Spring 2010

Site Suitability Report S33HF and C04XJ
Vacant land and Thames Water Hammersmith Pumping Station, Chancellors Road

Please note: Further details are provided in the Final Report on Site Selection Process (doc ref: 7.05) that can be found on the Thames Tideway Tunnel section of the Planning Inspectorate’s web site.

100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001 | Spring 2010

Site Suitability Report S33HF and C04XJ
Vacant land and Thames Water Hammersmith Pumping Station, Chancellors Road

THAMES TUNNEL

SITE SUITABILITY REPORT S33HF AND C04XJ
LIST OF CONTENTS Page Number 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 1.2 1.3 2 Purpose and structure of the report Background Consultation 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 8 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 13 13 13

SITE INFORMATION 2.1 2.2 Site and surroundings Type of site

3 4

PROPOSED USE OF SITE – CONSTRUCTION PHASE PROPOSED USE OF SITE – OPERATIONAL PHASE 4.1 4.2 Operational requirements Restoration and after-use

5

ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Access Construction works considerations Permanent works considerations Health and safety

6

PLANNING ASSESSMENT 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 Introduction Planning applications and permissions Planning context Consultation comments Planning comments

7

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

8

SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT 8.1 8.2 Socio-economic profile Issues and impacts

9

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT 9.1 9.2 Introduction Crown Land and Special Land comments

100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 10

Land to be acquired Property valuation comments Disturbance compensation comments Offsite statutory compensation comments Discretionary purchase costs comments Site acquisition cost assessment

13 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 16 16 16 18

SITE CONCLUSIONS BY DISCIPLINE 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 Introduction Engineering Planning Environment Socio-economic and community Property

APPENDICES APPENDIX 1 – SOURCES OF INFORMATION APPENDIX 2 – SITE LOCATION PLAN APPENDIX 3 – PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT PLANS APPENDIX 4 – PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS APPENDIX 5 – TRANSPORT PLAN APPENDIX 6 – SERVICES AND GEOLOGY PLAN APPENDIX 7 – CONSTRUCTION PHASE LAYOUT APPENDIX 8 – OPERATIONAL PHASE LAYOUT APPENDIX 9 – ENVIRONMENTAL APPRAISAL TABLES

100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AOD BAP BT CPO CSO DLR EA GLA HGV LNR LPA LU m MOL ONS ORN PLA POS PTAL SAM SINC SNCI SSR SSSI SuDS TfL TD TLRN TPA UDP UXO

above Ordnance Datum Biodiversity Action Plan British Telecom compulsory purchase order combined sewer overflow Docklands Light Railway Environment Agency Greater London Authority heavy goods vehicle local nature reserve local planning authority London Underground metre/metres Metropolitan Open Land Office of National Statistics Olympic Route Network Port of London Authority public open space public transport accessibility level scheduled ancient monument site of importance for nature conservation site(s) of nature conservation importance site suitability report site(s) of special scientific interest sustainable urban drainage systems Transport for London tunnel datum Transport for London Road Network Thames Policy Area unitary development plan unexploded ordnance

100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

Site Suitability Report S33HF and C04XJ

1 1.1 1.1.1

INTRODUCTION Purpose and structure of the report The Site Selection Methodology Paper (May 2009) (paragraphs 2.3.29 - 2.3.34) outlines the process to be used to create the preferred list of shaft sites, and this process also applies to CSO sites. Paragraph 2.3.31 lists the type of general considerations that will be addressed in each site suitability report, but they depend on the relevance to the site and professional judgement made in the assessments. This report was prepared through the assessment of information from the perspective of a number of technical disciplines: Engineering, Planning, Environment, Property and Community. The reports have been prepared on the basis of the information listed in Appendix 1 - Sources of Information, and this level of information is considered to be appropriate to the current stage. The Background Technical Paper provides information on the requirements for different site types, their sizes and typical activities/facilities within the sites. Each site suitability report considers a particular site on its own merits. In addition, an engineering options report was produced. Information from both of these reports will feed into the technical assessment of how well the site may fit in with tunnel design options, ensuring combinations of sites spread across the length of the tunnel route provide a reasonable spatial distribution of sites (that will best assist with the construction of the tunnel, operation and maintenance). This is considered in the Preferred Scheme Report. Background The process for selecting sites is set out in the Site Selection Methodology (May 2009) paper. All sites have previously passed through the following parts of Stage 1: Part 1A - Creation of the long list of potential shaft (and CSO) sites Part 1B - Creation of a short list of potential shaft (and CSO) sites o o o Table 2.2: Long list of shaft (and CSO) sites - an assessment against set considerations and values Table 2.3: Draft short list of shaft (and CSO) sites - assessment against a list of detailed considerations Workshops to consider each site to arrive at a short list of sites.

1.1.2

1.1.3 1.1.4

1.2 1.2.1

1.2.2

The final part of Stage 1 includes this report. The following is an overall summary of all elements that apply to all the sites on the final short list: Part 1C - Creation of the Preferred List of shaft (and CSO) sites - site data, site visits, site suitability reports, engineering options report and optioneering workshops that will result in the Preferred Scheme Report.

1.3 1.3.1

Consultation The Thames Water project team held meetings with London local authorities, statutory and other stakeholders to review the provisional short list of shaft and CSO sites. All general and site specific comments can be found in a separate report titled Consultation on the Short List of Sites: Consultation Feedback Report. These comments were considered to help determine the final short list of sites, but they were also considered at the optioneering workshops. Further meetings were held with London local authorities, statutory and other stakeholders between January and March 2010. Comments are included in this report.

1.3.2

Page 1
100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

Site Suitability Report S33HF and C04XJ

2 2.1 2.1.1 2.1.2

SITE INFORMATION Site and surroundings This section provides an overview of all the site information that will be used by one or more disciplines to assess the site in sections 3 to 9 of this report. S33HF and C04XJ are located on a vacant former industrial site known as Hammersmith Embankment, located in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, approximately 250m downstream from Hammersmith Bridge. The site is rectangular in shape and contains hard surfaced areas with areas of vegetation. It also contains a Thames Water pumping station. A site location plan is attached as Appendix 2. The site is bounded by the River Thames to the west, to the north by Chancellors Road, to the east by Distillery Road and to the south by Winslow Road. The surrounding area is predominately residential but includes a mix of other uses. The site has been cleared of all buildings except for the northeast corner of the site, which contains a Thames Water pumping station that remains operational and is surrounded by a boundary wall. Currently, the site is being used as a temporary car park for approximately 60 cars associated with the adjacent office development. There are modern office developments, both to the north and south of the site. Along the northeast edge of the site is Frank Banfield Park, which includes a children‟s play area. The commercial businesses operating out of the modern office developments and residential properties on Chancellors Road are the closest sensitive receptors to the proposed construction area. The adjacent residential properties are mainly two-storey terraced in character and located to the north and south of the site, separated by access roads. The nearest residential properties are located approximately 12.5 metres from the site boundary. The site is covered by various planning and environment designations in the Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan (2003). As no GIS information was received from the council, there are no planning and environment plans for this site in Appendix 3. Instead, the assessment in Section 6 was based on examining a hard copy of the UDP. Photographs of the site and surroundings, together with an aerial photograph of the site, are attached as Appendix 4.

2.1.3 2.1.4 2.1.5

2.1.6

2.1.7

2.1.8

2.1.9

2.1.10 There is access from Chancellors Road, but a section of the access route is narrow and traffic calmed. Access is also available direct from Distillery Road. No local rail access is available (the nearest possible rail siding is 9.5km from the site). There are London Underground stations (Hammersmith and Barons Court) about 1.5km from the site. There are no existing jetty/wharfage facilities serving this site. A transport plan for the site is attached as Appendix 5. 2.1.11 Third-party assets and significant utilities are listed below and are shown on the services and geology plan in Appendix 6: Vacant industrial area next to river bank, hardstanding/grass Hammersmith Pumping Station, along Chancellors Road on the northern boundary of the site Thames Water Ring Main 2.63m ID Thames to Lee Valley tunnel runs through the eastern half of the site Sewer outfalls and culverts through the north-western edge of the site One well (no abstraction licence) potentially within the site Commercial development at the eastern corner of the site. 2.1.12 The locations of other third-party assets, such as BT and fibre optic communication cables, are to be confirmed by further studies and utility searches and may not be shown on the services and geology plan.

Page 2
100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

Site Suitability Report S33HF and C04XJ

2.1.13 Information on the geology specific to this site can be found within the services and geology plan which is in Appendix 6. This plan shows that the shaft would be founded in London Clay. 2.2 2.2.1 Type of site The site S33HF is being considered as: an intermediate shaft site an intermediate shaft site with CSO connections including Hammersmith Pumping Station CSO CS04X (incorporating CSO site C04XJ). 3 3.1.1 3.1.2 PROPOSED USE OF SITE – CONSTRUCTION PHASE The proposed construction phase layouts for the shaft sites are located in Appendix 7 – Construction Phase Layout, and are based on a preliminary assessment. The construction phase layout drawings are illustrative and show: the layout as an intermediate shaft site the layout as an intermediate shaft site with a CSO connection potential access points. 3.1.3 These drawings provide initial preliminary schematic layouts that have not been optimised. If the site proceeds to the next stage as a preferred site, construction phase layouts would be optimised to minimise impacts. Drawings of typical activities associated with the shaft construction phase are provided in Appendix 7. Potential above ground construction features (dependent on shaft type) include: approximately 3m high hoarding around the site boundary welfare facilities, temporary structures, approximately 3m high grout plant, approximately 3 to 5m high, including silos mobile crane, approximately 30m high gantry crane, approximately 8m high. 3.1.5 It is proposed that the overflow culvert be built in two phases. Phase one would involve the construction of the northern section of the culvert. No traffic/pedestrian management would be required for this phase. Phase two would involve the construction of the remaining southern section of the culvert, which severs the Thames Path. A temporary footway and pedestrian diversion route around the area of phase two excavation would be required. Preliminary assessment of what traffic management would be required is indicated on the temporary traffic management plan in Appendix 5. Preliminary data associated with the construction phase are provided in Table 3.1.

3.1.4

3.1.6

Page 3
100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

Site Suitability Report S33HF and C04XJ

Table 3.1 Construction phase data Activity Length of construction period Likely working hours, ie, (night/day/weekend) Working days Primary means of transporting excavated material away from site Intermediate shaft site 4 to 5 years 24 hours Mon to Sun Road* Intermediate shaft site with CSO connection 4 to 5 years 24 hours Mon to Sun Road* Road*

Primary means of transporting materials to Road* site *There may be feasible opportunities to use barge transport. 4 4.1 4.1.1 4.1.2 PROPOSED USE OF SITE – OPERATIONAL PHASE Operational requirements

The indicative operational phase layouts for the shaft sites are located in Appendix 8 – Operational Phase Layout, and are based on a preliminary assessment. The generic elevations of structures shown on the operational phase layout are located in Appendix 8 and provide an illustration of typical examples of the permanent structures which are applicable to shaft sites. The underground infrastructure at this site is likely to be made up of a shaft, double flap a valve chamber and a 10m wide overflow culvert . The underground infrastructure for the intermediate shaft with CSO connection is made up of a shaft, a 10m wide overflow culvert with double flap valve chamber and double flap valve chamber serving the CSO connection. In addition, it is anticipated that a manhole would be required for the connection culvert at the change of direction. The above ground infrastructure at this site is likely to comprise a ventilation column 10m high and 3m diameter, a ventilation building 5m x 15m x 5m high and a 20m x 10m top structure with openings. The top structure is to provide access and egress into the main shaft and flap valve chamber. In addition, for the CSO connection, there would be a 3.5m x 3m access chamber for the CSO flap valves. The top structures are envisaged to be finished at a level of 107m tunnel datum (TD) (7mAOD), and since the ground level mean value at this site is 104mTD (4mAOD), the top structures would be raised to approximately 3m above the current ground level. For further information on the generic layout of this top structure, refer to Appendix 8. Hardstanding would be provided to the top structures. The site would be fenced. Preliminary data associated with the operational phase are provided in Table 4.1.
c b

4.1.3

4.1.4

4.1.5

4.1.6 4.1.7

It was anticipated that an overflow culvert would be required at shaft sites when the assessment in this report was undertaken. Although this was subsequently changed with overflow culverts no longer required at all sites, the assessment was not revised as it was considered that the difference would not change any discipline‟s conclusion on the suitability of the site. b It was anticipated that the ventilation column at shafts sites would be 10m high when the assessment in this report was undertaken. Although this was subsequently changed to 15m high, the assessment was not revised as it was considered that the difference would not change any dis cipline‟s conclusion on the suitability of the site. c It was anticipated that the elevation of top structures at both CSO and shaft sites would be finished at 107mTD when the assessment in this report was undertaken. Although this was subsequently changed to 104.5mTD, the assessment was not revised as it was considered that the difference would not change any discipline‟s conclusion on the suitability of the site.

