News, updates, documents, photographs and contact information.

MINUTES OF MEETINGS - 5https://carnwathroadcommunity.wordpress.com
Minutes Recorded - Monday 13th June 2016https://carnwathroadcommunity.wordpress.com

2. Minutes of the previous meeting held on 28 April to be agreed

  1. 1.2.1  Actions from 28 April:
    Action 1: Chris Stratford (CS) confirmed a meeting took place with residents on the south side of the river and seven people attended.
    Action 2: Ben Green (BG) obtained specific answers regarding carbon footprint and this information was sent out via email.
    Action 3: Ann Rosenberg (AR) advised that going forward, all documents are to be sent out by herself. AR also requested that emails are directed to relevant sub-group heads, to reduce the number of emails she receives. JAP confirmed that the weekly email includes all sub group heads.
    Action 4: Rob Merchant (RM) confirmed he has been in contact with Tom Wills Sandford (TW-S) and proposed discussing the derogation process with the traffic group at the next traffic sub group meeting.
    Action 5: Tideway informed that the PLA pre-application stage is still in process. Action 6: Tideway confirmed a meeting with Jonathan Gardner and residents is in
    the process of being set up.
    Action 7: Link to Richard Gethin’s presentation from the previous CLWG on 28 April has been distributed to all.

  2. 2.2.2  A resident requested if each paragraph within the minutes can have a point next to it as this will make it easier to refer back to in future meetings. Example – 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 etc. This was agreed.

3. Matters arising from previous minutes

  1. 1.3.1  A resident requested that noise monitoring data be uploaded on a weekly basis, rather than at monthly intervals. Action 1: Tideway to confirm if noise monitor results can be made available on a weekly basis.

  2. 2.3.2  Gloria Guy (GG) voiced concern that not all relevant residents who live on the south side of the river were invited to a recent meeting. The resident advised she has spoken to numerous people who were not advised and have heard nothing from Tideway for two years – and can provide addresses if necessary.
    Jodi-Ann Pastorino (JAP) informed GG that if she could provide the addresses of those who were not invited, Tideway can then write to these people.
    Action 2: GG to provide names and addresses to Tideway.
    CS advised that information sheets have been sent to all residents who live within a 250 metre radius. Tideway has done all it can and cannot be responsible for those who do not attend. CS reiterated that seven people turned up to an arranged meeting recently and there was not any major concern from those who attended.

Carnwath Road CLWG Meeting Minutes

Page 3 of 10

AR requested that Tideway provides details of the number of properties on the distribution list for these updates. Action 3: JAP to provide details of the number of properties on the distribution list.

  1. 1.3.3  A resident requested it is noted with appreciation that Tideway was very supportive of a picnic event that was held at South Park.

  2. 2.3.4  TP asked if Tideway has submitted the planning application for the temporary toilets at South Park yet. BG advised the application form has not yet been submitted but plans are in progress to discuss how Tideway can move things forward. TP advised residents this can be discussed in more detail later in the meeting.

  3. 3.3.5  DM stressed that residents have been asking for results of the site soil analysis. DM advised that the Environmental Monitoring Report found asbestos, lead, arsenic and other contaminants in the soil, as well as magnetic anomalies in the boreholes which could potentially indicate the presence of bombs from the Second World War. DM has numerous questions for Tideway regarding this issue. AR suggested Tideway answer the questions via email. DM’s queries are: why did Tideway sit on this information since 2012 and not advise residents? Have bombs been found on-site? What else has Tideway found on-site which could potentially be a problem? Action 4: DM to email questions to Tideway. Tideway to answer via email.

  4. 4.3.6  Luiza Dumitrescu (LD) informed residents that nothing has been found yet which should give any cause for concern. Tideway also stressed that historical data has always been available and specialists regard the site as low risk in terms of UXOs.
    A resident asked in what way is a UXO a low risk. LD advised that the site is classed as low risk in terms of UXOs being discovered. Procedures are in place for all eventualities.

