100-RG-PNC-S84NM-900001

Spring 2010

Site Suitability Report S84NMThames Water Abbey Mills Pumping Stations

Please note:

After phase two consultation this site suitability report and the drive options were reviewed. This report was superseded by Site Suitability Report S84NM Abbey Mills Pumping Station (Summer 2011). This report (Spring 2010) has been provided for information only, as this site was the phase one consultation preferred main tunnel site. Further details are provided in the Final Report on Site Selection Process (doc ref: 7.05) that can be found on the Thames Tideway Tunnel section of the Planning Inspectorate’s web site.

100-RG-PNC-S84NM-900001 | Spring 2010

Thames Water Abbey Mills

Pumping Stations

Site Suitability Report

S84NM

100-RG-PNC-S84NM-900001.doc

THAMES TUNNEL

SITE SUITABILITY REPORT S84NM

LIST OF CONTENTS

Page Number

1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Purpose and structure of the report 1 1.2 Background 1 1.3 Consultation 1

2 SITE INFORMATION 2

2.1 Site and surroundings 2 2.2 Type of site 2

3 PROPOSED USE OF SITE – CONSTRUCTION PHASE 3

4 PROPOSED USE OF SITE – OPERATIONAL PHASE 3

4.1 Operational requirements 3 4.2 Restoration and after-use 4

5 ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT 4

5.1 Access 4 5.2 Construction works considerations 5 5.3 Permanent works considerations 5 5.4 Health and safety 5

6 PLANNING ASSESSMENT 5

6.1 Introduction 5 6.2 Planning applications and permissions 6 6.3 Planning context 6 6.4 Consultation comments 7 6.5 Planning comments 7

7 ENVIRONMENTAL APPRAISAL 8

7.1 Introduction 8 7.2 Transport 8 7.3 Archaeology 9 7.4 Built heritage and townscape 9 7.5 Water resources – hydrogeology and surface water 9 7.6 Ecology (terrestrial and aquatic) 9 7.7 Flood risk 9 7.8 Air quality 10 7.9 Noise 10 7.10 Land quality 10

8 SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT 10

8.1 Socio-economic profile 10 8.2 Issues and impacts 11

9 PROPERTY ASSESSMENT 11

9.1 Introduction 11 9.2 Crown Land and Special Land comments 11


9.3 Land to be acquired 12 9.4 Property valuation comments 12 9.5 Disturbance compensation comments 12 9.6 Offsite statutory compensation comments 12 9.7 Site acquisition cost assessment 12

10 SITE CONCLUSIONS BY DISCIPLINE 13

10.1 Introduction 13 10.2 Engineering 13 10.3 Planning 13 10.4 Environment 13 10.5 Socio-economic and community 13 10.6 Property 14

APPENDICES 15

APPENDIX 1 – SOURCES OF INFORMATION

APPENDIX 2 – SITE LOCATION PLAN

APPENDIX 3 – PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT PLANS

APPENDIX 4 – PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

APPENDIX 5 – TRANSPORT PLAN

APPENDIX 6 – SERVICES AND GEOLOGY PLAN

APPENDIX 7 – CONSTRUCTION PHASE LAYOUT

APPENDIX 8 – OPERATIONAL PHASE LAYOUT

APPENDIX 9 – ENVIRONMENTAL APPRAISAL TABLES


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 authority

LU 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 Network

TPA Thames Policy Area

UDP unitary development plan

UXO unexploded ordnance


Site Suitability Report S84NM

Page 1 100-RG-PNC-S84NM-900001.doc

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose and structure of the report

1.1.1 The Site Selection Methodology Paper (May 2009) (paragraphs 2.3.29 - 2.3.34) outlines the process to be used to create the preferred list of shaft sites, and this process also applies to CSO sites. Paragraph 2.3.31 lists the type of general considerations that will be addressed in each site suitability report, but they depend on the relevance to the site and professional judgement made in the assessments.

1.1.2 This report was prepared through the assessment of information from the perspective of a number of technical disciplines: Engineering, Planning, Environment, Property and Community. The reports have been prepared on the basis of the information listed in Appendix 1 - Sources of Information, and this level of information is considered to be appropriate to the current stage.

1.1.3 The Background Technical Paper provides information on the requirements for different site types, their sizes and typical activities/facilities within the sites.

1.1.4 Each site suitability report considers a particular site on its own merits. In addition, an engineering options report was produced. Information from both of these reports will feed into the technical assessment of how well the site may fit in with tunnel design options, ensuring combinations of sites spread across the length of the tunnel route provide a reasonable spatial distribution of sites (that will best assist with the construction of the tunnel, operation and maintenance). This is considered in the Preferred Scheme Report.

1.2 Background

1.2.1 The process for selecting sites is set out in the Site Selection Methodology (May 2009) paper. All sites have previously passed through the following parts of Stage 1:

Part 1A - Creation of the long list of potential shaft (and CSO) sites

Part 1B - Creation of a short list of potential shaft (and CSO) sites

o Table 2.2: Long list of shaft (and CSO) sites - an assessment against set considerations and values

o Table 2.3: Draft short list of shaft (and CSO) sites - assessment against a list of detailed considerations

o Workshops to consider each site to arrive at a short list of sites.

1.2.2 The final part of Stage 1 includes this report. The following is an overall summary of all elements that apply to all the sites on the final short list:

Part 1C - Creation of the Preferred List of shaft (and CSO) sites - site data, site visits, site suitability reports, engineering options report and optioneering workshops that will result in the Preferred Scheme Report.

1.3 Consultation

1.3.1 The Thames Water project team held meetings with London local authorities, statutory and other stakeholders to review the provisional short list of shaft and CSO sites. All general and site specific comments can be found in a separate report titled Consultation on the Short List of Sites: Consultation Feedback Report. These comments were considered to help determine the final short list of sites, but they were also considered at the optioneering workshops.

1.3.2 Further meetings were held with London local authorities, statutory and other stakeholders between January and March 2010. Comments are included in this report.



2 SITE INFORMATION

2.1 Site and surroundings

2.1.1 This section provides an overview of all the site information that will be used by one or more disciplines to assess the site in sections 3 to 9 of this report.

2.1.2 Site S84NM is located to the south of the Abbey Mills Pumping Stations on an area of Greenfield land, flanked by watercourses. The site is within the London Borough of Newham. Within the site boundary, to the west and abutting the Prescott Channel, are a number of allotments. A site location plan is attached as Appendix 2.

2.1.3 Residential properties abut the north-western and north-eastern site boundaries.

2.1.4 To the east, the site is bounded by Abbey Creek and, beyond a small island, the Channelsea River. Further east, beyond these watercourses, is a small business development, an area of disused land, and the Kingsland College of Further and Higher Education located on Canning Road.

2.1.5 The Channelsea River flows from the east, bounding the southern side of the site. Beyond the river lies a narrow area of grassed, disused land, followed by several railway lines. Beyond the railway lines, there are several gas-holding containers and a business park.

2.1.6 To the west, the site is bounded by the Prescott Channel, which flows into the Channelsea River at the south-western corner of the site. Land on the western side of the Prescott Channel comprises an undeveloped grass area and warehouse-style buildings, including Three Mills Studios.

2.1.7 The closest dwellings are located on Bisson Road to the north and Crows Road to the south, on the opposite side of the river and railway lines.

2.1.8 The site is covered by various planning and environment designations in the Newham Unitary Development Plan. All the mapped designations are shown on the planning and environment plans in Appendix 3.

2.1.9 Photographs of the site and surroundings, together with an aerial photograph of the site, are attached as Appendix 4.

2.1.10 Road access to the site is from the entrance off Gay Road and the existing road within the site. West Ham rail and tube station is less than 1km away. Stratford rail, tube and DLR station is approximately 1.5km away. There are no wharfage or jetty facilities present on the site. A transport plan for the site is attached as Appendix 5.

2.1.11 Third-party assets and significant utilities are listed below and are shown on the services and geology plan in Appendix 6:

A number of tunnels which feed into Abbey Mills Pumping Stations run through the northern part of the site

Rail tracks through the outer southern part of the site

Three Mills Studios, a two- to three-storey building with large footprint at the outside south-eastern part of the site.

2.1.12 The locations of other third-party assets, such as BT and fibre optic communication cables, are to be confirmed by further studies and utility searches and may not be shown on the services and geology plan.

2.1.13 Information on the geology specific to this site can be found within the services and geology plan which is in Appendix 6. This plan shows that the shaft would be founded in the Chalk.

2.2 Type of site

2.2.1 The site S84NM is being considered as:

a main shaft site

an intermediate shaft site.



3 PROPOSED USE OF SITE – CONSTRUCTION PHASE

3.1.1 The proposed construction phase layouts for the shaft sites are located in Appendix 7 – Construction Phase Layout, and are based on a preliminary assessment.

3.1.2 The construction phase layout drawings are illustrative and show:

the layout as a main shaft site

the layout as an intermediate shaft site

potential access points.

3.1.3 These drawings provide initial preliminary schematic layouts that have not been optimised. If the site proceeds to the next stage as a preferred site, construction phase layouts would be optimised to minimise impacts.

3.1.4 Drawings of typical activities associated with the shaft construction phase are provided in Appendix 7. Potential above ground construction features include:

approximately 3m high hoarding around the site boundary

welfare facilities, temporary structures, approximately 3m high

grout plant, approximately 3 to 5m high, including silos

mobile crane, approximately 30m high

gantry crane, approximately 8m high.

3.1.5 The proposed location of Shaft F (part of the Lee Tunnel) is to the north of the proposed Thames Tunnel shaft location. The preliminary construction site layout has been chosen to avoid Shaft F and the Lee Tunnel.

3.1.6 Preliminary data associated with the construction phase are provided in Table 3.1

Table 3.1 Construction phase data

Activity Main shaft site Intermediate

shaft site

Length of construction period 6 to 7 years 4 to 5 years

Likely working hours, ie, (night/day/weekend) 24 hours 24 hours

Working days Mon to Sun Mon to Sun

Primary means of transporting excavated material away from site

Barge Road*

Primary means of transporting materials to site Barge/Road Road*

* There may be feasible opportunities to use barge transport for this site.

3.1.7 The construction site could potentially be used as a hub location.

4 PROPOSED USE OF SITE – OPERATIONAL PHASE

4.1 Operational requirements

4.1.1 The indicative operational phase layouts for the shaft sites are located in Appendix 8 – Operational Phase Layout, and are based on a preliminary assessment.

4.1.2 The generic elevations of structures shown on the operational phase layout are located in Appendix 8 and provide an illustration of typical examples of the permanent structures which are applicable to shaft sites.



4.1.3 The underground infrastructure at this site is likely to be made up of a shaft, double flap valve chamber and a 10m wide overflow culvert

a.

4.1.4 The above ground infrastructure at this site is likely to comprise a ventilation column 10mb

high 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 and egress into the main shaft and flap valve chamber.

4.1.5 The top structures are envisaged to be finished at a level of 107mc 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 further information on the generic layout of this top structure, refer to Appendix 8.

4.1.6 Hardstanding would be provided to the top structures. The site would be fenced, although in this case, this may not be required as the site is within existing, fenced-off Thames Water land.

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

Table 4.1 Operational phase data

Level of inspections and maintenance and likely working hours, ie, (night/day/weekend) - frequency of visits

1 daytime visit every six months for electrical/instrument inspection.

An additional 1 week maintenance period for tunnel/shaft inspection required per 10 years that could be night/day/weekend working.

No of traffic movements 1 van visit every six months.

