100-RG-ENG-PTH1X-900001 | June 2011

King Edward Memorial Park SaveKEMP alternatives

Thames Water response

saveKEMP alternatives Thames Water response

Thames Tunnel SaveKEMP alternatives Thames Water response

List of contents
Page number

Executive summary ......................................................................................... 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Introduction .............................................................................................. 1 Thames Tunnel Preferred Scheme KEMP Foreshore .......................... 1 SaveKEMP proposed alternatives ........................................................... 2 Conclusion ............................................................................................... 2

2 3 4

Introduction ...................................................................................................... 4 Key features of schemes ................................................................................. 5 SaveKEMP Option 1 Main tunnel shaft north of The Highway .................. 6 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 Site 3 Heckford Street sites .................................................................. 6 Sites 4a and 4b Cemex and Studio sites .............................................. 6 Sites 4b and 4c Studio site and Cable Street site ................................. 7 Sites 4c and 5 Cable Street and Butcher Row...................................... 7 General assessment ................................................................................ 8 Comparison of Preferred Scheme and SaveKEMP Option 1 ................ 10 Planning and Community comparisons ................................................. 10 Property comparison ............................................................................. 11 Engineering comparisons ...................................................................... 11 Environmental comparisons .................................................................. 12

SaveKEMP Option 2 No main tunnel shaft at KEMP .................................. 9 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6

6 7

Costs ............................................................................................................... 13 Conclusion...................................................................................................... 13

saveKEMP alternatives Thames Water response

saveKEMP alternatives Thames Water response

ii

1 Executive summary

1 1.1
1.1.1

Executive summary Introduction

The Thames Tunnel is urgently needed to help tackle the 39 million tonnes of untreated sewage which overflows into the River Thames in an average year, when Londons Victorian sewerage network becomes overloaded. The North East Storm Relief (NESR) combined sewer overflow (CSO), which flows underneath King Edward Memorial Park (KEMP) in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, is the second largest gravity overflow to the River, discharging over 784,000m3 in a typical year. The opportunity to intercept the flow of sewage before it spills into the River Thames is constrained by the need to make a connection to this large sewer at some point along its existing route. We have identified the KEMP Foreshore site as a preferred site to intercept the flows without permanent intrusion in the park and minimising disruption to the community who use it. The Report on Phase 1 Public Consultation was published in March. We are continuing to review and refine the scheme to achieve the optimum solution with minimum disruption and least cost to our customers. In March 2011, the SaveKEMP Campaign submitted a report Engineering Report Alternative Schemes to Preserve King Edward VII Memorial Park (KEMP) document with two proposed alternative options. Further to our initial response (100-CO-CP1-OWNER-000792) we have now examined in more detail the options presented. This report presents our analysis of the viability, and relative merits compared with the Preferred Scheme, of the two alternative options. The main report provides more detail of our findings and the Map 100-DL-GEN-PTH1X-069010 depicts locations mentioned in the alternative options.

1.1.2

1.1.3

1.1.4

1.1.5

1.1.6

1.1.7

1.2
1.2.1

Thames Tunnel Preferred Scheme KEMP Foreshore

KEMP Foreshore is our preferred site for the construction and operation of the Thames Tunnel. Our Phase 1 public consultation material made it clear that we assessed the park, and particularly the eastern open parkland area, as a well-maintained recreational area the use of which would result in the temporary loss of public open space within an area where there are limited other alternatives. That is why we identified the foreshore as our preferred site. Our current proposal is to intercept the CSO and make a single vertical connection shaft to the main tunnel. This would avoid the requirement for a long horizontal connection culvert or tunnel, either near the surface, which would be highly disruptive, or at the depth of the main tunnel, where ground conditions present construction difficulties. Our proposal is therefore to create a drive though shaft which will make the tunnel connection work much safer.

1.2.2

saveKEMP alternatives Thames Water response

Page 1

1 Executive summary 1.2.3 A secondary benefit of this approach is that we can also carry out maintenance on the main tunnel boring machine (TBM) in the bottom of the shaft as it completes the drive between Abbey Mills Pumping Station and a site on the south of the River Thames.

