100 RG PNC C04xa 900001

Spring 2010
Site Suitability Report C04XA

Foreshore, adjacent to Chancellors Wharf
Please note: After phase one consultation this site suitability report was reviewed as part of a back-check. This report was reviewed by each discipline (engineering, planning, environment, community and property), but the report was not updated as the general overall site conclusions remained valid. 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.
100-RG-PNC-C04XA-900001 | Spring 2010

Foreshore, adjacent to Chancellors Wharf
THAMES TUNNEL
SITE SUITABILITY REPORT C04XA

LIST OF CONTENTS
Page Number 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 1.2 1.3 2 Purpose and structure of the report Background Consultation 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 10
SITE INFORMATION 2.1 2.2 Site and surroundings Type of site
3 4
PROPOSED USE OF SITE CONSTRUCTION PHASE PROPOSED USE OF SITE OPERATIONAL PHASE 4.1 4.2 Introduction Restoration and after-use
ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Access Construction works considerations Permanent works considerations Health and safety
PLANNING ASSESSMENT 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 Introduction Planning applications and permissions Planning context Consultation comments Planning comments
ENVIRONMENTAL APPRAISAL 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 7.10 Introduction Transport Archaeology Built heritage and townscape Water resources hydrogeology and surface water Ecology Flood risk Air quality Noise Land quality
SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT 8.1 8.2 Socio-economic profile Issues and impacts
PROPERTY ASSESSMENT 9.1 9.2 Introduction Crown Land and Special Land comments
100-RG-PNC-C04XA-900001.doc
9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 10
Land to be acquired Property valuation comments Disturbance compensation comments Offsite statutory compensation comments Site acquisition cost assessment
10 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 13
SITE CONCLUSIONS BY DISCIPLINE 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 Introduction Engineering Planning Environment Socio-economic and community Property
APPENDICES APPENDIX 1 SOURCES OF INFORMATION APPENDIX 2 SITE LOCATION PLAN APPENDIX 3 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT PLANS APPENDIX 4 PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS APPENDIX 5 TRANSPORT PLAN APPENDIX 6 SERVICES AND GEOLOGY PLAN APPENDIX 7 CONSTRUCTION PHASE LAYOUT APPENDIX 8 OPERATIONAL PHASE LAYOUT APPENDIX 9 ENVIRONMENTAL APPRAISAL TABLES
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AOD BAP BT CPO CSO DLR EA GLA HGV LNR LPA LU m MOL ONS ORN PLA POS PTAL SAM SINC SNCI SSR SSSI SuDS TfL TD TLRN TPA UDP UXO
above Ordnance Datum Biodiversity Action Plan British Telecom compulsory purchase order combined sewer overflow Docklands Light Railway Environment Agency Greater London Authority heavy goods vehicle local nature reserve local planning authority London Underground metre/metres Metropolitan Open Land Office of National Statistics Olympic Route Network Port of London Authority public open space public transport accessibility level scheduled ancient monument site of importance for nature conservation site(s) of nature conservation importance site suitability report site(s) of special scientific interest sustainable urban drainage systems Transport for London tunnel datum Transport for London Road Network Thames Policy Area unitary development plan unexploded ordnance
1 1.1 1.1.1
INTRODUCTION Purpose and structure of the report The Site Selection Methodology Paper (May 2009) (paragraphs 2.3.29 - 2.3.34) outlines the process to be used to create the preferred list of shaft sites, and this process also applies to CSO sites. Paragraph 2.3.31 lists the type of general considerations that will be addressed in each site suitability report, but they depend on the relevance to the site and professional judgement made in the assessments. This report was prepared through the assessment of information from the perspective of a number of technical disciplines: Engineering, Planning, Environment, Property and Community. The reports have been prepared on the basis of the information listed in Appendix 1 - Sources of Information, and this level of information is considered to be appropriate to the current stage. The Background Technical Paper provides information on the requirements for different site types, their sizes and typical activities/facilities within the sites. Each site suitability report considers a particular site on its own merits. In addition, an engineering options report was produced. Information from both of these reports will feed into the technical assessment of how well the site may fit in with tunnel design options, ensuring combinations of sites spread across the length of the tunnel route provide a reasonable spatial distribution of sites (that will best assist with the construction of the tunnel, operation and maintenance). This is considered in the Preferred Scheme Report. Background The process for selecting sites is set out in the Site Selection Methodology (May 2009) paper. All sites have previously passed through the following parts of Stage 1: Part 1A - Creation of the long list of potential shaft (and CSO) sites Part 1B - Creation of a short list of potential shaft (and CSO) sites o o o Table 2.2: Long list of shaft (and CSO) sites - an assessment against set considerations and values Table 2.3: Draft short list of shaft (and CSO) sites - assessment against a list of detailed considerations Workshops to consider each site to arrive at a short list of sites.
1.1.2
1.1.3 1.1.4
1.2 1.2.1
1.2.2
The final part of Stage 1 includes this report. The following is an overall summary of all elements that apply to all the sites on the final short list: Part 1C - Creation of the Preferred List of shaft (and CSO) sites - site data, site visits, site suitability reports, engineering options report and optioneering workshops that will result in the Preferred Scheme Report.
1.3 1.3.1
Consultation The Thames Water project team held meetings with London local authorities, statutory and other stakeholders to review the provisional short list of shaft and CSO sites. All general and site specific comments can be found in a separate report titled Consultation on the Short List of Sites: Consultation Feedback Report. These comments were considered to help determine the final short list of sites, but they were also considered at the optioneering workshops. Further meetings were held with London local authorities, statutory and other stakeholders between January and March 2010. Comments are included in this report.
1.3.2
Page 1
2 2.1 2.1.1
SITE INFORMATION Site and surroundings This site is one of the shortlisted sites for Hammersmith Pumping Station 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 C04XA is located on an area of the River Thames foreshore, directly in front of properties located on Chancellors Wharf, within the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. The site is rectangular in shape and accessed via Chancellors Road, which passes a number of residential properties and Frank Banfield Park before joining the A219 Fulham Palace Road. A site location plan is attached as Appendix 2. A paved open space and public walkway separates Chancellors Wharf and the foreshore. The foreshore itself is used as a path by the local community at low tide, while the paved public space is used by the local community in good weather as a meeting place and a sitting or reading spot. This public space also acts as a key viewing area for the annual University Boat Race. The surrounding area is characterised by a range of land uses, including residential, leisure, light industrial, warehousing and office developments. The nearest residential properties are modern apartments known as Chancellors Wharf, Crisp Road. They are four storeys high and set within six separate blocks. A number of the apartments have small garden areas, balconies and roof terraces, all orientated towards the river. The CSO interception working area is positioned directly in front of the apartments numbered 31 to 40, at approximately 19.5 metres from the nearest facade. The site is in the vicinity of the Riverside Studios, which has a cinema, theatre and caf. The studios also have a south facing riverside terrace, which is popular during evenings and weekends, and also in use by performers and others on weekdays. The site is within a number of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan designated areas, including the Thames Policy Area, Fulham Reach Conservation Area and Nature Conservation Area. All the mapped designations are shown on the planning and environment plans in Appendix 3. Photographs of the site and surroundings, together with an aerial photograph of the site, are attached as Appendix 4. There is road access to the site via Chancellors Wharf or Chancellors Road. Both Roads are considered to be restricted. Hammersmith Underground Station is less than 1km away. 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: Four 1.98m diameter Hammersmith Pumping Station outfalls and associated two 2.8m diameter delivery culverts (C04XA to be connected to this sewer) Four- to five-storey building and various flats, approximately 20m from the river wall River wall.
2.1.2
2.1.3
2.1.4
2.1.5
2.1.6
2.1.7 2.1.8
2.1.9
2.1.10 The locations of other third-party assets, such as BT and fibre optic communication cables, are to be confirmed by further studies and utility searches and may not be shown on the services and geology plan. 2.1.11 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 London Clay. 2.2 2.2.1 Type of site The site C04XA is being considered as a CSO site to intercept the Hammersmith Pumping Station CSO outfalls (CSO04X). Page 2
3 3.1.1 3.1.2
PROPOSED USE OF SITE CONSTRUCTION PHASE The proposed construction phase layouts for the CSO site are located in Appendix 7 Construction Phase Layout, and are based on a preliminary assessment. The construction phase layout drawings are illustrative and show: the layout as a CSO site potential access point.
3.1.3
These drawings provide initial preliminary schematic layouts that have not been optimised. If the site proceeds to the next stage as a preferred site, construction phase layouts would be optimised to minimise impacts. Photographs of typical activities associated with the CSO site construction phase are provided in Appendix 7. Potential above ground construction features include: approximately 3m high hoarding around the site boundary welfare facilities, temporary structures approximately 3m high grout plant, approximately 3 to 5m high, including silos mobile crane, approximately 30m high (maximum and not for full construction duration).
3.1.4
3.1.5 3.1.6
Foreshore working is required for this site and a cofferdam or similar construction works would be needed. Preliminary data associated with the construction phase are provided in Table 3.1. Table 3.1 Construction phase data Activity Length of construction period Likely working hours, ie, (night/day/weekend) Working days Primary means of transporting excavated material away from site Primary means of transporting materials to site *There may be feasible opportunities to use barge transport for this site CSO site 0.5 to 2 years 12 hrs from 7am to 7pm Mon to Sat Road * Road *
4 4.1 4.1.1 4.1.2
PROPOSED USE OF SITE OPERATIONAL PHASE Introduction The indicative operational phase layout for the CSO site is located in Appendix 8 Operational Phase Layout, and is based on a preliminary assessment. The generic elevations of structures shown on the operational phase layout are located in Appendix 8 and provide an illustration of typical examples of the permanent structures which are applicable to CSO sites. The above ground infrastructure at this site is likely to comprise a ventilation column 10m high and 3m diameter, a ventilation building 5m x 15m x 5m high and a 20m x 10m top structure with openings. The top structure is to provide access and egress into the main shaft and flap valve chamber.
a
4.1.3
It was anticipated that the ventilation column at shafts sites would be 10m high when the assessment in this report was undertaken. Although this was subsequently changed to 15m high, the assessment was not revised as it was considered that the difference would not change any disciplines conclusion on the suitability of the site.
Page 3
4.1.4
The top structures are envisaged to be finished at a level of 107m tunnel datum (TD) (7mAOD), and since the ground level mean value at this site is 104mTD (4mAOD), the top structures would be raised to approximately 3m above the current ground level. For further information on the generic layout of this top structure, refer to Appendix 8. A hardstanding would be provided to the top structures. The site would not be fenced. Preliminary data associated with the operational phase are provided in Table 4.1. Table 4.1 Operational phase data Level of inspections and maintenance and likely working hours, ie, (night/day/weekend) frequency of visits 1 daytime visit every six months for electrical/instrument inspection. An additional 1 week maintenance period for tunnel/shaft inspection required per 10 years that could be night/day/weekend working. 1 van visit every six months. An additional 1 week period of 2 to 10 movements per day (estimated several vans and 2 cranes) every 10 years.
4.1.5 4.1.6
