JLK0061 1

Non-Technical Summary

Introduction

1. The Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd and Helical Bar plc (‘the Applicants’) are seeking detailed

planning permission and Conservation Area consent for the comprehensive redevelopment of

an existing Sainsbury’s supermarket and the adjoining Fulham Wharf site (referred to hereafter

as ‘the Site’) on the north bank of the River Thames, within the borough of Hammersmith and

Fulham in South West London.

2. In accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)

Regulations 1999, the planning application for the Fulham Wharf Development (‘the

Development’) has been subject to a detailed process of Environmental Impact Assessment

(EIA) in order to identify all likely significant environmental effects (both adverse and beneficial)

of the proposals. Where appropriate, this has resulted in the specification of ‘mitigation

measures’ within the design, or as separate environmental controls to be secured through the

planning process, to ensure that adverse environmental effects are avoided, reduced or off-set

wherever possible. The outcome of the EIA is reported in a comprehensive Environmental

Statement (ES) and this ‘non-technical summary’ provides an overview of the findings of the

ES.

3. The Proposed Development includes the demolition of the existing buildings on the Site, except

for the façade of the Fulham Wharf Warehouse on Townmead Road, and the comprehensive

redevelopment of the Site for a mixed-use commercial and residential scheme. This

Development will comprise a new Sainsbury’s superstore and 472 residential units (including

both private and affordable units), together with a crèche, restaurants/ cafes, training centre,

gym, car and cycle parking, landscaped gardens, public open space, a river walk and the

conversion of a disused jetty to an ‘ecology garden’.

4. The formal description of development for which planning permission is being sought is for:

“Redevelopment to provide a supermarket, 472 residential homes, a

crèche, restaurants/cafés/bars, a training centre and a gym within Use

Classes A1, A3, A4, C3, D1 and D2, a riverside walk, landscaped gardens

and public open space, together with car and cycle parking, servicing,

access and the demolition and part demolition of the existing

buildings.”

JLK0061 2

5. The Proposed Development will be carried out in two phases; the first phase is on the western

side of the Site, where a new supermarket will be built with residential apartment blocks above

and surrounding it; phase 2 in the eastern part of the Site will be predominantly residential with

a crèche and restaurant/café at ground level, replacing the existing supermarket at this location.

This phasing of the scheme allows the continuous operation of the existing supermarket during

construction of the new store and residential properties to the west. A route known as Central

Avenue is proposed to lead from Townmead Road/ William Morris Way to the river and this

divides the two phases of Development from each other. The proposal includes opening up

access through the Site, the creation of both public and semi-private open space, and a wide

riverside walkway along the full length of the frontage onto the Thames.

6. The Site comprises approximately 3.75 hectares of brownfield land and is located in a

prominent riverside location to the east of Wandsworth Bridge, approximately 500m north of

Wandsworth Town, 1.2km southeast of Parsons Green and 1.6km east of Fulham Town

Centre, West London. Figure 1 shows the Site location in context with the wider surrounding

area.

Figure 1: Site Location Plan

JLK0061 3

Project Team

7. The Applicant has appointed a specialist project team for this development. RPS Planning and

Development (RPS) was commissioned to undertake the Environmental Impact Assessment

(EIA) and produce the Environmental Statement (ES) to accompany the planning application.

8. Lifschutz Davidson Sandilands - LDS (appointed architects) have designed the Proposed

Development with input from the project team. The Development has been designed in an

iterative manner with ongoing input from the project team, including the initial results of baseline

surveys and technical studies supporting the EIA. The details of the consultants involved in the

EIA process are presented in Table 1.

9. The design process has sought to optimise the development of the Site and associated benefits

of its regeneration, whilst minimising the adverse environmental effects on the surrounding

area.

Table 1: Project Team

Organisation Consultant RoleLifschutz Davidson Sandilands ArchitectsTownsend Landscape ArchitectsKing Sturge Planning Consultants Four Communications Public Consultation Hoare Lea Mechanical and Services Engineer – Sustainability, Energy and

Acoustic DesignHalcrow Transport Consultants.Waterman Group Structural EngineersGVA Second London Wall Project Managers and authors of Construction & Demolition ChapterHunt Dobson Stringer Socio-EconomicsMoLAS ArchaeologyRWDI Anemos Wind Assessment Peter Stewart Consultancy Townscape & Visual AssessmentDrivers Jonas Sunlight, Daylight, Overshadowing, Solar Glare and Light PollutionRPS EIA Coordination and ES authors

Ecology Soils and Contamination Noise and Vibration Air Quality WasteBuilt Heritage (with Montagu Evans)Water Resources and Flood Risk

10. The ES comprises the following documents:-

Volume 1: Environmental Statement text – Chapters 1-20;

Volume 2: Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment;

Volume 3: Environmental Statement Technical Appendices (Appendix 2.1 – 17.2)

JLK0061 4

11. The ES and all Application documentation are available for review at the Planning Offices of the

London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (LBHF). Copies of the ES and Technical

Appendices in CD-Rom or hard copy format can be also be obtained from RPS, subject to an

‘at a cost’ charge, at the address below. Paper copies of this Non-Technical Summary are

available free of charge.

RPS Planning First Floor West, Cotton CentreCotton LaneLondon SE1 2QG

12. Comments on the planning application should be forwarded in writing to the LBHF Planning

Department.

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Methodology

13. The ES has been prepared in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental

Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 (as amended 2008), and reports

the findings of a systematic assessment of the likely significant effects of the proposed

Development. It is presented as a comprehensive suite of documents for the purposes of

enabling the LBHF to make an informed decision on the application proposed. The ES contains

such information referred to in Part 1 and Part 2 of Schedule 4 to the EIA Regulations as is

reasonably required to assess the likely significant environmental effects. The EIA Regulations

requires that the ES includes a Non Technical Summary that summarises in layman’s language

all of the main points and conclusions of the full document. This document is the Non Technical

Summary (NTS).

14. The assessment is based on a fixed and defined scheme as described in the Proposed

Development section below and defined by Application Plans that are submitted for approval.

15. The principal stages that have comprised the EIA process in this case were as follows: -

Scoping Study;

Baseline data gathering, desk studies and consultation with relevant statutory and non-

statutory organisations;

Identification and recording of sensitive receptors;

Assessment of the potential environmental effects;

Identifying mitigation measures to address those effects; and

Identifying the residual effects assuming the mitigation measures are implemented.

Baseline data gathering and consultation;

JLK0061 5

16. The scope of the EIA was set out in a Scoping Report prepared by RPS in December 2009,

taking into account environmental issues identified during an initial scoping exercise and in

correspondence with LBHF and various consultees. The Council then adopted a formal scoping

opinion in accordance with regulation 10 of the EIA Regulations and this was issued on the 11

February 2010. In this way, the topics required to be assessed, the extent of technical studies

necessary and the methodologies applied in the EIA have been agreed with the Council and

are now reported in the ES.

17. The environmental effects of the scheme have been predicted for each relevant environmental

topic by comparing the baseline environmental conditions (i.e. the existing situation in 2009/

2010 without the proposed scheme) with the conditions that would prevail were the scheme to

be constructed and implemented, with the works assumed to commence in 2011 and be

complete by 2014. These effects are evaluated against a set of defined criteria for measuring

their significance. Where it has not been possible to quantify the effects of the Development,

qualitative assessments have been undertaken based on professional experience and

judgement in the knowledge of the information available and in the context of the Development

and the Site location. Where measures are necessary to avoid, reduce or offset any likely

significant adverse effects, these have either been ‘designed-in’ to the scheme or are proposed

in the form of discrete mitigation measures. Where mitigation is not required this is also stated,

although in some cases there are additional enhancement measures offered to further

accentuate the benefits of the Development to the local and wider area. The significance of any

remaining, or residual, effects are then evaluated.

18. The methods used in undertaking the technical assessment are reported in the corresponding

ES Chapters with reference to published standards, guidelines, best practice and relevant

significance criteria.

19. In relation cumulative (‘in combination’) effects, there are two main types, namely:

The combination of individual effects, for example noise, dust and visual impacts, from one

development on a particular receptor (Type 1); and

Effects from several developments, which individually might be insignificant, but when

considered together they could generate a significant cumulative effect (Type 2).

20. These types of effects are reported in Chapter 19 of the ES: Summary of Cumulative and

Residual Effects. Type 1 cumulative effects have been assessed using the professional

judgement of the ES authors (RPS) and the technical consultant team. The methodology for

assessment of the Type 2 cumulative effects has been defined by determining with the local

JLK0061 6

planning authority the current status of various permitted or proposed developments in the

locality of the Site. Cumulative effects are summarised later in this NTS.

Alternatives and Design Evolution

21. The ES describes the detailed site analysis process that was undertaken to inform the design

evolution and the main alternatives that have been considered by the Architect, Project Team

and Applicants. The conclusion of this process has resulted in the form of development that

now comprises the detailed application. Other alternatives considered include those presented

by different architectural firms who were invited to submit their ideas in response to a design

competition initiated in 2009. Each submission was aimed at responding to the challenges of

redeveloping the existing Sainsbury’s and adjoining Fulham Wharf Site.

22. The Alternatives Chapter of the ES identifies the key principles for the design of the

Development and demonstrates how the final proposals have responded positively to the

challenge of delivering a comprehensive and integrated form of development that makes best

use of the location, opportunities and constraints of the Site.

