Chelsea Creek Buildings G and H - IEMA Creek... · the West London Railway Line, Chelsea Creek and the Chelsea Island development site. 2.3 A tributary of the River Thames known as

Chelsea Creek Buildings G and H

Environmental Statement - Non Technical Summary

For St George Developments Limited

August 2018

ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY

CHELSEA CREEK, BUILDINGS G & H

AUGUST 2018 Quod

Ingeni Building | 17 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 0DE

Quod | Chelsea Creek | Non-Technical Summary | August 2018

Contents

1 Introduction _______________________________________________________________________ 1

2 Site and Setting ____________________________________________________________________ 3

3 EIA Methodology ___________________________________________________________________ 5

4 Alternatives _______________________________________________________________________ 8

5 Description of Development _________________________________________________________ 11

6 Construction ______________________________________________________________________ 15

7 Socio-Economics ___________________________________________________________________ 16

8 Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing _________________________________________________ 18

9 Wind ____________________________________________________________________________ 21

10 Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impacts _______________________________________________ 23

11 Cumulative Assessment _____________________________________________________________ 26

12 Mitigation, Monitoring and Residual Effects ____________________________________________ 28

References ___________________________________________________________________________ 29


1

1 Introduction 1.1 This Non-Technical Summary presents a summary of the findings of an Environmental Impact Assessment

(EIA) process that has been undertaken on behalf of St George Developments Ltd (the ‘Applicant’) in relation to a detailed planning application for the construction of two new buildings (Building G and H) within an existing development site known as ‘Chelsea Creek’. The findings of the EIA process are presented in an Environmental Statement which accompanies the planning application.

1.2 The development site (the ‘Site’) extends to approximately 0.8 hectares and is located in Fulham, within the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (LBH&F). The Site lies within a regeneration area known as the South Fulham Riverside Regeneration Area which is defined by the LBH&F Local Plan1. Figure 1.1 shows the location of the Site. The development (‘Development’) would provide 415 residential units and 490 square metres of non-residential uses.

1.3 The Site already benefits from planning permission for two buildings within the Chelsea Creek development masterplan. Since the grant of planning permission for the Chelsea Creek development in 2012, the planning policy context has developed such that there is a desire to deliver more homes in the local area to meet housing needs. The proposals would therefore provide more homes in lieu of office accommodation which would have been provided under the approved planning permission. In parallel with the planning application, the Applicant has submitted amendments to the approved Chelsea Creek development to adjust the previously approved basement to ensure that this aligns to the new buildings.

1.4 The full EIA report, known as an ‘Environmental Statement’ (‘ES’), describes the proposals which have been considered and identifies the environmental effects of the Development which are likely to be significant. The ES has been prepared in line with the UK legal requirements2 and good practice. The purpose of the ES is to inform decision making by identifying the likely significant effects that the Development may have on the environment and setting out how they can be avoided or reduced. The ES comprises:

• Volume I: Main document – provides the full text of the ES along with figures.

• Volume II: Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment – this assessment includes accurate computer-generated views of the Development.

• Volume III: Appendices – contains technical surveys, reports and supporting documents to Volume I.

1.5 The ES and the planning application can be viewed at the offices of LBH&F. Electronic copies of the planning application and ES are available to view on the Council’s website at http://www.haringey.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning. Copies of the ES can also be purchased from Quod. Please email [email protected] quoting Reference No. Q080334 for further details or contact 020 3597 1000.

http://www.haringey.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning

http://www.haringey.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning

mailto:[email protected]


2

Figure 1.1: Site Location


3

2 Site and Setting 2.1 The Site has been previously developed and comprises mainly hardstanding. The Site is currently being used

by construction contractors involved in construction of the Chelsea Creek development. An office building (St George House) and car park are present within the Site.

2.2 Land uses in the local area comprise former industrial, employment and residential. The Site is bound to the north, north west and west by the Fulham gasworks, which is the subject of planning applications for its future redevelopment, and Sands End Lane; to the south and south west by Building L of the Imperial Wharf development; to the south and south east by Thurstan Street and Park Street and Block F of the Consented Chelsea Creek Development (see below for further details); and to the east and north east by the West London Railway Line, Chelsea Creek and the Chelsea Island development site.

2.3 A tributary of the River Thames known as Chelsea Creek runs alongside the railway line to the east of the Site.

2.4 The Site already benefits from planning permission for the construction of Blocks G and H of the Chelsea Creek development (referred to as the ‘Consented Chelsea Creek Development’) which was granted in March 2012. The layout of the Consented Chelsea Creek Development is shown in Figure 2.1. Figure 2.2 shows the location of the Development in the context of the Consented Chelsea Creek Development. Blocks A to E of the Consented Chelsea Creek Development have been fully constructed and are occupied, and Block F is under construction. No works on Blocks G & H, basement or canal have been undertaken to date.

Figure 2.1: Consented Chelsea Creek Development Figure 2.2: Location of the Development and Site


4

2.5 The Site is readily accessible by public transport with bus stops on Imperial Road and Townmead Road approximately 140m and 325m from the Site. Imperial Wharf Station is located within walking distance (approx. 250m) from the Site and is serviced by Overground Rail services on the West London line towards both Clapham Junction and Shephard’s Bush. Fulham Broadway Underground Station is located approximately 1km (12 minutes walking distance) north west of the Site and provides access to the District Line. There are also river boat services from Chelsea Harbour Pier, approximately 500m to the south east, which operates between Putney and Blackfriars.

2.6 The Site is adjacent to the Sands End, Imperial Square and Gasworks Conservation Areas which are located to the north, north west, west and south west of the Site, respectively. The Site does not contain any listed or locally listed buildings, the closest being Gasholder No. 2, Imperial Gas Works (Grade II*), War Memorial (Grade II), Office Building at the former Imperial Gas Works (Grade II listed) and Former Laboratory at Imperial Gas Works (Grade II listed) which are within 50m of the Site boundary. The Site is not located within an Archaeological Priority Area.

