PEIR Main Report Vol3-Alternatives

Preliminary environmental information report
Volume 3: Alternatives
Regulations 2 and 10 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009
Thames Tunnel
Phase two consultation documentation

General
Your guide to phase two consultation Why does London need the Thames Tunnel? Feedback form Equalities form Customer overview leaflet
Technical documents
Air management plan Book of plans Code of construction practice Part A: General requirements Consultation strategy and statement of community consultation Design development report Draft waste strategy Interim engagement report Needs Report Phase two scheme development report Preliminary environmental information report Report on phase one consultation Background technical paper Site selection methodology paper
Project information papers

Build Changes Consultation Design Environment Funding Managing construction Odour Options Overflow Regulatory framework Route and tunnel alignment Route to consent Settlement Site selection Timing Transport
Site information papers

Abbey Mills Pumping Station Acton Storm Tanks Albert Embankment Foreshore Barn Elms Beckton Sewage Treatment Works Bekesbourne Street Blackfriars Bridge Foreshore Carnwarth Road Riverside Chambers Wharf Chelsea Embankment Foreshore Cremorne Wharf Depot Deptford Chrurch Street Dormay Street Earl Pumping Station Falconbrook Pumping Station Greenwich Pumping Station Hammersmith Pumping Station Heathwall Pumping Station Jews Row King Edward Memorial Park Forehore King Georges Park Kirtling Street Other works Putney Bridge Foreshore Shad Thames Pumping Station Victoria Embankment Foreshore
Thames Tunn
Thames Tunnel Preliminary environmental information report

List of contents Non technical summary Part A: Preliminary project information Volume 1 Volume 2 Volume 3 Volume 4 Volume 5 Volume 6 Volume 7 Volume 8 Volume 9 Introduction Proposed development Alternatives (this document) Scoping Opinions and technical engagement Assessment methodology Project-wide assessment Acton Storm Tanks CSO interception and main tunnel reception site Hammersmith Pumping Station CSO interception site Barn Elms CSO interception site
Part B: Preliminary site information
Volume 10 Putney Bridge Foreshore CSO interception site Volume 11 Dormay Street CSO interception and connection tunnel sequential drive site Volume 12 King Georges Park CSO interception and connection tunnel reception site Volume 13 Carnwath Road Riverside main tunnel drive and reception, and connection tunnel reception site Volume 14 Falconbrook Pumping Station CSO interception site Volume 15 Cremorne Wharf Depot CSO interception site Volume 16 Chelsea Embankment Foreshore CSO interception site Volume 17 Kirtling Street main tunnel double drive site Volume 18 Heathwall Pumping Station CSO interception site Volume 19 Albert Embankment Foreshore CSO interception site Volume 20 Victoria Embankment Foreshore CSO interception site Volume 21 Blackfriars Bridge Foreshore CSO interception site Volume 22 Chambers Wharf main tunnel drive and reception and connection tunnel reception site Volume 23 King Edward Memorial Park CSO interception site Volume 24 Earl Pumping Station CSO interception site Volume 25 Deptford Church Street CSO interception site
Page i
Volume 26 Greenwich Pumping Station CSO interception and connection tunnel drive site Volume 27 Abbey Mills Pumping Station main tunnel reception site Volume 28 Beckton Sewage Treatment Works site
Page ii
Thames Tunnel Preliminary environmental information report Volume 3: Alternatives

List of contents
Page number
Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 1.2 1.3 Statutory requirements ............................................................................ 1 Content and structure .............................................................................. 2 Non-tunnel alternatives ............................................................................ 3 Storage tunnel options ............................................................................. 5 Ministerial approval.................................................................................. 9 Validation of Option 1c ............................................................................ 9 Introduction ............................................................................................ 14 Thames Tunnel alignments ................................................................... 14 Reasons for selection of the Abbey Mills route ...................................... 18 Introduction ............................................................................................ 24 Site selection ......................................................................................... 24 Drive strategy ........................................................................................ 25 Introduction ............................................................................................ 39 Acton Storm Relief ................................................................................. 39 Hammersmith Pumping Station ............................................................. 39 West Putney Storm Relief...................................................................... 40 Putney Bridge Storm Relief ................................................................... 40 Frogmore Storm Relief Bell Lane Creek ............................................. 41 Frogmore Storm Relief Buckhold Road .............................................. 41 Jews Row: Wandle Valley Storm Relief and Falconbrook Storm Relief 41 Falconbrook Pumping Station................................................................ 42 Lots Road Pumping Station ................................................................... 42 Ranelagh ............................................................................................... 42
Strategic alternatives ....................................................................................... 3 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4
Tunnel routes ................................................................................................. 14 3.1 3.2 3.3
Main tunnel construction sites and drive strategy...................................... 24 4.1 4.2 4.3
CSO sites ........................................................................................................ 39 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11
Page iii
5.12 5.13 5.14 5.15 5.16 5.17 5.18 5.19 5.20 5.21
Heathwall Pumping Station and South West Storm Relief .................... 42 Clapham Storm Relief and Brixton Storm Relief .................................... 43 Regent Street ........................................................................................ 43 Fleet Main .............................................................................................. 44 Shad Thames Pumping Station ............................................................. 44 North East Storm Relief ......................................................................... 44 Holloway Storm Relief ........................................................................... 45 Earl Pumping Station ............................................................................. 45 Deptford Storm Relief ............................................................................ 45 Greenwich Pumping Station .................................................................. 46
Glossary .................................................................................................................. 47 References .............................................................................................................. 62
Page iv
List of figures
Page number
Vol 3 Figure 3.2.1 Alternative alignments of Thames Tunnel .................................. 15 Vol 3 Figure 4.3.1 Main tunnel shaft zones.............................................................. 26 Vol 3 Figure 4.3.2 Main tunnel shaft zones for Comparison 1 ................................. 28 Vol 3 Figure 4.3.3 Main tunnel shaft zones for Comparison 2 ................................. 30 Vol 3 Figure 4.3.4 Main tunnel sites Comparison 3, Option A1 ............................... 33 Vol 3 Figure 4.3.5 Main tunnel sites Comparison 3, Option A2 ............................... 33 Vol 3 Figure 4.3.6 Main tunnel sites Comparison 3, Option B ................................. 35 Vol 3 Figure 4.3.7 Main tunnel sites Comparison 3, Option C ................................. 36 List of tables Page number Vol 3 Table 2.2.1 Summary assessment of options December 2006 ........................ 8 Vol 3 Table 2.4.1 Advantages and disadvantages of options .................................. 10 Vol 3 Table 2.4.2 Summary of main options and estimated costs ........................... 12 Vol 3 Table 3.2.1 Key aspects of the three tunnel alignment alternatives ............... 17
Page v
List of abbreviations AADT ACE AM AOD APZ AQEG AQMA AQO ARS ASR ASSI ATC ATD AURN BAP BGS BMWP BOD BPIP BPM BS CABE CAMS CCI CCSS CCTV CDA CEMP CIRIA CLR CoCP CoPA CROW CSO Annual Average Daily Traffic Arts Culture and Entertainment Morning Above Ordnance Datum Archaeological Priority Zone Air Quality Expert Group Air Quality Management Area Air Quality Objective Artificial Recharge Scheme Aquifer Storage and Recovery Area of Special Scientific Interest Automated Traffic Counter Above Tunnel Datum (defined at ~100m AOD) Automatic Urban and Rural Network Biodiversity Action Plan British Geological Survey Biological Monitoring Working Party Biochemical Oxygen Demand Building Profile Input Programme Best Practicable Means British Standard Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy Community Conservation Index Community Consultation Strategy Closed Circuit Television Critical Drainage Area Construction Environment Management Programmes Construction Industry Research and Information Association Contaminated Land Report Code of Construction Practice Control of Pollution Act Countryside and Rights of Way Combined Sewer Overflow
Page vi
dB dB LAeq,T
Decibel a equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level having the same energy as a fluctuating sound over a specified time period T Department for Culture, Media and Sport Development Consent Order Department for Communities and Local Government Department for Culture media and Sport Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Department for Transport Development Management Plan Development Management Policies Document Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Dissolved Oxygen Development Plan Document Digital Terrain Mapping Environment Agency European Commission Ecological Impact Assessment Estimated Vibration Dose Value European Economic Area Environment Food and Rural Affairs Committee English Heritage Environmental Health Officer Environmental Impact Assessment European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme English Nature Environment Protection Agency Earth Pressure Balance Earth Pressure Balance Machine Equality Impact Assessment Environmental Quality Standard Environmental Statement European Union Frequently Asked Questions Frequency, Intensity, Duration, Offensiveness, Receptor
Page vii
DCMS DCO DCLG DCMS Defra DfT DMP DMPD DMRB DO DPD DTM EA EC EcIA eVDV EEA EFRA EH EHO EIA EMEP EN EPA EPB EPBM EqIA EQS ES EU FAQ FIDOR
FRA GARDIT GI GiGL GIS GLA GLHER GQA GSHP GWB GWMU H2S ha HA HDV HEA HER HGV HIA HIAB HPA HQ HRA HTC HWR IEEM IEMA IMD IPC Iron Age JNCC kg km kVA
Flood Risk Assessment General Aquifer Research Development and Investigation Team Ground Investigation Greenspace Information for Greater London Geographical Information System Greater London Authority Greater London Historic Environment Record General Quality Assessment (EA water quality classification) Ground Source Heat Pump Groundwater Body: distinct volume of groundwater within an aquifer or aquifers Ground Water Management Unit Hydrogen sulphide hectares Highways Authority Heavy Duty Vehicle Historic Environmental Assessment Historic Environment Record Heavy Goods Vehicle Health Impact Assessment Hydrauliska Industri AB Company Health Protection Agency Headquarter Habitats Regulations Assessment Hammersmith Town Centre Hazardous Waste Regulations (2005) Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment Index of Multiple Deprivation Infrastructure Planning Commission 600 BC AD 43 Joint Nature Conservation Committee kilograms kilometre kilo watt amperes
Page viii
kW l/d l/s LA LAARC LAQM LAQN LB LBAP LDF LGV LHA LMB LNR loWR LSB LtB LTI LTT LUL LVMF m m AOD m ATD m/s MAGIC Mbgl MEICA Ml/d MoD MOL MOLA NE NESR NCR
kilowatt litres per day litres per second Local Authority London Archaeological Archive and Research Centre Local Air Quality Management London Air Quality Network London Borough Local Biodiversity Action Plan Local Development Framework Light Goods Vehicle Local Highway Authority Lambeth Mottled Beds Local Nature Reserve List of Wastes Regulations 2005 Lower Shelly Beds Laminated Beds London Tideway Improvements London Tideway Tunnels London Underground Limited London View Management Framework metre metres above Ordinance Datum (see AOD) metres above temporary datum, (see ATD) metres per second Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside Metres below ground level Mechanical Electrical Instrumentation Controls Automation Megalitres per day (million litres per day) Ministry of Defence Metropolitan Open Land Museum of London Archaeology Natural England North East Storm Relief National Cycle Route
Page ix
NGR NMR NNR NO2 NOx NPPF NPS NRMM NSIP NSRA NTS OCU Ofwat OS OUE PAH PCB PEI PEIR PEL PICP PIP PLA PM PM10 PPC PPE PPG PPS PPV PRoW PS pSPA PWS RAMS
National Grid Reference National Monuments Record National Nature Reserve Nitrogen dioxide Oxides of nitrogen National Planning Policy Framework National Policy Statement Non Road Mobile Machinery Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project National Small-bore Rifle Association Non Technical Summary Odour Control Unit The Water Services Regulations Authority Ordnance Survey European Odour Unit Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons Polychlorinated Biphenyl Preliminary Environmental Information Preliminary Environmental Information Report Probable Effect Levels Pollution Incident Control Plan Project Information Paper Port of London Authority Afternoon Particles on the order of ~10 micrometers or less Pollution Prevention and Control Personal Protective Equipment Pollution Prevention Guidance Planning Policy Statement Peak Particle Velocity Public Rights of Way Pumping Station Potential Special Protected Area Public Water Supply Risk Assessment Method Statement
Page x
RAMSAR RB RBKC RBMP RDB RHS RPG RSPB RDB RTC RTD SA SAC SAM SCI SCL SFRA SI SINC SMI SNCI SO2 SoCC SPA SPD S-P-R SPZ SR SRN SSR SSSI STW SUDS SWMP
The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Royal Borough Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea River Basin Management Plans Red Data Book Royal Horticultural Society Regional Planning Guidance Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Red data book Real Time Control River Terrace Deposits Sustainability Appraisal Special Area of Conservation Scheduled Ancient Monument. More commonly referred to as Scheduled Monument Statement of Community Involvement Sprayed Concrete Lining Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Statutory Instrument Site of Importance for Nature Conservation Site of Metropolitan Importance Site Nature Conservation Importance Sulphur dioxide Statement of Community Consultation Special Protection Area Supplementary Planning Document Source-pathway-receptor Source Protection Zone Storm Relief Strategic Road Network Site Suitability Report Site of Special Scientific Interest Sewage Treatment Works Sustainable (Urban) Drainage Systems waste - Site Waste Management Plan
Page xi
SWMP t TA TAS TBC TBM TDP TEBP TEL TfL TFRM TH TLRN Tpa TPO TT TTQI TTSS TWU UDP UK UKHO UMB UPN UWWTD UWWTR UXO VDV VNEB OA WCA WEEE WFD WIA WRAP WSI
water Surface Water Management Plan tonne Transport Assessment Thames Archaeological Survey To be confirmed Tunnel Boring Machine Thames Discovery Programme Thames Estuary Benthic Programme Threshold Effect Levels Transport for London Tideway Fish Risk Model Tower Hamlets Transport for London Road Network tonnes per annum Tree Preservation Order Thames Tunnel Thames Tideway Quality Improvements Thames Tideway Strategic Study 2005 Thames Water Utilities Unitary Development Plan United Kingdom United Kingdom Hydrographic Office Upper Mottled Beds Upnor Formation Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations Unexploded Ordnance Vibration Dose Value Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea Opportunity Area Wildlife and Countryside Act Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive Water Framework Directive Water Industry Act 1991 Waste Resources Action Programme Written Scheme of Investigation
Page xii
WWT ZTV ZVI
Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust Zone of Theoretical Visibility Zone of Visual Influence
Page xiii
Section 1: Introduction
1
1.1.1
Introduction
This volume describes the main alternatives considered to the proposed development and presents an outline of the how strategic alternatives (tunnel and non-tunnel), alternative tunnel routes, alternative sites and alternative functions at sites have been considered. Details are presented on how environmental and other factors associated with the alternatives, and the consultation that has been undertaken on alternatives, has influenced the site and design selections.
1.2
1.2.1
Statutory requirements Infrastructure Planning EIA Regulations (2009)

Under the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009, the Environmental Statement (ES) and prior to that the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) must contain an outline of the main alternatives studied by the applicant and an indication of the main reasons for the applicants choice, taking into account the environmental effects (see regulation 2(1) and paragraph 18 of Part 1 of Schedule 4). In response to this requirement, this Volume of the PEIR provides an outline of: a. the strategic (ie tunnel and non tunnel) alternatives which have been considered to address the problem of the Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) discharges into the Thames Tideway and the main reasons for choosing a full length storage and transfer tunnel solution; and b. the alternatives which have been considered in order to identify the tunnel route, drive strategies and the location of preferred work sites, along with the main reasons for the choices made.
1.2.2
Draft National Planning Statement on Waste Water