  5. 5.3.7  DM wanted to know if the asbestos found on-site could blow across the borough. Jonathan Evans (JE) advised that nothing found so far has been out of the ordinary in comparison to other brownfield sites in London and that the asbestos found has been in the form of cement bound (which is enclosed in cement, hence no fibres are released). Tideway stressed to residents that all procedures are in place as suggested by relevant regulation bodies and are being managed appropriately, with the guidance of London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (LBHF), the Environment Agency and in line with Health and Safety Executive (HSE) guidance on asbestos by Tideway’s HSSE experts. Tideway advised mitigation is in place and all information has also been provided to the Environment Agency and LBHF.
    AR asked Tideway and Peter Wilson (PW) how this potential problem would be approached. PW advised that LBHF will not allow anything to happen until they and the Environment Agency are happy with the safety of the site and that all mitigation is met and also advised that all historic knowledge of the site is recorded. PW stressed that LBHF will not allow anything to happen that could affect the community, as local residents are its number one priority.
    DM wanted to stress that this situation does cause concern within the community and residents worry for the safety of their families. Elizabeth Fonseca (EF) advised that what has been found is typical in brownfield sites across the borough. EF also explained that magnetic anomalies are not unusual on previously developed brownfield land and it would be more concerning if none were found, as this may call

Carnwath Road CLWG Meeting Minutes

Page 4 of 10

into question whether the detectors were functioning correctly. Tideway advised that independent specialists will make sure the site is safe.

3.8 AR asked Tideway how many magnetic anomalies have been found so far and what the process is once they have been found. Tideway advised that three magnetic anomalies have been found so far but this could increase as further investigations take place. Tideway also advised that the next step to take once a magnetic anomaly has been found is to investigate further and make sure it is safe. Tideway and contractors are as determined as the local community to ensure the safety of the site, so as to avoid putting their staff at risk. Tideway explained that magnetic anomalies could include electromagnetic interferences underground that could be old brickwork, rebar in concrete, oil drums or other buried obstructions that require further investigation.

A resident asked if Tideway could warn residents when digging through a magnetic anomaly. EF said that magnetic anomalies are extremely common on such sites.

AR asked how many magnetic anomalies should be expected? LD advised it is very difficult to predict.

4 Sub-Group Reports:

  1. 1.4.1  Traffic: Nick Otten (NO) presented the update on behalf of TW-S and explained that the Tideway work on Wandsworth Bridge Road and Carnwath Road is likely to begin at the start of July. He explained that the DCO plan was put forward, but Tideway suggested a much less disruptive proposal, which is as safe as the initial plan. NO advised that London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (LBHF) has said this junction is the twentieth most dangerous in the whole borough and that it is doing all it can to improve this, however it cannot make the junction “totally safe” so stressed to residents to please bear this in mind while works are ongoing.
    NO advised that the junction is being made safer in line with the DCO requirements and red and green pedestrian lights will also do this but stressed the lights will slow traffic down. Also advised that the pedestrian crossing will not be in place prior to the end of the year but things are moving forward as quickly as possible, however it is in the hands of the borough.
    Peter Wilson (PW) advised the pedestrian crossing at the junction is not Tideway’s responsibility. PW also advised that LBHF and TfL are in agreement that the crossing is the safest solution and hope to have this done as quickly as possible.

  2. 2.4.2  A resident wanted their concern noted that the plan involves the road being reduced from three lanes down to two. PW acknowledged this will cause congestion, however the solution is it will cause less problems than the DCO scheme that was proposed, as this would have involved extensive utility diversions.
    DM questioned whether the effect of 90,000 lorries on the bridge had been taken into account, as the bridge may not be able to take the increased weight. PW explained that Wandsworth Borough Council is responsible for the maintenance of the bridge and it has advised that it can take the weight of the lorries.
    AR requested that the number of lorries that currently use the bridge is confirmed.
    Action 5: PW/Tideway to confirm the number of lorries that use Wandsworth Bridge.

