Environmental Statement - Volume I Chapter 2

Transcription

Earls Court Project
London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham
Application 2
Chapter 2
EIA Methodology
Prepared for EC Properties Ltd
by URS
June 2011
20
Earls Court Project Application 2 | London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham | Environmental Statement Volume I | June 2011
2
EIA Methodology: Planning Application 2 – LBHF
Legislation and Guidance for EIA and Preparation of Environmental Statements
Introduction
2.1
2.9
This Chapter of the Environmental Statement (ES) sets out the methodology for undertaking the EIA. In particular,
the Chapter details the process of identifying the environmental issues to be included in the EIA and the method of
assessing the significance of resulting effects from the Earls Court Development Proposals (Development Option
(Site Wide)). The methodology is in accordance with applicable legislation, guidance, and case law and has been
tailored to each technical aspect of the EIA (e.g. noise and vibration, socio-economics, ecology, air quality etc)
using industry standard methods and criteria. The overall approach and methodology is described in this Chapter;
further detail on the application of the methodology to each technical discipline is presented in the following
technical Chapters of this ES. This Chapter has been written by URS Corporation Limited (URS) on behalf of the
Applicant.
Requirement for EIA
2.2
2.3
2.4
Applications for development that come within the scope of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact
Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999, as amended (Ref. 2-1), hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1999
Regulations’, are termed ‘EIA Applications’. Screening of developments to identify whether an EIA is necessary is
based on the likelihood of significant impacts arising from the project. EIA applications are divided into Schedule 1
and Schedule 2 applications under the EIA Regulations, which govern all applications post 14 March 1999.
Schedule 1 developments are those that are likely to have significant effects, such as major chemical or
petrochemical projects and construction of ground or air transport infrastructure. For all other developments which
fall under Schedule 2, the need for an EIA is determined on the basis of set criteria as follows:
•
It is within one of the classes of development stated in Schedule 2; AND
•
EITHER it exceeds the size threshold for that class of development in Schedule 2; OR it is in a sensitive
area; AND
•
It is likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of factors such as its nature, size, or
location.
Therefore, an EIA has been undertaken as required and an ES is submitted in support of Planning Application 2.
A separate ES has been prepared and submitted in support of Planning Application 1 (Ref. 2-2).
2.6
The proposed redevelopment of the Seagrave Road Site, to the south of the Earls Court Site, is the subject of a
standalone planning application, and associated ES (Ref. 2-3).
2.10
Parameter Based Assessment
2.7
2.8
•
EU Directive (85/337/EEC) on Environmental Impact Assessments (Ref. 2-6);
•
DETR Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations
1999 (as amended);
•
Note on Environmental Impact Assessment Directive for Local Planning Authorities (1999 EIA Regulations);
•
DETR Circular 02/99 Environmental Impact Assessment;
•
Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), 2006; Amended Circular on Environmental
Impact Assessment: A consultation paper, June 2006 (Ref. 2-7);
•
Preparation of Environmental Statements for Planning Projects that require Environmental Assessment:
Good Practice Guide, Department of the Environment (DoE) 1995 (Ref. 2-8);
•
Department for Communities and Local Government, June 2006; Environmental Impact Assessment: A
Guide to good practice and procedures, (Ref. 2-9);
•
Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) Guidelines for Environmental Impact
Assessment, 2004 (Ref. 2-10) ;and
•
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) Environmental Impact Assessment: A Guide to Procedures,
2001 (Ref. 2-11).
EIA Methodology
Given the scale of the Earls Court Development Proposals and the location of the Earls Court Site, the Earls Court
Development Proposals fall within Schedule 2 paragraph 10(b) ‘Urban Development Projects’. The entire Earls
Court Site area is 23.16 hectares (ha). The area exceeds the applicable threshold of 0.5 ha identified in Schedule
2, paragraph 10(b), column two. The Earls Court Development Proposals have the potential to have significant
environmental effects on the environment by virtue of factors such as nature, size or location.