2.7 The closest designated site for nature conservation is the Thames Estuary Marine Conservation Zone located approximately 50m to the east of the Site via Chelsea Creek. Two non-statutory sites abut the Site including the Former British Gas Pond, which is a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) (Grade 1 borough importance), and a section of West London Line Green Corridor, Fulham Road to Chelsea Creek, which is of local nature conservation interest.

2.8 An Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) has been designated across the whole borough of LBH&F due to emissions related to particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide.

2.9 Most of the Site is in Flood Zone 3, where the probability of flooding is high. The Site does however, benefit from flood protection due to the local flood defences and the Thames barrier at Woolwich.

2.10 The Site is not subject to any Tree Preservation Orders and does not support ancient woodland or Veteran Trees.


5

3 EIA Methodology 3.1 The EIA has been undertaken in line with relevant legislation, namely The Town and Country Planning

(Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017. EIA is a formal process that must be followed for certain types and scales of development projects, where the significant environmental effects of a project are systematically assessed and reported. The purpose of the EIA process is to identify how people and the environment could be affected by the Development and to ensure that information about the environmental effects of a project is available for relevant decision makers and the public to consider before the planning application is determined. The EIA process also identifies ways in which the project can be modified to avoid, minimise or offset negative effects and to enhance beneficial effects.

3.2 An EIA scoping study was undertaken to establish the ‘scope’ or focus of the EIA and identify the issues which required detailed consideration in the ES. An EIA Scoping Report which set out the proposed scope and content of the ES, was provided to LBH&F in May 2018 together with a request for a ‘Scoping Opinion’ to agree the issues to be considered further in the EIA process. A Scoping Opinion was received from LBH&F in June 2018 which provided LBH&F’s comments on the proposed approach. In July 2018, a Scoping Note was submitted to inform LBH&F of changes to the Development and Site extent from that described in the Scoping Report. The Scoping Note also set out how issues raised in the Scoping Opinion would be addressed within the ES and outlined an update to aspects of the approach.

3.3 The submitted planning application comprises above ground elements only (i.e. buildings, public realm and landscaping) and does not include construction of a basement which would be delivered under the Consented Chelsea Creek Development. A Section 96A application has been submitted to LBH&F pursuant to the Consented Chelsea Creek Development to amend in parallel the approved layout of the basement beneath Buildings G and H to ensure alignment with the new building layout at ground floor and above (i.e. to ensure the building cores and cycle parking provision align and provision of required plant) proposed by the Development. It is assumed that the Section 96A application would be determined such as to allow the amended substructure works for the basement and canal to take place in accordance with the Consented Chelsea Creek Development (as amended by the Section 96A application). As a result, enabling works including demolition, basement construction and canal works do not form part of this planning application.

3.4 The scoping study concluded that the Development was not likely to give rise to significant environmental effects in respect of Transport and Access, Air Quality, Noise and Vibration, Human Health, Archaeology and Built Heritage (On-Site), Ecology, Water Resources, Flood Risk and Drainage, Light Pollution, Waste, Solar Glare, Telecommunications, Electromagnetic Fields, Climate Change, Carbon Emissions, Energy and Sustainability, and Vulnerability to Major Accidents or Disasters. LBH&F agreed with the proposed approach that these issues did not need to be considered further and they are therefore not considered further in the Environmental Statement.

3.5 However, in line with the spirit and objectives of the EU EIA Directive, when assessing the environmental effects of the Development, the ES has had regard to the potential for likely significant environmental effects in combination with the rest of the Consented Chelsea Creek Development. These are presented as part of the cumulative assessment, and includes an assessment of Transport and Access, Air Quality, Noise and Vibration, Archaeology and Built Heritage (On-Site), Ecology, Water Resources, Flood Risk and Drainage (see section 3.10 for further details on cumulative).

3.6 In addition, the scoping study concluded that the Development was not likely to give rise to significant construction effects in respect to Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing and Wind Microclimate. As such, construction effects were not considered further by the EIA.


6

3.7 The ES considers the likely effects of the Development on its neighbours, local environment, local and regional economy, as well as the wider area. The environmental effects of the Development are predicted in relation to sensitive receptors, including human beings, built resources and natural resources. The sensitive receptors considered in the ES include local residents and businesses, heritage assets and designations, construction workers and future occupiers of the Site.

3.8 Effects are identified and assessed using a variety of methods, including modelling and calculations. Each assessment attaches a level of ‘significance’ to the effects which have been identified, i.e. either major, moderate, minor or negligible. Short and long-term (temporary and permanent), direct and indirect effects have been assessed. The nature of the effects are expressed as being either adverse (negative), negligible or beneficial (positive). The significance of effects has been determined using best practice and published standards. Professional judgment has also been applied by the technical specialists in situations/circumstances where no legislation, definitive standards or/and industry guidance is available. Where adverse effects are identified, mitigation measures are recommended to reduce the significance of the effect. ‘Residual effects’ are the effects that remain after mitigation measures have been implemented.

3.9 The EIA Regulations require that ‘cumulative’ effects are considered during the EIA process and reported in the Environmental Statement. Cumulative effects are those which can arise from individual effects from the Development interacting (e.g. traffic, noise and air quality effects happening at the same time). Cumulative effects can also result from the Development acting in combination with other development schemes in the vicinity of the Site.

3.10 A number of development schemes were identified as having the potential to give rise to cumulative effects which were agreed with LBH&F a part of the scoping study and these are shown in Figure 3.1. Notably, these include the adjacent development Fulham Gasworks Scheme and the remainder of the Consented Chelsea Creek Development. Cumulative effects are considered in each technical section of the NTS (sections 7-10) and in Section 11.


7

Figure 3.1: Cumulative Schemes


8

4 Alternatives 4.1 The ES is required to present a description of the main alternatives considered by the Applicants and

provide an indication of the main reasons for selecting the chosen option, including a comparison of the environmental effects.