1.3

SaveKEMP proposed alternatives

KEMP Alternative Option 1 relocation of main tunnel shaft from King Edward Memorial Park foreshore to a site at or close to Heckford Street Sites

1.3.1

The SaveKEMP proposal involves the key requirements: Several potential sites for a drop shaft to the main tunnel, north of The Highway A separate CSO interception site within KEMP to construct the interception of the NESR sewer A 3m diameter connection tunnel to be driven from the main tunnel shaft site to the KEMP interception site.

KEMP Alternative Option 2 transfer of intercepted flow from the North East and Holloway Storm Relief sewers to the main tunnel site at Kings Stairs Gardens (or alternative compatible site). 1.3.2 This option would comprise the following: A 3.6m connection tunnel, at least 1,840m long, from Butcher Row, through KEMP, discharging into the main shaft south of the river at Kings Stairs Gardens or Chambers Wharf Working sites would be needed at KEMP and Butcher Row to allow construction of interception chambers and drop shafts, and remove the tunnelling machine at Butcher Row.

1.4
1.4.1

Conclusion
Following our review of these alternative options, KEMP Foreshore remains our preferred site. It was originally selected following the professional judgement of our engineering, property, planning, community and environment teams. These same principles have been applied to the proposed alternative sites and on further examination the two alternatives do not conform to our requirements or our objectives. We have discounted Option 2 for a number of reasons outlined in the main report, including: a. It presents new and complex engineering challenges to the overall Thames Tunnel scheme. There are, both hydraulic and pneumatic concerns introducing too much flow at a single location which add unacceptable risks to the project and is therefore not feasible. b. There is insufficient time within the available programme (the target completion date is 2020) to safely undertake two tunnel drives (the connection tunnel to KEMP and one other tunnel), receive the other tunnelling machines and construct and fit out a shaft large enough to

1.4.2

saveKEMP alternatives Thames Water response

Page 2

1 Executive summary accommodate the tunnels and their flows, all within the limited space available at the Kings Stairs Gardens/Chambers Wharf site. c. 1.4.3 significant additional estimated cost of at least 30 million. Option 1 compares favourably on cost with the Preferred Site at the Foreshore. However, crucially, the proposed alternative Option 1 has a greater impact on residents, businesses and park users, among others, both in the short and long term. The key points are summarised below: a. Direct impact on businesses in the area as a number of businesses would require relocation on both a temporary and permanent basis, this may include Compulsory Purchase Orders b. Construction would be concurrently over two sites and due to their proximity would have a greater impact on traffic movements c. The sites are inland and would provide no option for moving materials by river, which we have said we will do as much as possible and where practical and cost effective to do so, to reduce impacts on local roads and residents.

d. The impact on the central open parkland area is greater, although the preferred scheme requires access to the foreshore across the western part of the park. 1.4.4 The KEMP Foreshore site will have some impact on the park during construction but also offers a real opportunity to improve the park and facilities for the local community in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. We will work with the community to understand how they want to use the newly created area; benefits would include improved access to the Thames Path and recreational facilities for those who use the park and the river. We have stressed throughout our site selection that the park is important to the local community and as there is a limited area of open space in the neighbourhood, we proposed the foreshore site. This decision was not taken lightly and we are still refining our proposals to ensure we minimise disruption to all those residents potentially affected by our works. We believe that our ongoing review to refine our proposals at the KEMP Foreshore site ensures that we meet the objectives of the Thames Tunnel, and we continue to take into account information from the local community and stakeholders as we continue to optimise the scheme.