a

Page 4
100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

Site Suitability Report S33HF and C04XJ

Table 4.1 Operational phase data Level of inspections and maintenance and likely working hours, ie, (night/day/weekend) frequency of visits 1 daytime visit every six months for electrical/instrument inspection. An additional 1 week maintenance period for tunnel/shaft inspection required per 10 years that could be night/day/weekend working. 1 van visit every six months. An additional 1 week period of 2 to 10 movements per day (estimated several vans and 2 cranes) every 10 years. 4.2 4.2.1 Restoration and after-use The portion of the site not occupied by the permanent works would be restored to its original condition on completion of the construction works. If any buildings were demolished, these would not be reinstated unless required. ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT Access This section should be read in conjunction with Section 7.2. Road 5.1.2 5.1.3 For the intermediate shaft site construction phase, the proposed site access/egress point would be located on Chancellors Road (traffic calmed). For the intermediate shaft with CSO connection site construction phase, the proposed access would also be through Chancellors Road, with egress onto Distillery Road, allowing a one-way system onsite. For the intermediate shaft site operational phase, permanent access would be from Chancellors Road, with a relatively long access road along the site boundary to the permanent works. For the intermediate shaft with CSO connection site operational phase, the permanent access would be direct from Chancellors Road (possibly through the southwest part of the pumping station site). Rail 5.1.6 There is no rail network local to this site. There are usable London Underground stations local to the site (Hammersmith, Barons Court and Ravenscourt Park). River 5.1.7 Material movement for an intermediate shaft site would likely be by road. However, as the site is adjacent to the river, there may be feasible opportunities to use barge transport. Construction works considerations No demolition is required. The low level connection culverts and (suggested) 7m ID manhole and the 25m ID shaft are proposed away from the pumping station structures to avoid settlement issues and clashes with the existing underground infrastructure. Further assessment of existing levels and alignments may lead to new CSO infrastructure being able to be located closer to the

No of traffic movements

5 5.1 5.1.1

5.1.4

5.1.5

5.2 5.2.1 5.2.2

Page 5
100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

Site Suitability Report S33HF and C04XJ

current Thames Water owned land. As an alternative, the CSO connection could adopt open cut with secant pile trench support, which would not require the 7m ID manhole. 5.2.3 The CSO low level connection culvert is anticipated to divert flow from the inlet of the pumping station within the location of the current screening chambers, but this design method is subject to further development and investigation. The access route along Chancellors Road runs next to a playground. The section of the Thames Path which runs along the south-western boundary of the site would require temporary diversion. Available data on third-party assets shows that the main concerns are the Thames Water Ring Main Thames to Lee Valley Tunnel and Hammersmith Pumping Station (both of which would be located sufficiently far from the shaft to minimise impact on them) and the commercial development to the eastern corner of the site. Construction methods would be adopted, as appropriate, to mitigate potential settlement of these assets It is likely that the proposed works can be constructed within the overall construction programme. Permanent works considerations The top structures to the shaft and flap valve chamber would be 2m above ground level. Health and safety There are no unusual health and safety issues with this site. PLANNING ASSESSMENT Introduction The planning assessment builds on the advantages and disadvantages reported in Table 2.3 and covers the following areas: Planning applications and permissions Planning context Planning comments. 6.2 6.2.1 Planning applications and permissions An initial desktop search of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham online planning applications database identified a long history of planning applications, both approved and currently pending decision, for the comprehensive redevelopment of the site. The site has previously been a Lyons foodstuff factory and distillery site. Numerous applications for redevelopment of the site have been granted approval since 2002 and those listed below are the most significant. Full planning permission was granted on 11 October 2002 for the erection of eight buildings between three and six storeys high for office use (class B1), a single storey café (class A3), a three-storey terrace of 12 houses, provision of open space, new access and landscaping (planning application number 2000/01545/FUL). Subsequent to this approval, full planning permission was granted on 30 September 2005 (planning application reference 2005/01604/FUL) for a series of redevelopment enabling works. These approved works included removal of buried obstructions, capping of wells, remediation of contaminated land (involving extraction and removal of spoil to a licensed landfill site) and stopping up/backfilling a storm drain, as well as the clearance of material in advance of archaeological investigations. These applications were followed by the grant of full planning permission in March 2007 for the demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of the site for a wider range of uses Page 6
100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

5.2.4 5.2.5 5.2.6

5.2.7

5.3 5.3.1 5.4 5.4.1 6 6.1 6.1.1

6.2.2

6.2.3

6.2.4

Site Suitability Report S33HF and C04XJ

(planning application reference 2006/03176/FUL). Under this permission, redevelopment would consist of offices (Class B1), residential (Class C3), retail (Class A1), restaurants and café (Class A3), a water sports facility (Class D2) and associated pontoon, exhibition space, car parking, and hard and soft landscaped areas, including open space. Following the approval of this application, several submissions of details have been made and approved pursuant to the pre-implementation conditions during 2007. These applications have included external-facing material samples, a construction management plan and a method statement for works to the river wall. 6.2.5 A revised energy strategy has been pending decision since June 2008, along with a variation of condition application relating to noise emission levels of plant machinery, which has been pending decision since July 2007. Planning context The current planning policy context for the site is provided from the saved September 2007 policies from the Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan, adopted August 2003. Several planning designations and policies from this development plan are applicable to the site and are detailed below. It is worth noting that the site was originally located within a designated Employment Zone, although the associated policy E1 has not been saved in latest version of the local plan. Policy EN31X, Thames Policy Area, covers the majority of the site and requires all built development to be of a high quality design that respects the riverside location and contributes to its surrounding environment. Policy EN7, Archaeological Priority Areas – the site is located wholly within the Winslow Road archaeological priority area. Developers are required under the policy to conduct archaeological field investigations and make provision for any remains onsite to be protected, enhanced or preserved. Policy EN2, Conservation Areas – the site is located within the Fulham Reach Conservation Area. Policy EN2 requires all development to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area, paying particular attention to the historical context, quality of design, scale, bulk, massing and materials. Policy EN21, Environmental Nuisance – the site is in proximity to existing residential properties, and this policy seeks to ensure that no undue detriment occurs to general amenities. The following planning designations are adjacent to the site. Policy EN22, Public Open Space – located east of the site is Frank Banfield Park, an area of Protected Open Space (POS). Policy EN22 protects POS from development that would not preserve or enhance its character, visual amenity, sport and recreational function, or contribution to biodiversity. Policy EN27, Nature Conservation Areas – this designation applies to the entire stretch of the River Thames within the Hammersmith and Fulham borough boundary. The policy protects nature conservation sites from development that does not contribute to “physical, social and economic regeneration objectives of the UDP”, or that may result in harm to wildlife value (Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan, 2003, p113). Consultation comments A series of consultations on the shortlisted sites were held with London local authorities, statutory and other pan-London stakeholders during July to September 2009 and January to March 2010. This section summarises factual comments that have been made by consultees and which have informed the SSR assessments.

6.3 6.3.1

6.3.2

6.3.3

6.3.4

6.3.5

6.3.6 6.3.7

6.3.8

6.4 6.4.1

Page 7
100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

Site Suitability Report S33HF and C04XJ

London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham 6.4.2 The council advised that planning permission has been granted for an office development at the site. The council also stated that the preliminary layout illustrates construction works on part of the site identified for office development of up to six storeys English Heritage 6.4.3 English Heritage stated that the site has been excavated for archaeological purposes and archaeological reports are available. Saxon huts were discovered, along with evidence for the production of 17th century slave beads. A comprehensive desk-based assessment would be required. Environment Agency 6.4.4 The Environment Agency described the site as undeveloped and located on brownfield land. The Thames Path is narrow and constrained. Flood defence levels are normal and have not dropped, however the current level of 5.4 metres must allow for climate change. Port of London Authority 6.4.5 The Port of London Authority considers the site to be good for navigational purposes. It may be possible to go over the top of the Thames Path to the front of the site. Large quantities of material would need to be shifted/dredged. Otherwise, transport would be restricted to two slots of approximately four hours at high tide, when the river would be usable, because the shallows go out four metres into the river. The PLA might have concerns over the sustainability of dredging such a large amount of material, and would prefer operations to be modified to reduce the need for dredging. It would be possible to store the barges on the edge of the site while waiting for the tide. Barges will not float at low water from Hammersmith to Putney Bridge. Transport for London 6.4.6 Transport for London stated that there are weight and width restrictions on Hammersmith Bridge and traffic calming measures adjacent to the site. The network assurance team would seek confirmation of construction traffic, construction traffic routes and possible traffic management requirements. The site is located near to (TLRN/SRN) traffic routes, ie, Fulham Palace Road, Hammersmith Gyratory and A4, which is an Olympic Route Network Venue route. This is an extremely busy part of the network, and works would need to be co-ordinated as early as possible with other planned works/events on the network in the area. Hammersmith Gyratory improvement works are programmed for 2010/2011. Residential properties are located close to the site, and noise considerations might lead to working hour restrictions by local authorities. Other statutory consultees 6.4.7 6.5 6.5.1 No comment. Planning comments There are relatively few planning designations that are applicable both on and adjacent to the sites. These designations have been identified and described in Section 6.3, and of these designations, those relating to regeneration, residential amenity and heritage conservation are likely to be the most relevant to the proposed development. Site S033HF has a long history of applications submitted and approved for redevelopment. The most recent of these was an approval of details in June 2008 which is still pending decision, along with an energy strategy. In the absence of more recently submitted applications, and given the outstanding decision on the submission of details, it is difficult to predict the imminence of full implementation of the approved redevelopment.

6.5.2

Page 8
100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

Site Suitability Report S33HF and C04XJ

6.5.3

On the basis of the approved comprehensive redevelopment of the site for Classes A1, A3, B1, C3 and D2 uses, it may be difficult to both acquire and secure planning consent for the use of the site as a main construction shaft. Redevelopment of the site has the support of both the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham and the Greater London Authority, and the implementation of redevelopment would be significantly delayed if the site were acquired and used in relation to the Thames Tunnel Project. Such a delay to the implementation of redevelopment may conflict with strategic aspirations to regenerate a long-standing vacant site situated in a prominent riverside location within the designated Fulham Reach Conservation Area. The previous consents were also granted with a requirement for employment-generating uses, based on the original employment policy site allocation (although this associated policy has not been saved in the September 2007 version of the local plan). An alternative use of this site may still need to demonstrate that it could meet any requirement of local employment need, or that the site is no longer required to contribute to employment-generating uses in the borough. The likely implementation of the planning permission, particularly in the current economic climate, should be investigated with the site owners. Subject to the outcome of these discussions, there may be a possibility that part of the site may be suitable without interfering with the long-term redevelopment of this site. The designations and policies (which cover extensive areas of the borough, such as the Thames Policy Area) are unlikely to be significantly impacted upon by the proposed development, on the basis that the proportional impact on such wide covering designations would be relatively limited. The construction works themselves, and remaining top structures, would also not result in overly prominent development in this location and would not unacceptably obstruct local views. As both sites are within an archaeology priority area, suitable investigation and remediation works would need to be agreed with the LPA, in accordance with Policy EN7. Further appraisal of the archaeological potential on the site is provided in Section 7 of this report. Both sites are located wholly within the Fulham Reach Conservation Area, have remained vacant and derelict for a number of years and do not currently contribute to the character or appearance of the conservation area. Development on the site would be required to comply with the objectives of Policy EN2 and it is considered that, with appropriate mitigation and screening, use of the site could be possible without causing detriment to character or appearance. After use, the remaining top structures on the sites may also be incorporated within a mixed-use redevelopment proposal. However, this would require further investigation. Further heritage considerations can be found in Section 7 of this report. Both sites are within a predominately residential area and set approximately 12.5m from the nearest dwellings. This separation distance may not be considered sufficient in terms of residential amenity and may require significant mitigation to avoid negative impacts. The construction works could also be relocated within the site to increase this separation distance, thus lessening potential impacts. The operational hours of the construction works would also need to be consistent with those normally operated in residential areas, for example, 8am to 6pm during weekdays, 9am to 1pm on Saturdays and not at all on Sundays. Development of the sites would be unlikely to cause an unacceptable impact to the adjacent area of open space, since it would not result in the loss of any of the designated area and should have limited impact on character and contribution to biodiversity. It is recognised, however, that some mitigation against potential noise and dust impacts may be required to ensure the integrity and the continued enjoyment by the users of the adjacent park.

6.5.4

6.5.5

6.5.6

6.5.7

6.5.8

6.5.9

6.5.10 Both sites are also adjacent to a Nature Conservation Area designation, which covers the entire River Thames. Given the extensive nature of this designation, the purpose of the Thames Tunnel Project to improve the environmental condition of the river and the siting of the construction works adjacent to the protected area, it is unlikely that this designation would be unacceptably impacted upon. A detailed assessment of the likely impact is included in Section 7.

Page 9
100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

Site Suitability Report S33HF and C04XJ

7 7.1 7.1.1

ENVIRONMENTAL APPRAISAL Introduction The following sections summarise specialist assessments which are provided in Appendix 9 – Environmental Appraisal Tables. Transport The site is suitable for both types of shaft site (an intermediate shaft site and an intermediate shaft site combined with CSO connection). Site access would require the removal of several on-street parking bays and speed humps. Road access to the TLRN (A4) is possible, requiring the removal of some on-street parking on Chancellors Road to create passing places for construction vehicles. In the case of the combined intermediate with CSO connection site, the raised table on Distillery Road would also require removal to provide access to the TLRN (A4). Access to rail is less suitable, encountering the same constraints to the TLRN (A4) and passing along a narrow, traffic-calmed road towards Barnes Rail site, requiring the removal of speed humps. Some parking could be provided on site for the workforce. On-street parking along Chancellors Road and surrounding roads is unsuitable for the workforce, only allowing a maximum stay of four hours. Otherwise, there are no major constraints. There is a good possibility for the workforce to utilise public transport to access the site. For the intermediate with CSO, the Thames Path would require a temporary closure and diversion during the construction of the overflow culvert. Archaeology The site is likely to be suitable for both types of shaft site. Although the site is located within the Hammersmith and Fulham Archaeological Priority Area, it has already been subject to extensive archaeological excavation. The potential archaeological risk to development is therefore understood. High value remains are likely to have been removed following Saxon and post-medieval excavations. Further assessment and early consultation would be required to confirm the extent of previous excavation and the removal of archaeological receptors. Built heritage and townscape On the basis of the information currently available, this site is considered to be suitable for both types of shaft site. The site is located within Fulham Reach Conservation Area and therefore has the potential to directly affect the character and appearance of that designated area. The development also has the potential to indirectly impact upon three listed structures and numerous locally listed structures on either side of the River Thames. However, as the site is currently vacant and the majority of previous buildings have already been demolished, with appropriate mitigation (including a high-quality scheme design and/or screening), the character or appearance of the Fulham Reach Conservation Area could be enhanced. Furthermore, it is likely that potential indirect impacts upon the other built heritage receptors and the landscape character of the area could be mitigated through a high-quality scheme design and/or screening. The current indicative plans illustrate that the Thames Water pumping station present on site is to be retained. However, should the proposal require demolition of buildings within the conservation area, a detailed assessment is likely to be required. The acceptability of demolition is likely to depend upon the contribution that the building makes and the potential for the scheme design to make a positive contribution to the conservation area. Where the building proposed for demolition is not listed, it is less likely that the scheme would result in demolition of a historic building, which makes a positive contribution to the area.