No of traffic movements
4.2 4.2.1
Restoration and after-use The portion of the site not occupied by the permanent works would be restored to its original condition on completion of the construction works. If any buildings were demolished, these would not be reinstated unless required. ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT Access This section should be read in conjunction with Section 7.2. Road
5 5.1 5.1.1
5.1.2
For the construction phase, road access to the site is through Chancellors Wharf or Chancellors Road. The latter is more suitable since it directly connects the site to the A219, whereas Chancellors Wharf runs through a series of residential areas and an arch likely to have height and width limitations. However, both roads provide only very limited access and it is unlikely that HGVs could access the site through these. The access could possibly be used for the operational phase, depending upon type and size of vehicle, otherwise river access would be necessary. Rail
5.1.3
5.1.4
There is no rail network local to this site. Hammersmith Underground Station is less than 1km away from the site. However, rail access is not considered to be a significant factor for CSO sites. River
5.1.5
River access and jetty/wharfage facilities are not a requirement for CSO sites. However, as the site is in the foreshore, there may be feasible opportunities to use barge transport, in
It was anticipated that the elevation of top structures at both CSO and shaft sites would be finished at 107mTD when the assessment in this report was undertaken. Although this was subsequently changed to 104.5mTD, the assessment was not revised as it was considered that the difference would not change any disciplines conclusion on the suitability of the site.
Page 4
particular considering the very limited road access available. As such, it is likely that barges would need to be used. There are no existing structures or obstructions in the river that would impact on such facilities, although Hammersmith Bridge is relatively close. 5.1.6 There would also be an impact on river usage/navigation. It would be necessary for this to be examined in detail, in the form of a specific risk assessment (including modelling of barge movements), which would require discussions with and approval of the PLA. Construction works considerations No demolition is required. As the site is in the foreshore, a temporary cofferdam would be required and the contained area filled to provide a level site compound. Foreshore sites carry with them a higher risk than inland sites in respect of unexploded ordnance, notably near bridges, and this would need to be investigated. Foreshore sites carry with them a higher risk than inland sites of archaeological finds that might delay the construction programme. Data available on third-party assets and significant utilities show that the main items of concern in this area are four 1.98m diameter Hammersmith Pumping Station outfalls, the associated two 2.8m diameter delivery culverts (C04XA to be connected to these), the river wall, the substantial outfall structure in the river walkway and the residential buildings adjacent to the river walkway. Construction methods would be adopted, as appropriate, to mitigate potential settlement of these assets. It is likely that the proposed works can be constructed within the overall construction programme. The interception chamber and connection culvert to the drop shaft are both within the site and therefore require no additional consideration. Permanent works considerations The top structures to the drop shaft and flap valve chamber would be 2m above the existing shore level. The top structure to the interception chamber and drop shaft would be in the foreshore, and a river wall matching and tied into the existing river wall would be provided around the permanent operational site. The site would be finished to the same level as the adjacent ground level. The feasibility of structures in the foreshore from a navigation aspect would need to be discussed with the PLA. Health and safety As the site is in the foreshore, measures would need to be taken to mitigate the risks of flooding and working over/near water. Logistics planning would be required to provide safe cover during operational phase visits if access were by river, due to tidal constraints. There are no other unusual health and safety issues with this site. 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
5.2 5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3 5.2.4 5.2.5
5.2.6 5.2.7
5.3 5.3.1 5.3.2
5.3.3
5.4 5.4.1 5.4.2 5.4.3 6 6.1 6.1.1
Page 5
Planning context Planning comments. 6.2 6.2.1 Planning applications and permissions An initial desktop search of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham online planning applications database did not identify any planning applications submitted within the last five years applicable to the site. Planning context The current planning policy context for the site is provided from the saved September 2007 policies from the Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan, adopted August 2003. The following provides a summary of the relevant local planning policies and designations affecting the site. Policy EN31X, Thames Policy Area the entire site is designated as Thames Policy Area. This policy states that development will not be permitted within the area unless it respects the surroundings and maintains a high level of design. Policy EN27, Nature Conservation Area (M31) the entire site is designated a Nature Conservation Area. These areas will be protected from development likely to cause demonstrable harm to their wildlife value. Policy EN2, Conservation Area (Fulham Reach) the entire site is within a Conservation Area. Development will only be permitted if the character or appearance of the area is preserved or enhanced. Policy EN21, Environmental Nuisance the site is in proximity to existing residential properties, and this policy seeks to ensure that no undue detriment occurs to general amenities. Consultation comments A series of consultations on the shortlisted sites were held with London local authorities, statutory and other pan-London stakeholders during July to September 2009 and January to March 2010. This section summarises factual comments that have been made by consultees, and which have informed the SSR assessments. London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham 6.4.2 The council advised that there may be an impact on residential properties. English Heritage 6.4.3 No comment. Environment Agency 6.4.4 No comment. Port of London Authority 6.4.5 The Port of London Authority stated that the site is on the foreshore, and that navigationally this can be achieved. Mitigation would be required against environmental impacts. Transport for London 6.4.6 No comment.
6.3 6.3.1
6.3.2
6.3.3
6.3.4
6.3.5
6.4 6.4.1
Page 6
Other statutory consultees 6.4.7 6.5 6.5.1 6.5.2 No comment. Planning comments A number of planning designations and policies are applicable onsite. These designations and policies have been identified and described in Section 6.3. The whole site is within the Thames Policy Area. It is envisaged that, with appropriate mitigation, the works should not have a detrimental impact on the surroundings in terms of visual appearance and design, particularly due to the temporary nature of the works. The design of the after-use structures will need careful consideration to ensure they do not result in overly prominent development in this location. The proposed works are therefore not expected to conflict with Policy EN31X. The proposal site is within the River Thames foreshore, a designated for Nature Conservation Area. This is a general designation, covering the entire River Thames. The purpose of Thames Tunnel Project is to improve the overall environmental condition of the river which, among other gains, will promote biodiversity. Construction activity within the river, with the appropriate level of mitigation, is considered unlikely to adversely impact upon or conflict with the aims of this designation. However, a fuller assessment of the likely impact on the immediate location is included in Section 7. The entire site is also designated as a Conservation Area. The proposed works would not result in the loss of any buildings or built features and, with appropriate mitigation, the proposal should not have a detrimental impact on the setting the Conservation Area as a whole. Again, the design of the after-use structures should take into consideration the setting and appearance of the Conservation Area. A detailed heritage and landscape assessment is provided in Section 7. The nearest residential property is 19.5m from the worksite. There is little opportunity to rearrange the works to increase this distance, due to the location of the CSO and interception options. Appropriate mitigation will be required to reduce potential construction impacts resulting from noise, dust, traffic movements and views across the river from these residential properties. It may also be necessary to control the construction working hours to those normally operated in residential areas. The site is in the vicinity of the Riverside Studios, which has a cinema, theatre and caf. The studios also have a south facing riverside terrace, from which works are likely to be visible and audible. Mitigation may be required to reduce potential impacts on this facility. ENVIRONMENTAL APPRAISAL Introduction The following sections summarise specialist assessments which are provided in Appendix 9 Environmental Appraisal Tables. Transport The site is less suitable as a CSO site, as the access would pass through private residential property at Chancellors Wharf and potential road and rail access routes may be unsuitable for HGVs, unless some residential on-street parking is selectively removed along Crisp Road and Queen Caroline Street to provide passing places for construction vehicles. Furthermore, rail transport is unlikely to be feasible for the small volumes of excavated material produced by the site, and the likely route to access rail facilities is constrained by a narrow road in the vicinity of Barnes Rugby Club, which may be unsuitable for construction vehicles unless the speed humps are removed. There would be good public transport access to the site, which would be essential, given that no parking is likely to be available within the site or on surrounding roads, which are
6.5.3
6.5.4
6.5.5
6.5.6
7 7.1 7.1.1
7.2 7.2.1
7.2.2
Page 7
subject to parking restrictions. The site access road traverses the Thames Path, which would need to be diverted. 7.3 7.3.1 Archaeology The site is potentially suitable as a CSO site. Due to a lack of previous investigations in the area, the nature and extent of archaeological receptors cannot be confidently predicted at this stage. Based on the information currently available, it is possible that archaeological receptors of a high or medium value may be present within this site. The construction of two combined sewer pipes within the site is likely to have caused considerable disturbance, but areas of archaeological remains are still likely throughout the site. Peat deposits containing archaeological material have been commonly recorded throughout London in a similar proximity to the Thames. Given the location of the site, and wider evidence for historical occupation along the river, it is reasonable to suggest that waterlogged remains of archaeological value may be present. Built heritage and townscape From a built heritage perspective, this site is considered suitable as a CSO shaft site, as the impact of the development upon built heritage receptors is likely to be minimal. Although there is some potential for direct impacts upon the character or appearance of the Fulham Reach Conservation Area, this could be mitigated through a high-quality scheme design and/or screening of permanent structures. This mitigation would also reduce potential visual intrusiveness of the development upon listed and locally listed buildings in proximity of the site. From a townscape perspective, this site is less suitable as a CSO shaft site, since the proposals would potentially have a severe adverse impact on the views of the river. Water resources hydrogeology and surface water In terms of hydrogeology, this site is suitable as a CSO shaft site as the drop shaft would be constructed in London Clay (non aquifer). No impact on the Chalk aquifer would be expected. The superficial deposits at the site comprise alluvium, which is classified as a non-aquifer, and therefore no impact is expected at shallow depth. In terms of surface water resources, this site is less suitable as work would be undertaken within the channel of the River Thames and specific mitigation will be required to prevent pollution, in line with Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPG) 1 and 5 and Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 23. Ecology This site is less suitable as it would require temporary and permanent land-take from the River Thames, a Site of Metropolitan Importance, and this would potentially require offsite mitigation/compensation solutions as well as potentially arduous post-works restoration. Flood risk This site is less suitable as a CSO shaft site as it would require specific mitigation to protect it from flood levels, and displacement may be caused by working areas in the river which could increase flood risk in the locality. Air quality This site is less suitable for use as a CSO site from an air quality perspective. There are residential properties in close proximity to the site, and there is potential for fugitive emissions of dust during construction to have a perceptible impact at these properties. These impacts could 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
