110 RG PNC C29XB 000602

Autumn 2011
Site suitability report C29XB

King Edward Memorial Park
Please note: Further details are provided in the Final Report on Site Selection Process (doc ref: 7.05) that can be found on the Thames Tideway Tunnel section of the Planning Inspectorates web site.
110-RG-PNC-C29XB-000602 | Autumn 2011

Site suitability report C29XB King Edward Memorial Park
Thames Tunnel Site suitability report C29XB

List of contents
Page number
Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 Purpose and structure of the report ......................................................... 1 Background ............................................................................................. 1 Consultation............................................................................................. 2 Site and surroundings .............................................................................. 2 Type of site .............................................................................................. 4
Site information ................................................................................................ 2 2.1 2.2
3 4
Proposed use of site construction phase ................................................... 5 Proposed use of site operational phase ..................................................... 6 4.1 4.2 Introduction .............................................................................................. 6 Restoration and after-use ........................................................................ 7 Access ..................................................................................................... 7 Construction works considerations .......................................................... 8 Permanent works considerations............................................................. 8 Health and safety..................................................................................... 8 Introduction .............................................................................................. 8 Planning applications and permissions.................................................... 9 Planning context ...................................................................................... 9 Planning comments ............................................................................... 10 Introduction ............................................................................................ 12 Transport ............................................................................................... 12 Archaeology........................................................................................... 14 Built heritage and townscape................................................................. 14 Water resources hydrogeology and surface water ............................. 15 Ecology .................................................................................................. 15 Flood risk ............................................................................................... 15 Air quality ............................................................................................... 15
Engineering assessment ................................................................................. 7 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4
Planning assessment ...................................................................................... 8 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4
Environmental appraisal ............................................................................... 12 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8
7.9 7.10 8 8.1 8.2 8.3 9 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 10 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6
Noise ..................................................................................................... 16 Land quality ........................................................................................... 16 Introduction ............................................................................................ 16 Socio-economic profile .......................................................................... 16 Issues and impacts ................................................................................ 17 Introduction ............................................................................................ 19 Crown land and special land comments ................................................ 19 Land to be acquired ............................................................................... 19 Property valuation comments ................................................................ 20 Disturbance compensation comments................................................... 21 Discretionary purchase costs comments ............................................... 21 Offsite statutory compensation comments ............................................. 21 Site acquisition cost assessment ........................................................... 21 Introduction ............................................................................................ 21 Engineering ........................................................................................... 22 Planning................................................................................................. 22 Environment .......................................................................................... 23 Socio-economic and community ............................................................ 23 Property ................................................................................................. 24
Socio-economic and community assessment............................................. 16
Property assessment ..................................................................................... 19
Site conclusions by discipline ...................................................................... 21
Appendices ............................................................................................................. 27 Appendix 1 Sources of information Appendix 2 Site location plan Appendix 3 Planning and environment plans Appendix 4 Photographs of the site and surroundings Appendix 5 Transport plan Appendix 6 Services and geology plan Appendix 7 Construction phase layout Appendix 8 Operational phase layout Appendix 9 Environmental appraisal tables
ii
List of tables
Page number
Table 3.1 Construction phase data ............................................................................ 6 Table 4.1 Operational phase data ............................................................................. 7
List of abbreviations AOD BAP BT CPO CSO DLR EA GLA HGV LNR LPA LU m MOL ONS ORN PLA POS PTAL SAM SINC SNCI SSR SSSI SUDS TfL TD above Ordnance Datum biodiversity action plan British Telecom compulsory purchase order combined sewer overflow Docklands Light Railway Environment Agency Greater London Authority heavy goods vehicle local nature reserve local planning authority London Underground metre/metres Metropolitan Open Land Office of National Statistics Olympic Route Network Port of London Authority public open space public transport accessibility level scheduled ancient monument site of importance for nature conservation site(s) of nature conservation importance site suitability report site(s) of special scientific interest sustainable urban drainage systems Transport for London tunnel datum
iii
TLRN TPA UDP UXO
Transport for London Road Network Thames Policy Area unitary development plan unexploded ordnance
iv
1 1.1
1.1.1
Introduction Purpose and structure of the report

The Site selection methodology paper (May 2009 and revised August 2011) a outlines the process to be used to create the preferred list of main tunnel sites, and this process also applies to CSO sites. Paragraph 2.3.31 lists the type of general considerations that will be addressed in each site suitability report. Whether a consideration is relevant to the assessment of a site will depend on available information and professional judgement. This report was prepared through the assessment of information from the perspective of a number of technical disciplines: engineering, planning, environment, property and community. The reports have been prepared on the basis of the information listed in Appendix 1 and this level of information is considered to be appropriate to this stage of assessment. The Site selection background technical paper provides information on the requirements for different types of sites, their sizes and typical activities/ facilities within the sites. Each site suitability report considers a particular site on its own merits. In addition, an Engineering options report was produced, which relates to main tunnel and connection tunnel options. Information from both of these reports will feed into the technical assessment of how well the site may fit in with tunnel design options, ensuring combinations of sites spread across the length of the tunnel route provide a reasonable spatial distribution of sites (that will best assist with the construction of the tunnel, operation and maintenance). The outcomes are reported in the Phase two scheme development report.
1.1.2
1.1.3
1.1.4
1.2
1.2.1
Background
The process for selecting sites is set out in the Site selection methodology paper. All sites have previously passed through the following parts of Stage 1: Part 1A Creation of the long list of potential main tunnel (and CSO) sites Part 1B Creation of a short list of potential main tunnel (and CSO) sites o o o Table 2.2: Long list of main tunnel (and CSO) sites an assessment against set considerations and values Table 2.3: Draft short list of main tunnel (and CSO) sites assessment against a list of more detailed considerations Workshops to consider each site to arrive at a short list of sites.
The amendments made in August 2011 do not change the site selection methodology process. The amendments only related to the introduction of a second phase of consultation (paragraphs 2.3.13-2.4.15) and minor factual updates.
Page 1
Site suitability report C29XB 1.2.2 The final part of Stage 1 includes this report. The following is an overall summary of all elements that apply to all the sites on the final short list: Part 1C Creation of the preferred list of main tunnel (and CSO) sites site data, site visits, site suitability reports, engineering options report and optioneering workshops that are reported in the Phase two scheme development report.
1.2.3
The Site selection methodology paper also contains a provision for a back-check process in paragraph 2.5.6 that states: If any sites for any of the main tunnel sites or intermediate sites (or CSO site) are eliminated for any reason, if there are significant changes of circumstances in relation to existing sites or combinations of sites, if new or replacement sites are required or found or if the engineering design develops in unexpected ways then a targeted repeat of stages 1-3 will need to be undertaken in order to fill in any site gaps.
1.3
1.3.1
Consultation
Thames Waters approach to engagement and consultation for the Thames Tunnel project is outlined in the Statement of Community Consultation and the accompanying Community Consultation Strategy. Thames Water has engaged regularly with all potentially affected London local authorities, other stakeholders and interested parties on sites and the project. Phase one consultation has been completed for all the preferred and shortlisted sites along with the three main tunnel route options. The analysis of the consultation responses is set out in the Report on phase one consultation and Interim engagement report. Any relevant site comments were considered at the post phase one consultation optioneering workshops. The outcomes of these workshops are reported in the Phase two scheme development report. After the workshops, engagement on sites has continued with key stakeholders, and the engineering design for sites has also continued in parallel. In autumn 2011, phase two consultation will provide another opportunity for people to comment on sites.
1.3.2
2 2.1
2.1.1
Site information Site and surroundings

This site is one of the shortlisted sites for the North East 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. The site C29XB is within the King Edward Memorial Park, in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. A site location plan is attached as Appendix 2. King Edward Memorial Park is a well maintained recreational area containing large grassed areas with pedestrian paths, a memorial pedestal, tennis courts, a sports pitch, a bowling green, a childrens play
2.1.2
2.1.3
Page 2
Site suitability report C29XB area, a bandstand, and large paved seating areas along the Thames Path and alongside The Highway. The Thames Path is understood to be well used, including by joggers and walkers. Benches along the embankment face onto the river and the foreshore part of the site. The area of the park closest to the foreshore part of the site has a local designation as a wildlife area and has been planted as a wildflower meadow. The bandstand is located to the eastern side of the park, near the foreshore. 2.1.4 North of the site is the A1203 and beyond that is housing. To the east is a large residential development of approximately 13 storeys. To the south of the site is the River Thames and to the west is Glamis Road. Beyond this road are a number of residential houses and the Shadwell Basin. The closest residential property is a modern, purpose-built block of flats known as Free Trade Wharf that abuts the site to the northeast at a distance of about 10m to the closest working area. The flats are approximately 13 storeys in height, stepped back from the river, and a number have balconies and habitable room windows orientated towards the river and which overlook the park. To the southwest of the site is Shadwell Basin Outdoor Activity Centre, which has some residential houses and numerous outdoor recreation facilities and equipment, including a climbing wall, zip-wire and boats. Several alternative site layout plans have been prepared and included in Appendix 7. A small site arrangement has been drawn for the shaft in the east, north and west of the park. These small site layouts would allow the CSO to be intercepted and for the flow to be transferred to a shallow drop shaft that would then be connected to a main tunnel shaft via a relatively shallow connection tunnel. The large site arrangement would allow the CSO to be intercepted and for the flow to be transferred directly to the main tunnel via a deep drop shaft. Access to the smaller eastern site can potentially be gained from the A1203 to the north. The small northern site would potentially be accessed from Glamis Road or from the A1203. The small and large western sites would be accessed from Glamis Road. The closest residential dwelling to the smaller eastern site is situated about 10m to the east. Residential dwellings are within 40m to the north and 15m to the east of the small northern site. The working area of the small and large western CSO sites is approximately 10m from the nearest residential properties to the south. The King Edward Memorial Park sites are covered by various designations within the adopted London Borough of Tower Hamlets Local Development Framework (LDF) Core Strategy 2010, saved policies from the 1998 Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and the 2007 Core Strategy and Development Control Plan (CSDCP) Interim Planning Guidance (IPG). These include an area of archaeological importance, a nature conservation area, a flood protection area and the Wapping Wall Conservation Area. All the mapped designations, where data was available, are shown on the planning and environment plans in Appendix 3. Photographs of the site and surroundings, together with an aerial photograph of the site, are attached as Appendix 4.
2.1.5
2.1.6
2.1.7
2.1.8
2.1.9
Page 3
Site suitability report C29XB 2.1.10 There is an existing road access to the park from Glamis Road. There is no rail network local to the site. There are no 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: 2.1.12 Peabody Estate, six- to seven-storey buildings at the outside northern part of the site Gordon House, a 21-storey building at the outside north-western part of the site Prospect Wharf, a six-storey building at the outside south-western part of the site Free Trade Wharf, a thirteen-storey building at the outside north-eastern edge of the site Rotherhithe Tunnel under the north-western part of the site King Edward Memorial Park footpaths and trees Shadwell Basin Outdoor Activity Centre River wall Two wells possibly within the site.
2.1.11
The locations of other third-party assets, such as BT and fibre optic communication cables, are to be confirmed by further studies and utility searches and may not be shown on the services and geology plan. Information on the geology specific to this site can be found within the services and geology plan, which is in Appendix 6. This plan shows that the shaft would be founded in the Chalk. It is understood that UK Power Networks has now cancelled its plan to build a cable tunnel (Brunswick Wharf to Osborne Street Cable Tunnel) through this site.
2.1.13
2.1.14
2.2
2.2.1
Type of site
The site C29XB is being considered as a: large CSO site located in the western part of the park to intercept the North East Storm Relief CSO small CSO site located in the western part of the park to intercept the North East Storm Relief CSO small CSO site located in the eastern part of the park to intercept the North East Storm Relief CSO small CSO site located in the northern part of the park to intercept the North East Storm Relief CSO.
2.2.2
It should be noted that on a large site, it is possible to accommodate the works to intercept the CSO and connection to the main tunnel, whereas for
Page 4
Site suitability report C29XB any of the small CSO sites, an additional site would be required to connect the intercepted CSO to the main tunnel.
3
3.1.1
Proposed use of site construction phase

The proposed construction phase layouts for the CSO site are located in Appendix 7 Construction phase layout, and are based on a preliminary assessment. The construction phase layout drawings are illustrative and show: the layout as a large CSO site located along the western edge of the park the layout as a small CSO site located in the western corner of the park the layout as a small CSO site located in the eastern corner of the park the layout as a small CSO site located in the northern area of the park potential access points.
3.1.2
3.1.3
These drawings provide initial preliminary schematic layouts that have not been optimised. If the site proceeds to the next stage as a preferred site, construction phase layouts would be optimised to minimise impacts. Photographs of typical activities associated with the CSO site construction phase are provided in Appendix 7. Potential above-ground construction features include: approximately 3m high hoarding around the site boundary welfare facilities, temporary structures, approximately 3m high grout plant, approximately 3m to 5m high, including silos mobile crane, approximately 30m high (maximum and not for full construction duration).
3.1.4
3.1.5 3.1.6
Schematics of the existing CSO arrangement and the proposed interception works are provided in Appendix 7. 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.
Page 5
Site suitability report C29XB Table 3.1 Construction phase data Activity Length of construction period Likely working hours, ie, (night/day/weekend) Working days Primary means of transporting excavated material away from site Primary means of transporting materials to site CSO site 2 - 4 years 12 hrs from 7am to 7pm Mon to Sat Road* Road*
* There may be feasible opportunities to use barge transport for this site.
4 4.1
4.1.1
Proposed use of site operational phase Introduction

The indicative operational phase layouts for the CSO sites are located in Appendix 8 Operational phase layout, and are 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 shaft sites. The underground infrastructure for all CSO locations in King Edward Memorial Park would be likely to comprise an interception chamber, double flap valve chamber and a drop shaft with access openings. The above-ground infrastructure is likely to comprise a 10m high ventilation column and an electrical kiosk. The top structures are envisaged to be finished at a minimum level of 104.5mTD (4.5mAOD), and since the ground mean level at this site is 106mTD (6mAOD), the top structure would be flush with the current ground level. The top structure provides access and egress into the drop shaft. Hardstanding would be provided to the top structures. The sites would not be fenced. Preliminary data associated with the operational phase are provided in Table 4.1.
4.1.2
4.1.3
4.1.4 4.1.5
4.1.6 4.1.7
Page 6
Site suitability report C29XB Table 4.1 Operational phase data Level of inspections and maintenance and likely working hours, ie, (night/day/ weekend) frequency of visits No. of traffic movements One daytime visit every six months for electrical/instrument inspection. An additional one-week maintenance period for tunnel/shaft inspection required per ten years that could be night/day/weekend working. One van visit every six months. An additional one-week period of two to ten movements per day (estimated several vans and two cranes) every ten years.
4.2
4.2.1
Restoration and after-use

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

This section should be read in conjunction with Section 7.2.
Road
5.1.2 During the construction phase, for the small eastern site, an access road could be provided from The Highway (A1203) through the existing pedestrian entrance at the northeast corner of the park (King Edward Memorial Park) and along the alignment of the footpath across the green area. There would be a level difference between the road and the park but this could be accommodated by building a ramp. Alternatively, it is possible to consider access through the existing entrance to the park in the southwest corner off Glamis Road, although this would require the construction of a temporary road through most of the park. During the construction phase for the large and small western sites, two access points could be provided from Glamis Road to create a one-way traffic system. During the construction phase for the small northern site, vehicle access from Glamis Road could be provided via the existing pedestrian entrance at the southwest corner of the park and along the footpath that follows the northern side of the park. This would require the construction of a temporary road along the route of the footpath between Glamis Road and the site. During the operational phase for all the options (assuming relatively small wheeled mobile cranes, etc), it is suggested access would be through the park using the existing road/paths, which would be strengthened if
5.1.3
5.1.4
5.1.5
Page 7
Site suitability report C29XB necessary. If this is not acceptable, the temporary access suggested in the northeast corner direct from The Highway could become the permanent access for the small eastern site, with access direct from Glamis Road for the large and small western and northern sites.
Rail
5.1.6 There would be no rail network local to this site. However, rail access is not considered to be a significant factor for CSO sites.
River
5.1.7 River access and jetty/wharfage facilities are not a requirement for CSO sites. However, as the small eastern sites would be adjacent to the foreshore, there may be opportunities to use barge transport.
5.2
5.2.1
Construction works considerations

The construction site would be in a public open space (King Edward Memorial Park), between 90 and zero metres from the river, depending on the option. Data available on third-party assets and significant utilities show that the main items of concern in this area would be the Rotherhithe Tunnel and the multi-storey building east of the site. Construction methods would be adopted, as appropriate, to mitigate potential settlement of these assets. The interception chamber would be near the drop shaft site for two of the options but up to 120m across the park for the other options. The connection culvert may be suitable for pipe-jacking. It is likely that the proposed works can be constructed within the overall construction programme.
5.2.2
5.2.3
5.2.4
5.3
5.3.1
Permanent works considerations

There would be no requirement for any of the drop shaft or valve chamber top structures to be raised above ground level.
5.4
5.4.1
Health and safety

There are no unusual health and safety issues with this site.
6 6.1
6.1.1
Planning assessment Introduction

The planning assessment builds on the advantages and disadvantages reported in Table 2.3 and covers the following areas: Planning applications and permissions Planning context Planning comments.
Page 8
6.2
6.2.1
Planning applications and permissions

An initial desktop search of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets online planning applications database identified the following minor planning applications submitted within the last five years applicable to the site. An application was submitted for an advertisement hoarding within the park (reference PA/09/01273) but this was subsequently refused. A series of applications have also been submitted for the installation of a roof on the listed Rotherhithe Tunnel ventilation building within the park. Planning application PA/06/00959 and listed building consent application PA/06/00960 were approved by the council.
6.2.2
6.3
6.3.1
Planning context
The planning policy context for the King Edward Memorial Park site is provided at the local level by: the adopted London Borough of Tower Hamlets Local Development Framework (LDF) Core Strategy 2010 saved policies from the 1998 Unitary Development Plan (UDP) not superseded by the Core Strategy policies from the 2007 Core Strategy and Development Control Plan (CSDCP) Interim Planning Guidance (IPG) not superseded by the Core Strategy.
6.3.2
The following provides a summary of the relevant local planning policies and designations relevant to all of the site options within King Edward Memorial Park from the above policy documents. The site is designated open space. Strategic Objective SO12 in the Core Strategy is to create a high-quality, well-connected and sustainable natural environment of green and blue spaces that are rich in biodiversity and promote active and healthy lifestyles. Core Strategy Strategic Policy 04, Open Spaces, states the council will deliver a network of open spaces by protecting and safeguarding all existing open space such that there is no net loss, and by improving the quality, usability and accessibility of existing publicly accessible open spaces. UDP Policy OS1, Local Open Space, states that applicable sites will be safeguarded as public open space. Within these areas, other uses will not be permitted. UDP Policy 0S7, Loss of Open Space, seeks to prevent the loss of open space, stating planning permission will not normally be given for any development which results in the loss of public or private open space having significant recreation or amenity value. In exceptional circumstances, where development is permitted, the council may require an equivalent or better recreational facility to be provided as replacement open space. CSDC IPG Policy OSN2, Open Space, further elaborates that development on open space will only be allowed if ancillary to an open space function and there is a demonstrated need for the development that cannot reasonably be satisfied elsewhere. Ancillary development will need to have regard to the character and functions of the particular open
6.3.3
6.3.4
6.3.5
Page 9
Site suitability report C29XB space within which it is located and must have no more than a negligible impact on the openness of the space. 6.3.6 The site is located within an area of archaeological importance or potential and the site is also within the Wapping Wall Conservation Area. The air shaft to the Rotherhithe Tunnel is a Grade II listed structure and is located within the park. The Shadwell Dock stairwell is also a Grade II listed structure and is located on the southern fringe of the park. In addition to these structures, there are also several other listed structures in the vicinity. Core Strategy Strategic Policy 10 seeks to protect and enhance these heritage assets and their settings. Retained policies CON1, CON2, and CON4 in the CSDC IPG provide further policy context for the conservation of these historic assets. Policy CON1 states that development which has an adverse impact on the setting of a listed building will not be permitted. Policy CON2 states that planning permission for development within, or which would affect the setting of, a conservation area will be granted only where it would preserve or enhance the special architectural or historic interest of the conservation area. Policy CON4 relates to archaeology and states that development proposals affecting sites of known archaeological interest or located in archaeological priority areas will be required to submit an archaeological assessment or, if necessary, a field evaluation as part of the planning application. The site is also in close proximity to residential properties. Policy DEV2, Environmental Requirements, sets requirements to protect the amenity of residential occupiers, including protection from the effects of development on pollution, loss of privacy, sunlight or daylight. Policy DEV57, Protection of Sites of Nature Conservation Importance the site is adjacent to an area protected as a site of nature conservation importance. Policy DEV57 explains that development which would have an adverse effect on such sites will not be permitted. A strategic riverside walkway (Thames Path) runs along the bank of the river and past the Shadwell Basin Outdoor Activities Centre. Under UDP Policy DEV64, Strategic Riverside Walkway Designation, the council designates the strategic riverside walkway shown on the proposals map. Policy DEV65, Protection of Existing Walkways, also states that existing walkways will be protected from development which would prevent free public access and/or harm their character. Policy U2, Flood Protection Area a small area in the south of the park is designated a flood protection area. The council will consult the EA and Thames Water Utilities on all applications for new development in these areas.
6.3.7
6.3.8
6.3.9
6.3.10
6.3.11
6.3.12
6.4
6.4.1
Planning comments
A number of planning designations are applicable both on and adjacent to King Edward Memorial Park. These designations have been identified and described in Section 6.3. Those relating to open space, heritage,
Page 10
Site suitability report C29XB environmental quality and residential amenity are of most relevance to the proposed development. 6.4.2 King Edward Memorial Park is an attractive and well maintained local park, with areas of green space and numerous sport and recreational facilities, such as tennis courts, childrens play areas and a bowling green. It has a prominent location, directly positioned on the River Thames waterfront, with views over to Canary Wharf and Rotherhithe. If the site were to be used for a small or large CSO site, there would be a temporary loss of public open space and recreational amenity within an area identified by the council as deficient in open space. For the large and small western CSO site, the council is likely to require reinstatement of the courts and pitches, in accordance with UDP Policy OS7, and possibly improved facilities in this location. The after-use of all of the site options in relation to ground level structures may also require mitigation in terms of design and integration into the existing context, and should not preclude the reinstatement of the park and sport and recreational facilities, in line with UDP Policy OS7. If the environmental impact assessment identifies any significant impacts, it is likely that mitigation against potential noise, dust and traffic impacts may be required for all site options. For the larger site in particular, given the position of the construction works which would require all of the multipurpose sports pitches plus part of the green area of the park, the integrity, amenity value and the continued enjoyment of the remaining open space facilities by existing users are likely to be affected. The council may require reprovision of any lost open space within the local area, in accordance with Policy OS7, and this is unlikely to be feasible, given the recognised shortage of suitable sites in the area. The park is also designated as an area of open space improvements. It is likely that the potential impacts of lost facilities could be reduced with appropriate mitigation for the smaller sites, although the extent of the lost facilities associated with the larger site could be difficult to mitigate. The site is close to an area of nature conservation importance. The site is considered unlikely to impact on this designation, and the project is designed to improve the environmental condition of the river. An initial assessment is included in Section 7. A small part of the site is within a flood protection area, and suitable investigation and protection works would need to be agreed with the LPA and the EA in accordance with Policy U2. Further appraisal of the flood risk potential on the site is provided in Section 7 of this report. All of the site options are within a designated conservation area. Most of the proposed site options would not result in the loss of any buildings or built features, but the small CSO site (north) would require the temporary removal and reinstatement of the monument. With appropriate mitigation, the smaller proposals should not have an unacceptable level of impact on the setting of the listed structures or the Wapping Wall Conservation Area as a whole. The larger site would dominate the open space with elements of the construction works flanking the Grade II listed Rotherhithe Tunnel
6.4.3
6.4.4
6.4.5
6.4.6
6.4.7
6.4.8
6.4.9
Page 11
Site suitability report C29XB air shaft and abutting the Grade II listed Shadwell Dock Stairs. The larger worksite is located in a prominent area of the site and may negatively impact on the character of the conservation area and setting of these listed structures on a temporary basis, thus conflicting with Policy DEV25. 6.4.10 6.4.11 A more detailed heritage and landscape assessment is provided in Section 7 of this report. The site is within an area of archaeological importance and suitable investigation and remediation works would need to be agreed with the LPA, in accordance with Policy CON4 in the CSDC IPG. An appraisal of the archaeological potential of the site is also provided in Section 7. The closest area of the small worksites is 10m to the nearest dwelling. There are also dwellings that are 40m from the northern fringe and 15m from the eastern fringe. There are opportunities to rearrange the position of the works within the site in order to move particularly disruptive elements away from these dwellings. However, given the close proximity of dwellings, mitigation to protect residential amenity from the effects of dust, noise and vibration is likely to be required. In addition, moving the proposed works within the site away from the residential dwellings may have an increased negative impact on the amenity of park users and increase conflict with Policy OS3. The large site is in close proximity to residential dwellings to the west of Glamis Road. The volume of works would be more substantial and associated impacts could be greater and more difficult to mitigate than for the smaller site options. Therefore, further consideration of the potential impacts of construction works is required in order to comply with Policy DEV2.
6.4.12
6.4.13
7 7.1
7.1.1
Environmental appraisal Introduction