1.2.3 The draft National Policy Statement on Waste Water (NPS) was published in April 2011. The draft NPS sets out the proposed policy framework to inform planning decisions on applications for large wastewater infrastructure projects. The draft NPS considers alternative methods of meeting demand which could obviate the need to invest in nationally significant wastewater projects. Key methods include reducing domestic and industrial wastewater production, for example by improving water efficiency; greater use of sustainable drainage systems (SUDs); building sewers separate from surface water drains; and decentralising wastewater treatment infrastructure. The draft NPS concludes that these measures will mitigate the need for new infrastructure to some extent but that "the need for new wastewater infrastructure projects will remain in some circumstances." The document notes that such need will increase in response to climate change, population growth or more stringent environmental standards.
1.2.4
1.2.5
Page 1
Volume 3: Alternatives 1.2.6
Section 1: Introduction
The draft NPS states that the Thames Tunnel has since 2007 been the "preferred infrastructure solution" to address the problem of pollution caused by untreated sewage and rainwater discharges from London's combined sewer overflows into the River Thames.
1.3
1.3.1
Content and structure

This volume describes the alternatives to the proposed development, and presents how strategic alternatives (tunnel and non-tunnel), alternative tunnel routes, alternative sites and alternative functions at sites have been considered. This volume does not consider detailed site-specific environmental design evolution; these are provided, where relevant, in the appropriate site specific assessment Volumes (7-28). This volume outlines the alternatives considered in respect of: a. alternatives to tunnel storage (of CSO discharges); b. alternative tunnel routes; c. alternative drive strategies and main construction sites; d. alternative CSO interception sites
1.3.2
1.3.3
1.3.4
This volume describes the main alternatives and main reasons for selecting the Thames Tunnel project as defined by the preferred scheme at phase two consultation sufficient for the requirements of the Regulations. The volume does not, however, seek to provide a full chronological summary of the various studies and work undertaken. For a full understanding of the background to the project development the following references are relevant: a. TTSS Steering Group Report February 2005 1 b. TTSS Solutions Group Working Report Volumes I and II, February 2005 2 c. Thames Tideway Tunnel and Treatment, Solutions Working Group Report (December 2006) 3
d. Thames Tideway Tunnel and Treatment Summary Report Tackling Londons Sewer Overflows, Executive Summary (2007) 4 e. Regulatory Impact Assessment sewage collection and treatment for London (Defra, March 2007) 5 f. Lee Tunnel Environmental Statement (Alternatives chapter) 6 g. Needs Report and appendices (available as part of the phase two consultation materials). 1.3.5 Section 2 of this volume considers the strategic alternatives to a storage and transfer solution to the CSO discharges. Section 3 then considers the various tunnel route alternatives which have been considered. Section 4 considers the alternative drive strategies and alternative main construction sites which have been considered. Finally Section 5 considers the alternatives to each of the CSO sites which are included within the Preferred Scheme.
Page 2
Section 2: Strategic alternatives
2 2.1
2.1.1
Strategic alternatives Non-tunnel alternatives

There are a number of possible alternative strategies for dealing with the CSO issue. As identified in the Thames Tideway Strategic Study (Steering Group Report February 2005, Section 0.5 and others), these can be broadly divided into four main strategies based upon the location of the solution. These are: a. addressing the problem at the CSOs themselves (by capture and / or storage and / or treatment) b. addressing the problem at source before the sewerage system by exclusion or control of rainwater run-off into the sewerage system, eg, source control, detention ponds and other similar Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) techniques c. addressing the problem within the sewerage system itself by attenuation within the system or by the provision of new on- or off-line tanks and separation of the sewerage system
d. addressing the problem in the river using remedial measures eg, by increasing dissolved oxygen with river craft and treatment with hydrogen peroxide. 2.1.2 The first strategy, addressing the problem at the CSOs has been identified as providing the only [feasible] solution to the CSO problem. It is the only strategy which (i) is capable of providing a complete solution and (ii) does not require an extensive retro-fit or replacement of existing systems, which would be impractical to implement. It is therefore identified as the preferred strategy. The second strategy, addressing the problem at source, has been discounted because of a lack of available space in London, the disruption that would be caused for any meaningful retro-fit of SUDS and the disproportionate cost even to provide a partial solution. The third strategy, addressing the problem within the sewage system, has been discounted as it requires very extensive landtake to support several storage tanks (and tunnels) which would be of much greater volume than one large tunnel. Furthermore attenuation may lead to unacceptable sewer flooding, on- or off-line storage does not meet the quality objectives cost effectively and separation is not considered technically or economically feasible. The fourth strategy, addressing water quality in the river, has been discounted as these can only be short term reactive measures: once the CSO discharges are in the river the polluting effects and associated environmental damage can only be partially ameliorated and the sewage derived litter problems cannot be adequately addressed. In short it fails to provide a true solution as the pollution has already occurred.
2.1.3
2.1.4
2.1.5
Page 3
Options for dealing with the CSO discharges at the CSOs

2.1.6 As determined above, the strategy of dealing with the CSO problem at the CSOs was identified by Thames Water as the preferred wider strategy. Within this wider strategy, there are a number of sub-options and these are reviewed below. Storage and transfer tunnel 2.1.7 This option intercepts CSO flows along the Thames Tideway, stores them within a tunnel with transfer and pump out at a controlled rate for treatment at a suitable location. This was identified as the only solution which combines capture of the unacceptable discharges with primary and secondary treatment thus meeting water quality objectives and capacity requirements in an appropriate way. Transfer tunnel 2.1.8 This option would intercept CSO flows in a similar manner, capture them within a tunnel and would then carry them downstream to a high capacity pumping station and screening plant for untreated discharge to the lower reaches of the Thames Tideway. This option was discounted as it does not provide primary or secondary treatment and so only moves the problem further down the Thames Tideway. This option would also have a high capacity pumping requirement with high peaks of energy consumption. Multiple screened outlets 2.1.9 This option would use multiple, purpose built pumping and screening stations connected via collection and distribution tunnels to intercept flows from the CSOs with subsequent discharge to the Thames Tideway. This option was discounted as it does not provide primary or secondary treatment and would have a major impact at screening plant and pumping station locations with high land take requirements. Multiple screened outlets with storage 2.1.10 This option is a hybrid of a storage tunnel and storage shafts (see below). It would incorporate a second tunnel to store the first flush of storm water that would be stored and pumped out for treatment at a sewage works. It was however discounted as it only provides primary / secondary treatment for a proportion of the discharges. As for Multiple Screened Outlets above, major impacts would occur at screening plant and pumping station locations with high land take requirements. Storage shafts 2.1.11 This option would require large storage shafts constructed in the foreshore next to the CSOs and incorporate a static screen whereby two thirds of storm water is screened and returned to the Thames Tideway and the remainder is pumped back into the sewerage system for treatment. This option was discounted and it provides only primary / secondary treatment for a proportion of the discharges and would generate severe impacts to large areas of foreshore at storage shaft locations. The option is also disproportionately expensive compared to other options.
Page 4
Volume 3: Alternatives Screening at individual CSOs 2.1.12
This option would involve the installation of screening plant immediately adjacent to or upstream of the CSO discharge locations but was discounted as it does not provide primary or secondary treatment and would generate major impacts at screening plant locations. Displacement This option is based on a conduit normally left full and discharging to a large wetlands area over an extended period. The option was discounted as no suitable site is available and there would be substantial potential for septicity of sewage arising from the extended period of retention. Identified solution All of the above alternatives to the storage tunnel approach have significant or insurmountable engineering challenges and have been discounted as too expensive and / or disruptive to implement. As stated above, the storage tunnel solution was identified by Thames Water as the only solution to the CSO problem since it combines capture of the unacceptable discharges with primary and secondary treatment sufficient to achieve the quality objectives.
2.1.13
2.1.14
2.2
2.2.1
Storage tunnel options

In July 2006, the then Minister of State for Climate Change and the Environment wrote to Thames Water, requesting, inter alia, the development, assessment and costing of two principal storage tunnel options for tackling the CSOs. These were: a. a 32km tunnel to intercept all unsatisfactory CSOs (including Abbey Mills) along the length of the tidal Thames from Hammersmith to Beckton STW; and b. two tunnels comprising a West tunnel (from Hammersmith to Heathwall with pump out to the existing sewer network) and a separate East tunnel (connecting Abbey Mills to Beckton, either directly or via Charlton).
2.2.2
The second group of options, based on a two tunnel solution were derived from an alternative solution (to a single tunnel from Hammersmith to Beckton), presented in a report prepared by Jacobs Babtie (Jacobs Babtie February 2006) at the request of Ofwat. This alternative involved two short tunnels (west and east tunnels), a new treatment facility near Heathwall Pumping Station in central London, screening plant and enhanced primary treatment plant at Abbey Mills. Thames Water brought together key stakeholders in a number of working groups to develop options, one of which was the Planning and Environment Working Group including the GLA, LTGDC, the Association of Local Government, LBN and the EA. The purpose was to develop the planning and environmental aspects of these options and assist in their assessment. The two main tunnel options (and variants) were subsequently defined using the following nomenclature:
2.2.3
Page 5
a. Option 1a Full length storage tunnel, 7.2m diameter with Abbey Mills link joining at Greenwich; b. Option 1b Full length storage tunnel, 6m diameter, otherwise as 1a; c. Option 1c Full length storage tunnel, 7.2m diameter, tunnels with direct Abbey Mills link;
d. Option 2a West tunnel, 7.6m diameter and East tunnel, 13m diameter; e. Option 2b West tunnel, 7.6m diameter and East tunnel, 10m diameter with supplementary additional treatment capacity; and f. 2.2.4 Option 2c West tunnel, 7.6m diameter and East tunnel (via Charlton), 10m diameter.
The results of the tunnel optioneering study were presented in a report to Defra in December 2006 7. For each option, this report included technical reviews, consideration of planning and environmental constraints (and benefits), potential for early part delivery in respect of the Abbey Mills CSO (the Lee Tunnel) and a Cost Benefit Analysis. The options are reviewed in the paragraphs that follow and this is then summarised in Vol 3 Table 2.2.1. Option 1a - Full tunnel, 7.2m diameter, Abbey Mills link via Charlton This option would meet long term water quality objectives and dissolved oxygen objectives and would have lower odour risks since better flushing would be possible. The construction risks would be higher because of uncertain geology in the Lower Lee Valley area. Risks would be lower for a 7.2m tunnel compared to a larger tunnel (eg, 10m) tunnel. It would not support a standalone project for the Abbey Mills CSO since a non Thames Water site would need to be acquired and in addition it would require the part completion of the Thames Tunnel. Option 1b - Full tunnel, 6m diameter, Abbey Mills link via Charlton This option would meet long term water quality objectives, although it would result in some more untreated releases of sewage than for a larger diameter tunnel. Dissolved oxygen objectives would be met with this option and there would be lower odour risks since better flushing would be possible. As for Option 1a described above, the construction risks would be higher because of uncertain geology in the Lower Lee Valley area. Risks would be lower for a 6m tunnel compared to a larger tunnel such as considered under Option 1a. It would not support a standalone project for the Abbey Mills CSO since a non Thames Water site would need to be acquired and it would also require the part completion of the Thames Tunnel. Option 1c - Full tunnel, 7.2m diameter, direct Abbey Mills link This option would meet both long term water quality objectives and dissolved oxygen objectives. Odour risks would be reduced due to better flushing being possible. This option would also avoid the uncertain geology in the Lower Lee Valley area and due to its smaller diameter construction risks would be lower. In addition, this option supported a
2.2.5
2.2.6
2.2.7
Page 6
standalone project for the Abbey Mills CSO as all surface sites would be owned by Thames Water and no additional land acquisition would be necessary. This stand alone project which captures the Abbey Mills CSO became the Lee Tunnel and is currently under construction. Option 2a - West tunnel, 7.6m diameter and East tunnel, 13m diameter, direct Abbey Mills link 2.2.8 This option avoids the uncertain geology in the Lower Lee Valley area which lowers construction risks and there would be no additional land acquisition necessary as all surface sites required would be owned by Thames Water, thereby supporting a standalone project for the Abbey Mills CSO. However, this option would not meet long term water quality objectives because 25% (by volume) of CSOs would not be captured. Dissolved oxygen objectives would only be met initially but not in the long term by 2020. This option would also have higher odour risks as flushing would be more difficult and due to its larger diameter tunnels construction risks would be higher. Option 2b - West tunnel, 7.6m diameter and East tunnel, 10m diameter with supplementary additional treatment capacity, direct Abbey Mills link 2.2.9 As Option 2a described above, this option avoids the uncertain geology in the Lower Lee Valley area lowering construction risks. There would be no additional land acquisition necessary for this option as all surface sites required would be owned by Thames Water, thereby supporting a standalone project for the Abbey Mills CSO. However, this option would not meet long term water quality objectives because 25% (by volume) of CSOs would not be captured and dissolved oxygen objectives would only be met initially but not by 2020. This option would also have higher odour risks as flushing would be more difficult. Although lower than for Option 2a, construction risks would be higher for this option due to its larger diameter tunnels. Option 2c - West tunnel, 7.6m diameter and East tunnel, 10m diameter, Abbey Mills link via Charlton 2.2.10 This option, as options 2a and 2b described above, avoids the uncertain geology in the Lower Lee Valley area, thereby lowering construction risks. Long term water quality objectives would not be met by this option because 25% (by volume) of CSOs would not be captured and dissolved oxygen objectives would only be met initially but not by 2020. This option would also have higher odour risks as flushing would be more difficult and construction risks would be higher due to its larger diameter tunnels. In addition, there would be land acquisition issues with this option as not all land required would be owned by Thames Water. Therefore this option would not support a standalone project for the Abbey Mills CSO.
Page 7
Vol 3 Table 2.2.1 Summary assessment of options December 2006