2.5
The ES has been prepared in accordance with applicable national and EU legislation; the 1999 Regulations; and
good practice guides. In particular, the ES has been prepared with regard to:
The outline planning application contains details of fixed elements of the Development Proposals which have been
submitted for approval at the outline stage with other elements reserved for approval at a later stage in
accordance with the design guidelines and parameter plans. As set out in Chapter 1: Introduction to the ES
outline planning permission is sought for the Development Proposals.
2.11
The parameters for the Development Proposals are shown on “Parameter Plans” that accompany the Planning
Application. The approach involves establishing parameters that govern or define the range of development
possibilities - and hence the likely significant environmental Impacts. As an example, parameters are set for
minimum and maximum building heights within the various parts of the site, enabling the EIA team to determine
and assess the likely changes in specific views, for example. The use of parameter plans sets out the minimum
information required to allow the impacts of any development to be identified with sufficient certainty.
The EIA has been prepared taking into account or having had regard to:
•
Consultation with statutory and non-statutory consultees to understand the environmental and socioeconomic issues concerning the redevelopment of the Earls Court Site, in particular development constraints
and opportunities;
•
Local, regional and national planning policies, guidelines and legislation relevant to the design, planning and
EIA process;
•
Impact significance criteria;
•
Design review and assessment of alternatives;
•
Review of secondary information, previous environmental studies and publicly-available information and
databases;
•
Solicitation of and response to expert opinion;
•
Physical surveys and monitoring;
•
Preparation of desk-top studies;
•
Monitoring and modelling (for example of the noise, air quality and wind environments); and
•
Current guidance and future, likely requirements in relation to the sustainability of the Earls Court
Development Proposals.
The ES considers the likely impact of the Earls Court Development Proposals on its neighbours, the local
environment, the local and regional economy, and the wider area. Beneficial and adverse, short and long-term
(temporary and permanent), direct and indirect, and cumulative impacts have also been considered.
Impact Significance Criteria
2.12
The significance of impacts is evaluated with reference to definitive standards, accepted criteria, and legislation
where available. Where it has not been possible to quantify impacts, qualitative assessments have been carried
out, based on expert knowledge and professional judgment. Where uncertainty exists, this has been noted in the
relevant Chapter of this ES.
2.13
Specific impact significance criteria for each technical discipline have been developed, giving due regard to the
following:
2-1
21
2
2.14
•
Extent and magnitude of the impact;
•
Impact duration (whether short, medium or long-term);
•
Impact nature (whether direct or indirect, reversible or irreversible);
•
Whether the impact occurs in isolation, is cumulative or interactive;
•
Performance against any relevant environmental quality standards;
•
Sensitivity of the receptor; and
•
Compatibility with environmental policies.
The Earls Court Development Proposals (Development Option (Site Wide))
In order to provide a consistent approach across the different technical disciplines addressed within the ES, the
following terminology has been used throughout the ES to define residual impacts (i.e. impact post the application
of mitigation measures):
•
2.15
Development Phasing and Demolition & Construction Sequences
Adverse - Detrimental or negative impacts to an environmental/socio-economic resource or receptor; or
•
Negligible - Imperceptible impacts to an environmental/socio-economic resource or receptor; or
•
Beneficial - Advantageous or positive impact to an environmental /socio-economic resource or receptor.
Where adverse or beneficial impacts have been identified these have been assessed against the following scale;
•
Minor;
•
Moderate; and
•
Major.
2.19
The Earls Court Site will be redeveloped over a period of approximately 19 years (year 20 being the anticipated
year when the Earls Court Development Proposals will be completely built out) with demolition expected to
commence post the closure and vacation of the existing EC1 building, following the 2012 Olympic Games. The
deconstruction / demolition and construction programme is divided into 6 key phases as identified in Figure 2-1.
The anticipated timing of each of the 6 key Phases include:
2.20
The anticipated timing of each of the 6 key Phases are shown below:
•
Phase 1 – Year 1 to Year 8 inclusive;
•
•
•
•
•
•
End Year - Year 20.
