PEIR Main Report Vol8 Hammer Smith Pumping Station

Preliminary environmental information report
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station site assessment

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

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

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

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

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

List of contents
Page number
1 2
Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 Site context ....................................................................................................... 2 2.1 2.2 Site location ............................................................................................. 2 Environmental setting .............................................................................. 2 Overview.................................................................................................. 4 Operation ................................................................................................. 5 Construction ............................................................................................ 7 Design development and on site alternatives ........................................ 11 Base case .............................................................................................. 12 Introduction ............................................................................................ 13 Proposed development .......................................................................... 13 Assessment methodology...................................................................... 15 Baseline conditions................................................................................ 15 Construction assessment ...................................................................... 19 Operational assessment ........................................................................ 22 Approach to mitigation ........................................................................... 24 Assessment summary ........................................................................... 25 Assessment completion ......................................................................... 27 Introduction ............................................................................................ 28 Proposed development .......................................................................... 28 Assessment methodology...................................................................... 29 Baseline conditions................................................................................ 29 Construction assessment ...................................................................... 35 Operational assessment ........................................................................ 35 Approach to mitigation ........................................................................... 37
Proposed development.................................................................................... 4 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5
Air quality and odour ..................................................................................... 13 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9
Ecology - aquatic ........................................................................................... 28 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7
Page iii
5.8 5.9 6 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 7 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 8 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 9 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4
Assessment summary ........................................................................... 39 Assessment completion ......................................................................... 40 Introduction ............................................................................................ 41 Proposed development .......................................................................... 41 Assessment methodology...................................................................... 42 Baseline conditions................................................................................ 44 Construction assessment ...................................................................... 46 Operational assessment ........................................................................ 46 Approach to mitigation ........................................................................... 47 Assessment summary ........................................................................... 48 Assessment completion ......................................................................... 49 Introduction ............................................................................................ 50 Proposed development .......................................................................... 50 Assessment methodology...................................................................... 51 Baseline conditions................................................................................ 52 Construction assessment ...................................................................... 67 Operational assessment ........................................................................ 70 Approach to mitigation ........................................................................... 71 Assessment summary ........................................................................... 74 Assessment completion ......................................................................... 77 Introduction ............................................................................................ 78 Proposed development .......................................................................... 78 Assessment methodology...................................................................... 78 Baseline conditions................................................................................ 79 Construction assessment ...................................................................... 86 Operational assessment ........................................................................ 90 Approach to mitigation ........................................................................... 92 Assessment summary ........................................................................... 93 Assessment completion ......................................................................... 94 Introduction ............................................................................................ 95 Proposed development .......................................................................... 95 Assessment methodology...................................................................... 97 Baseline conditions................................................................................ 98
Ecology - terrestrial ....................................................................................... 41
Historic environment ..................................................................................... 50
Land quality .................................................................................................... 78
Noise and vibration ........................................................................................ 95
Page iv
9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.9 10 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 10.7 10.8 10.9 11 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6 11.7 11.8 11.9 12 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 12.6 12.7 12.8 12.9 13 13.1
Construction assessment .................................................................... 101 Operational assessment ...................................................................... 112 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 114 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 116 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 118 Introduction .......................................................................................... 119 Proposed development ........................................................................ 119 Assessment methodology.................................................................... 120 Baseline conditions.............................................................................. 121 Construction assessment .................................................................... 124 Operational assessment ...................................................................... 129 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 129 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 130 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 131 Introduction .......................................................................................... 132 Proposed development ........................................................................ 132 Assessment methodology.................................................................... 133 Baseline conditions.............................................................................. 135 Construction assessment .................................................................... 150 Operational assessment ...................................................................... 160 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 161 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 162 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 167 Introduction .......................................................................................... 168 Proposed development ........................................................................ 168 Assessment methodology.................................................................... 172 Baseline conditions.............................................................................. 174 Construction assessment .................................................................... 182 Operational assessment ...................................................................... 188 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 192 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 195 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 197 Introduction .......................................................................................... 198
Socio-economics ......................................................................................... 119
Townscape and visual ................................................................................. 132
Transport ...................................................................................................... 168
Water resources groundwater ................................................................. 198
Page v
13.2 13.3 13.4 13.5 13.6 13.7 13.8 13.9 14 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 14.5 14.6 14.7 14.8 14.9 15 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 15.5 15.6
Proposed development ........................................................................ 198 Assessment methodology.................................................................... 199 Baseline conditions.............................................................................. 200 Construction assessment .................................................................... 202 Operational assessment ...................................................................... 203 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 205 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 206 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 207 Introduction .......................................................................................... 208 Proposed development ........................................................................ 208 Assessment methodology.................................................................... 210 Baseline conditions.............................................................................. 210 Construction assessment .................................................................... 213 Operational assessment ...................................................................... 215 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 220 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 221 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 222 Introduction .......................................................................................... 223 Policy considerations ........................................................................... 224 Regulatory position .............................................................................. 224 Assessment of flood risk ...................................................................... 226 Flood risk - design and mitigation ........................................................ 233 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 235
Water resources surface water ................................................................ 208
Water resources flood risk ....................................................................... 223
Appendix A : Historic environment ..................................................................... 239 Appendix B : Land quality .................................................................................. 251 Appendix C : Noise and vibration ....................................................................... 253 Appendix D : Townscape ..................................................................................... 254 Appendix E : Water resources - groundwater .................................................... 258 Glossary ................................................................................................................ 270 References ............................................................................................................ 285
Page vi
List of figures
Page number
Vol 8 Figure 2.1.1 Site location plan .......................................................................... 2 Vol 8 Figure 2.2.1 Environmental setting ................................................................... 2 Vol 8 Figure 3.1.1 Demolition and site clearance plan............................................... 4 Vol 8 Figure 3.1.2 Construction - site setup, shaft construction & tunneling .............. 4 Vol 8 Figure 3.1.3 Construction - construction of other structures ............................. 4 Vol 8 Figure 3.1.4 Permanent works layout ............................................................... 4 Vol 8 Figure 4.4.1 Air quality monitoring sites.......................................................... 17 Vol 8 Figure 5.4.1 Aquatic ecology sampling locations......................................... 32 Vol 8 Figure 6.4.1 Terrestrial ecology phase 1 habitat survey ................................. 44 Vol 8 Figure 7.4.1 Historic features map ................................................................. 53 Vol 8 Figure 8.4.1 Land quality - contaminative land uses ...................................... 80 Vol 8 Figure 8.4.2 Land quality borehole locations ............................................... 84 Vol 8 Figure 8.4.3 Land quality environmental records and waste sites ............... 85 Vol 8 Figure 9.4.1 Noise and vibration residential receptors.................................... 99 Vol 8 Figure 10.4.1 Socio-economic context ......................................................... 122 Vol 8 Figure 11.4.1 Townscape - pattern and scale of development ..................... 135 Vol 8 Figure 11.4.2 Townscape - pattern and extent of vegetation........................ 136 Vol 8 Figure 11.4.3 Townscape and visual pattern and extent of vegetation ......... 136 Vol 8 Figure 11.4.4 Townscape and visual - transport network ............................. 138 Vol 8 Figure 11.4.5 Townscape and visual character assessment ..................... 139 Vol 8 Figure 11.4.6 Townscape and visual viewpoint locations .......................... 146 Vol 8 Figure 12.2.1 Transport - construction traffic routes ..................................... 170 Vol 8 Figure 12.2.2 Transport - construction lorry profile ....................................... 171 Vol 8 Figure 12.4.1 Transport local site plan ......................................................... 175 Vol 8 Figure 15.4.1 Flood risk EA flood zones .................................................... 226
Page vii
List of tables
Page number
Vol 8 Table 3.3.1 Working hours ............................................................................. 11 Vol 8 Table 3.4.1 Design development at Hammersmith Pumping Station ............. 11 Vol 8 Table 4.3.1 Air quality and odour stakeholder engagement ........................... 15 Vol 8 Table 4.4.1 Air quality - measured NO2 concentrations .................................. 16 Vol 8 Table 4.4.2 Air quality - measured PM10 concentrations ................................ 17 Vol 8 Table 4.4.3 Air quality - additional monitoring locations.................................. 17 Vol 8 Table 4.4.4 Air quality background pollutant concentrations .......................... 18 Vol 8 Table 4.4.5 Air quality receptors- construction ............................................... 19 Vol 8 Table 4.6.1 Odour impacts at ground level - operation ................................... 23 Vol 8 Table 4.6.2 Odour impacts at buildings - operation ........................................ 23 Vol 8 Table 4.8.1 Air quality and odour construction assessment ........................... 25 Vol 8 Table 4.8.2 Air quality and odour operational assessment ............................. 26 Vol 8 Table 5.4.1 Aquatic ecology - features of interest .......................................... 30 Vol 8 Table 5.4.2 Aquatic ecology fish survey ......................................................... 31 Vol 8 Table 5.4.3 Aquatic ecology invertebrate fauna ............................................. 33 Vol 8 Table 5.4.4 Aquatic ecology receptors ........................................................... 34 Vol 8 Table 5.6.1 Aquatic ecology impacts - operation ............................................ 35 Vol 8 Table 5.8.1 Aquatic ecology construction assessment ................................... 39 Vol 8 Table 6.4.1 Terrestrial ecology - Phase 1 Habitat Survey .............................. 44 Vol 8 Table 6.8.1 Terrestrial ecology construction assessment ............................... 48 Vol 8 Table 7.4.1 Historic environment receptors .................................................... 66 Vol 8 Table 7.5.1 Historic environment construction effects .................................... 69 Vol 8 Table 7.6.1 Historic environment operational effects ..................................... 71 Vol 8 Table 7.8.1 Historic environment construction assessment............................ 74 Vol 8 Table 7.8.2 Historic environment operational assessment ............................. 76 Vol 8 Table 8.4.1 Land quality contaminative land use summary ............................ 80 Vol 8 Table 8.4.2 Land quality site geology and hydrogeology ................................ 83 Vol 8 Table 8.4.3 Land quality ground investigation data ........................................ 84 Vol 8 Table 8.4.4 Land quality environmental records and waste sites ................... 85 Vol 8 Table 8.5.1 Land quality impacts - construction ............................................. 89 Vol 8 Table 8.5.2 Land quality receptors - construction ........................................... 89 Vol 8 Table 8.5.3 Land quality effects during construction ...................................... 89
Page viii
Vol 8 Table 8.6.1 Land quality impacts - operation .................................................. 91 Vol 8 Table 8.6.2 Land quality receptors - operation ............................................... 91 Vol 8 Table 8.6.3 Land quality effects - operation.................................................... 91 Vol 8 Table 8.8.1 Land quality construction assessment ......................................... 93 Vol 8 Table 8.8.2 Land quality operational assessment .......................................... 93 Vol 8 Table 9.4.1 Noise and vibration receptor locations....................................... 100 Vol 8 Table 9.4.2 Airborne noise assessment categories - construction ............... 100 Vol 8 Table 9.5.1 Noise at HP01 60 Chancellor's Road - construction .................. 102 Vol 8 Table 9.5.2 Noise at HP02 38 Chancellor's Road - construction .................. 103 Vol 8 Table 9.5.3 Noise at HP03 98 Fulham Palace Road - construction .............. 104 Vol 8 Table 9.5.4 Noise at HP04 43 Winslow Road - construction ........................ 105 Vol 8 Table 9.5.5 Noise at HP05 106-111 Riverview Gardens - construction ........ 106 Vol 8 Table 9.5.6 Noise at HP06 Frank Banfield - construction ............................. 107 Vol 8 Table 9.5.7 Noise at HP07 Fulham Reach construction ............................... 108 Vol 8 Table 9.5.8 Vibration at buildings / structures - construction ........................ 109 Vol 8 Table 9.5.9 Vibration human response -construction ................................... 110 Vol 8 Table 9.5.10 Noise and vibration construction effects .................................. 112 Vol 8 Table 9.6.1 Airborne noise impacts - operation ............................................ 113 Vol 8 Table 9.6.2 Noise and vibration operational effects...................................... 114 Vol 8 Table 9.8.1 Noise and vibration construction assessment............................ 116 Vol 8 Table 9.8.2 Noise and vibration operational assessment .............................. 117 Vol 8 Table 10.4.1 Socio-economic receptors ....................................................... 123 Vol 8 Table 10.5.1 Socio-economics construction effects ..................................... 128 Vol 8 Table 10.8.1 Socio-economic construction effects ........................................ 130 Vol 8 Table 11.3.1 Townscape and visual stakeholder engagement ..................... 133 Vol 8 Table 11.4.1 Open space type and distribution ............................................ 136 Vol 8 Table 11.4.2 Townscape and visual - site components ................................ 138 Vol 8 Table 11.4.3 Townscape sensitivities to change .......................................... 145 Vol 8 Table 11.4.4 Viewpoint sensitivities to change ............................................. 149 Vol 8 Table 11.5.1 Townscape site components effects - construction ................. 150 Vol 8 Table 11.5.2 Townscape character areas effects - construction .................. 155 Vol 8 Table 11.5.3 Viewpoint effects - construction ............................................... 159 Vol 8 Table 11.8.1 Townscape construction assessment ...................................... 162 Vol 8 Table 11.8.2 Visual construction assessment .............................................. 164 Vol 8 Table 11.8.3 Townscape assessment Year 1 of operation ........................ 166
Page ix
Vol 8 Table 11.8.4 Visual assessment Year 1 of operation ................................ 166 Vol 8 Table 12.2.1 Transport - construction worker numbers ................................ 172 Vol 8 Table 12.4.1 Transport receptors ................................................................. 182 Vol 8 Table 13.2.1 Groundwater - methods of construction ................................... 198 Vol 8 Table 13.4.1 Groundwater anticipated ground conditions .......................... 200 Vol 8 Table 13.4.2 Groundwater receptors ............................................................ 202 Vol 8 Table 13.5.1 Groundwater impacts - construction ........................................ 202 Vol 8 Table 13.5.2 Groundwater receptors - construction ..................................... 203 Vol 8 Table 13.5.3 Groundwater effects - construction .......................................... 203 Vol 8 Table 13.6.1 Groundwater impacts - operation ............................................ 204 Vol 8 Table 13.6.2 Groundwater resources receptors - operation ......................... 204 Vol 8 Table 13.6.3 Groundwater resources effects - operation.............................. 204 Vol 8 Table 13.8.1 Groundwater construction assessment.................................... 206 Vol 8 Table 13.8.2 Groundwater operation assessment ........................................ 206 Vol 8 Table 14.4.1 Surface water receptors........................................................... 211 Vol 8 Table 14.6.1 Surface water impacts - operation ........................................... 218 Vol 8 Table 14.6.2 Surface water effects - operation ............................................. 220 Vol 8 Table 14.8.1 Surface water construction assessment .................................. 221 Vol 8 Table 15.4.1 Flood risk - runoff rates ............................................................ 231 Vol 15 Table 15.5.1 Flood risk - runoff rates and preliminary attenuation volumes 234
Page x
List of abbreviations AADT ACE AM AOD APZ AQEG AQMA AQO ARS ASR ASSI ATC ATD AURN BAP BGS BMWP BOD BPIP BPM BS CABE CAMS CCI CCSS CCTV CDA CEMP CIRIA CLR CoCP CoPA CROW CSO Annual Average Daily Traffic Arts Culture and Entertainment Morning Above Ordnance Datum Archaeological Priority Zone Air Quality Expert Group Air Quality Management Area Air Quality Objective Artificial Recharge Scheme Aquifer Storage and Recovery Area of Special Scientific Interest Automated Traffic Counter Above Tunnel Datum (defined at ~100m AOD) Automatic Urban and Rural Network Biodiversity Action Plan British Geological Survey Biological Monitoring Working Party Biochemical Oxygen Demand Building Profile Input Programme Best Practicable Means British Standard Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy Community Conservation Index Community Consultation Strategy Closed Circuit Television Critical Drainage Area Construction Environment Management Programmes Construction Industry Research and Information Association Contaminated Land Report Code of Construction Practice Control of Pollution Act Countryside and Rights of Way Combined Sewer Overflow
Page xi
dB dB LAeq,T
Decibel a equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level having the same energy as a fluctuating sound over a specified time period T Department for Culture, Media and Sport Development Consent Order Department for Communities and Local Government Department for Culture media and Sport Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Department for Transport Development Management Plan Development Management Policies Document Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Dissolved Oxygen Development Plan Document Digital Terrain Mapping Environment Agency European Commission Ecological Impact Assessment Estimated Vibration Dose Value European Economic Area Environment Food and Rural Affairs Committee English Heritage Environmental Health Officer Environmental Impact Assessment European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme English Nature Environment Protection Agency Earth Pressure Balance Earth Pressure Balance Machine Equality Impact Assessment Environmental Quality Standard Environmental Statement European Union Frequently Asked Questions Frequency, Intensity, Duration, Offensiveness, Receptor
Page xii
DCMS DCO DCLG DCMS Defra DfT DMP DMPD DMRB DO DPD DTM EA EC EcIA eVDV EEA EFRA EH EHO EIA EMEP EN EPA EPB EPBM EqIA EQS ES EU FAQ FIDOR
FRA GARDIT GI GiGL GIS GLA GLHER GQA GSHP GWB GWMU H2S ha HA HDV HEA HER HGV HIA HIAB HPA HQ HRA HTC HWR IEEM IEMA IMD IPC Iron Age JNCC kg km kVA
Flood Risk Assessment General Aquifer Research Development and Investigation Team Ground Investigation Greenspace Information for Greater London Geographical Information System Greater London Authority Greater London Historic Environment Record General Quality Assessment (EA water quality classification) Ground Source Heat Pump Groundwater Body: distinct volume of groundwater within an aquifer or aquifers Ground Water Management Unit Hydrogen sulphide hectares Highways Authority Heavy Duty Vehicle Historic Environmental Assessment Historic Environment Record Heavy Goods Vehicle Health Impact Assessment Hydrauliska Industri AB Company Health Protection Agency Headquarter Habitats Regulations Assessment Hammersmith Town Centre Hazardous Waste Regulations (2005) Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment Index of Multiple Deprivation Infrastructure Planning Commission 600 BC AD 43 Joint Nature Conservation Committee kilograms kilometre kilo watt amperes
Page xiii
kW l/d l/s LA LAARC LAQM LAQN LB LBAP LDF LGV LHA LMB LNR loWR LSB LtB LTI LTT LUL LVMF m m AOD m ATD m/s MAGIC Mbgl MEICA Ml/d MoD MOL MOLA NE NESR NCR
kilowatt litres per day litres per second Local Authority London Archaeological Archive and Research Centre Local Air Quality Management London Air Quality Network London Borough Local Biodiversity Action Plan Local Development Framework Light Goods Vehicle Local Highway Authority Lambeth Mottled Beds Local Nature Reserve List of Wastes Regulations 2005 Lower Shelly Beds Laminated Beds London Tideway Improvements London Tideway Tunnels London Underground Limited London View Management Framework metre metres above Ordinance Datum (see AOD) metres above temporary datum, (see ATD) metres per second Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside Metres below ground level Mechanical Electrical Instrumentation Controls Automation Megalitres per day (million litres per day) Ministry of Defence Metropolitan Open Land Museum of London Archaeology Natural England North East Storm Relief National Cycle Route
Page xiv
NGR NMR NNR NO2 NOx NPPF NPS NRMM NSIP NSRA NTS OCU Ofwat OS OUE PAH PCB PEI PEIR PEL PICP PIP PLA PM PM10 PPC PPE PPG PPS PPV PRoW PS pSPA PWS RAMS
National Grid Reference National Monuments Record National Nature Reserve Nitrogen dioxide Oxides of nitrogen National Planning Policy Framework National Policy Statement Non Road Mobile Machinery Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project National Small-bore Rifle Association Non Technical Summary Odour Control Unit The Water Services Regulations Authority Ordnance Survey European Odour Unit Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons Polychlorinated Biphenyl Preliminary Environmental Information Preliminary Environmental Information Report Probable Effect Levels Pollution Incident Control Plan Project Information Paper Port of London Authority Afternoon Particles on the order of ~10 micrometers or less Pollution Prevention and Control Personal Protective Equipment Pollution Prevention Guidance Planning Policy Statement Peak Particle Velocity Public Rights of Way Pumping Station Potential Special Protected Area Public Water Supply Risk Assessment Method Statement
Page xv
RAMSAR RB RBKC RBMP RDB RHS RPG RSPB RDB RTC RTD SA SAC SAM SCI SCL SFRA SI SINC SMI SNCI SO2 SoCC SPA SPD S-P-R SPZ SR SRN SSR SSSI STW SUDS SWMP
The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Royal Borough Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea River Basin Management Plans Red Data Book Royal Horticultural Society Regional Planning Guidance Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Red data book Real Time Control River Terrace Deposits Sustainability Appraisal Special Area of Conservation Scheduled Ancient Monument. More commonly referred to as Scheduled Monument Statement of Community Involvement Sprayed Concrete Lining Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Statutory Instrument Site of Importance for Nature Conservation Site of Metropolitan Importance Site Nature Conservation Importance Sulphur dioxide Statement of Community Consultation Special Protection Area Supplementary Planning Document Source-pathway-receptor Source Protection Zone Storm Relief Strategic Road Network Site Suitability Report Site of Special Scientific Interest Sewage Treatment Works Sustainable (Urban) Drainage Systems waste - Site Waste Management Plan
Page xvi
SWMP t TA TAS TBC TBM TDP TEBP TEL TfL TFRM TH TLRN Tpa TPO TT TTQI TTSS TWU UDP UK UKHO UMB UPN UWWTD UWWTR UXO VDV VNEB OA WCA WEEE WFD WIA WRAP WSI
water Surface Water Management Plan tonne Transport Assessment Thames Archaeological Survey To be confirmed Tunnel Boring Machine Thames Discovery Programme Thames Estuary Benthic Programme Threshold Effect Levels Transport for London Tideway Fish Risk Model Tower Hamlets Transport for London Road Network tonnes per annum Tree Preservation Order Thames Tunnel Thames Tideway Quality Improvements Thames Tideway Strategic Study 2005 Thames Water Utilities Unitary Development Plan United Kingdom United Kingdom Hydrographic Office Upper Mottled Beds Upnor Formation Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations Unexploded Ordnance Vibration Dose Value Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea Opportunity Area Wildlife and Countryside Act Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive Water Framework Directive Water Industry Act 1991 Waste Resources Action Programme Written Scheme of Investigation
Page xvii
WWT ZTV ZVI
Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust Zone of Theoretical Visibility Zone of Visual Influence
Page xviii
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station
Section 1: Introduction
1
1.1.1 1.1.2
Introduction
This volume presents the preliminary environmental information for the Thames Tunnel proposal at Hammersmith Pumping Station. This document reports the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant environmental effects of the Thames Tunnel project at Hammersmith Pumping Station. The planned activities to assist in completing the environmental impact assessment (EIA) include: a. Conclude baseline environmental surveys b. Confirm final design, informed by, amongst other things, feedback from public consultation c. Undertake design of possible mitigation to address adverse effects.
1.1.3
Once complete, the findings of the EIA will be reported in full in the Environmental Statement which will be submitted with the consent application. It describes the site and environmental context in Section 1. The proposed development including construction and operation is described in Section 1. The design evolution for this site is set out in Section 3.4. Finally, Section 3.4.1 refers to other development schemes which have been submitted or with extant planning approval within or in proximity to the site. The development at Hammersmith Pumping Station would be a CSO interception site diverting the Hammersmith Pumping Station CSO to the main Thames Tunnel through a drop shaft and connection tunnel. The CSO currently discharges approximately 50 times a year at approximately 2,208,000m3 per year. A description of the Thames Tunnel is included in Volume 2. This includes the planning context for the project as well as local planning policies relevant to this site. The alternatives which have been considered are described in Volume 3. Scoping and technical engagement is covered in Volume 4, while Volume 5 sets out the technical assessment methodology. A project-wide assessment is provided in Volume 6. The remaining Volumes 7 to 28 contain the site specific assessments.
1.1.4
1.1.5
1.1.6
Page 1
Section 2: Site context
2 2.1
2.1.1
Site context Site location

The site is located in the London Borough (LB) of Hammersmith and Fulham. It comprises a vacant former industrial site known as Hammersmith Embankment and part of the Thames Water Hammersmith Pumping Station site covering an area of 0.6 ha. The site is approximately 270m downstream from Hammersmith Bridge and is shown in Vol 8 Figure 2.1.1. Vol 8 Figure 2.1.1 Site location plan (see Volume 8 Figures document)
2.1.2
The site is bounded by the vacant former industrial land to the west (and beyond this by the River Thames), to the north by Chancellors Road, to the east by Distillery Road and to the south, beyond the remainder of the cleared site, by Winslow Road. The surrounding area is predominately in residential use. On the north side of Chancellors Road there are mainly two-storey dwellings. There are modern office developments, both to the north and south of the site. Distillery Road separates the site from Frank Banfield Park to the northeast, which includes a childrens play area. The park, residential properties on Chancellors Road, commercial businesses operating out of the modern office developments towards the western end of Chancellors Road are the closest sensitive receptors to the site. There is road access to the existing Thames Water pumping station from Chancellors Road, with a section of the access route narrowed and traffic calmed. Access is also available direct from Distillery Road. There is no local rail access in the vicinity of the site (the nearest rail siding is 9.5km from the site). Hammersmith and Barons Court London Underground stations lie about 500m to the north and north east of the site respectively. There are no existing jetty or wharfage facilities serving the site. The site comprises hard surfaced areas with areas of vegetation. The site has been cleared of all buildings except for the northeast corner of the site, which contains an operational Thames Water pumping station and is surrounded by a boundary wall. Vol 8 Figure 2.1.1 shows the location plan and contextual photographs.
2.1.3
2.1.4
2.1.5
2.2
2.2.1
Environmental setting
Environmental designations for the site and immediate surrounds are shown in Vol 8 Figure 2.2.1. Vol 8 Figure 2.2.1 Environmental setting (see Volume 8 Figures document)
2.2.2
The River Thames and its Tidal Tributaries are designated as a Site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC Grade M) for each of the Boroughs it passes through, including Hammersmith and Fulham. The Hammersmith CSO, that is to be intercepted at the site,
Page 2
Section 2: Site context
discharges in to the River Thames via a submerged outlet within the River slightly upstream from the site near Chancellors Road. 2.2.3 There are no statutorily designated (protected) heritage assets within the site or immediate vicinity. The southwest of the site lies within Winslow Road Archaeological Priority Zone and the whole site is within the Fulham Reach Conservation Area. The Castelnau Conservation Area is located on the opposite river bank, within the LB of Richmond Upon Thames. Trees within the Fulham Reach Conservation Area, regardless of whether they are protected by TPOs, are indirectly protected due to their location within a conservation area. The Thames Path largely extends from the western section of Chancellors Road outside the area of the site and leads to the river. The site lies within the Hammersmith Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). Local roadside monitoring indicates exceedances of the NO2 air quality standards. The site has been used as a waste pumping station since the 1950s (fuel and storage tanks on site), before which it was residential. The northeast part of the site has since been cleared for development. The surrounding area has been occupied by a number of industrial activities such as wharves, gas works, chemical storage depot etc. Ground investigations to date have not found contamination on-site. Thus the site would appear to pose a low risk of contamination. The geology comprises approximately 9m superficial deposits including alluvium, River Terrace Deposits and made ground (secondary aquifer) and with London Clay at depth. The site is located in defended Flood Zone 3 (tidal River Thames). Defences have a 1 in a 1000 year standard of protection; therefore the flood risk at the site is the residual risk from defence breach or overtopping. A planning application has been submitted by Fulham reach development for a high-density predominantly residential/mixed used development on the Hammersmith Embankment element of the site.
2.2.4
2.2.5 2.2.6
2.2.7
2.2.8
2.2.9
2.2.10
Page 3
Section 3: Proposed development
3 3.1
3.1.1
Proposed development Overview

The development at Hammersmith Pumping Station would link the existing Hammersmith Pumping Station CSO to the main Thames Tunnel through a CSO drop shaft and connection tunnel. The interception chamber and drop shaft would be connected via a connection culvert. Vol 8 Figure 3.1.1 - Figure 3.1.4 show the demolition and site clearance, construction phasing and permanent works plans. Vol 8 Figure 3.1.1 Demolition and site clearance plan Vol 8 Figure 3.1.2 Construction - site setup, shaft construction & tunneling Vol 8 Figure 3.1.3 Construction - construction of other structures Vol 8 Figure 3.1.4 Permanent works layout (see Volume 8 Figures document)
3.1.2
Construction of the main works at this site is scheduled to commence in early 2018 (Year 1) and be completed by 2020, taking approximately three years. Early works, such as utility connections and diversions may be undertaken in advance of the main works. The site would be operational in 2023. Further detail of the programme is described in Section 3.2 and 3.3. The following lists the structures required at this site: a. an offline CSO drop shaft b. a connection tunnel to the main tunnel c. an underground connection culvert with ground level access cover(s) d. an underground interception chamber with ground level access cover(s) and containing valves e. air management structures comprising an underground passive filter chamber and a ventilation column f. underground culverts for ventilation of the shaft and pits and ducts for cables and hydraulic pipelines
3.1.3
g. permanent restoration of the temporary construction site comprising levelling, infilling and making good, and landscaping works to incorporate maintenance vehicle hardstanding and access to chamber covers within the pumping station compound. 3.1.4 3.1.5 Further details of these elements are given in Section 3.2 and 3.3 where these are relevant to the technical assessments that follow. The following construction related elements would be required: a. utilities diversion works b. gates to site entrance and exit c. hoardings and other means of enclosure, barrier or screening
Page 4
d. office and welfare accommodation and facilities e. workshops and stores f. plant and machinery g. power generation plant and lighting h. highways access i. j. k. 3.1.6 material storage and handling areas SCL (shotcrete) plant the carrying out or maintenance of other such works
Further details of the proposed methods and the relevant phases are given in Section 3.2 and 3.3 where these are relevant to the technical assessments that follow.
3.2
3.2.1
Operation
Once developed, the scheme would divert the majority of current CSO discharges via the CSO shaft and connection tunnel to the main tunnel for treatment at Beckton Sewage Treatment Works. The number of CSO discharges would be reduced from 50 spill events to approximately 1 to 3 times a year at an average rate of 103,600m3 per year.
Permanent structures
3.2.2 A plan of the permanent structures is Vol 8 Figure 3.1.4. The area of operational land required by the scheme is less than that required for the construction phase. The portion of the construction site outside Hammersmith Pump Station, containing a drop shaft, is owned by a property developer. Once the shaft is complete, this portion will be handed to the owner. There will be a legal agreement allowing Thames Water to return and access the shaft. The design and finishing proposed for the above ground features would be further developed during the period up to the application. Shaft 3.2.4 The Hammersmith Pumping Station CSO drop shaft would be constructed at the intersection of the connection culvert and a long connection tunnel and would provide the function of dropping the CSO flows down to the main tunnel level and would also provide access to both tunnels The CSO drop shaft would have an internal diameter of 11m. The drop shaft would be approximately 33m deep. It would be an offline shaft linked to the main tunnel under the River Thames by a long connection tunnel. A full description of this tunnel is provided in Volume 2. The shaft top would be finished to a level to accommodate final finishes installed by the property developer. Only exposed covers of openings, for allowing access and inspection, would be visible. The connection culvert would connect to the drop shaft at a depth of 15m below ground. The long connection tunnel would connect at the base of the shaft.
3.2.3
3.2.5
3.2.6
3.2.7
Page 5
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station 3.2.8
A buried duct would connect the top of the shaft to carry air to and from the ventilation system when the tunnels are filling and emptying respectively. Interception chambers and culverts The interception chamber would be built immediately adjacent to the inlet of the Hammersmith Pump Station. The chamber would be rectangular and contain valves to allow or prevent flow into the main tunnel. It would be approximately 15m deep and its top would be exposed and flush with the hardstanding inside the Thames Water compound. The chamber top would feature covers to allow access and inspection. The connection culvert connects the interception chamber to the CSO drop shaft. It would be buried approximately 15m below ground. Current proposals by the property developer indicate that the culvert would pass below a building development constructed after the scheme. Tunnel The Hammersmith connection tunnel would be driven from the CSO drop shaft to the main tunnel located under the River Thames at an approximate depth of 33m. Ventilation structures The ventilation system comprises ducting from the drop shaft, ventilation manholes, a passive filter structure and a ventilation structure. Only the ventilation structure would be fully above ground, but would be combined with the existing chamber ventilation structure. The ventilation structure is to be 4m high. There is a horizontal de-aeration chamber about 30m below ground level. This is required to remove air which is entrained in the falling wastewater at the drop shaft. The removed air is directed through an air duct from the horizontal de-aeration chamber to the drop shaft to allow the air to recirculate. None of these structures are above ground. Electrical kiosk Except for field instrumentation, electrical equipment would be housed within the existing pumping station building. Paved areas The area around the CSO drop shaft would be paved by the property developer and would be required to accommodate loads from cranes and other vehicles accessing the covers on top of the shaft. The area within the pumping station would be returned to hardstanding to provide continued operational access within the pumping station. Access and maintenance works As part of the project the Thames Water Hammersmith Pumping Station compound walls would be reinstated and access to the compound site
3.2.9 3.2.10
3.2.11
3.2.12
3.2.13
3.2.14
3.2.15
3.2.16
3.2.17
3.2.18
Page 6
would be, as before, through two sets of existing gates on Chancellors Road. 3.2.19 Under current proposals by the property developer, the top of the CSO drop shaft would be within a publicly accessible central boulevard between future 6 to 9-storey buildings. The boulevard would provide vehicular access to the shaft site would directly from Distillery Road. Thames Water would retain a right of access to the area. Access to the shaft would be required for a light commercial vehicle on a three to six monthly maintenance schedule. This would be carried out during normal working hours. There would be no aerial lighting. Additionally once every ten years, more significant maintenance work would be carried out and would require access to the shaft. This would be carried out in normal working hours. Two cranes would be required for these visits.
3.2.20
3.2.21
3.3
3.3.1
Construction
The construction works at this site would encompass the operational Hammersmith Pump Station compound and a part of the adjacent cleared land to the south and east referred to as Fulham Reach, which is privately owned by a property developer Vol 8 Figure 3.1.1 Vol 8 Figure 3.1.3 show the demolition and site clearance and construction phasing to be undertaken at the site. The methods, order and timing of the construction work outlined herewith are indicative only, but representative of a practical method to construct the works and suitable upon which to base an assessment of the likely significant environmental effects. It is recognised that, following further design development and selection of contractors, alternate methodology and scheduling may be proposed. The following physical construction works are described: a. construction works including early works and the construction of the shaft, tunnel, culvert and CSO interception b. processes and working method to be applied during construction c. excavated materials handling and disposal d. access and movement e. construction programme and working hours.
3.3.2
3.3.3
Code of construction practice

3.3.1 3.3.2 All works would be undertaken in accordance with the Thames Tunnel Code of Construction Practice (a draft is appended to Volume 2). The CoCP sets out a series of measures to protect the environment and limit disturbance from construction activities as far as reasonably practicable. These measures would be applied throughout the construction at this site.
3.3.3
Page 7
Construction works
3.3.4 The following physical construction works are described: a. site setup (see Vol 8 Figure 3.1.2) b. shaft construction (see Vol 8 Figure 3.1.2) c. tunnelling d. construction of other structures (see Vol 8 Figure 3.1.3). Site setup 3.3.5 Prior to any works commencing the site boundary would be established and secured. Demolition of a section of the existing site Pumping Station boundary wall would be required. This would be coordinated with Thames Water operations. A small number of trees would require removal along the boundary of the construction site with Distillery Road. The section of pedestrian footpath along the western side of Distillery Road and the southern side of Chancellors Road would require temporary diversion to the opposite sides of the road. The site would be set up to provide office and welfare facilities. Water and power would be mains connected if available. Plant and material storage areas, waste skips, muck bin and delivery vehicle turning area would be established. Craneage, water tanks, compressor, air receiver, excavator and dumper for excavated material handling are among the items of plant that would all be required on site. Shaft construction 3.3.10 The CSO shaft is anticipated to be mainly in the London Clay and to be constructed by Sprayed Concrete Lining (SCL) techniques and have a cast in situ secondary lining. The SCL lining is formed by pumping shotcrete (a type of concrete) through a nozzle, where compressed air and accelerator are added, and applying it to the vertical face of the shaft excavation. The upper made ground would be supported by sheet piles. The shaft would be advanced in 1m incremental cycles. After 1m has been excavated the primary SCL would be constructed. The process of excavating and spraying are repeated until the shaft reaches required depth. A steel reinforced concrete base plug would be formed at the base of the shaft. Tunnelling 3.3.15 The 4m internal diameter connection tunnel would be driven 370m from the CSO drop shaft to connect with the main tunnel at a reception chamber. This chamber would be enlarged to approximately 7m in diameter and would be built to receive the 6.5m internal diameter main tunnel drive from Carnwath Road Riverside. It would be constructed using
3.3.6 3.3.7
3.3.8 3.3.9
3.3.11 3.3.12 3.3.13 3.3.14
Page 8
SCL techniques and elongated to a length sufficient for it to serve as a maintenance chamber for the main tunnel TBM. 3.3.16 The first 47m of the connection tunnel would be enlarged to 5m internal diameter at the extreme upstream end to provide the horizontal deaeration chamber. The connection tunnel drive and shaft would both have secondary cast insitu reinforced concrete linings constructed. The tunnel excavated material would be transported along the tunnel, up the shaft and to a waiting lorry. If no lorry was available, the excavated material would be diverted to a stockpile. Construction of other structures 3.3.19 The excavation for the chamber for intercepting existing flows to Hammersmith Pumping Station and the connection culvert to the CSO drop shaft would be carried out together. Due to the ground conditions and depth, secant piles are likely to be required. A small excavator would excavate inside the piles down to formation level using muck skips. The interception chamber and connection culvert would be cast in situ using reinforced concrete. Once complete and equipped with valves, the interception chamber would be ready for the forming of openings through the existing below ground walls of the pump station inlet to allow the interception. Existing CSO flows would be locally routed away from the proposed opening positions. The openings would be formed by stitch drilling the walls. The ventilation pipe connecting the horizontal de-aeration chamber and drop shaft would be constructed by sinking a vertical length of casing down to the tunnel crown and grouting in an inner steel pipe. Secondly, a length of steel ventilation pipe connected to the shaft would be installed horizontally within a sheet piled trench. Lastly, a long radius steel bend would connect the two. As part of the tunnel ventilation system below ground air ducts would connect the CSO drop shaft to the above ground ventilation building. The remaining portion of ducting and the below ground passive filter chamber would be constructed within shallow trenching works using sheeting. The above ground ventilation structure would be built over the buried foundations of the existing Venturi Chamber. The superstructure would be a steel portal frame structure incorporating a ventilation column. It is planned that the building would be clad with masonry and a lightweight steel roof decking. Reinstatement and commissioning 3.3.27 Once the main elements of construction are completed, the final landscaping works would be completed within the pumping station site
3.3.17 3.3.18
3.3.20 3.3.21 3.3.22
3.3.23
3.3.24 3.3.25
3.3.26
Page 9
compound. Landscaping of remaining areas would be subject to coordination with the developer. 3.3.28 Testing and commissioning would also be undertaken once construction is complete. For the purposes of the assessment, completion of the commissioning stage represents the end of construction and the commencement of the operational development.
Access and movement

3.3.29 3.3.30 For the purposes of this report one vehicle movement is defined as a vehicle either accessing or egressing the site. The highest lorry movements at the site would occur as a result of a combination of shaft construction (when excavated material would be removed from site by road), tunnel secondary lining and interception chamber works occurring at same time. The peak daily lorry movements at this time, averaged over a one month period, would be 30 movements per day. It is envisaged that lorries would access the site via the A4 and A3220 corridors and locally via the Hammersmith gyratory, A219 - Fulham Palace Road, Chancellors Road and Distillery Road. The site would be serviced via a temporary access from Distillery Road (right turn in and left turn out). Access gates would be manned by a security contractor. To provide sufficient passing space for large vehicles, some parking spaces may require temporary removal along Chancellors Road. A traffic management plan for the site would be prepared.
3.3.31
3.3.32
3.3.33
Construction programme working hours

Construction programme 3.3.34 Construction at Hammersmith Pumping Station is anticipated to take approximately three years and would involve the following steps (with some overlaps): a. Year 1 Site setup (approximately 2 months) b. Year 1 - Shaft construction (approximately 4 months) c. Years 1 to 2 - Tunnelling (approximately 10 months) d. Years 2 to 3 Construction of other structures (approximately 10 months) e. Year 3 Completion of works and site restoration (approximately 9 months). f. System-wide commissioning would take place following site restoration and is not included in the above programme.
Working hours 3.3.35 The following working hours set out in the table below would apply for the construction at this site.
Page 10
Vol 8 Table 3.3.1 Working hours Key activities Core Working Hours Hours 08:00 to 18:00 Weekdays 08:00 to 13:00 Saturdays
Mobilisation Period Up to 1 hour before and after the Core Working Hours 07:00 to 08:00 and 18:00 to 19:00 Weekdays 07:00 to 08:00 and 13:00 to 14:00 Saturday Maintenance and Support Period Extended standard working hours 13:00 to 17:00 Saturdays 10:00 to 16:00 Sundays These are intermittent and are required to cover certain construction activities that require more than the standard working hours to be completed. 18.00 to 22.00 Weekdays 13.00 to 17.00 Saturdays Connection tunnel excavation and main tunnel enlargement Continuous Working 24 hour working. Monday to Friday. Limited duration.
3.4
3.4.1
Design development and on site alternatives

The design presented here was completed in advance of the completion of all surveys and technical studies. The final design may alter significantly in response to this as well as feedback from phase two consultation. The design of the proposals at this site has developed since phase one consultation as described in the table below. Vol 8 Table 3.4.1 Design development at Hammersmith Pumping Station Design development Change to shaft diameter from 25m main tunnel reception shaft to approximately 11m CSO drop shaft Location of permanent works under the adjacent landowners basement and within the pumping station site Reason New tunnelling strategy and change in proposed use of the site As a result of the change in the proposed use of the site and through negotiation and agreement with the landowner to optimise their development Modified scheme wide air management proposals and ventilation column height consistent with all CSO sites
3.4.2
No ventilation building and lower ventilation column from 15m to approximately 4m located within the grounds of the pumping station
Page 11
Further information on how the design has evolved at this site is included in the Design Development Report, which is also available as part of phase two consultation. Design development information, and the reasons for the choice of the final design at this site, including environmental design factors, will also be provided in the ES.
3.4.2
3.5
3.5.1
Base case
The assessment undertaken for this site takes account of relevant development projects which have been submitted or with extant planning permission. Because of the other developments the future environmental conditions within and around this site irrespective of the Thames Tunnel are likely to change. This is termed the base case. The Lee Tunnel and the Thames Tideway Quality Improvement (TTQI) projects (improvement works at Mogden, Beckton, Crossness, Long Reach and Riverside Sewage Treatment Works) will be operational by the time construction of the Thames Tunnel commences. The base case would therefore be the water quality in the Tideway with the TTQI projects and the Lee Tunnel in place. As a result, by 2021 discharge from the CSO at Hammersmith Pumping Station will be 2,362,100m3 with 51 spills. The projected spill volumes and spill frequencies for the baseline conditions for the Thames Tunnel (which is with the improvements applied to the STWs, and the Lee Tunnel in place) would still not be a sufficient level of CSO control to meet the UWWTD (see also Volume 2, Section 2.6). The assessment assumes that in 2015 approximately 50% of the adjacent Fulham Reach development (750 homes) would be complete. By 2020 100% of the development would be complete. The assessment also assumes that by 2015 the Queens Wharf development (Queen Caroline Street 91 residential units with caf/restaurant) would be complete.
3.5.2
3.5.3
3.5.4
3.5.5
3.5.6
Page 12
Section 4: Air quality and odour
4 4.1
4.1.1
Air quality and odour Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant air quality and odour effects at the Hammersmith Pumping Station site. The proposed development has the potential to affect air quality and odour due to: a. construction traffic on the road (air quality) b. temporary closure of lanes during construction (air quality) emissions from construction plant (air quality) c. construction-generated dust (air quality) d. operation of the tunnel (odour)
4.1.2
4.1.3
Each of these is considered within the assessment. This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment, and sets out what will be provided in the ES when the full assessment is available. Operational air quality effects from transport have been scoped out of the assessment due to the very limited number of maintenance visits required and hence the low number of vehicular movements.
4.1.4
4.2
4.2.1
Proposed development
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to air quality and odour are as follows.
Construction
Road traffic 4.2.2 4.2.3 During the proposed construction period, there would be road traffic movements in and out of the site. The highest number of lorry movements at the Hammersmith Pumping Station would occur during a combination of shaft construction, tunnel secondary lining and interception chamber works. The peak number of lorry movements at that time would be 30 movements per day averaged over a one month period. This is based on all materials being transported by road, given the non- riverside location of the site. The construction traffic routes for the key material supply stages, traffic management and access to the site can be found in the Section 12 of this volume. River barges 4.2.5 There is no access to the river at this site, so all transport would be by road.
4.2.4
Page 13
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Construction plant 4.2.6
There are a number of items of plant to be used on site that may produce emissions that could affect local air quality. Construction dust Activities with the potential to give rise to dust emissions from the proposed development during construction are as follows: a. site preparation and establishment b. demolition of existing infrastructure and buildings (not significant at this site) c. materials handling.
4.2.7
4.2.8
The potential for these processes to impact at sensitive receptors is dependent on many factors including the following: a. location of the construction site b. proximity of sensitive receptors c. extent of demolition d. extent of any intended excavation e. nature, location and size of stockpiles and length of time they are on site f. occurrence and scale of dust generating activities; necessity for onsite concrete crusher or cement batcher
g. number and type of vehicles and plant required on site h. potential for dirt or mud to be made airborne through vehicle movements i. 4.2.9 weather conditions Appropriate dust and emission control measures are included in the draft CoCP in accordance with the London Councils Best Practice Guidance 1. Measures incorporated into the CoCP to reduce air quality impacts include measures in relation to vehicle and plant emissions, measures to reduce dust formation and resuspension, measures to control dust present and to reduce particulate emissions. These would be observed across all phases of demolition and construction. Operation 4.2.10 A ventilation building at the Hammersmith Pumping Station site would house the odour control unit (OCU) comprising a passive filter that would treat 0.5m3/s. The maximum air release rate during a typical year is expected to be 0.05m3/s so is well within the capacity of the OCU. Air would be released from the vent box for seven hours in the typical year scenario, all of which would have passed through the OCU. For the remaining hours, no air would be released. This information on the ventilation building provided input data to the dispersion model used to assess odour dispersion at the site.
4.2.11
4.2.12
Page 14
4.3
4.3.1
Assessment methodology Scoping and engagement

Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. All consultee comments relevant to this site are presented in the table below. Vol 8 Table 4.3.1 Air quality and odour stakeholder engagement Organisation LB Hammersmith and Fulham Comment Monitoring locations Response Agreed with Senior Environmental Policy and Projects Officer. Odour complaints No odour complaints; confirmed by Environmental Protection Manager.
Baseline
4.3.2 The baseline methodology follows the standard methodology described in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.
Construction
4.3.3 The construction phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology described in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.
Operation
4.3.4 The operational phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology described in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.
Assumptions and limitations

4.3.5 For the purposes of the assessment it has been assumed that background odour concentrations are negligible in the future base case. To support this assumption of negligible background odour concentrations, baseline hydrogen sulphide monitoring is currently being undertaken at all sites (with repeat monitoring to be undertaken in autumn 2011).
4.4
Baseline conditions Local air quality

Pollutant concentrations
4.4.1 4.4.2
The current conditions with regard to local air quality are best established through long-term air quality monitoring. As part of their duties under Part IV of the Environment Act 1995, local authorities, especially in urban areas where air quality is a significant issue, undertake long-term air quality monitoring within their administrative areas.
Page 15
LB Hammersmith and Fulham undertakes monitoring using both continuous monitors and passive diffusion tubes in the Borough. There are two continuous monitoring sites and two diffusion tube sites in the vicinity of the Hammersmith Pumping Station site. Additionally, there is a nearby continuous monitoring site and diffusion tube site in the neighbouring LB Richmond. The NO2 monitoring data for these sites are contained in Vol 8 Table 4.4.1 and the PM10 monitoring data are detailed in Vol 8 Table 4.4.2 for the years 2007 to 2010. Vol 8 Table 4.4.1 Air quality - measured NO2 concentrations
Annual Mean (g/m3) 2010* 2009 2008 2007
Monitoring Site
Site Type
Number of Exceedances of Hourly Standard 2010* 2009 2008 2007
Continuous Monitoring Sites Hammersmith Broadway (HF1) Brook Green (HF2) Castelnau (RI1) Roadside Urban background Roadside N/A N/A 77X 38O 44 83 N/A N/A 56X 1O 9 38
N/A 40
N/A 45
37 43
N/A 1
N/A 3
0 7
Diffusion Tube Monitoring Sites Hammersmith Broadway 2 (HF32) Hammersmith Broadway 1 (HF52) Castlenau (RuT22) Roadside 77 Roadside N/A Roadside N/A 83 87 NM 71 70 67 NM
55
N/A
N/A
59
NM
* Data not fully ratified. X data capture of 80%; O data capture of 84%. NM indicates not measured. 3 Emboldened figures indicate an exceedance of the objective/limit value which is 40g/m for the 3 annual mean and 200g/m for the hourly mean which can be exceeded 18 times per year.
4.4.4
Five of the six sites are designated as roadside sites and the sixth as urban background site. The NO2 monitoring indicates exceedances of the annual mean NO2 objective (40g/m3) at the four roadside sites but not at the urban background site. Hourly monitoring at Hammersmith Broadway indicates exceedances of the hourly standard but there are no exceedances at Brook Green or Castelnau.
Page 16
Vol 8 Table 4.4.2 Air quality - measured PM10 concentrations Monitoring Site Site Type Annual Mean (g/m3) Number of Exceedances of Daily Standard
2010* 2009 2008 2007
2010*
2009
2008
2007
Hammersmith Broadway (HF1) Brook Green (HF2) Castelnau (RI1)
Roadside N/A Urban background Roadside N/A 21 N/A N/A 21 32X 22O 21 29+ 22 23 N/A N/A 2 N/A N/A 4 9X 16O 12 26+ 19 21
* Data not fully ratified. X data capture of 21%; O data capture of 86%. + - data capture of 62%. NM indicates not measured. 3 Emboldened figures indicate an exceedance of the objective / limit value which is 40g/m for the 3 annual mean and 200g/m for the hourly mean which can be exceeded 18 times per year.
4.4.5
The PM10 monitoring indicates that the annual mean standard (40g/m3) has been met at all three sites over recent years. The daily standard (more than 35 exceedances of the daily standard) was also achieved at all sites. As a result of previous exceedances of air quality objectives, LB Hammersmith and Fulham has declared the whole of its Borough as an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) for NO2 and PM10. The closest Borough, the LB Richmond has also declared the whole Borough as an AQMA for NO2 and PM10. In addition to the local authority monitoring, diffusion tube monitoring has been set up as part of the project to monitor NO2 concentrations in the vicinity of the Hammersmith Pumping Station site. This monitoring comprises four diffusion tubes based at the locations detailed in the table below. All identified existing and new sites relating to the Hammersmith Pumping Station site (as well as other sites where they are in close proximity) are shown in Vol 8 Figure 4.4.1 Vol 8 Figure 4.4.1 Air quality monitoring sites (see Volume 8 Figures document) Vol 8 Table 4.4.3 Air quality - additional monitoring locations Monitoring Site Fulham Palace Road (HPS1) Fulham Palace Road (HPS2) Chancellors Road (HPS3) Chancellors Road (HPS4) Grid Reference 523437, 178277 523488, 178162 523369, 178134 523252, 178055
4.4.6
4.4.7
Page 17
This monitoring will be used in conjunction with existing local authority monitoring to provide the baseline situation and also provide input to model verification. A full baseline will be reported in the ES. In addition to looking at monitoring data, an indication of baseline pollutant concentrations in the vicinity of the site can also be obtained from background data on the air quality section of the Defra website where mapped background pollutant concentrations are available for each 1km by 1km grid square within every local authoritys administrative area for the years 2008 to 2020 2. The background data relating to the Hammersmith Pumping Station site are given in the table below for 2010 (baseline year). Vol 8 Table 4.4.4 Air quality background pollutant concentrations Pollutant NOX (g/m ) NO2 (g/m3) PM10 (g/m3) Receptors
3
4.4.9
2010* 61.2 36.1 21.6
* Annual mean for 1km grid square centred on 523500, 178500
4.4.10
The Hammersmith Pumping Station site is located in a mixed use area comprising residential properties, commercial premises and a hospital. The closest, existing residential receptors are located to the north of the site in Chancellors Road, which are 15m from the site boundary. It is assumed that there will also be a new residential development (Fulham Reach) directly adjacent to the site by the peak construction year, with receptors within 10m of the site boundary. Frank Banfield Park is 10m east of the site boundary which contains a playground (20m from the site boundary) and a childrens centre (75m from the site boundary). Commercial premises and more residential properties are located to the east of the site in Fulham Palace Road, 110m from the site boundary. Charing Cross Hospital is located to the southeast of the site in Fulham Palace Road, 170m from the site boundary. The river is located 105m to the west of the site boundary. All these receptors are relevant, albeit to different levels of sensitivity, to the emission sources identified in the local air quality assessment. The sensitivity of identified receptors has been determined using the criteria detailed in Volume 5 this identifies their sensitivity in relation to both local air quality and dust nuisance, as shown in the table below. These receptors are relevant to the assessment of emissions from construction road traffic and construction plant, as well as the assessment of construction dust.
4.4.11
Page 18
Vol 8 Table 4.4.5 Air quality receptors- construction Receptors (relating to all identified emissions sources) Residential Value/sensitivity and justification Exposure relevant to annual, daily and hourly mean standards. Directly affected by construction traffic. High sensitivity to local air quality. Medium sensitivity to dust nuisance. Charing Cross Hospital Exposure relevant to annual, daily and hourly mean standards. Directly affected by construction traffic. High sensitivity to local air quality. High sensitivity to dust nuisance. Playground and Childrens Centre Exposure relevant to daily and hourly mean standards. Medium sensitivity to local air quality. Medium sensitivity to dust nuisance. Commercial Exposure is not relevant for the daily mean and hourly mean standards. Low sensitivity to local air quality. Medium sensitivity to dust nuisance.
Odour
4.4.12 The LB Hammersmith and Fulham has not received any odour complaints in the Hammersmith Pumping Station area over recent years. Complaints in the Thames Water database were reviewed within an area of 500m radius from the proposed site. Four complaints were identified since 2005 - two in 2007, one in 2008 and one in 2011. All complaints relate to the pumping station. The nearest sensitive receptors are described in para. 4.4.10 above. For the purposes of the odour assessment, the sensitivity of these receptors has been determined in accordance with the criteria in Volume 5 which indicates that the residential properties, including the proposed Fulham Reach development adjacent to the pumping station, as well as Charing Cross Hospital and the Childrens Centre are of high sensitivity while the commercial premises and playground are of medium sensitivity.
4.4.13
4.5
4.5.1
Construction assessment Construction base and development cases

