NTS V4 final - IEMA...you move south and west away from the main Canary Wharf Central Business...

Non-Technical Summary

N

Introduction The Application

^vhbk= dolrm= absbilmjbkq= ifjfqba= (hereafter referred to as ‘the Applicant’) is seeking detailed planning permission for the construction of two towers of 51 and 39 storeys in the Isle of Dogs area of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets (LBTH) (hereafter referred to as the ‘proposed development’). (National Grid Reference 537207, 179888) as shown in Figure 1.

The site is approximately 0.4 hectares (ha) in area, and is currently unoccupied. As shown in Figure 2, the site is bounded by Cuba Street to the north and east; by Tobago Street to the west and Manilla Street to the south.

The maximum height of the proposed development will be 157.7 metres (m) above ground level (agl) for Tower B, with a lower tower (Tower A) being 124.7m AOD.

Figure 1 Site Location

The proposed development will comprise predominantly residential use, with elements of hotel, office, retail community and leisure. It will provide a total of approximately 69,226 square metres (m2) Gross External Area (GEA) of floorspace.

The EIA Process

URS Corporation Ltd (URS) has been commissioned by the Applicant to undertake an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 (amended 2000, 2006 and 2008) (Ref. 1). The results of this process are presented in the Environmental Statement (ES) and accompanying technical appendices. This document, known as the Non-Technical Summary (NTS), provides an overview of the findings of the EIA. The NTS has been prepared for a general audience including parties potentially affected by the proposed development. The ES describes the potential impacts of the project during the construction and operational phases of the proposed development.

The ES has considered the likely impact of the proposed development on its site, local neighbours, and wider environment. It considers the impact upon the local, regional and national economy.


=O=

Mitigation measures to either eliminate or reduce adverse impacts have been incorporated into the construction methodology and design of the proposed development, wherever possible.

The ES has highlighted the remaining or ‘residual’ impacts which remain following the incorporation of any identified mitigation measures. The significance of residual impacts has been evaluated with reference to definitive standards, accepted criteria and legislation where available. Where it has not been possible to quantify impacts, qualitative assessments have been carried out based on professional experience and judgement. Impacts have been classified as being adverse, negligible or beneficial in nature and either minor, moderate or major in significance. Where possible, impacts have also been considered in terms of their geographic scale (for example, local, district or regional), and their timescale (for example short-term, long-term and permanent).

The ES also describes the consultation process undertaken to ensure that the views and concerns of interested parties, and statutory consultees, have been given due consideration in the design process.

Figure 2 Site Boundary

The ES Documents

ES Volume I: This document forms the main body of the ES detailing the results of environmental investigations, impacts arising and proposed mitigation measures.

ES Volume II – Townscape, Built Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment: A separate Townscape, Built Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment document has also been produced and submitted as part of the EIA. This document assesses the impact on strategic and local views to the site and is accompanied by a full set of verified images as agreed with LBTH.

ES Volume III - Technical Appendices: The Technical Appendices provide detail on the assessments undertaken and information used to inform the ES Volume I.

ES Non-Technical Summary (NTS): This document, written in a non-technical language, provides an overview of the findings of the ES.


P

Scoping and Consultation

The EIA has included a programme of ongoing consultation, which is critical to the development of a balanced ES. Views of statutory and non-statutory consultees serve to focus the studies and identify those issues which require further investigation. Consultation also enables mitigation measures to be introduced during the project design process. In addition to statutory consultees, the design team has consulted with the wider community; utility operators; and special interest groups. As part of the process, a Scoping Report was submitted to the LBTH, and a response was received in April 2009. qÜÉ= éä~ååáåÖ= ~ééäáÅ~íáçå=ï~ë= ëìÄëÉèìÉåíäó= ÇÉä~óÉÇ= Ñçê= çîÉê= ~= óÉ~êI= ~åÇ= ~ë= ~= êÉëìäíI= ~=

pÅçéáåÖ= ^ãÉåÇãÉåí= iÉííÉê= ï~ë= ëÉåí= íç= íÜÉ= i_qeI= ~åÇ= ~=

êÉëéçåëÉ= êÉÅÉáîÉÇ= áå=j~êÅÜ= OMNNK=The scoping and consultation process helped to identify the key environmental issues to be covered by the ES.

The process of consultation has been ongoing throughout the design evolution and it has given key consultees the opportunity to be involved in the evolution of the design and preliminary assessment of environmental impacts. Key consultees have included:

• London Borough of Tower Hamlets (LBTH);

• Greater London Authority (GLA);

• Environment Agency (EA);

• Natural England (NE);

• Transport for London (TfL);

• Civil Aviation Authority;

• Thames Water Utilities Ltd; and

• Other interested parties.

Planning Policy Context The proposed development has been assessed against relevant national, regional and local planning policies. At the local level, the LBTH Core Strategy (UDP) (Ref. 2) was adopted in 2010, and its saved policies (listed in Appendix 5 of that document) are a material planning consideration.

The London Plan, 2008 (Ref. 3) provides strategic planning guidance for London. A draft Replacement London Plan (Ref. 4) was published in December 2009 and is expected to be adopted in late 2011.

In summary, the proposed development broadly accords with relevant planning policies and guidance at national, regional and local levels. In particular it will respond positively to policies relating to business and employment, transport, design, energy, sustainability, transport and other environmental impacts.

Alternatives and Design Evolution The configuration, form, layout and design of the proposed development are the result of a detailed process in which a number of alternatives were considered resulting in the current design. The design evolved in response to local influences and constraints such as planning policy and the site’s context and history, including the scale and character of surrounding buildings and streetscape.

All previous, low rise, buildings on the site were demolished some while ago, and it is presently unused other than as a location for temporary site offices. As it was previously used it is classified as ‘brownfield’ and therefore suitable for development

The site is not located within a conservation area and does not contain any listed buildings. The nearest Conservation Area (CA), West India Dock CA, lies approximately 800m northwest of the site.

The site is on the southern edge of a cluster of tall buildings, with predominantly middle rise buildings to the east and south east, and low rise buildings to the south. These buildings fall away in height from the higher commercial buildings within the Canary Wharf estate. The general tendancy therefore is for height to reduce as you move south and west away from the main Canary Wharf Central Business District.

As required by EIA legislation, the EIA describes the ‘no development’ option, consideration of ‘alternative sites’, and a number of ‘alternative designs’ in response to comments and input from consultees. The ‘no development option’ refers to leaving the site in its current state. This option would result in a range of disadvantages, including underutilisation of the current site and the loss of an opportunity to develop a brownfield site. Therefore the most appropriate solution is to redevelop the site.

No ‘alternative sites’ have been considered, as the site has been identified by Local planning policy as an area suitable for redevelopment. It is allocated for residential and employment uses and is in an ‘area of growth’. In addition, the site is currently unused and ‘brownfield’, and under Policy 3.3 ‘Increasing Housing Supply’ of the draft Replacement London Plan encourages development of these sites.

In terms of ‘alternative designs’, the design history for the development of this site started in 2008, continuing throughout 2009, before the economic downturn caused the Applicant to reconsider the options, resulting in a delay.

