100 RG PNC S84NM 900001

Spring 2010
Site Suitability Report S84NM

Thames Water Abbey Mills Pumping Stations
Please note: After phase two consultation this site suitability report and the drive options were reviewed. This report was superseded by Site Suitability Report S84NM Abbey Mills Pumping Station (Summer 2011). This report (Spring 2010) has been provided for information only, as this site was the phase one consultation preferred main tunnel site. Further details are provided in the Final Report on Site Selection Process (doc ref: 7.05) that can be found on the Thames Tideway Tunnel section of the Planning Inspectorates web site.
100-RG-PNC-S84NM-900001 | Spring 2010

Thames Water Abbey Mills Pumping Stations
THAMES TUNNEL
SITE SUITABILITY REPORT S84NM

LIST OF CONTENTS
Page Number 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 1.2 1.3 2 Purpose and structure of the report Background Consultation 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11
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
ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Access Construction works considerations Permanent works considerations Health and safety
PLANNING ASSESSMENT 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 Introduction Planning applications and permissions Planning context Consultation comments Planning comments
ENVIRONMENTAL APPRAISAL 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 7.10 Introduction Transport Archaeology Built heritage and townscape Water resources hydrogeology and surface water Ecology (terrestrial and aquatic) Flood risk Air quality Noise Land quality
SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT 8.1 8.2 Socio-economic profile Issues and impacts
PROPERTY ASSESSMENT 9.1 9.2 Introduction Crown Land and Special Land comments
100-RG-PNC-S84NM-900001.doc
9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 10
Land to be acquired Property valuation comments Disturbance compensation comments Offsite statutory compensation comments Site acquisition cost assessment
12 12 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 15
SITE CONCLUSIONS BY DISCIPLINE 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 Introduction Engineering Planning Environment Socio-economic and community Property
APPENDICES APPENDIX 1 SOURCES OF INFORMATION APPENDIX 2 SITE LOCATION PLAN APPENDIX 3 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT PLANS APPENDIX 4 PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS APPENDIX 5 TRANSPORT PLAN APPENDIX 6 SERVICES AND GEOLOGY PLAN APPENDIX 7 CONSTRUCTION PHASE LAYOUT APPENDIX 8 OPERATIONAL PHASE LAYOUT APPENDIX 9 ENVIRONMENTAL APPRAISAL TABLES
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AOD BAP BT CPO CSO DLR EA GLA HGV LNR LPA LU m MOL ONS ORN PLA POS PTAL SAM SINC SNCI SSR SSSI SuDS TfL TD TLRN TPA UDP UXO
above Ordnance Datum Biodiversity Action Plan British Telecom compulsory purchase order combined sewer overflow Docklands Light Railway Environment Agency Greater London Authority heavy goods vehicle local nature reserve local planning authority London Underground metre/metres Metropolitan Open Land Office of National Statistics Olympic Route Network Port of London Authority public open space public transport accessibility level scheduled ancient monument site of importance for nature conservation site(s) of nature conservation importance site suitability report site(s) of special scientific interest sustainable urban drainage systems Transport for London tunnel datum Transport for London Road Network Thames Policy Area unitary development plan unexploded ordnance
1 1.1 1.1.1
INTRODUCTION Purpose and structure of the report The Site Selection Methodology Paper (May 2009) (paragraphs 2.3.29 - 2.3.34) outlines the process to be used to create the preferred list of shaft sites, and this process also applies to CSO sites. Paragraph 2.3.31 lists the type of general considerations that will be addressed in each site suitability report, but they depend on the relevance to the site and professional judgement made in the assessments. This report was prepared through the assessment of information from the perspective of a number of technical disciplines: Engineering, Planning, Environment, Property and Community. The reports have been prepared on the basis of the information listed in Appendix 1 - Sources of Information, and this level of information is considered to be appropriate to the current stage. The Background Technical Paper provides information on the requirements for different site types, their sizes and typical activities/facilities within the sites. Each site suitability report considers a particular site on its own merits. In addition, an engineering options report was produced. Information from both of these reports will feed into the technical assessment of how well the site may fit in with tunnel design options, ensuring combinations of sites spread across the length of the tunnel route provide a reasonable spatial distribution of sites (that will best assist with the construction of the tunnel, operation and maintenance). This is considered in the Preferred Scheme Report. Background The process for selecting sites is set out in the Site Selection Methodology (May 2009) paper. All sites have previously passed through the following parts of Stage 1: Part 1A - Creation of the long list of potential shaft (and CSO) sites Part 1B - Creation of a short list of potential shaft (and CSO) sites o o o Table 2.2: Long list of shaft (and CSO) sites - an assessment against set considerations and values Table 2.3: Draft short list of shaft (and CSO) sites - assessment against a list of detailed considerations Workshops to consider each site to arrive at a short list of sites.
1.1.2
1.1.3 1.1.4
1.2 1.2.1
1.2.2
The final part of Stage 1 includes this report. The following is an overall summary of all elements that apply to all the sites on the final short list: Part 1C - Creation of the Preferred List of shaft (and CSO) sites - site data, site visits, site suitability reports, engineering options report and optioneering workshops that will result in the Preferred Scheme Report.
1.3 1.3.1
Consultation The Thames Water project team held meetings with London local authorities, statutory and other stakeholders to review the provisional short list of shaft and CSO sites. All general and site specific comments can be found in a separate report titled Consultation on the Short List of Sites: Consultation Feedback Report. These comments were considered to help determine the final short list of sites, but they were also considered at the optioneering workshops. Further meetings were held with London local authorities, statutory and other stakeholders between January and March 2010. Comments are included in this report.
1.3.2
Page 1
2 2.1 2.1.1 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. Site S84NM is located to the south of the Abbey Mills Pumping Stations on an area of Greenfield land, flanked by watercourses. The site is within the London Borough of Newham. Within the site boundary, to the west and abutting the Prescott Channel, are a number of allotments. A site location plan is attached as Appendix 2. Residential properties abut the north-western and north-eastern site boundaries. To the east, the site is bounded by Abbey Creek and, beyond a small island, the Channelsea River. Further east, beyond these watercourses, is a small business development, an area of disused land, and the Kingsland College of Further and Higher Education located on Canning Road. The Channelsea River flows from the east, bounding the southern side of the site. Beyond the river lies a narrow area of grassed, disused land, followed by several railway lines. Beyond the railway lines, there are several gas-holding containers and a business park. To the west, the site is bounded by the Prescott Channel, which flows into the Channelsea River at the south-western corner of the site. Land on the western side of the Prescott Channel comprises an undeveloped grass area and warehouse-style buildings, including Three Mills Studios. The closest dwellings are located on Bisson Road to the north and Crows Road to the south, on the opposite side of the river and railway lines. The site is covered by various planning and environment designations in the Newham Unitary Development Plan. All the mapped designations are shown on the planning and environment plans in Appendix 3. Photographs of the site and surroundings, together with an aerial photograph of the site, are attached as Appendix 4.
2.1.3 2.1.4
2.1.5
2.1.6
2.1.7 2.1.8
2.1.9
2.1.10 Road access to the site is from the entrance off Gay Road and the existing road within the site. West Ham rail and tube station is less than 1km away. Stratford rail, tube and DLR station is approximately 1.5km away. There are no wharfage or jetty facilities present on the 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: A number of tunnels which feed into Abbey Mills Pumping Stations run through the northern part of the site Rail tracks through the outer southern part of the site Three Mills Studios, a two- to three-storey building with large footprint at the outside south-eastern part 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. 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 the Chalk. 2.2 2.2.1 Type of site The site S84NM is being considered as: a main shaft site an intermediate shaft site.
Page 2
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 a main shaft site the layout as an intermediate shaft site 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 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.
3.1.4
3.1.5
The proposed location of Shaft F (part of the Lee Tunnel) is to the north of the proposed Thames Tunnel shaft location. The preliminary construction site layout has been chosen to avoid Shaft F and the Lee Tunnel. Preliminary data associated with the construction phase are provided in Table 3.1 Table 3.1 Construction phase data Activity Length of construction period Likely working hours, ie, (night/day/weekend) Working days Primary means of transporting excavated material away from site Primary means of transporting materials to site Main shaft site 6 to 7 years 24 hours Mon to Sun Barge Barge/Road Intermediate shaft site 4 to 5 years 24 hours Mon to Sun Road* Road*
3.1.6
* There may be feasible opportunities to use barge transport for this site.
3.1.7 4 4.1 4.1.1 4.1.2
The construction site could potentially be used as a hub location. 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.
Page 3
4.1.3 4.1.4
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 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.
c b
4.1.5
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, although in this case, this may not be required as the site is within existing, fenced-off Thames Water land. Preliminary data associated with the operational phase are provided in Table 4.1. Table 4.1 Operational phase data Level of inspections and maintenance and likely working hours, ie, (night/day/weekend) frequency of visits 1 daytime visit every six months for electrical/instrument inspection. An additional 1 week maintenance period for tunnel/shaft inspection required per 10 years that could be night/day/weekend working. 1 van visit every six months. An additional 1 week period of 2 to 10 movements per day (estimated several vans and 2 cranes) every 10 years.
4.1.6
4.1.7
No of traffic movements
4.2 4.2.1
Restoration and after-use The portion of the site not occupied by the permanent works would be restored to its original condition on completion of the construction works. If any buildings were demolished, these would not be reinstated unless required. ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT Access This section should be read in conjunction with Section 7.2. Road
5 5.1 5.1.1
5.1.2
Access to the site for both the construction and operational phases is off Bisson Road. Bisson Road runs through a housing estate. Further assessments would need to be carried
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 disciplines 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 disciplines 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 disciplines conclusion on the suitability of the site.
Page 4
out, but an alternative route off Gay Road (existing access to Thames Waters Abbey Mills Pumping Stations site) may be feasible and preferable. Rail 5.1.3 West Ham rail and tube station is less than 1km away. Stratford rail, tube and DLR station is approximately 1.5km away. River 5.1.4 The site is remote from the River Thames but accessible via tributaries off the River Lee (Three Mills River or Prescott Channel). Wharfage/Jetty facilities could be constructed downstream of Prescott Lock, however, channel dredging would probably be required. The size of wharfage/jetty facilities and the type/size of barge that could be used would be limited by water depth, width of the rivers and tidal window. It is estimated that the shallow, narrow and winding waterway has only about 3.5 hours access on each tide and this would limit the number of possible barge movements per day. There would also be an impact on river usage/navigation (both the tributaries and the main river). It would be necessary for this to be examined in detail in the form of a specific risk assessment (including modelling of barge movements), which would require discussions with and approval of the PLA. Material movement for an intermediate shaft site would likely be by road. However, as the site is adjacent to a channel, there may be feasible opportunities to use barge access. Construction works considerations The site is an open, green area and no demolition is required. Part of the site currently has some allotments which, for the main shaft site, would need to be removed and relocated as these would interfere with access for mooring barges. Data available on third-party assets and significant utilities show that there are no particular concerns in this area. There are some tunnels which feed into Abbey Mills Pumping Stations but these assets are remote from the proposed shaft location and impact on them should not be significant. There are rail tracks running through the outer southern part of the site and a two- to three-storey building with large footprint at the outside southern part 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 structure would be raised to approximately 4m 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. Page 5
5.1.5
5.1.6
5.2 5.2.1
5.2.2
5.2.3
5.3 5.3.1 5.4 5.4.1 6 6.1 6.1.1
6.2 6.2.1
