Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station site assessment
CSO interception and connection tunnel reception 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 George’s Park • Kirtling Street • Other works • Putney Bridge Foreshore • Shad Thames Pumping Station • Victoria Embankment Foreshore

Thames Tunn

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

Part B: Preliminary site information

Page i

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26 Volume 27 Volume 28

Greenwich Pumping Station CSO interception and connection tunnel drive site (this document) Abbey Mills Pumping Station main tunnel reception site Beckton Sewage Treatment Works site

Page ii

Preliminary environmental information report

Thames Tunnel Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station site assessment
List of contents

Page number

1 2

Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 Site context ....................................................................................................... 2 2.1 2.2 Site location ............................................................................................. 2 Environmental context ............................................................................. 2 Overview.................................................................................................. 4 Operation ................................................................................................. 5 Construction ............................................................................................ 7 Design development and on-site alternatives ........................................ 12 Base case .............................................................................................. 13 Introduction ............................................................................................ 14 Proposed development .......................................................................... 14 Assessment methodology...................................................................... 16 Baseline conditions................................................................................ 16 Construction assessment ...................................................................... 20 Operational assessment ........................................................................ 23 Approach to mitigation ........................................................................... 24 Assessment summary ........................................................................... 26 Assessment completion ......................................................................... 28 Introduction ............................................................................................ 29 Proposed development .......................................................................... 29 Assessment methodology...................................................................... 30 Baseline conditions................................................................................ 32 Construction assessment ...................................................................... 38 Operational assessment ........................................................................ 43 Approach to mitigation ........................................................................... 46

3

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

4

Air quality and odour ..................................................................................... 14 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9

5

Ecology - aquatic ........................................................................................... 29 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7

Page iii

Preliminary environmental information report

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 ........................................................................... 47 Assessment completion ......................................................................... 52 Introduction ............................................................................................ 53 Proposed development .......................................................................... 53 Assessment methodology...................................................................... 54 Baseline conditions................................................................................ 57 Construction assessment ...................................................................... 62 Operational assessment ........................................................................ 64 Approach to mitigation ........................................................................... 64 Assessment summary ........................................................................... 65 Assessment completion ......................................................................... 66 Introduction ............................................................................................ 67 Proposed development .......................................................................... 67 Assessment methodology...................................................................... 68 Baseline conditions................................................................................ 70 Construction assessment ...................................................................... 85 Operational assessment ........................................................................ 90 Approach to mitigation ........................................................................... 91 Assessment summary ........................................................................... 95 Assessment completion ......................................................................... 99 Introduction .......................................................................................... 100 Proposed development ........................................................................ 100 Assessment methodology.................................................................... 101 Baseline conditions.............................................................................. 101 Construction assessment .................................................................... 114 Operational assessment ...................................................................... 118 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 119 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 120 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 121 Introduction .......................................................................................... 122 Proposed development ........................................................................ 122 Assessment methodology.................................................................... 124 Baseline conditions.............................................................................. 125

Ecology - terrestrial ....................................................................................... 53

Historic environment ..................................................................................... 67

Land quality .................................................................................................. 100

Noise and vibration ...................................................................................... 122

Page iv

Preliminary environmental information report

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 .................................................................... 127 Operational assessment ...................................................................... 139 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 141 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 143 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 145 Introduction .......................................................................................... 146 Proposed development ........................................................................ 146 Assessment methodology.................................................................... 147 Baseline conditions.............................................................................. 147 Construction assessment .................................................................... 151 Operational assessment ...................................................................... 154 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 154 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 155 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 157 Introduction .......................................................................................... 158 Proposed development ........................................................................ 158 Assessment methodology.................................................................... 159 Baseline conditions.............................................................................. 160 Construction assessment .................................................................... 173 Operational assessment ...................................................................... 182 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 183 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 184 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 188 Introduction .......................................................................................... 189 Proposed development ........................................................................ 189 Assessment methodology.................................................................... 193 Baseline conditions.............................................................................. 195 Construction assessment .................................................................... 201 Operational assessment ...................................................................... 207 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 211 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 214 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 216 Introduction .......................................................................................... 217

Socio-economics ......................................................................................... 146

Townscape and visual ................................................................................. 158

Transport ...................................................................................................... 189

Water resources – groundwater ................................................................. 217

Page v

Preliminary environmental information report

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

Proposed development ........................................................................ 217 Assessment methodology.................................................................... 218 Baseline conditions.............................................................................. 219 Construction assessment .................................................................... 222 Operational assessment ...................................................................... 225 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 227 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 228 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 230 Introduction .......................................................................................... 231 Proposed development ........................................................................ 231 Assessment methodology.................................................................... 233 Baseline conditions.............................................................................. 234 Construction assessment .................................................................... 237 Operational assessment ...................................................................... 245 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 250 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 251 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 252 Introduction .......................................................................................... 253 Policy considerations ........................................................................... 254 Assessment of flood risk ...................................................................... 257 Flood risk - design and mitigation ........................................................ 262 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 265

Water resources – surface water ................................................................ 231

Water resources – flood risk ....................................................................... 253

Appendices ........................................................................................................... 267 Appendix A: Historic environment ...................................................................... 269 Appendix B : Land quality ................................................................................... 283 Appendix C : Noise and vibration ....................................................................... 286 Appendix D : Townscape and visual .................................................................. 287 Appendix E : Water resources - groundwater .................................................... 290 Glossary ................................................................................................................ 304 References ............................................................................................................ 319

Page vi

Preliminary environmental information report

List of figures
Page number

Vol 26 Figure 2.1.1 Site location plan ........................................................................ 2 Vol 26 Figure 2.2.1 Environmental setting ................................................................. 3 Vol 26 Figure 3.1.1 Demolition and site clearance plan............................................. 4 Vol 26 Figure 3.1.2 Construction - site setup and shaft construction ......................... 4 Vol 26 Figure 3.1.3 Construction phasing plan - tunnelling ....................................... 4 Vol 26 Figure 3.1.4 Construction - Construction of other structures .......................... 4 Vol 26 Figure 3.1.5 Permanent works plan ................................................................ 4 Vol 26 Figure 4.4.1 Air quality monitoring locations ................................................. 18 Vol 26 Figure 6.4.1 Terrestrial ecology Phase 1 Survey .......................................... 58 Vol 26 Figure 7.4.1 Historic environment features map ........................................... 71 Vol 26 Figure 8.4.1 Land quality contaminative land uses..................................... 102 Vol 26 Figure 8.4.2 Land quality - proposed borehole locations ............................ 109 Vol 26 Figure 8.4.3 Land quality - environmental records and waste sites ............ 111 Vol 26 Figure 9.4.1 Noise and vibration residential receptors................................ 126 Vol 26 Figure 10.4.1 Socio-economic context ....................................................... 149 Vol 26 Figure 11.4.1 Townscape - development pattern and scale ....................... 161 Vol 26 Figure 11.4.2 Townscape - pattern and extent of vegetation...................... 161 Vol 26 Figure 11.4.3 Townscape - open space distribution and type .................... 162 Vol 26 Figure 11.4.4 Townscape and visual – transport network .......................... 163 Vol 26 Figure 11.4.5 Townscape character areas ................................................. 165 Vol 10 Figure 11.4.6 Visual assessment - viewpoint locations ............................. 170 Vol 26 Figure 12.2.1 Transport - construction traffic routes ................................... 191 Vol 26 Figure 12.2.2 Construction lorry profile....................................................... 192 Vol 26 Figure 12.4.1 Transport site plan ................................................................ 196 Vol 26 Figure 15.3.1 Flood risk – EA flood zones .................................................. 257

Page vii

Preliminary environmental information report

List of tables
Page number

Vol 26 Table 3.3.1 Standard working hours ............................................................. 12 Vol 26 Table 3.4.1 Design development at Greenwich Pumping Station................. 13 Vol 26 Table 4.3.1 Air quality and odour stakeholder engagement ......................... 16 Vol 26 Table 4.4.1 Air quality - measured NO2 concentrations ................................ 17 Vol 26 Table 4.4.2 Air quality - measured PM10 concentrations............................... 18 Vol 26 Table 4.4.3 Air quality - additional monitoring locations................................ 18 Vol 26 Table 4.4.4 Air quality background pollutant concentrations ........................ 19 Vol 26 Table 4.4.5 Air quality receptors - construction ............................................ 19 Vol 26 Table 4.6.1 Odour impacts at ground level - operation ................................. 24 Vol 26 Table 4.6.2 Odour impacts at buildings - operation ...................................... 24 Vol 26 Table 4.8.1 Air quality construction assessment .......................................... 26 Vol 26 Table 4.8.2 Odour operational assessment .................................................. 27 Vol 26 Table 5.4.1 Aquatic ecology principal habitat and substrate......................... 33 Vol 26 Table 5.4.2 Aquatic ecology fish survey .................................................... 34 Vol 26 Table 5.4.3 Aquatic ecology species abundance ......................................... 34 Vol 26 Table 5.4.4 Aquatic ecology invertebrate fauna ........................................... 36 Vol 26 Table 5.4.5 Aquatic ecology receptors ......................................................... 38 Vol 26 Table 5.5.1 Aquatic ecology impacts - construction ..................................... 40 Vol 26 Table 5.6.1 Aquatic ecology impacts - operation .......................................... 43 Vol 26 Table 5.8.1 Aquatic ecology construction assessment ................................. 47 Vol 26 Table 5.8.2 Aquatic ecology operational assessment .................................. 49 Vol 26 Table 6.3.1 Stakeholder comments .............................................................. 54 Vol 26 Table 6.3.2 Terrestrial ecology notable species surveys .............................. 55 Vol 26 Table 6.4.1 Terrestrial ecology Phase 1 Survey ........................................... 58 Vol 26 Table 6.8.1 Terrestrial ecology construction assessment ............................. 65 Vol 26 Table 7.4.1 Historic environment receptors .................................................. 83 Vol 26 Table 7.5.1 Historic environment effects - construction ................................ 88 Vol 26 Table 7.6.1 Historic environment effects – operation ................................... 91 Vol 26 Table 7.8.1 Historic environment construction assessment.......................... 95 Vol 26 Table 7.8.2 Historic environment operational assessment ........................... 97 Vol 26 Table 8.4.1 Land quality contaminative land uses summary ...................... 102 Vol 26 Table 8.4.2 Land quality anticipated site geology ....................................... 108 Vol 26 Table 8.4.3 Land quality ground investigation ............................................ 109

Page viii

Preliminary environmental information report

Vol 26 Table 8.4.4 Land quality environmental records and waste sites ............... 111 Vol 26 Table 8.5.1 Land quality impacts - construction ......................................... 117 Vol 26 Table 8.5.2 Land quality receptors - construction ....................................... 117 Vol 26 Table 8.5.3 Land quality effects - construction ........................................... 117 Vol 26 Table 8.6.1 Land quality impacts - operation .............................................. 118 Vol 26 Table 8.6.2 Land quality receptors- operation ............................................ 119 Vol 26 Table 8.6.3 Land quality effects - operation................................................ 119 Vol 26 Table 8.8.1 Land quality construction assessment ..................................... 120 Vol 26 Table 8.8.2 Land quality operational assessment ...................................... 120 Vol 26 Table 9.4.1 Noise receptors ....................................................................... 126 Vol 26 Table 9.4.2 Airborne noise categories -construction .................................. 127 Vol 26 Table 9.5.1 Noise at GP01 Hatfield House -construction ........................... 128 Vol 26 Table 9.5.2 Noise at GP02 Torrent House -construction ............................ 130 Vol 26 Table 9.5.3 Noise at GP03 Block E - construction ...................................... 131 Vol 26 Table 9.5.4 Noise at GP04 83 Greenwich High Street - construction ......... 133 Vol 26 Table 9.5.5 Noise at GP05, Norman House -construction .......................... 134 Vol 26 Table 9.5.6 Noise at GP06, The Movement -construction .......................... 135 Vol 26 Table 9.5.7 Vibration at buildings / structures –construction ...................... 136 Vol 26 Table 9.5.8 Vibration and human response - construction ......................... 137 Vol 26 Table 9.5.9 Noise and vibration effects - construction ................................ 139 Vol 26 Table 9.6.1 Airborne noise impacts - operation .......................................... 140 Vol 26 Table 9.6.2 Noise and vibration effects - operation .................................... 141 Vol 26 Table 9.8.1 Noise and vibration construction assessment.......................... 143 Vol 26 Table 9.8.2 Noise and vibration operational assessment ........................... 144 Vol 26 Table 10.4.1 Socio-economics receptors ................................................... 150 Vol 26 Table 10.5.1 Socio-economics construction effects ................................... 153 Vol 26 Table 10.8.1 Socio-economics construction assessment ........................... 156 Vol 26 Table 11.4.1 Townscape open space type and distribution ........................ 162 Vol 26 Table 11.4.2 Townscape site components ................................................. 164 Vol 26 Table 11.4.3 Townscape sensitivities to change ........................................ 169 Vol 26 Table 11.4.4 Visual viewpoints sensitivities to change ............................... 172 Vol 26 Table 11.5.1 Townscape site component effects - construction ................. 173 Vol 26 Table 11.5.2 Townscape character area effecst - construction .................. 177 Vol 26 Table 11.5.3 Viewpoint effects - construction ............................................. 181 Vol 26 Table 11.8.1 Townscape construction assessment .................................... 184

Page ix

Preliminary environmental information report

Vol 26 Table 11.8.2 Visual construction assessment ............................................ 185 Vol 20 Table 11.8.3 Townscape assessment– Year 1 of operation ....................... 186 Vol 26 Table 12.2.1 Transport - construction traffic details .................................... 190 Vol 26 Table 12.2.2 Transport - construction worker numbers .............................. 193 Vol 26 Table 12.3.1 Transport stakeholder engagement ....................................... 194 Vol 26 Table 12.4.1 Transport - bus routes and frequencies ................................. 197 Vol 26 Table 12.4.2 Transport receptors ............................................................... 201 Vol 26 Table 12.5.1 Transport – forecast construction vehicle movements ........... 204 Vol 26 Table 13.2.1 Groundwater - methods of construction ................................ 217 Vol 26 Table 13.4.1 Groundwater anticipated ground conditions /hydrogeology ... 219 Vol 26 Table 13.4.2 Groundwater receptors .......................................................... 221 Vol 26 Table 13.5.1 Groundwater impacts -construction ....................................... 224 Vol 26 Table 13.5.2 Groundwater receptors - construction ................................... 224 Vol 26 Table 13.5.3 Groundwater effects - construction ........................................ 225 Vol 26 Table 13.6.1 Groundwater impacts - operation .......................................... 226 Vol 26 Table 13.6.2 Groundwater effects - operation ............................................ 226 Vol 26 Table 13.8.1 Groundwater operation assessment ...................................... 228 Vol 26 Table 13.8.2 Groundwater operation assessment ...................................... 229 Vol 26 Table 14.4.1 Surface water receptors......................................................... 234 Vol 26 Table 14.5.1 Surface water impacts - construction ..................................... 241 Vol 26 Table 14.5.2 Surface water effects - construction ...................................... 245 Vol 26 Table 14.6.1 Surface water impacts - operation ......................................... 248 Vol 26 Table 14.6.2 Surface water significance of effects - operation ................... 250 Vol 26 Table 14.8.1 Surface water construction assessment ................................ 251 Vol 26 Table 14.8.2 Surface water operational assessment .................................. 251 Vol 26 Table 15.3.1 Flood risk runoff rates onsite ................................................. 261 Vol 26 Table 15.4.1 Flood risk runoff rates and preliminary attenuation volumes.. 264

Page x

Preliminary environmental information report

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 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
Page xi
Preliminary environmental information report

CSO dB dB LAeq,T

Combined Sewer Overflow 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
Page xii
Preliminary environmental information report

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

Frequency, Intensity, Duration, Offensiveness, Receptor 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
Page xiii
Preliminary environmental information report

kVA 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

kilo watt amperes 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
Page xiv
Preliminary environmental information report

NCR 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

National Cycle Route 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
Page xv
Preliminary environmental information report

RAMS 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

Risk Assessment Method Statement 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
Page xvi
Preliminary environmental information report

SWMP 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

waste - Site Waste Management Plan 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
Page xvii
Preliminary environmental information report

WSI WWT ZTV ZVI

Written Scheme of Investigation Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust Zone of Theoretical Visibility Zone of Visual Influence

Page xviii

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 1: Introduction

1
1.1.1 1.1.2

Introduction
This Volume presents the preliminary environmental information for the Thames Tunnel proposals at Greenwich Pumping Station. This document reports the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant environmental effects of the Thames Tunnel project at Greenwich 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. This volume describes the site in Section 2, and the construction and operation of the proposed development in Section 3. The design evolution for this site is set out in Section 3.4. Finally, Section 3.5 refers to other development projects which have been submitted or with extant planning approval within or in proximity to the site. The development at Greenwich Pumping Station would intercept the existing flows from the pumping station and divert it into the connection tunnel, via a Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) shaft, which will join the main tunnel at Bermondsey. Greenwich Pumping Station would be the drive site for the long connection tunnel. The CSO currently discharges approximately 51 times a year at approximately 8,322,500m3 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

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 2: Site context

2
2.1
2.1.1

Site context
Site location
The site lies on the western boundary of the London Borough (LB) of Greenwich. The local authority boundary with the LB of Lewisham lies immediately to the west. The site at Greenwich Pumping Station comprises two elements, the existing Thames Water site and Phoenix/Harts Wharf to the north. The proposed works will cover an area of 2.0ha. The site is shown in Vol 26 Figure 2.1.1. Vol 26 Figure 2.1.1 Site location plan (see Volume 26 Figures document)

2.1.2

Phoenix/Harts Wharf which comprises the northern section of the site, to the north of the railway line and is bounded by a vehicle repair garage and offices to the north, Norman Road and the Greenwich Centre Business Park to the east and Deptford Creek to the west. Thames Water Greenwich Pumping Station (on the southern part of the site), sits to the south of the railway line. Norman Road forms the eastern boundary of the site with Norman House forming the southeastern boundary. To the east of Norman Road is the disused Greenwich Industrial Estate (for which a mixed use development has planning permission). To the south of the site is Greenwich High Road with residential properties on the southern side of the road. Immediately to the southwest of the site lies the 40 Greenwich High Road development. The Dockland Light Railway (DLR) traverses the site from east to west and is elevated to approximately 10m above ground level on a viaduct. A sign-posted footpath and cycle route runs through the site crossing under the DLR. Most of the western edge of the site is formed by the banks of Deptford Creek with the remainder, to the west of the coal sheds, bordered by the 40 Greenwich High Road development (a 7 storey mixed use development). To the east of the site is Norman Road (B208) and to the south Greenwich High Road (A206). The closest railway access to the site is via the Greenwich Railway Station and DLR line approximately 360m and 250m from the site respectively.

2.1.3

2.1.4

2.2
2.2.1

Environmental context
Over 50% of the site is covered with hardstanding or buildings and the remainder is either scrubland or landscaped with some trees. There are no Tree Protection Orders on site. Deptford Creek, as part of the River Thames, is a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). Tidal creeks are identified as a priority area within the Tidal Thames Habitat Action Plan. The Deptford Creek is also a Site of Borough Importance for Nature Conservation. There are three Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) within 2km of the site. These are Sue Godfrey Nature Park LNR (within 400m of this site), Brookmill Road (within 1km) and Mudchute Park Farm (within 2km).

2.2.2

Page 2

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station 2.2.3

Section 2: Site context

The larger Thames Water site houses three Grade II listed buildings associated with the Deptford Sewage Pumping Station (the original name for the Greenwich Pumping Station). These buildings were opened in 1865 as part of the London sewage system designed by Sir Joseph Bazalgette. These buildings are a pair of beam engine houses linked by a boiler house, and coal sheds. The railway viaduct running from the platform of Greenwich Railway Station to Deptford Creek is Grade II listed as is the railway viaduct which continues west from Deptford Creek. The site sits within an Archaeological Priority Area (APA) and is identified as having potential for archaeological remains to be found, these areas were defined by English Heritage and were submitted for adoption by the LB of Greenwich. The Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area lies to the south of Greenwich High Road. The cycleway which passes through the site is a Public Right of Way (PRoW) and will be diverted along the railway viaduct during construction. The site is within the Greenwich Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) with locally collected air quality data (450m from the site on Greenwich South Street) showing annual exceedances for NO2. The site and surrounding area has a history of industrial use (including engineering, chemical works and factories). The shaft site will pass through 2.1m of made ground, 1.3m of Alluvium, 7m of River Terrace Deposits, 5m of Lambeth Group, 10.4m of Thanet Sand and chalk at depth (principal aquifer). The site is located in defended Flood Zone 3 (tidal River Thames and Deptford Creek). Defences have a 1 in a 1000 year standard of protection meaning that the flood risk at the site is the residual risk from defence breach or overtopping. These features are illustrated in Vol 26 Figure 2.2.1 Vol 26 Figure 2.2.1 Environmental setting (see Volume 26 Figures document)

2.2.4

2.2.5

2.2.6 2.2.7

2.2.8

2.2.9

2.2.10

Page 3

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 3: Proposed development

3
3.1
3.1.1

Proposed development
Overview
The development at Greenwich Pumping Station would intercept the Greenwich Pumping Station CSO and divert it via a CSO shaft into a connection tunnel. The connection tunnel would be driven from Greenwich Pumping Station to Bermondsey. Vol 26 Figure 3.1.1 to Vol 26 Figure 3.1.5 show the demolition and site clearance, construction phasing and permanent works plans. Vol 26 Figure 3.1.1 Demolition and site clearance plan Vol 26 Figure 3.1.2 Construction - site setup and shaft construction Vol 26 Figure 3.1.3 Construction phasing plan - tunnelling Vol 26 Figure 3.1.4 Construction - Construction of other structures Vol 26 Figure 3.1.5 Permanent works plan (see Volume 26 Figures document)

3.1.2

Construction of the main works at this site would be likely to commence in early 2017 (Year 1) and be completed in 2022, taking approximately five and a half years. Early works, such as utility connections and diversions may be undertaken in advance of the main works. The site would be operational in 2023. Further detail of the programme is described in Section 3.3. The following structures are required to intercept and divert the Greenwich Pumping Station CSO: a. an underground drop shaft with ground level access cover(s) b. an underground interception and valve chamber with ground level access cover(s) c. an underground connection culvert with ground level access cover(s) d. an underground high pressure release chamber with ground level access cover(s) e. air management structures comprising 4 no. active filters mounted within the disused Beam Engine House 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. a cabinet housing electrical and control panels and hydraulic equipment within the disused Beam Engine House h. 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. 3.1.4 Further details of these elements are given in Section 3.2 where these are relevant to the technical assessments that follow.

Page 4

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station 3.1.5

Section 3: Proposed development

To facilitate the construction of these interception works the following construction related elements would be required: a. gates to site entrance and exit b. hoardings and other means of enclosure, barrier or screening c. office and welfare accommodation and facilities d. workshops and stores e. plant and machinery f. power generation plant and lighting g. highways access and internal site roads h. removal and works to trees and planting of replacements i. j. k. l. a piled deck over Deptford Creek to enable access within the site dismantling and re-erection of the old coal sheds to provide additional space for material processing material storage and handling areas and treatment facilities bentonite plant, power supply, and cage laydown area

m. the placement and removal of a temporary barge grid/campshed on the foreshore n. the carrying out or maintenance of other such works. 3.1.6 Further details of the proposed methods and the relevant phases are given in Section 3.3 where these are relevant to the technical assessments that follow.

3.2
3.2.1

Operation
Once developed the project would divert the majority of current CSO discharges via the CSO shaft and connection tunnel to the main tunnel for treatment at Beckton Sewage Treatment Works. The number of CSO discharges would be reduced by 47 spill events to approximately four times a year totalling a volume of 571,500m3 per year.

Permanent structures
3.2.2 A plan of the permanent structures is shown in Vol 26 Figure 3.1.5. The area of operational land required by the project is less than that required for the construction phase. The area of operational land required by the project is less than that required for the construction phase. The land which is not required for operational purposes that falls within the area of the Greenwich Pumping Station will be retained by Thames Water as part of the wider Greenwich Pumping Station site. The area to the north of the railway line at Phoenix/Harts Wharf would be disposed of in due course. Once constructed and operational there would remain on site the structures listed in the following sections. Most of the operational structure at the site would be below ground, although the shaft and valve chamber need to be finished to approximately

3.2.3 3.2.4

Page 5

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 3: Proposed development

1m above ground level due to hydraulic requirements. The design and finishing proposed for the above ground features is not yet fully developed. Shaft 3.2.5 The CSO drop shaft would have an internal diameter of 17m. The shaft will be approximately 44m deep. The shaft would be constructed on the line of the long connection tunnel that would run from this site to the main tunnel. A full description of this tunnel is provided in Volume 2. The shaft which will be finished to approximately 1m above ground. A brown roof is proposed for the shaft. Interception chambers and culverts 3.2.7 The interception chamber, culvert and valve chamber would be below ground. Part of the valve chamber would be above ground within a structure of approximately 9m by 6m and 1m high. There would be covers on top of the chambers at ground level to allow for future access and inspection. Tunnel 3.2.8 The Greenwich to Southwark long connection tunnel will be driven from this site. It will have an internal diameter of 5m and will be approximately 4500m long. A full description of which is provided in Volume 2. Ventilation structures 3.2.9 An active ventilation plant is to be housed in the disused east beam engine building on the east side of the Greenwich Pumping Station building. This is to contain four electric fans feeding four carbon odour control units each with a capacity to treat an air flow rate of 1m3/s. Underground ducts are to convey air from the shaft to treatment. Treated air is to be vented at height through existing vents in the beam engine building. A pressure relief ventilation structure is to be located on the shaft roof. Electrical kiosk 3.2.10 A cabinet housing electrical and control panels and hydraulic equipment would be housed within the disused East Beam Engine House. Paved areas 3.2.11 3.2.12 The area around the shaft would be finished with hardstanding to allow crane access to 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 3.2.13 Access to the Thames Water Greenwich Pumping Station site will continue to be through the main site gates onto Norman Road. An additional site access to the operational pumping station will be retained from Greenwich High Road.

3.2.6

Page 6

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station 3.2.14

Section 3: Proposed development

Access 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. Additionally once every ten years, more significant maintenance work would be carried out. This would be carried out in normal working hours. Two cranes would be required for these visits.

3.2.15

3.3
3.3.1

Construction
The construction work at Greenwich Pumping Station would encompass much of the existing Thames Water site, including the area currently occupied by the Grade II listed coal sheds, the disused East Beam Engine House and the northern area of the main site. In addition the Phoenix/Harts Wharf site, which sits to the north of the elevated railway line, would also be used to house construction facilities and an excavated materials handling area. Vol 26 Figure 3.1.1 to Vol 26 Figure 3.1.4 show the site clearance and construction phasing. The methods, order and timing of the construction work outlined below are indicative only, but representative of a practical method to construct the works. It is recognised that, following further design development, alternate methodologies and scheduling may be proposed. The following sections describe: a. construction works including construction of the shaft, tunnel and CSO interception and processes and working methods to be applied b. access and movement c. construction programme and working hours.

3.3.2

3.3.3

Code of construction practice
3.3.4 3.3.5 All works would be undertaken in accordance with the Thames Tunnel Code of Construction Practice (a draft is appended to Volume 2). The Code sets out a series of measures to protect the environment and limit disturbance from construction activities as far as reasonably practicable. These measures would be applied throughout the construction process at this site and any measures particularly relevant to particular phases of construction are highlighted below.

3.3.6

Construction works
3.3.7 The following physical construction works are described: a. site setup (see Vol 26 Figure 3.1.1) b. shaft construction (see Vol 26 Figure 3.1.2 to Vol 26 Figure 3.1.4) c. tunnelling (see Vol 26 Figure 3.1.2 to Vol 26 Figure 3.1.4) d. secondary Lining (see Vol 26 Figure 3.1.5) e. construction of other structures (see Vol 26 Figure 3.1.5).

Page 7

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Site setup 3.3.8 3.3.9

Section 3: Proposed development

Tree clearance and pruning would be required for on site trees and also trees at the entrance to the site from Norman Road. Prior to any works commencing the site boundary would be established and secured. The boundary would be built to an appropriate height for the site. The existing access gates of Greenwich High Road and Norman Road would be would be upgraded. Welfare and office facilities would also be set up. The existing coal sheds would be carefully dismantled and removed from site following heritage recording. They would be transferred to secure store for subsequent re-erection. An access route would be set up beneath the arches to the Phoenix/Harts Wharf section of the site. A new substation would be required on site to supply power for the tunnel drive from the site. Utility diversion works on site will additionally be required to facilitate subsequent shaft and interception works. Shaft construction Plant and material storage areas (including displaced slurry storage), excavated material handling area and delivery vehicle turning area would be set up on site. Craneage, diaphragm wall rig, bentonite silos, water tanks, mixing pan, compressor, air receiver, excavator and dumper. The shaft would be constructed by diaphragm wall construction techniques and have a cast in-situ secondary lining. The first stage in the construction of each panel of diaphragm wall would be the excavation and setting of inner and outer guide walls. These guide walls would provide a support between which excavation for the diaphragm walls would be undertaken. During excavation the void would be filled with bentonite for ground support and steel bar reinforcement cages are lowered in before concrete is pumped into the base of the wall to create a panel. This process would then be repeated to create a full circle of diaphragm wall. The diaphragm wall would be taken to a depth suitable to reduce the flow of water into the shaft. Grouting at the toe of the diaphragm wall may also be required to reduce the flow of water. The shaft excavation commences after the diaphragm walls are complete. The working platform and the guide walls would be broken out, and the shaft excavated exposing the walls. The excavator would load shaft skips hoisted by crawler crane, depositing excavated material within the excavated material handling area. A steel reinforced concrete base plug would be formed at the base of the shaft. A tunnel portal with launch seals would be formed in the shaft lining. A concrete launch cradle for the Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) would be constructed at the shaft base.

3.3.10

3.3.11 3.3.12 3.3.13

3.3.14

3.3.15 3.3.16

3.3.17

3.3.18

3.3.19

Page 8

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station 3.3.20 3.3.21

Section 3: Proposed development

It is anticipated that ground treatment would be required within the Chalk for shaft construction. Depending on the depth of the diaphragm walls fissure grouting to the chalk immediately below the toe, of the wall, may be required. Tunnelling In addition to the grouting required for the shaft base, treated blocks would be constructed outside the shaft wall to facilitate TBM break out. This would be by fissure grouting techniques from within the shaft. The 5.0m internal diameter tunnel would be driven by a 6.2m external diameter TBM. On completion of the shaft construction the worksite layout would be reconfigured to support the tunnelling works. This includes: a. slurry processing plant b. excavated material storage areas including conveyors c. tunnel lining storage areas including gantry cranes (which would be used to lower the sections into the shaft)

3.3.22

3.3.23 3.3.24

d. an enclosure over the shaft and gantry crane area to mitigate potential noise effects e. materials laydown areas. Including slurry/water pipes, ventilation bagging, tunnel railway track, power cable drums and TBM consumables f. workshops/stores g. grout batching plant h. labour welfare facilities. 3.3.25 Once launched the TBM cuts the ground by rotating the cutter head whilst hydraulic shove rams propel it forward. The excavated material is turned into slurry. The slurry is then pumped to the surface treatment plant where the solids are separated and the excavated material transported off site. A surface treatment plant for the tunnel excavated material will be set up. This generally consists of centrifuges to separate bulk solids and a series of filter presses to remove the fines. At the end of the process a cake is formed and loaded to lorry for transport to disposal site. The majority of the water removed from the slurry excavated material is recycled back into the slurry system. Some chalk slurry will need to be disposed of by tanker to ensure that the required density of the slurry in the system is maintained. The current layout has the slurry processing plant located in the area north of the railway. The slurry pipes will extend from the shaft to the treatment plant. Secondary lining 3.3.28 On completion of the tunnel excavation works the worksite layout will be reconfigured to support the secondary lining works. The long connection

3.3.26

3.3.27

Page 9

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 3: Proposed development

tunnel will have a secondary cast in-situ reinforced concrete lining. This includes: a. removal of excavated material handling arrangements including slurry processing plant b. removal of tunnel support items such as TBM consumables lay down areas c. 3.3.29 installation of concrete. When the secondary lining is complete the internal structures including the vortex and drop pipe are shuttered and concreted followed by the shaft cover slab. Construction of other structures 3.3.30 3.3.31 An interception chamber, culvert and valve chamber would intercept the sewer running into the existing pumping station. Secant or sheet pile walls would be used to provide ground support within which the interception and valve chamber walls will be constructed. Walls would be driven to depth to minimise water ingress into the excavation under the wall. Ground treatment and dewatering is anticipated. The chamber would be excavated exposing the sewer. The sewer would be internally lined and supported during excavation. Localised submersible pumps within the chamber would be utilised to manage ground water ingress. The pumps would discharge to the sewer after being treated through a settlement system. The walls of the interception chamber would be formed by in situ concrete techniques. Ready mixed concrete will be delivered to site from an external supplier and either pumped or skipped to the chamber. The secant or sheet piled wall would be extended to the shaft to allow the connecting culvert and valve chamber to be constructed in a similar manner to the interception chamber. The air duct from the shaft to the existing East Beam Engine house would be installed in a shallow excavation. On completion the site area would be reinstated and above ground structures finished. Completion of works and site restoration 3.3.36 On completion of the main construction works the permanent works area will be graded and a high grade capping concrete and paved surface constructed where required.

3.3.32

3.3.33

3.3.34 3.3.35

Access and movement
3.3.37 For the purposes of this report it has been assumed that all excavated material would be removed from site by road. However allowance has been made to provide campsheds at this site so that material could be moved to site by barge should the contractor find this practicable. For the purposes of this report one vehicle movement is defined as a single lorry accessing or egressing the site.

3.3.38

Page 10

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station 3.3.39

Section 3: Proposed development

Peak traffic movements would occur during the tunnel drive when excavated material would be removed from the site by road. The peak daily vehicle movements at this time, averaged over a one month period, would be 110 movements per day. The site will be serviced via six access points, one off Greenwich High Road and five off Norman Road. The site will operate a two way traffic system for the Greenwich High Road access point and one of the access points at Norman Road. The main access/egress to the site is proposed to be onto Norman Road. Construction lorries will take the route of minimum impact to the Transport for London Route Network (TLRN). It is envisaged that lorries will route from the A2 – Blackheath Road corridor, although, the A200 - Evelyn Street/Creek Road corridor would also be considered. Locally vehicles will be routed via the A206 – Greenwich High Road or B208 - Norman Road respectively. A traffic management plan for the site will be prepared.

3.3.40

3.3.41

3.3.42

Reinstatement and commissioning
3.3.43 Once the main elements of construction are completed, the final landscaping works will be undertaken including final treatments and surfaces, planting and installation of street furniture. The Coal Sheds will also be re-erected at this point. Testing and commissioning would also be undertaken once construction is complete. For the purposes of this report, completion of the commissioning stage represents the end of construction and the commencement of the operational development.

3.3.44

Construction programme and working hours
Construction programme 3.3.45 Construction at Greenwich Pumping Station is anticipated to take approximately five and a half years and would involve the following steps (with some overlaps): a. Year 1 – Site setup (approximately 3 months) b. Years 1 to 2 - Shaft construction (approximately 12 months) c. Years 2 to 3 - Tunnelling (approximately 21 months) d. Year 4 – Secondary lining (approximately 7 months) e. Years 4 to 5 – Construction of other structures (approximately 38 months) f. Year 5 – Completion of works and site restoration (approximately 9 months).

g. System-wide commissioning would take place following site restoration and is not included in the above programme.

Page 11

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Working hours 3.3.46

Section 3: Proposed development

The working hours strategy for the programme is being developed. It is anticipated that the working hours in the table below will be used at this location. Vol 26 Table 3.3.1 Standard working hours Overall Construction Works Standard Working Hours Consist of: • • • Core working hours Mobilisation period Core Working Hours Mobilisation Period Maintenance and Support Period.

08:00 to 18:00 Weekdays 08:00 to 13:00 Saturdays Up to 1 hour before and after the Core Working Hours 07:00 to 08:00 and 18:00 to 19:00 Weekdays 07:00 to 08:00 and 13:00 to 14:00 Saturday

Maintenance and support period

13:00 to 17:00 Saturdays 08:00 to 17:00 Sundays

Major concrete works (including diaphragm wall and base slab) Extended working hours Extended Standard hours up to 22.00 Weekdays. A limited number of extensions will be required for major concrete pours. Long connection tunnel excavation Continuous working 24 Hour working. Monday to Sunday. Tunnel secondary linings Continuous working 24 hour working. Monday to Sunday

3.4
3.4.1

Design development and on-site alternatives
The design presented here was prepared 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. What follows is a description of how the design has developed with the information available at the time. The design of the proposals has developed since phase one consultation as described in the table below.

3.4.2

Page 12

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 3: Proposed development

Vol 26 Table 3.4.1 Design development at Greenwich Pumping Station Design development Drop shaft moved northeast closer to Norman Road Beam Engine House to be refurbished and brought back into use to house ventilation equipment to replace the purpose built ventilation building shown at phase 1 consultation 3.4.3 Reason Scheme design developments An opportunity was identified to bring back this listed building back into use, providing a positive solution for the heritage of the site

Further information on how the design has evolved at this site is included in the Design Development Report, which is also available as part of phase two consultation. Design development information, and the reasons for the choice of the final design at this site, including environmental design factors, will also be provided in the ES.

3.4.4

3.5
3.5.1

Base case
The assessment undertaken for this site takes account of relevant development projects which have been submitted or with extant planning permission. 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 the site will be 3,940,100m3 with 28 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 following developments have been assumed to be developed by 2022; the Greenwich High Road, which lies to the west of the pumping station, and is currently partially complete, would be fully developed; the Movement, to the east of the pumping station, comprising 104 bed hotel, 181 homes and 358 student rooms would also be fully developed.

3.5.2

3.5.3

3.5.4

3.5.5

Page 13

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

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 Greenwich 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. emissions from 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 associated 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 construction traffic movements in and out of the site. The highest number of lorry movements at the Greenwich Pumping Station site would occur during the tunnel drive (Year 3 of construction). The peak number of vehicle movements at that time would be 110 lorry movements per day averaged over a one month period. This is based on all materials being transported by road. 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 The logistics strategy for the site is based on the removal of material from the site by road. 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.

4.2.4

Page 14

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Construction dust 4.2.7

Section 4: Air quality and odour

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.

4.2.8

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 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

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 Ventilation plant would be housed in the disused beam engine building on the east side of the Greenwich Pumping Station building. The ventilation building would house four 1m3/s odour control units (OCU) giving a total treatment capacity of 4m3/s of air from the tunnel. The air having passed through the OCU would be released from the existing vents in the beam engine building. The maximum air release rate during a typical year is expected to be 2.8m3/s, which is well within the capacity of the OCU. In a typical year, air would be released from the stack for 27 hours per year. This information on the ventilation structure was used in the dispersion model to assess odour dispersion at the site.

4.2.11 4.2.12

Page 15

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 4: Air quality and odour

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 26 Table 4.3.1 Air quality and odour stakeholder engagement Organisation Comment LB Monitoring Greenwich locations Odour complaints Response Locations agreed with Environmental Health Officer. No odour complaints around Greenwich Pumping Station site - confirmed by Environmental Health Officer.

Baseline
4.3.2 The baseline methodology follows the standard methodology described in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.

Construction
4.3.3 The construction phase 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 this report it has been assumed that background odour concentrations are negligible as there have been few complaints recorded in the surrounding area over recent years. This assumption will be supported by baseline hydrogen sulphide monitoring currently being undertaken at all sites (in August 2011 with repeat monitoring to be undertaken in autumn 2011). If raised background concentrations were to occur during the hours in the year when air is released from the tunnel, then the total concentration could be higher than that predicted.

4.3.6

4.4

Baseline conditions Local air quality
Pollutant concentrations

4.4.1

The current conditions with regard to local air quality are best established through long-term air quality monitoring.

Page 16

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station 4.4.2

Section 4: Air quality and odour

As part of their duties under Part IV of the Environment Act 1995, local authorities (especially in urban areas where air quality is a significant issue), undertake long-term air quality monitoring within their administrative areas. There is one continuous monitoring station and five diffusion tube sites which collect data pertinent to the site and associated construction traffic routes. The continuous monitoring station and the diffusion tube sites are operated by LB Greenwich. Monitoring data from the locations in the vicinity of the site are contained in the table below (NO2 concentrations) and in Vol 26 Table 4.4.2 (PM10 concentrations) for the years 2007 to 2010. Vol 26 Table 4.4.1 Air quality - measured NO2 concentrations Annual Mean (µg/m3)

4.4.3

4.4.4

Monitoring Site

Site Type

Number of Exceedances of Hourly Standard

2010* 2009 2008 2007 2010* 2009 2008 2007 Continuous Monitoring Sites Blackheath (GR7) Greenwich South Street (GW48) Blackheath Hill (GW33) Roadside 49 46 43 44 5* 0 0 0

Diffusion Tube Monitoring Sites Roadside 38 Roadside 50 41 52 47 60 59 47 49 63 58 49 57 71 62 52 NM NM NM NM

Creek Road Roadside / McMillan St (GW43) Maidenstone Roadside Hill (GW58) Greenwich Church Street (GW42) Roadside

53

58

56

63

NM

NM indicates not measured. * Data not fully ratified. Emboldened figures indicate an exceedance of the objective / limit value which is 40µg/m3 for the annual mean and 200µg/m3 for the hourly mean which can be exceeded 18 times per year.

4.4.5

The NO2 monitoring at the roadside sites in the vicinity of the site indicates exceedances of the annual mean NO2 standard (40µg/m3) in all cases except in 2010 at the Greenwich South Street (GW48) site. The number of exceedances of the hourly standard at Blackheath indicates that the hourly objective has been achieved at that site in the years 2007 to 2010.

Page 17

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 4: Air quality and odour

Vol 26 Table 4.4.2 Air quality - measured PM10 concentrations Monitoring Site Site Type Annual Mean (µg/m3) Number of Exceedances of Daily Standard

2010 2009 2008 2007 2010 2009 2008 2007 Continuous Monitoring Sites Blackheath (GR7) Roadside 28 24O 28X 27 20 12O 16X 28

O – Data capture is 76%. X - Data capture is 59% Emboldened figures indicate an exceedance of the objective which is 40µg/m3 for the annual mean and 50µg/m3 for the daily mean which can be exceeded 35 times per year.

4.4.6

The PM10 monitoring indicates that the annual mean standard (40µg/m3) has been met at the Blackheath site for the last four years. The measured number of exceedances of the daily mean standard between 2007 and 2010 indicate that the daily objective (less than 35 exceedances of the daily standard) has also been achieved at this site. As a result of previous exceedances of air quality objectives, LB Greenwich has declared the whole Borough an AQMA for NO2 and PM10. In addition to the local authority monitoring, locations for diffusion tube monitoring have been set up as part of the project to monitor NO2 concentrations in the vicinity of the Greenwich Pumping Station site. This monitoring comprises four diffusion tubes sited at the locations detailed in the table below. A triplicate site has been established next to a continuous monitoring station in Putney for bias adjustment purposes; otherwise all the monitoring locations have single tubes. All identified existing and new monitoring sites relating to the Greenwich Pumping Station site (as well as other sites where they are in close proximity) are shown in Vol 26 Figure 4.4.1. Vol 26 Figure 4.4.1 Air quality monitoring locations (see Volume 26 Figures document) Vol 26 Table 4.4.3 Air quality - additional monitoring locations Monitoring Site A206 Greenwich High Road (GPS1) B208 Norman Road South (GPS2) B208 Norman Road North (GPS3) A200 Creek Road (GPS4) Grid Reference 537716, 177085 537798, 177186 537844, 177512 538025, 177712

4.4.7 4.4.8

4.4.9

This monitoring will be used in conjunction with existing local authority monitoring to define the baseline situation and also to provide input to model verification. A full baseline will be reported in the ES. In addition to monitoring data, an indication of baseline pollutant concentrations in the vicinity of the site can also be obtained from looking at background data on the air quality section of the Defra website.

4.4.10

Page 18

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 4: Air quality and odour

Mapped background pollutant concentrations are available for each 1km by 1km grid square within every local authority’s administrative area for the years 2008 to 2020 2. The background data relating to the Greenwich Pumping Station site are given in the table below for 2010 (baseline year). Vol 26 Table 4.4.4 Air quality background pollutant concentrations Pollutant NOX (µg/m3) NO2 (µg/m3) PM10 (µg/m3) Receptors 4.4.11 The Greenwich Pumping Station site is located in a mixed use area. The closest existing residential receptors are located to the south and southeast of the site, within 25m of the site boundary on Greenwich High Road. Norman House (commercial) is located to the east of the site, within 10m of the site boundary, and more commercial/office buildings are located 30m to the west of the site. A community centre is located to the east of the site, less than 100m from the site boundary, and a Baptist Church is within 120m south of the site boundary, at the junction of Devonshire Drive and Egerton Drive. It is also assumed that a large new residential development (on Greenwich High Road) to the southwest of the site will be completed when the Thames Tunnel project is under construction and building is also likely to have been completed on a development to the east of the site boundary (“The Movement”). For both new developments, it is likely that there will be residential properties within 10m of the site boundary. All these receptors are relevant, albeit with different levels of sensitivity, to the emissions sources identified in the local air quality assessment. The sensitivity of identified receptors has been determined using the criteria detailed in Volume 5 – this identifies their sensitivity in relation to both local air quality and dust nuisance, as shown in the table below. These receptors are relevant to the assessment of emissions from construction road traffic and construction plant, as well as the assessment of construction dust. Vol 26 Table 4.4.5 Air quality receptors - construction Receptors (relating to all identified emissions sources) Residential properties Value/sensitivity and justification 2010 46.6 29.0 20.3

* Average of annual means for 1km grid squares centred on 537500, 177500 and 538500, 177500

4.4.12

Exposure relevant to annual mean and daily mean standards. High sensitivity to local air quality. Medium sensitivity to dust nuisance. Exposure is relevant for the hourly mean standards. Low sensitivity to local air quality.

Commercial/offices

Page 19

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Receptors (relating to all identified emissions sources) Greenwich West Community and Arts Centre Devonshire Drive Baptist Church

Section 4: Air quality and odour

Value/sensitivity and justification

Medium sensitivity to dust nuisance. Exposure relevant to annual mean and daily mean standards. High sensitivity to local air quality. Medium sensitivity to dust nuisance. Exposure relevant to annual mean and daily mean standards. Medium sensitivity to local air quality. Medium sensitivity to dust nuisance.

Odour
4.4.13 The LB Greenwich has not received any odour complaints in the Greenwich Pumping Station area 3. Complaints in the Thames Water database were reviewed within an area of 500m radius from the site. Of the eleven identified complaints, four in the years 2006, 2007, 2009 and 2010, relate to odour from the general sewerage system. The remaining seven, in 2006 (two complaints), 2009, (two complaints), 2010, (two complaints), and 2011, (one complaint), relate to the Pumping Station. The nearest sensitive receptors are described in para. 4.4.11 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 residential properties and community/arts centre are of high sensitivity to odour whilst the commercial/office premises and church are of medium sensitivity.

4.4.14

4.5
4.5.1

Construction assessment Construction base and development cases
The peak construction year (Year 3 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. 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 an increase in the penetration of new Euro emissions standards to the London vehicle fleet between the current situation and the future peak construction year. The uptake of newer vehicles with improved emission controls should lead to a reduction in NO2 and PM10 concentrations over time. However, the uptake of newer vehicles has not improved NO2 concentrations significantly 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

4.5.2

4.5.3

Page 20

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 4: Air quality and odour

Defra advice 4. Reduced emissions from the introduction of Euro 6 vehicles in the future will reduce the base case concentrations when compared to the 2010 baseline. 4.5.4 Other emissions sources should also reduce due to local and national policies. Therefore, the non-road sources of the background concentrations used in the modelling will be reduced in line with Defra guidance LAQM.TG(09) 5. The base case also considers new sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the site which are identified in the receptor description in Section 4.4.

4.5.5

Construction 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 Greenwich 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 development are fully assessed. A distance of 200m is generally considered sufficient to ensure that any significant effects are considered – the selected assessment area exceeds this by some margin.

Construction effects
Emissions from road traffic 4.5.7 Road traffic is likely to affect local air quality in two ways: from emissions from the construction traffic; and from increased 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 for this report. 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. It is however predicted that the impacts due to construction traffic are expected to be small (ie, small magnitude of change according to the criteria detailed in Volume 5) due to the low number of additional lorries during construction in the context of the existing traffic flows on the local road network. Given that the residential properties and community/arts centre 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 church and commercial/office premises, which have a medium and low sensitivity to local air quality respectively, the significance of effect is likely to be negligible. Emissions from plant 4.5.11 Construction plant can 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

4.5.8

4.5.9

4.5.10

Page 21

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 4: Air quality and odour

considers exhaust emissions while construction dust from plant movement is considered in the following section. 4.5.12 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 of the plant emissions 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, for the purposes of this report, the impacts due to construction plant are expected to be small (ie, small magnitude of change according to the criteria 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 their emissions are likely to have a negligible impact. At the residential properties and community/arts centre, which 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 church and commercial/office premises, which have a medium and low sensitivity to local air quality respectively, 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 assessing and servicing the site. Dust sensitive receptors have been identified in the vicinity of the Greenwich Pumping Station site in accordance with the criteria in Volume 5, as described in Vol 26 Table 4.4.5. In line with the London Councils guidance 6 the site has been categorised using the criteria given in Volume 5, which takes into account the area taken up by the development and the potential impact of the development on sensitive receptors close to the development. The specific site details with respect to the criteria set are: a. site would have a maximum construction area of approximately 20,000m2 b. the project is a non-residential development c. main construction at the site would last approximately five and a half years

4.5.13

4.5.14

4.5.15

4.5.18

4.5.19

d. there are likely intermittent impacts on identified sensitive receptors. 4.5.20 4.5.21 Accordingly, the development has been classified as a high risk site. Given that receptor sensitivity is identified as medium (as identified in Section 4.4) and the distance to residential properties (new and existing) and commercial/office premises is less than 50m, the likely significance of the construction dust effects is deemed to be a moderate adverse effect for those receptors (according to the criteria detailed in Volume 5). At the

Page 22

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 4: Air quality and odour

community/arts centre and church which are located further from the site, the likely significance of effect would be minor adverse. 4.5.22 These effects would be reduced by the implementation of the measures contained in the CoCP (see Section 4.2). This would result in a minor adverse effect at residential (new and existing) and commercial/office premises within 50m and negligible at all other receptors. Overall construction effects 4.5.23 When considering the overall local air quality construction effects (ie, effects from construction road traffic and plant), it is concluded that the overall significance of effects is likely to be minor adverse at residential properties and the Greenwich West Community and Arts Centre, and negligible at the Devonshire Drive Baptist Church and commercial/office premises. With regard to construction dust, the likely significance of effects is minor adverse at both residential properties and commercial/office premises, which are within 50m of the site boundary. The significance of effects at the community centre and the Baptist Church is deemed to be negligible. On this basis no significant construction effects are predicted.

4.5.24

4.5.25

4.6

Operational assessment Operational base and development cases

4.6.1 4.6.2

The assessment undertaken for a typical use year (as described in Volume 5) applies equally to all operational years. Base and development cases have been developed for modelling purposes. Base case conditions have been assumed to be the same as baseline conditions with respect to background odour concentrations as no change in background odour concentrations is anticipated. Receptors considered (in both the base and development cases) include the new developments identified in Section 4.4.

4.6.3

Operational assessment area
4.6.4 Odour dispersion modelling was carried out over an area of 550m by 400m centred on the site. The assessment area was selected on the basis of it being considered the potential maximum extent of the impact area.

Operational effects
4.6.5 Vol 26 Table 4.6.1 shows the predicted maximum ground level odour concentrations at the Greenwich Pumping Station site. These are the highest concentrations that could occur at the worst affected ground level receptor at or near the site in a typical year. In accordance with the odour criterion set by the Environment Agency and in the draft NPS7, results are presented for the 98th percentile of hourly average concentrations in the year (or the 176th highest hourly concentration in the year) and the number of hours in a year with concentrations above 1.5ouE/m3. The

Page 23

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 4: Air quality and odour

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. 4.6.6 Vol 26 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 26 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 > 1 1.5ouE/m3 Impact magnitude and justification Negligible 98th percentile concentration is less than 1ouE/m3

^ beyond site boundary

Vol 26 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 0 1 Negligible 98th percentile concentration is less than 1ouE/m3

4.6.7

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. Odour was also predicted at buildings. Some of the buildings closest to the site are expected to have one hour in the year with concentrations greater than 1.5 ouE/m3. With regard to the significance of effects at ground level and building locations, given that the predicted odour concentrations at all locations and at buildings would not exceed the 98th percentile criterion of 1.5ouE/m3, it is considered that an overall significance would be negligible in relation to the Greenwich Pumping Station site. As such no significant effects are predicted in relation to odour.

4.6.8

4.6.9

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.

Page 24

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 4: Air quality and odour

Operation
4.7.2 No mitigation is required.

