Site Suitability Report C32XA: Foreshore, Borthwick Wharf, Off Borthwick Street

Spring 2010
Site Suitability Report C32XA

Foreshore, Borthwick Wharf, off Borthwick Street
Please note: After phase one consultation this site suitability report was reviewed as part of a back-check. This report was superseded by Site Suitability Report C32XA Foreshore, Borthwick Wharf, off Borthwick Street (Summer 2011). This report (Spring 2010) has been provided for information only, as this site was the phase one consultation preferred CSO site known as Borthwick Wharf Foreshore. Further details are provided in the Final Report on Site Selection Process (doc ref: 7.05) that can be found on the Thames Tideway Tunnel section of the Planning Inspectorates web site. Phase one consultation named was Borthwick Wharf Foreshore.
100-RG-PNC-C32XA-900001 | Spring 2010

Foreshore, Borthwick Wharf, off Borthwick Street
THAMES TUNNEL
SITE SUITABILITY REPORT C32XA

LIST OF CONTENTS
Page Number 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 1.2 1.3 2 Purpose and structure of the report Background Consultation 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 12
SITE INFORMATION 2.1 2.2 Site and surroundings Type of site
3 4
PROPOSED USE OF SITE CONSTRUCTION PHASE PROPOSED USE OF SITE OPERATIONAL PHASE 4.1 4.2 Introduction Restoration and after-use
ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Access Construction works considerations Permanent works considerations Health and safety
PLANNING ASSESSMENT 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 Introduction Planning applications and permissions Planning context Consultation comments Planning comments
ENVIRONMENTAL APPRAISAL 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 7.10 Introduction Transport Archaeology Built heritage and townscape Water resources hydrogeology and surface water Ecology Flood risk Air quality Noise Land quality
SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT 8.1 8.2 Socio-economic profile Issues and impacts
PROPERTY ASSESSMENT 9.1 9.2 Introduction Crown Land and Special Land comments
100-RG-PNC-C32XA-900001.doc
9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 10
Land to be acquired Property valuation comments Disturbance compensation comments Offsite statutory compensation comments Site acquisition cost assessment
12 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 15
SITE CONCLUSIONS BY DISCIPLINE 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 Introduction Engineering Planning Environment Socio-economic and community Property
APPENDICES 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 TABLE
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AOD BAP BT CPO CSO DLR EA GLA HGV LNR LPA LU m MOL ONS ORN PLA POS PTAL SAM SINC SNCI SSR SSSI SuDS TfL TD TLRN TPA UDP UXO
above Ordnance Datum Biodiversity Action Plan British Telecom compulsory purchase order combined sewer overflow Docklands Light Railway Environment Agency Greater London Authority heavy goods vehicle local nature reserve local planning authority London Underground metre/metres Metropolitan Open Land Office of National Statistics Olympic Route Network Port of London Authority public open space public transport accessibility level scheduled ancient monument site of importance for nature conservation site(s) of nature conservation importance site suitability report site(s) of special scientific interest sustainable urban drainage systems Transport for London tunnel datum Transport for London Road Network Thames Policy Area unitary development plan unexploded ordnance
1 1.1 1.1.1
INTRODUCTION Purpose and structure of the report The Site Selection Methodology (May 2009) paper (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. 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. The Background Technical Paper provides information on the requirements for different site types, their sizes and typical activities/facilities within the sites. Each site suitability report considers a particular site on its own merits. In addition, an engineering options report was produced. 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. Background 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 o o Table 2.2: Long list of shaft (and CSO) sites - an assessment against set considerations and values Table 2.3: Draft short list of shaft (and CSO) sites - assessment against a list of detailed considerations Workshops to consider each site to arrive at a short list of sites.
1.1.2
1.1.3 1.1.4
1.2 1.2.1
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 1.3.1
Consultation 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. Further meetings were held with London local authorities, statutory and other stakeholders between January and March 2010. Comments are included in this report.
1.3.2
Page 1
2 2.1 2.1.1
SITE INFORMATION Site and surroundings This site is one of the shortlisted sites for Deptford Storm Relief CSO. This section provides an overview of all the site information that will be used by one or more disciplines to assess the site in sections 3 to 9 of this report. Site C32XA is located on the foreshore of the River Thames, directly in front of the AHOY Centre yacht club, within the London Borough of Greenwich. The site is rectangular in shape and is accessed by Glaisher Street, part of the Thames Path. The site includes the western half of a slipway onto the River Thames. A site location plan is attached as Appendix 2. The site bounds an EDF energy generating station to the southwest and is opposite a sixto eight-storey block of flats of modern build which have views towards the site, to the southeast. The site has views towards Canary Wharf and residential properties (mainly two- to three-storey houses) on the north bank of the Thames. The site is within a number of the Greenwich Unitary Development Plan (2006) designated areas, including a Thames Policy Area and strategic riverside walkways. All the mapped designations are shown on the planning and environment plans in Appendix 3. Photographs of the site and surroundings, together with an aerial photograph of the site, are attached as Appendix 4. There is road access to the site from both Glaisher Street and Borthwick Street, and between the AHOY Centre and the high-rise residential building. There is no local rail access. There are existing wharfage/jetty facilities at the site. A transport plan for the site is attached as Appendix 5. Third-party assets and significant utilities are listed below and are shown on the services and geology plan in Appendix 6: Borthwick Wharf building west of the site Residential building south of the site Jetty at the north and east part of the site Deptford substation cable tunnel through the centre of the site and outside eastern half of the site Deptford substation west of the site River wall Deptford Storm Relief 1.524m x 0.914m overflow sewer through the centre of the site. CSO connection is to this sewer.
2.1.2
2.1.3
2.1.4 2.1.5
2.1.6 2.1.7
2.1.8
2.1.9
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.
2.1.10 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 2.2.1 Type of site The site C32XA is being considered as: a large CSO site to intercept the Deptford Storm Relief CSO a small CSO site to intercept the Deptford Storm Relief CSO.
Page 2
3 3.1.1 3.1.2
PROPOSED USE OF SITE CONSTRUCTION PHASE The proposed construction phase layouts for the CSO site are located in Appendix 7 Construction Phase Layout, and are based on a preliminary assessment. The construction phase layout drawings are illustrative and show: the layout as a large CSO site the layout as a small CSO site potential access point.
3.1.3
These drawings provide initial preliminary schematic layouts that have not been optimised. If the site proceeds to the next stage as a preferred site, construction phase layouts would be optimised to minimise impacts. Photographs of typical activities associated with the CSO site construction phase are provided in Appendix 7. Potential above ground construction features include: approximately 3m high hoarding around the site boundary welfare facilities, temporary structures, approximately 3m high grout plant, approximately 3m to 5m high, including silos mobile crane, approximately 30m high (maximum and not for full construction duration).
3.1.4
3.1.5 3.1.6
Foreshore working is required for this site and a cofferdam or similar construction works would be needed. Preliminary data associated with the construction phase are provided in Table 3.1 and are common to both the large site and small site scenarios. Table 3.1 Construction phase data Activity Length of construction period Likely working hours, ie, (night/day/weekend) Working days Primary means of transporting excavated material away from site Primary means of transporting materials to site
* There may be feasible opportunities to use barge transport for this site.
CSO site 0.5 to 2 years 12 hrs from 7am to 7pm Mon to Sat Road* Road*
4 4.1 4.1.1 4.1.2
PROPOSED USE OF SITE OPERATIONAL PHASE Introduction The indicative operational phase layout for the CSO site is located in Appendix 8 Operational Phase Layout, and is based on a preliminary assessment. The generic elevations of structures shown on the operational phase layout are located in Appendix 8 and provide an illustration of typical examples of the permanent structures which are applicable to CSO sites. For both CSO options, the above ground infrastructure at this site is likely to comprise a a ventilation column 10m high and 3m diameter, a ventilation building 5m x 15m x 5m high
4.1.3
It was anticipated that the ventilation column at shaft sites would be 10m high when the assessment in this report was undertaken. Although this was subsequently changed to 15m high, the assessment was not
Page 3
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. 4.1.4 The top structures are envisaged to be finished at a level of 107m 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. A hardstanding would be provided to the top structures. The site would not be fenced. Preliminary data associated with the operational phase are provided in Table 4.1. Table 4.1 Operational phase data Level of inspections and maintenance and likely working hours, ie, (night/day/weekend) frequency of visits 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. 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 4.2.1 Restoration and after-use The portion of the site not occupied by the permanent works would be restored to its original condition on completion of the construction works. If any buildings were demolished, these would not be reinstated unless required. ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT Access This section should be read in conjunction with Section 7.2. Road 5.1.2 The site is 1.5km from the TLRN (A2). The site can be reached from Glaisher Street or from Borthwick Street, along the road between the AHOY Centre and the high-rise residential building. Both routes are restricted. For the construction phase, there would be two access points and a one-way system would be in use. For the operational phase, there would be access from Glaisher Street. Rail 5.1.5 Rail facility is located approximately 1km from site. The route to the rail link is constrained with 3.7m height restriction on Edward Street, which is traffic calmed. The nearest rail station is Deptford Rail, which is approximately 1km away from the site. However, rail access is not considered to be a significant factor for CSO sites.
b
4.1.5 4.1.6
No of traffic movements
5 5.1 5.1.1
5.1.3 5.1.4
revised as it was considered that the difference would not change any disciplines conclusion on the suitability of the site. b It was anticipated that the elevation of top structures at both CSO and shaft sites would be finished at 107mTD when the assessment in this report was undertaken. Although this was subsequently changed to 104.5mTD, the assessment was not revised as it was considered that the difference would not change any disciplines conclusion on the suitability of the site.
Page 4
River 5.1.6 River access and jetty/wharfage facilities are not a requirement for CSO sites. However, as the site is in the foreshore, there may be feasible opportunities to use barge transport. This may be of particular relevance when considering the road access constraints. Construction works considerations No demolition is required. The interception chamber is located in the slipway, and is adjacent to electricity substation facilities immediately to the west and the AHOY Centre to the east. Construction of the works as shown would mean the existing slipway used by the AHOY Centre would be lost. If the works were moved further into the river, it might be possible to retain a slipway facility parallel to the river wall. As the site is in the foreshore, a temporary cofferdam would be required and the contained area filled to provide a level site compound. It is possible that part of the existing jetty facility would have to be removed to make room for the cofferdam. Data available on third-party assets and significant utilities show that the main items of concern in this area are the residential building southeast of the site, and the jetty and the substation to the southwest. There is also a power cable tunnel running through the site. Construction methods would be adopted, as appropriate, to mitigate potential settlement of these assets. Foreshore sites carry with them a higher risk than inland sites in respect of unexploded ordnance, notably near bridges, and this would need to be investigated. Foreshore sites carry with them a higher risk than inland sites of archaeological finds that might delay the construction programme. The existing jetty and jetty piles are within the site and would need to be considered to make the site viable. It is likely that the proposed works would be constructed within the overall construction programme.
5.2 5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3
5.2.4
5.2.5
5.2.6 5.2.7 5.2.8 5.2.9
5.2.10 The interception chamber and connection culvert to the drop shaft are both within the site and therefore require no additional consideration. 5.3 5.3.1 5.3.2 Permanent works considerations The top structures to the drop shaft and flap valve chamber would be 1m above the riverbank ground level. The top structure to the interception chamber and drop shaft would be in the foreshore, and a river wall matching and tied into the existing river wall would be provided around the permanent operational site. The site would be finished to the same level as the adjacent shore. The feasibility of structures in the foreshore from a navigation aspect would need to be discussed with the PLA. Health and safety As the site is in the foreshore, measures would need to be taken to mitigate the risks of flooding and working over/near water. There are no other unusual health and safety issues with this site.
5.3.3
5.4 5.4.1 5.4.2
Page 5
6 6.1 6.1.1
PLANNING ASSESSMENT Introduction The planning assessment builds on the advantages and disadvantages reported in Table 2.3 and covers the following areas: Planning applications and permissions Planning context Planning comments.
6.2 6.2.1