4.2 Alternative sites for the proposed Development have not been considered by the Applicant. The scenario of no development taking place at the Site is not considered to be a 'reasonable alternative' as planning permission is already in place for the Consented Chelsea Creek Development. Alternative sites and the ‘do-nothing’ scenario were therefore both scoped out of the EIA in the Scoping Report which was accepted by the LBH&F Scoping Opinion.

4.3 The Applicant could choose to implement the approved Blocks G & H under the Consented Chelsea Creek Development (see Figure 2.1). The consented Block G would provide 82 homes and 244m² Gross External Area (GEA) of commercial floorspace. The consented Block H would provide 8,896m² GEA of office floorspace. The consented storey heights of each Block, as shown in Figure 4.1, is as follows:

• Block G – Eight storeys; and

• Block H – Seven storeys.

Figure 4.1: South elevation of Block G & H of the Consented Chelsea Creek Development

4.4 Table 4.1 provides a comparison of the consented Blocks G & H and the Development.

Table 4.1: Comparison of Blocks G & H and the Development Blocks G & H

Development

Change

Residential (Use Class C3) Total Units 82 415 +333 Non-residential uses (Use Classes A1-A5 and B1) (GEA) A1-A5 and B1 Class Use 9,140 m2 547 m2 -8,593 m2 Building Heights (Storeys) Block/Building G 8 8 No Change

Block/Building H 7 9 to 31 +2 to 24


9

4.5 Since the grant of planning permission for the Consented Chelsea Creek Development in 2012, the planning context has developed such that LBH&F and the Greater London Authority are seeking to deliver increased levels of sustainable development and infrastructure to meet housing needs. It is considered that Blocks G & H of the Consented Chelsea Creek Development do not realise the full land use potential of the Site, and therefore the proposed Development has been designed to provide more homes in lieu of office accommodation which would have been provided under the approved planning permission.

4.6 The design of the Development has evolved in response to dialogue with LBH&F and the local community. However, the layout of the proposed buildings within the Site is defined by the new canal which is being delivered under the Chelsea Creek Consented Development and alternative building locations to that of the consented Blocks G & H have not been considered.

4.7 The initial design (Alternative 1) included a 30 storey tower located at the northern end of the proposed Building G next to the canal (Figure 4.2). Alternative 1 was initially presented to LBH&F during pre-application meetings, although LBH&F raised concerns regarding the proposed height of the tower and the potential effects on heritage, townscape and visual amenity, in particular views from the Brompton Cemetery (a sensitive heritage receptor).

4.8 Following feedback on Alternative 1, a U-shaped block alternative (Alternative 2) was developed to understand whether it would be possible to design a scheme with the desired number of residential units (up to 450) without increasing the height significantly over that which was approved as part of the Consented Chelsea Creek Development. Further analysis of views was also undertaken of Alternative 1 to determine how it could be improved.

4.9 Alternative 2 provided a U-shaped block which surrounded the canal inlet. Feasibility work by the architects demonstrated that it would be possible to provide the up to 450 homes with a third building, thereby creating a U-shaped block, whilst not significantly exceeding consented and existing surrounding building heights. However, initial studies of this alternative by the project daylight, sunlight and overshadowing consultants concluded that internal levels of daylight and sunlight within the residential units would not be adequate, and that the canal would likely be in shadow for a significant portion of time each day. Alternative 2 was therefore excluded from further consideration.

4.10 The final alternative (selected as the ‘Development’) provided buildings in the location of Blocks G & H and included a 31 storey tower located at the southern end of Building H (Figure 4.3). This final design option was informed by extensive analysis of views of the proposed buildings from sensitive viewpoints, including Brompton Cemetery. This analysis found that with the tower located at the northern end of Building G, Alternative 1 would give rise to significant cumulative effects with the adjacent Fulham Gasworks development proposals on views from Brompton Cemetery. With the 31 storey tower located at the southern end of Building H, the tower would sit independently from the Fulham Gasworks Scheme submitted in June 2018. This was considered to reduce the heritage and visual effects and therefore the Applicant selected the tower location at the southern end of Building H in the final design.


10

Figure 4.2: Computer generated image (CGI) of Alternative 1 showing 30 tower at the northern end of Building G

Figure 4.3: CGI of the Development showing the 30 tower at the southern end of Building H


11

5 Description of Development 5.1 The use and amount of built development proposed by the planning application is set out in Table 5.1. The

new buildings would be served by a single storey basement which would be delivered under the Consented Chelsea Creek Development. Demolition of St George House and canal works would also be undertaken under Consented Chelsea Creek Development.

Table 5.1: Key Components of Development

Type Proposed Area/Unit

Residential (Use Class C3)

Total Units 415

Units Mix 23 (Studio); 156 (1-bedroom apartments); 190 (2-bedroom apartments); and, 46 (3-bedroom apartments)

Total Floorspace (Gross Internal Area (GIA)) 28,884m2

Non-Residential Use (GIA)

Retail (Use Class A1 – A5 and/ or B1a) 490m2

5.2 Figure 5.1 shows the layout and proposed heights of the Buildings G and H.

Figure 5.1: Development Layout and Height Plan (Drawing No. 10059-SQP-ZZ-31-DP-A-PL021).


12

5.3 Building G comprises a rectangular block, situated adjacent to Block F of the Consented Chelsea Creek Development, and separated from Building H by the canal which would be delivered under the consented scheme. The ground floor level includes 268m² GIA non-residential use floor space (A1-A5/B1a Use Classes). Building G would be eight storeys in height, seven full levels plus one set back level of residential accommodation on the eighth storey, with a maximum height of 31.765m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD).

5.4 Building H comprises a triangular block separated from Building G by the canal which would be delivered under the Consented Chelsea Creek Development. The ground floor level would include 222m² GIA non-residential use floor space (A1-A5 and/ or B1a Use Classes), with the remainder of the ground floor comprising of residential units. Building H would be eight storeys in height in the north and would provide private communal amenity space in a roof top garden. The building would steps up to nine storeys in the middle section, being eight full levels plus one set back level of residential accommodation on the ninth storey, stepping up to 31 storeys for the residential tower (104.45m AOD) in the south next to Block L of the Imperial Wharf development.