Page 25

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 4: Air quality and odour

4.8
Vol 26 Table 4.8.1 Air quality construction assessment Effect Minor adverse None required Significance Mitigation Residual significance Minor adverse

Assessment summary

Receptor

Residential

Local air quality – effects from construction road traffic and plant emissions Minor adverse Negligible None required None required

Effects from construction dust

Minor adverse Negligible

Commercial/offices

Local air quality – effects from construction road traffic and plant emissions Minor adverse Minor adverse None required None required

Effects from construction dust

Minor adverse Minor adverse

Greenwich West Local air quality – effects from Community and Arts construction road traffic and Centre plant emissions Negligible Negligible

Effects from construction dust

None required None required

Negligible Negligible

Devonshire Drive Baptist Church Negligible

Local air quality – effects from construction road traffic and plant emissions

Effects from construction dust

None required

Negligible

Page 26

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Vol 26 Table 4.8.2 Odour operational assessment Effect Negligible Negligible Negligible None required Negligible None required Negligible None required Negligible Significance Mitigation Residual significance

Section 4: Air quality and odour

Receptor

Residential

Odour

Commercial/offices

Odour

Greenwich West Community and Arts Centre Negligible None required

Odour

Devonshire Drive Baptist Church

Odour

Negligible

Page 27

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 4: Air quality and odour

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 Greenwich Pumping Station site: a. Diffusion tube monitoring will be set up to monitor NO2 concentrations at four sites in the vicinity of the Greenwich 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 28

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

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 Greenwich Pumping Station site. For the purposes of the assessment of the Thames Tunnel project aquatic ecology includes habitats, 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 under 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 operational improvements on water quality on aquatic ecology receptors in the Thames Tideway as a result of the CSO interception. This site is located 650m inland from the River Thames, and is adjacent to Deptford Creek.

5.1.2

5.1.3

5.2
5.2.1

Proposed development
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. Whilst the Phase two consultation Logistics Strategy is a road only option at this site, provision has been allowed for barge access. Therefore it is assumed that the development includes a new campshed being constructed with associated barge movements. The elements of the proposed development relevant to aquatic ecology are as follows.

5.2.2

Construction
a. the presence of approximately 840m2 for a barge grid / campshed within the intertidal zone of the creek b. associated regular barge movements and resting on the barge grid/campshed. 5.2.3 Measures incorporated into the draft CoCP to reduce aquatic ecology impacts include the following elements which are considered to be an integral part of the environmental design of the project for the purposes of this assessment: a. Avoiding piling at night, to provide an opportunity to allow fish to migrate within each 24-hour period. b. Undertaking ‘in river’ piling works at or around low tide where possible to avoid transmission of noise and vibration through the water column. c. Utilising low noise/vibration pile installation techniques such as pressing or vibro-piling rather than impact/percussive piling. Where vibro-piling is used, slowly increasing the power of the driving over a 5

Page 29

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 5: Ecology - aquatic

minute period would enable those fish that are able to swim away to leave the area before the full power of the pile driver is felt through the river. d. Where predictions indicate that best practice limits would not be achievable, confining as much of the underwater noise generating activities as possible to outside peak fish migration periods should be considered. e. Avoidance of pollution of the river. Environment Agency (EA) approval would be required for works which would be likely to affect any surface or groundwater resource. Discharge to watercourses would only be permitted where discharge consent or other relevant approval has been obtained. Measures to avoid pollution would accord with the principles set out in industry guidelines including the EA’s guidance ‘PPG05: Works in near or liable to affect water courses’ and CIRIA’s report ‘C532: Control of water pollution from construction sites’. f. Appropriate measures would be taken to prevent the spread of nonnative invasive species in accordance with current good practice.

Operation
5.2.4 The Greenwich Pumping Station combined sewer overflow (CSO) currently discharges into the River Thames to the northeast of Deptford Creek in the LB of Greenwich. The sewer would be intercepted at Greenwich Pumping Station as part of the proposed development. Based on the base case (which includes permitted Thames Tideway sewage treatment works upgrades, and the Lee Tunnel project, as well as projected population increases) discharges from this CSO are anticipated to be 3,940,100m3 per annum over a total of 28 discharge events (or spills) by 2021. The discharge is projected to reduce to 571,500m3 at four discharge events each year once the Thames Tideway project, including the Thames Tunnel, is operational. Further information about projected changes in discharge as a result of the project is presented in Volume 2. Improvements in water quality are anticipated both in the local area around the discharge point for Greenwich 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 implications for aquatic ecology receptors and that is assessed in this report.

5.2.5

5.3
5.3.1

Assessment methodology Scoping and engagement
Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. There were no site specific comments from consultees for this particular site relating to aquatic ecology.

Page 30

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 5: Ecology - aquatic

Baseline
5.3.2 5.3.3 Details of the approach to baseline collection and the assessment are presented in Volume 5. The assessment of effects on fish and invertebrates arising during construction will be based on survey data collected during spring 2011 in the Deptford Creek in the vicinity of the proposed deck. This will be reported in the ES. The assessment of effects arising from improvements in water quality during the operational phase will focus on receptors in the main River Thames since that is where the CSO currently discharges. The baseline will be derived from a combination of field survey and background data for fish and invertebrates and from background data for habitats, mammals and algae. Survey data for fish and invertebrates was collected during autumn 2010 and spring 2011 at the Deptford Storm Relief discharge point at Borthwick Wharf, approximately 800m upstream from the confluence of Deptford Creek and the River Thames. Biological monitoring data collected by the EA, for fish and invertebrates is available for a suite of sites throughout the Thames Tideway. Invertebrate data collected in 2006 and 2007 is available for the EA Greenwich site which lies approximately 100m upstream of the CSO discharge point. Fish data is available for Greenwich 200m downstream of the Greenwich Pumping Station CSO discharge. Details of the background data sets are provided in Volume 5. Existing algal data has been requested and will be assessed and reported in the ES.

5.3.4

5.3.5

5.3.6 5.3.7

Construction
5.3.8 The construction phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.

Operation
5.3.9 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
5.3.10 It has been assumed that for this site the campshed would consist of a solid concrete apron rather than a frame and that the concrete campshed would be edged with sheet piles. It has been assumed that there would be barge movements associated with the campshed. It is also assumed that the presence of a jack-up barge to install jetty piles would lead to compaction of foreshore sediment as would the process of installing a campshed/barge grid.

Page 31

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 5: Ecology - aquatic

5.4
5.4.1

Baseline conditions Designations
The outfall discharges directly into one non statutory site; the River Thames and Tidal Tributaries Site of Metropolitan Importance (SMI). The SMI also includes the tidal reaches of the Deptford Creek, which would be affected by a campshed. The River Thames and Tidal Tributaries Site of Metropolitan Importance (Site Reference: M31), which is proposed by the Greater London Authority, is adopted by all Boroughs which border the River Thames. The designation recognises the range and quality of estuarine habitats including mud flat, shingle beach, reedbeds and the river channel 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 sandsmelt (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, Pseudamnicola confusa, and an important assemblage of wetland and wading birds. The tidal reach of the Deptford Creek is included within the SMI. The Habitat Action Plan 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.

5.4.2

Habitats
Deptford Creek 5.4.3 The intertidal areas of Deptford Creek that would be affected by installation of decking during construction are classified as the priority habitat mudflats according to Natureonthemap.org.uk 8. Deptford Creek is listed as a key habitat within the London BAP9 Tidal Thames Habitat Action Plan. LB of Greenwich also has a Habitat Action Plan (HAP) for water’s edge, rivers, ponds and wetlands. The habitats which would be affected by construction activities were surveyed during spring 2011 and will be reported in the ES. River Thames 5.4.5 The London Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP)10 includes a Habitat Action Plan (HAP) for the Thames Tideway 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. The London HAP divides the river into the zones; freshwater, brackish and marine. The Greenwich Pumping Station discharge is in the brackish zone see Vol 6 Figure 3.4.1.

5.4.4

Page 32

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station 5.4.6

Section 5: Ecology - aquatic

At Borthwick Wharf, the nearest site surveyed in proximity to the Greenwich Pumping Station CSO discharge, the subtidal substrate was found to consist of a heavily scoured bed consisting of pebbles and cobbles. A summary of habitat types present at Borthwick Wharf, and other features of interest are presented in the table below Vol 26 Table 5.4.1. Vol 26 Table 5.4.1 Aquatic ecology principal habitat and substrate Target habitats present and features of interest Gravel foreshore Sublittoral sand and gravels River wall Substrate present in intertidal zone (approximate cover) Pebbles (65%) Cobbles (25%) Substrate present in subtidal samples Armoured bottom, pebbles and cobbles

Mammals
5.4.7 Records compiled by the Zoological Society of London for 2003 – 2011 indicate that harbour porpoise, bottlenose dolphin and seal species (grey and common) migrate through the Tideway. One record of harbour porpoise, and nine records of seal (including seven common seal) were made from the Thames Tideway close to the current discharge location. No mammal records exist from this source for Deptford Creek.

Fish
Deptford Creek 5.4.8 Fish surveys were undertaken in the Deptford Creek during spring 2011. The results will be reported in the ES. River Thames 5.4.9 The single day’s survey at Deptford Storm Relief during October 2010 recorded low to moderate fish abundance, with 66 individuals captured in total. The extent of the survey and location of trawl and seine net hauls are presented in Volume 25 Figure 5.4.1. Full details of the methodology are presented in Volume 5. The range of species recorded, the number of individuals is presented in the table below. This ranked in the middle of the 15 sampling locations along the Thames Tideway. The lowest catch (at Albert Embankment) was of 19 individuals. Six species were identified at Borthwick Wharf, the majority being smelt and common goby. Fish are routinely categorised into four ‘guilds’ according to their tolerance to salinity and habitat preference as follows 11,12): 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;

5.4.10

Page 33

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 5: Ecology - aquatic

d. Marine juvenile – Species which spawn at sea but spend part of their lifecycle in the estuary. Vol 26 Table 5.4.2 Aquatic ecology fish survey Common name Common smelt Common goby Common bream Flounder Sand smelt Sea bass Specific name Osmerus eperlanus Pomatoschistus microps Abramis brama Number of individuals 26 18 12 Guild Diadromous Estuarine resident Freshwater Estuarine resident Estuarine resident Estuarine resident

Platichthys flesus 8 Atherina presbyter Dicentrarchus labrax 1 1

5.4.11

The Borthwick Wharf site reflects a widespread saline-tolerant fish community, save for the common (‘freshwater’) bream which may reflect the proximity of the site to the confluence with the Deptford Creek (approximately 300m). The nearest EA fish sampling site to the Deptford Storm Relief CSO discharge is Greenwich, 200m downstream. A range of freshwater and estuarine resident fish species were recorded at the Greenwich EA sampling site over the 18-year period. The commonest species are presented in the table below. Common bream, dace, thinlipped grey mullet (Liza ramada), and sand-smelt were also relatively common. Vol 26 Table 5.4.3 Aquatic ecology species abundance Common name Flounder Common goby Common smelt Roach Bass Sand goby Specific name Number of individuals 490 399 337 310 280 Guild Estuarine resident Estuarine resident Diadromous Freshwater Marine juvenile Estuarine resident

5.4.12 5.4.13

Platichthys flesus 1385 Pomatoschistus microps Osmerus eperlanus Rutilus rutilus Dicentrarchus labrax P. minutus

Page 34

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Common name Eel Specific name

Section 5: Ecology - aquatic Number of individuals 246 Guild Diadromous (migrating from freshwater to sea to spawn) Freshwater

Common bream 5.4.14

Abramis brama

8

Only small numbers of fish (10-30 individuals for all species) were recorded during each sampling visit throughout the period. All of these species are widespread in the Thames Tideway, with freshwater species such as roach and common bream most frequent in the upper Tideway, and estuarine residents such as sand-smelt and flounder common in the lower Tideway. The age classes represented most widely in the dataset are flounder (0+,1+, ie, 0 -1 year old, and 1-2 year old fish), bream dace and roach (range of age classes), smelt (0+,1+), gobies (0+), thin-lipped grey mullet and eels (range of age classes). In general, Tideway fish populations are mobile and wide-ranging, 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.

5.4.15

Invertebrates
Deptford Creek 5.4.16 Invertebrate surveys were undertaken in the Deptford Creek during spring 2011. The results will be reported in the ES. River Thames 5.4.17 No baseline data is available for the invertebrate communities in the immediate vicinity of the Greenwich Pumping Station outfall. However, the site lies approximately 800m downstream of Borthwick Wharf where surveys were undertaken during October 2010. A single day survey was undertaken. The area covered by the survey is the same as that described for the fish survey above (para. 5.4.8). Further details of these methods can be found in Volume 5. The invertebrate community at Borthwick Wharf is considered to be comparable to Greenwich Pumping Station CSO. The data for that site is presented in the table below. The Community Conservation Index (CCI) score 13 has initially been used to assess whether any species of nature conservation importance are present. CCI classifies many groups of invertebrates of inland waters according to their scarcity and conservation value in Great Britain. The scores range from 1 to 10, with 1 being very common and ten being endangered, relating closely to the Red Data Book (RDB). 14 15

Page 35

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 5: Ecology - aquatic

Vol 26 Table 5.4.4 Aquatic ecology invertebrate fauna Subtidal Samples AL AL AL AL 2 3 4 A Intertidal Samples SW SW 1 2 CCI Score 3 1 2 1 15 100 20 110 100 40 2 5 6 6 6 3 145 1 45 1 1 20 1 2 1 6 6 100 11 140 8 1 2 14 5 8 7 85 350 3 150 0 12 1 8 2 2 8 3

Taxa Theodoxus fluviatilis Potamopyrgus antipodarum Assiminea grayana Radix balthica Sphaeridae Nereis diversicolor Oligochaeta Erpobdella testacea Crangon crangon Eriocheir sinensis Lekanesphaera hookeri Acorophium lacustre Corophium volutator Gammarus sp Gammarus zaddachi No Taxa 5.4.18

AL D

AL 1

AL B 120 350

3

2

2

1

2

3

As at most other sites on the Tideway, the invertebrate community was species poor and lacking in pollution sensitive taxa in both the subtidal and intertidal. In contrast to sites further upstream, the intertidal samples were characterised by particularly low invertebrate diversity and abundance, with two to three pollution tolerant taxa and less than 20 specimens per sample (the lowest abundance of all sites and diversity among the least diverse). Subtidal samples however had significantly more diverse and abundant invertebrate fauna than intertidal samples (seven and ten taxa per sample). The most common species included Radix balthica (snails), Sphaerium spp. (pea mussels), Oligochaeta worms and Gammarus zaddachi (brackish water amphipod shrimp). Disturbed conditions, poor habitat quality and/or water quality are likely to explain the relative difference between the invertebrate community in intertidal and subtidal areas. The only significant difference between subtidal samples taken near to the outfall (Sample AL-A, approximately 40m from the outfall) and further away (Sample AL-B, approximately 100m from the outfall) is the presence of Theodoxus fluviatilis (river neritid,

5.4.19

Page 36

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 5: Ecology - aquatic

relatively sensitive to pollution), which may indicate local differences in water quality. 5.4.20 The low abundance of these key taxa in the intertidal area is likely to be due to the very limited intertidal habitat at the site, the CSO outfall within in the area and poor background water quality. The majority of taxa present are brackish species, with varying tolerance of different levels of salinity from estuarine to near freshwater. These included Gammarus zaddachi (a brackish species of shrimp) and Crangon crangon (shrimps, typical of estuarine and brackish conditions). However, the increasing saline influence compared to upstream sites is demonstrated by the abundance of Lekanesphaera hookeri (a water louse) and Nereis diversicolor (polychaete worm), which are exclusively associated with estuarine or marine conditions. The only species of high nature conservation importance was Acorophium lacustre (CCI 8). It is a RDB 3 species16, which was present in subtidal samples. Environment Agency data have shown A. lacustre to be common in the Thames Tideway. As such, we have not used its presence to elevate the relative value of the invertebrate community in this instance. Chinese mitten crab (Eriocheir sinensis), an invasive species, was sampled in the subtidal zone of the site. EA background data 5.4.24 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. Sampling at Greenwich was undertaken on an approximately monthly basis over the period 1989 and 1993 and 2006-2007. A total of 35 taxa were recorded at Greenwich over the seven year period in which samples were collected. The taxa Oligochaeta, which is often indicative of organic pollution was most abundant, together with other pollution tolerant species such as the snail Potamopyrgus antipodarum Polychaeta worms (mostly Boccardiella ligerica), gasteropod snails (Potamopyrgus antipodarum and Cochliopidae) and Gammarus zaddachi. The basic invertebrate community structure was similar in Environment Agency samples from Greenwich, compared with the samples taken at the Borthwick Wharf site.

5.4.21

5.4.22

5.4.23

5.4.25

Algae
5.4.26 Existing algae data has been requested and will be assessed and reported in the ES.

Aquatic ecology receptor values and sensitivities
5.4.27 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.

Page 37

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 5: Ecology - aquatic

Vol 26 Table 5.4.5 Aquatic ecology receptors Receptor Foreshore habitat (including intertidal and subtidal habitat) Value/sensitivity and justification Deptford Creek Medium (Metropolitan) value. Habitats form part of Site of Metropolitan Importance. Low (Local) value. River Thames Medium (Metropolitan) value. Habitats form part of Site of Metropolitan Importance. Low (Local) value. Only occasional records of seal and porpoise exist from the area and there is no evidence of use as a ‘haul out’ site by seals. Medium (Metropolitan) value based on relatively high diversity of freshwater and estuarine species. Low-Medium (Borough) value due to the predominance of pollution-tolerant species. To be completed following receipt of data.

Mammals

Fish

To be completed in light of 2011 baseline survey data

Invertebrates

To be completed in light of 2011 baseline survey data

Algae

To be completed following receipt of data.

5.5
5.5.1

Construction assessment Construction impacts
The impacts are described and summarised in Vol 26 Table 5.5.1. The definitions of the different magnitudes of impact referred to in this assessment are given in Volume 5. Temporary landtake There would be up to approximately 840m2 of temporary landtake associated with the campshed. It is assumed for the purposes of the assessment that reinstatement of the area affected by temporary landtake would involve the removal of the concrete to the surrounding foreshore level and cutting off of the sheet piles at bed level. Although the foreshore would re-establish through natural accretion there would be considerable compaction of the surface layers of sediment which may prevent colonisation by invertebrates until new sediment has accreted.

5.5.2

Page 38

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station 5.5.3

Section 5: Ecology - aquatic

The scale of landtake would be relatively low. As such the impact is considered to be negative but of low magnitude. The probability of the impact occurring is considered to be ‘certain.’ Sediment disturbance and compaction It has been assumed that an area outside the outer edge of the cofferdams that would edge the concrete apron would be subject to disturbance and compaction due to the use of a jack-up barge to install the piles. The area in the vicinity of the campshed would be likely to be affected by compaction and disturbance due to barge movements. Impacts on the intertidal and subtidal habitats are considered to be low negative, probable and temporary. Waterborne noise and vibration. There would be piling associated with the installation of the campshed with resulting noise and vibration. There would be approximately 100m of sheet piling installed for the cofferdam to enable construction of the concrete apron. Piles would be driven using silent piling techniques, thus limiting the principal source of waterborne noise and vibration impacts. Further measures to limit noise and vibration impacts during the construction stage of the project have been incorporated into the Code of Construction Practice. These are described in para. 5.2.3. There would also be some noise and vibration associated with barge movements using the campshed. Although background levels of noise and vibration within the Thames Tideway are likely to be moderately high due to existing boat movements, and ground-propagated noise from transport systems, the proximity of the works to the river and their scale means that noise and vibration levels are likely to be slightly elevated during construction. Noise and vibration have the potential to cause physical damage to fish, and disrupt behaviour. However, in this case, given the piling techniques proposed and the extent of the works relative to the width of the channel this is considered to be a low negative impact, probable and temporary. Increase in suspended sediment loads. Construction of the barge grid and barge movements are likely to lead to localised increases in suspended sediment with the potential to affect local and downstream habitats. It is also possible that the campsheds would impact on scour patterns while in place, which could cause the mobilisation of increased levels of suspended solids into the river. Background levels of suspended sediments in the Thames Tideway are relatively high, and increases associated with the project are unlikely to be significant except on a very localised basis. Impacts are considered to be low negative, probable and temporary. Measures and safeguards to minimise the risk of accidental releases of silty or contaminated discharges to the Thames Tideway are included in

5.5.4

5.5.5

5.5.6 5.5.7

5.5.8

5.5.9

5.5.10

5.5.11

5.5.12

5.5.13

Page 39

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 5: Ecology - aquatic

the Code of Construction Practice. No impacts from polluted discharges are anticipated provided with these control measures and safeguards in place. Vol 26 Table 5.5.1 Aquatic ecology impacts - construction Impact Loss of intertidal and subtidal habitat through the construction of temporary campshed. Sediment disturbance and compaction due to barge grid/campshed installation Waterborne noise and vibration arising from the installation of the campshed and barge movements during construction. This has potential to cause damage to fish and disrupt movements. Increase in suspended sediment loads due to barge grid construction activity and associated barge movements. Potential for smothering of downstream habitats and reduced water quality. Magnitude Low negative due to small scale. Temporary. Certain. Negligible magnitude due to very small intensity and scale. Temporary Probable. Low negative due to use of silent piling techniques and limited extent and duration of piling. Temporary. Probable. Low negative due to lack of dredging and relatively high background levels of sediment. Temporary. Probable.

Construction effects
5.5.14 The following Section describes the effects of these impacts on aquatic ecology receptors based on the significance criteria set out in Volume 5. Effects of the project may also be detectable at the whole Thames Tideway level. These effects are discussed in Volume 6. Designated sites and habitats Loss of intertidal and subtidal habitat 5.5.15 There would be a temporary loss of approximately 840m2 of intertidal habitat occupied by the campshed. The intrinsic value of the habitats (ie, the value of the habitat as an ecological feature in itself rather than simply in terms of the support it provides for fauna) in this area is considered to be of Metropolitan importance as part of the River Thames and Tidal Tributaries Site of Metropolitan Importance. Sediment is expected to naturally accrete following removal of the temporary cofferdams and granular fill material. However, the underlying sediment would remain compacted whilst any newly accreted material is likely to be unstable and prone to removal by scour. Recovery is therefore expected only in the medium or long term. The overall effect is considered to be moderate adverse.

5.5.16

Page 40

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 5: Ecology - aquatic

Disturbance and compaction of intertidal and subtidal habitat 5.5.17 There would be a small degree of disturbance and compaction of sediment due to the process of campshed installation. Habitats are expected to recover within the short term (less than 12 months) following site establishment. However, the effect is considered to be a negligible adverse effect due to the negligible magnitude of the impact. Marine mammals Interference with the migrations of marine mammals within the Tideway 5.5.18 Noise, vibration and other construction activity has the potential to disturb mammals and deter them from passing the site. However, given the low value of the receptor and the general controls on underwater noisegenerating activities described in the CoCP this is considered to be a negligible effect. Fish Loss of feeding, resting and nursery habitat for fish due to temporary landtake 5.5.19 The amount of temporary landtake from the campshed would be small. The effect on fish is considered to be minor adverse due to the Metropolitan (medium) value of the fish population at this site. Direct mortality of fish due to sediment disturbance and compaction 5.5.20 Although there is a very small risk of mortality of fish associated with compaction of the sediments linked to barge grid installation this is considered to be negligible since the impact is of negligible magnitude. Loss of feeding, resting and nursery habitat for fish due to sediment disturbance and compaction 5.5.21 The area which would be subject to disturbance and compaction during barge grid/campshed installation could offer feeding, resting or nursery habitat for juvenile fish. However, given its small extent and the fact that recovery is likely to occur within the short term (less than 12 months) the effect is considered to be negligible. Effects of waterborne noise and vibration on fish 5.5.22 The effects of waterborne noise and vibration on fish vary according to the proximity of the receptor to the source. Effects depend on distance from source, ranging from potential death at very close proximities, through injury, and behavioural disturbance with increasing distance from the source. The key source at Greenwich Pumping Station is the driving of sheet piles for the cofferdams around the concrete apron. This would be undertaken using a silent piling technique from a jack up barge, thus minimising the level of noise and vibration. Furthermore, a series of control measures relating to the timing and duration of piling operations have been included in the CoCP.

Page 41

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station 5.5.23

Section 5: Ecology - aquatic

The site is not considered to support sensitive spawning habitat, and therefore there is only low receptor sensitivity, as no significant numbers of any fish species will be present for extended periods. However, given the Metropolitan value accorded to the fish populations using the site, the overall effect is minor adverse (rather than negligible). Blanketing of feeding areas for fish and reduction in water column visibility due to suspended sediment

5.5.24

Although the Thames Tideway is a sedimentary environment with high levels of suspended solids, campshed construction and barge movements have the potential to generate high levels of suspended sediment which may cause disorientation of fish, and interfere with the feeding mechanisms of certain invertebrates. No dredging would be undertaken at this site as part of the temporary works. Adult fish are considered to be less likely to be affected as they are able to move away from the turbid water. The value of the receptor is medium (Metropolitan), and the impact is considered low negative and therefore the effect is considered to be minor adverse. Invertebrates Direct mortality of invertebrates due to sediment disturbance and compaction

5.5.25

5.5.26

There would be some direct mortality of invertebrates due to compaction and disturbance of sediment during barge grid/campshed installation. However, the effect is considered to be negligible since the impact is of negligible magnitude. Loss of feeding and burrowing habitat for invertebrates due to temporary landtake

5.5.27

There would be a small temporary loss of habitat for invertebrates due to the presence of a campshed. Due to the Borough (low-medium) importance of the receptor the overall effect is considered to be negligible. Loss of feeding and burrowing habitat for invertebrates due to sediment disturbance and compaction

5.5.28

There would be some temporary reduction in habitat quality due to compaction of sediments during barge grid/campshed installation. However, given the small extent and reversibility this is considered to be a negligible effect. Blanketing of feeding areas for invertebrates and reduction in water column visibility due to suspended sediment

5.5.29

The risk of blanketing of invertebrate feeding habitats is considered to be low due to the nature of construction activities, and given the low-medium (Borough) value of the site for invertebrates the effect is considered to be negligible.

Page 42

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Algae 5.5.30

Section 5: Ecology - aquatic

The effects on algae will be assessed and reported in the ES.

5.6
5.6.1

Operational assessment
Operational Impacts The likely significant impacts arising from operation of the project at this site would be large reduction in the volume of sewage effluent discharged into the River Thames from the CSO. These impacts are described below and summarised in the table 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

5.6.3

Discharges from the Greenwich Pumping Station CSO are anticipated to be 3,940,100m3 per annum by 2021. The discharge is projected to reduce to 571,500m3 once the Thames Tunnel 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 positive, and to be probable and permanent. Vol 26 Table 5.6.1 Aquatic ecology impacts - operation Impact Improvement of local water quality through CSO interception. Operational Effects Magnitude Medium positive impact Permanent. Probable.

5.6.4

5.6.5

5.6.6

The effects of the operational activities on ecological receptors within the River Thames are described in detail below. The way in which the magnitude and 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. Unless stated the effects described below apply to both Year 1 of operation and Year 6 of operation.

5.6.7

Page 43

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Designated sites and Habitats

Section 5: Ecology - aquatic

Reduction in nutrient content of sediments leading to potential change in algal and vegetation communities 5.6.8 Following interception of the CSO there will be a gradual reduction in sediment nutrients which may result in a gradual change in the composition of the vegetation community from one associated with eutrophic conditions to one which is more characteristic of a lowland river. Effects will be evaluated for the ES. Marine Mammals Increase in the number and/or change in the distribution of marine mammals due to improvements in water quality 5.6.9 No changes are anticipated on marine mammals as a result of the water quality improvements associated with interception of a single CSO discharge. This is because they are a mobile receptor, and therefore able to move away from a point source discharge and they are relatively insensitive to the levels of pollution associated with a single source. Effects are considered negligible. Fish Reduction in the occurrence of dissolved oxygen related fish mortalities 5.6.10 The microbial activity associated with untreated sewage effluent (BOD) causes a depletion in the levels of dissolved oxygen downstream of a discharge. This is often referred to as an ‘oxygen sag’. Oxygen sags are more common in the summer months when water temperatures are higher and oxygen is less soluble. Impacts on fish health occur when dissolved oxygen levels drop beneath 4mg/l, and significant mortalities begin to occur when levels drop beneath this threshold17. 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 hypoxia events when dissolved oxygen levels were below 4mg/l 18. Interception of the CSOs throughout the Thames Tideway would improve sewerage system capacity and result in far fewer low dissolved oxygen events and therefore fewer mass fish mortalities. The exact number of anticipated events will be predicted using the Tideway Fish Risk Model and reported in the ES. Details of the Tideway Fish Risk Model are presented in Volume 5. Interception of the Greenwich Pumping Station CSO would contribute to this Thames Tideway wide improvement, but would also result in improvements in the local area. Given the diversity of freshwater and diadromous species in particular in the mid-Tideway, the effect is considered to be moderate beneficial. Improvements across the

5.6.11

5.6.12

Page 44

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 5: Ecology - aquatic

Thames Tideway as a whole will be assessed in Volume 6 (Project wide effects assessment). Increase in the distribution of pollution sensitive fish species 5.6.13 The Tideway supports a number of rare fish species salmon, sea trout and twaite shad and river lamprey. A number of factors limit the colonisation of habitats by these species, including salinity, substrate type and current, but pollution is known to be a significant factor in determining colonisation 19. 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). Given that the impact is considered to be medium beneficial, and the value of the receptors is medium (Metropolitan) the effect is considered to be negligible to Year 1, increasing to moderate beneficial in Year 6. Invertebrates Localised improvements in invertebrate diversity and abundance. 5.6.15 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 point (Greenwich) nearest to the site, it is reasonable to assume that they will also be dominant at this site. By intercepting the CSO the source of sewage related nutrients would be cut off and the sediments in the vicinity of the outfall would begin to return to a more natural state. As nutrients reduce in concentration a wider range of invertebrate species, including more pollution sensitive species such as the river neretid (Theodoxus fluviatilis), would begin to colonise the sediments. Given that the impact is considered to be medium beneficial, and the value of the receptors is low-medium (Borough), 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. 5.6.17 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

5.6.14

5.6.16

Page 45

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 5: Ecology - aquatic

sensitive species which are currently being impeded by poor water and sediment quality. 5.6.18 Effects on invertebrate diversity are thus considered to be negligible in Year 1, increasing to minor beneficial by Year 6. Algae 5.6.19 Effects on algae will be reported in the ES.

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 Biodiversity Working Group as a systematic and transparent decisionmaking process. The hierarchy is sequential and seeks to avoid adverse environmental effects. The hierarchy of ‘avoid effect’, ‘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.

5.7.2

Construction
5.7.3 Impacts during the construction stage would primarily be controlled through measures incorporated into the Code of Construction Practice. Measures already included in the Code of Construction Practice (ie, measures to avoid water quality impacts) are not repeated here and can be found in para. 5.2.3 above. There are no construction effects requiring mitigation, and for which mitigation is viable, were identified. However should mitigation be required for those effects not yet assessed the approach outlined in Volume 5 will be followed.

5.7.4

Operation
5.7.5 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 46

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 4: Aquatic ecology

5.8
Vol 26 Table 5.8.1 Aquatic ecology construction assessment Significance of effect Mitigation Significance of residual effect

Assessment summary

Construction

Receptor

Description of effect

Deptford Creek Minor adverse

Habitats

Loss of intertidal and subtidal habitat due to temporary landtake

Disturbance and compaction of intertidal and subtidal habitat. Negligible

Negligible

Natural recovery To be determined anticipated. The need for site specific restoration measures will be investigated and reported in the ES. None required Negligible

Mammals

Interference with the migrations of marine mammals within the Tideway. Negligible

None required

Negligible.

Fish

None required

Negligible.

Direct mortality of fish due to temporary landtake, and disturbance and compaction of sediment during barge grid installation Loss of feeding, resting and nursery habitat for fish due to landtake. Minor adverse

Natural recovery To be determined anticipated. The need for site specific restoration measures will be

Page 47

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Significance of effect Mitigation Significance of residual effect

Section 4: Aquatic ecology

Receptor

Description of effect

Deptford Creek

Loss of feeding, resting and nursery habitat for fish due to sediment compaction and disturbance. Minor adverse None viable beyond those contained within the CoCP

Negligible

investigated and reported in the ES. None required Negligible.

Direct mortality and/or disturbance to fish from waterborne noise and vibration leading to changes in behaviour and migratory patterns. Minor adverse. None viable

Minor adverse.

Minor adverse.

Invertebrates

Blanketing of feeding areas for fish and reduction in water column visibility due to suspended sediment. Direct mortality of invertebrates due to temporary landtake and disturbance and compaction of sediment. Negligible Negligible

None required.

Negligible.

None required

Negligible

Loss of feeding/burrowing habitat for invertebrates due to landtake Loss of feeding/burrowing habitat for invertebrates due

Negligible

None required.

Negligible.

Page 48

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Significance of effect Mitigation Significance of residual effect

Section 4: Aquatic ecology

Receptor

Description of effect

Deptford Creek

to sediment compaction and disturbance. Negligible None required. Negligible.

Blanketing of feeding areas for invertebrates and reduction in water column visibility due to suspended sediment.

Algae

To be assessed in the ES.

Operation
Vol 26 Table 5.8.2 Aquatic ecology operational assessment Significance of effect Mitigation Significance of residual effect To be determined for the ES

Receptor

Description of effect Year 1 To be determined for the ES Year 6 To be determined for the ES

River Thames

Habitats

Reduction in nutrient content of sediments leading to potential change in algal and vegetation communities. Negligible.

Mammals

Increase in the

Negligible.

None required

Negligible

Page 49

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Significance of effect Year 1 Year 6 Mitigation Significance of residual effect

Section 4: Aquatic ecology

Receptor

Description of effect

River Thames

number and/or change in the distribution of marine mammals. Moderate beneficial. None required Moderate beneficial. Moderate beneficial.

Fish

Reduction in the occurrence of low dissolved oxygen related fish mortalities. Increase in the distribution of pollution sensitive fish species. Negligible. Moderate beneficial. None required Negligible. Minor beneficial None required

Minor beneficial.

Invertebrates

Localised improvements in invertebrates diversity and abundance. Negligible.

Moderate beneficial.

Increase in the distribution of rare and pollution sensitive invertebrate

Minor beneficial.

None required

Minor beneficial.

Page 50

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Significance of effect Year 1 Year 6 Mitigation Significance of residual effect

Section 4: Aquatic ecology

Receptor

Description of effect

River Thames

species.

Algae

To completed for the ES.

Page 51

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 5: Aquatic ecology

5.9
5.9.1 5.9.2 5.9.3

Assessment completion
Additional fish and invertebrate surveys were undertaken during spring 2011 and will be reported in the ES. Algal data will be assessed and reported in the ES. The 2011 surveys and additional background data will be used to finalise and complete the construction and operational assessments as necessary once the data has been analysed. Assessment of cumulative effects will be undertaken as part of the ES. Following completion of the assessment, the mitigation and residual effects for aquatic ecology will be finalised and reported in the ES.

5.9.4 5.9.5

Page 52

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

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 Greenwich Pumping Station site. Likely significant effects on aquatic ecology are reported in Section 5. Elements of the proposed works that have particular relevance to terrestrial ecology comprise site clearance, piling, and wider construction activities. The operation phase is not considered in this terrestrial ecology assessment as operational activity would remain limited to occasional maintenance works, which are considered unlikely to have significant effects on terrestrial ecology receptors on and adjacent to the site. A brown roof is proposed on the shaft. This design feature is considered unlikely to result in significant terrestrial ecology effects and therefore does not require assessment. The operational phase is therefore not considered further in this assessment.

6.1.2

6.1.3

6.2
6.2.1

Proposed development
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 The works at Greenwich Pumping Station that are relevant to terrestrial ecology include: a. site mobilisation, including clearance activities commencing in the first year of construction b. works in the adjacent Deptford Creek c. ground excavation and construction traffic movements and the use of construction machinery will involve noise, vibration and lighting

d. site working hours would include 24 hour working. Whilst the majority of night-time activities would be conducted underground, there is likely to be a degree of movement of vehicles and people above ground.

Code of Construction Practice
6.2.3 Measures incorporated into the draft 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 project-wide and at individual sites. The CoCP would ensure that where appropriate, works are undertaken in compliance with legislation, and with relevant nature conservation policies and guidance, including the Mayor’s Biodiversity Strategy 20 and local Biodiversity Action Plans. Where species are protected by specific

6.2.4

Page 53

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 6: Ecology - terrestrial

legislation, approved guidance would be followed, appropriate mitigation would be proposed and any necessary licences or consents obtained. 6.2.5 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

Assessment methodology Scoping and engagement
Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. There were no site specific comments from consultees for this particular site relating to terrestrial ecology. Further stakeholder engagement was undertaken through biodiversity technical workshops with statutory consultees. Site specific comments from the biodiversity technical workshops are provided in the table below. Vol 26 Table 6.3.1 Stakeholder comments Organisation Environment Agency and LB of Tower Hamlets Comment Highlighted that kingfishers are regularly spotted in Greenwich along Deptford Creek. It is believed they may breed in Brookwin Park. Noted that at the Creekside Education Centre, Deptford Creek, has been undertaking botanical surveys in the local area for a number of years. Commented that the area has potential to host rare species, including Thames Terrace invertebrates. LB of Wandsworth Council River walls and their value in supporting ecology have not been fully considered; this could be addressed in both aquatic and terrestrial surveys to find a baseline – any issues arising from this baseline can then be suitably accounted for in subsequent documents. The river wall as a terrestrial ecology receptor has been scoped out of the assessment for this site as the river wall ‘material’ has very low potential to support notable species. Response This information is noted and will be taken into account for the EIA.

6.3.2

Environment Agency

This information is noted and will be taken into account for the EIA.

Page 54

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 6: Ecology - terrestrial

Baseline
6.3.3 Baseline data collection has followed the methodology detailed in Volume 5. Baseline data presented within this assessment is derived from a desk study, the Phase 1 Habitat Survey and preliminary wintering bird and bat triggering surveys. All survey data will be reported in the ES. In summary, the following baseline data is reported: a. Desk study including data base searches (for ecological records within a 2km radius from the site boundary, which is the industry standard), web-based searches and review of existing available documents in relation to protected and notable species and habitats. Desk study data within 500m of the site are reported here as the works are unlikely to affect species and designated sites beyond this distance. Records dated prior to 2000 have not been included as the information since this date provides the most appropriate data to assess the site baseline conditions. b. Phase 1 Habitat Survey on 7th December 2010 following 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 during winter months of 2010 and 2011. The survey visits included the site and adjacent habitat considered to be potentially affected by the proposed works. These surveys are still in progress and will resume in October 2011 at the start of the next winter season.

6.3.4

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 to be potentially affected by the project. Further surveys were required and preliminary results of the bat triggering surveys have been provided. 6.3.5 The species surveys identified as being required following the desk study and Phase 1 Habitat Survey have commenced and are detailed in the table below. The results of these surveys will be provided in the ES. The Scoping Report highlighted the potential for reptiles to be present on site. This potential has subsequently been removed due to habitat clearance which took place after the Scoping Report had been prepared. Therefore, reptile surveys have not been undertaken. Vol 26 Table 6.3.2 Terrestrial ecology notable species surveys Survey Survey area Timing Bat activity and dawn surveys Around suitable features within and immediately adjacent to the site. June to October 2011.

Page 55

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Breeding birds

Section 6: Ecology - terrestrial Three visits between April and July 2011.

Around suitable features within and immediately adjacent to the site. Suitable features within and immediately adjacent to the site. The survey area includes the site and adjacent features that are assessed to be potentially affected by the project. The survey area included the site and areas within 10m of the site boundary.

Black redstart

Five fortnightly visits from mid-April to the end of June 2011. One visit in October 2011 and one visit in November and December 2011.

Completion of wintering bird surveys

Invasive plants

One visit in August 2011.

Construction
6.3.6 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) 21. Four designated sites have been identified within 500m of the site. Due to the localised nature of the proposed works, no effects on these sites have been identified. Therefore, designated sites are not considered further in the assessment. The following ecological receptors are assessed as part of this assessment: a. habitats b. bats c. breeding birds d. black redstart e. wintering birds f. 6.3.9 other notable species: Invertebrates. The potential presence of Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica) is not considered within the assessment as measures to eradicate and control this, and other invasive species, prior to construction commencing are contained within the CoCP. The findings of the mapping survey will be reported in the ES. As contaminated runoff and atmospheric pollution will be controlled through the implementation of the CoCP, no likely significant effects are

6.3.7

6.3.8

6.3.10

Page 56

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 6: Ecology - terrestrial

anticipated on ecological receptors. Therefore, this is not considered any further in the assessment. 6.3.11 The assessment year for construction is the start of site preparation works in construction Year 1. This is likely to be the peak year for impacts on terrestrial ecology as this is when initial site clearance would occur. Assuming that the site and any nearby designated sites would continue to be managed as they are at present then the base case is considered to be the same as the current baseline conditions.

6.3.12

Assumptions and limitations
6.3.13 It is assumed for the purposes of assessment that the current site management regime of the Greenwich 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.

Designated sites
On site 6.4.2 The site is partially within the River Thames and Tidal Tributaries SINC (Grade M i) and comprises inter-tidal habitat and river channel. This designated site is included in the aquatic ecology assessment and is not considered further in this assessment. Surrounding area 6.4.3 The following designated sites have been identified within 500m as part of the desk study: a. Creekside Centre SINC (Grade L ii) is located approximately 60m west of the site and comprises an environmental centre and mosaic of brownfield land habitat. It is of local (low) value. b. River Ravensbourne and Brookmill Park SINC (Grade B iii) is located approximately 245m southwest of the site and comprises a park through which the Ravensbourne River flows. Part of the park has been designated as a nature reserve. It is of district (medium) value. c. St Nicholas Churchyard SINC (Grade Biii) is located approximately 480m northwest of the site and comprises a garden area/amenity space. It is of district (medium) value.

i

SINC (Grade M) = Site of Nature Conservation Importance (Grade M of Metropolitan importance) SINC (Grade L) = Site of Nature Conservation Importance (Grade L of Local importance) iii SINC (Grade B) = Site of Nature Conservation Importance (Grade B of Borough importance)
ii

Page 57

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 6: Ecology - terrestrial

d. St Pauls Churchyard and Crossfield St Open Space SINC (Grade Lii) is located approximately 300m west of the site. It is of local (low) value.

Habitats
6.4.4 The site includes London Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) habitat ‘Built Up Areas and Gardens’. The habitats recorded within the survey area during the Phase 1 Habitat Survey are detailed in Vol 26 Table 6.4.1 and shown on Vol 26 Figure 6.4.1. Target notes (TN#) are indicated on this figure and are referred to within the text below. Vol 26 Figure 6.4.1 Terrestrial ecology Phase 1 Survey (see Volume 26 Figures document) 6.4.5 A desk study assessment comprising a review of an aerial photograph has been undertaken in order to ascertain habitat composition at the northern part of the site. It has been possible to provide a habitat description detailed of this northern area in the table below. This information will be supplemented where necessary in the ES. Vol 26 Table 6.4.1 Terrestrial ecology Phase 1 Survey Habitats Hard standing Habitat Description The majority of the survey area comprises hardstanding in the form of pathways and vehicle parking. The majority of the northern site comprises a hardstanding yard area. Buildings A number of buildings associated with the pumping station are located around the survey area. The main pumping station building is located in the centre of the survey area and comprises a large brick built unit with apex roofing. Part of the building was disused and there is considered to be the potential for bats to use buildings for roosting purposes (TN1). A brick built ivy Hedera helix clad chimney stack was located in the southeast of the survey area, to the east of the pumping station (TN2). Buildings on the northern area comprise industrial units/commercial premises. Amenity grassland Areas of mown amenity grassland are located around the survey area for landscaping purposes.The largest area is in the southeast of the survey area. Pockets of amenity grassland are also

Page 58

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Habitats

Section 6: Ecology - terrestrial Habitat Description

located adjacent to buildings within the survey area and in the main car parking area. Scattered trees (mixed) A number of coniferous and broadleaved trees are located around the survey area, predominantly in the east. Species include poplar Populus sp. and lime Tilia sp. Vehicle parking areas within the survey area, pockets of introduced ornamental shrub planting are present which are relatively dense and mature in age. Located in the southwest of the survey area are two steel framed open sided units. Running along the rear of these units is a small made ground embankment, which has been colonised by tall ruderal vegetation and scrub. Species comprise those typically found in brownfield urban environments, for example, Buddleia davidii and bramble Rubus fruticosus. To the rear of the main pumping station, an open area of brownfield type habitat is present (TN3). This comprises a mixture of bramble and buddleia dominated thickets, and made ground habitat with rubble, rough grassland and ruderal vegetation. Poor semi-improved To the north of the survey area at the rear of grassland the pumping station, an area of poor semiimproved grassland was present (TN4). This had areas of bare ground and dense ruderal and scrub vegetation was located around the edges. On site 6.4.6 The extent of habitat at Greenwich Pumping Station has decreased since the Phase 1 Habitat Survey was undertaken, due to project ground investigation works in the area underneath the DLR flyover. The habitat was categorised as grassland, scrub and ruderal vegetation. This particular habitat has suitability for protected species, such as nesting birds. To avoid killing and injury to such protected species, the vegetation was removed in a sensitive manner outside of the hibernation period in February 2011. Initial checks for nesting birds was undertaken and the vegetation was removed by successional strimming. The habitat is now made ground surface cover (Vol 26 Figure 6.4.1). The amenity grassland does not comprise a BAP priority habitat and is of low intrinsic value. This habitat is considered to be of site (low) value.

Introduced shrub planting (dense/continuous) Scrub and tall ruderal vegetation (dense/continuous)

6.4.7

Page 59

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station 6.4.8

Section 6: Ecology - terrestrial

The scattered trees have some intrinsic value but do not comprise UK or London BAP priority species. Therefore, the scattered trees on site are considered to be of local (low) value as a total resource. Individual trees are considered to be of site (low) value. The introduced shrub planting, scrub and tall ruderal do not comprise a BAP priority habitat and are of relatively low intrinsic value. This habitat is considered to be of site (low) value. Japanese knotweed (a noxious and invasive plant) was identified in two locations on site. The first location was behind one of the open-sided units in the southwest of the site (TN5). Access in this location was restricted due to vegetation and an embankment. The second location was to the rear of the main pumping station building (TN6). Japanese knotweed was extensive in this location, spread across the front of fuel storage tanks. This is considered to be of negative value at the local (low) level. This is not considered further within this assessment as the eradication and control of such invasive species would be managed by the measures set out in the CoCP, as discussed in para. 6.3.9. Surrounding area The site is located in a mixed use setting comprising residential properties, commercial and light industrial units. Habitat associated with this is considered to be of local (low) value.

6.4.9

6.4.10

6.4.11

Notable species
Bats On site 6.4.12 There are a number of permanent structures and buildings on site that have the potential to be used by bats for roosting purposes. Mature treelines around the edge of the site (primarily to the east) could be used by bats as commuting corridors. Ornamental type vegetation in front of the Pumping Station is relatively well established and extensive around vehicle access routes and could provide foraging habitat for bats. Full baseline data and valuation will be provided in the ES, but triggering surveys carried out to date have suggested the presence of high levels of (foraging) bat activity involving at least two species (common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus and soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus). Surrounding area 6.4.14 Habitat adjacent and near to the site may support bats. The baseline and value of the bat resource in the surrounding area will be provided in the ES. Black redstart On site 6.4.15 Desk study data from the Greater London record centre indicates that black redstart Phoenicurus ochruros has been recorded in the immediate vicinity. Suitable nesting and foraging habitat for this species is present on site in the form of the pumping station building and semi-natural habitat.

6.4.13

Page 60

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station 6.4.16

Section 6: Ecology - terrestrial

The current status of the site and value of black redstart will be reported in the ES. Surrounding area Habitat is present within the surrounding area that is considered suitable for supporting this species. The current status of the site and value of black redstart will be reported in the ES. Breeding birds On site

6.4.17

6.4.18 6.4.19

Desk study data of notable species indicated no records of breeding birds specific at the Greenwich Pumping Station site. Based on the habitat survey, the site was identified as having the potential to be of value for breeding birds, which may use scrub, trees and buildings for nesting purposes. Full baseline data and value of the breeding bird resource will be provided in the ES. Surrounding area The following records have been provided by record holding bodies as being present within 500m of Greenwich Pumping Station (see Volume 5: EIA Methodology for data source information): a. Herring gull Larus argentatus (Rediv status, UK BAP Priority Species) b. Kingfisher Alcedo atthis (Amber iv status, WCA 1981 Schedule 1 Part 1 species) c. Starling Sturnus vulgaris (Rediv status, London BAP Priority Species, UK BAP Priority Species)

6.4.20

d. House sparrow Passer domesticus (Rediv status, London BAP Priority Species, UK BAP Priority Species) 6.4.21 Full baseline data and value of the breeding bird resource will be reported in the ES. Wintering birds On site 6.4.22 The foreshore to Deptford Creek within and adjacent to the site has the potential to support notable populations and/or assemblages of wintering bird species. From preliminary wintering bird survey results, a total of 22 species of wintering bird were recorded at the site between December 2010 and March 2011. The highest maximum count was 123 individual birds. No rare, scarce or notable species were identified. The status and value of wintering birds will be reported in the ES.

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 accessed on Monday 7 March 2011).

iv

Page 61

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Surrounding area 6.4.23

Section 6: Ecology - terrestrial

The foreshore to Deptford Creek has the potential to support notable populations and/or assemblages of wintering bird species. The status and value of wintering birds will be reported in the ES. Other notable species On site

6.4.24

The habitat on site is considered to be sub-optimal for a notable assemblage of invertebrate species due to the habitat mosaic that comprises shrubs, trees, amenity grassland and limited ruderal vegetation, together with unvegetated areas comprising hardstanding (low value) rather than brownfield rubble/made ground, which would support a more diverse assemblage of invertebrates. Therefore, the invertebrate resource is considered to be of site (low) value. Surrounding area Stag beetle Lucanus cervus (Schedule 5 WCA 1981, priority species in the London Biodiversity Action Plan) has been identified within 500m of the site. Habitat within the vicinity of the site comprises a mixture of types associated with brownfield, commercial and residential land use, it is considered to be of local (low) value.

6.4.25

6.5

Construction assessment Habitats
On site

6.5.1

The works would result in the permanent loss of one or two trees from an overall resource that is of local (low) value. Individual trees are considered to be of site (low) value. Therefore, it is considered probable that the loss of these trees is considered to be significant at the site level (minor adverse effect). Any pruning of tree branches that may be required is not considered to be significant as the trees would be able to maintain their ecological function on the site as an invertebrate and bird habitat and foraging resource to bats. There would also be permanent loss of amenity grassland. It is certain that this effect would be significant at the site level (minor adverse effect). It is considered certain that the loss of ruderal vegetation and scrub of low (site) value would be significant at site level (minor adverse effect). Surrounding area No effects on surrounding habitat are anticipated (negligible).

6.5.2 6.5.3

6.5.4

Notable species
Bats On site 6.5.5 There is likely to be temporary (medium term) adverse disturbance effects to bats roosting and foraging on site from noise, lighting, vibration and

Page 62

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 6: Ecology - terrestrial

movement of people and machinery during works. Bat foraging habitat on site would be lost. 6.5.6 The loss of potential bat roost/s, foraging habitat and disturbance may be significant. The significance of effects will be assessed and reported in the ES. Surrounding area 6.5.7 Disturbance effects on bats roosting and foraging in adjacent habitat may be significant and will be assessed and reported in the ES. Black redstart On site 6.5.8 There is likely to be temporary (medium term) adverse disturbance from noise, lighting, vibration and movement of people and machinery during construction to black redstarts potentially using the buildings on site for nesting habitat, and foraging around the site. The magnitude of the effects would depend on the timing of works. The significance of effects will be assessed and reported in the ES. Surrounding area 6.5.9 Disturbance effects on black redstart, if present, may be significant and will be assessed and reported in the ES. Breeding birds On site 6.5.10 Possible effects on birds include the following: a. Permanent habitat loss on site as a result of construction activities could lead to a reduction in available nesting and foraging habitat for a range of bird species, including some that are listed on UK and London BAPs. The loss of bird nesting habitat may be significant. The significance of effects will be assessed in the EIA. b. Temporary (medium term) adverse disturbance from noise, lighting, vibration and movement of people and machinery during construction to breeding birds nesting on site. Displacement of birds may render a small area of nesting habitat unsuitable to birds. The significance of effects will be assessed in the EIA. Surrounding area 6.5.11 Temporary (medium term) disturbance from noise, lighting, vibration and movement of people and machinery during construction to breeding birds nesting in the surrounding area. The significance of effects on breeding birds in the surrounding area will be assessed in the EIA. Wintering birds On site 6.5.12 There may be temporary (medium term) adverse disturbance effects from noise, lighting, vibration and movement of people and machinery during construction to wintering birds using intertidal habitat for refuge and

Page 63

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 6: Ecology - terrestrial

feeding purposes. The magnitude of the effects would depend on the timing of works. The significance of effects will be assessed in the EIA. Surrounding area 6.5.13 There may be temporary (medium term) adverse disturbance effects from noise, lighting, vibration and movement of people and machinery during construction to wintering birds using adjacent intertidal habitat for refuge and feeding purposes. The significance of effects will be assessed in the EIA. Other notable species On site 6.5.14 Temporary and permanent habitat loss on site as a result of construction activities could lead to a reduction in habitat for invertebrate species. It is probable that the loss of invertebrate habitat of site (low) value would be significant for invertebrates at the site level (minor adverse effect). Surrounding area 6.5.15 It is unlikely that the loss of a small area of invertebrate habitat on site would have a significant effect (negligible) on populations of invertebrates within the surrounding area.

6.6
6.6.1

Operational assessment
As explained in para. 6.1.3, significant operational effects on terrestrial ecology are not anticipated therefore this has not been assessed.

6.7
6.7.1

Approach to mitigation Mitigation of construction effects
All measures embedded in the draft CoCP of relevance to terrestrial ecology are found in para. 6.2.3. 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, the following measures are likely to be required: a. Disturbance minimisation measures, specific to the site and the faunal species identified during the surveys, eg, site lighting scheme. b. Mitigation for potential effects associated with the presence of bats and black redstart (subject to the results of surveys), if required. c. The provision of habitat to mitigate the effects on wintering birds. d. Replacement planting of trees, grassland and invertebrate habitat in advance of clearance where practicable.

