PEIR Main Report Vol19 Albert Embankment Foreshore

Preliminary environmental information report
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore site assessment

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

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

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

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

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

List of contents
Page number
1 2
Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 Site context ....................................................................................................... 2 2.1 2.2 Site location ............................................................................................. 2 Environmental setting .............................................................................. 2 Overview.................................................................................................. 4 Operation ................................................................................................. 5 Construction ............................................................................................ 7 Design development and on site alternatives ........................................ 12 Base case .............................................................................................. 13 Introduction ............................................................................................ 15 Proposed development .......................................................................... 15 Assessment methodology...................................................................... 17 Baseline conditions................................................................................ 18 Construction assessment ...................................................................... 21 Operational assessment ........................................................................ 24 Approach to mitigation ........................................................................... 25 Assessment summary ........................................................................... 26 Assessment completion ......................................................................... 27 Introduction ............................................................................................ 28 Proposed development .......................................................................... 28 Assessment methodology...................................................................... 29 Baseline conditions................................................................................ 32 Construction assessment ...................................................................... 39 Operational assessment ........................................................................ 46 Approach to mitigation ........................................................................... 50 Assessment summary ........................................................................... 52
Proposed development.................................................................................... 4 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5
Air quality and odour ..................................................................................... 15 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9
Ecology - aquatic ........................................................................................... 28 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8
Page iii
5.9 6 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 7 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 8 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 9 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5
Assessment completion ......................................................................... 57 Introduction ............................................................................................ 58 Proposed development .......................................................................... 58 Assessment methodology...................................................................... 59 Baseline conditions................................................................................ 61 Construction assessment ...................................................................... 64 Operational assessment ........................................................................ 65 Approach to mitigation ........................................................................... 65 Assessment summary ........................................................................... 67 Assessment completion ......................................................................... 69 Introduction ............................................................................................ 70 Proposed development .......................................................................... 70 Assessment methodology...................................................................... 71 Baseline conditions................................................................................ 73 Construction assessment ...................................................................... 89 Operational assessment ........................................................................ 95 Approach to mitigation ........................................................................... 96 Assessment summary ........................................................................... 99 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 102 Introduction .......................................................................................... 103 Proposed development ........................................................................ 103 Assessment methodology.................................................................... 103 Baseline conditions.............................................................................. 104 Construction assessment .................................................................... 111 Operational assessment ...................................................................... 114 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 116 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 117 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 118 Introduction .......................................................................................... 119 Proposed development ........................................................................ 119 Assessment methodology.................................................................... 121 Baseline conditions.............................................................................. 122 Construction assessment .................................................................... 125
Ecology - terrestrial ....................................................................................... 58
Historic environment ..................................................................................... 70
Land quality .................................................................................................. 103
Noise and vibration ...................................................................................... 119
Page iv
9.6 9.7 9.8 9.9 10 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 10.7 10.8 10.9 11 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6 11.7 11.8 11.9 12 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 12.6 12.7 12.8 12.9 13 13.1 13.2
Operational assessment ...................................................................... 135 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 137 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 139 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 141 Introduction .......................................................................................... 142 Proposed development ........................................................................ 142 Assessment methodology.................................................................... 142 Baseline conditions.............................................................................. 143 Construction assessment .................................................................... 150 Operational assessment ...................................................................... 159 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 161 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 162 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 164 Introduction .......................................................................................... 165 Proposed development ........................................................................ 165 Assessment methodology.................................................................... 166 Baseline conditions.............................................................................. 168 Construction assessment .................................................................... 186 Operational assessment ...................................................................... 197 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 208 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 209 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 218 Introduction .......................................................................................... 219 Proposed development ........................................................................ 219 Assessment methodology.................................................................... 224 Baseline conditions.............................................................................. 227 Construction assessment .................................................................... 232 Operational assessment ...................................................................... 239 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 243 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 246 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 249 Introduction .......................................................................................... 250 Proposed development ........................................................................ 250
Socio-economics ......................................................................................... 142
Townscape and visual ................................................................................. 165
Transport ...................................................................................................... 219
Water resources groundwater ................................................................. 250
Page v
13.3 13.4 13.5 13.6 13.7 13.8 13.9 14 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 14.5 14.6 14.7 14.8 14.9 15 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 15.5 15.6
Assessment methodology.................................................................... 252 Baseline conditions.............................................................................. 252 Construction assessment .................................................................... 255 Operational assessment ...................................................................... 259 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 261 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 262 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 264 Introduction .......................................................................................... 265 Proposed development ........................................................................ 265 Assessment methodology.................................................................... 267 Baseline conditions.............................................................................. 267 Construction assessment .................................................................... 271 Operational assessment ...................................................................... 278 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 285 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 287 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 288 Introduction .......................................................................................... 289 Policy considerations ........................................................................... 290 Regulatory position .............................................................................. 290 Assessment of flood risk ...................................................................... 292 Flood risk design and mitigation ....................................................... 301 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 302
Water resources surface water ................................................................ 265
Water resources flood risk ....................................................................... 289
Appendices ........................................................................................................... 304 Appendix A Historic environment ....................................................................... 306 Appendix B : Land quality .................................................................................. 322 Appendix C : Noise and vibration ....................................................................... 324 Appendix D : Townscape and visual .................................................................. 329 Appendix E : Water resources - groundwater .................................................... 334 Glossary ................................................................................................................ 351 References ............................................................................................................ 366
Page vi
List of figures
Page number
Vol 19 Figure 2.1.1 Site location plan ........................................................................ 2 Vol 19 Figure 2.2.1 Environmental setting ................................................................. 2 Vol 19 Figure 3.1.1 Demolition and site clearance plan 1 .......................................... 4 Vol 19 Figure 3.1.2 Demolition and site clearance plan 2 .......................................... 4 Vol 19 Figure 3.1.3 Construction phasing plan - site setup ....................................... 4 Vol 19 Figure 3.1.4 Construction - shaft construction and tunnelling ......................... 4 Vol 19 Figure 3.1.5 Construction - construction of other structures ........................... 4 Vol 19 Figure 3.1.6 Permanent works layout 1 .......................................................... 4 Vol 19 Figure 3.1.7 Permanent works layout 2 .......................................................... 4 Vol 19 Figure 4.4.1 Air quality monitoring locations .................................................. 19 Vol 19 Figure 5.4.1 Aquatic ecology - sampling locations ....................................... 34 Vol 19 Figure 5.4.2 Aquatic ecology - fish catches .................................................. 35 Vol 19 Figure 6.4.1 Terrestrial ecology Phase 1 habitat survey............................ 62 Vol 19 Figure 7.4.1 Historic environment features map ........................................... 73 Vol 19 Figure 8.4.1 Land quality contaminative land uses.................................. 105 Vol 19 Figure 8.4.2 Land quality borehole locations ........................................... 109 Vol 19 Figure 8.4.3 Land quality environmental records and waste sites ........... 110 Vol 19 Figure 9.4.1 Noise and vibration receptors ................................................. 122 Vol 19 Figure 10.4.1 Socio-economic context ....................................................... 145 Vol 19 Figure 11.4.1 Townscape and visual development pattern and scale ..... 168 Vol 19 Figure 11.4.2 Townscape and visual pattern and extent of vegetation .... 169 Vol 19 Figure 11.4.3 Townscape and visual open space distribution and type... 169 Vol 19 Figure 11.4.4 Townscape and visual transport network .......................... 171 Vol 19 Figure 11.4.5 Townscape and visual character areas ............................. 173 Vol 19 Figure 11.4.6 Townscape and visual viewpoint locations ........................ 182 Vol 19 Figure 12.2.1 Transport - construction lorry profile ..................................... 222 Vol 19 Figure 12.2.2 Transport - construction barge profile ................................... 223 Vol 19 Figure 12.4.1 Transport site plan ................................................................ 227 Vol 19 Figure 15.4.1 Flood risk EA flood zones .................................................. 293
Page vii
List of tables
Page number
Vol 19 Table 3.3.1 Working hours ........................................................................... 12 Vol 19 Table 3.4.1 Design development at Albert Embankment Foreshore ............ 13 Vol 19 Table 4.3.1 Air quality and odour stakeholder engagement ......................... 17 Vol 19 Table 4.4.1 Air quality - measured NO2 concentrations ................................ 18 Vol 19 Table 4.4.2 Air quality - measured PM10 concentrations............................... 18 Vol 19 Table 4.4.3 Air quality - additional monitoring locations................................ 19 Vol 19 Table 4.4.4 Air quality background pollutant concentrations ........................ 20 Vol 19 Table 4.4.5 Air quality receptors- construction ............................................. 20 Vol 19 Table 4.6.1 Odour impacts at ground level - operation ................................. 25 Vol 19 Table 4.6.2 Odour impacts at buildings - operation ...................................... 25 Vol 19 Table 4.8.1 Air quality summary of construction assessment ....................... 26 Vol 19 Table 4.8.2 Odour summary of operational assessment .............................. 26 Vol 19 Table 5.3.1 Aquatic ecology stakeholder engagement ................................. 30 Vol 19 Table 5.4.1 Aquatic ecology features of interest........................................... 33 Vol 19 Table 5.4.2 Aquatic ecology fish survey ....................................................... 34 Vol 19 Table 5.4.3 Aquatic ecology invertebrate fauna ........................................... 36 Vol 19 Table 5.4.4 Aquatic ecology receptor value.................................................. 39 Vol 19 Table 5.5.1 Aquatic ecology impacts - construction ..................................... 41 Vol 19 Table 5.6.1 Aquatic ecology impacts - operation .......................................... 47 Vol 19 Table 5.8.1 Aquatic ecology summary of construction assessment .......... 52 Vol 19 Table 5.8.2 Aquatic ecology summary of operational assessment ............ 55 Vol 19 Table 6.3.1 Terrestrial ecology stakeholder engagement ............................. 59 Vol 19 Table 6.3.2 Terrestrial ecology notable species surveys .............................. 60 Vol 19 Table 6.4.1 Terrestrial ecology Phase 1 habitat survey ................................ 62 Vol 19 Table 6.8.1 Terrestrial ecology construction assessment summary ............. 67 Vol 19 Table 7.4.1 Historic environment receptors .................................................. 88 Vol 19 Table 7.5.1 Historic environment construction effects .................................. 92 Vol 19 Table 7.6.1 Historic environment assets - operational assessment .............. 96 Vol 19 Table 7.8.1 Historic environment construction assessment summary .......... 99 Vol 19 Table 7.8.2 Historic environment summary of operational effects .............. 101 Vol 19 Table 8.4.1 Land quality contaminative land uses ...................................... 105 Vol 19 Table 8.4.2 Land quality site geology and hydrogeology ............................ 107
Page viii
Vol 19 Table 8.4.3 Land quality data for borehole SR2059 ................................... 110 Vol 19 Table 8.4.4 Land quality environmental records and waste sites ............... 110 Vol 19 Table 8.5.1 Land quality impacts - construction ......................................... 113 Vol 19 Table 8.5.2 Land quality effects - construction ........................................... 114 Vol 19 Table 8.5.3 Land quality effects - construction ........................................... 114 Vol 19 Table 8.6.1 Land quality impacts - operation .............................................. 115 Vol 19 Table 8.6.2 Land quality receptors - operation ........................................... 115 Vol 19 Table 8.6.3 Land quality significance of effects - operation ........................ 116 Vol 19 Table 8.8.1 Land quality summary of construction assessment ................. 117 Vol 19 Table 8.8.2 Land quality summary of operational assessment ................... 117 Vol 19 Table 9.4.1 Noise and vibration receptor locations and noise levels .......... 123 Vol 19 Table 9.4.2 Noise and vibration receptor sensitivity ................................... 124 Vol 19 Table 9.4.3 Noise and vibration sensitive receptors / categories ................ 124 Vol 19 Table 9.5.1 Noise impacts at AE1, Peninsula Heights - construction ......... 126 Vol 19 Table 9.5.2 Noise impacts at AE2, 151 Rivermill construction ................... 127 Vol 19 Table 9.5.3 Noise impacts at AE3, 48-57 Millbank Road - construction ..... 128 Vol 19 Table 9.5.4 Noise impacts at AE4, 1-146 Bridge House -construction ........ 129 Vol 19 Table 9.5.5 Noise impacts at AE5, Camelford House -construction ........... 130 Vol 19 Table 9.5.6 Noise impacts at AE6, SIS building - construction ................... 131 Vol 19 Table 9.5.7 Vibration impacts at buildings/structures -construction ............ 132 Vol 19 Table 9.5.8 Vibration impacts / human response - construction ................. 133 Vol 19 Table 9.5.9 Noise and vibration construction effects .................................. 135 Vol 19 Table 9.6.1 Airborne noise impacts -operation ........................................... 136 Vol 19 Table 9.6.2 Noise and vibration operational effects .................................... 137 Vol 19 Table 9.8.1 Noise and vibration assessment summary - construction ........ 139 Vol 19 Table 9.8.2 Noise and vibration assessment summary - operation ............ 140 Vol 19 Table 10.4.1 Socio-economics receptors ................................................... 149 Vol 19 Table 10.5.1 Socio-economics construction effects .................................... 157 Vol 19 Table 10.6.1 Socio-economics operational effects ...................................... 160 Vol 19 Table 10.8.1 Socio-economics summary of construction assessment ........ 162 Vol 19 Table 10.8.2 Socio-economics summary of operational assessment .......... 163 Vol 19 Table 11.4.1 Open space type and distribution .......................................... 170 Vol 19 Table 11.4.2 Townscape and visual site components ................................ 172 Vol 19 Table 11.4.3 Townscape sensitivities to change ........................................ 181 Vol 19 Table 11.4.4 Visual viewpoints sensitivities to change ............................... 185
Page ix
Vol 19 Table 11.5.1 Townscape and visual effects - construction ......................... 186 Vol 19 Table 11.5.2 Townscape character areas effects - construction ................ 191 Vol 19 Table 11.5.3 Viewpoints effects - construction ........................................... 196 Vol 19 Table 11.6.1 Townscape effects - Year 1 of operation ............................... 197 Vol 19 Table 11.6.2 Townscape character areas effects Year 1 of operation ....... 202 Vol 19 Table 11.6.3 Viewpoint effects - construction ............................................. 207 Vol 19 Table 11.8.1 Townscape assessment summary - construction .................. 209 Vol 19 Table 11.8.2 Visual assessment summary - construction........................... 210 Vol 19 Table 11.8.3 Townscape assessment summary Year 1 of operation ...... 212 Vol 19 Table 11.8.4 Visual assessment summary Year 1 of operation............... 214 Vol 19 Table 12.2.1 Transport - construction traffic details .................................... 220 Vol 19 Table 12.2.2 Transport - construction traffic routes .................................... 221 Vol 19 Table 12.2.3 Transport - construction worker numbers .............................. 224 Vol 19 Table 12.3.1 Transport stakeholder engagement ....................................... 225 Vol 19 Table 12.4.1 Transport - bus service frequency ......................................... 228 Vol 19 Table 12.4.2 Transport receptors ............................................................... 232 Vol 19 Table 12.5.1 Transport forecast construction vehicle movements ........... 235 Vol 19 Table 12.8.1 Transport assessment summary - construction ..................... 246 Vol 19 Table 12.8.2 Transport assessment summary - operation ......................... 248 Vol 19 Table 13.2.1 Groundwater methods of construction ................................... 251 Vol 19 Table 13.4.1 Groundwater anticipated geology and hydrogeology............. 252 Vol 19 Table 13.4.2 Groundwater receptors .......................................................... 255 Vol 19 Table 13.5.1 Groundwater impacts - construction ...................................... 257 Vol 19 Table 13.5.2 Groundwater receptors - construction ................................... 258 Vol 19 Table 13.5.3 Groundwater effects - construction ........................................ 258 Vol 19 Table 13.6.1 Groundwater impacts -operation ........................................... 260 Vol 19 Table 13.6.2 Groundwater effects -operation ............................................. 260 Vol 19 Table 13.8.1 Groundwater summary of construction assessment .............. 262 Vol 19 Table 13.8.2 Groundwater construction assessment ................................. 263 Vol 19 Table 14.4.1 Surface water receptors......................................................... 268 Vol 19 Table 14.5.1 Surface water impacts - construction ..................................... 276 Vol 19 Table 14.5.2 Surface water effects - construction ...................................... 278 Vol 19 Table 14.6.1 Surface water impacts - operation ......................................... 282 Vol 19 Table 14.6.2 Surface water effects - operation ........................................... 285 Vol 19 Table 14.8.1 Surface water assessment summary - construction .............. 287
Page x
Vol 19 Table 14.8.2 Surface water assessment summary - operation................... 287 Vol 19 Table 15.4.1 Flood risk runoff rates onsite ................................................. 299
Page xi
List of abbreviations AADT ACE AM AOD APZ AQEG AQMA AQO ARS ASR ASSI ATC ATD AURN BAP BGS BMWP BOD BPIP BPM BS CABE CAMS CCI CCSS CCTV CDA CEMP CIRIA CLR CoCP CoPA CROW Annual Average Daily Traffic Arts Culture and Entertainment Morning Above Ordnance Datum Archaeological Priority Zone Air Quality Expert Group Air Quality Management Area Air Quality Objective Artificial Recharge Scheme Aquifer Storage and Recovery Area of Special Scientific Interest Automated Traffic Counter Above Tunnel Datum (defined at ~100m AOD) Automatic Urban and Rural Network Biodiversity Action Plan British Geological Survey Biological Monitoring Working Party Biochemical Oxygen Demand Building Profile Input Programme Best Practicable Means British Standard Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy Community Conservation Index Community Consultation Strategy Closed Circuit Television Critical Drainage Area Construction Environment Management Programmes Construction Industry Research and Information Association Contaminated Land Report Code of Construction Practice Control of Pollution Act Countryside and Rights of Way
Page xii
CSO dB dB LAeq,T
Combined Sewer Overflow Decibel a equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level having the same energy as a fluctuating sound over a specified time period T Department for Culture, Media and Sport Development Consent Order Department for Communities and Local Government Department for Culture media and Sport Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Department for Transport Development Management Plan Development Management Policies Document Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Dissolved Oxygen Development Plan Document Digital Terrain Mapping Environment Agency European Commission Ecological Impact Assessment Estimated Vibration Dose Value European Economic Area Environment Food and Rural Affairs Committee English Heritage Environmental Health Officer Environmental Impact Assessment European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme English Nature Environment Protection Agency Earth Pressure Balance Earth Pressure Balance Machine Equality Impact Assessment Environmental Quality Standard Environmental Statement European Union Frequently Asked Questions
Page xiii
DCMS DCO DCLG DCMS Defra DfT DMP DMPD DMRB DO DPD DTM EA EC EcIA eVDV EEA EFRA EH EHO EIA EMEP EN EPA EPB EPBM EqIA EQS ES EU FAQ
FIDOR FRA GARDIT GI GiGL GIS GLA GLHER GQA GSHP GWB GWMU H2S ha HA HDV HEA HER HGV HIA HIAB HPA HQ HRA HTC HWR IEEM IEMA IMD IPC Iron Age JNCC kg km
Frequency, Intensity, Duration, Offensiveness, Receptor Flood Risk Assessment General Aquifer Research Development and Investigation Team Ground Investigation Greenspace Information for Greater London Geographical Information System Greater London Authority Greater London Historic Environment Record General Quality Assessment (EA water quality classification) Ground Source Heat Pump Groundwater Body: distinct volume of groundwater within an aquifer or aquifers Ground Water Management Unit Hydrogen sulphide hectares Highways Authority Heavy Duty Vehicle Historic Environmental Assessment Historic Environment Record Heavy Goods Vehicle Health Impact Assessment Hydrauliska Industri AB Company Health Protection Agency Headquarter Habitats Regulations Assessment Hammersmith Town Centre Hazardous Waste Regulations (2005) Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment Index of Multiple Deprivation Infrastructure Planning Commission 600 BC AD 43 Joint Nature Conservation Committee kilograms kilometre
Page xiv
kVA kW l/d l/s LA LAARC LAQM LAQN LB LBAP LDF LGV LHA LMB LNR loWR LSB LtB LTI LTT LUL LVMF m m AOD m ATD m/s MAGIC Mbgl MEICA Ml/d MoD MOL MOLA NE NESR
kilo watt amperes kilowatt litres per day litres per second Local Authority London Archaeological Archive and Research Centre Local Air Quality Management London Air Quality Network London Borough Local Biodiversity Action Plan Local Development Framework Light Goods Vehicle Local Highway Authority Lambeth Mottled Beds Local Nature Reserve List of Wastes Regulations 2005 Lower Shelly Beds Laminated Beds London Tideway Improvements London Tideway Tunnels London Underground Limited London View Management Framework metre metres above Ordinance Datum (see AOD) metres above temporary datum, (see ATD) metres per second Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside Metres below ground level Mechanical Electrical Instrumentation Controls Automation Megalitres per day (million litres per day) Ministry of Defence Metropolitan Open Land Museum of London Archaeology Natural England North East Storm Relief
Page xv
NCR NGR NMR NNR NO2 NOx NPPF NPS NRMM NSIP NSRA NTS OCU Ofwat OS OUE PAH PCB PEI PEIR PEL PICP PIP PLA PM PM10 PPC PPE PPG PPS PPV PRoW PS pSPA PWS
National Cycle Route National Grid Reference National Monuments Record National Nature Reserve Nitrogen dioxide Oxides of nitrogen National Planning Policy Framework National Policy Statement Non Road Mobile Machinery Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project National Small-bore Rifle Association Non Technical Summary Odour Control Unit The Water Services Regulations Authority Ordnance Survey European Odour Unit Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons Polychlorinated Biphenyl Preliminary Environmental Information Preliminary Environmental Information Report Probable Effect Levels Pollution Incident Control Plan Project Information Paper Port of London Authority Afternoon Particles on the order of ~10 micrometers or less Pollution Prevention and Control Personal Protective Equipment Pollution Prevention Guidance Planning Policy Statement Peak Particle Velocity Public Rights of Way Pumping Station Potential Special Protected Area Public Water Supply
Page xvi
RAMS RAMSAR RB RBKC RBMP RDB RHS RPG RSPB RDB RTC RTD SA SAC SAM SCI SCL SFRA SI SINC SMI SNCI SO2 SoCC SPA SPD S-P-R SPZ SR SRN SSR SSSI STW SUDS
Risk Assessment Method Statement The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Royal Borough Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea River Basin Management Plans Red Data Book Royal Horticultural Society Regional Planning Guidance Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Red data book Real Time Control River Terrace Deposits Sustainability Appraisal Special Area of Conservation Scheduled Ancient Monument. More commonly referred to as Scheduled Monument Statement of Community Involvement Sprayed Concrete Lining Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Statutory Instrument Site of Importance for Nature Conservation Site of Metropolitan Importance Site Nature Conservation Importance Sulphur dioxide Statement of Community Consultation Special Protection Area Supplementary Planning Document Source-pathway-receptor Source Protection Zone Storm Relief Strategic Road Network Site Suitability Report Site of Special Scientific Interest Sewage Treatment Works Sustainable (Urban) Drainage Systems
Page xvii
SWMP SWMP t TA TAS TBC TBM TDP TEBP TEL TfL TFRM TH TLRN Tpa TPO TT TTQI TTSS TWU UDP UK UKHO UMB UPN UWWTD UWWTR UXO VDV VNEB OA WCA WEEE WFD WIA WRAP
waste - Site Waste Management Plan water Surface Water Management Plan tonne Transport Assessment Thames Archaeological Survey To be confirmed Tunnel Boring Machine Thames Discovery Programme Thames Estuary Benthic Programme Threshold Effect Levels Transport for London Tideway Fish Risk Model Tower Hamlets Transport for London Road Network tonnes per annum Tree Preservation Order Thames Tunnel Thames Tideway Quality Improvements Thames Tideway Strategic Study 2005 Thames Water Utilities Unitary Development Plan United Kingdom United Kingdom Hydrographic Office Upper Mottled Beds Upnor Formation Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations Unexploded Ordnance Vibration Dose Value Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea Opportunity Area Wildlife and Countryside Act Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive Water Framework Directive Water Industry Act 1991 Waste Resources Action Programme
Page xviii
WSI WWT ZTV ZVI
Written Scheme of Investigation Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust Zone of Theoretical Visibility Zone of Visual Influence
Page xix
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore
Section 1: Introduction
1
1.1.1 1.1.2
Introduction
This volume presents the preliminary environmental information for the Thames Tunnel proposals at Albert Embankment Foreshore. This document reports the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant environmental effects of the Thames Tunnel project at Albert Embankment Foreshore. The planned activities to assist in completing the environmental impact assessment (EIA) include: a. conclude baseline environmental surveys b. confirm final design, informed by, amongst other things, feedback from public consultation c. undertake design of possible mitigation to address adverse effects.
1.1.3
Once complete, the findings of the EIA will be reported in full in the Environmental Statement which will be submitted with the consent application This volume describes the site and environmental context in Section 2. The proposed development including construction and operation is described in Section 3.2 and 3.3. The design evolution for this site is set out in Section 3.4. Finally, Section 3.4.1 refers to other development schemes which have been submitted or with extant planning approval within or in proximity to the site. The Albert Embankment Foreshore site would be a CSO interception site connecting the Brixton Storm Relief and Clapham Storm Relief CSOs to the main Thames Tunnel through a CSO drop shaft. The two CSO together currently discharge approximately 33 times a year at approximately 277,300 m3 per year. A description of the Thames Tunnel is included in Volume 2. This includes the planning context for the project as well as local planning policies relevant to this site. The alternatives which have been considered are described in Volume 3. Scoping and technical engagement is covered in Volume 4, while Volume 5 sets out the technical assessment methodology. A project-wide assessment is provided in Volume 6. The remaining Volumes 7 to 28 contain the site specific assessments.
1.1.4
1.1.5
1.1.6
Page 1
Section 2: Site context
2 2.1
2.1.1
Site context Site location

The site is in the London Borough of Lambeth on the Albert Embankment. It is located in the foreshore under and on either side of Vauxhall Bridge plus extends downstream by some 250 metres. The site includes the Lacks Dock access and slipway which is currently used by the commercial tour company Duck Tours and utilises amphibious vehicles. The site is shown in Vol 19 Figure 2.1.1. Vol 19 Figure 2.1.1 Site location plan (see Volume 19 Figures document)
2.1.2
The site is bounded to the west by the river. The SIS building is located immediately adjacent to the site (to the east) along with two other high-rise office buildings (Camelford House and Tintagel House). The nearest residential properties are Bridge House located immediately south-east of the southern part of the site, and Peninsula Heights located north-east of the northern part of the site (north of Tintagel House). Road access to the site is from Albert Embankment (A3036), close to the junction with Vauxhall Bridge while Vauxhall National Rail and London Underground stations are within 200m of the site. There are no existing wharfage or jetty facilities within the site although in close proximity is the new passenger pier at St George Wharf to the west of Vauxhall Bridge. The Thames Path Public Right of Way runs along the river bank part of which falls within the boundary of the site.
2.1.3
2.1.4
2.2
2.2.1
Environmental setting
Environmental designations for the site and immediate surrounds are shown in Vol 19 Figure 2.2.1. Vol 19 Figure 2.2.1 Environmental setting (see Volume 19 Figures document)
2.2.2
The site is located in the River Thames and Tidal Tributaries Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) of metropolitan value. The foreshore site has ecological value due to the aquatic ecology it supports as well as its potential to support wintering birds. There are four Grade 2 listed public benches near the northern end of the site (immediately north of Peninsular Heights), as well as the site being in close proximity to Vauxhall Bridge which is Grade 2 * listed. The site lies within the Albert Embankment Conservation Area. The northern part of the site lies within the North Lambeth and Lambeth Palace Archaeological Priority Area. There are no trees recorded to be protected by Tree Preservations Orders (TPOs) on or within the immediate vicinity of the site. The site is located within the northern part of the LB Lambeth, which is designated as an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) for NO2.
2.2.3
2.2.4
2.2.5 2.2.6
Page 2
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore 2.2.7
Section 2: Site context
The site has low potential for contamination. Local geology comprises 5m of superficial deposits and made ground, 45m of London Clay, 10m of Lambeth Group and 15m of Thanet Sand. The shaft invert is within the Lambeth Group. The site is located within the Thames Tideway Foreshore and hence is considered to be functional flood plain (Flood Zone 3b).
2.2.8
Page 3
Section 3: Proposed development
3 3.1
3.1.1
Proposed development Overview

The development at Albert Embankment Foreshore consists of a CSO interception structure connecting the Brixton Storm Relief and Clapham Storm Relief CSOs to the main Thames Tunnel through a CSO drop shaft. Vol 19 Figure 3.1.1-3.1.4 show the demolition and site clearance, construction phasing and permanent works plans. Vol 19 Figure 3.1.1 Demolition and site clearance plan 1 Vol 19 Figure 3.1.2 Demolition and site clearance plan 2 Vol 19 Figure 3.1.3 Construction phasing plan - site setup Vol 19 Figure 3.1.4 Construction - shaft construction and tunnelling Vol 19 Figure 3.1.5 Construction - construction of other structures Vol 19 Figure 3.1.6 Permanent works layout 1 Vol 19 Figure 3.1.7 Permanent works layout 2 (see Volume 19 Figures document)
3.1.2
Construction of the main works at this site is scheduled to commence in early-mid 2017 (year 1) and be completed by 2020 (year 4), taking approximately three and a half years. Early works, such as utility connections and diversions may be undertaken in advance of the main works. The site would be operational in 2023. Further detail of the programme is described in Section 3.3. The following lists the structures required at this site: a. permanent piled structures within the foreshore b. a CSO drop shaft c. a connection tunnel to the main tunnel d. a combined interception and valve chamber serving the two existing CSOs e. two below-ground culverts one transferring flows from Clapham Storm Relief Sewer CSO outfall to a combined flow interception and valve chamber and one transferring intercepted flows from the combined flow interception chamber to the drop shaft f. underground air inlet and high pressure release structures at top of the CSO drop shaft
3.1.3
g. above ground ventilation columns h. underground culverts for ventilation of the shaft and pits and ducts for cables and hydraulic pipelines i. permanent restoration of the temporary construction site comprising levelling, infilling and making good, and landscaping works to incorporate maintenance vehicle hard-standing and access to chamber covers
Page 4
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore 3.1.4 3.1.5
Further details of these elements are given in Section 3.2 where these are relevant to the technical assessments that follow. The following construction works would be required: a. utilities diversion b. temporary gates and security kiosk to site entrance and exit c. temporary hoardings and other means of enclosure, barrier or screening
d. temporary office and welfare accommodation and facilities. e. temporary workshops and stores f. underground plant and machinery g. control and power equipment housed in above ground cabinets h. temporary power generation plant and lighting i. j. k. l. highways access and internal site roads (temporary and permanent). temporary material storage, handling areas and steel reinforcement fixing area power supply connection to mains supply the carrying out or maintenance of other such works.
m. temporary cofferdams in foreshore n. shaft diaphragm concrete walls, concrete base plug, cover slab and associated internal structures o. new river walls in the foreshore around the drop shaft p. combined flow interception and valve chamber in foreshore q. two connection culverts in the foreshore, between existing Clapham CSO outlet, the combined chamber and the drop shaft r. s. 3.1.6 connection tunnel from drop shaft to main tunnel terracing in the foreshore around the combined chamber.
Further details of these methods and the relevant phases are given in Section 3.2 where these are relevant to the technical assessments that follow.
3.2
3.2.1
Operation
Once developed the project would divert the majority of current CSO discharges via the CSO shaft and connection tunnel to the main tunnel for treatment at Beckton Sewage Treatment Works. The number of CSO discharges from the Clapham Storm Relief Sewer would be reduced from five spill events a year to approximately once a year at an average rate of 7,900m3 per year. The number of CSO discharges from the Brixton Storm Relief Sewer would be reduced from 28 spill events a year to approximately once a year at an average rate of 5,700m3 per year.
Page 5
Permanent structures
3.2.2 A plan of the permanent structures is appended in the accompanying figures document. The area of operational land required by the project is less than that required for the construction phase. The land which is not required for operational purposes would be returned to its previous use following completion of construction. The three operational structures at the site would be constructed within the reclaimed foreshore areas behind the new river walls. The shaft structure would be covered over by landscaping and surrounded by new river walls, and the main interception structure and the small interception box in front of the Clapham Storm Relief Sewer CSO outfall would be surrounded with terracing below high tide level. There would be new paved surfaces at the shaft structure and on top of the interception structure to the north of Vauxhall Bridge The design and finishing proposed for the above ground features would be further developed during the period up to the application. Once constructed and operational the following structures would remain in place: Shaft 3.2.5 3.2.6 The Albert Embankment drop shaft would have an internal diameter of 16m. The shaft would be approximately 47m deep. The shaft cover slab and surfacing would be finished at a level approximately 500mm above existing footpath level. A parapet wall would extend an additional 1m above this around the site. The new river wall around the shaft site would enclose the existing wall adjacent to Lacks Dock slipway at the south of the shaft site. There would be covers on top of the shaft to allow access and inspection. There would be high pressure air release and air inlet structures on top of the shaft. Interception chambers and culverts 3.2.9 The interception chambers for both CSOs, a passive filter chamber, valves and overflow chambers would be below ground. There would be covers on top of the chambers to allow access and inspection. There would be two culverts below ground, one to transfer flows from the Clapham Storm Relief Sewer CSO outfall to the interception chamber and another to transfer intercepted flows from both CSOs to the drop shaft. Tunnel 3.2.10 The drop shaft would be connected to the main tunnel by a 67m long 3.2m internal diameter connection tunnel under the river, driven from the drop shaft. The interception chamber would be connected to the drop shaft by a 75m long 3.2m internal diameter connection culvert under the foreshore and driven from the drop shaft.
3.2.3
3.2.4
3.2.7 3.2.8
3.2.11
Page 6
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Ventilation structures 3.2.12
For the ventilation of the tunnel there would be a 4m high ventilation column that would sit on top of the paved area at the south-west corner of the shaft site. For the ventilation of the combined flow interception chamber there are to be two small diameter ventilation columns. Electrical kiosk Electrical equipment would be housed within two new kiosks. One GRP kiosk would be near Vauxhall Bridge behind the existing parapet wall and would be 6m long by 2m wide by 2.5m high. The other would be a galvanised steel kiosk constructed on top of the new paved area adjacent to the shaft and existing Thames Path and would be 2.6m long by 0.5m wide by 1.3m high. Paved areas The area above the shaft structure would be finished with hardstanding to allow maintenance vehicle and crane access to the covers on top of the shaft. The area above the interception structure would also be finished with hardstanding, but would only allow pedestrian access to the covers on top. These areas of hardstanding would form extensions to the Thames Path and would usually be publicly accessible, but Thames Water would retain a right of access over them and would install temporary security fencing on parts of the areas when they are used for shaft access. Access and maintenance works Access to the shaft would be down the track off Albert Embankment that services Lacks Dock. Access to the interception chamber site would be from the Thames path in front of the SIS Building. Both sites would be accessible to the public by foot. Vehicular access to the shaft site would be restricted by removable bollards. There would be no vehicular access to the interception chamber site. Access to the shaft site would be required for a commercial vehicle on a three to six monthly maintenance schedule. This would be carried out during normal working hours and would take approximately half a day. There would be no aerial lighting. Similar maintenance access would be required for operatives on foot only to the interception chamber site. Additionally once every ten years, more significant maintenance work would be carried out at both the shaft site and the interception chamber site. This would be carried out in normal working hours. Two cranes would be required for these visits. Crane access to the shaft site would be via the normal access from Albert Embankment, however crane access to the interception chamber site would be via the foreshore or from Vauxhall Bridge.
3.2.13
3.2.14
3.2.15
3.2.16
3.2.17
3.2.18
3.2.19
3.3
3.3.1
Construction
The construction work at Albert Embankment would be constructed in the foreshore adjacent to (and extending beneath) Vauxhall Bridge with
Page 7
modifications to the existing river wall. To facilitate main construction, enabling works would be required to widen the existing access from the Albert Embankment carriageway. 3.3.2 3.3.3 Vol 24 Figure 3.2.1-Figure 3.2.3 show the demolition and site clearance and construction phasing to be undertaken at the site. The methods, order and timing of the construction work outlined herewith are indicative only, but representative of a practical method to construct the works and suitable upon which to base this assessment. It is recognised that, following further design development and selection of contractors, alternate methodology and scheduling may be proposed. The following sections describe: a. Processes to be applied during construction via a Code of Construction Practice. b. Construction works including early works and the construction of the shaft, tunnel and CSO interception and the processes and working methods to be applied. c. Access and movement d. Construction programme and working hours
3.3.4
Code of construction practice

3.3.5 3.3.6 All works would be undertaken in accordance with the Thames Tunnel Code of Construction Practice (CoCP - a draft is appended to Volume 2). The CoCP sets out a series of measures to protect the environment and limit disturbance from construction activities as far as reasonably practicable. These measures would be applied throughout construction at this site.
3.3.7
Construction works
3.3.8 The following physical construction works are described: a. site setup b. shaft construction c. tunnelling d. construction of other structures e. reinstatement and commissioning Site setup 3.3.9 Some shrubs and a security kiosk at the entrance to the existing access road from Albert Embankment would require removal in advance of the works. Also some shrubs and trees would require pruning along the existing Lacks Dock access road. Parts of the low wall running alongside the existing Lacks Dock access road would require removal in advance of the works.
3.3.10
Page 8
Prior to any works commencing the site boundary would be established and secured. The boundary would be built to an appropriate height for the site. Welfare and office facilities would also be set up. Telecommunications, water and power supplies to the site would be established by connecting to local services on Albert Embankment. As the site is within the Thames foreshore cofferdams would be constructed. These would be formed by sheet piling techniques serviced largely from the river by a jack up barge. For the purpose of this assessment it is assumed that the piles would be driven using silent piling techniques. The cofferdams would be filled with a granular material to existing embankment level. The bulk of this material would be transported by barge and unloaded by excavators within the cofferdam. The outer temporary cofferdam would be raised to flood defence level. Shaft construction Plant and material storage areas (including displaced slurry storage), waste skips, muck bin and delivery vehicle turning area would be established. Craneage, diaphragm wall rig, bentonite silos, water tanks, mixing pan, compressor, air receiver, excavator and dumper for excavated material handling are among the items of plant that would all be required on site. The shaft would be constructed by diaphragm wall construction techniques and have a cast in situ secondary lining. Prior to diaphragm wall construction a ground monitoring regime would be implemented to monitor existing structures adjacent to the site. The first stage in the construction of each section of diaphragm wall would be the excavation and setting of inner and outer guide walls. These guide walls would retain the ground and allow excavation for the diaphragm walls between them. During excavation the void is filled with bentonite for ground support; on completion of excavation steel bar reinforcement cages are lowered in before concrete is pumped into the wall and the bentonite displaced. This process is repeated for each panel which creates the full circle of the shaft. The diaphragm wall would be taken to a depth suitable to reduce the flow of water into the shaft. Grouting at the toe of the diaphragm wall may also be required to reduce the flow of water. The size of the diaphragm walls panels would require an extended working day to enable the pour to be completed. This would be agreed with the London Borough (LB) of Lambeth in advance. The shaft excavation commences after the diaphragm walls are complete with the guide walls being broken out, and the soil within the diaphragm walls excavated exposing the walls. The excavator would load shaft skips hoisted by crawler crane, depositing the spoil within the excavated material handling area. A steel reinforced concrete base plug would be formed at the base of the shaft. The size of the concrete base slab would require an extended
3.3.12
3.3.13 3.3.14
3.3.15 3.3.16 3.3.17
3.3.18
3.3.19
3.3.20
3.3.21
Page 9
working day to enable the pour to be completed. This would be agreed with the LB of Lambeth in advance. 3.3.22 The shaft would be excavated through water bearing ground and dewatering would be required at the site. For the shaft dewatering wells would be drilled from the surface (external to the shaft). These pumps would be operational during shaft construction. Dewatering would also be required during the construction of the other structures for the interception works. Tunnelling 3.3.24 To connect the drop shaft to the main tunnel, a 3.2m internal diameter connection tunnel approximately 67m long would be constructed using Sprayed Concrete Lining (SCL) techniques. To connect the interception chamber to the main tunnel, a 3.2m diameter connection culvert approximately 75m long would be constructed, also using SCL techniques. Tunnel portals, to reinforce the connection between the shaft and connection tunnel, would be constructed in the shaft lining. The portals would consist of cast in-situ concrete portal tied to the shaft lining. Construction of other structures 3.3.27 The existing storm relief sewers that outfall to the River Thames either side of Vauxhall Bridge would be extended through the cofferdam, maintaining flows during the works. These would be fully enclosed with flap valves fitted to prevent tidal surcharge. Secant and sheet pile walls would be used to provide ground support within which the interception chamber walls would be constructed. Ground treatment and dewatering is anticipated. To enable this to be constructed a temporary ramp from foreshore level up to flood defence level would be constructed. This would be removed on completion. The interception chamber would be excavated, localised submersible pumps within the chamber would be utilised to manage ground water ingress. The pumps would discharge to the River Thames after being treated through a settlement system. The walls of the interception chamber would be formed by in situ concrete techniques. Ready mixed concrete would be delivered to site from external supplier and either pumped or skipped to the chamber. The main shaft would have an internal secondary lining and internal structures constructed in a similar manner. A culvert would be constructed to intercept the Brixton Storm Relief Sewer CSO outfall at the north of the bridge. A pipe would be laid to intercept the Clapham Storm Relief Sewer CSO outfall at the south of the bridge and transfer flows beneath the bridge to the interception structure at the north of the bridge. Both the pipe and culvert would be constructed on the existing foreshore.
3.3.23
3.3.25
3.3.26
3.3.28
3.3.29
3.3.30
3.3.31
3.3.32 3.3.33
Page 10
On completion, the pipes and culverts connecting the CSO outfalls to the interception chamber and part of the interception chamber itself would be covered by concrete terracing which would also extend beneath the bridge. The site area would then be reinstated and above ground structures finished. Reinstatement and commissioning Once the main elements of construction are completed, the final landscaping works would be undertaken including final treatments and surfaces, planting and installation of street furniture. Testing and commissioning would also be undertaken once construction is complete. For the purposes of this assessment, completion of the commissioning stage represents the end of Construction and the commencement of the operational phase of the project.
3.3.35
3.3.36
Access and movement

3.3.37 It is anticipated that approximately 90% imported material for the cofferdams would be brought to the site by barge, and 90% excavated material from the cofferdams would be removed by barge after construction. Excavated material from the shaft would be removed from the site by road. For the purposes of this report one vehicle movement is defined as a single lorry accessing and then egressing the site. The highest lorry movements at the site would occur during the shaft construction when the daily vehicle movements, averaged over a one month period, would be 60 HGV movements per day. The highest barge movements at the site would occur during the cofferdam construction when peak daily barge movements, averaged over a one month period, would be approximately fourteen movements per day. The site access point is via a left turn into the site access road from Albert Embankment and the egress is a left turn back out of the site access road onto Albert Embankment. During construction the access would be overseen by a site security guard, and there would also be a temporary marshalling and search area for delivery vehicles within a five to ten minute drive of the site to satisfy the requirements of the Counter Terrorism Security Advisor. Access through the site to the foreshore would be maintained for the DUCW amphibious tourist buses run by London Duck Tours. A traffic management plan for the site will be prepared.
3.3.38 3.3.39
3.3.40
3.3.41
3.3.42 3.3.43
Construction programme and working hours

Construction programme 3.3.44 Construction activity would peak during two main periods: concrete pours for the diaphragm walls of the shaft and construction of the interception chamber and culverts.
Page 11
Construction at this site is anticipated to take approximately three and a half years and would involve the following steps (with some overlaps): a. Year 1 Site setup (approximately 10 months) b. Year 1 to 2 Shaft construction (approximately 8 months) c. Year 2 Tunnelling (approximately 5 months) d. Year 2 to 3 Construction of other structures (approximately 15 months) e. Year 3 to 4 Completion of works and site restoration, including installation of Mechanical, Electrical, Instrumentation, Control and Automation (MEICA) equipment (approximately 9 months) f. System-wide commissioning would take place following site restoration and is not included in the above programme.
Working hours 3.3.46 The following working hours set out in the table below would apply for the construction at this site. Vol 19 Table 3.3.1 Working hours Key activities Core Working Hours Mobilisation Period Hours 08:00 to 18:00 Weekdays 08:00 to 13:00 Saturdays Up to 1 hour before and after the Core Working Hours 07:00 to 08:00 and 18:00 to 19:00 Weekdays 07:00 to 08:00 and 13:00 to 14:00 Saturday Maintenance and Support 13:00 to 17:00 Saturdays Period 10:00 to 16:00 Sundays Major concrete works, including diaphragm wall and base slab Extended working hours Extended standard hours up to 22:00.Weekdays. A limited number of extensions would be required for major concrete pours. Continuous working 24 Hour working. Monday to Friday. Limited duration for the two short connection tunnels.
3.4
3.4.1
Design development and on site alternatives

The design presented here was completed in advance of the completion of all surveys and technical studies. The final design may alter significantly in response to this as well as feedback from phase two consultation.
Page 12
The design of the proposals has developed since phase one consultation, as described in the table below.
Vol 19 Table 3.4.1 Design development at Albert Embankment Foreshore Design development Reason
Area of eastern projecting structure A hydraulic requirement increased, and drop shaft diameter established as a result of physical increased from 10m to modelling of the drop shaft. approximately 16m. Appearance and shape of the western area has been amended with stepped or terraced sides. To address the visual impact of the Thames Tunnel project infrastructure on the Grade II* listed Vauxhall Bridge and surrounding townscape, and to minimise encroachment. Also, the interception chamber for Clapham CSO is no longer on the west side of the bridge to minimise impact on the Victoria Line tunnels. Modified scheme-wide Air management plan.
More, but smaller, ventilation columns. 3.4.3
Further information on how the design has evolved at this site is included in the Design Development Report, which is also available as part of phase two consultation. Design development information, and the reasons for the choice of the final design at this site, including environmental design factors, will also be provided in the ES.
3.4.4
3.5
3.5.1
Base case
The assessment undertaken for this site takes account of relevant development projects which have been submitted or with extant planning permission. Because of the other developments the future environmental conditions within and around this site irrespective of the Thames Tunnel are likely to change. This is termed the base case. The Lee Tunnel and the Thames Tideway Quality Improvement (TTQI) projects (improvement works at Mogden, Beckton, Crossness, Long Reach and Riverside Sewage Treatment Works) will be operational by the time construction of the Thames Tunnel commences. The base case would therefore be the water quality in the Tideway with the TTQI projects and the Lee Tunnel in place. As a result, by 2021 discharge from the two CSOs at this site will be 14,400m3 with 6 spills (Clapham Storm Relief), and 278,600 m3 with 29 spills (Brixton Storm Relief). The projected spill volumes and spill frequencies for the baseline conditions for the Thames Tunnel (which is with the improvements applied to the STWs, and the Lee Tunnel in place) would still not be a sufficient
3.5.2
3.5.3
3.5.4
Page 13
level of CSO control to meet the UWWTD (see also Volume 2, Section 2.6). 3.5.5 The final phase of the St George Wharf development (LBL application no. 03/01501, appeal ref. 03/00152), approximately 500m south of the Albert Embankment site on the riverside, will be occupied (currently being built). This comprises 200 apartments in a 50-storey tower and completion of the Thames Path along the riverside. Hampton House redevelopment (LBL application no. 07/04264 at 20 Albert Embankment) approximately 500m north of the site is assumed to be built out (under a 2008 permission). This will comprise 242 apartments and a 167 room hotel. On Island site next to Vauxhall bus station (LBL application no. 10/02060) it is assumed that permission will be granted for 291 apartments and a 179 room hotel (currently pending decision).
3.5.6
3.5.7
Page 14
Section 4: Air quality and odour
4 4.1
4.1.1
Air quality and odour Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant air quality and odour effects at the Albert Embankment Foreshore site. The proposed development has the potential to affect air quality and odour in the following ways: a. construction traffic on the road (air quality) b. temporary closure of lanes during construction (air quality) c. emissions from barges (air quality) d. emissions from plant (air quality) e. construction-generated dust (air quality) f. operation of the tunnel (odour).
4.1.2
4.1.3
Each of these is considered within the assessment. This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment, and sets out what will be provided in the ES when the full assessment is available. Operational air quality effects from transport have been scoped out of the assessment due to the very limited number of maintenance visits required and hence the low number of vehicular movements.
4.1.4
4.2
4.2.1
Proposed development
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to air quality and odour are as follows.
Construction
Road traffic 4.2.2 During the proposed construction period, there would be road traffic movements in and out of the site in addition to the movement of materials by barge. The highest number of lorry movements at the Albert Embankment Foreshore site would occur during the shaft construction (Year 1 of construction). The peak number of vehicle movements at that time would be 60 lorry movements per day averaged over a one month period. This is based on 90% cofferdam fill, in and out, being transported by barge with remaining movements by road. The construction traffic routes for the key material supply stages, traffic management and access to the site can be found in Section 12 of this volume. River barges 4.2.4 It is anticipated that 90% of cofferdam fill material would be transported by barges with a mooring area for barges of up to 350 tonne capacity from a campshed to the north of the site. The peak number of barge movements would be 14 a day (seven barges) averaged over a one month period.
4.2.3
Page 15
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Construction plant 4.2.5
There are a number of items of plant to be used on site that may produce emissions that could affect local air quality. Construction dust Activities with the potential to give rise to dust emissions from the proposed development during construction are as follows: a. site preparation and establishment. b. demolition of existing infrastructure and buildings (not significant at this site). c. materials handling.
4.2.6
4.2.7
The potential for these processes to impact at sensitive receptors is dependent on many factors including the following: a. location of the construction site b. proximity of sensitive receptors c. extent of demolition d. extent of any intended excavation e. nature, location and size of stockpiles and length of time they are on site f. occurrence and scale of dust generating activities; necessity for onsite concrete crusher or cement batcher
g. number and type of vehicles and plant required on site h. potential for dirt or mud to be made airborne through vehicle movements i. 4.2.8 weather conditions. Appropriate dust and emission control measures are included in the draft CoCP in accordance with the London Councils Best Practice Guidance 1. Measures incorporated into the CoCP to reduce air quality impacts include measures in relation to vehicle and plant emissions, measures to reduce dust formation and resuspension, measures to control dust present and to reduce particulate emissions. These would be observed across all phases of demolition and construction. Operation 4.2.9 A below ground chamber with a ventilation column at the Albert Embankment Foreshore site would house the odour control unit (OCU) comprising a passive filter that would treat 1m3/s. The maximum air release rate during a typical year is expected to be 0.6m3/s, which is well within the capacity of the OCU Air would be released from the ventilation column for 22 hours in the typical year, all of which would have passed through the OCU. For the remaining hours, no air would be released.
4.2.10
Page 16
This information on the ventilation structures provided input data to the dispersion model used to assess odour dispersion at the site.
4.3
4.3.1
Assessment methodology Scoping and engagement

Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. All consultee comments relevant to this site are presented in the table below. Vol 19 Table 4.3.1 Air quality and odour stakeholder engagement Organisation LB Lambeth Comment What measures will be undertaken for dust suppression. The Council would suggest that wheel washes be used. How will the project ensure no mud is carried onto the public highway and what arrangements are/will there be should the wheel wash fail? Monitoring locations Odour complaints Response The measures outlined in the London Councils Best Practice Guidance for a high risk site would be followed. These measures will be detailed in the CoCP.
LB Lambeth
Locations agreed with Enforcement Officer. Confirmed by Enforcement Officer that no complaints in the area over the last five years.
Baseline
4.3.2 The baseline methodology follows the standard methodology described in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.
Construction
4.3.3 The construction phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology described in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.
Operation
4.3.4 The operational phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology described in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.
Assumptions and limitations

4.3.5 It has been assumed that background odour concentrations are negligible in the future base case as there are very few (only one) known complaints. This assumption will be supported by baseline hydrogen sulphide
Page 17
monitoring currently being undertaken at all sites (in August 2011 with repeat monitoring to be undertaken in Autumn 2011).
4.4
Baseline conditions Local air quality

Pollutant concentrations
4.4.1 4.4.2
The current conditions with regard to local air quality are best established through long-term air quality monitoring. As part of their duties under Part IV of the Environment Act 1995, local authorities, especially in urban areas where air quality is a significant issue, undertake long-term air quality monitoring within their administrative areas. There is one continuous monitoring station which collects data pertinent to the Albert Embankment Foreshore site and associated construction traffic routes. There are no diffusion tubes located in the study area. Monitoring data for the LB Lambeth continuous monitoring site are contained in Vol 19 Table 4.4.1 (NO2 concentrations) and Vol 19 Table 4.4.2 (PM10 concentrations). Vol 19 Table 4.4.1 Air quality - measured NO2 concentrations
Annual Mean (g/m3) 2010* 2009 2008 2007 77X 83 82+
4.4.3
4.4.4
Monitoring Site
Site Type
Number of Exceedences of Hourly Standard 2010* 17 2009 2008 12X 38 2007 30+
Bondway Interchange (LB5 )
Roadside
77
* 2010 data not fully ratified. + Data capture for 2007 was 39%. X Data capture for 2009 was 88%. Emboldened figures indicate an exceedence of the objective / limit value which is 40g/m3 for the annual mean and 200g/m3 for the hourly mean which can be exceeded 18 times per year.
4.4.5
The NO2 monitoring in 2010 at Bondway Interchange (roadside site) indicates an exceedence of the annual mean NO2 standard (40g/m3). The previous three years also indicate exceedences of the annual mean standard. The hourly standard has been met in the last two years, but was exceeded in 2008 and 2007. Vol 19 Table 4.4.2 Air quality - measured PM10 concentrations
Annual Mean (g/m3) 2010* 2009 2008 2007 42X 52 67
Monitoring Site
Site Type
Number of Exceedences of Daily Standard 2010* 76O 2009 2008 71X 160 2007 211+
Bondway Interchange (LB5)
Roadside
43O
* 2010 data not fully ratified. + As annual data capture was 85%, the 90th percentile for the purpose of assessing against the daily mean has been presented instead of the number of exceedences. X Data capture for 2009 was 85%. O Data capture for 2010 was 78%. Embolden figures indicate an exceedence of the objective/ limit value which is 40g/m3 for the annual mean and 50g/m3 for the daily mean which can be exceeded 35 times per year.
Page 18
The PM10 monitoring at this roadside location indicates that both the annual and daily mean standards were exceeded in 2010 and in the previous three years. It is however noted that data capture at this site has been below 90% in every year except 2008. As a result of previous exceedences of air quality objectives, the northern part of the LB Lambeth, which includes the Albert Embankment Foreshore site, has been designated as Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) for NO2. The Albert Embankment Foreshore site is close to the boundaries with the City of Westminster and the LB Wandsworth. Both have declared AQMAs for NO2 and PM10 for the whole Borough. In addition to this monitoring, diffusion tube monitoring has been set up as part of the project to monitor NO2 concentrations in the vicinity of the Albert Embankment Foreshore site. This monitoring comprises five diffusion tubes based at the locations detailed in Vol 19 Table 4.4.3. A triplicate site has been established next to a continuous monitoring station in Putney for bias adjustment purposes; otherwise all the monitoring locations have single tubes. All identified existing and new sites relating to the Albert Embankment Foreshore site (as well as other sites where they are in close proximity) are shown in Vol 19 Figure 4.4.1. Vol 19 Figure 4.4.1 Air quality monitoring locations (see Volume 19 Figures document) Vol 19 Table 4.4.3 Air quality - additional monitoring locations Monitoring Site Albert Embankment (Albert 1) Harleyford Road (Albert 2) South Lambeth Road (Albert 3) Parry Street (Albert 4) Wandsworth Road (Albert 5) Grid Reference 530399, 178333 530582, 177986 530488, 177960 530319, 177834 530243, 177911
4.4.7
4.4.8
4.4.9
4.4.10
This monitoring will be used in conjunction with existing local authority monitoring to provide the baseline situation and also provide input to model verification. A full baseline will be reported in the ES. In addition to monitoring data, an indication of baseline pollutant concentrations in the vicinity of the site can also be obtained from looking at background data on the air quality section of the Defra website where mapped background pollutant concentrations are available for each 1km by 1km grid square within every local authoritys administrative area for the years 2008 to 2020 2. The background data relating to the Albert Embankment Foreshore site are given in the table below for 2010 (baseline year).
4.4.11
Page 19
Vol 19 Table 4.4.4 Air quality background pollutant concentrations Pollutant NOX (g/m3) NO2 (g/m3) PM10 (g/m3)
*
2010 62.4 36.7 21.6
Average of annual means for 1km grid squares centred on 530500, 177500 and 530500, 178500.
Receptors 4.4.12 The Albert Embankment Foreshore site is located in a mixed use area comprising residential and commercial/offices. The closest residential receptors are located within 10m to the south-east of the site boundary (Bridge House). The SIS building is located at the east of the site less than 10m from the site boundary. Camelford House and Tintagel House (offices) are located to the east of the site, 12m from the site boundary. There are also two parks within 100m of the site Albert Embankment Gardens to the north and Spring Gardens to the east. All these receptors are relevant, albeit to different levels of sensitivity, to the emissions sources identified in the local air quality assessment. The sensitivity of identified receptors has been determined using the criteria detailed in Volume 5 this identifies their sensitivity in relation to both local air quality and dust nuisance, as shown in the table below. These receptors are relevant to the assessment of emissions from construction road traffic, river barges and construction plant, as well as the assessment of construction dust. Vol 19 Table 4.4.5 Air quality receptors- construction Receptors (relating to all identified emissions sources) Residential Value/sensitivity and justification
4.4.13
Exposure relevant to annual mean and daily mean standards. Directly affected by construction traffic. High sensitivity to local air quality. Medium sensitivity to dust nuisance. Exposure is relevant for the daily mean and hourly mean standards. Low sensitivity to local air quality. Medium sensitivity to dust nuisance. Low sensitivity to local air quality. Medium sensitivity to dust nuisance.
Commercial/offices
Albert Embankment Gardens / Spring Gardens Park
Odour
4.4.14 The LB Lambeth is currently investigating whether there have been any odour complaints in the vicinity of Albert Embankment Foreshore site in
Page 20
recent years. Only one complaints has been recorded in the Thames Water odour database in the last five years (within a 500m radius of the site). This related to odour from the general sewerage system. 4.4.15 The nearest sensitive receptors are described in para. 4.4.12 above. For the assessment of odour, the sensitivity of these receptors has been determined in accordance with the criteria in Volume 5 which indicates that the residential properties are of high sensitivity, commercial/office premises to the east of the site and parks are of medium sensitivity, and the users of the river to the west are of low sensitivity as it is a transport corridor. A footpath crosses the site and is of low sensitivity.
4.5
4.5.1
Construction assessment Construction base and development cases

The peak construction year (Year 2 of construction) is used as the year of assessment for construction effects (road transport, river barges, construction plant and construction dust) in which the development case will be assessed against the base case to identify likely significant effects for the Thames Tunnel project. The base case conditions for the construction assessment year will change from the current conditions due to modifications to the sources of the air pollution in the intervening period. For road vehicles, there will be a change in the penetration of new Euro standards to the fleet composition between the current situation and the future peak construction year. The uptake of newer vehicles with improved emission controls should lead to a reduction in existing NO2 and PM10 concentrations. However, the uptake of newer vehicles has not improved NO2 concentrations greatly in the last ten years in London, so as a worst case the NOX contribution from diesel vehicles was assumed to be the same for Euro 1 to 5 vehicles in line with Defra advice 3. Reduced emission factors from the introduction of Euro 6 vehicles in the future will reduce the base case concentrations when compared to the 2010 baseline. Other emissions sources should also reduce due to local and national policies. Therefore, the non-road sources of the background concentrations used in the modelling will be reduced in line with Defra guidance LAQM.TG(09) 4. It is noted that the assessment does not specifically consider the new St George Wharf or Hampton House developments (see Section 3.5) as both developments are approximately 500m from the site which is further than other assessed residential receptors.
4.5.2
4.5.3
4.5.4
4.5.5
Construction assessment area

4.5.6 The assessment area for the local air quality study covers a square area of 750m by 750m centred on the Albert Embankment Foreshore site. This assessment area is used for the assessment of road transport, river barges, construction plant and construction dust and has been selected on the basis of professional judgement to ensure that the effects of the Albert
Page 21
Embankment Foreshore site are fully assessed. A distance of 200m is generally considered sufficient to ensure that any significant effects are considered the selected assessment area exceeds this by some margin.
Construction effects
Emissions from road traffic 4.5.7 Road traffic is likely to affect local air quality in two ways: from emissions from the construction traffic; and from enhanced emissions from other road vehicles due to congestion or re-routing due to lane closures. A qualitative assessment of road traffic effects has been undertaken for this assessment. When traffic surveys are complete, a more detailed quantitative assessment using air quality modelling will be undertaken, the findings of which will be reported in the ES. Based on professional judgement for the purposes of this assessment, it is however predicted that the impacts due to construction traffic are expected to be small (ie, small magnitude of change according to Volume 5) due to the low number of additional lorries during construction in the context of the existing traffic flows on the local road network. The greatest impacts are likely to be during lane closures, which would cause congestion and require diversion of traffic. Given that the residential properties have a high sensitivity to local air quality (as identified in Section 4.4), the likely significance of the effect of construction traffic is a minor adverse effect (according to the criteria detailed in Volume 5). At the commercial/office receptors and at Albert Embankment Gardens / Springfield Gardens, which have a low sensitivity to local air quality, the significance of effect would be negligible. Emissions from river barges 4.5.11 4.5.12 River barges are only expected to likely to affect local air quality through direct emissions from the tugs pulling them. During the peak construction year (Year 2 of construction) for the Albert Embankment site, the peak number of barge movements would be 14 a day (seven barges) averaged over a one month period. However, data regarding the river barges and the operation of these barges are still being gathered and so modelling has not yet been possible for this assessment (but will be completed for inclusion in the ES). Based on professional judgement for the purposes of this assessment, it is noted that the impacts due to barge emissions are expected to be negligible (ie, negligible magnitude of change according to Volume 5) due to the low number of barges required during construction. At all receptors, the likely significance of the barge emissions on local air quality is a negligible effect (according to the criteria in Volume 5). Emissions from plant 4.5.15 Construction plant is likely to affect local air quality in two ways: from direct exhaust emissions; and from construction dust associated with the use and movement of the plant around the site.
4.5.8
4.5.9
4.5.10
4.5.13
4.5.14
Page 22
Emission factors are being assigned to each item of plant. More data are being gathered regarding the operation of these items of plant in terms of expected usage through the construction phase. A qualitative assessment has been undertaken for this report. Modelling is currently being undertaken, the findings of which will be reported in the ES. Based on professional judgement for the purposes of this assessment, it is noted that the impacts due to construction plant are expected to be small (ie, small magnitude of change according to the criteria in Volume 5), given the localised nature of the emissions, ie emissions are only generated on the construction site. At the residential receptors, which have a high sensitivity to local air quality (as identified in Section 4.4), the likely significance of the plant emissions on local air quality is minor adverse effect (according to the criteria in Volume 5). At the other receptors, which have a lower sensitivity to local air quality, the significance of the effect would be negligible. Construction dust Construction dust would be generated from both on-site activities and from road vehicles assessing and servicing the site. Dust sensitive receptors have been identified in the vicinity of the Albert Embankment Foreshore site in accordance with the criteria in Volume 5, as described in Vol 19 Table 4.4.5. In line with the London Councils guidance, the site has been categorised using the criteria given in Volume 5 which takes into account the area taken up by the development and the potential impact of the development on sensitive receptors close to the development. The specific site details relating to the site with respect to the criteria set are: a. Site would have a maximum construction area of approximately 18,700m2. b. The project is a non-residential development. c. Main construction at the site would last approximately three and a half years.
4.5.17
4.5.18
4.5.19
4.5.20 4.5.21
4.5.22
4.5.23
d. There are likely intermittent impacts on identified sensitive receptors. 4.5.24 4.5.25 On this basis, the development has been classified as a high risk site. The receptor sensitivity is identified as medium at all nearby receptors (as identified in Section 4.4). Given that the distance to sensitive receptors is within 10m for the commercial/offices and residential properties, the likely significance of the effect of construction dust is deemed to be a moderate adverse effect (according to the criteria in Volume 5). For the parks, the effect is deemed to be minor adverse. These effects would be reduced by the implementation of the measures contained in the CoCP (see Section 4.2). This would result in a minor adverse effect at the residential and commercial/office properties within
4.5.26
Page 23
10m and a negligible effect at Albert Embankment Gardens / Spring Gardens Park. Overall construction effects 4.5.27 When considering the overall local air quality construction effects (ie, effects from construction road traffic, river barges and plant), it is concluded that the overall significance of effects is likely to be minor adverse at residential properties, and negligible at the parks and commercial/office premises. With regard to construction dust, the likely significance of effects is minor adverse at residential properties and commercial/office premises, because these receptors are within 50m of the site boundaries. The effect at Albert Embankment Gardens and Spring Gardens Park would be negligible. On this basis no significant construction effects are predicted.
4.5.28
4.5.29
4.6
4.6.1 4.6.2
Operational assessment Operational base and development cases

The assessment undertaken for a typical use year (as described in Volume 5) applies equally to all operational years. Base and development cases have been developed for modelling purposes. Base case conditions have been assumed to be the same as baseline conditions with respect to background odour concentrations as no change in background odour concentrations is anticipated.
Operational assessment area

4.6.3 Odour dispersion modelling was carried out over an area of 700m by 600m centred on the site. The assessment area was selected on the basis of it being considered the potential maximum extent of the impact area.
Operational effects
4.6.4 Vol 19 Table 4.6.1 shows the predicted maximum ground level odour concentrations at the Albert Embankment Foreshore site. These are the highest concentrations that could occur at the worst affected ground level receptor at or near the site. In accordance with the odour criterion set up by the Environment Agency and in the draft NPS 5, results are presented for the 98th percentile of hourly average concentrations in the year (or the 176th highest concentration in the year), and the number of hours in a year with concentrations above 1.5ouE/m3. The number of hours with concentrations above 1.5ouE/m3 gives an indication of the number of hours in a year that an odour might be detectable at the worst affected receptor. The table also identifies the magnitude of the identified impacts in accordance with the criteria detailed in Volume 5. Vol 19 Table 4.6.2 gives similar results for the predicted impacts at the worst affected buildings, where concentrations at ground level and at height have been considered.
Page 24
Vol 19 Table 4.6.1 Odour impacts at ground level - operation Year Typical Maximum at ground level locations 98th percentile 0 (ouE/m3) No. of hours > 4 1.5ouE/m3 Impact magnitude and justification Negligible 98th percentile concentration is less than 1ouE/m3
Vol 19 Table 4.6.2 Odour impacts at buildings - operation Year Typical Maximum at buildings 98th percentile (ouE/m3) No. of hours > 1.5ouE/m3 4.6.5 0 1 Impact magnitude and justification Negligible 98th percentile concentration is less than 1ouE/m3
In both Vol 19 Table 4.6.1 and Vol 19 Table 4.6.2, the 98th percentile is shown as zero as the number of hours with air released from the vent would be less than 176 and therefore the 98th percentile concentration would be zero at all locations, thus achieving the odour criterion at all locations. This represents an impact of negligible magnitude. The highest concentrations are predicted to occur to the north of the ventilation column (by the shaft) and over the river which are areas of low sensitivity but odour would only be detectable for a few hours per year. With regard to the significance of effects at ground level and building locations, given that the predicted odour concentrations at all locations and at buildings do not exceed the 98th percentile criterion of 1.5ouE/m3, it is considered that an overall significance would be a negligible effect in relation to the Albert Embankment Foreshore site. No significance effects are therefore predicted in relation to odour.
4.6.6
4.6.7
4.7
4.7.1
Approach to mitigation Construction

All measures embedded in the draft CoCP of relevance to air quality and odour are summarised in Section 4.2. No mitigation is required.
Operation
4.7.2 No mitigation is required.
Page 25
4.8
Vol 19 Table 4.8.1 Air quality summary of construction assessment Effect Minor adverse None required Significance Mitigation Residual significance Minor adverse
Assessment summary
Receptor
Residential properties
Local air quality effects from construction road traffic and plant emissions Minor adverse Negligible None required None required
Effects from construction dust
Minor adverse Negligible
Commercial/offices
Local air quality effects from construction road traffic and plant emissions Minor adverse Negligible None required None required
Minor adverse Negligible
Albert Embankment Gardens / Spring Gardens Park Negligible
Local air quality effects from construction road traffic and plant emissions
None required
Negligible
Vol 19 Table 4.8.2 Odour summary of operational assessment Effect Negligible Negligible Negligible Significance Mitigation None required None required None required Residual significance Negligible Negligible Negligible
Receptor
Residential properties
Odour
Commercial/offices
Odour
Albert Embankment Gardens / Spring Gardens Park
Odour
Footpath, river
Odour
Negligible
None required
Negligible
Page 26
4.9
4.9.1
Assessment completion
The following work is required in order to complete the local air quality and odour assessment for the Albert Embankment Foreshore site: a. Diffusion tube monitoring has been set up at five sites to monitor NO2 concentrations in the vicinity of the Albert Embankment Foreshore site. This monitoring will be used to provide a baseline to the assessment and as an input for model verification. b. For the assessment of road transport emissions, air quality modelling will be undertaken to predict the effects on local air quality. c. Further information is being collected in relation to the types of barges being used and the most appropriate emission factors to use. These data will then be input into the model in order to predict the effects of barges on local air quality.
d. The nature, quantities and operation of the construction plant is being finalised. The appropriate emission factors will then be applied to the plant in order to initialise the modelling work. These models will then be run and the effects of construction plant on local air quality predicted. e. The assessment of cumulative and in combination effects will be undertaken and reported in the ES. f. Following completion of the assessment the mitigation approaches for air quality and odour within the project will be finalised and reported in the ES.
Page 27
Section 5: Ecology aquatic
5 5.1
5.1.1
Ecology - aquatic Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant aquatic ecology effects at the Albert Embankment Foreshore site. Aquatic ecology for the purposes of the assessment of the Thames Tunnel project includes plants and animals that live in and depend on the tidal Thames and its tidal tributaries (known collectively as the Thames Tideway). The topic includes the marine mammals, fish, invertebrates and algae, and the intertidal and subtidal habitats they depend on in the vicinity of the site. Animals, plants and habitats which occur above the mean high water level are assessed in Section 6 Terrestrial Ecology section. Waterfowl, including those which occur on the Thames Tideway are also included in Section 6. Further details of the scope of the assessment are provided in Volume 6.
5.1.2
5.2
5.2.1
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to aquatic ecology are as follows. Construction The elements of construction relevant to this assessment are: a. the installation of temporary and permanent sheet piling to create cofferdams on the foreshore, and subsequent removal of the temporary cofferdam b. the placement and removal of a temporary barge grid/campshed on the foreshore outside the cofferdams, suitable for a 350 tonne barge c. associated regular barge movements and resting on the barge grid/campshed (approximately 14 barge movements per day at the peak)
5.2.2
d. a slight realignment of the concrete block foreshore slipway in Lacks Dock e. a pipe-jacked culvert below the foreshore between the cofferdams f. temporary construction access for use by low-ground-bearing machines along the foreshore at low tide between the cofferdam areas
g. the presence of a jack-up barge on the foreshore to install the cofferdams. 5.2.3 Measures incorporated into the draft CoCP to reduce aquatic ecology impacts include the following elements which are considered to be an integral part of the project for the purposes of this assessment: a. avoiding piling at night, to ensure noise free periods when fish can undertake migrations past the site within each 24-hour period.
Page 28
b. limiting allowable increases in noise and vibration levels at the midpoint of the navigable channel to leave part of the river cross-section passable by fish species at all times. c. undertaking in-river cofferdam/piling works at or around low tide where possible to avoid transmission of noise and vibration through the water column.
d. utilising low noise/vibration cofferdam or pile/pier installation techniques, such as pressing or vibro-piling, rather than impact/percussive piling. Where vibro-piling is used, slowly increasing the power of the driving to enable those fish that are able to swim away to leave the area before the full power of the pile driver transmits through the water column. e. where predictions indicate that best practice limits would not be achievable, confining as much of the underwater noise generating activities as possible to outside peak fish migration periods should be considered. f. avoidance of pollution of the river. EA approval will be required for works which would be likely to affect any surface or groundwater resource. Discharge to watercourses would only be permitted where discharge consent or other relevant approval has been obtained. Measures to avoid pollution would accord with the principles set out in industry guidelines, including the EAs note PPG05: Works in near or liable to affect water courses and CIRIAs report C532: Control of water pollution from construction sites.
Operation 5.2.4 The elements of the operation of the proposed development of relevance to aquatic ecology are listed below: a. Permanent presence of cofferdams would restrict the width of the intertidal foreshore, particularly under Vauxhall Bridge and involving permanent landtake of 0.3 ha from the intertidal foreshore b. Both the Clapham Storm Relief and Brixton Storm Relief sewers would be intercepted at Albert Embankment. There would be a change in the number of spill events as a result of the Thames Tunnel project. The CSOs currently discharge approximately 33 times a year at approximately 277,300m3 per year. With the Thames Tunnel project in place discharges at CSOs reduce to once a year (13,600m3).
5.3
5.3.1

Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. Stakeholder comments relating to Albert Embankment, and the response to them are presented in Vol 19 Table 5.3.1.
Page 29
Vol 19 Table 5.3.1 Aquatic ecology stakeholder engagement Organisation Comment Local authorities LB of Lambeth The temporary and permanent cofferdams and other structures in the river (including extending the river wall) would have an impact upon foreshore structure, water flows and sediment deposition (including scour) so these need to be carefully modelled and mitigated. There is a need to ensure the soft landscaping to the new river frontage is maximised and of a design that is easy to maintain, blends in with surrounding landscapes and adds ecological value to the Thames foreshore and Borough. The same applies to the design and construction of new river walls. Response Findings at this stage of the assessment address these issues. Further modelling would be undertaken for the ES.
Local authorities LB of Lambeth
An integrated approach to the design of river frontage sites has been adopted which takes account of both the public realm and habitat requirements and opportunities of each site. Detailed mitigation/enhancement will be reported in the ES. This will be taken into account in the ES and planning to take account of post-ES monitoring work.
There needs to be regular and targeted monitoring as the works begin and progress to assess if any changes in ecology and habitat quality are occurring or any unforeseen impacts are beginning to develop, so allowing for additional or increased mitigation measures to be instituted. The baseline situation will need to be reinforced with field and desk based surveys and modelling exercises to accurately quantify the potential impacts of both construction and operational activities. We would expect these surveys to be undertaken and results fully evaluated before any final designs are presented.
This assessment describes the baseline surveys undertaken relating to fish, habitats and aquatic invertebrates and the desk-study data obtained regarding these groups and mammals/algae. Further analysis of the baseline data will be undertaken for the ES. An integrated approach to the design of river
Local authorities
The final design and construction of any retained structures in the
Page 30
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Organisation Comment LB of Lambeth Thames needs to ensure a range of positive features are incorporated such as wall designs, appropriate planting and profiling to avoid impeded water flow or excessive redistribution of sediments. The walls of the Thames in this location are currently of low ecological value so there are opportunities to create features which address this. Under this topic the ecology of the foreshore will be considered. The Thames Estuary 2100 project identified that there are long lengths of eroding foreshore at Shadwell, Blackfriars, Pimlico and Chelsea. It may be necessary to set the defence line back when the defences are upgraded to avoid erosion damage to the defences. The EIA should consider the impact of new structures in the river on foreshore erosion and potential erosion damage to existing flood defences, which in some cases provide ecological habitat. A study of the potential for deposition and the accumulation of flotsam should be included.
Section 5: Ecology aquatic Response frontage sites has been adopted which takes account of both the public realm and habitat requirements and opportunities of each site. Mitigation/enhancement will be reported in the ES.
Local authorities City of London
The effects of any new structures on the hydraulic regime of the river and impacts pertinent to aquatic ecology will be assessed (Volumes 728: Site specific and Volume 6: Projectwide).
Baseline
5.3.2 5.3.3 Details of the approach to baseline collection and the assessment are presented in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site. Existing algal data are anticipated and will be assessed and reported in the ES.
Construction
5.3.4 The construction phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.
Operation
5.3.5 The operation phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.
Page 31

5.3.6 It has been assumed that: a. A frame barge grid would be used during construction rather than a solid concrete campshed and that only limited removal of sediment would be required to install it. b. The area beyond the temporary cofferdam would be subject to disturbance and compaction. It has been assumed that this would be likely to have a low impact. This will be confirmed once details of construction methods, such as the likely loads associated with the barges and jack-up barges and timings are available. c. There would be no dredging at the CSO construction site.
5.4
5.4.1
Baseline conditions Designations

The Albert Embankment Foreshore site falls within the River Thames and Tidal Tributaries Site of Metropolitan Importance (Site Reference: M31). The designation, which is proposed by the Greater London Authority and adopted by all Boroughs which border the Thames, recognises the range and quality of estuarine habitats including mudflat, shingle beach, reedbeds and the river channel itself. Over 120 species of fish have been recorded in the Tideway, though many of these are only occasional visitors. The more common species include dace (Leuciscus leuciscus), bream (Abramis brama) and roach (Rutilus rutilus) in the freshwater reaches, and sand-smelt (Atherina presbyter), flounder (Platichtyhys flesus) and Dover sole (Solea solea) in the estuarine reaches. Important migratory species include Twaite shad (Alosa fallax), European eel (Anguilla anguilla), smelt (Osmerus eperlanus), salmon (Salmo salar) and sea trout (S. trutta). A number of nationally rare snails occur, including the brackish water snail Pseudamnicola confusa, and an important assemblage of wetland and wading birds. The Tidal Thames is also the subject of a Habitat Action Plan under the London Biodiversity Action Plan 6. The Habitat Action Plan identifies a number of flagship habitats and species which characterise the estuary, such as gravel foreshore, mudflat and saltmarsh. A number of these habitats and species, including mudflat, are also the subject of action plans under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan. The Lambeth Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP)7 includes a Habitat Action Plan for the tidal Thames. 3.2km of the Thames lies within Lambeth, equating to about 4.5% of the total length. The SMI designation covers the vertical walls as well as the foreshore and river bed.
5.4.2
5.4.3
Habitats
5.4.4 The river is divided into three zones within the Tidal Thames Habitat Action Plan; freshwater, brackish and marine. The brackish zone is equivalent to the transitional water definition of the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The Albert Embankment Foreshore site lies on the
Page 32
boundary of the freshwater and brackish zones, which means that the fish and invertebrate communities which occur within the river at this location consists of a mixture of more saline-tolerant freshwater species and more freshwater tolerant marine species. The distribution of salinity- sensitive species may shift seasonally and from year-to-year, depending on fluvial inputs, so that community composition can vary. Invertebrate diversity is generally higher than in the brackish zone but species must be able to withstand some variations in salinity and a stressful environment. Stress is caused by the fluctuating conditions, which means that flora and fauna have to be able to tolerate wide variations in their physical environment. 5.4.5 The intertidal habitat is narrowest in this section of the river due to development on either bank. The site is located approximately 100m upstream of the nearest area of UK BAP priority habitat mudflats, according to Natureonthemap.org.uk. (Natural England, 2011). An area of gravel foreshore was exposed at the time of the survey (low tide) in Autumn 2010 within the limits of the survey site. Substrate within this area was dominated by pebbles, with some sand, shingle and large stones. The river in this location is confined by a constructed vertical river wall. There was no marginal vegetation and limited intertidal habitat. The vertical river wall does support communities of macro and microalgae. Target habitats present included sublittoral sands and gravels and the river wall. Following the survey methodology, a summary of habitat types present, and other features of interest are presented in the table below. Vol 19 Table 5.4.1 Aquatic ecology features of interest Target habitats present and features of interest Gravel foreshore Sublittoral sand and gravels River wall 5.4.8 Substrate present in intertidal zone (approximate cover) Pebbles (75%) Shingle (15%) Sand (10%) Substrate present in subtidal samples Gravel Pebbles Sand
5.4.6
5.4.7
The shallow river margins, which shift across the intertidal foreshore with the ebb and flood of the tides, provide an important migration route for juvenile fish along the estuarine corridor. The young of species such as eel (known as glass eels or elvers), flounder, dace and smelt rely upon access to these areas of lower water velocity to avoid being washed out by tides and to avoid predation by the larger fish that occur in deeper water. Migrants of larger fish tend to use faster mid-channel routes. Young fish also feed predominantly amongst the intertidal habitat.
Mammals
5.4.9 Records compiled by the Zoological Society of London for 2003-2011 indicate that single records of common dolphin and harbour porpoise have been made at Vauxhall Bridge adjacent to the site. Seals have occasionally (less than once per annum) been recorded in this stretch of
Page 33
the Thames and the Thames Tideway upstream of the site is used by grey and common seal.
Fish
5.4.10 A single day survey was undertaken at Albert Embankment Foreshore during October 2010. The extent of the survey and location of trawl and seine net hauls are presented in Vol. 19 Figure 5.4.1. Full details of the methodology are presented in Volume 5. Vol 19 Figure 5.4.1 Aquatic ecology - sampling locations (see Volume 19 Figures document) 5.4.11 The survey recorded very low fish abundance in the area of Albert Embankment, with only nineteen individuals captured in total. The range of species recorded, the number of individuals is presented in Vol 19 Table 5.4.2. The fish species within the Thames Tideway are divided into four guilds which as follows 8,9): a. Freshwater species which spend their complete lifecycle primarily in freshwater b. Estuarine resident Species which remain in the estuary for their complete lifecycle c. Diadromous species which migrate through the estuary to spawn d. Marine juvenile species which spawn at sea but spend part of their lifecycle in the estuary. Vol 19 Table 5.4.2 Aquatic ecology fish survey Common name Common goby Common smelt Common bream Dace Roach 5.4.12 Specific name Pomatoschistus microps Osmerus eperlanus Abramis brama Leuciscus leuciscus Rutilus rutilus Number of individuals 2 8 6 2 1 Guild Estuarine resident Diadromous Freshwater Freshwater Freshwater
This was the lowest return of all sites sampled in terms of absolute abundance of fish, compared with a catch exceeding 200 fish each at Barn Elms, Western Pumping Station and Cremorne Wharf, which had the highest abundance of fish of all sites surveyed in relation to the Thames Tunnel project. The low abundance of freshwater species at Albert Embankment such as roach, bream and dace is explained by the site location, which is at the downstream end of the freshwater zone (see Vol
Page 34
19 Figure 5.4.1), where salinity is relatively close to the tolerance threshold of freshwater species. 5.4.13 The EA carry out annual surveys of fish within the Thames Tideway, with data available from 1992-2010. Methodologies for the survey are provided in Volume 5. The nearest sampling site to Albert Embankment is at Vauxhall, within a few hundred metres, but records show that this was only surveyed in 1992-93. The EA data at this location indicates low fish diversity and abundance, principally consisting of small numbers of flounder (34), eel (29), dace (24), bass (16) and gobies (12). The numbers given are totals for spring and autumn surveys, for both years. This broadly concurs with the October 2010 baseline surveys. A more comprehensive survey dataset exists for Battersea, located 3 km upstream, where EA surveys have been carried out every year from 1983 to 2010. Fifteen fish species are recorded for Battersea. These show fairly steady catches from trawls but some indication of increasing seinenet catches in recent years (Vol 19 Figure 5.4.2). Catches are dominated by estuarine resident fish such as common goby, flounder and sand-smelt, freshwater species including dace, common bream, perch and roach, and migratory species including eel and smelt. Other migratory species such as salmon and sea trout must pass through the area but are too infrequent to be detected by only one or two surveys per year. Again, these concur well with the more limited Blackfriars and Vauxhall data and probably give a better view of the overall status of fish populations in the vicinity of the Blackfriars site. Vol 19 Figure 5.4.2 Aquatic ecology - fish catches
5.4.14
5.4.15
Note: Long-term EA total fish catches from Battersea site using three sampling methods (x-axis: year; y-axis: numbers of fish)
5.4.16
In general, Thames Tideway fish populations are mobile and wide ranging, and hence any analysis of population data needs to be based on an understanding of the ecological requirements and migratory habits of individual species. Although the abundance and diversity of fish at any
Page 35
one site may provide some indication of the habitat quality offered at that site it is important to consider the data within the context of sites throughout the Thames Tideway, since the factors influencing distribution are likely to be acting at this wider scale. Effects at this scale are assessed in Volume 6.
Invertebrates
5.4.17 A single day survey was undertaken at Albert Embankment Foreshore in Autumn 2010. The area covered by the survey is the same as that described for the fish survey above (para. 5.4.10) and illustrated in Vol 19 Figure 5.4.2. Further details of these methods can be found in Volume 6, Section 2.3. Benthic invertebrates are used in the freshwater, estuarine and marine environments as biological indicators of water and sediment quality since their abundance and distribution reflects natural or man-made fluctuations in environmental conditions. Species diversity is influenced by factors such as substrate and salinity, however high species diversity (or numbers of species) at any given site generally indicates good water and/or sediment quality, whilst low diversity may indicate poor quality. Whilst the abundance and diversity of invertebrate species at any one site provide a more accurate reflection of conditions at that site than site specific fish data, invertebrate populations and particularly those which occur in the water column (pelagic) are influenced by conditions throughout the estuary. The strongest influences on invertebrate distribution and density tend to be physical factors such as salinity, and substrate type followed by water quality and local habitat conditions. These factors are discussed below in relation to the site specific data. The invertebrates collected during the October 2010 field surveys are presented in the table below. Vol 19 Table 5.4.3 Aquatic ecology invertebrate fauna No Individs subtidal samples AL1 AL2 11 5 235 22 32 230 1 80 1 1 10 5 17 1 25 No Individs Intertidal samples Q SW1 SW2 16 17 2 2 75 CCI Score
5.4.18
5.4.19
5.4.20
Taxa Theodoxus fluviatilis Potamopyrgus antipodarum (?) Radix balthica Polychaeta Oligochaeta Helobdella stagnalis other long leach Erpobdella sp. Erpobdella testacea
3 1 1
Page 36
Section 5: Ecology aquatic No Individs subtidal samples AL1 AL2 3 8 1 107 47 6 80 40 10 0 350 5 65 7 No Individs Intertidal samples Q SW1 SW2 1 1 1
CCI Score
Taxa Palaemon longirostris Crangon crangon Eriocheir sinensis Acorophium lacustre Gammarus zaddachi Number of Taxa 5.4.21 5.4.22
Note: Invertebrate fauna sampled at Albert Embankment
Eight taxa were recorded in the subtidal samples and six in the intertidal samples. Subtidal samples are relatively diverse for this area of the River Thames, and moderately pollution sensitive groups, such as Gammarus zaddachi and Theodoxus fluviatilis were abundant. They were similar to most other sites on the tideway. Some moderately pollution sensitive groups such as Corophium sp., Gammarus zaddachi and Theodoxus fluviatilis were abundant in all subtidal samples. The low invertebrate diversity and abundance in the intertidal area is likely to reflect the physical conditions at the site, although poor water quality due to CSO outfalls in the area may also have an influence. There is limited intertidal zone due to encroachment by the river defences and neighbouring development. Wave washing from the tide and passing river craft is therefore intense and affects the entire width of the intertidal habitat. The site also lies within the brackish zone of the river which means that invertebrates are subject to considerable variations in salinity. The majority of taxa present are brackish species, with varying tolerance of different levels of salinity from estuarine to near freshwater. These included Gammarus zaddachi (a brackish species of shrimp) and Crangon crangon (shrimps, typical of estuarine and brackish conditions). However, the increasing level of salinity compared to upstream sites is demonstrated by the presence of Polychaeta, which are generally a more estuarine group. As other sites, the samples on Albert Embankment were dominated by common pollution tolerant taxa, such as Oligochaeta, Erpobdella sp., Potamopyrgus antipodarum and Radix bathica, as well as some more sensitive groups. The presence of the taxa Oligochaeta in the intertidal zone may reflect the influence of the CSO outfall in reducing background water quality, since this group of animals is indicative of enriched conditions. However, this is unlikely to be as important as those factors such as salinity and substrate type. The Community Conservation Index (CCI) score 10 has initially been used to assess whether any species of nature conservation importance are
5.4.23
5.4.24
5.4.25
5.4.26
Page 37
present. CCI classifies many groups of invertebrates of inland waters according to their scarcity and conservation value in Great Britain and relates closely to the Red Data Book (RDB). 5.4.27 The only species of high nature conservation importance was Acorophium lacustre (CCI 8), described elsewhere in the report. It is a RDB species and was abundant in subtidal samples. EA data have shown A. lacustre to be common in the Thames Tideway and its distribution appears to have increased since it was classified. Its presence has not been used to elevate the relative value of the invertebrate community in this instance. Albert Embankment is located approximately 1.9 km upstream of the EA site at South Bank Centre, which is the nearest sampling location with recent data (2005-2007). The most abundant taxon that have been recorded at South Bank Centre between 2005 and 2007 included Gammarus zaddachi, Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri and other Oligochaete worms and Potamopyrgus antipodarum. In addition to the native G. zaddachi, the amphipod G. tigrinus, of North American origin, was recorded at Southbank Centre in 2007. The species was not sampled at Albert Embankment in 2010. It is believed that this species of amphipod arrived in English waters via ballast water from ships. It lives in fresh and brackish waters and can expand rapidly, outcompeting local amphipods. However, based on available data, it appears to be much less abundant than the native Gammarus zaddachi within the Tideway. Species diversity recorded at Albert Embankment during October 2010 is broadly consistent with data collected by the EA at South Bank Centre, and primarily reflects the mid-estuarine conditions at the site. Fewer species of animals are able to tolerate these intermediate levels of salinity than in true freshwater or marine environments. The differences between samples taken in 2010 at Albert Embankment and samples from South Bank Centre, including the lower abundance of Polychaeta worms (one of the most diverse groups at Southbank Centre) at Albert Embankment, are likely to reflect subtle differences in habitat, seasonal and sampling variation. The higher number of species recorded in some sample years at South Bank Centre may also reflect the greater sampling intensity during the EA surveys. Chinese mitten crab (Eriocheir sinensis), an invasive species, was sampled in the intertidal zone of the site. Individual mitten crabs were captured at a number of sampling locations along the Thames Tideway, including the Albert Embankment. Mitten crabs can cause bank destabilisation and erosion, and also compete for food resources with other species. The former issue is less of a concern at this location as much of the river bank comprises hard defences, but competition with other species could occur.
5.4.28
5.4.29
5.4.30
5.4.31
5.4.32
5.4.33
Algae
5.4.34 This section will be completed in the ES.
Page 38
Aquatic ecology receptor values and sensitivities

5.4.35 Using the baseline the value accorded to each receptor considered in this assessment is set out in the table below. The definitions of the different scales of importance used in this evaluation are set out in Volume 5. Vol 19 Table 5.4.4 Aquatic ecology receptor value Receptor Foreshore habitat (intertidal and subtidal). Value/sensitivity and justification Medium (Metropolitan) value as part of Tidal Thames Site of Metropolitan Importance even though foreshore is not mudflat. Low (Local) value. Only occasional records of common dolphin and harbour porpoise exist from the area and very little intertidal habitat available for use as a haul out site by seals. Low-medium (Borough) value. Albert Embankment Foreshore had the lowest fish catch of all the sites surveyed in October 2010. However, the site is a component of the migratory route of all resident Tideway fish populations and in a Borough context the fish populations are likely to notable. Low-medium (Borough) value. Local diversity and abundance of invertebrates was limited. However, in a Borough context the invertebrate populations are likely to notable. To be undertaken for the ES once baseline data received.
Mammals
Fish
Invertebrates
Algae
5.5
5.5.1
Construction assessment Construction impacts

The impacts associated with the construction stage of the project (Year 1 to Year 4) are described and summarised below. The definitions of the different magnitudes of impact referred to in this assessment are given in Volume 5. Temporary landtake There would be a total of approximately 0.4ha of temporary landtake from intertidal habitats associated with the cofferdam. The cofferdams would
5.5.2
Page 39
be filled with an imported granular material. The structures would be in place for a total of three and a half years. 5.5.3 It is assumed for the purposes of the assessment that reinstatement of the area affected by temporary landtake would involve the removal of the granular material to the surrounding foreshore level. Although the foreshore would re-establish through natural accretion there would be considerable compaction of the surface layers of sediment which may prevent colonisation by invertebrates until new sediment has accreted. Given the uncertainty over the timescale for natural accretion and thus reestablishment of the habitat, the impact of temporary landtake is considered to be negative and of medium magnitude. The probability of the impact occurring is considered to be certain. Sediment disturbance and compaction 5.5.5 There would be a zone of approximately 0.6ha of intertidal habitat and 0.1ha of subtidal habitat outside the temporary cofferdam which would be affected by construction activities. The jack up barge would be operated around the outside of the temporary cofferdam, thus affecting intertidal and subtidal habitat. Furthermore, the area in the vicinity of the barge grid/campshed would be likely to be affected by compaction and disturbance due to barge movements. At Albert Embankment there would be approximately 14 barge movements per day at the peak. Impacts on the intertidal and subtidal habitats are considered to be low negative, probable and temporary. This is subject to further information regarding the degree of compaction anticipated in this zone. Channel constriction and change to hydrodynamic regime 5.5.7 The presence of a cofferdam beneath Vauxhall Bridge would completely obstruct channel flow along the intertidal foreshore under the bridge for three and a half years. The construction phase would also result in a reduction in the width of the intertidal foreshore in front of Camelford House from 35m to 10m. It is likely that the cofferdams and campsheds would impact on scour patterns while in place. Preliminary findings from the hydraulic modelling undertaken for the project indicate that there may be scour around the cofferdams. These impacts will be assessed and reported in the ES following further investigation Waterborne noise and vibration 5.5.10 There would be approximately 265m of sheet piling installed for the permanent and temporary cofferdams. Piles would be driven using silent piling techniques, thus limiting the principal source of waterborne noise and vibration impacts. Further measures to limit noise and vibration impacts during the construction stage of the project have been incorporated into the CoCP. These are summarised in para. 5.2.3 of this volume.
5.5.4
5.5.6
5.5.8
5.5.9
Page 40
There would be additional sources of noise and vibration, including activities associated with construction of the shaft itself and vehicle and barge movements. Although background levels of noise and vibration within the Thames Tideway are likely to be moderately high due to existing boat movements, and ground-propagated noise from transport systems, the proximity of the works to the river and their scale means that underwater noise and vibration levels are likely to be elevated locally during construction. Noise and vibration have the potential to cause physical damage to fish in extreme cases, and disrupt behaviour and movement. However, in this case, given the piling techniques proposed and the extent of the works relative to the width of the channel this is considered to be a low negative impact, probable and temporary. Increase in suspended sediment loads Although no dredging is required at Albert Embankment, construction of the barge grid, piling operations and barge movements are likely to lead to localised increases in suspended sediment with the potential to affect local and downstream habitats. It is likely that the cofferdams and campsheds would impact on scour patterns while in place, which could cause the mobilisation of suspended solids into the river. Background levels of suspended sediments in the Thames Tideway are relatively high, and increases associated with the project are unlikely to be significant, except on a localised basis. Impacts are considered to be negative and of low magnitude, probable and temporary. Measures and safeguards to minimise the risk of accidental releases of silty or contaminated discharges to the Thames Tideway are included in the CoCP. No impacts from polluted discharges are anticipated provided with these control measures and safeguards in place.
5.5.12
5.5.13
5.5.14
5.5.15
Aquatic ecology impacts

5.5.16 The table below summaries the magnate of impacts. Vol 19 Table 5.5.1 Aquatic ecology impacts - construction Impact Loss of approximately 0.4 ha of intertidal habitat through the construction of temporary (three and a half years) and permanent cofferdams and the placement of a temporary (three and a half years) 800m2 barge grid/campshed in the intertidal outside the cofferdams. Disturbance and compaction of intertidal and subtidal sediments due to access road and barge movements. Magnitude Medium negative due to long period for re-establishment. Temporary. Certain.
Low negative impact for intertidal and subtidal habitat due relatively limited extent. Temporary.
Page 41
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Impact Constriction of channel and change to hydrodynamic regime, due to permanent and temporary structures in the intertidal. Potential for increases in velocity which may interfere with fish movements. Waterborne noise and vibration arising from the installation of temporary and permanent sheet piling and subsequent removal of temporary piling. This has potential to cause damage to fish and disrupt fish movements. Increase in suspended sediment loads due to construction activity, piling operations and barge movements. Potential for smothering of downstream habitats and reduced water quality.
Section 5: Ecology aquatic Magnitude Probable. To be assessed in ES following further investigation.
Low negative due to proposed silent piling methods and control measures. Temporary. Probable. Low negative due to lack of dredging and relatively high background levels of sediment. Temporary. Probable.
5.5.17 The following section describes the effects of these impacts on aquatic ecology based on the significance criteria set out in Volume 6. Effects of the project may also be detectable at the whole Thames Tideway level. These effects are discussed in Volume 6. Designated sites and Habitats Loss of intertidal habitat due to temporary landtake 5.5.18 There would be a temporary loss of approximately 0.4ha of intertidal habitat due to cofferdams, and approximately 800m2 through presence of a campshed. The intrinsic value of the habitats (ie, the value of the habitat as an ecological feature in itself rather than simply in terms of the support it provides for fauna) in this area is considered to be relatively low, although they are considered to be of Metropolitan importance as part of the tidal Thames. Sediment is expected to naturally accrete following removal of the temporary cofferdam and granular fill material. However, the underlying sediment would remain compacted whilst any newly accreted material is likely to be unstable and prone to removal by scour. Recovery is therefore expected only in the medium (1-5 years) or long term (+5 years). The overall effect is considered to be moderate adverse.
5.5.19
Page 42
Disturbance and compaction of intertidal and subtidal habitat 5.5.20 There would be disturbance and compaction of approximately 0.6ha intertidal habitat and 0.1ha of subtidal habitat outside the cofferdam during the site establishment phase due to the presence of a jack up barge to install the temporary cofferdam and the campshed. Habitats within this zone are expected to recover within the short term (less than 12 months) following site establishment. Despite the Metropolitan value that has been accorded to habitats as part of the tidal Thames, the effect is therefore considered to be minor adverse due to the low magnitude of the impact. Marine mammals Interference with the migrations of marine mammals within the Tideway 5.5.21 Noise, vibration and other construction activity has the potential to disturb mammals and deter them from passing the site. However, given the silent piling methods used, the duration of the period when piling would be taking place, and the controls on underwater noise-generating activities described in the CoCP (para. 5.2.3) this is considered to be a negligible effect. Fish Direct mortality of fish due to cofferdam installation, sediment disturbance and compaction 5.5.22 Although there is a risk of mortality of fish as the cofferdams are installed, and as a result of compaction of the sediments, this is considered to be low since even juvenile fish would move away from the source of the impact. There would be a greater risk of mortality if fish eggs were present, but since the site is not considered to offer spawning habitat, this risk can be discounted. The effect is considered to be negligible due to the low risk of mortality. Loss of feeding, resting and nursery habitat for fish due to temporary landtake 5.5.23 The site is not considered to offer suitable spawning habitat for smelt or any other fish species and given the limited intertidal habitat, it is unlikely to provide significant feeding, resting or nursery habitat. This will be examined following analysis of surveys and reported in the ES. Loss of foreshore habitat is considered to be a medium negative impact. The effect on fish is considered to be minor adverse due to the lowmedium value of the receptor. Loss of feeding, resting and nursery habitat for fish due to sediment disturbance and compaction 5.5.25 The area which would be subject to disturbance and compaction outside the cofferdam lies primarily in the intertidal zone. It is unlikely to offer feeding, resting or nursery habitat for juvenile fish. Given that recovery is likely to occur within the short term (less than 12 months) the effect is thus considered to be negligible.
5.5.24
Page 43
Interference with the migratory movements of fish 5.5.26 Ordinarily the river channel should provide an uninterrupted route for juvenile fish migrations for species such as eel (Anguilla anguilla) as glass eels or elvers, dace (Leuciscus leuciscus), goby (eg, Pomatoschitus spp.) and flounder (Platichthys flesus) as they move through the estuary. In general, encroachment of structures such as cofferdams into the river channel may affect the river hydraulics, particularly at high discharges associated with heavy fluvial inputs or spring tides. Changes in water velocity caused by constriction of the hydraulic channel may hinder movements of fish against the tide, including their ability to withstand, or hold station in the flow. Constriction of the hydraulic channel, reduction of the intertidal zone and increased water velocities at project sites might cause some fish to be lost, for example by forcing them into deeper water with increased predation risk. Formation of eddy currents in the wake of structures may temporarily entrap fish and delay progress of migrations. Repeatedly delaying the successful daily migrations of fish past individual sites may interfere also with key life stage events such as spawning. The effects of the Thames Tunnel project on fish migration are as yet unknown, and are being considered at a site specific and whole Thames Tideway level through the use of a computer modelling technique, known as Individual Based Modelling (IBM) which utilises the existing hydraulic model for the Thames Tideway. Information regarding the behaviour of affected species and their individual life stages is used to predict the way in which individuals would negotiate a series of obstacles or impacts through the Thames Tideway. The results of the modelling exercise will be reported in the Environmental Statement. The river is heavily constricted by the existing river defences at Albert Embankment, such that velocities are already likely to affect the ability of juvenile fish of some species from holding station against the tide. Further encroachment by structures into the river is likely to exacerbate this problem. The effects of on fish migration of the Thames Tunnel structures, including at Albert Embankment, are as yet unknown, and are being considered at a site specific and whole Thames Tideway level through the use of a predictive modelling technique (Volume 5). The assessment will be completed following this modelling exercise and will be reported in the Environmental Statement. Effects of waterborne noise and vibration on fish 5.5.32 The effects of waterborne noise and vibration on fish vary according to the proximity of the receptor to the source. Effects depend on distance from source, ranging from potential death at very close proximities, through injury, and behavioural disturbance with increasing distance from the source. The key source at Albert Embankment foreshore is the driving of sheet piles for the cofferdams. This would be undertaken using a silent piling technique from a jack up barge, thus minimising the level of noise and vibration. Furthermore, a series of control measures relating to the timing and duration of piling operations have been included in the CoCP.
5.5.27
5.5.28 5.5.29
5.5.30
5.5.31
Page 44
The site is not considered to support sensitive spawning habitat, and therefore there is only low receptor sensitivity, as no significant numbers of any fish species will be present for extended periods. The overall effect is negligible. Blanketing of feeding areas for fish and reduction in water column visibility due to suspended sediment
5.5.34
Although the Thames Tideway is a sedimentary environment with high levels of suspended solids, construction activities such as piling and barge movements have the potential to generate high levels of suspended sediment which may cause disorientation of fish, and interfere with the feeding mechanisms of certain invertebrates. No dredging would be undertaken at this site as part of the temporary works. Given the length and extent of cofferdams, there is the potential for re-suspended sediments to affect juvenile fish migrations, particularly when considered along with the hydraulic effects described above. Adult fish are considered to be less likely to be affected as they are able to move away from the turbid water. Since the value of the receptor is lowmedium (Borough), and the impact is considered low negative, the effect is considered to be negligible. Invertebrates Direct mortality of invertebrates due to temporary landtake, sediment disturbance and compaction
5.5.35
5.5.36
There would be direct mortality of invertebrates within sediments removed or covered by the cofferdams, and due to compaction and disturbance of sediment due the site establishment phase. The effect is considered to be minor adverse due to the low-medium value of the receptor. Loss of feeding habitat and burrowing for invertebrates due to temporary landtake
5.5.37
The area beneath the temporary cofferdams would also be lost as burrowing and feeding habitat for invertebrates during the entire construction period (three and a half years). The area would be subject to heavy compaction, and hence would be unavailable to burrowing invertebrates in the medium term (1-5 years) following removal of the cofferdams. However, the temporary structures may act like an artificial reef, providing new encrusting habitat for some invertebrate species. The overall effect is considered to be minor adverse, given the relatively limited loss of a burrowing and feeding resource, and the presence of possible new habitat provided by the temporary structures. Loss of feeding and burrowing habitat for invertebrates due to sediment disturbance and compaction
5.5.38
5.5.39
Although the subtidal zone was found to support a larger number of taxa than the intertidal, the temporary compaction and disturbance to the habitat for burrowing invertebrates is considered to be a negligible effect, given the reversibility of the effect.
Page 45
Blanketing of feeding areas for invertebrates and reduction in water column visibility due to suspended sediment 5.5.40 The risk of blanketing of invertebrate feeding habitats is considered to be low due to the nature of construction activities, and given the low-medium value of the site for invertebrates the effect is considered to be negligible. Algae 5.5.41 This will be assessed and reported in the ES.
5.6
5.6.1
Operational assessment Operational impacts

The potential impacts arising from operation of the project are described below. The definitions of the different magnitudes of impact referred to in this assessment are given in Volume 5. Permanent maintenance trackway The trackway would cover approximately 170m of foreshore. The trackway is expected to be constructed from a permeable material with similar properties to the surrounding substrate. The trackway would be used by low-ground-bearing machines on an occasional basis for maintenance purposes. Permanent landtake is probable but would have a low negative impact due to the small area of foreshore involved. Permanent landtake due to the presence of permanent structures on the foreshore
5.6.2
5.6.3
There would be approximately 0.3ha of permanent landtake of intertidal foreshore. The permanent structures would extend into the channel in two locations, extending approximately 25m into the channel west of Vauxhall Bridge, and approximately 28m immediately east of the bridge. These structures would be entirely contained within the intertidal area. This would result in loss of intertidal and subtidal feeding and resting habitat for fish and invertebrates. Permanent landtake is certain and is considered to have a medium negative impact. Constriction of the channel due to permanent structures The permanent structures would extend approximately 25-28m into the channel, and would be entirely contained within the intertidal area. Hydraulic modelling has provided preliminary results that indicate that the permanent structures on the foreshore at Albert Embankment would not be likely to result in a significant increase in scour. However, these results are subject to further work and it is yet to be determined whether there would be an increase in velocity which may affect the fish movements past the structure. Assessment of this impact is currently being undertaken, both for this site and cumulatively with other foreshore construction sites. The assessment will be undertaken following completion of modelling to predict the effects of foreshore structures on fish migration (Volume 5).
5.6.4
5.6.5
Page 46
Reduction in the volume sewage effluent discharged from the CSO 5.6.6 Both the Clapham Storm Relief and Brixton Storm Relief sewers would be intercepted at Albert Embankment. Under the base case (which includes permitted Thames Tideway sewage treatment works upgrades, and the Lee Tunnel scheme) discharges from the CSOs at Albert Embankment are anticipated to increase to 293,000 m3 by 2021. With the Thames Tunnel scheme in place, discharges at Albert Embankment are projected to reduce to 13,600m3. The improvements would help to achieve water quality standards set under the Water Framework Directive in relation to dissolved oxygen and inorganic nitrogen. The magnitude of the impact is considered to be medium positive and to be probable and permanent. This is a provisional assessment and will be verified based on the outputs from water quality modelling currently being undertaken. Vol 19 Table 5.6.1 Aquatic ecology impacts - operation Impact Permanent low impact surfacing/trackway over an approximately 170m stretch of foreshore Permanent landtake due to the presence of permanent structures on the foreshore Constriction of the channel due to permanent structures Improvement of local water quality through CSO interception. Magnitude Low negative Permanent. Probable. Medium negative Permanent. Certain. To be assessed in ES. Medium positive impact Permanent. Probable.
5.6.7
Operational effects
5.6.8 The operational receptors and their value are identical to that of the construction receptors as outlined in Section 5.4 and Vol 19 Table 5.4.4. The effects are described below for each receptor. The way in which the magnitude and reversibility of each impact has been combined with the value of each receptor to determine the significance of the effect is set out in Volume 5. Unless stated the effects described below apply to both Year 1 of operation and Year 6 of operation. Designated sites and Habitats Permanent loss of intertidal habitats 5.6.10 There would be a permanent loss of approximately 0.3ha of intertidal habitat. The intrinsic value of the habitats in this area is considered to be
5.6.9
Page 47
relatively low, although they are considered to be of Metropolitan importance as part of the River Thames and Tidal Tributaries Site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation. The effect is considered to be moderate adverse due to the magnitude of the impact (medium negative) and the value of the receptor (Medium). Marine mammals Increase in the number and/or change in the distribution of marine mammals 5.6.11 No changes are anticipated on marine mammals as a result of the water quality improvements associated with interception of a single CSO discharge. This is because they are a mobile receptor, and therefore able to move away from a point source discharge and they are relatively insensitive to the levels of pollution associated with a single source. Effects are considered negligible. Fish Permanent loss of intertidal feeding and resting habitat for fish due to landtake 5.6.12 The site is not considered to offer suitable spawning habitat for smelt, or any other fish species and given the limited intertidal habitat, it is unlikely provide significant feeding, resting or nursery habitat. However, loss of foreshore habitat is considered to be a medium negative impact. The effect on fish is considered to be minor adverse. Interference with migratory movements of fish 5.6.13 As for the temporary structures the effects of the permanent encroachments on juvenile fish migration will be assessed following a predictive modelling exercise and reported in the ES. Reduction in the occurrence of dissolved oxygen related fish mortalities 5.6.14 The microbial activity associated with untreated sewage effluent (BOD) causes a depletion in the levels of dissolved oxygen downstream of a discharge. This is often referred to as an oxygen sag. Oxygen sags are more common in the summer months when water temperatures are higher and oxygen is less soluble. Impacts on fish health occur when dissolved oxygen levels drop beneath 4mg/l, and significant mortalities begin to occur when levels drop beneath this threshold 11. Such dissolved oxygen events are currently relatively common in the Thames Tideway, particularly during the summer months when heavy storms follow periods of low flow and water temperatures are relatively higher. Up to 2004, there had been at least 154 low dissolved oxygen events, in which fish mortalities have occurred. This information will be updated for the ES. Interception of the CSOs throughout the Thames Tideway would improve sewerage system capacity and result in far fewer low dissolved oxygen events and therefore fewer mass fish mortalities. The exact number of anticipated events will be predicted using the Tideway Fish Risk Model
5.6.15
5.6.16
Page 48
and reported in the ES. Details of the Tideway Fish Risk Model are presented in Volume 5. Interception of the Albert Embankment Foreshore CSO would contribute to this Thames Tideway wide improvement, and would also result in improvements in the local area. Given that the impact is considered to be medium positive, and the value of the receptors is lowmedium (Borough). At this stage the effect is considered to be minor beneficial. Improvements across the Thames Tideway as a whole would be assessed in the project-wide effects assessment (Volume 6). Increase in the distribution of pollution sensitive fish species 5.6.17 The Thames Tideway currently supports a small number of rare fish species such as salmon, sea trout, twaite shad and river lamprey. A number of factors limit the colonisation of habitats by these species, including salinity, substrate type and current, but pollution is known to be a significant factor in determining colonisation 12. Improving water and sediment quality would facilitate the spread of those pollution sensitive species which are currently being impeded by poor water and sediment quality. EA data and bespoke project surveys have indicated no records of rare fish species in the vicinity of Albert Embankment Foreshore and habitat quality at this site is limited by confinement of the river channel between vertical river walls, which limits the extent of intertidal habitat and lead to increased current velocities. Given that the impact is considered to be medium positive, and the value of the receptors is low-medium (Borough), the effect is thus considered to be negligible in the short term (Year 1), and minor beneficial in the medium term (Year 6). Invertebrates Disturbance due to operation of the trackway 5.6.19 The trackway would comprise a permeable surface that may have low value for invertebrates. Given the very occasional use of the trackway, which would occur at low tide, and its design to be used as such, it is not considered that any significant adverse effects would arise through compaction of the surface by vehicles. The impact is low negative and the value of the receptor is low medium (invertebrates). The effect is therefore considered to be negligible. Permanent loss of intertidal feeding and burrowing habitat for invertebrates due to landtake 5.6.20 The loss of habitat for burrowing invertebrates is considered to be a minor adverse effect, given the low-medium value of the receptor. Localised improvements in invertebrate diversity and abundance 5.6.21 As well as causing low dissolved oxygen events, untreated sewage effluent contains nutrients which cause enrichment of the water column and sediments in the river. Excessive nutrient enrichment causes phenomenon such as algal blooms, and is known as eutrophication. Such enrichment tends to favour a small number of pollution tolerant species at the expense of a wider range of pollution sensitive species. For example, certain species of Oligochaete worm are indicative of
5.6.18
Page 49
polluted conditions because they are able to tolerate the low dissolved oxygen conditions and multiply rapidly in the enriched sediments. 5.6.22 By intercepting the CSO the source of sewage related nutrients would be reduced and the sediments in the vicinity of the outfall would begin to return to a more natural state. As nutrients reduce in concentration a wider range of invertebrate species would begin to colonise the sediments. However, at Albert Embankment Foreshore, and other sites in the mid Thames Tideway, salinity is likely to be the over-riding factor controlling the range of species present. Given that the impact is considered to be medium positive, and the value of the receptors is low-medium the effect is considered to be minor beneficial. Increase in the distribution of pollution sensitive invertebrate species 5.6.23 The Thames Tideway currently supports a small number of rare invertebrate species, such as swollen spire snail and tentacled lagoon worm. A number of factors limit the colonisation of habitats by these species, including salinity, substrate type and current, but pollution is known to be a significant factor in determining. Improving water and sediment quality would facilitate the spread of those pollution sensitive species which are currently being impeded by poor water and sediment quality. EA data and bespoke project surveys have indicated no records of rare invertebrate species in the vicinity of Albert Embankment Foreshore (other than Acorophium lacustre, which as discussed is an RDB species but is actually common in the Tideway) and habitat quality at this site is limited by a number of factors including the confinement of the river channel between vertical river walls. Given that the impact is considered to be medium positive, and the value of the receptors is low (invertebrates), the effect is thus considered to be negligible in the short term (Year 1), and minor beneficial in the medium term (Year 6). Algae 5.6.25 An assessment of algae will be carried out and reported in the ES.
5.6.24
5.7
5.7.1
Approach to mitigation
The approach to mitigation will be informed by the Mitigation and Compensation Hierarchy discussed with the Thames Tunnel EA Biodiversity Working Group as a systematic and transparent decisionmaking process. The hierarchy is sequential and seeks to avoid adverse environmental effects. The hierarchy of avoid effect', minimise, control compensate, and enhance will be strictly applied in this sequence. The Environmental Statement will describe how this hierarchy has been applied. The mitigation hierarchy is described in detail in Volume 5.
5.7.2
Construction
5.7.3 Impacts during the construction stage would primarily be controlled through measures incorporated into the CoCP. Measures already included in the Code of Construction Practice (ie, measures to avoid water
Page 50
quality impacts and disturbance of fish during piling) are not repeated here and are summarised in para. 5.2.3. 5.7.4 The areas of habitat affected by temporary cofferdam are expected to recover following removal of the sheet piling and fill material. The need for any specific restoration measures will be considered and reported in the ES. A bespoke solution to facilitate the movement of fish around the temporary structures is currently being considered. The application of this mitigation feature and individual sites will be determined once the magnitude of the hydrodynamic impact has been determined and potential effects on fish migration determined. This will be determined using hydraulic modelling data, applied at both a site specific level and project-wide level. Details of the mitigation measure and its application will be reported in the ES.
5.7.5
Operation
5.7.6 Whilst the design layout of the site has been refined and use of jack-up culvert utilised to minimise the permanent footprint, the permanent loss of intertidal foreshore is considered to be a moderate adverse effect. At this stage the footprint of the permanent structure has been minimised as far as possible to accommodate the necessary works therefore further mitigation is not possible at present. Consideration will be given to compensation as necessary in line with the mitigation hierarchy as outlined in Volume 5. This will be reported in the ES. If encroachment of the permanent structure is considered to result in a significant adverse effect on fish migration similar bespoke mitigation as described in para. 5.7.5 above will be applied to the permanent structure. This will be determined using hydraulic modelling data as described above.
5.7.7
Page 51
5.8
Significance Moderate adverse. Natural recovery anticipated. The need for site specific restoration measures will be investigated and reported in the ES. None viable None required Minor adverse. Negligible. Mitigation Residual significant To be reported in the ES.
Assessment summary
Vol 19 Table 5.8.1 Aquatic ecology summary of construction assessment
Receptor
Effect
Habitats
Loss of intertidal habitat due to temporary landtake
Disturbance and compaction of intertidal and subtidal habitat Negligible.
Minor adverse.
Mammals
Interference with the migrations of marine mammals within the Tideway. Negligible. None required
Fish
Direct mortality of fish due to temporary landtake, and disturbance and compaction of sediment. Minor adverse.
Negligible.
Loss of feeding, resting and nursery habitat for fish due to landtake
Natural recovery anticipated. The need for site specific restoration measures will be investigated and reported in the ES. None required
To be reported in the ES
Loss of feeding, resting and nursery habitat for fish due to sediment compaction and disturbance.
Negligible.
Negligible.
Page 52
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Significance To be determined and reported in ES To be determined and reported in ES To be reported in ES Mitigation Residual significant
Receptor
Effect
Interference with migratory movements of fish due to partial blockage of the intertidal area by temporary structures, and barges. Negligible. None required Negligible.
Direct mortality and/or disturbance to fish from waterborne noise and vibration leading to changes in behaviour and migratory patterns. Negligible. None required Negligible.
Blanketing of feeding areas for fish and invertebrates and reduction in water column visibility due to suspended sediment. Minor adverse. None viable
Invertebrates Direct mortality of invertebrates due to temporary landtake and disturbance and compaction of sediment. Minor adverse.
Minor adverse.
Loss of feeding/burrowing habitat for invertebrates due to landtake
Natural recovery anticipated. The need for site specific restoration measures will be investigated and reported in the ES. None required
To be reported in the ES.
Loss of feeding/burrowing habitat for invertebrates due to sediment compaction and disturbance. Negligible.
Negligible.
Negligible.
Blanketing of feeding areas for invertebrates and reduction in water column visibility due to suspended
None required
Negligible.
Page 53
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Significance To be completed for ES To be completed for ES To be completed for ES Mitigation Residual significant
Receptor
Effect
sediment.
Algae
To be completed for ES
Page 54
Vol 19 Table 5.8.2 Aquatic ecology summary of operational assessment Significance Year 1 Moderate adverse Negligible Negligible None required. Negligible Moderate adverse No further mitigation possible Year 6 To be assessed following design of compensatory habitat Mitigation Residual significance
Receptor
Effect
Habitats
Permanent loss of designated intertidal habitat
Mammals
Increase in the number and/or change in the distribution of marine mammals. Minor adverse Minor adverse No further mitigation possible
Fish
Permanent loss of intertidal feeding and resting habitat for fish. To be determined following predictive modelling To be determined following predictive modelling
Interference with migratory movements of fish due to blockage of the intertidal area by permanent structures. Minor beneficial Minor beneficial
To be determined following predictive modelling
To be reported in ES
Reduction in the occurrence of low dissolved oxygen related fish mortalities.
None required
Minor beneficial.
Page 55
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Significance Year 1 Negligible Minor beneficial None required Minor beneficial. Year 6 Mitigation Residual significance
Receptor
Effect
Increase in the distribution of pollution sensitive fish species. Negligible Negligible None required Negligible
Invertebrates Disturbance through use of permanent trackway. Minor adverse. Minor adverse. No further mitigation possible
Permanent loss of intertidal feeding and burrowing habitat for invertebrates. Minor beneficial. Minor beneficial. None required
Localised improvements in invertebrate diversity and abundance. Negligible Minor beneficial effect.
Minor beneficial.
Increase in the distribution of pollution sensitive invertebrate species.
None required
Moderate beneficial
Algae
To be completed for ES
Page 56
Section 5: Aquatic ecology
5.9
5.9.1 5.9.2 5.9.3
Additional fish and invertebrate surveys undertaken in 2011 will be assessed reported in the ES. Assessment of cumulative effects will be undertaken as part of the ES. An assessment of the hydrodynamic effects of the temporary and permanent structures on fish migratory movements will be undertaken. This will use a technique called Individual Based Modelling based on the existing hydraulic model. Following this, the need for and further refinement of the design of a bespoke solution to facilitate the movement of fish will be considered. The suite of qualitative improvements and offsite habitat creation opportunities available will also be identified. Following completion of the assessment, the mitigation approaches for aquatic ecology within the project will be finalised and reported in the ES.
5.9.4
Page 57
Section 6: Ecology - terrestrial
6 6.1
6.1.1
Ecology - terrestrial Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant terrestrial ecology effects at the Albert Embankment Foreshore site. Likely effects on aquatic ecology are reported in Section 5. Elements of the proposed works that have particular relevance to terrestrial ecology comprise site clearance, piling, and wider construction activities. The assessment of terrestrial ecology during operation was scoped out for the Albert Embankment foreshore site at the scoping stage. Operational activity would be limited to occasional maintenance works, which are considered unlikely to have significant effects on terrestrial ecology receptors. Thus, the operational phase is not considered further in this assessment
6.1.2
6.1.3
6.2
6.2.1
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to terrestrial ecology are as follows.
Construction
6.2.2 The following construction works are of particular relevance to terrestrial ecology: a. Site clearance during Year 1 of the construction phase. b. Movement of construction workers and machinery, and construction activities, including piling and construction in the foreshore, that causes noise, vibration and lighting. c. Above ground vehicle and construction worker movements and lighting during 24 hour working for the connection tunnel excavation (activity below ground is unlikely to have effects on terrestrial ecology).
Code of Construction Practice 6.2.3 Measures incorporated into the draft CoCP to reduce terrestrial ecology effects include those that would ensure that terrestrial ecology receptors are appropriately managed during construction. The document sets out procedures that would be adhered to both scheme wide and at individual sites. The draft CoCP outlines that where appropriate, works would be undertaken in compliance with legislation, and with due regard to relevant nature conservation policies and guidance, including the Mayors Biodiversity Strategy and local Biodiversity Action Plans. Each site would have an Ecological Management Plan, which would detail the approach to management of effects on ecological receptors with reference to the results of the terrestrial ecology assessment. Where species are protected by specific legislation, approved guidance would be followed,
6.2.4
Page 58
appropriate mitigation would be proposed and any necessary licences or consents obtained. 6.2.5 Measures not specifically outlined under the Ecology section of the draft CoCP are also of relevance, for example the management of noise and vibration and water resources.
6.3
6.3.1

Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. All consultee comments relevant to this site are presented in Vol 19 Table 6.3.1. Further stakeholder engagement was undertaken through biodiversity technical workshops with statutory consultees. No site specific comments were received. Vol 19 Table 6.3.1 Terrestrial ecology stakeholder engagement Organisation LB of Lambeth Comment Acknowledge that the site is of limited if not poor ecological value and highlight that there is potential to create new features or habitats (soft landscaping) on the operational site and they would like to see proposals for this a later stage. It will be important to monitor the site and nearby sites that could be adversely effected to ensure that important habitats and species are not missed prior to construction. It will be essential to have effective mitigation plans and protocols in place to protect species and habitats if found on site. The above ground vehicle movements associated with the tunnelling works could have effects on terrestrial ecology Response Surveys to confirm the current status of the site and adjacent suitable habitat for wintering birds are being undertaken including consideration of enhancements.
6.3.2
Pre-start checks of the sites will be included in the CoCP and any mitigation measures required at that time would be addressed.
General ecological mitigation measures will be included in the CoCP.
The above ground vehicle movements associated with the tunnelling works are included in the assessment of effects.
Page 59
Baseline
6.3.3 Baseline data collection has followed the methodology detailed in Volume 5. Baseline data presented within the assessment are derived from a desk study, the Phase 1 Habitat Survey and preliminary wintering bird and bat triggering surveys. All subsequent survey data will be reported in the EIA. In summary, the following baseline data have been reported: a. Desk study including data base searches (for ecological records within a 2km radius from the site boundary, which is the industry standard), web-based searches and review of existing available documents in relation to protected and notable species and habitats. Desk study data within 500m of the site are reported here as the works are unlikely to affect species and designated sites beyond this distance. Records dated prior to 2000 have not been included as the information since this date provides the most appropriate data to assess the site baseline conditions. b. Phase 1 Habitat Survey on 9th December 2010 following the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) Standard Phase 1 Habitat Survey Methodology, 2010. The survey included the site and any adjacent habitat considered, using professional judgement, to be potentially affected by the proposed works. c. Wintering bird survey visits were undertaken in December 2010, and January, February and March 2011. The survey visits included the site and adjacent habitat considered, using professional judgement, to be potentially affected by the proposed works. These surveys will resume in October 2011 at the start of the next winter season.
6.3.4
d. A bat triggering survey was carried out in May 2011. This is an initial survey using remote recording equipment (Anabat detectors) to determine whether subsequent activity/dawn surveys were required. The survey area includes the site and adjacent features that are assessed (using professional judgement) to be potentially affected by the project. No further surveys for bats will be undertaken. 6.3.5 The species surveys identified as being required following the desk study and Phase 1 Habitat Survey have commenced and are detailed in the table below. The results of these surveys will be provided in the ES. Vol 19 Table 6.3.2 Terrestrial ecology notable species surveys Survey Completion of wintering bird surveys Survey area The survey area includes the site and adjacent features that are assessed to be potentially affected by the project. Timing One visit in October 2011 and one visit in November 2011
Page 60
Construction
6.3.6 The construction phase assessment methodology follows this standard methodology provided in Volume 5, which is based on IEEM13. Two designated sites are present within 500m of the site. Due to the localised nature of the proposed works and the isolation of the designated sites from the proposed works, no effects have been identified. Therefore, designated sites are not considered further in the assessment. The following ecological receptors are assessed as part of this assessment: a. habitats b. bats c. 6.3.8 breeding birds d. wintering birds As contaminated runoff and atmospheric pollution would be controlled through the implementation of the CoCP, no likely significant effects are anticipated on ecological receptors. Therefore, these are not considered any further in the assessment. The construction assessment is undertaken for Year 1 of construction, which is the start of construction activities on site. This is likely to be the peak year for effects on terrestrial ecology as this is when initial site clearance would occur. Assuming that the site and any nearby designated sites would continue to be managed as they are at present, then the base case is considered to be the same as the current baseline conditions as described in Section 6.4.
6.3.7
6.3.9
6.3.10

6.3.11 It is assumed for the purposes of assessment that the current site management regime of the Albert Embankment site would continue. The assessment assumes that the measures within the CoCP would be implemented as part of the development. All surveys have been and will be undertaken at appropriate times of the year. No other site specific limitations or assumptions have been identified.
6.4
6.4.1
Baseline conditions
The following section sets out the baseline conditions for terrestrial ecology receptors at the site and surrounds, including their value.
Designated sites
On site 6.4.2 Albert Embankment lies within the River Thames Tidal Tributaries SINC (Grade M i). The effects on this site are assessed by the aquatic ecology
SINC (Grade M) = Site of Nature Conservation Importance (Grade III of Metropolitan importance)
Page 61
assessment but is not relevant to terrestrial ecology and therefore is not considered any further in this assessment. Surrounding area 6.4.3 The following designated sites are present within 500m of the site: a. Vauxhall City Farm SINC (Grade L ii) is 270m to the east of the site. This is a semi-natural area with grassland and trees and includes an ecology garden. The main focus of this SINC is environmental education. This site is of local (low) value. b. Harleyford Road Community Garden SINC (Grade B iii) is 460m to the south-east which includes a wildlife area, pond and scattered trees. This site is of district (medium) value.
Habitats
6.4.4 The habitats recorded within the survey area during the Phase 1 Habitat Survey are detailed in the table below and shown on Vol 19 Figure 6.4.1. Vol 19 Figure 6.4.1 Terrestrial ecology Phase 1 habitat survey (see Volume 19 Figures document) Vol 19 Table 6.4.1 Terrestrial ecology Phase 1 habitat survey Habitats Scattered trees Running water and intertidal habitat On site 6.4.5 Trees on the embankment are semi-mature and planted for ornamental purposes. These trees have not been given any specific ecological designation and are not listed on the local BAP. These are considered to be of site (low) value. Surrounding area 6.4.6 Trees adjacent to the site are considered to be of site (low) value. Habitat Description Scattered trees planted for ornamental purposes are present within the survey area. Most of the survey area lies within the River Thames in the intertidal zone.
Notable species
Bats On site 6.4.7 No bat species data specific to this site were found in the data search results. A small number of passes of common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus and soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pigmaeus were recorded during the bat triggering surveys. No bat passes were recorded close to sunset or sunrise, indicating that the movement was unlikely to be
ii iii
SINC (Grade L) = Site of Nature Conservation Importance (Grade I of Local importance) SINC (Grade B) = Site of Nature Conservation Importance (Grade I of Borough importance)
Page 62
associated with a nearby roost. However, the bats are likely to have been commuting and foraging along the River Thames and along the tree line on site. The bat resource on site is considered to be of local (low) value. Surrounding area 6.4.8 From the desk study data, two species of bats have been recorded within 500m of the site: a. Common pipistrelle b. Noctule Nyctalus noctula. 6.4.9 The abutments of Vauxhall Bridge have the potential to be used by bats for roosting purposes. The River Thames adjacent to the site has the potential to provide a foraging resource and commuting route for bats. However, low counts of bats were recorded during the bat triggering survey and the presence of a bat roost near to the site is considered unlikely. The bat resource adjacent to the site is considered to be of local (low) value. Breeding birds On site 6.4.10 Desk study data of notable species indicated no records specific to the site. The trees on site are likely to support a small number of common nesting bird species. The site is of site (low) value for breeding birds, which may use the scattered trees for nesting purposes. Surrounding area 6.4.11 The following records of species have been provided by record holding bodies as being present within 500m of Albert Embankment: a. Black redstart Phoenicurus ochruros (Schedule 1 WCA 1981, Amber Listiv) b. Dunnock Prunella modularis (Amber Listiv) c. 6.4.12 House sparrow Passer domesticus (Red Listiv) d. Starling Sturnus vulgaris (Red Listiv) The scattered trees adjacent to the site may support a breeding bird resource of local (low) value. Wintering birds On site 6.4.13 No previous data specific to the site have been recorded. However, during wintering bird surveys undertaken for this project, a total of 11 species of wintering birds were recorded at the site between December 2010 and March 2011. These included mallard Anas platyrhynchos, black-headed gull Chroicocephalus ridibundus, and lesser black-backed gull Larus fuscus. No particularly rare or scarce species were noted during the surveys and the maximum count of individual birds was 167. Wintering bird surveys are ongoing during 2011. The value of the site for wintering birds will be assessed in the EIA.
Page 63
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Surrounding area 6.4.14
The data search included a record of herring gull Larus argentatus (Red List iv) within 500m of the site. The value of the adjacent foreshore habitat to wintering birds will be determined in the EIA.
6.5
Construction assessment Habitats

On-site
6.5.1
The works would result in the permanent loss of some shrubs while a strip of shrubs and trees would be pruned along the Duck Tours access (Lacks Dock). It is certain that there would be a permanent loss of habitat, significant at the site level (minor adverse effect). Surrounding area No effects on adjacent trees are anticipated (negligible).
6.5.2
Notable species
Bats On site 6.5.3 The temporary and permanent removal of the bat foraging resource from site is unlikely to result in the decline of bat populations within the wider area. However, this would result in the displacement of bats of local (low) value from the site. It is probable that this would be significant at the local level (minor adverse effect). The works may result in temporary disturbance to bats passing through the site from construction activities comprising noise, lighting, vibration and increased movement of construction workers and machinery. This is likely to cause temporary displacement of bats from the site but is unlikely to affect bat populations in the wider area. Therefore, it is probable that the effect would be significant at the site level (minor adverse effect). Surrounding area 6.5.5 Disturbance from lighting, noise and vibration during works could affect bats commuting and foraging along the River Thames. However, flight lines remain available along tree lines adjacent to the works and disturbance is unlikely to prevent the movement of bats through the area. Therefore, it is considered extremely unlikely that there would be a significant adverse effect (negligible) on commuting and foraging bats adjacent to the site.
6.5.4
iv
The UK's birds can be split into three categories of conservation importance - red, amber and green. Red is the highest conservation priority, with species needing urgent action. Amber is the next most critical group, followed by green. (http://www.rspb.org.uk. Page last updated on Monday 7 March 2011).
Page 64
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Breeding birds On site 6.5.6
The loss of some shrubs and the pruning of others would result in the permanent loss of some opportunities for breeding birds to use the site for nesting purposes. It is certain that a loss of a site (low) value resource would be significant at the site level (minor adverse effect). Temporary disturbance as a result of enabling and construction activities are likely to include lighting, vibration and noise. These effects have the potential to temporarily displace birds using the retained trees on site. However, suitable habitat is available within the wider area and the effect is unlikely to be significant (negligible). Surrounding area Temporary disturbance as a result of enabling and construction activities are likely to include lighting, vibration and noise. These effects have the potential to temporarily displace birds using the adjacent scattered trees. However, suitable habitat is available within the wider area and the effect is unlikely to be significant (negligible). Wintering birds On site
6.5.7
6.5.8
6.5.9
The works would result in permanent (long-term) and temporary (mediumterm) loss of an area of intertidal habitat, which would reduce the foraging resource for populations and assemblages of wildfowl and wading birds within the area. The significance of effects of intertidal habitat loss on wintering birds will be assessed in the EIA. Surrounding area The works would result in temporary (medium-term) disturbance from noise, lighting, vibration and movement of construction workers and machinery during construction to wintering birds using the adjacent intertidal habitat. The significance of effects of displacement of wintering birds from adjacent habitat will be assessed in the EIA.
6.5.10
6.6
6.6.1
Operational assessment
As stated in para. 6.1.3, significant operational effects on terrestrial ecology are not anticipated therefore this has not been assessed.
6.7
6.7.1

Measures embedded in the draft CoCP of relevance to terrestrial ecology are summarised in paras. 6.2.3 - 6.2.5. The Ecological Management Plan described in the CoCP will include long-term management of habitats and species on site post-construction. It would be prepared following planning approval and prior to commencement of works on site. In addition to measures detailed in the CoCP, the following measures are likely to be required:
6.7.2
Page 65
a. Mitigation for the loss of foreshore habitat for foraging wintering birds (subject to survey results). b. Replacement planting to mitigate for shrub loss and loss of bat and bird habitat.
Page 66
6.8
Effect Certain, site level (minor adverse effect) Probable, local level (minor adverse effect) Probable, site level (minor adverse effect) No further measures other than those in the CoCP. The disturbance effect will be temporary during construction. It is probable that bats would return to the site after construction Not required Replacement planting Replacement planting Significance Mitigation
Assessment summary
Residual significance Unlikely to be significant (negligible) Unlikely to be significant (negligible) Probable, site level (minor adverse effect)
Vol 19 Table 6.8.1 Terrestrial ecology construction assessment summary
Receptor
Habitats
Trees
Removal and pruning of trees on site
Notable species
Bats
Loss of foraging resource on site and displacement from site.
Disturbance from lighting, noise and vibration on bats passing through the site
Disturbance from lighting, noise and vibration on bats adjacent to the site
Unlikely to be significant (negligible)
Breeding birds
Loss of a small area of nesting habitat on site
Certain, site level (minor adverse effect)
Replacement planting
Page 67
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Effect Unlikely to be significant (negligible) Not required Significance Mitigation Residual significance Unlikely to be significant (negligible)
Receptor
Disturbance during construction on birds causing possible displacement Unlikely to be significant (negligible) Subject to survey results Subject to survey results Subject to survey results Not required
Disturbance during construction on birds adjacent to the site
Unlikely to be significant (negligible) Subject to survey results Subject to survey results
Wintering birds
Loss of foraging resource and refuge on site Subject to survey results
Disturbance from lighting, noise and vibration to foraging areas adjacent to the site.
Page 68
6.9
6.9.1
Wintering bird surveys are ongoing in 2011. The data from these surveys will be used to inform the full EIA and further evaluation of effects on ecological receptors will be undertaken. Assessment of cumulative and in combination effects will also be undertaken and reported in the ES. Following completion of the assessme nt the mitigation approaches for terrestrial ecology within the project will be finalised and reported in the ES. Where required, appropriate mitigation to avoid or minimise effects to terrestrial ecological receptors will be developed in consultation with stakeholders and a final assessment will be made of the significance of any residual effects to ecological receptors in the EIA. Consideration will be given to biodiversity enhancement measures in consultation with stakeholders. Where necessary, mitigation and enhancement measures will be embedded in the project design.
6.9.2
Page 69
Section 7: Historic environment
7 7.1
7.1.1 7.1.2
Historic environment Introduction

This section reports on the likely significant effects in relation to heritage assets assessed to date. Heritage assets are aspects of the historic environment which are considered to be significant because of their historical, evidential, aesthetic or communal interest (these terms are defined in para. 7.4.49 below). These might comprise below and above ground archaeological remains, buildings, structures, monuments or heritage landscapes within or around the site 14. The section should be read in conjunction with Volume 6, which sets the site in its broad topographic, geological, archaeological and historical context and discusses the project-wide landscape and topic themes in respect of the historic environment. These themes are summarised in this section, where they are relevant to the site, to avoid repetition.
7.1.3
7.2
7.2.1
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to the historic environment are as follows.
Construction
7.2.2 Those aspects of specific relevance to the historic environment assessment, since they could lead to effects on heritage assets, are as follows: a. Enabling works would require the erection of hoarding; demolition of the existing sewer outfalls, dolphins (piled structures not connected to the shore, used for mooring or berthing), part of the riverwall north of Lacks Dock and the removal of several trees; the construction of a new construction ramp along the slipway of Lacks Dock; a temporary cofferdam; office and welfare facilities constructed on pad foundations; a campshed on the foreshore for barge deliveries; and the diversion of minor utilities. b. The main construction works would entail the construction of a CSO drop shaft; a connection tunnel from the CSO drop shaft to the main tunnel; a combined flow interception and valve chamber; two connection culverts; a connection tunnel between the shaft and Thames Tunnel; air management structures, and new sections of river wall. 7.2.3 Measures incorporated into the draft CoCP to reduce impacts on the historic environment include protective measures where appropriate such as temporary support, hoardings, barriers and screening around heritage assets within and adjacent to work sites, and advance planning of plant and working methods for use where heritage assets are close to work sites, or attached to structures within work sites. The CoCP also includes
Page 70
provisions for the contractor to prepare a site specific Heritage Management Plan.
Operation
7.2.4 The proposed operation of the infrastructure is described in Volume 3. The particular operational components that are relevant to the assessment, in terms of historic environment setting, comprise the permanent structures visible above ground, in the form of the terracing of the foreshore, the permanent cofferdam and two control kiosks, two ventilation columns on the interception chamber site, and a ventilation structure within the area of the northern cofferdams.
7.3
7.3.1

Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. There were no site specific comments from consultees for this particular site. It should also be noted that Volume 5 details the approach to the assessment of effects on the historic setting of heritage assets which it has been agreed, following the formal scoping process, will be covered in the assessment of construction and operational effects. This assessment will be completed for the final ES.
7.3.2
Baseline
7.3.1 The baseline methodology follows that set out in Volume 5, with a key component being a desk based assessment, consulting a broad range of archaeological, documentary and cartographic sources, along with a site walkover survey. The results of geotechnical investigations, some of which were archaeologically monitored, have also been incorporated. The 250m-radius study area used for the assessment is considered through professional judgement to be most appropriate to characterise the historic environment potential of the site. There are occasional references to assets beyond the study area where appropriate, for example, where such assets are particularly important and/or where they contribute to current understanding of the site and its environs.
7.3.2
Construction
7.3.3 7.3.4 The construction phase methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. Any site specific variations are described below. Likely significant effects on the historic environment could arise throughout the three and a half year construction phase from activities likely to remove, disturb or alter above ground or buried heritage assets, as a result of enabling or construction works. The methodology was informed by an understanding of the nature and extent of proposed ground disturbance, in relation to known or potential heritage assets.
7.3.5
Page 71
The existing baseline as at the time of data collection forms a current baseline. In terms of buried heritage assets, the only aspect of the resource that is likely to change in a future year base case, without the project in any particular assessment year, is change to the condition of the assets due to ongoing fluvial processes (scouring and sediment deposition) on the foreshore, along with other unrelated proposed development schemes, on land or within the river. The base case is predicted as accurately as is possible, to ensure the robustness of the subsequent assessment. Data on existing fluvial processes will be reviewed in the ongoing EIA and will be reflected in the base case presented in the final ES. No physical changes are anticipated to the above ground heritage assets. Changes to the base case from other non-Thames Tunnel developments could affect the setting of above ground heritage assets. Any such changes will be detailed for the final assessment, to inform the assessment of effects on the historic setting of heritage assets, and presented in the ES.
7.3.7
Operation
7.3.8 7.3.9 The operational phase methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. Any site specific variations are described below. The operational phase could lead to permanent effects on historic setting. In order to identify likely significant effects on the setting of heritage assets the methodology will involve reviewing the project design in order to establish the nature and scale of effects on above ground heritage assets. The detailed assessment methodology for operational effects set out in Volume 5 will be followed. The operational phase assessment will be undertaken for Year 1 of operation. In terms of the base case (future baseline) for the assessment of operational effects, no physical changes are anticipated to the above ground heritage assets. Changes to the base case from other nonThames Tunnel developments could affect the setting of above ground heritage assets. Any such changes will be detailed for the final assessment, to inform the assessment of effects on the historic setting of heritage assets, and presented in the ES.
7.3.10

7.3.11 Volume 5 sets out the generic assumptions and limitations of the assessment. In summary, the main limitation is the nature of the archaeological resource (buried and not visible) and acknowledgement of the difficulty of attempting to predict the presence/extent, date, nature, survival and significance of possible, previously unrecorded, buried heritage assets, based on a desk based study and site visit. In particular, no intrusive archaeological investigation has been carried out on the site in the past and few investigations have been carried out in the study area around the site. Notwithstanding this limitation, the assessment presented here is robust, based on reasonably available information, and conforms to the
7.3.12
Page 72
requirements of local and national guidance and planning policy (as detailed in Volume 5). Typically, appropriate standard archaeological prospection and evaluation techniques are utilised post-consent to reduce the uncertainties inherent in any desk based study, as part of an overall EIA mitigation strategy (see Mitigation section below for the proposed mitigation at this site).
7.4
7.4.1
Baseline conditions
The following description of baseline conditions comprises seven subsections which set out: a. A description of historic environment features, with an introduction to the features map (which shows the location of known historic environment features within the 250m radius study area around the site) and the study area. b. A description of statutorily and locally designated assets within the site and its vicinity (ie, within a 100m-radius of the site). c. A description of the site location, topography and geology to set the context of the site. d. A summary of past archaeological investigation within the study area, providing an indication of how well the area is understood archaeologically. e. A summary of the archaeological and historical background which sets out what is known about the site and its environs. f. A statement of significance for above ground assets within and around the site, describing the features which contribute to their significance.
g. A discussion of potential for buried heritage assets, taking account of factors affecting survival, and a statement of their potential significance. 7.4.2 A site walkover survey was carried out by specialists from MOLA Standing Buildings and EIA teams and the Thames Discovery Programme (TDP) on 19th April 2011. The light and weather conditions were bright and dry. The estimated low tide level was 97.7m ATD (above Tunnel Datum). The foreshore site was accessed directly via a boat slipway downstream of the SIS building used by the Duck Tours company.
Historic environment features

7.4.3 The historic environment features map (Vol 19 Figure 7.5.1) shows the location of known historic environment features within the 250m radius study area around the site, compiled from the baseline sources set out in the topic specific methodology in Volume 5. These historic environment features have been allocated a unique historic environment assessment reference number (HEA 1, 2, etc), which is listed in the gazetteer in Appendix A. Vol 19 Figure 7.4.1 Historic environment features map (see Volume 19 Figures document)
Page 73
Where there are a considerable number of listed buildings in the study area, only those within the vicinity of the site (ie, a 100m radius) are included on the map and in the gazetteer. The study area for assessing effects on the setting of heritage assets may be revised because setting effects are most likely to occur within the visual envelope of the site, which may differ from the study area defined for the purposes of this assessment.
Designated assets
National statutory designations 7.4.5 Vauxhall Bridge, which is Grade II* listed (HEA 15), is located in the southern part of the site. There is a group of four Grade II listed public benches (HEA 13) on the Embankment Footpath, c.110m north of the site. Local authority designations 7.4.6 The eastern part of the site lies within the North Lambeth and Lambeth Palace archaeological priority area. Almost the entire site, except for its north-eastern and south-eastern edges, lies within the Albert Embankment Conservation Area. Known burial grounds 7.4.7 There are no known burial grounds within the Albert Embankment Foreshore site or adjacent to it.
Site location, topography and geology

Site location 7.4.8 The site is bounded by the Thames to the west; the Thames foreshore to the north and south; Camelford House, the SIS building and Bridge House to the east. The site lies within the parish of Lambeth and within a former county boundary of Surrey. The site lies on the eastern bank of the River Thames. The former River Effra, a tributary of the Thames, ran into the south side of the Thames in the vicinity of Vauxhall and the site. On the opposite side of the Thames, c. 200m north-west of the site, the Tyburn River formerly discharged into the Thames. Both of these former rivers have now been covered over and converted into sewers 15. Topography 7.4.10 The foreshore within the site slopes upwards from west to east. It also slopes slightly upwards from south to north. The south-west corner of the foreshore is at 98.4m ATD, (above Tunnel Datum, the equivalent of 1.6m Ordnance Datum) rising to 99.9m ATD to the east adjacent to the river wall. The north-west corner of the foreshore is at 99.6m ATD rising to 101.4m ATD adjacent to the river wall. The river wall itself rises up from south to north. The southern end of the embankment adjacent to Bridge House is at 106.3m ATD. The central part, adjacent to the SIS building is at 105.1m ATD and the northern part adjacent to Camelford House is at 105.0m ATD. The eastern arm of the site along the former Lacks Dock rises up to 105.0m ATD adjacent to the Albert Embankment.
7.4.9
Page 74
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Geology 7.4.11
Geologically, the site is situated in an area of alluvial silts overlying sand and gravel deposits associated with the floodplain of the River Thames. The Kempton Park gravel terrace is 25m to the east of the site (British Geological Survey Solid and Drift Geology, Sheet 270). This is one of the more recent of a series of gravel terraces laid down by the prehistoric Thames in a series of flights up the side of the valley. The presence of high ground so close to the river would be advantageous for both settlement and access for people exploiting the rivers resources. The geology of the river terrace will also have influenced the development of agriculture as soils developing on silt and gravel deposits are permeable and well drained. No borehole data is available for the site. Borehole data from ground investigations relating to the Thames Tunnel scheme, in the vicinity of the site, provide reasonable information on stratigraphy. Examination of two borehole logs from boreholes some 150m to the south of the site, in a similar foreshore location (TQ37NW1593 and TQ37NW2393), indicate the floodplain gravels lie at 99.6m ATD, over London Clay at 97.1m ATD. These gravels are known as the Shepperton gravels and underlie the present floodplain, following erosion downcutting by the Thames which left the Kempton Park gravels as a river terrace. Notably, no made ground was seen in these boreholes. However, in two boreholes 50m nearer to the site (boreholes TQ37NW2680 and TQ37NW2681), 4m and 2.9m of undated made ground was encountered directly over the gravels, and no alluvium was noted (unfortunately, no datum levels are available for these boreholes). A borehole in a similar location to the site, c. 190m to the south of the site (TQ37NW1618) had a deposit of loose clayey sandy gravel with timber fragments lying between 101.1m ATD to 103.2m ATD over the Shepperton gravels. Although the timber fragments in the gravel could have come from the made ground above, (which occurred from 103.2m ATD to 106.1m ATD at this location), the wood and loose gravel could be remnants of a boat working platform or barge bed (a foreshore structure to prevent barges from sinking in the river mud when moored). However, there was no evidence of chalk, which is usually used in these structures. In general, therefore, surrounding borehole data suggests the site is likely to consist of made ground directly overlying gravels. The absence of alluvial deposits in the vicinity could be because the site lies on the outside of a Thames meander, where the erosion of the finer sediment will be at its greatest.
7.4.12
7.4.13
Past archaeological investigations within the study area

7.4.14 The Thames Archaeological Survey (TAS) carried out a survey of the foreshore within the site in the 1990s (the Alpha Survey), followed more recently by a survey by the Thames Discovery Programme (TDP). The most significant remains recorded through these surveys comprise a roundwood pile structure in the northern part of the site, of possible Mesolithic date, from which prehistoric peat deposits and artefacts have been recorded (HEA 1a; Vol 19 Figure 7.5.1). Prehistoric artefacts were
Page 75
also seen on the site during the foreshore walkover survey. These included flints, pottery and an antler pick (Appendix A2 Photograph A2.6). Several, probably post-medieval, timber structures were also noted in the southern part of the site (Appendix A). 7.4.15 The TDP survey also recorded some degradation of the foreshore associated with the cutting away of the foreshore by the modern river (HEA 1g). A number of consolidation layers and dumps were also recorded, ranging from modern concrete to undated deposits which may be archaeological (HEA 1b; 1e; 1h). These consolidation attempts indicate the probable erosion of the Thames on the foreshore at this point. A number of wooden artefacts were recorded; these comprised timbers with metal feet (HEA 1d; 1f); the bargeboard of a vessel (HEA 1c); timber mooring blocks and drains (HEA 1f). Some of this material is likely to be driftwood, but other items (such as the mooring blocks, drains and bargeboard) may be associated with historic use of the site. Other archaeological investigations in the area (see gazetteer in Appendix A) have also provided information on the more recent historic use of the area for pottery and glass manufacture (HEA 2; 3; 6).
7.4.16
Archaeological and historical background of the site

7.4.17 The following section presents a chronological summary of the archaeological and historical background of the site, drawing on the information collated above. Prehistoric period (700,000 BCAD 43) 7.4.18 During the early prehistoric the Thames comprised a braided river channel spanning a wide area of the current Thames floodplain. The site, located adjacent to the modern channel of the Thames and close to the Effra tributary, would have been within an area which may have comprised marsh, dry land and river channel at different times. This area was increasingly subject to flooding and alluvial sedimentation as sea levels rose. The mixed marshy and dry land of this part of the Thames valley would have been especially favoured in providing variable resources including a predictable source of food (from hunting and fishing) and water, as well as a means of transport and communication. Evidence of activity is typically characterised by flint tools rather than structural remains. A prehistoric pile structure of possible Mesolithic date (10,0004,000BC) has been located within the site (HEA 1a; Vol 19 Figure 7.5.1 and Appendix A). The structure is only visible at low tide, but is associated with a flint scatter, individual flint artefacts and some isolated pottery and other finds. The Mesolithic structure is currently being scoured away by the action of the river. During the site visit MOLA archaeologists noted an antler, which may be associated with prehistoric activity on the site, although it was in the southern part of the site, some distance from the Mesolithic structure (Appendix A). The Neolithic (40002000 BC), Bronze Age (2000600 BC) and Iron Age (600 BCAD 43) are traditionally seen as times of technological change, settled communities and the construction of communal monuments. The environment of the Thames became more settled with the area to the
7.4.19
Page 76
south of the modern river forming a marshy area, with occasional river channels and higher gravel islands (eyots). Farming was established and forest cleared for cultivation. An expanding population put pressure on available resources and necessitated the utilisation of previously marginal land, such as the marshes and eyots in the area of the site. In such areas, prehistoric populations sometimes constructed wooden trackways to cross wet areas. In some circumstances these trackways could be associated with ritual activity and votive deposits, which resulted from the ritual significance ascribed to wetlands and rivers during these periods. A Neolithic or Bronze Age lithic implement was recorded on the foreshore adjacent to the site and reported to the portable antiquities scheme (HEA 22). This artefact may have been associated with later re-use of the Mesolithic platform, or it may indicate the platform is later in date. A prehistoric axe, a Neolithic axe and two Bronze Age bronze swords were also found south of Vauxhall Bridge, c. 40m west of the site (HEA 8). A copper alloy tanged Bronze Age chisel was also recovered from the Thames near the Albert Embankment, c. 60m north of the site (HEA 36). Such artefacts may have been deposited for ritual reasons. At St Georges Wharf, c. 90m south-east of the site (HEA 10) demolition of a jetty was monitored to ensure no damage was done to a Bronze Age timber feature. A previous investigation at 3446 Albert Embankment, c. 90m north-east of the site (HEA 2), recorded a Neolithic implement and a Bronze Age flake, but no evidence of features associated with these remains. Roman period (AD 43410) 7.4.20 Within approximately a decade of the arrival of the Romans in AD 43, the town of Londinium had been established on the north bank of the Thames where the City of London now stands, c. 3.1km north-east of the site. Londinium quickly became the provincial capital, a major commercial centre, and the hub of the Roman road system in Britain. Possibly the only permanent Thames crossing was in the vicinity of modern London Bridge, c. 3.5km to the north-east of the site, but a ford may have existed at Lambeth, near the site of modern Lambeth Bridge, c. 600m north of the site. The Roman road from the Kent coast via Canterbury and Rochester, which ran c. 1.1km south of the site, may have reached the Thames at this point, where the river was easily fordable and the road could link up with another on the line of modern Edgware Road. In Roman times the ebb and flow of the tide did not extend above the London Bridge area, and the river was considerably shallower than it is today16. The route of the main road from Londinium to Chichester ran c. 950m south-east of the site, on the alignment of Kennington Park Road. A branch left this road in the vicinity of Kennington Park, c. 1.0km south-east of the site, to run south to the Brighton area 17. The site was not therefore located close to any known roads, along which cemeteries and small settlements were typically located 18. Rising water levels from the late Prehistoric suggest that during the Roman period the Albert Embankment Foreshore site may have been
7.4.21
7.4.22
7.4.23
Page 77
prone to flooding and probably lay in open marshland or on the foreshore of the Roman Thames. As such it would not have been suitable for settlement. The area may have been exploited for a number of intertidal/marshland resources, in some places on an industrial scale (eg pottery, kilns, fish processing etc). Evidence of Roman activity in the area is limited to a late Roman vessel found adjacent to the Albert Embankment Foreshore site (HEA 22). The limited evidence of Roman activity and rising sea levels suggest that the site was unsuitable for habitation. Roman remains are also likely to have been scoured away by the river. This scouring action has now exposed earlier prehistoric remains, which would have been located beneath any Roman remains, indicating that earlier material (if present) is likely to have been removed already. Early medieval (Saxon) period (AD 4101066) 7.4.24 Following the withdrawal of the Roman army from England in the early 5th century AD the whole country fell into an extended period of socioeconomic decline. In the 9th and 10th centuries, the Saxon Minster system began to be replaced by local parochial organisation, with formal areas of land centred on nucleated settlements served by a parish church. The name Lambeth occurs in many forms in early records. It is of Saxon origin and signifies either a harbour from which sheep were shipped, or a muddy harbour. Of the two the latter seems the more likely 19. Many of the place names in the area are of Saxon origin, and include Clapham, Balham, Kennington, c.1.3km east of the site; and Lambeth, c. 740m north of the site 20, suggesting a broad settlement pattern. The shallow crossing point on the Thames, c. 600m north of the site in the vicinity of modern Lambeth Bridge, and possibly established during the Roman period, continued in use 21. Situated near the edge of the river is the parish church of St Mary at Lambeth, on Lambeth Palace Road, c. 740m to north of the site. This was founded before the Norman Conquest of 1066 22. The exact location of settlement in this period is uncertain, but was probably close to the river crossing and church, with a manor house in the vicinity of the later site of Lambeth Palace, c. 750m to north of the site 23. The site was located within the manor (estate) of Lambeth, or South Lambeth, which extended from the area of modern Harleyford Road and the Oval, along the riverfront to the west 24. The manor may have been given by King Harold (ruled 10351040) to Waltham Abbey, the gift being confirmed by Edward the Confessor (10421066)25. The GLHER (ref. 090959) notes the location of a settlement on modern South Lambeth Road, c. 640m south of the site. Excavations at 3436 Albert Embankment, c. 90m north east of the site, recorded a gully of possible early medieval date, underlying a sandy soil containing later medieval pottery (HEA 2). Two medieval swords were found in the Thames at Vauxhall, c. 40m and c. 70m west of the site (HEA 8 and HEA 9 respectively). No evidence of early medieval activity has been recorded at the site, which was some distance from the nearest settlements and would
7.4.25
7.4.26
7.4.27
7.4.28
7.4.29
Page 78
probably have been unsuitable for habitation due to the rising water levels which followed the Roman period and waterlogged the floodplain in this area. Nonetheless several early medieval artefacts have been recorded from the Thames and there is evidence of activity nearby. It is possible that the site was located near to an early ferry, perhaps a predecessor to the Horse Ferry which was replaced by Vauxhall Bridge. The subsequent scouring of the site by the river is likely to have removed early medieval remains to a certain extent. Later medieval period (AD 10661485) 7.4.30 Throughout this period much of the area continued as low-lying marshland and open fields crossed by a few roads raised against the floods. By 1331, Lambeth parish included the settlements of Lambeth, Kennington, Stockwell and South Lambeth, and Lambeth Deane 26. After the Norman Conquest (1066) the manor of South Lambeth was acquired by King Williams half-brother, the Count of Mortain. By the late 12th century it was held by the de Redvers family; in 1262 it was recorded as being held by Margaret, the widow of Baldwin de Redvers, along with Vauxhall manor27. Vauxhall is not mentioned in Domesday, and so must be assumed to have been established as a separate manor some time after. Margaret subsequently married Falkes de Breaute, and it may be from Fawkes Hall that Vauxhall acquired its name 28. The manor house of Fawkes Hall was located c. 90m east of the site (HEA 12). The northern part of Vauxhall manorial estate was separated from the Kennington manor by the northern arm of the River Effra which divided into two streams, just west of where the Oval now lies, before entering the Thames. Both manors remained in the hands of the de Redvers family until 1293, when they were acquired by the Crown, and afterwards were administered together as Vauxhall. In 1324, Vauxhall, along with Kennington, was granted to Hugh le Despenser 29. In 1362, Vauxhall manor was granted by Edward, Prince of Wales, to the Prior and Convent of Christ Church in Canterbury 30. The GLHER records a site of medieval settlement at the east end of modern Vauxhall Bridge, c. 200m east of the site, and a small settlement along South Lambeth Road, c. 770m to the south of the site. At the junction of Wandsworth Road and South Lambeth Road, where the railway bridge now stands, was Coxs Bridge (sometimes called Vauxhall Bridge) over the northern channel of the Effra; this was in existence by 1340, when the Abbot of Westminster was charged with the repair of cokkesbrugge 31. There is evidence of some later medieval activity around the site, although it is unlikely to have been suitable for habitation and lay some distance from the nearest settlements. Later medieval features and buildings were recorded at 3446 Albert Embankment, c. 90m north-east of the site (HEA 2) and stone foundations of a possible later medieval building were recorded at Vauxhall Bridge Foot c. 60m east of the site (HEA 3). A later medieval wharf was also present c. 50m east of the site. Owned by Christchurch Canterbury, according to the GLHER it was leased to Westminster Abbey in 1478 to load stone for the rebuilding of the church (HEA 17).
7.4.31
7.4.32
7.4.33
Page 79
A number of undated features in the study area may also date to this period. These include a number of timber constructions; c. 160m west of the site (HEA 20); c. 180m west of the site (HEA 19; HEA 32); c. 12m north of the site (HEA 29); c. 200m west of the site (HEA 30; HEA 31); and c. 170m west of the site (HEA 34). Most of these features are likely to be bargebeds or revetments, but one may be a crane base (HEA 29). It is possible some may be associated with the Horse Ferry which operated at Vauxhall before the construction of the Bridge. Post-medieval period (AD 1485present) During the early post-medieval period the riverside area comprised marshy fields. The easy access to the river meant the area was also used for wharves and warehouses. Three boathouses associated with the Worshipful Company of Fishmongers, Mercers and Clothiers were found in excavations at Vauxhall Bridge Foot, c. 60m east of the site (HEA 3), and formed part of a substantial waterfront complex from the 17th-century. At the same location, an undated burial was also recorded and was probably of post-medieval date (Nathalie Cohen of TDP, pers comm). Much of the site remained within the river channel or foreshore during this period. During the 17th and 18th centuries the character of the area was industrial. A post-medieval armoury was located c. 50m north-east of the site at the former Copt Hall (HEA 11). A 17th-century stone working site was established at Vauxhall Bridge Foot by Gerrard Weymans, c. 60m east of the site (HEA 35); and along Albert Embankment, c. 50m east of the site, was a Soap Boilers, distillery and pub all founded in the 18th and early 19th century. A post-medieval glasshouse was constructed c. 40m east of the site by Edward Zouch in 1615. The site covered over nine acres and gave its name to Glasshouse Street c. 110m east of the site (HEA 18). The glasshouse was owned by the Duke of Buckingham from 1663 and made looking-glass, flat glass and glass for coaches until it closed in 1786. Evidence of the extensive area of the glasshouse has been recorded in excavations in the area at Vauxhall Bridge Foot, c. 60m east of the site (HEA 3). Vauxhall was also the location of an important pottery producing delftware, stoneware, and later porcelain. The pottery manufacturing area extended eastwards from the site and may have been founded by J Ariens Van Hamme in 1677 in part of Copt Hall or Vauxhall manor house (HEA 7). The area occupied by the pottery was extensive. In 1972, kiln wasters were recorded during roadworks along the Albert Embankment c. 70m north-east of the site (HEA 28); a delftware and stoneware kiln was found in 1970, c. 170m east of the site (HEA 21); in 1972 excavations c. 100m east of the site at Vauxhall Bridge Foot recorded two multiflue stoneware kilns and fragments of three others (HEA 6); four further kilns were recorded in 1987 and 1989 c. 90m north-east of the site, including at least one used in the manufacture of porcelain by c.1750 (HEA 2). In c. 18091816, a new bridge was constructed as part of a plan to regenerate the south bank. This bridge replaced a former Horse Ferry between Vauxhall and Pimlico and was initially called the Regent Bridge,
7.4.35
7.4.36
7.4.37
7.4.38
Page 80
later being renamed Vauxhall Bridge. The bridge was constructed above and to the west of the southern part of the site, necessitating the demolition of several buildings, including the Royal Oak Inn, c. 40m east of the site (HEA 37); and the Cumberland Tavern and Tea Garden, c. 20m south-east of the site (HEA 27). In 1906, the original Vauxhall Bridge was replaced by the current Grade II* listed structure (HEA 15). 7.4.39 The earliest map to show the site is Thomas Hills Map of Vauxhall Manors of 1681 (Appendix A). It shows the site in the River Thames, to the west of Coxs Bridge, where the northern channel of the Effra discharged into the Thames. By this period the Effra had become little more than a sewer, but was still open. The map shows the site as demesne land held directly by the manor. Rocques map of 1746 (Appendix A) shows the site mainly within the river Thames. The eastern edge of the site includes some buildings constructed along the river front, and the western side of some small plots of land. One arm of the site extends east along the southern side of the road leading to Vauxhall Stairs and includes a row of buildings fronting onto that road. Several small docks or wharves are shown along the eastern boundary of the site, and the buildings in the area are probably warehouses. Fadens 1813 revision of Horwoods map of 1799 (Appendix A) is the first map to show the line of the future Vauxhall Bridge rising above and to the west of the site. Much of the site is still located within the river but the eastern edges are shown within the built up industrial area and wharfage. The new bridge is shown cutting through existing industrial properties including a Vinegar Manufactory located partly within the eastern boundary of the site. The north-eastern part of the site includes the Vauxhall Stairs and part of the heavily built up area of wharves and warehouses between what is now the Albert Embankment and the river Thames. The Ordnance Survey 1st edition 25 inch:mile map of 1862 (Appendix A) shows the site comprising the foreshore beneath the completed Vauxhall Bridge. The south-eastern part of the site includes a Coal Store and the north-eastern part of the site includes Lucks Dock where the Vauxhall Stairs were previously located. To the north of Lucks Dock, the site includes the western end of the warehouses and buildings between the river and High Street (now Albert Embankment). To the south-east and outside of the site, the Vinegar manufactory is now also described as a Gin distillery. The Ordnance Survey 2nd edition 25 inch: mile map of 1896 (Appendix A) shows little change to the site, which remains mainly within the Thames foreshore. The area in the south-eastern part of the site formerly labelled Coal Store is now simply shown as a building. In the central part of the site Lucks Dock is now labelled Lacks Dock and occupies part of the gin and vinegar distillery just within the site. In the north-eastern part of the site, the wharves and docks between Albert Embankment and the Thames are no longer shown as a solid block, but as a mixture of open wharves
7.4.40
7.4.41
7.4.42
7.4.43
Page 81
and warehouses. Draw Dock is located towards the northern end of the site, which also includes the western part of a flour mill. 7.4.44 The Ordnance Survey 3rd edition 25 inch:mile map of 1909 (Appendix A) shows little change to the site. Two landing stages are shown one just north of and one beneath Vauxhall Bridge. One of the buildings on the north-eastern edge of the site is now labelled Site of Copt Hall. The London County Council Bomb Damage Maps of 193945 (not reproduced) show that several of the buildings of the distillery outside the site to the east had been damaged seriously, but were repairable at cost. There was also minor blast damage to the building on the south-eastern part of the site and general blast damage to the building partly inside the central part of the site to the south of Lacks Dock. Otherwise the bombing had no impact on the site 32. The Ordnance Survey 1:1250 scale map of 1947 (Appendix A) shows further change to the site. In the north-eastern part of the site, the flour mill has expanded. To the south a warehouse has been cleared and is labelled New Belgrade Wharf, further south the warehouses have been demolished and a new building constructed in their place. The former gin and vinegar distillery, outside the site to the east, is now labelled Oil Works. In the southern part of the site, two Dolphins and two sewer outfalls are labelled to the north of and beneath Vauxhall Bridge. The Ordnance Survey 1:1250 scale map of 19471991 (Appendix A) shows limited change to the site, except along the eastern edge. The original warehouses have been cleared and Camelford House built in their place just within the eastern boundary of the site. Lacks Dock is labelled disused. To the east, the former Oil Works has been cleared. The northwest corner of this vacant lot is located within the site. The south-eastern part of the site includes part of a coach, lorry and car park. The current site 7.4.48 The site currently comprises a large area of Thames foreshore with associated alluvial mud, aggradation and consolidation deposits. The Grade II* listed Vauxhall Bridge (HEA 15) is located in the southern part of the site and is flanked to the north and south by two sewer outfalls with associated timber dolphins and granite cobbled slipways. The northern sewer outfall also contains the outflow of the River Effra. Along the eastern part of the site is the brick and stone river wall (HEA 40). To the south-east, the site includes part of the embankment associated with Bridge House. To the east the site includes the riverwall and embankment west of the SIS building, the Lacks Dock (HEA 1l) as far as the Albert Embankment, and the riverwall and embankment west of Camelford House are also included in the site.
7.4.45
7.4.46
7.4.47
Statement of significance: above ground heritage assets

Introduction 7.4.49 In accordance with the national policy set out in PPS5, the following section provides a statement based on professional and expert judgement on the likely significance (which is a reflection of the value or importance)
Page 82
of heritage assets, derived from the perceived historical, evidential, aesthetic and communal value. These terms are fully defined in Volume 5 and are briefly summarised as follows: a. Evidential value: the potential of the physical remains to yield evidence of past human activity. This might take into account date; rarity; state of preservation; diversity/complexity; contribution to published priorities; supporting documentation; collective value and comparative potential. b. Aesthetic value: this derives from the ways in which people draw sensory and intellectual stimulation from the heritage asset, taking into account what other people have said or written. c. Historical value: the ways in which past people, events and aspects of life can be connected through heritage assets to the present, such a connection often being illustrative or associative.
d. Communal value: this derives from the meanings of a heritage asset for the people who know about it, or for whom it figures in their collective experience or memory; communal values are closely bound up with historical, particularly associative, and aesthetic values, along with educational, social or economic values. Within the site 7.4.50 The site lies within the Albert Embankment Conservation Area, as designated by the LB of Lambeth. Its character is defined by its location along the river and over half of the conservation area is occupied by the River Thames and its foreshore 33. The area also covers the SIS building (see below). The former 18th- and 19th-century industrial and river-based activities of the area included flour milling, soap manufacture, an Indian rubber works and a gas works. However only four buildings from this earlier period survive, the former Royal Doulton Building (now Southbank House), the Crown Public House (now the Rivers Bar), the Windmill Public House and 37-37 Albert Embankment which is a four storey warehouse. These are also included in the conservation area. The conservation area was delineated to recognise and protect the historic significance of Albert Embankment and the engineering achievement it represents (including the dolphin/sturgeon lamps and benches) and the surviving small docks associated with it. The Conservation Area status also recognises the architectural significance of the two major landmark buildings on the Embankment -the monumental post-modem MI6 building at Vauxhall Bridge and the art deco modern London Fire Brigade Headquarters, along with what survives of the C19th Century heritage of the area including Vauxhall Bridge, two mid 19th century public houses The Crown (now known as Rivers Bar) and The Windmill, and a Victorian warehouse. The conservation area is therefore considered to be a heritage asset of high significance. Vauxhall Bridge (HEA 15) is a Grade II* listed structure. It was designed by two chief engineers of the London County Council, Sir Alex Binnie and his successor Sir Maurice Fitzmaurice and opened in 1906. The bridges construction was beset by problems, not least of all due to the inability of
7.4.51
7.4.52
Page 83
the river clays to support the originally intended concrete structure. This resulted in a change in the design, to the steel superstructure visible today. The bridges significance is enhanced by the high quality work of the sculptors Alfred Drury RA and Fredrick Pomeroy RA, of female figures representing functions of local government (Appendix A). This makes the bridge unique as no other Thames bridge contains sculpture. The bridge is a heritage asset of very high significance, and is considered to have group value with Lambeth Bridge constructed in 1929. 7.4.53 The river wall within the site area (HEA 1m) is of interest, though not listed (Appendix A2), unlike Bazalgettes wall to the north of the site boundary (see below). The wall within the site shows different phases of construction in both brick and stone, which probably relate to the former function of the river wall as a loading dock, with coal being unloaded from the river in this area (HEA 29). Parts of the masonry are likely to date to the 19th century, though there may be earlier elements below or beneath, whilst the upper brick courses are modern. Parts of this structure may pre-date Bazalgettes development. The river wall therefore has evidential and historical value and is protected by its inclusion within the conservation area boundary. It represents a heritage asset of medium significance. The Lacks dock slipway retains the outline of the original 19th century dock and the earlier Vauxhall Stairs (HEA 1l), though the former warehouses and 19th century buildings have gone. The boundary formed by the river wall and the opening of Lacks Dock have evidential and historical value and represent a heritage assets of medium significance. On the foreshore in front of the SIS building, and below the southern side of Vauxhall Bridge are timber structures or dolphins (HEA 1f), which appear to have been formerly in use to control the shutter doors on two outfalls either side of and below Vauxhall Bridge (Appendix A). The northern outfall is the entry point of the River Effra into the Thames. The River Effra is of historic interest, retaining its prehistoric name, although it is not considered a heritage asset. Despite running underground, it has communal value, though the built outfall for the Effra River may be later than the other outfall features. The water from the outfalls runs over heavy granite cobbled surfaces, or slipways, which survive in good condition. It seems likely that these elements were constructed at the same time as the present Vauxhall Bridge in 1906 and form part of the project for the bridge and the foreshore. As they are associated with the Grade II* listed bridge they can be considered heritage assets of medium significance. Within the study area 7.4.56 To the southeast of the site, the SIS building (HEA 40) occupies the site of a former Gin and Vinegar distillery, which later became an oil works. No trace of either former structure remains. The river wall in this area was probably extended out onto the foreshore with the construction of the SIS building in 1995, designed by Terry Farrell and Partners The lamps along the river wall (Appendix A). mirror the Art Deco revival style of the building, but lion heads, holding rings in their mouths appear on the river
7.4.54
7.4.55
Page 84
wall, facing out onto the Thames. These are likely recent replicas of the Bazalgette motif found elsewhere on the river, such as along the Victoria Embankment, where they are of bronze. The SIS Building and the publicly accessible open area overlooking the foreshore are not listed structures; however they are included within the Albert Embankment Conservation Area. The building is considered a monumental landmark and therefore a heritage asset of medium significance. 7.4.57 The significance of further heritage assets within the study area, but outside the site (since such sites may be subject to indirect effects on their setting from the proposed scheme) requires further consideration and will be completed for the ES. The study area for offsite heritage assets may be revised because setting effects are most likely to occur within the visual envelope of the site, which may extend beyond the study area defined for the purposes of this assessment.
Statement of significance: buried heritage assets

Introduction 7.4.58 The following section discusses past impacts on the site which are likely to have compromised asset survival (generally from late 19th and 20th century developments, eg, building foundations or quarrying), identified primarily from historic maps, the site walkover survey, and information on the likely depth of deposits. In accordance with PPS5, this is followed by a statement on the likely potential for and significance of buried heritage assets within the site, derived from current understanding of the baseline conditions, past impacts, and professional judgement. Factors affecting survival 7.4.60 Archaeological survival potential across the site is generally likely to be moderate within the foreshore area, with the potential for waterlogged remains and remains within the made ground and at the made ground/gravel interfaces. If, as suggested by nearby boreholes and the exposure of Mesolithic remains on the site, much of the alluvium has been scoured away by the river; non-structural remains from later periods are likely to have been removed by the action of the Thames. Within the embankments and the former Lacks Dock, archaeological survival potential may be more variable with disturbance from past foundations and dock construction. Identified past impacts within the site are listed below: a. Localised removal of archaeological remains within the foundations for the existing and previous Vauxhall Bridge, the slipway in line with Lacks Dock, dolphins and sewage outflows. Any other constructions, such as modern mooring posts, would also have locally removed archaeological remains. The foreshore in front of the SIS building has been scoured and an unknown depth of alluvium and archaeological remains removed. b. It is likely that the construction of the warehouses along the eastern boundary of the site from the 19th-century onwards would have locally removed archaeological remains within the footprint of their
7.4.59
Page 85
foundations and services to a depth of c. 1.01.5mbgl (possibly deeper for pad foundations of the larger buildings) and up to 3mbgl for basements/cellars. This will have truncated locally any remains at the top of the alluvium and within the overlying made ground (eg, any later medieval and post-medieval remains), although deeper (and earlier) assets potentially survive intact. c. The modern buildings adjacent to the site (with the exception of the SIS building, for which there is currently no information), are unlikely to contain basements which would extend beyond the ground floor footprint of the buildings and into the area of the site. However, if present, such basements would have locally removed archaeological remains within their footprint, although deep deposits at the alluvium/gravel interface could potentially survive beneath such truncation where only a single basement is present.
7.4.61
Within the foreshore area, nearby boreholes and the exposure of Mesolithic remains, suggest much of the alluvium has been scoured away. The depth of archaeological sequence is therefore likely to be limited in this area, although there is potential for archaeological remains within the remaining alluvium, made ground and at the interface with the gravels. Behind the river wall the archaeological deposit sequence may be much deeper, including made ground, alluvium and gravels, depending on the past action of the river in this area. The combined effect of 19th/20th century building development is likely to have significantly reduced archaeological survival and hence asset significance, although localised remains at deeper (earlier) levels could be present. Asset potential and significance The following statement of asset significance takes into account the levels of natural geology at the site and the level and nature of disturbance and truncation. Palaeoenvironment The site has a moderate potential to contain palaeoenvironmental remains. Prehistoric peat was recorded on the site (HEA 1a), but the exposure of Mesolithic remains and evidence from boreholes suggested that the depth of any clay, peat or wood deposits is likely to be limited due to the scouring of the river. If present deposits of peaty clay and clay and wood have a high potential to preserve palaeoenvironmental remains. Areas away from the foreshore may not have been scoured by the river, but are likely to have been truncated by modern building. Such remains would be of low or medium significance depending on their nature and degree of preservation. This would be derived from the evidential value of such remains. Prehistoric The site has a high potential to contain prehistoric remains. A Mesolithic structure, flint scatter and associated artefacts have been recorded within the site, although these remains have been impacted by the scouring of the river. Other residual prehistoric remains (ie, remains deposited
7.4.62
7.4.63
7.4.64
7.4.65
Page 86
outside of their original context) have been found within the study area. In situ remains, such as those recorded on the site, would be of high significance depending on their nature, extent and condition, but are believed to be at risk from the scouring of the river. This would be derived from the evidential value of the remains. Redeposited finds would be of low significance. Roman 7.4.66 The site has an uncertain, probably low potential to contain Roman remains. The site was located some distance from known roads and potential settlements in an area of probably marshy open land close to the Thames. Roman finds from within the study area have been limited and the exposure of Mesolithic remains suggests that any Roman remains present have previously been removed by the river. Isolated artefacts and marshland features would be of low or medium significance, depending on their nature and extent. This would be derived from the evidential value of such remains. Early medieval 7.4.67 The site has a low potential to contain early medieval remains. The site was located some distance from known settlements. Although several assets of this period have been recorded within the study area, the scouring of the river is likely to have removed most early medieval remains. Isolated artefacts would be of low or medium significance, if present. This would be derived from the evidential and historical value of such remains. Later medieval 7.4.68 The site has a moderate potential to contain later medieval remains, primarily remains associated with river use and a possible ferry. A ferry operated close to the site prior to the construction of the Vauxhall Bridge. A wharf associated with the construction of Westminster Abbey is also known to have been present nearby. Although the site was some distance from nearby settlements and unsuitable for habitation, remains associated with this activity may be present on the site. Evidence associated with the ferry, wharves or other river usage would be of low or medium significance, derived from its evidential and historical value. Post-medieval 7.4.69 The site has a high potential to contain post-medieval remains. The area east of the site was developed extensively during this period, primarily by industrial properties, including the Vauxhall Glasshouse and Pottery. Archaeological remains associated with these industries have been found within the study area. Features associated with such industries may be present on the site, including wharfage, dumps of waste materials, jetties and anchor points. Such remains, if present, would be of low or medium significance. This would be derived from the evidential and historical value of such remains.
Page 87
Summary of asset significance

7.4.70 The table below provides a summary of the known or likely historic environment assets relevant to the proposed scheme. Vol 19 Table 7.4.1 Historic environment receptors Receptor (Asset) Albert Embankment Conservation Area Grade II* listed Vauxhall Bridge River outflows, dolphins, storm flaps and granite cobbled slipways River outflows, dolphins, storm flaps and brick slipways Existing unlisted 19th century river wall on the site Lacks Dock slipway and 19th-century river outline SIS building Moderate potential for palaeoenvironmental remains, including palaeochannels of the River Effra High potential for prehistoric remains on the foreshore, including a Mesolithic timber structure Uncertain, probably low potential for Roman remains Low potential for isolated early medieval remains Moderate potential for later medieval remains of a possible ferry or wharf on the foreshore Asset type Above ground/ within the site Above ground/ within the site Above ground/ within the site Above ground/ within the site Above ground/ within the site Above ground/ within the site Above ground/ outside the site Buried/ within the site High Very high Medium Significance (value)
Medium
Medium
Medium Medium Low or medium
Buried/ within the site
High (in situ remains); low (redeposited finds)
Buried/ within the site Buried/ within the site Buried/ within the site
Low or medium
Low or medium
Low or medium
Page 88
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Receptor (Asset) High potential for postmedieval remains on the foreshore and embankment comprising industrial remains, wharves, jetties and anchor points Low potential for unknown unidentified remains
Section 7: Historic environment Asset type Significance (value) Low or medium
Uncertain
7.5
Construction assessment Above ground heritage assets

Within the site
7.5.1
In the southern part of the site around Vauxhall Bridge, the existing river outflows, dolphins, storm flaps, and granite cobbled slipways would be demolished during the construction of the southern cofferdam. Any surviving remains, including the existing unlisted river wall, would be obscured by the permanent cofferdam and new river wall. The parapet of the existing river wall would also be demolished to facilitate access. All these assets, which are of medium significance because of their probable relationship with Vauxhall Bridge and the Effra outflow, would be entirely removed by the proposals. This would constitute a high magnitude of impact, resulting in a moderate adverse effect. Part of the existing unlisted brick and stone 19th-century river wall would be removed to the north of Lacks Dock and in the northern part of the site and replaced by the new river wall around the permanent cofferdam. The river wall is not a homogenous construction, but is all that remains of the original 19th-century industrial waterfront in this area. This would comprise a medium magnitude of impact for this asset of medium significance, giving rise to a moderate adverse effect. The current outline of 19th century Lacks Dock and the earlier Vauxhall stairs would be reinstated following the replacement of the existing slipway (which is of no heritage significance in itself but adds to the character of the 19th century river front). The magnitude of impact for this asset of medium significance would thus be negligible, and would result in a negligible effect. Within the study area The assessment of effects upon the historic setting of surrounding designated/protected heritage assets within the study area, eg, from the visual presence of construction machinery, requires further consideration and will be completed for the ES. This assessment is distinct from the assessment of effects on townscape character areas presented in Section 11, as it is based on criteria specific to the historic environment. The study area for assessing setting effects on heritage assets may be revised
7.5.2
7.5.3
7.5.4
Page 89
because historic setting effects are most likely to occur within the visual envelope of the site, which may differ from the study area defined for the purposes of this assessment. 7.5.5 The effects of other construction phase activities on particularly significant assets (ie, statutorily designated/protected features) on or adjacent to the site, including the Albert Embankment Conservation Area, will also be assessed in the ongoing EIA for presentation in the ES. Construction impacts which may affect the setting of such assets might include vibration from piling, dust and disturbance from the movement of heavy goods vehicles.
Buried heritage assets

Enabling works 7.5.6 In terms of enabling works, cofferdams will be constructed using sheet piling filled with made ground to provide a stable platform. A campshed for a 350t barge would be constructed at the northern end of the northern cofferdam. Within the temporary cofferdam and campshed c. 1m of material, as assumed for the purposes of this assessment, would be removed from the foreshore to prevent settling and provide a firm foundation. Some ground disturbance is also assumed outside the footprint of the temporary cofferdam resulting from its construction. This would remove or truncate any archaeological remains within the footprint of these works, reducing the heritage asset significance of those remains to negligible. This would constitute a high magnitude of impact for these assets. The effect would vary depending upon the original significance of the assets removed: a. There is a moderate potential for palaeoenvironmental remains of low or medium asset significance, including possible palaeochannels of the River Effra or remains associated with the confluence of the Effra and Thames. Removal of such remains would constitute a minor adverse effect. b. There is a high potential for prehistoric remains, including remains of a Mesolithic structure of high asset significance. The removal of such remains would constitute a major adverse effect. c. There is an uncertain, probably low potential for Roman remains, including isolated artefacts and marshland features of low or medium asset significance. Removal of such remains would constitute a minor or moderate adverse effect.
d. There is a low potential for isolated early medieval remains of low or medium significance. The removal of such remains would constitute a minor or moderate adverse effect. e. There is a moderate potential for later medieval remains, which are likely to comprise remains of a ferry or possible wharf associated with Westminster Abbey, and would be of low or medium asset significance if present. Removal of such remains would constitute a moderate adverse effect.
Page 90
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore f.
There is a high potential for post-medieval remains, some of which were observed during the site visit. Such remains potentially include remains of wharves, jetties, consolidation dumps and anchor points and would be of low or medium asset significance. Removal of such remains could constitute a minor or moderate adverse effect respectively.
7.5.7
Dewatering within the temporary and permanent cofferdams could potentially have a wider impact upon any organic remains in the vicinity which are not removed by the construction or enabling works. By changing their environment, dewatering could cause nearby organic remains to decay and reduce their significance to negligible. This would result in a medium magnitude of impact. There is a moderate potential for organic palaeoenvironmental remains of low or medium asset significance. Dewatering would constitute a minor or moderate adverse effect, depending on the original significance of these assets. Provided the office and welfare facilities are constructed within the footprint of the cofferdam on top of the made ground, they would have no impact on any archaeological remains. The enabling works would involve the erection of hoarding supported by posts and the diversion of existing services on the river bank in the eastern part of the site. The depth of the new service trenches would extend to 0.51.5mbgl, as assumed for the purposes of this assessment. Where these foundations and service diversions are located on the existing landward side of the current river wall, they would locally truncate remains of post-medieval industrial buildings of low asset significance, partially reducing the asset significance to negligible within the affected area. This would comprise a low magnitude of impact, given its localised nature. Given the low asset significance of these remains, this would result in a minor adverse effect. There would also be an impact on archaeological remains on the foreshore arising from the construction and use of temporary vehicular access routes from the Lacks Dock slipway and along the foreshore. The movement of vehicles along the foreshore would damage any archaeological remains within the routeway (eg, through rutting and compaction). In addition, archaeological remains would be directly removed by the removal of foreshore deposits, resulting in a high magnitude of change. This is most likely to have an impact on postmedieval and prehistoric remains previously identified, and would constitute the same environmental effect as described above in para. 7.5.7. The 19th century form of the Lacks Dock and earlier Vauxhall Stairs would be retained by the proposals, although the existing ramp (which is of no heritage significance in itself) would be replaced, requiring ground reduction and the removal of all alluvium prior to construction. This is most likely to have an impact on post-medieval and prehistoric remains previously identified, and would constitute the same environmental effect as described above in para. 7.5.7.
7.5.8
7.5.9
7.5.10
7.5.11
Page 91
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Construction works 7.5.12
Within the permanent cofferdams all alluvium would be removed to provide a solid foundation and prevent settling. This would remove the majority of any archaeological remains present within the footprint of these works, removing any remains within the alluvium and heavily truncating any surviving features cut into the underlying gravels. The significance of any assets affected would be reduced to negligible and would constitute a high magnitude of impact for these assets. The effect would vary depending upon the significance of the assets removed. The affected assets and the resulting environmental effects are the same as those described for the temporary works in para. 7.5.7. The ventilation chamber, interception chamber, culverts and interception valves would potentially remove or truncate any surviving archaeological remains within their footprint which had not previously been removed by stripping of the foreshore during construction of the cofferdams. The significance of affected assets would be reduced to negligible, constituting a high magnitude of impact for these assets. The affected assets and the resulting environmental effect are the same as those described for the temporary works in para. 7.5.7. The CSO drop shaft, interception shaft and new river walls would remove any remaining archaeological remains within their footprints, which had not previously been removed by stripping of the foreshore during construction of the cofferdams. The significance of affected assets would be reduced to negligible, constituting a high magnitude of impact for these assets. The affected assets and the resulting environmental effect are the same as those described for the temporary works in para. 7.5.7 above. The connection tunnel between the interception chamber and CSO drop shaft would have no impact on archaeological remains as it would be bored beneath the existing foreshore at a level too deep to have any archaeological impact.
7.5.13
7.5.14
7.5.15
Significance of environmental effect

7.5.16 The table below summarises the magnitude of impact upon known and possible historic environment assets at the site (above ground and buried), during the construction phase, and the resulting environmental effect. This is the effect prior to the implementation of an agreed mitigation strategy. Vol 19 Table 7.5.1 Historic environment construction effects Asset (resource) Impact (magnitude, and justification) Above ground heritage assets River outflows, dolphins, storm flaps and granite and cobble slipways High Removal of assets during enabling works Moderate adverse Effect (prior to mitigation)
Page 92
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Asset (resource) (Medium asset significance) Existing unlisted 19th century river wall on the site (Medium asset significance)
Section 7: Historic environment Effect (prior to mitigation)
Impact (magnitude, and justification)
Medium Removal of sections of river wall and parapet and obscuring of the underlying river wall and its alignment in these areas Negligible Retention of the river outline through replacement of the existing slipway as a river access point To be assessed in the ES
Moderate adverse
Lacks Dock slipway and 19th-century river outline (Medium asset significance) SIS building (Medium asset significance) Setting of above ground heritage assets in the vicinity of the site, including nearby listed buildings and conservation areas Moderate potential for Palaeoenvironmental remains, including palaeochannels of the river Effra (Low or medium asset significance) High potential for prehistoric remains on the foreshore, including a Mesolithic timber structure (High asset significance)
Negligible
To be assessed in the ES To be assessed in the ES
To be assessed in the ES
Buried heritage assets Medium. Potential impact from all ground works, deep or shallow and from dewatering. Asset significance reduced to negligible. Minor adverse
High Major adverse Impact from foreshore stripping, piling excavation for CSO shaft, interception shaft and chamber, valve chambers, culvert and vent shaft. Asset significance reduced to negligible. High Minor or moderate
Uncertain, probably low
Page 93
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Asset (resource) potential for isolated Roman remains and marshland remains (Low or medium asset significance)
Impact Effect (magnitude, and (prior to justification) mitigation) Impact from foreshore adverse stripping, piling excavation for CSO shaft, interception shaft and chamber, valve chambers, culvert and vent shaft. Asset significance reduced to negligible. High Minor or moderate adverse Impact from foreshore stripping, piling excavation for CSO shaft, interception shaft and chamber, valve chambers, culvert and vent shaft. Asset significance reduced to negligible. High Moderate adverse Impact from foreshore stripping, piling excavation for CSO shaft, interception shaft and chamber, valve chambers, culvert and vent shaft. Asset significance reduced to negligible. High. Minor or moderate adverse Potential impact from all ground works, deep or shallow. Impact from foreshore stripping, piling excavation for CSO shaft, interception shaft and chamber, valve chambers, culvert and vent shaft. Asset significance reduced to negligible locally. Uncertain Uncertain
Low potential for isolated early medieval remains (Low or medium asset significance)
Moderate potential for later medieval remains of a possible ferry or wharf on the foreshore (Low to medium asset significance)
High potential for postmedieval remains on the foreshore and embankment comprising industrial remains, wharves, jetties and anchor points. (Low or medium asset significance)
Low potential for unknown unidentified remains (Unknown asset significance)
Page 94
7.6
7.6.1
Operational assessment Above ground heritage assets

The particular components that are relevant to the assessment of operational effects on above ground assets are the permanent structures visible above ground. These components comprise: a. the presence of two permanent cofferdams at each end of the site, the southernmost of which would include architectural terracing of the foreshore b. control kiosk within each of the cofferdams c. two ventilation columns, located in the southern cofferdam d. a ventilation structure within the area of the northern cofferdam.
7.6.2
The site is located within the Albert Embankment Conservation Area, which is of high asset significance. The proposed works would have an impact on the character of the conservation area. The construction of the new permanent cofferdams and modifications to the foreshore in this area would physically change the embankment, the foreshore, the setting of landmarks and the architectural and historic quality of the conservation area through the demolition of certain sections of the unlisted 19th-century river wall, obscuring of the River Effra outflow and construction of new projecting sections of embankment to contain the structures associated with the project. The impact upon the historic appreciation, character and integrity of the conservation area would depend upon the materials used to complete the proposals. The impact and resultant environmental effect will be considered following the finalisation of the architectural and landscape design for inclusion in the final ES. The effect of the project upon the historic setting of designated/protected heritage assets within the study area requires further consideration and will be assessed through the ongoing EIA for presentation in the ES. This assessment is distinct from the assessment of effects on townscape character areas presented in Section 11, as it is based on criteria specific to the historic environment. The study area for assessing setting effects on heritage assets may be revised because historic setting effects are most likely to occur within the visual envelope of the site, which may differ from the study area defined for the purposes of this assessment.
7.6.3

7.6.4 It is possible that as a result of the permanent cofferdams and new river walls, the fluvial regime of the river would change resulting in different scouring patterns. This could potentially result in erosion or deposition of the foreshore and channel areas. The predicted impact upon the fluvial regime and any archaeological remains on the foreshore will be assessed following a review of hydrological modelling, along with a review of data on past dredging held by the Port of London Authority (any archaeological assets would have already been removed in areas of past capital dredging).This will be presented in the final ES.
Page 95
Significance of environmental effect

7.6.5 The table below summarises the historic environment assets at the site for which effects during the operational phase will be assessed through the ongoing EIA for presentation in the ES. Vol 19 Table 7.6.1 Historic environment assets - operational assessment Asset (resource) Albert Embankment Conservation Area (High asset significance) Setting of other statutorily listed buildings within the study area Impact (magnitude, and justification) To be assessed in the ES Effect (prior to mitigation) To be assessed in the ES
7.7
7.7.1

The measures embedded in the draft CoCP of relevance to the historic environment are found in Section 3. Additional mitigation measures required are detailed below.
Above ground heritage assets

7.7.2 The proposed mitigation strategy for the moderate adverse effect resulting from the demolition of the river outflows, dolphins and slipways would comprise a programme of standing structure survey and photographic recording, equivalent to Level 3 of the English Heritage specifications 34, which would ensure a record of these assets is made prior to their removal. The moderate adverse effect resulting from the demolition of the unlisted river wall would be mitigated through a programme of standing structure survey and photographic recording, equivalent to Level 2 or Level 3 of the English Heritage specifications35, which would ensure a record of these assets is made prior to their removal. Any mitigation which may be required for effects on above ground heritage assets will be detailed in the final ES, following consideration of the significance of these assets, their setting and the predicted effects. However, it is acknowledged that the scope for mitigation is likely to be limited, for example where effects on historic setting arise from the visible presence of construction machinery.
7.7.3
7.7.4
Page 96

7.7.5 Based on this assessment, no heritage assets of very high significance are anticipated that might merit a mitigation strategy of permanent preservation in situ. It is therefore considered that the adverse environmental effects of the proposed development could be successfully mitigated by a suitable programme of archaeological investigation before and/or during construction, to achieve preservation by record (through advancing understanding of asset significance). The assessment presented here has identified likely significant effects on buried heritage assets resulting from ground works. Mitigation requirements would be informed by selective site based assessment. This could include a variety of techniques, such as geotechnical investigation, geoarchaeologcial deposit modelling, archaeological test pits and trial trenches. This evaluation would enable a more targeted and precise mitigation strategy to be developed for the site post-consent and well in advance of construction. Given the evidence available at this desk based stage, subject to the findings of any subsequent field evaluation post-consent and the construction methodology, mitigation of the adverse effects upon archaeological remains within the site is likely to include the following: a. An archaeological watching brief during site preparation and construction to mitigate impacts arising from service diversions and foundations for offices and welfare on the landward side of the existing river wall. b. Prior archaeological survey and excavation of the foreshore within the footprints of the proposed temporary and permanent cofferdams, ramp and campshed. Precise details of mitigation depend on the construction methodology (eg, whether temporary cofferdams are inserted before foreshore excavation). c. For works taking place below low water on the outside of the cofferdams (such as construction of the campshed) conventional archaeological investigation may not be feasible. In such an eventuality other techniques would be employed, such as monitoring and scanning the arisings of the shaft excavation.
7.7.6
7.7.7
7.7.8
Both evaluation and mitigation would be carried out in accordance with a scope of works (a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI)), which will be agreed with statutory consultees prior to conducting any archaeological fieldwork prior to or during construction, to ensure that the scope and method of fieldwork are appropriate to satisfy requirements of the application.
Operation
Above ground heritage assets 7.7.9 Any mitigation which may be required for indirect effects on above ground heritage assets, such as Albert Embankment Conservation Area, will be detailed in the final ES, following consideration of the significance of these
Page 97
assets, their setting and the predicted effects. Mitigation might, for example, include changes to the proposed finishing materials of above ground structures, such as cladding and ground treatments to be in keeping with the surrounding river wall. It may also be appropriate to mark the line of the historic river wall and Effra outflow, through variations in the paving or landscaping, in order to reflect the original 19th-century outline of the river in this area. Buried heritage assets 7.7.10 A possible operational effect upon archaeological remains has been identified, arising from possible change to the scouring patterns of the river and consequent impacts upon downstream archaeological remains. The precise impact on the fluvial regime and any archaeological remains cannot be predicted at present, but hydrological modelling could provide further information on any possible effects (if any). Any mitigation strategy would depend on the results of hydrological modelling, but could comprise a programme of archaeological excavation and recording (ie, preservation by record) of any archaeological remains likely to be affected.
Page 98
7.8
Significance of effect Above ground heritage assets Negligible Mitigation Residual significance
Assessment summary
Vol 19 Table 7.8.1 Historic environment construction assessment summary
Asset (receptor)
River outflows, dolphins, storm flaps Moderate adverse and brick slipway (Medium asset significance) Moderate adverse Programme of archaeological survey, recording and photography to ensure the assets are not removed without record Negligible
Existing unlisted river wall on the site (Medium asset significance) Negligible
Lacks Dock slipway and 19thcentury river outline (Medium asset significance) To be assessed in the ES Buried heritage assets Minor adverse To be determined in the ES
Negligible
SIS building (Medium asset significance)
Moderate potential for Palaeoenvironmental remains, including palaeochannels of the River Effra (Low or medium asset significance) Major adverse
Environmental sampling during archaeological investigation
Negligible
High potential for prehistoric remains, including a Mesolithic timber structure (High asset significance)
Archaeological investigation and recording of the area within the temporary cofferdam, ramp and campshed prior to the works
Negligible
Volume 19 Page 99
Printed 25/10/2011
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Significance of effect Archaeological investigation and recording of the area within the temporary cofferdam, ramp and campshed prior to the works Archaeological investigation and recording of the area within the temporary cofferdam, ramp and campshed prior to the works Archaeological investigation and recording of the area within the temporary cofferdam, ramp and campshed prior to the works Archaeological watching brief during enabling works and construction. Survey and excavation of the foreshore ensuring archaeological assets are not removed without record Archaeological investigation and recording of any previously unrecorded remains, if present, to form preservation by record Negligible Negligible Negligible Mitigation Residual significance
Asset (receptor)
Uncertain, probably low potential for Minor or moderate isolated Roman remains and adverse marshland remains (Low or medium asset significance) Minor or moderate adverse
Low potential for isolated early medieval remains (Low or medium asset significance)
Moderate potential for later Moderate adverse medieval remains of a possible ferry or wharf (Medium asset significance) Minor or moderate adverse
High potential for post-medieval remains, comprising industrial remains, wharves, jetties and anchor points (Low asset significance) Not known
Negligible
Low potential for unknown unidentified remains (Unknown asset significance)
Negligible
Volume 19 Page 100
Printed 25/10/2011
Vol 19 Table 7.8.2 Historic environment summary of operational effects Significance To be assessed in the ES To be assessed in the ES To be identified in the ES To be identified in the ES Mitigation Residual significance To be assessed in the ES To be assessed in the ES
Asset (receptor)
Albert Embankment Conservation Area
Setting of further statutorily listed buildings in the study area
Volume 19 Page 101
Printed 25/10/2011
7.9
7.9.1
In terms of desk based sources, the following outstanding information will be collated for the EIA baseline: a. Port of London Authority (PLA) data on wrecks and obstructions within the River Thames channel and foreshore (these may be of an archaeological nature), along with any information on past dredging (which will have removed any heritage assets). The full extent and nature of the data held by the PLA is currently under discussion with this organisation. b. The results of geoarchaeological monitoring of geotechnical boreholes (clarifying depth and nature of deposits); c. Information on existing hydrological regimes of the River Thames (establishing where there is existing scouring or deposition).
7.9.2
The following information will also inform the final assessment: a. Potential ground settlement at the site. Possible effects of ground settlement resulting from deep construction within the site, other than the tunnel itself (this is discussed in Volume 6) will be considered in the EIA and reported in the ES. b. Potential change to the hydrological regimes of the River Thames (increase in scour erosion or deposition).
7.9.3
The assessment of indirect construction and operational effects upon the historic setting of surrounding designated/protected heritage assets within the study area requires further consideration and will be completed for the ES. This assessment is distinct from the assessment of effects on townscape character areas presented in Section 11, as it is based on criteria specific to the historic environment. The study area for assessing setting effects on heritage assets may be revised because historic setting effects are most likely to occur within the visual envelope of the site, which may differ from the study area defined for the purposes of this assessment. Assessment of cumulative and in combination effects will be undertaken and reported in the ES. Following completion of the assessment, the mitigation approaches for the historic environment within the project will be finalised and reported in the ES.
7.9.4 7.9.5
102
Section 8: Land quality
8 8.1
8.1.1
Land quality Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant land quality effects at the Albert Embankment Foreshore site. This section should be read in conjunction with Section 13 (Groundwater), Section 14 (Surface water), Section 5 (Aquatic ecology) and Section 6 (Terrestrial ecology).
8.1.2
8.2
8.2.1
Permanent works at Albert Embankment Foreshore include a CSO drop shaft, an interception chamber, connection culverts and a valve chamber, and new sections of river wall. There are two separate working areas within the site, the first around Vauxhall Bridge and the second to the north. Coffer dams would be constructed to enable construction of the permanent works. Other temporary works include campsheds constructed on the foreshore and fenders. A connection tunnel would link the two areas. An intermediate shaft would be buried on the foreshore to a depth of 47m, within the northern area. The base of the shaft is within the Lambeth Group so dewatering is likely to be required. Construction workers involved in intensive below ground works are high sensitivity receptors. Measures incorporated into the draft CoCP which aim to substantially reduce risks associated with construction activities include: a. the remediation of the site so it is fit for purpose (where required) b. the use of appropriate PPE as well as training and welfare for construction staff c. confined space working measures where applicable d. the employment of UXO specialist advice.
8.2.2 8.2.3
8.2.4
8.2.5 8.2.6
8.2.7
The CoCP includes measures to minimise the migration of dusts during construction activities. These include the use of wheel washing at site entrances, damping down during dry weather and covering and safe storage of potentially contaminating materials (if any).
8.3
8.3.1

Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken.
Page 103
There were no site specific comments from consultees for this particular site.
Construction and operation

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

8.3.5 The assumptions and limitations associated with this study are presented in Volume 5. There are no site specific assumptions and limitations for the site.
8.4
8.4.1
Baseline conditions
Baseline conditions have been assessed for the development confines and for a distance of up to 250m beyond (in order to take into account off site contamination sources and receptors). The baseline data are sourced from the Thames Tunnel Geographical Information Systems (GIS) database, including historic maps and environmental records. A full list of the data sets drawn upon in this assessment is presented in Volume 5 methodology. In addition information has been sourced from a walkover survey, stakeholder consultation and results from a preliminary intrusive ground investigation undertaken by the Thames Tunnel project.
8.4.2
Site walkover
8.4.3 8.4.4 8.4.5 8.4.6 8.4.7 A site walkover of the site was undertaken on 4 November 2010. An outflow pipe with a tidal flapgate was visible within the river wall at the time of the survey. The immediate area is characterised by commercial and residential properties. An operational fuel filling station (Texaco garage) is located Albert Embankment Road approximately 65m north east of the site. The site walkover notes are provided in Appendix B.
Site history and surroundings with potential for contaminants

8.4.8 Vol 19 Table 8.4.1 provides a summary of the site history, including potentially contaminative activities and principal contaminants of concern in and around the site. The table was produced following inspection of the historic mapping dating from the late 19th century to the present day held by the project, together with a site walkover in order to more fully understand the site and surrounding area. The locations of the sites described below are shown on Vol 19 Figure 8.4.1.
8.4.9
Page 104
Vol 19 Figure 8.4.1 Land quality contaminative land uses (see Volume 19 Figures document) Vol 19 Table 8.4.1 Land quality contaminative land uses Ref Item Inferred date Potentially contaminative substances of operation associated with item Heavy metals, arsenic, asbestos, phenols, oil/fuels, hydrocarbons, PAHs, PCBs, sulphide, sulphate, chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons. Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes, phenols, PAH, cyanide, ammonia, sulphur compounds, arsenic, chromium. Heavy metals, arsenic, asbestos, phenols, oil/fuels, hydrocarbons, PAHs, PCBs, sulphide, sulphate, chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons Heavy metals, arsenic, asbestos, phenols, oil/fuels, hydrocarbons, PAHs, PCBs, sulphide, sulphate, chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons.
On-site
Draw Dock
c1896
2 4 13
Phoenix gas works Vauxhall Wharf Wharves
c1875-c1967 c1875 c1896
14
Lacks Dock
c1896present
Off-site a) Gin and vinegar distillery (adjacent south) 3 b) Oil works (adjacent south) Coal Wharf (30m north) Timber Yard (135m northeast) Railway and station (45m east) London Gas Works (120m north-east)
c1875-c1896 VOC, TPH, heavy metals, ethanol/methanol, ammonia, chlorinated alkalis, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes. c1950-c1967 Monoaromatic hydrocarbons, benzene, toluene, ethybenzene and xylenes, PAH, nalkanes (C5-C20), lead Hydrocarbons, heavy metals, arsenic, asbestos, phenols, oil/fuels, hydrocarbons, PAHs, PCBs, sulphide, sulphate, chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons, Heavy metals, arsenic, boron, sulphate, phenol, acetone, aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs, cresols. PAHs, heavy metals, phenols, sulphates, fuel/oil, lubricating oil, greases, PCBs, solvents, asbestos, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons. Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes, phenols, PAH, cyanide, ammonia, sulphur compounds, arsenic, chromium.
C1875 5
c1875-c1896
c1875present
c1875
Page 105
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Ref Item
Inferred date Potentially contaminative substances of operation associated with item Heavy metals, arsenic, boron, sulphate, phenol, acetone, aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs, cresols. Oil/fuel hydrocarbons, aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, organolead compounds. heavy metals and asbestos. Heavy metals, arsenic, asbestos, phenols, oil/fuels, hydrocarbons, PAHs, PCBs, sulphide, sulphate, chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons. Heavy metals, arsenic, boron, sulphate, phenol, acetone, aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs, cresols. Oil/fuel hydrocarbons, aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, organolead compounds. heavy metals and asbestos. Nitroaromatics, nitroglycerin, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes, aliphatic hydrocarbons Heavy metals, arsenic, various solvents; fluorocarbon 113, asbestos, PCBs, aromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, nitrate and sulphate Heavy metals, arsenic, sulphide, sulphate, asbestos, oil/fuel hydrocarbons, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, PCBs Heavy metals, arsenic, boron, nitrate, sulphide, sulphate, asbestos, aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs, PCBs, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons. Oil/fuel hydrocarbons, aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, organolead compounds. heavy metals and asbestos. Heavy metals, arsenic, boron, nitrate, sulphide, sulphate, asbestos, aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs, PCBs, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons. Unknown
a) Millbank Saw Mills (185m west) 9 b) Motor Body Works (185m west)
c1875
c1916-c1950
10
Wharves (180m west)
c1875
11
Timber Yard (75m north) Albert Works (140m northeast) Millbank Barracks (210m northwest) Laundry (195m north-west)
c1896
12
c1896present c1916-c1962
15
c1951 16
17
18
19
Tinworth Works c1967-c1978 Waste Reclamation (180m northeast) Light c1967-c1978 Engineering Works (150m east) c1967 Garage (35m south-east) Lift Works (155m northeast) Areas of worked ground (100m east) c1967present (works) c1978
20
21
Page 106
Historical building plans reviewed during site suitability investigations at Albert Embankment Foreshore also identified the presence of a transformer located approximately 50m east of the site (1959). In summary, the historical mapping has identified no significant contaminative industrial on site uses, although the Draw Dock was situated within the site boundary from 1896. The 250m search radius has identified that historically the area around the Albert Embankment Foreshore site has been used for the location of a number of industrial activities, particularly oil and gas works located to the south and south-west of the site and a current fuel filling station on Albert Embankment road. There is the potential for these activities to have impacted upon the foreshore site, however given the time since most of the oil and gas processes were active and natural attenuation processes associated with the river flow and biological activity in river sediments, these risks are considered to be low/moderate.
8.4.11
8.4.12
8.4.13
Geology and hydrogeology

8.4.14 Data from British Geological Survey together with logs from boreholes excavated as part of previous investigations of the site showing the geological succession are summarised in Vol 19 Table 8.4.2 Land quality . Controlled waters (ie, surface water and groundwater) can potentially represent a pathway for the spread of mobile contaminants as well as being a sensitive environmental receptor. The EAs Aquifer Designation maps have been used to classify the geological units according to their aquifer status which is also presented in Vol 19 Table 8.4.2 Land quality The EA has designated the site location as being within Source Protection Zone (SPZ) 2, (the outer SPZ) which is defined by a 400 day travel time from a point below the water table. This zone has a minimum radius of 250 or 500m around the source, depending on the size of the abstraction, in accordance with the new aquifer designations (April 2010). Vol 19 Table 8.4.2 Land quality site geology and hydrogeology Geological Unit/ Strata Alluvium River Terrace Deposits Description Approximate depth below river level (m) 0-1.0 1.0-5.0 Hydrogeological classification
8.4.15
8.4.16
London Clay Formation
Silty, sandy clay and clayey gravel Medium dense to dense to dense sand and gravel (predominantly quartz sand and flint gravel). Grey fissured clay that weathers to a chocolate brown. Locally with crystals of selenite (gypsum).
Secondary A Superficial Aquifer Unproductive strata
5.0-31.8
Page 107
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Geological Unit/ Strata Harwich Formation Lambeth Group (Upper Shelly Beds) Lambeth Group (Upper Mottled Beds) Lambeth Group (Sand Channel) Lambeth Group) (Laminated Beds/Lower Shelly Beds) Lambeth Group (Lower Mottled Beds) Lambeth Group (Upnor Formation) Description
Section 8: Land quality Approximate depth below river level (m) 31.8-32.0 32.0-33.60 33.6-38.45 (The lower part (Upnor Formation), may be considered a Principal Bedrock Aquifer where it is in hydraulic continuity with the Thanet Sand and Chalk) Hydrogeological classification
Thanet Sand Formation
Sand and shelly sandstone The Lower and Upper Mottled Beds can be described as a mottled or multicoloured, stiff or very stiff fissured clay, compact silt, and dense or very dense sand. The Upper Shelly Beds is mainly a grey shelly clay, and occasionally sand dominated unit and shelly limestone. The Laminated Beds consists of thinly interbedded fine- to medium-grained sand, silt and clay, with locally more extensive sand bodies and thin shell and lignite beds. The Lower Shelly Beds is a dark grey to black clay with abundant shells but may also be Shelly sand. Where shells predominate, thin limestone bands are formed. The base of the Lambeth Group is marked by the Upnor Formation which comprises dense silty glauconitic sand. Generally dense glauconitic silty fine sand with occasional rounded flint gravel.
Secondary A Bedrock Aquifer.
38.45-39.65 39.65-40.75
40.75-45.2
45.2-49.8
49.8-59.0
Chalk Group
The base of the formation is marked by the Bullhead Beds, which comprise rounded gravel and cobbles of flint. Weak fine grained 59.0-unproven limestone with nodular
Secondary A Bedrock Aquifer. (may be considered as a Principal Bedrock Aquifer where it is in hydraulic continuity with the Chalk) Principal Bedrock Aquifer
Page 108
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Geological Unit/ Strata Description
Section 8: Land quality Approximate depth below river level (m) Hydrogeological classification
and tabular flints.
Unexploded ordnance
8.4.17 During World Wars I and II, the London area was subject to bombing. In some cases bombs failed to detonate on impact. During construction works unexploded ordnance or bombs (UXO) are sometimes encountered and require safe disposal. A desk based assessment for UXO threat was undertaken for ground investigation works at the proposed development site. The report reviews information sources such as the Ministry of Defence (MoD), Public Records Office and the Port of London Authority (PLA). The study site is located in the LB of Lambeth an area that experienced high levels of bombing during World War II. The site is situated between a primary Luftwaffe target and three strategic targets within 150m. This is potentially the reason why 18 HE bombs are recorded as falling within a 200m radius of the site boundary. During six years of Luftwaffe bombing, one HE bomb is recorded as landing directly within the study site boundary. With a further 50m landing within the 50m buffer zone. The associated UXO/UXB risk is therefore assessed as high.
8.4.18
8.4.19
8.4.20 8.4.21
8.4.22
Thames Tunnel ground investigation

8.4.23 As part of the ongoing ground investigations, information from a nearby borehole (SR2059) located in the River Thames in the vicinity of the site was reviewed to provide preliminary information on the quality of the river sediments. No sediment data were available for the other nearby boreholes. Vol 19 Figure 8.4.2 provides an overview of the existing and proposed borehole locations. Data from the ongoing ground investigation programme would be incorporated in the ES. Vol 19 Figure 8.4.2 Land quality borehole locations (see Volume 19 Figures document) 8.4.24 8.4.25 The results of the ground investigation have been compared against PLA Approved Sediment Quality Guidelines. A single sample of granular soils retrieved from 1.5m below the base of the river bed in borehole SR2059 was analysed for range of metal and PAH contaminants and the results compared against the Threshold Effect Levels (TEL) and Probable Effect Levels (PEL). The results of the analysis as summarised in Vol 19 Table 8.4.3 Land quality shows that four contaminants were recorded as having levels above the TEL, namely arsenic, zinc, copper and lead. No results were recorded as having contaminant values above PEL.
8.4.26
8.4.27
Page 109
Vol 19 Table 8.4.3 Land quality data for borehole SR2059 Contaminant Arsenic Zinc Copper Lead 8.4.28 Concentration of contaminant (mg/kg) 14 150 43 32 Threshold Effect Level (mg/kg) 7.24 124 18.7 30.2
The testing shows some slightly elevated levels of metals of the river bed sediments, however it is possible that greater contamination exists in the sediments closer to the foreshore site and the location of previous potentially contaminating sources/outflows. At the time of writing, there has been no soil gas testing undertaken with an immediate vicinity of the site. However, it can also be reasonably expected that may be some minor elevated carbon dioxide/methane soil gas levels associated with the organic rich horizons within the shallow alluvial sediments that may be expected locally. Other environmental records Details of environmental records for the vicinity of the site held by the EA and other bodies were obtained from the Thames Tunnel GIS which is partially sourced from Landmark Information Group. Significant records are discussed in further detail in the table below. The locations of the sites below are shown on Vol 19 Figure 8.4.3. Vol 19 Figure 8.4.3 Land quality environmental records and waste sites (see Volume 19 Figures document) Vol 19 Table 8.4.4 Land quality environmental records and waste sites
8.4.29
8.4.30
8.4.31
Item Licensed industrial activities Hazardous substance Sites Pollution incidents to controlled water Waste treatment and disposal sites Landfill sites Industrial authorisations (IPPC, COMAH, PPC) Past potential contaminated industrial uses 8.4.32
On-site 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Within 250m of site boundary 0 0 5 0 0 1 2
There is one environmental record of potentially contaminating activities within the site boundary; this has been identified as a pollution incident to
Page 110
controlled water. This was most likely associated with sewage discharge from the CSO site which is a regular occurrence. 8.4.33 8.4.34 8.4.35 Within a 250m radius of the Albert Embankment Foreshore site, GIS mapping has identified a further five pollution incidents to controlled water. One recorded pollution prevention control site is also listed, which relates to the nearby fuel filling station. There are nine sites located immediately adjacent to or marginally on site as having past potential contaminated industrial uses, with a further 12 located away from the site but in within the 250m buffer. These are summarised in Vol 19 Table 8.4.4 and the adjacent and/or marginally on site uses include gas works, various wharves, oils works and gin and vinegar distillery. From an analysis of the historical mapping data, it can be inferred that the past potential contaminated industrial use adjacent to Lacks Dock could be attributed to an oil works. The past industrial use situated on the north bank of the river could be attributed to the presence of a motor body works. Likely contaminants associated with these types of industries are identified in Vol 19 Table 8.4.1. Technical engagement 8.4.37 8.4.38 The LB of Lambeth was consulted with respect to land quality information they hold in relation to the site and search area. The Council searched their contaminated land database and stated that there is no record of contamination or pollution found at Albert Embankment. They also searched for information on historical use of land at surrounding areas and there is no record of contamination or pollution.
8.4.36
8.5
8.5.1 8.5.2
Construction assessment
Assessment year For land quality, the assessment is based on the effects which would be experienced in Year 1 of construction. It is anticipated that land quality base case conditions would not alter significantly from those described above by the commencement of the construction.
Development of conceptual model

8.5.3 An important element of the preliminary risk assessment for land quality is the development of source-pathway-receptor conceptual model which aims to understand the presence and significance of potentially complete pollutant linkages. The methodology for undertaking this analysis is provided in Volume 6. The following section outlines the sources, pathways and receptors which are relevant to the land quality assessment at the site. Sources of contamination 8.5.6 The following sources of contamination have been identified:
8.5.4 8.5.5
Page 111
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore 8.5.7 On site: a.
historic shallow contamination of foreshore sediments associated with nearby historic activities (Vauxhall gas works, oil works, and adjacent wharves) CSO discharge potentially elevated land gas within the alluvium/ shallow organic rich sediments naturally occurring sulphate within the London Clay Formation possible unexploded ordnance fuel filling station
b. c. d. e. 8.5.8 a. 8.5.9
Off site: Pathways The following pathways for contamination have been identified: a. human uptake through: ingestion of exposed contaminated soils during construction; inhalation of soil/dust, volatilised compounds or ground gas via migration through permeable strata and conduits dermal contact with exposed soils during construction horizontal and vertical migration of leachable contaminants via groundwater within the alluvium and River Terrace Deposits vertical migration of contaminants along preferential pathways created by excavation of diaphragm wall mobilisation of contaminants in river water through disturbance of contaminated river bed sediments direct runoff into the River Thames direct contact of soils with construction materials gas/vapour migration through pipes/foundations and into structures accidental detonation of UXO during ground investigation or construction activities
b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i.
Receptors 8.5.10 The following receptors for contamination have been identified: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. construction workers site end users (maintenance staff and public) off site receptors - residents and workers built environment controlled waters - surface water controlled waters - groundwater in shallow aquifer aquatic ecology
Page 112
The sensitivity of the land quality receptors are defined in Vol 5 Table 7.4.2.
8.5.12 The following section discusses the potential impacts and effects on receptors as a result of the existing land quality conditions at the site. Vol 19 Tables 8.5.1 to 8.5.3 provide a summary of the receptor sensitivities and land quality impacts and effects. Impacts and effects upon construction workers 8.5.13 Desk based information suggests that the soils at the site are unlikely to be significantly contaminated and thus are unlikely pose a risk to construction workers via direct contact pathways. There is however the potential for the build-up of asphyxiant or potentially explosive gases associated with confined space construction. Overall therefore the magnitude of the impact is likely to be negligible, giving a slight effect (not significant). Impacts and effects upon off-site receptors 8.5.15 The construction works may result in the creation of new pathways for contaminants to migrate to adjacent sites eg, via wind-borne dust during excavated material handling and storage. Whilst the sensitivity of adjacent commercial and residential sites is moderate to high, the impact from this would be negligible giving a slight effect (not significant). Impacts and effects upon built environment 8.5.17 High levels of certain contaminants, if contained within subsurface materials, can lead to impacts on the built environment (both existing and proposed), including chemical attack on buried concrete structures. Additionally detonation of potential unidentified buried UXO could represent a risk during construction. The built environment is a low sensitivity receptor and following the proposed design procedures such as site investigation, UXO surveys and remediation, the magnitude of impact is considered to be negligible, giving a negligible effect (not significant). Vol 19 Table 8.5.1 Land quality impacts - construction Impact Health impacts on construction workers Magnitude, and justification Negligible soils unlikely to be contaminated plus design measures such as use of correct PPE, safety briefings and remediation of contaminated soils reduce impacts substantially.
8.5.14
8.5.16
Health impacts on off-site receptors- Negligible contaminated soils are residents and workers unlikely to be encountered additionally design measures for dust suppression, correct storage of
Page 113
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Impact
Section 8: Land quality Magnitude, and justification potentially contaminated materials, would substantially reduce impacts in the event of finding contamination. Negligible - design measures such as UXO specialists employed to advise staff reduce impacts substantially. Negligible - design measures such investigation for selection of concrete mix reduce impacts.
Damage to built environment existing structures
Damage to built environment proposed structures
Vol 19 Table 8.5.2 Land quality effects - construction Receptor Construction workers Off-site receptors residents and workers Built environment - existing Built environment - proposed Value/sensitivity and justification High intensive below ground construction Moderate to High residential properties close Low unoccupied foreshore in the most part Low infrastructure
Vol 19 Table 8.5.3 Land quality effects - construction Effect Slight effect on off-site receptors Negligible effect on built environment - existing Negligible effect on built environment - proposed Significance, and justification Not significant Not significant Not significant
Slight effect on construction workers Not significant
8.6
8.6.1
Operational effects are likely to include potential exposure to end users from contaminated soils and for the leakage of sewage from the shaft into the surrounding soils. The following tables provide a summary of the receptor sensitivities and land quality impacts and effects. Impacts and effects on future site users The future site users include maintenance workers who would be working on the site occasionally and members of the public who would be able to access the completed hardstanding above the shaft. These are low and high sensitivity receptors respectively. These are low (eg, maintenance
8.6.2
Page 114
workers visiting the site occasionally and wearing personal protection equipment) to high sensitivity receptors (eg, members of the public). 8.6.3 As the operational site is some distance above the foreshore, there are not considered to be any impacts to the public from pre-existing contamination in the completed development. There is some potential for maintenance personnel to be impacted by elevated ground gases. The completed shaft is designed to have sophisticated gas and odour control measures as part of the design due to gassing source represented by the tunnel contents. Shaft design (including secondary lining) would ensure that any outflow from the shaft is unlikely and that there is a negligible impact to the identified receptors giving a negligible effect (not significant). Impacts and effects upon built environment 8.6.6 The principal impact relates to the potential for the degradation of new structures by attack from deleterious substances which may in turn reduce the integrity of the structure (and could promote leakage of sewage through the walls of the shaft). The built environment is a low sensitivity receptor and with the inclusion of the proposed design measures and soil remediation (as necessary), the impact is low giving a negligible effect overall (not significant). In addition it is possible that elevated gases may be able to impact proposed above ground structures. These are limited and design measures, such as site investigation, gas risk assessment and the incorporation of measures into building design (such as gas resistant membranes if necessary), mean the magnitude of impact is negligible. This gives a negligible effect (not significant). Vol 19 Table 8.6.1 Land quality impacts - operation Impact Health impacts on site end users Magnitude, and justification Negligible design measures such as remediation of heavily contaminated soils and provision of capping layers as appropriate Negligible - design measures such as remediation of heavily contaminated soils reduce risks substantially. Negligible - design measures such as incorporation of gas membranes in buildings and suitable concrete mix design reduce impacts
8.6.4
8.6.5
8.6.7
8.6.8
Damage to built environment existing structures
Damage to built environment proposed structures
Vol 19 Table 8.6.2 Land quality receptors - operation Receptor Site end users Value/sensitivity and justification Low to High primarily
Page 115
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Receptor
Section 8: Land quality Value/sensitivity and justification industrial/infrastructure end use, however, members of the public would be able to access the above ground element of the completed works. Low industrial/infrastructure Low industrial/infrastructure
Built environment existing Built environment - proposed
Vol 19 Table 8.6.3 Land quality significance of effects - operation Effect Negligible effect on site end users Negligible effect on built environment - Existing Negligible effect on built environment - proposed Significance, and justification Not significant Not significant Not significant
8.7
8.7.1
Construction The assessment has not identified the need for further site specific mitigation measures during the construction phase. Operation The assessment has not identified the need for further site specific mitigation measures during the operational phase.
8.7.2
Page 116
8.8
Vol 19 Table 8.8.1 Land quality summary of construction assessment Effect Slight Slight Negligible Negligible Not significant Not required Not significant Not required Not significant Not significant Not significant Not required Not required Not significant Significance Not significant Mitigation Residual significance Not significant
Assessment summary
Receptor Construction workers
Off-site receptors residents and workers
Built environment existing structures
Built environment proposed structures
Vol 19 Table 8.8.2 Land quality summary of operational assessment Effect Negligible effect on end users Negligible effect on existing built structures Negligible effect on proposed built structures Not significant Not significant Not required Significance Not significant Mitigation Not required Residual significance Not significant
Receptor Site end users
Built Environment existing structures
Not significant
Built Environment proposed structures
Not required
Not significant
Page 117
8.9
8.9.1 8.9.2 8.9.3 8.9.4
New data from site investigations (including new boreholes and foreshore samplings) would be reviewed and the baseline updated as required. Assessment of cumulative and in combination effects will be undertaken and reported in the ES. Following completion of the assessment the mitigation approaches for land quality within the project will be finalised and reported in the ES. Impacts on groundwater, surface water and aquatic ecology will be assessed and reported in the ES.
Page 118
Section 9: Noise and vibration
9 9.1
9.1.1
Noise and vibration Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant noise and vibration effects at the Albert Embankment Foreshore site. This section includes an assessment of the following: a. Noise and vibration from the construction site activities. b. Noise from construction traffic on roads outside the site. c. Noise and vibration from the operation of the site.
9.1.2
9.1.3
The tunnel drive for the main tunnel does not run directly beneath this location. Noise and vibration from the tunnelling activities associated with the main tunnel are considered in Volume 6.
9.2
9.2.1
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to noise and vibration are as follows. Construction Measures incorporated into the draft CoCP to reduce noise and vibration impacts include: a. careful selection of construction plant (conforming to the relevant SI), construction methods and programming b. equipment to be suitably sited so as to minimise noise impact on sensitive receptors c. use of site enclosures, and temporary stockpiles, where practicable and necessary, to provide acoustic screening
9.2.2
d. choice of routes and programming for the transportation of construction materials, excavated material and personnel to and from the site e. careful programming so that activities which may generate significant noise are planned with regard to local occupants and sensitive receptors. 9.2.3 9.2.4 It has been assumed for the purpose of this assessment that the hoarding height would be 2.4m at this location. Where the need for additional noise control measures (beyond standard best practicable means measures described in the CoCP) has been identified, these have not been assumed for the purposes of the assessment. Where that the assessment indicates that these are likely to be required, this information has been added to the section on mitigation. For the purposes of the noise and vibration assessment the construction activities have been grouped into the following stages of work: a. Enabling works
9.2.5
Page 119
b. Foreshore works (construction of temporary cofferdam and campsheds) c. Shaft sinking d. Construction of connection tunnels e. Interception and CSO works f. 9.2.6 9.2.7 Completion work (including landscaping, and construction and fit-out of permanent facility).
The above-ground works (stages a-c) have the potential to create airborne noise and vibration impacts. Stages a, b, c, d and f have the potential to generate groundborne noise and vibration impacts, namely from vibratory compaction, breaking out and dynamic compaction. Silent piling methods are assumed at this location for stage b. This is considered a low noise and low vibration method, and has not been quantitatively assessed as it is considered no significant effects would arise from this stage. The connection tunnel would be constructed by tunnel excavator and not tunnel boring machine (TBM) in this location. Of the two methods the tunnel excavator would give rise to much lower vibration and noise levels. Information for stages e and f (interception/CSO works and landscaping respectively) are not available at this stage of the design so have not been assessed as part of this report. However, these activities are assumed to be much smaller in scale than the rest of the works, would not involve heavy construction operations and the in the case of the shaft fit out works, would in the main take place underground The phase two consultation logistics strategy considers the delivery and removal of 90% of the cofferdam material by river, with all other materials transported by road. Barges would be moored on the campsheds at the site. Construction traffic would, as far as possible, use site access roads that lead straight onto the TfL road network to transport materials and equipment to and from the site. It is currently proposed that vehicles would access the site from the A3036 Albert Embankment via the slipway to Lacks Dock between the SIS building and Camelford House. Estimated vehicle and barge movement numbers are presented in Section 3. The majority of the stages would be carried out during standard (core) hours as identified in Vol 19 Table 3.3.1. As such, only daytime working is considered at this location. The potential for 24-hour working has been proposed during the construction of the connection tunnel, however this work would be carried out below ground-level and as such it is considered that noise from these activities would not cause any disturbance. However, the potential for any associated activities at surface level would be examined further in the ES when more information is available. There is a requirement for extended hours working which has been proposed for major concrete pours. This has not been quantitatively
9.2.8
9.2.9
9.2.10
9.2.11
9.2.12
9.2.13
Page 120
assessed as it is considered no significant effects would arise from these activities owing to the assumed short durations involved. Operation 9.2.14 The permanent installation would have above ground structures that would house ventilation equipment alongside electrical and control equipment. This plant equipment would be required to operate under various different scenarios dependent on the flows into and along the tunnel, with the potential to operate at any time of the day or night. The plant installed and the cascade events have the potential to create noise and vibration impacts.
9.3
9.3.1
Assessment methodology
Scoping and engagement Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. There were no site specific comments from consultees for this particular site in relation to noise and vibration. . Baseline The baseline assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site. Construction The construction phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. Any site specific variations are described below. At this location, the construction activities have been assessed over a three and a half year construction period. Baseline traffic data are not currently available, and therefore although peak traffic movements are known, it is not possible to calculate the change in noise level that would arise at the identified receptor locations. A qualitative assessment has therefore been undertaken to consider the likelihood of a significant effect given current traffic levels and considering the proposed peak daily lorry movements. Operation The operational phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site. Assumptions and limitations Noise-related environmental design measures have been assumed as defined in the CoCP. Those of relevance to noise and vibration are listed in Section 9.2 above. The assessment has been carried out based on the assumption that the noisiest two activities within any one stage could potentially occur onsite simultaneously for the duration of the stage. This is an extremely conservative approach, as the activities are unlikely to last the duration of any one stage. At the current level of construction planning, this is
9.3.2
9.3.3
9.3.4 9.3.5
9.3.6
9.3.7
9.3.8
Page 121
considered a reasonable assumption for the purposes of the assessment and would be refined as the construction methodology develops. 9.3.9 The assessment of construction traffic effects has been based on predicted numbers of construction traffic movements (presented in Section3), using professional judgement at this stage. This assessment will be revisited and presented in the ES upon receipt of baseline traffic data. While it is considered that there is a possibility for noise and vibration effects arising from water cascading during tunnel filling events at receptors very close to drop shafts, it has not been possible to adequately assess this as part of this report. The likely noise and vibration emissions however be estimated as the cascade design develops and will be reported in the ES.
9.3.10
9.4
9.4.1
Baseline conditions
This section reviews the setting and receptor characteristics of the site for the purposes of this assessment. The site is located on the embankment and foreshore of the River Thames, within the LB of Lambeth. The site is bounded by the River Thames to the north and west. The nearest residences to the main works are residential flats to the northeast at Peninsula Heights and Bridge House to the southeast which lie within the LB of Lambeth. The residential properties selected for the noise and vibration assessment are identified in Vol 19 Table 9.4.1 below (and shown in plan view in Vol 19 Figure 9.4.1). These were selected as they are representative of the range of noise climates where sensitive receptors are situated around the site. The approximate numbers of properties affected at each location is indicated in Vol 19 Table 9.4.2. Beyond these receptors there are other residential locations which are screened from the site by intervening buildings. Vol 19 Figure 9.4.1 Noise and vibration receptors (see Volume 19 Figures document)
9.4.2
9.4.3
9.4.4
Vol 19 Table 9.4.1 also includes the other assessed non-residential noise sensitive receptors the vicinity of the development. These are Camelford House, Tintagel House and the SIS building, all office buildings. As both Camelford House and Tintagel House are approximately the same distance from the site, the assessment has included Camelford House only. Any impacts or significant effects predicted for Camelford House would be representative of those experienced at Tintagel House. The site is dominated by road traffic noise from Albert Embankment, and rail traffic noise from the rail line to the east of the site. A baseline noise survey has been carried out around the site at the locations shown in Vol 19 Figure 9.4.2 according to the baseline measurement method set out in Volume 5. The specific details of this survey, such as the measurement times, locations measured results and
9.4.5 9.4.6
Page 122
local conditions, are described in Appendix C. The summarised noise level results are shown below in the table below. Vol 19 Table 9.4.1 Noise and vibration receptor locations and noise levels Ref Receptor addresses Local authority Measured average daytime ambient noise level, dBLAeq, 611 661 661 671 611 671 Noise survey location
AE1 AE2 AE3 AE4 AE5 AE6

1
Peninsula Heights 151 Rivermill 48-57 Millbank 1-146 Bridge House Camelford House SIS building
LB of Lambeth Westminster City Council Westminster City Council LB of Lambeth LB of Lambeth LB of Lambeth
Noise 3 Noise 4 Noise 4 Noise 2 Noise 1 Noise 2
Facade corrected level
9.4.7
Baseline traffic data collection is ongoing and is thus not reported, and therefore although peak traffic movements are known it is not possible to calculate the quantitative change in noise level that would arise at the identified receptor locations. Manual traffic counts could not be taken during the noise survey at because of the high volumes of traffic. For vibration, significance is not based on existing vibration levels but an absolute level, considered in combination with other value judgements. The site at present does not have appreciable levels of vibration.
9.4.8 9.4.9
Receptor sensitivity
9.4.10 The noise sensitive receptors have been assessed according to their sensitivity, according to the methodology outlined in Volume 5 Section 2. The sensitivities of all assessed receptors are presented in the table below. All residential properties have been regarded as having high sensitivity. The remaining assessed buildings are offices, which are considered to be of medium sensitivity.
9.4.11
Page 123
Vol 19 Table 9.4.2 Noise and vibration receptor sensitivity Ref Receptor addresses Building Use Sensitivity No. of noise sensitive properties/ areas Residential Residential Residential Residential Offices Offices High High High High Medium Medium 40 40 9 146 1 1
AE1 AE2 AE3 AE4 AE5 AE6 9.4.12
Peninsula Heights 151 Rivermill 48-57 Millbank 1-146 Bridge House Camelford House SIS HQ Building
The criteria at residences for determining the significance of noise effects from construction sources are dependent upon the existing ambient noise levels. From the ambient noise levels measured during the baseline survey, the assessment category and assessment noise threshold levels for the receptors near the Albert Embankment worksite are as shown in the table below. As described in the assessment methodology, this follows the ABC method for determining construction noise significance defined in BS 5228:2009 36. Vol 19 Table 9.4.3 Noise and vibration sensitive receptors / categories Ref Noise sensitive receptor Ambient noise level, rounded to nearest 5dBLAeq1 60 65 65 65 60 65 Assessment category1 Significance criterion threshold level1, dBLAeq, 10hour 65 70 70 70 n/a2 n/a2
AE1 AE2 AE3 AE4 AE5 AE6

1 2
Peninsula Heights 151 Rivermill 48-57 Millbank Road 1-146 Bridge House Camelford House SIS HQ
A B B B n/a2 n/a2
From ABC method BS5228:200936 ABC method BS5228:2009 does not apply directly to non-residential receptors
Page 124
9.5
9.5.1

The noise level for the base case for the assessment is expected to be as measured during the baseline noise surveys conducted in 2011. Where there is a variation in the conditions during the first year of construction, it is likely that the noise levels would increase very slightly compared to the measured data from 2011 (due to natural traffic growth), and as such, an assessment based on data from 2011 would be worst case. It is not considered that there are any other circumstances at this location that would cause the baseline noise levels at the receptor locations to change significantly between 2011 and the first year of construction. For vibration, it is considered that the levels of vibration around the site are low at present, and they are unlikely to change between the present time and the future base case. The development case is assumed to be the base case plus any additional noise and vibration sources associated with the construction phase.
9.5.2
9.5.3
9.5.4 Predictions of construction noise have been carried out based on information available to date and presented in Section 3. Noise measures incorporated in the CoCP have been assumed for the purposes of the assessment. Construction noise 9.5.5 The results of the assessment of construction noise are presented in Vol 19 Table 9.5.1 to Vol 19 Table 9.5.6.
Page 125
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Peninsula Heights 9.5.6
At these residences, the impact criterion threshold is exceeded at the top floors for the duration of the works. This is due to the absence of attenuation from screening on upper floors of the building and the proximity of the building to the works. Based on the BS5228 criterion this would be rated as a significant impact for the higher floors for most stages of the work. Vol 19 Table 9.5.1 Noise impacts at AE1, Peninsula Heights construction Receptor No. of noise Value/sensitivity sensitive properties 40 High Significance criterion threshold level, dBLAeq Magnitude/ justification Excess above criterion, dBLAeq -7 -16 -8 -7 Approx. activity duration, months 7 9 8 5
Peninsula Heights Activity Impact ( noise level1, dBLAeq)
Ground floor Enabling works Foreshore works Shaft sinking Connection tunnels 13th floor2 Enabling Works Foreshore Works Shaft sinking Connection tunnels
1 2
58 49 57 58
65 65 65 65
68 59 67 68
65 65 65 65
+3 -6 +2 +3
7 9 8 5
Construction noise only
Assessment floor level is for a worst case scenario, which is not necessarily the highest floor level.
Page 126
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore 151 Rivermill 9.5.7
At these residential receptors, the impact criterion is not exceeded at any floor for the duration of the works. Therefore no significant impacts are predicted at these properties according to the BS5228 criterion. Vol 19 Table 9.5.2 Noise impacts at AE2, 151 Rivermill construction Receptor No. of noise sensitive properties 40 Impact (noise level1, dBLAeq) Significance criterion threshold level, dBLAeq Value/sensitivity
151 Rivermill Activity
High Magnitude/ justification Excess above criterion, dBLAeq -21 -30 -22 -21 Approx. activity duration, months 7 9 8 5
Ground floor Enabling works Foreshore works Shaft sinking Connection Tunnels Fourth floor2 Enabling works Foreshore works Shaft sinking Connection tunnels
1 2
49 40 48 49
70 70 70 70
59 50 58 59
70 70 70 70
-11 -20 -12 -11
7 9 8 5
Page 127
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore 48-57 Millbank 9.5.8
At these residential receptors, the impact criterion is not exceeded at any floor for the duration of the works. Based on the BS5228 criterion this would not be considered a significant impact. Vol 19 Table 9.5.3 Noise impacts at AE3, 48-57 Millbank Road construction Receptor No. of noise sensitive properties 9 Impact (noise level1, dBLAeq) Significance criterion threshold level, dBLAeq Value/sensitivity
48-57 Millbank Road Activity
Ground floor Enabling works Foreshore works Shaft sinking Connection tunnels First floor2 Enabling works Foreshore works Shaft sinking Connection tunnels
1 2
50 41 49 50
70 70 70 70
60 51 59 60
70 70 70 70
-10 -19 -11 -10
7 9 8 5
1-146 Bridge House 9.5.9 At this receptor, the BS5228 impact criterion is exceeded at the top floors for the duration of the works. This is due to the absence of attenuation from screening at the upper floors of the building and the proximity of the building to the works. Based on the BS5228 criterion this would be rated as a significant impact. The impact criterion is exceeded at fourth floor level and above for 36 months in total for activities which include the enabling works and the connection tunnel works.
9.5.10
Page 128
Vol 19 Table 9.5.4 Noise impacts at AE4, 1-146 Bridge House construction Receptor No. of noise sensitive properties 146 Impact (noise level1, dBLAeq) Significance criterion threshold level, dBLAeq Value/sensitivity
1-146 Bridge House Activity
Ground floor Enabling works Foreshore works Shaft sinking Connection tunnels Fourth floor2 Enabling works Foreshore works Shaft sinking Connection tunnels
1 2
67 58 66 67
70 70 70 70
77 68 76 77
70 70 70 70
+7 -2 +6 +7
7 9 8 5
Camelford House 9.5.11 It should be noted that the BS5228 ABC method does not apply directly to non-residential receptors; hence impact has been evaluated based on the absolute noise level and the predicted noise level relative to the ambient noise. At this receptor, there is an increase relative to ambient noise levels for all assessed activities. This is due to the close proximity of the building to the worksite. Although this is a large rise in noise level, the receptor (offices) is not considered to be as sensitive as a residential location. At the fourth floor and above, an increase of 20dB or more relative to the ambient noise levels is predicted for 36 months during the enabling works, shaft sinking and connection tunnel construction. It is considered that the increase in noise levels for the enabling works, shaft sinking and the
9.5.12
9.5.13
Page 129
connection tunnels has the potential to cause adverse impacts on upper floors given the predicted noise level. Vol 19 Table 9.5.5 Noise impacts at AE5, Camelford House construction Receptor No. of noise Value/ sensitive sensitivity properties 1 Medium Magnitude/ justification
Camelford House Activity
Impact (noise level1, dBLAeq)
Ambient baseline dBLAeq
Ground level Enabling works Foreshore works Shaft sinking
74
61
13 dB increase relative to ambient baseline noise level over seven months 5dB increase relative to ambient baseline noise level over nine months 13 dB increase relative to ambient baseline noise level over eight months 14 dB increase relative to ambient baseline noise level over five months 21 dB increase relative to ambient baseline noise level over 7 months 12 dB increase relative to ambient baseline noise level over 9 months 20 dB increase relative to ambient baseline noise level over 8 months 21 dB increase relative to ambient baseline noise level over 5 months
66
61
74
61
Connection tunnels Fourth floor2 Enabling works Foreshore works Shaft sinking
75
61
82
61
73
61
81
61
Connection tunnels
1 2
82
61
Page 130
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore SIS building 9.5.14
At this building there is a considerable increase in the noise levels. This is due to the close proximity of the building to the worksite. Although the magnitude of this impact is high, it is considered that the receptor is of medium sensitivity. Although this receptor would not be rated as being as noise sensitive as a residential location the high number of offices affected and the level of noise increase is such that this has the potential to cause adverse impacts on upper floors given the predicted noise level. Vol 19 Table 9.5.6 Noise impacts at AE6, SIS building - construction Receptor No. of noise Value/ sensitive sensitivity properties 1 Medium Magnitude/ justification
SIS building Activity
Impact (noise level1, dBLAeq) 68
Ambient baseline dBLAeq
Ground level Enabling works Foreshore works Shaft sinking 67 1 dB increase relative to ambient baseline noise level over seven months Construction noise does not exceed baseline ambient noise level over nine months 1 dB increase relative to ambient baseline noise level over eight months 2 dB increase relative to ambient baseline noise level over five months 11 dB increase relative to ambient baseline noise level over seven months 3 dB increase relative to ambient baseline noise level over nine months 11 dB increase relative to ambient baseline noise level over eight months 12 dB increase relative to ambient baseline noise level over five months
60
67
68
67
Connection tunnels Fourth floor2 Enabling works Foreshore works Shaft sinking
69
67
78
67
70
67
78
67
Connection tunnels
1
79
67
Page 131

2
Construction traffic 9.5.15 For construction traffic, noise from the barges would be of limited duration and would mostly consist of engine noise. Considering the peak number of movements identified in Section 3, it is considered that the increase in noise level would create a low level of impact. For road traffic, the routes around the site all carry heavy traffic flows. The noise impact associated with the small proportionate increase in HGV traffic is therefore likely to be slight in magnitude. As discussed above this is a qualitative assessment made in the absence of traffic data and would be assessed in more detail in the ES. Construction vibration 9.5.17 The assessment of construction vibration considers events which have the potential to result in damage to buildings or structures and human response to vibration separately using different parameters. The assessment of potential construction vibration impacts at adjacent buildings / structures has been assessed using the predicted Peak Particle Velocity (PPV), according to the criteria given in Volume 5. The results of the assessment of construction vibration are presented in the table below. Vol 19 Table 9.5.7 Vibration impacts at buildings/structures construction Ref Receptor Impact (highest predicted PPV across all activities, mm/s) 0.5 Value/ sensitivity Magnitude and justification
9.5.16
9.5.18
AE1
Peninsula Heights
High
No impact: Below threshold for potential cosmetic damage No impact: Below threshold for potential cosmetic damage No impact: Below threshold for potential cosmetic damage No impact:
AE2
151 Rivermill
0.4
High
AE3
48-57 Millbank Road
0.4
High
AE4
1-146 Bridge
1.7
High
Page 132
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Ref Receptor Impact (highest predicted PPV across all activities, mm/s)
Section 9: Noise and vibration Value/ sensitivity Magnitude and justification
House
Below threshold for potential cosmetic damage 5.0 Medium No impact: Below threshold for potential cosmetic damage No impact: Below threshold for potential cosmetic damage
AE5
Camelford House
AE6
SIS building
2.1
Medium
9.5.19 9.5.20
The vibration levels reported here are well below the levels likely to cause building damage according to the criteria described in Volume 5. The assessment of potential construction vibration impacts due to human response at neighbouring receptors has been assessed using the predicted estimated Vibration Dose Value (eVDV). The results from the assessment are presented in the table below. Vol 19 Table 9.5.8 Vibration impacts / human response - construction Ref Receptor Impact (highest predicted VDV across all activities, m/s1.75) 1 0.08 Value/ sensitivity Magnitude and justification2
AE1
Peninsula Heights
High
No impact: Below Low Probability of Adverse Comment No impact: Below Low Probability of Adverse Comment No impact:
AE2
151 Rivermill
0.07
High
AE3
48-57 Millbank
0.07
High
Page 133
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Ref Receptor Impact (highest predicted VDV across all activities, m/s1.75) 1
Section 9: Noise and vibration Value/ sensitivity Magnitude and justification2
Road
Below Low Probability of Adverse Comment 0.45 High Impact: Adverse Comment Possible Impact: Adverse Comment Probable Impact: Low Probability of Adverse Comment
AE4
1-146 Bridge House
AE5
Camelford House
1.78
Medium
AE6
SIS building
0.58
Medium
Worst affected floor Categorisation of magnitude as defined in Volume 5 Section 2
9.5.21
Potentially high vibration levels are predicted at Camelford House, SIS building and 1-146 Bridge House due to compaction activities taking place very close to these buildings. The precise methods used for this procedure would be considered in more detail to verify the predictions. However, this assessment indicates that there is a risk of relatively high exposure levels and in order to reduce the levels as far as possible, the methodology for providing compaction near these buildings may need to be reviewed. Summary of construction effects Vol 19 Table 9.5.9 outlines the significance of effects from all sources of noise and vibration based on the extent of impacts identified above. As described in the general methodology Volume 5, the significance of noise effects is based on the predicted impact and other factors, ie, the construction noise level relative to the significance threshold, the numbers and types of receptors affected and the duration of impact. The significance of vibration effects is assessed on the magnitude of exposure relative to guidance thresholds for disturbance as well as other factors including the number of affected receptors and their uses.
9.5.22 9.5.23
Page 134
Vol 19 Table 9.5.9 Noise and vibration construction effects Receptor Peninsula Heights 151 Rivermill 48-57 Millbank Road 1-146 Bridge House Camelford House SIS building 9.5.24 9.5.25 Noise Significant Not significant Not significant Significant Significant Significant Significance Vibration Not significant Not significant Not significant Significant Significant Significant
The assessment identifies significant noise or vibration effects at all assessed receptor areas except 151 Rivermill and 48-57 Millbank Road. There are no significant effects predicted for construction traffic.
9.6
9.6.1

As discussed in para. 9.5.1, there is likely to be only a small variation in baseline noise levels between the baseline survey and the future base case year. The noise levels measured in 2011 are likely to form the basis of a conservative assessment as road traffic noise levels would increase along with traffic increases. For vibration, no change is assumed between the present time and future base case. The development case is assumed to be the base case plus any additional noise and vibration sources associated with the operational phase.
9.6.2 9.6.3
Operational effects
9.6.4 Noise control measures would be included on all plant items as part of the design process to limit noise increases to within appropriate noise limits to avoid disturbance. These limits will help inform the ongoing design of the project, will be relative to the existing background noise levels at each receptor using the methodology in BS4142 (1997) 37 and will be established in negotiation with the local authority to ensure the limits proposed are acceptable and achievable. Discussions with the local authority are ongoing and will be presented in the ES. It is not possible to quantify the overall change in noise level until this process is complete. However, it is considered that it will be possible to control noise emissions to within appropriate noise limits defined by the local authority to prevent significant effects. The table below contains a summary of the assessment results for operational noise (for noise from plant).
9.6.5
Page 135
Vol 19 Table 9.6.1 Airborne noise impacts -operation Ref Receptor Impact Value/ sensitivity High Magnitude and justification Change in ambient subject to local authority limits no adverse impact Change in ambient subject to local authority limits no adverse impact Change in ambient subject to local authority limits no adverse impact Change in ambient subject to local authority limits no adverse impact Change in ambient subject to local authority limits no adverse impact Change in ambient subject to local authority limits no adverse impact
AE1
Peninsula Heights
Noise level controlled to prevent adverse impact as per BS41421 Noise level controlled to prevent adverse impact as per BS41421 Noise level controlled to prevent adverse impact as per BS41421 Noise level controlled to prevent adverse impact as per BS41421 Noise level controlled to prevent adverse impact as per BS41421 Noise level controlled to prevent adverse impact as per BS41421
AE2
151 Rivermill
High
AE3
48-57 Millbank Road
High
AE4
1-146 Bridge House
High
AE5
Camelford House
Medium
AE6
SIS building
Medium
BS 4142 (1997)
38
9.6.6
Through the design process, noise levels would be controlled to meet the limits currently being negotiated with the local authority to prevent adverse impact at sensitive receptors. Therefore, no impacts are identified at the receptor locations.
Page 136
As part of the operation of the tunnel, there would need to be routine but infrequent maintenance carried out at the site. This is described further in Section 3. Two cranes would be required for ten yearly shaft inspections. This would be carried out during normal working hours, using equipment which is likely to increase ambient noise levels. Given the infrequency of this operation, it is considered that a significant noise impact would not occur. Routine inspections, lasting approximately half a day, would occur every three to six months and would not require heavy plant. As this would be carried out during the daytime with minimal noisy equipment operating over short periods of time, it is considered that further assessment of noise generated by this activity is not required. The table below summarises the significance of operational effects based on the above assessment. Vol 19 Table 9.6.2 Noise and vibration operational effects Ref Receptor Significance Noise from surface site ventilation plant AE1 Peninsula Heights AE2 151 Rivermill AE3 48-57 Millbank Road AE4 1-146 Bridge House AE5 Camelford House AE6 SIS HQ Offices Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Noise from maintenance operations Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant
9.6.8
9.6.9
9.6.10
9.6.11
No significant effects are predicted at any of the receptors. This is subject to the equipment being specified with appropriate noise control measures to ensure that the targets in BS4142 are met as outlined in Volume 5.
9.7
9.7.1 9.7.2

The measures embedded in the draft CoCP of relevance to noise and vibration are summarised in Section 9.2. Significant effects as a result of construction noise have been identified at four receptors. This is based on a worst case assessment where the two noisiest activities in any stage happen concurrently and over the entire duration of the stage. This is a conservative approach considered appropriate for the level of information provided in this assessment and will be refined once further information is available for the ES.
Page 137
The buildings affected are all more than two storeys high, and close to the site, and as such the standard site hoarding only provides screening to the ground floor of the properties. For all properties with significant noise effects, the hoarding height would need to be extremely high to reduce the noise levels at these properties. It is likely that hoarding at a height to provide effective screening would not be practicable. As alteration of the hoarding height is unlikely to be practicable, the programming and construction methods would need to be reviewed to establish if there are methods of working which would reduce the noise levels such that the maximum noise levels are reduced or that processes which create high noise levels are planned to only occur over short periods. Significant vibration effects have been identified at three receptors and additional mitigation would also be applied where practicable and effective at these locations. All stages of works assessed as having the potential to give rise to likely significant effects (enabling works, shaft sinking and connection tunnels) would require additional mitigation, if practicable, to supplement the best practicable means (BPM) environmental design measures assumed for all sites. The quantitative assessment has assumed only general BPM measures, as far as it is possible to incorporate these in the noise and vibration prediction exercises. These include site boundary screening, careful selection of modern construction plant, and positioning of equipment. To address significant effects, specific solutions will be developed as appropriate to provide additional mitigation targeted on those noise and vibration sources generating the highest noise/vibration levels at the relevant receptor. For example, within this more detailed mitigation design, the use of localised screens and customised enclosures around the item of plant or the process would be considered. For the purposes of this assessment and at this stage of the design, site specific additional mitigation beyond BPM measures has not been identified in the assessment. However, when the potential mitigation options for the illustrative scheme can be confirmed, this will be presented in the ES
9.7.4
9.7.5
9.7.6
9.7.7
9.7.8
Operation
9.7.9 9.7.10 No significant effects as a result of the operation of the site have been identified, hence no additional mitigation is required at this location. It should be noted that operational plant for the ventilation of the tunnel will be designed to meet noise limits agreed with the LB of Lambeth to avoid significant effects.
Page 138
9.8
Significance Significant Not Significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant None required Mitigation to be reported in the ES Mitigation to be reported in the ES Mitigation to be reported in the ES Mitigation to be reported in the ES Mitigation to be reported in the ES Mitigation to be reported in the ES None required None required None required None required Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Mitigation to be reported in the ES Mitigation Residual significance
Assessment summary
Vol 19 Table 9.8.1 Noise and vibration assessment summary - construction
Receptor
Effect
Peninsula Heights
Noise
Potentially significant (subject to mitigation options)
Vibration
151 Rivermill
Noise
Vibration
48-57 Millbank Road
Noise
Vibration
1-146 Bridge House
Noise
Potentially significant (subject to mitigation options) Potentially significant (subject to mitigation options) Potentially significant (subject to mitigation options) Potentially significant (subject to mitigation options) Potentially significant (subject to mitigation options) Potentially significant (subject to mitigation options)
Vibration
Camelford House
Noise
Vibration
SIS building
Noise
Vibration
Page 139
Vol 19 Table 9.8.2 Noise and vibration assessment summary - operation Significance Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant None required None required None required None required None required None required None required None required None required None required Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant None required Not significant None required Not significant Mitigation Residual significance
Receptor
Effect
Peninsula Heights
Noise
Vibration
151 Rivermill
Noise
Vibration
48-57 Millbank Road
Noise
Vibration
1-146 Bridge House
Noise
Vibration
Camelford House
Noise
Vibration
SIS HQ
Noise
Vibration
Page 140
9.9
9.9.1
The completion of the assessment to an appropriate level of detail is subject to further information on baseline and construction road traffic. When the transport analysis is complete this will be assessed and any effects identified in the ES. The level of detail of this site assessment reflects the available information on methods and programme. The next stage of the assessment work will be more detailed in profiling the variation in construction noise levels across the programmes of work and the range of receptors at each surface site. It has not been possible to adequately assess the potential for noise and vibration from water cascading down drop shafts during tunnel filling events. The likely noise and vibration emission will be estimated as the cascade design develops and would be included in the ES. As the illustrative construction methodology develops more indepth assessment work for the EIA will allow more detailed mitigation design. Following the development of more refined mitigation design as described above, it will be possible to carry out a more detailed assessment of residual effects. The effectiveness of more specific mitigation measures will be fully assessed and reported in the ES. Assessment of cumulative and in combination effects will be undertaken and reported in the ES. Following completion of the assessment the mitigation approaches for noise and vibration within the project will be finalised and reported in the ES.
9.9.2
9.9.3
9.9.4 9.9.5
9.9.6 9.9.7
Page 141
Section 10: Socio-economics
10 10.1
10.1.1
Socio-economics Introduction
This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant socio-economic effects at the Albert Embankment Foreshore site.
10.2
10.2.1
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to socio-economics are as follows. Construction Measures incorporated into the draft CoCP to limit, and in some cases eliminate, significant adverse air quality, noise, vibration, and visual impacts could reduce socio-economic impacts, particularly amenity impacts. See Section 4 Air quality and Odour, Section 9 Noise and vibration, and Section 11 Townscape and visual assessments for detail on the type of measures that may be employed. The construction site working area would extend from the south side of Vauxhall Bridge in front of Bridge House (a residential block within the St George Wharf complex) to the north side of the bridge in front of the 12 storey SIS building and the 11 and 17 storey commercial office building, Camelford House. Temporary closure of the part of the Thames Path taken over by the construction site would be required and a temporary diversion would be put in place. An access/haul route would be created along the entrance way to Lacks Dock, a slipway that is currently used exclusively by Duck Tours. Both the construction related activities and traffic (including lorry movements) could result in amenity or in combination effects being experienced by sensitive receptors in proximity to the proposed activities. Operation Some above-ground structures would be required on the site in the operational phase, necessitating the extension of the existing river wall out into the River Thames and the creation of a new area of public amenity space at the same level as the existing Thames Path.
10.2.2
10.2.3
10.2.4
10.2.5
10.2.6 10.2.7
10.2.8
10.3
10.3.1
Scoping and engagement Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. There are no site specific comments from consultees for this particular site.
Page 142
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Baseline 10.3.2
The baseline methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site. Construction The construction phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. Any site specific variations are described below: a. The assessment years used for socio-economic effects in terms of construction activity are estimated to cover approximately a three and a half year period. Operation
10.3.3
10.3.4
The operational phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.

10.3.5 The following socio-economic assumptions and limitations apply to the above findings: a. Prior to summer survey data becoming available, observations of the Thames Path in this location indicate it to be moderately well used in the existing baseline situation and that usage levels are likely to increase under a construction base case scenario, and go on increasing under the operational base case scenario due to the amount of residential development that is proceeding and proposed in the Vauxhall Nine Elms area. b. A workable and satisfactory management regime would be achievable that allows both for construction access and continued access for Duck Tours along the entranceway to Lacks Dock. 10.3.6 Preliminary assessment findings are available for air quality, noise and vibration, and townscape and visual (see Sections 4, 9 and 11 respectively). The socio-economic assessment has had reference to these preliminary findings to inform its own assessment of potential amenity effects arising during the construction phase. However, as these findings are only preliminary at this stage, the sensitivity of receptors, magnitude of impact and effect significance in relation to amenity resulting from in combination effects can only be assessed in outline based on the available information. For EIA purposes a more detailed assessment will be undertaken once more detailed design information is available.
10.4
10.4.1
Baseline conditions
Thames Path The Thames Path at this location forms part of the Albert Embankment, directly adjacent to the River Thames foreshore in the form of a pedestrian promenade. It connects users with the Nine Elms Battersea development precinct to the south (which at the time of writing is accessed via a diversion to the Thames Path that runs around the back of the One St
Page 143
George Wharf high rise residential tower that is currently underconstruction) and Lambeth Bridge approximately 550m to the north. 10.4.2 The Thames Path runs under Vauxhall Bridge through a pedestrian-only subway and there is also access from the path up to Vauxhall Bridge Road on both sides of the Bridge (via steps on the north side and a ramp on the south side). The character of the Thames Path changes somewhat either side of the Vauxhall Bridge owing to the different types and age of development. To the north of Vauxhall Bridge, the Thames Path is more varied in terms of its width and landscaping. As it extends south from the Albert Embankment Gardens (approximately 100m to the north of the proposed construction site area) to Vauxhall Bridge it varies in width, between approximately four and ten metres wide. Both commercial office and residential buildings lie immediately adjacent to the Thames Path in this section and the landscaping is of varying quality. A short section of the Thames Path detours several metres back from the river front to navigate a route around Lacks Dock slipway which crosses over the path between Camelford House and the SIS building. To the east, behind both the buildings and Albert Embankment Gardens lies Albert Embankment roadway, a busy six lane A-road (including two dedicated bus lanes). The Thames Path provides views across the river, to the north bank of the Thames towards Millbank and the Tate Britain Gallery. The Thames Path has six bench seats at this location, situated in front of the SIS HQ building between mature trees. The benches are regularly spaced, and situated approximately five metres apart. The benches are orientated westward to allow users views across the River Thames. The views to the north and west are mostly unobstructed, while the views to the south are partially obscured by the Vauxhall Bridge. Reconnaissance surveys have been undertaken and further surveys of the Thames Path usage levels may be undertaken during 2011. In the interim and for the purposes of this assessment, it is assumed that this section of the path north of Vauxhall Bridge is moderately well used by local residents and workers, due in part to its proximity to Vauxhall Underground and National Rail stations and proximity to Vauxhall Bridge and residential and commercial office buildings. To the south of Vauxhall Bridge, the character of the Thames Path is appreciably more pleasant than to the north. The path has been recently paved and landscaped as part of the St George Wharf development (approximately during the last six years). There is a seamless transition in terms of landscape styles and materials from the public and semiprivate amenity areas that exist between the developments five stepped towers. Two or three restaurant/caf businesses also have outdoor seating areas overlooking the path. In a similar manner to the section of the path north of Vauxhall Bridge, usage surveys are likely to be undertaken during 2011. In the interim, it is assumed that this section of the Thames Path south of Vauxhall Bridge is
10.4.3
10.4.4 10.4.5
10.4.6
10.4.7
10.4.8
Page 144
used to a similar, or slightly higher, level in comparison to the section north of Vauxhall Bridge. 10.4.9 Observations made during reconnaissance visits to the site indicate that this section of the path is used by local residents and employees. Usage is likely to have increased in recent years with the development of the St. George Wharf complex of flats and office accommodation and ground floor retail and restaurant units. In terms of tourism, observations during reconnaissance visits to the site indicate that the Thames Path experiences little usage by tourists. This is to be expected as the wider area does not have any particular high profile tourism attractions or functions. In terms of the potential sensitivity of users of the Thames Path, it is considered that pedestrians using the path are likely to be vulnerable to impacts which might restrict their usage of the path, such as the temporary closure of a section of the path and/or a reduction in amenity occurring as a result of impacts arising from the construction process. While the pavements on the opposite side of Nine Elms Lane and Albert Embankment provide alternative routes for pedestrians, the use of these would require users to walk away from the riverside and to walk alongside busy roads, including needing to cross a busy signalled traffic junction at the intersection of Wandsworth Road, Vauxhall Bridge Road and Albert Embankment. This would result in a longer and more complicated route for users to navigate. It does however provide an alternative route to allow users to continue their journeys during the temporary closure period. Given that pedestrians using the Thames Path are only likely to be near the project site for the time that it takes them to walk past the area (likely to only be a minute or two for most users), the duration for which users are likely to be vulnerable to any impacts on the amenity experience along the path would be limited. Taking these considerations into account, it is deemed that users of the Thames Path in this location have a medium level of sensitivity to impacts that would cause a loss of access to the path or a loss of amenity. See Vol 19 Figure 10.4.1 for a baseline plan which indicates the features identified above. Vol 19 Figure 10.4.1 Socio-economic context (see Volume 19 Figures document) Public amenity space (future) associated with the Thames Path 10.4.15 10.4.16 As set out in para. 10.6.4, an area of public amenity space would be created in the operational phase of the development. In terms of the value of the new space and the consequent sensitivity of users, the availability (and subsequent adequacy or deficiency) of existing and future base case public amenity space alternatives is a key factor to consider. The river in this location is flanked on both sides by public amenity areas associated with the Thames Path. The Albert Embankment Gardens also exist a very short distance away downstream
10.4.10
10.4.11
10.4.12
10.4.13
10.4.14
Page 145
between the Thames Path and Albert Embankment roadway. In addition, there are a limited number of opportunities in the immediate vicinity of the proposed new amenity space for passive recreation (eg, St George Wharf) and for sitting and taking in views of the River Thames and its environs. LB Lambeths Core Strategy also indicates that the Borough has limited opportunity to create significant area of additional open space 39. 10.4.17 Access to public amenity space in such a busy and central part of London can often be at a premium and the project site falls within an area of local and district open space deficiency40. This means that any increase in the availability of public amenity space is likely to be well used although for a relatively limited range of passive recreational pursuits. Taking these factors and local circumstances into account it is considered that users of any new public amenity space are likely to have a low level of sensitivity to the creation of such space. See Vol 19 Figure 10.4.1 for a baseline plan which indicates the features identified above. Lacks Dock slipway 10.4.20 Lacks Dock, situated between the SIS building and Camelford House has direct access to the River Thames from Albert Embankment Road and forms a slipway between the road and the River Thames. The slipway is constructed from paved slabs, which are built up on top of the shale river foreshore where the slipway extends into the River Thames and foreshore. The slipway is approximately 150m long, approximately 50m of which are submerged beneath the water line at high tide. The slipway is privately operated and used solely by Duck Tours, which operate a river tour service year-round, approximately on the hour, seven days a week during daytime hours41. The slipway is not known to be currently used by any other commercial, community or recreational users. As Duck Tours are the sole users of the Lacks Dock slipway, they are the only user likely to be affected by the works during the proposed construction period. There is no provision of an alternative slipway within the near vicinity of the site. The nearest accessible slipway for boat launching (on the south bank of the River Thames) is approximately four miles away at Putney Bridge foreshore to the west or at Borthwick Wharf to the east. It is possible that other users could emerge under the base case scenario however there are not other established or known potential future users at this point in time. On this basis, and taking account of the temporary nature of the impact, the sensitivity of Duck Tours, the users of the slipway, to its disruption is likely to be high. Government and commercial offices 10.4.25 10.4.26 There are three government/commercial office buildings located near to the proposed construction site on the north side of Vauxhall Bridge Road. This includes the SIS (government secret intelligence service) building, a large footprint terraced building that ranges from one storey on the river
10.4.18
10.4.19
10.4.21
10.4.22
10.4.23
10.4.24
Page 146
front to approximately 12 storeys at the buildings rear. The building has some rooftop terrace spaces facing west over the River Thames. Vauxhall Bridge, a busy road bridge with six traffic lanes (two of which are designated bus lanes), lies to the immediate south of the building, while Albert Embankment roadway joins the Vauxhall Gyratory to the rear of the building to the east. Lacks Dock bounds the building on the northern side. 10.4.27 To the north of the SIS building, on the northern side of Lacks Dock slipway are Camelford House and Tintagel House respectively. The two buildings accommodate commercial offices of the same age (approximately 40 years) and style. The buildings are neighboured on their northern side by the residential building at Peninsula House. The SIS building, Camelford House and Tintagel House are all bounded on their eastern perimeter by Albert Embankment roadway, a heavily trafficked six lane highway (two lanes are designated bus lanes). The office buildings are all situated within approximately 10 to 20m of the roadway, which runs adjacent to the River Thames connecting Lambeth Bridge (to the north of the site) and Vauxhall Bridge (to the south). It is assumed that the SIS building is fully occupied as it is owned and operated by HM Government and used solely for SIS purposes42. Camelford House and Tintagel House are both comprised of individual rented office suites and units. The numbers of available units and the levels of occupation in Tintagel House are unknown, however it is assumed that there is a high take up of units within the building, due to the demand for small and medium commercial office premises within LB Lambeth and Vauxhall being one of the preferred locations for commercial office premises within the Borough 43. Camelford House is a multi-tenanted building with approximately 24 different occupiers distributed over the 17 floors within the building. Only two units in the building are known to be currently vacant. It is assumed that the three buildings are subject to some amenity affects due to the existing ambient conditions (eg, the Albert Embankment roadway, which is likely to generate a significant volume of background noise). The buildings offer a reasonable level of protection from ambient noise and exterior conditions and all business activities are conducted inside the premises. It is also noted that offices are likely to be less sensitive to adverse amenity impacts considering the typical characteristics (typical working hours, ambient noise levels, etc) of an office-based workplace. Employees may be more exposed to amenity effects arising as a result of the construction works taking place when using the riverfront external space, Thames Path or roof terraces (in the SIS building). There are no other alternative external spaces within the office premises for employees to use, however there are open amenity spaces and further sections of the Thames Path to the south of the site at St Georges Wharf and to the north at Albert Embankment Garden (approximately 55m and 50m respectively, from the closest office building), which offer a similar level of recreational value.
10.4.28
10.4.29
10.4.30
10.4.31
10.4.32
Page 147
Taking account of the above factors, it is considered that the overall sensitivity of employees within the three office premises to adverse amenity impacts is likely to be low. Residential development The proposed construction site area lies approximately 100m from the residential development at Peninsula Heights (on the north side of Vauxhall Bridge) and approximately 10m from Bridge House, the northernmost stepped tower within the St. George Wharf development (on the south side of Vauxhall Bridge). Peninsula Heights comprises residential apartments over 14 floors. The majority of dwellings have balconies, those situated on the west and south sides of the building are likely to overlook the construction works area. There are also residential balconies and stepped roof terraces at a number of the properties in the terraces and towers at St George Wharf, of which the dwellings facing south and west are likely to overlook the construction area. The closest part of Bridge House to the proposed construction site comprises flats arranged within a terraced section of the building with the lowest terrace being seven storeys and the highest, 17 storeys. The residential units in the buildings on both sides of the bridge, particularly those facing west, benefit from their outlook over the River Thames. They are however also likely to experience reduced air quality and increased noise as a result of the heavily trafficked Vauxhall Bridge and Albert Embankment roadways. As such, the residential units within the St George Wharf and at Peninsula Heights are likely to experience an already compromised level of amenity effects as a result of existing ambient conditions (eg, Vauxhall Bridge, which is likely to generate a significant volume of background noise, and also Albert Embankment). In terms of the potential sensitivity of the occupants of the dwellings in the area, it is considered that overall, residents are likely to be vulnerable to amenity impacts arising from the construction process. This is due to the fact that residents cannot easily take steps to avoid in combination amenity effects that may arise. Residents are likely to be less sensitive to any noise disturbance during the day and more sensitive during the evening and at night-time, particularly during sleeping hours. The sensitivity of residents to amenity impacts may be mediated by character and mix of uses currently existing in the area. Taking these factors into account, and given that the construction processes would mainly be limited to daytime working hours at this site, it is assessed that the residents are likely to have a medium level of sensitivity overall to amenity impacts that may arise as a result of construction activity. The sensitivity of residents to amenity impacts is also likely to be reduced by the character and mix of uses currently existing in the area, including traffic along Albert Embankment. Taking account of these factors, it is considered that the sensitivity of residents within Peninsula Heights and Bridge House to adverse amenity impacts is likely to be medium.
10.4.34
10.4.35
10.4.36
10.4.37
10.4.38
10.4.39
Page 148
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Restaurants/caf development 10.4.40
A small number of restaurant / caf businesses (two or three) occupy commercial premises on the ground floor riverfront facing facades of the St George Wharf complex. Additional retail and commercial development is located further back in the building fronting onto or near to the Vauxhall one way gyratory system. The restaurants and cafes overlooking the River Thames are at the southern end of the St George Wharf development and situated further away from the proposed construction works than the much of the residential units within the development. They are also likely to experience a moderate level of existing amenity effects as a result of existing ambient conditions generated by traffic on Vauxhall Bridge. As such, it is considered that the project would not cause undue disturbance to the businesses and that amenity effects would not be significant. As such, the restaurants and cafes are not considered further within this socio-economic impact assessment. Summary A summary of receptors as described in the baseline conditions and their sensitivity is provided in the table below. Vol 19 Table 10.4.1 Socio-economics receptors Receptor Users of the Thames Path Value/sensitivity and justification Medium an alternative route is available to pedestrians but it would entail loss of the use of the Thames Path itself, and loss of amenity in so far as the alternative route does not afford views of the river or its environs; construction activity could also reduce amenity levels experienced by path users Low there is some availability of amenity space in association with the Thames Path on both sides of the river and more such space provided in future in the wider VNEB area High there is no practical alternative slipway available for use by Duck Tours in central London; and loss of access to the slipway would be likely to significantly disrupt Duck Tours (the current commercial user) business model.
10.4.41
10.4.42
10.4.43
Users of future public amenity space associated with the Thames Path and created as a result of the project
Lacks Dock slipway
Government and commercial offices Low employees may be subject to amenity impacts, however these are
Page 149
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Receptor
Section 10: Socio-economics Value/sensitivity and justification only likely to be significant with regard to outdoor amenity areas at these premises. A number of alternatives are available which offer a similar amenity value to the existing external space used by employees.
Residential development
Medium residents less able to avoid effects but less sensitive during the day when the effects could potentially be experienced.
10.5

Base case
10.5.1
For this site, the base case year is year 1 of the construction works. This is the year when site establishment is proposed to commence and marks the start of the assessment period for socio-economic effects. It is assumed that the base case would remain largely the same as the site baseline conditions, ie. the socio economic conditions at the site would remain the same under the baseline, except for the following conditions: a. Construction is currently underway for the final phase redevelopment of St George Wharf (approximately 500m south of the construction works boundary), comprising 200 apartments within a 50 storey residential tower (The Tower, One St. George Wharf); due for completion by 2020. When completed (estimated to be during winter 2013/14 44), it is assumed that the Thames Path would reopen along the river front meaning that pedestrians would no longer have to divert around the construction site via Wandsworth Road and Nine Elms Lane as they do currently. b. Hampton House, (20 Albert Embankment approximately 500m to the north) is being redeveloped under a 2008 planning permission for 242 apartments and a 167 room hotel. c. A current planning application, yet to be determined, proposes redevelopment of the traffic island site on Wandsworth Road adjacent to the Vauxhall bus station (approximately 300m south of the construction works area boundary). Approximately 291 apartments and 179 hotel rooms are proposed.
10.5.2
10.5.3
It is understood that there are likely to be existing lease and lease conditions that mean it is unlikely that the use of the slipway could change between the current time and the base case year. Therefore it is assumed that under the base case scenario the slipway would continue to be used as it is currently, notwithstanding the possibility of a change in the number and type of users.
Page 150
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Development case 10.5.4
The proposals for the development of apartments and hotel rooms presented in the base case would still be relevant in the development case, as none of the proposals are directly precluded by the proposed development. Under the development case, it is expected that the following changes to the baseline would occur: a. In the development case, access to a section of the Thames Path that falls within the proposed construction works area boundary would be closed for the duration of the works, a period of approximately three and a half years. The proposed diversion route would take pedestrians around the rear of the residential and commercial buildings along Albert Embankment Road, between Vauxhall Bridge Road and Albert Embankment Gardens. Pedestrians would then continue along the pavement on Wandsworth Road (to the south of Vauxhall Bridge Road), rejoining the existing Thames Path route adjacent to the River Thames by passing through the St Georges Wharf development. b. The installation of sheet piling to create a cofferdam in the River Thames foreshore would take place directly adjacent to Lacks Dock, with the slipway situated entirely within the construction works area boundary. Use of the slipway by Duck Tours may be temporarily disrupted during site mobilisation for construction of the cofferdam. The cofferdam would extend out along the slipway and this would mean that vehicles using the slipway would need to keep to a straight trajectory much further out into the river in order to avoid the cofferdam sheet pile walls. Duck Tours amphibious vehicles may find that the approach to the dock from the river is more constrained due to the presence of the temporary cofferdam during construction.
10.5.5
Temporary loss of social infrastructure Thames Path 10.5.6 As set out under the development case, the project would require the temporary closure of the Thames Path and the creation of a diversionary route. When travelling north from in front of St George Wharf, the likely diversion would require users to divert through the development onto Wandsworth Road and cross (via the pedestrian crossing) at the intersection of Wandsworth Road and Vauxhall Bridge Road. At this point, pedestrians would need to continue their journey along the west side of Albert Embankment (along the existing pedestrian pavement), between the roadway and the residential and commercial buildings. Users would then rejoin the Thames Path north of Peninsula Heights by going through the Albert Embankment Gardens. This diversion would divert users away from the river and past a busy road junction. However, the diversion is relatively short and the quality of the paths and surrounding environment along the diversion route is reasonable even though the route does not run along the riverfront.
10.5.7
10.5.8
Page 151
There may be additional time required to comprehend and navigate the diversion route, although this is more likely to be an issue for occasional users such as tourists, rather than regular, local users. 10.5.9 On the assumption that the number of users of the Thames Path in the base case is likely to increase as residential developments in the area proceed and become occupied, the number of Thames Path users impacted by the closure and diversion is likely to be moderate, and potentially high. Overall, on the basis of the above factors, and taking account of the temporary nature of the impact, it is considered that the impact of the diversion of the Thames Path on users is likely to be of low magnitude. Taking account of the low magnitude of impact and the medium sensitivity of users to loss of a section of the Thames Path, it is assessed that there is likely to be a minor adverse medium term effect on users. The effect would be not significant. Amenity effects on Thames Path users 10.5.12 Air quality, noise and vibration, and visual impacts arising as a result of the proposed construction works and construction related traffic may act individually or in combination to reduce the environmental amenity experienced by users of the Thames Path in this location. Preliminary assessments are being undertaken for air quality, noise and vibration, and visual effects arising during the construction phase. With respect to the potential effect of the proposed works on users of the Thames Path, the following points summarise the preliminary findings of likely effect significance: a. No air quality or construction dust receptors were identified as requiring assessment at the project site in relation to users of the Thames Path. It is therefore assumed for the purpose of this assessment that it is not likely that there would be any significant effects from construction air quality and dust impacts. b. No noise and vibration receptors were identified as requiring assessment at the project site in relation to users of the Thames Path. It is therefore assumed for the purpose of this assessment that it is not likely that there would be any significant effects from noise and vibration. c. Visual effects are likely to be major adverse from both of the viewpoints identified (viewpoints 2.4 and 2.5), for the duration of the construction period.
10.5.10
10.5.11
10.5.13
10.5.14 10.5.15
For further information, refer to Section 4 Air quality and odour, Section 9 Noise and vibration and Section 11 Townscape and visual. The above findings regarding air quality, dust, noise and vibration, and visual effects have been taken into consideration in undertaking an assessment of the overall magnitude of impact for amenity impacts on recreational receptors below. This initial assessment balances the above findings considering the contribution that each assessed element (eg, the
Page 152
quality of the air, the quality of a view) makes to a receptors overall experience of amenity. 10.5.16 Given the likely diversion route for the Thames Path during the construction period, the potential for users of the Thames Path to experience such amenity-reducing impacts would be limited as the proposed diversion route would not require users to pass very close by the construction site. An exception to this entails a short stretch of the diverted route where users would pass by the entrance to Lacks Dock slipway from Albert Embankment, which is the access / haul route to the construction site. In terms of duration, the potential for visual impacts which reduce the amenity for users of the Thames Path would only last during the construction period. Given the above factors and taking into account the temporary nature of the impact and the diversion of the Thames Path away from the main construction area, it is considered that the potential impact magnitude could be low. Taking account of the finding that the impacts are likely to be low and the medium sensitivity of Thames Path users to amenity effects, it is assessed that it is likely that the amenity of Thames Path users is likely to be medium term minor adverse and therefore not significant. It is stressed that this is a preliminary and outline finding only at this stage. Potential temporary disruption of a business Duck Tours 10.5.20 In order to provide for vehicle access to the construction site area, a construction access/haul route is proposed along the slipway route from Albert Embankment to Lacks Dock. Closure of the slipway is not likely to be required, however temporary disruption to the regular usage of the slipway by Duck Tours may be experienced for a short period of time during the installation of the cofferdam. For example, the use of the entrance to Lacks Dock could potentially congest the access way and disrupt the usual movements of Duck Tours amphibious vehicles (or any other future users vehicles/boats) in and out of the river at certain times. Construction of a cofferdam would also narrow the approach to the slipway from the river. The magnitude of impact on Duck Tours (who are the sole users of the slipway) would be limited due to the likelihood that construction works can progress without disrupting the daily Duck Tours schedule and launching facilities at Lacks Dock. While use of the slipway may be temporarily constrained during construction of the cofferdam, or at specific points during the construction which may require further access to the site and partially obstruct the slipway, it is anticipated that access to the River Thames by way of Lacks Dock would continue and Duck Tours use of the slipway would not be compromised in any significant manner. On the basis of the above factors and taking into account the temporary nature of the loss of slipway access, it is considered that the magnitude of the impact is likely to be negligible. Assuming that Duck Tours schedule
10.5.17
10.5.18
10.5.19
10.5.21
Page 153
would not be affected, the temporary disruption of the slipway would not impact on tourists who use the service. 10.5.22 Taking into account of the finding that the impacts are likely to be negligible and the high sensitivity of the users of the slipway to disturbance of their access to it, it is considered that the effect on potential future users is likely to be minor adverse and therefore not significant. Amenity effects on government and commercial offices 10.5.23 Air quality, noise and vibration and visual impacts arising as a result of the proposed construction works and related construction traffic may potentially act individually or in combination with one another to reduce the environmental amenity experienced by employees at the three office premises adjacent to the project site. Assessments are being undertaken to examine the potential air quality, noise and vibration, and visual effects arising during the construction phase. With respect to the potential effect of the proposed works on workers in government and commercial offices, the following points summarise the preliminary findings of likely effect significance: a. Air quality effects are likely to be negligible and construction dust effects are likely to be of minor adverse significance on the office premises for the duration of the construction period. b. Noise effects and vibration effects (human response) are likely to result in a significant effect at the two office receptors identified (Camelford House and the SIS building) for the duration of the construction period. c. There were no visual receptors identified as requiring assessment at the project site in relation to employees or visitors to the nearby office premises. It is therefore assumed for the purpose of this assessment that it is not likely that there will be any significant visual effects.
10.5.24
10.5.25 10.5.26
For further information, refer to Section 4 Air quality and odour, Section 9 Noise and vibration and Section 11 Townscape and visual. The above findings regarding air quality, dust, noise and vibration, and visual effects have been taken into consideration in undertaking an assessment of the overall magnitude of impact for amenity impacts on commercial receptors below. This initial assessment balances the above findings considering the contribution that each assessed element (eg, the quality of the air, the quality of a view) makes to a receptors overall experience of amenity. Most of the other factors affecting the magnitude of potential amenity impacts are the same as per those explained above with regard to the Thames Path. In terms of duration, the potential for impacts which reduce the amenity for users of the Thames Path would only last during the construction period. During this time, as well as being restricted mainly to daytime working hours, these impacts are not likely to be continual over the working day, but are likely to rise and fall as different activities of the construction
10.5.27
10.5.28
Page 154
process take place throughout the day. Similarly, the nature of the construction activity/process being undertaken would determine whether the different types of impacts arise simultaneously or whether only one or two impacts arise at any one time. 10.5.29 A factor mitigating the severity and magnitude of impacts on employees at the office premises is the fact that their use of outdoor space (where their exposure to amenity effects is likely to be highest) would generally be restricted to short periods (eg, during lunchtimes and short breaks). As such, the number of employees and extent to which they are exposed to possible sources of amenity would be limited by the frequency of their use of outdoor space. Employees inside the office buildings are unlikely to experience amenity affects to the degree of those employees using outdoor space, as it is assumed that the buildings have a sufficient level of insulation and protection to prevent amenity impacts from affecting employees on a regular basis or to a significant degree. Given the above factors, it is considered that the magnitude of the impacts could be medium. Taking account of the medium magnitude of the potential impact and the low sensitivity of employees to amenity effects when inside and outside the buildings, it is considered that the overall amenity effect on employees could be minor adverse and therefore not significant. It is stressed that this is a preliminary and outline finding only at this stage. Amenity effects on residents 10.5.31 Air quality, noise and vibration and visual impacts arising as a result of the proposed construction works and construction related traffic may potentially act individually or in combination with one another to reduce the environmental amenity experienced by residents living nearby the project site, at Peninsula Heights or in Bridge House at St George Wharf. Assessments are being undertaken to examine the likely significant air quality, noise and vibration, and visual effects arising during the construction phase. With respect to the potential effect of the proposed works on residential receptors, the following points summarise the preliminary findings of likely effect significance: a. Air quality and construction dust effects are likely to be minor adverse. Such effects are therefore likely to result in a significant effect on residents for the duration of the construction period. b. Noise effects on residents have been measured as likely to be significant at two (Peninsula Heights and Bridge House) out of four residential receptors identified. Vibration (human response) effects are likely to be significant at one (Bridge House) of the four receptors. c. Visual effects on residential receptors at Peninsula Heights and Bridge House (in St. Georges Wharf) are not assessed themselves. However, visual effects on recreational receptors (the Thames Path) from viewpoints in front of these two residential buildings are assessed as being likely to be major adverse from both viewpoints (viewpoint 2.4 and 2.5) for the duration of the construction period. It is stressed that these assessments have been referenced in the absence of any
10.5.30
10.5.32
Page 155
actual assessment on the residential receptors that this amenity assessment is examining. Residents of Peninsula Heights mostly have views orientated in the opposite direction to that assessed as viewpoint 2.4, while the views of residents of Bridge House would depend on the particular aspect of individual apartments within the building. 10.5.33 10.5.34 For further information, refer to Section 4 Air quality and odour, Section 9 Noise and vibration and Section 11 Townscape and visual. The above findings regarding air quality, dust, noise and vibration, and visual effects have been taken into consideration in undertaking an assessment of the overall magnitude of impact for amenity impacts on residential receptors below. This initial assessment balances the above findings considering the contribution that each assessed element (eg, the quality of the air, the quality of a view) makes to a receptors overall experience of amenity. Most of the other factors affecting the magnitude of the potential amenity impacts are the same as those explained above with regard to impacts on Thames Path users. The exceptions generally apply to the relationship of the residential buildings in relation to the proposed construction site area. The area of the construction site designated for shaft construction is situated a considerable distance from residential properties at Peninsula Heights. The flats within Peninsula Heights are also generally orientated to the north and the building only has a direct line of sight to the construction site on its western side. Residents within Bridge House at St Georges Wharf are closer to the construction boundary, however the proposed works which would take place in the foreshore adjacent to these properties are not directly associated with the shaft construction. These activities are likely to be of lower intensity and would occur less frequently than activities taking place to the north of Vauxhall Bridge. Given the above factors, it is considered that the magnitude of impacts on residential receptors near to the site could be medium. Taking account of the likelihood for a medium magnitude of impact and the medium sensitivity of residents to amenity effects, it is considered that the overall effect on residential amenity could be medium term moderate adverse and therefore significant. It is stressed that this is a preliminary and outline finding only at this stage. Summary 10.5.38 The findings of the above preliminary assessments on potential construction phase socio-economic impacts and effects are summarised in the tables below.
10.5.35
10.5.36
10.5.37
Page 156
Vol 19 Table 10.5.1 Socio-economics construction effects Impact Temporary loss of social infrastructure Thames Path Sensitivity Medium an alternative route is available to pedestrians but it would entail loss of the use of the Thames Path and loss of amenity in so far as the alternative route does not afford views of the river or its environs Medium an alternative route is available to pedestrians but it would entail loss of the use of the Thames Path and loss of amenity in so far as the alternative route does not afford views of the river or its environs, construction activity could also reduce amenity levels experienced by path users High there is no practical alternative slipway available for use by Duck Tours in central London; and loss of access to the slipway would be likely to significantly Magnitude Significance Low the Minor adverse increase in not significant journey length for pedestrians is relatively low and the diversion takes users away from the riverside. Thames Path is likely to have moderate to high usage levels in the base case. Low amenity effects are unlikely to impact on Thames Path users due to the proposed diversion route and very limited time that users would be in proximity of the proposed construction area. Impacts would be limited to working hours and are likely to occur sporadically and infrequently. Negligible likely to be low level or no disruption to Duck Tours operations at Lacks Dock, assuming operating constraints can be adequately Minor adverse not significant
Amenity impacts on Thames Path users
Temporary disturbance of business Duck Tours
Minor adverse not significant
Page 157
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Impact Sensitivity disrupt Duck Tours (the current commercial user) business model. Amenity impacts on employees at commercial premises Low employees may be subject to amenity impacts, however these are only likely to be significant with regard to outdoor amenity areas at these premises. A number of alternatives are available which offer a similar amenity value to the existing external space used by employees. Medium residents less able to avoid effects but less sensitive during the day when the effects could potentially be experienced.
Section 10: Socio-economics Magnitude managed. Significance
Medium a Minor adverse limited duration not significant of exposure for those employees using outdoor space. Lower exposure to amenity impacts for employees internally within the building. Exposure would be limited to the length of time employees spend outside, impacts are likely to occur sporadically and infrequently. Medium Moderate nearby receptors adverse (particularly significant Peninsula Heights and Bridge House) are likely to experience significant adverse air quality, dust, noise and vibration effects). Overall amenity impact would be somewhat mediated by the position of the main residential receptors relative to the
Amenity impacts on residents
Page 158
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Impact Sensitivity
Section 10: Socio-economics Magnitude site and by the working hours and are likely to occur only sporadically and infrequently. Significance
10.6

Base case
10.6.1
It is assumed that the base case would remain largely the same as the site baseline conditions, ie, the socio economic conditions at the site would remain the same under a no development scenario: a. It is assumed that the consented planning applications and application under consideration would be completed, resulting in new residential and hotel development in the local area as is set out for the construction phase base case (see para. 10.5.2). b. While the specific business activity taking place at Lacks Dock (Duck Tours) could potentially change, it is assumed for the purposes of the assessment that the type of business would remain the same. Development case
10.6.2
Under the development case, it is expected that the following changes to the baseline would occur: a. The proposals for development of residential and hotel space presented in the base case would still be relevant. b. After the construction works, the Thames Path would be reinstated. An extension to the existing Albert Embankment wall and the Thames Path walkway would also be created to enable the installation of permanent infrastructure required to allow for servicing and maintenance of the Thames Tunnel. As a result, a small additional area of amenity space, associated with the Thames Path would be extended out into the foreshore and River Thames above a small promontory. These works would potentially provide seating, landscaped amenity space and a viewpoint which would allow for views over the River Thames towards Millbank and towards the Houses of Parliament.
10.6.3
After construction, the access entrance way to Lacks Dock would no longer be required for a construction access/haul route except for occasional servicing and maintenance of the operational facilities, and would use of the Dock would generally be able to return to that as per the baseline condition.
Page 159
Operational effects
Permanent gain of public amenity space 10.6.4 The Thames Path would be extended out approximately 25m in to the foreshore and River Thames above a promontory, providing a new landscaped amenity space of approximately 0.1ha. The proposed extension of the river wall and creation of new public amenity space alongside the Thames Path would provide permanent and additional opportunities to users for passive recreation and an increased level of amenity along this section of the Thames Path, with the potential for new seating areas and a new viewpoint over the River Thames. Assuming an increased level of use of the Thames Path in the base case operational year, the new space is likely to benefit an increasingly large number of users. The additional space is likely to be approximately equivalent in area to a small pocket park as measured by the Mayors Open Space Hierarchy and so, in pure quantitative terms, would provide a modest amount of new public amenity space for the local area. Taking account of the above factors and the permanent nature of the impact and the recreational opportunities that it would afford, it is considered that the impact of the gain of amenity space for users is likely to be medium. Taking account of the low magnitude of the impact and the medium sensitivity of the local community and Thames Path users to the addition of an area of open amenity space, it is considered that the new public amenity space is likely to have a minor beneficial long term effect. Summary 10.6.8 The preliminary findings of the above assessment of potential operational phase socio-economic impacts and effects are summarised in the table below. Vol 19 Table 10.6.1 Socio-economics operational effects Impact Sensitivity Magnitude Medium permanent area of new public amenity space likely to benefit a high number of users. Significance Minor beneficial not significant Permanent gain Low there is of public amenity some availability space of amenity space in association with the Thames Path on both sides of the river and more is likely to be provided in future in the wider VNEB area
10.6.5
10.6.6
10.6.7
Page 160
10.7
10.7.1
The above assessment has arrived at a preliminary finding that there is a potential for a moderate adverse effect to arise in relation to amenity (individual or in combination) effects on residential amenity. As per the significance criteria, moderate adverse impacts constitute significant effects. There is a continuing opportunity for further consideration of the potential for employing any viable additional measures to minimise the potential for significant adverse air quality, noise and vibration and visual impacts (if any) to act individually or in combination in a manner that unacceptably reduces environmental amenity. Mitigation measures have been suggested, where possible, by Air Quality and Odour, Noise and Vibration and Townscape and Visual which would help to address significant amenity impacts. For further information on these mitigation measures, refer to Section 4 Air quality and odour, Section 9 Noise and vibration, and Section 11 Townscape and visual, within this volume.
10.7.2
10.7.3
Operational
10.7.4 The above assessment has arrived at a preliminary finding that there are not likely to be any significant adverse effects (that is major or moderate effects) in the operational phase at the site requiring additional mitigation.
Page 161
10.8
Assessment summary
Construction
Significance Minor adverse not significant Minor adverse not significant Minor adverse not significant Minor adverse not significant Moderate adverse significant None required Mitigation measures including design alternatives or construction process and management changes that are typical of the sort usually identified to mitigate air quality, noise or visual impacts. None required None required No change No change No change If mitigation measures suggested in the air quality, noise and vibration and visual assessments to minimise adverse impacts are able to be implemented and achieve a reduction in the assessment of effect significance to an acceptable level, a reduced residual adverse significance may result. None required No change Mitigation Residual significance
Vol 19 Table 10.8.1 Socio-economics summary of construction assessment
Receptor
Effect
Thames Path users
Temporary loss of social infrastructure Thames Path
Thames Path users
Amenity effects
Duck Tours
Temporary disturbance of slipway access
Employees at office premises
Amenity effects
Residents at nearby properties
Amenity effects
Page 162
Vol 19 Table 10.8.2 Socio-economics summary of operational assessment Significance Minor beneficial not significant None required No change Mitigation Residual significance
Receptor
Effect
Users of public amenity space and the Thames Path
Permanent gain of public amenity space
Page 163
10.9
10.9.1
Collection of baseline data on the use of social infrastructure will be completed during 2011. Information to be collected includes pedestrian count data for the Thames Path Further review of baseline data by other EIA topics to enable the updating of the indicative assessment of amenity (individual and in combination) effects. These data are likely to include: a. details of baseline and base case air quality levels at the site b. additional details of baseline and base case ambient (and other) noise levels at the site c. details of baseline and base case visual conditions at the site.
10.9.2
10.9.3
The following assessments will be updated once the above data is available: a. update the assessment regarding the construction phase loss of the Thames Path and the operation phase gain of public amenity space on the Thames Path once pedestrian usage data becomes available.
10.9.4
Pending the results of assessments by other EIA topics, it is likely that updates to the baseline data and results of the indicative combined effects assessments will be able to be made for the following: a. indicative amenity effects on Thames Path users amenity. Pending the results of assessments by other EIA topics there is potential for updates to be made to the detailed site-specific mitigation and enhancement/offsetting measures in relation to amenity (individual and in combination) effects on residential receptors. Given that this assessment has identified significant adverse amenity effects, following the identification of required mitigation measures a reassessment of the potential residual effects after mitigation would be undertaken using the same approach as has been set out above in Section 10.6. Assessment of cumulative and in combination effects will be undertaken and reported in the ES.
10.9.5
10.9.6
10.9.7
Page 164
Section 11: Townscape and visual
11 11.1
11.1.1
Townscape and visual Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant townscape and visual amenity effects at the Albert Embankment Foreshore site. The assessment describes the current conditions found within the area the nature and pattern of buildings, streets, open space and vegetation and their interrelationships within the built environment, and the changes that would be introduced as a result of the proposed development. The assessment also identifies mitigation measures where appropriate. Townscape and visual assessments are made up of two separate, although linked, procedures; the townscape baseline and its analysis contribute to the baseline for visual amenity. Each section of the assessment is structured so that townscape aspects are described first, followed by visual.
11.1.2
11.2
11.2.1
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to the townscape and visual assessment are as follows. Construction The peak construction phase for this topic relates to the time when the shaft is being constructed, involving the presence of cranes at the site and the export of material by road. For this site, this equates to Year 2 of construction, within a total construction period of approximately three and a half years. Similar effects would arise during the secondary tunnel lining, which would occur during Year 3 of construction. The site would be typically under construction during standard working hours only. However, some activities, such as the diaphragm wall works, are likely to require extended working hours and the excavation of the short connection tunnel may require 24-hour working, which would be undertaken for a limited duration (works would be underground). The specific construction activities which may give rise to effects on townscape character, tranquillity and visual receptors are: a. vehicular construction access to the site off Lacks Dock and Albert Embankment b. establishment of hoardings around the boundary of the construction site c. use of cranes during shaft sinking and secondary lining of the tunnel d. use of a piling rig during construction of the cofferdam, encroaching into the river e. provision of welfare facilities f. lighting of the site when required.
11.2.2
11.2.3
Page 165
Measures incorporated into the draft CoCP to reduce townscape and visual impacts include use of appropriate capped and directional lighting when required. Operation The proposed operation of the infrastructure at Albert Embankment Foreshore is described in Section 3. The particular components that are of importance to this topic include works to the river wall and public realm, the ventilation structure, two ventilation columns, electrical kiosks, and the appearance of the interception works on the Grade II* listed Vauxhall Bridge.
11.2.5
11.3
11.3.1 11.3.2
Scoping and engagement Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. In addition to the formal scoping process, the LB of Lambeth, City of Westminster, LB of Wandsworth and English Heritage have been consulted on the detailed scope of this topic at this site, including the number and location of viewpoints. All local authorities and English Heritage have confirmed acceptance of the proposed viewpoints. Baseline The assessment area, defined using the standard methodology provided in Volume 5, is indicated by the extents of the drawing frame on Vol 19 Figure 11.4.1 to Vol 19 Figure 11.4.6. The scale of the assessment area has been set by the maximum extent of the zone of theoretical visibility (ZTV), excepting those locations downstream of the site where the visibility is in reality obscured by Lambeth Bridge. The methodology for establishing the townscape and visual baseline follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. With specific reference to the Albert Embankment Foreshore site, baseline information has been gathered through a review of: a. The Core Strategy and Unitary Development Plans (UDP) for the London Borough of Lambeth, and the neighbouring City of Westminster and London Borough of Wandsworth b. Albert Embankment, Vauxhall Gardens and Vauxhall Conservation Area Designation Reports, produced by the LB of Lambeth c. Pimlico, Churchill Gardens, Dolphin Square, Lillington Gardens, Vincent Square, Millbank, Regency Street, Westminster Abbey and Parliament Square, Smith Square and Westminster Cathedral Conservation Area General Information Leaflets, produced by the City of Westminster.
11.3.3
11.3.4 11.3.5
Page 166
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Construction 11.3.6
The construction phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. Any site specific variations are described below. With reference to the Albert Embankment Foreshore site, the peak construction phase for this topic would be in Year 2 of construction, when the shaft would be under construction, cranes would be present at the site and material would be being taken away by road. This has therefore been used as the assessment year for townscape and visual effects. The intensity of construction activities would be similar during Year 3 of construction, during the secondary lining of the tunnel, involving import of materials by road. For the purposes of the construction phase assessment, it is assumed that the following major developments would be complete and occupied by Year 2 of construction: a. the final phase of St Georges Wharf, 500m south of the site, comprising 200 residential apartments in a 50 storey tower b. Hampton House, 500m to the north of the site, comprising 242 residential apartments and a 167 room hotel up to 27 storeys high c. Island site, 300m south of the site, comprising 291 residential apartments and a 179 room hotel, up to 41 storeys high.
11.3.7
11.3.8
Operation 11.3.9 The operational phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. Any site specific variations are described below. The operational phase visual assessment for this site will be supported through the preparation of two verifiable photomontages from recreational receptors surrounding the site (shown on Vol 19 Figure 11.4.6). These will be produced and presented in the final ES. The operational phase assessment has been undertaken for Year 1 of operation and year fifteen of operation. For the purposes of the Year 1 assessment, it is assumed there is no further substantial change to the townscape and visual baseline, beyond that described in para. 11.3.8. Further work will be undertaken for the ES to identify any potential change in the base case for Year 15 of operation. Assumptions and limitations 11.3.12 11.3.13 For this site, there are no site specific townscape and visual assessment limitations beyond the generic ones listed in Volume 5. The preliminary assessment of operational effects is based on the engineering design of the proposed development. The assessment recognises that the project is committed to high quality design, and this forms the basis of the preliminary assessment of likely significant effects presented here. The details of the project design and landscaping, to be provided for the planning submission, will inform the assessment of
11.3.10
11.3.11
Page 167
operational effects in Year 1 and Year 15 which will be presented in the ES. 11.3.14 Assumptions made on the base case for the construction and operational phase assessments are described in para. 11.3.8. These assumptions are based on known planning applications and planning policy within the assessment area, interpreted using professional judgement to understand what the base case may be in Year 2 of construction and Year 1 of operation without the project. Assumptions will be made in the ES regarding what the base case may be in Year 15 of operation without the project.
11.3.15
11.4
11.4.1
Baseline conditions Townscape baseline

The proposed development is located partially on Albert Embankment and partially on reclaimed foreshore. The surrounding townscape is a mix of historic and modern commercial, administrative and residential premises set amongst leisure and tourism related uses. Physical elements The physical elements of the townscape in the assessment area are described below. Topography The site is located on a relatively flat plateau along Albert Embankment. There are no notable topographic features in the vicinity of the site and across the assessment area. Land use In the vicinity of the site, the south bank of the river is characterised by commercial uses along the railway line between Vauxhall and London Waterloo mainline stations, with the exception of Peninsula Heights and the extensive St Georges Wharf residential development south of Vauxhall Bridge. Further away from the river, land use is predominantly residential. On the north bank of the river, land use is predominantly residential aside from some leisure and tourism related uses close to the river, such as Tate Britain art gallery to the north west of the site. Development patterns and scale Vol 19 Figure 11.4.1 illustrates the pattern and scale of development within the assessment area and also indicates building heights. Vol 19 Figure 11.4.1 Townscape and visual development pattern and scale (see Volume 19 Figures document)
11.4.2
11.4.3
11.4.4
11.4.5
11.4.6
11.4.7
Within the assessment area, the south bank river frontage is characterised by dense blocks of buildings with large footprints, many of which are above 40m high. Buildings are typically orientated towards the river and
Page 168
back onto the railway line between Vauxhall and London Waterloo mainline stations. East of the railway line, a mix of dense residential properties are aligned on an informal street pattern, set amongst large open spaces. Albert Embankment is characterised by a relatively narrow pedestrian route, partially along Albert Embankment road and partially in front of commercial and residential premises. The SIS building adjacent to the site forms a dominant building along the riverfront, partially encroaching into the river channel. 11.4.8 On the north bank of the river, opposite the site, residential properties are generally arranged on a grid formation, dominated by two to four storey terraces with intermittent high-rise developments. The development pattern is heavily influenced by large open spaces, such as Vincent Square and St Georges Square Gardens. Vegetation patterns and extents 11.4.9 Vol 19 Figure 11.4.2 illustrates the pattern and extent of vegetation within the assessment area, including tree cover and known tree preservation orders. Vol 19 Figure 11.4.2 Townscape and visual pattern and extent of vegetation (see Volume 19 Figures document) 11.4.10 South of the river, street trees are fairly uncommon within the assessment area, with the exception of some along the river frontage. Vegetation on the southern bank of the river is concentrated into public and private open spaces, including residential rear gardens. Street trees are a more important element of the character of the townscape on the northern bank, with numerous roads densely planted with mature avenues. Mature tree planting is also a key characteristic of the public and private open spaces throughout the area. A number of trees in the assessment area are protected by Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs), and trees within conservation areas on both sides of the river are indirectly protected. In general, vegetation is a more important element of the character of the northern bank of the river, while the south bank has a noticeable absence of vegetation, aside from in the large open spaces to the east of the railway line. Open space distribution and type 11.4.14 Vol 19 Figure 11.4.3 illustrates the distribution of different open space types within the assessment area, indicating all relevant statutory, nonstatutory and local plan designations. Vol 19 Figure 11.4.3 Townscape and visual open space distribution and type (see Volume 19 Figures document) 11.4.15 Public open spaces within the assessment area are broadly limited to Spring Gardens and Vauxhall Park on the south bank and St Georges
11.4.11
11.4.12
11.4.13
Page 169
Square Gardens and Millbank on the north bank. In addition, the south bank riverside represents a linear open space along the route of the Thames Path, designated as a Green Chain. There are also a number of large private and semi-private spaces throughout the assessment area. These public and private open spaces are described in more detail in the table below. 11.4.16 The majority of private and public spaces are designated as Parks by the LB of Lambeth or Open Space by the City of Westminster. Vol 19 Table 11.4.1 Open space type and distribution Open space St Johns Gardens Distance from site 700m N (north of river) Character summary Small private square planted with mature London plane trees that dominate the space, forming a dense canopy in summer. Designated Open Space in the City of Westminsters UDP. Medium sized public open space characterised by amenity grassland and scattered mature trees. The space includes an all weather play area and horse riding paddocks. Designated Park in the LB of Lambeths UDP. Medium sized public park characterised by amenity grassland and scattered mature trees in addition to several outdoor sports facilities. Located in Vauxhall Conservation Area. Designated Park in the LB of Lambeths UDP. Linear hard surfaced public route along the south bank of the river, designated as a Green Chain. Small linear public open space characterised by formal gardens, including mature London plane trees, amenity lawns, flower beds and an ornamental fountain. Located in Pimlico Conservation Area. Designated Open Space in the City of Westminsters UDP. Small public open space with a formal terraced grass area and scattered trees along the western boundary. Located in Millbank Conservation Area. Small private open space characterised by amenity grassland and scattered mature trees. The space also includes tennis courts and childrens play equipment.
Spring Gardens
100m E (south of river)
Vauxhall Park
500m SE (south of river)
South 0m River Bank St Georges Square Gardens 700m W (north of river)
Millbank
200m W (north of river) 1.2km W (north of river)
Warwick Square
Page 170
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Open space Distance from site
Section 11: Townscape and visual Character summary
Located in Pimlico Conservation Area. Designated Open Space in the City of Westminsters UDP. Vincent Square 800m NW (north of river) Large private square dominated by grass playing fields used by Westminster School, bounded by large mature London plane trees. Located in Vincent Square Conservation Area.
Transport routes 11.4.17 Vol 19 Figure 11.4.4 illustrates the transport network within the assessment area, including cycleways, footpaths and Public Rights of Way. Vol 19 Figure 11.4.4 Townscape and visual transport network (see Volume 19 Figures document) 11.4.18 The site is located close to Albert Embankment and Vauxhall Bridge, both of which are characterised by high levels of traffic. The wider area on the south bank of the river is dominated by transport infrastructure, including the railway line running north-south, connecting Vauxhall and London Waterloo mainline stations. The north bank of the river is characterised by Millbank running along the river frontage, dominated by relatively heavy traffic. The remainder of the area is predominantly characterised by quiet residential streets. The Thames Path runs along both banks of the river, although the route is much wider and dedicated to pedestrians on the south bank. Site character assessment 11.4.21 The site is located within Albert Embankment Conservation Area in the LB of Lambeth, immediately downstream of the Grade II* listed Vauxhall Bridge. The site is located partially on a stretch of pavement along Albert Embankment and partially within the River Thames. The CSO interception works are located underneath Vauxhall Bridge. Within the site boundary, the river wall is set slightly further back from the river wall line further downstream, leading to Lacks Dock, an inlet alongside the SIS building. The frontage is characterised by regularly spaced lamp standards. Upstream of the main site, the river frontage is dominated by the SIS building, which includes a solidly constructed river wall and distinctive large green railings, which are somewhat out of character with the surrounding townscape. This stretch is lined with semimature trees. The components of the site are described in more detail in the table below. The foreshore is wide and accessible to the public, within the site boundary area. Lacks Dock is used by Duck Tours, a recreational / tourist river boat attraction.
11.4.19
11.4.20
11.4.22
11.4.23
Page 171
Vol 19 Table 11.4.2 Townscape and visual site components ID 01 Component River wall Description Brick and stone river wall of varying ages, different in character to listed Bazalgette stretches further downstream (outside the site) and the wall in front of SIS and St Georges Wharf. Asphalt surfaced public route, connecting with a short landscaped esplanade in front of SIS. Green steel handrail along the river in front of Camelford House and the north side of Lacks Dock. Trees and numerous shrubs located in a line on the northern side of Lacks Dock. Six semi-mature trees and various shrubs planted at either end of the SIS building. Condition Poor condition
02
Thames Path
Fair condition Fair condition To be confirmed following the completion of a tree survey.
03
Handrailing and lighting columns Trees and shrubs
04
11.4.24
The condition of the townscape within the site is generally poor to fair, with good potential for enhancement, particularly the river wall and public realm. The sites location close to the interchange of Albert Embankment and Vauxhall Bridge, dominated by heavy traffic, means the site has limited tranquillity. The river is also fairly heavily used, further reducing levels of tranquillity. The site is located within a regionally valued stretch of the River Thames, providing the setting to a number of conservation areas on both sides of the river and experienced by many residents and visitors by virtue of recreational tours such as Duck Tours and attractions such as Tate Britain on the opposite river bank. Despite the generally poor to fair condition, the regional value of the townscape means the site has a high sensitivity to change. At night, the site is illuminated, although not strongly, by the lamp standards along the Thames Path, but is also affected by light spill from the adjacent roads, buildings and Vauxhall Bridge. However, the river beyond the existing river wall is generally characterised by low levels of light. Therefore, the sensitivity of the site to additional lighting is medium. Townscape character assessment The Townscape Character Areas surrounding the site are identified on Vol 19 Figure 11.4.5. Townscape character areas are ordered beginning to
11.4.25
11.4.26
11.4.27 11.4.28
11.4.29
Page 172
the north of the site and continuing around the site in a clockwise direction. Each area is described below. Vol 19 Figure 11.4.5 Townscape and visual character areas (see Volume 19 Figures document) River Thames Nine Elms Reach 11.4.30 This reach of the River Thames extends from Chelsea Bridge in the west, beyond the assessment area for this site, to Vauxhall Bridge in the east, adjacent to the site. The reach is largely characterised by residential development, set against the changing character of the area in the vicinity of Battersea Power Station, which is undergoing redevelopment. The river itself, within the assessment area, is characterised by a varying frontage with different river wall characters and numerous piers, jetties and small inlets. Both banks have a relatively wide area of foreshore at low tide. The river walls and structures are generally fairly well maintained. The overall townscape condition is fair. Despite the residential character of the river frontage, the presence of heavy industries in the immediate area (including a cement batching plant and a waste transfer station close to Battersea Power Station), which in turn generate industrial river transport, means the reach has a moderate level of tranquillity. The reach is a regionally valued stretch of the river, forming the backdrop to a number of conservation areas on both sides of the river, in addition to one of the highest profile regeneration projects in London, Battersea Power Station. Due to the fair condition and moderate levels of tranquillity, this character area has a medium sensitivity to change. At night, the area receives relatively low levels of light spill from river traffic, street lighting and riverside developments. Therefore, the sensitivity of this area to additional lighting is high. River Thames Vauxhall and Pimlico Reach 11.4.37 This reach of the River Thames extends from Vauxhall Bridge in the west to Lambeth Bridge in the east. The reach is largely characterised by a mixed use riverfront, comprising commercial, residential and institutional uses. The river itself is characterised by a relatively straight sweep around the bend of the river, with only two piers forming incursions, and Lacks Dock forming an inlet close to the site. Both banks have a relatively wide area of foreshore at low tide. The river walls and structures are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. Despite the residential character of part of the river frontage, the presence of commercial uses and high-rise development means the reach has a moderate level of tranquillity.
11.4.31
11.4.32 11.4.33
11.4.34
11.4.35 11.4.36
11.4.38
11.4.39 11.4.40
Page 173
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore 11.4.41 11.4.42 11.4.43
The reach is a regionally valued stretch of the river, forming the setting to a number of conservation areas along both sides of the river. Due to the good condition and regional value of the townscape, this character area has a high sensitivity to change. At night, the area receives relatively low levels of light spill from river traffic, street lighting and riverside developments. Therefore, the sensitivity of this area to additional lighting is high. River Thames Houses of Parliament Reach This reach of the River Thames extends from Lambeth Bridge in the west to Westminster Bridge in the east, beyond the assessment area of this site. The reach is dominated by the Houses of Parliament fronting onto the river, set amongst dense tree planting within Victoria Tower Gardens, Lambeth Palace Gardens and along Albert Embankment. The river itself is characterised by a straight sweep with relatively few incursions into the river beyond the historic stone river wall. The banks of the river have little or no foreshore. The river wall and bridges are generally very well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. Tranquillity within the area is limited by the density of activity on the river, which is used by commercial and industrial boats, river taxis and pleasure craft. This reach is an internationally valued stretch of the river, experienced by large numbers of people, including tourists, with particular attention given to the Palace of Westminster and Westminster Abbey including St Margarets Church World Heritage Site, which is the dominant component of the areas setting. Due to the good condition and international value of the townscape, this character area has a high sensitivity to change. At night, the area receives relatively high levels of light spill from river traffic, street lighting and from buildings, including decorative lighting of faades. Therefore, the sensitivity of this area to additional lighting is low. Albert Embankment Commercial This area comprises predominantly commercial uses and includes part of the Albert Embankment Conservation Area designated by the LB of Lambeth. The area is characterised by large high-rise commercial premises, including the SIS building and Camelford House (neither are listed) the latter representing the tallest building in this character area at 18 storeys. The buildings are orientated towards the river and back onto the railway line between Vauxhall and London Waterloo mainline stations. The area has a lack of street trees apart from in front of the post-modern style SIS building. The river frontage forms a strong, consistent sweep, interrupted by the inlet at Lacks Dock and the encroachment of the SIS building. The buildings and public realm within the area are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good.
11.4.44
11.4.45
11.4.46 11.4.47
11.4.48
11.4.49 11.4.50
11.4.51
11.4.52
Page 174
Tranquillity within the area is limited by the commercial land use, presence of high levels of vehicular traffic, the busy railway line nearby and the lack of street trees or other vegetation. The character area is located within a stretch of the River Thames with a historical and cultural value of national significance, experienced by large numbers of people and located within a protected viewing corridor towards St Pauls Cathedral. Although the character of the site is typical of this assessment area, it is nationally valued as part of the wider character of the River Thames. The townscape character area is located within a regionally valued stretch of the River Thames, with the SIS building in particular contributing to a well-recognised London panorama along the river. The area is also experienced by many residents and visitors by virtue of recreational tours such as Duck Tours and attractions such as Tate Britain on the opposite river bank. Due to the good condition of the townscape and its national value, this character area has a high sensitivity to change. At night, the area is illuminated, although not strongly, by the lamp standards along the Thames Path, but is also affected by light spill from the adjacent roads, buildings and Vauxhall Bridge. However, the river beyond the existing river wall is generally characterised by low levels of light. Therefore, the sensitivity of this site to additional lighting is medium. Lambeth Residential This area is dominated by residential uses and incorporates Vauxhall Gardens and Vauxhall Conservation Areas. The largely residential area also incorporates some retail, public houses and schools, although the majority of the area is characterised by a diversity of residential properties, including three to four storey terraces and seven to eight storey high-rise blocks. Residential properties are typically characterised by yellow and red brick construction with clay tile or natural slate roofs. The area is recorded as containing a number of listed buildings which are of exceptional quality. Spring Gardens forms a dominant open space within the character area, influencing the development pattern locally. Other open spaces are generally limited to private front and rear residential gardens, providing a low level of informal planting, partially compensating for the absence of street trees. The area is heavily influenced by the railway line running along the western boundary, which has more than 15 trains an hour passing along. However, the majority of the area is largely introspective in character. The buildings and public realm within the area are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. Despite the presence of the railway line along the western boundary of this area, the townscape has moderate levels of tranquillity due to the residential character and introspective nature of the area. The townscape of the character area is valued at the Borough level, by virtue of the conservation area designations.
11.4.54
11.4.55
11.4.56 11.4.57
11.4.58
11.4.59 11.4.60
11.4.61
Page 175
Therefore, despite the Borough level value attributed to the townscape, due to the introspective nature of the built environment and moderate levels of tranquillity, this character area has a medium sensitivity to change. At night the area is lit directly by street lighting and indirectly from buildings, providing a fairly brightly lit character. Due to the residential character, the sensitivity of this area to additional lighting is medium. Nine Elms Lane Commercial This character area is dominated by commercial and industrial uses focused around the railway line between Clapham Junction, Vauxhall and London Waterloo mainline stations. Commercial premises are generally four to five storeys high, with the exception of one 16 storey high-rise office. Industrial units, further south are generally one to three storeys high. The railway arches also incorporate small mixed industrial and commercial uses. The area is characterised by a distinct lack of public open space, with spaces between buildings typically hard surfaced and used for car parking or storage. There are few mature or semi-mature trees present in the area. The pattern of development is focused around the railway and generally introspective, segregated from the river by residential uses. Buildings include the Royal Mail depot and Flower Market. The buildings and public realm within the area are generally relatively poorly maintained. The overall townscape condition is poor. Tranquillity within the area is limited by high levels of vehicular traffic, the presence of the busy railway line, a lack of street trees and open spaces, and the commercial land uses. The area has limited townscape value by virtue of the poor condition of the public realm and the commercial land use. Due to the poor condition and limited value of the area, this character area has a low sensitivity to change. At night the area is lit directly by street lighting and indirectly from buildings, providing a fairly brightly lit character. Therefore, the sensitivity of this area to additional lighting is low. St Georges Wharf Residential St Georges Wharf Residential is characterised by a recent residential development comprising five 22 storey towers orientated towards the River Thames and set amongst extensive semi-private open space. The character area also incorporates Market Towers, a 23 storey commercial tower. Part of the area is currently undergoing redevelopment with the construction of a residential tower. The buildings and public realm within the area are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. The area has moderate levels of tranquillity by virtue of the residential character and density of open space amongst the residential blocks,
11.4.63
11.4.64
11.4.65 11.4.66
11.4.67 11.4.68 11.4.69
11.4.70
11.4.71 11.4.72
Page 176
slightly moderated by the presence of the busy Nine Elms Lane running through the character area. 11.4.73 The character is located within a regionally valued stretch of the River Thames, currently undergoing significant change. The high rise riverfront development is a particularly distinctive contribution to the wider riverside setting. The area is also experienced by many residents and visitors by virtue of recreational tours such as Duck Tours and attractions such as Tate Britain on the opposite river bank. Due to the good condition and regional value of the townscape, this area has a high sensitivity to change. At night the area is lit directly by street lighting and indirectly from buildings, providing a fairly brightly lit character. Therefore, the sensitivity of this area to additional lighting is low. Nine Elms Lane Residential 11.4.76 This character area comprises a narrow band of residential apartments along the riverfront, bounded to the south by Nine Elms Lane and the industrial and commercial units further inland. The residential buildings are brick built and seven to nine storeys high. The Thames Path runs along the river, connecting small areas of public open space at either end of the area, characterised by amenity grassland and scattered mature and semi-mature trees. The buildings and public realm within the area are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. Tranquillity within the area is limited by pedestrian movements along the riverside path and the presence of Nine Elms Lane, although this is partially moderated by the presence of green open spaces and the residential character. Therefore, the area has moderate levels of tranquillity. The area is likely to be locally valued by residents within the character area, but has limited value in the wider area. Due to the good condition and local value of the townscape, and the moderate levels of tranquillity, this area has a medium sensitivity to change. At night the area is lit directly by street lighting and indirectly from buildings, providing a fairly brightly lit character. Therefore, the sensitivity of this area to additional lighting is low. Pimlico Residential 11.4.82 This area is dominated by residential uses and incorporates the following conservation areas: a. Pimlico Conservation Area b. Churchill Gardens Conservation Area c. Dolphin Square Conservation Area d. Lillington Gardens Conservation Area.
11.4.74 11.4.75
11.4.77 11.4.78
11.4.79 11.4.80
11.4.81
Page 177
The character of the area is dominated by residential terraces aligned on a grid formation, although there are also parades of small retail units, churches (including the Grade I listed St James-the-Less) and some leisure uses. Churchill Gardens, Dolphin Square and Lillington Gardens Conservation Areas each form introspective residential estates, with small areas of public and private open space. There is a general abundance of mature street trees and dense vegetation in open spaces, providing a green character to the area. The development pattern comprises a mix of large blocks up to around nine to eleven storeys, set amongst terraces of two to four storey properties. The area is largely introspective in character. The buildings and public realm within the area are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. Despite the presence of some busy roads through the area, the townscape has moderate levels of tranquillity due to the residential character and introspective nature of the area. The townscape of the character area is valued at the Borough level, by virtue of the conservation area designations. Therefore, despite the Borough level value attributed to the townscape, due to the introspective nature of the built environment and moderate levels of tranquillity, this character area has a medium sensitivity to change. At night the area is lit directly by street lighting and indirectly from buildings, providing a fairly brightly lit character. However, due to the residential character, the sensitivity of this area to additional lighting is medium. Pimlico Academy This character area comprises a mixed secondary school characterised by a large school building, surrounded by sports pitches and small grassed areas with scattered mature and semi-mature trees. The area is bounded by Pimlico Conservation Area to the north, east and west, and by Dolphin Square Conservation Area to the south. The area is introspective in character. The buildings and public realm within the area are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. Tranquillity within the area is limited by the intensity of activity during the school day, and the dominance of the school building on the character of the area. The area is likely to be locally valued by pupils of the school and their families, but has limited value in the wider area. Due to the introspective nature of the built environment and local level value of the townscape, the area has a medium sensitivity to change. At night the area is lit indirectly from street lighting and buildings, providing a fairly dimly lit character. Therefore, the sensitivity of this area to additional lighting is high.
11.4.84 11.4.85
11.4.86 11.4.87
11.4.88
11.4.89
11.4.90 11.4.91
11.4.92 11.4.93 11.4.94
Page 178
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Bessborough Residential 11.4.95
This area is characterised by five to seven storey residential apartments set amongst a series of semi-private open spaces with an abundance of mature tree planting. The area also includes Westminster Cathedral Primary School, Pimlico underground station and some commercial uses. The area is largely introspective in character. The buildings and public realm within the area are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. Despite the presence of busy traffic along Grosvenor Road and Vauxhall Bridge Road at the edge of the area, the townscape has moderate levels of tranquillity due to the residential character and introspective nature of the area. The area is likely to be locally valued by residents within the character area, but has limited value in the wider area. Due to the good condition and local value of the townscape, and the moderate levels of tranquillity, this area has a medium sensitivity to change.
11.4.96 11.4.97
11.4.98 11.4.99
11.4.100 At night the area is lit directly by street lighting and indirectly from buildings, providing a fairly brightly lit character. However, due to the residential character, the sensitivity of this area to additional lighting is medium. Residential Waterfront - West 11.4.101 This area is characterised by four to eight storey modern residential apartments, alongside a 20 storey residential tower at the corner of Grosvenor Road and Vauxhall Bridge Road, and a 13 storey commercial tower north of Vauxhall Bridge Road. The development pattern is orientated towards the river and further characterised by areas of private and communal open space, with scattered mature trees. The Thames Path follows the river, in front of the residential developments. 11.4.102 The buildings and public realm within the area are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. 11.4.103 Despite the presence of busy traffic along Grosvenor Road and Vauxhall Bridge Road, the townscape has moderate levels of tranquillity due to the residential character and abundance of open space and mature tree planting. 11.4.104 The character is located within a regionally valued stretch of the River Thames, currently undergoing significant change. The high rise riverfront development is a particularly distinctive contribution to the wider riverside setting. The area is also experienced by many residents and visitors by virtue of recreational tours such as Duck Tours and attractions such as Tate Britain. 11.4.105 Due to the good condition and regional value of the townscape, this area has a high sensitivity to change.
Page 179
11.4.106 At night the area is lit directly by street lighting and indirectly from buildings, providing a fairly brightly lit character. Therefore, the sensitivity of this area to additional lighting is low. Westminster Residential 11.4.107 This area is dominated by residential uses and incorporates the following conservation areas: a. Vincent Square Conservation Area b. Millbank Conservation Area c. Regency Street Conservation Area d. Westminster Abbey and Parliament Square Conservation Area (southern extent only) e. Smith Square Conservation Area (southern extent only) f. Westminster Cathedral Conservation Area (eastern extent only). 11.4.108 The area is characterised by residential uses, dominated by three to seven storey Edwardian and post World War I red and yellow brick buildings organised on a grid formation. The area is also dominated by Vincent Square, a large private open space surrounded by mature London plane trees and defined by surrounding residential properties. In addition to Vincent Square, the area is characterised by intermittent small private, semi-private and public open spaces. Street trees are present across most of the area, providing an overall green character to the area. The area is largely introspective in character, focused on public and private spaces internal to the area, although the river frontage is heavily influenced by the character of the River Thames and opposite bank. The Westminster Cathedral, and Westminster Abbey and Parliament Square Conservation Areas do not form dominant components of the overall character. 11.4.109 The buildings and public realm within the area are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. 11.4.110 Despite the presence of the some busy roads through the area, the townscape has moderate levels of tranquillity due to the residential character and introspective nature of the area. 11.4.111 The townscape of the character area is valued at the Borough level, by virtue of the conservation area designations. 11.4.112 Due to the good condition and Borough level value of the townscape, this character area has a high sensitivity to change. 11.4.113 At night the area is lit directly by street lighting and indirectly from buildings, providing a fairly brightly lit character. However, due to the residential character, the sensitivity of this area to additional lighting is medium. Millbank Conservation Area - Institutional 11.4.114 This area comprises part of Millbank Conservation Area characterised by institutional uses, including Tate Britain art gallery, the Royal Army
Page 180
Medical College and the former Queen Alexandra Military Hospital. This area is divided from the rest of the character area (dominated by residential uses similar in character to the surrounding areas and incorporated into Westminster Residential TCA) by John Islip Street. Millbank Embankment is characterised by a pedestrian route alongside the busy road, with Grade II listed lamp standards and mature London plane trees along the frontage. The character area is set directly adjacent to the river. 11.4.115 The buildings and public realm within the area are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. 11.4.116 Tranquillity within the area is limited by the presence of high levels of vehicular traffic and pedestrian movements. 11.4.117 The character is located within a regionally valued stretch of the River Thames, currently undergoing significant change. The high rise riverfront development is a particularly distinctive contribution to the wider riverside setting. The area is also experienced by many residents and visitors by virtue of recreational tours such as Duck Tours and attractions such as Tate Britain art gallery. 11.4.118 Due to the good condition and regional value of the townscape, this area has a high sensitivity to change. 11.4.119 At night the area is lit directly by street lighting and indirectly from buildings, providing a fairly brightly lit character. Therefore, the sensitivity of this area to additional lighting is low. 11.4.120 The sensitivity to change of the townscape character areas is summarised in the table below. Vol 19 Table 11.4.3 Townscape sensitivities to change Townscape character area The site River Thames Nine Elms Reach River Thames Vauxhall and Pimlico Reach River Thames Houses of Parliament Reach Albert Embankment Commercial Lambeth Residential Nine Elms Lane Commercial St Georges Wharf Residential Nine Elms Lane Residential Pimlico Residential Pimlico Academy Bessborough Residential Residential Waterfront West Sensitivity High Medium High High High Medium Low High Medium Medium Medium Medium High
Page 181
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Townscape character area Westminster Residential Millbank Conservation Area Institutional
Section 11: Townscape and visual Sensitivity High High
Visual baseline
11.4.121 Vol 19 Figure 11.4.6 indicates the location of viewpoints referenced below. All residential and recreational receptors have a high sensitivity to change. Appendix D contains illustrative winter photographs from selected viewpoints (the ES will include winter and summer photos for each character area and viewpoint). Vol 19 Figure 11.4.6 Townscape and visual viewpoint locations (see Volume 19 Figures document) Residential 11.4.122 Residential receptors have a high sensitivity to change, as attention is often focused on the townscape surrounding the property rather than on another focused activity (as would be the case in predominantly employment or industrial areas). The visual baseline in respect of residential receptors (represented by a series of viewpoints, agreed with consultees) is described below. Viewpoint 1.1: View north east from residences on Nine Elms Lane 11.4.123 This viewpoint is representative of the view from residential properties on the south bank of the river along Nine Elms Lane. The view is characterised by a wide panorama over the river, dominated by the character of the opposite river bank and Vauxhall Bridge to the east. Views towards the site are framed by the St Georges Wharf Residential development and SIS building, although views of the site itself are largely obscured by Vauxhall Bridge. Viewpoint 1.2: View south east from residences at the junction of Ponsonby Place and Causton Street 11.4.124 This viewpoint is representative of the view from residential properties close to the junction of Ponsonby Place and Causton Street, and is recorded as a local view. The view is a linear view down Ponsonby Place to the river, framed on either side by residential development. The background of the view is dominated by Camelford House, directly behind the site. Recreational 11.4.125 Recreational receptors (apart from those engaged in active sports) generally have a high sensitivity to change, as attention is focused on enjoyment of the townscape. Tourists engaged in activities whereby attention is focused on the surrounding townscape also have a high sensitivity to change. The visual baseline in respect of recreational receptors, including tourists, is discussed below.
Page 182
Viewpoint 2.1: View south from Lambeth Bridge 11.4.126 This viewpoint is positioned in the same location as a River Prospect in the London View Management Framework (LVMF) (Lambeth Bridge viewing location 19A.1), but focuses up the river rather than taking the designated view towards the Houses of Parliament. The viewpoint is representative of the view pedestrians experience while crossing Lambeth Bridge. The view is characterised by a linear view down the River Thames towards Vauxhall Bridge in the background. To the south, the view is framed by residential and commercial premises, including Camelford House and the SIS building close to the site. To the north, the view is framed by the avenue of mature London plane trees along the north bank. Views of the site are unobstructed from this location. Viewpoint 2.2: View south from the Thames Path at the southern end of Lambeth Bridge 11.4.127 This viewpoint is representative of the view pedestrians experience while walking south along the Thames Path, close to Lambeth Bridge. The view is characterised by a linear view down the River Thames towards Vauxhall Bridge in the background. To the south, the view is framed by residential and commercial premises, including glimpsed views of Camelford House and the SIS building close to the site. To the north, the view is framed by the avenue of mature London plane trees along the north bank. Views of the site are largely unobstructed from this location, apart from a river pier in the foreground of the view. Viewpoint 2.3: View south west from the Thames Path opposite Park Plaza 11.4.128 This viewpoint is representative of the view pedestrians experience while walking south along the Thames Path, outside Park Plaza. The view is characterised by a linear view down the River Thames towards Vauxhall Bridge in the background. To the south, the view is framed by residential and commercial premises, including glimpsed views of Camelford House and the SIS building close to the site. To the north, the view is framed by the avenue of mature London plane trees along the north bank. Views of the site are largely unobstructed from this location, although the site is set slightly back from the line of the river wall, close to Lacks Dock. Viewpoint 2.4: View south west from the Thames Path outside Peninsula Heights 11.4.129 This viewpoint is representative of the view pedestrians experience while walking south along the Thames Path, outside the northern end of Peninsula Heights. The view is characterised by a wide panorama over the River Thames, defined by Vauxhall Bridge upstream and Lambeth Bridge downstream. The view towards the site is framed by riverfront development, including Camelford House and the SIS building. Views of the site are largely unobstructed from this location, although the site is set slightly back from the line of the river wall, close to Lacks Dock.
Page 183
Viewpoint 2.5: View north east from the southern end of Vauxhall Bridge 11.4.130 This viewpoint is representative of the view pedestrians experience while crossing Vauxhall Bridge, and is located at the southern end of the bridge. The view is characterised by a linear view up the River Thames towards Lambeth Bridge in the background. The foreground of the view towards the site is dominated by Camelford House and the SIS building. Views of the site are unobstructed from this location. Viewpoint 2.6: View north east from the Thames Path south of St Georges Wharf 11.4.131 This viewpoint is representative of the view pedestrians experience while walking north along the Thames Path, to the south of the St Georges Wharf riverfront development. The view is characterised by a wide panorama over the River Thames, foreshortened to the east by Vauxhall Bridge. The view towards the site is framed by the St Georges Wharf development, SIS building and Camelford House. Views towards the site are largely obscured by Vauxhall Bridge. Viewpoint 2.7: View east from the northern end of Vauxhall Bridge 11.4.132 This viewpoint is representative of the view pedestrians experience while crossing Vauxhall Bridge, and is located at the northern end of the bridge. The view is characterised by a linear view up the River Thames towards Lambeth Bridge in the background. The view towards the site is dominated by Camelford House and the SIS building. Views of the site are unobstructed from this location. Viewpoint 2.8: View east from the Thames Path at an open space along Millbank 11.4.133 This viewpoint is representative of the view recreational users of the open space adjacent to Millbank and close to Vauxhall Bridge experience while looking across the river. The view is characterised by a linear view up the River Thames towards Lambeth Bridge in the background. The view towards the site is dominated by Camelford House and the SIS building. Views of the site are unobstructed from this location. Viewpoint 2.9: View south east from the north end of Atterbury Street 11.4.134 This viewpoint is recorded as a Local View by the City of Westminster. This viewpoint is representative of the view for pedestrians walking down Atterbury Street towards the river. The view is linear, focused down Atterbury Street, framed by Tate Britain art gallery to the north and Chelsea College to the south. Views towards the river are partially obscured by mature tree planting along Atterbury Street. Views towards the site are largely obscured by buildings along Atterbury Street, in addition to the mature trees. Viewpoint 2.10: View south east from the entrance to Tate Britain 11.4.135 This viewpoint is representative of the view for recreational users of Tate Britain, located at the entrance to the art gallery. The view is recorded as a local view by the City of Westminster. The view is a wide panorama
Page 184
over the River Thames, defined by Lambeth Bridge to the north and Vauxhall Bridge to the south. The view towards the site is dominated by Camelford House and the SIS building. Views of the site are unobstructed from this location. Viewpoint 2.11: View south from the Thames Path opposite Thames House 11.4.136 This viewpoint is representative of the view pedestrians experience while walking south along the Thames Path, from outside Thames House close to Lambeth Bridge. The view is characterised by a linear view down the River Thames towards Vauxhall Bridge in the background. The view is framed by residential and commercial premises, including Camelford House and the SIS building close to the site. Views of the site are largely unobstructed from this location, apart from some obstruction by Millbank Millennium Pier in the foreground of the view. 11.4.137 The sensitivity to change of the viewpoints is summarised in the table below. Vol 19 Table 11.4.4 Visual viewpoints sensitivities to change Viewpoint Residential Viewpoint 1.1: View north east from residences on Nine Elms Lane Viewpoint 1.2: View south east from residences at the junction of Ponsonby Place and Causton Street Recreational Viewpoint 2.1: View south from Lambeth Bridge Viewpoint 2.2: View south from the Thames Path at the southern end of Lambeth Bridge Viewpoint 2.3: View south west from the Thames Path opposite Park Plaza Viewpoint 2.4: View south west from the Thames Path outside Peninsula Heights Viewpoint 2.5: View north east from the southern end of Vauxhall Bridge Viewpoint 2.6: View north east from the Thames Path south of St Georges Wharf Viewpoint 2.7: View east from the northern end of Vauxhall Bridge Viewpoint 2.8: View east from the Thames Path at an open space along Millbank Viewpoint 2.9: View south east from the north end of Atterbury Street High High High High High High High High High High High Sensitivity
Page 185
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Viewpoint
Section 11: Townscape and visual Sensitivity High High
Viewpoint 2.10: View south east from the entrance to Tate Britain Viewpoint 2.11: View south from the Thames Path opposite Thames House
11.5
11.5.1
Effects during the construction phase would be temporary, although medium term due to the scale and necessary phasing of the proposed development. The proposed phasing of the development would result in intense periods of activity within relatively quieter phases.
Construction site assessment

11.5.2 Direct effects on the townscape of the site would arise from partial removal of the river wall, removal of lamp standards, erection of site hoardings, and construction activity associated with the construction of the cofferdam, shaft and ventilation equipment, interception works at Vauxhall Bridge and secondary lining of the tunnel. The effects on specific components of the site are described below: Vol 19 Table 11.5.1 Townscape and visual effects - construction ID 01 Component Downstream river wall Thames Path Effects Parts of the river wall would require removal to facilitate the new construction site encroaching into the river. The Thames Path surface would be removed as part of construction. The route of the Thames Path would be diverted onto Albert Embankment road. Handrailing removed during construction. Three silver birch trees and some shrubs would be protected and retained during construction. Some shrubs along Lacks Dock would be removed (to be confirmed following the completion of a tree survey).
02
03 04
Handrailing Trees and shrubs
11.5.3
The magnitude of change to the site during the construction period is considered to be high due to the clearance required to form the construction site, including formation of the cofferdam in the river, and the level of activity during construction. The existing site has low levels of tranquillity and the magnitude of change to the tranquillity of the site is considered to be high, due to introduction of construction vehicles, plant equipment and high levels of activity in a part of the river and Thames Path not currently intensively used. The high magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the site to change, means the effect of the proposed
11.5.4
11.5.5
Page 186
construction activity on the townscape resource of the site would be of major adverse significance.
Construction townscape assessment

River Thames Nine Elms Reach 11.5.6 The proposed site is immediately adjacent to this reach of the river, with the majority of the site (apart from the CSO interception works) separated by Vauxhall Bridge. Construction activity would be set within the immediate setting of this character area, partially screened by the presence of Vauxhall Bridge. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be medium. The area has moderate levels of tranquillity at present, which would be affected through the introduction of construction activity, including piling, demolition and river and road based traffic. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be high. Given the medium magnitude of change and the medium sensitivity of this character area to a change in setting, the effect of the proposed construction activity on the River Thames Nine Elms Reach would be of moderate adverse significance. River Thames Vauxhall and Pimlico Reach 11.5.9 The proposed site is within this reach of the river, introducing high levels of construction activity within a part of the river not currently occupied. Between Vauxhall Bridge and Lambeth Bridge, the reach would become dominated by construction activity associated with the site, including river based transport. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be high. Although the area has moderate levels of tranquillity at present, the introduction of construction activity, including piling, demolition and river based deliveries and exports means the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be high. Given the high magnitude of change and the high sensitivity of this character area to a change in setting, the effect of the proposed construction activity on the River Thames Vauxhall and Pimlico Reach would be of major adverse significance. River Thames Houses of Parliament Reach 11.5.12 The proposed site is approximately 800m south of this reach of the river, separated by Lambeth Bridge. Construction activity would be set within the wider setting of this character area, partially screened by the presence of Waterloo Bridge and set against the context of ongoing construction activities further upstream, which also form part of the background setting. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be low. The area has low levels of tranquillity at present, which would be largely unchanged, apart from the effects of river transport, which would be intermittent and short term. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be low.
11.5.7
11.5.8
11.5.10
11.5.11
11.5.13
Page 187
The low magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the high sensitivity of this character area, means the effect of the proposed construction activity on the River Thames Houses of Parliament Reach would be of minor adverse significance. Albert Embankment Commercial For the construction phase assessment year (Year 2 of construction), it is assumed that the Hampton House residential and hotel development will be complete and occupied, locally changing the character of part of this area. However, the overall character and sensitivity would remain the same. The proposed site is set directly west of this character area, separating the local area from the River Thames. The setting of buildings fronting the river (for example, SIS building and Camelford House) would be affected by the presence of construction activity, traffic and cranes, particularly in the vicinity of the shaft location. The setting of the character area would be dominated by construction hoardings and intermittent road based transport, rather than the existing open setting across the river. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be high. The area has low levels of tranquillity at present, and the introduction of construction activity, including piling, demolition and road and river based deliveries and exports means the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be high. Given the high magnitude of change and the high sensitivity of this character area to a change in setting, the effect of the proposed construction activity on Albert Embankment Commercial would be of major adverse significance. Lambeth Residential The proposed site does not form part of the setting for this character area, which is largely introspective, set behind the national railway line and unlikely to be indirectly affected by construction traffic to any significant degree. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The area has a moderate level of tranquillity at present, which is unlikely to change, given the careful routing of construction traffic. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the medium sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed construction activity would give rise to a negligible effect on Lambeth Residential. Nine Elms Lane Commercial For the construction phase assessment year (Year 2 of construction), it is assumed that the Island Site residential and hotel development will be complete and occupied, slightly changing the character of the northern end of this area. Despite this, the proposed site would not form part of the setting for this character area, which is largely introspective and
11.5.15
11.5.16
11.5.17
11.5.18
11.5.19
11.5.20
11.5.21
11.5.22
Page 188
unlikely to be indirectly affected by construction traffic to any significant degree. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. 11.5.23 The area has a moderate level of tranquillity at present, which is unlikely to change, given the careful routing of construction traffic. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the low sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed construction activity would give rise to a negligible effect on Nine Elms Lane Commercial. St Georges Wharf Residential 11.5.25 The proposed site forms part of the immediate setting of this character area, set just beyond Vauxhall Bridge. The presence of cranes and other construction plant would affect the riverside setting of the character area, forming a dominant component of the setting for the duration of construction. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be high. The area has moderate levels of tranquillity at present, which would be affected through the introduction of construction activity, including piling, demolition and river and road based traffic. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be high. Given the high magnitude of change and the high sensitivity of this character area, the effect of the proposed construction activity on St Georges Wharf Residential would be of major adverse significance. Nine Elms Lane Residential 11.5.28 The proposed site forms part of the wider riverside setting of this character area, albeit separated by Vauxhall Bridge. The presence of cranes, construction plant and the CSO interception works at Vauxhall Bridge would affect the wider setting this area. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be low. The area has moderate levels of tranquillity at present, which would be largely unaffected by construction activities at the site. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible. Given the low magnitude of change and the medium sensitivity of this character area to change, the effect of the proposed construction activity on Nine Elms Lane Residential would be of minor adverse significance. Pimlico Residential 11.5.31 The proposed site would form a relatively minor component in the wider riverside setting of this largely introspective character area. The area is also unlikely to be indirectly affected by construction traffic. The presence of cranes is not likely to alter the setting of the area significantly. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The area has moderate levels of tranquillity at present, which would be unchanged. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible.
11.5.24
11.5.26
11.5.27
11.5.29
11.5.30
11.5.32
Page 189
The negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the medium sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed construction activity would give rise to negligible effects on Pimlico Residential. Pimlico Academy The proposed site does not form part of the setting for this character area, which is largely introspective and unlikely to be indirectly affected by construction traffic. The presence of cranes is not likely to alter the setting of the area. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The area has low levels of tranquillity at present, which would be unchanged. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the medium sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed construction activity would give rise to negligible effects on Pimlico Academy. Bessborough Residential The proposed site does not form part of the setting for this character area, which is largely introspective and unlikely to be indirectly affected by construction traffic. The presence of cranes is not likely to alter the setting of the area. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The area has moderate levels of tranquillity at present, which would be unchanged. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the medium sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed construction activity would give rise to negligible effects on Bessborough Residential. Residential Waterfront - West The proposed site forms a direct part of the riverside setting of this character area. The presence of cranes, construction plant, the site cofferdams and piling rig and the CSO interception works under Vauxhall Bridge would affect the riverside setting of this character area. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be high. The area has moderate levels of tranquillity at present, which would be slightly affected by construction activities at the site and river transport. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be low. Given the high magnitude of change and the high sensitivity of this character area to change, the effect of the proposed construction activity on Residential Waterfront - West would be of major adverse significance.
11.5.34
11.5.35
11.5.36
11.5.37
11.5.38
11.5.39
11.5.40
11.5.41
11.5.42
Page 190
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Westminster Residential 11.5.43
The proposed site forms part of the immediate riverside setting of this character area, although it is largely introspective in character. The presence of cranes, construction plant, the site cofferdams and piling rig and the CSO interception works under Vauxhall Bridge would affect the riverside setting of this character area. However, the setting of most of the area would be unaffected. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be medium. The area has moderate levels of tranquillity at present, which would be slightly affected by construction activities at the site and river transport. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be low. Given the medium magnitude of change and the high sensitivity of this character area to change, the effect of the proposed construction activity on Westminster Residential would be of moderate adverse significance. Millbank Conservation Area - Institutional The proposed site forms a direct part of the riverside setting of this character area. The presence of cranes, construction plant, the site cofferdams and piling rig and the CSO interception works under Vauxhall Bridge would affect the riverside setting of this character area. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be high. The area has low levels of tranquillity at present, which would be slightly affected by construction activities at the site and river transport. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be low. Given the high magnitude of change and the high sensitivity of this character area to change, the effect of the proposed construction activity on Millbank Conservation Area - Institutional would be of major adverse significance. The assessment of townscape effects during construction is summarised in the table below. Vol 19 Table 11.5.2 Townscape character areas effects - construction Townscape character area The site River Thames Nine Elms Reach River Thames Vauxhall and Pimlico Reach River Thames Houses of Parliament Reach Albert Embankment Commercial Lambeth Residential Nine Elms Lane Commercial Sensitivity Magnitude Effect High Medium High High High Medium Low High Medium High Low High Negligible Negligible Major adverse Moderate adverse Major adverse Minor adverse Major adverse Negligible Negligible
11.5.44
11.5.45
11.5.46
11.5.47
11.5.48
11.5.49
Page 191
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Townscape character area St Georges Wharf Residential Nine Elms Lane Residential Pimlico Residential Pimlico Academy Bessborough Residential Residential Waterfront West Westminster Residential
Sensitivity Magnitude Effect High Medium Medium Medium Medium High High High Low Negligible Negligible Negligible High Medium High Major adverse Minor adverse Negligible Negligible Negligible Major adverse Moderate adverse Major adverse
Millbank Conservation Area High Institutional
Construction townscape assessment night time effects

11.5.50 There are likely to be limited effects on night time character due to the proposed limit of 12-hour working at the site. However, this would mean that there would be some lighting of the site in the early morning and evening during winter. Effects on night time character will be considered in the ES.
Construction visual assessment

Residential Viewpoint 1.1: View north east from residences on Nine Elms Lane 11.5.51 Views from residences towards the site would be affected during construction. Wider panoramic views of the river would be affected by the presence of cranes and construction plant, partially obscured by Vauxhall Bridge. CSO interception works would be highly visible set in front of Vauxhall Bridge. However, the majority of the panoramic view of the river would be unaffected. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view would be medium. The medium magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of moderate adverse significance. Viewpoint 1.2: View south east from residences at the junction of Ponsonby Place and Causton Street 11.5.53 Views from residences towards the site would be affected during construction. The background of the view, currently dominated by Camelford House, would be characterised by construction activity around the shaft, including cranes, construction plant, the site cofferdam and construction hoardings. This construction activity would partially obscure views of Camelford House. However, due to the distance between the
11.5.52
Page 192
viewpoint and the site, and the unchanged foreground of the view, the magnitude of change on this view would be low. 11.5.54 The low magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of minor adverse significance. Recreational Viewpoint 2.1: View south from Lambeth Bridge 11.5.55 Views from this location would be affected during construction, due to the presence of cranes, construction plant, the site cofferdam and site hoardings in the background of the view. Views of construction activity would be unobstructed from this location. However, the foreground of the view would be unaltered. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view would be medium. The medium magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of moderate adverse significance. Viewpoint 2.2: View south from the Thames Path at the southern end of Lambeth Bridge 11.5.57 Views from this location would be affected during construction, due to the presence of cranes, construction plant, the site cofferdam and site hoardings in the background of the view. Views of construction activity would be largely unobstructed from this location, apart from an intervening river pier, which would partially obscure views of the site cofferdam. However, the foreground of the view would be unaltered. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view would be low. The low magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of minor adverse significance. Viewpoint 2.3: View south west from the Thames Path opposite Park Plaza 11.5.59 Views from this location would be affected during construction, due to the presence of cranes, construction plant, the site cofferdam and site hoardings in the background of the view. Views of construction activity would be unobstructed from this location. However, the wider panorama over the river would be largely unaltered, apart from the introduction of river transport. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view would be medium. The medium magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of moderate adverse significance. Viewpoint 2.4: View south west from the Thames Path outside Peninsula Heights 11.5.61 Views from this location would be affected during construction, due to the presence of cranes, construction plant, the site cofferdam and site hoardings in the direct foreground of the view. Views of construction
11.5.56
11.5.58
11.5.60
Page 193
activity would be unobstructed from this location, beyond the line of site hoardings. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view would be high. 11.5.62 The high magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of major adverse significance. Viewpoint 2.5: View north east from the southern end of Vauxhall Bridge 11.5.63 Views from this location would be affected during construction, due to the presence of cranes, construction plant, the site cofferdam and site hoardings in the direct foreground of the view. Views of construction activity would be unobstructed from this location, beyond the line of site hoardings. The visibility of the site and construction activity would be increased due to the elevated position of the viewpoint on Vauxhall Bridge. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view would be high. The high magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of major adverse significance. Viewpoint 2.6: View north east from the Thames Path south of St Georges Wharf 11.5.65 Views from this location would be affected during construction. Wider panoramic views of the river would be affected by the presence of cranes and construction plant, partially obscured by Vauxhall Bridge. CSO interception works would be highly visible set in front of Vauxhall Bridge. However, the majority of the panoramic view of the river would be unaffected. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view would be medium. The medium magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of moderate adverse significance. Viewpoint 2.7: View east from the northern end of Vauxhall Bridge 11.5.67 Views from this location would be affected during construction, due to the presence of cranes, construction plant, the site cofferdams and site hoardings in the direct foreground of the view. Views of construction activity would be unobstructed from this location, beyond the line of site hoardings. The visibility of the site and construction activity would be increased due to the elevated position of the viewpoint on Vauxhall Bridge. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view would be high. The high magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of major adverse significance. Viewpoint 2.8: View east from the Thames Path at an open space along Millbank 11.5.69 Views from this location would be affected during construction, due to the presence of cranes, construction plant, the site cofferdams and site
11.5.64
11.5.66
11.5.68
Page 194
hoardings in the direct foreground of the view. Views of construction activity would be unobstructed from this location, focused on the site cofferdams and river transport. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view would be high. 11.5.70 The high magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of major adverse significance. Viewpoint 2.9: View south east from the north end of Atterbury Street 11.5.71 Construction activity at the site would be barely perceptible from this location, due to foreground buildings and mature trees obscuring the view towards the site and the river. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view would be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the proposed construction phase would give rise to negligible effects on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 2.10: View south east from the entrance to Tate Britain 11.5.73 Views from this location would be affected during construction, due to the presence of cranes, construction plant, the site cofferdam and site hoardings in the direct foreground of the view. Views of construction activity would be largely unobstructed from this location, although partially filtered by trees planted along the north bank of the river. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view would be high. The high magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of major adverse significance. Viewpoint 2.11: View south from the Thames Path opposite Thames House 11.5.75 Views from this location would be affected during construction, due to the presence of cranes, construction plant, the site cofferdams and site hoardings in the background of the view. Views of construction activity would be largely unobstructed from this location, apart from some obstruction by Millbank Millennium Pier, which would partially obscure views of the site cofferdams. However, the foreground of the view would be unaltered. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view would be low. The low magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of minor adverse significance. The assessment of visual effects during construction is summarised in the table below.
11.5.72
11.5.74
11.5.76
11.5.77
Page 195
Vol 19 Table 11.5.3 Viewpoints effects - construction Viewpoint Residential Viewpoint 1.1: View north east from residences on Nine Elms Lane Viewpoint 1.2: View south east from residences at the junction of Ponsonby Place and Causton Street Recreational Viewpoint 2.1: View south from Lambeth Bridge High Medium Low Moderate adverse Minor adverse Moderate adverse Major adverse Major adverse Moderate adverse Major adverse Major adverse Negligible High Medium Moderate adverse Minor adverse Sensitivity Magnitude Effect
High
Low
Viewpoint 2.2: View south from the High Thames Path at the southern end of Lambeth Bridge Viewpoint 2.3: View south west from the Thames Path opposite Park Plaza Viewpoint 2.4: View south west from the Thames Path outside Peninsula Heights Viewpoint 2.5: View north east from the southern end of Vauxhall Bridge Viewpoint 2.6: View north east from the Thames Path south of St Georges Wharf Viewpoint 2.7: View east from the northern end of Vauxhall Bridge Viewpoint 2.8: View east from the Thames Path at an open space along Millbank Viewpoint 2.9: View south east from the north end of Atterbury Street Viewpoint 2.10: View south east from the entrance to Tate Britain Viewpoint 2.11: View south from the Thames Path opposite Thames House High
Medium
High
High
High
High
High
Medium
High High
High High
High
Negligible
High High
High Low
Major adverse Minor adverse
Page 196
11.6
Operational assessment Year 1 of operation

Operational site assessment
11.6.1
The operational assessment below describes effects during daylight hours. The operational scheme would have little activity associated with it, aside from infrequent maintenance visits. Therefore, for all townscape character areas it is considered that the proposed development would have a negligible effect on tranquillity. The proposed development would have a direct and permanent effect on the townscape resource of the site. The permanent works layout would result in a new area of public realm along Albert Embankment protruding into the river. The above ground structures, including the ventilation structure and columns, and electrical kiosk, would introduce built elements into an area currently devoid of structures. The CSO interception works would result in a permanent projection around the base of Vauxhall Bridge, adversely affecting the setting of the bridge by partially obscuring the existing bridge geometry. The land based area of the construction site would be returned to its original condition at completion. It is likely that the works would result in an improvement to the public realm outside Camelford House, widening the Thames Path. The effects on specific components of the site are described below: Vol 19 Table 11.6.1 Townscape effects - Year 1 of operation ID 01 Component Downstream river wall Effects In the site working area, the existing river wall would be obscured behind the new projection into the river, with a new river wall constructed, using materials in character with the surrounding stretches of river wall. The Thames Path would be reinstated to the riverside location and resurfaced following the main works. Where required, handrailings would be replaced with new ones in keeping with the design of the public realm. Three silver birch trees and some shrubs would be retained. Shrubs removed along Lacks Dock would be replaced as necessary (to be confirmed following the completion of a tree survey).
11.6.2
02
Thames Path
03
Handrailing
04
Trees and shrubs
11.6.3
The magnitude of change and significance of effect on the site would be dependent on the design and finish of the public realm, river wall, interception works around Vauxhall Bridge and above ground structures. Depending on the final design of these features, the magnitude of change is likely to range from low to medium. Assuming the high quality design of the public realm and interception chamber in particular, effects are likely to
11.6.4
Page 197
be of benefit to the townscape resource of the area. Assessing this alongside the high sensitivity of the character area means the effect of the proposed development would be of minor to moderate beneficial significance. 11.6.5 The assessment of magnitude of change and therefore significance of effect will be refined for the submitted scheme and reflected in the final ES. Operational townscape assessment Year 1 of operation River Thames Nine Elms Reach 11.6.6 The proposed main site would not significantly alter the setting of this character area. However, the CSO interception chamber on either side of Vauxhall Bridge would marginally affect the setting of the reach by slightly altering the appearance of Vauxhall Bridge, the most dominant component of this areas character. The change would be partially minimised through terracing to blend the interception chamber on the west side of the bridge into the surrounding foreshore. Therefore, the magnitude of change would be low. Given the low magnitude of change and the medium sensitivity of this character area to a change in setting, the effect of the proposal on the River Thames Nine Elms Reach would be of minor adverse significance. River Thames Vauxhall and Pimlico Reach 11.6.8 The proposed development would result in the permanent loss of an area of foreshore, replaced by an area of public realm. The encroachment would result in a slight degradation of the link between the river and Albert Embankment. However, this is partially minimised by the sites location in an indentation along the river, characterised by a different type of river wall to the listed stretch further downstream. The CSO interception chamber on either side of Vauxhall Bridge would marginally affect the setting of the reach by slightly altering the appearance of Vauxhall Bridge, the most dominant component of this areas character. The change would be partially minimised through terracing to blend part of the interception chamber on the east side of the bridge into the surrounding foreshore. The magnitude of change is likely to range from low to medium. Assessing this alongside the high sensitivity of the character area means the effect of the proposed development would be of minor to moderate adverse significance. River Thames Houses of Parliament Reach 11.6.10 Due to the low height of the proposed above ground structures, the proposed development is not likely to alter the setting of this character area. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the high sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed development would give rise to a negligible effect on the River Thames Houses of Parliament Reach.
11.6.7
11.6.9
11.6.11
Page 198
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Albert Embankment Commercial 11.6.12
The proposed development would result in this character area being locally separated from the River Thames by virtue of the permanent projection resulting from the shaft construction and interception works. This would particularly affect the setting of Camelford House and the SIS building. The public realm along the riverfront would be locally widened as a result of the works. The magnitude of change and significance of effect would be dependent on the design and finish of the public realm, river wall, interception works and above ground structures. Depending on the final design of these features, the magnitude of change is likely to range from low to medium. Assuming the high quality design of the public realm and above ground structures in particular, effects are likely to be of benefit to the townscape resource of the area. Assessing this alongside the high sensitivity of the character area means the effect of the proposed development would be of minor to moderate beneficial significance. Lambeth Residential The proposed development is not likely to alter the setting of this character area. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the medium sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed development would give rise to a negligible effect on Lambeth Residential. Nine Elms Lane Commercial The proposed development is not likely to alter the setting of this character area. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the low sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed development would give rise to a negligible effect on Nine Elms Lane Commercial. St Georges Wharf Residential The proposed main site would not significantly alter the setting of this character area. However, the CSO interception structure on either side of Vauxhall Bridge would marginally affect the setting of the reach by altering the appearance of Vauxhall Bridge, the most dominant component in the immediate setting of this character area. The change would be partially minimised through terracing to blend the interception chamber on the west side of the bridge into the surrounding foreshore. Therefore, the magnitude of change would be low. Given the low magnitude of change and the high sensitivity of this character area to a change in setting, the effect of the proposed construction activity on St Georges Wharf would be of minor adverse significance.
11.6.13
11.6.14
11.6.15 11.6.16
11.6.17 11.6.18
11.6.19
11.6.20
Page 199
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Nine Elms Lane Residential 11.6.21
The proposed main site would not significantly alter the setting of this character area. However, the CSO interception chamber on either side of Vauxhall Bridge would marginally affect the setting of the reach by altering the appearance of Vauxhall Bridge, one of the components of the setting of this character area. The change would be largely minimised through terracing to blend the interception chamber on the west side of the bridge into the surrounding foreshore. Therefore, the magnitude of change would be negligible. Given the negligible magnitude of change and the medium sensitivity of this character area to a change in setting, the proposed construction activity would give rise to a negligible effect on Nine Elms Lane Residential. Pimlico Residential Due to the low height of the proposed above ground structures, the proposed development is not likely to alter the setting of this character area significantly. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the high sensitivity of this character area, means the effect of the proposed development on Pimlico Residential would give rise to a negligible effect. Pimlico Academy The proposed development is not likely to alter the setting of this character area. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the medium sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed development would give rise to a negligible effect on Pimlico Academy. Bessborough Residential The proposed development is not likely to alter the setting of this character area. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the medium sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed development would give rise to a negligible effect on Bessborough Residential. Residential Waterfront - West The proposed development would result in changes to the wider riverside setting of this character area, due to the permanent projection resulting from the shaft construction and interception works at Vauxhall Bridge. The proposed works in front of the existing river wall and alongside either side of Vauxhall Bridge, and the introduction of built elements in the currently undeveloped river channel would be likely to give rise to adverse effects on the setting of this character area.
11.6.22
11.6.23
11.6.24
11.6.25 11.6.26
11.6.27 11.6.28
11.6.29
Page 200
The magnitude of change and significance of effect would be dependent on the design and finish of the river wall, interception works and above ground structures. Depending on the final design of these features, the magnitude of change is likely to range from low to medium. Assessing this alongside the high sensitivity of the character area means the effect of the proposed development would be of minor to moderate adverse significance. Westminster Residential The proposed development would result in changes to the wider riverside setting of this character area, due to the permanent projection resulting from the shaft construction and interception works at Vauxhall Bridge. The proposed works in front of the existing river wall and alongside Vauxhall Bridge, and the introduction of built elements in the currently undeveloped river channel would be likely to give rise to adverse effects on the setting of this character area. The magnitude of change and significance of effect would be dependent on the design and finish of the river wall, interception works and above ground structures. Depending on the final design of these features, the magnitude of change is likely to range from negligible to low. Assessing this alongside the high sensitivity of the character area means the proposed development would give rise to negligible to minor adverse effects. Millbank Conservation Area - Institutional The proposed development would result in changes to the wider riverside setting of this character area, due to the permanent projection resulting from the shaft construction and interception works at Vauxhall Bridge. The proposed works in front of the existing river wall and alongside Vauxhall Bridge, and the introduction of built elements in the currently undeveloped river channel would be likely to give rise to adverse effects on the setting of this character area. The magnitude of change and significance of effect would be dependent on the design and finish of the river wall, interception works and above ground structures. Depending on the final design of these features, the magnitude of change is likely to range from low to medium. Assessing this alongside the high sensitivity of the character area means the effect of the proposed development would be of minor to moderate adverse significance. The assessment of townscape effects during Year 1 of operation is summarised in the table below.
11.6.31
11.6.32
11.6.33
11.6.34
11.6.35
11.6.36
11.6.37
11.6.38
Page 201
Vol 19 Table 11.6.2 Townscape character areas effects Year 1 of operation Townscape character area The site Sensitivity High Magnitude Low to medium Low Low to medium Negligible Low to medium Negligible Negligible Low Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Low to medium Negligible to low Low to medium Effect Minor to moderate beneficial Minor adverse Minor to moderate adverse Negligible Minor to moderate beneficial Negligible Negligible Minor adverse Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Minor to moderate adverse Negligible to minor adverse Minor to moderate adverse
River Thames Nine Elms Reach River Thames Vauxhall and Pimlico Reach River Thames Houses of Parliament Reach Albert Embankment Commercial Lambeth Residential Nine Elms Lane Commercial St Georges Wharf Residential Nine Elms Lane Residential Pimlico Residential Pimlico Academy Bessborough Residential Residential Waterfront West Westminster Residential
Medium High
High High
Medium Low High Medium Medium Medium Medium High
High
Millbank Conservation Area Institutional
High
Operational townscape assessment Year 1 of operation night time effects 11.6.39 It is likely that the operational scheme would have no substantial lighting requirements. Therefore, for all townscape character areas it is
Page 202
considered that the proposed development would have a negligible effect on night time character. Operational visual assessment Year 1 of operation Residential Viewpoint 1.1: View north east from residences on Nine Elms Lane 11.6.40 Views from residences towards the main site would be largely obscured by the arches of Vauxhall Bridge, although the new river wall and above ground structures would be intermittently visible. The interception chambers on either side of Vauxhall Bridge would be visible. The magnitude of change would be minimised through surrounding the interception works with terraces to blend them into the surrounding foreshore, particularly on the west side of the bridge in the direct frame of view. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be low. The low magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed development would be of minor adverse significance. Viewpoint 1.2: View south east from residences at the junction of Ponsonby Place and Causton Street 11.6.42 Views from residences towards the site would be largely obscured by intervening buildings and mature trees along Ponsonby Place, with the new river wall of the site and above ground features forming a barely perceptible component of the background of the view. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the proposed construction phase would give rise to a negligible effect on this viewpoint. Recreational Viewpoint 2.1: View south from Lambeth Bridge 11.6.44 Views from this location would be affected by the design of the new river wall, above ground structures, CSO interception works and public realm. The new structures would form a component of the background of the view, set in front of Camelford House and the SIS building. The proposed works in front of the existing river wall and alongside Vauxhall Bridge, and the introduction of built elements in the currently undeveloped river channel would be likely to give rise to adverse effects on the setting of this character area. Depending on the final design of these features, the magnitude of change is likely to range from negligible to low. Assessing this alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the proposed development would give rise to negligible to minor adverse effects on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 2.2: View south from the Thames Path at the southern end of Lambeth Bridge 11.6.46 Views from this location would be affected by the design of the new river wall, above ground structures, CSO interception works and public realm.
11.6.41
11.6.43
11.6.45
Page 203
The new structures would form a component of the background of the view, set in front of Camelford House, the SIS building and Vauxhall Bridge, but partially obscured by the river pier in the foreground of the view. The proposed works in front of the existing river wall and alongside Vauxhall Bridge, and the introduction of built elements in the currently undeveloped river channel would be likely to give rise to adverse effects on the setting of this character area. 11.6.47 Depending on the final design of these features, the magnitude of change is likely to range from negligible to low. Assessing this alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the proposed development would give rise to negligible to minor adverse effects on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 2.3: View south west from the Thames Path opposite Park Plaza 11.6.48 Views from this location would be affected by the design of the new river wall, above ground structures, CSO interception works and public realm. The new structures would form a component of the background of the view, set in front of Camelford House, the SIS building and Vauxhall Bridge. The proposed works in front of the existing river wall and alongside Vauxhall Bridge, and the introduction of built elements in the currently undeveloped river channel would be likely to give rise to adverse effects on the setting of this character area. Depending on the final design of these features, the magnitude of change is likely to range from negligible to low. Assessing this alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the proposed development would give rise to negligible to minor adverse effects on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 2.4: View south west from the Thames Path outside Peninsula Heights 11.6.50 Views from this location would be affected by the design of the new river wall, above ground structures, CSO interception works and public realm. The new structures would form a dominant component of the foreground of the view, set in front of Camelford House, the SIS building and Vauxhall Bridge. The magnitude of change and significance of effect would be dependent on the design and finish of the public realm, river wall, interception works and above ground structures. Depending on the final design of these features, the magnitude of change is likely to range from low to medium. Assuming the high quality design of the public realm and above ground structures in particular, effects are likely to have a beneficial effect on this viewpoint. Assessing this alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the effect of the proposed development would be of minor to moderate beneficial significance. Viewpoint 2.5: View north east from the southern end of Vauxhall Bridge 11.6.53 Views from this location would be affected by the design of the new river wall, above ground structures, CSO interception works and public realm.
11.6.49
11.6.51
11.6.52
Page 204
The new structures would form a dominant component of the foreground of the view, set in front of Camelford House. 11.6.54 The magnitude of change and significance of effect would be dependent on the design and finish of the public realm, river wall, interception works and above ground structures. Depending on the final design of these features, the magnitude of change is likely to range from low to medium. Assuming the high quality design of the public realm and above ground structures in particular, effects are likely to have a beneficial effect on this viewpoint. Assessing this alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the effect of the proposed development would be of minor to moderate beneficial significance. Viewpoint 2.6: View north east from the Thames Path south of St Georges Wharf 11.6.56 Views from this location towards the main site would be largely obscured by the arches of Vauxhall Bridge, although the new river wall and above ground structures would be intermittently visible. The interception chambers on either side of Vauxhall Bridge would be visible. The magnitude of change would be minimised through surrounding the interception works with terraces to blend them into the surrounding foreshore, particularly on the west side of the bridge in the direct frame of view. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be low. The low magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed development would be of minor adverse significance. Viewpoint 2.7: View east from the northern end of Vauxhall Bridge 11.6.58 Views from this location would be affected by the design of the new river wall, above ground structures, CSO interception works and public realm. The new structures would form a dominant component of the foreground of the view, set in front of Camelford House. The proposed works in front of the existing river wall and alongside Vauxhall Bridge, and the introduction of built elements in the currently undeveloped river channel would be likely to give rise to adverse effects on the setting of this character area. Depending on the final design of these features, the magnitude of change is likely to range from low to medium. Assessing this alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the effect of the proposed development would be of minor to moderate adverse significance. Viewpoint 2.8: View east from the Thames Path at an open space along Millbank 11.6.60 Views from this location would be affected by the design of the new river wall, above ground structures, CSO interception works and public realm. The new structures would form a dominant component of the foreground of the view, set in front of Camelford House. The proposed works in front of the existing river wall and alongside Vauxhall Bridge, and the introduction of built elements in the currently undeveloped river channel
11.6.55
11.6.57
11.6.59
Page 205
would be likely to give rise to adverse effects on the setting of this character area. 11.6.61 Depending on the final design of these features, the magnitude of change is likely to range from low to medium. Assessing this alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the effect of the proposed development would be of minor to moderate adverse significance. Viewpoint 2.9: View south east from the north end of Atterbury Street 11.6.62 Views from residences towards the site would be largely obscured by intervening buildings and mature trees along Ponsonby Place, with the new river wall of the site and above ground features forming a barely perceptible component of the background of the view. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the proposed construction phase would give rise to a negligible effect on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 2.10: View south east from the entrance to Tate Britain 11.6.64 Views from this location would be affected by the design of the new river wall, above ground structures, CSO interception works and public realm. The new structures would form a dominant component of the foreground of the view, set in front of Camelford House and the SIS building. The proposed works in front of the existing river wall and alongside Vauxhall Bridge, and the introduction of built elements in the currently undeveloped river channel would be likely to give rise to adverse effects on the setting of this character area. Depending on the final design of these features, the magnitude of change is likely to range from low to medium. Assessing this alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the effect of the proposed development would be of minor to moderate adverse significance. Viewpoint 2.11: View south from the Thames Path opposite Thames House 11.6.66 Views from this location would be affected by the design of the new river wall, above ground structures, CSO interception works and public realm. The new structures would form a component of the background of the view, set in front of Camelford House, the SIS building and Vauxhall Bridge, but partially obscured by Millbank Millennium Pier in the foreground of the view. The proposed works in front of the existing river wall and alongside Vauxhall Bridge, and the introduction of built elements in the currently undeveloped river channel would be likely to give rise to adverse effects on the setting of this character area. Depending on the final design of these features, the magnitude of change is likely to range from negligible to low. Assessing this alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the proposed development would give rise to negligible to minor adverse effects on this viewpoint. The assessment of visual effects during construction is summarised in the table below.
11.6.63
11.6.65
11.6.67
11.6.68
Page 206
Vol 19 Table 11.6.3 Viewpoint effects - construction Viewpoint Residential Viewpoint 1.1: View north east from residences on Nine Elms Lane Viewpoint 1.2: View south east from residences at the junction of Ponsonby Place and Causton Street Recreational Viewpoint 2.1: View south from Lambeth Bridge High Negligible to low Negligible to minor adverse Negligible to minor adverse Negligible to minor adverse Minor to moderate beneficial Minor to moderate beneficial Minor adverse Minor to moderate adverse Minor to moderate adverse Negligible High Low Minor adverse Negligible Sensitivity Magnitude Effect
High
Negligible
Viewpoint 2.2: View south from the High Thames Path at the southern end of Lambeth Bridge Viewpoint 2.3: View south west from the Thames Path opposite Park Plaza Viewpoint 2.4: View south west from the Thames Path outside Peninsula Heights Viewpoint 2.5: View north east from the southern end of Vauxhall Bridge Viewpoint 2.6: View north east from the Thames Path south of St Georges Wharf Viewpoint 2.7: View east from the northern end of Vauxhall Bridge Viewpoint 2.8: View east from the Thames Path at an open space along Millbank Viewpoint 2.9: View south east from the north end of Atterbury Street Viewpoint 2.10: View south east from the entrance to Tate Britain High
Negligible to low Negligible to low Low to medium Low to medium Low
High
High
High
High
Low to medium Low to medium Negligible
High
High
High
Low to medium
Minor to moderate adverse
Page 207
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Viewpoint Viewpoint 2.11: View south from the Thames Path opposite Thames House
Section 11: Townscape and visual Sensitivity Magnitude Effect High Negligible to low Negligible to minor adverse
Year 15 of operation
11.6.69 Townscape and visual effects arising from the proposed development, 15 years after completion may be altered by growth of vegetation established as part of the project, growth of vegetation in the wider assessment area or changes in the base case arising from redevelopment in the vicinity of the site. These may contribute to reducing adverse effects and generating beneficial effects on the surrounding townscape and visual receptors. This is to be defined further as part of the ongoing design development and will be reflected in the final assessment presented in the ES.
11.7
11.7.1

The measures embedded in the draft CoCP of relevance to townscape and visual amenity are summarised in Section 11.2. In addition, a process of iterative design and assessment has been employed to reduce adverse effects arising during construction. Significant adverse effects arising during construction cannot be further mitigated because the scale of construction activities, primarily the height of cranes, and also construction deliveries, would obstruct views and adversely alter the townscape character. Therefore no further mitigation measures are proposed.
Operation
11.7.2 A process of iterative design and assessment has been employed to reduce adverse effects during operation. Operational effects depend heavily on the architectural and landscape design of built elements, public realm and the river wall, which form part of the project design. Therefore no additional mitigation is proposed.
Page 208
11.8
Vol 19 Table 11.8.1 Townscape assessment summary - construction Significance Major adverse No mitigation possible No mitigation possible No mitigation possible No mitigation possible Major adverse Negligible Negligible Major adverse No mitigation possible Not required Not required No mitigation possible Moderate adverse Major adverse Minor adverse Mitigation Residual significance Major adverse
Assessment summary
Receptor
Effect
The site
Change to character due to construction of the site cofferdam and intensity of construction activity.
River Thames Nine Elms Reach
Change to setting due to the presence of cranes, construction activity and road transport.
Moderate adverse Major adverse
River Thames Vauxhall and Pimlico Reach
Change to setting due to the presence of cranes, construction activity and road transport.
River Thames Houses of Parliament Reach
Marginal change to setting due to the presence of cranes and construction activity.
Minor adverse
Albert Embankment Commercial
Change to setting due to the presence of cranes, site hoardings, construction activity, and road transport.
Major adverse
Lambeth Residential
No significant change to setting.
Negligible Negligible Major adverse
Nine Elms Lane Commercial
St Georges Wharf Residential
Change to setting due to the presence of cranes, construction activity, and road transport.
Page 209
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Significance Minor adverse No mitigation possible Not required Not required Not required No mitigation possible No mitigation possible Major adverse Not required Negligible Negligible Negligible Major adverse Moderate adverse Minor adverse Mitigation Residual significance
Receptor
Effect
Nine Elms Lane Residential
Slight change to setting due to the presence of cranes and construction activity.
Pimlico Residential
Negligible Negligible Negligible Major adverse
Pimlico Academy
Bessborough Residential
Residential Waterfront West
Change to setting due to the presence of cranes and construction activity.
Westminster Residential
Vol 19 Table 11.8.2 Visual assessment summary - construction Effect Significance Mitigation Residual significance Moderate adverse Moderate adverse No mitigation
Receptor
Residential Visibility of site cofferdam, construction activity and cranes.
Viewpoint 1.1: View north east from residences on Nine Elms Lane
Page 210
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Effect possible Minor adverse No mitigation possible No mitigation possible Not required No mitigation possible Major adverse Major adverse Moderate adverse Major adverse No mitigation possible No mitigation possible No mitigation possible No mitigation Minor adverse Significance Mitigation Residual significance
Receptor
Viewpoint 1.2: View south east from Slight visibility of cranes and, construction residences at the junction of activity. Ponsonby Place and Causton Street Moderate adverse Minor adverse Moderate adverse
Recreational Visibility of site cofferdam, construction activity, cranes and site hoardings. Filtered visibility of site cofferdam, construction activity, cranes and site hoardings. Visibility of site cofferdam, construction activity, cranes and site hoardings. Visibility of site cofferdam, construction activity, cranes and site hoardings. Visibility of site cofferdam, construction activity, cranes and site hoardings. Visibility of site cofferdam, construction activity, cranes and site hoardings. Visibility of site cofferdam, construction activity, cranes and site hoardings. Moderate adverse Minor adverse
Viewpoint 2.1: View south from Lambeth Bridge
Viewpoint 2.2: View south from the Thames Path at the southern end of Lambeth Bridge
Viewpoint 2.3: View south west from the Thames Path opposite Park Plaza
Viewpoint 2.4: View south west from the Thames Path outside Peninsula Heights
Viewpoint 2.5: View north east from the southern end of Vauxhall Bridge
Major adverse
Viewpoint 2.6: View north east from the Thames Path south of St Georges Wharf
Viewpoint 2.7: View east from the northern end of Vauxhall Bridge
Page 211
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Effect possible Visibility of site cofferdam, construction activity, cranes and site hoardings. No significant effects. Visibility of site cofferdam, construction activity, cranes and site hoardings. Filtered visibility of site cofferdam, construction activity, cranes and site hoardings. Minor adverse Major adverse No mitigation possible No mitigation possible Negligible Not required Major adverse No mitigation possible Major adverse Significance Mitigation Residual significance
Receptor
Viewpoint 2.8: View east from the Thames Path at an open space along Millbank
Viewpoint 2.9: View south east from the north end of Atterbury Street
Negligible Major adverse
Viewpoint 2.10: View south east from the entrance to Tate Britain
Viewpoint 2.11: View south from the Thames Path opposite Thames House
Minor adverse
Vol 19 Table 11.8.3 Townscape assessment summary Year 1 of operation Significance Minor to moderate beneficial Minor adverse Minor to moderate adverse Mitigation Not required Residual significance Minor to moderate beneficial Not required Ongoing design work will reduce effects as far as possible, which will Minor adverse To be determined
Receptor
Effect
The site
Change in character through creation of new public realm and well-designed above ground structures.
River Thames Nine Elms Reach
Change in setting due to the interception works underneath Vauxhall Bridge.
River Thames Vauxhall and Pimlico Reach
Change to setting through the introduction of new public realm and above ground structures in an area previously part of the river.
Page 212
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Significance be reflected in the final scheme subject to EIA Negligible Not required Not required Minor to moderate beneficial Negligible Negligible Minor adverse Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Minor to moderate adverse Not required Not required Not required Not required Not required Not required Not required Negligible Minor to moderate beneficial Negligible Negligible Minor adverse Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible To be Ongoing design determined work will reduce effects as far as possible, which will be reflected in the final scheme subject Mitigation Residual significance
Receptor
Effect
River Thames Houses of Parliament Reach
Albert Embankment Commercial
Change to setting through the introduction of new public realm and well-designed above ground structures in an area previously part of the river.
Lambeth Residential
Nine Elms Lane Commercial
St Georges Wharf Residential
Change in setting due to the interception works underneath Vauxhall Bridge.
Nine Elms Lane Residential
Pimlico Residential
Pimlico Academy
Bessborough Residential
Residential Waterfront West
Page 213
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Significance to EIA Negligible to minor adverse Mitigation Residual significance
Receptor
Effect
Westminster Residential
To be Ongoing design determined work will reduce effects as far as possible, which will be reflected in the final scheme subject to EIA To be Ongoing design determined work will reduce effects as far as possible, which will be reflected in the final scheme subject to EIA
Vol 19 Table 11.8.4 Visual assessment summary Year 1 of operation Effect Significance Mitigation Residual significance Minor adverse Not required Minor adverse Negligible
Receptor
Residential Visibility of the interception works underneath Vauxhall Bridge. No significant effects.
Viewpoint 1.1: View north east from residences on Nine Elms Lane
Viewpoint 1.2: View south east from residences at the junction of Ponsonby Place and Causton Street
Not required
Negligible
Page 214
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Effect Significance Mitigation Residual significance
Receptor
Recreational Visibility of the new river wall, above ground structures and public realm set in front of Vauxhall Bridge (Grade II* listed). Negligible to minor adverse
Viewpoint 2.1: View south from Lambeth Bridge
Viewpoint 2.2: View south from the Thames Path at the southern end of Lambeth Bridge Visibility of the new river wall, above ground structures and public realm set in front of Vauxhall Bridge (Grade II* listed).
Negligible to minor adverse
Viewpoint 2.3: View south west from the Thames Path opposite Park Plaza Visibility of the new river wall, above ground structures and public realm set in front of Vauxhall Bridge (Grade II* listed).
Negligible to minor adverse
Minor to moderate beneficial Minor to moderate
To be Ongoing design determined work will reduce effects as far as possible, which will be reflected in the final scheme subject to EIA To be Ongoing design determined work will reduce effects as far as possible, which will be reflected in the final scheme subject to EIA To be Ongoing design determined work will reduce effects as far as possible, which will be reflected in the final scheme subject to EIA Minor to Not required moderate beneficial Not required Minor to moderate
Viewpoint 2.4: View south west from the Foreground visibility of the new Thames Path outside Peninsula Heights river wall, above ground structures and public realm. Viewpoint 2.5: View north east from the Foreground visibility of the new southern end of Vauxhall Bridge river wall, above ground
Page 215
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Effect structures and public realm. Visibility of the interception works underneath Vauxhall Bridge. Minor adverse beneficial beneficial Significance Mitigation Residual significance
Receptor
Viewpoint 2.6: View north east from the Thames Path south of St Georges Wharf
Viewpoint 2.7: View east from the northern end of Vauxhall Bridge Visibility of the new river wall, above ground structures and public realm.
Viewpoint 2.8: View east from the Thames Path at an open space along Millbank Visibility of the new river wall, above ground structures and public realm.
Viewpoint 2.9: View south east from the north end of Atterbury Street
No significant effects. Visibility of the new river wall, above ground structures and public realm.
Negligible Minor to moderate adverse
To be Ongoing design determined work will reduce effects as far as possible, which will be reflected in the final scheme subject to EIA To be Ongoing design determined work will reduce effects as far as possible, which will be reflected in the final scheme subject to EIA To be Ongoing design determined work will reduce effects as far as possible, which will be reflected in the final scheme subject to EIA Negligible Not required Ongoing design work will reduce effects as far as To be determined
Viewpoint 2.10: View south east from the entrance to Tate Britain
Page 216
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Effect possible, which will be reflected in the final scheme subject to EIA Visibility of the new river wall, above ground structures and public realm. Negligible to minor adverse To be Ongoing design determined work will reduce effects as far as possible, which will be reflected in the final scheme subject to EIA Significance Mitigation Residual significance
Receptor
Viewpoint 2.11: View south from the Thames Path opposite Thames House
Page 217
11.9
11.9.1
The baseline data collection is complete for this site, aside from establishing a baseline for the night time character of the assessment area. The ES will include the summer baseline for each of the character areas and viewpoints. It will also include winter and summer photos for each character area and viewpoint. The study area for the assessment will be reviewed for the ES, based on the findings of this assessment. It may be appropriate to reduce the study area to focus the assessment on likely significant effects. Further work will be undertaken to establish a base case for the Year 15 operational assessment, using professional judgement aligned with future developments. Two verifiable photomontages will be produced for the ES, in the locations indicated on Vol 19 Figure 11.5.6. Ongoing work will be undertaken throughout the assessment process to identify design measures to minimise adverse effects arising from the proposed scheme in operation. Where possible, these will be embedded in the proposed development. Details of the project design and landscaping will be provided for the planning submission. Further work will be undertaken for the ES to establish the effects of the proposed development after the architectural and landscape design has been fully worked up. This will inform the assessment of operational effects in Year 1 and Year 15. Residual effects remaining after mitigation measures have been identified will be identified and recorded. Assessment of cumulative and in combination effects will be undertaken and reported in the ES.
11.9.2
11.9.3
11.9.4 11.9.5
11.9.6
11.9.7 11.9.8
Page 218
Section 12: Transport
12 12.1
12.1.1
Transport Introduction
This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant transport effects at the Albert Embankment Foreshore site. The site has the potential to affect transport in the following ways: a. effects on pedestrian routes b. effects on cycle routes c. effects on bus routes and patronage d. effects on London Underground and National Rail services e. effects on river services and patronage f. effects on car and coach parking g. effects on highway layout, operation and capacity.
12.1.2
12.1.3 12.1.4
Each of these effects is considered within the assessment for both construction and operational phases of the project. This section details the site-specific findings for Albert Embankment Foreshore site. As detailed in Volume 5, the transport assessment also comprises assessment at Borough (sub area) and project-wide levels these assessments are contained in Volume 6. More detailed analysis of all three levels of assessment (site-specific, Borough level and projectwide) will be presented in the ES. This assessment provides a commentary on the anticipated transport effects of the project. When baseline data collection and analysis is complete a full quantitative transport assessment be carried out. The assessment and mitigation text contained within this section is therefore based on professional judgement using available information at the time of writing.
12.1.5
12.2
12.2.1
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to transport are as follows.
Construction
12.2.2 Construction details for the site relevant to the construction transport assessment are summarised in the table below.
Page 219
Vol 19 Table 12.2.1 Transport - construction traffic details Description Assumed peak period of construction lorry movements Assumed average peak daily construction lorry vehicle movements Types of lorry requiring access Assumption Year 1 of construction 60 movements per day (30 two-way lorry trips) Imported fill lorries Concrete lorries Cement lorries Sand lorries Rebar/Ring lorries Office lorries Pipe/Track/Oils lorries Grout/Materials lorries
Note: a movement represents a one way trip.
12.2.3
Vehicle movements would take place during the typical day shift of ten hours on weekdays (08:00 to 18:00) and five hours on Saturdays (08:00 to 13:00) with up to one hour before and after these hours for mobilisation of staff. Mobilisation may include: loading; unloading; and arrival and departure of workforce and staff at site and movement to and from the place of work. The site would need extended working hours for construction of diaphragm wall shaft and continuous working hours for the connection tunnel. During construction it is assumed that 90% cofferdam fill import and 90% cofferdam excavated material would be transported by barge and all other material by road. Lorry routing during construction phasing Construction traffic heading towards the site from the east (A202) would travel around Vauxhall Cross and then north along Albert Embankment (A3036) towards the site access adjacent to Lacks Dock. Construction traffic heading towards the site from the south (A3205, A3036, A23) would travel north through Vauxhall Cross and then north along Albert Embankment (A3036) towards the site access via Lacks Dock accessway. Access would be left in/left out so vehicles leaving the site would route north to the roundabout with the A3203 at the east end of Lambeth Bridge. Vehicles would then either route back south along Albert Embankment to Vauxhall Cross or east along the Lambeth Road (A3203) towards the Elephant and Castle interchange on the A3.
12.2.4
12.2.5
12.2.6
12.2.7
12.2.8
Page 220
The existing Lacks Dock access and slipway from Albert Embankment is currently used by the commercial tour company Duck Tours which uses amphibious vehicles. The access would remain open to use by Duck Tours during construction. Vol 19 Table 12.2.2 indicates the construction traffic routes for access to/from the Albert Embankment Foreshore. Construction routes have been discussed with both Transport for London and the Local Highway Authority (LHA). Vol 19 Table 12.2.2 Transport - construction traffic routes (see Volume 19 Figures document)
12.2.10
12.2.11
The histogram in Vol 19 Figure 12.2.1 below shows that peak lorry activity at the Albert Embankment Foreshore site would occur in Year 1 of construction. This peak is earlier than the overall project-wide construction peak activity year of 2019. Vol 19 Figure 12.2.2 shows the barge profile.
Page 221
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Vol 19 Figure 12.2.1 Transport - construction lorry profile
Note: Figure shows indicative volumes and movements based upon assumed timings for the works. It is not a schedule and remains subject to change.
Page 222
Printed 25/10/2011
Vol 19 Figure 12.2.2 Transport - construction barge profile
Note: Figure shows indicative volumes and movements based upon assumed timings for the works. It is not a schedule and remains subject to change.
Page 223
Printed 25/10/2011
Construction workers 12.2.12 The construction site is expected to require a maximum workforce of approximately 65 people at any one time. The number and type of workers is shown in the table below. Vol 19 Table 12.2.3 Transport - construction worker numbers Contractor Staff 8:00-18:00 30 12.2.13 Labour 08:00-18:00 25 Client Staff 08:00-18:00 10
It is difficult to predict with certainty the direction that workers would arrive/depart to and from the site. Staff could potentially be based in the local area or in the wider Greater London area and are unlikely to have the same trip attraction to primary routes as construction lorries. The method of distribution of worker trips on the transport networks, including the public transport services, is to be agreed with the Local Highway Authority (LHA) and Transport for London (TfL). Code of construction practice Measures incorporated into the CoCP to reduce transport impacts include measures in relation to HGV management and control such as specific vehicle routes to sites and holding areas for construction vehicles. They also include provision for management plans in relation to construction worker journeys to and from the site. The implementation of these measures has been assumed for the assessment of construction effects.
12.2.14
12.2.15
12.2.16
Operation
12.2.17 12.2.18 12.2.19 The operational structure would be located within the foreshore of the River Thames, close to the Albert Embankment. Access for maintenance vehicles would be via the Lacks Dock access. Access would be required for a light commercial vehicle on a three to six monthly maintenance schedule. Additionally there would be more significant maintenance visits every ten years which would require access to enable two cranes to be brought to the site, which may require temporary suspension of on-street parking in the vicinity of the site.
12.3
12.3.1

Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. All consultee comments relevant to this site are presented in the table below.
Page 224
It is noted that it was reported in the Scoping Report that operational traffic effects were scoped out of the EIA. However, while the environmental effects associated with transport for the operational phase are not expected to be significant or adverse, the Transport Assessment which will accompany the ES as part of the application, will examine the operational phase in order to satisfy the relevant stakeholders that technical issues have been addressed (for example, those associated with access for maintenance activities). As this also allows conclusions in relation to environmental effects to be drawn, these have been included in this assessment for completeness. Vol 19 Table 12.3.1 Transport stakeholder engagement Organisation LB of Lambeth Comment Requests that the application will need to be accompanied by a Transport Assessment that addresses impacts on Albert Embankment and Vauxhall Gyratory, and on the quality of walking and cycling routes in the area. Indicates a preference to avoid vehicles stacking (queuing) at site access, or convoys of vehicles entering the site. Response Assessment of the impact on highways, pedestrian and cycle routes in the area already forms part of the topic methodology.
LB of Lambeth
This forms part of the environmental design of the project, including management processes for construction activity, and is a consideration in determining mitigation required. The topic methodology includes the identification of any mitigation required to address adverse impacts. Noted. The transport assessment work both informs the logistics strategy and assesses the proposed strategy for the purposes of the application. This forms part of the environmental design of the project, including management processes for
LB of Lambeth
Requests that the EIA sets out how any negative impacts on Albert Embankment Gardens, in relation to pedestrian movement, would be minimised. The use of the river for construction traffic [sic] should be maximised.
LB of Lambeth
LB of Lambeth
A Service Management Plan (for construction traffic) will be required and should provide details of the management of vehicles and deliveries.
Page 225
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Organisation Comment
Section 12: Transport Response construction activity, and is a consideration in determining mitigation required. This forms part of the environmental design of the project, including management processes for construction activity, and is a consideration in determining mitigation required. This would be managed through the CoCP. This would be managed through the CoCP.
LB of Lambeth
A Travel Strategy for construction workers should be included in draft in the Transport Assessment.
LB of Lambeth
Would not welcome considerable amount of new signage for diversions. Albert Embankment site may require a vehicle holding / screening area. Suggested area adjacent to Kennington Oval and the road under the railway line at Vauxhall Gyratory. Large crowds are likely at Vauxhall Gyratory on New Years Eve. Thames Path diversion to be sign posted and safety issues taken into account. Raised that the Battersea Power Station proposals and Northern Line extension need to be considered in the TA. Ensure that the construction impact does not impede the operation of the SRN/TLRN.
LB of Lambeth
LB of Lambeth LB of Lambeth LB of Lambeth
This would be managed through the CoCP. This would occur.
These will be covered in the ES.
Transport for London
Ongoing consultation with TfL in regards to modelling and analysis.
Baseline
12.3.3 The baseline methodology follows the standard methodology described in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.
Construction
12.3.4 The construction phase methodology follows the standard methodology described in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.
Page 226
Operation
12.3.5 The operational phase methodology follows the standard methodology described in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site

12.3.6 The assumptions and limitations made for the transport assessment are as listed in Volume 5. Site specific assumptions and limitations for the site will be outlined in the ES when the detailed assessment is presented. The preliminary assessment findings reported here are qualitative and based on professional judgement.
12.3.7
12.4
12.4.1
Baseline conditions
The site is situated entirely within the foreshore of the River Thames, beneath and to the east of Vauxhall Bridge and close to Albert Embankment within LB Lambeth. The following sub-sections describe the baseline conditions of the site in relation to pedestrians, public transport and highways. Sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the site are also identified. Vol 19 Figure 12.4.1 shows the Transport site plan. Vol 19 Figure 12.4.1 Transport site plan (see Volume 19 Figures document)
12.4.2
12.4.3
Pedestrian routes
12.4.4 12.4.5 12.4.6 Footpaths run along both sides of Albert Embankment. A signalised pedestrian crossing is located at the junction of Albert Embankment and Vauxhall Bridge Road. The Thames Path routes along the banks of the River Thames part of which falls within the boundary of the proposed site location.
Cycle routes
12.4.7 12.4.8 There are no cycling facilities along Albert Embankment. A cycle lane is present on Albert Embankment on approach to the Vauxhall Gyratory. A designated London Cycle Route runs along Goding Street which is parallel to Albert Embankment. This route continues to the north along Vauxhall Walk and Tyers Street and to the west over Vauxhall Bridge. There are cycle parking facilities available at Vauxhall Station.
12.4.9
Bus routes
12.4.10 The site is classified as having a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 6b which indicates that public transport provision in the vicinity is excellent. Vauxhall Bus Station is located approximately 200m to the south-east of the site and services routes which have destinations in north, south, east and west London.
12.4.11
Page 227
Vol 19 Figure 12.4.1 shows the location of the bus stops in the vicinity of the site. The destinations and frequency of the routes are detailed in the table below. Vol 19 Table 12.4.1 Transport - bus service frequency Distance from site Origin - destination (metres) and location of bus stop 340m Marylebone Station to Vauxhall Bus Norwood Bus Garage Station 340m Norwood Bus Garage to Vauxhall Bus Marylebone Station Station 340m Claremont Road to New Vauxhall Bus Cross Bus Garage Station 340m New Cross Bus Garage to Vauxhall Bus Queens Park Station Station 35m Waterloo Station to Tooting Vauxhall Station Cross 55m Tooting Station to Waterloo Vauxhall Station Cross 340m Wandsworth Plain to Vauxhall Bus Aldwych Station 340m Aldwych to Wandsworth Vauxhall Bus Plain Station 340m Camden Gardens to Vauxhall Bus Clapham Common Old Town Station 340m Clapham Common Old Town Vauxhall Bus to Camden Gardens Station 340m Lewisham Station to Victoria Vauxhall Bus Station Station 340m Victoria Station to Lewisham Vauxhall Bus Station Station 340m Elephant & Castle/Newington Vauxhall Bus Causeway to Norwood Station Junction Station AM Peak (07:00-10:00) buses per hour 7
Route number 2
36
10
36
10
77
77
87
87
88
88
185
185
196
Page 228
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Distance from site (metres) and location of bus stop 340m Vauxhall Bus Station 55m Vauxhall Cross 35m Vauxhall Cross 35m Vauxhall Cross 55m Vauxhall Cross 340m Vauxhall Bus Station 340m Vauxhall Bus Station
Route number 196
Origin - destination
AM Peak (07:00-10:00) buses per hour 5
344
344
Norwood Junction Station to Elephant & Castle/Newington Causeway Clapham Junction Station/Falcon Road to Appold Street Appold Street to Clapham Junction Station/Falcon Road Elephant & Castle/Newington Causeway to Prince Consort Road/Imperial College Prince Consort Road/Imperial College to Elephant & Castle/Newington Causeway Molesworth Street to Paddington Station Paddington Station to Molesworth Street
360
360
436
436
Total
134
London Underground and National Rail Stations

12.4.13 Vauxhall Rail Station is located adjacent to the bus station and services Waterloo Station and Woking and Guildford. In the AM and PM peaks trains service Vauxhall Rail Station in the eastbound and westbound directions approximately every four minutes. Vauxhall Underground Station, which lies on the Victoria Line, is also located adjacent to the bus station. This routes from Brixton to Walthamstow Central with tubes arriving at the station approximately every three minutes in peak hours.
12.4.14
River services
12.4.15 The new passenger pier to the west of Vauxhall Bridge is within walking distance of the site. Additionally, the London Eye Pier is 1.4km to the east and Cadogans Pier is 3km to the west of the site. The London Eye Pier only operates services in an eastbound direction. Cadogans Pier is served by the TfL River Bus which operates from Monday to Friday during peak hours. This service operates east of the
12.4.16 12.4.17
Page 229
pier and passes the Albert Embankment site six times during the AM peak and twice in the PM peak.
Parking
Existing on-street car parking 12.4.18 12.4.19 There is no on-street parking on the Albert Embankment or in the vicinity of the Vauxhall Gyratory. On-street parking is provided on the eastern side of Goding Street. The southern side of Goding Street is subject to a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) which operates from 08:30 to 18:30, Monday to Friday. Parking here is only permitted for permit holders. Parking on the northern side of Goding Street is also subject to a CPZ which operates from 08:30 to 18:30, Monday to Friday, although parking here is permitted on a pay and display basis or by permit with a maximum stay of four hours. Existing off-street / private car parking 12.4.21 There is a private car park located at 37-38 Miles Street which is open 07:00 to 19:00 Monday to Friday. There is a charge of 3 per hour and a maximum charge of 15 per day and it is approximately 500m from the site. There is also a Sainsburys car park at 62 Wandsworth Road which is available from 07:00 to 23:00 Monday to Fridays, 07:00 to 22:00 Saturdays and 12:00 to 18:00 Sundays. There is capacity available for 450 spaces and there is no charge for a customer that purchases within the store. It is over 700m walking distance from the site. There is a Tesco car park located at Kennington Lane approximately 1.1km from the site. It is available from 08:00 to 22:00 Monday to Friday, 07.30 to 22:00 on Saturdays and 10:00 to 16:00 on Sundays. This car park is free to customers of Tesco, however has a maximum stay of two hours. There are seven coach bays east of the Albert Embankment site on the A3036 Albert Embankment Road east of Tinworth Street. There is no charge but the maximum stay is 20 minutes and the bays are operational between 10:00 and 16:00.
12.4.20
12.4.22
12.4.23
12.4.24
Highway network
12.4.25 12.4.26 Albert Embankment forms part of the TLRN and is a dual carriageway northbound/southbound carriageway with a 30mph speed limit. A bus lane is present on both sides of the road with bus stops located to the south of the site in close proximity to the junction of Albert Embankment with New Springs Garden Walk. To the south Albert Embankment forms an arm of the seven-arm Vauxhall gyratory, with three lanes on entry and exit to the junction. To the north, Albert Embankment forms a junction with Lambeth Palace Road, Lambeth Road and Lambeth Bridge Road. This is a four-arm
12.4.27 12.4.28
Page 230
junction with signalised pedestrian facilities on each arm including pedestrian refuges on all arms.
Survey data
Description of surveys 12.4.29 Baseline survey data for the Albert Embankment Foreshore site were collected between May and July 2011 to establish the existing transport movements in the area. Manual and automated traffic surveys were undertaken to establish specific traffic, pedestrian and cycle movements including turning volumes, queue lengths, saturation flows, degree of saturation and traffic signal timings. The following junction surveys were undertaken in the vicinity of the Albert Embankment Foreshore site to understand highway operation in the area. a. Lambeth Palace Road / Lambeth Road / Albert Embankment / Lambeth Bridge. 12.4.31 12.4.32 No Automated Traffic Counters (ATC) were placed in the vicinity of the Albert Embankment Foreshore site. Pedestrian and cycle surveys were undertaken in the following locations: a. Albert Embankment Crossing south of New Spring Gardens Walk b. Thames Path South Bank in front of Tintagel House and No. Peninsula House c. 12.4.33 Albert Embankment Crossing between New Spring Gardens Walk and Glasshouse Walk.
12.4.30
No parking surveys were undertaken in the roads surrounding the site as there is no parking in the immediate vicinity. Results of surveys Data obtained from the surveys were being processed at the time of writing and will be reported fully in the ES.
12.4.34
Data from third party sources

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

12.4.36 The receptors and their sensitivities in the vicinity of the Albert Embankment Foreshore site are summarised in para. 12.4.2. The transport receptor sensitivity is defined as high, medium or low using the criteria detailed in Volume 5. As the assessment undertaken is judgement based (rather than being based on quantitative analysis), it has not been possible to identify the effects at individual receptors. A commentary is however provided on the effects upon individual receptor groups; namely pedestrians and cyclists in the local area and users/operators of the local bus services, rail network,
12.4.37
Page 231
river services, parking and local highway network. A full assessment will be provided in the ES. Vol 19 Table 12.4.2 Transport receptors Value/sensitivity and justification High Receptor Pedestrians and cyclists using the Thames Path and Albert Embankment. Emergency vehicles requiring access to Albert Embankment. Business and workplace occupiers on Albert Embankment. Public transport users (passengers) using bus, taxi, river and rail services travelling to, from and through the Albert Embankment area. Private vehicle users, including private hire coaches, in the area using the local highways. No receptors with low sensitivity
Medium
Low
12.5
12.5.1
At this stage in the assessment process, a qualitative assessment has been undertaken based on discussions with TfL and the LHAs, knowledge of the transport networks and their operational characteristics in the vicinity of each site and knowledge of the construction programme, duration and levels of construction activity. These elements have been considered in the context of the range of receptors present in each location and the significance criteria identified. Professional judgement has been applied to determine qualitatively the likely effects and their significance in each location being assessed. The Transport Assessment will include full quantitative and qualitative analysis and the transport effects reported in the ES will be based on that detailed analysis
12.5.2
Construction base and development cases

Assessment year 12.5.3 As described in Volume 5, 2019 has been used as the construction assessment year for all sites, as agreed with TfL, to enable a networkwide assessment. The peak period for vehicle trips to the site is predicted to be in year 1 of construction which will be the assessment year for local network assessments and will be contained in the ES.
12.5.4
Page 232
The assessment is undertaken for the network-wide 2019 assessment year. Assessment area
12.5.6 12.5.7
The area being assessed for the Albert Embankment Foreshore site is based on discussions with LB Lambeth and Transport for London. Local roads and junctions included in the assessment are as follows: Stamford St / Waterloo Road / York Road / Waterloo Bridge York Road / Westminster Bridge Road / Lambeth Palace Road / Bridge Street Lambeth Palace Road / Lambeth Road / Albert Embankment / Lambeth Bridge Albert Embankment / A202 Kennington Lane / Bondway / Wandsworth Road / A202 Vauxhall Bridge Road Kennington Lane / Harleyford Road / St Lambeth Road Tyers Street / Kennington Lane / Durham Street Durham Street / Harleyford Road St Lambeth Road / Vauxhall Grove / Langley Lane / Lawn Lane / Parry Street A3036 Wandsworth Road / Parry Street / Nine Elms Lane.
12.5.8
These roads and junctions would be assessed for highway, cycle and pedestrian impacts. The Thames Path would also be included within the assessment due to its proximity to the development site. Local bus and rail services, as identified on Vol 19 Figure 12.4.1, would also be assessed. Construction base case The construction base case takes into account traffic growth and new proposed developments within the local area by 2019. This includes the developments described in Section 3.4.1, namely: St George Wharf Hampton House Island site next to Vauxhall bus station
12.5.9
12.5.10
The following sub-sections detail what is assumed to change between the baseline and base case scenario with respect to the different transport aspects considered. Pedestrian routes Pedestrian routes are not anticipated to change from baseline conditions. The base case therefore assumes the same pedestrian routes as set out in Section 12.4.
12.5.11
Page 233
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Cycle routes 12.5.12
Cycle routes are not anticipated to change from baseline conditions and therefore the base case assumes the same cycle routes as set out in Section 12.4. Bus routes and patronage Bus routes are not anticipated to change from baseline conditions and therefore are assumed to be the same in the base case. Bus patronage is anticipated to increase, the effect of which will be detailed in the Transport Assessment. London Underground and National Rail and patronage London Underground routes are assumed to be the same as baseline conditions as no changes are anticipated. LUL patronage is anticipated to increase, the effect of which will be detailed in the Transport Assessment. National Rail routes are not anticipated to change from baseline conditions. National Rail patronage is anticipated to increase, the effect of which will be detailed in the Transport Assessment. River services and patronage River services and patronage are assumed to be the same as baseline conditions as no changes are anticipated. Parking Coach and car parking provision is assumed to be the same as baseline conditions as no changes are anticipated. Highway layout The physical layout of the highway network is not anticipated to change from baseline conditions and therefore the base case assumed the same highway layout. Highway operation Population growth and development in the wider area will result in an increase in traffic on the surrounding highway network. As a result of this increase, it is anticipated that traffic flows may be heavier and queues longer. Highway capacity analysis Baseline traffic flows (from the junction surveys) will be used and forecasting carried out to understand the capacity on the highway network in the vicinity of the Albert Embankment Foreshore site in 2019 without the Thames Tunnel project. The scope of this analysis is being agreed with LB Lambeth and Transport for London. The full assessment of the highway operation and capacity analysis will be undertaken in the ES.
12.5.13
12.5.14
12.5.15
12.5.16
12.5.17
12.5.18
12.5.19
12.5.20
12.5.21
Page 234
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Construction development case 12.5.22
The construction development case comprises the base case plus construction activities associated with the Albert Embankment Foreshore site. This section addresses the changes that would arise as a result of the Thames Tunnel construction activities at the Albert Embankment Foreshore site. Construction vehicle movements It has been assumed for the purposes of the assessment that construction lorry movements are limited to the day shift only (08:00 to 18:00), Vol 19 Table 12.5.1 shows the construction lorry movement assumptions for the local peak traffic periods. These are based on the peak months of construction activity at this site. The table also shows the construction worker movements expected to be generated by the site. These movements are based on the assumption that material which is excavated from the site is transported by river and that all other movements to the site are undertaken by road. Vol 19 Table 12.5.1 Transport forecast construction vehicle movements Vehicle movements per time period Vehicle type Construction vehicle movements 10%* Worker vehicle movements Total Total Daily 60 0 0700 to 0800 0800 to 0900 1700 to 1800 1800 to 1900
12.5.23
12.5.24
12.5.25
0 0
5 0
5 0
0 0
60
* As explained in Volume 5 it has been assumed that a maximum of 10% of daily construction vehicle movements associated with materials would take place in each of the peak hours.
12.5.26
Assuming all imported and exported cofferdam material is taken by river and all other material is taken by road, an average peak flow of 60 vehicle movements a day is expected during the months of greatest activity at this site. At other times in the construction period, vehicle flows would be lower than this average peak figure. Modal split The Albert Embankment Foreshore site has a PTAL of 6b indicating excellent public transport access. Due to the extensive public transport within the immediate vicinity it has been assumed that no staff or labour staff would drive to the site. Information regarding the travel arrangements of these workers would be included in the CoCP,
12.5.27
Page 235
Construction Management Plan and Work Place Travel Plan documents for the site (to be submitted as part of the application). Pedestrian routes 12.5.28 No pedestrian routes run through the site and therefore none would be impacted on directly by the construction site development. There may be conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles accessing the site. The area above the shaft structure would be finished with hardstanding which would form an extension to the Thames Path. This would usually be publicly accessible, but Thames Water would retain a right of access over them and would install temporary security fencing when they are used for shaft access. Cycle routes 12.5.30 No cycle routes run through the site and therefore none would be impacted on directly by the construction site development. There may be conflicts between cyclists and vehicles accessing the site. Bus routes and patronage 12.5.31 No bus services run through the site and therefore none would be impacted on directly by the construction site development. Bus services operate along Albert Embankment. London Underground and National Rail and patronage 12.5.32 No underground or rail services run through the site. However, the Victoria underground line passes close to the southern side of the site. River services and patronage 12.5.33 No river services serve the site and therefore none would be impacted on by the construction site development. Duck Tours launch services from the site. Parking 12.5.34 12.5.35 12.5.36 12.5.37 No public parking would be impacted on by the worksite area. Highway layout Highway layouts would not be impacted on by the worksite area. Highway operation Only one way operation would be possible at the site entrance off Albert Embankment unless the wall of the adjacent property is realigned. The current proposed configuration would only permit one way operation along the slip way. The existing vehicle passing bay would be insufficient in length to accommodate construction vehicles. An option to operate traffic management measures to facilitate successful one way operation without a passing bay may be considered but would require enough space on site for at least two vehicles to pass.
12.5.29
Page 236
12.5.38 This section summarises the preliminary findings of the assessment undertaken for the 2019 assessment year based on professional judgement. A more detailed assessment will be presented in the ES. Pedestrian routes 12.5.39 A section of footpath would need to be removed to the north of the proposed site access to provide a corner radius which allows egressing vehicles to undertake the left turn out of this site within the nearside lane of Albert Embankment. The Thames Path would require a safe and signposted diversion along the northern footway of the Albert Embankment. There would be an increase in crossing distance for pedestrians at the site access as a result of the removal of a section of footpath, which could slightly increase pedestrian hazard. The diversion of the Thames Path from the foreshore to route along Albert Embankment would result in a decrease in journey time for pedestrians. However, the diversion represents a less scenic route than the existing route along the Thames. Therefore, it is expected that the effect on pedestrian routes would be moderate adverse. Cycle routes 12.5.42 The Thames Path would be diverted from its current location (along the river front and access road at the site) to the footpath on the western side of Albert Embankment. This would result in a shorter journey time for cyclists. There would be an increased number of turning movements across the nearside lane from Albert Embankment into the access road which may result in potential conflicts between cyclists and construction vehicles. On this basis, it is considered that the effect on cycle routes would be moderate adverse. Bus routes and patronage 12.5.45 The routing of bus services in the area should not be affected by the construction works at the Albert Embankment Foreshore site although there may be a very small effect on buses as a result of turning construction traffic. It is anticipated that there would be a proportion of labourers and staff using buses to access the site during construction, however, it is expected that the effect on bus routes and patronage would be negligible. London Underground and National Rail and patronage 12.5.47 The underground and National Rail services at Vauxhall are not likely to be affected by the construction works at the Albert Embankment Foreshore site. It is however noted that as the Victoria underground line passes close to the southern side of the site and therefore monitoring may be required to ensure operations are not impacted by construction works.
12.5.40 12.5.41
12.5.43
12.5.44
12.5.46
Page 237
It is anticipated that there would be a proportion of labourers and staff using rail and underground to access the site during construction, however, it is expected that the effect on London Underground, Overground and National Rail services would be negligible. River services and patronage There may be a possible conflict between construction vehicle movements and Duck Tours vehicles on the site access road. Construction vehicle and Duck Tours drivers would be made aware of this possible conflict. Because of this, it is expected that the effect on river services would be minor adverse. Parking No parking would be affected by the construction works at the Albert Embankment Foreshore site. The effect of the construction works on car parking would therefore be negligible. Highway layout There may be potential conflicts between construction vehicles, the use of the slipway by Duck Tours and the Camelford House access. Arrangements may be required at the site entrance to turn vehicles away if entry is denied. The works to carry out any alterations to the site access are likely to require short term pedestrian and traffic management. Therefore it is expected that the effect on the local highway layout would be moderate adverse. Highway operation An increase in turning movements from Albert Embankment into the site may cause delay to general traffic. There may be potential conflicts between construction vehicles, the use of the slipway by Duck Tours and the Camelford House access. Construction vehicles would turn across the nearside bus lane, affecting buses, cyclists and pedestrians. Due to the possible delay to traffic on Albert Embankment as a result of the turning movements of construction traffic as well as the potential for conflicts between construction vehicles and Duck Tours vehicles / Camelford House access, it is expected that the effect on highway operation (specifically the ease of vehicle movements) would be minor adverse. Highway capacity analysis The levels of construction vehicle movement expected at this site are comparatively low in the context of the amount of traffic already using the road network in the surrounding area. Based on the expected increase in the number of large vehicles on the local road network it is considered that the effect on highway capacity would be negligible.
12.5.49
12.5.50
12.5.51
12.5.52
12.5.53 12.5.54 12.5.55 12.5.56
12.5.57
12.5.58
Page 238
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Significance of effects 12.5.59
The significance of the transport effects described above has been determined as part of the ongoing assessment and analysis. With regard to the application of the IEMA criteria detailed in Volume 5, this is based on professional judgement for the purposes of this assessment. During construction, the number of heavy goods vehicle movements would be moderate. The nature of the construction site layout at this location is considered likely to result in a minor adverse effect on road network operation and delay. Effects on pedestrian and cyclist amenity and safety are expected to be moderate adverse.
12.5.60
12.6
12.6.1
This section summarises the preliminary findings of the assessment based on professional judgement. The results summarised below will be presented in more detail in the ES. A qualitative approach to the assessment is appropriate due to the transport activity during the operational phase being very low. The transport elements have been considered in the context of the range of receptors present in each location and the significance criteria identified. Professional judgement has been applied to determine qualitatively the likely effects and their significance in each location being assessed. The transport effects reported in the ES will be based on more detailed information and qualitative analysis where this is appropriate
12.6.2
Operational base and development cases

Assessment year 12.6.3 As outlined in Volume 5 the operational assessment year has been taken as year 1 of operation which is the year in which it is assumed that the Thames Tunnel would become operational. As transport activity associated with the operational phase is very low, there is no requirement to assess any other year beyond that date. Assessment area 12.6.4 The assessment area for the operational assessment remains the same as for the construction assessment as set out in paras 12.5.6-12.5.7. This includes those roads and junctions which lead to/from the Albert Embankment Foreshore site to the SRN and TRLN. Operational base case 12.6.5 12.6.6 12.6.7 The operational base case takes into account traffic growth and proposed developments within the local area by year 1 of operation. The proposed developments in the vicinity of the site that have been included in the base case are the same as set out in para. 12.5.10. The following sub-sections detail what is assumed to change between the baseline and base case scenario with respect to the different transport aspects considered.
Page 239
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Pedestrian routes 12.6.8
Pedestrian routes are not anticipated to change from baseline conditions. The base case therefore assumes the same pedestrian routes as set out in Section 12.4. Cycle routes Cycle routes are not anticipated to change from baseline conditions and therefore the base case assumes the same cycle routes as set out in Section 12.4. Bus routes and patronage Bus routes are not anticipated to change from baseline conditions and therefore are assumed to be the same in the base case. Bus patronage is anticipated to increase between 2011 (baseline) and year 1 of operation and this assessment will be detailed further in the Transport Assessment. London Underground and National Rail and patronage London Underground routes are assumed to be the same as baseline conditions as no changes are anticipated. It is anticipated that London Underground patronage will increase between 2011 and year 1 of operation and this assessment will be detailed further in the Transport Assessment. National Rail routes are not anticipated to change from baseline conditions. It is anticipated that National Rail patronage will increase between the baseline and year 1 of operation and this assessment will be detailed further in the Transport Assessment. River services and patronage River services and patronage are assumed to be the same as baseline conditions as no changes are anticipated. Parking Parking provision is not anticipated to change from baseline conditions. Highway layout The physical layout of the highway network is not anticipated to change from baseline conditions. Highway operation Population growth and development in the surrounding area will result in an increase in traffic on the surrounding highway network. As a result of this increase, it is anticipated that traffic flows may be heavier and queues longer. Highway capacity analysis Baseline traffic flows (from the junction surveys) are being used and forecasting carried out to understand the capacity on the highway network
12.6.9
12.6.10 12.6.11
12.6.12 12.6.13
12.6.14 12.6.15
12.6.16
12.6.17 12.6.18
12.6.19
12.6.20
Page 240
in the vicinity of Albert Embankment Foreshore site in year 1 of operation without the Thames Tunnel project. The scope of this analysis is being agreed with LB Lambeth and Transport for London and will be reported in the ES. Operational development case 12.6.21 The operational development case for the site includes any permanent changes in the vicinity of Albert Embankment Foreshore site as a result of the Thames Tunnel project and takes into consideration the occasional maintenance activities required at the site. Trip generation 12.6.22 For routine three or six monthly inspections and equipment exercising, vehicular access would be required for light commercial vehicles. In most cases this would be typically a transit van. On occasion there may be a consequent need for small flatbed lorries with lifting cranes, for example to remove plant from the site. During 10 yearly inspections, sites for placing two large cranes would be required. The cranes would facilitate lowering and recovery of tunnel inspection vehicles and to provide duty/standby access for personnel. Modal split 12.6.24 It is anticipated that all trips during the operational phase would be using transit van, lorry or large vehicles. No trips would be made by public transport, walking or cycling due to the nature of maintenance requiring equipment that can only be transported by vehicles. Pedestrian routes 12.6.25 The pedestrian routes within the area would be maintained and would not be affected during the operational phase. Cycle routes 12.6.26 The designated cycle routes within the area would be maintained and would not be affected during the operational phase. Bus routes and patronage 12.6.27 No change is expected to any bus services in the operational phase and it is not anticipated that operational staff journeys would be made by bus. London Underground and National Rail and patronage 12.6.28 No change is expected to any London Underground or National Rail service in the operational phase and it is not anticipated that operational staff journeys would be made by rail. River services and patronage 12.6.29 No change is expected to any river services as a result of the operational phase.
12.6.23
Page 241
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Parking 12.6.30
No change is expected to car parking in the vicinity of the site, compared to the base case, as a result of the operational phase arrangements at Albert Embankment Foreshore. Highway layout The site would be accessed via Lacks Dock during the operational phase. This reflects the current access arrangements for the site. Highway operation Occasional maintenance vehicles would service Albert Embankment Foreshore every three to six months. When larger vehicles are required to service the site, there may be some temporary, short-term delay to other road users.
12.6.31
12.6.32 12.6.33
Operational effects
12.6.34 This section summarises the preliminary findings of the operational assessment undertaken for the year 1 of operation assessment year. Pedestrian routes 12.6.35 As a result of the occasional maintenance trips anticipated at Albert Embankment Foreshore during the operational phase, there would be a negligible effect on pedestrian routes in the area and footways adjacent to the site. Cycle routes 12.6.36 As a result of the occasional maintenance trips anticipated at Albert Embankment Foreshore during the operational phase, there would be a negligible effect on cycle routes in the area and on the roads surrounding the site. Bus routes and patronage 12.6.37 As a result of the occasional maintenance trips anticipated at Albert Embankment Foreshore during the operational phase, there would be a negligible effect on bus routes in the area. London Underground and National Rail and patronage 12.6.38 There would be no effect on rail services and patronage as a result of the occasional maintenance trips anticipated at the Albert Embankment Foreshore site during the operational phase. River services and patronage 12.6.39 As a result of the occasional maintenance trips anticipated at Albert Embankment Foreshore during the operational phase, there may be a possible conflict between maintenance vehicle movements and Duck Tours vehicles. This represents a negligible effect on river services.
Page 242
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Parking 12.6.40
There would be no effect on parking as a result of the occasional maintenance trips anticipated at the Albert Embankment Foreshore site during the operational phase. Highway layout During operational phase the current highway layout would be restored, with the construction access retained, resulting in a negligible effect. Highway operation In the operational phase there may be some delay to road users when large maintenance vehicles are required at Albert Embankment Foreshore, however this is likely to be highly infrequent, and the effect is therefore deemed to be negligible. Highway capacity analysis It is expected that the effect on highway capacity would be negligible. Significance of effects The significance of the transport effects described above has been determined as part of the ongoing assessment and analysis. With regard to the application of the IEMA criteria detailed in Volume 5, this is based on professional judgement for the purposes of this assessment. During the operational phase there would be very occasional vehicle trips to and from the site for maintenance activities but these would have a negligible effect on the surrounding transport networks (in terms of delay and safety) and pedestrian/cyclists.
12.6.41
12.6.42
12.6.43 12.6.44
12.6.45
12.7
12.7.1 12.7.2

Measures contained in the draft CoCP of relevance to transport are summarised in Section 12.2. The project has been designed to limit the effects on the transport networks as far as possible and many measures have been included directly in the design of the project. Any mitigation which is required is detailed below. Pedestrian routes Assuming that the Thames Path diversion is appropriately implemented with safe and signed diversion routes, no mitigation measures are likely to be required in relation to pedestrian routes. Cycle routes Assuming that the Thames Path diversion is appropriately implemented with safe and signed diversion routes, no mitigation measures are likely to be required in relation to cyclist routes.
12.7.3
12.7.4
Page 243
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Bus routes 12.7.5
No mitigation measures are likely to be required for bus routes and services. London Underground and National Rail No mitigation measures are likely to be required for underground or rail services. River services At this location, mitigation measures during the construction phase are likely to be required. As part of the management strategy for the site, a banksman would be stationed at the site access entrance to identify potential conflicts. Construction vehicle drivers would be required to alert the banksman of their arrival upon leaving the holding area. Parking No mitigation measures are likely to be required for parking. Highway layout Assuming that appropriate pedestrian and traffic management measures are implemented during the alterations to the site access, no mitigation would be required. Highway operation As described in para. 12.7.7, a banksman would be stationed at the site access entrance to manage highway operations. Highway capacity No mitigation measures are likely to be required for highway capacity.
12.7.6
12.7.7
12.7.8 12.7.9
12.7.10
12.7.11
Operation
Pedestrian routes 12.7.12 Footways would be returned to their original routes for operation. As a result, no mitigation would be required for the operational phase. Cycle routes 12.7.13 Cycle routes would not be significantly affected by the operation of Albert Embankment Foreshore, and no mitigation would be required. Bus routes 12.7.14 Bus services and patronage would not be significantly affected by the operation of Albert Embankment Foreshore therefore no mitigation would be required. London Underground and National Rail 12.7.15 London Underground and London Overground services would not be affected by the operation of the Albert Embankment Foreshore site therefore no mitigation would be required.
Page 244
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore River services 12.7.16
At this location, mitigation measures during the operation phase are likely to be required, albeit infrequently. Maintenance vehicle movements are expected to be low and infrequent however when large vehicles such as cranes are required to access the site a banksman would be in place to manage access to the foreshore via Lacks Dock Parking There is no on-street parking in the vicinity of the site, therefore no mitigation would be required. Highway layout The highway layout would be restored to the existing layout and therefore would not be affected by the operation of Albert Embankment Foreshore. As a result no mitigation would be required for the operational phase. Highway operation No mitigation would be required during the operational phase. Highway capacity As the local highway network would not experience a significant detrimental effect from the operational proposals, there would be no requirement for highway improvement mitigation to increase capacity of local junctions.
12.7.17
12.7.18
12.7.19 12.7.20
Page 245
12.8
Vol 19 Table 12.8.1 Transport assessment summary - construction Significance Moderate adverse None identified Mitigation Residual significance Moderate adverse
Assessment summary
Receptor Local diversions Possible conflicts at site access Local diversions Possible conflicts at site access Negligible None required Moderate adverse None identified
Effect
Pedestrians in the local area and using the Thames Path
Cyclists in the local area
Moderate adverse
Bus users and operators
Negligible
Some additional patronage from construction workers Possible conflict between Duck Tours and construction vehicles No effect Movement of large construction vehicles Delay to journey time Possible conflict Negligible Minor adverse Minor adverse Negligible
Some additional patronage from construction workers Possible delay to journey time None required
Rail users and operators
Negligible
River users and operators
Banksman to be stationed at site access entrance to manage potential conflicts. None required Banksman to be stationed at site access entrance to manage potential conflicts.
Minor adverse
Parking
Negligible Minor adverse
All road users
Page 246
Printed 25/10/2011
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Mitigation Residual significance
Receptor
Effect Significance between construction vehicles, Duck Tours and Camelford House access. Alterations to site access likely to require short-term pedestrian and traffic management.
Page 247
Printed 25/10/2011
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Vol 19 Table 12.8.2 Transport assessment summary - operation Significance Negligible None required Negligible Mitigation Residual significance
Receptor
Effect
Pedestrians in the local area and using the Thames Path Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible None required Banksman to be stationed at site access entrance to manage conflict when large vehicles require access to site. None required None required None required None required Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
Occasional maintenance trips
Cyclists in the local area
Bus users and operators
Rail users and operators
No effect
River users and operators
Possible conflict between Duck Tours and maintenance vehicles
Parking Negligible
Negligible
No effect
Negligible Negligible
All road users
Occasional delay to road users when large maintenance vehicles accessing site.
Page 248
Printed 25/10/2011
12.9
12.9.1
In addition to the baseline survey data collected and data obtained from Transport for London (strategic model data and additional ATC and junction count data), there is a need for additional data to supplement the data set. The baseline data collection was in the process of being collated at the time of writing. When baseline data collection (including data from third party sources) and analysis is complete a full transport assessment will be carried out. This will include a detailed analysis of all three levels of assessment (sitespecific, Borough level and project-wide) and will include an assessment of cumulative and in combination effects. The scope of analysis will be agreed with TfL and the LHA and will include the identification of effects at individual receptors. This full assessment will be reported in the ES (and Transport Assessment). Following completion of the assessment the mitigation approaches for transport within the project will be finalised and reported in the ES and Transport Assessment.
12.9.2
12.9.3
Page 249
Section 13: Water resources - ground
13 13.1
13.1.1
Water resources groundwater Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant groundwater effects at the Albert Embankment Foreshore site. The Scoping Report identified that in the absence of appropriate measures within the design, there is potential for effects on groundwater resources from both construction and operational phases of the project at the site. This preliminary assessment identifies these measures in order to assess the effects (if any) on groundwater resources that might then require mitigation. This groundwater assessment has some overlap with the land quality assessment (Section 8). Water quality information from the land quality assessment is included in Appendix E of this Volume.
13.1.2
13.1.3
13.2
13.2.1
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to groundwater are as follows. Construction The main infrastructure at the site would include: a. Two separate working areas, the first around Vauxhall Bridge and the second to the north. b. A 16m internal diameter drop shaft, to a level of approximately 47m below ground level in the northern area. c. An interception chamber to the existing CSOs, would be located within the southern area.
13.2.2
d. A connection tunnel would link the two areas. The dimensions of the tunnel would be approximately 75m long and 3m internal diameter. e. A connection tunnel (approximately 3m in diameter and 67m long) would be constructed from the base of the drop shaft to the main Thames Tunnel. 13.2.3 The proposed methods of construction for the various elements of the site are summarised in the Vol 19 Table 13.2.1. Also contained in this table are approximate timescales and depths.
Page 250
Section 13: Water resources groundwater
Vol 19 Table 13.2.1 Groundwater methods of construction Design Element Method of Construction Diaphragm wall and dewatering from outside the perimeter Secant piles Sprayed Concrete Lining Sprayed Concrete Lining with associated dewatering as necessary Construction Periods < 1 year Construction Depth Deep
CSO Drop Shaft Interception Chambers Connection Tunnel
1-2 years 1-2 years
Shallow Shallow
Connection Tunnel (to main tunnel)
3 months (approx.)
Deep
Note: In terms of construction depth - Shallow (means <10m) and Deep (>10m)
13.2.4 13.2.5
The shallow construction of the interception chamber and connection tunnels would be primarily in London Clay. The drop shaft would extend down into the permeable strata of the Lambeth Group (see Appendix E). Underpinning techniques would be used in these strata, involving excavation from within the shaft and insertion of a ring of precast concrete lining connected to the ring above. Approximately six dewatering wells would be drilled outside the shaft and installed with pumps to relieve heave pressure and seepage, and keep the base of the excavation dry. Dewatering prior to the start as well as during construction may be necessary to lower the pressure in advance. As part of the environmental design, dewatering amounts would be minimised where practically possible. Depending on ground conditions found by the further ground investigation work to be undertaken, consideration may be given to deepening the diaphragm walls by between 6 and 8m in order to reduce flows up into the diaphragm wall. Sprayed Concrete Lining (SCL) techniques would be used to construct the connection tunnel. Depending on ground conditions at the site it may be necessary to dewater in the area around the connection tunnel and main tunnel. Ground treatment may be required around the connection point to the main tunnel. All grouts to be used would be subject to EA approval. The cofferdams would be constructed using sheet pile walls driven into the London Clay to minimise any dewatering impacts on groundwater. Operation The underground structures identified in Vol 19 Table 13.2.1 would remain in place during operation potentially creating disruption to groundwater flow.
13.2.6
13.2.7
13.2.8
13.2.9
Page 251
13.3
13.3.1 13.3.2
Scoping and engagement Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. There were no site specific comments from consultees for this particular site. Construction The construction phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site. Operation The operational phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site. Assumptions and limitations At this stage, the groundwater assessment is based on a qualitative approach only (as detailed in Volume 5). The list of receptors is based on the best available information as of March 2011, from the EA for both licensed abstractions and GSHP schemes; and from the local authority for unlicensed abstractions.
13.3.3 13.3.4 13.3.5 13.3.6 13.3.7 13.3.8
13.4
13.4.1
Baseline conditions
The CSO drop shaft at the site would pass through Superficial Deposits/Made Ground, River Terrace Deposits, London Clay, the Harwich Formation and the Lambeth Group as summarised in the table below.
Vol 19 Table 13.4.1 Groundwater anticipated geology and hydrogeology Top Elevation mATD 100.00 99.00 Depth below river bed (m) 0.00 1.00 Thickness Hydrogeology (m)
Formation Superficial Deposits/Made Ground River Terrace Deposits London Clay A3ii A3i A2 Harwich
1.00 4.00
Perched Water Upper Aquifer
95.00 82.50 79.80 68.20
5.00 17.50 20.20 31.80
12.50 2.70 11.60 0.20
Aquiclude
Aquitard /
Page 252
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Depth below river bed (m)
Formation
Top Elevation mATD
Thickness Hydrogeology (m) Aquifer
Lambeth Group USB UMB Sand Channel LtB/LSB LMB UPN (Gv) UPN Thanet Sand Seaford Chalk
68.00 66.40 61.55 60.35 59.25 54.80 51.60 50.20 41.00
32.00 33.60 38.45 39.65 40.75 45.20 48.40 49.80 59.00
1.60 4.85 1.20 1.10 4.45 3.20 1.40 9.20 Not proven
Aquitards/ Aquifers
Lower Aquifer
USBUpper Shelly Beds; UMBUpper Mottled Beds; LtBLaminated Beds LSB-Lower Shelly Beds; LMB-Lower Mottled Beds; UPN (Gv)-Upnor Formation(Gravel); UPNUpnor Formation
13.4.2 13.4.3
The River Terrace Deposits or Upper Aquifer is classified as a secondary A aquifer v. The thickness of RTD is 4m at the site. The shaft would be founded at approximately 57.35mATD, within the Lower Mottled Beds of the Lambeth Group. The invert of the connection to the main tunnel would be in the Lower Mottled Beds of the Lambeth Group at 55.22mATD. A steel reinforced concrete base plug would be formed just into the top of the Upnor (Gravel) Formation, part of the Lambeth Group. This is only 4m above the top of Thanet Sand. The Thanet Sands and the Upnor Beds (lower unit of the Lambeth Group) are known as the Basal Sands and are in hydraulic continuity with the Chalk aquifer beneath London. The Chalk is a principal aquifervi. The Basal Sand and the Chalk together are referred to as the Lower Aquifer. The monitoring of groundwater levels is being undertaken for the project. In addition, the EA has a network of observation monitoring boreholes across London for which records are available dating back to1963. Long term records were provided up to September 2009. The geotechnical investigation boreholes drilled for the Thames Tunnel project have been used to obtain hydrogeological information.
13.4.4
13.4.5
13.4.6
13.4.7
Secondary aquifers are either permeable strata capable of supporting local supplies or low permeability strata with localised features such as fissures. The term secondary aquifer replaces the previously used name of minor aquifer. vi A principal aquifer is a geological strata that exhibits high intergranular and/or fracture permeability. This strata has the ability to support water supply and/or river base flow on a strategic scale. Principal aquifers equate in most cases to aquifers previously referred to as major aquifers.
Page 253
Piezometers and standpipes were installed in eight boreholes to monitor groundwater levels in 15 response zones in different formations by means of data loggers and/or manual dip. Groundwater monitoring records from the completion of each borehole to January 2011 are included in Appendix E. 13.4.8 Water level monitoring by the EA and from the multiple piezometer installations for the project indicates that there is a fall in head with depth from the River Terrace Deposits, through the London Clay and into the Lambeth Group and Thanet Sands. Certain horizons within the Lambeth Group (notably the Upper Shelly Beds and more significantly the Laminated Beds) may contain significant quantities of water. Of particular note are the pressures of up to 25 m due to the confinement by the London Clay. To prevent heave and seepage at the base of the shaft, these pressures would need to be lowered. The site lies within a Source Protection Zone (SPZ) 2 for a Thames Water Utility source, located at a distance of approximately 1.3km away to the southwest. The nearest SPZ 1 is approximately 0.7km away to the west, for private water supply source. Both of these licences are not in the expected ground flow direction beneath the site. There are no unlicensed abstractions near to the site based on information provided by the local authority. Within a 2km radius of site there are three EA licensed abstractions; two abstracts from the Chalk aquifer and one from the River Terrace Deposits. The latter is used for evaporative cooling purposes. There is one licensed Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP) scheme within 0.3km south-southwest of the site and at least two other schemes proposed or under investigation locally. Details of abstractions and protected rights are included in Appendix E. There are no other environmental designations relevant to groundwater in the vicinity of the site. The land quality assessment data shows no exceedences of any parameters tested. There is limited groundwater quality data available near to the site. The flood risk assessment states that there was one incident of groundwater flooding within the vicinity of the site, based on information from the LB of Lambeth SFRA. Further details on the baseline conditions for land quality at the site are provided in Appendix B.
13.4.9
13.4.10
13.4.11 13.4.12
13.4.13
13.4.14
13.4.15
13.4.16
Receptor summary
13.4.17 Those receptors which could be affected during construction or operation are shown in the table below.
Page 254
Vol 19 Table 13.4.2 Groundwater receptors Receptor Upper Aquifer Construction
Operation
Lower Aquifer
Abstractions Licensed
Comment Penetrated by shaft and interception chamber Shaft into Lambeth Group and base slab into top of Thanet Sands Within an SPZ 2 for TWUL source. Also another SPZ 1 at 0.7km to the southwest; several other licensed abstractions from Chalk and river deposits nearby. None identified Two licences in Chalk - 0.3km and 1.5km away
Abstractions Unlicensed GSHP Schemes
13.5
13.5.1
Construction assessment Construction effects

The drop shaft would extend down into central part of Lambeth Group which is in hydraulic continuity with Upnor Beds/Thanet Sand/Chalk forming the Lower Aquifer. Major dewatering would be required from outside the perimeter of the diaphragm wall to lower pressures by in excess of 20m. In order to reduce pressures in the Lambeth Group, it may be necessary to dewater the underlying Chalk aquifer. Additional ground treatment and alternative construction techniques may also be used to reduce the effects of dewatering. The duration of dewatering has yet to be determined but could be for a period of around six months. The dewatering may result in a lowering of groundwater levels at the location of existing abstractions from the Chalk. A potential effect could arise as a result of the interceptor chamber creating a physical obstruction to flow in the Upper Aquifer for a period of up to two years. This could cause a rise in groundwater level up gradient and fall down gradient and consequent change in groundwater storage and flood risk. On the basis of monitoring at the site there no known significant groundwater or soil contamination at the site. Effects of these contaminants are not considered to be significant so the spread of
13.5.2
13.5.3 13.5.4
13.5.5
Page 255
pollution as a result of the works creating a linkage, or as a result of dewatering, is not anticipated. 13.5.6 Activities involving grout would only use products that are acceptable to the EA and would be covered by the CoCP to minimise the risk of pollution. Impact magnitude 13.5.7 The impacts on groundwater quality are expected to be negligible on the basis that there is no known contamination of groundwater pollution identified beneath the site. However, the EA monitoring point 250m away has a large range of elevated determinants, and therefore may reflect deteriorated groundwater quality nearby or beneath the site. The dewatering impact magnitude is considered in the context of the London Groundwater Licensing Policy (EA, 2006) 45. The balance between recharge and abstraction from the Chalk aquifer in London formed part of the groundwater resource assessment of the London Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy (CAMS) 46. The Thames Tunnel falls within groundwater management unit 7 (GWMU7 Confined Chalk) which was classed as over licensed. The London Groundwater Licensing Policy 47 was produced to restrict further abstraction in areas approaching their sustainable limit. This policy was incorporated into the London CAMS licensing policy which identified areas where further licences are restricted. the site falls within the Central and South London area (see Appendix A). Over this section the policy states that new consumptive licenses are restricted to < 0.2 Ml/d annual average, subject to the local assessment being favourable. However, the policy also states that, every application would be assessed on its own merits, be subject to a detailed local hydrogeological assessment and require the submission of the necessary supporting justification and reports for a decision to be made on an individual scheme. The detailed assessment would take into account the following. The preliminary assessment findings are also set out below: Has there been any long-term (several years) downward trend in the groundwater level in the vicinity of the application? a. Preliminary response: The EA piezometry for the London Basin shows a fall in Chalk water levels in this area between 2000 and 2010. The closest EA monitoring borehole has insufficient recent detail to be able to confirm this. Project monitoring is ongoing. 13.5.14 The groundwater level in relation to the base of the London Clay. If the groundwater level is near the base of the London Clay, then the EA would be unlikely to grant the abstraction licence. The EA would use discretion if there is a significant thickness of the Lambeth Group below the London Clay, but the aim is to manage abstraction to keep groundwater levels above the Thanet Sands.
13.5.8 13.5.9
13.5.10
13.5.11
13.5.12 13.5.13
Page 256
a. Preliminary response: Dewatering would be of short duration, and locally to just at the top of the Thanet Sands. This is not therefore expected to be an issue. 13.5.15 Any recent abstraction development in the same area. If groundwater levels have not yet responded to a recent change in abstraction, we may not grant further licences in that area. a. Preliminary response: No recent developments are known. 13.5.16 Other proposals in the area that have been refused for water resource reasons in the last five years. a. Preliminary response: No refusals known. 13.5.17 Proximity of the proposal to an existing or proposed Artificial Recharge Scheme (ARS). Artificial Recharge scheme proposals would be treated as a special case as they involve the management of groundwater levels to provide additional resource to the project operator. a. Preliminary response: No known ARS in the vicinity. 13.5.18 On the basis of this preliminary assessment it is concluded that, a temporary abstraction for dewatering purposes would have a minor impact. The drawdown of the Chalk as a result of dewatering has yet to be quantified. Once modelling is complete, as described in Volume 5, the impact on nearby abstractors can be quantified. In the case of the physical obstruction to flow in the Upper Aquifer, the magnitude of the impact on groundwater levels is currently expected to be minor ie, a slight rise in groundwater levels may take place on the upstream/ south-western side of the structure. There is no contamination (known about at present) in the Upper Aquifer (see Appendix A) so the magnitude of any impact associated with groundwater quality in the Upper Aquifer is negligible. The impacts on groundwater quality within the Lower Aquifer are expected to be negligible if the groundwater levels are kept above the top of the Thanet Sands. However, if the water table is drawn below this level, moderate impacts may be expected. A summary of the impacts and their likely magnitude of impact from different causes are shown in the table below. Vol 19 Table 13.5.1 Groundwater impacts - construction Impact Physical obstruction to flow in the Upper Aquifer and resultant rise in groundwater level Creation of pathway for pollution (both aquifers) Depressurisation of Lambeth Magnitude Minor, groundwater build-up.
13.5.19
13.5.20
13.5.21
13.5.22
13.5.23
Negligible; no known groundwater or soil contamination Minor impact on groundwater
Page 257
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Impact Group, possibly by dewatering the Chalk Groundwater quality (lower aquifer)
Section 13: Water resources groundwater Magnitude resources. Impact on groundwater users yet to be quantified. Negligible if the groundwater levels are kept above the top of the Thanet Sands. Moderate if water levels drawn below this level. Negligible, localised grouting around base of drop shaft with approved materials.
Grouting around the base of drop shaft within Lambeth Group
Pollution through use of grout or Negligible; CoCP would identify other ground treatment or water and acceptable materials and practices excavated material from tunnelling activities Receptor sensitivity 13.5.24 In terms of receptors, the importance of the groundwater attributes is summarised in the table below. Vol 19 Table 13.5.2 Groundwater receptors - construction Receptor Upper Aquifer Lower Aquifer (including GSHP schemes) Chalk abstractions (including GSHP schemes) Ground source heat pump Significance of effects 13.5.25 A summary of significance of the effects is shown in the table below. Vol 19 Table 13.5.3 Groundwater effects - construction Effect Change in groundwater storage and flood risk as a result of physical obstruction in Upper Aquifer Lowering of groundwater levels in the Lower Aquifer from depressurisation of Lambeth Group, possibly by dewatering the Chalk Deterioration in groundwater quality caused by creation of a pathway Upper Aquifer Deterioration in groundwater quality Significance Minor adverse due to medium value of Upper Aquifer Moderate adverse as a result of dewatering within a source protection zone Negligible Value/sensitivity Medium value, secondary aquifer High value principal aquifer used for Public Water Supply Very high value; site within source protection zone. Medium value
Minor adverse effect if the
Page 258
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Effect caused by creation of a pathway Lower Aquifer
Section 13: Water resources groundwater Significance groundwater levels are kept above the top of the Thanet Sands. Moderate adverse effect if water levels drawn below this level. Minor adverse if water table remains above top of Thanet Sands; Major adverse if water table drawn below this level. Minor adverse arise from negligible impact on a very high value receptor.
Effect on groundwater quality from induced groundwater movement as a result of dewatering (Lower Aquifer) Deterioration in water quality in the Lower Aquifer from grouting
Note: Given the structure of the generic significance of effects matrix, the very high value of the abstractions used for public water supply means that effects are always at least minor adverse.
13.6
13.6.1
The operational base and development cases are derived from current baseline conditions as described in Section 4.5 and the supporting Appendix D. The possible future change from current baseline conditions is taken into account by considering a range of groundwater levels in the assessments. The Water Framework Directive commits EU member states to achieve good qualitative and quantitative status of all water bodies (including marine waters up to kilometre from shore) by 2015. The Directive defines 'surface water status' as the general expression of the status of a body of surface water, determined by the poorer of its ecological status and its chemical status. Thus, to achieve 'good surface water status' both the ecological status and the chemical status of a surface water body need to be at least 'good'.
13.6.2
Operational effects
Impact magnitude 13.6.3 The impact of the interception chamber on groundwater flows in the Upper Aquifer has yet to be quantified but since this is a foreshore site, the impact of groundwater build-up is considered to be negligible. Given that the shaft would be full on relatively few occasions, seepage out of the shaft into the Upper Aquifer is highly unlikely to occur and the magnitude of impact is expected to be negligible. The shafts would also have a secondary lining to minimise the risk to the Upper Aquifer. The magnitude of seepage out of the shaft into the Lower Aquifer is assessed as negligible as there would generally be higher heads outside the shaft than within it. The secondary lining of the shaft would also minimise the risk to Lower Aquifer.
13.6.4
13.6.5
Page 259
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore 13.6.6 13.6.7 13.6.8
Seepage into the shaft would be prevented by the double lining, this should ensure that this risk is fully minimised over the asset life. No other operational impacts are envisaged. A summary of the impacts and their likely magnitude is shown in the table below. Vol 19 Table 13.6.1 Groundwater impacts -operation Impact Physical obstruction to flow in the Upper Aquifer and resultant rise in groundwater level (both aquifers) Seepage out of the shaft affecting groundwater quality (both aquifers) Seepage into the shaft affecting groundwater resource (both aquifers) Receptor sensitivity Magnitude Negligible; sheet piles cut down.
Negligible, design of shaft would include a secondary lining Negligible, design of shaft would include a secondary lining
13.6.9
The value of the groundwater receptors remains as defined in Vol 19 Table 13.5.2. Significance of effects A summary of significance of the effects is shown in the table below. Vol 19 Table 13.6.2 Groundwater effects -operation Effect Change in groundwater storage and flood risk as a result of physical obstruction in Upper Aquifer Change in groundwater storage and flood risk as a result of physical obstruction in the Lower Aquifer/Chalk abstractions Deterioration in water quality in the Upper Aquifer from seepage out of the shaft Deterioration in water quality in the Lower Aquifer/Chalk abstractions from seepage out of shaft Loss of resource from seepage into shaft Upper Aquifer Loss of resource from seepage into shaft - Lower Aquifer Significance Negligible due to negligible impact and medium value of Upper Aquifer Minor adverse arise from negligible impact on a high/very high value receptor. Negligible due to negligible impact and medium value of Upper Aquifer Minor adverse arise from negligible impact on a high/very high value receptor. Negligible Upper Aquifer Minor adverse Lower Aquifer
13.6.10
Page 260
13.7
13.7.1
The project includes a number of environmental design elements (see Section 13.4). This section contains the mitigation measures to be taken to address the impacts identified within the assessment.
Construction
13.7.2 Provided good construction practice (outlined in the CoCP) is adopted there should be negligible residual effects on the Upper Aquifer. Residual effects 13.7.3 13.7.4 Provided appropriate mitigation is adopted there should be no residual effects on the Upper Aquifer. The impact of dewatering and the extent and duration of drawdown has yet to be quantified so the residual effects are unknown at the time of writing.
Operation
13.7.5 No significant effects are identified in the operational assessment and therefore no mitigation is required.
Page 261
Section 13: Water resources - groundwater
13.8
Significance Negligible effect due to medium value of Upper Aquifer No mitigation proposed at this point. Mitigation
Assessment summary
Residual significance Yet to be quantified
Vol 19 Table 13.8.1 Groundwater summary of construction assessment
Receptor
Effect
Upper aquifer
Change in groundwater storage and flood risk as a result of physical obstruction in Upper Aquifer Moderate adverse effect as a result of dewatering within a source protection zone. Effect yet to be quantified. Moderate adverse effect as a result of dewatering within a source protection zone. Effect yet to be quantified. Negligible No mitigation proposed at this point.
Lower aquifer
Lowering of groundwater levels in the Lower Aquifer from depressurisation of Lambeth Group
Yet to be quantified
Chalk abstractions
Lowering of the groundwater levels as a result of dewatering
No mitigation proposed at this point.
Upper aquifer
Deterioration in groundwater quality caused by creation of a pathway
No mitigation proposed at this point No mitigation proposed at this point
Negligible
Lower aquifer
Deterioration in groundwater quality caused by creation of a pathway
Minor adverse effect if the groundwater levels are kept above the top of the Thanet Sands. Moderate adverse effect if water levels drawn below this level Minor adverse if water table remains above top of Thanet Sands; Major adverse if water table drawn below this
Lower aquifer
Groundwater quality deterioration from induced groundwater movement as a result of
Further assessment for ES
To be determined
Page 262
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Significance level. Minor adverse arises from negligible impact on a very high value receptor. No mitigation proposed at this point Yet to be quantified Mitigation Residual significance
Section 13: Water resources - groundwater
Receptor
Effect
dewatering (Lower Aquifer)
Lower Deterioration in water quality in aquifer/Chalk the Lower Aquifer from grouting. abstractions
Vol 19 Table 13.8.2 Groundwater construction assessment Significance Negligible Minor adverse Negligible Mitigation No mitigation proposed at this point Further mitigation options to be explored No mitigation proposed at this point Further mitigation options to be explored Residual Significance Negligible As yet undefined Negligible
Receptor
Effect
Upper aquifer
Physical obstruction to flow and Lower resultant rise in groundwater level aquifer/Chalk abstractions
Upper aquifer Minor adverse
Seepage out of the shaft affecting Lower groundwater quality aquifer/Chalk abstractions Negligible effect
As yet undefined No mitigation proposed at this point Further mitigation options to be explored in ES Negligible As yet undefined
Upper aquifer
Lower aquifer/Chalk abstractions
Seepage into shaft affecting groundwater resources
minor adverse, design of shaft includes double lining
Page 263
13.9
13.9.1 13.9.2
No additional data collection is required at the site. The ES will contain quantitative calculations on the amount of dewatering and the effects on the Lower Aquifer/Chalk abstractions and GSHP schemes. No modelling of groundwater abstractions would take place as part of the ES. Assessment of cumulative and in combination effects will be undertaken and reported in the ES. Following completion of the assessment the mitigation approaches for groundwater within the project will be finalised and reported in the ES.
13.9.3 13.9.4
Page 264
Section 13: Water resources surface water
14 14.1
14.1.1
Water resources surface water Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant surface water effects at the Albert Embankment Foreshore site. The assessment: a. identifies the existing water resources baseline conditions b. identifies the future base case conditions against which the project should be assessed c. identifies both the beneficial and adverse effects of the project during construction and operation and assess the significance of the effects
d. identifies any residual effects with respect to surface water resources potentially affected by the project, both during construction and operation. 14.1.2 Groundwater resources are assessed separately in Section 13. Similarly land quality is addressed in Section 8. A Level 1 Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been carried out separately and is included in Section 15. It should be noted that this assessment only covers only the effects arsing at the Albert Embankment site. The project-wide effects on the Thames Tideway, particularly the water quality improvements anticipated from the project are assessed separately in Volume 6.
14.1.3
14.2
14.2.1
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to surface water resources are described in the following sections. The CoCP includes a number of measures that are important in protecting water quality and these are referred to as appropriate. Construction The site is located within the River Thames foreshore, which means that some of the proposed working area would be within the river channel. The base of the shaft is within the Lambeth Group (a water bearing geological strata) so dewatering is likely to be required. Disposal of dewatering effluent can have a significant impact on surface water resources. Construction controls To prevent pollution from leaks or spillages, contaminating substances would be stored in leakproof containers, with secondary containment equal to 110% of the volume of the container, in a safe and secure building or compound. Areas for transfer of contaminating substances, including refuelling, oiling and greasing, would be similarly protected and activities will take place above drip trays or on an impermeable surface with sealed drainage or oil interceptor. All wash down of vehicles (including wheel washing) and equipment will take place in designated areas and washwater will be prevented from passing untreated into drains
14.2.2 14.2.3
14.2.4
Page 265
or holding areas prior to pumping. These measures will be detailed in the CoCP. 14.2.5 The CoCP would be adhered to at all times and good construction techniques followed to ensure protection against pollution incidents. In addition, relevant Environment Agency guidance would be followed, including the following: a. General Guide to the Prevention of Pollution: PPG 1 b. Works and maintenance in or near water: PPG 5 c. PPG 6 Pollution prevention guidance for working at construction and demolition sites
d. Vehicle washing and cleaning: PPG 13 e. Dewatering of Underground Ducts and Chambers: PPG 20 f. Incident Response Planning: PPG 21 g. Storage and handling of drums and intermediate bulk containers (IBCs): PPG 26. 14.2.6 14.2.7 Appropriate maintenance of barges, vehicles and plant will also minimise pollution during construction. Suitable spill kits would be provided and positioned in vulnerable areas and staff would be trained in their use and a record should be kept of all pollution incidents or near-misses, to ensure appropriate action is taken and lessons are learned from incidents. Regular toolbox talks would be held to raise staff awareness of pollution prevention and share lessons learned from any recorded incidents. There would be written procedures in place for dealing with spillages and pollution (the Pollution Incident Control Plan or PICP). The PICP would contain the following as a minimum: a. guidance on the storage and use of hazardous materials with the aim of preventing and containing spills and releases b. guidelines on the degrees of containment which take account of the nature of the materials and the sensitivity of the environment c. procedures to be adopted in the event of a pollution incident, to contain and limit any adverse effects
d. procedures and appropriate information required in the event of any incident such as a spillage or release of a potentially hazardous material e. systems for notifying appropriate emergency services, the Environment Agency and other relevant authorities, Thames Water and the Contractor's personnel f. arrangements for notifying appropriate statutory bodies and local authorities of pollution incidents where required to by legislation
g. relevant procedures and contacts for each work site for forwarding to the emergency services, and appropriate authorities.
Page 266
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Operation 14.2.8
The operation of the tunnel would allow interception of flows which would otherwise discharge at the Clapham and Brixton Strom Relief CSOs. There would therefore be a reduction in the frequency, duration and volume of spills from CSOs.
14.3
14.3.1
The construction and operational phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.
Scoping and engagement

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

14.3.3 Full results from project ground investigations were not available at the time of undertaking this assessment and, assessment of contamination risk from works on the foreshore (eg sediments) and from intrusive ground works at the site have relied on existing records of contamination (see land quality assessment for further details Section 8). The assessment of impact of foreshore works on scour and sedimentation of foreshore sediment has made use of preliminary two-dimensional hydrodynamic modelling undertaken in support of the project design and EIA. Definition of Tideway conditions and current CSO operation during future base and development cases are reliant on model simulations. The model simulations are therefore performed to show the relative change in CSO discharges with a consistent set of catchment and sewer system assumptions. Future climate change simulations have not been completed at the time of compiling this assessment, the impact of climate change on the beneficial impacts of the project will not be available until the ES is completed. The assessment of the effect of a reduction in sewage derived litter and pathogens discharged to the Tideway has been inferred from catchment modelling simulations of the reduction in discharge volume, frequency and duration and have not been directly modelled. Effects of discharges on dissolved oxygen levels in the river have been simulated using the catchment model and the Tidal Thames QUESTS model.
14.3.4
14.3.5
14.3.6
14.3.7
14.4
14.4.1
Baseline conditions Current conditions

A list of surface water receptors and their status under the Water Framework Directive (WFD) which are either within the vicinity of the site,
Page 267
or downstream of the site and therefore have the potential to be affected by the project, are included in the table below. 14.4.2 Due to the dilution effect of the Tideway, the effects of construction activities would be limited to the waterbody listed below and this section assesses only the impacts local to the proposed site at Albert Embankment Foreshore. Therefore in only the Thames Middle waterbody is considered in this assessment. Vol 19 Table 14.4.1 Surface water receptors Water body name/ID Hydromor- Current Current 2015 2015 phological ecological chemical Predicted Predicted status quality quality ecological chemical quality quality Moderate Fail potential Moderate Fail potential
Thames Middle Heavily GB530603911402 modified Water quality 14.4.3
The Thames Middle (which stretches from Battersea Bridge to Mucking Flats) waterbody can be considered to be a high value waterbody as although the current and predicted status in 2015 (target date from River Basin Management Plan) is moderate potential, there is a status objective of good by 2027 48. In addition, the River Thames is a valuable resource and plays an important role as a water resource, habitat provision, amenity, recreation, and transport throughout London. Additionally, the River Thames at Albert Embankment is important for tourism, as a tour boat operated by Duck Tours operates from Lacks Dock slipway. Current CSO operation Using the June 2011 catchment model of the sewer system, the current operation of the Clapham Storm Relief and Brixton Storm Relief CSOs has been characterised and the annual average duration, frequency and volume of spill has been defined. For Brixton Storm Relief CSO: a. the CSO spills on average of 28 times per year b. the CSO spills for an average duration of 131 hours per year c. the spill volume from the CSO is approximately 264,600 m3 per year.
14.4.4
14.4.5
14.4.6
14.4.7
For Clapham Storm Relief CSO: a. the CSO spills on average of five times per year b. the CSO spills for an average duration of 12 hours per year c. the spill volume from the CSO is approximately 12,700 m3 per year.
14.4.8
For the purposes of this assessment, these two CSOs have been considered to operate as a single outfall. The volume from the two CSOs can be combined as the CSOs are likely to operate at the same time, therefore it has been assumed that the number (or frequency) of and
Page 268
duration of the spills would be the same as the single CSO with highest number. It has therefore been assumed that the single outfall would discharge as follows: a. the CSO spills on average of 28 times per year; b. the CSO spills for an average duration of 131 hours per year; and c. 14.4.9 the spill volume from the CSO is approximately 277,300 m3 per year. The polluting load data that is discharged from the CSO (Biochemical Oxygen Demand BOD, Ammoniacal-N and Total Oxidised Nitrogen TON) will be provided in time to inform the ES. Dissolved oxygen 14.4.10 The discharges from Clapham Storm Relief and Brixton Storm Relief CSOs have an effect of depleting dissolved oxygen in the Thames as a result of the biological breakdown of organic matter in the discharges. This causes both a localised (at Albert Embankment) and more widespread (Tideway wide) cumulative effect of rapidly dropping dissolved oxygen levels. The half tide plots showing the oxygen depleting effects of the CSO, treatment works and other discharges to the Tideway will be included in the ES. Exposure to pathogens 14.4.12 Each CSO discharge also increases the risk of exposure to pathogens for river users who come into contact with water. An assessment of health impacts upon recreational users of the River Thames was conducted and reported by the Health Protection Agency in 2007 49 collaborative partnership project between the City of London Port Health Authority and the Health Protection Agency). This concluded that risk of infection can remain for two to four days following a spill as the water containing the spill moves back and forward with the tide. The same study also noted that analysis of the illness events reported against discharges on the Tideway shows that 77% of cases had been rowing in three days of CSO discharge. Assuming the average 28 spills per annum occur on separate days, this could lead a maximum of 112 days per year where recreational users are currently at risk of exposure to pathogens in the Albert Embankment locality. Sewage derived litter 14.4.14 The operation of the Clapham Storm Relief and Brixton Storm Relief CSOs result in the discharge of sewage litter along with the discharge of effluent. It was estimated by the TTSS 50 that overflows from the combined sewers introduce approximately 10,000 tonnes of sewage derived solid material to the Thames Tideway annually. June 2011 catchment modelling of the current CSO operation defined the combined average volume of discharge from Clapham Storm Relief and Brixton Storm Relief CSOs was 277,300
14.4.11
14.4.13
14.4.15
Page 269
m3, representing 0.7% of the total volume discharged to the Thames Tideway annually. This suggests about 70t of sewage derived litter is currently being discharged from the Clapham Storm Relief and Brixton Storm Relief CSOs annually. Receptors designated sites 14.4.16 The River Thames and Tidal Tributaries are designated as a Site of Metropolitan Importance. There are no internationally designated hydraulically linked conservation sites within 2km of the proposed construction site that could be affected by the construction. The effects of the overall scheme on the internationally designated sites in the Lower Thames are covered separately in Volume 6. Receptors discharges and abstractions 14.4.17 Other than the Clapham Storm Relief and Brixton Storm Relief CSOs, the Kings Scholars Pond CSO discharges on the northern bank of the river, approximately 100m upstream, the Heathwall Pumping Station CSO discharges approximately 750m upstream and the Grosvenor Ditch CSO discharges approximately 750m downstream. There are no licensed surface water abstractions within 1km of the site. Contamination 14.4.18 Historical mapping has identified no significant contaminative industrial onsite uses, although Lacks Dock is situated within the site boundary, which has been present since 1896. There is also the potential for the surrounding industrial uses, particularly oil and gas works, to have impacted upon the foreshore site and contamination has been identified on site. See Section 8 for details of on-site contamination. Foreshore 14.4.19 During the time between high tide and low tide, the foreshore of the Tideway at Albert Embankment is exposed. Based on mean high and low water levels, there are approximately 40m of exposed foreshore and this stretch of foreshore would contain both the construction site and the operational site once construction is complete.
Base case
Construction base case 14.4.20 The Lee Tunnel and the TTQI projects (improvement works at Mogden, Beckton, Crossness, Long Reach and Riverside STWs) would be operational by the time construction commences as explained below. Significant improvements in the water quality in the Tideway are anticipated as a result of these projects. The construction base case would therefore be the future water quality in the Tideway with the TTQI projects and the Lee Tunnel in place. Results from modelled simulations of conditions in 2021 (as simulated model runs are only available for 2006 and 2021) with the TTQI and Lee Tunnel in place have therefore been used for the development base case.
14.4.21
Page 270
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Operation base case 14.4.22
For the assessment of operational impacts, the effects have been assessed against a base case of Year 1 of operation. As described in the methodology section in Volume 5, this base case year takes account of the effects that other major schemes would have on the quality of the Thames Tideway as explained in the construction base case above. Results from modelled simulations of conditions in 2021 with the TTQI and Lee Tunnel in place have therefore been used for the development base case.
14.4.23
14.5
14.5.1
As described in Volume 5, the construction effects have been assessed for significance against the relevant WFD objectives as well as their significance against targets set by other legislation. Surface water receptors are identified in Vol 19 Table 14.4.1. The WFD objectives as taken from Article 4 of the WFD are as follows: a. WFD1 Prevent deterioration of the status of all bodies of surface water b. WFD2 Protect, enhance and restore all bodies of surface water, with the aim of achieving good surface water status by 2015 c. WFD3 Protect and enhance all artificial and heavily modified bodies of water, with the aim of achieving good ecological potential and good surface water chemical status by 2015
14.5.2
d. WFD4 Reduce pollution from priority substances and cease or phase out emissions, discharges and losses of priority hazardous substances.
Identification of construction impacts and effects

Site set-up 14.5.3 The main pathways for impact and effect on surface water resources and associated receptors during construction at the Albert Embankment location are as a result of the requirement for a cofferdam to be constructed in the foreshore for both the main construction work and to house the permanent structures required for operation of the project at the Clapham Storm Relief and Brixton Storm Relief CSOs connection once construction is complete. The cofferdam would be constructed by driving sheetpiles into the river bed, which would be sealed and the water pumped out into the river channel. The cofferdam area would be backfilled with granular material loaded from a barge and the fill material spread and compacted using a tracked excavator and twin drum vibratory roller. As the works would be in the foreshore, there is a direct pathway for pollution during the construction of the cofferdams. Once constructed, the cofferdam areas and the shaft construction work within it would be protected from flooding to ensure the construction
14.5.4
14.5.5
Page 271
activity is not affected by high water levels. This would require the cofferdam walls to be raised above the working area within the cofferdams to the required flood level defence. Surface water from rainfall during use of shaft construction area would therefore accumulate during the construction period and would need to be pumped periodically to ensure the working activities are not affected by ponding of rainwater. 14.5.6 The construction of these working areas and the required pumping of rainwater during use of the construction areas therefore create a direct pathway to the river for contaminated run-off, high suspended solids and other pollution from the site during construction of the shaft and other construction works. Before release to the river, the dewatering effluent to be pumped from behind the cofferdams would be subject to settlement (using a lagoon/pond, silt trap or other suitable method) to ensure excessive levels of suspended solids are not discharged to the Tideway. In addition, the discharge would be carried out on an outgoing tide and high flows if possible, to ensure maximum mixing of the discharge and minimum impact of any increased levels of suspended solids in the discharged water. It is considered that via the proposed management of pumping out the cofferdam areas, the pollution pathway can be managed sufficiently to reduce the pollution risk to negligible and the potential effect is not be considered further in this assessment. It is proposed that river transport be used to import and export 90% of the cofferdam fill, although excavated material from the site would be removed by road. In order to facilitate this, temporary campsheds would be constructed, which would allow the barges to moor up adjacent to the site while loading and unloading occurs. The campsheds would be located on the foreshore and would therefore cause a temporary loss of foreshore while they are in place. It is likely that the cofferdams and campsheds would impact on scour patterns while in place, which could cause the mobilisation of increased levels of suspended solids into the river. There may also be an effect on downstream river structures if the pattern of sediment movement is greatly changed. In addition, should the cofferdams and campsheds cause the channel width to be significantly altered, the flow velocity of the river at this point may increase, thereby increasing contraction scour across the whole channel bed. The degree to which the cofferdams and campsheds affect the scour and sediment movement in the channel would be largely dependent on the shape of the structures; the more angular the shape and the more they protrude into the channel, the greater the impact would be. Early modelling for this site in relation to scour suggests that some scouring of existing bed deposits is likely to occur. The extent of this scour will be evaluated by further modelling and will be reported in the ES, at which stage any mitigation required will also be defined. There is the potential for the cofferdams and campsheds at the Albert Embankment site to interact with the adjacent Vauxhall Bridge, causing an area of slack dead water between the two. Floating debris, oils and other pollutants could build up in the area as the flow of the river would not clear
14.5.7
14.5.8
14.5.9
14.5.10
Page 272
the accumulation due to the shelter provided by the bridge and cofferdams. 14.5.11 The foreshore would be reinstated after removal of temporary structures. Due to the natural circulation of sediments within the estuary, the accumulation of silts and estuarine muds is likely to occur naturally following the removal of the temporary structures. In addition, the structures would be designed and engineered to allow unimpeded flow and minimise conflict and slack water between Vauxhall Bridge and the working site, where practicable. Good practice design would reduce the effects of scour at the face of the cofferdams and campsheds, and rip-rap or gabions may be required to prevent damage to structures. This is especially important at this site, preliminary work suggests that some scouring of existing bed deposits is likely to occur around the temporary works cofferdam. Such measures would not remove the impact pathway and hence the effects are considered in this section for their significance and requirement for specific mitigation. Site drainage 14.5.13 Site runoff has the potential to become polluted with a number of substances during construction activities, which may include the following: a. silt and suspended solids from earthworks and exposed soils b. oil and fuels from machinery and equipment maintenance and refuelling c. concrete or cement from spillages during spraying and pouring d. hazardous substances from ground contamination exposed during earthworks and construction. 14.5.14 These pollutants could leak to the Tideway or be directly discharged to it as part of the surface water discharge. Any effects on the Tideway from leakage or discharges would be adverse, although of short duration before remedial action was taken. The likelihood of pollution effects occurring would be greatly reduced by the use of sealed site drainage for the cofferdam area. Where possible, all site drainage would be drained and discharged to mains foul or combined sewers and where this is not practicable, the site would be drained such that accumulating surface water would be directed to holding or settling tanks, separators and other measures prior to discharge to the Tideway via pumps over the cofferdam walls. It is understood that foul drainage from the site welfare facilities would be connected to the mains foul or combined sewer. There should therefore be no impact pathway from the routine discharge of foul drainage from the site and there is considered to be no effect on the Thames Middle waterbody. It is considered that via the proposed drainage management, the pollution pathway can be managed sufficiently to reduce the pollution risk to negligible.
14.5.12
14.5.15
14.5.16
14.5.17
Page 273
There is the potential for pollution of the Thames Tideway if materials are dropped or spilled during the loading and unloading of barges. There is also the potential for pollution from the barges themselves, such as oil or diesel spillages. Any effects on the adjacent Tideway from this impact would be adverse. It is considered that via the adherence to the CoCP and PICP during construction works, the pollution pathway can be managed sufficiently to reduce the pollution risk to negligible. Space constraints have dictated a site configuration which is split between two working areas within the site: one to the north adjacent to the entrance slipway at Lack Dock; and one to the south under and around the foundations of Vauxhall Bridge. It would therefore be necessary to construct a road along the foreshore to link these two parts of the site. It is suggested that this would be constructed of interlocking concrete blocks (ArmolocTM or similar), laid on the foreshore to create a temporary solid surface to allow small vehicles to drive between the two parts of the site at low tide. The blocks can then be removed when construction works are complete, which should allow the foreshore to be reinstated. It is anticipated that the recovery of the foreshore would happen naturally over a fairly short time period, although there would be a temporary loss of foreshore. The temporary foreshore road could be a very high risk activity as any materials (eg oils, concrete or other spillages) dropped onto the road at low tide would be washed into the river as the tide rises. All spillages on the foreshore road would be cleared immediately, to ensure no pollutants are washed into the river as the tide rises. In order to allow sufficient time for this to be carried out, use of the foreshore road for transport of materials could be limited to a falling tide only, although this is dependent on the level of the road and the tide, the relative heights of which would determine the length of time for which the road is submerged and exposed. A visual inspection of the foreshore road would be made prior to high tide, to ensure any previously unobserved spillages are removed prior to submersion of the road. It is considered that via the proposed spillage management, the pollution pathway can be managed sufficiently to reduce the pollution risk to negligible. Contamination and dewatering There is a specific contamination risk from the following substances at the Albert Embankment foreshore site (see Section 8 land quality for details): a. Arsenic 14 mg/kg (Threshold Effect Level 7.24 mg/kg) b. Zinc 150 mg/kg (Threshold Effect Level 124 mg/kg) c. Copper 43 mg/kg (Threshold Effect Level 18.7mg/kg) d. Lead 32 mg/kg (Threshold Effect Level 30.2 mg/kg).
14.5.19
14.5.20
14.5.21
14.5.22
14.5.23
14.5.24
14.5.25
14.5.26
Page 274
At this point in the EIA process it is not known what remediation measures would be used on site to mitigate against the effects of site contamination affecting the water to be pumped out from behind the cofferdams. It is therefore assumed that the water behind the cofferdams would be tested for the presence of identified contaminants prior to discharge and would be removed by tanker to an appropriate disposal facility, if required. The base of the shaft would be constructed in the Lambeth Group and it is therefore anticipated that dewatering would be required. The contaminants detected could potentially cause pollution of the receiving watercourse, if discharged at the concentrations detected in the above. The receiving watercourses would provide dilution of the discharged groundwater and it is therefore thought unlikely that any environmental quality standards would be breached by contaminants present within the discharged water. In addition, the discharge would require a Consent to Discharge from the EA, which would set limits on the discharge ensuring no pollution of the receiving waters. Settlement of suspended solids within the dewatering would minimise the levels of contaminants within the effluent, which tend to be associated with particulates, but additional treatment of the dewatering effluent, or remediation of groundwater, may be required. The management of potentially contaminated water collected in the cofferdam area and dewatering (as outlined above) would mean that the pollution pathway can be managed sufficiently to reduce the pollution risk to negligible. The potential effect relating to contamination and dewatering has therefore been scoped out from further assessment.
14.5.28
14.5.29
14.5.30
Assessment of impacts
14.5.31 The table below provides the assessment of impacts and effects during construction at Albert Embankment Foreshore against: a. WFD environmental objectives b. local impacts c. whether other legislative targets are likely to be affected.
Page 275
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Vol 19 Table 14.5.1 Surface water impacts - construction
Duration and Reversibility WFD1 WFD2 WFD3 Local effects or Other Legislative effects WFD Objectives met? WFD4
Impact
Water body
Assessment and likely effect
Thames Middle N/A
Compaction of foreshore and change in geomorphology
Landtake from the river channel with an associated temporary loss of foreshore
Temporary until end of construction.
The change in the foreshore is considered to have an impact local to Albert Embankment
(campshed and cofferdam construction).
Whilst this would be re-instated postconstruction, there would be a period of time where the geomorphology of the foreshore is altered until foreshore mud is redeposited via natural process.
Largely reversible as some foreshore reinstatement would occur. The effect is not considered to result in deterioration of the Thames Middle status. The Thames Middle is a heavily modified waterbody and only needs to achieve good potential.
Although the effect would potentially prevent enhancement and protection of the Thames Middle, the effect is considered to be reversible and temporary.
Page 276

Duration and Reversibility WFD1 WFD2 WFD3 Local effects or Other Legislative effects WFD Objectives met? WFD4
Impact
Water body
Thames Middle N/A
Temporary until end of construction.
The change in geomorphology of the foreshore is considered to have an impact local to Albert Embankment. The scour rates are considered to have an effect locally and more widely in terms of potential effect on the structural integrity of flood defences and the Vauxhall Bridge abutments N/A The effect on morphology is not considered to result in deterioration of the Thames Middle status. The Thames Middle is a heavily modified waterbody and only needs to achieve good potential.
Increased scour and changes to sediment movement which may affect nearby infrastructure in the foreshore (campsheds and cofferdams). Largely reversible as some foreshore reinstatement would occur.
Loss of river bed and increased suspended solids from scour around the base of the cofferdam and campsheds. Changes to sediment movement which may remove sediment at other sites.
Although the effect would potentially prevent enhancement and protection of the morphology of the Thames Middle, the effect is considered to be reversible and temporary.
Temporary effect.
Alteration of Thames flow regime Middle which may cause slack or dead water, leading to the accumulation of debris or pollutants Reversible as construction cofferdam area would be removed when construction complete.
The proximity of the Vauxhall Bridge could lead to the accumulation of debris or pollutants between the cofferdam and the pier.
The water quality and aesthetic effect is considered to have an effect locally in the context of local river users (Duck Tours).
The effect would not alter overall water quality in the Thames Middle.
The effect on water quality and aesthetics is not considered to result in deterioration of the Thames Middle status of moderate.
The Thames Middle is a heavily modified waterbody and only needs to achieve good potential.
Page 277
Significance of effects
14.5.32 The table below identifies the significance of the effects identified in accordance with the criteria set out in Volume 5. Vol 19 Table 14.5.2 Surface water effects - construction Effect Significance and justification Minor adverse All WFD objectives can be met. Reinstatement would be possible postconstruction and natural process would result in re-deposition and recovery of foreshore from the construction area. The effect is considered to have a local effect during recovery as the morphology of the foreshore would be altered, but the effect is reversible and not considered to be significant. Moderate adverse Increased scour and changes to sediment movement which may affect nearby sites (due to campsheds and cofferdams) Modelling has shown that scour may occur at cofferdams. This is not considered to adversely affect attainment of WFD objectives, but it is considered significant at the local scale and could impact on integrity of flood defences and the Vauxhall Bridge abutments. Further assessment will be undertaken in the ES. Minor adverse Alteration of flow regime which may cause slack or dead water, leading to the accumulation of debris or pollutants The water quality effect would not prevent WFD objectives being met, and the water impact is considered to have a local effect that is reversible once construction is complete.
Damage to and temporary loss of foreshore (due to campsheds and cofferdam constructions)
14.6
14.6.1
As with the construction effects, the assessment have defined the WFD objectives and the waterbody affected.
Page 278
Identification of operational impacts and effects

Permanent foreshore development 14.6.2 Following construction of the shaft and the connection of the Clapham Storm Relief and Brixton Storm Relief CSOs to the main tunnel, the shaft would continue to provide an operational function for the project, and as well as a permanent access point to the shaft, would require other above ground structures. This would require a permanent area of land to be created around the shaft and above ground features which would include a new defence line to maintain the standard of protection. This would result in a direct loss of foreshore (approximately 1,750m2, exact area to be confirmed for ES) from the hydro-morphology of the river. It is also likely that the new area of landtake would impact on scour patterns which could alter the geomorphology of the foreshore and may also have an effect on downstream river structures if the pattern of sediment movement is greatly changed. In addition, should the permanent landtake cause the channel width to be significantly altered, the flow velocity of the river at this point may increase, thereby increasing contraction scour across the whole channel bed. The degree to which the new area of landtake affects the scour and sediment movement in the channel would be largely dependent on the shape of the cofferdam; the more angular the shape and the more it protrudes into the channel, the greater the impact would be. The area of permanent landtake would be designed and engineered to minimise the change in velocity around the structure and hence minimise subsequent effects of scour and sedimentation around the structure and downstream. The design would need to take into account minimisation of land take to ensure minimal encroachment into foreshore (in keeping with EA policy on foreshore encroachment) and the inclusion of intertidal terraces within the design would minimise habitat loss in the foreshore. However, the good practice design would not remove the impact pathway and hence the effects are considered in this section for their significance and requirement for specific mitigation. Reduction in CSO spills 14.6.6 The operation of the Clapham Storm Relief and Brixton Storm Relief CSOs connections as part of the project as a whole would have a beneficial effect on water quality, bacteriological quality and aesthetic value in the Albert Embankment locality and beyond by substantially reducing the frequency, duration and volume of discharges from the Clapham Storm Relief and Brixton Storm Relief CSOs. June 2011 catchment modelling of the operational base case has simulated that by Year 1 of operation (assessed to be 2021 to use modelled assumptions) the frequency, duration and volume of the Clapham Storm Relief and Brixton Storm Relief CSOs would have increased (as a result of increased population) beyond the current baseline. For Brixton Storm Relief CSO: a. The CSO spills on average of 29 times in the typical year.
14.6.3
14.6.4
14.6.5
14.6.7
Page 279
b. The CSO spills for an average duration of 137 hours in the typical year. c. 14.6.8 The spill volume from the CSO is approximately 278,600m3 in the typical year.
For Clapham Storm Relief CSO: a. The CSO spills on average of six times in the typical year. b. The CSO spills for an average duration of 15 hours in the typical year. c. The spill volume from the CSO is approximately 14,400m3 in the typical year.
14.6.9
For the purposes of this assessment, these two CSOs have been considered to operate as a single outfall (see para. 14.4.8 above). It has therefore been assumed that the single outfall would discharge as follows a. The CSO spills on average of 29 times in the typical year (one greater than the base case). b. The CSO spills for an average duration of 137 hours in the typical year (six hours greater than the current baseline). c. The spill volume from the CSO is approximately 293,000 m3 in the typical year (15,700 m3 greater than the base case).
14.6.10 14.6.11
The number of risk days for river users being exposed to pathogens during the base case year would be a maximum of 116 days in the typical year. Catchment modelling of the operational development case has simulated that by Year 1 of operation (assessed to be 2021 to use modelled assumptions) with the project in place, the frequency, duration and volume of the Clapham Storm Relief and Brixton Storm Relief CSOs would have substantially decreased (as a result of the capture of wastewater flow into the tunnel) to the following, for Brixton Storm Relief CSO: a. The CSO spills on average just once in the typical year b. The CSO spills for an average duration of 4 hours in the typical year c. The spill volume from the CSO is approximately 5,700m3 in the typical year.
14.6.12
For Clapham Storm Relief CSO: a. The CSO spills on average just once in the typical year. b. The CSO spills for an average duration of five hours in the typical year. c. The spill volume from the CSO is approximately 7,900m3 in the typical year.
14.6.13
For the purposes of this assessment, these two CSOs would be considered as a single outfall, the discharge from which is therefore assumed to be as follows: a. The CSO spills on average just once in the typical year (28 times less than the base case).
Page 280
b. The CSO spills for an average duration of five hours in the typical year (132 hours less than the base case). c. 14.6.14 The spill volume from the CSO is approximately 13,600m3 in the typical year (279,400 m3 less than the base case).
The frequency, duration and volume of spill at Albert Embankment would therefore be reduced by approximately 95% in the typical year as a result of the project. Following on from the interpretation of the base case the number of risk days for river users being exposed to pathogens during the development case year would be a maximum of four days in the typical year (a reduction of up to 112 days of risk of exposure). In addition, the tonnage of sewage derived litter can be expected to be reduced by 95% from 70t to 3.5t in the typical year. The data for the reduction in polluting load that is discharged from the CSO (Biochemical Oxygen Demand BOD, Ammoniacal-N and Total Oxidised Nitrogen TON) would be provided in time to inform the ES.
14.6.15
14.6.16 14.6.17
Assessment of impacts
14.6.18 The table below gives a summary of the assessment of effects during operation of the Albert Embankment foreshore site against: a. WFD environmental objectives b. local impacts c. 14.6.19 whether other legislative targets are likely to be affected. As discussed, overall Thames Tideway-wide benefits are discussed in Volume 6 and this section only assesses the impacts local to the proposed site at Albert Embankment Foreshore. Therefore only the Thames Middle waterbody is considered in the assessment for Clapham Storm Relief and Brixton Storm Relief CSOs.
Page 281
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Vol 19 Table 14.6.1 Surface water impacts - operation WFD Objectives met?
WFD1 WFD2 WFD3 WFD4
Impact
Water body Duration and reversibility

Permanent. N/A The change in geomorphology of the foreshore is considered to have an impact local to Albert Embankment. x
Local effects or other legislative effects
Geomorpholo Thames gical Middle changes as a result of permanent land take
Landtake from the river channel with an associated permanent loss of foreshore
River velocities likely to be altered having an adverse impact on scour and sedimentation, potentially affecting flood defences and structure integrity of downstream infrastructure. The scour rates may have an effect locally and more widely in terms of potential effect on the structural integrity of flood defences and the Vauxhall Bridge abutments
Not reversible although habitat creation would be incorporated into design of permanent works in the form of intertidal terraces. Due to the size of the permanent landtake, the effect on morphology is not considered to result in deterioration of the Thames Middle status via hydromorph ology.
The Thames Middle is a heavily modified waterbody and only needs to achieve good potential.
Although the effect would limited to the Albert Embankment locality permanent encroachment may prevent morphological enhancement and would result in permanent loss of foreshore within the channel morphology.
Page 282
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore WFD Objectives met?

WFD1 WFD2 WFD3 WFD4
Impact

Permanent.
Thames Middle
Reduced spill frequency, duration and volume from the Clapham Storm Relief and Brixton Storm Relief CSOs. Reversibility depends on the operation of the tunnel. N/A The Thames Middle is a heavily modified waterbody and only needs to achieve good potential
Improved water quality in the vicinity of the Clapham Storm Relief and Brixton Storm Relief CSOs by reduced pollutant loading and increased dissolved oxygen levels.
Contribution to the overall Tideway-wide water quality improvements
The water quality local to Albert Embankment would be improved and would ensure that the operation of the Clapham Storm Relief and Brixton Storm Relief CSOs complies with the requirements of the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive
Along with the project as a whole, the Clapham Storm Relief and Brixton Storm Relief CSOs connection would enhance the water quality of the tideway helping to move the Middle Thames towards good ecological status N/A The effect is not relevant to WFD objectives
Capture of the Clapham Storm Relief and Brixton Storm Relief CSOs would reduce pollution from priority substances at this site
Thames Middle Reversibility depends on the operation of the tunnel
Reduced bacterial loadings of the river giving health improvement s to river
Risk of exposure days to pathogens would be reduced to a maximum of 4 days in the typical year (a reduction of up to 112 days of risk of
Permanent
The bacteriological improvement effect is considered to have an effect locally in the context of local river users.
Page 283
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore WFD Objectives met?

WFD1 WFD2 WFD3 WFD4
Impact
users Permanent Reversibility depends on the operation of the tunnel N/A
exposure).
Reduced sewage litter discharge
Thames Middle
Sewage derived litter discharge at Albert Embankment would be reduced by 95% in the typical year improving the aesthetic quality of the river locally
The sewage derived litter reduction effect is considered to have an effect locally in the context of local river users.
The effect is not relevant to WFD objectives
Page 284
Significance of effects
14.6.20 The table below identifies the significance of the effects identified in accordance with the criteria set out in Volume 5. Vol 19 Table 14.6.2 Surface water effects - operation Effect Significance and justification Moderate adverse Geomorphological changes as a result of permanent land take WFD objective 3 may be prevented from being attained Major beneficial The improvements would allow for the future attainment of good status under objective 3 in combination with the improvements elsewhere in the Tideway and would also ensure that operation of the Clapham Storm relief and Brixton Storm Relief complies with the requirements of the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive in only spilling during exceptionally heavy rainfall Moderate beneficial Reduced bacterial loadings of the river giving health improvements to river users The improvements would not adversely affect WFD or other legislative drivers, but would significantly improve conditions for river users at Albert Embankment and in the Thames Middle as a whole Moderate beneficial The improvements would not adversely affect WFD or other legislative drivers, but would significantly improve aesthetic conditions for river users and recreational use at Albert Embankment and in the Thames Middle as a whole
Reduced spill frequency, duration and volume from the Clapham Storm Relief and Brixton Storm Relief CSOs.
Reduced sewage litter discharge
14.7
14.7.1
The assessment effects for both construction and operation has highlighted two significant adverse effects that would require mitigation to reduce the significance.
Page 285
Both effects relate to the change in scour, sedimentation and resultant effect on geomorphology and overall morphology of the Middle Thames waterbody. For construction, these effects are associated with the cofferdams and campsheds required to construct the site and for operation, the area of permanent landtake. In addition, there is risk of adverse effect to the integrity of flood defences and Vauxhall Bridge abutments as a result of both construction and operational impacts identified. Physical modelling of some of the required foreshore sites is underway which will be used to inform potential impacts at Albert Embankment and the mitigation required; however, results were not available to inform the design to mitigate the effects on scour. This assessment and mitigation will therefore be included in the ES. Mitigation for protection of flood defences and the Vauxhall Bridge abutment will be identified once the physical modelling results are available and the scour assessment has been concluded. Any mitigation is likely to take the form of gabions or other protective measures at the base of flood defences to minimise scour effects.
14.7.3
14.7.4
14.7.5
Page 286
14.8
Vol 19 Table 14.8.1 Surface water assessment summary - construction Effect Significance Mitigation Residual significance As yet undefined
Assessment summary
Receptor
Thames Middle Minor adverse Moderate adverse Minor adverse As yet undefined As yet undefined
Damage to and temporary loss of foreshore (campshed and cofferdam construction)
As yet undefined
Thames Middle
Increased scour and changes to sediment movement which may affect nearby sites (campsheds and cofferdams)
As yet undefined
Thames Middle
Alteration of flow regime which may cause slack or dead water, leading to the accumulation of debris or pollutants
As yet undefined
Vol 19 Table 14.8.2 Surface water assessment summary - operation Effect Significance Moderate adverse Major beneficial Mitigation Residual significance As yet undefined As yet undefined None required Major beneficial Moderate beneficial Moderate beneficial
Receptor
Thames Middle
Thames Middle
Thames Middle
Thames Middle
Geomorphological changes as a result of permanent land take Reduced spill frequency, duration and volume from the Clapham Storm Relief and Brixton Storm Relief CSOs. Reduced bacterial loadings of the river giving health improvements to river users Reduced sewage litter discharge
Moderate beneficial Moderate beneficial
None required None required
Page 287
Section14: Water resources surface water
14.9
14.9.1
Any additional information on potential contamination of the site, collected as part of new site investigations (see Section 8 land quality), will be used to inform the baseline for the ES. At the time of completing, further water quality modelling was underway to determine the relative beneficial improvements that would accrue for other water quality improvements such as Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Ammoniacal Nitrogen. These results will be included in the ES, as will the assessment of cumulative and in combination effects. Physical modelling of some of the foreshore sites is underway. Results were not available to inform the design to mitigate the effects on scour. Following completion of the assessment the mitigation approaches for surface water resources within the project will be finalised and reported in the ES. Mitigation for protection of flood defences and the Vauxhall Bridge abutment will be identified once the physical modelling results are available and the scour assessment has been concluded. This will allow assessment of significance of any residual effect after mitigation has been developed for the final scheme design.
14.9.2
14.9.3 14.9.4
14.9.5
Page 288
Section15: Water resources flood risk
15 15.1
15.1.1
Water resources flood risk Introduction

This section presents a Level 1 FRA which assesses the flood risk from all flood sources both to and from the proposed Albert Embankment Foreshore site as a result of development. This Level 1 Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) is in line with the requirements of Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk (PPS25) 51 and covers the construction and operation phases. This assessment makes use of the PPS25 Practice Guide 52 and is consistent with the outputs and findings of the Thames Estuary 2100 Plan (TE2100)53 and the policy requirements of the London Plan 54 , Borough specific documents have been reviewed in addition to other relevant flood risk planning, policy and legislative documents. This Level 1 FRA is supported by 2D hydrodynamic modelling, undertaken to assess flood risk effects for the project as a whole (as described in Volume 6) and for specific sites (Volumes 7 to 28). The FRA comprises four parts, which can be found in the following volumes of this report: a. Volume 5 contains Part A of the FRA: Common sections relevant to all sites, including assessment methodology. b. Volume 6 contains Part B of the FRA: Project-wide risk assessment section. c. Volumes 7-28 contain Part C and Part D of the FRA: Individual risk assessment sections for every site (Part C) where flood risk is considered as an issue, organised according to London Borough (this Part) which precede the conclusions for each site (Part D).
15.1.2
15.1.3
15.1.4
15.1.5
15.1.6
As explained in Volume 5, a Level 1 FRA is an assessment of flood risk based on information available at the time of undertaking the assessment. Where further detailed assessment (including modelling and calculations) is required to define flood risk or required mitigation, this is undertaken to support a Level 2 or more detailed Level 3 FRA. The aim of this part of the Level 1 FRA is to assess the effects of flood risk from all sources at the site, both to the site and from the site to surrounding areas. The purpose of this section is to highlight the key issues for the design team and provide a preliminary assessment of flood risk issues. A more detailed assessment will be completed in the ES. Considering the nature of the project, the length of construction period at the site and the location of the site within the Thames Tideway, it is important that flood risk is assessed both during the construction phase and the operation phase taking into consideration climate change over the lifetime of the project.
15.1.7
15.1.8
15.1.9
Page 289
The project involves construction works at many sites throughout London. Many of these sites are situated within close proximity to, or within, the River Thames or other watercourses. According to PPS25, any development located within Flood Zones 2 vii or 3 viii or greater than 1ha and situated within Flood Zone 1 ix should be accompanied by a FRA. The FRA will be required to demonstrate how flood risk from all sources of flooding to the development and from the development would be managed now and in the future as a consequence of climate change for the lifetime of the development. The objectives of this section are to satisfy the requirements of PPS25 in relation to this site.
15.1.11
15.2
15.2.1
Policy considerations
The proposed development of a shaft and associated structures is classified as water and sewage transmission infrastructure including docks, marinas and wharfs which is classified as water-compatible development and compatible within all flood zones within PPS25. General policy documents (eg PPS25) have been reviewed within Volume 5. The following should be read in conjunction with that Volume.
15.2.2
15.3
Regulatory position Local policy

Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA)
15.3.1
The site lies within the LB of Lambeth. The LB of Lambeth Borough Council has produced a Level 1 and Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) 55, which outline the main flood sources in the Borough. The SFRA also details the results of hydrodynamic modelling undertaken to assess the residual risk of a breach in the local Thames Tidal flood defences. The Lambeth SFRAs confirm that the Thames Tidal Defence network (Thames Barrier and Tidal flood defence walls) reduces the annual probability of flooding from the Thames to less than 0.1%. The existing frontage is protected against large scale flood events by raised embankments and hard defences. The risk of flooding is a residual risk associated with a breach in the defences. The SFRA advocates the use of flood resilience and resistant measures. These should be adopted during the construction and operational phases of the project. According to the SFRA: a. the majority of the Borough overlies London Clay
15.3.2
15.3.3
15.3.4
vii
Flood Zone 2 is defined as medium probability, assessed as having between a 1% and 0.1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) of river flooding or between a 0.5% and 0.1% AEP of sea flooding in any year viii Flood Zone 3 is defined as high probability, assessed as having a 1% or greater AEP of river flooding or a 0.5% or greater AEP of sea flooding in any year ix Flood Zone 1 is defined as low probability, assessed as having less than a 0.1% AEP of river or sea flooding in any year
Page 290
b. tidal flooding is the primary source of flooding within the Borough c. the site is within the Lambeth Tidal Flood Warning Area, and EA Flood Zone 3
d. there have been 0-10 (low) sewer flooding incidents recorded by Thames Water in the last ten years in the vicinity. Surface water and foul water sewer flooding incidents have been low 0-2 and combined sewer flooding incidents have been low 0-10 e. there is a record of groundwater flooding close to the site f. the site is situated within an area identified as having major development opportunities
g. safe access/egress is required from the site to a suitable location within Flood Zone 1. There are a number of schools within the locality which could act as rest centres during times of flood. 15.3.5 The SFRA promotes the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) suitable to specific site locations within the Borough, depending on underlying geology. These must however be adopted and adequately maintained post-construction to ensure design operation into the future. Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) 15.3.6 The Council is working in partnership with the GLA, Thames Water and the EA to produce a SWMP as part of the Drain London Project. This is scheduled for completion in Autumn 2011.
Environment Agency policy

Thames Estuary 2100 (TE2100) 15.3.7 The Albert Embankment foreshore site lies within the Wandsworth to Deptford Policy Unit which has been assigned the P5 flood risk management policy within the TE2100 Plan 56, meaning that further action will be taken to reduce flood risk beyond that required to keep pace with climate change. The TE2100 Plan outlines that the local sources of flood risk (relative to the Albert Embankment foreshore site) as including: a. tidal flooding from the River Thames b. fluvial flooding from the River Wandle c. pluvial (heavy rainfall) and urban drainage sources d. a risk of groundwater flooding from superficial strata which is possibly connected to high water levels in the Thames. 15.3.9 Defence from these sources include: a. the Thames Barrier and secondary tidal defences along the Thames frontage (both making up the Thames Tidal Defences) b. defences along the lower reach of the River Wandle c. CSOs for mitigation of urban drainage d. flood forecasting and warning.
15.3.8
Page 291
The TE2100 Plan seeks to promote, where possible, defence improvements that are sensitive to ensure views are maintained and impacts to river access/views are minimised. Where defence raising in the future as a consequence of climate change is not possible, secondary defences and floodplain management should be introduced. There is also a vision to increase flood risk awareness within the area. It is acknowledged within the TE2100 Plan that accretion of the river bed is occurring at Lambeth.
15.3.11
Regional policy
London Regional Flood Risk Appraisal (RFRA) 15.3.12 For the reach between Hammersmith Bridge and the Thames Barrier (City Reach) the London RFRA 57 encourages small scale set back of development from the river walls where possible. The aim of this is to enable modification, raising and maintenance in a sustainable, environmentally acceptable and cost effective way. Development should be designed in such a way as to take opportunities to reduce flood risk and include resilience. There is particular concern surrounding confluences and the interactions between tidal and fluvial flows in the future due to climate change. This should be taken into consideration during the re-development process. The RFRA indicates that SUDS should be included within developments to reduce surface water discharge.
15.3.13
15.3.14
15.4
15.4.1
Assessment of flood risk Overview

The flood risk from all potential flood sources (as listed in Annex C of PPS25) to the site, and from the site as a result of the development, is assessed in this section. For a discussion on project-wide effects see Volume 6. In summary, initial hydraulic computation modelling indicates that the influence of the project as a whole on the River Thames (tidal and fluvial) flood levels is minimal and is unlikely to exacerbate flood risk.
15.4.2
Flood sources
Flooding from sea (and tidal sources) Flood risk to the site 15.4.3 The site is situated within the channel of the River Thames, adjacent to the eastern bank, under and to the north of Vauxhall Bridge. Lacks Dock is situated between the area of the site where the CSOs would be intercepted and the area of the site used for the location of the main shaft. The existing Thames Tidal flood defence line is aligned to the south east of the site along the north eastern edge of the Thames (ie, the site is not defended from the River Thames other than by the Thames Barrier itself). The site is therefore considered to be within Flood Zone 3b of the River
15.4.4
Page 292
Thames: Flood Zone 3b is defined as land where water has to flow or be stored in times of flood. The location of the site in relation to the flood zones is illustrated in Vol 19 Figure 15.4.1. Vol 19 Figure 15.4.1 Flood risk EA flood zones (see Volume 19 Figures document) 15.4.5 During construction, the temporary cofferdam would be installed to the existing flood defence level present along the River Thames. One cofferdam would be constructed around the works area under Vauxhall Bridge and the second cofferdam would be constructed around the shaft site. The Thames Tidal Defences situated between the proposed shaft site and the Thames Path would be removed to allow site access. The works under Vauxhall Bridge would not involve the demolition of the local Thames Tidal Defences. Transport between the two cofferdams would be along the foreshore and onto the Vauxhall Bridge working area via a ramp over the cofferdam defences. Access to the foreshore would be via Lacks Dock. There would be a campshed constructed adjacent to the shaft site temporary cofferdam boundary to allow one barge mooring. All temporary works would adopt a defence level analogous with the current local defence levels, and where existing defences are removed. Replacement defences would be constructed to the appropriate standard and tied in with the local flood defences along the frontage prior to removal of the existing defences. Where the existing defences are not removed, the proposed cofferdam would tie in with the local flood defences along the frontage (whilst maintaining the presence of the existing defences). These measures would ensure the protection of the temporary working areas to the same standard as the surrounding area and ensure the local area is protected from flood risk originating from the River Thames at all times as is currently the case. It should be noted that the works site under Vauxhall Bridge is only required to protect against the EA flood design event, and for the duration of construction, the project could adopt a lower defence level at this location than the existing (0.1% AEP) eg 0.5% AEP. This could improve the gradient of the ramped access to the Vauxhall Bridge working area and would be considered further within the Level 2 FRA. The removal of a section of defence along the embankment adjacent to the shaft site, the tie of the new flood defences for construction and operational sites, and the construction of a replacement defence at this location would require works to the existing defences and consequently would require Flood Defence Consent from the EA (Flood Defence Consent has to be obtained prior to any works on the flood defences, or around the flood defences with the potential to impact these structures). Flood defence consent would also be required for the defences to be provided along the periphery of the construction area under Vauxhall Bridge where the cofferdam defences would tie with the existing defences. The tie in of these defences would require works to the existing defences at discrete locations which would require Flood Defence Consent from the EA.
15.4.6
15.4.7
15.4.8
15.4.9
Page 293
The structural integrity of the defences at the sites would be maintained throughout the project. Defences and the river wall (temporary or permanent) would be designed to take all appropriate potential loadings (applied or accidental). The new flood defences and site layout would be designed such that they are easily accessible for maintenance purposes into the future (eg if the wall is rendered, there would be removable areas to allow inspection of the defence wall behind). Where possible, the walls would be designed so that they can be inspected from the land. The design standard of the existing defences is stated by the EA to be at the 0.1% AEP level. There will be an additional freeboard on top of the crest level. The defence levels along the River Thames vary and are generally in excess of the 0.1% AEP standard of protection with a freeboard. The EA has stated that the defence level at the Albert Embankment foreshore site is 5.41mAOD. This defence level would be maintained for the new defences constructed integral to the cofferdams and the operational defence around the shaft site. The existing defence level will be confirmed with defence survey information, requested from the EA for the Level 2 FRA to be prepared for the ES. The most extreme flood risk to the site in this location would be as a result of a high tide combined with a storm surge (with the Thames Barrier operational); this is considered to be the EA flood design event. Current ground levels under Vauxhall Bridge are approximately less than 0.5mAOD. Current ground levels along the foreshore are between approximately -0.5 to -0.2mAOD. Current ground levels within Lacks Dock are approximately -1.48mAOD within the foreshore ramping up to approximately 5.2mAOD at the boundary between the ramp and the Lacks Dock access road. Current ground levels at the main shaft location within the Thames Path are approximately 5.2mAOD and approximately 2.3mAOD in the foreshore. The proposed ground levels in the southern part of the site under Vauxhall Bridge are terraced from 0.5mAOD to 5mAOD in 0.5m intervals. It is proposed to set the top of the interception shaft to the north of Vauxhall Bridge at 5.41mAOD. Ground levels at the northern part of the site, (proposed shaft location) are 5.3mAOD adjacent to the Thames Path, and raised to 5.81mAOD at the riverward extent of the protrusion. The tidal flood levels within the River Thames at Albert Embankment for the EA flood design events are: a. b. 4.99mAOD for the 0.5% AEP 2005 4.98mAOD for the 0.5% AEP 2107 (ie, with climate change).
15.4.11
15.4.12
15.4.13
15.4.14
15.4.15
15.4.16
15.4.17 15.4.18
This data is taken from the EA Tidal Thames Joint Probability Extreme Water Levels Study 58. This indicates that the proposed site for the shaft would not flood under the above return periods as the shaft ground level is above the design flood level. The majority of Lacks Dock and all foreshore areas, including the majority of the area under Vauxhall Bridge, would be flooded during
Page 294
daily tidal cycles. It should be noted that water levels decrease in the future due to the Thames Barrier closure rule (see Volume 5) such that the 2005 scenario produces the highest water levels. 15.4.19 The TE2100 Plan indicates that a higher level of protection would be required to protect areas along the river. This is due to a greater number of Barrier closures being necessary as water levels increase and due to the possibility that higher tides could propagate upstream of the Barrier should the Barrier fail. At Albert Embankment, defences would be required to be raised to 5.85 mAOD and 6.35 mAOD for 2065 and 2100 respectively in line with requirements of the TE2100 Plan. Part of the TE2100 Plan is to consider ways in which this future raising would be achieved for current flood defences. In association with this, new defences constructed for the operation of Albert Embankment Foreshore site would be designed such that defence raising in the future to match these levels as indicated in the TE2100 Plan can be achieved in a sympathetic way and views of the river can be maintained. The shaft site would be generally raised to 5.81mAOD, to preserve the views of the river and provide adequate level of flood defence. The EA has also used the Tidal Thames Joint Probability Extreme Water Levels Study to investigate water levels within the Thames in the absence of the Thames Barrier, ie when the Barrier is not closed (it is assumed that a partial closure would influence flood levels upstream of the barrier). This shows tidal flood levels within the River Thames are 5.97mAOD for the 0.5% AEP 2005 and 6.83mAOD for the 0.5% AEP 2107. Under this modelled scenario, the site would be flooded as the water level is above the current local flood defence level and that proposed for the construction site and operational site. However, because the Thames Barrier is a key component of the Thames Tidal defences, these levels are not used for the EA flood design event when considering the required flood prevention measures for new development. As part of the Lambeth Level 2 SFRA, 2D hydrodynamic modelling was undertaken at a number of locations along the Thames frontage, one of which is situated to the north of proposed shaft site, opposite Tinworth Street at Nelsons Wharf. The results of the modelling show some flooding and areas of high hazard within the foreshore area of the site and Lacks Dock during both the 0.5% and 0.1% AEP events for the present day. The key flowpath from the breach is along Albert Embankment along the Thames Path. The resolution of this mapping is not fine enough to differentiate between flooding within the foreshore and flooding on the Thames Path. It is however assumed that flooding is within the foreshore as this is situated at a much lower elevation than the Thames Path. The SFRA shows that there are no records of flooding of the site area during any historic flood events (note, this does not mean the site was not flooded, only that no data is held). Although the site is to be constructed and operated on the channel side of the defences, new defences would be built around both the shaft and the
15.4.20
15.4.21
15.4.22
15.4.23
15.4.24
15.4.25
Page 295
Vauxhall Bridge sites during the construction phase and the shaft site during the operation phase. The new defences would be constructed to be commensurate with the standard of protection afforded by the existing defences. 15.4.26 The operation of the Thames Barrier and the proposed ground levels at the shaft site are such that tidal flooding up to the design event (0.5% AEP 2005) does not pose a flood risk to the site (ie, proposed shaft ground levels are above the design flood level). If the site did flood from future increased water levels (under the barrier absent scenario) and a localised breach in the defences adjacent to a site, flood water could flow on to the site, cover the shaft and inundate any unprotected power and control equipment mounted within cabinets. As the shaft lids are airtight there would be a limited amount of water that could enter the tunnel though the space between the lid and the shaft. Power and control equipment mounted within unprotected cabinets may be damaged by flood water (if not installed above the flood level); however, this quantity would not endanger the primary function of the tunnel which is to collect, store and transfer discharges from CSOs. Flood risk from the site 15.4.28 The flow within the River Thames would be modified by the presence of the permanent and temporary works. This may lead to an increase in scour or deposition rates on adjacent areas within the river and to river structures, including flood defences. It is likely that the cofferdams and campshed would impact on scour and deposition patterns while in place. There may also be an effect on downstream flood defences and local river structures (ie, Vauxhall Bridge) if the pattern of sediment movement is greatly changed. In addition, should the permanent and temporary works (cofferdams and campshed) cause the channel width to be significantly altered, the flow velocity of the river at this point may increase, thereby increasing contraction scour across the whole channel bed. The scour study undertaken to date concludes that scour depth at the cofferdam in the vicinity of Vauxhall Bridge could have a significant effect on the integrity of the cofferdam and flood defences adjacent to the working areas, whilst also causing increased damage to the foreshore. . At the time of compiling this assessment, the scour modelling was being supported by the construction of physical models of foreshore works at several foreshore sites (it should be noted the Albert Embankment Foreshore site has not been selected for physical modelling). Outputs from the physical models are not currently available to support the Level 1 FRA, but will be available to inform the development of specific mitigation in the Level 2 FRA within the ES.
15.4.27
15.4.29
15.4.30
15.4.31
Page 296
Prior to completion of updated scour assessment, it is considered that the risk of scour or deposition impacting on the flood defences would be considered as medium x. The presence of temporary and permanent structures within the foreshore associated with the construction and operation of the Albert Embankment Foreshore site has the potential to reduce the available flood storage within the channel of the Tidal Thames. This impact of reduced flood storage could have the effect of increasing water levels during certain hydrological conditions (high fluvial flows or high tides), thereby increasing flood levels and potentially increasing the risk of flooding. The effect of removal of flood storage on flood levels is not one felt directly at a local level at the Albert Embankment foreshore as a result of the proposed site alone. The effect is propagated throughout the hydrological unit of the Thames reach and therefore it is not possible to say what effect the foreshore encroachment at Albert Embankment would have on water levels local to the site. Instead, the foreshore encroachment impact on flood storage and the resultant effect on water levels and flood risk have therefore been considered on a cumulative basis for all foreshore sites using 2D hydraulic computational modelling and the effects on flood risk are assessed on a project-wide basis and reported in Volume 6. The excavation process using TBMs to construct the tunnel has the potential to impact on settlement in some cases which could affect the level of some of the defences. A project-wide study into the potential impacts of the tunnel excavation on settlement of third party assets including flood defence is being undertaken and will be reported in the ES. The tunnel alignment does not pass under the existing defences in the immediate vicinity of the Albert Embankment Foreshore site; however, the project-wide effects of excavation will be assessed for flood defence impact when complete and any relevant assessment for Albert Embankment defences will be included in the Level 2 FRA to be included the ES. Until further information is available, due to the distance of the tunnel alignment from the defences at Albert Embankment, the risk of impact to flood defences and hence flood risk at this site is considered to be low. Flooding from rivers Aside from the impact of fluvial flows on flood levels of the River Thames, the Albert Embankment Foreshore site is not situated within the floodplain of any fluvial watercourses. The EA Thames Tidal Defences Joint Probability Extreme Water Levels Study uses a combination of different factors including astronomical tides, tide surge and fluvial river flows to produce an estimation of the peak high water levels within the Tidal Thames during a combined event. This methodology assumes that no combination of fluvial events with tidal conditions produces a higher flood level than the worst case combined
15.4.33
15.4.34
15.4.35
15.4.36
15.4.37
15.4.38
15.4.39
15.4.40
The assessment of flood risk is a qualitative assessment based on expert opinion see Part A for further details.
Page 297
tidal storm surge conditions. Water levels influenced by high fluvial flow alone would therefore be lower than the combined event assessed and hence the assessment of fluvial risk from the Thames is considered to be included within the assessment of flood risk from tidal sources in the previous section. 15.4.41 Flood risk to the site from fluvial sources alone is therefore considered to be negligible. Flooding from land and surface water runoff Flood risk to the site 15.4.42 The Lambeth Level 1 SFRA does not document any specific historic surface water flooding incidents within proximity to the site. The SFRA does however map surface water flooding instances from the DG5 register, typically collected over less than a ten year period and displayed within postal code areas. There have been 0 to 2 incidents of surface water flooding in the postcode area within which the site is situated. The Lambeth Level 2 SFRA has carried out a surface water modelling exercise to investigate the potential surface water flooding for the 1% AEP event where precipitation has occurred for durations of 1, 6, 12 and 24 hours. This modelling shows surface water flooding within the vicinity of the site for all durations but the resolution of the mapping does not allow differentiation between surface water flooding on the foreshore and the Thames Path at the site. Surface water flooding could originate from any surrounding hardstanding land where infiltration (into the ground or the local sewer network) is exceeded or the local sewer is at capacity and surcharging occurs. Ground levels in this area and along the Thames Path to the north and east are analogous so it is not expected that there would be a gravitational flow pathway to the shaft site from the surrounding hard standing land. Flood risk to the site from this source is considered to be low. Flood risk from the site 15.4.46 The creation of the permanent site would increase the area of hardstanding at Albert Embankment and increase the runoff rates and volumes generated as a result. PPS25 states that runoff post development should not be greater than runoff pre development in order to not increase the risk of flooding either downstream or on surrounding land. The London Plan aims towards greenfield runoff rates and the Mayors Draft Water Strategy 59 also aims for greenfield runoff and has an essential standard of 50% attenuation to the undeveloped sites surface water runoff at peak times (see Volume 5). The Albert Embankment Foreshore site is located within the eastern foreshore of the River Thames and has been considered as an undeveloped greenfield site in terms of surface water management. Due to the sites foreshore location surface water runoff naturally drains directly to the River Thames without inundating surrounding land.
15.4.43
15.4.44
15.4.45
15.4.47
15.4.48
15.4.49
Page 298
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore 15.4.50 15.4.51
Surface water runoff rates and attenuation volumes are indicative only and will be confirmed during the subsequent Level 2 FRA. Based on a development footprint of 1,755m2, the existing undeveloped greenfield surface water runoff rate for the 1% AEP event plus 30% for climate change has been calculated using the ICP SUDS rural runoff method in Micro Drainage WinDes Version 12.5 software. A soil factor of 0.4, which represents moderately draining silty soils, has been used within this method. Post-development the site would be 100% impermeable. The post development surface water runoff rate for the 1% AEP event has been calculated using the Modified Rational Method. In accordance with PPS25 Table B.2 the post development surface water runoff rate includes a 30% increase in peak rainfall intensity to account for the anticipated impact of climate change over the developments lifetime. Both existing and post development runoff rates for the 1% AEP event are provided in the table below. Vol 19 Table 15.4.1 Flood risk runoff rates onsite Site status Existing Post-development Rainfall runoff event 1% AEP + 30% Climate Change 1% AEP + 30% Climate Change Runoff rate (l/s) 2.20
15.4.52
15.4.53
15.4.54
34.70
15.4.55
By subtracting the existing undeveloped greenfield runoff rate from the post development runoff rate for the 1% AEP event, an additional runoff rate of 32.5l/s is predicted post development. As the site is located on the foreshore of the River Thames no pathways exist for surface water to inundate surrounding third party land. The topography of the site would be such that surface water would be drained for all events up to the 3.3% AEP event. Where the design standard of the drainage system is exceeded, the runoff would be discharged to the River Thames directly through an overflow outfall. Whilst this is contrary to policy set out in PPS25, the London Plan and the Mayors Draft Water Strategy for London, these policies on surface water management are put in place to reduce downstream flood risk and this assessment has demonstrated that there is no such increase in flood risk. The volume and runoff rate generated is considered to be insignificant in relation to the flow and volume of storage in the tidal Thames. It is not possible for any increase in runoff to be generated on the site. This is because under the existing situation, rainfall lands directly within the river as an instantaneous discharge occurs with no attenuation. Attenuation of runoff for events greater than the 3.3% AEP event is therefore not required at the Albert Embankment foreshore site and flood
15.4.56
15.4.57
15.4.58
15.4.59
Page 299
risk elsewhere as a result of the development is considered to be negligible. Flooding from groundwater 15.4.60 The TE2100 Plan states that there may be a risk of groundwater flooding at the Albert Embankment Foreshore site originating from superficial strata underlying the site. Because the underlying strata are in hydraulic connectivity with the river levels in the Thames, the groundwater levels vary on a diurnal basis with the changing tide levels. Therefore, during high water level conditions within the Thames there is the potential for groundwater to reach ground level at the site. There is one incident of groundwater flooding within the vicinity of the site recorded within the Lambeth Level 1 SFRA. Additional information regarding historic incidences of groundwater flooding within the SFRA is limited. Potential mechanisms for groundwater flooding will be explored further including local water levels from ongoing monitoring and data collection as part of the EIA. This will inform the assessment of groundwater flood risk to this site and will be reported in the Level 2 FRA in the ES. Until further information is available, flood risk to the site from this source is considered to be low, as although the TE2100 Plan suggests a flooding mechanism, there is no evidence from the Wandsworth SFRA to suggest that groundwater flooding is a recurring issue at the site. Flooding from sewers 15.4.63 The Lambeth SFRA shows that there have been between zero and ten sewer flooding incidents recorded by Thames Water in the last ten years in the post code area in which the site is situated, which covers a significant area. The local sewer network has been investigated to determine whether there are any capacity issues that may lead to an increase in the potential for sewer flooding to the site. The sewers include a 381mm sewer and a 300mm diameter sewer (both combined) running along the Albert Embankment carriageway. The 3383mm x 1680mm Clapham Storm Relief CSO releases directly onto the foreshore at the west of the abutment of Vauxhall Bridge at the west end of the site, and which is proposed to be intercepted by the Thames Tunnel. A temporary outfall may need to be constructed to convey flows through the site. The 3737mm x 2280mm Brixton Storm Relief sewer, which outfalls directly onto the foreshore at the east end of the abutment of Vauxhall Bridge within the proposed site, which is to the intercepted by the Thames Tunnel. A temporary outfall may also need to be constructed here to convey flows through the site. If the capacities of these systems are exceeded, the combined sewers would first discharge through the outfalls themselves, but if these were blocked for any reason or at capacity, they would then surcharge and flood through outlets such as manholes and gullies located along the length of the sewers. The two smaller sewers are located a considerable distance
15.4.61
15.4.62
15.4.64
15.4.65
15.4.66
15.4.67
Page 300
from the site and therefore it is unlikely that sewer flooding would inundate the site from these sources. However the two large storm relief sewers may inundate the site in the unlikely event of extreme surcharge. 15.4.68 Flood risk from this source is considered to be low. Flooding from artificial sources 15.4.69 There are no artificial flood sources within proximity to the site and so there is no flood risk from this type of source.
15.5
15.5.1
Flood risk design and mitigation Overview

This assessment has identified the following sources of flood risk related to the site: a. No risk of flooding to the shaft site from tidal sources (under the Barrier operational scenario) as proposed shaft site ground levels are above the EA design flood level. Flooding of the terracing under Vauxhall Bridge during daily tidal cycles. b. Medium risk of impact on flood defences as a result of scour and deposition of foreshore sediment associated with the cofferdam area for construction and the permanent operational land take from the foreshore. c. Negligible risk of fluvial flooding to the site. d. Low risk of surface water flooding (or ponding) to the site as a result of runoff from surrounding land. e. Low risk of groundwater flooding to the site associated with water levels in the underlying geological strata. f. Low risk of sewer flooding to the site. g. No flood risk from artificial sources.
15.5.2
It is important that suitable prevention and mitigation measures are suggested and that they are appropriate with the level of risk the project can adopt. This section describes flood mitigation methods that have been highlighted as being required specifically to address flood risk effects as a result of development at the Albert Embankment Foreshore site. Flood mitigation methods in this context are defined as being required to alleviate the effect of the development of a site on any consequential (increase in) flood risk.
15.5.3
Flood prevention
Flood resilience/resistance during operation 15.5.4 The London RFRA states that flood risk should be reduced where possible and flood resistance and resilience measure should be built into the development. Given that the project is a water compatible development type (see Section 15.2), there is no project-wide intention to provide flood resistance and resilience measures for residual flood risk.
Page 301
Construction and emergency planning 15.5.5 The subsequent Level 2 FRA will include the production of a Site Emergency Plan in relation to flood risk outlining appropriate working practices and appropriate access/egress routes in the event of a flood warning. This should include the transport of material by vehicle along the foreshore and potential flood risk implication. The LB of Lambeth will be consulted on the Emergency Plan.
Design and mitigation

Scour and deposition impacts on defences 15.5.6 Good practice design will reduce the effects of scour at the face of the permanent and temporary works (cofferdams and campsheds), and rip-rap or gabions may be required to prevent damage to structures. This is especially important at this site, where the study of scour highlights the potential for localised scour around the temporary works cofferdam. The shape of the protrusion for the permanent works would be designed to impose minimal impact on river hydrology and the flow regime of the Tidal Thames. It is proposed to use a terraced design for the protrusion under Vauxhall Bridge in order to ensure stable water flow throughout the tidal cycle. The terrace would start at 0mAOD and rise in 0.5m intervals to 5.41mAOD at the top level of the interception shaft. The final design with respect to scour and downstream infrastructure protection will be developed following completion of the physical modelling of key foreshore sites and the conclusion of the scour study. This will be included in the Level 2 FRA for this site. Surface water discharge 15.5.8 15.5.9 Surface water drainage would be designed to the 3.3% AEP event for the site. The site is situated within an area that currently drains into the River Thames. Controlled discharge of surface water from the site resulting from events greater than the 3.3% AEP storm into the River Thames would be designed and implemented, ensuring the runoff would not cause foreshore scour.
15.5.7
15.6
15.6.1 15.6.2
A Level 2 FRA will be prepared for the site which will outline further specific design approaches and measures. It is considered that a Level 2 FRA will be sufficient to assess the impact of flood risk for the final site design (ie, no Level 3 specific site modelling is required). This will be prepared for the site and incorporated into the ES. The Level 2 FRA will use the data collected as part of the Level 1 FRA and build upon the preliminary findings of this assessment once further information is available from the EA and other assessments being undertaken to support the FRA and the EIA. In summary, the following additional assessment elements will be undertaken:
15.6.3
Page 302
a. Proposals for the construction of the Vauxhall Bridge works site to be defended to 0.5% AEP as opposed to 0.1% AEP as is the case for existing defences at Albert Embankment Foreshore site. This may allow a more straightforward access for construction vehicles from the foreshore and over the defences. b. Confirmation of existing defence level following receipt of the EA survey information of flood defences. This will be used to reassess the standard of protection at the site and effect on tidal flood risk (direct and residual). It will also inform potential flood prevention design in terms of the design level of new defences proposed for construction and operation of the Albert Embankment Foreshore site. c. Use of the physical modelling results and scour study to assess the effect on flood levels as a result of impact on flood defence integrity of scour and deposition caused by the foreshore encroachment (construction and operation). This will also inform definition of specific mitigation required.
d. A project-wide study into the potential impacts of the tunnel excavation on the integrity of the flood defences is being undertaken. Any relevant assessment for Albert Embankment defences will be included in the Albert Embankment foreshore Level 2 FRA section. e. The assessment of surface water flood risk to the site will be completed when the final surface water flood maps are available from the Drain London Project. f. Groundwater flood risk and any required flood risk prevention measures will be reassessed when the groundwater resources impact assessment is complete. This will be included in the Level 2 FRA.
g. An Emergency Plan will be developed to support the Level 2 FRA and the CoCP. h. Further detail of any site specific mitigation and flood prevention measures that may be required to manage both residual risk and direct flood risk based on the final site design. 15.6.4 It is not anticipated that further primary data collection (assuming outstanding data from the EA is supplied) or any modelling will be required at this site as part of future work and hence a Level 2 FRA will be sufficient to support the ES and application specific to the Albert Embankment Foreshore site.
Page 303
Appendices
Appendices
List of figures
Page number
Figure A.1: Thomas Hills Map of the Vauxhall Manors of 1681 ............................ 306 Figure A.3: Fadens 1813 revision of Horwoods map of 1799 ............................... 307 Figure A.4: Ordnance Survey 1st edition 25 scale map of 1862 (not to scale) ...... 307 Figure A.5: Ordnance Survey 2nd edition 25 scale map of 1896 (not to scale) ..... 308 Figure A.6: Ordnance Survey 3rd edition 25 scale map of 1909 (not to scale)...... 308 Figure A.7: Ordnance Survey 25 scale map of 1947 (not to scale) ....................... 309 Figure A.8: Ordnance Survey 25 scale map of 19481991 (not to scale) ............. 309 Figure A.9: The river wall within the northern part of the site .................................. 310 Figure A.10: A timber dolphin and outlet below the river wall ................................. 310 Figure A.11: One of the sculptures on Vauxhall Bridge .......................................... 311 Figure A.12: The extended section of river wall to the south-east of the site .......... 311 Figure A.13: The prehistoric antler pick .................................................................. 312 Figure A.14: Post-medieval timber structure........................................................... 312 Figure A.15: Prehistoric timber of the Mesolithic structure ..................................... 313 Figure C.1 Noise measurement locations at Albert Embankment .......................... 325 Figure C.2 Noise monitoring at PLN1X - Noise 1 ................................................... 327 Figure C.3 Noise monitoring at PLN1X - Noise 2 ................................................... 327 Figure C.4 Noise monitoring at PLN1X - Noise 3 ................................................... 327 Figure C.5 Noise monitoring at PLN1X - Noise 4 ................................................... 328 Figure D.1 Viewpoint 2.1: View south from Lambeth Bridge.................................. 329 Figure D.2 Viewpoint 2.2: View south from the Thames Path................................ 330 Figure D.3 Viewpoint 2.3: Panoramic view south west from the Thames Path ...... 330 Figure D.4 Viewpoint 2.4: View south west from the Thames Path ....................... 331 Figure D.5 Viewpoint 2.5: View northeast from southern end of Vauxhall Bridge .. 331 Figure D.6 Viewpoint 2.6: View north east from the Thames Path ........................ 332 Figure D.7 Viewpoint 2.10: View south east from the entrance to Tate Britain ...... 332 Figure D.8 Viewpoint 2.11: View south from Thames Path ................................... 333 Figure E.1 Groundwater superficial geology ....................................................... 334 Figure E.2 Groundwater solid geology ............................................................... 334 Figure E.3 Groundwater EA monitoring locations ............................................... 339 Figure E.4 Groundwater level hydrograph Albert Embankment............................. 341 Figure E.5 Groundwater level hydrograph Battersea Chalk OBH .......................... 342 Figure E.6 Groundwater GSHP schemes ........................................................... 344
Page 304
Appendices
Figure E.7 Groundwater SPZ ............................................................................. 345 Figure E.8 Groundwater - resource availability ...................................................... 349 Figure E.9 Groundwater - confined Chalk licensing............................................... 350
List of tables
Page number
Table A.1 Gazatteer of known heritage assets ....................................................... 314 Table B.1 Land quality site walkover summary....................................................... 322 Table C.1 Noise and vibration - measurement locations at Albert Embankment .... 325 Table C.2 Noise and vibration survey results at Albert Embankment ..................... 326 Table E.1 Groundwater - anticipated Thames Tunnel geological succession ....... 334 Table E.2 Groundwater - anticipated ground conditions ........................................ 335 Table E.3 Groundwater - anticipated hydrogeology................................................ 337 Table.E.4 Groundwater - depth and strata from on-site monitoring boreholes ...... 339 Table E.5 Groundwater - licensed abstractions near Albert Embankment ............. 344 Table E.6 Groundwater - licensed abstractions for GSH schemes ......................... 345 Table E.7 Groundwater - public water abstractions near Albert Embankment ....... 346 Table E.8 Groundwater breaches at Dolphin Square ............................................ 347 Table E.9 Groundwater quality results from the GI boreholes ................................ 348
Page 305
Appendix A: Historic environment
Appendix A Historic environment A.1 Figures
Figure A.1: Thomas Hills Map of the Vauxhall Manors of 1681
Figure A.2: Rocques map of 1746
Page 306
Figure A.3: Fadens 1813 revision of Horwoods map of 1799
Figure A.4: Ordnance Survey 1st edition 25 scale map of 1862 (not to scale)
Page 307
Figure A.5: Ordnance Survey 2nd edition 25 scale map of 1896 (not to scale)
Figure A.6: Ordnance Survey 3rd edition 25 scale map of 1909 (not to scale)
Page 308
Figure A.7: Ordnance Survey 25 scale map of 1947 (not to scale)
Figure A.8: Ordnance Survey 25 scale map of 19481991 (not to scale)
Page 309
A.2
Photographs
Figure A.9: The river wall within the northern part of the site Note: looking south-east; standard lens
Figure A.10: A timber dolphin and outlet below the river wall
Note: in front of the SIS building, looking east. The river wall is decorated with the lion heads holding a mooring ring; standard lens
Page 310
Figure A.11: One of the sculptures on Vauxhall Bridge

Note: looking south-west; standard lens
Figure A.12: The extended section of river wall to the south-east of the site
Note: looking north; standard lens
Page 311
Figure A.13: The prehistoric antler pick

Note: identified during the site visit in April 2011 by archaeologists; standard lens
Figure A.14: Post-medieval timber structure

Note: identified by archaeologists during the site visit in April 2011; standard lens
Page 312
Figure A.15: Prehistoric timber of the Mesolithic structure

Note: rising above the low tide mark; standard lens
Page 313
A.3
A.3.1
Gazetteer of known heritage assets

The location of known heritage assets is shown on the historic environment features map (Vol 19 Figure 7.5.1). Table A.1 Gazetteer of known heritage assets
HEA Ref no. 1a
Description
Site code/ HER ref/ TDP no MLO64260 VXF93
Vauxhall Foreshore Part of a prehistoric roundwood pile structure only visible at low tide was recorded in the northern part of the site in an area from which prehistoric peat and artefacts have been recovered. This structure has been identified as a possible Mesolithic structure and is associated with a number of piles, a flint scatter and some other finds. TDP survey recorded an aggradation layer; a modern dump containing concrete and other debris; a consolidation layer containing concrete and pottery; a consolidation layer formed of stones; and another consolidation layer formed of older concrete; a brick consolidation layer; an erosion line; an aggradation feature; a gravel aggradation layer, comprising a raised foreshore; and timber fenders in the northern part of the site.
1b
FLM01 A115; A116; A118; A119; A120; A121; A122; A123; A124 FLM01 A127; A128 FLM01 A127; A128 FLM01 A150 FLM01 A117
1c
TDP survey recorded an aggradation layer comprising a raised area, the bargeboard of a vessel was also recorded here in the central part of the site. TDP survey recorded a piece of timber with a metal foot, identified as possible driftwood in the central-western part of the site. TDP survey recorded a consolidation layer of orange clay in the north-western part of the site. TDP survey recorded a concrete apron of a drain; two driftwood timbers with metal feet; a dump of rubble and concrete; two timber mooring blocks and two timber drains under Vauxhall Bridge in the southern part of the site. Dolphins, outfall structures, storm shutters and Effra River outfall. TDP survey recorded degradation of the foreshore, comprising a drop in level and a change to softer material in north-western part of the site
1d
1e 1f
1g
FLM01 A149; A151; A152; A153; A156;
Page 314
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore HEA Ref no. Description
Appendix A: Historic environment Site code/ HER ref/ TDP no A157; a159; A160 FLM01
1h
TDP survey recorded an area of hard consolidation comprising chalk with some brick and broken glass in the southern part of the site. Void Location of an outfall pipeline recorded on the northern part of the site by SeaZone. Location of an outfall pipeline recorded in the central part of the site by SeaZone. Lacks Dock slipway in the central part of the site. The river wall along the eastern part of the site. 34-46 Albert Embankment Excavation in 1980 by SLEAC c. 90m north-east of the site, revealed that natural was cut by a gully beneath sandy soil which was itself cut by several features, some of which produced pottery of c. 1480-1620. Above these were the earliest buildings and structures, dated c. 1620-1720 and succeeded by others dated to c. 1720-1900. In 1987 and 1989 DGLA (S&L) undertook a further excavation and revealed the partial remains of at least four kilns, one of them evidently involved in porcelain firing c. 1750, as indicated also by documentary evidence. The area was seen to have been subject to constant reworking and modification during its 200-year industrial phase. There was little evidence of sustained human activity in earlier periods, when the area was recorded as open and fallow. A Bronze Age flake and Neolithic implement were recorded. Large quantities of discarded kiln furniture and wasters were found: delftware in the earlier levels and stoneware in the later ones. Fragments of porcelain indicate its early manufacture on the site.
1i 1j 1k 1l 1m 2
-A129 FLM01 A148 PIPSOL 9400 PIPSOL 9400 L54/80 L611/87 LAM611 38ALB89 091261 MLO18734 MLO22783 -5
Vauxhall Bridge Foot (north), Albert Embankment In 1989 DGLA (S&L) excavations c. 60m east of the site, revealed substantial remains of a 17th-century glasshouse with much of the kiln intact and large quantities of waste products. The stone foundations of a medieval or later
VBN89 L40/77 MLO21477 MLO11533 MLO22022
Page 315
Appendix A: Historic environment Site code/ HER ref/ TDP no 4 MLO23960 MLO22224 -6
structure fronting the Albert Embankment are thought not to be part of a manor house believed to have existed in the immediate area. A substantial waterfront complex was built in the 17th century, and the remains of three brick boathouses of that date were found, having remained in use until the 19th century. The boathouses were identified as those which were owned by the Worshipful Company of Fishmongers Mercers and Clothiers and have been recorded in documentary records. An inhumation burial of unknown date was found, dug into the natural gravels. A ditch and flood defences were also recorded. In 1977 SLAEC trial excavation at the same site revealed no archaeological features. 4 Lambeth High Street Site of Lambeth High Street, post-medieval road, c. 130m south-east of the site. Albert Embankment Post-Medieval landing steps marked on maps as Ffaux Hall Staires, Vaux Hall or Vauxhall Stairs, c. 5m east of the site. Vauxhall Bridgefoot Excavations at the Vauxhall Bridgefoot, c. 100m east of the site, in 1972 by SLEAC recorded parts of two multiflue stoneware kilns and fragments of three others all datable to the later 18th and 19th centuries. Three large groups of delftware waste material were recorded near a late 17thcentury delftware factory. Further remains associated with the Vauxhall Pottery were recorded in 197781. Kiln wasters from the pottery were found in 1964. Albert Embankment The area adjacent to eastern boundary of the site is noted as a pottery manufacturing site, possibly owned by J Ariens Van Hamme in 1677. The original pottery manufactory may have been within part of former Vauxhall or Copt Hall manor house. The GLHER also notes a post-medieval house and brewhouse at this location known from the early 18th century. River Thames GLHER records a number of archaeological finds from the river Thames south of Vauxhall Bridge c. 40m west of the site. These included a prehistoric axe; Neolithic Axe, two Bronze Age swords; an early medieval sword and a later
MLO13562
MLO11410 090136
MLO16858 MLO7790 090105
MLO11471 MLO4102 MLO4140
MLO26840 -1 MLO26851 MLO26901
Page 316
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore HEA Ref no. medieval sword. 9 Description
Appendix A: Historic environment Site code/ HER ref/ TDP no MLO26904 MLO27049 MLO26817 112025
Near Vauxhall An early medieval iron sword with a straight guard and traces of brass inlay was found in the Thames c. 70m west of the site. The pommel is missing and the blade fragmented. The sword has been identified as a Petersen type H. St Georges wharf and the former Vauxhall Gas Works PCA watching brief in 2007 at St Georges wharf, c. 90m south-east of the site. The demolition of a jetty platform was monitored to ensure that no damage was caused to a nearby Bronze Age timber feature located on the foreshore of the Thames. No archaeological features were observed. An earlier PCA watching brief in 1997 at the former Vauxhall Gas Works revealed complete absence of pre19th-c deposits due to widespread and massive truncation by the former gasworks. Site of post-medieval Effra Gas Works and Brunswick Dock.
10
SGZ07 WNR97 MLO75223
11
Albert Embankment A post-medieval armoury was located c. 50m north-east of the site in the former Copt Hall. It was known as the Gun House. Vauxhall The later medieval and post-medieval manor house was also referred to as La Salle Fawkes and was often confused with nearby Copt Hall. The manor house was first documented in the 14th century and originated as part of the manor of South Lambeth. In 1362, the manor was given to the prior to Christchurch Canterbury by Edward, the Black Prince. The original manor house was demolished by 1649, but the site is marked on a map of 1681 c. 90m east of the site. Four public benches The four public benches on the Embankment Footpath, c. 110m north of the site, are Grade II listed (Listed building no 203987). Effra site The GLHER records post-medieval made ground close to
MLO37008 090028
12
MLO4068 090029
13
203987
14
MLO77342
Page 317
Appendix A: Historic environment Site code/ HER ref/ TDP no
the line of the former Effra river, a tributary of the Thames, c. 100m south of the site. 15 Vauxhall Bridge, a Grade II* Listed Building (Listed Building No. 496912) crossing above the southern part of the site. The bridge was noted in the foreshore survey undertaken in 1996 by LARF under direction of Mike Webber; survey zone FWM04, Alpha no. A102. K2 telephone Kiosk A listed structure on the north side of the Thames Albert Embankment Site of later medieval wharf built for loading stone for building work at Westminster Abbey, c. 50m east of the site. Documentary evidence from 14767 records the accounts for the construction of a timber wharf at Vauxhall Abbey which covered three quarters of an acre. Westminster Abbey leased the wharf from Christchurch Canterbury in 1478. The wharf had gone out of use by 1478 and its precise location is unknown. Vauxhall Walk Site of post-medieval glass works probably founded by Edward Zouch in Lambeth in 1615 c. 110m east of the site. Plate was glass made there from 1620. It produced Looking-glass plates, flat glass and glass for coaches. It was owned by the Duke of Buckingham form 1663. The site of about nine acres contained 'the great glasshouse' & 'the little glasshouse with a mill & calcer house, three warehouses, two workmens dwellings & the managers house'. The factory closed by 1786. Thames Foreshore (structure) The modern riverfront defence and a vertical timber, possibly an anchor point, were recorded in survey zone FWM04, Alpha no. A105 and A113 respectively c. 180m west of the site. Thames Foreshore revetment A timber and chalk construction, possibly a bargebed, was recorded by the foreshore survey undertaken by LARF under direction of Mike Webber in 1996; survey zone FWM04, Alpha no. A112. Vauxhall Cross A post-medieval delftware and stoneware pottery kiln was found here in 1970, c. 170m east of the site. MLO70223 083848
16 17
LB UID 418432 MLO7792 090652
18
MLO9564 MLO77737 090008
19
MLO70226 MLO70234
20
MLO70233
21
MLO7791
Page 318
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore HEA Ref no. 22 Description
Appendix A: Historic environment Site code/ HER ref/ TDP no MLO10002 7 MLO10003 0-2
Lambeth A number of artefacts were found by chance on the foreshore within the site and reported to the Portable Antiquities Scheme. These included a late Roman vessel; a Neolithic to Bronze Age lithic implement and two postmedieval 18th or 19th century vessels. Albert Embankment Albert Embankment post-medieval river stairs are recorded at this location c. 60m north of the site. Thames Foreshore TDP survey recorded a dump of concrete boulders; a consolidation deposit of old concrete; an aggradation layer of mud; a dump of concrete debris; a vertical plank; a small vertical timber; and a row of three vertical timbers parallel to the shore.
23
MLO3867 FLM01 A103; A104; A105; A106; A107; A108; A109 MLO24427 MLO4141 MLO4143 MLO4144
24
Albert Embankment Site of the Soap Boilers House, known before 1724; Snaiths post-medieval distillery, founded before 1814; the Fountain post-medieval public house; and the Hoggs Shyse recorded on post-medieval maps c. 50m east of the site. Thames Foreshore (structure) A brick structure, 3m in front of modern river wall and possibly a river defence or a foundation, was recorded during the foreshore survey c. 200m east of the site, undertaken by LARF under direction of Mike Webber in 1996; survey zone FWM04, Alpha no. A115. Thames Foreshore A post-medieval timber and chalk bargebed was recorded during the foreshore survey, c. 170m west of the site undertaken by LARF under direction of Mike Webber in1996; survey zone FWM04, Alpha no. A114. Vauxhall Bridgefoot The site of the post-medieval Cumberland Tavern and tea garden is recorded here, c. 20m south-east of the site. Albert Embankment In 1972 roadworks along the Albert Embankment, revealed a small deposit of kiln wasters associated with the Vauxhall Pottery, c. 70m north-east of the site. Thames Foreshore
25
MLO70236
26
MLO70235
27
MLO7784
28
MLO7780
29
FLM01
Page 319
Appendix A: Historic environment Site code/ HER ref/ TDP no A110; A111; A112; A113; A114; A130; A131. FWM04 A111
Foreshore survey undertaken by TDP recorded a possible cranebase comprising five planks surrounded by a mass of concrete and debris; a vertical timber; a timber structure comprised of vertical timbers with diagonal timbers across the top; a horizontal plank and chain; and three further timbers c. 12m north of the site. 30 Thames Foreshore Foreshore survey undertaken by TDP recorded a timber structure, either a bargebed or a possible riverfront defence c. 200m west of the site. Thames Foreshore Foreshore survey undertaken by LARF under direction of Mike Webber in 1996 revealed a timber structure, possibly a bank revetment or a bargebed, in survey zone FWM04, Alpha no. A111, c. 200m west of the site. Thames Foreshore Foreshore survey undertaken by LARF under direction of Mike Webber in 1996 revealed a timber revetted chalk construction, identified as a bargebed; mud deposits extending out from river wall; and a small modern pot in survey zone FWM04, Alpha no. A109, A110 and A108 respectively, c. 180m west of the site. Thames Foreshore TDP foreshore survey recorded an aggradation layer c. 10m south of the site. Thames Foreshore Foreshore survey undertaken by LARF under direction of Mike Webber in 1996 revealed a two timber structures, possibly bargebeds (Alpha no A103 and A104); a fragment of quern (Alpha no. A106); and another timber revetted chalk construction or possible bargebed (Alpha no. A107) all in survey zone FWM04, c. 170m west of the site. Vauxhall Bridgefoot Site of stone working site as owned by Gerrard Weymans in the late 17th-century, who built mills for cutting marble and a brick house c. 60m east of the site, according to the Survey of London. Albert Embankment A copper alloy tanged Bronze Age chisel was retrieved from the Thames near the Albert Embankment c. 60m north of the site. It was collected by Reverend William Greenwell
31
MLO70232
32
MLO70229 MLO70230 MLO70231
33
FLM01 A126 MLO70224 MLO70227 -8 MLO70225
34
35
MLO4667
36
MLO19531
Page 320
Appendix A: Historic environment Site code/ HER ref/ TDP no
and later bought by John Pierpont Morgan who donated them to the British Museum in 1908. 37 Vauxhall Bridgefoot Site of the Royal Oak Inn, destroyed during the construction of Vauxhall Bridge, c. 40m east of the site. Thames Foreshore TDP survey recorded a dump deposit of concrete boulders c. 120m north of the site. 46-57 Millbank A listed building on the north side of the Thames SIS building Bazalgettes Embankment River wall and dolphin lamps Grade II Listed Morpeth Arms Public House A listed building on the north side of the Thames LB UID 203986 LB UID 418235 MLO7785
38
FLM01 A102 LB UID 418234
39 40 41 42
Page 321
Appendix B: Land quality
Appendix B: Land quality B.1 Site walkover report

Table B.1 Land quality site walkover summary Item Site Ref Site Name Date of walkover / name(s) of specialist Site location (Address & Access) Size and topography of site and surroundings Details PLH1X Albert Embankment Foreshore 4th November 2010
Neighbouring site use (in particular note any potentially contaminative activities or sensitive receptors)
Site buildings
Surfacing
Vegetation
The proposed work site is located on the foreshore of the River Thames, situated on the A3036 Albert Embankment, in the LB of Lambeth. Access across the entirety of the site. Record elevation in relation The proposed site occupies to surroundings, any approximately 0.4ha on the hummocks, breaks of slope foreshore of the eastern side of the etc. river and is located to the north of the SIS building. The CSO connection is underneath Vauxhall Bridge 140m south of the site. The foreshore area is relatively wide and approximately 340m in length. North The immediate area is characterised by commercial and residential properties namely Peninsula Heights. An operational fuel filling station (Texaco garage) is located approximately 65m to the north east. South Bordering the A3036 are retail properties located under a railway bridge. These properties are at a distance of approximately 274m south from the worksite. East The immediate area is characterised by commercial and residential properties namely Peninsula Heights. West Site is bordered to the west by the River Thames. Record extent, size, type Within the site, is a Draw Dock, and usage. Any boiler Lacks Dock which is still in use as rooms, electrical a connection between the road and switchgear? the River Thames for the launching of river vessels. Record type and condition Sand and gravel with pockets of exposed tidal mud exposed during the survey. Any evidence of distress, No
Page 322
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore unusual growth or invasive species such as Japanese Knotweed? Services Evidence of buried services? Fuels or Types/ quantities? chemicals on site Tanks (above ground or below ground) Containment systems (eg, bund, drainage interceptors). Record condition and standing liquids Refill points located inside bunds or on impermeable surfaces etc? Vehicle servicing Record locations, tanks or refuelling and inspection pits etc. onsite Waste Adequate storage and generated/stored security? Fly tipping? onsite Surface water Record on-site or nearby standing water Site drainage Is the site drained, if so to where? Evidence of flooding? Evidence of Eg trial pits, borehole previous site covers. investigations Evidence of land Evidence of discoloured contamination ground, seepage of liquids, strong odours? Summary of potential contamination sources Any other Eg access restrictions/ comments limitations
Appendix B: Land quality
No N/A No No
No
No
Occasional litter including cans and bottles were noted on the foreshore. River Thames An outflow pipe with a tidal flapgate was also visible within the river wall at the time of the survey. No
No
Nearby petrol filling station Dock
N/A
Page 323
Appendix C: Noise and vibration
Appendix C: Noise and vibration C.1

C.1.1
Introduction
A baseline noise survey was completed on 29th May 2011. As described in Volume 5, the main purpose of the noise survey was to determine representative ambient and background noise levels at a number of different types of noise sensitive receptor. These include (but are not restricted to): a. dwellings b. community buildings c. hospitals/health care buildings d. hotels/Hostels e. offices f. open/public amenity space g. premises with noise/vibration sensitive equipment h. places of worship i. j. recording studios; and schools/educational institutions.
C.1.2
The nearest identified receptors to Albert Embankment are commercial buildings and residential dwellings for example on Vauxhall Bridge Road and Camelford House.
C.2
C.2.1
Survey methodology
Short term attended noise monitoring was completed at all measurement positions. Measurements were undertaken during the interpeak periods of 10am-12pm and 2pm-4pm so that the baseline data is representative of the quieter periods where any disturbance from construction would be most noticeable. It is understood that Albert Embankment would be used for standard hours working and therefore no evening or night time measurements were undertaken. At locations 2 and 4 a Brel and Kjr sound level meter, Type 2250 (serial number 2626233), fitted with Brel and Kjr Type 4189 -inch free field microphone (serial number 2656211) was used for all measurements. At locations 1 and 3 a Brel and Kjr sound level meter, Type 2250 (serial number 2626232), fitted with Brel and Kjr Type 4189 -inch free field microphone (serial number 2621212) was used for all measurements. The microphones were fitted with a windshield during the measurements. Prior to and on completion of the survey, the sound level meter and microphone calibration was checked using a Brel and Kjr sound level meter calibrator Type 4231 (serial numbers 2619374 and 2619375 respectively). On-site calibration checks were performed before and after all measurements with no significant deviation being observed. The
C.2.2
C.2.3
C.2.4
C.2.5 C.2.6
100-RG-ENV-00000-000037
Page 324
sound level meters and calibrators have valid laboratory calibration certificates. C.2.7 The sound level meter was tripod-mounted with the microphone approximately 1.3m above ground level. A windshield was fitted over the microphone at all times during the survey period to minimise the effects of any wind induced noise. Weather conditions were dry during the survey, although there were intermittent periods of light drizzle during the morning, clearing by the afternoon. The maximum windspeed measured during the survey was 2.7m/s with average windspeeds ranging from 0.3 - 0.7 m/s and the temperature recorded was in the range of 10-16oC.
C.2.8
Measurement locations
C.2.9 Table C.1 details the measurement locations which are also presented in Figure C.1. Figure C.1 Noise measurement locations at Albert Embankment (see Volume 19 Figures document) Table C.1 Noise and vibration - measurement locations at Albert Embankment Measurement Location Number Co-ordinates Description X 530340 530263 530406 530021 Y 178265 178118 178384 178233
PLH1X Noise 1 Thames Path adjacent to Camelford House PLH1X Noise 2 Thames Path adjacent to Vauxhall Bridge PLH1X Noise 3 Footpath adjacent to Albert Embankment PLH1X Noise 4 Thames Path (opposite bank of Thames)
100-RG-ENV-00000-000037
Page 325
Results
C.1.2 A summary of the noise survey measurements is presented below. Table C.2 Noise and vibration survey results at Albert Embankment Measurement Location Number Description dBLAeq,15 Measured average daytime ambient noise level, dBLAeq,15
min min
(rounded to nearest 5dB)
Free field Thames Path adjacent to Camelford House Thames Path adjacent to PLH1X Noise 2 Vauxhall Bridge Footpath adjacent to Albert PLH1X Noise 3 Embankment Thames Path (opposite bank PLH1X Noise 4 of Thames) PLH1X Noise 1 C.1.3 58 64 77 63
Facade 61 67 80 66 60 65 80 65
The main sources of noise were road traffic and pedestrians using the footpath. At Noise 3, train noise was also noted, and at Noise 4 it was noted that the air handling fan units on the side of the office building were audible during the surveys.
Page 326
C.2
Photographs
Figure C.2 Noise monitoring at PLN1X - Noise 1
Note; Thames Path adjacent to Camelford House

Note: Thames Path adjacent to Vauxhall Bridge

Note: Footpath adjacent to Albert Embankment
Page 327

Note: Thames Path (opposite bank of River Thames)
Page 328
Appendix D: Townscape and visual
Appendix D: Townscape and visual D.1 Winter photographs for selected viewpoints
Figure D.1 Viewpoint 2.1: View south from Lambeth Bridge
Page 329
Figure D.2 Viewpoint 2.2: View south from the Thames Path
Note: at the southern end of Lambeth Bridge
Figure D.3 Viewpoint 2.3: Panoramic view south west from the Thames Path
Note: opposite Park Plaza
Page 330
Figure D.4 Viewpoint 2.4: View south west from the Thames Path
Note: outside Peninsula Heights
Figure D.5 Viewpoint 2.5: View northeast from southern end of Vauxhall Bridge
Page 331
Figure D.6 Viewpoint 2.6: View north east from the Thames Path
Note: south of St Georges Wharf
Figure D.7 Viewpoint 2.10: View south east from the entrance to Tate Britain
Page 332
Figure D.8 Viewpoint 2.11: View south from Thames Path

Note: opposite Thames House
Page 333
Appendix E: Water resources groundwater
Appendix E: Water resources - groundwater E.1

E.1.1
Geology
A summary of the anticipated geology succession to be encountered by the Thames Tunnel is shown below.
Table E.1 Groundwater - anticipated Thames Tunnel geological succession Period Series Holocene Quaternary Pleistocene Eocene Thames Group Formation Made ground Superficial Deposits Alluvium Langley Silt River Terrace Deposits London Clay Harwich Upper Shelly Beds Upper Mottled Beds Laminated Beds Palaeogene Palaeocene Lambeth Lower Shelly Beds Mid-Lambeth Hiatus* Lower Mottled Beds Upnor No group Thanet Sand Seaford Chalk** Cretaceous Upper Cretaceous White Chalk Subgroup Lewes Nodular Chalk New Pit Chalk Holywell Nodular Chalk
* Not a Formation but an important depositional feature ** Subdivided into the Haven Brow, Cuckmere and Belle Tout members.
E.1.2
Figure E.1 shows the superficial geology and Figure E.2 the solid geology beneath the site. Figure E.1 Groundwater superficial geology Figure E.2 Groundwater solid geology (see Volume 19 Figures document)
E.1.3
The Ground Investigation (GI) was undertaken for Thames Tunnel Project and has involved drilling boreholes both on the banks and within the main
Page 334
river channel (TT, 2010) 60. The locations of boreholes around the site are shown in Vol 19 Figure E.2. The depths and thicknesses of geological layers encountered is summarised in Table E.2. Table E.2 Groundwater - anticipated ground conditions Formation Superficial Deposits/Made Ground River Terrace Deposits London Clay A3ii A3i A2 Harwich Lambeth Group USB UMB Sand Channel LtB/LSB LMB UPN (Gv) UPN Thanet Sand Seaford Chalk Top Elevation mATD 100.00 99.00 Depth below river bed (m) 0.00 1.00 Thickness (m) 1.00 4.00
95.00 82.50 79.80 68.20 68.00 66.40 61.55 60.35 59.25 54.80 51.60 50.20 41.00
5.00 17.50 20.20 31.80 32.00 33.60 38.45 39.65 40.75 45.20 48.40 49.80 59.00
12.50 2.70 11.60 0.20 1.60 4.85 1.20 1.10 4.45 3.20 1.40 9.20 Not proven
USBUpper Shelly Beds; UMBUpper Mottled Beds; LtBLaminated Beds LSB-Lower Shelly Beds; LMB-Lower Mottled Beds; UPN (Gv)-Upnor Formation(Gravel); UPN-Upnor Formation
E.1.4
At the site, the depth of the shaft would be at 57.35mATD and a 3m thick reinforced concrete base plus will be formed at the base of the shaft. The base of the shaft would be within the central part of the Lambeth Group, namely the Laminated Beds, Lower Shelly Beds and Lower Mottled Beds (beneath the mid-Lambeth Hiatus). The invert of the tunnel would be within the Lower Mottled Beds. River Terrace Deposits are extensive alluvial sand and gravel deposits laid down in a braided river system of approximately 5km width, in river terraces since the Anglian glaciation. Phases of down-cutting and intervening deposition during colder periods and subsequent melt waters increased river flows and sediment load. Seven terraces are distinguishable in London in terms of their altitude, rather than
E.1.5
Page 335
distinguishing lithological features, ranging in thickness from around 2.5 to 28m. The River Terrace Deposits at the site is 4m thick. E.1.6 Borehole logs indicate the made ground contains brick-like rubble. Although the River Terrace Deposits commonly has very fine-grained sand, silt and clayey silt 'Brickearth' deposits above, the thickness of the River Terrace Deposits at the site and geological descriptions indicate the Brickearth is not present or significant at this site. The London Clay comprises clayey silt beds grading to an increasing number of silty fine-grained sand westward; and increase in homogeneity upwards through the deposit. The upper sandier formation is informally referred to as the Claygate Member to distinguish its coarser-grained nature. The Harwich Formation comprises of fine-grained glauconitic sand and rounded black flinty pebble beds, commonly deposited in a series of superimposed channels. The Upper Shelly Beds comprising grey, shelly clays with scattered glauconite grains increasing to mainly sand in south-east London. The Upper Mottled Beds (UMB) of the Reading Beds comprise of silty clay and clay, generally un-bedded, fissured and blocky, with up to 50% silt and sand. Laminated Beds (LtB) comprise thinly interbedded fine to medium grained sand, silt and clay with shells, with sand lenses found locally in south-east London. The Lower Shelly Beds (LSB) comprise dark grey to black clay with abundant shells, with increasing sand content towards east London. A thin - less than 0.3m thick - seam of Lignite is commonly found at its base, although this was not found in the borehole logs at the site. Lower Mottled Beds (LMB) of the Reading Beds comprise of silty clay and clay, generally un-bedded, fissured and blocky, with up to 50% silt and sand. The Upnor Formation (UPN) is a variably bioturbated fine- to mediumgrained sand with glauconite, rounded flint pebbles and minor clay, with distinctive pebble beds and base and top (UPN (Gv)). The Thanet Sand Formation defines the first marine transgression following erosion of the Chalk, and is round unconformably on the approximately planar eroded Chalk surface. The Thanet Sand Formation comprises well sorted, uniform sand, with evidence of intense bioturbation removing bedding structures. With approximately 10% fine-grained sand at the base, the lower part is typically clayey and silty, coarsening and greater sorting upward to the upper beds containing as much as 60% finegrained sand. The base of the Thanet Sands is a unit known as the 'Bullhead Bed' - a pale to medium-grey to brownish-grey, fine to finegrained sand; and a conglomerate up to 0.5m thick comprising rounded to angular flint cobble and gravel sized clasts set in a clayey, fine to coarsegrained sand matrix with glauconite pellets forming the basal bed of the
E.1.7
E.1.8
E.1.9 E.1.10
E.1.11
E.1.12
E.1.13
E.1.14
E.1.15
Page 336
Thanet Sand Formation. The Bullhead Bed, marks the Palaeocene/Cretaceous unconformity. E.1.16 The Seaford Chalk is the upper unit of the White Chalk, comprising of as firm to soft non-nodular Chalk with flint beds. Thin marl seams are found in the lower 8m and absent higher up. A hard ground marks the top of the Seaford Chalk.
E.2
E.2.1
Hydrogeology
A summary of the anticipated hydrogeological properties of the different geologies to be encountered by the Thames Tunnel is shown below. Table E.3 Groundwater - anticipated hydrogeology Group Superficial Deposits Thames Formation (Made Ground) Alluvium River Terrace Deposits London Clay Harwich Upper Shelly Beds Upper Mottled Beds Laminated Beds Lower Shelly Beds ----Mid Lambeth Hiatus---Lower Mottled Beds Upnor Thanet Sand Seaford Chalk White Chalk Subgroup Lewes Nodular Chalk New Pit Chalk Holywell Nodular Chalk Lower Aquifer Hydrogeology Perched Water Upper Aquifer Aquiclude Aquitard /Aquifer
Aquitards/ Aquifers
Lambeth
No group
E.2.2
The Lower Aquifer comprises the Upnor Formation, the Thanet Sands (secondary A aquifer xi) and the Chalk (principal aquifer xii,xiii) comprising of the Seaford Chalk; as the shaft is not sufficiently deep to encounter the Lewes Nodular Chalk and New Pit Chalk formations beneath. The Upper Aquifer (River Terrace Deposits) is defined as a secondary A aquifer.
Secondary aquifers are either permeable strata capable of supporting local supplies or low permeability strata with localised features such as fissures. The term secondary aquifer replaces the previously used name of minor aquifer. xii A principal aquifer is a geological strata that exhibits high intergranular and/or fracture permeability. This strata has the ability to support water supply and/or river base flow on a strategic scale. Principal aquifers equate in most cases to aquifers previously referred to as major aquifers xiii The terms principal and secondary aquifers were previously known as major and minor aquifers (EA, 2010)
xi
Page 337
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore E.2.3
The depth of shaft would not extend down into the Lower Aquifer, however it would be constructed down through a considerable section (approximately 13m) of the Lambeth Group into the Lower Mottled Beds, meaning that the separation distance between the base of shaft and the top of the Thanet Sands (Lower Aquifer) would be around 3m. Within the Lambeth Group, several confined groundwater bodies are expected to be encountered. Groundwater is expected during the excavation of through the Upper Shelly Beds (at the top of the Lambeth Group); and more significantly at sub-artesian pressures within the Laminated Beds (formerly part of the Woolwich Formation). Hydrographs for monitoring points close to the site confirm this. Above the Lambeth Group, the thin fine-grained sand and pebble beds of the Harwich Formation. Most models do not consider the Harwich Formation as an aquifer separate to the other formations above the Thanet Sand. However, the Harwich Formation may form a minor aquifer unit where it is isolated from the Lower Aquifer (Chalk / Thanet Sands) by the Lambeth Group. There may be limited connection via erosive features to the Lower Aquifer. The majority of the shaft would be excavated through the London Clay Formation (A3 and A2 sub divisions). This is generally acknowledged as an aquiclude between the upper and Lower Aquifers. It is expected that below the River Terrace Deposits, the shaft would be excavated in predominantly dry London Clay Formation with the exception of minor seepage at various horizons, namely silt or claystone horizons. Within the London Clay Formation, any groundwater present is likely to consist of localised seepages and/or minor flows. It is therefore possible that localised high pressure groundwater might be encountered within parts of the London Clay. The most porous section of London Clay the A3ii division is present within the GI borehole logs (Table D.2). Groundwater movement through the London Clay Formation also occurs along horizontal bedding planes, resulting in localised seepages. The base of the London Clay has less sand fraction, and is therefore regarded as the less permeable and more compacted part of the London Clay, thereby forming an effective retardation to groundwater flow from the Lower Aquifer. The GI boreholes drilled closest to the site are within the main River Thames. No River Terrace Deposits (Upper Aquifer) were recorded here. To the south of the right bank of the River Thames at Vauxhall Bridge, a GI Borehole (SR1070) recorded up to 5m thick of River Terrace Deposits.
E.2.4
E.2.5
E.2.6
E.2.7
E.2.8
E.3
E.3.1
Groundwater levels
The monitoring of groundwater levels is being undertaken for the project. In addition, the EA has a network of observation monitoring boreholes across London for which records are available dating back to 1963 (Figure E.3). Long term records were provided up to September 2009 at the time of writing.
Page 338
Figure E.3 Groundwater EA monitoring locations (see Volume 19 Figures document) E.3.2 The geotechnical investigation boreholes drilled for the Thames Tunnel project have been used to obtain hydrogeological information. Standpipes were installed to monitor groundwater levels in different horizon by means of data logger and/or manual dip. Groundwater monitoring records from the completion of each borehole to January 2011 were available for this assessment. The near site monitoring boreholes record groundwater levels in the following discrete layers see Table E.4. The Alluvium, River Terrace Deposits, London Clay, Lambeth Group Upper Shelly Beds, Laminated Beds, LMB, Upnor Formation the Thanet Sands and the Chalk. Some of the boreholes have dual stand-pipe installations; hence the fifteen monitored horizons in eight boreholes.
E.3.3
Table.E.4 Groundwater - depth and strata from on-site monitoring boreholes Borehole SR1070 SR1070 SR1072A SR1072A SR1073 SR1073 PR1074 PR1074 SA1074A SR1075 SR1075 SA1077 Response zone depths mATD 59.60-57.60 45.60-39.90 76.78-73.78 53.78-51.78 73.33-69.33 59.33-56.33 63.32-61.32 41.32-26.32 99.51-97.21 77.50-74.50 71.30-70.30 79.92-76.92 Strata Lambeth Group: Laminated Beds Thanet Sand London Clay Formation Lambeth Group: Lower Mottled Beds/Lambeth Group - Upnor Formation London Clay Formation Lambeth Group Lower Mottled Beds Lambeth Group Laminated Beds Seaford Chalk River Terrace Deposits London Clay Formation Lambeth Group Upper Shelly Beds London Clay Formation Monitoring Fortnightly Dips and Logger Fortnightly Dips and Logger Fortnightly Dips and Logger Fortnightly Dips and Logger Fortnightly Dips Fortnightly Dips and Logger Fortnightly Dips and Logger Fortnightly Dips and Logger Fortnightly Dips and Logger Fortnightly Dips and Logger Fortnightly Dips and Logger Fortnightly Dips and Logger
Page 339
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Borehole SA1077 SA1078 SA1078 Response zone depths mATD 68.92-65.92 96.80-102.70 73.50-72.00 Strata
Appendix E: Water resources groundwater Monitoring Fortnightly Dips and Logger Fortnightly Dips and Logger Fortnightly Dips and Logger
Lambeth Group Laminated Beds Alluvium/ River Terrace Deposits Lambeth Group Upper Shelly Beds
E.3.4
The piezometric heads in the Lower Mottled Beds are above that of the Upnor Formation (all of the Lambeth Group) which is consistently above those in the Thanet Sand in 2009/10. The Thanet Sand records show slight more fluctuations than those in Lambeth Group, possibly reflecting the formers close links with the underlying Chalk (from which most abstractions occur). Nonetheless, water levels in all these beds show a parallel signal, inferring direct and unhindered hydraulic connectivity between the lower parts of the Lambeth Group, the Thanet Sands (Figure E.4). Likewise, the Thanet Sand and Chalk EA regional groundwater level from Jan 2010 do appear similar, suggesting a hydraulic connection between these two formations.
E.3.5
Page 340
Figure E.4 Groundwater level hydrograph Albert Embankment
Page 341
Figure E.5 Groundwater level hydrograph Battersea Chalk OBH
Page 342
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore E.3.6
The nearest EA monitoring borehole is located at Battersea (TQ 2905 7764), approximately 1.5km to the west (see Figure E.3). This borehole records levels in the Chalk aquifer. A groundwater level hydrograph from this observation borehole is shown in Figure E.5. The levels in the Chalk represent the piezometric level, this is the level to which water will rise in a borehole drilled down into the Chalk. The fact that this level is always above the level of the top of Chalk of 41m ATD (see Table E.2) shows that confined conditions exist within the Chalk aquifer. Figure E.5 indicates a long term trend of rising groundwater levels between 1984 (or before) and mid-2000, reflecting the changes in abstractions such as reductions in groundwater abstractions in central London due to the closure of heavy industries. Within this trend, the annual fluctuations in Chalk piezometric level varies by around 1.5m. Although more recently some larger fluctuations have occurred of up to 15m (2004), indicating that abstraction influences may be affecting the piezometric levels in this observaton borehole. It is noted that this infleunce on the long term trend of rising water table commenced in early 2001. The recent lowering of levels reflects increase use of groundwater in central London groundwater . The latest levels from this borehole in January 2010 were around 67mATD (-33mAOD) (EA, 2010) 61. The EA have produced a groundwater contour map of the Chalk piezometric levels at a snap-shot in time in January 2010. According to this map (EA, 2010), the regional direction of groundwater flow around the site is to the northwest towards a low point within central London. However, as the site is in Source Protection Zone 2, the local groundwater gradient may be in a more west-northwesterly direction drawn towards this abstraction, particularly during peak demand periods.
E.3.7
E.3.8
E.3.9
E.4
E.4.1
Groundwater abstractions and protected rights

Groundwater abstractions within a radius of influence of up to 2km around the site have been identified. Their locations are not presented due to data restriction on licence abstractions held by EA. There are several licensed groundwater abstractions from the Chalk nearby to the site, mainly to the west and southwest of the site. There is also one licensed groundwater abstraction from river and glacial deposits to the northwest. The licence number for the nearest Chalk source is 28/39/39/0139 and the annual licensed quantity is 121,510m3. The use of this source is non-evaporative cooling purposes only and is licensed to Panoramic Management Co. Ltd. The nearest licence abstraction from the Chalk to the east (and therefore on the same side of the river) is for licence number 28/39/42/0033 held by Allied Distillers Limited for an annual licence volume of 44,323m3. The closest abstraction licence from the river and glacial deposits to the site is used for non-evaporative cooling purposes (licence number. 28/39/39/0232) by London Underground Ltd (associated with Victoria Underground Station). Further details of these licensed abstractions are given in Table E.5.
E.4.2
E.4.3
Page 343
Table E.5 Groundwater - licensed abstractions near Albert Embankment Licence Number Licence Holder Panoramic Management Co. Ltd Allied Distillers Ltd Westminster Gardens Limited Mantilla Limited Terrace Hill (Wilton Road) Nominee No 1 & No 2 Limited London Underground Ltd Halcyon Estates Limited Purpose Industrial, Commercial and Public Services Industrial, Commercial and Public Services Water Supply Water Supply Industrial, Commercial and Public Services Industrial, Commercial And Public Services Water Supply Aquifer Licensed Volume [m3/annum] 121,510
28/39/39/0139
Chalk
28/39/42/0033
Chalk
44,323
28/39/39/0209 28/39/39/0141
Chalk Chalk
12810 258,967
28/39/39/0232
Chalk
280,000
28/39/39/0223
River and Glacial Deposits Chalk
189216
28/39/39/0074
43,800
Note: Excludes Public Water Supply Sources
E.4.4 E.4.5
There are no unlicensed groundwater abstractions in the Borough of Lambeth. There is one licensed Ground Source Heat (GSH) scheme within 0.3km south southwest of the site; one GSH scheme 1.5km to the north; and a further four GSH schemes are proposed or under investigation. These schemes are shown on Figure E.6. The licensed GSH scheme abstract water from the Chalk. Further details of these licensed abstractions for GSH are given in Table E.6. Figure E.6 Groundwater GSHP schemes (see Volume 19 Figures document)
Page 344
Table E.6 Groundwater - licensed abstractions for GSH schemes Licence Number Licence Holder The Panoramic Management Company Limited Total Concept Solutions Ltd, 141 - 142 Fenchurch Street Purpose Aquifer Licensed Volume [m3/annum]
28/39/39/0139
Cooling (Active Open Loop System)
Chalk
121510
28/39/39/0013
Unknown Active Open Loop System
Chalk
73,000
E.5
E.5.1 E.5.2
Groundwater Source Protection Zones

The EA defines Source Protection Zones (SPZ) around all major public water supply abstractions sources and large licensed private abstractions. The site lies within the SPZ 2 for the Thames Water Utility source located approximately 1.3km away to the southwest (see Vol 19 Figure A.5). There is also licensed abstraction at a distance of 0.7km to the southwest, for which SPZ 1 have been defined. Further details of both these licensed abstractions are given in Table E.7. Figure E.7 Groundwater SPZ (see Volume 19 Figures document)
Page 345
Table E.7 Groundwater - public water abstractions near Albert Embankment Licence Number Licence Holder Purpose Industrial, Commercial And Public Service (Nonevaporative cooling) Water Supply Industrial, Commercial And Public Service (Evaporative Cooling) Aquifer Licensed Volume [m3/annum]
28/39/39/0139
Panoramic Management Co Ltd Westminster Gardens Limited
Chalk
45,460
28/39/39/0209
Chalk
12,810
28/39/42/0033
Allied Distillers Ltd
Unknown
44,323
E.5.3
Both of these sources are not in the direction of regional groundwater flow expected beneath the site, although the seasonal demand led abstraction from the Thames Water supply source at Battersea Pumping Station may affect the regional gradient.
E.6
E.6.1
Other designations eg SSSI or SAC

There are no other designated sites relevant to groundwater within the vicinity of the site.
E.7
E.7.1
Groundwater quality and land quality assessment

The EA monitors groundwater quality at number of points across London. The nearest EA monitoring is at Dolphin Square, which lies approximately 250m away to the west of the site, on the other side of the River Thames. The quality of water is typical of Chalk (Na-Ca-HCO3-SO4 water type). The higher than normal sodium (Na) is due to ion exchange by the clay minerals within the Chalk matrix and Lower London Tertiaries (Lambeth Group) (EA, 2006). Table E.8 contains the parameters and the number of occasions when they have breached either the Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) or UK drinking water standards at Dolphin Square over the period from February 1999 to August 2010.
E.7.2
Page 346
Table E.8 Groundwater breaches at Dolphin Square Parameter Ammonia Sulphate Benzene Silver Manganese Iron Benzo(a)pyrene Bromoxynil Copper Nickel Chlorfenvinphos Dichlorvos Dieldrin Heptachior Malathion DDT Endrin Endosulphan A Endosulphan B Hexachlorobenzene Chlordone cs Chlordone z Methoxychlor Diazinon Tetciethene Bromate Ioxynil Propetamphos E.7.3 Number of breaches 30* 1* 1** 6* 1** 2** 5** 1** 2* 3** 13* 7* 2* 2** 2* 2* 2* 2* 2* 2** 2** 2** 2** 3* 1* 2** 1** 2* Number of Samples 30 30 12 6 6 6 5 5 6 6 13 7 8 2 7 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 12 12 6 5 11
Note * above EQS **above UK drinking water standards
The close proximity of the EAs Dolphin Square monitoring point may mean the sampling at this location are representative of the groundwater quality within the Chalk aquifer beneath the site. Table E.8 indicates the
Page 347
presence of a long list of detections above the relevant standard in groundwater. This includes ammonia; metals such as silver, copper, nickel and iron; sulphate, potassium, benzene, organics and range of pesticides. The Dolphin Square monitoring point is not down hydraulic gradient from the site; however, the presence of such a wide range of contaminants at depth may be indicative of a plume of large spatial extent. E.7.4 E.7.5 Information provided by the Thames Tunnel team on land quality at the site show no exceedences. Copper concentration as detected in water samples taken from Borehole SA1077 approximately 0.5km to the east of the site in which standpipe installation is within the Laminated Beds of the Lambeth Group. The table below contains the GI measured concentrations and the relevant standard for each of the above substances. Table E.9 Groundwater quality results from the GI boreholes Parameter Copper E.7.6 Units mg/l Concentration 0.008 Standard 0.005**
Note * DWS; **EQS
Further monitoring of groundwater quality is being undertaken as part of the Thames Tunnel project monitoring programme. Further information will be presented in the ES.
E.8
E.8.1
Groundwater status
The balance between recharge and abstraction from the Chalk aquifer in London formed part of the groundwater resource assessment of the London Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy (CAMS), (EA, 2006). The Thames Tunnel falls within groundwater management unit 7 (GWMU7) which was classed as over licensed.
Page 348
Figure E.8 Groundwater - resource availability
Taken from EA, 2006. Figure 8: Resource Availability Status
E.8.2
The London Groundwater Licensing Policy was produced to restrict further abstraction in areas approaching their sustainable limit. This policy is now incorporated into the London CAMS licensing policy which identifies areas where further licences are restricted The site falls within the Central and South London area. Over this section the policy states that new consumptive licenses are restricted to < 0.2 Ml/d annual average, subject to the local assessment being favourable.
E.8.3
Page 349
Figure E.9 Groundwater - confined Chalk licensing
Page 350
Glossary
Glossary
Term A-weighted sound Description A-weighted decibels, abbreviated dBA, or dBa, or dB(a), are an expression of the relative loudness of sounds in air as perceived by the human ear. Ground elevation is measured relative to the mean sea level at Newlyn in Cornwall, referred to as Ordnance Datum (OD), such that heights are reported in metres above or below OD. Removal of water from a source of supply (surface or groundwater). Areas where the local authority determines the national air quality objectives are not likely to be achieved by the relevant deadlines. People, property or designated sites for nature conservation that may be at risk from exposure to air pollutants that could potentially arise as a result of the proposed development/project. Sediment laid down by a river. Can range from sands and gravels deposited by fast flowing water and clays that settle out of suspension during overbank flooding. Other deposits found on a valley floor are usually included in the term alluvium (eg, peat). The average (mean) of the hourly pollutant concentrations measured or predicted for a one year period. Originating as a result of human activities. A hydrogeological unit which, that allows groundwater movement at negligible rates, even though porous and capable of storing water. Groundwater movement insufficient to allow appreciable supply to a borehole or spring. Aquicludes tend to act as an impermeable barrier. A permeable geological stratum or formation that is capable of both storing and transmitting water in significant amounts.
Above Ordinance Datum abstraction Air Quality Management Area air quality sensitive receptors
alluvium
Annual Mean Concentration anthropogenic aquiclude
aquifer
Archaeological Priority Areas of archaeological priority, significance, potential or Area/Zone other title, often designated by the local authority. background concentration Basal Sands base case The contribution to the total measured or predicted concentration of a pollutant that does not originate directly from local sources of emissions. The Upnor Beds (the lower unit of the Lambeth Group) and the Thanet Sands. The base case for the assessment is a future case, without the project, in a particular assessment year.
Page 351
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Term baseflow baseline benthic invertebrates Bentonite Description
Glossary
The component of river flow derived from groundwater sources rather than surface run-off. The existing conditions against which the likely significant effects due to a proposed development are assessed. Invertebrates which are found within or on the river bed. An absorbent aluminium phyllosilicate, in general, impure clay consisting mostly of montmorillonite. Mixed with water, it forms a slurry commonly used as drilling fluid and ground support in tunnelling. A hole drilled into the ground for geological investigation or for the exploitation of geological deposits or groundwater. An abstraction borehole is a well sunk into an aquifer from which water will be pumped. Wind-blown dust deposited under extremely cold, dry post glacial conditions suitable for making bricks. Produced by the BSI Group in order to set up standards of quality for goods and services. 2,000600 BC. Recording of historic buildings (by a competent archaeological organisation) is undertaken to document buildings, or parts of buildings, which may be lost as a result of demolition, alteration or neglect, amongst other reasons. Four levels of recording are defined by Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England (RCHME) and English Heritage. Level 1 (basic visual record); Level 2 (descriptive record), Level 3 (analytical record), and Level 4 (comprehensive analytical record). Also called a bund wall, bunding is a separated area within a structure designed to prevent inundation or breaches of various types. An area of stone, concrete or timber laid on the river / sea bed, that is exposed at low tide, allowing vessels to rest safely and securely in place. The area from which surface water and/or groundwater will collect and contribute to the flow of a specific river, abstraction or other specific discharge boundary. Can be prefixed by surface water or groundwater to indicate the specific nature of the catchment.
borehole
brickearth British Standard Bronze Age Building recording
bunding
campshed
catchment
Page 352
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Term Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy (CAMS) Description
Glossary
The Environment Agencys strategy for water resources management in England and Wales through licensing water abstraction. CAMS is used to inform the public on water resources and licensing practice; provide a consistent approach to local water resources management; and help to balance the needs of water-users and the environment. A curve formed by a perfectly flexible, uniformly dense, and inextensible cable suspended from its endpoints. Whales, dolphins and porpoises. A soft white limestone (calcium carbonate) formed from the skeletal remains of sea creatures. Method for evaluating invertebrate communities based on species rarity, diversity and abundance. A temporary or permanent enclosure built across a body of water to allow the enclosed area to be pumped out creating a dry work environment. A sewer conveying waste water of domestic or industrial origin and rain water. A structure, or series of structures, designed to allow spillage of excess waste water from a combined sewer under high rainfall conditions. Flows may discharge by gravity or by pumping. A simplified representation or qualified description of the behaviour of the hydrogeological system. A quantitative conceptual model includes preliminary calculations and flow and mass balances. Conservation areas defined by Local Planning Authorities according to the provisions of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The area of site that would be used during the construction phase. The statutory plan which sets out a boroughs planning policies in relation to the management of development and land use. Supersedes the Unitary Development Plan in Boroughs where it has been adopted. A mobile crane, usually with caterpillar tracks. The flow from the existing CSO is diverted to the location of the drop shaft. The drop shaft location requires suitable access for construction and maintenance.
catenary Cetaceans Chalk Community Conservation Index. (CCI) cofferdam
combined sewer combined sewer overflow (CSO)
conceptual model
Conservation area
construction site Core Strategy
crawler crane CSO connection culvert
Page 353
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Term CSO connection tunnel Description
Glossary
The flow from the drop shaft is transferred to the Thames Tunnel through a connection tunnel. These vary in diameter from 2.2m to 5.0m Long connection tunnels can be up to 4,615m in length. The shaft connects the flow down to the Thames Tunnel. The shaft sizes depend on the amount of flow to be intercepted and the de-aeration requirements and the depth depends on the location of the Thames Tunnel. The size ranges from 6m to 25m and depth from 25 to 75m. Site where the flows from an existing CSO would be redirected to the main Thames Tunnel. An area of land or structures around a dwelling or other structure. Excavated material to be re-used within the development as fill or removed off-site. the equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level having the same energy as a fluctuating sound over a specified time period T. An area within the shaft and/or associated pipe work, where air is removed from liquids. Logarithmic ratio used to relate sound pressure level to a standard reference level. Influencing or determining elements or factors. In London these refer to the borough Unitary Development Plans. A system used to locally lower groundwater levels around the worksite to provide stable working conditions when excavating. A diaphragm wall is a reinforced concrete retaining wall that is constructed in-situ. A deep trench is excavated and supported with bentonite slurry, and then reinforcing steel is inserted into the trench. Concrete is poured into the trench and only after this does excavation in front of the retained earth commence. The release of substances (eg, water, sewage, etc.) into surface waters, ground or sewer. A lowering of the water level in a borehole or aquifer, usually in response to abstraction. Legal standards set in Europe in the Drinking Water Directive 1998 together with UK national standards to maintain wholesomeness of potable water.
CSO drop shaft
CSO interception site curtilage cut dB LAeq,T
de-aeration chamber decibel (dB) determinands Development Plan dewatering wells
diaphragm wall
discharge drawdown Drinking Water Standards
Page 354
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Term early medieval effect effluent Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Description
Glossary
AD 410 1066. Also referred to as the Saxon period. The result of an impact on a particular resource or receptor. The treated wastewater discharged from the Sewage Treatment Works. An assessment of the likely significant effects that a proposed project may have on the environment, considering natural, social and economic aspects, prepared in accordance with the 2009 Infrastructure Planning EIA Regulations. The concentration of chemical pollutants assessed to have detrimental effects on water quality in terms of the health of aquatic plants and animals. EQS are established in the WFD (Annex V) through the testing of the toxicity of the substance on aquatic biology. A document to be prepared following an EIA which provides a systematic and objective account of the EIAs findings, prepared in accordance with the 2009 Infrastructure Planning EIA Regulations. A limited programme of nonintrusive and/or intrusive fieldwork which determines the presence or absence of archaeological features, structures, deposits, artefacts or ecofacts within a specified area. A programme of controlled, intrusive fieldwork with defined research objectives which examines, records and interprets archaeological remains, retrieves artefacts, ecofacts and other remains within a specified area. The records made and objects gathered are studied and the results published in detail appropriate to the project design. A structural planar fracture or discontinuity within lithological strata due to strain or compression, in which significant displacement is observable. Factors that will determine the severity of an odour as defined by the Environment Agency; Frequency, Intensity, Duration, Offensiveness, Receptor. Material required to raise existing ground levels. This can utilise cut material generated within the site, or necessitate the importation of material. The location at which an item was found. A sewer conveying waste water of domestic and/or industrial origin, but little or no rain water. A breakage in a rock mass. Present at any scale, but is generally used for large scale discontinuities.
Environmental Quality Standards (EQS)
Environmental Statement (ES)
Evaluation (archaeological)
Excavation (archaeological)
fault
FIDOR
fill
findspot foul sewer fracture
Page 355
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Term GARDIT Description
Glossary
General Aquifer Research Development and Investigation Team (Thames Water, the Environment Agency and London Underground with the support of organisations such as the Corporation of London, Envirologic, the Association of British Insurers (ABI) and BT). The gradual increase in the temperature of the earth's atmosphere, believed to be due to the greenhouse effect, caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, and other pollutants. Benchmark national quality standard for parks and green spaces in the United Kingdom. Water contained in underground strata, predominantly in aquifers. Inundation of land or basements as groundwater levels rise and the groundwater discharges to the surface or underground structures. The rise in groundwater level that occurs after cessation of abstraction. Groundwater Body: distinct volume of groundwater within an aquifer or aquifers. A dark brown slightly glauconitic clay with localised fine sand. Temporary roads provided within the contractors site area to allow the transportation of material around the site. A building, monument, site, place, area or landscape positively identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions. Heritage assets are the valued components of the Historic environment. They include designated heritage assets and assets identified by the local planning authority (including local listing). Archaeological and built heritage database held and maintained by the County authority. Previously known as the Sites and Monuments Record. Designated residential area with streets designed to operate primarily as a space for social use. Generally hard nodular chalks with thin flaser marls. In parts, there are significant proportions of shell debris. Inter-bedded coloured marl and chalk succession characteristic of the Plenus Marls Member are found at its base. Above this, the Melbourn Rock Member is distinguishable by its lack of shell material.
global warming
Green Flag groundwater groundwater flooding
groundwater rebound GWB Harwich Formation haul roads heritage asset
Historic environment Record (HER) Homezone Holywell Nodular Chalk
Page 356
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Term hydraulic conductivity Description
Glossary
A constant of proportionality in Darcys law that allows the calculation of the rate of groundwater flow from the hydraulic gradient. For a unit hydraulic gradient, the higher the hydraulic conductivity the higher the rate of groundwater flow. In an aquifer this is the rate of change of groundwater level per unit distance in a given direction. Groundwater flows in the direction of the decline in hydraulic gradient. A graph showing a plot of water flow or level with time, applicable to both surface water and groundwater. A physical or measurable change to the environment attributable to the project. This structure is required to be built around the existing overflow either on land or at the discharge point in the foreshore. The chamber has a weir and valves to divert the flow in to the Thames Tunnel system. It is likely to be a reinforced concrete cut and cover box structure. In some other cases the structure is required to be built adjacent to an inlet or sump of a pump station from which the flow is diverted 600 BC AD 43. A caisson is a retaining, water-tight structure open to the air. A jack is used to push the caisson into the ground, with the internal area then excavated. Equivalent continuous sound level is a notional steady sound level which would cause the same A-weighted sound energy to be received as that due to the actual and possibly fluctuating sound over a period of time (T). It can also be used to relate periods of exposure and noise level. Thus, for example, a halving or doubling of the period of exposure is equivalent in sound energy to a decrease or increase of 3dB(A) in the sound level for the original period. The maximum sound level measured on the A- weighted scale occurring during an event. Complex sequence of highly variable inter-bedded sediments which include clay, sands, pebble beds and Shelly beds. Fine to coarse sand or clay with occasional black organic matter. AD 1066 1500. The Lee Tunnel comprises a 7.2m diameter storage and transfer tunnel from Abbey Mills Pumping Station to Beckton STW and the interception of the Abbey Mills CSO.
hydraulic gradient
hydrograph impact interception chamber
Iron Age jacked caission
LAeq(T)
LAmax Lambeth Group Laminated Beds later medieval Lee Tunnel
Page 357
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Term Lewes Nodular Chalk Description
Glossary
Hard to very hard nodular chalks and hardgrounds with interbedded soft to medium hard chalks and marls. More abundant softer chalks towards the top. Formal permit allowing the holder to engage in an activity (in the context of this report, usually abstraction), subject to conditions specified in the licence itself and the legislation under which it was issued. A structure of architectural and/or historical interest. These are included on the Secretary of State's list, which affords statutory protection. These are subdivided in to Grades I, II* and II (in descending importance). The general characteristics of a rock or sedimentary formation. Local areas where the local authority determines the national air quality objectives are not likely to be achieved by the relevant deadlines. Collection of planning documents prepared by the Local Planning Authority outlining the management of development and land use in a Borough. A structure of local architectural and/or historical interest. These are structures that are not included in the Secretary of States Listing but are considered by the local authority to have architectural and/or historical merit. An area specific plan to interpret and apply the strategy set out in the Structure Plan, to provide a detailed basis for the control of development, to provide a basis for co-ordinating new development and to bring planning issues before the public. Fine sandy silty clay to silty clay. The LTI comprise five separate improvement projects at Thames Waters five Tideway sewage treatment works (STWs): Mogden, Beckton, Crossness, Riverside and Long Reach. The LTT comprises two separate projects: the Lee Tunnel and the Thames Tunnel. Consisting of the Upnor Beds (the lowest unit of the Lambeth Group), the Thanet Sands and the Chalk. Artificial deposit. An archaeologist would differentiate between modern made ground, containing identifiably modern inclusion such as concrete (but not brick or tile), and undated made ground, which may potentially contain deposits of archaeological interest.
licence
listed building
lithology Local Air Quality Management (LAQM) Local Development Framework (LDF) locally listed building
Local Plan
London Clay London Tideway Improvements (LTI)
London Tideway Tunnels (LTT) Lower aquifer made ground
Page 358
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Term main tunnel drive shaft site main tunnel reception shaft site Mesolithic mitigation measures Description
Glossary
Site that would be used to insert and then drive the TBM. Site that would be used to remove the TBM from the Thames Tunnel at the end of the drive. 12,000 4,000 BC. Actions proposed to prevent or reduce adverse effects arising from the whole or specific elements of the development. 4,000 2,000 BC. Non-nodular chalk, massively bedded, with fairly regularly developed marl seams and sporadic flints. A product of combustion processes. Nitrogen dioxide is associated with adverse effects on human health. A report which briefly describes the main points discussed in the Environmental Statement in a clear manner without the use of technical jargon and phraseology. This report is a requirement of the 2009 Infrastructure Planning EIA Regulations. The Water Services Regulations Authority, a government body set up in 1989 to regulate the activities of the water companies in England and Wales. Odour panel sampling carried out in laboratory conditions. Related to past environments, ie, during the prehistoric and later periods. Such remains can be of archaeological interest, and often consist of organic remains such as pollen and plant macro fossils which can be used to reconstruct the past environment. 700,00012,000 BC. A Middle Bronze Age axe. Solid particles or liquid droplets suspended or carried in the air and includes the same matter after it has deposited onto a surface. For the purposes of this assessment the term includes all size fractions of suspended matter, such as dust, PM10 and PM2.5. A structure containing carbon which absorbs odour from air flowing out of the Tunnel, without the assistance of mechanical pumping. Preliminary Environmental Information Report is a document setting out initial environmental information. In accordance with the Planning Act 2008, it is a requirement that this is the subject of pre-application consultation.
Neolithic New Pit Chalk nitrogen dioxide (and oxides NO2 and NO) Non-Technical Summary (NTS)
Ofwat
olfactometry Palaeo-environmental
Palaeolithic palstave particulate matter (PM)
passive filter chamber
PEIR
Page 359
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Term pelagic invertebrates perched water Description Invertebrates which are found in the water column.
Glossary
Is groundwater in an aquifer present above the regional water table, as a result of a (semi-)impermeable layer of rock or sediment above the main water table/aquifer, below the ground surface. The capacity of soil or porous rock to transmit water. A measure of the acidity or basicity of an aqueous solution. A borehole designed specifically to allow the measurement of groundwater level. The level or head to which groundwater would rise in a piezometer if it is free to seek equilibrium with the atmosphere. Written procedures put in place for dealing with spillages and pollution. Containing void spaces. Most sedimentary rocks are porous to some extent, and the term is commonly applied in a relative sense, generally restricted to rocks which have significant effective porosity. Refers to Option 3 Abbey Mills route, which runs from Action Storm Tanks in west London to Limehouse then turns northeast to Abbey Mills Pumping Station, where it connects with the Lee Tunnel. Refers to the preferred route and construction sites. Sites assessed as most suitable following review of suitability of each shortlisted site by taking in to account engineering,planning, environment, property and community considerations. Preservation by recording and advancement of understanding of asset significance. This is a standard archaeological mitigation strategy where heritage assets remains are fully excavated and recorded archaeologically and the results published. For remains of lesser significance, preservation by record might comprise an archaeological watching brief. Archaeological mitigation strategy where nationally important (whether designated or not) heritage assets are conserved in situ for future generations, typically through modifications to design proposals to avoid damage or destruction of such remains.
permeability pH piezometer piezometric surface
Pollution Incident Control Plan porous
preferred route
preferred scheme preferred site
preservation by record
preservation in situ
Page 360
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Term Principal Aquifer Description
Glossary
A geological stratum that exhibits high inter-granular and/or fracture permeability. This strata has the ability to support water supply and/or river base flow on a strategic scale. Principal Aquifers equate in most cases to aquifers previously referred to as Major Aquifers. Term used to describe the supply of water provided by a water company. Putty chalk (clay characteristics) near the surface of the unit above firm to soft non-nodular chalk with flint (Upper Chalk undivided) above hard nodular chalk with flints (Lewes Chalk). An international treaty for the conservation and sustainable utilisation of wetlands. River Basin Management Plans these are the relevant plans that outline the state of water resources within a River Basin District relevant to the objectives of the WFD. The rarest and most threatened species are often listed in the Red Data Book of Insectsxiv, within which there are three categories. Taxa in danger of extinction are referred to as RDB 1 species; those considered to be vulnerable and likely to move into the endangered category are listed under RDB 2, whilst rare species occur on RDB 3. Section of river between two points. Extensive alluvial sand and gravel deposits laid down in a braided river system in river terraces since the Anglian glaciations. Where live data is used to manipulate control equipment in order to best manage the flow of storm water and sewage within the capacity of the system. People (both individually and communally) and the socioeconomic systems they support. Water that percolates downwards from the surface to replenish the water table. The red route is a network of roads designated by Transport for London that carry heavy volumes of traffic and are essential for the movement of traffic and public transport. These comprise mainly of major routes into and around London. Transport for London are responsible for enforcing the red routes which include clearways, parking and loading bays, bus lanes, yellow box junctions and banned turns.
Public Water Supply Putty Chalk
RAMSAR RBMP
RDB3
reach River Terrace Deposits real time control (RTC) receptors recharge Red route
xiv
Bratton, (1991) Red Data Book for Insects
Page 361
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Term risk assessment Description
Glossary
Assessment of the risks associated with an activity or object and possible accidents involving a source or practice. This includes assessment of consequence. AD 43 410. Scheduled Ancient Monument. More commonly referred to as Scheduled Monument. Entry of brackish or salt water into an aquifer, from the sea or estuary. This may be natural or induced by excessive or uncontrolled groundwater abstraction. The zone in which the voids in a rock or soil are filled with water at a pressure greater than atmospheric pressure. An ancient monument or archaeological deposits designated by the Secretary of State as a Scheduled Ancient Monument and protected under the Ancient Monuments Act. The formal view of the determining authority on the range of topics and issues to be considered by the Environmental Impact Assessment, as referred to in the 2009 Infrastructure Planning EIA Regulations. The document prepared by the applicant setting out the proposed approach to the Environmental Impact Assessment, including the range of topics and issues to be addressed, as referred to in the 2009 Infrastructure Planning EIA Regulations. The formal view of the determining authority on the need for an Environmental Impact Assessment to be undertaken, as referred to in the 2009 Infrastructure Planning EIA Regulations. The upper unit of the White Chalk, comprising of as firm to soft non-nodular Chalk with flint beds. Thin marl seams are found towards its base and and absent higher up. A hard ground marks the top of the Seaford Chalk. Alternate piles in-filled with concrete to form a water-tight retaining wall. Either permeable strata capable of supporting local supplies or low permeability strata with localised features such as fissures. The term Secondary Aquifer replaces the previously used name of Minor Aquifer. There are two classes of Secondary Aquifer. Secondary A are capable of supporting water supplies at a local rather than strategic scale and Secondary B are lower permeability layers which may store and yield limited amounts of groundwater due to localised features such as fissures, thin permeable horizons and weathering.
Roman SAM saline intrusion
saturated zone Scheduled Monument
Scoping Opinion
Scoping Report
Screening Opinion
Seaford Chalk
secant piles Secondary Aquifers
Page 362
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Term short listed sites SINC (Grade B) SINC (Grade L) SINC (Grade M) Site Description
Glossary
Sites idenitfied following an assessment of long list sites in accordance with the Site Selection Methodology. Site of Nature Conservation Importance (Grade II of Borough importance). Site of Nature Conservation Importance (Grade I of Local importance). Site of Nature Conservation Importance (Grade III of Metropolitan importance). For the purposes of the PEIR assessment, the site is deemed as the entire area located within the Limit of Land to be Acquired or Used. It should not be inferred that this entire site area will be physically separated (ie, hoarded or fenced) for the construction duration. An area given a statutory designation by English Nature or the Countryside Council for Wales because of its nature conservation value. Materials such as hard standing and vegetation including incidental topsoil (including potential contaminated soil). A record of sites of archaeological interest. An efficient method for constructing the tunnel lining with a layer of sprayed concrete. This is instead of using pre-cast concrete segments. Layers of rock, including unconsolidated materials such as sands and gravels. The study of stratified rocks, their nature, their occurrence, their relationship to each other and their classification. A colourless gas with a choking smell, the main product of the combustion of sulphur contained in fuels. Overarching term for recent generally unconsolidated or loosely consolidated deposits of sand, gravel, silt, clay, etc on top of bedrock. Synonymous with drift generally supersedes the term. This is a general term used to describe all water features such as rivers, streams, springs, ponds and lakes. Water that travels across the ground rather than seeping in to the soil.
Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) site strip Sites and Monuments Record sprayed concrete lining strata stratigraphy sulphur dioxide (SO2) superficial deposits
surface water surface water runoff
Page 363
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Term Thames Tunnel Description
Glossary
The Thames Tunnel comprises a full-length storage and transfer tunnel from Acton Storm Tanks to Beckton Sewage Treatment Works in East London and the interception of specific CSOs along the Thames Tideway with a diameter between 6.5m and 7.2m. Coarsening upward sequence of well sortedfine grained sand which has a higher clay / silt content towards the lower part of the sequence, and evidence of intense bioturbation removing bedding structures. The Thames Tunnel project. Length of river channel swept by water from a discharge point in one tidal cycle. In the case of the River Thames this is considered to 13km up and downstream of the discharge point. Tool developed on behalf of Thames Water to assess the effects of lapses in water quality caused by CSO discharges on Tideway fish populations. The formal assessment of traffic and transportation issues relating to the proposed development. The findings are usually presented in a report which accompanies the planning application. Partially or wholly remove. In archaeological terms remains may have been truncated by previous construction activity. A typical year relates to an actual year, eg, the corresponding meteorological dataset for that year used in the modelling which was 1979-80. The corresponding meteorological dataset is used as it would give a better indication of conditions rather than using a recent year of data where the meteorological data may not be consistent with a rainfall event leading to the tunnel emissions. An enclosed space below the ground surface where air is released to atmosphere, should the pressure within the Tunnel exceed a set value. The statutory plan which sets out a unitary authoritys planning policies. These are rocks which are generally unable to provide usable water supplies and are unlikely to have surface water and wetland ecosystems dependent upon them. Variably bioturbated fine- to medium-grained sand with glauconite, rounded flint pebbles and minor clay, with distinctive pebble beds and base and top.
Thanet Sands
The project tidal excursion
Tideway Fish Risk Model Transport Assessment (TA)
truncate typical year
underground pressure release chamber Unitary Development Plan (UDP) unproductive strata
Upnor Formation
Page 364
Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Term Upper aquifer Upper Mottled Beds Upper Shelly Beds Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive valve chamber Description
Glossary
Comprising the water bearing strata above the London Clay, namely the River Terrace Deposits and the Alluvium. A bluish grey mottled with greenish brown clay. Contains shell fragments within a flinty gravel or a sandy clay The Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (1991) has the overall aim of protecting the environment from the adverse effects of urban waste water discharges. An underground structure on the sewer system containing valves which are used to isolate the flow between different parts of the sewer system. For example, flap valves prevent the flow from the river travelling back up the sewer or into the tunnel. A stack through which air is released. An EC Directive seeking to improve water quality in rivers and groundwater in an integrated way (2000). An archaeological watching brief is a formal programme of observation and investigation conducted during any operation carried out for nonarchaeological reasons. Level below which the ground is saturated with water. The water table elevation may vary with recharge and groundwater abstraction. The WEEE Directive aims to reduce the amount of electrical and electronic equipment going to landfill and to encourage everyone to reuse, recycle and recover it. Chalk with flints, with discrete marl seams, nodular chalk, sponge-rich and flint seams throughout. Flint typology and marl seam incidence is important for correlation. Comprises of Seaford Chalk, Lewes Nodular Chalk, New Pit Chalk and Holywell Nodular Chalk.
ventilation column Water Framework Directive (WFD) watching brief (archaeological) water table
Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (WEEE) White Chalk subgroup
Page 365
References
References
1
Greater London Authority and London Councils (2006) Best Practice Guidance: The Control of Dust and Emissions from Construction and Demolition, November 2006
2
Defra, http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/review-and-assessment/tools/backgroundmaps.html, Accessed May 2011) Defra (2010), http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/documents/Measured-nitrogen-oxides-(NOx)and-or-nitrogen-dioxide-(NO2)-concentrations-do-not-appear-to-be-declining-in-linewith-national-forecastsv1.pdf, Accessed April 2011
4 5 6 3
Defra (2009) Local Air Quality Managemen t- Technical Guidance, LAQM.TG(09). Defra (2010) Draft National Policy Statement for Waste Water, November 2010.
Thames Estuary Partnership Biodiversity Action Group (2002) Tidal Thames Habitat Action Plan. London Biodiversity Partnership.
7
Lambeth Council. Lambeth Biodiversity Action Plan. www.lambeth.gov.uk
8 Elliott, M. & Hemingway, K. L. (2002). Fishes in Estuaries, London: Blackwell Science.

9
Elliott, M. and Taylor, C.J.L. (1989). The structure and functioning of an estuarine/marine fish community in the Forth estuary, Scotland. Proc. 21st European Marine Biological Symposium (Gdansk). Polish Academy of Sciences, Institute of Oceanology, Warsaw, Poland, 227-240.
10
Chadd, R and Extence, C (2004). The conservation of freshwater macroinvertebrate populations: a community based classification scheme. Aquatic Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 14: 597-624. Turnpenny, A.W.H., Clough, S.C., Holden, S.D.J., Bridges, M., Bird, H., OKeeffe, N.J., Johnson, D., Edmonds, M., Hinks, C. (2004). Thames Tideway Strategy: Experimental Studies on the Dissolved Oxygen Requirements of Fish Consultancy Report no.FCR374/04 to Thames Water Utilities, Ltd. Fawley Aquatic Research, Fawley Southampton, April, 2004. http://www.wfduk.org/LibraryPublicDocs/ThamesTidewayStrategyExperimentalStudie sontheDissolvedOxygenRequirementsofFish] Maitland, PS and Hatton-Ellis, TW. Ecology of the Allis and Twaite Shad. Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers Ecology Series No. 3. English Nature, PeterBorough (2003)
13 12 11
IEEM Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom. Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2006).
14
Department of Communities and Local Government. Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment (March 2010), 1, 13
15 16
Barton, Nicholas. The Lost Rivers of London. Historical Publications (1962)
Roberts, H and Godfrey, WH (eds) Survey of London: volume 23 - The Parish of St Mary Lambeth, Pt 1: South Bank and Vauxhall (1951) 111; Maldon, HE (editor) A History of the County of Surrey: Volume 4. (1912), 5064
Page 366
References
17
Margary I D, Roman Roads in Britain. London John Baker Publishers Ltd (1967) 62, 645
18
MoLAS. The archaeology of Greater London: an assessment of archaeological evidence for human presence in the area covered by modern Greater London (2000), 150
19
Roberts, H and Godfrey, WH (eds), Survey of London: volume 23 - Lambeth: South Bank and Vauxhall (1951)111 Gower G and Tyler K, Lambeth Unearthed An archaeological history of Lambeth. Museum of London Archaeology Service (2003) 21; Weinreb B and Hibbert C (eds), The London encyclopaedia. Macmillan (1995), 850
20
Roberts, H and Godfrey, WH (eds), Survey of London: volume 23 - Lambeth: South Bank and Vauxhall (1951) 111
22
21
Roberts H and Godfrey WH (eds), Survey of London: volume 23 - Lambeth: South Bank and Vauxhall (1951), 104117 Maldon, HE (editor) A History of the County of Surrey: Volume 4 (1912), 4450 Renier, H, Lambeth Past. Historical Publications. (2006) 13 Maldon HE (editor), A History of the County of Surrey: Volume 4 (1912), 5064 Maldon HE (editor) A History of the County of Surrey: Volume 4 (1912), 4450 Maldon HE (editor) A History of the County of Surrey: Volume 4 (1912), 5064
23 24 25 26 27 28
Roberts H and Godfrey WH (eds), Survey of London: volume 23 - Lambeth: South Bank and Vauxhall (1951), 111 Maldon HE (editor), A History of the County of Surrey: Volume 4 (1912), 5064 Maldon HE (editor), A History of the County of Surrey: Volume 4 (1912), 5064
29 30 31
Roberts, H and Godfrey, WH (eds), Survey of London: volume 23 - Lambeth: South Bank and Vauxhall (1951), 5759
32
London Topographical Society 2005 London County Council Bomb Damage Maps 193945. (2005) 89
33 34
LB of Lambeth Designation of the Albert Conservation Area CA57 (2001)
English Heritage Understanding historic buildings: a guide to good recording practice. Swindon (2006) English Heritage Understanding historic buildings: a guide to good recording practice. Swindon (2006)
36 35
BS 5228:2009 (Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites)
37
BS 4142 (1997): Method for rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas
38
British Standards Institution (1997), BS 4142 Method for rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas, British Standards Institution
39
LB Lambeth, Core Strategy (2011), part of Local Development Framework.
Page 367
References
40 41
Open Spaces Strategy (2004), LB Lambeth, London
London Duck Tours, http://www.londonducktours.co.uk/faqs, last accessed on: 18/04/11

42
Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) website, www.sis.gov.uk/ourhistory/buildings.html, accessed on: 07/06/11 Business Premises Study (2007), LB Lambeth, London
43 44
Colliers International and St George marketing brochure, last accessed online at http://www.colliersid.com/property_attachments/841.pdf , in May 2011
45
EA(2006) Groundwater Quality Review: London Basin Ref. No. GWQR22 [6441R6] November 2006.
46 47 48
London Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy (CAMS), (EA, 2006) The London Groundwater Licensing Policy (EA, 2006)
Thames River Basin Management Plan Annex B: Water Body Status Objectives, Environment Agency, 2011
49 50 51
(The Thames Recreational Users Study Final Report (2007), Thames Tideway Strategic Study, Thames Water, February 2005
Communities and Local Government (March 2010). Planning Policy Statement 25 Development and Flood Risk.
52
Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk Practice Guide. Communities and Local Government (Dec 2009))
53
Thames Estuary 2100 Flood Risk Management Plan. Environment Agency. Accessed Feb 2011 http://www.environmentagency.gov.uk/research/library/consultations/106100.aspx)
54
The London Plan Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London Consolidated with Alterations since 2004. Greater London Authority (Feb 2008). The London Plan Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London Consultation Draft Replacement Plan. Greater London Authority (Oct 2009)).
55
LB of Lambeth Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Final Report. Scott Wilson Ltd (Jun 2008). LB of Lambeth Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Final Report. Scott Wilson Ltd (Aug 2008))
56 57 58
Thames Estuary 2100 Flood Risk Management Plan. Environment Agency London Regional Flood Risk Appraisal. Greater London Authority (Oct 2009))
Thames Tidal Defences Joint Probability Extreme Water Levels 2008 Final Modelling Report. Environment Agency (Apr 2008) (Thames Barrier operational, Model Node 2.31
59
The Mayors Draft Water Strategy. Mayor of London. Greater London Authority (Aug 2009
60
TT (2010) Ground Investigation Factual Report Contract Reference No. WAL080092 EA (2010) Management of London Basin Chalk Aquifer. Status Report 2010
61
Page 368
Thames Tunn
110-RG-ENV-PLH1X-000027
Phase two consultation (Autumn 2011)
For further information see our website: www.thamestunnelconsultation.co.uk or call us on 0800 0721 086
Thames Tunn

PEIR Main Report Vol19 Albert Embankment Foreshore

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

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

PEIR Main Report Vol19 Albert Embankment Foreshore

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore site assessment

Phase two consultation documentation

Project information papers

Site information papers

Thames Tunnel Preliminary environmental information report

Part B: Preliminary site information

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 25 Volume 26 Volume 27 Volume 28

Preliminary environmental information report

Thames Tunnel Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore site assessment

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

Preliminary environmental information report

Ecology - terrestrial ....................................................................................... 58

Historic environment ..................................................................................... 70

Land quality .................................................................................................. 103

Noise and vibration ...................................................................................... 119

Preliminary environmental information report

Socio-economics ......................................................................................... 142

Townscape and visual ................................................................................. 165

Transport ...................................................................................................... 219

Water resources groundwater ................................................................. 250

Preliminary environmental information report

Water resources surface water ................................................................ 265

Water resources flood risk ....................................................................... 289

Preliminary environmental information report

Preliminary environmental information report

Preliminary environmental information report

Preliminary environmental information report

Preliminary environmental information report

Preliminary environmental information report

WSI WWT ZTV ZVI

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore

Section 2: Site context

Site context Site location

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore 2.2.7

Section 2: Site context

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore

Section 3: Proposed development

Proposed development Overview

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore 3.1.4 3.1.5

Section 3: Proposed development

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore

Section 3: Proposed development

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore Ventilation structures 3.2.12

Section 3: Proposed development

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore

Section 3: Proposed development

Code of construction practice

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 19: Albert Embankment Foreshore 3.3.11

Section 3: Proposed development

3.3.15 3.3.16 3.3.17

Preliminary environmental information report