5.5 Table 5.2 defines how the Development is split across the two buildings.

Table 5.2: Building Summary

Building Use Building Height

G

147 residential units comprising 9 studio apartments; 42 1-bedroom apartments; 90 2-bedroom apartments; and 6 3-bedroom apartments. 268m² GIA Non-Residential use floor space (A1-A5 and/or B1a Class uses).

9 Storeys (31.765m AOD)

H

268 residential units comprising 14 studio apartments; 114 1-bedroom apartments; 100 2-bedroom apartments; and 40 3-bedroom apartments. 222m² GIA Non-Residential use floor space (A1-A5 and/or B1a Class users.

8 Storeys (34.840m AOD) to 31 Storeys (104.450m AOD)

5.6 All residential buildings would have access to communal amenity space which would comprise both hard and soft landscaping, accessed via communal stairs and lift cores. Private communal amenity space for Building H would be located on the roof on the eighth level. Private amenity space would be provided for all residential units through balconies or terraces.

5.7 Play space for children aged 5 and under would be provided within a communal roof terrace on Building H, with the remainder of the play space provided at ground level. Local and Neighbourhood play space is adequately provided for in local parks.

5.8 Connection points to utility infrastructure has been agreed for the development Site as part of the Consented Chelsea Creek Development and the necessary services already installed. The Development is expected to utilize this infrastructure for gas, electricity and portable water. The diverted Eel Brook sewer would receive all foul water from the Development along with the rest of the Consented Chelsea Creek Development.

5.9 In line with The London Plan, the Energy Statement demonstrates that the Development follows the Energy Hierarchy of ‘Be Lean’, ‘Be Clean’ and ‘Be Green’ to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions of the entire Development. The overall predicted reduction in CO2 emissions for the Development is 36.5% which represents an annual saving of approximately 186.5 tonnes of CO2.


13

Figure 5.2: Computer Generated Image (‘CGI’) of Building G


14

Figure 5.3: CGI of Buildings G & H viewed from the canal. Building H is situated on the right of the image with Building G situated to the left of the canal and pedestrian bridge.


15

6 Construction 6.1 It is expected that the Development would come forward over an approximate two-year construction

period, with construction expected to commence in first quarter of 2020 and the Development being fully completed in 2022. An indicative construction programme has been prepared which shows that work activities for Buildings G and H are likely to overlap to some extent (e.g. superstructure works for a Building H occurring at the same time as superstructure works for Building G).

6.2 A Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) will be prepared prior to construction works starting on-site and would be in place during the works. This will provide management procedures and protocols for avoiding, minimising or otherwise dealing with effects on the environment and local community during construction. An outline CEMP has already been prepared and accompanies the ES.

6.3 A Construction Logistics Plan (CLP) will be in place to minimise traffic related issues associated with the construction works which will be subject to agreement with LBH&F. A draft CLP has been prepared and accompanies the Transport Assessment submitted with the planning application.


16

7 Socio-Economics 7.1 The ES provides an assessment of the existing baseline and the socio-economic effects of the Development

including:

• Economic effects such as new jobs and spending from new residents; and,

• Effects arising from the new resident population, including demand for schools, primary healthcare, open space and play space.

7.2 The Site is primarily located in the Sands End ward within LBH&F, with the assessment also considering the neighbouring wards of Parsons Green & Walham and Palace Riverside.

7.3 There are five primary schools within 1km of the Site, with the closest being Langford Primary School located approximately 500m to the south west of the Site. There are 17 secondary schools within LBH&F and the neighbouring borough of Royal Borough Kensington and Chelsea (RBK&C), with the closest being the Chelsea Academy located approximately 200m to the north east of the Site. There are five General Practitioner (GP) surgeries and six dental practices within approximately 1km of the Site, the closest of which is Kings Road Medical Practice which is 450m to the north.

7.4 There are six open spaces and three playspaces within 800m of the Site. The closest open spaces are Westfield Park approximately 315m to the north east and William Parnell Park, approximately 270m to the south west. These parks also contain playspace areas.

Construction

7.5 It is estimated that the Development will generate an approximate monthly average of 300 construction jobs over the duration of the construction of the Development, which is considered a negligible effect at the regional level. This construction employment would lead to additional spending in the local area and benefits for the supply chain (for example suppliers and trades) which cannot be quantified. However, these effects would be beneficial.

Completed Development

7.6 The completed Development would provide new employment floorspace. This will likely accommodate between 20 and 30 jobs. This is considered a minor beneficial effect at the local level and negligible at all other spatial scales.

7.7 The Development would deliver 415 new homes on the Site. This is considered a moderate beneficial effect at the local level; minor beneficial at the borough level; and negligible at the regional level.

7.8 Based on the future housing provision, the estimated future population of the Development would be approximately 717 residents. This would create a demand for 36 primary school places and 10 secondary school places. There is currently a sufficient surplus capacity availability in the LBH&F and RBK&C for both primary and secondary schools, and the Development would not place significant additional pressure on school places. This is considered a negligible effect at all spatial scales.

7.9 An additional 717 residents accommodated by the Development would result in a need for the equivalent of 0.4 GPs. It is considered that the Development would have a minor adverse effect at the local level, and negligible effect at all other spatial scales.

7.10 The Development includes a series of open spaces, amenity spaces, public realm and playspace, including 4,616m2 of public realm space and 707m2 of playspace. The Development provides Doorstep Playable Space


17

for children under 5 years, while demand for local and neighbourhood (ages 5-11 and 11+) would be available in nearby open spaces and parks. Therefore, it is considered that the effect of the Development would be minor adverse at the Site and local level and negligible at all spatial scales.