6.7.2

Page 64

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 6: Ecology - terrestrial

6.8

Assessment summary
Vol 26 Table 6.8.1 Terrestrial ecology construction assessment Description of effect Significance of effect Mitigation Significance of residual effect Extremely unlikely to be significant (negligible) Unlikely to be significant (negligible) Extremely unlikely to be significant (negligible)

Receptor

Habitats Amenity grassland Permanent loss on site Certain site level (minor adverse effect) Probable site level (minor adverse effect) Certain site level (minor adverse effect) Replanting eg, wildflower seeding Replanting

Scattered trees Permanent loss on site Ruderal and scrub vegetation Notable species Bats Loss of foraging resource on site Loss of roost sites Disturbance from lighting, noise and vibration on bats passing through and adjacent to the site. Breeding birds Loss of a foraging and nesting habitat on site Disturbance from lighting, noise and vibration on birds adjacent to the site. Permanent loss on site

Replanting

Subject to survey results

Subject to survey results

Subject to survey results

Subject to survey results Subject to survey results

Subject to survey results Subject to survey results

Subject to survey results Subject to survey results

Subject to survey results

Subject to survey results

Subject to survey results

Subject to survey results

Subject to survey results

Subject to survey results

Page 65

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Receptor Description of effect Loss of a foraging and nesting habitat on site Significance of effect Subject to survey results

Section 6: Ecology - terrestrial Mitigation Significance of residual effect Subject to survey results

Black redstart

Subject to survey results

Disturbance Subject to from lighting, survey results noise and vibration on birds on and adjacent to site Wintering birds Disturbance from lighting, noise and vibration on wintering birds adjacent to the site. Loss of invertebrate habitat Subject to survey results

Subject to survey results

Subject to survey results

Subject to survey results

Subject to survey results

Other notable species Invertebrates

Probable site level (minor adverse effect)

Provision of habitat piles. Replacement planting.

Unlikely to be significant (negligible)

6.9
6.9.1

Assessment completion
Bat, breeding and wintering bird, black redstart and invasive species surveys are ongoing in 2011 as summarised in the table above. The data from these surveys will be used to inform the ES and further evaluation of effects on ecological receptors will be undertaken. Where required, appropriate mitigation to avoid or minimise impacts to terrestrial ecological receptors will be developed in consultation with stakeholders and a final assessment will be made of the significance of any residual effects to ecological receptors in the EIA. Consideration will be given to biodiversity enhancement measures in consultation with stakeholders. Where possible, these mitigation and enhancement measures will be embedded in the project design.

6.9.2

Page 66

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

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 Greenwich Pumping Station site. These are aspects of the historic environment which are considered to be significant because of their historical, evidential, aesthetic or communal interest (these terms are defined in Volume 5). These might comprise below or above ground archaeological remains, buildings, structures, monuments or heritage landscapes within or around the site 22. This section should be read in conjunction with Volume 6, 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.

7.1.2

7.2
7.2.1

Proposed development
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to the historic environment are as follows.

Construction
7.2.2 Those aspects of specific relevance to the historic environment assessment, since they could lead to direct effects on heritage assets, are as follows: a. Enabling works will require removal of the former Beam Engine Cooling System cooling pond liner, existing pipework, penstock chamber, well and covers associated with the Beam Engine, the existing portacabins in front of Greenwich Pumping Station and demolition of buildings to the north of the railway lines; site preparation, including the erection of hoarding (unless existing boundary walls are used) and site-stripping; the establishment of a works compound; the diversion of existing services; temporary removal of the Grade II listed coal sheds, and dewatering. 7.2.3 Construction works with potential to impact on the historic environment comprise the following: a. the CSO drop shaft and diaphragm shaft perimeter wall and inner and outer guide walls b. the interception chamber c. the valve chamber, located between the interception chamber and CSO shaft

d. the connecting culvert between the shaft and the valve chamber e. dewatering wells

Page 67

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station f.

Section 7: Historic environment

construction of a crane base, including a concrete foundation within guide walls

g. construction of ventilation equipment within the existing unused Grade II listed northern beam engine house. 7.2.4 Measures incorporated into the draft CoCP to reduce impacts on the historic environment include protective measures where appropriate such as temporary support, hoardings, barriers and screening around heritage assets within and adjacent to work sites, and advance planning of plant and working methods for use where heritage assets are close to work sites, or attached to structures within work sites. The CoCP also includes provisions for the contractor to prepare a site specific Heritage Management Plan.

Operation
7.2.5 The proposed operation of the infrastructure at Greenwich 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 design and siting of the above ground elements of the drop shaft and interception/valve chambers.

7.3
7.3.1

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. It should also be noted that Volume 5 details the approach to the assessment of effects on the historic setting of heritage assets which it has been agreed, following the formal scoping process, will be covered in the assessment of construction and operational effects. This assessment will be completed for the ES.

7.3.2

Baseline
7.3.3 The baseline methodology follows that set out in Volume 5, with a key component being a desk based assessment, consulting a broad range of archaeological, documentary and cartographic sources, along with a site walkover survey. The results of geotechnical investigations, some of which were archaeologically monitored, have also been incorporated. A study area of 300m east-west from the centre of the site and 350m north-south from the centre of the site is considered through professional judgement to be most appropriate to characterise the historic environment potential of the site. There are occasional references to assets beyond the study area where appropriate, for example, where such assets are particularly important and/or where they contribute to current understanding of the site and its environs.

7.3.4

Page 68

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 7: Historic environment

Construction
7.3.5 7.3.6 The construction phase methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. Any site specific variations are described below. 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 years of construction will be the same as at present for buried heritage assets. Archaeological remains are a static resource, which have reached equilibrium with their environment and do not change (ie, decay or grow) unless their environment changes as a result of human or natural intervention. In terms of above ground heritage assets no physical changes are anticipated in terms of their condition or significance. Changes to the base case from 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.

7.3.7

7.3.8

7.3.9

Operation
7.3.10 7.3.11 7.3.12 The operational phase 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 (2020). In terms of the base case (future baseline) for the operational assessment, no direct changes are anticipated in the condition or significance of above ground heritage assets. Changes to the base case from 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.

Assumptions and limitations
7.3.13 Volume 5: Methodology sets out the generic assumptions and limitations of the assessment. In summary, 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 solely 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 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

7.3.14

Page 69

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 7: Historic environment

requirements of local and national guidance and planning policy (as detailed in Volume 5). Typically, appropriate standard archaeological prospection and evaluation techniques are utilised post-consent to reduce the uncertainties inherent in any desk based study, as part of an overall EIA mitigation strategy (see ‘Mitigation’ section below for the proposed mitigation at this site).

7.4
7.4.1

Baseline conditions
The following description of baseline conditions comprises seven subsections which set out: a. A description of historic environment features, with an introduction to the features map (which shows the location of known historic environment features within the study area around the centre of the site) and the study area. b. A description of statutorily and locally designated assets within the site and its vicinity (ie, within a 100m-radius of the site). c. A description of the site location, topography and geology to set the context of the site.

d. A summary of past archaeological investigation within the study area, providing an indication of how well the area is understood archaeologically. e. A summary of the archaeological and historical background which sets out what is known about the site and its environs. f. A statement of significance for above ground assets within and around the site, describing the features which contribute to their significance.

g. A discussion of potential for buried heritage assets, taking account of factors affecting survival, and a statement of their potential significance. 7.4.2 A site visit was carried out by MOLA Historic Buildings and EIA specialists on 28th March 2011 when the weather conditions were overcast and dry. The current Thames Water site was accessed and building interiors observed. The listed structures of the Bazalgette pumping station (ie, the eastern and western beam engine house, central boiler house and separate coal sheds) were examined. The boiler house and western beam engine house are used as a Pumping Station. The eastern beam engine house is currently empty and unoccupied and the machinery has been removed, although there are features of interest that survive within the building (Appendix A). The two coal sheds are or have recently been used for storage and the southernmost of the two has structures within it built using cement block. The eastern coal shed is free of any recent structures and the original cobbled surface survives well (Appendix A). In the southwest corner of the site, adjacent to a closed public house is a small disused electricity sub station with the initials LESC, which stands for the London Electric Supply Corporation Ltd (HEA1e; Appendix A). The LESC has a strong historical link to the Deptford Creek area, although the

7.4.3

Page 70

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 7: Historic environment

substation building on the boundary of the site appears to date from the early–mid 20th century.

Historic environment features
7.4.4 The historic environment features map (Vol 26 Figure 7.4.1) shows the location of known historic environment features within the study area of 300m east-west from the centre of the site and 350m north-south from the centre of the site. This has been compiled from the baseline sources set out in the topic specific methodology in Volume 5. These have been allocated a unique historic environment assessment reference number (HEA 1, 2, etc), which is listed in the gazetteer in Appendix A. Vol 26 Figure 7.4.1 Historic environment features map (see Volume 26 Figures document) 7.4.5 Where there are a considerable number of listed buildings in the study area, only those within the vicinity of the site (ie, 100m) 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 report.

National Designated assets
Statutory designations 7.4.6 The site contains a pair of Grade II listed 19th–20th century beam engine houses in the centre of the site (HEA 1a), and two separate Grade II listed 19th century coal sheds in the southwestern part of the site (HEA 1b and HEA 1c). These structures were constructed in the early 1860s as a pumping station forming part of the Bazalgette scheme to improve London’s sewers. They consist of an eastern and western beam engine house in an Italianate style, linked by a central boiler house along with two separate coal sheds (HEA1b and 1c) to the west of the pumping station. The listing includes the stone steps on the eastern side of the north engine house, along with the surviving iron railings and entrance platform (Appendix A). The listing also includes the 1909 extension to the western beam engine house, which was built to match the Italianate style of the 1865 building. The Grade II listed 19th century London to Greenwich railway brick-built viaduct and the lifting bridge structure over Deptford Creek (HEA 3), lies in the northern part of the site boundary. Local authority designations 7.4.8 7.4.9 The site lies to the north outside the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area. The site lies within an area of archaeological potential (AAP). The AAP also covers Greenwich Park (part of a World Heritage Site), Greenwich town centre (the site of medieval and post-medieval settlement) and the Thames foreshore, which lie outside the study area, and Deptford Creek,

7.4.7

Page 71

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 7: Historic environment

which lies within the study area, adjacent to the eastern edge of the site, and has the potential to contain prehistoric deposits. 7.4.10 Grade II listed buildings located within the immediate vicinity of the site (ie within a 100m-radius) include 98-104 Greenwich High Road (HEA 4), which lies within the Ashburnham Conservation Area, and 165–167 Greenwich High Road (HEA 13), which does not. Several locally listed buildings also lie within the vicinity, including 1–10 Ashburnham Grove (part of a row of listed buildings including 1–40a, 40, 44–61 and 65-74 Ashburnham Grove) (HEA 23), 10–11 Ashburnham Place (HEA 24), Devonshire Drive Baptist Church (HEA 27), 7–10, 11, 12 and 13, 17–32 Egerton Drive (HEA 29) and 135 Greenwich High Road (HEA 31). With the exception of HEA 31 all the locally listed buildings within the immediate vicinity of the site lie within the Ashburnham Conservation Area. Known burial grounds 7.4.11 There are no known burial grounds within the site or adjacent to it. The nearest known burial ground (HEA 19) to the site lies c. 60m to the south. The cemetery does not extend into the site.

Site location, topography and geology
Site location 7.4.12 The site lies c. 300m to the south of the River Thames. The site lay within the parish of Deptford, formerly in the county of Kent. Topography 7.4.13 The topography of the site varies. The foreshore of Deptford Creek along the western edge of the site lies at c. 101.7m ATD (above Tunnel Datum; equivalent to 1.7m Ordnance Datum), the northwest corner lies at c. 105.0m ATD and slopes down to 103.2m ATD at the eastern edge. To the south, the site the site rises up from c. 103.5m ATD in the southwest corner to c. 105.7m ATD in the southeast corner. Geology 7.4.14 7.4.15 The site overlies the Kempton Park Gravel Formation, alluvium and Thanet Sand. The site straddles the floodplain and river terrace associated with the Ravensbourne River at Deptford Creek. The lower floodplain area is characterised by fine grained alluvium overlying Shepperton sand and gravel deposits and the higher river terrace consists of sand and gravel deposits associated with the Kempton Park Gravels (British Geological Survey digital data). The Ravensbourne is a tributary of the Thames, and the confluence of the two rivers lies 500m north of the site. The site is situated on the eastern side of the floodplain which is bounded by a thin (65m) strip of river terrace which in turn is overlain by soliflucted silt and gravel Head deposits (solifluction is the creeping of soil down a slope during periods of freeze and thaw in periglacial environments. Such material can seal and protect earlier landsurfaces and archaeological deposits which might otherwise not survive later erosion). These lie at the

Page 72

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 7: Historic environment

base of a series of different geological formations comprising the Woolwich and Reading Beds, the Thanet sands and the Harwich formation (British Geological Survey solid and drift geology map sheet 270). The overlying soils on silt and gravel Head deposits are typically permeable to depth and well drained; a combination of properties that makes them conducive to cultivation. 7.4.16 Boreholes are sparse for the area, with only eight within 300m of the site. The borehole logs are modern and detailed although in some cases limited in depth. Five boreholes exist within the site, mainly within the northeastern section. One of a series of boreholes to the north of the site (BGS borehole no. SR1018D) reveal gravels at 98.4m ATD, overlain by alluvium to 99.7m ATD, overlain by made ground to 103.9m ATD at the surface. Similarly a borehole located in the central western area of the site shows gravels lying at 101.5m ATD overlain directly by made ground to 104.0m ATD. In contrast, borehole SR1024, lying between the two other boreholes on the western edge of the site, indicates gravels at 103.4m ATD overlain by made ground to 104.6m ATD. The difference in gravel heights between the latter borehole and the others is probably due to borehole SR1024 being located over Kempton Park (river terrace) gravels blanketed by alluvium (rather than Shepperton floodplain gravels as in the other boreholes). Alluvium is therefore more likely to be present on the western part of the site. Elsewhere underlying geological deposits comprise made ground (which could potentially contain archaeological remains) and underlying gravels (either Shepperton of Kempton Park Gravel), although the full extent of the alluvium within the site is uncertain. Where alluvium survives (as in borehole SR1018D), it consists of dark brown organic silty clay with frequent rootlets, orange red staining and occasional thin partings of sand giving way at 99.7m ATD to dark brownish grey with frequent orange staining and occasional pockets of black amorphous peat. This suggests the site has always lain at the edge of the floodplain, initially away from the main channel. In such a location, it would have been marshy and full of reeds and subject to fluctuating water levels. The clays would have built up through flood events, some of which were high energy and distributed sand across the floodplain. At 99.7m ATD, a change in the environment is evident and led to deeper channel deposition, evidenced by very little vegetation and soft and inorganic clay. Given that the bulk of the alluvium typifies an occasionally flooded, shallow marshy environment, it is likely that this situation existed for the most of the Holocene from the Mesolithic through to the late prehistoric period when the creek became tidal. As the alluvium provides a good medium for organic survival, there would be potential to track the changes in water salinity and flow, past vegetation and for establishing a timeframe through radiocarbon dating.

7.4.17

7.4.18

Past archaeological investigations within the study area
7.4.19 Seven archaeological investigations have been carried out within the 300m radius study area around the site. All seven have recorded historic assets dating to sometime between the 18th and 20th centuries. No assets from earlier periods were recorded.

Page 73

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station 7.4.20

Section 7: Historic environment

In 2002, MOLA carried out an archaeological foreshore survey along Deptford Creek (HEA 2), in the northern part of the site. The investigation included a record of the physical attributes of the creek bed, and a photographic record of the late 19th century or earlier structures along the creek. These included stretches of timber river walls, constructed in the mid-19th century; timber revetments; a masonry riverbed lining of c. 1838; a dock or inlet of 1876–94; barge-bed revetments; masonry and timber splash aprons for the sewage pumping station outfall pipe of 1868; a masonry and timber drain of c. 1868; Halfpenny Hatch rail bridge of 1870; and a line of timber uprights which may be remnants of the river wall line predating the 18th century. The results of these investigations, along with other known sites and finds within the study area, are discussed by period, below.

7.4.21

Archaeological and historical background of the site
7.4.22 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 BC–AD 43) 7.4.23 The Thames and its tributaries were subject to rising water levels throughout prehistory due to sea level changes following the last glacial period. The Ravensbourne would have been an important feature in the prehistoric landscape as, like other rivers, it served as a route through the forested landscape and was a source of rich natural resources. In the Colne and the Lea Rivers for example, Mesolithic flint knapping and butchery assemblages were found within the early Holocene floodplain soils, which later became sealed by expanding wetland deposits. Later in the prehistoric, the nearby high ground of the river terrace in this location could have made it a focus point for settlement or occupation. If the site area was not subject to later river scour or to human activity there is some potential to recover evidence of Mesolithic and later remains across the floodplain. As deforestation took place during the Neolithic with the rise of agriculture, sediment in-wash into tributaries lead to the creation of areas with high potential for palaeo-environmental preservation. In the late prehistoric the site area would have become increasingly marshy until the tidal head of the Thames reached the area as a result of rising sea-levels. It is possible that the site area could therefore contain riverside structures, such as prehistoric branch lain trackways, revetments, jetties and platforms of all periods, as well as palaeoenvironmental evidence, sealed within the alluvium. There are no known features or finds dating to the prehistoric period within the study area. The majority of the site, particularly the western part probably lay within a region which was probably prone to flooding from the River Ravensbourne, known locally as Deptford Creek. Activity, perhaps related to hunting and fishing, may have taken place along the line of the Deptford Creek and its floodplain. Outside the study area, a Palaeolithic tranchet axe was recovered from the Ravensbourne River at the Century Works, Conington Road, c. 770m

7.4.24

7.4.25

Page 74

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 7: Historic environment

to the south of the site. Bronze Age artefacts have also been recovered from the Ravensbourne and its floodplain in Lewisham, c. 750m to the south of the site, suggesting that its natural resources were exploited throughout the prehistoric period. Roman period (AD 43–410) 7.4.26 The Roman settlement of Londinium lies c. 5.4km to the northwest of the site. Although the Greater London Historic Environment Record (GLHER) has a record for the Roman road (HEA 7), c. 40m to the north of the site, the likely projection of Watling Street, the main road through this area is likely to be further south, along the northwest to southeast line of the modern New Cross Road, c. 310m to the south of the site 23. The point, at which the road crosses Deptford Creek, the present Deptford Broadway, near the bridge over Deptford Creek c. 330m to the southwest, would have attracted settlement. Evidence here was uncovered in 1866, when a portion of tessellated pavement and brickwork was excavated below Deptford High Street. An archaeological excavation on Deptford Broadway uncovered fragments of Roman pottery 24. No evidence of Roman occupation has been recorded within the study area, and during this period the site lay within or on the eastern bank of the Deptford Creek. As such it would probably have been seasonally flooded, particularly with rising sea levels in the later Roman period. Grazing of animals, or marshland activities (such as fishing, harvesting reeds or salt making), could conceivably have taken place within the site, as seen elsewhere in the lower Thames Estuary. Early medieval (Saxon) period (AD 410–1066) 7.4.28 During its early history, the area of Deptford, within which the site lies, was a small island of solid ground, surrounded by a bog swamp, and was known as ‘Meretun’ meaning ‘town in the marshes’ 25. The place name of Deptford itself is of Anglo-Saxon in origin, referring to a deep ford crossing the river Ravensbourne 26. The old Roman road (see above) is likely to have continued in use as a route to Canterbury. A ford, and later a bridge, provided access across the river at the point just before it becomes tidal and widens into Deptford Creek, at the site of modern Deptford Bridge, c. 370m to the southwest of the site. Two Saxon settlement centres have been suggested. One, Deptford Strand, is likely to have been in the area of St Nicholas’ Church at Deptford Green, c. 550m to the northwest of the site. The church may be a Saxon foundation, as early-to-middle Saxon pottery was found nearby during excavations in 1996. The other may have been to the south, in the vicinity of Deptford Bridge and Deptford Broadway c. 370m to the southwest of the site. Two 7th century burials were found during excavations in 1992 and 2003 on the northeast side of the junction of Deptford High Street and New Cross Road, c. 325m to the southwest of the site (outside the study area). One included grave goods of jewellery and other personal items 27. It is likely that during this period the site was located on the eastern bank of the Deptford Creek, outside the main areas of occupation. Parts, or all,

7.4.27

7.4.29

7.4.30

Page 75

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 7: Historic environment

of the site were seasonally flooded, and the site was probably used for rough pasture and the grazing of livestock. Later medieval period (AD 1066–1485) 7.4.31 Domesday Book (1086) records that after the Norman Conquest (1066) West Greenwich (Deptford) was owned by Odo, Bishop of Bayeux and the brother of King William I, and held by Gilbert de Magminot, the Bishop of Lisieux. Deptford included arable land, meadow, pasture, woodland and four mills 28. The secondary settlement of Deptford, beside the river crossing c 370m to the southwest of the site, continued to develop, and there was a wooden bridge by 1359. It lay on the route to Canterbury, and in the late 14th century was mentioned in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales 29. It is possible that the settlement shifted northwards, although the exact extent is uncertain. The GLHER (HEA 17) suggests that it stretched along the western bank of the Deptford Creek as far south as Deptford Bridge, within c. 60m of the western edge of the site (on the opposite side of the Creek), although a 17th century map by John Evelyn (not reproduced) shows settlement further to the north and west, and some distance from the site. Numerous references attest to the flourishing fishing village of Greenwich in the medieval period. It was almost certainly centred on the river side but tapered southwards to and beyond the parish church c. 640m to the northeast of the site. Closer to the site, within the study area the GLHER records a series of timber stakes (HEA 6) c. 20m to the west of the site, found within the silt along the Deptford Creek and thought to date from the medieval to postmedieval period. The stakes were probably the base of a wattle revetment on the eastern edge of the Creek. Additionally the chance find of medieval earthern ware and other medieval pottery (HEA 10) has been recorded c. 190m to the northwest of the site. The site probably remained within seasonally flooded land, and some attempts may have been made at reclamation, possibly including the revetment recording c. 20m to the west (HEA 6). Grazing or other agricultural activities may also have taken place within the site. Post-medieval period (AD 1485–present) 7.4.36 The construction of the Tudor Palace at Greenwich c. 1.1km to the northeast of the site began in 1497 on the site of the old mansion, which had famously been the birthplace of Henry VIII in 1491 30. During the postmedieval period, Deptford became the last stopping place on the Dover Road before London. Rocque’s map of 1768 (Appendix A) is small scale but shows the general topography, settlements and roads. The map shows the site on the eastern bank of Deptford Creek. The northern part of the site probably comprised reclaimed marshland, while the southern part comprised market gardens and properties fronting onto the road which runs along the southeastern edge of the site. Morris’s map of 1832 (Appendix A) shows

7.4.32

7.4.33

7.4.34

7.4.35

7.4.37

Page 76

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 7: Historic environment

limited change within the site; although some small new buildings are shown within the site. 7.4.38 Sims’ map of 1838 (Appendix A) shows the site in more detail and highlights each individual terraced house along the southern part of the site where it fronts Greenwich Road. Running parallel to the Deptford Creek, within the western edge of the site is a drainage ditch, and at its southern end is a small building of unknown use. By the mid 19th century, urban development was more extensive as shown on Stanford’s map of 1862 (Appendix A). The map shows the Deptford/Greenwich Pumping Station in the site which was constructed between 1859 and 1862 by Sir Joseph Basalgette 31. The beam engine house (HEA 1a) to the northeast is grade II listed; as are the two coal sheds (HEA 1b and HEA 1c) in the southwestern part of the site. The northern part of the site is undeveloped and abuts the Greenwich railway. Chapel Place, shown just beyond the southeastern edge of the site, may have acquired its name from an earlier chapel in the area where John Wesley preached a funeral sermon for George Whitfield in 1770. The chapel originated as a wooden barn ‘on the north side of Greenwich Road, now Greenwich High Road’ in around 1750 32. The exact location of this early chapel is uncertain but is possible that it lay within the site. The reluctance of the Anglican Church to conduct burial funerary services over non-conformers led to the growth of burial grounds attached to nonconformist meeting houses during the 18th century 33, and it is conceivable that burials took place within or around the early chapel. There is no evidence of a burial ground on any historic maps, and Ms Basil Holmes survey does not record a burial ground here 34. The Ordnance Survey 1st edition 25”:mile map of 1862–95 (Appendix A) shows no change in regards to the buildings within the site although the originally open areas which surrounded the pumping station buildings are now shown as a wooded park. The Ordnance survey 2nd edition 25”:mile map of 1896–8 (Appendix A) shows no change within the site. In 1905, the beam engine house (HEA 1a) in the site was extended and is shown on the Ordnance Survey 3rd edition 25”:mile map of 1909–20 (Appendix A). This map also shows that the terraced houses which lay in the southern edge of the site had been demolished. Chapel Place had been renamed Capella Place and just within the site, by the junction of Capella Place and Greenwich Road was a small building of unknown function. At the northern end of the site the map shows two large cooling tanks, which would have been excavated into the ground. During World War II the two coal sheds suffered serious but repairable damage. The Ordnance Survey 1:2500 scale map of 1947–72 (Appendix A) shows three small tanks built within the site; one at the eastern edge, one in the middle and the third next to the coal shed. An electricity substation was also constructed at the southern end of the site fronting onto Greenwich High Road.

7.4.39

7.4.40

7.4.41

7.4.42

Page 77

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Current area of the site 7.4.43

Section 7: Historic environment

Phoenix/Harts Wharf which comprises the northern section of the site, north of the railway line, is bounded by a vehicle repair garage and offices to the north, Norman Road and the Greenwich Centre Business Park to the east and Deptford Creek to the west. The Docklands Light Railway (DLR) was constructed in the late 1990s. This extension cut across the central part of the site. The southern part of the site contains the main Greenwich Pumping Station buildings surrounded by access routes and low level landscaping. The two coal sheds are, or have recently been, used for storage and the southernmost of the two has structures within it built using cement block.

Statement of significance: above ground heritage assets
Introduction 7.4.44 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 defined in Volume 5. Within the site 7.4.45 Several buildings adjacent to, and within, the site boundary are Grade II listed structures which relate to Bazalgette’s pumping station and were built in the early 1860s and operational by 1865. These buildings include a north and south beam engine house in an Italianate style, linked by a central boiler house (HEA 1a; Appendix A), along with two separate coal sheds (HEA 1b and 1c) to the south of the pumping station. At present, the central boiler house and the southern beam engine house, along with its 1905 annexe, are occupied by Thames Water and are still used as a pumping station. The northern coal shed is free of any recent structures and the original cobbled surface survives well (Appendix A). Coal was unloaded from Deptford Creek at Greenwich Road Wharf and stored in the adjacent coal sheds. From there it was loaded onto trolleys, running along rails complete with turn tables and pushed, probably manually, in order to feed coal into the central boiler house. The rails and turntables may survive in places beneath the modern surface and are visible on the 1862– 95 OS map (Appendix A). The north beam engine house is currently empty and unoccupied and the machinery has been removed, although there are features of interest that survive within the building (Appendix A). Both the south and the north beam engine houses contain subterranean areas, which are of heritage interest in their own right. The listing for the north beam engine house includes the stone steps on the northwestern side of the building, along with the surviving iron railings and entrance platform (Appendix A). The listing also includes the 1909 extension to the southern beam engine house, which was built to match the Italianate style of the 1865 building. These Grade II listed structures (including subterranean areas) are heritage assets of high significance. The London to Greenwich railway was London’s first passenger railway, opening in 1836 and originally running from Spa Road Bermondsey to

7.4.46

Page 78

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 7: Historic environment

Deptford with the extension to Greenwich opening c 1838. The brick-built viaduct and the lifting bridge structure over Deptford Creek still stand (HEA 3), and is in good condition (Appendix A). The viaduct runs across the northern central part of the site. The section from Greenwich to Deptford is a Grade II listed structure and is therefore considered a heritage asset of high significance. 7.4.47 The site originally included a cooling basin, in the form of a large concrete tank (mentioned above in Section 7.4.41), divided centrally, north-south into two chambers (HEA1d). This tank is no longer visible and is believed to be buried. It is of medium heritage significance because of its relationship with the standing buildings of the pumping station. It was situated adjacent to Deptford Creek and to the north of the beam engine house in the area in the foreground of Appendix A. This structure is first visible on the OS maps between the years 1909–1920 and is likely to have been filled and covered since 1970s, though the concrete lining probably still remains. It is shown on the original construction drawings dated 1861 and it formed the cooling water ponds for the beam engine house. However on the late 19th century OS maps, the feature does not appear and the area is illustrated as open land with trees and paths. It is possible that it was planned as part of the original site but not built until much later. It is likely that it was built in 1909–1920 and the concrete lining, if it survives, is thought to lie at a depth of approximately 4.0mbgl. It is of some heritage interest, as it is has an historical association with the wider pumping station. Other disused elements associated with the cooling basin including a pump chamber, well and valve chamber and the interconnecting pipes between the basin and the beam engine house may also still exist. These associated features can be considered heritage assets of medium significance. The site includes a disused London Electric Supply Corporation Ltd electricity substation (HEA 1e; Appendix A). The LESC was founded c. 1888 and built Britain’s first large scale electrical power station (demolished in the 1960s) on a site approximately 400m to the north of Greenwich Pumping Station 35. The engineer was the prominent inventor and pioneer of the alternating current, Sebastian Ziani de Ferranti. The LESC therefore has a strong historical link to the Deptford Creek area, although the substation building on the boundary of the site appears to date from the early–mid 20th century. Due to its evidential and historical value, it is an asset of local interest and can be considered to be of medium significance. Within the study area 7.4.49 The Ashburnham Triangle Conservation area, designated by the LB of Greenwich, lies directly to the south of the site with its northwestern boundary beginning on the opposite side of the Greenwich High Road. The conservation area is named after the Ashburnham Family who owned and developed much of the area within the Conservation Area in the earlymid 19th century 36. The area includes a rich variety of residential buildings mainly from the early and mid 19th century, with some earlier buildings surviving and there are 26 statutorily listed and 210 locally listed

7.4.48

Page 79

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 7: Historic environment

buildings within its boundary. The conservation area is a heritage asset of high significance. 7.4.50 Within the Thames Water compound, outside the site boundary to the southeast of the pumping station, is a brick built chimney, relatively small in height for an industrial chimney and much overgrown with foliage (HEA 34; Appendix A). Though not listed in itself and not included in the listing description for Bazalgette’s pumping station, it is of interest and is thought to be historically associated with the pumping station. It’s exact function and date are unclear, but is considered to be of medium heritage significance due to its historical value, it’s likely age and its probable association with the listed buildings nearby. Within the study area are numerous locally and statutorily Grade II listed buildings. Some of these also lie within the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area. The statutorily listed Grade II buildings are assets of high significance and include 98–104 Greenwich High Road (HEA 4); 165 and 167 Greenwich High Road (HEA 13); K2 telephone kiosk outside 171 Greenwich High Road (HEA 14); The Miller General Hospital Royal Kent Dispensary (HEA 16); and 2 Burgos Grove (HEA 20). The locally listed buildings are considered to be of medium significance as heritage assets. They have been listed by the local authority due to their architectural merit or their historical value. Within the study area, they include 1-40a, 40, 44–61, 65–74 Ashburnham Grove (HEA 23); 10, 11, 13–27 Ashburnham Place (HEA 24); 4 and 6, 8–24 Burgos Grove (HEA 25); 10–14 Catherine Grove (HEA 26); Devonshire Drive Baptist Church (HEA 27); St Paul’s Holy Trinity Church, Devonshire Drive (HEA 28); 7– 10, 11, 12 and 13, 17–32 Egerton Drive (HEA 29); 141 West Greenwich house, Greenwich High Road (HEA 30); 135 Greenwich High Road (HEA 31); 161–163 Dovys Wine Vaults, Greenwich High Road (HEA 32) and 169 Greenwich High Road (HEA 33);

7.4.51

7.4.52

Statement of significance: buried heritage assets within the site Introduction
7.4.53 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 7.4.55 Archaeological survival potential across the site is likely to vary. Remains within and beneath any deep alluvial deposits, and at the alluvial/gravel interface, (ie, palaeoenvironmental, prehistoric) have a greater survival potential, but later remains will have seen disturbance from building

7.4.54

Page 80

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 7: Historic environment

development from the mid/late 19th century onwards, which is likely to result in localised rather than extensive survival. Past impacts are described below: 7.4.56 The construction of the cooling tanks in the northern part of the site would have removed any archaeological remains from within their footprint, down to an approximate depth of 4.0m below ground level (mbgl). The boreholes suggest that alluvium may extend down to approximately 6.0mbgl close to Deptford Creek. On the northwestern part of the site, deeper archaeological remains could potentially survive beneath the truncation from the tanks. The beam engine houses, including the 1905 extension, have large subterranean areas probably extending to a depth of several metres These will have completely removed any archaeological remains from within their footprint, and there is unlikely to be any further survival of such remains below this truncation. Numerous service trenches (eg, sewer, gas cables etc) cross the site. All service trenches will have removed archaeological remains from within their footprint. The deepest service trenches are the East Greenwich Relief Sewer which crosses the site on a southwest/northeast alignment (which is up to 6.5m deep) and the Combined Sewer, which lies in the northwestern part of the site (which is up to 7.0m deep). Where shallow services of c. 1.0–2.0mbgl are present, archaeological remains could potentially survive beneath this truncation. The existing buildings and former terraced housing on the southern part of the site would have been constructed on strip or pad foundations. These are likely to have removed any archaeological remains from within their footprint, although there is likely to be some archaeological survival between and beneath individual foundations. Any cellars beneath the terraced houses would have partially or completely removed any earlier archaeological remains within the footprint of each cellar. Asset potential and significance 7.4.60 The following statement of asset significance takes into account the levels of natural geology at the site and the level and nature of disturbance and truncation. Palaeo-environment 7.4.61 The site has a high potential to contain palaeoenvironmental remains. The geological deposits have the potential to hold a record of environmental change and the evolving floodplain geomorphology stretching back to the Late Glacial period. Any peat deposits have the potential to preserve a range of palaeoenvironmental proxy indicators (pollen, plant macro fossils), which if present could be utilised to reconstruct the past palaeoecology of the floodplain and environments within which prehistoric occupation occurred. Any fluvial and estuarine deposits would also have the potential to preserve palaeoenvironmental remains (ostracods, foraminifera, diatoms) which can be utilised to reconstruct the past fluvial regimes and indicate the onset of tidal inundations and the transition to an estuarine river environment. Such

7.4.57

7.4.58

7.4.59

Page 81

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 7: Historic environment

remains would be of low or medium significance depending on their nature and degree of preservation. This would be derived from the evidential value of such remains. Prehistoric 7.4.62 The site has an uncertain, possibly low potential for archaeological remains dating to the prehistoric period. There are no known prehistoric features or finds within the study area. The majority of the site overlies alluvial deposits suggesting that the site probably lay within the Deptford creek or its floodplain during this period, and so would not have been a first choice for permanent occupation. Marshland activity may have taken place, but no evidence of prehistoric trackways has been found within the study area. Isolated artefacts would be of low significance; in situ features would potentially be of high significance, but are unlikely to be present. This would be derived from the evidential value of such remains. Roman 7.4.63 The site has an uncertain, but probably low, potential for archaeological remains dating to the Roman period. It is thought that there were at least two areas of Roman occupation at Deptford, the nearest of which lay c. 330m to the southwest of the site. Although the GLHER notes the presence of Roman road c. 40m to the north of the site, it is much more likely that the main road through the area lay c. 370m to the south. No evidence of Roman activity or occupation has been recorded within the study area, and in all likelihood the site lay some distance from the main settlements, in a rural area along the creek. It was probably prone to flooding and may have been used for pasture. Isolated artefacts would be of low significance; in situ features would potentially be of high significance, but are unlikely to be present. This would be derived from the evidential value of such remains. Early medieval 7.4.64 The site has a low potential for archaeological remains dating to the early medieval period. There is evidence for continued occupation at Deptford c. 330m to the southwest of the site, although the GLHER suggests that the settlement probably extended to within c. 60m of the site’s western edge. No finds or features of early medieval date have been recorded within the study area and the much of the site is likely to have remained marshy and seasonally flooded. The site probably lay on the eastern bank of the Deptford Creek in marshes outside the main settlement. Isolated artefacts would be of low significance; in situ features would potentially be of high significance, but are unlikely to be present. This would be derived from the evidential and historical value of such remains. Later medieval 7.4.65 The site has a moderate potential for archaeological remains dating to the later medieval period. It is likely that during this period the site still lay outside the main settlement in marshy or seasonally inundated land. Riverside features may lie within the site and could comprise wooden revetments similar to those identified c. 20m to the west of the site. Any later medieval riverside features (revetments, wharves etc) would be of

Page 82

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 7: Historic environment

medium asset significance, based on their evidential and historical value. Agricultural ditches and evidence of reclamation would be of low significance, derived from the evidential and historical value of such remains. Post-medieval 7.4.66 The site has a high potential for archaeological remains dating to the postmedieval period. Historic maps from 1746 shows a number of buildings within the site, initially in the southern part, fronting onto the road which ran from Deptford Bridge to Greenwich (now Greenwich High Road). The number of buildings increased in the 19th century. The buried remains of these buildings (footings, cellars) would be of low asset significance based on their evidential and historical value. It is possible that a barn, used as a Baptist meeting house, was located on the site. This is based largely on place name evidence (‘Chapel Place’). Remains of such would be of low asset significance. It is conceivable, if the chapel had indeed been present, that there may have been associated burials (of high asset significance), although there is no map or other evidence for such, and the likelihood for the remains of the barn or of associated burials being located within the site is low.

7.4.67

Summary of asset significance
7.4.68 The table below provides a summary of the known or likely historic environment assets relevant to the proposed project. Vol 26 Table 7.4.1 Historic environment receptors Receptor (Asset) Asset type Significance (value)

Above ground heritage assets 19th century Grade II listed north beam engine house relating to Bazalgette’s pumping station 19th century Grade II listed coal sheds relating to the pumping station 19th or early 20th century cooling basin and associated features relating to the pumping station Early 20th century LESC electricity substation Grade II listed London to Greenwich railway viaduct and lifting bridge Above ground/ within the site High

Above ground/ within the site Buried/ within the site

High

Medium

Above ground/ within the site Above ground/ within the site

Medium High

Page 83

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Receptor (Asset) Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area 19th century brick chimney; probably associated with the pumping station Grade II listed buildings within the study area, including those within the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area Locally listed buildings within the study area, including those within the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area High potential for palaeoenvironmental remains Uncertain but possibly low potential for previously unknown prehistoric and Roman remains Low potential for early medieval remains

Section 7: Historic environment Asset type Above ground/ outside the site Above ground/ outside the site Above ground/ outside the site High Significance (value)

Medium

High

Above ground/ outside the site

Medium

Buried heritage assets Buried/ within the site Buried/ within the site Low or medium

Low (for redeposited artefacts) to high (for in situ features) Uncertain, possibly low (for redeposited artefacts) to high (for in situ features) Low

Buried/ within the site

Moderate potential for remains of later medieval drainage ditches/land reclamation Moderate potential for later medieval revetments or wharves High potential for 18th and 19th century footings/cellars of postmedieval buildings in the southern part of the site.

Buried/ within the site

Buried/ within the site Buried/ within the site

Medium

Low

Page 84

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Receptor (Asset) Low potential for possible Baptist chapel/barn Low potential for burials associated with possible Baptist Chapel

Section 7: Historic environment Asset type Buried/ within the site Buried/ within the site Low Significance (value)

High (unlikely)

7.5

Construction assessment Above ground heritage assets
Within the site

7.5.1

It is proposed that the currently disused Grade II listed eastern beam engine house would be used to house the ventilation structures for the project. The proposed modifications are localised and the impact is assessed as being of low magnitude. Given the high significance of the asset, this would constitute a minor adverse effect. The work would require listed building consent from the Secretary of State. The Grade II listed coal sheds would be removed to allow the area to be used for storage and facilities, and reinstated following the completion of the works. This would temporarily remove a Grade II listed building and pose risk to the survival of the building through loss or damage during removal, storage and reconstruction. Whilst the building would be reinstated, in view of the risks, it is considered that this would give rise to a medium magnitude of impact. In view of the high significance of the asset, its statutory listing and the risks concerned, the proposals would constitute a moderate adverse effect, albeit that this would be temporary in nature ceasing after reinstatement, which forms part of the construction works. The work would require listed building consent from the Secretary of State. Part of the cooling tank, of medium asset significance, would be locally removed by the proposed works. This would comprise a medium magnitude of impact and moderate adverse effect. The assessment of indirect effects upon the historic setting of the 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. Similarly effects upon the historic setting of the listed structures within the site will be addressed through the ongoing EIA for presentation in the ES. Within the study area The assessment of effects upon the historic setting of surrounding designated/protected heritage assets within the study area, including Ashburnham Conservation Area and listed buildings, for example from the

7.5.2

7.5.3

7.5.4

7.5.5

Page 85

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 7: Historic environment

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 report. 7.5.6 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.

Buried heritage assets
7.5.7 The following section describes the effects predicted from the enabling and construction works. Where the construction works would take place in an area already affected by enabling works, the overall effect on the heritage resource from both phases of works is summarised Vol 26 Table 7.5.1 in order to ensure effects are not ‘double-counted’. Enabling works 7.5.8 The predicted impact of each element of the enabling works is set out below: a. The construction of the works compound is likely to entail preliminary site stripping, assumed for the purposes of this assessment to extend to a depth of up to 0.2mbgl. Site fencing will be erected, supported by timber posts in concrete foundations. Office, storage and welfare facilities will be constructed upon pad foundations to a depth assumed for the purposes of this assessment to be 1.0mbgl. These works would have a localised impact on any archaeological remains within the made ground. The enabling works would also entail the diversion of existing services and the construction of new service trenches approximately 1.0–2.0m deep, as assumed for the purposes for this assessment. These works would potentially locally truncate archaeological remains. This would locally reduce the significance of the assets to negligible and would amount to a medium magnitude of impact. There is a high potential for post-medieval remains, which are most likely to be affected by these works: i Below ground remains (footings, cellars) of 19th century terraced housing, of low asset significance. The localised removal of remains would comprise a medium magnitude of impact and would result in a minor adverse effect. Evidence of later medieval/post-medieval drainage and reclamation, of low asset significance is anticipated. The localised removal of these remains by the enabling works would comprise a

ii

Page 86

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 7: Historic environment

medium magnitude of impact, would result in a minor adverse effect. iii Below ground remains (footings, cellars) of an 18th century Baptist chapel/barn and possibly burials (low probability). The removal of human remains (high asset significance) would comprise a high magnitude of impact and therefore a major adverse effect. The Baptist chapel is of low asset significance and the effect would be minor adverse. However, the location of the chapel is uncertain, and even if the chapel is present on the site, there may not be any burials associated with it. The presence of human remains is therefore uncertain and of low probability.

Construction works 7.5.9 The construction works would entirely remove any archaeological remains within the footprint of the CSO drop shaft. Within the footprint of the interception chamber, valve chamber and crane base, any archaeological remains present above the formation level of the works would be removed, reducing the significance of any affected assets present here to negligible. This would comprise a high magnitude of impact. The affected assets and the resulting environmental effects would comprise the following: a. There is a high potential for palaeoenvironmental remains of low to medium significance. The removal of such remains would constitute an environmental effect of minor adverse significance. b. There is an uncertain, but possibly low potential for prehistoric and Roman remains. If prehistoric or Roman remains are found these are most likely to comprise isolated redeposited features of low significance, the removal of which would constitute an effect of minor adverse significance. c. There is a low potential for early medieval remains of low asset significance. The removal of such remains would comprise a minor adverse effect.

d. There is a moderate potential for possible later medieval riverside features, such as drainage ditches and land reclamation, of low asset significance, and of revetments and wharves of low or medium significance. The removal of such remains would comprise a minor or moderate adverse effect, respectively. 7.5.10 Palaeoenvironmental remains are likely to be present within the alluvium (ie, below 1.0mbgl) and are of low or medium asset significance. In addition to the physical removal of such remains by the deep excavations mentioned above, dewatering and changes in subsurface water levels are likely to have a wider impact on this asset. By changing their environment, dewatering could cause palaeoenvironmental (and organic) remains to decay and reduce their significance from low or medium to negligible locally. However, these remains are located throughout the alluvium, which is extensive. As only localised removal is proposed, the overall magnitude of impact would be low (as a resource, the overall asset significance would be little reduced), and would constitute a minor adverse effect.

Page 87

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 7: Historic environment

Significance of environmental effect
7.5.11 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 26 Table 7.5.1 Historic environment effects - construction Asset (resource) Impact (magnitude, and justification) Above ground heritage assets Grade II eastern beam engine house 19th century Grade II listed Bazalgette coal sheds relating to the pumping station (high asset significance) 19th or early 20th century cooling basin and associated features relating to the pumping station (Medium asset significance) Setting of the 19th century Grade II listed beam engine houses relating to Bazalgette’s pumping station (High asset significance) Low Localised modifications Medium Sheds to be removed and reconstructed. Risk of loss or damage during removal and reconstruction. Medium Localised removal of part of the cooling tank Minor adverse Moderate adverse Effect (prior to mitigation)

Moderate adverse

Effects on setting to be assessed in the ES

Effects on setting to be assessed in the ES

Setting of Grade II listed Effects on setting to be London to Greenwich assessed in the ES railway viaduct and lifting bridge Setting of Ashburnham Conservation Area and Grade II listed and locally listed buildings within it Effects on setting to be assessed in the ES

Effects on setting to be assessed in the ES

Effects on setting to be assessed in the ES

Page 88

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Asset (resource)

Section 7: Historic environment Impact (magnitude, and justification) Effect (prior to mitigation) Minor adverse

Buried heritage assets High potential for palaeoenvironmental remains (Low to medium asset significance) Uncertain but possibly low potential for previously unknown prehistoric and Roman remains (Possibly low to high asset significance) Low potential for early medieval remains (Low asset significance) High Remains removed by piling, drop shaft, interception chamber and connections High, if present Localised removal during enabling works and more extensive impacts from drop shaft, interception chamber and connections High Remains removed by piling, drop shaft, interception chamber and connections High Localised removal during enabling works and more extensive impacts from drop shaft, interception chamber and connections High Localised removal during enabling works and more extensive impacts from drop shaft, interception chamber and connections Medium Localised removed due to site preparation, stripping an enabling works.

Uncertain. If present, possibly minor to major adverse depending on nature, date and significance of assets. Minor adverse

Moderate potential for medieval drainage ditches/land reclamation (Low asset significance)

Minor adverse

Moderate potential for later medieval revetments and wharves (Low or medium asset significance) High potential for footings/cellars of postmedieval buildings in the southern part of the site (Low asset significance) Low potential for possible Baptist chapel/barn (Low asset significance) Low potential for

Minor or moderate adverse

Minor adverse

High if present Removal during enabling and construction works High, if present

Minor adverse

Major adverse, if

Page 89

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Asset (resource)

Section 7: Historic environment Effect (prior to mitigation) present (unlikely)

Impact (magnitude, and justification) possible burials Removal during enabling associated with possible and construction works Baptist Chapel (High asset significance, if present)

7.6
7.6.1

Operational assessment Above ground heritage assets
There are potentially significant benefits associated with the refurbishment and reuse of the Grade II listed northern beam-engine house, provided this is undertaken in a sensitive manner, with alterations that are consistent with the original function of the building. Given the current disused state of the building, a viable use is likely to ensure survival and upkeep and is therefore preferable to gradual dereliction and decay. In order for this to be practical, some changes would be necessary to the external and internal appearance of the building (see para. 7.5.1 above). An overall moderate or major beneficial effect is anticipated. This will be confirmed through the ongoing EIA for inclusion in the ES. The effect of the project upon the historic setting of designated/protected heritage assets within the study area including the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area, Grade II listed Pumping Station and coal sheds within the site and the Grade II listed London to Greenwich railway viaduct located within the site, 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 report. In general, where materials are in keeping with the surrounding structures, planting and hard landscaping are sympathetic or heights are kept low, the impact on historic assets would be minimised.

7.6.2

Buried heritage assets
7.6.3 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 project.

Significance of environmental effect
7.6.4 The table below summarises the magnitude of impact upon known and possible historic environment assets at the site (above ground and buried),

Page 90

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 7: Historic environment

during the operational phase, and the resulting environmental effect. This is the effect prior to the implementation of an agreed mitigation strategy. Vol 26 Table 7.6.1 Historic environment effects – operation Asset (resource) 19th century Grade II listed eastern beam engine house (High asset significance) Setting of Ashburnham Conservation Area (High asset significance) Setting of 19th century Grade II listed beam engine houses and coal sheds Impact (magnitude, and justification) Major beneficial Reuse of the current derelict building Effect (prior to mitigation) Moderate to Major beneficial (to be confirmed in the ES) To be assessed in the ES

To be assessed in the ES

To be assessed in the ES

To be assessed in the ES

Setting of Grade II listed To be assessed in the ES London to Greenwich railway viaduct and lifting bridge Setting of Grade II listed To be assessed in the ES and locally listed buildings within Ashburnham Conservation Area

To be assessed in the ES

To be assessed in the ES

7.7
7.7.1

Approach to mitigation Construction
All measures embedded in the draft CoCP of relevance to the historic environment are found in para. 7.2.3. Additional mitigation measures proposed are detailed below.

Above ground heritage assets
Within the site 7.7.2 The reuse of the eastern beam engine house of the Grade II listed pumping station would be beneficial in terms of its future survival (see Operational effects, 7.5.1). However, modifications to the building (an

Page 91

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 7: Historic environment

asset of high significance) could pose a risk to its heritage significance from accidental damage. Alteration to the fabric of the building would require listed building consent. Modifications would require a programme of standing structure survey and recording prior to and during alteration, to English Heritage Level 3 standard 37. This would comprise an analytical record with additional archival and documentary research, and a written, photographic and drawn record, and would achieve preservation by record (through advancing understanding of asset significance). This would allow appropriate choices to be made about the best location for modifications and help to avoid any risk of accidental loss or damage. This would mitigate the potential minor adverse effect arising during the construction phase and would result in a negligible residual effect. 7.7.3 The removal and reconstruction of the Grade II listed coal sheds poses a risk in terms of accidental damage, which could reduce their asset significance. A programme of standing structure survey and recording would be necessary prior to and during removal of the sheds, to English Heritage Level 3 standard 38. This would comprise an analytical record with additional archival and documentary research, and a written, photographic and drawn record, and would achieve preservation by record (through advancing understanding of asset significance). This would allow appropriate choices to be made about the reconstruction of the buildings in order to avoid any risk of accidental loss or damage. This would reduce the potential moderate adverse effect to minor. The moderate adverse effect on the cooling tanks, which are assumed to exist underground, could be mitigated through a programme of standing structure survey and recording prior to and during the works, to English Heritage Level 2 standard 39. This survey would be undertaken following exposure of the cooling tanks. The standing structure survey or archaeological recording would reflect its relationship with the other heritage assets of the pumping station. Appropriate recording would reduce the moderate adverse effect to negligible. Within the study area 7.7.5 Any mitigation which may be required for effects on above ground heritage assets will be detailed in the ES, following consideration of the significance of these assets, their setting and the predicted effects. 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.

7.7.4

Buried heritage assets
7.7.6 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 92

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station 7.7.7

Section 7: Historic environment

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 any subsequent field evaluation post-consent and prior to the start of construction , mitigation of the adverse effects upon archaeological remains within the site is likely to include the following: An archaeological watching brief during demolition and construction to mitigate the impacts on the 19th century remains, of low significance (ie, terraced housing and drainage ditches). a. Mitigation of the impacts on the late 19th to 20th century cooling tanks has been considered in para. 7.7.4, due to their relationship with standing structures on the site. b. Archaeological excavation and recording will be required for any human remains present on the site. This would need to be undertaken under the terms of a Burial Licence from the Ministry of Justice. Remains associated with the Baptist Chapel would need to be reburied in consecrated ground after exhumation. c. Prior archaeological survey and excavation to mitigate the impacts within the foreshore (ie, within the area of the piled deck over Deptford Creek). Precise details of mitigation depend on the construction methodology.

7.7.8

7.7.9

d. Due to the depth of alluvium on the site, mitigation of the impacts of deeper proposed excavations on palaeoenvironmental and prehistoric remains would only become feasible following the insertion of the perimeter walls/shaft segments of each construction (the shaft, the chambers etc). 7.7.10 Both evaluation and mitigation would be carried out in accordance with a scope of works (Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI)), agreed with statutory consultees prior to the commencement of construction. The 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 Development Consent Order.

Operation Above ground heritage assets
7.7.11 Any likely significant effects resulting from changes to the setting and appearance of the Grade II listed buildings of the pumping station, which will be assessed for the ES, could be mitigated by careful design to ensure the new upstanding structures and hard and soft landscaping appear in

Page 93

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 7: Historic environment

keeping with the surrounding buildings and adjacent conservation area. This could be undertaken through the use of sympathertic materials, minimising the heights of new structures and sympathetic soft landscaping. 7.7.12 Any mitigation which may be required for effects on other above ground heritage assets will be detailed in the ES, following consideration of the significance of these assets, their setting 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.

Buried heritage assets
7.7.13 No operational effects on buried heritage assets have been identified and so no mitigation is required.

