Site Suitability Report C32XA: Borthwick Wharf Foreshore

Autumn 2011
Site suitability report C32XA

Borthwick Wharf Foreshore
Please note: Further details are provided in the Final Report on Site Selection Process (doc ref: 7.05) that can be found on the Thames Tideway Tunnel section of the Planning Inspectorates web site.
110-RG-PNC-C32XA-000606 | Autumn 2011

Borthwick Wharf Foreshore
Site suitability report C32XA Borthwick Wharf Foreshore
Thames Tunnel Site suitability report C32XA

List of contents
Page number
Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 Purpose and structure of the report ......................................................... 1 Background ............................................................................................. 1 Consultation............................................................................................. 2 Site and surroundings .............................................................................. 2 Type of site .............................................................................................. 3
Site information ................................................................................................ 2 2.1 2.2
3 4
Proposed use of site construction phase ................................................... 4 Proposed use of site operational phase ..................................................... 4 4.1 4.2 Introduction .............................................................................................. 4 Restoration and after-use ........................................................................ 5 Access ..................................................................................................... 5 Construction works considerations .......................................................... 6 Permanent works considerations............................................................. 7 Health and safety..................................................................................... 7 Introduction .............................................................................................. 7 Planning applications and permissions.................................................... 7 Planning context ...................................................................................... 7 Planning comments ................................................................................. 9 Introduction ............................................................................................ 10 Transport ............................................................................................... 10 Archaeology........................................................................................... 11 Built heritage and townscape................................................................. 11 Water resources hydrogeology and surface water ............................. 11 Ecology .................................................................................................. 12 Flood risk ............................................................................................... 12 Air quality ............................................................................................... 12
Engineering assessment ................................................................................. 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4
Planning assessment ...................................................................................... 7 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4
Environmental appraisal ............................................................................... 10 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8
7.9 7.10 8 8.1 8.2 8.3 9 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 10 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6
Noise ..................................................................................................... 12 Land quality ........................................................................................... 13 Introduction ............................................................................................ 13 Socio-economic profile .......................................................................... 13 Issues and impacts ................................................................................ 14 Introduction ............................................................................................ 14 Crown land and special land comments ................................................ 15 Land to be acquired ............................................................................... 15 Property valuation comments ................................................................ 15 Disturbance compensation comments................................................... 16 Discretionary purchase costs comments ............................................... 16 Offsite statutory compensation comments ............................................. 16 Site acquisition cost assessment ........................................................... 16 Introduction ............................................................................................ 17 Engineering ........................................................................................... 17 Planning................................................................................................. 17 Environment .......................................................................................... 17 Socio-economic and community ............................................................ 18 Property ................................................................................................. 18
Socio-economic and community assessment............................................. 13
Property assessment ..................................................................................... 14
Site conclusions by discipline ...................................................................... 17
Appendices ............................................................................................................. 19 Appendix 1 Sources of information Appendix 2 Site location plan Appendix 3 Planning and environment plans Appendix 4 Photographs of the site and surroundings Appendix 5 Transport plan Appendix 6 Services and geology plan Appendix 7 Construction phase layout Appendix 8 Operational phase layout Appendix 9 Environmental appraisal tables
ii
List of tables
Page number
Table 3.1 Construction phase data ............................................................................ 4 Table 4.1 Operational phase data ............................................................................. 5
List of abbreviations AOD BAP BT CPO CSO DLR EA GLA HGV LNR LPA LU m MOL ONS ORN PLA POS PTAL SAM SINC SNCI SSR SSSI SUDS TfL TD above Ordnance Datum biodiversity action plan British Telecom compulsory purchase order combined sewer overflow Docklands Light Railway Environment Agency Greater London Authority heavy goods vehicle local nature reserve local planning authority London Underground metre/metres Metropolitan Open Land Office of National Statistics Olympic Route Network Port of London Authority public open space public transport accessibility level scheduled ancient monument site of importance for nature conservation site(s) of nature conservation importance site suitability report site(s) of special scientific interest sustainable urban drainage systems Transport for London tunnel datum
iii
TLRN TPA UDP UXO
Transport for London Road Network Thames Policy Area unitary development plan unexploded ordnance
iv
1 1.1
1.1.1
Introduction Purpose and structure of the report

The Site selection methodology paper (May 2009 and revised August 2011) a outlines the process to be used to create the preferred list of main tunnel sites, and this process also applies to CSO sites. Paragraph 2.3.31 lists the type of general considerations that will be addressed in each site suitability report. Whether a consideration is relevant to the assessment of a site will depend on available information and professional judgement. This report was prepared through the assessment of information from the perspective of a number of technical disciplines: engineering, planning, environment, property and community. The reports have been prepared on the basis of the information listed in Appendix 1 and this level of information is considered to be appropriate to this stage of assessment. The Site selection background technical paper provides information on the requirements for different types of sites, their sizes and typical activities/ facilities within the sites. Each site suitability report considers a particular site on its own merits. In addition, an Engineering options report was produced, which relates to main tunnel and connection tunnel options. Information from both of these reports will feed into the technical assessment of how well the site may fit in with tunnel design options, ensuring combinations of sites spread across the length of the tunnel route provide a reasonable spatial distribution of sites (that will best assist with the construction of the tunnel, operation and maintenance). The outcomes are reported in the Phase two scheme development report.
1.1.2
1.1.3
1.1.4
1.2
1.2.1
Background
The process for selecting sites is set out in the Site selection methodology paper. All sites have previously passed through the following parts of Stage 1: Part 1A Creation of the long list of potential main tunnel (and CSO) sites Part 1B Creation of a short list of potential main tunnel (and CSO) sites o o o Table 2.2: Long list of main tunnel (and CSO) sites an assessment against set considerations and values Table 2.3: Draft short list of main tunnel (and CSO) sites assessment against a list of more detailed considerations Workshops to consider each site to arrive at a short list of sites.
The amendments made in August 2011 do not change the site selection methodology process. The amendments only related to the introduction of a second phase of consultation (paragraphs 2.3.13-2.4.15) and minor factual updates.
Page 1
Site suitability report C32XA 1.2.2 The final part of Stage 1 includes this report. The following is an overall summary of all elements that apply to all the sites on the final short list: Part 1C Creation of the preferred list of main tunnel (and CSO) sites site data, site visits, site suitability reports, engineering options report and optioneering workshops that are reported in the Phase two scheme development report.
1.2.3
The Site selection methodology paper also contains a provision for a back-check process in paragraph 2.5.6 that states: If any sites for any of the main tunnel sites or intermediate sites (or CSO site) are eliminated for any reason, if there are significant changes of circumstances in relation to existing sites or combinations of sites, if new or replacement sites are required or found or if the engineering design develops in unexpected ways then a targeted repeat of stages 1-3 will need to be undertaken in order to fill in any site gaps.
1.3
1.3.1
Consultation
Thames Waters approach to engagement and consultation for the Thames Tunnel project is outlined in the Statement of Community Consultation and the accompanying Community Consultation Strategy. Thames Water has engaged regularly with all potentially affected London local authorities, other stakeholders and interested parties on sites and the project. Phase one consultation has been completed for all the preferred and shortlisted sites along with the three main tunnel route options. The analysis of the consultation responses is set out in the Report on phase one consultation and Interim engagement report. Any relevant site comments were considered at the post phase one consultation optioneering workshops. The outcomes of these workshops are reported in the Phase two scheme development report. After the workshops, engagement on sites has continued with key stakeholders, and the engineering design for sites has also continued in parallel. In autumn 2011, phase two consultation will provide another opportunity for people to comment on sites.
1.3.2
2 2.1
2.1.1
Site information Site and surroundings

This site is one of the shortlisted sites for Deptford Storm Relief CSO. This section provides an overview of all the site information that will be used by one or more disciplines to assess the site in sections 3 to 9 of this report. Site C32XA is located on the foreshore of the River Thames, directly in front of the AHOY Centre, within the London Borough of Greenwich. The site is rectangular in shape and is accessed by Glaisher Street (a private road), part of the Thames Path and Borthwick Street. The site includes the western half of a slipway onto the River Thames. A site location plan is attached as Appendix 2.
2.1.2
Page 2
Site suitability report C32XA 2.1.3 The site bounds the UK Power Network (formerly EDF) substation to the southwest and is opposite a six- to eight-storey block of flats of modern build, which have views towards the site, to the southeast. The site has views towards Canary Wharf and residential properties (mainly two- to three-storey houses) on the north bank of the Thames. The site considered within this report is within a number of areas designated in the Greenwich Unitary Development Plan (2006), including a Thames Policy Area and strategic riverside walkways. All the mapped designations, where data was available, are shown on the planning and environment plans in Appendix 3. Photographs of the site and surroundings, together with an aerial photograph of the site, are attached as Appendix 4. There is road access to the site from both Glaisher Street and Borthwick Street, and between the AHOY Centre and the high-rise residential building. There is no local rail access. There are derelict existing wharfage/jetty facilities at the site. A number of preliminary transport plans for the site are attached as Appendix 5. Third-party assets and significant utilities are listed below and are shown on the services and geology plan in Appendix 6: 2.1.9 Borthwick and Payne Wharf building west of the site Residential building south of the site Jetty at the north and east part of the site Deptford substation cable tunnel through the centre of the site and outside the eastern half of the site Deptford substation west of the site River wall Deptford Storm Relief 1.524m x 0.914m overflow sewer through the centre of the site. CSO connection is to this sewer.
2.1.4 2.1.5
2.1.6 2.1.7
2.1.8
The locations of other third-party assets, such as BT and fibre optic communication cables, are to be confirmed by further studies and utility searches and may not be shown on the services and geology plan. Information on the geology specific to this site can be found within the services and geology plan, which is in Appendix 6. This plan shows that the shaft would be founded in the Chalk.
2.1.10
2.2
2.2.1 2.2.2
Type of site
The site C32XA is being considered as a: CSO site to intercept the Deptford Storm Relief CSO. For the Abbey Mills tunnel route, this site is being considered as a CSO site that would be connected to the main tunnel via a long connection tunnel.
Page 3
3
3.1.1
Proposed use of site construction phase

The proposed construction phase layouts for the CSO site are located in Appendix 7 Construction phase layout, and are based on a preliminary assessment. The construction phase layout drawings are illustrative and show: the layout as a CSO site potential access point.
3.1.2
3.1.3
These drawings provide initial preliminary schematic layouts that have not been optimised. If the site proceeds to the next stage as a preferred site, construction phase layouts would be optimised to minimise impacts. Photographs of typical activities associated with the CSO site construction phase are provided in Appendix 7. Potential above-ground construction features include: approximately 3m high hoarding around the site boundary welfare facilities, temporary structures, approximately 3m high grout plant, approximately 3m to 5m high, including silos mobile crane, approximately 30m high (maximum and not for full construction duration).
3.1.4
3.1.5 3.1.6
Foreshore working is required for this site and a cofferdam or similar construction works would be needed. Preliminary data associated with the construction phase are provided in Table 3.1 and are common to both the large site and small site scenarios. Table 3.1 Construction phase data Activity Length of construction period Likely working hours, ie, (night/day/weekend) Working days Primary means of transporting excavated material away from site Primary means of transporting materials to site CSO site 2 - 4 years 12 hrs from 7am to 7pm Mon to Sat Road* Road*
* There may be feasible opportunities to use barge transport for this site.
4 4.1
4.1.1
Proposed use of site operational phase Introduction

