100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

1/68

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

2/68

Please note:

Further details are provided in the Final Report on SiteSelection Process (doc ref: 7.05) that can be found onthe Thames Tideway Tunnel section of the PlanningInspectorates web site.

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

3/68

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

4/68

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

5/68

100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002.doc

THAMES TUNNEL

SITE SUITABILITY REPORT C31XY AND C31XZ

LIST OF CONTENTS

Page Number

1 INTRODUCTION 11.1 Purpose and structure of the report 11.2 Background 11.3 Consultation 1

2 SITE INFORMATION 12.1 Site and surroundings 22.2 Type of site 3

3 PROPOSED USE OF SITE CONSTRUCTION PHASE 34 PROPOSED USE OF SITE OPERATIONAL PHASE 3

4.1 Introduction 34.2 Restoration and after-use 4

5 ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT 45.1 Access 45.2 Construction works considerations 55.3 Permanent works considerations 55.4 Health and safety 5

6 PLANNING ASSESSMENT 56.1 Introduction 56.2 Planning applications and permissions 66.3 Planning context 66.4 Consultation comments 76.5 Planning comments 7

7 ENVIRONMENTAL APPRAISAL 87.1 Introduction 87.2 Transport 87.3 Archaeology 87.4 Built heritage and townscape 97.5 Water resources hydrogeology and surface water 97.6 Ecology 97.7 Flood risk 97.8 Air quality 97.9 Noise 97.10 Land quality 10

8 SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT 108.1 Socio-economic profile 108.2 Issues and impacts 10

9 PROPERTY ASSESSMENT 109.1 Introduction 109.2 Crown Land and Special Land comments 11

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

6/68


9.3 Land to be acquired 119.4 Property valuation comments 119.5 Disturbance compensation comments 119.6 Offsite statutory compensation comments 129.7 Site acquisition cost assessment 12

10 SITE CONCLUSIONS BY DISCIPLINE 1210.1 Introduction 1210.2 Engineering 1210.3 Planning 1210.4 Environment 1210.5 Socio-economic and community 1310.6 Property 13

APPENDICES 14APPENDIX 1 SOURCES OF INFORMATION

APPENDIX 2 SITE LOCATION PLAN

APPENDIX 3 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT PLANS

APPENDIX 4 PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

APPENDIX 5 TRANSPORT PLAN

APPENDIX 6 SERVICES AND GEOLOGY PLAN

APPENDIX 7 CONSTRUCTION PHASE LAYOUT

APPENDIX 8 OPERATIONAL PHASE LAYOUT

APPENDIX 9 ENVIRONMENTAL APPRAISAL TABLE

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

7/68


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AOD above Ordnance Datum

BAP Biodiversity Action Plan

BT British Telecom

CPO compulsory purchase order

CSO combined sewer overflow

DLR Docklands Light Railway

EA Environment Agency

GLA Greater London Authority

HGV heavy goods vehicle

LNR local nature reserve

LPA local planning authorityLU London Underground

m metre/metres

MOL Metropolitan Open Land

ONS Office of National Statistics

ORN Olympic Route Network

PLA Port of London Authority

POS public open space

PTAL public transport accessibility level

SAM scheduled ancient monument

SINC site of importance for nature conservation

SNCI site(s) of nature conservation importance

SSR site suitability report

SSSI site(s) of special scientific interest

SuDS sustainable urban drainage systems

TfL Transport for London

TD tunnel datum

TLRN Transport for London Road NetworkTPA Thames Policy Area

UDP unitary development plan

UXO unexploded ordnance

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

8/68


7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

9/68

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

10/68

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

11/68

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

12/68

Site Suitability Report C31XY and C31XZ

Page 4


4.1.3 For both CSO options, the above ground infrastructure at this site is likely to comprise aventilation column 10m

ahigh and 3m diameter, a ventilation building 5m x 15m x 5m high

and a 20m x 10m top structure with openings. The top structure is to provide access andegress into the main shaft and flap valve chamber.

4.1.4 The top structures are envisaged to be finished at a level of 107mb

tunnel datum (TD)(7mAOD), and since the ground level mean value at this site is 104mTD (4mAOD), the top

structures would be raised to approximately 3m above the current ground level. For furtherinformation on the generic layout of this top structure, refer to Appendix 8.

4.1.5 A hardstanding would be provided to the top structures. The site would not be fenced.

4.1.6 Preliminary data associated with the operational phase are provided in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1 Operational phase data

Level of inspections andmaintenance and likely workinghours, ie, (night/day/weekend) -frequency of visits

1 daytime visit every six months forelectrical/instrument inspection.

An additional 1 week maintenance period fortunnel/shaft inspection required per 10 yearsthat could be night/day/weekend working.

No of traffic movements 1 van visit every six months.

An additional 1 week period of 2 to 10movements per day (estimated several vansand 2 cranes) every 10 years.

4.2 Restoration and after-use

4.2.1 The portion of the site not occupied by the permanent works would be restored to itsoriginal condition on completion of the construction works. If any buildings weredemolished, these would not be reinstated unless required.

5 ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

5.1 Access

5.1.1 This section should be read in conjunction with Section 7.2.

Road

5.1.2 The site is 0.4km from the TLRN (A200), with road access to the site along Plough Way,then Yeoman Street. The route may pass over one bridge.

5.1.3 For the construction phase, there would be two access points from Yeoman Street to forma one-way system.

5.1.4 For the operational phase, there would be a single access to the shaft from Croft Street(although access could potentially be made through the existing pumping station site).

aIt was anticipated that the ventilation column at shaft sites would be 10m high when the assessment in this

report was undertaken. Although this was subsequently changed to 15m high, the assessment was notrevised as it was considered that the difference would not change any disciplines conclusion on the suitabilityof the site.b

It was anticipated that the elevation of top structures at both CSO and shaft sites would be finished at

107mTD when the assessment in this report was undertaken. Although this was subsequently changed to104.5mTD, the assessment was not revised as it was considered that the difference would not change anydisciplines conclusion on the suitability of the site.

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

13/68


Page 5


Rail

5.1.5 There is a rail facility at New Cross, 1.5km from the site. The route to the rail link isconstrained and may pass under two bridges with height restrictions of 4.8m. The nearestrail station is New Cross, 2km from the site. Rail access is not considered to be importantfor CSO sites.

River

5.1.6 River access and jetty/wharfage facilities are not a requirement for CSO sites. As the site isnot beside the river (approximately 650m from waterfront access along Plough Way), therewould be no opportunities to use river transport directly from this site.

5.2 Construction works considerations

5.2.1 Demolition of several light industrial buildings on site C31XZ would be required.

5.2.2 Data available on third-party assets and significant utilities show that the items of concern inthis area are the Earl Pumping Station within site C31XY, the buildings within and aroundthe combined site and the well within site C31XZ. The pumping station needs to remain in

operation during construction. This is approximately 30m from the drop shaft and thisdistance should be acceptable in terms of minimising impact, although settlementmonitoring would be appropriate. Construction methods would be adopted, as appropriate,to mitigate potential settlement of these assets.

5.2.3 There is possibly insufficient space to construct an interception chamber on the sewerbetween the screw lifting station and the pumping station: the interception is deep (about9m below ground), adjacent to live structures and potentially in difficult ground conditions.Instead, a tee-type connection could be made and the pumps used to control flows betweenthe Thames Tunnel and the pumping station, with additional actuated valves to suit.Interception could also be made upstream of the screw lifting station, outside the site inCroft Street, using a weir in the interception chamber to allow dry weather flow (DWF) topass to the screw lifting station and storm flows to overflow into the tunnel.

5.2.4 The interception chamber and connection culvert to the drop shaft are both within the siteand therefore require no additional consideration.

5.3 Permanent works considerations

5.3.1 The top structures to the drop shaft and flap valve chamber would be 5m above groundlevel.

5.4 Health and safety

5.4.1 There would be a need to liaise with the pumping station operation in terms of constructionfacilities within their site.

5.4.2 There are no other unusual health and safety issues with this site.

6 PLANNING ASSESSMENT

6.1 Introduction

6.1.1 The planning assessment builds on the advantages and disadvantages reported in Table2.3 and covers the following areas:

Planning applications and permissions

Planning context

Planning comments.