The Design Team began by exploring a basic massing. Figure 3 shows the main steps of this process. Firstly, a rectangular block, covering the entire site footprint, was considered, combined with a tower structure on the eastern half of the site. This option was


=Q=

quickly rejected, as it failed to take the opportunity to enhance the public realm and provide some permeability through the site.

Secondly, the building footprint was reduced, introducing 2 tower blocks, to provide a gap between them. However, early analysis of daylight and sunlight conditions revealed that the towers had to be ‘slimmed’ and positioned further apart. This allowed significantly improved light penetration to the north of the site.

The concept of the ‘twin towers’ fitted in with an already established pattern of design in the area. The taller towers located to the eastern end of the site complements the general reduction in height moving south and west away from the CBD.

Subsequently, a wind tunnel test was carried out, which led to the ‘rounding’ of the towers (i.e. allowing a more favourable environment for pedestrians at street level).

Figure 3 Principal Early Stages in the Design Evolution Process

The initial massing proposal expressed the Design Team’s ambitions to create an environmentally responsive form, articulated with respect to its urban context and making full use of curved geometries.

Figure 4 shows the massing model produced in January / February 2009. It introduced the following:

• A slowly rotating tower

• An offset part way up to give reference to surrounding mid height buildings;

• A 3 storey podium at the base of both towers; and

• Towers approximately 172m and 135m in height.

Consultation occurred through the design evolution process, with LBTH and the GLA. Their feedback was invaluable in order to develop the design. For example;

• Quality of public realm; size, use and environmental conditions should be considered further;

• An exceptional design would be needed to justify exceeding the existing height of Pan Peninsula;

• A ‘mini-masterplan’ integrating the emerging proposals for 30 and 40 Marsh Wall was suggested (to the north and east of the site);

• A servicing strategy should be developed, preferably with access from the eastern end of the site being reviewed.

Further façade treatments and colourations were considered, for example to distinguish between the two towers as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4 Early Massing Model (top) and the Distinction of Colours (bottom)

The site offered a significant opportunity to provide major improvements to the public realm and pedestrian permeability. Designs including broad podiums at low level, and suspended bridges connecting the two towers were explored, as shown in Figure 5. This figure also shows the consideration of vehicular


R

access from Cuba Street on the northern edge of the site. However, the benefits of providing a single large open ground floor space resulted in these design features being removed.

Figure 5 Early Iteration of the Ground Floor and Bridging Structure Between Towers

The Proposed Development Overview

The proposed development is in the form of two towers, Tower A and Tower B. The height extends to a maximum of +127.20m above ordnance datum (AOD) for Tower A (western part of the site), and +160.20m AOD on the Tower B (to the east). This corresponds to 124.7m and 157.7m above ground level (agl).

The building’s mass has been developed in relation to the local and city context. The building profiles have been refined to minimise daylighting & wind impact. The building mass is broadly consistent in height and footprint with some of the buildings located along Marsh Wall (The Landmark, Pan Peninsula and City Pride (consented)).

The Gross External Areas of each of the proposed uses is provided in Table 1.

The proposed uses are shown in Figure 6.

Table 1 Area Schedule of the Proposed Development

Arrangement of Accommodation

Basement

There are two levels of basement. The upper basement contains the conference facilities for the hotel, car parking (152 parking spaces), bicycle parking (556 spaces) and plant rooms. The lower basement extends to 8.4 metres below ground level and provides further plant areas, car parking and servicing areas for the hotel & residential accommodation.

Use GEA Sq Metres

Residential 47,564

Hotel 11,349

Community Centre 1,039

Office 523

Retail 583

Basement 6,122

Other 2,046

TOTAL 69,226


=S=

Figure 6 Arangement of Proposed Uses


T

Ground Floor

A ground floor plan showing the proposed uses is provided in Figure 7. This illustrates the location of entrances as well as the vehicles access and servicing point to the south of Tower B. The large central open amenity space and off road coach parking space is also provided at ground level.

Upper Floors

Upper floors are arranged as shown in a typical floor layout (level 6) (see Figure 7).

Figure7 Layout of the Ground Floor and Level 6


=U=

Façade Treatment

The external envelope to both towers consists of a double skin facade. The outer layer is a single open jointed glazed panel. The inner layer consists of double glazing. Together, they result in improved energy performance. This is shown in Figure 8. This figure also shows another beneficial feature of the proposed development, the provision of winter gardens (enclosed balconies).

Figure 8 The Façade Design (Showing Winter Gardens)

Landscape and Amenity Space

A landscape strategy has been produced which incorporates planting that is intended to offer shade, shelter, environmental and visual amenity. Native species will be preferred where they can demonstrate the right form and perform well without excessive management.

The public open space provided by the proposed development will incorporate playable space for younger children (aimed at age-groups up to 11 years) and will positively impact on the local ecology and quality of the public realm generally.

The public realm at street level promotes use and offers all the benefits described above.

• Children’s play provision is provided centrally, away from car traffic and in a well overlooked location;

• Paths intersect near the play area to encourage chance meetings between people;

• Space for cafe tables is provided outside retail units to the south and east of Tower A – in a sunny location, which is not adversely affected by wind;

• Seating is provided informally throughout.

Residents of the proposed development will benefit from sheltered open-air planted terraces at level 18 of Tower A and levels 23 and 50 of Tower B, as shown in Figure 9. These will incorporate areas for play, meeting and social functions, or just space to relax and take in dramatic panoramic views of London and its surroundings.

Figure 9 Residents Amenity Space on Roof of Tower B

Energy and Sustainability

Energy and sustainability have been considered throughout the design evolution of the proposed development. It includes a range of features which improves the buildings’ environmental performance. These features follow the Mayor’s energy hierarchy and the Energy Strategy submitted as part of this planning application follows the detailed guidance provided in the GLA Energy Team’s ‘Guidance on Planning Energy Assessments (Ref. 7).

Passive design and energy efficiency (‘be lean’)

Passive design and energy efficiency measures will include:

• Improve insulation performance for the building fabric;

• Use of a double-skin façade;

• Efficient use of thermal mass and exposed slabs in living areas to manage the risk of overheating; and


V

• Incorporate high performance glass throughout.