Option Long-term DO WQ Objectives? objectives ? yes yes Odour Risk? Construction Risk? supports stand-alone project for Abbey Mills CSO? no - land acquisition issues & requires part completion of Thames Tunnel no - land acquisition issues & requires part completion of Thames Tunnel yes - all surface sites owned by TW
1a
lower better flushing
higher - lower Lee Valley geology lower - small tunnel diameter higher - lower Lee Valley geology lower - small tunnel diameter lower - avoids lower Lee Valley lower - small tunnel diameter lower - avoids lower Lee Valley higher - larger tunnel diameter lower - avoids lower Lee Valley higher - larger tunnel diameter higher - lower Lee Valley geology higher - larger tunnel diameter
1b
yes - but more untreated releases
yes
1c
yes
yes
2a
no - 25% (by volume) of CSOs not captured no - 25% (by volume) of CSOs not captured no - 25% (by volume) of CSOs not captured
(yes) - initially higher but not by difficult to 2020 flush
yes - all surface sites owned by TW
2b
(yes) - initially higher difficult to but not by flush 2020
yes - all surface sites owned by TW
2c
(yes) - initially higher but not by difficult to 2020 flush
no - acquisition issues
Conclusion 2.2.11 As summarised in the table above and in the preceeding paragraphs, the December 2006 study by Thames Water concluded that Option 1c (highlighted), although marginally the most expensive, would deliver the maximum benefits and be the best value, with construction risks that are considered manageable, and enabled an early phased solution (through
Page 8
the direct Abbey Mills Beckton link). Each variant of the two tunnel solution (and so the Jacobs Babtie alternative) was rejected on the basis of the above reasons and notably the failure to meet long-term water quality objectives. 2.2.12 Option 1c was based on two schemes comprising a 7.2m diameter Storage Tunnel linking CSOs from Hammersmith to Beckton (the 'Thames Tunnel') and a 7.2m diameter Storage Tunnel linking Abbey Mills Beckton (the Lee Tunnel). The Lee Tunnel is currently (2011) under construction.
2.3
2.3.1
Ministerial approval
The March 2007, Defra published a Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) in connection with collection and treatment of sewage in London. The RIA, concluded in paragraph 11.7, by saying: Having considered the recent report by TW, and a range of issues including legal obligations, compliance risks, timetables, cost benefit analysis, affordability and feasibility, it is recommended that a phased, single tunnel approach, which addresses all the unsatisfactory overflows, is the minimum required to meet our obligations. It is therefore proposed that TW are asked to proceed urgently with the development and implementation of a scheme which reduces and limits pollution from storm water overflows (starting with Abbey Mills pumping station) of the Beckton and Crossness sewer system in the most cost effective way. Such an approach, which may be based on option 1c, offers the quickest prospect of making a significant impact on the volume of the discharges, and it would convey a sense of urgency and commitment to take measures to comply as soon as possible.
2.3.2
In his letter of 17 April 2007, the then Minister, Ian Pearson, endorsed the Option 1 type approach in order to make progress toward compliance with the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD) (and associated duties under the Water Industry Act and the Urban Waste Water Treatment (England and Wales) Regulations 1994) as quickly as possible and requested that Thames Water makes provision for the design, construction and maintenance of a scheme for the collecting systems connected to Beckton and Crossness sewage treatment works. Thames Water actioned the Ministers request to make provision for the design, construction and maintenance of a scheme involving a full length storage tunnel. It has planned the strategy for implementation and a appointed a London Tideway Tunnels Delivery Team (LTTDT) to deliver the Lee Tunnel and the provision for the Thames Tunnel the London Tideway Tunnels. The Lee Tunnel is currently (2011) under construction with target completion in 2015.
2.3.3
2.4
2.4.1
Validation of Option 1c
With the LTTDT in place working on the design for the Thames Tunnel, Thames Water undertook a parallel series of studies during the first six months of 2009 to reassess a number of strategic alternatives to ensure
Page 9
that the most cost-effective solution was being progressed to address the requirements of the UWWTD. Two main groups of alternatives were considered in three studies: a. Separation of Foul and Storm Water collection networks and b. Retrofitting Source control and SUDS 2.4.2 Other approaches such as hybrid solutions / partial separation, real time control, screening and dispersed storage were also re-examined to see if these approaches (which could be at least partial alternatives) could contribute to the cost effectiveness of the project. The following tables (Tables 5.9 and 5.10 from the Needs Report) summarize the results of the studies in relation to separation and SUDs and compare these two alternatives against the Thames Tunnel. Vol 3 Table 2.4.1 Advantages and disadvantages of options Option Advantages Disadvantages Full-length storage tunnel Complies with UWWTD More spills (4) and (Abbey Mills route) and environmental greater volume objectives discharged in typical year than other tunnel options Cheapest option High operating costs Least disruption to businesses and residents High carbon footprint Is capable of being delivered by target date of 2020 Use of river for materials transportation where practicable and economic Least amount of land needed Adaptable and flexible Full-length storage tunnel Complies with UWWTD High operating costs (Rotherhithe route) and environmental High carbon footprint objectives Is capable of being delivered by target date of 2020 Full-length storage tunnel Complies with UWWTD High operating costs (River Thames route) and environmental High carbon footprint objectives Least spills (2) of tunnel options Is capable of being delivered by target date of 2020 Separation using new storm water sewers or Sewer flooding relief can be incorporated Cannot comply with UWWTD or
Page 10
Volume 3: Alternatives Option new foul sewers (with storm water in existing combined network) Advantages
Section 2: Strategic alternatives Disadvantages environmental objectives Very disruptive to business, residents and transportation Not possible to complete by 2020, with over 35 year implementation period Very expensive High whole life operating costs, affected by need for estimated 48 or more new pumping stations High carbon footprint
Sustainable drainage systems (SUDS)
Desirable and Cannot comply with mandatory for new build UWWTD or developments, but difficult environmental objectives to retrofit Very disruptive to Enhances the business, residents and environment transportation Can manage surface Not possible to water flooding complete by 2020, with Low whole life operating over 30 year implementation period costs Very expensive Low carbon footprint Complex logistical processes for planning permission Legal and regulatory obstacles to implementation
2.4.1
Combining the advantages and disadvantages with the cost estimates produced for each alternative approach is set out in the table below.
Page 11
Vol 3 Table 2.4.2 Summary of main options and estimated costs Option Full-length storage tunnel (Abbey Mills route) Response to need Complies with UWWTD and environmental objectives Estimated costs1 ( millions) 3,588 (accuracy range +/10% to +/25%) Comments Most cost effective scheme. Spills at CSOs limited to 4 events in a typical year. Least disruption to residents, businesses and transportation. Is capable of being delivered by target date of 2020. Spills at CSOs limited to 2 events in a typical year. Is capable of being delivered by target date of 2020. Spills at CSOs limited to 2 events in a typical year. Is capable of being delivered by target date of 2020. Cost significantly greater than tunnel option. Significant disruption to residents, businesses and transportation. Prolonged timescale for completion; eg, 30 years at 400m spend per annum, so not capable of complying with UWWTD and environmental objectives by 2020.
Full-length storage tunnel (Rotherhithe route) Full-length storage tunnel (River Thames route) Separation using new storm water sewers or new foul sewers (with storm water in existing combined network)
Complies with UWWTD and environmental objectives Complies with UWWTD and environmental objectives New sewerage designed for 1 in 30 storms. Will alleviate sewer flooding. Would eventually comply with UWWT and environmental objectives
4,310 (accuracy range +/10% to +/25%) 4,336 (accuracy range +/10% to +/25%) 14,000 (variance +50% to 30%)
Page 12
Volume 3: Alternatives Estimated costs1 ( millions) 13,000 (variance +50% to 30%)
Option Sustainable drainage systems (SUDS)
Response to need In certain catchments a 37% reduction in impermeable area potentially contributing to CSO discharges could be achieved.
Comments High cost and time to implement. Reduction in impermeable area still results in more than ten* CSO spills in a typical year. Not able to achieve compliance with requirements of UWWTD. Not applicable to inner city catchments and many practical limitations to implementation.
Cost base date of December 2008. * Maximum spill frequency allowed by other EU Member States regarding their interpretation of the requirements of the UWWTD. 2.4.2 On the basis of the above comparisons, both SUDS and Separation were again discounted as viable alternatives (as they had previously been within the TTSS). The tunnel route options are discussed in detail in Section 3.
Page 13
Section 3: Tunnel routes
3 3.1
3.1.1
Tunnel routes Introduction

During 2009-2010, a range of routes were considered for the route of the main storage and transfer tunnel (the Thames Tunnel). Three routes were put forward at the phase one consultation stage. In broad terms the route must start in west London and follow the route of the River Thames eastwards, intercepting those CSOs identified for interception and ensuring flows can be transferred to Beckton STW for treatment. The precise route is influenced by the locations of the shafts required to construct the tunnel and intercept the CSOs.
3.1.2
3.2
3.2.1
Thames Tunnel alignments

Three tunnel routes were compared against each other using a range of criteria from the five disciplines of engineering, planning, environment, community and property, using professional judgement to balance the issues and compare the effects of the tunnel routes, and their associated construction sites. In so doing, consideration of the overall impact of each of the tunnel routes drew upon the site selection work outlined in Section 4 of this volume. The three alternative alignments for the Thames Tunnel considered in detail and consulted on are shown on Vol 3 Figure 3.2.1.
3.2.2
Page 14
Volume 3: Alternatives Vol 3 Figure 3.2.1 Alternative alignments of Thames Tunnel
Abbey Mills route
Page 15
River Thames route

3.2.3 The River Thames route, which largely follows the river from west London downstream crossing the Greenwich Peninsula, underground, and on to Beckton STW. The tunnel system would intercept CSO discharges from the Acton Storm Relief Sewer at the upstream end by connection tunnel to the main tunnel at Hammersmith Pumping Station. This route option follows the River Thames from west London to the Greenwich Peninsula, where it takes a shortcut below land. It then continues beneath the River Thames all the way to Beckton Sewage Treatment Works (STW) in the east. This is the longest tunnel option. It would capture the most untreated sewage from the CSOs along the river, but would also be the most expensive. This is the route that was identified in the December 2006 report to Government (note that the Abbey Mills route (see further below) was not available at that time because a shallower Lee Tunnel alignment was then proposed which would have precluded connection with the deeper Thames Tunnel.
3.2.4
3.2.5
Rotherhithe route
3.2.6 The Rotherhithe route, which cuts across both the Greenwich and the Rotherhithe Peninsulas. The tunnel system would intercept CSO discharges from the Acton Storm Relief Sewer at the upstream end by connection tunnel to the main tunnel at Hammersmith, and would connect to the overflow shaft at Beckton STW at the downstream end, exactly as for the tidal River Thames route. This route option follows the River Thames from west London as far as the Rotherhithe Peninsula, where it then passes below the land, before continuing along the River Thames, under the Greenwich Peninsula and then on to Beckton STW. This option would not capture as much of the overflowing sewage as the River Thames route as it is slightly shorter but it still improves the water quality of the River Thames.
3.2.7
3.2.8
Abbey Mills route

3.2.9 The Abbey Mills route differs from the other routes by connecting the Thames Tunnel to the head of the Lee Tunnel at Abbey Mills. The opportunity to connect the Thames Tunnel to the head of the Lee Tunnel arose as that tunnel was slightly deeper than originally proposed because of a need to avoid difficult geological features along the route. The upstream tunnel system would be the same as the River Thames or Rotherhithe tunnel alignments from the interception of Acton Storm Relief Sewer as far as Rotherhithe, but would then veer northeast to Abbey Mills. CSOs to be intercepted downstream of Rotherhithe would connect back to the main tunnel by connection tunnels except for Charlton Storm Relief CSO which would be addressed by local modifications and an alternative means of control. This option is up to 9km shorter than the two other alignments and therefore would need fewer construction sites and hence would involve
3.2.10
3.2.11
Page 16
less construction work and fewer construction related environmental impacts. It would use less carbon and would be considerably cheaper. 3.2.12 It would capture slightly less sewage, however, the overall river water quality would still be significantly improved and meet the project objectives set by the Environment Agency.
Summary
3.2.13 Key aspects of the three tunnel alignment options which were presented in the Phase One consultation are summarised in the table below. Additional details on all three routes are also presented in Section 2 (Vol 3 Table 2.4.1 and Vol 3 Table 2.4.2). Vol 3 Table 3.2.1 Key aspects of the three tunnel alignment alternatives Category Main tunnel length (km) (7.2km diameter) Number of main shafts (diameters) Connection tunnel lengths (km) (diameters) Total storage volume (million m3 (includes Lee Tunnel) Number of CSOs directly connected Number of CSOs otherwise connected or locally addressed Maximum number of spill events in a typical year per CSO (from the Category 1 and 2 CSOs in the Beckton and Crossness catchments) River Thames route 31.3 10 (20m to 25m) 8.6* (2.2 to 4.5m) 1,855 Rotherhithe route 29.6 8 (20m to 25m) 8.6* (2.2m to 4.5m) 1,781 Abbey Mills route 22.3 5 (20m to 25m) 8.8* (2.2m to 4.5m) 1,505
22 12
22 12
21 13
* These lengths all exclude some of the smaller connection tunnel lengths that were included within the summation of connection tunnel lengths.
3.2.14
All three Thames Tunnel alignment options meet all four of the EA water quality standards. a. All options deliver low residual CSO spills during the typical year. For the accepted typical year, the number of CSO spills at controlled locations is no more than four at the largest CSO locations and generally less than three at most locations.
Page 17
b. The three options (with STW capacity improvements, the Lee Tunnel and 2021 conditions) capture between 97% and 98% of the estimated CSO discharge volumes in a typical year rainfall. c. None of the options demonstrate any benefit over the others regarding water quality, significant CSO event or volume captured.
3.3
3.3.1
Reasons for selection of the Abbey Mills route

The majority of the main tunnel alignment is common for the River Thames, Rotherhithe and Abbey Mills routes; the project from Acton to Kings Stairs Gardens being identical for all three routes. Tunnel alignments vary west of Kings Stairs Gardens, but some of the preferred sites (at CSO interception locations) are common. Therefore, of the 24 sites required for the River Thames and Rotherhithe routes and the 22 sites required for the Abbey Mills route, 20 are common to all three routes. An assessment was made in 2010 by the engineering, planning, environment, community and property disciplines, who considered the overall construction project, nature of the affected sites and their surroundings, and other strategic and cumulative issues. The results of the assessments are summarized below
3.3.2
Engineering
3.3.3 The Abbey Mills route is 9km and 6.7km less than the River Thames and Rotherhithe routes respectively and the cost of the project is approximately 700m less. Despite having a reduced internal volume, the hydraulic performance of the Abbey Mills route is still considered compliant with the requirements of the UWWTD. From an overall health and safety hazard perspective, the reduction in scope for the Abbey Mills route reduces the likelihood of construction related risks. In addition, the River Thames and Rotherhithe routes drive through water-bearing chalk with much higher ground water pressures which would increase wear on the TBM and the risks to personnel carrying out TBM maintenance. Other greater tunnelling risks associated with the River Thames and Rotherhithe routes include driving through a much greater length of flint bearing chalk, a greater number of fault zones and the construction of more deep shafts and CSO connections. However, the Abbey Mills route follows an alignment at the top of the chalk, close to the underside of the Thanet Sands along the Limehouse Cut, which could make TBM face interventions hazardous and complex. The substantial reduction in construction scope associated with a shorter tunnel length and fewer main construction sites, coupled with tunnelling through less hazardous ground results in the Abbey Mills route being a safer construction choice. The reduced scope was also considered to reduce overall procurement risk by placing less stress on the procurement chain. Finally, these reasons, together with lower costs for a solution considered acceptable in relation to the requirements of the UWWTD were all engineering reasons to conclude that the Abbey Mills route is preferred.
3.3.4
3.3.5
Page 18
Planning
3.3.6 The strategic comparison of the three alternative tunnel route options focussed on a number of recurring cumulative planning considerations. These comprise the nature of the affected land (greenfield, previously developed and foreshore), the impact upon safeguarded wharves and the River Thames, and the prospects for enacting current planning permissions and emerging proposals. These considerations affect all three routes, but the Abbey Mills route incorporates comparatively fewer greenfield and previously developed sites than either the River Thames or Rotherhithe routes. As a result, the overall number of sites which would affect public open space, employment, regeneration and safeguarded wharf designations, is fewer, as well as the number of sites that would require mitigation against potential policy conflicts. The level of impacts upon sites with extant permission or forthcoming proposals is also reduced in respect of the Abbey Mills route. It is noted that the Abbey Mills route does increase the relative number of foreshore sites however, although it reduces the effects upon the use of King Edward Memorial Park. The loss and replacement of public open space, particularly within areas of deficiency, and the potential for conflict with regeneration proposals, are in any case significant issues that require further investigation and ongoing monitoring. The potential for a reduced cumulative impact upon these planning considerations is the main reason for the planning discipline to select Abbey Mills as the preferred main tunnel route.
3.3.7
3.3.8 3.3.9
3.3.10
3.3.11
Environment
3.3.12 As noted above, the Abbey Mills Route is 9km and 6.7km less than the River Thames and Rotherhithe routes respectively. This means that the Abbey Mills Route would generate less excavated material, require less material for its construction and need less energy in its construction. The Abbey Mills main tunnel route will therefore have a lower carbon footprint than the two other routes. The Abbey Mills main tunnel route would be dependent on fewer shaft sites than either the River Thames route or Rotherhithe route, and should therefore generate the least site related cumulative environmental effects. A preliminary assessment of cumulative effects of the shaft sites across the three routes suggested that was the case. The shaft sites required for the Abbey Mills Route would require fewer jetty structures to be built in the river and so minimize foreshore ecology impacts. The shaft sites required for the Abbey Mills Route are also likely to impact fewer built heritage receptors. The lower number of shaft sites required for the Abbey Mills route would lead to less disturbance of contaminated ground and result in adverse air quality impacts at fewer sites than the other two routes.
3.3.13
3.3.14
Page 19
The Abbey Mills Route was therefore identified as the preferred main tunnel route from an environmental perspective.
Community
3.3.16 3.3.17 From a community impacts perspective, all three of the route options have the potential to impact on a number of sensitive receptors. Although it is not possible to estimate the exact numbers of people or households affected at this stage, cumulatively the Abbey Mills route would impact on fewer residential neighbourhoods due to the shorter tunnel length and the route alignment. None of the route options appear likely to result in significant impacts on properties providing health or educational services. All three routes have the potential to impact on the church and chapel located adjacent to the King Stairs Gardens site, while the River Thames and Rotherhithe routes could also impact on community worship events taking place in a warehouse opposite the proposed Charlton site. Community cohesion and the health and wellbeing of local people may be impacted by the use of a number of sites required to construct all three routes. A maximum of seven of the common, River Thames and Rotherhithe sites affect open space or parkland. No route option reduces this number. The cumulative impact is likely to be relatively small since the open space sites are not geographically close and serve communities at different sides of the river. Of particular importance was the amount of public open space likely to be temporarily lost at Barn Elms and Kings Stairs Gardens. For the River Thames and Rotherhithe routes, there would also be a temporary loss of public space at King Edward Memorial Park. Pepys Park (adjacent the Convoys Wharf site on the River Thames and Rotherhithe routes) and Frank Banfield Park (opposite Hammersmith Pumping Station site) are also likely to face some disruption due to their vicinity to significant construction works. All three route options require the use of sites which may impact on the local economy through the displacement of active businesses. On balance, the Abbey Mills route appears preferable as this route does not require the Charlton site, and therefore involves the relocation of fewer businesses overall. Overall, from a community impacts perspective, there are advantages and disadvantages to all three route alignments. Kings Stairs Gardens is a particularly critical site as its use is vital to all three route options and the construction works proposed are likely to have a number of significant impacts on the local community. No route avoids significant likely community impacts, but the cumulative socio-economic impacts are likely to be slightly fewer with the Abbey Mills route. The Abbey Mills main tunnel route would be dependent on fewer shaft sites than either the River Thames route or Rotherhithe route, and should therefore generate less site related cumulative community impact.
3.3.18
3.3.19
3.3.20
3.3.21
3.3.22
Page 20
Property
3.3.23 All three route options would give rise to property issues, and the preferred sites fall within the following categories: development sites, local authority owned parks, occupied industrial estates, Thames Water property and foreshore sites. In terms of main shaft sites, the River Thames route and Rotherhithe route would require three development sites, two local authority owned parks, part of an industrial estate and an existing Thames Water operational site. For the Abbey Mills route considerations are the same as for the River Thames route, except that the number of main sites was reduced to five, with one development site and the industrial estate at Charlton being removed from consideration. Beckton STW is also replaced by Abbey Mills PS. In cumulative terms the property issues associated with the Abbey Mills route were therefore less, although a number of issues remain to be addressed for all three routes, particularly in terms of potentially high acquisition costs of development sites, establishing the ability to secure the rights required to public parks, and the need to provide compensation for relocated businesses. The Abbey Mills Route was therefore identified as the preferred main tunnel route from a property perspective.
3.3.24
3.3.25
3.3.26
3.3.27
The preferred scheme

3.3.28 In conclusion, the recommendation to the Government, in 2010, for the UK to be able to meet the requirements of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (beyond the construction of the Lee Tunnel and the sewage treatment works upgrades underway at Mogden, Crossness and Beckton STWs) was a preferred scheme for the Thames Tunnel based on: a. the Abbey Mills Route b. a main tunnel, 23km long with an internal diameter of 7.2m c. the direct interception of 21 CSOs d. the indirect interception of a further 12, and a local solution for the remaining CSO e. the selection of five out of 52 shaft sites from the Final Short List, including three where main shaft sites are combined with CSO interception sites f. the selection of seventeen out of 71 CSO sites from the Final Short List.
Site related issues

3.3.29 The overall number of sites associated with the Abbey Mills route which would affect employment, regeneration, property, sites with current planning applications or extant permission and safeguarded wharf designations would be fewer, as well as the number of sites that would require mitigation against potential policy conflicts.
Page 21
In particular, the omission of several sites from the Abbey Mills route reduces the compensation costs and also reduces the impact of the project on the community. The shaft sites required for the Abbey Mills route also impact the fewest sites with medium-high archaeological potential and the fewest sites with valued townscape character and/or River Thames frontage than the other two routes. The lower number of shaft sites required for the Abbey Mills route would lead to the least disturbance of contaminated ground and lower cumulative noise impacts than the other two routes. The Abbey Mills route would require fewest in-river jetty structures to be built, although all three route options impact the foreshore in some way at 14 sites (interception chambers, temporary access, shafts or temporary jetties). The Abbey Mills route has a greater number of foreshore shaft sites, which is likely to increase the permanent mitigation requirements for this route in relation to environmental and ecological issues. The loss and potential replacement of public open space is an issue common to all routes, particularly within areas of deficiency. The potential for conflict with regeneration proposals require further investigation and ongoing monitoring, but the Abbey Mills route requires fewer large-scale shaft sites that are earmarked for regeneration.
3.3.31
3.3.32
3.3.33
Overall construction scope and scheme purpose

3.3.34 The Abbey Mills main tunnel route is 9km and 6.7km shorter than the River Thames and Rotherhithe routes respectively, and the project is estimated to cost approximately 18% (750m) less to build and cost 126k less to run per year than the River Thames route. Despite having a reduced internal volume, the hydraulic performance of the Abbey Mills route is still considered compliant with the requirements of the UWWTD. The Abbey Mills route has a substantially shorter main tunnel, with fewest main construction sites, and would generate least excavated materials, require least energy to build, least energy to run, and would therefore have the lowest carbon footprint. From an overall health and safety perspective, the reduction in scope for the Abbey Mills route reduces the likelihood of construction related risks. The River Thames and Rotherhithe routes drive through a greater length of faulted flint-bearing Chalk with much higher ground water pressures, which would increase wear on the TBM and the hazards to personnel carrying out TBM maintenance. These issues also increase overall programme risk for the longer tunnel options. However, the Abbey Mills route follows an alignment at the top of the Chalk, close to the underside of the Thanet Sands along the Limehouse Cut, which could make TBM face interventions more hazardous and complex. The Abbey Mills route also passes underneath more private landowners and bridges along the Limehouse Cut, which increases the number of third-party stakeholders. However, the depth to the top of the tunnel along this length is greater than 50m and it would therefore have a very limited potential for impact on surface structures.
3.3.35
3.3.36
3.3.37
Page 22
Conclusion
3.3.38 All three tunnel routes have merits and demerits, but it has been concluded that the Abbey Mills route has several considerable advantages and was selected as the preferred route for Phase 1 Consultation. The substantial reduction in construction scope associated with the shortest tunnel length and fewest main construction sites, coupled with tunnelling through less difficult ground, results in the Abbey Mills route being the safest and least cost construction choice. In cumulative terms, it has been judged to have the least environmental impact, slightly fewer community impacts, fewest property issues and lower planning risks. The Phase 1 work (including the consultation) supported the conclusion that the Abbey Mills route was the most appropriate route. Based on this the Abbey Mills route was therefore retained as the preferred route for phase two consultation and is the basis of the project described in Volume 2 of the PEIR and assessed in the technical volumes.
3.3.39
Page 23
Section 4: Main tunnel construction sites and drive strategy
4 4.1
4.1.1
Main tunnel construction sites and drive strategy Introduction

The site selection process (see below) searched for the following types of sites that would be needed to construct and operate the project: a. CSO sites (with and without a connection tunnel) b. main tunnel drive sites c. main tunnel reception sites d. main tunnel intermediate sites
4.1.2
The main tunnel would be constructed using tunnel boring machines (TBMs). A series of main tunnel sites would be required to allow the TBMs to start from shafts known as drive shafts, and to be taken out at shafts known as reception shafts. Further details of these site types (with example layouts) are presented in Volume 2 of the PEIR. It should be noted that further work concluded there was no requirement for specific intermediate sites (possible sites for online interception of the TBM). A range of sites along the preferred tunnel route were considered. This section focuses on those sites which are needed to construct the main tunnel and the major connection tunnels (b c above) as well as the related drive strategy. CSO sites must be located close to the existing CSOs, which vary in size and location. Each CSO site must accommodate the permanent structures required for the operation of the system (the interception of the CSOs) and, on a temporary basis, the construction equipment required to create the CSO interception. The consideration of alternative CSO sites is outlined in Section 5. In some cases it is possible to establish a main tunnel construction site at a CSO site and reduce the overall number of deep shafts required by the project.
4.1.3
4.1.4
4.2
4.2.1
Site selection
The site selection methodology was finalised in May 2009, and draws upon best practice and reflects the principles and requirements of relevant planning policy and sustainability principles. A multi-disciplinary approach was used, drawing upon the technical knowledge and expertise of engineering, planning, environmental, property and community specialists. In summary the site selection methodology comprises three main stages, which are set out below. At each stage planning, environmental, engineering, community and property considerations were taken into account. Stage 1 This stage involved the identification of all sites that are potentially suitable to fulfil the engineering functions required. This stage utilised a filtering process, carried out in three main parts: a. 1A The creation of a long list of potential sites
4.2.2
4.2.3
Page 24
b. 1B The creation of a short list of potential sites c. 4.2.4 1C The creation of a preferred list of sites. Stage 2 This stage was the phase one public consultation on the preferred scheme consisting of: a. a series of preferred CSO sites and shaft sites b. a preferred route; alongside c. 4.2.5 other previously considered sites and routes. The Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) and the Community Consultation Strategy (CCS) also provide further supporting information on how consultation is carried out. This stage was undertaken between 13 September 2010 and 11 January 2011 and provided an opportunity to hear the views of communities living in the vicinity of any preferred or shortlisted sites, statutory consultees and any other interested parties across all three main tunnel routes (see Section 3). Stage 3 4.2.7 This stage comprises the final selection of sites, and includes revisions to the Preferred List of Sites following consultation if necessary, along with the production of a Final Site Selection Report (SSR). During the site selection process if any of the shaft or CSO sites are eliminated for any reason then a targeted repeat of Stages 1-3 are undertaken as appropriate in order to fill in any site gaps. A targeted repeat would be caused by, for example: there being significant changes of circumstances in relation to existing sites or combinations of sites; new or replacement sites being required or found; or the engineering design developing in unexpected ways.
4.2.6
4.2.8
4.2.9
4.3
4.3.1
Drive strategy
To manage the total number of combinations of tunnel drive and reception site options, which together make up a drive option, the available shortlisted sites were grouped together in zones. The zones were based on the geographical locations of the sites along the line of the River Thames as shown below. The zones were numbered and named for convenient referencing as shown in the figure. All the shortlisted shaft sites fall within one of the zones. Nine zones were identified along the length of the preferred Abbey Mills route. A series of potential drive options were identified using the most suitable site (as identified through implementation of the site selection methodology) within each zone. All drive options required a main tunnel site in zone S0 (Acton), zone S5 (Battersea) and zone S11 (Abbey Mills) because. No suitable main tunnel sites were available within zone S1 (Hammersmith) or zone S4 (Lots Road). Note that Zones 8, 9 and 10 not relevant to the Abbey Mills tunnel route and are not shown on the diagram.
4.3.2
Page 25
The phase one preferred scheme (Abbey Mills route) and the two alternative routes (River Thames and Rotherhithe) at phase one each had proposed drive strategies associated with them. Since the Abbey Mills route has been selected, the drive strategies for the other two routes are not viable alternatives in relation to the Abbey Mills route and are not covered by this assessment. The phase two preferred scheme for Abbey Mills differs in important ways from the phase one preferred scheme including the sites and the drive strategy. The following review does not revisit the full drive strategy for the phase one preferred scheme since it is not a viable alternative to the phase two scheme. Further details can be found in the phase two scheme development report (available as part of phase two consultation). The figure below presents the main tunnel shaft zones used in considering alternatives for the drive strategy. Vol 3 Figure 4.3.1 Main tunnel shaft zones
4.3.4
4.3.5
S11 Abbey Mills
S7 Limehouse S0 Acton S5 Battersea S1 Hammersmith S6 Shad
S4 Lots Road S2 Barn Elms S3 Wandsworth Bridge
4.3.6
This meant that a series of comparisons could be made, based around using a main tunnel site either in zone S2 (Battersea) or zone S3 (Wandsworth) and a main tunnel site either in zone S6 (Shad) or zone S7 (Limehouse) (in each case there was no requirement for a site in both zones as they are too close together) and deciding whether each of the required main tunnel sites should be a drive site or reception site. In order to assess the suitability of the identified main tunnel drive options, having regard to the comparative advantages and disadvantages of the most appropriate site identified for each zone, a series of comparisons were used to make choices between drive options. Further details and more extensive background to the various drive options is provided in the
4.3.7
Page 26
Phase Two Scheme Development Report (available as part of phase two consultation). 4.3.8 With each comparison made, it was possible to eliminate a number of drive options until the list was finally reduced to one: the preferred tunnel drive option. The comparisons that had to be made to arrive at a preferred option included: a. Comparison 1: Comparing the use of Chambers Wharf (Zone S6, Shad) with the use of King Edward Memorial Park (Zone S7, Limehouse) for a main tunnel site. b. Comparison 2: Comparing the use of Barn Elms (Zone S2, Barn Elms) with the use of Carnwath Road Riverside (Zone S3, Wandsworth) for a main tunnel drive site. c. Comparison 3: Comparing the use of Abbey Mills Pumping Station (Zone S11, Abbey Mills) as main tunnel drive site or main tunnel reception site (and associated implications for a connection tunnel at Chambers Wharf, Zone S6, Shad).
4.3.9
Each of these comparisons and the conclusions reached at the preferred scheme workshops by engineering, planning, environment, community and property disciplines are discussed in turn below. It should be noted that, in many instances, the advantages and disadvantages of options were finely balanced, and that a collective view was taken by discipline representatives in order to identify the preferred options. Comparison 1: Comparing the use of Chambers Wharf with the use of King Edward Memorial Park for a main tunnel site (drive or reception)
4.3.10
This choice compares options that include a main tunnel site in Zone S6 with those that rely on a main tunnel site in Zone S7. There are no options that require a main tunnel site in both zones. By making this site comparison, the nine drive options that include a main tunnel site in Zone S6 were compared with the nine drive options that include a main tunnel site in Zone S7. Note that prior to this comparison, Chambers Wharf has already been identified as a preferred site in Zone S6, Shad.
Page 27
Vol 3 Figure 4.3.2 Main tunnel shaft zones for Comparison 1
S11 Abbey Mills
S7 Limehouse
S6 Shad
KEY: Main tunnel site Main tunnel alignment
4.3.11
Considerations in favour of using Chambers Wharf (Zone S6) and not having a main tunnel site at King Edward Memorial Park (Zone S7) included the following: a. Engineering: It is important to select the least risk and most predictable tunnel boring machine for the expected geological conditions. The increased length of the tunnel drive between Zone S5 (Battersea) and King Edward Memorial Park would increase the risks associated with tunnelling due to the longer tunnel drive and the change in ground conditions just east of Tower Bridge. A tunnel drive between Zone S5 and Chambers Wharf would be shorter and present less risk. b. Planning: Chambers Wharf is a brownfield site and subject to fewer policy restrictions than King Edward Memorial Park, which is a designated public open space in an area with an identified deficiency of open space. The park is also within a conservation area. c. Environment: Chambers Wharf is a brownfield site, already identified for development and, on balance, its use is preferable to King Edward Memorial Park as the overall environmental impacts are likely to be less. Mitigation measures would, however, be required for Chambers Wharf.
d. Community: The temporary loss of a large part of King Edward Memorial Park and the impact that this would have on park users meant a preference for the brownfield site Chambers Wharf, although it is acknowledged that both sites are within proximity of residential properties. e. Property: The use of King Edward Memorial Park would introduce acquisition risks due to the possible need for a special parliamentary
Page 28
procedure. There is no acquisition risk for Chambers Wharf as it is owned by Thames Water (having been acquired by Thames Water to ensure the opportunity to consider this site can be taken). 4.3.12 Conversely, considerations in favour of using King Edward Memorial Park (Zone S7) and not having a main tunnel site at Chambers Wharf (Zone S6) included: a. Engineering: King Edward Memorial Park is large enough to contain the full temporary construction area required without the extension onto the foreshore that would be needed at Chambers Wharf. A main tunnel site at King Edward Memorial Park could be combined with the site required for interception of the CSO at this location, and would avoid the need for an additional site. b. Planning: No specific advantages of using King Edward Memorial Park were identified, as compared to Chambers Wharf. c. Environment: Using King Edward Memorial Park reduces the need for extending the temporary construction area onto the foreshore at Chambers Wharf.
d. Community: No specific advantages of using King Edward Memorial Park were identified, as compared to Chambers Wharf. e. Property: Acquisition costs are likely to be lower than the value of the Chambers Wharf site (although Chambers Wharf is owned by Thames Water, if it is not needed as a Thames Tunnel worksite, it could be sold for a sum that is likely to be not less than its acquisition cost, thereby avoiding a significant loss to the project). Discretionary purchase costs are likely at both locations. 4.3.13 Based on the above considerations, on balance, the preference is to use Chambers Wharf as a main tunnel drive site, eliminating options that use King Edward Memorial Park for this purpose. As a result of this comparison, the options that used a main tunnel drive site in Zone S7 (King Edward Memorial Park) were eliminated. Comparison 2: Comparing the use of Barn Elms with the use of Carnwath Road Riverside for a main tunnel drive site 4.3.14 This choice compares options that include a main tunnel drive site in Zone S2 with those that rely on a main tunnel drive site in Zone S3. There are no options that require a main tunnel drive site in both zones. This site comparison allows a comparison of the remaining drive options, six of which include a main tunnel site in Zone S2 and three of which include a main tunnel site in Zone S3.
Page 29
Vol 3 Figure 4.3.3 Main tunnel shaft zones for Comparison 2