The following sections summarise specialist assessments which are provided in Appendix 9 Environmental appraisal tables.
7.2
Transport Small CSO site (eastern corner of the park)
7.2.1
The site is suitable as a small CSO site (east). A new access with a left in/ left out type arrangement requires construction with the removal of the park gates. A ramp may be required to account for the level difference between the site access and The Highway (A1203). The existing access to the adjacent flats would need to be maintained. Access via the northwest corner of the park is unsuitable due to the close proximity of a signalised junction and issues with construction vehicle turning movements. Potential road and rail access routes are suitable for HGVs as the site access onto the TLRN (A1203) can be used to access the rail link at London Bridge Station. Rail use is unlikely to be required due to the small
7.2.2
Page 12
Site suitability report C29XB quantities of excavated material produced by CSO sites. If required, the route to rail passes through a high street area and the congestion zone. River access is not required for a CSO site as excavated material is expected to be transported away by road to a main site. 7.2.3 There are several footways within the park which would require diversion in addition to the Thames Path. Reasonable potential exists for the workforce to utilise public transport to access the site. Some parking could be provided on site for the workforce, although no on-street parking is available nearby.
Large and small CSO sites (western area of the park)

7.2.4 The site is suitable as a large CSO site and as a small CSO site (west). A new temporary construction access and egress would require construction through playground perimeter fencing. This would enable a one-way system to be operated through the site for construction vehicles. A permanent access also requires construction through playground perimeter fencing. The existing access to the adjacent flats would need to be maintained. Access via the northwest corner of the park is unsuitable due to the close proximity of a signalised junction and issues with construction vehicle turning movements. The access route to the TLRN (A1203) is via Glamis Road, which is traffic calmed (speed cushions). Use of rail is unlikely to be required due to the small quantities of excavated material produced by CSO sites. If required, the rail access route to London Bridge Station passes through a high street area and the congestion zone. River access is not required for a CSO site as excavated material is to be transported away by road to a main site. There are several footways within the park which would require diversion in addition to the Thames Path. Reasonable potential exists for the workforce to utilise public transport to access the site. Some parking could be provided on site for workforce, although no on-street parking is available nearby.
7.2.5
7.2.6
Small CSO site (northern area of the park)

7.2.7 The site is suitable for use. However, it would require construction of a new access with a left-in/left-out type arrangement, with the removal of the park gates. A ramp may be required to account for the level difference between the site access and The Highway (A1203). The existing access to the adjacent flats would need to be maintained. Access via the northwest corner of the park is unsuitable, due to the close proximity of a signalised junction and issues with construction vehicle turning movements. Potential road routes are suitable for HGVs as the site access is onto the TLRN (A1203). River access is not required for a CSO site as excavated material is to be transported away by road. Several footways within the park would require diversion in addition to the Thames Path. Reasonable potential exists for the workforce to utilise public transport to access the site. Some parking could be provided on site for the workforce, although no on-street parking is available nearby.
Page 13
7.3
7.3.1
Archaeology
Based on current information, this site is suitable for use as either a small (east, west or north) or a large CSO site. Archaeological receptors of medium value are present and it is possible that further archaeological receptors of high or medium value may be present within this site. While no direct evidence has been revealed, waterlogged remains and peat deposits of high or medium value may also be present. As the site is located in an archaeological priority area, an archaeological assessment or, if necessary, a field evaluation would be required as part of the planning application.
7.4
Built heritage and townscape Small CSO site (eastern corner of the park)
7.4.1
The small CSO site (east) is less suitable, due to the proposals being located in an open space within the Wapping Wall Conservation Area. As such, the proposals are unlikely to preserve or enhance the conservation area. Furthermore, the site could potentially result in direct adverse impacts on the character of the park and local views, especially during construction. Further desk-based research would be required to decide whether the proposals could feasibly preserve or enhance the conservation area. With reference to other receptors, although the proposals are within the visual envelope of listed buildings, one of these (south block with attached railings and gatepiers, Peabody Estate) is physically separated from the development site by the main road and is unlikely to require mitigation. The others (Rotherhithe Tunnel air shaft and Shadwell Dock Stairs) may require some screening to mitigate any visual intrusiveness.
7.4.2
Large CSO site (western edge of the park)

7.4.3 The site is also less suitable as a large CSO site for the same reasons given for the small CSO site (east) above. In addition, the proposed location of constructional and operational structures within the site at present may have a detrimental impact upon the setting of the Grade II listed air shaft to Rotherhithe Tunnel. Mitigation should be possible through a carefully considered scheme design.
Small CSO site (western corner of the park)

7.4.4 The small CSO site (west) is also less suitable for the same reasons given for the small CSO site (east). Any direct impact caused by permanent structures on the Grade II listed air shaft to Rotherhithe Tunnel would be minimised because this option is located as far away as practical. Impacts on the setting of this listed air shaft could be minimised through a high-quality scheme design and/or screening.
Page 14
Small CSO site (northern area of the park)

7.4.5 The small CSO site (north) is also less suitable for the same reasons. With reference to other receptors, although the proposals are within the visual envelope of listed buildings, one of these (south block with attached railings and gatepiers, Peabody Estate) is physically separated from the development site by the main road and, as such, is unlikely to require mitigation. The others (Rotherhithe Tunnel air shaft and Shadwell Dock Stairs) may require some screening to mitigate any visual intrusiveness. Permanent structures could potentially lead to adverse effects on the Grade II listed air shaft to Rotherhithe Tunnel. The use of this CSO site also involves the temporary removal of the monument in King Edward Memorial Park.
7.5
7.5.1
Water resources hydrogeology and surface water

In terms of hydrogeology, this site is suitable as either a small (east, west or north) 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. No long-term impact on the Chalk aquifer is expected, although temporary dewatering would be required during the construction phase. The Chalk piezometric head is likely to be approximately 24m above the base of construction and should be taken into account in the engineering design. The superficial deposits are alluvium, which is classified as a minor aquifer at the shaft site. A limited impact on flow in the shallow aquifer due to sheet piling is expected. In terms of surface water resources, this site is suitable as either a small (east, west or north) or a large CSO site because there is no direct pathway to the River Thames for pollution. Standard mitigation would be required.
7.5.2
7.6
7.6.1
Ecology
This site is suitable as either a small (east, west or north) or a large CSO site (west). It may require only basic ecological surveys, if selected, and is likely to require only limited habitat mitigation or compensation.
7.7
7.7.1
Flood risk
This site is suitable as either a small (east, west or north) or a large CSO site (west) because the site is defended from flooding from the River Thames and there is space for SUDS. However, further investigation is required to determine if infiltration SUDS are unlikely to be suitable due to the geology.
7.8
7.8.1
Air quality
This site is less suitable for use as either a small (east, west or north) or a large CSO site (west) as there are residential properties in close proximity to the site, and therefore there is potential for fugitive emissions of dust during construction to have a perceptible impact at these properties.
Page 15
Site suitability report C29XB These impacts can be minimised with standard dust control measures. There is potential for HGV movements on the local road network to cause localised air quality impacts in areas of already poor air quality. This can be somewhat mitigated by minimising the movement of HGVs during peak hours.
7.9
7.9.1
Noise
This site is less suitable as a small (east, west or north) or a large CSO site (west) due to the short distances between the site and the nearest residential receptors, and the fact that adverse noise and vibration impacts are likely. The number of vehicles associated with the construction phase is anticipated to be relatively high and therefore likely to cause an adverse noise impact to properties on the immediate access routes. Perimeter hoarding would reduce the potential noise impact at properties but could be less effective at higher floor levels.
7.10
7.10.1
Land quality
The site is considered suitable as either a small (east, west or north) or a large CSO site (west) as previous uses appear to have been limited to wharf activities and potential coal storage, and the distance and nature of potentially contaminating activities in the vicinity of the site are unlikely to have caused significant contamination of the site. Due to the close proximity of areas cleared due to enemy action, it is considered prudent that an unexploded ordnance survey is conducted.
7.10.2
8 8.1
8.1.1
Socio-economic and community assessment Introduction

The socio-economic and community assessment builds on the advantages and disadvantages reported in Table 2.3 and covers the following areas: Socio-economic profile Socio-economic and community issues and impacts.
8.2
8.2.1
Socio-economic profile
The site is within the Shadwell ward of Tower Hamlets. Statistics from the Office of National Statistics (ONS) 2001 Census data show the following indicators for the ward, in comparison to the rest of Tower Hamlets, London and England as a whole: Lower rate of economically active, aged people that are full-time employees, and a corresponding higher proportion of unemployed people A higher proportion having achieved Level 4 or 5 educational qualifications, although also a slightly higher than average proportion of people with no qualifications at all
Page 16
Site suitability report C29XB A higher proportion of children and young people, and a lower proportion of those aged 45 or over A mixture of ethnic groups, with a significantly lower proportion of white British people and a higher proportion of Asian or Asian British people than in the rest of the borough or England.
8.2.2
These statistics indicate that in this area, spaces with activities for children are likely to be valued highly by the community. The rich mix of socio-economic and cultural backgrounds suggests a situation where recreational activities and shared open spaces are likely to be important for community cohesion.
8.3
8.3.1
Issues and impacts

The site is being assessed for the location of a large CSO site in the western part of the site or a small CSO site in the eastern, northern or western part of the site. The greatest impact from a community perspective appears to be on the users of the park and the residential properties surrounding the parks perimeter. Both the large and small CSO site options would lead to the temporary loss of open space within the park, and are likely to impact on the remainder of the park and surrounding area through noise and visual disruption.
Large western CSO site

8.3.2 The use of the western portion of the park for a large CSO site appears likely to be the option which causes the greatest level of disruption to park users as the area of land temporarily required for construction activities is larger than for the other options. The large CSO option in this location is likely to lead to the temporary loss of a playground, multi-use sports pitch, games courts and area adjacent to further tennis courts and pitches. Also likely to be affected are a bowling green and pavilion, which are immediately adjacent to the site to the east, and the grassed area of the park beyond. Impact on these facilities may affect community cohesion and the health and wellbeing of the local community. A connection culvert will have to run across this grassed area and across a number of public paths to the interception chamber for the North East Storm Relief. The interception chamber works will also be in close proximity to a memorial pedestal, which may be of importance to the local community. Use of this site for a large CSO is also likely to impact on the residential properties opposite the site to the east and north, due to the proximity to construction activities. Some of these dwellings overlook the site. Access to the site is planned to be via Glamis Road so properties in this area may also be affected by increased traffic movements in this area. To the south of the site, in close proximity to the proposed shaft, is the Shadwell Basin Outdoor Activity Centre and a number of residential properties around Shadwell Basin which appear likely to be affected by use of the site.
8.3.3
8.3.4
8.3.5
Page 17
Site suitability report C29XB 8.3.6 The Thames Path which runs through the park is understood to be well used, as are the benches along the embankment. Both of these may also be affected by the large CSO site works. The permanent access and concrete structure left over may have an impact on the reinstatement of sports facilities in this location.
8.3.7
Small western CSO site

8.3.8 The small western CSO site is located on a multi-use sports pitch and adjacent to further courts and pitches. Use of this site would involve the loss of some sports facilities and disruption to users in surrounding facilities. The Shadwell Basin Outdoor Activity Centre located to the south of this site may also be affected by the use of the site, particularly if access to the river is restricted by the use of the site. The site location requires a long connection between the drop shaft and the interception chamber which would need to run across the site, adjacent to courts and public pathways. This would intensify the disruption caused by this site significantly. Residences around neighbouring Shadwell Basin and the southern end of Glamis Road may also be affected by the sites use and proposed access. The permanent access and concrete structure left over may have an impact on the reinstatement of sports facilities in this location.
8.3.9
8.3.10
8.3.11 8.3.12
Small eastern CSO site

8.3.13 8.3.14 A small CSO site in the eastern portion of the park is likely to lead to loss of the informal grassy open space and a childrens play area. The residential properties in Free Trade Wharf opposite the site to the east may be affected by the use of the site. Some of these dwellings overlook the site. The Thames Path which runs through the park is understood to be well used, as are the benches along the embankment. Both may be affected by CSO site works in this location. The permanent access and concrete structure left over would have an impact on the landscape of the park.
8.3.15
8.3.16
Small northern CSO site

8.3.17 Use of the small northern CSO site would result in the temporary loss of an area of well maintained, grassy open space in the centre of the park. Use this CSO site is also likely to cause some disruption to the neighbouring areas of the park, which contain a bowling green, tennis courts, pavilion and childrens play area, all of which may affect community cohesion and the health and wellbeing of the local community. The need for a short culvert to connect the CSO shaft to the North East Storm Relief Sewer is likely to increase the level of disruption for a short period.
Page 18
Site suitability report C29XB 8.3.18 8.3.19 The residential properties opposite the site to the north and east may be affected by the use of the site. Some of these dwellings overlook the site. During the construction phase, vehicle access from Glamis Road to the CSO location (adjacent to The Highway) can be provided via the existing pedestrian entrance at the northwest corner of the park (King Edward Memorial Park) and along the footpath that follows the northern side of the park. This would require the construction of a temporary road along the route of the footpath between Glamis Road and the site. There are residential properties on Peartree Lane and adjoining Glamis Road opposite the potential access point, but there is a wall along the length of Glamis Road that may help limit potential impacts. The permanent access, hardstanding and after-use structures required to be left in the park would have some impact on the landscape of the park.
8.3.20
9 9.1
9.1.1 9.1.2
Property assessment Introduction

This report builds on the advantages and disadvantages in Table 2.3 and the assessment provides more up-to-date information. The park is designated open space adjacent to the River Thames and contains a number of facilities including green spaces, a childrens playground, tennis courts, a bowling green, and surfaced sports/games areas. It is owned or held in trust by the London Borough of Tower Hamlets.
9.2
9.2.1
Crown land and special land comments

The land is open space and may be classified as special land under Section 131 of the Planning Act 2008. If this is the case and if an acquisition cannot be agreed with the owner, a special parliamentary procedure may be needed after the order is confirmed. As the whole order would be subject to the special parliamentary procedure, not just the acquisition of this site, the project could be delayed by a minimum period of several months in the best case. In the worst case, the order might be rejected by Parliament, which could delay the project for a much longer period and even result in the order failing, although this is considered unlikely. The S.131 special parliamentary procedure may not be required if exchange land is provided. Therefore, the provision of exchange land should be included in the order, although it is likely to be difficult to identify an appropriate replacement. Alternatively, if temporary works powers only are required, this would not amount to land acquisition and the issue would not arise.
9.2.2
9.3
9.3.1
Land to be acquired
For each site option, the compensation assessment assumes that the worksite and access to it would be acquired temporarily, via the acquisition of new rights for the period of the works stated in the engineering section
Page 19
Site suitability report C29XB above. It assumes that at the end of the works, a smaller area would need to be acquired permanently for the operational structures. 9.3.2 For the small CSO (east) site option, the construction phase temporary works would take up parts of the open space within the park, with permanent structures located in the eastern corner of the park. Temporary access rights would be required from The Highway in the north-eastern corner of the park, along part of the eastern boundary. The permanent area required would be approximately 20m x 20m. Permanent access is shown as being from Glamis Road in the north-western corner of the park. The temporary works area required for the small CSO (west) site option takes up part of a sports/games area, and the permanent works require an area of approximately 20m x 20m. A short access would be required, taken from Glamis Road on the western side of the park. This location also requires construction of a culvert across the middle part of the park to intercept the storm relief sewer. The temporary works area required for the small CSO (north) site option takes up part of the open space within the park, and the permanent works require an area of approximately 20m x 20m. Access would be required along an existing path within the park, taken from Glamis Road in the north-western corner of the park. This location also requires construction of a culvert across the northern part of the park to intercept the storm relief sewer. The temporary works area required for the large CSO (west) site option takes up a large part of the sports/games area on the western side of the park, and the permanent works require an area of approximately 30m x 30m. A short access would be required, taken from Glamis Road on the western side of the park. This location also requires construction of a culvert across the middle part of the park to intercept the storm relief sewer, with an interception chamber close to the northern boundary of the park.
9.3.3
9.3.4
9.3.5
9.4
9.4.1
Property valuation comments

The planning assessment indicates there are no development proposals affecting any of the CSO site options. The following comments apply to all site options. Compensation for the acquisition of new rights is normally based on the diminution in value to the land caused by the acquisition. Compensation for the permanent acquisition of land is normally based on market value, but can be based on equivalent reinstatement for the acquisition of unusual types of property. If compensation is assessed on a diminution in value basis for new rights (temporary occupation during works, access rights during works, access rights for operational purposes) and on a market value basis for the permanent acquisition, the costs are likely to be relatively low and therefore acceptable.
9.4.2
9.4.3
Page 20
Site suitability report C29XB 9.4.4 9.4.5 If compensation is assessed on an equivalent reinstatement basis, the acquisition costs would be significantly higher, but still acceptable. Although finding replacement land may be difficult, compensation has been assessed on a temporary equivalent reinstatement basis in order to be prudent and to take account of the possible need to provide replacement land. The temporary worksite land will be reinstated, following the construction phase, as a part of the engineering works. Therefore, reinstatement costs are not included in the compensation assessment.
9.4.6
9.5
9.5.1
Disturbance compensation comments

The areas included in the site options are mainly open space and do not appear to be used exclusively by any party. Therefore, any disturbance costs are likely to be low.
9.6
9.6.1
Discretionary purchase costs comments

Works on the site will be limited to 12-hour working (7:00 am to 7:00 pm), Monday to Saturday. Construction operations within normal working hours should significantly limit potential discretionary purchase costs, although the small CSO (east) site areas are situated in close proximity to part of Free Trade Wharf, while the large and small CSO (west) sites are close to residential properties in Glamis Road and Shadwell Pierhead, and there is therefore some potential exposure to costs.
9.7
9.7.1
Offsite statutory compensation comments

There should be limited potential for offsite statutory compensation under S.10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965, as there is unlikely to be any physical interference with public or private property rights. There should also be limited potential for claims under the Land Compensation Act 1973 Part 1, as the completed works are unlikely to result in diminution in value to property.
9.7.2
9.8
9.8.1
Site acquisition cost assessment

For each site option, the site acquisition costs are considered to be acceptable. The costs associated with each option will rise significantly if replacement land is required, and the costs relating to the large CSO site option will be higher than those for the small site options.
10 10.1
10.1.1
Site conclusions by discipline Introduction

The conclusions presented in this section are drawn from each disciplines assessment, and are designed to inform the workshop where a final conclusion on whether the site moves forward as one of the preferred sites or not.
Page 21
10.2
Engineering Large western CSO site
10.2.1
This site is suitable as a large CSO site because it would be a large, open and generally flat area. Reasonable road access to the site could be provided. There would be no requirement for significant demolition.

10.2.2 The site is suitable as a small CSO site in the western part of the park. The culvert connecting the interception chamber to the CSO drop shaft would cross the tennis courts and main body of the park, and may need to be built using pipe-jacking. There is no requirement for significant demolition. Reasonable road access to the site could be provided.

10.2.3 The site is suitable as a small CSO site in the eastern part of the park. The site is flat, no demolition is required and road access can be provided. The site is near to the North East Storm Relief CSO. Traffic management issues associated with the proximity of The Highway to the junction of the site access road would need to be addressed.