Figure 2-1
2.16
Each Technical Chapter of the ES provides further explanation and definition on the scale of impact significance
i.e. minor through to major.
2.17
Broadly, short to medium-term impacts are considered to be those associated with the site preparation and
construction phase and long-term impacts are those associated with the completed Development Proposals. Local
impacts are those affecting the site and neighbouring receptors, while impacts upon receptors in the RBKC and
LBHF are considered to be at a district level. Impacts affecting Greater London are considered to be at a regional
level, whilst impacts, which affect different parts of the country, or England as a whole, are considered to be at a
national level.
2.18
Where mitigation measures have been identified to either eliminate or reduce adverse impacts, these have been
incorporated into either the design of the Earls Court Development Proposals; deconstruction / demolition, site
preparation and construction commitments; or operational or managerial standards / procedures. The ES has also
highlighted the ‘residual’ impacts, which remain following the implementation of suitable mitigation measures, and
classified these in accordance with a standard set of significance criteria.
Development Option (Site Wide) Phasing
2-2
22
2
2.21
Whilst the phases presented in Figure 2-1 are useful, in that it enables the Earls Court Development Proposals to
be broken down into smaller development parcels, there is, however, potentially a large time overlap across the
phases. There is likely to be deconstruction / demolition and construction activities occurring across several of the
phases at any point in time as a result of the deconstruction / demolition and construction programming.
2.22
Therefore, to assist with the assessment of deconstruction / demolition and construction impacts, the 6
development phases have been sub divided in to one year ‘timeslices.’ These timeslices have then been grouped
into logical ‘Deconstruction / Demolition and Construction Sequences’ as follows:
2.23
on the scope of the EIA received both during the meetings and afterwards has been taken into consideration
throughout preparation of the Scoping Report and this ES. ES Volume III: Appendix A presents details of the pre
application consultation meetings and EIA scoping responses.
Deconstruction / Demolition & Construction Sequence 1 - Phases 1, 2 and 3, which equates to a 6 year
time period;
2.31
Consultees involved in the evolution of the design and preliminary assessment of environmental impacts are listed
within Chapter 1: Introduction to the ES.
•
Deconstruction / Demolition & Construction Sequence 2 – The remainder of Phases 1, 2 and 3 plus
Phases 4 and 5, which, equates to a 6 year time period; and
2.32
•
Deconstruction / Demolition & Construction Sequence 3 – The remainder Phase 5 and Phase 6, which
equates to a 7 year time period.
The Statement on Consultation (Ref. 2-13); Planning Statement (Ref. 2-14); and Design and Access Statement
(Ref. 2-15); submitted in support of Planning Application 2 detail the extensive consultation process undertaken
through development of the masterplan and preparation of the Planning Application with both statutory and nonstatutory consultees and the general public.
Further detail on the yearly timeslices and the three Deconstruction / Demolition and Construction Sequences can
be found in Chapter 5: Deconstruction / Demolition & Construction.
Sensitive Receptors
2.33
To facilitate the presentation of a realistic, worst-case sequence of deconstruction / demolition and construction
activities and to allow a reasonable assessment of potential demolition and construction impacts, reference has
been made, throughout this ES to a series of yearly construction timeslices. The yearly construction timeslices
have been developed based on the anticipated phasing of the Earls Court Development Proposals and the
development plots sought for approval. In addition and, in order to help visualise a scheme, details from the
Illustrative Masterplan have been used to facilitate the identification of potentially sensitive receptors, (both
existing and those introduced as part of the Earls Court Development Option Proposals.
2.25
The details presented within the yearly construction timeslices in relation to the Illustrative Masterplan (specifically
in terms of the location of actual buildings within the development plots) are therefore indicative.