S0 Acton
S5 Battersea S1 Hammersmith
S4 Lots Road
KEY:
S2 Barn Elms S3 Wandsworth Bridge
Main tunnel site Main tunnel alignment
4.3.15
Considerations in favour of using Carnwath Road Riverside (Zone S3) and not having a main tunnel drive site at Barn Elms (Zone S2) included the following: a. Engineering: Carnwath Road Riverside includes a safeguarded wharf and has much better river access for transportation of construction materials, using significantly larger barges than can reach Barn Elms. The need for new jetty and wharf facilities would be reduced compared to Barn Elms. Health and safety issues associated with using the river and, in particular, the dangers of interfacing with pleasure boat users are reduced at Carnwath Road Riverside, as are interfaces with people using the Thames Path. b. Planning: Carnwath Road Riverside is a brownfield site which is partly vacant, while Barn Elms is a greenfield site. Use of Carnwath Road Riverside is supported in policy terms by its brownfield and safeguarded wharf status, although the area of Carnwath Road Riverside and beyond is currently proposed for regeneration within the draft South Fulham Riverside Supplementary Planning Document. Barn Elms is subject to policy constraints, including Metropolitan Open Land, public open space, proximity to a Site of Special Scientific Interest and Sites of Nature Conservation Importance. The Thames Path at Carnwath Road Riverside is already diverted around part of the proposed site, and further diversion is considered more acceptable than at Barn Elms on the basis that it is less well used and, at Barn Elms, a diversion island around the worksite would be too long and not considered as feasible. c. Environment: In overall terms, the use of a brownfield site will have fewer environmental impacts than use of a greenfield site at Barn Elms. In particular, use of Barn Elms may impact on nearby ecological sites, including the London Wetland Centre Site of Special Scientific
Page 30
Interest and River Thames and Beverley Brook Sites of Nature Conservation Importance. However, mitigation measures would still be required at Carnwath Road Riverside. d. Community: Use of Carnwath Road Riverside avoids potential impact on users of Barn Elms sports fields and the loss of two to three sports pitches, and possible relocation of the scout hut and boathouse. It also reduces the potential impact on recreational river users, as there are fewer using the Thames in the vicinity of Carnwath Road Riverside than the popular waters around Barn Elms. There are also likely to be less users of the Thames Path in this area. e. Property: Acquisition of Carnwath Road Riverside would not require use of a special parliamentary procedure, whereas use of open space at Barn Elms, which is owned and operated by a local authority, may be subject to this procedure. Discretionary purchase costs are to be expected at either site. 4.3.16 Conversely, considerations in favour of using Barn Elms (Zone S2) and not having a main tunnel drive site at Carnwath Road Riverside (Zone S3) included the following: a. Engineering: Barn Elms is a large open area with potential for construction operations to take sufficient space. No major building demolition would be required and the site could be combined with the West Putney CSO interception site, thereby avoiding the need to acquire an extra site. b. Planning: Carnwath Road Riverside would require relocation of existing retail/warehouse businesses. Consolidation of land uses at Barn Elms from combining the main tunnel and CSO site would be possible. c. Environment: No specific advantages of using Barn Elms were identified, as compared to Carnwath Road Riverside.
d. Community: There are potentially less residential properties in the nearby area and thus less impact on community in the immediate vicinity (however, impact of construction works may be more difficult to mitigate on this more tranquil site). e. Property: Lower acquisition costs are expected at Barn Elms compared to Carnwath Road Riverside. 4.3.17 Based on the above considerations, on balance, the preference is to use Carnwath Road Riverside as a main tunnel drive site, eliminating options that use Barn Elms for this purpose. As a result of this comparison, the six options that use a main tunnel site in Zone S2 (Barn Elms) were eliminated. Comparison 3: Comparing the use of Abbey Mills Pumping Station and Chambers Wharf as main tunnel drive site or main tunnel reception site 4.3.18 The final comparisons between the three remaining drive options involved making choices between the use of Abbey Mills Pumping Station or
Page 31
Chambers Wharf as a main tunnel drive site or reception site (with associated implications for the connection tunnel to Greenwich Pumping Station). The three options included: a. Option A: Abbey Mills would be used as a drive site to drive the tunnel to Chambers Wharf. Chambers Wharf would be used a reception site to receive the tunnel boring machine from Abbey Mills and to receive the tunnel boring machine from the drive site in Zone S5. Chambers Wharf would also be used to either drive or receive the connection tunnel to/from Greenwich Pumping Station. b. Option B: Abbey Mills would be used as a drive site to drive the tunnel to Chambers Wharf. Chambers Wharf would be used to receive the tunnel boring machine from Abbey Mills. Chambers Wharf would also be used as a drive site to drive the main tunnel to Zone S5 and to receive the connection tunnel from Greenwich Pumping Station. It is not possible to drive the connection tunnel from Chambers Wharf since the site is not big enough to support concurrent drive operations and because there is insufficient time to build one tunnel and then the other. c. Option C: Abbey Mills Pumping Station would be used as a reception site to receive the tunnel boring machine from Chambers Wharf. Chambers Wharf would be used as a drive site to drive the tunnel to Abbey Mills. Chambers Wharf would also be used to receive the tunnel boring machine from Zone S5 and to receive the connection tunnel from Greenwich Pumping Station. It is not be possible to drive the connection tunnel from Chambers Wharf since the site is not big enough to support concurrent drive operations and because there is insufficient time to build one tunnel and then the other.
4.3.19
The three options are illustrated and discussed below.
Page 32
Volume 3: Alternatives Option A (A1 and A2)
Vol 3 Figure 4.3.4 Main tunnel sites Comparison 3, Option A1
S11 Abbey Mills
S7 Limehouse
S6 Shad
KEY: Main tunnel drive site Connection tunnel drive site Reception site Main tunnel alignment Connection tunnel alignment
A1
Greenwich Pumping Station
Vol 3 Figure 4.3.5 Main tunnel sites Comparison 3, Option A2
S11 Abbey Mills
S7 Limehouse
S6 Shad A2
KEY: Main tunnel drive site Connection tunnel drive site Reception site Main tunnel alignment Connection tunnel alignment Greenwich Pumping Station
4.3.20
Considerations in favour of Option A included the following:
Page 33
a. Engineering: Driving from Abbey Mills avoids the need for temporary river reclamation and demolition of the existing jetty at Chambers Wharf (it would be possible to drive the connection tunnel to Greenwich on a smaller site without demolishing the jetty). b. Planning: There would be less impact on residential amenity at Chambers Wharf and this option would avoid temporary additional encroachment into the river (a strategic policy area) at Chambers Wharf. However, there would potential be a significant increase in the amount of material required to be transported from Abbey Mills by road (assuming transport by barge is limited), with a consequent increase in impact on residential amenity. c. Environment: Abbey Mills Pumping Station is, on balance, slightly preferred as a drive site to Chambers Wharf if material could be transported by barge. However, if this is not possible, it becomes more preferable to drive from Chambers Wharf, where the river could be used to remove excavated materials, thus resulting in less road vehicles having to travel past sensitive residential receptors near Abbey Mills.
d. Community: This option has greater impact on residents at Abbey Mills. It also reduces the impact on those at Chambers Wharf as, although the site could still be used to drive the smaller connection tunnel, it would not be required for one of the main tunnel drives. e. Property: Use of Abbey Mills as a drive site would reduce significant potential for discretionary purchase costs at Chambers Wharf (likely to be significantly higher than Abbey Mills drive site discretionary purchase costs). This option avoids partial construction in the foreshore and associated acquisition risks. 4.3.21 Drive options for the Greenwich connection tunnel are evaluated in the following section.
Page 34
Volume 3: Alternatives Option B
Vol 3 Figure 4.3.6 Main tunnel sites Comparison 3, Option B
S11 Abbey Mills
S7 Limehouse
S6 Shad
KEY: Main tunnel drive site Connection tunnel drive site Main tunnel alignment Connection tunnel alignment Greenwich Pumping Station
4.3.22
Considerations in favour of Option B included the following: a. Engineering: This option would result in reduced construction risks associated with the concentrated tunnelling operations required at the double drive site in Zone S5. It avoids the need for temporary reclamation of the river at Chambers Wharf. However, Chambers Wharf could not be used as both a main tunnel drive site and for a connection tunnel drive to Greenwich Pumping Station. b. Planning: No specific advantages were identified, given that an increased level of activity at Chambers Wharf is likely to have greater impact on residential amenity and would require additional encroachment into the river, which is a strategic policy area. c. Environment: No specific advantages were identified, although Abbey Mills Pumping Station is, on balance, slightly preferred as a drive site to Chambers Wharf if material could be transported by barge.
d. Community: No specific advantages are associated with this option. e. Property: No specific advantages are associated with this option.
Page 35
Volume 3: Alternatives Option C
Vol 3 Figure 4.3.7 Main tunnel sites Comparison 3, Option C
S11 Abbey Mills
S7 Limehouse
S6 Shad
KEY: Main tunnel drive site Connection tunnel drive site Reception site Main tunnel alignment Connection tunnel alignment Greenwich Pumping Station
4.3.23
Considerations in favour of Option C included the following: a. Engineering: There would be significantly better river access for removal of excavated materials at Chambers Wharf than Abbey Mills. Further technical work and discussions with the Lee Tunnel project team and Olympic Delivery Authority on their experience for the Olympic Park has shown that transporting material to and from the Abbey Mills site by the River Lee is highly undesirable when material needs to be transported daily over a two- to three-year period. This level of barge movements would be required if Abbey Mills Pumping Station was used as a main tunnel drive site, given the volume of excavated material that would be produced. b. Planning: This option offers a potential reduction in the amount of material required to be transported from Abbey Mills by road (assuming transport by barge is not viable), with a consequent reduction in impact on amenity. c. Environment: This option would avoid the need for works in the Channelsea River or potential impact on the road network at Abbey Mills in the event that barges could not be used from Abbey Mills, and related environmental impacts.
d. Community: The use of larger barges from Chambers Wharf (which would not be possible at Abbey Mills) would reduce impacts on local communities from traffic movements associated with a drive site.
Page 36
e. Property: The potential for discretionary purchase costs at Abbey Mills will be minimised if it is used as a reception site. 4.3.24 Based on the above considerations, on balance, it was concluded that Option C, ie, driving the main tunnel from Chambers Wharf to Abbey Mills (and using Chambers Wharf to receive tunnel boring machines from Zone S5), should be selected. One of the main factors that influenced this decision was that further technical work and discussions with the Lee Tunnel project team and Olympic Delivery Authority on their experience with the Olympic Park has shown that transporting substantial material volumes to and from the site by the River Lee is not desirable. Therefore, the use of Chambers Wharf as a main tunnel drive site, with the ability to transport material by barge, was considered more acceptable than the use of Abbey Mills as a drive site with possible reliance on road transport to remove material. Conclusion 4.3.25 Based on the above comparisons and conclusions reached by all disciplines at the preferred scheme workshops, the preferred drive option for connecting the main tunnel sites was identified as follows: a. Main drive from Carnworth Road Riverside to Acton Storm Tanks. b. Main drive from Kirtling Street to Carnworth Road Riverside c. Main drive from Kirtling Street to Chamber Wharf d. Main drive from Chambers Wharf to Abbey Mills e. Long connection tunnel drive from Greenwich PS to Chambers Wharf 4.3.26 Whilst the above comparisons describe the main steps taken to identify the preferred drive strategy, it is also necessary to consider the main drive sites and the alternatives to them. The main alternatives are represented by the other short-listed sites in each area. Carnworth Road Riverside was chosen as a main drive site in the west because the site is brownfield, the presence of wharfs and width of Thames would allow use of barges to remove material during construction and the site has good access to major road network. Other short-listed sites considered in this area were Barn Elms, Feathers Wharf and Fulham Depot. Kirtling Street was chosen as a main double drive site in the central part of the route because the site is brownfield in a mainly industrial area, has direct river access with potential to allow use of barges to remove material during construction and has good access from Nine Elms Lane (A3025). In addition it would cause less disruption to residents than some other short-listed sites and would not affect early stages of Battersea Power Station Redevelopment. Other short-listed sites considered were Battersea Park, Battersea Power Station, Part of Battersea Power Station, Heathwall Pumping Station and Midddle Wharf, Post Office site on Nine Elms Lane, a site on Post Office Way, Depots on Ponton Road, an Open Space off Grosvenor Road and the Foreshore at Riverside House near Vauxhall Bridge
4.3.27
4.3.28
Page 37
Chambers Wharf was chosen as a main drive site in the eastern part of the route because the site is brownfield, has direct river access with potential allow use of barges to remove material during construction and there would be no need to divert Thames Path. King Stairs Gardens was the only other short-listed site in this area. The above drive strategy is that presented at phase two consultation and assessed within the PEIR (as defined in Volume 2).
4.3.30
Page 38
Section 5: CSO sites
5 5.1
5.1.1
CSO sites Introduction