10.2.4 The site is suitable as a small CSO site in the northern part of the park. Traffic management issues associated with the proximity of The Highway to the junction of the site access road with Glamis Road would need to be addressed. Whether a large or small CSO site is appropriate for the interception of the North East Storm Relief CSO will be considered at the next stage, in conjunction with the drive strategy that is developed in the Engineering options report Abbey Mills route.
10.2.5
10.3
Planning Large western CSO site
10.3.1 10.3.2
The site is considered less suitable for a large CSO site. The larger site would result in a significant loss of open space within a deficiency area. The site is also likely to negatively impact on the character of the Wapping Wall Conservation Area and the setting of the listed structures, as well as the amenity of adjacent residential properties. These potential impacts are likely to be difficult to mitigate. The extent of the lost facilities (particularly the whole of the multipurpose sports pitches) associated with the larger site could also be difficult to mitigate. The larger site is in close proximity to residential dwellings and is likely to require mitigation in order to protect the amenity of local residents.
10.3.3
Page 22
Small eastern, western and northern CSO sites

10.3.4 10.3.5 These sites are considered less suitable as CSO sites. All three sites would involve works which would result in the loss of open space within a deficiency area which the council has identified as in need of improvements, and are likely to have some impacts on the recreational amenity value of the park. This conflict may be possible to mitigate for, as well as potential temporary impacts on the setting of the Wapping Wall Conservation Area and listed structures. The smaller sites are in close proximity to residential dwellings and are likely to require mitigation in order to protect the amenity of local residents.
10.3.6
10.4
10.4.1
Environment
Overall, the site is suitable as a small (east, west or north) or a large CSO site (west), although mitigation would be required to enable the site to be used for either purpose. The site is considered suitable from the perspectives of transport, archaeology, water resources (groundwater and surface water), ecology, flood risk and land quality. This site is considered less suitable from the perspectives of built heritage and townscape, air quality and noise, and this applies to the small (east, west or north) or a large CSO site. Overall, the site is considered suitable, subject to further investigation of whether built heritage and townscape, air quality and noise impacts can be adequately mitigated. Likely mitigation considerations would include the following: Built heritage and townscape careful consideration of site layout and a high-quality scheme design and/or screening of the site to minimise adverse impacts on the local views, the character of the river and river frontage. 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.
10.4.2
10.4.3
10.4.4
10.5
Socio-economic and community Large western CSO site
10.5.1 10.5.2
The large CSO site is not suitable from a community impacts perspective. The degree of impact on the use of the park for sports activities and for other uses of the open space is likely to be difficult to mitigate. A long connection culvert between the drop shaft and interception chamber would also be required which would further disrupt the remainder of the park.
Page 23
Site suitability report C29XB 10.5.3 There are also likely to be impacts on surrounding residential properties and the Shadwell Basin Outdoor Activity Centre.

10.5.4 The small western CSO site is less suitable from a community impacts perspective, due to potential impacts on the games courts and on surrounding residential areas. This type of site would also require a long connection between the drop shaft and interception chamber, which would further disrupt the remainder of the park. Disruption to the Shadwell Basin Outdoor Activity centre is also likely. Mitigation here may involve ensuring continued access to the river. Impacts on the residential developments to the north and east of the site are possible. Mitigation is likely to involve minimising disruption from the works.
10.5.5 10.5.6

10.5.7 The small eastern CSO site is less suitable from a community impacts perspective, due to potential impacts on the wildlife area and on surrounding residential areas.

10.5.8 10.5.9 10.5.10 The small northern CSO site is less suitable from a community impacts perspective. Users of King Edward Memorial Park appear likely to be impacted by the temporary loss of part of the park and disruption to surrounding areas. Those living to the north and east of King Edward Memorial Park are likely to face a level of disruption from works on site. Mitigation may involve discussions around working hours and minimising construction related impacts such as noise. For all three small CSO sites, mitigation is likely to involve finding acceptable alternative open spaces and facilities which are easily accessible to the local community. Mitigation may also address the treatment of remnant structures in terms of restoration and after-use, so as to complement the parks landscape.
10.5.11
10.6
10.6.1
Property
The advantages of the site options are as follows: The park is mainly undeveloped and no permanent buildings are affected Site acquisition costs are likely to be acceptable if assessed on a diminution in value basis, or on the basis of providing temporary replacement land.
Page 24
Site suitability report C29XB 10.6.2 The disadvantages of the site options are as follows: If acquisition cannot be agreed and replacement land cannot be provided, the order may need to pass through a special parliamentary procedure Close proximity to residential properties may result in discretionary purchase costs.
10.6.3
From a property perspective, all four CSO site options are considered to be less suitable, as although acquisition costs are expected to be acceptable, each option is subject to acquisition risk due to the probable status of the site as special land. The risk is greater in respect of the large CSO site (west) option, due to the significantly greater impact on the park during the construction phase.
Page 25
Page 26
Site suitability report C29XB Appendices
Appendices
Page 27
Site suitability report C29XB Appendices
Page 28
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 1
Appendix 1 Sources of information Engineering

Traffic Management and Access Roads/Rail URS Scott Wilson Access River BMT Isis Services (Utilities) and Third Party Assets Thames Tunnel and utility companies Geology British Geological Society and Thames Tunnel Construction and Operational Layout Template Thames Tunnel Site selection background technical paper Thames Tunnel
Planning
London Borough of Tower Hamlets online planning applications database Saved policies in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets Unitary Development Plan, adopted in 1998 and saved beyond 2008 London Borough of Tower Hamlets Core Strategy, adopted September 2010 London Borough of Tower Hamlets Core Strategy and Development Control Plan Interim Planning Guidance, adopted 2007 The London Plan, adopted July 2011
Environment
Transport Map of Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) www.tfl.gov.uk Bus Route Maps: North-east, north-west, south-west, south-east www.tfl.gov.uk Crossrail Plans www.crossrail.co.uk/crossrail-bill-documents PTAL scores Obtained from Table 2.3 information Thames Path map www.walklondon.org.uk Capital Ring www.walklondon.org.uk Cycle Routes www.sustrans.org.uk and Local Cycling Guides 1-14 Design Manual for Roads and Bridge TD 42/95, Highways Agency
Archaeology Historic Environment data from Greater London Archaeology Advisory Service (GLAAS)
Appendix 1 Page 1
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 1 National Monuments Record for some additional information regarding registered historic parks and gardens London Archaeological Archive and Research Centre (LAARC) Local authority websites Bing maps
Built heritage and townscape Local authority lists of Locally Listed Buildings National Monuments Record for some additional information regarding registered historic parks and gardens Unitary development plan and DPDs Local authority websites Bing maps
Water resources hydrogeology and surface water Local authority details of unlicensed abstractors Environment Agency abstraction licence details Environment Agency groundwater levels and contour maps (2009-11) Environment Agency water quality (surface water and groundwater) Environment Agency Groundwater Source Protection Zones Environment Agency Flood Map www.environment-agency.gov.uk Envirocheck British Geological Survey (BGS) logs BGS 1:50,000 Geological Sheets Solid and Drift Editions (England and Wales) BGS Geology of London Special Memoir for 1:50,000 Geological sheets 256 (North London), 257 (Romford), 270 (South London) and 271 (Dartford) (England and Wales) Crossrail (2005) Assessment of Water Impacts Technical Report: Appendix C Baseline Data. Figure C.4: Extent of Saline Intrusion based on 177 mg/l *5mmol/l) Isochlor
Ecology Thames Estuary Partnership (2002) Tidal Thames Habitat Action Plan London Biodiversity Action Plan www.lbp.org.uk Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) www.magic.gov.uk - statutory designated sites London Wildweb wildweb.london.gov.uk - non-statutory site of importance for nature conservation
Appendix 1 Page 2
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 1 Black redstart distribution in London www.blackredstarts.org.uk/ pages/.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 Environment Agency National Flood and Coastal Defence Database Envirocheck
Air quality Local authority websites London Air Quality Network www.londonair.org.uk Defra UK-AIR, air quality information resource www.airquality.co.uk Defra Air Quality Management Areas http://aqma.defra.gov.uk Defra Local Air Quality Management http://laqm.defra.gov.uk
Noise Envirocheck Identification of receptors Promap Calculation of distances between site and receptors Multimap Aerial photography www.multimap.co.uk Defra noise maps Identification of existing noise levels
Land quality Google Maps/Earth Site walkover information Envirocheck Data Sheets provided as a GIS Database British Geological Survey (BGS) logs
Socio-economic and community

Statistics from the Office of National Statistics 2001 Census data Green Flag Award www.greenflagaward.org.uk/winners/GSP001515 Trees for Cities www.treesforcities.org/page.php?id=202
Appendix 1 Page 3
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 1 Shadwell Basin Outdoor Activity Centre www.shadwell-basin.org.uk/ index.php Shadwell charity website www.justgiving.com/shadwell Tower Hamlets Canoe Club www.towerhamletscanoeclub.co.uk/wiki/ THCC
Property
Site visit Mouchel referencing data Multimap/Google Earth aerial photographs
Appendix 1 Page 4
Appendix 2 Site location plan
Appendix 2 Page 1
FI D
EN
TI AL
&
Area of Main Map
Legend
AF
Local Authority Boundary Short Listed CSO Site CSO (Directly Controlled)
! (
TOWER HAMLETS
0 25 50
100
150
200
Metres
C29XB
! (
CS29X North East Storm Relief
Mapping reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. Crown copyright and database right 2011. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100019345 CH2M HILL accept no responsibility for any circumstances, which arise from the reproduction of this map after alteration, amendment or abbreviation or if it issued in part or issued incomplete in any way. Map Ref : ............................ 1PL04-SS-01976 Date : .................................. 2011/10/26 Projection : .......................... British National Grid
Thames Water Utilities
SOUTHWARK
The Point, 7th Floor, 37 North Wharf Road, Paddington, London W2 1AF
Title:
This is an indicative working draft plan which has been produced for the purpose of confidential discussions only. Accordingly, the draft plan must not be copied, distributed or shown to any third party without the express written permission of Thames Water Utilities Limited. It provides an indication of sites that, following discussions with local authorities and other stakeholders, may be confirmed as being on the shortlist of construction sites for the proposed Thames Tunnel. Inclusion of a site on this draft plan should not be taken to mean that such site will be selected as a construction site to form part of the Thames Tunnel scheme.
APPENDIX 2 SITE LOCATION PLAN C29XB SITE
Appendix 3 Planning and environment plans
Appendix 3 Page 1
TI AL
M M M M
CABLE STREE T
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
M M M M M M
SCHO
Legend
M M
EN
FI D
M M M M M M
OW M M ELF R
M Thames M MPolicy M Area M M M River M Walks M M M M

Area of Main Map
M M
M M
SS GLA
HO U
D BRO
ET S T RE ABLE
M M M Regeneration M M M Areas M M M M Mixed Use Areas M M

USE
SS S GLA IELD SE F
M M M M M M M M M M M M
M M M M M M M M M M Water Protection Areas M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
E LOV E LAN
OLHO
&
AF
T REDCAS
E LE CLOS
ACE GLAMIS PL
Legend
LANE
HO
USE
L DS FIE
AD ROM M M E M JARDIN
! (
AY THE HIGHW
GLAMIS ROAD
TOWER HAMLETS
C29XB
! (CS29X
10
20
40
Metres
60
80
100
North East Storm Relief
Mapping reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. Crown copyright and database right 2011. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100019345
SHADW E
LL PIER H
EAD
CH2M HILL accept no responsibility for any circumstances, which arise from the reproduction of this map after alteration, amendment or abbreviation or if it issued in part or issued incomplete in any way. Map Ref : ............................ 1PL04-SS-02120 Date : .................................. 2011/08/17 Projection : .......................... British National Grid
A101
MILK YARD
T ZA S MON REE T
PI AP W NG L AL W
SOUTHWARK
Title:
APPENDIX 3A PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT PLAN C29XB SITE
TI AL
Legend
! !
! ! ! !
EN
FI D
T STREE CABLE
! !
!
! !
Sites of Metropolitan Nature Conservation Importance Sites of Local Nature Conservation Importance Open Space Improvements Flood Risk Zone 3 Flood Risk Zone 2
SS GLA HO U
D BRO
LE CAB
ET S T RE
SS S GLA IELD SE F
&
OW ELF R
TLE C REDCAS LOSE
ACE GLAMIS PL
E LOV E LAN
SCHO
!
Area of Main Map
OLHO
USE LANE
Legend
HO
AF
USE L DS FIE
JARD
AD INE RO
! (
AY THE HIGHW
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
GLAMIS ROAD
TOWER HAMLETS ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! CS29X ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! North ! ! ! East ! ! Storm ! ! ! ! ! Relief ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
C29XB
! (
10
20
40
Metres
60
80
100
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Mapping reproduced by permission of Ordnance ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !Survey on behalf of HMSO. Crown copyright ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !and database right 2011. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100019345 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !CH2M HILL accept no responsibility for any ! SH ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! circumstances, which arise from the reproduction DW ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! A ! !EL ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !of this map after alteration, amendment or LP IER HEAD ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !abbreviation or if it issued in part or issued incomplete in any way. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Map Ref : ............................ 1PL04-SS-02121 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !Date : .................................. 2011/11/02 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !Projection : .......................... British National Grid ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
A101
MILK YARD
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! This is an indicative working draft plan produced of confidential only. the ! draft not! be ! copied, distributed or shown ! which ! ! has ! been ! ! ! ! for ! the ! purpose ! ! ! ! ! ! discussions ! ! ! ! ! Accordingly, ! ! ! ! ! plan ! must ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! to !any ! third ! party ! !without ! ! the ! express ! ! written ! ! ! permission of Thames Water Utilities Limited. It provides an indication of sites that, following discussions with local authorities and other stakeholders, may be confirmed as being on the shortlist of construction sites for the ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! proposed Thames Tunnel. Inclusion of a site on this draft plan should not be taken to mean that such site will be selected as a construction site to form part of the Thames Tunnel scheme.
T ZA S MON REE T
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 37 North Wharf Road,
SOUTHWARK
The Point, 7th Floor,
Paddington, London W2 1AF
PI AP W
NG
L! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Title: AL W ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
APPENDIX 3B PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT PLAN C29XB SITE
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
TI AL
Legend
SS GLA
EN
FI D
!
ET S T RE ABLE
T STREE CABLE
!
SCHO
Listed Building (point)
Statutory Listed Building Locally Listed Building Archaeological Areas Conservation Area
HO U
D BRO E LOV
SS S GLA IELD SE F
&
OW ELF R
E LE CLOS
ACE GLAMIS PL
Area of Main Map
E LAN
OLHO
USE
! ! !
AF
T REDCAS
Legend
LANE
HO USE L DS FIE
! JAR
AD INE RO
! (
! !
AY THE HIGHW
! !
GLAMIS ROAD
TOWER HAMLETS
!!
C29XB
! (CS29X
!
10
20
40
Metres
60
80
100
North East Storm Relief
SHADW E
LL PIER H
EAD
A101
MILK YARD
! !
NG L AL W
T ZA S MON REE T
PI AP W
SOUTHWARK
APPENDIX 3C PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT HERITAGE PLAN C29XB SITE
Title:
Appendix 4 Photographs of the site and surroundings
Appendix 4 Page 1
FI D
EN
TI AL
&
Area of Main Map
Legend
AF
! (
TOWER HAMLETS
0 25 50 100
150
200
C29XB
Metres
! (
SOUTHWARK
Title:
APPENDIX 4 AERIAL PLAN C29XB SITE
Northern area of King Edward Memorial Park with the memorial pedestal the right of the picture.
Free Trade Wharf to the east of the King Edward Memorial Park.
Appendix 4 Page 3
View of the childrens playground located in the south-western area of the park.
View of the existing tennis courts and sports pitches located along the western boundary of the park.
Appendix 4 Page 4
View of the central area of the park looking south towards the River Thames.
Appendix 4 Page 5
Appendix 4 Page 6
Appendix 5 Transport plan
Appendix 5 Page 1
FI D
EN
TI AL
&
Area of Main Map
Legend
AF
Local Authority Boundary Short Listed CSO Site CSO (Directly Controlled) Transport Access Route TfL Road Network Thames Path
! (
London Cycle Routes
Option 1
TOWER HAMLETS
25
50
100
150
200
Metres
C29XB
! (
Option 2
SOUTHWARK
Title:
APPENDIX 5 TRANSPORT PLAN C29XB SITE
k c o Bl t
GL AM
3 o6 1t
6
DO NOT SCALE - IF IN DOUBT ASK
N
3 6 o t 1
k c o l B h t u o S
3 6 o t 1
k c o l B h t u o S
Bath
Status:
Court
9 1 1 3 1
435
Keyplan:
FOR INFORMATION
N
E C A L SP I M A L G
S I M A L G
TRAFFIC DIVERSION ROUTE
THIS DRAWING
9.6m
7 9 o t 1
n o d r o G e s u o H
9 6 1
o t
LB
M S
9.8m
t n e m u n o M
6.9m
0 2 3
ACCESS TO PARK CLOSED. CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC ONLY.
King Edward
Playground
Memorial Park
Bowling
Green
12
2
Pavilion
Pavilion
EXCAVATION
PCs
Pond
6.6m
Playground
Tennis Courts
5.1m
BS TEMPORARY TRAFFIC SIGNAL
2 1
D Fn
Air Shaft
10 m
40 m
SCALE 1 : 500
Revision History
Iss
Description
Dsgnr
Chkd
Appd
Date
AA
FIRST ISSUE
JSHE
EPER
PSTV
28/09/2011
5.7m
5.0m
1
2 3
CS0 DROP SHAFT 20m I.D.
5.2m
4
SITE BOUNDARY AREA
Shadwell Dock
S H A D WE L L P I E R H E A D
B o l l a r d s
Stairs
e l ng hi S
The Point, 7th Floor, 37 North Wharf Road,
Hard

Location Code: OS Reference:
MLW
U n d
PEDESTRIAN DIVERSION ROUTE Jetty
an d
Security Reference:
Drawn By:
N/A
Project Group:
TQ3479
UBR
Sub Process:
JYAS
LONDON TIDEWAY TUNNELS
WASTE 5 0
Rev:
F W
Location / Town: Site Name:
TOWER HAMLETS - CS29X - NORTH EAST SR C29XB - KING EDWARD MEMORIAL PARK
5.7m
FW
U n d
Shadwell Entrance
MLW
Project Name:
THAMES TUNNEL
Contract Name:
Drawing Title:
Wa r d B d y U n d
TEMPORARY TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN C29XB - LARGE CSO (WESTERN CORNER)

Drawing No.: Scale: Sheet Size:
PLOTTED ON
04/11/2011
BY
LOCATION :
e:\async working dir\pw-ttp\_pdf_svc_4\dms04446\100-DE-TRA-C29XB-869104.dgn
c Thames Water Utilities Ltd 2008
100-DE-TRA-C29XB-869104
U n d
SITE SUITABILITY REPORT
r af t
1:500
A1
AA
1 0 0
on f i de nt i al
11
1 5 0
2 0 0 mm
C
3 5
4 2
6 3
0 5
E C A L P
Lion Court
4 6
6 6
4 7
2 8
0 3 1 o t 4 8
MAPPING REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF ORDNANCE SURVEY ON BEHALF OF HMSO. ' CROWN COPYRIGHT AND DATABASE RIGHT 2011. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ORDNANCE SURVEY LICENCE
9.3m
NUMBER 100019345
THIS IS AN INDICATIVE WORKING DRAFT PLAN WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONFIDENTIAL DISCUSSIONS ONLY. ACCORDINGLY, THE DRAFT PLAN MUST NOT BE COPIED, DISTRIBUTED OR SHOWN TO ANY THIRD PARTY WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THAMES WATER UTILITIES LIMITED. IT PROVIDES AN INDICATION OF SITES THAT, FOLLOWING DISCUSSIONS WITH LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS, MAY BE CONFIRMED AS BEING ON THE SHORTLIST OF CONSTRUCTION SITES FOR THE PROPOSED THAMES TUNNEL. INCLUSION OF A SITE ON THIS DRAFT PLAN SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN TO MEAN THAT SUCH SITE WILL BE SELECTED AS A CONSTRUCTION SITE TO FORM PART OF THE THAMES TUNNEL SCHEME.
y wa b Su
Playground
NOTES TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT OVERVIEW: 1. PARTIAL CLOSURE OF ROUTES WITHIN PARK, PEDESTRIAN DIVERSION PROVIDED. VEHICULAR ACCESS TO PARK CLOSED. DIVERSION PROVIDED.
2.
PROVISIONAL DURATIONS: MAIN SITE - 18 - 20 MONTHS TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT - 18-20 MONTHS TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PHASES - 1
LEGEND
AREA OF ROAD/FOOTWAY CLOSURE
TEMPORARY WORKS
Mud
ANE PEARTREE L
SITE WORKING AREA
W h g i H n a e M
r e t a
PEDESTRIAN/CYCLE DIVERSION ROUTE
CONSTRUCTION ROUTE
S RO AD AM I GL
BUS STOP
SM
k c o Bl t
GL AM
3 o6 1t
6
N
3 6 o t 1
k c o l B h t u o S
3 6 o t 1
k c o l B h t u o S
Bath
Status:
Court
9 1 1 3 1
435
Keyplan:
FOR INFORMATION
N
S I M A L G
THIS DRAWING
9.6m
7 9 o t 1
9 6 1
o t
LB
M S
9.8m
t n e m u n o M
6.9m
0 2 3
King Edward
Playground
Memorial Park
Bowling
Green
12
2
Pavilion
Pavilion
EXCAVATION
PCs
Pond
6.6m
Playground
Tennis Courts
5.1m
2 1
D Fn
Air Shaft
10 m
40 m
SCALE 1 : 500
Revision History
Iss
Description
Dsgnr
Chkd
Appd
Date
AA
FIRST ISSUE
JSHE
EPER
PSTV
28/09/2011
5.7m
5.0m
1
2 3
5.2m
4
SITE BOUNDARY AREA
Shadwell Dock
B o l l a r d s
Stairs
e l ng hi S
Hard

MLW
U n d
an d
Security Reference:
Drawn By:
N/A
Project Group:
TQ3479
UBR
Sub Process:
JYAS
WASTE 5 0
Rev:
F W
5.7m
FW
U n d
Shadwell Entrance
MLW
Project Name:
THAMES TUNNEL
Contract Name:
Drawing Title:
Wa r d B d y U n d
TEMPORARY TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN C29XB - SMALL CSO (WESTERN CORNER)