Carnwath Road CLWG Meeting Minutes

Page 5 of 10



  1. 1.4.3  Tideway advised it wants to limit the effect of this work on the early morning and afternoon rush hour as much as possible. Tideway informed that there would be an initial 2/3 months overlap when Tideway lorry traffic operates alongside existing lorry traffic from the Carnwath Road industrial estate. After the initial three months, the lorry movement will not exceed the current lorries that are moving through Carnwath Road and then the three months after that the figure will be reduced by 50 per cent. Action 6: Tideway to provide detailed figures showing how many HGVs will use Carnwath Road.
    TP voiced his concern that there is no indication of the size of the lorries that will be using Carnwath Road. TP believes that vehicle size is critical to how easily lorries can move and turn, with larger lorries creating greater congestion. TP also reiterated a need for clarification of terms lorry ‘numbers’ and ‘movements’. Tideway confirmed ‘movements’ is two directional and ‘number’ is the actual quantity of lorries going into site. TP said this this is not currently like-for-like and it needs to be addressed. Residents also want to know the size of the lorries so a plan can be made for how the traffic will flow. Action 7: Tideway to provide figures from the traffic survey to the traffic sub group for information.
    TP also voiced his concern that the traffic survey is based on analysis completed over a single day.
    CS advised that in a previous meeting there was a slide in a presentation that explains the information of the survey and the information in regard to the size of the lorries. Action 8: JAP to make sure a link to the traffic survey information and a copy of the slide is included with the minutes.
    A resident advised that a nearby car auction site has been purchased by Barretts and believes the traffic survey should take this into account.

  2. 2.4.4  NO informed residents that Tideway has confirmed all drivers will be trained as to the routes they should take and if drivers do not meet the standards or are late then they will be turned away from site. Tideway is also investigating a holding area for HGVs and also checking if additional deliveries could be made by barge, to further reduce traffic flow.
    AR advised any questions that related to barges or the road should be put to the Traffic sub-group.

  3. 3.4.5  Health: Kirstin Sittard (KS), advised that several meetings have taken place between the sub-group, LBHF and Tideway regarding air quality. KS informed it has been agreed that a non-technical version of the 12-month baseline air quality results for the area can be made available and this will be ready in approximately six weeks. KS also advised that going forward Tideway will provide non-technical reports for the monitors on a monthly basis. These reports could each take approximately six weeks to produce.
    KS informed the meeting that the sub-group has been working with Thomas’ School, which will put together a website where residents can access links to the monthly non-technical air quality reports. The format is still to be agreed.
    KS advised that the sub group had issues with the Air Quality Management Plan which was submitted in April, and because of these concerns a meeting took place with the Council. KS advised that LBHF will make sure the provisions of the Air

Carnwath Road CLWG Meeting Minutes

Page 6 of 10

Quality Management Plan are met and hopes to report back on this at the next CLWG.

  1. 1.4.6  With regard to noise monitoring, KS advised that the Health sub-group has held meetings with Tideway and everybody is on board with the plans. KS also advised that more baseline monitoring has taken place utilising the three noise monitors that are situated around the area of the site and the baseline noise figures are currently being reviewed.
    KS explained that noise is perceived differently by people and there are no national policy guidelines for noise, so LBHF will set limitations for morning, daytime and evening work.
    (Subsequent to the meeting, a Tideway Air Quality and Noise expert has confirmed that the trigger levels have been identified at the level where we have to offer sound insulation or temporary rehousing based on national guidelines.)
    A resident raised the issue of noise caused by two generators recently, which took two months to resolve, as Tideway had not yet taken over the site from Thames Water.

  2. 2.4.7  Nigel Carrier (NC) asked for confirmation of the areas which the baseline survey covers, as he has been advised that residents on a number of streets are concerned. CS answered that the survey includes the three monitors which are situated around the site and there are no vibration monitors.
    Tideway explained it is currently looking into a process as to how it can monitor ground-borne noise as the survey only relates to airborne noise. Tideway also advised the site is classed as a low vibration site and this is why there is not a baseline vibration survey. We expect minimal vibration as a baseline and therefore baseline is assumed to be none. Tideway said it does not anticipate vibration from the initial works in phase one and the risk assessment of the site will pick up any vibration problems at a later phase. Works that have the potential to create vibration will be identified and monitored as outlined in the Noise and Vibration Management Plan (NVMP).
    AR asked PW how potential vibration could impact foundations? PW advised the LBHF Housing Team will be aware of any problems but vibration is not an issue at the moment.
    A resident advised that she believed Tideway works had caused vibration issues recently.
    In response, a resident advised she reported vibration at her property on Peterborough Road but was informed it was not Tideway works. PW explained Tideway has not started proper works yet so any previous vibration complaints were not related to its works. PW also advised residents if they have any noise or vibration problems going forward then to contact LBHF Noise and Vibration Team or the Tideway 24-hour Helpdesk.
    KS asked if the site management layout is available today? Tideway advised it is not available today.