7.2 7.2.1

7.3 7.3.1

7.4 7.4.1 7.4.2

7.4.3

Page 10
100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

Site Suitability Report S33HF and C04XJ

7.5 7.5.1

Water resources – hydrogeology and surface water In terms of hydrogeology, the site is suitable for both types of shaft site. The shaft would be constructed in London Clay. The Chalk piezometric head may be above the base of construction and should be taken into account in the engineering design. Impacts on the Chalk aquifer are expected to be minimal. Depending on the nature of the superficial deposits and use of the shallow aquifer, some construction impacts may occur and mitigation may be required. In terms of surface water resources, this site is suitable as both an intermediate site and an intermediate (plus CSO) site as there is no direct pathway to the River Thames for pollution. Standard mitigation is required. Ecology (terrestrial and aquatic) The site is suitable for both types of shaft site, although it would require an ecological survey in order to confirm the need for any reptile or invertebrate survey of the spoil heaps and associated vegetation. However, this habitat is localised and sparse such that mitigation should be straightforward and no major constraints have been identified. Flood risk This site is less suitable for both an intermediate and intermediate with CSO connection, as although the flood defences would protect the site to the one in 1,000-year flood level (and residual risk mitigation would be required), the site is likely to be unsuitable for infiltration SuDs, given the extent of made ground. Air quality The indicative plan for the intermediate site shows the proposed works area at the western end of the site. In this case, the site is considered suitable for use as a shaft site, as there is sufficient distance from the site to potential dust sensitive receptors so that there is a low risk of a perceptible impact at the nearest residential receptors, provided standard dust control measures are in place. The indicative plan for the combined intermediate with CSO connection shows the proposed works area along the northern part of the site. This site is considered less suitable for use as a combined intermediate with CSO connection shaft site from an air quality perspective, as there are a larger number of residential properties in close proximity to the site, therefore there is potential for fugitive emissions of dust during construction to have a perceptible impact at these properties. These impacts can be reduced with standard dust control measures. There is potential for HGV movements on the local road network to cause localised air quality impacts, however this can be mitigated by minimising the movement of HGVs during peak hours. Noise This site is less suitable for both types of shaft site due to the proximity of the residential receptors to the north of the site. Any shielding afforded by the site perimeter barriers would be largely ineffectual due to the height of some of these residential receptors. In addition, the number of vehicles associated with the construction phase and the proposed access route is likely to cause an adverse noise impact to the residential occupiers on Chancellors Road. It should be noted that the local planning authority consider this to be a noise sensitive site, evidenced through the planning history. Potential adverse impacts are likely to be more severe in the case of the combined intermediate with CSO connection shaft site, given that indicative construction areas are located nearer to residential properties and a larger number HGV movements.

7.5.2

7.6 7.6.1

7.7 7.7.1

7.8 7.8.1

7.8.2

7.8.3

7.9 7.9.1

Page 11
100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

Site Suitability Report S33HF and C04XJ

7.10

Land quality

7.10.1 This site is less suitable for both an intermediate and intermediate with CSO as there is high potential for contamination of the site to have occurred, based on the historical record for the site. Current and previous uses have included a pumping station, distillery, coal yard and fuel tanks and there is a high risk that these functions have left a legacy of contamination in the made ground. Of particular note are the potential site contaminants in the made ground, which include; metals, PAHs, phenols and toxic compounds, e.g. cyanide, nitrate and sulphate. Due to the high risk of contamination having occurred, the site is not preferred, however the risk can be mitigated through evaluation, careful design and good site management. 7.10.2 There is the possibility that this site has been subjected to prior remediation and therefore this assessment is subject to confirmation from the local authority on the current status of the site conditions. 8 8.1 8.1.1 SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT Socio-economic profile The site is located within the Fulham Reach ward of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. Statistics from the Office of National Statistics (ONS) 2001 Census data show the following indicators for the ward, in comparison to the rest of Hammersmith and Fulham, London and England as a whole: Higher rate of economically active, aged people that are full-time employees A higher proportion having achieved Level 4 or 5 educational qualifications and a corresponding high proportion of people in associated technical and professional occupations A higher proportion of housing rented from the local council and a lower than London or England average of households owner occupied A higher proportion of people aged 20 to 44, with fewer children and older people than average Approximately 67% of ward residents were born in the UK and there is a higher proportion of white British people than in the rest of the borough, although lower than in London or England. There is also a slightly higher proportion of people from Chinese ethnic groups. 8.1.2 The surrounding area has a mixed population with a range of ages, ethnic backgrounds and economic conditions represented. Apart from the employees using the site‟s parking facilities, no visitors were observed on the site. Visitors observed in neighbouring Frank Banfield Park included groups of youths and individual adults on their lunch hour, as well as family groups. Issues and impacts Intermediate shaft site 8.2.1 Due to the proposed location of the engineering works for an intermediate shaft, it is considered that the residential and commercial buildings opposite the site to the north and south are most likely to be affected by the use of the site. Residents and workers could face noise disruption and visual disruption from those properties overlooking the site. The movement of works traffic past the properties on Chancellors Road is also likely to be disruptive. The site is currently fenced-off wasteland and so visual impact through use of the site may be minimal. Through a site survey, the area has been identified as reasonably quiet, so local properties may also be affected by the noise of any works. Due to the location of the proposed works adjacent to the River Thames, it appears unlikely that Frank Banfield Park would be significantly impacted upon by the construction works.

8.2

8.2.2

Page 12
100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

Site Suitability Report S33HF and C04XJ

However, the park has recently undergone a major refurbishment, including the addition of a new play area which was officially reopened to the public in October 2008, so any potential impacts from noise, dust and increased traffic movements may have a disproportionate effect on young people in the area. 8.2.3 The western edge of the site is bound by a pedestrian footpath, part of which has already been diverted from a route adjacent to the river. This narrow stretch of path, while not visually appealing, is quiet and appears to have a high volume of footfall, including mothers with baby carriages, cyclists, joggers, dog walkers, and others. The path may be an important north-south link between Hammersmith Bridge and the Riverside Studios area. There is also an area of green open space to the south of the proposed location of the engineering works, the users of which may experience some level of disruption. The proposed after-use structures onsite appear unlikely to significantly impact on the local community, although the footpath along the western boundary of the site may again be affected by the proposed overflow culvert. Intermediate shaft site with CSO connection 8.2.5 The proposed engineering layout for an intermediate shaft site with CSO connection is very different from that for an intermediate site, only in that it is centred around the Thames Water pumping station and the north-western edge of the site bordering Chancellors Road. The potential impacts of the engineering works in this location are most likely to be significant for the residential and commercial properties overlooking the site across Chancellors Road. There is also greater potential for impacts on Frank Banfield Park as works are now taking place closer to the park‟s boundary. The majority of the works are still, however, at a distance from the park, so impacts are likely to be limited or capable of being mitigated. There appears less potential for impacts on the residential and commercial properties to the southeast of the site due to the greater separation. The footpath along the western boundary of the site may again be significantly impacted by the proposed overflow culvert. PROPERTY ASSESSMENT Introduction Two site options are under consideration as an intermediate shaft site with the worksite and shaft located close to the river frontage, and as an intermediate reception shaft, including a CSO intercept located adjacent to the existing Thames Water pumping station, along the northwest side of the site. In the first option, the permanent works would be located in the centre of the river frontage, taking up an area of approximately 40m by 50m. In the second option, the permanent works would occupy a similar area but would be located adjacent to Chancellors Road and set back from the river. With the exception of the pumping station, all buildings on the site have been demolished and planning consent has been granted for redevelopment of the site. Crown Land and Special Land comments The land is not Crown or Special Land and special procedures for the compulsory acquisition of the site would not apply. Land to be acquired The compensation assessment usually assumes that the working areas would be acquired temporarily, via the acquisition of new rights for the period of the works stated in the

8.2.4

8.2.6

8.2.7 8.2.8

9 9.1 9.1.1

9.1.2

9.1.3

9.2 9.2.1

9.3 9.3.1

Page 13
100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

Site Suitability Report S33HF and C04XJ

engineering section above. It also assumes that a smaller area would need to be acquired permanently to house operational plant. 9.3.2 For the first option, the intermediate shaft site, the area required during construction takes up about 25%of the total site area. The second option requires a larger site to accommodate the additional works, at approximately 40% of the overall site. In both cases, rights would be required to construct and operate an overflow culvert between the shaft and the river. No rights of way or easements have been included in the assessment of this site acquisition cost. All access is from Chancellors Road. Property valuation comments This is a high value development site, cleared of buildings, with planning consent and ready for immediate redevelopment. In the first option, the intermediate shaft site, the land required would take up the river frontage and the permanent works would also occupy a significant part of the frontage. This is likely to be the most valuable part of the site. The overflow culvert is directly into the river and does not require any additional land. In the second option, the intermediate shaft site with CSO connection, a larger area is required but on the northwest side of the site around the Thames Water pumping station, which minimises the amount of land with river frontage taken for the works on either a temporary or permanent basis. While the permanent structures would be situated to the west of the pumping station, there would be a connecting culvert to the Hammersmith Storm Relief Sewer to the east of the pumping station, and an overflow culvert to the river. These culverts may have the effect of sterilising the land immediately above, but it is assumed this land could be used for parking or similar uses. There might be an opportunity to mitigate the acquisition cost by working with the site owners over phasing of the timing of the development of the site, but there is little doubt any claims would be based on redevelopment value. Should the owners obtain a different planning consent, this could have the effect of increasing the acquisition cost, but this cost would be determined by levels of value prevailing at the time of acquisition. If development commences before the land is taken for the scheme, the acquisition cost is likely to rise, possibly very considerably. If compensation is assessed on a diminution in value basis for the new rights (temporary occupation during works, access rights during works, access rights for operational purposes) and on a market value basis for the permanent acquisition, the costs are likely to be significant but acceptable. It is understood that the land would be reinstated after the works are complete as a part of the engineering work, and therefore reinstatement costs are not included in the compensation assessment. The larger site option includes the CSO site C04XJ and it is assumed the works associated with the CSO intercept would be contained within the site of S33HF. This would not therefore increase the land-take but it may lengthen the amount of time the land is required for the scheme. This is reflected in the assessment. Disturbance compensation comments There are no businesses onsite so there is no issue over disturbance. Offsite statutory compensation comments There should be limited potential for offsite statutory compensation under Section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965, as there is unlikely to be any physical interference with public or private property rights.

9.3.3 9.3.4

9.4 9.4.1 9.4.2

9.4.3

9.4.4

9.4.5 9.4.6

9.4.7

9.4.8

9.5 9.5.1 9.6 9.6.1

Page 14
100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

Site Suitability Report S33HF and C04XJ

9.6.2

There should also be limited potential for claims under Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 as the completed works are unlikely to emit „physical factors‟ such as noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, artificial lighting, and discharge of solids or liquids, which may cause a diminution in value to property. Discretionary purchase costs comments Terms and conditions of a discretionary purchase scheme have yet to be finalised, but it is anticipated that the „post scheme value‟ of any properties in the vicinity that are acquired under such a scheme would not be adversely affected by the works. Therefore, the cost of operating such a scheme would be limited to any compensation over and above market value and the costs of holding the properties. It is considered that the risk of incurring significant costs in this regard to be low but there may be limited potential for discretionary purchase costs in relation to nearby properties, particularly residences in Chancellors Road. Site acquisition cost assessment The overall site acquisition cost is likely to be significant, but this is subject to negotiations with the landowner. SITE CONCLUSIONS BY DISCIPLINE Introduction

9.7 9.7.1

9.8 9.8.1

10 10.1

10.1.1 The conclusions presented in this section are drawn from each discipline‟s assessment , and are designed to inform the workshop where a final conclusion on whether the site moves forward as one of the preferred sites or not. 10.2 Engineering Intermediate shaft site 10.2.1 This site is suitable for an intermediate shaft site because it is of good size and has good access possibilities. The location of the site allows the alignment diversion of the main tunnel from the centre of the river to be minimised. Also, there are no major constraints in terms of demolition or third-party assets. Intermediate shaft site with CSO connection 10.2.2 For the intermediate shaft site with CSO connection, this is also suitable because it is of a good size and has good access possibilities. The CSO interception is relatively far from the shaft, but this locates the CSO shaft, etc, in the vicinity of the existing Thames Water owned land, thus minimising surrounding footprint impact. 10.3 Planning

10.3.1 Due to the limited number of constraints identified, but subject to clarification about the redevelopment of the site, it is considered suitable for an intermediate shaft site and a combined intermediate shaft with CSO connection (S33HF and C04XJ). The combined site is an efficient and effective use of land, and there also may be an opportunity to incorporate the land around the pumping station area. 10.3.2 In conclusion, there are relatively few planning designations that are applicable to the sites, and it is considered that with appropriate mitigation measures, these designations are unlikely to be unacceptably impacted upon. Implementation of the existing approved redevelopment may present a constraint to the use, but this is subject to further discussions with the site owner (and the council). Potential impacts on residential amenity should be considered further, including the potential to relocate construction works within the site to increase the separation distance between the works and the front facades of dwellings.