An additional 1 week period of 2 to 10 movements per day (estimated several vans and 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 its original condition on completion of the construction works. If any buildings were demolished, 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 Access to the site for both the construction and operational phases is off Bisson Road. Bisson Road runs through a housing estate. Further assessments would need to be carried

a It was anticipated that an overflow culvert would be required at shaft sites when the assessment in this

report was undertaken. Although this was subsequently changed with overflow culverts no longer required at all sites, the assessment was not revised as it was considered that the difference would not change any discipline’s conclusion on the suitability of the site. b It was anticipated that the ventilation column at shafts sites would be 10m high when the assessment in this

report was undertaken. Although this was subsequently changed to 15m high, the assessment was not revised as it was considered that the difference would not change any discipline’s conclusion on the suitability of the site. c 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 to 104.5mTD, the assessment was not revised as it was considered that the difference would not change any discipline’s conclusion on the suitability of the site.



out, but an alternative route off Gay Road (existing access to Thames Water’s Abbey Mills Pumping Stations site) may be feasible and preferable.

Rail

5.1.3 West Ham rail and tube station is less than 1km away. Stratford rail, tube and DLR station is approximately 1.5km away.

River

5.1.4 The site is remote from the River Thames but accessible via tributaries off the River Lee (Three Mills River or Prescott Channel). Wharfage/Jetty facilities could be constructed downstream of Prescott Lock, however, channel dredging would probably be required. The size of wharfage/jetty facilities and the type/size of barge that could be used would be limited by water depth, width of the rivers and tidal window. It is estimated that the shallow, narrow and winding waterway has only about 3.5 hours’ access on each tide and this would limit the number of possible barge movements per day.

5.1.5 There would also be an impact on river usage/navigation (both the tributaries and the main river). It would be necessary for this to be examined in detail in the form of a specific risk assessment (including modelling of barge movements), which would require discussions with and approval of the PLA.

5.1.6 Material movement for an intermediate shaft site would likely be by road. However, as the site is adjacent to a channel, there may be feasible opportunities to use barge access.

5.2 Construction works considerations

5.2.1 The site is an open, green area and no demolition is required. Part of the site currently has some allotments which, for the main shaft site, would need to be removed and relocated as these would interfere with access for mooring barges.

5.2.2 Data available on third-party assets and significant utilities show that there are no particular concerns in this area. There are some tunnels which feed into Abbey Mills Pumping Stations but these assets are remote from the proposed shaft location and impact on them should not be significant. There are rail tracks running through the outer southern part of the site and a two- to three-storey building with large footprint at the outside southern part of the site. Construction methods would be adopted, as appropriate, to mitigate potential settlement of these assets.

5.2.3 It is likely that the proposed works can be constructed within the overall construction programme.

5.3 Permanent works considerations

5.3.1 The top structure would be raised to approximately 4m above ground level.

5.4 Health and safety

5.4.1 There are no 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 Table 2.3 and covers the following areas:

Planning applications and permissions

Planning context

Planning comments.



6.2 Planning applications and permissions

6.2.1 An initial desktop search of the London Borough of Newham online planning applications database identified the following planning application submitted within the last five years applicable to the site.

6.2.2 Planning application reference 04/1934, for the erection of a facilities building in association with the CSO Fine Screen Project. Decision date 25 January 2005 (decision unknown).

6.3 Planning context

6.3.1 The following provides a summary of the relevant local planning policies and designations affecting the site. They are taken from the saved policies from the London Borough of Newham Unitary Development Plan which was adopted June 2001 and saved beyond 2008.

6.3.2 Policy EQ9, Protection of Sites of Nature Conservation Importance – the site contains a small area to the east protected as a site of nature conservation importance. Policy EQ9 explains that development that would have an adverse effect on such sites will not be permitted. Proposals on adjoining land will be considered on their impact and, where necessary, mitigation measures proposed.

6.3.3 Policy EQ 16, Green Corridors – the site abuts a Green Corridor on the southern fringe. The policy requires development proposals to positively contribute to the council’s environmental improvement objectives, with particular attention to landscaping, boundary treatment and other structures adjoining waterways.

6.3.4 Policy EQ30, Planning Proposals within Conservation Areas – the entire site is designated as a Conservation Area. In accordance with Policy EQ30, development proposals will have to provide sufficient information about the effects on the immediate setting in order for an assessment to be made of the potential effect of the proposal.

6.3.5 Policy OS7, Green Space – the entire site is designated as a Green Space. This policy safeguards such areas by permitting only suitable development for recreation, leisure or nature conservation purposes. These are considered where an equivalent replacement facility is provided, there would be no loss of environmental amenity or where green spaces are outside the areas of Local Park Deficiency.

6.3.6 Policy UR20, West Ham Mills: Land Use Proposals (MOZ 3 and MOZ 4) – the entire site is located within Major Opportunity Zone 3 (MOZ 3). Policy UR20 explains the strategic significance of these sites and that any development must maximise the advantages of the proximity of the West Ham Underground Station, riverside frontages, the Three Mills Conservation Area, the listed buildings onsite and retention of existing open space at Mill Meads, subject to the operational requirements of Thames Water Utilities.

6.3.7 Policy UR21, Major Opportunity Zone 3 – Three Mills Island – this policy is intended to encourage the sympathetic location and design of complimentary uses alongside the historic buildings within the major opportunity zone. Central to this is the creation of a heritage centre as a visitor attraction of regional significance.

6.3.8 Policy UR22, Major Opportunity Zone 3 – Three Mills Island – this policy explains that the council will not permit the demolition of the listed buildings in the Three Mills Island area.

6.3.9 Policy TM1, Focal Points for Tourism – this policy is applicable due to the site’s designation as MOZ 3. Policy TM1 seeks the development of the area as a focal point for tourism.

6.3.10 Policy T6, Channel Tunnel Rail Link and International and Domestic Station at Stratford – the western fringe of the site is designated as a Rail Safeguarding Line (surface) – proposal t3. The council supports improvements to the rail system, including the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (proposal t3).

6.3.11 Policy LR3, Arts, Culture and Entertainment (ACE): Sites and Activities – within the site is designated a Major Leisure Attraction. Policy LR3 states that the council will promote development to accommodate arts, culture and entertainment activities in the MOZ 3 location.



6.3.12 Policy EQ43, Archaeology: Investigation, Excavation and Protection – the site is entirely within an Archaeological Priority Area. The council will promote the conservation, protection and enhancement of the archaeological heritage of the borough. Developers of sites of potential archaeological importance will be required to produce a written report, as part of the application for planning permission, on the results of an archaeological assessment or field evaluation, and when remains of importance are identified, the council will seek preservation of the remains in situ.

6.4 Consultation comments

6.4.1 A series of consultations on the shortlisted sites were held with London local authorities, statutory and other pan-London stakeholders during July to September 2009 and January to March 2010. This section summarises factual comments that have been made by consultees, and which have informed the SSR assessments.

London Borough of Newham

6.4.2 The council stated that designations include a Site of Nature Conservation Interest and that part of the site lies within the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority. There have been problems discharging a condition for the Lee Tunnel in terms of transporting materials via Prescott Channel. The DLR route needs consideration.

English Heritage

6.4.3 No comment.

Environment Agency

6.4.4 No comment.

Port of London Authority

6.4.5 No comment.

Transport for London

6.4.6 No comment.

Other statutory consultees

6.4.7 No comment.

6.5 Planning comments

6.5.1 A number of planning designations are applicable both on and adjacent to the site. These designations have been identified and described in Section 6.3. The designations of most relevance to the proposed development relate to nature conservation and built heritage.

6.5.2 A small area to the east of the site is designated as a site of nature conservation importance. Given the siting of the construction works within the western portion of the site away from the protected area, it is unlikely that there would be a conflict with this designation, particularly with appropriate mitigation. A detailed assessment is included in Section 7.

6.5.3 The southern fringe of the site is designated as a green corridor. With appropriate mitigation, the temporary construction works should not have an unacceptable impact in terms of landscaping and boundary treatment. A detailed landscape assessment is provided in Section 7.

6.5.4 The entire site is designated as a green space protected for development in relation to recreation, leisure or nature conservation purposes. However, since the area is outside the



area of Local Park Deficiency, it is not considered that there would be any significant conflict with this designation, although alternative provision or the improvement of existing facilities may still be required by the LPA.

6.5.5 The entire site is also designated as a conservation area and there is a cluster of listed buildings in the heart of the site, including the Grade II* listed Abbey Mills Pumping Stations. The proposed works are situated on the southern fringe of the site, away from the listed buildings. With appropriate mitigation, the proposal should not have an unacceptable impact on the setting of the listed buildings or the appearance of the conservation area. A detailed heritage and landscape assessment is provided in Section 7. Furthermore, the site is within an archaeology priority area and suitable investigation and remediation works would need to be agreed with the LPA in accordance with Policy EQ43. Further appraisal of the archaeological potential on the site is provided in Section 7 of this report.

6.5.6 The site also falls within Major Opportunity Zone 3. This MOZ has a number of policies attached to it focussed on maximising opportunities for the area, particularly with regard to tourism and leisure, by using a potential heritage centre as an anchor use. In the absence of a current planning application, the potential for such uses within the designated opportunity zone and indicative timescales are unclear and would require ongoing monitoring.

6.5.7 The western area of the site is designated as a Rail Safeguarded Line. Further information is required to establish whether the land is still required for rail uses or if the land is surplus to requirements.

6.5.8 Although the closest element of the worksite is 50m from the nearest dwelling, the shaft site itself would be over 300m. The proposed works layout could be amended to increase the buffer between construction activities and residences, if required.

6.5.9 The proposed temporary construction works for the main shaft and road access for both the main and intermediate shafts are located on existing allotments. The allotments would need to be replaced if the main shaft construction works were carried out as proposed, however it should be possible to rearrange the temporary works layout on the site to avoid the allotments altogether. If the allotments did remain on the site, thus adjacent to the main shaft construction works, mitigation may be required to reduce potential impacts from noise, dust and traffic movements.

6.5.10 Access to the site could potentially be moved further east, along or adjacent to the existing road access taken from Gay Road. This again would prevent use of the existing allotments for the construction access works.

7 ENVIRONMENTAL APPRAISAL

7.1 Introduction

7.1.1 The following sections summarise specialist assessments which are provided in Appendix 9 – Environmental Appraisal Tables.

7.2 Transport

7.2.1 The site is less suitable for use as either an intermediate or a main shaft site, requiring the construction of a new site access and the removal of several parking bays near to the access. There is potential road access to the TLRN (A12) for HGVs, but the route passes through a residential area and would require the removal of a high number of on-street parking bays along Bisson Road to provide passing places. A parking survey would need to be undertaken to identify current utilisation levels, the likely impact of removal and the potential to use alternative parking facilities. There may be an alternative access route to the site via Abbey Lane, however this would require further investigation.

7.2.2 The potential route to rail at Angerstein Wharf is unsuitable due to the height restriction through the Blackwall Tunnel and the additional constraints encountered when accessing the TLRN (A12). The site is located adjacent to a river channel with potential wharfage onto Channelsea River to transfer away excavated material (for the main shaft site option).



7.2.3 There is the potential for the workforce to utilise public transport to access the site and some onsite parking could be provided for some of the workforce.

7.3 Archaeology

7.3.1 The site is suitable for use as either an intermediate or main shaft site although due to a lack of previous investigations in the area, the nature and extent of archaeological receptors cannot be confidently predicted. With currently available information, it is possible that archaeological receptors of potential high or medium value may be present within the site, and it is likely that archaeological advanced works and other excavations associated with the preceding Lee Tunnel would assist in defining the presence or absence of any such receptors. Investigations on adjacent sites suggest that alluvial deposits containing archaeological material would also be present.