2.26
The yearly construction timeslices allow for a comprehensive analysis of the sequence of deconstruction /
demolition and construction activities and the impacts likely to arise at each phase of the deconstruction /
demolition and construction programme. The timeslices illustrate construction works for multiple buildings within a
defined development plot occurring in proximity to a sensitive receptor (both on and off-site), with various
construction works for each building overlapping (e.g. ground works for a building occurring at the same time as
superstructure works for another building). The phasing and yearly construction timeslices are however
representative of a programme considered to be reasonable and achievable.
2.27
The process of consultation is critical to the development of a comprehensive and balanced ES. Views of key
statutory and non-statutory consultees serve to focus the environmental studies and to identify specific issues
which require further investigation. Consultation is also an ongoing process, which enables mitigation measures
to be incorporated into the project design, thereby limiting adverse impacts and enhancing benefits.
•
Use of the Illustrative Masterplan
2.24
2.30
The technical information presented in Chapters 5: Deconstruction / Demolition & Construction of this ES
which forms the basis of the deconstruction / demolition and construction impact assessments is based where
relevant, on a schedule of areas comparable to the maximum amount of development sought for approval. The
technical information presented does therefore present the worst case scenario, particularly in relation to aspects
such as demolition and construction waste volumes and Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) movements.
Scoping and Consultation
2.28
Scoping forms the first stage of the EIA process and it is through Scoping that the Local Planning Authority (LPA)
are consulted on those environmental aspects that may be significantly affected/impacted by a development, and,
as such, should be included in the scope of the EIA. Through Scoping, the potential significance of impacts
associated with each environmental aspect becomes more clearly defined, resulting in the identification of a
number of priority issues to be addressed in the EIA.
2.29
Regulation 10 of the 1999 Regulations provides that an Applicant may ask the LPA, in this case the LBHF, to state
in writing its opinion as to the scope of the EIA. A Scoping Report for Planning Application 2 (Ref. 2-12), which
sets out the proposed scope of the EIA was submitted to the LBHF in February 2011. Prior to submission of the
EIA Scoping Report, various scoping meetings were held with a number of Statutory Consultee. The responses
Ongoing studies and consultations associated with EIA Scoping and the redevelopment of the Earls Court Site
have identified the following potentially sensitive receptors to the Earls Court Development Proposals:
•
District Lines, the Piccadilly Line, the West London Line and associated tunnels and tracks;
•
Rail and underground stations at Earls Court (Grade II Listed), West Kensington and West Brompton;
•
Surrounding major arterial road network - A4 West Cromwell Road, B317 North End Road, A3218 Lillie Road
/ Old Brompton Road, A3220 Warwick Road;
•
TfL’s Lillie Bridge Road Depot;
•
The Earls Court Exhibition Centres (One and Two);
•
The Empress State Building (currently occupied by the Metropolitan Police);
•
Residential uses – for example, West Kensington & Gibbs Green Estates, Philbeach Gardens, Warwick
Road, Eardley Crescent, Kempsford Gardens; Beaumont Crescent; Earls Court, North End, West Kensington
and Fulham;
•
Local schools, including Punch & Judy Family Centre (Early Years School), Gibbs Green School / Storage
for Queensmill Primary School;
•
Local businesses for example along North End Road, and Lillie Road;
•
North End Road Market;
•
Brompton Cemetery – Registered as Grade I under the English Heritage Register of Parks and Gardens of
Special Historic Interest in England;
•
Various short, medium and long-distance views;
•
Local hotels – Beaver Hotel (Philbeach Gardens), Exhibition Court Hotel 3 (Warwick Road), Garden View
Hotel (Nevern Square); Boka and Sara Hotels (Eardley Crescent), Hotel Earls Court (Warwick Road),
Holiday Inn / Express Hotel (North End Road) for example;
•
Other local services, including but not limited to, doctors surgeries, dentist surgeries, libraries, child care
facilities, citizen advice bureaus, local amenities / shops and convenience stores;
•
Neighbouring Conservation Areas – Nevern square, earls Court Village, Courtfield, The Boltons, Edwardes
Square, Scarsdale and Abingdon, The Billings, Philbeach Gardens, Earls Court Square and Brompton
Cemetery within the RBKC, and Barons Court, Olympia and Avonmore, Seddlescombe Road and Gunter
Estate within the LBHF;
•
St Cuthbert with St Matthias Church (Grade II* Listed) on Philbeach Gardens;
•
Potential sub-surface archaeological deposits within the boundary of the Site;
•
Thames Water existing infrastructure;
2-3
23
2
•
o
Ecology, including nearby sites of nature conservation importance and the potential for protected species
such as bats and breeding birds;
•
The underlying Secondary A aquifer;
•
Pedestrians, cyclists, the business community and tourists;
•
Subsurface utilities and services; and
•
New receptors introduced as a result of the Development Proposals e.g. for example, new residential
receptors, new public realm, new children’s play spaces, new health care facilities, new schools etc.