23. Environmental considerations have been central to the development of the design and have

influenced many aspects of the scheme, given that the Site is at a prominent riverside location

with surrounding residential areas and there is an active cement works at the protected

Comley’s Wharf adjoining the Site to the west. The considerations and constraints of the Site

and local area, and the response of the design to those factors are identified in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Summary of Site Considerations and Constraints, and the Design Response

Issue Site Specific Considerations and Constraints and the Design Response

Site Location and Access The location of the Site is such that the river walkway (part of the Thames Path National Trail) becomes inaccessible from the northeast to the southwest of the Site, forcing pedestrians to leave the riverfront and rejoin the path at another location. Maximum opportunity to improve permeability across the Site has been taken, including the creation of Central Avenue and a pedestrian route to connect the river walk to the wider Sands End residential area, to improve connectivity of the Site to the wider area and to overcome problems of severance.

To maximise the area available for landscaping and open space, none of the residential buildings in either of the phases has any surface level car parking. Instead, a basement is being proposed under both phases, accessed from a single point along the western boundary of the Application Site. This access in turn helps to act as a buffer between the development and the adjoining Comley’s Wharf operated by CEMEX. Access to the car parking for the store will be via the existing roundabout on Townmead Road, which will lead straight into the building, thereby taking all cars out of sight almost immediately. In addition, servicing for the replacement store will also be entirely enclosed and acoustically

JLK0061 7

treated for the first time, with vehicles also coming off the roundabout into the building and up into the dedicated service yard at first floor, to the rear of the store.

Townscape and Views The Site in its existing state has a significant detrimental effect on the area around it in terms of urban design, townscape and visual quality.

The Site is not located within a statutorily protected view. It is however located within the South Fulham riverside regeneration area which is highlighted in LBHF's LDF Core Strategyi as an area which ‘should be developed for predominantly residential purposes’ and that the ‘riverside should be opened up to public use with continuation of the riverside walk and leisure uses…’.

The design of the proposed Development enhances the appearance and access to this stretch of the river and is complementary to the surrounding townscape. Key features of the design are: the variation in height and visible interest of the towers fronting the river; preservation of the façade of the Fulham Wharf Warehouse fronting onto Townmead Road; the series of angled elements in the roofline of the supermarket, and the angled roofs of the Central Avenue townhouses, echoing the appearance of the Fulham Wharf Warehouse and more generally reflecting the grain of terraced housing nearby; the residential blocks above the supermarket and along William Morris Way, which give an appropriate link in terms of materials with neighbouring apartment blocks, terraced streets and warehouse buildings; high qualitylandscaping which greens and softens the appearance of the built form from several perspectives; and, the tallest, slender buildings have been placed in the centre of the Site and near the river, where they relate well to other tall buildings on both the north and south sides of the river.

Microclimate The design and layout of the scheme has taken account of the prevailing and seasonal winds across the Site and the changes to the microclimate introduced by the Development. It also takes account of the need to maximise solar access, daylight and sunlight to the scheme without prejudicing the surrounding existing buildings. The orientations and heights of the buildings have been designed to moderate the effect of wind and sun whilst making seasonal use of both, as appropriate.

Ecology The Site does not have any significant ecological resource or wildlife value at present, but does lie within an area where there is potential for ecological enhancement, particularly in the form of landscaping. The various landscaping features proposed, including green roofs and the conversion of the jetty to become an ‘ecology garden’ will significantly enhance the biodiversity of the Site.

Noise and Vibration The noisiest location on Site is in the north at Townmead Road with high noise levels also recorded southwest of the Site adjacent to the CEMEXplant. The design of the Development, including the orientation of the buildings, the treatment to the façades and envelopes, and the screening of the principal external amenity spaces, will ensure that a suitable residential environment can be achieved. In addition, servicing for the replacement store will also be entirely enclosed and acoustically treated, unlike for the existing store.

Air Quality The Site is located within an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) and therefore the layout and detailed design of the Development has taken into account the results of air quality modelling in the area. However, nobreaches of air quality objectives have been recorded in proximity to the Site and no adverse conditions are predicted once the Development is built out. As a precaution however, mechanical ventilation and comfort cooling will be provided for all residential units facing the CEMEX plant, so that residents do not need to open windows on occasions when higher noise or dust levels might occur.

Archaeology and BuiltHeritage

The Site is not located within an Archaeological Priority Area (APA), however the De Morgan Road APA is located directly northwest of the Site, to the north of Townmead Road. Appropriate archaeological investigations and a ‘watching brief’ will therefore be adopted during the

JLK0061 8

initial construction works in order to minimise impacts on any buried archaeology.

The Site falls within the Sands End Conservation Area but does not contain any Scheduled Ancient Monuments or statutory listed buildings. Two LBHF locally registered ‘Buildings of Merit’ (Fulham Warehouse and 5 bollards at the river side) are to be preserved and incorporated into the Development.

Public Transport The operation of regular bus services on Townmead Road and on the wider highways network, and the proximity of the Site to Wandsworth Town and Imperial Wharf National Rail Stations, means that the Development will be readily accessible by public transport. In addition, the Development has been designed to significantly improve pedestrianand cycle access through the Site and along the Thames Path National Trail. A substantial number of cycle parking spaces will be provided forresidents, customers and staff alike, and charging points for electric vehicles will be provided in the residential and supermarket carparks.Taxi drop-off points are also incorporated into the Development.

Alternative Design and Site Layout

24. The various alternative design layouts that were considered by the Project Team as part of the

design process are summarised below. The careful evaluation of these alternative options and

comments received through consultation, have influenced the final form of the Development

which is now proposed and the subject of this detailed planning application.

Design Option 1

25. Figure 2 shows a proposed plan of design option 1. This option proposed that that new store

should be situated on the site of the derelict warehouses of Fulham Wharf. It was centred on a

courtyard scheme with residential blocks predominantly oriented north/south.

26. Residential accommodation was located on the western boundary within close proximity of the

working CEMEX works at Comley’s Wharf adjacent to the Site. To increase public access

through the Site and reconnect the Thames Path with the Development, a strong centralised

route accessing the riverfront walk was proposed. Taller elements of the scheme were

proposed to reinforce legibility within the wider townscape, creating orientation markers that

express the apex of a large bend in the Thames, thereby emphasising the natural shift in scale

from an urban to riparian environment.

JLK0061 9

Figure 2: Design Option 1

Design Option 2

27. This design shifted the store front location towards the east to create a set back to the western

boundary of the Site, thereby accommodating a narrow pedestrian route alongside Comley’s

Wharf and moving the residential bocks further away from CEMEX works (shown in Figure 3).

In addition, the façade of Fulham Wharf Warehouse was now incorporated within the scheme.

28. The serrated ‘saw tooth’ roof design (utilised within the proposed Development) was first

adopted at this stage as a prototype for the new frontage to Townmead Road.

JLK0061 10

Figure 3: Design Option 2

Design Option 3

29. Design option 3, shown in Figure 4, proposed a single sided level route running alongside of

the working wharf boundary and a central avenue access to the riverfront.

30. The key issues raised during consultation on this design option related to the following:

The single sided street level route was deemed to be unworkable due to anticipated failure

of any future commercial offer at ground level, thus rendering the route inactive and

dangerous;

The central avenue access to the riverfront was undermined by the necessary relocation of

a residential car park access ramp to the eastern flank wall of the Sainsbury’s store, with

consequential loss of residential units wrapping around the building;

The proposed creation of a blank store box façade was deemed detrimental to the quality of

the central access route and wider public realm;

The confluence of vehicle routes generated by this configuration compromised the primacy

of the pedestrian movement along the central avenue; and

JLK0061 11

The westward shift of the Development no longer made it possible to incorporate the

Fulham Warehouse façade into the new Development.

Figure 4: Design Option 3

Design Option 4

31. The development proposed as design option 4 included the main store box volume shifting to

the west to close the western route, with the residential car park entrance being re-located to its

original position. This proposal also included the reintroduction of active residential street

frontage along the length of the new central avenue route linking the river with the public realm

outside the store.

32. The Sainsbury’s ‘colleagues area’ (which includes in-house staff changing rooms, meeting

rooms and canteen facilities) was relocated from within the store to the western boundary. This

provided an additional screening ‘buffer zone’ to the adjacent wharf, whilst enhancing the

internal working environment by providing natural daylight along the length of the new

colleague area. This new ‘colleagues area’ would also provide an active frontage onto

Townmead Road at the entrance to the Site, to enhance overlooking and ‘secure by design’

credentials of the courtyard area in front of the residential and car park entrance.

JLK0061 12

Figure 5: Design Option 4

Proposed Development

33. The Application proposes a scheme for a replacement modern supermarket on the Fulham

Wharf site, with housing around the outside and above, together with a restaurant/ café and a

training centre. Once the replacement store is complete and ready to open, the existing

supermarket will be demolished and redeveloped for housing, together with a crèche and a

restaurant/ cafe at ground level. The proposal includes opening up access through the site,

creating significant public and semi-private open space, and a generous riverside walkway

along the full length of the frontage onto the Thames (Refer to Figures 6-9).

34. The planning application seeks full permission for a maximum floorspace of 102,878 m2 Gross

Internal Area (GIA). The full schedule of the maximum floorspace and proposed land uses is

set out below.

A new Sainsbury’s superstore providing 9,395 m2 GIA of retail floorspace;

472 residential units, of which 47 will be wheelchair accessible and 20% affordable (of

which 38.5% will be social rented and 61.5% intermediate ownership);

118m2 training/ education space (e.g. for Explore Learning or similar)

731m2 for two café/ restaurants in Central Avenue - Class A3-4 land use;

JLK0061 13

128m2 gym - Class D1-2 land use;

152m2 crèche.