7.3.2
7.4 7.4.1
7.4.2
7.5 7.5.1
7.5.2
7.6 7.6.1
7.7 7.7.1
7.8 7.8.1
Page 8
areas of already poor air quality. This could be partially mitigated by minimising the movement of HGVs during peak hours. 7.9 7.9.1 Noise This site is less suitable as a CSO shaft site due to the close proximity of residential receptors to the north of the site. Any shielding afforded by the site perimeter barriers is likely to be largely ineffectual, due to the height of these receptors. In addition, the number of vehicles associated with the construction phase and the proposed access route is likely to cause an adverse noise impact on the residential properties on Crisp Road and Queen Caroline Street. Land quality
7.10
7.10.1 The site is less suitable as a CSO shaft site, based on the moderate potential that contamination of the site has occurred from foundry operations historically undertaken near the site. 7.10.2 As the site is located partially within the Thames, dilution of contamination by the river may have occurred. As such, the degree of impact would be expected to be partially reduced. Contamination has the potential to impact on site workers through direct contact exposure pathways and, to a lesser extent, by volatilisation 8 8.1 8.1.1 SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT Socio-economic profile The site is in the Hammersmith Broadway ward. This ward has a higher percentage of unemployed people than the average for London or England, although the ward also has a higher percentage of people with high level qualifications. The area has a mix of ethnic backgrounds and a comparatively high proportion of people aged 20-44, with fewer children and older people than the England or London averages. The ward population and the site visit indicate that the population of the neighbourhood of the site mainly comprises young professionals who are likely to be working during the day. Issues and impacts Due to the proposed CSO site location, the greatest impact is likely to be on the residential development adjacent to the site. Through a site survey, the area has been identified as reasonably quiet and therefore elevated noise levels from the use of this site may disturb the residents of adjacent properties. The use of the site may affect outlook from adjacent residential development, and views from the conservation area across the river to the west (Barnes). People using the Thames Path, including the paved public open space adjacent to the site, are likely to face disruption from the works. As the space is likely to be valued as a tranquil open space, use levels may decrease drastically due to CSO works. The site is in the vicinity of the Riverside Studios to the north, which has a cinema, theatre and caf. The studios also have a south facing riverside terrace, which is likely to be subjected to noise disruption from the works. The view of the river and Barnes from the riverside terrace is likely to be impeded by the works, which would be a significant impact on the quality of the terrace as a dining or social space.
8.1.2 8.1.3
8.2 8.2.1
8.2.2
8.2.3
Page 9
9 9.1 9.1.1
PROPERTY ASSESSMENT Introduction This site comprises an area of the foreshore by the residential development known as Chancellors Wharf. Crown Land and Special Land comments While no land referencing data has been provided, it is assumed that the site will be held by the Crown, or the PLA on the Crowns behalf. Crown Land cannot be acquired compulsorily. Prior to selecting the site, the responsible authority must be consulted so that it can be established whether there are any fundamental issues arising that might prejudice the practicability of using the land. With co-operation of the Crown or PLA, there should be no risk to the project. However, with justifiable objections to the selection of this site, either the Crown or PLA could prevent it from being used for this purpose. Risk to the project then becomes significant, with no measurable timescale for addressing and overcoming the objections. Land to be acquired The compensation assessment assumes that the worksite and access to it would be acquired temporarily, via the acquisition of new rights for the period of the works stated in the engineering section above. At the end of the works, a smaller area would need to be acquired permanently. The site area falls within the foreshore. The permanent structure for the operational phase would comprise a 43m long extension to the river wall, projecting approximately 20m into the River Thames. Access would be via Chancellors Road and Chancellors Wharf. Property valuation comments 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. However, compensation for the permanent acquisition of unusual types of property, where there is no general market, can be assessed on the basis of the cost of equivalent reinstatement at a new site, but there must be a genuine intention to reinstate. If compensation is assessed on a diminution in value basis for the 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. As the site would occupy part of the foreshore within the river, equivalent reinstatement would not be possible and the acquisition costs for the permanent works have been assessed on the basis of market value. No rights of way or easements have been included in the assessment of this site acquisition cost. Disturbance compensation comments There are unlikely to be any disturbance compensation claims. The site area falls within the area of foreshore and there is no specific occupier to displace, nor is there evidence onsite to suggest that the works would conflict with an operational requirement of the PLA or the Crown.
9.2 9.2.1
9.2.2
9.3 9.3.1
9.3.2
9.4 9.4.1
9.4.2
9.4.3
9.4.4
9.5 9.5.1
Page 10
9.6 9.6.1
Offsite statutory compensation comments The risk of offsite statutory compensation claims arising under Section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 or Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 is considered to be low. Site acquisition cost assessment The site acquisition costs are considered to be acceptable. SITE CONCLUSIONS BY DISCIPLINE Introduction
9.7 9.7.1 10 10.1
10.1.1 The conclusions presented in this section are drawn from each disciplines assessment , and are designed to inform the workshop where a final conclusion on whether the site moves forward as one of the preferred sites or not. 10.2 Engineering
10.2.1 This site is less suitable as a CSO site because vehicular access is very limited (probably necessitating the use of barges) and the site is not particularly large. However, as the site is on the foreshore, its size could be increased and shape adjusted to fit all the site facilities. There is no requirement for demolition. Due to the number and configuration of the existing outfalls, a very large interception chamber would be required. 10.3 Planning
10.3.1 On balance, the site is considered less suitable as a CSO site. 10.3.2 The site is subject to several policy designations. However, with appropriate mitigation, the possible conflicts could be kept to a minimum. 10.3.3 The close proximity of the residential dwellings is more problematic, particularly with potential noise, dust and traffic impacts associated with the construction works, and impacts on views across the site towards the river. However, it may be possible that, with appropriate mitigation, the loss of residential amenity can be significantly reduced. 10.4 Environment
10.4.1 Overall, the site is considered to be less suitable as a CSO shaft site. 10.4.2 The site is suitable from the perspectives of archaeology, built heritage, and hydrogeology. 10.4.3 The site is considered less suitable from the perspectives of transport, townscape, surface water, flood risk, ecology, air quality, noise, and land quality. 10.4.4 Overall, the site is considered less suitable, and further investigation would be required as to whether transport, townscape, surface water, flood risk, ecology, air quality, noise and land quality impacts could all be adequately mitigated. Likely mitigation considerations would include the following: Transport the removal of parking spaces and speed humps on Crisp Road and the diversion of the Thames Path (potentially along existing footways on Crisp Road). Townscape a high quality scheme design to minimise adverse impacts on local views. Flood risk and surface water mitigation to reduce flood risk to the work site and elsewhere (loss of capacity) and specific mitigation to reduce the impacts of in-river working. Ecology mitigation for foreshore habitats.
Page 11
Air Quality measures to ensure dust is adequately mitigated for the closest receptors. Noise standard noise barriers are unlikely to be entirely effective and other techniques may be required to reduce construction noise to acceptable levels. Land Quality any required remediation of contamination (at this moderate risk site) and / or measures to ensure no mobilisation of contaminants remained in situ. 10.5 Socio-economic and community
10.5.1 This site is less suitable from a community impacts perspective. The use of the site may have a significant impact on the local community, due to the proximity of the residential development to the site. The visual and noise impacts of the site may require mitigation to minimise disruption to the local residents and users of the Thames Path, as well as users of the Riverside Studios. 10.5.2 The permanent hardstanding for future access and other remnant structures may impact to an extent on views from river-facing residences and from the Thames Path. 10.6 Property
10.6.1 The site is considered suitable for use as a CSO site. Acquisition costs are expected to be low, but use of the site would depend on reaching agreement with the Crown or PLA.
Page 12
Site Suitability Report C04XA - Appendices
APPENDICES
Page 13
Site Suitability Report C04XA Appendix 1
APPENDIX 1 SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Engineering Traffic Management and Access Roads/Rail Scott Wilson Access River BMT Third Parties (Shafts/CSOs) Mott MacDonald and AECOM Geology Thames Water Utilities Thames Water and AECOM Construction and Operational Layout Template London Tideway Tunnels. Background Technical Paper London Tideway Tunnels Planning London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham online planning applications database Saved policies in the Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan, adopted in 1993
Environment Transport Map of Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) - www.tfl.gov.uk Bus Route Maps: North-east, north-west, south-west, south-east - www.tfl.gov.uk Crossrail Plans - www.crossrail.co.uk/crossrail-bill-documents PTAL scores - obtained from Table 2.3 information Thames Path map - www.walklondon.org.uk Capital Ring - www.walklondon.org.uk Cycle Routes - www.sustrans.org.uk and Local Cycling Guides 1-14 Design Manual for Roads and Bridge TD 42/95, Highways Agency Built heritage and townscape National Monuments Record - for some additional information regarding registered historic parks and gardens Unitary development plans Local authority websites Bing maps Water resources hydrogeology and surface water Environment Agency abstraction licence details Environment Agency groundwater levels Local Authority details of unlicensed abstractors Environment Agency Flood Map www.environment-agency.gov.uk
Appendix 1 - Page 1
Envirocheck Ecology Thames Estuary Partnership (2002) Tidal Thames Habitat Action Plan London Biodiversity Action Plan - www.lbp.org.uk Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) www.magic.gov.uk - statutory designated sites London Wildweb - http://wildweb.london.gov.uk - non-statutory site of importance for nature conservation Black redstart distribution in London - www.blackredstarts.org.uk/pages/ londonmap.html National Biodiversity Network - http://searchnbn.net - distribution of protected species Google Maps - aerial views of habitat features BAP habitats - www.natureonthemap.org.uk Priority habitats and species on national and local scales - www.ukbap.org.uk Flood risk Environment Agency Flood Map www.environment-agency.gov.uk Envirocheck Air quality Local Authority websites www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/default.asp?la_id=&showbulletins=&width=1680 http://www.airquality.co.uk Noise Envirocheck - Identification of receptors Promap - Calculation of distances between site and receptors Multimap - Aerial photography www.multimap.co.uk Defra noise maps - Identification of existing noise levels Land quality Google Maps/Earth Site walkover information
Socio-economic and community Statistics from the Office of National Statistics 2001 Census data Riverside Studios http://www.riversidestudios.co.uk
Appendix 1 - Page 2
Property Site visit Promap, Ordnance Survey and A-Z mapping Multimap/Google Earth aerial/satellite photographs Mouchel referencing
Appendix 1 - Page 3
APPENDIX 2 SITE LOCATION PLAN
Appendix 2 - Page 1
FI D
EN
TI AL
&
Area of Main Map
AF T
Legend
Local Authority Boundary Short Listed CSO Sites
# *
HAMMERSMITH & FULHAM
! (
CSO (Directly Controlled) Pumping Station
HOUNSLOW
CS04X Hammersmith Pumping Station CSO
C04XA
# * Hammersmith Pumping Station