1.4.5

1.4.6

saveKEMP alternatives Thames Water response

Page 3

2 Introduction

2
2.1.1

Introduction
The North East Storm Relief (NESR) combined sewer overflow (CSO), which flows underneath King Edward Memorial Park (KEMP), is the second largest gravity overflow to the river, discharging over 784,000m3 in a typical year This report presents an analysis of the viability, and relative merits compared with the Preferred Scheme, of two alternative schemes presented by the SaveKEMP campaign group in their report Engineering Report Alternative Schemes to Preserve King Edward VII Memorial Park. Phase 1 public consultation looked at all the preferred and shortlisted sites along with the three tunnel route options. The analysis of the consultation responses are set out in a report titled Thames Tunnel: Main Report on Phase 1 Consultation and is available on our website. The SaveKEMP proposal was received on 16 March 2011, The Preferred Scheme has been further developed taking into account feedback from Phase 1 Consultation and ongoing design. Among other developments, alternatives to interception of the Holloway Storm Relief sewer at Butcher Row, and the Shad Thames CSO at Druid Street, are being investigated. These alternatives are not yet fully approved, but the effect of not requiring interception of the Holloway Storm Relief Sewer at Butcher Row on the SaveKEMP options has been considered in this report. At the time of the Phase 1 consultation, the preferred location of the next tunnel shaft west (upstream) of KEMP was at Kings Stairs Gardens in Southwark. Since then, a possible alternative CSO tunnel shaft location has been acquired at Chambers Wharf. The use of Chambers Wharf is now under investigation but at the time of writing this paper, no decision has been taken on a preferred site.

2.1.2

2.1.3

2.1.4

2.1.5

saveKEMP alternatives Thames Water response

Page 4

3 Key features of schemes

3
3.1.1

Key features of schemes

Drawing 100-DL-GEN-PTH1X-069010 and Table 2.1 illustrates the main features of the area and designates the site references used in the following sections. The report Site Selection Methodology Technical Background Paper, published on our website, sets out the sizes needed for different types of construction site. A construction site for a drop shaft connected to the main tunnel should be approximately 7,500m2 in this part of London, and a CSO interception site approximately 1,500m2. Table 3.1 Key Features of Schemes Element CSO drop shaft to main tunnel Preferred Scheme 20m internal diameter shaft at KEMP foreshore. 7,500m2 temp reclamation, 2,000m2 permanent reclamation SaveKEMP Option 1 20m internal diameter shaft north of The Highway. 7,500m2 temp working space, 2,000m2 permanent SaveKEMP Option 2 Enlarged shaft (from 25m to at least 30m internal diameter) at Kings Stairs Gardens or Chambers Wharf. No increase in site area. KEMP

3.1.2

North East SR CSO interception location Holloway SR CSO interception location North East SR connection

KEMP foreshore, as CSO shaft. Butcher Row CSO shaft (no tunnel required)

KEMP

Butcher Row CSO shaft 295m long, 3m internal diameter

Butcher Row CSO shaft 1,840m long, 3.6m internal diameter to Kings Stairs Gardens, 2,230m long 3.6m internal diameter to Chambers Wharf 320m long, 3.6m internal diameter

Holloway SR connection

650m long, 2.2m internal diameter

320m long, 2.2m internal diameter

saveKEMP alternatives Thames Water response

Page 5

4 SaveKEMP Option 1

4
4.1.1

SaveKEMP Option 1 Main tunnel shaft north of The Highway

The SaveKEMP proposal identifies several potential sites for a drop shaft to the main tunnel, north of The Highway. This option would also require a separate CSO interception site within KEMP to construct the interception of the NESR sewer, and a connection tunnel to be driven from the main tunnel shaft site. The site numbers are indicated on the attached plan.

4.2
4.2.1

Site 3 Heckford Street sites

These are variously known as the Heckford Street Business Centre and as The Highway Trading Centre and The Highway Business Park, but are referred to as the Heckford Street sites in this document. They are accessed from Heckford Street, which adjoins The Highway (A1203). The sites are currently occupied by commercial buildings, warehouses and offices of one to two storeys in height with associated parking areas. The Heckford Street sites are bounded to the north by Cable Street, which is lined by one of the Mayor of Londons strategic Cycle Superhighway routes, five-storey council-owned residential properties and a closed, rundown public house. To the east is a large warehouse building comprising about 170 small units occupied by small businesses, including artist and recording studios (Cable Street Studios). Also, to the east of the site are Cranford Cottages, which are two-storey, terraced properties, and an eight-storey Holiday Inn Express hotel. The Heckford Street sites are bounded to the south by A1203 (The Highway), a strategic dual carriageway, part of the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN). Beyond this are three large apartment buildings of between five to eight storeys high which front the A1203. To the west is the Shadwell Centre, a large, four-storey building surrounded by a 2-2.5m wall. The centre is Tower Hamlets lifelong learning centre (Idea Store). Also, west of the site are newly built, residential studios with offices below and a small, multiuse basketball court. This site meets the size requirements for constructing a drop connected to the main tunnel but is currently occupied by various businesses. Apart from the cost, relocating these businesses to make the site available would be disruptive to the businesses and their employees, and reduce employment opportunities in the area. Most of the site could be returned to industrial use after completion of the Thames Tunnel but an area of about 2,000m2 would not be available for building over. The shaft would need to be located as shown on the drawing to provide adequate clearance from the Rotherhithe Tunnel. Ideally the clearance would be 30m, but the presence of high-rise buildings nearby limits the clearance that can be achieved without the main tunnel passing under piled building foundations.