  3. 3.4.8  KS asked what the penalty would be for Tideway should it exceed environmental limits/triggers? CS explained the penalty could be LBHF stopping Tideway fromcontinuing with the works that caused the exceedance if the situation is not rectified readily.

  4. 1.4.9  A resident (representing traders’ association) expressed concern that many people are worried about the pollution and noise of the works and wanted to know if the work could cause cancer. AR advised the Soil Contamination Report will be available soon and this will explain.

  5. 2.4.10  CRC (local employment): TP explained that the CRC is working hard to try and make sure 20 per cent of workers at the site will be local residents. TP also advised that Tideway has agreed to hold a local Employment Fair and said this is great news for the community. TP also wanted to express “enormous credit” to Tom Lane (TL) as a work experience placement has been agreed with The Hurlingham Academy. The speed in which this has been achieved is very positive. The Hurlingham Academy Principal is keen to continue the relationship.
    Two residents explained they run a local youth club and a club to help mothers get back to work and wanted to know if it would be possible to get involved further.
    Patrick Kelly (PK) introduced himself to the CLWG and advised he is the new Community Liaison Manager. PK also advised that he would like to meet with the different community groups to see how he can help. PK said he will circulate his contact details and advised residents they can contact him with any queries/worries they have – he will act as a conduit/single channel for the local community.

  6. 3.4.11  Legacy/Hoardings: TP asked where at the site the hoarding artwork will be placed. TP advised that many people in the community would like artwork to be on the side facing Carnwath Road.

  7. 4.4.12  TP expressed his disappointment that the planning application for the South Park projects has not yet been submitted. PW advised that a number of discussions have taken place and everybody is behind the principal improvements being made. PW also advised that in regard to the refurbishment of the changing rooms, this is an LBHF asset and a number of surveys are required. The surveys should be completed this week. Once the survey results are released, LBHF will then liaise further with Tideway, as Tideway needs the survey results to make plans for cost, etc.
    PW welcomed Tideway’s commitment and anticipated budget and reiterated LBHF wants to make sure the best facilities are available to the community. Toilet improvements will take place first, followed by an application for planning permission for the community centre, probably in the autumn.

  8. 5.4.13  A resident asked Tideway what its budget is for the South Park improvements. BG explained Tideway cannot afford to do all of what was presented in the previous CLWG and that is why different options were suggested. BG also advised the budget is in excess of £1 million and the final decision on the improvements will be a joint decision between the community, LBHF and Tideway. Tideway intends on making a significant positive impact.

5. Tideway update

Tideway provided a presentation to include a site overview, baseline noise and air quality levels, an asbestos update and a More By River update. Action 9: JM to include a link to the Tideway update presentation with the minutes.

Carnwath Road CLWG Meeting Minutes

Page 8 of 10

TL provided a Skills and Employment update, including details of a Tideway Key Performance Indicator which measures staff volunteer hours. TL reiterated that 20 per cent of project personnel at Carnwath Road should be Hammersmith and Fulham residents, as outlined in the DCO.

6. Questions to Tideway from each sub-group and CLWG representatives

  1. 1.6.1  A resident asked how far the pier extends into the river. Tideway advised it goes out
    30 metres to the navigation line, which is less than a third of the width of the river.

  2. 2.6.2  DM asked if Tideway has final permissions for this. Tideway explained it is has received permission on the initial documents, with final permission expected in approximately two months.

  3. 3.6.3  AR asked how noisy the crusher will be. Tideway explained it will be subject to a Section 61 Assessment to ensure it does not exceed limitations. Tideway also advised the crusher will only be in use between 8am – 6pm, Monday to Friday.
    A resident asked if on-site piling will be noisy? Tideway advised that the piling technique to be used is augered piling so should not cause a disturbance.

  4. 4.6.4  Tideway explained the baseline existing air quality levels in more detail and advised a continuous monitor was fitted on Philpot Square in May 2015. Tideway then fitted another three monitors on Peterborough Road, Carnwath Road and Riverside Walk in February 2016. Tideway informed residents that results of the past three months indicate it is well below UK Government annual limits. Tideway reiterated this is only data since February 2016 but will continue to investigate. Action 10: Tideway to put the air quality levels into a non-technical summary for residents on a monthly basis.

