the following two additional schemes that are not consented, but were identified as ‘reasonably foreseeable’ during the EIA Scoping Consultations:

• A sensitivity test and qualitative assessment of the Thames Tideway Tunnel (TTT) Project temporary construction impacts; and

• A sensitivity test and qualitative assessment of an operational wharf activity at Hurlingham Wharf in lieu of the mixed use schemes at Hurlingham and Whiffin Wharves and based on the same operating capacity as the extant Comley’s Wharf consent (80,000 m3 per annum and 31,800 HGV return movements per annum).




The sensitivity tests concludes that for the majority of environmental issues considered in the EIA, Hurlingham Wharf is sufficiently distant not to give rise with combined cumulative effects. In respect of Transport, Noise and Vibration the cumulative effects would be Negligible and in respect of Air Quality, Negligible to Slight Adverse.


ENVIRON

Artillery House11-19 Artillery RowLondon SW1P 1RT+44 20 7808 1420environcorp.com

telephoneweb

Documents

ALBERT WHARF ES VOLUME 1: NON- TECHNICAL … · More specifically, ... plant trading as CEMEX UK Operations Ltd and has 42 full time employees (including 22 full time drivers and