• Energy efficient lighting and lighting controls;

• Provision of sub-metering of substantial energy uses and tenancy areas;

• High efficiency boilers and chillers alongside low and zero carbon technologies;

• Heating and cooling controls to operate efficiently under different load conditions and allow for localised control;

• Building Management Systems (BMS) to control and monitor central plant.

båÉêÖó=ÉÑÑáÅáÉåí=ëìééäó=çÑ=ëÉêîáÅÉë=EÚÄÉ=ÅäÉ~åÛF=

qÜÉ=ÑçääçïáåÖ=íïç=ÚÄÉ=ÅäÉ~åÛ=çéíáçåë=~êÉ=ÅçåëáÇÉêÉÇ=áå=íÜáë=ÉåÉêÖó=

ëíê~íÉÖóW=

• Connection to the EDF Barkantine District Heating Network (DHN); or

• On-site Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plant future-proofed for connection to the EDF Barkantine DHN.

lå=ëáíÉ=oÉåÉï~ÄäÉ=båÉêÖó=qÉÅÜåçäçÖáÉë=EÚÄÉ=ÖêÉÉåÛF=

qç=ÑìêíÜÉê=êÉÇìÅÉ=`lO=ÉãáëëáçåëI=~å=~å~äóëáë=çÑ=íÜÉ=ÑÉ~ëáÄáäáíó=çÑ=

êÉåÉï~ÄäÉ= ÉåÉêÖó= íÉÅÜåçäçÖáÉë= Ü~ë= ÄÉÉå= ìåÇÉêí~âÉåK=

mÜçíçîçäí~áÅ=EmsF=~êê~óë=Ü~îÉ=ÄÉÉå=áÇÉåíáÑáÉÇ=~ë=ÑÉ~ëáÄäÉI=~åÇ=áí=áë=

éêçéçëÉÇ=íÜ~í=~ééêçñáã~íÉäó=NMMã²=çÑ= íÜÉ=ms=~êê~óë=~êÉ= äçÅ~íÉÇ=

çå=íÜÉ=êççÑ=ëíêìÅíìêÉI=Ñ~ÅáåÖ=ëçìíÜK=

Construction

It is currently projected that the construction process would commence in Q3 of 2012 (following the London Olympics) and will take approximately 42 months to complete. Whilst details relating to the construction have not been finalised, it is possible to provide general information about the timing of activities. An indicative construction programme is presented in Table 2.

Table 2 Indicative Duration of Construction Activities

Activity Approximate Duration (months)

Enabling works & initial site set-up 1.5

Site preparation & clearance 4

Substructure works – piling works and basement construction

12

Superstructure construction to shell & core completion 24

Fit-out and externals beyond completion of frame (estimate of tenant fit out period) 24

Total duration 42*

Note: * Includes some overlap of activities.

It is anticipated that the core working hours for construction will be set out as follows:

• 08h00 – 18h00: weekdays; and

• 08h00 – 13h00: Saturdays.

Working on Sunday will be subject to reasonable notice with LBTH.

Works will not commence until full perimeter hoarding is in place, and a safety scaffold has been erected.

Following this, the general sequence of work will be as follows:

• Foundation strategy;

• Installation of retaining structures;

• Piling and substructure construction;

• Superstructure construction;

• Internal fit-out;

• External works and landscaping; and

• Commissioning and building handover. The appointed Principal Contractor for the construction phase will be required to operate an Environmental Management System. In addition the contractor will be appointed to develop a Construction Method Statement (CMS). The CMS will include a comprehensive neighbourhood relation and tenant liaison strategy and identify all procedures to be adhered to through construction. Individual trade contractors will follow environmental control, health and safety regulations, and current guidance. This will ensure that all contractors involved with the construction phase are committed to agreed best practice.

A Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP) will be developed by the principal contractor detailing how construction waste will be managed and disposed of.

Socio-Economics The EIA has assessed the socio-economic impact of the proposed development compared to the existing activity on site on a range of socio-economic parameters such as education, employment, health, open space and office provision.

During construction, the proposed development will generate up to 392 construction jobs, which represents a minor beneficial short-term impact.

Once operational, the proposed development will generate approximately 219 net full time employees from its various employment uses. This is considered a minor beneficial impact.

The proposed development will provide 439 residential units, of which 83 will be affordable. This is considered to be a moderate to minor beneficial impact.

Transport The EIA has assessed the potential impacts of the proposed development including:


=NM=

• Construction traffic;

• Cycle and pedestrian facilities;

• Public transport capacity (e.g. Docklands Light Railway, London Underground and bus services);

• Local highway network; and

• Parking provision and servicing activity

aìêáåÖ= ÅçåëíêìÅíáçåI= íÜÉ= ìëÉ= çÑ= j~åáää~= píêÉÉí= Ñçê= îÉÜáÅäÉë= íç=

access=íÜÉ=ëáíÉ=ã~ó=Å~ìëÉ=Çáëêìéíáçå=~åÇ=delays=~ë=îÉÜáÅäÉë=íìêå=ÄÉíïÉÉå= tÉëíÑÉêêó= oç~Ç= ~åÇ= j~åáää~= píêÉÉíK= = eçïÉîÉêI= íÜÉ=

mêáåÅáé~ä= `çåíê~Åíçê= ïáää= éêçîáÇÉ= ~= `çåëíêìÅíáçå= jÉíÜçÇ=

pí~íÉãÉåí=E`jpFI=ïÜáÅÜ=ïáää=ëÉí=çìí=ÇÉí~áäë=çÑ=íÜÉ=ã~å~ÖÉãÉåí=çÑ=

îÉÜáÅìä~ê= ãçîÉãÉåíëK= péÉÅáÑáÅ= ÇÉäáîÉêó= ~åÇ= ÅçääÉÅíáçå= íáãÉë= ïáää=

ÄÉ=ÉåÑçêÅÉÇ=Ñçê=îÉÜáÅäÉë=~í=íÜÉ=ëáíÉI=~åÇ=ÅçåëçäáÇ~íáçå=çÑ=ÇÉäáîÉêáÉë=

ïáää=çÅÅìê=ïÜÉêÉ=éçëëáÄäÉK= =^åó=éçíÉåíá~ääó=~ÇîÉêëÉ= áãé~Åí=ïçìäÇ=

ÄÉ= íÉãéçê~êó= ~åÇ= çÑ= ëÜçêí= Çìê~íáçåK= qÜÉëÉ= ãÉ~ëìêÉë= ïçìäÇ=

êÉÇìÅÉ=íÜÉ=áãé~Åí=íç=åÉÖäáÖáÄäÉK=

låÅÉ= çéÉê~íáçå~äI= íÜÉ= éêçéçëÉÇ= ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí= ïáää= áåÅäìÇÉ= NRO=

ëí~åÇ~êÇ= Å~ê= é~êâáåÖ= ëé~ÅÉëI= ~äíÜçìÖÜ= ~å~äóëáë= Ü~ë= ëÜçïå= íÜ~í=

~åó=áåÅêÉ~ëÉë=çå=íÜÉ=äçÅ~ä=ÜáÖÜï~ó=åÉíïçêâ=ïáää=ÄÉ=åÉÖäáÖáÄäÉK=

qÜÉ= ëáíÉ= áë= áå= ~å= ~êÉ~= çÑ= ÖççÇ=éìÄäáÅ= íê~åëéçêí= éêçîáëáçå= EïáíÜ= ~=

éìÄäáÅ= íê~åëéçêí= ~ÅÅÉëëáÄáäáíó= äÉîÉä= Emq^iF= çÑ= QFK= qÜÉ= éêÉÇáÅíÉÇ=

áåÅêÉ~ëÉ=áå=é~ëëÉåÖÉêë=çå=íÜÉ=içåÇçå=råÇÉêÖêçìåÇ=~ë=~=êÉëìäí=çÑ=

íÜÉ= éêçéçëÉÇ= ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí= êÉéêÉëÉåíë= àìëí= MKORB= çÑ= íÜÉ= íê~áå=

Å~é~ÅáíóI=ëç= íÜÉ= äÉîÉä=çÑ= áãé~Åí=Å~å=ÄÉ=ÅçåëáÇÉêÉÇ=~ë=åÉÖäáÖáÄäÉK=

qÜÉ= ë~ãÉ= äÉîÉä= çÑ= áãé~Åí= áë= ~åíáÅáé~íÉÇ= Ñçê= ~åíáÅáé~íÉÇ= íêáé=

ÖÉåÉê~íáçå=çå=Äìë=~åÇ=açÅâä~åÇ=iáÖÜí=o~áäï~ó=ëÉêîáÅÉëK=

Ground Conditions The impact of the proposed development on existing ground conditions has been assessed with regards to legislation and current planning policy. This involved the review and collation of readily available information pertaining to the current condition of the soils and groundwater beneath and around the site. A variety of data sources were consulted, such as published maps and reference materials.