235 residential car parking spaces (including 6 car club spaces and 47 electric charging

points);

460 retail car parking spaces (10 with electric charging points), 18 motorcycle spaces and

two taxi drop-off spaces on Townmead Road;

554 residential cycle spaces, plus 6 spaces for the café/ restaurants and 42 at the front of

the store entrance;

Landscaping and amenity areas;

Increased permeability through the Site with an additional pedestrianised route from William

Morris Way through Phase 2 to the river. This will go through a new landscaped courtyard

to provide an attractive and less populated route; and

Highway and transport works; demolitions and engineering operations, together with all

associated and ancillary works.

Figure 6: An illustrative image of the Development from the River Walk

JLK0061 14

Figure 7: Illustrative view of the Development from Wandsworth Bridge

Figure 8: Illustrative view of the Development from the Riverside Walk at Battersea Reach

JLK0061 15

Figure 9: Illustrative View of the Development from the Townmead Road and Edenvale Street junction

35. As mentioned previously, the building work will take place over two principal phases:

Phase 1

36. To enable the unimpeded trading of the existing Sainsbury’s store until the new store is built

and ready for occupation, Phase 1 of the Development will comprise a self-contained

construction site occupying the western portion of the Site.

37. Phase 1 works include the construction of the basement parking and plant rooms; the new

store and associated servicing areas; residential units above and around the store (comprising

blocks A, B and C, together with PH1 Central Avenue, PH1 Riverwharf and PH1 Townmead

Road); and the training/ education centre, gym, and one café/restaurant on Central Avenue.

38. The replacement store would have a gross retail floorspace totalling 9,395 m² (101,130 ft²).

This is only just over 10% more floorspace than Sainsbury’s already has permitted on its

existing site.

39. Careful thought has been given to the design of the frontage as a whole onto Townmead Road.

The façade of the Fulham Wharf Warehouse (a Building of Local Merit) is retained and

references are then taken from it in designing the new buildings. In particular, its “saw tooth”

roof is carried through into the new structure. The roof will project slightly forward of the

frontage in order to provide emphasis to its shape, with full glazing beneath. External fins made

JLK0061 16

of anodised aluminium will sit in front of the glazing, predominantly to reduce light spill for the

benefit of local residents opposite.

40. To limit large areas of hardstanding and increase the area available for open space and

landscaping, all car parking areas in Phase 1 will be enclosed. As a result, the supermarket will

be at first floor level, above its customer car parking at ground level and in part of the basement

below. To help address the street, the pedestrian entrances into the supermarket have been

orientated to front Townmead Road. Customers are then transported up to the store at first

floor level by travelators or via lifts.

41. As part of the first phase, five storeys of residential (3 storey units with 2 storey homes above)

will be wrapped around the supermarket, creating residential frontages on three sides and a

new pedestrianised route linking Townmead Road with the river. Consequently, the service

yard, car parking and the supermarket will all be masked from view. A large shared landscape

garden will also be created on the podium provided by the roof of the supermarket.

42. There are two additional residential building typologies proposed as part Phase 1 of

Development. The first comprises apartment buildings on the podium level in a “C shape”

around the landscaped garden. These buildings vary in height between four and seven storeys

above the podium, with the top one/two storeys being set back.

43. The second building typology comprises two elegant slim towers to provide variation in height

and visual interest - one of 12 storeys and the other 17 storeys fronting onto the river. These

two towers are slender by virtue of the fact that they have only one or two apartments per floor,

which makes them almost unique. Having such small floor plates is achieved by enabling one

of the lift and stair cores of the podium buildings behind to be shared with linkages across at

lower levels.

Phase 2

44. Once the new Sainsbury’s store is completed and ready to open for trading, the existing

Sainsbury’s store will be demolished and a second phase of predominantly residential

development will be undertaken.

45. Residential town houses and apartments have been designed to provide frontages to both

William Morris Way and the new pedestrianised street between Townmead Road and the river.

At ground floor level, some of the homes will have their own private garden, thereby making

them more suitable for families.

JLK0061 17

46. The main buildings in Phase 2 are a variety of heights, comprising four, seven, nine and twelve

storeys, with many facing into communal gardens and public open space, including an

additional route through the Site, this time connecting William Morris Way and the river.

47. Fronting the river will be dwellings of some four storeys, replicating the design of those in

Phase 1. Two further towers of 12 storeys will be constructed, stepping down to nine storeys

towards the eastern boundary. Again, these have been kept to only one or two flats per floor in

order to provide slim elegant structures that are not seen elsewhere along the river.

Public Realm

48. There are six main areas identified to provide open space and landscaping. These would

include:

Entrance Space - Located at the northern end of the site; the pedestrian and vehicle

entrances to supermarket will be located within this space as well as a bus stop, catering

for high volumes of people and vehicles throughout the day;

Riverside Square - This is the principal public space with the Development, centred within

the heart of the Development between the Phases 1 and 2. The Riverside Square will

terminate the vista along the Central Avenue and will be a unique destination along the

river walk. Cafes and restaurants will be situated around the edges of the Square;

Podium Gardens - Situated over the top of the new Sainsbury’s store, this is a substantial

landscaped garden space which will be defined by areas of seating, planting and trees, and

will provide shared amenity space for residents with play-space for younger children and

commanding views across the river;

Phase 2 Courtyard Garden - The Phase 2 courtyard garden will be a semi-private amenity

space for residents, employing a similar approach to the larger podium courtyard. Although

a public route runs adjacent to this area, the majority of the landscaped area will be

retained for use by the residents;

River Walk - The River Walk will connect the Development with the existing Thames Path

along the river north of the site. The western end of the River Walk will be terminated by a

river viewing area providing long views along the river afforded by its location on bend of

the Thames; and

Ecology Garden - The existing redundant concrete jetty located in the River Thames,

southeast but separate from the main Site, will be landscaped to form an ‘ecology garden’

with a variety of planting and a slightly undulating surface to accommodate colonization by

JLK0061 18

a more diverse flora and fauna. Interpretation boards for the garden will be provided on the

River Walk. This will enhance the biodiversity of the Site, as well as provide an educational

focus point along the River Walk.

Vehicular Access

49. Vehicular access to the Site would continue to be from the Townmead Road/William Morris

Way Junction.

50. A further access would be provided by means of a new priority junction towards the western

perimeter of the Site, to accommodate both general residential traffic travelling to and from a

basement level car park and also residential refuse collection and other residential delivery

vehicles.

51. A shared surface street would also be introduced off William Morris Way, a short distance to the

east of the junction with Townmead Road, to allow occasional servicing access to the

residential street, as well as general emergency vehicle access and potential taxi access to this

area of the Development.

Environmental Impact Assessment Conclusions

52. In accordance with the EIA Regulations, best practice and LBHF’s scoping opinion, the

assessment considered a range of environmental topics. The conclusions of the EIA process

are summarised topic-by-topic below.

Development Programme and Construction

53. Some environmental effects are inevitable during the construction of any development,

although they are usually temporary and short-lived in nature and contained to within the site or

immediate adjoining areas. They arise from activities which, for example, generate noise and

vibration, emissions to air (including pollutants, odour and dust), traffic movements (particularly

Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs)), and the potential for sedimentation and pollution of controlled

waters such as rivers and groundwater.

54. The construction of the Fulham Wharf Development is predicted to take 4.5 years. Generally,

construction activities would be carried out between 08:00 to 18:00 hours Monday to Friday and

08:00 to 13.00 on Saturday.

55. The construction works are divided into the following phases, many of which could also run

concurrently:-

JLK0061 19

Table 3: Construction Phases

Indicative Demolition and Construction Activities and Duration Activity

Approximate Duration of Works (Months)

Demolition and site preparation. 3 monthsConstruction of Phase 1. 33 monthsConstruction and fit out of New Store 24 monthsConstruction of Phase 2 28 months

56. Whilst no long-term road closures are envisaged during the demolition and construction works,

short-term closures may be required in order to erect and subsequently remove large items of

construction and building plant. Consent for road closures would be obtained from LBHF.

Furthermore, notices regarding planned closures and diversions of roads would be given to

LBHF, Transport for London, the Metropolitan Police, the London Fire and Emergency Planning

Authority (LFEP) and, other emergency services. Notices would be provided sufficiently in

advance of the required closures or diversions.

57. Most construction activities would also only be of a temporary nature. It is acknowledged,

however, that construction traffic and on-site demolition, earthworks, piling and other

percussive activities would give rise to short-term environmental effects such as increased

noise, vibration, dust and air pollution. Control of these effects would be enforced through

planning conditions, health and safety regulations and a Code of Construction Practice (CoCP)

to form part of a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) which will apply to all

construction activities and phases.

Socio-Economics and Population

58. The socio-economic effects of the proposed Development have been assessed. This study

focused on the potential effect of employment created by the Development during both

construction and operational phases; the potential effects upon local businesses; the provision

of housing; the effects of a new population on community facilities including education, health

care services and other local facilities; and, the contribution the scheme can make to supporting

regeneration and neighbourhood renewal within Fulham and the wider area.

59. The proposed Development of Fulham Wharf would bring new homes and jobs to the local

Sands End and wider Fulham area. The scheme proposes 472 residential units (for an

estimated population of 860) within the new Development, thereby helping to satisfy the LBHF

and London Plan targets to provide much needed new housing, including affordable homes and

homes for families. In addition, the Development would provide important community facilities

for the new residents and the existing local community. These include a crèche,

restaurants/cafes, a training/education facility such as an ‘Explore Learning’ centre, extension

of the Thames Path, open space and landscaping.