PLOTTED ON
04/11/2011
BY
LOCATION :
100-DE-TRA-C29XB-869103
U n d
r af t
1:500
A1
AA
1 0 0
on f i de nt i al
11
1 5 0
2 0 0 mm
C
3 5
4 2
6 3
0 5
E C A L P
Lion Court
4 6
6 6
4 7
2 8
0 3 1 o t 4 8
9.3m
NUMBER 100019345
y wa b Su
Playground
NOTES TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT OVERVIEW: 1. PARTIAL CLOSURE OF ROUTES WITHIN PARK, PEDESTRIAN DIVERSION PROVIDED.
LEGEND
TEMPORARY WORKS
Mud
ANE PEARTREE L
SITE WORKING AREA
W h g i H n a e M
r e t a
CONSTRUCTION ROUTE
S RO AD AM I GL
BUS STOP
SM
k c o Bl t
GL AM
3 o6 1t
6
N
3 6 o t 1
k c o l B h t u o S
3 6 o t 1
k c o l B h t u o S
Bath
Status:
Court
9 1 1 3 1
435
Keyplan:
FOR INFORMATION
N
S I M A L G
THIS DRAWING
9.6m
7 9 o t 1
9 6 1
o t
LB
M S
9.8m
t n e m u n o M
B
PEDESTRIAN DIVERSION ROUTE
King Edward
Playground
Memorial Park
Bowling
Green
12
2
Pavilion
Pavilion PCs
CS0 DROP SHAFT 12m I.D. EXCAVATION
Pond
6.6m
Playground
Tennis Courts
5.1m
2 1
D Fn
Air Shaft
10 m
40 m
SCALE 1 : 500
Revision History
Iss
Description
Dsgnr
Chkd
Appd
Date
AA
FIRST ISSUE
JSHE
EPER
PSTV
28/09/2011
5.7m
5.0m
1
2 3 4
5.2m
SITE BOUNDARY AREA
Shadwell Dock
B o l l a r d s
Stairs
e l ng hi S
Hard

MLW
U n d
Jetty
an d
Security Reference:
Drawn By:
N/A
Project Group:
TQ3479
UBR
Sub Process:
JYAS
WASTE 5 0
Rev:
F W
5.7m
FW
U n d
Shadwell Entrance
MLW
Project Name:
THAMES TUNNEL
Contract Name:
Drawing Title:
Wa r d B d y U n d
TEMPORARY TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN C29XB - SMALL CSO (EAST)

PLOTTED ON
04/11/2011
BY
LOCATION :
100-DE-TRA-C29XB-869101
U n d
r af t
1:500
A1
AA
1 0 0
on f i de nt i al
11
1 5 0
2 0 0 mm
C
3 5
6 3
VEHICULAR DIVERSION ROUTE
6.9m
0 2 3
4 2
0 5
E C A L P
Lion Court
4 6
6 6
4 7
ACCESS TO PARK CLOSED. CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC ONLY.
2 8
0 3 1 o t 4 8
9.3m
NUMBER 100019345
y wa b Su
Playground
NOTES TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT OVERVIEW: 1. PARTIAL CLOSURE OF ROUTES WITHIN PARK. PEDESTRIAN DIVERSION PROVIDED. VEHICULAR ACCESS TO PARK CLOSED. DIVERSION PROVIDED.
2.
PROVISIONAL DURATIONS: MAIN SITE - 18 - 20 MONTHS TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT - 18 - 20 MONTHS TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PHASES - 1
LEGEND
TEMPORARY WORKS
Mud
ANE PEARTREE L
SITE WORKING AREA
W h g i H n a e M
r e t a
CONSTRUCTION ROUTE
S RO AD AM I GL
BUS STOP
SM
k c o Bl t
GL AM
3 o6 1t
6
N
3 6 o t 1
k c o l B h t u o S
3 6 o t 1
k c o l B h t u o S
Bath
Status:
Court
9 1 1 3 1
435
Keyplan:
FOR INFORMATION
N
PEDESTRIAN DIVERSION ROUTE
THIS DRAWING
S I M A L G
9.6m
7 9 o t 1
ACCESS TO PARK CLOSED, CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC ONLY
9 6 1
o t
LB
M S
9.8m
t n e m u n o M
ACCESS TO PARK CLOSED, CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC ONLY
King Edward
Playground
Memorial Park
Bowling
Green
12
2
Pavilion
Pavilion
EXCAVATION
PCs
Pond
6.6m
Playground
Tennis Courts
5.1m
2 1
D Fn
Air Shaft
10 m
40 m
SCALE 1 : 500
Revision History
Iss
Description
Dsgnr
Chkd
Appd
Date
AA
FIRST ISSUE
JSHE
EPER
PSTV
28/09/2011
5.7m
5.0m
1
2 3 4
5.2m
SITE BOUNDARY AREA
Shadwell Dock
B o l l a r d s
Stairs
e l ng hi S
Hard

MLW
U n d
an d
Security Reference:
Drawn By:
N/A
Project Group:
TQ3479
UBR
Sub Process:
JYAS
WASTE 5 0
Rev:
F W
5.7m
FW
U n d
Shadwell Entrance
MLW
Project Name:
THAMES TUNNEL
Contract Name:
Drawing Title:
Wa r d B d y U n d
TEMPORARY TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN C29XB - SMALL CSO (CENTRE OF PARK)

PLOTTED ON
04/11/2011
BY
LOCATION :
100-DE-TRA-C29XB-869102
U n d
r af t
1:500
A1
AA
1 0 0
on f i de nt i al
11
1 5 0
2 0 0 mm
C
3 5
6 3
VEHICULAR DIVERSION ROUTE
6.9m
0 2 3
4 2
0 5
E C A L P
Lion Court
4 6
6 6
4 7
2 8
0 3 1 o t 4 8
9.3m
NUMBER 100019345
y wa b Su
Playground
NOTES TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT OVERVIEW: 1. PARTIAL CLOSURE OF ROUTES WITHIN PARK, PEDESTRIAN DIVERSION PROVIDED. VEHICULAR ACCESS TO PARK CLOSED. DIVERSION PROVIDED.
2.
LEGEND
TEMPORARY WORKS
Mud
ANE PEARTREE L
SITE WORKING AREA
W h g i H n a e M
r e t a
CONSTRUCTION ROUTE
S RO AD AM I GL
BUS STOP
SM
Appendix 6 Services and geology plan
Appendix 6 Page 1
Appendix 7 Construction phase layout
Appendix 7 Page 1
DS EL FI
k c o Bl t s e
I SR
GL AM
3 o6 1t
3
4 o t 1
o bt 1
6
Status:
9 1 1
3 1
S I M A L G
9.6m
7 9 o t 1
9 6 1
M S
o t
LB
9.8m
EGRESS
500m
Playground Bowling
12 2
1000m
ACCESS
6.6m
Playground
500m
PARKING / VEHICLE MARSHALLING / OFFICES / WELFARE / CANTEEN AND MEDICAL
2 1
3500m
D Fn
DISCLAIMER: INDICATIVE OPERATIONAL PHASE ARRANGEMENT. BASED ON PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT. SITE BOUNDARY AREA = 33085m
Revision History
Air Shaft
1200m
Iss
Description
Dsgnr
Chkd
Appd
Date
AA
FIRST ISSUE
REVI PSTV
DARD
12/09/2011
5.7m
5.0m
1
2 3 4
5.2m
Shadwell Dock
B o l l a r d s
Stairs
e l ng hi S
D
U n d
Jetty
MLW
an d
Hard
Location Code:
OS Reference:
Security Reference:
Drawn By:
N/A
Project Group:
TQ3479
UBR
Sub Process:
JYAS

Location / Town:
WASTE 5 0
Rev:
F W
Site Name: Project Name:
5.7m
FW
U n d
Shadwell Entrance
MLW
THAMES TUNNEL
Contract Name:
U n d
Drawing Title:
Wa r d B d y U n d
PLOTTED ON 09/11/2011 BY LOCATION : e:\async working dir\pw-ttp\_pdf_svc_4\dms04446\100-DL-PNC-C29XB-169312.dgn
CONSTRUCTION PHASE LAYOUT C29XB - LARGE CSO (WEST)

100-DL-PNC-C29XB-169312
r af t
1:500
A1
AA
1 0 0
on f i de nt i al
11
1 5 0
2 0 0 mm
0 3 1 o t 4 8
EXISTING NORTH EASTERN STORM RELIEF
INTERCEPTION CHAMBER
t n e m u n o M
6.9m
0 2 3
TEMPORARY WORKING AREA = 8327m

Green
Pavilion
Pavilion
PCs
Pond
PRIMARY CRANE
SECONDARY CRANE
Tennis Courts
20m I.D. SHAFT
5.1m
4 2
E C A L P
Lion Court
6 3
0 5
4 6
3 6 o t 1
k c o l B h t u o S
3 6 o t 1
k c o l B h t u o S
Bath Court
435
Keyplan:
FOR INFORMATION
N
THIS DRAWING
6 6
4 7
2 8
MAPPING REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF ORDNANCE SURVEY ON BEHALF OF HMSO. ' CROWN COPYRIGHT AND DATABASE RIGHT 2011. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ORDNANCE SURVEY LICENCE NUMBER 100019345
9.3m
y wa b Su
Playground
KEY:
Mud
ANE PEARTREE L
3500m
EXCAVATED MATERIAL, STORAGE AND HANDLING AREA
W h g i H n a e M
r e t a
1200m
SHAFT, PRIMARY AND SECONDARY CRANE
1000m
SHAFT SEGMENT STOCKYARD, WORKSHOP AND STORAGE AREA
S RO AD AM I GL
3 5
SM
1
7 9 o t 1
2
6 6
3
0 5
4 7 2 8
5
0 4 3
6
LB
A 9.8m
M S
NORTH EASTERN STORM RELIEF SEWER
o t
9 6 1
Playground Bowling
2
Pavilion
SECONDARY CRANE
6.6m
ACCESS
Playground
2 1
PRIMARY CRANE
5.7m
5.0m
1
10 m
40 m
2 3 4
5.2m
Revision History
SCALE 1 : 500
Shadwell Dock
Iss
Description
Dsgnr
Chkd
Appd
Date
Hard
MLW
U n d
Jetty
F W
5.7m
FW
Shadwell Entrance
ROTHERHITHE TUNNEL
U n d
MLW
U n d
an d
Wa r d B d y U n d
Security Reference:
Drawn By:
N/A
Project Group:
UBR
Sub Process:
APUR
WASTE 5 0
Rev:
C29XB - KING EDWARD MEMORIAL PARK
Prospect Wharf
1t o
y t t e J
THAMES TUNNEL
Contract Name:
Bol
Drawing Title:
CONSTRUCTION PHASE LAYOUT C29XB - SMALL CSO (WESTERN CORNER)

PLOTTED ON
09/11/2011
BY
LOCATION :
e:\async working dir\pw-ttp\_pdf_svc_2\dms04446\100-DL-PNC-C29XB-169112.dgn
m a
s e
100-DL-PNC-C29XB-169112
r af t
W H
Location / Town:
TOWER HAMLETS - CS29X - NORTH EAST SR
6 8
1:500
A1
AB
1 0 0
on f i de nt i al
B o l l a r d s
1 5 0
Stairs
e l ng hi S
AB
DRAFT - SECOND ISSUE
REVI PSTV
DARD
10/09/2009
2 0 0 mm
EGRESS
0 3 1 o t 4 8
N
Status:
FOR INFORMATION
Keyplan:
N
9.3m
DRAWING LOCATION
y wa b Su
MAPPING REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF ORDNANCE SURVEY ON BEHALF OF HMSO. ' CROWN COPYRIGHT AND DATABASE RIGHT 2011. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ORDNANCE SURVEY LICENCE NUMBER 100019345 CSO INTERCEPTION CHAMBER THIS IS AN INDICATIVE WORKING DRAFT PLAN WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONFIDENTIAL DISCUSSIONS ONLY. ACCORDINGLY, THE DRAFT PLAN MUST NOT BE COPIED,
t n e m u n o M
6.9m
0 2 3
DISTRIBUTED OR SHOWN TO ANY THIRD PARTY WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THAMES WATER UTILITIES LIMITED. IT PROVIDES AN INDICATION OF SITES THAT, FOLLOWING DISCUSSIONS WITH LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS, MAY BE CONFIRMED AS BEING ON THE SHORTLIST OF CONSTRUCTION SITES FOR THE PROPOSED THAMES TUNNEL. INCLUSION OF A SITE ON THIS DRAFT PLAN SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN TO MEAN THAT SUCH SITE WILL BE SELECTED AS A CONSTRUCTION SITE TO FORM PART OF THE
Playground
THAMES TUNNEL SCHEME.
COORDINATES ARE TO ORDNANCE SURVEY DATUM OSGB36. ALL LEVELS ARE IN METRES AND RELATE TO THE TUNNEL DATUM WHICH IS 100 METRES BELOW ORDNANCE DATUM NEWLYN.

NOTE: 1. ALTERNATIVE ACCESS TO SITE SHOWN VIA PATH IN PARK. WHICH WILL HAVE TO BE STRENGTHENED/WIDENED
Green
Pavilion PCs
Mud
ANE PEARTREE L
KEY:
Pond
W h g i H n a e M
100m
EXCAVATED MATERIAL AND HANDLING AREA
r e t a
50m STOCKYARD, WORKSHOP AND STORES
50m
OFFICES, WELFARE AND CANTEEN
S RO AD AM I GL
Tennis Courts 5.1m

400m FLAP VALVE CHAMBER CSO DROP SHAFT, CSO CONNECTION CULVERT, PRIMARY CRANE, SECONDARY CRANE AND CSO INTERCEPTION CHAMBER
3 5
D Fn
SM
Air Shaft
DISCLAIMER: INDICATIVE CONSTRUCTION PHASE ARRANGEMENT. BASED ON PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT.
SITE BOUNDARY AREA = 33085m
6
N
9.3m
9 6 1
ACCESS
Status:
FOR INFORMATION
Keyplan:
N
o t
LB
9.8m
A
t n e m u n o M
6.9m
0 2 3
DRAWING LOCATION
y wa b Su
THIS IS AN INDICATIVE WORKING DRAFT PLAN WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONFIDENTIAL DISCUSSIONS ONLY. ACCORDINGLY, THE DRAFT PLAN MUST NOT BE COPIED, DISTRIBUTED OR SHOWN TO ANY THIRD PARTY WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THAMES WATER UTILITIES LIMITED. IT PROVIDES AN INDICATION OF SITES THAT, FOLLOWING DISCUSSIONS WITH LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS, MAY BE CONFIRMED AS BEING ON THE FLAP VALVE CHAMBER SHORTLIST OF CONSTRUCTION SITES FOR THE PROPOSED
ALTERNATIVE ACCESS THROUGH EXISTING ENTRANCE
Playground
SECONDARY CRANE
CSO INTERCEPTION CHAMBER
THAMES TUNNEL. INCLUSION OF A SITE ON THIS DRAFT PLAN SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN TO MEAN THAT SUCH SITE WILL BE SELECTED AS A CONSTRUCTION SITE TO FORM PART OF THE THAMES TUNNEL SCHEME.
King Edward
Playground
Bowling
2
Pavilion
COORDINATES ARE TO ORDNANCE SURVEY DATUM OSGB36. ALL LEVELS ARE IN METRES AND RELATE TO THE TUNNEL DATUM TEMPORARY WORKING AREA = 1500m WHICH IS 100 METRES BELOW ORDNANCE DATUM NEWLYN.
Memorial Park
Green
CSO DROP SHAFT 16m I.D.
m 5
m 0 1 x
m 0 2 x 0 2 m 0 1 x m 5
0m 10
Pavilion PCs
CSO CONNECTION CULVERT
Mud
ANE PEARTREE L
Pond
W h g i H n a e M
r e t a
KEY:
PRIMARY CRANE
100m
6.6m
50m
STOCKYARD, WORKSHOP AND STORES
S RO AD AM I GL
Playground
Tennis Courts
5.1m
50m OFFICES, WELFARE AND CANTEEN
D Fn
400m
CSO DROP SHAFT, CSO CONNECTION CULVERT, PRIMARY CRANE, SECONDARY CRANE AND CSO INTERCEPTION CHAMBER
3 5
SM
Air Shaft
5.7m C 5.0m
1
2 3 4
5.2m
10 m 0 40 m
Shadwell Dock
B o l l a r d s
SCALE 1 : 500
Revision History
Stairs
e l ng hi S
Iss
Description
Dsgnr
Chkd
Appd
Date
AD AC
FOURTH ISSUE DRAFT-THIRD ISSUE DRAFT-SECOND ISSUE DRAFT-FIRST ISSUE
REVI PSTV IL RS SS GT DS RS
DARD GT CH CH
31/10/2011 04/12/2009 14/08/2009 19/06/2009
Hard
AB AA
Jetty
F W
5.7m
FW
U n d
Shadwell Entrance
ROTHERHITHE TUNNEL
MLW
U n d
Wa r d B d y U n d
an d
Security Reference:
Drawn By:
W H
N/A
Project Group:
BNG
UBR
Sub Process:
APUR

Location / Town:
WASTE 5 0
Rev:
6 8
Prospect Wharf
1t o
y t t e J
THAMES TUNNEL
Contract Name:
Drawing Title:
PLOTTED ON
11/11/2011
BY
LOCATION :
m a h T r e
s e
CONTRUCTION PHASE PLAN C29XB - SMALL CSO (EAST)

AP PI NG
100-DL-PNC-C29XB-169002
r af t
1:500
A1
AD
1 0 0
on f i de nt i al
MLW
1 5 0
2 0 0 mm
1
7 9 o t 1
2
6 6
ACCESS
3
0 5
4 7 2 8
5
0 4 3
6
LB
A 9.8m
M S
o t
9 6 1
Playground Bowling
2
Pavilion
6.6m
Playground
2 1
5.7m
5.0m
1
10 m
40 m
2 3 4
5.2m
Revision History
SCALE 1 : 500
Shadwell Dock
Iss
Description
Dsgnr
Chkd
Appd
Date
Hard
MLW
U n d
Jetty
F W
5.7m
FW
Shadwell Entrance
ROTHERHITHE TUNNEL
U n d
MLW
U n d
an d
Wa r d B d y U n d
Security Reference:
Drawn By:
N/A
Project Group:
UBR
Sub Process:
APUR
WASTE 5 0
Rev:
Prospect Wharf
1t o
y t t e J
THAMES TUNNEL
Contract Name:
Bol
Drawing Title:
CONSTRUCTION PHASE LAYOUT C29XB - SMALL CSO (CENTRE OF PARK)

PLOTTED ON
09/11/2011
BY
LOCATION :
m a
s e
100-DL-PNC-C29XB-169212
r af t
W H
Location / Town:
6 8
1:500
A1
AA
1 0 0
on f i de nt i al
B o l l a r d s
1 5 0
Stairs
e l ng hi S
AA
FIRST ISSUE
REVI PSTV
DARD
11/08/2011
2 0 0 mm
0 3 1 o t 4 8
N
Status:
FOR INFORMATION
Keyplan:
N
9.3m
DRAWING LOCATION
y wa b Su
MAPPING REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF ORDNANCE SURVEY ON BEHALF OF HMSO. ' CROWN COPYRIGHT AND DATABASE RIGHT 2011. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ORDNANCE SURVEY LICENCE NUMBER 100019345 CSO INTERCEPTION CHAMBER ACCESS THIS IS AN INDICATIVE WORKING DRAFT PLAN WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONFIDENTIAL DISCUSSIONS ONLY. ACCORDINGLY, THE DRAFT PLAN MUST NOT BE COPIED,
t n e m u n o M
6.9m
0 2 3
DISTRIBUTED OR SHOWN TO ANY THIRD PARTY WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THAMES WATER UTILITIES LIMITED. IT PROVIDES AN INDICATION OF SITES THAT, FOLLOWING DISCUSSIONS WITH LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS, MAY BE CONFIRMED AS BEING ON THE
SECONDARY CRANE
SHORTLIST OF CONSTRUCTION SITES FOR THE PROPOSED THAMES TUNNEL. INCLUSION OF A SITE ON THIS DRAFT PLAN SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN TO MEAN THAT SUCH SITE WILL BE SELECTED AS A CONSTRUCTION SITE TO FORM PART OF THE
Playground
PRIMARY CRANE

CSO CONNECTION CULVERT NOTE: 1. ALTERNATIVE ACCESS TO SITE SHOWN VIA PATH IN PARK. WHICH WILL HAVE TO BE STRENGTHENED/WIDENED FLAP VALVE CHAMBER EGRESS
Green
Pavilion PCs
Mud
ANE PEARTREE L
KEY:
Pond
W h g i H n a e M
100m
r e t a
50m STOCKYARD, WORKSHOP AND STORES
50m
OFFICES, WELFARE AND CANTEEN
S RO AD AM I GL
Tennis Courts 5.1m

400m CSO DROP SHAFT, CSO CONNECTION CULVERT, PRIMARY CRANE, SECONDARY CRANE AND CSO INTERCEPTION CHAMBER
3 5
D Fn
SM
Air Shaft
Appendix 8 Operational phase layout
Appendix 8 Page 1
DS EL FI
k c o Bl t s e
I SR
GL AM
3 o6 1t
3
4 o t 1
o bt 1
6
Status:
9 1 1
3 1
S I M A L G
9.6m
7 9 o t 1
9 6 1
M S
o t
LB
9.8m
B
1000m
Playground Bowling
12 2
Pavilion
1000m
6.6m
Playground
HARDSTANDING
2 1
FENCE
D Fn
PERMANENT ACCESS 1200m
Air Shaft
SITE BOUNDARY 33085m

Revision History
Iss
Description
Dsgnr
Chkd
Appd
Date
AA
FIRST ISSUE
REVI PSTV
DARD
12/09/2011
5.7m
5.0m
1
2 3 4
5.2m
VENTILATION COLUMN
Shadwell Dock
Stairs
e l ng hi S
B o l l a r d s
D
U n d
Jetty
MLW
an d
Hard
Location Code:
OS Reference:
Security Reference:
Drawn By:
N/A
Project Group:
TQ3479
UBR
Sub Process:
JYAS

Location / Town:
WASTE 5 0
Rev:
F W
5.7m
FW
U n d
Shadwell Entrance
MLW
THAMES TUNNEL
Contract Name:
U n d
Drawing Title:
Wa r d B d y U n d
PLOTTED ON 02/11/2011 BY LOCATION : e:\async working dir\pw-ttp\_pdf_svc_2\dms04446\100-DL-PNC-C29XB-169313.dgn
OPERATIONAL PHASE LAYOUT C29XB - LARGE CSO (WEST)

100-DL-PNC-C29XB-169313
r af t
1:500
A1
AA
1 0 0
on f i de nt i al
11
1 5 0
2 0 0 mm
0 3 1 o t 4 8
VENTILATION COLUMN
HARDSTANDING
t n e m u n o M
6.9m
0 2 3