7.4 Built heritage and townscape

7.4.1 This site is suitable for use as either an intermediate or a main shaft site, although it has the potential to directly affect the Three Mills Conservation Area and indirectly affects 13 listed buildings and one locally listed building.

7.4.2 Mitigation in the form of a high quality scheme design and/or screening would reduce adverse impacts. A further detailed assessment is likely to be required to more precisely define the likely impacts upon the local townscape character and the character of the waterways surrounding the site. Mitigation through the scheme design and landscaping would reduce adverse impacts, and could enhance the visual amenity of the site itself and that of the water frontage.

7.5 Water resources – hydrogeology and surface water

7.5.1 The site is suitable for use as either an intermediate or main shaft site, as although construction of the shaft would take place within Chalk (major aquifer), the site does not lie within the 400-day capture zone of licensed abstractions. No long-term impact on the Chalk aquifer is expected, although temporary dewatering would be required during the construction phase. The Chalk piezometric head is likely to be approximately 43m above the base of construction and should be taken into account in the engineering design. The superficial deposits are alluvium, which is classified as a minor aquifer at the shaft site, and limited impact on flow in the shallow aquifer is anticipated due to the use of a diaphragm wall or caissons.

7.5.2 In terms of surface water resources, the site is suitable as either an intermediate or main shaft site because there is no direct pathway to the Prescott Channel or Abbey Creek for pollution, although standard mitigation would be required.

7.6 Ecology (terrestrial and aquatic)

7.6.1 The site is suitable as either an intermediate or main shaft site, although any works affecting the foreshore mudflats on the River Lee and associated watercourses would require surveys, and is likely to require negotiation with the EA and potentially mitigation, such as compensatory habitat provision. Works within the foreshore are currently considered unlikely to be required.

7.7 Flood risk

7.7.1 The site is suitable for use as an intermediate or main shaft site because it is defended from flooding from the Prescott Channel and Abbey Creek (to the one in 1,000-year flood level) and there is likely to be space for surface attenuation SuDS. Further investigation is required to determine if the site is suitable for infiltration SuDS.



7.8 Air quality

7.8.1 The site is suitable for use as either an intermediate or main shaft site as there is sufficient distance to potential dust sensitive receptors and, providing standard dust control measures are in place, there is only a low risk of a perceptible impact at the nearest residential receptors. There is potential for HGV movements on the local road network to cause localised air quality impacts, however this can be mitigated by minimising the movement of HGVs during peak hours.

7.9 Noise

7.9.1 The site is suitable as either an intermediate or main shaft site as although existing noise levels in the immediate surrounding area are relatively low, the distances between the site and residential properties to the south and north are relatively large. If the noisiest plant can be situated to the western area of the site, this would reduce the potential for disturbance at the residential properties. In addition, should use of this site be pursued, it is recommended that noisy construction activities, or activities which may cause vibration, be undertaken during daytime hours only to reduce the noise impact during night-time construction.

7.10 Land quality

7.10.1 The site is considered less suitable for use as either an intermediate or main shaft site with respect to land quality, based on the high potential for contamination of the site to have occurred, specifically from sewage pumping station operations, gas works, distillery, unknown storage tanks, and historic landfill on and in the vicinity of the site. Contamination is also known to have been identified on the Abbey Mills site during works for the West Ham Storm Relief development.

7.10.2 This potentially poses a risk to construction workers and adjacent human receptors through direct contact and inhalation exposure pathways as well as ground gas risks. Additionally, the potential exists for contaminants to be drawn to the deeper aquifer, if deep drilling/construction is undertaken on the site, and for migration of contaminants to surface water receptors through groundwater. Appropriate mitigation would be required to deal with this.

8 SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT

8.1 Socio-economic profile

8.1.1 The site is located within the Stratford and New Town ward of the London Borough of Newham. Statistics from ONS 2001 Census data show the following indicators for the ward, in comparison to the rest of Newham, London and England as a whole:

Higher proportion of economically active, aged people that are full-time employees than in Newham, but a lower proportion than in London and England as a whole

Lower proportion of unemployed people than Newham, but a higher proportion than in London and England

Higher proportion having achieved Level 4 or 5 educational qualifications, compared to Newham or England as a whole, but a lower proportion than London

Lower proportion of people with no qualifications at all than Newham and England, but a higher proportion than in London

Age profile for the ward is roughly similar to that of the borough as a whole and England

Predominantly white British residents, however, the area also has significant proportions of African and Caribbean people.

8.1.2 These statistics indicate that the population in this area, although less deprived than the majority of the borough, is still well below the national averages in terms of employment.



The ward is also ranked well below the national average in terms of the income and health of the local population. Educational standards are, however, in line with the national average.

8.1.3 In view of the diversity in the borough, allotments and other community centred open spaces are likely to be a levelling factor and a source of shared community pride, thus contributing to community cohesion in the area.

8.2 Issues and impacts

8.2.1 This site is being assessed as a main tunnel driving site and an intermediate shaft site.

Main

8.2.2 Given the proposed location of the works for a main shaft site, the greatest community impact appears likely to be caused by the loss of, or disruption to, the long-standing allotments along the western boundary of the site. The West Ham Society’s official website shows that the allotments are highly valued by the local community of West Ham and the rest of Newham.

8.2.3 If the site is used as a main shaft site, it appears likely that the Three Mills Studios may also be affected as these are directly opposite the main works area across Prescott Channel. The FE College and businesses operating out of properties to the east of the site may also be affected.

8.2.4 There is also the potential for the public open space at Three Mills Green to be affected by noise and other disruption from the works.

8.2.5 Residents living in properties towards the western end of Bisson Road and Riverside Road may also be affected by site works.

Intermediate

8.2.6 If the site is selected as an intermediate site, the same sensitive receptors are likely to be affected, but the severity of any impacts is likely to be less than that for a main shaft site due to the reduced scope of works.

8.2.7 The proposed site layout suggests that the allotments would not be lost if the site is used as an intermediate shaft site. However, the allotments, which are probably valued for their tranquil nature, would be likely to experience disruption from the adjacent works area.

9 PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

9.1 Introduction

9.1.1 This site comprises part of the Abbey Mills Pumping Stations site.

9.1.2 It is believed that this is an operational pumping station, owned and managed by Thames Water, however land referencing data is not available for the site.

9.1.3 Some allotments are located within the site.

9.1.4 This site is under consideration for both main shaft and intermediate shaft site options.

9.2 Crown Land and Special Land comments

9.2.1 The site is likely to be Special Land as it is in Thames Water use, however this is an internal issue in this instance.

9.2.2 The allotment area may also be Special Land, however it is uncertain without the relevant land referencing data.



9.2.3 It is recommended that the issue of Special Land is avoided altogether, by redesigning the site construction areas to ensure they fall on Thames Water land. There should be sufficient room at this site to do so.

9.3 Land to be acquired

9.3.1 The compensation assessment assumes that the worksite and access to it would be acquired temporarily via the acquisition of new rights for the period of the works stated in the engineering section above. It assumes that at the end of the works, a smaller area would need to be acquired permanently.

9.3.2 It is assumed that Thames Water is the owner of the entire site.

9.3.3 The portion of the site that would be used appears not to be in operational use by Thames Water. However, on a recent aerial photograph, a site office or similar is evident. It has not been possible to access the site, and further investigation into the use of the building may be appropriate.

9.3.4 There are some allotment gardens within the temporary worksite identified for the main shaft site option, and it is recommended that the site is redesigned to avoid these if possible. Some allotments have been reprovided in the past by Thames Water as they were taken during the construction of the lock at Prescott Channel.

9.3.5 It is noted from the engineering drawings that for both site options, the operational site would comprise an area of approximately 50m by 50m at the southern point of the site, with a permanent access from the north-western corner of the site.

9.3.6 Rights would be required to construct and operate an overflow culvert from the shaft into the adjacent river.

9.4 Property valuation comments

9.4.1 On the basis that Thames Water owns the site, there is no valuation sum to be assessed.

9.4.2 More details are required on the allotments onsite. If it is necessary to place part of the working area on the allotments, it may be possible to relocate the affected plots elsewhere, however this would attract relocation costs and the best solution would be to redesign that part of the site to avoid them.

9.4.3 There may be alternative use values associated with the site, however this should be an internal matter for Thames Water when considering the operational use of the site.

9.4.4 If the allotments are to be acquired, it is likely that they would need to be reprovided elsewhere within the site.

9.4.5 No rights of way or easements have been included in the assessment of this site acquisition cost.

9.5 Disturbance compensation comments

9.5.1 There may be some disturbance costs attached to moving any allotments required, however this is likely to fall within acceptable bounds.

9.6 Offsite statutory compensation comments

9.6.1 The site is currently operational land under water company use, and therefore it would be difficult to perceive a case where the value of an adjoining property is affected further by the proposed works.

9.7 Site acquisition cost assessment

9.7.1 The site acquisition costs are considered to be acceptable, given that the site is understood to be within Thames Water’s control.



10 SITE CONCLUSIONS BY DISCIPLINE

10.1 Introduction

10.1.1 The conclusions presented in this section are drawn from each discipline’s 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 for use as either a main shaft site or as an intermediate shaft site, because the area is large enough, river access is possible, there are no particular constraints on third-party assets and there is no need for any demolition. Road access off Bisson Road would be constrained, but an alternative route through existing Thames Water land onto Gay Road may be feasible. The overflow culvert could be connected to the Prescott Channel. River access would be constrained by being shallow, narrow and winding, with only limited access on each tide, and this would limit the number and type of barge movements.

10.3 Planning

10.3.1 The site is considered suitable for use as either a main or intermediate shaft site.

10.3.2 There are a number of applicable designations and sensitive receptors on the site. However, potential amendments to the siting of some of the construction works and site access, combined with appropriate mitigation, should not result in an unacceptable level of impact on the site.

10.4 Environment

10.4.1 Overall, the site is suitable as either an intermediate or a main shaft site, although mitigation would be required to enable the site to be used for either purpose.

10.4.2 Based on current information, the site is suitable for both site types from the perspectives of archaeology, built heritage and townscape, water resources, ecology, flood risk, air quality and noise.

10.4.3 This site is considered less suitable for both site types from the perspectives of transport and land quality.

10.4.4 Overall, the site is considered suitable, subject to further investigation of whether transport and land quality impacts can be adequately mitigated. Likely mitigation considerations would include:

Transport – a revised access and/or traffic management plan, as well as appropriate use of barging (main shaft site) to reduce traffic impacts to acceptable levels

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

10.5 Socio-economic and community

Main shaft site

10.5.1 This site is less suitable as a main shaft, with the current configuration, as this is likely to lead to the loss or displacement of some of the allotments, which may be quite difficult to relocate or otherwise mitigate. Mitigation, in terms of suitable relocation, will require further investigation.

10.5.2 There are also likely to be some impacts on the Three Mills Studio due to its proximity to the main area of works, while the Kingsland Further Education College, a small number of business premises, Three Mills Green and a number of residential properties may also be



affected. The relative distance of these receptors from the main works area may provide opportunities for mitigation.

Intermediate shaft site

10.5.3 This site is suitable as an intermediate shaft site, as the allotments would not be substantially affected. However, the access route may still impact upon the allotments in part and construction activity would be likely to affect the tranquillity and enjoyment of the allotments. There would also be residual impact relating to disruption of the nearby residential, educational and commercial purposes as above, but these are likely to be mitigable. The relative distance of these receptors from the main works area may provide opportunities for mitigation.