JLK0061 20

60. Equating 10 person years of employment to one full-time job, known as Full-Time Equivalent

(FTE) jobs, it is estimated that approximately 204 FTE construction jobs would be created

during the demolition and construction phase of the proposed Development. Approximately

half of the estimated construction employment is expected to be generated on-site, with the rest

being elsewhere in the construction supply chain. Construction employment is relatively mobile

and, therefore, it is not particularly relevant to assess potential effects at the local level. When

assessed at the district level, the effects of the demolition and construction works upon

employment would be negligible.

61. The Development includes a large amount of employment space which will generate new

employment opportunities in this area. In total, the proposals include 10,546m2 GIA of

employment floorspace, including the new Sainsbury’s store on the west side of the Site,

together with a crèche, café/ restaurants and training/educational facility. Sainsbury’s has a

proven track record in providing training and educational programmes to encourage local

employment, providing both initial and on-going training for its employees.

62. The completed Development is estimated to generate a net increase of 219 FTE jobs, after

discounting the 300 or so jobs associated with the existing supermarket. In addition, the

increase in direct employment on the Site would have indirect knock-on effects that will

generate further employment through supply chains and increased demand. This is considered

to represent a moderate beneficial impact at a borough level and be of minor beneficial

significance at the regional and sub-regional level. The new employees can also be expected

to bring additional spending to the area, which will benefit local businesses. With an expected

net increase of 219 employees on-site, local spending by employees could equate to

approximately £290,000 annually. The total effect of the additional spending is of minor

beneficial significance at the local level.

63. LBHF has an annual housing target for the Borough of 450 new homes a year. The proposed

Development would significantly contribute to meeting these targets by delivering 472 new

residential units, including affordable housing. The potential effect of the proposed

Development, in terms of its contribution to meeting housing objectives is therefore of major

beneficial significance at the district level.

64. In terms of school places, the assessment has indicated that there is capacity within both

primary and secondary schools across the Borough. The completed Development is estimated

to create a maximum demand for 46 primary school places and 23 secondary school places.

However, the net demand for school places is likely to be less than the predicted 69 total school

places because it can be assumed that a number of children moving into the proposed

Development would move from within the Borough. This is particularly the case in the

JLK0061 21

affordable housing units, where future resident children may already have places in

Hammersmith & Fulham schools. In addition, it can be expected that a proportion of new

residents would be educated privately. Therefore, it can be concluded that there will be a

negligible effect on local schooling provision at all levels.

65. The additional 860 people would imply a need for the equivalent of half of one GP. In the local

area there is sufficient surplus capacity to deal with this additional demand. It is therefore

assessed that, without mitigation, the effect of the proposed Development on local healthcare

provision would be negligible.

66. The Site is currently inaccessible to the public and does not allow access to the river Thames.

There is some existing open space provision nearby, including South Park located 240 metres

to the northwest of the Site which provides formal children’s playspace and sports facilities. The

proposed Development will create new public and private open and amenity spaces in the form

of courtyards, gardens and green roofs. In addition, pedestrian permeability through the Site will

be improved and access to the river will be opened up, by re-instating the Thames Path

National Trail which is currently severed in the west of the Site.

67. The Landscape Strategy drawn up for the scheme proposes an off-Site contribution towards

South Park to improve facilities for older children and young people in addition to the provision

of various type of playspace on-Site. Taking account of this, the effect on amenity is assessed

as being of minor beneficial significance at the local level.

Transport and Surface Access

68. The Site is fronted by Townmead Road to the north-west and William Morris Way to the north,

with the southern boundary of the Site being against the River Thames.

69. The surrounding area is well served by regular bus services, with overground rail services also

available within a reasonable walking distance of the Site. There are five bus services which

operate via stops surrounding the development Site and travelling to and from various key

centres in the West London area. The closest stops to the Site are located on William Morris

Way and Townmead Road, frequented by three routes, with other bus stops available on

Wandsworth Bridge Road, frequented by a further two routes. Each of the bus stops can be

reached within no more than an eight-minute walk from all areas of the Site.

70. The closest railway station to the Site is that at Imperial Wharf, which has been open since late

2009 and is serviced by the London Overground rail network. Additionally, mainline railway

services operate via Wandsworth Town which is an acceptable walking distance of no more

JLK0061 22

than 12 minutes. London Underground Stations are located further afield, with both Parsons

Green and Fulham Broadway both lying on the periphery of the preferred maximum walk.

71. The Transport Assessment (submitted with the Application) examines the effects of the

Development on the local highway network and surrounding public transport facilities. It also

considers practical issues such as servicing the Development, access to the Site and the effect

of the Development on the pedestrian environment and cycle routes.

72. The trip generation by each mode of transport to and from the Development has been

estimated throughout a typical weekday. The level of additional trips associated with the

Development is most significant during the weekday peak hour periods (08:00-09:00 & 18:00-

19:00). The traffic impact as a result of the Fulham Wharf Development being fully occupied

and operational would generally be of a negligible magnitude, but with some localised impacts

of varying adverse magnitudes from minor adverse through to moderate adverse.

73. The Applicant intends to promote various measures to encourage sustainable travel, including

the introduction of travel demand management measures that seek to affect a redistribution of

trips amongst the non-car modes that are available. The proposed Development would be

supported by the preparation of Travel Plans in order to ensure that practical measures to

enhance accessibility by non-car modes are maximised. This includes infrastructure to actively

encourage an increase in cycling. Draft Travel Plans for the Sainsbury’s store and new-build

residential accommodation have been prepared for the Site as part of the preparation of the

Transport Assessment, with these setting general mode-shift and mode-share targets.

74. On a localised level, improvements have been devised for the junction of Townmead Road and

William Morris Way in order to improve the drive delay at the roundabout. The improvements to

the roundabout will seek to increase lane width and flare in order to increase capacity at this

junction.

75. Although measures to promote the uptake of public transport may lead to increased patronage

of bus and other public transport modes, the impact on such services is unlikely to be any

worse than negligible. Such impacts would be mitigated through targeted contributions to bus

service enhancements.

76. During the construction period the assessment has identified that, typically, the impacts would

be negligible. However, some localised impacts of adverse magnitude may be anticipated,

particularly should there be a requirement to temporarily divert and/or delay traffic due to a

short-term road or lane closure. Where this is necessary, consent would be sought from LBHF.

Furthermore, notice regarding these planned closures will be given to TfL and emergency

services sufficiently in advance.

JLK0061 23

77. It has been shown that the most detrimental construction phase transport impact would be on

driver delay and only then as a result of any temporary works. The majority of impacts would

have no more than a negligible magnitude. Despite this, mitigation measures would be

implemented through the production of a Construction Traffic Management Plan. These would

include regulation of delivery times and assessing the feasibility of transportation of building /

excavation materials via the river.

Noise

78. Key aspects of the proposed Development have been assessed specifically relating to noise

and vibration, including construction, operation and residential suitability of the Site. In

particular, this assessment considered road traffic noise; potential mixed-use conflicts between

noise sensitive and non-noise sensitive elements of the proposed Development; noise effects

from off-site sources, including the proposed modernisation and the erection of a replacement

ready mixed concrete manufacturing facility at the adjoining CEMEX, Comleys Wharf site; and

identifies cumulative effects of the proposed Development taking into account other committed

development taking place within the vicinity of the application Site.

79. In order to establish the existing noise environment, a combination of unattended long-term and

attended short-term noise monitoring was undertaken in and around the vicinity of the Site,

during the day and night-time periods. Using the criteria set out in PPG24, parts of the Site can

be considered to fall within Noise Exposure Category (NEC) B and parts within NEC C. At

these levels, mitigation is normally necessary to ensure an adequate level of noise protection

for future residents. Such measures can be secured through planning conditions and/or

implemented at the detailed design and procurement stages. Within established urban

environments, sites which fall into NEC C (and even the noisier NEC D level) are common and,

with appropriate acoustic design, are rarely prohibited from residential development.

80. As such, it is predicted that acceptable internal noise levels within the proposed residential

components of the Development will be achieved through appropriate building design, site

layout, building orientation, façade/glazing specification and alternative means of ventilation, all

of which have been accommodated into the design at this stage. The new residential units

would be designed to ensure that the internal acoustic environment within habitable rooms

would be of a ‘good’ standard, based on the criteria in the relevant British Standard (BS 8233)

and World Health Organisation (WHO) guidance.

81. The south-western façade of the proposed residential building overlooking the CEMEX

concrete batching plant will be exposed to high noise levels of an industrial nature. This has

long been acknowledged by the Project Design Team and the Applicants. It is therefore

accepted that high performance double-glazing or triple-glazing will be required to achieve

JLK0061 24

acceptable internal noise levels in accordance with British Standard BS 8233. Various options

have already been evaluated by the Applicant’s acoustic consultants (Hoare Lea) and a

detailed noise assessment made based on specific operational noise data from CEMEX’s

consultants (WBM).

82. In order for the residential units facing directly on to the CEMEX works to meet the internal

noise criteria, the opening of windows to provide ventilation should to be avoided at most times.

However, permanently sealed windows are not considered appropriate because there will be

occasions when the residents may choose to open windows and use their balconies, especially

during quieter periods of operation of the adjoining Wharf. Therefore, all units in this part of the

Site will be provided with an alternative means of ventilation to ensure that the acoustic

protection afforded by the high specification glazing is not compromised. The design of the

system will allow the level of ventilation to be controlled independently within each unit and

include a ‘high boost’ to allow for rapid cooling to prevent overheating.

83. Predictions indicate that the noise change from additional vehicle movements associated with

the proposed Development would be below 3 dB on the majority of roads links assessed, for

both day and night. A noise increase of this magnitude would be negligible and would not be

perceptible to local residents, other noise sensitive receptors or detrimental to the local

environment. The one exception is a localised noise change due to additional vehicle

movements on the proposed Sainsbury’s access road, which would result in a noise increase of

up to 5 dB at this location, representing a minor adverse effect.