7.11 Mitigation in the form of financial contributions towards the provision or support of healthcare (off-site) and open space and playspace would be secured through Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) as outlined in the LBH&F Regulation 123 list. Following such mitigation, the minor adverse effect on healthcare and open space and playspace would be negligible at all spatial scales.

7.12 The population supported by the Development would result in an increased demand for local leisure facilities including sports grounds and health suites. The LBH&F’s Leisure Needs Assessment concludes that the area is well served by existing facilities. Therefore, it is considered that the effect of the Development would be negligible at all spatial scales.

7.13 The Development would generate economic benefits for the local economy through indirect spending. The 415 new homes would generate approximately £6 million per annum in additional spending. The spending impact of new employees accommodated by the Development would equate to £46,000 to £71,000 per annum (dependent on actual levels of employment). The Development would have an indirect, permanent, minor beneficial effect at the local level and a negligible effect at all other spatial scales.

7.14 The Development has been designed in line with best practice crime prevention measures and therefore is considered to have a negligible effect on crime.

Cumulative Effects

Construction

7.15 The Development, together with the cumulative schemes would be expected to generate significant employment opportunities during construction. All effects are likely to be negligible or beneficial.


7.16 The cumulative schemes in the local area along with the Development would deliver more new housing, generate employment and overall, would have a beneficial impact on the local economy through additional spending. Together, they would deliver a cumulative beneficial effect in terms of socio-economics. Potential adverse effects on health and education would be addressed through planning obligations and contributions through CIL as outlined in the LBH&F Regulation 123 list.


18

8 Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing 8.1 An assessment has been undertaken to establish the effect of the Development on surrounding properties

and amenity space in-line with guidance published by the Building Research Establishment (‘BRE’)3. The assessment has considered the effect that the Development could have on buildings as shown in Figure 8.1. The Site is located to the north of Block F.

Figure 8.1: Existing properties considered in Daylight and Sunlight Assessment

8.2 The Development has been designed to minimise the loss of daylight and sunlight at surrounding residential

properties, in particular properties on the remainder of the Consented Chelsea Creek Development (Blocks A to F) and Block L of the Imperial Wharf development.

8.3 BRE Guidance provides two different methods for assessing daylight for existing residential accommodation: Vertical Sky Component (‘VSC’) and No Sky Line (‘NSL’) methods. When reviewing the daylight results for each property, they should be read sequentially; VSC and then NSC. In the first instance the VSC results should be considered.

8.4 The VSC represents the amount of visible sky that can be seen from the mid-point of a window, from over and around an obstruction in front of the window. The maximum value is almost 40% for a completely unobstructed vertical wall. If all the windows in a building meet the VSC criteria, it can be concluded that there will be adequate daylight potential to the windows in question. If the windows in a building do not meet the VSC criteria, the NSC analysis for the room served by that window needs to be considered.

8.5 Annual probable sunlight hours (‘APSH’) is a measure of sunlight that a given window may expect over a year period. Windows are only considered relevant if they are oriented within a 90° of due south, face the Site and are through to serve main habitable living areas such as living rooms. As such, some windows /


19

rooms surrounding the Development have been excluded from the APSH assessment as they do not match these criteria.

8.6 When room layouts and window locations are not yet determined in developments, e.g. when the proposals are in outline, an approach suggested by the BRE guidelines is to calculate the VSC at a series of test points 1.6m above the ground (or lowest storey level) on each main window wall, no more than 5m apart can be undertaken. Façade mapping was undertaken for the outline component blocks of the June 2018 Fulham Gasworks Scheme, where the maximum parameter massing blocks have been assessed in the cumulative assessment.

8.7 Sun on Ground (Overshadowing) is the measurement of new development on sunlight to open spaces situated between buildings, such as main back gardens of houses, allotments, parks and playing fields, children's playgrounds, outdoor swimming pools, sitting-out areas.

8.8 The assessment predicted the levels of existing and expected levels of daylight, sunlight and overshadowing of neighbouring properties with the Development in place, using a 3-dimensional computer model of the Development and specialist software.

Baseline Conditions

8.9 The majority of the surrounding properties meet the BRE Guidelines for levels of daylight and sunlight. The VSC results demonstrate that 58% of the surrounding building windows currently meet the VSC, 76% currently meet the DD, and 93% currently meet the APSH. The number of windows which currently do not meet the BRE Guidelines in the existing baseline scenario in relation to VSC and DD is likely due to overhead balconies on these properties which limits the access of daylight to windows and rooms below them. All of the amenity areas meet the BRE Guidelines for overshadowing.


8.10 The assessment confirms that all sunlight and daylight results to sensitive receptors beyond the Site and the Consented Chelsea Creek Development (i.e. Chelsea Island and properties tested in Lots Road and Maltings Place) would meet the recommendations in the BRE guidelines. The effect of the Development is therefore negligible.

8.11 For Block L of Imperial Wharf, 86% of windows tested would meet the BRE guideline for VSC in either experiencing 27% VSC, or where there is a reduction in the baseline VSC, this is no more than a 20% reduction. The majority of those windows which do not meet the guideline, are either situated below a balcony or serve dual aspect rooms (both circumstances which can mean the VSC results can be misleading when reviewed alone). The DD results show that all rooms tested would meet the BRE guidelines, with no impacts. Given the presence of balconies on Block L and the limited number of windows not meeting the BRE guidelines for VSC, the effect of the Development on Block L Imperial Wharf is negligible to minor adverse.

8.12 For Block E of the Consented Chelsea Creek Development, 88% of the windows tested would meet the BRE guidelines for VSC. Those which do not, are all windows serving dual aspect rooms and/or situated below balconies. 90% of rooms tested meet the recommendations of the BRE guidelines for DD and those which do not are bedrooms which the BRE guideline states are ‘less important’ than main living rooms. All relevant windows would meet the recommendations of the BRE guidelines for APSH and show no effect. The effect of the Development on Block E is therefore negligible to minor adverse.