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

14/68

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

15/68

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

16/68

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

17/68


Page 9


7.4 Built heritage and townscape

7.4.1 This site is suitable as a CSO site because it is unlikely to result in any impacts upon thehistoric built environment and would have relatively few impacts upon the local streetscapecharacter. However, if the internal layout of the site is altered from that shown on currentindicative engineering drawings, with construction or operational elements relocated withinthe northern corner of the site, there is the potential for the Greenwich Park protected view

to be affected. This would require a further desk-based assessment to define potentialimpacts and appropriate mitigation measures.

7.4.2 The present screened nature of the site would help to reduce the visual impact upon thelocal streetscape. Any potential adverse impacts upon the character of the local townscapecould be mitigated through implementation of a high-quality scheme design and/orscreening and landscaping. These mitigation measures have the potential to enhance thecharacter of the site through the softening of local views.

7.5 Water resources hydrogeology and surface water

7.5.1 In terms of hydrogeology, the site is suitable as a CSO site because although constructionof the drop shaft would take place within Chalk (major aquifer), the site does not lie within

the 400-day capture zones of licensed abstractions. No long-term impact on the Chalkaquifer is expected, although temporary dewatering of the Chalk and Thanet Sand would berequired during the construction phase. The Chalk piezometric head is likely to beapproximately 34m above the base of construction and should be taken into account in theengineering design. Superficial deposits at the site comprise alluvium, which is classifiedas a minor aquifer and which would be subject to a limited impact on flow due to sheetpiling.

7.5.2 In terms of surface water resources, this site is suitable as a CSO site as it is locatedbehind the flood defences and there is no direct pathway for pollution to the River Thames,although standard mitigation techniques would be required.

7.6 Ecology

7.6.1 This site is suitable as a CSO site as it is only likely to require basic ecological surveys, ifselected.

7.7 Flood risk

7.7.1 The site is less suitable as a CSO site because there is limited space for SuDS and thegeology may not be suitable for infiltration SuDS. However, it is defended from floodingfrom the River Thames (to the one in 1,000-year flood level).

7.8 Air quality

7.8.1 The site is less suitable for use as a CSO site as there is potential for fugitive emissions of

dust during construction to have a perceptible impact at the residential receptors closest tothe site. These impacts could be minimised with standard dust control measures. Thesensitivity of nearby industrial land uses to dust deposition is unknown and furtherinvestigation would be required to determine whether standard dust control measures wouldbe sufficient. There is potential for HGV movements on the local road network to causelocalised air quality impacts. However, this can be mitigated by minimising the movementof HGVs during peak hours.

7.9 Noise

7.9.1 This site is less suitable as a CSO site because distances to the nearest residentialreceptors are relatively short, and therefore adverse noise and vibration impacts are likely.There is also a relatively high density of residential dwellings around the site.

7.9.2 The number of vehicles associated with the construction phase is anticipated to beconsiderably high and has the potential to result in an adverse noise impact to properties

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

18/68


Page 10


located on Yeoman Street and Chilton Grove. Perimeter hoarding would reduce thepotential impact but would be relatively ineffective at shielding noise from the upper floorproperties at the nearest residential dwellings.

7.10 Land quality

7.10.1 The site is considered less suitable as a CSO site, based on the high potential forcontamination to have occurred, specifically from the asphalt works, tar works, pumpingstation and garage onsite, and offsite activities, including tar works and depots, which mayhave impacted on shallow groundwater and migrated beneath the site.

7.10.2 This potentially poses a risk to construction workers and adjacent human receptors throughdirect contact and inhalation exposure pathways. Additionally, the potential exists forcontaminants to be drawn to the deeper aquifer if deep drilling/construction are undertakenon the site, and for migration to surface water receptors to occur through groundwatertransport.

8 SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT

8.1 Socio-economic profile

8.1.1 The site is within the Surrey Docks ward of Lewisham. Statistics from ONS 2001 Censusdata show the following indicators for the ward, in comparison to the rest of Lewisham,London and England as a whole:

Higher rate of economically active, aged people that are full-time employees, with acorresponding lower proportion of unemployed people.

A higher proportion having achieved Level 4 or 5 educational qualifications and acorresponding high proportion of people in managerial or professional occupations.

A higher proportion of privately rented households.

A higher proportion of people aged between 20 and 44.

A high proportion of people born in the UK and a higher proportion of white Britishpeople compared to the borough or London.

8.1.2 These statistics indicate people in this area are mostly highly educated, workingprofessionals.

8.2 Issues and impacts

8.2.1 Due to the proposed location of the engineering works for this site, it seems likely that thegreatest impact would be on the commercial units on the site. There may be a loss of jobslocally, due to the loss of buildings on the site.

8.2.2 There may be an impact on the adjacent pumping station, depending on the current use

levels, as the interception shaft is within the pumping station site and works may affect thebuilt features on the this site.

8.2.3 Despite the current onsite commercial uses, the site visit found the area to be relativelyquiet, with some intermittent noise from the commercial sites and aircraft. The residentialdevelopment adjacent and opposite the site is likely to be affected by the noise from theonsite activities.

9 PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

9.1 Introduction

9.1.1 The site is under consideration for a CSO site and includes part of the existing ThamesWater Earl Pumping Station (C31XY) and approximately 80% of site C31XZ during theconstruction phase.

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

19/68

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

20/68


Page 12


nature of the occupiers tenure and their use of the buildings and onsite operations. Theexpected costs are, however, considered to be acceptable.

9.6 Offsite statutory compensation comments

9.6.1 The access route would need careful consideration and every effort should be made to

mitigate the effects of such a major construction site by controlling, as far as possible,noise, dust, lighting, etc.

9.6.2 Use of the adjacent public highway would also require careful planning: Croft Street,Yeoman Street and Chilton Grove are relatively quiet roads but they are used by a numberof residential and commercial occupiers, and particularly, in the case of Yeoman Street (acul de sac), the road is the only access to a number of industrial premises.

9.6.3 There is only a low risk of any statutory claims under either Part 1 of the LandCompensation Act 1973 or Section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 beingestablished as a direct result of this site being selected, provided access is maintainedalong Yeoman Street.

9.7 Site acquisition cost assessment

9.7.1 The acquisition cost is considered to be acceptable, even though it may be necessary toacquire the freehold interests in site C31XZ. Further investigation as to occupation and useof the buildings would be necessary in order to establish the disturbance costs element ofthe compensation payable.

10 SITE CONCLUSIONS BY DISCIPLINE

10.1 Introduction

10.1.1 The conclusions presented in this section are drawn from each disciplines assessment,and are designed to inform the workshop where a final conclusion on whether the site

moves forward as one of the preferred sites or not.

10.2 Engineering

10.2.1 This site is suitable as a CSO site. It has good road access.

10.2.2 Whether a CSO site of this size is appropriate or not for the interception of the EarlPumping Station CSO will be considered at the next stage, in conjunction with the drivestrategy that is developed in the Engineering Options Report.

10.3 Planning

10.3.1 On balance, the site is considered to be less suitable for use as a CSO site.

10.3.2 There are few designations relating to the site and, with suitable mitigation measures, mostshould not be unacceptably impacted upon.

10.3.3 However, residential properties are in very close proximity to the site and significantmitigation may be required to avoid unacceptable amenity impacts from noise, vibration,dust and traffic movements. There is scope to reorganise the construction layout toincrease separation distances and this should be considered further.

10.4 Environment

10.4.1 Overall, the site is potentially suitable as a CSO site, although mitigation would be requiredto enable the site to be used.

10.4.2 Based on current information, the site is suitable from the perspectives of transport,archaeology, built heritage and townscape, water resources and ecology.

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

21/68


Page 13


10.4.3 This site is considered less suitable from the perspectives of flood risk, air quality, noiseand land quality.

10.4.4 Overall, the site is considered suitable, subject to further investigation of whether flood risk,air quality, noise and land quality impacts could be adequately mitigated. Likely mitigationconsiderations would include the following:

Flood risk further investigation to establish the suitability of the site for infiltrationSuDS.

Air quality measures to ensure dust is adequately mitigated for the closestreceptors.

Noise standard noise barriers are unlikely to be entirely effective, and othertechniques may be required to reduce construction noise to acceptable levels.