84. Operational aspects of the proposed Development which could potentially cause noise

disturbance include externally mounted heating, ventilation and air conditioning plant

associated with the commercial aspect of the Development. The nearest noise sensitive

receptors (NSRs) include residential dwellings located to the northwest of the Site off

Townsmead Road, including De Morgan Road, Hamble Street and Althea Street and residential

dwellings to the north of the Site on William Morris Way and Gurney Road.

85. The Development and associated fixed plant can be designed in such a manner so as to

minimise potential noise effects and comply with current national guidance and local policy.

Noise effects associated with fixed mechanical plant will therefore not be significant. In

addition, with appropriate management, noise associated with deliveries and the loading and

unloading of goods will not be significant. Noise effects from these sources can therefore be

considered to be negligible.

86. Noise transfer between the retail/commercial and residential elements of the Development and

noise sensitive elements of the Development will be controlled through appropriate building

JLK0061 25

design to ensure that residents are not unduly disturbed. Delivery Management Procedures, as

applied successfully by Sainsbury’s at its other UK stores, will be enforced with the effect of

reducing noise from HGV’s accessing the site, particularly during night-time hours. The effects

relevant to noise and vibration transfer from the new store can therefore be considered to be of

Negligible Significance.

87. A qualitative assessment of the likely external noise levels for the proposed external amenity

areas has been undertaken, having regard to the guidance noise levels recommended in the

WHO Guidelines for Community Noise. It is concluded that the majority of the external amenity

areas are likely to be screened from both road traffic and industrial noise sources by the

proposed development blocks and would therefore be likely to meet these non-statutory

guidance levels. The external amenity areas which are likely to exceed the recommended

guidance levels include part of the main podium courtyard which is immediately adjoining the

southwestern site boundary, as well as podium villa balconies which overlook the CEMEX

concrete batching plant and Townmead Road. Notwithstanding this, sub-optimal noise levels in

external amenity areas are commonplace in inner city locations and are often unavoidable.

88. Construction noise and vibration effects are generally considered to be temporary and of

negligible to moderate adverse significance. With appropriate mitigation measures including

the adoption of Best Practical Means (BPM), specified within a Construction Environmental

Management Plan (CEMP), such effects will be avoided or minimised as far as reasonably

practicable.

Air Quality

89. LBHF has designated the entire Borough as an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) due to

likely exceedences of the annual mean nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and particulate matter (PM10)

objective; a situation which is common to many London boroughs due, in particular, to high

levels of road traffic and associated exhaust emissions. Concentrations of NO2 and particulate

matter (PM10) have been predicted at existing and proposed receptors introduced as part of the

Development. At the Development in 2014, the annual-mean NO2 concentrations are predicted

to be considerably below the annual-mean Government Air Quality Strategy (AQS) objective of

40 µg.m-3. Similarly, the hourly-mean AQS objective is expected to be met and the impact is

therefore concluded to be negligible.

90. At the Development in 2014, the annual-mean PM10 concentrations are predicted to be

approximately half of the annual-mean AQS objective of 40 µg.m-3. Similarly, the daily-mean

AQS objective for this pollutant is expected to be readily met. Therefore, the impact is again

concluded to be negligible.

JLK0061 26

91. In summary, the Site is deemed to be suitable in air quality terms for residential and other

proposed uses within the Development.

92. Impacts during the construction of the Development, such as dust generation and plant vehicle

emissions, are predicted to be of short duration and only relevant during certain construction

phases. However, because of the size of the Site, the assessment of air pollution during the

construction phase suggests that the impacts are likely to fall within the ‘high-risk’ category

unless appropriate mitigation is applied. Implementation of mitigation measures presented in

the London Best Practice Guide for high-risk sites (to be incorporated into the CEMP) should

reduce the air quality effects of construction activities to negligible.

Built Heritage

93. The effect of the Development on built heritage contained within and surrounding the Site has

been assessed through the gathering detailed data to identify the protected heritage features

likely to be affected by the proposals and evaluating the potential impacts of the construction

and built form of the Development on these features.

94. There are no statutorily listed buildings within the Site. The façade of Fulham Wharf Warehouse

within the Site is identified as a Building of Local Merit and is of particular townscape interest in

view of its scale and decorative design. A set of five bollards located adjacent to the existing

Sainsbury’s food store, between the store and the River Thames, are similarly designated as

being of local merit. Towards the west of the Site, facing Townmead Road, is the former

Fulham Borough Council Electrical Department building, which is also locally listed because of

the decorative quality of its façade.

95. The Development Site is located in the Sands End Conservation Area and it is this

conservation area that will be directly affected by the Development proposals. The

Conservation Area was designated in 1991 because of the importance of protecting the

riverside from unsympathetic development and to encourage the preservation and

enhancement of the riverside itself, ensuring that any new development is of a good and

appropriate design.

96. Built heritage receptors in the Sands End Conservation Area include one Grade II* listed

building (Cremorne Bridge, West London Extension), a number of buildings on the Local

Register of Buildings of Merit, and the Conservation Area as a whole. There are 10 listed

buildings within 1Km of the Site, but most are too distant to be affected by the Development.

97. Construction effects include potential direct physical impacts and on the retained historic fabric

by demolition, noise/vibration, construction activity, or construction traffic. There is also the

JLK0061 27

potential for a temporary adverse effect on the setting of heritage receptors within the Sands

End Conservation Area, including the bollards within the Site and the former Fulham Borough

Council Electrical Department building opposite the Site. Such effects would be local,

temporary and moderate adverse in nature. However, mitigation measures can be used to

limit the effect of the demolition and construction phase of development, including the use of

appropriate attractive hoarding, and the adoption of protocols to ensure that careful

consideration is given to the location of skips, waste materials, and site offices and toilets etc,

during the construction phase. A photographic record would be made of the late 19th and early

20th century warehouse buildings proposed to be demolished, including those parts of Fulham

Wharf Warehouse proposed to be removed.

98. With regard to the Fulham Wharf Warehouse, the retained and restored façade will form part of

the completed Development, which ensures its retention and long-term preservation as an

important feature of the townscape. Similarly, the five bollards will be retained within the

Development, forming part of the extended Thames Path. It is considered that the change and

regeneration which would be brought about by the proposed Development would have a

beneficial effect on the Conservation Area as a whole and the residual effect of the completed

Development on the built heritage is considered to be of a local, permanent minor to moderate

beneficial effect.

99. The cumulative effect of the proposed Development with other approved schemes would

ensure that the riverside is characterised by new development of a good and appropriate

design, and can therefore be considered to be of a local, permanent, minor beneficial effect.

Soils, Ground Water and Contamination

100. The effect of the Development on soil conditions, groundwater and contamination related to the

Site has been considered through the completion of a Phase 1 Desk Based Environmental

Assessment and a Phase 2 Geotechnical and Environmental Site Investigation Report. This

assessment incorporated a review of available data sourced from historical maps, a site

walkover and a review of previous site investigation reports. This baseline survey work was

designed to highlight any existing or potential contamination of soil or ground waters relating to

the Site.

101. As with most former industrial sites, there is some potential for contamination to be present

beneath the Site, associated with the underlying made ground or within the groundwater.

Chemical analysis of soils and groundwater obtained during the site investigation recorded

occasional elevated concentrations of hydrocarbons (oils), heavy metal contaminants and

elevated carbon dioxide gas. Consequently, there are potential risks to sensitive receptors,

such as construction workers, end users and controlled waters, from the disturbance and

JLK0061 28

mobilisation of this contamination. However, the level and type of contamination at the Site is

not unusual, and these risks can be appropriately mitigated through the implementation of

environmental management practices during the construction works, including the use of

Personal Protection Equipment (PPE), the implementation of industry standard practice dust

suppression measures, and other controls set out in the CEMP.

102. Following the bulk excavation of soils to construct the basement, the pathways between the

potential contamination sources and human receptors would be broken.

103. Assuming the proposed mitigation measures are adopted, residual effects arising from ground

conditions at the Site are considered to be of negligible significance both during and following

redevelopment.

104. The Development is likely to provide long term positive environmental benefits by remediating

any existing contamination at the Site. The development would therefore meet the objectives of

Planning Policy Statement PPS23 and the London Plan and would be consistent with

sustainability objectives.

Archaeology

105. An archaeological desk-based assessment for the Site has examined a number of

archaeological records in order to provide an assessment of the archaeological potential of the

Site and the significance of buried heritage assets that may be present on or near to the Site.

These sources include national, regional and local planning polices relating to archaeological

remains/cultural heritage assets.

106. The Site does not contain any nationally designated (protected) sites, such as Scheduled

Monuments, Listed Buildings or Registered Parks and Gardens. Also, it does not lie within an

Archaeological Priority Area defined by the local authority.

107. There have been no archaeological investigations within the Site itself. However, there is

evidence of prehistoric activity and possible settlement on higher ground in the area, attracted

by the Thames as a resource of food and water and a possibly ritual focus. The area remained

undeveloped until the later-19th century, and the investigations carried out within the wider area

have generally reflected this, recording post-medieval features and ground consolidation

overlying alluvial deposits.

108. The Site has the potential to contain below ground remains associated with the 20th-century

Fulham Power Station (low to medium importance) and the 19th-century Kop’s Brewery (low to

medium importance). The Site also has a moderate to high potential to contain possible,

previously unrecorded, remains dated to the prehistoric period (low to high importance).