The peak construction year (Year 1 of construction) is used as the year of assessment for construction effects (road transport, construction plant and construction dust) in which the development case will be assessed against the base case to identify likely significant effects for the Thames Tunnel project.
Page 19
The base case conditions for the construction assessment year will change from the current conditions due to modifications to the sources of the air pollution in the intervening period. For road vehicles, there will be a change in the penetration of new Euro standards to the fleet composition between the current situation and the future peak construction year. However, the uptake of newer vehicles with improved emission controls should lead to a reduction in existing NO2 and PM10 concentrations. However, the uptake of newer vehicles has not improved NO2 concentrations greatly in the last ten years in London, so as a worst case the NOx contribution from diesel vehicles was assumed to be the same for Euro 1 to 5 vehicles in line with Defra advice 3. Reduced emission factors from the introduction of Euro 6 diesel vehicles in the future will reduce the base case concentrations when compared to the 2010 baseline. Other emissions sources should also reduce due to local and national policies. Therefore, the non-road sources of the background concentrations used in the modelling will be reduced in line with Defra guidance LAQM.TG(09) 4. The base case will also consider new sensitive receptors associated with the Fulham Reach development as identified in the receptor description in Section 4.4. The local air quality assessment does not specifically consider the Queens Wharf development (see Section 3.5) as the development is further from the site than other assessed residential receptors.
4.5.3
4.5.4
4.5.5
Assessment area
4.5.6 The assessment area for the local air quality study covers a square area of 600m by 600m centred on the Hammersmith Pumping Station site. This assessment area is used for the assessment of road transport, construction plant and construction dust and has been selected on the basis of professional judgement to ensure that the effects of the Hammersmith Pumping Station site are fully assessed. A distance of 200m is generally considered sufficient to ensure that any significant effects are considered the selected assessment area exceeds this by some margin.
Construction effects
Emissions from road traffic 4.5.7 Road traffic is likely to affect local air quality in two ways: from emissions from the construction traffic; and from enhanced emissions from other road vehicles due to congestion or re-routing due to lane closures. A qualitative assessment of road traffic effects has been undertaken in Section 12. When traffic surveys are complete, a more detailed quantitative assessment using air quality modelling will be undertaken, the findings of which will be reported in the ES. Based on professional judgement, it is predicted that the impacts due to construction traffic are expected to be small (ie, small magnitude of
4.5.8
4.5.9
Page 20
change according to the criteria detailed in Volume 5) due to the low number of additional lorries during construction in the context of the existing traffic flows on the local road network. 4.5.10 Given that the residential properties and Charing Cross Hospital have a high sensitivity to local air quality (as identified in Section 4.4), the likely significance of the effect of construction traffic is a minor adverse effect (according to the criteria detailed in Volume 5). At the park, playground and Childrens Centre which have medium sensitivity, and the commercial properties which have low sensitivity to local air quality, the significance of effect would be negligible. Emissions from plant 4.5.11 Construction plant is likely to affect local air quality in two ways: from direct exhaust emissions; and from construction dust associated with the use and movement of the plant around the site. This part of the assessment considers exhaust emissions while construction dust from plant movement is considered in the following section. Emission factors are being assigned to each item of plant. More data are being gathered regarding the operation of these items of plant in terms of expected usage through the construction phase. A qualitative assessment has been undertaken for this report. Modelling is currently being undertaken, the findings of which will be reported in the ES. Based on professional judgement, it is noted that the impacts due to construction plant are expected to be small (ie, small magnitude of change according to the criteria detailed in Volume 5), given the localised nature of the emissions, ie emissions are only generated on the construction site. Compared to the traffic flows in the surrounding area, the amount of plant and the emissions are likely to have a negligible impact. Given that the residential properties and Charing Cross Hospital have a high sensitivity to local air quality (as identified in Section 4.4), the likely significance of the effect of construction plant is a minor adverse effect (according to the criteria detailed in Volume 5). At the other receptors, which have a lower sensitivity to local air quality, the significance of effect would be negligible. Construction dust 4.5.16 4.5.17 Construction dust would be generated from both on-site activities and from road vehicles accessing and servicing the site. Dust sensitive receptors have been identified in the vicinity of the Hammersmith Pumping Station site in accordance with the criteria detailed in Volume 5, as described in
4.5.12
4.5.13
4.5.14
4.5.15
Page 21
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Vol 8 Table 4.4.5. 4.5.18
In line with the London Councils guidance, the site has been categorised using the criteria given in Volume 5 which takes into account the area taken up by the development and the potential impact of the development on sensitive receptors close to the development. The specific site details relating to the site with respect to the criteria set are: a. site would have a maximum construction area of approximately 6,000m2 b. the project is a non-residential development c. main construction at the site would last approximately three years d. there are likely intermittent impacts on identified sensitive receptors
4.5.19
4.5.20 4.5.21
On this basis, the development has been classified as a medium risk site. Given that the receptor sensitivity is identified as medium for residential properties and the nearest residential receptor in the new Fulham Reach development would be within 10m of the site boundary, the likely significance of the effect of construction dust is deemed to be a moderate adverse effect (according to the criteria detailed in Volume 5). For other residential properties (which are over 10m from the site boundary), commercial properties and the playground/park and Childrens Centre, the likely significance of the effect of construction dust is deemed to be a minor adverse effect. At the hospital, the effect of construction dust is identified as minor adverse on the basis that it has a high sensitivity to dust nuisance but is located over 50m from the site boundary (distance of 170m). These effects would be reduced by the implementation of the measures contained in the CoCP (see Section 4.2). This would result in a minor adverse effect at the new Fulham Reach development and negligible effects at all other receptors. Overall construction effects When considering the overall local air quality construction effects (ie, effects from construction road traffic and plant), it is concluded that the overall significance of effects is likely to be minor adverse at the residential properties and Charing Cross Hospital, and negligible at commercial premises and the playground/park/Childrens Centre. With regard to construction dust, the likely significance of effects are minor adverse at the proposed residential properties within 10m of the site boundary, and negligible at all other receptors. On this basis no significant construction effects are predicted.
4.5.22
4.5.23
4.5.24
4.5.25
4.6
4.6.1
Operational assessment Operational base and development cases

The assessment undertaken for a typical use year (as described in Volume 5) applies equally to all operational years.
Page 22
Base and development cases have been developed for modelling purposes. Base case conditions are assumed to be the same as baseline conditions with respect to background odour concentrations as no change in background odour concentrations is anticipated. As with the local air quality assessment, receptors considered (in both the base and development case) include the Fulham Reach residential receptors as identified in Section 4.4.
Operational assessment area

4.6.3 Odour dispersion modelling was carried out over an area of 350m by 300m. The assessment area was selected on the basis of it being considered the potential maximum extent of the impact area.
Operational effects
4.6.4 The table below shows the predicted maximum ground level odour concentrations at the Hammersmith Pumping Station site. These are the highest concentrations that could occur at the worst affected ground level receptor at or near the site. In accordance with the odour criterion set up by the Environment Agency and in the draft NPS 5, results are presented for the 98th percentile of hourly average concentrations in the year (or the 176th highest concentration in the year), and the number of hours in a year with concentrations above 1.5ouE/m3. The number of hours with concentrations above 1.5ouE/m3 gives an indication of the number of hours in a year that an odour might be detectable at the worst affected receptor. The table also identifies the magnitude of the identified impacts in accordance with the criteria detailed in Volume 5. Vol 8 Table 4.6.2 gives similar results for the predicted impacts at the worst affected buildings, where concentrations at ground level and at height have been considered. Vol 8 Table 4.6.1 Odour impacts at ground level - operation Year Typical Maximum at ground level locations* 98th percentile 0 (ouE/m3) No. of hours > 0 1.5ouE/m3 Impact magnitude and justification Negligible 98th percentile concentration is less than 1ouE/m3
* beyond site boundary
Vol 8 Table 4.6.2 Odour impacts at buildings - operation Year Typical Maximum at buildings^ 98th percentile (ouE/m3) No. of hours > 1.5ouE/m3
*beyond site boundary
Impact magnitude and justification Negligible 98th percentile concentration is less than 1ouE/m3
0 0
Page 23
In the two tables above, the 98th percentile is shown as zero as the number of hours with air released from the vent would be less than 176 and therefore the 98th percentile concentration would be zero at all locations, thus achieving the odour criterion at all locations. This represents an impact of negligible magnitude. The highest 1-hour concentrations are predicted to occur close to the ventilation building. There would be no hours with odour greater than 1.5ouE/m3 beyond the site boundary. No odour would be detectable at buildings or in recreational areas. With regard to the significance of effects at ground level and building locations, given that the predicted odour concentrations at all locations including buildings do not exceed the 98th percentile criterion of 1.5ouE/m3, it is considered that an overall significance of effects would be negligible in relation to the Hammersmith Pumping Station site. No significant effects are therefore predicted in relation to odour.
4.6.6
4.6.7
4.7
4.7.1
Approach to mitigation Construction

All measures embedded in the draft CoCP of relevance to air quality and odour are summarised in Section 4.2. No mitigation is required for air quality and odour.
Operation
4.7.2 No mitigation is required.
Page 24
4.8
Vol 8 Table 4.8.1 Air quality and odour construction assessment Effect Minor adverse Minor adverse Minor adverse Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible None required None required None required None required None required None required None required None required Significance Mitigation
Assessment summary
Residual significance Minor adverse Minor adverse Minor adverse Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
Receptor
Residential properties
Local air quality effects from construction road traffic and plant emissions
Effects from construction dust
Charing Cross Hospital Local air quality effects from construction road traffic and plant emissions
Frank Banfield Park (including playground and Childrens Centre)
Commercial
Page 25
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Vol 8 Table 4.8.2 Air quality and odour operational assessment Effect Odour Odour Odour Negligible None required Negligible None required Negligible Negligible Negligible None required Negligible Significance Mitigation Residual significance
Receptor
Residential properties
Charing Cross Hospital
Frank Banfield Park (including playground and Childrens Centre) Odour Negligible None required
Commercial
Negligible
Page 26
4.9
4.9.1
Assessment completion
The following work is required in order to complete the local air quality and odour assessment for the Hammersmith Pumping Station site: a. Diffusion tube monitoring has been set up at four sites to monitor NO2 concentrations in the vicinity of the Hammersmith Pumping Station site. This monitoring will be used to provide a baseline to the assessment and as an input for model verification. b. For the assessment of road traffic emissions, air quality modelling will be undertaken to predict the effects on local air quality. c. The nature, quantities and operation of the construction plant are being finalised. The appropriate emission factors will then be applied to the plant in order to initialise the modelling work. These models will then be run and the effects of construction plant on local air quality predicted.
d. The assessment of cumulative and in combination effects will be undertaken and reported in the ES. e. Following completion of the assessment the mitigation approaches for air quality and odour within the project will be finalised and reported in the ES.
Page 27
Section 5: Ecology - aquatic
5 5.1
5.1.1
Ecology - aquatic Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant aquatic ecology effects at the Hammersmith Pumping Station site. For the purposes of the assessment of the Thames Tunnel scheme aquatic ecology includes plants and animals that live in and depend on the tidal River Thames and its tidal tributaries (known collectively as the Thames Tideway). The topic includes the habitats, mammals, fish, invertebrates and algae which occur in the Thames Tideway in the vicinity of the site. Animals, plants and habitats which occur above the mean high water level are assessed in Terrestrial Ecology (Section 6). Waterfowl, including those which occur on the Thames Tideway are also included under Terrestrial Ecology. Further details of the scope of the assessment are provided in Volume 5. This assessment considers the effect of operational improvements in water quality on aquatic ecology receptors in the Thames Tideway as a result of the CSO interception. The construction phase was scoped out during the scoping stage because there would be no in river works associated with this site, which is located 200m inland from the River Thames, and no significant aquatic ecology effects are anticipated. Therefore the construction phase is not considered within this assessment.
5.1.2
5.1.3
5.2
5.2.1
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to aquatic ecology are as follows. Operation The Hammersmith Pumping Station CSO currently discharges into the River Thames in the LB of Hammersmith & Fulham. The CSO would be intercepted as part of the proposed development. Based on the base case (which includes permitted Thames Tideway sewage treatment works upgrades, and the Lee Tunnel scheme, as well as projected population increases) discharges from this CSO are anticipated to be 2,362,100m3 per annum over a total of 51 discharge events (or spills) by 2020. The discharge is projected to reduce to 103,600m3 (a 95% reduction) over 1-3 discharge events once the Thames Tunnel is operational. Further information about projected changes in discharge as a result of the scheme is presented in Volume 2. Improvements in water quality are anticipated both in the local area around the discharge point for Hammersmith Pumping Station CSO and in the wider Thames Tideway. The assessment of operational impacts on the Thames Tideway as a whole are contained within the project-wide assessment (Volume 6). Water quality improvements would also have
5.2.2
5.2.3
Page 28
implications for aquatic ecology receptors and that is assessed in this report.
5.3
5.3.1

Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. No specific responses of relevance to aquatic ecology were received with regard to Hammersmith Pumping Station.
Baseline
5.3.2 5.3.3 Details of the approach to baseline collection and the assessment are presented in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site. Details of the background data sets are provided in Volume 5. Invertebrate data is available from the Environment Agency for Barnes, which is 2.4km downstream of Hammersmith Pumping Station CSO and is the nearest EA site. Environment Agency fish data is available for Hammersmith Bridge approximately 200m upstream of the CSO outfall. Although the EA sampling sites are remote from the discharge point, the fish and invertebrate communities they reflect are considered to be representative of this section of the upper Tideway, and therefore they provide a robust baseline. Existing algal data has been requested and will be assessed and reported in the ES. Operation 5.3.5 The methodology for assessing operational effects is described in Volume 5. There are no deviations from the standard assessment methodology.
5.3.4
5.4
5.4.1 5.4.2
Baseline conditions
Designations There are no aquatic statutory nature conservation sites within the local area of this site. The outfall discharges directly into the non statutory River Thames Tidal Tributaries Site of Metropolitan Importance (SMI). The SMI (Site Reference: M31) is adopted by all Boroughs which border the River Thames and recognises the range and quality of estuarine habitats including mud flat, shingle beach, reedbeds and the river channel itself. Over 120 species of fish have been recorded in the Tideway, though many of these are only occasional visitors. The more common species include dace (Leuciscus leuciscus), bream (Abramis brama) and roach (Rutilus rutilus) in the freshwater reaches, and sand-smelt (Atherina presbyter), flounder (Platichtyhys flesus) and Dover sole (Solea solea) in the estuarine reaches. Important migratory species include Twaite shad (Alosa fallax), European eel (Anguilla anguilla), smelt (Osmerus eperlanus), salmon (Salmo salar) and sea trout (S. trutta). A number of nationally rare snails occur, including the brackish water snail
Page 29
Pseudamnicola confusa, and an important assemblage of wetland and wading birds. 5.4.3 The Tidal Thames is also the subject of a Habitat Action Plan under the London Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) 6. The Habitat Action Plan (HAP) identifies a number of flagship habitats and species which characterise the estuary, such as gravel foreshore, mudflat and saltmarsh. A number of these habitats and species, including mudflat, are also the subject of action plans under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan. Habitats 5.4.4 The river is divided into three zones within the Tidal Thames Habitat Action Plan; freshwater, brackish and marine. Hammersmith Pumping Station CSO discharge is in the freshwater zone (see Volume 6). The habitat is not specifically identified as the UKBAP priority habitat mudflat on the Natural England website www.natureonthemap.co.uk. LB of Hammersmith & Fulham also has a Habitat Action Plan (HAP) for the River Thames7. Grey heron, two lipped door snail, petillory of the wall, purple loosestrife and common club-rush are identified as flagship species within the action plan. There was a large area of gravel foreshore exposed at the time of the survey (low tide) within the limits of the survey site. Substrate within this area was dominated by pebbles and shingle, whilst some silt was also present. Above the exposed banks there was a river wall (reinforced structure), which was vegetated in some areas. Target habitats present included sublittoral sands and gravels and the river wall. Some vegetation was growing within the river wall. Following the survey methodology, a summary of habitat types present, and other features of interest are presented in the table below. Vol 8 Table 5.4.1 Aquatic ecology - features of interest Target habitats present and features of interest Gravel foreshore Sublittoral sand and gravels River wall CSO outfalls Marine mammals 5.4.8 Records compiled by the Zoological Society of London for 2003 2011 indicate that harbour porpoise, bottlenose dolphin and various seal species (grey and common) migrate through the Tideway. Common seal and harbour porpoise have both been recorded in small numbers near Hammersmith Pumping Station CSO. There is however very little intertidal habitat available for use as a haul out site by seals. Substrate present in intertidal zone (approximate cover) Pebbles (75%) Sand, shingle, cobbles, silt (25%) Substrate present in subtidal samples Pebbles,gravel Silt,sand
5.4.5
5.4.6
5.4.7
Page 30
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Fish 5.4.9
A single day survey was undertaken at Hammersmith Pumping Station during October 2010. The extent of the survey and location of trawl and seine net hauls are presented in Vol 8 Figure 5.4.1. Full details of the methodology are presented in Volume 5. The range of species recorded during the survey in October 2010 is presented in the table below. Fish are routinely categorised into four guilds according to their tolerance to salinity and habitat preference (Elliott and Taylor, 1989 8; Elliott and Hemingway, 2002 9) which can be defined as follows: a. freshwater Species which spend their complete lifecycle primarily in freshwater b. estuarine resident Species which remain in the estuary for their complete lifecycle c. diadromous Species which migrate through the estuary to spawn d. marine juvenile Species which spawn at sea but spend part of their lifecycle in the estuary. Vol 8 Table 5.4.2 Aquatic ecology fish survey Common name Flounder Common goby Common smelt Three-spined stickleback Common bream Roach Dace Specific name Number of individuals 1 3 1 11 11 5 Guild Estuarine resident Estuarine resident Diadromous Freshwater Freshwater Freshwater Freshwater
5.4.10
Platichthys flesus 6 Pomatoschistus microps Osmerus eperlanus Gasterosteus aculeatus Abramis brama Rutilus rutilus Leuciscus leuciscus
*Results of autumn 2010 fish survey at Hammersmith Pumping Station
5.4.11
A total of 38 individuals were caught, which makes it was one of the poorest sites surveyed based on total fish abundance compared with a catch exceeding 200 fish each at Barn Elms, Western Pumping Station and Cremorne Wharf, which had the highest abundance of fish of all sites surveyed in relation to the Thames Tunnel project. The lowest catch (at Albert Embankment) was of 19 individuals. The Environment Agency carry out annual surveys for fish within the Thames Tideway using a variety of methods including trawling and seine netting, with data available over 18 years from 1992 to 2010.
5.4.12
Page 31
Methodologies for the survey are provided in Volume 5. The nearest sampling site to the Hammersmith Pumping Station CSO discharge is at Hammersmith Bridge. 5.4.13 A range of freshwater and estuarine resident fish species were recorded at this site over the 18 year period, including bass, bream, dace, flounder, roach, sand smelt, smelt, goby, thin-lipped grey mullet and eel. All of these species are widespread in the Thames Tideway, with freshwater species such as roach and bream most frequent in the upper Tideway, and estuarine residents such as sand smelt, goby and flounder common in the lower Tideway. The species age classes represented most widely in the data sets are dace, roach and bream (range of age classes up to 4 years +), flounder (0+ [0 -1 year old] and 1+, [1-2 year old fish]), smelt (0+), gobies (0+), thin-lipped grey mullet, eel. In general, Tideway fish populations are mobile and wide ranging, and hence any analysis of population data needs to be based on an understanding of the ecological requirements and migratory habits of individual species. Although the abundance and diversity of fish at any one site may provide some indication of the habitat quality offered at that site it is important to consider the data within the context of sites throughout the Thames Tideway, since the factors influencing distribution are likely to be acting at this wider scale. Effects at this scale are assessed in Volume 6 (Project-wide effects). Invertebrates 5.4.15 A single day survey was undertaken at Hammersmith Pumping Station sampling site. The area covered by the survey is the same as that described for the fish survey above and illustrated in Vol 8 Figure 5.4.1. Further details of these methods can be found in Volume 5. Vol 8 Figure 5.4.1 Aquatic ecology sampling locations (see Volume 8 Figures document) 5.4.16 Benthic invertebrates are used in the freshwater, estuarine and marine environments as biological indicators of water and sediment quality since their abundance and distribution reflects natural or man-made fluctuations in environmental conditions. Species diversity is influenced by factors such as substrate and salinity, however high species diversity (or numbers of species) at any given site generally indicates good water and/or sediment quality, whilst low diversity may indicate poor quality. Whilst the abundance and diversity of invertebrate species at any one site provide a more accurate reflection of conditions at that site than site specific fish data, invertebrate populations and particularly those which occur in the water column (pelagic) are influenced by conditions throughout the estuary. The strongest influences on invertebrate distribution and density tend to be physical factors such as salinity, and substrate type followed by water quality and local habitat conditions. These factors are discussed below in relation to the site specific data. The sample site at Hammersmith Pumping Station was located within the vicinity of the CSO outfall. Despite this, the invertebrate fauna was not
5.4.14
5.4.17
5.4.18
Page 32
significantly impoverished (in terms of diversity or the presence/abundance of pollution sensitive groups) compared to other comparable sites on the Tideway. 5.4.19 The invertebrates collected during the October 2010 field surveys are presented in the table below. Vol 8 Table 5.4.3 Aquatic ecology invertebrate fauna Subtidal Samples AL1 AL2 20 150 1 2 25 120 3 40 1 1 5 1 8 1 13 1 1 Intertidal Samples Q SW1 SW2 10 35 20 85 30 150 290 150 1 1 1 1500 1300 2 8 1 1 23 70 1 1 1 65 5 90 1 11 300 10 CCI Score 3 1 1 1
Taxa Theodoxus fluviatilis Potamopyrgus antipodarum (?) Radix balthica Sphaeridae Sphaerium (corneum?) Oligochaeta Glossiphonia complanata Helobdella stagnalis Erpobdella testacea Eriocheir sinensis Asellus aquaticus Acorophium lacustre Gammarus zaddachi Diptera pupae No Taxa 5.4.20
8 1 1 120 8
2 90 9
*Invertebrate fauna sampled at Hammermith Pumping Station
The invertebrate fauna was dominated by a high abundance of common and pollution tolerant groups (Radix bathica, Oligochaeta, Erpobdella, Potamopyrgus). As at other sites, some moderately pollution sensitive groups were also present in relatively high numbers (Gammarus sp., and Theodoxus fluviatilis). All of the taxa present are brackish species or animals that have a varying tolerance to different levels of salinity from estuarine to near freshwater. No obligate freshwater or marine animals were present. For example, Gammarus zaddachi a brackish species of shrimp was present, rather than its more commonly occurring freshwater homologue Gammarus pulex, which can only survive in freshwaters. Crangon crangon (shrimps) is typical of estuarine and brackish conditions and cannot survive in freshwaters. The Community Conservation Index (CCI) score (Chadd and Extence, 200410) has initially been used to assess whether any species of nature conservation importance are present. None of the species present were of high nature conservation importance, as demonstrated by their CCI scores, with the exception of Acorophium lacustre (CCI 8). It is a RDB 3 species (rare) and was only present in low numbers at the site and mostly limited to subtidal samples. Environment Agency data have shown C. lacustre to be common in the Thames Tideway. As such, we have not
5.4.21
5.4.22
Page 33
used its presence to elevate the relative value of the invertebrate community in this instance. 5.4.23 In contrast to all other sites, except Barn Elms, diversity was higher in samples taken from intertidal areas compared with those taken in the subtidal zone. However, a closer look at the data indicates that the fauna of the intertidal and subtidal samples is actually closely matched and that groups that are absent from subtidal zones were only present in very low numbers in intertidal samples. There were some key differences such as the higher abundance of Oligochaeta in intertidal zone, possibly related to the CSO discharge. Chinese mitten crab (Eriocheir sinensis), an invasive species, was sampled in subtidal and intertidal zones of the site. The Environment Agency samples are taken using a number of techniques, including cores and kick sampling in the intertidal and day grab and core samples in the subtidal. A total of 23 species were recorded at Barnes, the nearest sampling location, in the period between 2005 and 2010. The Oligochaete worm Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri was the most common species at this site during the period of recording, with other abundant species being Radix bathica, Gammarus zaddachi, Theodoxus fluviatilis and Potamopyrgus antipodarum. These data correspond well with the survey data taken in autumn 2010. Algae 5.4.27 Existing algae data has been requested and will be assessed and reported in the ES. Aquatic ecology receptor values and sensitivities 5.4.28 Using the baseline set out above the value accorded to each receptor considered in this assessment is set out in the table below. The definitions of the receptor values and sensitivities used in this evaluation are set out in Volume 5. Vol 8 Table 5.4.4 Aquatic ecology receptors Receptor Foreshore habitat (including intertidal and subtidal habitat)/designated sites Mammals Value/sensitivity and justification Medium (Metropolitan) value. Habitats form part of a major Site of Metropolitan Importance. Low (Local) value. Only occasional records of common seal and harbour porpoise exist from the area and very little intertidal habitat is available for use as a haul out site by seals. Medium (Metropolitan) value. Although fish surveys indicated that this site was one of the poorest surveyed in 2010 for overall abundance, it did represent a range of age classes of several important freshwater
5.4.24 5.4.25
5.4.26
Fish
Page 34
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Receptor Invertebrates Algae
Value/sensitivity and justification species (roach, bream and dace). Low-Medium (Borough) value due to the limited invertebrate diversity. To be completed following receipt of data.
5.5
5.5.1
Construction assessment
As stated in para. 5.2.3, there are no in-river works associated with this site and thus no significant construction phase effects on aquatic ecology are anticipated. Therefore the construction phase has not been assessed.
5.6
5.6.1
Operational assessment
Operational Impacts The potential impacts arising from operation of the scheme at this site would be a large reduction in the volume of sewage effluent discharged from the CSO. These impacts are described below. The definitions of the different magnitudes of impact referred to in this assessment are given in Volume 5. Reduction in the volume of sewage effluent discharged from the CSO.
5.6.2
Discharges from the Hammersmith Pumping Station CSO are anticipated to have increased to 2,362,100m3 per annum by 2021. The discharge is projected to reduce to 103,600m3 (a 95% reduction) over 1-3 discharge events once the Thames Tunnel scheme is operational. This would result in localised improvements in water quality, and a contribution to Thames Tideway wide improvements. Water quality improvements would consist of increases in dissolved oxygen concentrations, reduction in microbial activity (known as biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)) and suspended solids, and a reduction in sewage debris. The magnitude of the impact is considered to be medium and positive, and to be probable and permanent as shown in the table below. This will be verified based on the outputs from water quality modelling currently being undertaken. Vol 8 Table 5.6.1 Aquatic ecology impacts - operation Impact Improvement of local water quality through CSO interception. Magnitude Medium positive impact Permanent. Probable.
5.6.3
5.6.4
Operational effects
5.6.5 The effects of the operational activities on ecological receptors are described in detail below. The way in which the magnitude and
Page 35
reversibility of each impact has been combined with the value of each receptor to determine the significance of the effect is set out in Volume 5. 5.6.6 Unless stated the effects described below apply to both Year 1 of operation and Year 6. Mammals 5.6.7 Increase in the number and/or change in the distribution of marine mammals due to improvements in water quality. No major change in the use of the foreshore as a haul out for grey seals is anticipated as a result of the interception of the discharge. Improvements in habitat quality may make the habitat more favourable, although the factor determining its use by seals relates predominantly to the lack of disturbance rather than water quality. Effects are considered negligible. Fish 5.6.8 Reduction in the occurrence of dissolved oxygen related fish mortalities. The microbial activity associated with untreated sewage effluent (BOD) causes a depletion in the levels of dissolved oxygen downstream of a discharge. This is often referred to as an oxygen sag. Oxygen sags are more common in the summer months when water temperatures are higher and oxygen is less soluble. Impacts on fish health occur when dissolved oxygen levels drop beneath 4mg/l 11, and significant mortalities begin to occur when levels drop beneath this threshold. Fish mortality due to low dissolved oxygen concentrations is referred to as hypoxia. Such hypoxia events are currently relatively common in the Thames Tideway, particularly during the summer months when heavy storms follow periods of low flow and water temperatures are relatively high. Up to 2004, there had been at least 154 low dissolved oxygen events, in which fish mortalities have occurred. This will be further investigated as part of the ES. Interception of the CSOs throughout the Thames Tideway would improve sewerage system capacity and result in far fewer hypoxia events. The Tideway Fish Risk Model is currently being re-run in order to predict the change in the number of hypoxia events. Interception of the Hammersmith Pumping Station CSO would contribute to this Thames Tideway wide improvement, but would also result in improvements in the local area. Given the range of diversity of freshwater species in particular in the upper Tideway the effect is moderate beneficial at Year 1 of operation and also at Year 6. Improvements across the Thames Tideway as a whole will be assessed in Volume 6 (Project-wide effects assessment). Increase in the distribution of pollution sensitive fish species. The Thames Tideway supports a number of rare fish species such as salmon, sea trout, twaite shad and river lamprey. A number of factors limit the colonisation of habitats by these species, including salinity, substrate type and current, but pollution is known to be a significant factor in determining colonisation 12.
5.6.9
5.6.10
5.6.11
Page 36
Changes in the diversity of fish communities, including recruitment of more sensitive species is a process which would occur at a wider scale, and will be assessed in Volume 6 (Project-wide effects). At the local scale for this site effects on fish diversity are considered to be minor beneficial. Given that the impact is considered to be medium beneficial, and the value of the receptors is medium (Metropolitan) the effect is thus considered to be negligible in Year 1, increasing to moderate beneficial in Year 6. Invertebrates Localised improvements in invertebrate diversity and abundance. As well as causing low dissolved oxygen events, untreated sewage effluent contains nutrients which cause enrichment of the water column and sediments in the river. Excessive nutrient enrichment causes phenomenon such as algal blooms, and is known as eutrophication. Such enrichment tends to favour a small number of pollution tolerant species at the expense of a wider range of pollution sensitive species. For example, certain species of Oligochaete worm are indicative of polluted conditions because they are able to tolerate the low dissolved oxygen conditions and multiply rapidly in the enriched sediments. Oligochaeta was the most abundant taxa at the EA sampling points up and downstream of the site, and so it is reasonable to assume that they would also be dominant at this site. By intercepting the CSO the source of sewage related nutrients would be reduced and the sediments in the vicinity of the outfall would begin to return to a more natural state. As nutrients reduce in concentration a wider range of invertebrate species, including more pollution sensitive species such as the river neretid (Theodoxus fluviatilis) would begin to colonise the sediments. The effect is considered to be negligible in Year 1, rising to minor beneficial in Year 6. Increase in the distribution of rare and pollution sensitive invertebrate species. The Thames Tideway currently supports a small number of rare invertebrate species including swollen spire snail and tentacled lagoon worm. A number of factors limit the colonisation of habitats by these species, including salinity, substrate type and current, but pollution is known to be a significant factor in determining colonisation. Improving water and sediment quality would facilitate the spread of those pollution sensitive species which are currently being impeded by poor water and sediment quality. Removal of the CSO discharge at this location may facilitate the spread of the rare depressed river mussel, which is known to occur in the vicinity of the site. Effects on invertebrate diversity are thus considered to be negligible in Year 1, increasing to minor beneficial by Year 6. Algae Effects on algae will be reported in the ES.
5.6.13
5.6.14
5.6.15
5.6.16
5.6.17
5.7
5.7.1
Approach to mitigation
The approach to mitigation will be informed by the Mitigation and Compensation Hierarchy discussed with the Thames Tunnel EA
Page 37
Biodiversity Working Group as a systematic and transparent decisionmaking process. 5.7.2 The hierarchy is sequential and seeks to avoid adverse environmental effects. The hierarchy of avoid, minimise, control compensate, and enhance will be strictly applied in this sequence. The Environmental Statement will describe how this hierarchy has been applied. The mitigation hierarchy is described in detail in Volume 5.
Mitigation of operational effects

5.7.3 No mitigation is required since the effects on aquatic ecology receptors are associated only with the improvements in water quality arising from interception of the CSO.
Page 38
5.8
Vol 8 Table 5.8.1 Aquatic ecology construction assessment Significance of effect Year 1 Negligible Negligible None required due to beneficial effect. Negligible Year 6 Mitigation Significance of residual effect
Assessment summary
Receptor
Description of effect
Mammals
Increase in the number and/or change in the distribution of marine mammals. Moderate beneficial. Moderate beneficial. None required due to beneficial effect.
Fish
Moderate beneficial.
Reduction in the occurrence of low dissolved oxygen related fish mortalities. Increase in the distribution of pollution sensitive fish species. Negligible. Minor beneficial. Negligible. Minor beneficial.
None required due to beneficial effect. None required due to beneficial effect. None required due to beneficial effect.
Minor beneficial
Invertebrates
Localised improvements in invertebrates diversity and abundance. Negligible Minor beneficial
Minor beneficial.
Increase in the distribution of rare and pollution sensitive invertebrate species.
Minor beneficial.
Algae
To be completed for the Environmental Statement
Page 39
5.9
5.9.1 5.9.2
Algal data and assessment of effects on algae will be reported in the ES. Further analysis of Environment Agency fish and invertebrate data may enable a fuller assessment of benefits. Findings from spring 2011 surveys for fish and invertebrates will also be reported. Assessment of cumulative effects will be undertaken as part of the ES. No mitigation is likely to be required since only positive effects are anticipated.
5.9.3
Page 40
Section 6: Ecology - terrestrial
6 6.1
6.1.1
Ecology - terrestrial Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant terrestrial ecology effects at the Hammersmith Pumping Station site. Likely effects on aquatic ecology are reported in Section 5. Elements of the proposed works that have particular relevance to terrestrial ecology comprise site clearance, piling, and wider construction activities. The assessment of terrestrial ecology during operation was scoped out for the Hammersmith Pumping Station site. Operational activity would remain limited to occasional maintenance works, which are considered unlikely to have significant effects on terrestrial ecology receptors. Thus the operational phase is not considered any further in this assessment.
6.1.2
6.1.3
6.2
6.2.1
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to terrestrial ecology are as follows.
Construction
6.2.2 Works at Hammersmith Pumping Station site that are relevant to the terrestrial ecology assessment include: a. site clearance activities including tree removal b. ground excavation and movements of construction workers and traffic, and construction machinery, would produce noise, vibration and lighting c. a short period of 24 hour working (mostly below ground, other than the movement of people and vehicles to and from the work site, and lighting).
Code of Construction Practice 6.2.3 Measures incorporated into the CoCP to reduce terrestrial ecology effects include those that would ensure that terrestrial ecology receptors are appropriately managed during construction. The document sets out procedures that would be adhered to both scheme wide and at individual sites. The draft CoCP outlines that works would be undertaken in compliance with legislation, and with due regard to relevant nature conservation policies and guidance, including the Mayors Biodiversity Strategy 13 and local Biodiversity Action Plans. Each site would have an Ecological Management Plan, which would detail the approach to management of effects on ecological receptors with reference to the results of the terrestrial ecology assessment. Where species are protected by specific legislation, approved guidance would be followed, appropriate mitigation would be proposed and any necessary licences or consents obtained.
6.2.4
Page 41
Measures not specifically outlined under the Ecology section of the draft CoCP are also of relevance, for example the management of noise and vibration, and water resources.
6.3
6.3.1

Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. There were no site specific comments from consultees for this particular site relating to terrestrial ecology. Stakeholder engagement was undertaken through biodiversity technical workshops with statutory consultees and attended by representatives from the LB of Hammersmith and Fulham. No site specific comments were received.
Baseline methodology
6.3.2 Baseline data collection has followed the methodology detailed in Volume 5. Baseline data presented within this assessment is derived from a desk study, a Phase 1 Habitat Survey and preliminary wintering bird and bat triggering surveys. All subsequent survey data will be reported in the ES. In summary the following baseline data has been collated: a. Desk study including data base searches (for ecological records within a 2km radius from the site boundary, which is the industry standard), web-based searches and review of existing available documents in relation to protected and notable species and habitats. Desk study data within 500m of the site are reported here as the works are unlikely to affect species and designated sites beyond this distance. Records dated prior to 2000 have not been included as the information since this date provides the most appropriate data to assess the site baseline conditions. b. An initial inspection from outside the site boundary was undertaken prior to the Scoping Report being issued, and relevant habitat and the potential for notable species was recorded. A Phase 1 Habitat Survey was then undertaken on 17th May 2011 to confirm the findings of the initial inspection. The survey followed the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) Standard Phase 1 Habitat Survey Methodology, 2010. The survey included the site and any adjacent habitat considered to be potentially affected by the proposed works. c. Wintering bird survey visits were undertaken in December 2010, and January, February and March 2011. The survey visits included the site and adjacent habitat considered to be potentially affected by the proposed works. These surveys will resume in October 2011 at the start of the next winter season.
6.3.3
d. A bat triggering survey was carried out in May 2011. This is an initial survey using remote recording equipment (Anabat detectors) to determine whether subsequent activity/dawn surveys were required. The survey area includes the site and adjacent features that are assessed (using professional judgement) to be potentially affected by
Page 42
the project. No further bat surveys are proposed as bat activity was found to be low. 6.3.4 Surveys for wintering birds and black redstart were identified as being required following the desk study and Phase 1 Habitat Survey. Further assessment of the habitat on site and existing data indicates that the site and surrounding area is sub-optimal as nesting and foraging habitat for black redstart, and the area adjacent to the site will be occupied by the Fulham reach development at Year 1 of construction. Therefore, no further survey for black redstart is considered necessary. Further surveys for wintering birds are also not reported in this assessment as the works would not affect the foreshore, and adjacent habitat would be unsuitable for wintering birds at construction Year 1 due to the construction of the Fulham reach development.
Construction methodology
6.3.5 The construction phase assessment methodology follows this standard methodology provided in Volume 5, which is based on IEEM. Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom. Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2006) 14. The following ecological receptors are included in the assessment: a. habitats b. bats c. 6.3.6 breeding birds. There are no designated sites within 500m of the site. Therefore, no effects have been identified and designated sites are not considered further in the assessment. Black redstarts and wintering birds are unlikely to be present on site as discussed in para. 6.3.4. Therefore, these species are not considered any further in the assessment. As contaminated runoff and atmospheric pollution would be controlled through the implementation of the CoCP (see para. 6.2.3), no likely significant effects are anticipated on ecological receptors. Therefore, this is not considered any further in the assessment. The assessment year for construction is the start of site preparation works at the start of the construction phase (Year 1 of construction). This is likely to be the peak year for effects on terrestrial ecology as this is when initial site clearance would occur. Assuming that the site would continue to be managed as it is at present, then the base case is considered to be the same as the current baseline conditions as described in Section 6.4. Habitat in the surrounding area is likely to be limited to boundary vegetation due to the removal of vegetation from the wider area in relation to the construction of the St George (Fulham Reach) development adjacent to the site.
6.3.7
6.3.8
6.3.9
6.3.10
Page 43

6.3.11 It is assumed for the purposes of assessment that the current site management regime of the Hammersmith Pumping Station site would continue. The assessment assumes that the measures within the CoCP would be implemented as part of the development. All surveys have been and will be undertaken at appropriate times of the year. No other site specific limitations or assumptions have been identified.
6.4
6.4.1
Baseline conditions
The following section sets out the baseline conditions for terrestrial ecology receptors at the site and surrounds, including their value.
Habitats
6.4.2 The habitats recorded within the survey area during the Phase 1 Habitat Survey are detailed in the table below and shown on Vol 8 Figure 6.4.1. Vol 8 Figure 6.4.1 Terrestrial ecology phase 1 habitat survey (see Volume 8 Figures document) Vol 8 Table 6.4.1 Terrestrial ecology - Phase 1 Habitat Survey Habitat Type / Feature of Note Buildings Habitat Description The survey area has a number of buildings present and these appear in good condition and are considered to be sub-optimal for bats. Hardstanding and gravel dominates the survey area and has no ecological value. There are several trees within and on the boundary to the survey area including sycamore Acer pseudoplatanus, willow Salix sp. and peach Prunus persica. Adjacent to the survey area is brownfield land comprising bare ground with areas of dense and scattered scrub, and tall ruderal vegetation.
Hardstanding and gravel Trees
Scattered scrub and tall ruderal vegetation On site 6.4.3
The trees are mostly non-native species and have limited intrinsic value. They are not UK or London BAP priority species and are considered to be of site (low) ecological value. The tall ruderal vegetation is limited in extent and is also considered to be of site (low) value. Surrounding area The trees and scrub adjacent to the site are mostly non-native species of site (low) ecological value.
6.4.4
Page 44
Notable species
Bats On site 6.4.5 No records of bats specific to the site have been found during the desk study. It is considered that the buildings on the site have low potential to support bats. Bats may forage around the trees on site, but very low levels of activity, 31 registrations on one night, were recorded during the triggering surveys in May 2011 (with occasional registrations of common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus and soprano pipistrelle bats Pipistrellus pygmaeus only) and so no further survey work is proposed. All bats are considered European Protected Species under the Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. All species (with the exception of common pipistrelle) are listed as priority species on the UK BAP and all species are listed on the London BAP. However, from the triggering surveys the site does not support a bat roost and is considered to provide a small foraging resource only. The value of the bat foraging resource on site is considered to be local (low) value. Surrounding area 6.4.6 Several records of bats including the common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus have been recorded within 500m of the site according to data search results (the most recent records are from 2006). The trees, scrub, tall ruderal vegetation and river corridor adjacent and near to the site are likely to provide foraging habitat and commuting routes for bats. As one of the Anabat detectors was positioned close to the river corridor and identified the same (low) level of bat activity as recorded on site, the value of this resource is unlikely to be significantly greater than that for the site itself, at this location. Therefore, the value of this foraging and commuting resource is considered to be local (low) value. Breeding birds On site 6.4.8 The trees on site are likely to provide a nesting resource for a small number of common bird species. The site is considered to be of site (low) value for breeding birds. Surrounding area 6.4.9 Records of notable bird species from 2001 and 2002 have been found within 500m of the site, according to the data search results: a. House sparrow Passer domesticus (Red List i, London and UKBAP Priority species) b. Song thrush Turdus philomelos (Red List, London and UK BAP Priority Species).
The UK's birds can be split into three categories of conservation importance - red, amber and green. Red is the highest conservation priority, with species needing urgent action. Amber is the next most critical group, followed by green. (http://www.rspb.org.uk. Page last updated on Monday 7 March 2011).
i
6.4.7
Page 45
The trees, scrub and tall ruderal vegetation are likely to support a range of common nesting bird species. The site is considered to be of local (low) value for nesting and foraging birds.
6.5
Construction assessment Habitats

On site
6.5.1
Site clearance works would have an effect on the tree resource within the site by the removal of trees. It is probable that this loss would be significant at site level (minor adverse effect). Surrounding area No effects on adjacent habitats have been identified.
6.5.2
Notable species
Bats On site 6.5.3 The loss of trees on site is likely to have a temporary effect on the foraging resource for bats. Bats are likely to be displaced to other foraging resources within the surrounding area. A small number of bats are likely to be displaced from the site by disturbance from lighting, although this effect would be minimised through the lighting strategy in the CoCP. The displacement is unlikely to result in a reduction in the population within the local area. However, the bat resource would be lost from the site during construction. Therefore, it is probable that the effects would be significant at the site level (minor adverse effect). Surrounding area 6.5.4 As no suitable habitat for bats is likely to be present adjacent to the site at the time of construction as a result of development, no adverse effects are anticipated. Breeding birds On site 6.5.5 It is probable that the loss of a small area of breeding bird nesting habitat on site would be significant at the site level (minor adverse effect). Surrounding area 6.5.6 The works may result in temporary (medium term) adverse disturbance from noise, lighting, vibration and movement of construction workers and machinery during construction to common bird species nesting and foraging within trees and scrub adjacent to the site. This is unlikely to result in effects on populations or assemblages of breeding bird species in the wider area. Therefore, the effect is unlikely to be significant.
6.6
6.6.1
As stated in para. 6.1.3, significant operational effects on terrestrial ecology are not anticipated therefore this has not been assessed.
Page 46
6.7
6.7.1
Approach to mitigation Mitigation of construction effects

Measures embedded in the draft CoCP of relevance to terrestrial ecology are described in paras. 6.2.3 - 6.2.5. The Ecological Management Plan described in the CoCP will include long-term management of habitats and species on site post-construction. It would be prepared following planning approval and prior to commencement of works on site. In addition to measures detailed in the CoCP, measures to mitigate effects on bats and breeding birds include replacement tree planting prior to site clearance.
6.7.2
Page 47
6.8
Vol 8 Table 6.8.1 Terrestrial ecology construction assessment Significance of effect Mitigation Significance of residual effect
Assessment summary
Receptor
Habitats Probable, site level (minor adverse effect) Probable, site level (minor adverse effect) Probable, site level (minor adverse effect) Replacement planting Replacement tree planting Unlikely to be significant (negligible) Unlikely to be significant (negligible) Unlikely to be significant (negligible)
Trees
Removal of trees from site
Notable species
Bats
Loss of a limited foraging resource on site.
Disturbance from lighting to a small number of bats causing displacement from the site.
This effect would be temporary and bats are likely to return to site after works.
Breeding birds
The temporary loss of a small area of nesting habitat on site Unlikely to be significant (negligible)
Probable site level (minor Replacement planting adverse effect) Not required
Unlikely to be significant (negligible) Unlikely to be significant (negligible)
Disturbance to birds adjacent to the site through lighting, noise, vibration etc.
Page 48
6.9
6.9.1
Where required, appropriate mitigation to avoid or minimise effects to terrestrial ecological receptors will be developed in consultation with stakeholders and an assessment will be made of the significance of any residual effects to ecological receptors in the ES. Consideration will be given to biodiversity enhancement measures in consultation with stakeholders. Where possible, mitigation and enhancement measures will be embedded in the scheme design.
Page 49
Section 7: Historic environment
7 7.1
7.1.1
Historic environment Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant effects on heritage assets at the Hammersmith Pumping Station site. These are aspects of the historic environment which are considered to be of importance because of their historical, evidential, aesthetic or communal interest (these terms are defined in para. 7.4.54 below). These might comprise below and above ground archaeological remains, buildings, structures, monuments or heritage landscapes within or around the site 15. The section should be read in conjunction with Volume 6: route overview, which sets the site in its broad topographic, geological, archaeological and historical context and discusses the project-wide landscape and topic themes in respect of the historic environment. These themes are summarised in this section, where they are relevant to the site, to avoid repetition.
7.1.2
7.2
7.2.1
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to the historic environment are as follows.
Construction
7.2.2 Those construction aspects of specific relevance to the historic environment assessment, since they could lead to effects on heritage assets, are: a. Enabling works would require the removal of a small number of trees in the northern part of the site, the demolition of the perimeter wall around the existing Hammersmith Pumping Station, site preparation, the establishment of a works compound and the diversion of existing services. b. Permanent works comprise the construction of a below ground Combined Sewage Overflow (CSO) shaft, an interception chamber and a connection tunnel. A cut-and-cover connection tunnel would also be constructed to the main tunnel. 7.2.3 Measures incorporated into the draft CoCP to reduce impacts on the historic environment include protective measures where appropriate such as temporary support, hoardings, barriers and screening around heritage assets within and adjacent to work sites, and advance planning of plant and working methods for use where heritage assets are close to work sites, or attached to structures within work sites. The CoCP also includes provisions for the contractor to prepare a site specific Heritage Management Plan.
Page 50
Operation
7.2.4 The proposed operation of the infrastructure at Hammersmith Pumping Station is described in Volume 3. The particular components that are relevant to the assessment, in terms of historic environment setting, comprise the permanent structures visible above ground, in the form of the ventilation column.
7.3
7.3.1

Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. There were no site specific comments from consultees for this particular site. It should also be noted that Volume 5 details the approach to the assessment of historic setting, which it has been agreed, since the formal scoping process, will be covered in the assessment of construction and operational effects. This assessment will be completed for the final ES.
Baseline
7.3.2 The baseline methodology follows that set out in Volume 5, with a key component being a desk based assessment, consulting a broad range of archaeological, documentary and cartographic sources, along with a site walkover survey. The results of geotechnical investigations, some of which were archaeologically monitored, have also been incorporated. The 300m radius study area used for the assessment is considered through professional judgement to be most appropriate to characterise the historic environment potential of the site.
7.3.3
Construction
7.3.4 7.3.5 The construction phase methodology follows the methodology provided in Volume 5. Any site specific variations are described below. Likely significant effects on the historic environment could arise throughout the construction phase from activities likely to remove, disturb or alter above ground or buried heritage assets, as a result of enabling or construction works. The methodology has been informed by an understanding of the nature and extent of proposed ground disturbance, in relation to known or potential heritage assets. The base case (future baseline) during the assessment year would be the same as at present for buried heritage assets since these are a static resource. No direct changes in the condition of above ground heritage assets are anticipated for the assessment years. However, it is possible that changes to the setting of heritage assets may occur during the construction period as a result of the Fulham Reach residential development, due for completion by 2020. The effects of these
7.3.6
7.3.7
7.3.8
Page 51
developments will be detailed for the final assessment and presented in the ES.
Operation
7.3.9 7.3.10 7.3.11 The operational phase methodology follows the methodology provided in Volume 5. Any site specific variations are described below. The operational phase assessment will be undertaken for Year 1 of operation. In terms of the base case (future baseline) for the assessment of operational effects, no direct changes are anticipated in the condition or significance of above ground heritage assets. Changes to the base case from other non-Thames Tunnel developments could affect the setting of above ground heritage assets. Any such changes will be detailed for the final assessment, to inform the assessment of effects on the historic setting of heritage assets, and presented in the ES.