8.13 The VSC results for Block F of the Consented Chelsea Creek Development show that 25% of windows tested would meet the BRE guidelines and 49% would meet them for DD. Only 16 rooms needed to be tested for APSH and 11 (69%) of these rooms would meet the recommendations of the BRE guidelines for both annual


20

and winter APSH. The 5 rooms which would not do so are all bedrooms which the BRE guideline state are ‘less important’ than living rooms. The effect of the Development on this Block F is therefore major adverse.

8.14 The baseline results show that 60.4% of the amenity spaces tested receive at least 2 hours of direct sunlight on 21st March which is the relevant BRE guideline level. The overshadowing analysis of the Development indicates that the amenity area of Blocks L, F and E will receive a reduction of direct sunlight with 34.4% of the area receiving 2 hours of direct sunlight on 21st March. The significance of effects is considered to be permanent and minor to moderate adverse.

8.15 It should be noted that the results for the Development are similar to the effects that the approved Blocks G & H Consented Chelsea Creek Development has on Block F and the surrounding amenity space.

Cumulative Effects

8.16 The assessment confirms that sunlight and daylight effects on sensitive receptors beyond the Site and Consented Chelsea Creek Development (i.e. Chelsea Island and properties tested in Lots Road and Maltings Place) would meet the recommendations in the BRE guidelines. However, if the June 2018 Fulham Gasworks Scheme is implemented a number of the neighbouring receptors are impacted for daylight. These properties include 71-74 Maltings Place, 51 – 58 Maltings Place and 43-50 Maltings Place. These properties are located to the west of the Development and are in close proximity to the western boundary of the June 2018 Fulham Gasworks Scheme. The VSC and DD assessment results of the Development and cumulative schemes (i.e. Cumulative Scenario) show that the adverse impacts on the daylight levels to these surrounding neighbours are predominantly due to the June 2018 Fulham Gasworks Scheme and not the Development. With the June 2018 Fulham Gasworks Scheme in place, the significance of effects is considered to be permanent and moderate adverse on these properties.

8.17 Block L - 86% of tested windows would meet the BRE guidelines for VSC with the Development in place. In the Cumulative Scenario this figure is reduced to 15%. All rooms tested would meet the BRE guidelines for DD, with no impacts with just the Development in place. In the Cumulative Scenario 38% of the rooms tested would adhere to the BRE guidelines for DD. The significance of the effect is major adverse.

8.18 Block E – 98% of tested windows would meet the BRE guidelines for VSC with the Development in place. In the Cumulative Scenario this figure is reduced to 86%. Of the rooms tested for DD, 90% of rooms meet the BRE guidelines with just the Development in place. In the Cumulative Scenario the same number of rooms would adhere to the BRE guidelines. The significance of the effect is negligible to minor adverse.

8.19 Block F - 25% of the tested windows would meet the BRE guidelines for VSC and 49% would meet the BRE guidelines for DD. In the Cumulative Scenario, 9% of windows tested would meet the BRE guidelines for VSC and the same number of rooms would meet the BRE guidelines for DD. For sunlight, with the Development in place, of the 16 rooms tested for APSH and 11 (69%) of these rooms would meet the BRE guidelines for both annual and winter APSH. In the Cumulative Scenario, nine rooms (56%) would meet the BRE guidelines for annual APSH and the same number would meet the BRE guidelines recommendations for winter APSH. The significance of the effect is major adverse.

8.20 From the results above, it is considered that the June 2018 Fulham Gasworks Site would be the main contributor to the cumulative effects on the surrounding neighbouring properties beyond the wider Chelsea Creek Site, and a combination of the Development and the June 2018 Fulham Gasworks Scheme would impact on the Chelsea Creek and the Imperial Wharf Blocks. The significance of the effect to the affected Chelsea Creek and Imperial Wharf Blocks in the Cumulative Scenario is: Block E - negligible to minor adverse, and Block F (Chelsea Creek) and Block L (Imperial Wharf) - major adverse.


21

9 Wind 9.1 A 3-dimensional model of the Development was constructed to test in a wind tunnel facility in order to

predict the comfort and safety of pedestrians in and around the Site once the Development is complete. The conditions with and without the Development were tested with existing surrounding buildings. Conditions with adjacent cumulative schemes were also tested.

9.2 Meteorological data for the Site indicates that prevailing winds are from the south west throughout the year with secondary winds from the north-east direction, particularly during late spring and early summer.

9.3 Baseline conditions are considered to be relatively calm throughout the Site and surrounding area as the wind conditions at the ground level during the windiest season range from acceptable for sitting use to strolling use, with mainly standing use throughout the Site. In the summer season, conditions become even calmer, the wind conditions on the Site and in the surrounding area mainly acceptable for sitting use.

Figure 9.1: Photograph of Development wind tunnel model


9.4 When the Development is in place, Site conditions generally get windier as a result of the introduction of a tall building although the majority of tested locations remain acceptable for their intended use (e.g. walking/sitting). During the windiest season (winter) wind effects range from negligible to moderate beneficial at all locations across the Site with landscaping and wind mitigation measures in place.

9.5 Following initial wind tunnel testing and a mitigation workshop, landscaping and other design measures were introduced to reduce potentially adverse wind effects to provide suitable (and safe) wind levels for intended uses on some balconies, roof terraces and thoroughfares. With these measures in place, pedestrian level wind conditions would be safe for all users and the effects on pedestrian safety from the Development would be negligible.


22

9.6 In terms of pedestrian comfort, wind conditions are expected to be suitable for pedestrian walking through and around the Development. Entrances within the Development are also expected to be suitable for pedestrian ingress/egress. Public and communal amenity spaces are generally expected to enjoy suitable conditions for associated recreational activities.

9.7 Private roof-top terraces and balconies within the Development are expected to be suitable for outdoor seating during summer with the residual effects considered negligible to minor adverse.

9.8 Within the surrounding area, wind conditions remain suitable for existing activities. The Development is therefore considered to have negligible effect on surrounding wind conditions.