Structure of the Environmental Statement
2.34
•
This ES consists of:
•
Appendix E: Buried Heritage Assets;
o
Appendix F: Ground Conditions;
o
Appendix H: Air Quality;
o
Appendix J: Ecology;
o
Appendix G: Water Resources, Drainage and Flood Risk;
o
Appendix I: Noise & Vibration;
o
Appendix K: Aviation.
ES Non-Technical Summary (NTS) - this is presented as a separate document, providing a concise
description of the Earls Court Development Proposals, alternatives considered, potential environmental
impacts, and mitigation measures. The NTS is designed to give information on the Earls Court Development
Proposals to a wide and non-technical audience and to assist interested parties with their familiarisation of
the project.
ES Volume I: this document forms the main body of the ES detailing the results of environmental
investigations, potential impacts arising and the proposed mitigation measures. The ES also identifies
opportunities for social and economic benefit and environmental enhancement. The ES is divided into a
number of background and technical chapters supported with figures and tabular information. ES Volume I
considers the environmental impacts associated with a number of topics. Each topic has been assigned a
separate technical chapter in the ES as follows:
Structure of ES Technical Chapters
o
Deconstruction / Demolition and Construction (including Waste);
Introduction
o
Socio-Economics (including Health and Equalities Impact Assessments);
o
Air Quality;
o
Transportation & Access;
o
2.35
2.36
Daylight/Sunlight & Overshadowing;
o
Buried Heritage Assets;
o
Electronic Interference;
o
Ground Conditions;
o
Noise & Vibration; and
o
Water Resources, Drainage & Flood Risk;
o
Ecology.
o
Introduction to the ES;
2.37
o
EIA Methodology;
o
Alternatives & Design Evolution, including the ‘Do Nothing Scenario’, ‘Alternative Sites’ and
Alternatives ‘Designs’;
o
The Earls Court Development Proposals (including Operational Waste Strategy);
o
This section describes the approach taken to the assessment including the surveys/studies undertaken to
determine the baseline conditions and the procedure followed to assess the impacts of the Earls Court
Development Proposals. Topic-specific impact significance criteria and the standards/guidance from which they
are derived are explained and definitions of minor, moderate and major (adverse or beneficial) and negligible
impacts is given.
Baseline Conditions
2.38
In order to assess the potential impacts of the Earls Court Development Proposals, it is necessary to determine
the environmental conditions that currently exist, in the absence of any redevelopment. These are known as
‘baseline conditions’. For all disciplines addressed within this ES, the EIA baseline has been taken as the current
conditions across the Earls Court Site.
2.39
Baseline conditions have been determined using the results of on site surveys and investigations or desk based
data searches, or a combination of these, as appropriate.
In addition to the above, the following chapters are provided as part of the ES:
o
This section describes the format of the assessment presented within the Chapter and identifies the author.
Methodology and Impact Significance Criteria
Wind Microclimate;
o
The technical ES Chapters follow a common structure and format. Within each Chapter the assessment has been
structured in the following way:
Basis of Impact Assessment
Residual Impact Assessment and Conclusions; and
Glossary & Abbreviations.