Planning applications and permissions An initial desktop search of the London Borough of Greenwich online planning applications database did not identify any planning applications submitted within the last five years applicable to the site. Planning context The current planning policy context for the site is provided from the saved policies in the Greenwich Unitary Development Plan, adopted in 2006. The planning designations and policies that are applicable to the site are detailed below. The site is located adjacent to an archaeological important area to the south. Under Policy D30, Archaeology, the council will expect applicants to properly assess and plan for the impact of proposed developments on archaeological remains where they fall within areas of archaeological potential as defined on the constraints Map 10. In certain instances, preliminary archaeological site investigations may be required before proposals are considered. The council will seek to secure the co-operation of developers in the excavation, recording and publication of archaeological finds before development takes place, by use of planning conditions/legal agreements, as appropriate. The site is wholly within a Thames Policy Area. According to Policy W1, Development Principles, developments in the waterfront must conserve and enhance the areas historical heritage and biodiversity, and integrate and connect new proposals with the existing pattern of development. Under Policy W2, Thames Policy Area, the council will seek a high quality of design, respecting the special character of the River Thames within the Thames Policy Area defined on the proposals map. Proposals within the area will be expected to satisfy the development principles under Policy W1. The River Thames is designated as a site of nature conservation importance. Under Policy DEV62, Nature Conservation and Ecology, where development proposals should destroy or adversely affect the ecology or special interest of sites of nature conservation importance (see the proposals map and Table 1), the council will seek mitigation measures to be taken, or comparable replacement if the loss is unavoidable. The creation and enhancement of nature conservation features and provision of public access will be sought in new developments, where appropriate. A cycle route runs along the southern boundary of the site.
6.3 6.3.1
6.3.2 6.3.3
6.3.4 6.3.5
6.3.6
6.3.7 6.3.8
6.3.9
6.3.10 According to Policy M32, Cycling, cycling will be promoted in the borough. The borough will press relevant agencies to provide and maintain free cycle carriage on rail and riverbus, and cycle use of bus lanes will be promoted. The needs of cyclists will be particularly pursued in all new development, road and traffic management. 6.3.11 A strategic riverside walkway and a new/improved riverside walkway run along the southern boundary of the site. 6.3.12 According to Policy T20, Strategic Pedestrian Route, the council will support the improvement of pedestrian facilities along the canal, riversides and the northern sewer Page 6
outfall embankment in collaboration with adjoining boroughs and the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority to form a strategic pedestrian route network. 6.3.13 According to Policy O16, Recreational Footpaths and Cycleways, the existing riverside footpath will be safeguarded and improved so that a continuous signposted walk from Deptford to Thamesmead is created. Development proposals for riverside sites will be required to incorporate provision for a riverside walkway along the river frontage, or contribute to improvements where the existing footpath needs it. 6.3.14 The site is adjacent to a contaminated land designation to the southeast. 6.3.15 According to Policy E11, Contaminated Land, a preliminary site investigation, prior to the determination of a planning application, will normally be required if a site is known, or is likely to have been, in contaminative uses. Where contamination is found, the council will need to be assured that the development can be built and occupied safely without any adverse environmental or health impacts, otherwise conditions requiring full remedial action will be imposed. 6.3.16 The site is adjacent to a development site (Site Reference mu32), known as Payne and Borthwick Wharves (0.87ha). The wharves, currently used for document storage, are proposed for mixed-use development of both residential units and a significant proportion of commercial floor space, eg, studios, workshops, and offices. The planning application for mixed-use includes 247 flats. 6.3.17 There is another development proposal adjacent to the site, to the south (Site Reference M12), to which the cycle route will be incorporated into the existing proposed riverside walk. 6.3.18 The site is in close proximity to residential properties. 6.3.19 Policy E1, Pollution, seeks to protect the amenities of existing occupiers and users from the impacts of development, especially in terms of unacceptable emissions. 6.4 6.4.1 Consultation comments 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 Greenwich 6.4.2 The council advised that planning permission has been granted for redevelopment, and includes Paynes Wharf. Access to the site could be restrictive,due to the width of the roadways that lead to the site. The Thames Path also crosses the site. The position of the shaft should be considered in light of the outlook from the flats. English Heritage 6.4.3 This site is not preferred. Environment Agency 6.4.4 The Environment Agency advised that the AHOY Centre has aspirations for the area, including the jetty. At present, the jetty is redundant. Port of London Authority 6.4.5 No comment. Transport for London 6.4.6 No comment.
Page 7
Other statutory consultees 6.4.7 6.5 6.5.1 No comment. Planning comments There are a small number of planning designations and policies that are applicable both on and adjacent to the site. These designations and policies have been identified and described in Section 6.3, and those relating to the Thames Policy Area, nature conservation, adjacent development proposals and residential amenity are the most relevant to the proposed development. The proposal site is within the River Thames, a designated site of importance for nature conservation. This is a strategic designation, covering the entire River Thames. Given the extensive nature of this designation, and the purpose of the Thames Tunnel Project to improve the environmental quality of the river, on balance, and with appropriate mitigation, the construction works should not result in unacceptable development. A detailed assessment of the likely impacts is included in Section 7. Plant machinery and screening boards required during construction are likely to obscure some views of the river. There may also be reduced access along the river frontage adjacent to the working area throughout the construction period. This would be contrary to the aims of the Thames Policy Area and mitigation would be required. The construction works and remaining onsite after-use structures should not result in overly prominent development in this location. The nearest dwellings are located approximately 15m from the working area boundary. This separation distance may not be considered sufficient in terms of amenity, given the nature and longevity of construction works proposed, and mitigation would be required to avoid negative impacts as a result of noise, dust, visual impacts and traffic movements, in order to comply with Policy E1. The hours of operation of the construction works may also be restricted to those normally operated within residential areas, which are typically 8am to 6pm during weekdays, 10am to 2pm on Saturdays and not at all on Sundays. Consideration would also need to be given to the proximity of the construction works and potential mitigation in relation to the adjacent development site if proposals, which include 247 flats, are implemented. The site falls within a designated archaeological priority zone. The appropriate level of site investigation should be agreed with the LPA in accordance with Policy D30. Further appraisal of the archaeological potential on the site is provided in Section 7. The site is adjacent to a yacht club to the south, and use of the adjacent foreshore is likely to have an adverse impact on the continued operation of the facility. If so, mitigation which may potentially include the relocation of the yacht club, is likely to be required. A strategic riverside walkway and a new/improved riverside walkway as well as a cycle route run along the southern boundary of the site. It may be possible to redirect these routes to minimise any potential adverse impacts. ENVIRONMENTAL APPRAISAL Introduction The following sections summarise specialist assessments which are provided in Appendix 9 Environmental Appraisal Tables. Transport Both the small and large site are less suitable as CSO sites. New site access and egress points would require construction, along with an access road linking the egress to the slipway, and the Thames Path would require diversion. Routes to/from the TLRN (A2) are less suitable as they would pass through a home zone, which is heavily traffic calmed and
6.5.2
6.5.3
6.5.4 6.5.5
6.5.6
6.5.7
6.5.8
6.5.9
7 7.1 7.1.1
7.2 7.2.1
Page 8
contains on-street parking. Routes to the TLRN would also pass underneath a height restricted rail bridge. 7.2.2 Use of rail is unlikely to be required as CSO sites produce only relatively small quantities of excavated material. The potential route to the rail link at the East London Line depot is less suitable and heavily constrained, with additional traffic calming and height restrictions encountered along the route to the TLRN (A2). River access is not essential for a CSO site as excavated material is likely to be transported away by road. Limited parking is to be provided onsite for the workforce but no alternative on-street parking is available within close proximity to the site, due to permit holder restrictions. Additional workforce parking may therefore need to be provided. The potential for the workforce to utilise public transport to access the site is high. An agreement with landowners of the private residential estate on private land to the south would be required for construction vehicles to pass through the home zone, and temporary traffic management would be required to remove the home zone features and on-street parking to enable construction vehicles to access the TLRN (A2) (and rail point, if required). Archaeology On the basis of the current information available, the site is considered to be suitable as either a small or a large CSO site. Although the information currently available does not indicate that any archaeological receptors are in the area, it is possible that archaeological receptors of high or medium value may be present. While no direct evidence has been revealed, peat deposits containing archaeological material may be present at depth. These have been commonly recorded throughout London in a similar proximity to the Thames. Given the location of the site, and wider evidence for historical occupation along the river, it is a reasonable assumption to suggest that waterlogged remains of archaeological value may be present. Built heritage and townscape On the basis of the information currently available, this site is considered to be suitable as either a small or a large CSO site in relation to built heritage, as the site is likely to result in relatively few impacts upon the built heritage environment. The site has the potential to indirectly impact upon the Grade II listed Paynes Wharf, although this is likely to be mitigated through a high-quality scheme design and/or screening and landscaping. From a townscape perspective, the site is considered less suitable as either a small or a large CSO site, as there is potential for impacts upon the character of the river, its frontages and local views. Mitigation in the form of a high-quality scheme design, screening and landscaping of the site, especially during construction, would help to reduce any adverse impacts and would have the potential to enhance the local townscape character, although further study would be necessary to determine the likely impacts. Water resources hydrogeology and surface water In terms of hydrogeology, the site is suitable as either a small or a large CSO site because although the construction of the drop shaft would take place within Chalk (major aquifer), the site does not lie within 400-day capture zones of licensed abstractions and no long-term impact on the Chalk aquifer is expected. Dewatering of the Chalk and Thanet Sand would be required during the construction phase. The Chalk piezometric head is likely to be approximately 44m above the base of construction and should be taken into account in the engineering design. The superficial deposits at the location of the CSO site are alluvium, classified as a minor aquifer, which is likely to be the subject of limited impacts on flow due to sheet piling. In terms of surface water resources, this site is less suitable as either a small or a large CSO site because the work would be undertaken within the channel of the River Thames, and specific mitigation would be required to prevent pollution.
7.2.3
7.3 7.3.1
7.3.2
7.4 7.4.1
7.4.2
7.5 7.5.1
7.5.2
7.5.3
Page 9
7.6 7.6.1
Ecology Overall, and on the basis of the current information available, the site is considered to be less suitable as either a small or a large CSO site, due to the requirement for temporary and permanent land-take from the River Thames. There may also be a need for offsite mitigation/compensation solutions, as well as potentially extensive post-works restoration requirements. However, structures already present in this part of the Thames will reduce the likely impact of additional structures. Flood risk This site is less suitable as either a small or a large CSO site owing to the location in the river, which will require specific mitigation to protect it from flood levels, and the potential to cause displacement which could increase flood risk elsewhere in the local vicinity. Air quality This site is considered less suitable for use as either a small or a large CSO site, as there are residential properties in close proximity to the site and there is potential for fugitive emissions of dust during construction to have a perceptible impact at these properties. These impacts can be reduced with standard dust control measures. There is potential for HGV movements on the local road network to cause localised air quality impacts in areas of already poor air quality. This can be somewhat mitigated by minimising the movement of HGVs during peak hours. Noise Based on the information currently available, the site is considered to be less suitable as either a small or a large CSO site, due to the relatively short separation distances between the site and the closest sensitive receptors, including residential properties and Hughes Field Primary School. The number of vehicles associated with the construction phase is anticipated to be relatively high, and the access route (through residential streets) has the potential to cause disturbance to properties lining those streets. Vibration levels from shaft sinking may give rise to human annoyance at nearby sensitive properties. Perimeter hoarding will reduce potential noise impact but is likely to be relatively ineffective at shielding noise from the upper floor properties at Stretton Mansions and Hughes House. Land quality
