PEIR Main Report Vol24 Earl Pumping Station

Preliminary environmental information report
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station site assessment

CSO interception site
Regulations 2 and 10 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009
Thames Tunnel
Phase two consultation documentation

General
Your guide to phase two consultation Why does London need the Thames Tunnel? Feedback form Equalities form Customer overview leaflet
Technical documents
Air management plan Book of plans Code of construction practice Part A: General requirements Consultation strategy and statement of community consultation Design development report Draft waste strategy Interim engagement report Needs Report Phase two scheme development report Preliminary environmental information report Report on phase one consultation Background technical paper Site selection methodology paper
Project information papers

Build Changes Consultation Design Environment Funding Managing construction Odour Options Overflow Regulatory framework Route and tunnel alignment Route to consent Settlement Site selection Timing Transport
Site information papers

Abbey Mills Pumping Station Acton Storm Tanks Albert Embankment Foreshore Barn Elms Beckton Sewage Treatment Works Bekesbourne Street Blackfriars Bridge Foreshore Carnwarth Road Riverside Chambers Wharf Chelsea Embankment Foreshore Cremorne Wharf Depot Deptford Chrurch Street Dormay Street Earl Pumping Station Falconbrook Pumping Station Greenwich Pumping Station Hammersmith Pumping Station Heathwall Pumping Station Jews Row King Edward Memorial Park Forehore King Georges Park Kirtling Street Other works Putney Bridge Foreshore Shad Thames Pumping Station Victoria Embankment Foreshore
Thames Tunn
Thames Tunnel Preliminary environmental information report

List of contents Non technical summary Part A: Preliminary project information Volume 1 Volume 2 Volume 3 Volume 4 Volume 5 Volume 6 Volume 7 Volume 8 Volume 9 Volume 10 Volume 11 Volume 12 Volume 13 Volume 14 Volume 15 Volume 16 Volume 17 Volume 18 Volume 19 Volume 20 Volume 21 Volume 22 Volume 23 Volume 24 Volume 25 Introduction Proposed development Alternatives Scoping Opinions and technical engagement Assessment methodology Project wide assessment Acton Storm Tanks CSO interception and main tunnel reception site Hammersmith Pumping Station CSO interception site Barn Elms CSO interception site Putney Bridge Foreshore CSO interception site Dormay Street CSO interception and connection tunnel sequential drive site King Georges Park CSO interception and connection tunnel reception site Carnwath Road Riverside main tunnel drive and reception, and connection tunnel reception site Falconbrook Pumping Station CSO interception site Cremorne Wharf Depot CSO interception site Chelsea Embankment Foreshore CSO interception site Kirtling Street main tunnel double drive site Heathwall Pumping Station CSO interception site Albert Embankment Foreshore CSO interception site Victoria Embankment Foreshore CSO interception site Blackfriars Bridge Foreshore CSO interception site Chambers Wharf main tunnel drive and reception and connection tunnel reception site King Edward Memorial Park Foreshore CSO interception site Earl Pumping Station CSO interception site (this document) Deptford Church Street CSO interception site
Part B: Preliminary site information
Volume 26 Volume 27 Volume 28
Greenwich Pumping Station CSO interception and connection tunnel drive site Abbey Mills Pumping Station main tunnel reception site Beckton Sewage Treatment Works site
Thames Tunnel Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station site assessment

List of contents
Page number
1 2
Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 Site context ....................................................................................................... 2 2.1 2.2 Site location ............................................................................................. 2 Environmental setting .............................................................................. 2 Overview.................................................................................................. 4 Operation ................................................................................................. 5 Construction ............................................................................................ 7 Design development and on site alternatives ........................................ 11 Base case .............................................................................................. 12 Introduction ............................................................................................ 14 Proposed development .......................................................................... 14 Assessment methodology...................................................................... 16 Baseline conditions................................................................................ 16 Construction assessment ...................................................................... 20 Operational assessment ........................................................................ 23 Approach to mitigation ........................................................................... 24 Assessment summary ........................................................................... 26 Assessment completion ......................................................................... 27 Introduction ............................................................................................ 28 Proposed development .......................................................................... 28 Assessment methodology...................................................................... 29 Baseline conditions................................................................................ 29 Construction assessment ...................................................................... 32 Operational assessment ........................................................................ 32 Approach to mitigation ........................................................................... 35 Assessment summary ........................................................................... 36
Proposed development.................................................................................... 4 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5
Air quality and odour ..................................................................................... 14 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9
Ecology - aquatic ........................................................................................... 28 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8
5.9 6 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 7 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 8 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 9 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5
Assessment completion ......................................................................... 37 Introduction ............................................................................................ 38 Proposed development .......................................................................... 38 Assessment methodology...................................................................... 39 Baseline conditions................................................................................ 41 Construction assessment ...................................................................... 43 Operational assessment ........................................................................ 44 Approach to mitigation ........................................................................... 44 Assessment summary ........................................................................... 46 Assessment completion ......................................................................... 47 Introduction ............................................................................................ 48 Proposed development .......................................................................... 48 Assessment methodology...................................................................... 49 Baseline conditions................................................................................ 50 Construction assessment ...................................................................... 62 Operational assessment ........................................................................ 67 Approach to mitigation ........................................................................... 67 Assessment summary ........................................................................... 69 Assessment completion ......................................................................... 72 Introduction ............................................................................................ 73 Proposed development .......................................................................... 73 Assessment methodology...................................................................... 74 Baseline conditions................................................................................ 74 Construction assessment ...................................................................... 82 Operational assessment ........................................................................ 85 Approach to mitigation ........................................................................... 87 Assessment summary ........................................................................... 88 Assessment completion ......................................................................... 89 Introduction ............................................................................................ 90 Proposed development .......................................................................... 90 Assessment methodology...................................................................... 92 Baseline conditions................................................................................ 93 Construction assessment ...................................................................... 95
Ecology - terrestrial ....................................................................................... 38
Historic environment ..................................................................................... 48
Land quality .................................................................................................... 73
Noise and vibration ........................................................................................ 90
9.6 9.7 9.8 9.9 10 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 10.7 10.8 10.9 11 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6 11.7 11.8 11.9 12 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 12.6 12.7 12.8 12.9 13 13.1 13.2
Operational assessment ...................................................................... 102 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 105 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 107 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 109 Introduction .......................................................................................... 110 Proposed development ........................................................................ 110 Assessment methodology.................................................................... 111 Baseline conditions.............................................................................. 111 Construction assessment .................................................................... 114 Operational assessment ...................................................................... 118 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 118 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 120 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 121 Introduction .......................................................................................... 122 Proposed development ........................................................................ 122 Assessment methodology.................................................................... 123 Baseline conditions.............................................................................. 125 Construction assessment .................................................................... 135 Operational assessment ...................................................................... 142 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 149 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 151 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 156 Introduction .......................................................................................... 157 Proposed development ........................................................................ 157 Assessment methodology.................................................................... 161 Baseline conditions.............................................................................. 163 Construction assessment .................................................................... 167 Operational assessment ...................................................................... 174 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 178 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 180 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 183 Introduction .......................................................................................... 184 Proposed development ........................................................................ 184
Socio-economics ......................................................................................... 110
Townscape and visual ................................................................................. 122
Transport ...................................................................................................... 157
Water resources groundwater ................................................................. 184
13.3 13.4 13.5 13.6 13.7 13.8 13.9 14 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 14.5 14.6 14.7 14.8 14.9 15 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 15.5 15.6
Assessment methodology.................................................................... 185 Baseline conditions.............................................................................. 186 Construction assessment .................................................................... 189 Operational assessment ...................................................................... 193 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 195 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 196 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 198 Introduction .......................................................................................... 199 Proposed development ........................................................................ 199 Assessment methodology.................................................................... 201 Baseline conditions.............................................................................. 202 Construction assessment .................................................................... 204 Operational assessment ...................................................................... 207 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 211 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 212 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 213 Introduction .......................................................................................... 214 Policy considerations ........................................................................... 215 Regulatory position .............................................................................. 215 Assessment of flood risk ...................................................................... 217 Flood risk design and mitigation ....................................................... 222 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 225
Water resources surface water ................................................................ 199
Water resources - flood risk ........................................................................ 214
Appendices ........................................................................................................... 226 Appendix A Historic environment ....................................................................... 228 Appendix B Land quality...................................................................................... 237 Appendix C Noise and vibration ......................................................................... 238 Appendix D Townscape and visual ..................................................................... 242 Appendix E Water resources - groundwater ...................................................... 249 Glossary ................................................................................................................ 262 References ............................................................................................................ 277
List of figures
Page number
Vol 24 Figure 2.1.1 Site location plan ........................................................................ 2 Vol 24 Figure 2.2.1 Environmental setting ................................................................. 2 Vol 24 Figure 3.1.1 Demolition and site clearance plan............................................. 4 Vol 24 Figure 3.1.2 Construction - site setup & shaft construction ............................ 4 Vol 24 Figure 3.1.3 Construction - construction of other structures ........................... 4 Vol 24 Figure 3.1.4 Permanent works layout ............................................................. 4 Vol 24 Figure 4.4.1 Air quality monitoring locations ................................................. 18 Vol 24 Figure 6.4.1 Terrestrial ecology Phase 1 Habitat Survey ............................. 41 Vol 24 Figure 7.4.1 Historic environment features map ........................................... 51 Vol 24 Figure 8.4.1 Land quality - contaminative land uses .................................... 75 Vol 24 Figure 8.4.2 Land quality - proposed borehole locations .............................. 79 Vol 24 Figure 8.4.3 Land quality - environmental records and waste sites .............. 80 Vol 24 Figure 9.4.1 Noise and vibration receptors ................................................... 93 Vol 24 Figure 10.4.1 Socio-economic context ....................................................... 112 Vol 24 Figure 11.4.1 Townscape - development pattern and scale ....................... 125 Vol 24 Figure 11.4.2 Townscape - pattern and extent of vegetation...................... 126 Vol 24 Figure 11.4.3 Townscape - open space distribution and type .................... 126 Vol 24 Figure 11.4.4 Townscape and visual - transport network ........................... 127 Vol 24 Figure 11.4.5 Townscape character areas ................................................. 129 Vol 24 Figure 11.4.6 Visual assessment viewpoint locations.............................. 132 Vol 24 Figure 12.2.1 Transport - construction traffic routes ................................... 159 Vol 24 Figure 12.2.2 Transport - construction traffic profile ................................... 160 Vol 24 Figure 12.4.1 Transport local site plan ....................................................... 163 Vol 24 Figure 15.4.1 Flood risk EA flood zones .................................................. 217
List of tables
Page number
Vol 24 Table 3.3.1 Standard working hours ............................................................. 11 Vol 24 Table 3.4.1 Design development at Earl Pumping Station ........................... 11 Vol 24 Table 4.3.1 Air quality and odour stakeholder engagement ......................... 16 Vol 24 Table 4.4.1 Air quality - measured NO2 concentrations ................................ 17 Vol 24 Table 4.4.2 Air quality - measured PM10 concentrations............................... 17 Vol 24 Table 4.4.3 Air quality - additional air quality monitoring locations ............... 18 Vol 24 Table 4.4.4 Air quality - background pollutant concentrations ...................... 19 Vol 24 Table 4.4.5 Air quality receptors - construction ............................................ 19 Vol 24 Table 4.6.1 Odour impacts at ground level - operation ................................. 24 Vol 24 Table 4.6.2 Odour impacts at buildings - operation ...................................... 24 Vol 24 Table 4.8.1 Air quality construction assessment .......................................... 26 Vol 24 Table 4.8.2 Odour operational assessment .................................................. 26 Vol 24 Table 5.4.1 Aquatic ecology receptors ......................................................... 31 Vol 24 Table 5.6.1 Aquatic ecology impacts - operation .......................................... 32 Vol 24 Table 5.8.1 Aquatic ecology operational assessment .................................. 36 Vol 24 Table 6.3.1 Terrestrial ecology stakeholder comments ................................. 39 Vol 24 Table 6.4.1 Terrestrial ecology Phase 1 Habitat Survey............................... 42 Vol 24 Table 6.8.1 Terrestrial ecology construction assessment ............................. 46 Vol 24 Table 7.4.1 Historic environment receptor significance ................................ 62 Vol 24 Table 7.5.1 Historic environment construction effects .................................. 65 Vol 24 Table 7.8.1 Historic environment assessment summary - construction ........ 69 Vol 24 Table 8.4.1 Land quality - contaminative land use ....................................... 75 Vol 24 Table 8.4.2 Land quality - anticipated site geology....................................... 78 Vol 24 Table 8.4.3 Land quality - environmental records and waste sites ............... 80 Vol 24 Table 8.5.1 Land quality impacts - construction ........................................... 84 Vol 24 Table 8.5.2 Land quality receptors - construction ......................................... 85 Vol 24 Table 8.5.3 Land quality effects - construction ............................................. 85 Vol 24 Table 8.6.1 Land quality impacts - operation ................................................ 86 Vol 24 Table 8.6.2 Land quality receptors - operation ............................................. 86 Vol 24 Table 8.6.3 Land quality effects - operation.................................................. 87 Vol 24 Table 8.8.1 Land quality assessment - construction ..................................... 88 Vol 24 Table 8.8.2 Land quality assessment - operational ...................................... 88
Vol 24 Table 9.4.1 Noise and vibration receptors locations ..................................... 94 Vol 24 Table 9.4.2 Noise and vibration receptors .................................................... 94 Vol 24 Table 9.4.3 Noise (airboiurbe) categories - construction .............................. 95 Vol 24 Table 9.5.1 Noise impacts at EP1, 18-32 Yeoman Street - construction ...... 96 Vol 24 Table 9.5.2 Noise impacts at EP2, 1-39 Chilton Grove - construction .......... 97 Vol 24 Table 9.5.3 Noise impacts at EP3, 108 -136 Chilton Grove - construction ... 97 Vol 24 Table 9.5.4 Noise impacts at EP4, 52 62 Croft Street construction ........... 98 Vol 24 Table 9.5.5 Noise impacts at EP5, Offices on Yeoman Street construction . 99 Vol 24 Table 9.5.6 Vibration impacts at buildings/structures - construction ........... 100 Vol 24 Table 9.5.7 Vibration, human impacts -construction ................................... 101 Vol 24 Table 9.5.8 Noise and vibration construction effects .................................. 102 Vol 24 Table 9.6.1 Airborne noise impacts -operation ........................................... 103 Vol 24 Table 9.6.2 Noise and vibration effects - operation .................................... 104 Vol 24 Table 9.8.1 Noise and vibration construction assessment.......................... 107 Vol 24 Table 9.8.2 Noise and vibration operational assessment ........................... 108 Vol 24 Table 10.4.1 Socio-economics receptors ................................................... 114 Vol 24 Table 10.5.1 Socio economics effects - construction ................................. 117 Vol 24 Table 10.8.1 Socio economics construction assessment ........................... 120 Vol 24 Table 11.4.1 Open space type and distribution .......................................... 127 Vol 24 Table 11.4.2 Townscape site components ................................................. 128 Vol 24 Table 11.4.3 Townscape character areas - sensitivity ................................ 131 Vol 24 Table 11.4.4 Visual assessment viewpoints -sensitivity ............................. 134 Vol 24 Table 11.5.1 Townscape site components effects - construction ............... 135 Vol 24 Table 11.5.2 Townscape effects - construction .......................................... 138 Vol 24 Table 11.5.3 Viewpoint effects - construction ............................................. 141 Vol 24 Table 11.6.1 Townscape site component effects - Year 1 of operation ...... 143 Vol 24 Table 11.6.2 Townscape effects - Year 1 of operation ............................... 145 Vol 24 Table 11.6.3 Viewpoint effects - Year 1 of operation .................................. 148 Vol 24 Table 11.8.1 Townscape summary of construction assessment ................ 151 Vol 24 Table 11.8.2 Visual assessment summary of construction assessment ..... 151 Vol 24 Table 11.8.3 Townscape operational assessment Year 1 of operation .... 153 Vol 24 Table 11.8.4 Visual operational assessment Year 1 of operation............. 154 Vol 24 Table 12.2.1 Transport - construction traffic details .................................... 158 Vol 24 Table 12.2.2 Transport - construction worker numbers .............................. 161 Vol 24 Table 12.3.1 Transport stakeholder engagement ....................................... 162
Vol 24 Table 12.4.1 Transport bus service frequency ........................................ 164 Vol 24 Table 12.4.2 Transport receptors ............................................................... 167 Vol 24 Table 12.5.1 Transport forecast construction vehicle movements ........... 170 Vol 24 Table 12.8.1 Transport construction assessment ....................................... 180 Vol 24 Table 12.8.2 Transport operational assessment ........................................ 181 Vol 24 Table 13.2.1 Groundwater methods of construction ................................... 184 Vol 24 Table 13.4.1 Groundwater ground conditions and hydrogeology ............... 186 Vol 24 Table 13.4.2 Groundwater receptors .......................................................... 189 Vol 24 Table 13.5.1 Groundwater impacts - construction ...................................... 192 Vol 24 Table 13.5.2 Groundwater receptors - construction ................................... 192 Vol 24 Table 13.5.3 Groundwater effects - construction ........................................ 192 Vol 24 Table 13.6.1 Groundwater impacts - operation .......................................... 194 Vol 24 Table 13.6.2 Groundwater effects - operation ............................................ 194 Vol 24 Table 13.8.1 Groundwater construction assessment ................................. 196 Vol 24 Table 13.8.2 Groundwater operation assessment ...................................... 197 Vol 24 Table 14.4.1 Surface water receptors......................................................... 202 Vol 24 Table 14.6.1 Surface water assessment - operation .................................. 209 Vol 24 Table 14.6.2 Surface water effects - operation ........................................... 211 Vol 24 Table 14.8.1 Surface water operational assessment .................................. 212 Vol 24 Table 15.4.1 Flood risk - runoff rates onsite ............................................... 220 Vol 24 Table 15.5.1 Flood risk - runoff rates / preliminary attenuation volumes .... 224
List of abbreviations AADT ACE AM AOD APZ AQEG AQMA AQO ARS ASR ASSI ATC ATD AURN BAP BGS BMWP BOD BPIP BPM BS CABE CAMS CCI CCSS CCTV CDA CEMP CIRIA CLR CoCP CoPA CROW CSO Annual Average Daily Traffic Arts Culture and Entertainment Morning Above Ordnance Datum Archaeological Priority Zone Air Quality Expert Group Air Quality Management Area Air Quality Objective Artificial Recharge Scheme Aquifer Storage and Recovery Area of Special Scientific Interest Automated Traffic Counter Above Tunnel Datum (defined at ~100m AOD) Automatic Urban and Rural Network Biodiversity Action Plan British Geological Survey Biological Monitoring Working Party Biochemical Oxygen Demand Building Profile Input Programme Best Practicable Means British Standard Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy Community Conservation Index Community Consultation Strategy Closed Circuit Television Critical Drainage Area Construction Environment Management Programmes Construction Industry Research and Information Association Contaminated Land Report Code of Construction Practice Control of Pollution Act Countryside and Rights of Way Combined Sewer Overflow
dB dB LAeq,T
Decibel a equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level having the same energy as a fluctuating sound over a specified time period T Department for Culture, Media and Sport Development Consent Order Department for Communities and Local Government Department for Culture media and Sport Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Department for Transport Development Management Plan Development Management Policies Document Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Dissolved Oxygen Development Plan Document Digital Terrain Mapping Environment Agency European Commission Ecological Impact Assessment Estimated Vibration Dose Value European Economic Area Environment Food and Rural Affairs Committee English Heritage Environmental Health Officer Environmental Impact Assessment European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme English Nature Environment Protection Agency Earth Pressure Balance Earth Pressure Balance Machine Equality Impact Assessment Environmental Quality Standard Environmental Statement European Union Frequently Asked Questions Frequency, Intensity, Duration, Offensiveness, Receptor
DCMS DCO DCLG DCMS Defra DfT DMP DMPD DMRB DO DPD DTM EA EC EcIA eVDV EEA EFRA EH EHO EIA EMEP EN EPA EPB EPBM EqIA EQS ES EU FAQ FIDOR
FRA GARDIT GI GiGL GIS GLA GLHER GQA GSHP GWB GWMU H2S ha HA HDV HEA HER HGV HIA HIAB HPA HQ HRA HTC HWR IEEM IEMA IMD IPC Iron Age JNCC kg km kVA
Flood Risk Assessment General Aquifer Research Development and Investigation Team Ground Investigation Greenspace Information for Greater London Geographical Information System Greater London Authority Greater London Historic Environment Record General Quality Assessment (EA water quality classification) Ground Source Heat Pump Groundwater Body: distinct volume of groundwater within an aquifer or aquifers Ground Water Management Unit Hydrogen sulphide hectares Highways Authority Heavy Duty Vehicle Historic Environmental Assessment Historic Environment Record Heavy Goods Vehicle Health Impact Assessment Hydrauliska Industri AB Company Health Protection Agency Headquarter Habitats Regulations Assessment Hammersmith Town Centre Hazardous Waste Regulations (2005) Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment Index of Multiple Deprivation Infrastructure Planning Commission 600 BC AD 43 Joint Nature Conservation Committee kilograms kilometre kilo watt amperes
kW l/d l/s LA LAARC LAQM LAQN LB LBAP LDF LGV LHA LMB LNR loWR LSB LtB LTI LTT LUL LVMF m m AOD m ATD m/s MAGIC Mbgl MEICA Ml/d MoD MOL MOLA NE NESR NCR
kilowatt litres per day litres per second Local Authority London Archaeological Archive and Research Centre Local Air Quality Management London Air Quality Network London Borough Local Biodiversity Action Plan Local Development Framework Light Goods Vehicle Local Highway Authority Lambeth Mottled Beds Local Nature Reserve List of Wastes Regulations 2005 Lower Shelly Beds Laminated Beds London Tideway Improvements London Tideway Tunnels London Underground Limited London View Management Framework metre metres above Ordinance Datum (see AOD) metres above temporary datum, (see ATD) metres per second Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside Metres below ground level Mechanical Electrical Instrumentation Controls Automation Megalitres per day (million litres per day) Ministry of Defence Metropolitan Open Land Museum of London Archaeology Natural England North East Storm Relief National Cycle Route
NGR NMR NNR NO2 NOx NPPF NPS NRMM NSIP NSRA NTS OCU Ofwat OS OUE PAH PCB PEI PEIR PEL PICP PIP PLA PM PM10 PPC PPE PPG PPS PPV PRoW PS pSPA PWS RAMS
National Grid Reference National Monuments Record National Nature Reserve Nitrogen dioxide Oxides of nitrogen National Planning Policy Framework National Policy Statement Non Road Mobile Machinery Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project National Small-bore Rifle Association Non Technical Summary Odour Control Unit The Water Services Regulations Authority Ordnance Survey European Odour Unit Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons Polychlorinated Biphenyl Preliminary Environmental Information Preliminary Environmental Information Report Probable Effect Levels Pollution Incident Control Plan Project Information Paper Port of London Authority Afternoon Particles on the order of ~10 micrometers or less Pollution Prevention and Control Personal Protective Equipment Pollution Prevention Guidance Planning Policy Statement Peak Particle Velocity Public Rights of Way Pumping Station Potential Special Protected Area Public Water Supply Risk Assessment Method Statement
RAMSAR RB RBKC RBMP RDB RHS RPG RSPB RDB RTC RTD SA SAC SAM SCI SCL SFRA SI SINC SMI SNCI SO2 SoCC SPA SPD S-P-R SPZ SR SRN SSR SSSI STW SUDS SWMP
The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Royal Borough Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea River Basin Management Plans Red Data Book Royal Horticultural Society Regional Planning Guidance Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Red data book Real Time Control River Terrace Deposits Sustainability Appraisal Special Area of Conservation Scheduled Ancient Monument. More commonly referred to as Scheduled Monument Statement of Community Involvement Sprayed Concrete Lining Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Statutory Instrument Site of Importance for Nature Conservation Site of Metropolitan Importance Site Nature Conservation Importance Sulphur dioxide Statement of Community Consultation Special Protection Area Supplementary Planning Document Source-pathway-receptor Source Protection Zone Storm Relief Strategic Road Network Site Suitability Report Site of Special Scientific Interest Sewage Treatment Works Sustainable (Urban) Drainage Systems waste - Site Waste Management Plan
SWMP t TA TAS TBC TBM TDP TEBP TEL TfL TFRM TH TLRN Tpa TPO TT TTQI TTSS TWU UDP UK UKHO UMB UPN UWWTD UWWTR UXO VDV VNEB OA WCA WEEE WFD WIA WRAP WSI
water Surface Water Management Plan tonne Transport Assessment Thames Archaeological Survey To be confirmed Tunnel Boring Machine Thames Discovery Programme Thames Estuary Benthic Programme Threshold Effect Levels Transport for London Tideway Fish Risk Model Tower Hamlets Transport for London Road Network tonnes per annum Tree Preservation Order Thames Tunnel Thames Tideway Quality Improvements Thames Tideway Strategic Study 2005 Thames Water Utilities Unitary Development Plan United Kingdom United Kingdom Hydrographic Office Upper Mottled Beds Upnor Formation Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations Unexploded Ordnance Vibration Dose Value Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea Opportunity Area Wildlife and Countryside Act Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive Water Framework Directive Water Industry Act 1991 Waste Resources Action Programme Written Scheme of Investigation
WWT ZTV ZVI
Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust Zone of Theoretical Visibility Zone of Visual Influence
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station
Section 1: Introduction
1
1.1.1 1.1.2
Introduction
This volume presents the preliminary environmental information for the Thames Tunnel proposals at Earl Pumping Station. This document reports the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant environmental effects of the Thames Tunnel project at Earl Pumping Station. The planned activities to assist in completing the environmental impact assessment (EIA) include: a. Conclude baseline environmental surveys b. Confirm final design, informed by, amongst other things, feedback from public consultation c. Undertake design of possible mitigation to address adverse effects.
1.1.3
Once complete, the findings of the EIA will be reported in full in the Environmental Statement which will be submitted with the consent application. It describes the site and environmental context in Section 2. The proposed development including construction and operation is described in Section 1. The design evolution for this site is set out in Section 3.4. Finally, Section 3.5 (base case) refers to other development schemes which have been submitted or with extant planning approval within or in proximity to the site. The development at Earl Pumping Station would link the existing Earl Storm Relief Sewer (which currently enters the Pumping Station) through a CSO drop shaft to a connection tunnel which would run from Greenwich connection tunnel (no tunnelling works would be carried out at Earl Pumping Station). The CSO currently discharges approximately 26 times a year at approximately 539,000m3 per year. A description of the Thames Tunnel is included in Volume 2. This includes the planning context for the project as well as local planning policies relevant to this site. The alternatives which have been considered are described in Volume 3. Scoping and technical engagement is covered in Volume 4, while Volume 5 sets out the technical assessment methodology. A project wide assessment is provided in Volume 6. The remaining Volumes 7 to 28 contain the site specific assessments.
1.1.4
1.1.5
1.1.6
Page 1
Section 2: Site context
2 2.1
2.1.1
Site context Site location

The site is located in the London Borough of Lewisham and borders the London Borough of Southwark. It comprises the Thames Water Earl Pumping Station and adjacent industrial land. The site is shown in Vol 24 Figure 2.1.1. Vol 24 Figure 2.1.1 Site location plan (see Volume 24 Figures document)
2.1.2
The site is bounded to the north by Chilton Grove and to the east by Yeoman Street. Warehouse/industrial buildings lie to the east beyond Yeoman Street. Occupied commercial/industrial units, as well as a row of two-storey terraced houses with gardens, are adjacent to the southern site boundary. The terrace runs south from the site, with only the gable end and garden of the first dwelling in the terrace lying adjacent to the site boundary. The site is bounded to the west by Croft Street which has a five storey block of flats (less than 10m at the closest point) with small front gardens and a large industrial/utility site with steel fencing enclosure opposite the site. The surrounding area is predominantly industrial to the south and east next to housing to the west and north. The site can currently be accessed from Croft Street to the west, Chiltern Street to the north and Yeoman Street to the east via Plough Way and Lower Road (A200). Surrey Quays Underground Station is also connected to the London Overground East London Line 520m to the north west of the site. There are no Public Rights of Way within the site. Within the site there is mainly hardstanding and buildings including the existing pumping station in the north west of the site and the depot, weighbridge and offices in the southern part of the site (Vol 24 Figure 2.1.1 shows the site plan and contextual photographs).
2.1.3
2.1.4
2.1.5 2.1.6
2.2
2.2.1
Environmental setting
Environmental designations for the site and immediate surrounds are shown in Vol 24 Figure 2.2.1. Vol 24 Figure 2.2.1 Environmental setting (see Volume 24 Figures document)
2.2.2
There are four Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) within 1km of the site. Greenland Dock SINC and River Thames SINC are aquatic ecological designations. Rainsborough Avenue Embankments SINC and Russia Dock SINC are terrestrial ecological designations. The closest listed building to the site is a Grade II listed capstan c. 350m to the north.
2.2.3
Page 2
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station 2.2.4
Section 2: Site context
The site is not within a Conservation Area. The site is within the north western edge of the Deptford - Strand, Sayes Court and The Royal Naval Dockyard Area of Archaeological Priority. There are no Tree Protection Orders or Public Rights of Way (PRoW) on the site. The site is within the Lewisham Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) which was declared for particulate matter PM10 and NO2. Land quality at the site is influenced historical onsite and offsite activities specifically asphalt works, tar works and a garage formerly located on the site to the south. Local geology comprises 9m of superficial deposits and made ground, 10m of Thanet Sand (secondary aquifer), and chalk at depth (principal aquifer). The site is located in defended Flood Zone 3 (tidal River Thames). Defences have a 1 in a 1000 year standard of protection; therefore, flood risk at the site is the residual risk from defence breach or overtopping.
2.2.5 2.2.6 2.2.7
2.2.8
Page 3
Section 3: Proposed development
3 3.1
3.1.1
Proposed development Overview

The development at Earl Pumping Station would link the existing Earl Storm Relief Sewer (which currently enters the Pumping Station) through a CSO drop shaft to a connection tunnel from Greenwich connection tunnel (no tunnelling works are carried out at Earl Pumping Station). Vol 24 Figure 3.1.1 - Vol 24 Figure 3.1.4 show the demolition and site clearance, construction phasing and permanent works plans. Vol 24 Figure 3.1.1 Demolition and site clearance plan Vol 24 Figure 3.1.2 Construction - site setup & shaft construction Vol 24 Figure 3.1.3 Construction - construction of other structures Vol 24 Figure 3.1.4 Permanent works layout (see Volume 24 Figures document)
3.1.2
Construction of the main works at this site is scheduled to commence in early 2018 (Year 1) and be completed by early 2022, taking approximately four years. Early works, such as utility connections and diversions may be undertaken in advance of the main works. The site would be operational in 2023. Further detail of the programme is described in Section 3.3 The following lists the structures required at this site: a. A drop shaft. b. An underground interception chamber with ground level access cover(s). c. A valve chamber. d. An underground connection culvert with ground level access cover(s). e. Air management structures comprising an underground passive filter chamber and a ventilation column. f. Underground culverts for ventilation of the shaft and pits and ducts for cables and hydraulic pipelines.
3.1.3
g. Permanent restoration of the temporary construction site comprising levelling, infilling and tidy up, and landscaping works to incorporate maintenance vehicle hardstanding and access to chamber covers. 3.1.4 3.1.5 Further details of these elements are given in Section 3.2 where these are relevant to the technical assessments that follow. The following construction related elements would be required: a. Gates to site entrance and exit. b. Hoardings and other means of enclosure, barrier or screening. c. Office and welfare accommodation and facilities for construction staff. d. Workshops and stores. e. Plant and machinery.
Page 4
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station f. Power generation plant and lighting.
g. Highways access and internal site roads. h. Material storage and handling areas and treatment facilities. i. j. 3.1.6 Bentonite plant, power supply, and steel reinforcement preparation area. The carrying out or maintenance of other such works.
Further details of these methods and the relevant phases are given in Section 3.2 where these are relevant to the technical assessments that follow.
3.2
3.2.1
Operation
Once developed the project would divert the majority of current CSO discharges via the CSO shaft and connection tunnel to the main tunnel for treatment at Beckton Sewage Treatment Works. The number of CSO discharges would be reduced by 22 spill events to approximately 4 times a year at an average rate of 50,500m3 per year.
Permanent structures
3.2.2 A plan of the permanent structures is shown in Vol 24 Figure 3.1.4. The area of operational land required by the project is less than that required for the construction phase. The land which is not required for operational purposes would be returned to its previous use following completion of construction. Once constructed and operational there would remain on site the structures listed in the following sections. Much of the operational structure at the site would be below ground. However the shaft and valve chamber need to be finished to approximately 3m above ground level due to hydraulic requirements. These structures would be brick clad and the shaft would have a brown roof.
3.2.3 3.2.4
Shaft
3.2.5 The CSO drop shaft would have an internal diameter of 17m. The shaft would be approximately 50m deep. The Earl Pumping Station CSO shaft would be constructed on the line of the long connection tunnel that would run from Greenwich connection tunnel, a full description of this tunnel is provided in Volume 3. The shaft would be finished to approximately 3m above ground with a parapet wall extending an additional 1m above this. The walls of the shaft would be clad with a textured brick finish. There would be covers on top of the shaft to allow access and inspection. There would be high pressure air release and air inlet structures on top of the shaft.
3.2.6
3.2.7 3.2.8
Page 5
Interception chambers and culverts

3.2.9 The interception chamber, culvert, and valve chamber would be below ground. Part of the valve chamber would be above ground within a structure of approximately 6m by 6m, and 3m high. There would be covers on top of the chambers to allow access and inspection.
Tunnel
3.2.10 There would be no tunnelling from the site but the CSO shaft would be online with the Greenwich connection tunnel.
Ventilation structures
3.2.11 The passive filter would be housed in a below ground chamber within the Thames Water pumping station compound. There is an underground air duct from the shaft to the filter and air discharge is through a 4m high vent column, adjacent to the valve chamber. Other air pressure relief and air inlet structures are positioned on the roof of the raised shaft structure. There is a small vent stack 6m high fixed to the wall of the existing pump station building for the ventilation of the interception chamber.
Electrical kiosk
3.2.12 Electrical equipment would be housed within the existing pumping station building.
Paved areas
3.2.13 The area around the shaft would be finished with hardstanding to allow crane access to the covers on top of the shaft. This hardstanding would usually be publicly accessible but Thames Water would retain a right of access over it and would install temporary security fencing when the area is used for shaft access. The area within the pumping station would be returned to hardstanding to provide continued operational access within the pumping station. New gates would be added to the existing pumping station boundary, to allow access to the hardstanding around the shaft.
3.2.14
Access and maintenance works

3.2.15 Access to the Thames Water Earl Pumping Station site would continue to be through gates on Chilton Grove and Yeoman Street. In addition a new vehicular access gate would be installed between the existing Thames Water site and the additional land to the south. Vehicular access to the site would be possible both through this gate and from Croft Street. The southern part of the land, which falls outside of the Thames Water Earl Pumping Station site, would be accessible to the public by foot. Vehicular access to the area would be restricted by bollards which would be movable should vehicular access to the site be required. Access would be required for a light commercial vehicle on a three to six monthly maintenance schedule. This would be carried out during normal
3.2.16
3.2.17
Page 6
working hours and would take approximately half a day. There would be no aerial lighting. 3.2.18 Additionally once every ten years, more significant maintenance work would be carried out. This would be carried out in normal working hours. Two cranes would be required for these visits. Access for unplanned maintenance or repairs would also be required.
3.2.19
3.3
3.3.1
Construction
The construction works at Earl Pumping Station would encompass the existing Thames Water pumping station, an area of the land to the south and sections of surrounding footpaths and carriageway. Vol 24 Figure 3.1.1 to Vol 24 Figure 3.1.3 show the demolition and site clearance and construction phasing to be undertaken at the site. The methods, order and timing of the construction work outlined here are indicative only, but are representative of a practical method to construct the works and suitable upon which to base a preliminary assessment of the likely significant environmental effects . It is recognised that, following further design development and selection of contractors, alternate methodology and scheduling may be proposed. The following sections describe: a. Construction works including construction of the shaft, tunnel and CSO interception and processes and working methods to be applied b. Access and movement c. Construction programme and working hours
3.3.2
3.3.3
Construction works
3.3.4 The following physical construction works are described: a. Site setup (see Vol 24 Figure 3.1.1 - Vol 24 Figure 3.1.3) b. Shaft construction (see Vol 24 Figure 3.1.2 - Vol 24 Figure 3.1.3) c. Tunnelling d. Construction of other structures (see Vol 24 Figure 3.1.2 - Vol 24 Figure 3.1.3)
Construction processes
3.3.5 This sections describes the following: a. Code of construction practice b. Dewatering c. 3.3.6 Ground treatment Code of construction practice All works would be undertaken in accordance with the Thames Tunnel Code of Construction Practice (a draft is appended to Volume 2).
Page 7
The Code sets out a series of measures to protect the environment and limit disturbance from construction activities as far as reasonably practicable. These measures would be applied throughout the construction at this site. Site setup Trees to the west of the existing pumping station adjacent to Croft Street may require maintenance and pruning in advance of the works. Part of the proposed site is currently occupied by businesses which would need to be relocated. Prior to any works commencing the site boundary would be established and secured. The boundary would be built to an appropriate height for the site. Welfare and office facilities would also be set up with utility and power connections installed. Shaft construction Plant and material storage areas (including displaced slurry storage), waste skips, muck bin and delivery vehicle turning area would be established. Craneage, bentonite silos, water tanks, mixing pan, compressor, air receiver, excavator and dumper for excavated material handling are among the items of plant that would all be required on site. The shaft would be constructed by diaphragm wall construction techniques and have a cast in situ secondary lining. The first stage in the construction of each section of diaphragm wall would be the excavation and setting of inner and outer guide walls. These guide walls would provide a secure situation between which excavation for the diaphragm walls would be undertaken. During excavation the void is filled with bentonite for ground support; steel bar reinforcement cages are lowered in before concrete is pumped into the base of the wall. This process is repeated to create a full circle. The diaphragm wall would be taken to a depth suitable to reduce the flow of water into the shaft. Grouting at the toe of the diaphragm wall may also be required to reduce the flow of water. The shaft excavation commences after the diaphragm walls are complete with the working platform within the guide walls being broken out, and the shaft excavated exposing the walls. The excavator would load shaft skips hoisted by crawler crane, depositing the excavated material within the excavated material handling area. A steel reinforced concrete base plug would be formed at the base of the shaft. The whole shaft would be mined through water bearing ground and dewatering would be required at the site. For the shaft dewatering wells would be drilled from the surface (external to the shaft). These pumps would be operational during shaft sinking. For the purpose of this assessment it has been assumed that the pumps would be maintained to ease the reception and launch of the TBM en route to Southwark.
3.3.8 3.3.9 3.3.10 3.3.11
3.3.12
3.3.13 3.3.14
3.3.15
3.3.16
3.3.17 3.3.18
Page 8
Approval would be sought from the EA and Thames Water Operations so that extracted ground water can be discharged into the existing sewer system via the dry weather pumping station. Extracted water would be sampled on a regular basis to check water quality. Dewatering would also be required during the construction of the other structures for the interception works. It is assumed that ground treatment would be required within the Chalk. Depending on the depth of the diaphragm walls fissure grouting to the chalk immediately below the toe would be required. Grouting would additionally be required either side of the shaft to facilitate tunnel boring machine (TBM) break in / break out. This would consist of a block of treated ground, external to the shaft and would be constructed using fissure grouting techniques from within the excavated shaft. Ground treatment would also be required during the interception and CSO works. Tunnelling As the Earl PS shaft would be online with the Greenwich connection tunnel drive, there is no connection tunnel to be constructed. A temporary cradle would be constructed to receive the tunnel boring machine (TBM) from Deptford Church Street and re-launch to Chambers Wharf. Tunnel portals with the launch and reception seals would be formed in the shaft lining. The portals would consist of cast in-situ concrete portal with seals tied to the shaft lining. Construction of other structures An interception chamber, culvert and valve chamber would intercept the sewer running into the existing pumping station. Secant and sheet pile walls would be used to provide ground support within which the interception and valve chamber walls would be constructed. Walls would be driven to depth to minimise water ingress into the excavation under the wall. But ground treatment and dewatering is anticipated. The chamber would be excavated exposing the sewer. The sewer would be internally lined and supported during excavation. Localised submersible pumps within the chamber would be utilised to manage ground water ingress. The pumps would discharge to the sewer after being treated through a settlement system. The walls of the interception chamber would be formed by in situ concrete techniques. Ready mixed concrete would be delivered to site from external supplier and either pumped or skipped to the chamber. The piled wall would be extended to the shaft to allow the connecting culvert and valve chamber to be constructed in a similar manner to the interception chamber. The main shaft would have internal secondary lining and internal structures constructed in a similar manner.
3.3.20 3.3.21 3.3.22 3.3.23
3.3.24
3.3.25
3.3.26
3.3.27 3.3.28
3.3.29
3.3.30
3.3.31
Page 9
On completion the site area would be reinstated and above ground structures finished.
Access and movement

3.3.33 For the purposes of this report one vehicle movement is defined as a vehicle either accessing or leaving the site. For the purposes of construction logistics, site traffic is measured in units of lorries or barges where one lorry/barge is equivalent to a single lorry/barge accessing and then egressing the site The highest lorry movements at the site would occur during shaft excavation when excavated material would be removed from the site by road. The peak daily vehicle movements at this time, averaged over a one month period, would be 50 HGV movements per day. The site has two separate access points with one from Yeoman St and the other onto Croft Street. The access point is via a right turn into the site from Yeoman St and the egress is a right turn out onto Croft Street. During construction the access would be overseen by a site security guard. Lorries would access via Plough Way turning right into Yeoman Street. Construction traffic would egress along Chilton Grove to turn left onto Lower Road (A200) and most likely proceed southbound along the A200 towards the A2. To depart to the north, construction traffic would take the left turn and then use the A200 gyratory of Bestwood St and Bush Road before continuing northbound along the A200. A traffic management plan for the site would be prepared.
3.3.34
3.3.35
3.3.36
3.3.37
3.3.38
Reinstatement and commissioning

3.3.39 Once the main elements of construction are completed, the final landscaping works would be undertaken including final treatments and surfaces, planting and installation of street furniture. Testing and commissioning would also be undertaken once construction is complete. For the purposes of this report, completion of the commissioning stage represents the end of Construction and the commencement of the Operational development.
3.3.40
Construction programme and working hours

Construction programme 3.3.41 Construction at Earl Pumping Station is anticipated to take approximately four years and would involve the following steps (with some overlaps): a. Year 1 Site setup (approximately 3 months) b. Year 1 to 2 - Shaft construction (approximately 12 months) c. Year 2 to 4 Construction of other structures (approximately 26 months)
Page 10
d. Year 4 Completion of works and site restoration (approximately 7 months). e. System-wide commissioning would take place following site restoration and is not included in the above programme. 3.3.42 Construction activities at Earl Pumping Station would peak during shaft construction. Working hours 3.3.43 It is anticipated that the working hours shown below would apply for construction at this site. Vol 24 Table 3.3.1 Standard working hours Key activities Core Working Hours Mobilisation Period Hours 08:00 to 18:00 Weekdays 08:00 to 13:00 Saturdays Up to 1 hour before and after the Core Working Hours 07:00 to 08:00 and 18:00 to 19:00 Weekdays 07:00 to 08:00 and 13:00 to 14:00 Saturday Maintenance and Support 13:00 to 17:00 Saturdays Period 10:00 to 16:00 Sundays Major Concrete Works, inc diaphragm wall and base slab Extended working hours Extended Standard hours up to 22.00 Weekdays.
3.4
3.4.1
Design development and on site alternatives

The design presented here was completed in advance of the completion of all surveys and technical studies. The final design may alter significantly in response to this as well as feedback from phase two consultation. The design of the proposals has developed since phase one consultation as described in the table below. Vol 24 Table 3.4.1 Design development at Earl Pumping Station Design development Refinement of landscaping proposals Reason Amendments to layout to accommodate a design more in keeping with existing context, and opportunity for integration with wider redevelopment proposals on site. Area surrounding the drop To allow the space around the drop shaft made publicly accessible shaft to be used by the public,
3.4.2
Page 11
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Design development rather than fenced off. Thames Water access to top of the drop shaft provided from stairs within the pumping station site
Section 3: Proposed development Reason particularly as part of any potential future development within the site. Although most Thames Water maintenance would be carried out from within the pumping station site, Thames Water would retain the right of access over the land around the drop shaft to allow infrequent crane access when required To move the extent of the aboveground drop shaft structure away from the footpath and maximise the amount of site left available for redevelopment To maximise the distance between the houses to the south and the drop shaft Functional design developments To minimise the scale of the permanent structures on the southern part of the site and maximise area available for future redevelopment.
Repositioning of the structure covering the drop shaft
Repositioning of the drop shaft northwards towards the Pumping Station. Reduction of dimensions of ventilation column. Ventilation structures relocated within the existing Thames Water compound
3.4.3
Further information on how the design has evolved at this site is included in the Design Development Report, which is also available as part of phase two consultation. Design development information, and the reasons for the choice of the final design at this site, including environmental design factors, will also be provided in the ES.
3.4.4
3.5
3.5.1
Base case
The assessment undertaken for this site takes account of relevant development projects which have been submitted or with extant planning permission. The Lee Tunnel and the Thames Tideway Quality Improvement (TTQI) projects (improvement works at Mogden, Beckton, Crossness, Long Reach and Riverside Sewage Treatment Works) will be operational by the time construction of the Thames Tunnel commences. The base case would therefore be the water quality in the Tideway with the TTQI projects and the Lee Tunnel in place. As a result, by 2021 discharge from the CSO at the site will be 593,900m3 with 30 spills. Because of the other developments the future environmental conditions within and around this site irrespective of the Thames Tunnel are likely to change. This is termed the base case.
3.5.2
3.5.3
Page 12
The projected spill volumes and spill frequencies for the baseline conditions for the Thames Tunnel (which is with the improvements applied to the STWs, and the Lee Tunnel in place) would still not be a sufficient level of CSO control to meet the UWWTD (see also Volume 2, Section 2.6). Other related developments include: a. 2017-2022:Assume Marine Wharf West (resolution to grant planning permission has been made by LB of Lewisham, subject to approval by the Mayor) is built by 2022 (532 units plus business space); b. Marine Wharf East (not yet submitted, estimated 500 units) is not built out; Cannon Wharf (revised application submitted, 696 units) is built by 2022; c. 1500 new homes predicted for wider "Plough Lane Strategic Area" (these three areas plus) by 2026 but no further details at the time of writing.
3.5.5
Page 13
Section 4: Air quality and odour
4 4.1
4.1.1
Air quality and odour Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant air quality and odour effects at the Earl Pumping Station site. The proposed development has the potential to affect air quality and odour due to: a. Construction traffic on the road (air quality). b. Temporary closure of road lanes during construction (air quality). c. Emissions from construction plant (air quality). d. Construction-generated dust (air quality). e. Operation of the tunnel (odour).
4.1.2
4.1.3
Each of these is considered within the assessment. This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment, and sets out what will be provided in the ES when the full assessment is available. Operational air quality effects from transport have been scoped out of the assessment due to the very limited number of maintenance visits required and hence the low number of vehicular movements.
4.1.4
4.2
4.2.1
Proposed development
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to air quality and odour are as follows. Construction Road traffic
4.2.2 4.2.3
During the proposed construction period, there would be road traffic movements in and out of the site. The highest number of lorry movements at the Earl Pumping Station would occur during the shaft excavation (Year 1 of construction). The peak number of vehicle movements at that time would be 50 lorry movements per day averaged over a one month period. These traffic effects are based on all materials being transported by road, given the non riverside location of the site. The construction traffic routes for the key material supply stages, traffic management and access to the site can be found in the Section 12 of this volume. River barges There is no access to the river at this site, so all transport would be by road.
4.2.4
4.2.5
Page 14
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Construction plant 4.2.6
There are a number of items of plant to be used on site that may produce emissions that could affect local air quality. Construction dust Activities with the potential to give rise to dust emissions from the proposed development during construction are as follows: a. Site preparation and establishment. b. Demolition of existing infrastructure and buildings. c. Materials handling.
4.2.7
4.2.8
The potential for these processes to impact at sensitive receptors is dependent on many factors including the following: a. Location of the construction site. b. Proximity of sensitive receptors. c. Extent of demolition. d. Extent of any intended excavation. e. Nature, location and size of stockpiles and length of time they are on site. f. Occurrence and scale of dust generating activities; necessity for onsite concrete crusher or cement batcher.
g. Number and type of vehicles and plant required on site. h. Potential for dirt or mud to be made airborne through vehicle movements. i. 4.2.9 Weather conditions. Appropriate dust and emission control measures are included in the draft CoCP in accordance with the London Councils Best Practice Guidance. Measures incorporated into the CoCP to reduce air quality impacts include measures in relation to vehicle and plant emissions, measures to reduce dust formation and resuspension, measures to control dust present and to reduce particulate emissions. These would be observed across all phases of demolition and construction. Operation 4.2.10 An underground chamber would house the odour control unit (OCU) comprising a passive filter that would treat 1m3/s. The maximum air release rate during a typical year is expected to be 0.6m3/s, which is well within the capacity of the OCU. Air would be released from the vent box for 27 hours in the typical year scenario, all of which would have passed through the OCU. For the remaining hours, no air would be released. This information on the ventilation structures provided input data to the dispersion model used to assess odour dispersion at the site.
4.2.11
4.2.12
Page 15
4.3
4.3.1
Assessment methodology Scoping and engagement

Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. All consultee comments relevant to this site are presented in the table below. Vol 24 Table 4.3.1 Air quality and odour stakeholder engagement Organisation Comment LB of Idling of construction Lewisham vehicle and plant must not be allowed at sites in LB of Lewisham. LB of Monitoring locations Lewisham Odour complaints Response Idling will also be dealt with through the CoCP.
Locations agreed with Senior Air Quality Officer. No odour complaints made to LB of Lewisham near Earl Pumping Station in recent years; confirmed by Environmental. Protection Officer.
Baseline
4.3.2 The baseline methodology follows the standard methodology described in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.
Construction
4.3.3 The construction phase methodology follows the standard methodology described in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.
Operation
4.3.4 The operational phase methodology follows the standard methodology described in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.
Assumptions and limitations

4.3.5 It has been assumed that background odour concentrations are negligible as there have been few complaints recorded in the surrounding area over recent years. This assumption will be supported by baseline hydrogen sulphide monitoring currently being undertaken at all sites (in August 2011 with repeat monitoring to be undertaken in autumn 2011).
4.4
Baseline conditions Local air quality

Pollutant concentrations
4.4.1
The current conditions with regard to local air quality are best established through long-term air quality monitoring.
Page 16
As part of their duties under Part IV of the Environment Act 1995, local authorities, especially in urban areas where air quality is a significant issue, undertake long-term air quality monitoring within their administrative areas. There is one continuous monitoring station and five diffusion tubes which collect data pertinent to the Earl Pumping Station site and associated construction traffic routes. The continuous monitoring station and four of the diffusion tube sites are operated by LB of Lewisham while one of the diffusion tube sites is located in LB of Greenwich. As LB of Lewishams NO2 diffusion tube monitoring was only set up at the beginning of 2011, no data are currently available for the four diffusion tube sites. Monitoring data for the LB of Greenwich diffusion tube site and continuous monitoring site are contained in Vol 24 Table 4.4.1 (NO2 concentrations) and Vol 24 Table 4.4.2 (PM10 concentrations). It is noted that only PM10 monitoring is undertaken at the continuous monitoring site. Vol 24 Table 4.4.1 Air quality - measured NO2 concentrations Annual Mean (g/m3)
4.4.3
4.4.4
Monitoring Site Greenwich (GW43)
Site Type Roadside
Number of Exceedances of Hourly Standard
2010* 2009 2008 2007 2010* 2009 2008 2007 41 59 58 62 NM NM NM NM
* 2010 data not fully ratified. NM indicates not measured. Emboldened figures indicate an exceedance of the objective / limit value which is 3 3 40g/m for the annual mean and 200g/m for the hourly mean which can be exceeded 18 times per year.
4.4.5
The NO2 monitoring in 2010 at GW43 indicates a slight exceedance of the annual mean NO2 standard (40g/m3). The previous three years also indicate exceedances of the annual mean standard. Vol 24 Table 4.4.2 Air quality - measured PM10 concentrations Annual Mean (g/m3)
Monitoring Site Mercury Way LW3
Site Type Industrial
Number of Exceedances of Daily Standard
2010* 2009 2008 2007 2010* 2009 2008 2007 23 NM NM NM 44+ NM

th
NM
NM
* 2010 data not fully ratified. +As annual data capture is only 72%, the 90 percentile for the purpose of assessing against the daily mean, has been presented instead of the number of exceedances. 3 Embolden figures indicate an exceedance of the objective/ limit value which is 40g/m 3 for the annual mean and 50g/m for the daily mean which can be exceeded 35 times per year.
4.4.6
The PM10 monitoring shown above indicates that the annual mean standard (40g/m3) was not exceeded in 2010. The daily objective (more than 35 exceedances of the daily standard) was exceeded in 2010,
Page 17
although it is noted that this is based on a limited data set (72% data capture for 2010). 4.4.7 As a result of previous exceedances of air quality objectives, LB of Lewisham has declared five Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) for NO2 and PM10. The AQMAs consist of four large AQMAs to the north of the Borough and a series of ribbon roads to the south. Earl Pumping Station is located within AQMA 1. The site is close to the boundaries with the LB of Greenwich and the LB of Southwark. Both have declared AQMAs for NO2 and PM10 - LB of Greenwich has declared the whole Borough and LB of Southwark has declared most of the Borough. In addition to the local authority monitoring, diffusion tube monitoring has been set up as part of the project to monitor NO2 concentrations in the vicinity of the site. This monitoring comprises seven diffusion tubes based at the locations detailed in Vol 24 Table 4.4.3. A triplicate site has been established next to a continuous monitoring station in Putney for bias adjustment purposes; otherwise all the monitoring locations have single tubes. All identified existing and new sites relating to the Earl Pumping Station site (as well as other sites where they are in close proximity) are shown in Vol 24 Figure 4.4.1. Vol 24 Figure 4.4.1 Air quality monitoring locations (see Volume 24 Figures document) Vol 24 Table 4.4.3 Air quality - additional air quality monitoring locations Monitoring Site A200 Lower Road (1) (Earl 1) A200 Lower Road (2) (Earl 2) A200 Bush Road (Earl 3) B206 Plough Way (Earl 4) A200 Lower Road (3) (Earl 5) Chilton Grove (Earl 6) A200 Evelyn Street (Earl 7) 4.4.10 Grid Reference 535520, 179069 535706, 178931 535828, 178708 535991, 178863 535912, 178707 536083, 178811 536111, 178541
4.4.8
4.4.9
This monitoring will be used in conjunction with existing local authority monitoring to provide the baseline situation and also provide input to model verification. A full baseline will be reported in the ES. In addition to monitoring data, an indication of baseline pollutant concentrations in the vicinity of the site can also be obtained from looking at background data on the air quality section of the Defra website where mapped background pollutant concentrations are available for each 1km by 1km grid square within every local authoritys administrative area for the years 2008 to 2020 1. The background data relating to the Earl Pumping Station site are given in the table below for 2010 (baseline year).
4.4.11
Page 18
Vol 24 Table 4.4.4 Air quality - background pollutant concentrations Pollutant NOX (g/m3) NO2 (g/m3) PM10 (g/m3) 2010 48.2 30.0 20.5
* Average of annual means for 1km grid squares centred on 536500, 178500 and 535500, 178500
Receptors 4.4.12 The site is located in a mixed use area comprising residential, commercial and industrial premises. The closest residential receptors are located to the north of the site on Chilton Grove and to the south with properties on Croft Street; these properties are a row of houses on the southern boundary of the site. Flats in Husborne House, Gravely House and Freswick House are located 15-45m to the west of the site in Chilton Grove, and more residential properties are located 10-15m to the west of the site in Croft Street, and 15m to the north-east of the site between Yeoman Street and Plough Way. Commercial and industrial premises are located to the south (on the east side of Croft Street) and east (Yeoman Street) of the site. These commercial and industrial premises are within 10m of the boundary of the Earl Pumping Station site. There are also further commercial properties near to the construction routes serving the Earl Pumping Station site. These routes include Plough Lane and Lower Road / Evelyn Street (A200). It is also assumed that a large new residential development (Cannon Wharf) approximately 10m south of the site will be completed towards the end of the Thames Tunnel project construction phase. All these receptors are relevant, albeit to different levels of sensitivity, to the emissions sources identified in the local air quality assessment. The sensitivity of identified receptors has been determined using the criteria detailed in Volume 5 - this identifies their sensitivity in relation to both local air quality and dust nuisance, as shown in the table below. These receptors are relevant to the assessment of emissions from construction road traffic and construction plant, as well as the assessment of construction dust. Vol 24 Table 4.4.5 Air quality receptors - construction Receptors (relating to all identified emissions sources) Residential Value/sensitivity and justification
4.4.13
Exposure relevant to annual mean and daily mean standards. Directly affected by construction traffic. High sensitivity to local air quality. Medium sensitivity to dust nuisance.
Page 19
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Receptors (relating to all identified emissions sources) Commercial
Section 4: Air quality and odour Value/sensitivity and justification
Exposure is relevant for the daily mean and hourly mean standards. Low sensitivity to local air quality. Medium sensitivity to dust nuisance. Not relevant with regard to ambient air quality standards. Low sensitivity to local air quality. Low sensitivity to dust nuisance.
Industrial
Odour
4.4.14 No odour complaints have been made to the LB of Lewisham near Earl Pumping Station in recent years 2 (LB of Lewisham, Personal Communication with Christopher Howard EHO, February 2011). Complaints in the Thames Water database were reviewed within an area of 500m radius from the site which identified five complaints in the last five years. Of these five identified complaints since 2005, one in 2005, two in 2006 and one in 2009 relate to odour from the Pumping Station. The fifth complaint, in 2005, related to the general sewerage system. The nearest sensitive receptors are described in para. 4.4.12 above. For the purposes of the odour assessment, the sensitivity of these receptors has been determined in accordance with the criteria in Volume 5. The residential areas (including proposed Cannon Wharf development) are of a high sensitivity to odour whilst the commercial/industrial units are of medium sensitivity. Immediately adjacent to the vent to the west is a footpath, the users of which are of low sensitivity.
4.4.15
4.5
4.5.1
Construction assessment Construction base and development cases

