110 RG PNC S01LM 000610

Autumn 2011
Site suitability report S01LM

Convoys Wharf
Please note: Further details are provided in the Final Report on Site Selection Process (doc ref: 7.05) that can be found on the Thames Tideway Tunnel section of the Planning Inspectorates web site.
110-RG-PNC-S01LM-000610 | Autumn 2011

Convoys Wharf
Site suitability report S01LM Convoys Wharf
Thames Tunnel Site suitability report S01LM

List of contents
Page number
Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 Purpose and structure of the report ......................................................... 1 Background ............................................................................................. 1 Consultation............................................................................................. 2 Site and surroundings .............................................................................. 2 Type of site .............................................................................................. 3
Site information ................................................................................................ 2 2.1 2.2
3 4
Proposed use of site construction phase ................................................... 3 Proposed use of site operational phase ..................................................... 4 4.1 4.2 Operational requirements ........................................................................ 4 Restoration and after-use ........................................................................ 4 Access ..................................................................................................... 5 Construction works considerations .......................................................... 5 Permanent works considerations............................................................. 6 Health and safety..................................................................................... 6 Introduction .............................................................................................. 6 Planning applications and permissions.................................................... 6 Planning context ...................................................................................... 6 Planning comments ................................................................................. 9 Introduction ............................................................................................ 11 Transport ............................................................................................... 11 Archaeology........................................................................................... 11 Built heritage and townscape................................................................. 11 Water resources hydrogeology and surface water ............................. 12 Ecology .................................................................................................. 12 Flood risk ............................................................................................... 12 Air quality ............................................................................................... 12
Engineering assessment ................................................................................. 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4
Planning assessment ...................................................................................... 6 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4
Environmental appraisal ............................................................................... 11 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8
7.9 7.10 8 8.1 8.2 8.3 9 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 10 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 10.7
Noise ..................................................................................................... 13 Land quality ........................................................................................... 13 Introduction ............................................................................................ 13 Socio-economic profile .......................................................................... 13 Issues and impacts ................................................................................ 14 Introduction ............................................................................................ 15 Crown land and special land comments ................................................ 15 Land to be acquired ............................................................................... 16 Property valuation comments ................................................................ 16 Disturbance compensation comments................................................... 16 Discretionary purchase costs comments ............................................... 16 Offsite statutory compensation comments ............................................. 17 Site acquisition cost assessment ........................................................... 17 Introduction ............................................................................................ 17 Engineering ........................................................................................... 17 Planning................................................................................................. 17 Environment .......................................................................................... 18 Socio-economic and community ............................................................ 18 Property ................................................................................................. 18 Next steps in the site selection process................................................. 19
Socio-economic and community assessment............................................. 13
Property assessment ..................................................................................... 15
Site conclusions by discipline ...................................................................... 17
Appendices ............................................................................................................. 21 Appendix 1 Sources of information Appendix 2 Site location plan Appendix 3 Planning and environment plans Appendix 4 Photographs of the site and surroundings Appendix 5 Transport plan Appendix 6 Services and geology plan Appendix 7 Construction phase layout Appendix 8 Operational phase layout Appendix 9 Environmental appraisal tables
ii
List of tables
Page number
Table 3.1 Construction phase data ............................................................................ 4
List of abbreviations AOD BAP BT CPO CSO DLR EA GLA HGV LNR LPA LU m MOL ONS ORN PLA POS PTAL SAM SINC SNCI SSR SSSI SUDS TfL TD TLRN above Ordnance Datum biodiversity action plan British Telecom compulsory purchase order combined sewer overflow Docklands Light Railway Environment Agency Greater London Authority heavy goods vehicle local nature reserve local planning authority London Underground metre/metres Metropolitan Open Land Office of National Statistics Olympic Route Network Port of London Authority public open space public transport accessibility level scheduled ancient monument site of importance for nature conservation site(s) of nature conservation importance site suitability report site(s) of special scientific interest sustainable urban drainage systems Transport for London tunnel datum Transport for London Road Network
iii
TPA UDP UXO
Thames Policy Area unitary development plan unexploded ordnance
iv
1 1.1
1.1.1
Introduction Purpose and structure of the report

The Site selection methodology paper (May 2009 and revised August 2011) a outlines the process to be used to create the preferred list of main tunnel sites, and this process also applies to CSO sites. Paragraph 2.3.31 lists the type of general considerations that will be addressed in each site suitability report. Whether a consideration is relevant to the assessment of a site will depend on available information and professional judgement. This report was prepared through the assessment of information from the perspective of a number of technical disciplines: engineering, planning, environment, property and community. The reports have been prepared on the basis of the information listed in Appendix 1 and this level of information is considered to be appropriate to this stage of assessment. The Site selection background technical paper provides information on the requirements for different types of sites, their sizes and typical activities/ facilities within the sites. Each site suitability report considers a particular site on its own merits. In addition, an Engineering options report was produced, which relates to main tunnel and connection tunnel options. Information from both of these reports will feed into the technical assessment of how well the site may fit in with tunnel design options, ensuring combinations of sites spread across the length of the tunnel route provide a reasonable spatial distribution of sites (that will best assist with the construction of the tunnel, operation and maintenance). The outcomes are reported in the Phase two scheme development report.
1.1.2
1.1.3
1.1.4
1.2
1.2.1
Background
The process for selecting sites is set out in the Site selection methodology paper. All sites have previously passed through the following parts of Stage 1: Part 1A Creation of the long list of potential main tunnel (and CSO) sites Part 1B Creation of a short list of potential main tunnel (and CSO) sites o o o Table 2.2: Long list of main tunnel (and CSO) sites an assessment against set considerations and values Table 2.3: Draft short list of main tunnel (and CSO) sites assessment against a list of more detailed considerations Workshops to consider each site to arrive at a short list of sites.
The amendments made in August 2011 do not change the site selection methodology process. The amendments only related to the introduction of a second phase of consultation (paragraphs 2.3.13-2.4.15) and minor factual updates.
Page 1
Site suitability report S01LM 1.2.2 The final part of Stage 1 includes this report. The following is an overall summary of all elements that apply to all the sites on the final short list: Part 1C Creation of the preferred list of main tunnel (and CSO) sites site data, site visits, site suitability reports, engineering options report and optioneering workshops that are reported in the Phase two scheme development report.
1.2.3
The Site selection methodology paper also contains a provision for a back-check process in paragraph 2.5.6 that states: If any sites for any of the main tunnel sites or intermediate sites (or CSO site) are eliminated for any reason, if there are significant changes of circumstances in relation to existing sites or combinations of sites, if new or replacement sites are required or found or if the engineering design develops in unexpected ways then a targeted repeat of stages 1-3 will need to be undertaken in order to fill in any site gaps.
1.3
1.3.1
Consultation
Thames Waters approach to engagement and consultation for the Thames Tunnel project is outlined in the Statement of Community Consultation and the accompanying Community Consultation Strategy. Thames Water has engaged regularly with all potentially affected London local authorities, other stakeholders and interested parties on sites and the project. Phase one consultation has been completed for all the preferred and shortlisted sites along with the three main tunnel route options. The analysis of the consultation responses is set out in the Report on phase one consultation and Interim engagement report. Any relevant site comments were considered at the post phase one consultation optioneering workshops. The outcomes of these workshops are reported in the Phase two scheme development report. After the workshops, engagement on sites has continued with key stakeholders, and the engineering design for sites has also continued in parallel. In autumn 2011, phase two consultation will provide another opportunity for people to comment on sites.
1.3.2
2 2.1
2.1.1
Site information Site and surroundings

This section provides an overview of all the site information that will be used by one or more disciplines to assess the site in sections 3 to 9 of this report. Site S01LM, known as Convoys Wharf, is a large site consisting of industrial buildings and warehouses, located at the junction of Leeway and Grove Street in the London Borough of Lewisham, close to its boundary with the London Borough of Greenwich. A site location plan is attached as Appendix 2. The surrounding area is primarily residential, with some two- and three-storey residential properties orientated towards the site, along its
2.1.2
2.1.3
Page 2
Site suitability report S01LM southeast, northwest and southwest boundaries. The Pepys Estate is also adjacent to the site to the north and west, with several five- to six-storey blocks of flats to the west, some of which are likely to overlook the site. Recently constructed residential flats, some of which are 11 storeys high, also lie to the north, adjoining Leeway. 2.1.4 Pepys Park, part of Pepys Estate, is adjacent to the site to the northwest. The park has areas of open space, with paths and a playground. The park is also adjacent to the River Thames, which bounds Convoys Wharf to the northeast. To the north of Pepys Park, there is a 25-storey tower block. Lewisham council has recently made improvements to the park, including new landscaping and exercise facilities. The site is covered by various planning and environment designations in the London Borough of Lewisham Core Strategy (2011) and saved policies in the Lewisham Unitary Development Plan (2004). All the mapped designations, where data was available, are shown on the planning and environment plans in Appendix 3. Photographs of the site and surroundings, together with an aerial photograph of the site, are attached as Appendix 4. The site can be accessed by road from Leeway, via Grove Street. The site is 0.3km from the A200 and 1.2km from the A2. Deptford rail station is less than 1km from the site. South Bermondsey rail station is approximately 2km away. There are existing wharfage/jetty facilities serving this site. A transport plan for the site is attached as Appendix 5. Third-party assets and significant utilities are listed below and are shown on the services and geology plan in Appendix 6: 2.1.10 Convoys Wharf industrial buildings are within the site Landing stage and slipway into the river.
2.1.5 2.1.6
2.1.7 2.1.8
2.1.9
The locations of other third-party assets, such as BT and fibre optic communication cables, are to be confirmed by further studies and utility searches and may not be shown on the services and geology plan. Information on the geology specific to this site can be found within the services and geology plan, which is in Appendix 6. This plan shows that the shaft would be founded in the Chalk.
2.1.11
2.2
2.2.1
Type of site
The site S01LM is being considered as an intermediate site to drive a connection tunnel to connect three CSOs (Greenwich Pumping Station [CS33X], Deptford Storm Relief [CS32X] and Earl Pumping Station [CS31X]) to the main tunnel.
3
3.1.1
Proposed use of site construction phase

The proposed construction phase layout for the main tunnel site is located in Appendix 7 Construction phase layout, and is based on a preliminary assessment.
Page 3
Site suitability report S01LM 3.1.2 The construction phase layout drawing is illustrative and shows: 3.1.3 the layout as connection tunnel drive site potential access points.
This drawing provides an initial preliminary schematic layout that has not been optimised. If the site proceeds to the next stage as a preferred site, construction phase layouts would be optimised to minimise impacts. Drawings of typical activities associated with the shaft construction phase are provided in Appendix 7. Potential above-ground construction features (dependent on shaft type) include: approximately 3m high hoarding around the site boundary welfare facilities, temporary structures, approximately 3m high grout plant, approximately 3m to 5m high, including silos mobile crane, approximately 30m high gantry crane, approximately 8m high.
3.1.4
3.1.5
Preliminary data associated with the construction phase are provided in Table 3.1. Table 3.1 Construction phase data Activity Length of construction period Likely working hours, ie, (night/day/weekend) Working days Primary means of transporting excavated material away from site Primary means of transporting materials to site Connection tunnel drive site 4 to 5 years 24 hours Mon to Sun River Road
4 4.1
4.1.1 4.1.2
Proposed use of site operational phase Operational requirements

This site would only be used for the construction of the connection tunnel and no permanent operational structures would be required. The shaft would be backfilled and capped off below ground.
4.2
4.2.1
Restoration and after-use

The site would be restored to its original condition on completion of the construction works. If any buildings were demolished, these would not be reinstated unless required.
Page 4
5 5.1
5.1.1
Engineering assessment Access

This section should be read in conjunction with Section 7.2.
Road
5.1.2 During the construction phase, the access road would be directly from the existing access from Grove Street.
Rail
5.1.3 There would be no rail network local to this site. Deptford rail station would be less than 1km from the site. South Bermondsey rail station would be approximately 2km away.
River
5.1.4 The site would be adjacent to the river, with possible access to an existing landing stage and slipway. By inspection, these facilities are substantial and it is possible that they could be used for construction work (with or without modification) as long as the access point could be connected to the site area by a short haul road. Recent work has been undertaken on the jetty. However, for the purpose of this report, a worst case has been adopted and indicative new layouts have been shown. As indicated, these would require the removal of part of the existing facilities, although the more detailed design would minimise this impact as much as possible. If the existing facilities can be used in full or part, this would be beneficial. There is a line of what appear to be three small mooring bollards opposite the northernmost corner of the site and alongside potential jetty locations indicated. However, it appears that these would not be impinged on by the construction traffic. There would also be an impact on river usage/navigation. It would be necessary for this to be examined in detail in the form of a specific risk assessment (including modelling of barge movements), which would require discussions with and approval of the PLA.
5.1.5
5.2
5.2.1 5.2.2
Construction works considerations

Demolition of some of the Convoys Wharf industrial buildings would be required. Data available on third-party assets and significant utilities show that the main items in this area of concern would be the wharfage and jetty facilities (if retained), any buildings in the site area not demolished and the river wall. Construction methods would be adopted, as appropriate, to mitigate potential settlement of these assets. It is likely that the proposed works can be constructed within the overall construction programme.
5.2.3
Page 5
5.3
5.3.1
Permanent works considerations

There would be no permanent works at this site.
5.4
5.4.1
Health and safety

There are no unusual health and safety issues with this site.
6 6.1
6.1.1
Planning assessment Introduction

The planning assessment builds on the advantages and disadvantages reported in Table 2.3 and covers the following areas: Planning applications and permissions Planning context Planning comments.
6.2
6.2.1
Planning applications and permissions