7.6.2
7.7 7.7.1
7.8 7.8.1
7.9 7.9.1
7.9.2
7.9.3
7.10
7.10.1 The site is considered to be less suitable as either a small or a large CSO site, based on the moderate potential for contamination of the site to have occurred, specifically from foundry operations, as well as wharf operations, fuel tanks and a power station in the near vicinity of the site. 7.10.2 If contamination is present, it may have the potential to impact on site workers and adjacent human receptors through direct contact exposure pathways and, to a lesser extent, volatilisation. Additionally, the potential exists for contaminants to be drawn to the deeper Chalk aquifer and for migration to surface water receptors to occur through shallow groundwater transport. 8 8.1 8.1.1 SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT Socio-economic profile The site is within the Greenwich West ward of the London Borough of Greenwich. Statistics from ONS 2001 Census data show the following indicators for the ward, in comparison to the rest of Greenwich, London and England as a whole:
Page 10
Higher rate of economically active, aged people that are full-time employees. A higher proportion having achieved Level 4 or 5 educational qualifications and a corresponding high proportion of people in managerial or professional occupations. A lower proportion of owner occupied households and a higher proportion of housing rented from the local council. A higher proportion of people aged between 20 and 44, and also a slightly higher proportion of children aged 0 to 4. Approximately 76% of ward residents were born in the UK and there is a higher proportion of black African or black British African people. 8.1.2 These statistics indicate people in this area are mostly highly educated working professionals. There are a high proportion of very young children, indicating growing families in the area. The ethnic mix of people around the site appears to be mostly indigenous but with other ethnicities present. The presence of the AHOY Centre indicates the area may be popular among young people as well as disabled people. Issues and impacts The site is being assessed as a large CSO site and a small CSO site. As the western portion of the site, used intensively for the large CSO site, abuts an EDF energy generating station, impacts of both sites on the surrounding community are likely to be very similar. It seems likely that the greatest impact of both types of site from a community perspective would be on the AHOY Centre. The centre is located adjacent to the site to the south and requires access to the river. The centre caters to young people and adults, and specifically targets people with disabilities. All these groups could be affected by the noise and disruption to water access that are likely with use of the site. The derelict landing stage apposite the AHOY Centre would be subsumed into the site boundary for both types of site and the large CSO site may require the dismantling of the structure. This would be directly detrimental to the AHOY Centres apparent plans for extension. The noise and visual disturbance from the site is likely to affect people using the Thames Path adjacent to the site. As the site was identified as being a relatively tranquil environment, increased noise levels from the site at close proximity to the adjacent residential properties are likely to be very disruptive, especially as the properties have balconies. Both local residents and the users of the Thames Path are likely to be affected by the visual disruption to views over the river. The electricity substation adjacent to the site is unlikely to be greatly affected by the increase in noise levels or by visual disturbance, even in the case of the large CSO site. PROPERTY ASSESSMENT Introduction Two options are under consideration at this site: the large and small CSO sites. Both site options are situated on the foreshore, involving a connection to the Deptford Storm Relief outfall beneath the existing slipway adjacent to the site, with common permanent structures. The effective difference between the two options is the size of the working compound during the construction phase. The property considerations are the same for both options, but where the size differential is relevant, an appropriate comment will be made in the following sections. The site is adjacent to the AHOY Centre, a water sports centre which uses the existing slipway, and a substantial disused jetty parallel to the riverbank.
8.2 8.2.1
8.2.2
8.2.3
8.2.4
8.2.5
9 9.1 9.1.1
9.1.2
Page 11
9.2 9.2.1 9.2.2
Crown Land and Special Land comments The land is foreshore and therefore it is likely to be owned by the Crown. However, no title information is available. If the land is Crown Land, it cannot be compulsorily purchased. Therefore there is a significant risk that it cannot be acquired. Contact should be made with the owner and/or the PLA as soon as possible to establish if an acquisition can be agreed. Land to be acquired Small site option (1,500 square metres)
9.3
9.3.1
The compensation assessment assumes a permanent acquisition, or the acquisition of long-term rights, as the site would not be returned to its previous condition. A river wall would be built around the permanent operational structures. The river wall would cover an area similar to the temporary working area. Large site option (7,500 square metres)
9.3.2
The compensation assessment assumes a temporary acquisition of the working area and a permanent acquisition, or the acquisition of long-term rights, for the land required for the operational plant, which would be the same as for the small site option above. Property valuation comments General
9.4
9.4.1 9.4.2 9.4.3 9.4.4
The freehold of the foreshore is likely to be owned by the Crown. Ownership of the jetty is unknown. It is possible that the AHOY Centre may have some formal rights over the site. No planning applications or permissions are shown in the planning history. The land is foreshore and therefore has limited market value. The acquisition costs are likely to be relatively low and therefore acceptable. Disturbance compensation comments The site is foreshore and therefore there are unlikely to be any significant disturbance compensation costs. Offsite statutory compensation comments An additional and significant compensation claim in relation to the adjacent AHOY Centre sailing club is likely, as access to the river from the centre via the existing slipway would be permanently blocked. The temporary working area for both the 1,500 square metre and the 7,500 square metre sites would block the existing slipway. Furthermore, the operational phase would require a new river wall that would permanently block the slipway. The AHOY Centres entitlement to compensation would depend on what formal rights of access to the river it holds. If it holds formal rights, a standard claim for acquisition of land would arise. If it holds no formal rights, a claim under Section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 is likely to arise. Whichever is the case, the claim is likely to be significant. It would therefore be important to maintain access to the river from the AHOY Centre by creating another slipway, possibly in front of the residential property on Glaisher Street. If this is not possible, the acquisition costs are likely to increase significantly, although they are still likely to be at an acceptable level.
9.5 9.5.1
9.6 9.6.1
9.6.2
9.6.3
Page 12
9.6.4
There does not appear to be any other potential for offsite statutory compensation under Section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965, as there is unlikely to be any other physical interference with public or private property rights. There should also be limited potential for claims under Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973, as the completed works are unlikely to result in diminution in value to property. Site acquisition cost assessment The statutory acquisition costs are likely to be acceptable. SITE CONCLUSIONS BY DISCIPLINE Introduction
9.6.5
9.7 9.7.1 10 10.1
10.1.1 The conclusions presented in this section are drawn from each disciplines assessment , and are designed to inform the workshop where a final conclusion on whether the site moves forward as one of the preferred sites or not. 10.2 Engineering Large CSO site 10.2.1 This site is suitable as a large CSO site because it is in the foreshore with adequate size and is in close proximity to the assumed alignment of the main tunnel. The interception chamber is also close to the drop shaft. There is no requirement for demolition but the existing redundant jetty could be partly removed to make room for the cofferdam. Road access to the site is difficult and river access may be necessary. Small CSO site 10.2.2 As the site is suitable as a large CSO site, it is also suitable as a small CSO site. 10.2.3 Whether a small CSO site is appropriate or not for the interception of the Deptford Storm Relief CSO will be considered at the next stage, in conjunction with the drive strategy that is developed in the Engineering Options Report. 10.3 Planning
10.3.1 On balance, the site is considered less suitable for both a large and small CSO interception site. 10.3.2 There are a number of constraints related to the use of this site. Proximity to residential properties and potential conflict with the existing yacht club use are the most notable. 10.3.3 With appropriate mitigation and potential relocation of the yacht club, potential adverse impacts on the adjacent sensitive receptors could be reduced, although this would require further investigation. 10.4 Environment
10.4.1 Overall, the site is considered to be less suitable as either a small or a large CSO site. 10.4.2 The site is suitable for use as a CSO site from the perspectives of archaeology, built heritage, and groundwater. 10.4.3 The site is less suitable from the perspective of transport, townscape, surface water resources, ecology, flood risk, air quality, noise and land quality. 10.4.4 Overall, the site is considered less suitable, and further investigation will be required as to whether transport, townscape, surface water resources, ecology, flood risk, air quality,
Page 13
noise and land quality impacts could all be adequately mitigated. Likely mitigation considerations will include the following: Transport an acceptable route to the TLRN and adequate workforce parking would need to be identified. Townscape a high-quality scheme design to minimise impacts on the character of the park, local views and potentially on a protected view would be required. Flood risk and surface water mitigation to reduce flood risk to the worksite and elsewhere (loss of capacity) and specific mitigation to reduce the impacts of in-river working. Ecology mitigation for foreshore habitats. Noise standard noise barriers are unlikely to be entirely effective and other techniques may be required to reduce construction noise to acceptable levels. Air quality measures to ensure dust is adequately mitigated for the closest receptors. Land quality any required remediation of contamination (at this moderate risk site) and/or measures to ensure no mobilisation of contaminants retained in situ 10.5 Socio-economic and community
10.5.1 The site is less suitable as both a large and small CSO site due to potential impacts, particularly on the AHOY Centre. 10.5.2 The greatest impact from a community perspective appears to be on the AHOY Centre adjacent to the site. The potential impacts include those on equalities groups using the centre, namely young people and people with disabilities. The centre would require access to the river for their activities; therefore, mitigation may involve discussions around maintaining river access during the works or providing alternative access nearby. Mitigation may also involve discussions around minimising noise disturbance and potentially limiting working hours. 10.5.3 The local residents and the users of the Thames Path are likely to be affected by the visual disruption to views over the river. Mitigation may involve discussions around screening the site and minimising the intrusiveness of the permanent structures on the site. In terms of the noise levels, mitigation may involve discussions around minimising noise disturbance and potentially limiting working hours. 10.6 Property
10.6.1 The site is considered suitable for both large and small CSO site options, subject to the acquisition risks identified above. 10.6.2 The advantages of the site are as follows: Acquisition cost should be low and therefore acceptable The site is undeveloped. 10.6.3 The disadvantages of the site are as follows: The land is likely to be Crown Land and an acquisition may not be possible An additional large claim in relation to the AHOY Centre is likely unless mitigation works are agreed.
Page 14
Site Suitability Report C32XA Appendices
APPENDICES
Page 15
Site Suitability Report C32XA Appendix 1
APPENDIX 1 SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Engineering Traffic Management and Access Roads/Rail Scott Wilson Access River BMT Third Parties (Shafts/CSOs) Mott MacDonald and AECOM Geology Thames Water Utilities Thames Water and AECOM Construction and Operational Layout Template London Tideway Tunnels Background Technical Paper London Tideway Tunnels
Planning London Borough of Greenwich online planning applications database Saved policies in the Greenwich Unitary Development Plan, adopted in 2006
Environment Transport Map of Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) - www.tfl.gov.uk Bus Route Maps: North-east, north-west, south-west, south-east - www.tfl.gov.uk Crossrail Plans - www.crossrail.co.uk/crossrail-bill-documents PTAL scores - Obtained from Table 2.3 information Thames Path map - www.walklondon.org.uk Capital Ring - www.walklondon.org.uk Cycle Routes - www.sustrans.org.uk and Local Cycling Guides, 1-14 Design Manual for Roads and Bridge TD 42/95, Highways Agency Built heritage and townscape Greenwich 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
Appendix 1 - Page 1
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 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 (ONS) 2001 Census data The AHOY Centre - www.ahoy.org.uk Property Mouchel referencing data Rating records from VOA Web site Promap Multimap/Live Maps
Appendix 1 - Page 2
APPENDIX 2 SITE LOCATION PLAN
Appendix 2 - Page 1
SOUTHWARK
FI D
EN
TI AL
Area of Main Map
AF T
&
Legend
Local Authority Boundary
TOWER HAMLETS
Short Listed CSO Sites
! (
CSO (Directly Controlled)
0 50 100 200 Metres 300 400
C32XA
! (
LEWISHAM
CS32X Deptford Storm Relief CSO
Mapping reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. (c) Crown copyright and database right 2009. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100019345 CH2M HILL accept no responsibility for any circumstances, which arise from the reproduction of this map after alteration, amendment or abbreviation or if it issued in part or issued incomplete in any way.
GREENWICH
Map Ref : .......101PL-SS-00625 Date : .............2009/11/17 Projection : .....British National Grid
Thames Water Utilities