This information was used to establish the existing ground condition of the site, which in turn was used to evaluate impacts associated with the proposed development.

The ground conditions assessment concludes that there is potential for contaminated ground and groundwater at the site, resulting from its previous historical use as the former Broad Street Station. There are also a number of potential historical and existing off-site sources of contamination.

Therefore it will be necessary to undertake an intrusive investigation (both geotechnical and environmental) on the site prior to the commencement of construction works. This will involve a number of boreholes and/or trial pits, collecting soil samples for analysis and groundwater and gas monitoring.

The removal of contaminated soils (if any are found) associated with excavation work will result in a moderate beneficial (permanent) residual impact to the local environment.

A negligible impact to the geo-technical ground conditions is expected to occur throughout the construction phases of the proposed development due to the use of appropriate foundations.

Water Resources and Flood Risk Should contaminated ground and groundwater be identified at the site, water resources will be protected during construction through adhering to measures stated in the Environmental Management Plan and CMS (such as storing oils in suitably contained areas, and installing sediment traps on nearby surface water drains), resulting in negligible impacts.

During operation, the proposed development is expected to significantly increase the water supply requirements, and is expected to be of short-term, minor adverse impact, as in the longer term, it is the duty of Thames Water Utilities Ltd to supply adequate water. .

There will also be an increase in foul water discharge, that is likely to cause a short-term, minor adverse impact by increasing loading on downstream sewage treatment works. Again, it is the responsibility of TWUL to ensure that discharge from the drainage system is adequately dealt with by improvements to the STW.

With regards to flood risk, the site lies within Flood Zone 3, as defined by the Environment Agency’s indicative Flood Zone Map. This is a high-risk zone and therefore a Flood Risk Assessment (s required by Planning Policy Statement 25) has been undertaken. Existing flood defences protect the site from fluvial flooding (from the River Thames). The proposed development incorporates a large area of soft landscaping at ground level, which serves to reduce the rate of surface water running off the site and into the drainage network. Furthermore, the run-off will be stored in an attenuation tank in the basement to ensure the run-off rate stays lower than at the existing site. This will result in a negligible impact.

Noise and Vibration

The noise and vibration assessment considers potential impacts on sensitive receptors, in terms of noise and vibration levels from construction activities and traffic, noise from building services plant and increased traffic once the proposed development is operational.

The existing noise levels were determined by undertaking site monitoring, as shown on Figure 10 and described in Table xxx.. The data was then used to predict noise impacts at the following sensitive receptors also shown in Figure 10 and Table xxx.


NN

Figure 10 Location of Noise Monitoring and Sensitive Receptors

Table 3 Description of Noise Monitoring and Sensitive Receptors

Map Location Description Comment

L1

Near the Centre of site on roof of temporary offices

Long-term measurement location; AND

Representative of development façade on first floor of tower block

S1 Façade on West side of Tobago Street

Short-term measurement location;

Representative of development façade (west); AND

Potential sensitive receptor.

S2 Façade on South side of Cuba Street

Short-term measurement location; AND

Representative of development façade (north).

S3 Façade on East boundary of site


Representative of development façade (east).

S4 Façade on North side of Manilla Street


Representative of development façade (south).

R1 1-18 Regatta Point Apartments

Receptor Location

Residential Units

R2 Block C of 22-28 Marsh Wall

Receptor Location

Residential Units

R3 Flats 1-26 Block Wharf and 19 & 20 Cuba Street

Receptor Location

Residential Units

R4 Residences on Bellamy Close

Receptor Location

Residential Units

R5 1-4 Manilla Street Receptor Location

Residential Units

The noise assessment concludes that during construction, the introduction of the DCMS and use of ‘Best Practicable Means’ will reduce excessive noise levels and minimise vibration impact on sensitive receptors. Construction works noise, with mitigation measures in place, is expected to have a minor adverse (with periods of major adverse) impact at R3. The remaining Receptors will be mostly minor adverse, (although at times, this will vary between negligible and moderate adverse impacts).

Impacts from construction vibration will generally be negligible, although this will increase should underlying rock be encountered.

fåÅêÉ~ëÉ=áå=åçáëÉ=ÇìÉ=íç=ÅçåëíêìÅíáçå=íê~ÑÑáÅ=ïáää=Ü~îÉ=åç=áãé~Åí=çå=

tÉëíÑÉêêó=oç~Ç=~åÇ=~=ãáåçê=~ÇîÉêëÉ=áãé~Åí=çå=`ìÄ~=píêÉÉí=~åÇ=

j~åáä~=píêÉÉíK=

Once the proposed development is operational, building services plant will be designed to achieve the recommended operational noise limits. Therefore negligible impacts are expected. There are no impacts in terms of building plant vibration.

léÉê~íáçå~ä=íê~ÑÑáÅ=ïáää=êÉëìäí=áå=åç=áãé~Åí=íç=tÉëíÑÉêêó=oç~ÇI=_óåÖ=

píêÉÉíI= j~ëíã~âÉê= oç~ÇI= j~êëÜ= t~ääI= j~ëíã~âÉê= oç~ÇI= ~=

åÉÖäáÖáÄäÉ= áãé~Åí= çå= j~åáä~= píêÉÉí= ~åÇ= `ìÄ~= píêÉÉíI= ~åÇ= ~=

ãçÇÉê~íÉ=~ÇîÉêëÉ=áãé~Åí=íç=qçÄ~Öç=píêÉÉí=EïÜáÅÜ=Ü~ë=~=îÉêó=äçï=

íê~ÑÑáÅ=ìë~ÖÉ=ÅìêêÉåíäóFK

With the inclusion of a suitable façade insulation scheme and ventilation strategy, it is considered that suitable internal noise levels can be achieved, resulting in a negligible impact.

Air Quality The EIA has included an assessment of both construction and operational impacts to air quality, such as that from construction traffic, plant and equipment exhausts, dust generated during earth moving and construction, and once operational, additional road traffic and heating and power plant of the proposed development..

The maximum predicted increase in average concentrations of oxides of Nitrogen caused by construction traffic and plant is predicted to be ‘small’ in magnitude and of minor adverse significance. Any impacts arising from construction dust are predicted to cause a minor adverse impact to local air quality. This impact will be short-term, lasting only for the duration of the construction phase, and a number of mitigation measures have been recommended within the Construction Method Statement (CMS) to minimise these impacts.

Once operational, there is predicted to be an imperceptible increase in mean annual road traffic pollutant concentrations, which is considered to be of negligible significance.