The indicative operational phase layout for the CSO site is located in Appendix 8 Operational phase layout, and is based on a preliminary assessment.
Page 4
Site suitability report C32XA 4.1.2 The generic elevations of structures shown on the operational phase layout are located in Appendix 8 and provide an illustration of typical examples of the permanent structures which are applicable to CSO sites. The underground infrastructure at this site is likely to comprise an interception chamber, double flap valve chamber and a drop shaft with access openings. The above-ground infrastructure is likely to comprise a ventilation column and electrical kiosk, although these may be consolidated within a combined structure. The top structure to the shaft is envisaged to be finished to a minimum level of 104.5m tunnel datum (TD) (4.5mAOD) and since the mean ground level of this site is 106mTD (6mAOD), the top structures would be flush with ground level. The top structure is to provide access and egress into the shaft. A hardstanding would be provided to the top structures. The site would not be fenced. Preliminary data associated with the operational phase are provided in Table 4.1. Table 4.1 Operational phase data Level of inspections and maintenance and likely working hours, ie, (night/day/ weekend) frequency of visits No. of traffic movements One daytime visit every six months for electrical/instrument inspection. An additional one-week maintenance period for tunnel/shaft inspection required per ten years that could be night/day/weekend working. One van visit every six months. An additional one-week period of two to ten movements per day (estimated several vans and two cranes) every ten years.
4.1.3
4.1.4
4.1.5
4.1.6 4.1.7
4.2
4.2.1
Restoration and after-use

The portion of the site not occupied by the permanent works would be restored to its original condition on completion of the construction works. If any buildings were demolished, these would not be reinstated unless required.
5 5.1
5.1.1
Engineering assessment Access

This section should be read in conjunction with Section 7.2.
Page 5
Road
5.1.2 The site is 1.5km from the TLRN (A2). The site can be reached from Glaisher Street or from Borthwick Street, along the road between the AHOY Centre and the high-rise residential building. Both routes are restricted. For the construction phase, there would be two access points and a one-way system would be in use. For the operational phase, there would be access from Glaisher Street.
5.1.3 5.1.4
Rail
5.1.5 Rail facility is located approximately 1km from site. The route to the rail link is constrained with a 3.7m height restriction on Edward Street, which is traffic calmed. The nearest rail station is Deptford Rail, which is approximately 1km away from the site. However, rail access is not considered to be a significant factor for CSO sites.
River
5.1.6 River access and jetty/wharfage facilities are not a requirement for CSO sites. However, as the site is in the foreshore, there may be feasible opportunities to use barge transport. This may be of particular relevance when considering the road access constraints.
5.2
5.2.1 5.2.2
Construction works considerations

No demolition is required. The interception chamber is located in the slipway, and is adjacent to electricity substation facilities immediately to the west and the AHOY Centre to the east. Construction of the works as shown would mean the existing slipway used by the AHOY Centre would be lost. If the works were moved further into the river, it might be possible to retain a slipway facility parallel to the river wall. As the site is in the foreshore, a temporary cofferdam would be required and the contained area filled to provide a level site compound. It is possible that part of the existing jetty facility would have to be removed to make room for the cofferdam. Data available on third-party assets and significant utilities show that the main items of concern in this area are the residential building southeast of the site, and the jetty and the substation to the southwest. There is also a power cable tunnel running through the site. Construction methods would be adopted, as appropriate, to mitigate potential settlement of these assets. Foreshore sites carry with them a higher risk than inland sites in respect of unexploded ordnance, notably near bridges, and this would need to be investigated.
5.2.3
5.2.4
5.2.5
5.2.6
Page 6
Site suitability report C32XA 5.2.7 5.2.8 5.2.9 5.2.10 Foreshore sites carry with them a higher risk than inland sites of archaeological finds that might delay the construction programme. The existing jetty and jetty piles are within the site and would need to be considered to make the site viable. It is likely that the proposed works would be constructed within the overall construction programme. The interception chamber and connection culvert to the drop shaft are both within the site and therefore require no additional consideration.
5.3
5.3.1 5.3.2
Permanent works considerations

The top structures to the drop shaft and flap valve chamber would be 1m above the riverbank ground level. The top structure to the interception chamber and drop shaft would be in the foreshore, and a river wall matching and tied into the existing river wall would be provided around the permanent operational site. The site would be finished to the same level as the adjacent shore. The feasibility of structures in the foreshore from a navigation aspect would need to be discussed with the PLA.
5.3.3
5.4
5.4.1 5.4.2
Health and safety

As the site is in the foreshore, measures would need to be taken to mitigate the risks of flooding and working over/near water. There are no other unusual health and safety issues with this site.
6 6.1
6.1.1
Planning assessment Introduction

The planning assessment builds on the advantages and disadvantages reported in Table 2.3 and covers the following areas: Planning applications and permissions Planning context Planning comments.
6.2
6.2.1
Planning applications and permissions

An initial desktop search of the London Borough of Greenwich online planning applications database did not identify any planning applications submitted within the last five years applicable to the site.
6.3
6.3.1
Planning context
The current planning policy context for the site is provided from the saved policies in the Greenwich Unitary Development Plan, adopted in 2006. The planning designations and policies that are applicable to the site are detailed below.
Page 7
Site suitability report C32XA 6.3.2 6.3.3 The site is located adjacent to an archaeological important area to the south. Under Policy D30, Archaeology, the council will expect applicants to properly assess and plan for the impact of proposed developments on archaeological remains where they fall within areas of archaeological potential as defined on the constraints Map 10. In certain instances, preliminary archaeological site investigations may be required before proposals are considered. The council will seek to secure the co-operation of developers in the excavation, recording and publication of archaeological finds before development takes place, by use of planning conditions/legal agreements, as appropriate. The site is wholly within a Thames Policy Area. Under Policy W2, Thames Policy Area, the council will seek a high quality of design, respecting the special character of the River Thames within the Thames Policy Area defined on the proposals map. Proposals within the area will be expected to satisfy the development principles under Policy W1. According to Policy W1, Development Principles, developments in the waterfront must conserve and enhance the areas historical heritage and biodiversity, and integrate and connect new proposals with the existing pattern of development. The River Thames is designated as a site of nature conservation importance. Under Policy DEV62, Nature Conservation and Ecology, where development proposals could destroy or adversely affect the ecology or special interest of sites of nature conservation importance (see the proposals map and Table 1), the council will seek mitigation measures to be taken, or comparable replacement if the loss is unavoidable. The creation and enhancement of nature conservation features and provision of public access will be sought in new developments, where appropriate. A cycle route runs along the southern boundary of the site. According to Policy M32, Cycling, cycling will be promoted in the borough. The borough will press relevant agencies to provide and maintain free cycle carriage on rail and riverbus, and cycle use of bus lanes will be promoted. The needs of cyclists will be particularly pursued in all new development, road and traffic management. A strategic riverside walkway and a new/improved riverside walkway run along the southern boundary of the site. According to Policy T20, Strategic Pedestrian Route, the council will support the improvement of pedestrian facilities along the canal, riversides and the northern sewer outfall embankment in collaboration with adjoining boroughs and the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority to form a strategic pedestrian route network. According to Policy O16, Recreational Footpaths and Cycleways, the existing riverside footpath will be safeguarded and improved so that a continuous signposted walk from Deptford to Thamesmead is created. Development proposals for riverside sites will be required to incorporate
6.3.4
6.3.5
6.3.6 6.3.7
6.3.8 6.3.9
6.3.10 6.3.11
6.3.12
Page 8
Site suitability report C32XA provision for a riverside walkway along the river frontage, or contribute to improvements where the existing footpath needs it. 6.3.13 6.3.14 The site is adjacent to a contaminated land designation to the southeast. According to Policy E11, Contaminated Land, a preliminary site investigation prior to the determination of a planning application will normally be required if a site is known, or is likely to have been, in contaminative uses. Where contamination is found, the council will need to be assured that the development can be built and occupied safely, without any adverse environmental or health impacts, otherwise conditions requiring full remedial action will be imposed. The site is adjacent to a development site (Site Reference mu32), known as Payne and Borthwick Wharves (0.87ha). The wharves, previously used for document storage, have planning permission for mixed-use development of both residential units (247 flats) and a significant proportion of commercial floor space, eg, studios, workshops, and offices. It is understood that the development has commenced but has not yet been completed. There is another development proposal adjacent to the site, to the south (UDP proposal M12), to which the cycle route will be incorporated into the existing proposed riverside walk. The site is in close proximity to a large number of existing and proposed residential properties. Policy E1, Pollution, seeks to protect the amenities of existing occupiers and users from the impacts of development, especially in terms of unacceptable emissions.
6.3.15
6.3.16
6.3.17
6.4
6.4.1
Planning comments
There are a small number of planning designations and policies that are applicable both on and adjacent to the site. These designations and policies have been identified and described in Section 6.3, and those relating to the Thames Policy Area, nature conservation, adjacent development proposals and residential amenity are the most relevant to the proposed development. The proposal site is within the River Thames, a designated site of importance for nature conservation. This is a strategic designation, covering the entire River Thames. Given the extensive nature of this designation, and the purpose of the Thames Tunnel project to improve the environmental quality of the river, on balance, and with appropriate mitigation, the construction works should not result in unacceptable development. A detailed assessment of the likely impacts is included in Section 7. Plant machinery and screening boards required during construction are likely to obscure some views of the river. There may also be reduced access along the river frontage adjacent to the working area throughout the construction period. This would be contrary to the aims of the Thames Policy Area, and mitigation would be required.
6.4.2
6.4.3
Page 9
Site suitability report C32XA 6.4.4 6.4.5 The construction works and remaining onsite after-use structures should not result in overly prominent development in this location. The nearest dwellings are located approximately 15m from the working area boundary. This separation distance may not be considered sufficient in terms of amenity, given the nature and longevity of construction works proposed, and mitigation would be required to avoid negative impacts as a result of noise, dust, visual impacts and traffic movements, in order to comply with Policy E1. The hours of operation of the construction works may also be restricted to those normally operated within residential areas. A further 247 residential dwellings are permitted at the adjacent Paynes and Borthwick Wharves site. Consideration would also need to be given to the proximity of the construction works and potential mitigation in relation to the adjacent development site if proposals, which include 247 flats, are implemented. The site falls within a designated archaeological priority zone. The appropriate level of site investigation should be agreed with the LPA in accordance with Policy D30. Further appraisal of the archaeological potential on the site is provided in Section 7. The site is adjacent to a yacht club to the south, and use of the adjacent foreshore is likely to have an adverse impact on the continued operation of the facility. If so, mitigation which may potentially include the relocation of the AHOY Centre is likely to be required. A strategic riverside walkway and a new/improved riverside walkway as well as a cycle route run along the southern boundary of the site. It may be possible to redirect these routes to minimise any potential adverse impacts.
6.4.6
6.4.7
6.4.8
6.4.9
7 7.1
7.1.1
Environmental appraisal Introduction

The following sections summarise specialist assessments which are provided in Appendix 9 Environmental appraisal tables.
7.2
7.2.1
Transport
A CSO site is considered to be less suitable. New site access and egress points would require construction, along with an access road linking the egress to the slipway, and the Thames Path would require diversion. Access via Glaisher Street or from Borthwick Street would be between the AHOY Centre and the high-rise residential buildings. Both routes are restricted and Glaisher Street is an unadopted private road. Routes to/from the TLRN (A2) are less suitable as they would pass through a home zone, which is heavily traffic calmed and contains on-street parking. Routes to the TLRN would also pass underneath a height-restricted rail bridge. Use of rail is unlikely to be required as CSO sites produce only relatively small quantities of excavated material. The potential route to the rail link at the East London Line depot is less suitable and heavily constrained,
7.2.2
Page 10
Site suitability report C32XA with additional traffic calming and height restrictions encountered along the route to the TLRN (A2). River access is not essential for a CSO site as excavated material is likely to be transported away by road. 7.2.3 Limited parking is to be provided onsite for the workforce but no alternative on-street parking is available within close proximity to the site due to permit holder restrictions. Additional workforce parking may therefore need to be provided. The potential for the workforce to utilise public transport to access the site is high. An agreement with landowners of the private residential estate on private land to the south would be required for construction vehicles to pass through the home zone, and temporary traffic management would be required to remove the home zone features and on-street parking to enable construction vehicles to access the TLRN (A2) (and rail point, if required).
7.3
7.3.1
Archaeology
On the basis of the current information available, the site is considered to be suitable as a CSO site. Although the information currently available does not indicate that any archaeological receptors are in the area, it is possible that archaeological receptors of high or medium value may be present. While no direct evidence has been revealed, peat deposits containing archaeological material may be present at depth. These have been commonly recorded throughout London in a similar proximity to the Thames. Given the location of the site and wider evidence for historical occupation along the river, it is a reasonable assumption to suggest that waterlogged remains of archaeological value may be present.
7.3.2
7.4
7.4.1
Built heritage and townscape