Green
Pavilion
PCs
Pond
Tennis Courts
20m I.D. SHAFT
5.1m
4 2
E C A L P
Lion Court
6 3
0 5
4 6
3 6 o t 1
k c o l B h t u o S
3 6 o t 1
k c o l B h t u o S
Bath Court
435
Keyplan:
FOR INFORMATION
N
THIS DRAWING
6 6
4 7
2 8
9.3m
y wa b Su
Playground
Mud
ANE PEARTREE L
W h g i H n a e M
r e t a
S RO AD AM I GL
3 5
SM
1
7 9 o t 1
2
6 6
3
0 5
4 7 2 8
5
0 4 3
6
LB
A 9.8m
M S
o t
9 6 1
Playground Bowling
2
Pavilion
PERMANENT ACCESS
6.6m
Playground
2 1
6 x 4m TOP STRUCTURE
PERMANENT HARDSTANDING FOR FUTURE CRANE ACCESS
5.7m
5.0m
10 m 0 40 m
2 3 4
5.2m
SCALE 1 : 500
Revision History
Shadwell Dock
Iss
Description
Dsgnr
Chkd
Appd
Date
Hard
MLW
U n d
Jetty
F W
5.7m
FW
Shadwell Entrance
U n d
MLW
U n d
an d
Wa r d B d y U n d
Security Reference:
Drawn By:
N/A
Project Group:
UBR
Sub Process:
APUR
WASTE 5 0
Rev:
Prospect Wharf
1t o
y t t e J
THAMES TUNNEL
Contract Name:
Bol
Drawing Title:
OPERATIONAL PHASE LAYOUT C29XB - SMALL CSO (WESTERN CORNER)

PLOTTED ON
09/11/2011
BY
LOCATION :
m a
s e
100-DL-PNC-C29XB-169113
r af t
W H
Location / Town:
6 8
1:500
A1
AA
1 0 0
on f i de nt i al
B o l l a r d s
1 5 0
Stairs
e l ng hi S
AA
DRAFT - FIRST ISSUE
REVI PSTV
DARD
10/09/2009
2 0 0 mm
0 3 1 o t 4 8
N
Status:
FOR INFORMATION
Keyplan:
N
9.3m
DRAWING LOCATION
y wa b Su
MAPPING REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF ORDNANCE SURVEY ON BEHALF OF HMSO. ' CROWN COPYRIGHT AND DATABASE ACCESS RIGHT 2011. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ORDNANCE SURVEY LICENCE NUMBER 100019345 THIS IS AN INDICATIVE WORKING DRAFT PLAN WHICH HAS BEEN
t n e m u n o M
PENSTOCK ACCESS
PRODUCED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONFIDENTIAL DISCUSSIONS ONLY. ACCORDINGLY, THE DRAFT PLAN MUST NOT BE COPIED, DISTRIBUTED OR SHOWN TO ANY THIRD PARTY WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THAMES WATER UTILITIES
6.9m
INTERCEPTION CHAMBER
LIMITED. IT PROVIDES AN INDICATION OF SITES THAT, FOLLOWING DISCUSSIONS WITH LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS, MAY BE CONFIRMED AS BEING ON THE SHORTLIST OF CONSTRUCTION SITES FOR THE PROPOSED THAMES TUNNEL. INCLUSION OF A SITE ON THIS DRAFT PLAN
0 2 3
SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN TO MEAN THAT SUCH SITE WILL BE SELECTED AS A CONSTRUCTION SITE TO FORM PART OF THE
Playground

Green
NOTES: 1. HARDSTANDING INDICATED FULLY ENCOMPASSING SHAFT/ TOP STRUCTURE. REDUCTION IN AREA CAN BE CONSIDERED. 2. ACCESS OPENING TO INTERCEPTION CHAMBER IS INDICATIVE ONLY. 3. PERMANENT ACCESS TO HARDSTANDING ASSUMED VIA IN ROADS PARK.IN PREFERENCE TO DIRECT ACCESS TO MAIN ROAD ROADS MAY HAVE TO BE STRENGTHENED/WIDENED.
Pavilion PCs
Mud
Pond
W h g i H n a e M r e t a
ANE PEARTREE L
S RO AD AM I GL
Tennis Courts 5.1m
3 5
FLAP VALVE CHAMBER
D Fn
SM
VENTILATION COLUMN 2m x 0.6m x 1.5m HIGH ELECTRICAL CONTROL KIOSK
Air Shaft
DISCLAIMER: INDICATIVE OPERATIONAL PHASE ARRANGEMENT. BASED ON PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT.
6
N
9.3m
9 6 1
ACCESS
Status:
FOR INFORMATION
Keyplan:
N
o t
LB
9.8m
A
t n e m u n o M
6.9m
0 2 3
DRAWING LOCATION
y wa b Su
THIS IS AN INDICATIVE WORKING DRAFT PLAN WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONFIDENTIAL DISCUSSIONS ONLY. ACCORDINGLY, THE DRAFT PLAN MUST NOT BE COPIED, DISTRIBUTED OR SHOWN TO ANY THIRD PARTY WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THAMES WATER UTILITIES LIMITED. IT PROVIDES AN INDICATION OF SITES THAT, FOLLOWING DISCUSSIONS WITH LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS, MAY BE CONFIRMED AS BEING ON THE FLAP VALVE CHAMBER SHORTLIST OF CONSTRUCTION SITES FOR THE PROPOSED
Playground
CSO INTERCEPTION CHAMBER
THAMES TUNNEL. INCLUSION OF A SITE ON THIS DRAFT PLAN SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN TO MEAN THAT SUCH SITE WILL BE SELECTED AS A CONSTRUCTION SITE TO FORM PART OF THE THAMES TUNNEL SCHEME.
King Edward
Playground
Bowling
2
Pavilion
Memorial Park
Green
Pavilion PCs
CSO CONNECTION CULVERT
Mud
ANE PEARTREE L
Pond
W h g i H n a e M
r e t a
VENTILATION COLUMN
6.6m
6m x 4m x 1.5m HIGH ELECTRICAL CONTROL KIOSK
Playground
Tennis Courts
5.1m
2m x 0.6m x 1.5m HIGH ELECTRICAL CONTROL KIOSK
S RO AD AM I GL
3 5
D Fn
SM
Air Shaft
5.7m C 5.0m
1
2 3 4
5.2m
10 m 0 40 m
Shadwell Dock
B o l l a r d s
SCALE 1 : 500
Revision History
Stairs
e l ng hi S
Iss
Description
Dsgnr
Chkd
Appd
Date
AC AB
THIRD ISSUE DRAFT-FIRST ISSUE DRAFT-FIRST ISSUE
REVI PSTV RS SS DS RS
DARD CH CH
30/10/2011 14/08/2009 19/06/2009
Hard
AA
Jetty
F W
5.7m
FW
U n d
Shadwell Entrance
MLW
U n d
Wa r d B d y U n d
an d
Security Reference:
Drawn By:
W H
N/A
Project Group:
BNG
UBR
Sub Process:
APUR

Location / Town:
WASTE 5 0
Rev:
6 8
Prospect Wharf
1t o
y t t e J
THAMES TUNNEL
Contract Name:
Drawing Title:
PLOTTED ON
11/11/2011
BY
LOCATION :
m a h T r e
s e
OPERATIONAL PHASE PLAN C29XB - SMALL CSO (EAST)

AP PI NG
100-DL-PNC-C29XB-169003
r af t
1:500
A1
AC
1 0 0
on f i de nt i al
MLW
1 5 0
2 0 0 mm
1
7 9 o t 1
2
6 6
3
0 5
4 7 2 8
5
0 4 3
6
LB
A 9.8m
M S
o t
9 6 1
Playground Bowling
2
Pavilion
6.6m
Playground
2 1
5.7m
5.0m
10 m 0 40 m
2 3 4
5.2m
SCALE 1 : 500
Revision History
Shadwell Dock
Iss
Description
Dsgnr
Chkd
Appd
Date
Hard
MLW
U n d
Jetty
F W
5.7m
FW
Shadwell Entrance
U n d
MLW
U n d
an d
Wa r d B d y U n d
Security Reference:
Drawn By:
N/A
Project Group:
UBR
Sub Process:
APUR
WASTE 5 0
Rev:
Prospect Wharf
1t o
y t t e J
THAMES TUNNEL
Contract Name:
Bol
Drawing Title:
OPERATIONAL PHASE LAYOUT C29XB - SMALL CSO (CENTRE OF PARK)

PLOTTED ON
09/11/2011
BY
LOCATION :
m a
s e
100-DL-PNC-C29XB-169213
r af t
W H
Location / Town:
6 8
1:500
A1
AA
1 0 0
on f i de nt i al
B o l l a r d s
1 5 0
Stairs
e l ng hi S
AA
DRAFT - FIRST ISSUE
REVI PSTV
DARD
11/08/2011
2 0 0 mm
0 3 1 o t 4 8
N
Status:
FOR INFORMATION
Keyplan:
N
9.3m
DRAWING LOCATION
y wa b Su
PERMANENT ACCESS
MAPPING REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF ORDNANCE SURVEY ON BEHALF OF HMSO. ' CROWN COPYRIGHT AND DATABASE ACCESS RIGHT 2011. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ORDNANCE SURVEY LICENCE NUMBER 100019345
THIS IS AN INDICATIVE WORKING DRAFT PLAN WHICH HAS BEEN
t n e m u n o M
PENSTOCK ACCESS
PRODUCED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONFIDENTIAL DISCUSSIONS ONLY. ACCORDINGLY, THE DRAFT PLAN MUST NOT BE COPIED, DISTRIBUTED OR SHOWN TO ANY THIRD PARTY WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THAMES WATER UTILITIES
6.9m
3.8m x 6.8m INTERCEPTION CHAMBER CSO DROP SHAFT 16m I.D.
LIMITED. IT PROVIDES AN INDICATION OF SITES THAT, FOLLOWING DISCUSSIONS WITH LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS, MAY BE CONFIRMED AS BEING ON THE SHORTLIST OF CONSTRUCTION SITES FOR THE PROPOSED THAMES TUNNEL. INCLUSION OF A SITE ON THIS DRAFT PLAN SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN TO MEAN THAT SUCH SITE WILL BE SELECTED AS A CONSTRUCTION SITE TO FORM PART OF THE
0 2 3
Playground

Green
FLAP VALVE CHAMBER
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. HARDSTANDING INDICATED FULLY ENCOMPASSING SHAFT/ TOP STRUCTURE. REDUCTION IN AREA CAN BE CONSIDERED. 2. ACCESS OPENING TO INTERCEPTION CHAMBER IS INDICATIVE ONLY. VENTILATION COLUMN 3. PERMANENT ACCESS TO HARDSTANDING ASSUMED VIA IN ROADS PARK.IN PREFERENCE TO DIRECT ACCESS TO MAIN ROAD ROADS MAY HAVE TO BE STRENGTHENED/WIDENED.
6 x 4m TOP STRUCTURE
Pavilion PCs
2m x 0.6m x 1.5m HIGH ELECTRICAL CONTROL KIOSK
Mud
r e t a
ANE PEARTREE L
Pond
W h g i H n a e M
S RO AD AM I GL
Tennis Courts 5.1m
3 5
D Fn
SM
Air Shaft
DISCLAIMER: INDICATIVE OPERATIONAL PHASE ARRANGEMENT. BASED ON PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT.
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 150 0 50
Scale: Sheet Size: Rev:
- - AB DRAFT-SECOND ISSUE IL RS
Dsgnr
GT DS
Chkd
GT CH
Appd
27-11-09 - 22-05-09
Date
AA DRAFT-FIRST ISSUE
Iss Description
60
2000
Location Code: OS Reference: Security Reference: Drawn By:
N/A
Project Group:
---
UBR
Sub Process:
AP
LTTDT
Location / Town: Site Name: Project Name:
WASTE LONDON N/A
THAMES TUNNEL
Contract Name:

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

Transport Small CSO site (east) Site considerations Access to road network Comments Site access onto the TLRN at The Highway (A1203) from the park gates of King Edward Memorial Park currently used for pedestrian access. A new wider access would need to be constructed with the removal of the park gates and the access road through the park would require construction. A ramp may be required to Mitigation required and conclusions Conclusion: Road access to site suitable for HGVs with the construction of a new site access (wider than the existing pedestrian access) and the removal and relocation of the park gates. A ramp may be required to account for the level difference between the access and The Highway. Access via the northwest corner Large CSO site (west) Comments As small CSO site (west), see right. Temporary and permanent site access and egress require construction onto Glamis Road with the removal of playground fencing. This would enable a one-way system to be operated through the site for construction vehicles. Access via the northwest corner of the park is unsuitable due to Mitigation required and conclusions As small CSO site (west), see right. Road access to site suitable for HGVs with the construction of an access and egress to enable a one-way system through the site. Access also requires construction through playground perimeter fencing. Access via the northwest corner of the park is unsuitable due to Small CSO site (west) Comments Temporary construction site access and egress require construction onto Glamis Road with the removal of playground fencing. This would enable a one-way system to be operated through the site for construction vehicles. Permanent access is also onto Glamis Road, requiring the construction of a new access. Access via the Mitigation required and conclusions Conclusion: Road access to site suitable for HGVs with the construction of a temporary construction access and egress to enable a one-way system through the site. Permanent access also requires construction through playground perimeter fencing. Access via the northwest corner of the
Appendix 9 Page 1
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Transport Small CSO site (east) Site considerations Mitigation Comments required and conclusions account for the of the park is level difference unsuitable due to between the the close access point and proximity of a The Highway signalised (A1203). Access junction and via the northwest issues with corner of the construction park is vehicle turning unsuitable due to movements. the close Care should be proximity of a taken to maintain signalised access to the junction and adjacent flats. issues with Several footways construction within the park vehicle turning would require movements. diversion along It appears to be with the Thames very difficult to Path around the turn right out of site. the site due to Site access the high traffic directly onto the volumes along TLRN (A1203) The Highway and may require and it being a Large CSO site (west) Mitigation Comments required and conclusions the close the close proximity of a proximity of a signalised signalised junction and junction and issues with issues with construction construction vehicle turning vehicle turning movements. movements. Visibility appears The Thames to be adequate Path would from both access require and egress. diversion, as would footways Access to the TLRN (A1203) is within the park. via Glamis Road, Access route to which is traffic the TLRN calmed (speed (A1203) is traffic cushions). calmed (speed cushions). See transport access plan in Appendix 5. Small CSO site (west) Mitigation Comments required and conclusions northwest corner park is of the park is unsuitable due to unsuitable due to the close the close proximity of a proximity of a signalised signalised junction and junction and issues with issues with construction construction vehicle turning vehicle turning movements. movements. The Thames The Thames Path would Path would require require diversion, as diversion, as would footways would the within the park. footways within Care should be the park. Care taken to maintain should be taken access to the to maintain flats adjacent to access to the the park. flats adjacent to Access route to the park on The the TLRN Highway. (A1203) is traffic Glamis Road is calmed (speed
Appendix 9 Page 2
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Transport Small CSO site (east) Site considerations Comments wide multilane single carriageway. It is recommended that a left in/left out type arrangement should be considered for the site access, although this would adversely affect travel east from the site. The Thames Path would require diversion, as would the footways within the park. Care should be taken to maintain access to the flats adjacent to the park on The Mitigation required and conclusions a left in/left out type arrangement, as the TLRN (A1203) is a multilane single carriageway with high traffic levels. In this scenario, eastbound travel from the site vehicles would have to use the TLRN (A1203) westbound (as only left out of access) then travel northbound along Cannon Street Road, leading on to the TLRN (A13). Large CSO site (west) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions Small CSO site (west) Comments street-lit and subject to a 20mph speed limit. Visibility appears to be adequate from the construction site egress and permanent site access. Access to the TLRN (A1203) is via Glamis Road, which is traffic calmed (speed cushions). See transport access plan in Appendix 5. Mitigation required and conclusions cushions).
Appendix 9 Page 3
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Transport Small CSO site (east) Site considerations Comments Highway. The Highway (A1203) forms part of the TLRN and is a street-lit single carriageway, subject to a 30mph speed limit. Visibility splays are achievable to 90m in both directions from the site/park access. Direct access onto the TLRN (A1203) is achievable for travelling westbound. Eastbound vehicles could use Cannon Mitigation required and conclusions Large CSO site (west) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions Small CSO site (west) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions
Appendix 9 Page 4
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Transport Small CSO site (east) Site considerations Comments Street Road via the A1203 for access onto the TLRN (A13). See transport access plan in Appendix 5. Access to river CSO site adjacent to river, although river access not essential as excavated material to be transported away by road to main site. Rail use unlikely to be required due to the small quantities of excavated material produced by River access not essential as excavated material to be transported away by road to main site. As for small CSO site (east), see left. As for small CSO site (east), see left. As for small CSO site (east), see left. As for small CSO site (east), see left. Mitigation required and conclusions Large CSO site (west) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions Small CSO site (west) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions
Access to rail
Rail use unlikely to be required due to the small quantities of excavated material produced by
As for small CSO site (east), see left.
Appendix 9 Page 5
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Transport Small CSO site (east) Site considerations Mitigation Comments required and conclusions CSO sites. CSO sites. Access to Route to London Bridge potential rail link Station at London Bridge westbound along Station possible the TLRN (if required). (A1203) and Route runs follows on to the under and over A3211 through several bridges the congestion with no visible zone. Route restrictions, as then passes over well as through Southwark the congestion Bridge, which zone and a high has no visible street area. restrictions, London Bridge continuing along Station Southwark accessible from Bridge Road Borough High onto Southwark Street. It has the Street, under a potential to be rail bridge with used during the no visible night and off restrictions. peak, although From Southwark significant use Street, the route Large CSO site (west) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions Small CSO site (west) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions
Appendix 9 Page 6
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Transport Small CSO site (east) Site considerations Comments follows on to Borough High Street, which accesses London Bridge Station after passing under a rail bridge with no visible restrictions. The route passes over and under several bridges with no visible restrictions and through a high street area and the congestion zone. London Bridge Station has the potential to be used during the night and off peak, although Mitigation required and conclusions constraints and issues with loading would exist. Large CSO site (west) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions Small CSO site (west) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions
Appendix 9 Page 7
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Transport Small CSO site (east) Site considerations Comments significant use constraints and issues with loading would exist. Distance 4.6km to rail access point from site. Parking Some parking could be provided on the site for workforce. On-street parking is unavailable on surrounding roads as restricted to permit holders only. The Highway is red route. Some parking available on the site for workforce. No alternative on-street parking available. As for small CSO site (east), see left. As for small CSO site (east), see left. As for small CSO site (east), see left. As for small CSO site (east), see left. Mitigation required and conclusions Large CSO site (west) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions Small CSO site (west) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions
Appendix 9 Page 8
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Transport Small CSO site (east) Site considerations Public transport accessibility Comments PTAL 3-4 (medium), as identified within Table 2.3. Mitigation required and conclusions Reasonable possibility exists for workforce to use public transport to access the site. A new site access would require construction, with the removal of the park gates. A ramp may be required between the access and The Highway. The Thames Path and several footways would require diversion. Large CSO site (west) Comments As for small CSO site (east), see left. Mitigation required and conclusions As for small CSO site (east), see left. Small CSO site (west) Comments As for small CSO site (east), see left. Mitigation required and conclusions As for small CSO site (east), see left.
Traffic management
Construction of a new access wider than current pedestrian access, requiring the removal of park gates. The access may require a left in/ left out arrangement. A ramp may be required to account for the level difference between the site access and The Highway.
As for small CSO site (west), see right. Construction of access with the removal of playground fencing. Diversion of a number of footways within the park and the Thames Path required.
As for small CSO site (west), see right. Construction of access with the removal of playground fencing. Diversion of Thames Path and several footways required.
Construction of temporary construction access and egress through playground perimeter fencing. Construction of permanent access through playground perimeter fencing. Diversion of a number of footways within the park and the Thames Path
New site accesses and egress require construction through playground perimeter fencing. Diversion of Thames Path and several footways required.
Appendix 9 Page 9
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Transport Small CSO site (east) Site considerations Comments Diversion of a number of footways within the park and the Thames Path required. Summary The site is suitable as a small CSO site (east). A new access with a left in/left out type arrangement requires construction, with the removal of the park gates. A ramp may be required to account for the level difference between the site access and The Highway (A1203). The existing access to the adjacent flats would need to be maintained. Access via the northwest corner of the park is unsuitable due to the close proximity of a signalised junction and issues with construction vehicle turning movements. Potential road and rail access routes are suitable for HGVs as the site access onto the TLRN (A1203) can be used to access the rail link at London Bridge Station. Rail use unlikely to be required due to the small quantities of excavated material produced by CSO sites. If required, route to rail passes through a high street area and the congestion zone. River access not required for a CSO site as excavated material to be transported away by road to main site. Several footways within the park Mitigation required and conclusions Large CSO site (west) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions Small CSO site (west) Comments required. Mitigation required and conclusions
The site is suitable as a large CSO site and as a small CSO site (west). A new temporary construction access and egress require construction through playground perimeter fencing. This would enable a one-way system to be operated through the site for construction vehicles. A permanent access also requires construction through playground perimeter fencing. The existing access to the adjacent flats would need to be maintained. Access via the northwest corner of the park is unsuitable due to the close proximity of a signalised junction and issues with construction vehicle turning movements. The access route to the TLRN (A1203) is via Glamis Road, which is traffic calmed (speed cushions). Use of rail is unlikely to be required due to the small quantities of excavated material produced by CSO sites. If required, the rail access route to London Bridge Station passes through a high street area and the congestion zone. River access is not required for a CSO site as
Appendix 9 Page 10
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Transport Small CSO site (east) Site considerations Large CSO site (west) Small CSO site (west)
Mitigation Comments required and Comments conclusions would require diversion in addition to the Thames Path. Reasonable potential exists for the workforce to utilise public transport to access the site. Some parking could be provided on site for workforce, although no-on street parking is available nearby.
Mitigation Mitigation required and Comments required and conclusions conclusions excavated material to be transported away by road to a main site. Several footways within the park which would require diversion in addition to the Thames Path. Reasonable potential exists for the workforce to utilise public transport to access the site. Some parking could be provided on site for workforce, although no on-street parking is available nearby.
Appendix 9 Page 11
Transport Small CSO site (north) Site considerations Access to road network Comments Site access onto the TLRN at The Highway (A1203) from the park gates of King Edward Memorial Park currently used for pedestrian access. A new wider access would need to be constructed with the removal of the park gates, and the access road through the park would require construction. A ramp may be required to account for the level difference between the access point and The Highway (A1203). Access via the northwest corner of the park is unsuitable due to the close proximity of a signalised junction and issues with construction vehicle turning movements. It appears to be very difficult to turn right out of the site due to the high traffic volumes along The Highway and it being a wide, multilane single carriageway. It is recommended that a left in/left out type arrangement should be considered for the site access, although this would adversely affect travel east from the site. The Thames Path would require diversion, as would the footways within the park. Care should be taken to maintain access to the flats adjacent to the park on The Highway. The Highway (A1203) forms part of the TLRN and is a street-lit single carriageway, subject to a 30mph speed limit. Visibility splays are achievable to 90m in both directions from the site/ park access. Mitigation required and conclusions Road access to site suitable for HGVs with the construction of a new site access (wider than the existing pedestrian access) and the removal and relocation of the park gates. A ramp may be required to account for the level difference between the access and The Highway. Access via the northwest corner of the park is unsuitable due to the close proximity of a signalised junction and issues with construction vehicle turning movements. Care should be taken to maintain access to the adjacent flats. Several footways within the park would require diversion, along with the Thames Path around the site. Site access directly onto the TLRN (A1203) and may require a left in/left out type arrangement, as the TLRN (A1203) is a multilane single carriageway with high traffic levels. In this scenario, eastbound travel from the site vehicles would have to use the TLRN (A1203) westbound (as only left out of access) then travel northbound along Cannon Street Road, leading on to the TLRN (A13). Permanent access requires construction with the removal of playground fencing. Glamis Road is traffic calmed
Appendix 9 Page 1
Transport Small CSO site (north) Site considerations Comments Direct access onto the TLRN (A1203) is achievable for travelling westbound. Eastbound vehicles could use Cannon Street Road via the A1203 for access onto the TLRN (A13). Permanent site access requires construction onto Glamis Road and requires the removal of playground fencing. Visibility appears to be adequate from the access. Access to the TLRN (A1203) is via Glamis Road, which is traffic calmed (speed cushions). See transport access plan in Appendix 5. Access to river CSO site adjacent to river although river access not essential as excavated material to be transported away by road to main site. Rail use unlikely to be required due to the small quantities of excavated material produced by CSO sites. Access to London Bridge Station westbound along the TLRN (A1203) and follows on to the A3211 through the congestion zone. Route then passes over Southwark Bridge, which has no visible restrictions, continuing along Southwark Bridge Road on to Southwark Street under a rail bridge with no visible restrictions. From Southwark Street, the route follows on to Borough High Street, which accesses London Bridge Station after passing under a rail bridge with no Mitigation required and conclusions (speed cushions).
River access not essential as excavated material to be transported away by road to main site. Rail use unlikely to be required due to the small quantities of excavated material produced by CSO sites. Route to potential rail link at London Bridge Station possible (if required). Route runs under and over several bridges with no visible restrictions, as well as through the congestion zone and a high street area. London Bridge Station accessible from Borough High Street. It has the potential to be used during the night and off peak, although significant use constraints and issues with
Access to rail
Appendix 9 Page 2
Transport Small CSO site (north) Site considerations Comments visible restrictions. The route passes over and under several bridges with no visible restrictions and through a high street area and the congestion zone. London Bridge Station has the potential to be used during the night and off peak, although significant use constraints and issues with loading would exist. Distance 4.6km to rail access point from site. Parking Some parking could be provided on the site for workforce. Onstreet parking is unavailable on surrounding roads as restricted to permit holders only. The Highway is red route. PTAL 3-4 (medium), as identified within Table 2.3. Construction of a new access wider than current pedestrian access, requiring the removal of park gates. The access may require a left in/left out arrangement. A ramp may be required to account for the level difference between the site access and The Highway. Diversion of a number of footways within the park and the Thames Path required. Construction of permanent access with the removal of playground fencing. Mitigation required and conclusions loading would exist.
Some parking available on the site for workforce. No alternative on-street parking available.
Public transport accessibility Traffic management
Reasonable possibility exists for workforce to use public transport to access the site. A new site access would require construction with the removal of the park gates. A ramp may be required between the access and The Highway. The Thames Path and several footways would require diversion. Construction of permanent access with the removal of playground fencing.
Appendix 9 Page 3
Transport Small CSO site (north) Site considerations Comments Mitigation required and conclusions
Summary: This site is suitable for use. However, it would require construction of a new access, with a left-in/left-out type arrangement, with the removal of the park gates. A ramp may be required to account for the level difference between the site access and The Highway (A1203). The existing access to the adjacent flats would need to be maintained. Access via the northwest corner of the park is unsuitable, due to the close proximity of a signalised junction and issues with construction vehicle turning movements. Potential road routes are suitable for HGVs as the site access is onto the TLRN (A1203). River access is not required for a CSO site as excavated material is to be transported away by road. Several footways within the park would require diversion in addition to the Thames Path. Reasonable potential exists for the workforce to utilise public transport to access the site. Some parking could be provided on site for the workforce, although no on-street parking is available nearby.
Appendix 9 Page 4
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Archaeology Site considerations Designations, including archaeological priority areas Summary of historical uses Small CSO site (east and west)/Large CSO site (west) Comments The site is within the Tower Hamlets Archaeological Priority Area (APA). Mitigation required and conclusions As the site is located in an archaeological priority area, an archaeological assessment or, if necessary, a field evaluation would be required as part of the planning application. A detailed desk-based assessment is required to sufficiently understand the archaeological resource and define risk to potential development.
The 19th century OS maps indicate the site to be occupied by a large fish market along the southern edge of the site and numerous other buildings to the north. By the 1930s, the buildings were demolished and a park (King Edward Memorial Park) was established in the 1940s. This has remained to the present day. No archaeological receptors of high value are recorded within the site. This does not preclude the possibility of unrecorded archaeological receptors of medium value being within the site. Two records exist for the site. A record of post-medieval ceramics (MLO 12185) and post hole of possible prehistoric date (MLO7755). Foundations of the 19th century fish market may still exist in the area of the proposed shaft. A number of records for structures and find spots exist for the Thames foreshore to the south and outside the site.
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.
Appendix 9 Page 1
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Archaeology Site considerations Other receptors with the potential to be directly affected Small CSO site (east and west)/Large CSO site (west) Comments Construction impact of potential waterlogged deposits containing archaeological remains may cause dewatering. This potential impact should be considered, given the close proximity of the site to the Thames River. Construction impact may have disturbed medieval or earlier remains. Borehole data in the area suggests raised made ground of 6m, some of which could be archaeological in nature. Detailed design proposals and an outline method statement would be required to enable initial assessment of development impacts, and to inform mitigation proposals. With the currently available information, it is not possible to highlight specific potential issues. Mitigation required and conclusions A detailed desk-based assessment is required to sufficiently understand the archaeological resource and define risk to potential development.
Extent of existing disturbance (if known)
A detailed desk-based assessment is required to sufficiently understand the archaeological resource and define risk to potential development. 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.
Potential issues
Summary: Based on current information, this site is suitable for use as either a small (east or west) or a large CSO site. Archaeological receptors of medium value are present but it is possible that further archaeological receptors of high or medium value may be present within this site. While no direct evidence has been revealed, waterlogged remains and peat deposits of high or medium value may also be present. As the site is located in an archaeological priority area, an archaeological assessment or, if necessary, a field evaluation would be required as part of the planning application.
Appendix 9 Page 2
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Archaeology Small CSO site (north) Site considerations Designations, including archaeological priority areas Comments The site is within the Tower Hamlets Archaeological Priority Area (APA). Mitigation required and conclusions As the site is located in an archaeological priority area, an archaeological assessment or, if necessary, a field evaluation would be required as part of the planning application. A detailed desk-based assessment is required to sufficiently understand the archaeological resource and define risk to potential development.
Summary of historical uses
The 19th century OS maps indicate the site to be occupied by a large fish market along the southern edge of the site, and numerous other buildings to the north. By the 1930s, the buildings were demolished and a park (King Edward Memorial Park) was established in the 1940s. This has remained to the present day. No archaeological receptors of high value are recorded within the site. This does not preclude the possibility of unrecorded archaeological receptors of medium value being within the site. Two records exist for the site. A record of post-medieval ceramics (MLO 12185) and post hole of possible prehistoric date (MLO7755). Foundations of the 19th century fish market may still exist in the area of the proposed shaft. A number of records for structures and find spots exist for the Thames foreshore to the south and outside the site.
Potential receptors of very high or high 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.
Potential receptors of medium value with the potential to be directly affected
Appendix 9 Page 1
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Archaeology Small CSO site (north) Site considerations Other receptors with the potential to be directly affected Comments Construction impact of potential waterlogged deposits containing archaeological remains may cause dewatering. This potential impact should be considered, given the close proximity of the site to the Thames River. Construction impact may have disturbed medieval or earlier remains. Borehole data in the area suggests raised made ground of 6m, some of which could be archaeological in nature. Detailed design proposals and an outline method statement would be required to enable initial assessment of development impacts, and to inform mitigation proposals. With the currently available information, it is not possible to highlight specific potential issues. Mitigation required and conclusions A detailed desk-based assessment is required to sufficiently understand the archaeological resource and define risk to potential development.
Extent of existing disturbance (if known)
A detailed desk-based assessment is required to sufficiently understand the archaeological resource and define risk to potential development. Mitigation methods could include: Review/production of existing desk-based assessments Production of deposits model Archaeological monitoring of geo technical investigations Archaeological evaluation Archaeological watching brief Archaeological excavation.
Potential issues
Summary: This site is suitable for use. However, archaeological receptors of medium value are present and it is possible that further archaeological receptors of high or medium value may be present within this site. While no direct evidence has been revealed, waterlogged remains and peat deposits of high or medium value may also be present. As the site is located in an archaeological priority area, an archaeological assessment or, if necessary, a field evaluation would be required as part of the planning application.
Appendix 9 Page 2
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Built heritage and townscape Small CSO site (east) Site considerations Designations including conservation areas, including trees Comments Listed buildings Pelican Stairs, Grade II: 170m B and C warehouse, Metropolitan Wharf, Grade II: 240m A warehouse, Metropolitan Wharf, Grade II: 230m Wall closing north end of court yard, Grade II: 75m Iron railings, wall and iron gates of St Pauls Church, Grade II: 120m St Pauls Terrace, Grade Mitigation required and conclusions Large CSO site (west) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions As for small CSO site (east), see left Small CSO site (west) Comments As for small CSO site (east), see left Mitigation required and conclusions As for small CSO site (east), see left
As for small In the case of CSO site (east), listed buildings, see left conservation areas and locally listed buildings, 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, would be required to further determine the likely impact of
Appendix 9 Page 1
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Built heritage and townscape Small CSO site (east) Site considerations Comments II: 60m Stone stairs, Grade II: 225m London hydraulic power company station with number 37, Grade II*: 145m East block with attached railings and gatepiers Peabody Estate, Grade II: 80m Free Trade Wharf, Grade II: 165m West block with attached railings and gatepiers Peabody Estate, Grade II: 70m St Marys Church, Grade II: 175m Mitigation required and conclusions the development and to inform more detailed mitigation proposals. On the basis of currently available information (July 2009) and on the basis of certain receptors not being present within 250m, mitigation would not be applicable in the case of locally listed parks and gardens, registered historic parks and gardens and protected views. Large CSO site (west) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions Small CSO site (west) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions
Appendix 9 Page 2
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Built heritage and townscape Small CSO site (east) Site considerations Comments St Pauls Church Shadwell, Grade B (equates to Grade II*): 100m Flagged passage (approaching stone stairs from the highway), Grade II: 220m Prospect of Whitby Public House, Grade II: 145m North block with attached railings and gatepiers Peabody Estate, Grade II: 90m Air shaft to Rotherhithe Tunnel, Grade II: 0m Shadwell Dock Mitigation required and conclusions Large CSO site (west) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions Small CSO site (west) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions
Appendix 9 Page 3
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Built heritage and townscape Small CSO site (east) Site considerations Comments Stairs, Grade II: 1m South block with attached railings and gatepiers Peabody Estate, Grade II: 60m St Pauls Rectory, Grade II: 170m St Pauls Church House, Grade II: 145m Locally listed buildings 387 Cable Street: 170m 432 to 446 Cable Street: 150m Conservation areas St Pauls Church Conservation Mitigation required and conclusions Large CSO site (west) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions Small CSO site (west) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions
Appendix 9 Page 4
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Built heritage and townscape Small CSO site (east) Site considerations Comments Area: 80m York Square Conservation Area: 240m Wapping Wall Conservation Area: 0m Registered historic parks and gardens There are no registered historic parks and gardens located within 250m. Locally listed parks and gardens There are no locally listed parks and gardens within 250m. Mitigation required and conclusions Large CSO site (west) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions Small CSO site (west) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions
Appendix 9 Page 5
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Built heritage and townscape Small CSO site (east) Site considerations Comments Protected views There are no protected views within 250m. Potential receptors of medium to very high importance with the potential to be directly affected There is potential for one Grade II listed building and one conservation area to be directly impacted on as a result of the development proposals. As it is located within the site boundary, there is the potential for the development to directly impact on the Grade II listed air shaft to Rotherhithe Tunnel. However, the proposed location of constructional and operational structures within the site to the east and away from the air As for small CSO site (east), see left The proposed location of constructional and operational structures within the site at present may have a detrimental impact on the setting of the Grade II listed air shaft to Rotherhithe Tunnel. Mitigation should be possible through a carefully considered As for small CSO site (east), see left As for small CSO site (east), see left Mitigation required and conclusions Large CSO site (west) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions Small CSO site (west) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions
Appendix 9 Page 6
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Built heritage and townscape Small CSO site (east) Site considerations Comments Mitigation required and conclusions shaft would mean that a direct impact is unlikely, but mitigation in the form of screening would reduce any other impacts of the development on the setting of the air shaft. The development site is located within Wapping Wall Conservation Area and, as such, the proposed development would need to be of a high quality to ensure it preserves or Large CSO site (west) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions scheme design. The proposed location of any temporary and permanent structures should be away from the listed structure, if at all possible, in order to avoid any direct impacts. If a direct impact can be avoided, there remains the potential for the listed air shaft to experience an impact on its setting, and mitigation in the form of a high-quality screen design Small CSO site (west) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions
Appendix 9 Page 7