•
ES Volume II: Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment Incorporating PPS5 Heritage Assessment a separate townscape, visual impact, and heritage assessment document has also been produced and
submitted as part of this ES. This volume is accompanied by a full set of views as agreed with the RBKC and
LBHF as part of the EIA Scoping Phase.
•
ES Volume III: Appendices - a complete set of appendices is provided for reference. These comprise
background data, technical reports, tables, figures and surveys. The appendices provided are as follows:
o
Appendix A: Details of Pre Application EIA Consultation and EIA Scoping Responses;
o
Appendix C: Wind Microclimate;
o
Appendix B: Socio-Economics;
o
Appendix D: Daylight/Sunlight & Overshadowing;
2.40
This section explains the design information that has been used to determine the likely environmental impacts of
the Earls Court Development Proposals.
2.41
As it is not standard practice to undertake an EIA at the reserved matters stage, the ES presents and considers
the worst case scenario with regards to environmental and socio-economic impacts to ensure that the final
development does not take a form, and so have impacts of a higher magnitude, than those considered within the
EIA. The ‘basis of assessment’ is defined specifically in relation to each technical aspect of the EIA - so for
example, the worst case scenario with respect to transport may differ to the worst case scenario for socioeconomics or ecology. The justification behind the assessment scenario is also presented in addition to any
assessment assumptions and limitations.
Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures
2.42
This section identifies the potential impacts resulting from the Earls Court Development Proposals and considers
impacts during deconstruction / demolition, construction and once the Earls Court Development Proposals are
completed and operational.
2-4
24
2
2.43
This section also describes the mitigation measures that the Applicant will implement to reduce adverse impacts
and enhance beneficial impacts relevant to the Earls Court Development Proposals. The mitigation measures can
relate to deconstruction / demolition, construction and scheme completion phases.
Residual Impact Assessment and Conclusions
2.44
This section sets out those impacts of the Earls Court Development Proposals which remain once mitigation
measures are in place for both the deconstruction / demolition and construction phases and for the completed
operational Proposals. The assessments of the significance of residual impacts are provided. The section ends
with a broad conclusion as to the overall nature of impacts on applicable sensitive receptors.
Cumulative Impact Assessment
2.45
In accordance with the EIA Regulations, the ES has given consideration to ‘Cumulative Impacts’. These are
impacts that result from incremental changes caused by other reasonably foreseeable developments, together
with the Earls Court Development Proposals.
2.46
For the cumulative impact assessment, two types of impact have been considered:
2.47
2.48
2.49
•
Hammersmith Embankment –mixed development (not extant) - Consented (2006/03176/FUL). There is also,
a new application at the site (2011/00407/COMB) for a residential led scheme which is Pending
Consideration;
•
Hammersmith Palais, 242 Shepherd’s Bush Road, W6 7NL - 2010/03499/CAC – Consented May 2011;
•
Car Park Adjacent To Hammersmith & City Line Station Hammersmith Grove and Beadon Road – There are
two applications for this site:
i) 2007/02005/FUL - new, mixed use building - Consented; and ii)
2010/02842/FUL - redevelopment to create two mixed use buildings - Current Application;
•
Chelsea Harbour Design Centre, Harbour Avenue – Extension of the Chelsea Harbour Design Centre,
Chelsea Harbour, London SW10 0XE (2008/03034/FUL) – Consented;
•
Land adjacent to South Side of Chelsea Creek, Chelsea Harbour Drive, Chelsea Harbour- Lots Road Power
Station – LBHF and RBKC Applications:
o
o
LBHF application 2002/03132/FUL – Consented; and
RBKC application - PP /02/01324 – Consented.
2.50
In addition, the Applicant’s consented application for the provision of an access road and associated area for
marshalling and parking of vehicles to service the Earls Court Exhibition Centre and construction of an acoustic
barrier and associated works west of Philbeach Gardens has been included within the Cumulative Impact
Assessment.
•
The combined effect of individual impacts, for example noise, airborne dust or traffic on a single receptor;
and
•
The combined impacts of several development schemes which may, on an individual basis be insignificant
but, cumulatively, have a significant impact.