0 50 100
! (
200 Metres 300 400
Mapping reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. (c) Crown copyright and database right 2009. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100019345 CH2M HILL accept no responsibility for any circumstances, which arise from the reproduction of this map after alteration, amendment or abbreviation or if it issued in part or issued incomplete in any way.
RICHMOND UPON THAMES
Map Ref : .......101PL-SS-00960 Date : .............2009/11/26 Projection : .....British National Grid
Thames Water Utilities

MAJOR PROJECTS
The Point, 7th Floor, 37 North Wharf Road, Paddington, London W2 1AF
Title:
APPENDIX 2 C04XA SITE SITE LOCATION PLAN
APPENDIX 3 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT PLANS
GIS data could not be obtained from London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (see section 6.3 for planning context)
Appendix 3 - Page 1
APPENDIX 4 PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS
Appendix 4 - Page 1
FI D
EN
TI AL
Area of Main Map
AF T
Legend
Local Authority Boundary Short Listed CSO Sites CSO (Directly Controlled) Pumping Station
&
# *
! (
C04XA
# * Hammersmith Pumping Station

0 25 50
! (
100
150
200
Metres
Map Ref : .......101PL-SS-00981 Date : .............2009/11/26 Projection : .....British National Grid

MAJOR PROJECTS
Title:
APPENDIX 4 C04XA SITE AERIAL PLAN
View of the site within the River Thames looking northeast towards Hammersmith Bridge.
View of the site looking east from the River Thames.
Appendix 4
APPENDIX 5 TRANSPORT PLAN
Appendix 5 - Page 1
EN
TI AL
FI D
High street Area of Main Map
&
AF T
Road bridge - no restrictions
Legend
Local Authority Boundary Short Listed CSO Sites CSO (Directly Controlled) Pumping Station Transport Access Routes TfL Road Network Thames Path
# *
On-street parking Traffic calming Residential area
! (
London Cycle Routes
HOUNSLOW
C04XA
# *Hammersmith Pumping Station

0 40 80 160
! (
Meters
240
320
400
Map Ref : ........... 101PL-SS-00756 Date : ................. 2009/11/19 Projection : ......... British National Grid

MAJOR PROJECTS
Title:
APPENDIX 5 C04XA SITE TRANSPORT PLAN
APPENDIX 6 SERVICES AND GEOLOGY PLAN
Appendix 6 - Page 1
St Vincents
RC Church
1
DS 8304 9305
Mall Villas 5.0m
2
5.4m PH
3
1146
5.7m
4
1138
6
DO NOT SCALE - IF IN DOUBT ASK
Status:
IL-1.43m WO
FV
2683 IL-6.98m
DC PS
1314
The Cottage
GEOLOGY
5.3m
9301
SE 1308
2647
WORK IN PROGRESS
VT
Keyplan:
N
2690
VMH LS
1315
TCB
CL5.06m
Nursery
Westcott Lodge
IL-1.26m 4202 SE
6.1m
DRAWING LOCATION
2681
River House
9202 0214 SE IL-1.45m 2685
VT CL5.57m IL-1.58m 2205

TCB
Ground level 100 (m OD + 100) 4206 97 (m OD + 100) Base of Made Ground
Chy
IL-0.95m
Blades Court
2692
VT
LB
IL-7.32m
2206 6.3m 2202 SE IL-1.05m 1145 2204

Posts
El Sub Sta
and Superficial
FV ST
A
Club
0207 SE
Playground
VT CL4.74m IL-1.59m
4.9m
LB
IL-1.56m
MAPPING REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF ORDNANCE SURVEY ON BEHALF OF HMSO. ' CROWN COPYRIGHT AND DATABASE RIGHT 2008. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ORDNANCE SURVEY LICENCE NUMBER 100019345
9203
Posts
IL-6.83m
6.2m
0204 SE
IL-6.26m
Kent House Club
D Fn
0201
PH Shingle
CON 2N
IL-1.55m
Posts
IL-1.15m
2686
1139
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. Suggested invert level of shaft 73.81 (m OD + 100) NOTES:
IL-0.21m
Landing Stage
Posts
Phillippa
PH
IL-7.37m
Peabody Estate
(floating)
House
2676
MoPs MP MP TCB
IL-1.59m
4.3m 6.8m
Posts
IL-1.34m 1144
Landing Stage Post
El Sub Sta
PH
4207
IL-7.38m ZBV205999 ZBV205995
IL-7.38m
Playground
(floating)
9102
4.3m
PH
1102
Posts
ZBV205608 TCB 4123
1. LIMITED FIBRE OPTIC AND BT COMMUNICATION CABLES SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING. DETAILS OF THESE CABLES AND OTHER SERVICES AND THIRD PARTY ASSETS TO BE CONFIRMED BY FURTHER STUDIES AND UTILITY SEARCHES. 5105 2. INVERT LEVEL OF SHAFT SHOWN. BASE OF CONSTRUCTION WILL BE BELOW THIS LEVEL AND WILL DEPEND ON CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUE. THIS IS ONLY PROVISIONAL AS DESIGN IS AT EARLY PRELIMINARY STAGE.
IL-0.23m
Posts 0131 0122 SE IL-0.2m 0130
IL-1.49m
5.7m
IL-1.55m IL-7.43m PS WO 2134
IL-1.95m WW IL-7.39m IL-1.92m
4104
90mm AT
DEPTH 0.3m 1111
MP MP Landing Stage
2684 0128
Shingle
FV
SE Formation 4102Base of London Clay BS VT 48 (m OD + 100) CL4.71m