On the basis of the information currently available, this site is considered to be suitable as a CSO site in relation to built heritage, as the site is likely to result in relatively few impacts on the built heritage environment. The site has the potential to indirectly impact on the Grade II listed Paynes Wharf, although this is likely to be mitigated through a high-quality scheme design and/or screening and landscaping. From a townscape perspective, the site is considered less suitable as a CSO site as there is potential for impacts on the character of the river, its frontages and local views. Mitigation in the form of a high-quality scheme design, screening and landscaping of the site, especially during construction, would help to reduce any adverse impacts and would have the potential to enhance the local townscape character, although further study would be necessary to determine the likely impacts.
7.4.2
7.5
7.5.1
Water resources hydrogeology and surface water

In terms of hydrogeology, the site is suitable as a CSO site because although the construction of the drop shaft would take place within Chalk (major aquifer), the site does not lie within 400-day capture zones of licensed abstractions and no long-term impact on the Chalk aquifer is
Page 11
Site suitability report C32XA expected. Dewatering of the Chalk and Thanet Sand would be required during the construction phase. 7.5.2 The Chalk piezometric head is likely to be approximately 44m above the base of construction and should be taken into account in the engineering design. The superficial deposits at the location of the CSO site are alluvium, classified as a minor aquifer, which is likely to be the subject of limited impacts on flow due to sheet piling. In terms of surface water resources, this site is less suitable as either a small or a large CSO site because the work would be undertaken within the channel of the River Thames, and specific mitigation would be required to prevent pollution.
7.5.3
7.6
7.6.1
Ecology
Overall, and on the basis of the current information available, the site is considered to be less suitable as a CSO site due to the requirement for temporary and permanent land-take from the River Thames. There may also be a need for offsite mitigation/compensation solutions, as well as potentially extensive post-works restoration requirements.
7.6.2
7.7
7.7.1
Flood risk
This site is less suitable as a CSO site owing to the location in the river, which will require specific mitigation to protect it from flood levels, and the potential to cause displacement which could increase flood risk elsewhere in the local vicinity.
7.8
7.8.1
Air quality
This site is considered less suitable for use as a CSO site as there are residential properties in close proximity to the site, and there is potential for fugitive emissions of dust during construction to have a perceptible impact at these properties. These impacts can be reduced with standard dust control measures. There is potential for HGV movements on the local road network to cause localised air quality impacts in areas of already poor air quality. This can be somewhat mitigated by minimising the movement of HGVs during peak hours.
7.9
7.9.1
Noise
Based on the information currently available, the site is considered to be less suitable as a CSO site due to the relatively short separation distances between the site and the closest sensitive receptors, including residential properties, the AHOY Centre and an area of open space. The number of vehicles associated with the construction phase is anticipated to be relatively high, and the access route (through residential streets) has the potential to cause disturbance to properties lining those streets. Vibration levels from shaft sinking may give rise to human annoyance at nearby sensitive properties.
7.9.2
Page 12
Site suitability report C32XA 7.9.3 Perimeter hoarding will reduce potential noise impact but is likely to be relatively ineffective at shielding noise from the upper floor properties at Stretton Mansions and Hughes House.
7.10
7.10.1
Land quality
The site is considered to be less suitable a CSO site, based on the moderate potential for contamination of the site to have occurred, specifically from foundry operations, as well as wharf operations, fuel tanks and a power station in the near vicinity of the site. If contamination is present, it may have the potential to impact on site workers and adjacent human receptors through direct contact exposure pathways and, to a lesser extent, volatilisation. Additionally, the potential exists for contaminants to be drawn to the deeper Chalk aquifer and for migration to surface water receptors to occur through shallow groundwater transport.
7.10.2
8 8.1
8.1.1
Socio-economic and community assessment Introduction

The socio-economic and community assessment builds on the advantages and disadvantages reported in Table 2.3 and covers the following areas: Socio-economic profile Socio-economic and community issues and impacts.
8.2
8.2.1
Socio-economic profile
The site is within the Greenwich West ward of the London Borough of Greenwich. Statistics from ONS 2001 Census data show the following indicators for the ward, in comparison to the rest of Greenwich, London and England as a whole: Higher rate of economically active, aged people that are full-time employees A higher proportion having achieved Level 4 or 5 educational qualifications and a corresponding high proportion of people in managerial or professional occupations A lower proportion of owner occupied households and a higher proportion of housing rented from the local council A higher proportion of people aged between 20 and 44, and also a slightly higher proportion of children aged 0 to 4 Approximately 76 per cent of ward residents were born in the UK and there is a higher proportion of black African or black British African people.
8.2.2
These statistics indicate people in this area are mostly highly educated, working professionals. There is a high proportion of very young children, indicating growing families in the area. The ethnic mix of people around
Page 13
Site suitability report C32XA the site appears to be mostly indigenous but with other ethnicities present. The presence of the AHOY Centre indicates the area may be popular among young people as well as disabled people.
8.3
8.3.1
Issues and impacts

The site is being assessed for use as a CSO site. The site is located within the foreshore and adjacent to UK Power Network (former EDF) substation. It seems likely that the greatest impact of the use of this location for a CSO site from a community perspective would be on the AHOY Centre. The centre is located immediately adjacent to the site to the south and is in close proximity to the proposed shaft location. The centre caters for young people and adults, specifically people with disabilities, who require access to the river, which appears likely to be severely disrupted during site works. These equality groups appear likely to be affected by both the construction related impacts such as noise and dust and the likely temporary loss of direct access to the river. The derelict landing stage apposite the AHOY Centre would be subsumed into the CSO site boundary and may require the dismantling of the structure. This would appear to be directly detrimental to the AHOY Centres proposals for extension. In addition to the AHOY Centre, use of the site is also likely to impact on the adjacent residential properties, particularly Stretton Mansions, where a number of properties will face and overlook the site. The noise and visual disturbance from the site is also likely to affect people using the Thames Path adjacent to the site. As the site was identified as being a relatively tranquil environment, increased noise levels from the site at close proximity to the adjacent residential properties are likely to be very disruptive, especially as the properties have balconies. Both local residents and the users of the Thames Path are likely to be affected by the visual disruption to views over the river. Access to the site is via narrow residential streets, so properties along the route to the site may also be affected by its use. Furthermore, there are proposals for a mixed-use development on Borthwick Wharf and Paynes Wharf to the west of the site. If these plans are progressed, this could introduce further sensitive community receptors into the vicinity of the site.
8.3.2
8.3.3
8.3.4
8.3.5
8.3.6
9 9.1
9.1.1 9.1.2
Property assessment Introduction

This report builds on the advantages and disadvantages in Table 2.3 and the assessment provides more up-to-date information. The site is located in the foreshore, involving a connection to the Deptford Storm Relief outfall beneath the existing slipway adjacent to the site, with some permanent structures. The site is adjacent to the AHOY Centre, a
Page 14
Site suitability report C32XA water sports centre which uses the existing slipway, and a substantial disused derelict jetty parallel to the riverbank.
9.2
9.2.1
Crown land and special land comments

The land is foreshore and therefore is likely to be owned by the Crown or PLA. Crown land cannot be compulsorily purchased. Therefore, there is a risk that this land cannot be acquired. PLA land can be compulsorily purchased but a compulsory acquisition that is opposed by the PLA will create risk. The foreshore is not easily accessible by the public and does not appear to be used by the public. Therefore, it is unlikely to be considered open space for the purpose of S.131 of the Planning Act 2008. If the site is considered to be special land, a special parliamentary procedure would then be required unless exchange land is provided. Alternatively, it may be possible to avoid including land acquisition powers (and therefore the risk of a special parliamentary procedure) and instead rely on the PLA licensing regime. Contact should be made with the owner as soon as possible to establish if an acquisition can be agreed. Verbal enquiries have also revealed the jetty is in private ownership, and there should therefore be no procedural difficulty in acquiring this interest using compulsory purchase powers. Verbal enquiries have also revealed that various access roads to the site are not adopted highways and therefore in private ownership.
9.2.2
9.2.3 9.2.4
9.2.5 9.2.6
9.2.7
9.3
9.3.1 9.3.2
Land to be acquired
In order to carry out the works, an area of foreshore and riverbed would be required. The compensation assessment assumes that the majority of the worksite would be acquired temporarily, via the acquisition of new rights for the period of the works stated in the engineering section above. A smaller area within the worksite would need to be acquired permanently for operational purposes. Temporary access rights would also be required through various private roads, and a permanent right of way to enable access to the operational land will also need to be acquired.
9.3.3
9.4
9.4.1 9.4.2
Property valuation comments

Discussions with the AHOY Centre reveal the slipway is a public slipway, although it is within the AHOY Centre fencing. The land is foreshore and therefore has limited market value. Compensation for foreshore and riverbed land has been assessed in line with industrial land values, assuming flood compensation land will be required. In addition, an allowance for a one-off payment to the Crown or
Page 15
Site suitability report C32XA PLA has been made, although this is difficult to assess at this stage. The acquisition costs are likely to be acceptable. 9.4.3 Access to the site would be through various private roads. The compensation estimate includes a spot figure for these rights.
9.5
9.5.1
Disturbance compensation comments

The site is foreshore and therefore there are unlikely to be any significant disturbance compensation costs.
9.6
9.6.1
Discretionary purchase costs comments

Works on the site will be limited to 12-hour working, Monday to Saturday. Therefore, it is unlikely there will be any significant discretionary purchase costs. However, the works will be in close proximity to Stretton Mansions residential buildings and therefore there is some potential for discretionary purchase costs.
9.7
9.7.1
Offsite statutory compensation comments

An additional and significant compensation claim in relation to the adjacent AHOY Centre sailing club is likely, as access to the river from the centre via the existing slipway would be blocked, although slipway access would be possible following the construction phase. The AHOY Centres entitlement to compensation would depend on what formal rights of access to the river it holds. If it holds formal rights, a standard claim for acquisition of land would arise. If it holds no formal rights, a claim under Section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 is likely to arise. Whichever is the case, the claim is likely to be significant. It would therefore be important to maintain access to the river from the AHOY Centre by creating another slipway, possibly in front of the residential property on Glaisher Street. If this is not possible, the acquisition costs are likely to increase significantly, although they are still likely to be at an acceptable level. There does not appear to be any other potential for offsite statutory compensation under Section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965, as there is unlikely to be any other physical interference with public or private property rights. There should also be limited potential for claims under Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973, as the completed works are unlikely to result in diminution in value to property.
9.7.2
9.7.3
9.7.4
9.8
9.8.1
Site acquisition cost assessment

The land is foreshore and therefore has limited market value. Accordingly, statutory acquisition costs are likely to be acceptable, although if the impact on the AHOY Centre river access is not minimised, acquisition costs could be moderate.
Page 16
10 10.1
10.1.1
Site conclusions by discipline Introduction