Page 15
100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

Site Suitability Report S33HF and C04XJ

10.4

Environment

10.4.1 Overall, the site is suitable as both an intermediate site and an intermediate with CSO connection site. However, mitigation would be required to enable the site to be used for either purpose. 10.4.2 Based on current information, the site is suitable from the perspective of transport, archaeology, built heritage and townscape, water resources, and ecology. 10.4.3 The site is considered less suitable from the perspective of flood risk, noise and land quality. 10.4.4 The intermediate site is considered suitable from an air quality perspective. However, the combined intermediate with CSO connection is considered less suitable from an air quality perspective as there are a larger number of residential properties in close proximity to the site. 10.4.5 Overall, the site is considered suitable, subject to further investigation of whether flood risk, noise and land quality impacts can be adequately mitigated. Likely mitigation considerations would include: Flood Risk – Further investigation of residual flood risk and possible requirement for residual risk mitigation. Noise – standard 4m noise barriers are unlikely to be effective for upper floors of adjacent blocks, and other techniques may be required to reduce construction noise to acceptable levels. Land quality – any required remediation of contamination (at this high risk site) and/or measures to ensure no mobilisation of contaminants retained in situ. 10.4.6 In the case of the combined intermediate with CSO site, there is likely to be a requirement for measures to ensure that dust is adequately mitigated for the closest receptors. 10.5 Socio-economic and community

10.5.1 The site is considered suitable, with appropriate mitigation, for both an intermediate shaft site and a combined intermediate shaft with CSO connection. 10.5.2 The use of the site for either application appears likely to have some impact on the surrounding residential and commercial properties. Mitigation may involve discussions around minimising noise and potentially limiting site hours. 10.5.3 It appears unlikely that Frank Banfield Park would be significantly disrupted, although there is greater danger of this if the site is used as an intermediate site with CSO connection, due to the closer proximity of some works activities to the park boundary. However, impacts are likely to be capable of being mitigated, which may involve discussions around noise minimisation and minimising visual disturbance from the use of the site. 10.5.4 There is some potential for a negative impact on the local economy, due to the proximity of a number of commercial businesses to the proposed works area. 10.5.5 The requirement for an overflow culvert appears likely to disrupt the public footpath to the west of the site. 10.6 Property

10.6.1 This site should be classified as suitable from a property perspective on the grounds of cost, on the basis that it is acquired before development commences. 10.6.2 The advantages of the site are as follows: it is currently cleared of buildings it includes an existing Thames Water facility. 10.6.3 The disadvantage of the site is as follows:

Page 16
100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

Site Suitability Report S33HF and C04XJ

the acquisition cost is likely to be significant and, if development commences prior to acquisition, may be very significant.

Page 17
100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

Site Suitability Report S33HF and C04XJ - Appendices

APPENDICES

Page 18
100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

Site Suitability Report S33HF and C04XJ – Appendix 1

APPENDIX 1 – SOURCES OF INFORMATION

Engineering Traffic Management and Access Roads/Rail – Scott Wilson Access River – BMT Third Parties (Shafts/CSOs) – Mott MacDonald and AECOM Geology – Thames Water Utilities – Thames Water and AECOM Construction and Operational Layout Template – London Tideway Tunnels Background Technical Paper – London Tideway Tunnels Planning London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham online planning applications database Saved September 2007 policies in the Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan, adopted in August 2003

Environment Transport Map of Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) - www.tfl.gov.uk Bus Route Maps: North-east, north-west, south-west, south-east - www.tfl.gov.uk Crossrail Plans - www.crossrail.co.uk/crossrail-bill-documents PTAL scores - Obtained from Table 2.3 information Thames Path map - www.walklondon.org.uk Capital Ring - www.walklondon.org.uk Cycle Routes - www.sustrans.org.uk and Local Cycling Guides 1-14 Design Manual for Roads and Bridge TD 42/95, Highways Agency Built heritage and townscape Hammersmith and Fulham list of Conservation Areas National Monuments Record - for some additional information regarding registered historic parks and gardens London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan (2003) Local authority websites Bing maps Water resources – hydrogeology and surface water Environment Agency abstraction licence details Environment Agency groundwater levels Local authority details of unlicensed abstractors Environment Agency Flood Map – www.environment-agency.gov.uk Appendix 1 - Page 1
100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

Site Suitability Report S33HF and C04XJ – Appendix 1

Envirocheck Ecology Thames Estuary Partnership (2002) Tidal Thames Habitat Action Plan London Biodiversity Action Plan - www.lbp.org.uk Hammersmith and Fulham Biodiversity Action Plan (2003) Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) www.magic.gov.uk - statutory designated sites London Wildweb - http://wildweb.london.gov.uk - non-statutory site of importance for nature conservation Black redstart distribution in London www.blackredstarts.org.uk/pages/londonmap.html National Biodiversity Network - http://searchnbn.net - distribution of protected species Google Maps - aerial views of habitat features BAP habitats - www.natureonthemap.org.uk Priority habitats and species on national and local scales - www.ukbap.org.uk Flood risk Environment Agency Flood Map – www.environment-agency.gov.uk Envirocheck Air quality Local authority websites www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/default.asp?la_id=&showbulletins=&width=1680 http://www.airquality.co.uk Noise Envirocheck - Identification of receptors Promap - Calculation of distances between site and receptors Multimap - Aerial photography – www.multimap.co.uk Defra Noise Maps - Identification of existing noise levels Land quality Google Maps/Earth Site walkover information

Socio-economic and community Statistics from the Office of National Statistics 2001 Census data Goodman International http://www.hammersmithembankment.co.uk/park-plan/ hammersmith-site-plan.html Goodman International http://www.hammersmithembankment.co.uk/park-plan/ hammersmith-site-plan.html

Appendix 1 - Page 2
100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

Site Suitability Report S33HF and C04XJ – Appendix 1

Property Multimap VOA website

Appendix 1 - Page 3
100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

Site Suitability Report S33HF and C04XJ – Appendix 2

APPENDIX 2 – SITE LOCATION PLAN

Appendix 2 - Page 1
100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

N

FI D

EN

TI AL

&

C

O

Area of Main Map

Legend
Local Authority Boundary Short Listed Shaft Sites Short Listed CSO Sites

D

R

AF T

# *
HAMMERSMITH & FULHAM

! (

CSO (Directly Controlled) Pumping station

CS04X C04XJ Hammersmith Pumping Station CSO

# * Hammersmith Pumping Station

! (

S33HF

±
0 50 100 200 Metres 300 400

Mapping reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. (c) Crown copyright and database right 2009. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100019345 CH2M HILL accept no responsibility for any circumstances, which arise from the reproduction of this map after alteration, amendment or abbreviation or if it issued in part or issued incomplete in any way.

RICHMOND UPON THAMES

Map Ref : .......101PL-SS-00608 Date : .............2009/11/17 Projection : .....British National Grid

Thames Water Utilities
MAJOR PROJECTS

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

Title:

APPENDIX 2 S33HF SITES SITE LOCATION PLAN

Site Suitability Report S33HF and C04XJ – Appendix 3

APPENDIX 3 – PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT PLANS

GIS data could not be obtained from London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (see section 6.3 for planning context)

Appendix 3 - Page 1
100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

Site Suitability Report S33HF and C04XJ – Appendix 4

APPENDIX 4 – PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

Appendix 4 - Page 1
100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

FI D

EN

TI AL

C

O

Area of Main Map

N

AF T

Legend
Local Authority Boundary Short Listed Shaft Sites Short Listed CSO Sites

D

R

&

# *
HAMMERSMITH & FULHAM

! (

CSO (Directly Controlled) Pumping station

# * Hammersmith Pumping Station
S33HF
0 25 50

CS04X Hammersmith Pumping Station CSO

! (

C04XJ

±

100

150

200

Metres

Mapping reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. (c) Crown copyright and database right 2009. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100019345 CH2M HILL accept no responsibility for any circumstances, which arise from the reproduction of this map after alteration, amendment or abbreviation or if it issued in part or issued incomplete in any way.

RICHMOND UPON THAMES

Map Ref : .......101PL-SS-00631 Date : .............2009/11/17 Projection : .....British National Grid

Thames Water Utilities
MAJOR PROJECTS
The Point, 7th Floor, 37 North Wharf Road, Paddington, London W2 1AF

Title:

APPENDIX 4 S33HF SITES AERIAL PLAN

Site Suitability Report S33HF & C04XJ – Appendix 4

View of site C04XJ and S33HF beyond, looking northeast towards the adjoining side elevation of the Thames Water Pumping Station. The photograph also shows the boundary wall and the upper storeys of properties along Chancellors Road.

View of the pumping station looking northwest across site S33HF.

Appendix 4
100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

Site Suitability Report S33HF & C04XJ – Appendix 4

View of C04XJ and S33HF and the sites boundary wall from Chancellors Road. The Thames Water Pumping Station is also visible in the background.

Site S33HF, viewed from the south, showing boundary fencing and residential properties on Chancellors Road beyond to the north.

Appendix 4
100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

Site Suitability Report S33HF & C04XJ – Appendix 4

View looking west towards S33HF, taken from Frank Banfield Park across Distillery Road. The photograph also shows boundary fencing and signs for the ‘Hammersmith Embankment’ redevelopment and the Thames Water pumping station on the right.

Appendix 4
100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

Site Suitability Report S33HF and C04XJ – Appendix 5

APPENDIX 5 – TRANSPORT PLAN

Appendix 5 - Page 1
100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

FI D

EN

TI AL

High Street

O

&

Legend

Area of Main Map

C

N

AF T

Local Authority Boundary Short Listed Shaft Sites Short Listed CSO Sites

R

! (
Road bridge - no restrictions Residential area On-street parking

CSO (Directly Controlled) Transport Access Routes TfL Road Network Thames Path

D

London Cycle Routes Traffic calming

C04XJ CS04X Hammersmith Pumping Station CSO ! ( CS04X Hammersmith Pumping Station CSO

HAMMERSMITH & FULHAM S33HF
0 40 80 160

±
Meters

240

320

400

Thames Footpath

Mapping reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. (c) Crown copyright and database right 2009. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100019345 CH2M HILL accept no responsibility for any circumstances, which arise from the reproduction of this map after alteration, amendment or abbreviation or if it issued in part or issued incomplete in any way.

RICHMOND UPON THAMES

Map Ref : ........... 101PL-SS-00766 Date : ................. 2009/12/08 Projection : ......... British National Grid

Thames Water Utilities
MAJOR PROJECTS
The Point, 7th Floor, 37 North Wharf Road, Paddington, London W2 1AF

Title:

APPENDIX 5 S33HF SITES TRANSPORT PLAN

1

2

3

4

5

6
DO NOT SCALE - IF IN DOUBT ASK

PH

Status:

WORK IN PROGRESS 5.7m
Keyplan:
N

Riverside Studios
Playground
THIS DRAWING

A
OFFICES , WELFARE AND CANTEEN MAPPING REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF ORDNANCE SURVEY ON BEHALF OF HMSO. ' CROWN COPYRIGHT AND DATABASE RIGHT 2008. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ORDNANCE SURVEY LICENCE NUMBER 100019345

COORDINATES ARE TO ORDNANCE SURVEY DATUM OSGB36. ALL LEVELS ARE IN METRES AND RELATE TO A LOCAL HEIGHT DATUM WHICH IS 100 METRES BELOW ORDNANCE DATUM NEWLYN.