An initial desktop search of the London Borough of Lewisham online planning applications database identified the following planning application submitted within the last five years applicable to the site: An outline application, reference DC/02/52533/X, was submitted in 2002 but a decision is still outstanding. The application proposed a mixed-use development of 3,514 residential units (classes C2 and C3), up to 72,730m2 of employment space, 6,945m2 retail (classes A1 and A2), up to 3,370m2 restaurants and bars (Class A3/A4), up to 23,320m2 cultural and community uses (Class D1), up to 2,700m2 leisure (Class D2) and provision of up to 2,318 car parking spaces, together with revised vehicular access from Grove Street and New King Street. We understand from Lewisham councils website that a revised application was submitted in October 2010 for the comprehensive redevelopment of the site to provide a mixed-use development of up to 445,200m2, comprising up to 337,980m2 residential (Class C3), up to 19,100m2 business (Class B1/live work units) and storage/distribution (Class B8), including up to 2,200m2 for three potential energy centres, a river bus facility, a wharf with associated vessel moorings (32,500m2), up to 6,400m2 shops (Class A1) and financial and professional services (Class A2), and up to 4,520m2 restaurant. A decision on this application is still pending.
6.2.2
6.3
6.3.1
Planning context
The current planning policy context for the site is provided from the London Borough of Lewisham Core Strategy, adopted in June 2011, saved policies in the Lewisham Unitary Development Plan, adopted in July 2004, and the London Plan, adopted July 2011. The planning designations and policies that are applicable to the site are detailed below. The site is designated as a strategic site in the London Borough of Lewisham Core Strategy. The site is allocated for mixed-use development
6.3.2
Page 6
Site suitability report S01LM which satisfactorily addresses the protected wharf status of part of the site. The redevelopment should comprise approximately 20 per cent mixed business space, approximately 3,500 dwellings and a mix of retail, restaurant, food and drink uses, tourism, heritage and leisure uses. 6.3.3 The site is also a designated mixed use employment location (MEL) in Core Strategy Policy 4, and lies to the east of Oxtalls Road MEL. The council requires comprehensive redevelopment of these locations, with at least 20 per cent of the build floorspace for employment uses. The site is a safeguarded wharf. Policy 7.26 of the London Plan (2011) states that safeguarded wharves should be protected and only used for waterborne freight-handling use. The redevelopment of safeguarded wharves for other land uses should only be accepted if the wharf is no longer viable or capable of being viable for waterborne freight-handling. Development next to or opposite safeguarded wharves should be designed to minimise potential conflicts of use or disturbance. The site is located within the Thameside Policy Area. This is a large designation, extending beyond the site into the river Saved UDP Policy URB24, Thames Policy Area, states that the council will seek a high quality of design, respecting the special character of the river within the designated Thameside Policy Area shown on the proposals map. Proposals which involve encroachment into the River Thames and its foreshore will be resisted. Thameside proposals should examine opportunities to retreat the flood defence to increase flood storage, wildlife and aesthetic value, and visual connections with the river. The site is located wholly within a wider Archaeological Priority Area and there is a scheduled ancient monument located within the site. Core Strategy Policy 16 requires that the value and significance of the boroughs heritage assets are preserved and enhanced. This also includes listed buildings, of which there are a number located within and adjacent to the site. These are detailed below: 6.3.8 Olympia Warehouse, Convoy (Grade II) Office Building, Convoys Wharf (Grade II) Master Shipwrights Apartment (Grade II) Gate Piers to Former Naval Dockyard, adjacent to site (Grade II) Paynes Wharf, adjacent to site (Grade II) Boundary wall to Convoys Wharf, adjacent to site (Grade II) Cast Iron Bollard at Junction with Watergate Street, adjacent to site (Grade II).
6.3.4
6.3.5 6.3.6
6.3.7
A number of these buildings are locally listed. Saved Policy URB20, Locally Listed Buildings, states that the council will seek to ensure and encourage the preservation and enhancement of locally listed buildings of townscape merit, and will use its powers where possible to protect their character and setting.
Page 7
Site suitability report S01LM 6.3.9 Core Strategy Spatial Policy 1, Core Strategy Policy 12, and Unitary Development Plan Policy OS7, Other Open Space: The site lies adjacent to Pepys Park to the northwest and Sayes Court Park to the west. Both sites are designated public open space (POS) and are either wholly or partially designated as a site of nature conservation importance (site of borough importance Grade 2). Core Strategy Spatial Policy 1 states that open space and sites of importance for nature conservation will be protected, and a net gain of open space across the borough will be sought, particularly through onsite provision. These provisions are amplified in Core Strategy Policy 12, which also seeks to protect the character of open spaces, and to ensure that there is no adverse effect on their use, management, amenity or enjoyment from inappropriate built development. Unitary Development Plan Policy OS7 states the council will resist development that would adversely affect the amenity of open space and its open character or appearance though inappropriate scale. The council may make an exception to this where development is ancillary to open space, where it facilitates access to open space, and where provision can be made nearby for replacement open space of equal or better quality and size. The site lies within an area identified in the Unitary Development Plan as deficient in open space. While Policy OS8 on this matter has not been saved, it is likely that the area will still be considered deficient in open space by the council, and this will be reflected and reinforced in future policies. It is also therefore likely that the council will resist the loss of, and seek enhancements to, open space within such areas. The site lies in close proximity to a large number of dwellings, and the proposed construction activities would take place close to dwellings to the northwest of the site. Saved UDP Policy HSG4 states that the council seeks to improve and safeguard the amenities of residential areas throughout the borough by ensuring development incompatible with residential use is not located close to residential areas. The site is also adjacent to several Greenwich Unitary Development Plan (adopted July 2006) designations, such as archaeologically important areas, community open space, and a site of nature conservation importance. According to Policy D31, Archaeology, at identified sites of known archaeological remains of national importance, including scheduled monuments, there will be a presumption in favour of the physical preservation of the remains in situ, and to allow for public access and display, and to preserve their settings. For sites of lesser importance, the council will seek to preserve the remains in situ but where this is not feasible, the remains should either be investigated, excavated and removed from the site, or be investigated, excavated and recorded before destruction. Appropriate conditions/legal agreements may be used to ensure this is satisfied. Policy OS7, Community Open Space, states that public and private open space areas defined as community open space on the proposals map will
6.3.10
6.3.11
6.3.12
6.3.13
6.3.14
6.3.15
Page 8
Site suitability report S01LM be safeguarded from built development. New buildings and extensions to existing buildings will only be permitted where they are ancillary to the existing land use, are limited in size and extent, sensitively sited, and are compatible with neighbouring development. Changes of use of existing buildings in ancillary use will be considered in the light of Policy O1. Where existing built development within parks and public open spaces becomes surplus to demand, the council may allow the sites to be redeveloped for specialist sporting development (which combine the use of outdoor and indoor space), subject to the criteria set out in Policy O1. 6.3.16 According to Policy OS18, The Identification and Protection of Wildlife Sites, a network of sites of nature conservation importance (SNCI) throughout the borough has been identified for protection. This includes sites of special scientific interest (SSSI) and sites declared as local nature reserves (LNR). These sites are defined on the proposals map and listed in Table O2 as sites of metropolitan, borough or local importance for nature conservation or geology. There will be a presumption against the development of these sites that the level of protection accorded to a site will be commensurate with its designation. Conservation and enhancement of important scientific features will be sought by appropriate management. Policy O19 states that where development is proposed on sites adjacent to protected sites of nature conservation importance, applicants must demonstrate that habitats will not be adversely affected. Policy E1 seeks to safeguard the amenity of existing residential uses by not permitting development where it would have a significant adverse effect on the amenities of adjacent occupiers or users, especially where pollutants or grit proposals would be likely to result in the unacceptable emission of odours, fumes, dust, water and soil.
6.3.17
6.3.18
6.4
6.4.1
Planning comments
A number of planning and environmental designations are applicable both on and adjacent to the site from the London Borough of Lewisham and London Borough of Greenwich local development plans. These designations have been identified and described in Section 6.3. From these designations, those relating to the Thames Policy Area, strategic sites, mixed-use employment locations, protected wharves, nature conservation, open space, residential amenity and heritage are of most relevance to the proposed development. Following the lack of formal determination of the planning application for comprehensive redevelopment of the site, the current status of development proposals is uncertain. Convoys Wharf is a prominent site within Lewisham, occupying the majority of the boroughs river frontage. The borough council has identified the site as an area for redevelopment in its Core Strategy. However, the GLA did not provide a decision on the original redevelopment application due to the loss of protected wharfage facilities proposed by the application. The Thames Tunnel project may retain and make use of existing wharf facilities at the site and therefore comply with the safeguarding policy in
6.4.2
6.4.3
Page 9
Site suitability report S01LM the London Plan. It is also possible that due to the extensive site size, the remaining site area could be redeveloped for alternative uses during the tunnel construction phase, and therefore not significantly delay or compromise the redevelopment of a significant portion of the wider site. On the completion of the tunnel works, the remaining site area may then be incorporated into a redevelopment scheme the only permanent operational infrastructure will be the underground shaft. 6.4.4 There are a number of listed buildings within the wider Convoys Wharf site, and a scheduled monument also lies within the site. The proposed shaft and temporary working areas are sited away from the scheduled monument and most of the listed buildings, with the exception of the Grade II listed Gate Piers to Former Naval Dockyard. Should we select this site, we would have to look in more detail at the access to ensure physical impacts on this listed structure can be avoided. Suitable mitigation should reduce potential impacts on visual amenity and setting, and therefore meet the listed building policy requirements. As the site is within an archaeology priority area, suitable investigation and remediation works would need to be agreed with the LPA in accordance with Core Strategy Policy 16. A further appraisal of the archaeological potential on the site is provided in Section 7. Mitigation for the visual impacts of the development should also meet the requirements of the Thames Policy Area designation. It may be appropriate to relocate proposed jetties, which overhang across the Pepys Park river frontage, to avoid obscuring views and impacting on the appearance of the park from the river. This may further the argument for utilising the existing jetties at Convoys Wharf. Proximity to the residential areas around Pepys Park is a concern. In planning terms, it would be preferable to locate the construction site further southeast within Convoys Wharf to increase the separation distances. General mitigation measures are likely to be required in any case to avoid adverse impacts from noise, dust and increased traffic movements. The control of construction working hours to those regularly operated with residential areas may also be required. Furthermore, the existing layout positions the nearest construction activity at approximately 9m from the boundary of Pepys Park. Appropriate mitigation would be required and, if possible, increasing this separation distance would also be desirable to reduce potential construction impacts resulting from noise and dust. The site is adjacent to a site of nature conservation interest designation, which covers the entire River Thames and also the same designation within Pepys Park. Given the extensive nature of this designation, and the purpose of the Thames Tunnel project to improve the environmental condition of the river, with appropriate mitigation measures, it is unlikely that this designation would be unacceptably impacted on. However, the use of material conveyors and jetties within the river and the potential impact of these may require further assessment. This is considered further in Section 7.
6.4.5
6.4.6
6.4.7
6.4.8
6.4.9
Page 10
7 7.1
7.1.1
Environmental appraisal Introduction

The following sections summarise specialist assessments which are provided in Appendix 9 Environmental appraisal tables.
7.2
7.2.1
Transport
The site is suitable for use as a connection tunnel site. The temporary construction access would use an existing access onto Grove Street, requiring some minor kerb works and the removal of the speed hump close to the access. A route to the strategic road network is possible, requiring the removal of speed humps for accessing the TLRN (A2), which is also restricted by a rail bridge with height restriction on Deptford Church Street. River access is available on site. The route to rail access point at the East London Line depot is unsuitable, encountering two height-restricted bridges, on-street parking and speed humps, which would require removal. There is poor public transport access to site. Some parking could be provided on site for the workforce, and on-street parking without restriction is available nearby. Approximately ten parking bays will be displaced from the residential car park. Temporary traffic signals should be considered as the temporary access is located close to the existing junction.
7.2.2
7.2.3
7.3
7.3.1
Archaeology
The site is less suitable as a connection tunnel site as the site currently has several records of archaeological remains being present, including a potentially important peat horizon close to the proposed shaft site. Previous investigations in the area provide an indication of the nature and extent of archaeological receptors but full potential cannot be confidently predicted. With the currently available information, it is likely that archaeological receptors of high or medium value are present within this site but archaeologically sensitive design may enable development to proceed with less risk. Based on current information, the planned location of the site coincides with an area of probable post-medieval disturbance. Given confirmation of the disturbance through further research, adjustment of the location to lessen impact on remains makes this site potentially suitable.
7.3.2
7.4
7.4.1
Built heritage and townscape

From a built heritage perspective, this site is suitable as a connection tunnel site. The proposed site falls within the visual envelope of a number of listed buildings and may result in one direct impact on one listed building. However, any adverse impacts could be mitigated by avoiding demolition of the gate piers or using a high-quality design and, where necessary, additional screening to protect the setting of the identified listed buildings.
Page 11
Site suitability report S01LM 7.4.2 From a townscape perspective and in visual terms, this site is considered suitable as a connection tunnel site. This is because it reuses an existing industrial site that is partially screened and enclosed by a tall brick wall from neighbouring residences.
7.5
7.5.1
Water resources hydrogeology and surface water

In terms of hydrogeology, this site is suitable as a connection tunnel site because although construction of the shaft will take place within Chalk (principal aquifer), the site does not lie within total catchment zones of licensed abstractions. No long-term impact on the Chalk aquifer is expected, although dewatering of the Chalk and superficial deposits will be required during the construction phase. The Chalk piezometric head is likely to be approximately 44m above the base of construction and should be taken into account in the engineering design. In terms of surface water resources, this site is suitable as a connection tunnel site because it lies behind flood defences and there is no direct pathway to the River Thames for pollution, although standard mitigation would be required. However, should barge transport be used for materials, specific mitigation may be required for the impacts of jetties on the foreshore. Mitigation would also be required to prevent pollution, as any work within the foreshore would present a direct pathway to the river.
7.5.2
7.6
7.6.1
Ecology
The site is less suitable as a connection tunnel site because land-take is required for jetties in the foreshore and river. Land-take from the foreshore may require sensitive working practices and some compensatory provision, and negotiation with the EA is likely to be required. However, the amount of new development on the foreshore or within the river is small and temporary compared with surrounding structures. Ecological surveys will be required in order to determine whether bat roosts and reptiles are present. Previous studies indicate that the site may support a significant proportion of Londons black redstart population. Should this be confirmed through additional studies, mitigation (including restricting noisy or visually disturbing works to the period from September to February) is likely to be required.
7.6.2
7.7
7.7.1
Flood risk
This site is suitable as a connection tunnel site. There is space on site for SUDS, although an investigation would be required to determine if the site is suitable for infiltration SUDS. In addition, although the site is within Flood Zone 3 greater than a one in 200-year risk of flooding it is defended to the one in 1,000-year flood level.
7.8
7.8.1
Air quality
The site is less suitable as a connection tunnel site. There are residential properties in close proximity to the site and therefore there is potential for
Page 12
Site suitability report S01LM fugitive emissions of dust during construction to have a perceptible impact at these properties. These impacts can be minimised with standard dust control measures. There is potential for HGV movements on the local road network to cause localised air quality impacts in areas of already poor air quality. However, this can be somewhat mitigated by minimising the movement of HGVs during peak hours.
7.9
7.9.1
Noise
This site is considered less suitable as a connection tunnel site. The distance between the shaft location and the nearest residential receptors is short and therefore noise impacts will be high. The number of vehicles associated with the construction phase is also likely to cause an adverse noise impact to properties located on Leeway and Grove Street. Perimeter hoarding will reduce the potential noise impact but will be relatively ineffective at shielding noise from the upper floor properties. If this option is pursued, it is recommended that noisy construction activities, or activities which may cause vibration, be undertaken during daytime hours only to reduce the noise impact during night-time construction.
7.9.2
7.10
7.10.1
Land quality
The site is considered less suitable as a connection tunnel site, based on the significant potential for contamination of the site to have occurred, specifically from the dockyard operations, cattle market and gasworks on site and wharf operations, oil industry and foundry works in the vicinity of the site. This potentially poses a risk to construction workers and adjacent human receptors through direct contact and inhalation exposure pathways.
7.10.2
8 8.1
8.1.1
Socio-economic and community assessment Introduction