Cumulative Effect

9.9 With the cumulative schemes in place, wind effects in and around the Site would not be materially different to those with only the Development in place. There is only a single occurrence of strong winds exceeding the pedestrian safety criteria for the general public with the introduction of cumulative schemes, this occurs on balconies at the south western corner of the tower of Building H. However, with the implementation of 1.5m solid balustrades on the tower of Building H this safety concern is addressed and wind conditions at all locations in and around the proposed Development are suitable for pedestrian safety. There are therefore no significant cumulative effects.


23

10 Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impacts 10.1 An assessment has been undertaken of the likely effects of the Development on built heritage, the

townscape and visual amenity. The assessment has considered the design quality of the proposed Development; the townscape character of the Site and surrounding area; the potentially affected heritage assets surrounding the Site, including neighbouring conservation areas and nearby listed buildings; and the requirements of national, regional and local planning policy and guidance. The assessment was informed by a detailed desk study, site walkover and analysis of 32 photographic viewpoint locations (Figure 10.1) and a series of accurate visual representations of the Development based on the detailed drawings of the Development. These viewpoints also include the identified cumulative schemes, where visible.

Figure 10.1: Representative viewpoint locations and heritage assets

10.2 The northern end of the Site lies adjacent to the Sands End, Imperial Square and Gasworks Conservation

Areas which are located to the north, east, north west, west and south west of the Site. The Sites is not affected by any protected views. The location Conservation Areas and listed buildings in relation to the Site is show in Figure 10.1 together with the views selected for assessment.

10.3 Immediately adjacent to the Site is the Imperial Gasworks. No longer in commercial use, the gasworks consist of several large gasholders including the Grade II* listed gasholder number two, believed to be the oldest gasholder in the world. Alongside the gasholders, other notable buildings close to the Site include the Grade II listed Research Laboratory, built in 1927; the Chief Engineer’s Office, built in 1858; and a War Memorial, c. 1920. The gasworks form a part of The Imperial Square and Gasworks Conservation Area, designated in 1975 to protect the unique industrial history of the area.


24

10.4 There are currently four tall buildings in close proximity to the Site: the closest one, of 25 storeys, lies directly to the south-east of the Site and forms part of the Consented Chelsea Creek Development; Jepson House, 18 storeys, located on Pearscroft Road, to the south-west of the Site; and the Belvedere Tower, of 20 storeys, is part of Chelsea Harbour, located on the riverbank south-east of the Site. The 37 storey Western Tower of the Chelsea Waterfront development, to the south-east of the Site, is currently under construction.

10.5 Potential townscape receptors have been identified relating to the Site and wider surrounding area including townscape features within and near the Site, and local and regional townscape character areas. The visual effects of the Development have been assessed by identifying potential visual receptors and then by assessing representative viewpoints determined from field surveys.

Construction

10.6 During construction, new temporary elements will be introduced onto the Site, for example, scaffolding, tower cranes, hoardings and other construction plant and machinery, and construction site compounds. Good environmental practice will be adopted on-site to ensure construction effects are minimised through the CEMP.

10.7 The effects of the Development during construction are likely to vary according to the distance between the receptors and the Site, with those receptors located closer to the Site more exposed to a higher visibility of machinery and infrastructure (e.g. scaffolding around the lower buildings under construction) and likely to have a larger effect than those located at a greater distance (where the visibility is reduced to the taller elements on Site, owing to obstruction from other townscape elements).

10.8 The construction effects on heritage receptors (e.g. conservation areas, registered park and gardens and the setting of listed buildings), townscape receptors (e.g. character areas), and visual receptors will range from major to moderate adverse for receptors located in close proximity to the Site, to negligible to minor adverse for receptors located at a greater distance from the Site. These effects will be local, temporary and short term.

10.9 Within implementation of the CEMP, it is considered that the major to moderate adverse effects experienced by receptors located in close proximity to the Site would be reduced to minor and moderate adverse effect. No further mitigation is proposed beyond the CEMP.


10.10 Once complete, the Development will result in notable changes to the urban landscape. Effects of the completed Development on visual and townscape receptors will be predominately beneficial, ranging from negligible beneficial to major beneficial. Only two adverse effects on visual receptors have been noted from the Brompton Cemetery and St Mark’s Chapel being of moderate and minor adverse, respectively.

10.11 Four adverse effects have been identified for the completed Development assessment on heritage receptors. All four receptors are located within the Brompton Cemetery, with a ‘less than substantial harm’ (significant) conclusion in respect of the Brompton Cemetery Conservation Area, the Grade II* listed buildings of the Church of England Chapel and Arcades, and the Brompton Cemetery Registered Park and Garden. For all other heritage receptors, the assessment concludes that the Development would have no effect on their significance.


25

Cumulative Effects

Construction

10.12 With the addition of cumulative schemes, construction effects would remain unchanged from that which is presented for the completed Development assessment.


10.13 With the addition of cumulative schemes, heritage, visual and townscape effects are broadly unchanged. No adverse cumulative effects were found on townscape receptors and five adverse effects on visual receptors have been noted, four from the Brompton Cemetery and one from the Grade II* listed St Mark’s Chapel, being of moderate to minor adverse.

10.14 The same four adverse effects have been identified for the completed Development assessment on heritage receptors. All four receptors are located from the Brompton Cemetery, with ‘less than substantial harm’ (significant) concluded in respect of the Brompton Cemetery Conservation Area, the Grade II* listed buildings of the Church of England Chapel and Arcades, and the Brompton Cemetery Registered Park and Garden. However, the cumulative effect on the Imperial Square and Gasworks Conservation Area and the listed buildings therein, including the Grade II* listed Gasholder No. 2, two Grade II listed buildings and a Grade II listed War Memorial, was found to ‘better reveal’ the significance of the heritage assets resulting in a beneficial effect. All other heritage receptors were assessed as having ‘no effect on its significance’.