The conclusions presented in this section are drawn from each disciplines assessment, and are designed to inform the workshop where a final conclusion on whether the site moves forward as one of the preferred sites or not.
10.2
10.2.1
Engineering
This site is less suitable as a CSO site because of the inherent risks associated with its position in the foreshore. Road access to the site is very constrained and river access may be necessary to minimise vehicular movements. There is no requirement for demolition, but the existing derelict jetty may need to be partly removed to make room for the cofferdam or to make it suitable for temporary use during construction.
10.3
10.3.1 10.3.2
Planning
On balance, the site is considered less suitable as a CSO site. There are a number of planning constraints related to the use of this site. Proximity to residential properties, the Thames Policy Area designation and potential conflict with the existing AHOY Centre are the most notable. With appropriate mitigation (and potential relocation of the AHOY Centre), potential adverse impacts on the adjacent sensitive receptors could be reduced, although this would require further investigation.
10.3.3
10.4
10.4.1 10.4.2 10.4.3
Environment
Overall, the site is considered to be less suitable as a CSO site. The site is suitable for use as a CSO site from the perspectives of archaeology, built heritage and groundwater. The site is less suitable from the perspective of transport, townscape, surface water resources, ecology, flood risk, air quality, noise and land quality. Overall, the site is considered less suitable, and further investigation will be required as to whether transport, townscape, surface water resources, ecology, flood risk, air quality, noise and land quality impacts could all be adequately mitigated. Likely mitigation considerations will include the following: Transport an acceptable route to the TLRN and adequate workforce parking would need to be identified, but this appears very difficult to achieve due to the need to use private roads in a home zone area where the roads are not suitable for HGVs. Townscape a high-quality scheme design to minimise impacts on the character of the park, local views and potentially on a protected view would be required.
10.4.4
Page 17
Site suitability report C32XA Flood risk and surface water mitigation to reduce flood risk to the worksite and elsewhere (loss of capacity) and specific mitigation to reduce the impacts of in-river working. Ecology mitigation for foreshore habitats. Noise standard noise barriers are unlikely to be entirely effective and other techniques may be required to reduce construction noise to acceptable levels. Air quality measures to ensure dust is adequately mitigated for the closest receptors. Land quality any required remediation of contamination (at this moderate risk site) and/or measures to ensure no mobilisation of contaminants retained in situ.
10.5
10.5.1 10.5.2
Socio-economic and community

The site is less suitable as a CSO site due to potential impacts, particularly on the AHOY Centre and the adjacent residential properties. The greatest impact from a community perspective appears to be on the AHOY Centre adjacent to the site. The potential impacts include those on equalities groups using the centre, namely young people and people with disabilities. The centre requires access to the river for its activities; therefore, mitigation may involve discussions around maintaining river access during the works or providing alternative access nearby. Mitigation may also involve discussions around minimising disturbance and potentially limiting working hours. The local residents and the users of the Thames Path are likely to be affected by construction related impacts. Access to the site is via narrow residential streets, so properties along the route to the site may also be affected by its use.
10.5.3 10.5.4
10.6
10.6.1 10.6.2
Property
The site is considered suitable for a CSO site, subject to the acquisition risks identified above. The advantages of the site are as follows: Acquisition cost should be low and therefore acceptable The site is undeveloped. The land is foreshore and therefore is likely to be owned by the Crown or PLA. Crown land cannot be compulsorily purchased. Therefore, there is a risk that this land cannot be acquired. PLA land can be compulsorily purchased but a compulsory acquisition that is opposed by the PLA will create risk. An additional large claim in relation to the AHOY Centre is likely unless mitigation works are agreed.
10.6.3
The disadvantages of the site are as follows:
Page 18
Site suitability report C32XA Appendices
Appendices
Page 19
Site suitability report C32XA Appendices
Page 20
Site suitability report C32XA Appendix 1
Appendix 1 Sources of information Engineering

Traffic Management and Access Roads/Rail URS Scott Wilson Services (Utilities) and Third Party Assets Thames Tunnel and utility companies Geology British Geological Society and Thames Tunnel Construction and Operational Layout Template Thames Tunnel Site selection background technical paper Thames Tunnel
Planning
London Borough of Lewisham online planning applications database Lewisham Core Strategy, adopted June 2011 Saved policies in the Lewisham Unitary Development Plan, adopted July 2004. The London Plan, adopted July 2011 Saved policies within the Greenwich Unitary Development Plan, adopted in 2006
Environment
Transport Map of Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) www.tfl.gov.uk Bus Route Maps: North-east, north-west, south-west, south-east www.tfl.gov.uk Crossrail Plans www.crossrail.co.uk/crossrail-bill-documents PTAL scores Obtained from Table 2.3 information Thames Path map www.walklondon.org.uk Capital Ring www.walklondon.org.uk Cycle Routes www.sustrans.org.uk and Local Cycling Guides 1-14 Design Manual for Roads and Bridge TD 42/95, Highways Agency
Archaeology Historic Environment data from Greater London Archaeology Advisory Service (GLAAS) National Monuments Record for some additional information regarding registered historic parks and gardens London Archaeological Archive and Research Centre (LAARC)
Appendix 1 Page 1
Site suitability report C32XA Appendix 1 Local authority websites Bing maps
Built heritage and townscape Local authority lists of Locally Listed Buildings National Monuments Record for some additional information regarding registered historic parks and gardens Unitary development plan and DPDs Local authority websites Bing maps
Water resources hydrogeology and surface water Local authority details of unlicensed abstractors Environment Agency abstraction licence details Environment Agency groundwater levels and contour maps (2009-11) Environment Agency water quality (surface water and groundwater) Environment Agency Groundwater Source Protection Zones Environment Agency Flood Map www.environment-agency.gov.uk Envirocheck British Geological Survey (BGS) logs BGS 1:50,000 Geological Sheets Solid and Drift Editions (England and Wales) BGS Geology of London Special Memoir for 1:50,000 Geological sheets 256 (North London), 257 (Romford), 270 (South London) and 271 (Dartford) (England and Wales) Crossrail (2005) Assessment of Water Impacts Technical Report: Appendix C Baseline Data. Figure C.4: Extent of Saline Intrusion based on 177 mg/l *5mmol/l) Isochlor
Ecology Thames Estuary Partnership (2002) Tidal Thames Habitat Action Plan London Biodiversity Action Plan www.lbp.org.uk Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) www.magic.gov.uk - statutory designated sites London Wildweb wildweb.london.gov.uk - non-statutory site of importance for nature conservation Black redstart distribution in London www.blackredstarts.org.uk/ pages/.html
Appendix 1 Page 2
Site suitability report C32XA Appendix 1 National Biodiversity Network http://searchnbn.net - distribution of protected species Google Maps aerial views of habitat features BAP habitats www.natureonthemap.org.uk Priority habitats and species on national and local scales www.ukbap.org.uk
Flood risk Environment Agency Flood Map www.environment-agency.gov.uk Environment Agency National Flood and Coastal Defence Database Envirocheck
Air quality Local authority websites London Air Quality Network www.londonair.org.uk Defra UK-AIR, air quality information resource www.airquality.co.uk Defra Air Quality Management Areas http://aqma.defra.gov.uk Defra Local Air Quality Management http://laqm.defra.gov.uk
Noise Envirocheck Identification of receptors Promap Calculation of distances between site and receptors Multimap Aerial photography www.multimap.co.uk Defra noise maps Identification of existing noise levels
Land quality Google Maps/Earth Site walkover information Envirocheck Data Sheets provided as a GIS Database British Geological Survey (BGS) logs
Socio-economic and community

Statistics from the Office of National Statistics 2001 Census data The AHOY Centre www.ahoy.org.uk
Appendix 1 Page 3
Property
Mouchel referencing data Rating records from VOA website Promap Multimap/Live maps
Appendix 1 Page 4
Appendix 2 Site location plan
Appendix 2 Page 1
FI D
EN
TI AL
&
Area of Main Map
AF T
TOWER HAMLETS
Legend
Local Authority Boundary Short Listed CSO Site CSO (Directly Controlled)
( !
LEWISHAM
C32XA Deptford Storm Relief
CS32X
0 25 50 100 Metres 150 200
( !
Mapping reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. Crown copyright and database right 2011. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100019345 CH2M HILL accept no responsibility for any circumstances, which arise from the reproduction of this map after alteration, amendment or abbreviation or if it issued in part or issued incomplete in any way.
GREENWICH
Map Ref : ............................ 1PL04-SS-02338 Date : .................................. 2011/10/31 Projection : .......................... British National Grid
Thames Water Utilities
The Point, 7th Floor, 37 North Wharf Road, Paddington, London W2 1AF
Title:
This is an indicative working draft plan which has been produced for the purpose of confidential discussions only. Accordingly, the draft plan must not be copied, distributed or shown to any third party without the express written permission of Thames Water Utilities Limited. It provides an indication of sites that, following discussions with local authorities and other stakeholders, may be confirmed as being on the shortlist of construction sites for the proposed Thames Tunnel. Inclusion of a site on this draft plan should not be taken to mean that such site will be selected as a construction site to form part of the Thames Tunnel scheme.
APPENDIX 2 SITE LOCATION PLAN C32XA SITE
Appendix 3 Planning and environment plans
Appendix 3 Page 1
TI AL
Legend !
EN
Protected/Strategic Views Thames Policy Area

! ! Regeneration Areas
FI D
!
TOWER
! !
# Development Sites * # * # * HAMLETS

! ! ! ! !
# * # * # * Proposals Sites ! ! !
Protected/Strategic Views
!
Area of Main Map
&
Areas of Opportunity
!
AF T
LEWISHAM
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Legend
! !
! ! ! !
( !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
D
# * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # *
!
# * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # *
! ! ! ! ! ! !
# * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # *
! ! ! ! ! # # #!# # # #!# # # #!# # * * * * # * * * * * # * * * * * # * * ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
# * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # *
!
# * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # *
! ! ! ! ! ! !
# * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # *
! ! ! ! ! # # #!# # # #!# # # #!# # * * * * # * * * * * # * * * * * # * * ! !
C32XA
!
( !
CS32X Deptford Storm Relief

! ! ! ! ! !
10
20
40 Metres
60
80
# * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # *
!
WATERGATE ST RE
# * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # *
! ! ! ! ! ! !
# * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # *
! ! ! ! # # #!# # # #!# # # #!# # * * * * # * * * * * # * * * * * # * * ! !
GREENWICH
! !
Mapping reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. Crown copyright and database right 2011. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100019345 CH2M HILL accept no responsibility for any circumstances, which arise from the reproduction of this map after alteration, amendment or abbreviation or if it issued in part or issued incomplete in any way. Map Ref : ............................ 1PL04-SS-02162 Date : .................................. 2011/10/11 Projection : .......................... British National Grid
ET
# * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # *
BOR # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * T# * * # * # * HW#
! ! ! ! ! !
ICK
S TR
EET
TREVIT H
! !
ICK ST
!
REET
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