4.7m
(floating)
IL-6.93m IL-0.36m
0113 SE 0112 SE
IL-5.78m
Posts
5106
Hard
0111 SE
IL-2.51m IL-0.38m
FV FV
0114 SE WO 0127 0115 SE 0125
1103 SE
IL-1.73m 1140
Depot
2106
2135
2107 SE
ZBV050133
Base of Lambeth Group 37 (m OD + 100) 4116 WO HAMMERSMITH OLD SPS (ABANDONED) 5109 5104 EV 974 PH IL-1.85m 3101 2116 SE PS EV EV 4106
Works 0116 SE
1107 VMH
BOC 3027 2103 VMH
2131 2132 WO
IL-7.39m
MP
BS VMH CL5.93m IL-1.64m IL-1.65m

5.7m
PH
5110 Base of Thanet Sand Formation 4120 23 (m OD + 100) WO 4119 IL-1.97m DBV014264
LEGEND
FOUL WATER
WO
Queens Wharf
B
Hammersmith Bridge (suspension)
1110 Riverside Studios

MP
2115 SE 2133
HW
2117 SE
DS WW
3006 CON 3N 3011
SURFACE WATER
4117 CLEAN WATER 4118

Playground
1143
FV
2033 1141 IL-7.4m
GAS
9.2m
0366
MP
FIBRE OPTICS 5004 IL-1.76m 3008 3013 3010 FL 3012 3009 0393 HIGH VOLTAGE CABLES Chalk
5.0m
Shingle
TELECOMMUNICATIONS IL-2.01m LOW VOLTAGE CABLES
IL-9.02m
Chancellors Wharf
2002 VMH
IL-1.71m
HW 2001 VMH
IL-8.89m 2031 5.1m 1142 IL-0.9m 2020 SE
LB
2029
FL
DB DB 2010 IL-2.9m 2017 SE VMH
EXISTING TUNNELS
VMH 2041
HAMMERSMITH STORM SPS WO HAMMP1ZZ
4.2m
1015 1016 DS FV 1022 FV

DC
IL-1.26m
FL
DS NAME NK SPS LOC CODE NK 4003
IL-1.33m DC FV FV 1018 DC 1003 1028 VT SE
FV
1012 1017
SYNTHETIC GEOLOGICAL PROFILE DERIVED FROM THE BGS LONDON LITHOFRAME50 MODEL, HISTORICAL BOREHOLES 973 MAY AND BERRY (1979). PLEASE NOTE, GROUND CONDITIONS VARY AND THIS DATA SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR DETAILED ENGINEERING PURPOSES 4008 5009
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
5.3m
WATER STORM & FOUL SEWERS 5012 4007

Nurses Home
- ALL TW ASSETS - ALL TW ASSETS
FV
C04XA
Chancellors Wharf
1004
OTHER SIGNIFICANT UTILITIES ARE DEFINED AS: TELECOMS - ONLY FIBRE OPTIC CABLES - HIGH VOLTAGE CABLES - LARGE BANKS OF LOW VOLTAGE CABLES - LOW PRESSURE ABOVE 300mm DIAMETER - INTERMEDIATE, MEDIUM OR HIGH PRESSURE 200mm 10 m 0 100 m SCALE 1 : 1000 1079 AB DRAFT-SECOND ISSUE IL RS
Dsgnr
FH 4903 4902
5.0m Works
ELECTRICITY
6.5m
SITE BOUNDARY
El Sub Sta
GAS
C
WO 8901 FH 8902
LB
4901
970
5904
VT 3902 VT 3903
4.7m
3559
5.7m
4905
LB
3801 FH 8808 FH 9805

4.3m Riverside
GT DS
Chkd
GT CH
Appd
18-12-09 07-08-09
Date
AA DRAFT-FIRST ISSUE 3802 1080

Iss Description
8809
9801 SU 4802 100

The Point, 7th Floor, 37 North Wharf Road,
5.4m
8807
9804 FH
Waterfront
Paddington, London W2 1AF
9806
4801
1082
Location Code:
OS Reference:
Security Reference:
Drawn By:
8804
N/A
Project Group:
UBR
Sub Process:
AP
Location / Town:
DBV014260
Site Name: Project Name:
LONDON N/A
8701 5702 8703
THAMES TUNNEL
Contract Name:
SITE SUITABILITY REPORT

FH
Drawing Title:
0701 0702
El Sub Sta
4701
Arundel Court
SERVICES AND GEOLOGY PLAN HAMMERSMITH PS - C04XA

Drawing No.: Scale: Sheet Size: Rev:
0705
Andy.Purdy LOCATION : Thames Tideway Tunnel x:\project\371840\cad\design data\cad thames\drawings\planning-consents\CS04X\100-DL-PNC-C04XA-143001.dgn
3640
BY
PLOTTED ON
15\12\09
c Thames Water Utilities Ltd 2008
LVHTCABGWF
SWFGTHVL
NF
100-DL-PNC-C04XA-143001
1:1000
A1
AB
50
FH
3650
LTTDT
WASTE
150
SW
SWFGTHVL
APPENDIX 7 CONSTRUCTION PHASE LAYOUT
Appendix 7 - Page 1
APPENDIX 8 OPERATIONAL PHASE LAYOUT
Appendix 8 - Page 1
6
DO NOT SCALE - IF IN DOUBT ASK
VENTILATION COLUMN (CSO)
Status:
WORK IN PROGRESS
Keyplan:
N
A
MAPPING REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF ORDNANCE SURVEY ON BEHALF OF HMSO. ' CROWN COPYRIGHT AND 107m (AOD +100) REMOVABLE COVER ABOVE WEIR (LOCKABLE) DATABASE RIGHT 2008. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ORDNANCE SURVEY LICENCE NUMBER 100019345
COORDINATES ARE TO ORDNANCE SURVEY DATUM OSGB36. ALL LEVELS ARE IN METRES AND RELATE TO A LOCAL HEIGHT DATUM WHICH IS 100 METRES BELOW ORDNANCE DATUM NEWLYN.
NOTE:
4m
3m
6m
1. STRUCTURE TO BE PROTECTED BY REMOVABLE HANDRAILS IN THE TEMPORARY CASE. 2. POSITION OF COVERS ARE VARIABLE WITHIN 10m FROM THE EDGE OF THE STRUCTURE, AND THE LOCATION IS BASED ON SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT 3. CLADDING OF VENTILLATION BUILDING TO SUIT LOCATION AND AESTHETICS. 4. ALL TOP STRUCTURES TO HAVE:ACCESS STAIRS/LADDER TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT HAND RAILING 5. ALL DIMENSIONS IN MILLIMETRES UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED. GROUND LEVEL
10000
5m
REMOVABLE COVERS ARE SPLIT UP INTO SECTIONS AND SUPPORTED BY BEAMS, WHICH ARE ALSO REMOVABLE
1m DIA
SCALE 1:50
DIAGRAMMATIC REPRESENTATION OF TOP STRUCTURE ABOVE CSO SHAFTS ELECTRICAL CONTROL KIOSK (CSO)
- - - - - - 1500 - - AB DRAFT-SECOND ISSUE IL RS

Dsgnr
GT DS
Chkd
GT CH
Appd
27-11-09 - 22-05-09
Date
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 50