Figure 10.2: View 4 of the proposed Development, Imperial Road, 70 Metres South of Fulmead Street, Looking North-West


26

11 Cumulative Assessment 11.1 Two types of cumulative effects have been considered:

• In-combination effects - the interaction of individual effects of the Development upon identified receptors / resources.

• Inter-project effects – the combination of effects from several developments (in this case ‘cumulative schemes’):

i) Effects of the Development and the Consented Chelsea Creek Development for those topics not already subject to assessment chapters and therefore summarised above (e.g. Air Quality, Noise and Vibration, Transport); and,

ii) Effects of the Development and all other cumulative schemes for topics which are not subject to assessment chapters and therefore summarised above (e.g. Air Quality, Noise and Vibration etc.).

11.2 Effect interactions can arise where individual effects combine from the Development on a particular sensitive receptor. Only residual effects classified as being of minor/moderate/major and of beneficial or adverse significance have been considered in relation to the potential for the combined effects of individual impacts. For some environmental aspects, no interactions with other aspects can occur and as a result no combined cumulative impacts could arise. Where there is considered to be no potential for impact interactions this is stated.

In-combination effects

11.3 No significant effect interactions have been identified during the construction stage of the project.

11.4 The significant environmental effects identified from the completed Development are generally beneficial, long term in duration and are applicable throughout the life span of the Development. Some adverse residual effects have been identified in relation to Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing (to neighbouring properties), Heritage, Townscape and Visual, and some localised wind effects that would be intermittent during the year depending on weather and microclimate conditions. These issues would not interact to give rise to a cumulative effect.

11.5 The completed Development is likely to give rise to a socio-economic effect interaction due to the local population, including residents and economic receptors, experiencing the creation of new employment opportunities; increased local spending by new residents and employees; and the general townscape and visual amenity improvements associated with the Development.

Inter-project effects

The Development and Consented Chelsea Creek Development (Blocks A – F and Section 96A application works)

11.6 The remainder of the Consented Chelsea Creek Development is expected to be completed by Q2 of 2020, and this includes the works associated with Block F, the basement and canal (as amended by the Section 96A application). Construction works for the Development are expected to commence towards the end of Q1 of 2020. This could potential result in an overlap of construction actives of approximately four months between the Development and the Consented Chelsea Creek Development. However, the vast majority of the works associated with the Consented Chelsea Creek Development would have been completed prior to the construction commencing on the Development. It is not anticipated that there would be any significant


27

effects as a result of the four month overlap of construction works provided good practice site management and standard mitigation measures are implemented.

11.7 The assessment identified no significant cumulative effects for the following technical topics: Transport and Access; Air Quality; Noise and Vibration; Ground Conditions; Water Resources, Flood Risk and Drainage; Archaeology; Built Heritage (On Site); Biodiversity.

All Cumulative Schemes and the Development

11.8 The assessment identified 8 cumulative schemes which have the potential to overlap with the Development and thus could give rise to cumulative effects. However, it has been assumed that the Development and the cumulative schemes would adhere to good practice site management measures and plans (to be agreed with LBH&F or RBK&C) and that standard mitigation measures would be in place to minimise the potential for significant cumulative effects during construction works.

11.9 On this basis all cumulative construction effects are considered to be temporary, short-term in nature and not significant for the following topics: Transport and Access; Air Quality; Noise and Vibration; Ground Conditions; Water Resources, Flood Risk and Drainage; and Ecology.


11.10 The assessment identified no significant cumulative effects for the following technical topics: Transport and Access; Air Quality; Noise and Vibration; Ground Conditions; Water Resources, Flood Risk and Drainage; Archaeology; Built Heritage (On Site); Biodiversity.

11.11 Beneficial cumulative socio-economic effects would include approximately 6,950 residential units, up to 1,600 jobs; local spending and provision of open space.


28

12 Mitigation, Monitoring and Residual Effects 12.1 The ES includes a summary of the proposed mitigation measures and significant residual effects for all the

topics considered. No monitoring measures have been identified as being necessary.

12.2 During the two-year programme of construction works, some adverse heritage, townscape and visual effects will occur, although these effects are temporary, even with effective implementation of the CEMP and CLP in place. It is expected that the CEMP and CLP would be secured by planning condition prior to the commencement of any works commencing for the Development. These documents include mitigation measures identified as part of the EIA as well as good practice site management. They also outline how the critical construction activities will be undertaken, specifically in relation to the environmental, public health and safety aspects and traffic management of the Development.


12.3 Mitigation measures have been designed into the Development where possible, and once constructed and occupied, the Development is expected to have the following beneficial effects:

• Provision of up to 415 new homes (including affordable homes) and between 20 to 30 jobs;

• Additional spending boost to the local community (approximately £6 million per year);

• Provision of new areas of public open space; and

• An improved heritage, townscape and visual setting.

12.4 The only residual adverse effects once the Development is complete are predicted to be in relation to daylight, sunlight and overshadowing and heritage, townscape and visual effects, specifically from Brompton Cemetery (classified as ‘less than substantial harm’).

12.5 The Site is currently under used and this has resulted in uncharacteristic high light levels for an urban environment in London which allows daylight and sunlight to easily reach the surrounding properties / windows. The Site is recognised as an area of development opportunity within local policy. Therefore, there is reasonable expectation that the Site and surrounding areas will be redeveloped in the future in order to meet the regional and local development objectives, which call for a greater number of homes and amenities. Therefore, daylight, sunlight and the urban townscape will change as the area is redeveloped and this should be borne in mind when considering these residual effects.


29

References

1 LBH&F (2018), Hammersmith & Fulham – Local Plan, February 2018 2 Her Majesty’s Stationary Office (HMSO), 2017. The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017. The Stationary Office 3 BRE, 2011, Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight: A guide to good practice

Documents

Chelsea Creek Buildings G and H - IEMA Creek... · the West London Railway Line, Chelsea Creek and the Chelsea Island development site. 2.3 A tributary of the River Thames known as