4.2.2

4.2.3

4.2.4

4.3
4.3.1

Sites 4a and 4b Cemex and Studio sites

These sites would be needed together to provide sufficient land area. The Cemex site is occupied by a concrete batching plant and associated facilities which serve construction sites in this area, including the City of

saveKEMP alternatives Thames Water response

Page 6

4 SaveKEMP Option 1 London, and is accessed from Butcher Row. The Cable Street Studios site is occupied by a Victorian brick built warehouse building, accessed off Cable Street. The building has been converted and subdivided into about 170 small units occupied by numerous small businesses including artist and recording studios. Cable Street is one-way traffic, eastbound and includes the Mayor of Londons strategic Cycle Super highway routes immediately adjacent to the site. To the north is a hoarded off partially cleared site that was previously in industrial use (Site 4c). Adjoining Site 4c, also north of this site, are recently built and occupied five-storey blocks of flats (on the corner of Ratcliffe Cross Street and Cable Street) and on the junction of Caroline Street and Cable Street is older five-storey social housing. 4.3.2 The nature and number of current uses on these sites mean that it is likely to be significantly more difficult to justify disruption to the existing businesses than the Heckford Street sites and, particularly in the case of the Cemex site, unlikely be able to be relocated in this area due to the nature of the business and proximity of residential and other sensitive uses. The loss of these employment uses is also unlikely to be supported in this area which the council has considered to be an industrial area where loss of any employment uses will be resisted as being contrary to their statutory Development Plan, the recently adopted Core Strategy. The demolition of the Cable Street Studios building is also likely to be more sensitive than the buildings on the Heckford Street sites given the age and style of buildings. Since the Rotherhithe Tunnel runs under the southern third of the Cemex site, the shaft would need to be located on the northern side of the Cemex site. This may compromise effective reuse of the site after tunnel construction.

4.3.3

4.4
4.4.1

Sites 4b and 4c Studio site and Cable Street site

The Studio site is as described above. The Cable Street site (4c) is the hoarded off partially cleared site that was previously in industrial use, and a Victorian building and yard used for motor vehicle servicing which is accessed off Butcher Row. These sites together would have adequate area, but are separated by Cable Street. To keep the drop shaft to the main tunnel away from the DLR, the shaft would need to be located within the Studio site. The split of these sites either side of Cable Street makes this a less suitable site than the Heckford Street sites particularly accessing the Cable Street site and providing safe movement of materials and workers across Cable Street as well as protecting users of Cable Street, particularly the strategic cycle route. In addition this would result in the loss of a historic industrial warehouse building.

4.4.2 4.4.3

4.5
4.5.1

Sites 4c and 5 Cable Street and Butcher Row

Both sites together only provide 6,500m2, which is less than the site selection criteria land area, and they are separated by Butcher Row (land

saveKEMP alternatives Thames Water response

Page 7

4 SaveKEMP Option 1 owned by the the Royal Foundation of St Katherine) which is a strategic red route.

4.6
4.6.1

General assessment
Site 3, Heckford Street sites, are considered the most practical of the sites north of The Highway, with both the Cemex and the Cable Street Studio sites having a more significant detrimental impact on existing employment uses. Use of any of the sites north of The Highway for a tunnel shaft would require realignment of the main tunnel inland from the river, passing under numerous residential and business properties, with potential albeit minor impacts on a large number of people. There would also need to be an additional connection tunnel with potentially greater impacts. The preferred foreshore shaft site allows an alignment which is almost all under the river, passing under very few buildings in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, especially if the Butcher Row interception is not required.. The site required at Butcher Row for a connection to the Holloway Storm Relief sewer would be the same as for the Preferred Scheme. A site would be required within KEMP adjacent the North East Storm Relief sewer to construct a connection tunnel reception shaft, and sewer interception chambers, but this would be smaller than a foreshore site and would be required for a shorter period; estimated to be about half the time required on the foreshore.

4.6.2

4.6.3

saveKEMP alternatives Thames Water response

Page 8

5 SaveKEMP Option 2

5
5.1.1

SaveKEMP Option 2 No main tunnel shaft at KEMP

This option would comprise a 3.6m internal diameter connection tunnel, more than 1,840m long, from Butcher Row, through KEMP, and discharging into the main shaft south of the river at Kings Stairs Gardens or Chambers Wharf. Because of limited site space at Butcher Row, this connection tunnel would have to be driven from Kings Stairs Gardens/Chambers Wharf. CSO worksites would be needed at both KEMP and Butcher Row to allow construction of interception chambers and drop shafts, and to remove the tunnelling machine. The Kings Stairs Gardens/Chambers Wharf main shaft is also the connection point for the Greenwich connection tunnel. The total inflow (including the North East Storm Relief and Holloway Storm Relief flows) to the main tunnel at Kings Stairs Gardens/Wharf would amount to some 95m3/s, which presents a number of significant design challenges. Moving large volumes of water generates large hydraulic forces and turbulence that must be safely controlled. If only the Greenwich flows are connected at Kings Stairs Gardens/Wharf, the shaft would have to be 25m internal diameter. To cater for the additional NESR flows, this shaft would have to be duplicated or made significantly larger, initially assumed to be 30m internal diameter, but, even then there would be a high risk of inadequate performance. Furthermore construction health and safety risks would increase due to the need to construct vortex approach chambers at depth outside of the shaft. Pneumatic issues arise partly from the coming together of flows from upstream (west) flowing down the main tunnel, and Abbey Mills inflows back-flowing up the main tunnel, trapping air between the wave fronts, and partly from the amount of entrained air which would be introduced at Kings Stairs Gardens/Wharf due to the large inflows there. In very rare storm events the risk is of trapped air pockets causing unacceptable surge effects in the tunnel. The Preferred Scheme foreshore shaft directly connected to the main tunnel near KEMP serves an important role in preventing this problem by allowing the tunnel to ventilate because of its location between the major inflows at Kings Stairs Gardens/Wharf and Abbey Mills. The need to drive the 1,840m long 3.6m internal diameter connection tunnel to Butcher Row (via KEMP) from Kings Stairs Gardens/Chambers Wharf presents a programme issue at the Kings Stairs Gardens/Wharf site, which is also the drive site for a tunnel to either Abbey Mills or Greenwich Pumping Station, the drive site for the tunnel to Druid Street (if confirmed to be necessary) and reception site for the main tunnel from the west and/or the connection tunnel from Greenwich. Kings Stairs Gardens/Chambers Wharf is located roughly at a change in geology, with chalk to the east requiring slurry pressure balance tunnel boring machines (SPB TBM) and clay/to the west allowing use of earth pressure balance (EPB) machines. All of the tunnels that would be driven from Kings Stairs Gardens/Chambers Wharf would require SPB TBMs and because of the

5.1.2

5.1.3

5.1.4

5.1.5

5.1.6

saveKEMP alternatives Thames Water response

Page 9

5 SaveKEMP Option 2 space required for the associated slurry handling plant, the two drives could not be carried out at the same time. While receiving a TBM requires much less equipment and time than driving, a clear window needs to be programmed for each of the incoming drives, during which the shaft cannot be used for other activities. Shaft fit-out, including the construction of the vortex drop shaft and roof, cannot be undertaken until all the tunnel drives to/from the shaft have been completed. Consequently there is insufficient time within the available programme to safely undertake all tunnelling and shaft construction from Kings Stairs Gardens/Chambers Wharf site. 5.1.7 It is concluded that the SaveKEMP Option 2 is not technically feasible at the Kings Stairs Gardens/Chambers Wharf site and the need to make adequate provision for ventilation of the main tunnel, and it cannot be completed within the time available. Even if the hydro-pneumatic problems could be overcome, the cost of this option would be significantly higher, estimated to be at least 30 million, than the Preferred Scheme.

5.2
5.2.1

Comparison of Preferred Scheme and SaveKEMP Option 1

Of the potential sites north of The Highway, the Heckford Street sites are considered the most suitable and have been used for the assessment. Using the Cemex site would effectively close a strategic business important to construction in the east side of the city. Using the Cable Street Studio site would result in the loss of a building of some local architectural or historical merit and displace some 170 small businesses in a location where there is already a shortage of space for these uses. A comparison between the Phase 1 preferred site and the SaveKEMP Option 1 alternative is presented below.

5.2.2

5.3
5.3.1

Planning and Community comparisons

The construction impacts on the eastern edge of the existing park for the Preferred Scheme are potentially significant, but albeit temporary. This area, and in particular the Thames Path, are judged to be in need of improvement. On completion of the tunnel works, there would be an increase in open space and a significant opportunity, within economic constraints, for enhancement of the park. For the SaveKEMP Option 1, the construction site in the park would be smaller and for a shorter duration, but would impact more users in the heart of the park. There would be almost negligible long-term impact or benefit in the park. Both options would have an impact on the setting and character of Wapping Wall and York conservation areas. The Preferred Scheme is close to the listed Rotherhithe Shaft in the park. The SaveKEMP Option 1 would require partial demolition of terracing and temporary relocation of the King Edward Memorial. The Preferred Scheme has no direct impact on existing business uses or protected employment, but the SaveKEMP Option 1 would require relocation of numerous small to medium size businesses. The loss of employment facilities without suitable justification and replacement elsewhere in this area would be contrary to planning policy.

5.3.2

5.3.3

saveKEMP alternatives Thames Water response

Page 10

5 SaveKEMP Option 2 5.3.4 The Preferred Scheme would have amenity impacts on a number of residential properties particularly along the western edge of park. SaveKEMP Option 1 would use two construction sites and is likely to have residential amenity impacts on a greater number of residential properties, as well as other sensitive uses such as the Shadwell Centre and Cable Street Studios, in addition to impacts on residents adjacent to the park. The Heckford Street sites are adjacent, on three sides, to a predominately residential area. The alignment of the main tunnel and the construction sites for the Preferred Scheme minimises the number of potential residential properties passed under. The Heckford Street sites are immediately adjacent to a site allocated in Schedule 3 of the UDP relating to arts and entertainment. The SaveKEMP Option 1 tunnel alignment would be under more properties including a number of sensitive uses such as recording studios, library and residential properties.

5.3.5

5.4
5.4.1

Property comparison
All of the SaveKEMP Option 1 sites will cause disruption, principally to the businesses on the sites, and the acquisition and compensation costs will be significantly higher than those expected for the Preferred Scheme. It is assumed that any of the sites could be acquired under reasonable business terms, but it should be noted that should Compulsory Purchase Orders be required, it may be difficult to justify the land acquisition since the foreshore is a feasible alternative. Preliminary enquiries were made in 2010 for a proposed mixed use redevelopment of the Heckford Street sites, including a substantial residential element. Should any of the sites be granted and implement residential planning permission, a risk with the Heckford Street sites and the Cable Street site, the site would be ruled out in line with the Site Selection Methodology relating to residential property.

5.4.2

5.5
5.5.1

Engineering comparisons
Hydraulically, both the Preferred Scheme and the SaveKEMP Option 1 can be engineered to operate satisfactorily, and so there is no overriding preference between them. The site of the CSO shaft under the Preferred Scheme provides a site of adequate area and a tunnel alignment which is almost all under the river, passing under very few buildings and avoiding as many residential and business properties as possible. The SaveKEMP Option 1 sites would require a main tunnel alignment inland from the river, passing under numerous buildings. The depth of the main tunnel is such that the risk of encountering buried obstructions such as building foundation piles is negligible, but there is a risk to the connection tunnels, albeit small. The Preferred Scheme presents a lower risk of settlement damage than SaveKEMP Option 1.

5.5.2

5.5.3

saveKEMP alternatives Thames Water response

Page 11

5 SaveKEMP Option 2

5.6
5.6.1

Environmental comparisons
The significant environmental considerations include the following: a. The Preferred Scheme foreshore location provides the opportunity for river transport, as barges can moor alongside the site, whereas none of the SaveKEMP Option 1 sites would permit river transport. Otherwise, there is no clear preference. b. There is no clear preference between the options regarding built heritage and townscape, as both proposals are likely to affect the character of the park and the conservation area, albeit in different ways. c. The SaveKEMP Option 1 is preferable regarding water resources due to its lower risk of spillage, scour, etc, impacts on the River Thames.

d. The SaveKEMP Option 1 is preferable regarding aquatic ecology since it has no adverse impacts on foreshore habitats. e. The Preferred Scheme is preferable regarding construction impacts including air quality and noise, given that more people are likely to be affected under SaveKEMP Option 1 (notably in the environs of Heckford Street sites). f. The SaveKEMP Option 1 results in double the duration of construction impacts when the time taken to build on two sites is compared with one site for the Preferred Scheme.

5.6.2

In summary, there is no overriding environmental consideration in favour of either of the options. The Preferred Scheme is likely to have lower construction impacts than the alternative and the contamination risks are lower. Conversely, the alternative proposal removes a foreshore site and so is preferable in the context of ecology, flood risk and water resources.

saveKEMP alternatives Thames Water response

Page 12

6 Costs

6
6.1.1

Costs
The estimated overall scheme costs of the Preferred Scheme and SaveKEMP Option 1 are similar, within estimating accuracy at this stage of design, and so direct costs are not a significant factor in the selection of options. Indirect costs associated with business disruption due to increased traffic on The Highway have not been calculated but would be higher for the SaveKEMP Option 1. a. The SaveKEMP Option 2 is estimated cost at least 30 million more than the Preferred Scheme.

7
7.1.1

Conclusion
Following our review, KEMP Foreshore remains our preferred site. It was originally selected following the professional judgement of our engineering, property, planning, community and environment teams. These same principles have been applied to the proposed alternative sites and on further examination the two alternatives do not conform to our requirements or our objectives. We have discounted Option 2 for a number of reasons outlined in the main report, including: a. It presents new and complex engineering challenges to the Thames Tunnel scheme, both hydraulic and pneumatic concerns introducing too much flow at a single location which add unacceptable risks to the project. b. there is insufficient time within the available programme (the target completion date is 2020) to safely undertake two tunnel drives, the other tunnels and construct and fit out a shaft large enough to accommodate the tunnels and their flows, all within the limited space available at the Kings Stairs Gardens/Chambers Wharf site. c. significant additional estimated cost of at least 30 million.

7.1.2

7.1.3

Option 1 could be compared favourably on cost with the Preferred Site at the Foreshore. However, crucially, the proposed alternative Option 1 has a greater impact on residents, businesses and park users, among others, both in the short and long term. The key points are summarised below: a. Direct impact on businesses in the area as a number of businesses would require relocation on both a temporary and permanent basis, this may include Compulsory Purchase Orders b. Construction would be concurrently over two sites and due to their proximity would have a greater impact on traffic movements c. The sites are inland and would provide no option for moving materials by river, which we have said we will do as much as possible and where practical and cost effective to do so, to reduce impacts on local roads and residents.

d. The impact on the central open parkland area is greater, although the preferred scheme requires access to the foreshore across the western part of the park.

saveKEMP alternatives Thames Water response

Page 13

6 Costs 7.1.4 The KEMP Foreshore site will have some impact on the park during construction but also offers a real opportunity to improve the park and their facilities for the local community in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. We will work with the community to understand how they want to use the newly created area; benefits would include improved access to the Thames Path and recreational facilities for those who use the park and the river. We have stressed throughout our site selection that the park is important to the local community and as there is a limited area of open space in the neighbourhood, we proposed the foreshore site. This decision was not taken lightly and we are still refining our proposals to ensure we minimise disruption to all those residents potentially affected by our works. We believe that our ongoing review to refine our proposals at the KEMP Foreshore site ensures that we meet the objectives of the Thames Tunnel, and we continue to take into account information from the local community and stakeholders as we continue to refine the scheme. The conclusion has been tested for the scenario without the proposed Holloway Storm Relief interception at Butcher Row site and does not change. Similarly, the conclusion would not change if the Southwark and Bermondsey Relief Sewer is not intercepted at Druid Street.

7.1.5

7.1.6

7.1.7

saveKEMP alternatives Thames Water response

Page 14