Land quality any required remediation of contamination (at this high risk site) and/ormeasures to ensure no mobilisation of contaminants retained in situ.

10.5 Socio-economic and community

10.5.1 These sites are less suitable as a CSO site, due to potential impacts on commercialbuildings on the site and residences adjacent to the site.

10.5.2 The use of the site is likely to impact on the commercial buildings on the site; mitigationmay involve discussions around compensation and potential relocation of the businesses.

10.5.3 The use of the site is also likely to affect the residential properties adjacent to and oppositethe site. Mitigation may involve discussions around minimising noise levels and limitingworking hours.

10.6 Property

10.6.1 The site is considered suitable for use as a CSO site, at acceptable acquisition cost.

10.6.2 Acquisition would result in disturbance costs, but the existing units at the property arerelatively small and the compensation is not expected to be substantial.

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

22/68

Site Suitability Report C31XY and C31XZ Appendices

Page 14


APPENDICES

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

23/68

Site Suitability Report C31XY and C31XZ Appendix 1

Appendix 1 - Page 1


APPENDIX 1 SOURCES OF INFORMATION

Engineering

Traffic Management and Access Roads/Rail Scott Wilson

Access River BMT

Third Parties (Shafts/CSOs) Mott MacDonald and AECOM

Geology Thames Water

Utilities Thames Water and AECOM

Construction and Operational Layout Template London Tideway Tunnels

Background Technical Paper London Tideway Tunnels

Planning

London Borough of Lewisham online planning applications databaseSaved policies in the Lewisham Unitary Development Plan, adopted in July 2004, andthe Southwark Unitary Development Plan, adopted in July 2007

Environment

Transport

Map of Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) - www.tfl.gov.uk

Bus Route Maps: North-east, north-west, south-west, south-east - www.tfl.gov.uk

Crossrail Plans - www.crossrail.co.uk/crossrail-bill-documents

PTAL scores - Obtained from Table 2.3 information

Thames Path map - www.walklondon.org.uk

Capital Ring - www.walklondon.org.uk

Cycle Routes - www.sustrans.org.uk and Local Cycling Guides, 1-14

Design Manual for Roads and Bridge TD 42/95, Highways Agency

Bui l t her i tage and tow nscape

National Monuments Record - for some additional information regarding registeredhistoric parks and gardens

Unitary development plans

Local authority websites

Bing maps

Water resou rces hydrogeology and sur face water

Environment Agency abstraction licence details

Environment Agency groundwater levels

Local authority details of unlicensed abstractors

Environment Agency Flood Map www.environment-agency.gov.uk

Envirocheck

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

24/68


Appendix 1 - Page 2


Ecology

Thames Estuary Partnership (2002) Tidal Thames Habitat Action Plan

London Biodiversity Action Plan - www.lbp.org.uk

Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC)www.magic.gov.uk - statutory designated sites

London Wildweb - http://wildweb.london.gov.uk - non-statutory site of importance fornature conservation

Black redstart distribution in London - www.blackredstarts.org.uk/pages/londonmap.html

National Biodiversity Network - http://searchnbn.net - distribution of protected species

Google Maps - aerial views of habitat features

BAP habitats - www.natureonthemap.org.uk

Priority habitats and species on national and local scales - www.ukbap.org.uk

Flood r isk

Environment Agency Flood Map www.environment-agency.gov.uk

Envirocheck

Air qu al i ty

Local authority websites

www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/default.asp?la_id=&showbulletins=&width=1680

www.airquality.co.uk

Noise

Envirocheck - Identification of receptors

Promap - Calculation of distances between site and receptors

Multimap - Aerial photography www.multimap.co.uk

Defra noise maps - Identification of existing noise levels

Land qu al ity

Google Maps/Earth

Site walkover information

Socio-economic and community

Statistics from the Office of National Statistics (ONS) 2001 Census data

Lewisham Strategic Partnership - www.lewishamstrategicpartnership.org.uk/partnerships.asp

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

25/68

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

26/68


Appendix 2 - Page 1


APPENDIX 2 SITE LOCATION PLAN

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

27/68

!(

#*

LEWISHAM

SOUTHWARK

TOWER HAMLETS

GREENWICH

Earl Pumping Station

CS31XEarl Pumping Station CSO

C31XY

C31XZ

APPENDIX 2C31XY SITES

SITE LOCATION PLAN

Title:

Map Ref : .......1PL04-00604

Date : .............2009/11/16Projection : .....British National Grid

0 100 200 300 40050

Metres

Mapping reproduced by permission of OrdnanceSurvey on behalf of HMSO. (c) Crown copyrightand database right 2009. All rights reserved.Ordnance Survey Licence number 100019345

CH2M HILL accept no responsibility for anycircumstances, which arise from the reproductionof this map after alteration, amendment orabbreviation or if it issued in part or issuedincomplete in any way.

Area ofMain Map

Legend

Local Authority Boundary

Short Listed CSO Sites

!( CSO (Directly Controlled)

#* Pumping StationDRAFT&CONFIDEN

TIAL

The Point, 7th Floor,37 North Wharf Road,Paddington, London W2 1AF

Thames Water UtilitiesMAJOR PROJECTS

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

28/68


Appendix 3 - Page 1


APPENDIX 3 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT PLANS

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

29/68

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

Empingham

House

12a

41a

1.9m

26

11b

45

13

15

47

1to24

14

TREET

2to38

4

Merry

42a

21b

Dea

nsh

angerH

ouse

61

254to

258

31a

32a

Nursery

274

11a

3

GR

EE

NL

AN

DQ

UA

Y

Cricketers

1to

23

4

315

16to

40

41

Cunard

Walk

25

2a

GREENL

AN

1b

JuraH

ouse

22a

1

41b

37

2

6 to 12

39

Court

(PH)

20

43

49

uryfield

1a

WER

4a

33

27

3a

16

35

260

21a

1to

23

CHILT

ONGR

OVE

MelvilleC

t

i

en

ham

Ho

us

e

1to

23

2b

CodicoteH

ouse

313

7

31b

30

Zapotec

House

CR

Mulherry

151

41to53

65

4d

LIGHTE

RCLOS

E

153

Tanks

31d

5

ACACIACLOSE

21d

10

1to

39

Depot

WB

YEO

MANSTREET

El Sub Sta

71

House

El Sub Sta

48

1to11

Works

11d 41d 8

7.0m

1to

24

24

to

3

Sub Sta

2

LB

18

2

1

6

86to124

4c Bridge

Quay

14

1t

o2

0

MelvilleCourt

66

31

1

GREENLANDQUAY

16

22

Cunard

Walk

TCP

58

Posts

Earl

CROF

TSTR

EET

Ru

sh

cu

tters

42d

3d

4.8m

136

93

CHILT

ONGRO

VE

1to

24

to40

Works

1to

23

10

2to30

1

81

73

Grave

lyHouse

Playground

Depot

31c

Business Centre

24to29

3c

PLOUGHWAY

41c

31

.

32d

1t

o1

2

BESTWO

OD

9

Depot

CarinthiaCourt

30

Cannon Wharf

ElS

ubSta 32

HusborneHouse

2

12

Swedish Yard

WOODCROFT

MEW

S

48

1d

Trafalgar

5.4m

1.4m

1.4m

Sub Sta

Pump

ingStati

on

Chy

46

LimeTree

Ma

stC

ou

rt

2.1m

32c

2d

Co

urt

Baltic Quay

317

9t

o1

2

TavernQ

uay

1to7

1to6

CaroniaCourt

6to8

7

El Sub Sta

16t

o40

91

43

Court

29

JuraH

ouse

1to5

3

El

HazelwoodH

ous

Fresw

ickH

ouse

VicarageTC

Bs

0

15

70to

106

108

23

76

ED

EN

GA

TE

42c

T

357

84

3

50

2

Crofters

21

23

2c

6

5

STRE

ET

67

68

1

9

BOATLI

FTERW

AY

Plough

1to15

13to18

83

WB

11c

7

22c

12c

21c

62

52

3

17

19

House

25

8

27

12d

9

155

22d

El

Saw Mill

21

74

8to2

3

25

157

36

1c

11

House

1

to8

1to90

22

Marathon

Close

13

Depot

Iceland Wharf

Ps

1

5

1to69

1

3

34

1to13

CableC

ourt

BoroConst,GLAslyConst&

LBBdy

CR

CR

Boro

Const,G

LAsly

Const&

LBB

dy

LEWISHAM

SOUTHWARK

C31XY

C31XZ

APPENDIX 3AC31XY SITES

PLANNING ANDENVIRONMENT PLAN

Title:

Map Ref : .......1PL04-00510


0 20 40 60 8010

Metres



This plan is a strategic and standardised overviewbased on an interpretation of GIS policy designationlayers provided by affected London local authorities.Please refer to the text in the SSR's for the fullplanning and environment assessments.