MAJOR PROJECTS
The Point, 7th Floor, 37 North Wharf Road, Paddington, London W2 1AF
Title:
APPENDIX 2 C32XA SITE SITE LOCATION PLAN
APPENDIX 3 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT PLANS
Appendix 3 - Page 1
rd s
Mud and Shingle
TI AL
Bo lla
Bols
EN
!
Navigation Light (Fixed Red)
Un d
Legend !
FI D
TOWER HAMLETS Thames Policy Area

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Protected/Strategic Views Area of Main Map
ns t &
Palmer's Wharf
Bols
Bd
!
Co
! Regeneration ! Areas! Proposals Sites ! ! Development Sites
Protected/Strategic Views
LB
AF T
&
* # ! * #
Bols
Tr a vC
! * #
! * #
! * #
Bols
! * #
Dolphin
! * #
! !
Legend
Local Authority Boundary Short Listed CSO Sites CSO (Directly Controlled)
Boro
! Areas of Opportunity ! ! ! !
* #
* #
!# *
#! *
* #
* #
! !
! (
CR
* # !
* #
!
EE T ST R
# * Payne's Wharf ! * # ! * #
# * ! * # ! * #
* # !
Borthwick Wharf
* # !
Me
Dolphin
!
r
an
WAT ER GAT E
LEWISHAM
!
Post
* # !
* #
* #
* # ! * #
Hig h
Bol
Wa te
C32XA
! !
! (
! ! ! ! CS32X Deptford Storm Relief CSO

Bols
! * #
La
nd
! in g
or
* #
4.2m
* #
St
!
ag e
Bols
!
0 10 20
Co nv
40
60
80
ey
Metres
* #
Pond
* #
!# *
#! *
ET
* #
* #
Twinkle Park
ST R E
Sub Station
Electricity
The Ahoy Centre
!
Mud
Bo ls
!
La nd ing St ag e
Navigation Light This plan is a strategic and standardised overview based on an interpretation of GIS policy designation layers provided by affected London local authorities. Please refer to the text in the SSR's for the full planning and environment assessments.
BORTHWICK
* # ! ! !
Rowley House
* #
# * !
# * !
Twinkle Park
4.8m
* # !
* #
!GREENWICH !
BO R T HW IC K S TR EET
Co nv
!
95 to 11 4
!
MH
Mud
Mud
ey
or
1 to 33
!
Mud
Bo ls
!
ey or
Rowl ey
1 to 33
Co nv
House
Charlotte Turner Primary School

10
CR
23 31 32 26 27 28 24 33 42 37 38 34 29 41 43 39 44
Convoys Wharf
83
to
TREV ITH ICK
5.0m
ST RE ET
11 8
11 5 to
58 to
Stretton Mansions
!
46
!
13
FB
82
El Sub Sta
18
94
to
to 57
37
36
22
58
to 8
4.5m
54
BARQU E MEW S
1
!
5
!
19
!
1 to 12
!
2
!
Thistly Court
1 to
38 to 45
Hughes House
40
25
30
21
35
13
1 to 20
162
4.7m
EET ! PRINCE STR
148
1 to 30
1 to 20
Playground
11
BASEVI WAY
17
51
!
6
!
12
!
FRIG ATE MEW S
1
!
(u m
!
)
Oxenham House
46
54
6
th
Pa
140
43
130
27
1 to 14 use Blake Ho
!
5
GAT E STR EET
35
19
PH
!
42
CARAVEL MEW S
Posts
!EET BEN BOW STR
5.1m
El Sub Sta
!
HENRIETTA CLOSE
32
Benbow House
HENRIETTA CLOSE
38
to 4
!
25
46
to 5
25
El Sub Sta
!
26 to 3 7
!
125 to 152

MAJOR PROJECTS
The Point, 7th Floor, 37 North Wharf Road, 77 to Paddington, London W2 1AF 11 6
50
El Sub Sta
57
117 to 124
116
46
38
Title:
Greenfell Mansions
APPENDIX 3A C32XA SITE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT PLAN
33 to 38
45
39
DEPTFORD GRE
ol la
rd s
TI AL
Bo lla
!
rd s
EN
Mud and Shingle
Legend
! ! ! ! !
Bols
FI D
Un d
Sites # Contaminated ! ! ! TOWER HAMLETS

! ! !
Green Corridor/Chains
! !
!
Bd y LB
! !
! ! ! !
! !!
Sites of Nature Conservation Importance

!
&
AF T
Boro
Bols
Co
ns t &
Palmer's Wharf
!
!
Sites of Metropolitan Nature Conservation Importance Open Space Deficiency Areas Open ! Spaces ! Flood Zone 3
! ! Flood Zone 2 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Area of Main Map
Legend
Bols
!
Tr a vC
! !
! !
!!
!
!
Bols
Dolphin
! (
!
CR
Flood Protection Areas

!
LEWISHAM
!
!
EE T ST R
! ! Payne's Wharf
!
Me
Dolphin
!
Wa te
an
Hig h
WAT ER GAT E
Post
Borthwick Wharf
Bol
C32XA !
!
! (
! ! ! ! ! ! CS32X Deptford Storm Relief CSO !

Bols
!
La nd
!
in g S
!
0 10 20
40
60
80
!
! ! !
4.2m
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Pond ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
BORTHWICK
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
GREENWICH ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
ET
Co nv
! ta g e
!
Bols
Metres
ey
or
! ! !
!
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
Sub Station Electricity
!
La
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
#
! ! !
# #
!
! ! ! !
!
! !
! ! Park ! ! Twinkle ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
1 to 33
The Ahoy Centre
#
!
#
!
#
!
Mud
#
!
#
!
# #
Bo ls
#
nd ing St ag e
#
! !
#
!
#
!
Mapping reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. (c) Crown copyright and database right 2009. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100019345 CH2M HILL accept no responsibility for any circumstances, which arise from the reproduction abbreviation or if it issued in part or issued incomplete in any way. based on an interpretation of GIS policy designation layers provided Navigation Light by affected London local authorities. Please refer to the text in the SSR's for the full planning and environment assessments.
ST R E
! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! !
!
Mud
4.8m ! !
#
!
BO R
#
! !
#
!
#
!
11 4
#
!
# #
!
MH W
Mud
! Rowley ! ! House ! ! ! ! ! !
Co nv
#
ey
or
#
Bo ls
#
! !
ey Co nv
#
!
# of this map after alteration, amendment or
! !
! !
! !
1 to 33
! !
! ! ! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!
T HW IC K S TR EET
!
Convoys Wharf
! !
!
Ro ey ! wl ! Ho ! us ! e
! ! ! ! Twinkle Park ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !
#
!
#
! !
#
to
#
95 to
#
!
58 to
# #
!
82
#
!
#
Mud
#
!
#
or
#
! !
# This plan is a strategic and standardised overview #

!
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
!! ! ! !
!!
!
EV ITH ! TR! !ICK!
27 28 24 42 29 34 43 39 44
83
ST RE ET
#
! ! !
5.0m
#
!
11 8
to
11 5
# #
# #
!
10
Stretton Mansions
# #
46
#
!
#
!
#
!
#
!
FB
#
!
# #
! !
94
#
! !
# #
!
El Sub Sta
#
38
#
37
#
! !
#
!
to 8
#
!
# #
1 to
# Map Ref : .......101PL-SS-00568 #
CR
!
4.5m
54
36
22
58
BARQU E MEW S
1
!
5
32
38
26
Date : .............2009/11/24 Projection : .....British National Grid
13
to
to 57
to 45
41
33
31
#
!
18
23
37
Hughes House
30
!
50
40
25
21
35
13
46
to 5
1 to 20
162
4.7m
EET PRINCE STR
#
El Sub Sta
# # #
HENRIETTA CLOSE
1
#
7
# #
HENRIETTA CLOSE
# #
# #
148
# #
BASEVI WAY
#
57
# # #
45
CARAVEL MEW S
Posts
2
17
!
42
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
(u m ) th
! ! ! ! ! !
1 to 30
1 to 20
Playground
12
7
11
! ! ! !
FRIG ATE MEW S
1
#
Benbow House Oxenham House
# #
51
!
6
#
54
#
46
39
140
43
Pa
EET
35
19
PH
EET BEN BOW STR
5.1m
# #
#
33 to 38
38
to 4
#
! !
#
19
#
! !
# #
#
!
#
!
# #
#
!
Thistly Court
#
! !
1 to 12

MAJOR PROJECTS
The Point, 7th Floor,
25
El Sub Sta
#
25
#
26 to 3 7
# # # # #
# # # # #
125 to 152
# #37 North Wharf Road, # Title:

77 to 11 6
# # #
El Sub Sta
Paddington, London W2 1AF
117 to 124
Greenfell Mansions
# #
APPENDIX 3B C32XA SITE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT PLAN
116
46
38
32
DEPTF
AF T
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
lla ! ! ! ! ! rd! s ! ! ! ! ! ! Mud and Shingle ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Bo
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Palmer's Wharf ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
TI AL
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !Bols ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Navigation Light ! ! (Fixed ! !Red) ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Bols ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Bols !

LB Bd y ns t & Boro Co
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
EN
Legend !
! ! ! ! Scheduled Ancient Monuments TOWER HAMLETS
FI D
Listed Buildings Listed Buildings
Un d
Archaeological Areas
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Area of Main Map
&
Area of Special Character
Legend
Tr a
vC
! !
CR
EE T
Bols
Dolphin
! (
Dolphin
Payne's Wharf
Me
WAT ER GAT E
LEWISHAM
ST R
an
Hig h
Post
!!
4.2m
BORTHWICK
Pond
Borthwick Wharf
Bol
Wa te
C32XA
! (

Bols
La
nd
in g
St
Co nv
ag
0
e
Bols
10
20
40
60
80
ey
or
Metres
Twinkle Park
ST R E
Sub Station
ET
Electricity
The Ahoy Centre
Bo ls
Mud
La
nd
ing
St
ag
Mapping reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. (c) Crown copyright and database right 2009. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100019345
e
4.8m Rowley House

1 to 33
Rowl ey
1 to 33
House
Twinkle Park
BO R
GREENWICH
T HW IC K S TR EET
95 to 11 4
Co nv
Mud
ey
or
Bo ls
MH
Mud
Co nv
ey
Mud
58 to
or
CH2M HILL accept no responsibility for any circumstances, which arise from the reproduction of this map after alteration, amendment or abbreviation or if it issued in part or issued incomplete in any way. This plan is a strategic and standardised overview Navigation Light based on an interpretation of GIS policy designation (fixed red) layers provided by affected London local authorities. Please refer to the text in the SSR's for the full planning and environment assessments.

10
CR
33 2742 28 24 29 34 41 43 39 44
Convoys Wharf
83
to
TREV ITH ICK
5.0m
ST RE ET
11 8
11 5 to
94
Stretton Mansions
46
FB
82
El Sub Sta
18
37
31
36
22
58
to 8
4.5m
54
BARQU E MEW S
1

Thistly Court
1 to
13 to
to 57
37
to 45
32
38
26
23
40
25
Hughes House
21
30
35
13
46
to 5
6
5
38
1 to 12
19

MAJOR PROJECTS
125 to 152
25
El Sub Sta
1 to 20
162
4.7m
EET PRINCE STR
CARAVEL MEW S
Posts
2
148
1 to 30
1 to 20
Playground
12
7
11
BASEVI WAY
17
51
43
(u m
th
Pa
27
1 to 14 use Blake Ho
E STR EET
35
46
54
FRIG ATE MEW S

1
38
140
19
PH
EET BEN BOW STR
5.1m
El Sub Sta
Benbow House Oxenham House
HENRIETTA CLOSE
38
26
to 4
50
25
El Sub Sta
57
to 3 7
117 to 124
77 to
116
Title:
11 6
Greenfell Mansions
APPENDIX 3C C32XA SITE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT HERITAGE PLAN

37 to 76
36
46
42
HENRIETTA CLOSE
32 33 to 38
45
39
DEPTFORD
APPENDIX 4 PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS
Appendix 4 - Page 1
FI D
EN
TI AL
Area of Main Map
AF T
TOWER HAMLETS
Legend
&
! (
LEWISHAM
C32XA
! (
25
50
100
150
200
Metres
GREENWICH

MAJOR PROJECTS
Title:
APPENDIX 4 C32XA SITE AERIAL PLAN
View of the site taken from the river bank looking in a northerly direction.
View of the River embankment and AHOY Centre yacht club immediately adjacent to the site looking northwest.
Appendix 4
APPENDIX 5 TRANSPORT PLAN
Appendix 5 - Page 1
FI D
EN
TI AL
TOWER HAMLETS
Area of Main Map
&
Legend CS32X Deptford Storm Relief CSO

Private residential estate Egress
AF T
Local Authority Boundary Short Listed CSO Sites CSO (Directly Controlled) Transport Access Routes TfL Road Network Thames Path
Access
! (
! ( C32XA
London Cycle Routes
40
80
160
Meters
240
320
400
LEWISHAM
Home zone On-street parking, street furniture, raised tables - may require removal
Bus lane
GREENWICH
Map Ref : ........... 101PL-SS-00751 Date : ................. 2009/11/19 Projection : ......... British National Grid