7.3.12 Volume 5: Methodology sets out the generic assumptions and limitations of the assessment. The main limitation is the nature of the archaeological resource (buried and not visible) and acknowledgement of the difficulty of attempting to predict the presence/extent, date, nature, survival and significance of possible, previously unrecorded, buried heritage assets, based on a desk based study and site visit. In particular, no intrusive archaeological investigation has been carried out on the site in the past and few investigations have been carried out in the study area around the site. Notwithstanding this limitation, the assessment presented here is robust, based on reasonably available information, and conforms to the requirements of local and national guidance and planning policy (as detailed in Volume 5). Typically, appropriate standard archaeological prospection and evaluation techniques are utilised post-consent to reduce the uncertainties inherent in any desk based study, as part of an overall EIA mitigation strategy (see Mitigation section below for the proposed mitigation at this site).
7.3.13
7.4
7.4.1
Baseline conditions
The following description of baseline conditions comprises seven subsections which set out: a. a description of historic environment features, with an introduction to the features map (which shows the location of known historic environment features within the 300m radius study area around the site) and the study area b. a description of statutorily and locally designated assets within the site and its vicinity (ie, within a 100m-radius of the site) c. a description of the site location, topography and geology to set the context of the site
Page 52
d. a summary of past archaeological investigation within the study area, providing an indication of how well the area is understood archaeologically e. a summary of the archaeological and historical background which sets out what is known about the site and its environs f. a statement of significance for above ground assets within and around the site, describing the features which contribute to their significance.
g. a discussion of likely significant for buried heritage assets, taking account of factors affecting survival, and a statement of their likely significance. 7.4.2 A site visit was carried out by MOLA Historic Buildings and EIA specialists on 14th March 2011. The light and weather conditions were sunny and dry. Access was provided to the existing and operative Thames Water pumping station building and its grounds. The remaining area of the site, outside Thames Water ownership, was not accessible, although this open area of cleared former industrial buildings was clearly visible through the fencing. The area around the site and along the River Thames was also inspected and photographed.
Historic environment features

Vol 8 Figure 7.4.1 Historic features map (see Volume 8 Figures document) 7.4.3 The historic environment features map (Vol 8 Figure 7.4.1) shows the location of known historic environment features within the 300m-radius study area around the site, compiled from the baseline sources set out in the topic specific methodology in Volume 5. These historic environment features have been allocated a unique historic environment asset reference number (HEA 1, 2, etc), which is listed in the gazetteer in Appendix A. Where there are a considerable number of listed buildings in the study area, only those within the vicinity of the site (ie, within a 100m-radius) are included on the map and in the gazetteer. The study area for assessing setting effects on heritage assets may be revised because setting effects are most likely to occur within the visual envelope of the site, which may differ from the study area defined for the purposes of this assessment.
7.4.4
Designated assets
Statutory designations 7.4.5 The site and the immediate vicinity (ie, within a 100m radius of the site) does not contain any nationally designated (statutorily protected) heritage assets, such as scheduled monuments, listed buildings, or registered parks and gardens. The nearest listed building to the site is the Grade II listed nurses home on the north side of Lochaline Street, 160m to the southeast of the site. The Grade II* listed Hammersmith Bridge is located approximately 270m to the northwest of the site.
Page 53
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Local authority designations 7.4.6
The southwestern half of the site lies with an Archaeological Priority Area, covering an area of higher potential along the Thames riverside, including an area of Saxon settlement. The site lies within the Fulham Reach Conservation Area. There are no locally listed buildings within the site. Known burial grounds There are no known burial grounds within the site or adjacent to it. The nearest known burial ground is the cemetery of the Benedictine Nunnery (HEA 7), 70m to the north of the site, which was in use before 1829. A survey carried out by Mrs Basil Holmes in 1897 describes the burial ground as a small burial-ground in the garden. According to a report from the Home Office it is about 14 by 17 yards in extent 16. There is no evidence to suggest that it ever extended into the area of the site.
7.4.7
Site location, topography and geology

Site location 7.4.8 The site includes the Thames Water Hammersmith Pumping Station and land to the east and southeast. It is bounded by Chancellors Road to the north, Distillery Road to the east and a recently cleared area of land to the south/southwest. The site lies approximately 100m to the northeast of the River Thames. Topography 7.4.9 The site and the surrounding area are flat. Ground level within the site lies at around 105.0m ATD (above Tunnel Datum: the equivalent of 5.0m Ordnance Datum). The ground rises up to the northeast, away from the river, up to 110.0m ATD, around 450m to the northeast. Geology 7.4.10 The site is located entirely upon the Kempton Park Gravels river terrace formation (British Geological Survey digital data). The site is located on the edge of a meander of the River Thames, approximately 100m to the northwest, and the river cuts into the gravel terrace (ie there is no alluvial floodplain compared to the south side of the river). In places the gravels are capped with Brickearth (Langley Silt Complex), a fine-grained silt believed to have accumulated by a mixture of processes (eg wind, slope and freeze-thaw) mostly since the Last Glacial Maximum around 17,000BP. Brickearth was used as a building material, and in London much of it was quarried away. Four geological boreholes have been carried out on the site in the past, and most of the logs are modern and detailed. In the centre of the site (borehole no. PR1117), natural gravels were recorded at 101.1m ATD. In the cluster of boreholes in the northwest (borehole nos. GG1809B-2; GG1809B-2A and GG1809B-4), gravels were between 100.6100.7m ATD (0.60.7m OD). None of the boreholes recorded alluvium within the site area, although it is possible that thin layers of alluvium might be present beneath the made ground on the site, representing flooding of the natural terrace gravel.
7.4.11
7.4.12
Page 54
In all boreholes, made ground was recorded at 104.5104.9m ATD (4.5 4.9m AOD). All the made ground is recorded as a mix of clay, sand, brick and concrete, suggesting that it is probably mostly of modern derivation.
Past archaeological investigations within the study area

7.4.14 Extensive archaeological investigations have been carried out over a number of years in the proposed residential development area immediately to the south and west of the site. This recorded amongst other things, evidence of an early Saxon settlement. These investigations extended across the whole of the southern half of the current site, in that part that lies outside the Thames Water Pumping Station. In 2000, a watching brief (Museum of London site code WIO01/wb) was carried out immediately adjacent to the existing 1960s pumping station. This entailed monitoring 13 geotechnical test pits (HEA 1), two of which lay within the current site, with the majority of other test pits located to the south. Evidence of a substantial channel running northeast/southwest was recorded within the current site. This was thought to be Parrs Ditch; a natural watercourse referred to in later medieval sources and covered over in the 19th century. A possible pit or ditch associated with postmedieval glass production was also recorded, and in 2001, an evaluation (WIO01/eval) at the same location but covering areas not examined by the earlier watching brief, revealed an undated post-lined gully 3m below ground level (mbgl) along with 18th-century brick foundations and evidence of extensive late 19th-century truncation. In 2005, three open area archaeological excavations (WIZ05/excav) were carried out within the site (HEA 5). This revealed evidence of early Saxon settlement in the form of pits and ditches, along with extensive remains of 17th-century glass bead manufacture. A brick clamp thought to be associated with 17th-century brick making by Nicholas Crispe was also identified. In 2007, the excavation was followed up with a further watching brief (WIZ05/wb). Most of the remains recorded were basements and structures associated with Victorian and later industrial buildings, such as the distillery and sugar refinery. As a result of these investigations, buried heritage assets in the southern part of the site, have been removed, but preserved in archaeological records, and this has greatly enhanced current understanding of the archaeology of the area. Five other archaeological investigations have taken place within the 300mradius study area around the site. At Hammersmith Embankment, on Winslow Road, 80m to the southwest of the site (HEA 2), an evaluation and excavation revealed multi-period activity in the form of prehistoric pits and artefacts, residual (outside the context in which they were originally deposited) Roman artefacts, further evidence of early Saxon settlement, and post-medieval kilns and domestic activity. In 1990, an archaeological excavation 175m to the south of the site (HEA 4) revealed evidence of early Saxon occupation, and residual Roman pottery.
7.4.15
7.4.16
7.4.17
7.4.18
7.4.19
Page 55
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station 7.4.20 7.4.21
In 1997, a watching brief 170m to the south of the site (HEA 3) uncovered a prehistoric flint flake. A Thames Archaeological Survey foreshore survey in the 1990s, approximately 100m to the southwest of the site (HEA 6) revealed postmedieval structures and artefact scatters on the Thames foreshore at low tide. In 1976, an archaeological excavation 200m to the north of the site (HEA 12) recorded large scale 18th-century dumping. The results of these investigations, along with other known sites and finds within the study area, are discussed by period, below.
7.4.22 7.4.23
Archaeological and historical background of the site

7.4.24 The following section presents a chronological summary of the archaeological and historical background of the site, drawing on the information collated above. Prehistoric period (700,000 BCAD 43) 7.4.25 The gravel terrace on which the site is located would have been favoured for agriculture and settlement from the earliest times, particularly at this location as there was direct access to the riverfront of the Thames, without the need to cross the intertidal marshes found elsewhere along stretches of the river. In 1999, an archaeological investigation 80m to the southwest of the site (HEA 2), recorded three or four pits containing undated prehistoric (Neolithic and Iron Age) pottery, and an early Bronze Age leaf-shaped flint arrowhead. The archaeological investigation at the distillery in 1997 (HEA 3), 170m to the south of the site, recovered a prehistoric flint flake from within the natural brickearth. The significance of these finds is uncertain. Much of the ancient land surface is likely to have been truncated by later development, although the discoveries indicate localised survival and indicate prehistoric activity in the general area. Roman period (AD 43410) 7.4.27 The main settlement of London (Londinium) was established in around AD50, in the area of the City of London, 9km northeast of the site. A major Roman road passed westwards from Londinium through Hammersmith to Silchester, and followed the line of Goldhawk Road and Shepherds Bush Road, 1.6km to the north of the site. A lesser road is thought to have followed the line of King Street and Hammersmith Road, 300m north of the site, and probably headed towards a small settlement in the area of Fulham, 1.8km to the southeast 17. The roads are likely to have attracted settlement and other activity, although there is little evidence of such within the study area, and the landscape would have been predominantly rural with a scatter of farmsteads. In 1999, an archaeological excavation (HEA 2), 80m to the southwest of the site, recovered six Roman copper alloy coins and pottery. These finds were residual, from within an early Saxon sunken featured building, and suggest Roman activity in the area. In 1990, a few sherds of
7.4.26
7.4.28
Page 56
Roman pottery were recovered during the archaeological excavation, 175m to the south of the site (HEA 4). No Roman features were recorded. 7.4.29 It is likely that during this period the site was in open land, possibly under cultivation or used as pasture. Early medieval (Saxon) period (AD 4101066) 7.4.30 During this period the site lay within the manor (estate) of Fulham, granted in AD 631 by the Bishop of Hereford to the Bishop of London 18. Fulham gained its name from the Saxon word Fullenhame which means the resort or habitation of birds, as it is believed that there was an abundance of waterfowl here 19. The Saxon manor house of Fulham is believed to have been located within vicinity of Fulham Palace, 1.8km to the southeast of the site, and an early medieval church was probably built there on the site of the current All Saints church 20. The Hammersmith area, which formed a part of Fulham manor, was also occupied in this period. Domesday Book (AD 1086) refers to the area as Hermoderwode. According to Faulkner21, the name is derived from the Saxon ham, meaning town or dwelling, and hyde, meaning harbour. The wode probably referred to the extensive woodland behind the river. According to Draper 22, the place name possibly derives from Hamoders Hithe, meaning Hamoders haven (harbour). Both place names suggest a riverside settlement. Evidence for early medieval settlement has recently been uncovered within and adjacent to the site. The excavations 80m to the southwest of the site (HEA 2) revealed three sunken featured buildings (SFBs). These structures, which are rare and important, are characteristic of the EarlyMiddle Saxon period and generally consist of a rectangular pit and two post holes, which supported a roof. Such features are thought to have been used for storage and as working-sheds, beneath a living space. Four ovens, or hearths, and numerous pits and post-built structures were also found, including an early Saxon hall. At least one of the SFB was found to continue into a later phase of occupation which extended into the site (HEA 5). The settlement appears to have been fairly extensive, as an archaeological excavation (HEA 4) 175m to the south of the site, identified six sunken featured buildings, two post-built structures (one possibly a fence), pits, a gully and a ditch, in addition to evidence of metal working. During the early medieval period, the site was located within an area of extensive early Saxon settlement, with evidence for occupation and various activities including metal working. Later medieval period (AD 10661485) 7.4.35 Hammersmith settlement (HEA 11) is mentioned in documentary sources dated to 1294, at which time it appears to have shifted north, to the vicinity of Queen Caroline Street, 250m to the north of the site. The reason for the apparent abandonment of the earlier Saxon settlement is unknown and the extent of the later medieval village has yet to be determined 23.
7.4.31
7.4.32
7.4.33
7.4.34
Page 57
The Thames foreshore would have been important in the transportation of resources from the agricultural fields at Hammersmith into the city of London. A minor watercourse (the Parrs Ditch) once flowed openly across the northern part of the site before entering the Thames. Its course across the site is clearly shown on the Ordnance Survey 1st edition map of 186974, and physical evidence of the ditch was recorded during the two archaeological investigations within the site (HEA 1 and HEA 5) and during the foreshore survey (HEA 6), 150m to the southwest of the site, in 2007. The watercourse flowed down from Shepherds Bush and under Hammersmith Road near St Marys Church. To the south of Hammersmith Road it formed the parish boundary, crossing Fulham [Palace] Road and the site before reaching the Thames. Its lower course was known as Parrs Ditch. There are a number of medieval and Tudor references to Parrs Ditch and bridge. The earliest known use of the place-name, (le) Perre, is in 1270, and it subsequently appears in connection with the ditch and bridge in various forms through the 15th and 16th centuries24. The site of the medieval bridge (HEA 10) over Parrs Ditch has been recorded 200m to the northeast of the site. In 1997, an archaeological watching brief 170m to the south of the site (HEA 3) recorded pits and gullies, some of which were thought to date to the later medieval period. During this period, the site probably lay outside of the area of settlement, in open fields possibly under arable cultivation. Post-medieval period (AD 1485present) By the early post-medieval period Hammersmith had become a quiet riverside settlement, with the surrounding land being mainly agricultural 25. With the continually growing population of London, the need for food increased and areas such as Hammersmith, located on the banks of the River Thames and surrounded by farmland, were heavily relied on to meet the ever increasing demand 26. Agricultural production in the area remained high throughout this period, although the Industrial revolution brought with it high levels of pollution within the River Thames and fishing declined 27. From the early 17th century until 1823 a Jacobean mansion (later known as Brandenburgh House) stood just to the southwest of the site (Appendix A). Brandenburgh House was built by Sir Nicholas Crisp at the time of King Charles Is reign (Crisp had inherited the land from his mother, Lady Katherine Pye, along with her house known as Le Lady Pyes House which was demolished prior to the construction of what came to be known as Brandenburgh House. Nicholas Crisp(e) (born 1599) business concerns included the development of new brick making techniques and the manufacture and sale of glass beads28. Reputedly, Brandenburgh House was built with bricks manufactured using Crisp (e)s own technique, cornered with stone quoins and had a handsome cupola. It contained several very handsome rooms that were spacious and finely furnished. The foundations and walls were substantial and the vaults apparently arched in an extraordinary manner 29.
7.4.37
7.4.38
7.4.39
7.4.40
7.4.41
Page 58
Excavations carried out directly to the west of the site (HEA 2) revealed glass-working and bead-making debris dating to the early 17th century including part of a bead-making furnace. These beads were probably produced for the West African slave trade in which Crispe was an active participant from the 1620s until the Civil War. This bead-making site is potentially unique in the British archaeological record. Further evidence of the glass bead manufacture was recorded during the 2005 and 2007 archaeological investigations within and to the west of the site (HEA 5). Evidence for brick manufacture was also recorded during this phase of excavation in the form of a brick clamp on the site. This may reflect activities associated with the construction of Brandenburgh House and Crispes brick manufacturing process. The house was plundered during the early part of the Civil War and eventually occupied in August 1647, when it was used as the general headquarters of Sir Thomas Fairfax, commander in chief of the New Model Army 30. The house was eventually sold in 1748 to George Bubb-Dodington, afterwards Lord Melcombe. The house was enlarged and modernised under the direction of architect Roger Morris in 1749 and renamed La Trappe. The modernisation included demolition of the cupola, the addition of stucco to hide the brick frontage, and construction of a large gallery to house works of art. Much of the embellishment of the house was carried out by the Italian artist and architect Cipriani. Servandoni was subsequently commissioned to design and build a further gallery. In 1792, the house was completely refurbished and a conservatory built. This extended from the corner of the house where a gothic ruin, in castellated form, was constructed as a theatre 31. The last occupant of Brandenburgh House was Caroline of Brunswick, the estranged wife of the Prince of Wales (later George IV) who lived there in the early 19th century. The building materials, fixtures and fittings were auctioned and the demolition of the house was completed by 1823. The grounds were for the most part incorporated in the Bradenburgh Farm Estate 32. Rocques map of 1746 (Appendix A) is a small scale map but shows general topographic detail, the main roads and settlement areas. The map shows the Brandenburgh House directly to the southwest of the site, with formal gardens and tree-lined avenues. The main approach to the house appears to be from the south. The site lies within an orchard and field. Much of the surrounding area is extensive market gardens. The Parrs Ditch is shown crossing the site from northeast to southwest. Faulkners map of 1813 (Appendix A) shows Brandenburgh House directly to the southwest of the site. An orchard or a tree lined avenue, perhaps now the principal approach to the house, and the Parrs Ditch, cross the site from northeast to southwest. Stanfords map of 1862 (Appendix A) no longer shows the Brandenburgh House and formal gardens. These have been replaced by two large distillery buildings to the west of the site. The majority of the site is shown to be undeveloped, within the distillery yard and main access road from Fulham Road, with the exception on its northern edge where a row of
7.4.43
7.4.44
7.4.45
7.4.46
7.4.47
Page 59
terraced houses front onto Chancellor Road. The rest of the site comprises the open yard of the distillery, with some fields in the southeast corner. A large building on the Fulham Road to the southeast of the site has adopted the label Brandenburgh House. The former market gardens to the north of the site have been developed for housing, beside the new Hammersmith Suspension Bridge. The bridge was built by WT Clarke in 18247 and was the first suspension bridge in London. It was replaced in 18837 by the present bridge, designed by Bazalgette 33. 7.4.48 The Ordnance Survey 1st edition map of 186974 (Appendix A) shows the site in greater detail. The course of Parrs Ditch, is mainly indicated by the line of the parish boundary and crosses through the middle of the site on a northeast/southwest alignment. The terraced houses fronting Chancellor Road are still shown in the northern part of the site. To the south of the parish boundary is a small open strip of land (it forms part of the property on the north side of the Chancellor Road). Most of the southern half of the site falls within the open yard of the distillery, with a circular tank within the southwestern corner of the site. The main distillery building lies to the west of (outside) the site. The Ordnance Survey 2nd edition 25:mile map of 1896 (Appendix A) shows an expansion of the distillery buildings to the west of the site. An additional tank had been constructed within the site. Distillery lane crosses the site, which is otherwise unchanged. The building to the southeast of the site, on Fulham Road, which had borrowed the name Brandenburgh House, is now labelled Brandenburgh Cottage. The Ordnance Survey 3rd edition 25:mile map of 1909 (Appendix A) shows alteration to a number of the smaller distillery and Saccharine Works within the site. In the southwest corner of the site two additional tanks had been built, additional buildings or structures had been built to the east of the tank adjacent to the parish boundary, and two small buildings or sheds had been constructed along the eastern boundary of the site. The Ordnance Survey 3rd edition revised 25:mile map of 1935 and the 1:10,000 scale map of 1948 (not reproduced) show no change within the site. The Ordnance Survey 1:2500 scale map of 1952 (Appendix A) shows that several small/medium sized industrial buildings had been constructed within the southern and central parts of the site to the north of the tanks and along the eastern boundary. Then Ordnance Survey 1:10,000 scale map of 1976 (Appendix A) no longer shows the terraced houses in the northern part of the site. These have been demolished and replaced with a single industrial building and the existing pumping station, which is mainly outside the site to the west. To the south, the buildings of the distillery had also been replaced by other industrial buildings to the west of the now re-aligned Distillery Lane. The current site 7.4.53 Currently the site is mostly undeveloped, with the exception of the existing 1960s Hammersmith Pumping Station which falls within the western boundary of the site. The southern half of the site falls within open land,
7.4.49
7.4.50
7.4.51
7.4.52
Page 60
cleared in advance of proposed non-Thames Tunnel related residential development.
Above ground heritage assets

Introduction 7.4.54 In accordance with the national policy set out in PPS5, the following section provides a statement based on professional and expert judgement on the likely significance (which is a reflection of the value or importance) of heritage assets, derived from the perceived historical, evidential, aesthetic and communal value. These terms are fully defined in Volume 5 and are briefly summarised as follows: a. Evidential value: the potential of the physical remains to yield evidence of past human activity. This might take into account date; rarity; state of preservation; diversity/complexity; contribution to published priorities; supporting documentation; collective value and comparative potential. b. Aesthetic value: this derives from the ways in which people draw sensory and intellectual stimulation from the heritage asset, taking into account what other people have said or written. c. Historical value: the ways in which past people, events and aspects of life can be connected through heritage assets to the present, such a connection often being illustrative or associative.
d. Communal value: this derives from the meanings of a heritage asset for the people who know about it, or for whom it figures in their collective experience or memory; communal values are closely bound up with historical, particularly associative, and aesthetic values, along with educational, social or economic values. Within the site 7.4.55 The site lies within the Fulham Reach Conservation Area as designated by the LB of Hammersmith and Fulham. The Conservation Area Character Profile states that the specific reason for the designation was to ensure that any future development proposals recognised the sensitive nature of the riverside, in particular the long sweeping views northwards towards Hammersmith Bridge and views to and from Barnes and Putney bank 34. The River Thames is considered to be the principal element in the definition of the character of the conservation area, along with its bank and the views across and along the river. The houses in Chancellors Road on the northwestern edge of the site are mentioned as being positive contributors to the character of the conservation area, whilst the present pumping station is described as being of an appropriate scale for the area despite its austere appearance. The line of trees on the footpath which screen the pumping station is mentioned as a positive feature. The conservation area is considered to be a heritage asset of high significance, derived from its historical, communal and aesthetic values. The site is occupied by the 1960s Hammersmith Pumping Station, (Appendix A). This is within an enclosed area situated towards the northwestern corner of the site with a render-covered cement block,
7.4.56
Page 61
boundary wall along its southern edge. The pumping station has a main steel and concrete building, constructed in 1966 35. An extensive lower level houses large pipes, valves and machinery. A smaller building called the screen house, which is of similar construction, is situated at the northeastern end of the pumping station compound (Appendix A). To the west of the main pump house building is a small entrance to a staircase leading to a lower level to provide access to the valves attached to the large subterranean pipes. 7.4.57 The pumping station buildings are of low aesthetic value, yet they are of historic interest as an example of 1960s architecture. The main building has a saw-tooth perspex/fibreglass arrangement of roof lights and other internal period features of this era (Appendix A). A brass plaque from the original Hammersmith Pumping Station Building (HEA 13), which still stands opposite the site on Chancellors Road (approximately 40m to the northwest of the site) and is now used as offices, is now positioned within the present Pumping Station (Appendix A). The present pumping station and the earlier building are closely linked in terms of their history. Taken together they are evidence of the modernisation of Londons sewerage system through the 20th century. On its own the pumping station can be considered to be a heritage asset of limited significance, though it has a group value through its connections to the earlier pumping station close-by (described below). The appearance, and in particular, the scale of the building is also considered to be appropriate to the character of the area. It is therefore considered a heritage asset of low significance. Within the study area 7.4.58 The former Hammersmith Pumping Station Building (HEA 13) stands on Chancellors Road 40m to the northwest of the site and is at present used as offices for Thames Water (Appendix A). It is a long brick building accessible via a gated entrance on Chancellors Road opposite the operative Hammersmith Pumping Station and is likely to date to the late 19th century. After the construction of the modern building in 1966, the two buildings operated simultaneously, working together36 until the Old Pumping Station was closed down in 1974, and its equipment was removed (Appendix A). The building is of interest, not only because of its group value with the 1966 building, but also due to its own evidential value and significant local historical interest. It can therefore be considered a heritage asset of medium significance. Approximately 70m to the southwest of the site is a pathway which forms part of the riverside walk (Appendix A) with a number of access points. These access points to the riverside walk are mentioned in the Fulham Reach Conservation Area Character Profile 37. Hammersmith Bridge is located approximately 270m northwest of the site (Appendix A). The Bridge opened on 11th June 1887 replacing the earlier suspension bridge (see baseline Section 7.4 above). This earlier bridge was considered unsuitable by 1870, in particular when it became dangerously overcrowded during the Oxford and Cambridge boat race, which passes below the bridge. The present bridge was designed by Sir Joseph Bazalgette and built by Dixon, Appleby and Thorne. It rests on the
7.4.59
7.4.60
Page 62
same piers as the 1825 bridge. It is a Grade II* listed structure and is considered to be remarkable in form and ornamentation, with monumental towers, lavish colours and heraldry. It is also considered to be one of the most distinctive bridges on the Thames and is therefore considered an important heritage asset of very high significance, as derived from its aesthetic, evidential, historical and communal values. 7.4.61 On the opposite side of the Thames from the site is the Castelnau Conservation Area, designated by the LB of Richmond upon Thames, which extends halfway across the Thames, abutting the boundary of the Fulham Reach Conservation Area. The Castelnau Conservation Area is also a heritage asset of high significance. Within the Castelnau Conservation Area is the former Harrods furniture depository (Appendix A), built 19111914. It is a Grade II listed building and is an important early example of the Kahn system of reinforced concrete, whilst the elaborate terracotta faade that fronts the Thames is impressive in its own right. The listed building is of high significance, as derived from its aesthetic, evidential, historical and communal values.
7.4.62
Buried heritage assets on the site

Introduction 7.4.63 The following section discusses past impacts on the site which are likely to have compromised asset survival (generally from late 19th and 20th century developments, eg, building foundations or quarrying), identified primarily from historic maps, the site walkover survey, and information on the likely depth of deposits. In accordance with PPS5, this is followed by a statement on the likely potential for and significance of buried heritage assets within the site, derived from current understanding of the baseline conditions, past impacts, and professional judgement. Factors affecting survival 7.4.65 Archaeological survival across the site is likely to be variable. The main potential for the site is within its northern half; archaeological remains in the southern half are assumed to have been removed by the previous extensive programme of archaeological investigation and recording. The southern half of the site has already been extensively investigated archaeologically following demolition of 20th century buildings and tanks, and as part of the mitigation for the proposals to redevelop housing on this part of the site. The investigations recorded evidence for the removal of brickearth deposits for brick making in the post-medieval period. The extent of such quarrying is not known, but may have extended across the northern part of the site. This activity would have removed any earlier archaeological remains within the area quarried but later features, created after quarrying had ended, could be present. In the northern half of the site, within the footprint of the pumping station property, a row of mid 19th-century terraced houses formerly occupied the northern edge of the site. The foundations and any cellars associated with
7.4.64
7.4.66
7.4.67
Page 63
these terraced houses would have partially or completely removed any archaeological remains within their footprints. 7.4.68 The previous investigations within and around the site identified a substantial amount of modern made ground, in places up to 2.0m deep. In general any archaeological features on the site are likely to be sealed below made ground and cut into the natural brickearth (where it survives) or gravels. Evidence of the Parrs Ditch was recorded during investigations across the northern part of the site. The ditch deposits examined indicated a natural channel which had been re-cut and exploited in the post-medieval period and was approximately 2.5m deep. The re-cutting of the ditch is likely to have removed earlier palaeoenvironmental evidence. Asset potential and significance 7.4.70 The following statement of asset significance takes into account the levels of natural geology at the site and the level and nature of disturbance and truncation. Palaeoenvironmental 7.4.71 The site has a low potential for palaeoenvironmental remains predating the medieval period and a high potential for later medieval and postmedieval palaeoenvironmental remains. During the prehistoric, Roman and early medieval periods, the river terrace would have largely remained high and dry although occasionally major overbank flood events could have distributed channel sediments across the area. During the medieval period and later, the Parrs Ditch crossed the northern part of the site. There is evidence that the original natural watercourse was recut during the later medieval or post-medieval period and this is likely to have removed earlier palaeoenvironmental evidence and truncated the sedimentary sequence. There is a high potential therefore for palaeoenvironmental remains dating to the medieval and post-medieval periods, but these remains have a low evidential value and are therefore considered to be of low significance. Prehistoric 7.4.72 The site has low potential for archaeological remains dating to the prehistoric period. Soils would have developed across the gravels from the Mesolithic and the free draining nature of the gravels and proximity to the river would have made the site area ideal for farming or possibly settlement. Previous archaeological works carried out within or around the site have produced evidence of prehistoric activity mostly in the form of isolated finds. Isolated prehistoric finds would be of low significance based on their evidential value. Roman 7.4.73 The site has a low potential for archaeological remains dating to the Roman period. Previous archaeological work carried out carried out within and around the site has produced evidence of Roman activity in the form of isolated finds, but no definite features of Roman date were identified.
7.4.69
Page 64
Isolated Roman finds if present within the site would be of low significance, derived from the potential evidential value. Early medieval 7.4.74 The site has a high potential for archaeological remains dating to the early medieval period. Previous archaeological work carried out within and around the site has produced significant evidence of Early Saxon activity and occupation, in the form of a number of sunken featured buildings, a Saxon hall, pit, ditches and pottery. Further remains associated with the Saxon settlement may potentially survive within the site, and would be of high significance derived from their potential evidential and historical value. Later Medieval 7.4.75 The site has a low potential for archaeological remains dating to the later medieval period. Little archaeological activity dating to the later medieval period has been recorded during the numerous archaeological investigations carried out within the site. The site appears to have comprised open ground, to the south of a later medieval settlement during this period. Isolated remains of field ditches dating to this period within the site would be of low significance. Post-medieval 7.4.76 The site has a high potential for archaeological remains dating to the postmedieval period. The main potential is for the surviving footings of the mid 19th-century terraced houses in the northern part of the site, which would be of low significance based on their evidential value. There is also a low potential for earlier post-medieval remains within the site. The archaeological investigations within the vicinity of site indicate the presence of features associated with 17th-century Brandenburgh House and Crispes business ventures. Of particular importance has been the discovery of the glass bead manufacture. From the historical evidence it would appear that these beads were being manufactured for export to the colonial markets for the purchase of slaves in the African Gold Coast. This glass bead-manufacturing site is perhaps archaeologically unique for the United Kingdom and exceptionally rare elsewhere in Europe outside the Venice area. In situ archaeological remains associated with glass production would be of high significance (depending upon the level of survival) based on their evidential and historical value. Remains associated with Crispes brick manufacturing would also be of historical value and of medium significance.
7.4.77
Page 65
Summary of asset significance

7.4.78 The table below provides a summary of the known or likely historic environment assets relevant to the proposed scheme. Vol 8 Table 7.4.1 Historic environment receptors Receptor (Asset) Fulham Reach Conservation Area Asset type Above ground/ within the site Above ground/ within the site Above ground/ outside the site Above ground/ outside the site Above ground/ outside the site Above ground/ outside the site Buried/within the site Significance (value) High
1960s Hammersmith Pumping Station Former 19th-century Hammersmith Pumping Station Hammersmith Bridge (Grade II* listed) Castelnau Conservation Area Former Harrods furniture depository (Grade II listed) Low potential for palaeoenvironmental remains predating the medieval period. High potential for remains of the later medieval and post-medieval Parrs Ditch Low potential for isolated redeposited prehistoric artefacts Low potential for isolated redeposited Roman artefacts High potential for early medieval settlement remains Low potential for later medieval isolated artefacts and field ditches Low potential for evidence of 17thcentury glass bead manufacture Low potential for evidence of 17thcentury brick manufacture High potential for the footings of 19th-century terraced houses
Low
Medium
Very high High High Low
Buried/within the site
Low
Buried/within the site Buried/within the site Buried/within the site Buried/within the site Buried/within the site Buried/within the site Buried/within the site
Low Low High Low High Medium Low
Page 66
7.5
7.5.1
Construction assessment Above ground heritage assets

The steps and sections of the existing wall around the 1960s Hammersmith Pumping Station (low asset significance) pumping station would be removed. This would comprise a low magnitude of impact. Given the low asset significance, this would comprise a minor adverse effect. The assessment of indirect effects upon the historic setting of surrounding designated/protected heritage assets within the study area, including Fulham Reach Conservation Area, for example from the visual presence of construction machinery, requires further consideration and will be completed for the ES. This assessment is distinct from the assessment of effects on townscape character areas presented in Section 11, as it is based on criteria specific to the historic environment. The study area for assessing setting effects on heritage assets may be revised because historic setting effects are most likely to occur within the visual envelope of the site, which may differ from the study area defined for the purposes of this assessment. The effects of other construction phase activities on particularly significant assets (ie, statutorily designated/protected features) on or adjacent to the site, will also be assessed in the ongoing EIA for presentation in the ES. Construction impacts which may affect the setting of such assets might include vibration from piling, dust and disturbance from the movement of heavy goods vehicles.
7.5.2
7.5.3
Buried heritage assets

Enabling works 7.5.4 The following enabling works would potentially have an impact upon buried heritage assets: a. On the northern part of the site, the hard standing would be broken out. The construction of the works compound is likely to entail preliminary site stripping, assumed for the purposes of this assessment to extend to approximately 0.2mbgl. Site fencing would be erected, supported by timber posts in concrete foundations. Office, storage and welfare facilities would be constructed upon pad foundations extending to a depth of approximately 1.0mbgl, as assumed for the purposes of this assessment. b. The enabling works would entail the diversion of existing services and the construction of new service trenches approximately 12m deep, as assumed for the purposes of this assessment. 7.5.5 These works would be unlikely to penetrate beneath the modern made ground and are therefore unlikely to have an archaeological impact. Construction works 7.5.6 Construction works with potential to impact on the historic environment comprise the following:
Page 67
a. the below ground CSO drop shaft and inner and outer guide walls b. piling would be used prior to shaft construction which will be driven through the overlying soft ground to cut off ground water ingress c. a cut-and-cover connection tunnel between the CSO shaft and main tunnel
d. the interception chamber with a secant pile wall e. a ventilation pipe would be constructed within a sheet pile excavation trench f. a ventilation column g. construction of a crane base, including a concrete foundation within guide walls. 7.5.7 At the construction works phase any archaeological remains would be completely removed from within the footprint of the CSO drop shaft and open cut connecting tunnel to the main tunnel. Within the footprint of the interception chamber, ventilation pipes and crane base, any archaeological remains present above the formation level of the works would be removed, reducing the significance of any affected assets to negligible. This would constitute a high magnitude of impact for these assets. The environmental effect would vary depending upon the significance of the assets removed: a. There is a low potential for palaeoenvironmental remains of low asset significance, predating the medieval period. Removal of these remains would constitute a minor adverse effect. b. There is a high potential for palaeoenvironmental evidence within the medieval and later Parrs ditch, of low asset significance. Removal of these remains would constitute a minor adverse effect. There is a low potential for prehistoric, Roman and later medieval isolated, redeposited finds which are considered to be of low asset significance. The removal of such remains would constitute a minor adverse effect. c. There is a high potential for early medieval settlement features of high asset significance (dependant on the level of survival). Removal of these remains would constitute a major adverse effect.
d. There is a low potential for remains of 17th-century glass bead manufacture of high asset significance. The removal of these remains, if present, would potentially constitute a major adverse effect. e. There is low potential for evidence of 17th-century brick manufacture associated with Nicholas Crispe or Brandenburgh House. The removal of such remains, of medium asset significance, would constitute a moderate adverse effect. f. There is a high potential for remains of 19th-century terraced houses which are of low asset significance. The removal of these remains would constitute a minor adverse effect.
Page 68
Significance of environmental effects

7.5.8 The table below summarises the magnitude of impact upon known and possible historic environment assets at the site (above ground and buried), during the construction phase, and the resulting environmental effect. This is the effect prior to the implementation of an agreed mitigation strategy. Vol 8 Table 7.5.1 Historic environment construction effects Asset (resource) Impact (magnitude, and justification) Low Removal of boundary wall and steps Effect (prior to mitigation) Minor adverse
Above ground heritage assets The 1960s Hammersmith Pumping Station (Low value) Setting of above ground heritage assets in the vicinity of the site, including nearby listed buildings Low potential for isolated redeposited prehistoric artefacts (Low value)
To be assessed in the ES
Buried heritage assets High Assets removed by CSO drop shaft, ventilation ducts, ventilation chamber, interception chamber and connecting culvert. Significance of the asset reduced to negligible. Minor adverse
High potential for palaeoenvironmental evidence of the medieval and later Parrs Ditch (Low value) Low potential for isolated, redeposited prehistoric artefacts (Low value) Low potential for isolated redeposited Roman artefacts (Low value) High potential for early medieval
Minor adverse High Assets removed by CSO drop shaft, ventilation ducts, ventilation Minor adverse chamber, interception chamber and connecting culvert. Minor adverse Significance of the asset reduced to negligible Major adverse
Page 69
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Asset (resource) settlement remains (High value) Low potential for later Medieval isolated artefacts and field ditches (Low value) Low potential for evidence of 17th-century glass bead manufacture (High value) Low potential for evidence of brick manufacture (Medium value) High potential for the footings of 19th-century terraced houses (Low value)
Section 7: Historic environment Impact (magnitude, and justification) Effect (prior to mitigation)
Minor adverse
Major adverse (unlikely)
Moderate adverse (unlikely) Minor adverse
7.6
7.6.1
Operational assessment Above ground heritage assets

The site is located within the Fulham Reach Conservation Area, which is of high asset significance. The proposed works would potentially have an impact on the character of the conservation area. The proposed new ventilation structure, changes to above-ground layout and new hard and soft landscaping would potentially change the architectural and historic quality of the conservation area. The precise impact upon the historic appreciation, character and integrity of the conservation area will be considered in the final ES, taking into account the proposed residential development within which the structure would be located. The effect of the scheme upon the historic setting of designated/protected heritage assets within the study area requires further consideration and will be assessed through the ongoing EIA for presentation in the ES. This assessment is distinct from the assessment of effects on townscape character areas presented in Section 11 as it is based on criteria specific to the historic environment. The study area for assessing setting effects on heritage assets may be revised because historic setting effects are most likely to occur within the visual envelope of the site, which may differ from the study area defined for the purposes of this assessment.
7.6.2

7.6.3 There would be no further effects upon buried heritage assets resulting from the operation of the scheme.
Page 70
Significance of environmental effects

7.6.4 The table below summarises the historic environment assets at the site for which effects during the operational phase will be assessed through the ongoing EIA for presentation in the ES. Vol 8 Table 7.6.1 Historic environment operational effects Asset (resource) Fulham Reach Conservation Area (within and beyond the site). (High value) Setting of Hammersmith Bridge (outside the site) (Very High value) Setting of the Castelnau conservation area and associated listed and locally listed buildings(outside the site) (High asset significance) Setting of the former 19th century Hammersmith Pumping Station (Medium significance) Impact (magnitude, and justification) Effect (prior to mitigation)
7.7
7.7.1

All measures embedded in the draft CoCP of relevance to the historic environment are found in Section 4.2. Additional mitigation measures required are detailed below.
Above ground heritage assets

7.7.2 Any mitigation which may be required for indirect effects on above ground heritage assets will be detailed in the final ES following consideration of the significance of these assets, their setting and the predicted effect. However, it is acknowledged that the scope for mitigation is likely to be limited, for example where effects on historic setting arise from the visible presence of construction machinery.

7.7.3 Based on this assessment, no heritage assets of very high significance are anticipated that might merit a mitigation strategy of permanent preservation in situ. It is therefore considered that the adverse environmental effects of the proposed development could be successfully mitigated by a suitable programme of archaeological investigation before and/or during construction, to achieve preservation by record (through advancing understanding of asset significance).
Page 71
The assessment presented here has identified likely significant effects on buried heritage assets resulting from ground works. Mitigation requirements would be informed by selective site based assessment. This could include a variety of techniques, such as geotechnical investigation, geoarchaeologcial deposit modelling, archaeological test pits and trial trenches. This evaluation would enable a more targeted and precise mitigation strategy to be developed for the site post-consent and well in advance of construction. Subject to the findings of this and the construction methodology and any subsequent field evaluation post-consent and prior to the start of construction, mitigation of the adverse effects upon archaeological remains within the site would comprise archaeological excavation and recording to form preservation by record, prior to and during construction work. Specific mitigation is likely to include the following: a. An archaeological watching brief during demolition and construction to mitigate the impacts on any 19th century remains, of low significance (ie, terraced housing). b. Archaeological excavation and recording, to form preservation by record, to mitigate the impact on remains of high and medium significance, including any early medieval settlement, and evidence of 17th century brick or bead manufacture. c. Targeted archaeological investigation as the ground within the perimeter walls/shaft segments is excavated downwards, to mitigate the impacts of deeper proposed excavations on palaeoenvironmental remains, taking into account past impacts caused by the depth of made ground and probable depth of the Parrs Ditch deposits. Mitigation would only become feasible following the insertion of the perimeter walls/shaft segments of each construction (the shaft, the chambers etc).
7.7.5
7.7.6
Both evaluation and mitigation would be carried out in accordance with a scope of works (Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI)), will be agreed with statutory consultees prior to conducting any archaeological fieldwork prior to or during construction, to ensure that the scope and method of fieldwork are appropriate to satisfy requirements of the application.
Operation
Above ground heritage assets 7.7.7 Any mitigation which may be required for indirect effects on above ground heritage assets will be detailed in the final ES, following consideration of the significance of these assets, their setting (including any likely changes arising from the Fulham Reach residential development) and the predicted effects. Mitigation might, for example, include changes to the proposed finishing materials of above ground structures such as cladding and ground treatments.
Page 72
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Buried heritage assets 7.7.8
Operational activities would not lead to any disturbance to buried heritage assets. Therefore there would be no effects upon buried heritage assets resulting from the operation of the scheme.
Page 73
7.8
Vol 8 Table 7.8.1 Historic environment construction assessment Significance of effect Above ground heritage assets Minor adverse Mitigation
Assessment summary
Residual Effects
Asset (receptor)
The 1960s Hammersmith Pumping Station Minor adverse None required (Low value) Setting of heritage assets, including the former 19thTo be assessed in the ES century Hammersmith Pumping Station, Hammersmith Bridge, Castelnau Conservation Area and associated listed and locally listed buildings, and Fulham Reach Conservation Area Buried heritage assets Minor adverse Environmental sampling during archaeological investigation
Low potential for palaeoenvironmental remains predating the medieval period (Low value) Minor adverse
Negligible
High potential for palaeoenvironmental evidence within Parrs Ditch (Low value) Minor adverse
Negligible
Low potential for isolated redeposited prehistoric artefacts (Low value)
Negligible Archaeological excavation and recording to form preservation by record
Low potential for isolated redeposited Roman artefacts (Low value)
Minor adverse Major adverse
Negligible Negligible
High potential for early medieval settlement remains (High value)
Page 74
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Significance of effect Minor adverse Negligible Mitigation Residual Effects
Asset (receptor)
Low potential for later medieval isolated artefacts and field ditches (Low value) Major adverse Negligible
Low potential for evidence of 17th-century glass bead manufacture (High value) Moderate adverse Minor adverse Archaeological watching brief recording to form preservation by record
Low potential for evidence of brick manufacture (Medium value)
Negligible Negligible
High potential for the footings of 19th-century terraced houses (Low value)
Page 75
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Vol 8 Table 7.8.2 Historic environment operational assessment Significance of effect To be assessed in the ES Mitigation Residual effect
Asset (receptor)
Setting of Fulham Reach Conservation Area (within and beyond the site). (High value) To be assessed in the ES To be assessed in the ES
Setting of Hammersmith Bridge (outside the site) (Very High value)
Setting of the Castelnau Conservation Area and associated listed and locally listed buildings (outside the site) (High value) To be assessed in the ES
Setting of the former 19th-century Hammersmith Pumping Station (Medium value)
Page 76
7.9
7.9.1
In terms of desk based sources, the outstanding information that will contribute to the EIA baseline comprises the results of geoarchaeological monitoring of geotechnical boreholes (clarifying depth and nature of deposits). Effects of ground settlement resulting from deep constructions within the site, other than the tunnel itself (this will be discussed in Volume 6: Project-wide effects) will be considered and reported in the ES. The assessment of indirect construction and operational effects upon the historic setting of surrounding designated/protected heritage assets within the study area requires further consideration and will be completed for the ES. This assessment is distinct from the assessment of effects on townscape character areas presented in Section 11, as it is based on criteria specific to the historic environment. The study area for assessing setting effects on heritage assets may be revised because historic setting effects are most likely to occur within the visual envelope of the site, which may differ from the study area defined to date. Assessment of cumulative and in combination effects will be undertaken and reported in the ES. Following completion of the assessment, the mitigation approaches for the historic environment within the project will be finalised and reported in the ES.
7.9.2
7.9.3
7.9.4 7.9.5
Page 77
Section 8: Land quality
8 8.1
8.1.1
Land quality Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant land quality effects at the Hammersmith Pumping Station site. It should be noted that issues affecting groundwater and surface water are covered in detail in the water resources groundwater (Section 13) and surface water (Section 14), which should be read in conjunction with land quality (Section 8).
8.1.2
8.2
8.2.1
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The permanent elements of the proposed development relevant to land quality are as follows: Permanent works at Hammersmith Pumping Station include a CSO shaft, an interception chamber and a connection culvert. A 4m internal connection tunnel would be constructed to the main tunnel. It is not thought that any dewatering or ground treatment would be required at this location On completion of the civil works the permanent works area would be graded and a capping concrete and paved surface constructed. The section of the demolished Pumping Station boundary wall would be rebuilt. Any architectural features and landscaping would be undertaken. Construction workers involved in intensive below ground works are high sensitivity receptors. Measures incorporated into the draft CoCP which aim to substantially reduce risks associated with construction activities include: a. the remediation of the site so it is fit for purpose (where required) b. the use of appropriate PPE as well as training and welfare for construction staff c. confined space working measures where applicable d. the employment of UXO specialist advice.
8.2.2
8.2.3 8.2.4 8.2.5 8.2.6
8.2.7
The CoCP includes measures to minimise the migration of dusts during construction activities. These include the use of wheel washing at site entrances, damping down during dry weather and covering and safe storage of potentially contaminating materials (if any).
8.3
8.3.1

Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken.
Page 78
There were no site specific comments from consultees for this particular site.
Construction and operation

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

8.3.5 The assumptions and limitations associated with this study are presented in Volume 5. There are no site specific assumptions and limitations for the site.
8.4
8.4.1
Baseline conditions Current conditions

Baseline conditions have been assessed for the development confines and for a distance of up to 250m beyond (in order to take into account off site contamination sources and receptors). The baseline data was sourced from the Thames Tunnel Geographical Information Systems (GIS) database, including historic maps and environmental records. In addition information has been sourced from a walkover survey, stakeholder consultation and results from a preliminary intrusive ground investigation undertaken by the Thames Tunnel project. A full list of the data sets drawn upon in this assessment is presented in Volume 5 methodology.
8.4.2
Site walkover
8.4.3 8.4.4 A site walkover at Hammersmith Pumping Station was undertaken by a contaminated land specialist on the 15th November 2010. The proposed site is located within a parcel of currently vacant, brownfield land within Hammersmith Embankment incorporating part of the Thames Water owned Hammersmith Pumping Station in the LB of Hammersmith and Fulham. The brownfield site is contained within hoarding and a number of excavated material and rubble heaps were observed as well as several pieces of pipework within the vicinity of the Pumping Station. Previously situated in the north-eastern corner of the site was the Hammersmith Industrial Estate which has recently been demolished. This area is approximately 75m from the site and is currently vacant with a car park area of hardstanding adjacent. No current potential contaminative sources were identified on the brownfield site during the survey. The site walkover notes are provided at Appendix B.
8.4.5
8.4.6
Page 79
Site history and surroundings with potential for contaminants

8.4.7 The table below provides a summary of the site history, including potentially contaminative activities and principal contaminants of concern in and around the site. The table was produced following inspection of the historic mapping dating from the late 19th century to the present day held by the project, together with the site walkover in order to more fully understand the site and surrounding area. The locations of the sites described below are shown on Vol 8 Figure 8.4.1. Vol 8 Figure 8.4.1 Land quality - contaminative land uses (see Volume 8 Figures document) Vol 8 Table 8.4.1 Land quality contaminative land use summary Ref Item Inferred Potentially contaminative substances date of associated with item operation c1869 c1952 VOC, TPH, heavy metals, ethanol/methanol, ammonia, chlorinated alkalis, benzene, toluene, ethybenzene and xylenes, arsenic, complex and free cyanide, sulphates, asbestos, phenol, PAHs Heavy metals, arsenic, free cyanide, nitrates, ammonium, phosphates, sulphates, sulphides, asbestos, oil/fuel hydrocarbons, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons, PCBs, pathogens Oils, fuels, greases, diesel associated with machinery and back-up power, toluene, sulphides, acids, chlorine, ammonia, heavy metals. Heavy metals, arsenic, hydrocarbons
8.4.8
On-site 1 Distillery (including gasometer)
Sewage pumping station
c 1960s present
Off-site 2 Saccharine works (and sugar refinery) (35m south) 3 Coal yard (40m south east) 5 Chemical storage (110m south west) 6 Wharf (40m west)
c1896 c1962
c1951
c1972 c1983
c1868 c1988
Cement works (75m
c1896
Heavy metals, arsenic, boron, selenium, free cyanide, nitrates, sulphates, sulphides, asbestos, PAHs, phenols, acetones, aromatic hydrocarbons, PCBs, dioxins, furans Heavy metals, arsenic, asbestos, phenols, oil/fuels, hydrocarbons, PAHs, PCBs, sulphide, sulphate, chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons Heavy metals, arsenic, boron, free cyanide, nitrates, sulphates, sulphur, asbestos,
Page 80
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Ref Item
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Inferred Potentially contaminative substances date of associated with item operation west) aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs, PCBs, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons. Iron works c1896 Heavy metals, arsenic, boron, free cyanide, (40m west) c1916 nitrates, sulphates, sulphides, asbestos, aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs, PCBs, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons Wharf (40m c1874 Heavy metals, arsenic, asbestos, phenols, west) c1988 oil/fuels, hydrocarbons, PAHs, PCBs, sulphide, sulphate, chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons Engineering c1916 Heavy metals, arsenic, boron, free cyanide, works present nitrate, sulphide, sulphate, asbestos, aromatic (150m north hydrocarbons, PAHs, PCBs, chlorinated west) aliphatic hydrocarbons. Joinery c1951 Heavy metals, arsenic, boron, free cyanide, (220m c1952 nitrates, sulphates, sulphides, asbestos, south) aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs, PCBs, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons Pumping c1951 Heavy metals, arsenic, free cyanide, nitrates, station c1952 ammonium, phosphates, sulphates, sulphides, (30m north) asbestos, oil/fuel hydrocarbons, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons, PCBs, pathogens Electrical c1951 Oil, PCBs substations c1988 (35m north, 75m south east, 135m south and 155m south) Coach c1952 Heavy metals, asbestos, TPHs, aromatic works hydrocarbons, PAHs, chlorinated aliphatic (200m north hydrocarbons west) Food c1952 Heavy metals, arsenic, free cyanide, nitrates, processing c1988 sulphates, sulphides, asbestos, aromatic factory hydrocarbons, chlorinated aliphatic (160m hydrocarbons south) Depot (30m c1972 Oil/fuel hydrocarbons, aromatic hydrocarbons, north) present PAHs, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, organolead compounds, heavy metals and asbestos.
Page 81
The earliest maps reviewed from the late 19th century indicates that the site and surrounding vacant plot area was the location of a large distillery, which included various process buildings, chimneys, tanks and for a brief period a gasometer. Several tanks were indicated to have been located in the proposed site area. Housing formerly occupied the northern tip of the site in the late 19th Century. Further along the embankment to the north-west, two wharfs fronting the River Thames also existed. The surrounding area was a mix of residential properties and open land although this had become almost entirely developed by the early 20th century into residential properties. At the end of the 19th century, an iron works and cement works had been constructed along the embankment to the northwest and a sugar refinery (saccharine works) had been constructed just to the south of the distillery. Both the iron works and cement works are not visible in maps after 1920. By the 1920s an engineering works, which exists to the present day, had been constructed approximately 150m to the north-west and a motorworks was built immediately south of the sugary refinery. By the late 1960s, Hammersmith pumping station had been built adjacent to the proposed site and a second pumping station which no longer exists was also constructed approximately 30m to the north. The site of the motorworks was replaced by a food factory and the distillery was no longer in operation by the late 1950s. A coach works was also constructed approximately 200m to the north-west although this is not visible in any later maps. Half of the engineering works site had also been converted to the Riverside Film Studios which exists to the present day. In the 1960s and 1970s, the former distillery was converted to a chemical storage site and by the 1980s the sugar refinery was demolished. The pumping station to the north was labelled as a depot and a new council depot is also shown 50m to the north. In the 1980s, both wharfs still existed from the late 19th century as did the engineering works, Riverside Film Studios, depot, council depot, the food factory and Hammersmith Pumping Station. In the present day, only the engineering works, film studios, depot and Hammersmith Pumping Station still exist. The food factory has been converted to bars / restaurants and the council depot has been converted to residential housing. The surrounding area remains predominantly residential.
8.4.10 8.4.11
8.4.12
8.4.13
8.4.14
8.4.15
8.4.16
8.4.17
Geology and hydrogeology

8.4.18 Data from British Geological survey and sourced from the published geological map of the area together with logs from boreholes excavated as part of previous investigations of the site indicate the geological succession summarised in Vol 8 Table 8.4.2. Controlled waters (ie, surface water and groundwater) can potentially represent a pathway for the spread of mobile contaminants as well as
8.4.19
Page 82
being a sensitive environmental receptor. The Environment Agency (EA) Aquifer Designation maps have been used to classify the geological units according to their aquifer status which is also presented in Vol 8 Table 8.4.2. 8.4.20 8.4.21 The site is classified by the EA as not being within a source protection zone for groundwater that is extracted for potable supply. The proposed drop shaft at this site would be constructed to an invert level of approximately 30.69 metres below ground level (mbgl) therefore the shaft would be founded in the London Clay. Vol 8 Table 8.4.2 Land quality site geology and hydrogeology Geological unit/ Strata Description Approximate depth below ground level (m) 0.0 2.75 Hydrogeological classification Unclassified
Made Ground Largely comprises sandy gravely silt with local gravels of brick, concrete and flint. Alluvium
Soft and firm sandy 2.75 3.25 slightly gravely clay with occasional shell fragments Medium dense to dense to dense sand and gravel (predominantly quartz sand and flint gravel). Slightly sandy and silty fissured clay. 3.25 7.75
Secondary (undifferentiated) superficial Aquifer
River Terrace Deposits
London Clay
7.5 40.85
Unproductive strata
Hydrology
8.4.22 The River Thames is approximately 100m away from the site to the southwest. Further discussion on hydrology is presented in the water resources section.
Unexploded ordnance
8.4.23 During World Wars I and II, the London area was subject to bombing. In some cases bombs failed to detonate on impact. During construction works unexploded ordnance or bombs (UXO) are sometimes encountered and require safe disposal. A desk based assessment for UXO threat was undertaken at the site. The report reviews information sources such as the Ministry of Defence (MoD), Public Records Office and the Port of London Authority.
8.4.24
Page 83
The report establishes that the nearby areas suffered severe bomb damage during the 1940 to 1941 bombing campaign. Taking into account the findings of this study and the known extent of the proposed works, t was considered that there is an overall medium/high threat from UXO at the Hammersmith Pumping Station site.
Thames Tunnel ground investigation

8.4.26 8.4.27 The following section summarises the soil, soil gas and groundwater testing undertaken as part of the Thames Tunnel ground investigation. Borehole PR1117 was located on the site, whilst SA118 was drilled adjacent to the site. Other boreholes nearby are considered too remote from the site to provide accurate assessment of baseline conditions. Soil and groundwater contamination data is only available for borehole PR1117 as shown in the table below. The results of the ground investigation have been compared against human health screening values and to Port of London Approved Sediment Quality Guidelines. Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) criteria are used for the shallow aquifer as it is in continuity with the tidal River Thames. Borehole locations are given in Vol 8 Figure 8.4.2. Vol 8 Figure 8.4.2 Land quality borehole locations (see Volume 8 Figures document) Vol 8 Table 8.4.3 Land quality ground investigation data Borehole Nos. PR1117 Soil testing No contaminants above human health screening values in the four samples tested. Groundwater testing One standpipe in the Alluvium and one in the London Clay Formation. No contaminants in exceedance of assessment criteria.
8.4.28
8.4.29
8.4.30 8.4.31
In summary the testing to date shows no contamination of the soils or shallow aquifer. Two rounds of gas monitoring of the standpipe installed in the alluvium in borehole PR1117 showed no detectable carbon dioxide or methane.
Other environmental records

8.4.32 Details of environmental records for the vicinity of the site held by the EA and other bodies were obtained from the Thames Tunnel GIS which is partially sourced from Landmark Information Group. Significant records are discussed in further detail after the summary table below. Items summarised in the table are also show in Vol 8 Figure 8.4.3.
8.4.33
Page 84
Vol 8 Figure 8.4.3 Land quality environmental records and waste sites (see Volume 8 Figures document) Vol 8 Table 8.4.4 Land quality environmental records and waste sites Item Licensed Industrial Activities Hazardous Substance Sites Pollution incidents to controlled water Waste Treatment and Disposal Sites Landfill sites Industrial authorisations (IPPC, COMAH, PPC) Past Potential Contaminated Uses Licensed Abstractions 8.4.34 On-site 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Within 250m of site boundary 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0
Within a 250m radius of the Hammersmith Pumping Station site, GIS mapping has identified a single pollution incidents to controlled water. This is located to the west within the River Thames and no information is available on its cause. Whilst it is likely to be sewage related, the available data does not capture each of the CSO discharges that occur on a regular basis. There are two sites located within the 250m radius that are identified as having past potential contaminated industrial uses. These are located on the position of the two former wharves. Likely contaminants associated with this industry are identified in Vol 8 Table 8.4.1.
8.4.35
Thames Water operational records

8.4.36 Thames Water was consulted with respect to the potentially contaminating substance storage and operational spillages at the site within the last five years. Thames Water did not identify that the bulk storage of hydrocarbons or other potentially contaminating liquids was currently taking place at the site. No spillage of any potentially contaminating substances to ground were recorded.
8.4.37
8.4.38
Page 85
Technical engagement
8.4.39 The LB of Hammersmith and Fulham was consulted with reference to data they may hold in respect of contaminated land within the specified search radius. The council confirmed the findings of the historical map search which is presented in Vol 8 Table 8.4.1. In addition the council identified that some intrusive investigation works of the overall site had taken place at a number of times during various redevelopment works. The council indicated that the site of the Frank Banfield Park (off-site adjacent to the eastern boundary) was recorded by consultants WSP as being impacted with elevated heavy metals, TPH and PAH. This resulted in some minor remedial works (provision of 300mm of cover soils) being recommended by the consultant which were subsequently made a requirement of the planning application. The council did not have any further information as to the implementation of these recommendations. No other information from intrusive surveys at the site was provided by the council.
8.4.40 8.4.41
8.4.42
8.4.43
8.5

Assessment year: construction
8.5.1 8.5.2
For land quality, the assessment is based on the likely baseline conditions which would be experienced on commencement in Year 1 of construction. It is understood that planning permission has been granted for a number of apartment blocks across the vacant plot of land which includes the site of the proposed CSO shaft and permanent works. It is expected that substantial portion of these works (in the order of 75%) would be complete by the commencement of construction for the Thames Tunnel project. As such, it is possible that following soil and groundwater remediation schemes that may be implemented by the redevelopment works, land quality baseline conditions, would have improved to some degree by the commencement of the construction. Site conceptual model A key element of the preliminary risk assessment for land quality is the development of source-pathway-receptor conceptual model which aims to understand the presence and significance of potentially complete pollutant linkages. The methodology for undertaking this analysis is provided in Volume 5.
8.5.3
8.5.4
8.5.5
Development of conceptual model

8.5.6 The following section outlines the sources, pathways and receptors which are relevant to the land quality assessment at the site.
Page 86
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Sources of contamination 8.5.7
The following potential sources of contamination have been identified: a. On site i ii iii i Sewage pumping station (including former diesel tanks) Residual contamination from previous and adjacent site usage (including) Possible unexploded ordnance No presently existing sources
b. Off site Pathways 8.5.8 The following pathways for contamination have been identified: a. human uptake through: ingestion of exposed contaminated soils during construction; inhalation of soil/dust, volatilised compounds or ground gas via migration through permeable strata and conduits dermal contact with exposed soils during construction horizontal and vertical migration of leachable contaminants via groundwater within the upper aquifer in the Alluvium/River Terrace Deposits vertical migration of contaminants along preferential pathways created by excavation of shaft direct contact of soils with construction materials accidental detonation of UXO gas/vapour migration through pipes/foundations, along piles and into structures.
b. c.
d. e. f. g.
Receptors 8.5.9 The following receptors have been identified: a. b. c. d. e. 8.5.10 construction workers site end users (maintenance staff and residents) off site receptors - residents and workers built environment controlled waters - groundwater in upper aquifer
The sensitivity of the land quality receptors are defined in Vol 5 Table 7.4.2.
Construction assessment results