Chancellors Wharf

NOTES TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT OVERVIEW: 1. TO MAINTAIN CONSTANT ACCESS TO THE THAMES PATH ROUTE, IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE OVERFLOW CULVERT BE BUILT IN TWO PHASES. 2. NO TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT REQUIRED FOR PHASE 1 (NORTHERN SECTION OF CULVERT). 3. FOR PHASE TWO (SOUTHERN SECTION OF CULVERT) SECTION OF THAMES PATH CLOSED, TEMPORARY FOOTWAY AND PEDESTRIAN DIVERSION PROVIDED. PROVISIONAL DURATIONS: MAIN SITE - 7 YEARS (APPROX) PHASE 2 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PHASES - 6-7 MONTHS

LB

5.1m

B

SHAFT

STOCKYARD, WORKSHOP AND STORES

Chancellors Wharf

OVERFLOW CULVERT PHASE 1 (BUILT IN TWO PHASES TO MAINTAIN A THAMES PATH ROUTE)

5.0m
El Sub Sta

EXCAVATED MATERIAL THAMES PATH CLOSURE

THAMES PATH AND PEDESTRIAN DIVERSION ROUTE OVERFLOW CULVERT PHASE 2 (BUILT IN TWO PHASES TO MAINTAIN A THAMES PATH ROUTE)

KEY

AREA OF ROAD/ FOOTWAY CLOSURE

SITE AREA

TEMPORARY FOOTWAY INDICATIVE AREA OF PHASE 2 EXCAVATION

AREA OF ACCESS ONLY

TRAFFIC DIVERSION ROUTE

4.7m

AREA OF TEMPORARY WORKS

PEDESTRIAN DIVERSION ROUTE

AREA OF EXCAVATION THAMES PATH CLOSURE (INDICATIVE)

ALTERNATIVE ACCESS ROUTE

LB

AB

SECOND ISSUE

IL MJL

GT

GT

15-01-10 01-09-09
Date

AA FIRST ISSUE
Iss Description

TMN MRW
Chkd Appd

Dsgnr

The Point, 7th Floor, 37 North Wharf Road, Paddington, London W2 1AF
Location Code: OS Reference: Security Reference: Drawn By:

D

N/A
Project Group:

-

UBR
Sub Process:

AP

LTTDT
Location / Town: Site Name: Project Name:

WASTE LONDON N/A 50
Scale: Sheet Size: Rev:

THAMES TUNNEL N
10 m 0 40 m
Contract Name:

SITE SUITABILITY REPORT
Drawing Title:

SCALE 1 : 500

TEMPORARY TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN S33HF - INTERMEDIATE & CSO 5.4m
Drawing No.:

PLOTTED ON

19\01\10

BY

Andy.Purdy

LOCATION :

Thames Tideway Tunnel

x:\project\371840\cad\design data\cad thames\drawings\Infrastructure\Routewide\100-DE-TRA-S33HF-801801.dgn

Waterfront

c Thames Water Utilities Ltd 2008

0

100-DE-TRA-S33HF-801801

1:500

A1

AB

100

Riverside

150

200mm

C

Site Suitability Report S33HF and C04XJ – Appendix 6

APPENDIX 6 – SERVICES AND GEOLOGY PLAN

Appendix 6 - Page 1
100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

1

2

3

4

5

6

BOC 3027

BS VMH CL5.93m IL-1.64m IL-1.65m
5.7m
PH

VMH 3101 2116 SE PS
N GEOLOGY

4120
Status:

DO NOT SCALE - IF IN DOUBT ASK

WORK IN PROGRESS
Ground level
Keyplan:
N

WO 4119

105(m OD + 100)

2115 SE 2133

IL-1.97m DBV014264

DRAWING LOCATION

Base of Made Ground and Superficial 97(m OD + 100)

HW
2117 SE

DS WW
3006 CON 3N 3011

4117
Playground

erside Studios

1143

FV
A

4118

2033

1141

IL-7.4m
MAPPING REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF ORDNANCE SURVEY ON BEHALF OF HMSO. ' CROWN COPYRIGHT AND DATABASE RIGHT 2008. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Suggested invert level of shaft 70.96(m OD + 100) COORDINATES ARE TO ORDNANCE SURVEY DATUM OSGB36. ALL LEVELS ARE IN METRES AND RELATE TO A LOCAL HEIGHT DATUM WHICH IS 100 METRES BELOW ORDNANCE DATUM NEWLYN. ORDNANCE SURVEY LICENCE NUMBER 100019345

0366 IL-1.76m

C04XM
3008 3010 FL 3012

3013
NOTE: 1. INVERT LEVEL OF SHAFT SHOWN. BASE OF CONSTRUCTION WILL BE BELOW THIS LEVEL AND WILL DEPEND ON CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUE. THIS IS ONLY PROVISIONAL AS DESIGN IS AT EARLY PRELIMINARY STAGE.

IL-9.02m
Chancellors Wharf

2002 VMH

IL-1.71m

3009 0393

Base of London Clay Formation 48(m OD + 100)

HW 2001 VMH
IL-8.89m IL-1.26m 2031 5.1m 1142 IL-0.9m 2020 SE
LB

2. LIMITED FIBRE OPTIC AND BT COMMUNICATION CABLES SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING. DETAILS OF THESE CABLES AND OTHER SERVICES AND THIRD PARTY ASSETS TO BE CONFIRMED BY FURTHER STUDIES AND UTILITY SEARCHES. Base of Lambeth Group

2029

FL
DB DB 2010 IL-2.9m 2017 SE VMH

VMH 2041

HAMMERSMITH STORM SPS WO HAMMP1ZZ

35(m OD + 100)

Base of Thanet Sand Formation 22(m OD + 100)

FL
DS NAME NK SPS LOC CODE NK
EL
Chalk

LEGEND 4008 4003
FOUL WATER

1012 1017 B
IL-1.33m

DC 1003 VT SE

C04XJ
1028

SURFACE WATER

CLEAN WATER

GAS

N

N

1004
TU

FIBRE OPTICS

EE

FH

SYNTHETIC GEOLOGICAL PROFILE DERIVED FROM THE BGS LONDON LITHOFRAME50 MODEL, HISTORICAL BOREHOLES AND BERRY (1979). PLEASE NOTE, GROUND CONDITIONS MAY VARY AND THIS DATA SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR DETAILED ENGINEERING PURPOSES

4007

TELECOMMUNICATIONS

LOW VOLTAGE CABLES

HIGH VOLTAGE CABLES

-L

M

ES

4903 4902
El Sub Sta
WATER STORM & FOUL SEWERS

EXISTING TUNNELS

S33HF
C

TH

A

5.0m

UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
- ALL TW ASSETS - ALL TW ASSETS

4901

OTHER SIGNIFICANT UTILITIES ARE DEFINED AS:

970

TELECOMS ELECTRICITY

- ONLY FIBRE OPTIC CABLES - HIGH VOLTAGE CABLES - LARGE BANKS OF LOW VOLTAGE CABLES - LOW PRESSURE ABOVE 300mm DIAMETER - INTERMEDIATE, MEDIUM OR HIGH PRESSURE 200mm

GAS

VT 3902 VT 3903
4.7m
SITE BOUNDARY 10 m 0 40 m

SCALE 1 : 500

3559

AC AB

DRAFT - THIRD ISSUE DRAFT - SECOND ISSUE

IL AP AP
Dsgnr

GT RS RS
Chkd

GT DA DA
Appd

27-11-09 03.09.09 27/08/09
Date

AA DRAFT - FIRST ISSUE

LB

Iss

Description

3801

The Point, 7th Floor,

Riverside D

37 North Wharf Road, Paddington, London W2 1AF
Location Code: OS Reference: Security Reference: Drawn By:

3802 1080

N/A
Project Group:

-

UBR
Sub Process:

DB

LTTDT
Location / Town: Site Name: Project Name:

WASTE LONDON N/A 50
Scale: Sheet Size: Rev:

THAMES TUNNEL
Contract Name:

SU

4802

SITE SUITABILITY REPORT
Drawing Title:

SERVICES AND GEOLOGY PLAN S33HF AND C04XJ
Drawing No.:

PLOTTED ON

04\12\09

BY

Andy.Purdy

LOCATION :

Thames Tideway Tunnel

x:\project\371840\cad\design data\cad thames\drawings\planning-consents\Routewide\100-DL-PNC-S33HF-100201.dgn

c Thames Water Utilities Ltd 2008

LVHTCABGWF

FWGTHV

0

100-DL-PNC-S33HF-100201

1:500

A1

AC

100

150

4905

SW

FWGTHV

Site Suitability Report S33HF and C04XJ – Appendix 7

APPENDIX 7 – CONSTRUCTION PHASE LAYOUT

Appendix 7 - Page 1
100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

1

2

3

4

5

6
DO NOT SCALE - IF IN DOUBT ASK

N
Status:

WORK IN PROGRESS
Keyplan:
N

PH

DRAWING LOCATION

5.7m

erside Studios
Playground A
MAPPING REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF ORDNANCE SURVEY ON BEHALF OF HMSO. ' CROWN COPYRIGHT AND DATABASE RIGHT 2008. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
50 0m †

ORDNANCE SURVEY LICENCE NUMBER 100019345

COORDINATES ARE TO ORDNANCE SURVEY DATUM OSGB36. ALL LEVELS ARE IN METRES AND RELATE TO A LOCAL HEIGHT INTERCEPTION METHODOLOGY TO BE CONFIRMED BY DESIGN TEAM
E G E R SS

DATUM WHICH IS 100 METRES BELOW ORDNANCE DATUM NEWLYN.

NOTE : 1. MEANS OF INTERCEPTION IS REPRESENTATIONAL AND FINAL DESIGN SUBJECT TO DEVELOPMENT. 2. OVERFLOW SHOWN WITHIN SITE BOUNDARY. OPTION EXISTS TO CONSTRUCT CULVERT STRAIGHT TO RIVER. BUT THIS OPTION MEANS THE CULVERT WILL PASS THROUGH PRIME DEVELOPMENT AREA.

Chancellors Wharf
7m I.D MANHOLE 2m SQUARE LOW LEVEL CONNECTION CULVERT

D ER LL TI IS

LB

5.1m

A

C

C

E

SS

Y R O A D

B

0 10

0m

KEY:

FLAP VALVE CHAMBER
0m †

EXCAVATED MATERIAL, STORAGE AND HANDLING AREA VENTURI CHAMBERS. EXACT LOCATION OF DISCHARGE CULVERTS TO BE CONFIRMED

12

0

SHAFT, PRIMARY AND SECONDARY CRANE.

25m I.D. SHAFT

TEMPORARY WORKING AREA = 11267m†

SHAFT SEGMENT STOCKYARD, WORKSHOP AND STORAGE AREA.

5.0m
El Sub Sta
PARKING / VEHICLE MARSHALLING / OFFICES / WELFARE / CANTEEN & MEDICAL

10

00

m

PRIMARY CRANE

DISCLAIMER: SECONDARY CRANE INDICATIVE CONSTRUCTION ARRANGEMENT. BASED ON PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT.

10 m

0

40 m

SCALE 1 : 500

4.7m

AC AB

DRAFT - THIRD ISSUE DRAFT - SECOND ISSUE

IL AP AP
Dsgnr

GT RS RS
Chkd

GT DA DA
Appd

04-12-09 03/09/09 27/08/09
Date

AA DRAFT - FIRST ISSUE

LB

Iss

Description

SITE BOUNDARY AREA = 29630m†

The Point, 7th Floor,

Riverside D

37 North Wharf Road, Paddington, London W2 1AF
Location Code: OS Reference: Security Reference: Drawn By:

N/A
Project Group:

-

UBR
Sub Process:

AP

LTTDT
Location / Town: Site Name: Project Name:

WASTE LONDON N/A 50
Scale: Sheet Size: Rev:

THAMES TUNNEL
Contract Name:

SITE SUITABILITY REPORT
Drawing Title:

CONSTRUCTION PHASE LAYOUT S33HF - INTERMEDIATE & CSO
Drawing No.:

PLOTTED ON

04\12\09

BY

Andy.Purdy

LOCATION :

Thames Tideway Tunnel

x:\project\371840\cad\design data\cad thames\drawings\planning-consents\Routewide\100-DL-PNC-S33HF-100202.dgn

c Thames Water Utilities Ltd 2008

0

100-DL-PNC-S33HF-100202

1:500

A1

AC

100

150

200mm

C

Site Suitability Report S33HF and C04XJ – Appendix 8

APPENDIX 8 – OPERATIONAL PHASE LAYOUT

Appendix 8 - Page 1
100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

1

2

3

4

5

6
DO NOT SCALE - IF IN DOUBT ASK

N
Status:

WORK IN PROGRESS
Keyplan:
N

PH

DRAWING LOCATION

5.7m

erside Studios
Playground A
MAPPING REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF ORDNANCE SURVEY ON BEHALF OF HMSO. ' CROWN COPYRIGHT AND DATABASE RIGHT 2008. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED INTERCEPTION METHODOLOGY TO BE CONFIRMED BY DESIGN TEAM ORDNANCE SURVEY LICENCE NUMBER 100019345

COORDINATES ARE TO ORDNANCE SURVEY DATUM OSGB36. ALL LEVELS ARE IN METRES AND RELATE TO A LOCAL HEIGHT DATUM WHICH IS 100 METRES BELOW ORDNANCE DATUM NEWLYN.

NOTES: 1. HARDSTANDING FULLY ENCOMPASSING SHAFT / TOP STRUCTURE. REDUCTION IN AREA CAN BE CONSIDERED. HARD STANDING TO BE ENCORPORATED INTO EXISTING ROADS 2. EXACT LOCATION OF MANHOLE TO BE CONFIRMED, COULD BE LOCATED CLOSER TO THE PUMPING STATION, BUT ALIGNMENT IS RESTRICTED BY EXISTING VENTURI CHAMBERS.

HAMMERSMITH STORM RELIEF SEWER

Chancellors Wharf

2m SQUARE LOW LEVEL CONNECTION CULVERT

15M x 5M x 5M HIGH VENTILATION BUILDING

LB

7m I.D MANHOLE

5.1m

2m SQUARE LOW LEVEL CONNECTION CULVERT VENTILATION TOWER 10m HIGH PERMANENT

B

ACCESS VENTURI CHAMBERS. EXACT LOCATION OF DISCHARGE CULVERTS TO BE CONFIRMED

FENCE

3.5m X 3m FLAP VALVE CHAMBER @ 107m (AOD + 100m) 10m x 20m TOP STRUCTURE @ 107m (AOD + 100m) 25m I.D. SHAFT

5.0m
El Sub Sta

PERMANENT HARDSTANDING FOR FUTURE CRANE ACCESS

DISCLAIMER: INDICATIVE OPERATIONAL ARRANGEMENT. BASED ON PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT.