MAJOR PROJECTS
Title:
APPENDIX 5 C32XA SITE TRANSPORT PLAN
APPENDIX 6 SERVICES AND GEOLOGY PLAN
Appendix 6 - Page 1
APPENDIX 7 CONSTRUCTION PHASE LAYOUT
Appendix 7 - Page 1
6
DO NOT SCALE - IF IN DOUBT ASK
Status:
WORK IN PROGRESS
Keyplan:
N
DEPTFORD POWER STATION CABLE TUNNEL
DRAWING LOCATION
A
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 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.
NOTES: 1. CONSTRUCTION OF THE WORKS AS SHOWN WOULD MEAN THE EXISTING SLIPWAY USED BY THE AHOY CENTRE WOULD BE LOST. IF THE WORKS WERE MOVED FURTHER INTO THE RIVER IT MIGHT BE POSSIBLE TO RETAIN A SLIPWAY FACILITY PARALLEL TO THE RIVER WALL. 2. EGRESS AS SHOWN MAY NOT BE VIABLE, IN WHICH CASE THE ACCESS POINT WOULD ACT AS ACCESS AND EGRESS.
SITE BOUNDARY AREA = 7500m
Dolphin
KEY:
EXCAVATED MATERIAL AND HANDLING AREA
STOCKYARD, WORKSHOP AND STORES
OFFICES, WELFARE AND CANTEEN
5m x 10m INTERCEPTION CHAMBER
TEMPORARY WORKING AREA 1500m
CSO DROP SHAFT, CSO CONNECTION CULVERT, PRIMARY CRANE, SECONDARY CRANE AND CSO INTERCEPTION CHAMBER
Bols
FLAP VALVE CHAMBER
rthwick Wharf
Bol
10m I.D. CSO DROP SHAFT
DISCLAIMER: INDICATIVE CONSTRUCTION PHASE ARRANGEMENT. BASED ON PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT.
DEPTFORD STORM RELIEF SEWER 5m x 20m
20 m
80 m
SCALE 1 : 250 20m x 20m EGRESS
Bols
150 AC AB 2.5m SQUARE CONNECTION CULVERT DRAFT-THIRD ISSUE DRAFT-SECOND ISSUE IL RS SS
Dsgnr
GT DS RS
Chkd
GT CH CH
Appd
04-12-09 21-08-09 03-07-09

Date
AA DRAFT-FIRST ISSUE
Iss Description
Electricity
The Ahoy
SECONDARY CRANE
Location Code: OS Reference: Security Reference: Drawn By:
Sub Station
D
Centre
ACCESS
PRIMARY CRANE
N/A
UBR
Sub Process:
AP
Mud
Project Group:
LTTDT
Location / Town: Site Name: Project Name:
WASTE LONDON N/A 50

Scale: Sheet Size: Rev:
THAMES TUNNEL
Contract Name:
SITE SUITABILITY REPORT

Drawing Title:
GLAISHER STREET
CONSTRUCTION PHASE LAYOUT DEPTFORD - C32XA - SMALL SITE

Drawing No.:
PLOTTED ON
04\12\09
BY
Andy.Purdy
LOCATION :
Thames Tideway Tunnel
x:\project\371840\cad\design data\cad thames\drawings\planning-consents\CS32X\100-DL-PNC-C32XA-172002.dgn
c Thames Water Utilities Ltd 2008
100-DP-PNC-C32XA-172002
1:250
A1
AC
100
200mm
5m x 10m
6
N
Status:
WORK IN PROGRESS
Keyplan:
N
DEPTFORD POWER STATION CABLE TUNNEL
DRAWING LOCATION
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
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.
NOTES: 1. CONSTRUCTION OF THE WORKS AS SHOWN WOULD MEAN THE EXISTING SLIPWAY USED BY THE AHOY CENTRE WOULD BE LOST. IF THE WORKS WERE MOVED FURTHER INTO THE RIVER IT MIGHT BE POSSIBLE TO RETAIN A SLIPWAY FACILITY PARALLEL TO THE RIVER WALL. 2. EGRESS AS SHOWN MAY NOT BE VIABLE, IN WHICH CASE THE ACCESS POINT WOULD ACT AS ACCESS AND EGRESS.
TEMPORARY WORKING AREA 7500m
SITE BOUNDARY AREA = 7500m
3500m
Dolphin
1000m KEY:
EXCAVATED MATERIAL AND HANDLING AREA
STOCKYARD, WORKSHOP AND STORES
SECONDARY CRANE
OFFICES, WELFARE AND CANTEEN
CSO DROP SHAFT, CSO CONNECTION CULVERT, PRIMARY CRANE, SECONDARY CRANE AND CSO INTERCEPTION CHAMBER
Bols Bol
500m
rthwick Wharf
FLAP VALVE CHAMBER
DISCLAIMER: INDICATIVE CONSTRUCTION PHASE ARRANGEMENT. BASED ON PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT.
10m I.D. CSO DROP SHAFT
INTERCEPTION CHAMBER
20 m
80 m
SCALE 1 : 250
Bols
ACCESS 1200m 150 AC PRIMARY CRANE AB DRAFT-THIRD ISSUE DRAFT-SECOND ISSUE IL RS SS
Dsgnr
GT DS RS
Chkd
GT CH CH
Appd
04-12-09 21-08-09 03-07-09

Date
Iss Description
Electricity
The Ahoy
Sub Station
D
Centre
Location Code:
OS Reference:
Security Reference:
Drawn By:
N/A
UBR
Sub Process:
AP
Mud
EGRESS DEPTFORD STORM RELIEF SEWER
Project Group:
LTTDT
WASTE LONDON N/A 50

THAMES TUNNEL
Contract Name:

Drawing Title:
GLAISHER STREET
CONSTRUCTION PHASE LAYOUT DEPTFORD - C32XA - LARGE SITE

Drawing No.:
PLOTTED ON
04\12\09
BY
Andy.Purdy
LOCATION :
x:\project\371840\cad\design data\cad thames\drawings\planning-consents\CS32X\100-DL-PNC-C32XA-172012.dgn
100-DP-PNC-C32XA-172012
1:250
A1
AC
100
200mm
APPENDIX 8 OPERATIONAL PHASE LAYOUT
Appendix 8 - Page 1
6
VENTILATION COLUMN (CSO)
Status:
WORK IN PROGRESS
Keyplan:
N
A
MAPPING REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF ORDNANCE SURVEY ON BEHALF OF HMSO. ' CROWN COPYRIGHT AND 107m (AOD +100) REMOVABLE COVER ABOVE WEIR (LOCKABLE) DATABASE RIGHT 2008. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ORDNANCE SURVEY LICENCE NUMBER 100019345
COORDINATES ARE TO ORDNANCE SURVEY DATUM OSGB36. ALL LEVELS ARE IN METRES AND RELATE TO A LOCAL HEIGHT DATUM WHICH IS 100 METRES BELOW ORDNANCE DATUM NEWLYN.
NOTE:
4m
3m
6m
1. STRUCTURE TO BE PROTECTED BY REMOVABLE HANDRAILS IN THE TEMPORARY CASE. 2. POSITION OF COVERS ARE VARIABLE WITHIN 10m FROM THE EDGE OF THE STRUCTURE, AND THE LOCATION IS BASED ON SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT 3. CLADDING OF VENTILLATION BUILDING TO SUIT LOCATION AND AESTHETICS. 4. ALL TOP STRUCTURES TO HAVE:ACCESS STAIRS/LADDER TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT HAND RAILING 5. ALL DIMENSIONS IN MILLIMETRES UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED. GROUND LEVEL
10000
5m
REMOVABLE COVERS ARE SPLIT UP INTO SECTIONS AND SUPPORTED BY BEAMS, WHICH ARE ALSO REMOVABLE
1m DIA
SCALE 1:50
DIAGRAMMATIC REPRESENTATION OF TOP STRUCTURE ABOVE CSO SHAFTS ELECTRICAL CONTROL KIOSK (CSO)
- - - - - - 1500 - - AB DRAFT-SECOND ISSUE IL RS

Dsgnr
GT DS
Chkd
GT CH
Appd
27-11-09 - 22-05-09
Date
Iss Description
60
2000
Location Code: OS Reference: Security Reference: Drawn By:
N/A
Project Group:
---
UBR
Sub Process:
AP
LTTDT
WASTE LONDON N/A 50

THAMES TUNNEL
Contract Name:

Drawing Title:
SCALE 1:25
GENERIC ELEVATION AND TOP STRUCTURE FOR OPERATIONAL PHASE LAYOUT - CSO SITES
Drawing No.:
PLOTTED ON
04\12\09
BY
Andy.Purdy
LOCATION :
x:\project\371840\cad\design data\cad thames\drawings\planning-consents\Routewide\100-DH-GEN-00000-000001.dgn
100-DH-GEN-00000-000001
NTS
A1
AB
100
150
200mm
VARIBLE DEPENDING ON
APPENDIX 9 ENVIRONMENTAL APPRAISAL TABLES
Transport Site considerations Comments Access to road network Site is located in the foreshore and requires the construction of a temporary construction access and egress to enable a one-way system through the site. The permanent access is located at the same point as the temporary construction access onto the western end of Glaisher Street. The construction site egress will utilise an existing slipway requiring the construction of an access road from Deptford Green. The Thames Path will require diversion. Deptford Green is street lit and subject to a 20mph speed limit. It is located within Deptford Green Home Zone and as such is traffic calmed and has an unconventional layout which is unsuitable for HGVs. Agreement with private residential land owners will be required to enable construction vehicles to pass through the home zone area. Access to the site from the A2 (TLRN strategic highway network) is achievable from Deptford Church Street (A2209), Creek Road (A200) and then Hamilton Crescent and Glaisher Street which are private residential estate roads. By way of constraints, the private residential estate roads (Hamilton Crescent and Glaisher Street) have raised tables, a 10mph speed limit and a block paving road surface. On street parking is on one side of Glaisher Street, and the route runs over a bascule bridge on Creek Road and under a rail bridge which has a height restriction of 4.8m. There are no visible restrictions on the bascule bridge however the bridge takes a long time to open/close which may cause operational problems. Route to the A2 (TLRN strategic highway network) from the egress uses Deptford Green, Stowage and Gonson Street. Appendix 9 - Page 1
Small/Large Mitigation required and conclusions Site access and egress require construction and an access road linking the slipway to Deptford Green is also required. Thames Path requires diversion. Routes to/from TLRN (A2) are currently unsuitable for construction vehicles and will require agreement with private residential land owners. The removal of a substantial amount of traffic calming and on street parking will be required to enable access and egress. Access routes run through a residential home zone area along narrow roads. Routes to/from the TLRN (A2) also pass over a bascule bridge and under a rail bridge with height restriction of 4.8m.
Transport Site considerations Comments The route follows onto Creek Road (A200) westbound, and then southbound along Deptford Church Street (A2209). This route encounters a number of constraints, mostly on Deptford Green which is a home zone (featuring raised tables, shared space, play areas and on street parking). Stowage also has a narrow carriageway and contains on street parking. The route passes over a bascule bridge on Creek Road and under a rail bridge which has a height restriction of 4.8m. Visibility appears to be adequate from the egress which is onto the end of the road. Some on street parking may require removal to enable access to the TLRN (A2). Distance to and from the TLRN (A2) is 1.4km. See Transport Access Plan in Appendix 5. Access to river Access to rail Site located in river, although river access not essential as excavated material to be transported by road to main site. Use of rail is unlikely to be feasible due to the small quantities of excavated material produced by a CSO site. Route to East London Line Depot uses the same route to Creek Road (A200) as used to access the TLRN (A2) and therefore encounters the same constraints. The route continues westbound onto Evelyn Street and follows onto Abinger Grove, Arklow Road and then passes under a rail bridge (which has a width restriction of 7 and a height restriction of 13). The route continues along Edward Street (speed humps), under another rail bridge (with a height restriction of 12 3) and then along Milton Court Road which is traffic calmed (speed humps). Route runs through several residential areas and requires the removal of the traffic calming (speed humps and raised tables) along the route. River access not essential as excavated material will be transported by road to a main site. Use of rail is unlikely to be feasible due to the small quantities of excavated material produced by a CSO site. Routes to and from potential rail link at the East London Line Depot (if required) are heavily constrained and less suitable. Routes run through a private residential estate, under two bridges with height and width restrictions as well as through a non-private residential area. On street parking, raised tables, speed humps and home zone features will require removal to enable construction vehicles to use the routes. The East London Line has the potential to be used during the day; however significant use constraints and issues with loading would exist. Small/Large Mitigation required and conclusions
Appendix 9 - Page 2
Transport Site considerations Comments Route from rail to access point is via Milton Court Road, Edward Street, Arklow Rd, Abinger Grove, Evelyn Street, Creek Road, Hamilton Crescent and Glaisher Street. The route contains similar constraints in the form of on-street parking, two rail bridges with height restrictions (one of which also has width restrictions), on street parking on Arklow Road, and traffic calming (speed humps) along Edward Street and Milton Court Road. The East London Line Depot has the potential to be used during the day, although significant use constraints and issues with loading would exist. Distance 2.1km to / from the rail access point. Parking Limited parking could be potentially provided onsite for workforce. On street parking within close proximity to the site is unavailable as for permit holders only. Additional workforce parking may need to be provided. Some on street parking bays will require removal to enable construction vehicles to access the TLRN (A2). Public transport accessibility Traffic Management PTAL 5-6 (high), as identified within Table 2.3. Construction of site access and egress with an access road linking the slipway with Deptford Green. Diversion of Thames Path required. Removal of on street parking, traffic calming (speed humps and raised tables) as well as other home zone features to enable construction vehicles access to the TLRN (A2) and rail access point (if required). Limited parking could potentially be provided onsite for workforce and no parking is available within close proximity to the site. Additional workforce parking may need to be provided. Some on street parking bays will require removal to enable construction vehicles to access the TLRN (A2). Small/Large Mitigation required and conclusions
Good potential for workforce to utilise public transport to access the site. Site access, egress and access road require construction. Thames Path requires diverting and on street parking, traffic calming and home zone features require removal.
Appendix 9 - Page 3
Transport Site considerations Comments Summary Small/Large Mitigation required and conclusions
Both the small and large site are less suitable as CSO sites. New site access and egress points would require construction along with an access road linking the egress to the slipway and the Thames Path would require diversion. Routes to / from the TLRN (A2) are less suitable as they would pass through a home zone which is heavily traffic calmed and contains on street parking. Routes to the TLRN would also pass underneath a height restricted rail bridge. Use of rail is unlikely to be required as CSO sites produce only relatively small quantities of excavated material. The potential route to the rail link at the East London Line Depot is less suitable and heavily constrained with additional traffic calming and height restrictions to those encountered along the route to the TLRN (A2). River access is not essential for a CSO site as excavated material is likely to be transported away by road. Limited parking is to be provided onsite for workforce but no alternative on street parking is available within close proximity to the site due to permit holder restrictions. Additional workforce parking may therefore need to be provided. The potential for workforce to utilise public transport to access the site is high. An agreement with land owners of the private residential estate on private land to the south would be required for construction vehicles to pass through the home zone and temporary traffic management would be required to remove the home zone features and on street parking to enable construction vehicles to access the TLRN (A2) (and rail point if required).
Appendix 9 - Page 4
Archaeology Site considerations Comments Designations, including Archaeological Priority Areas Summary of historical uses The site is located within the Greenwich Archaeological Priority Area (APAS) The 19th century OS maps indicate the site to be located on the Thames Foreshore. The 1st edition OS (1868) shows a large foundry and engineering works to the south west of the site. By the 1950s this had changed use to a timber a packing case works. No archaeological receptors of high value are recorded within the site. This does not preclude the possibility of unrecorded archaeological receptors of High value being within the site. No archaeological receptors of Medium value are recorded within the site. This does not preclude the possibility of unrecorded archaeological receptors of Medium value being within the site. Construction impact of potential waterlogged deposits containing archaeological remains may cause dewatering. This potential impact should be considered given the sites close proximity to the Thames River. Construction impact of previous development for the works to the south west may have disturbed earlier remains but the majority of the site appears to have remained undeveloped. Borehole data in the area suggests made ground of 4m of which could be archaeological in nature. Small/Large Mitigation required and conclusions Not applicable A detailed desk based assessment is required to sufficiently understand the archaeological resource and define risk to potential development.
Potential receptors of very high or high value with the potential to be directly affected Potential receptors of medium value with the potential to be directly affected
A detailed desk based assessment is required to sufficiently understand the archaeological resource and define risk to potential development.
A detailed desk based assessment is required to sufficiently understand the archaeological resource and define risk to potential development.
Other receptors with the potential to be directly affected Extent of existing disturbance
A detailed desk based assessment is required to sufficiently understand the archaeological resource and define risk to potential development. A detailed desk based assessment is required to sufficiently understand the archaeological resource and define risk to potential development.
Appendix 9 - Page 5
Archaeology Site considerations Comments 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 information currently available it is not possible to highlight specific potential issues. Small/Large Mitigation required and conclusions Mitigation methods could include: Review/production of existing desk based assessments Production of deposits model Archaeological monitoring of geotechnical investigations Archaeological evaluation Archaeological watching brief Archaeological excavation. Summary On the basis of the current information available, the site is considered to be suitable as either a small or a large CSO site. Although the information currently available does not indicate that any archaeological receptors are present, it is possible that archaeological receptors of high or medium value may be present. While no direct evidence has been revealed peat deposits containing archaeological material may be present at depth. These have been commonly recorded throughout London in a similar proximity to the Thames. Given the location of the site, and wider evidence for historical occupation along the river, it is a reasonable assumption to suggest waterlogged remains of archaeological value may be present.
Appendix 9 - Page 6
Built heritage and townscape Site considerations Comments Designations including Conservation Areas, including trees Listed Buildings Office building, Convoys Wharf, Grade II: 145m Cast iron bollard with Watergate Street, Grade II: 120m Boundary wall to Convoys wharf, Grade II: 130m Master shipwrights apartment, Convoys wharf, Grade II: 140m Paynes Wharf, Grade II: 50m Locally Listed Buildings There are no locally listed buildings within 250m of C30XA (Small). Conservation Areas There are no conservation areas within 250m of C30XA (Small). Registered Historic Parks and Gardens There are no registered historic parks and gardens within 250m of C30XA (Small). Locally Listed Parks and Gardens There are no locally listed parks and gardens within 250m of C30XA (Small). Protected Views Greenwich Park: 35m (as designated in the London Views Management Framework) Small/Large Mitigation required and conclusions In the case of listed buildings and protected views a high quality scheme design and adequate screening for the development may be required as discussed below. A detailed desk-based assessment in conjunction with archaeology work will be required to further inform the likely impact of the development and to determine more detailed mitigation proposals. On the basis of currently available information (August 2009), mitigation will not be applicable in the case of conservation areas, registered historic parks and gardens, locally listed parks and gardens and locally listed buildings.
Appendix 9 - Page 7
Built heritage and townscape Site considerations Comments Potential receptors of medium to very high importance with the potential to be directly affected Other receptors of lesser importance with the potential to be directly affected Potential receptors of medium to very high importance with the potential to be indirectly affected Not applicable Small/Large Mitigation required and conclusions Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
There is the potential for five listed buildings and one protected view to be indirectly affected by construction and operation of the development, especially during construction.
Of the five listed buildings within 250m of C30XA (Small) only the Grade II listed Paynes wharf shares a visual relationship with the site and therefore has the potential for its setting to be affected by construction and operation of the development. Mitigation in the form of a high quality scheme design and/or screening may be required to reduce any adverse visual effects upon these listed structures. The remaining four listed buildings fall outside of the visual envelope of C30XA (Small), reflecting the built character of the local area. Consequently no impact upon these listed buildings is anticipated as a result of construction and operation of the development and therefore no mitigation would be required. Greenwich Park protected view is located outside of the site and is therefore unlikely to be affected by the proposals and therefore would not require any mitigation.
Other receptors of lesser importance with the potential to be indirectly affected
Not applicable
Not applicable
Appendix 9 - Page 8
Built heritage and townscape Site considerations Comments Sensitive landscape character areas likely to be affected Cycle Network runs along the southern boundary of the site, Site on River Thames. Site is on the southern foreshore of the River Thames. River Thames to the north with residential development along Maritime Quay and Blasker Walk on the north bank, River Thames to the east, electrical sub-station and residential development along Glaisher Street on the south bank with residential development further south, industrial development along the bank to the east with a mix of industrial and residential development further east. The presence and operation of machinery, materials stores, buildings and potential barge access would potentially result in temporary, severe adverse direct impacts on the character of the River and its foreshore and temporary, adverse indirect impacts on neighbouring areas. The potential jetties on the River for barge access would potentially result in a severe adverse impact on the character of the River, its foreshore and frontage. Permanent elements would potentially result in an adverse impact on the character of the River, its foreshore, and the residential character on its frontage. Potential views likely to be affected Site south-west of a Strategic View. Open views from the River, residential properties along the north bank, Blasker Walk, and Amundsen Court on the north shore, Glaisher Street, Stretton Mansions, wharfs of industrial development to the north-west. Interrupted views from Deptford Green, Borthwick Street, Clarence Road, and Thames Street. During construction, views of cranes from properties listed During construction, the use of hoardings and appropriate lighting would minimise visual impact at least from the street level and lower floors of Stretton Mansions. Design of top structure, vent column, and electrical kiosk to be given careful consideration. Planting to screen permanent plant. Integrated landscape scheme along the south bank of River to enhance visual amenity and reduce visual impact. Small/Large Mitigation required and conclusions Introduction of landscape scheme to include appropriate surface treatments and planting along the south River frontage. This site is less suitable since the proposals would potentially have an adverse impact on the character of the River, its frontage and the adjacent and surrounding residential character.
Appendix 9 - Page 9
Built heritage and townscape Site considerations Comments above, Deptford Park, Pepys Park, Millwall Park, Mudchute Park, Fordham Park, and Greenwich Park. Permanent elements mainly visible from the River, its frontages in the vicinity, Stretton Mansions, Glaisher Street and Blasker Walk. Particular considerations on sites where new permanent structures are required Permanent structures at C30XA (Small) have the potential to indirectly impact upon the Grade II listed Paynes Wharf and upon the visual amenity of the River, its frontages and the residential properties during both construction and operation. Consequently, careful consideration would need to be given to the appearance of any above ground structures in the scheme design and some form of screening and landscaping for the site may be required. Construction and operation of the development could potentially result in an indirect impact upon one listed building the visual amenity of the river and local views. There is the potential to mitigate against adverse impacts through a high quality scheme design and/or screening and landscaping. Small/Large Mitigation required and conclusions This site is less suitable since it would affect the visual amenity of the River, its frontages and the residential properties along the frontage. Mitigation listed above is unlikely to completely prevent permanent visual impact on the River. Any permanent structures would need to be of a high quality design and/or screened and landscaped in order that any indirect impacts upon the Grade II Paynes Wharf building, and the local townscape character and local views can be mitigated against.
Potential issues
The scheme design would need to be of a sufficiently high quality and may need to incorporate some screening and landscaping in order that the potential visual impact of the development upon the Grade II listed Paynes Wharf and the visual amenity of the Thames and local views is minimised.
Summary
On the basis of the information currently available, this site is considered to be suitable as either a small or a large CSO site in relation to built heritage, as the site is likely to result in relatively few impacts upon the built heritage environment. The site has the potential to indirectly impact upon the Grade II listed Paynes Wharf, although this is likely to be mitigated through a high quality scheme design and/or screening and landscaping. From a townscape perspective the site is considered less suitable as either a small or a large CSO site as there is the potential for impacts upon the character of the River, its frontages and local views. Mitigation in the form of a high quality scheme design, screening and landscaping of the site, especially during construction, would help to reduce any adverse impacts and would have the potential to enhance the local townscape character, although further study would be necessary to determine the likely impacts.
Appendix 9 - Page 10
Water resources hydrogeology and surface water Site considerations Comments Hydrological conditions (Groundwater and Surface Water) From BGS Geological Model giving average ground condition profile. Local near surface conditions may vary, particularly within the river. Geology (thickness) Superficial Geology and Made Ground (4m) Lambeth Group (1m) Thanet Sand (13m) Chalk (to beyond the depth of shaft) Hydrogeology Piezometric Level in Chalk Aquifer: ~ -7mAOD (~7mbgl) from EA Jan 08 water level contouring Groundwater Monitoring Location EA Hydrometry Sites: TQ37-268 1.54km northwest of the site (water levels to Nov 2007) TQ37-254A, BL, BU 845m southeast of the site (water levels to May 2009) Watercourses Within the River Thames Source Protection Zones (SPZ) and groundwater users SPZ Not located in a Source Protection Zone defined by EA EA Licensed Groundwater Abstractions and Details 1 public water supply borehole within 2km radius
Licence Numbers: 28/39/43/0019 (12 borehole) Location 1.47km south of the site
Small/Large Mitigation required and conclusions The drop shaft will be constructed to an invert level of approximately 50.51mbgl therefore the shaft will be founded in the Chalk. Piezometric head(1) in Chalk will be approximately 43.51m above the base of the construction. Therefore, dewatering would be required and should be considered as part of geotechnical design.
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 borehole Defined by EA Licensed abstraction boreholes 1. 250m
Water resources hydrogeology and surface water Site considerations Comments