The peak construction year (Year 1 of construction) is used as the year of assessment for construction effects (road transport, construction plant and construction dust) in which the development case has been assessed against the base case to identify likely significant effects for the Thames Tunnel project. The base case conditions for the construction assessment year will change from the current conditions due to modifications to the sources of the air pollution in the intervening period. For road vehicles, there will be a change in the penetration of new Euro standards to the fleet composition between the current situation and the future peak construction year. The uptake of newer vehicles with improved emission controls should lead to a reduction in existing NO2 and PM10 concentrations. However, the uptake of newer vehicles has not improved NO2 concentrations greatly in the last ten years in London, so as a worst case the NOx contribution from diesel vehicles was assumed to be the same for Euro 1 to 5 vehicles in line with Defra advice 3. Reduced
4.5.2
4.5.3
Page 20
emission factors from the introduction of Euro 6 diesel vehicles in the future and an ongoing tightening of Euro standards for petrol engine vehicles will reduce the base case concentrations when compared to the 2010 baseline. 4.5.4 Other emissions sources should also reduce due to local and national policies. Therefore, the non-road sources of the background concentrations used in the modelling will be reduced in line with Defra guidance LAQM.TG(09) 4. The base case will also consider new sensitive receptors associated with the Cannon Wharf development as identified in the receptor description in Section 4.4. The local air quality assessment does not specifically consider the Marine Wharf West and East developments (see Section 3.5) as the developments are further from the site than other assessed residential receptors.
4.5.5
Assessment area
4.5.6 The assessment area for the local air quality study covers a square area of 600m by 600m centred on the site. This assessment area is used for the assessment of road transport, construction plant and construction dust and has been selected on the basis of professional judgement to ensure that the effects of the proposed development are fully assessed. A distance of 200m is generally considered sufficient to ensure that any significant effects are considered the selected assessment area exceeds this by some margin.
Construction effects
Emissions from road traffic 4.5.7 Road traffic is likely to affect local air quality in two ways: from emissions from the construction traffic; and from enhanced emissions from other road vehicles due to congestion or re-routing due to lane closures. A qualitative assessment of road traffic effects has been undertaken. When traffic surveys are complete, a more detailed quantitative assessment using air quality modelling will be undertaken, the findings of which will be reported in the ES. Based on professional judgement, the impacts due to construction traffic are expected to be small (ie, small magnitude of change according to the criteria detailed in Volume 5) due to the low number of additional lorries during construction. The greatest impacts are likely to be during lane closures. Given that the residential properties (existing and proposed) have a high sensitivity to local air quality (as identified in Section 4.4), the likely significance of the effect of construction traffic is a minor adverse effect. At the commercial and industrial receptors, which have a low sensitivity to local air quality, the significance of effect would be negligible.
4.5.8
4.5.9
4.5.10
Page 21
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Emissions from plant 4.5.11
Construction plant is likely to affect local air quality in two ways: from direct exhaust emissions; and from construction dust associated with the use and movement of the plant around the site. This part of the assessment considers exhaust emissions while construction dust from plant movement is considered in the following section. Emission factors are being assigned to each item of plant. More data are being gathered regarding the operation of these items of plant in terms of expected usage through the construction phase. A qualitative assessment has been undertaken. Modelling is currently being undertaken, the findings of which will be reported in the ES. Based on professional judgement, the impacts due to construction plant are expected to be small (ie, small magnitude of change according to the criteria detailed in Volume 5), given the localised nature of the emissions. Compared to the traffic flows in the surrounding area, the amount of plant and their emissions are likely to have a negligible impact. At the residential properties (existing and proposed), which have a high sensitivity to local air quality (as identified in Section 4.4), the likely significance of the effect is a minor adverse effect (according to the criteria in Volume 5). At the commercial and industrial receptors, which have a low sensitivity to local air quality, the significance of effect would be negligible. Construction dust Construction dust would be generated from both on-site activities and from road vehicles accessing and servicing the site. Dust sensitive receptors have been identified in the vicinity of the Earl Pumping Station site in accordance with the methodology detailed in Volume 5, as described in Vol 24 Table 4.4.5. In line with the London Councils guidance 5, the site has been categorised using the criteria given in Volume 5 which takes into account the area taken up by the development and the potential impact of the development on sensitive receptors close to the development. The specific site details with respect to the criteria set are: a. Site would have a maximum construction area of approximately 5,600m2. b. The project is a non-residential development. c. Main construction at the site would last approximately three years. d. There are likely intermittent impacts on identified sensitive receptors.
4.5.12
4.5.13 4.5.14
4.5.15
4.5.16 4.5.17
4.5.18
4.5.19
4.5.20 4.5.21
On this basis, the development has been classified as a medium risk site. Given that the receptor sensitivity is identified as medium for residential and commercial properties (as identified in Section 4.4) and the distance to sensitive receptors is within 10m for both, the likely significance of the effect of construction dust is deemed to be a moderate adverse effect
Page 22
(according to the criteria in Volume 5). For industrial premises, which have a low sensitivity to dust nuisance, the effect is identified as minor adverse. 4.5.22 These effects would be reduced by the implementation of the measures contained in the CoCP (see Section 4.2). This would result in a minor adverse effect at the residential and commercial properties within 10m of the site, and a negligible effect at industrial premises. Overall construction effects 4.5.23 When considering the overall local air quality construction effects (ie, effects from construction road traffic and plant), it is concluded that the overall significance of effects is likely to be minor adverse at residential (existing and proposed) and commercial properties, and negligible at industrial receptors. With regard to construction dust, the likely significance of effects is minor adverse at residential properties and commercial properties and negligible at industrial receptors. On this basis no significant construction effects are predicted.
4.5.24
4.5.25
4.6
Operational assessment Operational base and development cases
4.6.1 4.6.2
The assessment undertaken for a typical use year (as described in Volume 5) applies equally to all operational years. Base and development cases have been developed for modelling purposes. Base case conditions have been assumed to be the same as baseline conditions with respect to background odour concentrations as no change in background odour concentrations is anticipated.
Operational assessment area

4.6.3 Odour dispersion modelling was carried out over an area of 500m by 450m centred on the site. The assessment area was selected on the basis of it being considered the potential maximum extent of the impact area.
Operational effects
4.6.4 Vol 24 Table 4.6.1 shows the predicted maximum ground level odour concentrations near the site. These are the highest concentrations that could occur at the worst affected ground level receptor at or near the site. In accordance with the odour criterion set up by the Environment Agency and in the draft NPS 6, results are presented for the 98th percentile of hourly average concentrations in the year (or the 176th highest concentration in the year) and the number of hours in a year with concentrations above 1.5ouE/m3. The number of hours with concentrations above 1.5ouE/m3 gives an indication of the number of hours in a year that an odour might be detectable at the worst affected receptor. The table also identifies the magnitude of the identified impacts in
Page 23
accordance with the criteria detailed in Volume 5. Vol 24 Table 4.6.2 gives similar results for the predicted impacts at the worst affected buildings, where concentrations at ground level and at height have been considered. Vol 24 Table 4.6.1 Odour impacts at ground level - operation Year Typical Maximum at ground level locations* 98th percentile 0 (ouE/m3) No. of hours > 9 1.5ouE/m3
* beyond the site boundary
Impact magnitude and justification Negligible 98th percentile concentration is less than 1ouE/m3
Vol 24 Table 4.6.2 Odour impacts at buildings - operation Year Typical Maximum at buildings 98th percentile (ouE/m3) No. of hours > 1.5ouE/m3 4.6.5 0 2 Impact magnitude and justification Negligible 98th percentile concentration is less than 1ouE/m3
In both Vol 24 Table 4.6.1 and Vol 24 Table 4.6.2, the 98th percentile is shown as zero as the number of hours with air released from the vent would be less than 176 and therefore the 98th percentile concentration would be zero at all locations, thus achieving the odour criterion at all locations. This represents an impact of negligible magnitude. Beyond the site boundary, the highest concentrations are predicted to occur to the west of the site in Croft Street where odour would be above 1.5ouE/m3 for nine hours in the year. In terms of residential properties (high sensitivity), the flats on the western side of Croft Street and south of Chilton Grove are predicted to have the two hours of odour above this level in the year. With regard to the significance of effects at ground level and building locations, given that the predicted odour concentrations at all locations and at buildings do not exceed the 98th percentile criterion of 1.5ouE/m3, it is considered that an overall significance effects would be negligible in relation to the Earl Pumping Station site. No significant effects are therefore predicted in relation to odour.
4.6.6
4.6.7
4.7
4.7.1
Approach to mitigation Construction

All environmental design measures embedded in the draft CoCP of relevance to air quality and odour are summarised in Section 4.2. No mitigation is required.
Page 24
Operation
4.7.2 No mitigation is required.
Page 25
Volume 24 Earl Pumping Station
4.8
Vol 24 Table 4.8.1 Air quality construction assessment Effect Minor adverse Minor adverse Minor adverse Minor adverse Negligible Negligible None required None required None required None required None required None required Significance Mitigation Residual significance Minor adverse Minor adverse Minor adverse Minor adverse Negligible Negligible
Assessment summary
Receptor
Residential
Local air quality effects from construction road traffic and plant emissions
Effects from construction dust
Commercial Local air quality effects from construction road traffic and plant emissions
Industrial
Local air quality effects from construction road traffic and plant emissions
Vol 24 Table 4.8.2 Odour operational assessment Effect Odour Odour Odour Odour Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Significance Mitigation None required None required None required None required Residual significance Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
Receptor
Residential properties
Commercial
Industrial
Footpath
Page 26
4.9
4.9.1
Assessment completion
The following work is required in order to complete the local air quality and odour assessment for the site: a. Diffusion tube monitoring has been set up at seven sites to monitor NO2 concentrations in the vicinity of the site. This monitoring will be used to provide a baseline to the assessment and as an input for model verification. b. For the assessment of road traffic emissions, air quality modelling will be undertaken to predict the effects on local air quality. c. The nature, quantities and operation of the construction plant is being finalised. The appropriate emission factors will then be applied to the plant in order to initialise the modelling work. These models will then be run and the effects of construction plant on local air quality predicted.
d. The assessment of cumulative and in combination effects will be undertaken and reported in the ES. e. Following completion of the assessment the mitigation approaches for air quality and odour within the project will be finalised and reported in the ES.
Page 27
Section 5: Ecology - aquatic
5 5.1
5.1.1
Ecology - aquatic Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant aquatic ecology effects at the Earl Pumping Station site. For the purposes of the assessment of the Thames Tunnel project aquatic ecology includes plants and animals that live in and depend on the tidal River Thames and its tidal tributaries (known collectively as the Thames Tideway). The topic includes the habitats, mammals, fish, invertebrates and algae which occur in the Thames Tideway in the vicinity of the site. Animals, plants and habitats which occur above the mean high water level are assessed in the Terrestrial Ecology chapter (Section 6). Waterfowl, including those which occur on the Thames Tideway are also included under Terrestrial Ecology. Further details of the scope of the assessment are provided in Volume 5. This assessment considers the operational improvements on water quality on aquatic ecology receptors in the Thames Tideway as a result of the CSO interception. There would be no in river works associated with this site, which is located 600m inland from the River Thames.
5.1.2
5.1.3
5.2
5.2.1
The proposed development is described in Section 1 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to aquatic ecology are as follows.
Construction
5.2.2 There would be no in river works associated with this site. No further consideration of the impacts associated with construction is therefore relevant for aquatic ecology.
Operation
5.2.3 The Earl Storm Relief sewer currently discharges into the River Thames south of South Dock and Greenland Dock on the boundary of Southwark and Lewisham Boroughs. The sewer would be intercepted at Earl Pumping Station as part of the proposed development. Based on the base case (which includes permitted Thames Tideway sewage treatment works upgrades, and the Lee Tunnel project, as well as projected population increases) discharges from this CSO are anticipated to be 593,900m3 per annum over a total of 30 discharge events (or spills) by 2021. The discharge is projected to reduce to 50,500m3 per annum over a total of 4 discharge events once the Thames Tideway project, including the Thames Tunnel, is operational. Further information about projected changes in discharge as a result of the project are presented in Volume 2. Improvements in water quality are anticipated both in the local area around the discharge point for Earl Pumping Station CSO and in the wider Thames Tideway. The assessment of operational impacts on the Thames Tideway as a whole are contained within Volume 6: Project-wide. Water
5.2.4
Page 28
quality improvements would also have implications for aquatic ecology receptors and that is assessed in this report.
5.3
5.3.1

Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. There were no site specific comments from consultees for this particular site relating to aquatic ecology.
Baseline
5.3.2 Details of the approach to assessment of sites where there are no in river works are described in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site. Details of the background data sets are provided in Volume 5. Invertebrate data is available for sites up and downstream of the Earl Storm Relief discharge, at London Bridge (4.4km upstream) and Greenwich (2.3km downstream). Fish data is also available for Greenwich. Although these sampling sites are remote from the discharge point, the fish and invertebrate communities they reflect are considered to be representative of this section of the upper Tideway, and therefore they provide a robust baseline. Algal data is anticipated and will be reported in the ES.
5.3.3 5.3.4
5.3.5
Operation
5.3.6 The operational phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.

5.3.7 There are no site specific assumptions and limitations.
5.4
5.4.1
Baseline conditions Designated sites and habitats

There are no statutory nature conservation sites within the local area of this site. The outfall discharges directly into the River Thames and Tidal Tributaries Site of Metropolitan Importance. Greenland Dock Site of Borough Importance Grade 2 lies within 200m of the Pumping Station site. River Thames and Tidal Tributaries SMI The River Thames and Tidal Tributaries Site of Metropolitan Importance (Site Reference: M31) is adopted by all Boroughs which border the River Thames. The designation recognises the range and quality of estuarine habitats including mud flat, shingle beach, reedbeds and the river channel. The river supports over 100 species of fish, including dace in the freshwater reaches and smelt, sea bass and twaite shad in the estuarine reaches. A number of nationally rare snails occur, including the brackish
5.4.2
Page 29
water snail, Pseudamnicola confusa, and an important assemblage of wetland and wading birds. Greenland Dock SBI 5.4.3 5.4.4 Details of this SBI will be provided in the ES. The London Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) includes a Habitat Action Plan (HAP) for the Thames Tideway which identifies a series of target habitats and species. The HAP divides the river into the zones; freshwater, brackish and marine. The Earl Storm Relief discharge is in the brackish zone. London Borough of Lewisham also has a Habitat Action Plan for rivers.
5.4.5
Fish
5.4.6 The Environment Agency carry out annual surveys for fish within the Thames Tideway using a variety of methods including trawling and seine netting, with data available over 18 years from 1992 to 2010. The nearest sampling site to the Earl Storm Relief discharge is Greenwich. A range of freshwater and estuarine resident fish species were recorded at this site over the 18 year period, including bass, bream, dace, roach, flounder, thin lipped grey mullet, smelt, sand smelt and eels. Only small numbers of fish (10-30 individuals for all species) were recorded during each sampling visit throughout the period. All of these species are widespread in the Thames Tideway, with freshwater species such as roach and bream most frequent in the upper Tideway, and estuarine residents such as sand smelt and flounder common in the lower Tideway. The species age classes represented most widely in the data sets are dace (range of age classes), flounder (0+,1+, ie, 0 -1 year old, and 1-2 year old fish), bream (range of age classes), roach (range of age classes), smelt (0+,1+), gobies (0+), thin-lipped grey mullet, eels.
5.4.7
Mammals
5.4.8 Records compiled by the Zoological Society of London for 2003 2011 indicate that harbour porpoise, bottlenose dolphin and various seal species migrate through the Tideway. No specific habitat of value for marine mammals is believed to occur within the vicinity of the site.
Invertebrates
5.4.9 The Environment Agency samples are taken using a number of techniques, including cores and kick sampling in the intertidal and day grab and core samples in the subtidal. A total of 35 taxa were recorded at Greenwich over the seven year period in which samples were collected. Oligochaeta worms, which are often used as an indicator of organic pollution, were most abundant, together with other pollution tolerant species such as the snail Potamopyrgus antipodarum and many species of polychaeta worms. The shrimp Gammarus zaddachi was also common. In addition to the native G. zaddachi, the amphipod G. tigrinus, of North American origin, was also relatively abundant in samples taken at
5.4.10
5.4.11
Page 30
Greenwich. It is believed that this species arrived in English waters via ballast water from ships. It lives in fresh and brackish waters and can expand rapidly, outcompeting local amphipods. However, based on available data, it appears to be much less abundant than the native Gammarus zaddachi within the Tideway. 5.4.12 The majority of taxa present at Greenwich are brackish species, with varying tolerance of different levels of salinity from estuarine to near freshwater. However, the increasing saline influence compared to upstream sites is demonstrated by the abundance of Lekanesphaera hookeri (a water louse) and various polychaete worms (notably Boccardiella ligerica and Marenzelleria viridis), which are exclusively associated with estuarine or marine conditions. The Community Conservation Index (CCI) score (Chadd and Extence, 2004 7) has initially been used to identify species of nature conservation importance. CCI classifies many groups of invertebrates of inland waters according to their scarcity and conservation value in Great Britain and relates closely to the Red Data Book (RDB) 8,9. The only species identified as being of high nature conservation importance was Acorophium lacustre (CCI 8), an amphipod, or mud shrimp. It is a RDB species and was present in subtidal samples. Despite its RDB status, Acorophium lacustre is highly abundant throughout the tideway.
5.4.13
5.4.14
Algae
5.4.15 Existing algae data has been requested and will be assessed and reported in the ES.
Aquatic ecology receptor values and sensitivities

5.4.16 Using the baseline set out above the value accorded to each receptor considered in this assessment is set out in the table below. The definitions of the receptor values and sensitivities used in this evaluation are set out in Volume 5. Vol 24 Table 5.4.1 Aquatic ecology receptors Receptor Foreshore habitat (including intertidal and subtidal habitat) Fish Value/sensitivity and justification Medium (Metropolitan) value. Habitats form part of a Site of Metropolitan Importance. Medium (Metropolitan) value based on relatively high diversity of freshwater and estuarine species. Low-Medium (Borough) value due to the predominance of pollutiontolerant species. Low (Local) value. Only occasional records of seal and harbour porpoise exist from the area and
Invertebrates
Mammals
Page 31
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Receptor
Section 5: Ecology - aquatic Value/sensitivity and justification very little intertidal habitat is available for use as a haul out site by seals.
Algae
To be assessed following receipt of baseline data.
5.5
5.5.1
Construction assessment
As stated in para. 5.2.2, there are no in-river works associated with this site and thus no significant construction phase effects on aquatic ecology are anticipated. Therefore the construction phase has not been assessed.
5.6
5.6.1
Operational assessment Operational Impacts

The likely impacts arising from operation of the project at this site would be large reduction in the volume of sewage effluent discharged from the CSO. These impacts are described below. The definitions of the different magnitudes of impact referred to in this assessment are given in Volume 5. Reduction in the volume sewage effluent discharged from the CSO. Discharges from the Earl Storm Relief CSO are anticipated to have increased to 593,900m3 per annum by 2021. The discharge is projected to reduce to 50,500m3 once the Thames Tideway project, including the Thames Tunnel, is operational. This would result in localised improvements in water quality, and a contribution to Thames Tideway wide improvements, as outlined in para. 5.2.4. Water quality improvements would consist of increases in dissolved oxygen concentrations, reduction in microbial activity (known as biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)) and suspended solids, and a reduction in sewage debris. The magnitude of the impact is considered to be medium beneficial, and to be probable and permanent. Impact magnitudes will be reviewed in light of the updated water quality modelling data and reported in the ES. Vol 24 Table 5.6.1 Aquatic ecology impacts - operation Impact Improvement of local water quality through CSO interception. Magnitude Medium positive impact Permanent. Probable.
5.6.2
5.6.3
5.6.4
5.6.5
Operational effects
5.6.6 The effects are described below for each individual receptor. The way in which the magnitude and reversibility of each impact has been combined
Page 32
with the value of each receptor to determine the significance of the effect is set out in Volume 5. Unless stated the effects described below apply to both Years 1 and 5 of operation. Habitats 5.6.7 No direct effects on habitats are expected as a result of the water quality improvements associated with interception of a single CSO discharge. Over time, the nutrient levels within the sediments would decline, but the benefits from this would be to the fish and invertebrates present. Mammals Increase in the number and/or change in the distribution of marine mammals. 5.6.8 No changes are anticipated on marine mammals as a result of the water quality improvements associated with interception of a single CSO discharge. This is because they are a mobile receptor, and therefore able to move away from a point source discharge and they are relatively insensitive to the levels of pollution associated with a single source. Effects are considered negligible. Fish Reduction in the occurrence of dissolved oxygen related fish mortalities. 5.6.9 The microbial activity associated with untreated sewage effluent (BOD) causes a depletion in the levels of dissolved oxygen downstream of a discharge. This is often referred to as an oxygen sag. Oxygen sags are more common in the summer months when water temperatures are higher and oxygen is less soluble. Impacts on fish health occur when dissolved oxygen levels drop beneath 4mg/l, and significant mortalities begin to occur when levels drop beneath this threshold. Fish mortality due to low dissolved oxygen concentrations is referred to as hypoxia. Such hypoxia events are currently relatively common in the Thames Tideway, particularly during the summer months when heavy storms follow periods of low flow and water temperatures are relatively high. Up to 2004, there had been at least 154 low dissolved oxygen events, in which fish mortalities have occurred. This information will be updated for the ES. Interception of the CSOs throughout the Thames Tideway would improve sewerage system capacity and result in far fewer low dissolved oxygen events and therefore fewer mass fish mortalities. The exact number of anticipated events will be predicted using the Tideway Fish Risk Model and reported in the ES. Details of the Tideway Fish Risk Model are presented in Volume 5. Interception of the Earl Storm Relief sewer would contribute to this Thames Tideway wide improvement, but would also result in improvements in the local area. Given the range of diversity of freshwater species in particular in the upper Tideway, and the potential value of this site as a nursery area for juvenile fish the effect is considered to be moderate beneficial. Improvements across the Thames Tideway as a whole will be assessed in Volume 6 (Project-wide).
5.6.10
5.6.11
Page 33
Increase in the distribution of pollution sensitive fish species. 5.6.12 The Tideway supports a number of rare fish species including salmon, sea trout and twaite shad and river lamprey. A number of factors limit the colonisation of habitats by these species, including salinity, substrate type and current, but pollution is known to be a significant factor in determining colonisation 10. Changes in the diversity of fish communities, including recruitment of more sensitive species is a process which would occur at a wider scale, and will be assessed in Volume 6 (Project-wide). As described in para.5.6.5, the impact is considered to be medium beneficial, and the value of the receptors is medium, the effect is considered to be negligible in the short term (Year 1 of operation), increasing to moderate beneficial in Year 6 of operation. Invertebrates Localised improvements invertebrate diversity and abundance. 5.6.14 As well as causing low dissolved oxygen events, untreated sewage effluent contains nutrients which cause enrichment of the water column and sediments in the river. Excessive nutrient enrichment causes phenomenon such as algal blooms, and is known as eutrophication. Such enrichment tends to favour a small number of pollution tolerant species at the expense of a wider range of pollution sensitive species. For example, certain species of Oligochaete worm are indicative of polluted conditions because they are able to tolerate the low dissolved oxygen conditions and multiply rapidly in the enriched sediments. By intercepting the CSO the source of sewage related nutrients would be cut off and the sediments in the vicinity of the outfall would begin to return to a more natural state. As nutrients reduce in concentration a wider range of invertebrate species, including more pollution sensitive species such as the river neretid (Theodoxus fluviatilis) would begin to colonise the sediments. The effect is considered to be negligible in Year 1 of operation, rising to minor beneficial in Year 6 of operation. Increase in the distribution of rare and pollution sensitive invertebrate species. 5.6.16 The Thames Tideway currently supports a small number of rare invertebrate species including swollen spire snail and tentacled lagoon worm. A number of factors limit the colonisation of habitats by these species, including salinity, substrate type and current, but pollution is known to be a significant factor in determining colonisation. Improving water and sediment quality would facilitate the spread of those pollution sensitive species which are currently being impeded by poor water and sediment quality. Effects on invertebrates diversity are considered to be negligible in Year 1 of operation, increasing to minor beneficial by Year 6 of operation.
5.6.13
5.6.15
5.6.17
Page 34
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Algae 5.6.18
Data on algae has been requested and will be assessed and reported in the ES.
5.7
5.7.1
Approach to mitigation
No mitigation is required since the effects on aquatic ecology receptors are associated only with the improvements in water quality arising from interception of the CSO.
Page 35
5.8
Vol 24 Table 5.8.1 Aquatic ecology operational assessment Significance Year 1 of operation Negligible Negligible Negligible None required Negligible None required Year 6 of operation Negligible Negligible Mitigation Residual Significance
Assessment summary
Receptor
Effect
Habitats
No direct effects.
Mammals
Increase in the number and/or change in the distribution of marine mammals. Moderate beneficial Negligible Moderate beneficial Minor beneficial Moderate beneficial
Fish
Reduction in the occurrence of low dissolved oxygen related fish mortalities.
None required
Moderate beneficial None required Moderate beneficial None required Moderate beneficial None required Moderate beneficial
Invertebrates Negligible
Increase in the distribution of pollution sensitive fish species. Localised improvements in invertebrate diversity and abundance. Negligible
Increase in the distribution of pollution sensitive invertebrate species.
Minor beneficial
Algae
To reported in the ES.
Page 36
5.9
5.9.1
Further and updated information on aquatic ecology as specified above will be assessed and reported in the ES. This includes algal data, information on designations and water quality modelling data. Assessment of cumulative effects will be undertaken as part of the ES
5.9.2
Page 37
Section 6: Ecology - terrestrial
6 6.1
6.1.1
Ecology - terrestrial Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant terrestrial ecology effects at the Earl Pumping Station site. Likely significant effects on aquatic ecology are reported in Section 5. Elements of the proposed works that have particular relevance to terrestrial ecology comprise site clearance, piling, and wider construction activities. The assessment of terrestrial ecology during operation was scoped out for the Earl Pumping Station site at the scoping stage. The works at Earl Pumping Station would require intermittent maintenance during the operational phase of the project. The scale of activities is small and these are not considered likely to have significant effects on terrestrial ecology. Brown roofs are proposed on the shaft and valve chamber. This design feature is considered unlikely to result in significant terrestrial ecology effects and therefore does not require assessment. The operational phase is therefore not considered further in this assessment. Therefore, the operational phase at Earl Pumping Station is not considered in this assessment for terrestrial ecology.
6.1.2
6.1.3
6.1.4
6.2
6.2.1
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to terrestrial ecology are as follows.
Construction
a. Site mobilisation, including clearance activities commencing in the first year of construction. b. Piling, ground excavation, construction traffic movements and construction machinery will produce noise, vibration and lighting effects. Code of Construction Practice 6.2.1 Measures incorporated into the draft Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) (Volume 2: Proposed Development) to reduce terrestrial ecology effects include those that would ensure that terrestrial ecology receptors are appropriately managed during construction. The document sets out procedures that would be adhered to both project wide and at individual sites. The draft CoCP outlines that where appropriate, works would be undertaken in compliance with legislation, and with due regard to relevant nature conservation policies and guidance, including the Mayors Biodiversity Strategy and local Biodiversity Action Plans. Each site would have an Ecological Management Plan, which would detail the approach to management of effects on ecological receptors with reference to the results of the terrestrial ecology assessment. Where species are
6.2.2
Page 38
protected by specific legislation, approved guidance would be followed, appropriate mitigation would be proposed and any necessary licences or consents obtained. 6.2.3 Measures not specifically outlined under the ecology section of the draft CoCP are also of relevance, for example the management of noise and vibration, and water resources.
6.3
6.3.1

Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. All consultee comments relevant to this site relating to terrestrial ecology are presented in the table below. Vol 24 Table 6.3.1 Terrestrial ecology stakeholder comments Organisation Comment London Borough of Lewisham Scoping response: In terms of ecology, there has been no proper examination of that beyond the site itself, bearing in mind that the residential properties rear gardens may well contain species such as nesting birds which would be affected by the construction works. Response The surrounding area has been considered in the assessment. The embedded CoCP measures for visual disturbance and noise would ensure that effects on nesting birds would be negligible and these receptors have now been scoped out.
Baseline
6.3.2 The baseline data collection follows the methodology detailed in Volume 5. Baseline data presented within this assessment is derived from desk study and Phase 1 Habitat Survey data. Following the Phase 1 survey, it was found that a further survey needs to be carried out for invasive species only which will be reported in the ES. In summary the following baseline data has been collated and is presented in this volume: a. Desk study including data base searches (for ecological records within a 2km radius from the site boundary, which is the industry standard), web-based searches and review of existing available documents in relation to protected and notable species and habitats. Desk study data within 500m of the site are reported here as the works are unlikely to affect species and designated sites beyond this distance. Records dated prior to 2000 have not been included as the information since this date provides the most appropriate data to assess the site baseline conditions b. Phase 1 Habitat Survey undertaken on 25th November 2010 following the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) Standard Phase 1 Habitat Survey Methodology, 2010. The survey included the site and
6.3.3
Page 39
any adjacent habitat considered, using professional judgement, to be potentially affected by the proposed works. 6.3.4 Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica) mapping survey of the site and within 10m of the site has also been undertaken during spring 2011 and the results will be reported in the ES. No other species surveys have been identified as being required following the desk study and Phase 1 Habitat Survey.
6.3.5
Construction
6.3.6 The construction phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5 and is based on IEEM. Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom. Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2006) 11. This is the industry standard for Ecological Impact Assessment. This method assesses the value of ecological receptors and significance of effects using a geographical frame of reference. The effects are either not significant or significant at a particular geographical scale. The following ecological receptors are included in the assessment: a. Habitats b. Breeding birds c. 6.3.8 Black redstart Three designated sites have been identified within 500m of the site. Due to the localised nature of the proposed works and the isolation of the designated sites from the proposed works, no effects have been identified. Therefore, the designated sites outlined in para. 6.4.3 are not considered further in the assessment. The potential presence of Japanese knotweed noted in para. 6.3.4 is not considered within the assessment as measures to eradicate and control this, and other invasive species, prior to construction commencing are contained within the CoCP (see paras.6.2.1 - 6.2.3). The findings of the mapping survey will be reported in the ES. As contaminated runoff and atmospheric pollution will be controlled through the implementation of the CoCP, no likely significant effects are anticipated on ecological receptors. Therefore, this is not considered any further in the assessment. The assessment year for construction is the start of site preparation works at the start of the construction phase (Year 1 of construction). This is likely to be the peak year for impacts on terrestrial ecology as this is when initial site clearance would occur. Assuming that the site and any nearby designated sites would continue to be managed as they are at present then the base case is considered to be the same as the current baseline conditions as described in Section 6.4.
6.3.7
6.3.9
6.3.10
6.3.11
6.3.12
Page 40

6.3.13 It is assumed for the purposes of assessment that the current site management regime of the Earl Pumping Station site would continue. The assessment assumes that the measures within the draft CoCP would be implemented as part of the development. All surveys have and will be undertaken at appropriate times of the year. No other site specific limitations or assumptions have been identified.
6.4
6.4.1
Baseline conditions
The following section sets out the baseline conditions for terrestrial ecology receptors at the site and surrounds, including their value.
Designated sites
On site 6.4.2 6.4.3 There are no designated sites on the site. Surrounding area The following designated sites were identified within 500m of the site: a. Earl Pumping Station lies approximately 80m north west of Rainsborough Avenue Embankments SINC (Grade L i). This site comprises a series of narrow, former railway embankments, with birch Betula sp. woodland, scrub and flower-rich acid grassland. This is considered to be of local (low) value. b. Greenland Dock SINC (Grade B ii) an area of open water located in Rotherhithe, is located approximately 180m north of Earl Pumping Station. This is considered to be of district (medium) value. c. Russia Dock Woodland SINC (Grade Bii) is located approximately 480m north of Earl Pumping Station. It comprises a long narrow park in Rotherhithe, London, created by the infilling of one of the former Surrey Commercial Docks and planted as a 34.5-acre (140,000m2) woodland in 1980. This is considered to be of district (London Borough) (medium) value.
6.4.4
These are not considered further in the assessment due to their lack of ecological connectivity from the site and the localised nature of the works at the Earl Pumping Station site, as outlined in para. 6.3.8.
Habitats
6.4.5 The habitats recorded within the survey area during the Phase 1 Habitat Survey undertaken are detailed in the table below and shown on Vol 24 Figure 6.4.1. Target notes (TN#) are indicated on this figure and are referred to within the text below. Vol 24 Figure 6.4.1 Terrestrial ecology Phase 1 Habitat Survey (see Volume 24 Figures document)
i ii
SINC (Grade L) = Site of Nature Conservation Importance (Grade I of Local importance) SINC (Grade B) = Site of Nature Conservation Importance (Grade B of Borough importance)
Page 41
Vol 24 Table 6.4.1 Terrestrial ecology Phase 1 Habitat Survey Habitats Hard standing Habitat Description A large proportion of the survey area comprises hard standing vehicle routes and parking areas. This surrounds the main pumping station building and adjacent industrial units. The pumping station is located in the north of the survey area and comprises a single storey brick built unit with a flat roof. Located to the south and south west of the pumping station are two smaller single storey brick built units used for utilities. To the south of the pumping station, the survey area is divided into four areas, each occupied by a separate company for light industrial purposes. Buildings comprise a mixture of styles including flat roofed office type structures and steel framed industrial units. None of the buildings were considered to support features that could be used by bats for roosting purposes. Scattered trees Located adjacent to the western boundary along Croft Street, is a line of mature London plane Platanus acerifolia trees (TN1). A small area of buddleia Buddleia davidii scrub is located south west of the survey area (TN2).
Buildings
Scrub and tall ruderal vegetation
On site 6.4.6 No BAP habitats have been identified on the site. Semi-natural habitat on site is minimal in extent and species poor, comprising ruderal species, it would not result in designation of the site at local level or higher and is not afforded any legal protection as a habitat. Therefore, it is considered to be of site (low) value only. Japanese knotweed (a noxious and invasive plant) and other invasive plants may be present on site and a survey will be carried out. If present, this is considered to be of negative value at the local (low) level. This is not considered further within this assessment as the eradication and control of such invasive species would be managed by the measures set out in the CoCP, as discussed in para. 6.3.9. Surrounding area 6.4.8 The trees adjacent to the site have limited intrinsic value and are not UK or London BAP priority species. However, they are mature and set in a
6.4.7
Page 42
highly urban setting with limited semi-natural vegetation in the locality. Therefore, the trees adjacent to the site are considered to be of local (low) value.
Notable species
Breeding birds On site 6.4.9 6.4.10 Desk study data of notable species indicated no records specific to the site. Few nesting or foraging opportunities for birds are present on the site itself. Birds may use the scrub, scattered trees and/or buildings for nesting purposes and are likely to comprise species common to the area but may include some species that are listed as London and UK BAP priority species and also Red List iii species. However, the number of nests that the site could support is considered to be small. The bird resource on site is considered to be of site (low) value. Surrounding area 6.4.11 House sparrow Passer domesticus (Red statusiii, London BAP Priority Species) has been recorded within 500m of the site. The surrounding area is considered to be of local (low) value for breeding birds. Black redstart On site 6.4.12 Desk study data of notable species indicates no records specific to the site. The buildings are sub-optimal for nesting black redstart Phoenicurus ochruros, and the scrub and tall ruderal vegetation is considered to afford poor foraging habitat. The site is considered to be of site (low) value for black redstart. Surrounding area 6.4.13 Black redstart has been recorded within 500m of the site. Nesting black redstarts are unlikely to be present immediately adjacent to the site, although they may forage nearby. These receptors, where present, are considered to be of county (medium) value.
6.5
Construction assessment Habitats

On site
6.5.1
It is certain that the permanent direct loss of a small area of ruderal and scrub vegetation would have a significant adverse effect at the site level (minor adverse effect).
iii
The UK's birds can be split into three categories of conservation importance - red, amber and green. Red is the highest conservation priority, with species needing urgent action. Amber is the next most critical group, followed by green. (http://www.rspb.org.uk. Page last updated on Monday 7 March 2011).
Page 43
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Surrounding area 6.5.2
Root protection measures to protect trees adjacent to the site would be in place as part of the CoCP. Therefore, it is likely that the effects on trees would be not significant (negligible).
Notable species
Black redstart On site 6.5.3 Site clearance would result in the loss of a relatively small amount of seminatural vegetation that could provide foraging habitat for black redstart. It is probable that the loss of bird foraging habitat of site (low) value for black redstart would be significant at the site level (minor adverse effect). Surrounding area 6.5.4 It is probable that activities on site that generate noise, vibration and lighting spill could cause temporary displacement of black redstarts from adjacent foraging habitat. However, there is more optimal habitat for black redstart within the wider area and this disturbance is unlikely to significantly affect the ability of black redstarts to forage and breed (negligible). Breeding birds. On site 6.5.5 Site clearance would result in the permanent loss of a small area of seminatural vegetation that could provide nesting habitat for a range of common bird species some of which are listed on the UK and London BAPs. It is certain that the loss of bird nesting and foraging habitat of site (low) value would be significant for birds at the site level (minor adverse effect). Surrounding area 6.5.6 Displacement of birds from adjacent trees may render a small area of nesting habitat unsuitable to birds. This is unlikely to affect the foraging and breeding ability of these birds as alternative habitat is available within the area. Therefore, it is unlikely that the effect on birds would be significant (negligible).
6.6
6.6.1
Operational assessment
As stated in para.6.1.3, there are not anticipated to be significant operational effects on terrestrial ecology therefore this has not been assessed.
6.7
6.7.1

The ecological management plan described in the CoCP will include longterm management of habitats and species on site post-construction. It would be prepared following planning approval and prior to commencement of works on site.
Page 44
In addition to measures detailed in the CoCP, mitigation to replace planting is likely to be required.
Page 45
6.8
Vol 24 Table 6.8.1 Terrestrial ecology construction assessment Effect Significance Mitigation Residual Significance
Assessment summary
Receptor
Habitats Certain, Site level (minor adverse effect) Unlikely to be significant (negligible) Not required Replacement planting Certain, Not significant (negligible) Unlikely to be significant (negligible)
Tall ruderal and scrub
Removal of small area of habitat.
Trees
Works within the root zone of trees.
Notable species Certain, Site level (minor adverse effect) Unlikely to be significant (negligible) Certain, Site level (minor adverse effect) Unlikely to be significant (negligible) Replacement planting Certain, Not significant (negligible) Not required Unlikely to be significant (negligible) Replacement planting Certain, Not significant (negligible) Not required Unlikely to be significant (negligible)
Black redstarts
Loss of foraging resource on site for black restarts.
Disturbance to black redstart adjacent to the site from lighting, noise and vibration.
Breeding birds
Loss of foraging resource and nesting habitat for breeding birds.
Disturbance to breeding birds adjacent to the site from lighting, noise and vibration.
Page 46
6.9
6.9.1 6.9.2
The assessment will be updated including baseline data from a survey of invasive plants. An assessment of cumulative effects will be carried out and reported in the ES.
Page 47
Section 7: Historic environment
7 7.1
7.1.1
Historic environment Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant heritage asset effects at the Earl Pumping Station site. These are aspects of the historic environment which are considered to be significant because of their historical, evidential, aesthetic or communal interest (these terms are defined in para. 7.5.47 below). These might comprise below and above ground archaeological remains, buildings, structures, monuments or heritage landscapes within or around the site 12. This section should be read in conjunction with Volume 6: route overview, which sets the site in its broad topographic, geological, archaeological and historical context and discusses the project-wide landscape and topic themes in respect of the historic environment. These themes are summarised in this section, where they are relevant to the site, to avoid repetition.
7.1.2
7.2
7.2.1
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to the historic environment are as follows.
Construction
7.2.2 Those aspects of specific relevance to the historic environment assessment, since they could lead to effects on heritage assets, are as follows: a. Enabling works will require the demolition of the existing structures, weighbridge and canopy and site preparation; the establishment of a works compound; and the diversion of existing services. b. The main construction works entail the construction of a Combined Sewage Overflow (CSO) shaft, deep excavations for an interception and valve chamber, and a connecting culvert, and ventilation shaft. 7.2.3 Measures incorporated into the draft CoCP to reduce impacts on the historic environment include protective measures where appropriate such as temporary support, hoardings, barriers and screening around heritage assets within and adjacent to work sites, and advance planning of plant and working methods for use where heritage assets are close to work sites, or attached to structures within work sites. The CoCP also includes provisions for the contractor to prepare a site specific Heritage Management Plan.
Operation
7.2.4 No effects on heritage assets are anticipated during the operational phase as detailed in Section 7.3.3. Operation effects on heritage assets have therefore been scoped out.
Page 48
7.3
7.3.1

Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. There were no site specific comments from consultees for this particular site. Consultation has been carried out with English Heritage in respect of the assessment of effects on the historic environment setting of heritage assets. The Earl Pumping Station site lies within mixed light industrial/residential land and does not lie within a conservation area. The closest listed building to the site is a Grade II listed capstan c. 350m to the north. No significant above ground heritage assets have been identified within the site or its visual envelope. Setting is therefore not covered in the assessment, and operational effects remain scoped out.
7.3.2
Baseline
7.3.3 The baseline methodology follows that set out in Volume 5, with a key component being a desk based assessment, consulting a broad range of archaeological, documentary and cartographic sources, along with a site walkover survey. The results of geotechnical investigations, some of which were archaeologically monitored, have also been incorporated. The 400m-radius study area used for the assessment is considered through professional judgement to be most appropriate to characterise the historic environment potential of the site. There are occasional references to assets beyond the study area where appropriate, eg, where such assets are particularly important and/or where they contribute to current understanding of the site and its environs.
7.3.4
Construction
7.3.5 7.3.6 The construction phase methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. Any site specific variations are described below. Likely significant effects on the historic environment could arise throughout the four year construction phase and are concerned principally with activities likely to remove, disturb or alter above ground or buried heritage assets, as a result of enabling or construction works. The methodology has been informed by an understanding of the nature and extent of proposed ground disturbance, in relation to known or potential heritage assets. The base case (future baseline) for the assessment of construction effects will be the same as at present. Archaeological remains are a static resource, which have reached equilibrium with their environment and do not change (ie, decay or grow) unless their environment changes as a result of human or natural intervention. Assumptions and limitations 7.3.9 Volume 5: Methodology sets out the generic assumptions and limitations of the assessment. In summary, the main limitation is the nature of the
7.3.7
7.3.8
Page 49
archaeological resource (buried and not visible) and acknowledgement of the difficulty of attempting to predict the presence/extent, date, nature, survival and significance of possible, previously unrecorded, buried heritage assets, based on a desk based study and site visit. In particular, no intrusive archaeological investigation has been carried out on the site in the past and few investigations have been carried out in the study area around the site. 7.3.10 Notwithstanding this limitation, the assessment presented here is robust, based on reasonably available information, and conforms to the requirements of local and national guidance and planning policy (as detailed in Volume 5). Typically, appropriate standard archaeological prospection and evaluation techniques are utilised post-consent to reduce the uncertainties inherent in any desk based study, as part of an overall EIA mitigation strategy (see Mitigation section below for the proposed mitigation at this site).
7.4
7.4.1
Baseline conditions
The following description of baseline conditions comprises seven subsections which set out: a. A description of historic environment features, with an introduction to the features map (which shows the location of known historic environment features within the 400m-radius study area around the site) and the study area; b. A description of statutorily and locally designated assets within the site and its vicinity (ie, within a 100m-radius of the site); c. A description of the site location, topography and geology to set the context of the site;
d. A summary of past archaeological investigation within the study area, providing an indication of how well the area is understood archaeologically. e. A summary of the archaeological and historical background which sets out what is known about the site and its environs. f. A statement of significance for above ground assets within and around the site, describing the features which contribute to their significance.
g. A discussion of potential for buried heritage assets, taking account of factors affecting survival, and a statement of their potential significance. 7.4.2 A site visit was carried out by MOLA on 28th March 2011. The light and weather conditions were bright and dry. The interior of the listed pumping station in the northern half of the site was not examined (this was not deemed necessary as the building would not be affected by the project). The light industrial units under private ownership were viewed from publicly accessible areas on the site periphery, which provided adequate views to assess the nature of the existing structures.
Page 50
Historic environment features

7.4.3 The historic environment features map (Vol 24 Figure 7.4.1) shows the location of known historic environment features within the 400m-radius study area around the site, compiled from the baseline sources set out in the topic specific methodology in Volume 5. These historic environment features have been allocated a unique historic environment assessment reference number (HEA 1, 2, etc), which is listed in the gazetteer in Appendix A. Vol 24 Figure 7.4.1 Historic environment features map (see Volume 24 Figures document)
Designated assets
Statutory designations 7.4.4 The study area does not contain any nationally designated (statutorily protected) heritage assets, such as scheduled monuments, listed buildings, or registered parks and gardens. Local authority designations 7.4.5 The site does not lie within any conservation areas and contains no locally listed buildings. The site lies entirely within the northern edge of an archaeological priority area, which covers Deptford, including The Strand, Sayes Court, and the Royal Naval Dockyard. Known burial grounds 7.4.6 There are no known burial grounds within the site or adjacent to it.
Site location, topography and geology

Site location 7.4.7 The site lies 520m west of the River Thames. The Surrey Docks lie 180m to the north and 220m to the east. Historically the site lay on the outskirts of, and between, the ancient parishes of St. Nicholas Deptford, to the south, and St. Mary Rotherhithe, to the north and within the county of Surrey. Topography 7.4.8 The ground level of the site and the surrounding area is fairly flat, at 101.4102.0m ATD (above Tunnel Datum; the equivalent of 1.42.0m Ordnance Datum). There is a very gentle, imperceptible, slope down towards the River Thames, from 102.0m ATD around 85m to the southwest, to 100.0m ATD by the River Thames, 520m to the north-east. Across the site, levels do not vary significantly. Across the northern part of the site, occupied by the pumping station, ground level lies at between 101.7102.0m ATD, with slightly lower ground levels of between 101.5 101.9m ATD in the southern part of the site. There is no visible indication of any artificial raising or levelling in relation to the construction of the pumping station.
Page 51
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Geology 7.4.9
The site is situated in an area of alluvial silts and clays overlying sand and gravel deposits associated with the River Thames floodplain (British Geological Survey/BGS digital data). Near the site are two significant ancient topographical features: a tributary to the Thames known as the Earls Sluice and an ancient depression feature in the landscape known as the Bermondsey Lake. The Earls Sluice, now long redundant as a stream and enclosed as a sewer in the early 19th century, is projected to pass in the vicinity of the site 13. The Sluice was originally part of a much greater, older, east-west flowing tributary channel to the Thames originating in Bermondsey as indicated by the pattern of alluvium locally (BGS digital data). The former Bermondsey Lake is part of this ancient topography: a deep hollow in the surface of the gravels located some 700m to the west of the site; in which laminated calcareous and organic deposits were found dating to the Windermere Interstadial, c. 1314,000 years ago 14. The lake has not been fully demarcated and as it lies near the confluence of the Earl Sluice and the Thames, in the wide area mapped simply as alluvium by the BGS, it could feasibly extend to, or at least influence, the site. Examination of borehole data (British Geological Survey) on and around the site itself indicates an undulating gravel surface, with the site itself being positioned on a gravel high point at 97.6m ATD (BH TQ37NE1980). Areas of high gravel are significant as they could have formed a focus for prehistoric human activity given their relationship to the river and the resources it provides. Soils and vegetation are likely to have developed here, providing valuable evidence for the reconstruction of the early Holocene environment. Overlying the gravel, the alluvium consists of clays and gravels to 98.7m ATD, grey clay and wood to 99.7m ATD and peaty clay to 101.8m ATD (British Geological Survey). Above these deposits is c. 1.0m of made ground, which forms the ground surface. Of greatest significance in geoarchaeological terms are the grey clay and wood and the peaty clay layers. Given that the nearby sites of 2840 Croft Street (HEA 1) and 7197 Plough Way (HEA 4) as well as sites associated with the Bermondsey Lake such as Bramcote Grove 15 had significant prehistoric timbers and other finds in similar layers, the underlying alluvium on the site has significant palaeoenvironmental and archaeological potential.
7.4.10
Past archaeological investigations within the study area

7.4.11 No archaeological investigations have been carried out on the site in the past. However, several have been carried out in the vicinity (see gazetteer in Appendix A). The results of previous evaluations have revealed evidence of the development of the natural landscape in which the site is situated. Finds of prehistoric, Roman, and post-medieval remains, whilst relatively scarce, have contributed to understanding of the area in these periods. The nature of the early and later medieval activity in the area is less clear, as no known archaeological remains have been recorded in its immediate vicinity. To date, nine investigations have been carried out within the study area. The three closest to the site (HEA 13) are all located on Croft Street,
7.4.12
Page 52
within 90m of the site. Each recorded a geological make-up of natural alluvium overlying gravel. An evaluation carried out at 2840 Croft Street (HEA 1) revealed prehistoric peat deposits and timbers, whilst an evaluation at 4448 Croft Street (HEA 2), and a watching brief at Crofters Court (HEA 3), revealed no significant archaeological remains. To the east of the site, evaluations at East Country Yard (HEA 6), Marine Wharf (HEA 7), and a watching brief carried out at Grove Street (HEA 8), revealed mainly modern deposits and possible post-medieval features. To the south of the site, an evaluation at Deepway, 85 Evelyn Street (HEA 9), recorded mainly Victorian and modern features. 7.4.13 The results of the investigations, along with other known sites and finds within the study area, are discussed by period, below.
Archaeological and historical background of the site