10.6 Property

10.6.1 This site is considered suitable for both main and intermediate shaft options.

10.6.2 The advantages of the site are as follows:

It is owned by Thames Water.

10.6.3 The disadvantages of the site are as follows:

If used as a main shaft site, a slight redesign must be undertaken to avoid having to relocate allotment holders.

It is recommended that more investigation is undertaken internally to understand what currently exists onsite.

Site Suitability Report S84NM - Appendices


APPENDICES

Site Suitability Report S84NM – Appendix 1

Appendix 1 – Page 1 100-RG-PNC-S84NM-900001.doc

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 Newham online planning applications database

Saved policies in the Newham Unitary Development Plan, adopted in June 2001

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

The Lea Valley Walk - 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

Built heritage and townscape

Newham List of Locally Listed Buildings

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

Unitary development plans

Local authority websites

Bing maps

Water resources – hydrogeology and surface 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

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 for nature 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 risk

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

Envirocheck

Air quality

Local authority websites

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

http://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 quality

Google Maps/Earth

Site walkover information

Socio-economic and community

Statistics from the Office of National Statistics 2001 Census data

West Ham Allotment Society home page - http://www.westhamallotments.org.uk

Newham Partnership home page - http://www.newham.com/partners/partners/0,10,0,0.html



Property

Promap, Ordnance Survey and A-Z mapping

Multimap/Google Earth aerial/satellite photographs

Mouchel referencing



APPENDIX 2 – SITE LOCATION PLAN

NEWHAM

TOWER HAMLETS

S84NM

APPENDIX 2S84NM SITE

SITE LOCATION PLAN

Title:

Map Ref : .......101PL-SS-00629Date : .............2009/11/17Projection : .....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 100019345CH2M 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 of Main Map

LegendLocal Authority BoundaryShort Listed Shaft Sites

DRAFT & CONFIDENTIAL

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

Thames Water UtilitiesMAJOR PROJECTS



APPENDIX 3 – PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT PLANS

#*

#*

NEWHAM

TOWER HAMLETS

S84NM

APPENDIX 3AS84NM SITE

PLANNING ANDENVIRONMENT PLAN

Title:


0 50 100 150 20025

Metres

±

Mapping reproduced by permission of OrdnanceSurvey on behalf of HMSO. (c) Crown copyrightand database right 2009. All rights reserved.Ordnance Survey Licence number 100019345CH2M 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.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 of Main Map





Legend#* Major Leisure Attraction

Regeneration AreasPrincipal Employment Area

! Areas of OpportunityMajor Opportunity Zone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NEWHAM

TOWER HAMLETS

S84NM

APPENDIX 3BS84NM SITE

PLANNING ANDENVIRONMENT PLAN

Title:


0 50 100 150 20025

Metres

±


Area of Main Map





LegendGreen Corridor/ChainsMetropolitan Open LandDistrict Park DeficiencySites of NatureConservation Importance

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! !

Open SpacesGreen Space

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

NEWHAM

TOWER HAMLETS

S84NM

APPENDIX 3CS84NM SITE

PLANNING ANDENVIRONMENT -HERITAGE PLAN

Title:


0 50 100 150 20025

Metres

±


Area of Main Map





Legend! Listed Buildings

Archaeological AreasConservation Areas



APPENDIX 4 – PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

NEWHAM

TOWER HAMLETS

S84NM


AERIAL PLAN

Title:


0 50 100 150 20025

Metres

±

Mapping reproduced by permission of OrdnanceSurvey on behalf of HMSO. (c) Crown copyrightand database right 2009. All rights reserved.Ordnance Survey Licence number 100019345CH2M 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 of Main Map

LegendLocal Authority BoundaryShort Listed Shaft SitesDRAFT & CONFIDENTIAL




Appendix 4


View of the pumping stations looking east from within the site.

View of the site looking southeast adjacent to the grey clad pumping station on the left.


Appendix 4


View of the site looking east towards the Channelsea River.

View of the site looking south towards the gas works.



APPENDIX 5 – TRANSPORT PLAN

Substantial amount of on-street parking

U-turn requiredto access site fromTLRN (A12)

Substantial amount of on-street parking

U-turn requiredto access site fromTLRN (A12)

S84NM

NEWHAM

TOWER HAMLETS


TRANSPORT PLAN

Title:

Map Ref : ........... 101PL-SS-00769Date : ................. 2009/11/19Projection : ......... British National Grid

0 80 160 240 320 40040

Meters

±Mapping reproduced by permission of OrdnanceSurvey on behalf of HMSO. (c) Crown copyrightand database right 2009. All rights reserved.Ordnance Survey Licence number 100019345CH2M 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 of Main Map

LegendLocal Authority BoundaryShort Listed Shaft SitesTransport Access RoutesTfL Road NetworkThames PathLondon Cycle Routes






APPENDIX 6 – SERVICES AND GEOLOGY PLAN

DO NOT SCALE - IF IN DOUBT ASK

DateAppdChkdDescriptionIss

Drawn By:

Dsgnr

c

Drawing No.: Scale: Sheet Size: Rev:

Drawing Title:

Contract Name:

Project Name:

Site Name:

Location / Town:

Project Group:

Location Code: OS Reference:

Sub Process:

Security Reference:

Thames Water Utilities Ltd 2008

Status:

MAPPING REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF ORDNANCE

SURVEY ON BEHALF OF HMSO. ' CROWN COPYRIGHT AND

DATABASE RIGHT 2008. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

ORDNANCE SURVEY LICENCE NUMBER 100019345

Keyplan:

PLOTTED ON 04\12\09 BY Andy.Purdy LOCATION : Thames Tideway Tunnel x:\project\371840\cad\design data\cad thames\drawings\planning-consents\Routewide\100-DL-PNC-S84NM-100001.dgn

050

100

150

20

0m

m

1 2 3 4 5 6

D

C

B

A

N

The Point, 7th Floor,

37 North Wharf Road,

Paddington, London W2 1AF

LVHVTCABTVGWSWFW

UNDERGROUND UTILITIES

LEGEND

WATER - ALL TW ASSETS

STORM & - ALL TW ASSETS

FOUL SEWERS

OTHER SIGNIFICANT UTILITIES ARE DEFINED AS:

TELECOMS - ONLY FIBRE OPTIC CABLES

ELECTRICITY - HIGH VOLTAGE CABLES

- LARGE BANKS OF LOW VOLTAGE CABLES

GAS - LOW PRESSURE ABOVE 300mm DIAMETER

- INTERMEDIATE, MEDIUM OR HIGH PRESSURE

FOUL WATER

SURFACE WATER

CLEAN WATER

GAS

FIBRE OPTICS

TELECOMMUNICATIONS

LOW VOLTAGE CABLES

HIGH VOLTAGE CABLES

EXISTING TUNNELS

SYNTHETIC GEOLOGICAL PROFILE DERIVED FROM THE BGS

LONDON LITHOFRAME50 MODEL, HISTORICAL BOREHOLES

AND BERRY (1979). PLEASE NOTE, GROUND CONDITIONS MAY

VARY AND THIS DATA SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR DETAILED

ENGINEERING PURPOSES

GEOLOGY

Base of Made Ground

and Superficial

Suggested invert level of shaft

Ground level

59.80(m OD + 100)

104(m OD + 100)

Chalk

Base of Thanet

Sand Formation

59(m OD + 100)

73(m OD + 100)

Base of Lambeth Group

Base of London Clay Formation

102(m OD + 100)

90(m OD + 100)

SL

WB

Mud

SL

SL

SL

MP

WB

Mud

Mud

SL

TCP

63

SL

MLW

MLW

MLW

MLW

ESS

BP

4.8m

Depot

-0.6m

2.4m

5.0m

Gas Holder

Depot

Sluice

Gas WorksGas Holder

Signal gantry

Gas Holder

4.3m

1.6m

Tank

4.1m

4.1m

Three Mills Studios

4.1m

Tank

El Sub Sta

Sluice

Primary School

1.6m

1.5m

1.6m

Club

Education Centre

Depot

61 to 95

1.4m1.4m

Gainsborough

1.2m

Shelter

2.7m

TCBs

MLWS

MLWS

MLWS

MLWS

Green

Mills

Three

Three Mills Green

House

Custom

Clock Mill

Mud

Mud

WB

Mud

Mud

El

El

FB

FB

LB

TCB

PH

Sta

LB

FB

MLW

5.5m

9.3m

Lodge

Tank

L Twr

El Sub Sta

Pumping

L Twr

Tanks

L Twr

2.4m

3.9m

Station

Gas Holder

Gtec House

5.0m

Depot

Tank

Allotment Gardens

MILL MEADS

Business Centre

Channelsea

Tank

2.8m

2.3m

4.9m

Abbey Mills

Playground

Playground

5.2m

4.6m

Allotment

Gardens

5.2m

Factory

Sub Sta

Sub Sta

Distillery

4.7m

3.7m

Surgery

El Sub

2.7m

3.0m

7.9m

0.8m

9.3m

Youth Centre

8.9m

Napier Manor

2.3m

2.1m

2.5m

2.4m

7.0m

1.8m

2.2m

Pol Sta

(British Transport)

El Sub Sta

Gantry

5.6m

L Twr

Sorting Office

L Twr

Three Mills Green

Greenway Court

Car Park

600 1006

2004

2007

2005

NRV

2006

2104

SW

3339

WO

3340

3341

FH

3003

WO

3004

3005

3006 FH

1 1/2"AP

DBV462191

2193

WO

3696

3285

3001

3145

3697

2366

WO

3698

3002

4109

3972

3699

WO

3342

NF

WO

2709

3750

AC

WM

AC

3751

WO

WO

3126

3207

DBV459925

WO

3208

DBV459921

DBV459909

WO

TO MANHOLE

3916

3012

DM08461

EV

WO

AC

3749

WO IN MANOR ROAD UNDER BRIDGE

2000

AC

DM08413

2369

DBV910429

WO

WO

AC

DBV910418

AC

DBV910419

150mm WM

2904

4"WM3745

DBV910423

AP

DBV910424

WO

FH

WO

3742

3322

WO

3746

WO

PE125mm

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

8801

8802

9801

ST

2701SE

3901

ST

3801SE

4903SE

4901SE

ST

IL-6.87m

IL-6.85m

IL-5.78m

IL-5.76m

IL-6.97m

IL-7.09m

IL-6.98m

IL-6.83m

400

ABBEY MILLS SPS I STNABBEPIZZ

ABBEY MILLS SPS E STN

ABBEPEZZ

ABBEY MILLS SPS H STN

ABBEPHZZ

ABBEY MILLS SPS F STN

ABBEPFZZ

ABBEY MILLS SPS A STN

ABBEPAZZ

ABBEY MILLS SPS B STN (ABANDONED)

ABBEPBZZ

ABBEY MILLS SPS D STN (ABANDONED)

ABBEPDZZ

ABBEY MILLS SPS C STN (ABANDONED)

ABBEPCZZ

WEST HAM SPS (ABANDONED)