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Built heritage and townscape Small CSO site (east) Site considerations Comments Mitigation required and conclusions enhances the conservation area. This may prove to be difficult, however, because the proposed structures are to be built on an open recreational space, which may make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the conservation area. Not applicable Large CSO site (west) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions and/or screening may be required. Comments given for the Wapping Wall Conservation Area for the small CSO site are applicable here, see left. Small CSO site (west) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions
Other receptors Not applicable of lesser importance with the potential to be directly affected
As for small CSO site (east), see left
Appendix 9 Page 8
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Built heritage and townscape Small CSO site (east) Site considerations Potential receptors of medium to very high importance with the potential to be indirectly affected Comments There is potential for 21 listed buildings, two Grade II* (including one Grade B) and two conservation areas to be impacted on as a result of the development. Mitigation required and conclusions Large CSO site (west) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions As for small CSO site (east), see left Small CSO site (west) Comments As for small CSO site (east), see left Mitigation required and conclusions As for small CSO site (east), see left
Of all the listed As for small buildings CSO site (east), identified see left outside of the development area, only two are likely to be within the visual envelope of the site. Of these, the Grade II listed south block of the Peabody Estate is unlikely to require mitigation as it is physically separated from the development site by the main road, whereas the Shadwell Dock Stairs are directly adjacent to the site. If
Appendix 9 Page 9
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Built heritage and townscape Small CSO site (east) Site considerations Comments Mitigation required and conclusions necessary, mitigation could be achieved through a high-quality design and/or screening. The St Pauls Church Conservation Area and the York Square Conservation Area would not require mitigation as they are not visible to or from the development site. Large CSO site (west) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions Small CSO site (west) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions
Appendix 9 Page 10
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Built heritage and townscape Small CSO site (east) Site considerations Other receptors of lesser importance with the potential to be indirectly affected Comments There is potential for two locally listed buildings to be impacted on as a result of the development proposals. Mitigation required and conclusions The two locally listed buildings are not within the visual envelope of the development proposals and, as such, would not require mitigation. Retention of trees where possible and protection in accordance with BS 5837. The excavated material could be stockpiled around the periphery of the site in order to reduce impact of temporary works on the character Large CSO site (west) Comments As for small CSO site (east), see left Mitigation required and conclusions As for small CSO site (east), see left Small CSO site (west) Comments As for small CSO site (east), see left Mitigation required and conclusions As for small CSO site (east), see left
Sensitive landscape character areas likely to be affected, including trees and TPOs
Cycle network and strategic walkway run along the southern boundary of the site, site in conservation area, site in area for regeneration, in district park deficiency area. Sensitive site within King Edward VII
Appendix 9 Page 11
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Built heritage and townscape Small CSO site (east) Site considerations Comments Memorial Park. River Thames to the south, Glamis Road adjacent to the west, with residential properties further west around the Shadwell Basin, The Highway adjacent to the north with densely built-up residential area beyond, mix of industrial and residential properties to the east. The loss of considerable amounts of mature Mitigation required and conclusions of the park. Introduction of a landscape scheme to include appropriate surface treatments and planting to replace lost vegetation and relate to character of the park. The construction would have a severe, adverse, direct impact on the character of the park. This site is not suitable since it would not be possible to replace the Large CSO site (west) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions Small CSO site (west) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions
Appendix 9 Page 12
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Built heritage and townscape Small CSO site (east) Site considerations Comments vegetation would increase the openness of the site. The presence and operation of machinery, materials stores and buildings would result in temporary, severe adverse direct impacts on the character of the park, and temporary, adverse indirect impacts on neighbouring areas. Permanent elements would have an adverse impact on the character of the park and Mitigation required and conclusions mature vegetation and reinstate the character of the park postconstruction. Large CSO site (west) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions Small CSO site (west) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions
Appendix 9 Page 13
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Built heritage and townscape Small CSO site (east) Site considerations Comments residential development adjacent to the east. Potential views likely to be affected Open views from within the park and higher floors of residential properties to the east and north. Partially interrupted and seasonal views from The Highway, the River Thames and properties to the south of river. During construction, views of cranes from properties listed above, As for small During construction, the CSO site (east), use of hoardings see left and appropriate lighting would minimise visual impact. The excavated material could be used as a bund around the periphery of the site for screening. Design of top structure, vent column, and electrical kiosk to be given careful consideration. As for small CSO site (east), see left As for small CSO site (east), see left As for small CSO site (east), see left Mitigation required and conclusions Large CSO site (west) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions Small CSO site (west) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions
Appendix 9 Page 14
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Built heritage and townscape Small CSO site (east) Site considerations Comments surrounding properties, and Canary Wharf. Views of permanent elements from within the park, residents along Peartree Lane, The Highway, residential property adjacent to the east. Mitigation required and conclusions Planting to screen permanent plant. Integrated landscape scheme to aid visual amenity and minimise adverse visual impact. The temporary works would have an adverse impact on its visual amenity. It would be very difficult to reinstate the visual amenity postconstruction. Hence, this site is not suitable, although the permanent Large CSO site (west) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions Small CSO site (west) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions
Appendix 9 Page 15
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Built heritage and townscape Small CSO site (east) Site considerations Comments Mitigation required and conclusions elements are contained in the south-eastern corner of the park. Any permanent structures would need to be of a high-quality design and/or screened to ensure that they preserve or enhance the conservation area and do not have a negative impact on three listed structures or on the character of the local townscape and local views. This may prove to be difficult, Large CSO site (west) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions Small CSO site (west) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions
Particular considerations on site where new permanent structures are required
Permanent structures would potentially have a direct impact on one Grade II listed building and one conservation area, and an indirect impact on two Grade II listed buildings. There is also the potential for permanent structures to impact on the character of the local townscape and local views.
Appendix 9 Page 16
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Built heritage and townscape Small CSO site (east) Site considerations Comments Mitigation required and conclusions however, because the structures proposed are to be built on an open recreational space. In their current location, the proposed structures within the site do not directly impact on any listed buildings within the development site. The only structure within this site boundary that would be indirectly affected is the air shaft to Rotherhithe Large CSO site (west) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions Small CSO site (west) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions
Appendix 9 Page 17
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Built heritage and townscape Small CSO site (east) Site considerations Comments Mitigation required and conclusions Tunnel, of which the setting has the potential to be impacted on but which could be mitigated against through the scheme design and/or screening. Large CSO site (west) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions Small CSO site (west) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions
Potential issues
The potential issues are the direct impact that the development could have on one conservation area, three listed buildings and on the character of the local townscape and local views. There is the
In their current As for small location, the CSO site (east), structures have see left no direct impact on any receptors except for one conservation area. The site also has potential indirect impacts on three listed buildings and on the character of the local townscape
Appendix 9 Page 18
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Built heritage and townscape Small CSO site (east) Site considerations Comments potential to mitigate these impacts through the scheme design and/or screening and landscaping. Mitigation required and conclusions and local views. To mitigate the potential visual intrusiveness of these structures, the scheme design would need to be of a sufficiently high quality to ensure it preserves or enhances the conservation area. This may, however, prove to be difficult due to the location of the site within an open space, which may make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the conservation Large CSO site (west) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions Small CSO site (west) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions
Appendix 9 Page 19
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Built heritage and townscape Small CSO site (east) Site considerations Comments Mitigation required and conclusions area. Large CSO site (west) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions Small CSO site (west) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions
Summary
The small CSO site (east) is less suitable due to the proposals being located in an open space within the Wapping Wall Conservation Area. As such, the proposals are unlikely to preserve or enhance the conservation area. Furthermore, the site could potentially result in severe direct adverse impacts on the character of the park and local views, especially during construction. Further desk-based research would be required to decide whether the proposals could feasibly preserve or enhance the conservation area. With reference to other receptors, although the proposals are within the visual envelope of listed buildings, one of these (south block with attached railings and gatepiers, Peabody Estate) is physically separated from the development site by the main road
This site is less suitable as a large CSO site for the same reasons given for the small CSO site, see left. In addition, the proposed location of constructional and operational structures within the site at present may have a detrimental impact on the setting of the Grade II listed air shaft to Rotherhithe Tunnel. Mitigation should be possible through a carefully considered scheme design.
This site is less suitable as a small CSO site for the same reasons given for the small CSO site (east), see left. In addition, new structures could potentially lead to adverse effects on the Grade II listed air shaft to Rotherhithe Tunnel (as for the large CSO site), but by locating as far as practical away from this structure (as indicated by current drawings), any direct impact on this built heritage asset would be minimised. Impacts on the setting of this listed building could be minimised through a high-quality scheme design and/or screening.
Appendix 9 Page 20
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Built heritage and townscape Small CSO site (east) Site considerations Mitigation required and conclusions and, as such, is unlikely to require mitigation. The others (Rotherhithe Tunnel air shaft and Shadwell Dock Stairs) may require some screening to mitigate any visual intrusiveness. Comments Large CSO site (west) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions Small CSO site (west) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions
Appendix 9 Page 21
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Built heritage and townscape Small CSO site (north) Site considerations Designations including conservation areas, including trees Comments Listed buildings Pelican Stairs, Grade II: 170m B and C warehouse, Metropolitan Wharf, Grade II: 240m A warehouse, Metropolitan Wharf, Grade II: 230m Wall closing north end of court yard, Grade II: 75m Iron railings, wall and iron gates of St Pauls Church, Grade II: 120m St Pauls Terrace, Grade II: 60m Stone stairs, Grade II: 225m London hydraulic power company station with number 37, Grade II*: 145m East block with attached railings and gatepiers, Peabody Estate, Grade II: 80m Free Trade Wharf, Grade II: 165m West block with attached railings and gatepiers, Peabody Estate, Grade II: 70m St Marys Church, Grade II: 175m St Pauls Church Shadwell, Grade B (equates to Grade II*): 100m Flagged passage (approaching stone stairs from The Highway), Grade II: 220m Prospect of Whitby Public House, Grade II: 145m North block with attached railings and gatepiers, Mitigation required and conclusions In the case of listed buildings, conservation areas and locally listed buildings, 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 would be required to further determine the likely impact of the development, and to inform more detailed mitigation proposals. On the basis of currently available information (July 2009) and on the basis of certain receptors not being present within 250m, mitigation would not be applicable in the case of locally listed parks and gardens, registered historic parks and gardens and protected views.
Appendix 9 Page 1
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Built heritage and townscape Small CSO site (north) Site considerations Comments Peabody Estate, Grade II: 90m Air shaft to Rotherhithe Tunnel, Grade II: 0m Shadwell Dock Stairs, Grade II: 1m South block with attached railings and gatepiers, Peabody Estate, Grade II: 60m St Pauls Rectory, Grade II: 170m St Pauls Church House, Grade II: 145m Locally listed buildings 387 Cable Street: 170m 432 to 446 Cable Street: 150m Conservation areas St Pauls Church Conservation Area: 80m York Square Conservation Area: 240m Wapping Wall Conservation Area: 0m Registered historic parks and gardens There are no registered historic parks and gardens located within 250m. Locally listed parks and gardens There are no locally listed parks and gardens within 250m. Protected views There are no protected views within 250m. Mitigation required and conclusions
Appendix 9 Page 2
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Built heritage and townscape Small CSO site (north) Site considerations Potential receptors of medium to very high importance with the potential to be directly affected Comments There is potential for one Grade II listed building and one conservation area to be directly impacted on as a result of the development proposals. Mitigation required and conclusions The proposed location of constructional and operational structures within the site at present surrounds the Grade II listed air shaft to Rotherhithe Tunnel. This would undoubtedly have a detrimental impact on its setting. Mitigation should be possible through a carefully considered scheme design. The proposed location of any temporary and permanent structures should be away from the listed structure, if at all possible, in order to avoid any direct impacts. If a direct impact can be avoided, there remains the potential for the listed air shaft to experience an impact on its setting, and mitigation in the form of a high-quality screen design and/or screening may be required. The development site is located within Wapping Wall Conservation Area and, as such, the proposed development would need to be of a high quality to ensure it preserves or enhances the conservation area. This may prove to be difficult, however, because the proposed structures are to be built on an open recreational space, which may make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the conservation area.
Appendix 9 Page 3
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Built heritage and townscape Small CSO site (north) Site considerations 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 Comments Not applicable Mitigation required and conclusions Not applicable
There is potential for 21 listed buildings, two Grade II* (including one Grade B) and two conservation areas to be impacted on as a result of the development.
Of all the listed buildings identified outside of the development area, only two are likely to be within the visual envelope of the site. Of these, the Grade II listed south block of the Peabody Estate is unlikely to require mitigation as it is physically separated from the development site by the main road, whereas the Shadwell Dock Stairs are directly adjacent to the site. If necessary, mitigation could be achieved through a high-quality design and/or screening. The St Pauls Church Conservation Area and the York Square Conservation Area would not require mitigation as they are not visible to or from the development site. The two locally listed buildings are not within the visual envelope of the development proposals and, as such, would not require mitigation. Retention of trees where possible and protection in accordance with BS 5837. The excavated material could be stockpiled around the periphery of the site in order to reduce impact of temporary works on the character of the
Other receptors of lesser importance with the potential to be indirectly affected Sensitive landscape character areas likely to be affected, including trees and TPOs
There is potential for two locally listed buildings to be impacted on as a result of the development proposals. Cycle network and strategic walkway run along the southern boundary of the site, site in conservation area, site in area for regeneration, in district park deficiency area. Sensitive site within King Edward VII Memorial Park.
Appendix 9 Page 4
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Built heritage and townscape Small CSO site (north) Site considerations Comments River Thames to the south, Glamis Road adjacent to the west, with residential properties further west around the Shadwell Basin, The Highway adjacent to the north with densely built-up residential area beyond, mix of industrial and residential properties to the east. The loss of considerable amounts of mature vegetation would increase the openness of the site. The presence and operation of machinery, materials stores and buildings would result in temporary, severe adverse direct impacts on the character of the park and temporary, adverse indirect impacts on neighbouring areas. Permanent elements would have an adverse impact on the character of the park and residential development adjacent to the east. Potential views likely to be affected Open views from within the park and higher floors of residential properties to the east and north. Partially interrupted and seasonal views from The Highway, and the River Thames and properties to the south of river. During construction, views of cranes from properties listed above, surrounding properties, and Canary Wharf. Views of permanent elements from within the park, residents along Peartree Lane, The Mitigation required and conclusions park. Introduction of a landscape scheme, to include appropriate surface treatments and planting to replace lost vegetation and relate to character of the park. The construction occupies more than half of the park and would have a severe, adverse, direct impact on the character of the park. This site is not suitable since it would not be possible to replace the mature vegetation and reinstate the character of the park post-construction.
During construction, the use of hoardings and appropriate lighting would minimise visual impact. The excavated material could be used as a bund around the periphery of the site for screening. Design of top structure, vent column and electrical kiosk to be given careful consideration. Planting to screen permanent plant. Integrated landscape scheme to aid visual amenity and minimise adverse visual
Appendix 9 Page 5
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Built heritage and townscape Small CSO site (north) Site considerations Comments Highway, residential property adjacent to the east. Mitigation required and conclusions impact. Since the temporary works occupy more than half of the park, they have an adverse impact on its visual amenity. It would be very difficult to reinstate the visual amenity post-construction. Hence, this site is not suitable, although the permanent elements are contained in the south-eastern corner of the park. Any permanent structures would need to be of a high-quality design and/or screened to ensure that they preserve or enhance the conservation area and do not have a negative impact on three listed structures, or on the character of the local townscape and local views. This may prove to be difficult, however, because the structures proposed are to be built on an open recreational space. In their current location, the proposed structures within the site do not directly impact on any listed buildings within the development site. The only structure within this site boundary that would be indirectly affected is the air shaft to Rotherhithe Tunnel, of which the setting has the potential to be impacted on but which could be mitigated against through the scheme design and/or screening.
Particular considerations on sites where new permanent structures are required
Permanent structures would potentially have a direct impact on one Grade II listed building and one conservation area, and an indirect impact on two Grade II listed buildings. There is also the potential for permanent structures to impact on the character of the local townscape and local views.
Appendix 9 Page 6
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Built heritage and townscape Small CSO site (north) Site considerations Potential issues Comments The potential issues are the direct impact that the development could have on one conservation area, three listed buildings and on the character of the local townscape and local views. There is the potential to mitigate these impacts through the scheme design and/or screening and landscaping. Mitigation required and conclusions In their current location, the structures have no direct impact on any receptors except for one conservation area. The site also has potential indirect impacts on three listed buildings and on the character of the local townscape and local views. To mitigate the potential visual intrusiveness of these structures, the scheme design would need to be of a sufficiently high quality to ensure it preserves or enhances the conservation area. This may, however, prove to be difficult due to the location of the site within an open space, which may make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the conservation area.
Summary: The site is less suitable due to the proposals being located in an open space within the Wapping Wall Conservation Area. As such, the proposals are unlikely to preserve or enhance the conservation area. Furthermore, the site could potentially result in severe direct adverse impacts on the character of the park and local views, especially during construction. Further desk-based research would be required to decide whether the proposals could feasibly preserve or enhance the conservation area. Use of the site also involves the temporary removal of the monument in King Edward Memorial Park.
Appendix 9 Page 7
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Water resources hydrogeology and surface water Site considerations Hydrogeological conditions (groundwater and surface water) From BGS Geological Model giving average ground condition profile. Local near surface conditions may vary, particularly within the river. Small CSO site (east and west)/Large CSO site (west) Comments Geology (thickness) Superficial geology and made ground (6m) London Clay (1m) Lambeth Group (26m) Thanet Sand (13m) Chalk (to beyond the depth of shaft) Hydrogeology Piezometric level in Chalk aquifer: ~ -22mAOD (~28mbgl) from EA Jan 08 water level contouring Groundwater monitoring location EA hydrometry site: TQ37-268 1.98km southeast of the site (water levels to Nov 2007) TQ37-276 941m southwest of the site (water levels to March 2009) Watercourses Adjacent to River Thames SPZs and groundwater users SPZ Not located in a source protection zone defined A simple volumetric approach has been used to calculate the 400 days travel times of the abstraction borehole. A conservative mean Mitigation required and conclusions The drop shaft would be constructed to an invert level of approximately 52.04mbgl, therefore the shaft would be founded in the Chalk. Piezometric head(1) in Chalk would be approximately 24.04m above the base of the construction. Therefore, dewatering would be required and should be considered as part of geotechnical design.
Appendix 9 Page 1
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Water resources hydrogeology and surface water Site considerations by EA EA licensed groundwater abstractions and details Ten licensed abstraction borehole within 2km radius Licence numbers: 1. 28/39/39/0002 (1 borehole) 2. 28/39/39/0195 (1 borehole) 3. 28/39/39/0214 (2 boreholes) 4. 28/39/39/0234 (1 borehole) 5. 28/39/42/0048 (3 boreholes) 6. 28/39/42/0073 (2 boreholes) Locations: 1. 1.91km northwest of the site 2. 1.41km northwest of the site 3. 1.65km northeast of the site 4. 1.85km southeast of the site 5. 1.41km south of the site 6. 1.36km southeast of the site Small CSO site (east and west)/Large CSO site (west) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions annual recharge of 100mm/year was used to calculate a radius for licensed abstraction boreholes as follows: 1. 150m 2. 467m 4. 90m 4. 250m 5. 258m 6. 203m The shaft would not be located within any of these catchment areas.
Appendix 9 Page 2
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Water resources hydrogeology and surface water Site considerations Small CSO site (east and west)/Large CSO site (west) Comments Operator: 1. Mars Pension Trustees Limited 2. Peninsula Water Limited 3. London Borough of Tower Hamlets 4. Britannia Hotels Limited 5. London Borough of Southwark 6. Harmsworth Quays Printing Limited Abstracted aquifer unit: 1. Chalk 2. Chalk 3. Chalk 4. Chalk 5. Chalk 6. Chalk Abstraction purposes: 1. Industrial, commercial and public service (drinking, cooking, sanitary, washing) 2. Private water supply (general use) 3. Industrial, commercial and public service (municipal grounds horticultural watering and make-up or top-up water) Mitigation required and conclusions
Appendix 9 Page 3
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Water resources hydrogeology and surface water Site considerations Small CSO site (east and west)/Large CSO site (west) Comments 4. Industrial, commercial and public services (hotels, public houses and conference centres drinking, cooking, sanitary, washing) 5. Amenity (industrial/commercial/energy/public services make-up or top-up water) 6. Industrial, commercial and public services (paper and printing process water and drinking, cooking, sanitary, washing. Abstraction quantity (annual): 1. 28,185m3 2. 274,500m3 3. 10,330m3 4. 78,840m3 5. 83,804m3 6. 52,000m3 Local authorities (LA) unlicensed groundwater abstractions and details No abstraction borehole within 1km radius inside Tower Hamlets council boundary No abstraction borehole within 1km radius inside Southwark council boundary Mitigation required and conclusions
Appendix 9 Page 4
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Water resources hydrogeology and surface water Site considerations Borehole locations and depths Potential impacts on surface water features Potential impacts on groundwater (resources and quality) Small CSO site (east and west)/Large CSO site (west) Comments There are 40 historical records of water wells within 1km radius. Depth range: 7.31 215.95m The site is located adjacent to the River Thames. The site is behind flood defences so the pollution risk is through drainage to the Thames. An impact on groundwater at depth is likely since the drop shaft is to be constructed in Chalk (major aquifer) which would need to be dewatered. At shallow depth, the shaft is located in alluvium, which is classified as a minor aquifer. Limited impact on shallow if water is excluded from the excavation by sheet piling. Mitigation unlikely to be required as construction of the drop shaft would not take place within the 400-day capture zone of licensed abstractions. The shaft to be excavated in Chalk below the piezometric head, therefore dewatering would be required during construction. Limited impact on flow in shallow aquifer. Mitigation required and conclusions Not applicable
Work needs to be undertaken in consideration of Pollution Prevention Guidelines PPG1, PPG5 and PPS23. See below (likely types of mitigation measures that would be required)
Likely types of mitigation measures that would 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. Impact on and mitigation for shallow aquifer would depend on construction design.
Appendix 9 Page 5
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Water resources hydrogeology and surface water Site considerations Small CSO site (east and west)/Large CSO site (west) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions
Summary: In terms of hydrogeology, this site is suitable as either a small (east or west) 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 zone of licensed abstractions. No long-term impact on the Chalk aquifer is expected, although temporary dewatering would be required during the construction phase. The Chalk piezometric head is likely to be approximately 24m above the base of construction and should be taken into account in the engineering design. The superficial deposits are alluvium, which is classified as a minor aquifer at the shaft site. Limited impact on flow in shallow aquifer due to sheet piling. In terms of surface water resources, this site is suitable as either a small (east or west) or a large CSO site because there is no direct pathway to the River Thames for pollution and standard mitigation would be required.
Appendix 9 Page 6
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Water resources hydrogeology and surface water Small CSO site (north) Site considerations Hydrogeological conditions (groundwater and surface water) From BGS Geological Model giving average ground condition profile. Local near surface conditions may vary, particularly within the river. Comments Geology (thickness) Superficial geology and made ground (6m) London Clay (1m) Lambeth Group (26m) Thanet Sand (13m) Chalk (to beyond the depth of shaft) Hydrogeology Piezometric level in Chalk aquifer: ~ -22mAOD (~28mbgl) from EA Jan 08 water level contouring Groundwater monitoring location EA hydrometry site: TQ37-268 1.98km southeast of the site (water levels to Nov 2007) TQ37-276 941m southwest of the site (water levels to March 2009) Watercourses Adjacent to River Thames SPZs and groundwater users SPZ Not located in a source protection zone defined by EA EA licensed groundwater abstractions and details Ten licensed abstraction borehole within 2km radius Licence numbers: 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: 1. 150m Mitigation required and conclusions The drop shaft would be constructed to an invert level of approximately 52.04mbgl, therefore the shaft would be founded in the Chalk. Piezometric head(1) in Chalk would be approximately 24.04m above the base of the construction. Therefore, dewatering would be required and should be considered as part of geotechnical design.
Appendix 9 Page 1
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Water resources hydrogeology and surface water Small CSO site (north) Site considerations 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Comments 28/39/39/0002 (1 borehole) 28/39/39/0195 (1 borehole) 28/39/39/0214 (2 boreholes) 28/39/39/0234 (1 borehole) 28/39/42/0048 (3 boreholes) 28/39/42/0073 (2 boreholes) Mitigation required and conclusions 2. 467m 4. 90m 4. 250m 5. 258m 6. 203m The shaft would not be located within any of these catchment areas.
Locations: 1. 1.91km northwest of the site 2. 1.41km northwest of the site 3. 1.65km northeast of the site 4. 1.85km southeast of the site 5. 1.41km south of the site 6. 1.36km southeast of the site Operator: 1. Mars Pension Trustees Limited 2. Peninsula Water Limited 3. London Borough of Tower Hamlets 4. Britannia Hotels Limited 5. London Borough of Southwark 6. Harmsworth Quays Printing Limited Abstracted aquifer unit: 1. Chalk 2. Chalk 3. Chalk 4. Chalk 5. Chalk 6. Chalk Abstraction purposes: 1. Industrial, commercial and public service (drinking, cooking,
Appendix 9 Page 2
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Water resources hydrogeology and surface water Small CSO site (north) Site considerations Comments sanitary, washing) 2. Private water supply (general use) 3. Industrial, commercial and public service (municipal grounds horticultural watering and make-up or top-up water) 4. Industrial, commercial and public services (hotels, public houses and conference centres drinking, cooking, sanitary, washing) 5. Amenity (industrial/ commercial/energy/public services make-up or top-up water) 6. Industrial, commercial and public services (paper and printing process water and drinking, cooking, sanitary, washing) Abstraction quantity (annual): 1. 28,185m3 2. 274,500m3 3. 10,330m3 4. 78,840m3 5. 83,804m3 6. 52,000m3 Local authorities (LA) unlicensed groundwater abstractions and details No abstraction borehole within 1km radius inside Tower Hamlets council boundary No abstraction borehole within 1km radius inside Southwark council boundary Mitigation required and conclusions
Appendix 9 Page 3
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Water resources hydrogeology and surface water Small CSO site (north) Site considerations Borehole locations and depths Comments There are 40 historical records of water wells within 1km radius. Depth range: 7.31 215.95m Mitigation required and conclusions Not applicable