This section provides an overview of the interception requirements at each CSO and the identification of the preferred CSO site. At each CSO where an interception is required, a series of alternatives have been considered in order to identify the preferred site. Much of the text is drawn from the Phase two scheme development report (available as part of the phase two consultation materials) and focuses on the identified site and other short-listed sites in the vicinity. Other sites which did not progress beyond the long list in each location are not reviewed since they do not generally represent viable alternatives. Where reference is made to a preferred site at Phase 1, this refers to the site as defined within the EIA Scoping Report (March 2011). In summary, each site will be required for construction purposes for approximately one to four years, and will be between 1,500m2 and 7,500m2 in size. Each site was considered on its own merits and the fact that a site is identified as a preferred site does not necessarily mean that it is free from constraints, rather that it is considered the most suitable, or least constrained, site in a required location compared to the alternatives considered.
5.1.2
5.1.3
5.1.4
5.2
5.2.1
Acton Storm Relief

Three sites were shortlisted for interception of this CSO, although one (Chiswick Maternity Hospital) was later discounted as development on site meant it was no longer available. At phase one Acton Storm Tanks was the preferred site for CSO interception and it remains the preferred site at phase two. In summary, this site was selected as it is an existing Thames Water site and would have fewer impacts on residential amenity than the other potential site (Welstead Way car park). At phase two it is also proposed that the main tunnel is extended to Acton Storm Tanks. This site will therefore intercept the Acton storm relief CSO and be a main tunnel reception site. The site was chosen as a main tunnel reception site at phase two because the Hammersmith PS site was unavailable as a main tunnel site (because of ongoing development) and a 6m main tunnel is required between Carnwath Road Riverside and Acton. The position of the main shaft has been moved to the northern part of the site to minimise any potential impact on residents of Warple Way. Full details of this site (including the requirement to use this site as a main tunnel site as well as for CSO interception) are provided in Volume 7.
5.2.2
5.2.3
5.2.4 5.2.5
5.3
5.3.1
Hammersmith Pumping Station

At phase one Hammersmith Pumping Station was a preferred main tunnel reception site, and was also the preferred site for CSO interception. At
Page 39
phase two this is no longer a main tunnel reception site Scheme development work and the submission of a new planning application for the land adjacent to the pumping station since phase one (and indications that this development will commence shortly) have eliminated the possibility of this site being used as a main tunnel reception site (the site is to be developed and is no longer available for this use). It is however still necessary to intercept the CSO in this location. Several alternative locations were assessed as short-listed sites for this interception including Frank Banfield Park and the foreshore adjacent to Chancellors Wharf. 5.3.2 A smaller site adjacent to the pumping station is however the preferred site for CSO interception for phase two as this can be utilised in conjunction with the development of the surrounding site. The site can also be located in close proximity to the existing pumping station. The drop shaft is located further away from existing residential dwellings than the other shortlisted sites, which means that construction effects can be more effectively managed. The site is also brownfield land and has good access. Full details of this site are provided in Volume 8.
5.3.3
5.4
5.4.1 5.4.2
West Putney Storm Relief

At phase one, Barn Elms, was a preferred main tunnel reception site, and was also the preferred site for CSO interception. As a result of scheme development work, Carnwath Road Riverside is now preferred to Barn Elms for use as a main tunnel drive site. This site remains, however, the preferred site for CSO interception for phase two. This is because it avoided the need to relocate an existing business and community facilities, avoided the ecological impact of working in the foreshore and had less impact on the local community than other shortlisted sites. The four sites shortlisted for interception of the West Putney Storm Relief CSO were the preferred site, the adjacent foreshore, the boat repair yard off Putney Embankment and Leaders Gardens. At phase one the south east corner of Barn Elms Sports Fields was the preferred site for CSO interception (and was sited alongside the main tunnel site at Barn Elms). In summary this site was chosen for CSO interception as it would allow combination of works with main shaft site, safe, efficient working, had good access and would require fewer enabling works than other options. Full details of this site are provided in Volume 9.
5.4.3
5.4.4
5.5
5.5.1
Putney Bridge Storm Relief

The existing sewerage system is configured so that two large branches join together beneath the main road junction at the southern end of Putney Bridge, just upstream of the CSO discharge point. Both branches of the sewerage network need to be intercepted. Consequently the only viable location to intercept all flows for the Putney Bridge SR would be downstream of the discharge point in the foreshore. Therefore, all shortlisted sites are located in the foreshore.
Page 40
Four CSO sites were shortlisted for interception of this CSO, all four of which were located in the foreshore, two to the west and two to the east of Putney Bridge. At phase one the preferred site was identified to the west of Putney Bridge. This site was identified as it was considered that, when compared to alternatives, use of this site would minimise adverse construction effects upon the multiple sensitive receptors located on the eastern side of the bridge. At phase two the preferred site remains the same although the site location has however moved slightly to the west to minimise impacts further. Full details of f this site are provided in Volume 10.
5.5.3
5.5.4
5.5.5
5.6
5.6.1
Frogmore Storm Relief Bell Lane Creek

Two sites were originally shortlisted for interception of this CSO, namely a small business site on Bell Lane Creek and the nearby London Borough of Wandsworth Maintenance Depot. At phase one the former was selected as the preferred site for CSO interception as it was anticipated that fewer people would be affected than if the depot site was selected. . Following phase one, new information was received on availability of an alternative site, known as Dormay Street, to the north of the preferred site, which had not previously been considered. This alternative site a vacant site is the phase two preferred site as it would avoid the loss of an existing business and has fewer other constraints than the alternatives, including the small business site on Bell Lane Creek. Full details of this site are provided in Volume 11.
5.6.2
5.6.3
5.7
5.7.1
Frogmore Storm Relief Buckhold Road

Two sites were shortlisted for interception of this CSO namely King Georges Park and the car park off Broomhill Road. At phase one King Georges Park was the preferred site and it remains the preferred site at phase two. In summary this site is preferred as it would allow efficient working and would result in fewer impacts on residential amenity than the alternative car park site. Full details of this site are provided in Volume 12.
5.7.2
5.8
5.8.1
Jews Row: Wandle Valley Storm Relief and Falconbrook Storm Relief
At phase one the concrete batching plant, west of Wansworth Bridge was identified as the preferred site with two other alternative short-listed sites considered, namely the foreshore at the end of Jews Row and an area of Open Space off Old York Road, Swandon Way. However, further scheme development work undertaken since phase one consultation has concluded that it is no longer necessary to identify a site for interception of these two CSOs. This is because modifications that have been recently made within the sewer system sufficiently reduce the
5.8.2
Page 41
number of spills to the river without the need to carry out any further works (see Volume 2, Other Works for further details)
5.9
5.9.1 5.9.2
Falconbrook Pumping Station

Four sites were originally shortlisted for interception of this CSO. At phase one the preferred site was Bridges Court Car Park. Scheme development work took into account consultation feedback received at phase one consultation and further engineering design work that had been undertaken. As a consequence a new site at Falconbrook Pumping Station has been identified as the preferred site for phase two consultation. In summary this site is considered most suitable as it is a Thames Water owned site and has less impact upon residential amenity than alternative sites namely Bridges Court Car Park, the Foreshore near London Heliport and two different sites within York Gardens Full details of this site are provided in Volume 14.
5.9.3
5.10
5.10.1 5.10.2
Lots Road Pumping Station

Only one site was originally shortlisted for interception of this CSO. At phase one the Cremorne Wharf Foreshore, was the preferred site. Scheme development work took into account new information on the availability of the Cremorne Wharf Depot site, phase one consultation feedback and further engineering design work that had been undertaken. As a consequence a new site at the adjacent Cremorne Wharf Depot has been identified as the preferred site for phase two consultation. In summary this site is considered more suitable than the foreshore site as it is on brownfield land, will not result in disruption to the foreshore habitats and has less impact upon residential amenity compared to the alternatives. Full details of this site are provided in Volume 15.
5.10.3
5.11
5.11.1 5.11.2
Ranelagh
Only one site was originally shortlisted for interception of this CSO and the Low Level Sewer No 1. At phase one the preferred site was therefore Chelsea Embankment Foreshore (west of Chelsea Bridge. At phase two the preferred site remains Chelsea Embankment foreshore although the sites location within the foreshore has been moved slightly to a new site Chelsea Embankment Foreshore (opposite Bull Ring Gate). Although the decision was finely balanced this site has been chosen because it is considered to give rise to fewer effects overall notably reduced impacts on Ranelagh Gardens. Full details of this site are provided in Volume 16.
5.11.3
5.12
5.12.1
Heathwall Pumping Station and South West Storm Relief

At phase one Heathwall Pumping Station and land at the adjacent Tideway Walk Industrial site were identified as a preferred main tunnel drive site in this location, and it was also the preferred site for CSO interception. The alternatives considered were Battersea Park, Battersea
Page 42
Power Station, the four different areas of industrial land, three of which were to the west of Kirtling Street and one south of Nine Elms Lane. 5.12.2 At phase two Tideway Walk/Heathwall Pumping Station is no longer proposed as a main tunnel drive site, but it is still necessary to intercept the CSO in this location. The Thames Tideway Walk site is currently being developed for housing and will therefore not be available as a drive site. Three sites were originally shortlisted for the CSO interception alone, one for Heathwall Pumping Station outfall and two for the South West Storm Relief. The sites adjoined, or were part of the earlier Tideway Walk site. Following scheme development work a main tunnel site has been identified for phase two at a site at Kirtling Street, which is located to the west of the Thames Tideway Walk site. Therefore the main tunnel site and Heathwall Pumping Station CSO site can no longer be combined. Scheme development work reconsidered the most appropriate site for CSO interception and for phase two the CSO interception site will be at Heathwall Pumping Station rather than the adjacent foreshore because it is owned by Thames Water and avoids the foreshore impacts. Full details of the site are provided in Volume 18.
5.12.3
5.12.4
5.12.5
5.12.6
5.13
5.13.1
Clapham Storm Relief and Brixton Storm Relief

In total four sites were shortlisted for consideration for this interception, including the preferred site, two other foreshore sites (one south of Vauxhall Bridge and one adjacent to St Georges Wharf) and an areas of Open Space at Claylands Road. At phase one the preferred site for interception of both CSOs was a site on the Albert Embankment Foreshore. This remains the phase two preferred site. In summary this site is preferred as, compared to the alternatives, it would have least impact on residential amenity, allows access and minimises impact on the flow of the river. Full details of the site are provided in Volume 19.
5.13.2
5.14
5.14.1 5.14.2
Regent Street
A site is needed to intercept the Regent Street CSO and connect to the northern Low Level Sewer No.1. Two sites were shortlisted for this CSO, namely the preferred site and an alternative short-listed site in Victoria Embankment Gardens. At phase one Victoria Embankment Foreshore was the preferred site and it remains the preferred site at phase two. In summary this site is preferred as it is considered less likely to give rise to conflict with planning policy, particularly that relating to heritage and open space designations compared to the alternative. It also reduces the risk of working alongside the District and Circle line underground tunnels. Full details of the site are provided in Volume 20.
5.14.3
Page 43
5.15
5.15.1 5.15.2
Fleet Main
A site is needed to intercept the Fleet Main CSO and northern Low Level Sewer No.1 Only one site was shortlisted for the Fleet CSO and northern Low Level Sewer No.1. This site at Blackfriars Bridge Foreshore, was the phase one preferred site and remains the preferred site at phase two. Whilst the site will require careful mitigation it is the only potentially suitable site in this highly constrained location. Full details of the site are provided in Volume 21.
5.15.3
5.16
5.16.1
Shad Thames Pumping Station

At phase one a site at Druid Street was identified as the preferred site for interception of this CSO. However, scheme development work undertaken since phase one consultation has identified that, by carrying out modifications and upgrades within the Shad Thames Pumping Station, an interception to the storm relief sewer is not needed. As a consequence, there is no requirement for a site at Druid Street. The works at Shad Thames Pumping Station include modifications to the pumps and internal pipework, demolition of the existing superintendents building behind the existing pumping station, construction of a new, slightly larger annex to replace the superintendents building and house new electrical equipment, and some modifications to the existing sewers outside the pumping station. There is no CSO drop shaft construction at the site and no connection to the tunnel. Further details are provided in Volume 2.
5.16.2
5.17
5.17.1
North East Storm Relief

Two sites were originally shortlisted for interception of this CSO, namely and area within King Edward Memorial Park the park itself and an area on the foreshore. At phase one the preferred site was the foreshore and a modified version of this site (which includes a small area of the park) remains the preferred site at phase two. In summary, it is considered that, compared to the alternative, this site will have least impact upon the local community and local businesses with concurrent work at two sites in close proximity putting more construction traffic onto the local roads. Consideration was also given to tunnel alignment under buildings and disruption to businesses in reaching this conclusion. In addition to the above single site approach to interception, as a result of consultation, several alternatives were explored which involved a shallow interception in the Park itself linked to a deeper shaft at another site via a short connection tunnel. The deeper shaft at the other site would then link to the main tunnel. Three alternative sites were reviewed for this off-site deep shaft, namely Heckford Street Industrial Area, Shadwell Basin and LImehouse Basin. The Heckford Street alternative proved technically better than the other two. In a direct comparison, the foreshore site was retained as the preferred site since it gives the opportunity for the use of barges, only requires one construction site (rather than two), requires less
5.17.2
Page 44
infrastructure and reduces the extent of tunnelling under buildings required by the project. 5.17.3 Full details of the site are provided in Volume 23.
5.18
5.18.1
Holloway Storm Relief

At phase one Butcher Row was identified as the preferred site for interception of this CSO with two alternative short-listed sites considered, namely the foreshore off Narrow Street (near the junction with Spert Street) and St Jamess Gardens, off Butcher Row and Tubbel Approach. However, scheme development work undertaken since phase one consultation has identified that, by carrying out modifications to the existing sewer, there is no need to intercept the storm relief sewer and connect it to the tunnel. As a consequence there is no requirement for a site at Butcher Row, but instead there are works that need to be carried out on the existing sewer in Bekesbourne Street. The works in Bekesbourne Street include construction of a chamber around the existing sewer, and installation of a new penstock and flap valve. There is no connection of these works to the tunnel. Further details are provided in Volume 2.
5.18.2
5.19
5.19.1
Earl Pumping Station

Six sites were shortlisted for interception of this CSO being. the preferred site, the foreshore adjacent to the boatyard and Helsinki Square, the Car Park at Helsinki Square, the Boat Yard at Calypso Way, the Car Park at the corner of Grove Street and Plough Way. At phase one the preferred site was Earl Pumping Station itself and adjoining industrial premises (between Yeoman Street and Croft Street). This remains the preferred site for phase two. In summary these sites were selected primarily to make use of a Thames Water site and allow all new CSO assets to be within an extended Thames Water operational site. Full details of the site are provided in Volume 24.
5.19.2
5.20
5.20.1
Deptford Storm Relief