Page 94

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 7: Historic environment

7.8
Vol 26 Table 7.8.1 Historic environment construction assessment Significance of effect Above ground heritage assets Minor adverse Level 3 standing structure survey to form preservation by record and avoid damage or loss by appropriate choice of materials and modifications. Level 3 standing structure survey to form preservation by record and reduce potential for accidental damage or loss. Level 2 standing structure survey to form preservation by record and consider the asset in terms of the pumping station as a whole To be determined in the ES Negligible Mitigation Residual effect

Assessment summary

Construction

Asset (receptor)

19th century Grade II listed north beam engine house relating to Bazalgette’s pumping station (High asset significance) Major adverse

19th century Grade II listed coal sheds (High asset significance)

Minor adverse

19th or early 20th century cooling basin and associated features relating to the pumping station (Medium asset significance) To be assessed in the ES

Moderate adverse

Negligible

Setting of Ashburnham Conservation Area (High asset significance) To be assessed in the ES

To be assessed in the ES

Setting of 19th century Grade II listed north and south beam engine houses and coal sheds

To be determined in the ES

To be assessed in the ES

Page 95

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Significance of effect To be assessed in the ES To be determined in the ES Mitigation Residual effect To be assessed in the ES

Section 7: Historic environment

Asset (receptor)

Setting of Grade II listed London to Greenwich railway viaduct and lifting bridge To be assessed in the ES To be determined in the ES

Setting of Grade II listed and locally listed buildings within Ashburnham Conservation Area Buried heritage assets Minor adverse Environmental sampling during archaeological investigation Archaeological investigation and recording to form preservation by record

To be assessed in the ES

High potential for palaeoenvironmental remains (Low or medium asset significance) Uncertain. If present, possibly minor to major adverse depending on nature, date and significance Minor adverse

Negligible

Uncertain but possibly low potential for previously unknown prehistoric and Roman remains (possibly low to high asset significance)

Negligible

Low potential for early medieval remains (Low asset significance) Minor adverse

Archaeological investigation and recording to form preservation by record Archaeological watching brief to form preservation by record Archaeological watching brief to form preservation by record

Negligible

Moderate potential for later medieval drainage ditches/land reclamation (Low asset significance)

Negligible

Moderate potential for later medieval revetments and wharves (Low or medium asset significance)

Minor or moderate adverse

Negligible

Page 96

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Significance of effect Archaeological watching brief to form preservation by record Negligible Mitigation Residual effect

Section 7: Historic environment

Asset (receptor)

High potential for 18th and 19th century Minor adverse footings/cellars of post-medieval buildings in the southern part of the site (Low asset significance) Minor adverse Archaeological watching brief to form preservation by record Archaeological investigation and recording to form preservation by record Negligible

Low potential for possible Baptist chapel/barn (Low asset significance) Major adverse if present

Low potential for possible burials associated with possible Baptist chapel (High asset significance, if present)

Negligible

Vol 26 Table 7.8.2 Historic environment operational assessment Significance Mitigation of effect Negligible Residual effect Moderate or major beneficial (to be confirmed in the ES)

Asset (receptor)

19th century Grade II listed north beam engine houses

Setting of Ashburnham Conservation Area (High asset significance) To be assessed in the ES

Moderate or major beneficial (to be confirmed in the ES) To be assessed in the ES To be identified in the ES To be identified in the ES

To be assessed in the ES

Setting of 19th century Grade II listed north and south beam engine houses and coal sheds

To be assessed in the ES

Page 97

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Significance Mitigation of effect Residual effect

Section 7: Historic environment

Asset (receptor)

Setting of Grade II listed London to Greenwich railway viaduct and lifting bridge To be assessed in the ES To be assessed in the ES To be assessed in the ES

To be assessed in the ES

To be assessed in the ES

To be assessed in the ES

Setting of Grade II listed and locally listed buildings within Ashburnham Conservation Area

Page 98

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 7: Historic environment

7.9
7.9.1

Assessment completion
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). Possible effects of ground settlement resulting from deep constructions within the site, other than the tunnel itself (this will be discussed in Volume 6: project-wide effects) will be considered in the EIA 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 for the purposes of this report. 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 99

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

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 Greenwich Pumping Station site. This section should be read in conjunction with Section 13 (Groundwater), Section 14 (Surface Water), Section 5 (Aquatic Ecology) and Section 6 (Terrestrial Ecology).

8.1.2

8.2
8.2.1

Proposed development
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to land quality are as follows: Permanent works at Greenwich Pumping Station include: a. a CSO drop shaft (online) for the Greenwich Connection Tunnel b. an interception chamber c. a connection culvert d. a valve chamber.

8.2.2

8.2.3

Temporary Works at this location include: a. a tunnel drive site for connection tunnel to the main tunnel at Chambers Wharf b. the development of a new campshed.

8.2.4 8.2.5

At this stage it is envisaged that the tunnel will be constructed using a Slurry Tunnel Boring Machine. The base of the main shaft is within the Chalk so dewatering and/or ground treatment will be required within the Lambeth Group/ Thanet/ Chalk. The plan shown in Vol 26 Figure 3.1.1 to Vol 26 Figure 3.1.4 provides an indicative extent and layout of the construction site. On completion, a ventilation building will be built within the existing pump house. The permanent works area will be graded and a high grade capping concrete and paved surface constructed. 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

8.2.6 8.2.7 8.2.8 8.2.9

Page 100

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station d. the employment of UXO specialist advice. 8.2.10

Section 8: Land quality

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 8.3.2

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.

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 site specific variations for this site.

Assumptions and limitations
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 is 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 A site walkover of the preferred work site to connect the local combined sewer overflow (Greenwich Pumping Station) to the main tunnel of the proposed Thames Tunnel project was undertaken on 18 November 2010. A site walkover report is presented in Appendix B.

8.4.4

Page 101

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 8: Land quality

Site history and surroundings with potential for contaminants
8.4.5 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 a site walkover. Vol 26 Figure 8.4.1 shows the location of the items summarised in the table. Vol 26 Figure 8.4.1 Land quality contaminative land uses (see Volume 26 Figures document) Vol 26 Table 8.4.1 Land quality contaminative land uses summary Ref Item Inferred Date of Operation c1870-present Heavy metals, arsenic, free cyanide, nitrates, ammonium, phosphates, sulphates, sulphides, asbestos, oil/fuel hydrocarbons, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons, PCBs, pathogens Content unknown Oils, PCBs PAHs, heavy metals, phenols, sulphates, fuel oil, lubricating oil, greases, PCBs, solvents, asbestos, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, herbicides, SVOCs Oil/fuel hydrocarbons, VOCs, BTEX; solvents, oil and greases, heavy metals, particulates Heavy metals, arsenic, asbestos, phenols, oil/fuels, hydrocarbons, PAHs, PCBs, sulphide, sulphate, chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons

8.4.6

On-site 1 Pumping station

2 3 14

Tanks Electrical substation Railway

c1916-recent c1951-c1952 c1870-present

41

Builders yard

c1987

Off-site 4 Kent wharf (50m northwest) 5 Sun wharf (25m west) 6 Hills wharf (30m west) 7 Harold wharf (90m southwest) 8 Evelyn wharf (110m southwest) 9 Hope wharf (115m south)

c1870-recent c1870 c1870 c1870

c1870

c1870

Page 102

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Ref 10 Item a) Chemical works (55m west) Inferred Date of Operation c1870-c1896

Section 8: Land quality

b)Engineering works (55m west) 11

c1970-c1981

Surrey gas c1870 works and associated gasometer (60m west) a) Engine works (110m northeast) c1870-c1882

12

b) Gas storage depot (110m northeast)

c1951-c1955

13

15

16

a) Gas works (150m northeast) b) Gas holders (150m northeast) a) Colour works and associated tanks (115m northwest) b) Depot (115m northwest) a) Pitch tar varnish and naphtha works (75m northwest) b) Council depot (75m northwest)

c1870

c1896-c1955

c1870-c1882

c1987 c1870

Heavy metals, arsenic, boron, selenium, nitrates, sulphates, sulphides, asbestos, PAHs, phenols, acetones, aromatic hydrocarbons, PCBs, dioxins, furans Heavy metals, arsenic, boron, nitrates, sulphates, sulphides, asbestos, aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs, PCBs, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons Oil/fuel hydrocarbons, aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, cyanides, ammoniacal liquors, phenols, heavy metal, asbestos, sulphates, sulphides, BTEX. Heavy metals, arsenic, boron, free cyanide, nitrates, sulphates, sulphides, asbestos, aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs, PCBs, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons Oil/fuel hydrocarbons, aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, organolead compounds. cyanides, ammonia, phenols, heavy metals and asbestos. Oil/fuel hydrocarbons, aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, cyanides, ammoniacal liquors, phenols, heavy metal, asbestos, sulphates, sulphides, BTEX. Heavy metals, arsenic, selenium, free cyanide, nitrates, sulphates, sulphides, asbestos, PAHs, phenols, aromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, organotin compounds. Monoaromatic hydrocarbons (BTEX), PAHs, n-alkanes (C5-C20), MTBE, lead, solvents incl. acetone. Oil/fuel hydrocarbons, aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, organolead compounds, heavy metals and asbestos. Content unknown

c1916-present

17

Tank (40m north)

c1870

Page 103

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Ref 18 Item Tramway (adjacent south) Inferred Date of Operation c1896-c1952

Section 8: Land quality

19 20

21

22

Timber yard (160m south) Timber yard (130m southwest) Asphalt and paving works (25m west) a) Brewery (15m east)

c1896 c1896

PAHs, heavy metals, phenols, sulphates, fuel oil, lubricating oil, greases, PCBs, solvents, asbestos, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons Heavy metals, arsenic, boron, sulphate, phenol, acetone, aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs, cresols

c1896-c1971

c1896-c1959

b) Bottling works (15m east)

c1970-c1974

23 24

c) Greenwich industrial estate (15m east) Soap works (90m north) Laundrette (175m west)

c1987-recent

Heavy metals, arsenic, sulphides, asbestos, acetone, oil/fuel hydrocarbons, PAHs, PCBs. Volatile organic compounds, total petroleum hydrocarbons, heavy metals, ethanol/methanol, ammonia, chlorinated alkalis, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes Volatile organic compounds, total petroleum hydrocarbons, heavy metals, ethanol/methanol, ammonia, chlorinated alkalis, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes TPH, metals, paints, solvents.

c1896 c1916

25

Dock (30m northwest)

c1916

26 27

Hospital (100m south) Oil refinery (145m east) Rag and metal warehouse (120m east) Timber yard (Raleigh wharf) (30m west)

c1916-c1974 c1951-c1971

28

c1951-c1971

Phenols, PAHs, aromatic hydrocarbons Heavy metals, arsenic, VOCs such as chloroform and tetrachloroethane; various solvents; fluorocarbon 113; PCBs; aromatic hydrocarbons; chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons./ Heavy metals, arsenic, asbestos, phenols, oil/fuels, hydrocarbons, PCBs, PAHs, sulphide, sulphate, chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons Pathogens, radioactive substances, heavy metals, oil/fuel hydrocarbons Monoaromatic hydrocarbons (BTEX), PAHs, n-alkanes (C5-C20), MTBE, lead Metals, solvents, hydrcarbons.

29

c1951-c1967

Heavy metals, arsenic, boron, sulphate, phenol, acetone, aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs, cresols

Page 104

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Ref 30 Item Tramway maintenance depot and associated tanks (adjacent southwest) a) Vitreous enamel works (50m east) b) Engineering works (50m east) Gas mantle works including associated tank (170m east) Engineering works (15m south) Inferred Date of Operation c1951-c1952

Section 8: Land quality

PAHs, heavy metals, phenols, sulphates, fuel oil, lubricating oil, greases, PCBs, solvents, asbestos, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons

31

c1951-c1959

Metal oxides, coal ash, asbestos.

c1970-c1995

32

c1951-c1967

33

c1951-c1981

34

35 36

Oil refinery (175m southwest) Works (60m south) Works (45m east) a) Depot (10m east)

c1951-c1971

c1959 c1959

37

c1959-c1995

38

b) Waste paper depot (10m east) Foundry (75m east)

c1970-c1995

Heavy metals, arsenic, boron, nitrates, sulphates, sulphides, asbestos, aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs, PCBs, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons Heavy metals, arsenic, free cyanide, nitrates, sulphates, sulphides, asbestos, aromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, radioactive isotopes Heavy metals, arsenic, boron, free cyanide, nitrates, sulphates, sulphides, asbestos, aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs, PCBs, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons Monoaromatic hydrocarbons (BTEX), PAHs, n-alkanes (C5-C20), MTBE, lead Heavy metals, arsenic, boron, free cyanide, nitrates, sulphates, sulphides, asbestos, aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs, PCBs, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons. Oil/fuel hydrocarbons, aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, organolead compounds, heavy metals and asbestos. Ink, dyes, adhesives.

c1970-c1987

39

Brockmarsh industrial estate (adjacent north and east)

c1987-recent

Heavy metals, PCBs, arsenic, boron, free cyanide, nitrates, sulphates, sulphides, asbestos, aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons Aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, organolead compounds, heavy metals and asbestos.

Page 105

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Ref 40 Item Faircharm trading estate (30m west) Depot (195m east) Inferred Date of Operation c1987-recent

Section 8: Land quality

42

c1987-present

43

Depot (40m north)

c1987-present

44

45

46

47

48

49

50 51

52

53

Electrical substation (110m east) Electrical substation (130m east) Electrical substation (125m west) Electrical substation (130m west) Electrical substation (230m west) Electrical substation (85m north) Tank (190m west) Tanks (150m northwest and 160m northwest Timber yard (155m northwest) Wharf (110m north)

c1970-present

Aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, organolead compounds, heavy metals and asbestos. Oil/fuel hydrocarbons, aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, organolead compounds, heavy metals and asbestos. Oil/fuel hydrocarbons, aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, organolead compounds, heavy metals and asbestos. Oils, PCBs

c1970-present

c1970-present

c1970-present

c1959-present

c1951-c1952

c1970 c1869-c1873

Contents unknown Contents unknown

c1951-c1952

c1869-c1970

54

a) Manure works (115m north)

c1869

Heavy metals, arsenic, boron, sulphate, phenol, acetone, aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs, cresols Heavy metals, arsenic, asbestos, phenols, oil/fuels, hydrocarbons, PAHs, PCBs, sulphide, sulphate, chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons Organic matter.

Page 106

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Ref Item b) Asphalt works (115m north) c) Wharf (115m north) Inferred Date of Operation c1916

Section 8: Land quality

c1952

55

Wharf (180m north)

c1869-c1970

Heavy metals, arsenic, sulphides, asbestos, acetone, oil/fuel hydrocarbons, PAHs, PCBs Heavy metals, arsenic, asbestos, phenols, oil/fuels, hydrocarbons, PAHs, PCBs, sulphide, sulphate, chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons Heavy metals, arsenic, asbestos, phenols, oil/fuels, hydrocarbons, PAHs, PCBs, sulphide, sulphate, chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons

8.4.7

The historical review and walkover survey recorded no on-site potentially contaminating activities (other than the pumping station) that are considered to have impacted the site directly. The historical mapping has identified a number of potentially contaminating off site uses. The search radius has identified areas of previous industrial activities in close proximity to the site and further a field, including a railway line; gas, tar and naphtha works; chemical works and asphalt works. It is unlikely that these activities in the surrounding area have significantly affected the soils in the location of the proposed worksite although some impacts to groundwater may have occurred.

8.4.8

Geology and hydrogeology
8.4.9 Data from British Geological Survey together with logs from boreholes excavated as part of previous investigations of the site indicate the geological succession as summarised in Vol 26 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 being a sensitive environmental receptor. The Environment Agency (EA) Aquifer Designation maps have been used to classify the geological units according to their aquifer status which is also presented in the table below. The site is classified by the EA as being within a source protection zone for groundwater that is extracted for potable supply. The EA has designated the site location as being within Source Protection Zone (SPZ) 1, (the inner SPZ) which is defined by a 50 day travel time from a point below the water table. This zone has a minimum radius of 50m around the source.

8.4.10

8.4.11

Page 107

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 8: Land quality

Vol 26 Table 8.4.2 Land quality anticipated site geology Geological Unit/ Strata Made ground Description Largely comprises sandy gravelly silt with local gravels of brick, concrete and flint. Soft and firm sandy slightly gravelly clay with occasional shell fragments Medium dense to dense to dense sand and gravel (predominantly quartz sand and flint gravel). The Laminated Beds consists of thinly interbedded fine- to medium-grained sand, silt and clay, with locally more extensive sand bodies and thin shell and lignite beds. The Upnor Formation consists of dense, silty sand with some rounded flint gravel. Thanet Sand Formation/Bullhead Beds Generally dense glauconitic silty fine sand with occasional rounded flint gravel. The Bullhead Beds which mark the base of the formation comprise green stained gravel and cobbles of flint. Chalk Group Fine grained 25.9 – 45.2 Principal Bedrock 17.5 – 25.9 Secondary A Bedrock Aquifer (will be in hydraulic continuity with underlying Chalk) Approximate depth below ground level (m) 0.0 – 4.2 Hydrogeological classification Unclassified

Alluvium

4.2 – 5.5

Secondary A Superficial Aquifer

River Terrace Deposits

5.5 – 12.3

Lambeth Group (Laminated Beds) Lambeth Group (Upnor Formation)

12.3 – 13.4 13.4 – 17.5

Secondary A Bedrock Aquifer (the lower part is in hydraulic continuity with the Thanet Sand and Chalk)

Page 108

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 8: Land quality Approximate depth below ground level (m)

Geological Unit/ Strata

Description limestone with nodular and tabular flints.

Hydrogeological classification Aquifer

Unexploded ordnance
8.4.12 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 unexploded ordnance (UXO) threat was undertaken for the previous phase of ground investigation works at the proposed development site. The report reviews information sources such as the Ministry of Defence (MoD), Public Records Office and the Port of London Authority. The report establishes that the nearby areas are within an area of high bomb density with known bomb strikes to the southeast of the site and damage to properties within the immediate vicinity. Taking into account the findings of this study and the known extent of the proposed works, it was considered that there is an overall high threat from UXO at the Greenwich Pumping Station site.

8.4.13

8.4.14

Ground investigation
8.4.15 The following section summarises the Thames Tunnel Ground Investigation data from the boreholes located on the preferred work site, borehole numbers SR1018D, SR1024 and PR1023. The table below and Vol 26 Figure 8.4.2 identifies the location of these boreholes in relation to the site location. The results of the ground investigation have been compared against human health screening values. Coastal and estuarine Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) criteria are used for the shallow aquifer as it is in continuity with the tidal Deptford Creek. For assessment of the deeper aquifer (and where EQS data is unavailable), samples have been compared to Drinking Water Standards. Vol 26 Figure 8.4.2 Land quality - proposed borehole locations (see Volume 26 Figures document) Vol 26 Table 8.4.3 Land quality ground investigation Borehole No. SR1018D Soil contamination testing No contaminants above human health screening values in the two samples tested. Groundwater contamination testing One standpipe installed in Thanet Sand Formation screened between 17.5-24.5mbgl. Contaminants in exceedance of

8.4.16

Page 109

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Borehole No. Soil contamination testing

Section 8: Land quality Groundwater contamination testing assessment criteria in one water sample: Benzo(a)pyrene = 0.1µg/l (DWS limit = 0.01µg/l) Benzene = 0.01mg/l (DWS limit = 0.001mg/l) Total Monohydric Phenols = 10µg/l (DWS limit = 0.5µg/l)

SR1024

No contaminants above human health screening values in the three samples tested at points in the made ground and Thanet Sand Formation.

One standpipe installed in Chalk screened between 26-38.4mbgl. Contaminants in exceedance of assessment criteria in one water sample: Benzene = 0.01mg/l (DWS limit = 0.001mg/l) Copper = 0.010mg/l (EQS limit = 0.005mg/l) These are likely to relate to the limit of detection of the test being higher than the assessment criteria rather than indication of groundwater contamination. Two standpipes installed within PR1023. Standpipe 1 screened between 5.5-10.5mbgl in the River Terrace Deposits. Standpipe 2 screened between 12.5-25mbgl in the Lambeth Group/Thanet Sand Formation. Contaminants in exceedance of assessment criteria in one water sample (sample depth unknown but more likely to be shallow standpipe): Benzo(a)pyrene = 2.22µg/l (DWS limit = 0.01µg/l) Benzene = 0.01mg/l (DWS limit = 0.001mg/l) Total Aliphatics & Aromatics (C12C44) = 16.9mg/l (Former DWS limit = 0.01mg/l) PAH 16 Total = 5.95 µg/l (DWS Sum of 4 PAH limit = 1µg/l)

PR1023

No contaminants above human health screening values in the four samples tested.

Page 110

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station 8.4.17

Section 8: Land quality

In summary the single round of testing has shown that there have been some impacts to groundwater at the site by petroleum hydrocarbons and to a lesser extent by PAHs. Gas monitoring installations in borehole PR1023 were screened below the groundwater level. No soil gas testing results were available for wells screened above or across the water level. No soil gas testing results were available for boreholes SR1018D or SR1024. Other environmental records Details of environmental records for the vicinity of the site held by the Environment Agency 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 on the table are shown in Vol 26 Figure 8.4.3. Vol 26 Figure 8.4.3 Land quality - environmental records and waste sites (see Volume 26 Figures document) Vol 26 Table 8.4.4 Land quality environmental records and waste sites

8.4.18

8.4.19

8.4.20

8.4.21

Item Licensed industrial activities Local Authority Pollution Incidents and Controls Pollution incidents to controlled water Licensed waste management facilities Registered waste treatment or disposal sites Registered waste transfer sites Landfill sites Industrial authorisations (IPPC, COMAH, PPC) Past Potential Contaminated Uses Licensed Abstractions 8.4.22

On-site 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Within 250m of site boundary 0 4 0 3 1 4 0 0 12 0

Within a 250m radius of the Greenwich site inspection of the GIS mapping has identified four Local Authority Pollution Incident Controls. Two of these are located close to the northern and eastern site boundaries on

Page 111

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 8: Land quality

Norman Road (on Greenwich Business Park and Brookmarsh Industrial Estate). The third is located approximately 200m to the southwest on Greenwich High Road and the fourth is located approximately 240m to the north on Cooperas Street. 8.4.23 Approximately twelve areas within the 250m radius are identified as having past potential contaminating uses. These are detailed by the landuses identified in Section 8.4 and Vol 26 Table 8.4.1 and no new areas of potentially contaminating land-use are identified. There are three licensed waste management facilities within the 250m radius. These are located some 40m to the east of the site on Norman Road; 135m to the northwest on Creekside; and 220m to the northwest by Cooperas Street. Inspection of the GIS mapping has also identified four waste transfer sites and a single waste treatment or disposal site within 250m. Two of the waste transfer sites are located approximately 150m to the north in the industrial complex along Cooperas Street, with a further site located 130m to the west within Faircharm Industrial Estate on the opposite side of Deptford Creek. The final site is situated in the same place as the previously mentioned licensed waste management facility on Norman Road. The single waste treatment or disposal site is recorded as being located 230m to the north on Cooperas Street. However, with the possible exception of the entry on the opposite side of Norman Road, none of these waste facilities or operations are considered to pose a significant risk to soils beneath the subject site. Inspection of the GIS mapping has also identified one pollution incident to controlled water. This is located in the northern part of the site within the existing builders’ merchants and is classified as a minor incident involving oils (which took place in 1990). Localised residual contamination of the soils (and shallow groundwater) beneath the site may be associated within this incident. Technical engagement 8.4.30 The LB of Greenwich was consulted with respect to land quality information held in relation to the site and search area. The result of the search identified two sites with available information pertinent to the assessment of land quality that were forwarded to us by the Borough and both are summarised below. The first site situated on land adjacent to Greenwich Pumping Station (Numbers 43-81 Greenwich High Road) was subject to an intrusive geoenvironmental investigation comprising the drilling of eight boreholes and nine trial pits by Card Geotechnics Ltd in May 2008. Card Geotechnics (2008) identifies the sites numerous former uses as follows,’ Industrial units of note are Brass Foundry with Coke Store (1943), Copper Smiths (1897), Tram depot (with associate tram lines in the 1897 historical maps) and Fodder Store (1943). The records also show that a

8.4.24

8.4.25 8.4.26

8.4.27 8.4.28

8.4.29

8.4.31

8.4.32

Page 112

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 8: Land quality

Saw Mill, Acid Store, Ash and Coal Store, Petrol Store, Oil Store and Smithy, between 1870 to 1952. In addition, various oil and petrol tanks were present on the site between 1916 and 1995. There is potentially a former dock (now infilled) located in the northwestern part of the site as well as an electrical sub-station to the south dating from the 1950s. 8.4.33 The analysis of soil samples taken during the investigation show that the majority of the determinands were below the chosen (residential) assessment criteria with the exception of a number of metals (lead, copper, zinc and mercury) and hydrocarbon compounds. The highest concentrations of benzo(a)pyrene, and metals were located in a trial pit in the in the northern part of the site. This contamination was considered to be associated with the potential pollution sources such as a coal and ash store, coppersmith, and brass foundry, coke store and oil tank In addition, to the northwest of the site a soil sample from the Upper Chalk at 29.50mbgl has shown slightly elevated concentrations of benzo(a)pyrene at 2.2mg/kg, which exceeded the screening criteria of 1.3mg/kg. In the southwestern quarter of the site the high hydrocarbon concentrations were recorded to be largely restricted to made ground soils and were attributed to the historical oil store. Leachate results indicate that generally, low concentrations of leachable heavy metals were noted. However, elevated concentrations of hydrocarbons TPH and PAH have been reported across the site, which indicates that the hydrocarbon contamination is potentially mobile in the shallow soils, although vertical migration may be restricted by the low permeability Alluvium where present. All boreholes encountered groundwater within the River Terrace Gravels at depths between 7.8m and 10.2m bgl. Analysis of the groundwater test results showed elevated concentrations of TPH (320μg/l) in the southwest of the site. The concentrations of metals in groundwater were generally found to be below the guideline values except in two boreholes where slightly elevated concentrations of selenium were recorded (17μg/l in comparison with the EC Drinking water value of 10μg/l). Gas monitoring across the site indicated a maximum CO2 concentration of 4.2% by volume, a maximum CH4 concentration of 0.5% and a minimum O2 of 0.0% by volume was recorded. Flow rates were recorded to vary between 0.1 and -1.1 l/hr with a maximum recorded flow in boreholes BH2 and BH5 of 0.1l/hr. Gas screening values fall within Characteristic Situation 2 (typical of natural soils with a high peat / organic content and typical ‘Made Ground’). The second site is land at Haddo Estate (Tarves Way) and located north of the site just within the 250m search radius. This area is identified as a former gas holder station with one gasholder present at the site prior to

8.4.34

8.4.35

8.4.36

8.4.37

8.4.38 8.4.39 8.4.40

8.4.41

8.4.42 8.4.43

Page 113

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 8: Land quality

1869 and a second between 1880 and 1896. The site was subsequent redeveloped for housing between 1967 and 1971. 8.4.44 Previous investigations at the site by a variety of consultants between 1964 and 2003 identified that the gas holders were filled with demolition waste and pulverised fuel ash. In addition made ground across the site was sporadically contaminated with heavy metals and levels found consistent with presence of demolition waste and combustion products in the made ground. Concentrations of inorganic contaminants were generally within acceptable limits however a small number of samples showed elevated levels cyanide and sulphur beyond screening levels. There was also a slight contamination of groundwater, attributed primarily to elevated levels of arsenic and occasional lead and selenium. On the eastern area of the site in the vicinity of the eastern gasholder significant groundwater contamination was detected. A borehole located in the gasholder itself identified perched water to contain elevated concentrations of cyanide and ammonia, in addition to contamination from organic determinands TPH, PAH, phenols and volatile aromatics. A borehole which adjoined the eastern gasholder showed similar contamination profiles but generally at a lower concentration. A Groundwater Qualitative Risk Assessment (QRA) was undertaken by Merebrook Projects Limited using the Environment Agency R&D P20 model to assess the risk posed to Deptford Creek. The assessment identified contaminants of concern to be benzene and naphthalene and that fill material and perched water from the eastern gasholder were a potential contaminative source to Deptford Creek, via the underlying Kempton Park gravels aquifer. The requirement for site remediation was identified and this involved ex situ solidification and stabilisation and clean cover systems for private and communal gardens. Removal and disposal of contaminated water was also undertaken which included the pumping of water into carbon filtration tanks and disposal to a foul water sewer. To minimise leachate generation a low permeability clay cap and protective layer was installed over both gas holders. An infiltration barrier was also installed.

8.4.45

8.4.46

8.4.47

8.4.48

8.4.49

8.5
8.5.1 8.5.2

Construction assessment
Assessment year: construction For land quality, the assessment is based on the likely baseline conditions which will be experienced in Year 1 of construction. It is anticipated that land quality baseline conditions will not alter significantly from those described above by the commencement of the construction. 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

8.5.3

Page 114

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 8: Land quality

understand the presence and significance of potentially complete pollutant linkages. 8.5.4 The methodology for undertaking this analysis is provided in Volume 6.

Development of conceptual model
8.5.5 The following section outlines the sources, pathways and receptors which are relevant to the land quality assessment at the site. Sources of Contamination 8.5.6 8.5.7 The following sources of contamination have been identified: On site a. groundwater contamination with fuels b. possible soil contamination associated with historic activities c. potentially elevated land gas within the alluvial sediments associated with adjacent Deptford Creek

d. possible unexploded ordnance e. japanese Knotweed 8.5.8 Off site a. adjacent industrial uses, in particular the railway and builders merchants immediately to the north Pathways 8.5.9 The following pathways for contamination have been identified: a. human uptake through: ingestion of exposed contaminated soils during construction; inhalation of soil/dust, volatilised compounds or ground gas via migration through permeable strata and conduits; or b. dermal contact with exposed soils during construction c. horizontal and vertical migration of leachable contaminants via groundwater within the alluvium, River Terrace Deposits and lower aquifer

d. vertical migration of contaminants along preferential pathways created by excavation of diaphragm wall e. mobilisation of contaminants in river water through disturbance of contaminated river bed sediments during construction of decked roadway f. direct runoff into the Deptford Creek g. direct contact of soils with construction materials h. gas/vapour migration through pipes/foundations and into structures i. j. accidental detonation of UXO during ground investigation or construction activities spread of Japanese Knotweed.

Page 115

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Receptors 8.5.10

Section 8: Land quality

The following receptors for contamination have been identified: a. construction workers b. site end users (maintenance staff and public) c. off site receptors - residents and workers d. built environment e. controlled waters - groundwater f. controlled waters - surface water g. aquatic ecology h. terrestrial ecology (plant life)

8.5.11 8.5.12

The sensitivity of the land quality receptors are defined in Vol 5 Table 7.4.2. The following section discusses the potential impacts on receptors as a result of the existing land quality conditions at the site. Impacts and effects upon construction workers Information to date suggests that the soils at the site are not significantly contaminated, although given the site use, it remains possible that some soils contamination may be encountered locally. Fuels contamination of the groundwater has been identified by the limited testing available to date. Such contamination may impact upon construction workers through: direct contact, ingestion of exposed contaminated soils during construction, inhalation of soil/dust and volatilised compounds. There is also the potential for the build-up of asphyxiant or potentially asphyxiant or explosive gases associated with the nearby alluvium and associated with vapours from fuels which may impact on construction workers during confined space construction. Overall, the magnitude of the impact is likely to be negligible, giving a slight effect (not significant). Impacts and effects upon off-site receptors

8.5.13

8.5.14

8.5.15

The construction works may result in the creation of new pathways for contaminants to migrate to adjacent sites eg, via wind-borne dust during excavated material handling and storage and by migration of liquid contaminants through new service excavations or by ground improvement works. So whilst the sensitivity of adjacent commercial and (future) residential sites is moderate to high, the impact from this will be negligible giving a slight effect (not significant). Impacts and effects upon built environment High levels of certain contaminants, if contained within subsurface materials, can lead to impacts on the built environment (both existing and proposed), including chemical attack on buried concrete structures. Additionally detonation of potential unidentified buried UXO could

8.5.16

8.5.17

Page 116

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 8: Land quality

represent a risk during construction. The built environment is a low sensitivity receptor and following the proposed design procedures such as site investigation, UXO surveys and remediation, the magnitude of impact is considered to be negligible, giving a negligible effect (not significant). Vol 26 Table 8.5.1 Land quality impacts - construction Impact Health impacts on construction workers Magnitude, and justification Negligible – soils unlikely to be contaminated plus design measures such as use of correct PPE, safety briefings and remediation of contaminated soils reduce impacts substantially. Negligible – contaminated soils are unlikely to be encountered – additionally design measures for dust suppression, correct storage of potentially contaminated materials, wheel washing at site entrance will substantially reduce impacts in the event of finding contamination. Negligible - design measures such as UXO specialists employed to advise staff reduce impacts substantially. Negligible - design measures such investigation for selection of concrete mix reduce impacts.

Health impacts on off-site receptors - residents and workers

Damage to built environment – existing Structures

Damage to built environment – proposed structures

Vol 26 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 properties close Low to high – infrastructure with listed sheds on site Low – infrastructure

Vol 26 Table 8.5.3 Land quality effects - construction Effect Significance, and justification

Slight effect on construction workers Not significant

Page 117

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Effect Slight effect on off-site receptors Negligible to slight effect on built environment - existing Negligible effect on built environment - proposed

Section 8: Land quality Significance, and justification Not significant Not significant Not significant

8.6
8.6.1

Operational assessment
In the absence of appropriate measures operational effects could include potential exposure to end users from contaminated soils and 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. These are low sensitivity receptors. 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 built environment is generally a low sensitivity receptor although the listed and with the inclusion of the proposed design measures and soil remediation (as necessary), the impact of the effect is low giving a negligible effect overall (not significant). In addition it is possible that elevated gases may be able to impact proposed above ground structures. These are limited and design measures, such as site investigation, gas risk assessment and the incorporation of measures into building design (such as gas resistant membranes if necessary), mean the magnitude of impact is negligible. This gives a negligible effect (not significant). Vol 26 Table 8.6.1 Land quality impacts - operation Impact Health impacts to site end users Magnitude, and justification Negligible – design measures such as remediation of heavily contaminated soils and provision of capping layers as appropriate Negligible - design measures such

8.6.2 8.6.3

8.6.4

8.6.5

8.6.6

8.6.7

Damage to built environment –

Page 118

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Impact proposed structures

Section 8: Land quality Magnitude, and justification as incorporation of gas membranes in buildings and suitable concrete mix design reduce impacts Negligible - design measures such as remediation of heavily contaminated soils reduce risks substantially.

Damage to built environment – existing structures

Vol 26 Table 8.6.2 Land quality receptors- operation Receptor Site end users Value/sensitivity and justification Low to high –primarily industrial/infrastructure end use, however, members of the public will be able to access the above ground element of the completed works. Low – industrial/infrastructure Low – industrial/infrastructure

Built environment – existing Built environment – proposed

Vol 26 Table 8.6.3 Land quality effects - operation Effect Negligible effect on end users Negligible effect on built environment - existing Negligible effect on built environment – proposed Significance, and justification Not significant Not significant Not significant

8.7
8.7.1

Approach to mitigation
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 119

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 8: Land quality

8.8
Vol 26 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 26 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

Built Environment Proposed

Slight effect on Built Environment - Existing

Built Environment Proposed

Slight effect on Built Environment - Proposed

Page 120

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 8: Land quality

8.9
8.9.1 8.9.2 8.9.3 8.9.4

Assessment completion
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 121

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

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 Greenwich 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

Noise and vibration from the underground tunnelling activities associated with the connection tunnel are considered in (Volume 6).

9.2
9.2.1

Proposed development
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 purposes of this assessment that the hoarding height would 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. Noise-related environmental design measures incorporated in the CoCP have been assumed for the purposes of the assessment. The construction works at this location would involve the following stages:

9.2.5 9.2.6

Page 122

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 9: Noise and vibration

a. enabling works (including demolition and campshed construction) b. shaft sinking c. connection tunnel drive and interception/CSO works (main activities enclosed in a noise enclosure)

d. secondary lining e. completion work (including landscaping, and construction and fit-out of permanent facility). 9.2.7 9.2.8 The above-ground works (stages a, b and e) have the potential to create airborne noise and vibration impacts. Stages a, c and e have the potential to generate groundborne noise and vibration impacts, namely from breaking out, driven secant piling and vibratory compaction. For the tunnel drive, diaphragm walling is proposed. This is considered a low vibration method and as such has not been quantitatively assessed, as it is considered not significant effects would arise from these stages. Ground borne noise from the connection tunnel is considered in Volume 6. During stage c (connection tunnel drive), a noise enclosure would be installed over the shaft and gantry crane area to control noise from tunnelling activities. The final design of the enclosure is yet to be determined. However, for the purpose of this assessment the noise insulation performance of the enclosure has been estimated based on typical cladding material for this type of structure with consideration for ventilation and other openings Information for stage e 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 and would not involve heavy construction operations. The Phase two consultation logistics strategy considers the removal and delivery of material by road. Construction road traffic would use the main strategic road network (A200) via Norman Road to transport materials and equipment to and from the site. Estimated vehicle movement numbers are presented in Section 3.3. The enabling, shaft construction and completion activities would be carried out during standard (core) hours as identified in Vol 26 Table 3.3.1. The exception to this is the requirement for extended hours working which has been proposed for major concrete pours. It is assumed that these would be limited in duration at this site, and as such these have not been assessed as part of this report. The tunnel drive and secondary lining activities have been identified as requiring 24-hour working. Prior to commencement of tunnelling, a shed would be constructed to enclose the works and provide screening to noise from these works. Operation 9.2.14 The permanent installation would have above ground structures housing ventilation equipment and electrical and control equipment. This plant

9.2.9

9.2.10

9.2.11

9.2.12

9.2.13

Page 123

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 9: Noise and vibration

would be required to operate under various different scenarios dependent on the flows into and along the tunnel, with the potential to operate at any time of the day or night. The plant installed and the cascade events have the potential to create noise and vibration impacts. There is the potential to incorporate some above ground equipment such as ventilation equipment within the existing East Beam engine house on site.

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
9.3.2 The baseline methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.

Construction
9.3.3 The construction phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. Any site specific variations are described below. At this location, the construction activities have been assessed over the period of five and a half years. 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 40. For non-residential receptors, comparison has been made to the daytime noise levels reported from road traffic in the Defra London Noise Maps 41. Although night-time working would take place, this would not affect the users of the non-residential receptors, hence the assessment in this case has only been made for the standard (core) working hours. 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 during preparation of 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. Operation 9.3.8 The operational phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.

9.3.4 9.3.5

9.3.6

9.3.7

Page 124

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 9: Noise and vibration

Assumptions and limitations
9.3.9 Noise-related environmental design measures have been assumed as defined in the CoCP. Those of relevance to noise and vibration are listed in Section 9.2 above. 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 stages within any one activity could potentially occur onsite simultaneously for the duration of the activity. This is an extremely conservative approach, as the activities are unlikely to last the duration of any one stage. This is considered a reasonable assumption for the purposes of this assessment and would be refined as the construction methodology develops. The assessment of construction traffic effects has been based on predicted numbers of construction traffic movements (presented in Section 3), using professional judgement at this stage. This assessment will be revisited and presented in the ES upon receipt of baseline traffic data. While it is considered that there is a possibility for noise and vibration effects arising from water cascading during tunnel filling events at 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.

9.3.10

9.3.11

9.3.12

9.3.13

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 the Greenwich Pumping Station site within the LB of Greenwich. Residential premises are located to the south, southwest and east of the proposed site. To the south are two 3 storey residential premises numbers 83 to 85 Greenwich High Street. To the southwest are three residential blocks, Hatfield House and Torrent Lodge which are both five storeys high, and Block E which it is assumed to be complete prior to construction and is assumed will also be five storeys high. To the east of the site is a proposed new development, ‘The Movement’, comprising of approximately 181 residential units, a hotel and student accommodation. ‘The Movement’ is likely to be complete by the first year of construction and as such it has been included within the assessment. The residential properties selected for the noise and vibration assessment are identified in Vol 26 Table 9.4.1. These are shown in plan view in Vol 26 Figure 9.4.1 and are selected to be representative of the range of noise

9.4.2

9.4.3

9.4.4

Page 125

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 9: Noise and vibration

climates where sensitive receptors are situated around the site. The approximate numbers of properties affected at each of these locations is indicated in Vol 26 Table 9.4.1. Beyond these receptors there are other residential locations which are screened from the site by intervening buildings. Vol 26 Figure 9.4.1 Noise and vibration residential receptors (see Volume 26 Figures document) 9.4.5 One non-residential noise sensitive receptor has been assessed, which is Norman House a three storey commercial office building to the east of the site. The current noise climate on site is dominated by road traffic noise, railway noise and the operation of the industrial units in the vicinity. 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.

9.4.6 9.4.7

Receptor Sensitivity
9.4.8 The noise sensitive receptors have been assessed according to their sensitivity, using the methodology outlined in Volume 5 Section 2.3. The sensitivities of all assessed receptors are presented in the table below. All residential receptors have been assessed as having a high sensitivity. The only non-residential receptor assessed at this location is Norman House which has been assigned a medium sensitivity. Vol 26 Table 9.4.1 Noise receptors Ref Receptor addresses Building Use Sensitivity No. of noise sensitive properties /areas 15 40 15 3 1 181

9.4.9

GP01 GP02 GP03 GP04 GP05 GP06 9.4.10

Hatfield House Torrent Lodge Block E 83 Greenwich High Road Norman House The Movement

Residential Residential Residential Residential Commercial Residential

High High High High Medium High

The criteria 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

Page 126

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 9: Noise and vibration

assessment noise threshold levels for the receptors near Carnwath Road Riverside are as shown in the table below. As described in the assessment methodology, this follows the ‘ABC’ method for determining construction noise significance defined in BS 5228 42 Vol 26 Table 9.4.2 Airborne noise categories -construction Ref Noise sensitive receptor Ambient noise level, rounded to nearest 5dBLAeq2 Assessment category1 Significance criterion threshold level1 Day, dBLAeq,
10hour

Night, dBLAeq
1hour

GP01 GP02 GP03 GP04 GP05 GP05
1
2 3

Hatfield House Torrent House Block E 83 Greenwich High Road Norman House The Movement

A A A A N/A3 A

65 65 65 65 N/A3 65

45 45 45 45 N/A3 45

From ‘ABC’ method – BS5228:2009

Baseline measurement data not available for this assessment ‘ABC’ method – BS5228:2009 does not apply directly to non-residential receptors

9.5
9.5.1 9.5.2

Construction assessment Construction base and development cases
Noise levels for the base case assessment are expected to be as per 2011 noise levels. Noise levels for the development case assessment are expected to be as per the survey information (to be completed). 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 the measured data and the first year of construction. In addition to the existing receptors at the site, the “Movement” development has been considered as a receptor, as it is likely to be complete by the time of 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.

9.5.3

9.5.4

Page 127

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station 9.5.5

Section 9: Noise and vibration

The development case is therefore assumed to be the base case plus any additional noise and vibration sources associated with the construction phase.

Construction effects
9.5.6 Predictions of construction noise have been carried out based on information available to date and presented in Section 3. Noise measures incorporated in the CoCP have been assumed for the purposes of the assessment. The upper floors of all receptors identified in the assessment would directly overlook the site despite the site hoarding. Construction noise 9.5.8 The results of the assessment of construction noise are presented in Vol 26 Table 9.5.1 to Vol 26 Table 9.5.5. Hatfield House 9.5.9 9.5.10 Hatfield House is a residential block of flats containing approximately 15 dwellings. At these residential receptors, the impact criterion is exceeded at ground floor and upper floors for three months during the enabling works. At upper floors, this is due to the absence of attenuation from screening on upper floors of the building and the proximity of the building to the works. Based on the BS5228 criterion this would be rated as a significant impact. It should be noted that this assessment is based upon an assumed worstcase assessment significance criterion threshold as measurements 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 26 Table 9.5.1 Noise at GP01 Hatfield House -construction Receptor No. of noise sensitive properties 15 Significance criterion threshold level, dBLAeq Value/sensitivity

9.5.7

9.5.11

Hatfield House Activity Impact (noise level1, dBLAeq)

High Magnitude/ justification Excess above criterion, dBLAeq +1 -8 Approx. activity duration, months 3 12

Ground Floor Enabling Works Shaft Sinking 66 57 65 65

Page 128

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Receptor

Section 9: Noise and vibration No. of noise sensitive properties 15 Significance criterion threshold level, dBLAeq Value/sensitivity

Hatfield House Activity Impact (noise level1, dBLAeq)

High Magnitude/ justification Excess above criterion, dBLAeq -42 -22 -38 -18 Approx. activity duration, months 21 21 7 7

Connection Tunnel (day) Connection Tunnel (night) Secondary Lining (day) Secondary Lining (night) 5th Floor2 Enabling Works Shaft Sinking Connection Tunnel (day) Connection Tunnel (night) Secondary Lining (day) Secondary Lining (night)
1 2

23 23 27 27

65 45 65 45

76 62 29 29 32 32

65 65 65 45 65 45

+11 -3 -36 -16 -33 -13

3 12 21 21 7 7

Construction noise only

Assessment floor level is for a worst case scenario, which is not necessarily the highest floor level

Torrent Lodge 9.5.12 Torrent Lodge is a five storey residential property which includes approximately 40 dwellings which have an aspect overlooking the development. At these residential receptors, the impact criterion is exceeded at ground floor and upper floors for three months during the enabling works. At upper floors, this is due to the absence of attenuation from screening on upper floors of the building and the proximity of the building to the works. Based on the BS5228 criterion this would be rated as a significant impact.

9.5.13

Page 129

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station 9.5.14

Section 9: Noise and vibration

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 26 Table 9.5.2 Noise at GP02 Torrent House -construction Receptor No. of noise sensitive properties 40 Significance criterion threshold level, dBLAeq Value/sensitivity

Torrent Lodge Activity Impact (noise level1, dBLAeq)

High Magnitude/ justification Excess above criterion, dBLAeq +5 -8 -39 -19 35 -15 Approx. activity duration, months 3 12 21 21 7 7

Ground Floor Enabling Works Shaft Sinking Connection Tunnel (day) Connection Tunnel (night) Secondary Lining (day) Secondary Lining (night) 5th Floor1 Enabling Works Shaft Sinking Connection Tunnel (day) Connection Tunnel (night) Secondary Lining (day) Secondary Lining (night)
1 2

70 57 26 26 30 30

65 65 65 45 65 45

80 62 31 31 35 35

65 65 65 45 65 45

+15 -3 -34 -14 -30 -10

3 12 21 21 7 7

Construction noise only Assessment floor level is for a worst case scenario, which is not necessarily the highest floor level.

Page 130

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Block E 9.5.15 9.5.16

Section 9: Noise and vibration

Block E is yet to be complete but it is assumed that it will be a five storey residential building containing approximately 15 dwellings. At these residential receptors, the impact criterion is exceeded at ground floor and upper floors for three months during the enabling works. At upper floors, this is due to the absence of attenuation from screening on upper floors of the building and the proximity of the building to the works. Based on the BS5228 criterion this would be rated as 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. Vol 26 Table 9.5.3 Noise at GP03 Block E - construction Receptor No. of noise sensitive properties 15 Significance criterion threshold level, dBLAeq Value/sensitivity

9.5.17

Block E Activity Impact (noise level1, dBLAeq)

High Magnitude/ justification Excess above criterion, dBLAeq +1 -4 -40 -20 -40 -20 Approx. activity duration, months 3 12 21 21 7 7

Ground Floor Enabling Works Shaft Sinking Connection Tunnel (day) Connection Tunnel (night) Secondary Lining (day) Secondary Lining (night) 5th Floor1 Enabling Works Shaft Sinking Connection Tunnel (day) 66 61 25 25 25 25 65 65 65 45 65 45

76 61 25

65 65 65

+11 -4 -40

3 12 21

Page 131

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Receptor

Section 9: Noise and vibration No. of noise sensitive properties 15 Significance criterion threshold level, dBLAeq Value/sensitivity

Block E Activity Impact (noise level1, dBLAeq)

High Magnitude/ justification Excess above criterion, dBLAeq -20 -40 -20 Approx. activity duration, months 21 7 7

Connection Tunnel (night) Secondary Lining (day) Secondary Lining (night)
1 2

25 25 25

45 65 45

Construction noise only

Assessment floor level is for a worst case scenario, which is not necessarily the highest floor level.

83 Greenwich High Street 9.5.18 9.5.19 83 Greenwich High Street is a three storey residential property. The receptor location is representative of three dwellings. At these residential receptors, the impact criterion is exceeded at ground floor and upper floors for three months during the enabling works. At upper floors, this is due to the absence of attenuation from screening on upper floors of the building and the proximity of the building to the works. Based on the BS5228 criterion this would be rated as a significant impact. It should be noted that this assessment is based upon an assumed worstcase assessment significance criterion threshold as measurements of the ambient noise level at this location are yet to be completed.

9.5.20

Page 132

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 9: Noise and vibration

Vol 26 Table 9.5.4 Noise at GP04 83 Greenwich High Street construction Receptor No. of noise sensitive properties 3 Significance criterion threshold level, dBLAeq Value/sensitivity

83 Greenwich High Street Activity Impact (noise level1, dBLAeq)

High Magnitude/ justification Excess above criterion, dBLAeq +17 -5 -42 -22 43 -23 Approx. activity duration, months 3 12 21 21 7 7

Ground Floor Enabling Works Shaft Sinking Connection Tunnel (day) Connection Tunnel (night) Secondary Lining (day) Secondary Lining (night) 3rd Floor1 Enabling Works Shaft Sinking Connection Tunnel (day) Connection Tunnel (night) Secondary Lining (day) Secondary Lining (night)
1 2

82 60 23 23 22 22

65 65 65 45 65 45

92 60 27 27 28 28

65 65 65 45 65 45

+27 -5 38 -18 37 -17

3 12 21 21 7 7

Construction noise only

Assessment floor level is for a worst case scenario, which is not necessarily the highest floor level.

Norman House 9.5.21 Norman House is a three storey commercial office. It should be noted that the specified assessment method does not apply directly to non-residential

Page 133

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 9: Noise and vibration

receptors; hence impact has been evaluated based on the absolute noise level during the daytime and the predicted noise level relative to the assumed ambient noise. This assessment has been based on the Defra London Noise Maps41. However, given the predicted levels of construction noise, for non residential buildings such as offices this increase above the assumed ambient noise is not considered likely to cause excessive disruption with the possible exception of the enabling works. During the enabling works, noise levels are predicted to increase by approximately 18dB to levels over 70dB. This level of impact could potentially cause some disturbance. Vol 26 Table 9.5.5 Noise at GP05, Norman House -construction Receptor No. of noise sensitive properties 1 Impact (noise level1, dBLAeq) 73 Assumed ambient baseline dBLAeq2 <55 Value/ sensitivity Medium

Norman House Activity

Magnitude/ justification

Enabling Works

18dB increase relative to assumed average baseline ambient noise levels over 3 months 8dB increase relative to assumed average baseline ambient noise levels over 12 months Construction noise does not exceed assumed average baseline ambient noise level over 21 months Construction noise does not exceed assumed average baseline ambient noise level over 7 months

Shaft Sinking

63

<55

Connection Tunnel

30

<55

Secondary Lining

31

<55

1 2

Construction noise only

From Defra London Noise Maps

The Movement 9.5.22 9.5.23 The Movement is a proposed new development containing approximately 181 homes, a hotel and student accommodation. At these receptors, the impact criterion is exceeded at ground floor and upper floors for three months during the enabling works. At upper floors, this is due to the absence of attenuation from screening on upper floors of the building and the proximity of the building to the works. Based on the BS5228 criterion this would be rated as a significant impact.

Page 134

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station 9.5.24

Section 9: Noise and vibration

It should be noted that this assessment is based upon an assumed worstcase assessment significance criterion threshold as measurements 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 this may result in the significant impact being removed. Vol 26 Table 9.5.6 Noise at GP06, The Movement -construction Receptor No. of noise sensitive properties 181 Impact (noise level1, dBLAeq) Significan ce criterion threshold level, dBLAeq Value/ sensitivity High

The Movement Activity

Magnitude/ justification Excess above criterion, dBLAeq +1 -8 -42 -22 -38 -18 Approx. activity duration, months 3 12 21 21 7 7

Ground Floor Enabling works Shaft Sinking Connection Tunnel (day) Connection Tunnel (night) Secondary Lining (day) Secondary Lining (night) 5th Floor2 Enabling works Shaft Sinking Connection Tunnel (day) Connection Tunnel (night) Secondary Lining (day) Secondary Lining (night) 66 57 23 23 27 27 65 65 65 45 65 45

76 62 29 29 32 32

65 65 65 45 65 45

+11 -3 -36 -16 -33 -13

3 12 21 21 7 7

Page 135

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station
1 2

Section 9: Noise and vibration

Construction noise only

Assessment floor level is for a worst case scenario, which is not necessarily the highest floor level

Construction traffic 9.5.25 Baseline traffic data collection is ongoing and is thus not in this report, and therefore it is not possible to calculate the change in noise level that will 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 anticipated traffic flows on Greenwich High Road, it is considered unlikely that an impact would be created at properties on this road. This will be assessed in greater detail in the ES once further information is available. Construction vibration 9.5.27 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. Vol 26 Table 9.5.7 Vibration at buildings / structures –construction Ref Receptor Impact (highest predicted PPV across all activities, mm/s) 2.4 Value/ sensitivity Magnitude and justification

9.5.26

9.5.28

GP01

Hatfield House

High

No impact: below threshold for potential cosmetic damage No impact: below threshold for potential cosmetic damage No impact: below threshold for potential cosmetic

GP02

Torrent Lodge

2.4

High

GP03

Block E

2.4

High

Page 136

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Ref Receptor Impact (highest predicted PPV across all activities, mm/s) 1.5

Section 9: Noise and vibration Value/ sensitivity Magnitude and justification

damage GP04 83 Greenwich High 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

GP05

Norman House

1.5

Medium

GP06

The Movement

2.4

High

9.5.29 9.5.30

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 26 Table 9.5.8 Vibration and human response - construction Ref Receptor Impact (highest predicted VDV across all activities, m/s1.75)1 0.07 Value/ sensitivity Magnitude and justification2

GP01

Hatfield House

High

No impact: Below ‘low probability of adverse comment’

Page 137

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Ref Receptor Impact (highest predicted VDV across all activities, m/s1.75)1 0.07

Section 9: Noise and vibration Value/ sensitivity Magnitude and justification2

GP02

Torrent Lodge

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’ No impact: Below ‘low probability of adverse comment’ No impact: Below ‘low probability of adverse comment’

GP03

Block E

0.07

High

GP04

83 Greenwich High Road

0.04

High

GP05

Norman House

0.07

Medium

GP06

The Movement

0.07

High

1

Worst affected floor Categorisation of magnitude as defined in Volume 5 Section 2

2

9.5.31

All 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. Furthermore, these predicted levels are based upon the ‘worst case’ conditions that may arise during vibration intense activities within the site compound. Summary of construction effects The table below outlines the assessed significance of effects from all sources of noise and vibration based on the extent of impacts identified above. As described in the general methodology Volume 5 Section 2, the significance of noise effects is based on the predicted impact and other factors, ie the total noise level relative to the significance threshold, the

9.5.32

9.5.33

Page 138

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 9: Noise and vibration

numbers and types of receptors affected and the duration of impact. The significance of vibration effects is assessed on the magnitude of exposure relative to guidance thresholds for disturbance as well as other factors including the number of affected receptors and their uses. Vol 26 Table 9.5.9 Noise and vibration effects - construction Ref GP01 GP02 GP03 GP04 GP05 GP06 9.5.34 Receptor Hatfield House Torrent Lodge Block E 83 Greenwich High Road Norman House The Movement Significance, and justification Noise Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Vibration Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant

The assessment identifies significant noise effects at all assessed receptors. Vibration effects have not been identified any of the assessed receptors.