The socio-economic and community assessment builds on the advantages and disadvantages reported in Table 2.3 and covers the following areas: Socio-economic profile Socio-economic and community issues and impacts.
8.2
8.2.1
Socio-economic profile
The site is located in Evelyn Ward of the London borough of Lewisham. Statistics from the Office of National Statistics (ONS) 2001 Census data show the following indicators for Evelyn Ward, in comparison to the rest of Lewisham, London and England as a whole: Evelyn ward has 6,000 dwellings with 14,512 people living there, and the population is 30.7 years old on average. The ward has a relatively high proportion of economically inactive people who look after their homes, are permanently sick or disabled,
Page 13
Site suitability report S01LM or have other reasons. It also has a high rate of unemployed people at 8.1 per cent, as compared to 5.6 per cent for the borough, 4.4 per cent for London and 3.5 per cent for England. Correspondingly, the percentage of people with no qualifications is a few percentage points higher than Lewisham, London and England, at 29 per cent, while the proportion of people with Level 4 or higher qualifications is relatively low by the same comparators. Local authority housing tenant households in the ward form 58 per cent of the population, which is more than double the proportion of such households in the borough and more than three times the London figure. Housing association homes also form a relatively high proportion. A majority of people consider themselves to be Christian. The Muslim population of the ward, at 7 per cent, is relatively higher than Lewisham and England averages, but is comparable to the London average.
8.2.2
These statistics show that the ward has a relatively high concentration of vulnerable people in terms of health and disability, as well as socio-economic status. A more mixed ethnic profile than the rest of the borough indicates the existence of pockets of black and minority ethnic (BAME) households in the ward. Low skill levels and high unemployment figures may mean that construction jobs would be welcome in this area.
8.3
8.3.1
Issues and impacts

This site is being assessed as an intermediate site to drive a connection tunnel to connect the Greenwich Pumping Station, Earl Pumping Station and Deptford Storm Relief CSOs to the main tunnel. Given the proposed construction plans for use of the site, the greatest impact from a community perspective appears likely to be on the residential properties located in close proximity to the shaft and users of the park located to the north. The area surrounding the site is predominantly residential in nature, and there are terraced houses adjacent and opposite the proposed shaft which appear likely to face major disruption. There are also a number of large two- and three-storey residential properties opposite the site to the southwest which are likely to have a direct view of the works. The large Pepys Estate is also adjacent to the site to the north and west, with several five- to six-storey blocks of flats to the west, some of which are likely to overlook the site. Recently constructed residential flats, some of which are 11 storeys high, also lie to the north. Pepys Park, which is located to the north of the site, may face major disruption from the shaft site works. A childrens play area on Pepys Park is located immediately adjacent to the excavation materials and slurry processing area, which may discourage parents from allowing the childrens use of the playground. The rest of Pepys Park is also likely to face disruption to its relatively tranquil nature, which is likely to be highly
8.3.2
8.3.3
8.3.4
8.3.5
Page 14
Site suitability report S01LM valued within an amenity space in this densely built up part of the borough. The location of one of the jetties, which runs in front of the park, may add to the disruption to park users. In addition, Lewisham council has recently made improvements to the park, including new landscaping and exercise facilities 8.3.6 The roads in the immediate vicinity of the site are narrow and residential in nature, so there may be further disruption to residents caused by vehicles accessing the site.
9 9.1
9.1.1 9.1.2
Property assessment Introduction

This report builds on the advantages and disadvantages in Table 2.3 and the assessment provides more up-to-date information. The site, known as Convoys Wharf, has a variety of non-residential buildings on site. The site is owned by Convoys Investment.
9.2
9.2.1 9.2.2
Crown land and special land comments

The site is mainly owned by Convoys Investment SARL, which appears to be a subsidiary of Hutchison Whampoa Properties (Europe). There is a leasehold interest held by the Office of the Lord High Admiral of the United Kingdom which is Crown land and cannot be compulsorily purchased. The title plans for both the Lord High Admiral and for Convoys Investment SARL indicate that the land needed for site is within the Convoys Investment title and therefore there should be no Crown land acquisition difficulties. The foreshore and riverbed, which would be needed for conveyors and jetties, are likely to be owned by the Crown or PLA. Crown land cannot be compulsorily purchased. Therefore, there is a risk that this land cannot be acquired. PLA land can be compulsorily purchased, but a compulsory acquisition that is opposed by the PLA will create risk. The foreshore is not easily accessible by the public and does not appear to be used by the public. Therefore, it is unlikely to be considered open space for the purpose of S.131 of the Planning Act 2008. If the site is considered to be special land, a special parliamentary procedure would then be required unless exchange land is provided or the site is smaller than 200 square metres. Alternatively, it may be possible to avoid including land acquisition powers and instead rely on the PLA licensing regime. If temporary works powers only are required, this would not amount to land acquisition and the issue would not arise. Contact should be made with the owner as soon as possible to establish if an acquisition can be agreed.
9.2.3
9.2.4
9.2.5
9.2.6
Page 15
9.3
9.3.1
Land to be acquired
The compensation assessment assumes that the worksite would be acquired temporarily via the acquisition of new rights for the period of the works stated in the engineering section above. Temporary rights of way to the worksite across Convoys Wharf would also be required. This site would only be used for the construction of the connection tunnel, and no permanent operational structures would be required. The shaft would be backfilled and capped off below ground. A permanent right of way, taken from the site boundary at the junction of Millard Road and Leeway to enable access to the above freehold areas, would also be required.
9.3.2 9.3.3
9.3.4
9.4
9.4.1
Property valuation comments

An outline application for the comprehensive redevelopment of Convoys Wharf was submitted in 2002 but has not yet been decided. The application proposes a mixed-use development of up to 447,000 square metres comprising 3,500 residential units, employment space, retail, restaurants/bars, cultural/community uses, leisure and car parking. It therefore appears that the site has significant development potential. The buildings on site appear to be vacant and compensation has therefore been assessed on a development value basis. The temporary acquisition of the worksite has been assessed based on deferred development value and is likely to be acceptable. Compensation has been assessed assuming no diminution in value to other land owned by SARL. There is a risk that acquisition costs could be significantly higher than currently estimated if noise and dust from works resulted in a diminution in value to the balance of the site, prevented development of the rest of the Convoys Wharf site and/or the site becomes occupied. Compensation for foreshore and riverbed required for jetties has been assessed in line with industrial land values, assuming flood compensation land will be required. In addition, an allowance for a one-off payment to the Crown or PLA has been made, although this is difficult to assess at this stage.
9.4.2
9.4.3
9.4.4
9.5
9.5.1
Disturbance compensation comments

As the buildings on site appear vacant, there should be no significant disturbance compensation cost. However, if the buildings become occupied, significant disturbance compensation could become payable, which could be high.
9.6
9.6.1
Discretionary purchase costs comments

There is some potential for discretionary purchase costs associated with residential properties located immediately north of the site.
Page 16
9.7
9.7.1
Offsite statutory compensation comments

There should be limited potential for offsite statutory compensation under Section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965, as there is unlikely to be any physical interference with public or private property rights. There should also be limited potential for claims under Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973, as the completed works are unlikely to result in diminution in value to property.
9.7.2
9.8
9.8.1 9.8.2 9.8.3
Site acquisition cost assessment

The site acquisition costs on a development value basis are likely to be relatively high, but acceptable if a temporary acquisition is assumed. There is a risk that if planning permission is granted and the property market improves, acquisition costs could increase significantly. If the buildings become occupied, which seems unlikely, significant disturbance compensation could become payable but should be acceptable.
10 10.1
10.1.1
Site conclusions by discipline Introduction

The conclusions presented in this section are drawn from each disciplines assessment, and are designed to inform the workshop where a final conclusion is reached on whether the site can be taken forward as a potential preferred site, subject to its fit with possible drive strategies in the case of Greenwich connection tunnel sites.
10.2
10.2.1
Engineering
This site is considered suitable for use as a long connection tunnel drive site because it has good vehicular access and the site already has wharfage and jetty facilities which could potentially be utilised, possibly with further development. The site is large enough to fit all of the site facilities. Use of the site would require demolition of several existing warehouse/industrial units.
10.3
10.3.1
Planning
This site is considered less suitable for use as a long connection tunnel drive site due to its proximity to residential receptors, public open space and sites of nature conservation importance, which is likely to be contrary to planning policies protecting amenity and open space and biodiversity. The wider Convoys Wharf site allows a great deal of flexibility in terms of suitable siting away from both onsite and adjacent sensitive receptors, such as residential properties, listed buildings and areas of protected public open space. It is considered this relocation would be necessary to make the site acceptable in planning terms. It may also be possible to phase the redevelopment of the remaining site area around the timing of the construction works, thus not delaying or
10.3.2
10.3.3
Page 17
Site suitability report S01LM preventing future regeneration within this prominent riverside location, or compromising the requirements for safeguarded wharves.
10.4
10.4.1 10.4.2
Environment
Overall, the site is likely to be less suitable for use as a long connection tunnel drive site. Based on the current information, the site is suitable from the perspectives of transport, built heritage and townscape, water resources (hydrogeology and surface water) and flood risk. This site is considered less suitable from the perspective of archaeology, ecology, air quality, noise and land quality. Overall, the site is considered less suitable and would be subject to further investigation of whether archaeology, ecology, air quality, noise and land quality impacts can be mitigated. Likely mitigation considerations would include: Archaeology it is likely that archaeological receptors of high or medium value are present within this site. However, archaeologically sensitive design may enable development to proceed with less risk. Ecology mitigation for foreshore habitats. Air quality measures to ensure dust is adequately mitigated for the closest receptors. Noise standard noise barriers are unlikely to be entirely effective and other techniques may be required to reduce construction noise to acceptable levels. Land quality any required remediation of contamination (at this high risk site) and/or measures to ensure no mobilisation of contaminants retained in situ.
10.4.3 10.4.4
10.5
10.5.1
Socio-economic and community

This site is less suitable for use as a long connection tunnel drive site. Use of the site in the current configuration shows the shaft in close proximity to residential properties and a park. Use of the site therefore appears likely to directly impact on a large number of residents and users of the park in an area where there is limited public open space. However, this site could become more suitable if the proposed works could be moved southeast to increase the separation from the residential properties and the park.
10.5.2
10.6
10.6.1 10.6.2
Property
This site is suitable for use as a long connection tunnel drive site, but if the disadvantages came into play, the site would be less suitable. The advantages of the site are as follows: The site is vacant.
Page 18
Site suitability report S01LM The site is primarily in private ownership, therefore there should be no procedural difficulty in acquiring the land using compulsory purchase powers. There is potential to agree an acquisition with the owner in a way that would not prejudice development and would result in acceptable acquisition costs. High but acceptable acquisition cost. There is a risk that if planning permission is granted and development commences, the acquisition costs could increase significantly or, at worst, the site could become unavailable. If the buildings become occupied, significant disturbance compensation could become payable, which could be high.
10.6.3
The disadvantages of the site are as follows:
10.7
10.7.1
Next steps in the site selection process

It should be noted at this point that the above conclusions do not represent an overall recommendation on the suitability of a site. The disciplines discuss their site suitability report conclusions at optioneering workshops, along with Greenwich connection tunnel drive strategy options. Therefore, a preferred site can only be identified through a series of Greenwich connection tunnel drive option comparisons. The outcome of this two-step process (sites and then drive option comparisons) is set out in the Phase two scheme development report.
Page 19
Page 20
Site suitability report S01LM Appendices
Appendices
Page 21
Site suitability report S01LM Appendices
Page 22
Site suitability report S01LM Appendix 1
Appendix 1 Sources of information Engineering

Traffic Management and Access Roads/Rail URS Scott Wilson Access River BMT Isis Services (Utilities) and Third Party Assets Thames Tunnel and utility companies Geology British Geological Society and Thames Tunnel Construction and Operational Layout Template Thames Tunnel Site selection background technical paper Thames Tunnel
Planning
London Borough of Lewisham online planning applications database Saved policies in the Lewisham Unitary Development Plan, adopted in July 2004
Environment
Transport Map of Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) www.tfl.gov.uk Bus Route Maps: North-east, north-west, south-west, south-east www.tfl.gov.uk Crossrail Plans www.crossrail.co.uk/crossrail-bill-documents PTAL scores Obtained from Table 2.3 information Thames Path map www.walklondon.org.uk Capital Ring www.walklondon.org.uk Cycle Routes www.sustrans.org.uk and Local Cycling Guides 1-14 Design Manual for Roads and Bridge TD 42/95, Highways Agency
Archaeology Historic Environment data from Greater London Archaeology Advisory Service (GLAAS) National Monuments Record for some additional information regarding registered historic parks and gardens London Archaeological Archive and Research Centre (LAARC) Local authority websites Bing maps
Appendix 1 Page 1
Site suitability report S01LM Appendix 1 Built heritage and townscape Local authority lists of Locally Listed Buildings National Monuments Record for some additional information regarding registered historic parks and gardens Unitary development plan and DPDs Local authority websites Bing maps
Water resources hydrogeology and surface water Local authority details of unlicensed abstractors Environment Agency abstraction licence details Environment Agency groundwater levels and contour maps (2009-11) Environment Agency water quality (surface water and groundwater) Environment Agency Groundwater Source Protection Zones Environment Agency Flood Map www.environment-agency.gov.uk Envirocheck British Geological Survey (BGS) logs BGS 1:50,000 Geological Sheets Solid and Drift Editions (England and Wales) BGS Geology of London Special Memoir for 1:50,000 Geological sheets 256 (North London), 257 (Romford), 270 (South London) and 271 (Dartford) (England and Wales) Crossrail (2005) Assessment of Water Impacts Technical Report: Appendix C Baseline Data. Figure C.4: Extent of Saline Intrusion based on 177 mg/l *5mmol/l) Isochlor
Ecology Thames Estuary Partnership (2002) Tidal Thames Habitat Action Plan London Biodiversity Action Plan www.lbp.org.uk Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) www.magic.gov.uk - statutory designated sites London Wildweb wildweb.london.gov.uk - non-statutory site of importance for nature conservation Black redstart distribution in London www.blackredstarts.org.uk/ pages/.html National Biodiversity Network http://searchnbn.net - distribution of protected species Google Maps aerial views of habitat features BAP habitats www.natureonthemap.org.uk
Appendix 1 Page 2
Site suitability report S01LM Appendix 1 Priority habitats and species on national and local scales www.ukbap.org.uk
Flood risk Environment Agency Flood Map www.environment-agency.gov.uk Environment Agency National Flood and Coastal Defence Database Envirocheck
Air quality Local authority websites London Air Quality Network www.londonair.org.uk Defra UK-AIR, air quality information resource www.airquality.co.uk Defra Air Quality Management Areas http://aqma.defra.gov.uk Defra Local Air Quality Management http://laqm.defra.gov.uk
Noise Envirocheck Identification of receptors Promap Calculation of distances between site and receptors Multimap Aerial photography www.multimap.co.uk Defra noise maps Identification of existing noise levels
Land quality Google Maps/Earth Site walkover information Envirocheck Data Sheets provided as a GIS Database British Geological Survey (BGS) logs
Socio-economic and community