7.4.14 The following section presents a chronological summary of the archaeological and historical background of the site, drawing on the information collated above. Prehistoric period (700,000 BCAD 43) 7.4.15 7.4.16 There are no known archaeological remains dated to this period within the site. Previous investigations at Plough Way (HEA 4) and Lower Road (HEA 5), c. 100m to the north-west and 195m to the west of the site respectively, have revealed prehistoric remains and suggest that much of the area of the site lay within inter-tidal marshes, prone to flooding; increasingly so after the early prehistoric (the early Mesolithic). Activity, perhaps related to hunting and fishing, may have been concentrated in drier, localised areas on the margins of the marshes or on islands within it. As the site was located on an area of high gravel, it may have formed a focus for prehistoric activity, particularly during periods of relatively low water levels. The intertidal marshland would have been exploited for a number of predictable resources, including, from the late prehistoric, reeds (for basketry), clay (pottery), fish, game and salt, which could be extracted through evaporation. Timber trackways have also been recorded in prehistoric marsh environments which would have provided access across waterlogged areas (see route overview, Volume 6). An evaluation of two trial trenches, carried out in 1996 at 7197 Plough Way, (HEA 4), c. 100m to the north-west of the site, recovered a residual prehistoric struck flint, located within a waterlogged peat deposit. There were no signs of cut features or flint working in situ, and the undisturbed nature of alluvial build-up above the peat layer suggested the land surface in this location may have been too wet for habitation. A struck flint, also probably residual, and dated to the Palaeolithic period, was discovered c. 215m to the north of the site, at the south-western end of Greenland Dock (HEA 14). An evaluation, carried out in 1988 at 305319 Lower Road, (HEA 5), c. 195m to the west of the site, revealed more conclusive evidence of prehistoric activity. Several undated pits, containing evidence of burning
7.4.17
7.4.18
Page 53
were discovered, along with five or six struck flints, on the edge of an undefined, weathered sand island. An evaluation, carried out in 1994 at 2840 Croft Street, (HEA 1), recorded a sequence of peat deposits and timbers, dated to the turn of the BC/AD millennium, which were overlain by sands and alluvial deposits. Roman period (AD 43410) 7.4.19 7.4.20 There are no known archaeological remains dated to this period within the site. Recent previous investigations in the study area have not revealed any Roman features or evidence of occupation. Rising water levels from the late Prehistoric suggest that during the Roman period the area was prone to flooding and probably lay in open marshland. As such it would not have been suitable for settlement. Within the study area, two Roman coin hoards have been discovered (HEA 12 and HEA 13; see below). Such finds suggest dry, potentially habitable land existing to the north of the site. The area may have been exploited for a number of intertidal/marshland resources (see Volume 6: Project-wide effects assessment), in some places on an industrial scale (eg, pottery, kilns, fish processing etc). The projected line of the London-Dover road, known as Watling Street, is located c. 1.5km to the south of the site and was probably the main focus of Roman settlement in the area. During excavations carried out in 1867 for warehouses and a dock near Plough Way, (HEA 12), c. 80m to the north of the site, an earthenware vase was found containing 1300 coins dated to the Hadrianic period (AD 117138). The hoard was found 1.5m below the ground (c. 99.0m ATD) on a bed of silty sand overlying natural gravels. Further to the north, at Chilton Grove (HEA 13), c. 215m from the site, another hoard was discovered during sewer excavations in 1946. This consisted of 269 coins, discovered in a pot. Roman remains have been found on the Thames foreshore to the east and north-east of the site. An excavation at Rotherhithe Street, c. 1.6km to the north of the site, uncovered a substantial quantity of Roman finds, recovered from a sandy deposit overlying peat, including a coin, pottery, building materials (tile and cut stone) and animal bones, dated to around the 3rd century. The remains were well preserved and sealed by alluvium, which may indicate gradual silt deposition caused by subsequent flooding. Early medieval (Saxon) period (AD 4101066) 7.4.23 7.4.24 There are no known archaeological remains dated to this period within the site or study area. Previous investigations within the study area have revealed that following the Roman period there was a further period of rising water levels which would have resulted in the floodplain to the south of the Thames becoming waterlogged. An evaluation carried out at Deepway, 85 Evelyn Street, (HEA 9) c. 300m to the south of the site, revealed a sequence of fluvial deposits which may reflect this process. Flooding may explain the lack of archaeological evidence for Saxon activity in the area. Much of the area, including the location of the site, was marshland pasture throughout the
7.4.21
7.4.22
Page 54
period, with settlement located some distance to the north, in Rotherhithe, and south, in Deptford (both place names of Saxon origin). 7.4.25 The settlement at Rotherhithe was located on a higher and drier gravel island (eyot) which formed a gravel peninsula beside a great loop in the River Thames. The origins of the settlement at Rotherhithe are uncertain, but it is first mentioned in a charter of AD898 and was probably a riverside maritime hamlet, probably centred on the later church of St Marys Rotherhithe on the northern edge of the eyot, c. 1.4km to the north-west of the site. Later documentary sources suggest that the riverfront would have attracted activity such as fishing, and as a landing-place for boats. The name Deptford, of Anglo-Saxon origin, refers to a deep ford crossing the river Ravensbourne 16. The old Roman road which ran east-west across the parish, approximately on the course of modern New Cross Road, c. 2km to the south of the site, is likely to have continued in use as a route to Canterbury. A ford, and later a bridge, provided access across the river at the point just before it becomes tidal and widens into Deptford Creek, at the site of modern Deptford Bridge, c. 2.2km to the south-east of the site. Another Saxon settlement was Deptford Strand, in the area of St Nicholas Church at Deptford Green, c. 1.6km to the south-east of the site. Later medieval period (AD 10661485) 7.4.27 There are no known archaeological remains dated to this period within the site or study area. It is likely that during this period the marshland occupying the site began to be drained and reclaimed for pastoral and agricultural use. The site is located c. 1.4km from the location of the present 18th century church of the parish of St. Mary Rotherhithe. Documentary sources suggest that a church existed on this site from the 13th century onwards. The location of any manor house at this time is unknown, but may have been to the south-west of the church, on the site which was later occupied by Edward III as Rotherhithe Palace. The church and manor house would have formed the focus of the medieval village at Rotherhithe, the closest settlement to the site. The landscape lay below high-water level, and was prone to periodic flooding during the 13th century there were frequent notices of the necessity for embanking 17. Nevertheless, references to tenants, enclosures, reed-gathering, meadows, pastures and fisheries suggest that the area was economically useful, with occupation spreading along the riverfront 18. It is likely that the site was used for similar purposes during this period, and the area reclaimed and drained. The manor (estate) of West Greenwich (Deptford), bordering the site, continued to be held by the de Magminot family until 1191, when it passed to the de Say family and was given to the Knights Templar; it was later recovered by an exchange of land. The main settlement at Deptford Strand was focused on the church of St Nicholas, c. 1.6km to the southeast of the site. The manor house of Sayes Court lay to the north-east of the church, c. 1km to the south-east of the site.
7.4.26
7.4.28
7.4.29
7.4.30
Page 55
Post-medieval period (AD 1485present) 7.4.31 During the early post-medieval period the riverside area to the south-east and east of the site was occupied by docks. The area to the west of the docks, in which the site is situated, became increasingly urbanised in the 19th and early 20th centuries, with a number of industrial and residential buildings replacing open fields. In 16961700, Howland Great Wet Dock was constructed on the site of the former Howland manorial estate (HEA 11), c. 260m to the north of the site. From the 1720s, Greenland whalers used the dock and substantial blubber boiling houses were built to produce oil on the south side 19. In 1725, the dock was leased by the South Sea Company and extensive use by whaling ships led to its being re-named Greenland Dock. The dock is the oldest of Londons riverside wet docks. The Greater London Historic Environment Record (GLHER) lists the site of an undated post-medieval warehouse (HEA 15), c. 220m to the north-east of the site, immediately to the south of the dock. Rocques map of 1746 (Appendix A) shows the site as lying in an area of open fields, immediately to the north of Rogues Lane, c. 385m to the west of the shipwrights located on Grove Street, and the Upper Wet Dock (the current Greenland Dock), c. 220m to the north-east of the site. The area of the site is undeveloped pasture at this time. The map shows the use of the Rotherhithe area, to the north-west of the site, for docks and riverside commerce. Horwoods map of 1799 (Appendix A) shows the site still within undeveloped land, immediately to the west of (outside the footprint of) West Pond, adjacent to the Surrey Canal (HEA 10). West Pond, along with East Pond, was dug in c. 1802 and had been infilled by 1862. Based on an evaluation carried out at Marine Wharf (HEA 7) where deposits related to the infilling of the pond were discovered, it was probably located further east than is shown on Horwoods map (ie further away from the site). The Earls Sluice drain crosses the middle of the site running east to west. This is now contained within a modern sewer pipe. The Surrey Canal was built in 18011807, between Rotherhithe and Mitcham. The canal lies c. 85m to the east of the site. It connected to the Thames by a lock. Although the site itself is undeveloped, houses have begun to be built c. 60m to the west, and the land is now bounded by the Surrey Canal to the east, Windmill Lane, leading to the Victualling Office, c. 130m to the south, and the Road to Greenland Dock (named Commercial Dock on Horwoods map), c. 220m to the north-east. In 1806, the dock was sold to William Richie, a Greenwich timber merchant and founder of the Commercial Dock Company (1807). The Company and its rivals continued to build a series of additional docks and yards to the north of Greenland Dock in the 19th century 20. The Ordnance Survey (OS) 1st edition 25 map of 1862 (Appendix A) shows considerable urban and industrial development within the site and its surrounding area. The northern part of the site is now occupied by terraced houses and yards fronting onto Chilton Street and backing onto the Earl Sewer. The south-western corner of the site is undeveloped land.
7.4.32
7.4.33
7.4.34
7.4.35
7.4.36
Page 56
The south-eastern corner is part of a Tar Pitch, Naphtha and Creosote Works. The tar works to the east and a timber yard to the south-east, now made up a large part of the area surrounding the site. The map also shows the development of the railways in the area. The London Brighton and South Coast Railway line is located c. 170m to the south of the site, and the East London Railway c. 415m to the west. Several smaller rail lines branch off from these to the surrounding commercial docks and yards. Areas between the docks and yards, formerly open land, are now occupied by terraced houses. To the east, on the riverbank, South Dock, c. 210m to the east of the site, has been constructed to the south of Greenland Dock. In 1865, the Commercial Dock Company merged with Surrey Docks to form the Surrey Commercial Docks (HEA 18), which came to control around 80% of Londons timber trade 21. 7.4.37 The OS 2nd edition 25 map of 1896 (Appendix A) shows no change other than additional terraced housing in the south-west part of the site (formerly open land). Lower Road, c. 210m to the west of the site was now a main tramline, with a tramway depot c. 240m to the south-west of the site. Earls Sluice has now been covered over. The OS 3rd edition 25 map of 1909 (Appendix A) shows no change other than the former tar works is no longer extant and is now occupied by the northern end of an athletics ground. Some of the buildings formerly occupying the south-eastern corner of the site have been cleared, while some remain extant and presumably disused. By this time Greenland Dock had been greatly extended to the west, and had more than doubled in length and depth, making it the largest in London. A Grade II listed capstan (HEA 17), c. 350m to the north of the site, dated to c. 1898, is located at the northern end of the dock. Capstans were rotating machines used to apply force to ropes and cables, for loading and unloading ships. The London County Council Bomb Damage Maps of 19391945 (not reproduced) show minor impact damage to most of the terraced houses situated on the site, with more severe (but repairable) damage to those on the western side. The revised edition OS 25 map of 1947 (Appendix A) shows considerable change within the area of the site. It has been cleared of houses and the north-eastern part of the site is now occupied by the Thames Water Earl Pumping Station, with two tanks situated immediately to the south. The outline of the proposed development site is now clearly defined, bounded by Chilton Grove to the north, Yeoman Street to the east, terraced houses immediately adjacent to the south-west corner, and a concrete works in place of the former athletic ground at the south-east corner. The OS 1:1250 scale map of 1954 (Appendix A) shows the site and the buildings occupying it in their current layout. Later maps (not reproduced) show no significant changes to the site after this date. The current site 7.4.42 The north-eastern part of the site is currently occupied by the Thames Water Earl Pumping Station (HEA 19; Appendix A Photograph A2.1). The rest of the site is made up of industrial land, occupied by modern light
7.4.38
7.4.39
7.4.40
7.4.41
Page 57
industrial units/offices. Approximately one-third of the site is open hardstanding/tarmac. The pumping station is a T-shaped, single-storey 1940s municipal structure formed of red brick in headerstretcher formation with Art Deco motifs. It is flat roofed with stepped elevations. Fenestration consists of a series of tall, narrow windows, often in pairs, with concrete lintels and two tier tiled sills. The windows on the T-shape at the rear (south-east and south-west) of the building are of a smaller scale but are constructed in the same manner with a low plinth running around the building. Some of the windows to the rear are blind. Access into the building is via a large two-leaf door with concrete surround on the northwest, north-east and south-west elevations. In the centre of the north-east elevation there is a rectangular concrete plaque with the words EARL PUMPING STATION depicted in copper lettering above the doors. The building is surrounded by a low red brick wall with piers on the corners and low railings, which appear original. A further web-fencing has been installed alongside, topped with barbed wire. 7.4.43 Internally, the pumping station contains a 13 bay camber lattice girder truss supporting a concrete form roof (Appendix A Photograph A2.2), which is an unusual design for this period. The building also retains some original fixtures and fittings related to the first occupation of the building (Appendix A Photograph A2.3). The building is surrounded by a low red brick wall with piers on the corners and low railings, which appear original. A further web-fencing has been installed topped with barbed wire. Within the area there is also a series of modern, low-set out-buildings relating to a water/sewage tank (Appendix A Photograph A2.4). Five further buildings are located to the rear (south) of the pumping station. These consist of a steel-framed, covered shed, currently used for storage, fronting Croft Street, with hard-standing to the rear; two small yellow stockbrick structures fronting Yeoman Street and a canopy and further building in the centre of the group, whose position and condition are currently unknown.
7.4.44
7.4.45
Statement of significance: above ground heritage assets

Introduction 7.4.46 In accordance with national policy set out in PPS5, the following section provides a statement based on professional and expert judgement on the likely significance (which is a reflection of the value or importance) of heritage assets, derived from their perceived historical, evidential, aesthetic and communal value. These terms are fully defined in Volume 5. Within site 7.4.47 The Art Deco style Earl Pumping Station (HEA 19) is typical in municipal design and layout of its day. It is in good condition externally. It is likely that the building was designed and planned in the late 1930s but was delayed by the outbreak of World War II, with construction commencing in
Page 58
the late 1940s. The building is of low asset significance, derived from its evidential and historical value. 7.4.48 The other buildings located on the site are of much later date and have no heritage significance. They are therefore not considered further in this assessment. Within the study area 7.4.49 Yeoman Street is cobbled (HEA 20) with patches of macadam repair and likely related to earlier phases of industrial buildings located within the area. The area surrounding the site is a heterogeneous mixture of housing and industrial buildings and working areas, dating from the 19th and 20th centuries, reflecting the sequential piecemeal development of the area. A terrace of two-storey houses (HEA 21), dating to approximately the middle of the 19th century is located c. 60m from the south-west corner of the Earl Pumping Station. Flats located to the north-west and west of the site are post-WWII buildings. Although these localised elements of a historic townscape survive, the majority of nearby structures around the site, both industrial and residential, are modern, and are of negligible heritage significance. As the setting of the site has become mainly modern in character, its significance as a heritage asset is considered to be negligible, and is therefore not considered further in this assessment.
7.4.50
7.4.51
Statement of significance: buried heritage assets on the site

Introduction 7.4.52 The following section discusses past impacts on the site which are likely to have compromised asset survival (generally from late 19th and 20th century developments, eg, building foundations or quarrying), identified primarily from historic maps, the site walkover survey, and information on the likely depth of deposits. In accordance with PPS5, this is followed by a statement on the likely potential and significance of buried heritage assets within the site, derived from current understanding of the baseline conditions, past impacts, and professional judgement. Factors Affecting Survival 7.4.54 Archaeological survival potential across the site is generally likely to be moderate, with localised disturbance from building development from the mid/late 19th century onwards. Remains within and beneath the deeper alluvial deposits, and at the alluvial/gravel interface (ie, palaeoenvironmental and prehistoric Roman remains) are likely to be largely intact. Identified past impacts within the site are listed as follows: a. It is likely that the construction of houses on the edges of the site from the mid-19th century onwards, and industrial buildings in the southeastern corner, will have caused localised ground disturbance, eg, foundations and services to 1.01.5mbgl (possibly deeper for pad
7.4.53
Page 59
foundations of the larger buildings) and up to 3mbgl for basements/cellars. This will have truncated locally any remains at the top of the alluvium and within the overlying made ground (eg, any later medieval and post-medieval remains), although deeper (and earlier) assets potentially survive intact. b. The construction of the Earl Pumping Station sewage works and associated pumps and tanks will have necessitated localised excavation for service trenches and foundations. Current services within the site include a number of drains and cables running throughout the northern part of the site. These are fairly shallow at <1.5m deep, but two combined sewers located at a depth of c. 5.3mbgl. The latter will have removed all archaeological remains locally. The southern area of the site contains fewer services, all of which are located at the eastern and western ends of the site, excepting two foul water drainage pipes, lying at a depth of 3.1mbgl, running east-west and north-south. c. The made ground/archaeological deposit sequence is likely to be c. 4.5m deep below modern ground level. The combined effect of the 19th/20th century building development described above is likely to have significantly reduced archaeological survival and hence asset significance, although localised remains at deeper (earlier) levels are likely to be present.
Asset potential and significance 7.4.55 The following statement of asset significance takes into account the levels of natural geology at the site and the level and nature of disturbance and truncation. Palaeo-environment 7.4.56 The site has a high potential to contain palaeoenvironmental remains. The site is situated on the Thames floodplain, on alluvium, overlying river terrace gravels. Borehole results from within the site have revealed deposits of peaty clay and clay and wood which have a high potential to preserve palaeoenvironmental remains. Previous investigations within the study area have also uncovered organic layers preserving remains such as prehistoric timbers. Such remains would be of low or medium significance depending on their nature and degree of preservation. This would be derived from the evidential value of such remains. Prehistoric 7.4.57 The site has an uncertain, probably moderate potential overall to contain prehistoric remains. Although scattered remains dating to the prehistoric period have been discovered within the study area, it is uncertain whether these are evidence of activity or residual finds (ie outside the context in which they were originally deposited). Available geological information suggests the site lay on higher ground within wet marshland in this period and may have been the focus for activity and settlement. The remains of timber trackways, used to traverse the marshes and boats, may potentially be preserved within such environments. Redeposited finds (moderate probability) would be of low significance. Localised settlement evidence
Page 60
(moderate probability) would be of medium or high significance, in-situ timber structures (low probability) would potentially be of high significance. Roman 7.4.58 The site has an uncertain, probably low potential to contain Roman remains. Although two Roman coin hoards have been discovered within the study area, no other finds or features dating to this period are known. It is possible that the site remained wet marshland in this period. The coin hoards suggest there were dry and habitable areas, but not in the immediate vicinity of the site. Isolated artefacts and features would be of low or medium significance, depending on the nature and extent, eg, if remains indicating industrial activities on the marshes were present. Early medieval 7.4.59 The site has a low potential to contain early medieval remains. There are no known finds or features dated to this period within the site or study area. Previous investigations have revealed evidence of rising water levels in this period which probably rendered the area of the site uninhabitable, but may have provided ideal pasture land. Isolated rural landscape features such as field drainage ditches would be of low or medium significance. Later medieval 7.4.60 The site has a low potential to contain later medieval remains. There are no finds or features dated to this period within the site or study area. It is likely that the open marshland began to be reclaimed in this period, perhaps for pasture or agriculture. Pre-18th century maps show the site as lying in an area of open fields and it is unlikely that later medieval remains will be found on the site. Evidence of reclamation and drainage ditches would be of low significance. This would be derived from the evidential and historical value. Post-medieval 7.4.61 The site has a high potential to contain post-medieval remains. The site and its immediate vicinity began to be developed into a mixed industrial and residential area from the mid-19th century onwards. It is possible that the footings of Victorian terraced houses and factory buildings may survive on the site. Such remains, if present, would be of low significance. This would be derived from the evidential and historical value. The heritage setting of these remains above ground has been compromised by modern residential building development in the area of the site.
Summary of asset significance

7.4.62 Vol 24 Table 7.4.1 provides a summary of the known or likely historic environment assets relevant to the proposed project.
Page 61
Vol 24 Table 7.4.1 Historic environment receptor significance Receptor (Asset) 1940s Earl Pumping Station Asset Type Above ground/within the site Low Significance (value)
High potential for Palaeoenvironmental remains Uncertain, possibly high potential for redeposited artefacts of prehistoric date Uncertain, possibly moderate potential for prehistoric settlement evidence Low potential for prehistoric timber trackways Uncertain, possibly low potential for redeposited Roman artefacts Low potential for early medieval rural landscape features Low potential for evidence of later medieval land reclamation/drainage ditches High potential for buried 19th century remains, including the footings of previous houses and factory buildings and associated yards on the site. Low potential for unknown, unidentified, heritage assets.
Buried/ Low or medium within the site Buried/ Low within the site Buried/ Medium within the site Buried/ High (unlikely) within the site Buried/ Low or medium within the site Buried/ Low within the site Buried/ Low within the site Buried/ Low within the site
Buried/ within the site
Not known
7.5
7.5.1
Construction assessment Above ground heritage assets

No significant changes are proposed to the external appearance of the Earl Pumping Station. Internally the only proposed change to the Pumping Station would be the addition of a control cabinet for the new works. This would constitute a negligible magnitude of impact to the historic asset (which is of low or medium heritage significance) as a whole thus resulting in an effect of negligible significance.
Page 62
Buried heritage assets

Enabling works 7.5.2 Enabling works comprise those works necessary to prepare the site for construction. Works of particular relevance to this assessment are summarised at the start of this Section. They include the demolition of the existing modern depot buildings and below-ground weighbridge in the southern part of the site. The buildings are light industrial structures, and are likely to be founded on simple pad/strip footings. The construction of the works compound is assumed for the purposes of this assessment as being likely to entail site stripping extending to a depth of c. 0.5mbgl. Site fencing will be erected, supported by timber posts in concrete foundations. Office and welfare facilities will be constructed upon pad foundations assumed for the purposes of this assessment as being up to a depth of c. 0.5mbgl. Such works would have a localised impact on any surviving late 19th century remains (of low asset significance) within the made ground. This would locally reduce the significance of the asset to negligible and constitute a low magnitude of impact. Considering the low significance of these assets, this would constitute a minor adverse effect. The enabling works entail the construction of new service trenches within the site, including the footprint of the proposed connection culvert. The existing service trenches are located at 0.41.1mbgl. Provided the new service trenches would be of a similar depth, these works would locally truncate remains of late 19th century terraced housing and factory buildings (low asset significance), within the made ground. This would locally reduce the asset significance from low to negligible, and would amount to a medium magnitude of impact. Considering the low significance of the assets and the localised nature of the impact, this would constitute a minor adverse effect. Construction works 7.5.4 Construction works with potential to impact on the historic environment comprise the following: a. The CSO drop shaft and diaphragm shaft perimeter wall and inner and outer guide walls. b. The interception chamber. The chamber would have a secant pile wall. c. The valve chamber, located between the interception chamber and CSO shaft. The structure would have a secant pile perimeter.
7.5.3
d. The connecting culvert between the existing sewer and the CSO drop shaft. e. Construction of a crane base, including a concrete foundation within guide walls. 7.5.5 The construction works would entirely remove any archaeological remains within the footprint of the CSO drop shaft. Within the footprint of the interception chamber, valve chamber, connecting culvert, dewatering wells and crane base, any archaeological remains present above the formation
Page 63
level of the works would be removed, reducing the significance of any affected assets present here to negligible. This would constitute a high magnitude of impact for these assets. The environmental effect would vary depending upon the significance of the assets removed: a. Palaeoenvironmental remains are likely to be present within the alluvium (ie, below 1.0mbgl) and are of low or medium asset significance. In addition to the physical removal of such remains by the deep constructions mentioned above, dewatering and changes in subsurface water levels is likely to have a wider impact. By changing their environment, dewatering could cause palaeoenvironmental (and organic) remains to decay and reduce their significance from lowmedium to negligible locally. However, these remains are throughout the alluvium, which is extensive, and as only localised removal is proposed, the overall magnitude of impact would be low (as a resource, the overall asset significance would be little reduced), and would constitute a minor adverse effect. b. The site has potential for prehistoric remains, which would be present within the alluvium and at the interface between the alluvium and the gravel (ie, below 1.0mbgl). Certain types of prehistoric remains are more likely to be present than others: i There is an uncertain, possibly high potential for redeposited prehistoric artefacts, which are likely to be of low asset significance if present. Removal of such remains would constitute a minor adverse effect. There is an uncertain, possibly moderate potential for prehistoric activity and settlement remains, which are likely to be of medium asset significance if present. Removal of such remains would constitute a moderate to major adverse effect. There is a low potential for prehistoric trackways, which would be of high asset significance, if present. In the unlikely event that such remains were present and would be removed by the proposals, this would constitute a major adverse effect.
ii
iii
7.5.6 7.5.7
If medieval rural landscape features such as drainage ditches, of low asset significance, were removed this would constitute a minor adverse effect. If post-medieval remains of low asset significance are removed this would constitute a minor adverse effect. Post-medieval remains are projected to be present 0.01.0mbgl. There is a low potential for possible, previously unrecorded remains of unknown significance. The significance of assets could be low to high, depending on the nature, date, extent and survival of the remains. The effect of removing such remains could range from minor to major adverse, depending on asset significance.
7.5.8
Significance of Environmental Effect

7.5.9 The table below summarises the magnitude of impact upon known and possible historic environment assets at the site (above ground and buried), during the construction phase, and the resulting environmental effect.
Page 64
This is the effect prior to the implementation of an agreed mitigation strategy. Vol 24 Table 7.5.1 Historic environment construction effects Asset (resource) Impact (magnitude, and justification) Above ground heritage assets Earl Pumping Station (Low asset significance) Negligible Negligible The removal of associated modern structures would not directly affect the building Buried heritage assets High potential for Palaeoenvironmental remains (Low or medium asset significance) Low Potential impact from all ground works, deep or shallow. Further wider impact from dewatering. The impact is considered low as the resource is anticipated to be extensive, within the alluvium Minor Impact from excavation for CSO shaft, interception and valve chambers, culvert and vent shaft. Asset significance reduced to negligible where affected High Impact from excavation for CSO shaft, interception and valve chambers, culvert and vent shaft. Asset significance reduced to negligible where affected High Impact from excavation for CSO shaft, interception and valve chambers and wider impact from dewatering. Minor adverse Effect (prior to mitigation)
High potential for redeposited artefacts of prehistoric date (Low asset significance)
Minor adverse
Moderate potential for prehistoric activity or settlement (Medium to high asset significance)
Moderate to Major adverse
Low potential for prehistoric timber trackways (High asset significance)
Major adverse (unlikely)
Page 65
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Asset (resource)
Section 7: Historic environment Impact (magnitude, and justification) Effect (prior to mitigation)
Above ground heritage assets Significance of the asset reduced to negligible Uncertain, possibly low potential for redeposited Roman artefacts (Low asset significance) High Impact from excavation for CSO shaft, interception and valve chambers and wider impact from dewatering. Significance of the asset reduced to negligible High Impact from excavation for CSO shaft, interception and valve chambers and wider impact from dewatering. Significance of the asset reduced to negligible High Impact from excavation for CSO shaft, interception and valve chambers and wider impact from dewatering. Significance of the asset reduced to negligible High Potential impact from all ground works, deep or shallow. Asset significance reduced to negligible locally Minor adverse
Low potential for early medieval rural landscape features
Minor adverse
Low potential for evidence of later medieval land reclamation/drainage ditches (Low asset significance) High potential for buried 19th century remains, including the footings of previous houses and factory buildings and associated yards on the site (Low asset significance) Low potential for unknown unidentified remains (Unknown asset significance)
Minor adverse
Minor adverse
Uncertain
Uncertain
Page 66
7.6
7.6.1
The operational phase is not considered to result in significant effects on heritage assets and therefore this has not been assessed.
7.7
7.7.1 7.7.2

Mitigation measures that are likely to be required are detailed below. Above ground heritage assets There would be no significant effects on above ground heritage assets, therefore no mitigation is required. Buried heritage assets Based on this assessment, no heritage assets of very high significance are anticipated that might merit a mitigation strategy of permanent preservation in situ. It is therefore considered that the adverse environmental effects of the proposed development could be successfully mitigated by a suitable programme of archaeological investigation before and/or during construction, to achieve preservation by record (through advancing understanding of asset significance). The assessment presented here has identified likely significant effects on buried heritage assets resulting from ground works. Mitigation requirements would be informed by selective site-based assessment. This could include a variety of techniques, such as geotechnical investigation, geoarchaeological deposit modelling, archaeological test pits and trial trenches. This evaluation would enable a more targeted and precise mitigation strategy to be developed for the site post-consent and in advance of construction. Given the evidence available at this desk based stage, it is anticipated that the archaeological deposits on the site comprise c. 1m of made ground, above c. 4.0m of alluvium. Subject to the findings of any subsequent field evaluation post-consent and prior to the start of construction , mitigation of the adverse effects upon archaeological remains within the site is likely to include the following: a. An archaeological watching brief during demolition and construction, to mitigate impacts to 19th century remains of low asset significance. b. Due to the depth of alluvium on the site, mitigation of the impacts of deeper proposed excavations on palaeoenvironmental and prehistoric remains would only become feasible following the insertion of the perimeter walls/shaft segments of each construction (the shaft, the chambers etc). Targeted archaeological investigation would proceed as the ground within the perimeter walls/shaft segments is excavated downwards.
7.7.3
7.7.4
7.7.5
7.7.6
Both evaluation and mitigation would be carried out in accordance with a scope of works (Written Scheme of Investigation(WSI)). This will be agreed with statutory consultees prior to conducting any archaeological fieldwork prior to or during construction, to ensure that the scope and
Page 67
method of fieldwork are appropriate to satisfy requirements of the application.
Page 68
7.8
Mitigation Residual significance
Assessment summary
Vol 24 Table 7.8.1 Historic environment assessment summary - construction
Asset (receptor) Above ground heritage assets None required Negligible
Significance of effect
Earl Pumping Station (Low asset significance) Buried heritage assets Environmental sampling during archaeological investigation Negligible
Negligible
High potential for Palaeoenvironmental remains (Low or medium asset significance)
Minor Adverse
High potential for redeposited artefacts of prehistoric date (Low asset significance)
Minor Adverse
Negligible
Moderate potential for prehistoric activity or settlement (Medium to high asset significance)
Moderate to Major adverse
Archaeological investigation and recording as the shaft, inception chamber and valve chamber are excavated downwards following insertion of perimeter walls
Negligible
Low potential for prehistoric timber
Major adverse (unlikely)
Negligible
Page 69
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Mitigation Residual significance
Asset (receptor) Above ground heritage assets
trackways (High asset significance)
Uncertain, possibly low potential for redeposited Roman artefacts (Low asset significance)
Minor or moderate adverse
Low potential for early medieval rural landscape features (Low asset significance)
Minor adverse
Low potential for evidence of later medieval land reclamation/drainage ditches (Low asset significance)
Minor adverse
High potential for buried 19th century remains, including the footings of previous
Minor Adverse
Archaeological watching brief during enabling works and construction, ensuring archaeological assets are not
Negligible
Page 70
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Mitigation Residual significance
Asset (receptor) Above ground heritage assets removed without record
houses and factory buildings and associated yards on the site (Low asset significance) Archaeological investigation and recording as the shaft, inception chamber and valve chamber are excavated downwards following insertion of perimeter walls Negligible
Low potential for unknown unidentified remains (Unknown asset significance)
Not known
Page 71
7.9
7.9.1
In terms of desk based sources, the outstanding information that will contribute to the EIA baseline comprises the results of geoarchaeological monitoring of geotechnical boreholes (clarifying depth and nature of deposits). Internal inspection of the pumping station building on the site would clarify the significance of this asset (low or medium), but as the project will have no impacts on this asset, it is not proposed to carry out such an inspection. Possible effects of ground settlement resulting from deep constructions within the site, other than the tunnel itself (this will be discussed in Volume 6: project-wide effects) will be considered and reported in the ES. Assessment of cumulative and in combination effects will be undertaken and reported in the ES. Following completion of the assessment, the mitigation approaches for the historic environment within the project will be finalised and reported in the ES.
7.9.2
7.9.3
7.9.4 7.9.5
Page 72
Section 8: Land quality
8 8.1
8.1.1 8.1.2
Land quality Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant land quality effects at the Earl Pumping Station site. This section should be read in conjunction with Section 13 (Groundwater), Section 14 (Surface Water), Section 5 (Aquatic Ecology) and Section 6 (Terrestrial Ecology).
8.2
8.2.1
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to land quality are described below. Measures incorporated into the draft CoCP to reduce land quality impacts are summarised in Section 4.6.
8.2.2
Construction
8.2.3 Permanent works at Earl Pumping Station include: a. b. c. 8.2.4 A large diameter drop shaft extending to the underlying Chalk geology An interception chamber for the existing CSO overflow. A connection culvert to the drop shaft.
The base of the main shaft is within the Chalk so dewatering and/or ground treatment will be required within the Lambeth Group/ Thanet Sand/ Chalk. Construction workers involved in intensive below ground works are high sensitivity receptors. Measures incorporated into the draft CoCP which aim to substantially reduce risks associated with construction activities include: a. the remediation of the site so it is fit for purpose (where required) b. the use of appropriate PPE as well as training and welfare for construction staff c. confined space working measures where applicable d. the employment of UXO specialist advice.
8.2.5
8.2.6
The CoCP includes measures to minimise the migration of dusts during construction activities. These include the use of wheel washing at site entrances, damping down during dry weather and covering and safe storage of potentially contaminating materials (if any).
Operation
8.2.7 On completion, the operational structures will comprise a ventilation column adjacent to the shaft. The permanent works area will be graded and surfaced with concrete and paving and members of the public will be able to access the area immediately around the shaft.
Page 73
8.3
8.3.1 8.3.2

Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. There were no site specific comments from consultees for this particular site.
Construction and operation

8.3.3 8.3.4 The construction and operational phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.

8.3.5 The assumptions and limitations associated with this assessment are presented in Volume 6. There are no site specific assumptions and limitations for the site.
8.4
8.4.1
Baseline conditions
Baseline conditions have been assessed for the development confines and for a distance of up to 250m beyond (in order to take into account off site contamination sources and receptors). The baseline data was sourced from the Thames Tunnel Geographical Information Systems (GIS) database, including historic maps and environmental records. In addition information has been sourced from a walkover survey, stakeholder consultation and results from a preliminary intrusive ground investigation undertaken by the Thames Tunnel project. A full list of the data sets drawn upon in this assessment is presented in Volume 5 methodology.
8.4.2
Site walkover
8.4.3 8.4.4 A site walkover was undertaken on the 9th November 2010. A site walkover report is presented in Appendix B. It is understood that Japanese Knotweed was identified in the industrial unit which forms the southern part of the site.
Site history and surroundings with potential for contaminants

8.4.5 Vol 24 Table 8.4.1 provides a summary of the site history, including potentially contaminative activities and principal contaminants of concern in and around the site. The table was produced following inspection of the historic mapping dating from the late 19th century to the present day held by the project, together with a site walkover in order to more fully understand the site and surrounding area. The locations of the sites described below are shown on Vol 24 Figure 8.4.1.
Page 74
Vol 24 Figure 8.4.1 Land quality - contaminative land uses (see Volume 24 Figures document) Vol 24 Table 8.4.1 Land quality - contaminative land use Ref Item Inferred date of operation c1950 present Potentially contaminative substances associated with item
On-site 1 Pumping Station
Asphalt/Naptha Works
c1874 1880
Heavy metals, arsenic, free cyanide, nitrates, sulphates, sulphides, asbestos, oil/fuel hydrocarbons, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbon, chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons, PCBs, pathogens (eg, faecal coliforms). Heavy metals, arsenic, sulphides, asbestos, acetone, oil/fuel hydrocarbons, PAHs, PCBs, tars, cyanide and related compounds. Heavy metals, arsenic, asbestos, phenols, oil/fuels, hydrocarbons, PAHs, PCBs, sulphides, sulphates, chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, alpha, beta, gamma hexachlorocyclohexane Heavy metals, arsenic, boron, sulphates, phenol, oil/fuel hydrocarbons, asbestos, aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs, PCBs, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons. Heavy metals, arsenic, boron, nitrates, sulphates, sulphides, asbestos, aromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, PCBs Heavy metals, arsenic, boron, nitrates, sulphates, sulphides, asbestos, aromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, PCBs Heavy metals, arsenic, boron, sulphates, phenols, acetone, aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs, cresols Heavy metals, sulphates , asbestos, PAHs, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, PCBs. Heavy metals, arsenic, boron, sulphates, phenols, acetone, aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs, cresols Heavy metals, arsenic, asbestos, phenols, oil/fuel hydrocarbons, PAHs, PCBs, sulphides, sulphates, chlorinated aromatic
Off-site 3 Commercial Basin (200m north)
c1874
Tar Works and associated tanks (nearest is 7m east and 10m south) a) Floor Cloth Manufacturer (190m southwest) b) Engineering works (190m southwest) a) Timber Yard (110m east) b) Railway Yard (110m east) Timber Yard and Saw Mill (35m south) Docks (210m northeast)
c1874 1896
c1874 1880
c1970
c1874 1970 c1896 1967 c1896 present c1896 present
Page 75
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Ref Item Inferred date of operation
Section 8: Land quality Potentially contaminative substances associated with item
10
11
12
13 14 15
16
17
18
19
hydrocarbons, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, alpha, beta, gamma hexachlorocyclohexane India Rubber c1896 Zinc, sulphur, sulphates , phenol, aromatic Works (110m hydrocarbons, chlorinated aliphatic south) hydrocarbons, PCBs. Whiting Works c1896 Heavy metals, arsenic, boron, free cyanide, (145m 1972 nitrates, sulphates, sulphide, asbestos, southeast) aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs, PCBs, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons. Commercial c1896- 1985 Oil/fuel hydrocarbons, aromatic Yard and hydrocarbons, PAHs, chlorinated aliphatic Warehouse hydrocarbons, organolead compounds. (120m north) heavy metals and asbestos Canal Lock c1916 Heavy metals, arsenic, asbestos, phenols, (165m north) present oil/fuel hydrocarbons, PAHs, PCBs, sulphides, sulphates, chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, alpha, beta, gamma hexachlorocyclohexane Warehouse c1916 Contents unknown (165m north) 1981 Swedish Yard c1916-1985 Heavy metals, sulphates , asbestos, PAHs, (115m northeast) chlorinated Aliphatic Hydrocarbons, PCBs. a) Timber Yard c1949 Heavy metals, arsenic, boron, sulphates, 210m southeast) 1960 phenols, acetone, aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs, cresols b) Works (210m c1960 Heavy metals, arsenic, boron, nitrates, southeast) 1970 sulphates, sulphides, asbestos, aromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, PCBs Canon Wharf c1950 Heavy metals, arsenic, boron, sulphates, Timber Yard and 1970 phenols, acetone, aromatic hydrocarbons, associated mills PAHs, cresols and works (115m south) Insulcrete Works C1950 Heavy metals, arsenic, sulphide , asbestos, (Breeze Blocks) present acetone, oil/fuel hydrocarbons, PAHs, PCBs (adjacent south) (80m southeast) Surrey c1970 Heavy metals, arsenic, asbestos, phenols, Commercial 1985 oil/fuels, hydrocarbons, PAHs, PCBs, Docks (160m sulphides, sulphates, chlorinated aromatic north) hydrocarbons, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, alpha, beta, gamma hexachlorocyclohexane Laundrette c1985 Heavy metals, arsenic, selinium, free
Page 76
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Ref Item Inferred date of operation
Section 8: Land quality Potentially contaminative substances associated with item cyanide, nitrates, sulphates , asbestos, aromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, PCBs. Heavy metals, arsenic, boron, nitrates, sulphates, sulphides, asbestos, aromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, PCBs Oil/fuel hydrocarbons, aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, organolead compounds. heavy metals and asbestos Heavy metals, arsenic, boron, sulphates, phenols, acetone, aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs, cresols Oil/fuel hydrocarbons, aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, organolead compounds. heavy metals and asbestos Heavy metals, arsenic, boron, free cyanide, nitrates, sulphates, sulphide, asbestos, aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs, PCBs, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons. Heavy metals, arsenic, boron, nitrates, sulphates, sulphides, asbestos, aromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, PCBs
(115m south)
20
Engineering works (205m south) Transport depot and garage (5m west) Timber yard (10m east) Historical railway (Deptford Wharf Branch) (180m south) Whiting Works (230m southeast) Primus Works (Engineering) (75m south)
c1970
21
c1970
22
c1970
23
c1916
24
c1916
25
c1950
8.4.6
The earliest map reviewed from the late 19th century indicates that the northern part of the site was already developed with housing by this time. The southern area was shown to be occupied by part of a large tar works which extended to the south. The site area is specifically labelled as tar, pitch, naphtha, and creosote works. Substantial further timber works and tar works existed to the south and east at this time and the Grand Surrey Canal was also present approximately 90m to the east. By the 1910s much of the adjoining tar works was redeveloped as an athletics ground. The pumping station was constructed prior to 1950 and is marked as having included tanks (believed to be diesel tanks) which were located along the southern boundary of the pumping station. The southern part of the site and previously marked athletics ground was redeveloped as insulcrete (concrete block) manufacturing site at this time. By the 1960s a garage (possibly motor vehicle repair) had been constructed in the south western part of the site. Land on the opposite side of Croft Street was first developed for a depot at this time. This was subsequently labelled as a transport depot.
8.4.7 8.4.8
8.4.9
Page 77
By the mid -1980s the railway yard which existed since the 19th century had been converted to a warehouse and a large laundry had been built 200m south of the site. The concrete works, transport depot, pumping station, docks and timber yard all still existed. In the present day, the concrete works, transport depot, pumping station, docks and timber yard all still exist though it is noticeable that there are many more residential properties in the surrounding area, particularly along the edge of the docks.
8.4.11
Geology and hydrogeology

8.4.12 At the time of writing there were no specific Thames Tunnel ground investigation within the site which may inform on the geological succession underneath. However data from the British Geological survey provided to Thames Tunnel GIS includes geological data from a borehole approximately 150m south-west of the site. This data, along with logs from boreholes excavated as part of previous investigations of the site has been used to produce the geological succession summarised in Vol 24 Table 8.4.2 however it may not match the geological succession directly beneath the site. Further ground investigation is planned by Thames Tunnel in summer 2011. Controlled waters (ie, surface water and groundwater) can potentially represent a pathway for the spread of mobile contaminants as well as being a sensitive environmental receptor. The Environment Agency (EA) Aquifer Designation maps have been used to classify the geological units according to their aquifer status which is also presented in the table below. Vol 24 Table 8.4.2 Land quality - anticipated site geology Geological Unit/ Strata Made ground River Terrace Deposits Description Approximate depth below ground level (m) 0.0-2.9 2.9-8.1 Hydrogeological classification Unclassified Secondary A Superficial Aquifer
8.4.13 8.4.14
Lambeth Group (Upnor Formation)
Varies Medium dense to dense to dense sand and gravel (predominantly quartz sand and flint gravel). The Upnor Formation 8.1-10.0 comprises dense silty glauconitic sand with bands of rounded black pebbles.
Secondary A Bedrock Aquifer the formation may be in hydraulic continuity with the underlying Thanet Sand and Chalk.
Thanet Sand
Generally dense glauconitic
10.0-14.5
Secondary A
Page 78
Section 8: Land quality Approximate depth below ground level (m)
Geological Unit/ Strata
Description
Hydrogeological classification Bedrock Aquifer the formation is thought to be in continuity with underlying Chalk
Formation including silty fine sand with occasional the Bullhead Beds rounded flint gravel. The Bullhead Beds mark the bottom of the formation and comprise gravel and cobbles of flint. Chalk Group Weak fine grained limestone 14.5-unproven with nodular and tabular flints.
Principal Bedrock Aquifer
Hydrology
8.4.15 The nearest surface water body is the Greenland Dock located approximately 175m to the north. Also in close proximity is the South Dock approximately 200m to the north-west. Both docks are connected to the River Thames. Further discussion on hydrology is presented in the water resources (surface water) topic chapter.
Unexploded Ordnance
8.4.16 During World Wars I and II, the London area was subject to bombing. In some cases bombs failed to detonate on impact. During construction works unexploded ordnance or bombs (UXO) are sometimes encountered and require safe disposal. A desk based assessment for UXO threat was undertaken for proposed ground investigation works at the proposed development site. The report reviews information sources such as the Ministry of Defence (MoD), Public Records Office and the Port of London Authority. The report establishes that there were numerous Luftwaffe targets in the area and that nearby areas suffered bomb damage during the 1940 to 1941 bombing campaign which included a v2 rocket strike within 50m of the site. However, subsequent redevelopment works having taken place on the site and it is considered that there is an overall low/medium threat from UXO at the site.
8.4.17
8.4.18
Thames Tunnel ground investigation

8.4.19 At the time of writing there was no specific Thames Tunnel ground investigation in the immediate vicinity of the site which may inform on land quality issues beneath the site. Further ground investigation is planned by Thames Tunnel in summer 2011 and will be reported in the ES. Locations of planned boreholes is shown in Vol 24 Figure 8.4.2. Vol 24 Figure 8.4.2 Land quality - proposed borehole locations (see Volume 24 Figures document)
8.4.20
Page 79
Other environmental records

8.4.21 Details of environmental records for the vicinity of the site held by the EA and other bodies were obtained from the Thames Tunnel GIS which is partially sourced from Landmark Information Group. Significant records are discussed in further detail after the summary table below. Items in the table are also shown in Vol 24 Table 8.4.3 and Vol 24 Figure 8.4.3. Vol 24 Figure 8.4.3 Land quality - environmental records and waste sites (see Volume 24 Figures document) Vol 24 Table 8.4.3 Land quality - environmental records and waste sites Item Licensed Industrial Activities Hazardous Substance Sites Pollution incidents to controlled water Waste Treatment and Disposal Sites Landfill sites Industrial authorisations (IPPC, COMAH, PPC) Past Potential Contaminated Uses Licensed Abstractions 8.4.23 On-site 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Within 250m of site boundary 0 0 0 1 2 0 4 0
8.4.22
Within a 250m radius of the site, GIS mapping has identified two landfill sites. One of these is the former (now infilled) Surrey Canal which runs approximately 100m east of the site. The other is 100m to the south of the site on the existing concrete works site there are no details on the materials either of these facilities accepted. There is also one registered waste transfer site immediately east of the site. This is adjacent to a depot and it may be that the depot is used for waste transfer. There are four sites located within the 250m radius that are identified as having past potentially contaminating industrial uses (including one on site). From an analysis of the historical mapping data it can be inferred that the past potential contaminated industrial uses could be attributed to two former tar works, a former timber yard to the south of the site and the former floor cloth manufacturer. Likely contaminants associated with these types of industries are identified in Vol 24 Figure 8.4.1.
8.4.24
8.4.25
Page 80
The environmental search data confirms the earlier historical map search that the site is in a former industrial area with past and existing potential contaminating land uses at and in close vicinity of the site.
Radon
8.4.27 Reference to the indicative Radon map of the England and Wales shows that the site lies within an area as where less than 1% of dwellings are identified to fall above the action level for radon protection. The underlying geology is not considered to pose a significant radon risk.
8.4.28
Thames Water operational records

8.4.29 Thames Water were consulted with respect to the potentially contaminating substance storage and operational spillages at the Earl Pump Station site within the last five years. Thames Water did not identify that the bulk storage of hydrocarbons or other potentially contaminating liquids was currently taking place at the site. No spillages of any potentially contaminating substances to ground were recorded.
8.4.30
8.4.31
Technical engagement
8.4.32 The site is located within the London Borough of Lewisham at the boundary of the London Borough of Southwark, as such both local authorities were consulted with respect to any information they may have in relation to the land condition at the site. The London Borough of Lewisham did not have any data, but advised that a search of their planning portal be carried out for possible relevant documents. The search of the planning website revealed two sites within the 250m buffer that had information relating to land quality. The site at 7 17 Yeoman Street, Surrey Quays is located immediately opposite the site and was subject to desk study work by Card Geotechnics. The report supports the findings of the present baseline report and concludes that there was a low to moderate risk from contamination at the site. The report references site investigations to the south which recorded extensive hydrocarbon contamination. Although the nature of the contamination and the location of the boreholes was not given. The second site is located at Marine Wharf approximately 80m to the east (the location of former timber yard highlighted by the historical mapping). Phased investigations of the site have taken place over a number of years. The earlier (1990s) investigations revealed localised gross contamination of the shallow (River Terrace) aquifer with petroleum hydrocarbons. Free phase (floating product) up to 50mm in thickness was noted locally. Additionally creosote impacted groundwater within the River Terrace Deposits was noted by a later (2008) phase of work. No contamination of
8.4.33
8.4.34 8.4.35
8.4.36
8.4.37 8.4.38
Page 81
the underlying Thanet Sand Formation was identified. Soils at the site were also recorded to be contaminated with a variety of substances including asbestos, arsenic and creosote. 8.4.39 The London Borough of Southwark had no information that was relevant to land quality at the Earl Pump Station site.
8.5
8.5.1 8.5.2
Assessment year: construction For land quality, the assessment is based on the likely baseline conditions which would be experienced in Year 1 of construction. It is anticipated that land quality baseline conditions will not alter significantly from those described above by the commencement of the construction.
Development of conceptual model

8.5.3 A key element of the Preliminary Risk Assessment for land quality is the development of source-pathway-receptor conceptual model which aims to understand the presence and significance of potentially complete pollutant linkages. The methodology for undertaking this analysis is provided in Volume 6. The following section outlines the sources, pathways and receptors which are relevant to the land quality assessment at the site. Sources of contamination 8.5.6 8.5.7 The following potential sources of contamination have been identified: On site a. b. c. d. 8.5.8 a. 8.5.9 Sewage pumping station (including former diesel tanks) Residual contamination from previous and adjacent site usage (including tar/creosote/naphtha works) Possible unexploded ordnance Japanese Knotweed Adjacent industrial land use to the south and east
8.5.4 8.5.5
Off site Pathways The following pathways for contamination have been identified: a. human uptake through: ingestion of exposed contaminated soils during construction; inhalation of soil/dust, volatilised compounds or ground gas via migration through permeable strata and conduits; or dermal contact with exposed soils during construction; horizontal and vertical migration of leachable contaminants via groundwater within the upper aquifer in the River Terrace Deposits and lower aquifer in the Upnor Formation/Thanet Sand/Chalk;
b. c.
Page 82
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station d. e. f. g. h. 8.5.10
vertical migration of contaminants along preferential pathways created by excavation of diaphragm wall; direct contact of soils with construction materials; accidental detonation of UXO; and gas/vapour migration through pipes/foundations, along piles and into structures. direct contact with and spread of Japanese Knotweed rhizomes
Receptors The following receptors have been identified: a. b. c. d. e. f. 8.5.11 8.5.12 Construction workers Site end users (maintenance staff and public) Off site receptors - residents and workers Built environment Controlled waters - groundwater in upper and lower aquifer which may be in continuity Terrestrial ecology
The sensitivity of the land quality receptors are defined in Vol 5 Table 7.4.2. The following section discusses the potential impacts on receptors as a result of the existing land quality conditions at the site. Impacts and effects upon construction workers Desk based information suggests that the soils beneath the site may be contaminated, principally as a result of previous (historic) site usage. Additionally ongoing off-site sources such as residual contamination of the shallow aquifer may continue to contribute to contamination beneath the site. Such contamination may pose a risk to construction workers via a variety of pathways including, direct contact and vapour pathways. There is also the potential for the build-up of asphyxiant or explosive gases associated with contamination confined space construction. Although the strata recorded by the investigation do not appear to contain a significant biodegradable fraction, some elevated soil gas may be associated with fuels contamination that has been recorded on nearby sites and this therefore needs to be considered. Overall, the magnitude of the impact is likely to be negligible, giving a slight effect (not significant). Impacts and effects upon off-site receptors
8.5.13
8.5.14
8.5.15
The construction works may result in the creation of new pathways for contaminants to migrate to adjacent sites eg, via wind-borne dust during excavated material handling and storage or by migration of liquid contaminants through newly created service conduits.
Page 83
Whilst the sensitivity of adjacent commercial and residential sites is moderate to high, the impact from this will be negligible giving a slight effect (not significant). Impacts and effects upon built environment High levels of certain contaminants, if contained within subsurface materials, can lead to impacts on the built environment (both existing and proposed), including chemical attack on buried concrete structures. Additionally the uncontrolled growth of Japanese Knotweed can have a deleterious effect on structures. The detonation of potential unidentified buried UXO could represent a risk during construction. The built environment is a low sensitivity receptor and following the proposed procedures such as site investigation, UXO surveys, Japanese Knotweed eradication and remediation, the magnitude of impact is judged to be negligible, giving a negligible effect (not significant). Impacts and effects on terrestrial ecology A stand of Japanese Knotweed was identified previously on the site. Japanese Knotweed is an invasive species and it is an offence under the Countryside and Wildlife 1981 to cause the spread of this plant. Further discussion on the impacts is presented in the terrestrial ecology Section 6. Vol 24 Table 8.5.1 Land quality impacts - construction Impact Health impacts on construction workers Magnitude, and justification Negligible soils unlikely to be contaminated plus measures such as use of correct PPE, safety briefings and remediation of contaminated soils reduce impacts substantially. Negligible contaminated soils are unlikely to be encountered additionally measures for dust suppression, correct storage of potentially contaminated materials, wheel washing at site entrance will substantially reduce impacts in the event of finding contamination. Negligible - measures such as UXO specialists employed to advise staff reduce impacts substantially. Negligible - measures such investigation for selection of concrete mix reduce impacts.
8.5.17
8.5.18 8.5.19
8.5.20
8.5.21
Health impacts on off-site receptors - workers and members of the public
Damage to built environment existing structures Damage to built environment proposed structures
Page 84
Vol 24 Table 8.5.2 Land quality receptors - construction Receptor Construction workers Off-site receptors residents and workers Built environment - existing Built environment - proposed Value/sensitivity and justification High intensive below ground construction High residential premises close to site Low infrastructure Low infrastructure
Vol 24 Table 8.5.3 Land quality effects - construction Effect Slight effect on construction workers Slight effect on off-site receptors Negligible effect on built environment - existing Negligible effect on built environment - proposed Significance, and justification Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant
8.6
8.6.1
Operational effects could include potential exposure to end users from contaminated soils and for the leakage of sewage from the shaft into the surrounding soils. Impacts and effects on future site users The future site users include maintenance workers who would be working on the site occasionally and members of the public who would be able to access the completed hardstanding above the shaft. These are low (eg, maintenance workers visiting the site occasionally and wearing personal protection equipment) to moderate sensitivity receptors (eg, members of the public). Following the design measures incorporated into the construction phase (investigation, soil and groundwater as necessary) as well as the placement of newly built hardstanding there is not considered to be any impacts to the public from pre-existing contamination in the completed development. There is some potential for maintenance personnel to be impacted by elevated ground gases. The completed shaft is designed to have sophisticated gas and odour control measures as part of the design due to gassing source represented by the tunnel contents.
8.6.2
8.6.3
8.6.4
Page 85
Shaft design (including secondary lining) would ensure that any outflow from the shaft is unlikely and that there is a negligible impact to the identified receptors giving a negligible effect (not significant). Impacts and effects upon built environment The principal impact relates to the potential for the degradation of new structures by attack from deleterious substances which may in turn reduce the integrity of the structure (and could promote leakage of sewage through the walls of the shaft). The proposed built environment is a low sensitivity receptor and with the inclusion of the proposed measures such as suitable concrete mix design and soil remediation (as necessary), the impact of the effect is low giving a negligible effect overall (not significant). In addition it is possible that elevated gases may be able to impact proposed above ground structures. These are however very limited and measures, such as site investigation, gas risk assessment and the incorporation of measures into building design (such as gas resistant membranes if necessary), mean the magnitude of impact is negligible. This gives a negligible effect (not significant). Vol 24 Table 8.6.1 Land quality impacts - operation Impact Health impacts on site end users Magnitude, and justification Negligible provision of shaft construction negates risk to end users from foreshore area. Ventilation of shaft to ensure no gas build-up form sewage prevents risks to construction personnel from inground gases. Negligible - measures such as incorporation of gas membranes in buildings and suitable concrete mix design reduce impacts Negligible - measures such as remediation of heavily contaminated soils reduce risks substantially.
8.6.6
8.6.7
8.6.8
Damage to built environment proposed structures
Damage to built environment existing structures
Vol 24 Table 8.6.2 Land quality receptors - operation Receptor Site end users Value/sensitivity and justification Industrial/infrastructure end use may be considered as low sensitivity. However, present plans allow members of the public to be able to access the area of completed above ground works - the latter may be
Page 86
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Receptor
Section 8: Land quality Value/sensitivity and justification considered as high sensitivity receptors. Low industrial/infrastructure Low industrial/infrastructure
Built environment existing Built environment - proposed
Vol 24 Table 8.6.3 Land quality effects - operation Effect Negligible to slight effect on end users Negligible effect on built environment - existing Negligible effect on built environment proposed Significance, and justification Not significant Not significant Not significant
8.7
8.7.1
Construction The assessment has not identified the need for further site specific mitigation measures during the construction phase. Operation The assessment has not identified the need for further site specific mitigation measures during the operational phase.
8.7.2
Page 87
8.8
Vol 24 Table 8.8.1 Land quality assessment - construction Effect Slight effect on construction workers Slight effect on off-site receptors Negligible effect on built environment existing Negligible effect on built environment proposed Not significant Not required Not significant Not required Not significant Not required Not required Significance Not significant Mitigation
Assessment summary
Residual significance No residual effects identified No residual effects identified No residual effects identified No residual effects identified
Receptor Construction workers
Off-site receptors residents and workers
Built environment - existing
Built environment - proposed
Vol 24 Table 8.8.2 Land quality assessment - operational Significance Not significant Not significant Not significant Mitigation Not required Not required Not required Residual significance No residual effects identified No residual effects identified No residual effects identified
Receptor Site end users
Effect Negligible effect on End Users
Existing built environment
Negligible effect on existing built environment
Proposed built environment
Negligible to slight effect on proposed built environment
Page 88
8.9
8.9.1 8.9.2 8.9.3 8.9.4
New data from site investigations (including new boreholes and foreshore samplings) will be reviewed and the baseline updated as required. Assessment of cumulative and in combination effects will be undertaken and reported in the ES. Following completion of the assessment the mitigation approaches for land quality within the project will be finalised and reported in the ES. Impacts on groundwater, surface water and aquatic ecology will be assessed and reported in the ES.
Page 89
Section 9: Noise and vibration
9 9.1
9.1.1
Noise and vibration Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant noise and vibration effects at the Earl Pumping Station site. This section includes an assessment of the following: a. Noise and vibration from the construction site activities b. Noise from construction traffic on roads outside the site c. Noise and vibration from the operation of the site.
9.1.2
9.1.3
The tunnel drive for the main tunnel does not run beneath this location, however, the drop shaft would be located above the connection tunnel from Greenwich connection tunnel. Noise and vibration from the tunnelling activities associated with the main tunnel are considered in (Volume 6).
9.2
9.2.1
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to noise and vibration are as follows. Construction Measures incorporated into the draft CoCP to reduce noise and vibration impacts include: a. careful selection of construction plant (conforming to the relevant SI), construction methods and programming b. equipment to be suitably sited so as to minimise noise impact on sensitive receptors c. use of site enclosures, and temporary stockpiles, where practicable and necessary, to provide acoustic screening
9.2.2
d. choice of routes and programming for the transportation of construction materials, excavated material and personnel to and from the site e. careful programming so that activities which may generate significant noise are planned with regard to local occupants and sensitive receptors. 9.2.3 9.2.4 It has been assumed for the purpose of this assessment that the hoarding height will be 2.8m at this location. Where the need for additional noise control measures (beyond standard best practicable means measures described in the CoCP) has been identified, these have not been assumed for the purposes of the assessment. Where that the assessment indicates that these are likely to be required, this information has been added to the section on mitigation.
Page 90
For the purposes of the noise and vibration assessment the construction activities have been grouped into the following stages of work: a. Enabling works (including demolition) b. Shaft sinking c. Interception and CSO works d. Completion work (including landscaping, and construction and fit-out of permanent facility).
9.2.6 9.2.7
The above-ground works (stages a and b) have the potential to create airborne noise and vibration impacts. Some noise would be generated for stages c and d, however as stage c would be mostly carried out below ground level, impacts from this stage are considered to be much lower. Stage d is likely to be much smaller in scale than the other stages considered here. Stages a and b have the potential to generate groundborne noise and vibration impacts, namely from vibratory compaction and dynamic compaction respectively. Diaphragm walling by hydrofraise attachment is proposed at this location. This is considered a low vibration method and as such has not been quantitatively assessed, as it is considered not significant effects would arise from these stages. The drop shaft is along the Greenwich connection tunnel, and no separate connection tunnel is required at this location. Plant schedules for stages c and d (CSO works and completion work respectively) are not available at this stage of the design so these works have not been assessed at this stage. However, these activities are assumed to be much smaller in scale than the rest of the works, would not involve heavy construction operations and the in the case of the interception and CSO works, would in the main take place underground. This information will be assessed in the ES once the information becomes available. The Phase two consultation logistics strategy considers the delivery and removal of material from site by road. Estimated vehicle numbers are presented in Section 3.3. The majority of the stages would be carried out during standard (core) hours as identified in Vol 24 Table 3.3.1. As such, only daytime working is considered at this location. The exception to this is the requirement for extended hours working which has been proposed for major concrete pours. This has not been quantitatively assessed as it is considered no significant effects would arise from these activities owing to the assumed short durations involved. Operation The permanent installation would have a structure above the drop shaft, including a ventilation column. This permanent structure would only house passive equipment, which will not generate noise. The electrical and control equipment will be housed within the existing pumping station building. This equipment would be required to operate under various
9.2.8
9.2.9
9.2.10
9.2.11
9.2.12
Page 91
different scenarios dependent on the flows into and along the tunnel, with the potential to operate at any time of the day or night. The plant installed and the cascade events have the potential to create noise and vibration impacts.
9.3
9.3.1
Assessment methodology
Scoping and engagement Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. There were no site specific comments from consultees for this particular site relating to noise and vibration. Baseline The baseline methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site. Construction The construction phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site. At this location, the construction stages have been assessed over a four year construction period. Operation The operational phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site. Assumptions and limitations Noise-related environmental design measures have been assumed as defined in the CoCP. Measures incorporated into the draft CoCP to reduce noise and vibration impacts include: a. careful selection of construction plant and methods b. use of site enclosures, and temporary stockpiles where appropriate c. choice of routes and programming for the transportation of construction materials, excavated material and personnel to and from the site.
9.3.2
9.3.3
9.3.4
9.3.5
9.3.6
The assessment has been carried out based on the assumption that the noisiest two activities within any one stage could potentially occur onsite simultaneously for the duration of the stage. This is an extremely conservative approach, as the activities are unlikely to last the duration of any one stage. At the current level of construction planning, this is considered a reasonable assumption for the purposes of the assessment and would be refined as the construction methodology develops. The assessment of construction traffic effects has been based on predicted numbers of construction traffic movements (presented in Section 3), using professional judgement at this stage. This assessment will be revisited and presented in the ES upon receipt of baseline traffic data. While it is considered that there is a possibility for noise and vibration effects arising from water cascading during tunnel filling events at
9.3.7
9.3.8
Page 92
receptors very close to drop shafts, it has not been possible to adequately assess this as part of this report. The likely noise and vibration emissions however be estimated as the cascade design develops and will be reported in the ES.
9.4
9.4.1
Baseline conditions
This section reviews the setting and receptor characteristics of the site for the purposes of this assessment. The site is located within the existing Thames Water Earl Pumping Station site and adjacent industrial units, within the London Borough of Lewisham. The site is bounded by residences to the north, west and south and by industrial units to the east. The four storey properties to the north of the site (18-32 Yeoman Street) form the nearest residences to the north. Adjacent to these are a much taller block of flats at 1-39 Chilton Grove. These all lie within the London Borough of Southwark. The nearest residences located west of the development are residential flats at 108 to136 Chilton Grove. To the south of the worksite, the endterrace property 62 Croft Street is adjacent to the boundary wall of the worksite. The residential properties selected for the noise and vibration assessment are identified in Vol 24 Table 9.4.1. These are shown in plan view in Vol 24 Figure 9.4.1 and selected to be representative of the noise range of noise climates where sensitive receptors are situated around the site. The approximate numbers of properties affected at each of these locations is indicated in Vol 24 Table 9.4.2. Beyond these receptors there are other residential locations which are screened from the site by intervening buildings. Other noise sensitive receptors which have been assessed are the offices which form part of the industrial units on Yeoman Street. Distant road traffic noise is the dominant noise source at the site, along with noise from the industrial units. A baseline noise survey has been carried out around the site according to the baseline measurement method set out in Volume 5, Section 2. The specific details of this survey such as the measurement times, locations measured results and local conditions are described in Appendix C. The summarised noise level results are shown below in Vol 24 Table 9.4.1. Vol 24 Figure 9.4.1 Noise and vibration receptors (see Volume 24 Figures document)
9.4.2
9.4.3
9.4.4
9.4.5 9.4.6 9.4.7
Page 93
Vol 24 Table 9.4.1 Noise and vibration receptors locations Ref Receptor addresses Local authority Measured average daytime ambient noise level*, dBLAeq, 65 61 62 60 65 Noise Survey Location
EP1 EP2 EP3 EP4 EP5
18 32 Yeoman Street 1-39 Chilton Grove 108-136 Chilton Grove
London Borough of Southwark London Borough of Southwark London Borough of Southwark
PLM1X Noise 1 PLM1X Noise 2 PLM1X Noise 3 PLM1X Noise 4 PLM1X Noise 1
52-60 Croft Street London Borough of Southwark Unit 1, Yeoman Street London Borough of Southwark
* Facade corrected level
Receptor sensitivity
9.4.8 The noise sensitive receptors have been assessed according to their sensitivity, according to the methodology outlined in Volume 5 Section 2.3. The sensitivities of all assessed receptors are presented in the table below. All residential receptors have been assessed as having a high sensitivity. The only non-residential receptor assessed at this location is the office building at Unit 1Yeoman Street, which has been assigned a medium sensitivity. Vol 24 Table 9.4.2 Noise and vibration receptors Ref Receptor addresses Building Use Sensitivity No. of noise sensitive properties/ areas 15 39 29 6 1
9.4.9
EP1 EP2 EP3 EP4 EP5
18-32 Yeoman St 1-39 Chilton Grove 108-136 Chilton Grove 52-60 Croft St Unit 1, Yeoman St
Residential Residential Residential Residential Offices
High High High High Medium
Page 94
The criteria for determining the significance of noise effects from construction sources are dependent upon the existing ambient noise levels. From the ambient noise levels measured during the baseline survey, the assessment category and assessment noise threshold levels for the receptors near Earl Pumping Station are as shown in the table below. As described in the assessment methodology, this follows the ABC method for determining construction noise significance defined in BS 5228:2009 22. Vol 24 Table 9.4.3 Noise (airbourne) categories - construction Ref Noise sensitive receptor Ambient noise level, rounded to nearest 5dBLAeq* 65 60 60 60 Assessment category* Significance criterion threshold level*, dBLAeq, 10hour 65 65 65 65
**
EP1 EP2 EP3 EP4 EP5
18 32 Yeoman Street 1-39 Chilton Grove 108-136 Chilton Grove 52-60 Croft Street
A A A A n/a
Offices on Yeoman 65 Street
n/a**
* From ABC method BS5228:2009 ** ABC method BS5228:2009 does not apply directly to non-residential receptors
9.5
9.5.1

The noise level for the base case for the assessment is expected to be as measured during the baseline noise surveys conducted in 2011. It is understood that there are plans for extensive redevelopment of the area adjacent to the site. The redevelopment includes housing on Yeoman Street, however this would not be closer to the site than any residential receptors which have been assessed. Where there is a variation in the conditions during the first year of construction, it is likely that the noise levels would increase compared to the measured data from 2011 (due to natural traffic growth and the potential for additional construction noise from adjacent developments), and as such an assessment based on data from 2011 would be worst case. It is not considered that there are any other circumstances at this location that would cause the baseline noise levels at the receptor locations to change significantly between 2011 and the first year of construction.
9.5.2
Page 95
For vibration, it is considered that the levels of vibration around the site are low at present, and they are unlikely to change between the present time and the future base case. The development case is therefore assumed to be the base case plus any additional noise and vibration sources associated with the construction phase.
9.5.4
9.5.5 Predictions of construction noise have been carried out based on information available to date and presented in Section 3. Noise measures incorporated in the CoCP have been assumed for the purposes of the assessment. At all locations, the top floor of residences would directly overlook the site despite the site hoarding. Construction noise 9.5.7 The results of the assessment of construction noise are presented in Vol 24 Table 9.5.1 to Vol 24 Table 9.5.5. 18-32 Yeoman Street 9.5.8 The predicted noise levels at these properties exceed the impact criterion threshold at all floors, for a total duration of 15 months. The upper floors are not screened from the works, and so the excess at these properties is much higher. Based on the BS5228 criterion this would be rated as a significant impact. Vol 24 Table 9.5.1 Noise impacts at EP1, 18-32 Yeoman Street construction Receptor No. of noise sensitive properties 15 Significance criterion threshold level, dBLAeq Value/sensitivity
9.5.6
18 32 Yeoman Street Activity Impact (noise level*, dBLAeq)
High Magnitude/ justification Excess above criterion, dBLAeq -5 -4 +5 +6 Approx. activity duration, months 3 12 3 12
Ground Floor Enabling Works Shaft Sinking Third Floor** Enabling Works Shaft Sinking 75 76 70 70 65 66 70 70
* Construction noise only
Page 96
** Worst case floors assessed not necessarily the highest floor level
1-39 Chilton Grove 9.5.9 At ground floor level, the impact criterion is not exceeded, however at all floors above the ground floor level, there is no screening from the site hoarding and so the levels are much higher. Based on the BS5228 criterion this would be rated as a significant impact. Vol 24 Table 9.5.2 Noise impacts at EP2, 1-39 Chilton Grove construction Receptor No. of noise sensitive properties 39 Impact (noise level*, dBLAeq) Significance criterion threshold level, dBLAeq Value/sensitivity
1-39 Chilton Grove Activity
High Magnitude/ justification Excess above criterion, dBLAeq -1 -1 +9 +9 Approx. activity duration, months 3 12 3 12
Ground Floor Enabling Works Shaft Sinking Fourth Floor** Enabling Works Shaft Sinking 74 74 65 65 64 64 65 65
* Construction noise only ** Worst case floors assessed not necessarily the highest floor level
108 -136 Chilton Grove 9.5.10 The predicted noise levels at these properties exceed the impact criterion at all floors, for a total duration of 15 months. The upper floors are not screened from the works, and so the excess at these properties is much higher. Based on the BS5228 criterion this would be rated as a significant impact. Vol 24 Table 9.5.3 Noise impacts at EP3, 108 -136 Chilton Grove construction Receptor No. of noise sensitive properties 29 Value/sensitivity
108 -136 Chilton Grove
High
Page 97
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Activity Impact (noise level*, dBLAeq)
Section 9: Noise and vibration Significance criterion threshold level, dBLAeq Magnitude/ justification Excess above criterion, dBLAeq +1 +2 +11 +11 Approx. activity duration, months 3 12 3 12
Ground Floor Enabling Works Shaft Sinking Fifth Floor** Enabling Works Shaft Sinking 76 76 65 65 66 67 65 65
*Construction noise only ** Worst case floors assessed not necessarily the highest floor level
52 - 62 Croft Street 9.5.11 The predicted noise levels at these properties exceed the impact criterion at all floors, for a total duration of 15 months. The first floor is not screened from the works, and so the excess at these properties is much higher. This can therefore be considered a significant impact. Vol 24 Table 9.5.4 Noise impacts at EP4, 52 62 Croft Street construction Receptor No. of noise sensitive properties 6 Significance criterion threshold level, dBLAeq Value/sensitivity
52 62 Croft Street Activity Impact (noise level*, dBLAeq)
High Magnitude/ justification Excess above criterion, dBLAeq +4 +4 +14 +14 Approx. activity duration, months 3 12 3 12
Ground Floor Enabling Works Shaft Sinking First Floor** Enabling Works Shaft Sinking 79 79 65 65 69 69 65 65
* Construction noise only ** Worst case floors assessed not necessarily the highest floor level
Page 98
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Offices on Yeoman Street 9.5.12
The upper floors of the office block on Yeoman Street directly overlook the site, and the building is located very close to the vehicular entrance of the site. It should be noted that the BS5228 ABC method does not apply directly to non-residential receptors; hence impact has been evaluated based on the absolute noise level and the predicted noise level relative to the ambient noise. The increase above existing ambient noise levels is unlikely to cause excessive disturbance at ground floor level, but is considered to potentially cause adverse impact on upper floors given the predicted noise level. Vol 24 Table 9.5.5 Noise impacts at EP5, Offices on Yeoman Street construction Receptor No. of noise sensitive properties n/a Ambient baseline dBLAeq Value/ sensitivity Medium
Offices on Yeoman Street Activity Impact (noise level*, dBLAeq) 69
Magnitude/ justification
Ground Level Enabling Works Shaft Sinking Second Floor** Enabling Works Shaft Sinking 79 65 14dB increase relative to ambient baseline noise level over 3 months 14dB increase relative to ambient baseline noise level over 12 months 65 4dB increase relative to ambient baseline noise level over 3 months 4dB increase relative to ambient baseline noise level over 12 months
69
65
79
65
* Construction noise plus only ** Worst case floors assessed not necessarily the highest floor level
Construction traffic 9.5.13 For construction traffic, the residential nature of the area is such that that there are relatively low volumes of road traffic passing through. It is considered that the increase in noise level would create a slight impact. Based on the fact that the industrial units to the west of the development site include several haulage firms, and so a disproportionately high amount of heavy good vehicles are likely to already be using Yeoman
Page 99
Street, where the site entrance is located. This can be verified when the traffic assessment data is available. Construction vibration 9.5.14 The assessment of construction vibration considers events which have the potential to result in damage to buildings or structures and human response to vibration separately using different parameters. The assessment of potential construction vibration impacts at adjacent buildings / structures has been assessed using the predicted Peak Particle Velocity (PPV), according to the criteria given in Volume 5. The results of the assessment of construction vibration are presented in the table below. Vol 24 Table 9.5.6 Vibration impacts at buildings/structures construction Ref Receptor Impact (highest predicted PPV across all activities, mm/s) 0.4 Value/ sensitivity Magnitude and justification
9.5.15
EP1
18 32 Yeoman Street
High
EP2
1-39 Chilton Grove
0.6
High
No impact: Below threshold for potential cosmetic damage No impact: Below threshold for potential cosmetic damage No impact: Below threshold for potential cosmetic damage No impact: Below threshold for potential cosmetic damage No impact: Below threshold for potential cosmetic damage
EP3
108-136 Chilton Grove
0.9
High
EP4
52-62 Croft Street 1.6
High
EP5
Offices on Yeoman Street
1.4
Low
Page 100
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station 9.5.16 9.5.17
The vibration levels reported here are well below the levels likely to cause building damage according to the criteria described in Volume 5 Section 2. The assessment of potential construction vibration impacts due to human response at neighbouring receptors has been assessed using the predicted estimated Vibration Dose Value (eVDV). The results from the assessment are presented in the table below. Vol 24 Table 9.5.7 Vibration, human impacts -construction Ref Receptor Impact (highest predicted VDV across all activities, m/s1.75) * 0.19 Value/ sensitivity Magnitude and justification**
EP1
18 32 Yeoman Street
High
No impact: Below Low Probability of Adverse Comment No impact: Below Low Probability of Adverse Comment Impact: Adverse Comment Possible Impact: Adverse Comment Possible No impact: Below Low Probability of Adverse Comment
EP2
1-39 Chilton Grove
0.14
High
EP3
0.22
High
EP4
52-62 Croft Street 0.37
High
EP5
Offices on Yeoman Street
0.37
Low
1 2
Worst affected floor Categorisation of magnitude as defined in Volume 5 Section 2
9.5.18
The predicted eVDV levels range from below the Low Probability of Adverse Comment to Adverse Comment Possible as described in Volume 5 Section 2. It should be noted that these predicted levels are based upon the worst case conditions that may arise during vibration intense activities within the site compound.
Page 101
The precise methods used for this procedure would be considered in more detail in the ES to verify the predictions. However, this assessment indicates that there is a risk of relatively high exposure levels and in order to reduce the levels as far as possible, the methodology for providing compaction at this location will need to be developed carefully as the design progresses. Summary of construction effects Vol 24 Table 9.5.8 outlines the assessed significance of effects from all sources of noise and vibration based on the extent of impacts identified above. As described in the general methodology Volume 5 Section 2, the significance of noise effects is based on the predicted impact and other factors, ie, the construction noise level relative to the significance threshold, the numbers and types of receptors affected and the duration of impact. The significance of vibration effects is assessed on the magnitude of exposure relative to guidance thresholds for disturbance as well as other factors including the number of affected receptors and their uses. Vol 24 Table 9.5.8 Noise and vibration construction effects Ref EP1 EP2 EP3 EP4 EP5 Receptor 18 32 Yeoman Street 1-39 Chilton Grove 108-136 Chilton Grove 52-62 Croft Street Unit 1, Yeoman Street Significance, and justification Noise Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Vibration Not significant Not significant Significant Significant Not significant
9.5.20
9.5.21
9.5.22 9.5.23
The assessment identifies significant noise effects at all assessed receptor areas. Significant effects due to vibration have been identified at two of the receptors assessed.
9.6
9.6.1

As discussed in Section 9.5, there is likely to be only a small variation in baseline noise levels between the baseline survey and the future base case year. The noise levels measured in 2011 are therefore likely to form the basis of a conservative assessment, as road traffic noise levels would increase along with traffic increases.
Page 102
For vibration, no change is assumed between the present time and future base case.
Operational effects
9.6.3 Noise control measures would be included on all plant items as part of the design process to limit noise increases to within appropriate noise limits to avoid disturbance. These limits will help inform the ongoing design of the project, will be relative to the existing background noise levels at each receptor using the methodology in BS4142:1997 23 and will be established in negotiation with the local authority to ensure the limits proposed are acceptable and achievable. Discussions with the local authority are ongoing and will be presented in the ES. It is not possible to quantify the overall change in noise level until this process is complete. However, it is considered that it will be possible to control noise emissions to within appropriate noise limits defined by the local authority to prevent significant effects. The table below contains a summary of the assessment results for operational noise. Vol 24 Table 9.6.1 Airborne noise impacts -operation Ref Receptor Impact Value/ sensitivity High Magnitude and justification Change in ambient noise subject to local authority limits no adverse impact Change in ambient noise subject to local authority limits no adverse impact Change in ambient noise subject to local authority limits no adverse impact Change in ambient noise subject to local authority limits no adverse impact
9.6.4
EP1
18 32 Yeoman Street
Noise level controlled to prevent adverse impact as per BS4142* Noise level controlled to prevent adverse impact as per BS4142* Noise level controlled to prevent adverse impact as per BS4142* Noise level controlled to prevent adverse impact as per BS4142*
EP2
1-39 Chilton Grove
High
EP3
High
EP4
52-62 Croft Street
High
Page 103
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Ref Receptor Impact
Section 9: Noise and vibration Value/ sensitivity Medium Magnitude and justification Change in ambient noise subject to local authority limits no adverse impact
EP5
Unit 1, Yeoman Street
Noise level controlled to prevent adverse impact as per BS4142*
BS4142:1997
9.6.5
During the design process, noise levels would be controlled to meet the limits currently being negotiated with the local authority to prevent adverse impact at sensitive receptors. Therefore, no impacts are identified at this location. As part of the operation of the tunnel, there would need to be routine but infrequent maintenance carried out at the site. This is described further in Section 3. A crane would be required for 10 yearly shaft inspections. This would be carried out during normal working hours, using equipment which is likely to increase ambient noise levels. Given the infrequency of this operation, it is considered that a significant noise effect would not occur. Routine inspections, lasting approximately half a day, would occur every three to six months and would not require heavy plant. As this would be carried out during the daytime with minimal noisy equipment operating over short periods of time, it is considered that further assessment of noise generated by this activity is not required. As no impacts have been identified from the operation of the site, no significant effects have been identified. Vol 24 Table 9.6.2 Noise and vibration effects - operation Ref Receptor Significance, and justification Noise from surface site ventilation plant EP1 EP2 EP3 EP4 EP5 18 32 Yeoman Street 1-39 Chilton Grove 52-62 Croft Street Unit 1, Yeoman Street Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Noise from maintenance operations. Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant
9.6.6
9.6.7
9.6.8
9.6.9
108-136 Chilton Grove Not significant
Page 104
At this location, no significant effects are predicted at any of the receptors. This is subject to the equipment being specified with appropriate noise control measures to ensure that the targets in BS4142 are met as outlined in Volume 5, Section 2.
9.7
9.7.1 9.7.2

All measures embedded in the draft CoCP of relevance to noise and vibration are found in Section 9.2. Significant construction effects have been predicted at all assessed receptors around the site. This is based on a worst case assessment where the two noisiest activities in any stage happen concurrently and over the entire duration of the stage. This is a conservative approach considered appropriate for the level of information provided to date and will be refined once further information is available and reported in the ES. The surrounding buildings are all more than two stories high, and close to the site, and as such the standard site hoarding only provides screening to the ground floor of the properties. However at this site, the properties on Croft Street would benefit from an increased site hoarding height on the southern edge of the site. This may have ramifications on the visual impact to these properties, which would need to be further assessed. For all other properties, the hoarding height would need to be extremely high to reduce the noise levels at these receptors. It is likely that hoarding at a height to provide effective screening would not be practicable. Significant vibration effects have also been identified at two receptors and additional mitigation would be applied where practicable and effective at this location. All stages of works assessed as having the potential to give rise to likely significant effects (enabling works and shaft sinking) would require additional mitigation, if practicable, to supplement the best practicable means (BPM) environmental design measures assumed for all sites. The quantitative assessment has assumed only general BPM measures, as far as it is possible to incorporate these in the noise and vibration prediction exercise. These include site boundary screening, careful selection of modern construction plant, and positioning of equipment. To address significant effects, specific solutions will be developed as appropriate to provide additional mitigation targeted on those noise and vibration sources generating the highest noise/vibration levels at the relevant receptor. For example, within this more detailed mitigation design, the use of localised screens and customised enclosures around the item of plant or the process would be considered. For the purposes of the PEIR and at this stage of the design, site specific additional mitigation beyond BPM measures has not been identified in the assessment. However, when the potential mitigation options for the illustrative project can be confirmed, this will be presented in the ES.
9.7.3
9.7.4
9.7.5
9.7.6
9.7.7
Page 105
Operational
9.7.8 No significant effects as a result of the operation of the site have been identified, hence no additional permanent noise mitigation is required at this location. It should be noted that operational plant design for the ventilation of the tunnel would include environmental design measures to meet noise limits to be agreed with the local authority to avoid significant effects.
9.7.9
Page 106
9.8
Vol 24 Table 9.8.1 Noise and vibration construction assessment Significance Mitigation to be reported in the ES Mitigation Residual significance Potentially significant (subject to mitigation options) Not significant Potentially significant (subject to mitigation options) Not significant Potentially significant (subject to mitigation options) Not significant Not significant Potentially significant (subject to mitigation options) Potentially significant (subject to mitigation options) Not significant
Assessment summary
Receptor
Effect
18 32 Yeoman Street None required Mitigation to be reported in the ES
Noise
Significant
Vibration
Not significant
1-39 Chilton Grove None required Mitigation to be reported in the ES
Noise
Significant
Vibration
Not significant
108-136 Chilton Grove Mitigation to be reported in the ES Mitigation to be reported in the ES Mitigation to be reported in the ES
Noise
Significant
Vibration
Significant
52-62 Croft Street
Noise
Significant
Vibration
Significant
Unit 1, Yeoman Street None required
Noise
Significant
Mitigation to be reported in the ES
Vibration
Not significant
Page 107
Vol 24 Table 9.8.2 Noise and vibration operational assessment Significance None required Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant None required None required None required None required None required None required None required None required None required Mitigation Residual significance
Receptor
Effect
Noise
Not significant
18 32 Yeoman Street
Vibration
Not significant
1-39 Chilton Grove
Noise
Not significant
Vibration
Not significant
Noise
Not significant
Vibration
Not significant
52-62 Croft Street
Noise
Not significant
Vibration
Not significant
Noise
Not significant
Unit 1, Yeoman Street
Vibration
Not significant
Page 108
9.9
9.9.1
The completion of the assessment to an appropriate level of detail is subject to further information on baseline and construction road traffic. When the transport analysis is complete this will be assessed and any effects identified in the ES. The next stage of the assessment work will be more detailed in profiling the variation in construction noise levels across the programmes of work and the range of receptors at each surface site. It has not been possible to adequately assess the potential for noise and vibration from water cascading down drop shafts during tunnel filling events. The likely noise and vibration emission will be estimated as the cascade design develops and would be included in the ES. As the illustrative construction methodology develops more indepth assessment work will allow more detailed mitigation design. Following the development of more refined mitigation design as described above, it will be possible to carry out a more detailed assessment of residual effects. The effectiveness of more specific mitigation measures will be fully assessed and reported in the ES. Assessment of cumulative and in combination effects will be undertaken and reported in the ES.
9.9.2
9.9.3
9.9.4 9.9.5
9.9.6
Page 109
Section 10: Socio-economics
10 10.1
10.1.1 10.1.2
Socio-economics Introduction
This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant socio-economic effects at the Earl Pumping Station site. This section does not include consideration of operational phase effects in socio-economic terms for the following reason: a. Potential air quality, noise and vibration, and visual effects during the operational phase, if occurring at all, are likely to be relatively low or not significant and able to be readily mitigated. As a result, they are unlikely to cause deterioration in the amenity experienced by users of nearby open spaces or nearby residents. Accordingly, they were scoped out within the Scoping Report and have not been considered further within this assessment. b. Effects on employment land were scoped in within the Scoping Report. However, as is noted in the baseline below, the land at the site is no longer designated as employment land. Furthermore, it is not likely that there would be any significant permanent loss of land as a result of the development. This would mean that there would be no loss of land, for either employment purposes or any other purposes, at the site. Accordingly, no significant effects are expected and no further consideration to this issue has been given.
10.2
10.2.1
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to socio-economics are as follows. Construction Measures incorporated into the draft CoCP to limit, and in some cases eliminate, significant adverse air quality, noise, vibration and visual impacts could also reduce socio-economic impacts, particularly amenity impacts. Please see Section 4 Air Quality and Odour, Section 9 Noise and Vibration, and Section 11 Townscape and Visual. The proposed works would necessitate the demolition of industrial/warehousing premises that presently accommodate three businesses. Both the construction related activities and traffic (including lorry movements) could result in amenity effects being experienced by a range of sensitive receptors in proximity to the proposed activities. Operation As described in Section 10.1, no significant operational effects have been scoped in for consideration during the scoping stage.
10.2.2
10.2.3 10.2.4
10.2.5
10.2.6
Page 110
10.3
10.3.1
Scoping and engagement Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. There are no site specific comments from consultees for this particular site relating to socio-economics. Baseline The baseline methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site. Construction The construction phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. Any site specific variations are described below: a. The assessment years used for consider the potential for socioeconomic effects in terms of construction activity have covered the period from the establishment of the site and ending approximately four years later. Operation
10.3.2
10.3.3
10.3.4
As described in Section 10.1, no significant operational effects have been scoped in for consideration during the scoping stage. Assumptions and limitations The following assumptions and limitations apply to the above findings: a. Existing employment levels at businesses will be determined in due course. When available, this data will provide additional information for the assessment of receptor value/sensitivity. Assumptions have been made based on best practice guidance on employment densities 24.
10.3.5
10.3.6
Preliminary technical assessments of potential air quality, noise and vibration, and visual effects, and associated design and mitigation measures, have been undertaken by each of those respective topic areas (see Sections 4, 9 and 11 respectively). The socio-economic assessment has been informed by the preliminary findings of these topic assessments.
10.4
10.4.1
Baseline conditions
Utilities and business activities on site Activity taking place on-site consists of the Thames Water owned Pumping Station occupying the northern part of the site and three businesses, engaged in industrial and warehousing activities, occupying the southern part. Discussions are currently ongoing between Thames Tunnel and businesses on-site to ascertain the number of people employed by the existing businesses on-site and their operating floorspace. For the purpose of this report, it is therefore necessary to make a preliminarily
10.4.2
Page 111
estimate of the floorspace and number of employees which could be accommodated at the site. 10.4.3 It is estimated that the plot area of land currently taken up by the businesses is 2,100m2. Applying a standard plot ratio of 0.45 based on best practice guidance from the former Office of the Deputy Prime Minister 25 there will be approximately 945 m2 Gross External Area (GEA) of employment generating space. If this were used for warehousing (B8 use), applying the HCAs suggested employment density of 70m2 per worker the site would likely accommodate 14 employees. If the site was used for industry (B2 use), applying a factor of 0.92 to the 945 m2 to calculate Gross Internal Area (GIA), results in a figure of 869 m2 of employment space for this use. Applying an employment density of 36 m2 per worker, the site would be capable of accommodating approximately 24 employees. In terms of businesses sensitivity to changes in their operational working arrangements the following factors have been considered: a. Given their nature, the activities taking place on-site could be replicated at other industrial and warehousing premises within LB of Lewisham or in the wider Greater London area. The displacement of these activities would however result in physical inconvenience both for the owner/operator, employees and existing customers. This could in turn result in financial losses being incurred by a business and its employees. b. In terms of available alternative premises, the LB of Lewisham Employment Land Study (ELS) (2008) indicated that, in 2006, 13% of the total industrial and warehousing floorspace in LB of Lewisham (542,000m2) was vacant 26 . 10.4.6 On the basis of the nature of the businesses activities taking place on-site, potential costs involved with relocation, and the availability of premises, the sensitivity of the businesses to changes in their operational working arrangements is considered to be medium. See Vol 24 Figure 10.4.1 for a baseline plan which indicates the features identified above. Vol 24 Figure 10.4.1 Socio-economic context (see Volume 24 Figures document) Business activities off-site 10.4.8 To the southeast of the site there are other industrial buildings including a vehicle depot and its ancillary three-storey office building. There are other industrial buildings to the east of the site across Yeoman Street. The identified businesses, based on the activities taking place, are not considered likely to be directly impacted or displaced by the proposed development. Accordingly, no assessment of their sensitivity has been made and they are not considered further within the assessment. See Vol 24 Figure 10.4.1 for a baseline plan which indicates the features identified above.
10.4.4
10.4.5
10.4.7
10.4.9
10.4.10
Page 112
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Employment land 10.4.11
The site and adjacent industrial land did until 29th June 2011 form part of the Plough Way District Employment Area (DEA) as allocated in LB of Lewishams superseded Unitary Development Plan 27. The site had therefore been allocated for employment generating uses. The adoption of the Lewisham Core Strategy has led to the reallocation of the site and all of the adjoining employment land to the south and east as part of the Plough Way Strategic Site, allowing for employment and mixed use redevelopment to come forward. This designation allows for comprehensive employment and mixed use redevelopment to come forward through a masterplanning exercise. It is proposed that redevelopment should include 20% of the built floorspace (being) developed on the (Plough Way) site for a mix of business space (B1(c), B2, B8) as appropriate. The Core Strategy also states operation of the Pumping Station will not be compromised by the areas redevelopment 28. Although the site is currently in employment use, its reallocation means that its use can no longer considered to be restricted only to employment generating purposes. Accordingly, no assessment of the sensitivity of businesses to the loss or disruption to the supply of designated employment land is considered necessary and this effect is not considered further within the assessment. See Vol 24 Figure 10.4.1 for a baseline plan which indicates the features identified above. Residential The surrounding area has a mix of terrace housing and medium rise local authority-built dwellings. The closest dwellings to the site are a row of 12 terrace houses to the immediate south of the site along Woodcroft Mews; the closest of which shares a boundary with the proposed site. To the north of the site directly across Chilton Grove there is a mixture of residential buildings containing flats that range in style, age and height (being between four to six storeys high). There are also L-shaped four storey post-war blocks of flats of local-authority built housing on Croft Street to the west of the site. The street layout surrounding the site means that other residential dwellings beyond those described may have a direct line of sight to the proposed site. The ground floor dwellings houses at Chilton Grove have private gardens which are located along Chilton Grove itself, opposite the site. There is some semi-private amenity space at the north of these houses. There is also some semi-private amenity space to the west of the housing on Croft Street. There is some screening provided by fencing and roadways between the site and the residences to the north and west of the site area. The location of these residential buildings in relation to existing employment land/industrial premises means that they could experience some impacts such as noise, and possibly air quality, disturbances. The area does not have a purely residential aesthetic, but is characterised by
10.4.12
10.4.13
10.4.14
10.4.15 10.4.16
10.4.17
10.4.18
Page 113
the mixture of residential buildings and employment sites that currently exist. 10.4.19 In terms of the potential sensitivity of the occupants of the dwellings in the area, it is considered that overall, residents are likely to be vulnerable to amenity impacts arising from the construction process. This is due to the fact that residents cannot easily take steps to avoid in combination amenity effects that may arise. Residents are likely to be less sensitive to any noise disturbance during the day and more sensitive during the evening and at night-time, particularly during sleeping hours. The sensitivity of residents to amenity impacts may be mediated by character and mix of uses currently existing in the area. Taking these factors into account, and given that the construction processes would be limited to daytime working hours at this site, it is assessed that the residents are likely to have a medium level of sensitivity overall to amenity impacts that may arise as a result of construction activity. See Vol 24 Figure 10.4.1 for a baseline plan which indicates the features identified above.
10.4.20
Receptor sensitivity
A summary of receptors as described in the baseline conditions and their sensitivity is provided in the table below. Vol 24 Table 10.4.1 Socio-economics receptors Receptor Businesses at the site and their employees Value/sensitivity and justification Medium up to 24 employees are likely to be displaced; apparent availability of alternative employment locations within LB of Lewisham Medium residents less able to avoid effects but less sensitive during the day when the effects will be experienced
Residents of nearby properties
10.5

Base case
10.5.1
For this site, the base case year is Year 1 of the construction works. This is the year when site establishment is proposed to commence and marks the start of the assessment period for socio-economic effects. There may potentially be changes to the baseline conditions on-site as a result of the following: a. As discussed in para. 10.4.13, the proposed site and the neighbouring land to the south and east is currently used for employment generating purposes and forms part of the Plough Way Strategic Site within the
10.5.2
Page 114
newly adopted LB of Lewisham Core Strategy 29. It is expected that 1,500 new homes would be built at Plough Way over the plan period (to 2026), however no specifics are given within this document as to the preferred or likely uses at the proposed project site itself. It is not possible therefore to forecast with certainty what the implications of this policy change may be in the short or medium term or to forecast what uses might be at the site in the future (with the exception of the Pumping Station area, which will be retained). It is therefore assumed that the existing businesses would still be on-site in the base case year. b. The existence of several planning applications for residential led mixed-use schemes in the vicinity of the site as part of the Plough Way redevelopment. Dependent on the phasing of this development, new residential properties or other sensitive receptors may exist to the south and west of the site in the base case year, within additional dwellings being completed during the construction phase. This includes: i ii Cannon Wharf (696 units) immediately to the south of the site, which would likely be under construction during the base case. Further east, there are also applications for redevelopment of Marine Wharf West (which has achieved decision to grant) for 532 residential units plus business space). It is assumed that this would also be under construction during the base case.
c.
There are also likely to be changes in the number and type of businesses located in the area and several businesses may close or relocate within or out of the area as a result of the above discussed policies and plans.
10.5.3
Other than the above, it is assumed that the base case would be largely the same ie, the socio economic conditions at the site would remain the same as existing conditions. Development case Under the development case, it is expected that the following changes to the baseline would occur: a. Several industrial/warehouse type buildings would be demolished, resulting in the displacement of three businesses, to create a physically cordoned-off construction area.
10.5.4
10.5.5
Other than the above, it is assumed that the development case for other socio-economic conditions at the site would be the same as set out in the baseline conditions and base case above.
Displacement of businesses 10.5.6 The construction works would result in the demolition and thus displacement of the three businesses currently at the site.
Page 115
A preliminary estimate is that the three businesses on site accommodate work space for up to 24 employees, based on the activities that they are engaged in. It is likely that businesses would require alternative premises to operate from for the duration of the construction period. Displacement of any businesses would be of medium term duration (approximately four years). In terms of reversibility, the impact has the potential to be temporary and, with the exception of a small area of land required for operational structures, reversible at the end of the construction period. However, it is likely that once settled at new premises the businesses may choose not to return to the existing site. For the purposes of this assessment it is considered that the businesses do not depend intrinsically on their location at this site to attract business and would be able to carry their customers with them to a new location within Lewisham or the southeast of London. On the basis of all of the above factors, it is assessed that the magnitude of the impact could be low. Taking account of the low magnitude of the impact and the medium sensitivity of the activities to displacement, it is assessed that the effect arising from the displacement of business activity will likely be minor adverse and therefore not significant. Effects on residential amenity Air quality, noise, and visual impacts arising as a result of the proposed construction works and construction related traffic may potentially act individually or in combination with one another to reduce the environmental amenity experienced by residents living nearby to the proposed site, on Chilton Grove, Croft Road, and Woodcroft Mews. Detailed technical assessments of likely significant noise, air quality, visual and traffic effects, and potential associated design and mitigation measures, are currently underway. At the time of writing, based on available information, changes in amenity resulting from individual and in combination effects can only be assessed in outline (see Volume 5 para 2.4.90). Preliminary assessments have been undertaken to examine the likely significant air quality, noise and vibration, and visual effects on residents at surrounding local residential receptors. With respect to the proposed works at Earl Pumping Station, the following preliminary findings of these assessments are as follows: a. Air quality and construction dust effects are likely to be minor adverse. Such effects arising as a result of the proposed works are therefore likely to result in a significant effect on residents for the duration of the construction period. b. Noise effects on residents have been measured as likely to be significant at all four residential receptors identified. Vibration (human response) effects are likely to be significant at two out of the four receptors.
10.5.8
10.5.9
10.5.10 10.5.11
10.5.12
10.5.13
10.5.14
Page 116
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station c.
Visual effects are likely to be minor adverse from viewpoint 1.9 looking east from residences on Chilton Grove for the duration of the construction period.
10.5.15
For further information, please refer to Section 4 Air Quality and Odour, Section 9 Noise and Vibration, and Section 11 Townscape and Visual, within this volume. In terms of duration, the potential for impacts which may reduce amenity experienced by nearby residents would last during the construction period a medium term period of up to approximately four years. They would also be temporary as they would only occur during the construction period. During this time, these impacts would be restricted to day-time working hours. They are also unlikely to be continual over the working day, but are likely to rise and fall in intensity as different activities of the construction process take place throughout the day. Similarly, the nature of the construction activity/process being undertaken would determine whether the different types of impacts arise simultaneously or whether only one or two impacts arise at any one time. Due to the layout of the streets and buildings within the surrounding area the degree to which individual impacts would be experienced is likely to vary. For instance, certain impacts (eg, noise) may affect residential dwellings further away from the site. In contrast, other impacts (eg, visual impacts) may impact on receptors much closer to the site as in general the screening formed by physical features within the existing urban environment, eg, fences and buildings, is likely to shield receptors further away from the site. As per the base case, residential dwellings are also likely to be located to the south and east of the site within the Cannon Wharf redevelopment. Accordingly, any amenity impacts, if they occur, could affect a moderate number of dwellings. Given the above factors, it is considered that the likely impact magnitude could be medium. Taking account of the potential for a low magnitude of potential impacts and the medium sensitivity of residents to amenity effects experienced during daytime working hours, it is considered that the overall effect on residential amenity could be medium term moderate adverse and therefore significant. Summary The findings of the above preliminary assessments on likely construction phase socio-economic impacts and effects are summarised in the tables below. Vol 24 Table 10.5.1 Socio economics effects - construction Impact Displacement of businesses, Sensitivity Medium up to 24 employees are likely to be displaced; Magnitude Low - modest relative size and employment capacity of Significance Minor adverse not significant
10.5.16
10.5.17
10.5.18
10.5.19 10.5.20
10.5.21
Page 117
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Impact Sensitivity apparent availability of alternative employment locations within LB of Lewisham Amenity effects on residential amenity (outline findings) Medium residents less able to avoid effects but less sensitive during the day when the effects will be experienced
Section 10: Socio-economics Magnitude business space affected, and likelihood that businesses will be assisted with relocation costs. Medium Moderate potential for adverse moderate significant adverse or significant effects in respect of air quality, construction dust, noise and vibration at a moderate number of residential properties over a medium term period. Significance
10.6
10.6.1
As explained in Section 10.1, no significant operational effects were scoped in for consideration during the scoping stage.
10.7
10.7.1
The above assessment has arrived at a preliminary finding that there is a potential for a moderate adverse effect to arise in relation to effects on residential amenity. As per the significance criteria, moderate adverse impacts constitute significant effects. There is a continuing opportunity for further consideration of the potential for employing any viable additional measures to minimise the potential for significant adverse air quality and dust, noise and vibration and visual impacts (if any) to act individually or in combination in a manner that unacceptably reduces environmental amenity. Mitigation measures have been suggested, where possible, by Air Quality and Odour, Noise and Vibration and Townscape and Visual which would help to address significant amenity impacts. For further information on these mitigation measures, please refer to Section 4 Air Quality and
10.7.2
10.7.3
Page 118
Odour, Section 9 Noise and Vibration, and Section 11 Townscape and Visual, within this volume. 10.7.4 The above assessment has not arrived at any other preliminary findings of likely significant adverse socio-economic effects (that is major or moderate) at the site requiring additional mitigation.
Operational
10.7.5 As explained in Volume 7 Section 10.1, no significant operational effects were scoped in for consideration during the scoping stage.
Page 119
10.8
Vol 24 Table 10.8.1 Socio economics construction assessment Significance Minor adverse - not significant Moderate adversesignificant Mitigation measures including design alternatives or construction process and management changes that are typical of the sort usually identified to mitigate air quality, noise or visual impacts. None required No change Mitigation
Assessment summary
Residual significance
Receptor
Effect
Businesses and their employees
Displacement of businesses
Residents of nearby properties
Effect on residential amenity
If mitigation measures suggested in the air quality, noise and vibration and visual assessments to minimise adverse impacts are able to be implemented and achieve a reduction in the assessment of effect significance to an acceptable level, a reduced residual adverse significance may result.
Page 120
10.9
10.9.1
Pending the results of assessments by other EIA topics, it is likely that the following updates to the baseline data and results of the indicative individual will be made: a. Amenity effects on residents b. Existing employment levels at businesses
10.9.2
Pending the results of assessments by other EIA topics there is potential for updates to be made to the detailed site-specific mitigation and enhancement/offsetting measures in relation to amenity (individual and in combination) effects on residential receptors. Given that this assessment has identified significant adverse amenity effects, following the identification of required mitigations measures a reassessment of the potential residual effects after mitigation would be undertaken using the same approach as has been set out above. Assessment of cumulative and in combination effects will be undertaken and reported in the ES. Following completion of the assessment the mitigation approaches for socio-economics within the project, if applicable, will be finalised and reported in the ES.
10.9.3
10.9.4 10.9.5
Page 121
Section 11: Townscape and visual
11 11.1
11.1.1
Townscape and visual Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant townscape and visual amenity effects at the Earl Pumping Station site. The assessment describes the current conditions found within the area the nature and pattern of buildings, streets, open space and vegetation and their interrelationships within the built environment, and the changes that would be introduced as a result of the proposed development. The assessment also identifies mitigation measures where appropriate. Townscape and visual assessments are made up of two separate, although linked, procedures; the townscape baseline and its analysis contribute to the baseline for visual amenity. Each section of the assessment is structured so that townscape aspects are described first, followed by visual.
11.1.2
11.2
11.2.1
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to the townscape and visual assessment are as follows. Construction The method of construction for the proposed development is described in Volume 3. The peak construction phase for this topic relates to the time when the shaft is being constructed, involving the presence of cranes at the site and the export of material by road. For this site, this equates to Year 1 of construction, within a total construction period of approximately four years. Similar effects would arise during the secondary tunnel lining, which would occur during Year 3 of construction. The site would be typically under construction during standard working hours only. However, some activities, such as the diaphragm wall works, are likely to require extended standard working hours. The specific construction activities which may give rise to effects on townscape character, tranquillity and visual receptors are: a. Demolition of existing buildings and structures; b. Vehicular construction access to the site off Yeoman Street, and out of the site onto Croft Street; c. Establishment of hoardings around the boundary of the construction site;
11.2.2
11.2.3
d. Selective pruning of existing vegetation; e. Use of cranes during shaft sinking and secondary lining of the tunnel; f. Provision of welfare facilities; and g. Lighting of the site when required.
Page 122
Key measures which have been adopted by the project, and which form part of the project, that are considered to minimise the effects on the townscape and visual resource are outlined below: a. Timing of the works to minimise the need for extended standard working hours, limiting the need for lighting of the site; b. Use of high quality designed hoardings; c. Minimising the height of any materials stored at site; and d. Retention and protection of trees adjacent to the site boundary.
11.2.5
Measures incorporated into the draft CoCP to reduce townscape and visual impacts include appropriate protection of trees and vegetation in line with BS5837 Trees in relation to construction Recommendations. Operation The proposed operation of the infrastructure at Earl Pumping Station is described in Volume 3 and in Section 3 of this volume. The particular components that are of importance to this topic include the design and siting of the shaft, ventilation structure, valve chamber and ventilation column.
11.2.6
11.3
11.3.1 11.3.2
Scoping and engagement Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. In addition to the formal scoping process, the London Borough of Lewisham, London Borough of Southwark and English Heritage have been consulted on the detailed scope of this topic, including the number and location of viewpoints. Comments received from the London Borough of Lewisham have been incorporated into the viewpoints used for the visual assessment, including adding new locations and amending the locations of others. English Heritage have confirmed acceptance of the proposed viewpoints. Baseline The assessment area, defined using the standard methodology provided in Volume 6, is indicated by the extents of the drawing frame on Vol 24 Figure 11.4.1 to Vol 24 Figure 11.4.6. The scale of the assessment area has been set by the maximum extent of the ZTV, excepting those locations along specific corridors to the north, east and south of the site where the visibility of the proposed development becomes negligible in the wider urban context. The methodology for establishing the townscape and visual baseline follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 6. With specific reference to the site, baseline information has been gathered through a review of the Unitary Development Plans (UDP) for the London Borough of Lewisham and London Borough of Southwark.
11.3.3
11.3.4 11.3.5
Page 123
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Construction 11.3.6
The construction phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. Any site specific variations are described below. With reference to the Earl Pumping Station site, the peak construction phase for this topic would be during Year 1 of construction, when the shaft would be under construction, cranes would be present at the site and material would be being taken away by road. This has therefore been used as the assessment year for townscape and visual effects. The intensity of construction activities would be similar during Year 3 of construction, during the secondary lining of the tunnel, involving import of materials by road. For the purposes of the construction phase assessment, it is assumed that much of the surrounding townscape within Cannon Wharf Business Area will be undergoing redevelopment into mixed use developments characterised by a high percentage of residential uses. It is assumed that each of the following planning applications would be under construction at the same time as Earl Pumping Station, and would therefore not be occupied: a. Marine Wharf West proposed development along Plough Way comprising one to eight storey commercial and residential properties; b. Cannon Wharf Business Centre proposed commercial and residential development with three to eight storey buildings and two 20-23 storey towers. Operation
11.3.7
11.3.8
11.3.9
The operational phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. Any site specific variations are described below. The operational phase visual assessment for this site will be supported through the preparation of a verifiable photomontage from a residential receptor to the south of the site. This will be produced and presented in the final ES. The operational phase assessment has been undertaken for Year 1 of operation and Year 15 of operation. For the purposes of the Year 1 assessment, it is assumed that Marine Wharf West and Cannon Wharf Business Centre would be built out and occupied by Year 1 of operation. Further work will be undertaken for the ES to identify any potential changes in the base case for Year 15 of operation.
11.3.10
11.3.11

11.3.12 11.3.13 For this site, there are no site specific townscape and visual assessment assumptions and limitations beyond the generic ones listed in Volume 6. Assumptions made on the base case for the construction and operational phase assessments are described in para. 11.3.8. These assumptions are based on known planning applications and planning policy within the assessment area, interpreted using professional judgement to understand
Page 124
what the base case may be in Year 1 of construction and Year 1 of operation without the project (ie the do nothing scenario). 11.3.14 11.3.15 Assumptions will be made in the ES regarding what the base case may be in Year 15 of operation without the project. The preliminary assessment of operational effects is based on the engineering design of the proposed development. The assessment recognises that the project is committed to high quality design, and this forms the basis of the preliminary assessment of likely significant effects presented here. The details of the project design and landscaping, to be provided for the planning submission, will inform the assessment of operational effects in Year 1 and Year 15 which will be presented in the ES.
11.4
11.4.1
Baseline conditions Townscape baseline

The proposed development is located partially within the confines of the existing Thames Water owned Earl Pumping Station site, and partially in an area of disused industrial buildings. The surrounding townscape is a mix of industrial premises and 20th and 21st century residential properties. Physical elements The physical elements of the townscape in the assessment area are described below. Topography The site and its surrounding area are relatively flat with no notable topographic features within or around the site area. Land use The area to the north of the site is predominantly residential. To the east and south, the land use comprises a mix of commercial and light industrial workshops and warehouses with associated areas of hard standing. Beyond these commercial uses, the land use is again predominantly residential. The site is bounded to the west by Croft Street, which separates the site from a mix of commercial premises and residential properties, although the wider area is again predominantly residential. Development pattern and scale Vol 24 Figure 11.4.1 Townscape - development pattern and scale (see Volume 24 Figures document)
11.4.2
11.4.3
11.4.4
11.4.5 11.4.6
Vol 24 Figure 11.4.1 illustrates the pattern and scale of development within the assessment area and also indicates building heights. The surrounding residential areas are generally characterised by a mix of terraced two and three storey properties and larger four to six storey apartment blocks, particularly towards the north of the site. The residential properties are aligned along an informal network of roads, not laid out in any particular structure. The residential properties have a mix of small
Page 125
front and rear gardens and communal grassed areas, some of which are enclosed by fencing. 11.4.7 The commercial and industrial areas are characterised by premises with both small and large footprints, generally low in height, set amongst areas of hard standing. Much of the area is likely to be subject to future change as LBL is encouraging regeneration of the local area. The operational Earl Pumping Station site is characterised by industrial structures, premises and hard standing enclosed by a boundary wall. Vegetation patterns and extents Vol 24 Figure 11.4.2 Townscape - pattern and extent of vegetation (see Volume 24 Figures document) 11.4.10 11.4.11 Vol 24 Figure 11.4.2 illustrates the pattern and extent of vegetation within the assessment area, including tree cover. Vegetation in the assessment area is predominantly mature and semimature street trees, although the industrial area to the east and south of the site has little of any vegetation type. The route of the former Surrey Canal and the disused Deptford Road Branch line railway form green corridors through the area, characterised by scattered trees and shrubs. To the north of the site, trees are present within the public realm around the Surrey Docks. To the west of the site, Croft Street and Chilton Grove are characterised by mature street trees. Other vegetation is largely within private residential gardens. With the exception of the disused canal and railway, which form green corridors, vegetation does not form an important element of the overall character. There are no known Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) within or in the vicinity of the site, based on local authority GIS information provided to the project to date. Open space distribution and type Vol 24 Figure 11.4.3 Townscape - open space distribution and type (see Volume 24 Figures document) 11.4.15 Vol 24 Figure 11.4.3 illustrates the distribution of different open space types within the assessment area, indicating all relevant statutory, nonstatutory and local plan designations. Public open spaces are limited to The Surrey Docks Adventure Playground to the north west and Longshore Open Space to the south east. There are also private and semi-private open spaces associated with residential developments and the disused Surrey Canal. These spaces are described in the table below:
11.4.8 11.4.9
11.4.12
11.4.13
11.4.14
11.4.16
Page 126
Vol 24 Table 11.4.1 Open space type and distribution Open space The Surrey Docks Adventure Playground Surrey Canal and Rainsborough Avenue Embankments Grove Square Gardens Longshore Open Space Plough Way communal green space Distance from site 250m NW Character summary Small public adventure playground surrounded by mature trees.
80m E
Linear private 1.3ha open space slightly elevated above ground level. The space is characterised by grassland with scattered trees and shrubs. Semi-private communal green space to the north of Eddystone Tower (residential), characterised by open grassland. Public open green space (0.3ha) characterised by open grassland. Semi-private communal green space set between residential properties along Plough Way and Chilton Grove. The space is characterised by open amenity grassland with scattered trees and shrubs. Area of private allotments and a community garden (0.3ha).
400m SE
550m SE 30m N
Windlass Place Allotments and John Evelyn Community Garden Transport routes
400m E
Vol 24 Figure 11.4.4 Townscape and visual - transport network (see Volume 24 Figures document) 11.4.17 Vol 24 Figure 11.4.4 illustrates the transport network within the assessment area, including cycleways, footpaths and Public Rights of Way. The road network immediately around the site is generally residential in nature. Roadside parking and traffic calming is evident throughout the surrounding area, including Chilton Grove and Croft Street adjacent to the site. The residential roads surrounding the site are generally not used extensively by heavy good vehicles (HGV). There is a network of cycle routes in the wider area, particularly through developments close to Surrey Docks to the north of the site. Site character assessment 11.4.20 The site comprises an operational Thames Water pumping station and an adjacent area of disused commercial and industrial warehouses, including
11.4.18
11.4.19
Page 127
a two storey office building towards the south of the site. The existing pumping station has a frontage onto Chilton Grove, between Croft Street and Yeoman Street. The site is located to the south west corner of the facility and is currently occupied by an area of hard-standing, adjacent to the existing pumping station facilities. There are no statutory, nonstatutory or local plan designations within or directly adjacent to the site boundary. There is no public access to this site. 11.4.21 11.4.22 The site is bounded by a red brick walling topped with metal railings and chainlink fencing. The site is dominated by industrial premises, structures and areas of hard standing. The components of the site are described in the table below: Vol 24 Table 11.4.2 Townscape site components ID 01 Component Earl Pumping Station building Pumping station auxiliary buildings Boundary walls and fence Description Red brick single storey flat roofed building, with some architectural detailing along the faade. Two red brick single storey rectangular buildings within the operational confines. Red brick boundary walls topped with metal railings, chainlink fencing and barbed wire. Condition Fair condition
02
Good condition
03
Fair condition
04
Areas of Areas of asphalt and hardstanding concrete paving surrounding the pumping station buildings. Commercial/ industrial sheds Warehouse buildings with associated hard-standing, metal palisade fencing and access onto Yeoman and Croft Streets. Four mature London plane trees within the pavement of Croft Street.
Poor condition
05
Fair condition
06
Mature street trees on Croft Street Mature tree
Fair condition (to be confirmed following the tree survey) Fair condition (to be confirmed following the tree survey)
07
Mature tree set amongst the commercial / industrial buildings.
Page 128
The condition of the townscape within the site is generally fair for the type of usage, with the operational area and buildings generally well maintained. However, the site is dominated by industrial components and is incongruous with the surrounding residential areas. Therefore, the site has a high potential for enhancement, particularly with regard to the surrounding residences and the potential for further residential development surrounding the site. Although the site is largely open in character, with strong enclosures to the boundaries, the site has limited tranquillity due to the overlooking residential properties and existing industrial usage. Due to its usage, the site has limited townscape value. Due to its industrial character and the limited townscape value, the site has a low sensitivity to change. At night, the site is lit but only by low level lighting. However, the density of the surrounding built environment means that the site is heavily influenced by light spill from street lights and residential properties. The sensitivity of this site to additional lighting is therefore low. Townscape character assessment Vol 24 Figure 11.4.5 Townscape character areas (see Volume 24 Figures document)
11.4.24
11.4.25 11.4.26 11.4.27
11.4.28
The Townscape character areas surrounding the site are identified on Vol 24 Figure 11.4.5. Each area is discussed below. Cannon Wharf Business Area This area is characterised by predominantly low rise commercial and industrial buildings set amongst areas of hardstanding. The area has little tree or vegetation cover, with the exception of two areas: scattered trees and shrubs along the line of the former Surrey Canal, which form a strong green corridor that dissects the area; and a substantial band of mature trees and vegetation along the southern boundary of the character area, following the embankment of the disused railway line. There are no public open spaces within the character area. The pattern of development is largely introspective. Tranquillity within the area is limited by the industrial use, the high levels of on and off street parking and the relative lack of public open space and vegetation. The townscape has limited amenity value to the community due to the type of land use and the lack of public realm. Due to the introspective pattern of the development and the limited tranquillity of the area that give it limited amenity value, it is considered that this character area has a low sensitivity to change. Rotherhithe mixed residential This area comprises a diverse range of 20th century residential properties, including two and three storey terraced houses to four to six storey apartment blocks laid out broadly on a grid pattern. The residential
11.4.29
11.4.30
11.4.31 11.4.32
11.4.33
Page 129
premises are interspersed with small private and semi-private green spaces and areas of hardstanding generally used for car parking. Streets are generally characterised by street trees, some of which are mature creating relatively shaded green corridors. 11.4.34 The character area is crossed by several main roads, including Plough Way (B206 passing east-west) and Lower Road (A200 passing northsouth). The northern edge of the character area follows the Cunard Walk footpath and cycleway. The area has moderate levels of tranquillity due to the residential land use, the presence of vegetation and limited volumes of traffic aside from along the main roads towards the edges of the character area. The area is likely to be valued by local residents, by virtue of the abundance of street trees and the moderate levels of tranquillity, which provide a pleasant setting to the residential properties. Due to the moderate level of tranquillity and residential character, strengthened by intermittent mature planting, this character area has a medium sensitivity to change. Dockside residential 11.4.38 This character area is defined by three to five storey residential apartments formally laid out around Greenland Dock and South Dock. Although the area is broadly urban in character, street trees are frequent, including avenues of semi-mature trees lining the Greenland Dock waterfront, forming a linear public space. The only other public open space in this character area (within the assessment area) is The Surrey Docks Adventure Playground, which is located in the west of the character area. In addition, there are intermittent small semi-private grassed areas between apartments and small private gardens associated with terraced properties in the south of the area. The area is bounded to the east by the River Thames and to the south by Plough Way, which provides the main point of access to the residential side roads. The area is focused on the docks and the character is not heavily influenced by surrounding character areas. The area has moderate levels of tranquillity due to the residential land use, presence of vegetation, the open outlook afforded by the docks and the limited volumes of traffic aside from along Plough Way. The area is likely to be valued by local residents, by virtue of the abundance of street trees and the moderate levels of tranquillity, which provides a pleasant setting to the residential properties. Therefore, despite moderate levels of tranquillity and residential character strengthened by planting, this character area has a low sensitivity to change, due to its introspective development pattern focused around the docks. Pepys residential 11.4.43 This character area comprises predominantly two to four storey residential terraces and apartments, many of which are built in a distinctive yellow
11.4.35
11.4.36
11.4.37
11.4.39
11.4.40
11.4.41
11.4.42
Page 130
brick. The majority of properties are rectilinear in form, aside from a distinctive curved apartment block at Tariff Crescent towards the centre of the area. The majority of properties have off-street parking, which has the secondary effect of limiting the number of street trees present within the area, providing a more open character. There are no public open green spaces within this character area (within the assessment area). The northern extent of the area is bounded by Plough Way. 11.4.44 11.4.45 11.4.46 The area has moderate levels of tranquillity due to the residential land use, and limited volumes of traffic aside from along Plough Way. The townscape is likely to be locally valued by the residents who live in the development, but has limited value in the wider area. Due to the moderate level of tranquillity and locally valued residential character, this character area has a medium sensitivity to change. Deptford high-rise residential 11.4.47 This character area is predominantly residential and dominated by a number of six to eight storey blocks to the south, set alongside a series of 24 storey tower blocks. The area is characterised by numerous open semi-private grassed spaces, including allotments. Mature trees are intermittently present within the open spaces, but do not form a dominant component of the local character. The area is bounded to the north by a vegetated disused railway embankment, which is elevated and provides a strong boundary with Cannon Wharf Business Area. The area has moderate levels of tranquillity due to the residential land use, the presence of vegetation and limited volumes of traffic throughout the character area. The area is likely to be valued by local residents, by virtue of the presence of open spaces and mature trees that provide a pleasant setting to the residential properties. Due to the moderate level of tranquillity and residential character, strengthened by intermittent mature planting and open spaces, this character area has a medium sensitivity to change. The sensitivity to change of the townscape character area is summarised in the table below. Vol 24 Table 11.4.3 Townscape character areas - sensitivity Townscape character area The site Cannon Wharf Business Area Rotherhithe Mixed Residential Dockside Residential Pepys Residential Deptford High-Rise Residential Sensitivity Low Low Medium Low Medium Medium
11.4.48
11.4.49
11.4.50
11.4.51
Page 131
Visual baseline
Vol 24 Figure 11.4.6 Visual assessment viewpoint locations (see Volume 24 Figures document) 11.4.52 Vol 24 Figure 11.4.6 indicates the location of viewpoints referenced below, including indicating the location of the London Panorama that passes through the assessment area. All London Panoramas and residential and recreational receptors have a high sensitivity to change. Appendix D contains illustrative winter photographs from selected viewpoints (the ES will include winter and summer photos for each character area and viewpoint). London View Management Framework London Panoramas 11.4.53 London Panorama 5A Blackheath Point, Greenwich Park to St Pauls Cathedral (London View Management Framework, July 2007) passes through the north eastern corner of the site. London Panoramas have a high sensitivity to change. The site does not form a distinctive component within this viewing corridor. Residential 11.4.55 Residential receptors have a high sensitivity to change. Therefore the visual baseline in respect of residential receptors has been represented by a series of viewpoints that have been agreed with the consultees. These viewpoints are described below. Viewpoint 1.1: View south from residences along Yeoman Street 11.4.56 This viewpoint is representative of an oblique view from residential properties along Yeoman Street north of the site. The view is a linear view down Yeoman Street, framed by buildings and mature trees along Yeoman Street and Chilton Grove. The background of the view is characterised by commercial and industrial premises in Cannon Wharf Business Area. The northern extent of the site is visible in the frame of view, characterised by Earl Pumping Station and the boundary walling surrounding the compound. Viewpoint 1.2: View west from residences along Plough Way 11.4.57 This viewpoint is representative of the view from residential apartments along Plough Way to the east of the site, close to Lighter Close. The view from ground level is dominated by a high evergreen hedge on the boundary of the neighbouring development, partially obscuring views towards the site. Views are further blocked by intervening industrial sheds immediately east of the site. Views from upper storeys of the residential block are less obscured, and some properties are likely to have direct unscreened views of the existing pumping station buildings. Viewpoint 1.3: View south west from residences along Rope Street 11.4.58 This viewpoint is representative of the view from residential apartments along Rope Street, at the northern edge of the South Dock. The view is dominated by the open expanse of water over the dock, and the residential buildings on the opposite side. Views towards the site are
11.4.54
Page 132
largely blocked by intervening buildings, although an open corridor provides open views towards the southern extent of the site. Viewpoint 1.4: View west from residences along Plough Way near Windsock Close 11.4.59 This viewpoint is representative of the oblique view from residential properties along Plough Way to the east of the site, near Windsock Close. The view is a long linear view down Plough Way, framed to the north by residential properties and to the south by commercial premises and areas of hardstanding. Views towards a majority of the site are blocked by intervening buildings, although the southern extent is partially visible through some intervening vegetation. Viewpoint 1.5: View north from residences along Sapphire Road 11.4.60 This viewpoint is representative of the oblique view from residential properties along Sapphire Road, close to the junction with Rainsborough Avenue. From ground level, views are entirely blocked by the embankment of the disused railway, and the vegetation along its length. From upper storeys, properties are likely to have wider intermittent views towards the site, partially filtered by vegetation along the railway embankment. The background of these views is characterised by the industrial and commercial premises in Cannon Wharf Business Area. Viewpoint 1.6: View north from residences along Woodcroft Mews 11.4.61 This viewpoint is representative of the oblique view from the rear windows and gardens of residential properties at the junction of Woodcroft Mews and Croft Street, close to the site boundary. The view is a linear view up Woodcroft Mews, framed by buildings and mature street trees. Views towards the site are generally filtered by the canopies of the trees. Viewpoint 1.7: View north from residences along Acacia Close 11.4.62 This viewpoint is representative of the oblique view from residential properties in Acacia Close. The foreground of the view is characterised by residential buildings within the close. Views towards the site are largely obscured by intervening buildings, metal palisade fencing and mature street trees along Croft Street and Woodcroft Mews. Viewpoint 1.8: View north east from residences at the junction of Acacia Close and Croft Street 11.4.63 This viewpoint is representative of the direct view from residential properties at the junction of Acacia Close and Croft Street, close to the site boundary. The foreground of the view is characterised by the mature London plane trees lining both sides of Croft Street, which filter views towards the site. Viewpoint 1.9: View east from residences along Chilton Grove 11.4.64 This viewpoint is representative of the oblique view from residential properties along Chilton Grove. The foreground of the view is characterised by residential properties along the opposite side of Chilton Grove. The existing Earl Pumping Station building is fully visible at the end of the road, blocking views to the rest of the site from lower levels.
Page 133
From the upper floors of the residential flats, the full site is directly visible, set against the surrounding industrial and commercial area. Recreational 11.4.65 Recreational receptors (excepting those engaged in active sports) generally have a high sensitivity to change, as attention is focused on enjoyment of the townscape. The visual baseline in respect of recreational receptors is discussed below. Viewpoint 2.1: View from the footpath and open space between residences on Chilton Grove 11.4.66 This viewpoint is representative of the view a pedestrian would experience when walking towards the site through the communal open space between residential apartments on Chilton Grove. The footpath running through the space connects Chilton Grove with Lower Road to the north. The existing Earl Pumping Station building and boundary wall along the north of the compound are directly visible in the frame of view. The sensitivity to change of the viewpoints is summarised in the table below. Vol 24 Table 11.4.4 Visual assessment viewpoints -sensitivity Viewpoint Residential Viewpoint 1.1: View south from residences along Yeoman Street Viewpoint 1.2: View west from residences along Plough Way Viewpoint 1.3: View south west from residences along Plough Way Viewpoint 1.4: View west from residences along Plough Way near Windsock Close Viewpoint 1.5: View north from residences along Sapphire Road Viewpoint 1.6: View north from residences along Woodcroft Mews Viewpoint 1.7: View north from residences along Acacia Close Viewpoint 1.8: View north east from residences at the junction of Acacia Close and Croft Street Viewpoint 1.9: View east from residences along Chilton Grove Recreational Viewpoint 2.1: View from the footpath and open space between residences on Chilton Grove High High High High High High High High High High Sensitivity
11.4.67
Page 134
11.5
11.5.1
Any effects during the construction phase would be temporary, although medium term due to the scale and necessary phasing of the proposed development. However, the proposed phasing of the development would result in intense periods of activity within relatively quieter phases. Construction phase site assessment The existing Earl Pumping Station (components 01, 02 and 03 in Vol 24 Table 11.5.1) would remain operational throughout the construction phase, with the buildings all retained on the site. Direct effects on the townscape of the site would arise from demolition of existing industrial buildings, boundary walls and fencing, general clearance of the site, creation of new access points from Yeoman Street and Woodcroft Mews, erection of site hoardings and construction activity associated with the construction of the shaft and secondary lining of the tunnel. The effects on specific components of the site are described below: Vol 24 Table 11.5.1 Townscape site components effects construction ID 01 Component Earl Pumping Station building Pumping station auxiliary buildings Boundary walls and fence Effects No change building to remain operational throughout construction. No change buildings to remain operational throughout construction
11.5.2
11.5.3
02
03
No change to the northern boundary with Chilton Grove. New site access to be formed on the eastern and western boundaries of the site. Removal of a majority of the southern boundary to the neighbouring depot. To be retained and made good or reinstated following the works. To be demolished.
04 05
Areas of hardstanding Commercial/ industrial sheds Mature street trees on Croft Street Mature tree
06
To be retained and protected (to be confirmed following the completion of a tree survey). To be removed (to be confirmed following the completion of a tree survey).
07
11.5.4
The magnitude of change to the site during the construction period is considered to be high due to the substantial clearance required to form the
Page 135
construction site, including existing buildings and boundary walls, and the level of activity during construction. 11.5.5 Although the existing site has limited tranquillity, the magnitude of change to tranquillity here is considered to be high due to level of construction vehicles, plant equipment to be introduced and the resulting high levels of activity in a space that is not currently intensively used. The high magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the low sensitivity of the site to change, means the effect of the proposed construction activity on the townscape resource of the site would be of moderate adverse significance. Construction phase townscape assessment Cannon Wharf Business Area 11.5.7 The proposed site forms part of the setting for the western edge of this character area, although the development pattern is likely to have undergone significant changes through the redevelopment described in para. 11.3.8. The setting along Yeoman Street would be affected by high levels of construction activity, including traffic movements and the presence of cranes, particularly during the construction of the shaft and secondary lining of the tunnel. However, given that the character area is likely to be dominated by ongoing construction activity associated with widespread redevelopment, the magnitude of change is considered to be low. The area has low levels of tranquillity at present, which are likely to be further limited by the future redevelopment which forms part of the construction phase base case. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be low. The low magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the low sensitivity of this character area, means the effect of the proposed construction activity on Cannon Wharf Business Area would be of minor adverse significance. Rotherhithe mixed residential 11.5.10 The proposed site forms part of the setting for the eastern edge of this character area. The setting along Chilton Grove and Croft Street would be affected by high levels of construction activity, including traffic movements and the presence of cranes, particularly during the construction of the shaft and secondary lining of the tunnel. The magnitude of change would be moderated by the existing industrial nature of the site, and the retention of the existing pumping station buildings. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be medium. The area has moderate levels of tranquillity at present and the magnitude of change due to the levels of construction activity is considered to be high. The medium magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the medium sensitivity of this character area, means the effect of the proposed
11.5.6
11.5.8
11.5.9
11.5.11
11.5.12
Page 136
construction activity on Rotherhithe Mixed Residential would be of moderate adverse significance. Dockside residential 11.5.13 The proposed site does not form part of the setting for this character area, which is largely focused on the docks and unlikely to be indirectly affected by construction traffic. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The area has moderate levels of tranquillity at present, which is likely to be largely unchanged due to the careful routing of construction traffic. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the low sensitivity of this character area, means the effect of the proposed construction activity on Dockside Residential would give rise to a negligible effect. Pepys residential 11.5.16 The proposed site does not form part of the setting for this character area, and is unlikely to be indirectly affected by construction traffic. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The area has moderate levels of tranquillity at present, which is likely to be largely unchanged due to the careful routing of construction traffic. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the medium sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed construction activity would give rise to a negligible effect on Pepys Residential. Deptford high-rise residential 11.5.19 The proposed site does not form part of the setting for this character area, and is unlikely to be indirectly affected by construction traffic. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The area has moderate levels of tranquillity at present, which is likely to be largely unchanged due to the careful routing of construction traffic. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the medium sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed construction activity would give rise to a negligible effect on Deptford HighRise Residential. The assessment of townscape effects during construction is summarised in the table below.
11.5.14
11.5.15
11.5.17
11.5.18
11.5.20
11.5.21
11.5.22
Page 137
Vol 24 Table 11.5.2 Townscape effects - construction Townscape character area The site Cannon Wharf Business Area Rotherhithe Mixed Residential Dockside Residential Pepys Residential Deptford High-Rise Residential Sensitivity Magnitude Effect Low Low Medium Low Medium Medium High Low Medium Negligible Negligible Negligible Moderate adverse Minor adverse Moderate adverse Negligible Negligible Negligible
Construction phase townscape assessment night time effects 11.5.23 There are likely to be limited effects on night time character due to the proposed limit of 12 hour working at the site, with occasional extended standard working hours to facilitate construction of the diaphragm walls. However, this would mean that there would be some lighting of the site in the early morning and evening during winter. Effects on night time character will be considered in the ES (Section 11.9). Construction phase visual assessment London View Management Framework London Panoramas 11.5.24 During construction, cranes at the site would be intermittently visible within this panorama, viewed as an indistinct component of the middle ground of the view. Due to the future base case of extensive redevelopment in the vicinity of the site, the cranes would be viewed within a wider area of construction activity. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this London Panorama is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor, means the proposed construction phase would give rise to a negligible effect on this London Panorama. Residential Viewpoint 1.1: View south from residences along Yeoman Street 11.5.26 The view towards the site at ground level would be characterised by a line of construction hoardings to the south side of Chilton Grove. Oblique views of the works from the upper storeys of residential properties on Yeoman Street would be partially obscured by the existing Earl Pumping Station building. The cranes and piling rigs would be visible during construction of the shaft and secondary lining of the tunnel. Construction traffic would be visible passing along Yeoman Street and Chilton Grove. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be low due to the visibility of construction activity being moderated by the oblique nature of the view, the retention of the existing pumping station buildings and the presence of wider construction activity in close proximity to the site.
11.5.25
Page 138
The low magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor, means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of minor adverse significance. Viewpoint 1.2: View west from residences along Plough Way Construction activity in the southern extent of the site would be intermittently visible beyond buildings and evergreen vegetation in the foreground of this view. The majority of construction activities would be screened by the existing Earl Pumping Station building and likely to be further screened by the construction of non-related developments within Cannon Wharf Business Area. The cranes and piling rigs would be visible above the surrounding building lines. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be low due to the intermittent visibility of construction activity that would be largely screened by intervening buildings, construction activity and vegetation. The low magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor, means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of minor adverse significance. Viewpoint 1.3: View south west from residences along Rope Street The foreground and background focus of this view would remain unchanged, although the cranes would be likely to be intermittently visible above the roofs of intervening buildings. These would form relatively indistinct components of the wider view, set against the presence of cranes within close vicinity to the site, associated with the redevelopment of Cannon Wharf Business Area. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor, means the proposed construction activity would give rise to a negligible effect on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 1.4: View west from residences along Plough Way near Windsock Close
11.5.28
11.5.29
11.5.30
11.5.31
11.5.32
Construction activity in the southern extent of the site would be intermittently visible beyond buildings and evergreen vegetation in the background of this oblique view. The majority of construction activities would be screened by the existing Earl Pumping Station building and likely to be further screened by the construction of non-related developments within Cannon Wharf Business Area. The cranes and piling rigs would be intermittently visible above the surrounding building lines, although they would appear as indistinct components of the view. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor, means the proposed construction activity would give rise to a negligible effect on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 1.5: View north from residences along Sapphire Road Due to the presence of the disused railway embankment in the foreground, from ground level this view would remain unchanged. The
11.5.33
11.5.34
Page 139
cranes and other construction plant would be visible in the background of the view from upper storeys of the residential properties. The construction plant would be viewed within the context of wider regeneration of the Cannon Wharf Business Area. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. 11.5.35 The negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor, means the proposed construction activity would give rise to a negligible effect on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 1.6: View north from residences along Woodcroft Mews 11.5.36 Oblique views from residences towards the site would be affected during construction. At ground level, the middle ground of the view would be characterised by construction hoardings and HGV traffic along Woodcroft Mews, partially filtered by intervening buildings and mature street trees. The cranes and piling rigs would be visible, as components within an area characterised by construction plant associated with the wider regeneration of the area. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be medium. This is due to the visibility of construction activity being moderated by the oblique nature of the view, the filtering provided by intervening buildings and vegetation, and the presence of wider construction activity in close proximity to the site. The medium magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor, means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of moderate adverse significance. Viewpoint 1.7: View north from residences along Acacia Close 11.5.38 The foreground of the view towards the site from this location would remain unchanged. The middle ground of the view would be characterised by construction hoardings and HGV traffic along Woodcroft Mews, although largely obscured by intervening buildings and mature street trees. The cranes and piling rigs would be intermittently visible, as components within an area characterised by construction plant associated with the wider regeneration of the area. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be low. The low magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of minor adverse significance. Viewpoint 1.8: View north east from residences at the junction of Acacia Close and Croft Street 11.5.40 The view towards the site at ground level would be characterised by a line of construction hoardings along Woodcroft Mews viewed under the canopies of mature street trees in front of the site boundary. The cranes, piling rigs and other construction plant and construction phase traffic would be directly visible from these residences. The existing character of the view would also be altered through the demolition of the existing industrial buildings. The magnitude of change would be slightly moderated by the retention of the mature street trees along Woodcroft Mew, filtering views of parts of the site, particularly from upper storeys.
11.5.37
11.5.39
Page 140
Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be medium due to the high visibility of construction activity and hoardings being moderated by the retention of existing components. 11.5.41 The medium magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor, means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of moderate adverse significance. Viewpoint 1.9: View east from residences along Chilton Grove 11.5.42 The view towards the site at ground level would be characterised by a line of construction hoardings to the south side of Chilton Grove. Oblique views of the works from the residential properties on Chilton Grove would be partially obscured by the existing Earl Pumping Station buildings. The cranes and piling rigs would be intermittently visible during construction of the shaft and secondary lining of the tunnel. Construction traffic would be visible passing along Chilton Grove. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be low due to the visibility of construction activity being moderated by the oblique nature of the view, the retention of the existing pumping station buildings and the presence of wider construction activity in close proximity to the site. The low magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor, means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of minor adverse significance. Recreational Viewpoint 2.1: View from the footpath and open space between residences on Chilton Grove 11.5.44 The view towards the site at ground level would be characterised by a line of construction hoardings to the south side of Chilton Grove. Direct views of the works would be partially obscured by the existing Earl Pumping Station building. The cranes and piling rigs would be visible during construction of the shaft and secondary lining of the tunnel. Construction traffic would be visible passing along Yeoman Street and Chilton Grove. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be medium due to the high visibility of construction activity being moderated by the retention of the existing pumping station buildings and the presence of wider construction activity in close proximity to the site. The medium magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor, means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of moderate adverse significance. The assessment of visual effects during construction is summarised in the table below. Vol 24 Table 11.5.3 Viewpoint effects - construction Viewpoint Designated Views London View Management Panorama View 5a High Negligible Negligible Sensitivity Magnitude Effect
11.5.43
11.5.45
11.5.46
Page 141
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Viewpoint Residential Viewpoint 1.1: View south from residences along Yeoman Street Viewpoint 1.2: View west from residences along Plough Way Viewpoint 1.3: View south west from residences along Plough Way Viewpoint 1.4: View west from residences along Plough Way near Windsock Close Viewpoint 1.5: View north from residences along Sapphire Road Viewpoint 1.6: View north from residences along Woodcroft Mews Viewpoint 1.7: View north from residences along Acacia Close Viewpoint 1.8: View north east from residences at the junction of Acacia Close and Croft Street Viewpoint 1.9: View east from residences along Chilton Grove Recreational Viewpoint 2.1: View from the footpath and open space between residences on Chilton Grove High High
Section 11: Townscape and visual Sensitivity Magnitude Effect Low Minor adverse
High High
Low Negligible
Minor adverse Negligible
High
Negligible
Negligible
High
Negligible
Negligible
High
Medium
Moderate adverse Minor adverse Moderate adverse
High High
Low Medium
High
Low
Minor adverse
Medium
Moderate adverse
11.6
11.6.1 11.6.2
Operational assessment Operational assessment results Year 1 of operation

The operational assessment below describes effects during daylight hours. The operational project would have little activity associated with it, aside from infrequent maintenance visits approximately every ten years. Therefore, for all townscape character areas it is considered that the proposed development would have a negligible effect on tranquillity.
Page 142
Operational effects on the site and surrounding character areas are discussed further below. Operational phase site assessment Year 1 of operation 11.6.3 The proposed development would have a direct and permanent effect on the townscape resource of the site. Within the confines of the existing Earl Pumping Station, a 3m high valve chamber and 5m high ventilation column would be introduced, whilst the remainder of the area would be reinstated as existing. The shaft, which would protrude above ground by 3m, would form an extension to the Earl Pumping Station compound. The ventilation structure (4m high) would be sited adjacent to the shaft. The shaft would be surrounded by an area of hardstanding to provide crane access for maintenance. The remainder of the area to the south of the Earl Pumping Station compound would be left as a cleared site by the Thames Tunnel project. The effects on specific components of the site are described below: Vol 24 Table 11.6.1 Townscape site component effects - Year 1 of operation ID 01 02 03 Component Earl Pumping Station building Effects No change to remain operational.
Pumping station No change to remain operational. auxiliary buildings Boundary walls and fence No change to the northern boundary with Chilton Grove. Boundary walls and fences to the eastern, southern and western boundaries reinstated, incorporating the new shaft. Reinstated after the works as existing. Removed during construction and left as open space aside from the area taken to construct the shaft. Retained and protected to ensure minimal risk of health impacts to the growth of the trees (to be confirmed following the completion of a tree survey).
04 05
Areas of hardstanding Commercial/ industrial sheds Mature street trees on Croft Street Mature tree
06
11.6.4
Removed during construction (to be confirmed following the completion of a tree survey). The magnitude of change and significance of effect on the site would be dependent on the design and finish of the shaft, above ground structures and surrounding landscape. The magnitude of change is likely to range from low to medium. Assuming the high quality design of the shaft and surrounding landscape, effects are likely to be of benefit to the townscape resource of the site. Assessing this
07
11.6.5
Page 143
alongside the low sensitivity of the character area means the effect of the proposed development would be of minor beneficial significance. Operational phase townscape assessment Year 1 of operation Cannon Wharf Business Area 11.6.6 The proposed development would result in the addition of new and permanent above ground structures within, and on the periphery of the existing Earl Pumping Station boundary. The proposed shaft would replace disused industrial buildings and form a new closed faade building on the southern edge of the pumping station compound. The structures would be designed to appear contiguous with the existing pumping station and would be set within the compound area. This arrangement would therefore reduce the effect on the surrounding areas. The remainder of the construction working area would be left as a cleared site in Year 1 of operation, to be bordered by a new boundary wall to the north. Given that the new structures would be similar in character to the buildings they would be replacing, the magnitude of change would be medium. Due to the substantial change in the base case for Year 1 of operation, this character area would have a medium sensitivity to change, by virtue of the likely good condition and local value of the townscape, and moderate level of tranquillity associated with a largely residential area. The medium magnitude of change, assessed alongside the medium sensitivity of the character area means the effect of the proposed development would be of moderate beneficial significance. Rotherhithe mixed residential 11.6.9 The proposed development would result in the addition of new and permanent above ground structures within, and on the periphery of the existing Earl Pumping Station boundary. The proposed shaft would replace disused industrial buildings and form a new closed faade building on the southern edge of the pumping station compound. The structures would be designed to appear contiguous with the existing pumping station and would be set within the compound area. This arrangement would therefore reduce the effect on the surrounding areas. The remainder of the construction working area would be left as a cleared site in Year 1 of operation, to be bordered by a new boundary wall to the north. Given that the new structures would be similar in character to the buildings they would be replacing, the magnitude of change would be low. The low magnitude of change, assessed alongside the medium sensitivity of the character area means the effect of the proposed development would be of minor beneficial significance. Dockside residential 11.6.11 11.6.12 The proposed development is not likely to alter the setting of this character area. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change and low sensitivity to change of this character area means the effect of the proposed development on Dockside Residential would give rise to a negligible effect.
11.6.7
11.6.8
11.6.10
Page 144
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Pepys residential 11.6.13 11.6.14
The proposed development is not likely to alter the setting of this character area. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change and medium sensitivity to change of this character area means the effect of the proposed development on Pepys Residential would give rise to a negligible effect. Deptford high-rise residential The proposed development is not likely to alter the setting of this character area. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change and medium sensitivity to change of this character area means the effect of the proposed development on Deptford High-Rise Residential would give rise to a negligible effect. The assessment of townscape effects during Year 1 of operation is summarised in the table below. Vol 24 Table 11.6.2 Townscape effects - Year 1 of operation Townscape character area The site Cannon Wharf Business Area Sensitivity Low Medium Magnitude Low to medium Medium Moderate beneficial Rotherhithe Mixed Residential Dockside Residential Pepys Residential Deptford High-Rise Residential Medium Low Medium Medium Low Negligible Negligible Negligible Minor beneficial Negligible Negligible Negligible Effect Minor beneficial
11.6.15 11.6.16
11.6.17
Operational phase townscape assessment Year 1 of operation night time effects 11.6.18 It is likely that the operational project would have no substantial lighting requirements. Therefore, for all townscape character areas it is considered that the proposed development would have a negligible effect on night time character. Operational phase visual assessment Year 1 of operation London View Management Framework London Panoramas 11.6.19 Due to the low height of the proposed above ground structures, the magnitude of change on this London Panorama is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor, means the proposed development would give rise to a negligible effect on this London Panorama.
11.6.20
Page 145
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Residential
Viewpoint 1.1: View south from residences along Yeoman Street 11.6.21 This view would be characterised by the existing Earl Pumping Station, screening views of any new above ground structures introduced as part of the proposed development. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor, means the proposed development would give rise to a negligible effect on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 1.2: View west from residences along Plough Way 11.6.23 The elements of the proposed development would not be visible from this location due to screening provided by intervening built form, including likely new buildings introduced as part of the regeneration of the wider area. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor, means the proposed development would give rise to a negligible effect on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 1.3: View south west from residences along Rope Street 11.6.25 The elements of the proposed development would not be visible from this location due to screening provided by intervening built form, including likely new buildings introduced as part of the regeneration of the wider area. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor, means the proposed development would give rise to a negligible effect on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 1.4: View west from residences along Plough Way near Windsock Close 11.6.27 The elements of the proposed development would not be visible from this location due to screening provided by intervening built form, including likely new buildings introduced as part of the regeneration of the wider area. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor, means the proposed development would give rise to a negligible effect on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 1.5: View north from residences along Sapphire Road 11.6.29 From ground level, the proposed development would not be visible from this location due to the screening provided by the elevated railway embankment. From upper storeys, views would largely be screened by vegetation along the railway line and would be likely to be screened by new development in the intervening area. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view is considered to be negligible.
11.6.22
11.6.24
11.6.26
11.6.28
Page 146
The negligible magnitude of change, assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor, means the proposed development would give rise to a negligible effect on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 1.6: View north from residences along Woodcroft Mews The proposed shaft would be visible from this oblique view from residential properties. The new above ground structure would replace existing dilapidated industrial units and boundary walling, remaining broadly in character with the pumping station building to the north. Given that the proposed shaft would replace an existing disused industrial building, but would not form a dominant component of the view set against the existing pumping station, the magnitude of change is considered to be low. Through good architectural and landscape design, it is likely that there would be minor beneficial effects on this residential receptor. The low magnitude of change, assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the effect of the proposed development would be of minor beneficial significance. Viewpoint 1.7: View north from residences along Acacia Close The proposed shaft would be visible from this oblique view from residential properties. The new above ground structure would replace existing dilapidated industrial units and boundary walling, remaining broadly in character with the pumping station building to the north. Given that the proposed shaft would replace an existing disused industrial building, but would not form a dominant component of the view set against the existing pumping station, the magnitude of change is considered to be low. Through good architectural and landscape design, it is likely that there would be beneficial effects on this residential receptor. The low magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the effect of the proposed development would be of minor beneficial significance. Viewpoint 1.8: View north east from residences at the junction of Acacia Close and Croft Street
11.6.31
11.6.32 11.6.33
11.6.34
11.6.35 11.6.36
11.6.37
The proposed shaft would be visible from this oblique view from residential properties. The new above ground structure would replace existing dilapidated industrial units and boundary walling, remaining broadly in character with the pumping station building to the north. Given that the proposed shaft would replace an existing disused industrial building, but would not form a dominant component of the view set against the existing pumping station, the magnitude of change is considered to be low. Through good architectural and landscape design, it is likely that there would be beneficial effects on this residential receptor. The low magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the effect of the proposed development would be of minor beneficial significance.
11.6.38 11.6.39
Page 147
Viewpoint 1.9: View east from residences along Chilton Grove 11.6.40 This background of this view would remain characterised by the existing Earl Pumping Station buildings and boundary walls, largely screening views of any new above ground structures introduced as part of the proposed development. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor, means the proposed development would give rise to a negligible effect on this viewpoint. Recreational Viewpoint 2.1: View from the footpath and open space between residences on Chilton Grove 11.6.42 This view would be characterised by the existing Earl Pumping Station buildings and boundary walling, largely screening views of any new above ground structures introduced as part of the proposed development. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor, means the proposed development would give rise to a negligible effect on this viewpoint. The assessment of visual effects during Year 1 of operation is summarised in the table below. Vol 24 Table 11.6.3 Viewpoint effects - Year 1 of operation Viewpoint Designated Views London View Management Panorama View 5a Residential Viewpoint 1.1: View south from residences along Yeoman Street Viewpoint 1.2: View west from residences along Plough Way Viewpoint 1.3: View south west from residences along Plough Way Viewpoint 1.4: View west from residences along Plough Way near Windsock Close Viewpoint 1.5: View north from residences along Sapphire Road Negligible High Negligible Negligible High Negligible Magnitude Sensitivity Effect
11.6.41
11.6.43
11.6.44
Negligible Negligible
High High
Negligible
High
Negligible
Negligible
High
Negligible
Page 148
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Viewpoint Viewpoint 1.6: View north from residences along Woodcroft Mews Viewpoint 1.7: View north from residences along Acacia Close Viewpoint 1.8: View north east from residences at the junction of Acacia Close and Croft Street Viewpoint 1.9: View east from residences along Chilton Grove Recreational Viewpoint 2.1: View from the footpath and open space between residences on Chilton Grove
Section 11: Townscape and visual Magnitude Low Sensitivity Effect High Minor beneficial Minor beneficial Minor beneficial
Low Low
High High
Negligible
High
Negligible
Negligible
High
Negligible
Operational assessment results Year 15 of operation

11.6.45 Townscape and visual effects arising from the proposed development, 15 years after completion may be altered by growth of vegetation established as part of the project, growth of vegetation in the wider assessment area or changes in the base case arising from redevelopment in the vicinity of the site. These may contribute to maximising beneficial effects on the surrounding townscape and visual receptors. This is to be defined further as part of the ongoing design development and will be reflected in the final assessment presented in the ES.
11.7
11.7.1

All measures embedded in the draft CoCP of relevance to townscape and visual amenity are found in Section 11.2. In addition, a process of iterative design and assessment has been employed to reduce adverse effects arising during construction. Significant adverse effects arising during construction cannot be further mitigated because the scale of construction activities, primarily the height of cranes, and also construction deliveries, would obstruct views and adversely alter the townscape character. Therefore no further mitigation measures are proposed.
Operation
A process of iterative design and assessment has been employed to reduce adverse effects during operation. Operational effects depend heavily on the architectural and landscape design of built elements and boundary conditions, which form part of the project design. However, during operation, effects are considered to have either a negligible or
Page 149
positive effect on the character of the site, surrounding townscape and views from receptors. Therefore no additional mitigation is proposed. It is likely that the projects ongoing commitment to high quality design, would lead to beneficial effects on the townscape resource of the site being maximised.
Page 150
11.8
Vol 24 Table 11.8.1 Townscape summary of construction assessment Description of effect Change to character due to site clearance Moderate and intensity of construction activity. adverse Change to setting due to the presence of cranes, site traffic and construction activity. Change to setting due to the presence of cranes, site traffic and construction activity. No significant change in setting. No significant change in setting. No significant change in setting. Negligible Negligible Negligible Moderate adverse No mitigation possible. Not required Not required Not required Minor adverse No mitigation possible No mitigation possible. Significance of effect Mitigation Significance of residual effect Moderate adverse
Assessment summary
Receptor
The site
Cannon Wharf Business Area
Minor adverse
Rotherhithe Mixed Residential
Moderate adverse
Dockside Residential
Negligible Negligible Negligible
Pepys Residential
Deptford High-Rise Residential
Vol 24 Table 11.8.2 Visual assessment summary of construction assessment Description of effect Significance of Mitigation effect Significance of residual effect
Receptor
Designated Views Intermittent visibility of cranes, but no significant effects. Negligible Not required Negligible
London View Management Panorama View 5a
Residential
Page 151
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Visibility of cranes and site hoardings. Minor adverse No mitigation possible No mitigation possible Not required Minor adverse Minor adverse
Viewpoint 1.1: View south from residences along Yeoman Street Visibility of cranes and intermittent visibility of construction activity. Intermittent visibility of cranes in the background of the view. Intermittent visibility of cranes and construction activity in the background of the view. Intermittent visibility of cranes in the background of the view, from upper storeys. Visibility of site hoardings, construction traffic and cranes. Intermittent visibility of cranes. Moderate adverse Minor adverse Negligible Negligible Not required Negligible Minor adverse
Viewpoint 1.2: View west from residences along Plough Way
Viewpoint 1.3: View south west from residences along Plough Way
Negligible
Viewpoint 1.4: View west from residences along Plough Way near Windsock Close
Negligible
Viewpoint 1.5: View north from residences along Sapphire Road
Not required
Negligible
Viewpoint 1.6: View north from residences along Woodcroft Mews
No mitigation possible No mitigation possible Moderate adverse Minor adverse No mitigation possible Not required
Moderate adverse
Viewpoint 1.7: View north from residences along Acacia Close
Minor adverse
Viewpoint 1.8: View north east Visibility of site hoardings, construction from residences at the junction traffic and cranes. of Acacia Close and Croft Street Visibility of site hoardings, intermittent visibility of cranes and construction traffic.
Moderate adverse
Viewpoint 1.9: View east from residences along Chilton Grove
Minor adverse
Recreational
Page 152
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Visibility of site hoardings, cranes and construction activity. Moderate adverse No mitigation possible Moderate adverse
Viewpoint 2.1: View from the footpath and open space between residences on Chilton Grove
Vol 24 Table 11.8.3 Townscape operational assessment Year 1 of operation Description of effect Removal of existing industrial buildings, Minor beneficial introduction of new well designed above ground structures and improved boundary conditions. Slight change to setting through removal of industrial buildings and introduction of new well designed structures. Slight change to setting through removal of industrial buildings and introduction of new well designed structures. No significant effects. No significant effects. No significant effects. Moderate beneficial Minor beneficial Not required Significance of effect Mitigation Significance of residual effect Minor beneficial
Receptor
The site
Cannon Wharf Business Area
Not required Not required Not required
Moderate beneficial
Rotherhithe Mixed Residential
Minor beneficial
Dockside Residential
Negligible Negligible Negligible
Negligible Not required Not required Negligible Negligible
Pepys Residential
Deptford High-Rise Residential
Page 153
Vol 24 Table 11.8.4 Visual operational assessment Year 1 of operation Description of effect Significance of effect Mitigation Significance of residual effect
Receptor
Designated Views No visibility. Negligible Not required Negligible
London View Management Panorama View 5a No visibility. Negligible Not required
Residential Negligible
Viewpoint 1.1: View south from residences along Yeoman Street No visibility. No visibility. Negligible Negligible
Viewpoint 1.2: View west from residences along Plough Way
Not required Not required
Viewpoint 1.3: View south west from residences along Plough Way No visibility. Negligible
Viewpoint 1.4: View west from residences along Plough Way near Windsock Close No visibility.
Not required
Negligible
Viewpoint 1.5: View north from residences along Sapphire Road
Negligible
Not required
Negligible
Viewpoint 1.6: View north from residences along Woodcroft Mews
Visibility of the new structures and boundary conditions, replacing existing dilapidated features. Visibility of the new structures and boundary conditions, replacing existing dilapidated features.
Minor beneficial
Not required
Minor beneficial
Viewpoint 1.7: View north from residences along Acacia Close
Minor beneficial
Not required
Minor beneficial
Page 154
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Description of effect Minor beneficial Not required Minor beneficial Significance of effect Mitigation Significance of residual effect
Receptor
Viewpoint 1.8: View north east Visibility of the new structures and from residences at the junction boundary conditions, replacing existing of Acacia Close and Croft Street dilapidated features. No visibility. Negligible Not required Negligible
Viewpoint 1.9: View east from residences along Chilton Grove No visibility. Negligible Not required
Recreational Negligible
Viewpoint 2.1: View from the footpath and open space between residences on Chilton Grove
Page 155
11.9
11.9.1
The baseline data collection is complete for this site, aside from establishing a baseline for the night time character of the assessment area. The ES will include the summer baseline for each of the character areas and viewpoints. It will also include winter and summer photos for each character area and viewpoint. The study area for the assessment will be reviewed for the ES, based on the findings of this report. It may be appropriate to reduce the study area to focus the assessment on likely significant effects. Further work will be undertaken to establish a base case for the Year 15 operational assessment, using professional judgement aligned with future developments. The construction and operational assessments will be completed, including an assessment against the night time baseline. One verifiable photomontage will be prepared for the ES, from the location indicated on Vol 24 Figure 11.4.6. Ongoing work will be undertaken throughout the assessment process to identify design measures to minimise adverse effects arising from the proposed project in operation. Where possible, these will be embedded in the proposed development. Details of the project design and landscaping will be provided for the planning submission. Further work will be undertaken for the ES to establish the effects of the proposed development after the architectural and landscape design has been fully worked up. This will inform the assessment of operational effects in Year 1 and Year 15. Residual effects remaining after mitigation measures have been identified will be identified and recorded. Assessment of cumulative and in combination effects will be undertaken and reported in the ES.
11.9.2
11.9.3
11.9.4 11.9.5 11.9.6
11.9.7
11.9.8 11.9.9
Page 156
Section 12: Transport
12 12.1
12.1.1 12.1.2
Transport Introduction
This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant transport effects at the Earl Pumping Station site. The site has the potential to affect transport in the following ways: a. Effects on pedestrian routes. b. Effects on cycle routes. c. Effects on bus routes and patronage. d. Effects on London Underground and National Rail services. e. Effects on river services and patronage. f. Effects on car and coach parking. g. Effects on highway layout, operation and capacity.
12.1.3 12.1.4
Each of these effects is considered within the assessment for both construction and operational phases of the project. This section details the site-specific findings for Earl Pumping Station site. As detailed in Volume 5, the transport assessment also comprises assessment at Borough (sub-area) and project-wide levels these assessments are contained in Volume 6. More detailed analysis of all three levels of assessment (site-specific, Borough level and project-wide) will be presented in the ES This assessment provides a commentary on the anticipated transport effects of the project. When baseline data collection and analysis is complete a full quantitative transport assessment will be carried out. The assessment and mitigation is therefore based on professional judgement using available information at the time of writing.
12.1.5
12.2
12.2.1
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to transport are as follows.
Construction
12.2.2 Construction details for the site relevant to the construction transport assessment are summarised in the table below.
Page 157
Vol 24 Table 12.2.1 Transport - construction traffic details Description Assumed peak period of construction lorry movements Assumed peak construction lorry vehicle movements Types of lorry requiring access Assumption Year 1 of construction 50 movements per day (25 two-way lorry trips) Excavation lorries Plant deliveries Imported fill Concrete lorries Rebar lorries Office lorries Pipe/Track/Oils lorries
* Note: a movement represents a one way trip.
12.2.3
Vehicle movements would take place during the typical day shift of ten hours on weekdays (08:00 to 18:00) and five hours on Saturdays (08:00 to 13:00) with up to one hour before and after these hours for mobilisation of staff. Mobilisation may include: loading; unloading; and arrival and departure of workforce and staff at site and movement to and from the place of work. During construction it is assumed that all materials would be transported to and from the site by road. Lorry routing during construction phases The site is located 400m from the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) (A200), with road access to the site along Plough Way (B206) and then Yeoman Street. Traffic leaving the site would egress onto Croft Street, Chilton Grove and onto Plough Way. The site would have two gated access and egress points from Yeoman Street and Croft Street respectively. The access point would be via a right turn into the site from Yeoman Street and the egress would be a right turn out onto Croft Street. Egress from Plough Way onto the A200 currently allows a left turn only with the straight ahead movement only allowed for buses. The preferred egress route for construction traffic would be along Plough Way with the left turn onto Lower Road (A200). Construction traffic departing from the site would route southbound along the A200 towards the A2 in the south east. To depart to the north, construction traffic would have to take the left turn and then use the A200 gyratory of Bestwood St and Bush Road before continuing northbound along the A200.
12.2.4
12.2.5
12.2.6 12.2.7 12.2.8
12.2.9
Page 158
Vol 24 Figure 12.2.1 indicates the construction traffic routes for the Earl Pumping Station site. Construction routes are being discussed with Transport for London and the Local Highway Authority (LHA). Vol 24 Figure 12.2.1 Transport - construction traffic routes (see Volume 24 Figures document)
12.2.11
The histogram below shows that peak activity at Earl Pumping Station would occur in Year 1 of construction. This peak is earlier than the overall project-wide construction peak activity year of 2019.
Page 159
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Vol 24 Figure 12.2.2 Transport - construction traffic profile
Note: Figure shows indicative volumes and movements based upon assumed timings for the works. It is not a schedule and remains subject to change.
Page 160
Construction workers 12.2.12 The construction site is expected to require a maximum workforce of approximately 40 people at any one time. The number and type of workers is shown in the table below. Vol 24 Table 12.2.2 Transport - construction worker numbers Contractor Staff 08:00-18:00 15 12.2.13 Labour 08:00-18:00 20 Client Staff 08:00-18:00 5
It is difficult to predict with certainty the direction that workers would arrive/depart to and from the site. Staff could potentially be based in the local area or in the wider Greater London area and are unlikely to have the same trip attraction to primary routes as construction lorries. The method of distribution of worker trips on the transport networks, including the public transport services, is to be agreed with the Local Highway Authority (LHA) and Transport for London (TfL). Code of construction practice Measures incorporated into the CoCP to reduce transport impacts include measures in relation to HGV management and control such as specific vehicle routes to sites and holding areas for construction vehicles. They also include provision for management plans in relation to construction worker journeys to and from the site. The implementation of these measures has been assumed for the assessment of construction effects.
12.2.14
12.2.15
12.2.16
Operation
12.2.17 12.2.18 During operation the site would be accessed via Plough Way (B206) and Yeoman St with the site access point on Croft Street. Access would be required for a light commercial vehicle on a three to six monthly maintenance schedule. Additionally there would be more significant maintenance visits every ten years which would require access to enable two cranes to be brought to the site, which may require temporary suspension of on-street parking in the vicinity of the site.
12.3
12.3.1

Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. All consultee comments relevant to this site are presented in the table below. It is noted that it was reported in the Scoping Report that operational traffic effects were scoped out of the EIA. However, while the environmental effects associated with transport for the operational phase are not
12.3.2
Page 161
expected to be significant or adverse, the Transport Assessment which will accompany the ES as part of the application, will examine the operational phase in order to satisfy the relevant stakeholders that technical issues have been addressed (for example, those associated with access for maintenance activities). As this also allows conclusions in relation to environmental effects to be drawn, these have been included for completeness. Vol 24 Table 12.3.1 Transport stakeholder engagement Organisation Comment LB of Lewisham raised concerns about accessing the site, in terms of residential parking displacement and using residential streets. Consideration must be given to adjacent masterplan under development. Transport for London Operation of the SRN/TLRN in the vicinity of Earl Pumping Station. Consider using A2208 as secondary route for construction traffic Convoys Wharf development has been put forward to Network Management Group Response Continue consultation with LB of Lewisham with regards to access and parking issues. This is considered in the assessment. Ongoing consultation with TfL in regards to modelling and analysis. This is being considered as part of construction route analysis. Development will be considered as part of the base and future assessments as appropriate.
LB of Lewisham
Baseline
12.3.3 The baseline methodology follows the standard methodology described in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site. Construction 12.3.4 The construction phase methodology follows the standard methodology described in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site. Operation 12.3.5 The operational phase methodology follows the standard methodology described in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.
Page 162

12.3.6 The general assessment assumptions and limitations that have been made are outlined in Volume 5. Site specific assumptions and limitations for this site will be provided in the ES when the detailed assessment is presented. The preliminary assessment findings are qualitative and based on professional judgement.
12.3.7
12.4
12.4.1
Baseline conditions
The site is located in LB of Lewisham, adjacent to the boundary with LB of Southwark. The Earl Pumping Station site is bounded by a number of commercial and industrial warehouse buildings including a two-storey office building. The transport site plan is shown in Vol 24 Figure 12.4.1. Vol 24 Figure 12.4.1 Transport local site plan (see Volume 24 Figures document)
12.4.2
The following sub-sections describe the baseline conditions of the site in relation to pedestrians, public transport and highways. Sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the site are also identified.
Pedestrian routes
12.4.3 There are no strategic pedestrian routes passing close to the site, however to the north of Plough Way there is a parallel segregated footway (Cunard Walk) leading from Greenland Dock to Howland Quay. Yeoman Street to the south of the site leads to a service yard which is not a public right of way.
Cycle routes
12.4.4 Plough Way (B206) is designated as a route for cyclists leading onto Grove Street to the east and Lower Road (A200) to the west. There are no designated cycle lanes on this route. Rope Street and Cunard Walk to the north of the site provide quieter cycle routes linking to Lower Road in the west.
Bus routes
12.4.5 The site is designated as having a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) rating of 3. This indicates that the public transport provision is moderate in the vicinity of the site. There are four bus routes in the local area: 47, 188, 199 and 225, details of which are given in Vol 24 Table 12.4.1. Bus stops within the area are located on Lower Road (A200) and Plough Way (B206). Vol 24 Figure 4.4.1 indicates the location of these bus stops.
12.4.6
Page 163
Vol 24 Table 12.4.1 Transport bus service frequency Route number Distance from Site (metres) and Location of Bus Stop 450m (Lower Road A200) 450m (Lower Road A200) 450m (Lower Road A200) 140m (Plough Way B206) Origin and Destination AM peak (07:00-10:00) Buses per hour Russell Square to/from North Greenwich Station Shoreditch to/from Catford Canada Water to/from Hither Green Bellingham, Catford Bus Garage to/from Canada Water 5-8
188
47 225 199
5-8 3-4 4-6
London Underground and National Rail stations

12.4.7 Canada Water is the nearest London Underground station, approximately 1.4km from the site. Canada Water station provides access to the London Underground Jubilee Line serving Stanmore and Wembley in the west and Greenwich and Stratford in the east. Jubilee Line services are every three to five minutes during the AM and PM peaks in each direction. Surrey Quays station located approximately 650m from the site is served by the London Overground routes to Highbury and Islington, Dalston, West Croydon, Crystal Palace and New Cross. In the AM and PM peaks there are approximately 12 northbound trains and 12 southbound trains. The location of the rail services in the local area are shown in Vol 24 Figure 4.4.1.
12.4.8
12.4.9
River services
12.4.10 12.4.11 The site is to the south-west of the Greenland Pier which is served by the TfL River Bus and Thames Clipper services. Thames Clipper services run between the London Eye in the west to Royal Arsenal/Woolwich Pier and North Greenwich Pier in the east. Westbound weekday services from Greenland Pier begin at approximately 06:30 until 20:40 with a frequency of 20 minutes throughout the day. East bound weekday services begin at approximately 10:40 through to 21:45 also with a frequency of 20 minutes throughout the day. Weekend Thames Clipper services from Greenland Pier maintain the 20 minute frequency with westbound services beginning at 09:00 and ending at approximately 20:40. Eastbound weekend services begin at 10:10 and end at 21:45. The TfL River Bus serves Embankment in the west to North Greenwich / Woolwich Arsenal in the east. During the AM weekday peak, westbound River Bus service begins at 06:30 and there are services every 10-20
12.4.12
12.4.13
Page 164
minutes during the AM peak hour. Eastbound River Bus services from Greenland Pier start at approximately 11:00 with a frequency of approximately every 20 minutes. During the PM weekday peak there are services every 10 to 20 minutes both eastbound and westbound. 12.4.14 Weekend River Bus services at Greenland Pier begin at approximately 10:00 and arrive every 20 minutes until the last River Boat at approximately 23:40. TfL River Tours do not serve Greenland Pier.
12.4.15
Car parking
12.4.16 There is on-street parking along Plough Way (B206), Yeoman Street, Chilton Street and Croft Street for residential permit holders on both sides of the road.
Highway network
12.4.17 The site is 400m from the TLRN (A200), with road access to the site along Plough Way (B206), then around Yeoman Street, Croft Street and Chilton Grove in a one way loop. Yeoman St is a 20mph zone with traffic calming and Croft Street is a quiet residential area. There are no alternative access routes to the site.
12.4.18
Survey data
Description of surveys 12.4.19 Transport surveys were undertaken in May and July 2011 to establish the existing transport movements in the area. Manual and automated traffic surveys were undertaken to establish specific traffic, pedestrian and cycle movements including parking surveys, turning volumes, queue lengths, saturation flows, degree of saturation and traffic signal timings. The following junction surveys were undertaken in the vicinity of the Earl Pumping Station site to understand highway operation in the area: a. A200 Lower Road / Bestwood Street / Croft Street. b. A200 Jamaica Road / B205 Brunel Road / A101 Rotherhithe Tunnel / A200 Lower Road (roundabout). c. A200 Lower Road / A2208 Hawkstone Road / A200 Rotherhithe Old Road.
12.4.20
d. A200 Lower Road / B205 Redriff Road. e. A200 Lower Road / A2208 Rotherhithe New Road / B206 Plough Way. f. 12.4.21 B206 Plough Way / Yeoman Street.
An Automated Traffic Counter (ATC) was placed on A200 Evelyn Street to west of junction with Alloa Road to obtain data on traffic flows at this location.
Page 165
Pedestrian and cycle surveys were undertaken in the vicinity of Earl Pumping Station in the following locations: a. A200 Evelyn Street pedestrian crossing south of junction with Alloa Road. b. A200 Evelyn Street pedestrian crossing south of Grove Street. c. Pedestrian crossing on A200 Lower Road. d. A200 Evelyn Street pedestrian crossing.
12.4.23
A parking survey was undertaken in the roads surrounding the site to establish occupancy of on-street parking spaces on the following roads: a. Greenland Quay b. Rope Street c. Chilton Grove d. B206 Plough Way e. Lighter Close f. Croft Street g. Sweden Gate h. Yeoman Street i. j. k. Trident Street Woodcroft Mews Acacia Close
Results of surveys 12.4.24 Data obtained from the surveys were being processed at the time of writing and will be reported fully in the ES.
Data from third party sources

12.4.25 Data in relation to traffic flows, public transport services and patronage and accidents were being sourced from TfL at the time of writing. It will be reported on in the ES.
Transport receptors and sensitivity

12.4.26 The receptors and their sensitivities in the vicinity of the site in the baseline are summarised in Vol 24 Table 12.4.2. The transport receptor sensitivity is defined as high, medium or low using the criteria as detailed in Volume 5. As the assessment undertaken to date is judgement based (rather than being based on quantitative analysis), it has not been possible to identify the effects at individual receptors. A commentary is however provided on the effects upon individual receptor groups; namely pedestrians and cyclists in the local area and users/operators of the local bus services, rail network, river services, parking and local highway network. A full assessment will be provided in the ES.
12.4.27
Page 166
Vol 24 Table 12.4.2 Transport receptors Value/sensitivity and justification High Low Receptor Residents on Plough Way, Chilton Grove, Yeoman Street and Croft Street. Business and workplace occupiers at Yeoman Logistics (depot located to the south of the site, which uses Yeoman Street for access). Emergency vehicles accessing the commercial and residential units within the local area. Pedestrians and cyclists using Plough Way, Croft Street, Yeoman Street and Chilton Grove for access and as a through route. Bus route 199 and passengers using this service along Plough Way (B206). Private vehicle users in the area using the local highways or parking. Small commercial units on Plough Way junction with Lower Road A200.
Medium
12.5
12.5.1
At this stage in the assessment process a qualitative assessment has been undertaken based on discussions with TfL and the LHAs, knowledge of the transport networks and their operational characteristics in the vicinity of each site and knowledge of the construction programme, duration and levels of construction activity. These elements have been considered in the context of the range of receptors present in each location and the significance criteria identified. Professional judgement has been applied to determine qualitatively the likely effects and their significance in each location being assessed. The Transport Assessment will include full quantitative and qualitative analysis and the transport effects reported in the ES will be based on that detailed analysis.
12.5.2
Construction base and development cases

Assessment year 12.5.3 As described in Volume 5, 2019 has been used as the construction assessment year for all sites, as agreed with TfL, to enable a networkwide assessment. The peak period for vehicle trips to the site is predicted to be in Year 1 of construction which will be the assessment year for local network assessments will be contained in the ES. The assessment is undertaken for the network-wide 2019 assessment year.
12.5.4
12.5.5
Page 167
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Assessment area 12.5.6
The extent of the assessment area for the site includes the site access onto Yeoman Street, Croft Street and Chilton Grove from Plough Way (B206) which also forms the route to the TLRN and covers key cycle routes within the area. The assessment area includes the junctions of / Lower Road (A200) / Evelyn Street (A200) / Rotherhithe New Road (A2208) and Hawekstone Road junctions, which form a one-way gyratory around the Plough Way (B206) junction. The assessment area incorporates local transport interchanges such as Greenland Pier, Surrey Quays station, Canada Water London Underground station and bus station and the key pedestrian routes within the area. Construction base case The construction base takes into account traffic growth and new proposed developments within the local area by 2019. This includes the developments described in Section 3.5, namely: a. Marine Wharf West b. Cannon Wharf Business Centre
12.5.7
12.5.8
The following sub-sections detail what is assumed to change between the baseline and base case scenarios with respect to the different transport aspects considered. Pedestrian routes Pedestrian routes are not anticipated to change from baseline conditions. The base case therefore assumes the same pedestrian routes as set out in Section 12.4. Cycle routes Cycle routes are not anticipated to change from baseline conditions and therefore the base case assumes the same cycle routes as set out in Section 12.4. Bus routes and patronage Bus routes are not anticipated to change from baseline conditions and therefore are assumed to be the same in the base case. Bus patronage is anticipated to increase, the effect of which will be detailed in the Transport Assessment. London Underground and National Rail and patronage London Underground routes are assumed to be the same as baseline conditions as no changes are anticipated. London Underground patronage is anticipated increase, the effect of which will be detailed in the Transport Assessment. National Rail routes are not anticipated to change from baseline conditions. National Rail patronage is anticipated to increase, the effect of which will be detailed in the Transport Assessment.
12.5.9
12.5.10
12.5.11
12.5.12
12.5.13
Page 168
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station River services and patronage 12.5.14
River services and patronage are anticipated to increase, the effect of which will be detailed in the Transport Assessment. Parking Parking provision is not anticipated to change from baseline conditions. Highway layout The physical arrangement of the highway network is not anticipated to change from baseline conditions and therefore the base case assumed the same highway layout. Highway operation Population growth and development in the wider area will result in an increase in traffic on the surrounding highway network. As a result of this increase, it is anticipated that traffic flows may be heavier and queues longer. Highway capacity analysis Baseline traffic flows (from junction surveys) will be used and forecasting carried out to understand the capacity on the highway network in the vicinity of the site in 2019 without the Thames Tunnel project. The scope of this analysis is being agreed with LB of Lewisham, LB of Southwark and Transport for London. The full assessment of the highway operation and capacity analysis will be undertaken in the ES. Construction development case The construction development case comprises the base case plus construction activities associated with the site. This section addresses the changes that would arise as a result of the Thames Tunnel construction activities at the site. Construction vehicle movements Vehicle movement assumptions are summarised in Vol 24 Table 12.5.1. These movements are based on the assumption that all material is transported to and from the site by road. It also assumes that construction lorry movements are limited to standard working hours only (8am-6pm). The highest number of lorry movements at the Earl Pumping Station site would occur in Year 1 of construction when the average peak flow of construction vehicles would be 50 movements per day. The table below shows the total vehicle movements (both construction lorry movements and construction worker movements) expected to be generated by the site during local peak traffic periods. These are based on the peak months of construction activity at this site.
12.5.15 12.5.16
12.5.17
12.5.18
12.5.19 12.5.20
12.5.21
12.5.22
12.5.23
Page 169
Vol 24 Table 12.5.1 Transport forecast construction vehicle movements Vehicle Movements per Time Period Vehicle Type Constructio n vehicle movements 10%* Worker vehicle movements Total Total Daily 07:00 to 08:00 08:00 to 09:00 17:00 to 18:00 18:00 to 19:00 0
50
12 62
6 6
0 5
0 5
6 6
* As explained in Volume 5 it has been assumed that a maximum of 10% of daily construction vehicle movements associated with materials would take place in each of the peak hours.
12.5.24
During the months of greatest activity at the site, an average peak flow of 62 vehicle movements a day is expected. At other times in the construction period, vehicle flows would be lower than this average peak figure. Modal split The PTAL for the site is 3 which indicates moderate public transport accessibility. There is residential permit holder parking on all the surrounding streets. Vehicle parking would only be provided on site for necessary vehicles and a travel plan would be in place to manage workforce travelling to and from the site. Taking into consideration the PTAL level, parking in the surrounding area and management of the workforce it is assumed that 20% of staff and 10% of labour could drive to the site. It is anticipated that 80% of staff and 90% of labour would use public transport to access the site. Public transport within walking distance of the site includes bus routes, London Overground and Underground services from Surrey Quays and the River Bus and Thames Clipper services from Greenland Pier. Information regarding the travel arrangements of these workers would be included in the CoCP, Construction Management Plan and Workplace Travel Plan documents for the site (to be submitted as part of the application). Pedestrian routes The footways adjacent to the site would be affected by the site access and egress points. Should closures be required there are alternative routes on the opposite side of the carriageway.
12.5.25
12.5.26
12.5.27
12.5.28
Page 170
During Phase 1 the western footway on Yeoman Street to the north-east of the site or the eastern footway along Croft Street to the south-west of the site would be closed to pedestrians and other road users. During Phase two the footway on the south side of Chilton Street would be closed, to allow for temporary works in the highway. The footway closures along Croft Street and Yeoman Street would remain. Cycle routes No cycle routes run through the site and therefore none would be directly affected by the construction site development. Bus routes and patronage No bus services run through the site and therefore none would be directly affected by the construction site development. London Underground and National Rail stations and patronage No underground or rail services run through the site and therefore none would be directly affected by the construction site development. River services and patronage No river services run through the site and therefore none would be directly affected by the construction site development. Parking Yeoman Street, Chilton Street and Croft Street all have on-street residential parking. Removal of some parking adjacent to the junctions would be required to accommodate large vehicle turning movements. The use of an on-site one-way system should reduce the need to remove onstreet parking as there would be no need to accommodate two way lorry movements at the site access and egress points. Highway layout Removal of the existing traffic calming features would be required on Chilton Street and Yeoman Street during the construction phase. Modification to the existing highway junction layouts may be required to facilitate construction traffic accessing and leaving the site. Highway operation Construction traffic would operate a one-way system through the site. Construction vehicles would approach from Lower Road (A200) onto Plough Way (B206) and then access the site via Yeoman St. They would then return along Yeoman Street and back onto Lower Road (A200).
12.5.30
12.5.31
12.5.32
12.5.33
12.5.34
12.5.35
12.5.36 12.5.37
12.5.38
12.5.39 This section summarises the preliminary findings of the assessment undertaken for the 2019 assessment year based on professional judgement. A more detailed assessment will be presented in the ES. Pedestrian routes
Page 171
Some pedestrian routes would need to be diverted which may result in some additional delay and/or increase in journey distances as pedestrians would be directed to the opposite footway. There would also be an increase in potential conflict with vehicles due to the additional need for pedestrians to cross the road. Therefore it is expected that the effect on pedestrian routes would be minor adverse. Cycle routes The construction works would not alter the existing advisory cycle routes within the area. However, cycling connections in the area may be affected by the larger vehicles associated with construction using Plough Way (B206) which is an advisory route for cyclists. This may be a safety hazard for cyclists. It is expected that there would be a negligible effect on cycle routes. Bus routes and patronage The closest bus route is route 199 which runs along Plough Way (B206). Construction traffic would use the same route as this bus route, however the numbers of construction vehicles would be low and is not considered likely to affect the bus route. It is anticipated that there would be a proportion of labourers and staff using buses to access the Earl Pumping Station site during construction. However the numbers of workers would be small and given the frequency of buses within the area (approximately 17 buses per hour during the peak hour) it is not anticipated that the effect on bus patronage would be significant. It is considered that there would be a negligible effect on bus services and patronage. London Underground and National Rail and patronage It is anticipated that a proportion of staff and labourers would use London Underground, London Overground and National Rail services to travel to and from the site during the working day. However, these patronage changes as a result of construction are judged likely to have a negligible effect on these routes and services. River services and patronage Construction materials from the site at Earl Pumping Station would not be transported by river and therefore would not affect river bus or Thames Clipper services from Greenland Dock pier. It is anticipated that a few staff and labour trips would be made on Thames Clipper or River Bus services. There is a frequency of approximately six Thames Clipper and River bus services during the peak hours, and consequently the increase in trips during construction at this site would have a negligible effect on river service patronage. Parking To accommodate construction traffic, passing areas would need to be provided on Plough Way between the Lower Road and Trident Street
12.5.41
12.5.42
12.5.43 12.5.44
12.5.45
12.5.46
12.5.47
12.5.48
12.5.49
12.5.50
Page 172
junctions to enable two way lorry movements and minimise effects on residential / retail parking along Plough Way This would require removal of some car parking bays along Plough Road, Yeoman Street and Croft Street. This parking would be re-provided in the local area where possible. 12.5.51 It is considered that the effect of the construction works on car parking would be minor adverse. Highway layout 12.5.52 12.5.53 Removal of the existing traffic calming features would be required on Chilton Street and Yeoman Street during the construction phase. Modification to the existing highway junction layouts may be required to facilitate construction traffic leaving the site via the gyratory of Lower Road Bestwood Street Bush Road (in order to travel northbound). The turn from Lower Road to Bestwood Street would require modifying to accommodate the manoeuvre of large vehicles. The width of the junction in the immediate vicinity of the site (Yeoman Street/Chilton Grove) is currently able to accommodate large vehicles entering the site. The construction works to modify existing junction layouts are likely to require short term pedestrian and traffic management. Therefore it is expected that the effect on the local highway layout would be minor adverse. Highway operation 12.5.56 12.5.57 The existing highway operation would not be modified to accommodate any proposed construction routes. Due to an overall increase in vehicles using Plough Way, Chilton Road and Yeoman Street and based on professional judgement, it is expected that the effect on highway operation (specifically the ease of vehicle movements) would be minor adverse. Highway capacity analysis 12.5.58 Construction traffic using the residential roads would increase the overall number of vehicles using these routes but would not result in junctions operating over capacity. To accommodate the movement of construction vehicles, there may be an effect on the geometry of junctions within the vicinity of the site as noted above. Due to an overall increase in vehicles using Plough Way, Chilton Road and Yeoman, it is expected that the effect on highway capacity would be minor adverse. Significance of effects 12.5.61 The significance of the transport effects described above has been determined as part of the ongoing assessment and analysis. With regard to the application of the IEMA criteria detailed in Volume 5, this is based on professional judgement for the purposes of the assessment.
12.5.54
12.5.55
12.5.59
12.5.60
Page 173
During construction, the number of heavy goods vehicle movements would be relatively low. The nature of the construction site layout at this location is considered likely to result in a minor adverse effect on road network operation and delay. Effects on pedestrian and cyclist amenity and safety are expected to be minor adverse.
12.6
12.6.1
This section summarises the preliminary findings of the assessment based on professional judgement. The results summarised below will be presented in more detail in the ES. A qualitative approach to the assessment is appropriate due to the transport activity during the operational phase being very low. The transport elements have been considered in the context of the range of receptors present in each location and the significance criteria identified. Professional judgement has been applied to determine qualitatively the likely effects and their significance in each location being assessed. The transport effects reported in the ES will be based on more detailed information and qualitative analysis where this is appropriate.
12.6.2
Operational base and development cases

Assessment year 12.6.3 As outlined in Volume 5 the operational assessment year has been taken as Year 1 of operation. As transport activity associated with the operational phase is very low, there is no requirement to assess any other year beyond that date. Assessment area 12.6.4 The extent of the assessment area for the operational assessment remains the same as for the construction assessment as set out in para. 12.5.6. Operational base case 12.6.5 12.6.6 12.6.7 The operational base case takes into account traffic growth and new developments within the local area by Year 1 of operation. The new developments in the vicinity of the site that have been included in the base case are as detailed in Section 3.5. The following sub-sections detail what is assumed to change between the baseline and base case scenario with respect to the different transport aspects considered. Pedestrian routes 12.6.8 Pedestrian routes are not anticipated to change from baseline conditions. The base case therefore assumes the same pedestrian routes as set out in Section 12.4. Cycle routes 12.6.9 Cycle routes are not anticipated to change from baseline conditions and therefore the base case assumes the same cycle routes as set out in Section 12.4.
Page 174
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Bus routes and patronage 12.6.10 12.6.11
Bus routes are not anticipated to change from baseline conditions and therefore are assumed to be the same in the base case. Bus patronage is anticipated to increase between 2011 (baseline) and Year 1 of operation and the assessment will be detailed further in the Transport Assessment. London Underground and National Rail patronage London Underground routes are assumed to be the same as baseline conditions as no changes are anticipated. It is anticipated that LUL patronage will increase between 2011 and Year 1 of operation and the assessment will be detailed further in the Transport Assessment. National Rail routes are not anticipated to change from baseline conditions. It is anticipated that National Rail patronage will increase between the baseline and Year 1 of operation and the assessment of this will be detailed further in the Transport Assessment. River services and patronage River services and patronage are anticipated to increase between 2011 and Year 1 of operation and the assessment of this will be detailed further in the Transport Assessment. Parking Parking provision is not anticipated to change from baseline conditions. Highway layout The physical layout of the highway network is not anticipated to change from baseline conditions. Highway operation Population growth and development in the surrounding area will result in an increase in traffic on the surrounding highway network. As a result of this increase, it is anticipated that traffic flows may be heavier and queues longer. Highway capacity analysis Baseline traffic flows (from junction surveys) are being used and forecasting carried out to understand the capacity on the highway network in the vicinity of the site in Year 1 of operation without the Thames Tunnel project. The scope of this analysis is being agreed with LB of Lewisham, LB of Southwark and Transport for London and will be reported in the ES. Operational development case The operational development case for the site includes any permanent changes in the vicinity of the site as a result of the Thames Tunnel project and also takes into consideration the occasional maintenance activities required at the site in addition to the new developments outlined in the operational base case.
12.6.12 12.6.13
12.6.14
12.6.15
12.6.16 12.6.17
12.6.18
12.6.19
12.6.20
Page 175
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Trip generation 12.6.21
For routine three or six monthly inspections vehicular access would be required for light commercial vehicles, typically a transit van. On occasion there may be a consequent need for small flatbed vehicles to access the site. During 10 yearly inspections, space to locate two large cranes would be required. Modal split It is anticipated that all trips during the operational phase would be using transit van or large construction vehicles. No trips would be made by public transport, walking or cycling due to the nature of maintenance requiring equipment that can only be transported by vehicles. Pedestrian routes The footways and kerb alignments adjacent to the Earl Pumping Station site would be reinstated following the construction phase. There would be an additional dropped kerb on Croft Street to provide an access to the site for maintenance vehicles. Cycle routes The designated cycle routes within the area would be maintained and would not be affected during the operational phase. Bus routes and patronage No change is expected to any bus services in the operational phase and it is not anticipated that operational staff journeys would be made by bus. London Underground and National Rail and patronage No change is expected to any London Underground or National Rail service in the operational phase and it is not anticipated that operational staff journeys would be made by rail. River services and patronage No change is expected to any river services as a result of the operational phase. Parking No change is expected to car parking in the vicinity of the site, compared to the base case, as a result of the operational phase arrangements at Earl Pumping Station. Highway layout and operation The site would be accessed via Plough Way (B206) and Yeoman St during the operational phase. This reflects the current access arrangements for the site.
12.6.22
12.6.23
12.6.24
12.6.25
12.6.26
12.6.27
12.6.28
12.6.29
12.6.30
Operational effects
12.6.31 This section summarises the preliminary findings of the operational assessment undertaken for the Year 1 of operation assessment year.
Page 176
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Pedestrian routes 12.6.32
As a result of the occasional maintenance trips anticipated at the site during the operational phase, there would be a negligible effect on pedestrian routes in the area and footways adjacent to the site. Cycle routes As a result of the occasional maintenance trips anticipated at the site during the operational phase, there would be a negligible effect on cycle routes in the area and on the roads surrounding the site. Bus routes and patronage As a result of the occasional maintenance trips anticipated at the site during the operational phase, there would be a negligible effect on bus routes and patronage. Route 199 which runs along Plough Way (B206) may experience minor delays when cranes are required at the site, however, as this is expected to occur only once every ten years the effect would be negligible. London Underground and National Rail and patronage There would be no effect on the London Underground and National Rail services in the local area as a result of the occasional maintenance trips associated with the operation of the Thames Tunnel. River services and patronage There would be no effect on the river services as a result of the occasional maintenance trips associated with the operation of the Thames Tunnel. Parking As a result of the occasional maintenance trips anticipated at the site during the operational phase, there would be a negligible effect on onstreet parking in the local area. During maintenance where larger vehicles are required, some parking may be temporarily suspended to enable vehicles to access the site. This would be re-provided in the local area where demand requires. Highway layout In the operational phase the current highway layout would be restored, resulting in a negligible effect. Highway operation During the operational phase there may be some delay to road users when large maintenance vehicles are required at Earl Pumping Station, however this is likely to be highly infrequent, and the effect is therefore deemed to be negligible. Highway capacity analysis It is expected that the effect on highway capacity would be negligible. Significance of effects The significance of the transport effects described above has been determined as part of the ongoing assessment and analysis. With regard
12.6.33
12.6.34
12.6.35
12.6.36
12.6.37
12.6.38
12.6.39
12.6.40 12.6.41
Page 177
to the application of the IEMA criteria detailed in Volume 5, this is based on professional judgement for the purposes of the assessment. 12.6.42 During the operational phase there would be very occasional vehicle trips to and from the site for maintenance activities but these would have a negligible effect on the surrounding transport networks (in terms of delay and safety) and pedestrian/cyclists.
12.7
12.7.1 12.7.2

Measures embedded in the draft CoCP of relevance to transport are summarised in Section 12.2. The project has been designed to limit the effects on the transport networks as far as possible and many measures have been included directly in the design of the project. Any mitigation which is required is detailed below. Pedestrian routes At this location, mitigation measures during the construction phase are likely to be required to provide safe crossing points for pedestrians. Cycle routes No mitigation measures are likely to be required for cyclists. Bus routes No mitigation measures are likely to be required for bus services. London Underground and National Rail services No mitigation measures are likely to be required for underground or rail services. River services No mitigation measures are likely to be required for river services. Parking Assuming that removed parking spaces are re-provided where possible, no mitigation would be required. Highway layout No mitigation measures are likely to be required for highway layout. Highway operation Mitigation in the form of signal optimisation at the junction of Plough Way and the A200 may be required to reduce the effect on highway operation. Highway capacity Mitigation in the form of signal optimisation at the junction of Plough Way and the A200 may be required to improve capacity on the highway network.
12.7.3
12.7.4 12.7.5 12.7.6
12.7.7 12.7.8
12.7.9 12.7.10
12.7.11
Page 178
Operation
Pedestrian routes 12.7.12 Footways would be returned to their original routes along Yeoman Street, Croft Street and Chilton Grove for operation. As a result, no mitigation is required for the operational phase. Cycle routes 12.7.13 Cycle routes would not be significantly affected by the operation of the site, and therefore no mitigation would be required. Bus routes 12.7.14 Bus services would not be affected by the operation at the site therefore no mitigation is required. London Underground and National Rail 12.7.15 London Underground and London Overground services would not be affected by the operation at the site therefore no mitigation is required. River services 12.7.16 River Bus and Thames Clipper services would not be affected by the operation at the site therefore no mitigation is required. Parking 12.7.17 On the basis that any temporarily suspended parking is re-provided if demand requires, no mitigation is likely to be required in relation to parking. Highway layout 12.7.18 The highway layout would be restored to the existing layout and therefore would not be affected by the operation the site. As a result no mitigation is required for the operational phase. Highway operation 12.7.19 The number of trips associated with Earl Pumping Station site during the operational phase would be very low and infrequent and for maintenance purposes only. No additional mitigation is therefore deemed to be necessary. Highway capacity 12.7.20 As the local highway network would not experience a significant detrimental effect from the operational proposals, there is no requirement for highway improvement mitigation to increase capacity of local junctions.
Page 179
12.8
Vol 24 Table 12.8.1 Transport construction assessment Effect Local diversions Possible conflicts with turning vehicles at site access Possible safety hazard from large construction vehicles along Plough Way Some additional patronage from construction workers. Some additional patronage from construction workers. Some additional patronage from construction workers. Loss of on-street parking (to be re-provided where possible). Movement of large construction vehicles Highway layout changes Minor adverse Minor adverse Negligible Negligible Negligible None required Negligible None required Minor adverse Provision of safe crossing points where needed. Significance Mitigation Residual significance Minor adverse
Assessment summary
Receptor
Pedestrians in the local area
Cyclists in the local area
Negligible
Bus users and operators
Negligible
Rail users and operators
None required
Negligible
River users and operators
None required
Negligible
Parking users
None required
Minor adverse
All road users
Where appropriate, signal optimisation may be undertaken to improve
Negligible
Page 180
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Effect including removal of traffic calming features and junction modifications (requiring short-term pedestrian and traffic management). pedestrian crossing time and junction capacity. Significance Mitigation Residual significance
Receptor
Vol 24 Table 12.8.2 Transport operational assessment Effect Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible None required None required None required None required None required None required Significance Mitigation Residual significance Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
Receptor
Pedestrians in the local area
Occasional maintenance trips. Occasional maintenance trips. Occasional maintenance trips. No effect. No effect. Occasional suspension of on-street parking in the immediate vicinity of the site during maintenance (to be re-provided where demand requires).
Cyclists in the local area
Bus users and operators
Rail users and operators
River users and operators
Parking users
Page 181
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Effect Occasional delay to road users when large maintenance vehicles accessing site. Negligible None required Negligible Significance Mitigation Residual significance
Receptor
All road users
Page 182
12.9
12.9.1
In addition to the baseline survey data collected and data obtained from Transport for London (strategic model data and additional ATC and junction count data), there is a need for additional data to supplement the data set. The baseline data collection was in the process of being collated at the time of writing. When baseline data collection (including data from third party sources) and analysis is complete a full transport assessment will be carried out. This will include a detailed analysis of all three levels of assessment (sitespecific, Borough level and project-wide) and will include an assessment of cumulative and in combination effects. The scope of analysis will be agreed with TfL and the LHA and will include the identification of effects at individual receptors. This full assessment will be reported in the ES (and Transport Assessment). Following completion of the assessment the mitigation approaches for transport within the project will be finalised and reported in the ES and Transport Assessment.
12.9.2
12.9.3
Page 183
Section 13: Water resources - ground
13 13.1
13.1.1 13.1.2
Water resources groundwater Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant groundwater effects at the Earl Pumping Station site. The EIA Scoping Report 30 identified that in the absence of appropriate measures within the design, there is potential for effects on groundwater resources from both construction and operational phases at the site. This preliminary assessment identifies these measures in order to assess the effects (if any) on groundwater resources that might then require mitigation. This groundwater assessment has some overlap with the land quality assessment. Water quality information from the land quality assessment is included in the appendices to this section of the report.
13.1.3
13.2
13.2.1
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to groundwater are as follows. Construction The main infrastructure at the site, relevant to the consideration of groundwater, would include; a. A large diameter drop shaft (approximate diameter 17 m (internal) or 22.4 m (external) and to a depth of approximately 49.26 m (excluding a 3m thick base slab). b. An interception chamber for the existing CSO overflow. c. A connection culvert to the drop shaft (dimensions approximately 20m long and 11 m deep).
13.2.2
13.2.3
The proposed methods of construction for the various elements of the site of relevance to the groundwater assessment are summarised in the table below. Also contained in this table are approximate time-scales and depths. Vol 24 Table 13.2.1 Groundwater methods of construction Design Element CSO Drop shaft Interception Chambers and Culverts Method of Construction Diaphragm wall with dewatering Secant piled wall Construction Periods 1 year Construction Depths Deep
1 year
Shallow
Note: In terms of construction depth - Shallow (means <10m) and Deep (>10m)
Page 184
Dewatering would take place from boreholes drilled outside the diaphragm wall. The dewatering pumps would be operational during the shaft sinking and could be maintained to ease the reception and launch of the TBM. The time period for duration of dewatering could be up to 12 months at this site. Additionally for the interception chamber works, dewatering would be required within the secant piled walls. The pumps would be operational for the duration of the interception works, approximately 7 months. As part of the environmental design, dewatering amounts would be minimised where practically possible. Depending on ground conditions, consideration may be given to deepening the diaphragm walls by between 6 and 8m in order to reduce flows up into the diaphragm wall. It is anticipated that ground treatment would be required within the Chalk and may include fissure grouting below the base of the shaft, within the diaphragm wall. Fissure grouting on either side of the shaft would enable the TBM to break into and out of the shaft. Fissure grouting may also be necessary in the base of the secant piled wall box. All grouts to be used would be subject to EA approval. Operation During operation the presence of below ground structures could interfere with both shallow and deep groundwater movements, and potentially act as a barrier to flow locally around the site. If this occurs, the build up of groundwater can cause problems of groundwater flooding.
13.2.5
13.2.6
13.2.7
13.2.8
13.3
13.3.1 13.3.2

Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. There were no site specific comments from consultees for this particular site, relating to groundwater.
Construction
13.3.3 13.3.4 13.3.5 13.3.6 13.3.7 13.3.8 The construction phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site. Operation The operational phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site. Assumptions and limitations At this stage, all assessments are based on a qualitative approach. The list of receptors is based on the best available information from the Environment Agency on abstractions (both licensed and GSHP schemes) as of March 2011.
Page 185
No ground contamination of the site has been shown by the land quality assessment.
13.4
13.4.1
Baseline conditions Current conditions

The CSO drop shaft would pass through made ground, River Terrace Deposits, Lambeth Group (Upnor Formation), Thanet Sand and Seaford Chalk as summarised in the table below. Vol 24 Table 13.4.1 Groundwater ground conditions and hydrogeology Depth below Elevation Thickness river Hydrogeology mATD (m) bed (m) 101.70 0.00 2.90 Perched Water
Formation
Superficial Deposits/Made Ground River Terrace Deposits Lambeth Group (Upnor Fm) Thanet Sand Seaford Chalk
98.80
2.90
5.20
Upper Aquifer
93.60
8.10
1.90
91.70 87.20
10.00 14.50
4.50 Lower Aquifer Not proven
13.4.2 13.4.3
The River Terrace Deposits or upper aquifer is classified as a secondary A aquifer iv. The Thanet Sands and the Upnor Beds (the lower unit of the Lambeth Group and the only part present) are known as the Basal Sands and are in hydraulic continuity with the Chalk aquifer beneath London. The Chalk is a principal aquifer v and, together with the Basal Sands (Thanet Sands and Upnor Beds), is referred to as the lower aquifer.
Secondary A aquifers are permeable layers capable of supporting water supplies at a local scale (rather than strategic scale) and in some cases forming an important source of base flow to rivers. These are generally aquifers formerly classified as minor aquifers. v A Principal Aquifer is a geological strata that exhibits high intergranular and/or fracture permeability. This strata has the ability to support water supply and/or river base flow on a strategic scale. Principal Aquifers equate in most cases to aquifers previously referred to as Major Aquifers.
iv
Page 186
At the site, the depth of the shaft would be at 55.24 mATD (with the base slab down to 52.24mATD). The base of the shaft and the Greenwich Tunnel would be within the Seaford Chalk Formation and would extend around 41 m into the lower aquifer (from approximately 93.6 mATD at the top of the Upnor Formation to the base of the slab at 52.24 mATD). Groundwater levels in the Chalk have historically been between approximately 96.5 and 99mATD; between 4.8m and 7.3m above the top of the Thanet Sands; and between 2.9m and 5.4m above the top of the Upnor Beds (the top of the lower aquifer). The monitoring of groundwater levels is being undertaken by the project at GI boreholes in the vicinity of the site. These record groundwater levels in the upper aquifer and lower aquifer. Eight monitoring horizons within six monitoring boreholes are used to record groundwater levels in response zones in the River Terrace Deposits, Thanet Sands, Seaford Chalk and Lewes Chalk. The nearest EA monitoring borehole is located within the site around 40m to the northwest of the shaft. This borehole records levels in the lower aquifer and has a record extending back to 1992. There is a close match between the EA monitoring record for this borehole and the data collected for the Thames Tunnel project. Should any of the dewatering activities affect the EA monitoring borehole, Thames Water would arrange for an alternative borehole to be used. Monitoring locations and hydrographs are included in Appendix E. The monitoring results demonstrate that the Seaford Chalk and Thanet Sands are in hydraulic connectivity with one another, with an apparent decrease in water level response amplitude with depth. Although it would be expected that the River Thames would have a controlling influence on groundwater flows, given that the aquifer is generally unconfined in this location. There is some evidence of hydraulic separation between the River Terrace Deposits and the Seaford Chalk with higher heads in the Seaford Chalk over at least part of the period of record. The reason is not apparent since there is no low permeability formation between the upper and lower aquifers at the site (see table above) and this feature may therefore be local only to the borehole. There is a significant difference between the regional groundwater levels produced by the EA for the London Basin, and the local observations. The expected groundwater level at the site, based on EA contours, would be around 87mATD; more than 10m less than that observed. The monitoring results are assumed to be correct and take precedence over the contoured values. The Chalk piezometric levels vary annually by less than 1m (based on recent years). Historically the EA borehole shows a greater range of up to 2.5m (between 1993 and 1998), which is assumed to be in response to abstractions at that time.
13.4.5
13.4.6
13.4.7
13.4.8 13.4.9
13.4.10
13.4.11
13.4.12
Page 187
The site does not lie within any SPZ as defined by the EA. The nearest SPZ is 3km to the southeast which is in the opposite direction to the groundwater flow direction expected beneath the site. The site is not located within the catchment areas of any licensed groundwater abstractions (see Appendix E). The nearest groundwater abstractions, lying broadly in the direction of groundwater, are those between 0.6 and 0.8km away, in a north and north-westerly direction, respectively. These abstractions are all from the Chalk. There are no unlicensed abstractions near to the site based on information provided by the local council. There are no other GSHP schemes, either proposed or under investigation locally. There are no special environmental designations local to the site. Appendix E contains a summary of the water quality information from the land quality assessment. There are no exceedances of drinking water standards or environmental quality standards (EQS) at the site borehole. There are occasional exceedances of the relevant standard for benzene, copper, arsenic, selenium, cyanide and PAH at locations 600m to the east of the site and 300m to the south and southeast of the site. The site is in an area of brackish groundwater and there is evidence of chloride concentrations exceeding the drinking water standard of 250mg/l. The flood risk assessment states that there are no groundwater flooding incidents within the vicinity of the site, based on information from the London Borough of Lewisham SFRA. Further details on the baseline conditions at the site, including the depth of boreholes and response zone are provided in Appendix E.
13.4.14
13.4.15 13.4.16 13.4.17 13.4.18
13.4.19 13.4.20
13.4.21
Receptor summary
13.4.22 Groundwater receptors which could be affected during construction or operation are summarised in the table below.
Page 188
Vol 24 Table 13.4.2 Groundwater receptors Receptor Groundwater Body Upper Aquifer Groundwater Body Lower Aquifer Construction Operation Comment Penetrated by shaft and interception chamber Shaft into Chalk 5 Chalk abstraction points (2 licences), nearest 600m to the north and northwest None identified None identified
Abstractions Licensed
Abstractions Unlicensed GSHP Schemes
13.5
13.5.1
Construction assessment Construction assessment results

The shaft would be constructed through the upper aquifer and into the lower aquifer (Upnor Formation/Thanet Sand/Chalk). Dewatering would be required from outside the diaphragm wall. There would also be dewatering associated with the construction of the interception chamber. The diaphragm wall would prevent direct flow of groundwater into the shaft for example, and deepening the diaphragm wall and ground treatment would be used to reduce inflows to the diaphragm wall. The site is in an area of identified saline intrusion so brackish water may be abstracted during dewatering and would be disposed of in accordance with good practice and the CoCP. On the basis of monitoring at the site there is some groundwater or soil contamination lying 300m to the south and southeast, and 600m to the east. There is potential for the spread of this pollution as a result of the works creating a linkage, or as a result of dewatering causing drawdown, and encouraging movement of contamination towards the site. Activities involving grout would only use products that are acceptable to the EA and would be covered by the CoCP to minimise the risk of pollution. The nearest Chalk abstraction is at a distance of 600m, down hydraulic gradient from the site. The construction works lie beyond the estimated
13.5.2
13.5.3
13.5.4
13.5.5
13.5.6
Page 189
catchment of licensed abstractions so turbidity associated with physical disturbance of the aquifer is not anticipated. Impact magnitude 13.5.7 It may take some time for the piezometric head in the Lower Aquifer (and the Chalk abstractions) to recover fully after dewatering is complete. Impact on the lower aquifer and abstractors should be considered during this recover period to ensure no residual quality effects on the Lower Aquifer/Chalk abstractions. The dewatering impact magnitude is considered in the context of the London Groundwater Licensing Policy 31. The balance between recharge and abstraction from the Chalk aquifer in London formed part of the groundwater resource assessment of the London Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy (CAMS), (EA, 2006). The Thames Tunnel falls within groundwater management unit 7 (GWMU7 Confined Chalk) which was classed as over licensed. The London Groundwater Licensing Policy 32 was produced to restrict further abstraction in areas approaching their sustainable limit. This policy was incorporated into the London CAMS licensing policy which identified areas where further licences are restricted. Earl Pumping Station lies outside the areas defined as East London, Central and South London, and South East London. The policy states that, every application would be assessed on its own merits, be subject to a detailed local hydrogeological assessment and require the submission of the necessary supporting justification and reports for a decision to be made on an individual scheme. The detailed assessment would take into account the following. The preliminary assessment is completed below: Has there been any long-term (several years) downward trend in the groundwater level in the vicinity of the application? a. Preliminary response: The hydrograph in Appendix E for an EA observation borehole at the site shows the groundwater level to have been stable with no downward trend since 2000. 13.5.14 The groundwater level in relation to the base of the London Clay. If the groundwater level is near the base of the London Clay, then it would be unlikely that an abstraction licence would be granted. Discretion would be used if there is a significant thickness of the Lambeth Group below the London Clay, but the aim is to manage abstraction to keep groundwater levels above the Thanet Sands. a. Preliminary response: There is no London Clay so the test applied is whether the Thanet Sands are dewatered since this can create groundwater quality issues. Groundwater levels are historically between approximately 96.5 and 99mATD; between 4.8m and 7.3m above the top of the Thanet Sands at 91.7mATD. More recently groundwater levels have remained constant at around 98m so if the dewatering impact is less than approximately 6 m, groundwater levels
13.5.8 13.5.9
13.5.10
13.5.11
13.5.12 13.5.13
Page 190
would remain above the Thanet Sands. One way in which drawdown outside the diaphragm wall may be reduced is to undertake dewatering from within the diaphragm wall (see mitigation of construction effects, Section 3). 13.5.15 Any recent abstraction development in the same area. If groundwater levels have not yet responded to a recent change in abstraction, we may not grant further licences in that area. a. Preliminary response: No recent developments are known. The site is not located within the catchment areas of any licensed groundwater abstractions. The nearest licensed Chalk abstractions are at a distance of 0.6 km to the north and 800m to the northwest Further details of these licensed abstractions are given in Appendix E and Table A.1. There are no unlicensed groundwater abstractions within a 1 km radius of the site and no Ground Source Heat Pump schemes either proposed or under investigation locally. 13.5.16 Other proposals in the area that have been refused for water resource reasons in the last five years. a. Preliminary response: No refusals known. 13.5.17 Proximity of the proposal to an existing or proposed Artificial Recharge Scheme (ARS). Artificial Recharge scheme proposals would be treated as a special case as they involve the management of groundwater levels to provide additional resource to the scheme operator. a. Preliminary response: No known ARS in the vicinity. 13.5.18 On the basis of this preliminary assessment it is concluded that, providing groundwater levels remain above the top of the Thanet Sands at around 91.7mATD, a temporary abstraction for dewatering purposes would not be detrimental to groundwater resources and the impact would be negligible. However, give the fact the dewatering is proposed outside the diaphragm wall, it is the case that a lowering of groundwater levels locally below the top of the Thanet Sand may take place. In which case the magnitude of impact may be minor or moderate. The drawdown as a result of dewatering has yet to be quantified. Once modelling is complete, as described in Volume 5, the impact on the aquifer and on nearby abstractors can be quantified. There is no contamination (known about at present) at the site in the upper aquifer (see Appendix E) so the magnitude of any impact associated with groundwater quality in the upper aquifer is negligible. The impacts on groundwater quality within the lower aquifer are expected to be negligible if the groundwater levels are kept above the top of the Thanet Sands. However, if the water table is drawn below this level, moderate impacts may be expected. A summary of the impacts and likely magnitude is provided in the table below.
13.5.19
13.5.20
13.5.21
13.5.22
Page 191
Vol 24 Table 13.5.1 Groundwater impacts - construction Impact Dewatering of upper aquifer Dewatering of lower aquifer Magnitude Impact to be quantified To be quantified. Negligible providing groundwater levels remain above the top of the Thanet Sands. If drawn below, minor/moderate. To be quantified. Negligible if use/integrity of abstraction source is unaffected. Negligible; no known groundwater or soil contamination Negligible if the groundwater levels are kept above the top of the Thanet Sands. Moderate if water levels drawn below this level. Negligible; CoCP will identify acceptable materials
Lowering of groundwater levels in vicinity of Chalk abstractions Creation of a pathway for pollution (both aquifers) Induced groundwater movement (lower aquifer)
Pollution through use grout or other ground treatment (lower aquifer) Receptor sensitivity 13.5.23
The upper aquifer is a secondary aquifer but not used locally so is categorised as being of low importance. The lower aquifer is of medium value where it is not in use, as a result of its brackish nature; and high to very high value where it is being used, as summarised in the table below. Vol 24 Table 13.5.2 Groundwater receptors - construction Receptor Upper Aquifer Lower Aquifer Chalk abstractions Value/sensitivity Medium importance; secondary aquifer High value, principal aquifer High value; aquifer used for industrial purposes
Significance of effects 13.5.24 A summary of significance of the effects is shown in the table below. Vol 24 Table 13.5.3 Groundwater effects - construction Effect Dewatering of upper aquifer Dewatering of lower aquifer Significance Impact yet to be quantified To be quantified. Minor adverse if groundwater levels remain
Page 192
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Effect
Section 13: Water resources - ground Significance above the top of the Thanet Sands. Moderate adverse/possibly major adverse if water levels drawn into Thanet Sand/ Chalk.
Chalk abstractions
To be quantified. Minor adverse if use/integrity of abstraction source is unaffected. Negligible effect
Deterioration in groundwater quality in the upper aquifer caused by creation of a pollution pathway Deterioration in groundwater quality in the lower aquifer caused by creation of a pollution pathway Effect on groundwater quality from induced groundwater movement as a dewatering (lower aquifer) Effect on groundwater quality due to introduction of pollutants into lower aquifer during the grouting process
Minor adverse
Minor adverse if water table remains above top of Thanet Sands; Major adverse if water table drawn below this level. Minor adverse
13.6
13.6.1

The base case and operational development case are derived from current baseline conditions as described in Section 13.4 and the supporting appendix. The possible future change from current baseline conditions is taken into account by considering a range of groundwater levels in the assessments. The Water Framework Directive commits EU member states to achieve good qualitative and quantitative status of all water bodies (including marine waters up to kilometre from shore) by 2015. The Directive defines 'surface water status' as the general expression of the status of a body of surface water, determined by the poorer of its ecological status and its chemical status. Thus, to achieve 'good surface water status' both the ecological status and the chemical status of a surface water body need to be at least 'good'.
13.6.2
Page 193
Operational assessment results

13.6.3 13.6.4 The impact of the interception chamber on groundwater flows in the upper aquifer has yet to be quantified. In terms of seepage out of the shaft into the upper aquifer, given that the shaft would be full on only relatively few occasions, the magnitude of impact is expected to be negligible. The shafts would also have a secondary lining to minimise the risk to the upper aquifer. The magnitude of seepage out of the shaft into the lower aquifer is assessed as negligible as there would generally be higher heads outside the shaft than within it. The secondary lining of the shaft would also minimise the risk to lower aquifer. Seepage into the shaft would be prevented by the double lining, this should ensure that this risk is fully minimised over the asset life. A summary of the impacts and their likely magnitude is provided in the table below. Vol 24 Table 13.6.1 Groundwater impacts - operation Impact Physical obstruction to flow and resultant rise in groundwater level (both aquifers) Seepage out of the shaft affecting groundwater quality (both aquifers) Seepage into the shaft affecting groundwater resource 13.6.8 13.6.9 Magnitude, and justification To be quantified
13.6.5
13.6.6 13.6.7
Negligible, design of shaft would include a secondary lining Negligible, design of shaft would include a secondary lining
The value of the groundwater receptors remains as defined in Vol 24 Table 13.5.2. A summary of significance of the effects is shown in the table below. Vol 24 Table 13.6.2 Groundwater effects - operation Effect Change in groundwater storage and flood risk as a result of physical obstruction (both aquifers) Significance, and justification To be quantified
Deterioration in water Negligible effect due to negligible quality in the upper aquifer impact and medium value of from seepage out of the upper aquifer shaft Deterioration in water Minor adverse arise from
Page 194
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Effect quality in the lower aquifer/Chalk abstractions from seepage out of shaft. Loss of resource from seepage into shaft
Section 13: Water resources - ground Significance, and justification negligible impact on a high/very high value receptor. Negligible effect upper aquifer and Minor adverse lower aquifer
13.7
13.7.1
The project includes a large number of environmental design elements. Groundwater monitoring is proposed during construction and operation as discussed in Section 6. The following section contains the mitigation measures to be taken to address the impacts identified within the assessment.
Construction
13.7.2 A diaphragm wall would reduce the amount of dewatering required, although if up flows into the diaphragm wall are significant, then this may require either deepening of diaphragm wall or ground treatment to be used. The dewatering of the lower aquifer could also take place from within the diaphragm wall and with recharge wells located outside, in order to reduce drawdown effects in the surrounding area. This may have benefits in terms of reducing the risk of groundwater contamination being drawn towards the site. Provided that no contamination is identified in the upper aquifer, no mitigation would be required. The dewatering within the diaphragm wall would also be beneficial in preventing pollution in the surrounding area being drawn towards the site. Residual effects 13.7.5 13.7.6 Provided appropriate mitigation is adopted there should be no residual effects on the upper aquifer. Post-dewatering it may take some time for the lower aquifer (and potentially Chalk abstractions) to recover fully. By either deepening the diaphragm wall or adapting the ground treatment techniques it would be possible to ensure no residual quality effects on the lower aquifer/Chalk abstractions.
13.7.3
13.7.4
Operational
13.7.7 No effects are identified in the operational assessment and therefore no mitigation is required.
Page 195
13.8
Vol 24 Table 13.8.1 Groundwater construction assessment Significance Effect yet to be quantified. Negligible effect anticipated. Effect yet to be quantified. Minor adverse if groundwater levels remain above the top of the Thanet Sands. Moderate/possibly major adverse if drawn into Thanet Sand/Chalk. No mitigation proposed at this point No mitigation proposed at this point No mitigation proposed at this point No mitigation proposed at this point Mitigation Residual Significance Yet to be quantified Yet to be quantified
Assessment summary
Receptor
Effect
Upper aquifer
Dewatering
Lower aquifer
Dewatering
No mitigation proposed at this point To reduce effects, move dewatering to within diaphragm wall if necessary.
Chalk abstractions
Yet to be quantified
Upper aquifer
Lowering of the Effect yet to be quantified. Minor adverse groundwater levels as if use/integrity of abstraction source is a result of dewatering unaffected. Deterioration in Negligible effect groundwater quality caused by creation of a pathway Minor adverse
Negligible effect
Lower aquifer/Chalk abstractions Minor adverse
Deterioration in groundwater quality caused by creation of a pathway
Lower aquifer/Chalk abstractions
Pollution through use grout or other ground treatment
Page 196
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Vol 24 Table 13.8.2 Groundwater operation assessment Significance Effect yet to be quantified - negligible effect anticipated Mitigation Residual Significance Yet to be quantified
Receptor
Effect
Upper aquifer
Physical obstruction to flow and resultant rise in groundwater level Effect yet to be quantified minor adverse anticipated Negligible effect, design of shaft would include a secondary lining Minor adverse effects, design of shaft would include a secondary lining
Lower aquifer/Chalk abstractions
Upper aquifer
Lower aquifer/Chalk abstractions Negligible effect design of shaft includes double lining Minor adverse lower aquifer, design of shaft includes double lining
Seepage out of the shaft affecting groundwater quality
Negligible effect
Upper aquifer
Negligible effect Yet to be quantified
Lower aquifer
Seepage into shaft affecting groundwater resources
No mitigation proposed at this point No mitigation proposed at this point No mitigation proposed at this point No mitigation proposed at this point No mitigation proposed at this point No mitigation proposed at this point
Page 197
13.9
13.9.1 13.9.2
No additional data collection is required at the site. The ES will contain quantitative calculations on the amount of dewatering and the effects on the Lower aquifer/Chalk abstractions. No modelling of groundwater abstractions has been undertaken. The impact of the physical obstruction post construction will be modelled. The ES will also include consideration of cumulative effects as well as any interaction between groundwater and surface water resources and flood risk Assessment of cumulative and in combination effects will be undertaken and reported in the ES. Following completion of the assessment the mitigation approaches for groundwater within the project will be finalised and reported in the ES.
13.9.3 13.9.4
13.9.5 13.9.6
Page 198
Section 14: Water resources - surface
14 14.1
14.1.1
Water resources surface water Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant surface water effects at the Earl Pumping Station site. This assessment: a. identifies the existing surface water resources baseline conditions; b. identifies the future base case conditions against which the project should be assessed; c. identifies both the beneficial and adverse effects of the project during construction and operation and assess the significance of the effects; and
d. identifies any residual effects with respect to surface water resources potentially affected by the project, both during construction and operation. 14.1.2 Groundwater resources are assessed separately in Section 13. Similarly land quality is addressed in Section 8. A Level 1 Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been carried out separately and is included in Section 15. In addition, it should be noted that this assessment only covers the effects of the work at the site. The project-wide effects on the Thames Tideway, particularly the water quality improvements anticipated from the project is assessed separately in Volume 6.
14.1.3
14.2
14.2.1
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to surface water resources are described in the following sections. The Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) (a preliminary draft of which is appended to Volume 2) includes a number of measures that are important in protecting water quality and these are referred to as appropriate. Construction The site is located within Thames Waters Earl Pumping Station. The site lies behind flood defences approximately 200m southwest from the Tideway and the Surrey Commercial Docks. There is therefore no direct pathway to the Thames; however, it is considered that an indirect pathway to the river is present via the surface water and combined drainage system. The base of the main shaft is within the Chalk so dewatering and/or ground treatment would be required within the Lambeth Group/ Thanet Sand/ Chalk. The disposal of dewatering effluent can have an impact on surface water resources. See Section 2 for a full description of the site and Section 13 for the assessment of groundwater effects. Construction controls Excavated material would be removed from the site by road. The site area is very confined and hence space for excavated material treatment would
14.2.2
14.2.3
14.2.4
Page 199
be limited. It is therefore anticipated that the excavated material would be transported offsite with increased moisture content. Spillages and leaks from the wagons exporting the excavated materials slurry could cause significant quantities of mud and chalk to be deposited on the roads within the site and on the public highway. Should this be allowed to wash off the roads into the surface water drainage system during heavy rainfall, pollution of the adjacent Tideway and Surrey Docks could result. 14.2.5 Sealed wagons would be used to transport wastes and slurry and wheel and vehicle washing facilities would be provided for all vehicles leaving the site and the roads within and in proximity to the working site would be regularly swept throughout the day, as required. To prevent pollution from leaks or spillages, contaminating substances would be stored in leakproof containers, with secondary containment equal to 110% of the volume of the container, in a safe and secure building or compound. Areas for transfer of contaminating substances, including refuelling, oiling and greasing, would be similarly protected and activities would take place above drip trays or on an impermeable surface with sealed drainage or oil interceptor. All wash down of vehicles (including wheel washing) and equipment would take place in designated areas and washwater would be prevented from passing untreated into drains or holding areas prior to pumping. These measures will be detailed in the CoCP. The CoCP would be adhered to at all times and good construction techniques followed to ensure protection against pollution incidents. In addition, relevant Environment Agency (EA) guidance would be followed, including the following: a. General Guide to the Prevention of Pollution: PPG 1 b. Works and maintenance in or near water: PPG 5 c. PPG 6 Pollution prevention guidance for working at construction and demolition sites
14.2.6
14.2.7
d. Vehicle washing and cleaning: PPG 13 e. Dewatering of Underground Ducts and Chambers: PPG 20 f. Incident Response Planning: PPG 21 g. Storage and handling of drums and intermediate bulk containers (IBCs): PPG 26. 14.2.8 14.2.9 Appropriate maintenance of vehicles and plant would also minimise pollution during construction. Suitable spill kits would be provided and positioned in vulnerable areas and staff would be trained in their use and a record should be kept of all pollution incidents or near-misses, to ensure appropriate action is taken and lessons are learned from incidents. Regular toolbox talks would be held to raise staff awareness of pollution prevention and share lessons learned from any recorded incidents. There would be written procedures in place for dealing with spillages and pollution (The Pollution Incident
Page 200
Control Plan or PICP). The PICP would contain the following as a minimum: a. guidance on the storage and use of hazardous materials with the aim of preventing and containing spills and releases; b. guidelines on the degrees of containment which take account of the nature of the materials and the sensitivity of the environment; c. procedures to be adopted in the event of a pollution incident, to contain and limit any adverse effects;
d. procedures and appropriate information required in the event of any incident such as a spillage or release of a potentially hazardous material; e. systems for notifying appropriate emergency services, the EA and other relevant authorities, Thames Water and the Contractor's personnel; and f. arrangements for notifying appropriate statutory bodies and local authorities of pollution incidents where required to by legislation.
Operation 14.2.10 The operation of the tunnel would allow interception and control of flows which would otherwise discharge to the Tideway via the Earl Pumping Station CSO. There would therefore be a reduction in the frequency, duration and volume of spills from the Earl Pumping Station CSO.
14.3
14.3.1
The construction/operational phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.
Scoping and engagement

14.3.2 Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. There were no site specific comments relating to surface water resources from consultees for this particular site. Non site specific Scoping Opinions and consultation comments are reported in Volume 4.
14.3.3

14.3.4 Full results from project ground investigations were not available at the time of undertaking this assessment and as such, assessment of contamination risk from intrusive ground works at the site has relied on existing records of contamination (see Section 8 Land Quality). Definition of conditions and CSO operation during future base cases and development cases are reliant on model simulations. All model simulations are only a representation of the future conditions and have degrees of error that must be considered. However model simulations are appropriate for making comparisons of conditions with and without the Thames Tunnel.
14.3.5
Page 201
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station 14.3.6 14.3.7
Future climate change simulations have not been completed. The impact of climate change on the project will be reported in the ES. The assessment of the beneficial effects of a reduction in sewage derived litter and pathogens discharged to the Tideway have been inferred from catchment modelling results of the reduction in discharge volume, frequency and duration with and without the project.
14.4
Baseline conditions Current conditions

Surface water receptors
14.4.1
The only surface water receptor considered for the site and its status under the Water Framework Directive (WFD) is included in the table below. Due to the dilution effect of the Tideway, the effects of construction activities would be localised to the waterbodies listed and this section assesses only the impacts local to the proposed site. Therefore, in respect to the Thames Tideway only the Thames Middle waterbody is considered in this assessment. Vol 24 Table 14.4.1 Surface water receptors Water Body Name/ID Hydromorp Current Current 2015 hological Ecological Chemical Predicted Status Quality Quality Ecological Quality Moderate Potential Fail Moderate Potential 2015 Predicted Chemical Quality Fail
14.4.2
Thames Middle Heavily GB5306039114 Modified 02 Water quality 14.4.3
The Thames Middle (which stretches from Battersea Bridge to Mucking Flats) can be considered as a high value waterbody as although its current and predicted status in 2015 (target date from River Basin Management Plan) is moderate potential, there is a status objective of good by 2027 33. In addition, the Thames is a valuable resource and plays an important role as a water resource, habitat provision, amenity, recreation, and transport throughout London. Current CSO operation Using the June 2011 catchment model (to be updated for the ES), the current operation of the Earl Pumping Station CSO has been characterised and the annual average duration, frequency and volume of spill has been defined as follows: a. the CSO spills on average of 26 times per year; b. the CSO spills for an average duration of 184 hours per year; and c. the spill volume from the CSO is approximately 539,000m3 per year.
14.4.4
Page 202
The polluting load data that is discharged from the CSO (biochemical oxygen demand BOD, ammoniacal nitrogen and total oxidised nitrogen TON) will be provided to inform the ES. Dissolved Oxygen The existing discharge from Earl Pumping Station CSO contributes to the depletion of dissolved oxygen in the Thames as a result of the biological breakdown of organic matter in the discharges. This effect on dissolved oxygen causes both a localised (to Earl Pumping Station) effect and more widespread (Tideway wide) cumulative effect of lowering dissolved oxygen. The half tide plots showing the oxygen depleting effects of the CSO discharges to the Tideway will be provided to inform the assessment and will be reported in the ES. Exposure to pathogens Each discharge also increases the risk of exposure to pathogens for river users who come into contact with water. An assessment of health impacts upon recreational users of the River Thames was conducted and reported by the Health Protection Agency in 2007 (The Thames Recreational Users Study Final Report (2007), a collaborative partnership project between the City of London Port Health Authority and the Health Protection Agency) which concluded that risk of infection can remain for two to four days following a spill as the water containing the spill moves back and forward with the tide. The same study also noted that analysis of the illness events reported against discharges on the Tideway shows that 77% of cases had been rowing in three days of CSO discharge. Assuming the average 26 spills per annum occur on separate days, this could lead to a maximum of 104 days per year where recreational users are at risk of exposure to pathogens in the Earl Pumping Station CSO locality. Sewage derived litter The operation of Earl Pumping Station CSO results in the discharge of sewage litter along with the discharge of effluent. It was estimated by the TTSS 34 that overflows from the combined sewers introduce approximately 10,000t of sewage derived solid material to the Thames Tideway annually. Catchment modelling of the current CSO operation defined the average volume of discharge from Earl Pumping Station CSO was 539,000m3, representing 1.3% of the total volume discharged to the Thames Tideway annually. This suggests about 135t of sewage derived litter is currently discharged from Earl Pumping Station annually. Receptors designated Sites The River Thames and Tidal Tributaries are designated as a Site of Metropolitan Importance. In addition, there is one designated hydraulically linked conservation site within 2km of the proposed construction site that could be affected by the construction, namely Lavender Pond LNR, which
14.4.6
14.4.7
14.4.8
14.4.9
14.4.10 14.4.11
14.4.12
Page 203
comprises a pond and reedbeds. Lavender Pond LNR is managed as an education centre and supports a population of damselflies. 14.4.13 The project-wide effects of the overall project on internationally designated sites in the Lower Thames are covered separately in Volume 6. Receptors discharges and abstractions 14.4.14 Other than the Earl Pumping Station CSO there are no consented discharges within 1km of the site; there are no licensed surface water abstractions within 1km of the site. Contamination 14.4.15 While there is no ground investigation data available for the site, there are two landfills within 250m of the site and a registered waste transfer site immediately east of the site. Investigation of the nearby area shows the shallow aquifer to be impacted by hydrocarbons and creosote. See the land quality assessment in Section 8 for full details of on-site contamination.
Base case
Construction base case 14.4.16 The Lee Tunnel and the TTQI projects (improvement works at Mogden, Beckton, Crossness, Long Reach and Riverside STWs) would be operational by the time construction commences. Significant improvements in the water quality in the Tideway are anticipated as a result of these projects. The construction base case would therefore be the water quality in the Tideway with the TTQI and Lee Tunnel projects in place. Results from modelled simulations of conditions in 2021 (as simulated model runs are only available for 2006 and 2021) with the TTQI and Lee Tunnel in place have therefore been used for the base case. Operation base case 14.4.18 For the assessment of operational impacts, the effects have been assessed against a base case of Year 1 of operation. As described in Volume 5, this base case year takes account of the effects that other major schemes would have on the quality of the Thames Tideway as explained in the construction base case above. Results from modelled simulations of conditions in 2021 with the TTQI and Lee Tunnel in place have therefore been used for the base case.
14.4.17
14.4.19
14.5
14.5.1
As described in Volume 5, the construction effects have been assessed for significance against the relevant WFD objectives as well as their significance to targets set by other legislation. The WFD objectives as taken from Article 4 of the WFD are as follows: a. WFD1 Prevent deterioration of the status of all bodies of surface water.
14.5.2
Page 204
b. WFD2 Protect, enhance and restore all bodies of surface water, with the aim of achieving good surface water status by 2015. c. WFD3 Protect and enhance all artificial and heavily modified bodies of water, with the aim of achieving good ecological potential and good surface water chemical status by 2015.
d. WFD4 Reduce pollution from priority substances and cease or phase out emissions, discharges and losses of priority hazardous substances.
Identification of construction impact and effects

14.5.3 As the proposed development sits behind flood defences approximately 200m from the Tideway, there is no direct pathway to the Thames Tideway for contaminated run-off and other pollution from the construction site. The only potential pathway for pollution is indirect via the combined drainage system on the site. Site drainage 14.5.4 Site runoff has the potential to become polluted with a number of substances during construction activities, which may include the following: a. silt and suspended solids from earthworks and exposed soils; b. oil and fuels from machinery and equipment maintenance and refuelling; c. concrete or cement from spillages during spraying and pouring; and d. hazardous substances from ground contamination exposed during earthworks and construction. 14.5.5 These pollutants could be indirectly discharged to the Tideway via surface water drains as part of the surface water discharge from the construction site. Any effects on the Tideway from leakage or discharges would be adverse, although of short duration before remedial action was taken. The likelihood of pollution effects occurring would be greatly reduced by the use of sealed site drainage. Where possible, all site drainage would be drained and discharged to mains foul or combined sewers and where this is not practicable, the site would be drained such that accumulating surface water would be directed to holding or settling tanks, separators and other measures prior to discharge to the Tideway surface water drains. It is understood that foul drainage from the site welfare facilities would be connected to the mains foul or combined sewer. There should therefore be no impact pathway from the routine discharge of foul drainage from the site and there is considered to be no effect on the Thames Middle waterbody. It is considered that via the proposed drainage management, the pollution pathway can be managed sufficiently to reduce the pollution risk to negligible.
14.5.6
14.5.7
14.5.8
Page 205
It is considered that via the adherence to the measures detailed in Section 14.2 during construction works, the pollution pathway can be managed sufficiently to reduce the pollution risk to negligible. Contamination and dewatering There are four sites located within a 250m search radius that are identified as having past potentially contaminating industrial uses. In addition, some limited groundwater contamination has been identified (Investigation of nearby area show the shallow aquifer to be impacted by hydrocarbons and creosote). The base of the proposed main shaft would reach the underlying chalk aquifer and dewatering external to the shaft would be required. The volumes that would be involved at not known at this point, but potentially significant volumes of water could require disposal. As the site is at some distance from the river, it would not be possible to dispose of the effluent direct to the watercourse and it is proposed that the dewatering be disposed of via the combined drainage system. Capacity in the combined drainage system may be limited, particularly during periods of rainfall, and there is therefore the potential for the proposed disposal method to overwhelm the combined drainage system and cause flooding or pollution elsewhere. Ground treatment prior to dewatering would limit the volume of groundwater produced, but an assessment would be carried out of the capacity in the combined drainage system prior to discharge of dewatering effluent to ensure minimal impact in the catchment. Should the capacity of the combined sewers not be sufficient, an alternative discharge route would be established (with the construction of new pipework if required) to ensure there are no flooding effects within the combined drainage system catchment from the proposed dewatering at the site. Dewatering would be minimised where possible during wet weather. At this point is it not known what remediation measures would be used on site to mitigate against the effects of groundwater contamination. It is therefore assumed that the groundwater and dewatering would be tested for the presence of identified contaminants prior to discharge and would be removed by tanker to an appropriate disposal facility, if required. Assessment of the capacity of the combined drainage system and the limiting of dewatering volumes using ground treatment would reduce the effects of flooding in the area to negligible. The proposed management of dewatering would also manage the pollution pathway from contamination sufficiently to reduce the pollution risk to negligible.
14.5.10
14.5.11
14.5.12
14.5.13
14.5.14
Assessment of impacts
14.5.15 Environmental design measures have resulted in all the identified effects being reduced to negligible and therefore the effects of construction activities will not be considered further in this assessment.
Page 206
14.6
Operational assessment Identification of operational impacts and effects

Reduction in CSO spills
14.6.1
The control of the Earl Pumping Station CSO would have a beneficial effect on water quality, bacteriological quality and aesthetic value at the closest reach of the River Thames to Earl Pumping Station and beyond by substantially reducing the frequency, duration and volume of discharges from the Earl Pumping Station CSO. June 2011 catchment modelling of the operational base case has simulated that by the Year 1 of operation (assessed to be 2021 to use modelled assumptions) the frequency, duration and volume of the Earl Pumping Station CSO would have increased (as a result of increased population) beyond the current baseline to the following: a. the CSO would spill on average of 30 times per year (4 times more than the current baseline); b. the CSO would spill for an average duration of 207 hours per year (23 hours longer than the current baseline); and c. the spill volume from the CSO would be approximately 593,900m3 per year (54,900m3 greater than the current baseline).
14.6.2
14.6.3
The current baseline the number of risk days for river users being exposed to pathogens during the base case year would be a maximum of 120 days per year on average. The polluting load data that is discharged from the CSO (biochemical oxygen demand BOD, ammoniacal nitrogen and total oxidised nitrogen TON) in the operational base case year on average will be included in the ES. June 2011 modelling of the operational development case has simulated that by Year 1 of operation (with the project in place) the frequency, duration and volume of the Earl Pumping Station CSO would have substantially decreased (as a result of the capture of wastewater flow into the tunnel) to the following: a. the CSO would spill on average four times per year (26 times less than the base case); b. the CSO would spill for an average duration of 26 hours (181 hours less than the base case; and c. the spill volume from the CSO would be approximately 50,500m3 per year (543,400m3 less than the current base case).
14.6.4
14.6.5
14.6.6
The frequency, duration and volume of spill at Earl Pumping Station CSO would therefore be reduced by approximately 86% as a result of the project. Following on from the interpretation of the base case the number of risk days for river users being exposed to pathogens during the development
14.6.7
Page 207
case year would be a maximum of 16 days per year on average (a reduction of up to 104 days of risk of exposure). 14.6.8 14.6.9 In addition, the tonnage of sewage derived litter can be expected to be reduced by approximately 88% from 137t to 16t per year. The data for the reduction in polluting load that is discharged from the CSO (biochemical oxygen demand BOD, ammoniacal nitrogen and total oxidised nitrogen TON) will be provided in time to inform the ES.
Assessment of impacts
14.6.10 The table below provides the assessment of effects during operation of the site against: a. WFD environmental objectives: b. local impacts; and c. 14.6.11 whether other legislative targets are likely to be affected. As discussed, overall Tideway-wide benefits are discussed in Volume 6 and this section only assesses the beneficial impacts local to the proposed site at Earl Pumping Station. Therefore only the Thames Middle is considered in this assessment.
Page 208
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Vol 24 Table 14.6.1 Surface water assessment - operation Duration and Reversibility
WFD1 WFD2 WFD3
Impact
Water body
Assessment and likely effect
Local effects or Other Legislative effects
WFD Objectives met?

WFD4
Thames Middle N/A
Reduced spill frequency, duration and volume from the Earl Pumping Station CSO. The Thames Middle is a heavily modified waterbody and only needs to achieve good potential
Improved water Permanent. The water quality quality in the local to Earl Reversibility vicinity of the dependent on Pumping Station Earl Pumping would be operation of Station CSO by improved and system. reduced would ensure that pollutant loading the operation of and preventing the Earl Pumping reduction of Station CSO dissolved complies with the oxygen levels. requirements of the Urban Contribution to Wastewater the overall Treatment Tideway-wide Directive water quality improvements
Along with the project as a whole, the Earl Pumping Station CSO connection tunnel would enhance the water quality of the Tideway helping to move the Thames Middle towards good ecological status N/A
Capture of the Earl Pumping Station CSO would reduce pollution from priority substances at Earl Pumping Station
Thames Middle Reversibility dependent on operation of
Permanent.
Reduced bacterial loadings of the river giving health
Risk of exposure days to pathogens would be reduced to a
The bacteriological improvement effect is considered to
The effect is not relevant to WFD objectives
Page 209
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Duration and Reversibility

WFD1 WFD2 WFD3
Section 14: Water resources - surface Local effects or Other Legislative effects have an effect locally in the context of local river users. WFD Objectives met?
WFD4
Impact
Water body
Assessment and likely effect
improvements to river users
maximum of 16 days in a typical year (a reduction up to 104 days of risk of exposure).
system.
Reduced sewage litter discharge
Thames Middle
N/A The effect is not relevant to WFD objectives
Sewage derived Permanent The sewage litter discharge derived litter at Earl Pumping reduction effect is Station would be Reversibility considered to dependent on reduced by have an effect operation of approximately locally in the system. 87% in a typical context of local year improving river users. the aesthetic quality of the river locally
Page 210
14.6.12 The table below identifies the significance of the effects identified in accordance with the criteria set out in Volume 5. Vol 24 Table 14.6.2 Surface water effects - operation Effect Significance and justification Major beneficial The improvements would contribute to the future attainment of Good status under WFD objective 3 in combination with the improvements elsewhere in the Tideway and would also ensure that operation of the Earl Pumping Station CSO complies with the requirements of the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive
Reduced spill frequency, duration and volume from the Earl Pumping Station CSO.
Moderate beneficial Reduced bacterial loadings of the river giving health improvements to river users The improvements would not adversely affect WFD or other legislation, but would significantly improve conditions for river users at Earl Pumping Station and in the Thames Middle as a whole Moderate beneficial The improvements would not affect WFD or other legislation, but would significantly improve aesthetic conditions for river users and recreational use at Earl Pumping Station and in the Thames Middle as a whole
Reduced sewage litter discharge
14.7
14.7.1
The assessment of significant effects for both construction and operation has not highlighted any significant adverse effects that would require additional mitigation beyond the embedded mitigation.
Page 211
14.8
Vol 24 Table 14.8.1 Surface water operational assessment Effect Major beneficial Significance Mitigation Residual significance Major beneficial Moderate beneficial Moderate beneficial
Assessment summary
Receptor
Thames Middle
Thames Middle
Thames Middle
Reduced spill frequency, duration and volume from the Earl Pumping Station CSO Reduced bacterial loadings of the river giving health improvements to river users Reduced sewage litter discharge Moderate beneficial Moderate beneficial
None required None required None required
Page 212
14.9
14.9.1
Any additional information on potential contamination of the site, collected as part of new site investigations (see Section 8 land quality), will be used to inform the baseline for the ES. Further water quality modelling was underway to determine the relative beneficial improvements that would accrue for other water quality improvements such as biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and ammoniacal nitrogen. These results for baseline and assessment will be reported in the ES. Assessment of cumulative and in combination effects will be undertaken and reported in the ES. Following completion of the assessment the mitigation approaches for surface water resources within the project will be finalised and reported in the ES.
14.9.2
14.9.3
Page 213
Section 15: Water resources flood risk
15 15.1
15.1.1
Water resources - flood risk Introduction

This section presents a Level 1 FRA which assesses the flood risk from all flood sources both to and from the proposed Earl Pumping Station site as a result of development. This Level 1 Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) is in line with the requirements of Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk (PPS25) 35 and covers the construction and operation phases. This assessment makes use of the PPS25 Practice Guide 36 and will be consistent with the outputs and findings of the Thames Estuary 2100 Plan (TE2100)37 and the policy requirements of the London Plan 38. Borough specific documents have been reviewed in addition to other relevant flood risk planning, policy and legislative documents. This Level 1 FRA is supported by 2D hydrodynamic modelling, undertaken to assess flood risk effects for the project as a whole (as described in Volume 5) and for specific sites (Volumes 7 to 28). The FRA comprises four parts, which can be found in the following volumes of this report: a. Volume 5 contains Part A of the FRA: Common sections relevant to all sites, including assessment methodology. b. Volume 6 contains Part B of the FRA: Project-wide risk assessment section. c. Volumes 7-28 contain Part C and Part D of the FRA: Individual risk assessment sections for every site (Part C) where flood risk is considered as an issue, organised according to London Borough (this Part) which precede the conclusions for each site (Part D).
15.1.2
15.1.3
15.1.4
15.1.5
15.1.6
As explained in Volume 5, a Level 1 FRA is an assessment of flood risk based on information available at the time of undertaking the assessment. Where further detailed assessment (including modelling and calculations) is required to define flood risk or required mitigation, this is undertaken to support a Level 2 or more detailed Level 3 FRA. The aim of this part of the Level 1 FRA is to assess the effects of flood risk from all sources at the site, both to the site and from the site to surrounding areas. The purpose of this section is to highlight the key issues for the design team and provide a preliminary assessment of flood risk issues. A more detailed assessment will be completed in the ES. Considering the nature of the project, the length of construction period at the site and the location of the site within the Thames Tideway, it is important that flood risk is assessed both during the construction phase and the operation phase taking into consideration climate change over the lifetime of the project. The project involves the construction at many sites throughout London. Many of these sites are situated within close proximity to, or within, the
15.1.7
15.1.8
15.1.9
15.1.10
Page 214
River Thames or other watercourses. According to PPS25, any development located within Flood Zones 2 vi or 3 vii or greater than 1ha and situated within Flood Zone 1 viii should be accompanied by a FRA. The FRA will be required to demonstrate how flood risk from all sources of flooding to the development and from the development will be managed now and in the future as a consequence of climate change for the lifetime of the development. 15.1.11 The objectives of this section are to satisfy the requirements of PPS2536 in relation to this site.
15.2
15.2.1
Policy considerations
The proposed development of a shaft and associated structures is classified as water and sewage transmission infrastructure including docks, marinas and wharfs which is classified as water-compatible development and compatible within all flood zones within PPS25.
15.3
15.3.1
Regulatory position Overview

General policy documents (eg PPS25) have been reviewed within Volume 5. The following should be read in conjunction with that Volume.
Local policy
Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) 15.3.2 The Earl PS site lies within the London Borough of Lewisham. London Borough of Lewisham has produced a Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) 39. This outlines the main flood sources to the Borough. The SFRA39 confirms that the Thames Tidal Defence network reduces the annual probability of flooding from the Thames to less than 0.1%. The risk of flooding is a residual risk associated with a breach in the defences. In addition, the proposed site is located upstream of the Thames Barrier, therefore it benefits from the operation of this structure. The SFRA39 advocates the use of flood resilience and resistant measures. These should be adopted during the construction and operation phases of the project. According to the SFRA39: a. the site is underlain by Reading and Thanet Sands bedrock, which in turn is overlain by Alluvium drift geology b. it is within the Flood Warning Area of the Tidal Thames from the Limehouse Basin to Blackfriars Bridge Tidal, and Environment Agency (EA) Flood Zone 3
vi
15.3.3
15.3.4
15.3.5
defined as medium probability, assessed as having between a 1% and 0.1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) of river flooding or between a 0.5% and 0.1% AEP of sea flooding in any year vii defined as high probability, assessed as having a 1% or greater AEP of river flooding or a 0.5% or greater AEP of sea flooding in any year viii defined as low probability, assessed as having less than a 0.1% AEP of river or sea flooding in any year
Page 215
the site is located within an area which has had between 1 and 10 historical sewer flooding events
d. safe access/egress is required from the site to a suitable location within Flood Zone 1. In terms of emergency planning during the construction phase, the SFRA39 has identified rest and reception centres as Leisure Centre, Churches, Schools and Community Centres. 15.3.6 The SFRA39 promotes the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) suitable to specific site locations within the Borough, depending on underlying geology. These must however be adopted and adequately maintained post-construction to ensure design operation into the future. Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) 15.3.7 The Council is working in partnership with the Greater London Authority (GLA), Thames Water and the EA to produce a SWMP as part of the Drain London Project. This is scheduled for completion in autumn 2011.
Environment Agency policy

Thames Estuary 2100 (TE2100) 15.3.8 The site lies within the Wandsworth to Deptford Policy Unit which has been assigned the P5 flood risk management policy within TE210037, meaning that further action will be taken to reduce flood risk beyond that required to keep pace with climate change. The TE2100 Plan37 outlines that the local sources of flood risk at this location as including: a. tidal from the River Thames and b. a risk of groundwater flooding from superficial strata which is possibly connected to high water levels in the Thames. 15.3.10 Defences from these sources include: a. the Thames Barrier and secondary tidal defences along the Thames frontage (both making up the Thames Tidal Defence) b. Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) for mitigation of urban drainage c. 15.3.11 flood forecasting and warning. The TE2100 Plan seeks to promote, where possible, defence improvements that are sensitive to ensure views are maintained and impacts to river access/views are minimised. Where defence raising in the future as a consequence of climate change is not possible, secondary defences and floodplain management should be introduced. There is also the vision to increase flood risk awareness within the area.
15.3.9
Regional policy
London Regional Flood Risk Appraisal (RFRA) 15.3.12 For the reach between Hammersmith Bridge and the Thames Barrier (City Reach) the London RFRA 40 encourages small scale set back of development from the river walls where possible. The aim of this is to
Page 216
enable modification, raising and maintenance in a sustainable, environmentally acceptable and cost effective way. Development should be designed in such a way as to take opportunities to reduce flood risk and include resilience. 15.3.13 There is particular concern surrounding confluences and the interactions between tidal and fluvial flows in the future due to climate change. This should be taken into consideration during the re-development process. The RFRA indicates that SUDS should be included within developments to reduce surface water discharge.
15.3.14
15.4
15.4.1
Assessment of flood risk Overview

The flood risk from all potential flood sources (as listed in Annex C of PPS25) to the site, and from the site as a result of the development, is assessed in the following section. For a discussion on project-wide effects see Volume 6. In summary, initial hydraulic computation modelling indicates that the influence of the project as a whole on the River Thames (tidal and fluvial) flood levels is minimal and is unlikely to exacerbate flood risk.
15.4.2
Flood sources
Flooding from the sea Flood risk to the site 15.4.3 The site is situated approximately 600m from the River Thames and is predominantly within Flood Zone 3a of the River Thames, albeit benefiting from defences. The location of the site in relation to the flood zones is shown in Vol 15 Figure 15.4.1. Vol 24 Figure 15.4.1 Flood risk EA flood zones (see Volume 24 Figures document) 15.4.4 The design standard of the existing local Thames Tidal Defences is stated by the EA to be at the 0.1% AEP level. In reality, the defence levels along the River Thames vary and are generally in excess of the 0.1% AEP standard of protection with a freeboard. Information on the level of defences at the site were not made available by the EA for this assessment; however, it has been assumed that the defence level local to the Earl PS site is 5.23mAOD as the EA has stated that the defence levels in close proximity to the site are 5.23mAOD. The existing local defence level will be confirmed with defence survey information, requested from the EA for the Level 2 FRA to be prepared for the development control order application submission. Given the distance between the site and the formal flood defences, the proposed development of the site will not have any impact on the structural integrity of the defences.
15.4.5
Page 217
Proposed ground levels where the proposed shaft is to be situated would be approximately 1.4mAOD, with the shaft and interception chambers raised to approximately 4.5mAOD. The most extreme flood risk to the site in this location would be as a result of a high tide combined with a storm surge (with the Thames Barrier operational); this is considered to be the EA flood design event. The tidal flood levels in the vicinity of the site for the EA flood design event are: a. b. 4.83mAOD for the 0.5% AEP 2005, and 4.83mAOD for the 0.5% AEP 2107 (ie with climate change).
15.4.7
15.4.8
15.4.9
This data is taken from the EA Tidal Thames Joint Probability Extreme Water Levels Study 41. This indicates that the proposed site for the shaft (assuming that it would be defended to the same level as the current defences), would not flood under the above return periods and is therefore defended for the EA flood design event. The TE2100 Plan37 indicates that a higher level of protection will be required to protect areas along the river in light of the necessity for a greater number of Barrier closures as water levels increase, and due to the possibility that higher tides could propagate upstream of the Barrier should the Barrier fail. At the Earl PS, assuming the local defences are 5.23mAOD, the local defences would be required to be raised to 5.85mAOD and 6.35mAOD for 2065 and 2100 respectively in line with requirements of the TE2100 Plan37. The defence raising would contribute to the continual protection of the site from tidal flooding into the future. The EA has also used the Tidal Thames Joint Probability Extreme Water Levels Study41 to investigate water levels within the Thames in the absence of the Thames Barrier, ie, when the Barrier is not closed (it is assumed that a partial closure would influence flood levels upstream of the barrier). This shows tidal flood levels within the River Thames are 5.79mAOD for the 0.5% AEP 2005 and 6.70mAOD for the 0.5% AEP 2107. Under this modelled scenario, the site would be flooded as the water level is above the existing local flood defence level and that proposed for the construction site and operational site. However, because the Thames Barrier is a key component of the Thames Tidal defences, these levels are not used for the EA flood design event when considering the required flood prevention measures for new development. The SFRA39 shows that there are no records of flooding of the site area during any historic flood events (note, this does not mean the site was not flooded, only that no data is held). The standard of protection of the current defences and the operation of the Thames Barrier are such that tidal flooding up to the EA flood design event (0.5% AEP 2005) does not pose a direct flood risk to the site.
15.4.10
15.4.11
15.4.12
15.4.13
15.4.14
15.4.15
Page 218
Flood risk to the site from tidal sources is therefore residual in the event that there is a breach (or failure) of the existing defences and tidal water could enter the site. If there was a localised breach in the defences approximately 600m to the east of the site, flood water could flow on to the site, potentially cover the shaft and inundate any ventilation, monitoring or associated operation equipment. As the shaft lids are covered (although not necessarily watertight) there would be a limited amount of water that could enter the tunnel though the space between the lid and the shaft. Ventilation and monitoring equipment may be damaged by flood water (if not installed above the flood level); however, this quantity would not endanger the primary function of the tunnel which is to collect, store and transfer discharges from CSOs. Flood risk from the site The excavation process using TBMs to construct the tunnel has the potential to impact on settlement in some cases which could affect the level of some of the defences. Given the distance of the site from the defences (approximately 600m), the works at Earl PS would not impact on the defences. A project-wide study into the potential impacts of the tunnel excavation on settlement of third party assets including flood defences is being undertaken but has not been completed in time to inform this Level 1 FRA. When complete, any relevant assessment for Earl PS defences will be included in the Level 2 FRA prepared to support the development control order application and Environmental Statement. Flooding from rivers The Earl PS site is not situated within the floodplain of any fluvial watercourses. The EA Thames Tidal Defences Joint Probability Extreme Water Levels Study41 uses a combination of different factors including astronomical tides, tide surge and fluvial river flows to produce an estimation of the peak high water levels within the Tidal Thames during a combined event. This methodology assumes that no combination of fluvial events with tidal conditions produces a higher flood level than the worst case combined tidal storm surge conditions. Water levels influenced by high fluvial flow alone would therefore be lower than the combined event assessed and hence the assessment of fluvial risk from the Thames is considered to be included within the assessment of flood risk from tidal sources in the previous section. Flood risk to the site from fluvial sources alone is therefore considered to be negligible. Flooding from land and surface water runoff Flood risk to the site
15.4.17
15.4.18
15.4.19
15.4.20 15.4.21
15.4.22
15.4.23
15.4.24
The Lewisham SFRA39 indicates there is no surface water flooding hot spots within the vicinity of the site. This assessment will be updated for
Page 219
the Level 2 FRA when Critical Drainage Area (CDA) mapping is made available for the SWMP for London Borough of Lewisham through the Drain London Project later in 2011. 15.4.25 Surface water flooding could originate from any surrounding hardstanding land where infiltration (into the ground or the local sewer network) is exceeded or the local sewer is at capacity and surcharging occurs. Flood risk to the site from this source is considered to be negligible. Flood risk from the site 15.4.27 PPS25 states that runoff post development should not be greater than runoff pre development in order to not increase the risk of flooding either downstream or on surrounding land. The London Plan 42 aims towards greenfield runoff rates and the Mayors Draft Water Strategy 43 also aims for greenfield runoff and has an essential standard of 50% attenuation to the undeveloped sites surface water runoff at peak times (see Volume 5). The Earl PS site is bounded to the north by Chilton Grove and to the east by Yeoman Street. The site is 100% impermeable and occupied by commercial buildings. Therefore no additional hardstanding areas are proposed. It is assumed surface water runoff drains from the roofs via rainwater pipes to an existing drainage network and surface water generated on the existing hardstanding areas would drain to the nearest surface water drain. Based on a development footprint of 4500m2, the existing previously developed surface water runoff rate for the 1% AEP event plus 30% for climate change and post development (100% impermeable) surface water runoff rate have been calculated using the Modified Rational Method. In accordance with PPS25 Table B.2 the post development surface water runoff rate includes a 30% increase in peak rainfall intensity to account for the anticipated impact of climate change over the developments lifetime. The undeveloped greenfield runoff rate has also been calculated using the ICP SUDS rural runoff method in Micro Drainage WinDes Version 12.5 software. A soil factor of 0.45, which represents clayey poorly draining soils, has been used within this method. The greenfield runoff is required to identify the volume of attenuation necessary to meet the Mayor of Londons preferred standard for SUDS (ie, reduce runoff from the development to greenfield rates). The existing, post development and greenfield runoff rates for the 1% AEP event are provided in the table below. Vol 24 Table 15.4.1 Flood risk - runoff rates onsite Site Status Existing Rainfall Runoff Event 1% AEP + 30% Climate Change Runoff Rate (l/s) 87.90
15.4.26
15.4.28
15.4.29
15.4.30
15.4.31
15.4.32
15.4.33
15.4.34
Page 220
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Post Development Greenfield
Section 15: Water resources flood risk 1% AEP + 30% Climate Change 1% AEP + 30% Climate Change
87.90 7.02
15.4.35
By subtracting the existing runoff rate from the post development runoff rate for the 1% AEP event, no additional runoff is predicted post development as the site is 100% hardstanding pre and post development. When comparing the greenfield runoff rate with the post development runoff rate it is apparent that an additional runoff rate of 80.9l/s is generated post development. Proposed mitigation measures relating to surface water drainage are provided in Section 15.5. Flooding from groundwater The TE2100 Plan37 states that there may be a risk of groundwater flooding at the Earl PS site originating from superficial strata underlying the site. Because the underlying strata are in hydraulic connectivity with the river levels in the Thames, the groundwater levels vary on a diurnal basis with the changing tide levels. Therefore, during high water level conditions within the Thames there is the potential for groundwater to reach ground level at the site. However, there are no groundwater flooding incidents within the vicinity of the site shown within the Lewisham SFRA39 and due to the distance of the site from the River Thames it is unlikely that this flood risk mechanism would have a large impact on the site. Following the completion of the groundwater assessment for the Environmental Statement, the potential mechanisms for groundwater flooding will be explored further including local water levels from ongoing monitoring and data collection as part of the EIA. This will inform the assessment of groundwater flood risk to this site and will be reported in the Level 2 FRA for the site. Until further information is available, flood risk to the site from this source is considered to be low, as although the TE2100 Plan37 suggests a flooding mechanism, there is no evidence from the Lewisham SFRA39 to suggest that groundwater flooding has occurred in the past. Flooding from sewers The Lewisham SFRA39 shows that there have been between 1 and 10 sewer flooding incidents recorded by Thames Water in the area in the last 10 years. However, the area detailed covers the area from Deptford and New Cross and extends along the River Ravensbourne valley to Downham and Perry Vale in the south of the Borough, therefore covering a significant area where exact locations of flooding are not known. The local sewer network has been investigated to determine whether there are any capacity issues that may lead to an increase in the potential for sewer flooding to the site. This assessment shows there is a small sewer running around the site, joining a combined sewer to the south of the site,
15.4.36
15.4.37
15.4.38
15.4.39
15.4.40
15.4.41
15.4.42
Page 221
running from east to south west (dimensions 1372mm by 914mm) which then joins a large combined sewer running north west to south east down Evelyn Street (dimensions are 1676mm). 15.4.43 If the capacity of the combined sewer system was exceeded, it would spill into the Earl Relief Sewer (at an overflow weir on the corner of Chilton Grove and Evelyn St) and flow to Earl Pumping Station, where it would either flow into the tunnel or be pumped to the river. In the unlikely event that the capacity of the tunnel and/or pumps is exceeded, then the combined sewer would surcharge throughout outlets such as man holes and gullies located along the length of the sewer. The pathway for this surcharged combined water would be north, into the river and through the site. As the ground levels on the site are lower than those adjacent to the river, in the event of significant sewer surcharging some ponding on the site would be anticipated. Due to the limited impact on infrastructure, flood risk from this source is considered to be low. Flooding from artificial sources 15.4.46 The principal flood risk posed from artificial sources would be from the Greenland Dock, located to the north of the site. The Greenland Dock is connected to the Thames Tideway but controlled by a series of locks. Initial discussions with the EA has indicated that where the docks are identified as being benefiting from flood defences (as is the case with the Greenland Dock), the locks and gates can be assumed to operate as the flood defences local to the dock. Therefore, flood risks arising from the Greenland Dock is assumed to be protected up to the 0.1% annual probability standard. As a result of the above at this stage the flood risks associated with the Greenland Dock are considered to be low.
15.4.44
15.4.45
15.4.47
15.4.48
15.5
15.5.1
Flood risk design and mitigation Overview

This assessment has identified the following sources of flood risk related to the site: a. residual risk of flooding to the site from tidal sources as a result of a breach in the existing or proposed new defences b. low risk of groundwater flooding to the site associated with water levels in the underlying geological strata c. low risk of sewer flooding to the site d. low risk of surface water flooding (or ponding) to the site as a result of runoff from surrounding land e. low risk of artificial sources of flooding f. increase in runoff rates and volumes with the potential to increase flood risk elsewhere, and
Page 222
This section describes flood mitigation methods that have been highlighted as being required specifically to address flood risk effects as a result of development at Earl PS. Flood mitigation methods in this context are defined as being required to alleviate the effect of the development of a site on any consequential (increase in) flood risk.
Flood prevention
Flood resilience/resistance during operation 15.5.3 The London RFRA40 states that flood risk should be reduced where possible and flood resistance and resilience measure should be built into the development. Given that the project is a water compatible development type (see Section 15.2.1), there is no project-wide intention to provide flood resistance and resilience measures for residual flood risk as it is considered that the primary operational function of the Tunnel would not be affected by flooding as a result of a breach. Construction and emergency planning 15.5.4 The subsequent Level 2 FRA will include the production of a site Emergency Plan in relation to Flood Risk outlining appropriate working practices and appropriate access/egress routes in the event of a flood warning. LB of Lewisham will be required to comment on the Emergency Plan.
Design and mitigation

Surface water discharge 15.5.5 15.5.6 An appropriate surface water management strategy is required to ensure surface water is positively drained from this site post development. The preliminary calculations shown in the table below are based on SUDS attenuation, assuming zero infiltration (the feasibility of SUDS infiltration techniques onsite is currently unknown). PPS25 states that runoff post development should not be greater than runoff pre development in order to not increase the risk of flooding either downstream or on surrounding land. The attenuation volume is based on this Policy. In addition and in accordance with the Mayors Draft Water Strategy, the preferred standard and essential standard have also been considered. To take into account the effects of climate change over the developments lifetime a 30% increase in peak rainfall intensity has been included when considering post development runoff and the associated attenuation volumes.
15.5.7
Page 223
Vol 24 Table 15.5.1 Flood risk - runoff rates / preliminary attenuation volumes 1% AEP Rainfall Event Preferred Standard (attenuation to greenfield runoff rate) Essential Standard (attenuation to 50% of undeveloped runoff rate) PPS25 Standard (no increase in runoff post development) 15.5.8 Runoff Rate (l/s) Attenuation Volume (m3)
7.02
256 330
43.90
158 222
87.90
The table above indicates that to meet the PPS25 standard no storage volume is required as pre and post development the site is 100% hardstanding. Storage would be required to meet both the preferred and essential standards. It is important to note that the attenuation volumes provided in the table above are based on preliminary calculations and would be subject to refinement at outline and detailed design stage and through the Level 2 FRA. Both the need and the potential to deliver this level of attenuation at the site will be determined during the Level 2 FRA and reported in the ES, which will ensure that the requirements of PPS25 are met at all times and the aspirations of the London Plan are met where practicable. Until soakaway tests and a contamination study are carried out the feasibility of SUDS infiltration techniques are unknown. Therefore, SUDS surface attenuation techniques are considered to be the preferred option at this stage. The construction of a retention pond may be feasible at the site; however this type of SUDS feature would require regular maintenance to ensure it remains operational. A storage tank or oversized piping is considered to be a more suitable option for the commercial/industrial location of the site. The following surface water mitigation measures should also be considered for incorporation into the development design: a. In the event of return periods in excess of the 3.3% AEP storm, the layout and the landscaping of the site should aim to route water away from vulnerable property, and avoid creating hazards to access egress routes, whilst not increasing flood risk to third parties. b. Depending on operational activities at the site surface water runoff may be required to pass through an oil interceptor, or similar, prior to discharge to the chosen surface water receptor.
15.5.9
15.5.10
15.5.11
15.5.12
Page 224
During the construction phase appropriate mitigation would be provided to ensure surface water is managed in a controlled manner.
15.6
15.6.1 15.6.2
A Level 2 FRA will be prepared for the site which will outline further specific design approaches and measures. It is considered that a Level 2 FRA will be sufficient to assess the impact of flood risk for the final site design (ie no Level 3 specific site modelling is required). This will be prepared for the site and incorporated into the ES. The Level 2 FRA will use the data collected as part of the Level 1 FRA and build upon the preliminary findings of this assessment once further information is available from the EA and other assessments being undertaken to support the FRA and the EIA. In summary, the following additional assessment elements will be undertaken: a. Confirmation of existing defence level following receipt of the EA survey information of flood defences. This will be used to reassess the standard of protection at the site and effect on tidal flood risk (direct and residual). b. A project-wide study into the potential impacts of the tunnel excavation on the integrity of the flood defences is being undertaken. Any relevant assessment for Earl PS defences will be included in the Earl PS Level 2 FRA. c. The assessment of surface water flood risk to the site will be completed when the final surface water flood maps are available from the Drain London Project.
15.6.3
d. The surface water drainage scheme will be assessed for suitability and conformity with the suggested surface water attenuation within this Level 1 FRA. e. Groundwater flood risk and any required flood risk prevention measures will be reassessed when the groundwater resources impact assessment is complete. This will be included in the Level 2 FRA. f. An emergency plan will be developed to support the Level 2 FRA and the CoCP.
g. Further detail of any site specific mitigation and flood prevention measures that may be required to manage both residual risk and direct flood risk based on the final site design. 15.6.4 It is not anticipated that further primary data collection (assuming outstanding data from the EA is supplied) or any modelling will be required at this site as part of future work and hence a Level 2 FRA will be sufficient to support the ES and application specific to the Earl PS site.
Page 225
Appendix A: Historic environment
Appendices
List of figures
Page number
Figure A.3 Historic environment - Rocques map of 1746 ...................................... 228 Figure A.4 Historic environment - Horwoods map of 1799 .................................... 228 Figure A.5 Historic environment - OS 1st edition 25 scale map of 1862 ............... 229 Figure A.6 Historic environment - OS 2nd edition 25 scale map of 1896 .............. 229 Figure A.7 Historic environment - OS 3rd edition 25 scale map of 1909 ............... 230 Figure A.8 Historic environment - OS 25 scale map of 1947 ................................. 230 Figure A.9 Historic environment - OS 1 scale map of 1954 ................................... 231 Figure A.10 Historic environment - Current setting of Earl PS ................................ 232 Figure A.11 Historic environment - Interior of Earl PS ............................................ 232 Figure A.12 Historic environment - view of work room ........................................... 233 Figure A.13 Historic environment - view of the rear of Earl Pumping Station ......... 233 Figure C.1 Noise survey monitoring locations ........................................................ 240 Figure C.2 Noise monitoring at PLM1X - Noise 1 ................................................... 241 Figure C.3 Noise monitoring at PLM1X - Noise 2 ................................................... 241 Figure D.1 Townscape and visual - viewpoint 1.1: ................................................. 242 Figure D.2 Townscape and visual - viewpoint 1.2: ................................................. 243 Figure D.3 Townscape and visual - viewpoint 1.4: ................................................. 244 Figure D.4 Townscape and visual - viewpoint 1.6: ................................................. 244 Figure D.5 Townscape and visual - viewpoint 1.7: ................................................. 245 Figure D.6 Townscape and visual - viewpoint 1.8: ................................................. 246 Figure D.7 Townscape and visual - viewpoint 1.9 .................................................. 247 Figure D.8 Townscape and visual - viewpoint 2.1 .................................................. 248 Figure E.1 Groundwater superficial geology ........................................................ 250 Figure E.2 Groundwater solid geology ................................................................ 250 Figure E.3 Groundwater EA monitoring borehole ................................................ 255 Figure E.4 Groundwater level hydrographs ............................................................ 256 Figure E.5 Groundwater level hydrograph .............................................................. 257 Figure E.6 Groundwater - licensing areas (EA, 2006) ............................................ 261
List of tables
Page number
Table A.4 Historic environment gazetteer of heritage assets.................................. 234
Page 226
Table B.1 Land quality site walkover ................................................................... 237 Table C.1 Noise survey measurement locations .................................................... 239 Table C.2 Noise survey results at Earl Pumping Station ........................................ 240 Table E.1 Groundwater - geological succession..................................................... 249 Table E.2 Groundwater - ground conditions ........................................................... 250 Table E.3 Groundwater - main hydrogeological units ............................................. 251 Table E.4 Groundwater - depth and strata from monitoring boreholes ................... 254 Table E.5 Groundwater - licensed abstractions ...................................................... 258 Table E.6 Groundwater - quality results ................................................................. 259
Page 227
Appendix A Historic environment A.2 Historic maps
Figure A.3 Historic environment - Rocques map of 1746
Figure A.4 Historic environment - Horwoods map of 1799
Page 228
Figure A.5 Historic environment - OS 1st edition 25 scale map of 1862 (not to scale)
Figure A.6 Historic environment - OS 2nd edition 25 scale map of 1896 (not to scale)
Page 229
Figure A.7 Historic environment - OS 3rd edition 25 scale map of 1909 (not to scale)
Figure A.8 Historic environment - OS 25 scale map of 1947 (not to scale)
Page 230
Figure A.9 Historic environment - OS 1 scale map of 1954 (not to scale)
Page 231
A.3
Photographs
Figure A.10 Historic environment - Current setting of Earl PS
Figure A.11 Historic environment - Interior of Earl PS

Note: showing camber roof and lattice girder truss, March 2011; standard lens; south-west corner of the building looking north-east
Note: March 2011; standard lens; corner of Chilton Grove and Croft Street looking east
Page 232
Figure A.12 Historic environment - view of work room

Note: showing original tool board, door and door frame dating to initial construction date, March 2011; standard lens
Figure A.13 Historic environment - view of the rear of Earl Pumping Station
Note: March 2011; standard lens; the west of the site, looking north-east
Page 233
A.4
A.3.1
Gazetteer of known heritage assets

The location of known heritage assets (see below) is shown on the historic environment features map (Vol 24 Figure 7.4.1). Table A.4 Historic environment gazetteer of heritage assets Description Site code/ HER ref: CRF94 071349 TQ36138 78868
HEA Ref no. 1
2840 Croft Street, SE8 An evaluation of the site was carried out by MoLAS in 1994. A sequence of peat deposits and timbers was recorded, dated to the turn of the millennium, which were overlain by sands and alluvial deposits. The site was covered in 19th concrete surfacing (HER 071277). 4448 Croft Street, SE8 An evaluation was carried out by MoLAS in 1992. Alluvial silt was overlain in one trench by a layer of compacted chalk, possibly the floor of a building dating to the early 19th century (HER 071260), and in another by a layer of mortar. Modern rubble sealed these deposits. Land Adjacent to Crofters Court, Croft Street, SE8 A watching brief was carried out on the site by MoLAS in 2003. A considerable build up of Quaternary gravels, resulting from periods of high river level when the site was flooded for prolonged periods, and more recent sediments, were recorded. 7197 Plough Way, SE8 An evaluation of the site was carried out by MoLAS in 1996. Natural sands were recorded, overlain by alluvial silts above peat deposits, suggesting a flooded marsh; one residual prehistoric struck flint was recovered from the peat. Victorian basements truncated the alluvium. 305319 Lower Road, SE8 A trial excavation was carried out by the DGLA in 1988. This revealed mainly topographical information, although five or six struck flints, areas of burning and several undated pits were located in natural sand and may represent limited prehistoric activity/occupation on the edge of an undefined sand island. East Country Yard, Plough Way, Surrey Quays, SE16 An evaluation of the site was carried out by WA in 1994. Two trenches revealed a possible post-medieval relict watercourse (HER 092180), aligned east-west, filled with at least two layers of alluvial clay which both produced post-medieval and modern finds, as well as undiagnostic waterlogged timbers from the upper fill. The watercourse cut through the surface of a natural gravel island. All other finds and deposits represented modern building disturbance. Marine Wharf, Plough Way, SE8 An evaluation of the site was carried out by MoLAS in 1998.
CFT92 071260 TQ36578 9
CFC03 TQ36097 867
PWA96 TQ36107 890
LR88 TQ35987 864 091127 MLO172 93 PLW94 TQ36507 895 092180 MLO659 45
PLU98 071576
Page 234
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station HEA Ref no. Description
Appendix A: Historic environment Site code/ HER ref: TQ36507 880
Sterile sands and alluvial clays were recorded, overlying natural gravel. In one area organic silt was recorded. Above lay a great depth of re-deposited natural material almost certainly backfill from West Pond that had existed on the site at the beginning of the 19th century. This pond clearly extended further east than is indicated on contemporary maps. Grove Street (south end), Pepys Estate, SE8 A watching brief carried out on the site by MoLAS in 1996 revealed modern made ground overlying natural gravels.
10
11
12
GVS96 071513 TQ36507 860 Deepway, 85 Evelyn Street, SE8 EVL01 An evaluation was carried out on the site by MoLAS in 2001. TQ36267 A series of fluvial deposits (MLO76022), possibly representing 846 a period of transgression by the Thames in the Saxon period, MLO760 22 was recorded. In the east of the site was plough- or garden MLO771 soil, dated to the 19th century (MLO77158), which had been truncated by a stock brick wall. Victorian and modern rubbish 58 MLO771 pits (MLO77159) were also recorded. 59 Surrey Canal MLO983 The canal was built in 18011807, between Rotherhithe and 60 Mitcham, in what was then Surrey. The Rotherhithe end of the canal (which is situated within the study area, c 85m to the east of the site) originally ended at the Stave dock, which was connected to the Thames by a lock. In 1864 the complex became part of the Surrey Commercial Docks. During the second half of the 19th century, the canal was used by the South Metropolitan Gas Company to supply coal to its gas works site on the Old Kent Road. The canal was also heavily used to move timber. The final 460m of the canal were abandoned in the 1940s, and had been filled in by 1960. The timber trade to the docks ceased in the early 1970s, resulting in the docks closing and the canal being filled in. Howland Manor, Greenland Dock, Surrey Docks, Southwark 090754 The site of a 17th century Manor house belonging to the Howland family. William Duke of Bedford constructed the Howland Great Wet Dock on the site in AD 16961700. An Act of Parliament vested property in the parish, which had belonged to the Howland family, in trustees, for the purpose of raising funds for its construction. In 1725 the dock was leased by the South Sea Company, and it was re-named the Greenland Dock. Plough Way, Southwark 090273 During excavations in 1867 for warehouses and a dock MLO111 beside Plough Way, an earthenware vase was found 73 containing coins from the Hadrianic period (AD 117138).
Page 235
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station HEA Ref no. Description
Appendix A: Historic environment Site code/ HER ref:
13
14
15 16
17
18
19
20
21
The hoard was found 5ft below the ground (c. 0.03m OD) on a bed of silty sand which lay above gravels. It was sealed by alluvial deposits. Chilton Grove, Southwark A Roman pot was discovered containing 269 coins of the Emperors Honorius and Arcadius (388-402 AD). South-western end of Greenland Dock, Surrey Docks, Southwark A Palaeolithic struck flint (MLO15696) was discovered here. Greenland Dock, Surrey Docks, Southwark The site of a post-medieval warehouse. Plough Way, Lewisham The find spot of unclassified post-medieval remains, perhaps surface or building material. No further information. Capstan, northern bank of Greenland Dock, Surrey Docks, Southwark A grade II listed, capstan dated to c 1898 and listed in 1998. Located on the west side of Russia Dock Passage, next to Greenland Dock. Surrey Docks The site of a late 17th century dock complex (MLO12686), redeveloped by the LDDC in 1996. Earl Pumping Station The Thames Water Earl Pumping Station is a T-shaped, single-storey 1940s municipal structure formed of red brick with Art Deco motifs. It was designed in the Art Deco style pre-1939 and constructed post-1945. Cobbled hardstanding located immediately northeast of the site. Dating to the 19th century, this is a remnant of the former industrial area within the vicinity of the site. South-west of Earl Pumping Station A row of 2-storey terrace cottages, dating to the mid-19th century.
090274 MLO425 7 091092 MLO156 96 MLO747 77 071048 MLO818 8 471361 TQ36127 918
213291 MLO126 86 ---
---
---
Page 236
Appendix B: Land quality
Appendix B Land quality B.2

Item Site Ref Site Name Date of walkover Size and topography of site and surroundings Neighbouring site use (in particular note any potentially contaminative activities or sensitive receptors) 9 November 2010 Record elevation in relation to surroundings, any hummocks, breaks of slope etc. North South
th
Site walkover survey

Table B.1 Land quality site walkover
Details PLM1X Earl Pumping Station Site location (Address & Access) Site is flat in relation to the surrounding areas.
Residential properties situated on Chilton Grove. A goods depot is located adjacent to the south of the site, which is in turn bordered by a private parking area with an electrical substation. 1. A goods depot and storage yards and sheds located on Yeoman Street. Residences situated on Croft Street. The site is occupied by a large brick building, a small electricity substation and a small pump house. Site covered entirely in hardstanding No vegetation observed.
East West Site buildings Surfacing Vegetation Record extent, size, type and usage. Any boiler rooms, electrical switchgear? Record type and condition Any evidence of distress, unusual growth or invasive species such as Japanese Knotweed? Evidence of buried services?
Services Fuels or chemicals on site
N/A Types/ quantities? Tanks (above ground or below ground) None It is understood from Thames Water personnel that the site would previously have included diesel tanks associated with back-up power generation. None observed.
Containment systems (eg, bund, drainage interceptors). Record condition and standing liquids Refill points located inside bunds or on impermeable surfaces etc? Vehicle servicing or refuelling onsite Waste generated/stored onsite Surface water Site drainage Evidence of previous site investigations Evidence of land contamination Summary of potential contamination sources Any other comments Eg access restrictions/ limitations Record locations, tanks and inspection pits etc. Adequate storage and security? Fly tipping ? Record on-site or nearby standing water Is the site drained, if so to where? Evidence of flooding? Eg trial pits, borehole covers. Evidence of discoloured ground, seepage of liquids, strong odours?
N/A None None None N/A None observed No obvious potential contaminative sources were identified during the survey. Presence of electrical substation on site. N/A
Page 237
Appendix C: Noise and vibration
Appendix C Noise and vibration C.2

B.1.1
Introduction
A baseline noise survey was completed on 30th March and 1st April 2011. As described in Volume 5, the main purpose of the noise survey was to determine representative ambient and background noise levels at a number of different types of noise sensitive receptor. These include (but are not restricted to): a. dwellings b. community buildings c. hospitals/health care buildings d. hotels/hostels e. offices f. open/public amenity space g. premises with noise/vibration sensitive equipment h. places of worship i. j. recording studios schools/educational institutions.
B.1.2
The nearest identified receptors to Earl Pumping Station are the residential dwellings surrounding the site (see Section 9.4).
C.3
B.1.3
Survey methodology
Short term attended noise monitoring was completed at all measurement positions. Measurements were undertaken during the interpeak periods of 10am-12pm and 2pm-4pm so that the baseline data is representative of the quieter periods where any disturbance from construction would be most noticeable. It is understood that Earl Pumping Station would be used for standard hours working and therefore no evening or night time measurements were undertaken.
B.1.4
C.4
B.1.5
Measurement locations
The co-ordinates of each of the measurement locations are provided in Table C.1.
C.5
B.1.6
30 March 2011
At locations 1 and 2 a Brel and Kjr sound level meter, Type 2250 (serial number 2626232), fitted with Brel and Kjr Type 4189 -inch free field microphone (serial number 2656212) was used for all measurements. At locations 3 and 4 a Brel and Kjr sound level meter, Type 2250 (serial number 2626233), fitted with Brel and Kjr Type 4189 -inch free field microphone (serial number2621211) was used for all measurements. The microphones were fitted with a windshield during the measurements.
B.1.7
B.1.8
Page 238
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station B.1.9
Prior to and on completion of the survey, the sound level meter and microphone calibration was checked using a Brel and Kjr sound level meter calibrator Type 4231 (serial numbers 2619374 and 2619375 respectively). On-site calibration checks were performed before and after
C.6
B.1.10 B.1.11
1 April 2011
A second survey was undertaken on 1 April 2011. At locations 1 and 2 a Brel and Kjr sound level meter, Type 2250 (serial number 2626233), fitted with Brel and Kjr Type 4189 -inch free field microphone (serial number 2656212) was used for all measurements. At locations 3 and 4 a Brel and Kjr sound level meter, Type 2250 (serial number 2446918), fitted with Brel and Kjr Type 4189 -inch free field microphone (serial number 2440900) was used for all measurements. The microphones were fitted with a windshield during the measurements. Prior to and on completion of the survey, the sound level meter and microphone calibration was checked using a Brel and Kjr sound level meter calibrator Type 4231 (serial numbers 2619374 and 2619373 respectively). On-site calibration checks were performed before and after all measurements with no significant deviation being observed. The sound level meters and calibrators had valid laboratory calibration certificates. The sound level meter was tripod-mounted with the microphone approximately 1.3m above ground level. A windshield was fitted over the microphone at all times during the survey period to minimise the effects of any wind induced noise. The weather was dry with a westerly breeze. The maximum windspeed measured during the survey was 3.8 m/s with an average windspeed in the range of 0.5-1m/s and the temperature range was 16-17oC. Table C.1 Noise survey measurement locations Measurement Location Number PLM1X Noise 1 PLM1XNoise 2 PLM1X Noise 3 PLM1X Noise 4 Description Co-ordinates X Footpath adjacent to Chilton Grove Footpath adjacent to Chilton Grove Footpath adjacent to Croft Street Footpath adjacent to Croft Street 536148 536106 536106 536141 Y 178844 178822 178779 178741
B.1.12
B.1.13 B.1.14
B.1.15
B.1.16
Page 239
C.7
C.5.7
Results
The summary of the noise survey measurements is presented in Table C.2 below. Figure C.1 Noise survey monitoring locations (see Volume 24 Figures document) Table C.2 Noise survey results at Earl Pumping Station Measurement Location Number Measured average daytime ambient noise level, dBLAeq,15 min Free field PLM1X Noise 1 PLM1X Noise 2 PLM1X Noise 3 PLM1X Noise 4 Footpath adjacent to Chilton Grove Footpath adjacent to Chilton Grove Footpath adjacent to Croft Street Footpath adjacent to Croft Street 62 58 59 57 Facade 65 61 62 60 65 60 60 60 dBLAeq,15min (rounded to nearest 5dB)
Description
Page 240
C.8
Photographs
Figure C.2 Noise monitoring at PLM1X - Noise 1
Note: footpath adjacent to Chilton Grove
Figure C.3 Noise monitoring at PLM1X - Noise 2
Page 241
Appendix D: Townscape and visual
Appendix D Townscape and visual D.2 Winter photographs

Figure D.1 Townscape and visual - viewpoint 1.1:
View south from residences along Yeoman Street
Page 242
View west from residences along Plough Way
Page 243
View west from residences along Plough Way near Windsock Close Figure D.4 Townscape and visual - viewpoint 1.6:
Panoramic view north from residences along Woodcroft Mews
Page 244
View north from residences along Acacia Close
Page 245
View north east from residences at the junction of Acacia Close and Croft Street
Page 246
Figure D.7 Townscape and visual - viewpoint 1.9
View east from residences along Chilton Grove
Page 247
Figure D.8 Townscape and visual - viewpoint 2.1
View from the footpath and open space between residences on Chilton Grove
Page 248
Appendix E: Water resources groundwater
Appendix E Water resources - groundwater E.1

E.1.1
Geology
A summary of the anticipated geological succession to be encountered by the Thames Tunnel is shown below. Table E.1 Groundwater - geological succession Period Series Holocene Quaternary Pleistocene Eocene Thames Group Formation Made ground Superficial Deposits Alluvium Langley Silt River Terrace Deposits London Clay Harwich Upper Shelly Beds Upper Mottled Beds Laminated Beds Palaeogene Palaeocene Lambeth Lower Shelly Beds Mid-Lambeth Hiatus* Lower Mottled Beds Upnor No group Thanet Sand Seaford Chalk** Upper Cretaceous White Chalk Subgroup Lewes Nodular Chalk New Pit Chalk
Cretaceous
Holywell Nodular Chalk * Not a Formation but an important depositional feature ** Subdivided into the Haven Brow, Cuckmere and Belle Tout members.
Page 249
Figure E.1 Groundwater superficial geology Figure E.2 Groundwater solid geology (see Volume 24 Figures document) E.1.2 E.1.3 Figure E.1 shows the superficial geology and Figure E.2 the solid geology beneath the site. The project Ground Investigation (GI) at the site involved drilling boreholes both on shore and within the main river channel (TT, 2010) 44. The locations of boreholes around the site are shown in Figure A.2. The depths and thicknesses of geological layers encountered are summarised below. Table E.2 Groundwater - ground conditions Formation Superficial Deposits/Made Ground River Terrace Deposits Lambeth Group (Upnor Fm) Thanet Sand Seaford Chalk E.1.4 Top Elevation mATD 101.70 98.80 93.60 91.70 87.20 Depth below river bed (m) 0.00 2.90 8.10 10.00 14.50 Thickness (m) 2.90 5.20 1.90 4.50 Not proven
At the site, the depth of the shaft will be at 55.24 mATD (with base slab down to 52.24mATD). The base of the shaft and the Greenwich Tunnel itself will both be within Seaford Chalk Formation. River Terrace Deposits are extensive alluvial sand and gravel deposits laid down in a braided river system of approximately 5km width, in river terraces since the Anglian glaciation. Phases of down-cutting and intervening deposition during colder periods and subsequent meltwaters increased river flows and sediment load. Seven terraces are distinguishable in London in terms of their altitude, rather than distinguishing lithological features, ranging in thickness from around 2.5 to 28m. The River Terrace Deposits at the site is 5.2m thick. Borehole logs indicate the made ground contains brick-like rubble. Although the River Terrace Deposits commonly has very fine-grained sand, silt and clayey silt 'Brickearth' deposits above, the thickness of the River Terrace Deposits at the site and geological descriptions indicate the Brickearth is not present or significant at this site. The Upnor Formation (UPN) is a variably bioturbated fine- to mediumgrained sand with glauconite, rounded flint pebbles and minor clay, with distinctive pebble beds and base and top (Upn(Gv)).
E.1.5
E.1.6
E.1.7
Page 250
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station E.1.8
The Thanet Sand Formation defines the first marine transgression following erosion of the Chalk, and is round unconformably on the approximately planar eroded Chalk surface. The Thanet Sand Formation comprises well sorted, uniform sand, with evidence of intense bioturbation removing bedding structures. With approximately 10 per cent fine-grained sand at the base, the lower part is typically clayey and silty, coarsening and greater sorting upward to the upper beds containing as much as 60 per cent fine-grained sand. The base of the Thanet Sands is a unit known as the 'Bullhead Bed - a pale to medium-grey to brownish-grey, fine to fine-grained sand; and a conglomerate up to 0.5m thick comprising rounded to angular flint cobble and gravel sized clasts set in a clayey, fine to coarse-grained sand matrix with glauconite pellets forming the basal bed of the Thanet Sand Formation. The Bullhead Bed, marks the Palaeocene/Cretaceous unconformity. The Seaford Chalk is the upper unit of the White Chalk, comprising of as firm to soft non-nodular Chalk with flint beds. Thin marl seams are found in the lower 8m and absent higher up. A hard ground marks the top of the Seaford Chalk.
E.1.9
E.2
E.2.1
Hydrogeology
A summary of the anticipated hydrogeological properties of the different geologies to be encountered by the Thames Tunnel is shown below. Table E.3 Groundwater - main hydrogeological units Formation Superfi (Made Ground) Alluvium cial Deposi River Terrace Deposits ts Thame s London Clay Harwich Upper Shelly Beds Upper Mottle Beds Laminated Beds Lower Shelly Beds -----Mid Lambeth Hiatus---Lower Mottled Beds Upnor Thanet Sand Undivided mainly Seaford Chalk Lewes Nodular Chalk Lower Aquifer Group Hydrogeology Perched Water Upper Aquifer Aquiclude Aquitard / Aquifer
Lambe th
Aquitards/ Aquifers
No group
White Chalk White Chalk Subgro up
Page 251
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Group Formation New Pit Chalk Holywell Nodular Chalk E.2.2
Appendix E: Water resources groundwater Hydrogeology
According the GI boreholes the River Terrace Deposits (upper aquifer) are thin at about 5.2m thick at the site. Below the RTD is a 1.9m thick layer of Lambeth Group (Upnor Formation), considered part of the lower aquifer. Construction on site will take place through the upper aquifer and into the lower aquifer beneath. The lower aquifer comprises the Basal Sands (comprising Upnor Formation and Thanet Sands a secondary aquifer) and the Chalk (principal aquifer) ix comprising of the Seaford Chalk (the shaft is not sufficiently deep to encounter the Lewes Nodular Chalk and New Pit Chalk formations beneath). The upper aquifer (River Terrace Deposits) is defined as a secondary A aquifer. The shaft and base slab will extend around 41 m into the lower aquifer, from approximately 93.6 mATD at the top of the Upnor Formation (marking the top of the lower aquifer) to the base of the slab at 52.24 mATD. The thickness of the slab is 3m. The type of White Chalk present in the face of tunnel excavation will be Seaford Chalk, and either Cuckmere Member and Belle Tout Member. The Seaford Chalk forms a highly transmissive aquifer, with rapid preferential flow commonly established along fissures and enhanced fractures, often along or above flint and marl layers within the Chalk. Transmissivity and groundwater storage therefore vary considerably both laterally and vertically.
E.2.3
E.2.4
E.2.5
E.3
E.3.1
Hydrogeology
The monitoring of groundwater levels is being undertaken by the project at GI boreholes. In addition, the EA has a network of observation monitoring boreholes across the London for which records are available dating back to1963 (in certain locations) and, at the time of writing, were provided up to September 2009. The geotechnical investigation boreholes drilled for the Thames Tunnel project have been used to obtain hydrogeological information. Standpipes were installed to monitor groundwater levels in different horizons by means of data loggers and/or manual dips. Groundwater monitoring records from the completion of each borehole to January 2010 were provided for the assessment. The monitoring boreholes record groundwater levels in the upper aquifer and lower aquifer. Eight monitoring horizons within six monitoring boreholes are used to record groundwater levels in the following discrete layers (see Table D) River Terrace Deposits, Thanet Sands, Seaford
E.3.2
E.3.3
ix
The terms Principal and Secondary Aquifers were previously known as Major and Minor Aquifers (EA, 2010)
Page 252
Chalk and Lewes Chalk. The nearest observation borehole is SR1048 (see Figure E.XXX., drilled into the Lewes Chalk and with a response zone of between 55 and 65m bgl (which is also the maximum depth). The manual dip and logger data collected from these monitoring boreholes is shown in Vol 24 Figure 7.4.1. Further GI monitoring boreholes are proposed (see below).
Page 253
Table E.4 Groundwater - depth and strata from monitoring boreholes Response Zone Depths mATD 90.32-76.32 44.32-29.32 94.64-85.64 69.64-57.64 37.36-27.36 46.86-36.86 46.86-36.86 53.18-43.18
Borehole
Strata Thanet Sand Formation Lewes Chalk River Terrace Deposits Seaford Chalk Lewes Chalk Seaford Chalk Lewes Chalk Seaford Chalk
Monitoring Fortnightly Dips and Logger Fortnightly Dips and Logger Fortnightly Dips and Logger Fortnightly Dips and Logger Fortnightly Dips Fortnightly Dips Fortnightly Dips Fortnightly Dips
PR1027 PR1027 SR1028 SR1028 SR1046 SR1047 SR1048 SR1049 E.3.4
Groundwater levels in the River Terrace Deposits range from approximately 99.0 to 99.4m ATD, consistently above the top of the River Terrace Deposits and into the Superficial Deposits / Made Ground. At SR1028 it is noted that the levels in the River Terrace Deposits are lower than those in the Seaford Chalk by approximately 1m. The piezometric heads in the Thanet Sands show considerable short term fluctuation with a longer term seasonal trend, fluctuating between approximately 98.3 and 99.3m ATD. The piezometric head is measured at three locations in the Seaford Chalk. PR1027 shows levels broadly similar to those in the Thanet Sands, with the dip measurements fluctuating between approximately 98.4 and 99.9m ATD. At SR1049 the Seaford Chalk piezometric head ranges between approximately 96.5 and 96.8m ATD and SR1047 shows the piezometric head in the Seaford Chalk to range between 97.9 and 98.6m ATD. The monitoring results confirm the regional direction of groundwater flow around the site to the northwest towards a low point within central London. At PR1027, the logged piezometric head in the Lewes Chalk has a broadly similar level to the Thanet Sands logger, with a slightly smaller range, as the logger data fluctuates between 98.5 and 99.5m ATD seasonally. Manual water level dips for SR1046 range between 98.6 and 99.0m ATD and for SR1049 the range is between approximately 96.5 to 96.9 m ATD. Overall the head in the Lewes Chalk is lower and with a smaller fluctuation range than the Seaford Chalk.
E.3.5
E.3.6
E.3.7
E.3.8
Page 254
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station E.3.9
The monitoring results demonstrate that the Lewes Chalk, Seaford Chalk and Thanet Beds are in hydraulic connectivity with one another, with an apparent decrease in response with depth. There is some evidence of hydraulic separation between the River Terrace Deposits and the Seaford Chalk with higher heads in the Seaford Chalk over the period of record. The reason is not apparent since there is no low permeability formation between the upper and lower aquifers at the site. Monitoring is continuing and father data will help to clarify conditions. The nearest EA monitoring borehole is located within the site (TQ 3601 7880), around 40m to the west of the shaft. The location of this borehole is shown on Vol 24 Figure E.3. This borehole records levels in the lower aquifer (mainly Chalk). Figure E.3 Groundwater EA monitoring borehole (see Volume 24 Figures document)
E.3.10
E.3.11 E.3.12
Page 255
Figure E.4 Groundwater level hydrographs
101
Made Ground
Groundwater Level (mATD)
96
River Terrace Deposits
Lambeth Group - Upnor Formation
91 Thanet Sand (TS)
Seaford Chalk (SCHK) 86 Jan-09
Mar-09
May-09
Jul-09
Sep-09
Nov-09
Jan-10
Mar-10
May-10
Jul-10
Sep-10
Nov-10
Jan-11
Mar-11
SR1028 RTD-SD (Dip) PR1027 TSF-SD(Dip) SR1049 SCK-B1(Dip) PR1027 LCK-A1(Logger) SR1048 LCK-B1(Dip)
PR1027 TSF-SD(Logger) SR1028 SCK-A2(Dip) SR1047 SCK-B1(Dip) SR1046 LCK-B1(Dip) Geological Information Data obtained from Earl Pumping Station draft site construction report. (100-RG-CNL-PLM1X-000010)
Page 256
Figure E.5 Groundwater level hydrograph

105
Made Ground
100
Groundwater Level (mATD)
95 River Terrace Deposits
Lambeth Group - Upnor Formation
90
Thanet Sand (TS)
Seaford Chalk (SCHK)
85 1992 1992 1993 1994 1996 1996 1997 1998 2000 2000 2001 2002 2004 2004 2005 2006 2008 2008 2009 2010
PR1027 TSF-SD(Logger) SR1049 SCK-B1(Dip) PR1027 LCK-A1(Logger) TQ37/268 (EA OBS BH)
SR1028 SCK-A2(Dip) SR1047 SCK-B1(Dip) SR1048 LCK-B1(Dip) Environment Agency Borehole The borehole is located closest to Earl Pumping Station. No recent water level record data Geological Information Data obtained from Earl Pumping Station draft site construction report. (100-RG-CNL-PLM1X-000010)
Page 257
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station E.3.13 E.3.14
There is a close match between the EA monitoring record and the data collected for the Thames Tunnel project. There is a significant difference between the regional groundwater levels produced by the EA for the London Basin, and the local observations. The expected groundwater level at the site, based on EA contours, would be around 87mATD; more than 10m less than that observed. The monitoring results are assumed to be correct and take precedence over the contoured values. The Chalk piezometric levels vary annually by less than 1m (based on recent years). Historically the EA borehole shows a greater range of up to 2.5m (between 1993 and 1998), which is assumed to be in response to abstractions at that time.
E.3.15
E.4
E.4.1 E.4.2
Groundwater abstractions and protected rights

Groundwater abstractions within a radius of influence of up to 2km around the site have been identified. Licensed Abstractions the site is not located within the catchment areas of any licensed groundwater abstractions. The nearest licensed abstractions are two abstractions located to the north at a distance of 0.6 km abstraction number 28/39/42/0073 held by Harmsworth Quays Printing Limited with an annual maximum of 52,000 and 20,000m3/annum, respectively. Three sources are located to the northwest at a distance of 0.8km licence number 28/39/42/0048 held by London Borough of Southwark with annual licence maximum abstractions of 14,600, 52,900 and 83,804m3/annum, respectively. These sources all abstract their water from the Chalk. Further details of these licensed abstractions are given in table below. Table E.5 Groundwater - licensed abstractions Licence Number 28/39/42/0073 Licence Holder Harmsworth Quays Printing Limited London Borough of Southwark Purpose Aquifer Licensed Volume [m3/annum] 52,000 and 20,000
E.4.3
Industrial, commercial and public services Industrial, commercial and public services
Chalk
28/39/42/0048
Chalk
14,600, 52,900 and 83,804
E.4.4 E.4.5
Unlicensed Abstractions there are no unlicensed groundwater abstractions within a 1 km radius of the site. Ground Source Heat there are no other GSH schemes, either proposed or under investigation locally.
Page 258
E.5
E.5.1 E.5.2
Groundwater Source Protection Zones

The EA defines Source Protection Zones (SPZ) around all major public water supply abstractions sources and large licensed private abstractions. The nearest SPZ to the site is 3km away to the southeast. This source is in the opposite direction to the direction of groundwater flow expected beneath the site.
E.6
E.6.1
Other designations
There are no other environmental designations relevant to groundwater in the vicinity of the site.
E.7
E.7.1
Groundwater quality and land quality assessment

The EA monitors groundwater quality at a number of points across London. The nearest EA monitoring is at the Greenwich Deepwater Terminal. The distance of this location from the site (approximately 3km) makes it difficult to extrapolate the quality observed at the EA monitoring location. As part of the GI, water quality testing was undertaken on a number of water samples taken from boreholes drilled on banks of the River Thames. The results from these boreholes are shown below. Table E.6 Groundwater - quality results Parameter Copper Nickel Benzo(a)pyrene (Aqueous) Benzene PAH 16 Total (Aqueous) Copper Dissolved Selenium Dissolved Free Cyanide Chloride
Note * DWS; EQS;
+
E.7.2
Response Units Concentration Standard* zone mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l 0.007 0.031 0.000145 0.01 0.00155 0.0105 0.0108 0.218 330 370 0.005+ 0.02* 0.03+ 0.00001* 0.001* 0.03+ 0.001* 0.005+ 0.01* 0.05* 250*
Ref SR1046 SR1047 SR1028 SR1028 SR1028 SR1028 SR1028 SR1028 SR1048 SR1049
E.7.3
The table above shows there were 10 exceedances of the relevant standards for water in groundwater sampling points in close proximity to
Page 259
Earl Pumping Station one 600m to the east (SR1028; and two 300m to the south and south east (SR1046 and SR1047). The exceedances were for benzene (x2), dissolved copper (Cu x2), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), dissolved arsenic (As), selenium (Se) and cynanide (Cn). The table contains the measured concentrations and the relevant standard for each of the above substances. E.7.4 E.7.5 Chloride concentrations are indicative of brackish water. Saline intrusion is known to occur in this area. Further monitoring of groundwater quality is being undertaken as part of the Thames Tunnel project monitoring programme. Further information will be presented in the ES.
E.8
E.8.1
Groundwater status
In 2009 the baseline results from the river basin management plan showed the status of the Greenwich Tertiaries as poor current quantitative and chemical quality with an upward chemical trend. The predicted quantitative and chemical quality was poor for 2015 due to being disproportionately expensive or technically infeasible. In the April 2011 update (EA website accessed 11th May 2011) the results of further investigation referred to a point or diffuse source of pollution and confirmed good status.
E.8.2
Page 260
Figure E.6 Groundwater - licensing areas (EA, 2006)
Page 261
Glossary
Glossary
Term A-weighted sound Description A-weighted decibels, abbreviated dBA, or dBa, or dB(a), are an expression of the relative loudness of sounds in air as perceived by the human ear. Ground elevation is measured relative to the mean sea level at Newlyn in Cornwall, referred to as Ordnance Datum (OD), such that heights are reported in metres above or below OD. Removal of water from a source of supply (surface or groundwater). Areas where the local authority determines the national air quality objectives are not likely to be achieved by the relevant deadlines. People, property or designated sites for nature conservation that may be at risk from exposure to air pollutants that could potentially arise as a result of the proposed development/project. Sediment laid down by a river. Can range from sands and gravels deposited by fast flowing water and clays that settle out of suspension during overbank flooding. Other deposits found on a valley floor are usually included in the term alluvium (eg, peat). The average (mean) of the hourly pollutant concentrations measured or predicted for a one year period. Originating as a result of human activities. A hydrogeological unit which, that allows groundwater movement at negligible rates, even though porous and capable of storing water. Groundwater movement insufficient to allow appreciable supply to a borehole or spring. Aquicludes tend to act as an impermeable barrier. A permeable geological stratum or formation that is capable of both storing and transmitting water in significant amounts.
Above Ordinance Datum abstraction Air Quality Management Area air quality sensitive receptors
alluvium
Annual Mean Concentration anthropogenic aquiclude
aquifer
Archaeological Priority Areas of archaeological priority, significance, potential or Area/Zone other title, often designated by the local authority. background concentration Basal Sands base case The contribution to the total measured or predicted concentration of a pollutant that does not originate directly from local sources of emissions. The Upnor Beds (the lower unit of the Lambeth Group) and the Thanet Sands. The base case for the assessment is a future case, without the project, in a particular assessment year.
Page 262
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Term baseflow baseline benthic invertebrates Bentonite Description
Glossary
The component of river flow derived from groundwater sources rather than surface run-off. The existing conditions against which the likely significant effects due to a proposed development are assessed. Invertebrates which are found within or on the river bed. An absorbent aluminium phyllosilicate, in general, impure clay consisting mostly of montmorillonite. Mixed with water, it forms a slurry commonly used as drilling fluid and ground support in tunnelling. A hole drilled into the ground for geological investigation or for the exploitation of geological deposits or groundwater. An abstraction borehole is a well sunk into an aquifer from which water will be pumped. Wind-blown dust deposited under extremely cold, dry post glacial conditions suitable for making bricks. Produced by the BSI Group in order to set up standards of quality for goods and services. 2,000600 BC. Recording of historic buildings (by a competent archaeological organisation) is undertaken to document buildings, or parts of buildings, which may be lost as a result of demolition, alteration or neglect, amongst other reasons. Four levels of recording are defined by Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England (RCHME) and English Heritage. Level 1 (basic visual record); Level 2 (descriptive record), Level 3 (analytical record), and Level 4 (comprehensive analytical record). Also called a bund wall, bunding is a separated area within a structure designed to prevent inundation or breaches of various types. An area of stone, concrete or timber laid on the river / sea bed, that is exposed at low tide, allowing vessels to rest safely and securely in place. The area from which surface water and/or groundwater will collect and contribute to the flow of a specific river, abstraction or other specific discharge boundary. Can be prefixed by surface water or groundwater to indicate the specific nature of the catchment.
borehole
brickearth British Standard Bronze Age Building recording
bunding
campshed
catchment
Page 263
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Term Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy (CAMS) Description
Glossary
The Environment Agencys strategy for water resources management in England and Wales through licensing water abstraction. CAMS is used to inform the public on water resources and licensing practice; provide a consistent approach to local water resources management; and help to balance the needs of water-users and the environment. A curve formed by a perfectly flexible, uniformly dense, and inextensible cable suspended from its endpoints. Whales, dolphins and porpoises. A soft white limestone (calcium carbonate) formed from the skeletal remains of sea creatures. Method for evaluating invertebrate communities based on species rarity, diversity and abundance. A temporary or permanent enclosure built across a body of water to allow the enclosed area to be pumped out creating a dry work environment. A sewer conveying waste water of domestic or industrial origin and rain water. A structure, or series of structures, designed to allow spillage of excess waste water from a combined sewer under high rainfall conditions. Flows may discharge by gravity or by pumping. A simplified representation or qualified description of the behaviour of the hydrogeological system. A quantitative conceptual model includes preliminary calculations and flow and mass balances. Conservation areas defined by Local Planning Authorities according to the provisions of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The area of site that would be used during the construction phase. The statutory plan which sets out a boroughs planning policies in relation to the management of development and land use. Supersedes the Unitary Development Plan in Boroughs where it has been adopted. A mobile crane, usually with caterpillar tracks. The flow from the existing CSO is diverted to the location of the drop shaft. The drop shaft location requires suitable access for construction and maintenance.
catenary Cetaceans Chalk Community Conservation Index. (CCI) cofferdam
combined sewer combined sewer overflow (CSO)
conceptual model
Conservation area
construction site Core Strategy
crawler crane CSO connection culvert
Page 264
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Term CSO connection tunnel Description
Glossary
The flow from the drop shaft is transferred to the Thames Tunnel through a connection tunnel. These vary in diameter from 2.2m to 5.0m Long connection tunnels can be up to 4,615m in length. The shaft connects the flow down to the Thames Tunnel. The shaft sizes depend on the amount of flow to be intercepted and the de-aeration requirements and the depth depends on the location of the Thames Tunnel. The size ranges from 6m to 25m and depth from 25 to 75m. Site where the flows from an existing CSO would be redirected to the main Thames Tunnel. An area of land or structures around a dwelling or other structure. Excavated material to be re-used within the development as fill or removed off-site. the equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level having the same energy as a fluctuating sound over a specified time period T. An area within the shaft and/or associated pipe work, where air is removed from liquids. Logarithmic ratio used to relate sound pressure level to a standard reference level. Influencing or determining elements or factors. In London these refer to the borough Unitary Development Plans. A system used to locally lower groundwater levels around the worksite to provide stable working conditions when excavating. A diaphragm wall is a reinforced concrete retaining wall that is constructed in-situ. A deep trench is excavated and supported with bentonite slurry, and then reinforcing steel is inserted into the trench. Concrete is poured into the trench and only after this does excavation in front of the retained earth commence. The release of substances (eg, water, sewage, etc.) into surface waters, ground or sewer. A lowering of the water level in a borehole or aquifer, usually in response to abstraction. Legal standards set in Europe in the Drinking Water Directive 1998 together with UK national standards to maintain wholesomeness of potable water.
CSO drop shaft
CSO interception site curtilage cut dB LAeq,T
de-aeration chamber decibel (dB) determinands Development Plan dewatering wells
diaphragm wall
discharge drawdown Drinking Water Standards
Page 265
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Term early medieval effect effluent Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Description
Glossary
AD 410 1066. Also referred to as the Saxon period. The result of an impact on a particular resource or receptor. The treated wastewater discharged from the Sewage Treatment Works. An assessment of the likely significant effects that a proposed project may have on the environment, considering natural, social and economic aspects, prepared in accordance with the 2009 Infrastructure Planning EIA Regulations. The concentration of chemical pollutants assessed to have detrimental effects on water quality in terms of the health of aquatic plants and animals. EQS are established in the WFD (Annex V) through the testing of the toxicity of the substance on aquatic biology. A document to be prepared following an EIA which provides a systematic and objective account of the EIAs findings, prepared in accordance with the 2009 Infrastructure Planning EIA Regulations. A limited programme of nonintrusive and/or intrusive fieldwork which determines the presence or absence of archaeological features, structures, deposits, artefacts or ecofacts within a specified area. A programme of controlled, intrusive fieldwork with defined research objectives which examines, records and interprets archaeological remains, retrieves artefacts, ecofacts and other remains within a specified area. The records made and objects gathered are studied and the results published in detail appropriate to the project design. A structural planar fracture or discontinuity within lithological strata due to strain or compression, in which significant displacement is observable. Factors that will determine the severity of an odour as defined by the Environment Agency; Frequency, Intensity, Duration, Offensiveness, Receptor. Material required to raise existing ground levels. This can utilise cut material generated within the site, or necessitate the importation of material. The location at which an item was found. A sewer conveying waste water of domestic and/or industrial origin, but little or no rain water. A breakage in a rock mass. Present at any scale, but is generally used for large scale discontinuities.
Environmental Quality Standards (EQS)
Environmental Statement (ES)
Evaluation (archaeological)
Excavation (archaeological)
fault
FIDOR
fill
findspot foul sewer fracture
Page 266
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Term GARDIT Description
Glossary
General Aquifer Research Development and Investigation Team (Thames Water, the Environment Agency and London Underground with the support of organisations such as the Corporation of London, Envirologic, the Association of British Insurers (ABI) and BT). The gradual increase in the temperature of the earth's atmosphere, believed to be due to the greenhouse effect, caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, and other pollutants. Benchmark national quality standard for parks and green spaces in the United Kingdom. Water contained in underground strata, predominantly in aquifers. Inundation of land or basements as groundwater levels rise and the groundwater discharges to the surface or underground structures. The rise in groundwater level that occurs after cessation of abstraction. Groundwater Body: distinct volume of groundwater within an aquifer or aquifers. A dark brown slightly glauconitic clay with localised fine sand. Temporary roads provided within the contractors site area to allow the transportation of material around the site. A building, monument, site, place, area or landscape positively identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions. Heritage assets are the valued components of the Historic environment. They include designated heritage assets and assets identified by the local planning authority (including local listing). Archaeological and built heritage database held and maintained by the County authority. Previously known as the Sites and Monuments Record. Designated residential area with streets designed to operate primarily as a space for social use. Generally hard nodular chalks with thin flaser marls. In parts, there are significant proportions of shell debris. Inter-bedded coloured marl and chalk succession characteristic of the Plenus Marls Member are found at its base. Above this, the Melbourn Rock Member is distinguishable by its lack of shell material.
global warming
Green Flag groundwater groundwater flooding
groundwater rebound GWB Harwich Formation haul roads heritage asset
Historic environment Record (HER) Homezone Holywell Nodular Chalk
Page 267
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Term hydraulic conductivity Description
Glossary
A constant of proportionality in Darcys law that allows the calculation of the rate of groundwater flow from the hydraulic gradient. For a unit hydraulic gradient, the higher the hydraulic conductivity the higher the rate of groundwater flow. In an aquifer this is the rate of change of groundwater level per unit distance in a given direction. Groundwater flows in the direction of the decline in hydraulic gradient. A graph showing a plot of water flow or level with time, applicable to both surface water and groundwater. A physical or measurable change to the environment attributable to the project. This structure is required to be built around the existing overflow either on land or at the discharge point in the foreshore. The chamber has a weir and valves to divert the flow in to the Thames Tunnel system. It is likely to be a reinforced concrete cut and cover box structure. In some other cases the structure is required to be built adjacent to an inlet or sump of a pump station from which the flow is diverted 600 BC AD 43. A caisson is a retaining, water-tight structure open to the air. A jack is used to push the caisson into the ground, with the internal area then excavated. Equivalent continuous sound level is a notional steady sound level which would cause the same A-weighted sound energy to be received as that due to the actual and possibly fluctuating sound over a period of time (T). It can also be used to relate periods of exposure and noise level. Thus, for example, a halving or doubling of the period of exposure is equivalent in sound energy to a decrease or increase of 3dB(A) in the sound level for the original period. The maximum sound level measured on the A- weighted scale occurring during an event. Complex sequence of highly variable inter-bedded sediments which include clay, sands, pebble beds and Shelly beds. Fine to coarse sand or clay with occasional black organic matter. AD 1066 1500. The Lee Tunnel comprises a 7.2m diameter storage and transfer tunnel from Abbey Mills Pumping Station to Beckton STW and the interception of the Abbey Mills CSO.
hydraulic gradient
hydrograph impact interception chamber
Iron Age jacked caission
LAeq(T)
LAmax Lambeth Group Laminated Beds later medieval Lee Tunnel
Page 268
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Term Lewes Nodular Chalk Description
Glossary
Hard to very hard nodular chalks and hardgrounds with interbedded soft to medium hard chalks and marls. More abundant softer chalks towards the top. Formal permit allowing the holder to engage in an activity (in the context of this report, usually abstraction), subject to conditions specified in the licence itself and the legislation under which it was issued. A structure of architectural and/or historical interest. These are included on the Secretary of State's list, which affords statutory protection. These are subdivided in to Grades I, II* and II (in descending importance). The general characteristics of a rock or sedimentary formation. Local areas where the local authority determines the national air quality objectives are not likely to be achieved by the relevant deadlines. Collection of planning documents prepared by the Local Planning Authority outlining the management of development and land use in a Borough. A structure of local architectural and/or historical interest. These are structures that are not included in the Secretary of States Listing but are considered by the local authority to have architectural and/or historical merit. An area specific plan to interpret and apply the strategy set out in the Structure Plan, to provide a detailed basis for the control of development, to provide a basis for co-ordinating new development and to bring planning issues before the public. Fine sandy silty clay to silty clay. The LTI comprise five separate improvement projects at Thames Waters five Tideway sewage treatment works (STWs): Mogden, Beckton, Crossness, Riverside and Long Reach. The LTT comprises two separate projects: the Lee Tunnel and the Thames Tunnel. Consisting of the Upnor Beds (the lowest unit of the Lambeth Group), the Thanet Sands and the Chalk. Artificial deposit. An archaeologist would differentiate between modern made ground, containing identifiably modern inclusion such as concrete (but not brick or tile), and undated made ground, which may potentially contain deposits of archaeological interest.
licence
listed building
lithology Local Air Quality Management (LAQM) Local Development Framework (LDF) locally listed building
Local Plan
London Clay London Tideway Improvements (LTI)
London Tideway Tunnels (LTT) Lower aquifer made ground
Page 269
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Term main tunnel drive shaft site main tunnel reception shaft site Mesolithic mitigation measures Description
Glossary
Site that would be used to insert and then drive the TBM. Site that would be used to remove the TBM from the Thames Tunnel at the end of the drive. 12,000 4,000 BC. Actions proposed to prevent or reduce adverse effects arising from the whole or specific elements of the development. 4,000 2,000 BC. Non-nodular chalk, massively bedded, with fairly regularly developed marl seams and sporadic flints. A product of combustion processes. Nitrogen dioxide is associated with adverse effects on human health. A report which briefly describes the main points discussed in the Environmental Statement in a clear manner without the use of technical jargon and phraseology. This report is a requirement of the 2009 Infrastructure Planning EIA Regulations. The Water Services Regulations Authority, a government body set up in 1989 to regulate the activities of the water companies in England and Wales. Odour panel sampling carried out in laboratory conditions. Related to past environments, ie, during the prehistoric and later periods. Such remains can be of archaeological interest, and often consist of organic remains such as pollen and plant macro fossils which can be used to reconstruct the past environment. 700,00012,000 BC. A Middle Bronze Age axe. Solid particles or liquid droplets suspended or carried in the air and includes the same matter after it has deposited onto a surface. For the purposes of this assessment the term includes all size fractions of suspended matter, such as dust, PM10 and PM2.5. A structure containing carbon which absorbs odour from air flowing out of the Tunnel, without the assistance of mechanical pumping. Preliminary Environmental Information Report is a document setting out initial environmental information. In accordance with the Planning Act 2008, it is a requirement that this is the subject of pre-application consultation.
Neolithic New Pit Chalk nitrogen dioxide (and oxides NO2 and NO) Non-Technical Summary (NTS)
Ofwat
olfactometry Palaeo-environmental
Palaeolithic palstave particulate matter (PM)
passive filter chamber
PEIR
Page 270
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Term pelagic invertebrates perched water Description Invertebrates which are found in the water column.
Glossary
Is groundwater in an aquifer present above the regional water table, as a result of a (semi-)impermeable layer of rock or sediment above the main water table/aquifer, below the ground surface. The capacity of soil or porous rock to transmit water. A measure of the acidity or basicity of an aqueous solution. A borehole designed specifically to allow the measurement of groundwater level. The level or head to which groundwater would rise in a piezometer if it is free to seek equilibrium with the atmosphere. Written procedures put in place for dealing with spillages and pollution. Containing void spaces. Most sedimentary rocks are porous to some extent, and the term is commonly applied in a relative sense, generally restricted to rocks which have significant effective porosity. Refers to Option 3 Abbey Mills route, which runs from Action Storm Tanks in west London to Limehouse then turns northeast to Abbey Mills Pumping Station, where it connects with the Lee Tunnel. Refers to the preferred route and construction sites. Sites assessed as most suitable following review of suitability of each shortlisted site by taking in to account engineering,planning, environment, property and community considerations. Preservation by recording and advancement of understanding of asset significance. This is a standard archaeological mitigation strategy where heritage assets remains are fully excavated and recorded archaeologically and the results published. For remains of lesser significance, preservation by record might comprise an archaeological watching brief. Archaeological mitigation strategy where nationally important (whether designated or not) heritage assets are conserved in situ for future generations, typically through modifications to design proposals to avoid damage or destruction of such remains.
permeability pH piezometer piezometric surface
Pollution Incident Control Plan porous
preferred route
preferred scheme preferred site
preservation by record
preservation in situ
Page 271
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Term Principal Aquifer Description
Glossary
A geological stratum that exhibits high inter-granular and/or fracture permeability. This strata has the ability to support water supply and/or river base flow on a strategic scale. Principal Aquifers equate in most cases to aquifers previously referred to as Major Aquifers. Term used to describe the supply of water provided by a water company. Putty chalk (clay characteristics) near the surface of the unit above firm to soft non-nodular chalk with flint (Upper Chalk undivided) above hard nodular chalk with flints (Lewes Chalk). An international treaty for the conservation and sustainable utilisation of wetlands. River Basin Management Plans these are the relevant plans that outline the state of water resources within a River Basin District relevant to the objectives of the WFD. The rarest and most threatened species are often listed in the Red Data Book of Insectsx, within which there are three categories. Taxa in danger of extinction are referred to as RDB 1 species; those considered to be vulnerable and likely to move into the endangered category are listed under RDB 2, whilst rare species occur on RDB 3. Section of river between two points. Extensive alluvial sand and gravel deposits laid down in a braided river system in river terraces since the Anglian glaciations. Where live data is used to manipulate control equipment in order to best manage the flow of storm water and sewage within the capacity of the system. People (both individually and communally) and the socioeconomic systems they support. Water that percolates downwards from the surface to replenish the water table. The red route is a network of roads designated by Transport for London that carry heavy volumes of traffic and are essential for the movement of traffic and public transport. These comprise mainly of major routes into and around London. Transport for London are responsible for enforcing the red routes which include clearways, parking and loading bays, bus lanes, yellow box junctions and banned turns.
Public Water Supply Putty Chalk
RAMSAR RBMP
RDB3
reach River Terrace Deposits real time control (RTC) receptors recharge Red route
Bratton, (1991) Red Data Book for Insects
Page 272
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Term risk assessment Description
Glossary
Assessment of the risks associated with an activity or object and possible accidents involving a source or practice. This includes assessment of consequence. AD 43 410. Scheduled Ancient Monument. More commonly referred to as Scheduled Monument. Entry of brackish or salt water into an aquifer, from the sea or estuary. This may be natural or induced by excessive or uncontrolled groundwater abstraction. The zone in which the voids in a rock or soil are filled with water at a pressure greater than atmospheric pressure. An ancient monument or archaeological deposits designated by the Secretary of State as a Scheduled Ancient Monument and protected under the Ancient Monuments Act. The formal view of the determining authority on the range of topics and issues to be considered by the Environmental Impact Assessment, as referred to in the 2009 Infrastructure Planning EIA Regulations. The document prepared by the applicant setting out the proposed approach to the Environmental Impact Assessment, including the range of topics and issues to be addressed, as referred to in the 2009 Infrastructure Planning EIA Regulations. The formal view of the determining authority on the need for an Environmental Impact Assessment to be undertaken, as referred to in the 2009 Infrastructure Planning EIA Regulations. The upper unit of the White Chalk, comprising of as firm to soft non-nodular Chalk with flint beds. Thin marl seams are found towards its base and and absent higher up. A hard ground marks the top of the Seaford Chalk. Alternate piles in-filled with concrete to form a water-tight retaining wall. Either permeable strata capable of supporting local supplies or low permeability strata with localised features such as fissures. The term Secondary Aquifer replaces the previously used name of Minor Aquifer. There are two classes of Secondary Aquifer. Secondary A are capable of supporting water supplies at a local rather than strategic scale and Secondary B are lower permeability layers which may store and yield limited amounts of groundwater due to localised features such as fissures, thin permeable horizons and weathering.
Roman SAM saline intrusion
saturated zone Scheduled Monument
Scoping Opinion
Scoping Report
Screening Opinion
Seaford Chalk
secant piles Secondary Aquifers
Page 273
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Term short listed sites SINC (Grade B) SINC (Grade L) SINC (Grade M) Site Description
Glossary
Sites idenitfied following an assessment of long list sites in accordance with the Site Selection Methodology. Site of Nature Conservation Importance (Grade II of Borough importance). Site of Nature Conservation Importance (Grade I of Local importance). Site of Nature Conservation Importance (Grade III of Metropolitan importance). For the purposes of the PEIR assessment, the site is deemed as the entire area located within the Limit of Land to be Acquired or Used. It should not be inferred that this entire site area will be physically separated (ie, hoarded or fenced) for the construction duration. An area given a statutory designation by English Nature or the Countryside Council for Wales because of its nature conservation value. Materials such as hard standing and vegetation including incidental topsoil (including potential contaminated soil). A record of sites of archaeological interest. An efficient method for constructing the tunnel lining with a layer of sprayed concrete. This is instead of using pre-cast concrete segments. Layers of rock, including unconsolidated materials such as sands and gravels. The study of stratified rocks, their nature, their occurrence, their relationship to each other and their classification. A colourless gas with a choking smell, the main product of the combustion of sulphur contained in fuels. Overarching term for recent generally unconsolidated or loosely consolidated deposits of sand, gravel, silt, clay, etc on top of bedrock. Synonymous with drift generally supersedes the term. This is a general term used to describe all water features such as rivers, streams, springs, ponds and lakes. Water that travels across the ground rather than seeping in to the soil.
Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) site strip Sites and Monuments Record sprayed concrete lining strata stratigraphy sulphur dioxide (SO2) superficial deposits
surface water surface water runoff
Page 274
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Term Thames Tunnel Description
Glossary
The Thames Tunnel comprises a full-length storage and transfer tunnel from Acton Storm Tanks to Beckton Sewage Treatment Works in East London and the interception of specific CSOs along the Thames Tideway with a diameter between 6.5m and 7.2m. Coarsening upward sequence of well sortedfine grained sand which has a higher clay / silt content towards the lower part of the sequence, and evidence of intense bioturbation removing bedding structures. The Thames Tunnel project. Length of river channel swept by water from a discharge point in one tidal cycle. In the case of the River Thames this is considered to 13km up and downstream of the discharge point. Tool developed on behalf of Thames Water to assess the effects of lapses in water quality caused by CSO discharges on Tideway fish populations. The formal assessment of traffic and transportation issues relating to the proposed development. The findings are usually presented in a report which accompanies the planning application. Partially or wholly remove. In archaeological terms remains may have been truncated by previous construction activity. A typical year relates to an actual year, eg, the corresponding meteorological dataset for that year used in the modelling which was 1979-80. The corresponding meteorological dataset is used as it would give a better indication of conditions rather than using a recent year of data where the meteorological data may not be consistent with a rainfall event leading to the tunnel emissions. An enclosed space below the ground surface where air is released to atmosphere, should the pressure within the Tunnel exceed a set value. The statutory plan which sets out a unitary authoritys planning policies. These are rocks which are generally unable to provide usable water supplies and are unlikely to have surface water and wetland ecosystems dependent upon them. Variably bioturbated fine- to medium-grained sand with glauconite, rounded flint pebbles and minor clay, with distinctive pebble beds and base and top.
Thanet Sands
The project tidal excursion
Tideway Fish Risk Model Transport Assessment (TA)
truncate typical year
underground pressure release chamber Unitary Development Plan (UDP) unproductive strata
Upnor Formation
Page 275
Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Term Upper aquifer Upper Mottled Beds Upper Shelly Beds Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive valve chamber Description
Glossary
Comprising the water bearing strata above the London Clay, namely the River Terrace Deposits and the Alluvium. A bluish grey mottled with greenish brown clay. Contains shell fragments within a flinty gravel or a sandy clay The Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (1991) has the overall aim of protecting the environment from the adverse effects of urban waste water discharges. An underground structure on the sewer system containing valves which are used to isolate the flow between different parts of the sewer system. For example, flap valves prevent the flow from the river travelling back up the sewer or into the tunnel. A stack through which air is released. An EC Directive seeking to improve water quality in rivers and groundwater in an integrated way (2000). An archaeological watching brief is a formal programme of observation and investigation conducted during any operation carried out for nonarchaeological reasons. Level below which the ground is saturated with water. The water table elevation may vary with recharge and groundwater abstraction. The WEEE Directive aims to reduce the amount of electrical and electronic equipment going to landfill and to encourage everyone to reuse, recycle and recover it. Chalk with flints, with discrete marl seams, nodular chalk, sponge-rich and flint seams throughout. Flint typology and marl seam incidence is important for correlation. Comprises of Seaford Chalk, Lewes Nodular Chalk, New Pit Chalk and Holywell Nodular Chalk.
ventilation column Water Framework Directive (WFD) watching brief (archaeological) water table
Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (WEEE) White Chalk subgroup
Page 276
References
References
1
Defra, http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/review-and-assessment/tools/background-maps.html , Accessed May 2011)

2
LB Lewisham, Personal Communication with Christopher Howard EHO, February 2011.

3
Defra (2010), http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/documents/Measured-nitrogen-oxides-(NOx)and-or-nitrogen-dioxide-(NO2)-concentrations-do-not-appear-to-be-declining-in-linewith-national-forecastsv1.pdf, Accessed April 2011

4 5
Defra (2009) Local Air Quality Management- Technical Guidance, LAQM.TG(09).
Greater London Authority and London Councils (2006) Best Practice Guidance: The Control of Dust and Emissions from Construction and Demolition, November 2006
6 7
Defra (2010) Draft National Policy Statement for Waste Water, November 2010.
Chadd, R and Extence, C (2004) The conservation of freshwater macroinvertebrate populations: a community based classification scheme. Aquatic Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 14: 597-624.
8
Bratton, J.H. (ed) (1991). British Red Data Books: 3. Invertebrates other than insects. JNCC, Peterborough.
9
Shirt, D.B. (editor) 1987. British Red Data Books: 2 Insects. Peterborough: Nature Conservancy Council.
Maitland, PS and Hatton-Ellis, TW. Ecology of the Allis and Twaite Shad. Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers Ecology Series No. 3. English Nature
11
10
IEEM. Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom. Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2006)
12
Department of Communities and Local Government. Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment (March 2010), 1, 13
13 14
Barton N, The Lost Rivers Of London. Historical Publications, London (1992)
Thomas C and Rackham J. Bramcote Green, Bermondsey: a Bronze Age trackway and palaeoenvironmental sequence in Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society Vol 61 (1996), 221253; Halsey, C, Varcoe Road, London SE16: a geoarchaeological assessment MOLA unpublished report (2010)
15
Thomas, C and Rackham, J. Bramcote Green, Bermondsey: a Bronze Age trackway and palaeoenvironmental sequence in Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society Vol 61 (1996), 221253
16 17
Gaimster M, Saxons in Deptford. London Archaeologist 11/2, 3137 (2005)
Heard K and Goodburn D, Investigating the maritime history of Rotherhithe. Excavations at Pacific Wharf, 165 Rotherhithe Street, Southwark. Museum of London Archaeology Service. Archaeology Studies Series 11, 3 (2003)
18 19
Victoria County History, A History of the County of Surrey, Volume 4, 8392 (1912) Victoria County History, A History of the County of Surrey, Volume 4, 8392 (1912)
Page 277
References
20
Rotherhithe Guide website; http://www.southlondonguide.co.uk/rotherhithe/history.htm ; accessed March 2011

21
London Docklands Development Corporation website: http://www.lddchistory.org.uk/surrey/index.html; accessed 21/02/2011

22
BS 5228:2009 (Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites)
23
BS 4142 (1997): Method for rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas Homes and Communities Agency (HCA). Employment Densities Guide 2nd Edition 2010
25 24
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Employment Land Reviews Guidance Note, 2004
26 27 28
LB of Lewisham. LB Lewisham Employment Land Study, November 2008 LB Lewisham. Lewisham Unitary Development Plan, July 2004
LB Lewisham. Lewisham Core Strategy Development Plan Document, March 2011, page 152
29
LB Lewisham. Lewisham Core Strategy Development Plan Document, March 2011

30 31
TT (2011a) Scoping Report - Document No. 100-RG-ENV-00000-000005
EA(2006) Groundwater Quality Review: London Basin Ref. No. GWQR22 [6441R6] November 2006.
32
EA (2006) The London Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy Final Strategy Document April 2006
33
Thames River Basin Management Plan Annex B: Water Body Status Objectives, Environment Agency, 2011
34 35
Thames Tideway Strategic Study, Thames Water, February 2005
Communities and Local Government (March 2010). Planning Policy Statement 25 Development and Flood Risk. Communities and Local Government (Dec 2009). Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk Practice Guide. Environment Agency - Thames Estuary 2100 Flood Risk Management Plan.( Accessed Feb 2011 http://www.environmentagency.gov.uk/research/library/consultations/106100.aspx)
38 37 36
Greater London Authority (Feb 2008, as amended 2011) - The London Plan Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London Consolidated with Alterations since 2004
39
Jacobs (July 2008) London Borough of Lewisham Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment.
40
Greater London Authority (Oct 2009). London Regional Flood Risk Appraisal.
Page 278
References
41
Environment Agency (April 2008). Thames Tidal Defences Joint Probability Extreme Water Levels 2008 Final Modelling Report (Thames Barrier operational, Model Node 2.42). GLA (2011) London Plan - The London Plan Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London
43 44 42
Greater London Authority (Aug 2009) The Mayors Draft Water Strategy. TT (2010) Ground Investigation Factual Report Contract Ref. No. WAL080092
Page 279
Thames Tunn
110-RG-ENV-PLM1X-000032
Phase two consultation (Autumn 2011)
For further information see our website: www.thamestunnelconsultation.co.uk or call us on 0800 0721 086
Thames Tunn

PEIR Main Report Vol24 Earl Pumping Station

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

PEIR Main Report Vol24 Earl Pumping Station

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station site assessment

Phase two consultation documentation

Project information papers

Site information papers

Thames Tunnel Preliminary environmental information report

Part B: Preliminary site information

Volume 26 Volume 27 Volume 28

Thames Tunnel Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station site assessment

Proposed development.................................................................................... 4 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5

Ecology - terrestrial ....................................................................................... 38

Historic environment ..................................................................................... 48

Land quality .................................................................................................... 73

Noise and vibration ........................................................................................ 90

Socio-economics ......................................................................................... 110

Townscape and visual ................................................................................. 122

Transport ...................................................................................................... 157

Water resources groundwater ................................................................. 184

Water resources surface water ................................................................ 199

Water resources - flood risk ........................................................................ 214

WWT ZTV ZVI

Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station

Section 2: Site context

Site context Site location

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station 2.2.4

Section 2: Site context

2.2.5 2.2.6 2.2.7

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station

Section 3: Proposed development

Proposed development Overview

Preliminary environmental information report

Section 3: Proposed development

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station

Section 3: Proposed development

Interception chambers and culverts

Access and maintenance works

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station

Section 3: Proposed development

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station 3.3.7

Section 3: Proposed development

3.3.8 3.3.9 3.3.10 3.3.11

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station 3.3.19

Section 3: Proposed development

3.3.20 3.3.21 3.3.22 3.3.23

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station 3.3.32

Section 3: Proposed development

Access and movement

Reinstatement and commissioning

Construction programme and working hours

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station

Section 3: Proposed development

Design development and on site alternatives

Preliminary environmental information report