8.5.11 The following section discusses the potential impacts on receptors as a result of the existing land quality conditions at the site.
Page 87
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Impacts and effects upon construction workers 8.5.12
Desk based information suggests that the soils beneath the site may be contaminated, principally as a result of previous (historic) site usage. Such contamination may pose a risk to construction workers via a variety of pathways including, direct contact and vapour pathways. There is also the potential for the build-up of asphyxiant or explosive gases associated with contamination confined space construction. Although the strata recorded by the investigation do not appear to contain a significant biodegradable fraction, some elevated soil gas/vapour may be associated with hydrocarbon contamination and this therefore needs to be considered. Overall the magnitude of the impact is likely to be negligible, giving a slight effect (not significant). Impacts and effects upon off-site receptors The construction works may result in the creation of new pathways for contaminants to migrate to adjacent sites eg, via wind-borne dust during excavated material handling and storage or by migration of liquid contaminants through newly created service conduits. Whilst the sensitivity of adjacent commercial and residential sites is moderate to high, the impact from this would be negligible giving a slight effect (not significant). Impacts and effects upon built environment High levels of certain contaminants, if contained within subsurface materials, can lead to impacts on the built environment (both existing and proposed), including chemical attack on buried concrete structures. Additionally detonation of potential unidentified buried UXO could represent a risk during construction. The built environment is a low sensitivity receptor and following the proposed procedures such as site investigation, UXO surveys and remediation, the magnitude of impact is judged to be negligible, giving a negligible effect (not significant). Impacts and effects on controlled waters - groundwater For more assessment of the effects to groundwater reference should be made to Section 13. Impacts and effects on controlled waters surface water For impacts and effects to surface water reference should be made to Section 14. The table below identifies potential impacts as a result of the existing land quality conditions at the site.
8.5.13
8.5.14
8.5.15
8.5.16
8.5.17
8.5.18
8.5.19
8.5.20 8.5.21
Page 88
Vol 8 Table 8.5.1 Land quality impacts - construction Impact Health impact on construction workers Magnitude, and justification Negligible measures such as use of correct PPE, safety briefings and remediation of contaminated soils reduce impacts substantially. Negligible measures for dust suppression, correct storage of potentially contaminated materials, wheel washing at site entrance would substantially reduce impacts in the event of finding contamination. Negligible - measures such as UXO specialists employed to advise staff reduce impacts substantially. Negligible - measures such as investigation for selection of concrete mix reduce impacts.
Off-site receptors - workers and members of the public
Damage to built environment existing structures Damage to built environment proposed structures
8.5.22
The table below identifies potential impacts on receptors as a result of the existing land quality conditions at the site. Vol 8 Table 8.5.2 Land quality receptors - construction Receptor Construction workers Off-site receptors residents and workers Built environment - existing Built environment - proposed Value/sensitivity and justification High intensive below ground construction High residential premises close to site Low infrastructure Low - infrastructure
8.5.23
The table below identifies potential effects as a result of the existing land quality conditions at the site. Vol 8 Table 8.5.3 Land quality effects during construction Effect Slight effect on off-site receptors Negligible effect on built environment - existing Negligible effect on built environment - proposed Significance, and justification Not significant Not significant Not significant
Slight effect on construction workers Not significant
Page 89
8.6
8.6.1
Operational effects could include potential exposure to end users from contaminated soils and for the leakage of sewage from the shaft into the surrounding soils. Impacts and effects on future site users The future site users include maintenance workers who would be working on the site and residents of the completed housing development which the site would be integrated with. Maintenance workers, as they will visit only very occasionally and will also be briefed, wear PPE etc., will be low sensitivity receptors, members of the public are considered as high sensitivity receptors. Following the design measures incorporated into the construction phase (investigation, soil and groundwater as necessary) as well as the placement of newly built hardstanding there is not considered to be any impacts to the public from pre-existing contamination in the completed development. There is some potential for maintenance personnel to be impacted by elevated ground gases. The completed shaft is designed to have sophisticated gas and odour control measures as part of the design due to gassing source represented by the tunnel contents. Shaft design (including secondary lining) would ensure that any outflow from the shaft is unlikely and that there is a negligible impact to the identified receptors giving a negligible effect (not significant). Impacts and effects upon built environment The principal impact relates to the potential for the degradation of new structures by attack from deleterious substances which may in turn reduce the integrity of the structure (and could promote leakage of sewage through the walls of the shaft). The proposed built environment which includes a certain degree of integration with the proposed residential estates must be regarded as low to high sensitivity receptor and with the inclusion of the proposed measures such as suitable concrete mix design and soil remediation (as necessary), the impact of the effect is low giving a negligible to slight effect overall (not significant). In addition it is possible that elevated gases may be able to impact proposed above ground structures. These are however very limited and measures, such as site investigation, gas risk assessment and the incorporation of measures into building design (such as gas resistant membranes if necessary), mean the magnitude of impact is negligible. This gives a negligible effect (not significant). The table below identifies potential impacts as a result of the existing land quality conditions at the site.
8.6.2
8.6.3
8.6.4
8.6.5
8.6.6
8.6.7
8.6.8
8.6.9
Page 90
Vol 8 Table 8.6.1 Land quality impacts - operation Impact Health impact site end users Magnitude, and justification Negligible remediation and provision of shaft construction and negates risk to end users from previously existing contamination. Negligible - measures such as incorporation of gas membranes in buildings and suitable concrete mix design reduce impacts. Negligible - measures such as remediation of heavily contaminated soils reduce risks substantially.
Damage to built environment proposed structures
Damage to built environment existing structures
8.6.10
The table below identifies potential receptors as a result of the existing land quality conditions at the site. Vol 8 Table 8.6.2 Land quality receptors - operation Receptor Site end users Value/sensitivity and justification Industrial/infrastructure end use may be considered as low sensitivity. However, present plans allow members of the public to be able to access the area of completed above ground works - the latter may be considered as high sensitivity receptors. Low industrial/infrastructure Low (industrial/infrastructure) to high (future residential development to be integrated with shaft).
Built environment existing Built environment proposed
8.6.11
The table below identifies potential effects as a result of the existing land quality conditions at the site. Vol 8 Table 8.6.3 Land quality effects - operation Effect Negligible to slight effect on end users Negligible effect on built environment - existing Negligible to slight effect on built environment proposed Significance, and justification Not significant Not significant Not significant
Page 91
8.7
8.7.1
Construction The assessment has not identified the need for further site specific mitigation measures during the construction phase. Operation The assessment has not identified the need for further site specific mitigation measures during the operational phase.
8.7.2
Page 92
8.8
Vol 8 Table 8.8.1 Land quality construction assessment Significance Not significant Not required Not required Not required Not required Not significant Not significant Not significant Mitigation
Assessment summary
Residual significance No residual effects identified No residual effects identified No residual effects identified No residual effects identified
Receptor Construction workers
Effect Slight effect on construction workers
Off-site receptors residents and workers
Slight effect on off-site receptors
Built environment existing
Negligible effect on built environment - existing
Built environment proposed
Negligible effect on built environment - proposed
Vol 8 Table 8.8.2 Land quality operational assessment Significance Not significant Not significant Not significant Mitigation Not required Not required Not required Residual significance No residual effects identified No residual effects identified No residual effects identified
Receptor Site end users
Effect Negligible effect on end users
Slight effect on built environment - existing
Slight effect on built environment - proposed
Page 93
8.9
8.9.1 8.9.2 8.9.3 8.9.4
New data from site investigations (including new boreholes and foreshore samplings) will be reviewed and the baseline updated as required. Assessment of cumulative and in combination effects will be undertaken and reported in the ES. Following completion of the assessment the mitigation approaches for land quality within the project will be finalised and reported in the ES. Impacts on groundwater, surface water and aquatic ecology will be assessed and reported in the ES.
Page 94
Section 9: Noise and vibration
9 9.1
9.1.1
Noise and vibration Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant noise and vibration effects at the Hammersmith Pumping Station site. This section includes an assessment of the following: a. noise and vibration from the construction site activities b. noise from construction traffic on roads outside the site c. noise and vibration from the operation of the site.
9.1.2
9.1.3
The tunnel drive for the main tunnel does not run beneath this location, however, the drop shaft would be located above the connection tunnel to the main tunnel. Noise and vibration from the tunnelling activities associated with the main tunnel are considered in (Volume 6).
9.2
9.2.1
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to noise and vibration are as follows. Construction Measures incorporated into the draft CoCP to reduce noise and vibration impacts include: a. careful selection of construction plant (conforming to the relevant SI), construction methods and programming b. equipment to be suitably sited so as to minimise noise impact on sensitive receptors c. use of site enclosures, and temporary stockpiles, where practicable and necessary, to provide acoustic screening
9.2.2
d. choice of routes and programming for the transportation of construction materials, excavated material and personnel to and from the site e. careful programming so that activities which may generate significant noise are planned with regard to local occupants and sensitive receptors. 9.2.3 9.2.4 It has been assumed for the purpose of this assessment that the hoarding height will be 2.4m at this location. Where the need for additional noise control measures (beyond standard best practicable means measures described in the CoCP) has been identified, these have not been assumed for the purposes of the assessment. Where that the assessment indicates that these are likely to be required, this information has been added to the section on mitigation. For the purposes of the noise and vibration assessment the construction activities have been grouped into the following stages of work:
9.2.5
Page 95
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station a. enabling works
b. shaft sinking (including driven sheet piling) c. connection tunnel d. interception and CSO works e. completion work (including landscaping, and construction and fit-out of permanent facility). 9.2.6 9.2.7 The above-ground works (stages a-b) have the potential to create airborne noise and vibration impacts. Stages b, c and e have the potential to generate groundborne noise and vibration impacts, namely from sheet piling during the shaft sinking process (stage b) and the construction of the connection tunnels and the completion work (stages c and e) which involve the compaction of backfilled materials. Sheet piling would be driven in over a period of a few days, although the type of piling rig is still to be confirmed. This has not been quantitatively assessed as it is considered no significant effects would arise from these activities owing to the distance to the closest receptors and the assumed short durations of the works involved. The vibration levels have been assessed from the point of view of building damage. The connection tunnel would be constructed by tunnel excavator and not tunnel boring machine (TBM) in this location. Of the two methods the tunnel excavator would give rise to much lower vibration and noise levels. Specific construction plant information for activities d and e (interception/CSO works and landscaping respectively) is not available at this stage of the design so these works have not been assessed at this stage. However, these activities are assumed to be much smaller in scale than the rest of the works, would not involve heavy construction operations and the in the case of the interception and CSO works, would in the main take place underground. The phase two consultation logistics strategy considers the removal of excavated material and delivery of material by road. The strategic transport network would be used to move materials to and from the site. Estimated vehicle movement numbers are presented in Section 3.3. The majority of the activities would be carried out during standard (core) hours as identified in Vol 8 Table 3.3.1. The potential for 24-hour working has been proposed during the construction of the connection tunnel, however this work would be carried out below ground-level and as such it is considered that noise from these activities would not cause any disturbance. However, the potential for any associated activities at surface levels would be examined further in the ES when more information is available. Operation 9.2.13 The permanent installation would have a ventilation column. This plant equipment would be required to operate under various different scenarios dependent on the flows into and along the tunnel, with the potential to
9.2.8
9.2.9
9.2.10
9.2.11
9.2.12
Page 96
operate at any time of the day or night. The plant installed and the cascade events have the potential to create noise and vibration impacts. There would be no requirement for a kiosk. Electrical and control equipment would be housed within the pump station superstructure building.
9.3
9.3.1
Assessment methodology
Scoping and engagement Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. There were no site specific comments from consultees for this particular site in relation to noise and vibration. Baseline The baseline methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site. Construction The construction phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. Any site specific variations are described below: a. at this location, the construction activities have been assessed over the period three years.
9.3.2
9.3.3
9.3.4
Baseline noise levels have not yet been measured, and as such the assessment has been carried out based on all residential receptors being in the most sensitive assessment category according to BS5228 38. For non-residential receptors, comparison has been made to the noise levels reported from road traffic in the DEFRA London Noise Maps (2007)39. The level reported in these maps is based on an average over a longer period (7am to 11pm) than the standard (core) construction hours at this location, which is likely to be lower than the measured noise level and therefore a worst case ii. The noise level has been assumed to be the lowest value in the reported range (with a facade correction). The noise levels reported in this document are indicative of the noise climate; however they are not intended to be used to indicate noise levels at a specific receptor. The noise levels would be updated with the measured data and reported in the ES. Baseline traffic data are not currently available, and therefore although peak traffic movements are known, it is not possible to calculate the change in noise level that would arise at the identified receptor locations. A qualitative assessment has therefore been undertaken to consider the likelihood of a significant effect given current traffic levels and considering the proposed peak daily lorry movements.
9.3.5
9.3.6
ii
See para 9.2.12 for a discussion of 24 hour working.
Page 97
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Operation 9.3.7
The operational phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site. Assumptions and limitations Noise-related environmental design measures have been assumed as defined in the CoCP. The assessment of noise from construction activities is not based on the measured ambient noise levels, as baseline data is at present unavailable. A programme of baseline measurements is currently in progress and data will be collected in line with the methodology in Volume 5. The ES will make use of this data to forecast the change in noise levels. The assessment has been based on the worst case scenario for residences, where all residences fall into the most sensitive category. The assessment has been carried out based on the assumption that the noisiest two activities within any one stage could potentially occur onsite simultaneously for the duration of the stage. This is an extremely conservative approach, as the activities are unlikely to last the duration of any one stage. At the current level of construction planning, this is considered a reasonable assumption and would be refined as the construction methodology develops. The assessment of construction traffic effects has been based on predicted numbers of construction traffic movements (presented in Section 3), using professional judgement at this stage. This assessment will be revisited and presented in the ES upon receipt of baseline traffic data. The existing pumping station is surrounded by a solid concrete or rendered brickwork wall on the north, south and east facades and sections of the south and east wall would be removed during the construction period. There are railings on the west facade. It is assumed that the site hoarding erected during site set up would offer an equivalent level of screening to the demolished sections of wall. During the tunnelling works at night the surface plant in operation is limited to the ventilation fans, batching plant and a crane. While it is considered that there is a possibility for noise and vibration effects arising from water cascading during tunnel filling events at receptors very close to drop shafts, it has not been possible to adequately assess this as part of this report. The likely noise and vibration emissions however be estimated as the cascade design develops and will be reported in the ES.
9.3.8 9.3.9
9.3.10
9.3.11
9.3.12
9.3.13 9.3.14
9.4
9.4.1
Baseline conditions
This section reviews the setting and receptor characteristics of the site for the purposes of this assessment. The site is located on an area of land adjacent to the Hammersmith Pumping Station, within the LB of Hammersmith and Fulham. The site is bounded by the River Thames to the west.
Page 98
The nearest residences to the main works, located north of the development, are two storey residential properties on Chancellors Road some of which are screened to the main body of the worksite by the existing pumping station building. To the east of the development is Frank Banfield Park, over which are the rear faade of three-storey mixed residential and commercial premises facing Fulham Palace Road. To the south of the development, are two storey residential properties on Winslow Road. To the south on the opposite bank of the Thames in LB of Richmond upon Thames are three storey properties at River View Gardens. Planning approval has been granted for a new residential development between the worksite and the Thames, known as Fulham Reach. For the purposes of this assessment it has been assumed that this development will be 50% complete by 2015. The development proposals indicate an eight storey building located close to the boundary of the development. The residential properties selected for the noise and vibration assessment are identified in Vol 8 Table 9.4.1 below (and shown in plan view in Vol 8 Figure 9.4.1). These were selected as they are representative of the range of noise climates where sensitive receptors are situated around the site. The approximate numbers of properties affected at each location is indicated in Vol 8 Table 9.4.1. Beyond these receptors there are other residential locations which are screened from the site by intervening buildings. Vol 8 Figure 9.4.1 Noise and vibration residential receptors (see Volume 8 Figures document)
9.4.3
9.4.4
9.4.5 9.4.6 9.4.7
Vol 8 Table 9.4.1 also includes the Frank Banfield Park which is assessed as a non-residential noise sensitive receptor. The noise climate around the site is influenced by road traffic noise from roads further away. Baseline traffic data collection is ongoing and is thus not reported in this assessment, and therefore although peak traffic movements are known it is not possible to calculate the quantitative change in noise level that would arise at the identified receptor locations. Manual traffic counts could not be taken during the noise survey because of the high volumes of traffic. For vibration, significance is not based on existing vibration levels but an absolute level, considered in combination with other value judgements. The site at present does not have appreciable levels of vibration. It is considered that the levels of vibration around the site are low at present, and they are unlikely to rise for any reason between the present time and the future baseline.
9.4.8
Receptor sensitivity
9.4.9 The noise sensitive receptors have been assessed according to their sensitivity, according to the methodology outlined in Volume 5 Section 2.3. The sensitivities of all assessed receptors are presented in Vol 8 Table 9.4.1.
Page 99
All residential properties have been regarded as having high sensitivity. The remaining assessed resource is parkland which is considered to be of medium sensitivity. Vol 8 Table 9.4.1 Noise and vibration receptor locations Ref Receptor addresses Building Use Sensitivity No. of noise sensitive properties/ areas 8 10 16 10 35 1 750
HP01 60 Chancellors Road HP02 38 Chancellors Road HP03 98 Fulham Palace Road HP04 43 Winslow Road HP05 106-111 Riverview Gardens HP06 Frank Banfield Park HP07 Fulham Reach 9.4.11
Residential High Residential High Residential High Residential High Residential High Park Medium
Residential High
The criteria at residences for determining the significance of noise effects from construction sources are dependent upon the existing ambient noise levels. As measured ambient noise levels are not currently available the lowest assessment category has been assumed for all receptors and the assessment noise threshold levels for the receptors near the Hammersmith Pumping Station worksite are as shown in the table below. As described in the assessment methodology, this follows the ABC method for determining construction noise significance defined in BS5228. Vol 8 Table 9.4.2 Airborne noise assessment categories construction Ref Noise sensitive receptor Ambient noise level, rounded to nearest 5dBLAeq** Assessment category* Significance criterion threshold level* Day, dBLAeq,
10hour
Night, dBLAeq
1hour
HP01 60 Chancellors Road HP02 38 Chancellors Road HP03 98 Fulham Palace Road HP04 43 Winslow Road HP05 106-111 Riverview
A A A A A
65 65 65 65 65
45 45 45 45 45
Page 100
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Ref Noise sensitive receptor Ambient noise level, rounded to nearest 5dBLAeq**
Section 9: Noise and vibration Assessment category* Significance criterion threshold level* Day, dBLAeq,
10hour
Night, dBLAeq
1hour
Gardens HP06 Frank Banfield Park HP07 Fulham Reach N/A*** A N/A*** 65 N/A*** 45
* From ABC method BS5228:2009 (measured data not available lowest category assumed) ** Baseline measurement data not available for this report *** ABC method BS5228:2009 does not apply directly to non-residential receptors
9.5
9.5.1

Noise levels for the base case assessment are expected to be as assumed for the baseline noise levels for 2011. Where there is a variation in the conditions during the first year of construction it is likely that the noise levels would increase very slightly compared to the data to be measured (due to natural traffic growth), and as such, an assessment based on measured data would be worst case. It is not considered that there are any other circumstances at this location that would cause the baseline noise levels at the receptor locations to change significantly between 2011 and the first year of construction. For vibration, it is considered that the levels of vibration around the site are low at present, and they are unlikely to change between the present time and the future base case. The development case is assumed to be the base case as identified in 2011 plus any additional noise and vibration sources associated with this. As has previously been discussed, an additional residential receptor to the south of the site has been consented and is likely to be occupied during the construction process. As such, the development case has included this receptor in addition to those already existing.
9.5.2
9.5.3 9.5.4
9.5.5 Predictions of construction noise have been carried out based on information available to date on construction and presented in Section 3 of this volume. Noise measures incorporated in the CoCP have been assumed for the purposes of the assessment. Construction noise 9.5.6 The results of the assessment of construction noise are presented in Vol 8 Table 9.5.1 to Vol 8 Table 9.5.7.
Page 101
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station 60 Chancellor's Road 9.5.7 9.5.8
The property at 60 Chancellors Road is a two storey building and is representative of noise level at approximately eight dwellings. The assessment does not predict construction noise levels greater than the assumed impact criterion proposed at any floor on the property and therefore no impact is identified. Vol 8 Table 9.5.1 Noise at HP01 60 Chancellor's Road - construction Receptor No. of noise sensitive properties 8 Significance criterion threshold level, dBLAeq Value/sensitivity
60 Chancellor's Road Activity Impact (noise level*, dBLAeq)
High Magnitude/ justification Excess above criterion, dBLAeq -6 -6 -11 -2 Approx. activity duration, months 2 4 10 10
Ground Floor Enabling Works Shaft Sinking Connection Tunnel (Daytime) Connection Tunnel (Night-time) First Floor** Enabling Works Shaft Sinking Connection Tunnel (Daytime) Connection Tunnel (Night-time) 59 59 54 43 65 65 65 45
59 59 54 43
65 65 65 45
-6 -6 -11 -2
2 4 10 10
*Construction noise only ** Assessment floor level is for a worst case scenario, which is not necessarily the highest floor level
38 Chancellor's Road 9.5.9 9.5.10 The property at 38 Chancellors Road is a two storey building and is representative of noise levels at approximately ten dwellings. The assessment predicts that the construction noise levels greater than the assumed impact criterion proposed and therefore an impact is identified. Given the construction noise level and number of residences this is considered to be a significant impact.
Page 102
It should be noted that this assessment is based upon an assumed worstcase assessment significance criterion threshold as measurement of the ambient noise level at this location are yet to be completed. The current ambient noise level at the receptor may be such that the impact threshold would be increased and the reassessment may result in the effect being redetermined as not significant. Vol 8 Table 9.5.2 Noise at HP02 38 Chancellor's Road - construction Receptor No. of noise sensitive properties 10 Significance criterion threshold level, dBLAeq Value/sensitivity
38 Chancellor's Road Activity Impact (noise level*, dBLAeq)
High Magnitude/ justification Excess above criterion, dBLAeq -3 -3 -9 +1 Approx. activity duration, months 2 4 10 10
Ground Floor Enabling Works Shaft Sinking Connection Tunnel (daytime) Connection Tunnel (Night-time) First Floor** Enabling Works Shaft Sinking Connection Tunnel (daytime) Connection Tunnel (Night-time) 62 62 56 46 65 65 65 45
67 67 61 51
65 65 65 45
+2 +2 -4 +6
2 4 10 10
* Construction noise only ** Assessment floor level is for a worst case scenario, which is not necessarily the highest floor level
98 Fulham Palace Road 9.5.12 9.5.13 The property at 98 Fulham Palace Road is a three storey building and is representative of noise level at approximately 16 dwellings. The assessment does not predict construction noise levels greater than the assumed impact criterion proposed at any floor on the property and therefore no impact is identified.
Page 103
Vol 8 Table 9.5.3 Noise at HP03 98 Fulham Palace Road construction Receptor No. of noise sensitive properties 16 Significance criterion threshold level, dBLAeq Value/sensitivity
98 Fulham Palace Road Activity Impact (noise level*, dBLAeq)
Ground Floor Enabling Works Shaft Sinking Connection Tunnel (daytime) Connection Tunnel (Night-time) Second Floor** Enabling Works Shaft Sinking Connection Tunnel (daytime) Connection Tunnel (Night-time) 56 56 50 40 65 65 65 45
56 56 50 40
65 65 65 45
-9 -9 -15 -5
2 4 10 10
43 Winslow Road 9.5.14 9.5.15 The property at 43 Winslow Road is a two storey building and is representative of noise level at approximately ten dwellings. The assessment does not predict construction noise levels greater than the assumed impact criterion proposed at any floor on the property and therefore no impact is identified.
Page 104
Vol 8 Table 9.5.4 Noise at HP04 43 Winslow Road - construction Receptor No. of noise sensitive properties 10 Significance criterion threshold level, dBLAeq Value/sensitivity
43 Winslow Road Activity Impact (noise level*, dBLAeq)
Ground Floor Enabling Works Shaft Sinking Connection Tunnel (daytime) Connection Tunnel (Night-time) Second Floor** Enabling Works Shaft Sinking Connection Tunnel (daytime) Connection Tunnel (Night-time) 56 56 51 40 65 65 65 45
57 56 51 40
65 65 65 45
-8 -9 -14 -5
2 4 10 10
106-111 Riverview Gardens 9.5.16 9.5.17 The property at 106-111 Riverview Gardens is a three storey building and is representative of noise level at approximately 35 dwellings. The assessment has not predicted daytime or night-time construction noise levels greater than the assumed impact criterion proposed at any floor on the property and therefore no impact is identified.
Page 105
Vol 8 Table 9.5.5 Noise at HP05 106-111 Riverview Gardens construction Receptor No. of noise sensitive properties 35 Significance criterion threshold level, dBLAeq Value/sensitivity
106-111 Riverview Gardens Activity Impact (noise level*, dBLAeq)
Ground Floor Enabling Works Shaft Sinking Connection Tunnel (daytime) Connection Tunnel (Night-time) Third Floor** Enabling Works Shaft Sinking Connection Tunnel (daytime) Connection Tunnel (Night-time) 47 47 41 31 65 65 65 45
47 47 41 31
65 65 65 45
-18 -18 -24 -14
2 4 10 10
*Construction noise only ** Assessment floor level is for a worst case scenario, which is not necessarily the highest floor level
Frank Banfield Park 9.5.18 It should be noted that the BS5228 ABC method does not apply directly to non-residential receptors; hence impact has been evaluated based on the absolute noise level and the predicted noise level relative to the ambient noise. A prediction of construction noise has been made at a location close to the centre of the park. Relative to the assumed ambient noise levels from the London Noise Maps the increases in noise level are small and would not cause excessive disturbance. No adverse impacts have therefore been identified at this receptor.
9.5.19
Page 106
Vol 8 Table 9.5.6 Noise at HP06 Frank Banfield - construction Receptor No. of noise sensitive properties 1 Impact (noise level*, dBLAeq) 58 Ambient** baseline dBLAeq <55 Value/ sensitivity
Frank Banfield Park Activity
Medium
Magnitude/ justification
Enabling Works
3dB increase relative to assumed average baseline ambient noise level over 2 months 3dB increase relative to assumed average baseline ambient noise level over 4 months Construction noise does not exceed assumed average baseline ambient noise level over 10 months N/A
Shaft Sinking
58
<55
Connection Tunnel (daytime)
53
<55
Connection Tunnel (Night-time)
N/A
* Construction noise only ** Assumed ambient level from Defra Noise Maps for London
Fulham Reach 9.5.20 9.5.21 The property at Fulham Reach is a proposed eight storey building and is representative of noise level at approximately 750 dwellings. The assessment predicts that the daytime and night-time construction noise levels greater than the assumed impact criterion proposed and therefore an impact is identified. Given the construction noise level, number of residences and the duration of the impact this is considered to be a significant impact. It should be noted that this assessment is based upon an assumed worstcase assessment significance criterion threshold as measurement of the ambient noise level at this location are yet to be completed. The current ambient noise level at the receptor may be such that the impact threshold would be increased and the reassessment may result in the effect being redetermined as not significant.
9.5.22
Page 107
Vol 8 Table 9.5.7 Noise at HP07 Fulham Reach construction Receptor No. of noise sensitive properties 750 Significance criterion threshold level, dBLAeq Value/sensitivity
Fulham Reach Activity Impact (noise level1, dBLAeq)
High Magnitude/ justification Excess above criterion, dBLAeq -3 -3 -8 +1 Approx. activity duration, months 2 4 10 10
Ground Floor Enabling Works Shaft Sinking Connection Tunnel (daytime) Connection Tunnel (Night-time) Eighth Floor2 Enabling Works Shaft Sinking Connection Tunnel (daytime) Connection Tunnel (Night-time) 62 62 57 46 65 65 65 45
72 72 67 56
65 65 65 45
+7 +7 +2 +11
2 4 10 10
Construction traffic 9.5.23 Baseline traffic data is not currently available, and therefore it is not possible to calculate the change in noise level that would arise at the identified receptor locations. A qualitative assessment has therefore been undertaken to consider the likelihood of a significant impact given current traffic levels. Given the traffic flows on Fulham Palace Road and Chancellors Road, it is considered unlikely that any impact would be created at properties along these roads. This would be assessed in greater detail in the ES once further information is available.
9.5.24
Page 108
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Construction vibration 9.5.25
The assessment of construction vibration considers events which have the potential to result in damage to buildings or structures and human response to vibration separately using different parameters. The assessment of potential construction vibration impacts at adjacent buildings / structures has been assessed using the predicted Peak Particle Velocity (PPV), the results from the assessment are presented in the table below. PPV (peak particle velocity) vibration levels have been estimated using the method described in BS5228. Vol 8 Table 9.5.8 Vibration at buildings / structures - construction Ref Receptor Impact (highest predicted PPV across all activities, mm/s) <0.5 Value/ sensitivity Magnitude and justification
9.5.26
HP01 60 Chancellor's Road
High
No impact: Below threshold for potential cosmetic damage No impact: Below threshold for potential cosmetic damage No impact: Below threshold for potential cosmetic damage No impact: Below threshold for potential cosmetic damage No impact: Below threshold for potential cosmetic
0.7
High
HP03 98 Fulham Palace Road
<0.5
High
HP04 43 Winslow Road
<0.5
High
HP05 106-111 Riverview Gardens
<0.5
High
Page 109
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Ref Receptor
Section 9: Noise and vibration Impact (highest predicted PPV across all activities, mm/s) 0.5 Value/ sensitivity Magnitude and justification
damage HP06 Frank Banfield Park Medium No impact: Below threshold for potential cosmetic damage No impact: Below threshold for potential cosmetic damage
HP07 Fulham Reach
1.3
High
9.5.27 9.5.28
The vibration levels reported here are well below the levels likely to cause building damage according to the criteria described in Volume 5 Section 2. The assessment of potential construction vibration impacts due to human response at neighbouring receptor has been assessed using the predicted estimated Vibration Dose Value (eVDV), the results from the assessment are presented in the table below. Vol 8 Table 9.5.9 Vibration human response -construction Ref Receptor Impact (highest predicted VDV across all activities, m/s1.75)* 0.04 Value/ sensitivity Magnitude and justification**
High
No impact: Below Low Probability of Adverse Comment No impact: Below Low Probability of Adverse Comment No impact: Below Low
0.10
High
HP03 98 Fulham Palace Road
0.02
High
Page 110
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Ref Receptor
Section 9: Noise and vibration Impact (highest predicted VDV across all activities, m/s1.75)* Value/ sensitivity Magnitude and justification**
Probability of Adverse Comment HP04 43 Winslow Road 0.03 High No impact: Below Low Probability of Adverse Comment No impact: Below Low Probability of Adverse Comment No impact: Below Low Probability of Adverse Comment Impact: Low Probability of Adverse Comment
HP05 106-111 Riverview Gardens
<0.01
High
HP06 Frank Banfield Park
0.07
Medium
HP07 Fulham Reach
0.31
High
Worst affected floor Categorisation of magnitude as defined in Volume 5 Section 2
**
9.5.29
These predicted levels are based upon the worst case conditions that may arise during vibration intense activities within the site compound. The majority of the predicted eVDV levels at each of the receptor locations fall below the Low Probability of Adverse Comment band, as described in Volume 5 Section 2. Summary of construction effects The table below outlines the significance of effects from all sources of noise and vibration based on the extent of impacts identified above. As described in the general methodology Volume 5 Section 2, the significance of noise effects is based on the predicted impact and other factors, ie, the total noise level relative to the significance threshold, the numbers and types of receptors affected and the duration of impact. The significance of vibration effects is assessed on the magnitude of exposure relative to guidance thresholds for disturbance as well as other factors including the number of affected receptors and their uses.
9.5.30 9.5.31
Page 111
Vol 8 Table 9.5.10 Noise and vibration construction effects Receptor 60 Chancellor's Road 38 Chancellor's Road 98 Fulham Palace Road 43 Winslow Road 106-111 Riverview Gardens Frank Banfield Park Fulham Reach 9.5.32 9.5.33 Significance, and justification Noise Not significant Significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Significant Vibration Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Significant
The assessment identifies significant noise effects at Chancellors Road, and noise and vibration effects at Fulham Reach. Based on the impacts assessed there are no significant effects predicted for construction traffic.
9.6
9.6.1

As discussed in para. 9.5.1, there is likely to be only a small variation in baseline noise levels between 2011 and the future base case year. The noise levels assumed in 2011 are likely to form the basis of a conservative assessment as road traffic noise levels would increase along with traffic increases. For vibration, no change is assumed between the present time and future base case. The development case is assumed to be the base case as identified in 2011 plus any additional noise and vibration sources associated.
9.6.2 9.6.3
Operational effects
9.6.4 Noise control measures would be included on all plant items as part of the design process to limit noise increases to within appropriate noise limits to avoid disturbance. These limits will help inform the ongoing design of the project, will be relative to the existing background noise levels at each receptor using the methodology in BS4142 (1997) 40 and will be established in negotiation with the local authority to ensure the limits proposed are acceptable and achievable. Discussions with the local authority will be ongoing and presented in the ES. It is not possible to quantify the overall change in noise level until this process is complete. However, it is considered that it will be possible to control noise emissions to within appropriate noise limits defined by the local authority to prevent significant effects.
Page 112
The table below contains a summary of the assessment results for operational noise (for noise from plant). Vol 8 Table 9.6.1 Airborne noise impacts - operation Ref Receptor Impact Value/ sensitivity High Magnitude and justification Change in ambient subject to local authority limits no adverse impact Change in ambient subject to local authority limits no adverse impact Change in ambient subject to local authority limits no adverse impact Change in ambient subject to local authority limits no adverse impact Change in ambient subject to local authority limits no adverse impact N/A Change in ambient subject to local authority limits no adverse impact
HP01
60 Chancellor's Road
Noise level controlled to prevent adverse impact as per BS4142 Noise level controlled to prevent adverse impact as per BS4142 Noise level controlled to prevent adverse impact as per BS4142 Noise level controlled to prevent adverse impact as per BS4142 Noise level controlled to prevent adverse impact as per BS4142 N/A Noise level controlled to prevent adverse impact as per BS4142
HP02
38 Chancellor's Road
High
HP03
98 Fulham Palace Road
High
HP04
43 Winslow Road
High
HP05
106-111 Riverview Gardens
High
HP06 HP07
Frank Banfield Park Fulham Reach
Medium High
Page 113
As part of the operation of the tunnel, there would need to be routine but infrequent maintenance carried out at the site. This is described further in Section 3. A crane would be required for 10 yearly shaft inspections. This would be carried out during normal working hours, using equipment which is likely to increase ambient noise levels. Given the infrequency of this operation, it is considered that a significant noise effect would not occur. Routine inspections, lasting approximately half a day, would occur every three to six months and would not require heavy plant. As this would be carried out during the daytime with minimal noisy equipment operating over short periods of time, it is considered that further assessment of noise generated by this activity is not required. As no impacts have been identified from the operation of the site, no significant effects have been identified. Vol 8 Table 9.6.2 Noise and vibration operational effects Ref Receptor Significance, and justification Noise from surface site ventilation plant HP01 60 Chancellor's Road HP02 38 Chancellor's Road HP03 98 Fulham Palace Road HP04 43 Winslow Road HP05 106-111 Riverview Gardens HP06 Frank Banfield Park HP07 Fulham Reach Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Noise from maintenance operations Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant
9.6.9
9.6.10
9.6.11
9.6.12
At this location, no significant effects are predicted at any of the receptors. This is subject to the equipment being specified with appropriate noise control measures to ensure that the targets in BS4142 are met as outlined in Volume 5, Section 2.
9.7
9.7.1 9.7.2

All measures embedded in the draft CoCP of relevance to noise and vibration are found in Section 9.2. Significant effects as a result of construction noise have been identified at two receptors; hence additional mitigation would be applied where practicable and effective at these locations.
Page 114
This is based on a worst case assessment where the two noisiest activities in any stage happen concurrently and over the entire duration of the stage. This is a conservative approach considered appropriate for the level of information provided and will be refined once further information is available. The buildings affected are all more than two stories high, and close to the site, and as such the standard site hoarding only provides screening to the ground floor of the properties. For all properties with significant noise effects, the hoarding height would need to be extremely high to reduce the noise levels at these properties. It is likely that hoarding at a height to provide effective screening would not be practicable. Significant vibration effects have also been identified at one receptor: Fulham Reach and additional mitigation would be applied where practicable and effective at this location. All stages of works assessed as having the potential to give rise to likely significant effects (enabling works, shaft sinking and connection tunnels) would require additional mitigation, if practicable, to supplement the best practicable means (BPM) environmental design measures assumed for all sites. The quantitative assessment has assumed only general BPM measures, as far as it is possible to incorporate these in the noise and vibration prediction exercises. These include site boundary screening, careful selection of modern construction plant, and positioning of equipment. To address significant effects, specific solutions will be developed as appropriate to provide additional mitigation targeted on those noise and vibration sources generating the highest noise/vibration levels at the relevant receptor. For the purposes of this report and at this stage of the design, site specific additional mitigation beyond BPM measures has not been identified in the assessment. However, when the potential mitigation options for the illustrative scheme can be confirmed, this will be presented in the ES.
9.7.4
9.7.5
9.7.6
9.7.7
Operational
9.7.8 9.7.9 No significant effects as a result of the operation of the site have been identified; hence no additional mitigation is required at this location. It should be noted that operational plant for the ventilation of the tunnel would be designed to meet noise limits agreed with the local authority to avoid significant effects.
Page 115
9.8
Vol 8 Table 9.8.1 Noise and vibration construction assessment Significance Not significant Not significant Significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Significant Significant None required Mitigation to be reported in the ES Mitigation to be reported in the ES None required None required None required None required None required None required None required None required Mitigation to be reported in the ES None required Not significant Potentially significant (subject to mitigation options) Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Unlikely to be significant Not significant Potentially significant (subject to mitigation options) Potentially Significant (subject to mitigation options) None required Not significant Mitigation Residual significance
Assessment summary
Receptor
Effect
60 Chancellors Road
Noise
Vibration
38 Chancellors Road
Noise
Vibration
Noise
Vibration
43 Winslow Road
Noise
Vibration
Noise
Vibration
Frank Banfield Park
Noise
Vibration
Fulham Reach
Noise
Vibration
Page 116
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Vol 8 Table 9.8.2 Noise and vibration operational assessment Significance Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant None required None required None required None required None required None required None required None required None required None required None required Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant None required Not significant None required Not significant None required Not significant Mitigation Residual significance
Receptor
Effect
60 Chancellors Road
Noise
Vibration
38 Chancellors Road
Noise
Vibration
Noise
Vibration
43 Winslow Road
Noise
Vibration
Noise
Vibration
Frank Banfield Park
Noise
Vibration
Fulham Reach
Noise
Vibration
Page 117
9.9
9.9.1
The completion of the assessment to an appropriate level of detail is subject to further information on baseline and construction ambient noise levels and road traffic counts. When the transport analysis is complete this will be assessed and any effects reported in the ES. The next stage of the assessment work will be more detailed in profiling the variation in construction noise levels across the programmes of work and the range of receptors at each surface site. It has not been possible to adequately assess the potential for noise and vibration from water cascading down drop shafts during tunnel filling events. The likely noise and vibration emission will be estimated as the cascade design develops and would be reported in the ES. As the illustrative construction methodology develops indepth assessment work will allow more detailed mitigation design. Following the development of more refined mitigation design, it will be possible to carry out a more detailed assessment of residual effects. The effectiveness of more specific mitigation measures will be fully assessed and reported in the ES. Assessment of cumulative and in combination effects will be undertaken and reported in the ES.
9.9.2
9.9.3
9.9.4 9.9.5
9.9.6
Page 118
Section 10: Socio-economics
10 10.1
10.1.1
Socio-economics Introduction
This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant socio-economic effects at the Hammersmith Pumping Station site. This section includes the following information for the construction and operational phases of the project: a. a description of the activities with the potential to result in significant socio economic effects b. an overview of any site specific variations or exceptions to the EIA methodology for the assessment of significant socio-economic effects c. a description of site-specific socio-economic baseline conditions d. a description of the site-specific base case (future baseline) and development cases e. preliminary findings regarding significant socio-economic effects, including cumulative and/or in combination effects f. a preliminary description of potentially required mitigation measures (where relevant)
10.1.2
g. the conclusions of the preliminary socio economic effects assessment. 10.1.3 This section does not include consideration of operational phase effects in socio-economic terms, as no significant effects were scoped in for the Hammersmith Pumping Station site. This is for the following reasons: a. The design, size, and location of the operational structures are likely to occupy a relatively restricted area and have been designed so as to be incorporated within a future development on the site, and therefore are not likely to result in any significant loss of function or amenity. b. Likely significant air quality, noise, and visual impacts on nearby sensitivity receptors, such as residential buildings, are likely to be relatively modest and readily mitigated. As a result, they are unlikely to cause deterioration in the amenity experienced by nearby residents.
10.2
10.2.1
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to socio-economics are as follows. Construction Measures incorporated into the draft CoCP to limit, and in some cases eliminate, any significant adverse air quality, noise, vibration, and visual impacts could also reduce socio-economic impacts, particularly amenity impacts. These topics are included in Section 4 Air Quality and Odour, Section 9 Noise and Vibration, and Section 11 Townscape and Visual.
10.2.2
10.2.3
Page 119
The majority of the works will occur in the northern corner of the Fulham Reach site. This site is currently vacant but is subject to a residential-led mixed use development proposal. Both the construction related activities and traffic (including lorry and barge movements) could result in amenity or in combination effects being experienced by a range of sensitive receptors in proximity to the proposed activities. Operation As per Section 10.1, no significant operational effects were scoped in for consideration.
10.2.5
10.2.6
10.3
10.3.1
Scoping and engagement Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. There are no site specific comments from consultees for this particular site. Baseline The baseline methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site. Construction The construction phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. Any site specific variations are described below: a. The assessment years for socio-economic effects in terms of construction activity are estimated to cover approximately a three year period. Operation
10.3.2
10.3.3
10.3.4
As per Section 10.1, no significant operational effects were scoped in for consideration during the scoping stage. Assumptions and limitations The following socio-economic assumptions and limitations apply to the findings presented: a. Frank Banfield Park and the childrens play ground within the park are well used. It is also assumed that the parks main use is likely to be for passive recreation space, childrens play, and low level/small scale informal active recreation (see below for more information). b. It has been assumed that the commercial space at Fulham Reach is unlikely to come forward for occupation during the construction phase, and therefore potential impacts during construction on businesses within the new development would not be have not been assessed.
10.3.5
10.3.6
Preliminary technical assessments of likely significant air quality, noise and vibration, and visual effects, and associated design and mitigation measures, have been undertaken by each of those topic areas (see
Page 120
Sections 4, 9 and 11 respectively). The socio-economic assessment has been informed by the preliminary findings of these topic assessments.
10.4
10.4.1
Baseline conditions
Public open space Frank Banfield Park is located to the immediate east of the proposed development site across Distillery Road. The park is surrounded by side streets on three sides (Chancellors Road to the north, Distillery Road to the west, and Winslow Street to the south) and it backs onto a row of terrace buildings to the east. The park itself is classified as a small local park or open space under the GLAs Open Space Hierarchy 41, and is approximately 1.25ha in size. The park has recently undergone a major refurbishment including the addition of a new play area which was officially reopened to the public in October 2008. Following this, the park was one of three parks in Hammersmith and Fulham to be awarded Green Flag status. The park is described on the Councils website as well used and enjoyed by local residents and visitors to the Borough. 42 It is also used as a thoroughfare for residents and workers. Facilities include a play area, amenity grass for informal sports, the Distillery play centre (a supervised playground), and street furniture (benches, lighting, etc). The majority of the park is grassed and is crossed by several pathways. The open grassed area is likely to be used for active and passive recreation. Reconnaissance visits to the site have confirmed that the park and childrens play space are in good condition. From these visits, it is anticipated that the park is most likely to be used by local residents within the area. Further field surveys to assess the quality and usage levels of the open space are on-going and will be undertaken later during 2011. It is understood that there is a proposal to move the gates on the western side of the park (Distillery Road) a short distance to the south in order to align the entrance to the park with a new pedestrian avenue that is proposed as part of the Fulham Reach planning application (see below for further detail). In terms of the sensitivity of the park users, the following considerations can be made. a. Park users may be in the vicinity of the construction site for either short periods (ie, such as the time it takes to walk from one end to the other if they are just passing through) or longer periods (ie, during time spent using the park). Their experience of effects will vary accordingly, and may be greater for people spending a longer period of time in the park than for people who are just passing through. b. The high use of the park suggests that it is a valued local resource. However it is a small local park and thus doesnt provide the functions of larger parks (as defined by the GLA Open Space Hierarchy). c. In terms of alternative provision, there are some alternative open spaces in the wider area. The closest open spaces of similar size or
10.4.2 10.4.3
10.4.4
10.4.5
10.4.6
10.4.7
Page 121
larger are Lillie Road Recreation Ground to the southeast and Furnival Gardens to the northwest on the other side of Hammersmith Bridge Road. The River Thames and the Thames Path also provide an open area and opportunities for passive recreation. d. However, the local Boroughs open space study prepared in 2006 did recognise that the area between the A4 and the Thames River has an access deficiency in relation to the provision of local parks. Frank Banfield Park is located on the southeastern edge of this deficiency area. While Frank Banfield Park itself isnt a local park and so cannot address this deficiency, the fact that it is on the edge of a local park deficiency area is likely to increase the value it has for people living within the deficiency area and within an accessible distance of the park. e. The main users of the play space will be children and are potentially more sensitive to adverse amenity impacts. In terms of alternatives, there are approximately ten childrens play areas within approximately 800m of the site. 10.4.8 The availability of these alternatives reduces the sensitivity of users to the impacts of construction effects. However these alternatives do not all provide similar types of recreational functionality and may not be conveniently accessed by regular users of Frank Banfield Park. Furthermore Frank Banfield Park is a Green Flag status park and alternative nearby parks may not provide a similar level of amenity to it. On the basis of these factors it is assessed that the sensitivity of users of Frank Banfield Park and the childrens play space to construction related amenity effects is likely to be medium. See Vol 8 Figure 10.4.1 for a baseline plan which indicates the features identified above. Vol 8 Figure 10.4.1 Socio-economic context (see Volume 8 Figures document) Residential 10.4.10 10.4.11 There are terraced residential dwellings to the north and the south of the site. To the north of the site, across Chancellors Road, there are two and three storey terraces in a mix of styles. To the south of the site are two storey terrace houses across Winslow Road. Reconnaissance surveys have indicated that both Chancellors Road and Winslow Road are relatively quiet side streets and serve local residential and commercial properties. Surveys to confirm traffic levels are being conducted during 2011. In terms of the potential sensitivity of the occupants of the dwellings in the area, it is considered that residents could be vulnerable to changes in amenity arising from the construction process. This is due to the fact that residents cannot easily take steps to avoid any in combination amenity effects that may arise. Residents could be less sensitive to any noise
10.4.9
10.4.12
10.4.13
Page 122
disturbance during the day and more sensitive during the evening and at night-time, particularly during sleeping hours. The sensitivity of residents to amenity impacts may be mediated by character and mix of uses currently existing in the area. The construction processes would be mostly limited to daytime working hours, with the exception of occasional evening working to facilitate concrete pours. 10.4.14 Taking these factors into account, it is assessed that the residents are likely to have a medium level of sensitivity to amenity impacts that may arise as a result of the construction process. See Vol 8 Figure 10.4.1 for a baseline plan which indicates the features identified above. Thames Path 10.4.16 The Thames Path runs along the river to the southwest of the site. The Fulham Reach development will sit between the proposed Thames Tunnel construction site and the Thames Path. Given the location of the Thames Path in relation to the construction site, there is not likely to be any direct or indirect effects on the Thames Path or its users. As such, likely significant effects on users of the Thames Path are not considered further within this socio-economic impact assessment. See Vol 8 Figure 10.4.1 for a baseline plan which indicates the features identified above. Summary 10.4.19 A summary of receptors as described in the baseline and their sensitivity is provided in the table below. Vol 8 Table 10.4.1 Socio-economic receptors Receptor Users of public open space and childrens play space at Frank Banfield Park Value/sensitivity and justification Medium the park is a valued local resource and the only Green Flag accredited park in the area. Some alternatives exist, although two of the closest are a cemetery and a sports ground and so provide for different recreational activities. Medium residents less able to avoid effects but less sensitive during the day when the majority of effects would be experienced
10.4.15
10.4.17
10.4.18
Residents of nearby properties
Page 123
10.5

Base case
10.5.1
For this site, the base case year is Year 1 of the construction works. This is the year when site establishment is proposed to commence and marks the start of the assessment period for socio-economic effects. There may potentially be changes to the baseline conditions as a result of the following: a. A planning application for a residential-led mixed use development, known as Fulham Reach, has been submitted to the local planning authority. The application seeks permission for the construction of 750 new homes with flexible commercial floor space on the 7.25 acre site adjacent to the Pumping Station. Part of the Thames Tunnel construction site sits on the Fulham Reach site. i If permission is granted, it is assumed that 50% would be complete by 2015 and 100% complete by around 2020.
10.5.2
b. There may be new commercial development in the immediate area. Details are as follows: i The planning application for Fulham Reach includes provision of 4,122m2 of flexible commercial floor space. It is not yet clear what types of businesses would occupy the space; however it is possible that it could include small shops and food service businesses. However, as stated in para. 10.3.5b, it is assumed that this would be unlikely to come forward for occupation in the base case.
c.
As a result of the development of Fulham Reach under the base case, it is possible that nearby sensitive receptors such as the Thames Path, local residents and users of Frank Banfield Park may be subject to construction and construction-traffic related impacts.
Development case 10.5.3 Under the development case, it is expected that the following changes to the baseline would occur: a. The majority of the works will occur in the northwest corner of the Fulham Reach site. b. Local residents and users of Frank Banfield Park may be subject to construction and construction-traffic related impacts such as noise, dust, air pollution or visual disturbance. These impacts may occur individually or in combination. 10.5.4 Other than the above, it is assumed that the development case for other socio-economic conditions at the site would remain the same.
Page 124
Amenity effects on open space and childrens play space users at Frank Banfield Park 10.5.5 Air quality, noise, and visual impacts arising as a result of the proposed construction works and construction related traffic may potentially act with one another to reduce the environmental amenity experienced by users of Frank Banfield Park. Preliminary assessments have been undertaken to examine the likely significant air quality, noise and vibration, and visual effects arising during the construction phase. With respect to the likely significant effects of the proposed works on nearby public open space and associated facilities, the following points summarise the assessment findings: a. Air quality and construction dust effects are likely to be negligible and are therefore likely to be not significant. b. Both noise and vibration (human response) effects have been assessed as not significant at the open and childrens play space for the duration of the construction period. c. Visual effects are likely to be moderate adverse from viewpoint 2.1 (southwest from Frank Banfield Park) for the duration of the construction period.
10.5.6
10.5.7
The above findings regarding air quality, dust, noise and vibration, and visual effects have been taken into consideration in undertaking a preliminary assessment of the overall magnitude of impact for amenity impacts on open space receptors below. This preliminary assessment balances the above findings considering the contribution that each assessed element (eg, the quality of the air, tranquillity, the quality of a view) makes to a receptors overall experience of amenity, together with other considerations presented below. Within Frank Banfield Park, which lies directly to the east of the construction works boundary across Distillery Road, the childrens play area is positioned in the western corner of the park that is closest to the proposed construction site. In terms of duration, the construction period would be approximately three years and thus any likely significant impacts would occur over a medium term time period. During this time, impacts are likely to rise and fall as different activities of the construction process take place. They are unlikely to be constant or persistent for the entire duration of the construction period. Likewise they are also unlikely to be consistent for the entire duration of any given day during the peak of construction activity. In addition, it should be noted that any amenity effects will be experienced in the context of the construction activities taking place to construct Fulham Reach. While the local area is relatively quiet at present, under the base case (future baseline scenario) there will likely be on-going construction (during the construction period for the proposed development) to erect the Fulham Reach development.
10.5.8
10.5.9
10.5.10
Page 125
On the basis of the above factors, it is assessed that the potential impact magnitude could be low. Taking account of the potential low magnitude of the impact and the medium sensitivity of Frank Banfield Park users, it is assessed that the effect on open space users amenity could be minor adverse and therefore not significant. It is stressed that this is a preliminary and outline finding only at this stage. Amenity effects on residents and users of the residential properties Construction and construction traffic related impacts arising as a result of the proposed works may potentially include noise, odour, visual disturbance and air pollution. These impacts may be experienced individually, or in combination by users of the residential properties and residents at this location. Preliminary assessments have been undertaken to examine the likely significant air quality, noise and vibration, and visual effects arising during the construction phase. With respect to the likely significant effects of the proposed works on residential receptors, the following points summarise the assessment findings: a. Air quality and construction dust effects are likely to be minor adverse and are therefore likely to result in a significant effect on properties during construction. b. Noise effects on properties have been measured as likely to be significant at two of a total of four residential receptors identified. Vibration (human response) effects are likely to be significant at one of the four residential receptors. Noise effects have been assessed as significant at approximately 760 of the 778 properties considered to be effected). Vibration effects have been assessed as significant at approximately 750 of the 778 properties considered. c. Visual effects are likely to be moderate adverse from two of the seven viewpoints identified (viewpoints 1.4 and 1.7), minor adverse from two viewpoints (1.1 and 1.3) and negligible at the remaining three viewpoints, for the duration of the construction period (viewpoints 1.2, 1.5 and 1.6 respectively).
10.5.13
10.5.14
10.5.15 10.5.16
For further information, refer to Section 4 Air Quality and Odour, Section 9 Noise and Vibration and Section 11 Townscape and Visual. The above findings regarding air quality, dust, noise and vibration, and visual effects have been taken into consideration in undertaking a preliminary assessment of the overall magnitude of impact for amenity impacts on residential receptors below. This preliminary assessment balances the above findings considering the contribution that each assessed element (eg, the quality of the air, tranquillity, the quality of a view) makes to a receptors overall experience of amenity, together with other considerations presented below. Most of the other factors affecting the magnitude of the potential amenity impacts are the same as per those explained above with regard to impacts on users of Frank Banfield Park. The main exceptions to consider are the
10.5.17
Page 126
physical relationship to the construction site and the number of residential properties. 10.5.18 The physical extent of the impact will be such that it would potentially affect the surrounding residences. The terraced houses across Chancellors Road are the closest existing residences to the construction site. Residents in the terraces on Winslow Road may also be affected although depending on the development programme for Fulham Reach, there may be significant construction activity taking place between the proposed Thames Tunnel site and many of the properties on Winslow Road. Fulham Reach will be a new high-density residential development. The development, which comprises 750 dwellings, accounts for practically all of the likely significant affected residential properties in respect to both noise and vibration. However, as per the assumptions given within the base case, this development would also be completing its own build out at the same time as the construction works for the Thames Tunnel were taking place. Early occupants of the development would be taking up residence, cognisant of the fact that development of the remainder of the scheme would be on-going and would be subject to any effects caused by the developments ongoing construction. Occupancy rates of these properties will also depend on the development programme and take up of new flats after completion. Furthermore, a very significant proportion of the residential flats would also be located closer to and orientated towards the River Thames, away from the proposed construction site. As such, the number of residences likely to be significant affected by amenity effects is likely to be significantly lower than the total number of properties proposed as part of the scheme. While the surrounding context is relatively quiet at present, under the development case (future baseline scenario), the proposed construction period at the Thames Tunnel site will be concurrent with that for the Fulham Reach development. Any amenity effects will be experienced in the context of the construction activities taking place to construct Fulham Reach. On the basis of the above factors, it is assessed that the potential magnitude of amenity impacts could be medium. Taking account of the potential medium magnitude of the impact and the medium sensitivity of residents at this location, it is considered that the effect on their amenity could be moderate adverse and therefore significant. It is stressed that this is a preliminary and outline finding only at this stage, particularly with regard to the impact on residential dwellings within the Fulham Reach scheme. Summary 10.5.22 The findings of the above preliminary assessments on likely significant construction phase socio-economic impacts and effects are summarised in the table below.
10.5.19
10.5.20
10.5.21
Page 127
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Vol 8 Table 10.5.1 Socio-economics construction effects Sensitivity Medium the park is a valued local resource and the only Green Flag status park in the area. Some alternatives exist, although two of the closest are a cemetery and a sports ground and so provide for different recreational activities. Medium even though works will take place during day time only residents have a limited ability to adjust to changes in their amenity. Medium minor adverse air quality and construction dust effects, noise and vibration effects have been identified as significant (predominantly in respect of the proposed Fulham Reach scheme), major visual effects from one viewpoint and moderate adverse effects from two of the six viewpoints. Impacts will be medium term and be experienced in the context of the construction of Fulham Reach. Low moderate adverse visual effects from recreational receptors. The park adjacent to the construction site is well used. Impacts will be medium term and be experienced in the context of the construction of Fulham Reach. Magnitude Significance Minor adverse not significant
Impact
Amenity impacts on open space and childrens play space users at Frank Banfield Park
Amenity impacts on residents
Moderate adverse - significant
Page 128
10.6
10.6.1
As per Section 10.1, no significant operational effects were scoped in for consideration during the scoping stage.
10.7
10.7.1

The above assessment has arrived at a preliminary finding that there is a potential for a moderate adverse effect to arise in relation to amenity (individual or in combination) effects on residential amenity. As per the significance criteria, moderate adverse impacts constitute significant effects. There is a continuing opportunity for further consideration of the potential for employing any viable additional measures to minimise the potential for significant adverse air quality and dust, noise and vibration and visual impacts (if any) to act individually or in combination in a manner that unacceptably reduces environmental amenity. Mitigation measures have been suggested, where possible, by Air Quality and Odour, Noise and Vibration and Townscape and Visual which would help to address significant amenity impacts. For further information on these mitigation measures, please refer to Section 4 Air Quality and Odour, Section 9 Noise and Vibration, and Section 11 Townscape and Visual, within this volume.
10.7.2
10.7.3
Operation
10.7.4 As per para. 10.1.3, no significant operational effects were scoped in for consideration during the scoping stage and thus there are no effects in the operational phase that would likely require mitigation.
Page 129
10.8
Vol 8 Table 10.8.1 Socio-economic construction effects Mitigation None required No change Significance Minor adverse not significant Residual significance
Assessment summary
Receptor Users of open space and childrens play space at Frank Banfield Park Moderate adverse significant Mitigation measures including design alternatives or construction process and management changes that are typical of the sort usually identified to mitigate air quality, noise or visual impacts.
Effect Amenity effects on open space and childrens play space users
Residents of nearby properties
Amenity effects on residents
If mitigation measures suggested in the air quality, noise and vibration and visual assessments to minimise adverse impacts are able to be implemented and achieve a reduction in the significance of the effect, a reduced residual adverse significance may result.
Page 130
10.9
10.9.1
Pending the results of assessments by other EIA topics, it is likely that updates to the baseline data and results of the indicative individual and in combination assessments will be made for the following: a. Amenity (individual and in combination) effects on users of Frank Banfield Park and the childrens play area b. Amenity (individual and in combination) effects on nearby residents.
10.9.2
Pending the results of assessments by other EIA topics there is potential for updates to be made to the detailed site-specific mitigation and enhancement/offsetting measures in relation to amenity (individual and in combination) effects on residential receptors. Given that this assessment has identified significant adverse amenity effects, following the identification of required mitigations measures a reassessment of the potential residual effects after mitigation would be undertaken using the same approach as has been set out above in Section 10.5. Assessment of cumulative and in combination effects will be undertaken and reported in the ES. Following completion of the assessment the mitigation approaches for socio economics within the project, if applicable, will be finalised and reported in the ES.
10.9.3
10.9.4 10.9.5
Page 131
Section 11: Townscape and visual
11 11.1
11.1.1
Townscape and visual Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant townscape and visual amenity effects at the Hammersmith Pumping Station site. The assessment describes the current conditions found within the area the nature and pattern of buildings, streets, open space and vegetation and their interrelationships within the built environment, and the changes that would be introduced as a result of the proposed development. The assessment also identifies mitigation measures where appropriate. Townscape and visual assessments are made up of two separate, although linked, procedures; the townscape baseline and its analysis contribute to the baseline for visual amenity. Each section of the assessment is structured so that townscape aspects are described first, followed by the visual baseline.
11.1.2
11.2
11.2.1
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to the townscape and visual assessment are as follows. Construction The method of construction for the proposed development is described in Volume 3. The peak construction phase for this topic relates to the time when the shaft is being constructed, involving the presence of cranes at the site and the export of material by road. For this site, this equates to Year 1 of construction, within a total construction period of approximately three years. Similar effects would arise during the secondary tunnel lining, which would occur during Year 2 of construction. There would be some periods of continuous working hours at the site. The specific construction activities which may give rise to effects on townscape character, tranquillity and visual receptors are: a. vehicular construction access to the site off Distillery Road b. establishment of 2.4m high hoardings around the boundary of the construction site c. clearance of the site in advance of works, including tree removal; d. use of cranes during shaft sinking and secondary lining of the tunnel e. provision of welfare facilities f. lighting of the site when required.
11.2.2
11.2.3
11.2.4
Measures incorporated into the draft CoCP to reduce townscape and visual impacts include protection of existing trees to BS5837: Trees in relation to construction Recommendations, and use of appropriate capped and directional lighting when required.
Page 132
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Operation 11.2.5
The proposed operation of the infrastructure at Hammersmith Pumping Station is described in Volume 3. The particular components that are of importance to this topic include the design and siting of the ventilation column (approximately 4m high) which will match the height of an adjoining existing structure.
11.3
11.3.1 11.3.2
Scoping and engagement Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. In addition to the formal scoping process, the LB of Hammersmith and Fulham, LB of Richmond upon Thames and English Heritage have been consulted on the detailed scope of the townscape and visual impact assessment, including the number and location of viewpoints. All consultee comments relevant to this site are presented in the table below. Vol 8 Table 11.3.1 Townscape and visual stakeholder engagement Organisation English Heritage LB of Hammersmith and Fulham Comment confirmed acceptance of the proposed viewpoints Requested three additional viewpoints from: The view along Crisp Road, south of the junction with St James Street; The view from the north side of Chancellors Road, outside terraced residences from 4860; and The view from the north side of Chancellors Road, outside residences 24-26. All of these have been included in the visual assessment. Response
Baseline 11.3.3 The assessment area, defined using the standard methodology provided in Volume 6, is indicated by the extent of the drawing frame on Vol 8 Vol 8 Figure 11.4.1 to Vol 8 Figure 11.4.6. The scale of the assessment area has been set by the maximum extent of the ZTV, excepting those locations downstream of the site where the visibility of the proposed components of the scheme would be barely perceptible.
Page 133
The methodology for establishing the townscape and visual baseline follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 6. With specific reference to the Hammersmith Pumping Station site, baseline information has been gathered through a review of: a. The Unitary Development Plans (UDP) for the LB of Hammersmith and Fulham, and the neighbouring LB of Richmond upon Thames b. Fulham Reach, The Mall, Hammersmith Broadway, Hammersmith Odeon and Crabtree Conservation Area Character Profiles, produced by the LB of Hammersmith and Fulham c. Castelnau Conservation Area statement, produced by the LB of Richmond upon Thames
d. The Thames Strategy Kew to Chelsea. Construction 11.3.6 The construction phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. Any site specific variations are described below. With reference to the Hammersmith Pumping Station site, the peak construction phase for this topic would be in Year 1 of construction, when the shaft would be under construction, cranes would be present at the site and material would be being taken away by road. This has therefore been used as the assessment year for townscape and visual impacts. The intensity of construction activities would be similar in Year 2 of construction, during the secondary lining of the tunnel, involving the import of materials by road. For the purposes of the construction phase assessment, it is assumed that 75% of the Fulham Reach residential development surrounding the site would be complete and occupied, comprising the blocks along the river frontage. In addition, it is assumed that a further 25% of the same development would be under construction, immediately to the south of the site. Operation 11.3.9 The operational phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. Any site specific variations are described below. The operational phase assessment has been undertaken for Year 1 of operation and Year 15 of operation. For the purposes of the Year 1 assessment, it is assumed that the Fulham Reach residential development (described in para. 11.3.8) is fully built out and occupied by Year 1 of operation, including blocks between the proposed shaft site and the existing Hammersmith pumping station. Further work will be undertaken for the ES to identify any potential changes in the base case for Year 15 of operation.
11.3.7
11.3.8
11.3.10
Page 134
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Assumptions and limitations 11.3.11 11.3.12
For this site, there are no site specific townscape and visual assessment limitations beyond the generic ones listed in Volume 6. Assumptions made on the base case for the construction and operational phase assessments are described in para. 11.3.8. These assumptions are based on known planning applications and planning policy within the assessment area, interpreted using professional judgement to understand what the base case may be in Year 1 of construction and Year 1 of operation without the scheme. Assumptions will be made in the ES regarding what the base case may be in Year 15 of operation without the scheme.
11.3.13
11.4
11.4.1
Baseline conditions Townscape baseline

The proposed development is located partially within the confines of the existing Hammersmith pumping station, and partially in a disused area of land, on which planning permission may be granted for a mixed use / residential development. The surrounding townscape is predominantly residential set amongst some large open spaces including Barn Elms Wetland Centre on the opposite bank of the river. Physical elements The physical elements of the townscape in the assessment area are described below. Topography The site is located on a relatively flat plateau along the River Thames, with mo notable topographic features. Land use The land use surrounding the site is predominantly residential on both sides of the river. On the north bank, the residential streets are interspersed with some leisure and retail uses, such as Riverside Studios to the north and medium sized open spaces. Charing Cross Hospital is located to the east of the site. On the south bank of the river, residences are set amongst large open spaces and a number of schools. Development patterns and scale Vol 8 Figure 11.4.1 illustrates the pattern and scale of development within the assessment area and also indicates building heights. Vol 8 Figure 11.4.1 Townscape - pattern and scale of development (see Volume 8 Figures document)
11.4.2
11.4.3
11.4.4
11.4.5
11.4.6
Within the assessment area, the north bank of the river is characterised by relatively dense residential development, comprising two to three storey terraces inland from the river and three to five storey properties along the river frontage and close to the Hammersmith Flyover. Charing Cross Hospital, to the east of the site, is characterised by fifteen storey blocks.
Page 135
There are also some 11 storey residential blocks in the Queen Charlotte Estate to the north of the site. The streets are generally narrow and laid out on a grid formation, aligned with the river. 11.4.7 On the south bank of the river, opposite the site, the residential development away from the river reflects the pattern on the south bank, although the streets are generally aligned to Castelnau (the A306 road). The river frontage is dominated by the former Harrods Depository building and a terrace of three storey Edwardian terraces. Vegetation patterns and extents 11.4.8 Vol 8 Figure 11.4.2 illustrates the pattern and extent of vegetation within the assessment area, including tree cover. Vol 8 Figure 11.4.2 Townscape - pattern and extent of vegetation (see Volume 8 Figures document) 11.4.9 Although the area has a notable absence of trees along streets (apart from in Crabtree Conservation Area), the overall vegetative character is heavily influenced by high levels of mature tree cover within private gardens (which are commonplace) and along the boundaries of public and private open spaces. The character of the river frontage differs markedly from the north to the south bank, the former being largely urban with little tree cover, while the latter is lined with trees. A number of trees in the south bank of the river are protected by tree preservation orders. Trees within conservation areas on both sides of the river are also indirectly protected by virtue of the designation. Open space distribution and type 11.4.11 Vol 8 Figure 11.4.3 illustrates the distribution of different open space types within the assessment area, indicating all relevant statutory, non-statutory and local plan designations. Vol 8 Figure 11.4.3 Townscape and visual pattern and extent of vegetation (see Volume 8 Figures document) 11.4.12 Most of the surrounding townscape is characterised by dense residential development, interspersed with medium sized public parks on the north bank of the river and large areas of public and private open space on the south bank, most of which is designated as Metropolitan Open Land. The open spaces in the assessment area are described in more detail in the table below. Vol 8 Table 11.4.1 Open space type and distribution Open space Frank Banfield Park Distance from site 100m E (north of river) Character summary A medium sized public park characterised by open amenity grass, scattered mature trees and a childrens playground.
11.4.10
Page 136
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Open space Distance from site
Section 11: Townscape and visual Character summary
Designated as an Open Space by the LB of Hammersmith and Fulham. Margravine Cemetery 400m E (north of river) Victoria cemetery enclosed by brick walls and housing and characterised by a number of mature trees. Designated as an Open Space by the LB of Hammersmith and Fulham. Triangular open green space used as sports pitches bounded by mature trees. The open space also incorporates tennis courts and a small childrens playground. Designated as an Open Space by the LB of Hammersmith and Fulham. The south bank of the River Thames is characterised by a green, publically accessible frontage lined with trees. Designated as Metropolitan Open Land. Large area of wetlands characterised by large open water bodies, extensive aquatic vegetation and bands of mature trees along the boundaries of the space. Designated as Metropolitan Open Land. Large, well maintained allotment site to the rear of residential properties. Designated as Metropolitan Open Land. Amenity grass recreation ground with playing fields, a childrens playground and a lido, with bands of mature trees around the boundaries and throughout the park. Large area of private playing fields laid out to sports pitches with bands of mature trees along the river and Castelnau. Designated as Metropolitan Open Land. Large area of private playing fields laid out to sports pitches but also incorporating running tracks and tennis courts, with dense bands of trees along the river, school access road and Lonsdale Road. Designated as Metropolitan Open Land. A medium sized public park characterised by open amenity grass, scattered mature trees, a
Lillie Road Recreation Ground
800m SE (north of river)
South Bank
200m W (south of river) 600m S (south of river)
Barn Elms Wetland Centre
St Anns Passage Allotments Barnes Avenue Recreation Ground St Pauls Playing Fields Lonsdale Road Reservoir and Thames Tow Path Furnival Gardens
700m SW (south of river) 1km SW (south of river) 350m W (south of river) 700m W (south of river)
400m NW
Page 137
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Open space
Distance Character summary from site (north of riverside promenade and planting beds. river)
Transport routes 11.4.13 Vol 8 Figure 11.4.4 illustrates the transport network within the assessment area, including cycleways, footpaths and Public Rights of Way. Vol 8 Figure 11.4.4 Townscape and visual - transport network (see Volume 8 Figures document) 11.4.14 The site is located in a largely residential area, characterised by narrow, quiet streets, many of which have traffic calming measures. Fulham Palace Road forms the main route, running parallel with the river to the east of the site. To the north of the site, the townscape is dissected by Hammersmith Bridge Road, which passes over the river and joins Castelnau which continues on the southern bank. The Thames Path runs along both banks of the river, diverting away from the river in only two locations on the north bank, where buildings front directly onto the river. Site character assessment 11.4.16 The site is located within Fulham Reach Conservation Area in the LB of Hammersmith and Fulham, to the east of Hammersmith Bridge. The majority of the site is located in a disused area of land, which has been cleared in preparation for a mixed use development that may secure planning permission. This area is currently surrounded by hoardings. The remainder of the site is located within the confines of the existing Hammersmith pumping station. The two areas are separated by a concrete wall. The components of the site are described in more detail in the table below. Vol 8 Table 11.4.2 Townscape and visual - site components ID 01 Component Description Condition To be confirmed following the tree survey Fair condition Fair condition
11.4.15
Single mature Large London plane tree located at the London plane corner of Chancellors Road and tree Distillery Road.
02 03
Site hoardings
2m high hoardings along Chancellors Road and Distillery Road.
Hammersmith Three storey concrete built pumping pumping house. station building Boundary Concrete wall forming the boundary
04
Poor
Page 138
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station ID Component concrete wall
Section 11: Townscape and visual Condition condition
Description between the pumping station compound and the development site.
11.4.17
The condition of the townscape within the site is fair to poor, with some potential for enhancement of features such as the pumping station and boundaries. Due to the sites location in a largely residential area, close to the River Thames, and the disused nature of much of the area, slightly diminished by the industrial use of the pumping station, the site has a moderate level of tranquillity. Despite the conservation area designation, the site has limited value due to its industrial / disused nature. Due to the fair to poor condition and limited value of the sites character, the site has a low sensitivity to change. At night, the site is largely unlit, although it is affected by light spill from the adjacent roads and buildings. Therefore, the sensitivity of this site to additional lighting is medium. Townscape character assessment The Townscape Character Areas surrounding the site are identified on Vol 8 Figure 11.4.5. Townscape character areas are ordered beginning to the north of the site and continuing around the site in a clockwise direction. Each area is described below. Vol 8 Figure 11.4.5 Townscape and visual character assessment (see Volume 8 Figures document) River Thames Corney Reach/Chiswick Reach
11.4.18
11.4.19 11.4.20 11.4.21
11.4.22
11.4.23
This reach of the River Thames extends from the west, beyond the assessment area of this site, to the northern end of Barn Elms Wetland Centre in the east. The reach is largely characterised by riverfront residential uses set amongst small open spaces on the north bank and the extensive playing fields of Colet Court on the south bank. The river itself is characterised by numerous incursions and setbacks along the north bank, including jetties, and local setbacks. The south bank is characterised by a clear sweep, and has a relatively green character. Both banks have a relatively wide area of foreshore at low tide. The reach is crossed by Hammersmith Bridge. The jetties, river walls and bridges are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. Due to the surrounding residential character, the dominance of vegetation and open spaces, and the relatively light levels of river traffic, this area has a high level of tranquillity. This reach is a regionally valued stretch of the river, providing the setting to a number of conservation areas on both sides of the river.
11.4.24
11.4.25 11.4.26
11.4.27
Page 139
Due to the good condition and regional value of the townscape, this character area has a high sensitivity to change. At night, the area receives relatively low levels of light spill from river traffic, street lighting and riverside developments. Therefore, the sensitivity of this area to additional lighting is high. River Thames Fulham and Barn Elms Reach This reach of the River Thames extends from the northern end of Barn Elms Wetland Centre to the southern end of Barn Elms playing fields and the mouth of Beverley Brook, beyond the assessment area for this site. The reach is dominated by the open spaces and green frontage of the wetland centre and playing fields, offset against the urban residential frontage along the north bank of the river. The river itself, within the assessment area, is characterised by a straight sweeping embankment with very few incursions into the river. Both banks have a relatively wide area of foreshore at low tide. The character of the river is formed by the dominance of the open spaces that frame the river through this character area. The river walls and structures are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. Due to the surrounding residential character, the dominance of vegetation and open spaces, and the relatively light levels of river traffic, this area has a high level of tranquillity. This reach is a regionally valued stretch of the river, providing the setting to a number of residential and open space conservation areas on both sides of the river. Due to the good condition and regional value of the townscape, this character area has a high sensitivity to change. At night, the area receives relatively low levels of light spill from river traffic, street lighting and riverside developments. Therefore, the sensitivity of this area to additional lighting is high. Fulham Reach Conservation Area This area comprises Fulham Reach Conservation Area, designated by the LB of Hammersmith and Fulham. The area is characterised by a narrow band of predominantly residential development along the north bank of the river, including the Thames Path. The architectural style and building height of properties within the character area vary along the river, but together form a highly urban river frontage with little vegetation. The Thames Path is narrow in a number of places. The buildings and public realm within the area are relatively well maintained, although some stretches of river wall and the Thames Path are in need of repair. The overall townscape condition is fair. The area is residential in character with a strong synergy with the river. The area is also sheltered from nearby busy roads by other residential development. Therefore, the area has a high level of tranquillity.
11.4.30
11.4.31
11.4.32 11.4.33
11.4.34
11.4.35 11.4.36
11.4.37
11.4.38
11.4.39
Page 140
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station 11.4.40 11.4.41 11.4.42
The area is valued at the Borough level by virtue of the Conservation Area designations. Due to the high level of tranquillity and Borough value of the townscape, this area has a high sensitivity to change. At night the area is lit directly by street lighting and indirectly from buildings, providing a fairly brightly lit character. However, the areas location of the river reduces the level of light within the area. Therefore, the sensitivity of this area to additional lighting is medium. Hammersmith Residential This area comprises a large area of residential properties and some commercial premises to the north of the site, and incorporates Hammersmith Broadway and Hammersmith Odeon Conservation Areas. The area is characterised by a mix of residential terraces and apartment blocks, alongside some tower blocks close to the Hammersmith Flyover to the north of the site. The area has a strong green character due to the widespread presence of mature trees in private gardens, communal open spaces and public parks. The majority of the area to the east of the site is characterised by two to three storey residential terraces. The area is largely introspective in character. The buildings and public realm within the area are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. Due to the widespread presence of mature planting and the residential nature of the majority of this character area, it has a medium level of tranquillity. The area is valued at the Borough level by virtue of the Conservation Area designations. Therefore, despite the good condition and Borough value of the townscape, this character area has a medium sensitivity to change due to the introspective nature of the area, which is largely uninfluenced by changes in the wider setting. At night the area is lit directly by street lighting and indirectly from buildings, providing a fairly brightly lit character. Therefore, the sensitivity of this area to additional lighting is low. Frank Banfield Park This character area comprises Frank Banfield Park, a public park characterised by amenity grass and scattered mature trees, surrounded by residential development aside from the western edge which borders onto the site. The park includes childrens play equipment, seating and lighting and is bounded by low walls and railings. The landscape within the park is generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. Due to the use of this space as a public park, and the presence of mature trees along the boundaries, providing seclusion from surrounding area, this character area has a high level of tranquillity.
11.4.43
11.4.44 11.4.45
11.4.46 11.4.47
11.4.48
11.4.49
11.4.50 11.4.51
Page 141
The area is likely to be locally valued as an area of public amenity space, which also provides a green setting to surrounding residences. Therefore, due to the good condition and high level of tranquillity of the townscape, this character area has a high sensitivity to change. At night, the site is lowly lit by park lighting, although it is also affected by light spill from the adjacent roads and buildings. Therefore, the sensitivity of this site to additional lighting is medium. Crabtree Conservation Area This character area comprises Crabtree Conservation Area, designated by the LB of Hammersmith and Fulham. The area is dominated by two to three storey Victorian and Edwardian residential terraces set out on a grid formation aligned with the River Thames. The architectural styles and pattern of development is similar throughout the character area. Residences generally front directly onto the street, but have private back gardens with a substantial number of mature trees. Unlike much of the surrounding townscape, the area has a large number of street trees, contributing to the overall green character. The area is introspective in character. The buildings and public realm within the area are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. Due to the residential nature of the area with low levels of traffic, and the widespread presence of mature vegetation, the area has a high level of tranquillity. The area is valued at the Borough level by virtue of the Conservation Area designation. Therefore, despite the good condition and Borough value of the townscape, this character area has a medium sensitivity to change due to the introspective nature of the area, which is largely uninfluenced by changes in the wider setting. At night the area is fairly dimly lit directly by street lighting and indirectly from some buildings. Therefore, the sensitivity of this area to additional lighting is medium. Charing Cross Institutional This character area comprises the buildings and grounds of Charing Cross Hospital, alongside some high-rise residential tower blocks along Aspeniea Road which are similar in character. The area is dominated by the height of the buildings (up to 15 storeys) and the expanse of the ground floor of the hospital which covers the majority of the character area. The only open space in the area is a small hospital garden and areas of car parking around the hospital and tower blocks. In front of the hospital there is a line of mature trees along Fulham Palace Road. The buildings and public realm within the area are fairly well maintained. The overall townscape condition is fair.
11.4.55
11.4.56 11.4.57
11.4.58 11.4.59
11.4.60
11.4.61
11.4.62
Page 142
Tranquillity within the area is limited due to the high levels of vehicular and pedestrian traffic along Fulham Palace Road, the lack of open space and the use of the area. The townscape has limited townscape value due to the institutional land use and the lack of amenity space or vegetation (aside from along Fulham Palace Road). Due to the low level of tranquility and limited value of the townscape, this area has a low sensitivity to change. At night the area is lit directly by street lighting and indirectly from buildings, providing a fairly brightly lit character. Therefore, the sensitivity of this area to additional lighting is low. Lillie Road Open Space This character area comprises Lillie Road Recreation Ground, a public open space characterised by amenity grass laid out to sports pitches and dense bands of mature trees along the boundary. The park is surrounded by residential development. The park includes childrens play equipment and tennis courts bounded by low walls and railings. The landscape within the park is generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. Due to the use of this space as a public park, and the presence of mature trees along the boundaries, providing seclusion from surrounding area, this character area has a high level of tranquillity. The area is likely to be locally valued as an area of public amenity space, which also provides a green setting to surrounding residences. Therefore, due to the good condition and high level of tranquillity of the townscape, this character area has a high sensitivity to change. At night, the site is lowly lit by park lighting, although it is also affected by light spill from the adjacent roads and buildings. Therefore, the sensitivity of this site to additional lighting is medium. Barn Elms Wetland Centre This character area comprises Barn Elms Wetland Centre, an area of wetland habitat including large lakes, small pools, reed beds, fen meadows and wet woodland. The area is publically accessible via a network of paths and boardwalks that run through the space. Dense bands of trees form the boundaries of the open space, apart from along the river which is characterised by a hedgerow with scattered trees. The area is designated as Metropolitan Open Land. The area is includes St Anns Passage allotments and a series of open green spaces between residences, to the north of the wetland centre. The landscape within the wetland centre is generally very well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. Due to the use of this space as a semi-natural open space, and the presence of mature trees along the boundaries and large open water
11.4.64
11.4.65 11.4.66
11.4.67
11.4.68 11.4.69
11.4.70 11.4.71 11.4.72
11.4.73
11.4.74 11.4.75
Page 143
bodies, providing seclusion from surrounding area, this character area has a high level of tranquillity. 11.4.76 11.4.77 The area is nationally valued, experienced by large number of visitors regularly. Therefore, due to the good condition, national value and high level of tranquillity of the townscape, this character area has a high sensitivity to change. At night, the site is unlit and largely unaffected by light spill from the adjacent roads and buildings. Therefore, the sensitivity of this site to additional lighting is high. Castelnau Residential 11.4.79 This character area comprises a large area of residential terraces, and incorporates Castelnau Conservation Area, designated by the LB of Richmond upon Thames. The area is dominated by 19th and 20th century two to three storey residential terraces, laid out on a grid formation which is influenced by Castelnau (the A306 road) which runs from Barnes to Hammersmith Bridge. Along Castelnau, the development pattern is less dense, with residences generally much larger in scale and with extensive front and rear gardens. Due to the abundance of public open spaces and vegetated private gardens, the area has a strong green character, strengthened by the presence of large open spaces to the south (Barn Elms Wetland Centre) and north (Colet Court playing fields). The river frontage is characterised by a wide area of open space and avenues of mature trees, set in front of a terrace of Edwardian residences along Riverview Gardens and the old Harrods Depository. The landscape, buildings and public realm within the area are generally very well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. Due to the extensive areas of green open space, the widespread presence of mature planting and the presence of large open spaces and the river to the north, east and south, this area has a high level of tranquillity. By virtue of the conservation area designation, this area is valued at the Borough scale. Therefore, due to the good condition, Borough value and high level of tranquillity of the townscape, this character area has a high sensitivity to change. At night the area is fairly dimly lit directly by street lighting and indirectly from some buildings. Therefore, the sensitivity of this area to additional lighting is medium. St Pauls Educational 11.4.85 This character area comprises the private grounds of Colet Court and St Pauls School, characterised by a large educational building set amongst extensive open spaces laid out to sports pitches, running tracks and tennis courts along a bend in the River Thames. The area is enclosed by bands of mature tree planting along the boundaries with the river and surrounding roads. The area is designated as Metropolitan Open Land.
11.4.78
11.4.80 11.4.81
11.4.82 11.4.83
11.4.84
Page 144
The landscape and buildings of the character area are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. Due to the use of this space as a private open space, and the presence of mature trees along the boundaries, providing seclusion from surrounding area, this character area has a high level of tranquillity. The area is valued regionally by virtue of the Metropolitan Open Land designation. Therefore, due to the good condition, regional value and high level of tranquillity of the townscape, this character area has a high sensitivity to change. At night, the site is mostly unlit and largely unaffected by light spill from the adjacent roads and buildings. Therefore, the sensitivity of this site to additional lighting is high. The Mall Conservation Area This area is defined by The Mall Conservation Area boundary and is characterised by a mix of residential properties and public houses along the river frontage, set amongst Furnival Gardens open space. The area is bounded to the north by the Hammersmith Flyover / Great West Road, which is characterised by heavy flows of traffic. Mature trees are densely planted in private gardens and public open spaces within the area, creating a green character not typical of this side of the river. The buildings and public realm within the area are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. Despite the presence of the Great West Road to the north, this area has a high level of tranquillity due to the riverfront residential character of the area, with limited levels of pedestrian or vehicular traffic, and the widespread presence of mature vegetation and open space. The area is valued at the Borough level by virtue of the Conservation Area designation. Due to the good condition and Borough value of the townscape, this area has a high sensitivity to change. At night the area is lit directly by street lighting and indirectly from buildings, providing a fairly brightly lit character. However, the river frontage is characterised by low levels of light. Therefore, the sensitivity of this area to additional lighting is moderate. The sensitivity to change of the townscape character areas is summarised in the table below. Vol 8 Table 11.4.3 Townscape sensitivities to change Townscape character area The site River Thames Corney Reach/Chiswick Reach River Thames Fulham and Barn Elms Reach Sensitivity Low High High
11.4.88 11.4.89
11.4.90
11.4.91
11.4.92 11.4.93
11.4.94 11.4.95 11.4.96
11.4.97
Page 145
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Townscape character area Fulham Reach Conservation Area Hammersmith Residential Frank Banfield Park Crabtree Conservation Area Charing Cross Institutional Lillie Road Open Space Barn Elms Wetland Centre Castelnau Residential St Pauls Educational The Mall Conservation Area
Section 11: Townscape and visual Sensitivity High Medium High Medium Low High High High High High
Visual baseline
11.4.98 Vol 8 Figure 11.4.6 indicates the location of viewpoints referenced below. All residential and recreational receptors have a high sensitivity to change. Appendix D contains illustrative winter photographs from selected viewpoints (the ES will include winter and summer photos for each character area and viewpoint). Vol 8 Figure 11.4.6 Townscape and visual viewpoint locations (see Volume 8 Figures document) Residential 11.4.99 Residential receptors have a high sensitivity to change, as attention is often focused on the townscape surrounding the property rather than on another focused activity (as would be the case in predominantly employment or industrial areas). The visual baseline in respect of residential receptors (represented by a series of viewpoints, agreed with consultees) is described below. Viewpoint 1.1: View east from residences at the southern end of Chancellors Road 11.4.100 This viewpoint is representative of the view from south east facing residences at the southern end of Chancellors Road, adjacent to the cleared redevelopment site next to Hammersmith pumping station. The view from lower storeys is characterised by the hoardings surrounding the development plot. The view from upper storeys encompasses the cleared development plot and Hammersmith pumping station. Views towards the site are largely obscured by Hammersmith pumping station. Viewpoint 1.2: View south east from residences along Crisp Road 11.4.101 This viewpoint is representative of the oblique view from residential properties along Crisp Road. The view is a linear view down Crisp Road,
Page 146
terminating at the boundary to the redevelopment plot. Views towards the site are largely obscured by the buildings along Crisp Road. Viewpoint 1.3: View east from residential terrace 48-60 Chancellors Road 11.4.102 This viewpoint is representative of the direct view from numbers 48-60 on Chancellors Road, immediately adjacent to Hammersmith pumping station. The view is dominated by the pumping station and boundary walling, partially filtered by mature trees along the south side of Chancellors Road. Views towards the site are largely obscured by Hammersmith pumping station. Viewpoint 1.4: View south west from 24-26 Chancellors Road 11.4.103 This viewpoint is representative of the oblique view from numbers 24-26 Chancellors Road, adjacent to Frank Banfield Park. The view is a linear view down Chancellors Road, dominated by the character of the adjacent open space, including mature trees. The existing Hammersmith pumping station is visible on the periphery of the view. Views towards the site are partially obscured by tree planting along the south side of Chancellors road and site hoardings along the boundary of the redevelopment site. Viewpoint 1.5: View south east from residences along Yeldham Road 11.4.104 This viewpoint is representative of the oblique view from residential properties along Yeldham Road. The view is a linear view down Crisp Road, terminating at residential properties along Fulham Palace Road to the north of Frank Banfield Park, which largely obscure views towards the site. Viewpoint 1.6: View north west from residences along Manbre Road 11.4.105 This viewpoint is representative of the oblique view from residential properties along Manbre Road. The view from lower storeys is characterised by the hoardings surrounding the redevelopment plot. The view from upper storeys is characterised by open views across the cleared area, including the site itself adjacent to Hammersmith pumping station. Additional Viewpoint 1.7: View north west from newly built residences in the Fulham Reach redevelopment 11.4.106 This viewpoint is representative of the view from residents of a new residential block which is anticipated to be completed in advance of the proposed works at Hammersmith Pumping Station commencing construction. The view at present is characterised by a cleared development plot surrounded by hoardings, beyond which residential premises are partially visible. Due to the viewpoint not being publically accessible at present, no photo has been included from this location. Recreational 11.4.107 Recreational receptors (apart from those engaged in active sports) generally have a high sensitivity to change, as attention is focused on enjoyment of the townscape. Tourists engaged in activities whereby attention is focused on the surrounding townscape also have a high
Page 147
sensitivity to change. The visual baseline in respect of recreational receptors, including tourists, is discussed below. Viewpoint 2.1: View south west from Frank Banfield Park 11.4.108 This viewpoint is representative of the view from recreational users of Frank Banfield Park, from the southern boundary of the open space adjacent to Distillery Road. The view is dominated by hoardings surrounding the redevelopment plot, which at present obscures views towards the site. Viewpoint 2.2: View north from Winslow Road Open Space 11.4.109 This viewpoint is representative of the view from recreational users of Winslow Road Open Space, located next to the River Thames to the south of the site. The view is dominated by hoardings surrounding the redevelopment plot, which at present obscures views towards the site. Viewpoint 2.3: View north from the Thames Path outside residences on Wyatt Drive 11.4.110 This viewpoint is representative of the view for recreational users of the Thames Path, on the stretch adjacent to residences fronting onto Wyatt Drive. The view is an open panorama over the River Thames, characterised by the dense urban frontage of the north bank of the river. Hammersmith Bridge forms the background of the view. The redevelopment plot forms a dominant component in the view across the river. At present, site hoardings around the redevelopment plot partially obscure views towards Hammersmith pumping station and the site. Viewpoint 2.4: View north east from the Thames Path adjacent to Somerville Avenue 11.4.111 This viewpoint is representative of the view for recreational users of the Thames Path, on the stretch adjacent to Somerville Avenue, close to the old Harrods Depository. The view is an open panorama over the River Thames, characterised by the dense urban frontage of the north bank of the river. Hammersmith Bridge forms the background of the view. The redevelopment plot forms a dominant component in the view across the river. At present, site hoardings around the redevelopment plot partially obscure views towards Hammersmith pumping station and the site. Viewpoint 2.5: View north east from the Thames Path outside residences along Riverview Gardens 11.4.112 This viewpoint is representative of the view for recreational users of the Thames Path, on the stretch outside residences fronting onto Riverview Gardens. The view is an open panorama over the River Thames, characterised by the dense urban frontage of the north bank of the river. Hammersmith Bridge forms the background of the view. The redevelopment plot forms a dominant component in the view directly across the river, opposite the viewpoint. At present, site hoardings around the redevelopment plot partially obscure views towards Hammersmith pumping station and the site.
Page 148
Viewpoint 2.6: View east from the southern end of Hammersmith Bridge 11.4.113 This viewpoint is representative of the view for pedestrians crossing Hammersmith Bridge, towards the southern end of the bridge. The view is a linear view down the River Thames, framed by a largely green frontage on the south bank and a dense urban frontage along the northern bank. The redevelopment plot forms a dominant component in the foreground of the view. Views towards Hammersmith pumping station and the site are largely obscured by residences along Chancellors Road and Chancellors Wharf. Viewpoint 2.7: View east from the Thames Path adjacent to Colet Court playing fields 11.4.114 This viewpoint is representative of the view for recreational users of the Thames Path, on the stretch outside the Colet Court playing fields. The view is an open panorama over the River Thames, foreshortened to the east by Hammersmith Bridge. The view is dominated by the character of the north bank of the river, which includes buildings set amongst Furnival Gardens and moorings along a series of jetty structures. Views towards the site are largely obscured by Hammersmith Bridge, and residences along Chancellors Road and Chancellors Wharf. 11.4.115 The sensitivity to change of the viewpoints is summarised in the table below. Vol 8 Table 11.4.4 Viewpoint sensitivities to change Viewpoint Residential Viewpoint 1.1: View east from residences at the southern end of Chancellors Road High Sensitivity
Viewpoint 1.2: View south east from residences along High Crisp Road Viewpoint 1.3: View east from residential terrace 4860 Chancellors Road Viewpoint 1.4: View south west from 24-26 Chancellors Road High High
Viewpoint 1.5: View south east from residences along High Yeldham Road Viewpoint 1.6: View north west from residences along High Manbre Road Recreational Viewpoint 2.1: View south west from Frank Banfield Park Viewpoint 2.2: View north from Winslow Road Open Space High High
Page 149
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Viewpoint
Section 11: Townscape and visual Sensitivity High High High High High
Viewpoint 2.3: View north from the Thames Path outside residences on Wyatt Drive Viewpoint 2.4: View north east from the Thames Path adjacent to Somerville Avenue Viewpoint 2.5: View north east from the Thames Path outside residences along Riverview Gardens Viewpoint 2.6: View east from the southern end of Hammersmith Bridge Viewpoint 2.7: View east from the Thames Path adjacent to Colet Court playing fields
11.5
11.5.1
Effects during the construction phase would be temporary, although medium term due to the scale and necessary phasing of the proposed development. The proposed phasing of the development would result in intense periods of activity within relatively quieter phases. Construction phase site assessment Direct effects on the townscape of the site would arise from demolition of existing structures and activity associated with the construction of the shaft and ventilation equipment, and secondary lining of the tunnel. The effects on specific components of the site are described below: Vol 8 Table 11.5.1 Townscape site components effects - construction ID 01 Component Single mature London plane tree Site hoardings Hammersmith pumping station building Boundary concrete wall Effects Retained and protected throughout construction.
11.5.2
02 03
Maintained throughout construction. Retained throughout construction.
04
Demolished prior to construction of the shaft.
11.5.3
The magnitude of change to the site during the construction period is considered to be medium due to the demolition of some structures in the site, and the level of activity during construction. Although the existing site has moderate levels of tranquillity, the magnitude of change to the tranquillity of the site is considered to be high due to introduction of construction vehicles, plant equipment and high levels of activity in a part of the river and Thames Path not currently intensively used.
11.5.4
Page 150
The medium magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the low sensitivity of the site to change, means the effect of the proposed construction activity on the townscape resource of the site would be of minor adverse significance. Construction phase townscape assessment River Thames Corney Reach/Chiswick Reach
11.5.6
The proposed site is located approximately 100m from this reach of the river. Due to the assumed completion of the riverside plots of the Fulham Reach development, located to the south west of the site, the proposed development would not substantially alter the setting of this character area. The presence of cranes at the site would be set against the assumed ongoing construction of residential buildings to the south east of the development plot. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The area has a high level of tranquillity at present, which would be unlikely to be change. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the character area, means the proposed construction activity would give rise to a negligible effect on the River Thames Corney Reach/Chiswick Reach. River Thames Fulham and Barn Elms Reach The proposed site is located approximately 100m from this reach of the river. Due to the assumed completion of the riverside plots of the Fulham Reach development, located to the south west of the site, the proposed development would not substantially alter the setting of this character area. The presence of cranes at the site would be set against the assumed ongoing construction of residential buildings to the south east of the development plot. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The area has a high level of tranquillity at present, which would be unlikely to be change. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the character area, means the proposed construction activity would give rise to a negligible effect on the River Thames Fulham and Barn Elms Reach. Fulham Reach Conservation Area The proposed site is set within this character area. The presence of cranes, construction plant and road transport would affect the local setting of this area in the vicinity of Hammersmith pumping station. However, this would be set against the ongoing construction of residences within the Fulham Reach development plot immediately adjacent to the site, involving similar presence of cranes and construction vehicles. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be low.
11.5.7
11.5.8
11.5.9
11.5.10
11.5.11
11.5.12
Page 151
The area has a high level of tranquillity at present, which would be likely to be altered by the proposed construction activity, most notably through increased levels of lorry movements on the local residential roads. This would however be set against the base case of ongoing construction activity at the Fulham Reach development, adjacent to the site. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be medium. The low magnitude of change, assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the character area, means the effects of the proposed construction activity on Fulham Reach Conservation Area would be of minor adverse significance. Hammersmith Residential The proposed site does not form part of the setting for this character area, which is largely introspective and unlikely to be indirectly affected by construction traffic. The presence of cranes is not likely to alter the setting of the area substantially, and would be set against the base case of construction activities in the adjacent Fulham Reach development. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The area has a moderate level of tranquillity at present, which would be unlikely to be changed. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, assessed alongside the medium sensitivity of the character area, means the proposed construction activity would give rise to a negligible effect on Hammersmith Residential. Frank Banfield Park The proposed site is set immediately to the south west of this character area. The presence of cranes, construction plant and road transport would affect the setting of this area. However, this would be set against the assumed ongoing nature of construction activity in the Fulham Reach development, immediately adjacent to the site. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be medium. The area has a high level of tranquillity at present, which would be likely to be altered by the proposed construction activity, most notably through increased levels of lorry movements on the local residential roads. This would however be set against the base case of ongoing construction activity at the Fulham Reach development, adjacent to the site. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be medium. The medium magnitude of change, assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the character area, means the effects of the proposed construction activity on Frank Banfield Park would be of moderate adverse significance. Crabtree Conservation Area The proposed site would not form part of the setting for this character area, which is largely introspective and unlikely to be indirectly affected by construction traffic. The presence of cranes is not likely to alter the setting of the area substantially, and would be set against the base case of construction activities in the adjacent Fulham Reach development. These
11.5.14
11.5.15
11.5.16
11.5.17
11.5.18
11.5.19
11.5.20
11.5.21
Page 152
construction activities would largely obscure construction activities at the site, thereby further minimising effects. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. 11.5.22 The area has a high level of tranquillity at present, which would be unlikely to be substantially changed, other than by road transport. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be low. The negligible magnitude of change, assessed alongside the medium sensitivity of the character area, means the proposed construction activity would give rise to a negligible effect on Crabtree Conservation Area. Charing Cross Institutional 11.5.24 The proposed site does not form part of the setting for this character area, which is also unlikely to be indirectly affected by construction traffic. The presence of cranes is not likely to alter the setting of the area substantially, and would be set against the base case of construction activities in the adjacent Fulham Reach development. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The area has a low level of tranquillity at present, which would be unlikely to be changed. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, assessed alongside the low sensitivity of the character area, means the proposed construction activity would give rise to a negligible effect on Charing Cross Institutional. Lillie Road Open Space 11.5.27 The proposed site does not form part of the setting for this character area, which is largely introspective and unlikely to be indirectly affected by construction traffic. The presence of cranes is not likely to alter the setting of the area substantially, and would be set against the base case of construction activities in the adjacent Fulham Reach development. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The area has a high level of tranquillity at present, which would be unlikely to be changed. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the character area, means the proposed construction activity would give rise to a negligible effect on Lillie Road Open Space. Barn Elms Wetland Centre 11.5.30 The proposed site does not form part of the setting for this character area, which is largely introspective and unlikely to be indirectly affected by construction traffic. The presence of cranes is not likely to alter the setting of the area substantially, and would be set against the base case of construction activities in the adjacent Fulham Reach development. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The area has a high level of tranquillity at present, which would be unlikely to be changed. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible.
11.5.23
11.5.25
11.5.26
11.5.28
11.5.29
11.5.31
Page 153
The negligible magnitude of change, assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the character area, means the proposed construction activity would give rise to a negligible effect on Barn Elms Wetland Centre. Castelnau Residential The proposed site would not form part of the setting for this character area, which is largely introspective and unlikely to be indirectly affected by construction traffic. The presence of cranes is not likely to alter the setting of the area substantially, and would be set against the base case of construction activities in the adjacent Fulham Reach development. These construction activities would partially obscure construction activities at the site, thereby further minimising effects. Effects would be further minimised by the assumed completion of the riverside residences to the south west of the site, which would obscure construction activities at the site. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The area has a high level of tranquillity at present, which would be unlikely to be substantially changed, other than by road transport. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be low. The negligible magnitude of change, assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the character area, means the proposed construction activity would give rise to a negligible effect on Castelnau Residential. St Pauls Educational The proposed site does not form part of the setting for this character area, which is largely introspective and unlikely to be indirectly affected by construction traffic. The presence of cranes is not likely to alter the setting of the area substantially, and would be set against the base case of construction activities in the adjacent Fulham Reach development. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The area has a high level of tranquillity at present, which would be unlikely to be changed. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the character area, means the proposed construction activity would give rise to a negligible effect on St Pauls Educational. The Mall Conservation Area The proposed site does not form part of the setting for this character area, which is largely introspective and unlikely to be indirectly affected by construction traffic. The presence of cranes is not likely to alter the setting of the area substantially, and would be set against the base case of construction activities in the adjacent Fulham Reach development. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The area has a high level of tranquillity at present, which would be unlikely to be changed. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible.
11.5.33
11.5.34
11.5.35
11.5.36
11.5.37
11.5.38
11.5.39
11.5.40
Page 154
The negligible magnitude of change, assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the character area, means the proposed construction activity would give rise to a negligible effect on The Mall Conservation Area. The assessment of townscape effects during construction is summarised in the table below. Vol 8 Table 11.5.2 Townscape character areas effects - construction Townscape character area The site River Thames Corney Reach/Chiswick Reach River Thames Fulham and Barn Elms Reach Fulham Reach Conservation Area Hammersmith Residential Frank Banfield Park Crabtree Conservation Area Charing Cross Institutional Lillie Road Open Space Barn Elms Wetland Centre Castelnau Residential St Pauls Educational The Mall Conservation Area Sensitivity Magnitude Low High High High Medium High Medium Low High High High High High Medium Negligible Negligible Low Negligible Medium Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Effect Minor adverse Negligible Negligible Minor adverse Negligible Moderate adverse Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
11.5.42
Construction phase townscape assessment night time effects 11.5.43 There would be some periods of continuous working hours at the site. Effects on night time character will be considered in the ES. Construction phase visual assessment Residential Viewpoint 1.1: View east from residences at the southern end of Chancellors Road 11.5.44 Views from residences towards the site would be affected during construction, although the majority of construction activity would be screened by the assumed completion of the riverfront residential blocks of the Fulham Reach redevelopment, immediately adjacent to the site, and also by Hammersmith pumping station. Cranes at the site would be visible, set against the assumed ongoing nature of construction activity for the remainder of the Fulham Reach redevelopment. Road traffic would be
Page 155
visible along Chancellors Road. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view would be low. 11.5.45 The low magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of minor adverse significance. Viewpoint 1.2: View south east from residences along Crisp Road 11.5.46 Views from residences towards the site would be affected to a limited extent during construction. The majority of construction activity would be screened by existing buildings along Crisp Road and also by Hammersmith pumping station. Cranes at the site would be intermittently visible, but set against the assumed ongoing nature of construction activity for the remainder of the Fulham Reach redevelopment. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view would be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the proposed construction phase would be give rise to negligible effects on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 1.3: View east from residential terrace 48-60 Chancellors Road 11.5.48 Views from residences towards the site would be affected during construction, although the majority of construction activity would be screened by Hammersmith pumping station. Cranes at the site would be visible, set against the assumed ongoing nature of construction activity for the remainder of the Fulham Reach redevelopment. Road traffic would be visible along Chancellors Road. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view would be low. The low magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of minor adverse significance. Viewpoint 1.4: View south west from 24-26 Chancellors Road 11.5.50 Views from residences towards the site would be affected during construction, although the construction activity would be partially screened by mature trees along Chancellors Road and the site hoardings. Cranes and construction activity at the site would be visible, set against the assumed ongoing nature of construction activity for the remainder of the Fulham Reach redevelopment. Road traffic would be visible along Chancellors Road. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view would be medium. The medium magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of moderate adverse significance. Viewpoint 1.5: View south east from residences along Yeldham Road 11.5.52 Views from residences towards the site would be unlikely to be affected during construction, aside from some intermittent visibility of cranes, which would be set against the context of ongoing construction activities in the
11.5.47
11.5.49
11.5.51
Page 156
Fulham Reach development plot adjacent to the site. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view would be negligible. 11.5.53 The negligible magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the proposed construction phase would be give rise to negligible effects on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 1.6: View north west from residences along Manbre Road 11.5.54 Views from residences towards the site would be unlikely to be affected during construction, due to the assumed construction of a residential block to the south east of the site, which would entirely obscure views of the site. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view would be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the proposed construction phase would be give rise to negligible effects on this viewpoint. Additional Viewpoint 1.7: View north west from newly built residences in the Fulham Reach redevelopment 11.5.56 As described in para. 11.3.8, it has been assumed that the riverside residential blocks of the Fulham Reach redevelopment will be complete and occupied by the construction assessment year. Therefore, an additional viewpoint has been included to represent the view from these residences towards the site. Views from this location would be affected during construction. The construction of the shaft would be set directly in the frame of view. Views from lower storeys would be partially obscured by the hoardings surrounding the site, although views from upper storeys would be unobstructed. However, the visibility of cranes, construction plant and road transport would be set against the assumed ongoing nature of construction activity for the remainder of the Fulham Reach redevelopment. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view would be medium. The medium magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of moderate adverse significance. Recreational Viewpoint 2.1: View south west from Frank Banfield Park 11.5.59 Views from this location would be affected during construction. The construction of the shaft would be set directly in the frame of view, partially obscured by the hoardings surrounding the site. However, the visibility of cranes, construction plant and road transport would be set against the assumed ongoing nature of construction activity for the remainder of the Fulham Reach redevelopment. Road traffic would be visible along Chancellors Road. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view would be medium. The medium magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of moderate adverse significance.
11.5.55
11.5.57
11.5.58
11.5.60
Page 157
Viewpoint 2.2: View north from Winslow Road Open Space 11.5.61 Views from this location towards the site would be unlikely to be affected during construction, due to the assumed completion of riverside residential blocks to the south west of the site and ongoing construction of a residential block to the south east of the site, which would entirely obscure views of the site. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view would be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the proposed construction phase would be give rise to negligible effects on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 2.3: View north from the Thames Path outside residences on Wyatt Drive 11.5.63 Views from this location towards the site would be unlikely to be affected during construction, due to the assumed completion of riverside residential blocks to the south west of the site which would largely obscure views of the site. Any intermittent views of cranes would be set against the presence of ongoing construction activity in the adjacent residential development. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view would be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the proposed construction phase would be give rise to negligible effects on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 2.4: View north east from the Thames Path adjacent to Somerville Avenue 11.5.65 Views from this location towards the site would be unlikely to be affected during construction, due to the assumed completion of riverside residential blocks to the south west of the site which would largely obscure views of the site. Any intermittent views of cranes would be set against the presence of ongoing construction activity in the adjacent residential development. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view would be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the proposed construction phase would be give rise to negligible effects on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 2.5: View north east from the Thames Path outside residences along Riverview Gardens 11.5.67 Views from this location towards the site would be unlikely to be affected during construction, due to the assumed completion of riverside residential blocks to the south west of the site which would largely obscure views of the site. Any intermittent views of cranes would be set against the presence of ongoing construction activity in the adjacent residential development. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view would be negligible.
11.5.62
11.5.64
11.5.66
Page 158
The negligible magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the proposed construction phase would be give rise to negligible effects on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 2.6: View east from the southern end of Hammersmith Bridge
11.5.69
Views from this location towards the site would be unlikely to be affected during construction, due to buildings along Chancellors Road and Chancellors Wharf obscuring views towards the site. Any intermittent views of cranes would be set against the presence of ongoing construction activity in the adjacent residential development. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view would be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the proposed construction phase would be give rise to negligible effects on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 2.7: View east from the Thames Path adjacent to Colet Court playing fields
11.5.70
11.5.71
Views from this location towards the site would be unlikely to be affected during construction, due to Hammersmith Bridge and buildings along Chancellors Road and Chancellors Wharf obscuring views towards the site. Any intermittent views of cranes would be set against the presence of ongoing construction activity in the adjacent residential development. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view would be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the proposed construction phase would be give rise to negligible effects on this viewpoint. The assessment of visual effects during construction is summarised in the table below. Vol 8 Table 11.5.3 Viewpoint effects - construction Viewpoint Residential Viewpoint 1.1: View east from residences at the southern end of Chancellors Road Viewpoint 1.2: View south east from residences along Crisp Road Viewpoint 1.3: View east from residential terrace 48-60 Chancellors Road Viewpoint 1.4: View south west from 24-26 Chancellors Road Viewpoint 1.5: View south east from residences along Yeldham High Low Minor adverse Negligible Sensitivity Magnitude Effect
11.5.72
11.5.73
High
Negligible
High
Low
Minor adverse Moderate adverse Negligible
High High
Medium Negligible
Page 159
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Viewpoint Road Viewpoint 1.6: View north west from residences along Manbre Road High
Section 11: Townscape and visual Sensitivity Magnitude Effect Negligible Negligible
Additional Viewpoint 1.7: View High north west from newly built residences in the Fulham Reach redevelopment Recreational Viewpoint 2.1: View south west from Frank Banfield Park Viewpoint 2.2: View north from Winslow Road Open Space Viewpoint 2.3: View north from the Thames Path outside residences on Wyatt Drive Viewpoint 2.4: View north east from the Thames Path adjacent to Somerville Avenue Viewpoint 2.5: View north east from the Thames Path outside residences along Riverview Gardens Viewpoint 2.6: View east from the southern end of Hammersmith Bridge Viewpoint 2.7: View east from the Thames Path adjacent to Colet Court playing fields High High High
Medium
Moderate adverse
Medium Negligible Negligible
Moderate adverse Negligible Negligible
High
Negligible
Negligible
High
Negligible
Negligible
High
Negligible
Negligible
High
Negligible
Negligible
11.6
11.6.1
Operational assessment Year 1 of operation

The components of the scheme in operation comprise: a. An area of hardstanding forming the extents of the shaft which would be incorporated into the hard landscape design of the adjacent residential development. This would be located in an existing cleared area which is hoarded off and ready for development. b. A ventilation structure which would be built immediately adjacent to an existing structure of the same height, within the Hammersmith pumping station compound.
Page 160
The remainder of the structures would be finished below ground level, and the remainder of the construction working area would be reinstated as existing. In addition, the operational scheme would have little activity associated with it, aside from infrequent maintenance visits. Therefore, for all townscape character areas it is considered that the proposed development would have a negligible effect on tranquillity. Therefore, due to the barely perceptible nature of the components of the operational scheme, it is considered that the proposed development would give rise to negligible effects on all townscape character areas and visual receptors. Operational phase Year 1 of operation night time effects In terms of the effects during the night, it is likely that the operational scheme would have no substantial lighting requirements. Therefore, for all townscape character areas and visual receptors it is considered that the proposed development would have a negligible effect on night time character.
11.6.3
11.6.4
11.6.5
Year 15 of operation
11.6.6 Due to the barely perceptible nature of the components of the operational scheme for townscape and visual receptors, it is considered that the assessment for Year 1 of operation would be unchanged for Year 15 of operation. Therefore, in Year 15 of operation, the proposed development would give rise to negligible effects on all townscape character areas and visual receptors.
11.7
11.7.1

All measures embedded in the draft CoCP of relevance to townscape and visual amenity are found in Section 11.2. In addition, a process of iterative design and assessment has been employed to reduce adverse effects arising during construction. Significant adverse effects arising during construction cannot be further mitigated because the scale of construction activities, primarily the height of cranes, and also construction deliveries, would obstruct views and adversely alter the townscape character. Therefore no further mitigation measures are proposed.
Operation
11.7.2 A process of iterative design and assessment has been employed to reduce adverse effects arising during operation. Therefore no additional mitigation is proposed.
Page 161
11.8
Vol 8 Table 11.8.1 Townscape construction assessment Significance of effect Minor adverse Not required Mitigation
Assessment summary
Significance of residual effect Minor adverse
Receptor
The site
Slight change to the character of the site due to the presence of cranes and construction activity, set against ongoing construction activities in the adjacent plot. Negligible Negligible Minor adverse Not required Not required Not required
River Thames Corney Reach/Chiswick Reach
No significant change in setting.
Negligible Negligible Minor adverse
River Thames Fulham and Barn Elms Reach
Fulham Reach Conservation Area
Slight change to setting due to the presence of cranes, construction activity and road transport, set against ongoing construction activities in the adjacent plot.
Hammersmith Residential
Negligible Moderate adverse Negligible Negligible Negligible
Not required No further mitigation possible Not required Not required Not
Negligible Moderate adverse Negligible Negligible Negligible
Frank Banfield Park
Change to setting due to the presence of cranes, construction activity and road transport, set against ongoing construction activities in the adjacent plot.
Crabtree Conservation Area
Charing Cross Institutional
Lillie Road Open Space
Page 162
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Significance of effect required Negligible Not required Not required Not required Not required Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Mitigation Significance of residual effect
Receptor
Barn Elms Wetland Centre
Castelnau Residential
St Pauls Educational
The Mall Conservation Area
Page 163
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Vol 8 Table 11.8.2 Visual construction assessment Significance of effect Minor adverse Not required Mitigation Significance of residual effect Minor adverse
Receptor
Residential
Viewpoint 1.1: View east from residences at the southern end of Chancellors Road Negligible Not required
Visibility of cranes and road transport, set against the ongoing nature of construction in the adjacent plot.
Viewpoint 1.2: View south east from residences along Crisp Road Minor adverse
No significant visibility of construction.
Negligible
Viewpoint 1.3: View east from residential terrace 48-60 Chancellors Road Moderate adverse Negligible
Visibility of cranes and road transport, set against the ongoing nature of construction in the adjacent plot.
Not required No further mitigation possible Not required
Minor adverse
Viewpoint 1.4: View south west from 24-26 Chancellors Road
Visibility of cranes, site hoardings, construction activity and road transport, set against the ongoing nature of construction in the adjacent plot.
Moderate adverse Negligible
Viewpoint 1.5: View south east from residences along Yeldham Road
Viewpoint 1.6: View north west from residences along Manbre Road
Negligible
Not required Moderate adverse No further mitigation possible
Negligible
Additional Viewpoint 1.7: View north west from newly built residences in
Visibility of cranes, site hoardings and construction activity, set against the ongoing nature of construction in the adjacent plot.
Moderate adverse
Page 164
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Significance of effect Mitigation Significance of residual effect
Receptor
the Fulham Reach redevelopment Moderate adverse No further mitigation possible Not required Not required Negligible Moderate adverse Negligible
Recreational
Viewpoint 2.1: View south west from Frank Banfield Park
Visibility of cranes, site hoardings, construction activity and road transport, set against the ongoing nature of construction in the adjacent plot.
Viewpoint 2.2: View north No significant visibility of construction. from Winslow Road Open Space Negligible
Viewpoint 2.3: View north from the Thames Path outside residences on Wyatt Drive Negligible
Negligible
Viewpoint 2.4: View north east from the Thames Path adjacent to Somerville Avenue
Not required
Negligible
Viewpoint 2.5: View north east from the Thames Path outside residences along Riverview Gardens
Negligible
Not required
Negligible
Viewpoint 2.6: View east from the southern end of Hammersmith Bridge
Negligible
Not required Negligible Not required
Negligible
Viewpoint 2.7: View east from the Thames Path
Negligible
Page 165
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Significance of effect Mitigation Significance of residual effect
Receptor
adjacent to Colet Court playing fields Vol 8 Table 11.8.3 Townscape assessment Year 1 of operation Significance of effect Negligible Not required Mitigation Significance of residual effect Negligible
Receptor
All receptors
Barely perceptible nature of components of the operational scheme
Vol 8 Table 11.8.4 Visual assessment Year 1 of operation Significance of effect Negligible Mitigation Not required Significance of residual effect Negligible
Receptor
All receptors
Barely perceptible nature of components of the operational scheme
Page 166
11.9
11.9.1
The baseline data collection is complete for this site, aside from establishing a baseline for the night time character of the assessment area. The ES will include the summer baseline for each of the character areas and viewpoints. It will also include winter and summer photos for each character area and viewpoint. The study area for the assessment will be reviewed for the ES, based on the findings of this report. It may be appropriate to reduce the study area to focus the assessment on likely significant effects. Further work will be undertaken to establish a base case for the Year 15 operational assessment, using professional judgement aligned with future developments. Ongoing work will be undertaken throughout the assessment process to identify design measures to maximise beneficial effects arising from the proposed scheme in operation. Where possible, these will be embedded in the proposed development. Details of the scheme design and landscaping will be provided for the planning submission. Further work will be undertaken for the ES to establish the effects of the proposed development after the architectural and landscape design has been fully worked up. This will inform the assessment of operational effects in Year 1 and Year 15. Residual effects remaining after mitigation measures have been identified will be identified and recorded. Assessment of cumulative and in combination effects will be undertaken and reported in the ES.
11.9.2
11.9.3
11.9.4
11.9.5
11.9.6 11.9.7
Page 167
Section 12: Transport
12 12.1
12.1.1
Transport Introduction
This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant transport effects at the Hammersmith Pumping Station site. The site has the potential to affect transport in the following ways: a. effects on pedestrian routes b. effects on cycle routes c. effects on bus routes and patronage d. effects on London Underground and National Rail services e. effects on river services and patronage f. effects on car and coach parking g. effects on highway layout, operation and capacity
12.1.2
12.1.3 12.1.4
Each of these effects is considered within the assessment for both construction and operational phases of the project. This section details the site-specific findings for the Hammersmith Pumping Station site. As detailed in Volume 5, the transport assessment also comprises assessment at Borough (sub area) and project-wide levels these assessments are contained in Volume 6. More detailed analysis of all three levels of assessment (site-specific, Borough level and project-wide) will be presented in the Transport Assessment which will be submitted as part of the application. This assessment provides a commentary on the anticipated transport effects of the project. When baseline data collection and analysis is complete a full quantitative transport assessment will be carried out. The assessment and mitigation text contained within this volume is therefore based on professional judgement using available information at the time of writing.
12.1.5
12.2
12.2.1
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to transport are as follows.
Construction
12.2.2 Construction details for the site relevant to the construction transport assessment are summarised in the table below.
Page 168
Vol 8 Table 12.2.1: Construction traffic details Description Assumed peak period of construction lorry movements Assumed average peak daily construction lorry vehicle movements Types of lorry requiring access Assumption Year 1 of construction 30 movements per day (15 two-way lorry trips) Imported fill lorries Concrete lorries Rebar/Ring lorries Office lorries Pipe/Track/Oils lorries Excavation lorries
* a movement represents a one-way trip
12.2.3
Vehicle movements would take place during the typical day shift of 10 hours on weekdays (08:00 to 18:00) and five hours on Saturdays (08:00 to 13:00) with up to one hour before and after these hours for mobilisation of staff. Mobilisation may include: loading; unloading; and arrival and departure of workforce and staff at site and movement to and from the place of work. The site may also require continuous working hours when the tunnelling construction activities are taking place. These underground works would occur on a continuous 24 hour cycle seven days a week. During construction at Hammersmith Pumping Station, it is assumed that all materials would be transported by road. Lorry routing during construction phasing It is envisaged that lorries would access the site via the A4 and A3220 corridors and locally via the Hammersmith gyratory, A219 - Fulham Palace Road, Chancellors Road and Distillery Road. Access into the Hammersmith Pumping Station site would be from Distillery Road with a right turn in and left turn out operation proposed. The approach routing would be along Chancellors Road which is directly adjacent to a childrens playground and grass area. There are weight and width restrictions on Hammersmith Bridge which are likely to mean that construction traffic would remain on routes to the north of the River Thames. There are also traffic calming measures adjacent to the site. The site is located near to Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) and Strategic Road Network (SRN) routes on Fulham Palace Road, Hammersmith Gyratory and the A4. This is an extremely busy part of the
12.2.4
12.2.5
12.2.6
12.2.7
12.2.8
12.2.9
Page 169
network, and works would need to be coordinated as early as possible with other planned works/events on the network in the area. 12.2.10 Vol 8 Figure 12.2.1 indicates the construction traffic routes for access to/from the Hammersmith Pumping Station site. Vol 8 Figure 12.2.1 Transport - construction traffic routes (see Volume 8 Figures document) 12.2.11 The histogram in Vol 8 Figure 12.2.2 below shows that peak activity at the Hammersmith Pumping Station site would occur in Year 1 of construction. This peak is earlier than the overall project-wide construction peak activity year of 2019.
Page 170
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Vol 8 Figure 12.2.2 Transport - construction lorry profile
* Figure shows indicative volumes and movements based upon assumed timings for the works. It is not a schedule and remains subject to change.
Page 171
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Construction workers 12.2.12
The construction site is expected to require a maximum workforce of approximately 42 people during the day shift and 18 people during the night shift. The number and type of workers is shown in the table below. Vol 8 Table 12.2.1 Transport - construction worker numbers Contractor Staff 08:0018:00 20 18:0008:00 5 Labour 07:0019:00 18 19:0007:00 12 08:0018:00 4 Client Staff 18:0008:00 1
12.2.13
It is difficult to predict with certainty the direction that workers would arrive/depart to and from the site. Staff could potentially be based in the local area or in the wider Greater London area and are unlikely to have the same trip attraction to primary routes as construction lorries. The method of distribution of worker trips on the transport networks, including the public transport services, is to be agreed with the Local Highway Authority (LHA) and Transport for London (TfL). Code of construction practice Measures incorporated into the CoCP to reduce transport impacts include measures in relation to lorry management and control such as specific vehicle routes to sites and holding areas for construction vehicles. They also include provision for management plans in relation to construction worker journeys to and from the site. The implementation of these measures has been assumed for the assessment of construction effects.
12.2.14
12.2.15
12.2.16
Operation
12.2.17 The site would be located on a vacant former industrial site known as Fulham Reach. In order to access the site vehicles would route from Fulham Palace Road, along Chancellors Road and enter the site via an existing access on Distillery Road during the operational phase. Access would be required for a light commercial vehicle on a three to six monthly maintenance schedule. Additionally there would be more significant maintenance visits every ten years which would require access to enable two cranes to be brought to the site, which may require temporary suspension of on-street parking in the vicinity of the site.
12.2.18
12.3
12.3.1

Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. All consultee comments relevant to this site are presented in the table below.
Page 172
It is noted that it was reported in the Scoping Report that operational traffic effects were scoped out of the EIA. However, while the environmental effects associated with transport for the operational phase are not expected to be significant or adverse, the Transport Assessment which will accompany the ES as part of the application, will examine the operational phase in order to satisfy the relevant stakeholders that technical issues have been addressed (for example, those associated with access for maintenance activities). As this also allows conclusions in relation to environmental effects to be drawn, these have been included for completeness. Vol 8 Table 12.3.1 Transport - stakeholder engagement Organisation Comment Response Obtain details of Fulham Reach construction strategy and, if possible, align strategy with theirs. Obtain details of Fulham Reach construction strategy and, if possible, align strategy with theirs. Consider the A4 A3220 route as an alternative to the A219. Parking surveys will be carried out.
LB Fulham Reach Development Hammersmith may use barges to remove and Fulham excavated material, Thames Water may be able to use their jetty. Fulham Reach construction period may overlap with the Thames Tunnel project.
Prefer construction vehicles to route along A4 and A3220 rather than using A219. Loss of parking on Chancellors Road. Parking surveys to be undertaken to determine impact. Transport for London Ensure that the construction impact does not impede the operation of the SRN/TLRN. Construction vehicles should preferably avoid the following: Holland Park Roundabout Shepherds Bush gyratory Earls Court one-way system
Ongoing consultation with TfL in regards to modelling and analysis. Construction vehicle routings will be discussed further with LBH&F and TfL during the transport assessment stage and in producing the final Construction Management Plan. Discussion with Fulham Riverside developers would be required to overcome difficulties of
Use of the river to transport material should be investigated, including discussion with Fulham Riverside developers to investigate feasibility of sharing
Page 173
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Organisation Comment any river facilities they install.
Section 12: Transport Response transporting excavated material over their land to the river if they are utilising a jetty. This can be discussed with the developers.
The use of the Fulham Riverside site for relocated parking should be discussed with the site developers. The cycle superhighway proposed on the A4 should be considered in terms of safety for cyclists on construction vehicle routes. The proposals for the Hammersmith Gyratory should be considered with regards to construction vehicle access.
This will be considered within the Transport Assessment.
These proposals will be taken into account when considering vehicle access.
Baseline
12.3.3 The baseline methodology follows the standard methodology described in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.
Construction
12.3.4 The construction phase methodology follows the standard methodology described in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.
Operation
12.3.5 The operational phase methodology follows the standard methodology described in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.

12.3.6 The assumptions and limitations made for the transport assessment are as listed in Volume 5. Site specific assumptions and limitations will be provided in the ES when the detailed assessment is presented. The preliminary assessment findings reported are qualitative and based on professional judgement.
12.3.7
12.4
12.4.1
Baseline conditions
The site is located on a vacant former industrial site adjacent to the Thames Water Hammersmith Pumping Station, located in the LB Hammersmith and Fulham. The site is bounded by a vacant former industrial site to the west, to the north by Chancellors Road, to the east by Distillery Road and to the south by Winslow Road and a modern office development.
12.4.2
Page 174
The following sub-sections describe the baseline conditions of the site in relation to pedestrians, public transport and highways. Sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the site are also identified. Vol 8 Figure 12.4.1 shows the Transport Site Plan. Vol 8 Figure 12.4.1 Transport local site plan (see Volume 8 Figures document)
Pedestrian routes
12.4.4 12.4.5 There is a signalised pedestrian crossing located on the A219 approximately 40m to the south of the A219/Chancellors Road junction. There are footpaths in place on both sides of Distillery Road and an informal pedestrian crossing on Distillery Road where it meets Chancellors Road. Footpaths are also in place along both sides of Chancellors Road and a raised pedestrian crossing is in place where Chancellors Road meets Fulham Palace Road. The Thames Path routes along the river front north of Chancellors Road, then diverts up Chancellors Road then routes back to the river front through the disused land to the south and west of the development site.
12.4.6
12.4.7
Cycle routes
12.4.8 A designated London Cycle Route runs along Chancellors Road, to the west of its junction with Distillery Road and continues along Distillery Road. The cycle route then routes south and east through a number of residential roads.
Bus routes
12.4.9 The site is classified as having a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of between five and six which indicates that public transport provision in the vicinity is excellent. The closest bus stop to the site is located on Fulham Palace Road about 400m from the site located on Distillery Road. This bus stop serves northbound routes including 190, 220, 221 and 295. Hammersmith Bus Station is located 585m from the site at the Hammersmith Gyratory system and this serves bus routes to Central London, Brent Cross, Wandsworth, Clapham Junction, Richmond upon Thames, Fulham and Hounslow. Vol 8 Figure 12.4.1 shows the location of the bus stops in the vicinity of the site. The destinations and frequency of the routes are detailed in the table below.
12.4.10
12.4.11
12.4.12
Page 175
Vol 8 Table 12.4.1 Transport - bus service frequency Route Number 9 Distance from site (metres) Origin- Destination and Location of Bus Stop 585m Hammersmith Bus Station 585m Hammersmith Bus Station 585m Hammersmith Bus Station 585m Hammersmith Bus Station 585m Hammersmith Bus Station 585m Hammersmith Bus Station 725m Hammersmith Bridge North Side 685m Hammersmith Bridge 685m Hammersmith Bridge 725m Hammersmith Bridge North Side 865m - Lillie Road 865m - Lillie Road 375m Charing Cross Aldwych/Somerset House to Hammersmith Bus Station Hammersmith Bus Station to Aldwych/Somerset House Hammersmith Bus Station to Kings Cross Station Kings Cross Station to Hammersmith Bus Station Turnham Green/Sutton Lane to Chalk Farm Morrisons Chalk Farm Morrisons to Turnham Green/Sutton Lane Fulwell Station to Hammersmith Bus Station AM Peak (07:00-10:00) Buses per Hour 10
10
10
10
27
12
27
12
33
33
Hammersmith Bus Station to Fulwell Station Brunel Road to Norley Vale
72
72
Norley Vale to Brunel Road
74 74 190
Putney Bridge Station to Baker Street Station Baker Street Station to Putney Bridge Station Richmond Bus Station to Empress State
10 10 4
Page 176
Section 12: Transport AM Peak (07:00-10:00) Buses per Hour
Route Number
Distance from site (metres) Origin- Destination and Location of Bus Stop Hospital Building/West Brompton Station 345m Charing Cross Hospital 725m Hammersmith Bridge North Side 685m Hammersmith Bridge 375m Charing Cross Hospital 345m Charing Cross Hospital 375m Charing Cross Hospital 345m Charing Cross Hospital 585m Hammersmith Bus Station 585m Hammersmith Bus Station 585m Hammersmith Bus Station 585m Hammersmith Bus Station 685m Hammersmith Bridge Empress State Building/West Brompton Station to Richmond Bus Station Mortlake Bus Station to Hammersmith Bus Station
190
209
209
Hammersmith Bus Station to Mortlake Station Hammersmith Bus Station to Waterloo Station Waterloo Station to Hammersmith Bus Station Willesden Junction to Mapleton Crescent Mapleton Crescent to Willesden Junction Hammersmith Bus Station to Brent Cross Shopping Centre Brent Cross Shopping Centre to Hammersmith Bus Station Hammersmith Bus Station to Hampton Court Green/Cardinal Worlsey Hampton Court Green/Cardinal Worlsey to Hammersmith Bus Station Brunel Road to Barnes Pond
211
211
220
220
266
12
266
12
267
267
283
Page 177
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Distance from site (metres) Origin- Destination and Location of Bus Stop 725m Hammersmith Bridge North Side 375m Charing Cross Hospital 345m Charing Cross Hospital 585m Hammersmith Bus Station 585m Hammersmith Bus Station 725m Hammersmith Bridge North Side 685m Hammersmith Bridge 865m - Lillie Road 865m - Lillie Road 865m - Lillie Road 865m - Lillie Road 685m Hammersmith Bridge 725m Hammersmith Barnes Pond to Brunel Road
Section 12: Transport AM Peak (07:00-10:00) Buses per Hour 7
Route Number 283
295
Ladbroke Grove Sainsburys 8 to Clapham Junction Station/Falcon Road Clapham Junction 8 Station/Falcon Road to Ladbroke Grove Sainsburys Richmond Bus Station to Sands End Sainsburys Sands End Sainsburys to Richmond Bus Station Richmond Bus Station to Hammersmith Bus Station 6
295
391
391
419
419
Hammersmith Bus Station to Richmond Bus Station
424
Putney Heath/Green Man to 3 Stevenage Road/ Fulham Football Club Stevenage Road/ Fulham Football Club to Putney Heath/Green Man Danebury Avenue/Minstead Gardens to South Kensington Station 3
424
430
430
South Kensington Station to 7 Danebury Avenue/Minstead Gardens Hammersmith Bus Station to Ram Street Ram Street to Hammersmith Bus Station 2
485
485
Page 178
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Distance from site (metres) Origin- Destination and Location of Bus Stop Bridge North Side 725m Hammersmith Bridge North Side 685m Hammersmith Bridge 585m Hammersmith Bus Station 585m Hammersmith Bus Station
Section 12: Transport AM Peak (07:00-10:00) Buses per Hour
Route Number
609
Harrodian School to Hammersmith Bus Station
609
Hammersmith Bus Station to Harrodian School to Hounslow West Station to Hammersmith Bus Station Hammersmith Bus Station to Hounslow West Station
H91
H91
Total
290
London Underground and National Rail Stations

12.4.13 Hammersmith underground station is located approximately 500m from the site and serves the District, Piccadilly, Hammersmith and City and Circle Lines.
River services
12.4.14 The Hammersmith Pumping Station site has no jetty facilities servicing it, with the nearest pier being Putney Pier approximately 2.9km to the east. Putney Pier only has services which travel easterly along the river, so are not of relevance to the Hammersmith Pumping Station site.
Parking
Existing on-street car parking 12.4.15 12.4.16 There is permit or pay at meter (eight hour limit) parking along the eastern side of Distillery Road. There is further permit or pay at meter (four hour maximum stay) parking along both sides of Chancellors Road. This is effective from Monday to Saturday between 08:30 18:30. From observations, parking appears to be well used along the section of Chancellors Road closest to Fulham Palace Road; however, some capacity seems to remain particularly towards the junction with Distillery Road and beyond. Parking along Distillery Road does not appear particularly well used.
12.4.17
Page 179
There are no coach parking bays within 2km of the site, with the nearest being at Holland Road, Kensington. Existing off-street / private car parking There is a Charing Cross Hospital car park located at Fulham Palace Road which is open 24 hours Monday to Sunday. There is a pay and display charge of 2 per hour with an available capacity of 127 car spaces. It is over 400m from the entrance to the site. There is a Hammersmith Novotel hotel car park located in 1 Shortlands which is open 24 hours Monday to Friday. There is a standard charge of 3 per hour with a discounted rate of 1 per hour for hotel residents. It is over 600m walking distance from the site and there is capacity available for 240 spaces. There is an NCP car park located at Hammersmith Grove which is open 24 hours Monday to Sunday. The charge is 6 every two hours and a maximum charge of 25 per 24 hours. There is capacity available for 260 spaces and is approximately 800m walking distance from the site entrance. The Kings Mall Shopping Centre multi-storey car park is located at Glenthorne Road which is open 08:00 to 20:00 Monday to Sunday. The charge is 1.50 every 2 hours with a maximum charge of 22.50 per day. There is capacity available for 1000 spaces and it is approximately 1.1km from the site entrance.
12.4.19
12.4.20
12.4.21
12.4.22
Highway network
12.4.23 Construction vehicles would access/egress the site from Distillery Road via Chancellors Road which links to Fulham Palace Road. Fulham Palace Road forms part of the SRN and is a busy distributor of traffic. Chancellors Road forms a priority junction with Fulham Palace Road. There is a right turn lane in place on Fulham Palace Road to facilitate vehicles wishing to undertake this movement and there is also a no stopping box in the Fulham Palace Road northbound lane to assist vehicle turning into/ out of Chancellors Road. The Hammersmith Gyratory is approximately 400m north of the Chancellors Road/Fulham Palace Road junction. The Fulham Palace Road forms a signalised arm of the gyratory junction.
12.4.24
12.4.25
Survey data
Description of surveys 12.4.26 Baseline survey data for the Hammersmith Pumping Station site were collected between May and July 2011 to establish the existing transport movements in the area. Manual and automated traffic surveys were undertaken to establish specific traffic, pedestrian and cycle movements including turning volumes, queue lengths, saturation flows, degree of saturation and traffic signal timings.
Page 180
The following junction surveys were undertaken in the vicinity of the Hammersmith Pumping Station site to understand highway operation in the area. a. Yeldham Road / A219 Fulham Palace Road / Chancellors Road b. A3218 Lillie Road / A219 Fulham Palace Road / Silverton Road
12.4.28
An Automated Traffic Counter (ATC) was placed in the following location to obtain data on traffic flows: a. A219 Fulham Palace Road north of Chancellors Road A pedestrian and cycle survey was undertaken at the following location: a. River side between Winslow Road and Chancellors Road A parking survey was undertaken in the roads surrounding the site to establish occupancy of on-street parking spaces on the following roads: a. Chancellors Road b. Distillery Road c. Winslow Road d. Manbre Road e. Crisp Road f. St James Street g. Chancellors Street h. Queen Caroline Street i. The Square (and roads leading to it from Fulham Palace Road and Queen Caroline Street
12.4.29 12.4.30
Results of surveys 12.4.31 Data obtained from the surveys were being processed at the time of writing and will be reported fully in the ES.
Data from third party sources

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

12.4.33 The receptors and their sensitivities in the vicinity of the Hammersmith Pumping Station site are summarised in Vol 8 Table 12.4.1. The transport receptor sensitivity is defined as high, medium or low using the criteria detailed in Volume 5. As the assessment undertaken to date is judgement based (rather than being based on quantitative analysis), it has not been possible to identify the effects at individual receptors. A commentary is however provided on the effects upon individual receptor groups; namely pedestrians and cyclists in the local area and users/operators of the local bus services, rail
12.4.34
Page 181
network, river services, parking and local highway network. A full assessment will be provided in the ES. Vol 8 Table 12.4.1 Transport receptors Value/sensitivity and justification High Receptor Residents in the immediate vicinity of the site. Pedestrians and cyclists using Chancellors Road and Distillery Road. Emergency vehicles requiring access to the commercial and residential units in the local area. Business owners, small commercial units and workplace occupiers in the immediate vicinity of the site. Private vehicle users in the area using the local highways. No receptors with low sensitivity
Medium
Low
12.5
12.5.1
At this stage in the assessment process a qualitative assessment has been undertaken based on discussions with TfL and the LHAs, knowledge of the transport networks and their operational characteristics in the vicinity of each site and knowledge of the construction programme, duration and levels of construction activity. These elements have been considered in the context of the range of receptors present in each location and the significance criteria identified. Professional judgement has been applied to determine qualitatively the likely effects and their significance in each location being assessed. The ES will include full quantitative and qualitative analysis and the transport effects reported will be based on that detailed analysis.
12.5.2
Construction base and development cases

Assessment year 12.5.3 As described in Volume 5, 2019 has been used as the construction assessment year for all sites, as agreed with TfL, to enable a networkwide assessment. The peak period for vehicle trips to the site is predicted to be in Year 1 of construction which will be the assessment year for local network assessments and will be contained in the ES. The current assessment is undertaken for the network-wide 2019 assessment year.
12.5.4
12.5.5
Page 182
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Assessment area 12.5.6
The area being assessed for the Hammersmith Pumping Station site is based on discussions with LB Hammersmith and Fulham and Transport for London. Local roads and junctions included in the assessment are as follows: a. Chancellors Road / Distillery Road b. Yeldham Road / A219 Fulham Palace Road / Chancellors Road c. Hammersmith Gyratory
12.5.7
12.5.8
These roads and junctions would be assessed for highway, cycle and pedestrian impacts. The Thames Path would also be included within the assessment due to its proximity to the development site. Local bus and rail services, as identified on Vol 8 Figure 12.4.1, would also be assessed. Construction base case The construction base case takes into account traffic growth and developments within the local area by 2019. This includes the developments described in Section 3.5, namely: a. Fulham Reach development b. Queens Wharf.
12.5.9
12.5.10
The following sub-sections detail what is assumed to change between the baseline and base case scenarios with respect to the different transport aspects considered. Pedestrian routes Pedestrian routes are not anticipated to change from baseline conditions. The base case therefore assumes the same pedestrian routes as set out in Section 12.4. Cycle routes Cycle routes are not anticipated to change from baseline conditions and therefore the base case assumes the same cycle routes as set out in Section 12.4. Bus routes and patronage Bus routes are not anticipated to change from baseline conditions and therefore are assumed to be the same in the base case. Bus patronage is anticipated to increase, the effect of which will be detailed in the Transport Assessment. London Underground and patronage London Underground routes are assumed to be the same as baseline conditions as no changes are anticipated. LUL patronage is anticipated to increase, the effect of which will be detailed in the Transport Assessment. River services and patronage No river services operate near the Hammersmith Pumping Station site.
12.5.11
12.5.12
12.5.13
12.5.14
12.5.15
Page 183
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Parking 12.5.16
Coach and car parking provision is assumed to be the same as baseline conditions as no changes are anticipated. Highway layout Cycle Super Highway Route 9, due for completion in 2013, will route from Kensington Gardens along the A315 Kensington Road to Hammersmith Road and through the gyratory then along the A4 before routing north through Nigel Playfair Avenue to the A315 King Street and Cheswick High Road. It is proposed to change the configuration of Fulham Palace Road at the Hammersmith gyratory to provide two entry and two exit lanes and a dedicated bus lane. Sussex Place, which currently operates one-way southbound into Fulham Palace Road south of the gyratory, would no longer route into Fulham Palace Road, instead terminating underneath the flyover adjacent to Hammersmith Apollo. Highway operation Population growth and development in the wider area will result in an increase in traffic on the surrounding highway network. As a result of this increase, it is anticipated that traffic flows may be heavier and queues longer. Highway capacity analysis Baseline traffic flows (from the junction surveys) will be used and forecasting carried out to understand the capacity on the highway network in the vicinity of the Hammersmith Pumping Station site in 2019 without the Thames Tunnel project. The scope of this analysis is being agreed with LB Hammersmith and Fulham and Transport for London. The full assessment of the highway operation and capacity analysis will be undertaken in the Transport Assessment. Construction development case The construction development case comprises the base case plus construction activities associated with the Hammersmith Pumping Station site. This section addresses the changes that would arise as a result of the Thames Tunnel construction activities at the Hammersmith Pumping Station site. Construction vehicle movements It has been assumed for the purposes of the assessment that construction lorry movements would take place during standard and extended working hours, the table below shows the construction lorry movement assumptions for the local peak traffic periods. These are based on the peak months of construction activity at this site. The table also shows the construction worker movements expected to be generated by the site. These movements are based on the assumption that all material is transported to and from the site by road.
12.5.17
12.5.18
12.5.19
12.5.20
12.5.21
12.5.22
12.5.23
12.5.24
12.5.25
Page 184
Vol 8 Table 12.5.1 Transport forecast construction vehicle movements Vehicle movements per time period Vehicle type Construction vehicle movements 10%* Worker vehicle movements Total Total Daily 30 7 37 07:00 to 08:00 0 5 5 08:00 to 09:00 3 0 3 17:00 to 18:00 3 1 4 18:00 to 19:00 0 1 1
* As explained in Volume 5 it has been assumed that a maximum of 10% of daily construction vehicle movements associated with materials would take place in each of the peak hours.
12.5.26
Assuming all material is taken by road, an average peak flow of 37 vehicle movements a day is expected during the months of greatest activity at this site. At other times in the construction period, vehicle flows will be lower than this average peak flow. Modal split The Hammersmith Pumping Station site has a PTAL of between 5 and 6 indicating excellent public transport access. Due to the extensive public transport within the immediate vicinity it has been assumed that 20% of staff and 10% of labour staff could drive to the site. Information regarding the travel arrangements of these workers would be included in the CoCP, Construction Management Plan and Work Place Travel Plan documents for the site (to be submitted as part of the application). Pedestrian routes It would be necessary to close sections of the footpath to the west of Distillery Road and the south of Chancellors Road adjacent to the site boundary. The section of pedestrian footpath along the western side of Distillery Road would require temporary diversion to the eastern side of Distillery Road. Cycle routes No cycle routes run through the site and therefore none would be impacted on directly by the construction site development. Bus routes and patronage No bus services run through the site and therefore none would be impacted on by the construction site development. London Underground and National Rail and patronage No underground or rail services run through the site and therefore none would be impacted on by the construction site development.
12.5.27
12.5.28
12.5.29
12.5.30
12.5.31
12.5.32
Page 185
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station River services and patronage 12.5.33
No river services run through the site and therefore none would be impacted on by the construction site development. Parking No public parking would be impacted on by the worksite area. Highway layout Highway layouts would not be impacted on by the worksite area. Highway operation Highway operation would not be impacted on by the worksite area.
12.5.34 12.5.35 12.5.36
12.5.37 This section summarises the preliminary findings of the assessment undertaken for the 2019 assessment year based on professional judgement. A more detailed assessment will be presented in the ES. Pedestrian routes 12.5.38 The removal of traffic calming (road humps) on Chancellors Road between Fulham Palace Road and Distillery Road would be necessary to avoid damage by construction lorries. There would also be increased vehicle flows along Chencellors Road. A new crossover at the site entrance would be required on Distillery Road and would require the removal of a section of footway. It may be necessary to widen Chancellors Road at the junction with Fulham Palace Road to enable safe access for construction vehicles. This would increase the crossing distance for pedestrians. Based on the above it is considered that the effect on pedestrian routes would be minor adverse. Cycle routes 12.5.42 The removal of traffic calming (road humps) on Chancellors Road between Fulham Palace Road and Distillery Road would be necessary to avoid damage by construction lorries. The new site entrance on Distillery Road would result in additional turning movements thus potentially increase the hazard to cyclists. Signage would however be provided for vehicles and cyclists to warn of conflicting movements. Increased vehicle flows would also lead to an increased hazard to cyclists. The designated cycle route along Distillery Road would need to be diverted as a result of the increase in heavy vehicle traffic. Taking the above into account the effect on cycle routes would be minor adverse. Bus routes and patronage 12.5.46 Additional construction traffic passing through the Hammersmith Gyratory could lead to additional delay to traffic. However, construction traffic flows
12.5.39 12.5.40
12.5.41
12.5.43
12.5.44
12.5.45
Page 186
are low so the routing and schedule of bus services in the area should not be affected by the construction works at the Hammersmith Pumping Station site. 12.5.47 It is anticipated that there would be a proportion of labourers and staff using buses to access the site during construction, however, it is expected that the effect on bus routes and patronage would be negligible. London Underground and patronage 12.5.48 12.5.49 No underground would be affected by the site development. It is anticipated that there would be a proportion of labourers and staff using rail and underground to access the site during construction, however, it is expected that the effect on London Underground services would be negligible. River services and patronage 12.5.50 Construction materials to/from the Hammersmith Pumping Station site would not be transported by river and therefore would not alter or affect any river services. It is therefore considered that the effect on river services would be negligible. Parking 12.5.51 It would be necessary to remove on-street parking along Chancellors Road during construction at the site to accommodate two-way construction traffic. This would be relocated if demand requires. Based on vehicle swept path analysis and professional judgement, it is expected that the effect of the construction works on car parking would be minor adverse. Highway layout 12.5.53 The raised table at the entrance to Chancellors Road from Fulham Place Road would need to be removed to ease the movement of large vehicles. Kerb realignment would be required at the Chancellors Road junction with Fulham Palace Road if lorries are to approach from the south. The carriageway is raised to kerb height at the junction of Chancellors Road and Distillery Road and this treatment would be removed to ease the movement of large construction vehicles. Kerb realignment would be required to allow lorries to turn left into Distillery Road from Chancellors Road. Traffic calming (road humps) along Chancellors Road may hinder the movement of heavy vehicles, be damaged by them and create traffic noise. Removal of these road humps would be required. A new crossover on Distillery Road would be required at the site entrance. The works to create the site access point and modify the junction of Chancellors Road and Fulham Palace Road are likely to require short term pedestrian and traffic management. Therefore, it is expected that the effect on the local highway layout would be moderate adverse.
12.5.52
12.5.54
12.5.55
12.5.56 12.5.57
Page 187
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Highway operation 12.5.58 12.5.59
The number of additional lorry movements on the network is expected to be low. There would be an increase in the volume of vehicles on the local road network as a result of the construction at the Hammersmith Pumping Station site. Therefore, it is expected that the effect on highway operation (specifically the ease of vehicle movements) would be minor adverse. Highway capacity analysis The number of additional lorry movements on the network is expected to be low. Due to the overall increase in the number of vehicles using Distillery Road, Chancellors Road and Fulham Palace Road, it is expected that the effect on highway capacity would be minor adverse. Significance of effects The significance of the transport effects described above has been determined as part of the ongoing assessment and analysis. With regard to the application of the IEMA criteria detailed in Volume 5, this is based on professional judgement. During construction, the number of heavy goods vehicle movements would be fairly low. The nature of the construction site layout at this location is considered likely to result in a minor to moderate adverse effect on road network operation and delay. Effects on pedestrian and cyclist amenity and safety are expected to be minor adverse.
12.5.60 12.5.61
12.5.62
12.5.63
12.6
12.6.1
This section summarises the preliminary findings of the assessment based on professional judgement. The results summarised below will be presented in more detail in the ES. A qualitative approach to the assessment is appropriate due to the transport activity during the operational phase being very low. The transport elements have been considered in the context of the range of receptors present in each location and the significance criteria identified. Professional judgement has been applied to determine qualitatively the likely effects and their significance in each location being assessed. The transport effects reported in the ES will be based on more detailed information and qualitative analysis where this is appropriate.
12.6.2
Operational base and development cases

Assessment year 12.6.3 As outlined in Volume 5 the operational assessment year has been taken as Year 1 of operation which is the year in which it is assumed that the Thames Tunnel would become operational. As transport activity associated with the operational phase is very low, there is no requirement to assess any other year beyond that date.
Page 188
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Assessment area 12.6.4
The assessment area for the operational assessment remains the same as for the construction assessment as set out in para. 12.5.5 - 12.5.6. This includes those roads and junctions which lead to/from the Hammersmith Pumping Station site to the SRN and TRLN. Operational base case The operational base case for Year 1 of operation takes into account traffic growth and identified new developments within the local area at this time. The new developments in the vicinity of the site that have been included in the base case are the same as set out in Section 3.5. The following sub-sections detail what is assumed to change between the baseline and base case scenarios with respect to the different transport aspects considered. Pedestrian routes Pedestrian routes are not anticipated to change from baseline conditions. The base case therefore assumes the same pedestrian routes as set out in Section 12.4. Cycle routes Cycle routes are not anticipated to change from baseline conditions and therefore the base case assumes the same cycle routes as set out in Section 12.4. Bus routes and patronage Bus routes are not anticipated to change from baseline conditions and therefore are assumed to be the same in the base case. Bus patronage is anticipated to increase between 2011 (baseline) and Year 1 of operation and this assessment will be detailed further in the Transport Assessment. London Underground and patronage London Underground routes are assumed to be the same as baseline conditions as no changes are anticipated. It is anticipated that LUL patronage will increase between 2011 and Year 1 of operation and this assessment will be detailed further in the Transport Assessment. River services and patronage There are no river services near the Hammersmith Pumping Station site. Parking Parking provision is not anticipated to change from baseline conditions. Highway layout As detailed in para. 12.5.18, there are proposals to change the configuration of Fulham Palace Road at the Hammersmith Gyratory.
12.6.5
12.6.6 12.6.7
12.6.8
12.6.9
12.6.10 12.6.11
12.6.12 12.6.13
12.6.14 12.6.15 12.6.16
Page 189
These changes will be included within both the 2019 base case, as well as the base case for Year 1 of operation. Highway operation 12.6.17 Population growth and development in the surrounding area will result in an increase in traffic on the surrounding highway network. As a result of this increase, it is anticipated that traffic flows may be heavier and queues longer. Highway capacity analysis 12.6.18 Baseline traffic flows (from the junction surveys) will be utilised and forecasting carried out to determine the capacity on the highway network in the vicinity of the Hammersmith Pumping Station site in Year 1 of operation without the Thames Tunnel project. The scope of this analysis is being agreed with LB Hammersmith and Fulham and Transport for London and will be reported in the Transport Assessment.
Operational development case

12.6.19 The operational development case for the site includes any permanent changes in the vicinity of the Hammersmith Pumping Station site as a result of the Thames Tunnel project and takes into consideration the occasional maintenance activities required at the site. Trip generation 12.6.20 For routine three or six monthly inspections and equipment exercising, vehicular access would be required for light commercial vehicles. In most cases this would be typically a transit type van. On occasion there may be a consequent need for small flatbed lorries with lifting cranes, for example to removing plant from the site. During 10 yearly inspections, sites for placing two large cranes would be required. The cranes would facilitate lowering and recovery of tunnel inspection vehicles and to provide duty/standby access for personnel. Modal split 12.6.22 It is anticipated that all trips during the operational phase would be using transit van, or large construction vehicles. No trips would be made by public transport, walking or cycling due to the nature of maintenance requiring equipment that can only be transported by vehicles. Pedestrian routes 12.6.23 The pedestrian routes within the area would be maintained and would not be affected during the operational phase. Cycle routes 12.6.24 The designated cycle routes within the area would be maintained and would not be affected during the operational phase. Bus routes and patronage 12.6.25 No change is expected to any bus services in the operational phase and it is not anticipated that operational staff journeys would be made by bus.
12.6.21
Page 190
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station London Underground and patronage 12.6.26
No change is expected to any London Underground service in the operational phase and it is not anticipated that operational staff journeys would be made by underground services. River services and patronage There are no river services near the Hammersmith Pumping Station site. Parking No change is expected to car parking in the vicinity of the site, compared to the base case, as a result of the operational phase arrangements at Hammersmith Pumping Stations. When large vehicles are required to service the site, some parking may have to be suspended to ensure the vehicles have sufficient space to manoeuvre into the site. Highway layout The site would be accessed via Distillery Road during the operational phase. This reflects the current access arrangements for the site. When large vehicles are required to service the site, some parking may have to be suspended to ensure the vehicles have sufficient space to manoeuvre into the site. Highway operation Occasional maintenance vehicles would service Hammersmith Pumping Station every three to six months. When larger vehicles are required to service the site, there may be some temporary, short-term delay to other road users.
12.6.27 12.6.28
12.6.29
12.6.30 12.6.31
12.6.32 12.6.33
Operational effects
12.6.34 This section summarises the preliminary findings of the operational assessment undertaken for Year 1 of operation. The results summarised below will be presented in more detail in the ES. Pedestrian routes 12.6.35 As a result of the occasional maintenance trips anticipated at the Hammersmith Pumping Station site during the operational phase, there would be a negligible effect on pedestrian routes in the area and footways adjacent to the site. Cycle routes 12.6.36 As a result of the occasional maintenance trips anticipated at the site during the operational phase, there would be a negligible effect on cycle routes in the area and on the roads surrounding the site. Bus routes and patronage 12.6.37 As a result of the occasional maintenance trips anticipated at the site during the operational phase, there would be a negligible effect on bus routes and patronage.
Page 191
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station London Underground and patronage 12.6.38
London Underground services would not be affected by the occasional maintenance trips during the operational phase. River services and patronage River services would not be affected by the occasional maintenance trips during the operational phase. Parking As a result of the highly infrequent maintenance trips anticipated at the Hammersmith Pumping Station site during the operational phase, there would be a negligible effect on parking. During maintenance where larger vehicles are required, some parking may be temporarily suspended to enable vehicles to access the site which would be reprovided in a safe location if required. Highway layout In the operational phase the current highway layout would be restored, with the construction access retained, resulting in a negligible impact on the local highway layout. Highway operation During the operational phase there may be some delay to road users when large maintenance vehicles are required at the site, however this is likely to be highly infrequent, and the effect is therefore deemed to be negligible. Highway capacity analysis It is expected that the effect on highway capacity would be negligible. Significance of effects The significance of the transport effects described above has been determined as part of the ongoing assessment and analysis. With regard to the application of the IEMA criteria detailed in Volume 5, this is based on professional judgement. During the operational phase there would be very occasional vehicle trips to and from the site for maintenance activities but these would have a negligible effect on the surrounding transport networks (in terms of delay and safety) and pedestrian/cyclists.
12.6.39
12.6.40
12.6.41
12.6.42
12.6.43 12.6.44
12.6.45
12.7
12.7.1 12.7.2

Measures contained in the draft CoCP of relevance to transport are summarised in Section 12.2. The project has been designed to limit the effects on the transport networks as far as possible and many measures have been included directly in the design of the scheme. Any mitigation which is required is detailed below.
Page 192
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Pedestrian routes 12.7.3
Safe crossing points would be provided where diversionary routes are put in place. Furthermore, a safety audit at the new site access would be required. Cycle routes Assuming that diversions are signposted and signage is provided for vehicles and cyclists to warn of conflicting movements, no mitigation would be required. Bus routes No mitigation measures are likely to be required for bus services. London Underground No mitigation measures are likely to be required for underground services. River services No mitigation measures are likely to be required for river services. Parking On the basis that parking displaced on Chancellors Road is reprovided in the local area if necessary, no mitigation would be required. Highway layout Assuming that short-term pedestrian and traffic management measures are put in place during junction modification and realignment works, no mitigation would be required. Highway operation No mitigation measures would be required for highway operation. Highway capacity No mitigation measures are likely to be required for highway capacity.
12.7.4
12.7.5 12.7.6 12.7.7 12.7.8
12.7.9
12.7.10 12.7.11
Operation
Pedestrian routes 12.7.12 Footways would be returned to their original routes for operation and operational phase lorry movements would be infrequent. As a result, no mitigation would be required for the operational phase. Cycle routes 12.7.13 Cycle routes would not be affected by the operation of the Hammersmith Pumping Station site as lorry movements would be infrequent, and no mitigation would be required. Bus routes 12.7.14 Bus services and patronage would not be affected by the operation of the Hammersmith Pumping Station site therefore no mitigation would be required.
Page 193
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station London Underground 12.7.15
London Underground services would not be affected by the operation of the Hammersmith Pumping Station site therefore no mitigation would be required. River services There are no river services near the Hammersmith Pumping Station site. River services and patronage would therefore not be affected by the operation of the site therefore no mitigation would be required. Parking On-street parking would be restored to the existing layout for the operational phase. When large maintenance vehicles are required at the site, temporary parking bay suspension may be required to accommodate vehicle movements. Under these circumstances, on-street parking bays would be re-provided in a safe location away from turning vehicles. No mitigation would therefore be required. Highway layout The highway layout would be restored to the existing layout and therefore would not be affected by the operation of the site. As a result no mitigation would be required for the operational phase. Highway operation The number of trips associated with the Hammersmith Pumping Station site during the operational phase would be very low and infrequent and for maintenance purposes only. No mitigation would therefore be required during the operational phase. Highway capacity The level of operational vehicles would be negligible and as a result the local highway network would not experience a significant detrimental effect from the operational proposals. Therefore, there would be no requirement for highway improvement mitigation to increase capacity of local junctions.
12.7.16
12.7.17
12.7.18
12.7.19
12.7.20
Page 194
12.8
Vol 8 Table 12.8.1 Transport construction assessment Effect Significance Minor adverse Mitigation Provision of safe crossing points Safety audit at site access
Assessment summary
Residual significance Minor adverse
Receptor
Pedestrians in the local area
Minor adverse None required
Cyclists in the local area
Minor adverse
Negligible
Bus users and operators Negligible Negligible Minor adverse
None required
Negligible
Rail users and operators
None required None required None required
Negligible Negligible Minor adverse
River users and operators
Parking
All road users
Removal of traffic calming features increasing vehicle speeds. Loss of footway Junction widening Possible conflicts at site access Removal of traffic calming features increasing vehicle speeds. Local diversions Possible conflicts at site access Some additional patronage from construction workers Possible delays Some additional patronage from construction workers No impact during construction Loss of on-street parking (to be relocated if demand requires) Movement of large construction vehicles New crossover Highway layout changes Minor adverse
Signage for vehicles and Minor adverse pedestrians / cyclists to warn of potential conflicting movements
Page 195
including junction modifications and removal of traffic calming features (requiring short-term pedestrian and traffic management). Vol 8 Table 12.8.2 Transport operational assessment Effect Significance Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible None required None required None required None required None required Mitigation None required Residual significance Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
Receptor
Pedestrians in the local area
Cyclists in the local area
Bus users and operators
Rail users and operators No effect
Occasional maintenance trips Occasional maintenance trips Occasional maintenance trips No effect
River users and operators
Parking
All road users
Occasional suspension of onstreet parking in the immediate vicinity of the site during maintenance (to be reprovided if demand requires) Delays to traffic Negligible
None required
Negligible
Page 196
12.9
12.9.1
In addition to the baseline survey data collected and data obtained from Transport for London (strategic model data and additional ATC and junction count data), there is a need for additional baseline data to supplement the data set. The baseline data collection was in the process of being collated at the time of writing. When baseline data collection (including data from third party sources) and analysis is complete a full transport assessment will be carried out. This will include a detailed analysis of all three levels of assessment (sitespecific, Borough level and project-wide) and will include an assessment of cumulative and in combination effects. The scope of analysis will be agreed with TfL and the LHA and will include the identification of effects at individual receptors. This full assessment will be reported in the ES (and Transport Assessment). Following completion of the assessment the mitigation approaches for transport within the project will be finalised and reported in the ES and Transport Assessment.
12.9.2
12.9.3
Page 197
Section 13: Water resources groundwater
13 13.1
13.1.1
Water resources groundwater Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant groundwater effects at the Hammersmith Pumping Station site. The Scoping Report (TT, 2011a)43 identified that in the absence of appropriate measures within the design, there is potential for effects on groundwater resources from both construction and operational phases at the site. This preliminary assessment identifies these measures in order to assess the effects (if any) on groundwater resources that might then require mitigation. This groundwater assessment has some overlap with the land quality assessment. Water quality information from the land quality assessment is included in the appendices to this section of the report.
13.1.2
13.1.3
13.2
13.2.1
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to groundwater are as follows.
Construction
13.2.2 The main infrastructure at the site, relevant to the consideration of groundwater, would include; a. a drop shaft (dimension approximate diameter 11 m (internal) and 32.6 m depth). The shaft would have a secondary lining b. a connection tunnel from the drop shaft to the main tunnel connection point (approximately 4m diameter and 370m long) c. an interception chamber for the existing CSO d. a reception chamber (Spray Concrete Lined) is required to accept the excavator. 13.2.3 The proposed methods of construction for the various elements of the site are summarised in the table below. Also contained in this table are approximate time-scales and depths. Vol 8 Table 13.2.1 Groundwater - methods of construction Design Element Method of Construction Sheet pile cut off and excavation with sprayed concrete lined (SCL) and cast in situ concrete forming a secondary lining. SCL
Page 198
Construction Periods
Construction Depth
CSO Drop shaft
<1 year
Deep
Connecting tunnel to
1 year
Deep
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Design Element the main tunnel Interception chamber for CSO Reception chamber for accepting TBM 13.2.4 13.2.5 Method of Construction
Section 13: Water resources groundwater Construction Periods Construction Depth
Secant piled wall
<1 year
Shallow
SCL
1 year
Deep
In terms of construction depth - Shallow (means <15m) and Deep (>15m)
No dewatering would be required as the shaft would be constructed mainly within London Clay. No ground treatment would be required at the site.
Operation
13.2.6 During operation the presence of below ground structures could interfere with any shallow groundwater movements and potentially act as a barrier to flow locally around the site. If it occurs, the build up of groundwater can cause problems of groundwater flooding.
13.3
13.3.1 13.3.2

Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. There were no site specific comments from consultees for this particular site relating to groundwater. Construction The construction phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site. Operation The operational phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site. Assumptions and limitations At this stage, all assessments are based on a qualitative approach only. The list of receptors is based on the best available information from the Environment Agency on abstractions (both licensed and Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP) schemes).
Page 199
13.3.3 13.3.4 13.3.5 13.3.6 13.3.7 13.3.8
13.4
13.4.1

The CSO drop shaft to the main tunnel is likely to pass through made ground, Alluvium, River Terrace Deposits and London Clay as shown in the table below. Vol 8 Table 13.4.1 Groundwater anticipated ground conditions Formation Made Ground Alluvium River Terrace Deposits London Clay B A3ii A3i A2 Elevation mATD 104.96 102.21 101.71 Depth below ground level (m) 0 2.75 3.25 Thickness (m) 2.75 0.5 4.5 Hydrogeology Perched Water Upper Aquifer Upper Aquifer
97.21 78.91 69.11 64.11
7.75 26.05 35.85 40.85
18.3 9.8 5.0 Not proven
Aquiclude
13.4.2
The shaft would be founded in London Clay and would be constructed using a sheet pile cut-down (to seal out the upper aquifer) and sprayed concrete lining (SCL) on the excavated surfaces of the shaft. The River Terrace Deposits or upper aquifer is classified as a secondary A aquifer iii. Borehole logs from ground investigation show the thickness at the site to be 4.5m thick. At the site, the depth of the shaft would be 72.37mATD (with base slab down to 70.37mATD). The base of the shaft is likely to be within the London Clay Formation, as would be the main tunnel at this site. The London Clay acts as an aquiclude iv that separates the upper aquifer from the lower aquifer. The shaft would not extend down into the lower aquifer. There would be a separation distance of greater than 8m between the base of the shaft and the base of the London Clay. Harwich Sands and the Lambeth Group are expected above the Thanet Sands (the top of the lower aquifer defined as the top of the Upnor Beds (the lower unit of the Lambeth Group), is at a depth unproven at the Hammersmith site.
13.4.3
13.4.4
13.4.5
Secondary A aquifers are permeable layers capable of supporting water supplies at a local scale (rather than strategic scale) and in some cases forming an important source of base flow to rivers. These are generally aquifers formerly classified as minor aquifers. iv Aquiclude is a geological strata with low permeability that have negligible significance for water supply. Page 200
iii
Water level monitoring by the Thames Tunnel team at the site take places within in the River Terrace Deposits and the London Clay Formation. The boreholes in the River Terrace Deposits show slightly different levels at two locations, indicating the variable nature of these deposits. In general levels within the River Terrace Deposits are at least 5m below ground level. The levels recorded in the London Clay Formation are consistently above the River Terrace Deposits and also show some irregular responses. Further details on water levels are contained in Appendix E. Water level monitoring by the EA indicates that the piezometric surface within the Chalk has been above the base of the shaft within the past 10 years. The piezometric levels in the Chalk are unlikely to have any influence on construction/operation of the shaft due the thick layer of Lambeth Group which overlies the Chalk. However; upward pressures through more permeable lower units of the London Clay may impact on the excavations. The site does not lie within any Source Protection Zone (SPZ) as defined by the EA. The nearest SPZ is over 8km away to the west and is not in the direction of groundwater flow expected beneath the site. No other licensed or unlicensed abstractions exist near to the site based on information provided by the EA and the local authority. There are two Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP) schemes neighbouring the site, both of which abstract from the Chalk. The nearest GSHP scheme is approximately 0.1km southwest of the site and the second GSHP scheme is approximately 0.7km north of the site (see Appendix E). There is one designated site within relatively close proximity to the site. This is the Barn Elms Wetland Centre SSSI located 0.6km to the south of the site. Appendix E contains a summary of the water quality information from the land quality assessment. There are no exceedances of any standards at the site. Further details on the baseline conditions at the site are provided in Appendix E. Appendix E contains a summary of the water quality information from the land quality assessment. Monitoring is continuing and would extend the baseline which would inform the assessment in the ES. The flood risk assessment states that there are no groundwater flooding incidents within the vicinity of the site, based on information from the LB of Hammersmith and Fulham SFRA. Appendix E contains an assessment of groundwater flooding risk at the adjacent proposed development.
13.4.7
13.4.8
13.4.9 13.4.10
13.4.11
13.4.12
13.4.13
13.4.14
13.4.15
Receptor summary
13.4.16 Groundwater receptors which could be affected during construction or operation are summarised in the table below.
Page 201
Vol 8 Table 13.4.2 Groundwater receptors Receptor Groundwater Resources Upper Aquifer Lower Aquifer Abstractions Licensed Abstractions Unlicensed GSHP Schemes Construction
Operation
Comment Cut through by shaft Base of shaft in London Clay, well above the level of Lower Aquifer No Chalk abstractions near to the site None identified 2 licences in Chalk
13.5
13.5.1
Construction assessment Construction assessment results

The drop shaft passes for most of its depth through London Clay so no groundwater issues are expected in connection with construction of the shaft and no dewatering or depressurisation is proposed. The main potential effects could arise as a result of the interceptor chambers creating a physical obstruction to flow in the upper aquifer for a period of up to two years. This could cause a rise in groundwater level up stream and fall down stream and consequent change in groundwater storage and flood risk. Impact magnitude The magnitude of the impact on groundwater levels are yet to be assessed. There is no contamination (known about at present) in the upper aquifer (see Appendix E) so the magnitude of any impact associated with groundwater quality is negligible. A summary of the impacts and likely magnitude is provided in the table below. Vol 8 Table 13.5.1 Groundwater impacts - construction Impact Physical obstruction to flow in the upper aquifer and resultant rise in groundwater level Creation of pathway for pollution Magnitude Yet to be defined
13.5.2
13.5.3 13.5.4
13.5.5
Negligible; no pollution near surface.
Page 202
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Receptor sensitivity 13.5.6
The Upper Aquifer is a secondary aquifer so is categorised in the Scoping Report as being of medium importance, as summarised in the table below. Vol 8 Table 13.5.2 Groundwater receptors - construction Value/sensitivity Medium importance; secondary aquifer
Receptor Upper aquifer Significance of effects 13.5.7
A summary of significance of the effects is shown in the table below. There are negligible effects on groundwater as a result of activities at Hammersmith Pumping Station. Vol 8 Table 13.5.3 Groundwater effects - construction Significance Negligible effect, groundwater levels remain deeper than any construction Negligible effect, no known contamination in the near surface
Effect Change in groundwater storage and flood risk as a result of physical obstruction in upper aquifer Deterioration in groundwater quality caused by creation of a pathway upper aquifer
13.6
13.6.1

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

13.6.3 There is the potential for the proposals to result in the build up of groundwater around the underground structures. The impacts of this are yet to be quantified and will be reported in the ES. In terms of seepage out of the shaft into the upper aquifer, given that the shaft would be full on only relatively few occasions, the magnitude of impact is expected to be negligible. The shafts would also have a secondary lining to minimise the risk to the upper aquifer.
Page 203
13.6.4
Seepage into the shaft would be prevented by the double lining, this should ensure that this risk is fully minimised over the asset life. No other operational effects are envisaged. Impact magnitude A summary of the impacts and likely magnitude is provided in the table below. Vol 8 Table 13.6.1 Groundwater impacts - operation Magnitude Yet to be quantified
Impact Physical obstruction to flow in the upper aquifer and resultant rise in groundwater level Seepage out of the shaft affecting groundwater quality (Upper Aquifers) Seepage into the shaft affecting groundwater resource (Upper Aquifer) Receptor sensitivity 13.6.8
Negligible, design of shaft would include a secondary lining Negligible, design of shaft would include a secondary lining
In terms of receptors, the upper aquifer is a secondary aquifer so is categorised in the Scoping Report as being of medium importance, as summarised in the table below. Vol 8 Table 13.6.2 Groundwater resources receptors - operation Value/sensitivity Medium importance; secondary aquifer
Receptor Upper Aquifer Significance of effects 13.6.9
A summary of significance of the effects is shown in the table below. Vol 8 Table 13.6.3 Groundwater resources effects - operation Significance
Effect
Change in groundwater storage and Yet to be quantified flood risk as a result of physical obstruction in upper aquifer Deterioration in groundwater quality caused by seepage out of the shaft Seepage into shaft affecting groundwater resources Negligible effect design of shaft would include a secondary lining Negligible effect, design of shaft includes double lining
Page 204
13.7
13.7.1
The scheme includes a number of environmental design elements already included in the design.
Construction
13.7.2 The possible build up of groundwater in the upper aquifer would be addressed by the environmental design. No other effects were identified therefore no mitigation is required. Residual effects 13.7.3 Provided appropriate mitigation is adopted there should be no residual effects on the upper aquifer.
Operation
13.7.4 No effects are identified in the operational assessment and therefore no mitigation is required. Residual effects 13.7.5 No residual effects are expected.
Page 205
Section 13: Water resources - groundwater
13.8
Vol 8 Table 13.8.1 Groundwater construction assessment Effect Yet to be quantified To be developed following assessment None required Significance Mitigation
Assessment summary
Residual Significance Yet to be quantified
Receptor
Upper aquifer Negligible effect
Change in groundwater storage and flood risk as a result of physical obstruction in upper aquifer
Upper aquifer Vol 8 Table 13.8.2 Groundwater operation assessment Effect Yet to be quantified Negligible effect design of shaft would include a secondary lining Negligible effect, design of shaft includes double lining Significance
Deterioration in groundwater quality caused by creation of a pathway
None
Receptor
Mitigation To be developed following assessment No mitigation proposed at this point No mitigation proposed at this point
Residual Significance Yet to be quantified None
Upper aquifer
Change in groundwater levels
Upper aquifer
Deterioration in groundwater quality caused by seepage out of the shaft
Upper aquifers
Seepage into shaft affecting groundwater resources
None
Page 206
13.9
13.9.1 13.9.2
No additional data collection is required at the site. Quantification of the impact of the proposed development, during construction and operation on groundwater flow in the upper aquifer will be undertaken as part of the ES. At this stage, it is not envisaged that any further work will be needed beyond that contained in the preliminary assessment for groundwater flooding given in Appendix E. Assessment of cumulative and in combination effects will be undertaken and reported in the ES. Following completion of the assessment the mitigation approaches for groundwater within the project will be finalised and reported in the ES.
13.9.3
13.9.4 13.9.5
Page 207
Section 14: Water resources surface water
14 14.1
14.1.1
Water resources surface water Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant surface water effects at the Hammersmith Pumping Station site. This assessment: a. identifies the existing water resources baseline conditions b. identifies the future base case conditions against which the scheme should be assessed c. identifies both the beneficial and adverse effects of the scheme during construction and operation and assess the significance of the effects
d. identifies any residual effects with respect to surface water resources potentially affected by the project, both during construction and operation. 14.1.2 Groundwater resources are assessed separately in Section 13. Similarly land quality is addressed in Section 8. A Level 1 Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been carried out separately and is included in Section 15. In addition, it should be noted that this assessment only covers the effects of the work at the Hammersmith PS site. The project -wide effects on the Thames Tideway, particularly the water quality improvements anticipated from the scheme are assessed separately in Volume 6.
14.1.3
14.2
14.2.1
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to surface water resources are described in the following sections. The CoCP includes a number of measures that are important in protecting water quality and these are referred to as appropriate. Construction This site lies mainly within Thames Waters Hammersmith PS, approximately 100m behind the Thames Tideway flood defences, There is therefore no direct pathway to the Thames; however, it is considered that an indirect pathway to the river is present via the surface water and combined drainage system. The majority of the shaft would be excavated through the London Clay, although groundwater could be encountered as localised seepages and minor flows during construction works. Dewatering would therefore be required during construction works, although the volumes are not known at this point. Disposal of dewatering effluent can have an impact on surface water resources. See Groundwater Resources (Section 13) for further details of dewatering requirements. Construction controls To prevent pollution from leaks or spillages, contaminating substances would be stored in leakproof containers, with secondary containment equal to 110% of the volume of the container, in a safe and secure
14.2.2
14.2.3
14.2.4
Page 208
building or compound. Areas for transfer of contaminating substances, including refuelling, oiling and greasing, would be similarly protected and activities would take place above drip trays or on an impermeable surface with sealed drainage or oil interceptor. All wash down of vehicles (including wheel washing) and equipment would take place in designated areas and washwater would be prevented from passing untreated into drains or holding areas prior to pumping. These measures will be detailed in the CoCP (a summary of which is appended to volume 2). 14.2.5 The CoCP would be adhered to at all times and good construction techniques followed to ensure protection against pollution incidents. In addition, relevant Environment Agency guidance would be followed, including the following: a. General Guide to the Prevention of Pollution: PPG 1 b. Works and maintenance in or near water: PPG 5 c. PPG 6 Pollution prevention guidance for working at construction and demolition sites
d. Vehicle washing and cleaning: PPG 13 e. Dewatering of Underground Ducts and Chambers: PPG 20; f. Incident Response Planning: PPG 21 g. Storage and handling of drums and intermediate bulk containers (IBCs): PPG 26. 14.2.6 14.2.7 Appropriate maintenance of vehicles and plant would also minimise pollution during construction. Suitable spill kits would be provided and positioned in vulnerable areas and staff would be trained in their use and a record should be kept of all pollution incidents or near-misses, to ensure appropriate action is taken and lessons are learned from incidents. Regular toolbox talks would be held to raise staff awareness of pollution prevention and share lessons learned from any recorded incidents. There would be written procedures in place for dealing with spillages and pollution (the Pollution Incident Control Plan or PICP). The PICP would contain the following as a minimum: a. guidance on the storage and use of hazardous materials with the aim of preventing and containing spills and releases b. guidelines on the degrees of containment which take account of the nature of the materials and the sensitivity of the environment c. procedures to be adopted in the event of a pollution incident, to contain and limit any adverse effects
d. procedures and appropriate information required in the event of any incident such as a spillage or release of a potentially hazardous material e. systems for notifying appropriate emergency services, the Environment Agency and other relevant authorities, Thames Water and the Contractor's personnel
Page 209
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station f.
arrangements for notifying appropriate statutory bodies and local authorities of pollution incidents where required to by legislation.
Operation 14.2.8 The operation of the tunnel would allow interception of flows which would otherwise discharge at Hammersmith PS CSO. There would therefore be a reduction in the frequency, duration and volume of spills from the Hammersmith PS CSO.
14.3
14.3.1
The construction/operational phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site. Scoping and engagement Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. There were no site specific comments from consultees regarding surface water resources for this particular site. Assumptions and limitations Full results from project ground investigations were not available and as such, assessment of contamination risk from works on the foreshore (eg sediments) and from intrusive ground works at the site have relied on existing records of contamination (see Section 8 Land Quality). Definition of Tideway conditions and current CSO operation during future base and development cases are reliant on model simulations. The model simulations are therefore performed to show the relative change in CSO discharges with a consistent set of catchment and sewer system assumptions. Future climate change simulations have not been completed; therefore the impact of climate change on the beneficial impacts of the project will be reported in the ES. The assessment of the beneficial effect of a reduction in sewage derived litter and pathogens discharged to the Tideway has been inferred from catchment modelling simulations of the reduction in discharge volume, frequency and duration and have not been directly modelled. Effects of discharges on dissolved oxygen levels in the river have been simulated using the catchment model and the Tidal Thames QUESTS model.
14.3.2
14.3.3
14.3.4
14.3.5
14.3.6
14.4

Surface Water Receptors
14.4.1
A list of surface water receptors and their status under the Water Framework Directive (WFD) is included in the table below, which are either within the vicinity of the site, or downstream of the site and therefore have the potential to be affected by the proposed scheme.
Page 210
Due to the dilution effect of the Tideway, the effects of construction activities would be localised to the waterbodies listed below and this section assesses only the impacts local to the proposed site. Therefore, only the Thames Upper and Middle are considered in this assessment. Vol 8 Table 14.4.1 Surface water receptors
Water Current Current Hydromorphological Body Ecological Chemical Status Name/ID Quality Quality Thames Upper GB53060 3911403 Thames Middle GB53060 3911402 14.4.3 Moderate Potential
2015 Predicted Ecological Quality Moderate Potential
2015 Predicted Chemical Quality Good
Heavily Modified
Good
Heavily Modified
Moderate Potential
Fail
Moderate Potential
Fail
The Thames Upper (which stretches from Teddington to Battersea Bridge) and Middle (which stretches from Battersea Bridge to Mucking Flats) waterbodies can be considered to be high value waterbodies as although their current and predicted status in 2015 (target date from River Basin Management Plan) is moderate potential, there is a status objective of good by 2027. In addition, the Thames is a valuable resource and plays an important role as a water resource, habitat provision, amenity, recreation, and transport throughout London. Current CSO operation Using the June 2011 catchment model of the sewer system, the current operation of the Hammersmith PS CSO has been characterised and the annual average duration, frequency and volume of spill has been defined as follows: a. the CSO spills on average of 50 times per year b. the CSO spills for an average duration of 648 hours per year c. the spill volume from the CSO is approximately 2,208,000m3 per year.
14.4.4
14.4.5
The polluting load data that is discharged from the CSO (Biochemical Oxygen Demand BOD, Ammoniacal-N and Total Oxidised Nitrogen TON) will be provided in time to inform the ES. Dissolved oxygen The discharge from Hammersmith PS CSO contributes to the depletion of dissolved oxygen in the River Thames as a result of the biological breakdown of organic matter in the discharges. This causes both a localised (at Hammersmith) and more widespread (Tideway wide) cumulative effect of lowering dissolved oxygen levels.
14.4.6
Page 211
The half tide plots showing the oxygen depleting effects of the CSO, treatment works and other discharges to the Tideway will be included in the ES. Exposure to pathogens Each discharge also increases the risk of exposure to pathogens for river users who come into contact with water. An assessment of health impacts upon recreational users of the River Thames was conducted and reported by the Health Protection Agency in 2007 (the Thames Recreational Users Study Final Report (2007), a collaborative partnership project between the City of London Port Health Authority and the Health Protection Agency). This concluded that risk of infection can remain for two to four days following a spill as the water containing the spill moves back and forward with the tide. The same study also noted that analysis of the illness events reported against discharges on the Tideway shows that 77% of cases had been rowing in three days of CSO discharge. Assuming the average 50 spills per annum occur on separate days, this could lead to a maximum of 200 days per year where recreational users are at risk of exposure to pathogens in the Hammersmith PS CSO locality. Sewage derived litter The operation of Hammersmith PS CSO results in the discharge of sewage litter along with the discharge of effluent. It was estimated by the TTSS 44 that overflows from the combined sewers introduce approximately 10,000t of sewage derived solid material to the Thames Tideway annually. June 2011 catchment modelling of the current CSO operation defined the average volume of discharge from Hammersmith PS CSO was 2,208,000m3, representing approximately 6% of the total volume discharged to the Thames Tideway annually. This suggests about 600t of sewage derived litter is currently being discharged from Hammersmith PS annually. Receptors designated sites There are no internationally designated hydrologically linked conservation sites within 2 km of the proposed site that could be affected by construction. The project-wide effects of the overall scheme on the internationally designated sites in the Lower Thames are covered separately in Volume 6. The following nationally and locally designated conservation sites are located within 2km of the site and are water dependent; these could potentially be affected by the proposed scheme: a. Barn Elms Wetland Centre SSSI - a mosaic of different wetland habitats created on the site of redundant artificial reservoir basins comprising areas of standing open water, grazing marsh and reedbed b. Chiswick Eyot LNR - a small island within the channel of the Thames Tideway
14.4.8
14.4.9
14.4.10 14.4.11
14.4.12
14.4.13
Page 212
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station c.
Dukes Hollow LNR - a small area of ecological importance by Barnes Bridge on the River Thames with a natural tidal foreshore, featuring a variety of waterside plants and two nationally rare snails.
Receptors discharges and abstractions 14.4.14 In addition to the Hammersmith PS CSO there are other consented discharges within 1 km of the site. Brook Green CSO and the North West SR CSO both discharge less than 100m upstream of the Hammersmith PS CSO outfall point. There are no licensed surface water abstractions within 1 km of the site. Contamination 14.4.15 The potential for contaminated land has been identified due to historic site uses. In addition, there are two sites located within the 250m radius that are identified as having past potential contaminated industrial uses. These are located on the position of the two former wharves. The site has been cleared for future development and it is understood that extensive GI and remediation works have already been undertaken on-site. See Land Quality assessment for full details of on-site contamination.
Base case
Construction base case 14.4.16 The Lee Tunnel and the TTQI projects (improvement works at Mogden, Beckton, Crossness, Long Reach and Riverside STWs) would be operational by the time construction commences as explained below. Significant improvements in the water quality in the Tideway are anticipated as a result of these projects. The construction base case would therefore be the water quality in the Tideway with the TTQI and Lee Tunnel schemes in place. Results from modelled simulations of conditions in 2021 (as simulated model runs are only available for 2006 and 2021) with the TTQI and Lee Tunnel in place have therefore been used for the development base case. Operation base case 14.4.18 For the assessment of operational impacts, the effects have been assessed against a base case of Year 1 of operation. As described in the methodology section in Volume 5, this base case year takes account of the effects that other major schemes would have on the quality of the Thames Tideway as explained in the construction base case above. Results from modelled simulations of conditions in 2021 with the TTQI and Lee Tunnel in place have therefore been used for the development base case.
14.4.17
14.4.19
14.5
14.5.1
As described in volume 5, the construction effects at Hammersmith PS have been assessed for significance against the relevant WFD objectives as well as their significance against targets set by other legislation. The WFD objectives as taken from Article 4 of the WFD are as follows:
14.5.2
Page 213
a. WFD1 Prevent deterioration of the status of all bodies of surface water b. WFD2 Protect, enhance and restore all bodies of surface water, with the aim of achieving good surface water status by 2015 c. WFD3 Protect and enhance all artificial and heavily modified bodies of water, with the aim of achieving good ecological potential and good surface water chemical status by 2015
d. WFD4 Reduce pollution from priority substances and cease or phase out emissions, discharges and losses of priority hazardous substances.
Identification of construction impacts and effects

14.5.3 As the proposed development site lies 100m behind the flood defences, the pathway to the river for contaminated run-off and other pollution from the construction site is indirect via the combined and surface water drainage system on site. Site drainage 14.5.4 Site runoff has the potential to become polluted with a number of substances during construction activities, which may include the following: a. silt and suspended solids from earthworks and exposed soils b. oil and fuels from machinery and equipment maintenance and refuelling c. concrete or cement from spillages during spraying and pouring d. hazardous substances from ground contamination exposed during earthworks and construction. 14.5.5 These pollutants could be indirectly discharged to the Tideway via surface water drains as part of the surface water discharge from the construction site. Any effects on the adjacent Tideway from leakage or discharges would be adverse, although of short duration before remedial action was taken. Where possible, all site drainage would be drained and discharged to mains foul or combined sewers and where this is not practicable, the site would be drained such that accumulating surface water would be directed to holding or settling tanks, separators and other measures prior to discharge to the Tideway surface water drains. It is understood that foul drainage from the site welfare facilities would be connected to the mains foul or combined sewer. There should therefore be no impact pathway from the routine discharge of foul drainage from the site and there is considered to be no effect on the Thames Upper and Middle waterbodies. It is considered that via the proposed drainage management, the pollution pathway can be managed sufficiently to reduce the pollution risk to negligible.
14.5.6
14.5.7
14.5.8
Page 214
It is considered that via the adherence of the measures detailed in Section 14.2 during construction works, the pollution pathway can be managed sufficiently to reduce the pollution risk to negligible. Contamination and dewatering The potential for contaminated land has been identified due to historic site uses. In addition, there are two sites located within the 250m radius that are identified as having past potential contaminated industrial uses. However, groundwater testing has not identified any contaminants to be present above human health screening values in the samples tested. Further ground investigation work is to be undertaken in 2011 to inform preparation of the ES to confirm or otherwise the presence of contaminants. This information will be assessed and reported as part of the ES. The majority of the shaft would be excavated through the London Clay, although groundwater could be encountered as localised seepages and minor flows during construction works. Dewatering would therefore be required during construction works, although the volumes are not known at this point. As the site is 100m from the river, it may not be possible to dispose of the effluent direct to the watercourse and it may be necessary use the surface water sewer system. Capacity in the surface water sewer system may be limited, particularly during periods of rainfall, and there is therefore the potential for the proposed disposal method to overwhelm the sewer system and cause flooding or pollution elsewhere. Assessment of the capacity of the surface water sewers would reduce the effects of flooding in the area to negligible.
14.5.10
14.5.11
14.5.12
14.5.13
Assessment of impacts and effects

14.5.14 The previous stage of the assessment identified potential effects from construction activities. However, environmental design of the project has resulted in all the identified effects being reduced to negligible. Therefore the effects of construction activities will not be considered further in this assessment.
14.6
14.6.1
As with the construction effects, the assessment has defined the WFD objectives and the waterbodies affected.
Identification of operation impacts effects

Reduction in CSO spills 14.6.2 The control of the Hammersmith PS CSO would have a beneficial effect on water quality, bacteriological quality and aesthetic value in the Hammersmith locality and beyond by substantially reducing the frequency, duration and volume of discharges from the Hammersmith PS CSO. June 2011 catchment modelling of the operational base case has simulated that by Year 1 of operation (assessed to be 2021 to use modelled assumptions) the frequency, duration and volume of the
14.6.3
Page 215
Hammersmith PS CSO would have increased (as a result of increased population) beyond the current baseline to the following: a. the CSO would spill on average of 51 times in the typical year (1 greater than the current baseline) b. the CSO would spill for an average duration of 690 hours in the typical year (42 hours greater than the current baseline) c. 14.6.4 14.6.5 the spill volume from the CSO would be approximately 2,362,100m3 in the typical year (154,100m3 greater than the current baseline).
The number of risk days for river users being exposed to pathogens during the base case year would be a maximum of 204 days in the typical year. June 2011 catchment modelling of the operational development case has simulated that by Year 1 of operation (assessed to be 2021 to use modelled assumptions) with the project in place the frequency, duration and volume of the Hammersmith PS CSO would have substantially decreased (as a result of the capture of wastewater flow into the tunnel) to the following: a. the CSO would spill between one and three times in the typical year (up to 50 times less than the base case) b. the CSO would spill for an average duration of 16 hours in the typical year (674 hours less than the base case) c. the spill volume from the CSO would be approximately 103,600m3 in the typical year (2,258,500m3 less than the current baseline).
14.6.6
The frequency, duration and volume of spill at Hammersmith would therefore be reduced by approximately 96% in the typical year as a result of the project. The number of risk days for river users being exposed to pathogens during the development case year would be a maximum of 12 days in the typical year (a reduction of up to 188 days of risk of exposure). In addition, the tonnage of sewage derived litter can be expected to be reduced by approximately 96% from 600t to 24t in the typical year. The data for the reduction in polluting load that is discharged from the CSO (Biochemical Oxygen Demand BOD, Ammoniacal-N and Total Oxidised Nitrogen TON) will be provided in time to inform the ES.
14.6.7
14.6.8 14.6.9
Impact assessment
14.6.10 The table below provides the assessment of effects during operation of the Hammersmith site against: a. WFD environmental objectives b. local impacts c. 14.6.11 whether other legislative targets are likely to be affected. As discussed, overall Tideway-wide benefits are assessed in Volume 6 and this section only assesses the beneficial impacts local to the proposed
Page 216
site at Hammersmith PS. Therefore, only the Thames Upper and Middle waterbodies are considered in the assessment for Hammersmith PS.
Page 217
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Vol 8 Table 14.6.1 Surface water impacts - operation WFD Objectives met?
WFD1 WFD2 WFD3 WFD4
Impact Permanent. N/A
Water body Duration and Reversibility
Assessment and likely effect
Local effects or Other Legislative effects
Reduced Thames spill Upper frequency, and duration and Middle volume from the Hammersmi th PS CSO. Reversibility dependent on operation of system. The Thames Upper and Middle are heavily modified waterbodi es and only need to achieve good potential.
Improved water quality in the vicinity of the Hammersmith PS CSO by reduced pollutant loading and not reducing dissolved oxygen levels.
Contribution to the overall Tidewaywide water quality improvements.
The water quality local to Hammersmith would be improved and would ensure that the operation of the Hammersmith PS CSO complies with the requirements of the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive
Along with the project as a whole, the Hammersmith PS CSO connection would enhance the water quality of the tideway helping to move the Thames Upper and Middle towards good ecological status.
Capture of the Hammersmith PS CSO would reduce pollution from priority substances at Hammersmith
Permanent.
N/A The effect is not relevant to WFD objectives
Reduced Thames bacterial Upper loadings of and the river Middle giving health improvemen ts to river Reversibility dependent on operation of system.
Risk of exposure days to pathogens would be reduced to a maximum of 12 days in the typical year (a reduction of up to 188 days of risk of exposure).
The bacteriological improvement effect is considered to have an effect locally in the context of local
Page 218
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station WFD Objectives met?

WFD1 WFD2 WFD3 WFD4
Impact river users. Permanent N/A
Water body Duration and Reversibility
Assessment and likely effect
Local effects or Other Legislative effects
users
Reduced sewage litter discharge Reversibility dependent on operation of system
Thames Upper and Middle
Sewage derived litter discharge at Hammersmith would be reduced by approximately 96% in the typical year improving the aesthetic quality of the river locally.
The sewage derived litter reduction effect is considered to have an effect locally in the context of local river users.
The effect is not relevant to WFD objectives
Page 219
Significance of operational effect

Vol 8 Table 14.6.2 Surface water effects - operation Effect Significance and justification Major beneficial The improvements would allow for the future attainment of Good status under objective 3 in combination with the improvements elsewhere in the Tideway and would also ensure that operation of the Hammersmith PS CSO complies with the requirements of the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive Moderate beneficial Reduced bacterial loadings of the river giving health improvements to river users The improvements would not adversely affect WFD or other legislative drivers, but would significantly improve conditions for river users at Hammersmith and in the Thames Upper and Middle as a whole. Moderate beneficial The improvements would not adversely affect WFD or other legislative drivers, but would significantly improve aesthetic conditions for river users and recreational use at Hammersmith PS and in the Thames Upper and Middle as a whole.
Reduced spill frequency, duration and volume from Hammersmith PS CSO.
Reduced sewage litter discharge
14.7
14.7.1
The assessment of significant effects for both construction and operation has not highlighted any significant adverse effects that would require mitigation to reduce the significance.
Page 220
14.8
Vol 8 Table 14.8.1 Surface water construction assessment Effect Major beneficial None required Significance Mitigation Residual Significance Major beneficial
Assessment summary
Receptor
Thames Upper and Middle Moderate beneficial None required
Reduced spill frequency, duration and volume from Hammersmith PS CSO. Moderate beneficial
Thames Upper and Middle Moderate beneficial
Reduced bacterial loadings of the river giving health improvements to river users. None required Moderated beneficial
Thames Upper and Middle
Reduced sewage litter discharge.
Page 221
Section14: Water resources surface water
14.9
14.9.1
Any additional information on potential contamination of the site, collected as part of new site investigations (see Section 8 Land quality), will be used to inform the baseline for the ES. At the time of writing, further water quality modelling is underway to determine the relative beneficial improvements that would accrue for other water quality improvements such as BOD and Ammoniacal Nitrogen. These results will be included in the ES, as will the assessment of cumulative and in combination effects. Following completion of the assessment the mitigation approaches for surface water resources within the project will be finalised and reported in the ES.
14.9.2
14.9.3
Page 222
Section 15: Water resources flood risk
15 15.1
15.1.1
Water resources flood risk Introduction

This section presents a Level 1 FRA which assesses the flood risk from all flood sources both to and from the proposed Hammersmith Pumping Station site as a result of development. This Level 1 Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) is in line with the requirements of Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk (PPS25) 45 and covers the construction and operation phases. This assessment makes use of the PPS25 Practice Guide 46 and is consistent with the outputs and findings of the Thames Estuary 2100 Plan (TE2100)47 and the policy requirements of the London Plan 48. Borough specific documents have been reviewed in addition to other relevant flood risk planning, policy and legislative documents. This Level 1 FRA is supported by 2D hydrodynamic modelling, undertaken to assess flood risk effects for the project as a whole (as described in Part B, Volume 5) and for specific sites (in Volumes 7 to 28). The FRA comprises four parts, which can be found in the following volumes: a. Volume 5 contains Part A of the FRA: Common sections relevant to all sites, including assessment methodology. b. Volume 6 contains Part B of the FRA: Project-wide risk assessment section. c. Volumes 7-28 contain Part C and Part D of the FRA: Individual risk assessment sections for every site (Part C) where flood risk is considered as an issue, organised according to LB (this Part) which precede the conclusions for each site (Part D).
15.1.2
15.1.3
15.1.4
15.1.5
15.1.6
As explained in Part A (Volume 5), a Level 1 FRA is an assessment of flood risk based on information available at the time of undertaking the assessment. Where further detailed assessment (including modelling and calculations) is required to define flood risk or required mitigation, this is undertaken to support a Level 2 or more detailed Level 3 FRA. The aim of this part of the Level 1 FRA is to assess the effects of flood risk from all sources at the site, both to the site and from the site to surrounding areas. The purpose of this section is to highlight the key issues for the design team and provide a preliminary assessment of flood risk issues. A more detailed assessment will be completed in the ES. Considering the nature of the project, the length of construction period at the site and the location of the site within the Thames Tideway, it is important that flood risk is assessed both during the construction phase and the operational phase taking into consideration climate change over the lifetime of the project.
15.1.7
15.1.8
15.1.9
Page 223
The project involves construction works at many sites throughout London. Many of these sites are situated within close proximity to, or within, the River Thames or other watercourses. According to PPS25, any development located within Flood Zones 2 v or 3 vi or greater than 1ha and situated within Flood Zone 1 vii should be accompanied by a FRA. The FRA will be required to demonstrate how flood risk from all sources of flooding to the development and from the development will be managed now and in the future as a consequence of climate change for the lifetime of the development. The objectives of this section are to satisfy the requirements of PPS25 49 in relation to this site.
15.1.11
15.2
15.2.1
Policy considerations
The proposed development of a shaft and associated structures is classified as water and sewage transmission infrastructure including docks, marinas and wharfs which is classified as water-compatible development and compatible within all flood zones within PPS25.
15.3
15.3.1
Regulatory position Overview

General policy documents (eg PPS25) have been reviewed within Volume 5. The following should be read in conjunction with that Volume.
Local policy
Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) 15.3.2 The site lies within the LB of Hammersmith and Fulham. LB of Hammersmith and Fulham have produced a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) 50. This outlines the main flood sources to the Borough through a review of existing information. Key sources of flood risk in the Borough are from surface water and sewer flooding, and the residual risk associated with the failure of the Thames tidal defences. The SFRA confirms that the Thames Tidal Defence network reduces the annual probability of flooding from the Thames to less than 0.1%. The risk of flooding is a residual risk associated with a breach in the defences. The SFRA advocates the use of flood resilience and resistant measures. These should be adopted during the construction and operation phases of the project. According to the SFRA: a. the site is within the Environment Agency (EA) Flood Zone 3
Flood Zone 2 is defined as medium probability, assessed as having between a 1% and 0.1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) of river flooding or between a 0.5% and 0.1% AEP of sea flooding in any year vi Flood Zone 3 is defined as high probability, assessed as having a 1% or greater AEP of river flooding or a 0.5% or greater AEP of sea flooding in any year vii Flood Zone 1 is defined as low probability, assessed as having less than a 0.1% AEP of river or sea flooding in any year
v
15.3.3
15.3.4
15.3.5
Page 224
b. there have been between 51-100 sewer flooding incidences recorded by Thames Water in the last 10 years in the vicinity c. the site is within the Rapid Inundation Zone (RIZ) and carries a high residual risk from both breaching and overtopping
d. the existing flood defence near the site is in fair condition and is identified as a likely breach location e. the site is situated within an area identified as having increased risk of surface water flooding, with records of properties flooding nearby in 2007 f. safe access/egress is required from the site to a suitable location within Flood Zone 1
g. the site is identified as a proposed future development site. 15.3.6 The SFRA promotes the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) suitable to specific site locations within the Borough, depending on underlying geology. These must however be adopted and adequately maintained post-construction to ensure design operation into the future. Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) 15.3.7 The Council is working in partnership with the Greater London Authority (GLA), Thames Water and the EA to produce a SWMP as part of the Drain London project. This is scheduled for completion in autumn 2011.
Environment Agency policy

Thames Estuary 2100 (TE2100) 15.3.8 The site lies within the Hammersmith Policy Unit which has been assigned the P5 flood risk management policy within the TE2100 Plan 51, meaning that further action will be taken to reduce flood risk beyond that required to keep pace with climate change. The TE2100 Plan identifies the local sources of flood risk at this location as including: a. tidal and fluvial from the River Thames b. heavy rainfall and urban drainage sources c. 15.3.10 a risk of groundwater flooding from superficial strata which is possibly connected to high water levels in the Thames.
15.3.9
Defences from these sources include: a. the Thames Barrier and secondary tidal defences along the Thames frontage (both making up the Thames Tidal Defences) b. Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) for mitigation of urban drainage c. flood forecasting and warning.
15.3.11
The TE2100 Plan seeks to promote, where possible, defence improvements that are sensitive to ensure views are maintained and impacts to river access/views are minimised. Where defence raising in the future as a consequence of climate change is not possible, secondary
Page 225
defences and floodplain management should be introduced. There is also the vision to increase flood risk awareness within the area. 15.3.12 Further investigation is required into flood risk from pluvial and groundwater sources, these form part of the TE2100 Action Plan.
Regional policy
London Regional Flood Risk Appraisal (RFRA) 15.3.13 For the reach between Hammersmith Bridge and the Thames Barrier (City Reach) the London RFRA (London Regional Flood Risk Appraisal. Greater London Authority (Oct 2009)) encourages small scale set back of development from the river walls where possible. The aim of this is to enable modification, raising and maintenance in a sustainable, environmentally acceptable and cost effective way. Development should be designed in such a way as to take opportunities to reduce flood risk and include resilience. There is particular concern surrounding confluences and the interactions between tidal and fluvial flows in the future due to climate change. This should be taken into consideration during the re-development process. The RFRA indicates that SUDS should be included within developments to reduce surface water discharge.
15.3.14
15.3.15
15.4
15.4.1
Assessment of flood risk Overview

The flood risk from all potential flood sources (as listed in Annex C of PPS25) to the site, and from the site as a result of the development, is assessed in the following section. For a discussion on project-wide effects see Volume 6. In summary, initial hydraulic computation modelling indicates that the influence of the project as a whole on the River Thames (tidal and fluvial) flood levels is minimal and is unlikely to exacerbate flood risk.
15.4.2
Flood sources
Flooding from the sea (and tidal sources) 15.4.3 The site is situated to the north east of the River Thames and to the south east of Hammersmith Bridge. The site is within Flood Zone 3a viii and benefits from the presence of flood defences which are aligned to the south west of the site along the boundary between the River Thames and the land (ie the site is defended from the River Thames by the Thames Barrier and the Thames Tidal Defences). The location of the site in relation to the flood zones is illustrated in Figure 15.4.1. Vol 8 Figure 15.4.1 Flood risk EA flood zones (see Volume 8 Figures document)
viii
Flood Zone 3a indicates a high probability of flooding with a 0.5% AEP of flooding from tidal sources.
Page 226
At this stage in the design, no works are proposed to the existing flood defences situated to the south west of the site; all construction would be within the site (which includes the existing pumping station and adjacent derelict land). Consequently, the current level of defence protection will be maintained throughout the construction and operation phases of the development. The design standard of the existing defences is stated by the EA to be at the 0.1% AEP level. There will be an additional freeboard on top of the crest level. In reality, the defence levels along the River Thames vary and are generally in excess of the 0.1% AEP standard of protection with a freeboard. The EA has stated that the current statutory flood defence level at the Hammersmith PS is 5.54mAOD and this level will be maintained throughout construction and the permanent site during operation (as no works are located immediately adjacent to the defences). This level will be confirmed with defence survey information, requested from the EA for the Level 2 FRA to be prepared for the ES. The most extreme flood risk to the site in this location will be as a result of a high tide combined with a storm surge (with the Thames Barrier operational); this is considered to be the EA flood design event. Ground levels at the proposed shaft are approximately 4.9mAOD. Levels gradually increase to the south west towards the River Thames and the river defences. The developer currently proposes a finished ground level at the CSO drop shaft of 5.13mAOD and the shaft chamber access openings shall be flush with this level. The top the concrete slab for interception chamber shall have an approximate finished level of 5.0mOAD. The tidal flood levels in the location of the site for the EA flood design events are: a. 5.13mAOD for the 0.5% AEP 2005 b. 5.08mAOD for the 0.5% AEP 2107 (ie with climate change)
15.4.5
15.4.6
15.4.7
15.4.8
15.4.9
15.4.10 15.4.11
15.4.12
This data is taken from the EA Tidal Thames Joint Probability Extreme Water Levels Study 52. This indicates that the proposed shaft location and associated infrastructure, which would benefit from the current Thames Tidal Defences, will not flood under the above return periods. If however there was a breach in the local Thames Tidal Defences, the majority of the site could flood as the above flood water levels are above the majority of site levels. The interception chamber, ventilation pipes and connecting culverts are all below the flood water level for the above return periods and so would flood following a breach in the local Thames Tidal Defences. (It is assumed that ground levels to the south west of the site will not be substantially modified so that the pathway from the source (River Thames) to the receptor (shaft and associated infrastructure) is blocked). The shaft will not flood as the proposed shaft lid level is above
15.4.13
Page 227
the design flood level. It should be noted that water levels decrease in the future due to the Thames Barrier closure rule (see Volume 5) such that the 2005 scenario produces the highest water levels. 15.4.14 The TE2100 Plan indicates that a higher level of protection would be required to protect areas along the river. This is due to a greater number of Barrier closures being necessary as water levels increase and due to the possibility that higher tides could propagate upstream of the Barrier should the Barrier fail. In line with the requirements of the TE2100 Plan, defences in the vicinity of the Hammersmith PS site will be required to be raised to 5.95mAOD and 6.40mAOD for 2065 and 2100 respectively. The local defence raising will contribute to the continual protection of the site from tidal flooding into the future. The EA has also used the Tidal Thames Joint Probability Extreme Water Levels Study to investigate water levels within the Thames in the absence of the Thames Barrier, ie when the Barrier is not closed (it is assumed that a partial closure would influence flood levels upstream of the barrier). This shows tidal flood levels within the River Thames are 6.02mAOD for the 0.5% AEP 2005 and 6.85mAOD for the 0.5% AEP 2107. Under this modelled scenario, the site would be flooded as the water levels are above the level of flood defence provided by the existing local river wall flood defences and ground levels proposed for the construction site and operational site. However, because the Thames Barrier is a key component of the Thames Tidal defences, these levels are not used for the design event when considering the required flood prevention measures for new development. The SFRA shows that there are no records of flooding of the site area during any historic flood events (note, this does not mean the site was not flooded, only that no data is held). The SFRA for Hammersmith and Fulham has modelled a series of breaches along the frontage of the Borough and overtopping of the defences to assess the residual flood risk. One of these breaches, HF4, is located to the south of the site, where Winslow Road meets the River Thames. The breach modelled assessment takes into account the 0.5% AEP event from EA modelled water levels and the overtopping assessment takes into account the 0.5% AEP event for the no barrier closure levels from the 2005 EA Tidal Thames Defences Joint Probability Extreme Water Levels Study. These modelled scenarios show the majority of the site as flooded to a depth of >0.6m for all modelled scenarios. The Hammersmith and Fulham SFRA has also assessed the residual risk of flooding to the site (where residual risk is based on distance from defence line and depth of flooding). The majority of the proposed site is classified as high residual risk (classified as areas within 500m of the defence line with a water depth greater than 0.25m; areas further than 500m from the defence line of greater than 0.6m; or an area within 500m of the defence line with no safe access or egress).
15.4.15
15.4.16
15.4.17
15.4.18
15.4.19
15.4.20
Page 228
The SFRA shows there are no records of flooding of the site area during any historic flood events (note, this does not mean the site was not flooded, only that no data is held). Modelling undertaken as part of the SFRA shows the site inundated to a depth of >0.6m for all modelled scenarios and classified as high residual risk from flooding. The standard of protection of the current defences and the operation of the Thames Barrier are such that tidal flooding up to the EA flood design event (0.5% AEP 2005) does not pose a direct flood risk to the site. Flood risk to the site from tidal sources is therefore residual in the event that there is a breach (or failure) of the existing defences and tidal water could enter the site. If there was a localised breach in the defences adjacent to a site, flood water could flow on to the site, cover the shaft and inundate any ventilation, monitoring or associated operation equipment. As the shaft lids are covered (although not watertight) there would be a limited amount of water that could enter the tunnel though the space between the lid and the shaft. Ventilation and monitoring equipment may be damaged by flood water (if not installed above the flood level); however, this quantity would not endanger the primary function of the tunnel which is to collect, store and transfer discharges from CSOs. Flood risk from the site The requirement for the excavation process to construct the tunnel has the potential to impact on settlement in some cases which could affect the level of some of the defences. A project-wide study into the potential impacts of the tunnel excavation on settlement of the defences is being undertaken but has not been completed in time to inform this Level 1 FRA. Due to the distance of the Hammersmith PS site from the Thames Tidal Defences the construction of the shaft will not impact the local defences and it is not proposed to undertake any works to the local defences as part of the project. The connection tunnel alignment does however pass under the existing defences to the south west of Hammersmith PS. The projectwide effects of excavation will be assessed for flood defence impact when complete and any relevant assessment for Hammersmith PS defences will be included in the Level 2 FRA prepared to support the ES. The risk of impact to flood defences and hence potential increase in flood risk at this site due to structural modifications of the defences due to the tunnelling is considered to be medium. Flooding from rivers Aside from the impact of fluvial flows on flood levels of the River Thames at this location, the Hammersmith PS site is not situated within the floodplain of any fluvial watercourses. The EA Thames Tidal Defences Joint Probability Extreme Water Levels Study uses a combination of different factors including astronomical tides,
15.4.22
15.4.23
15.4.24
15.4.25
15.4.26
15.4.27
15.4.28
15.4.29
15.4.30
Page 229
tide surge and fluvial river flows to produce an estimation of the peak high water levels within the Tidal Thames during a combined event. 15.4.31 This methodology assumes that no combination of fluvial events with tidal conditions produces a higher flood level than the worst case combined tidal storm surge conditions. Water levels influenced by high fluvial flow alone will therefore be lower than the combined event assessed and hence the assessment of fluvial risk from the Thames is considered to be included within the assessment of flood risk from tidal sources in the previous section. Flood risk to the site from fluvial sources alone is therefore considered to be negligible. Flooding from land and surface water runoff Flood risk to the site 15.4.33 The Hammersmith and Fulham SFRA shows that the site is situated within an area with increased risk of surface water ponding based on the low lying topography. JFLOW pluvial modelling undertaken in the SFRA indicates that a rainfall event of 1% AEP can result in a flooding depth of up to 0.3m at the site. There is however no record of surface water flooding within the vicinity of the site. Surface water flooding could originate from any surrounding hardstanding land where infiltration (into the ground or the local sewer network) is exceeded or the local sewer is at capacity and surcharging occurs. There is a slight decline in ground levels from the River Thames to the site and Distillery Road. Therefore there is some potential for overland flow, generated in surrounding hard standing areas, to flow onto the site. Flood risk from this source is considered to be low. Flood risk from the site 15.4.36 PPS25 states that runoff post development should not be greater than runoff pre development in order to not increase the risk of flooding either downstream or on surrounding land. The London Plan aims towards greenfield runoff rates and the Mayors Draft Water Strategy (The Mayors Draft Water Strategy. Mayor of London. Greater London Authority (Aug 2009)) also aims for greenfield runoff and has an essential standard of 50% attenuation to the undeveloped sites surface water runoff at peak times (see Volume 5). The Hammersmith PS site is located on the northern river frontage of the River Thames. The portion of the CSO site, which will remain inside the compound of the Hammersmith PS, will be reinstated with impermeable hardstanding to match the current hardstanding. The portion outside the compound is now a cleared industrial site where buildings have been demolished. The undeveloped site surface is 100% impermeable and will remain so when hardstanding and hard landscaping are added over and around the CSO drop shaft maintenance area.
15.4.32
15.4.34
15.4.35
15.4.37
15.4.38
Page 230
It is assumed surface water runoff generated on site drains to an existing drainage network or directly to the River Thames. Surface water runoff rates and attenuation volumes are indicative and will be confirmed during the subsequent Level 2 FRA. Based on a development footprint of 530m2, the existing previously developed surface water runoff rate for the 1% AEP + 30% for climate change event has been calculated using the Modified Rational Method. The post development surface water runoff rate for the 1% AEP event has also been calculated based on the same development footprint. In accordance with PPS25 Table B.2 the post development surface water runoff rate includes a 30% increase in peak rainfall intensity to account for the anticipated impact of climate change over the developments lifetime. The undeveloped greenfield runoff rate has also been calculated using the ICP SUDS rural runoff method in Micro Drainage WinDes Version 12.5 software. A soil factor of 0.4, which represents moderately draining silty soils, has been used within this method. The greenfield runoff is required to identify the volume of attenuation necessary to meet the Mayor of London preferred standard for SUDS (ie, reduce runoff from the development to greenfield rates). The existing, post development and greenfield runoff rates for the 1% AEP event are provided in the table below. Vol 8 Table 15.4.1 Flood risk - runoff rates Site Status Existing Post Development Greenfield Rainfall Runoff Event 1% AEP + 30% Climate Change 1% AEP + 30% Climate Change 1% AEP + 30% Climate Change Runoff Rate (l/s) 10.4
15.4.42 15.4.43
15.4.44
15.4.45
15.4.46
10.4 0.7
15.4.47
By subtracting the existing runoff rate from the post development runoff rate for the 1% AEP event it is predicted that no additional runoff is generated post development (over the developments lifetime) as the site is, and will be post development, 100% hardstanding. When comparing the greenfield runoff rate with the post development runoff rate it is apparent that an additional runoff rate of 9.7l/s is generated post development (over the developments lifetime). As the site is located within close proximity to the River Thames, it may be possible to discharge runoff to the River Thames when the design standard of the drainage system (3.3% AEP) is exceeded, with no attenuation. Appropriate measures should be taken to ensure the
15.4.48
15.4.49
Page 231
receiving environment is not compromised, such as scour protection to the outlet pipe and appropriate surface water filters for runoff. 15.4.50 15.4.51 Proposed mitigation measures relating to surface water management are provided in Section 15.5. Notwithstanding the above, design responsibility for surface water runoff measures, surface materials and permeability for the area immediately over and around the CSO drop shaft should rest with the property developer. Flooding from groundwater 15.4.52 The TE2100 Plan states that there may be a risk of groundwater flooding at the site originating from superficial strata underlying the site. Because the underlying strata are in hydraulic connectivity with the river levels in the Thames, the groundwater levels vary on a diurnal basis with the changing tide levels. Therefore, during high water level conditions within the Thames there is the potential for groundwater to reach ground level at the site. However, there are no recorded incidents of groundwater flooding within the vicinity of the site shown within the SFRA. Potential mechanisms for groundwater flooding will be explored further including local water levels from ongoing monitoring and data collection as part of the EIA. This will inform the assessment of groundwater flood risk to this site and will be reported in the Level 2 FRA for the site within the ES. Until further information is available, flood risk to the site from this source is considered to be low, as although the TE2100 Plan suggests a flooding mechanism, there is no evidence from the SFRA to suggest that groundwater flooding has occurred in the past. Flooding from sewers 15.4.55 The SFRA indicates that sewer flooding is a problem across the Borough. Within the postal area of W6 (a large area that extends from Goldhawk Road to Lillie Road, and across to Shepherds Bush), within which the site is situated, Thames Water has recorded 51 to 100 sewer flooding events between the period of 1997 and 2007. The majority of these events originated from combined sewers. The local sewer network has been investigated to determine whether there are any capacity issues that may lead to an increase in the potential for sewer flooding to the site. This assessment shows there is a combined trunk sewer within Chancellors Road draining north east with dimensions of 1219mm by 813mm. In addition there is a combined sewer running from the southern boundary of the pumping station site north east to Fulham Palace Road, measuring 300mm diameter (by survey). If the capacity of these sewers was exceeded, surcharging would occur through any outlets such as man holes and flow to low areas under the influence of gravity. The site may become inundated under this mechanism. Flood risk from this source is considered to be low.
15.4.53
15.4.54
15.4.56
15.4.57
Page 232
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Flooding from artificial sources 15.4.58
There are no artificial flood sources within proximity to the site and consequently there is no flood risk from this type of source.
15.5
15.5.1
Flood risk - design and mitigation Overview

This assessment has identified the following sources of flood risk related to the site: a. residual risk of flooding to the site from tidal sources as a result of a breach in the existing defences b. low risk of groundwater flooding to the site associated with water levels in the underlying geological strata c. low risk of sewer flooding to the site d. low risk of surface water flooding (or ponding) to the site as a result of runoff from surrounding land e. medium risk of an increase in tidal flooding on account of the potential for settlement during construction of the tunnel to impact on food defences.
15.5.2
This section describes flood mitigation methods which have been highlighted specifically to prevent any adverse flood risk effects from occurring throughout the surrounding area as a result of development at the Hammersmith PS site. Notwithstanding the above, design responsibility for flood risk mitigation measures for the area immediately over and around the CSO drop shaft and the Fulham Reach site as a whole should rest with the property developer.
15.5.3
Flood prevention
Flood resilience/resistance during operation 15.5.4 The London RFRA states that flood risk should be reduced where possible and flood resistance and resilience measure should be built into the development. Given that the project is a water compatible development type (see para. 15.2.1), there is no project-wide intention to provide flood resistance and resilience measures for residual flood risk as it is considered that the primary operational function of the Tunnel would not be affected by flooding as a result of a breach. Construction and emergency planning 15.5.5 The subsequent Level 2 and/or 3 FRA will include the production of a site Emergency Plan in relation to Flood Risk outlining appropriate working practices and appropriate access/egress routes in the event of a flood warning. The LB of Hammersmith and Fulham will be required to comment on the Emergency Plan.
Page 233
Design and mitigation

Surface water discharge 15.5.6 An appropriate surface water management strategy is required to ensure surface water is positively drained from the site. Surface water drainage will be designed to the 3.3% AEP event for the site. The preliminary calculations shown in the table below are based on SUDS attenuation, assuming zero infiltration (the feasibility of SUDS infiltration techniques onsite is currently unknown). PPS25 states that runoff post development should not be greater than runoff pre development in order to not increase the risk of flooding either downstream or on surrounding land. The attenuation volume is based on this Policy. In addition and in accordance with the Mayors Draft Water Strategy 53, the preferred standard and essential standard have been considered. To take into account the effects of climate change over the developments lifetime a 30% increase in peak rainfall intensity has been included when considering post development runoff and the associated attenuation volumes. Vol 15 Table 15.5.1 Flood risk - runoff rates and preliminary attenuation volumes 1% AEP Rainfall Event Preferred Standard (attenuation to greenfield runoff rate) Runoff Rate (l/s) 0.7 Attenuation Volume (m3) 32 42
15.5.7
15.5.8
Essential Standard (attenuation to 50% of undeveloped runoff rate) PPS25 (no increase in runoff post development) 15.5.9
5.2
18 26
10.4
The table above indicates that to meet the PPS25 runoff standard, no storage is required as the site is currently, and will be post development, 100% hardstanding. To meet the Mayors preferred and essential standards a storage volume between 32 42m3 and 18 26m3 would be required respectively, to provide sufficient storage to attenuate the 1% AEP event, inclusive of climate change. These values are presented as indicative of storage volumes that may be provided should the specified standards be sought. Storage options are outlined below. It is important to note that the attenuation volumes provided in the table above are based on preliminary calculations and would be subject to refinement at outline and detailed design stage. Both the need and the potential to deliver this level of attenuation at the site will be determined during level 2 FRA and reported in the ES, which
15.5.10
15.5.11
Page 234
will ensure that the requirements of PPS25 are met at all times and the aspirations of the London Plan are met where practicable. 15.5.12 15.5.13 Until soakaway tests and a contamination study are carried out the feasibility of SUDS infiltration techniques are unknown. The following surface water mitigation measures should also be considered for incorporation into the development design: a. In the event of return periods in excess of the 3.3% AEP storm, the layout and the landscaping of the site should aim to route water away from vulnerable property, and avoid creating hazards to access egress routes, whilst not increasing flood risk to third parties. b. Appropriate scour protection would be provided at the surface water discharge pipe outlet to the River Thames. c. Depending on operational activities at the site surface water runoff may be required to pass through an oil interceptor, or similar, prior to discharge to the River Thames.
d. During the construction phase appropriate mitigation would be provided to ensure surface water is managed in a controlled manner.
15.6
15.6.1 15.6.2
A Level 2 FRA will be prepared for the Hammersmith PS site which will outline further specific design approaches and measures. It is considered that a Level 2 FRA will be sufficient to assess the impact of flood risk for the final site design (ie, no Level 3 specific site modelling is required). This will be prepared for the site and incorporated into the ES. The Level 2 FRA will use the data collected as part of the Level 1 FRA and build upon the preliminary findings of this assessment once further information is available from the EA and other assessments being undertaken to support the FRA and the EIA. In summary, the following additional assessment elements will be undertaken: a. Confirmation of existing defence level following receipt of the EA survey information of flood defences. This will be used to reassess the standard of protection at the site and effect on tidal flood risk (direct and residual), it will also inform flood prevention design. b. A project-wide study into the potential impacts of the tunnel excavation on the integrity of the flood defences is being undertaken. Any relevant assessment for the defences at the Hammersmith PS site will be included in the Hammersmith PS site Level 2 FRA. c. The assessment of surface water flood risk to the site will be completed, if considered appropriate for the Fulham Reach, when the final surface water flood maps are available from the Drain London project.
15.6.3
d. Groundwater flood risk and any required flood risk prevention measures will be reassessed when the groundwater resources impact assessment is complete. This will be included in the Level 2 FRA.
Page 235
e. An emergency plan will be developed to support the Level 2 FRA and the CoCP. f. Further detail of site specific mitigation and flood prevention measures required to manage both residual risk and direct flood risk based on the final site design, if considered appropriate for the Fulham Reach.
15.6.4
It is not anticipated that further primary data collection (assuming outstanding data from the EA is supplied) or any modelling will be required at this site as part of future work and hence a Level 2 FRA will be sufficient to support the ES and application specific to the Hammersmith PS site.
Page 236
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station List of figures
Appendices
Page number
Figure A.1 Rocques map of 1746 ......................................................................... 239 Figure A.2: Faulkners map of 1813....................................................................... 239 Figure A.3: Stanfords map of 1862 ....................................................................... 240 Figure A.4: OS 1st edition 25 scale map of 186974 ........................................... 240 Figure A.5: OS 2nd edition 25 scale map of 1896 ................................................ 241 Figure A.6: OS 3rd edition 25 scale map of 1909 ................................................. 241 Figure A.7: OS 1:10,000 scale map of 1952 .......................................................... 242 Figure A.8: OS 1:10,000 scale map of 1976 .......................................................... 242 Photo A.1: View of the south side of the Hammersmith Pumping Station ............. 243 Photo A.2: The Screen House, Hammersmith Pumping Station............................ 243 Photo A.3: Internal view within Hammersmith Pumping Station ............................ 244 Photo A.4: Brass plaque from the original Hammersmith Pumping Station ........... 244 Photo A.5: Thames Water offices on Chancellors Road ........................................ 245 Photo A.6: View from within the original Hammersmith Pumping Station ............... 245 Photo A.7: A view along the riverside path ............................................................ 246 Photo A.8: The Grade II Listed former Harrods Furniture Depository building ...... 246 Photo A.9: The Grade II* Listed Hammersmith Bridge (Sir Joseph Bazalgette) ..... 247 Photo D.1: Viewpoint 1.1 ....................................................................................... 254 Photo D.2: Viewpoint 1.2 ....................................................................................... 254 Photo D.3 Viewpoint 1.3 ........................................................................................ 255 Photo D.4: Viewpoint 1.6 ....................................................................................... 255 Photo D.5: Viewpoint 2.1 ....................................................................................... 256 Photo D.6: Viewpoint 2.6: ...................................................................................... 256 Photo D.7: Viewpoint 2.7 ....................................................................................... 257 Figure E.1 Groundwater superficial geology ........................................................ 258 Figure E.2 Groundwater solid geology ................................................................ 258 Figure E.3 Groundwater EA monitoring locations ................................................ 261 Figure E.4 Groundwater level hydrograph .............................................................. 263 Figure E.5 Groundwater level hydrograph High Street Acton OBH ........................ 265 Figure E.6 Groundwater GSHP ........................................................................... 266 Figure E.7 Cross-section of site and proposed adjacent development ................... 268 Figure E.8 Groundwater level hydrograph from River Terrace Deposits ................ 269
Page 237
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station List of tables
Appendices
Page number
Table A.1 Land quality site walkover ................................................................... 248 Table B.1 Land quality site walkover ................................................................... 251 Table E1 Summary of anticipated Thames Tunnel geological succession ............ 258 Table E.2 Anticipated Ground Conditions ............................................................... 259 Table E.3 Anticipated Thames Tunnel main hydrogeological units ........................ 260 Table E.4 Depth and Strata penetrated by on-site monitoring boreholes ............... 261 Table E.5 Groundwater detections at Hammersmith Hospital ................................ 267
Page 238
Appendix A: Historic environment
Appendix A: Historic environment A.1 Historic maps

Figure A.1 Rocques map of 1746 (maps shown are not to scale)
Figure A.2: Faulkners map of 1813
Page 239
Figure A.3: Stanfords map of 1862
Figure A.4: OS 1st edition 25 scale map of 186974
Page 240
Figure A.5: OS 2nd edition 25 scale map of 1896
Figure A.6: OS 3rd edition 25 scale map of 1909
Page 241
Figure A.7: OS 1:10,000 scale map of 1952
Figure A.8: OS 1:10,000 scale map of 1976
Page 242
A.2
Site Photographs
Photo A.1: View of the south side of the Hammersmith Pumping Station
* standard lens. Photo A.2: The Screen House, Hammersmith Pumping Station
* looking north, standard lens.
Page 243
Photo A.3: Internal view within Hammersmith Pumping Station
* ground floor, standard lens. Photo A.4: Brass plaque from the original Hammersmith Pumping Station
* on ground floor, standard lens.
Page 244
Photo A.5: Thames Water offices on Chancellors Road
* looking northeast from the site, standard lens. Photo A.6: View from within the original Hammersmith Pumping Station
* from the article, Main Drainage of London by Sir G. W. Humphreys, 1930, his name appears on the plaque now in the 1966 building
Page 245
Photo A.7: A view along the riverside path
* looking northwest from the western edge of the site standard lens Photo A.8: The Grade II Listed former Harrods Furniture Depository building
* looking south west from the western boundary of the site, standard lens
Page 246
Photo A.9: The Grade II* Listed Hammersmith Bridge (Sir Joseph Bazalgette)
* looking northwest from the north-western corner of the site, standard lens
Page 247
A.3
A.3.1
Gazetteer of known heritage assets

The location of known heritage assets is shown on the historic environment features map (Vol 8 Figure 7.4.1). Table A.1 Land quality site walkover
HEA Ref no. 1
Description
Site code/ HER ref: WIO01
Hammersmith Embankment, Winslow Road, Distillery Road, W6. An archaeological evaluation by MoLAS in 2001. Evidence for a medieval or earlier palaeochannel (Parr's Ditch) was found in the eastern part of the site, overlaid by brick foundations of 18th-century date. An undated gully, lined with posts, was uncovered in another area. Elsewhere substantial deposits of made-ground indicated that the site had been severely truncated in the 19th century. Hammersmith Embankment, Winslow Road, W6. An archaeological evaluation and excavation by MoLAS in 1999. The excavation (HWR99) consisted of an area measuring approximately 46m by 43m. About 1.20m of modern overburden covered the site. Underlying this a number of phases of activity were identified. They included three or four pits containing prehistoric pottery and worked flint including a leaf-shaped arrowhead. An Early Saxon Sunken Featured Building was identified to the north east of site and contained an assemblage of pottery including imported wheel thrown ware, eight lead weights, six Roman copper alloy coins, glass beads and worked bone. To the south of this building substantial posthole alignments were identified containing Early Saxon pottery possibly defining a timber hall. A number of Early Saxon rubbish pits were also found on the site. Five undated hearths or ovens found across the site may relate to this period of activity. Post-medieval remains found on the site included an 18th-century brick-built cellar infilled with glass working waste and kiln fragments. A brick-built structure was also identified and has been interpreted as part of a glass kiln for the production glass beads in 17th century. A number of linear features were identified and may relate to the 18th-century formal gardens on the site. The Distillery site, Winslow Road, Manbre Road, W6. An archaeological watching brief by MoLAS in 1997. Natural brickearth, in which was found a prehistoric flint flake, was cut by several pits and a narrow gully or slot. Some of these were of late medieval and early post-medieval date. A number of other pits probably dated to the 19th century, and six postholes were undated. Distillery Site, Winslow Road, W6. An archaeological
HWR99
WLR97 054279 83
HAM90
Page 248
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station HEA Ref no. Description
Appendix A: Historic environment Site code/ HER ref:
excavation by DGLA in 1990. Excavations in 1990 exposed a few shards of Roman pottery and three rectangular sunkenfeatured buildings of Early Saxon date, aligned eastwest and with postholes set at the mid-points of the two short sides. Other associated postholes were also located. 5 Hammersmith Embankment, Winslow Road, W6. An archaeological excavation by MoLAS in 2005. Three areas of excavations were undertaken during the summer of 2005 (WIZ05). Evidence of Early Saxon activity was recorded in the form of pits and ditches. Further extensive remains associated with the 17th-century glass bead manufacture was recorded. The remains of a brick clamp presumably associated with the 17th-century brickmaking by Nicholas Crisp(e) was also recorded. The line of Parrs Ditch was also investigated. Chancellors Road (Hammersmith Embankment), W6. An archaeological watching brief by MoLAS in 2007. Most of the remains recorded were basements and structures associated with Victorian and later industrial buildings such as a distillery and sugar factory. The line of a minor watercourse called Parr's Ditch which had been covered in the 19th century was traced across the northern part of the site. Some evidence of glass manufacture during the 17th century was found in a few areas. Natural deposits of sand, brickearth and clay were observed between 4.5m OD and -2m OD. Winslow Road (Hammersmith Embankment Thames Foreshore). A foreshore survey carried out in 2007. The survey included recording the riverside wall and a topographic survey of the foreshore. Features revealed during the survey of the site by the Thames Archaeological Survey were observed and several new features, including the remains of post medieval structures and artefact scatters were recorded and sampled. The proposed works include the installation of a ramp leading from the embankment, down to a floating pontoon, and includes the driving of four piles. The site of the cemetery of the Benedictine Nunnery which was in use before 1829. Recorded by Mrs Basil Holmes. Nurses home on the north side of Lochaline Street. Grade II listed. Constructed in 1905 by A Saxon Snell. The site of a post-medieval house which had been divided into two tenements, now demolished. Recorded on the GLHER. WIZ05
FHM03
Holmes ID 22 054209 201791 050743
8 9
Page 249
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station HEA Ref no. 10 11 Description
Appendix A: Historic environment Site code/ HER ref: 050579 053003
The site of a medieval bridge which crossed the Parrs Ditch. Recorded on the GLHER. The nucleus of medieval Hammersmith was referred to as Hammersmythstrete in the Court Rolls. Site is now Queen Caroline Street (formerly Queen Street). The first mention of Hammersmith occurs at the end of the 13th century, the name derived from 'hammer' and 'smithy'. Recorded on the GLHER. 751 Queen Caroline Street, W6. An archaeological excavation by ILAU in 1976. Excavations in 1976 to investigate the medieval settlement of Hammersmith located only large-scale 18th-century dumping. Former Hammersmith Pumping station
12
QCS76
13
Page 250
Appendix B: Land quality
Appendix B: Land quality B.1 Site walkover

Table B.1 Land quality site walkover Item Site Ref Site Name Date of walkover Site location (Address & Access) Size and topography of site and surroundings Neighbouring site use (in particular note any potentially contaminative activities or sensitive receptors) Site buildings Details PHF2X Hammersmith Pumping Station 15th November 2010 Thames Water operated Hammersmith Pumping Station and vacant land within the wider area. Site is situated on the junction of Chancellors Road and Distillery Road. Restricted access viewed from publicly accessible areas. Record elevation in Entirely flat. relation to surroundings, any hummocks, breaks of slope etc. North-east Open park land and childrens playground located on Distillery Road. South-east Winslow Road. North-west Commercial and residential properties located on Chancellors Road. Thames Path and River Thames. The proposed worksite is located within a parcel of currently vacant, brownfield land, adjacent to the Thames Water owned Hammersmith Pumping Station. Located on Hammersmith Embankment. Previously situated in the north eastern corner of the preferred site was the Hammersmith Industrial Estate which has recently been demolished. This area Is currently vacant with a car park area of hardstanding adjacent. Hardstanding Areas of hardstanding but the area is mostly dominated by cleared land and pockets of grasses and scrub. N/A None None
South-west Record extent, size, type and usage. Any boiler rooms, electrical switchgear?
Surfacing
Record type and condition Vegetation Any evidence of distress, unusual growth or invasive species such as Japanese Knotweed? Services Evidence of buried services? Fuels or Types/ quantities? chemicals on site Tanks (above ground or
Page 251
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station below ground) Containment systems (eg, bund, drainage interceptors). Record condition and standing liquids Refill points located inside bunds or on impermeable surfaces etc? Record locations, tanks and inspection pits etc. Adequate storage and security? Fly tipping?
Appendix B: Land quality
N/A
N/A
Vehicle servicing or refuelling onsite Waste generated/stored onsite
None
Surface water Site drainage
Evidence of previous site investigations Evidence of land contamination Summary of potential contamination sources Any other comments
A number of excavated material and rubble heaps were observed as well as several pieces of pipework within the vicinity of the Pumping Station. Site is surrounded by hoarding. Record on-site or nearby The River Thames is borders the site standing water on its eastern boundary. Is the site drained, if so to N/A where? Evidence of flooding? Eg trial pits, borehole None covers. Evidence of discoloured ground, seepage of liquids, strong odours? No obvious potential contaminative sources were identified during the survey. Presence of excavated material and rubble heaps.
Eg access restrictions/ limitations
Access restricted, site observed through gaps in hoarding and through security gates.
Page 252
Appendix C: Noise and vibration
Appendix C: Noise and vibration

C.1.1 This section does not include noise and vibration monitoring as the baseline survey work has not yet been completed.
Page 253
Appendix D: Townscape and visual
Appendix D: Townscape D.1 Winter photographs

Photo D.1: Viewpoint 1.1
* View east from residences at the southern end of Chancellors Road Photo D.2: Viewpoint 1.2
* View south east from residences along Crisp Road
Page 254
Photo D.3 Viewpoint 1.3
* View east from residential terrace 48-60 Chancellors Road Photo D.4: Viewpoint 1.6
* View north west from residences along Manbre Road
Page 255
* View south west from Frank Banfield Park Photo D.6: Viewpoint 2.6:
* View east from the southern end of Hammersmith Bridge
Page 256
* View east from the Thames Path adjacent to Colet Court playing fields
Page 257
Appendix E: Water resources groundwater
Appendix E: Water resources - groundwater E.1

E.1.1
Geology
A summary of the anticipated geology succession to be encountered by the Thames Tunnel is shown in Table D.1.
Table E1 Summary of anticipated Thames Tunnel geological succession Period Series Holocene Quaternary Pleistocene Eocene Thames Group Formation Made ground Superficial Deposits Alluvium Langley Silt River Terrace Deposits London Clay Harwich Upper Shelly Beds Upper Mottled Beds Laminated Beds Palaeogene Palaeocene Lambeth Lower Shelly Beds Mid-Lambeth Hiatus* Lower Mottled Beds Upnor No group Cretaceous Upper Cretaceous White Chalk Subgroup Thanet Sand Seaford Chalk** Lewes Nodular Chalk
* Not a Formation but an important depositional feature ** Subdivided into the Haven Brow, Cuckmere and Belle Tout members.
E.1.2
Figure E.1 shows the superficial geology beneath the site. Figure E.2 shows the solid geology. Figure E.2 Groundwater superficial geology Figure E.3 Groundwater solid geology (see Volume 8 Figures document)
E.1.3
The Ground Investigation (GI) was undertaken for Thames Tunnel project and has involved drilling boreholes both on the banks and within the main river channel (TT, 2010). The locations of boreholes around the site are shown in Vol 8 Figure E.2. The depths and thicknesses of geological layers encountered is summarised in Table E.2. The strata depth
Page 258
presented in the ground water section are based on project assumptions. Table E.2 presents the data from the nearest borehole logs. Table E.2 Anticipated Ground Conditions Formation Made Ground Alluvium River Terrace Deposits London Clay B A3ii A3i A2 E.1.4 Elevation mATD 104.96 102.21 101.71 Depth below ground level (m) 0 2.75 3.25 Thickness (m) 2.75 0.5 4.5
97.21 78.91 69.11 64.11
7.75 26.05 35.85 40.85
18.3 9.8 5.0 Not proven
At the site, the depth of the shaft will be 72.34mATD (with base slab down to 70.34mATD). The base of the shaft is likely to be within the London Clay Formation, as will be the main tunnel at this site. The made ground containing sandy gravely silt with occasional brick and concrete fragments is about 2.75m in thickness. Beneath the made ground is alluvium. This comprises silty clay and clayey silt, with occasional scattered pebbles and granules overlies the site. Within the Alluvium, local beds of fine to coarse-grained sand may be present, as laminar, lenticular or channel deposits, generally less than 1m thick but may reach up to 4m in thickness. The thickness of Alluvium is about 0.5m at the site. River Terrace Deposits are extensive alluvial sand and gravel deposits laid down in a braided river system of approximately 5km width, in river terraces since the Anglian glaciation. Phases of down-cutting and intervening deposition during colder periods and subsequent meltwaters increased river flows and sediment load. Seven terraces are distinguishable in London in terms of their altitude, rather than distinguishing lithological features, ranging in thickness from around 2.5 to 28m. The River Terrace Deposits at the site is around 4.5m thick. Although the River Terrace Deposits commonly has very fine-grained sand, silt and clayey silt 'Brickearth' deposits above. The River Terrace Deposits at the site and geological descriptions indicate the Brickearth is not present or significant at this site. The London Clay comprises clayey silt beds grading to an increasing number of silty fine-grained sand westward; and increase in homogeneity upwards through the deposit. The upper sandier formation is informally referred to as the Claygate Member to distinguish its coarser-grained nature.
E.1.5 E.1.6
E.1.7
E.1.8
E.1.9
Page 259
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station E.1.10
Beneath substantial thicknesses of London Clay, the Harwich Formation comprises of fine-grained glauconitic sand and rounded black flinty pebble beds, commonly deposited in a series of superimposed channels. The thicknesses of the London Clay (A2), Lambeth Group, Thanet Sands and chalk are not proven at the site. A previous GI undertaken for the nearby Hammersmith Business Park development (AD, 2006) found similar depths and thicknesses of strata locally. According to this GI, groundwater in the River Terrace Deposits in this GI is at between 4.7 to 7.2 mbgl, with groundwater flows generally towards the east.
E.1.11 E.1.12
E.2
E.2.1
Hydrogeology
A summary of the anticipated hydrogeological properties of the different geologies to be encountered by the Thames Tunnel is shown in the table below. Table E.3 Anticipated Thames Tunnel main hydrogeological units Group Formation (Made Ground) Alluvium Langley Silt River Terrace Deposits London Clay Thames Harwich Upper Shelly Beds Upper Mottle Beds Laminated Beds Lower Shelly Beds -----Mid Lambeth Hiatus---Lower Mottled Beds Upnor Thanet Sand White Chalk Lower Aquifer Hydrogeology Perched Water Aquiclude Upper Aquifer Aquiclude Aquitard / Aquifer
Superficial Deposits
Lambeth
Aquitards/ Aquifers
No group White Chalk Subgroup E.2.2
The lower aquifer comprises the Upnor Formation, the Thanet Sands (secondary A aquifer) and the Chalk (principal aquifer) ix. The upper aquifer (River Terrace Deposits) is defined as a secondary A aquifer.
The terms Principal and Secondary Aquifers were previously known as Major and Minor Aquifers (EA, 2010)
ix
Page 260
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station E.2.3 E.2.4
The London Clay acts as an aquiclude that separates the upper aquifer from the lower aquifer. According to the GI boreholes, the River Terrace Deposits (Upper Aquifer) are around 4.5m thick at the site. The depth of shaft will not extend down into the lower aquifer, as it will be constructed entirely within the upper aquifer and London Clay. Within the London Clay Formation, any groundwater present is likely to consist of localised seepages and/or minor flows. It is therefore possible that localised high pressure groundwater might be encountered within the parts of the London Clay Formation. The most porous section of London Clay the A3ii division - is present within the GI borehole logs (TT, 2010, Table D.2). This is close to the base of shaft at the site. Groundwater movement through the London Clay Formation also occurs along horizontal bedding planes, resulting in localised seepages. The base of the London Clay has less sand fraction, and is therefore regarded as the less permeable and more compacted part of the London Clay, thereby forming an effective retardation to groundwater flow from the lower aquifer.
E.2.5
E.2.6
E.3
E.3.1
Groundwater levels
The geotechnical investigation boreholes drilled for the Thames Tunnel project have been used to obtain hydrogeological information. Standpipes were installed to monitor groundwater levels in different horizons by means of data loggers and/or manual dip. The monitoring is being undertaken by Thames Tunnel team and groundwater monitoring records from the completion of each borehole to January 2010 have been provided. In addition, the EA has a network of observation monitoring boreholes across London for which available historical and long term records have been provided up to September 2009 at the time of writing. The on-site monitoring boreholes (SA1119 and PR1117) with dual standpipe installations, record groundwater levels in discrete horizons. The borehole locations are presented in Figure E.2. Installation details for each standpipe are listed in the table below. Figure E.4 Groundwater EA monitoring locations (see Volume 8 Figures document) Table E.4 Depth and Strata penetrated by on-site monitoring boreholes
E.3.2
Borehole
Standpipe Diameter (mm) 50 25
Response Zone (mATD) 100.6697.96 79.54-74.54.
Strata
Monitoring Type and Frequency Monthly Manual Dips Monthly Dips and 15 min Logger Data
SA1119 SA1119
River Terrace Deposits London Clay
Page 261
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Borehole Standpipe Diameter (mm) 50 25 Response Zone (mATD) 101.6-99.06 78.56-74.56
Appendix E: Water resources groundwater Strata Monitoring Type and Frequency Monthly Manual Dips Fortnightly Manual Dips and 15 min Logger Data
PR1117 PR1117
River Terrace Deposits London Clay
E.3.3 E.3.4
Figure E.1 shows the monitoring undertaken in the Made Ground/ Alluvium /River Terrace Deposits and London Clay. The Made Ground/ Alluvium/River Terrace Deposits piezometric level is proved by two separate monitoring boreholes, installed to slightly different depths and monitoring different response zones as detailed in Table D.4. Both boreholes show approximately a 0.5m difference in piezometric level for the River Terrace Deposits. This is possibly due to monitoring different horizons within the River Terrace Deposits which are both vertically and horizontally variable in sand, clay and gravel composition. The piezometric levels of the London Clay Formation (LCF) are shown to be above the River Terrace Deposit, it is possible that these levels are incorrect. The logger data from borehole PR1117 (LCF) also appears to be showing an irregular response.
E.3.5
Page 262
Figure E.5 Groundwater level hydrograph
Page 263
The EA has a network of observation monitoring boreholes across London for which records are available dating back to1963. The nearest EA monitoring borehole is located at Hammersmith PS; TQ27_337. Unfortunately no measured datum elevation has been provided for this site, so the recorded water level record cannot be converted relative to mATD. To provide historical trends in Chalk groundwater levels near to the site, the EA observation borehole located at Acton High Street (TQ 2037 8002, Ref TQ28/045), approximately 3.8km to the northwest has been used. A groundwater level hydrograph from this observation borehole is shown in Figure E.2.
E.3.7
Page 264
Figure E.6 Groundwater level hydrograph High Street Acton OBH
Page 265
The levels in the Chalk represent the piezometric level, this is the level to which water will rise in borehole drilled down into the Chalk would reach. At the site, no site GI borehole penetrates through the London Clay, so the depths to the Lambeth Group and Chalk are not known. The EA observation data at the High Street Acton (over the period of record from 1970) the Chalk shows a marked steady rise in groundwater piezometric head until 2000, where piezometric head fluctuated before a notable decline in piezometric levels since 2004. This rise probably reflects the changes in abstractions ie, reductions in groundwater abstractions in central London due to the closure of heavy industries. The recent lowering of levels reflects increased use of central London groundwater in recent years. A second EA observation borehole at Hammersmith (TQ 5223 1783, TQ27/337) only has short period of record (1993-95). The location of this borehole is shown on Figure E.3. The latest levels from this borehole in January 2010 were around 63 mATD (-37 mAOD) (EA, 2010)54. Noting that the water level peaked at 72mATD in January 2002, this is approximately around the level of the base of the shaft (see Section D.3.4). The piezometric levels in the Chalk will not have any influence on construction/operation of the shaft due the thick layer of Lambeth Group which overlies the Chalk. The EA have produced a groundwater contour map of the Chalk piezometric levels at a snap-shot in time in January 2010. According to this map (EA, 2010); the regional direction of groundwater flow within the confined Chalk (lower aquifer) around the site is towards the northnortheast.
E.3.9
E.3.10
E.3.11
E.3.12
E.4
E.4.1 E.4.2
Groundwater Abstractions and Protected Rights

There are no groundwater abstractions, licensed or unlicensed within a radius of 2km around the site. A review of Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP) schemes within 1km of the site has identified two, open loop schemes abstracting from and discharging to the Chalk. The closest is 0.25km northwest of the site and the second is 0.8km north. Figure E.7 Groundwater GSHP (see Volume 8 Figures document)
E.5
E.5.1
Groundwater Source Protection Zones

The EA defines Source Protection Zones (SPZ) around all major public water supply abstractions sources and also those currently licensed for quantities of greater than 1Ml/d. The nearest SPZ to the site is over 8km away to the west. This source is not in the direction of groundwater flow expected beneath the site.
E.5.2
Page 266
E.6
E.6.1
Other Designations eg SSSI or SAC

The Barn Elms Wetland Centre SSSI lies 0.6km to the south of the site. To the south of the SSSI are a series of playing fields, which are a Grade 2 Site of Borough Importance (and SNCI) lying approximately 1.3km from the site. There are no other environmental designations relevant to groundwater in the vicinity of the site.
E.7
E.7.1
Groundwater quality and land quality assessment

The EA monitors groundwater quality at number of points across London. The nearest EA monitoring is at Hammersmith Hospital (PGWU1887). The distance of this location from the Hammersmith PS site is approximately 0.8km to the northwest. Table D5 contains the parameters and the number of occasions which they have breached the Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) and Drinking Water Standards (DWS) at Hammersmith Hospital. Table E.5 Groundwater detections at Hammersmith Hospital Parameter Ammonia Fluoride Sodium Chlorofenvinphos Dichlorvos Silver Benzo(a)pyrene Triazophos PAHS Bromate Number of detections 81 82 81 81 41 81 42 11 22 22
E.7.2
Phenol 12 Note 1 above EQS or 2 above DWS E.7.3 E.7.4 Information provided by the Thames Tunnel team on land quality at the site shows no exceedances of parameters tested (TT, 2010). Further monitoring of groundwater quality is being undertaken as part of the Thames Tunnel project monitoring programme. Further information will be presented in the ES.
E.8
E.8.1
Preliminary assessment of groundwater flooding risk at adjacent proposed mixed use development
The depth of the finished floor level in the level in the basement of the proposed adjacent development will be at 101.8mATD (see extract drawing below).
Page 267
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station E.8.2 E.8.3
Figure D.3 shows that the floor level will be approximately at the base of the alluvium and near the top of the River Terrace Deposits (RTD). The water level in the RTD is in the range 99.4 to 99.7mATD from the nearest observation measured at PR1117 (see location map insert in Figure D.4). Even allowing for a floor thickness of approximately 0.5m, then the lowest depth would be around 101.3mATD. This would leave between 1.6 and 1.9m of unsaturated zone beneath the floor level to the water table. The conclusion is therefore that it the basement of the proposed adjacent development will not impinge upon the RTD groundwater level and is unlikely to cause any increased risk of groundwater flooding in the future. Figure E.8 Cross-section of site and proposed adjacent development
E.8.4
E.8.5
Page 268
Figure E.9 Groundwater level hydrograph from River Terrace Deposits

106
Location Map
105
104 Madeground
103
Groundwater Level (mATD)
102
Alluvium
101
100 River Terrace Deposits 99
98
97 London Clay
96 Jan-09 Mar-09 May-09 Jul-09
Sep-09 Nov-09 Jan-10 Mar-10 May-10 Jul-10
Sep-10 Nov-10 Jan-11 Mar-11
SA1119 RTD-SDGR(Dip) PR1117 RTD(Dip) Proposed St George Development Finished Floor Level
Geological Information Data obtained from Hammersmith Pumping Station draft site construction report. (100-RG-CNL-C04XN-000010)
Page 269
Glossary
Glossary
Term A-weighted sound Description A-weighted decibels, abbreviated dBA, or dBa, or dB(a), are an expression of the relative loudness of sounds in air as perceived by the human ear. Ground elevation is measured relative to the mean sea level at Newlyn in Cornwall, referred to as Ordnance Datum (OD), such that heights are reported in metres above or below OD. Removal of water from a source of supply (surface or groundwater). Areas where the local authority determines the national air quality objectives are not likely to be achieved by the relevant deadlines. People, property or designated sites for nature conservation that may be at risk from exposure to air pollutants that could potentially arise as a result of the proposed development/project. Sediment laid down by a river. Can range from sands and gravels deposited by fast flowing water and clays that settle out of suspension during overbank flooding. Other deposits found on a valley floor are usually included in the term alluvium (eg, peat). The average (mean) of the hourly pollutant concentrations measured or predicted for a one year period. Originating as a result of human activities. A hydrogeological unit which, that allows groundwater movement at negligible rates, even though porous and capable of storing water. Groundwater movement insufficient to allow appreciable supply to a borehole or spring. Aquicludes tend to act as an impermeable barrier. A permeable geological stratum or formation that is capable of both storing and transmitting water in significant amounts.
Above Ordinance Datum abstraction Air Quality Management Area air quality sensitive receptors
alluvium
Annual Mean Concentration anthropogenic aquiclude
aquifer
Archaeological Priority Areas of archaeological priority, significance, potential or Area/Zone other title, often designated by the local authority. background concentration Basal Sands base case The contribution to the total measured or predicted concentration of a pollutant that does not originate directly from local sources of emissions. The Upnor Beds (the lower unit of the Lambeth Group) and the Thanet Sands. The base case for the assessment is a future case, without the project, in a particular assessment year.
Page 270
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Term baseflow baseline benthic invertebrates Bentonite Description
Glossary
The component of river flow derived from groundwater sources rather than surface run-off. The existing conditions against which the likely significant effects due to a proposed development are assessed. Invertebrates which are found within or on the river bed. An absorbent aluminium phyllosilicate, in general, impure clay consisting mostly of montmorillonite. Mixed with water, it forms a slurry commonly used as drilling fluid and ground support in tunnelling. A hole drilled into the ground for geological investigation or for the exploitation of geological deposits or groundwater. An abstraction borehole is a well sunk into an aquifer from which water will be pumped. Wind-blown dust deposited under extremely cold, dry post glacial conditions suitable for making bricks. Produced by the BSI Group in order to set up standards of quality for goods and services. 2,000600 BC. Recording of historic buildings (by a competent archaeological organisation) is undertaken to document buildings, or parts of buildings, which may be lost as a result of demolition, alteration or neglect, amongst other reasons. Four levels of recording are defined by Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England (RCHME) and English Heritage. Level 1 (basic visual record); Level 2 (descriptive record), Level 3 (analytical record), and Level 4 (comprehensive analytical record). Also called a bund wall, bunding is a separated area within a structure designed to prevent inundation or breaches of various types. An area of stone, concrete or timber laid on the river / sea bed, that is exposed at low tide, allowing vessels to rest safely and securely in place. The area from which surface water and/or groundwater will collect and contribute to the flow of a specific river, abstraction or other specific discharge boundary. Can be prefixed by surface water or groundwater to indicate the specific nature of the catchment.
borehole
brickearth British Standard Bronze Age Building recording
bunding
campshed
catchment
Page 271
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Term Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy (CAMS) Description
Glossary
The Environment Agencys strategy for water resources management in England and Wales through licensing water abstraction. CAMS is used to inform the public on water resources and licensing practice; provide a consistent approach to local water resources management; and help to balance the needs of water-users and the environment. A curve formed by a perfectly flexible, uniformly dense, and inextensible cable suspended from its endpoints. Whales, dolphins and porpoises. A soft white limestone (calcium carbonate) formed from the skeletal remains of sea creatures. Method for evaluating invertebrate communities based on species rarity, diversity and abundance. A temporary or permanent enclosure built across a body of water to allow the enclosed area to be pumped out creating a dry work environment. A sewer conveying waste water of domestic or industrial origin and rain water. A structure, or series of structures, designed to allow spillage of excess waste water from a combined sewer under high rainfall conditions. Flows may discharge by gravity or by pumping. A simplified representation or qualified description of the behaviour of the hydrogeological system. A quantitative conceptual model includes preliminary calculations and flow and mass balances. Conservation areas defined by Local Planning Authorities according to the provisions of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The area of site that would be used during the construction phase. The statutory plan which sets out a boroughs planning policies in relation to the management of development and land use. Supersedes the Unitary Development Plan in Boroughs where it has been adopted. A mobile crane, usually with caterpillar tracks. The flow from the existing CSO is diverted to the location of the drop shaft. The drop shaft location requires suitable access for construction and maintenance.
catenary Cetaceans Chalk Community Conservation Index. (CCI) cofferdam
combined sewer combined sewer overflow (CSO)
conceptual model
Conservation area
construction site Core Strategy
crawler crane CSO connection culvert
Page 272
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Term CSO connection tunnel Description
Glossary
The flow from the drop shaft is transferred to the Thames Tunnel through a connection tunnel. These vary in diameter from 2.2m to 5.0m Long connection tunnels can be up to 4,615m in length. The shaft connects the flow down to the Thames Tunnel. The shaft sizes depend on the amount of flow to be intercepted and the de-aeration requirements and the depth depends on the location of the Thames Tunnel. The size ranges from 6m to 25m and depth from 25 to 75m. Site where the flows from an existing CSO would be redirected to the main Thames Tunnel. An area of land or structures around a dwelling or other structure. Excavated material to be re-used within the development as fill or removed off-site. the equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level having the same energy as a fluctuating sound over a specified time period T. An area within the shaft and/or associated pipe work, where air is removed from liquids. Logarithmic ratio used to relate sound pressure level to a standard reference level. Influencing or determining elements or factors. In London these refer to the borough Unitary Development Plans. A system used to locally lower groundwater levels around the worksite to provide stable working conditions when excavating. A diaphragm wall is a reinforced concrete retaining wall that is constructed in-situ. A deep trench is excavated and supported with bentonite slurry, and then reinforcing steel is inserted into the trench. Concrete is poured into the trench and only after this does excavation in front of the retained earth commence. The release of substances (eg, water, sewage, etc.) into surface waters, ground or sewer. A lowering of the water level in a borehole or aquifer, usually in response to abstraction. Legal standards set in Europe in the Drinking Water Directive 1998 together with UK national standards to maintain wholesomeness of potable water.
CSO drop shaft
CSO interception site curtilage cut dB LAeq,T
de-aeration chamber decibel (dB) determinands Development Plan dewatering wells
diaphragm wall
discharge drawdown Drinking Water Standards
Page 273
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Term early medieval effect effluent Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Description
Glossary
AD 410 1066. Also referred to as the Saxon period. The result of an impact on a particular resource or receptor. The treated wastewater discharged from the Sewage Treatment Works. An assessment of the likely significant effects that a proposed project may have on the environment, considering natural, social and economic aspects, prepared in accordance with the 2009 Infrastructure Planning EIA Regulations. The concentration of chemical pollutants assessed to have detrimental effects on water quality in terms of the health of aquatic plants and animals. EQS are established in the WFD (Annex V) through the testing of the toxicity of the substance on aquatic biology. A document to be prepared following an EIA which provides a systematic and objective account of the EIAs findings, prepared in accordance with the 2009 Infrastructure Planning EIA Regulations. A limited programme of nonintrusive and/or intrusive fieldwork which determines the presence or absence of archaeological features, structures, deposits, artefacts or ecofacts within a specified area. A programme of controlled, intrusive fieldwork with defined research objectives which examines, records and interprets archaeological remains, retrieves artefacts, ecofacts and other remains within a specified area. The records made and objects gathered are studied and the results published in detail appropriate to the project design. A structural planar fracture or discontinuity within lithological strata due to strain or compression, in which significant displacement is observable. Factors that will determine the severity of an odour as defined by the Environment Agency; Frequency, Intensity, Duration, Offensiveness, Receptor. Material required to raise existing ground levels. This can utilise cut material generated within the site, or necessitate the importation of material. The location at which an item was found. A sewer conveying waste water of domestic and/or industrial origin, but little or no rain water. A breakage in a rock mass. Present at any scale, but is generally used for large scale discontinuities.
Environmental Quality Standards (EQS)
Environmental Statement (ES)
Evaluation (archaeological)
Excavation (archaeological)
fault
FIDOR
fill
findspot foul sewer fracture
Page 274
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Term GARDIT Description
Glossary
General Aquifer Research Development and Investigation Team (Thames Water, the Environment Agency and London Underground with the support of organisations such as the Corporation of London, Envirologic, the Association of British Insurers (ABI) and BT). The gradual increase in the temperature of the earth's atmosphere, believed to be due to the greenhouse effect, caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, and other pollutants. Benchmark national quality standard for parks and green spaces in the United Kingdom. Water contained in underground strata, predominantly in aquifers. Inundation of land or basements as groundwater levels rise and the groundwater discharges to the surface or underground structures. The rise in groundwater level that occurs after cessation of abstraction. Groundwater Body: distinct volume of groundwater within an aquifer or aquifers. A dark brown slightly glauconitic clay with localised fine sand. Temporary roads provided within the contractors site area to allow the transportation of material around the site. A building, monument, site, place, area or landscape positively identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions. Heritage assets are the valued components of the Historic environment. They include designated heritage assets and assets identified by the local planning authority (including local listing). Archaeological and built heritage database held and maintained by the County authority. Previously known as the Sites and Monuments Record. Designated residential area with streets designed to operate primarily as a space for social use. Generally hard nodular chalks with thin flaser marls. In parts, there are significant proportions of shell debris. Inter-bedded coloured marl and chalk succession characteristic of the Plenus Marls Member are found at its base. Above this, the Melbourn Rock Member is distinguishable by its lack of shell material.
global warming
Green Flag groundwater groundwater flooding
groundwater rebound GWB Harwich Formation haul roads heritage asset
Historic environment Record (HER) Homezone Holywell Nodular Chalk
Page 275
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Term hydraulic conductivity Description
Glossary
A constant of proportionality in Darcys law that allows the calculation of the rate of groundwater flow from the hydraulic gradient. For a unit hydraulic gradient, the higher the hydraulic conductivity the higher the rate of groundwater flow. In an aquifer this is the rate of change of groundwater level per unit distance in a given direction. Groundwater flows in the direction of the decline in hydraulic gradient. A graph showing a plot of water flow or level with time, applicable to both surface water and groundwater. A physical or measurable change to the environment attributable to the project. This structure is required to be built around the existing overflow either on land or at the discharge point in the foreshore. The chamber has a weir and valves to divert the flow in to the Thames Tunnel system. It is likely to be a reinforced concrete cut and cover box structure. In some other cases the structure is required to be built adjacent to an inlet or sump of a pump station from which the flow is diverted 600 BC AD 43. A caisson is a retaining, water-tight structure open to the air. A jack is used to push the caisson into the ground, with the internal area then excavated. Equivalent continuous sound level is a notional steady sound level which would cause the same A-weighted sound energy to be received as that due to the actual and possibly fluctuating sound over a period of time (T). It can also be used to relate periods of exposure and noise level. Thus, for example, a halving or doubling of the period of exposure is equivalent in sound energy to a decrease or increase of 3dB(A) in the sound level for the original period. The maximum sound level measured on the A- weighted scale occurring during an event. Complex sequence of highly variable inter-bedded sediments which include clay, sands, pebble beds and Shelly beds. Fine to coarse sand or clay with occasional black organic matter. AD 1066 1500. The Lee Tunnel comprises a 7.2m diameter storage and transfer tunnel from Abbey Mills Pumping Station to Beckton STW and the interception of the Abbey Mills CSO.
hydraulic gradient
hydrograph impact interception chamber
Iron Age jacked caission
LAeq(T)
LAmax Lambeth Group Laminated Beds later medieval Lee Tunnel
Page 276
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Term Lewes Nodular Chalk Description
Glossary
Hard to very hard nodular chalks and hardgrounds with interbedded soft to medium hard chalks and marls. More abundant softer chalks towards the top. Formal permit allowing the holder to engage in an activity (in the context of this report, usually abstraction), subject to conditions specified in the licence itself and the legislation under which it was issued. A structure of architectural and/or historical interest. These are included on the Secretary of State's list, which affords statutory protection. These are subdivided in to Grades I, II* and II (in descending importance). The general characteristics of a rock or sedimentary formation. Local areas where the local authority determines the national air quality objectives are not likely to be achieved by the relevant deadlines. Collection of planning documents prepared by the Local Planning Authority outlining the management of development and land use in a Borough. A structure of local architectural and/or historical interest. These are structures that are not included in the Secretary of States Listing but are considered by the local authority to have architectural and/or historical merit. An area specific plan to interpret and apply the strategy set out in the Structure Plan, to provide a detailed basis for the control of development, to provide a basis for co-ordinating new development and to bring planning issues before the public. Fine sandy silty clay to silty clay. The LTI comprise five separate improvement projects at Thames Waters five Tideway sewage treatment works (STWs): Mogden, Beckton, Crossness, Riverside and Long Reach. The LTT comprises two separate projects: the Lee Tunnel and the Thames Tunnel. Consisting of the Upnor Beds (the lowest unit of the Lambeth Group), the Thanet Sands and the Chalk. Artificial deposit. An archaeologist would differentiate between modern made ground, containing identifiably modern inclusion such as concrete (but not brick or tile), and undated made ground, which may potentially contain deposits of archaeological interest.
licence
listed building
lithology Local Air Quality Management (LAQM) Local Development Framework (LDF) locally listed building
Local Plan
London Clay London Tideway Improvements (LTI)
London Tideway Tunnels (LTT) Lower aquifer made ground
Page 277
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Term main tunnel drive shaft site main tunnel reception shaft site Mesolithic mitigation measures Description
Glossary
Site that would be used to insert and then drive the TBM. Site that would be used to remove the TBM from the Thames Tunnel at the end of the drive. 12,000 4,000 BC. Actions proposed to prevent or reduce adverse effects arising from the whole or specific elements of the development. 4,000 2,000 BC. Non-nodular chalk, massively bedded, with fairly regularly developed marl seams and sporadic flints. A product of combustion processes. Nitrogen dioxide is associated with adverse effects on human health. A report which briefly describes the main points discussed in the Environmental Statement in a clear manner without the use of technical jargon and phraseology. This report is a requirement of the 2009 Infrastructure Planning EIA Regulations. The Water Services Regulations Authority, a government body set up in 1989 to regulate the activities of the water companies in England and Wales. Odour panel sampling carried out in laboratory conditions. Related to past environments, ie, during the prehistoric and later periods. Such remains can be of archaeological interest, and often consist of organic remains such as pollen and plant macro fossils which can be used to reconstruct the past environment. 700,00012,000 BC. A Middle Bronze Age axe. Solid particles or liquid droplets suspended or carried in the air and includes the same matter after it has deposited onto a surface. For the purposes of this assessment the term includes all size fractions of suspended matter, such as dust, PM10 and PM2.5. A structure containing carbon which absorbs odour from air flowing out of the Tunnel, without the assistance of mechanical pumping. Preliminary Environmental Information Report is a document setting out initial environmental information. In accordance with the Planning Act 2008, it is a requirement that this is the subject of pre-application consultation.
Neolithic New Pit Chalk nitrogen dioxide (and oxides NO2 and NO) Non-Technical Summary (NTS)
Ofwat
olfactometry Palaeo-environmental
Palaeolithic palstave particulate matter (PM)
passive filter chamber
PEIR
Page 278
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Term pelagic invertebrates perched water Description Invertebrates which are found in the water column.
Glossary
Is groundwater in an aquifer present above the regional water table, as a result of a (semi-)impermeable layer of rock or sediment above the main water table/aquifer, below the ground surface. The capacity of soil or porous rock to transmit water. A measure of the acidity or basicity of an aqueous solution. A borehole designed specifically to allow the measurement of groundwater level. The level or head to which groundwater would rise in a piezometer if it is free to seek equilibrium with the atmosphere. Written procedures put in place for dealing with spillages and pollution. Containing void spaces. Most sedimentary rocks are porous to some extent, and the term is commonly applied in a relative sense, generally restricted to rocks which have significant effective porosity. Refers to Option 3 Abbey Mills route, which runs from Action Storm Tanks in west London to Limehouse then turns northeast to Abbey Mills Pumping Station, where it connects with the Lee Tunnel. Refers to the preferred route and construction sites. Sites assessed as most suitable following review of suitability of each shortlisted site by taking in to account engineering,planning, environment, property and community considerations. Preservation by recording and advancement of understanding of asset significance. This is a standard archaeological mitigation strategy where heritage assets remains are fully excavated and recorded archaeologically and the results published. For remains of lesser significance, preservation by record might comprise an archaeological watching brief. Archaeological mitigation strategy where nationally important (whether designated or not) heritage assets are conserved in situ for future generations, typically through modifications to design proposals to avoid damage or destruction of such remains.
permeability pH piezometer piezometric surface
Pollution Incident Control Plan porous
preferred route
preferred scheme preferred site
preservation by record
preservation in situ
Page 279
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Term Principal Aquifer Description
Glossary
A geological stratum that exhibits high inter-granular and/or fracture permeability. This strata has the ability to support water supply and/or river base flow on a strategic scale. Principal Aquifers equate in most cases to aquifers previously referred to as Major Aquifers. Term used to describe the supply of water provided by a water company. Putty chalk (clay characteristics) near the surface of the unit above firm to soft non-nodular chalk with flint (Upper Chalk undivided) above hard nodular chalk with flints (Lewes Chalk). An international treaty for the conservation and sustainable utilisation of wetlands. River Basin Management Plans these are the relevant plans that outline the state of water resources within a River Basin District relevant to the objectives of the WFD. The rarest and most threatened species are often listed in the Red Data Book of Insectsx, within which there are three categories. Taxa in danger of extinction are referred to as RDB 1 species; those considered to be vulnerable and likely to move into the endangered category are listed under RDB 2, whilst rare species occur on RDB 3. Section of river between two points. Extensive alluvial sand and gravel deposits laid down in a braided river system in river terraces since the Anglian glaciations. Where live data is used to manipulate control equipment in order to best manage the flow of storm water and sewage within the capacity of the system. People (both individually and communally) and the socioeconomic systems they support. Water that percolates downwards from the surface to replenish the water table. The red route is a network of roads designated by Transport for London that carry heavy volumes of traffic and are essential for the movement of traffic and public transport. These comprise mainly of major routes into and around London. Transport for London are responsible for enforcing the red routes which include clearways, parking and loading bays, bus lanes, yellow box junctions and banned turns.
Public Water Supply Putty Chalk
RAMSAR RBMP
RDB3
reach River Terrace Deposits real time control (RTC) receptors recharge Red route
Bratton, (1991) Red Data Book for Insects
Page 280
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Term risk assessment Description
Glossary
Assessment of the risks associated with an activity or object and possible accidents involving a source or practice. This includes assessment of consequence. AD 43 410. Scheduled Ancient Monument. More commonly referred to as Scheduled Monument. Entry of brackish or salt water into an aquifer, from the sea or estuary. This may be natural or induced by excessive or uncontrolled groundwater abstraction. The zone in which the voids in a rock or soil are filled with water at a pressure greater than atmospheric pressure. An ancient monument or archaeological deposits designated by the Secretary of State as a Scheduled Ancient Monument and protected under the Ancient Monuments Act. The formal view of the determining authority on the range of topics and issues to be considered by the Environmental Impact Assessment, as referred to in the 2009 Infrastructure Planning EIA Regulations. The document prepared by the applicant setting out the proposed approach to the Environmental Impact Assessment, including the range of topics and issues to be addressed, as referred to in the 2009 Infrastructure Planning EIA Regulations. The formal view of the determining authority on the need for an Environmental Impact Assessment to be undertaken, as referred to in the 2009 Infrastructure Planning EIA Regulations. The upper unit of the White Chalk, comprising of as firm to soft non-nodular Chalk with flint beds. Thin marl seams are found towards its base and and absent higher up. A hard ground marks the top of the Seaford Chalk. Alternate piles in-filled with concrete to form a water-tight retaining wall. Either permeable strata capable of supporting local supplies or low permeability strata with localised features such as fissures. The term Secondary Aquifer replaces the previously used name of Minor Aquifer. There are two classes of Secondary Aquifer. Secondary A are capable of supporting water supplies at a local rather than strategic scale and Secondary B are lower permeability layers which may store and yield limited amounts of groundwater due to localised features such as fissures, thin permeable horizons and weathering.
Roman SAM saline intrusion
saturated zone Scheduled Monument
Scoping Opinion
Scoping Report
Screening Opinion
Seaford Chalk
secant piles Secondary Aquifers
Page 281
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Term short listed sites SINC (Grade B) SINC (Grade L) SINC (Grade M) Site Description
Glossary
Sites idenitfied following an assessment of long list sites in accordance with the Site Selection Methodology. Site of Nature Conservation Importance (Grade II of Borough importance). Site of Nature Conservation Importance (Grade I of Local importance). Site of Nature Conservation Importance (Grade III of Metropolitan importance). For the purposes of the PEIR assessment, the site is deemed as the entire area located within the Limit of Land to be Acquired or Used. It should not be inferred that this entire site area will be physically separated (ie, hoarded or fenced) for the construction duration. An area given a statutory designation by English Nature or the Countryside Council for Wales because of its nature conservation value. Materials such as hard standing and vegetation including incidental topsoil (including potential contaminated soil). A record of sites of archaeological interest. An efficient method for constructing the tunnel lining with a layer of sprayed concrete. This is instead of using pre-cast concrete segments. Layers of rock, including unconsolidated materials such as sands and gravels. The study of stratified rocks, their nature, their occurrence, their relationship to each other and their classification. A colourless gas with a choking smell, the main product of the combustion of sulphur contained in fuels. Overarching term for recent generally unconsolidated or loosely consolidated deposits of sand, gravel, silt, clay, etc on top of bedrock. Synonymous with drift generally supersedes the term. This is a general term used to describe all water features such as rivers, streams, springs, ponds and lakes. Water that travels across the ground rather than seeping in to the soil.
Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) site strip Sites and Monuments Record sprayed concrete lining strata stratigraphy sulphur dioxide (SO2) superficial deposits
surface water surface water runoff
Page 282
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Term Thames Tunnel Description
Glossary
The Thames Tunnel comprises a full-length storage and transfer tunnel from Acton Storm Tanks to Beckton Sewage Treatment Works in East London and the interception of specific CSOs along the Thames Tideway with a diameter between 6.5m and 7.2m. Coarsening upward sequence of well sortedfine grained sand which has a higher clay / silt content towards the lower part of the sequence, and evidence of intense bioturbation removing bedding structures. The Thames Tunnel project. Length of river channel swept by water from a discharge point in one tidal cycle. In the case of the River Thames this is considered to 13km up and downstream of the discharge point. Tool developed on behalf of Thames Water to assess the effects of lapses in water quality caused by CSO discharges on Tideway fish populations. The formal assessment of traffic and transportation issues relating to the proposed development. The findings are usually presented in a report which accompanies the planning application. Partially or wholly remove. In archaeological terms remains may have been truncated by previous construction activity. A typical year relates to an actual year, eg, the corresponding meteorological dataset for that year used in the modelling which was 1979-80. The corresponding meteorological dataset is used as it would give a better indication of conditions rather than using a recent year of data where the meteorological data may not be consistent with a rainfall event leading to the tunnel emissions. An enclosed space below the ground surface where air is released to atmosphere, should the pressure within the Tunnel exceed a set value. The statutory plan which sets out a unitary authoritys planning policies. These are rocks which are generally unable to provide usable water supplies and are unlikely to have surface water and wetland ecosystems dependent upon them. Variably bioturbated fine- to medium-grained sand with glauconite, rounded flint pebbles and minor clay, with distinctive pebble beds and base and top.
Thanet Sands
The project tidal excursion
Tideway Fish Risk Model Transport Assessment (TA)
truncate typical year
underground pressure release chamber Unitary Development Plan (UDP) unproductive strata
Upnor Formation
Page 283
Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station Term Upper aquifer Upper Mottled Beds Upper Shelly Beds Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive valve chamber Description
Glossary
Comprising the water bearing strata above the London Clay, namely the River Terrace Deposits and the Alluvium. A bluish grey mottled with greenish brown clay. Contains shell fragments within a flinty gravel or a sandy clay The Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (1991) has the overall aim of protecting the environment from the adverse effects of urban waste water discharges. An underground structure on the sewer system containing valves which are used to isolate the flow between different parts of the sewer system. For example, flap valves prevent the flow from the river travelling back up the sewer or into the tunnel. A stack through which air is released. An EC Directive seeking to improve water quality in rivers and groundwater in an integrated way (2000). An archaeological watching brief is a formal programme of observation and investigation conducted during any operation carried out for nonarchaeological reasons. Level below which the ground is saturated with water. The water table elevation may vary with recharge and groundwater abstraction. The WEEE Directive aims to reduce the amount of electrical and electronic equipment going to landfill and to encourage everyone to reuse, recycle and recover it. Chalk with flints, with discrete marl seams, nodular chalk, sponge-rich and flint seams throughout. Flint typology and marl seam incidence is important for correlation. Comprises of Seaford Chalk, Lewes Nodular Chalk, New Pit Chalk and Holywell Nodular Chalk.
ventilation column Water Framework Directive (WFD) watching brief (archaeological) water table
Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (WEEE) White Chalk subgroup
Page 284
References
References
1
Greater London Authority and London Councils (2006) Best Practice Guidance: The Control of Dust and Emissions from Construction and Demolition, November 2006
2
Defra, http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/review-and-assessment/tools/backgroundmaps.html, Accessed May 2011) Defra (2010), http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/documents/Measured-nitrogen-oxides-(NOx)and-or-nitrogen-dioxide-(NO2)-concentrations-do-not-appear-to-be-declining-in-linewith-national-forecastsv1.pdf, Accessed April 2011
4 5 6 3
Defra (2009) Local Air Quality Managemen t- Technical Guidance, LAQM.TG(09). Defra (2010) Draft National Policy Statement for Waste Water, November 2010.
Thames Estuary Partnership Biodiversity Action Group (undated) Tidal Thames Habitat Action Plan. Thames Estuary Partnership.
7
London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. Biodiversity Action Plan. www.lbhf.gov.uk 8 Elliott, M. & Hemingway, K. L. (2002). Fishes in Estuaries, London: Blackwell Science.
9
Elliott, M. and Taylor, C.J.L. (1989). The structure and functioning of an estuarine/marine fish community in the Forth estuary, Scotland. Proc. 21st European Marine Biological Symposium (Gdansk). Polish Academy of Sciences, Institute of Oceanology, Warsaw, Poland, 227-240.
10
Chadd, R and Extence, C (2004). The conservation of freshwater macroinvertebrate populations: a community based classification scheme. Aquatic Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 14: 597-624. Turnpenny, A.W.H., Clough, S.C., Holden, S.D.J., Bridges, M., Bird, H., OKeeffe, N.J., Johnson, D., Edmonds, M., Hinks, C. (2004). Thames Tideway Strategy: Experimental Studies on the Dissolved Oxygen Requirements of Fish Consultancy Report no.FCR374/04 to Thames Water Utilities, Ltd. Fawley Aquatic Research, Fawley Southampton, April, 2004. http://www.wfduk.org/LibraryPublicDocs/ThamesTidewayStrategyExperimentalStudie sontheDissolvedOxygenRequirementsofFish] Maitland, PS and Hatton-Ellis, TW. Ecology of the Allis and Twaite Shad. Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers Ecology Series No. 3. English Nature The Mayors Biodiversity Strategy Connecting with Nature (Great London Authority, July 2002)
14 13 12 11
IEEM. Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom. Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2006)
15
Department of Communities and Local Government. Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment (March 2010), 1, 13
16 17
Basil Holmes The London Burial Grounds (1899)
Mills P and Whipp D, The Archaeology of Hammersmith and Fulham. London (1980), 4
Page 285
References
18 19 20
Victoria County History Old and New London vol. vi (1878), 504521 Victoria County History Old and New London vol. vi (1878), 504521
Mills P and Whipp D, The Archaeology of Hammersmith and Fulham. London (1980), 5
21
Faulkner T, The History and Antiques of the Parish of Hammersmith. London (1838), 8
22
Draper WH, Hammersmith. A study in Town History. Chamberlain, London (1913), 8

23 24
Denny B, Hammersmith and Shepherds Bush Past. London (1995), 67
Gover, JEB, Mawer A and Stenton FM, The place-names of Middlesex, English Place-name Society 18, Cambridge (1942), 103
25
Hasker L, Hammersmith and Fulham through 1500 years: A brief history. London (1992), 16
26
27
28
Fret CJ, Fulham Old and New: Being and Exhaustive History of the Ancient Parish of Fulham. London (1900); McLoughton A, Different than others. Marstowe press (1971)
29
Fret CJ, Fulham Old and New: Being and Exhaustive History of the Ancient Parish of Fulham. London (1900)
30
Crispe family history, http://www.geocities.com /royalwilhelm/nicholas crisp.html; Fret CJ, Fulham Old and New: Being an Exhaustive History of the Ancient Parish of Fulham. London (1900); McLoughton A, Different than others. Marstowe press (1971)
31
32
33
Weinreb B, Hibbert C, Keay J and Keay J, The London Encyclopaedia. Macmillan. London (2008), 373
34
London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham http://www.lbhf.gov.uk/Directory/ Environment_and_Planning / Planning/Urban_design_and_conservation/ Conservation_areas/20056_Fulham_Reach_Profile.asp 1997. Accessed May 2011
35 36 37
Martin Wall of Thames Water, pers comm. Martin Wall of Thames Water, pers. comm.
London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham; http://www.lbhf.gov.uk/Directory/ Environment_and_Planning / Planning/Urban_design_and_conservation/ Conservation_areas/20056_Fulham_Reach_Profile.asp 1997. Accessed May 2011
Page 286
References
38
BS5228:2009 Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites
39
Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (2007), London Noise Maps (http://services.defra.gov.uk/wps/portal/noise)
40
BS 4142 (1997): Method for rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas
41
Greater London Authority. London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2004) 2008
42
Source: LB Hammersmith and Fulham website.http://www.lbhf.gov.uk/Directory/Environment_and_Planning/Parks_and_ope n_spaces/Find_a_park/115027_Frank_Banfield_Park.asp, last accessed 18th May 2011.
43 44 45
TT (2011a) Scoping Report - Document No. 100-RG-ENV-00000-000005 Thames Tideway Strategic Study, Thames Water, February 2005
Communities and Local Government (March 2010). Planning Policy Statement 25 Development and Flood Risk.
46
Communities and Local Government (December 2009). Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk Practice Guide.
47
Environment Agency. Thames Estuary 2100 Flood Risk Management Plan. (Accessed Feb 2011 http://www.environmentagency.gov.uk/research/library/consultations/106100.aspx)
48
Greater London Authority (July 2011). The London Plan Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London.
49
Communities and Local Government (March 2010). Planning Policy Statement 25 Development and Flood Risk.
50
Capita Symonds Ltd (March 2008). London Borough of Ealing Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Final Report.
51 52
Environment Agency. Thames Estuary 2100 Flood Risk Management Plan.
Thames Tidal Defences Joint Probability Extreme Water Levels 2008 Final Modelling Report. Environment Agency (Apr 2008) (Thames Barrier operational, Model Node 2.2).
53
The Mayors Draft Water Strategy. Mayor of London. Greater London Authority (Aug 2009)
54
EA (2010) Management of London Basin Chalk Aquifer. Status Report 2010.
Page 287
Thames Tunn
110-RG-ENV-PHF2X-000016
Phase two consultation (Autumn 2011)
For further information see our website: www.thamestunnelconsultation.co.uk or call us on 0800 0721 086
Thames Tunn

PEIR Main Report Vol8 Hammer Smith Pumping Station

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEIR Main Report Vol8 Hammer Smith Pumping Station

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station site assessment

Phase two consultation documentation

Project information papers

Site information papers

Thames Tunnel Preliminary environmental information report

Part B: Preliminary site information

Preliminary environmental information report

Preliminary environmental information report

Thames Tunnel Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station site assessment

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

Preliminary environmental information report

Ecology - terrestrial ....................................................................................... 41

Historic environment ..................................................................................... 50

Land quality .................................................................................................... 78

Noise and vibration ........................................................................................ 95

Preliminary environmental information report

Socio-economics ......................................................................................... 119

Townscape and visual ................................................................................. 132

Transport ...................................................................................................... 168

Water resources groundwater ................................................................. 198

Preliminary environmental information report

Water resources surface water ................................................................ 208

Water resources flood risk ....................................................................... 223

Preliminary environmental information report

Preliminary environmental information report

Preliminary environmental information report

Preliminary environmental information report

Preliminary environmental information report

WWT ZTV ZVI

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station

Section 2: Site context

Site context Site location

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station

Section 2: Site context

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station

Section 3: Proposed development

Proposed development Overview

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station

Section 3: Proposed development

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station 3.2.8

Section 3: Proposed development

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station

Section 3: Proposed development

Code of construction practice

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station

Section 3: Proposed development

3.3.11 3.3.12 3.3.13 3.3.14

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station

Section 3: Proposed development

3.3.20 3.3.21 3.3.22

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 8: Hammersmith Pumping Station