Potential impacts on An impact on groundwater at surface water depth is likely since the drop features shaft is to be constructed in Chalk (major aquifer), which would need to be dewatered. At shallow depth, the shaft is located in alluvium, which is classified as a minor aquifer. Limited impact on shallow depth if water is excluded from the excavation by sheet piling. Potential impacts on groundwater (resources and quality) Likely types of mitigation measures that would be required Potential issues The site is located adjacent to the River Thames. The site is behind flood defences so the pollution risk is through drainage to the Thames. Mitigation unlikely to be required as construction of the drop shaft would not take place within the 400-day capture zone of licensed abstractions. The shaft to be excavated in Chalk below the piezometric head, therefore dewatering would be required during construction. Limited impact on flow in shallow aquifer.
See below (likely types of mitigation measures that would be required)
Work needs to be undertaken in consideration of Pollution Prevention Guidelines PPG1, PPG5 and PPS23. 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. Impact on and mitigation for shallow aquifer would depend on construction design.
Appendix 9 Page 4
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Water resources hydrogeology and surface water Small CSO site (north) Site considerations Comments Mitigation required and conclusions
Summary: The site is suitable 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. No long-term impact on the Chalk aquifer is expected, although temporary dewatering would be required during the construction phase. The Chalk piezometric head is likely to be approximately 24m above the base of construction and should be taken into account in the engineering design. The superficial deposits are alluvium, which is classified as a minor aquifer at the shaft site. A limited impact on flow in the shallow aquifer due to sheet piling is expected. In terms of surface water, the site is considered to be suitable because there is no direct pathway to the River Thames for pollution. However, standard mitigation would be required.
Appendix 9 Page 5
Ecology (terrestrial and aquatic) Site considerations Statutory designations Small CSO site (east and west)/Large CSO site (west) Comments Lavender Pond LNR is within 1km of the site but on the opposite bank of the Thames. Ackroyd Drive LNR and Tower Hamlets Cemetery Park LNR are within 2km. Site is adjacent to River Thames and Tidal Tributaries SMI. Site is within 30m of Shadwell Basin site of local importance. Foreshore consists of BAP habitat mudflats. The Thames Tideway is a London BAP habitat. The site encompasses London BAP habitat parks, squares and amenity grassland. Mitigation required and conclusions None required. Small CSO site (north) Comments Lavender Pond LNR is within 1km of the site, but on the opposite bank of the Thames. Ackroyd Drive LNR and Tower Hamlets Cemetery Park LNR are within 2km. Site is adjacent to River Thames and Tidal Tributaries SMI. Site is within 30m of Shadwell Basin site of local importance. Foreshore consists of BAP habitat mudflats. The Thames Tideway is a London BAP habitat. The site encompasses London BAP habitat parks, squares and amenity grassland. Mitigation required and conclusions None required.
Non-statutory designated wildlife site
No land-take from the river or foreshore is anticipated. Care would need to be taken to avoid discharge or runoff into the river or into Shadwell basin. No land-take from the river or foreshore is anticipated. Care would need to be taken to avoid discharge or runoff into the river. Loss of amenity grassland and parkland habitat (mainly large CSO site and the small CSO east) may require compensatory
No land-take from the river or foreshore is anticipated. Care would need to be taken to avoid discharge or runoff into the river or into Shadwell basin. No land-take from the river or foreshore is anticipated. Care would need to be taken to avoid discharge or runoff into the river. Loss of amenity grassland and parkland habitat may require compensatory provision there is
BAP priority habitats
Appendix 9 Page 1
Ecology (terrestrial and aquatic) Site considerations Small CSO site (east and west)/Large CSO site (west) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions provision. Small CSO site (north) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions potential for quite large land-take, so this may be considerable. If bat roosts were found to be present, mitigation would be required, possibly including offsite provision. Careful placement of lighting to minimise illumination of surrounding habitat is likely to be required Mitigation would be possible but may require offsite provision. None required Not applicable.
Protected or otherwise notable species within the study area
Trees on site may have potential to support roosting bats. Site has low potential to support reptile species. No direct impact on aquatic receptors.
If bat roosts were found to be present, mitigation would be required, possibly including offsite provision. Careful placement of lighting to minimise illumination of surrounding habitat is likely to be required. Mitigation would be possible but may require offsite provision. None required. Not applicable.
Trees on site may have potential to support roosting bats. Site has low potential to support reptile species No direct impact on aquatic receptors.
Potential issues Summary
No further issues.
No further issues.
This site is suitable as either a small (either east or west) or a large CSO site. It may require only basic ecological surveys if selected and is likely to require only limited habitat mitigation or compensation.
This site is suitable as it may require only basic ecological surveys, if selected, and is likely to require only limited habitat mitigation or compensation.
Appendix 9 Page 2
Flood risk assessment Site considerations Flood risk zone Small CSO site (east and west)/Large CSO site (west) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions Small CSO site (north) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions
Flood Zone 3 (one in An FRA would be required 200-year flood extent) but to assess the residual risk defended to the one in of flooding to the site. 1,000-year flood level there is a residual risk of a breach for which mitigation would need to be considered as part of the FRA. Sewage transmission infrastructure is considered to be water compatible according to Table D.2 of PPS25. There is space for SUDS and the site is existing greenfield. More investigation is required to determine if the site is suitable for infiltration SUDS as a result of the superficial geology, which is clay. Not applicable.
An FRA would be required Flood Zone 3 (one in 200-year flood extent) but to assess the residual risk defended to the one in of flooding to the site. 1,000-year flood level there is a residual risk of a breach for which mitigation would need to be considered as part of the FRA. Sewage transmission infrastructure is considered to be water compatible according to Table D.2 of PPS25. There is space for SUDS and the site is existing greenfield. More investigation is required to determine if the site is suitable for infiltration SUDS as a result of the superficial geology, which is clay. Not applicable.
Assessment of conditions for SUDS
Appendix 9 Page 1
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Flood risk assessment Site considerations Potential issues Summary Small CSO site (east and west)/Large CSO site (west) Comments No further issues. Mitigation required and conclusions Not applicable. Small CSO site (north) Comments No further issues. Mitigation required and conclusions Not applicable.
This site is suitable for either a small (east or west) or a large CSO site because the site is defended from flooding from the River Thames and there is space for SUDS. However, further investigation is required to determine if infiltration SUDS are unlikely to be suitable due to geology.
This site is suitable for use because it is defended from flooding from the River Thames and there is space onsite for SUDS. However, further investigation is required to determine if infiltration SUDS are possible, given the underlying geology.
Appendix 9 Page 2
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Air quality Site considerations AQMA Sensitive receptors Small CSO site (east and west)/Large CSO site (west) Comments The air quality objectives for NO 2 exceeded on major roads in vicinity of site. There are residential properties along The Highway (A1203). There are residential properties within 10m of the temporary working area at Shadwell Pierhead (small CSO west and large CSO) or within 25m on The Highway (small CSO east). The main traffic issue in this area is exhaust emissions from vehicles along the A1203 corridor. See above. There is no data at likely access to A1203 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. 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.
Existing traffic issues
Additional vehicle emissions have a moderate potential to interfere with local air quality action plan policies. See above. Collect a minimum of six months diffusion tube data at site access to the A1203 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 would minimise the effect of fugitive dust on nearby sensitive receptors.
Existing sources of significant air pollutants Notable gaps in existing air quality monitoring Potential issues
Appendix 9 Page 1
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Air quality Site considerations Summary Small CSO site (east and west)/Large CSO site (west) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions This site is less suitable for use as either a small (east or west) or large CSO site as there are residential properties in close proximity to the site, therefore there is potential for fugitive emissions of dust during construction to have a perceptible impact at these properties. These impacts can be minimised with standard dust control measures. There is potential for HGV movements on the local road network to cause localised air quality impacts in areas of already poor air quality. This can be somewhat mitigated by minimising the movement of HGVs during peak hours.
Appendix 9 Page 2
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Air quality Small CSO site (north) Site considerations Existing air quality Comments The air quality objectives for NO 2 exceeded on major roads in vicinity of site. There are residential properties along The Highway (A1203). There are residential properties within 25m on The Highway. The main traffic issue in this area is exhaust emissions from vehicles along the A1203 corridor. See above. Mitigation required and conclusions There is a need for more site specific data. There are relevant air quality sensitive receptors present along the route the construction traffic is likely to take and close to the proposed construction works. Additional vehicle emissions have a moderate potential to interfere with local air quality action plan policies. See above.
Sensitive receptors
Existing sources of significant air pollutants Notable gaps in existing air quality monitoring
There is no data at likely access to A1203 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.
Collect a minimum of six months diffusion tube data at site access to the A1203 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 would minimise the effect of fugitive dust on nearby sensitive receptors.
Potential issues
Summary: The site is less suitable for use as there are residential properties in close proximity to the site. Therefore, there is potential for fugitive emissions of dust during construction to have a perceptible impact at these properties. These impacts can be minimised with standard dust control measures. There is potential for HGV movements on the local road network to cause localised air quality impacts in areas of already poor air quality. This can be somewhat mitigated by minimising the movement of HGVs during peak hours.
Appendix 9 Page 1
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Noise Site considerations Small CSO site (east) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions Small CSO site (west) and Large CSO site (west) Comments Information from Defra noise maps indicates daytime noise levels of between 58 and 69dB L Aeq and night-time noise levels of between 50 and 60dB L Aeq at the nearest residential properties located to the site. The residential properties closest to and facing the site are likely to experience low daytime and night-time noise levels due to their distance from the A1203. Noise levels from the Defra noise maps provide an indication of prevailing noise levels only, and would not be employed in any detailed assessments for chosen site. Mitigation required and conclusions As for small CSO site (east), see left.
Noise band level Information from Defra noise Not applicable (from Defra noise maps indicates daytime maps) noise levels of between 58 and 69dB L Aeq and night-time noise levels of between 50 and 60dB L Aeq at the nearest residential properties located to the site. The residential properties closest to and facing the site are likely to experience moderate daytime and night-time noise levels due to their distance to the A1203. Noise levels from the Defra noise maps provide an indication of prevailing noise levels only, and would not be employed in any detailed assessments for chosen site.
Appendix 9 Page 1
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Noise Site considerations Sensitive receptors Small CSO site (east) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions Small CSO site (west) and Large CSO site (west) Comments There are sensitive receptors close to all boundaries of the site. The closest receptors are located on Shadwell Pierhead to the southwest. Further residential properties are located at Free Trade Wharf to the east and on Glamis Place to the north. Sensitive receptors on Shadwell Pierhead to the southwest consist of two-storey residential dwellings. These are located approximately 10m from the temporary working area and 30m from the shaft location. Mitigation required and conclusions As for small CSO site (east), see left.
Not applicable There are sensitive receptors close to all boundaries of the site. The closest residential receptors are located at Fair Trade Wharf to the northeast and Glamis Place to the north. Properties at Free Trade Wharf to the northeast of the site consist of eight-storey residential dwellings and are located approximately 7m from the site boundary and approximately 25m from the shaft location for the small CSO east. Properties on Glamis Place to the north of the site consist of three-storey residential dwellings and are located approximately 75m from the temporary working area boundary and approximately 80m from the shaft location for the small CSO east.
Appendix 9 Page 2
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Noise Site considerations Existing traffic issues Small CSO site (east) Comments Road traffic on local roads and the A1203 to the north of the site would contribute to the existing noise climate in the area. Mitigation required and conclusions Not applicable Small CSO site (west) and Large CSO site (west) Comments As for small CSO site (east), see left. Mitigation required and conclusions As for small CSO site (east), see left.
Existing sources of significant noise emissions
Road traffic on local roads Not applicable. and the A1203 to the north of the site would contribute to the existing noise climate in the area. There are no railway lines or significant industrial noise sources noted in the immediate surrounding area. Construction: The construction period is estimated at 0.5 to two years and working hours would be 12 hours per day (7am7pm), Monday to Saturday. This has the potential to result in adverse noise impacts to sensitive receptors surrounding the 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
Potential issues
Construction: The construction period is estimated at 0.5 to two years and working hours would be 12 hours per day (7am7pm), Monday to Saturday. This has the potential to result in adverse noise impacts to sensitive receptors surrounding the site.
Appendix 9 Page 3
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Noise Site considerations Small CSO site (east) Comments site. A relatively high number of daily HGV movements are anticipated. This has the potential to have an adverse impact on residential properties located along the proposed haul route. The immediate site area is fairly large and, while the shaft location may be fixed, ancillary plant should be sited as far as is practicable from surrounding sensitive receptors. Proposed 3m site boundary fencing would 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 Mitigation required and conclusions boundary noise fences. Small CSO site (west) and Large CSO site (west) Comments A relatively high number of daily HGV movements are anticipated. This has the potential to have an adverse impact on residential properties located close to and along the proposed haul routes. Comments on site area and boundary fencing are as for the small CSO site (east), see left. 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 30m and it is possible that vibration levels may result in minor cosmetic damage and annoyance during shaft sinking. Vibration from tunnelling should be considered on a case-by-case Mitigation required and conclusions
Appendix 9 Page 4
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Noise Site considerations Small CSO site (east) Comments at a distance of approximately 25m and it is possible that vibration levels may result in minor cosmetic damage and annoyance during shaft sinking. Vibration from tunnelling should be considered on a case-by-case basis at particular sensitive locations. Operation: With appropriate attenuation (if necessary), there is no reason why noise from the ventilation column and top chamber should not result in adverse noise impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. Mitigation required and conclusions Small CSO site (west) and Large CSO site (west) Comments basis at particular sensitive locations. Operation: As for small CSO site (east), see left. Mitigation required and conclusions
Appendix 9 Page 5
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Noise Site considerations Summary Small CSO site (east) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions Small CSO site (west) and Large CSO site (west) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions
This site is less suitable as a small CSO site (east) due This site is less suitable as a large CSO site or a small to the short distances between the site and the nearest CSO site (west) for the same reasons given for the residential receptors and therefore adverse noise and small CSO site (east), see left. vibration impacts are likely. The number of vehicles associated with the construction phase is anticipated to be relatively high and therefore is likely to cause an adverse noise impact to properties on the immediate access routes. Perimeter hoarding would reduce the potential noise impact at properties but would be relatively ineffective at higher floor levels.
Appendix 9 Page 6
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Noise Small CSO site (north) Site considerations Noise band level (from Defra noise maps) Comments Information from Defra noise maps indicates daytime noise levels of between 58 and 69dB L Aeq and night-time noise levels of between 50 and 60dB L Aeq at the nearest residential properties located to the site. The residential properties closest to and facing the site are likely to experience low daytime and night-time noise levels due to their distance from the A1203. Noise levels from the Defra noise maps provide an indication of prevailing noise levels only, and would not be employed in any detailed assessments for chosen site. Mitigation required and conclusions Not applicable.
Sensitive receptors
There are sensitive receptors Not applicable. close to all boundaries of the site. The closest receptors are located on Shadwell Pierhead to the southwest, at Free Trade Wharf to the east and on Glamis Place to the north. Sensitive receptors on Shadwell Pierhead to the southwest consist of two-storey residential dwellings. Properties at Free Trade Wharf to the northeast of the site consist of eight-storey residential dwellings. Properties on Glamis Place to the north of the site consist of three-storey residential. Road traffic on local roads and the Not applicable A1203 to the north of the site would contribute to the existing noise climate in the area. Road traffic on local roads and the Not applicable A1203 to the north of the site would contribute to the existing noise climate in the area.
Existing sources of significant noise emissions
Appendix 9 Page 1
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Noise Small CSO site (north) Site considerations Comments There are no railway lines or significant industrial noise sources noted in the immediate surrounding area. Potential issues Construction: The construction period is estimated at 0.5 to two years and working hours would 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 daily HGV movements are anticipated. This has the potential to have an adverse impact on residential properties located close to and along the proposed haul route. Proposed 3m site boundary fencing would 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. It is possible that vibration levels may result in minor cosmetic damage and annoyance during shaft sinking at the nearest receptors to the proposed shaft location. Vibration from tunnelling should be considered on a case-by-case basis at particular sensitive locations. Operation: With appropriate attenuation (if necessary), there is no reason why noise from the ventilation column and top chamber should not result in adverse noise impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. 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. Mitigation required and conclusions
Appendix 9 Page 2
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Noise Small CSO site (north) Site considerations Comments Mitigation required and conclusions
Summary: The site is less suitable due to the short distances between the site and the nearest residential receptors, and adverse noise and vibration impacts are likely. The number of vehicles associated with the construction phase is anticipated to be relatively high and therefore likely to cause an adverse noise impact to properties on the immediate access routes. Perimeter hoarding would reduce the potential noise impact at properties but would be relatively ineffective at higher floor levels.
Appendix 9 Page 3
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Land quality Site considerations Site location Current site use Small CSO site (east and west)/Large CSO site (west) Grid reference: 535500, 180709 Large, well-maintained public park. Two-thirds informal grassed areas and wildflower meadow, one-third formal designated recreation and facilities (multi-sports court and tennis courts, bowling green and childrens playground). Site slopes from A1203 to River Thames in a north-westerly to south-easterly direction. None identified at this time
Topography Field evidence of contamination (ie, visual/ olfactory) Current surrounding land use (immediately adjacent to site)
North: Site bounded by very busy dual carriageway (A1203), beyond this are three-storey terraced residential properties. In the northwest, 20+ storey block of flats. East: Eight-storey residential apartment block (Free Trade Wharf). A number of apartments have balconies and habitable room windows overlooking the proposed site. South: River Thames along southeast boundary. West: Site bounded by Glamis Road, which is bound by a 36m brick wall, restricting views of King Edward Memorial Park and residential two-storey properties in Peartree Lane.
Geological and hydrogeological information Geological strata1 Superficial geology and made ground (6m) London Clay (1m) Lambeth Group (26m) Thanet Sand (13m) Chalk (to beyond the depth of shaft)
Appendix 9 Page 1
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Land quality Site considerations Underlying aquifer classes Small CSO site (east and west)/Large CSO site (west) Non-aquifer: London Clay Minor aquifer: River terrace deposits, Lambeth Group, Thanet Sand Major Aquifer: Chalk River terrace deposits minor aquifer High leaching potential of soils (U)1
Groundwater vulnerability/ Soil classification (High/Intermediate/Low/Not applicable)2 Source protection zone details Surface water receptor
Not located in a source protection zone defined by EA Site located adjacent to the River Thames and partially below mean high water level.
Relevant information within a 250m radius of the site Historical potentially contaminating activities (based on mapping data) On site Unknown filled ground (pit, quarry etc) 1995 Coal storage 1882 Residential housing 1882 1955 Wharf (transport support cargo and handling) 1882 1995 Air shafts 1938 1951 The site encompasses King Edward Memorial Park to the east of the site, and tennis courts, a bowling green and football pitch to the west of the site 1955 2009 Off site Wharf (transport support cargo and handling) (closest 2m east) 1882 1899 Areas cleared due to enemy action (nearest 14m west, four from 18m west) no mapping dates
Appendix 9 Page 2
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Land quality Site considerations Pollution incidents to controlled waters Small CSO site (east and west)/Large CSO site (west) Potential tanks (closest 18m north) 1949 Oil storage (25m east) no mapping dates Underground fuel tanks (27m west) no mapping dates Metal casting/foundry (87m north) 1882 Electricity substation facilities (closest 99m northwest) no mapping dates Discharge consent (undefined) (108m south, River Thames) 1986 Hospital (135m northeast) 1898 1951 Petrol pump (151m northwest) no mapping dates Oil industry (185m southwest) 1971 Tanks (unknown) (196m southwest) 1966 1971 Oil, petroleum and gas refining and storage (223m north) 1882 Oil and lead works (237m east) no mapping dates
Nine: Miscellaneous unknown, minor incident (20m south in River Thames) Chemicals unknown, significant incident (32m south in Shadwell Basin) Oils unknown, minor incident (40m south in Shadwell Basin) Miscellaneous urban runoff, minor incident (90m northwest) Miscellaneous natural, minor incident (96m southeast Shadwell Basin) Oils unknown, significant incident (97m southwest Shadwell Basin) Chemicals unknown, minor incident (120m south in River Thames) Miscellaneous natural, major incident (192m west Shadwell Basin) Oils unknown, minor incident (230m southeast in River Thames)
Appendix 9 Page 3
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Land quality Site considerations Landfill site Small CSO site (east and west)/Large CSO site (west) Two: Historic landfill (unknown waste) (50m west) pre 1974 Historic landfill (unlicensed) (150m southwest) no mapping dates One: Registered waste transfer site (187m west), no restrictions on source of waste, listed as very small (<10,000 t/yr), licence elapsed None None None
Other waste site
Registered radioactive substances Fuel stations/depots Contemporary trade directory entries
Site classification based on above information Activity Potential site contaminants derived from surface sources (eg, contaminants in made ground) 1) Wharf (transport support and cargo handling) 2) Made ground from historic filling activities 3) Potential coal storage 3) On site 3) PAHs, TPH Distance and direction to site 1) On site Contaminants 1) Metals, PAHs, TPH
2) On site, directly adjacent to site.
2) Metals, Nitrogen compounds, TPH, PAHs, solvents
Appendix 9 Page 4
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Land quality Site considerations Potential site contaminants derived from offsite sources and transported to site Potential contamination pathways to site (Conceptual Site Model)3 Contamination category 1) Potential tanks 2) Oil storage 3) Underground fuel tanks Source 1: A1, A2, A3, B4, C5 Source 2: D6, E1, F7 Category 1 assessed as low risk Small CSO site (east and west)/Large CSO site (west) 1) Closest located 18m north 2) 25m east 3) 27m west 1) TPH, Metals, PAHs, solvents 2) TPH, Metals, PAHs 3) TPH, Metals, PAHs
Summary: The site is considered suitable as either a small (east or west) or a large CSO site as previous uses appear to have been limited to wharf activities and potential coal storage, and the distance and nature of potentially contaminating activities in the vicinity of the site are unlikely to have results in significant contamination of the site. Due to the close proximity of areas cleared due to enemy action, it is considered prudent that an unexploded ordnance survey is conducted. Notes 1. Soil information for urban areas is based on fewer observations than elsewhere in the country. Therefore, a worst case vulnerability (H) is assumed until proven otherwise. 2. Refer to schematic Conceptual Site Model for explanation of site-specific source-pathway-receptors. 3. From BGS Geological Model, giving average ground condition profile. Local near surface conditions may vary, particularly within the river.
Appendix 9 Page 5
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Land quality Small CSO site (north) Site location Current site use Grid reference: 535500, 180709 Large, well-maintained public park. Two-thirds informal grassed areas and wild flower meadow, one-third formal designated recreation and facilities (multi-sports court and tennis courts, bowling green and childrens playground). Site slopes from A1203 to River Thames in a north-westerly to south-easterly direction.
Topography
Field evidence of None identified at this time contamination (ie, visual/ olfactory) Current surrounding land use (immediately adjacent to site) North: Site bounded by very busy dual carriageway (A1203), beyond this are three-storey terraced residential properties. In the northwest, 20+ storey block of flats. East: Eight-storey residential apartment block (Free Trade Wharf). A number of apartments have balconies and habitable room windows overlooking the proposed site. South: River Thames along southeast boundary. West: Site bounded by Glamis Road, which is bound by a 3-6m brick wall restricting views of King Edward Memorial Park and residential two-storey properties in Peartree Lane. Geology Superficial geology and made ground (6m) London Clay (1m) Lambeth Group (26m) Thanet Sand (13m) Chalk (to beyond the depth of shaft) Non-aquifer: London Clay Minor aquifer: River terrace deposits, Lambeth Group, Thanet Sand Major aquifer: Chalk River terrace deposits minor aquifer High leaching potential of soils (U)
Geological and hydrogeological information Geological strata1
Underlying aquifer classes (Major/minor/ aquifer) Groundwater vulnerability/soil classification (High/Intermediate/Low/ Not applicable)
Appendix 9 Page 1
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Land quality Small CSO site (north) Source protection zone details Surface water receptors Not located in a source protection zone defined by EA Site located adjacent to the River Thames and partially below mean high water level. On site Unknown filled ground (pit, quarry etc) 1995 Coal storage 1882 Residential housing 1882 1955 Wharf (transport support cargo and handling) 1882 1995 Air shafts 1938 1951 The site encompasses King Edward Memorial Park to the east of the site, and tennis courts, a bowling green and football pitch to the west of the site 1955 2009 Off site Wharf (transport support cargo and handling) (closest 2m east) 1882 1899 Areas cleared due to enemy action (nearest 14m west, four from 18m west) no mapping dates Potential tanks (closest 18m north) 1949 Oil storage (25m east) no mapping dates Underground fuel tanks (27m west) no mapping dates Metal casting/foundry (87m north) 1882 Electricity substation facilities (closest 99m northwest) no mapping dates Discharge consent (undefined) (108m south, River Thames) 1986 Hospital (135m northeast) 1898 1951 Petrol pump (151m northwest) no mapping dates Oil industry (185m southwest) 1971 Tanks (unknown) (196m southwest) 1966 1971 Oil, petroleum and gas refining and storage (223m north) 1882 Oil and lead works (237m east) no mapping dates
Relevant information within a 250m radius of the site Site history information and historical potentially contaminating activities (based on mapping data)
Appendix 9 Page 2
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Land quality Small CSO site (north) Pollution incidents to controlled waters Nine: Miscellaneous unknown, minor incident (20m south in River Thames) Chemicals unknown, significant incident (32m south in Shadwell Basin) Oils unknown, minor incident (40m south in Shadwell Basin) Miscellaneous urban runoff, minor incident (90m northwest) Miscellaneous natural, minor incident (96m southeast Shadwell Basin) Oils unknown, significant incident (97m southwest Shadwell Basin) Chemicals unknown, minor incident (120m south in River Thames) Miscellaneous natural, major incident (192m west Shadwell Basin) Oils unknown, minor incident (230m southeast in River Thames) Two: Historic landfill (unknown waste) (50m west) pre-1974 Historic landfill (unlicensed) (150m southwest) no mapping dates One: Registered waste transfer site (187m west), no restrictions on source of waste, listed as very small (<10,000 t/yr), licence elapsed None None None
Landfill sites
Other waste sites
Registered radioactive substances Fuel stations/depots Contemporary trade entries
Appendix 9 Page 3
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Land quality Small CSO site (north) Site classification based on above information Activity Potential site contaminants derived from surface sources (eg, contaminants in made ground) 1) Wharf (transport support and cargo handling) 2) Made ground from historic filling activities 3) Potential coal storage Potential site contaminants derived from offsite sources and transported to site 1) Potential tanks 2) Oil storage 2) 25m east 3) Underground fuel tanks Identified sourcepathway-receptor risk assessment at CSO construction stage (Conceptual site model)3 Contamination category 3) 27m west 1) Closest located 18m north Distance and direction to site 1) On site 2) On site, directly adjacent to site. 3) On site Contaminants 1) Metals, PAHs, TPH 2) Metals, Nitrogen compounds, TPH, PAHs, solvents 3) PAHs, TPH
1) TPH, metals, PAHs, solvents 2) TPH, metals, PAHs 3) TPH, metals, PAHs
Source 1: A1, A2, A3, B4, C5 Source 2: D6, E1, F7
Category 1 assessed as low risk
Summary: The site is suitable for use because the previous uses in King Edward Memorial Park appear to have been limited to wharf activities and potential coal storage. The distance and nature of potentially contaminating activities in the vicinity of the site are unlikely to have caused significant contamination of the site. Due to the close proximity of areas cleared due to enemy action, it is considered prudent that an unexploded ordnance survey is conducted.
Appendix 9 Page 4
Site suitability report C29XB Appendix 9 Land quality Small CSO site (north) Notes: 1. From BGS Geological Model, giving average ground condition profile. Local near surface conditions may vary, particularly within the river. 2. Soil information for urban areas is based on fewer observations than elsewhere in the country. Therefore, a worst case vulnerability (H) is assumed until proven otherwise. 3. Refer to schematic Conceptual Site Model for explanation of site-specific sourcepathway-receptors
Appendix 9 Page 5
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

110 RG PNC C29XB 000602

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

110 RG PNC C29XB 000602

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

110 RG PNC C29XB 000602

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Autumn 2011

Site suitability report C29XB