10 m

0

40 m

SCALE 1 : 500

OVERFLOW CULVERT

4.7m

AC AB

DRAFT - THIRD ISSUE DRAFT - SECOND ISSUE

IL AP AP
Dsgnr

GT RS RS
Chkd

GT DA DA
Appd

18/12/09 03/09/09 27/08/09
Date

AA DRAFT - FIRST ISSUE

LB

Iss

Description

The Point, 7th Floor,

Riverside D

37 North Wharf Road, Paddington, London W2 1AF
Location Code: OS Reference: Security Reference: Drawn By:

N/A
Project Group:

-

UBR
Sub Process:

AP

LTTDT
Location / Town: Site Name: Project Name:

WASTE LONDON N/A 50
Scale: Sheet Size: Rev:

THAMES TUNNEL
Contract Name:

SITE SUITABILITY REPORT
Drawing Title:

OPERATIONAL PHASE LAYOUT S33HF - INTERMEDIATE & CSO
Drawing No.:

PLOTTED ON

15\12\09

BY

Andy.Purdy

LOCATION :

Thames Tideway Tunnel

x:\project\371840\cad\design data\cad thames\drawings\planning-consents\routewide\100-DL-PNC-S33HF-100203.dgn

c Thames Water Utilities Ltd 2008

0

100-DL-PNC-S33HF-100203

1:500

A1

AC

100

150

200mm

C

1

2

3

4

5

6
DO NOT SCALE - IF IN DOUBT ASK

VENTILATION BUILDING (SHAFTS)
107m (AOD +100) REMOVABLE COVER ABOVE FLAP VALVES (LOCKABLE)

Status:

WORK IN PROGRESS
Keyplan:
N

10 3m 9m

m

A

20

m

107m (AOD + 100m)
RI ES

MAPPING REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF ORDNANCE SURVEY ON BEHALF OF HMSO. ' CROWN COPYRIGHT AND DATABASE RIGHT 2008. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ORDNANCE SURVEY LICENCE NUMBER 100019345

V

A

COORDINATES ARE TO ORDNANCE SURVEY DATUM OSGB36.
2m

ALL LEVELS ARE IN METRES AND RELATE TO A LOCAL HEIGHT DATUM WHICH IS 100 METRES BELOW ORDNANCE DATUM NEWLYN.

VARIBLE DEPENDING ON

NOTE: 1. STRUCTURE TO BE PROTECTED BY REMOVABLE HANDRAILS IN THE TEMPORARY CASE. GROUND LEVEL 2. POSITION OF COVERS ARE VARIABLE WITHIN 10m FROM THE EDGE OF THE STRUCTURE, AND THE LOCATION IS BASED ON SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT 3. CLADDING OF VENTILLATION BUILDING TO SUIT LOCATION AND AESTHETICS. 4. ALL TOP STRUCTURES TO HAVE:ACCESS STAIRS/LADDER TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT HAND RAILING 5. ALL DIMENSIONS IN MILLIMETRES UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED.

7m (AOD +100m) REMOVABLE COVER ABOVE SHAFT (LOCKABLE)

B

5000

REMOVABLE COVERS ARE SPLIT UP INTO SECTIONS AND SUPPORTED BY BEAMS, WHICH ARE ALSO REMOVABLE

50

00

15000

SCALE 1:100

DIAGRAMMATIC REPRESENTATION OF TOP STRUCTURE ABOVE MAIN AND INTERMEDIATE SHAFTS VENTILATION TOWER (SHAFTS)

- - 10000 - - - - - - AB DRAFT-SECOND ISSUE IL RS
Dsgnr

GT DS
Chkd

GT CH
Appd

27-11-09 - 22-05-09
Date

AA DRAFT-FIRST ISSUE
Iss Description

The Point, 7th Floor, 37 North Wharf Road, Paddington, London W2 1AF
Location Code: OS Reference: Security Reference: Drawn By:

D

N/A
Project Group:

---

UBR
Sub Process:

AP

LTTDT
Location / Town: Site Name:

WASTE LONDON N/A 50
Scale: Sheet Size: Rev:

3m DIA
Project Name:

THAMES TUNNEL
Contract Name:

SITE SUITABILITY REPORT
Drawing Title:

SCALE 1:50

GENERIC ELEVATION AND TOP STRUCTURE FOR OPERATIONAL PHASE LAYOUT - SHAFT SITES
Drawing No.:

PLOTTED ON

04\12\09

BY

Andy.Purdy

LOCATION :

Thames Tideway Tunnel

x:\project\371840\cad\design data\cad thames\drawings\planning-consents\Routewide\100-DH-GEN-00000-000002.dgn

c Thames Water Utilities Ltd 2008

0

100-DH-GEN-00000-000002

NTS

A1

AB

100

150

200mm

C

Site Suitability Report S33HF and C04XJ – Appendix 9

APPENDIX 9 – ENVIRONMENTAL APPRAISAL TABLES

Transport Intermediate Site considerations Comments Temporary construction access and permanent access are located on Chancellors Road and would utilise the same access point. The new access point would require construction and several on street parking bays would require removal to enable access. Visibility to the west is unrestricted to the end of the road but to the east of the junction is not met due to on street parking bays. These parking bays would require removal. Access to existing business car parks are located opposite to proposed site access location, however, and this may result in a limited potential conflict. Chancellors Road is subject to a 30mph speed limit, features traffic calming (speed cushions) and is street lit. It has a carriageway width of 8.1m and contains on street Appendix 9 - Page 1
100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

Intermediate (with CSO) Comments Temporary construction access (separate egress) and permanent access are located on Chancellors Road and would utilise the same access point. The new access point would require construction and several on street parking bays would require removal to enable access. Temporary construction egress is onto Distillery Road, enabling a one-way system through the site for construction vehicles. The egress would utilise an existing access point and requires the removal of some on street parking along Distillery Road. Visibility to the east from the temporary construction/ permanent site access onto Chancellors Road is approximately 60m, restricted by parked vehicles which require removal. To the west, 70m visibility is Mitigation required and conclusions Conclusion: Access point for the permanent access/ construction access requires construction. Site accesses/egress would require the removal of some on street parking and speed cushions. Additional parking on Chancellors Road would require removal to create passing places for construction vehicles for accessing the TLRN (A4). Several constraints upon accessing the TLRN (A4), most notably the on street parking and traffic calming. The raised table on Distillery Road would require removal. The Thames Path would require diversion during the construction of the site‟s overflow culvert.

Mitigation required and conclusions Conclusion: Access point for the permanent access/ construction access requires construction. Site access requires the removal of some on street parking and speed cushions. Additional parking on Chancellors Road would require removal to create passing places for construction vehicles for accessing the TLRN (A4). Several constraints upon accessing the TLRN (A4), most notably the on street parking and traffic calming. The Thames Path would require diversion during the construction of the site‟s overflow culvert.

Access to road network

Site Suitability Report S33HF and C04XJ – Appendix 9

Transport Intermediate Site considerations Comments parking on both sides (reducing effective carriageway width to 4m). Access route to the A4 (TLRN strategic highway network) uses Chancellors Road, Fulham Palace Road and the Hammersmith Gyratory (using the A306 for the westbound A4 carriageway). Constraints along the route include a residential area, a high street area, traffic calming (speed cushions and a raised table) and on street parking. Some on street parking along Chancellors Road would need to be removed to create passing places for construction vehicles. Distance to the TLRN (A4) is 1.1km for travelling westbound and 1.3km for travelling eastbound. TLRN in vicinity of site highly sensitive and part of Olympic Route Network. Improvements to Hammersmith gyratory programmed for 2011. See Transport Access Plan Mitigation required and conclusions Intermediate (with CSO) Comments achievable (to the end of the road). Distillery Road is subject to a 30mph speed limit, features traffic calming (speed cushions, raised table) and is street lit. Visibility to the northwest from the construction egress is to the junction with Chancellors Road (approximately 40m). Visibility to the southeast exceeds 90m. The speed cushions opposite the construction egress would require removal. Access route to the TLRN same as for intermediate site, see left. The Thames Path would require diversion during the construction of the site‟s overflow culvert. Mitigation required and conclusions

Appendix 9 - Page 2
100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

Site Suitability Report S33HF and C04XJ – Appendix 9

Transport Intermediate Site considerations Comments in Appendix 5. Access to river Site is adjacent to the river, although no river access has been shown on the plans. It has been assumed that excavated material would be transported away by road. Access to the Barnes railway site uses the route to the TLRN (A4), then follows the A4 and continues to the junction with the A316 where it heads south along the A316 towards the junction with Hartington Road. The route then follows a narrow road adjacent to the Thames before reaching the site. Constraints include those encountered when accessing the TLRN in addition to a traffic calmed (speed humps) narrow road alongside the river in close proximity to the Barnes site. The speed humps would require removal. Distance 5.5km to rail access from site. River access has not been shown on the plans and it is therefore assumed that excavated material would be transported away by road. Route to possible rail link (near Barnes Bridge) runs along a narrow road which is traffic calmed adjacent to the Thames in addition to the constraints encountered upon accessing TLRN (A4). The speed humps require removal. Railway sidings would need to be constructed in order for the site to be utilised. Same as for intermediate site, see left. Same as for intermediate site, see left. Mitigation required and conclusions Intermediate (with CSO) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions

Access to rail

Same as for the intermediate site, see left

Same as for the intermediate site, see left

Appendix 9 - Page 3
100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

Site Suitability Report S33HF and C04XJ – Appendix 9

Transport Intermediate Site considerations Comments Some parking could potentially be provided on site for workforce. Parking on Chancellors Road and other surrounding roads is however unsuitable, with a maximum stay of 4hrs Mon-Sat 08:3018:30. Removal of on street parking on Chancellors Road required to keep the site access clear and provide passing places for construction vehicles. Public transport accessibility PTAL 5-6 (high), as identified within Table 2.3. Construction of a new access point for construction/ permanent access. Removal of on street parking along Chancellors Road required to provide passing places for construction vehicles and keep access clear. Removal of speed humps on the narrow road used for rail access (close to Barnes site). Good possibility for workforce to utilise public transport to access the site. New site access point requires construction. On street parking and traffic calming requires removal. Same as for the intermediate site, see left Construction of a new access point for construction/ permanent access. Removal of on street parking along Distillery Road and Chancellors Road required to provide passing places for construction vehicles and keep accesses/egress clear. Removal of the raised table and some speed cushions on Distillery Road. Same as for the intermediate site, see left New site access point requires construction. On street parking and traffic calming requires removal. Temporary closure and diversion of the Thames Path for construction of the overflow culvert. Mitigation required and conclusions Some parking potentially available on site for workforce. No parking suitable on surrounding roads. Removal of on street parking required to provide passing places for construction vehicles. Intermediate (with CSO) Comments Same as for the intermediate site, see left Mitigation required and conclusions Same as for the intermediate site, see left

Parking

Traffic Management

Appendix 9 - Page 4
100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

Site Suitability Report S33HF and C04XJ – Appendix 9

Transport Intermediate Site considerations Comments Mitigation required and conclusions Intermediate (with CSO) Comments Removal of speed humps on the narrow road used for rail access (close to Barnes site). Temporary closure and diversion of the Thames Path during the construction of the overflow culvert. Summary The site is suitable for an intermediate site in highway terms. Several on street parking bays and speed humps require removal to avoid conflict with the site access. The Thames Path also requires a temporary closure and diversion during the construction of the overflow culvert. Road access to the TLRN (A4) is possible, requiring the removal of some on street parking on Chancellors Road to create passing places for construction vehicles. Access to Rail is less suitable, encountering the same constraints to the TLRN (A4) and passing along a narrow traffic calmed road towards Barnes Rail Site requiring the removal of speed humps. Some parking could be provided on site for workforce. On street parking along Chancellors Road and surrounding roads is unsuitable for workforce allowing a maximum stay of 4hrs. It has been assumed that excavated material would be transported away by road. There is a good possibility for the workforce to utilise public transport to access the site. The site is suitable for an intermediate with CSO for the same reasons as given for the intermediate site, see left. In addition, several on street parking bays and speed humps require removal to avoid conflict with the site accesses/egress. The Thames Path also requires a temporary closure and diversion during the construction of the overflow culvert. Mitigation required and conclusions

Appendix 9 - Page 5
100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

Site Suitability Report S33HF and C04XJ – Appendix 9

Archaeology Intermediate and Intermediate (with CSO) Site considerations Designations, including Archaeological Priority Areas Summary of historical uses Comments Hammersmith and Fulham Archaeological Priority Area. Mitigation required and conclusions A detailed desk based assessment is required to sufficiently understand the archaeological resource and define risk to potential development. A detailed desk based assessment is required to sufficiently understand the archaeological resource and define risk to potential development.

The 19 C maps show the site to be occupied by a building marked distillery in the north west corner and gardens th throughout the rest of the site. By the end of the 18 C the distillery has expanded to cover most of the site. The site has been heavily developed for industrial uses since th the late 19 century.

th

Potential receptors of very high or high value with the potential to be directly affected Potential receptors of medium value with the potential to be directly affected Other receptors with the potential to be directly affected Extent of existing disturbance (if known)

Previous excavation across the south west half of the site has identified multi phase settlement activity including Saxon and post medieval phases. These deposits are likely to have been considered to be of high value but have been removed by excavation. Artefacts of prehistoric and Roman date have also been recovered during excavation in this location. This indicates some potential for receptors of this date to be present within the site boundary. Dewatering of potential waterlogged deposits may be an issue considering the close proximity of the site to the Thames. Extensive contamination issues identified. Archaeological remains appear to have been removed by excavation in some/all of development footprint (further information needed to confirm).