DEPTFORD GREEN
BARQ ! UE MEWS !
Title:
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
This is an indicative working draft plan which has been produced for the purpose of confidential discussions only. Accordingly, the draft plan must not be copied, distributed or shown to any third party without the express written ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! MEWS CARAVEL permission of Thames Water Utilities Limited. It provides an indication of sites that, following discussions with local authorities and!other stakeholders, may be confirmed as being on the shortlist of construction sites for the! proposed Thames Tunnel. Inclusion of a site on this draft plan should not be taken to mean that such site will be selected as a construction site to form part of the Thames Tunnel scheme.
APPENDIX 3A PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT PLAN C32XA SITE
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
FI D
EN
TI AL
&
TOWER HAMLETS
Area of Main Map
AF T
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
LEWISHAM ! ! ! ! ! !
Legend
( !
CS32X
10
20
40 Metres
60
80
( !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
# # # GREENWICH ################################# # # # ################################# ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! CH2M HILL accept no responsibility for any # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # circumstances, which arise from the reproduction ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # of this map after alteration, amendment or ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # abbreviation or if it issued in part or issued BOR ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! T !H ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! incomplete in any way. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! W #################################### I C KS ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! TR! EET # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Map Ref : ............................ 1PL04-SS-02163 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Date : .................................. 2011/10/11 ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Legend ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Projection : .......................... British National Grid ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ######################## ############ T ! ! R ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Green ! ! Corridor/Chains ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! EV ITHICK # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## ## ######## S T ! ! !! !T ! ! ! ! ! ! EE ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !R !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !# !# ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Contaminated Sites ######################## # ##### ###### Thames Water Utilities ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Nature # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Sites # #of # ######## ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Conservation ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Importance ########################## #### # ##### ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Sites of Metropolitan ####################### # # # # # # # # # # # # # The Point, 7th Floor, ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Nature ! ! Conservation ! ! ! ! !Importance ! ! ! ! North Wharf Road, BARQUE MEWS ####################### # # # ## ##### # # # 37 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Open ! ! Space ! ! Deficiency ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Paddington, London W2 1AF Areas ################################# # ## ! ! Open Spaces ######################## # # # # # # # # # # # # Title: ! ! APPENDIX 3B ######################## # Flood # # Risk ## ## Zone 2 # # # # # ! ! # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # Flood # # Risk ## ## PLANNING & Zone 3 # # # # # #################################### ENVIRONMENT PLAN This is an indicative working draft plan which has been produced for the purpose of confidential discussions only. Accordingly, the draft plan must not be copied, distributed or shown to any third party without the express written # # #with # local ## ### # # stakeholders, # # # #may ## # # #as # ## # shortlist ### #### #for # ### CARAVEL permissionMEWS of Thames Water Utilities Limited. It provides an indication of sites that, following discussions authorities and other be confirmed being on the of construction sites the C32XA SITE proposed Thames Tunnel. Inclusion of a site on this draft plan should not be taken to mean site will be# selected a construction site to # form part the# Thames ## # #that # such ## # # # #as # #### # # #of# # #Tunnel # #scheme. #########
DEPTFORD GREEN
WATERGATE ST RE
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Mapping reproduced by permission of Ordnance ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Survey on behalf of HMSO. Crown copyright ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! and database right 2011. All rights reserved. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Ordnance Survey Licence number 100019345 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
ET
TI AL
Legend
EN
Listed Buildings
FI D
Archaeological Areas
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Area of Special Character
&
TOWER HAMLETS
Legend
AF T
Area of Main Map
LEWISHAM
( !
CS32X
10
20
40 Metres
60
80
( !
WATERGATE ST RE
GREENWICH
BOR T
ET
HW
ICK
S TR
EET
TREVIT H
ICK ST
REET

DEPTFORD GREEN
BARQUE MEWS
Title:
This is an indicative working draft plan which has been produced for the purpose of confidential discussions only. Accordingly, the draft plan must not be copied, distributed or shown to any third party without the express written CARAVEL permissionMEWS of Thames Water Utilities Limited. It provides an indication of sites that, following discussions with local authorities and other stakeholders, may be confirmed as being on the shortlist of construction sites for the proposed Thames Tunnel. Inclusion of a site on this draft plan should not be taken to mean that such site will be selected as a construction site to form part of the Thames Tunnel scheme.
APPENDIX 3C PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT PLAN C32XA SITE
Appendix 4 Photographs of the site and surroundings
Appendix 4 Page 1
FI D
EN
TI AL
Area of Main Map
AF T
TOWER HAMLETS
Legend
&
( !
LEWISHAM
C32XA
( !
0 25 50 100 Metres 150 200
GREENWICH
Title:
APPENDIX 4 AERIAL PLAN C32XA SITE
View along Glaisher Street looking in a north-westerly direction towards the site.
View taken from the proximity of the site in a southerly direction of Stretton Mansions, which overlook the site.
Appendix 4 Page 3
View of the river embankment immediately adjacent to the site.
View of the site taken from the riverbank in a northerly direction.
Appendix 4 Page 4
View of the site and surroundings taken from the riverbank in a north-westerly direction.
Appendix 4 Page 5
Appendix 4 Page 6
Appendix 5 Transport plan
Appendix 5 Page 1
FI D
EN
TI AL
&
TOWER HAMLETS
Area of Main Map
AF T
Access
( !
Legend
Local Authority Boundary Short Listed CSO Site CSO (Directly Controlled) Transport Access Route TfL Road Network Thames Path
C32XA
Private residential estate
( !
Egress
London Cycle Routes
LEWISHAM
Home zone On-street parking, street furniture, raised tables - may require removal GREENWICH
0 25 50 100 150 Metres 200 250 300
Mapping reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. Crown copyright and database right 2011. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100019345 CH2M HILL accept no responsibility for any circumstances, which arise from the reproduction of this map after alteration, amendment or abbreviation or if it issued in part or issued incomplete in any way. Map Ref : ............................ 1PL04-SS-02345 Date : .................................. 2011/10/31 Projection : .......................... British National Grid
Bus lane
Title:
APPENDIX 5 TRANSPORT PLAN C32XA SITE
Appendix 6 Services and geology plan
Appendix 6 Page 1
Appendix 7 Construction phase layout
Appendix 7 Page 1
Appendix 8 Operational phase layout
Appendix 8 Page 1
6
DO NOT SCALE - IF IN DOUBT ASK
VENTILATION COLUMN (CSO)
Status:
WORK IN PROGRESS
Keyplan:
N
A
MAPPING REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF ORDNANCE SURVEY ON BEHALF OF HMSO. ' CROWN COPYRIGHT AND 107m (AOD +100) REMOVABLE COVER ABOVE WEIR (LOCKABLE) DATABASE RIGHT 2008. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ORDNANCE SURVEY LICENCE NUMBER 100019345
COORDINATES ARE TO ORDNANCE SURVEY DATUM OSGB36. ALL LEVELS ARE IN METRES AND RELATE TO A LOCAL HEIGHT DATUM WHICH IS 100 METRES BELOW ORDNANCE DATUM NEWLYN.
NOTE:
4m
3m
6m
1. STRUCTURE TO BE PROTECTED BY REMOVABLE HANDRAILS IN THE TEMPORARY CASE. 2. POSITION OF COVERS ARE VARIABLE WITHIN 10m FROM THE EDGE OF THE STRUCTURE, AND THE LOCATION IS BASED ON SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT 3. CLADDING OF VENTILLATION BUILDING TO SUIT LOCATION AND AESTHETICS. 4. ALL TOP STRUCTURES TO HAVE:ACCESS STAIRS/LADDER TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT HAND RAILING 5. ALL DIMENSIONS IN MILLIMETRES UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED.
GROUND LEVEL
10000
5m
REMOVABLE COVERS ARE SPLIT UP INTO SECTIONS AND SUPPORTED BY BEAMS, WHICH ARE ALSO REMOVABLE
1m DIA
SCALE 1:50
DIAGRAMMATIC REPRESENTATION OF TOP STRUCTURE ABOVE CSO SHAFTS ELECTRICAL CONTROL KIOSK (CSO)
- - - - - - 1500 150 0 50
Scale: Sheet Size: Rev:
- - AB DRAFT-SECOND ISSUE IL RS
Dsgnr
GT DS
Chkd
GT CH
Appd
27-11-09 - 22-05-09
Date
AA DRAFT-FIRST ISSUE
Iss Description
60
2000
Location Code: OS Reference: Security Reference: Drawn By:
N/A
Project Group:
---
UBR
Sub Process:
AP
LTTDT
Location / Town: Site Name: Project Name:
WASTE LONDON N/A
THAMES TUNNEL
Contract Name:
SITE SUITABILITY REPORT

Drawing Title:
SCALE 1:25
GENERIC ELEVATION AND TOP STRUCTURE FOR OPERATIONAL PHASE LAYOUT - CSO SITES
Drawing No.:
100-DH-GEN-00000-000001
PLOTTED ON 04\12\09 BY Andy.Purdy LOCATION : Thames Tideway Tunnel x:\project\371840\cad\design data\cad thames\drawings\planning-consents\Routewide\100-DH-GEN-00000-000001.dgn c Thames Water Utilities Ltd 2008
NTS
A1
AB
100
200mm
VARIBLE DEPENDING ON
Appendix 9 Environmental appraisal tables