  5. 5.6.5  Tideway reiterated to residents it is committed to doing more movements by river. Tideway advised the DCO limit of HGV return journeys is 50,970, the contract shows 37,970 and the Tideway More By River proposal shows 33,280.

7. Questions from residents attending the meeting

  1. 1.7.1  DM felt the minutes do not reflect the true tone of the meetings. He feels the minutes do not explain what actually goes on. DM wanted the following recorded:

    1. 1  DM had referred to the Tideway project as being ‘sociopathic’ on a previous occasion and this had not been recorded;

    2. 2  DM expressed previously that he had not received an apology letter from Tideway for not having contacted the residents of 1-3 Carnwath Road earlier in the project, and that when the letter did arrive the apology was only noted lower down in the letter;

    3. 3  DM was not happy that Tideway had held an update session for residents of 1-3 in the foyer of No. 3 Carnwath Road in April 2016 – and had woken up his ill friend in the process.
      All of these items were noted.

  2. 2.7.2  DM also asked if the carbon footprint takes into account the lorry movements, barge movements, manufacture of goods for the project and commuting and increased pollution with traffic being increased. Action 11: DM to email Tideway with his additional questions re: carbon footprint. Tideway to answer DM’s queries relating to carbon footprint once it has received the query in writing.

Carnwath Road CLWG Meeting Minutes

Page 9 of 10

8. AOB

  1. 1.8.1  A resident requested if the Carnwath Road CLWG can be extended to two and a half hours. AR agreed to extend the time of the next CLWG meeting by half an hour, from 7pm – 9.30pm.

  2. 2.8.2  TP asked PK to speak to DM to make sure his queries/worries can be dealt with. Action 12: PK to speak with DM separately.

9. Date of Next Meeting

Monday 18 July. Venue: St Matthews Church.


  1. 1.Tideway to confirm if noise monitor results can be available on a weekly basis. Deadline: 30 June 2016

  2. 2.GG to provide names and addresses of residents on south side of the river. Deadline: Tideway will respond within 5 days of receipt of names

  3. 3.JAP to provide details of the number of properties on the distribution list Deadline: 30 June 2016

  4. 4.DM to email soil analysis questions to Tideway. Tideway to answer via email. Deadline: Tideway will reply within 5 days of receipt of email.

  5. 5.PW/Tideway to confirm the number of lorries that use Wandsworth Bridge Deadline: 30 June 2016

  6. 6.Tideway to provide detailed figures showing how many HGVs will use Carnwath Road
    Deadline: 30 June 2016

  7. 7.Tideway to provide figures from the traffic survey to the traffic sub group for
    Deadline: 30 June 2016

  8. 8.JAP to make sure a link to the traffic survey information and a copy of the slide is
    included with the minutes
    Deadline: 30 June 2016

  9. 9.JM to include a link to the Tideway update presentation with the minutes
    Deadline: 30 June 2016

  10. 10.Tideway to put the air quality levels into a non-technical summary for residents on a
    monthly basis.
    Deadline: ongoing

11. DM to email Tideway with his additional questions re: carbon footprint. Tideway to

answer DM’s additional queries relating to carbon footprint once it has received the query in writing.
Deadline: Tideway will reply within 5 days of receipt of the email.

  1. 12.PK to speak with DM about his

  2. 13. concerns Deadline: 30 June 2016

Carnwath Road CLWG Meeting Minutes

Page 10 of 10


The Carnwath Road Community Websitehttp://www.carnwathroadcommunity.org
Minutes of 
Meetings by Date

23rd Nov 2015

13th Jan 2016

22nd Feb 2016

17th March 2016

13th June 2016

18th July 2016

12th Sept 2016Minutes_-_1_-_23rd_Nov_2015.htmlMinutes_-_2_-_13th_Jan_2016.htmlMinutes_-_3_-22nd_Feb_2016.htmlMinutes_-_4_%3D_17th_March_2016.htmlMinutes_-_6_-_18th_July_2016.htmlMinutes_-_7_-_12th_Sept_2016.htmlhttps://carnwathroadcommunity.wordpress.comshapeimage_6_link_0shapeimage_6_link_1shapeimage_6_link_2shapeimage_6_link_3shapeimage_6_link_4shapeimage_6_link_5shapeimage_6_link_6