LOC CODE NK

5203

54125411

54135414

5003

5303

5302

5301

6307

6139

2xFV

STWW

CL

6001PS

PS

6309

PS

6308

PS

63106311

6103

6327SE

6113

6329SE

6326SE

6114

6324SE

6130

6328SE

6325SE

ST

PS

6126SE

PS

6204SE

HWFV

PS

6305

6202

PS

PS6306

PS

NRV

6303

PS

SE6123

7303

7304

7305

7102SE

PS

7307

PS

7306

FV

7309

FV

STEPS

FV

7308

FV

7112

PS

7312

7206

7310

PS

ST

FVFV

SE7118

7135SE

7142SE

8248

SE8234

8245

PS

8305

PS

8401

8303

8235SE

8306

82528254

8253

SE8212

8304

SE8213

WW

8302

8240

8279SE

SE8215

8239

8206SE

8207SE

8280SE

82818282SE

8238

825592279228

9226SE

92299230SE

9218

FV 9201

9217NRV

9213TB

SV

9307

9301

PS

PS

9308

SV

TB

9001

9212

9304

PS

9233PS

IL-6.5m

IL-6.77m

FLOWMETER

VT

LS

LS

LS

LS

LS

LSLSLS

AV

LH

LH

DC

IL-6.49m

CP

WO

DC

DCDC

DC

DC

AV

IL-5.75m

IL-6.52m

LH

IL-7.47m

AV

IL-5.77m

VC

AV

VALVE

IL-0.14m

IL-11.93m

IL0.23m

IL2.43m

FLOWMETER

IL2.11m

LS

LS

2201

2102

FV

3204

3306

3304

3303

SU

3301

3305

3405

3203

3404

3201

3302

3003SE

3101

SU

3310

3403

3402

3202

3401

3309

4306

4202

4106

4305

4410

4301

4408

4407

SU

4406

4105

4405

4203

SE4103

4104

4304

4201

VC

VC

VC

BS

305 0901

0701

1902

1901

1803

1801

1903

1701

1904

1804

1601

1602

1802

1702

1603

HW

1606

1605

2703

2803

2804

2901

2801

SU

2802

2702

2601

2701

3902

3805

3802

IL-2.11m

IL-3.1m

MANOR ROAD WEST HAM SPSMANOP0ZZ

0202PS

0205PS

0201

0111

0301

0401

0402

1405

1107

1105

1108

1106

1115

SE1116

1104

1114

11181117

1301

11191120

SE1121

1110

11121113

1109

1111

SU

1103

1126

1125

1302

1124

1004

10021001

11301128

SE1129

SU

1003

1127

1123

1122

1201

SU

1202

1005

1403

2102

2101

NRV

2302

2406

WW

PS2401

2413

2417

2407

2410

2424

2201

2411PS

2203

2412

2002

2003

2202

2301

2304

2303

2103

2204

3409

VC

IL9.39m

AV

IL8.2m

VC

IL9.39m

VC

AV

BD

BD

CP

IL8.2m

IL8.8mIL8.8m

IL9.39m

VC

IL9.39m

FWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFW

S86NM

S85NM

S84NM

AB

27-11-09AB

A11:1250

LONDON

WORK IN PROGRESS

100-DL-PNC-S84NM-100001

- AP

LTTDT

N/A

N/A

UBR

WASTE

COORDINATES ARE TO ORDNANCE SURVEY DATUM OSGB36.

ALL LEVELS ARE IN METRES AND RELATE TO A LOCAL HEIGHT

DATUM WHICH IS 100 METRES BELOW ORDNACE DATUM NEWLYN.

SCALE 1 : 1250

10 m 0 100 m

N

THAMES TUNNEL

IL GT GT

SITE SUITABILITY REPORT

S84NM

SITE BOUNDARY

DRAWING

LOCATION

SERVICES AND GEOLOGY PLAN

PROPOSED LEE

TUNNEL AND SHAFT F

NOTES

1. LIMITED FIBRE OPTIC AND BT COMMUNICATION CABLES

SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING. DETAILS OF THESE CABLES

AND OTHER SERVICES AND THIRD PARTY ASSETS TO BE

CONFIRMED BY FURTHER STUDIES AND UTILITY SEARCHES.

2. INVERT LEVEL OF SHAFT SHOWN.BASE OF CONSTRUCTION

WILL BE BELOW THIS LEVEL AND WILL DEPEND ON

CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUE. THIS IS ONLY PROVISIONAL AS

DESIGN IS AT EARLY PRELIMINARY STAGE.

3. A NUMBER OF TUNNELS WHICH FEED INTO ABBEY MILLS

PUMPING STATION MAY RUN THROUHGH THIS SITE. THIS

MAY IMPACT ON SHAFT LOCATION.

24-07-09AA RS DS CHDRAFT - FIRST ISSUE

DRAFT - SECOND ISSUE



APPENDIX 7 – CONSTRUCTION PHASE LAYOUT



APPENDIX 8 – OPERATIONAL PHASE LAYOUT

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

COORDINATES ARE TO ORDNANCE SURVEY DATUM OSGB36.

ALL LEVELS ARE IN METRES AND RELATE TO A LOCAL HEIGHT

DATUM WHICH IS 100 METRES BELOW ORDNANCE DATUM NEWLYN.

DO NOT SCALE - IF IN DOUBT ASK

DateAppdChkdDescriptionIss

Drawn By:

Dsgnr

c

Drawing No.: Scale: Sheet Size: Rev:

Drawing Title:

Contract Name:

Project Name:

Site Name:

Location / Town:

Project Group:

Location Code: OS Reference:

Sub Process:

Security Reference:

Thames Water Utilities Ltd 2008

Status:

MAPPING REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF ORDNANCE

SURVEY ON BEHALF OF HMSO. ' CROWN COPYRIGHT AND

DATABASE RIGHT 2008. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

ORDNANCE SURVEY LICENCE NUMBER 100019345

Keyplan:

PLOTTED ON 04\12\09 BY Andy.Purdy LOCATION : Thames Tideway Tunnel x:\project\371840\cad\design data\cad thames\drawings\planning-consents\Routewide\100-DH-GEN-00000-000002.dgn

050

100

150

20

0m

m

1 2 3 4 5 6

D

C

B

A

N

The Point, 7th Floor,

37 North Wharf Road,

Paddington, London W2 1AF

10

00

0

SCALE 1:50

SCALE 1:100

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

AB

27-11-09AB

A1

LONDON

LTTDT

WORK IN PROGRESS

100-DH-GEN-00000-000002

N/A ---

N/A

WASTE

UBR

THAMES TUNNEL

AP

SITE SUITABILITY REPORT

GTGTIL

VENTILATION BUILDING (SHAFTS)

VENTILATION TOWER (SHAFTS)

3m DIA

5000

15000

50

00

NTS

GENERIC ELEVATION AND TOP STRUCTURE FOR

OPERATIONAL PHASE LAYOUT - SHAFT SITES

22-05-09AA DRAFT-FIRST ISSUE CHDSRS

DRAFT-SECOND ISSUE

REMOVABLE COVERS ARE SPLIT UP

INTO SECTIONS AND SUPPORTED BY

BEAMS, WHICH ARE ALSO REMOVABLE

7m (AOD +100m) REMOVABLE COVER

ABOVE SHAFT (LOCKABLE)

(AOD + 100m)

107m

107m (AOD +100) REMOVABLE COVER

ABOVE FLAP VALVES (LOCKABLE)

DIAGRAMMATIC REPRESENTATION OF TOP STRUCTURE ABOVE MAIN AND INTERMEDIATE SHAFTS

10m

VA

RIB

LE

DE

PE

ND

ING

ON

GR

OU

ND

LE

VE

L

20m

2m

VARIES

3m 9m

NOTE:

1. STRUCTURE TO BE PROTECTED BY REMOVABLE HANDRAILS

IN THE TEMPORARY CASE.

2. POSITION OF COVERS ARE VARIABLE WITHIN 10m FROM THE

EDGE OF THE STRUCTURE, AND THE LOCATION IS BASED ON

SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT

3. CLADDING OF VENTILLATION BUILDING TO

SUIT LOCATION AND AESTHETICS.

4. ALL TOP STRUCTURES TO HAVE:-

ACCESS STAIRS/LADDER

TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT HAND RAILING

5. ALL DIMENSIONS IN MILLIMETRES UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED.



APPENDIX 9 – ENVIRONMENTAL APPRAISAL TABLES

Transport

Site considerations Intermediate Main

Comments Mitigation required and

conclusions Comments

Mitigation required and

conclusions

Access to road network Site accesses onto the southern end of Bisson Road requiring the construction of a new access. Several on street parking bays within the vicinity of the site access will require removal.

Bisson Road is a residential road subject to a 30mph speed limit and is street lit. It has a carriageway width of 7.3m which is reduced to an effective width of 3.3m by on street parking bays on both sides. A high number of parking bays will require removal to provide passing places for construction vehicles when accessing the TLRN (A12) or rail site at Angerstein Wharf.

Access to the A12 (TLRN strategic highway network) via Bisson Road, Abbey Lane and the A11 requires the removal of substantial amounts of on street parking bays along Bisson Road to provide passing places. Route runs

Road access to site least suitable for HGVs requiring the construction of a new access. A large number of on street parking bays along Bisson Road require removal to provide passing places for construction vehicles when accessing the TLRN (A12) and rail site. Route to TLRN (A12) also runs through a residential area.

There may be an alternative access route to the site via Abbey Lane, however this would require further investigation.

As for intermediate, see left As for intermediate, see left



Transport





conclusions

through a residential area and under a flyover (on return to site) with no visible restrictions. Distance to TLRN 1.1km.

Access to river Located directly adjacent to a channel leading to the river. River access not essential for intermediate shaft site as road will be used to transport excavated material to main shaft hub site.

River access not required. Excavated material will be transported away by road.

Main shaft site located directly adjacent to a channel leading to the river. Potential access to transfer away excavated material. Potential wharfage onto Channelsea River to the south of the site.

Located adjacent to channel leading to river with potential wharfage onto Channelsea River to transfer away excavated material.

Access to rail Access to Angerstein Wharf existing rail facility uses the same route to the TLRN (A12) and follows along the TLRN to the Blackwall Tunnel. The Blackwall Tunnel is subject to a 15’6” height restriction southbound and 13’4” restriction northbound which may restrict access in addition to being narrow. The route then continues along Blackwall Tunnel Approach, John Harrison Way and West Parkside to Angerstein Wharf on Horn Link Way.

Angerstein Wharf is an existing multi modal aggregates depot. Distance 7.0km to rail access point from shaft site.

Route to potential rail link at Angerstein Wharf is least suitable encountering the constraints to the TLRN (A12) in addition to running under and over several bridges with no visible restrictions, and through the Blackwall Tunnel which has height restrictions (differs depending on direction).

Angerstein Wharf is an existing multi modal aggregates depot.




Transport





conclusions

Parking Some parking could potentially be provided on site for workforce. Additional on street parking along Bisson Road and surrounding roads unsuitable for workforce as restricted to permit holders Mon-Fri 10:00-12:00.

A substantial number of on street permit holder parking bays along Bisson Road require removal to provide passing places for construction vehicles to access the TLRN. A parking survey would need to be undertaken to identify the likely impact of their removal.

Some parking for workforce could potentially be provided within site boundary. On street parking along Bisson Road and other surrounding roads unsuitable as restricted to permit holders Mon-Fri 10:00-12:00.

A substantial number of on street parking bays require removal and a parking survey is required to identify the likely impact of their removal.


Public transport accessibility PTAL 3-4 (medium), as identified within Table 2.3.

Possibility for workforce to use public transport to access site.


Traffic Management A new site access onto Bisson Road needs to be constructed.

A substantial number of on street parking bays along Bisson Road require removal.

Construction of new site access and removal of a substantial number of on street parking bays required.




Transport





conclusions

Summary The site is less suitable for use as either an intermediate or a main shaft site requiring the construction of a new site access and the removal of several parking bays near to the access. There is potential road access to the TLRN (A12) for HGVs, but the route passes through a residential area and would require the removal of a high number of on street parking bays along Bisson Road to provide passing places. A parking survey would need to be undertaken to identify current utilisation levels, the likely impact of removal and the potential to use alternative parking facilities. There may be an alternative access route to the site via Abbey Lane, however this would require further investigation.