Transport Site considerations Access to road network CSO site Comments Site is located in the foreshore and requires the construction of a temporary construction access and egress to enable a one-way system through the site. The permanent access is located at the same point as the temporary construction access onto the western end of Glaisher Street. The construction site egress will utilise an existing slipway, requiring the construction of an access road from Deptford Green. The Thames Path will require diversion. Deptford Green is street lit and subject to a 20mph speed limit. It is located within Deptford Green Home Zone and, as such, is traffic calmed and has an unconventional layout which is unsuitable for HGVs. Agreement with private residential land owners will be required to enable construction vehicles to pass through the home zone area. Access to the site from the A2 (TLRN strategic highway network) is achievable from Deptford Church Street (A2209), Creek Road (A200) and then Hamilton Crescent and Glaisher Street, which are unadopted private residential estate roads. By way of constraints, the private residential estate roads (Hamilton Crescent and Glaisher Street) have raised tables, a 10mph speed limit and a block paving road surface. On-street parking is on one Mitigation required and conclusions Site access and egress require construction and an access road linking the slipway to Deptford Green is also required. Thames Path requires diversion. Routes to/from TLRN (A2) are currently unsuitable for construction vehicles and will require agreement with private residential landowners. The removal of a substantial amount of traffic calming and on-street parking will be required to enable access and egress. Access routes run through a residential home zone area along narrow roads. Routes to/from the TLRN (A2) also pass over a bascule bridge and under a rail bridge with height restriction of 4.8m.
Appendix 9 Page 1
Transport Site considerations CSO site Comments side of Glaisher Street, and the route runs over a bascule bridge on Creek Road and under a rail bridge which has a height restriction of 4.8m. There are no visible restrictions on the bascule bridge; however, the bridge takes a long time to open/close, which may cause operational problems. Route to the A2 (TLRN strategic highway network) from the egress uses Deptford Green, Stowage and Gonson Street. The route follows on to Creek Road (A200) westbound, and then southbound along Deptford Church Street (A2209). This route encounters a number of constraints, mostly on Deptford Green, which is a home zone (featuring raised tables, shared space, play areas and on-street parking). Stowage also has a narrow carriageway and contains on-street parking. The route passes over a bascule bridge on Creek Road and under a rail bridge which has a height restriction of 4.8m. Visibility appears to be adequate from the egress, which is onto the end of the road. Some on-street parking may require removal to enable access to the TLRN (A2). Distance to and from the TLRN (A2) is 1.4km. A preliminary transport access plan is attached as Appendix 5. Site located in river, although river access not essential as excavated material to be transported by road to main site. Mitigation required and conclusions
Access to river
River access not essential as excavated material will be transported by road to a main site.
Appendix 9 Page 2
Transport Site considerations Access to rail CSO site Comments Use of rail is unlikely to be feasible due to the small quantities of excavated material produced by a CSO site. Route to East London Line Depot uses the same route to Creek Road (A200) as used to access the TLRN (A2) and therefore encounters the same constraints. The route continues westbound onto Evelyn Street and follows on to Abinger Grove, Arklow Road, and then passes under a rail bridge (which has a width restriction of 7 and a height restriction of 13). The route continues along Edward Street (speed humps), under another rail bridge (with a height restriction of 12 3) and then along Milton Court Road, which is traffic calmed (speed humps). Route runs through several residential areas and requires the removal of the traffic calming (speed humps and raised tables) along the route. Route from rail to access point is via Milton Court Road, Edward Street, Arklow Rd, Abinger Grove, Evelyn Street, Creek Road, Hamilton Crescent and Glaisher Street. The route contains similar constraints in the form of on-street parking, two rail bridges with height restrictions (one of which also has width restrictions), on-street parking on Arklow Road, and traffic calming (speed humps) along Edward Street and Milton Court Road. The East London Line Depot has the potential to be used during the day, although significant use constraints and issues with loading would exist. Distance 2.1km to/from the rail access point. Mitigation required and conclusions Use of rail is unlikely to be feasible due to the small quantities of excavated material produced by a CSO site. Routes to and from potential rail link at the East London Line Depot (if required) are heavily constrained and less suitable. Routes run through a private residential estate, under two bridges with height and width restrictions, as well as through a non-private residential area. On-street parking, raised tables, speed humps and home zone features will require removal to enable construction vehicles to use the routes. The East London Line has the potential to be used during the day; however significant use constraints and issues with loading would exist.
Appendix 9 Page 3
Transport Site considerations Parking CSO site Comments Limited parking could be potentially provided on site for workforce. On-street parking within close proximity to the site is unavailable as for permit holders only. Additional workforce parking may need to be provided. Some on-street parking bays will require removal to enable construction vehicles to access the TLRN (A2). PTAL 5-6 (high), as identified within Table 2.3. Construction of site access and egress with an access road linking the slipway with Deptford Green. Diversion of Thames Path required. Removal of on-street parking, traffic calming (speed humps and raised tables) as well as other home zone features to enable construction vehicles access to the TLRN (A2) and rail access point (if required). Mitigation required and conclusions Limited parking could potentially be provided on site for workforce and no parking is available within close proximity to the site. Additional workforce parking may need to be provided. Some on-street parking bays will require removal to enable construction vehicles to access the TLRN (A2). Good potential for workforce to utilise public transport to access the site. Site access, egress and access road require construction. Thames Path requires diverting and on-street parking, traffic calming and home zone features require removal.
Public transport accessibility Traffic management
Appendix 9 Page 4
Transport Site considerations CSO site Comments Mitigation required and conclusions
Summary: This is less suitable as CSO site. New site access and egress points would require construction, along with an access road linking the egress to the slipway, and the Thames Path would require diversion. Access via Glaisher Street or from Borthwick Street would be between the AHOY Centre and the high-rise residential buildings. Both routes are restricted and Glaisher Street is an unadopted private road. Routes to/from the TLRN (A2) are less suitable as they would pass through a home zone, which is heavily traffic calmed and contains on-street parking. Routes to the TLRN would also pass underneath a height restricted rail bridge. Use of rail is unlikely to be required as CSO sites produce only relatively small quantities of excavated material. The potential route to the rail link at the East London Line Depot is less suitable, and heavily constrained with additional traffic calming and height restrictions to those encountered along the route to the TLRN (A2). River access is not essential for a CSO site as excavated material is likely to be transported away by road, which is also difficult. Limited parking is to be provided on site for workforce but no alternative on-street parking is available within close proximity to the site due to permit holder restrictions. Additional workforce parking may therefore need to be provided. The potential for workforce to utilise public transport to access the site is high. An agreement with landowners of the private residential estate on private land to the south would be required for construction vehicles to pass through the home zone, and temporary traffic management would be required to remove the home zone features and on-street parking to enable construction vehicles to access the TLRN (A2) (and rail point if required).
Appendix 9 Page 5
Site suitability report C32XA Appendix 9 Archaeology Site considerations Designations, including archaeological priority areas Summary of historical uses CSO site Comments The site is located within the Greenwich Archaeological Priority Area (APAS) Mitigation required and conclusions Not applicable
The 19th century OS maps indicate the site to be A detailed desk-based assessment is required to located on the Thames Foreshore. The 1st edition sufficiently understand the archaeological resource OS (1868) shows a large foundry and engineering and define risk to potential development. works to the southwest of the site. By the 1950s, this had changed use to a timber packing case works. No archaeological receptors of high value are recorded within the site. This does not preclude the possibility of unrecorded archaeological receptors of high value being within the site. No archaeological receptors of Medium value are recorded within the site. This does not preclude the possibility of unrecorded archaeological receptors of Medium value being within the site. A detailed desk-based assessment is required to sufficiently understand the archaeological resource and define risk to potential development.
Potential receptors of very high or high value with the potential to be directly affected Potential receptors of medium value with the potential to be directly affected Other receptors with the potential to be directly affected
A detailed desk based assessment is required to sufficiently understand the archaeological resource and define risk to potential development.
Construction impact of potential waterlogged A detailed desk-based assessment is required to deposits containing archaeological remains may sufficiently understand the archaeological resource cause dewatering. This potential impact should be and define risk to potential development. considered, given the sites close proximity to the Thames River.
Appendix 9 Page 6
Site suitability report C32XA Appendix 9 Archaeology Site considerations Extent of existing disturbance CSO site Comments Construction impact of previous development for the works to the southwest may have disturbed earlier remains but the majority of the site appears to have remained undeveloped. Borehole data in the area suggests made ground of 4m of which could be archaeological in nature. Detailed design proposals and an outline method statement will be required to enable initial assessment of development impacts, and to inform mitigation proposals. With the information currently available, it is not possible to highlight specific potential issues. Mitigation required and conclusions A detailed desk-based assessment is required to sufficiently understand the archaeological resource and define risk to potential development.
Potential issues
Mitigation methods could include: Review/production of existing desk-based assessments Production of deposits model Archaeological monitoring of geotechnical investigations Archaeological evaluation Archaeological watching brief Archaeological excavation.
Summary
On the basis of the current information available, the site is considered to be suitable as a CSO site. Although the information currently available does not indicate that any archaeological receptors are present, it is possible that archaeological receptors of high or medium value may be present. While no direct evidence has been revealed, peat deposits containing archaeological material may be present at depth. These have been commonly recorded throughout London in a similar proximity to the Thames. Given the location of the site, and wider evidence for historical occupation along the river, it is a reasonable assumption to suggest waterlogged remains of archaeological value may be present.
Appendix 9 Page 7
Site suitability report C32XA Appendix 9 Built heritage and townscape Site considerations Designations including conservation areas, including trees CSO site Comments Listed buildings Office building, Convoys Wharf, Grade II: 145m Cast iron bollard with Watergate Street, Grade II: 120m Boundary wall to Convoys wharf, Grade II: 130m Master shipwrights apartment, Convoys wharf, Grade II: 140m Paynes Wharf, Grade II: 50m Locally listed buildings There are no locally listed buildings within 250m of the site. Conservation areas There are no conservation areas within 250m of the site. Registered historic parks and gardens There are no registered historic parks and gardens within 250m of the site. Locally listed parks and gardens There are no locally listed parks and gardens within 250m of the site. Protected views Greenwich Park: 35m (as designated in the London Views Management Framework) Mitigation required and conclusions In the case of listed buildings and protected views, a high-quality scheme design and adequate screening for the development may be required, as discussed below. A detailed desk-based assessment in conjunction with archaeology work will be required to further inform the likely impact of the development and to determine more detailed mitigation proposals. On the basis of currently available information (August 2009), mitigation will not be applicable in the case of conservation areas, registered historic parks and gardens, locally listed parks and gardens, and locally listed buildings.
Appendix 9 Page 8
Site suitability report C32XA Appendix 9 Built heritage and townscape Site considerations Potential receptors of medium to very high importance with the potential to be directly affected Other receptors of lesser importance with the potential to be directly affected Potential receptors of medium to very high importance with the potential to be indirectly affected Not applicable CSO site Comments Mitigation required and conclusions Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
There is the potential for five listed buildings and one protected view to be indirectly affected by construction and operation of the development, especially during construction.
Of the five listed buildings within 250m of the site, only the Grade II listed Paynes Wharf shares a visual relationship with the site and therefore has the potential for its setting to be affected by construction and operation of the development. Mitigation in the form of a high-quality scheme design and/or screening may be required to reduce any adverse visual effectson these listed structures. The remaining four listed buildings fall outside of the visual envelope of the site, reflecting the built character of the local area. Consequently, no impact on these listed buildings is anticipated as a result of construction and operation of the development, and therefore no mitigation would be required. Greenwich Park protected view is located outside
Appendix 9 Page 9
Site suitability report C32XA Appendix 9 Built heritage and townscape Site considerations CSO site Comments Mitigation required and conclusions of the site and is therefore unlikely to be affected by the proposals, and therefore would not require any mitigation. Not applicable
Other receptors of lesser importance with the potential to be indirectly affected Sensitive landscape character areas likely to be affected
Not applicable
Cycle network runs along the southern boundary of the site. Site is on the southern foreshore of the River Thames. River Thames to the north, with residential development along Maritime Quay and Blasker Walk on the north bank, River Thames to the east, electrical substation and residential development along Glaisher Street on the south bank, with residential development further south, industrial development along the bank to the east with a mix of industrial and residential development further east. The presence and operation of machinery, materials stores, buildings and potential barge access would potentially result in temporary, severe adverse direct impacts on the character of the river and its foreshore, and temporary adverse indirect impacts on neighbouring areas. The
Introduction of landscape scheme to include appropriate surface treatments and planting along the south river frontage. This site is less suitable since the proposals would potentially have an adverse impact on the character of the river, its frontage, and the adjacent and surrounding residential character.
Appendix 9 Page 10
Site suitability report C32XA Appendix 9 Built heritage and townscape Site considerations CSO site Comments potential jetties on the river for barge access would potentially result in a severe adverse impact on the character of the river, its foreshore and frontage. Permanent elements would potentially result in an adverse impact on the character of the river, its foreshore, and the residential character on its frontage. Site southwest of a strategic view. Open views from the river, residential properties along the north bank, Blasker Walk, and Amundsen Court on the north shore, Glaisher Street, Stretton Mansions, wharves of industrial development to the northwest. Interrupted views from Deptford Green, Borthwick Street, Clarence Road and Thames Street. During construction, views of cranes from properties listed above, Deptford Park, Pepys Park, Millwall Park, Mudchute Park, Fordham Park and Greenwich Park. Permanent elements mainly visible from the river, its frontages in the vicinity, Stretton Mansions, Glaisher Street and Blasker Walk. Mitigation required and conclusions
Potential views likely to be affected
During construction, the use of hoardings and appropriate lighting would minimise visual impacts at least from the street level and lower floors of Stretton Mansions. Design of top structure, vent column, and electrical kiosk to be given careful consideration. Planting to screen permanent plant. Integrated landscape scheme along the south bank of river to enhance visual amenity and reduce visual impact. This site is less suitable, since it would affect the visual amenity of the river, its frontages and the residential properties along the frontage. Mitigation listed above is unlikely to completely prevent permanent visual impact on the river.
Appendix 9 Page 11
Site suitability report C32XA Appendix 9 Built heritage and townscape Site considerations Particular considerations on sites where new permanent structures are required CSO site Comments Permanent structures at site C32XA have the potential to indirectly impact on the Grade II listed Paynes Wharf and on the visual amenity of the river, its frontages and the residential properties during both construction and operation. Consequently, careful consideration would need to be given to the appearance of any above-ground structures in the scheme design, and some form of screening and landscaping for the site may be required. Construction and operation of the development could potentially result in an indirect impact on one listed building, the visual amenity of the river and local views. There is the potential to mitigate against adverse impacts through a high-quality scheme design and/or screening and landscaping. Mitigation required and conclusions Any permanent structures would need to be of a high-quality design and/or screened and landscaped in order that any indirect impacts on the Grade II Paynes Wharf building, the local townscape character and local views can be mitigated against.
Potential issues
The scheme design would need to be of a sufficiently high quality and may need to incorporate some screening and landscaping in order that the potential visual impact of the development on the Grade II listed Paynes Wharf and the visual amenity of the Thames and local views is minimised.
Summary: On the basis of the information currently available, this site is considered to be suitable as a CSO site in relation to built heritage as the site is likely to result in relatively few impacts on the built heritage environment. The site has the potential to indirectly impact on the Grade II listed Paynes Wharf, although this is likely to be mitigated through a high-quality scheme design and/or screening and landscaping. From a townscape perspective, the site is considered less suitable as a CSO site as there is the potential for impacts on the character of the river, its frontages and local views. Mitigation in the form of a high-quality scheme design, screening and landscaping of the site, especially during construction, would help to reduce any adverse impacts and would have the potential to enhance the local townscape character, although further study would be necessary to determine the likely impacts.
Appendix 9 Page 12
Site suitability report C32XA Appendix 9 Water resources hydrogeology and surface water Site considerations Hydrological conditions (groundwater and surface water) From BGS Geological Model, giving average ground condition profile. Local near surface conditions may vary, particularly within the river. CSO site Comments Geology (thickness) Superficial geology and made ground (4m) Lambeth Group (1m) Thanet Sand (13m) Chalk (to beyond the depth of shaft) Hydrogeology Piezometric level in Chalk aquifer: ~ -7mAOD (~7mbgl) from EA Jan 08 water level contouring Groundwater monitoring location EA hydrometry sites: TQ37-268 1.54km northwest of the site (water levels to Nov 2007) TQ37-254A, BL, BU 845m southeast of the site (water levels to May 2009) Watercourses Within the River Thames Source protection zones (SPZ) and groundwater users SPZ Not located in a source protection zone defined by EA A simple volumetric approach has been used to calculate the 400 days travel times of the abstraction borehole. A conservative mean annual recharge of 100mm/year was used to calculate a radius for licensed abstraction Mitigation required and conclusions The drop shaft will be constructed to an invert level of approximately 50.51mbgl, therefore the shaft will be founded in the Chalk. Piezometric head(1) in Chalk will be approximately 43.51m above the base of the construction. Therefore, dewatering would be required and should be considered as part of geotechnical design.
Appendix 9 Page 13
Site suitability report C32XA Appendix 9 Water resources hydrogeology and surface water Site considerations CSO site Comments EA licensed groundwater abstractions and details One public water supply borehole within 2km radius Licence numbers: 28/39/43/0019 (12 boreholes) Location 1.47km south of the site Operator Thames Water Utilities Ltd. Abstracted aquifer Chalk Abstraction quantity (annual) 12,775,000m3 Five licensed abstraction borehole within 2km radius Licence numbers: 1. 28/39/39/0234 (1 borehole) 2. 28/39/42/0073 (2 boreholes) Mitigation required and conclusions boreholes as follows: Public water supply abstraction borehole Defined by EA Licensed abstraction boreholes 1. 250m 2. 203m 3. 126m 4. 199m The shaft is not located within any of these catchment areas.
Appendix 9 Page 14
Site suitability report C32XA Appendix 9 Water resources hydrogeology and surface water Site considerations CSO site Comments 3. 28/39/44/0039 (1 borehole) 4. 28/39/44/0047 ( 1 borehole) Locations: 1. 1.88km north of the site 2. 1.97km northwest of the site 3. 1.19km southeast of the site 4. 2km northeast of the site Operator: 1. Britannia Hotels Limited 2. Harmsworth Quays Printing Limited 3. Trustees of National Maritime Museum 4. Hanson Quarry Prod Europe Ltd Abstracted aquifer unit: 1. Chalk 2. Chalk 3. Chalk 4. Chalk Abstraction purposes: 1. Industrial, commercial and public services (hotels, Mitigation required and conclusions
Appendix 9 Page 15
Site suitability report C32XA Appendix 9 Water resources hydrogeology and surface water Site considerations CSO site Comments public houses and conference centres drinking, cooking, sanitary, washing) 2. Industrial, commercial and public services (paper and printing process water and drinking, cooking, sanitary, washing) 3. Private water supply (general use) 4. Industrial, commercial and public services (mineral products process water) Abstraction quantity (annual): 1. 78,840m3 2. 52,000m3 3. 20,000m3 4. 50,000m3 Unlicensed groundwater abstractions and details No abstraction borehole within 1km radius inside Tower Hamlet council boundary No abstraction borehole within 1km radius inside Lewisham council boundary No abstraction borehole within 1km radius inside Greenwich council boundary Mitigation required and conclusions
Appendix 9 Page 16
Site suitability report C32XA Appendix 9 Water resources hydrogeology and surface water Site considerations Borehole locations and depths Potential impacts on surface water features Potential impacts on groundwater (resources and quality) CSO site Comments There are 14 historical records of water wells within 1km radius. Depth range: 6.09 201.78m There is a direct pathway to the Thames due to the work being undertaken on the foreshore. An impact on groundwater is likely since the drop shaft is to be constructed in Chalk (major aquifer) overlain by Thanet Sand (minor aquifer), which will need to be dewatered. At shallow depth, the shaft is located in alluvium, which is classified as a minor aquifer. Impact on shallow aquifer is likely to be limited where water is excluded from the excavation by sheet piling. No mitigation is likely to be required for groundwater as construction of drop shaft will not take place within the 400-day capture zone of licensed abstractions. The drop shaft is to be excavated in Chalk below the piezometric head, therefore dewatering of the Chalk and Thanet Sand would be required. Limited impact on flow in shallow aquifer due to sheet piling. Mitigation required and conclusions Not applicable
Work needs to be undertaken in accordance with current guidelines. See below (likely types of mitigation measures that will be required)
Likely types of mitigation measures that will be required Potential issues
Not applicable
Piezometric head in Chalk to be considered as part of geotechnical design. The issue of the appropriate disposal of discharges from dewatering to be considered.
Appendix 9 Page 17
Site suitability report C32XA Appendix 9 Water resources hydrogeology and surface water Site considerations CSO site Comments Mitigation required and conclusions
Summary: In terms of hydrogeology, the site is suitable as a CSO site because although the construction of the drop shaft would take place within Chalk (major aquifer), the site does not lie within 400-day capture zones of licensed abstractions and no long-term impact on the Chalk aquifer is expected. Dewatering of the Chalk and Thanet Sand would be required during the construction phase. The Chalk piezometric head is likely to be approximately 44m above the base of construction and should be taken into account in the engineering design. The superficial deposits at the location of the CSO site comprise alluvium, classified as a minor aquifer, which is likely to be the subject of limited impacts on flow due to sheet piling. In terms of surface water resources, this site is less suitable as a CSO site because the work would be undertaken within the channel of the River Thames, and specific mitigation would be required to prevent pollution.
Appendix 9 Page 18
Ecology (terrestrial and aquatic) Site considerations Statutory designations CSO site Comments Mitigation required and conclusions Sue Godfrey Nature Park LNR is within 500m of this None required site. Brookmill Road LNR and Mudchute Park Farm LNR are within 2km. Site is located within River Thames and Tidal Tributaries SMI CSO site is within 100m of Twinkle Park site of local importance for nature conservation. Any constructions or working methods affecting the Thames, particularly above-ground features of a permanent nature but also temporary or buried works, will require compensatory habitat provision. There may also be post-works restoration required. None required Any loss (particularly permanent loss) of mudflat will require compensatory habitat provision. This may involve an offsite solution which may affect feasibility. There may also be arduous post-works restoration required. Any buried constructions in the Thames will require careful habitat restoration and careful working methods.
Non-statutory designated wildlife sites
BAP priority habitats
Foreshore consists of BAP habitat mudflats. The Thames Tideway is a London BAP habitat.
Appendix 9 Page 19
Site suitability report C32XA Appendix 9 Ecology (terrestrial and aquatic) Site considerations Protected or otherwise notable species within the study area CSO site Comments Foreshore may support uncommon aquatic invertebrate species. This stretch of the Thames supports the only known spawning area for sand-smelt in the Tideway. There may be suitable habitat present adjacent to this site to support breeding black redstart. Mitigation required and conclusions Detailed negotiations may be required with the EA for the placement of structures (particularly permanent ones) in this location. Any constructions or dewatering in the Thames is likely to require detailed aquatic invertebrate and fish investigation. There may be seasonal restrictions on works, such as piling (avoiding March April spawning period). If black redstarts were shown to be present adjacent to this site, working practices would need to avoid disturbance. This might involve screening to reduce visual or noise impact. Consideration needs to be given to the cumulative impacts on hydrodynamics, with reference to known critical flow velocities for fish. Not considered significant at a site specific level.
Potential issues
The cumulative impact of all jetties and other above-ground structures proposed within the Thames may increase flow velocity in the river, with effects on juvenile migratory fish. However, other structures present in the Thames in this stretch reduce the likely impact of new structures.
Summary: Overall, and on the basis of the current information available, the site is considered to be less suitable for a CSO site, due to the requirement for temporary and permanent land-take from the River Thames. There may also be a need offsite mitigation/compensation solutions, as well as potentially extensive post-works restoration requirements. However, structures already present in this part of the Thames will reduce the likely impact of additional structures.
Appendix 9 Page 20
Site suitability report C32XA Appendix 9 Flood risk assessment Site considerations Flood risk zone CSO site Comments Site is located in the River Channel Flood Zone 3b, functional flood plain. Mitigation required and conclusions The site will be developed with a cofferdam and should be protected to the one in 200-year tidal return period as a minimum. An evacuation plan will be required for this site in the event the dam is breached. Mitigation may also be required for the impact of displacement of flood water as a result of defending the site on the foreshore. The impact of such a physical construction (the cofferdam) would also have to be assessed for the impact of sediment erosion on the integrity of the defences. Not applicable No further issues identified
Assessment of conditions for SUDS Potential issues
Not suitable for SUDS due to location within the Thames. No further issues identified
Summary: This site is less suitable as a CSO site owing to the location in the river, which will require specific mitigation to protect it from flood levels, and the potential to cause displacement which could increase flood risk elsewhere in the local vicinity.
Appendix 9 Page 21
Site suitability report C32XA Appendix 9 Air quality Site considerations Existing air quality Sensitive receptors CSO site Comments The air quality objectives for NO2 exceeded on major roads in vicinity of site. There are residential properties along Evelyn Street/Creek Road (A200) and the access route to the site. The nearest residential properties are within 30m of the site on Glaister Street. The main traffic issue in this area is exhaust emissions from vehicles along the A200 corridor. See above Mitigation required and conclusions There is a need for more site specific data. There are relevant air quality sensitive receptors present along the route the construction traffic is likely to take and close to the proposed construction works. Additional vehicle emissions have a moderate potential to interfere with local air quality action plan policies. See above
Existing traffic issues
Existing sources of significant air pollutants
Notable gaps in existing There is no data at likely access to A200 and the Collect a minimum of six months diffusion tube air quality monitoring nearest existing data indicates existing exceedance data at site access to the A200 or other point of of AQLV. access to major road network. Potential issues The risk from additional exhaust emissions from construction HGVs is undefined at present. The risk from dust impacts at residential properties is moderate. Minimise HGV movements on the local road network during the peak hour. Standard dust control measures will minimise the effect of fugitive dust on nearby sensitive receptors.
Summary: This site is considered less suitable for use as a CSO site as there are residential properties in close proximity to the site and there is potential for fugitive emissions of dust during construction to have a perceptible impact at these properties. These impacts can be reduced with standard dust control measures. There is potential for HGV movements on the local road network to cause localised air quality impacts in areas of already poor air quality. This can be somewhat mitigated by minimising the movement of HGVs during peak hours.
Appendix 9 Page 22
Noise Site considerations Noise band level (from Defra noise maps) CSO site Comments Mitigation required and conclusions Information from Defra noise maps indicates daytime noise Not applicable levels of less than 58dB LAeq and night-time noise levels of less than 50dB LAeq at the nearest residential properties located to the site. The residential properties closest to and facing the site are likely to experience relatively low daytime and night-time noise levels due to their distance from any major roads. Noise levels from the Defra noise maps provide an indication of prevailing noise levels only, and will not be employed in any detailed assessments for chosen sites. There are sensitive receptors close to the south-eastern and south-western boundaries of the site. The closest receptors are located at Stretton Mansions on Hamilton Cresent to the southeast of the site. Further residential properties are located at Hughes House on Deptford Green to the south of the site. Sensitive receptors at Stretton Mansions located to the southeast consist of seven-storey residential flats. These are located approximately 15m from the temporary working area and 25m from the shaft location. Properties at Hughes House to the south of the site consist of five-storey residential dwellings and are located approximately 85m from the temporary working area boundary and 95m from the shaft location. Not applicable
Sensitive receptors
Appendix 9 Page 23
Site suitability report C32XA Appendix 9 Noise Site considerations Existing traffic issues CSO site Comments Road traffic on local roads, including distant road traffic on the A220 to the south, will contribute to the existing noise climate in the area. Road traffic on local roads, including distant road traffic on the A220 to the south, will contribute to the existing noise climate in the area. There are no railways or significant industrial noise sources noted in the immediate surrounding area. Construction: The construction period is estimated at two to four years and working hours will be 12 hours per day (7am-7pm), Monday to Saturday (less hours likely on a Saturday). This has the potential to result in adverse noise impacts to sensitive receptors surrounding the site. A relatively high number of HGV movements per day are anticipated. This has the potential to have an adverse impact on residential receptors located on Deptford Green. The immediate site area is fairly large and, while the shaft location may be fixed, ancillary plant should be sited as far as is practicable from surrounding sensitive receptors. Situating plant to the north or west of the site would maximise the distance between them and the nearest sensitive receptors, and minimise potential disturbance. Proposed 3m site boundary fencing will provide useful noise mitigation to some plant and construction activities. Mitigation required and conclusions Not applicable
Existing sources of significant noise emissions
Potential issues
Appendix 9 Page 24
Site suitability report C32XA Appendix 9 Noise Site considerations CSO site Comments Vibration resulting from general construction works is not anticipated to result in an adverse impact. The nearest receptors to the proposed shaft location are at a distance of approximately 25m, and it is unlikely that vibration levels will result in minor cosmetic damage during shaft sinking but may give rise to annoyance. Vibration from tunnelling should be considered on a case-by-case basis at particular sensitive locations. Operation: With appropriate attenuation (if necessary), there is no reason why noise from the ventilation column and top chamber should result in adverse noise impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. Mitigation required and conclusions
Summary: Based on the information currently available, the site is considered to be less suitable as a CSO site due to the relatively short separation distances between the site and the closest sensitive receptors, including residential properties and along the transport route to the site. The number of vehicles associated with the construction phase is anticipated to be relatively high, and the access route (through residential streets) has the potential to cause disturbance to properties lining those streets. Vibration levels from shaft sinking may give rise to human annoyance at nearby sensitive properties. Perimeter hoarding will reduce potential noise impact but is likely to be relatively ineffective at shielding noise from the upper floor properties at Stretton Mansions and Hughes House.
Appendix 9 Page 25
Land quality Site considerations Site location Current site use Topography Field evidence of contamination (ie, visual/olfactory) Current surrounding land use (immediately adjacent to site) Grid reference: 537415, 178072 River foreshore High tide at time of visit, so site was not visible. Embankment and foreshore assumed to slope inwards to centre of river None identified at this stage CSO site
North: River Thames Southeast: Blocks of flats (6-7 storeys) Southwest: AHOY Centre yacht club, Electricity substation West: River/foreshore and electricity substation
Geological and hydrogeological information Geological strata3 Superficial geology and made ground (4m) Lambeth Group (1m) Thanet Sand (13m) Chalk (to beyond the depth of shaft)
Underlying aquifer classes (Major/Minor/ Non-aquifer)
Non-aquifer: London Clay Minor aquifer: River terrace deposits, Lambeth Group, Thanet Sand Major aquifer: Chalk
Appendix 9 Page 26
Land quality Site considerations Groundwater vulnerability/Soil classification (High/Intermediate/ Low/Not applicable)1 Source protection zone details Surface water receptors Site history information and historical potentially contaminating activities River terrace deposits minor aquifer High leaching potential of soils (U)1 CSO site
Not located in a source protection zone defined by EA River Thames (directly adjacent to the site)
Relevant information within a 250m radius of the site On site Historical maps show the sites land use has remained largely unchanged. The site is located on sand and shingle adjacent to the River Thames and below the mean high water level from 1862 onwards. Off site Drawing dock (directly adjacent to site) 1862 Wharf operations transport support and cargo handling (directly adjacent to site, south) 1862-1909 The AHOY Centre (9m south) present Sawmilling, planning and impregnation treatment of timber (directly adjacent to site, south) 1920-1949 Foundry and engineering works (directly adjacent to site, south) 1862-1896 Tin box and packing case works (directly adjacent to site, south) 1909-1948 Deptford power stations (47m south) 1949-1976 Power station (directly adjacent to site, southeast) 1947- 1972
Appendix 9 Page 27
Land quality Site considerations CSO site Numerous electrical substations (closest located 7m south) 1949 present Transport manufacture and repair (closest located directly adjacent to site, south) 1882-1919 Factory/works use not specified (5m south) 1938-1949 Transformers (13m south) 1947 Dry dock (13m southeast) 1862-1909 Foundry (70m south) 1862-1909 Numerous tanks contents unknown, potentially fuel related (closest located 12m south) 1943-1971 Historical building plans listing gas industry (closest located 49m southeast) 1943-1967 Graving dock (45m southeast) 1862-1909 Borthwick Wharf (7m south) 1947-present Historical building plans listing oil storage (107m southeast) 1930-1967 Floor cloth works (164m south) 1862 Marine boiler works (54m west) 1862-1896 Deptford Green dockyard iron shipbuilding (162m south) 1862 Paynes Wharf (54m west) 1947 present Deptford power stations (154m southeast) 1947-1976 Patent fuel companys wharf (177m southeast) 1862 Stowage wharf (201m southeast) 1896-1909 Fuel station (235m southeast) present Engineering works (238m southeast) 1909-1947 Sawing and desiccating works (177m southeast) 1909 general steam navigation companys works (244m southeast) 1862-1896
Appendix 9 Page 28
Land quality Site considerations Pollution incidents to controlled waters CSO site Two: Unknown sewage, minor incident (177m northeast) Oils, unknown, minor incident (198m southeast) None None None
Landfill sites Other waste sites Registered radioactive substances Fuel stations/depots Contemporary trade entries
None No data
Site classification based on above information Activity Potential site contaminants derived from surface sources (eg, contaminants in made ground) Potential site contaminants derived from offsite sources and transported to site 1) Not applicable as site located on banks of river and within river development Distance and direction to site 1) Not applicable as site located on banks of and within river Contaminants 1) Not applicable as site located on banks of and within river
1) Foundry and engineering works 2) Tin box works 3) Power stations
1) Directly adjacent to site, south 2) Directly adjacent to site, south
1) Metals, TPH, PAHs, PCBs, solvents 2) Metals, TPH, PAHs
3) Closest located directly adjacent to site, south
3) Metals, TPH, PAHs, PCBs
Appendix 9 Page 29
Land quality Site considerations 4) Sawmilling, planning and impregnation 5) Transport manufacture and repair 6) Factory/works use not specified 7) Dock/wharf operations (transport support and cargo handling) 8) Electrical substation 9) Tanks contents unknown 10) Gas industry Identified sourcepathway-receptor risk assessment at CSO construction stage (Conceptual Site Model)2 Contamination category Source 1: A1, A2, A3, B4 Source 2: D6, E1, F7 CSO site 4) Directly adjacent to site, south 5) Closest located directly adjacent to site, south and west 6) Closest located directly adjacent to site, southeast 7) Closest located directly adjacent to site, south 8) Closest located 7m south 9) Metals, TPH, PAHs, solvents 9) Closest located 12m south 10) Closest located 49m southeast 10) Metals, TPH, PAHs, phenols, sulphates, cyanides 4) Metals, TPH, PAHs 5) Metals, TPH, PAHs
6) Metals, TPH, PAHs
7) Metals, TPH, PAHs 8) PCBs
Category 2 assessed as moderate risk
Appendix 9 Page 30
Land quality Site considerations CSO site
Summary: The site is considered to be less suitable as a CSO site, based on the moderate potential for contamination of the site to have occurred, specifically from foundry operations, as well as wharf operations, fuel tanks, and power station in the near vicinity of the site. If contamination is present, it may have the potential to impact on site workers and adjacent human receptors through direct contact exposure pathways and, to a lesser extent, volatilisation. Additionally, the potential exists for contaminants to be drawn to the deeper Chalk aquifer and for migration to surface water receptors to occur through shallow groundwater transport. Notes: 1. Soil information for urban areas is based on fewer observations than elsewhere in the country. Therefore, a worst case vulnerability (H) is assumed until proven otherwise. 2. Refer to schematic Conceptual Site Model for explanation of site-specific source-pathway-receptors. 3. From BGS Geological Model, giving average ground condition profile. Local near surface conditions may vary, particularly within the river.
Appendix 9 Page 31
Contacts
For information about the Thames Tideway Tunnel Call: 0800 0721 086 Lines are open 24 hours a day Visit: www.thamestidewaytunnel.co.uk Email: info@tidewaytunnels.co.uk For our language interpretation service call 0800 0721 086
For information in Braille or large print call 0800 0721 086

For information about acceptance of our application and the examination process please contact the Planning Inspectorate. Call: 0303 444 5000 Visit: http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk

Site Suitability Report C32XA: Borthwick Wharf Foreshore

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Site Suitability Report C32XA: Borthwick Wharf Foreshore

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Autumn 2011

Site suitability report C32XA

110-RG-PNC-C32XA-000606 | Autumn 2011

Site suitability report C32XA

Site suitability report C32XA Borthwick Wharf Foreshore

Thames Tunnel Site suitability report C32XA

Site information ................................................................................................ 2 2.1 2.2

Engineering assessment ................................................................................. 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4

Planning assessment ...................................................................................... 7 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4

Site suitability report C32XA Borthwick Wharf Foreshore

Socio-economic and community assessment............................................. 13

Property assessment ..................................................................................... 14

Site conclusions by discipline ...................................................................... 17

Site suitability report C32XA Borthwick Wharf Foreshore

Site suitability report C32XA Borthwick Wharf Foreshore

TLRN TPA UDP UXO

Site suitability report C32XA Borthwick Wharf Foreshore

Site suitability report C32XA

Introduction Purpose and structure of the report

Site suitability report C32XA Borthwick Wharf Foreshore

Site information Site and surroundings

Site suitability report C32XA Borthwick Wharf Foreshore

Site suitability report C32XA Borthwick Wharf Foreshore

Site suitability report C32XA

Proposed use of site construction phase

Proposed use of site operational phase Introduction

Site suitability report C32XA Borthwick Wharf Foreshore

Restoration and after-use

Engineering assessment Access

Site suitability report C32XA Borthwick Wharf Foreshore

Site suitability report C32XA

Construction works considerations

Site suitability report C32XA Borthwick Wharf Foreshore

Permanent works considerations

Health and safety

Planning assessment Introduction

Planning applications and permissions

Site suitability report C32XA Borthwick Wharf Foreshore

Site suitability report C32XA Borthwick Wharf Foreshore

Site suitability report C32XA Borthwick Wharf Foreshore

Environmental appraisal Introduction

Site suitability report C32XA Borthwick Wharf Foreshore

Built heritage and townscape

Water resources hydrogeology and surface water

Site suitability report C32XA Borthwick Wharf Foreshore

Site suitability report C32XA Borthwick Wharf Foreshore

Socio-economic and community assessment Introduction

Site suitability report C32XA Borthwick Wharf Foreshore

Issues and impacts

Property assessment Introduction

Site suitability report C32XA Borthwick Wharf Foreshore

Crown land and special land comments

Property valuation comments

Site suitability report C32XA Borthwick Wharf Foreshore

Disturbance compensation comments

Discretionary purchase costs comments

Offsite statutory compensation comments

Site acquisition cost assessment

Site suitability report C32XA Borthwick Wharf Foreshore

Site suitability report C32XA

Site conclusions by discipline Introduction

Site suitability report C32XA Borthwick Wharf Foreshore