Operator Thames Water Utilities Ltd. Abstracted Aquifer Chalk Abstraction Quantity (annual) 12,775,000m3 2. 203m 3. 126m 4. 199m
Small/Large Mitigation required and conclusions
The shaft is not located within any of these catchment areas.
5 licensed abstraction borehole within 2km radius

Licence Numbers: 1.28/39/39/0234 (1 borehole) 2. 28/39/42/0073 (2 boreholes) 3. 28/39/44/0039 (1 borehole) 4. 28/39/44/0047 ( 1 borehole) Locations: 1. 1.88km north of the site 2. 1.97km northwest of the site 3. 1.19km southeast of the site 4. 2.0km northeast of the site Operator: 1. Britannia Hotels Limited 2. Harmsworth Quays Printing Limited 3. Trustees Of National Maritime Museum 4. Hanson Quarry Prod Europe Ltd Abstracted Aquifer Unit: 1. Chalk
Water resources hydrogeology and surface water Site considerations Comments

2. Chalk 3. Chalk 4. Chalk Abstraction Purposes: 1. Industrial, commercial and public services (hotels, public houses and conference centres- drinking, cooking, sanitary, washing) 2. Industrial, commercial and public services (paper and printing- process water and drinking, cooking, sanitary, washing 3. Private water supply (general use) 4. Industrial, commercial and public services (mineral products - process water) Abstraction Quantity (annual): 1. 78,840m3 2. 52,000m3 3. 20,000m3 4. 50,000m3
Small/Large Mitigation required and conclusions
Unlicensed Groundwater Abstractions and Details No abstraction borehole within 1km radius inside Tower Hamlet Council Boundary No abstraction borehole within 1km radius inside Lewisham Council Boundary No abstraction borehole within 1km radius inside Greenwich Council Boundary Borehole locations and depths There are 14 historical records of water wells within 1 km radius. Depth range: 6.09 201.78m Potential impacts on surface There is a direct pathway to the Thames due to the work being Work needs to be undertaken in consideration of Pollution Not applicable
Water resources hydrogeology and surface water Site considerations Comments water features Potential impacts on groundwater (resources and quality) undertaken on the foreshore. An impact on groundwater is likely since the drop shaft is to be constructed in Chalk (major aquifer) overlain by Thanet Sand (minor aquifer) which will need to be dewatered. At shallow depth, the shaft is located in Alluvium which is classified as a minor aquifer. Impact on shallow aquifer is likely to be limited where water is excluded from the excavation by sheet piling. No mitigation is likely to be required for groundwater as construction of drop shaft will not take place within the 400 day capture zone of licensed abstractions. The drop shaft is to be excavated in Chalk below the piezometric head, therefore dewatering of the Chalk and Thanet Sand would be required. Limited impact on flow in shallow aquifer due to sheet piling. Summary Small/Large Mitigation required and conclusions Prevention Guidelines PPG1, PPG5 and PPS23. See below (likely types of mitigation measures that will be required)
Likely types of mitigation measures that will be required Potential issues
Not applicable
Piezometric head in Chalk to be considered as part of geotechnical design. The issue of the appropriate disposal of discharges from dewatering to be considered.
In terms of hydrogeology, the site is suitable as either a small or a large CSO site because although the construction of the drop shaft would take place within Chalk (major aquifer), the site does not lie within 400 day capture zones of licensed abstractions and no long term impact on the Chalk aquifer is expected. Dewatering of the Chalk and Thanet Sand would be required during the construction phase. The Chalk piezometric head is likely to be approximately 44 m above the base of construction and should be taken into account in the engineering design. The superficial deposits at the location of the CSO site comprise Alluvium classified as a minor aquifer, which is likely to be the subject of limited impacts on flow due to sheet piling. In terms of surface water resources, this site is less suitable as either a small or a large CSO site because the work would be undertaken within the channel of the River Thames and specific mitigation would be required to prevent pollution.
Ecology (terrestrial and aquatic) Site considerations Comments Statutory designations Sue Godfrey Nature Park LNR is within 500m of this site. Brookmill Road LNR and Mudchute Park Farm LNR are within 2km. Non-statutory designated wildlife sites Site is located within River Thames & Tidal Tributaries SMI Any constructions or working methods affecting the Thames, particularly above ground features of a permanent nature, but also temporary or buried works will require compensatory habitat provision. There may also be post-works restoration required. None required Any loss (particularly permanent loss) of mudflat will require compensatory habitat provision. This may involve an offsite solution which may affect feasibility. There may also be arduous post-works restoration required. Any buried constructions in the Thames will require careful habitat restoration and careful working methods. Detailed negotiation may be required with the EA for the placement of structures (particularly permanent ones) in this location. Any constructions or dewatering in the Thames is likely to require detailed aquatic invertebrate and fish investigation. There may be seasonal restrictions on works, such as piling (avoiding March April spawning period) If black redstarts were shown to be present adjacent to this site, working practices would need to avoid disturbance. This might involve screening to reduce visual or noise impact. Small/Large Mitigation required and conclusions None required
CSO site is within 100m of Twinkle Park site of Local Importance for nature conservation. BAP priority habitats Foreshore consists of BAP habitat mudflats.
The Tidal Thames is a London BAP habitat.
Protected or otherwise notable species within the Study Area
Foreshore may support uncommon aquatic invertebrate species. This stretch of the Thames supports the only known spawning area for sand-smelt in the Tideway. There may be suitable habitat present adjacent to this site to support breeding black redstart
Ecology (terrestrial and aquatic) Site considerations Comments Potential issues The cumulative impact of all jetties and other above ground structures proposed within the Thames may increase flow velocity in the river with effects on juvenile migratory fish. However, other structures present in the Thames in this stretch reduce the likely impact of new structures. Small/Large Mitigation required and conclusions Consideration needs to be given to the cumulative impacts on hydrodynamics with reference to known critical flow velocities for fish. Not considered significant at a site specific level.
Summary
Overall, and on the basis of the current information available, the site is considered to be less suitable as either a small or a large CSO site, due to the requirement for temporary and permanent landtake from the River Thames. There may also be a need offsite mitigation/compensation solutions as well as potentially extensive post-works restoration requirements. However, structures already present in this part of the Thames will reduce the likely impact of additional structures.
Flood risk assessment Site considerations Comments Flood Risk Zone Site is located in the River Channel - flood zone 3b, functional flood plain. Small/Large Mitigation required and conclusions The site will be developed with a coffer dam and should be protected to the 1 in 200 year tidal return period as a minimum. An evacuation plan will be required for this site in the event the dam is breached. Mitigation may also be required for the impact of displacement of flood water as a result of defending the site on the foreshore. The impact of such a physical construction (the coffer dam) would also have to be assessed for the impact of sediment erosion on the integrity of the defences. Assessment of conditions for SuDS Potential issues Summary Not suitable for SuDS due to location within the Thames. No further issues identified Not applicable No further issues identified
This site is less suitable as either a small or a large CSO site owing to the location in the river, which will require specific mitigation to protect it from flood levels, and the potential to cause displacement which could increase flood risk elsewhere in the local vicinity.
Air quality Site considerations Comments Existing Air Quality Sensitive Receptors The air quality objectives for NO2 exceeded on major roads in vicinity of site. There are residential properties along Evelyn Street/Creek Road (A200) and the access route to the site. The nearest residential properties are within 30m of the site on Glaister Street. Existing traffic issues Existing sources of significant air pollutants Notable gaps in existing air quality monitoring Potential issues The main traffic issue in this area is exhaust emissions from vehicles along the A200 corridor. See above There is no data at likely access to A200 and the nearest existing data indicates existing exceedance of AQLV. The risk from additional exhaust emissions from construction HGVs is undefined at present. The risk from dust impacts at residential properties is moderate. Summary Small/Large Mitigation required and conclusions There is a need for more site specific data. There are relevant air quality sensitive receptors present along the route the construction traffic is likely to take and close to the proposed construction works.
Additional vehicle emissions have a moderate potential to interfere with local air quality action plan policies. See above Collect a minimum of 6 months diffusion tube data at site access to the A200 or other point of access to major road network. Minimise HGV movements on the local road network during the peak hour. Standard dust control measures will minimise the effect of fugitive dust on nearby sensitive receptors.
This site is considered less suitable for use as either a small or a large CSO site as there are residential properties in close proximity to the site and there is potential for fugitive emissions of dust during construction to have a perceptible impact at these properties. These impacts can be reduced with standard dust control measures. There is potential for HGV movements on the local road network to cause localised air quality impacts in areas of already poor air quality. This can be somewhat mitigated by minimising the movement of HGVs during peak hours.
Noise Small Site considerations Noise band level (from Defra noise maps) Comments 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 the nearest residential properties located to the site. The residential properties closest to and facing the site are likely to experience relatively low daytime and night-time noise levels due to their distance from any major roads. Noise levels from the Defra noise maps provide an indication of prevailing noise levels only, and will not be employed in any detailed assessments for chosen sites. Sensitive Receptors There are sensitive receptors close to the south eastern and south western boundaries of the site. The closest receptors are located at Stretton Mansions on Hamilton Cresent to the south east of the site. Further Not applicable There are sensitive receptors close to the south eastern and south western boundaries of the site. The closest receptors are located at Stretton Mansions on Hamilton Crescent to the south east of the site. Further As for small, see left Mitigation required and conclusions Not applicable Comments As for small, see left Large Mitigation required and conclusions As for small, see left
Noise Small Site considerations Comments residential properties are located at Hughes House on Deptford Green to the south of the site. Hughes Fields Primary School is located to the south west of the site. Sensitive receptors at Stretton Mansions to the south east consists of 7 storey residential flats. These are located approximately 15m from the temporary working area and 25m from the shaft location. Properties at Hughes House to the south of the site consist of 5 storey residential dwellings and are located approximately 85m from the temporary working area boundary and 95m from the shaft location. Existing traffic issues Road traffic on local roads including distant road traffic on the A220 to the south will contribute to the existing noise climate in the area. Road traffic on local roads including distant road traffic on the A220 to the south will contribute to the existing Not applicable Mitigation required and conclusions Comments residential properties are located at Hughes House on Deptford Green to the south of the site. Hughes Fields Primary School is located to the south west of the site. Sensitive receptors at Stretton Mansions to the south east consists of 7 storey residential flats. These are located approximately 15m from the temporary working area and 20m from the shaft location. Properties at Hughes House to the south of the site consist of 5 storey residential dwellings and are located approximately 85m from the temporary working area boundary and 85m from the shaft location. As for small, see left As for small, see left Large Mitigation required and conclusions
Existing sources of significant noise emissions
Not applicable
As for small, see left
As for small, see left
Noise Small Site considerations Comments noise climate in the area. There are no railways or significant industrial noise sources noted in the immediate surrounding area. Potential issues Construction: The construction period is estimated at 0.5 to 2 years and working hours will be 12 hours per day (7am-7pm) Monday to Saturday. This has the potential to result in adverse noise impacts to sensitive receptors surrounding the site. A relatively high number of HGV movements per day are anticipated. This has the potential to have an adverse impact on residential receptors located on Deptford Green. The immediate site area is fairly large and, whilst the shaft location may be fixed, ancillary plant should be sited as far as is practicable from surrounding sensitive receptors. Situating plant to the north or west of the site Adherence to the good site practices provided in BS5228. Siting of noisy equipment and construction activities as far as is practicable from sensitive receptors. Provision of site boundary noise fences. Construction: The construction period is estimated at 0.5 to 2 years and working hours will be 12 hours per day (7am-7pm) Monday to Saturday. This has the potential to result in adverse noise impacts to sensitive receptors surrounding the site. A relatively high number of HGV movements per day are anticipated This has the potential to have an adverse impact on residential receptors located on Deptford Green. The immediate site area is fairly large and, whilst the shaft location may be fixed, ancillary plant should be sited as far as is practicable from surrounding sensitive receptors. Situating plant to the north or west of the site As for small, see left Mitigation required and conclusions Comments Large Mitigation required and conclusions
Noise Small Site considerations Comments would maximise the distance between them and the nearest sensitive receptors and minimise potential disturbance. Proposed 3m site boundary fencing will provide useful noise mitigation to some plant and construction activities. Vibration resulting from general construction works is not anticipated to result in an adverse impact. The nearest receptors to the proposed shaft location are at a distance of approximately 25m and it is unlikely that vibration levels will result in minor cosmetic damage during shaft sinking but may give rise to annoyance. Vibration from tunnelling should be considered on a case by case basis at particular sensitive locations. Operation: With appropriate attenuation (if necessary), there is no reason why noise from the ventilation column and top Mitigation required and conclusions Comments would maximise the distance between them and the nearest sensitive receptors and minimise potential disturbance. Proposed 3m site boundary fencing will provide useful noise mitigation to some plant and construction activities. 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 20m and it is unlikely that vibration levels will result in minor cosmetic damage during shaft sinking but may give rise to annoyance. Vibration from tunnelling should be considered on a case by case basis at particular sensitive locations. Operation: With appropriate attenuation (if necessary), there is no reason why noise from the ventilation column and top Large Mitigation required and conclusions
Noise Small Site considerations Comments chamber should result in adverse noise impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. Summary Mitigation required and conclusions Comments chamber should result in adverse noise impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. Large Mitigation required and conclusions
Based on the information currently available, the site is considered to be less suitable as either a small or a large CSO site due to the relatively short separation distances between the site and the closest sensitive receptors including residential properties and Hughes Field Primary School. The number of vehicles associated with the construction phase is anticipated to be relatively high and their access route (through residential streets) has the potential to cause disturbance to properties lining those streets. Vibration levels from shaft sinking may give rise to human annoyance at nearby sensitive properties. Perimeter hoarding will reduce potential noise impact but is likely to be relatively ineffective at shielding noise from the upper floor properties at Stretton Mansions and Hughes House.
Land quality Site considerations Site location Current site use Topography Field evidence of contamination (ie, visual/olfactory) Current surrounding land use (immediately adjacent to site) Grid Reference: 537415, 178072 River foreshore High tide at time of visit, so site was not visible. Embankment, and foreshore, assumed to slope inwards to centre of river None identified at this stage Small/Large
North: River Thames South-east: Blocks of flats (6-7 storeys) South-west: Ahoy Club yacht centre, Electricity Sub-station West : River/foreshore and Electricity Sub-station
Geological and hydrogeological information Geological strata