The potential route to rail at Angerstein Wharf is unsuitable due to the height restriction through the Blackwall Tunnel and the additional constraints encountered when accessing the TLRN (A12). The site is located adjacent to river channel with potential wharfage onto Channelsea River to transfer away excavated material (for the main shaft site option).

There is the potential for the workforce to utilise public transport to access the site and some on site parking could be provided for some of the workforce.



Archaeology

Site considerations Intermediate/Main

Comments Mitigation required and conclusions

Designations, including Archaeological Priority Areas

The site is within the Newham Archaeological Priority Area. Not applicable.

Summary of historical uses The site is shown as agricultural land on the 1st ed O.S map

(1868). It is marked as Abbey Mills. The area of the proposed shaft site was known as mill meads and was not developed. The pumping station was built in the late 1800’s and has remained to the present day along with the allotments to the south of the site. A Desk based Assessment on the site has been completed in the recent past.

A detailed desk based assessment is required to sufficiently understand the archaeological resource and define risk to potential development.

Potential receptors of very high or high value with the potential to be directly affected

No archaeological receptors are recorded within the area of the site. This does not preclude the possibility of unrecorded archaeological receptors of high value being present.


Potential receptors of medium value with the potential to be directly affected

No archaeological receptors are recorded within the area of the site. This does not preclude the possibility of unrecorded archaeological receptors of medium value being present within the site.


Other receptors with the potential to be directly affected

Dewatering of potential waterlogged deposits may be an issue considering the close proximity of the site to the Thames.


Extent of existing disturbance (if known)

The southern part of the site does not appear to have undergone extensive development, therefore any archaeological material which may be present is unlikely to have been significantly disturbed.

However, borehole data for the area indicates a significant localised depth of made ground at up to 7m.




Archaeology



Potential issues Detailed design proposals, and an outline method statement will be required to enable initial assessment of development impacts, and to inform mitigation proposals.

With the currently available information it is not possible to highlight specific potential issues.

Mitigation methods could include:

Desk based assessment (review of recent work)

Production of deposits model

Archaeological monitoring of geotechnical investigations

Archaeological evaluation

Archaeological watching brief

Archaeological excavation.

Summary: The site is suitable for use as either an intermediate or main shaft site although due to a lack of previous investigations in the area, the nature and extent of archaeological receptors cannot be confidently predicted. . With currently available information it is possible that archaeological receptors of potential high or medium value may be present within the site and it is likely that archaeological advanced works and other excavations associated with the preceding Lee Tunnel will assist in defining the presence or absence of any such receptors. Investigations on adjacent sites suggest that alluvial deposits containing archaeological material will also be present.



Built Heritage and Townscape



Designations including Conservation Areas, including trees

Listed Buildings

Abbey Mills Pumping Stations, Abbey Lane, Grade II*: 0m (located within the site boundary)

Ancillary Pump House, Abbey Mills, Abbey Lane, Grade II: 0m (located within the site boundary)

Bases of a pair of former chimney stacks at Abbey Mills to the northwest and southeast of Abbey Mills Pumping Stations, Abbey Lane, Grade II: 0m (located within the site boundary)

Station with associated valve house, Abbey Mills Pumping Stations, Grade II: 0m (located within the site boundary)

Stores building at Abbey Mills Pumping Stations to west of pumping station, Abbey Lane, Grade II: 0m (located within the site boundary)

Offices (former Superintendents House) at Abbey Mills Pumping Stations, Grade II: 0m (located within the site boundary)

Gate Lodge at Abbey Mills Pumping Stations, Abbey Mills, Grade II: 0m (located within the site boundary)

Gates and gatepiers at entrance to Abbey Mills Pumping Stations, Abbey Mills, Grade II: 0m (located within the site boundary)

116-130 Abbey Lane, Grade II: 35m

Clock Mill and Drying Kilns, Three Mills Lane, Grade II: 250m

Offices, opposite Clock Mill, Three Mills Lane, Grade II: 245m

Paved walkway extending from west side of House Mill to wall and gate on east side of Clock Mill, Three Mills Lane, Grade II:

In the case of listed buildings, locally listed buildings and conservation areas, a high quality scheme design and adequate screening for the development may be required as discussed below.

A detailed desk-based assessment in conjunction with archaeology work will be required to further inform the likely impact of the development and to determine more detailed mitigation proposals.






245m

Gasholder, West Ham, Grade II: 120m

Gasholder, Wes Ham, Grade II: 160m




Locally Listed Buildings

Pedestrian Bridge, Northern Outfall Sewer, Abbey Lane: 10m

The Still, Three Mills Distillery, Three Mills Lane: 205m

Conservation Areas

Three Mills Conservation Area: 0m (S84NM - Intermediate is located within the designated area)

Registered Historic Parks and Gardens

There are no registered historic parks and gardens within 250m of S84NM – Intermediate & Main.

Locally Listed Parks and Gardens

There are no locally listed parks and gardens within 250m of S84NM – Intermediate & Main.

Protected Views

There are no protected views within 250m of S84NM – Intermediate & Main.

Potential receptors of medium to very high importance with the potential to be directly affected

There is the potential for eight listed buildings (one Grade II* and seven Grade II) and one conservation area (the Three Mills Conservation Area) to be directly affected by the development as S84NM.

As described above






The eight listed buildings likely to be directly affected by S84NM – Main are all located within the site boundary and form part of the Abbey Mills Pumping Stations complex (off these structures, one [the Abbey Mills Pumping Station] is listed Grade II* and the remainder all Grade II listed). However, all of these listed structures are located some distance form the proposed working area (along the south and west sides of the site boundary) and are therefore unlikely to experience a direct impact from construction or operation of S84NM – Main. However, given their relative proximity to the working area and there location within the site there remains the potential for all eight structures to experience an impact upon their setting and as such they will be reconsidered below under ‘medium to very high importance with the potential to be indirectly affected’.

(It should be noted that this assessment has been carried out on the basis of current engineering drawings for the site (as of July 2009) which assume the working areas of the site will be located along the western and southern site boundaries. In terms of the listed buildings within the site boundary, this is the preferred position of any new works within the site as they are located at the maximum distance possible away from any listed structures. If the location of constructional and operational features were to be moved the potential for a direct impact upon listed structures within the site would be increased and the site may become considerably less suitable in terms of the historic built environment).

Because S84NM – Main is located within the Three Mills Conservation the development has the potential to affect the character or appearance of the designated area. Mitigation in the form of a high quality scheme design and/or screening is likely to be required to minimise any adverse impacts upon the conservation area. In addition, a more detailed assessment of






the site is likely to be required in order to assess the potential of the development to affect the character or appearance of the conservation area and to establish suitable mitigation measures.

Other receptors of lesser importance with the potential to be directly affected

Not Applicable. Not Applicable.

Potential receptors of medium to very high importance with the potential to be indirectly affected

There is the potential for 17 listed buildings (one Grade II* and sixteen Grade II listed) and two locally listed buildings to be indirectly affected by the development.

Of the 17 listed buildings within 250m of S84NM - Intermediate, four will not share a visual relationship with the working areas of the site (if, as proposed, they are located along the western and southern edges of the site boundary) on account of screening provided by existing buildings and mature vegetation. These four structures (Offices, Abbey Mills Pumping Stations, Grade II; Gate Lodge, Abbey Mills Pumping Stations, Grade II; Gates and Gate Piers at the entrance to Abbey Mills Pumping Stations; and 116-130 Abbey Lane) will therefore not experience any impact from construction or operation of S84NM – Intermediate and will not require any mitigation.

All of the other 13 listed buildings (one Grade II* and twelve Grade II) have the potential to share a visual relationship with the working parts of the site (along the southern and western sides of the site boundary). Although some screening is provided by existing buildings and mature vegetation around and within the site, there exists the potential for construction and operation of S84NM- Intermediate to affect the setting of these listed structures. Mitigation in the form of a high quality scheme design and/or screening is likely to be required to reduce any adverse impacts upon these structures.

Both of the locally listed buildings within 250m of S84NM – Intermediate share a visual relationship with the site as a






whole. However, as proposed construction and operation of the site will be located along the south and west boundaries of the site, only the locally listed ‘The Still, Three Mills Distillery’ is likely to have views of the working parts of S84NM – Intermediate. As a result mitigation in the form of a high quality scheme design and/or screening may be required to reduce any indirect impact upon this structure. The locally listed pedestrian bridge will not share a visual relationship with the working areas of the site and no mitigation will therefore be required.

Other receptors of lesser importance with the potential to be indirectly affected

Not Applicable. Not Applicable.

Sensitive landscape character areas likely to be affected, including trees and TPOs

The site is in a Conservation Area, with Listed Buildings on site. The site is designated as Open Space and Green Space and is adjacent to Prescott Channel, Abbey Creek, and the Channelsea River which are designated as Protected Sites. Green Chains and Links run along the northern and southern boundaries of the site.

Sensitive site with two buildings, Prescott Channel to the west with residential development along Riverside Road, a mix of industrial and residential development to the north, Channelsea River to the west and south with the Channelsea Business Centre further west, railway line to the south with industrial development further south.

Demolition of the building, loss of mature vegetation and allotment gardens increases the openness of the site. The presence and operation of machinery, materials stores and buildings would potentially result in temporary, adverse direct impacts on the character of the site and the frontage of the

Retention of trees where possible and protection in accordance with BS 5837.

The excavated material, could be used as a bund around the periphery of the site so that the character of the construction site could be contained within.

Introduction of a landscape scheme to include appropriate surface treatments and planting to replace lost vegetation and enhance the frontage of the Prescott Channel and Channelsea River without interrupting the Green Chains and Links to the south of the site.

This site is suitable, since although the construction phase would result in an adverse impact on the character of the site and the water frontage, with appropriate measures listed above, the impact could be mitigated.






Channelsea River and temporary, adverse indirect impacts on neighbouring areas. The proposed potential wharfage protruding on the Channelsea River would potentially have an adverse impact on its character.

Permanent elements would potentially have an adverse impact on the character of the frontage of the Prescott Channel and Channelsea River and the site.

Potential views likely to be affected

Open views from adjacent water channels, the foot bridge across the Prescott Channel and railway line. Partially interrupted views from the residential properties, vehicular bridge across the Prescott Channel, Abbey Mills Pumping Stations, and Channelsea Business Centre.

During construction, views of the cranes from surrounding residential and industrial properties, High Street (A118) and the railway line.

Permanent elements mainly visible from the adjacent water channels and Green Chains and Links route to the south.

During construction, the use of hoardings and appropriate lighting would minimise visual impact.

The excavated material, especially could be used as a bund around the periphery of the site, for screening.

Design of top structure, vent column, and electrical kiosk to be given careful consideration.

Planting to screen permanent plant. Integrated landscape scheme to enhance visual amenity and reduce visual impact.

This site is suitable, since although the construction could have an adverse impact on the visual amenity, appropriate mitigation could enhance the visual amenity of the site itself and that of the water frontage.

Particular considerations on sites where new permanent structures are required

Any permanent structures at the site have the potential to cause a direct impact upon one conservation area and an indirect impact upon 13 listed buildings and 1 locally listed building and the local townscape character (particularly the character of the surrounding waterways). The design and location of any permanent structures within the site will need to be given careful consideration and some screening during construction and operation may be required.