JLK0061 29

109. Excavation for the proposed basement will remove any archaeological remains within its

footprint, although deep cut features might survive beneath. The proposed retaining wall, pile

caps and ground beams associated with the new buildings will have a potential effect, removing

any archaeological remains within their footprint to the maximum depth of their construction.

110. It is anticipated that any adverse environmental effects upon these archaeological resources

could be successfully mitigated by Site-specific archaeological investigations to form

‘preservation by record’. It is anticipated that the successful implementation of the mitigation

programme would result in an overall negligible residual impact.

Water Resources and Flood Risk

111. The effect of the Development on hydrology, surface water drainage, flooding and water quality

of the Site and surrounds has been considered. Site conditions have been determined by

consulting maps and published information regarding the topography, geology, hydrology and

hydrogeology. In addition, the Environment Agency (EA) was consulted to agree the

methodology for the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA), and Thames Water contacted regarding

the capacity of the local sewer network. A site walkover survey and site investigation works

were also undertaken to ascertain the current site conditions including the state of the existing

River Thames flood defences.

112. The Site is located within Flood Zone 3 according to the Environment Agency indicative fluvial /

tidal floodplain mapping, meaning that the Site has an annual probability of flooding from tidal

or fluvial sources of greater than 1%. These zones are however produced assuming that no

defences are in place and the Site and surrounding area are in fact protected by the Thames

tidal defences system including the Thames Barrier.

113. The LBHF Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) presents maps which indicate areas which

would be flooded in the event of a breach in the tidal defences. With the exception of the

access road, the depth of flooding is limited to 0.0 to 0.25 m and hence has been identified as a

low residual risk. The Site and its surrounds were not identified as being impacted by

overtopping of the defences. The SFRA study also identifies that flood defences along the

reach of the River Thames closest to the Site are of a ‘good’ quality.

114. The FRA for this planning application has identified that the Site is protected from flooding

events up to 1 in 1000 years and, as such, the flood risk associated with the Site is considered

to be residual. Based on the Site’s location within the defended tidal floodplain, the construction

of buildings with a footprint larger than the existing buildings will not increase the risk of flooding

to the surrounding area. In addition, the LBHF SFRA breach assessment has identified that the

inundation level at the roundabout on Townmead Road is 4.81 m Above Ordnance Datum

JLK0061 30

(AOD) to 5.00 m AOD and hence the majority of the Site (approximately 95%) would be

unaffected in the unlikely event of inundation to this depth. Access from all residential / retail

units will be built to a level above the inundation mark of 5.0 m AOD. This will be included within

all aspects for the Development to ensure that all future Site users of the Development have

access to ‘safe levels’.

115. In conclusion, based on the residual risk associated with flooding at the Site, the overall effect

of the Development is considered to be low and therefore represents a local, temporary minor

adverse effect.

116. The proposed Development would result in a net increase in the area covered by soft standing

by the inclusion of significant landscaping areas and green roofs. The proposed Development

seeks to incorporate the use of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) techniques,

including green roofs with lawn areas, planting areas and tree pits. These landscape features

would provide a significant degree of attenuation, hence reducing the run-off to the River

Thames. In addition, the use of rainwater harvesting for watering the landscaped areas could

also provide attenuation benefits for the Site. Use of such SUDS techniques and increases in

soft landscaped areas across the Site would decrease the overall run-off passing to the River

Thames, resulting in a local, minor beneficial effect.

117. The proposed Development will include an extensive basement area which will occupy a

significant proportion of the Site. Given the assumed current groundwater levels and the

proposed depth of the basement, there is the potential for groundwater ingress to occur.

Therefore, mitigation measures (including the adoption of appropriate piling methods and

drainage during construction) will be implemented during excavation of the basement so as to

avoid the potential for contamination of deeper groundwater and a lowering of the local water

table (i.e. through dewatering). With these measures in place, the potential groundwater effects

of the Development are considered to be negligible.

118. Flood resilient construction techniques, such as tanking or water resistant finishes, will be

incorporated into the ground floor level of the six properties that have been identified to have a

finished floor level below the inundation level. In addition, no sleeping accommodation will be

located on the ground floor within these properties to ensure that, in the event of inundation

during vulnerable times (i.e. night time), the potential for people to be affected is reduced.

119. Overall, the potential flood risk effects of the Development are considered to be negligible.

JLK0061 31

Daylight, Sunlight, Overshadowing, Light Pollution and Solar Glare

120. The potential effects of the Development upon daylight and sunlight availability, overshadowing,

light pollution and solar glare for the neighbouring residential buildings, the Development itself

and proposed amenity spaces has been assessed against the relevant industry standards and

guidance, namely the Building Research Establishments (BRE) Guidelines.

121. In view of their location and proximity to the proposed Development, the assessment focused

on the neighbouring properties of Townmead Road and those located at Lensbury House,

Passenger House and Royal House on Gurney Road.

122. An analysis of the effect of the existing site (without development) upon the surrounding

residential properties was undertaken before consideration was given to the effects of the

Development on the same receptors.

123. In terms of daylight and sunlight, the majority of the surrounding residential properties satisfy

the BRE guidelines. Overall, the impact to daylight and sunlight to surrounding properties is

considered negligible to minor adverse. Although the Development will result in some

reductions (in daylight) to these properties below the recommended criteria, this is an inevitable

consequence as many of the surrounding properties have less than ideal conditions in their

current situation.

124. With regards to daylight conditions within the completed Development, the assessment found

that for properties on Central Avenue Phase 1 & 2, Riverside Wharf 1 & 2, Townmead Road

and William Morris Way, there is 100% BRE compliance for internal daylight levels. The

remaining blocks have lower levels of compliance with the BRE Guidelines, due to several

factors including: the incorporation of balconies, which provide highly valued private amenity

space but reduce the available light from the sky; the use of triple glazed units, which have the

effect of lowering the amount of light reaching the interior of the units; and, because the design

seeks to make the most efficient use of the Site, the required density in certain areas is such

that there are courtyards and elevations that are in close proximity to other parts of the

Development. This has resulted in greater levels of obstruction and contributed to lower levels

of daylight in places, thereby constituting an acceptable but minor adverse effect.

125. Thirty proposed amenity areas have been analysed for overshadowing conditions, of which 20

are marginally or more significantly below the optimum BRE Guideline recommendations for

overshadowing. These are mainly situated in the private gardens along Central Avenue and the

north-east of the proposed Development (Phase 2) which will therefore receive a sub-optimal

amount of light, but at levels not uncommon in urban environments. The remaining 10 amenity

areas meet the BRE recommendations and therefore, the impact to the remaining spaces is

JLK0061 32

considered to be negligible. When viewed in the overall context of the amenity spaces being

provided, the main communal amenity gardens would comply with the BRE recommendations

for a dense inner-city environment, especially when balanced against the wider positive

benefits which will be realised locally as a result of the proposed Development. In addition, the

more overshadowed amenity spaces have been designed specifically to accommodate this

depleted level of sunlight.

126. In terms of solar glare, the glass façades of the Sainsbury’s store would have a gradient

frosting which will reduce the transmission of light at high level. Also, the store front in general

will not feature an external lighting system and will contain vertical fins which control light spill

and glare.

127. Within the proposed Development, care would be taken in order to reduce the amount of visible

lighting through the use of specialised fittings. Low wattage lighting will be used for the

residents’ entrances. Therefore, the impact on light spillage to the identified sensitive

environmental receptors is considered to be negligible.

Wind Assessment

128. Wind tunnel studies have been carried out to inform the design of the Development. These

have enabled a detailed quantitative assessment of the wind environment to be undertaken at

key pedestrian level locations around the proposed Development. The assessment analysed

the effects on the wind in terms of pedestrian comfort and safety ratings (based on the UK

industrial standard known as the ‘Lawson criteria’), with and without mitigation. This wind study

assessed the effect of the proposed Development relative to the existing site conditions and

further assessed the cumulative impact of the proposed Development with other proposed

schemes in the vicinity.

129. The proposed Development has incorporated various landscaping features which would act to

mitigate wind effects across the Site. With these features in place, the pedestrian level wind

conditions in and around the Development are rated safe for all users throughout the year (i.e.

a negligible effect).

130. In summary, it is expected that wind conditions within the Site upon completion of the

Development would be:

Suitable for pedestrian access to, and passage through, the Site in relation to recreational

activities;

The main proposed entrances would be suitable for pedestrian ingress/egress;

JLK0061 33

Conditions on the terraces are likely to be relatively calm, as all terraces are enclosed on

three sides, with a parapet screen along the open side; and

During the summer months, the majority of public amenity spaces would be suitable for

comfortable ‘sitting’ conditions, while one location might experience ‘standing/entrance’

conditions during particular wind conditions. In the winter, the use of public amenity spaces

is assumed to be negated by other factors, such as thermal comfort.

131. In terms of cumulative effects, the Development would have negligible to moderate beneficial

residual effect on pedestrian level and entrance location wind conditions, with the soft

landscaping proposals incorporated within the Site.

Ecology and Nature Conservation

132. A Phase 1 Habitat Survey of the Application Site was carried out in May 2009, in accordance

with the established methodology for this type of survey. This involved a site walk-over and

recording of habitat types present. In addition, plant species observed within each habitat type

were recorded. All accessible habitat areas within the Site boundary were searched during the

survey and habitats were assessed for their suitability to support species of conservation

importance, including, invertebrates, birds and mammals.

133. Based on the results of the habitat survey and a review of other site information, three further

ecological surveys were carried out:

Black Redstart survey (5 site visits);

Bat internal inspection; and

Invertebrate survey of the River Thames foreshore and jetty, specifically for rare snails.

134. The Application Site comprises hardstanding and buildings of no nature conversation value,

together with some vegetated habitats of non-designated local interest which are likely to

support breeding bird and invertebrate communities of Parish value. Low numbers of breeding

House Sparrow and Starling were present during the habitat survey but no Black Redstarts (a

protected species) were recorded on Site over five monitoring visits.

135. The jetty included within the red line Site boundary is sited within the River Thames, which is a

'Site of Metropolitan Importance' (SMI)’. The river is also a non-statutory designated 'Site of

Importance for Nature Conservation' (SINC)’, identified by the Greater London Authority (GLA)

for its freshwater, estuarine and marine communities, being of particular importance for fish,

wildfowl and wading birds.

JLK0061 34

136. However, no significant populations of invertebrates were recorded in the survey of the

foreshore immediately adjoining the Site and, particularly, no rare snails were found. Therefore,

no significant effects on invertebrates from construction are expected.

137. It is also noted that only a small area of the Thames would be affected by piling vibrations

associated with works to the river wall, and this would not be at a level to have serious effects

on fish. The effect is considered to be short-term and of a minor adverse significance.

138. No other significant construction effects on sensitive ecological receptors are expected. In

particular, no significant visual or noise disturbance to wildlife on the River Thames and Tidal

Tributaries SMINC is likely because the works would be largely shielded from the river and also

because the small section of Thames foreshore adjacent to the Site would not support

significant numbers of feeding wildfowl and waders, or of breeding birds.

139. Ecological enhancements have been designed-in to the Development in the form of green open

spaces and green/brown roofs which form part of the landscaping design for the main Site

Further green habitat will be provided on the former jetty which will be converted to an ecology

platform/ garden without public access. This will provide alternative breeding and foraging sites

for the breeding birds which would be affected by a temporary loss of habitat. The total amount

of habitat available post-construction would be larger than that currently existing. Nest boxes for

bird species including House Sparrow, Starling, Swift and Black Redstarts would also be

provided. The overall effect in terms of habitat availability is considered to be of permanent

minor positive significance.

140. With appropriate habitat creation, the overall potential habitat for invertebrates should be

increased in terms of both extent and diversity. The overall residual effect on invertebrates is

therefore considered to be of minor beneficial significance.

141. No residual adverse effects on ecology as a result of the construction and occupation of the

Development are predicted.

Waste

142. Waste management effects have been assessed at a local level, principally in relation to

estimated household and commercial waste generation, management and disposal. Waste

generation on the Site at present is solely from the existing Sainsbury’s store as the remainder

of the Site is vacant.

143. Relevant legislation requires that a Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP) is in place for the

construction of the Development. SWMPs must describe the types of waste expected to be

produced during demolition and construction, and set out the actions proposed to reduce, re-

JLK0061 35

use or dispose of such waste, including recycling and other appropriate options. Estimated

waste quantities must be identified for each waste type likely to be produced together with

agreed procedures for managing the different waste streams in accordance with appropriate

legislation and policy.

144. The implementation of a SWMP and compliance with the Institute of Civil Engineers (ICE)

Demolition Protocol would ensure that waste generated during construction would be reused or

recycled where feasible, either on or off-site, such as using clean sub-soils in the landscaping

and crushed concrete as a sub-base to basements, access roads and other hardstanding

areas. It has been predicted that 95-100% of demolition waste (except asbestos, contaminated

material and ancillary waste) can be recycled from the Site, thereby avoiding significant

volumes of waste going to landfill. It is, therefore, considered that the demolition and

construction phases of the Development would give rise to a negligible effect with regards to

waste.

145. The increase in floor space associated with the completed Development would inevitably result

in a corresponding increase in waste generated by future occupants. A range of waste types

would be generated by the occupation and operation of land uses within the Development. An

estimate of the volumes of waste has been calculated using indicators identified in relevant

industry standards and guidance. The completed Development is anticipated to generate

between approximately 6,233m3 and 13,076m3 of waste per annum, whereby the residential

uses would generate approximately one third of that total and the supermarket (and other

commercial units) would generate the remainder.

146. Arrangements for the collection, handling, treatment and disposal of commercial waste are the

responsibility of the waste producer. It is proposed to contract-out such functions to a private

waste management company or to LBHF’s own waste contractors. To maximise recycling,

commercial waste would be segregated at source by the waste producer.

147. It has been estimated that between 65.8m3 – 197.4m3 of waste will be generated per week from

the proposed Sainsbury’s store. The majority of this waste would comprise paper, card and

plastic, whilst some food waste would also be generated. Uncontaminated plastic, paper and

cardboard will be baled in-store and returned on the delivery vehicles for recycling, along with

returning pallets, roll cages, trays and flower buckets for washing and reuse. Waste cooking oil

generated by the store will be collected every 6 to 8 weeks subject to a third party collection.

Past ‘display by’ but not ‘consume by’ dated food will be donated to local charities, and all other

food waste will be returned to the delivering depot’s Resource Recovery Unit (RRU) where it

will be consolidated with other food waste and transported to an ‘Energy from Waste’ site. This

includes all food waste generated from colleague and customers restaurants.

JLK0061 36

148. Recycling rates from the various uses within the Development would be dependent on the

procedures implemented by future occupants. However, it is considered that the Development

would incorporate sufficient recycling storage in suitable locations to facilitate recycling in

accordance with the waste hierarchy and best practice requirements. Information would also be

provided to tenants and occupants in order to promote recycling and waste reduction and

outline the cost savings associated with it.

149. Consequently, the Development would reuse, recycle or compost a significant proportion of

waste generated in the proposed residential and commercial units. This would be in line with

relevant waste legislation and policy guidance. It is anticipated that the Development would, at

worst, result in a 70% increase in the volume of waste currently produced, which is primarily

due to the increase in the density and uses at the Site. Therefore, both residential and

commercial waste generated from the Development is expected to have a long-term, district

effect of minor adverse significance as a result of operation.

Townscape and Visual Assessment

150. The likely significant effects of the proposed Development on the townscape, visual and

heritage environment of Fulham and its surroundings has been assessed according to current

guidance and best practice. The existing townscape quality of Fulham Wharf is poor and the

proposed Development provides an opportunity to make this important node legible across a

wide area that is currently notably illegible, ill formed and unattractive.

151. Townmead Road marks the dividing line between the generally larger riverside development

and the smaller scale residential development inland. The townscape character of the river is

dominated by the large scale residential schemes which have been developed in recent years,

particularly between Wandsworth Bridge and Battersea Railway Bridge, although there are still

some sites occupied by industrial uses or by relatively recent retail development. Although

there are separate townscape character areas on either side of the river, the similarity of the

development in each means that this part of the river has a relatively coherent overall

character.

152. The Proposed Development offers a number of significant urban design benefits. It will improve

the definition of William Morris Way, Townmead Road and the river edge; it will provide high

quality public spaces in the form of a piazza on Townmead Road and the riverside square; it

will improve permeability through the provision of a new direct and generous route from

Townmead Road to the river, and will extend the Thames Path further west.

153. The overall scale and form of the proposed Development across the Site is consistent with the

townscape character area in which it lies. The tallest buildings have been placed in the centre

JLK0061 37

of the Site and near the river, where they would relate well to other tall buildings on both the

north and south sides of the river. The setting back of apartment blocks from the edge of the

podium and their division into ‘villa’ elements reduces the apparent scale of these blocks in

local views from the area to the north. The 3 storey supermarket frontage and the 5 storey

apartment blocks on William Morris Way are appropriate for the context they face of small to

medium scale development along the northern side of Townmead Road and further west on

William Morris Way.

154. The Proposed Development also responds appropriately to its context through variations in its

architectural expression and use of materials. The use of brick in many of the buildings,

particularly those seen mostly from north of the Site, relates well to the Fulham Wharf

Warehouse and the terraced streets north of Townmead Road. The use of a townhouse

typology along Central Avenue also provides a link to the streets north of Townmead Road,

while the angled rooflines of these houses and the supermarket frontage echo that of the

Fulham Wharf Warehouse.

155. The Proposed Development is of high quality in architectural terms. The towers on the riverfront

will be elegant and vertically emphasised townscape features, and will be given depth by the

recessed balconies they contain. The podium blocks would be calm and measured in their

expression but are given some modulation in their form by their division into ‘villa’ elements. A

range of high quality materials are used across the Site, varied to respond to context but with

elements linking various buildings together.

156. The Proposed Development is consistent with national, regional and local planning policy in

terms of its design. It enhances the character and appearance of the conservation area in

which it is located by echoing the general nature of development within it but providing better

quality architecture, permeability, and definition of surrounding streets and the river edge than

most existing developments. It is of the ‘high standard’ of design required by the LBHF UDP

and enhances the Thames Path as required of riverside development.

157. The only listed structure with which the Proposed Development will have any significant

intervisibility is the grade II* Battersea Railway Bridge. Both would be visible in some views

from Wandsworth Bridge and the south side of the River Thames. However, as there is

approximately 800m between the Proposed Development and the Battersea Railway Bridge,

the visual effect of the Proposed Development will not be significant. As the Development will

strengthen the definition of the river edge and introduce new high quality architecture into such

views, the overall visual effect will be minor beneficial.

JLK0061 38

158. The LBHF UDP specifically mentions views from Wandsworth Bridge and states that

development that ‘would cause demonstrable harm’ in these views will not be permitted. Views

produced as part of this assessment show the Proposed Development as it would be seen from

Wandsworth Bridge; it would be a high quality townscape feature and would have a moderate

to substantial beneficial effect in this view.

159. The consideration in this section of the impact of the Proposed Development leads to the

conclusion that it will have a minor to substantial beneficial impact on the townscape of

surrounding areas and the views in which it is most prominent. The most significant beneficial

effects of the Proposed Development are in providing a coherent development of high

architectural quality in place of generally low quality and incoherent development, and in

providing improved access and definition to the river edge. The Proposed Development

successfully addresses the various contexts it faces through its massing, layout and

architectural expression. It integrates a supermarket use and residential accommodation in a

way that relates successfully to its surroundings. It will complement existing residential

development on both sides of the river, and will make a positive contribution to river views and

the local views in which it is most prominent.

Cumulative Effects

160. Cumulative effect assessment needs to focus on the receptor rather than the effect itself and on

that receptor’s ability to accommodate additional change. There are uncertainties about the

potential range of cumulative effects, especially when considering potential effects that could

occur over 5 years into the future. This is particularly the case with the consideration of Type 2

cumulative effects in relation to the permitted schemes.

Combined effects of individual effects from the proposed Development on a particular

receptor (Type 1 - impact interactions)

161. The combined effects of different types of effects, or impact interactions, from the proposed

Development on particular receptors have been considered during the assessment of the

construction works. The construction works have the greatest potential to cause impact

interactions, particularly for a site of this nature within an urban context and close to a number

of sensitive receptors. However, most of the sensitive receptors identified are considered

unlikely to experience significant effects.

162. In most cases, the proposed mitigation measures to be adopted in the Construction

Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) would limit any effects. The CEMP will set out

specific environmental controls and procedures for the contractors to take preventative

measures wherever possible, or immediate corrective action where adverse effects do occur.

JLK0061 39

The erection of hoarding around the construction site will also limit the effects of construction,

particularly in terms of visual effects, dust and noise.

Cumulative Effects from other permitted development. (Type 2)

163. The off-site development schemes that have been agreed with the Council for assessment

have been considered and include the following, as set out in Table 1.6 and shown on Figure

10. In the immediate vicinity of the Site is Comley’s Wharf which is the subject of a recent

planning application by CEMEX to upgrade its cement works, including enhanced controls over

noise and dust emissions. The development proposal is for the replacement of 3 hoppers at the

concrete mixing plant, installation of a conveyor belt and the demolition of a mixer unit. The

works at this Site are likely to coincide with, or precede the construction of the Fulham Wharf

Development.

164. Another significant development proposal in the vicinity of the Site is for the redevelopment of

Imperial Wharf for a residential-led mixed use scheme. Stages 1, 2 and 3 of the scheme have

been granted planning permission and are part built-out. However, a current application has

been lodged to increase the number of residential units and retail area previously consented.

165. A development proposal is also being submitted for Baltic Sawmill, 450m west of the Site. This

proposal includes the creation of 207 residential units and commercial land uses on the ground

floor.

Table1.6: Developments Considered for the Cumulative Assessment

Map Ref.

Site Address Status

1. Cemex, Comley’s Wharf, Fulham Pre-application2. Imperial Wharf – Stages 1, 2 and 3 Consented (2012 –

2022)3. Imperial Wharf – Chelsea Creek Current Application4. Baltic Sawmill, corner of Carnwarth Road and Broomhouse Lane Pre-application

JLK006140

Figure 10: Map Showing Location of Schemes Considered for Cumulative Assessment

2. Imperial Wharf Stages 1, 2 and 3

3. Chelsea Creek (uplift to Imperial Wharf)

4. Baltic Sawmill

Fulham Wharf and Sainsbury’s

1. Cemex, Comley’s Wharf

JLK0061 41

166. Depending on whether these other schemes are under construction at the same time as the

proposed Development, there could be cumulative effects on local residents from noise,

vibration, dust, visual impact and from disruption to local transport networks due to increase in

traffic flows on the surrounding existing roads. However, the contribution of the proposed

Development to any cumulative effects would be minimised through the adoption of measures

set out in the proposed CEMP and it is assumed that the contractors for these other

developments will also apply suitable environmental controls.

Cumulative Socio-Economic Effects

167. Overall, the cumulative impact of the Development in combination with other schemes can be

considered to be of a negligible to moderate beneficial impact at a borough level. Adequate

health, education and other community facilities are believed to exist to accommodate these

combined developments.

Cumulative Transport Effects

168. Although it has been shown that in both the construction and operational phases the impacts

are largely negligible, a number of the potential impacts would occur simultaneously and thus

build to a greater cumulative impact.

169. During the construction phase, adverse impacts could be experienced for short periods of time

in relation to driver delay, pedestrian delay, pedestrian amenity (general) and fear and

intimidation. Based on this, the pedestrian group would be that most likely to experience

adverse cumulative impacts, although such impacts would be only shortlived and of a minor

adverse nature.

170. During the operational phase, adverse impacts could be experienced in relation to ‘pedestrian

amenity’ (general) and ‘fear and intimidation’. Again, the pedestrian group would be most likely

to experience these cumulative effects. However, such effects would only be experienced at a

small number of locations and generally these two types of effect would occur at different

locations, thus impacts would not overlap and the cumulative impact is predicted to be

negligible.

Cumulative Air Quality and Noise Effects

171. The cumulative change in noise levels attributable to the predicted increase in road traffic flows

associated with the proposed Development and other cumulative developments, is not

considered significant, as the change in ambient noise levels would not be widely perceptible to

local residents, other noise sensitive receptors or detrimental to the amenity of the local

JLK0061 42

environment. The level of significance is therefore considered to be negligible to minor

adverse.

172. In relation to air quality, a comparison of the predicted pollution concentrations for future

scenarios at the assumed year of opening year of the proposed development in 2014, both with

and without the proposed Development, indicates that cumulative effects on air quality would in

general be negligible to minor adverse at worst.

Cumulative Built Heritage Effects

173. The Development would potentially be built alongside a number of other new developments,

including the Imperial Wharf and Chelsea Creek residential-led schemes to the north. As

referred to above, the Sands End Conservation Area was designated because of the

importance of protecting the riverside from unsympathetic development and to encourage the

preservation and enhancement of the riverside itself, ensuring that any new development is of a

‘good and appropriate design’. This approach does encourage new development and, in this

context, the cumulative effect of the proposed development with other approved schemes can

be considered to have of a local, permanent, minor beneficial effect on built heritage.

Cumulative Soil and Contamination Effects

174. The proposed Development Site, and all committed development sites, would be subject to

legislative requirements to remove or otherwise remediate any significant contamination

encountered on-site. The combination of these various remediation works could potentially

result in a minor beneficial to moderate beneficial effect, as the extent of existing

contamination in the local area would be reduced through removal of contamination sources

and pathways of migration.

Cumulative Archaeological Effects

175. If archaeological mitigation is undertaken and archaeological evidence is obtained during the

construction phase of the proposed Development, and for any of the committed developments

in the area, then there is likely to be a minor beneficial to moderate beneficial cumulative

effect (post-mitigation) through the recovery of information that is considered to be of local or

regional importance.

Cumulative Water Resources and Flood Risk Effects

176. The proposed Development and other committed development sites would equally be required

to incorporate temporary drainage and other pollution and flood risk controls to ensure that

adverse impacts on surface water and flood risk are reduced or removed at source. In this way,

JLK0061 43

the potential cumulative impact of all the committed developments would be expected to be of

minor adverse to negligible significance.

Cumulative Sunlight and Daylight and Overshadowing Effects

177. Because of the relative distances between the Development and other committed

developments, levels of light are unlikely to be affected. As such, the cumulative effects are

considered to be negligible to the identified sensitive receptors.

Cumulative Wind Effects

178. In terms of pedestrian safety, the Development, in the context of future surrounds (to include

the committed developments), would have negligible to moderate beneficial residual effect

on pedestrian level wind conditions.

179. In terms of pedestrian comfort, the majority of areas within the Development would have

negligible residual cumulative effects on pedestrian level wind conditions on surrounding

thoroughfares. Expected conditions during summer months at two locations within the public

amenity space would be marginally windy but tolerable for standing/entrance conditions,

deemed a minor adverse residual cumulative effect. Otherwise, the effects would be

negligible and conditions within the site would be suitable for pedestrian access to, and

passage through the Site and for recreational activities.

Cumulative Ecological Effects

180. In terms of ecology, potential for cumulative effects with the other developments centre on

possible additional disturbance effects on birds and other species using the River. However, the

area is already subject to existing levels of significant human disturbance (from pedestrian

movements, road traffic and river traffic), and the intertidal zone adjacent to the Site boundary

is not considered likely to support significant numbers of birds. It is therefore considered that

the development of the Site in combination with the other developments would not result in

significant adverse effects on bird or other ecological resource of the River Thames SMI. The

cumulative effects can therefore be concluded to be negligible.

Cumulative Waste Effects

181. In terms of waste, the committed developments, in combination with the proposed

Development, will place additional demands on LBHF and merchant waste collection and

treatment capacity within the local area and region. However, provided the developments and

their resulting waste quantities are able to be accommodated, the overall impact will be slight

to minor adverse.

JLK0061 44

Cumulative Townscape and Visual Effects

182. Only the proposal on the CEMEX site would have any significant intervisibility with the

Development. In views where the upgraded CEMEX works would appear, images showing a

‘wireline’ representation of the proposed structures have been created and assessed. In these

views, the scale of the proposed structures on the CEMEX site and the scale of the medium

scale blocks of the development relate well to each other.

Summary and Conclusion

183. From a review of the available information on other committed developments in the area and

their likely environmental effects, it is unlikely that any significant cumulative effects will occur.

Therefore, no further mitigation measures (in addition to mitigation measures proposed in the

individual technical chapters of the ES) are required.

i London Borough of Lambeth (August 2007). Adopted Unitary Development Plan