Three sites were originally shortlisted for this CSO being namely the Phase 1 preferred site at Borthwick Wharf Foreshore, the AHOY Centre at the junction of Borthwick Street and an area of open space at Deptford Green. Since phase one scheme development work has been undertaken to address matters raised at phase one consultation and engineering concerns regarding CSO interception and construction access. As a consequence of this work at phase two the preferred site is a triangular area of land at Deptford Church Street. In summary, this site is preferred as it is more accessible than Borthwick Wharf Foreshore, it is not so close to dense residential development and it does not encroach in to the River Thames. Full details of the site are provided in Volume 25.
5.20.2
5.20.3
Page 45
5.21
5.21.1
Greenwich Pumping Station

Two sites were shortlisted for interception of this CSO namely the Phase 1 preferred site at Greenwich Pumping Station and the foreshore near the Greenwich Foot Tunnel. Greenwich Pumping Station remains our preferred site at phase two, however an amended version of the site in terms of size and layout has been identified. This site incorporates land at Phoenix Wharf to the north in order to allow the site to be used for a CSO connection tunnel drive site as well as a CSO interception. In summary it was judged the most suitable site as it allows use of an existing Thames Water site, with consequent operational efficiencies and a controlled environment. Full details of the site are provided in Volume 26.
5.21.2
Page 46
Glossary
Glossary
Term A-weighted sound Description A-weighted decibels, abbreviated dBA, or dBa, or dB(a), are an expression of the relative loudness of sounds in air as perceived by the human ear. Ground elevation is measured relative to the mean sea level at Newlyn in Cornwall, referred to as Ordnance Datum (OD), such that heights are reported in metres above or below OD. Removal of water from a source of supply (surface or groundwater). Areas where the local authority determines the national air quality objectives are not likely to be achieved by the relevant deadlines. People, property or designated sites for nature conservation that may be at risk from exposure to air pollutants that could potentially arise as a result of the proposed development/project. Sediment laid down by a river. Can range from sands and gravels deposited by fast flowing water and clays that settle out of suspension during overbank flooding. Other deposits found on a valley floor are usually included in the term alluvium (eg, peat). The average (mean) of the hourly pollutant concentrations measured or predicted for a one year period. Originating as a result of human activities. A hydrogeological unit which, that allows groundwater movement at negligible rates, even though porous and capable of storing water. Groundwater movement insufficient to allow appreciable supply to a borehole or spring. Aquicludes tend to act as an impermeable barrier. A permeable geological stratum or formation that is capable of both storing and transmitting water in significant amounts.
Above Ordinance Datum abstraction Air Quality Management Area air quality sensitive receptors
alluvium
Annual Mean Concentration anthropogenic aquiclude
aquifer
Archaeological Priority Areas of archaeological priority, significance, potential or Area/Zone other title, often designated by the local authority. background concentration Basal Sands base case The contribution to the total measured or predicted concentration of a pollutant that does not originate directly from local sources of emissions. The Upnor Beds (the lower unit of the Lambeth Group) and the Thanet Sands. The base case for the assessment is a future case, without the project, in a particular assessment year.
Page 47
Volume 3: Alternatives Term baseflow baseline benthic invertebrates Bentonite Description
Glossary
The component of river flow derived from groundwater sources rather than surface run-off. The existing conditions against which the likely significant effects due to a proposed development are assessed. Invertebrates which are found within or on the river bed. An absorbent aluminium phyllosilicate, in general, impure clay consisting mostly of montmorillonite. Mixed with water, it forms a slurry commonly used as drilling fluid and ground support in tunnelling. A hole drilled into the ground for geological investigation or for the exploitation of geological deposits or groundwater. An abstraction borehole is a well sunk into an aquifer from which water will be pumped. Wind-blown dust deposited under extremely cold, dry post glacial conditions suitable for making bricks. Produced by the BSI Group in order to set up standards of quality for goods and services. 2,000600 BC. Recording of historic buildings (by a competent archaeological organisation) is undertaken to document buildings, or parts of buildings, which may be lost as a result of demolition, alteration or neglect, amongst other reasons. Four levels of recording are defined by Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England (RCHME) and English Heritage. Level 1 (basic visual record); Level 2 (descriptive record), Level 3 (analytical record), and Level 4 (comprehensive analytical record). Also called a bund wall, bunding is a separated area within a structure designed to prevent inundation or breaches of various types. An area of stone, concrete or timber laid on the river / sea bed, that is exposed at low tide, allowing vessels to rest safely and securely in place. The area from which surface water and/or groundwater will collect and contribute to the flow of a specific river, abstraction or other specific discharge boundary. Can be prefixed by surface water or groundwater to indicate the specific nature of the catchment.
borehole
brickearth British Standard Bronze Age Building recording
bunding
campshed
catchment
Page 48
Volume 3: Alternatives Term Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy (CAMS) Description
Glossary
The Environment Agencys strategy for water resources management in England and Wales through licensing water abstraction. CAMS is used to inform the public on water resources and licensing practice; provide a consistent approach to local water resources management; and help to balance the needs of water-users and the environment. A curve formed by a perfectly flexible, uniformly dense, and inextensible cable suspended from its endpoints. Whales, dolphins and porpoises. A soft white limestone (calcium carbonate) formed from the skeletal remains of sea creatures. Method for evaluating invertebrate communities based on species rarity, diversity and abundance. A temporary or permanent enclosure built across a body of water to allow the enclosed area to be pumped out creating a dry work environment. A sewer conveying waste water of domestic or industrial origin and rain water. A structure, or series of structures, designed to allow spillage of excess waste water from a combined sewer under high rainfall conditions. Flows may discharge by gravity or by pumping. A simplified representation or qualified description of the behaviour of the hydrogeological system. A quantitative conceptual model includes preliminary calculations and flow and mass balances. Conservation areas defined by Local Planning Authorities according to the provisions of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The area of site that would be used during the construction phase. The statutory plan which sets out a boroughs planning policies in relation to the management of development and land use. Supersedes the Unitary Development Plan in Boroughs where it has been adopted. A mobile crane, usually with caterpillar tracks. The flow from the existing CSO is diverted to the location of the drop shaft. The drop shaft location requires suitable access for construction and maintenance.
catenary Cetaceans Chalk Community Conservation Index. (CCI) cofferdam
combined sewer combined sewer overflow (CSO)
conceptual model
Conservation area
construction site Core Strategy
crawler crane CSO connection culvert
Page 49
Volume 3: Alternatives Term CSO connection tunnel Description
Glossary
The flow from the drop shaft is transferred to the Thames Tunnel through a connection tunnel. These vary in diameter from 2.2m to 5.0m Long connection tunnels can be up to 4,615m in length. The shaft connects the flow down to the Thames Tunnel. The shaft sizes depend on the amount of flow to be intercepted and the de-aeration requirements and the depth depends on the location of the Thames Tunnel. The size ranges from 6m to 25m and depth from 25 to 75m. Site where the flows from an existing CSO would be redirected to the main Thames Tunnel. An area of land or structures around a dwelling or other structure. Excavated material to be re-used within the development as fill or removed off-site. the equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level having the same energy as a fluctuating sound over a specified time period T. An area within the shaft and/or associated pipe work, where air is removed from liquids. Logarithmic ratio used to relate sound pressure level to a standard reference level. Influencing or determining elements or factors. In London these refer to the borough Unitary Development Plans. A system used to locally lower groundwater levels around the worksite to provide stable working conditions when excavating. A diaphragm wall is a reinforced concrete retaining wall that is constructed in-situ. A deep trench is excavated and supported with bentonite slurry, and then reinforcing steel is inserted into the trench. Concrete is poured into the trench and only after this does excavation in front of the retained earth commence. The release of substances (eg, water, sewage, etc.) into surface waters, ground or sewer. A lowering of the water level in a borehole or aquifer, usually in response to abstraction. Legal standards set in Europe in the Drinking Water Directive 1998 together with UK national standards to maintain wholesomeness of potable water.
CSO drop shaft
CSO interception site curtilage cut dB LAeq,T
de-aeration chamber decibel (dB) determinands Development Plan dewatering wells
diaphragm wall
discharge drawdown Drinking Water Standards
Page 50
Volume 3: Alternatives Term early medieval effect effluent Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Description
Glossary
AD 410 1066. Also referred to as the Saxon period. The result of an impact on a particular resource or receptor. The treated wastewater discharged from the Sewage Treatment Works. An assessment of the likely significant effects that a proposed project may have on the environment, considering natural, social and economic aspects, prepared in accordance with the 2009 Infrastructure Planning EIA Regulations. The concentration of chemical pollutants assessed to have detrimental effects on water quality in terms of the health of aquatic plants and animals. EQS are established in the WFD (Annex V) through the testing of the toxicity of the substance on aquatic biology. A document to be prepared following an EIA which provides a systematic and objective account of the EIAs findings, prepared in accordance with the 2009 Infrastructure Planning EIA Regulations. A limited programme of nonintrusive and/or intrusive fieldwork which determines the presence or absence of archaeological features, structures, deposits, artefacts or ecofacts within a specified area. A programme of controlled, intrusive fieldwork with defined research objectives which examines, records and interprets archaeological remains, retrieves artefacts, ecofacts and other remains within a specified area. The records made and objects gathered are studied and the results published in detail appropriate to the project design. A structural planar fracture or discontinuity within lithological strata due to strain or compression, in which significant displacement is observable. Factors that will determine the severity of an odour as defined by the Environment Agency; Frequency, Intensity, Duration, Offensiveness, Receptor. Material required to raise existing ground levels. This can utilise cut material generated within the site, or necessitate the importation of material. The location at which an item was found. A sewer conveying waste water of domestic and/or industrial origin, but little or no rain water. A breakage in a rock mass. Present at any scale, but is generally used for large scale discontinuities.
Environmental Quality Standards (EQS)
Environmental Statement (ES)
Evaluation (archaeological)
Excavation (archaeological)
fault
FIDOR
fill
findspot foul sewer fracture
Page 51
Volume 3: Alternatives Term GARDIT Description
Glossary
General Aquifer Research Development and Investigation Team (Thames Water, the Environment Agency and London Underground with the support of organisations such as the Corporation of London, Envirologic, the Association of British Insurers (ABI) and BT). The gradual increase in the temperature of the earth's atmosphere, believed to be due to the greenhouse effect, caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, and other pollutants. Benchmark national quality standard for parks and green spaces in the United Kingdom. Water contained in underground strata, predominantly in aquifers. Inundation of land or basements as groundwater levels rise and the groundwater discharges to the surface or underground structures. The rise in groundwater level that occurs after cessation of abstraction. Groundwater Body: distinct volume of groundwater within an aquifer or aquifers. A dark brown slightly glauconitic clay with localised fine sand. Temporary roads provided within the contractors site area to allow the transportation of material around the site. A building, monument, site, place, area or landscape positively identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions. Heritage assets are the valued components of the Historic environment. They include designated heritage assets and assets identified by the local planning authority (including local listing). Archaeological and built heritage database held and maintained by the County authority. Previously known as the Sites and Monuments Record. Designated residential area with streets designed to operate primarily as a space for social use. Generally hard nodular chalks with thin flaser marls. In parts, there are significant proportions of shell debris. Inter-bedded coloured marl and chalk succession characteristic of the Plenus Marls Member are found at its base. Above this, the Melbourn Rock Member is distinguishable by its lack of shell material.
global warming
Green Flag groundwater groundwater flooding
groundwater rebound GWB Harwich Formation haul roads heritage asset
Historic environment Record (HER) Homezone Holywell Nodular Chalk
Page 52
Volume 3: Alternatives Term hydraulic conductivity Description
Glossary
A constant of proportionality in Darcys law that allows the calculation of the rate of groundwater flow from the hydraulic gradient. For a unit hydraulic gradient, the higher the hydraulic conductivity the higher the rate of groundwater flow. In an aquifer this is the rate of change of groundwater level per unit distance in a given direction. Groundwater flows in the direction of the decline in hydraulic gradient. A graph showing a plot of water flow or level with time, applicable to both surface water and groundwater. A physical or measurable change to the environment attributable to the project. This structure is required to be built around the existing overflow either on land or at the discharge point in the foreshore. The chamber has a weir and valves to divert the flow in to the Thames Tunnel system. It is likely to be a reinforced concrete cut and cover box structure. In some other cases the structure is required to be built adjacent to an inlet or sump of a pump station from which the flow is diverted 600 BC AD 43. A caisson is a retaining, water-tight structure open to the air. A jack is used to push the caisson into the ground, with the internal area then excavated. Equivalent continuous sound level is a notional steady sound level which would cause the same A-weighted sound energy to be received as that due to the actual and possibly fluctuating sound over a period of time (T). It can also be used to relate periods of exposure and noise level. Thus, for example, a halving or doubling of the period of exposure is equivalent in sound energy to a decrease or increase of 3dB(A) in the sound level for the original period. The maximum sound level measured on the A- weighted scale occurring during an event. Complex sequence of highly variable inter-bedded sediments which include clay, sands, pebble beds and Shelly beds. Fine to coarse sand or clay with occasional black organic matter. AD 1066 1500. The Lee Tunnel comprises a 7.2m diameter storage and transfer tunnel from Abbey Mills Pumping Station to Beckton STW and the interception of the Abbey Mills CSO.
hydraulic gradient
hydrograph impact interception chamber
Iron Age jacked caission
LAeq(T)
LAmax Lambeth Group Laminated Beds later medieval Lee Tunnel
Page 53
Volume 3: Alternatives Term Lewes Nodular Chalk Description
Glossary
Hard to very hard nodular chalks and hardgrounds with interbedded soft to medium hard chalks and marls. More abundant softer chalks towards the top. Formal permit allowing the holder to engage in an activity (in the context of this report, usually abstraction), subject to conditions specified in the licence itself and the legislation under which it was issued. A structure of architectural and/or historical interest. These are included on the Secretary of State's list, which affords statutory protection. These are subdivided in to Grades I, II* and II (in descending importance). The general characteristics of a rock or sedimentary formation. Local areas where the local authority determines the national air quality objectives are not likely to be achieved by the relevant deadlines. Collection of planning documents prepared by the Local Planning Authority outlining the management of development and land use in a Borough. A structure of local architectural and/or historical interest. These are structures that are not included in the Secretary of States Listing but are considered by the local authority to have architectural and/or historical merit. An area specific plan to interpret and apply the strategy set out in the Structure Plan, to provide a detailed basis for the control of development, to provide a basis for co-ordinating new development and to bring planning issues before the public. Fine sandy silty clay to silty clay. The LTI comprise five separate improvement projects at Thames Waters five Tideway sewage treatment works (STWs): Mogden, Beckton, Crossness, Riverside and Long Reach. The LTT comprises two separate projects: the Lee Tunnel and the Thames Tunnel. Consisting of the Upnor Beds (the lowest unit of the Lambeth Group), the Thanet Sands and the Chalk. Artificial deposit. An archaeologist would differentiate between modern made ground, containing identifiably modern inclusion such as concrete (but not brick or tile), and undated made ground, which may potentially contain deposits of archaeological interest.
licence
listed building
lithology Local Air Quality Management (LAQM) Local Development Framework (LDF) locally listed building
Local Plan
London Clay London Tideway Improvements (LTI)
London Tideway Tunnels (LTT) Lower aquifer made ground
Page 54
Volume 3: Alternatives Term main tunnel drive shaft site main tunnel reception shaft site Mesolithic mitigation measures Description
Glossary
Site that would be used to insert and then drive the TBM. Site that would be used to remove the TBM from the Thames Tunnel at the end of the drive. 12,000 4,000 BC. Actions proposed to prevent or reduce adverse effects arising from the whole or specific elements of the development. 4,000 2,000 BC. Non-nodular chalk, massively bedded, with fairly regularly developed marl seams and sporadic flints. A product of combustion processes. Nitrogen dioxide is associated with adverse effects on human health. A report which briefly describes the main points discussed in the Environmental Statement in a clear manner without the use of technical jargon and phraseology. This report is a requirement of the 2009 Infrastructure Planning EIA Regulations. The Water Services Regulations Authority, a government body set up in 1989 to regulate the activities of the water companies in England and Wales. Odour panel sampling carried out in laboratory conditions. Related to past environments, ie, during the prehistoric and later periods. Such remains can be of archaeological interest, and often consist of organic remains such as pollen and plant macro fossils which can be used to reconstruct the past environment. 700,00012,000 BC. A Middle Bronze Age axe. Solid particles or liquid droplets suspended or carried in the air and includes the same matter after it has deposited onto a surface. For the purposes of this assessment the term includes all size fractions of suspended matter, such as dust, PM10 and PM2.5. A structure containing carbon which absorbs odour from air flowing out of the Tunnel, without the assistance of mechanical pumping. Preliminary Environmental Information Report is a document setting out initial environmental information. In accordance with the Planning Act 2008, it is a requirement that this is the subject of pre-application consultation.
Neolithic New Pit Chalk nitrogen dioxide (and oxides NO2 and NO) Non-Technical Summary (NTS)
Ofwat
olfactometry Palaeo-environmental
Palaeolithic palstave particulate matter (PM)
passive filter chamber
PEIR
Page 55
Volume 3: Alternatives Term pelagic invertebrates perched water Description Invertebrates which are found in the water column.
Glossary
Is groundwater in an aquifer present above the regional water table, as a result of a (semi-)impermeable layer of rock or sediment above the main water table/aquifer, below the ground surface. The capacity of soil or porous rock to transmit water. A measure of the acidity or basicity of an aqueous solution. A borehole designed specifically to allow the measurement of groundwater level. The level or head to which groundwater would rise in a piezometer if it is free to seek equilibrium with the atmosphere. Written procedures put in place for dealing with spillages and pollution. Containing void spaces. Most sedimentary rocks are porous to some extent, and the term is commonly applied in a relative sense, generally restricted to rocks which have significant effective porosity. Refers to Option 3 Abbey Mills route, which runs from Action Storm Tanks in west London to Limehouse then turns northeast to Abbey Mills Pumping Station, where it connects with the Lee Tunnel. Refers to the preferred route and construction sites. Sites assessed as most suitable following review of suitability of each shortlisted site by taking in to account engineering,planning, environment, property and community considerations. Preservation by recording and advancement of understanding of asset significance. This is a standard archaeological mitigation strategy where heritage assets remains are fully excavated and recorded archaeologically and the results published. For remains of lesser significance, preservation by record might comprise an archaeological watching brief. Archaeological mitigation strategy where nationally important (whether designated or not) heritage assets are conserved in situ for future generations, typically through modifications to design proposals to avoid damage or destruction of such remains.
permeability pH piezometer piezometric surface
Pollution Incident Control Plan porous
preferred route
preferred scheme preferred site
preservation by record
preservation in situ
Page 56
Volume 3: Alternatives Term Principal Aquifer Description
Glossary
A geological stratum that exhibits high inter-granular and/or fracture permeability. This strata has the ability to support water supply and/or river base flow on a strategic scale. Principal Aquifers equate in most cases to aquifers previously referred to as Major Aquifers. Term used to describe the supply of water provided by a water company. Putty chalk (clay characteristics) near the surface of the unit above firm to soft non-nodular chalk with flint (Upper Chalk undivided) above hard nodular chalk with flints (Lewes Chalk). An international treaty for the conservation and sustainable utilisation of wetlands. River Basin Management Plans these are the relevant plans that outline the state of water resources within a River Basin District relevant to the objectives of the WFD. The rarest and most threatened species are often listed in the Red Data Book of Insects1, within which there are three categories. Taxa in danger of extinction are referred to as RDB 1 species; those considered to be vulnerable and likely to move into the endangered category are listed under RDB 2, whilst rare species occur on RDB 3. Section of river between two points. Extensive alluvial sand and gravel deposits laid down in a braided river system in river terraces since the Anglian glaciations. Where live data is used to manipulate control equipment in order to best manage the flow of storm water and sewage within the capacity of the system. People (both individually and communally) and the socioeconomic systems they support. Water that percolates downwards from the surface to replenish the water table. The red route is a network of roads designated by Transport for London that carry heavy volumes of traffic and are essential for the movement of traffic and public transport. These comprise mainly of major routes into and around London. Transport for London are responsible for enforcing the red routes which include clearways, parking and loading bays, bus lanes, yellow box junctions and banned turns.
Public Water Supply Putty Chalk
RAMSAR RBMP
RDB3
reach River Terrace Deposits real time control (RTC) receptors recharge Red route
Bratton, (1991) Red Data Book for Insects
Page 57
Volume 3: Alternatives Term risk assessment Description
Glossary
Assessment of the risks associated with an activity or object and possible accidents involving a source or practice. This includes assessment of consequence. AD 43 410. Scheduled Ancient Monument. More commonly referred to as Scheduled Monument. Entry of brackish or salt water into an aquifer, from the sea or estuary. This may be natural or induced by excessive or uncontrolled groundwater abstraction. The zone in which the voids in a rock or soil are filled with water at a pressure greater than atmospheric pressure. An ancient monument or archaeological deposits designated by the Secretary of State as a Scheduled Ancient Monument and protected under the Ancient Monuments Act. The formal view of the determining authority on the range of topics and issues to be considered by the Environmental Impact Assessment, as referred to in the 2009 Infrastructure Planning EIA Regulations. The document prepared by the applicant setting out the proposed approach to the Environmental Impact Assessment, including the range of topics and issues to be addressed, as referred to in the 2009 Infrastructure Planning EIA Regulations. The formal view of the determining authority on the need for an Environmental Impact Assessment to be undertaken, as referred to in the 2009 Infrastructure Planning EIA Regulations. The upper unit of the White Chalk, comprising of as firm to soft non-nodular Chalk with flint beds. Thin marl seams are found towards its base and and absent higher up. A hard ground marks the top of the Seaford Chalk. Alternate piles in-filled with concrete to form a water-tight retaining wall. Either permeable strata capable of supporting local supplies or low permeability strata with localised features such as fissures. The term Secondary Aquifer replaces the previously used name of Minor Aquifer. There are two classes of Secondary Aquifer. Secondary A are capable of supporting water supplies at a local rather than strategic scale and Secondary B are lower permeability layers which may store and yield limited amounts of groundwater due to localised features such as fissures, thin permeable horizons and weathering.
Roman SAM saline intrusion
saturated zone Scheduled Monument
Scoping Opinion
Scoping Report
Screening Opinion
Seaford Chalk
secant piles Secondary Aquifers
Page 58
Volume 3: Alternatives Term short listed sites SINC (Grade B) SINC (Grade L) SINC (Grade M) Site Description
Glossary
Sites idenitfied following an assessment of long list sites in accordance with the Site Selection Methodology. Site of Nature Conservation Importance (Grade II of Borough importance). Site of Nature Conservation Importance (Grade I of Local importance). Site of Nature Conservation Importance (Grade III of Metropolitan importance). For the purposes of the PEIR assessment, the site is deemed as the entire area located within the Limit of Land to be Acquired or Used. It should not be inferred that this entire site area will be physically separated (ie, hoarded or fenced) for the construction duration. An area given a statutory designation by English Nature or the Countryside Council for Wales because of its nature conservation value. Materials such as hard standing and vegetation including incidental topsoil (including potential contaminated soil). A record of sites of archaeological interest. An efficient method for constructing the tunnel lining with a layer of sprayed concrete. This is instead of using pre-cast concrete segments. Layers of rock, including unconsolidated materials such as sands and gravels. The study of stratified rocks, their nature, their occurrence, their relationship to each other and their classification. A colourless gas with a choking smell, the main product of the combustion of sulphur contained in fuels. Overarching term for recent generally unconsolidated or loosely consolidated deposits of sand, gravel, silt, clay, etc on top of bedrock. Synonymous with drift generally supersedes the term. This is a general term used to describe all water features such as rivers, streams, springs, ponds and lakes. Water that travels across the ground rather than seeping in to the soil.
Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) site strip Sites and Monuments Record sprayed concrete lining strata stratigraphy sulphur dioxide (SO2) superficial deposits
surface water surface water runoff
Page 59
Volume 3: Alternatives Term Thames Tunnel Description
Glossary
The Thames Tunnel comprises a full-length storage and transfer tunnel from Acton Storm Tanks to Beckton Sewage Treatment Works in East London and the interception of specific CSOs along the Thames Tideway with a diameter between 6.5m and 7.2m. Coarsening upward sequence of well sorted fine grained sand which has a higher clay / silt content towards the lower part of the sequence, and evidence of intense bioturbation removing bedding structures. The Thames Tunnel project. Length of river channel swept by water from a discharge point in one tidal cycle. In the case of the River Thames this is considered to 13km up and downstream of the discharge point. Tool developed on behalf of Thames Water to assess the effects of lapses in water quality caused by CSO discharges on Tideway fish populations. The formal assessment of traffic and transportation issues relating to the proposed development. The findings are usually presented in a report which accompanies the planning application. Partially or wholly remove. In archaeological terms remains may have been truncated by previous construction activity. A typical year relates to an actual year, eg, the corresponding meteorological dataset for that year used in the modelling which was 1979-80. The corresponding meteorological dataset is used as it would give a better indication of conditions rather than using a recent year of data where the meteorological data may not be consistent with a rainfall event leading to the tunnel emissions. An enclosed space below the ground surface where air is released to atmosphere, should the pressure within the Tunnel exceed a set value. The statutory plan which sets out a unitary authoritys planning policies. These are rocks which are generally unable to provide usable water supplies and are unlikely to have surface water and wetland ecosystems dependent upon them. Variably bioturbated fine- to medium-grained sand with glauconite, rounded flint pebbles and minor clay, with distinctive pebble beds and base and top.
Thanet Sands
The project tidal excursion
Tideway Fish Risk Model Transport Assessment (TA)
truncate typical year
underground pressure release chamber Unitary Development Plan (UDP) unproductive strata
Upnor Formation
Page 60
Volume 3: Alternatives Term Upper aquifer Upper Mottled Beds Upper Shelly Beds Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive valve chamber Description
Glossary
Comprising the water bearing strata above the London Clay, namely the River Terrace Deposits and the Alluvium. A bluish grey mottled with greenish brown clay. Contains shell fragments within a flinty gravel or a sandy clay The Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (1991) has the overall aim of protecting the environment from the adverse effects of urban waste water discharges. An underground structure on the sewer system containing valves which are used to isolate the flow between different parts of the sewer system. For example, flap valves prevent the flow from the river travelling back up the sewer or into the tunnel. A stack through which air is released. An EC Directive seeking to improve water quality in rivers and groundwater in an integrated way (2000). An archaeological watching brief is a formal programme of observation and investigation conducted during any operation carried out for nonarchaeological reasons. Level below which the ground is saturated with water. The water table elevation may vary with recharge and groundwater abstraction. The WEEE Directive aims to reduce the amount of electrical and electronic equipment going to landfill and to encourage everyone to reuse, recycle and recover it. Chalk with flints, with discrete marl seams, nodular chalk, sponge-rich and flint seams throughout. Flint typology and marl seam incidence is important for correlation. Comprises of Seaford Chalk, Lewes Nodular Chalk, New Pit Chalk and Holywell Nodular Chalk.
ventilation column Water Framework Directive (WFD) watching brief (archaeological) water table
Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (WEEE) White Chalk subgroup
Page 61
References
References
1 2
Thames Tideway Strategic Study Report, February, 2005, Thames Water
Thames Tideway Strategic Study Report Solutions Group Working Report Volumes I and II, February 2005
Thames Tideway Tunnel and Treatment, Solutions Working Group Report (Thames Water December 2006)
4
Thames Tideway Tunnel and Treatment Summary Report Tackling Londons Sewer Overflows, Executive Summary, Thames Water (2007)
5
Regulatory Impact Assessment sewage collection and treatment for London (Defra, March 2007) http://archive.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/wastewater/101116-wastewaterpolicy-condoc-annex2.pdf
6
Scott Wilson, May 2008, Lee Tunnel and Beckton STW Extension Environmental Statement
7
Thames Tideway Tunnel and Treatment, Solutions Working Group Report (Thames Water December 2006)
Page 62
Thames Tunn
110-RG-ENV-00000-000011
Phase two consultation (Autumn 2011)
For further information see our website: www.thamestunnelconsultation.co.uk or call us on 0800 0721 086
Thames Tunn

PEIR Main Report Vol3-Alternatives

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione 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

PEIR Main Report Vol3-Alternatives

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Preliminary environmental information report

Phase two consultation documentation

Project information papers

Site information papers

Thames Tunnel Preliminary environmental information report

Part B: Preliminary site information

Preliminary environmental information report

Preliminary environmental information report

Thames Tunnel Preliminary environmental information report Volume 3: Alternatives

Strategic alternatives ....................................................................................... 3 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4

Tunnel routes ................................................................................................. 14 3.1 3.2 3.3

Preliminary environmental information report

Glossary .................................................................................................................. 47 References .............................................................................................................. 62

Preliminary environmental information report

Preliminary environmental information report

WWT ZTV ZVI

Preliminary environmental information report

Statutory requirements Infrastructure Planning EIA Regulations (2009)

Draft National Planning Statement on Waste Water

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 3: Alternatives 1.2.6

Content and structure

Preliminary environmental information report

Section 2: Strategic alternatives

Strategic alternatives Non-tunnel alternatives

Preliminary environmental information report

Section 2: Strategic alternatives

Options for dealing with the CSO discharges at the CSOs

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 3: Alternatives Screening at individual CSOs 2.1.12

Section 2: Strategic alternatives

Storage tunnel options

Preliminary environmental information report

Section 2: Strategic alternatives

Preliminary environmental information report

Section 2: Strategic alternatives

Preliminary environmental information report

Section 2: Strategic alternatives

Vol 3 Table 2.2.1 Summary assessment of options December 2006

lower better flushing

yes - but more untreated releases

lower better flushing

lower better flushing

(yes) - initially higher but not by difficult to 2020 flush

yes - all surface sites owned by TW

(yes) - initially higher difficult to but not by flush 2020

yes - all surface sites owned by TW

(yes) - initially higher but not by difficult to 2020 flush

Preliminary environmental information report

Section 2: Strategic alternatives

Preliminary environmental information report

Section 2: Strategic alternatives

Preliminary environmental information report

Sustainable drainage systems (SUDS)

Preliminary environmental information report

Section 2: Strategic alternatives

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 3: Alternatives Estimated costs1 ( millions) 13,000 (variance +50% to 30%)

Section 2: Strategic alternatives

Option Sustainable drainage systems (SUDS)

Preliminary environmental information report

Section 3: Tunnel routes

Tunnel routes Introduction