Area ofMain Map

DRAFT&CONFIDEN

TIAL



Legend

Air Quality Management Area

Areas of Opportunity

Defined Employment Area

#* Proposals Sites

Protected/Strategic Views

Regeneration Areas

Strategic View Wider Consultation Zone

Thames Policy Area

Legend



7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

30/68

Empingham

House

12a

41a

1.9m

26

11b

45

13

15

47

1to24

14

TREET

2to38

4

Merry

42a

21b

Dea

nsh

angerH

ouse

61

254to

258

31a

32a

Nursery

274

11a

3

GR

EE

NL

AN

DQ

UA

Y

Cricketers

1to

23

4

315

16to

40

41

Cunard

Walk

25

2a

GREE

1b

JuraH

ouse

22a

1

41b

37

26 to 12

39

Court

(PH)

20

43

49

uryfield

1a

WER

4a

33

27

3a

16

35

260

21a

1to

23

CHILT

ONGR

OVE

MelvilleC

t

i

en

ham

Ho

us

e

1to

23

2b

CodicoteH

ouse

313

7

31b

30

Zapotec

House

CR

Mulherry

151

41to53

65

4d

LIGHTE

RCLOS

E

153

Tanks

31d

5

ACACIACLOSE

21d

10

1to3

9

Depot

WB

YEOM

ANSTREET

El Sub Sta

71

isHou

se

El Sub Sta

48

1to11

Works

11d 41d 8

7.0m

1to

24

24

to

3

Sub Sta

2

LB

18

2

1

6

86to124

4c Bridge

Quay

14

1t

o2

0

MelvilleCourt

66

31

1

GREENLANDQUAY

16

22

Cunard

Walk

TCP

58

Posts

Earl

CROF

TSTR

EET

Ru

sh

cu

tters

42d

3d

4.8m

136

93

3

CHILT

ONGRO

VE

1to

24

to40

Works

1to

23

10

2to30

1

81

73

Grave

lyHouse

Playground

Depot

31c

Business Centre

24to29

3c

PLOUGHWAY

41c

31

1.9m

32d

1t

o1

2

BESTWO

OD

9

Depot

CarinthiaCourt

30

Cannon Wharf

ElS

ubSta

32

HusborneHouse

2

12

Swedish Yard

WOODCROFTMEWS

48

1d

raagar

5.4m

1.4m

1.4m

Sub Sta

Pump

ingStati

on

Chy

46

LimeTree

Ma

stC

ou

rt

2.1m

32c

2d

Co

urt

Baltic Quay

317

9t

o1

2

TavernQ

uay

1to7

1to6

CaroniaCourt

6to8

7

El Sub Sta

16to

40

91

43

Court

29

JuraH

ouse

1to5

3

El

HazelwoodHouse

Fresw

ickH

ouse

VicarageTC

Bs

15

70to106

108

23

76

DE

NG

AT

E

42c

T

357

84

3

50

2

Crofters

21

23

2c

6

5

STRE

ET

67

68

9

BOATL

IFTERW

AY

Plough

1to15

13to18

83

WB

11c

7

22c

12c

21c

62

52

3

17

19

House

25

8

27

12d

9

155

22d

El

Saw Mill

21

74

8to2

3

25

157

36

1c

11

House

1t

o8

1to90

22

Marathon

Close

13

Depot

Iceland Wharf

Ps

15

1to69

1

3

34

1to13

CableC

ourt

BoroConst,GLAslyConst&

LBBdy

CR

CR

BoroC

onst,G

LAsly

Const&

LBB

dy

LEWISHAM

SOUTHWARK

C31XY

C31XZ

APPENDIX 3BC31XY SITES

PLANNING ANDENVIRONMENT PLAN

Title:

Map Ref : .......1PL04-00511


0 20 40 60 8010

Metres



This plan is a strategic and standardised overviewbased on an interpretation of GIS policy designationlayers provided by affected London local authorities.Please refer to the text in the SSR's for the fullplanning and environment assessments.

Area ofMain Map

DRAFT&CONFIDEN

TIAL


Thames Water UtilitiesMAJOR PROJECTSLegend

Green Corridor/Chains

Borough Open Land

Green Space

Open Space Deficiency Areas

Sites of NatureConservation Importance

Legend



7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

31/68

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

32/68


Appendix 4 - Page 1


APPENDIX 4 PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

33/68

!(

#*

LEWISHAM

SOUTHWARK

TOWER HAMLETS

C31XY

C31XZ


Earl Pumping Station


AERIAL PL AN

Title:

Map Ref : .....1PL04-SS-00605

Date : ...........2009/11/16Projection : ...British National Grid

0 50 100 150 20025

Metres



Area ofMain Map

Legend




#* Pumping StationDRAFT&CONFIDEN

TIAL



7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

34/68

Site Suitability Report C31XY Appendix 4

Appendix 4


View of site C31XY and the existing Thames Water Earl Pumping station lookingsoutheast from Chilton Grove.

View of site C31XZ looking east from Croft Street.

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

35/68

Site Suitability Report C31XY Appendix 4

Appendix 4


View looking northwest along Yeoman Street. Site C31XY Thames Water EarlPumping station is visible on the left.

View looking northwest from Site C31XY towards properties along Chilton Grove.

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

36/68


Appendix 5 - Page 1


APPENDIX 5 TRANSPORT PLAN

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

37/68

!(

On-street parking


SOUTHWARK

LEWISHAM

TOWER HAMLETS

C31XY

C31XZ


TRANSPORT PLAN

Title:

Map Ref : ........... 101PL-SS-00702

Date : ........... ...... 2009/11/19Projection : ......... British National Grid

0 0.07 0.14 0.21 0.28 0.350.035

Km



Area ofMain Map

Legend




Transport Access Routes

TfL Road Network

Thames PathLondon Cycle Routes

DRAFT&CONFIDEN

TIAL



7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

38/68


Appendix 6 - Page 1


APPENDIX 6 SERVICES AND GEOLOGY PLAN

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

39/68

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

40/68


Appendix 7 - Page 1


APPENDIX 7 CONSTRUCTION PHASE LAYOUT

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

41/68

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

42/68

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

43/68

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

44/68

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

45/68

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

46/68


Appendix 9 - Page 1


APPENDIX 9 ENVIRONMENTAL APPRAISAL TABLES

Transport

Site considerations CommentsMitigation required and

conclusions

Access to road network Temporary construction accessand egress will be takenfrom/onto Yeoman Street andboth require construction. Thiswill enable a one-way systemthrough the site for constructionvehicles. The permanent siteaccess will be onto Croft Streetwhich will be a right turn out onlyas Croft Street is one-way. Thepermanent access will require

construction. Parkingrestrictions will be required alongCroft Street to prevent informalon street parking in the vicinity ofthe permanent access.

Yeoman Street is a street litresidential road subject to a30mph speed limit. It has acobbled carriageway surfacewithin the vicinity of the siteaccesses. Visibility can beachieved to the end of the roadto the southeast. Parking

restrictions may be required toprevent informal on streetparking restricting visibility to thenorthwest (which wouldotherwise be to the end of theroad).

Access to the A200 (TLRNstrategic highway network) isfrom Yeoman Street onto PloughWay. The route follows ontoLower Road which leads to theTLRN, Jamaica Road (A200).

The route is traffic calmed withspeed cushions along YeomanStreet and Plough Way.Distance of 1.7km to TLRN.

See Transport Access Plan inAppendix 5.