2.51
As part of the EIA Scoping process, it was suggested to the LBHF that the Cumulative Impact Assessment of ES
Volume I considered other schemes located within a 1 kilometre (km) radius from the centre of the Earls Court Site
(as of February 2011). The schemes included would have full planning consent, a resolution to grant consent, or
2
be schemes under construction, which produce an uplift of more than 10,000m (Gross External Area (GEA)) of
mixed-use floorspace.
The schemes listed at paragraphs 2.48-2.50 are collectively referred to as the ‘Cumulative Schemes.’ The
location of all these schemes is shown on Figure 2-2. All these schemes have been included within the
Cumulative Impact Assessment of ES Volume I.
2.52
The Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment Incorporating PPS5 Heritage Assessment (ES Volume II) includes
a number of the above listed schemes in addition to more distant schemes in the cumulative assessment, as
visual impacts are far reaching. ES Volume II: Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment Incorporating
PPS5 Heritage Assessment (Ref. 2-16) describes these schemes.
2.53
In addition, the Seagrave Road Site is a key site for redevelopment within the Earls Court & West Kensington
Opportunity Area (ECWKOA). Although the Seagrave Road Development Proposals are currently emerging,
consideration has been given to the potential for cumulative impact interactions with the Earls Court Development
Proposals.
The following schemes were presented to the LBHF for inclusion within the Cumulative Impact Assessment:
•
The Commonwealth Institute, 224-238 Kensington High Street - PP/09/00839 CC/09/00841; LB/09/00840.
Resolution to Grant Consent – 17 October 2009;
•
72 Farm Lane, London, SW6 1QA – 2008/01550/FUL. Consented - 18 February 2010;
•
G-Gate, Olympia, Corner of Lyons Walk and Hammersmith Road -2008/00547/FUL.
Consented – 3 December 2009;
•
245 Warwick Road (TA Centre) – PP/08/00218. Resolution to Grant Consent– 30 April 2008;
•
181-183 Warwick Road – PP/06/02568. Resolution to Grant Consent – 26 August 2008;
•
Odeon Cinema, Kensington High Street – PP/07/01071. Resolution to Grant Consent– 19 November 2008;
•
Telephone Exchange, 213-215 Warwick Road – PP/08/01214. Resolution to Grant Consent – 11 December
2008;
•
Charles House, 375 Kensington High Street and The Radnor Arms, 247 Warwick Road; London, W14 8QH –
PP/08/01178. Resolution to Grant Consent - 30/04/2010;
•
Olympia Exhibition Centre, Hammersmith Road, W14 8UX – 2010/02180/FUL. 2010/02181/LBC. Resolution
to Grant Consent – 13/10/2010; and
•
Ibis Hotel, 47 Lillie Road, SW6 – 2007/00608/OUT. Consented – 10 June 2009.
Call-in decision –
Summary of Cumulative Impact Assessment Scenarios
2.54
To summarise, the following Cumulative Impact Assessment Scenarios are considered:
•
SCENARIO 1: The Earls Court Development Proposals with other Cumulative Schemes; and
•
SCENARIO 2: The Earls Court Development Proposals PLUS the Seagrave Road Development Proposals
PLUS other Cumulative Schemes.
As part of the EIA Scoping process, the LBHF requested that the following additional schemes be included within
the Cumulative Impact Assessment:
•
Homebase, 195 Warwick Road - Current Application;
•
100 West Cromwell Road - Current Application;
•
Imperial Wharf, Townmead Road - 2008/01525/RES – Consented (obtained reserved matters approval) in
2009;
•
Land bounded by Imperial Road, Fulham Gasworks and Railway Line and Imperial Wharf J2 (Chelsea
Creek) - 2011/01472/COMB – Current Application;
2-5
25
2
Figure 2-2
Assumptions and Limitations
Schemes Considered within the Cumulative Impact Assessment
2.55
2.56
A number of assumptions have been made during the EIA, which are set out below:
•
The principal land uses adjacent to the Earls Court Site remains as they are at the time of the ES
submission, as do sites which are considered within the cumulative impact assessment.