Permanent structures at the site also have the potential to have an adverse impact on the character of the frontage of the

Any permanent structures would need to be of a high quality design, sensitively located and/or screened in order that any physical and visual impacts upon the Three Mills Conservation Area, 13 listed buildings one locally listed building and the local townscape character (particularly the character of the surrounding waterways) are minimised in accordance with planning policy and English Heritage guidance. In terms of potential impacts upon built heritage receptors, it is preferable that the construction and operational areas of the site are restricted to the southern and western boundaries of the site, as proposed on current






Prescott Channel and Channelsea River and the site. engineering drawings (July 2009).

Potential issues Construction and operation of the development could result in a direct impact upon one conservation area and an indirect impact upon 13 listed buildings, 1 locally listed building the local landscape character (particularly the character of the surrounding waterways). However, there is the potential to mitigate against any adverse impacts through a high quality scheme design, screening and townscape design.

The scheme design would need to be of a sufficiently high quality and may need to incorporate some screening in order that potential direct and indirect impacts of the development upon one conservation area, 13 listed buildings 1 locally listed building and the local townscape character are mitigated against. Particular attention may need to be paid to the location of constructional and operational features within the site – in terms of built heritage receptors restricting the constructional and operational areas of the site to along the southern and western boundaries of the site, as proposed on current engineering drawings (July 2009) is preferable.

Summary This site is suitable for use as either an intermediate or a main shaft site, although it has the potential to directly affect the Three Mills Conservation Area and indirectly affects 13 listed buildings and one locally listed building.

Mitigation in the form of a high quality scheme design and/or screening would reduce adverse impacts. Further detailed assessment is likely to be required to more precisely define the likely impacts upon the local townscape character and the character of the waterways surrounding the site. Mitigation through the scheme design and landscaping would reduce adverse impacts and could enhance the visual amenity of the site itself and that of the water frontage.



Water Resources - Hydrogeology and Surface Water



Hydro-geological conditions (Groundwater and Surface Water)

From BGS Geological Model giving average ground condition profile. Local near surface conditions may vary, particularly within the river

Geology (thickness)

Superficial Geology and Made Ground (7m)

London Clay (5m)

Lambeth Group (18m)

Thanet sand (13m)

Chalk (to beyond the depth of shaft)

Hydrogeology

Piezometric Level in Chalk Aquifer: ~ -17mAOD (~20 mbgl) from EA Jan 08 water level contouring

Groundwater Monitoring Location

EA Hydrometry Sites:

No hydrometry site nearby

Watercourses

Adjacent to the Prescott Channel and Abbey Creek

The shaft will be constructed to an invert level of approximately 62.80mbgl therefore the shaft will be founded in the Chalk. Piezometric head

(1) in Chalk will be

approximately 42.80m above the base of the construction. Therefore, dewatering would be required and should be considered as part of geotechnical design.

SPZs and groundwater users SPZ

Not located in a Source Protection Zone defined by EA

EA Licensed Groundwater Abstractions and Details

2 public water supply borehole within 2km radius

Licence Numbers:

1. 29/38/09/0113 (1 borehole)

2. 29/38/09/0201 (1 borehole)

Location

1. 1.63 km northwest of the site

2. 1.88 km North of the site

A simple volumetric approach has been used to calculate the 400 days travel times of the abstraction borehole. A conservative mean annual recharge of 100mm/year was used to calculate a radius for licensed abstraction boreholes as follows:

Public water supply abstraction boreholes

1. Defined by EA

2. 1524 m

Licensed abstraction boreholes

1. 292 m

2.154 m






Operator

1. Thames Water Utilities Ltd.

2. Thames Water Utilities Ltd.

Abstracted Aquifer

1. Chalk

2. Chalk

Abstraction Quantity (annual)

1. 1,642,500 m3

2. 2,920,000 m3

7 licensed abstraction borehole within 2 km radius

Licence Numbers:

1. 29/38/09/0149 (2 boreholes)

2. 29/38/09/0162 (1 borehole)

3. 29/38/09/0168 (1 borehole)

4. 29/38/09/0177 (2 boreholes)

5. 29/38/09/0187 (1 borehole)

Locations:

1. 343 m northeast of the site

2. 1.72 km southeast of the site




Operator:

1. Anjuman-E-Iscahul-Muslimeen of UK

3. 109 m

4. 154 m

5. 154 m

The shaft is not located within any of these catchment areas.






2. Lee Valley Regional Park Authority

3. Hanson Quarry Products Europe Ltd

4. Aggregate Industries UK Ltd

5. Kedassia Poultry Limited

Abstracted Aquifer Unit:

1. Chalk

2. River Gravel

3. Chalk

4. Chalk

5. Chalk

Abstraction Purposes:

1. industrial, commercial and public services (non-evaporative cooling)

2. environmental (non-remedial river/wetland support - make-up or top up water)

3. industrial, commercial and public services (dust suppression)

4. industrial, commercial and public services (extractive- dust suppression and process water)

5. industrial, commercial and public services (slaughtering - process water)

Abstraction Quantity (annual):

1. 107,000 m3

2. 30,000 m3

3. 15,000 m3

4. 30,000 m3

5. 30,000 m3

Local Authorities (LA) Unlicensed Groundwater Abstractions and Details

No abstraction borehole within 1km radius inside Tower






Hamlet Council Boundary

No abstraction borehole within 1km radius inside Newham Council Boundary

Borehole locations and depths

There are 20 historical records of water wells within 1 km radius.

Depth range: 6.78 – 183.79m

Not applicable

Potential impacts on surface water features

The site is located adjacent to the Prescott Channel and Abbey Creek. The site is behind flood defences so the pollution risk is through drainage channels to the river.

Work needs to be undertaken in consideration of Pollution Prevention Guidelines –PPG1, PPG5 and PPS23.

Potential impacts on groundwater (resources and quality)

An impact on groundwater at depth is likely since the shaft is to be constructed in Chalk (major aquifer) which will need to be dewatered. At shallow depth, the shaft is located in Alluvium which is classified as a minor aquifer. Limited impact on shallow aquifer if water is excluded from the excavation by diaphragm wall or caissons.

See below (likely types of mitigation measures that will be required)

Likely types of mitigation measures that will be required

Mitigation unlikely to be required as construction of the shaft will not take place within the 400 day capture zone of licensed abstractions.

Not applicable

Potential issues The shaft to be excavated in Chalk below the piezometric head, therefore dewatering will be required during construction.

Limited impact on flow in shallow aquifer.

Piezometric head in Chalk to be considered as part of geotechnical design.

The issue of the appropriate disposal of discharges from dewatering to be considered.

Impact on and mitigation for shallow aquifer will depend on construction design.






Summary: The site is suitable for use as either an intermediate or main shaft site as although construction of the shaft will take place within Chalk (major aquifer), the site does not lie within the 400 day capture zone of licensed abstractions. No long term impact on the Chalk aquifer is expected, although temporary dewatering will be required during the construction phase. The Chalk piezometric head is likely to be approximately 43m above the base of construction and should be taken into account in the engineering design. The superficial deposits are Alluvium which is classified as a minor aquifer at the shaft site and limited impact on flow in the shallow aquifer is anticipated due to diaphragm wall or caissons.

In terms of surface water resources, the site is suitable as either an intermediate or main shaft site because there is no direct pathway to the Prescott Channel or Abbey Creek for pollution although standard mitigation would be required.

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



Ecology (terrestrial and aquatic)



Statutory designations Ackroyd Drive LNR and Tower Hamlets Cemetery Park LNR are within 2km of the site.

No likely impacts.

Non-statutory designated wildlife sites

River Thames & Tidal Tributaries SMI lies within the development site

Bow Back River BGI site of nature conservation importance is adjacent to the proposed development boundary.

The Greenway and Old Fort Nature Reserve BGI site for nature conservation runs adjacent to the site.

Railside Land in Newham BGII site runs within 100m of the site boundary.

Any constructions affecting the Lee, including temporary or buried works such as a culvert will require compensatory habitat provision. Post-works restoration may also be required.

Care will need to be taken to avoid impacts (particularly contaminated runoff) into the river channel.

No disturbance issues likely, but working practices should be designed to minimise dust and other atmospheric pollutants.

No likely impacts.

BAP priority habitats The Prescott Channel and River Lea form part of London BAP habitat ‘Rivers and Streams’.

The foreshore on the Lea consists of BAP priority habitat ‘Mudflats’.

Habitats on site comprise London BAP habitat ‘Built Up Areas and Gardens,’ and ‘Parks, Squares and Amenity Grassland.’

Care will need to be taken to avoid impacts (including contaminated runoff) into the river.

Any constructions affecting the Lee, including temporary or buried works such as a culvert will require compensatory habitat provision. Post-works restoration may also be required.

Loss of parkland or garden habitat may require compensatory provision.

Protected or otherwise notable species within the Study Area

Suitable habitat for water vole is likely to be present along the channels.

Buildings on site have potential for bat roosts.

Mudflats and strandline habitats may support the German hairy snail, a London BAP species.

If evidence of water vole is obtained, any constructions affecting the Lee will require mitigation which is likely to include offsite provision.

If bat roosts were found to be present, mitigation would be required for any buildings to be affected by works, possibly including off-site provision. Careful placement of lighting to minimise illumination of surrounding habitat is likely to be required.

Any constructions affecting the Lea, including temporary or buried works such as a culvert may require detailed



Ecology (terrestrial and aquatic)



invertebrate investigation. Negotiation with EA required.

Potential issues No other impacts No other impacts.

Summary The site is suitable as either an intermediate or main shaft site although any works affecting the foreshore mudflats on the River Lee and associated watercourses would require surveys and is likely to require negotiation with the EA and potentially mitigation such as compensatory habitat provision. Works within the foreshore are currently considered unlikely to be required.



Flood Risk Assessment



Flood Risk Zone Flood Zone 3 (1 in 200 year flood extent) but defended to the 1 in 1000 year flood level – there is a residual risk of a breach for which mitigation would need to be considered as part of the FRA.

Sewage transmission infrastructure is considered to be water compatible according to table D.2 of PPS25 and hence suitable in this location.

A FRA would be required to assess the residual risk of flooding to the site.

Assessment of conditions for SuDS

There is likely to be space for SuDS. More investigation is required to determine if the site is suitable for infiltration SuDS as a result of the artificial geology.

Not applicable.

Potential issues No other issues. No other issues.

Summary The site is suitable for use as an intermediate or main shaft site because it is defended from flooding from the Prescott Channel and Abbey Creek (to the 1 in 1000 year flood level) and there is likely to be space for surface attenuation SuDS. Further investigation is required to determine if the site is suitable for infiltration SuDS.



Air Quality



AQMA The air quality objective for NO2 is exceeded on major roads in the vicinity of the site.

There is a need for more site specific data.

Sensitive Receptors There are residential properties along High Street (A118) and along the access route.

The nearest residential properties are on Bisson Road, some distance from the site.

There are relevant air quality sensitive receptors present along the route construction traffic is likely to take.

Existing traffic issues The main traffic issue in this area is exhaust emissions from vehicles along the A118, A11 and A12 corridors.

Additional vehicle emissions have a high potential to interfere with local air quality action plan policies.

Existing sources of significant air pollutants

See existing traffic issues above. See existing traffic issues above.

Notable gaps in existing air quality monitoring

There is no data at likely access to A118 and the nearest existing data indicates existing AQLV exceeded.

Collect minimum 6 months diffusion tube data at the nearest residential receptors to the site access to A118 or other point of access to major road network.

Potential issues The risk from additional exhaust emissions from construction HGVs is undefined at present.

The risk from dust impacts is low.

Minimise HGV movements on the local road network during the peak hours.

Standard dust control measures will minimise the effect of fugitive dust on nearby sensitive receptors.