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

Drawing Title:
SCALE 1:25
GENERIC ELEVATION AND TOP STRUCTURE FOR OPERATIONAL PHASE LAYOUT - CSO SITES
Drawing No.:
PLOTTED ON
04\12\09
BY
Andy.Purdy
LOCATION :
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
100-DH-GEN-00000-000001
NTS
A1
AB
100
150
200mm
VARIBLE DEPENDING ON
APPENDIX 9 ENVIRONMENTAL APPRAISAL TABLES Transport Site considerations Access to road network Comments Site access onto Crisp Road would only be possible through Chancellors Wharf which is private property containing a car park. Access would also pass across the Thames Path which runs adjacent to the site. Crisp Road is subject to a 30mph speed limit, features traffic calming in the form of speed cushions, and is street lit. Crisp Road has a carriageway width of 8.3m and contains on street parking on both sides (reducing effective carriageway width to 4m). Visibility to the north from Chancellors Wharf onto Crisp Road is approximately 30m and restricted by parked vehicles. To the south visibility would be achievable to the junction with Chancellors Road (approx. 60m). Access to A4 (TLRN strategic highway network) achievable from Crisp Road onto Queen Caroline Street (avoiding oneway section to the south). Route requires using the Hammersmith Gyratory on return to site from the A4 which is a town centre location. Access to A4 (TLRN strategic highway network) runs through a residential area and high street and has constraints in the form of traffic calming and parking on both road sides along Crisp Road and Queen Caroline Street. Route passes under the Hammersmith flyover on return to site, with no visible height restrictions. Distance to TLRN 0.9km for westbound A4 and 1.3km for eastbound A4. See Transport Access Plan in Appendix 5. Conclusion since Table 2.3 changed to least suitable due to site investigation. Mitigation required and conclusions Access only possible via Chancellors Wharf (private property) which would also need to provide vehicular access for workforce. Route may be unsuitable for HGVs through Chancellors Wharf with potential width and height restrictions. Access route passes over the Thames Path (footway) which would require diversion. Conclusion: Road access to site unsuitable for HGVs and workforce as requires passing through private property at Chancellors Wharf. Several constraints upon accessing the TLRN (A4), most notably the on street parking, traffic calming (speed cushions) and potential width restrictions through Chancellors Wharf for HGVs.
Appendix 9 - Page 1
Transport Site considerations Access to river Comments Located directly adjacent to river. Mitigation required and conclusions River access not required as excavated material will be transported away by road. River access should be investigated. Route to possible rail link (near Barnes Bridge) runs along a narrow road which is traffic calmed (speed humps) adjacent to the Thames in addition to the constraints encountered upon accessing TLRN (A4). Speed humps along the narrow road adjacent to the Thames need to be removed. Railway sidings also need to be constructed in order for the site to be utilised.
Access to rail
Access to rail unlikely to be feasible due to small volumes of excavated material produced by the site. Access to the Barnes railway site uses the route to the TLRN (A4), then follows the A4 and continues to the junction with the A316 where it heads south along the A316 towards the junction with Hartington Road. The route then follows along a narrow road adjacent to the Thames before reaching the site. Constraints include those encountered when accessing the TLRN in addition to traffic calming (speed humps) along the narrow road beside the river in close proximity to the Barnes site. Distance 5.3km to rail access from site. Parking not available on site for workforce. Limited parking is available on Crisp Road and on surrounding roads for permit holders and pay & display users, although only for a maximum stay of 4hrs (2.40/hr), Mon-Sat 08:30-18:30. This is unlikely to be sufficient for the workforce. PTAL 5-6, as identified within Table 2.3.
Parking
No parking available on site. Alternative on street parking is restricted to a maximum stay of 4hrs Mon-Sat 08:30-18:30 and is therefore unlikely to be suitable for workforce.
Public transport accessibility
High PTAL rating good possibility of workforce being able to use public transport to access site. Removal of parking spaces and speed humps on Crisp Road required. Diversion of the Thames Path (potentially along existing footways on Crisp Road) required.
Traffic Management
Parking will require removal on Crisp Road to enable access. Speed humps require removal along narrow road beside the river towards rail access. Access would pass over Thames Path.
Appendix 9 - Page 2
Transport Site considerations Comments Mitigation required and conclusions
Summary: The site is less suitable as a CSO site as the access would pass through private residential property at Chancellors Wharf, and potential road and rail access routes may be unsuitable for HGVs unless some residential on-street parking is selectively removed along Crisp Road and Queen Caroline Street to provide passing places for construction vehicles. Furthermore, rail transport is unlikely to be feasible for the small volumes of excavated material produced by the site, and the likely route to access rail facilities is constrained by a narrow road in the vicinity of Barnes Rugby Club which may be unsuitable for construction vehicles unless the speed humps are removed. There would be good public transport access to the site which would be essential given that no parking is likely to be available within the site or on surrounding roads, which are subject to parking restrictions. The site access road traverses the Thames Path which would need to be diverted.
Appendix 9 - Page 3
Archaeology Site considerations Designations, including Archaeological Priority Areas Comments Partly within the Hammersmith and Fulham Archaeological Priority Area. Mitigation required and conclusions 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.
Summary of historical uses
The site is located on mud banks within the Thames and appears to have been undeveloped to date. Some historic maps refer to wharfs in the area, so there is some potential for buried timber structures. No archaeological receptors are recorded within the area of the site. This does not preclude the possibility of unrecorded archaeological receptors of high value being present within the site. In particular preserved timber remains and peat deposits may be anticipated.
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. Please Note: mitigation of waterlogged archaeological remains through excavation is often logistically complex and potentially costly. A detailed desk based assessment is required to sufficiently understand the archaeological resource and define risk to potential development. N/A
Potential receptors of medium value with the potential to be directly affected
No archaeological receptors are recorded within the area of the site. This does not preclude the possibility of unrecorded archaeological receptors of medium value being present within the site. The dewatering of adjacent waterlogged deposits is unlikely to be an issue given the site location within the Thames. The construction of two existing combined sewer pipelines within the site is likely to have adversely impacted archaeological receptors for a considerable area. There is no evidence of any other disturbance within the site. Detailed design proposals, and an outline method statement will be required to enable initial assessment of development impacts, and to inform mitigation proposals.
Other receptors with the potential to be directly affected
Extent of existing disturbance (if known)
Detailed desk based assessment (incorporating a review of geo-technical data) is required to assess whether any archaeological receptors survive within the proposed development footprint. Mitigation methods could include: Desk based assessment Production of deposits
Potential issues
Appendix 9 - Page 4
Archaeology Site considerations Comments With the currently available information it is not possible to highlight specific potential issues. Mitigation required and conclusions model Archaeological monitoring of geotechnical investigations Archaeological evaluation Archaeological watching brief Archaeological excavation. Summary: The site is potentially suitable as a CSO site. Due to a lack of previous investigations in the area the nature and extent of archaeological receptors cannot be confidently predicted at this stage. Based on the information currently available it is possible that archaeological receptors of a high or medium value may be present within this site. The construction of two combined sewer pipes within the site is likely to have caused considerable disturbance, but areas of archaeological remains are still likely throughout the site. Peat deposits containing archaeological material have been commonly recorded throughout London in a similar proximity to the Thames. Given the location of the site, and wider evidence for historical occupation along the river, it is reasonable to suggest waterlogged remains of archaeological value may be present.
Appendix 9 - Page 5
Built Heritage and Townscape Site considerations Designations including Conservation Areas, including trees Comments Listed Buildings Hammersmith Bridge, Richmond-upon-Thames, Grade II: 160m Hammersmith Bridge, Hammersmith and Fulham, Grade II: 150m 6 Lower Mall, Hammersmith, Grade II: 215m 7 Lower Mall, Hammersmith, Grade II: 225m 8 Lower Mall, Hammersmith, Grade II: 230m 9 Lower Mall, Hammersmith, Grade II: 240m Kent House (including railings and gate), Hammersmith, Grade II: 245 Locally Listed Buildings Building at junction with Castelnau Riverview Gardens: 195m 1-10, 11-20, 21-30 Castlenau Mansions: 210-250m 1-6, 7-12, 13-18, 19-26, 25-30, 31-36, 37-44, 45-52, 53-60, 6168, 69-76, 77-79, 80-85, 86-93, 94-99, 100-105, 106-111, 112117, 118-123, 124-129 Riverview Gardens: 160-225m 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 46 Clavering Avenue: 230-250m Although a Local List is maintained by the borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, this data was not available at the time of this assessment. Conservation Areas Castelnau Conservation Area: 70m Fulham Reach Conservation Area: 0m Hammersmith Odeon Mitigation required and conclusions In the case of listed buildings, locally listed buildings, conservation areas, and protected views, a high quality scheme design and adequate screening for the development may be required as discussed below. A detailed desk-based assessment in conjunction with archaeology work will be required to further determine the likely impact of the development and to inform more detailed mitigation proposals. On the basis of currently available information (June 2009) and on the basis of certain receptors not being present within 250m of C04XA, mitigation will not be applicable in the case of registered historic parks and gardens, and locally listed parks and gardens.
Appendix 9 - Page 6
Built Heritage and Townscape Site considerations Comments Conservation Area: 200m Crabtree Conservation Area: 250m The Mall Conservation Area: 110m Registered Historic Parks and Gardens There are no registered historic parks and gardens within 250m of C04XA Locally Listed Parks and Gardens There are no locally listed parks and gardens within 250m of C04XA Protected Views View 6 View across Richmond Park: 170m Vista 23 Barnes: 175m Information on Protected Views is not currently for the borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. Mitigation required and conclusions
Potential receptors of medium to very high importance with the potential to be directly affected
The Fulham Reach Conservation Area has the potential to be directly affected as C04XA lies within the boundaries of the designated area.
Mitigation to enhance or preserve the character or appearance of the Fulham Reach Conservation Area would be required. This is likely to require a high quality scheme design and possible screening in order to mitigate potential adverse impacts upon the designated area. Not Applicable
Other receptors of lesser importance with the potential to be directly affected Potential receptors of medium to very high importance with the potential to be indirectly affected
Not Applicable
There is the potential for 7 Grade II Listed Buildings to be indirectly affected through changes to their setting. In addition, 4 Conservation Areas may also experience an impact upon their setting as a result of the development. Two Protected Views have the potential to be indirectly affected.
Five of the Listed Buildings are located sufficiently far away from C04XA and within a built-up area that they are already screened from the site. They are therefore unlikely to require any form of mitigation. However, there are likely to be views of the site from Hammersmith Bridge (Grade II listed Richmond
Appendix 9 - Page 7
Built Heritage and Townscape Site considerations Comments Mitigation required and conclusions and Hammersmith sides) and some form of screening and/or high quality scheme design is likely to be required to mitigate against any visual impact upon the setting of the bridge. Similarly, of the four Conservation Areas within 250m of C04XA, three do not have a visual relationship with the site and are therefore unlikely to require any form of mitigation. However, views to and from the Castelnau Conservation Area across the Thames from C04XA may require adequate screening and/or high quality scheme design to mitigate against any visual impact which might affect the setting and views into or out of the designated area. No mitigation will be required for the two protected views. Neither view shares a visual relationship with the site: View 6 View Across Richmond Park looks away from C04XA and Vista 6 Barnes focus on the linear streetscape of Castlenau to the south of Hammersmith Bridge. As none of these views looks towards or through the site no mitigation is likely to be required.
Other receptors of lesser importance with the potential to be indirectly affected
There are 47 locally listed buildings located within 250m of C04XA on the opposite (west) bank of the River Thames. All are of these receptors are located within the Castelnau Conservation Area and are considered to be of townscape merit by Richmond-uponThames Borough Council. Of
Due to the presence of the Locally Listed Buildings on the northern side of Riverside Gardens, some screening of the site and/or a high quality scheme design will be required to mitigate the potentially adverse visual affects of the development.
Appendix 9 - Page 8
Built Heritage and Townscape Site considerations Comments these buildings, only those properties on the northern side of Riverside Gardens (Nos 1-6, 7-12, 13-18, 19-26, 25-30, 3136, 37-44, 45-52, 53-60, 61-68, and 69-76) as well as the building at the junction of Castlenau Riverside Gardens share a visual relationship with the site. There is consequently the potential for this group of buildings to be indirectly affected by C04XA. Properties on the southern side of Riverside Gardens and along Clavering Avenue have no visual relationship with C04XA as they are screened from the site by intervening properties. A further three locally listed buildings (110, 11-20 and 21-30 Castelnau Mansions) also have no visual relationship with the site. Mitigation required and conclusions
Sensitive landscape character areas likely to be affected, including trees and TPOs
Sensitive residential area Sensitive site on the north bank of River Thames; south of Chancellors Wharf, vacant industrial site to the east, River Thames to the west and south. The presence and operation of machinery, materials stores and buildings would potentially result in temporary, adverse direct impacts on the character of the River and the River frontage and temporary, adverse indirect impacts on neighbouring areas.
Retention of trees where possible and protection in accordance with BS 5837. Introduction of landscape scheme to include appropriate surface treatments and planting to relate to river frontage. Construction and operation is likely to adversely impact the character of the River and the River frontage.
Potential views likely to be affected
Open views from the River Thames and overlooking residential properties to the north and south. Open views from Hammersmith Bridge, Thames Path, and Riverside Studios to the north.
During construction, use of hoardings and appropriate lighting. Design of finished appearance of top structure and ventilation column to be given careful consideration. Planting to screen permanent plant. Adequate new planting would be important to protect visual amenity. This site is less suitable since
Appendix 9 - Page 9
Built Heritage and Townscape Site considerations Comments Mitigation required and conclusions the proposals would potentially have a severe adverse impact on the views of the river. Particular considerations on sites where new permanent structures are required The direct impact of permanent structures upon the Fulham Reach Conservation Area will need to be carefully considered. The potential visual intrusiveness of the new structure upon listed and locally listed buildings and protected views within 250m of C05XA will also need to be considered. There is the potential for the development at this site, including the permanent structures, to adversely affect the character of the Thames and the river frontage. Any permanent structures would need to be of a high quality design in order that their visual intrusiveness is minimised and, in particular, so that they preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Fulham Reach Conservation Area in accordance with planning policy and English Heritage guidance. Where the structures would be visually intrusive and impact upon the setting of Listed or Locally Listed Buildings, mitigation would be required to reduce potentially adverse effects in accordance with planning policy. The scheme design would have to be of a sufficiently high quality and may need to include some screening in order that it preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the Fulham Reach Conservation Area. The visual intrusiveness of the scheme design upon some Listed and Locally Listed Buildings would also need to be mitigated.
Potential issues
There are numerous built heritage receptors located within 250m of C04XA. Of these, only the Fulham Reach Conservation Area is likely experience a direct affect from the scheme whilst others will experience either no or an indirect impact. There is the potential to mitigate any adverse indirect impacts through a high quality scheme design and/or screening.
Summary: From a built heritage perspective, this site is considered suitable as a CSO shaft site, as the impact of the development upon built heritage receptors is likely to be minimal. Although there is some potential for direct impacts upon the character or appearance of the Fulham Reach Conservation Area, this could be mitigated through a high quality scheme design and/or screening of permanent structures. This mitigation would also reduce potential visual intrusiveness of the development upon listed and locally listed buildings in proximity of the site. From a townscape perspective this site is less suitable as a CSO shaft site, since the proposals would potentially have a severe adverse impact on the views of the river.
Appendix 9 - Page 10
Water resources - hydrogeology and surface water Site considerations hydro-geological conditions (Groundwater and Surface Water) From BGS Geological Model giving average ground condition profile. Local near surface conditions may vary, particularly within the river Comments Geology (thickness) Superficial Geology and Made Ground (3 m) London Clay (49 m) Lambeth Group (11 m) Thanet Sand (14 m) Hydrogeology Piezometric Level in Chalk Aquifer: ~ -32m AOD (~ 32 mbgl) from EA Jan 08 water level contouring Groundwater Monitoring Location EA Hydrometry Sites: No hydrometry site nearby Watercourses Within the River Thames SPZs and groundwater users SPZ Not located in a Source Protection Zone defined by EA EA Licensed Groundwater Abstractions and Details No public water supply 2 licensed abstraction borehole within 2 km radius
Licence Numbers: 1. 28/39/39/0221 ( 1 borehole) 2. 28/39/39/0137 ( 1 borehole) Locations: 1. 1.5 km southeast of the site 2. 1.53 km west of the site Operator: 1. Fulham Football Club Ltd. 2. Fuller Smith & Turner Ltd. Abstracted Aquifer Unit: 1.Chalk 2.Gravel Abstraction Purposes: 1. Industrial, commercial and public service (sports grounds/facilities- spray irrigation) 2. Industrial, commercial and public service (food and drink-non evaporative
Mitigation required and conclusions The drop shaft will be constructed to an invert level of approximately 26.19 mbgl therefore the shaft will be founded in the London Clay. Piezometric (1) head in the Chalk is approximately 5.81 m below the base of the construction. Therefore, there is no potential issue in terms of geotechnical design.
A simple volumetric approach has been used to calculate the 400 days travel times of the abstraction borehole. A conservative mean annual recharge of 100mm/year was used to calculate a radius for licensed abstraction boreholes as follows;
1. 72 m 2. 255 m
As a result, the drop shaft will not be located within either of these catchment areas.
Water resources - hydrogeology and surface water Site considerations

cooling) Abstraction Quantity (annual): 1. 6,500 m3 2. 81,828 m3
Comments
Mitigation required and conclusions
Local Authorities (LA) Unlicensed Groundwater Abstractions and Details No abstraction borehole within 1 km radius inside Hammersmith and Fulham Council No abstraction borehole within 1 km radius inside Richmond Upon Thames Council Boundary Borehole locations and depths There are 7 historical records of water wells: 4 deep wells and 3 shallow wells within 1 km radius. Depth range: 96.9 167.6 m. Depth range: 5.5 9.5 m. Potential impacts on surface water features The site is located within the River Thames. As such there is a direct pathway for pollution to the Thames. No impact on groundwater at depth is likely since the drop shaft is to be constructed in London Clay (non aquifer). At shallow depth, the drop shaft is located in Alluvium which is classified as a non aquifer so no impact is expected. No mitigation required if groundwater is not impacted. No potential issue Work needs to be undertaken in consideration of Pollution Prevention Guidelines PPG1, PPG5 and PPS23. See below (likely types of mitigation measures that will be required) Not applicable
Potential impacts on groundwater (resources and quality)
Likely types of mitigation measures that will be required Potential issues
Not applicable No mitigation required
Summary: In terms of hydrogeology, this site is suitable as a CSO shaft site, as the drop shaft would be constructed in London Clay (non aquifer). No impact on the Chalk aquifer would be expected. The superficial deposits at the site comprise Alluvium which is classified as a non aquifer and therefore, no impact is expected at shallow depth. In terms of surface water resources, this site is less suitable as work would be undertaken within the channel of the River Thames, specific mitigation will be required to prevent pollution in line with Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPG) 1 and 5 and Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 23.
Ecology (terrestrial and aquatic) Site considerations Statutory designations Comments Leg of Mutton Reservoir, Chiswick Eyot and Barnes Common LNRs are within 2km. Barn Elms Wetland Centre SSSI is within 2km. Non-statutory designated wildlife sites Site is within River Thames and Tidal Tributaries SMI The site is located within the River, and constructions or working methods affecting the Thames, particularly above ground features of a permanent nature, but also temporary or buried works would require compensatory habitat provision. There may also be post-works restoration required. The site is located within the River, and constructions or working methods affecting the Thames, particularly above ground features of a permanent nature, but also temporary or buried works would require compensatory habitat provision. There may also be post-works restoration required. Detailed negotiation may be required with the EA for the placement of structures (particularly permanent ones) in this location. Any constructions or dewatering in the Thames will require detailed aquatic invertebrate and fish investigation. Consideration needs to be given to the cumulative impacts on hydrodynamics with reference to known critical flow velocities for fish. Not considered significant at a site specific level. Mitigation required and conclusions None required
BAP priority habitats
The Tidal Thames is a London BAP habitat
Protected or otherwise notable species within the Study Area
Site may have potential to support passage and wintering birds, and possibly uncommon invertebrates
The foreshore may be utilised by uncommon aquatic invertebrates, including twolipped door snail. Potential issues The cumulative impact of all jetties and other above ground structures proposed within the Thames may increase flow velocity in the river with effects on juvenile migratory fish
Ecology (terrestrial and aquatic) Summary: This site is less suitable as it would require temporary and permanent land-take from the River Thames, a Site of Metropolitan Importance, and this would potentially require offsite mitigation/compensation solutions as well as potentially arduous post-works restoration.
Flood risk assessment Site considerations Flood Risk Zone Comments The site is located within Flood Zone 3b functional flood plain Sewage transmission infrastructure is considered to be water compatible according to table D.2 of PPS25. Mitigation required and conclusions The site will be developed with a coffer dam and should be protected to the 1 in 200 year tidal return period. An evacuation plan Will be required for this site in the event the dam is breached. N/A
Assessment of conditions for SuDS Potential issues
Not suitable for SuDS because the site is located within the Thames. No further issues identified at this stage
No further issues identified at this stage
Summary: This site less suitable as a CSO shaft site as it would require specific mitigation to protect it from flood levels, and displacement may be caused by working areas in the river which could increase flood risk in the locality.
Air quality Site considerations AQMA Comments The air quality objective for NO2 is exceeded on major roads in vicinity of site. There are residential properties and a hospital along Fulham Palace Road (A219) and residential properties adjacent to site access. There are residential properties within 50m of the proposed site on Crisp Road. Existing traffic issues The main traffic issue in this area is exhaust emissions on A219 and A4 corridors. 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.
Sensitive Receptors
Additional vehicle emissions have a high potential to interfere with local air quality action plan policies. See above. Collect minimum 6 months diffusion tube data at site access to A219 or other point of access to major road network. Minimise HGV movements on the local road network during the peak hour. Standard dust control measures will minimise the effect of fugitive dust on nearby sensitive receptors.
Existing sources of significant air pollutants Notable gaps in existing air quality monitoring
See above. There is no data available at the likely access to A219 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 is moderate.
Potential issues
Summary: This site less is suitable for use as a CSO site from an air quality perspective. There are residential properties in close proximity to the site, and therefore the potential for fugitive emissions of dust during construction to have a perceptible impact at these properties. These impacts could 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 could be partially mitigated by minimising the movement of HGVs during peak hours.
Noise Site considerations Noise band level (from Defra noise maps) Comments Information from Defra noise maps indicates daytime noise levels of less than 58 dB LAeq and night-time noise levels of less than 50 dB LAeq at residential properties at Chancellors Wharf to the east. The residential properties facing the site are likely to experience relatively low daytime and nighttime noise levels due to their distance from major roads. Noise levels from the Defra noise maps provide an indication of prevailing noise levels only, and will not be employed in any detailed assessments for chosen sites. Sensitive Receptors There are sensitive receptors in close proximity to the eastern boundary of the site, further residential properties located to the south west on the other side of the Thames. Sensitive receptors to the east consist of 4-5 storey residential dwellings at Chancellors Wharf, at a distance of approximately 10m. Sensitive receptors exist on the opposite bank of the Thames to the south west, in the form of 3 storey residential flats on Riverside Gardens. There are a large number of sensitive receptors adjacent to the site access route, including Crisp Road and Queen Caroline Street which are likely to be affected by HGV traffic. Existing traffic issues Local road traffic, coupled with more distant road traffic on the A4 to the north, the A306 to the west and the A219 to the east will contribute to the local noise climate in the area. Local road traffic, coupled with more distant road traffic on the A4 to the north, the A306 to the west and the A219 to the east will contribute to the local noise Not applicable Not applicable Mitigation required and conclusions Not applicable
Existing sources of significant noise emissions
Not applicable
Noise Site considerations Comments climate in the area. A pumping station exists nearby on Chancellor Road, although no information with regard to this as a source of noise is currently available. Potential issues Construction: The construction period is estimated at up to 2 years and working hours will be 12 hours per day (7am to 7pm) Monday to Saturday. This has the potential to result in adverse noise impacts to the sensitive receptors surrounding the site, and in particular those on Chancellors Road and Winslow Road. A relatively high number of daily HGV movements are anticipated. This number of vehicle movements has the potential to result in adverse noise impacts along the length of Crisp Road and Queen Caroline Street. The site is quite large and, whilst the shaft location may be fixed, ancillary plant should be sited as far as is practicable from surrounding sensitive receptors. Situating plant in the western part of the site would maximise the distances from the most sensitive receptors and minimise potential disturbance. Proposed 3m site boundary fencing will provide useful noise mitigation to some plant and construction activities. Vibration resulting from general construction works is not anticipated to result in an adverse impact. The nearest receptors to the proposed shaft location are at a distance of approximately 10m and it is unlikely that vibration levels will result in minor cosmetic damage during shaft sinking but may give rise to annoyance. Vibration from tunnelling should be considered on a case by case 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
Noise Site considerations Comments basis at particular sensitive locations. Operation: With appropriate attenuation (if necessary), there is no reason why noise from the ventilation column and top chamber should result in adverse noise impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. Summary: This site is less suitable as a CSO shaft site due to the close proximity of residential receptors to the north of the site. Any shielding afforded by the site perimeter barriers is likely to be largely ineffectual due to the height of these receptors. In addition the number of vehicles associated with the construction phase and the proposed access route, is likely to cause an adverse noise impact on the residential properties on Crisp Road and Queen Caroline Street. Mitigation required and conclusions
Land quality Site Location Current Site Use Topography Field Evidence of contamination (i.e. visual/olfactory) Current surrounding land use Grid Reference: 523124, 178009 The site is located on the Thames foreshore, adjacent to the river and private residential flats. Foreshore of the Thames None
North: River Thames and Hammersmith Bridge East: Private residential development South: River Thames West: River, looking across to a conservation area and listed buildings on the south bank.
Geological and hydrogeological information Geological Strata