3
Superficial Geology and Made Ground (4m) Lambeth Group (1m) Thanet Sand (13m) Chalk (to beyond the depth of shaft)
Underlying aquifer classes (Major/Minor/Non-aquifer)
Non-Aquifer: London Clay Minor Aquifer: River Terrace Deposits, Lambeth Group, Thanet Sands Major Aquifer: Chalk
Groundwater vulnerability/ Soil classification (High/Intermediate/Low/ 1 Not applicable) Source Protection Zone details
River Terrace Deposits - Minor Aquifer High Leaching Potential of Soils (U)
1
Not located in a Source Protection Zone defined by EA
Land quality Site considerations Surface water receptors River Thames (directly adjacent to the site) Small/Large
Relevant information within a 250m radius of the site Site history information and historical potentially contaminating activities Onsite Historical maps show the sites land use has remained largely unchanged. The site is located on sand and shingle adjacent to the River Thames and below the Mean High Water Level from 1862 onwards. Offsite Drawing dock (directly adjacent to site) 1862 Wharf operations transport support and cargo handling (directly adjacent to site, south) 1862 1909 The Ahoy Centre (9m south) present Sawmilling, planning and impregnation treatment of timber (directly adjacent to site, south) 1920 - 1949 Foundry and engineering works (directly adjacent to site, south) 1862 1896 Tin box and packing case works (directly adjacent to site, south) 1909 1948 Deptford power stations (47m south) 1949 1976 Power station (directly adjacent to site, southeast) 1947 1972 Numerous electrical substations (closest located 7m south) 1949 present Transport manufacture and repair (closest located directly adjacent to site, south) 1882 1919 Factory/works use not specified (5m south) 1938 1949 Transformers (13m south) 1947 Dry dock (13m southeast) 1862 1909 Foundry (70m south) 1862 1909 Numerous tanks contents unknown, potentially fuel related (closest located 12m south) 1943 1971 Historical building plans listing gas industry (closest located 49m southeast) 1943 1967 Graving dock (45m southeast) 1862 1909 Borthwick wharf (7m south) 1947 present Historical building plans listing oil storage (107m southeast) 1930 1967 Floor cloth works (164m south) 1862
Land quality Site considerations Marine boiler works (54m west) 1862 1896 Deptford Green dockyard iron shipbuilding (162m south) 1862 Paynes wharf (54m west) 1947 present Deptford power stations (154m southeast) 1947 1976 Patent fuel companys wharf (177m southeast) 1862 Stowage wharf (201m southeast) 1896 1909 Fuel station (235m southeast) present Engineering works (238m southeast) 1909 1947 Sawing and desiccating works (177m southeast) 1909General steam navigation companys works (244m southeast) 1862 1896 Pollution incidents to controlled waters Two: Unknown sewage, minor incident (177m northeast) Oils, unknown, minor incident (198m southeast) Landfill sites Other waste sites Registered radioactive substances Fuel stations/Depots Contemporary trade entries None None None None No data Small/Large
Site classification based on above information Activity Potential site contaminants derived from surface sources (eg, contaminants in made ground) 1) Not applicable as site located on banks of, and within River development Distance and direction to site 1) Not applicable as site located on banks of, and within River Contaminants 1) Not applicable as site located on banks of, and within River
Land quality Site considerations Potential site contaminants derived from offsite sources and transported to site 1) Foundry and engineering works 2) Tin box works 3) Power stations 4) Sawmilling, planning and impregnation 5) Transport manufacture and repair 6) Factory/works use not specified 7) Dock/wharf operations (transport support and cargo handling) 8) Electrical substation 9) Tanks contents unknown 10) Gas industry 6) Closest located directly adjacent to site, southeast 7) Metals, TPH, PAHs 7) Closest located directly adjacent to site, south 8) PCBs 8) Closest located 7m south 9) Metals, TPH, PAHs, Solvents 9) Closest located 12m south 10) Closest located 49m southeast Identified source-pathwayreceptor risk assessment at CSO construction stage (Conceptual Site Model)
2
Small/Large 1) Directly adjacent to site, south 2) Directly adjacent to site, south 3) Closest located directly adjacent to site, south 4) Directly adjacent to site, south 5) Metals, TPH, PAHs 5) Closest located directly adjacent to site, south and west 6) Metals, TPH, PAHs 1) Metals, TPH, PAHs, PCBs, Solvents 2) Metals, TPH, PAHs 3) Metals, TPH, PAHs, PCBs 4) Metals, TPH, PAHs
10) Metals, TPH, PAHs, Phenols, Sulphates, Cyanides
Source 1: A1, A2, A3, B4 Source 2: D6, E1, F7
Contamination category
Category 2 Assessed as Moderate Risk
Land quality Site considerations Summary Small/Large The site is considered to be less suitable as either a small or a large CSO site, based on the moderate potential for contamination of the site to have occurred, specifically from foundry operations, as well as wharf operations, fuel tanks, and power station in the near vicinity of the site. If contamination is present, it may have the potential to impact on site workers and adjacent human receptors through direct contact exposure pathways, and to a lesser extent volatilisation. Additionally, the potential exists for contaminants to be drawn to the deeper Chalk aquifer and for migration to surface water receptors to occur through shallow groundwater transport. Notes:
1.
Soil information for urban areas is based on fewer observations than elsewhere in the country. Therefore a worst case vulnerability (H) is assumed until proven otherwise.
2. 3.
Refer to schematic Conceptual Site Model for explanation of site-specific source-pathway-receptors From BGS Geological Model giving average ground condition profile. Local near surface conditions may vary, particularly within the river.
Contacts
For information about the Thames Tideway Tunnel Call: 0800 0721 086 Lines are open 24 hours a day Visit: www.thamestidewaytunnel.co.uk Email: info@tidewaytunnels.co.uk For our language interpretation service call 0800 0721 086
For information in Braille or large print call 0800 0721 086

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

Site Suitability Report C32XA: Foreshore, Borthwick Wharf, Off Borthwick Street

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Site Suitability Report C32XA: Foreshore, Borthwick Wharf, Off Borthwick Street

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Site Suitability Report C32XA: Foreshore, Borthwick Wharf, Off Borthwick Street

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Spring 2010

Site Suitability Report C32XA

100-RG-PNC-C32XA-900001 | Spring 2010

Site Suitability Report C32XA

SITE SUITABILITY REPORT C32XA

SITE INFORMATION 2.1 2.2 Site and surroundings Type of site

9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 10

Site Suitability Report C32XA

Site Suitability Report C32XA

Site Suitability Report C32XA

4 4.1 4.1.1 4.1.2

Site Suitability Report C32XA

Site Suitability Report C32XA

5.2 5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3

5.2.6 5.2.7 5.2.8 5.2.9

5.4 5.4.1 5.4.2

Site Suitability Report C32XA

Site Suitability Report C32XA

Site Suitability Report C32XA

Site Suitability Report C32XA

Site Suitability Report C32XA

Site Suitability Report C32XA

Site Suitability Report C32XA

9.2 9.2.1 9.2.2

9.4.1 9.4.2 9.4.3 9.4.4

Site Suitability Report C32XA

9.7 9.7.1 10 10.1

Site Suitability Report C32XA

Site Suitability Report C32XA Appendices

Site Suitability Report C32XA Appendix 1

APPENDIX 1 SOURCES OF INFORMATION

Site Suitability Report C32XA Appendix 1

Site Suitability Report C32XA Appendix 2

APPENDIX 2 SITE LOCATION PLAN

Area of Main Map

Short Listed CSO Sites

CSO (Directly Controlled)

0 50 100 200 Metres 300 400

CS32X Deptford Storm Relief CSO

Map Ref : .......101PL-SS-00625 Date : .............2009/11/17 Projection : .....British National Grid

Thames Water Utilities

APPENDIX 2 C32XA SITE SITE LOCATION PLAN

Site Suitability Report C32XA Appendix 3

APPENDIX 3 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT PLANS

Mud and Shingle

TOWER HAMLETS Thames Policy Area

Protected/Strategic Views Area of Main Map

! Regeneration ! Areas! Proposals Sites ! ! Development Sites

Navigation Light (Fixed Red)

! ! ! ! CS32X Deptford Storm Relief CSO

The Ahoy Centre

Charlotte Turner Primary School

TREV ITH ICK

Map Ref : .......101PL-SS-00567 Date : .............2009/11/24 Projection : .....British National Grid

GAT E STR EET

!EET BEN BOW STR

Thames Water Utilities

APPENDIX 3A C32XA SITE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT PLAN

Mud and Shingle