Planning applications and permissions An initial desktop search of the London Borough of Newham online planning applications database identified the following planning application submitted within the last five years applicable to the site. Planning application reference 04/1934, for the erection of a facilities building in association with the CSO Fine Screen Project. Decision date 25 January 2005 (decision unknown). Planning context The following provides a summary of the relevant local planning policies and designations affecting the site. They are taken from the saved policies from the London Borough of Newham Unitary Development Plan which was adopted June 2001 and saved beyond 2008. Policy EQ9, Protection of Sites of Nature Conservation Importance the site contains a small area to the east protected as a site of nature conservation importance. Policy EQ9 explains that development that would have an adverse effect on such sites will not be permitted. Proposals on adjoining land will be considered on their impact and, where necessary, mitigation measures proposed. Policy EQ 16, Green Corridors the site abuts a Green Corridor on the southern fringe. The policy requires development proposals to positively contribute to the councils environmental improvement objectives, with particular attention to landscaping, boundary treatment and other structures adjoining waterways. Policy EQ30, Planning Proposals within Conservation Areas the entire site is designated as a Conservation Area. In accordance with Policy EQ30, development proposals will have to provide sufficient information about the effects on the immediate setting in order for an assessment to be made of the potential effect of the proposal. Policy OS7, Green Space the entire site is designated as a Green Space. This policy safeguards such areas by permitting only suitable development for recreation, leisure or nature conservation purposes. These are considered where an equivalent replacement facility is provided, there would be no loss of environmental amenity or where green spaces are outside the areas of Local Park Deficiency. Policy UR20, West Ham Mills: Land Use Proposals (MOZ 3 and MOZ 4) the entire site is located within Major Opportunity Zone 3 (MOZ 3). Policy UR20 explains the strategic significance of these sites and that any development must maximise the advantages of the proximity of the West Ham Underground Station, riverside frontages, the Three Mills Conservation Area, the listed buildings onsite and retention of existing open space at Mill Meads, subject to the operational requirements of Thames Water Utilities. Policy UR21, Major Opportunity Zone 3 Three Mills Island this policy is intended to encourage the sympathetic location and design of complimentary uses alongside the historic buildings within the major opportunity zone. Central to this is the creation of a heritage centre as a visitor attraction of regional significance. Policy UR22, Major Opportunity Zone 3 Three Mills Island this policy explains that the council will not permit the demolition of the listed buildings in the Three Mills Island area. Policy TM1, Focal Points for Tourism this policy is applicable due to the sites designation as MOZ 3. Policy TM1 seeks the development of the area as a focal point for tourism.
6.2.2
6.3 6.3.1
6.3.2
6.3.3
6.3.4
6.3.5
6.3.6
6.3.7
6.3.8 6.3.9
6.3.10 Policy T6, Channel Tunnel Rail Link and International and Domestic Station at Stratford the western fringe of the site is designated as a Rail Safeguarding Line (surface) proposal t3. The council supports improvements to the rail system, including the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (proposal t3). 6.3.11 Policy LR3, Arts, Culture and Entertainment (ACE): Sites and Activities within the site is designated a Major Leisure Attraction. Policy LR3 states that the council will promote development to accommodate arts, culture and entertainment activities in the MOZ 3 location.
Page 6
6.3.12 Policy EQ43, Archaeology: Investigation, Excavation and Protection the site is entirely within an Archaeological Priority Area. The council will promote the conservation, protection and enhancement of the archaeological heritage of the borough. Developers of sites of potential archaeological importance will be required to produce a written report, as part of the application for planning permission, on the results of an archaeological assessment or field evaluation, and when remains of importance are identified, the council will seek preservation of the remains in situ. 6.4 6.4.1 Consultation comments A series of consultations on the shortlisted sites were held with London local authorities, statutory and other pan-London stakeholders during July to September 2009 and January to March 2010. This section summarises factual comments that have been made by consultees, and which have informed the SSR assessments. London Borough of Newham 6.4.2 The council stated that designations include a Site of Nature Conservation Interest and that part of the site lies within the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority. There have been problems discharging a condition for the Lee Tunnel in terms of transporting materials via Prescott Channel. The DLR route needs consideration. English Heritage 6.4.3 No comment. Environment Agency 6.4.4 No comment. Port of London Authority 6.4.5 No comment. Transport for London 6.4.6 No comment. Other statutory consultees 6.4.7 6.5 6.5.1 No comment. Planning comments A number of planning designations are applicable both on and adjacent to the site. These designations have been identified and described in Section 6.3. The designations of most relevance to the proposed development relate to nature conservation and built heritage. A small area to the east of the site is designated as a site of nature conservation importance. Given the siting of the construction works within the western portion of the site away from the protected area, it is unlikely that there would be a conflict with this designation, particularly with appropriate mitigation. A detailed assessment is included in Section 7. The southern fringe of the site is designated as a green corridor. With appropriate mitigation, the temporary construction works should not have an unacceptable impact in terms of landscaping and boundary treatment. A detailed landscape assessment is provided in Section 7. The entire site is designated as a green space protected for development in relation to recreation, leisure or nature conservation purposes. However, since the area is outside the
6.5.2
6.5.3
6.5.4
Page 7
area of Local Park Deficiency, it is not considered that there would be any significant conflict with this designation, although alternative provision or the improvement of existing facilities may still be required by the LPA. 6.5.5 The entire site is also designated as a conservation area and there is a cluster of listed buildings in the heart of the site, including the Grade II* listed Abbey Mills Pumping Stations. The proposed works are situated on the southern fringe of the site, away from the listed buildings. With appropriate mitigation, the proposal should not have an unacceptable impact on the setting of the listed buildings or the appearance of the conservation area. A detailed heritage and landscape assessment is provided in Section 7. Furthermore, the site is within an archaeology priority area and suitable investigation and remediation works would need to be agreed with the LPA in accordance with Policy EQ43. Further appraisal of the archaeological potential on the site is provided in Section 7 of this report. The site also falls within Major Opportunity Zone 3. This MOZ has a number of policies attached to it focussed on maximising opportunities for the area, particularly with regard to tourism and leisure, by using a potential heritage centre as an anchor use. In the absence of a current planning application, the potential for such uses within the designated opportunity zone and indicative timescales are unclear and would require ongoing monitoring. The western area of the site is designated as a Rail Safeguarded Line. Further information is required to establish whether the land is still required for rail uses or if the land is surplus to requirements. Although the closest element of the worksite is 50m from the nearest dwelling, the shaft site itself would be over 300m. The proposed works layout could be amended to increase the buffer between construction activities and residences, if required. The proposed temporary construction works for the main shaft and road access for both the main and intermediate shafts are located on existing allotments. The allotments would need to be replaced if the main shaft construction works were carried out as proposed, however it should be possible to rearrange the temporary works layout on the site to avoid the allotments altogether. If the allotments did remain on the site, thus adjacent to the main shaft construction works, mitigation may be required to reduce potential impacts from noise, dust and traffic movements.
6.5.6
6.5.7
6.5.8
6.5.9
6.5.10 Access to the site could potentially be moved further east, along or adjacent to the existing road access taken from Gay Road. This again would prevent use of the existing allotments for the construction access works. 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 less suitable for use as either an intermediate or a main shaft site, requiring the construction of a new site access and the removal of several parking bays near to the access. There is potential road access to the TLRN (A12) for HGVs, but the route passes through a residential area and would require the removal of a high number of on-street parking bays along Bisson Road to provide passing places. A parking survey would need to be undertaken to identify current utilisation levels, the likely impact of removal and the potential to use alternative parking facilities. There may be an alternative access route to the site via Abbey Lane, however this would require further investigation. The potential route to rail at Angerstein Wharf is unsuitable due to the height restriction through the Blackwall Tunnel and the additional constraints encountered when accessing the TLRN (A12). The site is located adjacent to a river channel with potential wharfage onto Channelsea River to transfer away excavated material (for the main shaft site option).
7.2 7.2.1
7.2.2
Page 8
7.2.3
There is the potential for the workforce to utilise public transport to access the site and some onsite parking could be provided for some of the workforce. Archaeology The site is suitable for use as either an intermediate or main shaft site although due to a lack of previous investigations in the area, the nature and extent of archaeological receptors cannot be confidently predicted. With currently available information, it is possible that archaeological receptors of potential high or medium value may be present within the site, and it is likely that archaeological advanced works and other excavations associated with the preceding Lee Tunnel would assist in defining the presence or absence of any such receptors. Investigations on adjacent sites suggest that alluvial deposits containing archaeological material would also be present. Built heritage and townscape This site is suitable for use as either an intermediate or a main shaft site, although it has the potential to directly affect the Three Mills Conservation Area and indirectly affects 13 listed buildings and one locally listed building. Mitigation in the form of a high quality scheme design and/or screening would reduce adverse impacts. A further detailed assessment is likely to be required to more precisely define the likely impacts upon the local townscape character and the character of the waterways surrounding the site. Mitigation through the scheme design and landscaping would reduce adverse impacts, and could enhance the visual amenity of the site itself and that of the water frontage. Water resources hydrogeology and surface water The site is suitable for use as either an intermediate or main shaft site, as although construction of the shaft would take place within Chalk (major aquifer), the site does not lie within the 400-day capture zone of licensed abstractions. No long-term impact on the Chalk aquifer is expected, although temporary dewatering would be required during the construction phase. The Chalk piezometric head is likely to be approximately 43m above the base of construction and should be taken into account in the engineering design. The superficial deposits are alluvium, which is classified as a minor aquifer at the shaft site, and limited impact on flow in the shallow aquifer is anticipated due to the use of a diaphragm wall or caissons. In terms of surface water resources, the site is suitable as either an intermediate or main shaft site because there is no direct pathway to the Prescott Channel or Abbey Creek for pollution, although standard mitigation would be required. Ecology (terrestrial and aquatic) The site is suitable as either an intermediate or main shaft site, although any works affecting the foreshore mudflats on the River Lee and associated watercourses would require surveys, and is likely to require negotiation with the EA and potentially mitigation, such as compensatory habitat provision. Works within the foreshore are currently considered unlikely to be required. Flood risk The site is suitable for use as an intermediate or main shaft site because it is defended from flooding from the Prescott Channel and Abbey Creek (to the one in 1,000-year flood level) and there is likely to be space for surface attenuation SuDS. Further investigation is required to determine if the site is suitable for infiltration SuDS.
7.3 7.3.1
7.4 7.4.1
7.4.2
7.5 7.5.1
7.5.2
7.6 7.6.1
7.7 7.7.1
Page 9
7.8 7.8.1
Air quality The site is suitable for use as either an intermediate or main shaft site as there is sufficient distance to potential dust sensitive receptors and, providing standard dust control measures are in place, there is only a low risk of a perceptible impact at the nearest residential receptors. 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 The site is suitable as either an intermediate or main shaft site as although existing noise levels in the immediate surrounding area are relatively low, the distances between the site and residential properties to the south and north are relatively large. If the noisiest plant can be situated to the western area of the site, this would reduce the potential for disturbance at the residential properties. In addition, should use of this site be pursued, it is recommended that noisy construction activities, or activities which may cause vibration, be undertaken during daytime hours only to reduce the noise impact during night-time construction. Land quality
7.9 7.9.1
7.10
7.10.1 The site is considered less suitable for use as either an intermediate or main shaft site with respect to land quality, based on the high potential for contamination of the site to have occurred, specifically from sewage pumping station operations, gas works, distillery, unknown storage tanks, and historic landfill on and in the vicinity of the site. Contamination is also known to have been identified on the Abbey Mills site during works for the West Ham Storm Relief development. 7.10.2 This potentially poses a risk to construction workers and adjacent human receptors through direct contact and inhalation exposure pathways as well as ground gas risks. Additionally, the potential exists for contaminants to be drawn to the deeper aquifer, if deep drilling/construction is undertaken on the site, and for migration of contaminants to surface water receptors through groundwater. Appropriate mitigation would be required to deal with this. 8 8.1 8.1.1 SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT Socio-economic profile The site is located within the Stratford and New Town ward of the London Borough of Newham. Statistics from ONS 2001 Census data show the following indicators for the ward, in comparison to the rest of Newham, London and England as a whole: Higher proportion of economically active, aged people that are full-time employees than in Newham, but a lower proportion than in London and England as a whole Lower proportion of unemployed people than Newham, but a higher proportion than in London and England Higher proportion having achieved Level 4 or 5 educational qualifications, compared to Newham or England as a whole, but a lower proportion than London Lower proportion of people with no qualifications at all than Newham and England, but a higher proportion than in London Age profile for the ward is roughly similar to that of the borough as a whole and England Predominantly white British residents, however, the area also has significant proportions of African and Caribbean people. 8.1.2 These statistics indicate that the population in this area, although less deprived than the majority of the borough, is still well below the national averages in terms of employment. Page 10
The ward is also ranked well below the national average in terms of the income and health of the local population. Educational standards are, however, in line with the national average. 8.1.3 In view of the diversity in the borough, allotments and other community centred open spaces are likely to be a levelling factor and a source of shared community pride, thus contributing to community cohesion in the area. Issues and impacts This site is being assessed as a main tunnel driving site and an intermediate shaft site. Main 8.2.2 Given the proposed location of the works for a main shaft site, the greatest community impact appears likely to be caused by the loss of, or disruption to, the long-standing allotments along the western boundary of the site. The West Ham Societys official website shows that the allotments are highly valued by the local community of West Ham and the rest of Newham. If the site is used as a main shaft site, it appears likely that the Three Mills Studios may also be affected as these are directly opposite the main works area across Prescott Channel. The FE College and businesses operating out of properties to the east of the site may also be affected. There is also the potential for the public open space at Three Mills Green to be affected by noise and other disruption from the works. Residents living in properties towards the western end of Bisson Road and Riverside Road may also be affected by site works. Intermediate 8.2.6 If the site is selected as an intermediate site, the same sensitive receptors are likely to be affected, but the severity of any impacts is likely to be less than that for a main shaft site due to the reduced scope of works. The proposed site layout suggests that the allotments would not be lost if the site is used as an intermediate shaft site. However, the allotments, which are probably valued for their tranquil nature, would be likely to experience disruption from the adjacent works area. PROPERTY ASSESSMENT Introduction This site comprises part of the Abbey Mills Pumping Stations site. It is believed that this is an operational pumping station, owned and managed by Thames Water, however land referencing data is not available for the site. Some allotments are located within the site. This site is under consideration for both main shaft and intermediate shaft site options. Crown Land and Special Land comments The site is likely to be Special Land as it is in Thames Water use, however this is an internal issue in this instance. The allotment area may also be Special Land, however it is uncertain without the relevant land referencing data.
8.2 8.2.1
8.2.3
8.2.4 8.2.5
8.2.7
9 9.1 9.1.1 9.1.2 9.1.3 9.1.4 9.2 9.2.1 9.2.2
Page 11
9.2.3
It is recommended that the issue of Special Land is avoided altogether, by redesigning the site construction areas to ensure they fall on Thames Water land. There should be sufficient room at this site to do so. Land to be acquired The compensation assessment assumes that the worksite and access to it would be acquired temporarily via the acquisition of new rights for the period of the works stated in the engineering section above. It assumes that at the end of the works, a smaller area would need to be acquired permanently. It is assumed that Thames Water is the owner of the entire site. The portion of the site that would be used appears not to be in operational use by Thames Water. However, on a recent aerial photograph, a site office or similar is evident. It has not been possible to access the site, and further investigation into the use of the building may be appropriate. There are some allotment gardens within the temporary worksite identified for the main shaft site option, and it is recommended that the site is redesigned to avoid these if possible. Some allotments have been reprovided in the past by Thames Water as they were taken during the construction of the lock at Prescott Channel. It is noted from the engineering drawings that for both site options, the operational site would comprise an area of approximately 50m by 50m at the southern point of the site, with a permanent access from the north-western corner of the site. Rights would be required to construct and operate an overflow culvert from the shaft into the adjacent river. Property valuation comments On the basis that Thames Water owns the site, there is no valuation sum to be assessed. More details are required on the allotments onsite. If it is necessary to place part of the working area on the allotments, it may be possible to relocate the affected plots elsewhere, however this would attract relocation costs and the best solution would be to redesign that part of the site to avoid them. There may be alternative use values associated with the site, however this should be an internal matter for Thames Water when considering the operational use of the site. If the allotments are to be acquired, it is likely that they would need to be reprovided elsewhere within the site. No rights of way or easements have been included in the assessment of this site acquisition cost. Disturbance compensation comments There may be some disturbance costs attached to moving any allotments required, however this is likely to fall within acceptable bounds. Offsite statutory compensation comments The site is currently operational land under water company use, and therefore it would be difficult to perceive a case where the value of an adjoining property is affected further by the proposed works. Site acquisition cost assessment The site acquisition costs are considered to be acceptable, given that the site is understood to be within Thames Waters control.
9.3 9.3.1
9.3.2 9.3.3
9.3.4
9.3.5
9.3.6
9.4 9.4.1 9.4.2
9.4.3 9.4.4 9.4.5
9.5 9.5.1
9.6 9.6.1
9.7 9.7.1
Page 12
10 10.1
SITE CONCLUSIONS BY DISCIPLINE Introduction
10.1.1 The conclusions presented in this section are drawn from each disciplines assessment , and are designed to inform the workshop where a final conclusion on whether the site moves forward as one of the preferred sites or not. 10.2 Engineering
10.2.1 This site is suitable for use as either a main shaft site or as an intermediate shaft site, because the area is large enough, river access is possible, there are no particular constraints on third-party assets and there is no need for any demolition. Road access off Bisson Road would be constrained, but an alternative route through existing Thames Water land onto Gay Road may be feasible. The overflow culvert could be connected to the Prescott Channel. River access would be constrained by being shallow, narrow and winding, with only limited access on each tide, and this would limit the number and type of barge movements. 10.3 Planning
10.3.1 The site is considered suitable for use as either a main or intermediate shaft site. 10.3.2 There are a number of applicable designations and sensitive receptors on the site. However, potential amendments to the siting of some of the construction works and site access, combined with appropriate mitigation, should not result in an unacceptable level of impact on the site. 10.4 Environment
10.4.1 Overall, the site is suitable as either an intermediate or a main shaft site, although 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 for both site types from the perspectives of archaeology, built heritage and townscape, water resources, ecology, flood risk, air quality and noise. 10.4.3 This site is considered less suitable for both site types from the perspectives of transport and land quality. 10.4.4 Overall, the site is considered suitable, subject to further investigation of whether transport and land quality impacts can be adequately mitigated. Likely mitigation considerations would include: Transport a revised access and/or traffic management plan, as well as appropriate use of barging (main shaft site) to reduce traffic impacts 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. 10.5 Socio-economic and community Main shaft site 10.5.1 This site is less suitable as a main shaft, with the current configuration, as this is likely to lead to the loss or displacement of some of the allotments, which may be quite difficult to relocate or otherwise mitigate. Mitigation, in terms of suitable relocation, will require further investigation. 10.5.2 There are also likely to be some impacts on the Three Mills Studio due to its proximity to the main area of works, while the Kingsland Further Education College, a small number of business premises, Three Mills Green and a number of residential properties may also be
Page 13
affected. The relative distance of these receptors from the main works area may provide opportunities for mitigation. Intermediate shaft site 10.5.3 This site is suitable as an intermediate shaft site, as the allotments would not be substantially affected. However, the access route may still impact upon the allotments in part and construction activity would be likely to affect the tranquillity and enjoyment of the allotments. There would also be residual impact relating to disruption of the nearby residential, educational and commercial purposes as above, but these are likely to be mitigable. The relative distance of these receptors from the main works area may provide opportunities for mitigation. 10.6 Property
10.6.1 This site is considered suitable for both main and intermediate shaft options. 10.6.2 The advantages of the site are as follows: It is owned by Thames Water. 10.6.3 The disadvantages of the site are as follows: If used as a main shaft site, a slight redesign must be undertaken to avoid having to relocate allotment holders. It is recommended that more investigation is undertaken internally to understand what currently exists onsite.
Page 14
Site Suitability Report S84NM - Appendices
APPENDICES
Page 15
Site Suitability Report S84NM 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 Newham online planning applications database Saved policies in the Newham Unitary Development Plan, adopted in June 2001
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 The Lea Valley Walk - 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 Newham List of Locally Listed Buildings National Monuments Record - for some additional information regarding registered historic parks and gardens Unitary development plans Local authority websites Bing maps Water resources hydrogeology and surface water Environment Agency abstraction licence details Environment Agency groundwater levels Local authority details of unlicensed abstractors
Appendix 1 Page 1
Environment Agency Flood Map www.environment-agency.gov.uk Envirocheck Ecology Thames Estuary Partnership (2002) Tidal Thames Habitat Action Plan London Biodiversity Action Plan - www.lbp.org.uk Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) www.magic.gov.uk - statutory designated sites London Wildweb - http://wildweb.london.gov.uk - non-statutory site of importance for nature conservation Black redstart distribution in London - www.blackredstarts.org.uk/pages/ londonmap.html National Biodiversity Network - http://searchnbn.net - distribution of protected species Google Maps - aerial views of habitat features BAP habitats - www.natureonthemap.org.uk Priority habitats and species on national and local scales - www.ukbap.org.uk Flood risk Environment Agency Flood Map www.environment-agency.gov.uk Envirocheck Air quality Local authority websites www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/default.asp?la_id=&showbulletins=&width=1680 http://www.airquality.co.uk Noise Envirocheck - Identification of receptors Promap - Calculation of distances between site and receptors Multimap - Aerial photography www.multimap.co.uk Defra noise maps - Identification of existing noise levels Land quality Google Maps/Earth Site walkover information
Socio-economic and community Statistics from the Office of National Statistics 2001 Census data West Ham Allotment Society home page - http://www.westhamallotments.org.uk Newham Partnership home page - http://www.newham.com/partners/ partners/0,10,0,0.html
Appendix 1 Page 2
Property Promap, Ordnance Survey and A-Z mapping Multimap/Google Earth aerial/satellite photographs Mouchel referencing
Appendix 1 Page 3
APPENDIX 2 SITE LOCATION PLAN
Appendix 2 Page 1
FI D
EN
TI AL
AF T
&
Area of Main Map
Legend
Local Authority Boundary Short Listed Shaft Sites
NEWHAM S84NM
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.
TOWER HAMLETS
Map Ref : .......101PL-SS-00629 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 S84NM SITE SITE LOCATION PLAN
APPENDIX 3 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT PLANS
Appendix 3 Page 1
FI D
EN
TI AL
AF T
&
Area of Main Map
Legend
# *
0 25 50 100 Metres 150 200
S84NM NEWHAM
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. This plan is a strategic and standardised overview based on an interpretation of GIS policy designation layers provided by affected London local authorities. Please refer to the text in the SSR's for the full planning and environment assessments.
# *

MAJOR PROJECTS
Legend
TOWER HAMLETS
# *
Major Leisure Attraction Regeneration Areas Principal Employment Area
Title:
Areas of Opportunity Major Opportunity Zone
APPENDIX 3A S84NM SITE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT PLAN
TI AL
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
FI D
EN
AF T
&
Area of Main Map
Legend
! ! ! ! ! !
0 25 50 100 Metres 150 200
S84NM ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
NEWHAM ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Legend

MAJOR PROJECTS
Green Corridor/Chains
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! TOWER HAMLETS Metropolitan Open Land ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Park ! ! Deficiency ! ! ! ! ! District ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Sites ! ! of ! Nature ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !Conservation ! ! ! ! ! ! Importance ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Title:
!! !! !! !! ! !! !! !! !! ! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Open Spaces ! ! ! ! ! ! Green ! ! !Space ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
APPENDIX 3B S84NM SITE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT PLAN
FI D
EN
TI AL
AF T
&
Area of Main Map
Legend
0 25 50 100 Metres 150 200
S84NM NEWHAM
! ! !
!
MAJOR PROJECTS
TOWER HAMLETS
Legend !
Listed Buildings Archaeological Areas Conservation Areas
! ! ! !
Title:
APPENDIX 3C S84NM SITE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT HERITAGE PLAN
APPENDIX 4 PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS
Appendix 4 Page 1
FI D
EN
TI AL
AF T
&
Area of Main Map
Legend
S84NM NEWHAM
0 25 50
100 Metres 150 200

MAJOR PROJECTS
TOWER HAMLETS
Title:
APPENDIX 4 S84NM SITE AERIAL PLAN
View of the pumping stations looking east from within the site.
View of the site looking southeast adjacent to the grey clad pumping station on the left.
Appendix 4
View of the site looking east towards the Channelsea River.
View of the site looking south towards the gas works.
Appendix 4
APPENDIX 5 TRANSPORT PLAN
Appendix 5 Page 1
FI D
EN
TI AL
U-turn required to access site from TLRN (A12)
Area of Main Map
AF T
&
Legend
Local Authority Boundary Short Listed Shaft Sites Transport Access Routes Substantial amount of on-street parking TfL Road Network Thames Path London Cycle Routes
NEWHAM S84NM
0 40 80 160
Meters
240
320
400
TOWER HAMLETS
Map Ref : ........... 101PL-SS-00769 Date : ................. 2009/11/19 Projection : ......... British National Grid

MAJOR PROJECTS
Title:
APPENDIX 5 S84NM SITE TRANSPORT PLAN
APPENDIX 6 SERVICES AND GEOLOGY PLAN
Appendix 6 Page 1
1
3405 3404
2
5414 5413
Tanks
4
L Twr
5
3.0m
6
2406 NRV 2413 WW
PH
FH
3001
N
1405
GEOLOGY
1403 VC VC
DO NOT SCALE - IF IN DOUBT ASK

Status:
AP 2407
3403
4.6m
5411 5412
Tank L Twr
3402 3401 3002
WO 0401 0402
WORK IN PROGRESS
3409
VC 4410 4407
Playground
L Twr
3012
5.6m
DBV910424 2411 2401 PS 4"WM 3745 PS WO 2424 Ground level 2417
DBV910423 2410
Keyplan:
104(m OD VC + 100) of Made Ground 102(m OD + 100)Base 2412
DRAWING LOCATION and Superficial
8401 4406 4405 WO

Gas Holder
4408 VC 4305
3306 3310 4306
Base of London Clay Formation 90(m OD + 100)

El Sub Sta
2301
4304
LH 3003 5303
El Sub Sta
6311 6310 6326 SE 6328 SE 6325 SE 6327 SE 6329 SE AV AV 6324 SE

7307 7309 7304 6303 6305 7312
Tank
8303 9307
LH
WO 125mm PE
FB
3309 3305 3304 SU 3696 2366
L Twr
6308 6309
LH
1301
8306 8305 3916
2.3m
El Sub Sta
Napier Manor Youth Centre
2304 3746 NRV 2303

2.7m
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
3303
Sorting Office
2904
5302 3004 3302 5301 WO

Playground El Sub Sta
8302
7.9m
Base of Lambeth Group 73(m OD + 100)

SU WO
2302
3006
FH
8304
7306 7308 7303 7305
3005
6306
COORDINATES ARE TO ORDNANCE SURVEY DATUM OSGB36.

9308 9304 DBV462191 PS WO
PS
2.4m
4301
LB
NRV
ALL LEVELS ARE IN METRES AND RELATE TO A LOCAL HEIGHT Suggested invert level of shaft DATUM WHICH IS 100 METRES BELOW ORDNACE DATUM NEWLYN. 59.80(m OD + 100) NOTES 59(m OD + 100) Base of Thanet
2201
SU 3301
6307
FV FV PS
3.9m
7310 8238 Depot 8240 9217
9301
0301 PS
1302
3697 3202 FV
Lodge
NRV 2193
CP
Sand Formation
SU
L Twr
2.4m
1. LIMITED FIBRE OPTIC AND BT COMMUNICATION CABLES SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING. DETAILS OF THESE CABLES AND OTHER SERVICES AND THIRD PARTY ASSETS TO BE
3204 3203
3.7m
5203
VC
PS FV FV
6202 LS 8245 LS ABBEY MILLS SPS A STN ABBEPAZZ 7206
Tank 8212 SE 8213 SE WB
8239 9218
5.5m
3285
4109
4203
FV
9201
0201
AC
CONFIRMED BY FURTHER STUDIES AND UTILITY SEARCHES.
2201 FH
2. INVERT LEVEL OF SHAFT SHOWN.BASE OF CONSTRUCTION

WEST HAM SPS (ABANDONED) LOC CODE NK 8215 8282 8281 SE SE 8207 SE 8206 SE 1201
Mud
3742 2202 2369

2.3m
WILL BE BELOW THIS LEVEL AND WILL DEPEND ON CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUE. THIS IS ONLY PROVISIONAL AS DESIGN IS AT EARLY PRELIMINARY STAGE.
2204
4202
4201
FV
HW 6204 SE Abbey Mills Pumping Station ABBEPBZZ
LS 8248 LS WO AV AV ABBEY MILLS SPS B STN (ABANDONED)

8234 PS SE PS
LS LS LS
LS LS LS
3207 9212 9233 PS PS 9213 TB TB 1 1/2"AP SU 2203
3201
3698
PS 0202
7.0m
4.7m
WW
PS 0205 3208
3. A NUMBER OF TUNNELS WHICH FEED INTO ABBEY MILLS

Greenway Court
3145
SU 3699
ABBEY MILLS SPS I STN ABBEPIZZ 7118 SE
8235 SE
8253 8254 8252
8279 8280 SE SE 9228 9227 9229 8255 9230 SE 9226 SE
PUMPING STATION MAY RUN THROUHGH THIS SITE. THIS

BD BD 1202 DBV910419
2.5m Surgery LB
MAY IMPACT ON SHAFT LOCATION.

3322 2103 WO
SV
SV DBV459925 DBV459921
3101 2102
FB
5.2m
ABBEY MILLS SPS H STN 4104 2xFV ST PS PS IL-6.52m PS 6123 SE PS 7102 SE PS PS STEPS
2.8m
ABBEPHZZ
400 PS PS PS
IL2.43m
9.3m
IL2.11m
DBV459909
DBV910418 AC
2101
2102
2.1m Mud
1116 SE
Mud
1114 1115 1104 1117 1118
Gantry
4106
WO
5.2m
PS 3972 VC IL-6.5m WO 6139 IL-6.49m 6113 6114 6103

Car Park
6126 SE
7112
7142 SE
ABBEY MILLS SPS C STN (ABANDONED) ABBEPCZZ

MLW
TO MANHOLE
Channelsea Business Centre
8.9m
1119 1120 1121 SE
AC 3749
DM08413 1129 SE
LEGEND
150mm WM
WO WO 1122 1123 DBV910429
FOUL WATER
Factory
FB
4105
FV
FLOWMETER
CP 0111 IL-0.14m VC WO
IL8.8m IL8.8m IL9.39m 1105 IL9.39m 1106 1107 1108
1124
DC
MILL MEADS
ST
DC DC DC
CL WW DC
6130
IL0.23m
TCB
1125 WO IN MANOR ROAD UNDER BRIDGE 9.3m 1109 1126 1110 1111 1127 AV 0.8m EV 1112 1128 AV 1113 1103 1130 IL9.39m IL8.2m IL9.39m IL8.2m DM08461
SURFACE WATER
CLEAN WATER
Gtec House
4103 SE
Chalk
2104
GAS
DC IL-5.75m FV
IL-11.93m
7135 SE
ST
Allotment Gardens
IL-6.77m
5.0m
1.8m
PS 6001 PS
FIBRE OPTICS
IL-7.47m ABBEY MILLS SPS D STN (ABANDONED) ABBEPDZZ

VALVE
BS 3003 SE
VT
2007
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Allotment Gardens
FLOWMETER
IL-5.77m
ABBEY MILLS SPS E STN ABBEPEZZ
S84NM
ABBEY MILLS SPS F STN ABBEPFZZ
4.9m
SYNTHETIC GEOLOGICAL PROFILE DERIVED FROM THE BGS LONDON LITHOFRAME50 MODEL, HISTORICAL BOREHOLES 2006 El Sub AND BERRY (1979). PLEASE NOTE, GROUND CONDITIONS MAY 1006 Sta 1003 600 1004 2005 VARY AND THIS DATA SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR DETAILED ENGINEERING PURPOSES 2004 PROPOSED LEE TUNNEL AND SHAFT F
1001 1002 1005 2002 2000
Mud
LOW VOLTAGE CABLES
HIGH VOLTAGE CABLES
2003
EXISTING TUNNELS
Distillery
Three Mills Green
AC 5003
2.2m
Pol Sta (British Transport)
MANOR ROAD WEST HAM SPS MANOP0ZZ
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
WATER STORM & FOUL SEWERS - ALL TW ASSETS - ALL TW ASSETS
9001
1.2m
S85NM
Three Mills Green
ST 4901 SE
Mud
1903 1904
4903 SE
IL-7.09m
OTHER SIGNIFICANT UTILITIES ARE DEFINED AS: TELECOMS ELECTRICITY

SL
2709
Three Mills
- ONLY FIBRE OPTIC CABLES - HIGH VOLTAGE CABLES - LARGE BANKS OF LOW VOLTAGE CABLES - LOW PRESSURE ABOVE 300mm DIAMETER - INTERMEDIATE, MEDIUM OR HIGH PRESSURE 200mm
NF 1902 3902
IL-6.98m
Green
5.0m
1901 WO
GAS
IL-6.97m
2.7m
3901
3342 2901
SL
61 to 95
WO
IL-5.76m 0901 305 IL-6.87m IL-5.78m 9801

SL Shelter
3805 1801 2801

1.4m
10 m
0 SCALE 1 : 1250
100 m
1.4m
1802 WM 1803
TCBs
2804
ST
IL-6.85m
SITE BOUNDARY
3340
3341
2.4m
3801 SE
IL-6.83m 3339 8802

Tank ESS
2803
Depot
8801 WO
Depot Sluice
SU
WB
Custom House
4.8m
Signal gantry
1804 3750
4.1m
2802
3802
S86NM
MLW MLW
Clock Mill
1.6m Sluice
MLWS
AB
-0.6m
DRAFT - SECOND ISSUE
IL RS
Dsgnr
GT DS
Chkd
GT CH
Appd
27-11-09 24-07-09
Date
AA DRAFT - FIRST ISSUE

Iss
0701 1701
Description
63
4.1m
2701
ST
MLW
2701 SE
Three Mills Studios
El Sub Sta
IL-3.1m
MLWS
2703
2702
SL Tank
The Point, 7th Floor,

4.3m
37 North Wharf Road,

1702
1.6m 1.6m
Mud
3126
Paddington, London W2 1AF

Location Code: OS Reference: Security Reference: Drawn By:
D
4.1m Mud
SL SL MLWS
3751
N/A
Project Group:
UBR
Sub Process:
AP
1602
LTTDT
Depot
AC
WASTE LONDON N/A 50

Scale: Sheet Size: Rev:
Location / Town: Site Name:

TCP
Gas Holder
MLWS
Project Name:
1605 1603
1.5m
THAMES TUNNEL
2601
Club
WO
Contract Name:
HW
WB
SITE SUITABILITY REPORT

Drawing Title:
MP
Gas Holder
AC1606
SERVICES AND GEOLOGY PLAN S84NM

Drawing No.:
Gas Works
Gas Holder
BP
PLOTTED ON
04\12\09
BY
Andy.Purdy
MLW
IL-2.11m
LOCATION :
Thames Tideway Tunnel
x:\project\371840\cad\design data\cad thames\drawings\planning-consents\Routewide\100-DL-PNC-S84NM-100001.dgn
c Thames Water Utilities Ltd 2008

Education Centre
Gainsborough
LVHTCABGWF
SWF
1601
100-DL-PNC-S84NM-100001
1:1250
A1
AB
100
150
SW
WF
APPENDIX 7 CONSTRUCTION PHASE LAYOUT
Appendix 7 Page 1
APPENDIX 8 OPERATIONAL PHASE LAYOUT
Appendix 8 Page 1
6
DO NOT SCALE - IF IN DOUBT ASK
VENTILATION BUILDING (SHAFTS)

107m (AOD +100) REMOVABLE COVER ABOVE FLAP VALVES (LOCKABLE)
Status:
WORK IN PROGRESS
Keyplan:
N
10 3m 9m
20
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
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)
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
Location Code: OS Reference: Security Reference: Drawn By:
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
100-DH-GEN-00000-000002
NTS
A1
AB
100
150
200mm
APPENDIX 9 ENVIRONMENTAL APPRAISAL TABLES
Transport Intermediate Site considerations Access to road network Comments Site accesses onto the southern end of Bisson Road requiring the construction of a new access. Several on street parking bays within the vicinity of the site access will require removal. Bisson Road is a residential road subject to a 30mph speed limit and is street lit. It has a carriageway width of 7.3m which is reduced to an effective width of 3.3m by on street parking bays on both sides. A high number of parking bays will require removal to provide passing places for construction vehicles when accessing the TLRN (A12) or rail site at Angerstein Wharf. Access to the A12 (TLRN strategic highway network) via Bisson Road, Abbey Lane and the A11 requires the removal of substantial amounts of on street parking bays along Bisson Road to provide passing places. Route runs Appendix 9 Page 1
Main Comments As for intermediate, see left Mitigation required and conclusions As for intermediate, see left
Mitigation required and conclusions Road access to site least suitable for HGVs requiring the construction of a new access. A large number of on street parking bays along Bisson Road require removal to provide passing places for construction vehicles when accessing the TLRN (A12) and rail site. Route to TLRN (A12) also runs through a residential area. There may be an alternative access route to the site via Abbey Lane, however this would require further investigation.
Transport Intermediate Site considerations Comments through a residential area and under a flyover (on return to site) with no visible restrictions. Distance to TLRN 1.1km. Access to river Located directly adjacent to a channel leading to the river. River access not essential for intermediate shaft site as road will be used to transport excavated material to main shaft hub site. Access to Angerstein Wharf existing rail facility uses the same route to the TLRN (A12) and follows along the TLRN to the Blackwall Tunnel. The Blackwall Tunnel is subject to a 156 height restriction southbound and 134 restriction northbound which may restrict access in addition to being narrow. The route then continues along Blackwall Tunnel Approach, John Harrison Way and West Parkside to Angerstein Wharf on Horn Link Way. Angerstein Wharf is an existing multi modal aggregates depot. Distance 7.0km to rail access point from shaft site. River access not required. Excavated material will be transported away by road. Main shaft site located directly adjacent to a channel leading to the river. Potential access to transfer away excavated material. Potential wharfage onto Channelsea River to the south of the site. As for intermediate, see left Located adjacent to channel leading to river with potential wharfage onto Channelsea River to transfer away excavated material. Mitigation required and conclusions Comments Main Mitigation required and conclusions
Access to rail
Route to potential rail link at Angerstein Wharf is least suitable encountering the constraints to the TLRN (A12) in addition to running under and over several bridges with no visible restrictions, and through the Blackwall Tunnel which has height restrictions (differs depending on direction). Angerstein Wharf is an existing multi modal aggregates depot.
As for intermediate, see left
Appendix 9 Page 2
Transport Intermediate Site considerations Parking Comments Some parking could potentially be provided on site for workforce. Additional on street parking along Bisson Road and surrounding roads unsuitable for workforce as restricted to permit holders Mon-Fri 10:00-12:00. A substantial number of on street permit holder parking bays along Bisson Road require removal to provide passing places for construction vehicles to access the TLRN. A parking survey would need to be undertaken to identify the likely impact of their removal. Public transport accessibility PTAL 3-4 (medium), as identified within Table 2.3. A new site access onto Bisson Road needs to be constructed. A substantial number of on street parking bays along Bisson Road require removal. Mitigation required and conclusions Some parking for workforce could potentially be provided within site boundary. On street parking along Bisson Road and other surrounding roads unsuitable as restricted to permit holders Mon-Fri 10:00-12:00. A substantial number of on street parking bays require removal and a parking survey is required to identify the likely impact of their removal. Comments As for intermediate, see left Main Mitigation required and conclusions As for intermediate, see left
Possibility for workforce to use public transport to access site. Construction of new site access and removal of a substantial number of on street parking bays required.
Traffic Management
Appendix 9 Page 3
Transport Intermediate Site considerations Summary Comments Mitigation required and conclusions Comments Main Mitigation required and conclusions
The site is less suitable for use as either an intermediate or a main shaft site requiring the construction of a new site access and the removal of several parking bays near to the access. There is potential road access to the TLRN (A12) for HGVs, but the route passes through a residential area and would require the removal of a high number of on street parking bays along Bisson Road to provide passing places. A parking survey would need to be undertaken to identify current utilisation levels, the likely impact of removal and the potential to use alternative parking facilities. There may be an alternative access route to the site via Abbey Lane, however this would require further investigation. The potential route to rail at Angerstein Wharf is unsuitable due to the height restriction through the Blackwall Tunnel and the additional constraints encountered when accessing the TLRN (A12). The site is located adjacent to river channel with potential wharfage onto Channelsea River to transfer away excavated material (for the main shaft site option). There is the potential for the workforce to utilise public transport to access the site and some on site parking could be provided for some of the workforce.
Appendix 9 Page 4
Archaeology Site considerations Comments Designations, including Archaeological Priority Areas Summary of historical uses The site is within the Newham Archaeological Priority Area. The site is shown as agricultural land on the 1 ed O.S map (1868). It is marked as Abbey Mills. The area of the proposed shaft site was known as mill meads and was not developed. The pumping station was built in the late 1800s and has remained to the present day along with the allotments to the south of the site. A Desk based Assessment on the site has been completed in the recent past. No archaeological receptors are recorded within the area of the site. This does not preclude the possibility of unrecorded archaeological receptors of high value being present. No archaeological receptors are recorded within the area of the site. This does not preclude the possibility of unrecorded archaeological receptors of medium value being present within the site. Dewatering of potential waterlogged deposits may be an issue considering the close proximity of the site to the Thames. The southern part of the site does not appear to have undergone extensive development, therefore any archaeological material which may be present is unlikely to have been significantly disturbed. However, borehole data for the area indicates a significant localised depth of made ground at up to 7m.
st
Intermediate/Main Mitigation required and conclusions Not applicable. A detailed desk based assessment is required to sufficiently understand the archaeological resource and define risk to potential development.
Potential receptors of very high or high value with the potential to be directly affected Potential receptors of medium value with the potential to be directly affected Other receptors with the potential to be directly affected Extent of existing disturbance (if known)
A detailed desk based assessment is required to sufficiently understand the archaeological resource and define risk to potential development. 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. A detailed desk based assessment is required to sufficiently understand the archaeological resource and define risk to potential development.
Appendix 9 Page 5
Archaeology Site considerations Comments Potential issues Detailed design proposals, and an outline method statement will be required to enable initial assessment of development impacts, and to inform mitigation proposals. With the currently available information it is not possible to highlight specific potential issues. Intermediate/Main Mitigation required and conclusions Mitigation methods could include: Desk based assessment (review of recent work) Production of deposits model Archaeological monitoring of geotechnical investigations Archaeological evaluation Archaeological watching brief Archaeological excavation. Summary: The site is suitable for use as either an intermediate or main shaft site although due to a lack of previous investigations in the area, the nature and extent of archaeological receptors cannot be confidently predicted. . With currently available information it is possible that archaeological receptors of potential high or medium value may be present within the site and it is likely that archaeological advanced works and other excavations associated with the preceding Lee Tunnel will assist in defining the presence or absence of any such receptors. Investigations on adjacent sites suggest that alluvial deposits containing archaeological material will also be present.
Appendix 9 Page 6
Built Heritage and Townscape Site considerations Comments Designations including Conservation Areas, including trees Listed Buildings Abbey Mills Pumping Stations, Abbey Lane, Grade II*: 0m (located within the site boundary) Ancillary Pump House, Abbey Mills, Abbey Lane, Grade II: 0m (located within the site boundary) Bases of a pair of former chimney stacks at Abbey Mills to the northwest and southeast of Abbey Mills Pumping Stations, Abbey Lane, Grade II: 0m (located within the site boundary) Station with associated valve house, Abbey Mills Pumping Stations, Grade II: 0m (located within the site boundary) Stores building at Abbey Mills Pumping Stations to west of pumping station, Abbey Lane, Grade II: 0m (located within the site boundary) Offices (former Superintendents House) at Abbey Mills Pumping Stations, Grade II: 0m (located within the site boundary) Gate Lodge at Abbey Mills Pumping Stations, Abbey Mills, Grade II: 0m (located within the site boundary) Gates and gatepiers at entrance to Abbey Mills Pumping Stations, Abbey Mills, Grade II: 0m (located within the site boundary) 116-130 Abbey Lane, Grade II: 35m Clock Mill and Drying Kilns, Three Mills Lane, Grade II: 250m Offices, opposite Clock Mill, Three Mills Lane, Grade II: 245m Paved walkway extending from west side of House Mill to wall and gate on east side of Clock Mill, Three Mills Lane, Grade II: Intermediate/Main Mitigation required and conclusions In the case of listed buildings, locally listed buildings and conservation areas, a high quality scheme design and adequate screening for the development may be required as discussed below. A detailed desk-based assessment in conjunction with archaeology work will be required to further inform the likely impact of the development and to determine more detailed mitigation proposals.
Appendix 9 Page 7
Built Heritage and Townscape Site considerations Comments 245m Gasholder, West Ham, Grade II: 120m Gasholder, Wes Ham, Grade II: 160m Gasholder, West Ham, Grade II: 180m Gasholder, West Ham, Grade II: 210m Gasholder, West Ham, Grade II: 250m Locally Listed Buildings Pedestrian Bridge, Northern Outfall Sewer, Abbey Lane: 10m The Still, Three Mills Distillery, Three Mills Lane: 205m Conservation Areas Three Mills Conservation Area: 0m (S84NM - Intermediate is located within the designated area) Registered Historic Parks and Gardens There are no registered historic parks and gardens within 250m of S84NM Intermediate & Main. Locally Listed Parks and Gardens There are no locally listed parks and gardens within 250m of S84NM Intermediate & Main. Protected Views There are no protected views within 250m of S84NM Intermediate & Main. Potential receptors of medium to very high importance with the potential to be directly affected There is the potential for eight listed buildings (one Grade II* and seven Grade II) and one conservation area (the Three Mills Conservation Area) to be directly affected by the development as S84NM. As described above Intermediate/Main Mitigation required and conclusions
Appendix 9 Page 8
Built Heritage and Townscape Site considerations Comments The eight listed buildings likely to be directly affected by S84NM Main are all located within the site boundary and form part of the Abbey Mills Pumping Stations complex (off these structures, one [the Abbey Mills Pumping Station] is listed Grade II* and the remainder all Grade II listed). However, all of these listed structures are located some distance form the proposed working area (along the south and west sides of the site boundary) and are therefore unlikely to experience a direct impact from construction or operation of S84NM Main. However, given their relative proximity to the working area and there location within the site there remains the potential for all eight structures to experience an impact upon their setting and as such they will be reconsidered below under medium to very high importance with the potential to be indirectly affected. (It should be noted that this assessment has been carried out on the basis of current engineering drawings for the site (as of July 2009) which assume the working areas of the site will be located along the western and southern site boundaries. In terms of the listed buildings within the site boundary, this is the preferred position of any new works within the site as they are located at the maximum distance possible away from any listed structures. If the location of constructional and operational features were to be moved the potential for a direct impact upon listed structures within the site would be increased and the site may become considerably less suitable in terms of the historic built environment). Because S84NM Main is located within the Three Mills Conservation the development has the potential to affect the character or appearance of the designated area. Mitigation in the form of a high quality scheme design and/or screening is likely to be required to minimise any adverse impacts upon the conservation area. In addition, a more detailed assessment of Intermediate/Main Mitigation required and conclusions
Appendix 9 Page 9
Built Heritage and Townscape Site considerations Comments the site is likely to be required in order to assess the potential of the development to affect the character or appearance of the conservation area and to establish suitable mitigation measures. Other receptors of lesser importance with the potential to be directly affected Potential receptors of medium to very high importance with the potential to be indirectly affected Not Applicable. Not Applicable. Intermediate/Main Mitigation required and conclusions
There is the potential for 17 listed buildings (one Grade II* and sixteen Grade II listed) and two locally listed buildings to be indirectly affected by the development.
Of the 17 listed buildings within 250m of S84NM Intermediate, four will not share a visual relationship with the working areas of the site (if, as proposed, they are located along the western and southern edges of the site boundary) on account of screening provided by existing buildings and mature vegetation. These four structures (Offices, Abbey Mills Pumping Stations, Grade II; Gate Lodge, Abbey Mills Pumping Stations, Grade II; Gates and Gate Piers at the entrance to Abbey Mills Pumping Stations; and 116-130 Abbey Lane) will therefore not experience any impact from construction or operation of S84NM Intermediate and will not require any mitigation. All of the other 13 listed buildings (one Grade II* and twelve Grade II) have the potential to share a visual relationship with the working parts of the site (along the southern and western sides of the site boundary). Although some screening is provided by existing buildings and mature vegetation around and within the site, there exists the potential for construction and operation of S84NMIntermediate to affect the setting of these listed structures. Mitigation in the form of a high quality scheme design and/or screening is likely to be required to reduce any adverse impacts upon these structures. Both of the locally listed buildings within 250m of S84NM Intermediate share a visual relationship with the site as a
Appendix 9 Page 10
Built Heritage and Townscape Site considerations Comments Intermediate/Main Mitigation required and conclusions whole. However, as proposed construction and operation of the site will be located along the south and west boundaries of the site, only the locally listed The Still, Three Mills Distillery is likely to have views of the working parts of S84NM Intermediate. As a result mitigation in the form of a high quality scheme design and/or screening may be required to reduce any indirect impact upon this structure. The locally listed pedestrian bridge will not share a visual relationship with the working areas of the site and no mitigation will therefore be required. Other receptors of lesser importance with the potential to be indirectly affected Not Applicable. Not Applicable.
Sensitive landscape character areas likely to be affected, including trees and TPOs
The site is in a Conservation Area, with Listed Buildings on site. The site is designated as Open Space and Green Space and is adjacent to Prescott Channel, Abbey Creek, and the Channelsea River which are designated as Protected Sites. Green Chains and Links run along the northern and southern boundaries of the site. Sensitive site with two buildings, Prescott Channel to the west with residential development along Riverside Road, a mix of industrial and residential development to the north, Channelsea River to the west and south with the Channelsea Business Centre further west, railway line to the south with industrial development further south. Demolition of the building, loss of mature vegetation and allotment gardens increases the openness of the site. The presence and operation of machinery, materials stores and buildings would potentially result in temporary, adverse direct impacts on the character of the site and the frontage of the
Retention of trees where possible and protection in accordance with BS 5837. The excavated material, could be used as a bund around the periphery of the site so that the character of the construction site could be contained within. Introduction of a landscape scheme to include appropriate surface treatments and planting to replace lost vegetation and enhance the frontage of the Prescott Channel and Channelsea River without interrupting the Green Chains and Links to the south of the site. This site is suitable, since although the construction phase would result in an adverse impact on the character of the site and the water frontage, with appropriate measures listed above, the impact could be mitigated.
Appendix 9 Page 11
Built Heritage and Townscape Site considerations Comments Channelsea River and temporary, adverse indirect impacts on neighbouring areas. The proposed potential wharfage protruding on the Channelsea River would potentially have an adverse impact on its character. Permanent elements would potentially have an adverse impact on the character of the frontage of the Prescott Channel and Channelsea River and the site. Potential views likely to be affected Open views from adjacent water channels, the foot bridge across the Prescott Channel and railway line. Partially interrupted views from the residential properties, vehicular bridge across the Prescott Channel, Abbey Mills Pumping Stations, and Channelsea Business Centre. During construction, views of the cranes from surrounding residential and industrial properties, High Street (A118) and the railway line. Permanent elements mainly visible from the adjacent water channels and Green Chains and Links route to the south. During construction, the use of hoardings and appropriate lighting would minimise visual impact. The excavated material, especially could be used as a bund around the periphery of the site, for screening. Design of top structure, vent column, and electrical kiosk to be given careful consideration. Planting to screen permanent plant. Integrated landscape scheme to enhance visual amenity and reduce visual impact. This site is suitable, since although the construction could have an adverse impact on the visual amenity, appropriate mitigation could enhance the visual amenity of the site itself and that of the water frontage. Particular considerations on sites where new permanent structures are required Any permanent structures at the site have the potential to cause a direct impact upon one conservation area and an indirect impact upon 13 listed buildings and 1 locally listed building and the local townscape character (particularly the character of the surrounding waterways). The design and location of any permanent structures within the site will need to be given careful consideration and some screening during construction and operation may be required. Permanent structures at the site also have the potential to have an adverse impact on the character of the frontage of the Any permanent structures would need to be of a high quality design, sensitively located and/or screened in order that any physical and visual impacts upon the Three Mills Conservation Area, 13 listed buildings one locally listed building and the local townscape character (particularly the character of the surrounding waterways) are minimised in accordance with planning policy and English Heritage guidance. In terms of potential impacts upon built heritage receptors, it is preferable that the construction and operational areas of the site are restricted to the southern and western boundaries of the site, as proposed on current Intermediate/Main Mitigation required and conclusions
Appendix 9 Page 12
Built Heritage and Townscape Site considerations Comments Prescott Channel and Channelsea River and the site. Potential issues Construction and operation of the development could result in a direct impact upon one conservation area and an indirect impact upon 13 listed buildings, 1 locally listed building the local landscape character (particularly the character of the surrounding waterways). However, there is the potential to mitigate against any adverse impacts through a high quality scheme design, screening and townscape design. Intermediate/Main Mitigation required and conclusions engineering drawings (July 2009). The scheme design would need to be of a sufficiently high quality and may need to incorporate some screening in order that potential direct and indirect impacts of the development upon one conservation area, 13 listed buildings 1 locally listed building and the local townscape character are mitigated against. Particular attention may need to be paid to the location of constructional and operational features within the site in terms of built heritage receptors restricting the constructional and operational areas of the site to along the southern and western boundaries of the site, as proposed on current engineering drawings (July 2009) is preferable.
Summary
This site is suitable for use as either an intermediate or a main shaft site, although it has the potential to directly affect the Three Mills Conservation Area and indirectly affects 13 listed buildings and one locally listed building. Mitigation in the form of a high quality scheme design and/or screening would reduce adverse impacts. Further detailed assessment is likely to be required to more precisely define the likely impacts upon the local townscape character and the character of the waterways surrounding the site. Mitigation through the scheme design and landscaping would reduce adverse impacts and could enhance the visual amenity of the site itself and that of the water frontage.
Appendix 9 Page 13
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 (7m) London Clay (5m) Lambeth Group (18m) Thanet sand (13m) Chalk (to beyond the depth of shaft) Hydrogeology Piezometric Level in Chalk Aquifer: ~ -17mAOD (~20 mbgl) from EA Jan 08 water level contouring Groundwater Monitoring Location EA Hydrometry Sites: No hydrometry site nearby Watercourses Adjacent to the Prescott Channel and Abbey Creek SPZs and groundwater users SPZ Not located in a Source Protection Zone defined by EA EA Licensed Groundwater Abstractions and Details 2 public water supply borehole within 2km radius
Licence Numbers: 1. 29/38/09/0113 (1 borehole) 2. 29/38/09/0201 (1 borehole) Location 1. 1.63 km northwest of the site 2. 1.88 km North of the site
Intermediate/Main Mitigation required and conclusions The shaft will be constructed to an invert level of approximately 62.80mbgl therefore the shaft will be founded (1) in the Chalk. Piezometric head in Chalk will be approximately 42.80m above the base of the construction. Therefore, dewatering would be required and should be considered as part of geotechnical design.
A simple volumetric approach has been used to calculate the 400 days travel times of the abstraction borehole. A conservative mean annual recharge of 100mm/year was used to calculate a radius for licensed abstraction boreholes as follows:
Public water supply abstraction boreholes 1. Defined by EA 2. 1524 m Licensed abstraction boreholes 1. 292 m 2.154 m
Appendix 9 Page 14
Water Resources - Hydrogeology and Surface Water Site considerations Comments

Operator 1. Thames Water Utilities Ltd. 2. Thames Water Utilities Ltd. Abstracted Aquifer 1. Chalk 2. Chalk Abstraction Quantity (annual) 1. 1,642,500 m3 2. 2,920,000 m3 3. 109 m 4. 154 m 5. 154 m
Intermediate/Main Mitigation required and conclusions
The shaft is not located within any of these catchment areas.
7 licensed abstraction borehole within 2 km radius

Licence Numbers: 1. 29/38/09/0149 (2 boreholes) 2. 29/38/09/0162 (1 borehole) 3. 29/38/09/0168 (1 borehole) 4. 29/38/09/0177 (2 boreholes) 5. 29/38/09/0187 (1 borehole)
Locations: 1. 343 m northeast of the site 2. 1.72 km southeast of the site 3. 1.24 km northwest of the site 4. 1.24 km northwest of the site 5. 1.94 km northwest of the site Operator: 1. Anjuman-E-Iscahul-Muslimeen of UK
Appendix 9 Page 15
Water Resources - Hydrogeology and Surface Water Site considerations Comments

2. Lee Valley Regional Park Authority 3. Hanson Quarry Products Europe Ltd 4. Aggregate Industries UK Ltd 5. Kedassia Poultry Limited Abstracted Aquifer Unit: 1. Chalk 2. River Gravel 3. Chalk 4. Chalk 5. Chalk Abstraction Purposes: 1. industrial, commercial and public services (non-evaporative cooling) 2. environmental (non-remedial river/wetland support - make-up or top up water) 3. industrial, commercial and public services (dust suppression) 4. industrial, commercial and public services (extractive- dust suppression and process water) 5. industrial, commercial and public services (slaughtering - process water) Abstraction Quantity (annual): 1. 107,000 m3 2. 30,000 m3 3. 15,000 m3 4. 30,000 m3 5. 30,000 m3
Intermediate/Main Mitigation required and conclusions
Local Authorities (LA) Unlicensed Groundwater Abstractions and Details No abstraction borehole within 1km radius inside Tower
Appendix 9 Page 16
Water Resources - Hydrogeology and Surface Water Site considerations Comments Hamlet Council Boundary No abstraction borehole within 1km radius inside Newham Council Boundary Borehole locations and depths Potential impacts on surface water features Potential impacts on groundwater (resources and quality) There are 20 historical records of water wells within 1 km radius. Depth range: 6.78 183.79m The site is located adjacent to the Prescott Channel and Abbey Creek. The site is behind flood defences so the pollution risk is through drainage channels to the river. An impact on groundwater at depth is likely since the shaft is to be constructed in Chalk (major aquifer) which will need to be dewatered. At shallow depth, the shaft is located in Alluvium which is classified as a minor aquifer. Limited impact on shallow aquifer if water is excluded from the excavation by diaphragm wall or caissons. Mitigation unlikely to be required as construction of the shaft will not take place within the 400 day capture zone of licensed abstractions. The shaft to be excavated in Chalk below the piezometric head, therefore dewatering will be required during construction. Limited impact on flow in shallow aquifer. Work needs to be undertaken in consideration of Pollution Prevention Guidelines PPG1, PPG5 and PPS23. See below (likely types of mitigation measures that will be required) Not applicable Intermediate/Main Mitigation required and conclusions
Likely types of mitigation measures that will be required Potential issues
Not applicable
Piezometric head in Chalk to be considered as part of geotechnical design. The issue of the appropriate disposal of discharges from dewatering to be considered. Impact on and mitigation for shallow aquifer will depend on construction design.
Appendix 9 Page 17
Water Resources - Hydrogeology and Surface Water Site considerations Comments Summary: Intermediate/Main Mitigation required and conclusions
The site is suitable for use as either an intermediate or main shaft site as although construction of the shaft will take place within Chalk (major aquifer), the site does not lie within the 400 day capture zone of licensed abstractions. No long term impact on the Chalk aquifer is expected, although temporary dewatering will be required during the construction phase. The Chalk piezometric head is likely to be approximately 43m above the base of construction and should be taken into account in the engineering design. The superficial deposits are Alluvium which is classified as a minor aquifer at the shaft site and limited impact on flow in the shallow aquifer is anticipated due to diaphragm wall or caissons.
In terms of surface water resources, the site is suitable as either an intermediate or main shaft site because there is no direct pathway to the Prescott Channel or Abbey Creek for pollution although standard mitigation would be required. (1) Piezometric head is a specific measurement of water pressure above a datum.
Appendix 9 Page 18
Ecology (terrestrial and aquatic) Site considerations Comments Statutory designations Non-statutory designated wildlife sites Ackroyd Drive LNR and Tower Hamlets Cemetery Park LNR are within 2km of the site. River Thames & Tidal Tributaries SMI lies within the development site Bow Back River BGI site of nature conservation importance is adjacent to the proposed development boundary. The Greenway and Old Fort Nature Reserve BGI site for nature conservation runs adjacent to the site. Railside Land in Newham BGII site runs within 100m of the site boundary. BAP priority habitats The Prescott Channel and River Lea form part of London BAP habitat Rivers and Streams. Intermediate/Main Mitigation required and conclusions No likely impacts. Any constructions affecting the Lee, including temporary or buried works such as a culvert will require compensatory habitat provision. Post-works restoration may also be required. Care will need to be taken to avoid impacts (particularly contaminated runoff) into the river channel. No disturbance issues likely, but working practices should be designed to minimise dust and other atmospheric pollutants. No likely impacts. Care will need to be taken to avoid impacts (including contaminated runoff) into the river. Any constructions affecting the Lee, including temporary or buried works such as a culvert will require compensatory habitat provision. Post-works restoration may also be required. Loss of parkland or garden habitat may require compensatory provision. If evidence of water vole is obtained, any constructions affecting the Lee will require mitigation which is likely to include offsite provision. If bat roosts were found to be present, mitigation would be required for any buildings to be affected by works, possibly including off-site provision. Careful placement of lighting to minimise illumination of surrounding habitat is likely to be required. Any constructions affecting the Lea, including temporary or buried works such as a culvert may require detailed Appendix 9 Page 19
The foreshore on the Lea consists of BAP priority habitat Mudflats. Habitats on site comprise London BAP habitat Built Up Areas and Gardens, and Parks, Squares and Amenity Grassland. Protected or otherwise notable species within the Study Area Suitable habitat for water vole is likely to be present along the channels.
Buildings on site have potential for bat roosts. Mudflats and strandline habitats may support the German hairy snail, a London BAP species.
Ecology (terrestrial and aquatic) Site considerations Comments Potential issues Summary No other impacts Intermediate/Main Mitigation required and conclusions invertebrate investigation. Negotiation with EA required. No other impacts.
The site is suitable as either an intermediate or main shaft site although any works affecting the foreshore mudflats on the River Lee and associated watercourses would require surveys and is likely to require negotiation with the EA and potentially mitigation such as compensatory habitat provision. Works within the foreshore are currently considered unlikely to be required.
Appendix 9 Page 20
Flood Risk Assessment Site considerations Comments Flood Risk Zone Flood Zone 3 (1 in 200 year flood extent) but defended to the 1 in 1000 year flood level there is a residual risk of a breach for which mitigation would need to be considered as part of the FRA. Sewage transmission infrastructure is considered to be water compatible according to table D.2 of PPS25 and hence suitable in this location. Assessment of conditions for SuDS Potential issues Summary There is likely to be space for SuDS. More investigation is required to determine if the site is suitable for infiltration SuDS as a result of the artificial geology. No other issues. Not applicable. Intermediate/Main Mitigation required and conclusions A FRA would be required to assess the residual risk of flooding to the site.
No other issues.
The site is suitable for use as an intermediate or main shaft site because it is defended from flooding from the Prescott Channel and Abbey Creek (to the 1 in 1000 year flood level) and there is likely to be space for surface attenuation SuDS. Further investigation is required to determine if the site is suitable for infiltration SuDS.
Appendix 9 Page 21
Air Quality Site considerations Comments AQMA Sensitive Receptors The air quality objective for NO2 is exceeded on major roads in the vicinity of the site. There are residential properties along High Street (A118) and along the access route. The nearest residential properties are on Bisson Road, some distance from the site. Existing traffic issues Existing sources of significant air pollutants Notable gaps in existing air quality monitoring Potential issues The main traffic issue in this area is exhaust emissions from vehicles along the A118, A11 and A12 corridors. See existing traffic issues above. There is no data at likely access to A118 and the nearest existing data indicates existing AQLV exceeded. The risk from additional exhaust emissions from construction HGVs is undefined at present. The risk from dust impacts is low. Summary Additional vehicle emissions have a high potential to interfere with local air quality action plan policies. See existing traffic issues above. Collect minimum 6 months diffusion tube data at the nearest residential receptors to the site access to A118 or other point of access to major road network. Minimise HGV movements on the local road network during the peak hours. Standard dust control measures will minimise the effect of fugitive dust on nearby sensitive receptors. Intermediate/Main Mitigation required and conclusions There is a need for more site specific data. There are relevant air quality sensitive receptors present along the route construction traffic is likely to take.
The site is suitable for use as either an intermediate or main shaft site as there is sufficient distance to potential dust sensitive receptors and providing standard dust control measures are in place, there is only a low risk of a perceptible impact at the nearest residential receptors. 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.
Appendix 9 Page 22
Noise Intermediate Site considerations Noise band level Comments Information from Defra noise maps indicates daytime noise levels of less than 58 dB LAeq and night-time noise levels of less than 50 dB LAeq at residential locations within the area of the shaft. Noise levels from the Defra noise maps provide an indication of prevailing noise levels only, and will not be employed in any detailed assessments for chosen sites. Sensitive Receptors The area of the proposed site is currently in industrial use. To the north of the site is an open area with the Abbey Mills Pumping Stations further north and residential properties to the north west on Bisson Road and Riverside Road. These properties are 2 storeys in height and are located approximately 265m from the temporary working area and 300m from the shaft location. To the west of the site is an n/a As fort the intermediate site although properties on Bisson Road and Riverside Road are located approximately 50m from the temporary working area. As for intermediate, see left Mitigation required and conclusions n/a Comments As for intermediate, see left Main Mitigation required and conclusions As for intermediate, see left
Appendix 9 Page 23
Noise Intermediate Site considerations Comments industrial area. To the east is the Channelsea River and brownfield land. To the south of the site is a gas storage facility and to the south east are residential properties at Wembley Cottages. These consist of 2 storey properties and are located 150m from the temporary working area and 160m from the shaft location. Existing traffic issues Road traffic on the A12 to the west and the A11 to the north west will contribute to the existing noise climate in the area. Road traffic on the A12 to the west and the A11 to the north west will contribute to the existing noise climate in the area. A railway is located to the south of the site and this impacts on Wembley Cottages on Crows Road. Potential issues Construction: The construction period is estimated at 4 to 5 years and working hours will be 24 Adherence to the good site practices provided in BS5228. Siting of noisy equipment and construction activities as far Construction: As for intermediate, see left. Except that the construction period is estimated at 6 to 7 As for intermediate, see left n/a As for intermediate, see left As for intermediate, see left Mitigation required and conclusions Comments Main Mitigation required and conclusions
Existing sources of significant noise emissions
n/a
Appendix 9 Page 24
Noise Intermediate Site considerations Comments hours per day Monday to Saturday. This has the potential to result in adverse noise impacts to sensitive receptors to the north of the site. A relatively high number of HGV movements per day are anticipated. This has the potential to have an adverse impact on residential receptors located to the north on Bisson Road and Riverside Road. Situating the noisiest plant in the western area of the site would maximise the distance to the nearest sensitive receptors and minimise potential disturbance. Proposed 3m site boundary fencing will provide useful noise mitigation to some plant and construction activities. Vibration resulting from general construction works is not anticipated to result in an adverse impact. The nearest receptors to the proposed shaft location are at a distance of approximately Mitigation required and conclusions as 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. years. In addition, daily barge movements are proposed relating to the transport of material. Significant adverse noise impact as a result is possible at sensitive receptors to the south east, at Wembley Cottages, particularly if operational during night-time periods. Comments Main Mitigation required and conclusions
Appendix 9 Page 25
Noise Intermediate Site considerations Comments 160m and it is unlikely that vibration levels will result in minor cosmetic damage or annoyance during shaft sinking. Vibration from tunnelling should be considered on a case by case basis at particular sensitive locations. Operation: With appropriate attenuation (if necessary), there is no reason why noise from the ventilation column and top chamber should result in adverse noise impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. Mitigation required and conclusions Comments Main Mitigation required and conclusions
Operation: As intermediate, see left
Appendix 9 Page 26
Noise Intermediate Site considerations Summary Comments Mitigation required and conclusions Comments Main Mitigation required and conclusions
The site is suitable for use as an intermediate shaft site as although existing noise levels in the immediate surrounding area are relatively low, the distances between the site and residential properties to the south and north are relatively large. If the noisiest plant can be situated to the western area of the site, this would reduce the potential for disturbance at the residential properties. In addition, should use of this site be pursued, it is recommended that noisy construction activities, or activities which may cause vibration, be undertaken during daytime hours only to reduce the noise impact during night-time construction. There may be an alternative access route to the site via Abbey Lane, however this would require further investigation to determine if it is viable and results in a net reduction in impacts on residential properties.
The site is suitable for use as a main shaft site, for the same reasons given for the intermediate shaft site, see left.
Appendix 9 Page 27
Land Quality Site considerations Site location Current site use Topography Field evidence of contamination (ie, visual/olfactory) Current surrounding land use (immediately adjacent to site) Grid Reference: 538670, 183083 The area of the proposed site is currently in industrial use. Information obtained through Planning team site visits (eg, whether the site is flat, terraced, sloped, etc) To be obtained at the preferred site stage when site visits occur. Intermediate/Main
To the north of the site is an open area with the Abbey Mills Pumping Stations further north and residential properties to the north west on Bisson Road and Riverside Road. These properties are 2 storeys in height and are located approximately 265m from the temporary working area and 300m from the shaft location. To the west of the site is an industrial area. To the east is the Channelsea River and brownfield land. To the south of the site is a gas storage facility and to the south east are residential properties at Wembley Cottages. These consist of 2 storey properties and are located 150m from the temporary working area and 160m from the shaft location.
Geological and hydrogeological information Geological strata

1
Superficial Geology and Made Ground (7m) London Clay (5m) Lambeth Group (18m) Thanet sand (13m) Chalk (to beyond the depth of shaft)
Underlying aquifer classes
Non-Aquifer: London Clay Minor Aquifer: River Terrace Deposits, Lambeth Group, Thanet Sands Major Aquifer: Chalk
Appendix 9 Page 28
Land Quality Site considerations Groundwater vulnerability/Soil classification (High/Intermediate/Low/Not 2 applicable) Source protection zone details Surface water receptor Not located in a Source Protection Zone defined by EA Abbey Creek (directly adjacent to site, east) Prescott Channel (directly adjacent to site, west) Channelsea River (directly adjacent to site, south) Three Mills Wall River (139m west) Bow Creek (241m southwest) Relevant information within a 250m radius of the site Historical potentially contaminating activities (based on mapping data) Onsite Open land 1868 1896 Abbey Mills Pumping Stations (northern portion of site) 1896 present Three Mills distillery (southern portion of site) 1896-1960 Allotment gardens (middle and later the southern portions of the site) 1910 present Several tanks located on site 1951 River Terrace Deposits - Minor Aquifer High Leaching Potential of Soils (U)
1
Intermediate/Main
Offsite Numerous tanks contents unknown, potentially fuel related surrounding the site (closest located 16m east) 1893 - 1970 Manure works (32m south) 1896 - 1948 Depot (36m north) present London Tilbury and Southend railway (51m south) 1868 present
Appendix 9 Page 29
Land Quality Site considerations Intermediate/Main Numerous electrical substations (closest located 55m southeast) 1924 - 1987 Wharf operations / transport support and cargo handling (59m south) 1962 1976 Abbey Creek naphtha works (61m east) 1868 Gas works (British Gas) (61m north) 1896 present Three Mills studios (66m west) present Sewage pumping station (67m east) 1910 1948 Works use not specified (75m east) 1962 1979 Abbey Marsh oil works (80m east) 1868 Stone works (81m northeast) 1896 1954 Gas works (83m south) 1893 present Works use not specified (88m north) 1962 1979 Sports centre (90m west) 1976 1979 Animal by-products gelatine, soaps, glue etc) (93m southeast) 1882 Abbey wharf (94m northeast) 1868 Three Mills distillery (98m west) 1896 1979 Chemical works (98m east and 176m east) 1868 1948 West Ham Abbey print works (silk) (103m north) 1868 Tar and printing works (133m west) 1868 General quarrying (134m north) 1896 - 1950 Works use not specified (155m west) 1962 1972 Oil industry facilities (closest located 159m west) 1950 - 1961 Abbey bleaching and chemical works (159m northeast) 1868 Plastic goods, all general manufacture (161m west) 1896 - 1950 Distillery (166m west) 1976 present Asphalt works (167m west) 1896 1948 Factory use not specified (168m west) 1899 present Depot (183m southeast) 1972 present
Appendix 9 Page 30
Land Quality Site considerations Black works (196m east) 1896 1910 Blue works (212m west) 1896 1948 Cork and carpet works (226m west) 1868 Historical building plans listing paint based oils (239m west) 1958 Pollution incidents to controlled waters Six Unknown sewage, significant incident (27m east) Unknown sewage, minor incident (46m east) Oils unknown, minor incident (86m west) Agricultural unknown, minor incident (96m east) Storm sewage, minor incident (98m northeast) Miscellaneous unknown, minor incident (241m west) Landfill sites Other waste sites Registered radioactive substances Fuel stations/Depots Contemporary trade directory entries One recorded landfill site Channelsea Creek, status unknown (97m north) no mapping dates None None None One Transco Stratford Holding Station, active (65m north) Intermediate/Main
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) Sewage pumping station 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 Contaminants 1) Metals, PAHs, TPH 2) TPH, Metals, PAHs, Nitrogen compounds 3) Metals, PAHs, TPH, Solvents
Appendix 9 Page 31
Land Quality Site considerations 3) Tanks contents unknown Potential site contaminants derived from offsite sources and transported to site 1) Tanks contents unknown 2) Depots 3) Wharf operations (transport support and cargo handling) 4) Gas works 5) Distillery Potential contamination pathways to site (Conceptual Site Model)
3
Intermediate/Main
1) closest located 16m east 2) closest located 36m north 3) 59m south 4) closest 61m north 5) 68m west
1) Metals, PAHs, TPH, Solvents 2) Metals, PAHs, TPH, Solvents 3) Metals, PAHs, TPH 4) Metals, TPH, PAHs, Phenols, Sulphates, Cyanides 5) Metals, Nitrogen compounds
Source 1: A1, A2, A3, B4, C5 Source 2: D6, E1, F7 Category 3 Assessed as High Risk The site is considered less suitable for use as either an intermediate or main shaft site with respect to land quality based on the high potential for contamination of the site to have occurred, specifically from sewage pumping station operations, gas works, distillery, unknown storage tanks and historic landfill on and in the vicinity of the site. Contamination is also known to have been identified on the Abbey Mills site during works for the West Ham Storm Relief development. This potentially poses a risk to construction workers and adjacent human receptors through direct contact and inhalation exposure pathways as well as ground gas risks. Additionally, the potential exists for contaminants to be drawn to the deeper aquifer if deep drilling/construction is undertaken on the site and for migration to surface water receptors to occur through groundwater transport and appropriate mitigation will be required.
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 32
Contacts
For information about the Thames Tideway Tunnel Call: 0800 0721 086 Lines are open 24 hours a day Visit: www.thamestidewaytunnel.co.uk Email: info@tidewaytunnels.co.uk For our language interpretation service call 0800 0721 086
For information in Braille or large print call 0800 0721 086

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

100 RG PNC S84NM 900001

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

100 RG PNC S84NM 900001

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Spring 2010

Site Suitability Report S84NM