Road access to site is suitable forHGVs. The site requires theconstruction of a constructionaccess and egress as well as apermanent access. Parkingrestrictions will be required toprevent informal parking near thepermanent access and to ensurevisibility from the constructionegress is sufficient. The accessroute to the TLRN (A200) is traffic

calmed (speed cushions) andpasses through a residential area.

Access to river Site is remote from river. Riveraccess is not essential for aCSO site as road will be used totransport excavated material.

River access not required asexcavated material will betransported away by road for CSOsite.

Access to rail Use of rail is unlikely to befeasible as small quantities of

excavated material are producedby a CSO site.

Use of rail is unlikely to befeasible as small quantities of

excavated material are producedby a CSO site.

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

47/68


Appendix 9 - Page 2


Transport


conclusions

If required, access to old LondonBridge station site for rail access(approximately 1km southeast ofLondon Bridge station) is fromTLRN (A200) onto St JamesRoad. The route passesthrough a 20mph zone withtraffic calming (speed cushionsand raised crossing). The raisedcrossing will require removal.

Old London Bridge station site islikely to have very limited nightuse, being on the main line, withno space for sidings on the

viaduct. Distance 2.5km to railaccess point at old station site.

Route to potential rail link (ifrequired) at old London Bridgestation site requires the removalof the traffic calming (raisedcrossing) on St James Road.The site is likely to have limiteduse during the night and a meansof transporting material from theconstruction vehicles to the railsite would need to be provided.

Parking No parking to be provided onsitefor workforce, althoughunrestricted parking is availableon surrounding roads.

Some parking restrictions will berequired on Croft Street andYeoman Street to ensure thepermanent access is notobstructed by parked vehiclesand visibility from the

construction egress is notrestricted.

No parking to be provided onsitefor workforce, althoughunrestricted parking is availableon surrounding roads.

Some parking restrictions requiredon Croft Street and YeomanStreet.

Public transportaccessibility

PTAL 1-2 (low), as identifiedwithin Table 2.3.

Low possibility for workforce toutilise public transport to accessthe site.

Traffic Management Construction access and egresswill require construction.

Permanent access will requireconstruction with a right out onlysetup.

Removal of raised crossing on

St James Road.

Parking restrictions required onCroft Street and Yeoman Streetto ensure permanent access isnot obstructed and visibility fromthe construction egress is notrestricted. Alternative parkingavailable along surroundingroads.

The sites access and egresspoints will all require construction.Removal of raised crossing on StJames Road and prevention ofsome street parking on CroftStreet and Yeoman Streetrequired. Alternative parking

available along surrounding roads.

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

48/68


Appendix 9 - Page 3


Transport


conclusions

Summary:

The site is suitable as a CSO site as the route to the TLRN (A200) is likely to be suitable althoughit is traffic calmed (speed cushions). The site would require the construction of a new temporaryconstruction access and egress, whilst the permanent access would also require construction witha right out only setup. Some parking restrictions would be necessary along Croft Street to ensurethe permanent access is not restricted and further parking restrictions would be likely to berequired along Yeoman Street to ensure visibility from the construction egress is not restricted.

Alternative parking is likely to be available on the surrounding roads.

Use of rail is unlikely to be required as only relatively small quantities of excavated material areproduced by a CSO site. If required, the access route to the old London Bridge rail site requiresthe removal of a raised crossing on St James Road. A means of transporting material to therailway would also need to be provided.

There is a low possibility for the workforce to utilise public transport to access the site and there is

currently no provision for workforce parking onsite, although unrestricted on street parking isavailable on surrounding roads.

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

49/68


Appendix 9 - Page 4


Archaeology


conclusions

Designations, includingArchaeological PriorityAreas

The site is within the LewishamArchaeological Priority Area(APAS).

Not applicable

Summary of historicaluses

19th Century OS maps indicatethe southern part of the site(C31XZ) to be located in an areaof industrial workshops marked

Asphalt works. The worksremain until the 1950s whenthey are replaced by housing inthe western extremes of the site.

19th Century OS maps indicate

the northern part of the site(C31XY) to be located in an areaof terraced housing and backgarden plots. The housesremained until the 1950s whenthey were replaced by a singlebuilding in the north east cornerof the site.

A detailed desk basedassessment is required tosufficiently understand thearchaeological resource anddefine risk to potentialdevelopment.

Potential receptors ofvery high or high valuewith the potential to bedirectly affected

No archaeological receptors ofhigh value are recorded withinthe site.

This does not preclude thepossibility of unrecordedarchaeological receptors of highvalue being present within thesite.

A detailed desk basedassessment is required tosufficiently understand thearchaeological resource and

define risk to potentialdevelopment.

Potential receptors ofmedium value with thepotential to be directlyaffected

No archaeological receptors ofhigh value are recorded withinthe site.

This does not preclude thepossibility of unrecordedarchaeological receptors ofmedium value being presentwithin the site.


Other receptors with thepotential to be directlyaffected

Construction impact of potentialwaterlogged deposits containingarchaeological remains maycause dewatering. This potentialimpact should be consideredeven thought the site is not inclose proximity to the ThamesRiver.


Extent of existingdisturbance (if known)

Construction impacts of previousdevelopment for the variousrecent and modern structuresmay have disturbed earlierremains. Borehole data in thearea suggests made ground of


7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

50/68


Appendix 9 - Page 5


Archaeology


conclusions

9m, some of which could bearchaeological in nature.

Potential issues Detailed design proposals, andan outline method statement willbe required to enable initialassessment of developmentimpacts, and to inform mitigationproposals.

Mitigation methods could include:

Review/production of existingdesk based assessments(Report exists)

Production of deposits model

Archaeological monitoring ofgeotechnical investigations

Archaeological evaluation

Archaeological watching brief

Archaeological excavation.

Summary:

Based on current information this site is suitable as no archaeological receptors are known to bepresent although it is however possible that archaeological receptors of high or medium valuecould be present. Further investigation would be necessary.

While no direct evidence has been revealed, peat deposits containing archaeological material maybe present at depth.

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

51/68


Appendix 9 - Page 6


Built heritage and townscape


conclusions

Designations includingConservation Areas,including trees

Listed Buildings

There are no listed buildingswithin 250m of C31XY andC31XZ.

Locally Listed Buildings

The borough of Southwarkdoes not maintain a local list.In contrast, the borough ofLewisham does maintain alocal list but it was notavailable at the time of this

assessment.

Conservation Areas

There are no conservationareas within 250m of C31XYand C31XZ.

Registered Historic Parks

and Gardens

There are no registeredhistoric parks and gardenswithin 250m of C31XY andC31XZ.

Locally Listed Parks and

Gardens

There are no locally listedparks and gardens within250m of C31XY and C31XZ.

Protected Views

The Greenwich Parkprotected view (as designatedin the London ViewsManagement Framework)passes through the northern

corner (0m) of C31XY andC31XZ.

In the case of protected views ahigh quality scheme design andadequate screening for thedevelopment may be required asdiscussed below.

A detailed desk-basedassessment in conjunction witharchaeology work will be requiredto further inform the likely impactof the development and todetermine more detailedmitigation proposals.

Potential receptors ofmedium to very highimportance with thepotential to be directlyaffected

There is the potential for theGreenwich Park protectedview (as designated in theLondon Views ManagementFramework) as part of thisprotected view passes throughthe northern corner of the site.

Because part of the GreenwichPark protected view passesthrough the northern corner of thesite it has the potential to bedirectly affected by constructionand operation of C31XY andC31XZ. On the basis of currentengineering drawings for the site(drawing 100-DL-PNC-C31XY-100202) constructional and

operational elements of the siteare to be located away from thenorthern corner of the site.

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

52/68


Appendix 9 - Page 7




conclusions

Provided that efforts are made toensure that such elements ofC31XY and C31XZ are locatedaway from the northern corner ofthe site then no impact isanticipated upon the protectedview and no mitigation would berequired.

Other receptors of lesserimportance with thepotential to be directlyaffected

Not Applicable Not Applicable

Potential receptors of

medium to very highimportance with thepotential to be indirectlyaffected


Other receptors of lesserimportance with thepotential to be indirectlyaffected


Sensitive landscapecharacter areas likely tobe affected, includingtrees and TPOs

Site is located on a DefinedEmployment Area. A GreenCorridor designation runs tothe north and west of site andthe site lies in a Local OpenSpace Deficiency Area.