Statistics from the Office of National Statistics 2001 Census data Upper Pepys Park revised proposal www.lewisham.gov.uk/ NR/rdonlyres/58F56C63-15A8-48DE-8D8F-B709FEE8D77B/ 0/UpdatedproposalforUpperPepysPark.pdf Pepys Park, open space and public realm www.lewisham.gov.uk/ Environment/Regeneration/DeptfordAndNewCross/NorthDeptford/ PepysPark.htm Tenants Action Group Pepys www.mcad.demon.co.uk/tag1.htm Richard Rogers Partnership www.richardrogers.co.uk/render.aspx? siteID=1&navIDs=1,6,12,1146
Appendix 1 Page 3
Property
Mouchel referencing data Rating records from VOA website Promap Multimap/Live maps Focus EGi
Appendix 1 Page 4
Appendix 2 Site location plan
Appendix 2 Page 1
FI D
EN
TI AL
&
Area of Main Map
AF T
TOWER HAMLETS
Legend
Local Authority Boundary Short Listed Shaft Site
LEWISHAM
S01LM
0 25 50 100 Metres 150 200
Mapping reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. Crown copyright and database right 2011. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100019345 CH2M HILL accept no responsibility for any circumstances, which arise from the reproduction of this map after alteration, amendment or abbreviation or if it issued in part or issued incomplete in any way. Map Ref : ............................ 1PL04-SS-02337 Date : .................................. 2011/10/31 Projection : .......................... British National Grid
GREENWICH
Thames Water Utilities
The Point, 7th Floor, 37 North Wharf Road, Paddington, London W2 1AF
Title:
This is an indicative working draft plan which has been produced for the purpose of confidential discussions only. Accordingly, the draft plan must not be copied, distributed or shown to any third party without the express written permission of Thames Water Utilities Limited. It provides an indication of sites that, following discussions with local authorities and other stakeholders, may be confirmed as being on the shortlist of construction sites for the proposed Thames Tunnel. Inclusion of a site on this draft plan should not be taken to mean that such site will be selected as a construction site to form part of the Thames Tunnel scheme.
APPENDIX 2 SITE LOCATION PLAN S01LM SITE
Appendix 3 Planning and environment plans
Appendix 3 Page 1
EN
S WINDLAS
!
PLACE
! !
TI AL
FI D
RE LONGSHO
!
W ES T
! !
FE RR
FO
O ! SH RE
!
RE
Y! RO AD
!
Area of Main Map
AF T
ROAD OXESTALLS
! ! ! !
ITC WD ! BO
H
!
! ! ! TOWER HAMLETS
&
M AR IT IM !
Legend
AR LL MI D
UA Y
!
RO AD
O GR VE
AY EW LE
!
R ST T EE
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
E OV GR
AD
O O
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
A N ! CA
!
H! AC ! ! RO ! ! P P !!! ! ! A
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! D OA ! ! !
LEWISHAM
! ! !
! S01LM
AG
25
50
100 Metres
R ST T EE
150
200
R
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
LA B ! !
E RS HO K ! ! ! C
! ! ! ! ! !
! R ! ! !
# * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # *
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
E ST ! GO
RW
D OO
ET RE ! T S !
# * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # * # *
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! # # *!# * # * # * * # *!# * ! ! !
Protected/Strategic Views
! ! Regeneration Areas
HENRIETTA CLOSE
WATERGATE STRE ET
LT RO
! !
ST
ET RE
! PRINCE STREET
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
DEPTFORD GREEN
TA ET
ST
ET RE
LT RO
!
ST
ET RE!
# # # # # # * # * * * BO * * * RTH # # * # * # * # * # * W *IC # *
! ! !
KS
! ET CCA STRE DA!
! MEWS BARQUE
Legend GREENWICH
! !
T RE ! ET
Thames Policy Area

CZAR STREET
Strategic Industrial Locations Protected/Strategic Views

! ! !
NEW KIN
CH
!
ILD ER ! S
R This is an indicative working draft plan which has been produced for the purpose of confidential discussions only. Accordingly, the draft plan must not be copied, distributed or shown to any third party without the express written BRIG MEW GE ! Sbeing ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! local authorities ! ! ! ! be confirmed ! ! on the shortlist ! ! ! permission of Thames Water Utilities Limited. It provides an indication of sites that, following discussions with and other stakeholders, may as of construction sites for the ! IN B proposed Thames Tunnel. A Inclusion of a site on this draft plan should not be taken to mean that such site will be selected as a construction site to form part of the Thames Tunnel scheme. !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
ST RE
!
AL EX A ! N
ET
DR
TA YL OR
CL ! OS E
G
ST AU N
!
VE RO
TO N
EV ! EL YN
!
ST
ST R
# * # * # * Proposals Sites
! !
G STRE
RE ET
EE !T
# * # * # * Defined Employment Area

! !
Development Sites ! !
Title:
Areas of Opportunity
APPENDIX 3A PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT PLAN S01LM SITE
ET
TI AL
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Park ! ! ! ! F ! District Deficiency E ! ! !
EN
S PLACE WINDLAS
FI D
RE LONGSHO
R HO ES E
Green Corridor/Chains ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! E ! ! ! ! ! ! ! S
R! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Preservation ! ! ! ! ! Orders ! ! ! ! Y ! ! Tree RO ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! A! T R
Legend
_ ` _ `
_ `
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
R FO
AF T
ROAD OXESTALLS
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
ITC WD BO
Open Spaces AR ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Open Space Deficiency Areas TOWER HAMLETS

M
&
Sites of Metropolitan ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! _ ` Nature Conservation Importance ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Sites of Nature ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Importance ! ! ! ! ! ! Conservation
Contaminated Sites
Area of Main Map
Legend
IT IM ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! E Q ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! U! ! ! ! ! AY ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
AR LL MI D RO AD
AD
NA CA
P AP
H AC RO
O GR VE R ST T EE
AY EW LE
E OV GR R ST
O O
LEWISHAM ! ! ! !
AG
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
S01LM
25
50
100 Metres
150
200
T EE
A BL
R HO CK
SE
D OA
E ST GO
RW
D OO
ET RE T S
ET RE T S
OR ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! T ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! W KS ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! IC ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! E T ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! E!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
HENRIETTA CLOSE
LT RO
WATERGATE STRE ET
ST
ET RE
PRINCE STREET
EV EL YN
ST RE ET
DEPTFORD GREEN
TA ET
ST
ET RE
LT RO
TR
DACCA STREET
BARQUE MEWS
GREENWICH
CZAR STREET
NEW KIN
CH
ILD ER S
R This is an indicative working draft plan which has been produced for the purpose of confidential discussions only. Accordingly, the draft plan must not be copied, distributed or shown to any third party without the express written BRIG MEWS GE permission of Thames Water Utilities Limited. It provides an indication of sites that, following discussions with local authorities and other stakeholders, may be confirmed as being on the shortlist of construction sites for the IN B proposed Thames Tunnel. A Inclusion of a site on this draft plan should not be taken to mean that such site will be selected as a construction site to form part of the Thames Tunnel scheme.
ST RE
AL EX AN
ET
DR
TA YL OR
CL OS E
G
ST AU N
G STRE
VE RO
TO N
ST R
EE T
Title:
APPENDIX 3B PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT PLAN S01LM SITE
ET
TI AL
EN
S PLACE WINDLAS
FI D
RE LONGSHO
RE
FO
O SH RE
AF T
ROAD OXESTALLS
IT WD BO
CH
AY EW LE
NA CA
P AP
AC RO
AG
A BL
HO CK
E RS
RO
AD
LEWISHAM
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
O O
S01LM
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
TOWER HAMLETS
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Legend
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
&
W Listed Buildings ES T ArchaeologicalFAreas ER RY Area of Special Character RO AD
Area of Main Map
M AR IT IM
Legend
E Q UA Y
AR LL MI D
RO AD
AD
O GR VE R ST T EE
E OV GR R ST T EE
25
50
100 Metres
150
200
E ST GO
RW
D OO
ET RE T S
ET RE T S
BO RTH W
HENRIETTA CLOSE
LT RO
WATERGATE STRE ET
ST
ET RE
PRINCE STREET
EV EL YN
ST RE ET
DEPTFORD GREEN
TA ET
ST
ET RE
LT RO
ICK
S TR
EET
DACCA STREET
BARQUE MEWS
GREENWICH
CZAR STREET
NEW KIN
CH
ILD ER S
R This is an indicative working draft plan which has been produced for the purpose of confidential discussions only. Accordingly, the draft plan must not be copied, distributed or shown to any third party without the express written BRIG MEWS GE permission of Thames Water Utilities Limited. It provides an indication of sites that, following discussions with local authorities and other stakeholders, may be confirmed as being on the shortlist of construction sites for the IN B proposed Thames Tunnel. A Inclusion of a site on this draft plan should not be taken to mean that such site will be selected as a construction site to form part of the Thames Tunnel scheme.
ST RE
AL EX AN
ET
DR
TA YL OR
CL OS E
G
ST AU N
G STRE
VE RO
TO N
ST R
EE T
Title:
APPENDIX 3C PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT PLAN S01LM SITE
ET
Appendix 4 Photographs of the site and surroundings
Appendix 4 Page 1
FI D
EN
TI AL
Area of Main Map
AF T
TOWER HAMLETS
Legend
&
LEWISHAM
S01LM
0 25 50 100 Metres 150 200
GREENWICH
Title:
APPENDIX 4 AERIAL PLAN S01LM SITE
View from the northwest of the site, facing east/northeast.
View from the west of the site, facing southeast.
Appendix 4 Page 3
View of South Dock, looking southwest.
Appendix 4 Page 4
Appendix 5 Transport plan
Appendix 5 Page 1
FI D
EN
TI AL
&
TOWER HAMLETS
Legend
Area of Main Map
AF T
N
Residential area S01LM
Local Authority Boundary Short Listed Shaft Site TfL Road Network Thames Path Transport Access Route
London Cycle Routes
Speed humps
0 25 50 100 150 Metres 200 250 300
LEWISHAM GREENWICH Raised bridge
Title:
APPENDIX 5 TRANSPORT PLAN S01LM SITE
Appendix 6 Services and geology plan
Appendix 6 Page 1
1
6 0 1
E P P H m m 5 2 1 D E N I E L N
7502
2
0 6 o t 6 4
3
MLW
6
DO NOT SCALE - IF IN DOUBT ASK
Status:
8
" S
7 6
" 6 05
3
A L P I R U L E S L F R A B
7505
m m 5 2 1
5 1 o t 1
7503
" 3
r e 5 w 4 o 1 T o t y 2 e n e b u a D
WO WO
e s ou
PE HP7401
Playground
21
A
D E N I L " 0 1 P I L S
E P P H
W O B
" 0 1
H C T I D
P I SL
mm 80 1 D E N O ED D N N A LI B A
P e p y s P a r k
o t
m m 6401 0 8 1
39
o t
22
53
5048
o t
40
AWAITING O/S DATA