•
Information provided by third parties, including publicly available information and databases, is correct at the
time of publication;
•
The deconstruction / demolition and construction programme associated with the Earls Court Development
Proposals is indicative at this stage and will take approximately 19 years from start to completion;
•
To facilitate the presentation of a realistic, worst-case sequence of deconstruction / demolition and
construction activities and to allow a reasonable assessment of potential demolition and construction
impacts, reference has been made, throughout this ES to an Illustrative Masterplan; and
•
The Earls Court Site or adjacent properties will not be the subject of any unforeseen events.
The EIA has been subject to the following limitations:
•
Baseline conditions are accurate at the time of the physical surveys, but, and due to the dynamic nature of
the environment, conditions may change during the deconstruction / demolition, construction and operational
phases;
•
The evaluation of sub-surface conditions and the identification of potential hazards within the ground will be
undertaken prior to the geotechnical works/during site preparation. More detailed works will also be required
to finalise substructure construction methods; and
•
The assessment of cumulative impacts has been reliant on the availability of information on proposed and
consented developments.
2-6
26
2
References
Ref. 2-1
Department for Transport, the Environment and Regions (DETR), 1999; ‘Town and Country (Environmental
Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/293) (as amended).
Ref. 2-2
URS Corporation Limited on behalf of Earls Court Properties Limited, 2011; ‘Earls Court Planning Application 2
Environmental Statement’.
Ref. 2-3
URS Corporation Limited on behalf of Earls Court Properties Limited, 2011; ‘Seagrave Road Planning
Application 3 Environmental Statement’.
Ref. 2-4
Note on Environmental Impact Assessment Directive for Local Planning Authorities (1999 EIA Regulations).
Ref. 2-5
Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR), 1999; ‘Circular 02/99 - Environmental Impact
Assessment.
Ref. 2-6
EU Directive (85/337/EEC) on Environmental Impact Assessments.
Ref. 2-7
Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), 2006; ‘Amended Circular on Environmental
Impact Assessment. A consultation paper'.
Ref. 2-8
Department of the Environment (DoE) 1995; ‘Preparation of Environmental Statements for Planning Projects
that require Environmental Assessment: Good Practice Guide’.
Ref. 2-9
Department for Communities and Local Government, June 2006; ‘Environmental Impact Assessment: A Guide
to good practice and procedures’.
Ref. 2-10
Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA), 2004; ‘Guidelines for Environmental Impact
Assessment’.
Ref. 2-11
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), 2001; ‘Environmental Impact Assessment – A Guide to
Procedures’.
Ref. 2-12
URS Corporation Limited on behalf of Earls Court Properties Limited, 2011; ‘Planning Application 1 (to the
RBKC) EIA Scoping Report’.
Ref. 2-13
Earls Court Properties Limited, 2011; ‘Statement on Consultation’.
Ref. 2-14
Dp9 Planning Consultants on behalf of Earls Court Properties Limited, 2011; ‘Earls Court Planning Statement’.
Ref. 2-15
Terry Farrell Partners prepared on behalf of Earls Court Properties Limited, 2011; ‘Earls Court Design and
Access Statement’.
Ref. 2-16
Cityscape 3d and The Robert Tavernor Consultancy on behalf of Earls Court Properties Limited, 2011; ‘ES
Volume II Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment Incorporating PPS5 Heritage Assessment’.
2-7
27
28

Environmental Statement - Volume I Chapter 2

Transcription

Similar documents

enter + - Montagu Evans

flat 2, philbeach gardens, london, sw5

full story - John Iacovelli

Corhart Refractories Plant Demolition

Decoy Farm - Crowland - South Holland District Council

Indianapolis Colt`s Stadium Demolition

Inżynier Utrzymania Ruchu – Elektryk

general guidance on the preparation of terms of reference for

February 2014