The site is located on EarlPumping Station and on anindustrial site, off YeomanStreet, south of the EarlPumping Station.

Chilton Grove to the north withresidential properties furthernorth with Greenland Dock,Yeoman Street to the east withindustrial properties furthereast, industrial and residentialdevelopment adjacent to thesouth with residentialproperties further south andwest.

Demolition of warehouses, asmall structure and tank onsitewould increase the opennessof site and proposals couldresult in the loss of maturetrees onsite. The presence andoperation of machinery,

materials stores and buildingswould potentially result intemporary, adverse direct

Retention of trees where possibleand protection in accordance withBS 5837.

Introduction of landscape schemeto include appropriate surfacetreatments and planting to replacelost vegetation and relate to theneighbouring streetscapes ofCroft and Yeoman Street and toenhance the character of the siteand streetscape of Chilton Grove.

This site is suitable since althoughthe proposals would potentiallyhave an adverse impact on thecharacter of the site duringconstruction, and on thesurrounding residences andstreetscapes, the site is relativelyenclosed. Appropriate mitigationwould reduce impact on thestreetscape character.

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

53/68


Appendix 9 - Page 8




conclusions

impacts on the character of thesite and temporary, adverseindirect impacts onneighbouring areas.

Permanent elements in thesouthern part of the site(C31XZ) would potentially havean adverse impact on theresidences to the south andwest and the streetscape ofYeoman Street and CroftStreet. Permanent elements inthe northern part of the site(C31XY) would potentially

complement the existingcharacter of the site.

Potential views likely tobe affected

Strategic View is adjacent tothe north-east of the site.

Open views from Croft Streetand Yeoman Street,residences adjacent to thesouth, Earl Pumping Station,properties to the east ofYeoman Street. Partiallyinterrupted views fromresidences in Melville Court,

Plough Way and ChiltonGrove.

On the basis of currentengineering drawing 100-DL-PNC-C31XY-100202, duringconstruction, views of craneswill be from surroundingproperties, Deptford Park, therailway line to the west, theRiver Thames, South Docksand Greenland Docks.

Permanent elements mainly

visible from residencesadjacent to the south,residents in Plough Way,Yeoman Street and CroftStreet.

During construction, the use ofhoardings and appropriate lightingwould minimise visual impact.

Design of top structure, ventcolumn, and electrical kiosk to begiven careful consideration.

Planting to screen permanentplant. Integrated landscapescheme to enhance visual

amenity and reduce visual impact.This site is suitable since it isscreened from the residentialproperties to the north by the EarlPumping Station (on the basis ofcurrent engineering drawing 100-DL-PNC-C31XY-100202) andappropriate mitigation wouldreduce visual impact on theresidences to the west and south.

An integral landscape schemewould aid permanent visualamenity and soften views from the

surrounding properties andstreets.

Particular considerationson sites where newpermanent structures arerequired

Permanent structures atC31XY and C31XZ, in theposition shown on drawing100-DL-PNC-C31XY-100203are unlikely to result in animpact upon the GreenwichPark protected view but may

affect the character of the localstreetscape. If the internallayout of the site is changed,

No mitigation is likely to berequired in respect of theGreenwich Park protected viewproviding the internal layout of thesite does not alter from thatshown on currently engineeringdrawings. If the internal layout of

the site were to be changed andany permanent structures were tobe moved into the northern corner

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

54/68


Appendix 9 - Page 9




conclusions

permanent structures have thepotential to result in a directimpact upon the protectedview.

of the site then further desk basedassessment would be required todefine potential direct impactsupon the protected view. Inrespect of the character of thelocal streetscape, mitigation, inthe form of a high quality schemedesign and/or screening andlandscaping (as discussed above)is likely to be required to minimiseadverse impacts.

Potential issues The development of C31XYand C31XZ has the potential toimpact upon the character of

the local townscape, inparticular upon surroundingresidential properties andespecially during construction.There is the potential tomitigate this impact throughimplementation of a highquality scheme design and/orscreening and landscaping.

If the internal layout of the sitechanges with construction oroperational elements relocatedwithin the northern corner ofthe site then there is thepotential for the GreenwichPark protected view to bedirectly affected and furtherdesk based assessment wouldbe required to define potentialdirect impacts upon theprotected view and appropriatemitigation measures.

In order to reduce potentialadverse impacts upon thecharacter of the local townscape,

mitigation in the form of a highquality scheme design and/orscreening and landscaping, islikely to be required. Thescreened nature of the existingsite will help reduce the visualimpact upon the local streetscape.

On the basis of currently availableengineering drawings for C31XYand C31XZ (drawing 100-DL-PNC-C31XY-100202) no

mitigation is required for the site.However, if the internal layout ofthe site changes there is thepotential for the Greenwich Parkprotected view to be directlyaffected. In this case, further deskbased assessment would berequired to define potential directimpacts upon the protected viewand appropriate mitigationmeasures.

Summary:

This site is suitable as a CSO site because it is unlikely to result in any impacts upon the historicbuilt environment and relatively few impacts upon the local streetscape character. However, ifthe internal layout of the site is altered from that shown on current indicative engineeringdrawings, with construction or operational elements relocated within the northern corner of thesite then there is the potential for the Greenwich Park protected view to be directly affected.This would require further desk based assessment to define potential impacts and appropriatemitigation measures.

The present screened nature of the site would help to reduce the visual impact upon the localstreetscape. Any potential adverse impacts upon the character of the local townscape could bemitigated through implementation of a high quality scheme design and/or screening andlandscaping. These mitigation measures have the potential to enhance the character of the sitethrough the softening of local views.

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

55/68


Appendix 9 - Page 10


Water resources - hydrogeology and surface water


conclusions

Hydrogeologicalconditions (Groundwaterand Surface Water)

From BGS GeologicalModel giving averageground condition profile.Local near surfaceconditions may vary,particularly within the river

Geology (thickness)

Superficial Geology andMade Ground (9m)

Thanet sand (9m)

Chalk (to beyond the depthof shaft)

Hydrogeology

Piezometric Level in ChalkAquifer: ~ -12mAOD (~14mbgl) from EA Jan 08 waterlevel contouring

Groundwater MonitoringLocation

EA Hydrometry Sites:

TQ37-268 70m northwest ofthe site (water levels to Nov2007)

TQ37-276 1.41 km northwestof the site (water levels to March2009)

Watercourses

River Thamesapproximately 600m away tothe east.

The drop shaft will be constructedto an invert level of approximately48.29mbgl therefore the shaft willbe founded in the Chalk.Piezometric head

(1)in Chalk will

be approximately 34.29m abovethe base of the construction.Therefore, dewatering would berequired and should beconsidered as part of geotechnicaldesign.

SPZs and groundwaterusers

SPZ

Not located in a SourceProtection Zone defined byEA

EA Licensed GroundwaterAbstractions and Details

7 licensed abstractionborehole within 2km radius

Licence Numbers:

1.28/39/39/0234 (1 borehole)

2. 28/39/42/0043 (1 borehole)

3. 28/39/42/0048 (3 boreholes)

4. 28/39/42/0073 (2 boreholes)

Locations:

1. 1.65km northeast of the site

2. 1.39km southwest of the site

3. 799m northwest of the site

4. 656m north of the site

Operator:

1. Britannia Hotels Limited

A simple volumetric approach hasbeen used to calculate the 400days travel times of theabstraction borehole. Aconservative mean annualrecharge of 100 mm/year wasused to calculate a radius forlicensed abstraction boreholes asfollows:

1. 250m2. 690m

3. 258m

4. 203m

The shaft is not located within anyof these catchment areas.

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

56/68






conclusions

2. National Grid Co Plc

3. London Borough Of Southwark

4. Harmsworth Quays Printing Limited

Abstracted Aquifer Unit:

1. Chalk

2. Chalk

3. Chalk

4. Chalk

Abstraction Purposes:

1. Industrial, commercial and publicservices (hotels, public houses andconference centres- drinking, cooking,

sanitary, washing)

2. Industrial, commercial and publicservices (non-evaporative cooling)

3. Amenity(industrial/commercial/energy/publicservices-make-up or top up water0

4. Industrial, commercial and publicservices (paper and printing-processwater and drinking, cooking, sanitary,washing

Abstraction Quantity (annual):

1. 78,840m3

2. 598980m3

3. 83,804m3

4. 52,000m3

Unlicensed GroundwaterAbstractions and Details

No abstraction boreholewithin 1 km radius insideTower Hamlet CouncilBoundary

No abstraction boreholewithin 1 km radius inside

Southwark CouncilBoundary

No abstraction boreholewithin 1 km radius insideLewisham Council Boundary

Borehole locations anddepths

There are 6 historical records ofwater wells within 1km radius.

Depth range: 6.09 45.72m

Not Applicable

Potential impacts onsurface water features

The site is located approximately600 m to the west of the RiverThames.

There is no direct pathway forpollution to the River Thames.

Work needs to be undertaken inconsideration of PollutionPrevention GuidelinesPPG1,

PPG5 and PPS23.

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

57/68






conclusions

Potential impacts on

groundwater (resourcesand quality)

An impact on groundwater at

depth is likely since the dropshaft is to be constructed inChalk (major aquifer) overlain byThanet Sand (minor aquifer)which will need to be dewatered.

At shallow depth, the shaft islocated in Alluvium which isclassified as a minor aquifer.Limited impact on shallowaquifer if water is excluded fromthe excavation by sheet piling.

See below (likely types of

mitigation measures that will berequired).

Likely types of mitigationmeasures that will be

required

Mitigation unlikely to be requiredas construction of the drop shaft

will not take place within the 400day capture zone of licensedabstractions.

Not Applicable

Potential issues The drop shaft is to beexcavated in Chalk below thepiezometric head. Therefore,dewatering of the Chalk andThanet Sand will be requiredduring construction.

Limited impact on flow in shallowaquifer.

Piezometric head in Chalk is to beconsidered as part of thegeotechnical design.

The issue of the appropriatedisposal of discharges fromdewatering to be considered.

Impact on and mitigation forshallow aquifer will depend on

construction design.

Summary:

In terms of hydrogeology, the site is suitable as a CSO site because although construction of thedrop shaft would take place within Chalk (major aquifer), the site does not lie within the 400 daycapture zones of licensed abstractions. No long term impact on the Chalk aquifer is expected,although temporary dewatering of the Chalk and Thanet Sand would be required during theconstruction phase. The Chalk piezometric head is likely to be approximately 34m above the baseof construction and should be taken into account in the engineering design. Superficial deposits atthe site comprise Alluvium which is classified as a minor aquifer, and which would be subject to alimited impact on flow due to sheet piling.

In terms of surface water resources, this site is suitable as a CSO site as it is located behind theflood defences and there is no direct pathway for pollution to the River Thames although standardmitigation techniques will be required.

(1) Piezometric head is a specific measurement of water pressure above a datum.

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

58/68




Ecology (terrestrial and aquatic)


conclusions

Statutory designations Sue Godfrey Nature ParkLocal Nature Reserve (LNR),Mudchute Park Farm LNR andLavender Pond LNR are allwithin 2km of the site.

None required

Non-statutory designatedwildlife sites

The CSO site is within 100m ofRainsborough AvenueEmbankments a site of LocalImportance for natureconservation.

None required

BAP priority habitats No BAP priority habitats onsite. None required

Protected or otherwisenotable species within theStudy Area

Buildings or trees onsite mayhave some potential to supportroosting bats

Area is a stronghold for blackredstart, but little nesting orforaging opportunities appear tobe present.

No direct impact on aquatic

receptors.

If bat roosts were found to bepresent, mitigation would berequired, possibly including offsiteprovision. Careful placement oflighting to minimise illumination ofsurrounding habitat is likely to berequired.

None required

None required

Potential issues No other issues. No other issues.

Summary:

This site is suitable as a CSO site as it is only likely to require basic ecological surveys if selected.

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

59/68




Flood risk assessment


conclusions

Flood Risk Zone Flood Zone 3 (1 in 200 yearflood extent) but defended to the1 in 1000 year flood level. Thereis a residual risk of a breach forwhich mitigation would need tobe considered as part of theFRA.

Sewage transmissioninfrastructure is considered to bewater compatible according totable D.2 of PPS25 and hencesuitable in this location.

A FRA would be required toassess the residual risk offlooding to the site.

Assessment of conditionsfor SuDS

There is limited space availableonsite for SuDS and theunderlying geology is alluvialclay; an investigation would berequired as to the suitability ofthe site for infiltration SuDS.However, the site is currentlyhard standing.

Not applicable

Potential issues No other issues No other issues

Summary:

The site is less suitable as a CSO site because there is limited space for SuDS and the geology

may not be suitable for infiltration SuDS. However, it is defended from flooding from the RiverThames (to the 1 in 1000 year flood level).

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

60/68




Air quality


conclusions

AQMA The air quality objectives for NO2are exceeded on major roads inthe vicinity of the site.

There is a need for more sitespecific data.

Sensitive Receptors There are residential propertiesalong Lower Road (A200) andthe access route to the site.

There are residential propertieswithin 10m on Woodcroft Mews,Croft Street and Chilton Grove.

There are commercialmanufacturing and warehousing

operations within 50m of thesite, the operation of whichmight be sensitive to depositeddusts.

There are relevant air qualitysensitive receptors present alongthe route the construction traffic islikely to take and close to theproposed construction works.

Existing traffic issues The main traffic issue in thisarea is exhaust emissions fromvehicles along the A200 and

A2208 corridors.

Additional vehicle emissions havea moderate potential to interferewith local air quality action planpolicies.

Existing sources ofsignificant air pollutants

See above. See above.

Notable gaps in existing

air quality monitoring

There is no data at likely access

to the A200 and the nearestexisting data indicates existingAQLV exceeded.

Collect a minimum of 6 months

diffusion tube data at site accessto the A200 or other point ofaccess to major road network.

Potential issues The risk from additional exhaustemissions from constructionHGVs is undefined at present.

The risk from dust impacts atresidential properties ismoderate.

Minimise HGV movements on thelocal road network during the peakhour.

Standard dust control measurescould minimise the effect offugitive dust on nearby sensitivereceptors.

Summary:

The site is less suitable for use as a CSO site as there is potential for fugitive emissions of dustduring construction to have a perceptible impact at the residential receptors closest to the site.These impacts could be minimised with standard dust control measures. The sensitivity of nearbyindustrial land uses to dust deposition is unknown and further investigation would be required todetermine whether standard dust control measures would be sufficient. There is potential for HGVmovements on the local road network to cause localised air quality impacts. However, this can bemitigated by minimising the movement of HGVs during peak hours.

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

61/68




Noise


conclusions

Noise band level Information from Defra noisemaps indicates daytime noiselevels of less than 58 dB LAeqand night-time noise levels ofless than 50 dB to LAeq at theresidential properties closest tothe site.

The residential propertiesclosest to and facing the site arelikely to experience relatively lowdaytime and night-time noiselevels due to their distance from

any major roads.

Noise levels from the Defranoise maps provide an indicationof prevailing noise levels only,and will not be employed in anydetailed assessments forchosen sites.

Not applicable

Sensitive Receptors There are sensitive receptorsclose to the southern andwestern boundaries of the site.The closest receptors arelocated on Croft Street.

Sensitive receptors at CroftStreet to the south of the siteconsist of 2 storey residentialdwellings. These are locatedapproximately 5m from the site.

Properties overlooking CroftStreet to the west of the siteconsist of 6 storey residentialdwellings and are locatedapproximately 20m from the site.

Not applicable

Existing traffic issues Road traffic on local roads and

more distant road traffic on theA200 to the west will contributeto the existing noise climate inthe area.

Not applicable

Existing sources ofsignificant noiseemissions

Road traffic on local roads andmore distant road traffic on the

A200 to the west will contributeto the existing noise climate inthe area.

There are no railways orsignificant industrial noisesources noted in the immediate

surrounding area.

Not applicable

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

62/68




Noise


conclusions

Potential issues Construction:

The construction period isestimated at up to 2 years andworking hours will be 12 hoursper day (7am-7pm) Monday toSaturday. This has the potentialto result in adverse noiseimpacts to sensitive receptorssurrounding the site.

HGV movements have thepotential to have an adverseimpact on a large number ofresidential receptors located

along Yeoman Street andChilton Grove which is assumedto be the haul route to the A200.

Whilst the shaft location withinthe site may be fixed, ancillaryplant should be sited as far as ispracticable from surroundingsensitive receptors. Situatingplant in the eastern area of thesite would maximise thedistance between them and thenearest sensitive receptors andminimise potential disturbance.

Proposed 3m site boundaryfencing will provide useful noisemitigation to some plant andconstruction activities.

Vibration resulting from generalconstruction works is notanticipated to result in anadverse impact. The nearestreceptors to the proposed shaftlocation are at a distance ofapproximately 10m and it isunlikely that vibration levels willresult in minor cosmetic damageduring shaft sinking but may giverise to annoyance. Vibrationfrom tunnelling should beconsidered on a case by casebasis at particular sensitivelocations.

Operation:

With appropriate attenuation (ifnecessary), there is no reasonwhy noise from the ventilationcolumn and top chamber shouldresult in adverse noise impactsto nearby sensitive receptors.

Adherence to the good site

practices provided in BS5228.

Siting of noisy equipment andconstruction activities as far as ispracticable from sensitivereceptors.

Provision of site boundary noisefences.

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

63/68




Noise


conclusions

Summary:

This site is less suitable as a CSO site because distances to the nearest residential receptors arerelatively short and therefore adverse noise and vibration impacts are likely. There is also arelatively high density of residential dwellings around the site.

The number of vehicles associated with the construction phase is anticipated to be relatively highand has the potential to result in an adverse noise impact to properties located on Yeoman Streetand Chilton Grove. Perimeter hoarding would reduce the potential impact but will be relativelyineffective at shielding noise from the upper floor properties at the nearest residential dwellings.

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

64/68




Land quality

Site location Grid Reference: 536163, 178774

Current site use Commercial buildings and Thames Water (Earl) Pumping Stationcover most of the site area, with the remainder of the sitehardstanding. The site spans the area between Croft Street andYeoman Street. The perimeter of the northern part of the site(C31XY) is walled with a fence extending the wall height.

The nature of three of the commercial businesses/premises presenton the southern part of the site (C31XZ) at the time of visit wasunclear. One operational business, London Catering Services (SE)Ltd, was noted at the time of visit.

Topography The site is relatively flat and consists entirely of commercial andindustrial buildings/hardstanding.

Field evidence of

contamination(ie, visual/olfactory)

Some drums visible on the site of business. Nature of activities

onsite and potential for contamination unclear.

Current surrounding landuse (immediately adjacentto site)

North: Chilton Grove (two lane road) lies to the north of the site.Beyond the road lies Plough Way estate residential buildings (3-4storey local authority flats)

East: Ex commercial/industrial sites lie to the east beyond YeomanStreet which is directly adjacent to the site up to two storey househeight. Current activity of the sites directly to the east is unclear asthe site was closed at the time of the visit. One active site - theactivities of which were unclear and no signage other than a To Letsign was observed. Note that a notice for a proposed mixed usedevelopment was attached to a post outside the commercial plot on

the other side of Yeoman Street. The proposal may apply to both ofthe plots opposite the proposed site, however this was unclear. A 4storey private residential block is located to the NE.

South: Active commercial/industrial units (up to two storey househeight) as well as a row of two storey terraced houses with gardensare adjacent to the southern site boundary. The residences run awayfrom the site with only the first house side on to the proposed site.

West: Croft Street is located to the west of the site. Four maturetrees are directly adjacent to the west of the site as well as fourfurther trees on the opposite side of Croft Street. On the oppositeside of Croft Street is a commercial area with a 5 storey localauthority apartment building with small private gardens facing the

street to the NW.Geological and hydrogeological information

Geological strata1

Superficial Geology and Made Ground (9m)

Thanet sand (9m)

Chalk (to beyond the depth of shaft)

Underlying aquifer classes Minor Aquifer: River Terrace Deposits, Thanet Sands

Major Aquifer: Chalk

Groundwater vulnerability/Soil classification

(High/Intermediate/Low/Not applicable)

2

River Terrace Deposits - Minor Aquifer

High Leaching Potential of Soils (U)2

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

65/68




Land quality

Source Protection Zonedetails

Not located in a Source Protection Zone defined by EA

Surface water receptor South Dock Marina (215m northeast)

Relevant information within a 250m radius of the site

Historical potentiallycontaminating activities

Onsite

Asphalt works, 1862-1898

Tar pitch, Naphtha and Creosote works, 1862-1898

Residential housing, 1862-1920

Garage, 1949-1991

Depot, 1954-present

Electrical substation, 1954-present

Tank contents unknown, 1960

Works,present

Tanks contents unknown (2No.), 1947-present

Earl Pumping Station, 1947-present

Historic building plans list an electrical substation, 1959

Offsite

Tanks contents unknown (2No.), (6m south), 1947-present

Tar works, (10m southeast), 1862-1898

Depot, (12m west), 1949-1991

Depot, (20m east), 1991-present

Insulcrete Works (breeze slabs), (50m south), 1947-1972Timber yard, (50m southwest), 1862-1895

Works, (58m southeast), 1949-1991

Garage, (60m southeast), 1949-1991

Tar works, (53m east), 1862-1895

Timber yard (60m south), 1909-1920

Depot, (65m southwest),present

Wharf operations (transport support and cargo handling), (47mnortheast),present

Engineering works, (75m south), 1947-1972

Works, (75m southwest), 1949-1991Wharf operations (transport support and cargo handling), (65mnortheast), 1896-1898

Infilled water canal, (73m northeast), 1949

Sawmills, (92m southwest), 1896-1898

Works, (95m southeast),present

Infilled water canal, (97m east), 1949

Sawmill, (115m south), present

Sawmills, (115m east), 1896-1898

Timber shed, (115m east), 1947-1972

Timber yard, (116m south), 1947-1972Timber yard, (120m east), 1862-1895

7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

66/68




Land quality

Whiting works, (126m southeast), 1896-1972

Commercial yard, (120m north), 1896-1991

Railway yard, (165m east), 1896-1972

Areas cleared due to enemy action, (143m northwest), 1959-1965

Warehouses, (145m northwest), 1896-1920

Timber yard, (185m southeast), 1909-1920

Railway lines, (190m south), 1882-1945

Warehouse, (198m northeast), 1909-1920

Floor cloth manufactory, (200m southwest), 1862-1895



Foundry, (235m southwest), 1909-1920

Pollution incidents tocontrolled waters

None

Landfill sites None

Other waste sites One registered waste transfer site

Swift Waste, license cancelled, small (> 10,000, < 25,000 tonne p/a),no known restriction on source of waste, (6m east).

Registered radioactivesubstances

None

Fuel stations/Depots None

Contemporary tradedirectory entries No data

Site classification based on above information

ActivityDistance and

direction to siteContaminants

Potential sitecontaminants derivedfrom surface sources (e.g.contaminants in madeground)

1) Some potential formade ground frompotential fillingoperations duringdevelopment

2) Asphalt works

3) Tar works

4) Garage

5) Depot

6) Electricalsubstation

7) Tank contentsunknown

8) Works

1) Onsite anddirectly adjacent tosite

2) Onsite

3) Onsite

4) Onsite

5) Onsite

6) Onsite

7) Onsite

8) Onsite

9) Onsite

10) Onsite

1) Metals, PAHs, TPH

2) Metals, PAHs, TPH,Solvents

3) Metals, TPH,

PAHs, Phenols,Sulphur compounds



6) PCBs




7/27/2019 100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

67/68




Land quality

9) Pumping station

10) Tanks10) Metals, TPH,PAHs, Solvents

Potential sitecontaminants derivedfrom offsite sources andtransported to site

1) Tank contentsunknown

2) Tar works

3) Depot

4) Wharf operations

1) 6m south

2) 10m southeast

3) Closest located12 west

4) 47m northeast

1) Metals, TPH,PAHs, Solvents

2) Metals, TPH,PAHs, Phenols,Sulphur compounds

3) Metals, TPH, PAH

Date post:	14-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	info1639
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

100-RG-PNC-C31XY-900002

Documents