AB D NE DO AN
5 5
4 5
o t
69
56
87
70
o t
Pepys Park
7 10
462
o t
88
IL-1.82m 6301
E R I F RE I F
El Sub Sta
4 2
9 1 2 1
0 3 o t 5 2
9 1
8 1 o t 3 1
2 1
W E E L
Y A
7201
IL-2.03m
1.9m
m m 5 2 1
7
BS
6 o t 1
a t S b u S l E
IL-2.12m
B
G R O E V R T S
e n o t S
5 0 3
28
" 0 1
6203
83
D E N O D N A B A
R
G A O O O D A
6204
IL-2.12m
" 6
W
R
" 6
N
Stone
468
R e s u o 0 4 H o t t r o 1 f h c o
463
D E N O D N A B A
LS
(Fixed Red)
98
nd
IL-2.38m
1.6m
7101 SE
9 0 m m
" 4
o n s t &L BB d y
m m 5 2 1
2 5
Bols
2450
m m 5 2 1
e s u o H y e l 0 e 1 k t r o e 1 B
Bo r oC
IL-2.47m
PH
147
IL-2.55m
229
2774
WO
F o u n t a i n
CR
Dolphin Navigation Light
22
x 81 3
1 21 9
4"
H u r l e s t o n H o u s e
2 " FI R
2.8m
464
W ATERGA TE
2" F I RE
m m 5 2 1
4
3.0m
6 17
1 t o 2 5 IL-2.63m
EV
1 80mm PE1 8" 00 CI SDR1 SLI P7 LI NED
M e a n Hi g h W
(Fixed Red)
IL -3.69
GAS
Bols
I RE
a t e r
IL -3.69
- LOW PRESSURE ABOVE 300mm DIAMETER - INTERMEDIATE, MEDIUM OR HIGH PRESSURE
2"
518
Post
IL-4.79m
Borthwick Wharf
Bol
IL -3.69
Shelter
2" F
521
2003
4 18
< -
1 98
2 5 1
4"
1 52 4
1 98
Sayes Court
3 0 5
SE
1 98 1
4.2m
2.7m
Mulberry Court
3 "
4002
10 m
0 SCALE 1 : 1250
100 m
1 52
6003
VT
86
465
D Fn
22
2 5 1
22
S a y e s C o u r t ( s it e o f )
2 5 1
Electricity
FV
86
Pond
2001
22
WO
1 0"
86
2 5 1
1 5 2
G r a f t o n H o u s e
El Sub Sta
305
Station
" 3
1 t o 2 5
2451
3 "
3.1m
4.2m
Mulberry WB
1 52
Fire
3 5 0
Revision History
The Ahoy Centre
Iss
Description
Dsgnr
Chkd
Appd
Date
d n a h s c a r l u o h h c C i s N t e k S u L t S
IL-2.78m
2 9 1
Twinkle Park
2 2 9
3 "
S T R E E T
Sub Station
IL-0.79m
3007 SE
AA
FIRST ISSUE
SDYE
PSTV
DARD
25/10/2011
SE
30 5
LB
2002
" 3
522
Rowley House
2 5 1
4325
4.8m
3 0 5
FV IL-0.79m
6 "
3013
1 t o 3 2
FV
305
305
->
El Sub Sta
6901
Gateway (remains of)
2 20
PC
305
Fu l c h e rHo u s e
1 0"
GROVE STREET
T " L O R 3
Posts
x 81 3
PH
3.6m
6904
0 1 6 x
Playground
78
Childhood Centre
SE
1 00
t o
8902
a t S b u S l E
52 1
305
229
"
2 5
3 1
1t o2 0 Hu g h e s Ho u s e
2 1
2 1
1 02
229
3 5
1 3
6903
FI RE
ou r t
Ei de rC
3 0 5
Park
IL-0.09m
9
9 2 2
3 1 9
TCB
501
8804
5 0 3
502 0901A
5 0 3
1 0 " 0801B
P R I N C ES T R E E T
3 8 1
LB
1801
5 0 3
4.7m
3 0 5
519
1808
6"
Mulberry
0 o2 1t
2 6 2
8808
625
" 0 1
T E E R T ES C N I R P
5 0 3
6810
2 2 9
1 7
229
ar y
1 80mm HPPE
7809
4"
CL4.46m
Ro s em
90 mm
0 o2 1t
IL-5.01m
AC
Laurel House
IL-0.47m
3 2 1
1 1
498
0 S 5 T R E E T
WO
457
ABANDONED
0 4 o t 1
9 2 2
2 0
1
20
D O R K I N G
3"
WM
8801
Playground
WO
SE
v C end ou e r r t
t o
La
1 3
7810
E L S E W E R
El Sub Sta
N D
El Sub Sta
H 1
16
Co ur t
1 8
1 1
PLOTTED ON
02/11/2011
BY
LOCATION :
e:\async working dir\pw-ttp\_pdf_svc_2\dms04380\100-DL-PNC-S01LM-100001.dgn
House
497
NDONED
m m 0 9
13
1 0
Tr i s t an
2 2 9
6804
1 2
Ashford
c Thames Water Utilities Ltd 2008
6 G r e b e C o u r t
3"
"
SE
0m
3 0 5
4 X 152
1 2
1 3
T E L O I V
E S O L C7812
7806
B R A N C H )
Playground
IL-0.4m
4 1 o t 1 e s u o H e k a l B
1 00mm
> -
7804
( B E R M O N D S E Y
41 1 5
1 7
ea t h ou er r t
1 0
N O . 1
9 3 3
333
1 3 3
5 2 3
Community Centre
1 1
Woodcote House
0 x 61
Pa t h
IL-0.56m
3807 CP
54
WO
a Co6 u r t
W ATERG AT E STREET
O N
House
381
L E V
1 0
46
2 2
( um
12
Linden
1 6 7 6
L O W
x 3353
SE
8813
4.8m
30
4 1
6
0 4
IL0.71m
2 0 0 m m
E T A G I R F WS E M
8 3
WO
6
Drawing Title:
SERVICES AND GEOLOGY PLAN S01LM

Drawing No.: Scale: Sheet Size: Rev:
100-DL-PNC-S01LM-100001
30
ZBV217201
1
t o
to
A 3 B 0 5 A N D O N 1 E 5 S D k u
C L O S E
n o t g n i l r A e s u o H
e s u o H e t o c d o Wo
1 to
0803
2803
k l Wa d l e i f y r D
SE
2 5 1
P I L IS m D m 0 0 1 "
12
H T D WI E N I L
7
2 5 1
" E P P 0 H 0 1 E m P m 3 6
4 "
LS
1 52
Playground
6801
TCB
E V E L Y N
101
PH
0 6
3801
Co ur t
5 0 3
PH
D E N O D N A B A
2 4
381
Site Name:
3 2
S01LM - CONVOYS WHARF
2801
0 3 o t 1
0 2 o t 1
Project Name:
CP
Benbow House
THAMES TUNNEL
3 8 t o
3808
Oxenham House
H E N R I E T T AC L O S E
Contract Name:
SITE SUITABILITY REPORT
r af t
1 0 "
1 9
SE
1 52
22 9
" 4 "D IS L I P L I N E D
1 52
T E E R T WS O B N E B
WI T H 6 3 m m
Location / Town:
LEWISHAM - -
1:1250
A1
AA
5 0
House
0802
4.6m
" CP 3
P 7 1 9 0 3 V0 B Z PH
6 1 1
WO 1 8 3
52 1
" 3
" 4
0805
3 0 5
1811
3
Posts
22 9
4.8m
T E E R T ES C N I R
SE
WS E M
WO 526
5 0 3 E P P m H m 5 2 1 P E 1 0 0 H P P E " Posts
524
5.1m
9802
5 0 3
200mm
19
2 5 2
1 3 P i n t a i 4 C l o u r t
Car
4.3m
4 " 1 0 "
0914
an d
6 2
22
E T
1 6 7 6
1 1
32
0 3
LB
40
23
1 6
305
20
12
10
H o u s e
1 80mm HPPE
37 North Wharf Road, Paddington, London W2 1AF

Location Code:
2 5
OS Reference:
25
2 4 2
A k i n t a r o
1 t o
3 0
Chester House
3 1 5
4 0
0913
" 3
5 9 o t 7 3
IL-0.73m
1 8
3 0 1 5 2 5 m A m A B L A V H E N P R D PTO O EN N S E T R D E
4 1
IL-2.97m
5 0 3
0911
1 5 2
4920
2 5 1
3 6
2950
3 0 1
3 1 3
13 31
2 9 9
PO
1 5 2
E P P m H m 5 2 1
CR
Prospect Place
229
0 2
3.8m
31 PH 1 80mm PE1 00 SDR1 7
WO
0912
8901
D E N I P L I L IS "D 4 "
4.5m
m m 3 H 6 T WI
E U Q R A B
5
WS E M
4 5
524
19
1 8
17 35
1 8
2 3 2
Sayes Court D E N O D N A 5 B 0 A 3
9901B
0 1
" E P P 0 H 0 1 E P
The Point, 7th Floor,
Security Reference:
Drawn By:
N/A
Project Group:
TQ3677
UBR
Sub Process:
JYAS
IL-0.63m
L E V A R A C
El Sub Sta
LONDON TIDEWAY TUNNELS
WASTE
1 0 0
2 1 2
t o
2 3 0
4 1 9
16
24
5 0 3
2
82
5 0 3
IL-2.92m
Posts
0 1
A C C A T T E E R D S
E P P m H m 5 2 1
305
1 6 7 6
0910
Charlotte Turner Primary School
152
4.2m
1 50
4 "
1 21 9
66
12
D E N O D N A B 500 A
0909
5 0 3
2 2 2 3 2 6 3 2 1 7 3 2 2 8 2 3 4 3 4 2 2 3 9 7 3 3 8 4 4 1 4 3 3 9 4 4
WO
1
26
56
83
Clyde Early
3.6m
14
68
C o n v o y s Wh a r f
R E V I T H 1 I C 2 KS 5 T m R E m H E T P P E
FH
1 1 8
t o
527 2908
52 1
2909
3901A
t o
94
2 0 4
IL-1.27m
1938
1 0"
IL-4.86m
466
3"
T E E R T S
Twinkle Park
IL-2.85m
WO WO
28
2901 2910 SE
R o w l e y H o u s e
3 0 5
1 t o 3 3
523
B O 6 R " T H WI C KS 2 T 2 9 R E E T
3 0 5
"
IL-0.75m 3904 SE
30 5
F u l c h e r H o u s e
IL-0.79m
4 1 1 o 5t 9
3907
4 "
520
1 0 0
5.0m
1 1 5
Stretton Mansions
IL-0.71m
El Sub Sta
on f i de nt i al
2 2 9
1 5 0
46 t o 57
IL-4.84m
7001
4 "
3012
2 0 0 mm
ST RE ET
C
nd ou gr ay l P
BS
IL-4.73m
12
0 3 o t 6 1
5056
2 "
5049
Mud and Shingle
8 0 1
7179
8 "
x
WO Palmers Wharf
S
Tank
3" PH ABANDONED
C am
5 4 o t 1 3
GEOLOGY
Posts Post
M
an c i l Pe H
L P I
1
o t
L N I
e s ou
e l r a m e b l A
7506
e 2 s 1 u o o t H 1
4.5m
FOR INFORMATION
e l ng i Sh
53
ud
E
D 8 1
d an
Keyplan:
Pepys Park
0 8 o t 1
0m
m
1
o t
Ground level
d r a l l o B
d r a l l o B
an c i l Pe H
53
105(m OD + 100)
es m h c ha T ea R er h v i c i R nw ee r
3 "
G n de s an r H e s ou
ds ar l ol B
Base of Made Ground 92(m OD + 100) and Superficial 90(m OD + 100) Base of Thanet Sand Formation
e l ng hi S
M ud
THIS DRAWING
AB
d an
3 "
6 11
AN DO D NE
AD
4.6m
M
D AR LL I
MAPPING REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF ORDNANCE SURVEY ON BEHALF OF HMSO. ' CROWN COPYRIGHT AND DATABASE RIGHT 2011. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ORDNANCE SURVEY LICENCE NUMBER 100019345
RO
Bollard
M n ea H gh i W er at
Slipway
m 00 1
m
ud d an e l ng hi S
THIS IS AN INDICATIVE WORKING DRAFT PLAN WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONFIDENTIAL DISCUSSIONS ONLY. ACCORDINGLY, THE DRAFT PLAN MUST NOT BE COPIED, DISTRIBUTED OR SHOWN TO ANY THIRD PARTY WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THAMES WATER UTILITIES LIMITED. IT PROVIDES AN INDICATION OF SITES THAT,
Navigation Light (Fixed Red)
Bollard
FOLLOWING DISCUSSIONS WITH LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS, MAY BE CONFIRMED AS BEING ON THE SHORTLIST OF CONSTRUCTION SITES FOR THE PROPOSED
Mud and Shingle

9 10
0" 1
N Y L E V E
R T S
"
C
8 3 1
Bollards ESS 4.7m FB
THAMES TUNNEL. INCLUSION OF A SITE ON THIS DRAFT PLAN SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN TO MEAN THAT SUCH SITE WILL BE SELECTED AS A CONSTRUCTION SITE TO FORM PART OF THE THAMES TUNNEL SCHEME.
" 3
WO
s d r a l l o B
B o r o
7301
C o n s t , G
Suggested invert level of shaft

L A s l y C o n s t &
COORDINATES ARE TO ORDNANCE SURVEY DATUM OSGB36. ALL LEVELS ARE IN METRES AND RELATE TO THE TUNNEL DATUM WHICH IS 100 METRES BELOW ORDNANCE DATUM NEWLYN.
SITE BOUNDARY
Draw-bridge
Bollards
4.5m
C C L W
L B
B d y
Mud and Shingle
r e e n w i c h
R i v e r T h a m
47.19(m OD + 100)
NOTE:
e s
INVERT LEVEL OF SHAFT SHOWN.BASE OF CONSTRUCTION WILL BE BELOW THIS LEVEL AND WILL DEPEND ON CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUE. THIS IS ONLY PROVISIONAL AS DESIGN IS AT EARLY PRELIMINARY STAGE.
L a n d i n g
R e a c h
I S L P I D E N I L 0" 1 0" 1 W T I H 8 1 0m m P E 00 1
T E E
2 1 9 1
G R
S t a g e
Mud and Shingle
e a n
H i g h
LEGEND
W a t e r
B o l l a r d s
Convoys Wharf
O
V
FW
FW
FOUL WATER
S D R
SW
S
T R E
SW
SURFACE WATER
7 1
T E
CLEAN WATER
E W E
B o l a l r d s
" P I L S 0" I 1 " C 110 0 1
Chalk
GAS
h t r o H
e s u 40 o
1
o t
x 8 3 1
Mud and Shingle
Bols
CABTV
CABTV
FIBRE OPTICS
L N I E D T I 0 W 10 H 8 1 0m m
Tank
S01LM
Navigation Light
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
LV
LV
LOW VOLTAGE CABLES
HV
90
HV
HIGH VOLTAGE CABLES
e s u o H l 5 e p o3 t p e 1 K
0" 1
P E
3 "
00 1
EXISTING TUNNELS
3 "
D R 7 1
1
305
m m 0 9
B A R N E S
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
Bols
3 "
e s ou H on s r 12 de t o an 1 S
e s ou 0 H o4 n 1t de
4.6m
T E R R A C E
HW
90mm
8 6
2101
WATER
T r a v C
- ALL TW ASSETS - ALL TW ASSETS
VC
8" CI SLI P LI NED 1 0" 3"
Convoys Wharf
4 " A B N A O D
e D s E ou N H d 2 or o 1 f af 1 t r t S
WO
9 0 m m
Bols
Dolphin
STORM & FOUL SEWERS
2 1 5 m m
e at t s E ub y l t C ni i r al i T oc S
0" 1
OTHER SIGNIFICANT UTILITIES ARE DEFINED AS: TELECOMS ELECTRICITY - ONLY FIBRE OPTIC CABLES - HIGH VOLTAGE CABLES - LARGE BANKS OF LOW VOLTAGE CABLES
7 6
T E E
WI TH
Paynes Wharf
"
3 5 0
R e s ou H an 12 o hm t c 1 i
6 1 6 7
3 "
CK BORTHW I
1 0"
WI TH 3"
305
4 "
8" 1 80mm CI SLI PE1 P LI 00 SDR1 7 NED
4 "
1t o3 3
4 "
2 4
1t o3 2
25mm 1
2 5
4"
1 2
381
WI TH
3
05
ET URT STRE SAYES CO
381
REET DACCA ST
2 4
305
2 o2 1t
229
a b St Su El
k l hW a c n y L
25mm 1
5 0
381
4"
00 1
50 1
6"
2"
6 4
6 2
2 5
229
HENRI ETTA CL O SE
3"
3"
t o 14
2 4
6 1
8 1 m 0 m H P P E
0" 1
0" 1
4 91
3"
3 81
3 9
t o
DEPTFO RD GREEN
2 o2 1t
457
8 2
Appendix 7 Construction phase layout
Appendix 7 Page 1
3
M ud
6
DO NOT SCALE - IF IN DOUBT ASK
Status:
E C A L SP S A L D N WI
3 5 o t 1
d an
Posts
e l ng i Sh
2.5m
e s u o H e g d i r b m e B
Library
FOR INFORMATION
Keyplan:
N
FB
M LW
o or B
nw ee r
Posts 4.7m
7 5 o t 3 4
THIS DRAWING
R
C ,G t s on L y l s A
h c i
h c ea
o8 1t
Clinic
2
0 o1 5t
4 o1 9t
o4 3t
James Lind House
0 o2 5t l
e r t n e C y t i n u m m o C
7 6
2.1m
Gransden House
0 8 o t 1
e d i s r e v i R b u l C h t u o Y
G n de s an r
5 4 1 o t 2
r e w o T y e n e b u a D
D A O SR L L A T S E X O
5.5m
o t
80
5 9 o1 5t 8 1
21
2.0m
o t
W O B
H C T I D
o t
39
22
53
TCBs
o t
40
Crown Wharf
4 5
Scrap Yard
o t
69
7 17
56
LB
PH
87
1.7m
70
o t
Pepys Park
7 10
o t
88
8 0 1
El Sub Sta
4 2
0 3 o t 5 2
9 1
8 1 o t 3 1
a i r o t c i V
m i T
f d r r a a Y h r e W b
1.9m
2 1
W E E L
Y A
L a n d i n g
7
6 o t 1
a t S b u S l E
300m
Park Wharf
2000m
G R O
e n o t S
e a n
H i g h
Convoys Wharf
a t e r
10 m
100 m
SCALE 1 : 1000
5 12
D A
ACCESS
Stone
Revision History
Bridge Wharf
R
G A
N
0 11
15m I.D. SHAFT
Iss
Mud and Shingle
Description
Dsgnr
Chkd
Appd
Date
D
Blackhorse Bridge
AC AB
THIRD ISSUE DRAFT-SECOND ISSUE DRAFT-FIRST ISSUE
SDYE RS SS
PSTV DS RS
DARD CH SJW
15/09/2011 17/07/2009 12/06/2009
AA
Tank 5.5m
0 10
6.4m
PRIMARY GANTRY CRANE
1.6m
Tank
lackhorse Wharf
1 o t
PH
2 5
Trophy House
E S R O H K C A L B
D A O R
T E R R A C E
37 North Wharf Road, Paddington, London W2 1AF

Location Code: OS Reference:
3.9m
PH
TCB
0 1 o t 1
e s u o H y e l e k r e B
B A R N E S
4.6m
The Point, 7th Floor,
4 16
Convoys Wharf
an d
Security Reference:
Drawn By:
N/A
Project Group:
6
TQ3677
UBR
Sub Process:
JYAS
o t
4 15
LONDON TIDEWAY TUNNELS

Location / Town: Site Name:
WASTE 5 0
Scale: Sheet Size: Rev:
Hope Of Glory International Ministeries
LEWISHAM - -
S01LM - CONVOYS WHARF
6 16
Project Name:
F o u n t a i n
a 2
THAMES TUNNEL
Contract Name:
2.8m
6 17
Drawing Title:
1 t o 2 5
4 1
H u r l e s t o n H o u s e
2.8m
3.0m
CONSTRUCTION PHASE LAYOUT S01LM - GREENWICH CT DRIVE SITE

Drawing No.:
T PLOTTED ON EE 11/11/2011 R T S D O O W
BY
LOCATION :
e:\async working dir\pw-ttp\_pdf_svc_2\dms04380\100-DL-PNC-S01LM-100002.dgn

an H e s ou
Mulberry Court
c Thames Water Utilities Ltd 2008
3 1
2 2
4 18
Shelter
100-DL-PNC-S01LM-100002
SITE SUITABILITY REPORT

1
r af t
1:1000
A1
AC
1 0 0
on f i de nt i al
1 5 0
2 0 0 mm
12
5 4 o t 1 3
R U E L F R A B
E N A L
ESS
500m
0 6 o t 6 4
4 6
e l r a m e b l A
2 e 1 s o u t o 1 H
Pepys Park
P e p y s P a r k
750m
FB
250m
4.5m
250m
Mud and Shingle
400m
250m
6 6 o t 6
0 3 o t 6 1
2 7 o t 8 5
9 10
98 90
E R O H S G N O L
1 o t 53
9 6 o t 7
SM
5 1 o t 1
5 5
7 8 o t 3 7
H m ar on H
e s ou
BO W D
t& s on
G nw ee r
LW
63
3
LB dy B
h c i
E R O H S E R O F
2 0 1 o t 8 8
n e d l Go e c a d Pl n Hi
TC I H
61
h c ea
SITE BOUNDARY 9218m
MAPPING REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF ORDNANCE SURVEY ON BEHALF OF HMSO. ' CROWN COPYRIGHT AND DATABASE RIGHT 2011. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ORDNANCE SURVEY LICENCE NUMBER 100019345
MLW
EXCAVATED MATERIALS LOADING JETTY
THIS IS AN INDICATIVE WORKING DRAFT PLAN WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONFIDENTIAL DISCUSSIONS ONLY. ACCORDINGLY, THE DRAFT PLAN MUST NOT BE COPIED, DISTRIBUTED OR SHOWN TO ANY THIRD PARTY WITHOUT THE
an c i l Pe H
Posts
Post
M
1 o t 53
e s ou
EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THAMES WATER UTILITIES LIMITED. IT PROVIDES AN INDICATION OF SITES THAT, EXCAVATED MATERIAL CONVEYOR FOLLOWING DISCUSSIONS WITH LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS, MAY BE CONFIRMED AS BEING ON THE SHORTLIST OF CONSTRUCTION SITES FOR THE PROPOSED THAMES TUNNEL. INCLUSION OF A SITE ON THIS DRAFT PLAN SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN TO MEAN THAT SUCH SITE WILL BE SELECTED AS A CONSTRUCTION SITE TO FORM PART OF THE
R
d r a l l o B
e l ng i Sh
ud d an
4.5m
THAMES TUNNEL SCHEME.
es m h c ha T ea R er h v i c i nw ee r
Playground
d r a l l o B
H e s ou
6 11
ds ar l ol B
M ud d an
4.6m
D
W
e l ng hi S
M
D AR LL I
NEW MATERIALS JETTY

Bollard
RO
AD
M n ea H gh i W er at
M ud
4200m
Slipway
KEY:
d an e l ng hi S
Bollard
4200m
EXCAVATED MATERIAL, STORAGE AND HANDLING AREA, SLURRY PROCESSING
Navigation Light (Fixed Red)
Mud and Shingle
4.7m
Bollards
2000m
SHAFT AND SEGMENT STORAGE AREA
TEMPORARY WORKING AREA = 17635m

Mud and Shingle
250m
GROUT BATCHING PLANT AND SILOS
750m
TBM WORKSHOP/MATERIALS/ TUNNEL MAINTENANCE AND SPARE STORAGE AREA
Draw-bridge
Bollards
SITE BOUNDARY 17635m 250m
s d r a l l o B
TBM MATERIALS AND SPARES
400m
OFFICES
250m
CANTEEN / WELFARE
S t a g e
500m
PARKING / VEHICLE MARSHALLING
Mud and Shingle
E V R T S T E E
1 o t
0 4
N h t r o H
e s u o
1 0 4 H o t t r o f h c o
w ub S ay
e s u o
1 o t 5 3
H l e p p e K
e s u o
s i r r o
H e s u o
5 19
1 o t 40
C am n de H
8 6
e s ou
1 o t 1 on s r de an S 2
e at t s ub l E C y t al ni i i r T oc S
N Y L E V E R T S T E E
H e s ou
d o t or f af r t S
12
7 6
H e s ou
nd ou gr ay l P
1 o t 12
hm c i
Appendix 8 Operational phase layout

The operational phase is not applicable to this connection tunnel site.
Appendix 8 Page 1
Appendix 9 Environmental appraisal tables

Transport Site considerations Access to road network Comments Construction site access will be provided onto Grove Street at existing access to Convoys Wharf site. Grove Street is subject to a 20mph speed limit and is street lit and traffic calmed (speed humps). Visibility splays can be achieved in excess of 100m in each direction from the access onto Grove Street if the vegetation to the northwest is cut back. Parked cars (unrestricted parking) may reduce visibility, although none were present when carrying out the site visit. Access to the A2 (TLRN strategic highway network) is via Grove Street, then southeast along Evelyn Street (A200), southeast along Creek Road (A200) and south along Deptford Church Street (A2209). Distance to TLRN 1.2km. Constraints along the route to the TLRN (A2) include traffic calming along Grove Street (speed humps), a rail bridge (with a height restriction) and passing through residential areas. The speed humps will require removal. See transport access plan in Appendix 5. Site is adjacent to river for river access. Access possible via material conveyors. Access to East London Line depot via Grove Street (southeast bound), Evelyn Mitigation required and conclusions Site access is considered suitable. However, route to TLRN is restricted by on-street parking, raised table and speed humps which may require removal.
Access to river
Site is adjacent to river for river access which is possible via material conveyors. Route to potential rail link at the East London Line depot contains many constraints and
Access to rail
Appendix 9 Page 1
Site suitability report S01LM Appendix 9 Transport Site considerations Mitigation required and conclusions Street (southwest bound), is less suitable. The route runs Abinger Grove, Arklow Road under two bridges with height under a rail bridge (which has a and width restrictions and width restriction of 7 and a through a residential area. height restriction of 13), Edward Raised table, on-street parking Street, under another rail bridge and speed humps may require (with a height restriction of 12 removal. 3) and Milton Court Road. The The East London Line has the route runs through a residential potential to be used during the area. day. Considerable use The route contains constraints constraints and issues with in the form of two rail bridges loading would exist. with height restrictions (one of which also has width restrictions), traffic calming on Grove Street (speed humps), on-street parking on Arklow Road, and traffic calming (speed humps) along Edward Street and Milton Court Road. The East London Line depot has the potential to be used during the day, although considerable use constraints and issues with loading would exist. Distance 1km to rail access point from shaft site. Comments Some parking could potentially be provided within the site boundary for the workforce. Unrestricted on-street parking is available on surrounding roads. Parking (approx ten spaces) will be displaced from residential car park and will need to be redistributed on surrounding residential roads. PTAL 1-2, as identified within Table 2.3. Removal of speed humps on Grove Street and Milton Court Road. Minor kerb works on existing Some parking for workforce could potentially be provided within site boundary. Alternative on-street parking available. Parking will be displaced from residential car park. Alternative on-street parking available.
Parking
Public transport accessibility Traffic management
There is limited potential for the workforce to use public transport to access the site. Temporary traffic management required for removal of speed hump and minor kerb works. Temporary traffic signals should
Appendix 9 Page 2
Site suitability report S01LM Appendix 9 Transport Site considerations Comments access point to allow construction vehicles to use access. Access located close to Leeway/Grove Street junction, temporary traffic management in the form of temporary traffic signals should be considered. Displacement of approximately ten parking bays. Mitigation required and conclusions be considered as temporary access located close to existing junction. Approximately ten parking bays will be displaced.
Summary: The site is suitable for use as a long connection tunnel site. The temporary construction access would use an existing access onto Grove Street, requiring some minor kerb works and the removal of the speed hump close to the access. A route to the strategic road network is possible, requiring the removal of speed humps for accessing the TLRN (A2) which is also restricted by a rail bridge with height restrictions on Deptford Church Street. River access is available on site. The route to rail access point at the East London Line depot is unsuitable, encountering two height-restricted bridges, on-street parking and speed humps which would require removal. There is poor public transport access to site. Some parking could be provided on site for the workforce and on-street parking without restriction is available nearby. Approximately ten parking bays will be displaced from the residential car park. Temporary traffic signals should be considered as the temporary access is located close to the existing junction.
Appendix 9 Page 3
Site suitability report S01LM Appendix 9 Archaeology Site considerations Designations, including archaeological priority areas Summary of historical uses Comments The site is within the Lewisham Archaeological Priority Area (APA). The site is located at Convoys Wharf, adjacent to the south bank of the Thames. The site was the location of the Royal Dockyards, established by Henry VIII in 1513, and a cattle market during the 19th/20th centuries. Remains of the Tudor Docks were revealed in an archaeological evaluation conducted in 2000 (MLO9721). Remains of the gate to the dockyard (ML028295) may still exist below ground in the western part of the site. This does not preclude the possibility of unrecorded archaeological receptors of high value being within the site. Also in the location of the proposed shaft on the connection tunnel site there is a record (ML075682) of a potentially important PEAT horizon. The stratigraphic sequence revealed sand at the base, through carbonate rich silts, sandy silts, peat, organic silt and the highest layer was of variably clayey to sandy peat. The peat layers are very interesting because they may allow a date for the site. If the upper and lower peats observed at the site correlate, at least in part, with the Tilbury III defined by Devoy at Crossness and Tilbury (Devoy, 1979:355-407). If correct, the archaeological feature tentatively identified in Mitigation required and conclusions Not applicable.
A detailed desk-based assessment is required to sufficiently understand the archaeological resource and define risk to potential development.
Potential receptors of very high or high value with the potential to be directly affected
Appendix 9 Page 4
Site suitability report S01LM Appendix 9 Archaeology Site considerations Comments silts immediately beneath the lower peat may be of Neolithic date. This may well represent a prehistoric land surface. Potential receptors of medium value with the potential to be directly affected The western central part of the site is also the possible location for a castle tower (MLO11356) demolished in the 18th century. The above records do not preclude the possibility of additional unrecorded archaeological receptors of medium value being within the site. Construction impact of potential waterlogged deposits containing archaeological remains may cause dewatering. This potential impact should be considered, given the close proximity of the site to the River Thames. The historic maps show a large pond (maybe post-medieval) and a basin in the area of the proposed shaft site. This suggests that earlier remains relating to the dockyard may have possibly been removed. Previous development in the 19th century may have disturbed archaeological remains. Previous investigations have shown that elements of the dockyards are still present below ground. Geotechnical data suggests up to 14m of made ground in the area but some of this could be of archaeological importance. A detailed desk-based assessment is required to sufficiently understand the archaeological resource and define risk to potential development. Mitigation required and conclusions
Other receptors with the potential to be directly affected
Extent of existing disturbance
Potential issues
Detailed design proposals and Mitigation methods could an outline method statement will include: be required to enable initial desk-based assessment assessment of development
Appendix 9 Page 5
Site suitability report S01LM Appendix 9 Archaeology Site considerations Comments impacts, and to inform mitigation proposals. Historic dock buildings, either standing or buried, will be of high value and impact on them should be avoided. Location of the shaft in areas of previous disturbance such as the pond may decrease the archaeological risk to development. Previous disturbance should be assessed in detail through desk-based investigation. Mitigation required and conclusions production of deposits model archaeological monitoring of geotechnical investigations archaeological evaluation archaeological watching brief archaeological excavation.
Summary: The site is less suitable as a long connection tunnel site as the site currently has several records of archaeological remains being present, including a potentially important peat horizon close to the proposed shaft site. Previous investigations in the area provide an indication of the nature and extent of archaeological receptors but full potential cannot be confidently predicted. With the currently available information, it is likely that archaeological receptors of high or medium value are present within this site, but archaeologically sensitive design may enable development to proceed with less risk. Based on current information, the planned location of the site coincides with an area of probable post-medieval disturbance. Given confirmation of the disturbance through further research, adjustment of the location to lessen impact on remains makes this site potentially suitable.
Appendix 9 Page 6
Site suitability report S01LM Appendix 9 Built heritage and townscape Site considerations Designations including conservation areas, including trees Comments Listed buildings Office building Convoys Wharf, Grade II*: 0m Cast Iron Bollard at Junction with Watergate Street, Grade II: 5m Foreshore, Grade II: 150m 6-66 Foreshore, Grade II: 65m 7-69 Foreshore, Grade II: 130m Boundary wall to Convoys Wharf, Grade II: 0m Master Shipwrights Apartment, Convoys Wharf, Grade II*: 0m Gate Piers to Former Naval Dockyard, Grade II: 0m Olympia Convoys Wharf, Grade II: 0m River Stairs (on axis between two foreshore blocks), Grade II: 110m Church of St Nicholas, Grade II*: 250m North and east walls to churchyard of St Nicholas and gate piers on west wall, Grade II*: 245m. 227 Deptford High Street, Grade II: 225m Paynes Wharf, Grade II: 5m Deptford Fire Station, Grade II: 210m Locally listed buildings There are no locally listed buildings within 250m of S01LM. Conservation areas Deptford High Street Conservation Area: 190m Registered historic parks and gardens There are no registered historic Mitigation required and conclusions In the case of listed buildings, conservation areas and protected views, a high-quality scheme design and adequate screening for the development may be required, as discussed below. A detailed desk-based assessment, in conjunction with archaeology work, would be required to further determine the likely impact of the development and to inform more detailed mitigation proposals. On the basis of currently available information (July 2009) and on the basis of certain receptors not being present within 250m of S01LM, mitigation would not be applicable in the case of locally listed buildings, locally listed parks and gardens and registered historic parks and gardens.
Appendix 9 Page 7
Site suitability report S01LM Appendix 9 Built heritage and townscape Site considerations Comments parks and gardens located within 250m of S01LM. Locally listed parks and gardens There are no locally listed parks and gardens within 250m of S01LM. Protected views Blackheath Point: 150m Greenwich Park: 0m (Both of these are designated in the London Views Management Framework) Potential receptors of medium to very high importance with the potential to be directly affected One listed building and one protected view may be directly affected by the development. Mitigation should be possible through a carefully considered scheme design. The proposed location of any structures within the site should be positioned away from the listed structures to avoid any direct impacts. Current drawings show the location of constructional structures in the north of the development site S01LM. This would avoid any direct impacts on the listed structures and, as such, would not require mitigation. There may be a direct impact on one of the listed structures within the development site (Gate Piers to Former Naval Dockyard). The impact will require a listed building consent and consultation with relevant stakeholders, such as English Heritage. This impact may be mitigated by adequate screening and/or a high-quality design scheme. Where possible, however, demolition of this structure should be avoided. It is preferable that any Mitigation required and conclusions
Appendix 9 Page 8
Site suitability report S01LM Appendix 9 Built heritage and townscape Site considerations Comments Mitigation required and conclusions structures be located away from the Greenwich Park Protected View, although suitable screening and/or a high-quality design scheme would mitigate any adverse effect. Not applicable
Other receptors of lesser importance with the potential to be directly affected Potential receptors of medium to very high importance with the potential to be indirectly affected
Not applicable
There is potential for seven Grade II listed buildings, four Grade II* listed buildings, and one conservation area to be indirectly affected by the development proposals. Along with this, there is also the potential for the Blackheath Point Protected View to be impacted on by the development.
Of the eleven listed buildings, only four fall within the visual envelope of the development. Any structures that are within the visual envelope of any listed structures would require additional mitigation, potentially in the form of a high-quality scheme design and/or screening to mitigate additional impacts on their setting. Three of these structures (all Grade II listed) are located along the Thames, just to the northwest of the site. The setting of the three listed structures to the northwest may be indirectly impacted by the construction of new jetties. Mitigation of this impact on the setting of the listed buildings will require high-quality scheme design and/or screening. However, these listed buildings are physically separated from the rest of the site by Pepys Park, thus reducing any impact the proposals may have. However, there may still need to be some mitigation in the form of a high-quality design and/or screening to reduce any
Appendix 9 Page 9
Site suitability report S01LM Appendix 9 Built heritage and townscape Site considerations Comments Mitigation required and conclusions visual or setting impact and upon these assets. The above would also apply to the Olympia Convoys Wharf (Grade II), which lies in close proximity to the development area. Although there is a visual relationship with the worksite and the Deptford High Street Conservation Area, the location of the proposed structures within the site means that they are not located within the visual envelope of the conservation area and, as such, would not require mitigation in their current proposed location. No mitigation would be needed with regard to the Blackheath Point Protected View as the development does not fall within its visual envelope. Not applicable.
Other receptors of lesser importance with the potential to be indirectly affected Sensitive landscape character areas likely to be affected, including trees and TPOs
Not applicable.
The existing site stretches from the River Thames to Grove Street and is part of an industrial estate, with some large warehouses and areas of derelict land where scrub has established. The site is enclosed along Leeway to the northwest by a tall brick wall. The proposed development area is currently derelict with scrub, hardstanding and small buildings. To the northwest and west are residential areas of medium-rise flats and houses
Retention of trees where possible and protection in accordance with BS 5837. Retention of tall brick wall along Leeway to maintain boundary. Demolition of buildings and removal of scrub would potentially create an opportunity to enhance the character of the site and related river frontage in relation to adjacent residential areas. This site is considered suitable.
Appendix 9 Page 10
Site suitability report S01LM Appendix 9 Built heritage and townscape Site considerations Comments along Grove Street, Leeway and Millard Road. Pepys Park, an area of local open space, is located further north and stretches to the river in the east. In general, the area is a mix of industrial buildings which are gradually being replaced by flats, interspersed with areas of open space that stretch down to the waterfront in places. Jetties are located along the waterfront. The loss of vegetation and the construction activities will re-create an industrial character for this disused part of the industrial estate. The change of character will be temporary and will be in keeping with the industrial estate to the south. Construction of further temporary jetties along the river will be similar in scale to existing jetties. Potential views likely to be affected The tall brick wall along Leeway and Grove Street limits views from lower storeys of residences. More open views are available from upper storeys. Open views are also possible from the river and from properties along its northern bank. Where views are possible, an area of derelict industrial land is visible, reverting to scrub with industrial buildings to the south. Views of construction activities will be partially blocked by the tall brick wall. Where views are possible, these activities will appear in keeping with other Limit height of construction activities to ensure brick wall screens the majority of views. Where views are possible, careful arrangement of activities and appropriate design of temporary facilities is required to limit visual intrusion. Mitigation required and conclusions
Appendix 9 Page 11
Site suitability report S01LM Appendix 9 Built heritage and townscape Site considerations Comments industrial activities within the industrial estate. New jetties in the river will have an adverse impact on views from the river, but these will be temporary during the construction activities. Particular considerations on sites where new permanent structures are required Potential issues There will be no permanent above-ground structures at S01LM associated with the connection tunnel site. Not applicable. Mitigation required and conclusions
The potential issues are the impact that the development could have on the setting of ten listed structures and one conservation area, and a direct impact on a listed building. The potential impact of the development could have on the Greenwich Park Protected View and the local townscape character will also need to be carefully considered. There is, however, some potential to mitigate any adverse impacts through the scheme design and/or mitigation.
In their current location, the proposed structures within the site may result in a direct impact on one listed structure and only indirect impacts on other listed structures and one protected view. Any direct impact on the listed structure, namely the Gate Piers, will require listed building consent and consultation with relevant stakeholders, such as English Heritage. To mitigate the potential visual intrusiveness of these structures, the scheme design would need to be of a sufficiently high quality and may need to incorporate some screening.
Summary: From a built heritage perspective, this site is suitable as a long connection tunnel site. The proposed site falls within the visual envelope of a number of listed buildings and may result in one direct impact on one listed building. However, any adverse impacts could be mitigated by avoiding demolition of the gate piers or using a high-quality design and, where necessary, additional screening to protect the setting of the identified listed buildings. From a townscape perspective and in visual terms, this site is considered suitable as a connection tunnel site. This is because it reuses an existing industrial site that is partially screened and enclosed by a tall brick wall from neighbouring residences.
Appendix 9 Page 12
Site suitability report S01LM Appendix 9 Water resources hydrogeology and surface water Site considerations Hydrogeological conditions (groundwater and surface water). From BGS Geological Model, giving average ground condition profile. Local near surface conditions may vary, particularly within the river. Comments Geology (thickness) Superficial geology and made ground (13 m) Chalk (to beyond the depth of shaft) Hydrogeology Piezometric level in Chalk aquifer: ~ -9mAOD (~13mbgl) from EA Jan 08 water level contouring. Groundwater monitoring location EA hydrometry sites: TQ37-268 993m northwest of the site (water levels to Nov 2007) TQ37-254A, BL, BU 1.33km southeast of the site (water levels to May 2009) Watercourses Adjacent to River Thames. SPZs and SPZ groundwater users Not located in a source protection zone defined by EA. EA licensed groundwater abstractions and details one public water supply borehole within 2km radius. Licence numbers: 28/39/43/0019 (ten boreholes) Location 1.9km southeast of the site A simple volumetric approach has been used to calculate the total catchment zone of the abstraction borehole. A conservative mean annual recharge of 100mm/year was used to calculate a radius for licensed abstraction boreholes as follows: Public water supply abstraction borehole Defined by EA Licensed abstraction boreholes 1. 250m 2. 258m Mitigation required and conclusions The shaft will be constructed to an invert level of approximately 56.99mbgl, therefore the shaft will be founded in the Chalk. Piezometric head(1) in Chalk will be approximately 43.99m above the base of the construction and close to the top of Chalk. Therefore, dewatering would be required and should be considered as part of geotechnical design.
Appendix 9 Page 13
Site suitability report S01LM Appendix 9 Water resources hydrogeology and surface water Site considerations Comments Operator Thames Water Utilities Ltd Abstracted aquifer Chalk Abstraction quantity (annual) 8,296,624m3 Seven licensed abstraction borehole within 2km radius Licence numbers: 1. 28/39/39/0234 (1 borehole) 2. 28/39/42/0048 (3 boreholes) 3. 28/39/42/0073 (2 boreholes) 4. TH/039/0044/003 (1 borehole) Locations: 1. 1.8km northeast of the site 2. 1.6km northwest of the site 3. 1.4km northwest of the site 4. 1.9km southwest of the site Operator: 1. Britannia Hotels Limited 2. London Borough of Southwark 3. Harmsworth Quays Printing Limited 4. Trustees of National Maritime Museum Abstracted aquifer unit: 1. Chalk 2. Chalk 3. Chalk 4. Chalk Mitigation required and conclusions 3. 203m 4. 126m The shaft is not located within any of these catchment areas.
Appendix 9 Page 14
Site suitability report S01LM Appendix 9 Water resources hydrogeology and surface water Site considerations Comments Abstraction purposes: 1. Industrial, commercial and public services (hotels, public houses and conference centres drinking, cooking, sanitary, washing) 2. Amenity (industrial/ commercial/energy/public services make-up or top-up water) 3. Industrial, commercial and public services (paper and printing process water and drinking, cooking, sanitary, washing) 4. Private water supply (general use) Abstraction quantity (annual): 1. 78,840m3 3. 83,804m3 4. 52,000m3 5. 20,000m3 Unlicensed groundwater abstractions and details No abstraction borehole within 1km. Borehole locations and depths Potential impacts on surface water features There are 11 historical records of water wells within 1km radius. Depth range: 6.09 201.78m The site is located adjacent to the River Thames. The site is behind flood defences so the pollution risk is through drainage to the Thames. If barge transport is to be used for the transport of materials, specific mitigation may be required for the impacts of jetties on the foreshore. Mitigation would also be Not applicable Mitigation required and conclusions
Work needs to be undertaken in consideration of Pollution Prevention Guidelines.
Appendix 9 Page 15
Site suitability report S01LM Appendix 9 Water resources hydrogeology and surface water Site considerations Comments required to prevent pollution, as any work within the foreshore would present a direct pathway to the river. Potential impacts on groundwater (resources and quality) An impact on groundwater is likely since the shaft is to be constructed in Chalk (principal aquifer) overlain by superficial deposits (secondary aquifer), which is in hydraulic continuity with Chalk and will need to be dewatered. No mitigation will be required for groundwater as construction of the shaft will not take place within the total catchment zone of licensed abstractions. The shaft is to be excavated in Chalk below the piezometric head, therefore dewatering of the Chalk and superficial deposits would be required. Possible saline intrusion caused by dewatering. See below (likely types of mitigation measures that will be required) Mitigation required and conclusions
Likely types of mitigation measures that will be required Potential issues
Not applicable
Piezometric head in Chalk to be considered as part of geotechnical design. The issue of the appropriate disposal of discharges from dewatering to be considered. Dewatering to be kept to a minimum
Summary: In terms of hydrogeology, this site is suitable as a long connection tunnel site because although construction of the shaft will take place within Chalk (principal aquifer), the site does not lie within total catchment zones of licensed abstractions. No long-term impact on the Chalk aquifer is expected, although dewatering of the Chalk and superficial deposits will be required during the construction phase. The Chalk piezometric head is likely to be approximately 44m above the base of construction and should be taken into account in the engineering design. In terms of surface water resources, this site is suitable as a connection tunnel site because it lies behind flood defences and there is no direct pathway to the River Thames for pollution, although standard mitigation would be required. However, should barge transport be used for transport of materials, specific mitigation may be required for the impacts of jetties on the foreshore. Mitigation would also be required to prevent pollution, as any work within the foreshore would present a direct pathway to the river.
Appendix 9 Page 16
Site suitability report S01LM Appendix 9 Ecology Site considerations Statutory designations Comments Sue Godfrey Nature Park LNR is approximately 1km from site. Mudchute Park Farm LNR is within 2km. Sayes Court Park site of local importance is adjacent to the site. Twinkle Park site of local importance is to the southeast of the site. Site is adjacent to the River Thames and Tidal Tributaries SMI. Mitigation required and conclusions No likely impacts
Non-statutory designations
If working practices are designed to minimise dust and atmospheric pollution, there should be no further need for further mitigation. It will be important to determine that dewatering will have no material effect on these sites. Any constructions affecting the River Thames will require compensatory habitat provision. There may also be post-works restoration required. Any constructions affecting the River Thames will require compensatory habitat provision. There may also be post-works restoration required. Loss of wasteland habitat may require compensation. If demolition or removal is planned, inspection for bat potential would be required. If bat roosts were found to be present, mitigation would be required, possibly including offsite provision. Although aerial photographs do not indicate high potential for black redstart, previous studies confirm the presence of this species to be very likely. Surveys will be necessary to confirm whether the site still supports a significant proportion of the UK population of the species. If it does, careful negotiation with the GLA and Natural England will be required, and mitigation
BAP priority habitats
The Thames Tideway is a London BAP habitat. Some of the site may constitute wasteland London BAP priority habitat.
Protected or otherwise notable species within the study area
There is a possibility that buildings/structures/trees on site could act as roosts for bats. There are records of breeding black redstart in this area and previous studies have identified the site as being of considerable importance for its population of breeding black redstart (supporting 20 per cent of the UK population). Reptiles may make use of the wasteland habitat on the site. Twinkle Park has a pond, but NBN Gateway does not suggest great crested newt records within 2km of site.
Appendix 9 Page 17
Site suitability report S01LM Appendix 9 Ecology Site considerations Comments Mitigation required and conclusions (including restricting noisy or visually disturbing works to the period September-February) is likely to be required by consultees. Translocation of reptiles may be required. Subject to desk study confirming no great crested newt within 2km, no survey or mitigation required. Potential issues The cumulative impact of all jetties and other above-ground structures proposed within the Thames may increase flow velocity in the river with effects on juvenile migratory fish. Consideration needs to be given to the cumulative impacts on hydrodynamics with reference to known critical flow velocities for fish. Not considered significant at a site specific level.
Summary: The site is less suitable as a long connection tunnel site because land-take is required for jetties in the foreshore and river. Land-take from the foreshore may require sensitive working practices, and some compensatory provision and negotiation with the EA is likely to be required. However, the amount of new development on foreshore or within river is small and temporary compared with surrounding structures. Ecological surveys will be required in order to determine whether bat roosts and reptiles are present. Previous studies indicate that the site may support a significant proportion of Londons black redstart population. Should this be confirmed through additional studies, mitigation (including restricting noisy or visually disturbing works to the period September-February) is likely to be required.
Appendix 9 Page 18
Site suitability report S01LM Appendix 9 Flood risk assessment Site considerations Flood risk zone Comments Mitigation required and conclusions
Flood Zone 3 one in 200-year An FRA would be required to flood extent) but defended to the assess the residual risk of one in 1,000-year flood level. flooding to the site. There is a residual risk of a breach, for which mitigation would need to be considered as part of the FRA. Sewage transmission infrastructure is considered to be water compatible according to Table D.2 of PPS25. There is space on site for SUDS, however the site may not be suitable for infiltration SUDS due to the superficial geology on site and the existing development on site. Not applicable. Not applicable.
Assessment of conditions for SUDS
Potential Issues
Not applicable.
Summary: This site is suitable as a long connection tunnel site. There is space on site for SUDS, although an investigation would be required to determine if the site is suitable for infiltration SUDS. In addition, although the site is within Flood Zone 3 greater than a one in 200-year risk of flooding it is defended to the one in 1,000-year flood level.
Appendix 9 Page 19
Site suitability report S01LM Appendix 9 Air quality Site considerations AQMA Comments The air quality objectives for NO 2 exceeded on major roads in vicinity of site. There are residential properties along Grove Street (B206) and Evelyn Road (A200). There are residential properties in close proximity to the site and construction works on Leeway and on Grove Street (North House). The main traffic issue in this area is exhaust emissions from vehicles along the A200 corridor. See above. Mitigation required and conclusions There is a need for more site specific data. There are relevant air quality sensitive receptors present along the route the construction traffic is likely to take and close to the proposed construction works.
Sensitive receptors
Existing traffic issues
Additional vehicle emissions have a low potential to interfere with local air quality action plan policies. See above.
Existing sources of significant air pollutants Notable gaps in existing air quality monitoring Potential issues
There is no data at likely access to A200 and the nearest existing data indicates existing exceedance of AQLV. The risk from additional exhaust emissions from construction HGVs is undefined at present. The risk from dust impacts at residential properties is moderate.
Collect a minimum of six months diffusion tube data at site access to the A200 or other point of access to major road network. Minimise HGV movements on the local road network during the peak hour. Standard dust control measures will minimise the effect of fugitive dust on nearby sensitive receptors.
Summary: The site is less suitable as a long connection tunnel site. There are residential properties in close proximity to the site and therefore there is potential for fugitive emissions of dust during construction to have a perceptible impact at these properties. These impacts can be minimised with standard dust control measures. There is potential for HGV movements on the local road network to cause localised air quality impacts in areas of already poor air quality. However, this can be somewhat mitigated by minimising the movement of HGVs during peak hours.
Appendix 9 Page 20
Site suitability report S01LM Appendix 9 Noise Site considerations Noise band level (from Defra noise maps) Comments Mitigation required and conclusions
Information from Defra noise Not applicable maps indicates daytime noise levels of less than 58dB L Aeq and night-time noise levels of less than 50dB L Aeq at the nearest residential properties located to the site. The residential properties closest to and facing the site are likely to experience low daytime and night-time noise levels due to their distance from the A200. Noise levels from the Defra noise maps provide an indication of prevailing noise levels only, and will not be employed in any detailed assessments for chosen sites. There are sensitive receptors close to the northern and western boundaries of the site. The closest receptors are located on Grove Street and Leeway. Sensitive receptors on Grove Street to the south consist of between two- and three-storey residential dwellings. These are located approximately 5m from the temporary working area and 10m from the shaft location. Properties located on Grove Street to the west consist of five-storey residential dwellings. These are located 30m from the temporary working area and 30m from the shaft location. Properties on Leeway to the north of the site consist of twoto three-storey residential dwellings and are located approximately 20m from the temporary working area and 25m from the shaft location. Not applicable
Sensitive receptors
Appendix 9 Page 21
Site suitability report S01LM Appendix 9 Noise Site considerations Existing traffic issues Comments Road traffic on local roads and more distant road traffic on the A200 to the north of the site will contribute to the existing noise climate in the area. Road traffic on local roads and more distant road traffic on the A200 to the north of the site will contribute to the existing noise climate in the area. There are no railway lines or significant industrial noise sources noted in the immediate surrounding area. Construction: The construction period is estimated at four to five years and working hours will be 24 hours per day, Monday to Sunday. This has the potential to result in adverse noise impacts to sensitive receptors surrounding the site. A relatively high number of daily HGV movements are anticipated. This has the potential to have an adverse impact on residential receptors located on Grove Street and receptors on Leeway. The site area is fairly large and, while the shaft location may be fixed, ancillary plant should be sited as far as is practicable from surrounding sensitive receptors. Situating plant in the eastern area of the site would maximise the distance between them and the nearest sensitive receptors and minimise potential disturbance. Proposed 3m site boundary fencing will provide useful noise mitigation to some plant and Mitigation required and conclusions Not applicable
Existing sources of significant noise emissions
Not applicable
Potential issues
Adherence to the good site practices provided in BS5228. Siting of noisy equipment and construction activities as far as is practicable from sensitive receptors. Provision of site boundary noise fences. Noisy construction activities, or activities which may cause vibration, should be undertaken during daytime hours only to reduce the noise impact during night-time construction.
Appendix 9 Page 22
Site suitability report S01LM Appendix 9 Noise Site considerations Comments construction activities. Vibration resulting from general construction works is not anticipated to result in an adverse impact. The nearest receptors to the proposed shaft location are at a distance of approximately 10m and it is likely that vibration levels may result in human annoyance during shaft sinking. Vibration from tunnelling should be considered on a case-by-case basis at particular sensitive locations. Summary: This site is considered less suitable as a long connection tunnel site. The distance between the shaft location and the nearest residential receptors is short and therefore noise impacts will be high. The number of vehicles associated with the construction phase is also likely to cause an adverse noise impact to properties located on Leeway and Grove Street. Perimeter hoarding will reduce the potential noise impact but will be relatively ineffective at shielding noise from the upper floor properties. If this option is pursued, it is recommended that noisy construction activities, or activities which may cause vibration, be undertaken during daytime hours only to reduce the noise impact during night-time construction. Mitigation required and conclusions
Appendix 9 Page 23
Site suitability report S01LM Appendix 9 Site considerations Site location Current site use Topography Not available Not available Land quality Grid reference: 536985, 178170
Field evidence of Not available contamination (ie, visual/ olfactory) Current surrounding land use (immediately adjacent to site) Geological strata1 Not available
Geological and hydrogeological information Geology (thickness) Superficial geology and made ground (13m) Chalk (to beyond the depth of the shaft) Secondary aquifer: Superficial deposits Principal aquifer: Chalk River terrace deposits secondary aquifer High leaching potential of soils (U)1
Underlying aquifer classes Groundwater vulnerability/Soil classification (High/Intermediate/Low/ Not applicable)2 Source protection zone details Surface water receptor
Not located in a source protection zone defined by EA River Thames (directly adjacent to site)
Relevant information within a 250m radius of the site Historical potentially contaminating activities (based on mapping data) On site Royal Dockyard 1882 1919 Saw mill and timber yard 1862 1898 Basin 1862 1898 Gas works 1862 1898 Marine barracks 1862 1898 Numerous tanks contents unknown, potentially containing fuel 1950 1954 Foreign cattle market 1909 - 1972 Royal Naval Yard 1972 1976 Convoys Wharf 1976 present
Appendix 9 Page 24
Site suitability report S01LM Appendix 9 Site considerations Land quality Off site Foundry and engineering works (directly adjacent to site, southeast) 1862 1898 Tinbox and packing case works (directly adjacent to site, southeast) 1948 1960 Wharf operations/transport support and cargo handling (directly adjacent to site, southeast) 1954 present Salt provision store (directly adjacent to site, northwest) 1862 1868 Royal Victoria Yard (directly adjacent to site, north) 1862 1969 Oil industry and storage (28m southeast) 1943 Numerous electrical substations around the site (closest located 32m south) 1949 1983 Numerous tanks contents unknown, potentially containing fuel (closest located 89m west) 1950 1954 Electrical industry facilities (155m southeast) 1951 Potential fuel gas (197m west) 1897 Dockyard (directly adjacent to site, north, and 238m east) 1862 1954 Pollution incidents to controlled waters Five incidents: Oils unknown, minor incident (on site) Oils unknown, minor incident (on site) Miscellaneous urban runoff minor incident (84m east) within River Thames Oils unknown, minor incident (87m east) within River Thames Oils unknown, minor incident (128m northeast) within River Thames None Two Old canal filling (143m west), no mapping dates Scrapyard, medium size (greater than 25,000 tonnes per year, not exceeding 75,000 tonnes per year). License lapsed (238m north), no mapping dates None None
Landfill sites Other waste sites
Registered radioactive substances Fuel stations/depots
Appendix 9 Page 25
Site suitability report S01LM Appendix 9 Site considerations Contemporary trade directory entries None Land quality
Site classification based on above information Activity Potential site contaminants derived from surface sources (eg, contaminants in made ground) 1) Some potential for made ground from potential filling operations during development 2) Dockyard operations 3) Tanks contents unknown 4) Electrical substation 5) Gasworks 6) Wharf operations Potential site contaminants derived from offsite sources and transported to site 1) Salt provision store 2) Foundry and engineering works 3) Oil industry 3) 28m southeast Potential contamination pathways to site (Conceptual Site Model)3 Contamination category Source 1: A1, A2, A3, B4 Source 2: D6, E1, F7 Category 3 assessed as high risk Distance and direction to site 1) On site and directly adjacent to site 2) On site and directly adjacent to site 3) On site and directly adjacent to site 4) On site and directly adjacent to site 5) On site and directly adjacent to site 6) On site and directly adjacent to site 1) Directly adjacent site, northwest 2) Directly adjacent site, southeast 1) Metals, TPH, PAHs 2) Metals, TPH, PAHs, PCBs, solvents 3) Metals, TPH, PAHs Contaminants 1) Metals, PAHs, TPH 2) Metals, TPH, PAHs 3) TPH, Metals, PAHs, solvents 4) PCBs 5) Phenols, sulphates, cyanide, metals, TPH, PAHs 6) Metals, TPH, PAHs
Appendix 9 Page 26
Site suitability report S01LM Appendix 9 Site considerations Land quality
Summary: The site is considered less suitable as a long connection tunnel site based on the significant potential for contamination of the site to have occurred, specifically from the dockyard operations, cattle market and gasworks on site and wharf operations, oil industry and foundry works in the vicinity of the site. This potentially poses a risk to construction workers and adjacent human receptors through direct contact and inhalation exposure pathways. Notes: 1. From BGS Geological Model, giving average ground condition profile. Local near surface conditions may vary, particularly within the river. 2. Soil information for urban areas is based on fewer observations than elsewhere in the country. Therefore, a worst case vulnerability (H) is assumed until proven otherwise. 3. Refer to schematic Conceptual Site Model for explanation of site-specific sourcepathway-receptors
Appendix 9 Page 27
Contacts
For information about the Thames Tideway Tunnel Call: 0800 0721 086 Lines are open 24 hours a day Visit: www.thamestidewaytunnel.co.uk Email: info@tidewaytunnels.co.uk For our language interpretation service call 0800 0721 086
For information in Braille or large print call 0800 0721 086

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

110 RG PNC S01LM 000610

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

110 RG PNC S01LM 000610

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Autumn 2011

Site suitability report S01LM