9.6
9.6.1

Operational assessment Operational base and development cases
As discussed in para. 9.5.1, there is likely to be only a small variation in baseline noise levels between the baseline survey and the future base case year. The noise levels assumed in 2011 are therefore 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.

9.6.2

Operational effects
9.6.3 Noise control measures would be included on all plant items as part of the design process to limit noise increases to within appropriate noise limits to avoid disturbance. These limits will help inform the ongoing design of the project, will be relative to the existing background noise levels at each receptor using the methodology in BS4142 (1997) 43 and will be established in negotiation with the local authority to ensure the limits proposed are acceptable and achievable. Discussions with the local authority are ongoing and will be presented in the ES. It is not possible to quantify the overall change in noise level until this process is complete. However, it is considered that it will be possible to control noise emissions to within appropriate noise limits defined by the local authority to prevent significant effects. The table below contains a summary of the assessment results for operational noise.

9.6.4

Page 139

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 9: Noise and vibration

Vol 26 Table 9.6.1 Airborne noise impacts - operation Ref GP01 Receptor Hatfield House Value/ Magnitude and sensitivity justification Noise level High Change in ambient controlled to prevent subject to local adverse impact as authority limits – no 1 per BS4142 adverse impact Noise level High controlled to prevent adverse impact as per BS41421 Noise level High controlled to prevent adverse impact as per BS41421 Noise level High controlled to prevent adverse impact as per BS41421 Noise level Medium controlled to prevent adverse impact as per BS41421 Noise level High controlled to prevent adverse impact as per BS41421 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 Impact

GP02

Torrent Lodge

GP03

Block E

GP04

83 Greenwich High Road Norman House

GP05

GP06

The Movement

1 BS4142: 1997

44

9.6.5

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.

9.6.6

9.6.7

9.6.8

Page 140

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 9: Noise and vibration

Vol 26 Table 9.6.2 Noise and vibration effects - operation Ref Receptor Significance, and justification Noise from surface site ventilation plant GP01 GP02 GP03 GP04 GP05 GP06 9.6.9 Hatfield House Torrent Lodge Block E 83 Greenwich High Road Norman House The Movement 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

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

Approach to mitigation Construction
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 have been identified at all receptors; hence additional mitigation would be applied where practicable and effective at these locations. 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 in this report and will be refined once further information is available at the ES stage. Some of the affected buildings affected are 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 some of the identified 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. All stages of works assessed as having the potential to give rise to likely significant effects (enabling works) 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 prediction exercise. These

9.7.3

9.7.4

9.7.5

Page 141

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 9: Noise and vibration

include site boundary screening, careful selection of modern construction plant, and positioning of equipment. 9.7.6 To address significant effects, specific solutions will be developed as appropriate to provide additional mitigation targeted on those noise sources generating the highest noise levels at the relevant receptor. For example, within this more detailed mitigation design, the use of localised screens and customised enclosures around the item of plant or the process would be considered. For the purposes of 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 project can be confirmed, this will be presented in the ES.

Operational
9.7.7 No significant effects as a result of the operation of the site have been identified; hence no additional permanent noise mitigation is required at this location. It should be noted that operational plant design for the ventilation of the tunnel would include environmental design measures to meet noise limits agreed with the local authority to avoid significant effects.

9.7.8

Page 142

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 9: Noise and vibration

9.8
Vol 26 Table 9.8.1 Noise and vibration construction assessment Significance Significant Not significant Significant Not significant Significant Not significant Significant Not significant Significant Not significant Significant Not significant None required Mitigation to be presented in the ES None required None required Mitigation to be presented in the ES Mitigation to be presented in the ES None required Mitigation to be presented in the ES None required Not significant Potentially significant (subject to mitigation options) Not significant Potentially significant (subject to mitigation options) Not significant Potentially significant (subject to mitigation options) Not significant Potentially significant (subject to mitigation options) Not significant Mitigation to be presented in the ES None required Not significant Potentially significant (subject to mitigation options) Mitigation to be presented in the ES Mitigation Residual significance Potentially significant (subject to mitigation options)

Assessment summary

Receptor

Effect

Hatfield House

Noise

Vibration

Torrent Lodge

Noise

Vibration

Block E

Noise

Vibration

83 Greenwich High Road

Noise

Vibration

Norman House

Noise

Vibration

The Movement

Noise

Vibration

Page 143

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 9: Noise and vibration

Vol 26 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 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 None required Not significant None required Not significant Not significant None required None required Not significant None required Not significant Mitigation Residual significance

Receptor

Effect

Hatfield House

Noise

Vibration

Torrent Lodge

Noise

Vibration

Block E

Noise

Vibration

83 Greenwich High Road

Noise

Vibration

Norman House

Noise

Vibration

The Movement

Noise

Vibration

Page 144

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 9: Noise and vibration

9.9
9.9.1

Assessment completion
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 identified in the ES. The level of detail of this site assessment reflects the available information on methods and programme. 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 would be estimated as the cascade design develops and will be included in the ES. As the illustrative construction methodology develops more in–depth assessment work for the ES will allow more detailed mitigation design. Following the development of more refined mitigation design as described above, it will be possible to carry out a more detailed assessment of residual effects. The effectiveness of more specific mitigation measures will be fully assessed and reported in the ES. Assessment of cumulative and in combination effects will be undertaken and reported in the ES. Following completion of the assessment the mitigation approaches for noise and vibration within the project will be finalised and reported in the ES.

9.9.2

9.9.3

9.9.4 9.9.5

9.9.6 9.9.7

Page 145

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

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 Greenwich Pumping Station site. The section does not include consideration of construction phase effects in relation to the following: a. Potential air quality, noise, and townscape and visual impacts on neighbouring businesses. These are unlikely to cause undue disturbance to nearby businesses, and so amenity effects on such businesses would not be significant. Further details are provided in para. 10.2.2 below.

10.1.2

10.1.3

The section does not include consideration of operational phase effects in socio-economic terms for the following reasons: a. Potential 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.

10.1.4

Accordingly, the above matters were scoped out within the Scoping Report and have not been considered further within this assessment.

10.2
10.2.1

Proposed development
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
10.2.2 Measures incorporated into the draft CoCP to limit, and in some cases eliminate, significant adverse air quality, noise, vibration and visual impacts could also reduce socio-economic impacts, particularly amenity impacts. See Section 4 Air Quality and Odour, Section 9 Noise and Vibration, and Section 11 Townscape and Visual within this Volume for more detail on the type of measures that may be employed. The proposed works would partly take place within a Thames Water site occupied by Greenwich Pumping Station. The works would also take place on two other areas of land, occupied by businesses; an open storage yard; and a builders’ yard. A public right of way would be closed and diverted along the southern side of the railway embankment during the construction works. Both construction-related activities and traffic movements could result in amenity or in combination effects being experienced by nearby sensitive residential receptors in proximity to the proposed activities.

10.2.3

10.2.4 10.2.5 10.2.6 10.2.7

Page 146

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 10: Socio-economics

Operation
10.2.8 As described in para. 10.1.3, no significant operational effects were scoped in for consideration during the scoping stage

10.3
10.3.1

Assessment methodology 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 in relation to socio-economics.

Baseline
10.3.2 The baseline methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.

Construction
10.3.3 The construction phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. Any site specific variations are described below: a. The assessment years used for considering the potential for socioeconomic effects in terms of construction activity have covered the period from the establishment of the site and ending approximately five and a half years later.

Operation
10.3.4 As described in para. 10.1.3, no significant operational effects were scoped in for consideration during the scoping stage.

Assumptions and limitations
10.3.5 10.3.6 The following assumptions and limitations apply to the findings presented within this report: Preliminary technical assessments of potential air quality, noise and vibration, and visual effects, and associated design and mitigation measures, have been undertaken by each of those respective topic areas (see Section 4 Air Quality and Odour, Section 9 Noise and Vibration, and Section 11 Townscape and Visual respectively). The socio-economic assessment has been informed by the preliminary findings of the topic assessments.

10.4
10.4.1

Baseline conditions Business activity – on-site
The site is comprised of two parts; a northern portion and a southern portion that are physically divided from each other by a public right of way: a. The southern part of the site is occupied by Greenwich Pumping Station and land associated with it. There are two large Grade II listed coal sheds located within the southwest part of this area.

Page 147

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 10: Socio-economics

b. The northern part of the site is occupied by two businesses (themselves divided by the east-west running London BridgeGreenwich railway line viaduct): i ii An open storage yard (approximately 0.08ha) used for the storage of scaffolding, and A larger site (approximately 0.5ha), occupied by Jewson, a builders merchant business which sells building supplies to the building trade and general public.

10.4.2 10.4.3

The following baseline description is concerned with these two businesses. It is understood that Access Solutions Scaffolding Ltd, the occupiers of the open storage yard, use the site for storage of scaffolding materials for hire to the construction trade. It is understood that Jewson, the builders merchant business, uses the site for the storage and sale of building materials to trade customers and the public. The site is subject to two separate leases; the northern part (approximately 0.3ha) being leased from a private company and the southern part (approximately 0.2ha) being leased from Network Rail. Discussions are currently ongoing between Thames Tunnel and the businesses on-site to ascertain the number of people employed at the site. As such, baseline employment levels at the two businesses are not fully known. For the purpose of this report, a preliminary estimate has been made that 42 employees could be employed in total at the two businesses combined. This estimate assumes a plot ratio of 0.45 and applies a typical employment density of 70m2 per workspace for storage and warehousing (B8) activities. 45 In terms of the sensitivity of the two businesses in question, the key consideration is the degree to which suitable alternative sites exist for the businesses to relocate to in the event that are displaced by the proposed construction works. Given the nature of the activities taking place on-site (open storage/storage and warehousing), it is likely that they could potentially be replicated at other industrial and warehousing sites and premises within the LB Greenwich or in the wider southeast London/Greater London area. In terms of available alternative premises, the Office of National Statistics (ONS) indicated that, in 2005, 8% of the total industrial and warehousing floorspace stock in the Borough was vacant, which was lower than the London average at the time (11%). 46 This is the latest year for which data is available. It is likely that the businesses (who are engaged in construction related activities) derive some benefit from their existing location, given the scale of physical redevelopment, and hence construction works, taking place in the Deptford Creekside area. On the basis of the above factors, the sensitivity of the businesses to displacement is considered to be medium.

10.4.4

10.4.5

10.4.6

10.4.7

10.4.8

10.4.9

Page 148

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station 10.4.10

Section 10: Socio-economics

See Vol 26 Figure 10.4.1 for a baseline plan which indicates the features identified above. Vol 26 Figure 10.4.1 Socio-economic context (see Volume 26 Figures document)

Business activity – off-site
10.4.11 To the north of the site, beyond the builder’s yard is the Brookmarsh Industrial Estate. The Estate is accessed from Norman Road, which contains industrial and warehousing units. A further industrial use (a plant hire depot) is situated across Norman Road to the northeast of the site. Adjoining the east of the site, at the junction of Norman Road and Greenwich High Road, is a three storey office building, Norman House, accommodating mainly small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Also to the east of the site, across Norman Road, is the Greenwich Industrial Estate. The Estate is vacant and has planning permission for redevelopment of the site for a mixed-use development. To the west of the Pumping Station’s access gate on Greenwich High Road are a retail unit and public house, both of which are vacant at the time of preparing this document. Taking into account the nature and location of these businesses, it is considered that the project would not cause undue disturbance to them, and that amenity effects would not be significant. As such, these businesses are not considered further within this socio-economic impact assessment. See Vol 26 Figure 10.4.1 for a baseline plan which indicates the features identified above.

10.4.12

10.4.13

10.4.14

10.4.15

10.4.16

Residential
10.4.17 The closest dwellings to the site are located along Greenwich High Road. The area comprises a mix of newer and older terraced houses, as well as purpose built flats, which range from two to five storeys in height. The majority of the terraces are located directly on or very close to the pavement. Dwellings on the Jubilee Estate, comprising local authoritybuilt flats and located directly opposite the site access point on Greenwich High Road, are in contrast set back several metres from the roadway with trees and grass providing a buffer to the road. A new residential development, 43-81 Greenwich High Road, (mixed use, also containing retail and light industrial premises) is located to the immediate west of the site, north of Greenwich High Road. This development is, at the time of preparing this document, only partially complete. Residential occupancy commenced in 2010. 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 amenity effects that may arise. Residents could be less sensitive to any noise disturbance during the day

10.4.18

10.4.19

Page 149

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 10: Socio-economics

and more sensitive during the evening and at night-time, particularly during sleeping hours. This consideration is relevant given the proposal for some night time working at the site in association with the long connection tunnel excavation and tunnel secondary lining activities. The sensitivity of residents to amenity impacts may be mediated by existing ambient noise associated with the character of the Creekside area and screening provided by trees and roadways as discussed above. Taking these factors into account, including the likelihood for continuous 24 hour working for certain activities, it is considered that the residents are likely to have a high level of sensitivity to adverse amenity impacts that may arise as a result of the construction process. 10.4.20 See Vol 26 Figure 10.4.1 for a baseline plan which indicates the features identified above.

Public right of way – footpath and cycle route
10.4.21 A sign posted footpath and cycle route runs east-west through the site, just to the south of the scaffolding storage yard (which itself sits immediately south of the railway viaduct). It is understood that the route would continue to be provided, by being realigned during the construction works immediately along the southernedge of the railway viaduct a few metres to the north. Given that the public right of way will be re-provided within metres of its existing location, it is considered that the project would not cause undue disturbance to users. As such, impacts on the route are not considered any further within this socio-economic impact assessment.

10.4.22

10.4.23

Summary
10.4.24 A summary of receptors as described in the baseline and their sensitivity is provided in the table below. Vol 26 Table 10.4.1 Socio-economics receptors Receptor Businesses at the site and their employees Value/sensitivity and justification Medium – there are two businesses on the site; and it is assumed, on the basis of typical employment density rates, that up to 42 employees are employed across the two businesses. There is some availability of alternative premises/locations suitable for such business activities elsewhere in the Borough, although they may derive benefit from being in their existing location.

Residents of High – residents less able to avoid impacts. Less nearby properties sensitive during the day, but more sensitive during the night time.

Page 150

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 10: Socio-economics

10.5

Construction assessment Construction base and development cases
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. The 43-81 Greenwich High Road development to the southwest would be completed comprising residential dwellings, a hotel, light industrial studios/workshops and retail units. b. It is assumed that ‘The Movement’ proposed mixed-use development would be completed comprising residential dwellings, student and hotel accommodation.

10.5.2

10.5.3

It is reasonable to assume that the businesses currently found on-site are likely to remain there in the base case. There may be changes in the number and type of businesses located in the area, eg, businesses may open or close and sites that are currently occupied may become unoccupied. It is not possible however to forecast this with any accuracy. Other than the above, it is assumed that the base case would be largely the same ie, the socio economic conditions at the site would remain the same as existing conditions. Development Case Under the development case, it is expected that the following changes to the baseline would occur: a. An area of land (0.8ha) currently occupied in the baseline condition by two businesses (in the northern part of the construction site) would be taken up for the duration of the construction phase resulting in the displacement of the two businesses located there.

10.5.4

10.5.5

Construction effects
Temporary displacement of business activity 10.5.6 The activities of two businesses, engaged in the storage of scaffolding and building materials respectively, taking place on the construction site would be displaced by the proposed construction activity. It is likely that businesses would require alternative premises to operate from for the duration of the construction period. Displacement of any businesses would be of long term duration (approximately five and a half years), though reversible as no structures associated with the operational phase of the project would be required in this area following completion of works. However, it is likely that once settled at new premises the businesses may choose not to return to the existing site. Although it is impossible to say this with certainty as it will depend on the businesses in question.

10.5.7

Page 151

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station 10.5.8

Section 10: Socio-economics

A preliminary estimate of the employee workspaces associated with the entire operational working area of the open storage and builders’ yards is 42, based on the activities that they are engaged in. Jewsons is likely to benefit from its existing location, given the continuing redevelopment work that is taking place in the local area. This may also be similar for the scaffolding business, although at this stage their reliance on their current location is not clear. It is also considered that the businesses do not depend intrinsically on their location at this site to attract business and would be able to ‘carry’ their customers with them to a new location within Lewisham or the southeast of London. Alternative locations for the two businesses have not yet been identified and it is thus currently not known as to where they would locate to if displaced. On the basis of these factors, overall it is assessed that the magnitude of the impact would be medium. Taking account of the medium magnitude of the impact and the medium sensitivity of the activities to displacement, it is considered that the effect arising from the displacement of business activity will likely be moderate adverse and therefore significant. Effects on residential amenity Air quality, noise and vibration, and visual impacts arising as a result of the proposed construction works and construction related traffic may potentially act individually or in combination with one another to reduce the environmental amenity experienced by residents living in the vicinity of the site (as described in Section 10.4). Preliminary assessments have been undertaken to examine the potential air quality, noise and vibration, and visual effects arising during the construction phase. With respect to the potential effect of the proposed works on residential receptors, the following points summarise the preliminary assessment findings of likely effect significance: a. Air quality and construction dust effects are likely to be minor adverse. Such effects arising as a result of the proposed works are therefore likely to result in a significant effect on residents for the duration of the construction period. b. Noise effects on residents have been assessed as likely to be significant at the residential receptors identified for the duration of the construction period. Vibration (human response) effects are not likely to be significant at the residential receptors identified. c. Visual effects are likely to be moderate adverse from one of the three residential viewpoints identified (viewpoint 1.2) and minor adverse and negligible at the remaining viewpoints (1.3 and 1.1 respectively), for the duration of the construction phase.

10.5.9

10.5.10 10.5.11

10.5.12

10.5.13

10.5.14

For further information, please refer to Section 4 Air Quality and Odour, Section 9 Noise and Vibration, and Section 11 Townscape and Visual within this volume.

Page 152

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station 10.5.15

Section 10: Socio-economics

The above findings regarding air quality, dust, noise and vibration, and visual effects have been taken into consideration in undertaking an assessment of the overall magnitude of amenity impacts on residential receptors. The preliminary findings of the assessment balance the above findings considering the contribution that each assessed element (eg, the quality of the air, the quality of a view) makes to a receptor’s overall experience of amenity. In terms of duration, potential impacts on amenity for residents would only last during the construction period. During this time, as well as being restricted to day-time working hours, these impacts are not likely to be continuous over the working day, but are likely to rise and fall as different activities of the construction process take place throughout the day. Similarly, the nature of the construction activity being undertaken would determine whether the different types of impacts arise simultaneously or whether only one or two impacts arise at any one time. The presence of some screening and roads between the site and some of the surrounding residential development are likely to have a mediating factor on the potential magnitude of any adverse amenity impacts. The site is also characterised in the existing baseline condition by its existing industrial nature and the presence of Greenwich High Street and the high level railway and Docklands Light Railway viaducts running across the site. Accordingly, it is likely that the dwellings nearby the construction site already experience some adverse amenity impacts associated with these features, and that this may act to limit the magnitude of any amenity impact as experienced by residents. However, it is also recognised that the surrounding employment areas are gradually being converted for residential uses and that the general amenity of the surrounding areas is likely to carry on improving up to the construction base case, at the same time as the number of residential receptors in the vicinity of the site increases. Given the above factors, it is considered that any potential adverse amenity impacts could be of medium magnitude overall. Given the medium impact magnitude and high sensitivity of surrounding residents, it is considered that the overall effect on residential amenity could be major adverse and therefore significant. It is stressed that this is a preliminary and outline finding only at this stage. As per para. 10.3.6, once baseline traffic data are available, the potential for amenity impacts along these construction vehicle routes can also be considered. Summary The preliminary findings of the assessments of likely significant construction phase socio-economic impacts and effects are summarised in the tables below. Vol 26 Table 10.5.1 Socio-economics construction effects Impact Temporary Sensitivity Magnitude Significance Moderate Medium – up to 42 Medium –

10.5.16

10.5.17

10.5.18 10.5.19

10.5.20

10.5.21

Page 153

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Impact displacement of business activity Sensitivity employees are employed at the site; some availability of alternative premises/locations for activities elsewhere in the Borough, though nature of businesses means that they likely derive benefit from being in their existing location High – residents less able to avoid impacts. Less sensitive during the day but more sensitive during the night time

Section 10: Socio-economics Magnitude Significance

although adverse business significant operators will likely be assisted with relocation costs, alternative locations for them have yet to be identified. Modest relative size and employment capacity of business space affected. Medium – potential for minor adverse air quality effects, significant noise effects and moderate adverse visual effects on nearby dwellings; the experience of which could be somewhat mediated by the presence of existing roadways, railways and buildings Major adverse significant

Amenity impacts on residential amenity (outline findings)

10.6
10.6.1

Operational assessment
As per para. 10.1.2, no significant operational effects were scoped in for consideration during the scoping stage.

10.7
10.7.1

Approach to mitigation Construction
The above assessment has arrived at a preliminary finding that there is a potential for a major adverse effect to arise in relation to effects on residential amenity.

Page 154

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station 10.7.2

Section 10: Socio-economics

As per the significance criteria, major adverse effects constitute significant effects. There is a continuing opportunity for further consideration of the potential for employing 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. Mitigation measures to address effects on residential amenity may include design alternatives or construction process and management changes that are typical of the sort usually identified to mitigate air quality, noise or visual 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. The above assessment has also arrived at a preliminary finding that there is a potential for a moderate adverse effect to arise in relation to the displacement of business activity. Mitigation measures may include assisting the businesses with finding alternative locations or premises to relocate to.

10.7.3

10.7.4

10.7.5

Operational
10.7.6 No significant operational effects were scoped in to the assessment and thus there are no effects in the operational phase that would require mitigation.

10.8
10.8.1

Assessment summary
The table below provides a summary of the preliminary findings of the socio-economic assessment.

Page 155

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Vol 26 Table 10.8.1 Socio-economics construction assessment Significance Moderate adverse – significant Major 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. Mitigation measures including assisting the businesses with finding alternative locations or premises to relocate to. Mitigation Residual significance Negligible or Minor adverse – not significant (final outcome dependent on opportunities for relocation that can be identified and feasibly implemented) If mitigation measures suggested in the air quality, noise and vibration and visual assessments to minimise adverse impacts are able to be implemented they are likely to achieve a reduction in the significance of the residual effect.

Section 10: Socio-economics

Receptor

Effect

Businesses at Temporary the site and displacement of their business activity employees

Residents of nearby properties

Amenity effects on residential amenity (outline findings)

Page 156

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 10: Socio-economics

10.9
10.9.1

Assessment completion
Pending the results of assessments by other EIA topics and the confirmation of access/egress routes for construction vehicles, 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 effects on residents. 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 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 10.3. 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.

10.9.2

10.9.3

10.9.4 10.9.5

Page 157

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

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 Greenwich Pumping Station site. The assessment describes the current conditions found within the area – the nature and pattern of buildings, streets, open space and vegetation and their interrelationships within the built environment, and the changes that would be introduced as a result of the proposed development. The assessment also identifies mitigation measures where appropriate. Townscape and visual assessments are made up of two separate, although linked, procedures; the townscape baseline and its analysis contribute to the baseline for visual amenity. Each section of the assessment is structured so that townscape aspects are described first, followed by visual.

11.1.2

11.2
11.2.1

Proposed development
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
11.2.2 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 connection tunnel would be being driven to Chambers Wharf, involving 24 hour working, the presence of cranes at the site and the export of materials by road. For this site, this equates to Year 2 of construction, within a total construction period of approximately five and a half years. Similar effects would arise during the secondary tunnel lining, which would occur during Year 4 of construction. The construction of the shaft would typically take place during standard working hours only. However, some activities, such as the diaphragm wall works, are likely to require extended standard working hours, as defined in Section 3. The construction of the connection tunnel, including secondary lining would be undertaken continuously (24 hour working, Monday to Sunday). The specific construction activities which may give rise to effects on townscape character, tranquillity and visual receptors are: a. clearance of existing structures and vegetation, including two mature trees along Norman Road b. vehicular construction access to the site off Norman Road and Greenwich High Road c. establishment of 2 hoardings around the boundary of the construction site

11.2.3

d. use of cranes during shaft sinking, the connection tunnel drive and secondary lining of the tunnel

Page 158

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 11: Townscape and visual

e. provision of welfare and office facilities, stacked up to three or four storeys f. 11.2.4 lighting of the site when required. Measures incorporated into the draft CoCP to reduce townscape and visual impacts include use of capped and directional lighting, only when required, appropriate protection of listed structures and protection of trees to BS5837 – Trees in Relation to Construction - Recommendations.

Operation
11.2.5 The proposed operation of the infrastructure at Greenwich Pumping Station is described in Volume 3. The particular components of importance to this topic include the design of the shaft, which would be finished 1m above ground level.

11.3
11.3.1 11.3.2

Assessment methodology 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 Greenwich, LB of Lewisham and English Heritage have been consulted on the detailed scope of the townscape and visual impact assessment, including the number and location of viewpoints. English Heritage have confirmed acceptance of the proposed viewpoints.

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 26 Figure 11.4.1 to Vol 10 Figure 11.4.6. The scale of the assessment area has been set by the maximum extent of the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV), apart from those locations to the north along Norman Road and to the west along the railway where the visibility of the proposed components of the project would be barely perceptible. The methodology for establishing the townscape and visual baseline follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 6. With specific reference to the Greenwich Pumping Station site, baseline information has been gathered through a review of: a. The Unitary Development Plans (UDPs) for the LB of Greenwich and the neighbouring LB of Lewisham b. Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Strategy, and West Greenwich Conservation Area Character Appraisal, produced by the LB of Greenwich

11.3.4 11.3.5

Construction
11.3.6 The construction phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. Any site specific variations are described below.

Page 159

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station 11.3.7

Section 11: Townscape and visual

With reference to the Greenwich Pumping Station site, the peak construction phase relevant to this topic would be from Year 2 to Year 4 of construction, during the main tunnel drive and subsequent secondary lining, including 24 hour working, the presence of cranes at the site, and export and import of material by road. This period has therefore been used as the assessment ‘year’ for townscape and visual effects. For the purposes of the construction phase assessment, it is assumed that the Greenwich High Road residential development (including buildings up to seven storeys high), to the southwest of the site, is fully built and occupied. It is also assumed that construction will have commenced on The Movement residential development to the east of the site, comprising buildings up to 12 storeys high.

11.3.8

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 has been assumed that The Movement residential development (described in para. 11.3.8) will be fully built and occupied. Further work will be undertaken for the ES to identify any potential change in the base case for Year 15 of operation.

11.3.10

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 and 11.3.10. 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 Years 2 to 4 of construction and Year 1 of operation without the project (ie the ‘do nothing’ scenario). Assumptions will be made in the ES regarding what the base case may be in Year 15 of operation without the project.

11.3.13

11.4
11.4.1

Baseline conditions Townscape baseline
The proposed development would be located within land surrounding the existing Greenwich Pumping Station, partially within the former Beam Engine House and land to the north of the building, and partially within an area in the southwest of the site currently occupied by disused Grade II listed coal sheds. The surrounding area is characterised by a mix of industrial premises, newly built large scale residential blocks and older residential terraces.

Page 160

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Physical elements 11.4.2

Section 11: Townscape and visual

The physical elements of the townscape in the assessment area are described below. Topography The site is located on relatively flat ground adjacent to Deptford Creek, with no notable topographic features in the vicinity of the site. The land rises gently towards the east. Land use The site is set within an area along Deptford Creek dominated by industrial uses, although a new residential development is under construction to the south of the site and further regeneration is anticipated (refer to para. 11.3.8). The townscape to the east and west, further away from Deptford Creek, is dominated by residential uses. The Grade I listed St Paul’s Church is located to the northwest of the site. Development patterns and scale Vol 26 Figure 11.4.1 illustrates the pattern and scale of development within the assessment area and also indicates building heights. Vol 26 Figure 11.4.1 Townscape - development pattern and scale (see Volume 26 Figures document)

11.4.3

11.4.4

11.4.5

11.4.6

The industrial areas surrounding the site are characterised by two to three storey warehouses, ranging from small units to large scale sheds. The development pattern is typical of industrial estates, with small access roads informally arranged amongst Deptford Creek and the Docklands Light Railway (DLR). Residential properties to the northeast of the site are characterised by large four to seven storey blocks, including some newly built residences along Tarves Way. The area to the southeast of the site is dominated by two to three storey residential terraces arranged on a grid pattern and bound to the north by Greenwich High Road. The area to the west of the site is characterised by a mix of residential apartment blocks and semi-detached properties, set amongst a series of open spaces (including the grounds of St Paul’s Church) and several schools. Vegetation patterns and extents Vol 26 Figure 11.4.2 illustrates the pattern and extent of vegetation, including tree cover and known Tree Preservation Orders, within the assessment area. Vol 26 Figure 11.4.2 Townscape - pattern and extent of vegetation (see Volume 26 Figures document)

11.4.7

11.4.8

11.4.9

11.4.10

The townscape surrounding the site is industrial in nature, with a notable absence of vegetation, apart from around the boundaries of the Greenwich Pumping Station site itself. The residential area to the southeast of the site is characterised by a dense tree cover, although this is largely due to

Page 161

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 11: Townscape and visual

the abundance and size of private gardens rather than substantial numbers of public open spaces or street trees. The residential areas to the west of the site are distinctly more urban in character, with much of the area laid to hardstanding and private gardens generally characterised by amenity grassland. However, there are substantial numbers of trees in some isolated pockets of communal green space, particularly in the development between Deptford Church Street and Creekside. 11.4.11 The band of open spaces to the northwest of the site is characterised by scattered mature trees, culminating in a dense band of mature lime trees surrounding St Paul’s Church. A number of trees to the southeast of the site are protected by Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs), and trees within conservation areas are also indirectly protected. Open space distribution and type 11.4.13 Vol 26 Figure 11.4.3 illustrates the distribution of different open space types within the assessment area, indicating all relevant statutory, nonstatutory and local plan designations. Vol 26 Figure 11.4.3 Townscape - open space distribution and type (see Volume 26 Figures document) 11.4.14 The assessment area to the east of Deptford Creek has a notable absence of either public or private open spaces. To the west of the creek, open spaces are concentrated into a linear band from the Laban Centre on Deptford Creek to St Paul’s Churchyard to the west. These open spaces are described in more detail in the table below. Vol 26 Table 11.4.1 Townscape open space type and distribution Open space Deptford Church Street Open Space Distance from site 300m NW Character summary Small open space characterised by amenity grassland with scattered mature trees, divided by a wall marking the historic boundary between the former rectory and an area of former housing. The area to the east of the wall is enclosed by a fence and used as a dog walking area. The area to the west of the wall is surrounded by a knee high rail. The open space is surrounded on all sides by roads. The site has been identified as being of average quality in the Lewisham Open Space Study (2010). Designated Public Open Space in the LB of Lewisham’s UDP. Green open space surrounding the Grade I listed St Paul’s Church, enclosed by a brick wall and a dense band of mature trees, most of which are limes. The site has been identified as being of very good quality in the Lewisham Open Space

11.4.12

St Paul’s 350m Churchyard NW

Page 162

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Open space Distance from site

Section 11: Townscape and visual Character summary

Study (2010). Designated Public Open Space in the LB of Lewisham’s UDP. Sue Godfrey Nature Reserve 250m NW Linear nature reserve characterised by open grassland, low growing shrubs and scattered mature trees, contained by a low brick wall. The site has been identified as being of good quality in the Lewisham Open Space Study (2010). Designated Public Open Space in the LB of Lewisham’s UDP. Small park on the edge of the Sue Godfrey Nature Reserve, characterised by open grassland with scattered trees and shrubs along the boundaries. The park includes play facilities and seating. The site has been identified as being of excellent quality in the Lewisham Open Space Study (2010). Designated Urban Green Space in the LB of Lewisham’s UDP. Small green space in front of the Laban dance centre, characterised by grassed angular landforms and terraces.

Ferranti Park

200m NW

Laban Centre Open Space

200m N

Transport routes 11.4.15 Vol 26 Figure 11.4.4 illustrates the transport network within the assessment area, including cycleways, footpaths and Public Rights of Way. Vol 26 Figure 11.4.4 Townscape and visual – transport network (see Volume 26 Figures document) 11.4.16 The site is located immediately adjacent to the DLR viaduct, to the south of the mainline railway between Deptford and Greenwich, and to the north of Greenwich High Road, which is characterised by high levels of traffic. The other main strategic route in the assessment area is Deptford Church Street to the west of the site, connecting the A2 and A200. A cycle route runs along the northern boundary of the site. Site character assessment 11.4.18 The site is located within the confines of the existing Greenwich Pumping Station, partially within the former Beam Engine House and land to the north of the building, and partially within an area currently occupied by disused coal sheds. The components of the site are described in more detail in the table below.

11.4.17

Page 163

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station 11.4.19

Section 11: Townscape and visual

The site is located within London View Management Framework (LVMF) London Panorama 6A.1 (Blackheath Point to St Paul’s Cathedral). Vol 26 Table 11.4.2 Townscape site components ID 01 Component Description Condition Fair condition To be confirmed following the completion of a tree survey Fair condition Fair condition

Public Tarmac path linking Norman Road and footpath and Creekside cycleway Mature trees along Norman Road Eight mature trees located along the eastern boundary of the site.

02

03 04

Boundary wall Boundary metal palisade fencing Grade II listed coal sheds Grade II listed Beam Engine Houses

1.5m high brick wall along the eastern boundary of the site. 2m high galvanised palisade fencing

05

Single storey coal sheds design by Bazalgette, comprising an iron frame and slate roof. Two storey engine houses with a one storey boiler house linking the two, designed by Bazalgette. The buildings are constructed of grey brick with slate roofs and cast iron railings leading to the doors. Area of unmanaged scattered semimature trees and shrubs.

Good condition Fair condition

06

07

Trees and shrubs to the north of the Beam Engine Houses Trees to the south of the Beam Engine Houses

Poor condition

08

Semi-mature and mature trees within areas of mown grass.

To be confirmed following the completion of a tree survey Fair condition

09

Cooling towers

Three cooling towers (2m high) surrounded by 2m high steel palisade fencing.

Page 164

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 11: Townscape and visual

11.4.20

The condition of the townscape within the site is generally fair, with some potential for enhancement of certain features, including the Beam Engine Houses. The industrial use of the site, set amongst the wider industrial area and close to the DLR, mainline railway and Greenwich High Road, means the site has a low level of tranquillity. The site has limited townscape value due to the lack of open space and the industrial use of the area. However, the Beam Engine Houses and coal sheds (Grade II listed) represent components of the character area that are valued at the Borough scale by virtue of their historical importance. Due to the fair condition, limited townscape value and low level of tranquillity, the site has a low sensitivity to change. Townscape character assessment The Townscape Character Areas surrounding the site are identified on Vol 26 Figure 11.4.5; they are ordered from the north of the site and continue around the site in a clockwise direction. Each area is described below. Vol 26 Figure 11.4.5 Townscape character areas (see Volume 26 Figures document) Creekside Industrial

11.4.21

11.4.22

11.4.23

11.4.24

11.4.25

This character area is dominated by industrial uses focused around Deptford Creek, the DLR and the mainline railway between Deptford and Greenwich Stations. The area is characterised by a mix of one to three storey small scale units within industrial estates and large scale, low height warehouses. The area is bisected north-south by Deptford Creek, which is only crossed by the DLR and railway line, which in turn bisect the area east-west. The area to the south of the site is currently undergoing regeneration, with a residential project under construction, similar in character to new development to the northeast of the site. The buildings and public realm within the area are generally relatively poorly maintained. The overall townscape condition is poor. Tranquillity within the area is limited by high levels of lorry traffic, the presence of the busy railway line, a lack of street trees and open spaces, and the industrial land uses. The area has limited townscape value by virtue of the poor condition of the public realm and the commercial land use. Due to the poor condition and limited value of the area, this character area has a low sensitivity to change. North Greenwich Residential This character area predominantly comprises large residential apartment blocks, including a new development along Norman Road and Tarves Way, with some earlier 20th century development to the northeast.

11.4.26 11.4.27

11.4.28 11.4.29

11.4.30

Page 165

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 11: Townscape and visual

Properties are generally between four and seven storeys high and set amongst a series of small communal open spaces characterised by amenity grassland and some scattered trees. The mainline railway and Greenwich station form the southern boundary to the character area. 11.4.31 11.4.32 The buildings and public realm within the area are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. The area has moderate levels of tranquillity by virtue of the residential character and density of open space amongst the residential blocks, slightly moderated by the presence of the mainline railway to the south of the character area. The townscape of the character area is likely to be locally valued by residents within the area. Due to the local value attributed to the townscape and moderate levels of tranquillity, this character area has a medium sensitivity to change. Greenwich Residential 11.4.35 This character area predominantly comprises large 20th century residential apartment blocks, ranging from four to seven storeys. The residential buildings are set amongst areas of communal amenity grassland with some scattered trees present. The character area largely surrounds the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area. Part of the character area falls within West Greenwich Conservation Area, designated by the LB of Greenwich. The buildings and public realm within the area are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. The area has moderate levels of tranquillity by virtue of the residential character and density of open space amongst the residential blocks, slightly moderated by the presence of the mainline railway to the south of the character area. The townscape of the character area is likely to be locally valued by residents within the area. Due to the local value attributed to the townscape and moderate levels of tranquillity, this character area has a medium sensitivity to change. Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area 11.4.40 This character area is defined by the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area boundary, designated by the LB of Greenwich. The area is characterised by 18th and 19th century two to three storey residential terraces, in a distinct area defined by Blackheath Road, Greenwich High Road and Greenwich South Street. The architecture of the area is generally consistent providing a uniform appearance to the area. Residential properties generally have small front gardens and large rear gardens, characterised by widespread mature trees. The development pattern is organised on a regular grid pattern. The area has a notable absence of public open spaces. The area is generally inward looking in character.

11.4.33 11.4.34

11.4.36 11.4.37

11.4.38 11.4.39

Page 166

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station 11.4.41 11.4.42

Section 11: Townscape and visual

The buildings and public realm within the area are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. Despite the presence of Greenwich High Road along the northern boundary of this area, and the wider presence of industrial uses and railways, the townscape has moderate levels of tranquillity due to the residential character and inward looking nature of the area. The townscape of the character area is valued at the Borough level, by virtue of the conservation area designation. Due to the good condition and Borough value attributed to the townscape, this character area has a high sensitivity to change. Deptford Residential This area comprises a largely residential area located between Deptford High Street to the west and Deptford Church Street to the east. Part of the area falls within Deptford High Street Conservation Area, designated by the LB of Lewisham. The area is characterised by large residential apartment blocks up to approximately five storeys high, set amongst a school (along Frankham Street) and a small open space (along Reginald Road). The residential apartments are set within communal amenity grassland with scattered trees. In the south of the character area, the buildings are smaller in scale and there are some small retail units close to Deptford High Street and Deptford Broadway. The area is generally inward looking in character. The buildings and public realm within the area are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. Despite the presence of Deptford Church Street and Deptford High Street to the east and west of this area respectively, the townscape has moderate levels of tranquillity due to the residential character and the inward looking nature of the area. The townscape of the character area is likely to be locally valued by residents within the area. Due to the local value attributed to the townscape, inward looking nature of the built environment and moderate levels of tranquillity, this character area has a medium sensitivity to change. Creekside Residential This area comprises a residential area located between Deptford Church Street to the west and Creekside to the east. The area is characterised by large five storey residential apartment set within communal amenity grassland with a high density of mature scattered trees. The area is bisected by the mainline railway, which runs east-west through the area on a viaduct, with some of the bridge arches open to allow pedestrian access. The area is inward looking in character. The buildings and public realm within the area are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. Despite the presence of Deptford Church Street to the west, and industrial uses to the east of this area, the townscape has moderate levels of

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 11.4.52

Page 167

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 11: Townscape and visual

tranquillity due to the residential character, density of mature trees and the inward looking nature of the area. 11.4.53 11.4.54 The townscape of the character area is likely to be locally valued by residents within the area. Due to the local value attributed to the townscape, inward looking nature of the built environment and moderate levels of tranquillity, this character area has a medium sensitivity to change. St Paul’s Conservation Area 11.4.55 This character area is defined by the St Paul’s Conservation Area boundary, designated by the LB of Lewisham. The area is dominated by the Grade I listed St Paul’s Church, which is set amongst a medium sized area of interlinked open green spaces. The church itself is surrounded by a walled churchyard with mature trees around the boundary, the majority of which are limes. The north of the area is characterised by two to three storey residential terraces aligned on a grid pattern, parallel with the church and grounds. The southern boundary of the area is formed by the elevated mainline railway, adjacent to a primary school and series of commercial premises within the railway arches. The buildings and public realm within the area are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. Despite the presence of railway along the southern boundary of this area, the townscape has moderate levels of tranquillity due to the residential character and density of open spaces and mature trees. The townscape of the character area is valued at the Borough level, by virtue of the conservation area designation. Due to the good condition and Borough value attributed to the townscape, this character area has a high sensitivity to change. Laban Centre and Bronze Street Open Space 11.4.60 This character area comprises a series of interconnected green open spaces between Deptford Church Street and the Laban Dance Centre. The area includes: a. Sue Godfrey Nature Reserve b. Ferranti Park c. 11.4.61 Laban Centre open space and dance centre. This area is characterised by the planting and amenity provided by the open spaces, which are largely inward looking due to the presence of walls and mature vegetation and trees along the boundaries. The buildings and public realm within the area are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. The area has a relatively high level of tranquillity due to the character and inward looking nature of the open spaces, mostly surrounded by quiet residential uses.

11.4.56 11.4.57

11.4.58 11.4.59

11.4.62 11.4.63

Page 168

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station 11.4.64 11.4.65

Section 11: Townscape and visual

The townscape of the character area is likely to be locally valued by residents within the area. Due to the inward looking nature of the open spaces and local value of the townscape, the area has a medium sensitivity to change. Creek Road Residential This area comprises an area of fairly recent residential developments bordered by Creek Road to the north. The area is characterised by medium sized residential apartment blocks from three to four storeys, and some two storey semi-detached residences. The buildings are set amongst some communal grassed areas, larger areas of car parking and some small private gardens. The area is inward looking in character. The buildings and public realm within the area are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. Despite the presence of Creek Road to the north, the townscape has moderate levels of tranquillity due to the residential character and the inward looking nature of the area. The townscape of the character area is likely to be locally valued by residents within the area. Due to the local value attributed to the townscape, inward looking nature of the built environment and moderate levels of tranquillity, this character area has a medium sensitivity to change. The sensitivity to change of the townscape character areas is summarised in the table below. Vol 26 Table 11.4.3 Townscape sensitivities to change Townscape character area The site Creekside Industrial North Greenwich Residential Greenwich Residential Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area Deptford Residential Creekside Residential St Paul’s Conservation Area Laban Centre and Bronze Street Open Space Creek Road Residential Sensitivity Low Low Medium Medium High Medium Medium High Medium Medium

11.4.66

11.4.67 11.4.68

11.4.69 11.4.70

11.4.71

Visual baseline
11.4.72 Vol 10 Figure 11.4.6 indicates the location of viewpoints referenced below, including the location of the LVMF London Panorama that the site falls within. All LVMF viewing corridors, and residential and recreational

Page 169

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 11: Townscape and visual

receptors have a high sensitivity to change, transport receptors have a medium sensitivity to change, and employment receptors have a low 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 10 Figure 11.4.6 Visual assessment - viewpoint locations (see Volume 26 Figures document) London View Management Framework London Panoramas London Panorama 6A.1 – Blackheath Point to St Paul’s Cathedral 11.4.73 11.4.74 This London Panorama, designated in the LVMF (July 2007) passes through the centre of the site and has a high sensitivity to change. The view towards St Paul’s Cathedral is largely unobstructed, but framed by other tall buildings, the most visually apparent being St Paul’s Church in Deptford (Grade I listed). The site is partially visible in the middle ground of the view, set in front of the elevated DLR and railway. Residential 11.4.75 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 southwest from residences on Norman Road 11.4.76 This viewpoint is representative of the oblique view from residential properties on Norman Road, close to the junction with Thornham Street. The view is a linear view down Norman Road, framed by residential development to the east and industrial units along Deptford Creek to the west. The view from upper storeys encompasses open panoramas over the creek and surrounding industrial uses. The view towards the site is largely obscured by intervening buildings and the elevated railway line on the northern boundary of the site. Viewpoint 1.2: View west from residences on Greenwich High Road close to the junction with Egerton Drive 11.4.77 This viewpoint is representative of the view from residential properties located on the corner of Greenwich High Road and Egerton Drive. The foreground of the view is characterised by industrial units along Greenwich High Road and residential properties at the southern end of Norman Road, which partially obscure views towards the site. The existing Beam Engine Houses are visible in the background of the view, partially obscured by mature trees within the Greenwich Pumping Station compound. Viewpoint 1.3: View northeast from residences on Greenwich High Road close to the junction with Burgos Grove 11.4.78 This viewpoint is representative of the oblique view from residential properties located on Greenwich High Road, close to the junction with

Page 170

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 11: Townscape and visual

Burgos Grove. The view is a linear view up Greenwich High Road, framed by residential properties to the east and industrial units and construction activities to the west. Views of the site are largely obscured by the construction of a new residential development to the south of the site. Viewpoint 1.4: View southeast from residences on Berthon Street 11.4.79 This viewpoint is representative of the view from residential properties along Berthon Street, adjacent to the Sue Godfrey Nature Reserve. The foreground of the view is dominated by the nature reserve and the planting around its boundaries. Wider views encompass industrial units alongside Deptford Creek, which largely obscure views towards the site. Recreational 11.4.80 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 sensitivity to change. The visual baseline in respect of recreational receptors, including tourists, is discussed below. Viewpoint 2.1: View southwest from the footbridge over Deptford Creek 11.4.81 This viewpoint is representative of the view for pedestrians crossing the footbridge over Deptford Creek, immediately adjacent to the northern edge of the site, and running to the south of the mainline railway. The view is a linear view up Deptford Creek, framed by industrial premises to the west and the site to the east. Views of the majority of the site are partially obscured by the DLR viaduct passing over Deptford Creek in the foreground of the view, although the Beam Engine House is visible underneath the viaduct. Viewpoint 2.2: View southwest from Deptford Church Street Open Space 11.4.82 This viewpoint is representative of the view for recreational users of the open space adjacent to Deptford Church Street. The foreground of the view is dominated by mature trees within the open space and busy traffic along Deptford Church Street. Wider views encompass residential premises to the east of Deptford Church Street and industrial units along Deptford Creek. Views of the site are largely obscured by intervening buildings and the structure of the elevated mainline railway. Transport 11.4.83 People travelling through an area generally have a medium sensitivity to change, although it is often the means by which the greatest numbers of people view the townscape. Viewpoint 3.1: View south from Norman Road, north of the railway 11.4.84 This viewpoint is representative of the view from people travelling south towards the site along Norman Road. The view is a linear view down Norman Road, contained on both sides by industrial units. The view towards the site is framed by the DLR and mainline railway which bridge

Page 171

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 11: Townscape and visual

over the road just south of the viewpoint. The mature trees along the eastern boundary of the site are visible through the railway bridge. Views of the remainder of the site are obscured. Viewpoint 3.2: View west from Greenwich Station 11.4.85 This viewpoint is representative of the oblique view from people using Greenwich Station. The view is a linear view down the railway line. Views towards the site are largely obscured by intervening buildings. Employment and other institutions 11.4.86 People at work are the least sensitive receptors, as their attention is likely to be focused on their work activity. These receptors have a low sensitivity to change. Viewpoint 4.1: View west from industrial premises along Deptford Creek 11.4.87 This view is representative of the view from industrial premises on the west bank of Deptford Creek, opposite the site. The foreground of the view is dominated by the elevated DLR viaduct which crosses Deptford Creek in this location. The viaduct partially obscures views towards the site, although the existing Beam Engine House is visible underneath the structure of the bridge. The sensitivity to change of the viewpoints is summarised in the table below. Vol 26 Table 11.4.4 Visual viewpoints sensitivities to change Viewpoint London View Management Framework London Panoramas London Panorama 6A.1 – Blackheath Point to St Paul’s Cathedral Residential Viewpoint 1.1: View southwest from residences on Norman Road Viewpoint 1.2: View west from residences on Greenwich High Road close to the junction with Egerton Drive Viewpoint 1.3: View northeast from residences on Greenwich High Road close to the junction with Burgos Grove Viewpoint 1.4: View southeast from residences on Berthon Street Recreational Viewpoint 2.1: View southwest from the footbridge over Deptford Creek High High High High Sensitivity

11.4.88

High

High

Page 172

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Viewpoint

Section 11: Townscape and visual Sensitivity High

Viewpoint 2.2: View southwest from Deptford Church Street Open Space Transport Viewpoint 3.1: View south from Norman Road, north of the railway Viewpoint 3.2: View west from Greenwich Station Employment Viewpoint 4.1: View west from industrial premises along Deptford Creek

Medium Medium Low

11.5
11.5.1

Construction assessment
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
11.5.2 Direct effects on the townscape of the site would arise from clearance of structures, trees and vegetation, removal of the Grade II listed coal sheds, and construction activity associated with the construction of the shaft and ventilation equipment in the currently disused Beam Engine House, and secondary lining of the tunnel. The effects on specific components of the site are described below: Vol 26 Table 11.5.1 Townscape site component effects - construction ID 01 02 Component Public footpath and cycleway Mature trees along Norman Road Boundary wall Boundary metal palisade fencing Grade II listed coal sheds Grade II listed Beam Engine Houses Effects This would be temporarily diverted further north during construction. The northernmost trees would be removed to allow construction access to the site (to be confirmed following the completion of a tree survey). Parts of this wall would be demolished to allow construction access to the site. This would be removed during construction. These would be removed and stored during construction (for reinstatement following the works). These would be protected and retained during the works. Works would be undertaken within one of the Beam Engine Houses to install ventilation equipment.

03 04 05

06

Page 173

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station ID 07 Component Trees and shrubs to the north of the Beam Engine Houses Trees to the south of the Beam Engine Houses Cooling towers

Section 11: Townscape and visual Effects

Retained and protected during construction (to be confirmed following the completion of a tree survey).

08

Retained and protected during construction (to be confirmed following the completion of a tree survey). These would be retained throughout construction.

09 11.5.3

The magnitude of change to the site during the construction period is considered to be high due to the clearance required to form the construction site, including removal of mature trees and the Grade II listed coal sheds, and the level of activity during construction. The existing site has a low level of tranquillity, which would be substantially altered due to introduction of construction vehicles, plant equipment and high levels of activity in an area not currently intensively used. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be high. The high magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the low sensitivity of the site to change, means the effect of the proposed construction activity on the townscape resource of the site would be of moderate adverse significance. Construction phase townscape assessment Creekside Industrial

11.5.4

11.5.5

11.5.6

The proposed site is set within this character area. The setting of the area would be affected by the removal of the Grade II listed coal sheds and the presence of construction activity, cranes and road transport. The works would be set directly adjacent to the Greenwich High Road residential development to the south of the site, which, based on assumptions made for the construction phase assessment year (refer to para. 11.3.8) would be fully built and occupied, and the local setting of this part of the character area would therefore be substantially altered. Construction activity at the site would also be set within the wider context of ongoing redevelopment in the plot to the north of the site (‘The Movement’), which is assumed would be under construction at the same time as the proposed Thames Tunnel site, serving to reduce the relative effect of activities at the site. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be medium. The area has a low level of tranquillity, which would be altered due to the intensity of construction activities, including road transport. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be medium.