Detailed desk based assessment is required to assess whether any archaeological receptors survive within the proposed development footprint following the previous excavation. Detailed desk based assessment is required to assess whether any archaeological receptors survive within the proposed development footprint following the previous excavation. Detailed desk based assessment (incorporating a review of geo-technical data) is required to assess whether any archaeological receptors survive within the proposed development footprint. Detailed desk based assessment (incorporating a review of geo-technical data) is required to assess whether any archaeological receptors survive within the proposed development footprint.

Appendix 9 - Page 6
100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

Site Suitability Report S33HF and C04XJ – Appendix 9

Archaeology Intermediate and Intermediate (with CSO) Site considerations Potential issues Comments Detailed design proposals, and an outline method statement would be required to enable initial assessment of development impacts, and to inform mitigation proposals. The proposed development footprint is located in an area which has already been subject to archaeological excavation. The extent of this previous excavation is not currently known, but it may be that some or all of the archaeological receptors in the area have been removed. If this is the case then the archaeological risk to this development has effectively been removed. In the first instance a desk based assessment is required to review the excavation records and assess the extent of archaeological remains still likely to be present. Summary The site is suitable for both an intermediate site and as an intermediate (with CSO) as the proposed development is located within an area which has already been subject to extensive archaeological excavation and the potential archaeological risk to development is therefore understood. Mitigation required and conclusions A detailed desk based assessment should be undertaken to assess the likely development impact on archaeological receptors.

Appendix 9 - Page 7
100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

Site Suitability Report S33HF and C04XJ – Appendix 9

Built Heritage and Townscape Site considerations Comments Designations including Conservation Areas, including trees Locally Listed buildings 1-6, 7-12, 13-18, 19-26, 25-30 31-36, 37-44, 45-52, 53-60, 61-68, 69-76, 77-79, 80-85, 86-93 Riverview Gardens, 250200m Building At Junction With Castelnau Riverview Gardens, 276m 77-79, 80- 85, 86-93 94-99, 100-105, 106-111, 112-117, 118123, 124-129 Riverview Gardens, 270-220m 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 46 Clavering Avenue 290-240m Castelnau Mansions, 1-10 Castelnau Listed Buildings Harrods Depository Riverside Warehouse To East, Grade II, 220m Hammersmith Bridge, Grade II 235m Temple Lodge, Grade II, 200m Carling Apollo Theatre, Grade II*, 220m Nurse's home on north side of Lochaline Street, Grade II, 100m Melcome primary and infants school, Grade II, 200m Conservation areas Castelnau Conservation Area, 90 metres Fulham Reach Conservation Area, 0m Viewing Corridors Intermediate and Intermediate (with CSO) Mitigation required and conclusions In the case of listed buildings, locally listed buildings, conservation areas and protected views, a high quality scheme design and adequate screening for the development may be required, as discussed below. A detailed desk-based assessment in conjunction with archaeology work would be required to further determine the likely impact of the development and to inform more detailed mitigation proposals. On the basis of currently available information (July 2009) and on the basis of certain receptors not being present within 250m of S33HF, mitigation would not be applicable in the case of registered historic parks and gardens and , locally listed parks and gardens.

Appendix 9 - Page 8
100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

Site Suitability Report S33HF and C04XJ – Appendix 9

Built Heritage and Townscape Site considerations Comments View 6 Across Richmond Park 95m Potential receptors of medium to very high importance with the potential to be directly affected The Fulham Reach Conservation Area is likely to be directly affected as S33HF lies within the boundaries of the designated area. Mitigation to enhance or preserve the character or appearance of the Fulham Reach Conservation Area is likely to be required. This is likely to require a high quality scheme design and/or screening to mitigate against potential adverse impacts upon the designated area. The current indicative plans indicate that the Thames Water Pumping Station present on site is to be retained. However, should the proposal require demolition of buildings within a conservation area, a detailed assessment is likely to be required. The acceptability of demolition is likely to depend upon the contribution that the building makes and the potential for the scheme design to make a positive contribution to the CA. Where the building proposed for demolition is not listed, it is less likely that the scheme would result in demolition of a historic building that makes a positive contribution to the area. Other receptors of lesser importance with the potential to be directly affected Potential receptors of medium to very high importance with the potential to be indirectly affected None None Intermediate and Intermediate (with CSO) Mitigation required and conclusions

There is potential for one conservation (the Castelnau Conservation Area) and three Grade II listed buildings (the Harrods Depository Riverside Warehouse To East; the Hammersmith Bridge; and the, Nurse's home on north side of Lochaline Street) to be indirectly affected by the scheme through changes to their setting.

The potential setting issues affecting the Castlenau Conservation Area and the Grade II listed Harrods Depository (to the south of the river), the Hammersmith Bridge (to the west and spanning the Thames) and the Nurse‟s home on the north side of Lochaline Street. These adverse effects could be mitigated against by implementation of a high quality design and screening.

Appendix 9 - Page 9
100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

Site Suitability Report S33HF and C04XJ – Appendix 9

Built Heritage and Townscape Site considerations Comments Other receptors of lesser importance with the potential to be indirectly affected There are numerous locally listed buildings located along the opposite side of the Thames along Riverview Gardens, and Clavering Avenue. The first three rows of terraces were considered as the majority were contained within 250 metres of the proposed site and are all of a collective townscape merit. However, only the most northern section of the terraces (1-6, 7-12, 13-18, 19-26, 25-30 31-36, 37-44, 45-52, 53-60, 61-68, 69-76, 77-79, 80-85, 86-93 Riverview Gardens) are likely to be impacted upon visually by the development site. The properties to the south of this terrace are shielded by these buildings and enclosed within there own narrow streetscapes. Site is located in Fulham Reach Conservation Area Surrounding area is primarily residential with Frank Banfield Park to the east of the site. Vacant, industrial site, open character of site due to building demolition. Site is bordered by Chancellors Road to the north, Distillery Road to the east, and Winslow Road to the south, River Thames to the west. Two mature trees and some vegetation to the west of the site with an existing pumping station. Proposed access from Chancellors Road would have a direct positive effect on the residential area by restricting route of construction vehicles and maintenance vehicles during operation. Potential views likely to be affected Views from streets bordering site. Views from Banfield Park to River Thames across site. Views from surrounding properties. During construction, use of hoardings and appropriate lighting Design of finished appearance of top structure and ventilation column to be given careful consideration. Intermediate and Intermediate (with CSO) Mitigation required and conclusions Due to the prominence of 1-6, 7-12, 13-18, 19-26, 25-30 3136, 37-44, 45-52, 53-60, 61-68, 69-76, 77-79, 80-85, 86-93 Riverview Gardens along the southern banks of the Thames, adequate screening and a high quality design scheme should be implemented to mitigate the potential adverse effects of the development.

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

Retention of trees where possible and protection in accordance with BS 5837: 2005. Introduction of landscape scheme to include appropriate surface treatments and planting to relate to river frontage Introduction of appropriate new planting along Distillery Road to accentuate streetscape and park character. Conclusion: Appropriate landscape scheme could enhance the river frontage and street frontages.

Appendix 9 - Page 10
100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

Site Suitability Report S33HF and C04XJ – Appendix 9

Built Heritage and Townscape Site considerations Comments Intermediate and Intermediate (with CSO) Mitigation required and conclusions Planting to screen permanent plant. Conclusion: Appropriate design would be important to protect visual amenity. Particular considerations on sites where new permanent structures are required Potential issues None None

The main statutory constraints are the potential direct impacts on one conservation area, and indirect impacts on three listed structures and one conservation area. Other potential issues are the impact visual impact on the numerous locally listed buildings to the south of the river, and potential impacts upon views from residential properties immediately adjacent to the site.

These issues should be able to be mitigated by high quality design schemes and adequate screening.

Summary

On the basis of the information currently available, this site is considered to be suitable for both an intermediate and an intermediate (with CSO) The site is located within Fulham Reach Conservation Area and therefore has the potential to directly affect the character and appearance of that designated areas. The development also has the potential to indirectly impact upon three listed structures and numerous locally listed structures on either side of the River Thames. However, as the site is currently vacant and the majority previous buildings have already been demolished, with appropriate mitigation including a high quality scheme design and/or screening, the character or appearance of the Fulham Reach Conservation Area could be enhanced. Furthermore, it is likely that potential indirect impacts upon the other built heritage receptors and the landscape character of the area could be mitigated through a high-quality scheme design and/or screening. The current indicative plans illustrate that the Thames Water Pumping Station present on site is to be retained. However, should the proposal require demolition of buildings within the conservation area, a detailed assessment is likely to be required. The acceptability of demolition is likely to depend upon the contribution that the building makes and the potential for the scheme design to make a positive contribution to the CA. Where the building proposed for demolition is not listed, it is less likely that the scheme would result in demolition of a historic building that makes a positive contribution to the area.

Appendix 9 - Page 11
100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

Site Suitability Report S33HF and C04XJ – Appendix 9

Water Resources - Hydrogeology and Surface Water Site considerations Comments Hydro-geological conditions (Groundwater and Surface Water) (From BGS Geological Model giving average ground condition profile. Local near surface conditions may vary, particularly within the river) Geology (thickness) Superficial Geology and Made Ground (8m) London Clay (49m) Lambeth Group (13m) Thanet sand (13m) Hydrogeology Piezometric Level: ~ -32 mAOD (~37mbgl) Groundwater Monitoring Location EA Hydrometry Site -TQ27-337 - approximately 1000m northwest of the site SPZs and groundwater users SPZ Not located in a Source Protection Zone EA Groundwater Abstractions and Details No public water supply 1 licensed abstraction borehole within 2 km radius Licence Number: 28/39/39/0221 Location: approximately 1385 m southeast of the site Operator: Fulham Football Club Limited Abstracted Aquifer Unit: no information Abstraction Purposes: Intermediate and Intermediate (with CSO) Mitigation required and conclusions

Appendix 9 - Page 12
100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

Site Suitability Report S33HF and C04XJ – Appendix 9

Water Resources - Hydrogeology and Surface Water Site considerations Comments Sports ground facilities Status: no information Abstraction Quantity: no information LA Groundwater Abstractions and Details no information borehole locations and depths Potential impacts on surface water features Potential impacts on groundwater (resources and quality) Likely types of mitigation measures that would be required Potential issues No historical record of water well within 1 km radius None The impact on groundwater at depth is likely to be insignificant if the shaft is to be constructed in London Clay (non aquifer). Potential impact on shallow aquifer. If shallow aquifer is affected by dewatering, alternative water source may be required. Shaft to be excavated in London Clay. Potential pressure effects. Potential impact on flow in shallow aquifer. Summary Confined head in Chalk to be considered as part of geotechnical design. Impact on shallow aquifer would depend on construction design Pressure to be considered as part of geotechnical design. Mitigation of impacts on shallow aquifer may be needed during construction depending on design/dewatering. Intermediate and Intermediate (with CSO) Mitigation required and conclusions

In terms of hydrogeology, the site is suitable for both an intermediate site and an intermediate (plus CSO). The shaft is to be constructed in London Clay. The Chalk piezometric head may be above the base of construction and should be taken into account in the engineering design. Impacts on the Chalk aquifer are expected to be minimal. Depending on the nature of the superficial deposits and use of the shallow aquifer, some construction impacts may occur and mitigation may be required. In terms of surface water resources, this site is suitable as both an intermediate site and an intermediate (plus CSO) site as

Appendix 9 - Page 13
100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

Site Suitability Report S33HF and C04XJ – Appendix 9

Water Resources - Hydrogeology and Surface Water Site considerations Comments Intermediate and Intermediate (with CSO) Mitigation required and conclusions there is no direct pathway to the River Thames for pollution. Standard mitigation is required.

Appendix 9 - Page 14
100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

Site Suitability Report S33HF and C04XJ – Appendix 9

Ecology (terrestrial and aquatic) Site considerations Comments Statutory designations Non-statutory designated wildlife sites BAP priority habitats No statutory sites within 2km River Thames and Tidal Tributaries SMINC lies immediately adjacent to site Aerial photography indicates that site appears to support „wasteland‟ London BAP habitat; however more recent on-site photography indicates that this vegetation is sparse and probably would not qualify BAP habitat „mudflats‟ lie adjacent to the site protected or otherwise notable species within the Study Area Recent onsite photography indicates that parts of the site consist of unvegetated car park but that some vegetated spoil heaps and sparse vegetation is still present. As such the site has some potential to support reptiles and scarce/notable invertebrates. Stretch of R Thames within Hammersmith & Fulham known to support Depressed river mussel (Pseudonata complanata) – a UK BAP species. Potential issues Summary None The site is suitable for both an intermediate and an intermediate (with CSO), although it would require ecological survey in order to confirm the need for any reptile or invertebrate survey of the spoil heaps and associated vegetation. However this habitat is localised and sparse such that mitigation should be straightforward and no major constraints have been identified. None Measures would be required to ensure no contaminated surface water runoff into the Thames None probably required Intermediate and Intermediate (with CSO) Mitigation required and conclusions

It is understood that that no jetties are planned for this site. As such there should be no adverse effect on this BAP habitat Mitigation would be possible.

It is understood that no jetties are currently planned for this site

Appendix 9 - Page 15
100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

Site Suitability Report S33HF and C04XJ – Appendix 9

Flood Risk Assessment Site considerations Comments Flood Risk Zone Flood Zone 3 – Defended to the 1 in 1000 year flood level. There is the potential for a breach for which mitigation would need to be considered as part of the FRA. Sewage transmission infrastructure is considered to be water compatible according to table D.2 of PPS25. Assessment of conditions for SuDS Potential issues Summary This site is less suitable for both an intermediate and intermediate with CSO as although the flood defences would protect the site to the 1 in 1000 year flood level (although residual risk mitigation would be required), the site is likely to be unsuitable for infiltration SuDs given the extensive nature of made ground. Not suitable for Infiltration SuDS – made ground unlikely to be suitable. Intermediate and Intermediate (with CSO) Mitigation required and conclusions

Appendix 9 - Page 16
100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

Site Suitability Report S33HF and C04XJ – Appendix 9

Air Quality Site considerations Comments Existing Air Quality Sensitive Receptors Air quality objectives for NO2 are exceeded on major roads in the vicinity of the site. Residential development and a hospital along Fulham Palace Road (A219) and residential development in close proximity to site access. (receptors are closer for the intermediate with CSO connection layout) Exhaust emissions on A219 and A4 corridors. Exhaust emissions on A219 and A4 corridors. No data at the likely access to the A219 and the nearest existing data indicates an existing exceedance of AQLV. Dust impacts, low risk. HGV exhaust emissions risk undefined at present. Summary This site is suitable for use as an intermediate shaft site from an air quality perspective as there is sufficient distance from the indicative works area within site to potential dust sensitive receptors that there is a low risk of a perceptible impact at the nearest residential receptors provided standard dust control measures are in place. There is potential for HGV movements on the local road network to cause localised air quality impacts, however this can be mitigated by minimising the movement of HGVs during peak hours. Intermediate and Intermediate (with CSO) Mitigation required and conclusions Need for more site specific data. Relevant receptors are present

Existing traffic issues Existing sources of significant air pollutants Notable gaps in existing air quality monitoring Potential issues

Additional emissions have high potential to interfere with local air quality action plan policies. Additional emissions have high potential to interfere with local air quality action plan policies. Collect minimum 6 months diffusion tube data at site access to A219 or other point of access to major road network. Standard dust control measures. Minimise HGV movements during peak hour. This site is considered less suitable for use as an intermediate with CSO site. There are residential properties in close proximity to the indicative works area within the site, therefore there is potential for fugitive emissions of dust during construction to have a perceptible impact at these properties. These impacts could be reduced with standard dust control measures. There is potential for HGV movements on the local road network to cause localised air quality impacts in areas of already poor air quality. This can be somewhat mitigated by minimising the movement of HGVs during peak hours.

Appendix 9 - Page 17
100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

Site Suitability Report S33HF and C04XJ – Appendix 9

Noise Site considerations Comments Noise band level (from Defra noise maps) Information from Defra noise maps indicates daytime noise levels of less than 58 dB LAeq and night time noise levels of less than 50 dB LAeq at residential properties on Chancellors Road to the north and Winslow Road to the south. There are sensitive receptors in close proximity to the north and south boundaries of the site, with an open recreational space to the immediate east. Sensitive receptors to the north consist of 4, 3, and 2 storey residential dwellings on Chancellors Road. Sensitive receptors to the south consist of 4 storey office accommodation (“Riverside”) on Winslow Road, and 2 storey residential dwellings, also on Winslow Road to the south east of the site boundary. Sensitive receptors exist on the opposite bank of the Thames to the west, in the form of 3 storey residential flats on Riverside Gardens. Existing traffic issues Local road traffic, coupled with more distant road traffic on the A4 to the north, the A306 to the west and the A219 to the east would contribute to the local noise climate in the area. Local road traffic, coupled with more distant road traffic on the A4 to the north, the A306 to the west and the A219 to the east would contribute to the local noise climate in the area. A pumping station exists within the site boundary, although no information with regard to this as a source of noise is currently available. Potential issues Construction: The construction period is estimated at 4 to 5 years and working hours would be 24 hours per day Monday to Appendix 9 - Page 18
100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

Intermediate and Intermediate (with CSO) Mitigation required and conclusions

Sensitive Receptors

Existing sources of significant noise emissions

Adherence to the good site practices provided in BS5228. Siting of noisy equipment and construction activities as far as

Site Suitability Report S33HF and C04XJ – Appendix 9

Noise Site considerations Comments Saturday. This has the potential to result in adverse noise impacts to the sensitive receptors surrounding the site and in particular those on Chancellors Road and Winslow Road. HGV movements are anticipated for both site layouts. This number of vehicle movements has potential to result in significant noise impacts along the length of Chancellors Road, off which permanent access is proposed. The site is quite large and ancillary plant should be sited as far as is practicable from surrounding sensitive receptors. Proposed 3m site boundary fencing would provide useful noise mitigation to some plant and construction activities. Operation: With appropriate attenuation (if necessary), there is no reason why noise from the ventilation column and top chamber should result in significant noise impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. Summary This site is less suitable as an intermediate shaft site due to the proximity of the residential receptors to the north of the site. Any shielding afforded by the site perimeter barriers would be largely ineffectual due to the height of these receptors. In addition the number of vehicles associated with the construction phase and the proposed access route, is likely to cause adverse noise impacts on the residential properties on Chancellors Road. This site is less suitable as an intermediate with CSO site due to the proximity of the residential receptors to the north of the site. Any shielding afforded by the site perimeter barriers would be largely ineffectual due to the height of some of these receptors. In addition the number of vehicles associated with the construction phase and the proposed access route, is likely to cause adverse noise impacts on the residential properties on Chancellors Road. Potential adverse impacts are likely to be more severe in the case of the combined intermediate with CSO connection shaft site; given that indicative construction areas are located nearer to residential properties. Intermediate and Intermediate (with CSO) Mitigation required and conclusions is practicable from sensitive receptors. Provision of site boundary noise fences. Noisy construction activities, or activities which may cause vibration, be undertaken during daytime hours only to reduce the noise impact during night-time construction.

Appendix 9 - Page 19
100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

Site Suitability Report S33HF and C04XJ – Appendix 9

Land Quality Site considerations Site location Current site use Grid Reference: 523300, 177976 100% brown field site with regeneration signs up on site for „Hammersmith Embankment‟- New office space. Fenced off from surrounding access roads. Internal fence demarcates 50-60 car parking area (50% of site) on loose asphalt, currently used by „Riverside‟ commercial development. Two large rubble heaps at NW corner of site. TW pumping station on site, but fenced in by 5m high concrete wall. Topography Field evidence of contamination (ie, visual/olfactory) Current surrounding land use (immediately adjacent to site) The site appears to be flat. There is a low (1 foot high) man-made ridge in the western section of the site. None identified at this stage Intermediate and Intermediate (with CSO)

North: Commercial and residential uses, separated from the site by a 6m road East: Public park (Frank Banfield Park), separated from the site by a 4m road South: Commercial and residential uses, separated from the site by a 6m road West: Thames footpath binds the site

Geological and hydrogeological information Geological strata
1

Geology (thickness) Superficial Geology and Made Ground (8m) London Clay (49m) Lambeth Group (13m) Thanet sand (13m) Hydrogeology Piezometric Level: ~ -32 mAOD (~37mbgl) Groundwater Monitoring Location EA Hydrometry Site -TQ27-337 - approximately 1000m northwest of the site

Appendix 9 - Page 20
100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

Site Suitability Report S33HF and C04XJ – Appendix 9

Land Quality Site considerations Underlying aquifer classes Non-Aquifer: London Clay Minor Aquifer: River Terrace Deposits, Lambeth Group, Thanet Sands, Harwich Formation, Major Aquifer: Chalk Groundwater vulnerability/ Soil classification (High/Intermediate/Low/N ot applicable) Source protection zone details Surface water receptor Not located in a Source Protection Zone River Thames (25m west) River Terrace Deposits - Minor Aquifer High Leaching Potential of Soils (U)
2

Intermediate and Intermediate (with CSO)

Relevant information within a 250m radius of the site Historical potentially contaminating activities Onsite Open Space, 1869-1871 Spirit distilling and compounding, 1869-1952 Above ground tank, 1869 Gasometer, 1869-1896 Sugar refinery, 1898-1978 Coal Yard, 1951 Numerous tanks, 1951-1972 Historical building plans list oil storage,1951-1970 Numerous historical buildings listing the presence of above ground petrol, diesel and oil-fuel tanks, 1955-1970 Electrical sub-station, 1957-1978 Historical building plans list electricity transformers, power houses and sub-stations, 1958-1970 Chemical storage depot, 1957-1983

Appendix 9 - Page 21
100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

Site Suitability Report S33HF and C04XJ – Appendix 9

Land Quality Site considerations Underground petrol tanks, 1958 Works, use not specified, 1981-1996 Pumping station, 1974 - present Site comprises of the pumping station integrated within Brownfield land, present Intermediate and Intermediate (with CSO)

Offsite Historical building plans list above ground fuel tanks, sunk petrol tanks and oil tanks to the east and south (closest located 2m east), 1961-1970 Numerous electrical substations (closest located 8m west), 1951-1977 Numerous tanks mostly located to the south of the site (closest located 9m east), 1951-1972 Metal casting/foundry (10m northwest), 1896-1916 Historical building plans list substations mostly to the south of the site (closest located 15m south), 1958-1970 Historical building plans list a gas house (16m west), 1901 Wharf (transport support and cargo handling), (20m northwest), 1920-1948 Wharf (transport support and cargo handling), (20m northwest), 1988 Preserved Food Factory, (65m south), 1951-1978 Joinery works. (120m south), 1951-1952 Hospital, (140m west), 1988 Wharf (transport support and cargo handling), (153m southwest), 1920-1948 Pollution incidents to controlled waters Four Miscellaneous – Unknown, minor incident (100m northwest - within River Thames) Sewage, minor incident (198m west - location unknown) Sewage, minor incident (200m northwest - within River Thames) Sewage, minor accident (203m west – below Hammersmith Bridge)

Landfill sites

None

Appendix 9 - Page 22
100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

Site Suitability Report S33HF and C04XJ – Appendix 9

Land Quality Site considerations Other waste sites Registered radioactive substances Fuel stations/Depots Contemporary trade directory entries One registered waste disposal site: Scrap yard, very small ( less than 10,000 tonne/year) - license listed as lapsed/cancelled, 1993, (164m northeast) None None No data Intermediate and Intermediate (with CSO)

Site classification based on above information Activity Potential site contaminants derived from surface sources (eg, contaminants in made ground) 1) Some potential for made ground from potential filling operations during development 2) Works including pumping station 3) Distillery 4) Coal Yard 5) Fuel tanks 6) Gasometer 7) Electrical sub-station 8) Sugar refinery 9) Chemical Storage Distance and direction to site 1) Onsite and directly adjacent to site 2) Onsite and directly adjacent to site 3) Onsite and directly adjacent to site 4) Onsite and directly adjacent to site 5) Onsite and directly adjacent to site 6) Onsite and directly adjacent to site 7) Onsite and directly adjacent to site 8) Onsite and directly adjacent to site 9) Onsite and directly adjacent to site Contaminants 1) Metals, PAHs, TPH 2) Metals, phenols, PAHs, TPH, cyanide 3) Metals, nitrogen compounds 4) Metals, free cyanide, nitrate, sulphate, TPH 5) TPH, PAHs, Lead 6) Metals, PAHs, TPH, Phenols, sulphate, cyanide 7) PCBs 8) Acids 9) Chemicals – unknown

Appendix 9 - Page 23
100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

Site Suitability Report S33HF and C04XJ – Appendix 9

Land Quality Site considerations Potential site contaminants derived from offsite sources and transported to site 1) Fuel tanks 2) Foundry 3) Electrical sub-station 4) Gas house 5) Wharf operations (transport support and cargo handling) Potential contamination pathways to site (Conceptual Site Model)
3

Intermediate and Intermediate (with CSO) 1) 2m east 2) 9m east 3) 15m south 4) 15m south 5) 20m northwest 1) TPH, PAHs, Lead 2) Metals, PAHs, TPH, solvents, PCBs 3) PCBs 4) Metals, PAHs, TPH, Phenols, sulphate, cyanide 5) Metals, TPH, PAHs

Source 1: A1, A2, A3, B4, C5 Source 2: D6, E1 Category 3 – Assessed as High Risk This site is less suitable for both an intermediate and intermediate with CSO as there is high potential for contamination of the site to have occurred, based on the historical record for the site. Current and previous uses have included a pumping station, distillery, coal yard and fuel tanks and there is a high risk that these functions have left a legacy of contamination in the made ground. Of particular note are the potential site contaminants in the made ground, which include; metals, PAHs, phenols and toxic compounds, e.g. cyanide, nitrate and sulphate. Due to the high risk of contamination having occurred, the site is not preferred, however the risk can be mitigated through evaluation, careful design and good site management. There is the potential that this site has been subject to remediation and therefore this assessment is subject to confirmation from the Local Authority on the current status of the site conditions.

Contamination Category Summary

Notes: 1. From BGS Geological Model giving average ground condition profile. Local near surface conditions may vary, particularly within the river. 2. Soil information for urban areas is based on fewer observations than elsewhere in the country. Therefore a worst case vulnerability (H) is assumed until proven otherwise. 3. Refer to schematic Conceptual Site Model for explanation of site-specific source-pathway-receptors.

Appendix 9 - Page 24
100-RG-PNC-S33HF-900001.doc

Contacts
For information about the Thames Tideway Tunnel Call: 0800 0721 086 Lines are open 24 hours a day Visit: www.thamestidewaytunnel.co.uk Email: info@tidewaytunnels.co.uk For our language interpretation service call 0800 0721 086

For information in Braille or large print call 0800 0721 086
For information about acceptance of our application and the examination process please contact the Planning Inspectorate. Call: 0303 444 5000 Visit: http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful