Vista at Chelsea Bridge Wharf. Volume 1: Non-Technical Summary. Prepared for: Berkley Homes (Central London) Limited. Prepared by: ENVIRON London, UK

Transcription

1 Prepared for: Berkley Homes (Central London) Limited Prepared by: ENVIRON London, UK Date: March 2015 Project or Issue Number: UK

2 Contract No: Issue: Author (signature): UK Final Henry Brittlebank Project Manager/Director (signature): Michelle Wheeler Date: March 2015 This report has been prepared by ENVIRON with all reasonable skill, care and diligence, and taking account of the Services and the Terms agreed between ENVIRON and the Client. This report is confidential to the client, and ENVIRON accepts no responsibility whatsoever to third parties to whom this report, or any part thereof, is made known, unless formally agreed by ENVIRON beforehand. Any such party relies upon the report at their own risk. ENVIRON disclaims any responsibility to the Client and others in respect of any matters outside the agreed scope of the Services. Version Control Record Issue Description of Status Date Reviewer Initials Author Initials A First Draft 27 February 2015 MW HB 1 Final Issue to London Borough of Wandsworth 03 March 2015 MW MW

3 Contents Preface 1 1 Introduction 4 2 EIA Process and Methodology EIA Scoping and Consultation Approach Baseline Sensitive Receptors Impacts and Effects 11 3 Planning Context and History of the Site 14 4 Description of the Site Site Location and Context Site Description 16 5 Design Evolution and Alternatives Pre 2012 Consent Design Evolution and Alternatives Post 2012 Consent Design Evolution and Alternatives 21 6 Amended Development Description of Amended Development General Arrangement Height and Materials Sustainability and Energy Provision Landscaping Proposals Waste Management 26 7 Summary of Potential Impacts and Effects Development Phasing and Programme Construction Environmental Management Socio Economics Archaeology Heritage, Townscape and Visual Amenity Transport and Accessibility Noise and Vibration Air Quality Ground Contamination Water Resources, Hydrology and Flood Risk Wind Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing Ecology Cumulative Effects 50 UK Issue: Final ENVIRON

4 List of Figures Figure 4.1: Site Location 15 Figure 4.2: Site Context and Surrounding Land Uses 16 Figure 4.3: Site Redline Boundary for Amended Development as a whole 17 Figure 4.4: 2011 Site Conditions 17 Figure 5.1: Pre 2012 Consent Site Opportunities and Constraints 20 Figure 5.2: Pre 2012 Consent Initial Massing Concept Development 20 Figure 6.1: Amended Development Ground Floor Plan 23 Figure 6.2: Amended Development North-South Section 25 Figure 7.1: Indicative Site Phasing 27 Figure 7.2: Index of Multiple Deprivation 28 Figure 7.3: Map Showing Eyots (sand and gravel islands) and Former Channels in the Area Surrounding the Site 30 Figure 7.4: View 3 Queenstown Road at Chelsea Bridge Wharf with Amended Development 34 Figure 7.5: View 5a Battersea Park at Tennis Courts Winter View with Amended Development 35 Figure 7.6: View 8a Battersea Park at Bowling Green Winter View with Amended Development and Cumulative Schemes 36 Figure 7.7: View 14 from Chelsea Garden Embankment at Chelsea Physic with Amended Development and Cumulative Schemes 37 Figure 7.8: Predicted daytime NECs - Future 2019 with Development Scenario (Level 01, Block 2 height) 40 Figure 7.9: 2019 With Development Worst Case Scenario Annual Mean Nitrogen Dioxide Concentrations 42 Figure 7.10: Environment Agency Flood Map 45 Figure 7.11: Predicted Flood Depths Modelled in the Breach Assessment 45 Figure 7.12: Amended Development Wind Tunnel Model 47 Figure 7.13: Site Habitat Plan 49 UK Issue: Final ENVIRON

5 Preface A full planning application (ref. 2011/2089) and conservation area consent (ref. 2011/2090) was submitted to the London Borough of Wandsworth (LBW) by Anastasia Ltd in May 2011 for the residential-led mixed use redevelopment of a site at 346 Queenstown Road, Battersea ('the Site ). The application was accompanied by an Environmental Statement (hereinafter referred to as the 2011 ES ), which was at the time prepared in accordance with the statutory procedures of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999, as amended 1. The 2011 ES considered and reported on the potential environmental impacts and likely significant environmental effects of the Proposed Development. It comprised four volumes: ES ; ES Volume 2: Main Environmental Statement Report; ES Volume 3: Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment; ES Volume 4A: Technical Appendices (including Flood Risk Assessment); and ES Volume 4B: Transport Assessment, Travel Plans and Construction Traffic Management Plan. Subsequently planning and conservation area consent was granted on 30 th March 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the 2012 Consented Development ). The 2012 Consented Development comprises the following: Demolition of the existing building on-site; Erection of two blocks (C and L) of up to 17 and 15 storeys respectively; 456 residential units of which 68 are affordable units; 1, 257 m 2 gross external area commercial (B1, A2, A1 and A3) space; 184 basement car and 607 cycle spaces; and Public realm and landscaping works. Ownership of the Site changed in 2013 and implementation of the 2012 Consented Development has since been progressed on-site by Berkeley Homes (Central London) Ltd. In addition a number of non and minor material amendments have been made to the 2012 Consented Development by means of applications under Section 69a and Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the most relevant of which: increased the building heights of Blocks C and L by 1.68 m and 1.47 m respectively (Application ref. 2013/5428, hereinafter referred to as the 2014 Consented Development ); and reduced the number of private residential units to 452 and introduced a private residents gymnasium in lieu of office space within Block C (Application ref. 2014/2501, hereinafter referred to as the 2015 Consented Development ). It is noted that the: 1 Amended by the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Amended) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/3295) and the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Amendment) Regulations 2008 (SI 2008/2093). UK Issue: Final 1 ENVIRON

6 application for the marginal increase in building heights was accompanied by environmental information which is considered to comprise Volume 5 of the ES (hereinafter referred to as the 2013 ES Addendum ) Consented Development consolidates all amendments made to the development proposals since the 2012 Consent. Berkeley Homes (Central London) Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the Applicant ) is now seeking further amendments to one of the two residential blocks (Block L) by means of a new Full Planning Application. In summary, these amendments would comprise the following: Introduction of 35 additional residential units, including 12 affordable units, resulting in 487 units of mixed size and tenure; Increase in building height of 13 m (to 61 m in height); and Increase in 36 bicycle spaces. Although submitted as a standalone Full Application, the Amended Development would be linked by virtue of Section 106 to the wider masterplan (incorporating Block C) of the Site. The proposed amendments and Amended Development as a whole have been subject to a combined Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Screening and Scoping Process. This has resulted in the preparation of an ES Addendum in accordance with the 2011 EIA Regulations (SI 2011/1824). The ES Addendum presents an updated assessment of the Amended Development s potential environmental impacts and likely significant environmental effects by reference to the 2011 ES (Volumes 1-4) and the 2013 ES Addendum (Volume 5) which accompanied the 2012 Consent and the 2014 Consent respectively. As such updated, supplementary and, where appropriate, replacement information has been prepared. The ES Addendum comprises the following suite of documents: ES Volume 6: Main Environmental Statement (ES) Report Addendum; ES Volume 7: Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment Addendum; and ES Volume 8: Technical Appendices Addendum (including Transport Assessment Addendum). In addition, the 2011 ES Volume 1: Non Technical Summary (NTS) has been fully updated and is represented in this document to collectively summarise the outcomes of the 2011 ES, the 2013 ES Addendum and the 2015 ES Addendum for the Amended Development as a whole. The complete ES (Volumes 1-8) will accompany the Full Planning Application for Block L. Additional documentation that will accompany the Application will comprise the following: Planning Application & CIL Forms; Cover Letter; Planning Statement, including proposed Heads of Terms; Design and Access Statement; Affordable Housing Statement; and Transport Statement and Travel Plan Addendum. The Statement of Community Involvement is included within Planning Statement. UK Issue: Final 2 ENVIRON

7 The Application and associated documents will be available for viewing at: London Borough of Wandsworth Planning Department Town Hall Wandsworth High Street London SW18 2PU Opening Hours 9:00 am to 5:00 pm The complete ES will be available for purchase at 10 per CD copy at: ENVIRON UK Ltd Artillery House Artillery Row London SW1P 1RT UK Issue: Final 3 ENVIRON

8 1 Introduction Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a formal process in which the effects of certain types of development projects on the environment are identified, assessed and reported upon. The process must be followed in order for the effects to be taken into account before a decision is made on whether planning permission should be granted. The EIA that was undertaken in 2011 for the 2012 Consented Development, has been reviewed and updated for the Amended Development as a whole, where appropriate. Collectively the eight volumes of the ES consider the potential environmental impacts and likely environmental effects of the Amended Development during the demolition and construction stage, as well as during the Amended Development s subsequent completion and operational stage. The ES takes into account the mitigation measures that are being proposed by the Applicant including those mitigation measures that have been integrated into the planning and design of the development proposals to prevent, reduce and, where possible, offset significant adverse effects. It then evaluates the significance of the residual effects. This document is Volume 1 of the ES and comprises the NTS. The aim of the NTS is to summarise the content and the main findings of the ES in a clear and concise manner to assist the public in understanding what the environmental impacts and significant effects of the development proposals are likely to be. In particular, the NTS summarises the: key EIA process and methodology considerations; history and context of the Site; main characteristics of the physical, natural and built environmental surroundings of the Site; development proposals under consideration; environmental effects likely to arise from the development proposals; including the measures that would be adopted to avoid, reduce or control any adverse effects. ES Volumes 2-8 including supporting technical appendices provide a more detailed description of the Site, the characteristics of the Amended Development and the findings of the EIA. UK Issue: Final 4 ENVIRON

9 2 EIA Process and Methodology The NTS summarises the content of the ES, which in turn reports on the undertaking and findings of an EIA. EIA aims to ensure that potential environmental impacts and likely environmental effects of a new development are taken into account when considering a planning application. 2.1 EIA Scoping and Consultation Scoping is the term used in the EIA Regulations whereby the applicant can request an opinion from the local planning authority on the content of the ES and the extent of the information to be considered in the EIA Pre 2012 Consent Scoping and Consultation A formal scoping process was undertaken with an EIA Scoping Report submitted to LBW on 13 th January The EIA Scoping Report was accompanied by a formal request for an EIA Scoping Opinion. The EIA Scoping Report set out a description of the development proposals at the time, the likely significant environmental impacts and effects to be considered as part of the EIA, as well as, the proposed scope of and methodology to be followed within each technical assessment of the ES. In response, an EIA Scoping Opinion was provided by the LBW on 17 th March Consultation was also carried out with both statutory and non-statutory consultees during the course of the EIA scoping process and the EIA. Consultee responses were received from: London Borough of Wandsworth; Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service; City of Westminster; Environment Agency; Transport for London (TfL); Civil Aviation Authority; and Health and Safety Executive; English Heritage. Following completion of the EIA Scoping process, the key issues which required assessment in the EIA were identified as: Design Evolution and Alternatives; Wind; Construction Environmental Management; Ground Contamination; Planning and Land Use; Socio Economics; Water Resources, Hydrology and Flood Risk; Archaeology; Wind; Heritage, Townscape and Visual Amenity; Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing; Transport and Accessibility; Ecology; and Noise and Vibration; Cumulative Impacts. Accordingly, solar glare, light spill, telecommunications and waste were scoped out of the ES as the development proposals were considered unlikely to generate significant effects on these issues. The outcomes of the EIA was subsequently reported in the 2011 ES (Volumes 1-4) and the development proposals consented in UK Issue: Final 8 ENVIRON

10 2.1.2 Post 2012 Consent Scoping and Consultation Following the 2012 Consent, proposed building height increases to Blocks C (by 1,68 m) and L (by 1,47 m)) were subject to a combined EIA Screening and Scoping Process undertaken by the Applicant s planning consultant in In response, LBW s Screening Opinion confirmed that the development as amended would fall within Schedule 2 (Parts 10(b) (Infrastructure - Urban Development Projects) and 13(b) (Change to or extension, where development is already authorised, executed or in the process of being executed) of the 2011 EIA Regulations and that an ES Addendum was required in respect of Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impacts. The LBW did not consider that the development as amended would give rise to significant environmental effects in respect of any of the other environmental topics originally assessed in the 2011 ES. As such a Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment Addendum was prepared by the Applicant, together with a voluntary Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing Assessment and Wind microclimate review, all of which are collectively referred to as ES Volume 5. The amendments now being proposed by the Applicant have similarly been subject to a combined EIA Screening and Scoping Process undertaken by the Applicant s planning consultant in Through this process, the scope of a further ES Addendum (ES Volumes 6-8) was confirmed within LBW s Scoping Opinion in February LBW confirmed that the proposed amendments and the Amended Development as a whole may result in significant: Wind; Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing; as well as Heritage, Townscape and Visual effects. Accordingly LBW required further assessments of these environmental issues, the outcomes of which have been presented in an ES Addendum (ES Volume 6-8). Furthermore LBW requested an Addendum to the 2011 Transport Assessment (TA). The scope of the TA was agreed with LBW Highways. LBW considered that the proposed amendments and the Amended Development as a whole, would not give rise to significant effects in respect of the remaining environmental issues previously covered in the 2011 ES (socio-economics; archaeology; transport and accessibility; air quality; noise and vibration; water resources, hydrology and flood risk; ground contamination; and ecology) and therefore the outcomes of the 2011 EIA in respect of these issues, remain valid for the Amended Development as a whole. 2.2 Approach The EIA undertaken in 2011 and now updated for the Amended Development as a whole, has been undertaken in accordance with accepted best practice as set out within the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment s (IEMA) Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment and government guidance. A consistent approach to the presentation of the EIA findings in the ES has been adopted for the technical areas, including: a review of policy and legislative requirements, as well as, planning standards of relevance to the specific technical area, on national, regional and local level; an explanation of the information gathering and assessment methodology, including significance criteria; UK Issue: Final 9 ENVIRON

11 a description of the baseline conditions including the identification of sensitive receptors; a description of the mitigation that has been incorporated into the development proposals design and other proposed measures and management controls; the identification of the potential impacts arising during the demolition and construction works of the Development and once the Development has been completed; an assessment of the environmental effects these impacts are expected to cause and an evaluation of their significance against defined criteria taking into consideration mitigation measures integral to the development proposals; a description of additional opportunities for mitigation to further reduce the significance of any adverse environmental effects, including the requirements for post-development monitoring; and the identification of cumulative impacts and effects. 2.3 Baseline The purpose of EIA is to predict how environmental conditions may change as a result of the development proposals. This requires that the environmental conditions now (or at least in the near future) and in the future assuming no development, are established. This is referred to as the baseline and is usually established through a combination of desk-based research, site survey and empirical studies and projections. Together, these describe the current and future character of a site and the value and vulnerability of key environmental resources and receptors. In 2011, the baseline for the EIA was taken as the developed site with the Marco Polo House Building in place, together with its immediate surrounds. It is noted that since the 2012 Consent the Marco Polo House Building has been demolished, the Site hoarded and excavation and substructure works are currently underway. Within the surrounding area, the Battersea Gas Holders have been decommissioned and the construction of the Battersea Power Station regeneration scheme has commenced. However, the current on-site condition is temporary and will change as the construction works progress. Accordingly, for the updated EIA of the Amended Development, the 2011 baseline position is considered to remain a valid and representative basis for assessment purposes. The technical assessments of the ES provide a description of topic specific baseline conditions against which the development proposals have been assessed. For the purposes of the Transport, Air Quality and Noise and Vibration assessments a Future Baseline has also been considered for the anticipated year in which the development proposals would be completed (also referred to as Year of Opening), namely Sensitive Receptors The immediate surroundings of the Site, including ecological features, buildings, roads, rail infrastructure, uses within buildings and open areas, together with the people who reside in, access and use them, would be most at risk of being exposed to potential impacts as a result of the development proposals. Adjacent land uses and properties that may be sensitive to potential environmental impacts from the development proposals include the following: UK Issue: Final 10 ENVIRON

12 to the north of the Site, the storey development known as Chelsea Bridge Wharf, comprising 1,169 residential units beyond which is the River Thames; to the east of the Site, an elevated railway viaduct; further to the east of the Site, the Grade II* Battersea Power Station which forms part of a wider regeneration scheme; to the south of the Site, a 10 storey residential development known as The Bridge, comprising 98 residential units and 730 m 2 commercial space; to the west of the Site, Battersea Park (a Local Nature Reserve, Grade II* Registered Park and Garden, Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs) and a Site of Metropolitan Importance (SMI)); and the Battersea Park Conservation Area and Archaeological Priority Area in which the Site is located. The Site is also situated within an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) designated due to poor local air quality. 2.5 Impacts and Effects As a general rule, the EIA assesses the residual effects that are likely to arise as a consequence of a potential impact/change to the baseline (and associated environmental receptors) following the application/consideration of mitigation measures. A range of potential impacts have been considered - including direct, indirect and cumulative. Direct impacts are those which arise as a direct consequence of a project action, e.g. the loss of habitat or the run-off of surface water to a watercourse. Indirect impacts include, for example, the decline in the abundance of a species as a result of the loss of habitat or the damage to aquatic vegetation as a result of water pollution. Other common examples include the impact on air quality and ambient noise as a result of increased traffic movements. Cumulative impacts are those that occur at the same time and combine on a site to give rise to impact interactions or combine with other planned development to give rise to incombination effects. The other developments may generate their own individual impacts and effects but when considered together, could give rise to significant cumulative effects for example, combined townscape and visual impacts from two or more (proposed) developments. How the development might affect the environment relies on predictions about what impact a certain action will have. Some predictions can be made using mathematical or simulation models, particularly where there are well known relationships between cause and effect. For example: The degree to which noise levels may increase as a result of additional traffic flows can be predicted using a mathematical equation; The level of air pollution from a known traffic flow can be predicted from a computerbased simulation model; and The visibility of a building can be predicted by accurately superimposing its outline and position over a photograph. Other impacts are less easy to predict in quantitative terms; for example, whilst the extent of a loss of a habitat can be measured, the effect on the abundance of individual species is UK Issue: Final 11 ENVIRON

13 more difficult to predict. In such cases, the EIA attempts to qualify the anticipated scale of impact using empirical experience, literature and professional judgement. In all cases, the overall approach and specific methods of predicting the likely nature and scale of impact and effect has been set out in each of the technical assessments. Where used, recognised specific predictive methods are referenced. Any assumptions or limitations to knowledge are stated. In either case the thought process leading to the conclusions is based on reasonably reliable data and so is considered to be legally robust unless otherwise indicated Significance The assessment of residual environmental effects is important in that it informs the determination by the competent authority of the overall acceptability of the proposal. Determining significance relies on accepted thresholds and criteria where available or, for situations in which such are not available, expert interpretations and value judgments. Significance is usually a function of the vulnerability or importance of the baseline receptor affected (resource) and the scale (magnitude and duration) of the potential impact. Importance might be a function of international designation or local relevance. Thus, significance is a concept that can be applied objectively to individual effects. Throughout the ES the same terminology has been used to describe these individual effects, unless specific alternative terminology exists in recognised issue specific guidance for example air quality or where informed by professional judgement or experience. Within this ES, significance has been evaluated with reference to definitive standards, accepted/published criteria and legislation, where available. Where it has not been possible to quantify potential impacts and residual effects, qualitative assessments have been carried out, based on expert knowledge and professional judgement. Where uncertainty exists, it has been noted in the relevant assessment. Specific conventions have been developed to define significance, wherever possible, defined and structured as transparently as possible using the following criteria: The sensitivity of the receptor to the change or potential impact, based on a scale of high, medium and low; The magnitude of the potential impact, based on a scale of high, medium, small, neutral and unknown; The likelihood of the effect occurring, based on a scale of certain, likely or unlikely; The duration of the effect, based on a scale of long, medium and short term; and The reversibility of the effect, being either reversible or irreversible. In order to provide a consistent approach to the presentation of the significance of residual effects, the following terminology has been used in the ES to describe the type/nature of residual effect: Adverse - detrimental or negative effect to an environmental receptor or resource; Neutral - an effect that on balance, is neither beneficial nor adverse to an environmental receptor or resource; and Beneficial - advantageous or positive effect to an environmental receptor or resource. The scale of the predicted residual effect has then been classified according to the following semantic scale: UK Issue: Final 12 ENVIRON

14 Negligible - imperceptible effect; Minor - slight, very short or highly localised effect; Moderate - limited effect (by magnitude, duration, reversibility, value and sensitivity of receptor) which may be considered significant; and Major - considerable effect (by magnitude, duration, reversibility, value and sensitivity of receptor) which may be more than of a local significance or lead to a breach of a recognised environmental threshold, policy, legislation or standard). Effects have been predicted as either 'significant' or 'not significant'. Significant effects are considered material to the planning decision process. Based on the above, moderate and major effects may be considered significant. There are some exceptions to this scale due to established terminology for certain topic specific assessments. For example, the Air Quality assessment uses slight instead of minor and the Ecology assessment follows the guidelines set out by the Chartered Institute for Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) so does not use the semantic scale and only refers to impacts, not effects. UK Issue: Final 13 ENVIRON

15 3 Planning Context and History of the Site Pre 2012 Consent Planning Context In 2011, the planning policy relevant to the Site was contained within national planning policy set out in government circulars, Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPGs) and Planning Policy Statements (PPSs), and regional and local planning policy documents. National policies which were of particular relevance at the time were those relating to the delivery of sustainable development, housing; sustainable economic growth, the historic environment; transport; flood risk; pollution; noise; renewable energy; and spatial planning. At a regional level, policy framework was set out in the London Plan (consolidated with alterations since 2004) published in February 2008 and relevant Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG). The London Plan set out a strategic framework for land use planning in London. Planning for a Better London set out the Mayor of London s emerging priorities for strategic planning policy prior to the alteration of the London Plan or preparation of supplementary guidance. The relevant Statutory Development Plan for the Site, comprised the London Plan, the LBW Core Strategy, 2010, as well as the saved local policies in the Wandsworth Unitary Development Plan (UDP). Consideration was also given to the Draft London Replacement Plan, 2009 which set out an integrated economic, social, environmental and transport framework for the development of London over years and aimed to replace the London Plan, 2008; the emerging LBW Site Specific Allocations Document (SSAD); and the emerging Development Management Policies Document (DMPD). The Site is within the western extremity of the Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea Opportunity Area (VNEB OA), a designated regeneration area. Accordingly consideration was also given to a draft Opportunity Framework prepared by the Greater London Authority for the VNEB OA at the time Post 2012 Consent Planning Context Since the 2012 Consent, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Planning Practice Guidance have been introduced at a national level and have replaced PPGs and PPSs. The Development Plan for the Site now comprises the London Plan 2011 (including the Revised Early Minor Alterations to the London Plan 2013 and the Further Alterations to the London Plan 2014); the LBW Core Strategy 2010; the adopted LBW DMPD 2012; and adopted SSAD Other relevant policy plans include the adopted VNEB OA Planning Framework UK Issue: Final 14 ENVIRON

16 4 Description of the Site 4.1 Site Location and Context The Site is located along Queenstown Road, Battersea and is centred on Ordnance Survey (OS) National Grid Reference (NGR) ,177299, as shown in Figure 4.1. Figure 4.1: Site Location The Site is bound to the: north by Sopwith Way and the Chelsea Bridge Wharf residential development; east by an elevated viaduct leading to Victoria Station with Battersea Cats and Dogs Home, the decommissioned National Grid Battersea Gas Holders and Battersea Power Station beyond; south by a service road and the 10 storey The Bridge residential development; and west by Queenstown Road, with Battersea Park (a Local Nature reserve, SINC and SMI) beyond. Figure 4.2 shows the wider context of the Site. Of note, the Site s immediate surroundings are characterised by heritage features such as the Grade II* Battersea Power Station to the east and Battersea Park, also Grade II*, to the west. The Site is also located within the Battersea Park Conservation Area. As the Site is located in close proximity to the Battersea Park Rail Station and Queenstown Road Rail Station and well served by a number of bus routes along Queenstown Road, it has a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of five representing a very good level of public transport accessibility. There is good access to the cycle routes from the Site with onward connections to central London and beyond. The London Cycle Network (LCN) route 37 runs along Nine Elms Lane. UK Issue: Final 15 ENVIRON

17 Queenstown Road (A3216) is classified as a distributor road linking the A4 in Knightsbridge to the north with the A3 at Clapham Common to the south. At the Site frontage, there is a 10.5 m wide carriageway with footways of approximately 4 m in width either side. There is a bus lane for the use of northbound bus drivers and one lane in each direction for all other motorised modes. The footways can be used by both pedestrians and cyclists. Figure 4.2: Site Context and Surrounding Land Uses 4.2 Site Description The rectangular shaped Site, defined by the redline boundary for the Amended Development as a whole, covers an area of 1.25 ha (12,495 m 2 ) as shown in Figure 4.3. In 2011, the Site comprised a 3 to 4 four storey, marble and glass clad building (Marco Polo House) that was constructed in 1987, as well as hardstanding areas for parking (approximately 81 spaces), as shown in Figure 4.4. The building comprised office and media use and was occupied by the QVC Shopping Channel which utilised the building 24-hours per day, 365 days per year. Their operation required the need for sets to be transported to the Site, erected, dismantled and removed for each product. Following the 2012 Consent, the Marco Polo Building House Building was vacated and in 2014 demolished. The Site is now hoarded and comprises an active construction site where ground and archaeological investigations have been completed as part of the implementation of the 2012 Consented Development. At the time of writing excavation and substructure construction works are ongoing. UK Issue: Final 16 ENVIRON

18 Figure 4.3: Site Redline Boundary for Amended Development as a whole Figure 4.4: 2011 Site Conditions UK Issue: Final 17 ENVIRON

19 There are two vehicular access points to the Site. The main entrance is from Sopwith Way at the northern end of the Site, where most of the parking spaces were previously located. The second vehicular access is from a service road joining Queenstown Road, adjacent to the southern boundary of the Site. Visitors to QVC were required to use the entrance from Sopwith Way to access the Site by car, with use of the southern access discouraged. A 10 m wide strip of land running parallel with the eastern Site boundary was secured as an easement for Network Rail. UK Issue: Final 18 ENVIRON

20 5 Design Evolution and Alternatives The overarching aim of the development proposals for the Site is to provide a residential led mixed-use development, together with complimentary commercial and community floor space, new public spaces and easy connections to the surrounding environment that can be enjoyed by all local residents. This would maximise the sustainable development potential of the Site, support the London Plan s design principles for a compact city, improve the character and setting of the natural and heritage assets of the surrounding Site context and introduce public access through and around the Site to connect Queenstown Road and Battersea Park to the Battersea Power Station and wider VNEB OA. In accordance with EIA Regulations and guidance, the ES includes a discussion on the alternative development options and various constraints and opportunities which influenced the ultimate design of the Amended Development. 5.1 Pre 2012 Consent Design Evolution and Alternatives Opportunities and Constraints A key part of the initial design process was a review of relevant land use policies and the identification of key strategic environmental and transport development considerations. The Site presents opportunities and constraints relating to existing land use policy, townscape and visual amenity, noise, air quality, ground conditions, water resource management and biodiversity improvements, which informed the master planning of the Site. As shown in Figure 5.1, the key development opportunities and constraints considered at the time comprised the: Site s topography and level differences across the Site; Site s location within the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) land use planning inner and middle zones for the existing Battersea Gas Holders which influenced the proposed layout and density distribution across the Site and the development s phasing; opportunity to create a new pedestrian link between Queenstown Road and Battersea Power Station and the wider VNEB OA; opportunity to make a significant contribution towards local biodiversity enhancement; and proximity of the Site to Queenstown Road and a railway line and its location within an Air Quality Management Area, requiring existing and future local residents not be adversely affected by excessive internal and external amenity noise levels and poor and unsuitable air quality Alternatives Guidance on the preparation of an EIA suggests that the evolution of a site in the absence of specific proposals should be addressed. This can be described as the Do Nothing alternative. The Do Nothing scenario is a hypothetical alternative conventionally considered, albeit briefly, in EIA as a basis for comparing the development proposals under consideration. At the time of preparing the 2011 ES, the Do Nothing scenario comprised the Site becoming vacant or continuing to operate in commercial use. Accordingly, the regeneration opportunities for the Site, as part of the wider aspirations within the VNEB OA, would not have been realised and the Site would not have been able to contribute to the transformation of this part of the LBW and London overall. UK Issue: Final 19 ENVIRON

21 Figure 5.1: Pre 2012 Consent Site Opportunities and Constraints Design Evolution Process An extensive selection of alternative designs was considered throughout the design evolution process. A number of design options were explored and rigorously tested in consultation with the community, LBW, local stakeholder groups, the Greater London Authority, CABE, English Heritage and other statutory and non-statutory consultees. Figure 5.2 shows how the initial basic massing concept for the development proposals evolved. Figure 5.2: Pre 2012 Consent Initial Massing Concept Development The iterative nature of the EIA assisted in the adoption of key considerations, the identification of potential environmental effects, the development of mitigation measures and consequently the further refinement of the design plans into their current form. UK Issue: Final 20 ENVIRON

22 The preferred development and layout option for the Site was further developed with due consideration of various design alternatives, as well as comments raised by LBW. The preferred masterplan that was selected for the Site in 2011: capitalised on the location close to the VNEB OA and the proposed new Northern Line Extension tube station by providing a high quality sustainable development; introduced public access through and around the Site to connect Queenstown Road / Battersea Park to the Battersea Power Station areas; created a quality public realm with mixed-use elements and active ground floor frontages; and included extensive landscaping and generated significant biodiversity enhancements on-site when compared to the habitats that were existing at the time. The masterplan proposals were subsequently consented in 2012, and represents an appropriate response to the Site location and context. 5.2 Post 2012 Consent Design Evolution and Alternatives Following the 2012 Consent, the ownership of the Site changed in A review of the 2012 Consented Development was undertaken and a decision taken to increase the floor-toceiling height of the residential levels to voluntarily comply with the London Housing Design Guide. Accordingly the floor-to-floor heights of each residential level were increased by 105 mm. This resulted in an overall height increase of 1.68 m to Block C and 1.47 to Block L, which was subsequently consented in In addition, the internal floor plans of Blocks C and L were reviewed to optimise the layout of the residential and the B1 office space. Furthermore basement layout efficiencies were sought. These amendments resulted in an overall reduction of units numbers from 456 to 452; the removal of the car stackers in the basement and the introduction of a residents gymnasium in lieu of office space within Block C. In 2014 a review of the residential offer at the Site was initiated in consultation with the LBW in response the changing surrounding context (greater development density); to fully realise the sustainable development potential of the Site; and also to assist in achieving the LBW s aspirations for the delivery of high quality homes. The review concluded that there was scope to retain the unique architectural building form whilst finishing off the curve of Block L. Consideration was given to the introduction of two storeys at the lower levels (at levels 02 and 03) to maintain the proportions of Block L. In addition, two additional storeys were introduced at the top of the building to complete the building curvature. On this basis, the total number of housing units would be increased by 35 to 487. The resulting built form maintains the architectural design principles established for the 2012 Consented Development. Block C as consented in 2014 would remain unchanged. The amendments made to the 2012 Consented Development over the course of 2013 and the Amended Development now under consideration, maintain the core land use, urban and architectural design principles established for the Consented Development. The amendments deliver tangible improvements in terms of design, the sustainable use of brownfield land and housing provision. In light of the planning consents that have been secured for the redevelopment of the Site, the Do Nothing Alternative for the purpose of the updated EIA comprises the implementation of the 2015 Consented Development. UK Issue: Final 21 ENVIRON

23 6 Amended Development 6.1 Description of Amended Development As described in the Preface, the 2012 Consented Development comprises the following: Demolition of the existing building on-site; Erection of two blocks (C and L) of up to 17 and 15 storeys respectively; 456 residential units of which 68 are affordable units; 1, 257 m 2 gross external area (GEA) commercial (B1, A2, A1 and A3) space; 184 basement car and 607 cycle spaces; and Public realm and landscaping works. Subsequently the residential unit numbers were decreased to 452 and a residents gymnasium (620 m 2 ) introduced in lieu of the commercial (office space). The description of Block L amendments now proposed and of the Amended Development as a whole contained in the Full Planning Application is as follows: Amendment to Block L of Application 2011/2089 to construct a building of eighteen storeys, providing 208 no. residential units and 540sq.m of B1, A1, A2 & A3 floorspace. (The resulting overall scheme will provide 487 no. units, 620sq.m of D2 and 945 sq.m of B1, A1, A2 & A3 floorspace together with new pedestrian link and vehicular access, basement car and cycle parking, landscaping, excavation works and servicing). Therefore, the Amended Development as a whole, which covers a combined gross external floor area of 59,924 m 2, would comprise the following: 487 residential units; 945 m 2 GEA commercial floor space; 620 m 2 GEA residents gymnasium floor space; 184 basement car parking and 36 cycle spaces; public realm; and landscaping. 6.2 General Arrangement Residential units would comprise a mix of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom apartments and duplexes, including 406 private and 81 affordable units. Of these, 55 would be wheelchair accessible. Non-residential uses would comprise office, retail and community uses including a residents gymnasium. Public realm and open space would be provided in four key areas: a Pedestrian Link through the Site; a Sunken Garden; a Courtyard Garden; and an Eastern Access Road Area. The ground and lower ground floors would be the principal entrance levels for the Amended Development. Figure 6.1 shows the proposed ground floor plan. UK Issue: Final 22 ENVIRON

24 Figure 6.1: Amended Development Ground Floor Plan UK Issue: Final 23 ENVIRON

25 A total of 180 car parking spaces would be provided at basement level for residential use. In addition four spaces would be provided at ground level for commercial units, including three designated for Car Club use. 6.3 Height and Materials The building facades would comprise a range of materials, including stone, zinc and patterned glazing, with terraces and roofs created by stepping back the building from Queenstown Road. As shown in Figure 6.2: Block C would be 16 storeys (including ground floor) with a top of parapet height of maod; and Block L would be 18 storeys (including ground floor) with a top of parapet height of maod. 6.4 Sustainability and Energy Provision The residential apartments are designed in accordance with Lifetime Homes Standards and meet wheelchair accessible housing design requirements. The scheme has also been designed in accordance with Secured by Design and to achieve Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4. Due to the scale of the development proposals, detailed consideration was given in 2011 to the development s sustainability and energy supply. A Sustainability Appraisal and an Energy Strategy was developed in line with London Plan policy, the latter with particular regard to the Energy Hierarchy and Renewable Energy target. A Sustainability Statement and Energy Statement accompanied the application in 2011 and remain unchanged for the Amended Development. A number of technologies were assessed and recommendations were made in order to reduce CO 2 emissions from the development. With the incorporation of passive design, energy efficiency measures including Combined Heat and Power (CHP) and renewable energy technologies, the development proposals would achieve a 40 % improvement of the Dwelling Emissions Rate (DER) over the Target Emissions Rate (TER). The preferred option for carbon reduction is CHP and Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP) system. The GSHP would provide a renewable CO 2 saving of 3.9 %, which would contribute to a total saving of 21.5 % in combination with CHP. This is recommended on the basis that it can produce better improvements in Building Regulations energy calculations, and has the potential to produce further CO 2 savings, should calculated cooling energy demands be greater than those predicted. Alternatively if GSHP is not feasible, photo-voltaic panels on building roofs would be adopted as a back-up option, providing a 3.6 % renewable CO 2 saving, and 23.2 % total CO 2 saving alongside CHP and other lean and clean measures. The Amended Development would achieve a water consumption rate of less than or equal to 105 litres/person/day through the installation of water saving devices, including low water consumption taps, showers and cisterns. In addition, all units would have a water meter. There is also an aspiration to collect rain water for watering the Sunken Garden, Courtyard Garden, private gardens, balconies and green/brown roofs. UK Issue: Final 24 ENVIRON

26 Figure 6.2: Amended Development North-South Section UK Issue: Final 25 ENVIRON

27 Overall, the recommended Energy Strategy would save approximately CO 2 of 351 tonnes a year with approximately 1,284 tonnes produced by the Amended Development A gas-fired community heating system from a single energy centre is proposed to be incorporated, serving the residential dwellings, communal areas requiring heating, and commercial areas. Comfort cooling is proposed to a proportion of the residential units, and would be required in the commercial areas where there are high internal gains from equipment, etc. Cooling would be provided by means of the GSHP system. Energy efficient mechanical ventilation with heat recovery (MVHR) would be installed in all residential and commercial units. Mechanical ventilation would also be provided within the basement car parking areas. 6.5 Landscaping Proposals Landscaping would comprise grass, shrub and tree planting at lower ground, ground and terrace levels with a net increase of 84 trees across the Site, plus 2,802 m 2 of green and brown roofs. Private gardens would be provided along the western and southern building frontages. Appropriate play space would be provided to meet GLA and LBW requirements in the Sunken Garden and Courtyard Garden. 6.6 Waste Management A Site Waste Management Plan would be prepared and implemented at the Site to include measures to minimise waste generation, maximise recycling and control any off-site waste disposal. The facilities for the storage of refuse and recyclables and the means of access for collection have been designed in accordance with the LBW s requirements. For residential uses, refuse stores would be located within the basement in areas that are accessible from each residential core. All residential units would be provided with at least three different internal storage containers for recycling waste, located within the indoor areas, in accordance with the requirements of Code of Sustainable Homes. The storage containers would be located within a short distance of the dwelling entrances. Commercial waste would be stored and managed separately from residential refuse. Each commercial unit would have its own specific area for waste facilities, as suggested in LBW s Supplementary Planning Document. Servicing arrangements have been developed in consultation with LBW. Servicing for the residential and commercial uses would occur on-site in the basement along the eastern boundary of the Site, as in the current arrangement. All servicing vehicles would access the Site from Sopwith Way. For the three commercial units fronting Queenstown Road, trolleys would be made available on-site to ensure that deliveries can be satisfactorily made. UK Issue: Final 26 ENVIRON

28 7 Summary of Potential Impacts and Effects 7.1 Development Phasing and Programme The development programme comprises the demolition of the existing Marco Polo House building and three construction phases following general site enabling and demolition works. The Amended Development would be constructed of reinforced concrete frame, on piled foundations with glass and zinc external envelope and precast 'stone' and glass balustrades. Figure 7.1 shows the indicative phasing plan proposed. Construction works are programmed to be completed in July Figure 7.1: Indicative Site Phasing It is noted that since the 2012 Consent all pre-commencement conditions have been discharged, the Site has been hoarded; demolition works have been completed; as well as ground and archaeological investigations. At the time of writing, excavation and substructure works are progressing on-site, with all works being undertaken in accordance with a LBW approved CEMP. 7.2 Construction Environmental Management Demolition and construction works have the potential to cause environmental impacts to ecology and from noise, waste, surface water runoff and emissions to the air. Measures to control potential environmental impacts have been set out within a CEMP, including defined working hours; quiet techniques; waste minimisation and recycling; drainage and spill prevention; demolition and construction traffic management; and suppression of dust, to ensure no significant environmental effects arise from the works. 7.3 Socio Economics A socio economic assessment was undertaken as part of the 2011 ES to assess the potential impacts of the development proposals on the local and regional economy. In particular, it considered the potential impacts on employment levels, the residential population and social and community infrastructure. Although the Amended Development UK Issue: Final 27 ENVIRON

29 would introduce 35 additional residential units, the outcomes of the 2011 assessment are considered to remain valid. A summary is provided in the following paragraphs: The baseline analysis included a review of existing socio economic conditions at the Site and the provision of existing services such as education and health care. The Indices of Multiple Deprivation data confirmed that LBW has relatively low levels of deprivation. There are a number of pockets within the borough that fall within the top 20% most deprived. However, in the overall London context, the borough does not suffer from high levels of deprivation (Figure 7.2). Economic activity at the local level (72 %) is roughly in line with the borough average (73%), but higher than the overall London average of 68 %. Wandsworth has a high proportion of residents (64 %) employed in high skilled occupations (Managers, Senior Officials, Professionals, Associate Professionals and Technical Occupations). The local area also has a high number of residents (58 %) that are employed at this level. Figure 7.2: Index of Multiple Deprivation The demolition of the existing building and construction of the Development was estimated to generate approximately 170 full time construction jobs. In addition, the Development was predicted to deliver 456 new homes which would help to meet LBW housing targets as set out in the London Plan and in the objectives of the VNEB OA Planning Framework. The residential units was predicted to accommodate 832 people, of which 18 would be primary school children and 8 would be secondary school children. These residents would result in an increased demand for education and health facilities. The assessment concluded that there was sufficient capacity in the local primary schools and the borough s secondary schools to meet the need of the development proposals. In addition that there was existing healthcare capacity available locally. Therefore the likely effect of the development proposals on healthcare was considered to be Negligible at all levels. UK Issue: Final 28 ENVIRON

30 The completed development would create approximately 93 jobs. However, the QVC employment would be relocated and therefore lost to the Site. This would result in a net loss of 557 jobs on-site. The Proposed Development would include 1,345 m 2 of private, semi private and publically accessible public realm and open space, which includes 180 m 2 of dedicated play space and 616 m 2 of playable space. This meets the requirements for play space for younger children living in the Development. Therefore in terms of play space, it was concluded that the Development would have a Negligible effect. 7.4 Archaeology An archaeological assessment was undertaken as part of the 2011 ES to assess the potential impacts and likely significant effects of the redevelopment proposals on potential buried heritage assets (archaeology) at the Site. In particular, it considered the potential impact on archaeological remains, structures, monuments or heritage landscape within or immediately around the Site that are considered to be significant because of their historic, archaeological, architectural or artistic interest. The outcomes of the 2011 assessment remain valid for the Amended Development and is summarised in the following paragraphs: The assessment was carried out in accordance with the standards specified by the Institute for Archaeologists, Department of Communities and Local Government, English Heritage, and the Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service. The potential for medieval and early post-medieval remains was concluded to be low, as prior to the railway infrastructure, the Site was open fields, some distance from main settlements. Archaeological survival potential was concluded to be higher in the south-eastern part, where alluvium is present within an ancient channel (along with possible archaeological remains within and beneath it). As most of the Site was occupied by the Marco Polo House building, the foundations were likely to have caused considerable truncation. The main archaeological impact of the development proposals would be from the excavation of the proposed basement in the southern part of the Site, and from piling. Any archaeological remains would also be removed within the pile footprints, and possibly around each pile footprint, and the significance of possible buried heritage assets as outlined above, reduced to negligible. Demolition, pile probing and obstruction removal would also have a considerable impact on the significance of any surviving remains. The Site straddles two topographic/geological zones (as shown in Figure 7.3). The northwestern half of the Site falls on a sand and gravel island (eyot), recorded during an investigation at Battersea Wharf on Queenstown Road approximately 170 m north of the Site. UK Issue: Final 29 ENVIRON

31 Figure 7.3: Map Showing Eyots (sand and gravel islands) and Former Channels in the Area Surrounding the Site No buried resources of Very High Importance were anticipated at the Site that might merit permanent preservation in situ. On this basis it was considered that the impact of the Proposed Development would be successfully mitigated through a programme of sitespecific field investigation (archaeological monitoring of geotechnical work and possibly trenched evaluation), followed, if required, by targeted archaeological excavation and recording and/or an archaeological watching brief for remains of lesser significance. Following the successful implementation of an agreed programme of mitigation, it was anticipated that any adverse environmental effects for possible archaeological resources would be reduced to an acceptable level or removed completely, resulting in Negligible residual effects. It is noted that following the 2012 Consent, a programme of mitigation was implemented at the Site, by means of a palaeoenvironmental assessment of five boreholes carried out by the Museum of London Archaeology. This was followed by an archaeological watching brief across the entire Marco Polo House building footprint. A revised deposit survival model was also produced. The evaluation concluded that the Site lies across part of an ancient island (or eyot) sloping down southwards to a prehistoric channel. However, a watching brief undertaken in 2014 found no conclusive evidence of high Gravels, so it is possible that the whole Site lay within a channel, or that the Gravel was removed by later development on the Site. The only archaeological features of note during the 2014 watching brief were wall footings associated with 19 th and 20 th century railway structures in the northern and eastern areas of the Site. 7.5 Heritage, Townscape and Visual Amenity A heritage, townscape and visual impact assessment (HTVIA) was undertaken as part of the 2011 ES to assess the potential impacts of the redevelopment proposals on identified above ground heritage assets, townscape character and visual receptors at the Site and within the study area around the Site. The assessment was updated in 2013 to consider the minor building height increases to Blocks C and L. UK Issue: Final 30 ENVIRON

32 Given the nature of the Amended Development, an updated HTVIA has been undertaken of the proposed amendments to Block L, and of the Amended Development as a whole. In doing so, the updated HTVIA has made reference to the 2011 HTVIA (ES Volume 3) and to the 2013 ES HTVIA Addendum (ES Volume 5). As the Marco Building House has now been demolished, the updated assessment has focussed on construction and completed development impacts only. A summary of the assessment outcomes is provided in the following paragraphs: The updated assessment has been undertaken with regard to relevant planning policy including the NPPF (2012); NPPG (2014); The London Plan (2011) including the Revised Early Minor Alterations (2013) and the Draft Further Alterations to the London Plan (2014); as well as the LBW s Core Strategy (2010), Development Management Policies Document (2012) and Local Views Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (2014). The Site is located within the Battersea Park Conservation Area as is the majority of the eastern side of Queenstown Road adjacent to the Park. Recent neighbouring developments include Chelsea Bridge Wharf to the north and The Bridge to the south. The Site is not located within any strategic viewing corridor as defined by the London View Management Framework, although a series of local important views were identified in the Wandsworth Local Views SPD including View 3: Downstream from Albert Bridge; View 4: Battersea Power Station from Chelsea Bridge; View 5: From Queenstown Road to Battersea Power Station; and View 6: Battersea Power Station from Battersea Park. The assessment work has relied upon different levels of accurate visual representation (AVR). The viewpoints considered within the HTVIA assessment include all of the viewpoints assessed in the 2011 HTVIA with an additional six viewpoints including viewpoints suggested by Borough officers. AVRs have been prepared of the Amended Development for each of these views, a small sample of which is provided in Figures 7.4 to 7.7. The following key heritage and townscape receptors have been considered: The setting of the Grade II* Registered Battersea Park; The character or appearance of the Battersea Park Conservation Area; The setting of Battersea Power Station, a Grade II* listed building, as seen in near, medium distant and distant views. The principle of development in the immediate setting of the power station has a bearing on the assessment. Essentially, what is proposed does not materially exceed any setting effect which has already been deemed acceptable through the planning process; and The setting of the Royal Hospital Chelsea and on riverscape views. Particular consideration has been given to cumulative consents, notably those that have been achieved since 2011 within the VNEB OA and at sites immediately to either side in Battersea Park Road. The cumulative consents have significantly altered the character and appearance of this part of the Conservation Area and the setting of the Park and Power Station. The cumulative consents establish the principle of a level of development in the setting of the Grade II* listed Battersea Power Station building. The amended proposals have been designed mindful of the relationship with Battersea Park opposite, and Battersea Power Station. The form of the Amended Development is very different to the slab-like form of recent developments. It has been broken up into two distinct blocks each of which is itself highly articulated. This massing continues to successfully reduce the scale impact of the UK Issue: Final 31 ENVIRON

33 development on the main road. Furthermore the public space and new landscaping contribute positively to the townscape character of the road and represent a significant improvement in the Site s appearance and in its relationship to the park. The stepped form and heights have been refined in relation to views out from the park in order to reduce the mass of the building and also achieve a picturesque or varied sculptural form that complements the naturalistic landscaping within the park. The swelling curves of the frontage elements billow and move in a way redolent of the structural landscaping in the Park, and as such will complement that landscape in the more immediate setting views (road and from adjoining near areas of the park). In more distant views the landscaped parts of the Amended Development and its modelled, stepped form will sit attractively in relation to the treeline, without undermining the landscape quality of the park as a whole, of particular areas within it or particular structures with it (including some listed and other structures of note). The colour palette of the facing, a light tonality, is appropriate and will complement, not overwhelm, the park s setting. As a result, the assessment concludes that the setting of the park would be preserved in line with best practice guidance, the development plan and other guidance. Furthermore, the provision of new public open space within the development will make the area more attractive and improve its functioning, satisfying NPPG objectives. These aspects of the Amended Development will bring about an improvement to the setting of the park, exceeding the requirements of the NPPF. Indeed, the billowing, sculpted, landscaped form will enhance an appreciation of the Park s special qualities, particularly in nearer to and medium distant views where the proposals are most evident from within the Park. In comparison with the Consented Development and the surrounding cumulative situation, the amended proposals add no additional setting impact. Whilst the amended proposals increase the overall height of Block L by four storeys in comparison with the Consented Development, the amended proposals will continue to sit within a height and visual effect threshold set by nearby recent consents. Accordingly there are no effects requiring further mitigation. The scale of residual effects on Battersea Park would range from Nil or Negligible to Major, and the type of effects would continue to be Beneficial due to the detailed design of the Amended Development and its urban design (scale, massing, etc.). The form and scale of the Amended Development, taken together with its detailed design, satisfies statutory obligations as set out under section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act As such, the character and appearance of the Battersea Conservation Area is at least preserved, in line with statute, and is significantly enhanced. In the recent process which achieved consents for the redevelopment of the Power Station, a height threshold has been achieved which is accepted not to harm its setting in medium and distant views, including in views from the Park. The Battersea Power Station redevelopment proposals have been implemented and, at the time of writing, the building cores and floors are being erected to the northern and eastern flanking buildings. The setting of the building as appreciated in those same views is also changing in relation to implemented development, notably the St. George s Tower scheme at Vauxhall and cumulative schemes within the VNEB OA which rise above the parapet line of the power station. UK Issue: Final 32 ENVIRON

34 As demonstrated in the AVRs that accompany the assessment, the amended proposals will continue to have an acceptable scale relationship with the Power Station. As in 2011 / 2013, at its highest point, the Amended Development will not intrude materially into the space between the chimneys, above the brick shoulder of this part of the structure (a sensitive threshold). If the Consented Development is taken into account along with cumulative effects from the Battersea Power Station consent, then the scale of effect of the proposals on distant and medium distant views particularly continues to be Nil or Negligible. Thus, the amended proposals, by virtue of their distinctive form, design and massing, including their scale and height, have an acceptable relationship with the setting of the power station and do not exceed the uppermost height thresholds for established through recent consents for that site s redevelopment. Accordingly, the setting of the listed building will be at least preserved, and statutory obligations satisfied as a result. It should be noted that the impact of the proposed change is, relative to the overall effects, relatively modest and in many cases, the assessment concludes that the scale and nature of the particular effect was identical to the Consented Development. Overall the likely completed development effects on heritage assets comprise: five assets which would experience Nil to Negligible effects; 14 assets which would experience Minor to Minor-Moderate Beneficial effects; four assets which would experience Moderate Beneficial effects; and one asset which would experience a Major Beneficial effect. Overall the likely completed development townscape effects would comprise: three receptors which would experience Nil to Negligible effects; six receptors which would experience Minor to Minor-Moderate beneficial effects; and one receptor which would experience Moderate Beneficial effects. The completed development visual effects would comprise: four receptors with Neutral to Negligible effects; ten receptors with Minor to Minor-Moderate Beneficial effects; and nine receptors with Moderate to Moderate-Major Beneficial effects. UK Issue: Final 33 ENVIRON

35 Figure 7.4: View 3 Queenstown Road at Chelsea Bridge Wharf with Amended Development UK Issue: Final 34 ENVIRON

36 Figure 7.5: View 5a Battersea Park at Tennis Courts Winter View with Amended Development UK Issue: Final 35 ENVIRON

37 Figure 7.6: View 8a Battersea Park at Bowling Green Winter View with Amended Development and Cumulative Schemes UK Issue: Final 36 ENVIRON

38 Figure 7.7: View 14 from Chelsea Garden Embankment at Chelsea Physic with Amended Development and Cumulative Schemes UK Issue: Final 37 ENVIRON

39 Berkeley Homes (Central London) Ltd 7.6 Transport and Accessibility A transport and accessibility assessment was undertaken as part of the 2011 ES to assess the potential impacts and likely significant effects of the redevelopment proposals on local traffic, public transport and accessibility. Although the Amended Development would introduce 35 additional residential units, proposed car parking spaces would remain unchanged. Associated development traffic flows would therefore remain unchanged with the net increase in people trips de minimis 2. Accordingly, the outcomes of the 2011 assessment remain valid for the Amended Development and is summarised in the following paragraphs: The scope of the assessment was agreed with Transport for London (TfL) and LBW with consideration given to comments received from Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and the Civil Aviation Authority who provided responses in the Formal EIA Scoping Opinion of relevance to transport and accessibility. The baseline was characterised using traffic surveys, pedestrian and cycle counts. Personal Injury Accident data was obtained from TfL and the Pedestrian Environment Review System (PERS) Audit, undertaken for the Battersea Power Station proposal, was reviewed. The assessment was undertaken with reference to methodologies set out in Institute for Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) Guidelines and the Department for Transport Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) to consider severance, driver delay, pedestrian delay, pedestrian amenity, fear and intimidation, accidents and safety, hazardous loads, and dust and dirt. The Site is well served by public transport services and has a high Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) rating of five. In addition, the Site benefits from good quality pedestrian and cycle links. For the baseline position, 778 daily traffic movements were recorded to / from the Site and 24 hour two-way traffic flows of 31,812 vehicles were recorded along Queenstown Road. In total 19 personal injury accidents had been recorded on Queenstown Road over a three year period. However, there were no clear deficiencies identified within the layout of the public highway. The Site is located within the western extremity of the VNEB OA. As such, a number of enhancements to public transport are planned, including bus service enhancements and the extension to the London Underground Northern Line. In addition, the proposed Cycle Superhighway Route 8 would run along Queenstown Road. During demolition and construction, less than 1 HGV arrival per hour was predicted, which is insignificant compared to over 3,000 HGV movements per day along Queenstown Road. Upon completion of the development a reduction of 510 car trips per day was predicted when compared to the commercial use of the Site, which represented a 1.6% reduction in traffic flows on Queenstown Road. A range of transport mitigation features are inherent with the design such as the creation of a new pedestrian link from Queenstown Road to the Battersea Power Station site, three car club spaces, covered and uncovered cycle parking, and resurfacing the footway along the frontage of the Site on Queenstown Road during design. 2 de minimis meaning too trivial or minor to merit consideration. UK Issue: Final 38 ENVIRON

40 Berkeley Homes (Central London) Ltd During demolition and construction, mitigation measures would include restricting delivery hours; provisioning of wheel wash and turning facilities; and ensuring that all materials transported to and from Site are enclosed in containers or fully sheeted. During the operation of the completed development, Residential and Commercial Travel Plans would serve to encourage sustainable modes of transport. Due to the comparatively small numbers of HGVs accessing the Site compared to baseline flows on Queenstown Road, and assuming the mitigation measures outlined above would be implemented, the assessment concluded that significant residual effects during demolition and construction were unlikely. The development proposals would lead to an overall reduction in car trips, with a total reduction in traffic along Queenstown Road of 1.6 %. As such, there is not expected to be a significant effects on severance, driver delay, pedestrian delay, pedestrian amenity, fear and intimidation, or accidents and safety, or dust and dirt. There are not expected to be any hazardous loads accessing the Site. In addition, the Development would not have a significant effect on the available capacity of the public transport network, pedestrian or cycle facilities, particularly when compared to the Battersea Power Station proposal. 7.7 Noise and Vibration A noise and vibration assessment was undertaken as part of the 2011 ES to assess the potential impacts and likely significant effects of existing noise sources on the new residential receptors that would be introduced to the Site, as well as the potential noise and vibration impacts of the redevelopment proposals on existing surrounding sensitive receptors. Although the Amended Development would introduce 35 additional residential units, proposed car parking spaces would remain unchanged. Associated development traffic flows would therefore remain unchanged with the net increase in people trips de minimis. Accordingly, there would be no change to sources of noise. The outcomes of the 2011 assessment therefore remain valid for the Amended Development and are summarised in the following paragraphs: The assessment of potential noise and vibration impacts from the development proposals was carried out based on a series of environmental noise measurements undertaken at the Site. Noise modelling and noise predictions to identify any noise impacts that would be likely as a result of the construction and operation of the development proposals were also undertaken. Monitoring locations and methodologies were agreed with LBW s Environmental Health Department. Noise levels from the demolition and construction works were predicted at noise-sensitive properties in the vicinity of the Site and on-site and the impact of the noise assessed. With the incorporation of standard noise and vibration mitigation controls into the CEMP, such as the use of alternative, silenced plant; quiet construction techniques; on-time deliveries; and a proactive communication strategy; noise levels were predicted to remain within the 75 db(a) target criterion for all works and receptor locations. Given the distance between the Site and the nearest sensitive receptors, there is potential for perceptible levels of vibration at receptor locations, during piling operations. However, the adoption of the Best Practicable Means (BPM) mitigation measures, such as continuous flight auger piling; silenced plant and equipment; temporary screening and awareness training of all contractors in regards to BS5228 (Parts 1 and 2), as well as the monitoring regime described in Chapter 10: Noise and Vibration of the ES, would ensure that the impact of any construction related vibration would be adequately monitored and controlled. UK Issue: Final 39 ENVIRON

41 Berkeley Homes (Central London) Ltd The impact of ambient noise on the newly introduced residential receptors were determined by plotting the future Noise Exposure Categories (NECs) across the Site and predicting the likely free-field daytime and night-time noise levels at the location of proposed residential facades. These calculations were based on the Future 2019 Baseline with Proposed and Cumulative Development scenario traffic flows and the recorded results of the noise measurement survey undertaken. The predicted noise levels identified that the Proposed Development facades would fall within NEC D at the worst affected areas, closest to the railway, but are primarily within NECs C and B (Figure 7.8). Accordingly, details for appropriate facade treatments, were identified and are detailed in Chapter 10: Noise and Vibration of the ES. When implemented, these would ensure that internal noise levels would be within the criteria required by LBW and defined as reasonable within BS8233. Figure 7.8: Predicted daytime NECs - Future 2019 with Development Scenario (Level 01, Block 2 height) Changes in traffic flows on Queenstown Road as a direct result of the development proposals were also assessed. Predicted changes in noise level on the existing road network as a result of changes to traffic flows would have no impact, with a net decrease in traffic flow and subsequent reduction in generated noise predicted. Target noise criteria were set for all building services plant. Providing that the rating noise levels from the building services plant do not exceed the stated noise criteria, whether UK Issue: Final 40 ENVIRON

42 Berkeley Homes (Central London) Ltd through the application of noise control techniques or otherwise, the impact of noise from such sources was predicted to have No significant adverse effect on existing and future sensitive receptors. 7.8 Air Quality An Air Quality assessment was undertaken as part of the 2011 ES to assess the potential impacts and likely significant effects of the redevelopment proposals on local air quality and the suitability of the Site for residential development. Although the Amended Development would introduce 35 additional residential units, proposed car parking spaces would remain unchanged. Associated development traffic flows would therefore remain unchanged with the net increase in people trips de minimis. Furthermore the Energy Strategy for the Amended Development would remain unchanged. Accordingly, there would be no change to sources of emissions from the development proposals. The outcomes of the 2011 assessment therefore remain valid for the Amended Development and is summarised in the following paragraphs: An assessment of the likely impacts from the demolition and construction, and completed development stages of the development proposals on air quality was undertaken. National legislation and relevant planning policies were reviewed. The assessment was carried out following the latest Environmental Protection UK (EPUK) and London Councils Guidance. Consideration was given to impacts to nitrogen dioxide, PM 10 and dust concentrations during the demolition and construction stage and from the traffic and energy plant associated with the completed Development. Existing air quality in the vicinity of the Site was predicted to exceed the annual mean nitrogen dioxide objective in all locations, but to meet both the annual mean and 24 hour PM 10 objective. Due to high pollutant concentrations, the Site is located within the LBW s designated Air Quality Management Area. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs background maps predict that background concentrations of nitrogen dioxide are currently below the objective. However, data from existing monitoring studies indicated exceedance of the objective at background and roadside concentrations. The monitoring also indicated a decline in roadside concentrations in recent years, but an increase in background concentrations between 2007 and 2010, with concentrations remaining similar to those recorded during During the demolition and construction stage, there is the potential that emissions of dust arising from the Site would result in nuisance soiling at adjacent properties including sensitive residential receptors. Assessment of the Site according to the London Best Practice Guidance indicated that there is a high risk of impacts occurring during the demolition and construction stage. Dust emissions would be effectively controlled by the employment of stringent management practices e.g. using just in time deliveries to preclude the need for large stockpiles; using water sprays and screens; as well as maximising separation distances. These would be implemented through the production of a CEMP, which would be agreed with LBW and would adhere to the Mayor of London s Best Practice Guidance. Impacts from construction vehicles would be managed through the implementation of a Construction Traffic Management Plan. UK Issue: Final 41 ENVIRON

43 Berkeley Homes (Central London) Ltd The effective implementation of management practices would reduce the magnitude of temporary dust impacts during the construction and demolition stage to ensure temporary Moderate Adverse effects at existing properties and at new on-site receptors. A decline in vehicle numbers generated by the Site was predicted compared to the previous QVC operations. The associated effect would be Negligible at local receptors. The Development would incorporate a CHP and GSHP to meet the Site s demand for space heating and hot water. Pollutant emissions from the CHP plant would be emitted through a 3 m high flue on top of Block C. The assessment predicted that the plant would contribute a maximum of 0.5 µgm -3 to nitrogen dioxide concentrations at residential receptors at the Site as shown in Figure 7.9. When combined with impacts predicted as a result of local traffic emissions, the Development is predicted to result in a Negligible to Slight Adverse effect on local air quality. Figure 7.9: 2019 With Development Worst Case Scenario Annual Mean Nitrogen Dioxide Concentrations Air quality across the Site for the baseline position was predicted to exceed the annual mean objective for nitrogen dioxide. Based on a review of local monitoring data it was envisaged that background concentrations of this pollutant would not decline to the extent predicted by the best case scenario and therefore nitrogen dioxide concentrations are likely to remain above or close to the objective between 2010 and 2019, resulting in the Site falling within Air Pollution Exposure Criteria B or C. Therefore appropriate mitigation measures should be included within the development design to reduce exposure of future occupants to poor air quality. A number of measures have been incorporated in the design of both Blocks C and L, which include mechanical ventilation with clean air intakes located at roof height and residential units at ground floor being set back from Queenstown Road, behind the commercial units. UK Issue: Final 42 ENVIRON

44 Berkeley Homes (Central London) Ltd 7.9 Ground Contamination Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 provides the basis for the current UK contaminated land regime. The legislation provides local authorities with the power to require investigation and remediation of contaminated land. The legislation aims to protect human health, controlled waters, ecosystems and property from the adverse effects of contaminated land thought the use of the source-pathway-receptor model. Only when a complete pollutant linkage is present is the land deemed to be a significant risk. An assessment of potentially significant risks associated with ground conditions at the Site was carried out in the 2011 ES. The outcomes of the assessment remain valid for the Amended Development and are summarised in the following paragraphs: The assessment of ground contamination at the Site included a Phase I Environmental Review of the Site, which comprised a review of relevant third party and regulatory information. This information was used to assess the Site setting, receptors and their sensitivity to change. Based on the former activities at the Site, including engine sheds, railway lines, a vehicle repair depot and possible bulk fuel and/or chemical storage, a moderate potential for contamination was identified. The surrounding area has had a similar, if not greater contaminative potential than the Site and as such, the potential for contamination to exist at the Site as result of the surrounding area was considered to be moderate to high. However, in this respect, the Site was considered to be similar to many other sites across London with a general industrial past in similar urban locations. Geotechnical and environmental investigation works were recommended across the entire Site to further characterise ground conditions and to inform the detailed structural design of the Development. These works were recommended to be undertaken post-planning, as it was not possible to complete investigation works with the Site in full occupation. The works were to be secured by means of an appropriately worded planning condition. Following the environmental investigation, if contamination was identified, a Site Remediation Strategy (if required) would be developed to either remove identified sources or break potential pathways. These works would be secured by means of appropriately worded planning condition. A piling risk assessment would also be undertaken during the detailed design stage as the proposed piling strategy is developed by the structural engineers to determine the most appropriate method of piling and to minimise the risk of potential contamination to groundwater from piling. This piling risk assessment would be submitted to the EA for approval. An Asbestos Management Survey (and Asbestos Refurbishment and Demolition Survey, if considered necessary) would be undertaken by the Applicant prior to demolition of on-site buildings. Any asbestos identified in existing buildings would be appropriately managed and disposed of in accordance with current relevant legislation. Accordingly, the residual effects during the demolition and construction stage were concluded to be Negligible. In the event that contaminated soils are found at the Site, the redevelopment proposals would represent an opportunity to remove or remediate such soils, resulting in Minor Beneficial effects. UK Issue: Final 43 ENVIRON

45 Berkeley Homes (Central London) Ltd Whilst the demolition, excavation and construction works could introduce new contaminant sources and pathways creating possible links to sensitive receptors, the implementation of controls measures within a CEMP, such as the use of appropriate piling methods; the introduction of a basement beneath the two buildings on-site; plus a clean capped layer of soil within landscaped areas, would ensure that no source pathway receptor linkage would be created. Once completed, the development proposals would not introduce any potential contamination sources or create any source-pathway-receptor pollution linkages on-site. The Site s drainage strategy would ensure that there is no adverse impact to the drainage system and would include the installation of an oil-water interceptor. Accordingly the residual effects from the completed development were considered to be Negligible to Minor Beneficial, in areas of landscaping where clean topsoil would be imported. Following the 2012 Consent work has been undertaken to discharge planning conditions relating to ground contamination. Site Investigations have been completed and a remediation strategy has been prepared to mitigate potential risks and allow the safe development of the Site. At the time of writing, the remediation strategy is part complete and will be finalised when remediation measures linked to construction are completed (for example testing of soil to be imported onto the Site). On completion of the remediation strategy, a validation report will be prepared and submitted to LBW as required by planning condition. No unexpected contamination has been encountered to date Water Resources, Hydrology and Flood Risk A water resources, hydrology and flood risk assessment of the development proposals was undertaken as part of the 2011 ES. The outcomes of the assessment remain relevant for the Amended Development and are summarised in the paragraphs below: The assessment was undertaken in accordance with prevailing government guidance on EIA and included a review of baseline information such as a Landmark Envirocheck report; EA records; a Phase 1 Environmental Review completed by ENVIRON UK Ltd.; local topography; consideration of possible effects on water quality and hydrology likely to arise during development works (demolition and construction) and once the Development is complete. The Site is underlain by unproductive strata and a Secondary Aquifer. It is located within Zone II of a Source Protection Zone. During development works, controls to minimise the risk of accidents, ensure safe handling and storage of potentially hazardous materials and prevent source-pathway-receptor linkages occurring would be implemented as part of a CEMP. To reduce the risk of surface water contamination by hydrocarbons once the development is complete, oil interceptors would be incorporated within the drainage systems of car park areas. As shown in Figure 7.10 the Site lies within Flood Zone 3a (annual probability of tidal flooding >1 in 200 i.e. 0.5%). Although the Site benefits from flood defences, a policy compliant Flood Risk Assessment was undertaken which also included a site-specific breach assessment of the defences as shown in Figure UK Issue: Final 44 ENVIRON

46 Berkeley Homes (Central London) Ltd Figure 7.10: Environment Agency Flood Map Figure 7.11: Predicted Flood Depths Modelled in the Breach Assessment The results of the breach assessment were used to ensure that sleeping accommodation and ground level access points to the underground car park were all set at an appropriate UK Issue: Final 45 ENVIRON

47 Berkeley Homes (Central London) Ltd freeboard above the modelled peak 200 year tidal event of 2.85 maod. A draft Flood Evacuation Plan was also prepared in consultation with the EA and LBW. This document would be finalised once the Development is completed and is operational. In order to meet the Mayor of London s required standard, 50% of the existing Site s runoff would need to be attenuated (approximately 302 m 3 ). This would be achieved through a combination of green and brown roofs and permeable paving connected to underground storage which would, in turn, be connected to the local sewer network at a rate to be agreed with Thames Water. The adoption of such mitigation measures would ensure that surface water runoff is managed in line with the Mayor of London s requirements. The redevelopment proposals would increase the number of occupants using the Site, and would therefore increase the water demand of the Site. Accordingly, it is proposed that these increases would be offset by the adoption of a variety of water-saving devices in the residential components of the scheme, the installation of water meters and through rainwater harvesting measures. The redevelopment proposals would increase foul drainage loads arising from the Site. Attenuation of surface water would reduce the impact of surface runoff volumes on the sewer network. Separate storm and foul water drainage systems are also proposed on-site. In conclusion, given the location and nature of the nearest sensitive receptors, the mitigation measures available and the demonstration of surface runoff attenuation methods, the overall likely environmental effects in relation to water quality, hydrology and flood risk would be Negligible to Minor Beneficial Wind A wind assessment was undertaken as part of the 2011 ES to assess the potential impacts of the redevelopment proposals on pedestrian level microclimate and within proposed amenity areas on-site. The assessment was reviewed in 2013 to consider the minor building height increases to Blocks C and L. Given the nature of the Amended Development, an updated wind assessment has been undertaken of the proposed amendments to Block L, and of the Amended Development as a whole. The outcomes of the assessment are summarised in the following paragraphs: Wind tunnel testing of the Site; Amended Development; and Amended Development with surrounding buildings and proposed landscaping scheme was undertaken to consider local wind microclimate conditions. The assessment used the well-established Lawson Comfort Criteria to benchmark the wind microclimate for a range of pedestrian activities from sitting (calmest winds required) to transient activities such as leisure walking and crossing the road. The studies were conducted for a Site which was generally devoid of any landscape detail in order to obtain a relatively windy set of results at ground and terrace level. However, trees and contouring along the east edge of the adjacent Battersea Park were included in the baseline configuration to provide a more realistic representation of the effect of vegetation on wind flow patterns at the Site. Furthermore the proposed landscaping scheme for the Amended Development was included for the completed Development configuration. Figure 7.12 shows the wind tunnel model prepared for the Amended Development. UK Issue: Final 46 ENVIRON

48 Berkeley Homes (Central London) Ltd Figure 7.12: Amended Development Wind Tunnel Model The baseline wind microclimate is acceptable for a range of conditions from sitting to business walking. There are six locations where high wind speeds would occur in excess of safety thresholds. These conditions reflect the relatively exposed position of the Site in an urban area of London. For the Amended Development, the wind microclimate would be acceptable for a range of activities from sitting to roadway/car-park use. The potential impacts at most locations would be negligible to moderate beneficial, but there are 13 locations that would experience minor adverse effects in the absence of mitigation and two locations where the effects would be moderate adverse. With the introduction of landscaping within the Amended Development, the majority of the windier locations would be mitigated with associated Minor to Moderate Beneficial effects. However two locations (22 and 49) would remain windier than desired with one safety concern at location 49 along the pedestrian path in Sopwith Way. Furthermore strong winds would be experienced along a number of thoroughfares but infrequent winds of the magnitude recorded, would be unlikely to cause a nuisance. In respect of location 22 which is situated to the south of Block L, the final landscape scheme that would be submitted to LBW for approval (as required by planning conditions 13 and 11 of the Consented Development), would introduce 2 m hedges between private residential gardens around this location, to lower wind speeds and eliminate occurrences of strong wind. Based on experience and professional judgement, it is considered that these measures would successfully mitigate localised windy conditions to deliver Negligible effects and wind microclimate conditions that accord with the intended sitting and entrance use. In respect of location 49 which is along the pedestrian path in Sopwith Way, the introduction of additional mitigation measures would not be feasible; however it is noted that wind microclimate conditions at this location would be remedied with the introduction of the cumulative schemes and the proposed landscaping scheme, to ensure safe leisure walking conditions at this location. UK Issue: Final 47 ENVIRON

49 Berkeley Homes (Central London) Ltd The addition of the cumulative surrounding buildings would provide shelter to the Amended Development from the north-east and fewer occurrences of strong winds are predicted Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing Due to the scale of the development proposals and proximity to existing residential receptors to the north and south, an assessment of potential daylight, sunlight and overshadowing impacts was undertaken in the 2011 ES. The analysis considered the effects of the development proposals on existing off-site residential receptors, as well as future new occupiers within the Development. The assessment was updated in 2013 to consider the minor building height increases to Blocks C and L. Given the nature of the Amended Development, an updated daylight, sunlight and overshadowing assessment has been undertaken of the proposed amendments to Block L, and of the Amended Development as a whole. The outcomes of the assessment are summarised in the following paragraphs: The assessment was undertaken in accordance with the Building Research Establishment (BRE) Guide 'Site Layout Planning for Daylight & Sunlight: A Guide to Good Practice 2011'. Whilst the Site is now cleared, the baseline massing on the Site that has been adopted for the purposes of the daylight and sunlight assessments is the previous four storey Marco Polo House building. The Baseline daylight levels at residential receptors to the north and south generally show good levels of compliance. Where some habitable rooms obtain poor daylight levels, this is due to the windows to the rooms being too small or due to large/deep balconies that restrict daylight levels. Daylight and sunlight analyses to the neighbouring adjoining properties residential show that with the introduction of the Amended Development, reductions will be noticeable when comparing the Baseline and Proposed Condition with Minor to Moderate Adverse effects likely. However, the average daylight factor tests demonstrate that a good level of daylight compliance will generally be retained in the Proposed Condition. There would be 71 % compliance within Chelsea Bridge Wharf and 82 % compliance within The Bridge. There would be no overshadowing effect to The Bridge. At Chelsea Bridge Wharf at least 2 hours of direct sunlight on March 21 st would be received to % of an amenity area immediately south of the Chelsea Bridge Wharf, compared to the BRE 50 % target. The effect is therefore considered to be Minor Adverse. The proposed habitable rooms within the Amended Development will obtain 52 % adherence to the recommended average daylight factor target levels. The internal sunlight assessment to those south facing units across the development indicate that 65 % of windows will satisfy the BRE winter sunlight criteria, with 10 % achieving the annual sunlight levels. Therefore, the overall effect on the daylight and sunlight to habitable rooms within the Amended Development is considered to range from Minor to Moderate Adverse. The overshadowing assessments to the proposed amenity areas within the Amended Development show high levels of sunlight will be obtained in the Proposed Condition and therefore the effects will be Negligible. UK Issue: Final 48 ENVIRON

50 Berkeley Homes (Central London) Ltd 7.13 Ecology An ecology assessment was undertaken as part of the 2011 ES. The outcomes of the assessment remain valid for the Amended Development and are summarised in the following paragraphs: The potential impacts to ecology and nature conservation was assessed according to guidelines produced by the Chartered Institute for Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM). The Site s ecological baseline was determined by means of the completion of a desk-based study and field surveys, including an Extended Phase 1 survey, breeding bird surveys and an assessment of the Site s potential to support bats. The Site is not designated for its nature conservation value. However, the Site is situated between two designated sites, Battersea Power Station Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) to the east and Battersea Park Nature Areas Local Nature Reserve (LNR) to the west. The River Thames and Tidal SINC are situated approximately 300 m to the north. At the time of the assessment, the Site supported very little natural or semi-natural habitats and formed a barrier between the two adjacent designated Sites. The Site s habitats were limited to six trees and two small isolated areas of ornamental shrub plantings. The remainder of the Site was covered by either hard standing or buildings as shown in Figure The lack of habitats was reflected in the paucity of species present. Figure 7.13: Site Habitat Plan The Site was considered highly unlikely to support any notable species or populations of invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles or birds. Breeding bird surveys recorded signs of breeding black redstart and peregrine falcon within the Battersea Power Station site to the east, but not on the Site itself. Furthermore the Site was concluded as having a negligible potential to support roosting bats and unlikely to provide suitable commuting or foraging habitat for bats. However, bats were known to occur both within Battersea Power Station to UK Issue: Final 49 ENVIRON