Summary The site is suitable for use as either an intermediate or main shaft site as there is sufficient distance to potential dust sensitive receptors and providing standard dust control measures are in place, there is only a low risk of a perceptible impact at the nearest residential receptors. There is potential for HGV movements on the local road network to cause localised air quality impacts, however this can be mitigated by minimising the movement of HGVs during peak hours.



Noise

Site considerations

Intermediate Main




conclusions

Noise band level Information from Defra noise maps indicates daytime noise levels of less than 58 dB LAeq and night-time noise levels of less than 50 dB LAeq at residential locations within the area of the shaft.

Noise levels from the Defra noise maps provide an indication of prevailing noise levels only, and will not be employed in any detailed assessments for chosen sites.

n/a As for intermediate, see left As for intermediate, see left

Sensitive Receptors The area of the proposed site is currently in industrial use.

To the north of the site is an open area with the Abbey Mills Pumping Stations further north and residential properties to the north west on Bisson Road and Riverside Road. These properties are 2 storeys in height and are located approximately 265m from the temporary working area and 300m from the shaft location.

To the west of the site is an

n/a As fort the intermediate site although properties on Bisson Road and Riverside Road are located approximately 50m from the temporary working area.

As for intermediate, see left



Noise

Site considerations

Intermediate Main




conclusions

industrial area. To the east is the Channelsea River and brownfield land.

To the south of the site is a gas storage facility and to the south east are residential properties at Wembley Cottages. These consist of 2 storey properties and are located 150m from the temporary working area and 160m from the shaft location.

Existing traffic issues Road traffic on the A12 to the west and the A11 to the north west will contribute to the existing noise climate in the area.


Existing sources of significant noise emissions

Road traffic on the A12 to the west and the A11 to the north west will contribute to the existing noise climate in the area.

A railway is located to the south of the site and this impacts on Wembley Cottages on Crows Road.


Potential issues Construction:

The construction period is estimated at 4 to 5 years and working hours will be 24

Adherence to the good site practices provided in BS5228.

Siting of noisy equipment and construction activities as far

Construction:

As for intermediate, see left. Except that the construction period is estimated at 6 to 7

As for intermediate, see left



Noise

Site considerations

Intermediate Main




conclusions

hours per day Monday to Saturday. This has the potential to result in adverse noise impacts to sensitive receptors to the north of the site.

A relatively high number of HGV movements per day are anticipated. This has the potential to have an adverse impact on residential receptors located to the north on Bisson Road and Riverside Road.

Situating the noisiest plant in the western area of the site would maximise the distance to the nearest sensitive receptors and minimise potential disturbance.

Proposed 3m site boundary fencing will provide useful noise mitigation to some plant and construction activities.

Vibration resulting from general construction works is not anticipated to result in an adverse impact. The nearest receptors to the proposed shaft location are at a distance of approximately

as is practicable from sensitive receptors.

Provision of site boundary noise fences.

Noisy construction activities, or activities which may cause vibration, be undertaken during daytime hours only to reduce the noise impact during night-time construction.

years.

In addition, daily barge movements are proposed relating to the transport of material. Significant adverse noise impact as a result is possible at sensitive receptors to the south east, at Wembley Cottages, particularly if operational during night-time periods.



Noise

Site considerations

Intermediate Main




conclusions

160m and it is unlikely that vibration levels will result in minor cosmetic damage or annoyance during shaft sinking. Vibration from tunnelling should be considered on a case by case basis at particular sensitive locations.

Operation:

With appropriate attenuation (if necessary), there is no reason why noise from the ventilation column and top chamber should result in adverse noise impacts to nearby sensitive receptors.

Operation:

As intermediate, see left



Noise

Site considerations

Intermediate Main




conclusions

Summary The site is suitable for use as an intermediate shaft site as although existing noise levels in the immediate surrounding area are relatively low, the distances between the site and residential properties to the south and north are relatively large. If the noisiest plant can be situated to the western area of the site, this would reduce the potential for disturbance at the residential properties. In addition, should use of this site be pursued, it is recommended that noisy construction activities, or activities which may cause vibration, be undertaken during daytime hours only to reduce the noise impact during night-time construction. There may be an alternative access route to the site via Abbey Lane, however this would require further investigation to determine if it is viable and results in a net reduction in impacts on residential properties.

The site is suitable for use as a main shaft site, for the same reasons given for the intermediate shaft site, see left.



Land Quality


Site location Grid Reference: 538670, 183083

Current site use The area of the proposed site is currently in industrial use.

Topography Information obtained through Planning team site visits (eg, whether the site is flat, terraced, sloped, etc)

Field evidence of

contamination (ie,

visual/olfactory)

To be obtained at the preferred site stage when site visits occur.

Current surrounding land

use (immediately adjacent to

site)

To the north of the site is an open area with the Abbey Mills Pumping Stations further north and residential properties to the north west on Bisson Road and Riverside Road. These properties are 2 storeys in height and are located approximately 265m from the temporary working area and 300m from the shaft location.

To the west of the site is an industrial area. To the east is the Channelsea River and brownfield land.

To the south of the site is a gas storage facility and to the south east are residential properties at Wembley Cottages. These consist of 2 storey properties and are located 150m from the temporary working area and 160m from the shaft location.

Geological and hydrogeological information

Geological strata1 Superficial Geology and Made Ground (7m)

London Clay (5m)

Lambeth Group (18m)

Thanet sand (13m)

Chalk (to beyond the depth of shaft)

Underlying aquifer classes

Non-Aquifer: London Clay

Minor Aquifer: River Terrace Deposits, Lambeth Group, Thanet Sands

Major Aquifer: Chalk



Land Quality


Groundwater

vulnerability/Soil

classification

(High/Intermediate/Low/Not

applicable)2

River Terrace Deposits - Minor Aquifer

High Leaching Potential of Soils (U)1

Source protection zone

details

Not located in a Source Protection Zone defined by EA

Surface water receptor Abbey Creek (directly adjacent to site, east)

Prescott Channel (directly adjacent to site, west)

Channelsea River (directly adjacent to site, south)

Three Mills Wall River (139m west)

Bow Creek (241m southwest)

Relevant information within a 250m radius of the site

Historical potentially

contaminating activities

(based on mapping data)

Onsite

Open land 1868 – 1896

Abbey Mills Pumping Stations (northern portion of site) 1896 – present

Three Mills distillery (southern portion of site) 1896-1960

Allotment gardens (middle and later the southern portions of the site) 1910 – present

Several tanks located on site 1951

Offsite

Numerous tanks – contents unknown, potentially fuel related surrounding the site (closest located 16m east) 1893 - 1970

Manure works (32m south) 1896 - 1948

Depot (36m north) – present

London Tilbury and Southend railway (51m south) 1868 – present



Land Quality


Numerous electrical substations (closest located 55m southeast) 1924 - 1987

Wharf operations / transport support and cargo handling (59m south) 1962 – 1976

Abbey Creek naphtha works (61m east) 1868

Gas works (British Gas) (61m north) 1896 – present

Three Mills studios (66m west) – present

Sewage pumping station (67m east) 1910 – 1948

Works – use not specified (75m east) 1962 – 1979

Abbey Marsh oil works (80m east) 1868

Stone works (81m northeast) 1896 – 1954

Gas works (83m south) 1893 – present

Works – use not specified (88m north) 1962 – 1979

Sports centre (90m west) 1976 – 1979

Animal by-products – gelatine, soaps, glue etc) (93m southeast) 1882

Abbey wharf (94m northeast) 1868

Three Mills distillery (98m west) 1896 – 1979

Chemical works (98m east and 176m east) 1868 – 1948

West Ham Abbey print works (silk) (103m north) 1868

Tar and printing works (133m west) 1868

General quarrying (134m north) 1896 - 1950

Works – use not specified (155m west) 1962 – 1972

Oil industry facilities (closest located 159m west) 1950 - 1961

Abbey bleaching and chemical works (159m northeast) 1868

Plastic goods, all general manufacture (161m west) 1896 - 1950

Distillery (166m west) 1976 – present

Asphalt works (167m west) 1896 – 1948

Factory – use not specified (168m west) – 1899 present

Depot (183m southeast) 1972 – present



Land Quality


Black works (196m east) 1896 – 1910

Blue works (212m west) 1896 – 1948

Cork and carpet works (226m west) 1868

Historical building plans listing paint based oils (239m west) 1958

Pollution incidents to

controlled waters

Six

Unknown sewage, significant incident (27m east)

Unknown sewage, minor incident (46m east)

Oils – unknown, minor incident (86m west)

Agricultural – unknown, minor incident (96m east)

Storm sewage, minor incident (98m northeast)

Miscellaneous – unknown, minor incident (241m west)

Landfill sites One recorded landfill site

Channelsea Creek, status unknown (97m north) no mapping dates

Other waste sites None

Registered radioactive

substances

None

Fuel stations/Depots None

Contemporary trade

directory entries

One

Transco – Stratford Holding Station, active (65m north)

Site classification based on above information

Activity Distance and direction to site Contaminants

Potential site contaminants

derived from surface

sources (eg, contaminants

in made ground)

1) Some potential for made ground from potential filling operations during development

2) Sewage pumping station

1) Onsite and directly adjacent to site



1) Metals, PAHs, TPH

2) TPH, Metals, PAHs, Nitrogen compounds

3) Metals, PAHs, TPH, Solvents



Land Quality


3) Tanks – contents unknown

Potential site contaminants

derived from offsite sources

and transported to site

1) Tanks – contents unknown

2) Depots

3) Wharf operations (transport support and cargo handling)

4) Gas works

5) Distillery

1) closest located 16m east

2) closest located 36m north

3) 59m south

4) closest 61m north

5) 68m west



3) Metals, PAHs, TPH

4) Metals, TPH, PAHs, Phenols, Sulphates, Cyanides

5) Metals, Nitrogen compounds

Potential contamination

pathways to site

(Conceptual Site Model)3

Source 1: A1, A2, A3, B4, C5

Source 2: D6, E1, F7

Contamination category Category 3 – Assessed as High Risk

Summary The site is considered less suitable for use as either an intermediate or main shaft site with respect to land quality based on the high potential for contamination of the site to have occurred, specifically from sewage pumping station operations, gas works, distillery, unknown storage tanks and historic landfill on and in the vicinity of the site. Contamination is also known to have been identified on the Abbey Mills site during works for the West Ham Storm Relief development.

This potentially poses a risk to construction workers and adjacent human receptors through direct contact and inhalation exposure pathways as well as ground gas risks. Additionally, the potential exists for contaminants to be drawn to the deeper aquifer if deep drilling/construction is undertaken on the site and for migration to surface water receptors to occur through groundwater transport and appropriate mitigation will be required.

Notes

1. From BGS Geological Model giving average ground condition profile. Local near surface conditions may vary, particularly within the river.

2. Soil information for urban areas is based on fewer observations than elsewhere in the country. Therefore a worst case vulnerability (H) is assumed until proven otherwise.

3. Refer to schematic Conceptual Site Model for explanation of site-specific source-pathway-receptors.

ContactsFor information about the Thames Tideway Tunnel

Call: 0800 0721 086 Lines are open 24 hours a dayVisit: www.thamestidewaytunnel.co.ukEmail: [email protected]

For our language interpretation service call 0800 0721 086

For information in Braille or large print call 0800 0721 086

For information about acceptance of our application and the examination process please contact the Planning Inspectorate.

Call: 0303 444 5000Visit: http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk

Date post:	26-Oct-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	info1639
View:	6 times
Download:	0 times

100-RG-PNC-S84NM-900001

Documents