1
Superficial Geology and Made Ground (3 m) London Clay (49 m) Lambeth Group (11 m) Thanet Sand (14 m)
Underlying Aquifer Classes
Non-Aquifer: River Terrace Deposits, London Clay Minor Aquifer:, Lambeth Group, Thanet Sands Major Aquifer: Chalk River Terrace Deposits Non-Aquifer
Groundwater Vulnerability/ Soil Classification (High/Intermediate/Low/Not 2 Applicable) Source Protection Zone Details Surface Water Receptor
Not located in a Source Protection Zone defined by EA
River Thames (directly adjacent to the site)
Relevant information within a 250m radius of the site Historical Potentially Contaminating Activities (based on mapping data) Onsite Historical maps show the sites land use has remained largely unchanged. The site is located on sand and shingle adjacent to the River Thames and below the Mean High Water Level from 1868 onwards Offsite Metal casting/foundry (adjacent to site), 1896-1916 Wharf (transport support and cargo handling), (adjacent to site), 1896-present Wharf (transport support and cargo handling), (20m north), 1920-1948 Wharf (transport support and cargo handling), (20m north), 1988 Gas house, (50m south east), 1901
Land quality Spirit distilling and compounding, (60m southeast), 18691952 Numerous potentially fuel related tanks, (closest located 70m east), 1951-1972 Chemical storage depot, (75m southeast), 1957-1983 Works, use not specified, (110m southeast), 1981-1996 Water pumping station (150m east), 1974 - present Sugar refinery, (140m southeast, 1898-1978 Electrical sub-stations, (closest located 175m east), 19571978 Gasometer, (200m east), 1869-1896 Coal Yard, (225m east), 1951 Pollution Incidents to controlled waters Five General, minor incident (10m west - within River Thames) Sewage, minor incident (100m west - within River Thames) Sewage, minor incident (120m west - within River Thames) Sewage, minor accident (150m west below Hammersmith Bridge) Miscellaneous Unknown, minor incident (150m west within River Thames) Landfill Sites Other Waste Sites Registered Radioactive Substances Fuel Stations/Depots Contemporary Trade Directory Entries None None None None Two Car body repairs, inactive (210m southeast) Distillery, active, (50m northeast) Site classification based on above information Activity Potential Site Contaminants derived from surface sources (e.g. contaminants in made ground) 1) Not applicable as site located on sand and shingle on bank of River Thames Distance and direction to site 1) Not applicable as site located on sand and shingle on bank of River Thames Contaminants 1) Not applicable as site located on sand and shingle on bank of River Thames
Potential Site Contaminants derived from offsite sources and transported to site
1) Foundry 2) Wharf operations (transport support and cargo handling) 3) Gas house 4) Distillery
1) Adjacent to site 2) Adjacent to site 3) 50m southeast 4) 60m southeast
1) Metals, PAHs, TPH, Solvents, PCBs 2) Metals, TPH, PAHs 3) Metals, PAHs, TPH, Phenols, , Solvents, Sulphate, Cyanide
Land quality 4) Metals, nitrogen compounds Potential Contamination Pathways to Site (Conceptual Site Model)
3
Source 1: A1, A3, B4 Source 2: D6, E1, F7 Category 2 assessed as Medium Risk
Contamination category
Summary: The site is less suitable as a CSO shaft site, based on the moderate potential that contamination of the site has occurred from foundry operations historically undertaken near the site. As the site is located partially within the Thames, dilution of contamination by the river may have occurred; as such the degree of impact would be expected to be partially reduced. Contamination has the potential to impact on site workers through direct contact exposure pathways, and to a lesser extent by volatilisation. Notes: 1. From BGS Geological Model giving average ground condition profile. Local near surface conditions may vary, particularly within the river. 2. Soil information for urban areas is based on fewer observations than elsewhere in the country. Therefore a worst case vulnerability (H) is assumed until proven otherwise. 3. Refer to schematic Conceptual Site Model for explanation of site-specific source-pathwayreceptors.
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

100 RG PNC C04xa 900001

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

100 RG PNC C04xa 900001

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Spring 2010

Site Suitability Report C04XA