11.5.7

11.5.8

Page 174

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station 11.5.9

Section 11: Townscape and visual

The medium magnitude of change, assessed alongside the low sensitivity of this character area, means the effect of the proposed construction activity on Creekside Industrial would be of minor adverse significance. North Greenwich Residential The proposed site does not form part of the setting for this character area, which is largely inward looking, set beyond the elevated railway line and unlikely to be substantially affected by construction traffic. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The area has a moderate level of tranquillity at present, which is unlikely to change, given the careful routing of construction traffic. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the medium sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed construction activity would give rise to a negligible effect on North Greenwich Residential. Greenwich Residential The proposed site does not form part of the setting for this character area, which is largely inward looking and unlikely to be affected by the presence of cranes at the site. However, the setting would be affected to a limited extent by the presence of construction traffic along Greenwich High Road. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be low. The area has a moderate level of tranquillity at present, which is likely to be affected to a limited extent by an increase in lorry movements along Greenwich High Road. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be low. The low magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the medium sensitivity of this character area, means the effect of the proposed construction activity on Greenwich Residential would be of minor adverse significance. Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area The proposed site forms part of the northern setting for this character area, although the residential streets are generally inward looking in character. The setting would be affected by lorry traffic along Greenwich High Road and Norman Road, site hoardings, and the removal of the coal sheds in this location and the presence of cranes at the shaft site. However, the main construction activity at the shaft would be partially obscured by the existing Beam Engine House. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be medium. The area has a moderate level of tranquillity at present, which is likely to be affected by an increase in lorry movements along Greenwich High Road and construction activity, particularly in the location of the coal sheds. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be medium. The medium magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the high sensitivity of this character area, means the effect of the proposed

11.5.10

11.5.11

11.5.12

11.5.13

11.5.14

11.5.15

11.5.16

11.5.17

11.5.18

Page 175

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 11: Townscape and visual

construction activity on Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area would be of moderate adverse significance. Deptford Residential 11.5.19 The proposed site does not form part of the setting for this character area, which is largely inward looking, set beyond Deptford Church Street and the elevated DLR and unlikely to be substantially affected by construction traffic. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The area has a moderate level of tranquillity at present, which is unlikely to change, given the careful routing of construction traffic. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the medium sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed construction activity would give rise to a negligible effect on Deptford Residential. Creekside Residential 11.5.22 The proposed site forms part of the wider setting for this character area, beyond the industrial units along the west bank of Deptford Creek. Although the foreground setting would remain unaltered, the presence of cranes would alter the wider setting to a limited extent. The presence of cranes would be set against the assumed ongoing construction work associated with ‘The Movement’ residential development to the north of the site, therefore making the cranes a barely perceptible component of the wider setting. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The area has a moderate level of tranquillity at present, which is unlikely to change, given the careful routing of construction traffic. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the medium sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed construction activity would give rise to a negligible effect on Creekside Residential. St Paul’s Conservation Area 11.5.25 The proposed site forms part of the wider setting for this character area, beyond the residential premises along Deptford Church Street and the industrial units along the west bank of Deptford Creek. Although the foreground setting would remain unaltered, the presence of cranes would alter the wider setting to a limited extent. The presence of cranes would be set against the assumed ongoing construction work associated with the residential development to the north of the site, therefore making the cranes a barely perceptible component of the wider setting. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The area has a moderate level of tranquillity at present, which is unlikely to change, given the careful routing of construction traffic. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible.

11.5.20

11.5.21

11.5.23

11.5.24

11.5.26

Page 176

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station 11.5.27

Section 11: Townscape and visual

The negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the high sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed construction activity would give rise to a negligible effect on St Paul’s Conservation Area. Laban Centre and Bronze Street Open Space The proposed site forms part of the wider setting for this character area, beyond the industrial units along both banks of Deptford Creek, and the elevated railway line. Although the foreground setting would remain unaltered, the presence of cranes would alter the wider setting to a limited extent. The presence of cranes would be set against the assumed ongoing construction work associated with the residential development to the north of the site, therefore making the cranes a barely perceptible component of the wider setting. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The area has a high level of tranquillity at present, which is unlikely to change, given the careful routing of construction traffic. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the medium sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed construction activity would give rise to a negligible effect on Laban Centre and Bronze Street Open Space. Creek Road Residential The proposed site does not form part of the setting for this character area, which is largely inward looking, set beyond industrial units along Deptford Creek and the elevated railway line, and unlikely to be substantially affected by construction traffic. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The area has a moderate level of tranquillity at present, which is unlikely to change, given the careful routing of construction traffic. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the medium sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed construction activity would give rise to a negligible effect on Creek Road Residential. The assessment of townscape effects during construction is summarised in the table below. Vol 26 Table 11.5.2 Townscape character area effects - construction Townscape character area The site Creekside Industrial North Greenwich Residential Greenwich Residential Sensitivity Low Low Medium Medium Magnitude High Medium Negligible Low Effect Moderate adverse Minor adverse Negligible Minor

11.5.28

11.5.29

11.5.30

11.5.31

11.5.32

11.5.33

11.5.34

Page 177

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Townscape character area Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area Deptford Residential Creekside Residential St Paul’s Conservation Area Laban Centre and Bronze Street Open Space Creek Road Residential

Section 11: Townscape and visual Sensitivity High Medium Medium High Medium Medium Magnitude Medium Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Effect adverse Moderate adverse Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible

Construction phase townscape assessment – night time effects 11.5.35 There are likely to be limited effects on night time character due to the proposed limit of 12 hour working at the site, with extended working hours for some activities and 24 hour working for tunnelling works. This would mean that there would be some lighting of the site in the early morning and evening during winter, and, at times, for longer periods. Effects on night time character will be considered in the ES. Construction phase visual assessment London View Management Framework London Panoramas London Panorama 6A.1 – Blackheath Point to St Paul’s Cathedral 11.5.36 During construction, cranes at the site would be visible in the middle ground of the view, set partially in front of St Paul’s Church, Deptford (Grade I listed), but unlikely to obstruct views towards St Paul’s Cathedral. Other construction activity at the site would be partially obscured by the intervening low-rise buildings. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this London Panorama is considered to 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. Residential Viewpoint 1.1: View southwest from residences on Norman Road 11.5.38 Views from residences towards the site would be affected to a limited extent by the background visibility of cranes at the site. The majority of construction activities would be screened by intervening buildings and the elevated railway line to the north of the site. The cranes would form barely perceptible components in the background of the view, set against ongoing construction activity at the residential development to the north of the site. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor, means the proposed construction phase would give rise to a negligible effect on this viewpoint.

11.5.37

11.5.39

Page 178

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 11: Townscape and visual

Viewpoint 1.2: View west from residences on Greenwich High Road close to the junction with Egerton Drive 11.5.40 Views from residences here would be affected during construction. The foreground of the view would be affected by site hoardings and stacked office/welfare facilities along the southern boundary of the site and road transport entering the site. The background of the view would be affected by the removal of the Grade II listed coal sheds and the subsequent processing of material that would occur in that location. However, views of the main construction activity around the shaft would be largely obscured by the existing Beam Engine House. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to 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 1.3: View northeast from residences on Greenwich High Road close to the junction with Burgos Grove 11.5.42 Views from residences here would be affected to a limited extent during construction. The foreground of the view would be affected by lorry traffic along Greenwich High Road. However, views of the main construction activity around the shaft would be obscured by the completed residential development to the south of the site. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to 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 southeast from residences on Berthon Street 11.5.44 Views from residences would be largely unaffected during construction. The foreground of the view would be unaffected, and the majority of construction activity at the site would be screened by intervening buildings and the elevated railway to the north of the site. Cranes would be intermittently visible in the background of the view, filtered by the foreground vegetation and forming barely perceptible components of the wider view. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor, means the proposed construction phase would give rise to a negligible effect on this viewpoint. Recreational Viewpoint 2.1: View southwest from the footbridge over Deptford Creek 11.5.46 Views from this location would be affected during construction. Construction activity within the site would be clearly visible beyond the hoardings at the site boundary. The cranes and other construction plant and vehicles would be visible through the DLR viaduct in the foreground of the view. The removal of the Grade II listed coal sheds would also be

11.5.41

11.5.43

11.5.45

Page 179

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 11: Townscape and visual

noticeable from this viewpoint. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be high. 11.5.47 The high magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of major adverse significance. Viewpoint 2.2: View southwest from Deptford Church Street Open Space 11.5.48 Views from this location would be largely unaffected during construction. The foreground of the view would be unaffected, and the majority of construction activity at the site would be screened by intervening buildings and the elevated railway to the north of the site. Cranes would be intermittently visible in the background of the view, filtered by the foreground vegetation and forming barely perceptible components of the wider view. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor, means the proposed construction phase would give rise to a negligible effect on this viewpoint. Transport Viewpoint 3.1: View south from Norman Road, north of the railway 11.5.50 Views from this location would be affected to a limited extent during construction. The view down Norman Road would be affected by an increase in lorry traffic and the removal of mature trees at the northeastern corner of the site. Wider views of construction activity would be largely obscured by the elevated railway line, although the cranes would be visible above the viaduct. The cranes would be viewed against the assumed ongoing presence of construction activity at the residential development plot to the northeast of the site. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be low. The low magnitude of change assessed alongside the medium sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of minor adverse significance. Viewpoint 3.2: View west from Greenwich Station 11.5.52 11.5.53 Views from this location would not be affected during construction. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, assessed alongside the medium sensitivity of the receptor, means the proposed construction phase would give rise to a negligible effect on this viewpoint. Employment and other institutions Viewpoint 4.1: View west from industrial premises along Deptford Creek 11.5.54 Views from this location would be affected during construction. Construction activity within the site would be clearly visible beyond the hoardings at the site boundary. The cranes and other construction plant

11.5.49

11.5.51

Page 180

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 11: Townscape and visual

and vehicles would be visible through the DLR viaduct in the foreground of the view. The removal of the Grade II listed coal sheds would also be noticeable from this viewpoint. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be high. 11.5.55 The high magnitude of change assessed alongside the low sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of minor adverse significance. The assessment of visual effects during construction is summarised in the table below. Vol 26 Table 11.5.3 Viewpoint effects - construction Viewpoint London View Management Framework London Panoramas London Panorama 6A.1 – Blackheath Point to St Paul’s Cathedral Residential Viewpoint 1.1: View southwest from residences on Norman Road Viewpoint 1.2: View west from residences on Greenwich High Road close to the junction with Egerton Drive Viewpoint 1.3: View northeast from residences on Greenwich High Road close to the junction with Burgos Grove Viewpoint 1.4: View southeast from residences on Berthon Street Recreational Viewpoint 2.1: View southwest from the footbridge over Deptford Creek Viewpoint 2.2: View southwest from Deptford Church Street Open Space Transport Viewpoint 3.1: View south from Norman Road, north of the Medium Low Minor adverse High High Major adverse Negligible High Negligible Negligible High Medium Moderate adverse Sensitivity Magnitude Effect

11.5.56

High

Medium

Moderate adverse

High

Low

Minor adverse

High

Negligible

Negligible

High

Negligible

Page 181

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Viewpoint railway Viewpoint 3.2: View west from Greenwich Station Employment Viewpoint 4.1: View west from industrial premises along Deptford Creek Low

Section 11: Townscape and visual Sensitivity Medium Magnitude Effect Negligible Negligible

High

Minor adverse

11.6
11.6.1

Operational assessment Year 1 of operation
The majority of the operational structures would either be accommodated within the existing Beam Engine House or finished below, or near to, ground level. The visible components of the project in operation would comprise: a. an area of hardstanding slightly above ground level, to the north of the existing Beam Engine House, forming the shaft and interception chamber b. a small 2m high pressure relief valve structure located above the shaft, set amongst a series of existing structures of similar nature.

11.6.2

The remainder of the site would be returned to its original (or an improved) condition prior to construction, including reinstating the Grade II listed coal sheds and replacing vegetation lost during construction. In addition, the operational project 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 project, it is considered that the proposed development would give rise to negligible effects on the site, surrounding townscape character areas and visual receptors. Operational phase – Year 1 of operation – night time effects In terms of effects during the night, it is likely that the operational project 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 project, 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.

Page 182

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 11: Townscape and visual

11.7
11.7.1

Approach to mitigation Construction
Mitigation measures during the construction phase have been incorporated as far as possible into the CoCP. 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 183

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 11: Townscape and visual

11.8
Vol 26 Table 11.8.1 Townscape construction assessment Significance of effect Moderate adverse Minor adverse Negligible Minor adverse Moderate adverse Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible No mitigation possible No mitigation possible Mitigation

Assessment summary
Significance of residual effect Moderate adverse Minor adverse

Receptor

Description of effect

The site

Change to the character of the site due to the removal of existing structures and vegetation, and the presence of cranes and construction activity.

Creekside Industrial

Slight change to setting due to the presence of cranes, road transport and removal of listed structures.

North Greenwich Residential

No significant change in setting.

Negligible Minor adverse

Greenwich Residential

Slight change to setting due to the presence of cranes, road transport and removal of listed structures.

Not required No mitigation possible No mitigation possible

Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area

Change to setting due to the presence of cranes, site hoardings, construction activity, road transport and removal of listed structures.

Moderate adverse Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Not required Negligible

Deptford Residential

No significant change in setting.

Creekside Residential

No significant change in setting.

St Paul’s Conservation Area

No significant change in setting.

Laban Centre and Bronze Street Open Space

No significant change in setting.

Not required Not required Not required Not required

Creek Road Residential

No significant change in setting.

Page 184

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Vol 26 Table 11.8.2 Visual construction assessment Description of effect Significance of effect Mitigation Significance of residual effect

Section 11: Townscape and visual

Receptor

London View Management Framework London Panoramas Visibility of cranes and slight visibility of construction activity, partially obscuring middle ground views of St Paul’s Church Deptford. No significant visibility of construction. Visibility of site hoardings, stacked welfare facilities, road transport and construction activity. Background of the view affected by removal of the listed coal sheds Visibility of road traffic. Moderate adverse Negligible Not required No mitigation possible No mitigation possible Negligible Not required Major adverse Negligible No mitigation possible Not Moderate adverse No mitigation possible Moderate adverse

London Panorama 6A.1 – Blackheath Point to St Paul’s Cathedral

Residential Negligible Moderate adverse

Viewpoint 1.1: View southwest from residences on Norman Road

Viewpoint 1.2: View west from residences on Greenwich High Road close to the junction with Egerton Drive

Viewpoint 1.3: View northeast from residences on Greenwich High Road close to the junction with Burgos Grove No significant visibility of construction.

Minor adverse

Minor adverse

Viewpoint 1.4: View southeast from residences on Berthon Street

Negligible

Recreational Foreground visibility of site hoardings, construction activity, cranes and removal of buildings. No significant visibility of construction. Major adverse

Viewpoint 2.1: View southwest from the footbridge over Deptford Creek

Viewpoint 2.2: View southwest from

Negligible

Page 185

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Description of effect required Visibility of construction traffic and intermittent visibility of cranes. No significant visibility of construction. Negligible Minor adverse Minor adverse Significance of effect Mitigation Significance of residual effect

Section 11: Townscape and visual

Receptor

Deptford Church Street Open Space

Transport

Viewpoint 3.1: View south from Norman Road, north of the railway

Viewpoint 3.2: View west from Greenwich Station Foreground visibility of site hoardings, construction activity and cranes. Minor adverse

No mitigation possible Not required No mitigation possible

Negligible

Employment Minor adverse

Viewpoint 4.1: View west from industrial premises along Deptford Creek

Vol 20 Table 11.8.3 Townscape assessment– Year 1 of operation Significance of effect Negligible Mitigation Not required Significance of residual effect Negligible

Receptor

Description of effect

All receptors

Due to the barely perceptible nature of the components of the operational project, it is considered that the proposed development would give rise to negligible effects on the site and surrounding townscape character areas.

Page 186

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Vol 20 Table 11.8.4 Visual assessment– Year 1 of operation Significance of effect Negligible Not required Negligible Mitigation Significance of residual effect

Section 11: Townscape and visual

Receptor

Description of effect

All receptors

Due to the barely perceptible nature of the components of the operational project, it is considered that the proposed development would give rise to negligible effects on visual receptors.

Page 187

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 11: Townscape and visual

11.9
11.9.1

Assessment completion
The baseline data collection is complete for this site, aside from establishing a baseline for the night time character of the assessment area. The ES will include the summer baseline for each of the character areas and viewpoints. It will also include winter and summer photos for each character area and viewpoint. The study area for the assessment will be reviewed for the ES, based on the findings of this report. It may be appropriate to reduce the study area to focus the assessment on likely significant effects. Further work will be undertaken to establish a base case for the Year 15 operational assessment, using professional judgement aligned with future developments. The construction and operational assessments will be completed, including an assessment against the night time baseline. Ongoing work will be undertaken throughout the assessment process to identify design measures to minimise adverse effects arising from the proposed project in operation. Where possible, these will be embedded in the proposed development. Details of the project design and landscaping will be provided for the planning submission. Further work will be undertaken for the ES to establish the effects of the proposed development after the architectural and landscape design has been fully worked up. This will inform the assessment of operational effects in Year 1 and Year 15. Residual effects remaining after mitigation measures have been identified will be identified and recorded. Assessment of cumulative and in combination effects will be undertaken and reported in the ES.

11.9.2

11.9.3

11.9.4 11.9.5

11.9.6

11.9.7 11.9.8

Page 188

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 12: Transport

12
12.1
12.1.1 12.1.2

Transport
Introduction
This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant transport effects at the Greenwich Pumping Station site. The site has the potential to affect transport in the following ways: a. effects on pedestrian routes b. effects on cycle routes c. effects on bus routes and patronage d. effects on London Underground and National Rail services e. effects on river services and patronage f. effects on car and coach parking g. effects on highway layout, operation and capacity.

12.1.3 12.1.4

Each of these effects is considered within this report for both construction and operational phases of the project. This section details the site-specific findings for the Greenwich 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 projectwide) will be presented in the ES. This assessment provides a commentary on the anticipated transport effects of the project. When baseline data collection and analysis is complete a full quantitative transport assessment will be carried out. The assessment and mitigation text contained within this section is therefore based on professional judgement using available information at the time of writing.

12.1.5

12.2
12.2.1

Proposed development
The proposed development in 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 189

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 12: Transport

Vol 26 Table 12.2.1 Transport - construction traffic details Description Assumed peak period of construction lorry movements Assumed average peak construction lorry vehicle movements Types of lorry requiring access Assumption Year 3 of construction 110 movements per day (55 two-way lorry trips) Excavation lorries Rings lorries Rebar lorries Concrete lorries Concrete- aggregate lorries Concrete – sand lorries Concrete - Readymix Segment lorries Plant deliveries Pipe/ Track / Oils lorries Grout – sand lorries Cement lorries Office lorries
Note: a movement represents a one way trip.

12.2.3

Vehicle movements would take place during the typical day shift of ten hours on weekdays (08:00 – 18:00) and five hours on Saturdays (08:00 to 13:00) with up to one hour before and after these hours for mobilisation of staff. Mobilisation may include: loading; unloading; and arrival and departure of workforce and staff at site and movement to and from the place of work. During construction it is assumed that all materials to and from the site would be transported by road. Lorry routing during construction phases Access to the site from the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) and Strategic Road Network (SRN) considers vehicles travelling from either eastern or western directions. a. Light vehicles would use Blackheath Road (A2) northbound along Greenwich High Road (A206) and access the site directly from Greenwich High Road (A206). b. Larger construction vehicles would use Blackheath Road (A2) northbound along Greenwich High Road (A206) to Norman Road (B206) and access the site from Norman Road (B206).

12.2.4

12.2.5

Page 190

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station 12.2.6

Section 12: Transport

North of the railway lines the site would operate a one way traffic system so that vehicles access the site from one entrance and egress from another. South of the railway lines, the site would operate a two way traffic system enabling vehicles to access and egress from all entrances. Vol 26 Figure 12.2.1 indicates the construction traffic routes for access to/from the Greenwich Pumping Station site. Construction routes are being discussed with both Transport for London and the Local Highway Authority (LHA). Vol 26 Figure 12.2.1 Transport - construction traffic routes (see Volume 26 Figures document)

12.2.7

12.2.8

The histogram in Vol 26 Figure 12.2.2 below shows that the general peak activity at the Greenwich Pumping Station site would occur in Year 3 of construction. This peak is aligned with the overall project-wide construction peak activity year.

Page 191

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 12: Transport

Vol 26 Figure 12.2.2 Construction lorry profile

Note: Figure shows indicative volumes and movements based upon assumed timings for the works. It is not a schedule and remains subject to change.

Page 192

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 12: Transport

Construction workers 12.2.9 The construction site is expected to require a maximum workforce of approximately 165 people at any one time. The number and type of workers is shown in the table. Vol 26 Table 12.2.2 Transport - construction worker numbers Contractor Staff 08:00-18:00 60 12.2.10 Labour 08:0015:00 60 15:0023:00 Client Staff 08:00-18:00 45

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.

12.2.11

12.2.12

12.2.13

Operation
12.2.14 12.2.15 12.2.16 The operational structure would be located within the existing Thames Water pumping station site. Access for maintenance vehicles would be via the access on Norman Road (B208) created for use during the construction 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.

12.3
12.3.1

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.

Page 193

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station 12.3.2

Section 12: Transport

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 in this report for completeness. Vol 26 Table 12.3.1 Transport stakeholder engagement Organisation Comment Response Noted. The potential implications of this project will be considered; further information being sought from LBG on status of project Noted for inclusion as part of detailed design. Proposed one-way project in Norman Road, including LB Greenwich signal gating on Norman / Transport for Road / Greenwich High London Road could possibly restrict entry Statutory undertakers ensure early engagement to determine where site power / water supply can be taken from.

Assess each access/egress Shown on current drawings point for construction vehicles One-way system through site is preferred Transport for London Check proximity of exit to existing signal junctions This is envisaged in the current proposals Further detail on site access will be addressed in the Transport Assessment. Noted

Additional site to north for excavated material could reduce trips between site Pedestrian access to Deptford Creek adjacent to worksite will need to be maintained if site is extended further to north Impact on bus journey times minimal, with current highway arrangement. Should Norman Road be

Noted. Design will consider how this route could be maintained and separated from excavated material movements Noted. The potential implications of this project will be considered; further information being sought

Page 194

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Organisation Comment modified to one-way this may change bus routing

Section 12: Transport Response from LBG on status of project

Effects of low bridge (Creek This will be addressed in the Road) on use of barges to logistics strategy. At this transport material. stage all construction material is expected to be transported by road All lorry routing should avoid Greenwich town centre Approvals process - Traffic orders: would be useful to engage with LA and produce a list of TO required Construction route proposals assume lorries would not be routed through Greenwich town centre. Noted, will be addressed in the Transport Assessment.

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.

Assumptions and limitations
12.3.6 The general assessment assumptions and limitations for the transport assessment have been outlined in Volume 5. Site specific assumptions and limitations for the site 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 within the existing Greenwich Pumping Station and surrounding land, and lies within the LB of Greenwich. The site is roughly rectangular in shape and can be accessed from Greenwich High Road (A206) and Norman Road (B208). It also includes the builder’s yard, north of the elevated railway, known as Phoenix Wharf and Harts Wharf. This includes an area under the existing Network Rail viaduct. The area fronts onto Deptford Creek on its eastern boundary.

Page 195

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station 12.4.2

Section 12: Transport

The site is bounded to the east by Norman Road (B208), south by Greenwich High Road (A206) and west by a number of warehouses and industrial buildings and beyond this are Deptford Creek and Creekside Studios. 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 26 Figure 12.4.1 shows the Transport Site Plan. Vol 26 Figure 12.4.1 Transport site plan (see Volume 26 Figures document)

12.4.3

Pedestrian routes
12.4.4 12.4.5 12.4.6 12.4.7 To access the Greenwich DLR station from the site, pedestrians would use both Norman Road (B208) and Greenwich High Road (A206). There is a pedestrian crossing facility across Greenwich High Road (A206) linked with the signalised junction with Norman Road (B208). A footpath across the creek runs alongside the National Rail viaduct which does pass through the site. The footways along Norman Road (B208) in places reduce to 2m wide. On-street parking on Norman Road often encroaches onto the footway.

Cycle routes
12.4.8 National Cycle Route 21 runs to the west of the site on a traffic free route alongside Brookmill Road (A2210), passes over Deptford Bridge (A2) before continuing on-road along Creekside where it joins National Cycle Route 4 (Tower Bridge to Greenwich) in the north. The cycle path that runs through the site and across the creek links to National Cycle Route 21 in the west.

12.4.9

Bus routes
12.4.10 The site is designated as having a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) rating of 4. This indicates that the public transport provision is good in the vicinity of the site. The closest bus stop to the site is located at Greenwich High Road / Norman Road, approximately 60m east of the site. The stop is served by the 177 bus which operates between Thamesmead Leisure Centre and Peckham Bus Station. It has an hourly frequency of seven buses during the AM peak, PM peak, inter-peak, and on Saturdays. The frequency of the 177 is six per hour on a Sunday. Bus routes 180, 199 and 386 all stop at Greenwich Town Hall, approximately 210m from the site. Service 180 runs between Crabtree Manorway North and Molesworth Street. It has an hourly frequency of six buses during the AM peak, PM peak, inter-peak, and on Saturdays. The frequency of the 180 is three per hour on Sunday.

12.4.11

12.4.12

Page 196

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station 12.4.13

Section 12: Transport

Service 199 runs between Canada Water Bus Station and Molesworth Street. Service 199 has an hourly frequency of five buses during the AM peak, PM peak, inter-peak and on Saturdays. Service 199 has an hourly frequency of four on Sunday Service 386 runs between Woolwich High Street and Royal Parade. The service has an hourly frequency of four buses during the AM peak, PM peak, inter-peak and on Saturdays. It has an hourly frequency of three on Sundays. Service 188 stops at Greenwich Creek Road, approximately 210m from the site. The service runs between Woolwich High Street and Royal Parade. The service has an hourly frequency of eight buses during the AM peak, PM peak, inter-peak and on Saturdays. The hourly frequency is three buses on Sundays. The table below 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. Vol 26 Table 12.4.1 Transport - bus routes and frequencies Route Number Distance from site (metres) and Location of Bus Stop 60m (Greenwich High Road / Norman Road) 210m (Greenwich Town Hall) 610m (Greenwich Creek Road) 210m (Greenwich Town Hall) 210m (Greenwich Town Hall) Origin Destination AM Peak (07:00-10:00) buses per hour

12.4.14

12.4.15

12.4.16

177

Thamesmead Leisure Centre to Peckham Bus Station Crabtree Manorway North to Molesworth Street North Greenwich Station to Russell Square Station Canada Water Bus Station to Molesworth Street Woolwich High Street to Royal Parade

7

180

6 8

188

199

5

386

4

London Underground, DLR and National Rail stations
12.4.17 12.4.18 There are no nearby London Underground stations. Greenwich is the nearest Docklands Light Rail (DLR) station, approximately 300m from the site. Greenwich DLR station provides services between Lewisham and Bank and Lewisham and Stratford as well as allowing interchange at Poplar for other eastern destinations.

Page 197

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station 12.4.19 12.4.20

Section 12: Transport

In the AM and PM peak hours, the frequency of the DLR trains is approximately every four minutes in each direction. The closest National Rail station is Greenwich, approximately 300m from the site and this provides access to Southeastern train services. These serve southeast London, Kent, the southeast coast and the Medway towns. Greenwich has approximately 15 National Rail services arriving during the AM peak and 13 services departing during the PM peak hour.

12.4.21

River services
12.4.22 The site is located 1km away from Greenwich Pier. The pier is served by two routes; Embankment to Woolwich Arsenal (run by Thames Clippers), and Westminster to Greenwich (Thames River Services/ City Cruises). There are two eastbound services and three westbound services Monday to Friday in the AM peak hour. There are four westbound and two eastbound services in the PM peak hour.

Parking
Existing on-street car parking 12.4.23 There are 16 parking bays along Norman Road (B208) which allow free parking outside the restricted hours of 09:00-10:00 (Monday-Friday). There are five parking meter bays along Norman Road (B208) charging 60p per 20mins with a maximum stay of 4 hours. There are eight further pay and display parking bays on Langdale Road (280m away). Existing off-street / private car parking 12.4.24 The Novotel car park is 280m away adjacent to the Greenwich DLR station. It is an underground car park with 50 bays with a tariff of £2/hr.

Highway network
12.4.25 12.4.26 New Cross Road (A2) is part of the TLRN and is a single-carriageway road that links to the site via Greenwich High Road (A206). Creek Road (A200) to the north is part of the SRN and links to the TLRN in the north towards Bermondsey. The junctions of Creek Road (A200) / Norman Road (B208) to the north and Greenwich High Road (A206) / Norman Road (B208) to the south are controlled by traffic signals. There are no advanced stop lines provided on the key arms of these junctions.

Survey data
Description of surveys 12.4.27 Baseline survey data were collected in May and June 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 198

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station 12.4.28

Section 12: Transport

The following junction surveys were undertaken in the vicinity of the Greenwich Pumping Station site to understand highway operation in the area: a. A200 Creek Road / Deptford Church Street b. A200 Creek Road / Glaisher Street c. A200 Creek Road / B208 Norman Road / Norway Street d. A206 Greenwich High Road / Norman Road / Ashburnham Place e. A2 New Cross Road /A320 Deptford Church Street / A2 Deptford Bridge.

12.4.29

Automatic Traffic Counters (ATCs) were placed at the following locations to obtain data on traffic flows: a. A200 Creek Street to the west of the junction with Welland Street Pedestrian and cycle surveys were undertaken in the vicinity of the site in the following locations: a. pedestrian crossing on Evelyn Street b. pedestrian crossing on Creek Road to the west of the junction with Gonson Street c. pedestrian crossing on Creek Road to the west of the junction with Welland Street

12.4.30

d. pedestrian crossing on Greenwich High Road e. pedestrian route at junction of Borthwick Street / Deptford Green and footpath to Glaisher Street. 12.4.31 A parking survey was undertaken in the roads surrounding the site to establish occupancy of on-street parking spaces on the following roads: a. Norman Road b. Thornham Street c. Claremont Street d. Roan Street e. Tarves Way f. Ashburnham Place g. Ashburnham Grove h. Devonshire Drive i. j. k. l. Haddo Street Landgale Road Waller Way Borthwick Street

m. Deptford Green n. Benbow Street

Page 199

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station o. Stowage p. Macmillan Street q. Basevi Way r. s. t. v. x. y. 12.4.32 Glaisher Street Clarence Road Brig Ms Carrick Mews Hamilton Crescent Gonson Street.

Section 12: Transport

u. Trevithick Street w. Henrietta Close

Results of surveys 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
12.4.33 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
12.4.34 The receptors and their sensitivities in the vicinity of the Greenwich Pumping Station site are summarised in the table below. The transport receptor sensitivity is defined as high, medium or low using the criteria detailed in Volume 5.

Page 200

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 12: Transport

Vol 26 Table 12.4.2 Transport receptors Value/sensitivity and justification High • • • Receptor Residents on Greenwich High Road. Pedestrians and cyclists suing Greenwich High Road and Norman Road. Emergency vehicles requiring accessing the commercial and residential units within the local area. Business and workplace occupiers on Greenwich High Road and Norman Road. Private vehicle users in the area using the local highways or parking. Public transport users (passengers) using bus, taxi and rail services travelling to, from and through the Greenwich Pumping Station area.

Medium

• •

Low

12.5
12.5.1

Construction assessment
At this stage in the assessment process a qualitative assessment has been undertaken based on discussions with TfL and the LHAs, knowledge of the transport networks and their operational characteristics in the vicinity of each site and knowledge of the construction programme, duration and levels of construction activity. These elements have been considered in the context of the range of receptors present in each location and the significance criteria identified. Professional judgement has been applied to determine qualitatively the likely effects and their significance in each location being assessed. The Transport Assessment will include full quantitative and qualitative analysis and the transport effects reported in the ES will be based on that detailed analysis.

12.5.2

Construction base and development cases
Assessment year 12.5.3 As described in Volume 5, 2019 has been used as the construction assessment year for all sites, as agreed with TfL, to enable a networkwide assessment. The peak period for vehicle trips to the Greenwich Pumping Station site is predicted to be in Year 3 of construction (see Vol 26 Figure 12.2.2). For this report the assessment is undertaken for the network-wide 2019 assessment year. Assessment area 12.5.6 The extent of the assessment area for the Greenwich Pumping Station site includes the site accesses onto Norman Road (B208) and Greenwich High Road (A206). The assessment area incorporates the Greenwich DLR

12.5.4 12.5.5

Page 201

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 12: Transport

station and the key pedestrian routes within the area. Local roads and junctions included in the assessment area as follows: a. A200 Creek Road / Deptford Church Street b. A200 Creek Road / Glaisher Street c. A200 Creek Road / B208 Norman Road / Norway Street d. A206 Greenwich High Road / Norman Road / Ashburnham Place e. A2 New Cross Road /A320 Deptford Church Street / A2 Deptford Bridge. 12.5.7 These roads and junctions would be assessed for highway, cycle and pedestrian impacts. Local bus and rail services, as identified on Vol 26 Figure 12.4.1, would also be assessed. Construction base case 12.5.8 The construction base case takes into account traffic growth and new proposed developments within the local area by 2019. This includes the developments described in Section 3.4.1, namely: a. Greenwich High Road b. ‘The Movement’. 12.5.9 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 12.5.10 Pedestrian routes are not anticipated to change from baseline conditions. The base case therefore assumes the same pedestrian routes as set out in Section 12.4. Cycle routes 12.5.11 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. Barclays Cycle Superhighway route CS4 and CS5 run to the north and south of the site respectively. CS4 runs between Woolwich and London Bridge while CS5 runs between Lewisham and Victoria. Bus routes and patronage 12.5.13 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, DLR and National Rail and patronage 12.5.14 12.5.15 There are no London Underground routes in the nearby area. DLR routes are not anticipated to change from baseline conditions. DLR patronage is anticipated to increase, the effect of which will be detailed in the Transport Assessment.

12.5.12

Page 202

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station 12.5.16

Section 12: Transport

National Rail routes are not anticipated to change from baseline conditions. National Rail patronage is anticipated to increase, the effect of which will be detailed in the Transport Assessment. River services and patronage River services are assumed to be the same as baseline conditions as no changes are anticipated. Parking Car parking provision is assumed to be the same as baseline conditions as no changes are anticipated. Highway layout The physical arrangement of the highway network is not anticipated to change from baseline conditions and therefore the base case assumed the same highway layout. The LB of Greenwich is investigating proposals for improvements in Greenwich Town Centre which may include introducing one way operation in Norman Road. This project is still not confirmed and therefore has not been included in base case. Highway operation Population growth and the 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 Greenwich Pumping Station site in 2019 without the Thames Tunnel project. The scope of this analysis is being agreed with LB of Greenwich and Transport for London. The full assessment of the highway operation and capacity analysis will be undertaken in the ES. Construction development case The construction development case comprises the base case plus construction activities associated with the Greenwich Pumping Station site. This section addresses the changes that would arise as a result of the Thames Tunnel construction activities at the Greenwich Pumping Station site. Construction vehicle movements It has been assumed for the purposes of the assessment that construction lorry movements are limited to the day shift only (08:00 to 18:00), Vol 26 Table 12.5.1 shows the construction lorry movement assumptions for the local peak traffic periods. These are based on the

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

12.5.26

Page 203

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 12: Transport

peak months of construction activity at this site. The table also shows the construction worker movements expected to be generated by the site. 12.5.27 These movements are based on the assumption that all material is transported to and from the site by road. Vol 26 Table 12.5.1 Transport – forecast construction vehicle movements Vehicle movements per time period Vehicle type Total Daily 0700 to 0800 0800 to 0900 1700 to 1800 1800 to 1900 0

Construction vehicle movements 10%* Worker vehicle movements Total

110

0

11

11

225 335

27 27

9 20

4 15

21 21

* 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.

12.5.28

Assuming all excavated material and other material is taken by road, an average peak flow of 335 movements a day is expected during the months of greatest activity at this site. At other times in the construction period, vehicle flows would be lower than this average peak figure. Modal split The PTAL for the site is 4 which indicates good public transport accessibility. There is a moderate amount of parking on the surrounding streets and some provision of parking within the site. There would be a need for travel between sites (for maintenance, client supervision, etc); therefore it has been assumed that 20% of staff and 10% of labour could drive to the site. It is anticipated that 80% of staff and 90% of labour would use public transport to access the site. Public transport is within walking distance of the site and includes bus routes, National Rail and DLR services from Greenwich station. Pedestrian routes The footways adjacent to the site would not be impacted upon by the works. The footpath across the creek that runs alongside the National Rail viaduct would pass through the site and need protection from construction activity although it would remain on its current alignment. All the access points to the site already exist, although minor modifications may be required to accommodate lorry movements for construction.

12.5.29

12.5.30

12.5.31

12.5.32

Page 204

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Cycle routes 12.5.33

Section 12: Transport

The cycle path that currently runs through the site would be diverted along the railway viaduct during construction. Bus routes and patronage No bus services run through the site and therefore none would be impacted on by the construction site development. There are nearby routes on Greenwich High Road (A206). London Underground, DLR and National Rail and patronage The DLR and National Rail viaduct run through the site though would not be directly affected. River services and patronage 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 Modification to widen the access points along Norman Road (B208) may be necessary to accommodate construction vehicles turning movements. 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 12.5.38

12.5.39

Construction effects
12.5.40 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 12.5.41 Amendments to the existing vehicle access points and the movement of construction vehicles into and out of the site are likely to affect pedestrian movement along Norman Road and Greenwich High Road. This would increase the likelihood of pedestrian conflict with vehicles around the site access points, and it is expected that the effect on pedestrian routes would be moderate adverse. Cycle routes 12.5.43 There are no cycle routes in the nearby vicinity to the site though there is the cycle path that currently runs through the site which would be diverted along the railway viaduct during construction. The increase of lorries along Greenwich High Road (A206) and Norman Road (B208) is expected to have a minor adverse effect on cyclists using the surrounding roads primarily as a consequence of the increased risk of conflict with vehicles.

12.5.42

Page 205

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Bus routes and patronage 12.5.44 12.5.45 12.5.46 12.5.47

Section 12: Transport

The routing of bus services in the area should not be affected by the construction works at the Greenwich Pumping Station site. The increase in lorries along Greenwich High Road (A206) may have a slight effect on bus operations through increased journey times. It is anticipated that there would be a proportion of labourers and staff using buses to access the site during construction. Based on this it is considered that the overall effect on bus routes and patronage would be minor adverse. London Underground, DLR and National Rail The DLR service at Greenwich is not likely to be affected by the construction works at the Greenwich Pumping Station site, nor would the National Rail services at Greenwich Station. 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 Overground and National Rail services would be negligible. River services and patronage Construction materials to/from the Greenwich Pumping Station site would not be transported by river and therefore would not alter or affect any river services. It is therefore expected that the effect on river services would be negligible. Parking Existing on-street parking on Norman Road would not be affected by the movement of construction vehicles into and out of the site and therefore, it is expected that the effect on parking bays would be negligible. Highway layout There would be minor modifications to the site accesses. The works to modify the access points are likely to require short term pedestrian and traffic management. Therefore it is expected that the effect on highway layout would be minor adverse. Highway operation There would be additional construction traffic turning into and out of Norman Road (B208) at the junction with Greenwich High Road (A206), and into and out of site accesses, potentially causing interaction with general traffic on Norman Road (B208) and Greenwich High Road (A206). As a result of the potential for increased vehicle conflict around the site accesses, it is expected that the effect on highway operation would be minor adverse. Highway capacity analysis The additional construction traffic operating in and around the Norman Road (B208) with Greenwich High Road (A206) junction is likely to have a

12.5.48

12.5.49

12.5.50

12.5.51

12.5.52

12.5.53

12.5.54

12.5.55

Page 206

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 12: Transport

minor adverse effect on highway capacity as a consequence of a potential increase in journey times. Significance of effects 12.5.56 The significance of the transport effects described above has been determined as part of the ongoing assessment and analysis. With regard to the application of the IEMA criteria detailed in Volume 5, this is based on professional judgement for the purposes of this report. During construction, the number of heavy goods vehicle movements would be moderate to high. 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 amenity and safety are expected to be moderate adverse and minor adverse for cyclists.

12.5.57

12.6
12.6.1

Operational assessment
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. Assessment area 12.6.4 The assessment area for the operational assessment remains the same as for the construction assessment as set out in paras. 12.5.6-12.5.7. This includes those roads and junctions which lead to/from the Greenwich Pumping Station site to the SRN and TRLN. Operational base case 12.6.5 The operational base case takes into account traffic growth and major new developments within the local area by Year 1 of operation (major new developments are anticipated. The following sub-sections detail what is assumed to change between the baseline and base case scenario with respect to the different transport aspects considered.

12.6.6

Page 207

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Pedestrian routes 12.6.7

Section 12: Transport

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, DLR and National Rail and patronage There is no local access to London Underground routes. DLR routes are assumed to be the same as baseline conditions as no changes are anticipated. It is anticipated that DLR patronage will increase between 2011 and Year 1 of operation and the assessment will be detailed further in the Transport Assessment. National Rail routes are not anticipated to change from baseline conditions. It is anticipated that National Rail patronage will increase between the baseline and Year 1 of operation and this assessment will be detailed further in the Transport Assessment. River services and patronage River services and patronage is anticipated to increase between the baseline and Year 1 of operation and this assessment will be detailed further in the Transport Assessment. Parking Parking provision is not anticipated to change from the baseline conditions. Highway layout The physical layout of the highway network is not anticipated to change from baseline conditions. The LB of Greenwich is investigating proposals for improvements in Greenwich Town Centre which may include introducing one way operation in Norman Road. This project is still not confirmed and therefore has not been included in base case.

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

12.6.17

12.6.18 12.6.19

Page 208

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Highway operation 12.6.20

Section 12: Transport

Population growth and development in the surrounding area will result in an increase in traffic on the surrounding highway network. As a result of this increase, it is anticipated that traffic flows may be heavier and queues longer. Highway capacity analysis Baseline traffic flows (from the junction surveys) are being used and forecasting carried out to understand the capacity on the highway network in the vicinity of the Greenwich Pumping Station site in Year 1 of operation without the Thames Tunnel project. The scope of this analysis is being agreed with LB Greenwich and Transport for London and will be reported in the ES. Operational development case The operational development case includes any permanent changes in the vicinity of the Greenwich 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 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 van. On occasion there may be a consequent need for small flatbed vehicles with lifting cranes, for example to remove 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 It is anticipated that all trips during the operational phase would be using transit van or large construction vehicles. No trips would be made by public transport, walking or cycling due to the nature of maintenance requiring equipment that can only be transported by vehicles. Pedestrian routes The footways and kerb alignments adjacent to the Greenwich Pumping Station site would be reinstated following the construction phase. There would be an additional dropped kerb at the modified access on Norman Road (B208) to provide site access for the maintenance vehicles. Cycle routes The designated cycle routes within the area would be maintained and would not be affected during the operational phase. Bus routes and patronage No change is expected to any bus services in the operational phase and it is not anticipated that operational staff journeys would be made by bus.

12.6.21

12.6.22

12.6.23

12.6.24

12.6.25

12.6.26

12.6.27

12.6.28

Page 209

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 12: Transport

London Underground, DLR and National Rail and patronage 12.6.29 No change is expected to any DLR or National Rail service in the operational phase and it is not anticipated that operational staff journeys would be made by rail. River services and patronage 12.6.30 No change is expected to any river services as a result of the operational phase. Parking 12.6.31 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 Greenwich Pumping Station. Highway layout 12.6.32 The site would be accessed via Greenwich High Road (A206) and Norman Road (B208) during the operational phase. This reflects the current access arrangements for the site. Highway operation 12.6.33 12.6.34 Occasional maintenance vehicles would service Greenwich 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. Highway capacity analysis 12.6.35 No change is expected to junction capacity as a result of the small number of maintenance trips associated with the operational phase.

Operational effects
12.6.36 To establish the transport effects during operation at the Greenwich Pumping Station site, an assessment has been undertaken to compare the base and development cases for the Year 1 of operation assessment year. Pedestrian routes 12.6.37 As a result of the occasional maintenance trips anticipated at Greenwich Pumping Station during the operational phase, there would be a negligible effect on pedestrian routes in the area and footways adjacent to the site. Cycle routes 12.6.38 As a result of the occasional maintenance trips anticipated at Greenwich Pumping Station 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 12.6.39 As a result of the occasional maintenance trips anticipated at Greenwich Pumping Station during the operational phase, there would be a negligible effect on bus routes and patronage.

Page 210

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 12: Transport

London Underground, DLR and National Rail and patronage 12.6.40 London Underground, DLR and National Rail services would not be affected by the occasional maintenance trips anticipated at Greenwich Pumping Station during the operational phase. River services and patronage 12.6.41 River services would not be affected by the occasional maintenance trips anticipated at Greenwich Pumping Station during the operational phase. Parking 12.6.42 As a result of the highly infrequent maintenance trips anticipated at Greenwich Pumping Station during the operational phase, there would be a negligible effect on on-street parking in the local area. Highway layout 12.6.43 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 12.6.44 During the operational phase there may be some delay to road users when large maintenance vehicles are required at Greenwich Pumping Station, however this is likely to be highly infrequent, and the effect is therefore expected to be negligible. Highway capacity analysis 12.6.45 12.6.46 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 for the purposes of this report. 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.

12.6.47

12.7
12.7.1 12.7.2

Approach to mitigation Construction
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 project. Any mitigation which is required is detailed below.

Page 211

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Pedestrian routes 12.7.3

Section 12: Transport

At this location, mitigation measures in the form of a review of existing pedestrian facilities at the site access points during the construction phase are likely to be required. The aim would be to provide safe crossing points for pedestrians. Cycle routes It is unlikely that mitigation measures for cyclists would be necessary. Bus routes It is unlikely that mitigation measures for bus routes would be necessary. London Underground, DLR and National Rail stations No mitigation measures are likely to be required for DLR or rail services. River services and patronage No mitigation measures are likely to be required for river services. Parking No mitigation measures are likely to be required for parking. Highway layout On the basis that short-term pedestrian and traffic management would be implemented while the minor modifications to the site access kerb radii undertaken, no mitigation would be required. Highway operation Although construction traffic flows are likely to be low it would be necessary to review the Greenwich High Road (A206) / Norman Road (B208) junction operation. It may be necessary to implement minor changes to signal timings to optimise capacity at this junction. Highway capacity Although construction traffic flows are likely to be low it would be necessary to review the Greenwich High Road (A206) / Norman Road (B208) junction capacity. It may be necessary to implement minor changes to signal timings to optimise capacity at this junction.

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. As a result, no mitigation would be required for the operational phase. Cycle routes 12.7.13 Cycle routes would not be significantly affected by the operation of Greenwich Pumping Station, and no mitigation would be required.

Page 212

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Bus routes and patronage 12.7.14

Section 12: Transport

Bus services and patronage would not be significantly affected by the operation of Greenwich Pumping Station, therefore no mitigation would be required. London Underground, DLR and National Rail patronage London Underground, DLR and National Rail services would not be affected by the operation of Greenwich Pumping Station, therefore no mitigation would be required. River services and patronage River services and patronage would not be affected by the operation of Greenwich Pumping Station, therefore no mitigation would be required. Parking On-street parking would not be significantly affected by the operation of Greenwich Pumping Station and therefore no mitigation would be required. Highway layout The highway layout would be restored to the existing layout and therefore would not be affected by the operation of Greenwich Pumping Station. As a result no mitigation would be required for the operational phase. Highway operation The number of trips associated with Greenwich Pumping Station during the operational phase would be very low and infrequent and for maintenance purposes only. No mitigation would be required. Highway capacity The level of operational vehicles is negligible and as a result the local highway network would not experience a significant detrimental effect from the operational proposals. There would therefore be no requirement for highway improvements to increase capacity of local junctions.

12.7.15

12.7.16

12.7.17

12.7.18

12.7.19

12.7.20

Page 213

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 12: Transport

12.8
Vol 26 Table 12.8.1 Transport construction assessment Effect • Risk of pedestrian conflicts with vehicles around site access points. Risk of conflict with construction vehicles Minor adverse None required Minor adverse None required Moderate adverse Review of existing pedestrian facilities at site access points to provide safe crossing points where needed. Minor adverse Significance Mitigation Residual significance

Assessment summary

Receptor

Pedestrians in the local area

Cyclists in the local area •

Minor adverse Minor adverse

Bus users and operators

Some additional patronage from construction workers. Delay to journey time due to construction traffic. Some additional patronage from construction workers. Some additional patronage from construction workers. No effect Negligible Negligible None required

Rail users and operators

Negligible

River users and operators

None required

Negligible

Parking • • Movement of large construction vehicles Highway layout changes including site

Negligible Moderate adverse

None required Where appropriate, signal optimisation may be undertaken to improve pedestrian

Negligible Minor adverse

All road users

Page 214

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Effect access road modifications (possibly requiring short-term pedestrian and traffic management). • Delay to journey time. Vol 26 Table 12.8.2 Transport operational assessment Significance Mitigation Negligible None required Residual significance Negligible Significance Mitigation crossing time and junction capacity. Residual significance

Section 12: Transport

Receptor

Receptor • Occasional maintenance trips. Occasional maintenance trips. Occasional maintenance trips. No effect. No effect. No effect Occasional delay to road users when large maintenance vehicles accessing site. Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible None required

Effect

Pedestrians in the local area / Pedestrians using the Thames Path •

Cyclists in the local area / Cyclists using the Thames Path • • • • •

Negligible

Bus users and operators

None required None required None required None required None required

Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible

Rail users and operators

River users and operators

Parking users

All road users

Page 215

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 12: Transport

12.9
12.9.1

Assessment completion
In addition to the baseline survey data collected and data obtained from Transport for London (strategic model data and additional ATC and junction count data), there is a need for additional data to supplement the data set. The baseline data collection was in the process of being collated at the time of writing. When baseline data collection (including data from third party sources) and analysis is complete a full transport assessment will be carried out. This will include a detailed analysis of all three levels of assessment (sitespecific, Borough level and project-wide) and will include an assessment of cumulative and in combination effects. The scope of analysis will be agreed with TfL and the LHA and will include the identification of effects at individual receptors. This full assessment will be reported in the ES (and Transport Assessment). Following completion of the assessment the mitigation approaches for transport within the project will be finalised and reported in the ES and Transport Assessment.

12.9.2

12.9.3

Page 216

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 13: Water resources groundwater

13
13.1
13.1.1 13.1.2

Water resources – groundwater
Introduction
This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant groundwater effects at the Greenwich Pumping Station site. The Scoping Report 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

13.2
13.2.1

Proposed development
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 large diameter drop shaft (approximate diameters, 17 m (internal) or 22.4m (external) and with a depth of 43.56m from GL (excluding a 3m thick base slab once constructed). b. An interception chamber for the existing CSO overflow. c. 13.2.3 A connection culvert to the drop shaft (dimensions approximately 16m long and 4-6m deep.

The proposed methods of construction for the various elements of the site of relevance to the groundwater assessment are summarised in the table below. Also contained in this table are approximate time-scales and depths. Vol 26 Table 13.2.1 Groundwater - methods of construction Design Element Method of Construction Diaphragm wall with dewatering from outside the perimeter Secant piled wall Construction Periods 1 year Construction Depths Deep

CSO Drop shaft Interception Chambers and Culverts 13.2.4

<1 year

Shallow

Note: In terms of construction depth - Shallow (means <10m) and Deep (>10m) Dewatering would take place from outside of the perimeter of the diaphragm wall. The dewatering pumps would be operational during the shaft sinking and would be maintained to ensure the continued successful operation of the Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) for the Greenwich Connection Tunnel.

Page 217

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 13: Water resources groundwater

The time period for duration of dewatering could be up to 46 months (3.8 years) at this site – more typically 12-18 months for the shaft sinking phase and a further 12 months for this TBM drive site. 13.2.5 As part of the environmental design, dewatering amounts would be minimised where practically possible. Depending on ground conditions, consideration may be given to deepening the diaphragm walls by between 6 and 8m in order to reduce flows up into the diaphragm wall. Additionally for the interception chamber works, dewatering would be required within the secant piled walls. The pumps would be operational for approximately 7 months for the interception works, It is anticipated that ground treatment would required within the Chalk and may include fissure grouting below the base of the shaft. Fissure grouting on either side of the shaft would enable the TBM to break into and out of the shaft. Fissure grouting may also be necessary in the base of the secant piled wall box.

13.2.6

13.2.7

Operation
13.2.8 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

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.

Construction
13.3.3 13.3.4 The construction phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.

Operation
13.3.5 13.3.6 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
13.3.7 13.3.8 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 GSHP schemes).

Page 218

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 13: Water resources groundwater

13.4
13.4.1

Baseline conditions
The CSO drop shaft would pass through made ground, River Terrace Deposits, Lambeth Group (Upnor Formation), Thanet Sand and Seaford Chalk as summarised in Vol 26 Table 13.4.1. The presence of the Greenwich fault zone passing close to the site means also there may be hydraulic interaction between the structures and the Seaford Chalk Formation beneath the Thanet Sand Formation. Vol 26 Table 13.4.1 Groundwater anticipated ground conditions /hydrogeology Formation Depth Elevation Thickness below river mATD (m) bed (m) 103.36 101.25 99.95 92.96 87.96 77.66 0.00 2.10 3.40 10.40 15.40 25.80 2.10 1.30 7.00 5.00 10.40 Not proven Lower Aquifer Upper Aquifer Hydrogeology

Superficial Deposits/Made Ground Alluvium River Terrace Deposits Lambeth Group (Upnor Formation) Thanet Sand Seaford Chalk 13.4.2 13.4.3

Perched Water

The Alluvium and River Terrace Deposits forming the upper aquifer are classified as a secondary A aquifersv. The Thanet Sands and the Upnor Beds (the lower unit of the Lambeth Group) are known as the ‘Basal Sands’ and are in hydraulic continuity with the Chalk aquifer beneath London. The Chalk is a principal aquifer vi and, together with the Basal Sands (the Thanet Sands and Upnor Beds), is referred to as the lower aquifer. At the site, the depth of the shaft would be at 60.94mATD (with the base slab down to 57.94mATD). The base of the shaft and the Greenwich Tunnel would be within the Seaford Chalk Formation and would extend approximately around 17m into the Thanet Sand/Chalk (from approximately 87.96mATD at the top of the Thanet Sands to the base of the slab at 57.94mATD). The thickness of the Upnor Formation (which forms part of the lower aquifer) is not known precisely at the site, but full penetration of this layer would occur.