It is proposed to connect the proposed development to the Barkentine Community Heating System, which means that there

L1

S1

S2

S3S4

R1

R2

R3

R5R4


=NO=

will be no requirement for on-site boilers and therefore there will be no impact from building heating plant.

^êÅÜ~ÉçäçÖó

The Museum of London Archaeology conducted an archaeological evaluation on the site in 2008. lîÉê~ääI= íÜÉ=Éî~äì~íáçå= ÑçìåÇ= íÜ~í=íÜÉ= ëáíÉ= ä~ó= çå= ~= Öê~îÉä= áëä~åÇ= ïÜáÅÜ= ïçìäÇ= Ü~îÉ= ÄÉÉå= áÇÉ~ä= Ñçê=

éêÉÜáëíçêáÅ= çÅÅìé~íáçå= çê= ~ÅíáîáíóK= kç= ÉîáÇÉåÅÉ= çÑ= ëìÅÜ=

çÅÅìé~íáçåL~Åíáîáíó=ï~ë= áÇÉåíáÑáÉÇ=ÇìêáåÖ=íÜÉ=Éî~äì~íáçåI=~äíÜçìÖÜ=

~= êÉëáÇì~ä=Äìêåí= Ñäáåí=ï~ë= ÑçìåÇ=ïáíÜáå= íÜÉ=~ääìîá~ä=ÇÉéçëáíëK=låäó=

íÜÉ= ÉîáÇÉåÅÉ= çÑ= NVíÜJÅÉåíìêó= áåÇìëíêá~ä= ÄìáäÇáåÖëI= ÅÉëë= éáíë= ~åÇ=

ÖêçìåÇ=ê~áëáåÖ=ï~ë=êÉÅçêÇÉÇK=

The site has a low potential for prehistoric, Roman and medieval remains, but a known potential for post-medieval remains. However, the survival of these remains is thought to be poor across the site.

qÜÉ= éêçéçëÉÇ= ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí= ïáää= êÉèìáêÉ= ÉñÅ~î~íáçå= ~Åêçëë= íÜÉ=

ÉåíáêÉ= ëáíÉ= ÑççíéêáåíI= íç= ~= ÇÉéíÜ= çÑ= VKQã= ÄÉäçï= ÖêçìåÇ= äÉîÉäK=

aáëíìêÄ~åÅÉ= çÑ= ~êÅÜ~ÉçäçÖáÅ~ä= êÉã~áåë= EçÑ= äçï= áãéçêí~åÅÉF= áë=

ÅçåëáÇÉêÉÇ=íç=ÄÉ=~=ãáåçê=~ÇîÉêëÉ=áãé~ÅíK=eçïÉîÉê= ÑçääçïáåÖ=íÜÉ=

ïçêâ= áå= OMMUI= i_qe= êÉÅçããÉåÇÉÇ= íÜ~í= åç= ÑìêíÜÉê= ïçêâ= ï~ë=

åÉÅÉëë~êó=~í=íÜÉ=ëáíÉK

Wind Microclimate

The Wind Microclimate conditions of the site and the surrounding area have been assessed using scale models in a wind tunnel (shown in Figure 11).

Figure 11 The Proposed Development Model in the Wind Tunnel

This assessment considered a direct comparison between the baseline conditions and those created by the proposed development for 12 wind directions. The assessment investigated the likely pedestrian conditions in and around the proposed development when it is subject to wind from different directions. The conditions for the worst case season (winter) are shown in Figure 12. This shows some areas which, unmitigated, could result in minor adverse imapcts (i.e. conditions are windier than for their intended use). However, mitigation includes:

• Suitable recessing and/or vertical screens on both sides of entrances at locations 4, 10, 20 and 21 would generate a sheltered buffer zone;

• Suitable landscape planting and/or sculptural screening to shelter users of the outdoor seating areas (location 15) ;

• Suitable landscape planting or sculptural features in the vicinities of location 18 would disrupt and displace the winds above pedestrian height.

táíÜ= íÜÉ= proposed= ãáíáÖ~íáçå= ãÉ~ëìêÉë= áå= éä~ÅÉ= íÜÉ= áãé~Åí= çå=

ïáåÇ=ãáÅêçÅäáã~íÉ=~í=~ää=äçÅ~íáçåë=~êÉ=ÉñéÉÅíÉÇ=íç=ÄÉ=åÉÖäáÖáÄäÉ=íç=

ãçÇÉê~íÉ= ÄÉåÉÑáÅá~äI= ïÜáÅÜ= áãéäáÉë= íÜ~í= íÜÉ= ïáåÇ= ãáÅêçÅäáã~íÉ=

ïçìäÇ=ÄÉ=ëìáí~ÄäÉ=Ñçê=íÜÉ=áåíÉåÇÉÇ=ìëÉI=çê=Å~äãÉê=íÜ~å=êÉèìáêÉÇK


NP

Figure 12 Worst Case Wind Tunnel Results

Daylight, Sunlight, Overshadowing and Solar Glare Building Research Establishment (BRE) Guidance (Ref. 8) has been used to predict the likely impacts of the proposed development on daylight, sunlight, overshadowing and solar glare to sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the site. Sensitive receptors comprised a total of 782 windows in 30 surrounding properties.

qÜÉ=ëáíÉ=áë=ÅìêêÉåíäó=ÅäÉ~êÉÇ=çÑ=éÉêã~åÉåí=ÄìáäÇáåÖëI=~åÇ=íÜÉêÉÑçêÉ=

íÜÉ=~ëëÉëëãÉåí=ï~ë=Å~êêáÉÇ=çìí=~Ö~áåëí=~=Ä~ëÉäáåÉ=ïÜáÅÜ=áåÅäìÇÉÇ=

íÜÉ= éêÉJÉñáëíáåÖ= äçï= êáëÉ= ÄìáäÇáåÖëK= qÜáë= ëíáää= ~ääçïë= Ñçê= êÉä~íáîÉäó=

ÜáÖÜ=äÉîÉäë=çÑ=Ç~óäáÖÜí=~åÇ=ëìåäáÖÜí=íç=íÜÉ=ëìêêçìåÇáåÖ=éêçéÉêíáÉëI=

Åçãé~êÉÇ= íç=~= íóéáÅ~ä=ìêÄ~å=~êÉ~K= fí= áë=åçí=ìåìëì~ä= Ñçê= áååÉêJÅáíó=

äçÅ~íáçåë= ëìÅÜ= ~ë= íÜáë= íç= Åçåí~áå= ãìÅÜ= í~ääÉê= ÄìáäÇáåÖë= ~åÇ=

íÜÉêÉÑçêÉ=Ü~îÉ=äÉëëÉê=äÉîÉäë=çÑ=Ç~óäáÖÜí=~åÇ=ëìåäáÖÜíK==

=

=

=

qÜÉ= ~ëëÉëëãÉåí= ëÜçïÉÇ= íÜ~í= TSB=çÑ= êççãë=ïáää= åçí= ÉñéÉêáÉåÅÉ=

~äíÉê~íáçåë= áå= Ç~óäáÖÜíáåÖ= äÉîÉäë= ïÜáÅÜ= ~êÉ= ÄÉóçåÇ= íÜÉ= _ob=

dìáÇÉäáåÉëI=~åÇ=íÜÉ=çÅÅìé~åíë=~êÉ=ìåäáâÉäó=íç=åçíáÅÉ=~=ÅÜ~åÖÉ=íç=

íÜÉáê= äÉîÉäë= çÑ= Ç~óäáÖÜí= ~ãÉåáíóK= = qÜÉ= áãé~Åí= íç= íÜÉëÉ= êççãë= áë=

íÜÉêÉÑçêÉ= ÅçåëáÇÉêÉÇ= íç= ÄÉ= åÉÖäáÖáÄäÉK= qÜÉ= êÉã~áåáåÖ= êççãë= ïáää=

ÉñéÉêáÉåÅÉ=ãáåçê=íç=ãçÇÉê~íÉ=~ÇîÉêëÉ=áãé~ÅíëK=

qÜÉ=ã~àçêáíó=EU=çìí=çÑ=NPF=çÑ=éêçéÉêíáÉë=íÉëíÉÇ=Ñçê=ëìåäáÖÜí=áãé~Åíë=

ïáää= ÉñéÉêáÉåÅÉ= åÉÖäáÖáÄäÉ= áãé~ÅíëI= ~äíÜçìÖÜ= íÜÉ= êÉã~áåÇÉê= ïáää=

ÉñéÉêáÉåÅÉ=ãáåçê=íç=ã~àçê=~ÇîÉêëÉ=áãé~ÅíëK===

It should be noted that the BRE Guidelines were written with a suburban context in mind and should be applied flexibly in this situation. In the majority of cases the retained daylight and sunlight values are commensurate with those of residential properties within similarly dense urban locations.


=NQ=

^ë= ÇÉëÅêáÄÉÇ= éêÉîáçìëäóI= íÜÉ= ^äíÉêå~íáîÉë= ~åÇ= aÉëáÖå= bîçäìíáçå=

ÅçåëáÇÉêÉÇ=Üçï=É~êäó=Ç~óäáÖÜí=~åÇ=ëìåäáÖÜí=~å~äóëáë=Å~êêáÉÇ=çìí=çå=

~=åìãÄÉê=çÑ=ëÅÜÉãÉ=áíÉê~íáçåë=äÉÇ=íç=íÜÉ=íçïÉêë=ÄÉáåÖ=ÚëäáããÉÇÛ=

~åÇ=éçëáíáçåÉÇ= ÑìêíÜÉê= ~é~êí= íç=ã~ñáãáëÉ= íÜÉ= ~ãçìåí=çÑ=Ç~óäáÖÜí=

~åÇ=ëìåäáÖÜí=éÉåÉíê~íáåÖ=íÜêçìÖÜ=íÜÉ=ëáíÉK=

There will be negligible impacts from permanent overshadowing, with minor adverse impacts from transient overshaowding.

The impact of sunlight reflecting off the facades of the proposed development has been investigated, to prevent potentially hazardous conditions on the local highways. The solar glare was identified to have potentially significant impacts, although the use of non-reflective materials on parts of the facades will mitigate this to negligible to minor adverse.

Ecology An ecological assessment was undertaken to identify the potential impacts to ecology through the construction and operational stages of the proposed development.

A data-search for species and habitat records within a 2 kilometre (km) radius of the site was carried out. In addition, a Phase 1 Habitat Survey was undertaken on the 28th January 2009.

The proposed development site lies approximately 1.5km north of jìÇÅÜìíÉ=c~êã=~åÇ=m~êâ=içÅ~ä=k~íìêÉ=oÉëÉêîÉK=qhere are 28 non statutory ‘Sites for nature Conservation’ (SINCs) within 2km of the site. The site is located within íÜÉ=ÄçìåÇ~êáÉë=çÑ=íÜÉ=Ää~Åâ=êÉÇëí~êí==E~=éêçíÉÅíÉÇ=ÄáêÇ=ëéÉÅáÉëF=Úhåçïå=hÉó=^êÉ~ÛI=Äìí=íÜÉêÉ=Ü~îÉ=ÄÉÉå=åç=Ä~í=êççëíë=êÉÅçêÇÉÇ=ïáíÜáå=OâãK=

The survey showed that the site itself has little ecological interest. No protected faunal species were discovered. No notable or invasive plant species were identified on-site

As a result, although small amounts of vegetation will be lost during construction, this is considered of negligible importance, although the landscaping proposed and wildlife features introduced will result in minor beneficial impact of a short-term duration.

qÜÉ= éêçéçëÉÇ= ä~åÇëÅ~éáåÖ= ëÅÜÉãÉ= áë= äáãáíÉÇ= íç= street level and will comprise native trees, flowering plants and scrubs. All planting will be native where possible, or selected with a preference for flower or fruit that can act as food sources for native invertebrates and birds and of general ecological benefit. Additional ecological measures, such as bird nest boxes will be sited within the semi-mature trees. These will be sited with due regard to orientation and location. Target species may include house sparrow and starling, as well as songbirds including tit species, thrush, blackbird and robin.

The public realm will be managed by the site’s own management company staff, or a suitable BALI certified landscape ã~å~ÖÉãÉåí=

Åçåíê~ÅíçêK==

låÅÉ=íÜÉ=ÉÅçäçÖáÅ~ä=î~äìÉ=Ü~Äáí~íë=éä~åíÉÇ=çå=ëáíÉ=ÄÉÅçãÉ=ãçêÉ=

ã~íìêÉ= çîÉê= íáãÉI= ~= ãáåçê= ÄÉåÉÑáÅá~ä= áãé~Åí= ïáää= çÅÅìê= çå= íÜÉ=

Ü~Äáí~íë= éêÉëÉåí= ~í= ~= ëáíÉ= äÉîÉäK= qÜáë= ïáää= ~äëç= êÉëìäí= áå= ~= ãáåçê=

ÄÉåÉÑáÅá~ä=áãé~Åí=ìéçå=íÜÉ=ÄêÉÉÇáåÖ=ÄáêÇë=ìíáäáëáåÖ=íÜÉ=ëáíÉ=~í=~=ëáíÉ=

äÉîÉäK

bäÉÅíêçåáÅ=fåíÉêÑÉêÉåÅÉ=

qÜÉ=bf^=Ü~ë= áåÅäìÇÉÇ=~å=~ëëÉëëãÉåí=çÑ= íÜÉ=éçíÉåíá~ä= áãé~Åíë= íç=

~å~äçÖìÉI= ÇáÖáí~ä= ~åÇ= ë~íÉääáíÉ= íÉäÉîáëáçå= EqsF= ~åÇ= ê~Çáç= êÉÅÉéíáçå=

~ëëçÅá~íÉÇ= ïáíÜ= íÜÉ= éêçéçëÉÇ= ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåíK= `çåëáÇÉê~íáçå= Ü~ë=

ÄÉÉå= ÖáîÉå= íç= éçíÉåíá~ä= áãé~Åíë= çå= ãçÄáäÉ= íÉäÉéÜçåÉ= ëáÖå~äëI=

ïáêÉäÉëë=åÉíïçêâë=~åÇ=ÉãÉêÖÉåÅó=ëÉêîáÅÉ=ÅçããìåáÅ~íáçåK

bÑÑÉÅíë=çå=êÉÅÉéíáçå=Å~å=çÅÅìê=ÉáíÜÉê=Äó=~å=çÄëíêìÅíáçå=ÄäçÅâáåÖ=~=

ëáÖå~ä=~åÇ=Å~ìëáåÖ=ëáÖå~ä=ÚëÜ~ÇçïÛ=çê=Äó=ëáÖå~äë=ÄçìåÅáåÖ=çÑÑ=åÉï=

ÄìáäÇáåÖë= Å~ìëáåÖ= ëáÖå~ä= ÚêÉÑäÉÅíáçåëÛ= íÜ~í= Å~å= ÖÉåÉê~íÉ= ~= ÖÜçëí=

áã~ÖÉ=çå=qs=ëÅêÉÉåëK

o~Çáçë=Å~å=êÉÅÉáîÉ=ëáÖå~äë=íÜ~í=Ü~îÉ=ÄÉÉå=êÉÑäÉÅíÉÇ=çÑÑ=ÄìáäÇáåÖëK==

^ë=~= êÉëìäíI= íÜÉêÉ=~êÉ=ÅçåëáÇÉêÉÇ= íç=ÄÉ=åç=ëáÖåáÑáÅ~åí= áãé~Åíë= íç=

ê~Çáç= êÉÅÉéíáçåI= ÄçíÜ= ~å~äçÖìÉ= ~åÇ= ÇáÖáí~äK= = páãáä~êäóI= íÜÉ=

êÉÅÉéíáçå=çÑ=ãçÄáäÉ=íÉäÉéÜçåÉëI=ïáêÉäÉëë=åÉíïçêâë=~åÇ=ÉãÉêÖÉåÅó=

ëÉêîáÅÉë= ÅçããìåáÅ~íáçåë= ïçìäÇ= åçí= ÄÉ= ~ÑÑÉÅíÉÇ= ìåäÉëë= íÜÉáê=

íê~åëãáííáåÖ= ~Éêá~äë= ~êÉ= ëáíÉÇ= ~í= ÜÉáÖÜíë= äÉëë= íÜ~å= íÜÉ= mêçéçëÉÇ=

aÉîÉäçéãÉåíK==qÜÉêÉ=~êÉ=åç=ëìÅÜ=~Éêá~äë=~í=êáëâK==

^êÉ~ë= ïÜÉêÉ= qs= êÉÅÉéíáçå= Ü~ë= íÜÉ= éçíÉåíá~ä= íç= ÄÉ= ~ÇîÉêëÉäó=

~ÑÑÉÅíÉÇ=~êÉ=áå=íÜÉ=ÚëÜ~ÇçïëÛ=Å~ëí=Äó=íÜÉ=mêçéçëÉÇ=aÉîÉäçéãÉåíK==

qÜÉ= ëÜ~Ççïë= Ñêçã= íÜÉ=`êóëí~ä= m~ä~ÅÉ= ~åÇ=`êçóÇçå= íê~åëãáííÉêë=

ïáää= äáÉ= áå= äáåÉë= åçêíÜ= çÑ= íÜÉ= páíÉ= Ñçê= ìé= íç= OKQâãK= _ÉóçåÇ= íÜáë=

Çáëí~åÅÉ=íÜÉ=äçëë= áå=qs=ëáÖå~ä= áë=åçí=ÅçåëáÇÉêÉÇ=íç=ÄÉ=ëáÖåáÑáÅ~åíK=

qÜÉ= çêáÉåí~íáçå= çÑ= íÜÉ= mêçéçëÉÇ= aÉîÉäçéãÉåí= êÉä~íáîÉ= íç= íÜÉ=

áåÅçãáåÖ=íÉêêÉëíêá~ä=qs=ëáÖå~äë=ãÉ~åë=íÜ~í=êÉÑäÉÅíáçåë=~êÉ=ìåäáâÉäó=

íç= ÄÉ= êÉÅÉáîÉÇ= Äó= îáÉïÉêë= áå= íÜÉ= îáÅáåáíó= çÑ= íÜÉ= páíÉK= qÜÉêÉÑçêÉ=

ÚÖÜçëíáåÖÛ=áë=ìåäáâÉäó=íç=ÄÉ=~å=áëëìÉK=

mêáçê= íç= ãáíáÖ~íáçåI= áí= áë= éêÉÇáÅíÉÇ= íÜ~í= íÜÉêÉ= ïáää= ÄÉ= äçåÖJíÉêã=

ãçÇÉê~íÉ= ~ÇîÉêëÉ= áãé~Åíë= íç= íÜÉ= êÉÅÉéíáçå= çÑ= íÉêêÉëíêá~ä= qs=

ëÉêîáÅÉë= Ñçê= ìé= íç= NPN= ÉñáëíáåÖ= ~Éêá~ä= áåëí~ää~íáçåëK= cçê= íÜÉëÉ=

éçíÉåíá~ääó= ~ÑÑÉÅíÉÇ= ÇïÉääáåÖë= ãáíáÖ~íáåÖ= ãÉ~ëìêÉë= ïáää= áåÅäìÇÉ=

ìéÖê~ÇáåÖ= íÜÉ= ÉñáëíáåÖ= ~Éêá~äë= Äó= áåÅêÉ~ëáåÖ= íÜÉáê= ÜÉáÖÜí= ~åÇLçê=

Ö~áåI= ìëáåÖ= íÜÉ= ^äÉñ~åÇê~= m~ä~ÅÉ= ëáÖå~ä= çê= éêçîáÇáåÖ= ~= åçåJ

ëìÄëÅêáéíáçå=ë~íÉääáíÉ=ëÉêîáÅÉ=ïÜáÅÜ=áë=ëìééäáÉÇ=Äó=ÉáíÜÉê=íÜÉ=__`=

~åÇ=fqs=EÚcêÉÉë~íÛF=çê=ÚpâóÛ=Ñçê=~=çåÉJçÑÑ=ÅçëíK=qÜáë=ïáää=êÉÇìÅÉ=íÜÉ=

éçíÉåíá~ä=áãé~Åíë=íç=åÉÖäáÖáÄäÉK=

^îá~íáçå=

The potential effects of the proposed development on the safe operations of London City Airport (LCY) was assessed. The main consideration in relation to the proposed 160.2m AOD development is the potential to create a physical obstacle to existing operating procedures at LCY, specifically affecting the flight paths of aircraft taking-off and landing at selected runways.

The assessment found that the existing procedures at LCY would be unaffected by construction works due to the vertical clearance


NR

of 276m (905ft) above the predicted height of the cranage used during construction. This clearance level is well in excess of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) minimum clearance level of 150m (492ft), resulting in a negligible impact.

Once operational, there is generous clearance over the proposed development of 320m (1050ft) (well in excess of the ICAO minimum requirement). This clearance provides a risk of an aircraft colliding with the building better than 10-7 and is therefore deemed acceptable on the grounds of safeguarding existing procedures at LCY (a negligible impact).

Developments at Canary Wharf constitute the dominant obstacles dictating current instrument procedures at LCY and this will remain the case following completion of the proposed development.

Cumulative Impact Assessment The cumulative impact assessment considers the impact of the proposed development in combination with potential environmental and socio-economic effects of other developments in the area. The developments taken into consideration comprise those schemes that have been submitted for planning, granted planning consent, or currently under construction.

By definition, cumulative impacts are those that result from changes caused by other past, present or reasonably foreseeable actions together with the proposed development. For the cumulative assessment, two types of impact have been considered:

• The combined effect of individual impacts, for example noise, airborne dust or traffic on a single receptor; and

• The combined impacts of several development schemes which may, on an individual basis be insignificant but, cumulatively, have a significant effect.

Twenty-one schemes were identified (and agreed with the LBTH) within a 1km radius of the site (plus 1 at approximately 1.5km). These are shown in Figure 13.

In the majority of cases, the cumulative impacts identified were of negligible significance, with adverse impacts occurring primarily during the construction phase (i.e. short term impact) of the proposed development and the two closest schemes, 30 and 40 Marsh Wall.

The cumulative impacts during construction are summarised as follows:

• There is a minor beneficial cumulative impact from employment of construction workers;

• Cumulative construction transport impacts to local roads are considered negligible;

• Cumulative construction noise will be limited to, at most, a moderate adverse impact at nearby receptors. All other noise and vibration impacts are considered negligible;

• The impact on local air quality would be considered to be minor adverse at nearby receptors;

• The risks to ground stability, groundwater contamination or other water resources are considered to be negligible (except for groundwater flow, which deep piling could restrict and cause an adverse impact);

• There will be negligible cumulative impacts with regards to ecology and archaeology, overshadowing; and wind.

Once operational, the proposed development will have the following cumulative impacts:

• Additional housing (including affordable housing), employment floorspace, additional services, and enhancements/ improvements to public open space and the public realm affected by the cumulative schemes will result in minor beneficial cumulative impacts;

• Cumulative impacts to highways, public transport and pedestrian and cycle facilities during operation of the consented developments are expected to be negligible;

• Noise and vibration impacts from the building plant and traffic associated with the cumulative schemes will be negligible;

• Air quality impacts associated with the building plant and traffic associated with the cumulative schemes will be negligible;

• The reduction in surface water run-off from the cumulative schemes will result in a minor beneficial impact to flood risk, although there will be long term negligible impacts to water supply and drainage infrastructure;

• There will be negligible cumulative impacts to ecology, archaeology, electronic interference, aviation and wind.


=NS=

Figure 13 Location and Status of Cumulative Schemes


NT

Residual Impact Assessment and Conclusion Throughout the demolition and construction programme, short-term (temporary) minor to major adverse impacts are anticipated in relation to noise and air quality (dust). These will be mitigated, are far as possible, through the introduction of an EMP and CMS, but are normal for the type of site and scale of development proposed. However, beneficial impacts are anticipated from the removal of identified contaminated land (if present) and the creation of new landscaped space. There will be negligible impacts to traffic.

Improvements to pedestrian connectivity will be made by opening a north-south route through the site.

The proposed development will have a negligible impact to wind micro climate conditions in the surrounding area.

The majority of residual operational impacts are of negligible significance. However, the provision of good quality residential accommodation (including a significant proportion of affordable units) and the provision of a range of employment generating uses and hotel bed spaces are considered important benefits. Throughout the operational phase minor beneficial impacts are expected through ecological enhancements, reduces water run-ff rates, whilst the wind conditions are considered suitable for the surrounding pedestrian uses.

qÜÉ= éêçéçëÉÇ= ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí= ÇçÉëI= ÜçïÉîÉêI= êÉëìäí= áå= ~ÇîÉêëÉ=

impacts=çÑ=ìé=íç=ã~àçê=ëáÖåáÑáÅ~åÅÉ=íç=Ç~óäáÖÜí=~åÇ=ëìåäáÖÜí=äÉîÉäë=

~í=åÉ~êÄó=ëìêêçìåÇáåÖ= êÉÅÉéíçêëK=eçïÉîÉêI= íÜÉ= äÉîÉäë= íÜ~í=ïçìäÇ=

ÄÉ=ÉñéÉêáÉåÅÉÇ=~í=íÜÉëÉ=êÉÅÉéíçêë=~êÉ=åçí=~íóéáÅ~ä=çÑ=~å=áååÉêJÅáíó=

äçÅ~íáçåK=

The proposed development also comprises significant sustainability benefits, through the reduction of energy use through ‘be lean’, ‘be clean’ and ‘be green’ measures. This includes the potential to connect to the Barkentine Community Heating System, and the provision of solar panels on the roof to generate electricity.

ES Volume II: Townscape, Built Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment Volume II of the ES provides the Townscape, Built Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment for the proposed development. The assessment considers the history of development on the site and the effect the proposed development may have on surrounding listed buildings and Conservation Areas. The assessment comprises a detailed discussion of the landscape and visual impacts of the proposed development and is supported by visual material (i.e. accurate computer generated images), examples of which are provided in Figure 14.

Overall, it concludes that the proposed development will redevelop a ëite which currently offers nothing positive to the local townscape

with distinctive buildings ïáíÜ= ~å= ~ííê~ÅíáîÉ= ëÅìäéíìê~ä= ÑçêãI= ~åÇ=

ïçìäÇ=çÑÑÉê=ëáÖåáÑáÅ~åí=ìêÄ~å=ÇÉëáÖå=ÄÉåÉÑáíëK

Contacts and Availability of ES This NTS provides an overview of the findings of the EIA. A full assessment of all the environmental impacts associated with the proposed development is presented within the main ES.

The ES is available for viewing by the public during normal office hours at the Planning Department of the LBTH. Comments on the planning application should be forwarded to the LBTH at the address below:

The Planning Office Mulberry Place PO Box 55739 5 Clove Crescent London E14 1BY

Copies of the NTS are available free of charge. Copies of the ES Volumes I, II and III can be purchased at cost from:

GVA Planning Consultants 10 Stratton Street London W1J 8JR

References Ref. 1 DETR, (1999); Town and Country Planning (Environmental

Impact Assessment (EIA)) (England and Wales) Regulations, (as amended 2008).

Ref. 2 LBTH, (2010); Adopted Core Strategy.

Ref. 3 Greater London Authority (GLA) (2008); London Plan Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London, Consolidate with Alterations since 2004.

Ref. 5 GLA (2009); Draft Replacement London Plan.

Ref. 6 GLA (2010); London View Management Framework. The London Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance.

Ref. 7 GLA (2010) Energy Team’s ‘Guidance on Planning Energy Assessments

Ref. 8 Building Research Establishment, (1992); ‘Site layout planning for daylight and sunlight (BRE Guidelines). P. Littlefair. BRE Information Paper IP5/92’, London, BRE.


=NU=

Figure 14 View east along Cuba Street (top) and west along Cuba Street (bottom)

NTS V4 final - IEMA...you move south and west away from the main Canary Wharf Central Business...

Documents

Transcript of NTS V4 final - IEMA...you move south and west away from the main Canary Wharf Central Business...