13.4.4

Secondary Aquifers are 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. vi A Principal Aquifer is a geological strata that exhibits high intergranular and/or fracture permeability. This strata has the ability to support water supply and/or river base flow on a strategic scale. Principal Aquifers equate in most cases to aquifers previously referred to as Major Aquifers.

v

Page 219

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station 13.4.5

Section 13: Water resources groundwater

Groundwater levels in the Chalk have historically been between approximately 95.7 and 98.9mATD; between 7.7m and 10.9m above the top of the Thanet Sands at 87.96mATD. The monitoring of groundwater levels is being undertaken by the project at GI boreholes in the vicinity of the site. These record groundwater levels in the upper aquifer and lower aquifer. Four monitoring horizons within three monitoring boreholes at the site and one approximately 300m to the north of the site are used to record groundwater levels in response zones in the River Terrace Deposits, Thanet Sands and Seaford Chalk. The nearest EA monitoring boreholes are located within the existing Thames Water operational site approximately 30m and 40m to the eastnortheast of the shaft respectively. These boreholes records levels in the lower aquifer and document a record extending back to 1988. There is a close match between the EA monitoring record and the data collected for the Thames Tunnel project. Monitoring locations and hydrographs are included in Appendix E. The monitoring results demonstrate that the Seaford Chalk and Thanet Sands are in hydraulic connectivity with one another, with an apparent decrease in water level response amplitude with depth. There is some evidence of hydraulic separation between the River Terrace Deposits and the Seaford Chalk with higher heads in the Seaford Chalk over the period of record. The reason is not apparent since there is no substantial thickness of low permeability formation between the upper and lower aquifers at the site (Vol 26 Table 13.4.1). Monitoring is continuing and further data would help to clarify conditions. The regional groundwater levels produced by the EA for the London Basin, and the GI observations. The expected groundwater level at Greenwich PS, based on EA contours, would be around 97mATD; within the range observed by the GI observation boreholes. The Chalk piezometric levels vary annually by less than 1m (based on recent years). Historically the EA borehole shows a greater range of up to 2.5m (between 1998 and 2000), which is assumed to be in response to abstractions at that time. The site straddles Source Protection Zones (SPZ) 1 to 3 as defined by the EA. The shaft is located within SPZ 2, and is less than 80m from SPZ 1. The nearest SPZ is approximately 0.6km to the southeast which is in the opposite direction to the expected groundwater flow direction beneath the site. Apart from the public water supply source described above, the site is not located within the catchment areas of any licensed groundwater abstractions. The nearest groundwater abstraction is approximately 0.85km away, in a north-northeasterly direction. This licence abstraction is from the Chalk and used for water supply purposes. There are no unlicensed abstractions near to the site based on information provided by the local council and there are no known GSH schemes, either proposed or under investigation locally.

13.4.6

13.4.7

13.4.8

13.4.9

13.4.10

13.4.11

13.4.12

13.4.13

13.4.14

Page 220

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station 13.4.15 13.4.16

Section 13: Water resources groundwater

There are no other environmental designations relevant to groundwater in the vicinity of the site. Appendix E contains a summary of the water quality information from the land quality assessment. Data from on site and nearby monitoring boreholes at the Greenwich PS site boreholes show there are occasional exceedances of the relevant drinking water standard or environmental quality standards (EQS) for Benzene (x4), dissolved Copper (Cu), Benzo(a)pyrene (x3), Nickel (Ni), Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH, x2), Extractable Hydrocarbons (C12-C35), Total Hydrocarbons (C5-C35), Total Aliphatics & Aromatics >C12-C44 and Total Monohydric Phenols. There is limited information on groundwater flooding incidents in the vicinity of the site, Further details on the baseline conditions at the Greenwich PS site are provided in Appendix E. Monitoring is continuing and would extend the baseline.

13.4.17 13.4.18

Receptor summary
13.4.19 Groundwater receptors which could be affected during construction or operation are summarised in the table below. Vol 26 Table 13.4.2 Groundwater receptors Receptor Groundwater Body – Upper Aquifer Groundwater Body – Lower Aquifer Construction  Operation  Comment Penetrated by shaft and interception chamber

Shaft into Chalk Chalk abstractions, nearest 0.6km, although site lies with SPZ 2 and is only 80m southeast of an SPZ 1. Other Chalk abstraction 0.85km to north northeast None known None known

Abstractions – Licensed

Abstractions Unlicensed

GSHP   Schemes Note: Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP)

Page 221

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 13: Water resources groundwater

13.5
13.5.1

Construction assessment
The shaft would be constructed through the upper aquifer and into the Thanet Sand/Chalk (lower aquifer). Dewatering would be required from outside the perimeter of the diaphragm wall. There would also be dewatering associated with the construction of the interception chamber. The extent of dewatering would be minimised where practically possible by the construction techniques. The diaphragm wall would prevent direct flow of groundwater into the shaft for example, and deepening the diaphragm wall and constructing a base slab would further reduce inflows deepening the diaphragm wall by up to 8m may be considered as part of the environmental design. Some contamination has been identified in the near surface. The upper aquifer is identified as being a receptor of medium importance. It is important that contamination in the near surface does not migrate down into the upper aquifer. The magnitude of impact is assessed as minor. The assessed significance would be minor adverse. The lower aquifer is in hydraulic connectivity with the upper aquifer, and therefore is at risk as construction may mobilise contaminants into this layer. It is important that contamination in the near surface does not migrate down into the lower aquifer. The magnitude of impact is assessed as major. The assessed significance would be major adverse. Activities involving grout would only use products that are acceptable to the EA and would be covered by the CoCP to minimise the risk of pollution.

13.5.2

13.5.3

13.5.4

13.5.5

Impact Magnitude
13.5.6 Since the Chalk is of high value, the dewatering impact magnitude would have to be minimised in order to reduce the effect on the aquifer. The impact magnitude is considered in the context of the London Groundwater Licensing Policy (EA, 2006)47. The balance between recharge and abstraction from the Chalk aquifer in London formed part of the groundwater resource assessment of the London Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy (CAMS), (EA, 2006). The Thames Tunnel falls within groundwater management unit 7 (GWMU7 Confined Chalk) which was classed as over licensed. The London Groundwater Licensing Policy (EA, 2006) was produced to restrict further abstraction in areas approaching their sustainable limit. This policy was incorporated into the London CAMS licensing policy which identified areas where further licences are restricted. Greenwich Pumping Station lies outside the areas defined as East London, Central and South London, and Southeast London (see Appendix E). In the absence of any specific guidance, the policy states that, ‘every application would be assessed on its own merits, be subject to a detailed local hydrogeological assessment and require the submission of the necessary supporting justification and reports for a decision to be made on an individual scheme.’

13.5.7

13.5.8

13.5.9

Page 222

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station 13.5.10

Section 13: Water resources groundwater

The detailed groundwater assessment to be included within the ES would take into account the following. A preliminary assessment is completed below: a. Has there been any long-term (several years) downward trend in the groundwater level in the vicinity of the application? b. Preliminary response: The hydrograph in Appendix E for an EA observation borehole at the site shows the groundwater level to have been stable with no downward trend since 1988. The groundwater level in relation to the base of the London Clay If the groundwater level is near the base of the London Clay, then the EA would be unlikely to grant the abstraction licence. The EA would use discretion if there is a significant thickness of the Lambeth Group below the London Clay, but the aim is to manage abstraction to keep groundwater levels above the Thanet Sands. a. Preliminary response: There is no London Clay. Groundwater levels in the Chalk have historically been between approximately 95.7 and 98.9mATD; between 7.7m and 10.9m above the top of the Thanet Sands at 87.96mATD. Any recent abstraction development in the same area a. If groundwater levels have not yet responded to a recent change in abstraction, the EA may not grant further licences in that area. b. Preliminary response: No recent developments are known. Greenwich PS is located within the catchment areas of a major licenced groundwater abstraction at distance of, approximately 0.6 km to the south of the Greenwich PS site. Further details of these licensed abstractions are given in Appendix A. There are no unlicensed groundwater abstractions within a 1 km radius of the site and no Ground Source Heat Pump schemes either proposed or under investigation locally. c. Other proposals in the area that have been refused for water resource reasons in the last five years.

d. Preliminary response: No refusals known. Proximity of the proposal to an existing or proposed Artificial Recharge Scheme (ARS) Artificial Recharge scheme proposals would be treated as a special case as they involve the management of groundwater levels to provide additional resource to the scheme operator. a. Preliminary response: No known ARS in the vicinity. 13.5.11 On the basis of this preliminary assessment it is concluded that, providing groundwater levels remain above the top of the Thanet Sands at around 87.96mATD, a temporary abstraction for dewatering purposes would not be detrimental to groundwater resources and the impact would be negligible.

Page 223

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station 13.5.12

Section 13: Water resources groundwater

The impacts on groundwater quality within the lower aquifer are expected to be negligible if the groundwater levels are kept above the top of the Thanet Sands. However, if the water table is drawn below this level, moderate impacts may be expected. Recent groundwater levels are within the Upnor Beds – the upper unit of the lower aquifer, therefore the likelihood that dewatering would result in drawdowns into the Thanet Sands is high. The drawdown as a result of dewatering has yet to be quantified. Once modelling is complete, as described in Volume 5, the impact on the aquifer and on nearby abstractors can be quantified as part of the EIA. A summary of the impacts and likely magnitude is provided in the table below. Vol 26 Table 13.5.1 Groundwater impacts -construction Magnitude Impact to be quantified Negligible providing groundwater levels remain above the top of the Thanet Sands. To be quantified. Negligible if use/integrity of abstraction source is unaffected.

13.5.13

13.5.14

Impact Dewatering of upper aquifer Dewatering of lower aquifer Lowering of groundwater levels in vicinity of Chalk abstractions

Creation of a pathway for pollution Minor in upper aquifer as some contamination in the near surface. Major in lower aquifer, as has strong hydraulic connectivity with upper aquifer Groundwater quality (lower aquifer) Negligible if the groundwater levels are kept above the top of the Thanet Sands. Moderate if water levels drawn below this level. Negligible; CoCP to identify acceptable materials

Pollution through use grout or other ground treatment

Receptor sensitivity
13.5.15 The upper aquifer is a secondary aquifervii but not used locally so is categorised as being of low importance. The lower aquifer is of medium importance where it is not in use and high to very high importance where it is being used, as summarised in the table below. Vol 26 Table 13.5.2 Groundwater receptors - construction Receptor Upper Aquifer Value/sensitivity Medium importance; secondary aquifer of limited thickness and use

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

vii

Page 224

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Receptor Lower Aquifer Chalk abstractions

Section 13: Water resources groundwater Value/sensitivity High value, principal aquifer High value; aquifer used for industrial purposes

Significance of effects
13.5.16 A summary of significance of the effects is shown in the table below. Vol 26 Table 13.5.3 Groundwater effects - construction Effect Dewatering of upper aquifer Dewatering of lower Aquifer Significance Impact yet to be quantified Minor adverse effect providing groundwater levels remain above the top of the Thanet Sands. Negligible effect Negligible if use/integrity of abstraction source is unaffected. To be quantified. Minor Adverse due to known groundwater pollution Major Adverse

Obstruction to groundwater flows causing a rise in groundwater levels Chalk abstractions

Effect on groundwater quality as a result of pathway creation or dewatering (upper aquifer) Effect on groundwater quality as a result of pathway creation or dewatering (lower aquifer) Effect on groundwater quality from induced groundwater movement as a result of dewatering (lower aquifer) Effect on groundwater quality due to introduction of pollutants (upper aquifers) Effect on groundwater quality due to introduction of pollutants (lower aquifer)

Minor adverse if water table remains above top of Thanet Sands; Major adverse if water table drawn below this level. Minor Adverse

Major Adverse

13.6
13.6.1

Operational assessment
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.

Page 225

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station 13.6.2

Section 13: Water resources groundwater

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'.

Operational assessment results
Impact magnitude 13.6.3 13.6.4 The impact of the interception chamber on groundwater flows in the upper aquifer has yet to be quantified. Seepage out of the shaft into the upper aquifer would be negligible given that the shaft will be full on relatively few occasions (which increases the risk of seepage). The shafts would also have a secondary lining to minimise the risk to the upper aquifer. Seepage into the shaft would be prevented by the double lining, this should ensure that this risk is fully minimised over the asset life. No other operational effects are envisaged. A summary of the impacts and their likely magnitude is provided in the table below. Vol 26 Table 13.6.1 Groundwater impacts - operation Impact Physical obstruction to flow in the upper aquifer and resultant rise in groundwater level Seepage out of the shaft affecting groundwater quality (both aquifers) Seepage into the shaft affecting groundwater resource Receptor sensitivity 13.6.8 The value of the groundwater receptors remains as defined in Vol 26 Table 13.5.2 (see para. 13.5.15) Significance of effects 13.6.9 A summary of significance of the effects is shown in the table below. Vol 26 Table 13.6.2 Groundwater effects - operation Effect Change in groundwater storage and flood risk as a result of physical Significance Negligible effect Magnitude To be quantified

13.6.5 13.6.6 13.6.7

Negligible, design of shaft would include a secondary lining Negligible, design of shaft would include a secondary lining

Page 226

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Effect obstruction in upper aquifer Deterioration in water quality from seepage out – upper aquifer Deterioration in water quality from seepage out – lower aquifer

Section 13: Water resources groundwater Significance Negligible effect Minor adverse

13.7
13.7.1

Approach to mitigation
The scheme includes a number of environmental design elements. This section contains the extra mitigation measures to be taken to address the effects identified within the assessment.

Construction
13.7.2 The dewatering of the lower aquifer would be kept to a minimum where practically possible. A diaphragm wall would reduce the amount of dewatering required, although if up flows into the D-wall are significant, then this may require either ground treatment to be used or the installation of recharge wells located around the D-wall. The dewatering of the lower aquifer could also take place from within the diaphragm wall, in order to reduce drawdown effects in the surrounding area. The need for this approach will be informed by ongoing assessment work and reported in the ES, Provided that no contamination is identified in the upper aquifer, no mitigation would be required in respect of this issue.

13.7.3

13.7.4

Operation
13.7.5 No effects are identified in the operational assessment and therefore no mitigation is required.

Page 227

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 13: Water resources - groundwater

13.8
Vol 26 Table 13.8.1 Groundwater operation assessment Significance Impact yet to be quantified Negligible effect providing groundwater levels remain above the top of the Thanet Sands. Negligible effect None required

Assessment summary
Residual Significance Yet to be quantified Negligible effect

Receptor

Upper aquifer

Effect Dewatering

Lower aquifer

Dewatering

Mitigation No mitigation proposed at this point No mitigation proposed at this point

Upper aquifer

Obstruction to groundwater flows causing a rise in groundwater levels Minor Adverse

None

Chalk abstractions Minor Adverse

Lowering of the groundwater levels as a result of dewatering

Minimise depressurisation

Negligible effect

Upper aquifer

Site clean-up ahead of construction No mitigation proposed at this point Further assessment for ES

None Not significant

Lower aquifer / Chalk abstractions Minor adverse if water table remains above top of Thanet Sands; Major adverse if water table drawn below this level. Minor Averse

Deterioration in groundwater quality caused Major Adverse by creation of a pathway

Lower Groundwater quality aquifer/ Chalk deterioration from induced abstractions groundwater movement as a result of dewatering (lower aquifer)

To be determined

Upper aquifer

Pollution through use grout or other ground treatment

No mitigation proposed at this point

None

Page 228

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Significance Major Adverse Mitigation No mitigation proposed at this point Residual Significance Not significant

Section 13: Water resources - groundwater

Receptor

Effect

Lower aquifer / Chalk abstractions Vol 26 Table 13.8.2 Groundwater operation assessment Significance To be modelled Minor Adverse Regular GWL monitoring No mitigation proposed at this point Mitigation

Receptor

Effect

Residual Significance Negligible effect Not significant

Upper aquifer

Lower aquifer / Chalk abstractions Negligible effect Major Adverse None required

Change in groundwater storage and flood risk as a result of physical obstruction in upper and lower aquifers

Upper aquifer

None Not significant

Lower aquifer/Chalk abstractions

Deterioration in groundwater quality caused by seepage out of the shaft

Regular groundwater quality monitoring

Page 229

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 13: Water resources – groundwater

13.9
13.9.1 13.9.2

Assessment completion
No additional data collection is required at the site. The ES will contain quantitative calculations on the amount of dewatering and the effects on the Lower aquifer/Chalk abstractions. No modelling of groundwater abstractions will take place as part of this report. The impact of the physical obstruction post construction will be modelled. 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

Page 230

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

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 Greenwich Pumping Station site. This assessment: a. identifies the existing water resources baseline conditions b. identifies the future base case conditions against which the project should be assessed c. identifies both the beneficial and adverse effects of the project during construction and operation and assess the significance of the effects

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 Greenwich PS site. The catchment-wide effects on the Thames Tideway, particularly the water quality improvements anticipated from the project are assessed separately in Volume 6.

14.1.3

14.2
14.2.1

Proposed development
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to surface water resources are described in the following sections. The Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) includes a number of measures that are important in protecting water quality and these are referred to as appropriate. Construction The site is located within the boundary of the existing Thames Water Greenwich pumping station, adjacent to Deptford Creek, approximately 600m from the Thames Tideway. Some of the proposed works would be within the foreshore of Deptford Creek, below the mean high water mark (MHWM). The base of the main shaft is within the Chalk so dewatering and/or ground treatment would be required within the Lambeth Group/ Thanet Beds/Chalk. 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 231

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 14: Water resources – surface water

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. 14.2.5 The CoCP would be adhered to 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; and 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

Page 232

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 14: Water resources – surface water

e. systems for notifying appropriate emergency services, the Environment Agency and other relevant authorities, Thames Water and the Contractor's personnel 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 to the Greenwich PS CSO. There would therefore be a reduction in the frequency, duration and volume of spills from the Greenwich PS CSO.

14.3
14.3.1

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

Scoping and engagement
14.3.2 Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. There were no site specific comments from consultees regarding surface water resources for this site.

Assumptions and limitations
14.3.3 Full results from project ground investigations were not available at the time of compiling this assessment and as such, assessment of contamination risk from works on the foreshore and from intrusive ground works at the site have relied on existing records of contamination (see Section 8 Land Quality). The assessment of impact of river channel works on scour and sedimentation has made use of preliminary 2-dimensional hydrodynamic modelling undertaken in support of the project design and EIA. At the time of compiling this assessment, this computational modelling work had not been carried out for proposed work at Greenwich PS. Definition of Tideway conditions and CSO operation during future base cases 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 at the time of compiling this assessment and the impact of climate change on the beneficial impacts of the project will not be available until the ES is completed. 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

14.3.4

14.3.5

14.3.6

14.3.7

Page 233

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 14: Water resources – surface water

discharges on dissolved oxygen levels in the river have been simulated using the catchment model and the Tidal Thames QUESTS model.

14.4

Baseline conditions Current conditions
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 project. 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 Middle and Deptford Creek waterbodies are considered in this assessment. Vol 26 Table 14.4.1 Surface water receptors Hydromorph Current ological Ecological Status Quality Heavily Modified Moderate Potential Current Chemical Quality Fail 2015 Predicted Ecological Quality Moderate Potential 2015 Predicted Chemical Quality Fail

14.4.2

Water Body Name/ID

Thames Middle GB530603911 402 Deptford Creek 14.4.3

Assessed as part of the Thames Middle waterbody under the WFD.

Water quality The Thames Middle (which stretches from Battersea Bridge to Mucking Flats and includes Deptford Creek) can be considered to be a high value waterbody as although its current and predicted status in 2015 (target date from River Basin Management Plan) is moderate potential, there is a status objective of good by 2027. 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 14.4.4 Using the June 2011 catchment model of the sewer system, the current operation of the Greenwich 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 51 times per year b. the CSO spills for an average duration of 672 hours per year c. the spill volume from the CSO is approximately 8,322,500m3 per year.

Page 234

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station 14.4.5

Section 14: Water resources – surface water

The polluting load data that is discharged from the CSO (Biochemical Oxygen Demand BOD, Ammoniacal-N and Total Oxidised Nitrogen TON) will be provided to inform the ES. Dissolved oxygen The existing discharge from Greenwich PS CSO has an effect of depleting dissolved oxygen in the Thames as a result of the biological breakdown of organic matter in the discharges. This causes both a localised (at Greenwich) and more widespread (Tideway wide) cumulative effect of rapidly dropping dissolved oxygen levels. 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 48. 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 of 51 spills per annum occur on separate days, there could be up to a maximum of 204 days per year where recreational users are at risk of exposure to pathogens in the Greenwich PS locality. Sewage derived litter The operation of Greenwich PS CSO results in the discharge of sewage litter along with the discharge of effluent. It was estimated by the TTSS 49 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 Greenwich PS CSO was 8,322,500m3, representing approximately 21% of the total volume discharged to the Thames Tideway annually. This suggests about 2,100t of sewage derived litter is currently being discharged from Greenwich annually. Receptors – designated sites The River Thames and Tidal Tributaries are designated as a Site of Metropolitan Importance. There are no hydraulically linked internationally designated conservation sites adjacent to the proposed construction site that could be affected by the construction. The effects of the overall project on the internationally designated sites in the Lower Thames are covered separately in Volume 6.

14.4.6

14.4.7

14.4.8

14.4.9

14.4.10 14.4.11

14.4.12

Page 235

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 14: Water resources – surface water

Receptors – discharges and abstractions 14.4.13 Other than the Greenwich PS CSO there are two consented discharges within 1 km of the site; Deptford SR CSO lies approximately 750 upstream of the Greenwich PS CSO outfall and Earl PS CSO lies approximately 1,500m upstream. There are no licensed surface water abstractions within 1 km of the site. Contamination 14.4.14 The search radius of historical mapping identified that the area surrounding the site has been heavily developed with a mix of industrial and residential properties since the 19th century, although the review recorded no potentially contaminative activities (other than the pumping station) that are considered to have impacted the site directly. However, ground investigation of the site indicates the presence of several contaminants: a. Benzene = 10 µg/l (Dangerous Substances Directive limit 30 µg/l); b. Total Monohydric Phenols = 10 µg/l (Drinking Water Standard 0.5 µg/l); c. Copper = 10 µg/l (EQS limit = 5 µg/l); d. Benzo(a)pyrene = 2.22 µg/l (DWS limit = 0.01µg/l); e. Total Aliphatics & Aromatics (C12-C44) = 16.9mg/l (Former DWS limit = 0.01mg/l); and f. 14.4.15 Poly Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) 16 Total = 5.95 µg/l (DWS Sum of 4 PAH limit = 1 µg/l).

Of the above detected contaminants, Phenols, Copper, Benzo(a)pyrene, Aliphatics & Aromatics and PAH could potentially cause pollution of the receiving watercourse, if discharged at the concentrations detected in the above groundwater testing. See the Land Quality assessment in Section 8 for full details of on-site contamination. Foreshore During the time between high and low tide, the foreshore of Deptford Creek at Greenwich PS is exposed. Based on mean high and low water levels, there is up to approximately 5m of exposed foreshore in the locality of the site, which would contain the proposed campsheds to the north of the construction site, adjacent to Phoenix Wharf.

14.4.16

Base case
Construction base case 14.4.17 The Lee Tunnel and the TTQI projects (improvement works at Mogden, Beckton, Crossness, Long Reach and Riverside STWs) would be operational by the time construction commences. Significant improvements in the water quality in the Tideway are anticipated as a result of these projects. The construction base case would therefore be the water quality in the Tideway with the TTQI and Lee Tunnel projects in place.

Page 236

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station 14.4.18

Section 14: Water resources – surface water

Results from modelled simulations of conditions in 2021 (as simulated model runs are only available for 2006 and 2021) with the TTQI and Lee Tunnel in place have therefore been used for the base case. Operation base case 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 projects would have on the quality of the Thames Tideway as explained in the construction base case above. Results from modelled simulations of conditions in 2021 with the TTQI and Lee Tunnel in place have therefore been used for the base case.

14.4.19

14.4.20

14.5
14.5.1

Construction assessment Construction base and development cases
As described in Volume 5, the construction effects at Greenwich 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: 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.

14.5.2

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
Site setup 14.5.3 The main pathway for impact and effect on surface water resources and associated receptors during construction at the Greenwich PS location is as a result of the requirement for temporary campsheds to be constructed in the Deptford Creek at the northern area of the site, adjacent to Phoenix Wharf. As the works would be in the foreshore, there is a direct pathway for pollution during the construction of the campsheds and there would be a temporary loss of foreshore while they are in place. Strengthening works may be required to the flood defences adjacent to the proposed campshed location. However as the condition of the flood defences at Phoenix Wharf have not been assessed at this point, the contractor would fully determine the need for strengthening works. It is possible that the campsheds could impact on scour patterns while in place, which could cause the mobilisation of increased levels of

14.5.4

14.5.5

Page 237

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 14: Water resources – surface water

suspended solids into the creek and downstream Tideway. There may also be an effect on downstream river structures if the pattern of sediment movement is greatly changed. In addition, should the campsheds cause the channel width to be significantly altered, the flow velocity of the river at this point may increase, thereby increasing contraction scour across the whole channel bed. The degree to which the campsheds affect the scour and sediment movement in the channel would be largely dependent on the shape of the structures; the more angular the shape and the more they protrude into the channel, the greater the impact would be. 14.5.6 The foreshore would be reinstated after removal of temporary structures. Due to the natural circulation of sediments within the creek, the accumulation of silts and estuarine muds is likely to occur naturally following the removal of the temporary structures. In addition, the structures would be designed and engineered to allow unimpeded flow and minimise conflict and slack water where practicable. Good practice design would reduce the effects of scour at the face of the campsheds, and rip-rap or gabions may be required to prevent damage to structures. These measures would not remove the impact pathway and hence the effects are considered in this section for their significance and requirement for specific mitigation. There is the potential for the campsheds at the Greenwich PS site to interact with other structures within the Deptford Creek channel, causing an area of slack ‘dead’ water between the two. Floating debris, oils and other pollutants could build up in the area as the flow of the river would not clear the accumulation due to the shelter provided by the campsheds. Site drainage 14.5.9 The Greenwich PS site would be used to drive the tunnel to Chambers Wharf, using a Slurry Tunnel Boring Machine. Due to space constraints on site, it is likely that the excavated material would need to be exported from the site with high moisture content. It is possible that there could be some spillage/leakage of excavated slurry. Due to the proximity of the working area to the Deptford Creek there is an indirect pathway for spillages and surface water containing elevated levels of suspended solids to enter the Deptford Creek via surface water or combined drains. This could then indirectly affect the downstream Thames Middle waterbody. Sealed rigid tipper wagons would be used to transport excavated slurry for disposal; this would reduce leakages of slurry waste. Good site practice would ensure that any spillages on the on-site roads are not carried offsite; road sweepers and wheel washers would be used throughout the construction period. Sealed and controlled drainage would prevent a pathway to the Deptford Creek or Thames Tideway via leakage of slurry or for the effects of silty run-off from earth works or bare soils (for example for the location of site welfare facilities or shaft construction). It is therefore considered that there is no impact pathway through leakage and this can be scoped out of further assessment.

14.5.7

14.5.8

14.5.10

14.5.11

14.5.12

Page 238

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station 14.5.13

Section 14: Water resources – surface water

Settlement facilities would also be used to control suspended solids in the general site runoff, which 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.

14.5.14

These pollutants could leak to the Thames Tideway or be directly discharged to the Tideway as part of the surface water discharge. Any effects on the adjacent Tideway from leakage or discharges would be adverse, although of short duration before remedial action was taken. The likelihood of pollution effects occurring would be greatly reduced by the use of sealed site drainage. Where possible, all site drainage would be drained and discharged to mains foul or combined sewers and where this is not practicable, the site would be drained such that accumulating surface water would be directed to holding or settling tanks, separators and other measures prior to discharge to the Deptford Creek. It is understood that foul drainage from the site welfare facilities would be connected to the mains foul or combined sewer. There should therefore be no impact pathway from the routine discharge of foul drainage from the site and there is considered to be no effect on the Thames Middle waterbody. It is considered that via the proposed drainage management, the pollution pathway can be managed sufficiently to reduce the pollution risk to negligible. 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 and hence the potential effect will not be considered further within this assessment. Contamination and dewatering Ground investigation of the site indicates the presence of several contaminants within the groundwater at Greenwich PS: a. Benzene = 10 µg/l (Dangerous Substances Directive limit 30 µg/l) b. Total Monohydric Phenols = 10µg/l (Drinking Water Standard 0.5µg/l) c. Copper = 10 µg/l (EQS limit = 5 µg/l) d. Benzo(a)pyrene = 2.22µg/l (DWS limit = 0.01µg/l) e. Total Aliphatics & Aromatics (C12-C44) = 16.9mg/l (former DWS limit = 0.01mg/l) f. Poly Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) 16 Total = 5.95 µg/l (DWS Sum of 4 PAH limit = 1 µg/l).

14.5.15

14.5.16

14.5.17

14.5.18

14.5.19

Page 239

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station 14.5.20

Section 14: Water resources – surface water

Of the above detected contaminants, Phenols, Copper, Benzo(a)pyrene, Aliphatics and Aromatics and PAH could potentially cause pollution of the receiving watercourse, if discharged at the concentrations detected in the above groundwater testing. Shaft construction is anticipated to extend through deposits of Made Ground, Alluvium, the Upper Aquifer of the River Terrace Deposits, the Upnor Formation and Thanet Sand, and is anticipated to terminate within the Lower Aquifer of the Seaford Chalk. It is therefore anticipated that dewatering of significant volumes of groundwater would be required, although at this stage the exact volumes are not known. It is proposed that the dewatering effluent be discharged to the Deptford Creek. The volumes and pump rates proposed could cause scouring of the Creek bed and the release of sediments, which could impact on the Deptford Creek and the downstream Thames Middle waterbody. Depending on the volume of dewatering, the capacity of the Deptford Creek channel could also be exceeded, particularly at high tide. The condition of the flood defences at Greenwich PS is not fully understood, although they are thought to be fragile and a condition survey is underway. Scour of the Creek bed and changes to the flow regime within the Creek caused by large volumes of dewatering effluent could affect the integrity of the defences. In addition, the contaminants detected in the groundwater could potentially cause pollution of the receiving watercourse, if discharged at the concentrations detected in the above groundwater testing. The discharge would require a Consent to Discharge from the Environment Agency, which would set limits on the discharge ensuring no pollution of the receiving waters. Settlement of suspended solids within the dewatering would minimise the levels of contaminants within the effluent, which tend to be associated with particulates, but additional treatment of the dewatering effluent, or remediation of groundwater, may be required. The receiving watercourses would provide dilution of the discharged groundwater and it is therefore thought unlikely that any environmental quality standards would be breached by contaminants present within the discharged water. .

14.5.21

14.5.22

14.5.23

Assessment of impacts
14.5.24 The table below provides the assessment of effects during construction at Greenwich PS against: a. WFD environmental objectives b. local impacts c. whether other legislative targets are likely to be affected.

Page 240

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Vol 26 Table 14.5.1 Surface water impacts - construction WFD Objectives met? WFD1 WFD2 WFD3 WFD4 Duration and Reversibility  N/A Temporary until end of construction. Largely reversible as some foreshore reinstatement would occur. The effect The change the is not foreshore is considered considered to have an impact local to to result in deterioratio Greenwich. n of the Thames Middle status. The Thames Middle is a heavily modified waterbod y and only needs to achieve good potential.  Although the effect would potentially prevent enhancement and protection of the morphology of the Thames Middle, the effect is considered to be reversible and temporary. Local effects or Other Legislative effects

Section 14: Water resources – surface water

Impact

Water body

Assessment and likely effect

Compaction of foreshore and change in geomorphology (campshed construction).

Upper Middle

Landtake from the river channel with an associated temporary loss of foreshore

Whilst this would be reinstated postconstruction, there would be a period of time where the geomorphology of the foreshore is altered until foreshore mud is re-deposited via natural process.

Page 241

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station WFD Objectives met? WFD1 WFD2 WFD3 WFD4 Duration and Reversibility Local effects or Other Legislative effects

Section 14: Water resources – surface water

Impact

Water body

Assessment and likely effect

Thames Middle N/A 

Temporary until end of construction.

The change in geomorphology of the foreshore is considered to have an impact local to Greenwich. The scour rates are considered to have an effect locally and more widely in terms of potential effect on the structural integrity of flood defences  The effect is not considered to result in deterioratio n of the Thames Middle status. The Thames Middle is a heavily modified waterbod y and only needs to achieve good potential.

Increased scour and changes to sediment movement which may affect nearby infrastructure in the foreshore (campsheds). Largely reversible as some foreshore reinstatement would occur.

Loss of river bed and increased suspended solids from scour around the campsheds. Changes to sediment movement which may remove sediment at other sites.

Although the effect would potentially prevent enhancement and protection of the Thames Middle, the effect is considered to be reversible and temporary.

N/A  The effect on water quality and aesthetics is not considered to result in deterioratio The Thames Middle is a heavily modified waterbod y and only The effect would not alter overall water quality in the Thames Middle

Thames Middle Reversible as campsheds would be removed when

Alteration of flow regime which may cause slack or dead water, leading to the accumulation

The presence of other structures within the Deptford Creek channel could lead to the accumulation of debris or

Temporary effect.

The water quality and aesthetic effect is considered to have an effect locally in the context of local river users.

Page 242

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station WFD Objectives met? WFD1 WFD2 WFD3 WFD4 Duration and Reversibility construction complete. n of the Thames Middle status of moderate. N/A The Thames Middle is a heavily modified waterbod y and only needs to achieve good potential. needs to achieve good potential. Local effects or Other Legislative effects

Section 14: Water resources – surface water

Impact

Water body

Assessment and likely effect

of debris or pollutants

pollutants.

Increased scour and changes to sediment movement (dewatering)

 Although the effect would potentially prevent enhancement and protection of the morphology of the Thames Middle, the effect is considered to be reversible and temporary.

 Thames Loss of river Temporary The change in Middle bed and until 2019. geomorphology of The effect (incorporati increased the foreshore is on Largely ng suspended considered to have morpholog reversible as Deptford solids from y is not silt movement an impact local to Creek) scour due to the Greenwich PS and considered within the large volumes of Tideway and the Deptford Creek to result in dewatering down to the deteriorati Creek would effluent confluence with on of the naturally anticipated. the Tideway. Thames reinstate the Changes to Middle foreshore The scour rates sediment status. after time. are considered to movement have an effect which may locally and more remove widely in terms of sediment at potential effect on other sites. the structural Effects on the integrity of flood integrity of flood defences.

Page 243

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station WFD Objectives met? WFD1 WFD2 WFD3 WFD4 Duration and Reversibility Local effects or Other Legislative effects

Section 14: Water resources – surface water

Impact

Water body

Assessment and likely effect

defences adjacent to Greenwich PS and further down the Deptford Creek.

Page 244

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 14: Water resources – surface water

Significance of effect
14.5.25 The table below identifies the significance of the effects identified in accordance with the criteria set out in Volume 5. Vol 26 Table 14.5.2 Surface water effects - construction Effect Significance and justification Minor adverse All WFD objectives can be met. Reinstatement would be possible postconstruction and natural process would result in re-deposition and recovery of foreshore from the construction area. The effect is considered to have a local effect during recovery as the morphology of the foreshore would be altered, but the effect is reversible and not considered to be significant. Moderate adverse Increased scour and changes to sediment movement which may affect nearby sites (due to campsheds) This is not considered to adversely affect attainment of WFD objectives, but it is considered significant at the local scale and could impact on integrity of flood defences. Further assessment will be undertaken and reported in the ES. Minor adverse The water quality effect would not prevent WFD objectives being met, and the water impact is considered to have a local effect that is reversible once construction is complete.
Moderate adverse Increased scour and changes to sediment movement (dewatering) It is not thought that scour would adversely affect attainment of WFD objectives, but it is considered significant at the local scale and could impact on integrity of flood defences.

Damage to and temporary loss of foreshore (due to campshed construction)

Alteration of flow regime which may cause slack or dead water, leading to the accumulation of debris or pollutants

14.6
14.6.1

Operational assessment
As with the construction effects, the assessment has defined the WFD objectives and the waterbodies affected.

Page 245

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 14: Water resources – surface water

Identification of operation impacts effects
Reduction in CSO spills 14.6.2 The operation of the Greenwich PS CSO connection as part of the project as a whole would have a beneficial effect on water quality, bacteriological quality and aesthetic value in the Greenwich PS locality and beyond by substantially reducing the frequency, duration and volume of discharges from the Greenwich 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 Greenwich PS CSO would have decreased (as a result of the Lee Tunnel and STW improvements, which would compensate for increased discharges due to population increase) to the following: a. the CSO would spill on average of 28 times in the typical year (23 fewer than the current baseline); b. the CSO would spill for an average duration of 240 hours in the typical year (432 hours fewer than the current baseline); and c. 14.6.4 the spill volume from the CSO would be approximately 3,940,100m3 in the typical year (4,382,400m3 less than the current baseline).

14.6.3

The current baseline the number of risk days for river users being exposed to pathogens during the base case year would be a maximum of 112 days in the typical year. Catchment modelling of the operational development case has simulated that by the Year 1 of operation (assessed to be 2021 to use modelled assumptions) with the project in place, the frequency, duration and volume of the Greenwich PS CSO would have further decreased (as a result of the capture of wastewater flow into the tunnel) to the following: a. the CSO would spill on average four times in the typical year (24 times less than the base case); b. the CSO would spill for an average duration of 36 hours in the typical year (205 hours less than the base case); and c. the spill volume from the CSO would be approximately 571,500m3 in the typical year (3,368,600m3 less than the current baseline).

14.6.5

14.6.6

The frequency, duration and volume of spill at Greenwich PS would therefore be reduced by approximately 85% 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 is predicted be a maximum of 16 days in the typical year (a reduction of up to 96 days of risk of exposure). In addition, the tonnage of sewage derived litter can be expected to be reduced by approximately 85% from 2,100t to 315 t in the typical year.

14.6.7

14.6.8

Page 246

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station 14.6.9

Section 14: Water resources – surface water

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.

Assessment of impacts
14.6.10 The table below provides the assessment of effects during operation of the Greenwich PS 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 site at Greenwich PS. Therefore, only the Thames Middle (including Deptford Creek) waterbody are considered in the assessment for Greenwich PS.

Page 247

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Vol 26 Table 14.6.1 Surface water impacts - operation WFD Objectives met? WFD1 WFD2 WFD3 WFD4

Section 14: Water resources – surface

Impact

Water body Duration and Reversibility The water quality local to Reversibility Greenwich PS depends on the would be operation of the improved and tunnel. would ensure that the operation of the Greenwich PS CSO complies with the requirements of the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive Permanent.  N/A 

Assessment and likely effect

Local effects or Other Legislative effects

Reduced spill frequency, duration and volume from the Greenwich PS CSO.

Thames Middle (including Deptford Creek)

Improved water quality in the vicinity of the Greenwich PS CSO by reduced pollutant loading and not decreasing dissolved oxygen levels.

 Capture of the Greenwic h PS CSO would reduce pollution from priority substanc es at Greenwic h PS

Contribution to the overall Tideway-wide water quality improvements.

Along with The the project as Thames a whole, the Middle is Greenwich a heavily PS CSO modified connection waterbody would and only enhance the needs to water quality achieve of the good tideway potential. helping to move the Thames Middle towards good ecological status. N/A

Permanent. Reversibility depends on the operation of the tunnel.

Reduced bacterial loadings of the river giving health

Thames Middle (including Deptford Creek)

Risk of exposure days to pathogens would be reduced to a maximum of 16 days in the

The bacteriological improvement effect is considered to have an effect

The effect is not relevant to WFD objectives

Page 248

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station WFD Objectives met? WFD1 WFD2 WFD3 WFD4

Section 14: Water resources – surface

Impact

Water body Duration and Reversibility locally in the context of local river users. Permanent

Assessment and likely effect

Local effects or Other Legislative effects

improvemen ts to river users

typical year (a reduction of up to 96 days of risk of exposure).

Reduced sewage litter discharge Reversibility depends on the operation of the tunnel.

Thames Middle (including Deptford Creek)

N/A The effect is not relevant to WFD objectives

Sewage derived litter discharge at Greenwich PS would be reduced by approximately 85% 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.

Page 249

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 14: Water resources – surface

Significance of operational effect
14.6.12 The table below identifies the significance of the effects identified in accordance with the criteria set out in Volume 5. Vol 26 Table 14.6.2 Surface water significance of 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 Lots Road 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 Greenwich PS and in the Thames Upper, Middle and Chelsea Creek 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 Greenwich PS and in the Thames Upper, Middle and Chelsea Creek as a whole.

Reduced spill frequency, duration and volume from the Greenwich PS CSO.

Reduced sewage litter discharge

14.7
14.7.1

Approach to mitigation
The assessment of significant effects for both construction and operation has highlighted one significant adverse effect that would require mitigation to reduce the significance. This effect relates to the increased scour and changes to sediment movement caused by dewatering. Mitigation for protection of flood defences would be identified once the physical modelling results are available and the scour assessment has been concluded. Any mitigation is likely to take the form of gabions or other protective measures at the base of flood defences.

14.7.2 14.7.3

Page 250

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 14: Water resources – surface

14.8
Vol 26 Table 14.8.1 Surface water construction assessment Description of effect Moderate adverse As yet undefined Significance of effect Mitigation

Assessment summary
Significance of residual effect As yet undefined

Receptor

Thames Middle (incorporating Deptford Creek)

Increased scour and changes to sediment movement (dewatering)

Vol 26 Table 14.8.2 Surface water operational assessment Description of effect Significance of effect Mitigation Significance of residual effect None required Major beneficial

Receptor

Thames Middle (including Deptford Creek)

Reduced spill frequency, duration and volume from the Greenwich PS CSO.

Major beneficial

Thames Middle (including Deptford Creek) Reduced sewage litter discharge

Reduced bacterial loadings of the river giving health improvements to river users

Moderate beneficial Moderate beneficial

None required

Moderate beneficial None required Moderate beneficial

Thames Middle (including Deptford Creek)

Page 251

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section14: Water resources – surface water

14.9
14.9.1

Assessment completion
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 this assessment, further water quality modelling was 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. Physical modelling of some of the foreshore sites is underway. Results were not available to inform the design to mitigate the effects on scour. This assessment and proposal for mitigation will therefore be updated and included in the ES. Following completion of the assessment the mitigation approaches for surface water resources within the project will be finalised and reported in the ES. Mitigation for protection of flood defences will be identified once the physical modelling results are available and the scour assessment has been concluded. This will allow assessment of significance of any residual effect after mitigation has been developed for the final project design.

14.9.2

14.9.3

14.9.4

14.9.5

Page 252

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

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 Greenwich 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) viii and covers the construction and operation phases. This assessment makes use of the PPS25 Practice Guide 50 and is consistent with the outputs and findings of the Thames Estuary 2100 Plan (TE2100)51 and the policy requirements of the London Plan 52. City of Westminster specific documents have been reviewed in addition to other relevant flood risk planning, policy and legislative documents. This Level 1 FRA is supported by 2D hydrodynamic modelling, undertaken to assess flood risk effects for the project as a whole (as described in Volume 5) and for specific sites (Volumes 7 to 28). The FRA comprises four parts, which can be found in the following volumes: 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 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

15.1.7

15.1.8

15.1.9

Communities and Local Government (March 2010). Planning Policy Statement 25 Development and Flood Risk.

viii

Page 253

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 15: Water resources-flood risk

and the operation phase taking into consideration climate change over the lifetime of the project. 15.1.10 The project involves the construction 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 ix or 3 x or greater than 1ha and situated within Flood Zone 1 xi 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 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.

Overview
15.2.2 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)
15.2.3 The Greenwich Pumping Station site lies within the LB of Greenwich. LB of Greenwich is currently in the process of producing their SFRA and therefore this document is not yet in the public domain. FRAs undertaken within the LB of Greenwich rely on the East London SFRA 53. Given that this document was published in 2005, it is written to the standards of Planning Policy Guidance 25 (which preceded PPS25), rather than PPS25 standards. According to the SFRA of East London: a. London is protected to a high standard from tidal flooding until 2030 (0.1% risk of flooding in any one year). b. There is a high residual risk of flooding from overtopping and breaching of defences. There is also a risk of flooding from secondary sources such as sewers and ground water systems.
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 x 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 xi 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
ix

15.2.4

Page 254

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station c.

Section 15: Water resources-flood risk

All new development should be set back to allow space for ongoing maintenance of existing defences and future flood risk management interventions.

d. Development in Flood Zone 3 should be designed to be flood resilient. Designs must consider emergency access and egress.

Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP)
15.2.5 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)
15.2.6 Greenwich PS lies within the Greenwich Policy Unit which has been assigned the P5 flood risk management policy within the TE2100 Plan 54, 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 flooding from the River Thames b. fluvial and tidal/fluvial from the River Ravensbourne c. 15.2.8 urban drainage sources. 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. tidal and fluvial defences along the lower reach of the River Ravensbourne c. 15.2.9 Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) for mitigation of urban drainage d. flood forecasting and warning. The TE2100 Plan seeks to promote, where possible, defence improvements that are sensitive to ensure views are maintained and impacts to river access/views are minimised. Where defence raising in the future as a consequence of climate change is not possible, secondary defences and floodplain management should be introduced. There is also the vision to increase flood risk awareness within the area. Accretion of the river bed is occurring at Greenwich, this could provide opportunities to improve the appearance and ecological capacity of these frontages. The TE2100 Plan states that measures will be needed to control tributary tidal and fluvial flooding on the Ravensbourne River and that there is a risk of urban drainage flooding in this policy unit.

15.2.7

15.2.10

15.2.11

Page 255

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 15: Water resources-flood risk

Thames Region Catchment Flood Management Plan (CFMP)
15.2.12 The Thames Region Catchment Flood Management Plan (CFMP) 55 covers fluvial and non-tidal sections of the River Thames, ie the River Thames upstream of Teddington Weir and the tributaries of the River Thames (including the River Ravensbourne). The Thames Region CFMP advocates the reduction in flood risk through the design and layout of developments within the floodplain; redevelopment should be compatible with its location within the floodplain (ie flood resilience measures should be incorporated). This should be achieved through re-creating more natural river systems and giving space for flood water, aiming for a balance between attenuation and conveyance. The specific messages for developed flood plain with typical river channels are: a. There is a need to re-create river corridors so there is more space for the river to flow and flood naturally (generally an 8m setback from top of bank). b. Flood risk management planning should be linked closely with regeneration and redevelopment so that the location and layout of development can help to reduce flood risk. c. There is a large and increasing residual flood risk in these floodplain areas. PPS25 sets out a range of measures that can reduce the impacts of residual flood risk, such as making buildings resilient to flooding.

15.2.13

15.2.14

d. Organisations need to work together to manage all flood sources: fluvial, tidal, surface water and sewer flooding.

London Regional Flood Risk Appraisal (RFRA)
15.2.15 For the reach between Hammersmith Bridge and the Thames Barrier (City Reach (does not specify inclusion of River Ravensbourne)) the London RFRA 56 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.

15.2.16

15.2.17

Page 256

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 15: Water resources-flood risk

15.3
15.3.1

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.

15.3.2

Flood sources
Flooding from sea (and tidal sources) Flood risk to the site 15.3.3 The site is situated adjacent to the tidal Deptford Creek stretch of the Ravensbourne River. The local flood defences are aligned to the west of the site along the eastern bank of the Deptford Creek. The site is therefore considered to be located within Flood Zone 3a of Deptford Creek. Flood Zone 3a is defined as having a 1% or greater AEP of river flooding or a 0.5% or greater AEP of sea flooding in any year. The location of the site in relation to the flood zones is illustrated in Vol 26 Figure 15.3.1. Vol 26 Figure 15.3.1 Flood risk – EA flood zones (see Volume 26 Figures document) 15.3.4 At this stage in the design, no works are proposed to the existing defences on the site. This would ensure that the current level of defence provided to the site is maintained throughout the construction and operational phases (both in terms of defence level and defence construction) and the structural integrity of the defences is not jeopardised. The design standard of the existing Thames Tidal 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 (including tidal inlets such as Deptford Creek) vary and are generally in excess of the 0.1% AEP standard of protection with a freeboard. Early investigations show that the defences at this location are fragile. This will be investigated further and included within the Level 2 FRA. The EA has stated that the defence level at Greenwich Pumping Station is 5.23mAOD and this defence level would be maintained throughout the construction and operation of the site. The existing level will be confirmed with defence survey information, requested from the EA for the Level 2 FRA to be prepared for the development control order application submission. The most extreme flood risk to the site in this location would be as a result of a high tide combined with a storm surge (with the Thames Barrier operational); this is considered to be the EA flood design event.

15.3.5

15.3.6

15.3.7

Page 257

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station 15.3.8

Section 15: Water resources-flood risk

Ground levels within the site vary from 3.8mAOD in the north of the site falling in the centre of the site to 3.3mAOD and increasing to 5.5mAOD in the south of the site. The proposed ground level surrounding the shaft is 3.4mAOD and the proposed level of the shaft lid is 4.5mAOD. The tidal flood levels within the River Thames at Greenwich for the EA flood design event are: a. b. 4.83mAOD for the 0.5% AEP 2005 and 4.83mAOD for the 0.5% AEP 2107 (ie with climate change).

15.3.9

15.3.10

This data is taken from the EA Tidal Thames Joint Probability Extreme Water Levels Study57. This indicates that the proposed shaft location which would benefit from the protection afforded by the Deptford Creek defences, would not flood under the above return periods due to the protection afforded by the defences at 5.23mAOD. If however there was a breach in the local defences, the majority of the site would flood as the above flood water levels are higher than the majority of the site ground levels, including the proposed level for the shaft. It should be noted that water levels do not increase in the future due to the Thames Barrier closure rule (see Level 1 FRA Part A, Volume 5) such that the 2005 and 2107 scenarios produce the same water levels. The water levels stated in para. 15.3.9 have been used in the absence of accurate tidal flood levels for Deptford Creek. These have been requested from the EA (in the form of the River Thames Embayment Modelling data) and will be used to inform the Level 2 FRA for the Greenwich PS site. 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. At the Greenwich PS site, defences would be required to be raised to 5.70mAOD and 6.20mAOD for 2065 and 2100 respectively in line with the requirements of the TE2100 Plan. Part of the TE2100 Plan is to consider ways in which this future raising would be achieved for current flood defences. In association with this, any new defences constructed at the Greenwich PS site would be designed such that defence raising in the future to match these levels as indicated in the TE2100 Plan can be achieved in a sympathetic way and views of the river can be maintained and amenity uses achieved. 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 5.79mAOD for the 0.5% AEP 2005 and 6.70mAOD for the 0.5% AEP 2107. Under this modelled scenario, the site would be flooded as the water level is above the current local flood defence level and that proposed for the construction site and operational site. However, because the Thames

15.3.11

15.3.12

15.3.13

15.3.14

15.3.15

15.3.16

Page 258

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 15: Water resources-flood risk

Barrier is a key component of the Thames Tidal defences, these levels are not used for the EA flood design event when considering the required flood prevention measures for new development. 15.3.17 The defences local to the Greenwich PS site would not be modified in any way under the current construction and operational projects. The structural integrity of the current defences would be maintained throughout the works at the site thus continuous protection would be provided from high water levels within the tidal River Thames. If defence strengthening works are necessary, this will be completed prior to commencement of the project and in line with EA recommendations. 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. Tidal flood risk to topographically lower parts of the site is therefore residual in the event that there is a breach (or failure) of the 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. The EA Embayment modelling is not available to inform this report. This information will be included within the Level 2 FRA as it should provide a more accurate tidal flood level for the Greenwich PS site. Flood risk from the site 15.3.22 The excavation process using TBMs to construct the connection 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 third party assets including flood defences is being undertaken and will be included in the ES. The proposed connection tunnel alignment passes beneath the existing Thames Tidal defences which run along the banks of Deptford Creek to the west of the site. The project-wide effects of excavation will be assessed for flood defence impact when complete and any relevant assessment for the defences at this site will be included in the Level 2 FRA within the ES. Until further information is available, due to the alignment of the connection tunnel construction passing under the defences at Greenwich Pumping Station, 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.

15.3.18

15.3.19

15.3.20

15.3.21

15.3.23

15.3.24

Page 259

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 15: Water resources-flood risk

Flooding from rivers
15.3.25 The EA has provided flood levels derived from fluvial modelling on the non-tidal extents of the River Ravensbourne. The tidal limit of the River Ravensbourne (known as the Deptford Creek) ends at Deptford Bridge, where the Deptford Church Street and A2 (Blackheath Road) cross the river, ie upstream of the site. The flood level at the closest node to the Greenwich PS site is: a. 4.89mAOD for the 1% AEP event, inclusive of climate change b. 5.07mAOD for the 0.1% AEP event. 15.3.27 Flood mapping provided by the EA shows the site is not inundated during the 1% AEP inclusive of climate change event but is flooded during the 0.1% AEP event to a depth of approximately 2m by a south to north flow path from the River Ravensbourne to the River Thames. The fluvial reach of the River Ravensbourne upstream of the Greenwich PS is defended to the 0.1% AEP standard xii (from NFCDD). There is a residual risk of flooding from fluvial sources in the rare event of a breach or the exceedance of the flood defence network. Considering the location of the tidal limit upstream of the Greenwich PS site at Deptford Bridge it is anticipated that the Embayment Modelling will provide the most extreme and accurate flood level. This will be assessed as part of the Level 2 FRA. The EA Tidal Thames Joint Probability Extreme Water Levels Study uses a combination of different factors including astronomical tides, tide surge and fluvial river flows to produce an estimation of the peak high water levels within the Tidal Thames during a combined event. This methodology assumes that no combination of fluvial events with tidal conditions produces a higher flood level than the worst case combined tidal storm surge conditions. Water levels influenced by high fluvial flow alone would therefore be lower than the combined event assessed and hence the assessment of fluvial risk from the Thames is considered to be included within the assessment of flood risk from tidal sources in the previous section. Flood risk to the site from fluvial sources alone is therefore considered to be low and primarily associated with the River Ravensbourne. Flooding from land and surface water runoff Flood risk to the site 15.3.33 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 decline in ground levels from the south of the site to the north of the site resulting in the potential for overland flow, (generated within the south

15.3.26

15.3.28 15.3.29

15.3.30

15.3.31

15.3.32

As the River Ravensbourne is defended and the site is not situated within the 1% AEP climate change flood extent compensation storage from a fluvial flood event is not required.

xii

Page 260

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 15: Water resources-flood risk

of the site during high intensity rain events where the infiltration capacity of the drainage system is exceeded), to flow to the north of the site. 15.3.34 15.3.35 Flood risk to the site from this source is considered to be low. Flood risk from the site The Greenwich Pumping Station site is located to the south of the River Thames in the vicinity of Deptford Creek. The creation of the permanent site would increase the area of hardstanding at Greenwich Pumping Station and increase the runoff rates and volumes generated as a result. As the shaft site is currently mixed in land use with some greenfield land and some hardstanding land the creation of any hardstanding land within the shaft site location should be compensated for by providing adequate and appropriate surface water attenuation. 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 Mayor’s Draft Water Strategy 58 also aims for greenfield runoff and has an ‘essential’ standard of 50% attenuation to the undeveloped site’s surface water runoff at peak times (see Volume 5). Surface water runoff rates and attenuation volumes are indicative and would be confirmed during the subsequent Level 2 FRA. Based on a development footprint of approximately 1100m2, the existing undeveloped greenfield surface water runoff rate for the 1% AEP event plus 30% for climate change has been calculated using the ICP SUDS rural runoff method in Micro Drainage WinDes® Version 12.5 software. A soil factor of 0.45, which represents poorly drained soils, has been used within this method. Post development the shaft site would be 100% impermeable. The post development surface water runoff rate for the 1% AEP event has been calculated using the Modified Rational Method. In accordance with PPS25 Table B.2 the post development surface water runoff rate includes a 30% increase in peak rainfall intensity to account for the anticipated impact of climate change over the developments’ lifetime. Both existing and post development runoff rates for the 1% AEP event are provided in the table below. Vol 26 Table 15.3.1 Flood risk runoff rates onsite 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)

15.3.36

15.3.37

15.3.38 15.3.39

15.3.40

15.3.41

15.3.42

10.75 21.37 1.95

Page 261

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 15: Water resources-flood risk

15.3.43

By subtracting the existing rate from the post development runoff rate for the 1% AEP event with climate change, an additional runoff rate of approximately 11l/s is predicted post development. Proposed mitigation measures relating to surface water drainage are provided in para. 15.4.13. Flooding from groundwater The site is underlain by River Terrace Deposits and Alluvium, which could have a varied permeability and groundwater content. Following the completion of the groundwater assessment for the Environmental Statement, the potential mechanisms for groundwater flooding would 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 Greenwich PS site. Until further information is available, flood risk to the site from this source is considered to be low. Flooding from 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 are many combined, storm and private sewers within and surrounding the site. The sewers are routed through the PS from the surrounding area and are of variable size, from 381mm to 3200mm. These sewers are located within and surrounding the site. If the capacity of these systems was exceeded, the sewers would surcharge throughout outlets such as man holes and gullies located along the length of the sewer which would surcharge and inundate the site. Flood risk from this source is considered to be low, as although there are many sewers present within the vicinity, capacity would have to be exceeded to lead to flooding. Flooding from artificial sources There are no artificial watercourses within the vicinity of the site. Therefore there is no flood risk associated with this source.

15.3.44

15.3.45 15.3.46

15.3.47

15.3.48

15.3.49

15.3.50

15.3.51

15.4
15.4.1

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

Page 262

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 15: Water resources-flood risk

b. low risk of flooding to the site from fluvial sources as a result of the exceedance of River Ravensbourne channel capacity or a breach in the local defences. c. low risk of surface water flooding (or ponding) to the site as a result of runoff from surrounding land

d. medium risk of an increase in tidal flooding due to the potential for settlement during construction of the tunnel to impact on food defence e. low risk of groundwater flooding to the site associated with water levels in the underlying geological strata f. 15.4.2 low risk of sewer flooding to the site. This section describes flood mitigation methods that have been highlighted as being required specifically to address flood risk effects as a result of development at Greenwich PS. Flood mitigation methods in this context are defined as being required to alleviate the effect of the development of a site on any consequential (increase in) flood risk.

Flood prevention
Flood resilience/resistance during operation 15.4.3 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 (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 15.4.4 The subsequent Level 2 FRA will include the production of a site Emergency Plan in relation to Flood Risk outlining appropriate working practices and appropriate access/egress routes in the event of a flood warning. The LB of Greenwich will be required to comment on the Emergency Plan.

Design and mitigation Surface water discharge
15.4.5 An appropriate surface water management strategy is required to ensure surface water is positively drained from this site post development. Surface water drainage would be designed to the 3.3% AEP event for the site. The preliminary calculations shown in the table below are based on 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

15.4.6

Page 263

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 15: Water resources-flood risk

accordance with the Mayor’s Draft Water Strategy, the preferred standard and essential standard have also been considered. 15.4.7 To take into account the effects of climate change over the lifetime of the development a 30% increase in peak rainfall intensity has been included when considering post development runoff and the associated attenuation volumes. Vol 26 Table 15.4.1 Flood risk runoff rates and preliminary attenuation volumes 1% AEP Rainfall Event Preferred Standard (attenuation to greenfield runoff rate) Essential Standard* (attenuation to 50% of undeveloped runoff rate) PPS25 Standard (no increase in runoff post development) 15.4.8 Runoff Rate (l/s) Attenuation Volume (m3)

1.95

60 – 78

5.38

47 – 63

10.75

38 – 54

The table above indicates that to meet PPS25 standards, a storage volume between 38 – 54m3 would be required to provide sufficient storage to attenuate the 1% AEP event, inclusive of climate change. SUDS could be incorporated into the design of the site to accommodate the above attenuation. Appropriate SUDS (eg storage tank or oversized piping), will be explored and developed alongside the development of the final site design, details of which will be included in the Level 2 FRA for the site. A brown roof feature is proposed within the site that would contribute to provision of surface water attenuation on the site. This will be confirmed during the subsequent Level 2 FRA. 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 will ensure that the requirements of PPS25 are met at all times and the aspirations of the London Plan are met where practicable. 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

15.4.9

15.4.10

15.4.11

15.4.12

15.4.13

Page 264

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Section 15: Water resources-flood risk

from vulnerable property, and avoid creating hazards to access egress routes, whilst not increasing flood risk to third parties. b. Excess surface water could be directed into the existing sewers at this location. c. Excess surface water could be directed into Deptford Creek. If this option is chosen, appropriate scour protection would be provided at the surface water discharge pipe outlet.

d. Depending on operational activities at the site surface water runoff may be required to pass through an oil interceptor, or similar, prior to discharge to the chosen surface water receptor. 15.4.14 During the construction phase appropriate mitigation would be provided to ensure surface water is managed in a controlled manner.

15.5
15.5.1 15.5.2

Assessment completion
A Level 2 FRA will be prepared for the site which will outline further specific design approaches and measures. It is considered that a full Level 2 FRA will be sufficient to assess the impact of flood risk for the final site design, assuming the EA Embayment Modelling is sufficient to refine the tidal flood risk at this site (ie, at this time, 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 Deptford Creek defence levels and conditions local to the site 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 residual tidal flood risk. 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 Greenwich PS defences will be included in the Greenwich PS Level 2 FRA section. c. The assessment of surface water flood risk to the site will be completed when the final surface water flood maps are available from the Drain London Project.

15.5.3

d. The surface water drainage scheme will be assessed for suitability and conformity with the suggested surface water attenuation within this Level 1 FRA. e. Groundwater flood risk and any required flood risk prevention measures will be reassessed when the groundwater resources impact assessment is complete. This will be included in the Level 2 FRA.

Page 265

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station f.

Section 15: Water resources-flood risk

An emergency plan will be developed to support the Level 3 FRA and the CoCP.

g. 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. 15.5.4 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 should be sufficient to support the EA and DOC application specific to the Greenwich PS site.

Page 266

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Appendices

Appendices
List of figures
Page number

Figure A.1 Rocque’s map of 1746 .......................................................................... 269 Figure A.2 Morris’s map of 1832............................................................................. 269 Figure A.3 Sim’s map of 1838 ................................................................................ 270 Figure A.4 Stanford’s map of 1862 ......................................................................... 270 Figure A.5 Ordnance Survey 1st edition 25” scale map of 1862–95 (not to scale) . 271 Figure A.6 Ordnance Survey 2nd edition 25” scale map of 1896–8 (not to scale) .. 271 Figure A.7 Ordnance Survey 3rd edition 25” scale map of 1909–20 (not to scale). 272 Figure A.8 Ordnance Survey 25” scale map of 1947–72 (not to scale) .................. 272 Figure A.9 Bazalgette’s Greenwich Pumping Station ............................................. 273 Figure A.10 The northernmost of the two coal sheds ............................................. 273 Figure A.11 The interior of the north beam engine house ...................................... 274 Figure A.12 The stone steps and entrance platform - north beam engine house ... 274 Figure A.13 The LESC substation on the southwestern edge of the site boundary 275 Figure A.14 Viaduct built by the London to Greenwich railway in 1838 .................. 275 Figure A.15 The brick built chimney, - 19th century south of the pumping station .. 276 Figure D.1 Viewpoint 1.1: View southwest from residences on Norman Road ....... 287 Figure D.2 Viewpoint 1.2: View west from residences on Greenwich High Road ... 287 Figure D.3 Viewpoint 2.1: View southwest of footbridge over Deptford Creek ....... 288 Figure D.4 Viewpoint 2.2: View southwest from open space .................................. 288 Figure D.5 Viewpoint 3.1: View south from Norman Road, north of the railway ..... 289 Figure D.6 Viewpoint 4.1: View west from industrial premises, Deptford Creek ..... 289 Figure E.1 Groundwater – superficial geology ........................................................ 290 Figure E.2 Groundwater – solid geology ................................................................ 290 Figure E.3 Groundwater level hydrographs at Greenwich Pumping Station ........... 297 Figure E.4 Groundwater level hydrograph Greenwich PS OBH ............................. 298 Figure E.5 Groundwater – SPZ .............................................................................. 300 List of tables
Page number

Table A.1 Gazetteer of known heritage assets ....................................................... 277 Table B.1 Land quality site walkover survey ........................................................... 283 Table E.1 Groundwater - anticipated Thames Tunnel geological succession ........ 290 Table E.2 Groundwater - anticipated ground conditions ......................................... 291

Page 267

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Appendices

Table E.3 Groundwater - anticipated Thames Tunnel main hydrogeological units . 293 Table E.4 Groundwater - depth and strata from-site monitoring boreholes ............ 294 Table E.5 Groundwater - licensed abstractions in the vicinity of Greenwich PS ..... 300 Table E.6 Groundwater detections at Greenwich Deepwater Terminal .................. 301 Table E.7 Groundwater and soil sample quality results .......................................... 301 Table E.8 Groundwater - licensing areas (EA, 2006) ............................................. 303

Page 268

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Appendix A: Historic environment

Appendix A: Historic environment

A.1

Figures

Figure A.1 Rocque’s map of 1746

Figure A.2 Morris’s map of 1832

Page 269

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Appendix A: Historic environment

Figure A.3 Sim’s map of 1838

Figure A.4 Stanford’s map of 1862

Page 270

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Appendix A: Historic environment

Figure A.5 Ordnance Survey 1st edition 25” scale map of 1862–95 (not to scale)

Figure A.6 Ordnance Survey 2nd edition 25” scale map of 1896–8 (not to scale)

Page 271

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Appendix A: Historic environment

Figure A.7 Ordnance Survey 3rd edition 25” scale map of 1909–20 (not to scale)

Figure A.8 Ordnance Survey 25” scale map of 1947–72 (not to scale)

A.2

Photographs

Page 272

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Appendix A: Historic environment

Figure A.9 Bazalgette’s Greenwich Pumping Station Note: with the two beam engine houses either side of the central boiler house; the 1905 extension is behind the trees on the right, whilst the cooling basin is under the surface in the foreground; standard lens, looking south

Figure A.10 The northernmost of the two coal sheds Note: the cast iron columns are hollow and function as drainpipes; standard lens, looking southeast

Page 273

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Appendix A: Historic environment

Figure A.11 The interior of the north beam engine house

Note: standard lens with flash, looking south

Figure A.12 The stone steps and entrance platform - north beam engine house Note: the earlier iron posts alongside modern railings; standard lens, looking east

Page 274

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Appendix A: Historic environment

Figure A.13 The LESC substation on the southwestern edge of the site boundary Note: standard lens, looking west

Figure A.14 Viaduct built by the London to Greenwich railway in 1838 Note: standard lens, on the northern edge of the site boundary taken looking northwest

Page 275

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Appendix A: Historic environment

Figure A.15 The brick built chimney, - 19th century south of the pumping station Note: standard lens, looking south from the small car park area

Page 276

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Appendix A: Historic environment

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 26 Figure 7.5.1). Table A.1 Gazetteer of known heritage assets

HEA Ref no. 1A

Description

Site code/ HER ref: 397899

A pair of beam engine houses with linking boiler house at Deptford Sewage Pumping Station. Grade II listed. According to the listing description, the Sewage works were opened in 1865 but Cherry and Pevsner (1983, 154) suggest that it was constructed between 1859 and 1862. The pumping station is also shown on Stanford’s map of 1862. The building contained four Slaughter and Gunning 125 hp beam engines having a capacity of 107,000 cubic feet per minute. The south wing, rebuilt 1930-1, houses plant that was installed in 1934. The sewage works consist of a long rectangular building with flanking towers in Italianate style, which housed the beam engines and boiler house, with two huge coal sheds to the southwest. Coal shed immediately to the southwest of the beam engine houses with linking boiler house at Deptford Sewage Pumping Station. Grade II listed. Southernmost of a pair of coal sheds to the southwest of a pair of beam engine houses with linking boiler house at Deptford Sewage Pumping Station. Concrete tanks or possible original cooling basin and associated features, situated below the present surface and to the north of the beam engine house. London Electric Supply Corporation electricity sub station early–mid 20th century Deptford Creek, Creekside Road, SE8, SE10. An archaeological foreshore survey by MOLAS in 2002. A survey of the drift geology and archaeology, a photographic record of the principal riverine structures of late 19th century or earlier date and a record of the physical attributes of the creek bed and associated structures was undertaken. Amongst the latter were: stretches of timber river walls, constructed in the mid-19th century, timber revetments, a masonry riverbed lining of c 1838, a dock or inlet of 1876-94, barge-bed revetments, masonry and timber splash aprons for sewage pumping station outfall pipe of 1868, a masonry and timber drain of c 1868, Halfpenny Hatch rail bridge of 1870 and a line of timber uprights which may be remnants of the river wall line predating the 18th century.

1B

398171

1C

398172

1D

---

1E 2

--FLS02 070263

Page 277

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station HEA Ref no. Description

Appendix A: Historic environment Site code/ HER ref:

First bridge over the Deptford Creek of the London and Greenwich railway drawbridge section spanning 26 feet. Was closed in 1869. Recorded on the GLHER. 3 4 5 Railway viaduct extending from platforms of Greenwich railway station to Deptford Creek. Grade II listed. 98–104 Greenwich High Road. Grade II listed buildings. Harold Wharf, 6 Creekside, Deptford, SE8. An archaeological watching brief by Chris Philpotts in 2001. Above the natural gravels 19th-20th century dumps and the boundary walls and outbuildings of a 19th century chemical works were recorded. A series of timber stakes thought to date from the medieval to post-medieval period were recorded within the silt which extended to the base of the underlying peat. Six of the stakes were aligned north-south but three were placed to the east of this line. Three fragmentary wooden stakes were recovered. They were not complete and made from slow grown elm round wood, possibly of branches. The only working traces were clear metal cut marks left by the trimming of two small side branches. The stakes were probably the base of a wattle revetment on the eastern edge of the Ravensbourne of parallel water course such as mill leat. Recorded on the GLHER. The site of a Roman road. Exact projection is uncertain. Recorded on the GLHER. 84 Norman Road, SE10. An archaeological evaluation by MoLAS in 1998. In one of two trenches, a compacted layer of crushed chalk - a yard surface or thoroughfare - was recorded above the natural gravel, sealed by a deposit of ashy waste containing a dense concentration of 19th century potsherds. The second trench had been subject to heavy disturbance in modern times, with the surviving deposits interpreted as ground-raising dumps, probably associated with 19th century industrial activity. The site of a gravel pit shown on Rocque’s map. Recorded on the GLHER. The chance find of a fragment of medieval earthen ware pottery from a wall composed of concrete and further medieval pottery from the site. Also the site of late 19th century cottages and late 19th/20th century pottery, flowerpots, drain pipes and tiles. Recorded on the GLHER. River Wall, Creekside, SE8. An archaeological survey by 437019 200379 200380 CEP01

6

77153

7 8

70557 NRM98

9 10

071818 070061 070274

11

CEK01

Page 278

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station HEA Ref no. Description

Appendix A: Historic environment Site code/ HER ref:

MoLAS in 2001. A topographic survey of the revetment on the west side of Deptford Creek was undertaken, as well as a plan of a crane base rail. 12 53 Norman Road, SE10. An archaeological watching brief by MoLAS in 1996. Natural gravels were overlaid by a river silt, interpreted as a floodplain deposit from Deptford Creek. Above this was a reclamation dump, followed by a thick agricultural soil. The agricultural use of the site is documented from the 18th century and it continued until engineering works were constructed some time in the 1860s; these were demolished recently. Also the site of a post-medieval gas works. Recorded on the GLHER. 165 and 167 Greenwich High Road. Grade II listed buildings. K2 telephone kiosk outside 171 Greenwich High Road. Grade II listed. The site of a tannery shown by the Greenwich Tithe Map of 1844. The complex is shown as four long and narrow buildings identified as stabling sheds. The tannery buildings appear to have been still standing in 1870, but by 1875 the site seems to have changed hands to become more specialist Merryweather and Sons' Tram Locomotive Works and a Fire Fighting Equipment Factory. Under these hands the site had a factory of three floors, an erecting shop, pattern makers and carpenters' offices, smithy buildings, a foundry, saw mills, wheelwright's shop and painter's buildings. Portions of the site were redeveloped as housing. Much of the site was damaged in the destruction caused by a V1 flying bomb in June 1944, to be redeveloped as further industrial units. Further buildings include a mid-20th century 'Engine House' building which replaced a building damaged in wartime, the 'Station House', 'Pump House', 'Brigade House', 'Siren and Bell House' and toilets. The 'Engine House' building was an industrial building constructed in English Bond brickwork, with concrete sills and lintels. Most of the original Crittal windows survived of this building, with steel support trusses and roofed with corrugated asbestos sheeting. The 'Station House' was of brick laid in stretcher bond of yellow stock brick. The 'Pump House' was of 1920s-1930s date of alternating colour brickwork, concrete coping and internal beams. The Miller General Hospital Royal Kent Dispensary. Grade II listed. NRG96 071369

13 14 15

200373 200374 397824 98648

16

200378

Page 279

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station HEA Ref no. 17 Description

Appendix A: Historic environment Site code/ HER ref: 71960

The projected extent of the Saxon and medieval settlement of Deptford. Recorded on the GLHER. The place name Deptford is derived from the Anglo Saxon for "deep ford", indicating the crossing of the Ravensbourne in this period. It was for a time known as West Greenwich and before that as Depeford. The Broadway area may have been the focus of settlement in the early to mid Saxon period and the St Nicholas church area (MLO83376) as a focus of mid to late Saxon period. There is likely to have been some settlement shift during the course of the whole period. The Miller General Hospital Miller General Wing (Rehabilitation Department). Grade II listed. The site of a burial ground and congregational chapel noted by Mrs Basil Holmes. 2 Burgos Grove. Grade II listed. This appears to be the earliest surviving component of the Mumford's Mill complex. It was possibly constructed around 1817. This is the earlier of the two mill buildings on this site. The mill has been constructed using brick, with segmentalheaded windows punctuating the English bond brickwork. An entranceway is set in an architraved entrance. The presumed location of the granary block is the site of the 1897 silo, and it is possible that the original mill may have extended as far north as the creek edge. There is some elaboration of the building with the string and dentil courses. The fourth floor may be an addition to the whole of the building- thought this is uncertain. The interior of the mill was probably reached through the double doors set below the bow window of the manager's office or by doors in the now water tower block. The interior includes non-fireproof timber floors formed from timber beams, now largely changed to steel-framed floors of the later 19th century. The ground floor rests on the river bank - there is no basement. The steel girders also include ones with the legends of the makers. The fourth floor contains what was probably the original kingpost roof, possibly re-sited from the earlier roofline. A cast iron sprinkler system is present along the roof. Recorded on the GLHER. A late 19th century grain silo and flour mill. Recorded on the GLHER. 1-40a, 40, 44–61, 65–74 Ashburnham Grove. Locally listed buildings. 10, 11, 13–27 Ashburnham Place. Locally listed buildings.

18 19 20 21

200377 248 200245 98653

22 23 24

397897 -----

Page 280

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station HEA Ref no. 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Description

Appendix A: Historic environment Site code/ HER ref: --------------------HTV09

4 and 6, 8–24 (evens) Burgos Grove. Locally listed buildings. 10–14 Catherine Grove. Locally listed buildings. Devonshire Drive Baptist Church. Locally listed building. St Paul’s Holy Trinity Church, Devonshire Drive. Locally listed building. 7–10, 11, 12 and 13, 17–32 Egerton Drive. Locally listed buildings. 141 West Greenwich house, Greenwich High Road. Locally listed building. 135 Greenwich High Road. Locally listed building. 161–163 Dovys Wine Vaults, Greenwich High Road. Locally listed building. 169 Greenwich High Road. Locally listed building. Late 19th century chimney, within Thames water compound to the south of Bazalgette’s pumping station. Deptford Creek frontages Package project. An archaeological watching brief by MOLA in 2009. Natural Thames terrace gravels were observed at between -1.00m OD and +1.00m OD. The existing timber river walls were dismantled by machine and recorded photographically, and deposits in the foreshore were also observed. No structures or deposits earlier than the mid 19th century were definitively identified, although it is possible that some of the disturbed alluvial silts and gravels at the base were a century or so earlier. A timber revetment was observed at the upstream end of Hilton’s Wharf, marking an earlier inland return prior to the construction of the existing Hilton’s Wharf frontage. This structure could have been 19th century or earlier Laban Centre, Creekside, Deptford, SE14. An archaeological evaluation by MoLAS in 2000. Above fluvial clays there was evidence of land reclamation, consisting of two unlined 18thcentury drainage channels. The earliest structural features on site were the foundations of an early 19th-century brick boiler house, interpreted as part of the soap works that used to occupy the site. Part of the north wall of an infilled 20thcentury barge dock was also located. Deptford Creek, to the southwest of the site. The location of the Halfpenny Hatch Rail Bridge, which replaced an earlier 19th century lifting bridge.

36

LGR00

37

TDP Zone FGW29; A102

Page 281

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station HEA Ref no. 38 Description

Appendix A: Historic environment Site code/ HER ref: TDP Zone FGW29; A103 TDP Zone FGW29; A104 TDP Zone FGW29; A105 TDP Zone FGW29; A106 TDP Zone FGW29; A107 TDP Zone FGW29; A108 TDP Zone FGW29; A109 TDP Zone FLS02; A102 TDP Zone FLS02; A104 TDP Zone FLS02; A105

Deptford Creek, to the southwest of the site. The location of masonry river bed lining, probably related to the construction of the Halfpenny Hatch Rail Bridge (HEA 60) above. Deptford Creek, to the southwest of the site. A barge bed revetment is located here, consisting of a series of stout timber posts, retaining a wall of planks laid horizontally, forming a platform extending alongside the cast iron river wall of a former pumping station. Deptford Creek, to the southwest of the site. The location of a masonry and timber splash apron for the sewage pumping station. Deptford Creek, to the southwest of the site. The location of a masonry and timber drain.

39

40

41

42

Deptford Creek, to the southwest of the site. The remains of a timber barge bed revetment.

43

Deptford Creek, to the southwest of the site. The location of a masonry and timber splash apron for the sewage pumping station. Deptford Creek, to the southwest of the site. The remains of a flood defence, consisting of upright timbers in the centre of the present channel which may once have formed a revetment or timber wall. Deptford Creek, to the southwest of the site. The remains of a timber river wall.

44

45

46

Deptford Creek, to the southwest of the site. The location of a dock or inlet formed by brick walls with upright timbers.

47

Deptford Creek, to the southwest of the site. The location of a timber revetment formed of at least 26 upright round timbers which extend for c.7m at a maximum surviving height of c.0.2m.

Page 282

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Appendix B: Land quality

Appendix B: Land quality Land quality site walkover survey
Table B.1 Land quality site walkover survey Item Site Ref Site Name Date of walkover Site location (Address & Access) Details PGH4X Greenwich Sewage Pumping Station 18th November 2010 Thames Water operated Greenwich Pumping Station, situated along Greenwich High Road. Access was available across the entirety of the pump station site (and within site buildings). Surroundings viewed from publicly accessible areas. Record elevation in Site is flat and in keeping with the relation to surroundings, level of the surrounding area. any hummocks, breaks of slope etc. North The site is bordered to the north by industrial commercial units forming part of the Bookmarsh Industrial Estate. The estate comprises a number of warehouse style buildings with associated hardstanding and access road. South The site is bordered to the southeast by Greenwich High Road and to the south west by a large commercial building, the use of which is unknown. East An unoccupied industrial estate is located to the east on Norman Road with further operational units further to the north along Norman Road. The operational Greenwich Pumping station is adjacent to southern part of the eastern boundary. West The majority of the site is bordered directly to the west by the tidal Deptford Creek. Industrial and commercial units exist beyond the creek. In the southernmost part new apartments and hotel are under construction. Record extent, size, type and usage. Any boiler Part of existing Thames Water sewage pumping station is on site.

Size and topography of site and surroundings Neighbouring site use (in particular note any potentially contaminative activities or sensitive receptors)

Site buildings

Page 283

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station rooms, electrical switchgear?

Appendix B: Land quality Ancillary pump buildings are located centrally. The southeastern part of the site is formed form listed covered storage area. The Docklands Light Rail cross the site on a concrete viaduct and the mainline rail track crosses on a brick built viaduct. The northern part of the site beyond the brick viaduct comprises an operational builders merchants. Mixture – within pump station site the ground is generally loose surfaced. A large area of Japanese Knotweed was observed located adjacent to/partially covering the central part of the site. N/A None on site – The sewage pumping building immediately to the south contains four diesel engines, and two large (25,000 litre) diesel fuel tanks contained within a brick built bund. Waste oil drums were observed stored on concrete hardstanding adjacent to the building. No spillage or leakage was observed. See above See above

Surfacing Vegetation

Services Fuels or chemicals on site

Record type and condition Any evidence of distress, unusual growth or invasive species such as Japanese Knotweed? Evidence of buried services? Types/ quantities?

Vehicle servicing or refuelling onsite Waste generated/stored onsite Surface water Site drainage

Tanks (above ground or 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 ?

Not observed.

None

Some localised storage of empty oil containers and pipework on hard surfacing within pump station site. No fly tipping. Record on-site or nearby The site is bordered directly to the standing water northwest by the tidal Deptford Creek. Is the site drained, if so to N/A

Page 284

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station where? Evidence of flooding? Eg trial pits, borehole covers. Evidence of discoloured ground, seepage of liquids, strong odours?

Appendix B: Land quality

Evidence of previous site investigations Evidence of land contamination Summary of potential contamination sources

None

None obvious.

Presence of Japanese Knotweed. Builders Merchants on northern part of site. Diesel fuel tanks and waste oil drums adjacent to the site Eg access restrictions/ limitations Access was available across the site area with the exception of the builders merchants. Surroundings viewed from publicly accessible areas.

Any other comments

Page 285

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

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 286

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Appendix D: Townscape and visual

Appendix D: Townscape and visual D.1 Winter photographs for selected viewpoints

Figure D.1 Viewpoint 1.1: View southwest from residences on Norman Road

Figure D.2 Viewpoint 1.2: View west from residences on Greenwich High Road D.1.1 Note: close to the junction with Egerton Drive

Page 287

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Appendix D: Townscape and visual

Figure D.3 Viewpoint 2.1: View southwest of footbridge over Deptford Creek

Figure D.4 Viewpoint 2.2: View southwest from open space Note: at Deptford Church Street

Page 288

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Appendix D: Townscape and visual

Figure D.5 Viewpoint 3.1: View south from Norman Road, north of the railway

Figure D.6 Viewpoint 4.1: View west from industrial premises, Deptford Creek

Page 289

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Appendix E: Water resources groundwater

Appendix E: Water resources - groundwater E.1
E.1.1

Geology
A summary of the anticipated geological succession to be encountered by the Thames Tunnel is shown below.

Table E.1 Groundwater - 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 Thanet Sand Seaford Chalk** Cretaceous Upper Cretaceous White Chalk Subgroup Lewes Nodular Chalk New Pit Chalk Holywell 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 and Figure E.2 the solid geology beneath the site. Figure E.1 Groundwater – superficial geology Figure E.2 Groundwater – solid geology (see Volume 26 Figures document)

E.1.3

The project Ground Investigation (GI) at the site involved drilling boreholes both on shore and within the main river channel (TT, 2010) 59. The

Page 290

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Appendix E: Water resources groundwater

locations of boreholes around the site are shown in Vol 26 Figure E.2. The depths and thicknesses of geological layers encountered are summarised below. Table E.2 Groundwater - anticipated ground conditions Formation Superficial Deposits/Made Ground Alluvium River Terrace Deposits Lambeth Group (Upnor Fm) Thanet Sand Seaford Chalk E.1.4 Elevation mATD 103.36 101.25 99.95 92.96 87.96 77.66 Depth below river bed (m) 0.00 2.10 3.40 10.40 15.40 25.80 Thickness (m) 2.10 1.30 7.00 5.00 10.40 Not proven

At the site, the depth of the shaft will be at 60.94mATD (with base slab down to 57.94mATD). The base of the shaft and the Greenwich Tunnel itself will both be within Seaford Chalk Formation. The Alluvium along the Thames Valley may be between less than 1m to 15m in thickness, comprising silty clay and clayey silt, with occasional scattered pebbles and granules. 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. Borehole logs indicate the made ground contains brick-like rubble. Although the River Terrace Deposits commonly has very fine-grained sand, silt and clayey silt 'Brickearth' deposits above (reclassified as Langley Silt), the thickness of the River Terrace Deposits at the site and geological descriptions indicate the Langley Silt is not present or significant at this 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 7m thick. The Upnor Formation (UPN) is a variably bioturbated fine- to mediumgrained sand with glauconite, rounded flint pebbles and minor clay, with distinctive pebble beds and base and top (Upn(Gv)).

E.1.5

E.1.6

E.1.7

E.1.8

Page 291

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station E.1.9

Appendix E: Water resources groundwater

The Thanet Sand Formation defines the first marine transgression following erosion of the Chalk, and is round unconformably on the approximately planar eroded Chalk surface. The Thanet Sand Formation comprises well sorted, uniform sand, with evidence of intense bioturbation removing bedding structures. With approximately 10 per cent fine-grained sand at the base, the lower part is typically clayey and silty, coarsening and greater sorting upward to the upper beds containing as much as 60 per cent fine-grained sand. The base of the Thanet Sands is a unit known as the 'Bullhead Bed' - a pale to medium-grey to brownish-grey, fine to fine-grained sand; and a conglomerate up to 0.5m thick comprising rounded to angular flint cobble and gravel sized clasts set in a clayey, fine to coarse-grained sand matrix with glauconite pellets forming the basal bed of the Thanet Sand Formation. The Bullhead Bed marks the Palaeocene/Cretaceous unconformity. The Seaford Chalk is the upper unit of the White Chalk, comprising of as firm to soft non-nodular Chalk with flint beds. Thin marl seams are found in the lower 8m and absent higher up. A hard ground marks the top of the Seaford Chalk. In terms of geological structure, it is noted that there is a series of northsouth faults forming the Greenwich Fault identified close to the site. The Greenwich Fault comprises a major north-south fault, and a number of minor faults and fractures associated with and parallel to the Greenwich Fault are present. These minor faults and fractures are in close proximity to the site and have localised displacement. Faults may also enhance or impede groundwater movement.

E.1.10

E.1.11

E.2
E.2.1

Hydrogeology
A summary of the anticipated hydrogeological properties of the different geologies to be encountered by the Thames Tunnel is shown below.

Page 292

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Appendix E: Water resources groundwater

Table E.3 Groundwater - anticipated Thames Tunnel main hydrogeological units Group Superficial Deposits Formation (Made Ground) Alluvium 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 Undivided mainly Seaford Chalk White Chalk Subgroup White Chalk Lewes Nodular Chalk New Pit Chalk Holywell Nodular Chalk E.2.2 The GI boreholes at the site show the Alluvium deposits (part of the upper aquifer) to be about 1.3m thick. Alluvium has a variable grain size and is heterogeneous and anisotropic. Sand lenses and horizons tend to be transmissive, whereas silts and clays within the Alluvium retard groundwater movement. Therefore, groundwater flows preferentially through the sands. There is generally good hydraulic connectivity between the water level in the River Thames and the Alluvium. The Alluvium at the site is thin, approximately 1.3m thick. It has good hydraulic connectivity with the underlying River Terrace Deposits. According the GI boreholes the River Terrace Deposits (part of the upper aquifer) are thin at about 7m thick at the site. As with the Alluvium, the River Terrace Deposits are heterogeneous and anisotropic, with the transmissivity of the River Terrace Deposits is variable, and dependent on sand layers and lenses, whereas clays and silts have lower transmissivity. Below the River Terrace Deposits is a 5.0m thick layer of Lambeth Group (Upnor Formation) before the lower aquifer is reached. Construction on Lower Aquifer Hydrogeology Perched Water Upper Aquifer Aquiclude Aquitard / Aquifer

Lambeth

Aquitards/ Aquifers

No group

E.2.3

E.2.4

Page 293

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Appendix E: Water resources groundwater

site will take place through the upper aquifer and into the lower aquifer beneath. E.2.5 The lower aquifer comprises Thanet Sands and the Chalk (principal aquifer) xiii – comprising of the Seaford Chalk. (The shaft is not sufficiently deep to encounter the Lewes Nodular Chalk and New Pit Chalk formations beneath). The upper aquifer (River Terrace Deposits) is defined as a secondary A aquifer. The shaft and base slab will extend around 17 m into the lower aquifer, from approximately 87.96mATD at the top of the Thanet Sands (marking the top of the lower aquifer) to the base of the slab at 61.00mATD. The thickness of the slab is 3m. The type of White Chalk present in the face of tunnel excavation will be Seaford Chalk, and either Cuckmere Member and Belle Tout Member (TT, 2010). The Seaford Chalk forms a highly transmissive aquifer, with rapid preferential flow commonly established along fissures and enhanced fractures, often along or above flint and marl layers within the Chalk. Transmissivity and groundwater storage therefore vary considerably both laterally and vertically.

E.2.6

E.2.7

E.3
E.3.1

Groundwater levels
The monitoring of groundwater levels is being undertaken by the project at GI boreholes. In addition, the EA has a network of observation monitoring boreholes across London for which records are available dating back to1963 (in certain locations). The monitoring boreholes record groundwater levels in the upper aquifer and lower aquifer. Four monitoring horizons within three monitoring boreholes at the site and one approximately 300m to the north of the site (SR1019) are used to record groundwater levels in the following discrete layers (see Table E.4): River Terrace Deposits, Thanet Sands and Seaford Chalk The manual dip and logger data collected from these monitoring boreholes is shown in Figure E.3. Further GI monitoring boreholes are proposed (as shown in Vol 26 Figure E.2).

E.3.2

Table E.4 Groundwater - depth and strata from-site monitoring boreholes Borehole PR1023 PR1023 SR1018D SR1024
xiii

Response Zone Depths mATD 98.49 - 93.49 91.49 - 78.99 86.39 - 79.39 78.64 - 66.24

Strata River Terrace Deposits Thanet Sand Formation Thanet Sand Formation Seaford Chalk

Monitoring Fortnightly Dips and Logger Fortnightly Dips and Logger Fortnightly Dips and Logger Fortnightly Dips

The terms Principal and Secondary Aquifers were previously known as Major and Minor Aquifers (EA, 2010)

Page 294

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Response Zone Depths mATD 68.62 - 61.62

Appendix E: Water resources groundwater

Borehole SR1019 E.3.3

Strata Seaford Chalk

Monitoring Fortnightly Dips

Groundwater levels in the River Terrace Deposits as measured in PR1023 located at the site, range from approximately 97.3 to 98.3mATD, consistently below the top of the River Terrace Deposits (at 99.95mATD), forming an unconfined aquifer unit. The piezometric heads in the Thanet Sands has a similar values and range as the River Terrace Deposits above, in monitoring point PR1023 ranges typically between 97.3 and 98.2mATD. This piezometric head corresponds with an elevation within the River Terrace Deposits at 98.8m ATD, such that there is hydraulic continuity between the lower and upper aquifers, and the Lambeth Group deposits (mainly Upnor Beds) do not form an aquiclude, therefore not pressurising the heads in the Thanet Sands beneath. The hydrograph in the Thanet Sands monitoring point (PR1023) shows considerable short term fluctuation within a longer term seasonal trend, fluctuating between approximately 97.5 and 97.9m ATD indicative of a tidal or abstraction influence. However, the range is small, therefore indicative of a hydraulic connection with the River Thames and supporting the assertion of hydraulic continuity with the River Terrace Deposits. The piezometric head in the Seaford Chalk is monitored in SR1024 located at the site, and also at SR1019, located approximately 300m to the north of the site. SR1024 is located adjacent to SR1023 and has a piezometric head ranging between 98.25 and 99.4mATD – greater than that of the Thanet Sands in SR1023. This slightly greater piezometric head in the Seaford Chalk may indicate the presence of a clay, marl or putty chalk layer above the monitoring response zone. SR1019 has a piezometric head ranging between 97.1 and 97.7mATD - lower than SR1023. Monitoring of the Seaford Chalk in SR1023 shows notable small piezometric head fluctuation indicative of either a tidal influence or signal from an abstraction well with a variable abstraction regime. The monitoring results demonstrate that the Seaford Chalk and Thanet Beds have good hydraulic connectivity with one another. There is some evidence of hydraulic separation between the River Terrace Deposits and the Seaford Chalk with higher heads in the Seaford Chalk over the period of record. The reason is not apparent since there is no substitive thickness of low permeability formation between the upper and lower aquifers at the site (see Figure E.3). Monitoring is continuing and futher data will help to clarify conditions. The nearest EA monitoring boreholes are located within the site (EA reference numbers TQ37/254A, TQ37/254BL, TQ37/254BU). From National Grid Reference information, TQ37/254A, less than 30m to the east-northeast of the shaft and TQ37254BL and TQ27/254BU (discrete

E.3.4

E.3.5

E.3.6

E.3.7

E.3.8 E.3.9

E.3.10

Page 295

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Appendix E: Water resources groundwater

horizons of the same monitoring borehole) is approximately 40m east northeast of the shaft. The locations of these monitoring points are shown on Vol 26 Figure 8.4.2. This borehole records levels in the lower aquifer (mainly Chalk). A groundwater level hydrograph from this observation borehole is shown in Figure E.4.

Page 296

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Appendix E: Water resources groundwater

Figure E.3 Groundwater level hydrographs at Greenwich Pumping Station

Page 297

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Appendix E: Water resources groundwater

Figure E.4 Groundwater level hydrograph Greenwich PS OBH

Page 298

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station E.3.11 E.3.12

Appendix E: Water resources groundwater

There is a close match between the EA monitoring record and the data collected for the Thames Tunnel project. The is no impermeable cut-off between the upper and lower aquifers, according to the borehole logs at the site. The fact that locally observed groundwater levels in the upper horizons (recorded by both the EA and TT) are higher than Chalk groundwater levels in lower horions (notably TQ37/254BL and TQ37/254BU) may be explained by the upper and lower aquifers being hydraulic connected at this site with lower permeability layers such as marl layers or putty chalk acting as minor or partial aquicludes. Groundwater levels in the EA Chalk observation boreholes range between approximately 95.8 to 99.0mATD for the three Chalk horizons monitored over the period 1997 to 2010. The fluctuations in Chalk piezometric levels vary annually by less than 1m (based on reccent years). Some slightly larger fluctuations have occurred of up to 2m (in 1998-2000), that was coincident with a signifciant drought period which affected surface water flows anf groundwater levels inparticular. The decline in levels in this period would seem to confirm the existence of a hydraulic connection between the River Terrace Deposits and Chalk via the Upnor Beds and Thanet Sand Formations at this site. 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)60, the regional direction of groundwater flow around the site is to the northwest towards a low point within central London. However, as the site straddles Source Protection Zones 1 to 3 of a major licensed abstraction, therefore the local groundwater gradient may prove to have a southerly component of flow, drawn towards this abstraction, particularly when abstraction is high, notably during peak demand periods. The regional groundwater levels produced by the EA for the London Basin and those observed in GI boreholes are consistent. The expected groundwater level at the site, based on EA contours, would be around 97mATD; which is within the range observed in the GI observation moniroring popints.

E.3.13

E.3.14

E.3.15

E.4
E.4.1

Groundwater abstractions and protected rights
Groundwater abstractions within a radius of influence of up to 2 km around the site have been identified. Their precise locations are not presented due to data restriction on licence abstractions held by the EA. The site is located within the catchments of a major licensed abstraction approximately 0.6km to the south; licence number 28/39/43/0019 held by Thames Water Utilities Limited. The groundwater abstracted is used for public supply purposes, with a licensed annual maximum of 8,296,624m3/annum from 6 licensed abstraction points. Another licensed abstraction is found 0.85km to the east-northeast of the site, abstraction licence number TH/039/0044/003 held by the Trustees of National Maritime Museum and used for water supply purposes. The

E.4.2

E.4.3

Page 299

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

Appendix E: Water resources groundwater

licensed volume is unknown. This source abstracts its water from the Chalk. E.4.4 Further details of these licensed abstractions are given below. Table E.5 Groundwater - licensed abstractions in the vicinity of Greenwich PS Licence Number 28/39/43/0019 TH/039/0044/003 Licence Holder Thames Water Trustees of National Maritime Museum Purpose Water Supply Water Supply Aquifer Chalk Chalk Licensed Volume [m3/annum] 8,296,624 Not known

E.4.5 E.4.6

There is no unlicensed groundwater abstractions recorded within a 1 km radius of the site. There are no Ground Source Heat (GSH) schemes, either proposed or under investigation within close proximity to the site.

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 large licensed private abstractions. Figure E.5 Groundwater – SPZ (see Volume 26 Figures document)

E.5.2

The Greenwich PS site straddles SPZs 1 to 3 of a major public water supply abstraction approximately 0.6km distance to the south (Figure E.5). The shaft is to be constructed in SPZ 2. The distance from the shaft location to the boundary of SPZ 1 is less than 80m. This source is in the opposite direction to the direction of groundwater flow expected beneath the site. Consequently, abstraction may impact on the regional groundwater flow direction.

E.6
E.6.1

Other designations
There are no other environmental designations relevant to groundwater in the vicinity of the site.

E.7
E.7.1

Groundwater quality and land quality assessment
The EA monitors groundwater quality at number of points across London. The nearest EA monitoring is at the Greenwich Deepwater Terminal (EA reference number PGWU1888). The distance of this location from the site (approximately 3km) makes it difficult to extrapolate the quality observed at the EA monitoring location. Groundwater monitoring takes place by the EA at Deptford PS Raw (EA reference number PGWU1164) – however, the data for this site has yet to be assessed. Both locations monitor the Chalk

Page 300

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station E.7.2

Appendix E: Water resources groundwater

Table E.6 contains the parameters and the number of occasions that they have breached either, the UK Drinking Water Standards, EQS standards or WHO standards at Greenwich Deepwater Terminal Borehole. The groundwater quality information is available for the period February 2009 to October 2010. Table E.6 Groundwater detections at Greenwich Deepwater Terminal Parameter Ammonia Silver Iron Copper Zinc Chlorfenvinphos Dichlorvos Propetamphos Permethrin Benzo(a)Pyrene Ethenylbenzn Number of detections 4** 3** 1* 2** 2** 2** 2** 5** 1** 2* 1*** Number of samples 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 14 5 2 3

Note: * Above UK Drinking Water Standard; **Above EQS *** Above WHO

E.7.3

As part of the GI, water quality testing was undertaken on a number of water samples taken from boreholes drilled within the site at Greenwich PS. The results from these boreholes are shown below. Table E.7 Groundwater and soil sample quality results Parameter Benzene Nickel PAH 16 Total (Aqueous) Benzo(a)pyrene Extractable Hydrocarbons (C12-C35) Total Hydrocarbons (C5-C35) Units mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/kg mg/kg Concentration 0.01 0.0361 0.00052 27 4200 Standard* 0.001 0.03+ 0.02* 0.03+ 0.0001* 14** 0.01**
*

Ref SR1019 SR1019 SR1019 SR1019 SR1019

mg/kg

4300

0.01**

SR1019

Page 301

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Parameter Benzene Dissolved Copper Total Aliphatics & Aromatics >C12-C44 (Aqueous) Benzo(a)pyrene (Aqueous) Benzene PAH 16 Total (Aqueous) Benzo(a)pyrene Benzene Units mg/l mg/l Concentration 0.01 0.00958

Appendix E: Water resources groundwater Standard* 0.001 0.03+
*

Ref SR1024 SR1024

0.005+

mg/l

16.9

0.01*

PR1023

mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l

0.0000355 0.01 0.00595 0.0001 0.005

0.00001* 0.001* 0.03+ 0.001* 0.00001* 0.001* 0.03+ 0.0005*

PR1023 PR1023 PR1023 SR1018D SR1018D

Total Monohydric mg/l 0.01 Phenols Note * DWS; +EQS; or **LQM E.7.4

SR1018D

Table E.7 shows there are 12 exceedances of the relevant standards for water in groundwater sampling points and 3 exceedances in soil samples at or in close proximity to the site – three approximately 400m to the east (SR1018D, SR1023 and SR1024) and one 300m to the north (SR1019). The exceedances were for Benzene (x4), dissolved Copper (Cu), Benzo(a)pyrene (x3), Nickel (Ni), Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH, x2), Extractable Hydrocarbons (C12-C35), Total Hydrocarbons (C5-C35), Total Aliphatics & Aromatics >C12-C44 and Total Monohydric Phenols. The table contains the measured concentrations and the relevant standard for each of the above substances. 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.7.5

E.8
E.8.1

Groundwater status
In 2009 the baseline results from the river basin management plan showed the status of the Greenwich Tertiaries as poor current quantitative and chemical quality with an upward chemical trend. The predicted quantitative and chemical quality was poor for 2015 due to being disproportionately expensive or technically infeasible.

Page 302

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station E.8.2

Appendix E: Water resources groundwater

In the April 2011 update (EA website 11th May 2011) the results of further investigation referred to a point or diffuse source of pollution and confirmed good status. Table E.8 Groundwater - licensing areas (EA, 2006)

Page 303

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

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 304

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich 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. 2,000–600 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 305

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Term Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy (CAMS) Description

Glossary

The Environment Agency’s 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 borough’s 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 306

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich 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 307

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich 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 EIA’s findings, prepared in accordance with the 2009 Infrastructure Planning EIA Regulations. A limited programme of non–intrusive 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 308

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich 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 309

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station Term hydraulic conductivity Description

Glossary

A constant of proportionality in Darcy’s 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 310

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich 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 State’s 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 Water’s 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 311

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich 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. 700,000–12,000 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 312

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich 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 313

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich 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 Insectsxiv, 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

xiv

Bratton, (1991) Red Data Book for Insects

Page 314

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich 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 315

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich 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 316

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich 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 authority’s 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 317

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich 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 non–archaeological 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 318

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

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)
3 4

LB Greenwich, Personal Communication with John Paterson, March 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
5 6

Defra (2009) Local Air Quality Managemen t- Technical Guidance, LAQM.TG(09).

Greater London Authority and London Councils (2006) Best Practice Guidance: The Control of Dust and Emissions from Construction and Demolition
7 8 9

Defra (2010) Draft National Policy Statement for Waste Water, November 2010. Natural England, www.natureonthemap.co.uk (2011)

Thames Estuary Partnership Biodiversity Action Group (2002) Tidal Thames Habitat Action Plan. London Biodiversity Partnership.
10

Thames Estuary Partnership Biodiversity Action Group (undated) Tidal Thames Habitat Action Plan. Thames Estuary Partnership.
11

Elliott, M. & Hemingway, K. L. (2002). Fishes in Estuaries, London: Blackwell Science. 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.
13 12

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.
14

Bratton, J.H. (ed) (1991). British Red Data Books: 3. Invertebrates other than insects. JNCC, Peterborough.Chadd, R and Extence, C (2004) The conservation of freshwater macroinvertebrate populations: a community based classification scheme.
15

Shirt, D.B. (editor) 1987. British Red Data Books: 2 Insects. Peterborough: Nature Conservancy Council.
16

Bratton, J.H. (ed) (1991). British Red Data Books: 3. Invertebrates other than insects. JNCC, Peterborough.

17

Turnpenny, A.W.H., Clough, S.C., Holden, S.D.J., Bridges, M., Bird, H., O’Keeffe, 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]

Page 319

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

References

Turnpenny, A.W.H., Clough, S.C., Holden, S.D.J., Bridges, M., Bird, H., O’Keeffe, 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]
19

18

Maitland, PS and Hatton-Ellis, TW. (2003) Ecology of the Allis and Twaite Shad. Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers Ecology Series No. 3. English Nature

The Mayor’s Biodiversity Strategy – Connecting with Nature (Great London Authority, July 2002)
21

20

IEEM. Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom. Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2006)
22

Department of Communities and Local Government. Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment (March 2010), 1, 13
23 24 25 26 27 28

Margary ID, Roman Roads in Britain. London (1967), 55 Steele J, Turning the Tide: The History of Everyday Deptford. London (1993), 2 Steele J, Turning the Tide: The History of Everyday Deptford. London (1993), 1 Gaimster M, ‘Saxons in Deptford’ in London Archaeologist 11 (2), (2005), 35 Gaimster M, ‘Saxons in Deptford’ in London Archaeologist 11 (2), (2005), 31–35

Williams A and Martin GH (eds). Domesday, A complete translation. London (1992), 16, 75
29 30

Gaimster M, ‘Saxons in Deptford’ in London Archaeologist 11 (2), (2005), 35

Dixon P, ‘The Tudor Palace at Greenwich’, in Mansel, P. (ed) The Court Historian, 11 (2) (2006), 105–107
31

Cherry B and Pevsner N, The Buildings of England: London 2: South. London, Penguin Books (1983), 254
32

Cheffins RHA, Places of worship in the Triangle: The Greenwich Tabernacle. The Ashburnum Triangle Association (2009)
33

City of London, Information leaflet no. 27: Records of nonconformists in London. London Metropolitan Archives (1999), 2
34 35 36 37

Basil Holmes, The London Burial Grounds (1899) South Western Electricity Historical Society, www.swehs.co.uk London Borough of Greenwich Conservation Area Plan (2008)

English Heritage Understanding historic buildings: a guide to good recording practice. Swindon (2006)
38

English Heritage Understanding historic buildings: a guide to good recording practice. Swindon (2006)
39

English Heritage Understanding historic buildings: a guide to good recording practice. Swindon (2006)

Page 320

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26: Greenwich Pumping Station

References

40

BS5228:2009 Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites
41

Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (2007), London Noise Maps (http://services.defra.gov.uk/wps/portal/noise)
42

BS5228:2009 Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites
43

BS 4142 (1997): Method for rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas
44

British Standards Institution (1997), BS 4142 Method for rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas, British Standards Institution Homes and Communities Agency (HCA). Employment Densities Guide 2nd Edition, 2010
46 47 45

ONS. Commercial and Industrial Property Vacancy Statistics, 2005

EA(2006) Groundwater Quality Review: London Basin Ref. No. GWQR22 [6441R6] November 2006.
48

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
49 50

Thames Tideway Strategic Study, Thames Water, February 2005

Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk Practice Guide. Communities and Local Government (Dec 2009)
51

Thames Estuary 2100 Flood Risk Management Plan. Environment Agency. (Accessed Feb 2011) http://www.environmentagency.gov.uk/research/library/consultations/106100.aspx.)
52

The London Plan Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London. Greater London Authority (Jul 2011)
53

Thames Gateway London Partnership Strategic Flood Risk Assessment of East London. Entec UK Ltd in collaboration with JBA (Jun 2005).
54 55

Thames Estuary 2100 Flood Risk Management Plan. Environment Agency,

Thames Region Catchment Flood Management Plan Summary Report. Environment Agency (Jan 2007)
56 57

London Regional Flood Risk Appraisal. Greater London Authority (Oct 2009)

Thames Tidal Defences Joint Probability Extreme Water Levels 2008 Final Modelling Report. Environment Agency (Apr 2008) (Thames Barrier operational, Model Node 2.42).
58

The Mayor’s Draft Water Strategy. Mayor of London. Greater London Authority (Aug 2009)
59

TT (2010) Ground Investigation LTT-Thames Tunnel-NESR to Beckton Phase 1 Volume 2 (Project no: F1541). EA (2010) Management of London Basin Chalk Aquifer. Status Report 2010.

60

Page 321

Preliminary environmental information report

Thames Tunn
110-RG-ENV-PGH4X-000034

Phase two consultation (Autumn 2011)

For further information see our website: www.thamestunnelconsultation.co.uk or call us on 0800 0721 086

Thames Tunn

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful