You are on page 1of 323

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park site assessment


CSO interception and connection tunnel reception site

Regulations 2 and 10 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009

Thames Tunnel

Phase two consultation documentation


General
Your guide to phase two consultation Why does London need the Thames Tunnel? Feedback form Equalities form Customer overview leaflet

Technical documents
Air management plan Book of plans Code of construction practice Part A: General requirements Consultation strategy and statement of community consultation Design development report Draft waste strategy Interim engagement report Needs Report Phase two scheme development report Preliminary environmental information report Report on phase one consultation Background technical paper Site selection methodology paper

Project information papers


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

Site information papers


Abbey Mills Pumping Station Acton Storm Tanks Albert Embankment Foreshore Barn Elms Beckton Sewage Treatment Works Bekesbourne Street Blackfriars Bridge Foreshore Carnwarth Road Riverside Chambers Wharf Chelsea Embankment Foreshore Cremorne Wharf Depot Deptford Chrurch Street Dormay Street Earl Pumping Station Falconbrook Pumping Station Greenwich Pumping Station Hammersmith Pumping Station Heathwall Pumping Station Jews Row King Edward Memorial Park Forehore King 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 Volume 25 Introduction Proposed development Alternatives Scoping Opinions and technical engagement Assessment methodology Project-wide assessment Acton Storm Tanks CSO interception and main tunnel reception site Hammersmith Pumping Station CSO interception site Barn Elms CSO interception site Putney Bridge Foreshore CSO interception site Dormay Street CSO interception and connection tunnel sequential drive site King Georges Park CSO interception and connection tunnel reception site (this document) Carnwath Road Riverside main tunnel drive and reception, and connection tunnel reception site Falconbrook Pumping Station CSO interception site Cremorne Wharf Depot CSO interception site Chelsea Embankment Foreshore CSO interception site Kirtling Street main tunnel double drive site Heathwall Pumping Station CSO interception site Albert Embankment Foreshore CSO interception site Victoria Embankment Foreshore CSO interception site Blackfriars Bridge Foreshore CSO interception site Chambers Wharf main tunnel drive and reception and connection tunnel reception site King Edward Memorial Park Foreshore CSO interception site Earl Pumping Station CSO interception site Deptford Church Street CSO interception site

Part B: Preliminary site information

Page i

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26 Volume 27 Volume 28

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

Page ii

Preliminary environmental information report

Thames Tunnel Volume 12: King Georges Park 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 ............................................................................................ 6 Design development and on site alternatives ........................................ 10 Base case .............................................................................................. 11 Introduction ............................................................................................ 13 Proposed development .......................................................................... 13 Assessment methodology...................................................................... 15 Baseline conditions................................................................................ 15 Construction assessment ...................................................................... 19 Operational assessment ........................................................................ 22 Approach to mitigation ........................................................................... 23 Assessment summary ........................................................................... 24 Assessment completion ......................................................................... 26 Introduction ............................................................................................ 27 Proposed development .......................................................................... 27 Assessment methodology...................................................................... 28 Baseline conditions................................................................................ 30 Construction assessment ...................................................................... 34 Operational assessment ........................................................................ 34 Approach to mitigation ........................................................................... 37 Assessment summary ........................................................................... 38

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

Air quality and odour ..................................................................................... 13 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9

Ecology - aquatic ........................................................................................... 27 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8

Page iii

Preliminary environmental information report

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 ......................................................................... 39 Introduction ............................................................................................ 40 Proposed development .......................................................................... 40 Assessment methodology...................................................................... 41 Baseline conditions................................................................................ 43 Construction assessment ...................................................................... 47 Operational assessment ........................................................................ 49 Approach to mitigation ........................................................................... 49 Assessment summary ........................................................................... 50 Assessment completion ......................................................................... 52 Introduction ............................................................................................ 53 Proposed development .......................................................................... 53 Assessment methodology...................................................................... 54 Baseline conditions................................................................................ 55 Construction assessment ...................................................................... 67 Operational assessment ........................................................................ 71 Approach to mitigation ........................................................................... 72 Assessment summary ........................................................................... 75 Assessment completion ......................................................................... 77 Introduction ............................................................................................ 78 Proposed development .......................................................................... 78 Assessment methodology...................................................................... 79 Baseline conditions................................................................................ 79 Construction assessment ...................................................................... 85 Operational assessment ........................................................................ 88 Approach to mitigation ........................................................................... 89 Assessment summary ........................................................................... 90 Assessment completion ......................................................................... 91 Introduction ............................................................................................ 92 Proposed development .......................................................................... 92 Assessment methodology...................................................................... 94 Baseline conditions................................................................................ 95 Construction assessment ...................................................................... 98

Ecology - terrestrial ....................................................................................... 40

Historic environment ..................................................................................... 53

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

Noise and vibration ........................................................................................ 92

Page iv

Preliminary environmental information report

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 ...................................................................... 107 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 109 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 111 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 113 Introduction .......................................................................................... 114 Proposed development ........................................................................ 114 Assessment methodology.................................................................... 114 Baseline conditions.............................................................................. 115 Construction assessment .................................................................... 120 Operational assessment ...................................................................... 129 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 131 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 132 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 134 Introduction .......................................................................................... 135 Proposed development ........................................................................ 135 Assessment methodology.................................................................... 136 Baseline conditions.............................................................................. 138 Construction assessment .................................................................... 152 Operational assessment ...................................................................... 163 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 173 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 175 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 182 Introduction .......................................................................................... 183 Proposed development ........................................................................ 183 Assessment methodology.................................................................... 186 Baseline conditions.............................................................................. 188 Construction assessment .................................................................... 192 Operational assessment ...................................................................... 198 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 202 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 205 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 207 Introduction .......................................................................................... 208 Proposed development ........................................................................ 208

Socio-economics ......................................................................................... 114

Townscape and visual ................................................................................. 135

Transport ...................................................................................................... 183

Water resources groundwater ................................................................. 208

Page v

Preliminary environmental information report

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.................................................................... 209 Baseline conditions.............................................................................. 209 Construction assessment .................................................................... 212 Operational assessment ...................................................................... 214 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 215 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 216 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 217 Introduction .......................................................................................... 218 Proposed development ........................................................................ 218 Assessment methodology.................................................................... 220 Baseline conditions.............................................................................. 221 Construction assessment .................................................................... 224 Operational assessment ...................................................................... 226 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 230 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 231 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 232 Introduction .......................................................................................... 233 Policy considerations ........................................................................... 234 Regulatory position .............................................................................. 234 Assessment of flood risk ...................................................................... 237 Flood risk design and mitigation ....................................................... 243 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 246

Water resources surface water ................................................................ 218

Water resources flood risk ....................................................................... 233

Appendices ........................................................................................................... 248 Appendix A : Historic environment ..................................................................... 250 Appendix B : Land quality ................................................................................... 258 Appendix C : Noise and vibration ....................................................................... 260 Appendix D : Townscape and visual .................................................................. 264 Appendix E : Water resources - groundwater .................................................... 270 Glossary ................................................................................................................ 281 References ............................................................................................................ 296

Page vi

Preliminary environmental information report

List of figures
Page number

Vol 12 Figure 2.1.1 Site location plan ........................................................................ 2 Vol 12 Figure 2.2.1 Environmental setting ................................................................. 2 Vol 12 Figure 3.1.1 Demolition and site clearance plan............................................. 4 Vol 12 Figure 3.1.2 Construction - site setup & shaft construction ............................ 4 Vol 12 Figure 3.1.3 Construction - construction of other structures ........................... 4 Vol 12 Figure 3.1.4 Permanent works layout ............................................................. 4 Vol 12 Figure 4.4.1 Air quality monitoring sites......................................................... 17 Vol 12 Figure 5.4.1 Aquatic ecology - fish catches .................................................. 31 Vol 12 Figure 6.4.1 Terrestrial ecology Phase 1 habitat survey............................ 44 Vol 12 Figure 7.4.1 Historic features map................................................................ 56 Vol 12 Figure 8.4.1 Land quality - contaminative history ......................................... 80 Vol 12 Figure 8.4.2 Land quality borehole locations ............................................. 82 Vol 12 Figure 8.4.3 Land quality environmental records and waste sites ................ 83 Vol 12 Figure 9.4.1 Noise and vibration receptors ................................................... 95 Vol 12 Figure 10.4.1 Socio-economic context ....................................................... 117 Vol 12 Figure 11.4.1 Townscape pattern and scale ............................................. 138 Vol 12 Figure 11.4.2 Townscape vegetation pattern and extent .......................... 139 Vol 12 Figure 11.4.3 Townscape open space ...................................................... 139 Vol 12 Figure 11.4.4 Townscape - transport network ........................................... 140 Vol 12 Figure 11.4.5 Townscape character areas ................................................ 142 Vol 12 Figure 11.4.6 Visual assessment viewpoints.......................................... 147 Vol 12 Figure 12.2.1 Transport - construction traffic routes.................................. 184 Vol 12 Figure 12.2.2 Transport - construction lorry profile ..................................... 185 Vol 12 Figure 12.4.1 Transport local site plan ....................................................... 188 Vol 12 Figure 15.4.1 Flood Risk flood zone ........................................................ 237 Vol 12 Figure 15.4.2 Flood depth .......................................................................... 238

Page vii

Preliminary environmental information report

List of tables
Page number

Vol 12 Table 3.3.1 Working hours ........................................................................... 10 Vol 12 Table 3.4.1 Design development at King Georges Park .............................. 11 Vol 12 Table 4.3.1 Air quality and odour stakeholder engagement ...................... 15 Vol 12 Table 4.4.1 Air quality measured NO2 concentrations ............................... 16 Vol 12 Table 4.4.2 Air quality - additional monitoring locations................................ 17 Vol 12 Table 4.4.3 Air quality background pollutant concentrations ..................... 17 Vol 12 Table 4.4.4 Air quality construction receptors............................................ 18 Vol 12 Table 4.6.1 Odour - impacts and magnitudes at ground level ...................... 22 Vol 12 Table 4.6.2 Odour - building level operation impacts ................................... 23 Vol 12 Table 4.8.1 Air quality and odour construction assessment ......................... 24 Vol 12 Table 4.8.2 Air quality and odour operational assessment ........................... 25 Vol 12 Table 5.3.1 Aquatic ecology Scoping Opinions ........................................... 28 Vol 12 Table 5.4.1 Aquatic ecology - invertebrate fauna sampled ........................... 32 Vol 12 Table 5.4.2 Aquatic ecology receptors ......................................................... 33 Vol 12 Table 5.6.1 Aquatic ecology impacts - operation .......................................... 34 Vol 12 Table 5.8.1 Aquatic ecology operation assessment ..................................... 38 Vol 12 Table 6.3.1 Terrestrial ecology stakeholder comments ................................ 41 Vol 12 Table 6.3.2 Notable species surveys ............................................................ 42 Vol 12 Table 6.4.1 Terrestrial ecology Phase 1 habitat survey ................................ 44 Vol 12 Table 6.8.1 Terrestrial ecology construction assessment ............................. 50 Vol 12 Table 7.4.1 Historic environment receptors .................................................. 66 Vol12 Table 7.5.1 Historic environment effects - construction ................................. 69 Vol 12 Table 7.6.1 Historic environment effects - operation .................................... 72 Vol 12 Table 7.8.1 Historic environment construction assessment.......................... 75 Vol12 Table 7.8.2 Historic environment operational assessment ............................ 76 Vol 12 Table 8.4.1 Land quality ground investigation data ...................................... 80 Vol 12 Table 8.4.2 Land quality geology and hydrogeology .................................... 81 Vol 12 Table 8.4.3 Land quality ground investigation data ...................................... 83 Vol 12 Table 8.4.4 Land quality environmental records and waste sites ................. 84 Vol 12 Table 8.5.1 Land quality impacts - construction ........................................... 87 Vol 12 Table 8.5.2 Land quality receptors - construction ......................................... 87 Vol 12 Table 8.5.3 Land quality effects - construction ............................................. 87

Page viii

Preliminary environmental information report

Vol 12 Table 8.6.1 Land quality impacts - operation ................................................ 88 Vol 12 Table 8.6.2 Land quality receptors - operation ............................................. 89 Vol 12 Table 8.6.3 Land quality effects - operation.................................................. 89 Vol 12 Table 8.8.1 Land quality construction assessment ....................................... 90 Vol 12 Table 8.8.2 Land quality operational assessment ........................................ 90 Vol 12 Table 9.4.1 Noise receptor locations ............................................................ 96 Vol 12 Table 9.4.2 Noise receptor categories .......................................................... 97 Vol 12 Table 9.4.3 Airborne noise receptor - assessment categories - construction 97 Vol 12 Table 9.5.1 Noise impacts at KG1, 55-75 Buckhold Road - construction ..... 99 Vol 12 Table 9.5.2 Noise impacts at KG2, 1-7 Albon House - construction ............. 99 Vol 12 Table 9.5.3 Noise impacts at KG3, 1-20 Parkview Court - construction ..... 100 Vol 12 Table 9.5.4 Noise impacts at KG4, The Penfold Centre - construction....... 101 Vol 12 Table 9.5.5 Noise impacts at KG5, Park Gardens Nursery - construction .. 102 Vol 12 Table 9.5.6 Noise impacts at KG6, King Georges Park - construction....... 103 Vol 12 Table 9.5.7 Vibration impacts at buildings/structures -construction ............ 104 Vol 12 Table 9.5.8 Vibration impacts/ human response - construction .................. 105 Vol 12 Table 9.5.9 Noise and vibration construction effects .................................. 106 Vol 12 Table 9.6.1 Airborne noise impacts - operation .......................................... 108 Vol 12 Table 9.6.2 Noise and vibration operational effects .................................... 109 Vol 12 Table 9.8.1 Noise and vibration construction assessment.......................... 111 Vol 12 Table 9.8.2 Noise and vibration operational assessment ............................ 112 Vol 12 Table 10.3.1 Socio-economics stakeholder engagement ........................... 115 Vol 12 Table 10.4.1 Socio-economic receptors ..................................................... 120 Vol 12 Table 10.5.1 Socio-economics construction effects ................................... 127 Vol 12 Table 10.6.1 Socio-economics operational effects ..................................... 130 Vol 12 Table 10.8.1 Socio-economics construction assessment ........................... 132 Vol 12 Table 10.8.2 Socio-economics operation assessment ............................... 133 Vol 12 Table 11.3.1 Townscape and visual stakeholder engagement ................... 136 Vol 12 Table 11.4.1 Open space type and distribution .......................................... 139 Vol 12 Table 11.4.2 Townscape site components ................................................. 141 Vol 12 Table 11.4.3 Townscape character area sensitivity .................................... 146 Vol 12 Table 11.4.4 Viewpoint sensitivity .............................................................. 151 Vol 12 Table 11.5.1 Townscape site component effects -construction .................. 152 Vol 12 Table 11.5.2 Townscape character areas effects - construction ................ 156 Vol 12 Table 11.5.3 Viewpoint effects - construction ............................................. 162

Page ix

Preliminary environmental information report

Vol 12 Table 11.6.1 Townscape site component effects Year 1 of operation ..... 164 Vol 12 Table 11.6.2 Townscape character areas effects Year 1 of operation .... 166 Vol 12 Table 11.6.3 Viewpoint effects Year 1 operation ..................................... 172 Vol 12 Table 11.8.1 Townscape summary of construction assessment ................ 175 Vol 12 Table 11.8.2 Visual assessment summary of construction assessment ..... 176 Vol 12 Table 11.8.3 Townscape Year 1 of operation ........................................... 178 Vol 12 Table 11.8.4 Visual assessment Year 1 of operation ............................... 179 Vol 12 Table 12.2.1 Construction traffic details ..................................................... 184 Vol 12 Table 12.2.2 Construction worker numbers ................................................ 186 Vol 12 Table 12.3.1 Transport stakeholder engagement ....................................... 187 Vol 12 Table 12.4.1 Bus service frequency ........................................................... 189 Vol 12 Table 12.4.2 Transport receptors ............................................................... 192 Vol 12 Table 12.5.1 Transport forecasts construction vehicle movements ......... 195 Vol 12 Table 12.8.1 Transport construction assessment ....................................... 205 Vol 12 Table 12.8.2 Transport summary of operational assessment ..................... 206 Vol 12 Table 13.2.1 Groundwater methods of construction .................................... 208 Vol 12 Table 13.3.1 Groundwater stakeholder engagement ................................. 209 Vol 12 Table 13.4.1 Groundwater ground conditions and hydrogeology ............... 210 Vol 12 Table 13.4.2 Groundwater receptors .......................................................... 212 Vol 12 Table 13.5.1 Groundwater impacts - construction ...................................... 213 Vol 12 Table 13.5.2 Groundwater receptors - construction ................................... 213 Vol 12 Table 13.5.3 Groundwater effects - construction ........................................ 214 Vol 12 Table 13.6.1 Groundwater impacts - operation .......................................... 214 Vol 12 Table 13.6.2 Groundwater receptors - operation ........................................ 215 Vol 12 Table 13.6.3 Groundwater effects - operation ............................................ 215 Vol 12 Table 13.8.1 Groundwater construction assessment ................................. 216 Vol 12 Table 13.8.2 Groundwater operational assessment ................................... 216 Vol 12 Table 14.4.1 Surface water receptors......................................................... 221 Vol 12 Table 14.6.1 Surface water impacts - operation ......................................... 228 Vol 12 Table 14.6.2 Surface water effects - operation ........................................... 230 Vol 12 Table 14.8.1 Surface water operational assessment .................................. 231 Vol 12 Table 15.4.1 Flood risk runoff rates on site ................................................ 242 Vol 12 Table 15.5.1 Flood risk runoff rates and preliminary attenuation volumes.. 245

Page x

Preliminary environmental information report

List of abbreviations AADT ACE AM AOD APZ AQEG AQMA AQO ARS ASR ASSI ATC ATD AURN BAP BGS BMWP BOD BPIP BPM BS CABE CAMS CCI CCSS CCTV CDA CEMP CIRIA CLR CoCP CoPA CROW Annual Average Daily Traffic Arts Culture and Entertainment Morning Above Ordnance Datum Archaeological Priority Zone Air Quality Expert Group Air Quality Management Area Air Quality Objective Artificial Recharge Scheme Aquifer Storage and Recovery Area of Special Scientific Interest Automated Traffic Counter Above Tunnel Datum (defined at ~100m AOD) Automatic Urban and Rural Network Biodiversity Action Plan British Geological Survey Biological Monitoring Working Party Biochemical Oxygen Demand Building Profile Input Programme Best Practicable Means British Standard Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy Community Conservation Index Community Consultation Strategy Closed Circuit Television Critical Drainage Area Construction Environment Management Programmes Construction Industry Research and Information Association Contaminated Land Report Code of Construction Practice Control of Pollution Act Countryside and Rights of Way
Page xi
Preliminary environmental information report

CSO dB dB LAeq,T

Combined Sewer Overflow Decibel a equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level having the same energy as a fluctuating sound over a specified time period T Department for Culture, Media and Sport Development Consent Order Department for Communities and Local Government Department for Culture media and Sport Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Department for Transport Development Management Plan Development Management Policies Document Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Dissolved Oxygen Development Plan Document Digital Terrain Mapping Environment Agency European Commission Ecological Impact Assessment Estimated Vibration Dose Value European Economic Area Environment Food and Rural Affairs Committee English Heritage Environmental Health Officer Environmental Impact Assessment European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme English Nature Environment Protection Agency Earth Pressure Balance Earth Pressure Balance Machine Equality Impact Assessment Environmental Quality Standard Environmental Statement European Union Frequently Asked Questions
Page xii
Preliminary environmental information report

DCMS DCO DCLG DCMS Defra DfT DMP DMPD DMRB DO DPD DTM EA EC EcIA eVDV EEA EFRA EH EHO EIA EMEP EN EPA EPB EPBM EqIA EQS ES EU FAQ

FIDOR FRA GARDIT GI GiGL GIS GLA GLHER GQA GSHP GWB GWMU H2S ha HA HDV HEA HER HGV HIA HIAB HPA HQ HRA HTC HWR IEEM IEMA IMD IPC Iron Age JNCC kg km

Frequency, Intensity, Duration, Offensiveness, Receptor Flood Risk Assessment General Aquifer Research Development and Investigation Team Ground Investigation Greenspace Information for Greater London Geographical Information System Greater London Authority Greater London Historic Environment Record General Quality Assessment (EA water quality classification) Ground Source Heat Pump Groundwater Body: distinct volume of groundwater within an aquifer or aquifers Ground Water Management Unit Hydrogen sulphide hectares Highways Authority Heavy Duty Vehicle Historic Environmental Assessment Historic Environment Record Heavy Goods Vehicle Health Impact Assessment Hydrauliska Industri AB Company Health Protection Agency Headquarter Habitats Regulations Assessment Hammersmith Town Centre Hazardous Waste Regulations (2005) Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment Index of Multiple Deprivation Infrastructure Planning Commission 600 BC AD 43 Joint Nature Conservation Committee kilograms kilometre
Page xiii
Preliminary environmental information report

kVA kW l/d l/s LA LAARC LAQM LAQN LB LBAP LDF LGV LHA LMB LNR loWR LSB LtB LTI LTT LUL LVMF m m AOD m ATD m/s MAGIC Mbgl MEICA Ml/d MoD MOL MOLA NE NESR

kilo watt amperes kilowatt litres per day litres per second Local Authority London Archaeological Archive and Research Centre Local Air Quality Management London Air Quality Network London Borough Local Biodiversity Action Plan Local Development Framework Light Goods Vehicle Local Highway Authority Lambeth Mottled Beds Local Nature Reserve List of Wastes Regulations 2005 Lower Shelly Beds Laminated Beds London Tideway Improvements London Tideway Tunnels London Underground Limited London View Management Framework metre metres above Ordinance Datum (see AOD) metres above temporary datum, (see ATD) metres per second Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside Metres below ground level Mechanical Electrical Instrumentation Controls Automation Megalitres per day (million litres per day) Ministry of Defence Metropolitan Open Land Museum of London Archaeology Natural England North East Storm Relief
Page xiv
Preliminary environmental information report

NCR NGR NMR NNR NO2 NOx NPPF NPS NRMM NSIP NSRA NTS OCU Ofwat OS OUE PAH PCB PEI PEIR PEL PICP PIP PLA PM PM10 PPC PPE PPG PPS PPV PRoW PS pSPA PWS

National Cycle Route National Grid Reference National Monuments Record National Nature Reserve Nitrogen dioxide Oxides of nitrogen National Planning Policy Framework National Policy Statement Non Road Mobile Machinery Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project National Small-bore Rifle Association Non Technical Summary Odour Control Unit The Water Services Regulations Authority Ordnance Survey European Odour Unit Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons Polychlorinated Biphenyl Preliminary Environmental Information Preliminary Environmental Information Report Probable Effect Levels Pollution Incident Control Plan Project Information Paper Port of London Authority Afternoon Particles on the order of ~10 micrometers or less Pollution Prevention and Control Personal Protective Equipment Pollution Prevention Guidance Planning Policy Statement Peak Particle Velocity Public Rights of Way Pumping Station Potential Special Protected Area Public Water Supply
Page xv
Preliminary environmental information report

RAMS RAMSAR RB RBKC RBMP RDB RHS RPG RSPB RDB RTC RTD SA SAC SAM SCI SCL SFRA SI SINC SMI SNCI SO2 SoCC SPA SPD S-P-R SPZ SR SRN SSR SSSI STW SUDS

Risk Assessment Method Statement The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Royal Borough Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea River Basin Management Plans Red Data Book Royal Horticultural Society Regional Planning Guidance Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Red data book Real Time Control River Terrace Deposits Sustainability Appraisal Special Area of Conservation Scheduled Ancient Monument. More commonly referred to as Scheduled Monument Statement of Community Involvement Sprayed Concrete Lining Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Statutory Instrument Site of Importance for Nature Conservation Site of Metropolitan Importance Site Nature Conservation Importance Sulphur dioxide Statement of Community Consultation Special Protection Area Supplementary Planning Document Source-pathway-receptor Source Protection Zone Storm Relief Strategic Road Network Site Suitability Report Site of Special Scientific Interest Sewage Treatment Works Sustainable (Urban) Drainage Systems
Page xvi
Preliminary environmental information report

SWMP SWMP t TA TAS TBC TBM TDP TEBP TEL TfL TFRM TH TLRN Tpa TPO TT TTQI TTSS TWU UDP UK UKHO UMB UPN UWWTD UWWTR UXO VDV VNEB OA WCA WEEE WFD WIA WRAP

waste - Site Waste Management Plan water Surface Water Management Plan tonne Transport Assessment Thames Archaeological Survey To be confirmed Tunnel Boring Machine Thames Discovery Programme Thames Estuary Benthic Programme Threshold Effect Levels Transport for London Tideway Fish Risk Model Tower Hamlets Transport for London Road Network tonnes per annum Tree Preservation Order Thames Tunnel Thames Tideway Quality Improvements Thames Tideway Strategic Study 2005 Thames Water Utilities Unitary Development Plan United Kingdom United Kingdom Hydrographic Office Upper Mottled Beds Upnor Formation Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations Unexploded Ordnance Vibration Dose Value Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea Opportunity Area Wildlife and Countryside Act Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive Water Framework Directive Water Industry Act 1991 Waste Resources Action Programme
Page xvii
Preliminary environmental information report

WSI WWT ZTV ZVI

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

Page xviii

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 1: Introduction

1
1.1.1 1.1.2

Introduction
This volume presents the preliminary environmental information for the Thames Tunnel proposal at King Georges Park. This document reports the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant environmental effects of the Thames Tunnel project at King Georges Park. 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. The design evolution for this site is set out in Section 3.4. Finally, Section 3.5 (base case) refers to other development schemes which have been submitted or with extant planning approval within or in proximity to the site. The development at King Georges Park would intercept flows in the existing Frogmore Storm Relief Buckhold Road Sewer and convey them to the Frogmore connection tunnel through a CSO drop shaft. A description of the Thames Tunnel is included in Volume 2. This includes the planning context for the project as well as local planning policies relevant to this site. The alternatives which have been considered are described in Volume 3. Scoping and technical engagement is covered in Volume 4, while Volume 5 sets out the technical assessment methodology. A project-wide assessment is provided in Volume 6. The remaining Volumes 7 to 28 contain the site specific assessments.

1.1.4

1.1.5

1.1.6

Page 1

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 2: Site context

2 2.1
2.1.1

Site context Site location


The site is located in the London Borough of Wandsworth, at the northern end of King Georges Park, adjacent to the entrance from Buckhold Road. It covers an area of 0.2ha. The site is shown in Vol 12 Figure 2.1.1. Vol 12 Figure 2.1.1 Site location plan (see Volume 12 Figures document)

2.1.2

The site is bounded by Buckhold Road to the west and north and Neville Gill Close to the east, in which the Southside shopping centre is located, opposite the park. To the south the site is bounded by the main body of King Georges Park, which includes a childrens nursery, recreational facilities such as tennis courts, a lake and open space. The surrounding land uses are mixed. There are residential properties in the surrounding area, with the nearest located approximately 30m from the site on Buckhold Road. Retail uses include the Southside shopping centre, and business uses include the Business Village located to the northwest of the site. Access to the site is from the various pedestrian park entrances, with the entrance on Buckhold Road being the closest to the site. In terms of construction vehicle access, it is envisaged that lorries would access and egress via the A3, A205, and A217 corridors and locally via Buckhold Road and Neville Gill Close. In terms of accessibility by public transport, East Putney London Underground station and Wandsworth Town railway station are less than 1.5km from the site. King Georges Park is an inland site and therefore there are no wharfage/jetty facilities at the site. The park is traversed by a number of footpaths, two of which pass through the site. There is a designated London Cycle Route that runs along Neville Gill Close and passes the proposed site entrance. This route continues north along Buckhold Road and then east along Wandsworth High Street. However, there are no statutory public rights of way. Within the site is an area of grassland, which is bordered by and interspersed with trees, and crossed by two footpaths (Vol 12 Figure 2.1.1 Site Location shows the site plan and contextual photographs).

2.1.3

2.1.4

2.1.5

2.2
2.2.1

Environmental setting
Environmental designations for the site and immediate surroundings are shown in Vol 12 Figure 2.2.1. Vol 12 Figure 2.2.1 Environmental setting (see Volume 12 Figures document)

2.2.2

The site is within King Georges Park Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (Grade B), and the Lower Wandle Local Nature Reserve is 2km from the site. There are no listed buildings within the site or within 100m. There are numerous listed buildings within 200m of the site, with closest being Down

2.2.3

Page 2

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 2: Site context

Lodge, a Grade II Listed Building, which is a three-storey house constructed in the mid to late 18th century, c. 160m to the south-west. 2.2.4 The site lies within the River Wandle Archaeological Priority Area. There are no statutorily designated or other known heritage assets within the site. The site itself is not within a conservation area, but the Wandsworth Town Conservation Area is located 125m to the northwest of the site. Within the site boundary are a number of mature trees. There are several groups of trees with Tree Preservation Orders in the vicinity of the site. In addition, trees within Wandsworth Town and West Hill Road Conservation Areas are indirectly protected via the designation The site is in the Wandsworth Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). Roadside monitoring indicates exceedances of the NO2 air quality standards in the locality. The nearest monitoring is undertaken at Wandsworth Town Hall. Local geology comprises 3.6m of made ground, followed by 3.6-4.0m of alluvium, 4.0-4.5m of river terrace deposits and then 4.5-47.5m of London Clay (unproductive strata). In terms of land quality, the site has been a park since the late 1800s. The nearest off-site potential source of contamination is a factory/ works and industrial estate on the opposite side of Buckhold Road to the north. The site is located in Flood Zone 3a; although defended from the Tidal Thames, the site is not defended from the Wandle.

2.2.5

2.2.6

2.2.7

2.2.8

Page 3

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 3: Proposed development

3 3.1
3.1.1

Proposed development Overview


The development at King Georges Park would intercept flows in the existing Frogmore Storm Relief Buckhold Road Sewer and convey them to the Frogmore connection tunnel through a CSO drop shaft. Vol 12 Figure 3.2.1 - Figure 3.2.4 show the demolition and site clearance, construction phasing and permanent works plans. Vol 12 Figure 3.1.1 Demolition and site clearance plan Vol 12 Figure 3.1.2 Construction - site setup & shaft construction Vol 12 Figure 3.1.3 Construction - construction of other structures Vol 12 Figure 3.1.4 Permanent works layout (see Volume 12 Figures document)

3.1.2

Construction of the main works at this site is scheduled to commence in mid-late 2017 (Year 1) and be completed by 2019, taking approximately two 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. Paved areas b. A drop shaft c. Interception chamber d. Valve chamber e. Connection culvert f. Tunnel g. Ventilation structures h. Electrical kiosk i. Shaft

3.1.3

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 related elements would be required: a. Gates to site entrance and exit. b. Hoardings and other means of enclosure, barrier or screening. c. Office and welfare accommodation and facilities for construction staff. d. Workshops and stores. e. Plant and machinery. f. Power generation plant and lighting. g. Highways access and internal site roads.

Page 4

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park h. Material storage and handling areas. i. 3.1.6

Section 3: Proposed development

Power supply and steel reinforcement preparation area.

Further details of the proposed methods and the relevant phases are given in Section 3.3 where these are relevant to the technical assessments that follow.

3.2
3.2.1

Operation
Once developed the project would divert the majority of current CSO discharges via the CSO shaft and connection tunnel to the main tunnel for treatment at Beckton Sewage Treatment Works. The number of CSO discharges would be reduced from 19 spill events to approximately once a year at an average rate of 1500m3.

Permanent structures
3.2.2 A plan of the permanent structures is included in Vol 12 Figure 3.1.4. 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. Once constructed and operational there would remain on site the structures detailed in the following sections. The design and finishing proposed for the above ground features would be further developed during the period up to the application. Shaft 3.2.5 The CSO drop shaft would have an internal diameter of 9m. The shaft would be approximately 20m deep. The King Georges Park CSO shaft would be constructed at the head of the Frogmore Connection Tunnel, which would run from King Georges Park to Carnwath Road Riverside via the Dormay St CSO shaft. A full description of this tunnel is provided in Volume 3. The shaft would be finished level with the surrounding hardstanding which would be approximately 1m above existing ground level. There would be flush mounted covers on top of the shaft to allow access and inspection. Interception Chambers and Culverts 3.2.8 The interception chamber, valve chamber and connection culvert would be below ground. There would be flush mounted covers on top of the chambers to allow access and inspection. Tunnel 3.2.9 There would be no tunnelling from the site but the CSO shaft would receive the long connection tunnel drive from Dormay Street. Ventilation Structures 3.2.10 The passive filter structure would be below ground and would discharge through a 4m ventilation column, near to the electrical kiosk. The

3.2.3 3.2.4

3.2.6 3.2.7

Page 5

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 3: Proposed development

interception chamber would vent through a 6m high column, which would be a separate structure from the passive filter column. 3.2.11 A 2.5m high ventilation structure (housing louvres to control air flow) would sit adjacent to the electrical kiosk. Electrical Kiosk 3.2.12 A 2.5m high electrical kiosk would be positioned adjacent to the boundary with Neville Gill Close. Paved Areas 3.2.13 The area around the shaft, interception chamber and valve chamber would be finished with hardstanding to allow crane access to the shaft and chamber access covers. This hardstanding would usually be publicly accessible but Thames Water would retain a right of access over it and would install temporary security fencing when the area is used for operations and maintenance access. Access and maintenance works 3.2.14 3.2.15 A new gated vehicle access would be constructed off Neville Gill Close for maintenance access to the site. Access would be required for a light commercial vehicle on a three to six monthly maintenance schedule. This would be carried out during normal working hours and would take approximately half a day. There would be no aerial lighting. Additionally once every ten years, more significant maintenance work would be carried out. This would be carried out in normal working hours. Two cranes would be required for these visits. Thames Water may also need to make visits to the site for unplanned maintenance or repairs, for example, if there is a blockage or equipment failure.

3.2.16

3.2.17

3.3
3.3.1

Construction
The construction works at this site would encompass an area of land at the northern tip of King Georges Park adjacent to the existing pedestrian access from Buckhold Road. The extent of the construction works are shown in the construction layout plans (Vol 12 Figure 3.1.2 and Vol 12 Figure 3.1.3). 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 the assessment. It is recognised that, following further design development and selection of contracts, alternate methodology and scheduling may be proposed. The following sections describe: a. Processes to be applied during construction as set out in the Code of Construction Practice b. Construction works including early works and the construction of the shaft, tunnel and CSO interception and the process

3.3.2

3.3.3

Page 6

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park c. Access and movement

Section 3: Proposed development

d. Reinstatement and commissioning e. Construction programme and working hours

Construction works
3.3.4 The following physical construction works are described: a. Site setup (Vol 12 Figure 3.1.2) b. Shaft construction (see Vol 12 Figure 3.1.2) c. 3.3.5 3.3.6 Construction of other structures (see Vol 12 Figure 3.1.3) Code of construction practice All works would be undertaken in accordance with the Thames Tunnel Code of Construction Practice (a draft is appended to Volume 2). The Code sets out a series of measures to protect the environment and limit disturbance from construction activities as far as reasonably practicable. These measures would be applied throughout the construction at this site. Site setup 3.3.8 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. A new temporary access would be created off Neville Gill Close, this would require lowering of the existing curb and removal of the iron railing fence. Trees located within the footprint of the site would be removed and those bordering the site would be pruned back. The grass surface would be scraped and stockpiled for reinstatement when works are complete. Stone fill would be placed over a geotextile membrane where plant movements occur and material stockpile areas are to be sited. Where the root protection area of sensitive trees adjacent to site extends into the site root protection matting would be provided. Shaft construction 3.3.12 3.3.13 The shaft would be constructed using sprayed concrete lining and would have a cast in situ secondary lining. A piling rig would drive sheet piles through the over lying soft ground to cut off any potential ground water ingress. The shaft would be excavated using a small tracked excavator loading excavated material into a shaft skip. The skips would then be hoisted by a crawler crane and excavated material deposited into the storage bin. A tracked excavator would load excavated material into rigid tipper lorries to transport material for disposal or re-use elsewhere in the project. The shaft would be advanced in incremental cycles. After 1m has been excavated the primary Sprayed Concrete Lining (SCL) would be

3.3.7

3.3.9

3.3.10 3.3.11

3.3.14

Page 7

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 3: Proposed development

constructed. The shotcrete would be batched from a pre-blended silo located on site and mixed with water. Alternately the wet mix concrete may be delivered by ready mix concrete truck. 3.3.15 On completion of the SCL cycle the pump and skips would be washed out into a wash out area located on site. The process of excavating and spraying would be repeated until the shaft reaches the required depth. A steel bar reinforced portal would be incorporated within the shaft lining to accommodate construction of the connecting tunnel. A steel reinforced concrete base plug would be formed at the base of the shaft. Concrete would be delivered to site in ready mix concrete mixer trucks and discharged into a truck mounted concrete pump and pumped to the base plug. As the shaft is mined through the London Clay formation no dewatering is anticipated. Any water entering the excavation from either the superficial deposits or from minor seepages through silt layers would be pumped to the sewer via appropriate settlement tanks. The shaft secondary lining would be formed with a continuous slip form formwork system or fixed shutters. The shutter would be assembled at the bottom of the shaft, slowly and continuously winched up the shaft whilst setting steel reinforcement from a working platform and continuously pumping concrete. When the secondary lining is complete the internal structures including the vortex and drop pipe would be shuttered and concreted. Access may be required for delivery of secondary lining concrete for the connection tunnel. The shaft cover slab would be constructed with the required openings for permanent access. This may be an in situ concrete slab or precast units with an in situ reinforced concrete topping Construction of other structures 3.3.23 An interception chamber, valve chamber and connection culvert would be constructed to intercept the existing sewer running through King Georges Park. The interception chamber would be built over the existing sewer. Prior to works commencing the sewer would be internally lined. Short term access would be required to the sewer for the lining work which is likely to be from existing manholes outside of the main hoarded worksite. Steel trench sheets would be used to provide ground support to the chamber excavation. Localised submersible pumps within the chamber would be utilised to manage ground water ingress. The base slab and walls of the interception chamber would be formed by in situ concrete techniques. Ready mixed concrete would be delivered to site from external suppliers and either pumped or skipped to the chamber.

3.3.16 3.3.17

3.3.18

3.3.19

3.3.20 3.3.21 3.3.22

3.3.24

3.3.25

3.3.26

Page 8

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park 3.3.27

Section 3: Proposed development

The temporary support wall would be extended to the shaft to allow the valve chamber and connection culvert to be constructed in a similar manner to the interception chamber. The excavation would be back filled with granular material and compacted in suitable sized layers to design level.

3.3.28

Access and movement


3.3.29 3.3.30 At this site, all excavated material would be removed from site by road. For the purposes of this report one vehicle movement is defined as a vehicle either accessing or egressing the site. For the purposes of construction logistics, site traffic is measured in units of lorries or barges where one lorry/barge is equivalent to a single lorry/barge accessing and then egressing the site The highest lorry movements at the site would occur during shaft excavation when excavated material would be removed from the site by road. The peak daily movements at this time, averaged over a one month period, would be 20 movements per day. Construction lorries would take the route of minimum impact to/from the Transport for London Route Network (TLRN). It is envisaged that lorries would access and egress via the A3, A205, and A217 corridors and locally via Buckhold Road and Neville Gill Close. The site would be serviced via a new access on Neville Gill Close requiring for the existing kerbs to be dropped for the width of the site access gate. None of the access/egress route junctions require road alignment modifications although 3 disabled parking spaces opposite the site entrance would need to be suspended. A traffic management plan for the site will be prepared.

3.3.31

3.3.32

3.3.33

3.3.34

Reinstatement and commissioning


3.3.35 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 the assessment, completion of the commissioning stage represents the end of Construction and the commencement of the Operational development.

3.3.36

Construction programme and working hours


Construction programme 3.3.37 Construction at King Georges Park is anticipated to take approximately two and a half years and would involve the following steps (with some overlaps): a. Year 1 Site setup (approximately 1 month) b. Year 1 - Shaft construction (approximately 4 months)

Page 9

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park c.

Section 3: Proposed development

Years 1 to 2 Construction of other structures (approximately 16 months)

d. Year 2 Completion of works and site restoration (approximately 6 months). 3.3.38 3.3.39 Construction activity at King Georges Park would peak during shaft construction. System-wide commissioning would take place following site restoration and is not included in the above programme

Working hours
3.3.40 The following working hours set out in the table below would apply for the construction at this site. Vol 12 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 Extended standard working hours These are intermittent and are required to cover certain construction activities that require more than the standard working hours to be completed. 18.00 to 22.00 Weekdays 13.00 to 17.00 Saturdays Maintenance and Support 13:00 to 17:00 Saturdays Period 10:00 to 16:00 Sundays

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, technical studies and open space and socio-economic surveys. The final design may alter significantly in response to this as well as feedback from phase two consultation. The design of the proposals at this site has developed since phase one consultation and following the Design Council CABE reviews, as described in the table below.

3.4.2

Page 10

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 3: Proposed development

Vol 12 Table 3.4.1 Design development at King Georges Park Design development Increase in shaft diameter. Reason Modified project-wide hydraulics requirement to remove air from storm flows. To relocate the permanent works away from the historic gates To minimise impact on the park and loss of open space whilst improving drainage within the site In response to comments received at phase one consultation by the London Borough of Wandsworth and the Design Council CABE. Modified project-wide air management proposals and stack height consistent with all CSO only interception sites and to further reduce presence of the structures within the park

Move shaft eastwards Minimise the use of permanent hardstanding To minimise impact on the park and loss of open space whilst improving drainage within the site Ventilation structure height reduced in scale from approximately 10m to approximately 5m in height

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. The Lee Tunnel and the Thames Tideway Quality Improvement (TTQI) projects (improvement works at Mogden, Beckton, Crossness, Long Reach and Riverside Sewage Treatment Works) will be operational by the time construction of the Thames Tunnel commences. The base case would therefore be the water quality in the Tideway with the TTQI projects and the Lee Tunnel in place. As a result, by 2021 discharge from the CSO at the site will be 88,600m3 with 21 spills. 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 projected spill volumes and spill frequencies for the baseline conditions for the Thames Tunnel (which is with the improvements applied to the STWs, and the Lee Tunnel in place) would still not be a sufficient level of CSO control to meet the UWWTD (see also Volume 2, Section 2.6).

3.5.2

3.5.3

3.5.4

Page 11

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park 3.5.5

Section 3: Proposed development

By 2015 it is assumed that the Business Village, a mixed use development in Broomhill Road will be 25% complete, and 50% complete by 2020, and 60% complete by 2022. By 2015 it is assumed that Cockpen House will be 25% complete. This project consists of several buildings of between 5 and 16 storeys, including flats and commercial space. By 2020 it is assumed it will be 50% complete, and 60% complete by 2022.

3.5.6

Page 12

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 4: Air quality and odour

4 4.1
4.1.1

Air quality and odour Introduction


This section presents the findings of the preliminary assessment of the likely air quality and odour effects resulting from the Thames Tunnel Project at the King Georges Park site. The proposed development has the potential to affect air quality and odour due to: a. Construction traffic on the road (air quality) b. The temporary closure of lanes during construction (air quality). c. Emissions from plant (air quality). d. Construction-generated dust (air quality). e. Operation of the tunnel (odour).

4.1.2

4.1.3

Each of these is considered within the assessment. This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment, and sets out what will be provided in the ES when the full assessment is available. Operational air quality effects from transport have been scoped out of the assessment due to the very limited number of maintenance visits required and hence the low number of vehicular movements.

4.1.4

4.2
4.2.1

Proposed development
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to air quality and odour are as follows.

Construction
Road traffic 4.2.2 4.2.3 During the proposed construction period there would be road traffic movements in and out of the site. The highest number of lorry movements at the King Georges Park would occur during shaft excavation. The peak number of vehicle movements at that time would be 20 movements per day averaged over a one month period. This is based on all materials being transported by road, given the non-riverside location of the site. The construction traffic routes for the key material supply stages, traffic management and access to the site can be found in the Section 12 of this volume. River barges 4.2.5 There is no access to the river at this site, so all transport would be by road. Construction plant 4.2.6 There are a number of items of plant to be used on site that may produce emissions that could affect local air quality.

4.2.4

Page 13

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park Construction dust 4.2.7

Section 4: Air quality and odour

Activities with the potential to give rise to dust emissions from the proposed development during construction are as follows: a. Site preparation and establishment. b. Demolition of existing infrastructure and buildings. c. Materials handling.

4.2.8

The potential for these processes to impact at sensitive receptors is dependent on many factors including the following: a. Location of the construction site. b. Proximity of sensitive receptors. c. Extent of demolition. d. Extent of any intended excavation. e. Nature, location and size of stockpiles and length of time they are on site. f. Occurrence and scale of dust generating activities; necessity for onsite concrete crusher or cement batcher.

g. Number and type of vehicles and plant required on site. h. Potential for dirt or mud to be made airborne through vehicle movements. i. 4.2.9 Weather conditions. Appropriate dust and emission control measures are included in the draft CoCP in accordance with the London Councils Best Practice Guidance. Measures incorporated into the CoCP to reduce air quality impacts include measures in relation to vehicle and plant emissions, measures to reduce dust formation and resuspension, measures to control dust present and to reduce particulate emissions. These would be observed across all phases of demolition and construction.

Operation
4.2.10 At King Georges Park a passive odour control carbon filter is to be housed in a below ground chamber. Treated air from the passive filter would be released via a 4m high ventilation column, which is independent of the electrical control housing. The passive filter is sized to treat 0.5m3/s. The maximum air release rate during a typical year is expected to be less than 0.1m3/s so is well within the capacity of the passive filter. Air would be released from the ventilation column for five hours in the typical year scenario, all of which would have passed through the OCU. For the remaining hours, no air would be released. This information on the ventilation structures provided input data to the dispersion model used to assess odour dispersion at the site.

4.2.11

4.2.12

Page 14

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 4: Air quality and odour

4.3
4.3.1

Assessment methodology Scoping and engagement


Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. All consultee comments relevant to this site are presented in the table below. Vol 12 Table 4.3.1 Air quality and odour stakeholder engagement Organisation LB of Wandsworth Comment Monitoring locations Response Locations agreed with Environmental Health Officer. No odour complaints around King Georges Park - confirmed by Team Leader (Environmental Initiatives).

Odour complaints

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

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

Operation
4.3.4 The operational phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology described in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.

Assumptions and limitations


4.3.5 For the purposes of the assessment it has been assumed that background odour concentrations are negligible as there have been no complaints recorded in the surrounding area over recent years. This assumption will be supported by baseline hydrogen sulphide monitoring currently being undertaken at all sites (in August 2011 with repeat monitoring to be undertaken in autumn 2011).

4.4

Baseline conditions Local air quality


Pollutant concentrations

4.4.1

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

Page 15

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park 4.4.2

Section 4: Air quality and odour

As part of their duties under Part IV of the Environment Act 1995, local authorities, especially in urban areas where air quality is a significant issue, undertake long-term air quality monitoring within their administrative areas. There is one continuous monitoring station and three diffusion tubes which collect data pertinent to the King Georges Park site and associated construction traffic routes. The continuous monitoring station and the diffusion tube sites are operated by LB of Wandsworth. Monitoring data for the LB of Wandsworth sites are contained in the table below. There are no measured data for PM10 concentrations in the vicinity of the King Georges Park site. Vol 12 Table 4.4.1 Air quality measured NO2 concentrations
Annual Mean (g/m3) 2010* 2009 2008 2007

4.4.3

4.4.4

Monitoring Site

Site Type

Number of Exceedances of Hourly Standard 2010* 2009 2008 2007

Continuous Monitoring Sites Town Hall Urban Background 53 48 48 53 3 4 1 4

Diffusion Tube Monitoring Sites Town Hall South Thames College Wandswort h Plain Urban Background Roadside NM Roadside 44 NM 48 NM 45 44 NM NM NM

63

69

73

73

NM

* 2010 data not fully ratified. NM indicates not measured. 3 Emboldened figures indicate an exceedance of the objective / limit value which is 40g/m for the 3 annual mean and 200g/m for the hourly mean which can be exceeded 18 times per year.

4.4.5

The NO2 monitoring in 2010 at all the sites indicates exceedances of the annual mean NO2 standard (40g/m3) over recent years at both roadside and urban background sites. The number of exceedances of the hourly standard at Town Hall indicates that the hourly standard has been achieved. As a result of previous exceedances of air quality objectives, LB of Wandsworth has declared the whole Borough an AQMA for NO2 and PM10. In addition to the local authority monitoring, diffusion tube monitoring has been set up as part of the project to monitor NO2 concentrations in the vicinity of the King Georges Park site. This monitoring comprises five diffusion tubes based at the locations detailed in the table below. A triplicate site has been established next to a continuous monitoring station in Putney for bias adjustment purposes; otherwise all the monitoring locations have single tubes. All identified existing and new sites relating to

4.4.6

4.4.7

Page 16

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 4: Air quality and odour

the King Georges Park site (as well as other sites where they are in close proximity) are shown in Vol 12 Figure 4.4.1. Vol 12 Figure 4.4.1 Air quality monitoring sites (see Volume 12 Figures document) Vol 12 Table 4.4.2 Air quality - additional monitoring locations Monitoring Site A3209 Putney Bridge Road (Wandsworth 1) A3 Wandsworth High Street (Wandsworth 2) Buckhold Road (Wandsworth 3) A3 Wandsworth High Street (Wandsworth 5) Neville Gill Close (Wandsworth 4) Wandsworth Plain (Wandsworth 7) 4.4.8 Grid Reference 525292, 174710 525412, 174682 525524, 174641 525744, 174621 525488, 174471 525511, 174749

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 1. The background data relating to the King Georges Park site are given in the table below for 2010 (baseline year). Vol 12 Table 4.4.3 Air quality background pollutant concentrations Pollutant NOX (g/m3) NO2 (g/m3) PM10 (g/m3)
* Annual mean for 1km grid square centre on 525500, 174500.

4.4.9

2010 46.3 29.1 21.0

Receptors 4.4.10 The King Georges Park site is located in a mixed use area comprising residential, commercial and recreational uses and a clinic and college. The closest residential receptors are located 30m west of the site in Buckhold Road. The Southwest London Army Cadet Force is located to the north of the site within 10m from the site boundary. Several commercial/office buildings are present around the site: the Southside Shopping Centre is located to the north-east at the east side of Buckhold Road 55m from the site boundary; and the new Business Village (studios, offices, storage and business units) will be located 12m to the north-west of the site boundary when it is constructed. A day centre is located to the

Page 17

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 4: Air quality and odour

east of the site 15m from the site boundary and a nursery and a childrens zoo are 50m south of the site. A clinic is located in Neville Gill Close 30m south-east of the site boundary. The West Hill Centre (adult college) is located 120m west of the site. 4.4.11 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 and construction plant, as well as the assessment of construction dust. Vol 12 Table 4.4.4 Air quality construction receptors Receptors (relating to all identified emissions sources) Residential Value/sensitivity and justification

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. High sensitivity to local air quality. High 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. High sensitivity to local air quality. High sensitivity to dust nuisance. Medium sensitivity to local air quality. Medium sensitivity to dust nuisance.

Clinic and Nursery Commercial/offices

College, Day Centre and Army Cadet Force building Zoo and Park

Odour
4.4.12 The LB of Wandsworth has not received any odour complaints in the King Georges Park area 2. No complaints have been recorded in the Thames Water odour database within an area of 500m radius of the site during the last five years. The nearest sensitive receptors are described in para. 4.4.10 above. For the purposes of the odour assessment, the sensitivity of these receptors has been determined in accordance with the criteria in Volume 5 which indicates that the residential properties, day centre, college, clinic, Army Cadet Force building and nursery are of high sensitivity while the

4.4.13

Page 18

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 4: Air quality and odour

commercial/office premises are of medium sensitivity. The park and zoo are of medium sensitivity as they are recreational areas.

4.5
4.5.1

Construction assessment Construction base and development cases


The peak construction year is used as the year of assessment for construction effects (road transport, construction plant and construction dust) in which the development case is 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 has 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. The base case also considers new sensitive receptors associated with the Business Village development as identified in the receptor description in Section 4.4. The local air quality assessment does not specifically consider the Cockpen House development (see Section 3.5) as the development is further from the site 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 600m by 600m centred on the King Georges Park site. This assessment area is used for the assessment of road transport, construction plant and construction dust and has been selected on the basis of professional judgement to ensure that the effects of the King Georges Park 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.

Page 19

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 4: Air quality and odour

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 report. When traffic surveys are complete, a more detailed quantitative assessment using air quality modelling will be undertaken, the findings of which will be reported in the ES. Based on professional judgement, it is however predicted that the impacts due to construction traffic are expected to be small (ie, small magnitude of change according to the criteria detailed in Volume 5) due to the low number of additional lorries during construction in the context of the existing traffic flows on the local road network. The greatest impacts are likely to be during lane closures, which would cause congestion and require diversion of traffic. Given that the residential properties, clinic, nursery, college, day centre and Army Cadet Force building 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 zoo and the park, which have a medium sensitivity to local air quality, the significance of the effect would be negligible, while at the commercial/office properties, which have a low sensitivity to local air quality, the significance of effect would also be negligible. Emissions from plant 4.5.11 Construction plant is likely to affect local air quality in two ways: from direct exhaust emissions; and from construction dust associated with the use and movement of the plant around the site. This part of the assessment considers exhaust emissions while construction dust from plant movement is considered in the following section. Emission factors are being assigned to each item of plant. More data are being gathered regarding the operation of these items of plant in terms of expected usage through the construction phase. A qualitative assessment has been undertaken for this report. Modelling is currently being undertaken, the findings of which will be reported in the ES. Based on professional judgement, it is noted that the impacts due to construction plant are expected to be small (ie, small magnitude of change according to the criteria in Volume 5), given the localised nature of the emissions, ie, emissions are only generated on the construction site. Compared to the traffic flows in the surrounding area, the amount of plant and their emissions are likely to have a negligible impact. At the residential properties, clinic, nursery, college, day centre and Army Cadet Force building, which have a high sensitivity to local air quality , the

4.5.8

4.5.9

4.5.10

4.5.12

4.5.13

4.5.14

4.5.15

Page 20

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 4: Air quality and odour

likely significance of the effect of construction traffic is a minor adverse effect (according to the criteria detailed in Volume 5). At the zoo and the park, which have a medium sensitivity to local air quality, the significance of the effect would be negligible, while at the commercial/office properties, which have a low sensitivity to local air quality, the significance of effect would be negligible. Construction dust 4.5.16 4.5.17 Construction dust would be generated from both on-site activities and from road vehicles assessing and servicing the site. Dust sensitive receptors have been identified in the vicinity of the King Georges Park site in accordance with the criteria in Volume 5, as described in Vol 12 Table 4.4.4. In line with the London Councils guidance 5, 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 2,000m2. b. The project is a non-residential development. c. Main construction at the site would last approximately two and a half years.

4.5.18

4.5.19

d. There are likely intermittent impacts on identified sensitive receptors. 4.5.20 4.5.21 On this basis, the development has been classified as a medium risk site. Taking this into account the likely significance of effects is minor adverse at residential properties (medium sensitivity), commercial/office properties (medium sensitivity), the zoo and park (medium sensitivity) and the college (high sensitivity but over 50m from the site boundary). The likely significance of effects is moderate adverse at the Army Cadet Force building because it is within 10m of the site boundary, and at the day centre, clinic and nursery (high sensitivity) which are within 50m. These effects would be reduced by the implementation of measures contained in the CoCP (see Section 4.2). This would result in minor adverse effects at the Army Cadet Force building, day centre, clinic and nursery and negligible effects at all other receptors. Overall construction effects 4.5.23 When considering the overall local air quality construction effects (ie, effects from construction road traffic and plant), it is concluded that the overall significance of effects is likely to be minor adverse at residential properties and the clinic, nursery, college, day centre and Army Cadet Force building, and negligible at the zoo, park and commercial/office properties.

4.5.22

Page 21

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park 4.5.24

Section 4: Air quality and odour

As detailed in para. 4.5.21, the likely significance of construction dust effects is minor adverse at the Army Cadet Force building, day centre, clinic and nursery, and negligible at all other receptors. On this basis no significant construction effects are predicted.

4.5.25

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 current conditions in the assessment 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 400m by 400m centred on the site. The assessment area was selected on the basis of it being considered the potential maximum extent of the impact area.

Operational effects
4.6.4 Vol 12 Table 4.6.1 shows the predicted maximum ground level odour concentrations at the King Georges Park 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 6, 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 12 Table 4.6.2 gives similar results for the predicted impacts at the worst affected buildings, where concentrations at ground level and at height have been considered. Vol 12 Table 4.6.1 Odour - impacts and magnitudes at ground level
Year

Typical

Maximum at ground level locations 98th percentile 0 (ouE/m3) No. of hours > 0 1.5ouE/m3

Impact magnitude and justification Negligible 98th percentile concentration < 1ouE/m3

Page 22

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 4: Air quality and odour

Vol 12 Table 4.6.2 Odour - building level operation impacts Year Typical Maximum at buildings 98th percentile (ouE/m3) No. of hours > 1.5ouE/m3 4.6.5 0 0 Impact magnitude and justification Negligible 98th percentile concentration is less than 1ouE/m3

In both tables above, the 98th percentile is shown as zero as the number of hours with air released from the vent would be less than 176 and therefore the 98th percentile concentration would be zero at all locations, thus achieving the odour criterion at all locations. This represents an impact of negligible magnitude. No odour would be detectable at any location as all concentrations are predicted to be less than 1 ouE/m3. With regard to the significance of effects at ground level and building locations, given that the predicted odour concentrations at all locations and at buildings would not exceed the 98th percentile criterion of 1.5ouE/m3, it is considered that an overall significance would be negligible. No significant effects are therefore predicted in relation to odour.

4.6.6 4.6.7

4.7
4.7.1

Approach to mitigation Construction


All measures embedded in the draft CoCP of relevance to air quality and odour are summarised in Section 4.2. No mitigation is required.

Operational
4.7.2 No mitigation is required.

Page 23

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 4: Air quality and odour

4.8
Vol 12 Table 4.8.1 Air quality and odour construction assessment Effect Minor adverse None required Significance Mitigation Residual significance Minor adverse

Assessment summary

Receptor

Residential properties Negligible Minor adverse None required None required

Local air quality effects from construction road traffic and plant emissions

Effects from construction dust

Negligible Minor adverse

Army Cadet Force building Minor adverse Minor adverse None required None required

Local air quality effects from construction road traffic and plant emissions

Effects from construction dust

Minor adverse Minor adverse

Nursery and clinic

Local air quality effects from construction road traffic and plant emissions Minor adverse Minor adverse

Effects from construction dust

None required None required

Minor adverse Minor adverse

Day Centre

Local air quality effects from construction road traffic and plant emissions Minor adverse Minor adverse

Effects from construction dust

None required None required

Negligible Minor adverse

West Hill Centre (adult college)

Local air quality effects from construction road traffic and plant emissions

Effects from construction dust

Negligible

None required

Negligible

Page 24

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park Effect Negligible None required Negligible Significance Mitigation Residual significance

Section 4: Air quality and odour

Receptor

Commercial/offices

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

Effects from construction dust

Zoo and Park

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

Effects from construction dust

Negligible

Vol 12 Table 4.8.2 Air quality and odour operational assessment Effect Odour Odour Odour Odour Odour Odour Odour Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Significance Mitigation None required None required None required None required None required None required None required Residual significance Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible

Receptor

Residential properties

Army Cadet Force building

Nursery and clinic

Day Centre

West Hill Centre (adult college)

Commercial/offices

Zoo and Park

Page 25

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 4: Air quality and odour

4.9
4.9.1

Assessment completion
The following work is required in order to complete the local air quality and odour assessment for the King Georges Park site: a. Diffusion tube monitoring has been set up at five sites to monitor NO2 concentrations in the vicinity of the King Georges Park site. This monitoring will be used to provide a baseline to the assessment and as an input for model verification. b. For the assessment of road traffic emissions, air quality modelling will be undertaken to predict the effects on local air quality c. The nature, quantities and operation of the construction plant are being finalised. The appropriate emission factors will then be applied to the plant in order to initialise the modelling work. These models will then be run and the effects of construction plant on local air quality predicted.

d. The assessment of cumulative and in combination effects will be undertaken and reported in the ES. e. Following completion of the assessment the mitigation approaches for air quality and odour within the project will be finalised and reported in the ES.

Page 26

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 5: Ecology - aquatic

5 5.1
5.1.1

Ecology - aquatic Introduction


This section presents the assessment of effects on aquatic ecology receptors. For the purposes of the assessment of the Thames Tunnel project aquatic ecology includes plants and animals that live in and depend on the River Thames and its tidal tributaries (known collectively as the Thames Tideway). The topic includes the habitats, marine mammals, fish, invertebrates and algae which occur in the Thames Tideway where there are pathways of impact that could link them with the site. Animals, plants and habitats which occur above the mean high water level are assessed in Terrestrial Ecology (Section 6). Waterfowl, including those which occur on the Thames Tideway are also included under Terrestrial Ecology. Further details of the scope of the assessment are provided in Volume 5. This assessment considers the operational improvements on water quality on aquatic ecology receptors in the Thames Tideway as a result of the CSO interception. There would be no in river works associated with this site, which is located 800m inland from the River Thames and 200m from the nearest tidal tributary to the River Thames (the River Wandle). The assessment of effects on receptors associated with the freshwater lake at the site is included within the terrestrial ecology section.

5.1.2

5.1.3

5.2
5.2.1

Proposed development
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 There would be no in river works associated with this site. No further consideration of the impacts and effects associated with construction has therefore been undertaken for aquatic ecology. Operation The key elements of the operation of the proposed development of relevance to aquatic ecology is the interception of the Frogmore Storm Relief (Buckhold Road) sewer which currently discharges into the lower River Wandle beneath Southside shopping centre, Wandsworth. Therefore there is a direct operational link with the lower River Wandle. The discharge location at Buckhold Road is approximately 500m from Bell Lane Creek and 800m from the main channel of the River Thames at the confluence with the Wandle. The sewer would be intercepted at King Georges Park as part of the proposed development. Based on the base case (which includes permitted Thames Tideway sewage treatment works upgrades, and the Lee Tunnel scheme, as well as projected population increases) discharges from this CSO are anticipated to increase to 88,600m3 per annum by 2021. With the Thames Tunnel project in operation the discharge is projected to reduce to 1,500m3.

5.2.2

5.2.3

5.2.4

Page 27

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park 5.2.5

Section 5: Ecology - aquatic

Improvements in water quality are anticipated both in the local area around the discharge point for Frogmore Storm Relief (Buckhold Road) CSO and in the wider Thames Tideway. There would be cumulative local improvements on water quality in Bell Lane Creek and the confluence of the River Wandle and Thames through interception of the Frogmore Storm Relief Bell Lane Creek CSO which is the subject of assessment in Volume 11. The assessment of operational impacts on the Thames Tideway as a whole is presented in the project-wide assessment (Volume 6).

5.3
5.3.1

Assessment methodology
Scoping and engagement Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. All consultee comments for this site and the River Wandle relevant to aquatic ecology are presented in the table below. Comments relating to the Bell Lane Creek, which is a small tributary near the mouth of the River Wandle are addressed in Volume 11 Dormay Street. Vol 12 Table 5.3.1 Aquatic ecology Scoping Opinions Organisation Environment Agency Scoping opinion item (With reference to Bell Lane Creek) Response Options for habitat compensation projects There are opportunities are currently being considered. within the project to improve habitat availability and quality through works on and near the River Wandle. Bell Lane Weir and nearby EDF Weir are both considerable barriers to fish movement, changes to one or both of these structures would allow fish to move from the Tideway into the freshwater river upstream. We have a report advising on possible options for this area and would be happy to share this with Thames Water. London Borough of Wandsworth King Georges Park The council would require full justification Effects on the lake within King Georges Park are assessed in

Page 28

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 5: Ecology - aquatic as to why ecology aquatic has been scoped out for King Georges Park (there is a pond near the site) and Jews Row (on the river). the terrestrial ecology section. The aquatic ecology topic covers receptors associated with the River Thames and tidal tributaries.

Baseline
5.3.2 5.3.3 Details of the approach to the assessment are presented in Volume 5. The assessment of effects on the lower River Wandle is based on desk study data. This information, principally concerning fish, is currently being collated and will be reported in the ES. The contribution to improvements in the River Thames from the project will be assessed using a combination of background data and field survey. Mammal data is based on background records received from Zoological Society for London. The fish baseline is based on the closest EA sampling point for fish, Battersea, which is 1.8km downstream of the confluence between the River Thames and the River Wandle. An October 2010 survey for fish was attempted at Bell Lane Creek, but no fish were caught due to insufficient water depth for sampling. The invertebrate baseline uses data collected in the Bell Lane Creek during October 2010. The Bell Lane Creek is a small tributary of the lower River Wandle and the invertebrates community is considered to be analogous to the lower River Wandle. EA background data for Battersea will also be used. Existing algal data has been requested and will be reported in the ES. Details of the background data sets are provided in Volume 5. There were no deviations from the approaches described for data collection.

5.3.4

5.3.5

Operation
5.3.6 The methodology for assessing operational effects is described in Volume 5. The assessment considers effects on receptors within the local area up and downstream of the discharge point. While the most notable effects would occur within 100m of the discharge location, there are likely to be effects on Bell Lane Creek, River Wandle within the SMI and the main channel of the River Thames at its confluence with the Wandle. These effects are considered in this Volume. The contribution that interception of this discharge makes to receptors at a Tideway wide scale is considered in Volume 6 (Project-wide assessment). Details of the background data sets are provided in Volume 5. Existing algal data have been requested and will be assessed and reported in the ES.

5.3.7 5.3.8

Page 29

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 5: Ecology - aquatic

Assumptions and limitations


5.3.9 There are no site specific assumptions and limitations.

5.4
5.4.1

Baseline conditions
Designations The non tidal reach of the River Wandle within the LB of Wandsworth (a section of 2.3km) is designated as a Site of Borough Importance for Nature Conservation (Site Reference: Wa BI 5). The local development plan for Wandsworth describes the river as follows: The banks of the river in this section are largely artificial, with little marginal vegetation, but many parts support a diverse community of submerged plants. The lower River Wandle 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 covered by the SMI designation, 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 London Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP)7 includes a Habitat Action Plan (HAP) for the Thames Tideway which identifies a series of target habitats and species. The HAP divides the river into the zones; freshwater, brackish and marine. The River Wandle lies within the freshwater zone. Habitats The CSO discharges into a section of the River Wandle which is culverted beneath the Southside shopping centre in Wandsworth. The river is culverted for a total length of 350m and the discharge is approximately half way along the culverted section. Bell Lane Creek is separated from the River Wandle by a weir structure, and rejoins at the confluence with the River Thames. The Creek is a muddy channel, with a muddy intertidal area exposed at low tide. The substrate is made up of pebbles, silt, cobbles and shingle. The banks are largely vertical, reinforced concrete walls, although there are a several small areas of marginal reedbed close to the mouth, which form part of a habitat creation and river restoration project. There is no marginal vegetation in the vicinity of the outfall. The vertical walls support

5.4.2

5.4.3

5.4.4

5.4.5

5.4.6

Page 30

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 5: Ecology - aquatic

a small amount of green algae. Surveys of wall vegetation communities are currently being scoped and will be reported in the ES. Marine mammals 5.4.7 Records compiled by the Zoological Society of London for 2003 2011 indicate that harbour porpoise, bottlenose dolphin and various seal species migrate through the Tideway. No specific habitat of value for marine mammals is believed to occur within the lower River Wandle. Fish 5.4.8 A single day survey was attempted at Bell Lane Creek during October 2010, but the water levels were too shallow to survey adequately. Data collected in a spring 2011 survey will be analysed and presented within the ES. No surveys were undertaken on the lower River Wandle. No fish sampling is undertaken by the EA on the River Wandle. The nearest EA sampling site is on the River Thames at Battersea, (approximately 1.8km downstream of the River Wandle), where 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 seine-net catches in recent years (Volume 12 Figure 5.4.1). 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. Vol 12 Figure 5.4.1 Aquatic ecology - fish catches

5.4.9

Note: Long-term EA total fish catches from Battersea site using three sampling methods (x-axis: year; y-axis: numbers of fish)

5.4.10

In general, Tideway fish populations are mobile and wide-ranging, hence any analysis of population data needs to be based on an understanding of the ecological requirements and migratory habits of individual species.

Page 31

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 5: Ecology - aquatic

Although the abundance and diversity of fish at any one site may provide some indication of the habitat quality offered at that site, it is important to consider the data within the context of sites throughout the Thames Tideway, since the factors influencing distribution are likely to be acting at this wider scale. Invertebrates 5.4.11 5.4.12 EA information regarding invertebrates in the River Wandle is currently being sought and will be reported in the ES. Sampling during autumn 2010 in the Bell Lane Creek showed that invertebrate diversity was low and samples were dominated by common, pollution tolerant groups (Asellus aquaticus (water louse) , Oligochaeta (a worm taxon) and Potamopyrgus antipodarum (a snail). Oligochaeta are generally associated with organically enriched water and sediments, and are the invertebrate group most commonly associated with sewage discharges in the freshwater and estuarine environments. Potamopyrgus antipodarum is a commonly occurring species in the Thames Tideway, and is considered to be relatively tolerant to organic enrichment. The invertebrates collected during the October 2010 field surveys are presented in the table below. The Community Conservation Index (CCI) score 8 has initially been used to identify species of nature conservation importance. 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) 9;10. Vol 12 Table 5.4.1 Aquatic ecology - invertebrate fauna sampled CCI Score Intertidal Samples Q 18 1000 5 1 1 1 4 3 1 4 7 SW1 80 SW2 200 3 7 1200 40 420

5.4.13

Taxa Potamopyrgus antipodarum (?) Radix balthica Pisidium spp. Oligochaeta Erpobdella testacea Asellus aquaticus Gammarus zaddachi Tipulidae No Taxa
Note: at Bell Lane Creek

1 1

5.4.14

The closest sampling site on the River Thames is Battersea, approximately 1.8km downstream. A total of 46 taxa were recorded at Battersea over the six year period in which samples were collected (2005 2010). The taxa Oligochaeta (worms), which is often used as an indicator of organic pollution, was relatively abundant, together with other pollution tolerant species such as the snail Potamopyrgus antipodarum. However, Gammarus zaddachi, a moderately pollution-sensitive species

Page 32

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 5: Ecology - aquatic

was also highly abundant and Theodoxus fluviatilis (pollution sensitive river neritid) was present most years. Algae 5.4.15 Algae will be assessed and reported in the ES.

Aquatic ecology receptor value and sensitivity


5.4.16 Using the baseline set out above the value accorded to each receptor considered in this assessment is set out in the table below. The definitions of the receptor values and sensitivities used in this evaluation are set out in Volume 5. Vol 12 Table 5.4.2 Aquatic ecology receptors Receptor Habitat (River Wandle) Value/sensitivity and justification Low-Medium (Borough) for the lower River Wandle, downstream of the culvert. This is based on the Site of Borough Importance designation. Medium (Metropolitan) for the River Thames and associated tributaries as part of Tidal Thames Site of Metropolitan Importance. Negligible value. No evidence of specific habitats of value for marine mammals within the River Wandle. Low (local) value. Only one record of grey seal exists from the Thames within at its confluence with the River Wandle. Low (local) for the lower River Wandle, downstream of the culvert. This is a provisional assessment, and will be reviewed following receipt of baseline data. Medium (Metropolitan) value for the River Thames, River Wandle within SMI and Bell Lane Creek. Low (local value). This is a provisional assessment, and will be reviewed following receipt of baseline data. Low-medium (Borough) value.

Habitat (River Wandle within SMI, Bell Lane Creek and River Thames at confluence with Wandle) Mammals (River Wandle)

Mammals (River Wandle within SMI, Bell Lane Creek and River Thames at confluence with Wandle) Fish (River Wandle)

Fish (River Wandle within SMI, Bell Lane Creek and River Thames at confluence with Wandle) Invertebrates (River Wandle)

Invertebrates (River Wandle within SMI, Bell Lane Creek and River Thames at confluence with Wandle)

Page 33

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park Receptor Algae

Section 5: Ecology - aquatic Value/sensitivity and justification To be undertaken for the ES

5.5
5.5.1

Construction assessment
As stated in para. 5.2.2, significant effects on aquatic ecology are not anticipated during construction therefore this has not been assessed.

5.6
5.6.1

Operational assessment
The assessment of effects on the lower River Wandle will be undertaken when baseline data is received and will be reported in the ES.

Operational impacts
5.6.2 The potential impacts arising from operation of the project are described in Vol 12 Table 5.6.1. The definitions of the different magnitudes of impact referred to in this assessment are given in Volume 5. Reduction in the volume sewage effluent discharged from the CSO. This would result in localised improvements in water quality in the River Wandle, particularly when considered cumulatively with interception of the Frogmore SR Bell Lane Creek CSO, which discharges further downstream. Water quality improvements would consist of increases in dissolved oxygen concentrations, reduction in microbial activity (known as biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)) and suspended solids, and a reduction in sewage debris. The magnitude of the impact is considered to be medium positive, and to be probable and permanent. Vol 12 Table 5.6.1 Aquatic ecology impacts - operation Impact Improvement of local water quality through CSO interception. Magnitude Medium positive impact. Permanent. Probable.

5.6.3

5.6.4

Operational Effects
5.6.5 The effects of the operational activities are described in detail. 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 5.6.7 The assessment of effects on the lower River Wandle will be undertaken when baseline data is received and will be reported in the ES. Reduction in nutrient content of sediments leading to potential change in algal and vegetation communities.

5.6.6

Page 34

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park 5.6.8

Section 5: Ecology - aquatic

Following interception of the CSO there will be a gradual reduction in sediment nutrients within the Thames Tideway which may result in a gradual change in the composition of the vegetation community from one associated with eutrophic conditions to one which is more characteristic of a lowland river. In combination effects between Thames Tunnel sites are assessed in the project-wide volume. The effects of this site in isolation on habitats in the River Thames, River Wandle within the SMI, and Bell Lane Creek are considered to be negligible in Year 1 increasing to moderate beneficial by Year 6. Marine mammals Increase in the number and/or change in the distribution of marine mammals.

5.6.9

No changes are anticipated on marine mammals as a result of the water quality improvements associated with interception of a single CSO discharge. This is because they are a mobile receptor, and therefore able to move away from a point source discharge and they are relatively insensitive to the levels of pollution associated with a single source. Effects are considered negligible. Fish Reduction in the occurrence of hypoxia-related fish mortalities.

5.6.10

The microbial activity associated with untreated sewage effluent (BOD) causes a depletion in the levels of dissolved oxygen downstream of a discharge. This is often referred to as an oxygen sag. Oxygen sags are more common in the summer months when water temperatures are higher and oxygen is less soluble. Impacts on fish health occur when dissolved oxygen levels drop beneath 4mg/l, and significant mortalities begin to occur when levels drop beneath this threshold 11. Fish mortalities as a result of low dissolved oxygen are known as hypoxia. Such hypoxic 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 hypoxia events when dissolved oxygen levels were below 4mg/l 12. Interception of the CSOs throughout the Thames Tideway would improve sewerage system capacity and result in far fewer hypoxic events. The exact change in the number of mass fish mortalities will be predicted using the Tideway Fish Risk Model and will be reported in the ES. Interception of the Frogmore Storm Relief (Buckhold Road) CSO would contribute to this Thames Tideway wide improvement, and would also result in improvements in the local area of the River Thames, River Wandle within the SMI and Bell Lane Creek. Given that the impact is considered to be medium beneficial, and the value of the receptors is medium (Metropolitan), the effect is considered to be moderate beneficial. Improvements across the Thames Tideway as a whole will be assessed in the project-wide effects assessment (Volume 6). Increase in the distribution of pollution-sensitive fish species.

5.6.11

5.6.12

5.6.13

Page 35

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park 5.6.14

Section 5: Ecology - aquatic

The Thames Tideway currently supports a small number of rare fish, such as salmon, sea trout, twaite shad and river lamprey (Lampetra fluviatilis). 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 (eg, Maitland, PS and HattonEllis, TW. Ecology of the Allis and Twaite Shad. Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers Ecology Series No. 3. English Nature, PeterBorough (2003)). 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. The assessment of effects on fish within the lower River Wandle will be undertaken when baseline data is received and will be reported in the ES. EA data surveys have indicated no records of rare fish species in the vicinity of Bell Lane Creek, the River Wandle within the SMI, or the main channel of the Thames at its confluence with the Wandle. Given that the impact is considered to be medium positive, and the value of the receptors within the wider Tideway is medium (Metropolitan), the effect is thus considered to be negligible in the short term (Year 1), and moderate beneficial in the medium term (Year 6). Invertebrates Localised improvements in invertebrate diversity and abundance.

5.6.15 5.6.16

5.6.17

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 phenomena such as algal blooms, and is known as eutrophication. Such enrichment tends to favour a small number of pollution-tolerant species at the expense of a wider range of pollution-sensitive species. For example, certain species of Oligochaete worm are indicative of polluted conditions because they are able to tolerate hypoxic conditions and multiply rapidly in the enriched sediments. By intercepting the CSO the source of sewage related nutrients would be cut off and the sediments at Bell Lane Creek, the River Wandle and the River Thames at its confluence with the Wandle would begin to return to a more natural state. As nutrients reduce in concentration a wider range of invertebrate species, including more pollution sensitive species such as the river neretid (Theodoxus fluviatilis), would begin to colonise the sediments. The effect is considered to be negligible in Year 1, rising to minor beneficial in Year 6. The assessment of effects on invertebrates within the lower River Wandle will be undertaken when baseline data is received and will be reported in the ES. Increase in the distribution of pollution-sensitive invertebrate species.

5.6.18

5.6.19

5.6.20

The Thames Tideway currently supports a small number of rare invertebrate species including swollen spire snail (Mercuria confusa) and tentacled lagoon worm (Alkmaria romijni). A number of factors limit the

Page 36

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 5: Ecology - aquatic

colonisation of habitats by these species, including salinity, substrate type and current, but pollution is known to be a significant factor in determining colonisation. Improving water and sediment quality would facilitate the spread of those pollution-sensitive species which are currently being impeded by poor water and sediment quality. 5.6.21 5.6.22 The assessment of effects on fish within the lower River Wandle will be undertaken when baseline data is received and will be reported in the ES. EA data have indicated no records of rare invertebrate species in the vicinity of Bell Lane Creek, the River Wandle within the SMI, or the main channel of the Thames at its confluence with the Wandle (other than Acorophium lacustre, which as discussed is an RDB species but is actually common in the Tideway). Given that the impact is considered to be medium positive, and the value of the receptors is low-medium (invertebrates) in the wider Tideway, the effect is thus considered to be negligible in the short term (Year 1), and minor beneficial in the medium term (Year 6). Algae 5.6.23 Effects on algae will be assessed and reported in the ES.

5.7
5.7.1

Approach to mitigation Mitigation of operational effects


No mitigation is required since the effects on aquatic ecology receptors are associated only with the improvements in water quality arising from interception of the CSO.

Page 37

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 5: Ecology - aquatic

5.8
Vol 12 Table 5.8.1 Aquatic ecology operation assessment Significance of effect Year 6 Year 1 Negligible Negligible Negligible None required due to positive effect. Moderate beneficial None required due to positive effect. Mitigation Significance of residual effect Moderate beneficial Negligible

Assessment summary

Receptor

Description of effect

Habitats

Improvement in habitat value.

Mammals

Increase in the number and/or change in the distribution of marine mammals. Moderate beneficial Moderate beneficial Minor beneficial Minor beneficial. None required due to positive effect. None required due to positive effect. None required due to positive effect. None required due to positive effect.

Fish

Reduction in the occurrence Moderate of low dissolved oxygen beneficial related fish mortalities. Negligible

Moderate beneficial.

Moderate beneficial

Invertebrates

Increase in the distribution of pollution-sensitive fish species. Localised improvements in invertebrates diversity and abundance. Negligible Negligible.

Minor beneficial.

Increase in the distribution of rare and pollution sensitive invertebrate species.

Minor beneficial

Algae

To be assessed.

Page 38

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 5: Ecology - aquatic

5.9
5.9.1 5.9.2

Assessment completion
Algal data and assessment of effects on algae will be reported in the ES. Further information regarding aquatic ecology receptors in the lower River Wandle is being sought and will be reported in the ES. Findings from spring 2011 surveys for fish and invertebrates will also be reported. Assessment of effects on the River Wandle for all receptors will be assessed. Impacts and effects on algae in the River Thames, Bell Lane Creek and River Wandle will be assessed. Assessment of cumulative effects will be undertaken as part of the ES. No mitigation is required since only positive effects are anticipated.

5.9.3

5.9.4 5.9.5

Page 39

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 6: Ecology - terrestrial

6 6.1
6.1.1

Ecology - terrestrial Introduction


This section details the predicted effects on terrestrial ecology of the proposed works at King Georges Park. Likely effects on aquatic ecology are reported in Section 5. During the construction phase, 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 in for this site at the scoping stage. The site design has since evolved and more details are known in relation to operational activities. Operational activities would be limited to occasional maintenance works which are considered unlikely to have significant effects on terrestrial ecology receptors. The operational phase is therefore not considered further in this assessment.

6.1.2

6.1.3

6.2

Proposed development Construction


a. Site clearance including tree removal and tree pruning. b. The movement of construction workers and machinery, and construction activities that cause noise, vibration and lighting, (including piling). c. 24 hour working is not proposed at this site. Code of Construction Practice (CoCP)

6.2.2

Measures incorporated into the draft CoCP to reduce terrestrial ecology effects include those that would ensure that terrestrial ecology receptors are appropriately managed during construction. The document sets out procedures that would be adhered to both project wide and at individual sites. The 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 13 and local Biodiversity Action Plans. Each site would have an Ecological Management Plan, which would detail the approach to management of effects on ecological receptors with reference to the results of the terrestrial ecology assessment. Where species are protected by specific legislation, approved guidance would be followed, appropriate mitigation would be proposed and any necessary licences or consents obtained. 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.

6.2.3

6.2.4

Page 40

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 6: Ecology - terrestrial

6.3
6.3.1

Assessment methodology Scoping and engagement


Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. Site specific comments from consultees for this particular site relating to terrestrial ecology are contained in the table below. Further stakeholder engagement was undertaken through biodiversity technical workshops with statutory consultees. Vol 12 Table 6.3.1 Terrestrial ecology stakeholder comments Organisation London Borough of Wandsworth Comment Full justification is required as to why aquatic ecology has been scoped out for King Georges Park when there is a waterbody near the site. Potential effects on the borehole that feeds the waterbody within the park are to be recognised and addressed. King Georges Park is a SINC (Grade B i). Response The waterbody within King Georges Park is included in the terrestrial ecology assessment.

Effects on ground water are addressed in the Section 13.

The status of the park has been taken into account in the terrestrial ecology assessment.

Baseline
6.3.2 Baseline data collection has followed the methodology detailed in Volume 5. Baseline data presented within the assessment is derived from a desk study, the Phase 1 Habitat Survey, wintering bird survey and bat triggering surveys. All subsequent survey data will be reported in the ES. This is described further in Vol 12 Table 6.3.2. In summary the following baseline data has 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 24th November 2010 following the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) Standard Phase 1 Habitat
i

6.3.3

SINC (Grade B) = Site of Nature Conservation Importance (Grade II of Borough importance)

Page 41

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 6: Ecology - terrestrial

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. One wintering bird survey visit was undertaken in December 2010. Using professional judgement, and due to low species numbers observed, further wintering bird surveys for this site have been scoped out.

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 considered (using professional judgement) to be potentially affected by the project. Further surveys were required and preliminary results of the bat triggering surveys have been provided. 6.3.4 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 assessed and reported in the ES. Vol 12 Table 6.3.2 Notable species surveys Survey Bat activity and dawn surveys Survey area Around suitable features within and immediately adjacent to the site (using professional judgement) Timing June to October 2011

Construction
6.3.5 The construction phase assessment methodology follows this standard methodology provided in Volume 5, which is based on IEEM. Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom. Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2006) 14. The following ecological receptors are assessed: a. Designated sites b. Habitats c. Bats d. Breeding birds e. Other notable species (amphibians, hedgehog and invertebrates). 6.3.6 The site is considered unlikely to support a notable assemblage of wintering birds as described in para. 6.3.3c. Therefore, wintering birds are not considered further in this assessment. As contaminated runoff and atmospheric pollution would be controlled through the implementation of the CoCP, no likely significant effects are

6.3.7

Page 42

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 6: Ecology - terrestrial

anticipated on ecological receptors. Therefore, this is not considered any further in the assessment. 6.3.8 The assessment year for construction is Year 1, 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.

6.3.9

Operation methodology
6.3.10 No likely significant effects are anticipated on any ecological receptors due to the limited and localised nature of operational activities. Therefore, the operation phase is not considered further in this assessment.

Assumptions and limitations


6.3.11 It is assumed for the purposes of assessment that the current site management regime of the King Georges Park site would continue. The assessment assumes that the measures within the CoCP would be implemented as part of the development. All surveys have been and will be undertaken at appropriate times of the year. No other site specific limitations or assumptions have been identified.

6.4
6.4.1

Baseline conditions
The following section sets out the baseline conditions for terrestrial ecology receptors at the site and surrounds, including their value.

Designated sites
On site 6.4.2 The site is within King Georges Park SINC (Grade Bi) designated as an important wildlife corridor and features of value for wildlife and is of district (medium) value. However, the site covers only a small area within the SINC and comprises species-poor amenity grassland and scattered trees. It provides a small potential resource to a range of wildlife such as birds and bats including some listed on the UK and London BAP. Therefore, the site is considered to be of local (low) value. Surrounding area 6.4.3 The following designated sites have been identified as part of the desk study: a. The remainder of King Georges Park outside the development site is designated a SINC and is considered to be of district (medium) value. b. Lower Wandle SINC (Grade L ii) is 190m to the north east of the site and includes 2.3 km of the River Wandle from the London Borough of Wandsworth boundary to its tidal limit. It is designated for its diverse community of submerged plants. The site is of local (low) value.
ii

SINC (Grade L) = Site of Nature Conservation Importance (Grade I of Local importance)

Page 43

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 6: Ecology - terrestrial

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 12 Figure 6.4.1. The site encompasses the London BAP habitat Parks, Squares and Amenity Grassland. Immediately adjacent to the site is a lake that would be considered within the London BAP habitat Ponds. Vol 12 Figure 6.4.1 Terrestrial ecology Phase 1 habitat survey (see Volume 12 Figures document) Vol 12 Table 6.4.1 Terrestrial ecology Phase 1 habitat survey Habitat Type / Feature of Note Hardstanding Amenity grassland Habitat Description There are tarmac footpaths through the park and the survey area. The majority of the survey area is amenity grassland used for recreational purposes and is species poor. Mature trees are scattered through the survey area including oak Quercus sp., cherry Prunus sp., birch Betula sp., London plane Platanus x acerifolia and ornamental species. Along the eastern boundary, there is a row of mature London plane trees (TN1). Introduced shrub Standing water (adjacent) Along the northern boundary to the survey area, there is an area of ornamental scrub planting. To the south of the survey area, there is a large waterbody with an area of dense common reed Phragmites australis.

Scattered trees

On site 6.4.5 6.4.6 The amenity grassland is species-poor and provides limited supporting ecological function. Therefore, this habitat is of site (low) value. The trees on site include some native and some ornamental/non-native species. They have limited value based on their species status although the trees include some mature specimens. The trees are unlikely to qualify for designation at district level. Therefore, the trees on site are considered to be of local (low) value. Surrounding area 6.4.7 The lake is a UK BAP and London BAP habitat and provides supporting ecological functions for a range of local wildlife including waterfowl, invertebrates and amphibians. The lake is important to the designation of King Georges Park as a SINC. There are few other lakes of this kind within the generally urban area of the London Borough of Wandsworth. Therefore the lake is considered to be of district (medium) value.

Page 44

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park 6.4.8

Section 6: Ecology - terrestrial

The trees are unlikely to qualify for designation at district level although they do include some mature native trees. Therefore, the trees on site are considered to be of local (low) value. Ornamental scrub adjacent to the site may provide a nectar resource for birds. However, the area of scrub is small and this habitat type is common within the park. Therefore, this habitat is considered to be of site (low) value.

6.4.9

Notable species
Bats On site 6.4.10 No records of bats specific to the site were found in the data search. The mature trees on site may provide roosting opportunities and a foraging resource for bats. Several trees had woodpecker holes that provide high potential for roosting bats. Some trees also had minor features that could have the potential to support roosting transient bats. The bat triggering surveys recorded high counts of bat passes for common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus and soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pigmaeus, and one additional count of an unidentified bat species. Further surveys for bats are ongoing and the value of the site will be assessed and reported in the ES. Surrounding area 6.4.11 The data search records included one record of bats (species undetermined) within 500m of the site. Trees, scrub, grassland, flowering and fruit-bearing plant species, and the lake may provide foraging resources for bats. Trees and buildings adjacent to the site may support roosting bats. High counts of common pipistrelle and soprano pipistrelle bats were also recorded adjacent to the site. The value of the bat resource in the surrounding area will be assessed and reported in the ES. Breeding birds On site 6.4.12 The desk study data found a record for house sparrow Passer domesticus (Red List, London and UKBAP Priority species) on site. The habitat within the site is limited to ornamental scrub and scattered mature trees providing some nesting opportunities for common breeding birds but suboptimal for an important assemblage of bird species. With the availability of a large area of bird breeding habitat within the remainder of the park, the site is considered to be of site (low) value for breeding birds. Surrounding area 6.4.13 The following bird species have been recorded within King Georges Park according to the data search results: a. House sparrow Passer domesticus (Red List, London and UK BAP Priority species) b. Song thrush Turdus philomelos (Red List, London and UK BAP Priority Species)

Page 45

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park c. 6.4.14

Section 6: Ecology - terrestrial

Starling Sturnus vulgaris (Red List, London and UK BAP Priority Species)

The lake adjacent to the site is likely to support a range of common wildfowl. The bird resource within the wider King Georges Park may contribute to the designation of the park as a SINC. Therefore, the bird resource in the wider park is considered to be of district (medium) value. Wintering birds On site

6.4.15

Based upon the limited diversity of habitats present on site and the small size of the site, the site is considered unlikely to support a notable wintering bird assemblage. Surrounding area The habitat within the wider park is likely to provide wintering bird refuge and foraging habitat. This resource is considered to be of local (low) value. Other notable species On site

6.4.16

6.4.17

No amphibian records specific to the site have been found in the data search results. The amphibian population on site is likely to be small with periodic movements through the grassland area when amphibians disperse to and from their breeding waterbody. The waterbody is not considered suitable for great crested newts. Therefore, the value of the amphibian resource on site is considered to be of site (low) value. The hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus is a UK BAP priority species that is a declining species targeted for conservation action at the national level. The data search included records of hedgehog in the area. The hedgehog is not legally protected and would not be a feature of a site designation. The habitat on site is generally sub-optimal for this species, although it may provide a small foraging resource and hedgehogs may occasionally pass through the site Therefore, where present, the value of any individual hedgehogs or hedgehog population on site is considered to be of site (low) value. No invertebrate records specific to the site have been provided in the data search results. However, the habitat within the site is sub-optimal for invertebrates and is unlikely to support the notable invertebrate populations and assemblages that have been recorded elsewhere within the Park. The habitat on site is sub-optimal for a notable assemblage of invertebrate species. Therefore, the invertebrate resource is considered to be of no more than site (low) value. Surrounding area Common frog Rana temporaria, common toad Bufo bufo and smooth newt Lissotriton vulgaris have been recorded within 500m of the site according to data search results. The lake adjacent to the site may support breeding populations of these common species. The amenity grassland habitat is

6.4.18

6.4.19

6.4.20

Page 46

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 6: Ecology - terrestrial

sub-optimal for amphibians. Therefore, the amphibian resource is considered to be of local (low) value. 6.4.21 The data search results included a record for hedgehog within 500m of the site. The scrub adjacent to the site is likely to provide cover for hedgehogs, with nearby grassland providing a foraging resource. The area of scrub and grassland adjacent to the site is small and not considered to be fundamental to the survival of the local hedgehog population. However, it does provide some supporting function as potential shelter and hibernation habitat. Therefore, any hedgehog population would be considered to be of local (low) value. Invertebrate species have been recorded within King Georges Park according to data searches including the stag beetle Lucanus cervus (UK and London BAP Priority Species, WCA 1981 Schedule 5). As the surrounding park is likely to support a range of UK and London BAP species, the invertebrate resource is considered to be of local (low) value.

6.4.22

6.4.23

6.5

Construction assessment Designated sites


On-site

6.5.1

3.6.1 Site clearance would result in the loss of a small area of local (low) value habitat (trees) within the a wider area, the King Georges Park SINC (Grade B1) designated as an important wildlife corridor and features of value for wildlife and is of district (medium) value. The SINC would be reduced in extent. The remaining habitat within the SINC is considered likely to continue to meet the criteria for designation as a SINC Grade B. Due to the limited biodiversity value of the area to be lost, it is probable that the effect of site clearance on part of the designated site would be significant at a site level (minor adverse effect). Surrounding area Disturbance during construction could displace nesting birds and waterfowl from the waterbody to the south of the site to elsewhere within the park. Given the high level of background noise from the adjacent road traffic and the shopping centre it is unlikely that the additional noise of construction would cause displacement away from the lake altogether. Birds can also habituate to continuous or semi-continuous noise, which would reduce the displacement effect over time. It is considered unlikely that the construction noise and lighting would affect the population size or the presence of birds within the park as a whole. There is unlikely to be significant effect on the integrity of King Georges Park SINC.

6.5.2

Habitats
On-site 6.5.3 It is certain that the permanent loss of 12 trees of local (low) value would be significant at the local level (minor adverse effect). The pruning of tree

Page 47

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 6: Ecology - terrestrial

branches is unlikely to have a significant effect on the long term health of the trees. 6.5.4 It is certain that the loss of amenity grassland which has site (low) value would be significant at the site level (minor adverse effect). Surrounding area 6.5.5 No adverse effects on adjacent habitats are anticipated (negligible).

Species
Bats On site 6.5.6 The loss of trees that may contain a bat roost, the loss of foraging habitat and disturbance to bats from noise, vibration and lighting may be significant. The significance of effects will be assessed and reported in the ES. Surrounding area 6.5.7 The works may cause disturbance from lighting, noise and vibration to bats foraging and roosting adjacent to the site. The significance of effects will be assessed and reported in the ES. Breeding birds On site 6.5.8 Site clearance would result in the loss of a small area of trees that could provide nesting habitat for a range of common bird species, some of which are listed on the UK and London BAPs. It is probable that the effect would be significant at the site level (minor adverse effect). Surrounding area 6.5.9 Activities on site that cause temporary disturbance such as noise, vibration and lighting could disturb birds that are nesting in vegetation adjacent to the site and wildfowl present on the adjacent lake. It is probable that disturbance to breeding birds adjacent to the site would result in temporary displacement of birds to elsewhere within the park and would not affect the breeding ability of these birds. The effect is unlikely to be significant (negligible) for breeding birds. Other notable species On site 6.5.10 The works would result in the loss of site (low) value habitat for amphibians. The works may cause a barrier effect to a small number of amphibians moving between the lake and suitable terrestrial habitat along the northern boundary of the park. Alternative habitat is available within the park and the loss of access to this vegetation is not likely to affect the overall populations and breeding success of amphibian species. There is also a risk of amphibians falling into open excavations. It is probable that the overall effect would be significant at the site level (minor adverse effect).

Page 48

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park 6.5.11

Section 6: Ecology - terrestrial

The loss of site (low) value habitat for hedgehogs is proposed. Open excavations may pose a risk of injury or death for foraging hedgehogs. The works may create a barrier effect to the movement of hedgehogs through the site. It is probable that the loss of low value habitat for hedgehogs and potentially small numbers of hedgehogs to death or injury would be significant at the site level (minor adverse effect). It is probable that the temporary loss of amenity grassland and a small number of trees that support a site (low) value invertebrate resource would be significant at the site level (minor adverse effect). Surrounding area Significant effects on amphibians, hedgehogs and invertebrates within the wider park are considered to be extremely unlikely.

6.5.12

6.5.13

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

Approach to mitigation Construction


The ecological management plan described in the CoCP will include longterm management of habitats and species on site post-construction. It would be prepared following planning approval and prior to commencement of works on site. In addition to measures detailed in the CoCP, the following measures are likely to be required: a. Replacement grassland and tree planting in advance of site clearance. b. Mitigation for effects associated with the presence of bats (subject to the results of further bat surveys). c. Disturbance minimisation measures specific to the site in relation to disturbance to bat species identified during the surveys eg, site lighting scheme.

6.7.2

d. Scope for mitigation of effects on amphibians and hedgehogs to be considered.

Page 49

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 6: Ecology - terrestrial

6.8
Vol 12 Table 6.8.1 Terrestrial ecology construction assessment Significance Certain, site level (minor adverse effect) Certain, local level (minor adverse effect) Certain, site level (minor adverse effect) Wildflower grassland planting. Replacement tree planting prior to construction. Replacement planting Mitigation

Assessment summary
Residual significance Unlikely to be significant (negligible) Unlikely to be significant (negligible) Certain, site level positive (minor beneficial effect) Subject to survey results Subject to survey results Replacement planting prior to construction Not required Subject to survey results Unlikely to be significant (negligible) Unlikely to be significant (negligible)

Receptor

Description of effect

Designated sites

Habitat change in a small area on site.

Habitats

Trees

Removal of 12 trees and pruning of others on site

Amenity grassland

Permanent loss on site.

Notable species Subject to survey results Subject to survey results Certain, site level (minor adverse effect) Subject to survey results

Bats

Potential loss of foraging and roosting resource on site

Disturbance from lighting, noise and vibration to bats adjacent to the site.

Breeding birds

Temporary loss of a small area of nesting habitat on site

Disturbance from noise, Unlikely to be lighting and vibration to birds significant (negligible) adjacent to the site

Page 50

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park Significance Probable, site level (minor adverse effect) Scope for mitigation measures to be considered. Probable, site level (minor adverse effect) Mitigation Residual significance

Section 6: Ecology - terrestrial

Receptor

Description of effect

Other notable species (hedgehogs, invertebrates, amphibians) Probable, site level (minor adverse effect) Replacement planting prior to construction

Loss of amphibian and hedgehog habitat from site, barrier effect to movement through the site and risk of falling in open excavations.

Loss of invertebrate habitat

Unlikely to be significant (negligible)

Page 51

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 6: Ecology - terrestrial

6.9
6.9.1

Assessment completion
Bat surveys are ongoing in 2011 as summarised in para. 6.3.4 and the table below. The data from these surveys will be used to inform the ES and further evaluation of effects on ecological receptors will be undertaken. Where required, appropriate mitigation to avoid or minimise 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 ES. Consideration will be given to biodiversity enhancement measures in consultation with stakeholders. Where necessary, these mitigation and enhancement measures will be embedded in the project design.

6.9.2

Page 52

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 7: Historic environment

7 7.1
7.1.1

Historic environment Introduction


This section sets out the preliminary assessment of likely significant effects of the proposed development at King Georges Park on heritage assets. These are aspects of the historic environment which are considered to be significant because of their historical, evidential, aesthetic or communal interest (these terms are defined in Volume 5). These might comprise below and above ground archaeological remains, buildings, structures, monuments or heritage landscapes within or around the site 15. This section should be read in conjunction with Volume 6: route overview, which sets the site in its broad topographic, geological, archaeological and historical context and discusses the project-wide landscape and topic themes in respect of the historic environment. These themes are summarised in this section, where they are relevant to the site, to avoid repetition.

7.1.2

7.2
7.2.1

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

Construction
7.2.2 Those aspects of specific relevance to the historic environment assessment, since they could lead to effects on heritage assets, are as follows: a. Enabling works will require the removal of grass, the removal of some trees and pruning of others; the localised removal of railings situated along the north-eastern perimeter of the park; establishment of a works compound; utilities diversion and strengthening of the access on Neville Gill Close. b. Construction of a concrete crane base to be laid adjacent to the shaft, as a working platform for the crane. It is assumed for the purposes of the assessment, that the base would extend to 1.01.5mbgl. c. The main construction works entail the construction of a Combined Sewage Overflow (CSO) shaft, deep excavations for interception and valve chambers, a connecting culvert, ventilation shaft, ventilation structure and control cabinet (with the latter two elements assumed for the purposes of the assessment to have foundations up to 1.0 1.5mbgl).

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 53

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 7: Historic environment

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 components that are relevant to the assessment, in terms of historic environment setting, comprise the permanent structures visible above ground, in the form of the design and siting of a control cabinet, ventilation structure, ventilation column, and possible stand/kiosk in the northeastern corner of the park. A section of the park railings to be removed, along with a number of trees, could also affect the setting of the heritage assets during the operational phase.

7.3
7.3.1

Assessment methodology Scoping and engagement


Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. There were no site specific comments from consultees for this particular site. It should also be noted that Volume 5 details the approach to the assessment of effects on the historic setting of heritage assets which it has been agreed, following the formal scoping process, will be covered in the assessment of construction and operational effects. This assessment will be completed for the final ES.

7.3.2

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

7.3.4

Construction
7.3.5 7.3.6 The construction phase methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. Any site specific variations are described below. Likely significant effects on the historic environment could arise throughout the construction phase and are concerned principally with activities likely to remove, disturb or alter above ground or buried heritage assets, as a result of enabling or construction works. The methodology has been informed by an understanding of the nature and extent of proposed ground disturbance, in relation to known or potential heritage assets.

7.3.7

Page 54

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park 7.3.8

Section 7: Historic environment

In terms of buried heritage assets, the base case (future baseline) during the assessment phase will be the same as at present. Archaeological remains are a static resource, which have reached equilibrium with their environment and do not change (ie, decay or grow) unless their environment changes as a result of human or natural intervention. In terms of the base case (future baseline) for the assessment of construction effects on above ground heritage assets, no direct changes are anticipated in the condition or significance of these assets. Changes to the base case from non-Thames Tunnel developments could affect the setting of above ground heritage assets. Any such changes will be detailed for the final assessment, to inform the assessment of effects on the historic setting of heritage assets, and presented in the ES.

7.3.9

Operation
7.3.10 7.3.11 7.3.12 The operational phase methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. Any site specific variations are described below. The operational phase assessment will be undertaken for Year 1 of operation. In terms of the base case (future baseline) for the assessment of operational effects, no direct changes are anticipated in the condition or significance of above ground heritage assets. Changes to the base case from non-Thames Tunnel developments could affect the setting of above ground heritage assets. Any such changes will be detailed for the final assessment, to inform the assessment of effects on the historic setting of heritage assets, and presented in the ES.

Assumptions and limitations


7.3.13 Volume 5: Methodology sets out the generic assumptions and limitations of the assessment. In summary, the main limitation is the nature of the archaeological resource (buried and not visible) and acknowledgement of the difficulty of attempting to predict the presence/extent, date, nature, survival and significance of possible, previously unrecorded, buried heritage assets, based on a desk based study and site visit. In particular, no intrusive archaeological investigation has been carried out on the site in the past and few investigations have been carried out in the study area around the site. Notwithstanding this limitation, the assessment presented here is robust, based on reasonably available information, and conforms to the requirements of local and national guidance and planning policy (as detailed in Volume 5). Typically, appropriate standard archaeological prospection and evaluation techniques are utilised post-consent to reduce the uncertainties inherent in any desk based study, as part of an overall EIA mitigation strategy (see Mitigation section below for the proposed mitigation at this site).

7.3.14

7.4
7.4.1

Baseline conditions
The following description of baseline conditions comprises seven subsections which set out:

Page 55

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 7: Historic environment

a. A description of historic environment features, with an introduction to the features map (which shows the location of known historic environment features within the 300m-radius study area around the site) and the study area; b. A description of statutorily and locally designated assets within the site and its vicinity (ie, within a 100m-radius of the site); c. A description of the site location, topography and geology to set the context of the site;

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 known about the site and its environs. f. A statement of significance for above ground assets within and around the site, describing the features which contribute to their significance.

g. A discussion of potential for buried heritage assets, taking account of factors affecting survival, and a statement of their potential significance. 7.4.2 A site visit was carried out by MOLA Historic Buildings and EIA specialists on 31st March 2011, during dry and sunny conditions. Several manhole covers indicate buried services which may have truncated or removed archaeological remains. A slightly raised east-west linear feature was observed in the grass crossing the middle of the site. This probably marks the line of the existing sewer.

Historic environment features


Vol 12 Figure 7.4.1 Historic features map (see Volume 12 Figures document) 7.4.3 The historic environment features map (Vol 12 Figure 7.4.1) shows the location of known historic environment features within the 300m-radius study area around the site, compiled from the baseline sources set out in the topic specific methodology in Volume 5. These have been allocated a unique historic environment assessment reference number (HEA 1, 2, etc), which is listed in the gazetteer in Appendix A. Where there are a considerable number of listed buildings in the study area, only those within the vicinity of the site (ie, within a 100m-radius) are included on the map and in the gazetteer. The study area for assessing setting effects on heritage assets may be revised because setting effects are most likely to occur within the visual envelope of the site, which may differ from the study area defined to date.

7.4.4

Designated assets
Statutory designations 7.4.5 The site and the land immediately adjacent does not contain any nationally designated (statutorily protected) heritage assets, such as scheduled

Page 56

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 7: Historic environment

monuments, listed buildings, or registered parks and gardens. There are numerous listed buildings within the 300m-radius study area, shown on the historic environment features map (Vol 12 Figure 7.4.1) and included in the gazetteer. The closest to the site is Down Lodge, a Grade II listed building, constructed in the mid to late 18th century, which lies c. 160m to the south-west (HEA 19). Local authority designations 7.4.6 The site does not lie within a conservation area and contains no locally listed buildings. At its nearest point the Wandsworth Town Conservation Area lies 125m to the north-west of the site. The site lies within an archaeological priority area, which defines the approximate extent of the historic settlement of Wandsworth (although there is no evidence to suggest that the site lay within the area of occupation). Known burial grounds 7.4.7 There are no known burial grounds within the site or adjacent to it.

Site location, topography and geology


Site location 7.4.8 The site is bounded by Buckhold Road to the north-west, Neville Gill Close to the north-east, St Georges Park and lake to the south-east and the rest of King Georges Park to the south-west and west. The site lies c. 200m to the west of the current course of the River Wandle and c. 800m to the south of the River Thames. Topography 7.4.9 The area is generally flat with a slight slope down towards the lake at the southern edge of the site. The north-east corner of the site lies at c. 105.1m ATD (above Tunnel Datum; the equivalent of 5.1m Ordnance Datum) the south-east corner lies at c. 104.5m ATD, the south-west corner lies at c. 104.7m ATD and the north-western edge lies at c. 105.2m ATD. Street level at the north-east corner of the site lies at c. 105.4m ATD. Geology 7.4.10 The site is situated in an area of floodplain alluvial deposits overlying sand and gravel deposits associated with the River Wandle (British Geological Survey digital data). Geoarchaeological investigation locally has found the alluvium consists of clays, silts and peats, deposited by the river during the last 10,000 years, from the Mesolithic to post-medieval period (HEA 6). The Wandle is a major tributary of the Thames with the confluence of the two rivers only some 800m to the north. The site is situated close to the western side of the River Wandle, at the western edge of the floodplain, hard up against a thin strip of the Kempton Park gravel terrace at around 105.5m ATD. It lies c. 30m east of a northsouth aligned ribbon of a silt and gravel Head deposit. The Head deposit lies at the base of an isolated outcrop of Hackney gravels lying at c. 116.0m ATD, within an area dominated by London Clay (British Geological Survey Solid and Drift Geology Map Sheet 270). The presence of high ground so close to the river would have been advantageous for both

7.4.11

Page 57

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 7: Historic environment

settlement and access for people exploiting the resources of the river. The geology would have influenced the development of agriculture, as soils developing on silt and gravel Head deposits are easy to cultivate, being permeable and well drained. The wider area of London Clay would be heavy and clayey and generally less conducive to early farming. 7.4.12 Borehole logs are sparse for the area as a whole with only three on or within 300m of the site. Two of the three borehole logs, including SA1110 which is the only one located within the site area itself, are modern and detailed. Examination of borehole data on the site (borehole SA1110) shows London Clay directly overlain by made ground at 100.8m ATD with the made ground extending to 104.8m ATD. The absence of alluvium suggests that this has been removed by human activity on the site or by natural river erosion. Historic maps, however, do not suggest that there has been any extensive truncation (ie, removal of part or all of the archaeological sequence as a result of a later intervention, such as building foundations or natural erosion) across the site in the past. As the borehole location lies close to the river terrace and at what appears to be a scour point in the river, the lack of alluvium here could be due to localised erosion. The borehole may not reflect the nature of the deposits across the whole site, but probably more localised events. Some 40m to the north of the site in an area with similar topographical characteristics, a borehole (SR1109) indicates sandy gravels overlying the London Clay and existing to 101.0m ATD, overlain by alluvium in the form of slightly gravelly sandy clay to 102.5m ATD, which in turn was overlain by undated made ground to 105.5m ATD. The borehole indicates that the clays retain shells and organic matter. This indicates water quality and flow, and the potential survival of palaeoenvironmental remains.

7.4.13

Past archaeological investigations within the study area


7.4.14 Eight archaeological investigations have been carried out within the 300m radius study area around the site, although none are within the site itself. The nearest investigation is an evaluation and excavation by MoLAS (now named MOLA) at the Territorial Army Centre (HEA 1), c. 40m to the northeast, in 1992. This recorded post-medieval field boundaries or drainage ditches, including a timber-lined watercourse, predating a possible late 17th century boathouse. In 2007, an archaeological evaluation by the Sutton Archaeology Services (HEA 3), c. 50m to the north of the site, revealed later medieval and postmedieval finds, in addition to a 19th century wall and cobbled surface. Other archaeological investigations within study area (see the historic environment features map; Vol 12 Figure 7.5.1), recorded evidence of a 17th century quay along the River Wandle, and18th and 19th century occupation and quarrying, as well as geoarchaeological deposits relating to the river, dating back to the prehistoric period. The results of these investigations, along with other known sites and finds within the study area, are discussed by period, below.

7.4.15

7.4.16

Page 58

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 7: Historic environment

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 The River Wandle is one of the oldest rivers in the Thames system, and would have attracted prehistoric hunters, foragers and settlers. Chance finds of Palaeolithic worked flints have been found over a number of years around the mouth of the River Wandle and along the Thames foreshore, c. 860m to the north of the site and also on the valley sides 16. During the prehistoric, the floodplain of the River Wandle would have consisted of numerous multithreaded freshwater river channels, some redundant and some active, winding around islands of higher, drier, gravels. The redundant channels commonly would infill with organic clays and peats creating areas of shallow standing water. The active channels would have been relatively swift flowing, of reasonably clear water, flowing across a floodplain that was open and scrubby and not yet wet and marshy, although the floodplain would have become increasingly marshy over time as water levels rose. Whilst unsuitable for settlement, the area was probably exploited for a range of wetland resources (see route overview, Volume 6). Deposits laid down by the River Wandle were recorded during a geoarchaeological investigation at Garratt Lane (HEA 6), c. 140m to the south-east of the site. The earliest of these deposits date to the Mesolithic. Evidence for prehistoric activity within the study area is limited to isolated chance finds including Palaeolithic flint flakes (HEA 11), c.180m to the north of the site (HEA 12 and HEA 17) and c. 110m to the south; a Bronze Age blade (HEA 15), c. 210m to the north-east, a Bronze Age spearhead (HEA 16), c. 240m to the north-east, and an Iron Age blade (HEA 14), c. 190m to the north of the site. The significance of these isolated discoveries is uncertain. Many of the finds are likely to have been deposited by the River Wandle and are likely to be residual (ie, found outside of the context that they were originally deposited), but the quantity of finds suggests prehistoric activity close by. Roman period (AD 43410) 7.4.22 The site lay c. 8.8km to the south-west of the Roman town of Londinium, which grew up in the mid 1st century AD in the area of the City of London. The relationship of London to settlements in its hinterland was symbiotic. Small, nucleated settlements, typically located along the major roads leading to the capital, acted both as markets and as producers to the capital17. Although no evidence of Roman settlement has been found at Wandsworth, it has been suggested that the High Street originally followed the line of an east-west Roman road that branched off Stane Street Roman road c. 3km to the east, in the area of Clapham 18, and there is

7.4.19

7.4.20

7.4.21

7.4.23

Page 59

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 7: Historic environment

evidence for an east-west road through Mortlake and Putney to the west, which may have formed part of the same road 19. The road is likely to have attracted settlement and other activity. Despite the presence of the possible road and suitable topographical and geological conditions, evidence of Roman activity in Wandsworth has been elusive to date and is limited to a small number of isolated findspots of Roman objects largely found by chance. 7.4.24 Evidence for Roman activity in the study area is limited to an isolated chance find of a knife and an unclassified object (HEA 14), found c. 190m to the north of the site. The site was probably located within or on the bank of the Wandle River which, by this time, had developed into a largely single channel river, situated in marsh or fenland prone to flooding. Increasingly, the periphery of the floodplain is likely to have been cleared and used as grazing particularly during the summer months. Early medieval (Saxon) period (AD 4101066) 7.4.25 Wandsworth (Wendleswurthe - Wendels farm) is first mentioned in AD 693 when it is referred to as a single large estate, granted to the nuns of Barking Abbey, and covering much of the area of modern Battersea and Wandsworth 20. It reverted back to the Crown following the destruction of the Abbey by the Danes 21, and Domesday Book (1086) records that the manor (estate) of Wandsworth was held by Edward the Confessor prior to the Conquest (1066). At that time it was occupied by six freemen tenants farming land with a considerable amount of meadowland 22. The exact location of Saxon settlement within the manor is not known, but probably grew up on or in the vicinity of the later medieval village, which centred on the High Street Bridge, c. 200m to the north-east of the site. No evidence of early medieval activity or occupation has been recorded within the study area. In all likelihood the site was located in marsh pasture on the western bank of the Wandle River, and outside the settled area. Later medieval period (AD 10661485) 7.4.28 Although Wandsworth was included in the entry for Battersea manor within Domesday Book, the reference to the berewick (outlying part of an estate) of Wandsworth in Williams grant to the Abbey suggests that at this time it was a distinct place. The Wandsworth berewick was administered from Savage Farm, which stood just north of Wandsworths medieval church 23. This church stood on the site of the current 17th/18th century All Saints Church (HEA 13), c. 200m to the north of the site 24. Wandsworth grew up as a roadside settlement along the east-west road from South London into Surrey, beside the church and bridge crossing of the River Wandle. Until the 19th century the High Street bridge, which is known to have existed before 1539, was the only bridge across the river. Land to the north beside the Wandles mouth would have been a marshy area 25. Domesday Book records 13 mills along the River Wandle, seven of which fell within the manor of Wandsworth, indicating the economic importance of the river. The fast-flow and the reported cleanness of the River Wandle was exploited for a number of industries including fishing, bleaching and

7.4.26

7.4.27

7.4.29

Page 60

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 7: Historic environment

hat making, known to have been carried out in the area as early as the 13th century 26. 7.4.30 Little evidence of later medieval activity has been recorded within the study area. In 1969, an archaeological excavation at the Stimpsons Buildings (HEA 4), c. 170m to the north-east of the site, recorded a building, a wall and a sewer which at their earliest phase date to the later medieval period. The GLHER also records the chance find of a medieval dagger and horse harness (HEA 14), c. 190m to the north of the site. The lack of finds and the distance from the High Street and the bridge crossing, suggests that the site lay outside the village, probably in meadow/ pasture. Parts of the floodplain were probably drained and reclaimed piecemeal during this period. Post-medieval period (AD 1485present) 7.4.31 Documentary evidence suggests that a stone bridge across the River Wandle existed on the site of the present bridge, prior to 1569 27, and this was confirmed when remains of a 16th century bridge abutment were recorded during an archaeological watching brief. Savage Farm, the bridge and the church formed the focus of the settlement, c.260m to the north-east of the site. The site lay outside the settlement, probably on reclaimed land beside the River Wandle, the course of which was altered throughout this, and earlier, periods. The main channel effectively became a succession of level pools between mills, and originally occupied more of central Wandsworth than the present channel 28. Rocques map of 1746 (Appendix A) is pictorial but shows the topography of the area and the location of the main settlement and roads. It is difficult to place the site on the map accurately but it is likely that it lay in fields used for pasture to the west of the River Wandle. To the west of the site was a small farmstead, which is shown on Stanfords map of 1862 (Appendix A) as Down Lodge. The map also suggests that the area was prone to flooding, as there are a number of drainage ditches through the site and the surrounding fields. In 1801, a group of Wandsworth Industrialists obtained an Act of Parliament which enabled them to construct The Surrey Iron Railway, connecting the Thames with Croydon and Merstham by rail. The railway opened in 1803 and was the first public horse-drawn railway independent of a canal. It contributed substantially to the industrial development of the Wandle valley 29. The route of the Surrey Iron Railway lay c. 190m to the east of the site. The Ordnance Survey 1st edition 25:mile map of 18621895 (Appendix A) shows the site as open land with a drainage ditch and a line of trees alongside, crossing the middle of the site on a north-east/south-west alignment. By the time of the Ordnance Survey 2nd edition 25:mile map of 18968 (Appendix A), Buckhold Road had been developed along the northwestern edge of the site. The drainage ditch which ran through the site had been redirected and lay just outside its eastern edge. Outside the

7.4.32

7.4.33

7.4.34

7.4.35

7.4.36

Page 61

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 7: Historic environment

site, to the south, is the existing lake within King Georges Park, although today the lake is much smaller. A tree-lined path runs around the edge of the lake and extends within the southern and eastern boundary of the site. A pathway also crosses south through the site with the main entrance to the parkland area at the north-east corner. The Ordnance Survey 3rd edition 25:mile map of 190920 (not reproduced) shows no change within the site. 7.4.37 The park, originally called Southfields Park, was laid out between 192123 by Stephen Percival (Percy) Cane (18811976) and opened by King George V in 1923 (London Parks Discovery Project 2011). The park is not included on the English Heritage Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest in England. In 1938, additional work to the park saw the introduction of an outdoor swimming pool and further alterations took place in the post-war period. The park in divided into three sections. The northern part contains ornamental gardens, gates and winding pathways. The recently restored lake with footbridge is separated from the southern part of the park by a pathway which leads to open grass and sports area to the south 30. The Sports Pavilion, located in the south of the park, is a single-storey structure constructed around a courtyard in 1966 31. The Ordnance Survey 1:2500 scale map of 194772 (Appendix A) shows little change within the site although it does show the gradual development of the surrounding area. The current site 7.4.40 The site currently comprises parkland which contains scattered trees with bushes around the edges. The northern, eastern and western edges of the site are bounded by original railings; to the south lies King Georges Park Lake.

7.4.38

7.4.39

Above ground heritage assets


Introduction 7.4.41 In accordance with the national policy set out in PPS5, the following section provides a statement based on professional and expert judgement on the likely significance (which is a reflection of the value or importance) of heritage assets, derived from the perceived historical, evidential, aesthetic and communal value. These terms are fully defined in Volume 5. Within site 7.4.42 King Georges Park is considered a heritage asset of medium significance, derived from its historical connection with King George V, and garden designer Percy Cane, as described above. King Georges Park is also of substantial communal historical value, as a treasured open space with leisure facilities and childrens play areas dating back to the early 1920s. The railings at the northern end of the park (Appendix A Photograph A2.1 and A2.2) appear to be a rare example of the survival of a material which was often removed and melted down during World War II. These features

7.4.43

Page 62

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 7: Historic environment

have a group value with the park and are considered to be of medium significance, due to their historical and evidential value. Within the study area 7.4.44 To the immediate north and east of the site, the built environment has been considerably altered since the construction of the park. The eastern boundary of the park has been reduced; bomb damage in the Second World War meant that the majority of this area was redesigned and rebuilt sometime during the 1960s. Further development to the north of the site has changed the original characterisation of the landscape surrounding this section of the park. New developments have considered the park as an asset and the high rise residential buildings have balconies constructed to overlook this area (Appendix A Photograph A2.3). To the west of the site, the buildings remain turn of the 20th century residential buildings, likely in keeping with the original design of the park land. Around the site, the area has been redeveloped and there is no evidence remaining relating to the Wandles previous industrial past. At its nearest point the Wandsworth Town Conservation Area is 125m to the north-west of the site. This is a heritage asset of high significance. Its character is derived from it being one of the oldest and most important settlements in the Borough. The historic street pattern provides evidence of its development and its attractive townscape and numerous listed buildings combine to make the area of historic and architectural importance. To the north and east of the site the character of the built environment has altered, particularly after bomb damage in World War II, but the new mix of residential and car parking have retained a strong association with the park. The significance of the 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 project) requires further consideration and will be presented in 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 to date.

7.4.45

7.4.46

Buried heritage assets on the site


Introduction 7.4.47 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.

7.4.48

Page 63

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park Factors Affecting Survival 7.4.49

Section 7: Historic environment

Archaeological survival potential across the site is generally likely to be high, as historic maps suggest that the site has never been built on. Remains within and beneath the deeper alluvial deposits, and at the alluvial/gravel interface, are likely to be intact. Archaeological remains potentially lie directly below the topsoil. However, there are some likely impacts which may have compromised archaeological survival locally comprise: a. Park landscaping and planting: the roots of trees and bushes within the site may potentially have disturbed any archaeological remains within the site. b. Services: the site contains a sewer which runs through the middle of the site on an east-west alignment. This is a cut-and-cover construction. Service trenches will have resulted in localised loss of archaeological remains within the footprint of each service trench, down to a maximum depth of c. 1.01.5m below ground level (mbgl), but can be up to 2.0mbgl, eg, for sewage pipe trenches. Any deeper, earlier, remains at the bottom of the alluvium and at the alluvial/gravel interface would have remained intact. c. Mid- to late-19th century drainage ditches: The excavation for these drainage ditches is likely to have removed all earlier archaeological remains from within their footprint. Any remains of the ditches themselves would, however, also be considered an important part of the archaeological record.

Asset potential and significance 7.4.50 The following statement of asset significance takes into account the levels of natural geology at the site and the level and nature of disturbance and truncation. Palaeo-environment 7.4.51 The site has a high potential to contain palaeoenvironmental remains. The deposits recorded across the site form the floodplain sequence and are well known from this part of the Thames and Wandle. Elsewhere these deposits have been shown to hold a record of environmental change and the evolving floodplain geomorphology stretching back to the Late Glacial period. The peat deposits have the potential to preserve a range of palaeoenvironmental proxy indicators (pollen, plant macro fossils), which if present can be utilised to reconstruct the past palaeoecology of the floodplain and environments within which prehistoric occupation occurred. Any fluvial and estuarine deposits also have the potential to preserve palaeoenvironmental remains (ostracods, foraminifera, diatoms) which can be utilised to reconstruct the past fluvial regimes and indicate the onset of tidal inundations and the transition to an estuarine river environment. Such remains would be of low or medium significance depending on their nature and degree of preservation. Such significance would be derived from the evidential value of such remains.

Page 64

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park Prehistoric 7.4.52

Section 7: Historic environment

The site has an uncertain, probably moderate potential to contain prehistoric remains. Although no remains of occupation or major activity has been recorded in the study area, there is a potential for isolated residual prehistoric finds to lie within the site, particularly within the alluvium and peat deposits. Redeposited finds would be of low significance. Localised settlement evidence would be of medium significance, in-situ timber structures and hulked boats (low probability) would potentially be of high significance. Roman The site has a low potential to contain Roman remains. No archaeological remains of a Roman settlement have been recorded within the study area, and the only evidence comprises a couple of isolated finds. The site would have been located within marshland beside or on the western bank of the River Wandle, and probably some distance from any settlement. Isolated artefacts would be of low significance, as derived from their evidential value. Features such as agricultural ditches would be of low or medium significance depending on their nature and extent, and derived from the evidential value. Early medieval The site has a low potential to contain early medieval remains. The site was located around 200m to the south-west of the most likely location for an early settlement at Wandsworth. No evidence of finds of this date has been recorded within the study area. The site was located on the western bank of the River Wandle in marshland pasture prone to flooding. Isolated rural landscape features such as field drainage ditches would be of low or medium significance. Later medieval The site has a low potential to contain later medieval remains. The main settlement of Wandsworth was located around 200m to the north, beside the church and bridge crossing. The site would have been in open land on the western bank of the River Wandle, which was probably used for pasture/rough grazing. Parts of the floodplain may have been reclaimed in this period, with the use of drainage ditches and flood embankments and revetments. Evidence of reclamation would be of low significance. Structural remains of revetments and river walls would be of low or medium significance, depending on the nature of the remains. This would be derived from the evidential and historical value. Post-medieval The site has a high potential to contain post-medieval remains. The site has remained undeveloped since at least the mid 18th century. Mid-19th century maps suggest that the site was prone to flooding, as drainage ditches cross the site. These were later infilled and in the 1920s the area was converted into the existing park with trees and a lake to the south. Buried post-medieval drainage ditches would be of negligible or low significance. This would be derived from the evidential and historical

7.4.53

7.4.54

7.4.55

7.4.56

Page 65

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 7: Historic environment

value. The heritage setting (or context) of these remains (ie, pastureland on reclaimed marsh) is no longer evident above ground.

Summary of asset significance


7.4.57 The table below provides a summary of the known or likely historic environment assets relevant to the proposed project. Vol 12 Table 7.4.1 Historic environment receptors Receptor (Asset) Wandsworth Conservation Area King Georges Park Ornamental gateway and railings at the northern extent of King Georges Park High potential for Palaeoenvironmental remains, including possible palaeochannels of the River Wandle Moderate potential for redeposited artefacts and the remains of localised settlement of prehistoric date Low potential for prehistoric timber trackways Low potential for isolated Roman artefacts and agricultural features Low potential for early medieval isolated rural landscape features such as drainage ditches Low potential for later medieval reclamation features such as drainage ditches, embankments and revetments. High potential for postmedieval remains comprising drainage Asset type Above ground/ outside the site Above ground/ within the site Above ground/ within the site Significance (value) High Medium Medium

Buried/ within the site

Low or medium

Buried/ within the site

Low (for redeposited artefacts); Medium (for remains of localised settlement) High Low or medium

Buried/ within the site Buried/ within the site Buried/ within the site

Low or medium

Buried/ within the site

Low or medium

Buried/ within the site

Low

Page 66

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park Receptor (Asset) ditches, soil horizons and park features. Low potential for unknown, unidentified remains Buried/ within the site

Section 7: Historic environment Asset type Significance (value)

Not known

7.5

Construction assessment Above ground heritage assets


Within the site

7.5.1

The proposed works would have a physical impact upon the northern part of King Georges Park, which, together with its gates and railings, is of medium asset significance. The proposed works would remove several trees within the park and change the relationship of the park with Buckhold Road. The ornamental gate and railings at the at the north-eastern end of the park would be at risk of damage during the works, although the only proposed change comprises the removal of existing railings at the northern end of Neville Gill Close, where access to the site would be provided. The impact on this asset would be of low magnitude. This would comprise a minor adverse effect. Within the study area The assessment of effects upon the historic setting of surrounding designated/protected heritage assets within the study area, for example from the visual presence of construction machinery, requires further consideration and will be completed for the ES. This assessment is distinct from the assessment of effects on townscape character areas presented in Section 11, as it is based on criteria specific to the historic environment. The study area for assessing setting effects on heritage assets may be revised because historic setting effects are most likely to occur within the visual envelope of the site, which may differ from the study area defined to date. The effects of other construction phase activities on particularly significant assets (ie, statutorily designated/protected features) on or adjacent to the site, will also be assessed in the ongoing EIA for presentation in the ES. Construction impacts which may affect the setting of such assets might include vibration from piling, dust and disturbance from the movement of heavy goods vehicles.

7.5.2

7.5.3

Buried heritage assets


Enabling works 7.5.4 Enabling works comprise those works necessary to prepare the site for construction. They include the removal of the existing grass coverage (ie, topsoil) to a depth of 0.2m, as assumed for the purposes of this

Page 67

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 7: Historic environment

assessment, and laying of a geotextile membrane with stone fill above where plant movements occur. This would expose any archaeological remains that may be present immediately beneath, which would then be damaged by subsequent movement of vehicles and plant (eg, through rutting and compaction). In addition, it is possible that topsoil removal could result in overstripping, which would adversely affect archaeological deposits located beneath the topsoil. The impacts of the topsoil stripping and site preparation would potentially reduce the significance of any affected assets, which are most likely to include post-medieval drainage ditches, soils and 20th century park features, from low to negligible, and would therefore constitute a minor magnitude of impact. 7.5.5 Other enabling works include erection of hoarding supported by posts, and the diversion of existing services on the river bank in the eastern part of the site, the construction of office and welfare facilities on pad foundations and some limited diversion of existing services within the construction area. Such works would extend to a depth of 1.0m for pad foundations and hoarding, and 1.02.0m for new services, as assumed for the purposes of this assessment. This would have a localised impact on any post-medieval features, comprising drainage ditches, soils and 20th century park features of low asset significance within the made ground. This would reduce the significance of these assets to negligible and constitute a minor adverse effect. Construction works 7.5.6 The construction works would entirely remove any archaeological remains within the footprint of the CSO drop shaft. The interception chamber, valve chamber, and connecting culvert are sufficiently deep to remove entirely any archaeological remains present within the footprint of each construction, reducing their original asset significance (which would range from high to low) to negligible. This would constitute a high magnitude of impact for these assets. The environmental effect would vary depending upon the significance of the assets removed: a. Palaeoenvironmental remains are likely to be present within any alluvium and are of low or medium asset significance. They could include remains associated with the historic or prehistoric river Wandle, including palaeochannels. If such remains are removed this would constitute a minor or moderate adverse effect. b. Overall, the site has an uncertain, but probably moderate potential for prehistoric remains, which could be present within the made ground, within any alluvium and at the interface between the made ground/alluvium and the gravels (ie, up to c. 4.0mbgl). Certain types of prehistoric remains are more likely to be present than others: i There is a moderate potential for redeposited prehistoric artefacts, which are likely to be of low asset significance, if present. Removal of such remains would constitute a minor adverse effect. There is a moderate potential for isolated prehistoric settlement remains which are likely to be of medium asset significance, if

ii

Page 68

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 7: Historic environment

present. Removal of such remains would constitute a moderate adverse effect. iii There is a low potential for prehistoric trackways, in situ remains and hulked boats which would be of high asset significance, if present. In the unlikely event that such remains were present and would be removed by the proposals, this would constitute a major adverse effect.

c.

There is a low potential for isolated Roman artefacts and agricultural features which, if present, would be 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 early medieval isolated rural landscape features, such as drainage ditches which, if present, would be of low or medium asset significance. If such remains are removed this would constitute a minor or moderate adverse effect. e. There is a low potential for later medieval reclamation features such as drainage ditches, embankments and revetments. If present, these would be of low or medium asset significance. Removal of such remains would constitute a minor or moderate adverse effect. f. If post-medieval remains of low asset significance are removed this would constitute a minor adverse effect. The proposed concrete platform for the crane base, along with foundations for the control cabinet, ventilation structure and a possible stand/kiosk, would also truncate such remains, in addition to the deeper constructions described above.

g. There is a low potential for unknown, unidentified remains of low to high asset significance. The removal of such remains, if present, would potentially comprise a minor to major adverse effect, depending on the asset significance.

Significance of environmental effect


7.5.7 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. Vol12 Table 7.5.1 Historic environment effects - construction Asset (resource) Impact (magnitude, and justification) Above ground heritage assets King Georges Park including the park railings and park landscaping and Low Ground disturbance from preliminary site strip and the removal of trees and a Minor adverse Effect (prior to mitigation)

Page 69

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park Asset (resource) planting (Medium asset significance) Setting of above ground heritage assets in the vicinity of the site, including nearby listed buildings High potential for palaeoenvironmental remains, including possible palaeochannels of the River Wandle (Low or medium asset significance) Moderate potential for redeposited artefacts and the remains of localised settlement of prehistoric date (Low or medium asset significance) Low potential for prehistoric timber trackways (High asset significance) Low potential for isolated Roman artefacts and agricultural features (Low or medium asset significance) Low potential for early medieval isolated rural landscape features such as drainage ditches (Low or medium asset significance)

Section 7: Historic environment Impact (magnitude, and justification) small section of park railings. To be assessed in the ES Effect (prior to mitigation)

To be assessed in the ES

Buried heritage assets Low Potential impact from all ground works Minor or moderate adverse

Medium Impact from excavation for CSO shaft, interception and valve chambers, culvert and vent shaft. High Impact from excavation for CSO shaft, interception and valve chambers. High Impact from excavation for CSO shaft, interception and valve chambers. High Impact from excavation for CSO shaft, interception and valve chambers.

Minor or moderate adverse

Major adverse (unlikely)

Minor or moderate adverse

Minor or moderate adverse

Page 70

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park Asset (resource) Low potential for later medieval reclamation features such as drainage ditches, embankments and revetments (Low or medium asset significance) High potential for postmedieval remains comprising drainage ditches and soil horizons. (Low asset significance) Low potential for unknown, unidentified remains (Unknown asset significance)

Section 7: Historic environment Impact (magnitude, and justification) High Impact from excavation for CSO shaft, interception and valve chambers. Effect (prior to mitigation) Minor or moderate adverse

High Potential impact from all ground works, deep or shallow. Asset significance reduced to negligible locally. High Impact from excavation for CSO shaft, interception and valve chambers and wider impact from dewatering. Significance of the asset reduced to negligible.

Minor adverse

Uncertain (Minor to Major adverse)

7.6
7.6.1

Operational assessment Above ground heritage assets


The impact of permanent structures on the historic environment setting of the park (medium asset significance) and of Wandsworth Town Conservation Area (high asset significance) c. 125m to the north-west of the site will be assessed for presentation in the ES. The magnitude of impact on these assets during the operational phases is anticipated to be low, potentially resulting in minor adverse effects, but this will be confirmed and reported 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 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. The study area for assessing setting effects on heritage assets may be revised because historic setting effects are most likely to occur within the visual envelope of the site, which may differ from the study area defined to date.

7.6.2

Page 71

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 7: Historic environment

Buried heritage assets


7.6.3 No operational effects have been identified as no further ground disturbance will be required following the completion of the construction phase and in the normal course of operations.

Significance of environmental effect


7.6.4 The table below summarises the historic environment assets at the site for which effects during the operational phase will be assessed through the ongoing EIA for presentation in the ES. Vol 12 Table 7.6.1 Historic environment effects - operation Asset (resource) Setting of King Georges Park (Medium asset significance) Wandsworth Town Conservation Area (High asset significance) Impact (magnitude, and justification) To be assessed in the ES Effect (prior to mitigation) To be assessed in the ES

To be assessed in the ES

To be assessed in the ES

7.7
7.7.1

Approach to mitigation Construction


All measures embedded in the draft CoCP of relevance to the historic environment are found in Volume 2. Additional mitigation measures required are detailed below.

Above ground heritage assets


Within the site 7.7.2 The minor adverse effect arising from the physical impact of the proposed works on the park and its railings could be mitigated by an English Heritage Level 1 basic archaeological visual record 32 before any elements are removed or truncated. This would reduce the adverse effect to negligible. Within the study area 7.7.3 Any mitigation which may be required for indirect effects on above ground heritage assets will be detailed in the final ES, following consideration of the significance of these assets, their setting and the predicted 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.

Page 72

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 7: Historic environment

Buried heritage assets


7.7.4 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. Subject to the findings of any subsequent field evaluation post-consent and prior to the start of construction , mitigation of the adverse effects upon archaeological remains within the site is likely to include the following: a. An archaeological watching brief during site preparation and construction to mitigate impacts to post-medieval remains arising from service diversions and foundations for offices and welfare. b. Due to the depth of deposits on the site, mitigation of the impacts of deeper proposed excavations on palaeoenvironmental and prehistoric remains would only become feasible following the insertion of the perimeter walls/shaft segments of each construction (the shaft, the chambers etc). Targeted archaeological investigation would proceed as the ground within the perimeter walls/shaft segments is excavated downwards. 7.7.7 Both evaluation and mitigation would be carried out in accordance with a scope of works (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.

7.7.5

7.7.6

Operation
Above ground heritage assets 7.7.8 Any mitigation which may be required for indirect effects on above ground heritage assets will be detailed in the final ES, following consideration of the significance of these assets, their setting and the predicted effects. Mitigation might, for example, include changes to the proposed finishing materials of above ground structures, such as cladding and ground treatments.

Page 73

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park Buried heritage assets 7.7.9

Section 7: Historic environment

No operational effects have been identified; therefore no mitigation is required.

Page 74

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 7: Historic environment

7.8
Vol 12 Table 7.8.1 Historic environment construction assessment Significance of effect Above ground heritage assets Minor To be assessed in the ES Buried heritage assets Minor or moderate adverse Environmental sampling during archaeological investigation Negligible To be identified in the ES Basic visual record of the railings and park prior to enabling works Negligible To be assessed in the ES Mitigation Residual effect

Assessment summary

Asset (receptor)

King Georges Park (Medium asset significance)

Setting of above ground heritage assets in the vicinity of the site, including nearby listed buildings

High potential for palaeoenvironmental remains including possible palaeochannels of the Wandle (Low or medium asset significance) Minor or moderate adverse

Moderate potential for redeposited artefacts and the remains of localised settlement of prehistoric date (Low or medium asset significance) Major adverse (unlikely) Minor or moderate adverse Minor or moderate

Low potential for prehistoric timber trackways (High asset significance)

Archaeological investigation and recording as the shaft, inception chamber and valve chamber are excavated downwards following insertion of perimeter walls

Negligible

Negligible

Low potential for isolated Roman artefacts and agricultural features (Low or medium asset significance)

Negligible

Low potential for early medieval isolated rural landscape features such as drainage

Negligible

Page 75

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park Significance of effect adverse Minor or moderate adverse Negligible Mitigation Residual effect

Section 7: Historic environment

Asset (receptor)

ditches (Low or medium asset significance)

Low potential for later medieval reclamation features such as drainage ditches, embankments and revetments (Low or medium asset significance) Minor Adverse Archaeological watching brief during enabling works and construction, 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

High potential for post-medieval remains comprising drainage ditches and soil horizons (Low asset significance) Uncertain

Low potential for unknown, unidentified remains (Unknown asset significance)

Negligible

Vol12 Table 7.8.2 Historic environment operational assessment Significance of effect Mitigation Residual effect

Asset (receptor)

King Georges Park To be assessed in the ES

To be assessed in the ES

To be identified in the ES To be identified in the ES

To be assessed in the ES To be assessed in the ES

Wandsworth Town Conservation Area

Page 76

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 7: Historic environment

7.9
7.9.1

Assessment completion
In terms of desk based sources, the outstanding information that can contribute to the EIA baseline comprises the results of geoarchaeological monitoring of geotechnical boreholes (clarifying depth and nature of deposits). Ground settlement at the site will also be considered. Possible effects of ground settlement resulting from deep constructions within the site, other than the tunnel itself (this will be discussed in Volume 6; project-wide effects) will be considered and reported in the ES. The assessment of indirect construction and operational effects upon the historic setting of surrounding designated/protected heritage assets within the study area requires further consideration and will be completed for the ES. This assessment is distinct from the assessment of effects on townscape character areas presented in Section 11, as it is based on criteria specific to the historic environment. The study area for assessing setting effects on heritage assets may be revised because historic setting effects are most likely to occur within the visual envelope of the site, which may differ from the study area defined to date. Assessment of cumulative and in combination effects will be undertaken and reported in the ES. Following completion of the assessment, the mitigation approaches for the historic environment within the project will be finalised and reported in the ES.

7.9.2

7.9.3

7.9.4 7.9.5

Page 77

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 8: Land quality

8 8.1
8.1.1

Land quality Introduction


This section sets out the preliminary assessment of likely significant effects of the proposed development at King Georges Park on land quality. The purpose is to assess the likely significant effects of the project on land quality receptors during the construction and operational phase of the proposed project 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

8.1.3

8.2
8.2.1

Proposed development
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The permanent elements of the proposed development relevant to land quality are as follows: a. A CSO drop shaft, an interception chamber, a connection culvert and a valve chamber. b. A connection tunnel would be constructed to the main tunnel. c. To construct the connection tunnel a TBM would be received from the Dormay Street site.

d. The tunnel would be constructed through and within the London Clay Formation and it is not thought that any dewatering or ground treatment would be required at this location. e. During the operational phase the worksite would be returned to park land and the shaft covered with hardstanding. A ventilation column and kiosk would be present adjacent to the shaft. 8.2.2 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. 8.2.3 confined space working measures where applicable d. the employment of UXO specialist advice. 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).

Page 78

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 8: Land quality

8.3
8.3.1 8.3.2

Assessment methodology Scoping and engagement


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

Construction and operation


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

Assumptions and limitations


8.3.5 The assumptions and limitations associated with this assessment are presented in Volume 5. There are no site specific assumptions and limitations for the assessment of land quality.

8.4
8.4.1

Baseline conditions
Baseline conditions have been determined for the development confines and for a distance of up to 250m beyond (in order to take into account off site contamination sources and receptors). The baseline data was sourced from the Thames Tunnel Geographical Information Systems (GIS) database, including historic maps and environmental records, together with a walkover survey and stakeholder consultation. A full list of the data sets drawn upon in this assessment is presented in Volume 5 methodology.

8.4.2

Site walkover
8.4.3 8.4.4 A site walkover of the site was undertaken on the 9th November 2010. Directly north of the site is a business park The Business Village, Army Cadet Force and, adjoining this, Eurocar offices and a car repair garage. No evidence of petrol pumps or tanks were observed in this area during the survey. The park itself is relatively flat but landscaped with an artificial lake immediately to the south of the proposed worksite; the worksite is heavily vegetated with mature tree species. The park is approximately 1m lower than the surrounding street level, and it is therefore probable that the park has been excavated to some degree. No potential contaminative sources were observed during the site walkover. The site walkover notes are provided in Appendix B.

8.4.5

8.4.6

Site history and surroundings with potential for contaminants


8.4.7 Vol 12 Figure 8.4.1 provides a summary of the site history, including potentially contaminative activities and principal contaminants of concern

Page 79

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 8: Land quality

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. 8.4.8 The locations of the sites described below are shown on Figure 8.4.1 Vol 12 Figure 8.4.1 Land quality - contaminative history (see Volume 12 Figures document) Vol 12 Table 8.4.1 Land quality ground investigation data Ref Item Inferred date of operation Potentially contaminative substances associated with item

On-site None Off-site 1 Wandsworth Brewery (200m north east) c1868 present VOC, TPH, heavy metals, ethanol/methanol, ammonia, chlorinated alkalis, benzene, toluene, ethybenzene and xylenes Depending upon its source, backfill could contain a wide variety of substances and if bio-degradable could represent a source of landfill gas. Given the relatively recent age of the backfilling works this is unlikely to be of concern. Heavy metals, arsenic, selenium, nitrates, sulphates, sulphides, asbestos, PAHs, phenols, aromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, organotin compounds Heavy metals, arsenic, free cyanide, nitrates, sulphates, sulphides, asbestos, aromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, radioactive isotopes Depending upon its source, backfill could contain a wide variety of substances and if bio-degradable could represent a source of landfill gas. Given the relatively recent age of the backfilling works this is unlikely to be of concern. Heavy metals, arsenic, boron, sulphates, phenols, acetone, aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs, cresols Heavy metals, arsenic, boron, nitrates, sulphates, sulphides, asbestos, aromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons,

Backfilled reservoir (25m east)

c1874

Colour works (240m south east)

c1896 c1965

Incandescent mantle factory (55m north west)

c1916 c1938

Backfilled river cutting (adjacent east)

c1964 c1973

Saw mill (205m east) Electrical engineering works (55m north west)

c1916 - c1985

c1951 present

Page 80

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park Ref Item Inferred date of operation

Section 8: Land quality Potentially contaminative substances associated with item PCBs Heavy metals, asbestos, TPHs, aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, organotin compounds Heavy metals, arsenic, boron, nitrates, sulphates, sulphides, asbestos, aromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, PCBs Oils, PCBs Heavy metals, asbestos, TPHs, aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, organotin compounds

Garage / Motorbody works (125m north west) Engineering works (50m north) Engineering works (195m north west) Engineering works (205m east) Electrical substation (40m east) Garage/Motorbody works (225m north)

c1951 present

9 10 11 12

c1951 c1965 c1951 c1952 c1951 c1977 c1952 - present

13

c1965-present

8.4.9

Historical building plans were reviewed during previous site suitability investigations and identified a laundrette (250m north east; c1951-c1952) and potential fuel/oil storage (100m north west; 1907 and c1951-c1964) Whilst the historical review and walkover survey has recorded a number of nearby historical contamination sources, none are considered likely to have impacted the site directly. The reviewed mapping indicates that the site has remained undeveloped since the late 19th century.

8.4.10

Geology and hydrogeology


8.4.11 Data from British Geological Survey indicates the geological succession summarised in the table below. At the time of writing no site specific investigations were available for review. Controlled waters (ie, surface water and groundwater) can potentially represent a pathway for the spread of mobile contaminants as well as being a sensitive environmental receptor. The Environment Agency (EA) Aquifer Designation maps have been used to classify the geological units according to their aquifer status which is also presented in the table below. The site is classified by the EA as not being within a source protection zone for groundwater that is extracted for potable supply. Vol 12 Table 8.4.2 Land quality geology and hydrogeology Geological Unit/ Strata Description Approximate depth below ground level (m) 0-3.6 Hydrogeological classification

8.4.12

8.4.13

Made Ground

Clayey and sandy gravel of brick and

Unproductive strata

Page 81

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park Geological Unit/ Strata Description

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

concrete and gravelly clay. Alluvium River Terrace Deposits Gravelly clay Sand and gravel (predominantly quartz sand and flint gravel). Silty and locally sandy clay with selenite crystals. Sand and shelly sandstone 3.6-4.0 4.0-4.5 Secondary undifferentiated superficial aquifer.

London Clay Formation Harwich Formation

4.5-47.5

Unproductive strata

47.5-48.3

Secondary A Bedrock aquifer

Unexploded ordnance
8.4.14 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 to be made safe and disposed of. A desk based assessment for UXO threat was undertaken for ground investigation works at the proposed development site and for the proposed construction site as a whole. The report reviews information sources such as the Ministry of Defence (MoD), Public Records Office and the Port of London Authority. The report establishes that there were no direct hits to the park during the 1940 to 1941 bombing campaign although three strikes were recorded within 100m of borehole SA1110. Taking into account the findings of this study and the known extent of the proposed works it was considered that there is an overall medium/high threat from UXO associated with the proposed works.

8.4.15

8.4.16

Ground investigation
8.4.17 8.4.18 The following section summarises the soil, soil gas and groundwater testing undertaken as part of the Thames Tunnel ground investigation. Borehole SA1110 was drilled on the site and SR1109 was drilled to the north-east of the site. Figure 8.4.2 identifies the location of the boreholes in relation to the site. Vol 12 Figure 8.4.2 Land quality borehole locations (see Volume 12 Figures document) 8.4.19 The results of the ground investigation have been compared against human health screening values and Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) criteria for freshwater are used for the shallow aquifer as it is likely

Page 82

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 8: Land quality

to be in continuity with the nearby River Wandle. Where EQS data was unavailable samples have been compared to Drinking Water Standards. Vol 12 Table 8.4.3 Land quality ground investigation data Borehole Refs. SA1110 Soils contamination Testing 2 samples tested for the Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) suite of analysis only. Soils tested may be classified as inert. Groundwater testing

One standpipe in the Made Ground / London Clay interface and one in the London Clay Formation. Contaminants in exceedance of assessment criteria: Copper = 0.007mg/l (EQS limit = 0.005mg/l) Ammoniacal Nitrogen = 2.4mg/l (EQS limit = 0.012mg/l) Benzo(a)pyrene 0.02ug/l (DWS limit = 0.01ug/l) PAHs 0.40ug/l

SR1109

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

One standpipe in the London Clay Formation and one in the Lambeth Group (Upper Shelley Beds) Contaminants in exceedance of assessment criteria: Ammoniacal Nitrogen = 9.7mg/l (EQS limit = 0.012mg/l)

8.4.20

Four rounds of gas monitoring of the two standpipes installed in borehole SA1110 was available for review at the time of writing. This showed there were no elevated concentrations of methane or carbon dioxide. 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 after the table below. The locations of the sites below are shown on Figure 8.4.3. Vol 12 Figure 8.4.3 Land quality environmental records and waste sites (see Volume 12 Figures document)

8.4.21

Page 83

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 8: Land quality

Vol 12 Table 8.4.4 Land quality environmental records and waste sites Activity Licensed industrial activities Hazardous substance sites Pollution incidents to controlled water Waste treatment and disposal sites Landfill sites Industrial authorisations (IPPC, COMAH) Past potential contaminated industrial uses Licensed abstractions LA pollution prevention and controls 8.4.22 On-site 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Within 250m of site boundary 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 2

There is one recorded past potentially contaminating use within a 250m boundary of the King Georges Park site. This is approximately 200m south east of the site on Mapleton Crescent. It matches the location of the Colour Works shown in historical maps. There are two recorded pollution incidents to controlled waters identified within the 250m boundary. These are located in Traders Hall, directly east of the site, and by All Saints Church on Wandsworth High Street. The two local authority pollution prevention measures are both on Wandsworth High Street approximately 200m north of the site. There is one licensed abstraction point identified within the 250m boundary. This is located directly south of the site on Neville Gill Close. No further details on the recorded environmental incidents were available although given the distances involved and underlying geology they are not considered to have impacted the site location.

8.4.23

8.4.24 8.4.25 8.4.26

Technical engagement
8.4.27 8.4.28 The London Borough of Wandsworth was consulted in relation to data on land quality that the council hold in respect of the site and search area. The council reported that the former Gas Mantle Factory adjacent to the site identified in the historical review (Item 2 in Vol 12 Table 8.4.1) represented a source of low level radioactive contamination which was restricted to the confines of the factory site. It is understood that this is scheduled for remedial action as part of proposed redevelopment works. The local authority contaminated land officer regarded this potential contamination source as a low risk to the site.

8.4.29

Page 84

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 8: Land quality

8.5
8.5.1 8.5.2

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

Development of conceptual model


8.5.3 A key element of the preliminary risk assessment for land quality is the development of source-pathway-receptor conceptual model which aims to understand the presence and significance of potentially complete pollutant linkages. The methodology for undertaking this analysis is provided in Volume 6. The following section outlines the sources, pathways and receptors that are relevant to the land quality assessment at the site. Sources of contamination 8.5.6 8.5.7 8.5.8 The following sources of contamination have been identified: On site a. Naturally occurring sulphate within the London Clay Formation Off site a. Historical/present contamination from adjacent/ nearby industrial land use Pathways 8.5.9 The following pathways for contamination have been identified: a. human uptake through: ingestion of exposed contaminated soils during construction; inhalation of soil/dust, volatilised compounds or ground gas via migration through permeable strata and conduits; or b. dermal contact with exposed soils during construction; c. vertical migration of contaminants along preferential pathways created by excavation of shaft; d. direct contact of soils with construction materials; e. gas/vapour migration through pipes/foundations, along piles and into structures; and f. accidental detonation of UXO during GI or construction activities Receptors 8.5.10 The following receptors have been identified: a. b. c. Construction workers Site end users (maintenance staff and public) Off site receptors - residents and workers

8.5.4 8.5.5

Page 85

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park d. e. f. g. 8.5.11 8.5.12 Built environment Controlled waters - surface water

Section 8: Land quality

Controlled waters - groundwater in shallow aquifer Aquatic ecology

The sensitivity of the land quality receptors are defined in Vol 5 Table 7.4.2. The following section discusses the potential impacts on receptors as a result of the existing land quality conditions at the site. Impacts and effects upon construction workers Desk based information suggests that the site may be contaminated as a result of historical uses. Construction workers may be in contact with soils or other contaminated materials during demolition, groundworks and shaft excavation works and therefore there is the potential for human uptake (via ingestion, inhalation and dermal contact) of contaminants, although any effects are likely to be short term only. Overall the magnitude of the impact is likely to be negligible, giving a slight effect (not significant). Impacts and effects upon off-site receptors The construction works may result in the creation of new pathways for contaminants to migrate to adjacent sites eg, via wind-borne dust during excavated material handling and storage. Whilst the sensitivity of adjacent residential sites is moderate to high, the impact from this would be negligible giving a slight effect (not significant). Impacts and effects upon built environment High levels of certain contaminants, if contained within subsurface materials, can lead to impacts on the built environment (both existing and proposed), including chemical attack on buried concrete structures and the permeation of water supply pipelines. Additionally detonation of potential unidentified, buried UXO could represent a risk during construction. The built environment is a low to moderate 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). Impacts and effects on controlled waters There is the potential for the disturbance of contaminated infrastructure (eg, historic sewage works sub structures), as well as excavation of made ground and natural materials which may be contaminated from previous and current site uses. This could result in the contamination of shallow perched groundwater that could spread through the lateral and vertical migration of contaminants along newly created preferential pathways (such as service trenches or shaft construction). The sensitivity of the underlying unproductive strata is low and the magnitude of this impact, following the proposed site investigation and remediation (as necessary), is negligible, resulting in a negligible effect (not significant).

8.5.13

8.5.14

8.5.15

8.5.16

8.5.17

8.5.18

Page 86

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 8: Land quality

Vol 12 Table 8.5.1 Land quality impacts - construction Impact Health impacts on construction workers Magnitude, and justification Negligible design measures such as use of correct PPE, safety briefings and remediation of contaminated soils reduce impacts substantially. Negligible - design measures such as dust suppression, correct storage of potentially contaminated materials, wheel washing at site entrance reduce impacts substantially. Negligible - design measures such as UXO specialists employed to advise staff reduce impacts substantially. Negligible - design measures such as remediation of heavily contaminated soils and reduce impacts substantially.

Health impacts on off-site receptors

Damage to built environment existing structures

Damage to built environment proposed structures

Vol 12 Table 8.5.2 Land quality receptors - construction Receptor Construction workers Off-site receptors Built environment - existing Built environment - proposed Value/sensitivity and justification High intensive below ground construction Moderate to High residential properties very close Low infrastructure Low infrastructure

Vol 12 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

Page 87

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 8: Land quality

8.6
8.6.1

Operational assessment
Operational effects could include potential exposure to end users from contaminated soils and for the leakage of sewage from the shaft into the surrounding soils. Impacts and effects on future site users The future site users include maintenance workers who would be working on the site occasionally and other staff within the King Georges Park facility. These are low sensitivity receptors. The principal risk would relate to exposure to previously contaminated soils and groundwater (via ingestion, dermal contact and inhalation pathways). Contaminated soils and groundwater would be assessed and dealt with as part of the design works during construction and accidental leakage would be reduced by operational control systems, as such there is a negligible impact to the identified receptors giving a negligible effect (not significant). Impacts and effects upon built environment The principal impact relates to the potential for the degradation of new structures by attack from deleterious substances, which may in turn reduce the integrity of the structure (and thus promote leakage of the shaft contents). The built environment is a low sensitivity receptor and with the inclusion of the proposed design measures and soil remediation (as necessary), the impact of the effect is low giving a negligible effect overall (not significant). Impacts and effects on controlled waters As discussed, there is the potential for substances within the soil to reduce the integrity of concrete structures which could lead to leakage from the shaft. There is also the potential for loss of sewage from associated with operational failures. With the proposed design measures (soil remediation, ground investigation to assess concrete mix design), as well as detailed shaft lining design and operational control systems to minimise or prevent leaks from equipment, the magnitude of impact is likely to be negligible to low. The unproductive strata that is present beneath the site is a low sensitivity receptor giving a negligible impact overall (not significant). Vol 12 Table 8.6.1 Land quality impacts - operation Impact Health impact 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 and concrete mix design reduce risks

8.6.2

8.6.3

8.6.4

8.6.5

8.6.6

8.6.7

Damage to built environment proposed structures

Page 88

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park Impact Damage to built environment existing structures

Section 8: Land quality Magnitude, and justification substantially. Negligible - design measures such as remediation of heavily contaminated soils and concrete mix design reduce risks substantially.

Vol 12 Table 8.6.2 Land quality receptors - operation Receptor Site end users Built environment - proposed Built environment - proposed Value/sensitivity and justification Low industrial/infrastructure end use Low industrial/infrastructure Low industrial/infrastructure

Vol 12 Table 8.6.3 Land quality effects - operation Effect Negligible effect on End Users Slight effect on Built Environment Existing Slight effect on Built Environment Proposed Significance, and justification Not significant Not significant Not significant

8.7
8.7.1

Approach to mitigation
Construction The assessment has not identified the need for further site specific mitigation measures during the construction phase. Operation The assessment has not identified the need for further site specific mitigation measures during the operational phase.

8.7.2

Page 89

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 8: Land quality

8.8
Vol 12 Table 8.8.1 Land quality construction assessment Significance of effect Not significant Not required Not required Not required Not required Not significant Not significant Not significant Mitigation

Assessment summary

Receptor

Description of effect

Construction workers

Slight effect on construction workers

Significance of residual effect No residual effects identified No residual effects identified No residual effects identified No residual effects identified

Off-site receptors residents and workers

Slight effect on off-site receptors

Built environment existing

Negligible effect on built environment - existing

Built environment proposed Vol 12 Table 8.8.2 Land quality operational assessment Significance of effect Not significant Not significant Not significant

Negligible effect on built environment - proposed

Receptor

Description of effect

Mitigation Not required Not required Not required

Site end users

Negligible effect on end users

Significance of residual effect No residual effects identified No residual effects identified No residual effects identified

Built environment proposed

Slight effect on built environment - existing

Built environment proposed

Slight effect on built environment - proposed

Page 90

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 8: Land quality

8.9
8.9.1 8.9.2 8.9.3 8.9.4

Assessment completion
New data from site investigations (including new boreholes and foreshore samplings) will be reviewed and the baseline updated as required. Assessment of cumulative and in combination effects will be undertaken and reported in the ES. Following completion of the assessment the mitigation approaches for land quality within the project will be finalised and reported in the ES. Impacts on groundwater, surface water and aquatic ecology will be assessed and reported in the ES.

Page 91

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 9: Noise and vibration

9 9.1
9.1.1

Noise and vibration Introduction


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

The tunnel drive for the main tunnel does not run 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

Proposed development
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to noise and vibration are as follows. Construction Measures incorporated into the draft CoCP to reduce noise and vibration impacts include: a. careful selection of construction plant (conforming to the relevant SI), construction methods and programming b. equipment to be suitably sited so as to minimise noise impact on sensitive receptors c. use of site enclosures, and temporary stockpiles, where practicable and necessary, to provide acoustic screening

9.2.2

d. choice of routes and programming for the transportation of construction materials, excavated material and personnel to and from the site e. careful programming so that activities which may generate significant noise are planned with regard to local occupants and sensitive receptors. 9.2.3 9.2.4 It has been assumed for the purpose of this assessment that the hoarding height will be 2.4m at this location. Where the need for additional noise control measures (beyond standard best practicable means measures described in the CoCP) has been identified, these have not been assumed for the purposes of the assessment. Where that the assessment indicates that these are likely to be required, this information has been added to the section on mitigation. For the purposes of the noise and vibration assessment the construction activities have been grouped into the following stages of work: a. Enabling works (including demolition) b. Shaft sinking c. Construction of connection tunnels

9.2.5

Page 92

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park d. Interception and CSO works

Section 9: Noise and vibration

e. Completion work (including landscaping, and construction and fit-out of permanent facility). 9.2.6 The above ground works (activities a and b) have the potential to create airborne noise impacts. Some noise would be generated for stages c and d, however as stage c would be mostly carried out below ground level, impacts from this activity are considered to be much lower. Stage e is likely to be much smaller in scale than the other activities considered here. Stages b, c and e have the potential to generate groundborne noise and vibration impacts, namely from sheet piling during the shaft sinking process (activity b) which would involve a piling rig driving sheet piles through the over lying soft ground to cut off any potential ground water ingress and the construction of the connection tunnels and the completion work (stages c and e) which involve the compaction of backfilled materials. It is anticipated that it would only take a few days to drive in the sheet piles but the type of piling rig is still to be confirmed. This has not been quantitatively assessed as it is considered no significant effects would arise from these activities owing to the distance to the closest receptors and the assumed short durations of the works involved. The vibration levels have been assessed from the point of view of building damage. Specific construction plant information for activities d and e (interception/CSO works and landscaping respectively) is not available at this stage of the design so these works have not been assessed at this stage. However, these activities are assumed to be much smaller in scale than the rest of the works, would not involve heavy construction operations and the in the case of the interception and CSO works, would in the main take place underground. A TBM would be driven from the Dormay Street site to construct the connection tunnel and would be received at this site. Noise and vibration from this source are considered in Volume 6. The construction road transport route for King Georges Park would be for materials and equipment transport to and from the site via Neville Gill Close. Construction traffic to and from the site would follow Neville Gill Close to Buckhold Road then the Transport for London road network (A3) to transport materials and equipment to and from the site. Estimated vehicle numbers are presented in Section 3. All of the activities would be carried out during standard (core) hours as identified in Vol 12 Table 3.3.1. As such, only daytime working is considered at this location. Operation 9.2.13 The permanent installation would have above ground structures housing ventilation equipment and 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.

9.2.7

9.2.8

9.2.9

9.2.10

9.2.11

9.2.12

Page 93

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 9: Noise and vibration

9.3
9.3.1

Assessment methodology
Scoping and engagement Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. There are no site specific comments from consultees for this particular site in relation to noise and vibration. Baseline The baseline methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site. Construction The construction phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. Any site specific variations are described below: a. At this location, the construction activities have been assessed over the period of two and a half years. Operation

9.3.2

9.3.3

9.3.4

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 4.2 above. It has also been assumed that either percussive or vibratory piling would be used at this site, and so both have been assessed. The largest hammer size has been assumed for percussive piling, which is considered a worst case scenario. All calculations are based on piles at refusal (ie the maximum driven depth at which the pile would not penetrate the ground any further), which is also an absolute worst case for noise and vibration generation. The assessment of construction traffic effects has been based on predicted numbers of construction traffic movements (presented in Section 3), using professional judgement at this stage. This assessment will be revisited and presented in the ES upon receipt of baseline traffic data. The assessment has been carried out based on the assumption that the noisiest two activities within any one stage could potentially occur onsite simultaneously for the duration of the stage. This is an extremely conservative approach, as the activities are unlikely to last the duration of any one stage. At the current level of construction planning, this is considered a reasonable assumption and would be refined as the construction methodology develops. 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

9.3.5

9.3.6

9.3.7

9.3.8

9.3.9

Page 94

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 9: Noise and vibration

however be estimated as the cascade design develops and will be reported in the ES.

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 within King Georges Park, within the London Borough of Wandsworth. The site is bounded by residences to the east and west and by commercial premises to the north and east. The rest of the park lies to the south of the site, and would remain open during the construction period. The nearest residences located east of the development are high rise residential flats at Albon House. Further away from the site, a similar high rise block of flats is located at Edwyn House. As this building is further from the site, it would be subject to lower noise levels than Albon House and has therefore not been considered further in this assessment. The nearest residences located to the west of the site are on Buckhold Road and Parkview Court. The assessment has been carried out based on the noise levels to the rear of properties on Buckhold road, which are exposed to lower noise levels, and therefore more likely to experience noise and vibration impacts. Two additional mixed use schemes have been identified near to the site which will be partially completed at the start of the construction period. They are the redevelopment of Business Village (Broomhill Road) and Cockpen House (Buckhold Road). All these receptors are approximately the same distance from Parkview Court, and the level of impact will be similar. Further consideration of these receptors and cumulative effects will be made in the ES. The residential properties selected for the noise and vibration assessment are identified in Vol 12 Table 9.4.1. These are shown in plan view in Vol 12 Figure 9.4.1 and are selected to be representative of the range of noise climates where sensitive receptors are situated around the site. The approximate numbers of properties affected at each of these locations is indicated in Vol 12 Table 9.4.2. Beyond these receptors there are other residential locations which are screened from the site by intervening buildings. Vol 12 Figure 9.4.1 Noise and vibration receptors (see Volume 12 Figures document)

9.4.2

9.4.3

9.4.4

9.4.5

Other noise sensitive receptors which have been assessed are the Penfold Centre (Neville Gill Close) which is a vocational education centre, and Park Gardens Nursery School (Mapleton Road). The Arndale health clinic is a day clinic with similar sensitivity to the Penfold Centre and lies at a similar distance from the Site. It is therefore considered that the impacts at the health clinic would be similar to those at the Penfold Centre. The site is dominated by road traffic noise from the A3, Buckhold Road and other roads around the site.

9.4.6

9.4.7

Page 95

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park 9.4.8

Section 9: Noise and vibration

A baseline noise survey has been carried out around the site according to the baseline measurement method set out in Volume 5, Section 2. The specific details of this survey such as the measurement times, locations measured results and local conditions are described in Appendix C. The summarised noise level results are shown below in the table below. Vol 12 Table 9.4.1 Noise receptor locations Ref Receptor addresses Local authority Measured average daytime ambient noise level, dBLAeq, 60* 63* 70*, ** 63* 60* 57 Noise Survey Location

KG1 KG2 KG3 KG4 KG5 KG6


* **

55 - 75 Buckhold Road 1 - 72 Albon House 1-20 Parkview Court The Penfold Centre Park Gardens Nursery King Georges Park

London Borough of Wandsworth London Borough of Wandsworth London Borough of Wandsworth London Borough of Wandsworth London Borough of Wandsworth London Borough of Wandsworth

PWH3X Noise 3 PWH3X Noise 2 PWH3X Noise 1 PWH3X Noise 2 PWH3X Noise 3 PWH3X Noise 3

Facade corrected level The nearest measurement location (PWH3X Noise 3) was nearer to the dominant noise source (Buckhold Road) in this location. A distance correction has been applied to the measured level so the noise level is more representative of the noise climate at these properties.

Receptor sensitivity
9.4.9 The noise sensitive receptors have been assessed according to their sensitivity, using the methodology outlined in Volume 5 Section 2.3. The sensitivities of all assessed receptors are presented in the table below. All residential receptors have been assessed as having a high sensitivity. The only non-residential receptors assessed at this location are the Park Gardens Nursery School, the Penfold Centre, and King Georges Park itself which have been assigned a medium sensitivity.

9.4.10

Page 96

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 9: Noise and vibration

Vol 12 Table 9.4.2 Noise receptor categories Ref Receptor addresses Building Use Sensitivity No. of noise sensitive properties/ areas 11 72 20 1 1 1

KG1 KG2 KG3 KG4 KG5 KG6

55 - 75 Buckhold Road 1 - 72 Albon House 1-20 Parkview Court The Penfold Centre Park Gardens Nursery King Georges Park

Residential Residential Residential Offices Pre-school Park

High High High Medium Medium Medium

9.4.11

The criteria 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 King Georges Park 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 33. Vol 12 Table 9.4.3 Airborne noise receptor - assessment categories construction Ref Noise sensitive receptor Ambient noise level, rounded to nearest 5dBLAeq* 60 65 65 60 55 Assessment category* Significance criterion threshold level*, dBLAeq, 10hour 65 70 75
**

KG1 KG2 KG3 KG4 KG5 KG6

55 - 75 Buckhold Road 1 - 72 Albon House The Penfold Centre Park Gardens Nursery King Georges Park

A B C n/a n/a** n/a**

1-20 Parkview Court 75

n/a** n/a** n/a**

Page 97

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park


* From ABC method BS5228:2009

Section 9: Noise and vibration

** ABC method BS5228:2009 does not apply directly to non-residential receptors

9.5
9.5.1 9.5.2

Construction assessment Construction base and development cases


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 compared to the measured data from 2011 (due to natural traffic growth and the potential for additional construction noise from adjacent developments), 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 therefore assumed to be the base case as identified in 2011 plus any additional noise and vibration sources associated with this.

9.5.3

9.5.4

Construction effects
9.5.5 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. At all locations, the top floor of residences would directly overlook the site despite the site hoarding. Construction noise 9.5.7 The results of the assessment of construction noise are presented in Vol 12 Table 9.5.1 to Vol 12 Table 9.5.6. 5575 Buckhold Road 9.5.8 The properties at 55-75 Buckhold Road are all two storey buildings. Although the upper floors do not directly overlook the site, they receive less screening than the ground floor. Based on the BS5228 impact criterion threshold, no excesses above the threshold are predicted to occur at ground or first floor level. As such no significant impact is identified here.

9.5.6

Page 98

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 9: Noise and vibration

Vol 12 Table 9.5.1 Noise impacts at KG1, 55-75 Buckhold Road construction Receptor No. of noise sensitive properties 11 Significance criterion threshold level, dBLAeq Value/sensitivity

55-75 Buckhold Road Activity Impact (noise level*, dBLAeq)

High Magnitude/ justification Excess above criterion, dBLAeq -5 -15 -9 Approx. activity duration, months 2 5 2

Ground Floor Enabling Works Shaft Sinking Connection Tunnels First Floor* Enabling Works Shaft Sinking Connection Tunnels 65 55 61 65 65 65 0 -10 -4 2 5 2 60 50 56 65 65 65

*Construction noise only ** Worst case floors assessed not necessarily the highest floor level.

1-72 Albon House 9.5.9 Albon House is a high rise property, with no ground floor residences which face the site. Residences at first floor level are completely screened from site activities; however properties at the top of the building would not be screened from noise. Based on the BS5228 impact threshold criterion, the increase does not create a significant impact. Vol 12 Table 9.5.2 Noise impacts at KG2, 1-7 Albon House construction Receptor No. of noise sensitive properties 72 Impact (noise level*, Significance criterion Value/sensitivity

1-72 Albon House Activity

High Magnitude/ justification

Page 99

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park dBLAeq)

Section 9: Noise and vibration threshold level, dBLAeq Excess above criterion, dBLAeq -10 -20 -14 Approx. activity duration, months 2 5 2

Ground Floor Enabling Works Shaft Sinking Connection Tunnels Fourth Floor** Enabling Works Shaft Sinking Connection Tunnels 68 58 65 70 70 70 -2 -12 -5 2 5 2 60 50 56 70 70 70

*Construction noise only ** Worst case floors assessed not necessarily the highest floor level.

1-20 Parkview Court 9.5.10 The Parkview Court development is a much smaller development than Albon House, however the top floor of this building would still overlook the site. Based on the BS5228 impact threshold criterion, the increase does not create a significant impact. Vol 12 Table 9.5.3 Noise impacts at KG3, 1-20 Parkview Court construction Receptor No. of noise sensitive properties 20 Impact (noise level*, dBLAeq) Significance criterion threshold level, dBLAeq Value/sensitivity

1-20 Parkview Court Activity

High Magnitude/ justification Excess above criterion, dBLAeq -11 -21 -15 Approx. activity duration, months 2 5 2

Ground Floor Enabling Works Shaft Sinking Connection Tunnels Second Floor** 64 54 60 75 75 75

Page 100

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park Receptor

Section 9: Noise and vibration No. of noise sensitive properties 20 Significance criterion threshold level, dBLAeq Value/sensitivity

1-20 Parkview Court Activity Impact (noise level*, dBLAeq)

High Magnitude/ justification Excess Approx. above activity criterion, duration, dBLAeq months -6 2 -16 5 -10 2

Enabling Works Shaft Sinking Connection Tunnels

69 59 65

75 75 75

* Construction noise only ** Worst case floors assessed not necessarily the highest floor level.

9.5.11

The two schemes identified in the development case (Business Village and Cockpen House) outlined in para. 9.4.3 are the same distance from the worksite as Parkview Court and will be subject to the same level of impact. The Penfold Centre The Penfold Centre is a vocational education centre providing support for the Princes Trust. It is a single storey office/training centre which would be screened from all onsite activities. 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. Enabling works would generate a small increase in ambient noise levels. No increases are predicted during the shaft sinking and connection tunnel works. During the enabling works the increase is unlikely to be perceived. The impact at this receptor is therefore considered to be low and unlikely to cause disturbance. Vol 12 Table 9.5.4 Noise impacts at KG4, The Penfold Centre construction Receptor No. of noise sensitive properties 1 Ambient baseline dBLAeq Value/ sensitivity Medium Magnitude/ justification

9.5.12

9.5.13

The Penfold Centre Activity Impact (noise level*, dBLAeq)

Page 101

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park Receptor

Section 9: Noise and vibration No. of noise sensitive properties 1 Ambient baseline dBLAeq Value/ sensitivity Medium Magnitude/ justification

The Penfold Centre Activity Impact (noise level*, dBLAeq) 64

Ground Level Enabling Works Shaft Sinking 63 1dB increase relative to ambient baseline noise level over 2 months No increase relative to ambient baseline noise level over 5 months No increase relative to ambient baseline noise level over 2 months

54

63

Connection Tunnels

60

63

* Construction noise only

Park Gardens Nursery 9.5.14 The Park Gardens Nursery is a single storey nursery school which would be screened from all onsite activities. No increases in noise levels have been predicted. The impact at this receptor is therefore considered to be low and unlikely to cause disturbance. Vol 12 Table 9.5.5 Noise impacts at KG5, Park Gardens Nursery construction Receptor No. of noise sensitive properties 1 Ambient baseline dBLAeq Value/ sensitivity Medium Magnitude/ justification

Park Gardens Nursery Activity Impact (noise level*, dBLAeq) 57

Ground Level Enabling Works Shaft Sinking 60 No increase relative to ambient baseline noise level over 2 months No increase relative to ambient baseline noise level over 5 months No increase relative to ambient

47

60

Connection

54

60

Page 102

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park Receptor

Section 9: Noise and vibration No. of noise sensitive properties 1 Ambient baseline dBLAeq Value/ sensitivity Medium Magnitude/ justification

Park Gardens Nursery Activity Impact (noise level*, dBLAeq)

Tunnels
* Construction noise only

baseline noise level over 2 months

King Georges Park 9.5.15 The park would be screened from all onsite activities by the site hoarding. The predicted noise levels are not considered sufficient to cause excessive disturbance and the level of impact is rated as low. Vol 12 Table 9.5.6 Noise impacts at KG6, King Georges Park construction Receptor No. of noise sensitive properties 1 Ambient baseline dBLAeq Value/ sensitivity Medium Magnitude/ justification

King Georges Park Activity Impact (noise level*, dBLAeq) 64

Ground Level Enabling Works Shaft Sinking 57 7dB increase relative to ambient baseline noise level over 2 months No increase relative to ambient baseline noise level over 5 months 3dB increase relative to ambient baseline noise level over 2 months

54

57

Connection Tunnels

60

57

* Construction noise only

Construction traffic 9.5.16 Baseline traffic data is not currently available, and therefore it is not possible to calculate the change in noise level that would arise at the identified receptor locations. A qualitative assessment has therefore been undertaken to consider the likelihood of a significant impact given current traffic levels.

Page 103

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park 9.5.17

Section 9: Noise and vibration

Given the observed traffic flows on Buckhold Road, it is considered unlikely that an impact would be created at properties on this road. This would be assessed in greater detail in the ES once further information is available. Construction vibration

9.5.18

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 12 Table 9.5.7 Vibration impacts at buildings/structures construction Ref Receptor Impact (highest predicted PPV across all activities, mm/s) 0.9 Value/ sensitivity Magnitude and justification

9.5.19

KG1

55 75 Buckhold Road

High

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

KG2

1 - 72 Albon House

0.9

High

KG3

1- 20 Parkview Court

1.6

High

KG4

The Penfold Centre

1.6

Medium

KG5

Park Gardens Nursery

0.6

Medium

Page 104

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park Ref Receptor Impact (highest predicted PPV across all activities, mm/s) 1.6

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

damage KG6 King Georges Park Medium No impact: Below threshold for potential cosmetic damage

9.5.20 9.5.21

The vibration levels reported here are well below the levels likely to cause building damage according to the criteria described in Volume 6 Section 2. 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 Vol 12 Table 9.5.8. Vol 12 Table 9.5.8 Vibration impacts/ human response - construction Ref Receptor Impact (highest predicted VDV across all activities, m/s1.75) * 0.12 Value/ sensitivity Magnitude and justification**

KG1

55 75 Buckhold Road

High

No impact: Below Low Probability of Adverse Comment No impact: Below Low Probability of Adverse Comment Impact: Low Probability of Adverse Comment No impact: Nonresidential below Low Probability of Adverse

KG2

1 - 72 Albon House

0.12

High

KG3

1- 20 Parkview Court

0.26

High

KG4

The Penfold Centre

0.26

Medium

Page 105

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park Ref Receptor Impact (highest predicted VDV across all activities, m/s1.75) * 0.07

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

Comment KG5 Park Gardens Nursery Medium No impact: Nonresidential below Low Probability of Adverse Comment No impact: Nonresidential below Low Probability of Adverse Comment

KG6

King Georges Park

0.26

Medium

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

9.5.22

All of the predicted eVDV levels except those at 1 20 Parkview Court fall below the Low Probability of Adverse Comment band for residential properties, as described in Volume 5 Section 2. Furthermore, these predicted levels are based upon the worst case conditions that may arise during vibration intense activities within the site compound. The predicted eVDV at 1 20 Parkview Court results in a Low Probability of Adverse Comment. Summary of construction effects Vol 12 Table 9.5.9 outlines the assessed significance of effects from all sources of noise and vibration based on the extent of impacts identified above. As described in the general methodology Volume 5 Section 2, the significance of noise effects is based on the predicted impact and other factors, ie, the 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. Vol 12 Table 9.5.9 Noise and vibration construction effects Ref KG1 Receptor 55 75 Buckhold Road Significance, and justification Noise Not significant Vibration Not significant

9.5.23

9.5.24

Page 106

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park Ref KG2 KG3 KG4 KG5 KG6 Receptor 1 - 72 Albon House 1- 20 Parkview Court The Penfold Centre Park Gardens Nursery King Georges Park

Section 9: Noise and vibration Significance, and justification Noise Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Vibration Not significant Significant Not significant Not significant Not significant

9.5.25

The assessment does not identify any significant noise effects at any receptors. A potential significant vibration effect has been predicted at 120 Parkview Court depending on the duration of the highest vibration levels predicted.

9.6
9.6.1

Operational assessment Operational base and development cases


As discussed in para. 9.5.1, there is likely to be only a small variation in baseline noise levels between the baseline survey and the future base case year (2020). The noise levels measured in 2011 are therefore likely to form the basis of a conservative assessment, as road traffic noise levels would increase along with traffic increases. For vibration, no change is assumed between the present time and future base case.

9.6.2

Operational effects
9.6.3 Noise control measures would be included on all plant items as part of the design process to limit noise increases to within appropriate noise limits to avoid disturbance. These limits have not been set, and are currently under discussion with the local authority and will be relative to the existing background noise levels at each receptor (using the methodology in BS 4142:1997 34). It is not possible to quantify the overall change in noise level until this process is complete. However, it is considered that it will be possible to control noise emissions to within appropriate noise limits defined by the local authority to prevent significant effects. The table below contains a summary of the assessment results for operational noise.

9.6.4

Page 107

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 9: Noise and vibration

Vol 12 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

KG1

55 75 Buckhold Road

Noise level controlled to prevent adverse impact as per BS4142* Noise level controlled to prevent adverse impact as per BS4142* Noise level controlled to prevent adverse impact as per BS4142* Noise level controlled to prevent adverse impact as per BS4142* Noise level controlled to prevent adverse impact as per BS4142* Noise level controlled to prevent adverse impact as per BS4142*

KG2

1 - 72 Albon House

High

KG3

1- 20 Parkview Court

High

KG4

The Penfold Centre

Medium

KG5

Park Gardens Nursery

Medium

KG6

King Georges Park

Medium

* BS 4142 (1997)

9.6.5

During the design process, noise levels would be controlled to meet the limits currently being negotiated with the local authority to prevent adverse

Page 108

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 9: Noise and vibration

impact at sensitive receptors. Therefore, no impacts are identified at this location. 9.6.6 As part of the operation of the tunnel, there would need to be routine but infrequent maintenance carried out at the site. This is described further in Section 3. A crane would be required for 10 yearly shaft inspections. This would be carried out during normal working hours, using equipment which is likely to increase ambient noise levels. Given the infrequency of this operation, it is considered that a significant noise effect would not occur. Routine inspections, lasting approximately half a day, would occur every three to six months and would not require heavy plant. As this would be carried out during the daytime with minimal noisy equipment operating over short periods of time, it is considered that further assessment of noise generated by this activity is not required. As no impacts have been identified from the operation of the site, no significant effects have been identified. Vol 12 Table 9.6.2 Noise and vibration operational effects Ref Receptor Significance, and justification Noise from surface site ventilation plant KG1 55 75 Buckhold Road KG2 1 - 72 Albon House KG3 1- 20 Parkview Court KG4 The Penfold Centre KG5 Park Gardens Nursery KG6 King Georges Park 9.6.10 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

9.6.7

9.6.8

9.6.9

At this location, no significant effects are predicted at any of the receptors. This is subject to the equipment being specified with appropriate noise control measures to ensure that the targets in BS4142 are met as outlined in Volume 5, Section 2.

9.7
9.7.1

Approach to mitigation Construction


No significant effects as a result of construction noise have been identified. No additional mitigation is proposed at this location for noise impacts. A significant vibration effect has been identified for 1-20 Parkview Court, which is dependent on the duration of the highest vibration levels predicted. With regard to vibration effects, the processes where there is

9.7.2

Page 109

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 9: Noise and vibration

potential to cause significant effects would require additional mitigation, if practicable, to supplement the best practicable means (BPM) environmental design measures for all sites. 9.7.3 The assessment has assumed only general BPM measures, as far as it is possible to incorporate these in the vibration prediction exercise. These include careful selection of modern construction plant. To address significant effects, specific solutions will be developed as appropriate to provide additional mitigation targeted on those activities generating the highest vibration levels at the relevant receptor. For the purposes of this report and at this stage of the design, site specific additional mitigation beyond BPM measures has not been identified in the assessment. However, when the potential mitigation options for the illustrative project can be confirmed, this will be presented in the ES.

9.7.4

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

9.7.6

Page 110

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 9: Noise and vibration

9.8
Vol 12 Table 9.8.1 Noise and vibration construction assessment Significance Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant None required None required None required None required None required Mitigation to be reported in the ES None required None required None required None required Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant None required None required Not significant Mitigation Residual significance

Assessment summary

Receptor

Effect

55-75 Buckhold Road

Noise

Vibration

1-72 Albon House

Noise

Vibration

1-20 Parkview Court

Noise

Vibration

Potentially significant (subject to mitigation options) Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant

The Penfold Centre

Noise

Vibration

Park Gardens Nursery

Noise

Vibration

King Georges Park

Noise

Vibration

Page 111

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 9: Noise and vibration

Vol 12 Table 9.8.2 Noise and vibration operational assessment Significance Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant None required None required None required None required None required None required None required 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 Not significant Mitigation None required Residual significance

Receptor

Effect

55-75 Buckhold Road

Noise

Vibration

1-72 Albon House

Noise

Vibration

1-20 Parkview Court

Noise

Vibration

The Penfold Centre

Noise

Vibration

Park Gardens Nursery

Noise

Vibration

King Georges Park

Noise

Vibration

Page 112

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 9: Noise and vibration

9.9
9.9.1

Assessment completion
The completion of the assessment to an appropriate level of detail is subject to further information on baseline and construction road traffic. When the transport analysis is complete this will be assessed and any effects identified in the ES. The next stage of the assessment work will be more detailed in profiling the variation in construction noise levels across the programmes of work and the range of receptors at each surface site. It has not been possible to adequately assess the potential for noise and vibration from water cascading down drop shafts during tunnel filling events. The likely noise and vibration emission will be estimated as the cascade design develops and will be included in the ES. As the illustrative construction methodology develops more indepth assessment work 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.

9.9.2

9.9.3

9.9.4 9.9.5

9.9.6

Page 113

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 10: Socio-economics

10 10.1
10.1.1 10.1.2

Socio-economics Introduction
This section includes the following information for the construction and operational phases of the project respectively: The Scoping Report did not scope in any significant operational effects. This is now changed as a result of the Scoping Opinion received from LB Wandsworth which has directed that the effect of the operational structures and infrastructure on King Georges Park be considered. This section does not include consideration of operational phase effects in socio-economic terms in relation to air quality, noise and visual effects. These are likely to be low or not significant in the operational phase. and are thus unlikely to result in any significant amenity or in combination effects at the park.

10.1.3

10.2
10.2.1

Proposed development
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to socio-economics are as follows. Construction Measures incorporated into the draft CoCP to limit, and in some cases eliminate, any unacceptable air quality, noise and vibration, and visual impacts could also reduce socio-economic impacts, particularly amenity impacts. Section 4 Air Quality and Odour, Section 9 Noise and Vibration, and Section 11 Townscape and Visual contain details on the type of measures that may be employed. Works would cause temporary loss of public open space of approximately 0.2ha at the northern tip of King Georges Park. This could reduce recreational opportunities for park users. Both the construction related activities and lorry movements could result in amenity or in combination effects being experienced by a range of sensitive receptors in proximity to the proposed activities. Operation Above-ground structures on the operational site would remain within King Georges Park once construction work is complete. A small publicly accessible area of hard-standing to allow access for maintenance vehicles would be created and landscaped.

10.2.2

10.2.3

10.2.4

10.2.5

10.2.6

10.3
10.3.1

Assessment methodology
Scoping and engagement Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. All consultee comments relevant to this site are presented in the table below.

Page 114

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 10: Socio-economics

Vol 12 Table 10.3.1 Socio-economics stakeholder engagement Organisation LB of Wandsworth Comment The impact of the permanent structures on the King Georges Park site needs to be considered in relation to how they might affect use and function of the park and how any loss of amenity may be mitigated Response This is acknowledged and has been considered in the operational assessment below

Baseline 10.3.2 The baseline methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site. Construction 10.3.3 The construction phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. Any site specific variations are described below: a. The assessment years used for considering the potential for socioeconomic effects in terms of construction activity have covered the period from the commencement of works and ending approximately two and a half years later. Operation 10.3.4 The construction phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site. Assumptions and limitations 10.3.5 The following assumptions and limitations apply to the findings presented: a. The northern tip of King Georges Park is moderately to highly used. The usage level of the park at the present time is likely to remain the same under the construction base case and also under the operational base case. 10.3.6 The preliminary findings of the assessments of likely significant air quality, noise and vibration, and visual effects, and associated design and mitigation measures, have been reported by each of these topic areas (see Sections 4, 9 and 11 respectively). The socio-economic assessment has been informed by the preliminary findings of the these topic assessments.

10.4
10.4.1

Baseline conditions
Public open space - King Georges Park King Georges Park is a publicly accessible open space. It is a functioning area of approximately 23ha in size and is classified as a district park within the GLA Open Space Hierarchy. The park is securely fenced and

Page 115

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 10: Socio-economics

includes a childrens nursery, recreational facilities, a lake and open spaces. 10.4.2 The park is long and narrow stretching on average 100-200m across and circa 1.5km in length (north to south, although crossed by one roadway and dissected into various usage zones). A footpath follows a circular route around the lake which falls partly within the construction site boundary. There are a number of other footpaths within King Georges Park which offer walking routes within the park. Tennis courts are also located within the park, situated approximately 120m south of the proposed construction site boundary. LB Wandsworth has advised that no recent data are available regarding the parks usage or any recent condition audit. The authority has commented that the park is both well used and well maintained 35. Additionally, the Boroughs Open Space Study from 2007 gives information specific to King George Park including that it is considered to be fragmented with a diverse range of facilities and that its northern end is located within the Wandsworth Town Centre. It assesses King Georges Park as being of good quality (7.1) 36. Based on this information, as well as reconnaissance visits and the assessors general knowledge of the park, it is assumed that the northern section of the park is moderately to highly used. Nevertheless it is also assumed that its primary use is as an access way with park users tending to favour the more open southern sections of the park for both passive and active recreational activities. The park appears to be well maintained and comprises large areas of landscaped, grassed open space providing active and passive recreation opportunities for users. The open space was surveyed as part of the Wandsworth Open Space Study in 2007 and received a quality rating of Good at that time. Field surveys to more formally assess the quality of and usage levels of the open space are to be concluded during 2011. Users of the park typically experience a quiet environment, owing to the fact that the majority of the open space is bounded by housing or other buildings. At the site location itself, some ambient noise is likely to be experienced as a result of passing traffic on the A218 Buckhold Road and, to a lesser degree, on Neville Gill Close. With regard to the sensitivity of users to any impacts or changes which would reduce or in some way negatively affect access to a contained section of the park and the recreational opportunities it affords, the following factors are worth considering. King Georges Park is a district park as defined in the London Plan 37 and LB Wandsworth Core Strategy 38. As a district park, King Georges Park provides district park provision for an area within 1.2km of the park. The park itself is assessed within LB Wandsworths Open Space Study 2007 as being of low composite value (26.5) reflecting factors such as its context, level and type of use and the wider benefits it generates for people, biodiversity and the wider environment. It is however one of only two district parks serving the LB Wandsworth, and there is only a minimal overlap between the two 1.2km radius catchment area of the two parks to the southwest of King Georges Park. As such, the park is the only open

10.4.3

10.4.4

10.4.5

10.4.6

10.4.7

Page 116

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 10: Socio-economics

space providing district park level recreational opportunities for a relatively large catchment area (although other open spaces exist to help serve areas of the same catchment). 10.4.8 Looking at deficiency in access to public parks overall, there are some areas within 1.2km of the park that are defined within the Open Space Study as being deficient in open space. This metric takes account of access to the full range of open spaces types under the open space hierarchy and areas are identified as deficient if they are outside of a 560m catchment area of (ie, greater than 560m from) any open spaces. The main area is in East Roehampton to the west of King Georges Park; however that deficiency areas closest large open space is Putney Heath. As well as Putney Heath, there are also other large open spaces including Wandsworth Park to the north and Wandsworth Common to the east within 1.2km of King Georges Park which could also serve as alternative resources. Considering sensitivity to other amenity effects, users of the section of open space surrounding the site are not considered highly likely to be vulnerable to amenity impacts; provided that these impacts only affect a small area. This is due to the fact that users can take steps to avoid any amenity impacts, whether individual or combined, that may arise by moving to a part of the park further to the south of the proposed site. There is however a playground aimed at providing play opportunities for young children within the northern section of the park. Nearby alternatives to that facility are more limited. Taking these factors into account, including the catchment area of the park, other nearby open spaces capable of providing comparable recreational opportunities, and the size of King Georges Park itself, it is concluded that the sensitivity of users to the temporary loss or disturbance of the area of open space covered by and surrounding the proposed construction site is medium. See Vol 12 Figure 10.4.1 for a baseline plan which indicates the features identified above. Vol 12 Figure 10.4.1 Socio-economic context (see Volume 12 Figures document) Community facilities Penfold Day Centre 10.4.12 Penfold Day Centre is located on Neville Gill Close, directly to the east of the proposed construction site. It comprises a single storey brick building which offers flexible community and meeting space of approximately 300m. The centre has rentable facilities which are used by a range of community groups including day care and childrens groups, a number of worship groups, adult learning classes. Facilities at the centre are currently used mainly by Arndale Estate residents and the The Princes Trust Wandsworth. The centre has a few small bay windows overlooking the street which offer people inside the centre a pleasant outlook over King Georges Park,

10.4.9

10.4.10

10.4.11

10.4.13

10.4.14

Page 117

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 10: Socio-economics

partially beneath the canopy line of the mature trees planted along the Parks boundary. 10.4.15 The capability of the users and employees of the centre to cope with the changes in condition is considered limited due to the close proximity of the site to the centre premises. On the other hand it is considered that the main timeframe of the users exposure to the construction effects would be during their arrival at and departure from the centre, since activities occur indoors. As a result, their vulnerability to amenity impacts is reduced. On this basis, it is assessed that the sensitivity of users and employees of this community facility is likely to be low. See Vol 12 Figure 10.4.1 for a baseline plan which indicates the features identified above. Community facilities King Georges Park Integrated Childrens Centre 10.4.17 An Integrated Childrens Centre, managed by LB of Wandsworth is situated within King Georges Park, approximately 85m to the southwest of the site boundary. It comprises a one storey, modern building and grounds including play facilities. The centre is one of several in the LB of Wandsworth. Generally, such centres provide a range of services for young children and their parents 39. The childrens centre provides opportunities for indoor and outdoor play; meeting rooms and informal space where parents and carers can meet with each other; and information and advice on parenting 40. The Integrated Childrens Centre is used by both parents and children, and is a work place for the centres staff. Children are generally considered to be more sensitive to certain amenity impacts, such as noise and air pollution than adults. Children and parents, as users of the centre are likely to use it only at certain times of the week and so are not likely to be exposed to any potential impacts for prolonged and continuous periods of time. On this basis, it is considered that users and employees of this community facility are likely to have a medium level of sensitivity to any potential amenity impacts. Residential 10.4.20 10.4.21 There are three potential groups of residential receptors in the vicinity of the proposed site. To the east across Neville Gill Close, there are three residential towers (each approximately 20 storeys high) located on the edge and above the Southside Shopping Centre. The closest tower site is approximately 30m from the site. The other two towers are located further south approximately 60m and 110m away respectively. To the west there are two storey residential terrace dwellings situated on Buckhold Road (which back on to King Georges Park with approximately 20m deep rear gardens). These dwellings have largely undisturbed views over their own back gardens and King Georges Park from their upper floors. They also benefit from backing on to the park, which affords views from within their rear gardens of mature trees planted in the park.

10.4.16

10.4.18

10.4.19

10.4.22

Page 118

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park 10.4.23

Section 10: Socio-economics

To the northwest across Buckhold Road, five blocks of three to four storey residential flats are set back several metres from the roadside and are surrounded by lawn and low level perimeter planting, with occasional trees. At the closest point, the nearest block of flats is approximately 30m from the proposed construction site. Both the terraces and low-rise blocks of flats face onto Buckhold Road. Buckhold Road is a two lane local collector road connecting to the South Circular Road, running west to east, south of the River Thames. The road is on local bus routes and is assumed to be moderately trafficked (This information is to be updated once baseline traffic count data becomes available). It is likely that road traffic along Buckhold Road does slightly reduce the environmental amenity of the residences on both sides of the road, as well as in King Georges Park. However traffic flow is unlikely to be heavy enough to cause particular disruption to residents or park users. 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 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. Businesses off-site The area surrounding the site also comprises commercial, retail and light industrial businesses. Southside Shopping Centre is directly to the east of the site, beyond Neville Gill Close. Southside Shopping Centre is an internalised, out-of-town style shopping mall that is largely facing away from, and has little interface with, King Georges Park. The exception to this is some small windows on the first floor level below the multi-storey car park, and the Day Centre and NHS Clinic further south along the boundary of the centre. Apart from this, the remaining frontage to King Georges Park is comprised of brick walls, the multi-storey car park and small areas of surface car parking. The Wandsworth Business Village is situated to the northwest of the site approximately 30m away from the closest site boundary, comprising a range of small commercial businesses and light industry units. Businesses in the vicinity of the site are not considered to be a risk of significant effects as a result of the proposed development. This is due in part to the physical form of the commercial buildings and also the nature of the businesses surrounding the site. For this reason, the businesses are generally considered to have either no or very limited sensitivity to impacts that may arise as a result of the project. As such, these businesses are not considered further within this socio-economic impact assessment.

10.4.24

10.4.25

10.4.26

10.4.27

10.4.28

Page 119

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park Summary 10.4.29

Section 10: Socio-economics

A summary of receptors as described in the baseline and their sensitivity is provided in the table below. Vol 12 Table 10.4.1 Socio-economic receptors Receptor Users of open space King Georges Park Value/sensitivity and justification Medium - King Georges Park provides for district park level recreational opportunities to a wide catchment area; however the parks size means that alternative opportunities for recreation would be largely available within the rest of the park Low users and employees are likely to have only limited exposure to potentially intrusive aspects of development given they are located indoors Medium children in particular may be more sensitive to construction related amenity impacts but usage of the centre will be limited. Medium residential receptors are sensitive, but less so during daytime hours Negligible due to physical form of commercial buildings and nature of businesses

Users of community facilities Penfold Day Centre

Users of community facilities Integrated Childrens Centre

Residents of nearby properties

Businesses off-site

10.5

Construction assessment Construction base and development cases


Base case

10.5.1

For this site, the base case year is Year 1 of the construction works. This is the year when site establishment is proposed to commence and marks the start of the assessment period for socio-economic effects. 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 as existing conditions. An exception to this is that there may be changes in the number and type of businesses located in the surrounding area, eg, businesses may open or close and sites that are currently occupied may become unoccupied. It is not possible however to forecast this with any accuracy and therefore this cannot be taken into account in the assessment.

10.5.2

10.5.3

Page 120

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park Development cases 10.5.4

Section 10: Socio-economics

Under the development case, it is expected that the following changes to the baseline would occur: a. The currently proposed project would result in the physical cordoningoff of a construction area and consequent temporary loss of up to approximately 0.2ha of open space in King Georges Park for a period of approximately two and a half years. This represents less than 1% of the total park area (23ha). b. Taking over part of the park would potentially affect some of its users. Nevertheless there is still opportunity for users to undertake the same types of activities (mostly passive recreation and informal active recreation) further south within the parks boundaries.

10.5.5

Other than the above, it is assumed that the development case for other socio-economic conditions at the site would remain the same as set out in the baseline.

Construction effects
Temporary loss of open space King Georges Park 10.5.6 The construction works would result in the temporary cordoning-off of part of the northern tip of King Georges Park and the temporary loss of access to up to approximately 0.2ha of public open space. This represents less than one percent of the total area of King Georges Park. This would result in a loss of opportunities for passive recreation, such as sitting on the grassed area beneath trees, offered by this part of the park. However, the availability of other spaces in the park means that users would still have access to opportunities for passive recreation in other areas of the park. The duration of the closure would be medium term period, approximately two and a half years. Although King Georges Park as a whole is assumed to be relatively heavily used, the number of users likely to be impacted by a short to medium term temporary closure of the affected open space is likely to be relatively few given its size and position relative to the rest of the park. On this basis and taking account of the fact that there would still be opportunity for park users to undertake the same types of activities further south within the parks boundaries, the impact magnitude arising from the temporary loss of open space at the site is likely to be low. Taking account of the low magnitude of the impact and the medium sensitivity of park users to the loss of this part of open space within King Georges Park; the overall effect on users of the open space is deemed to be minor adverse. Effects on open space users amenity 10.5.10 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

10.5.7

10.5.8

10.5.9

Page 121

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 10: Socio-economics

environmental amenity experienced by users of King Georges Park in the vicinity of the construction site. 10.5.11 Preliminary assessments have been undertaken to examine the potential air quality, noise and vibration, and visual effects arising during the construction phase. With respect to the potential effects of the proposed works on surrounding open space receptors, the following points summarise the preliminary findings of likely effect significance: a. Air quality and construction dust effects are both likely to be negligible. Both air quality and construction dust effects arising as a result of the proposed works are therefore not likely to result in a significant effect on residents for the duration of the construction period. b. Noise and vibration effects are not likely to be significant at the open space receptor identified, for the duration of the construction period. c. Visual effects are likely to be major adverse from viewpoint 2.7 (looking north from the footpath beside the lake within the King Georges Park), for the duration of the construction period.

10.5.12 10.5.13

For further information, refer to Section 4 Air Quality and Odour, Section 9 Noise and Vibration, and Section 11 Townscape and Visual. The above findings regarding air quality, dust, noise and vibration, and visual effects have been taken into consideration in undertaking a preliminary assessment of the overall magnitude of impact for amenity impacts on open space receptors below. This preliminary 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. These impacts would be restricted to daytime working hours. They are also unlikely to occur continually over the working day, and may rise and fall in intensity as different activities of the construction 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. Due to the length and layout of the park and the proposed sites location within its far northern tip, any adverse amenity impacts would only affect a relatively small number of park users in the northern end of the park. Although the visual impact assessment identified a major adverse impact, the length and layout of the park would afford users alternative pleasant views to the south. Given the above factors, it is considered that the impact magnitude could be low. Taking account of the low magnitude of the potential impact and the medium sensitivity of King Georges Park users to amenity effects experienced during daytime working hours, it is considered that the overall effect on open space users amenity could be minor adverse and therefore not significant.

10.5.14

10.5.15

10.5.16 10.5.17

Page 122

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 10: Socio-economics

Amenity effects on community facilities Penfold Day Centre (outline findings) 10.5.18 Air quality, noise 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 users and employees of nearby community facilities. Preliminary assessments have been undertaken to examine the potential air quality, noise and vibration, and visual effects arising during the construction phase. With respect to the potential effects of the proposed works on the Penfold Day Centre, 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 arising as a result of the proposed works are therefore likely to result in a significant effect on day centre users for the duration of the construction period. b. Noise effects and vibration effects on day centre users have been measured as not likely to be significant for the total construction period. c. No visual receptors were identified as requiring assessment at the project site in relation to users of the Penfold Day Centre. It is therefore assumed for the purpose of this assessment that it is not likely that there will be any significant effects from visual issues.

10.5.19

10.5.20 10.5.21

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 receptors at the Penfold Day Centre below. The preliminary findings of the assessment balance the above findings considering the contribution that each assessed element (eg, the quality of the air, the quality of a view) makes to a receptors overall experience of amenity. Most of the factors affecting the magnitude of potential amenity impacts are the same as per those explained above with regard to public open space (see previous sub-section). A mitigating factor on the severity and magnitude of the impacts for the users of the day centre is the fact that their use of the premises is likely to be less frequent and restricted to a few hours at a time. Thus the number of users and extent to which they are exposed to possible sources of amenity would be limited by the frequency of their visits. Further, the amenity effects are likely to be limited to daytime working hours. Employees are likely to be there longer both in part time and full time capacities, meaning there is the potential for longer periods of exposure. Given the above factors, it is considered that the magnitude of the impacts could be low.

10.5.22

10.5.23

10.5.24

Page 123

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park 10.5.25

Section 10: Socio-economics

Taking account of the low magnitude of the potential impact and the low sensitivity of users and employees to amenity effects when inside the centre, it is considered that the overall amenity effect on users and employees of the Penfold Day Centre could be negligible. It is stressed that this is a preliminary and outline finding only at this stage. Amenity effects on community facilities Integrated Childrens Centre

10.5.26

Air quality, noise and vibration and visual impacts arising as a result of the proposed construction works, including construction traffic, may potentially act individually or in combination to reduce the amenity experienced by employees of, parents and children attending the Integrated Childrens Centre situated within King Georges Park. Assessments have been undertaken to examine the likely significant air quality, noise and vibration, and visual effects arising during the construction phase. With respect to the effects of the proposed works on the Integrated Childrens Centre, the following points summarise the preliminary findings: a. Air quality and construction dust effects are likely to be minor adverse. Such effects are therefore likely to have a significant effect on users for the duration of the construction period. b. Noise effects and vibration effects on childrens centre users have been measured as not likely to be significant at the receptor identified. c. Visual effects are likely to be major adverse from viewpoint 2.7 (looking north from the footpath between the childrens centre and lake) for the duration of the construction period.

10.5.27

10.5.28 10.5.29

For further information, refer to Section 4 Air Quality and Odour, Section 9 Noise and Vibration, and Section 11 Townscape and Visual. The above findings regarding air quality, dust, noise and vibration, and visual effects have been taken into consideration in undertaking a preliminary assessment of the overall magnitude of impact for amenity impacts on receptors at the childrens centre below. This preliminary 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. Impacts on the childrens centre are likely to be experienced in a similar manner to those experienced by other receptors near the site, such as the Penfold Day Centre and terrace housing on Buckhold Road, in terms of duration, consistency, and nature. The proposed development site is separated from the centre by open lawn areas, the northern edge of the lake and some large, mature trees. This would limit visual impacts in particular. Similar to the day centre, while employees are likely to be exposed to any impacts for the full day, most children attending the centre may be there for shorter periods. Given these factors, it is considered that the impact magnitude could be medium.

10.5.30

10.5.31

10.5.32

Page 124

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park 10.5.33

Section 10: Socio-economics

Taking account of the medium magnitude of the potential impact and the medium sensitivity of users to amenity effects, it is considered that the overall effect on users and employees at the Integrated Childrens Centre could be medium term moderate adverse and significant. It is stressed that this is a preliminary and outline finding only at this stage. Effects on residential amenity Air quality, noise and vibration, and visual impacts arising as a result of the proposed construction works and construction related traffic may potentially act individually or in combination with one another to reduce the environmental amenity experienced by residents living nearby the proposed site, across Neville Gill Close or on and across Buckhold Road. Assessments have been undertaken to examine the likely significant air quality, noise and vibration, and visual effects arising during the construction phase. With respect to the potential effects of the proposed works on surrounding residential receptors, the following points summarise the preliminary findings of the assessments: a. Air quality effects are likely to be minor adverse and construction dust effects are negligible. b. Noise effects on residents have been measured as not likely to be significant at any of the three residential receptors identified. Vibration (human response) effects are likely to be significant at one of the three receptors. c. Visual effects are likely to be major adverse from one of the four viewpoints identified (viewpoint 1.1) and minor adverse from a further three viewpoints for the duration of the construction period (viewpoints 1.2, 1.3 and 1.7).

10.5.34

10.5.35

10.5.36 10.5.37

For further information, refer to Section 4 Air Quality and Odour, Section 9 Noise and Vibration, and Section 11 Townscape and Visual. The above findings regarding air quality, dust, noise and vibration, and visual effects have been taken into consideration in undertaking a preliminary assessment of the overall magnitude of impact for amenity impacts on residential receptors below. This preliminary assessment balances the above findings considering the contribution that each assessed element (eg, the quality of the air, the quality of a view) makes to a receptors overall experience of amenity. Most of the factors affecting the magnitude of the potential amenity impacts are the same as those explained above with regard to impacts on public open space users (see previous sub-section). The exceptions generally apply to the relationship of the residential buildings in relation to the proposed construction site area. Due to the layout of the surrounding area, the screening and roadways between the site and some of the surrounding residential development, and the varying proximity of residential development from the site, any potential amenity impacts are only likely to affect a relatively small number of dwellings.

10.5.38

10.5.39

Page 125

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park 10.5.40 10.5.41

Section 10: Socio-economics

Given the above factors, it is considered that the impacts could be of low magnitude. Taking account of the likelihood for a low magnitude of impact and the medium sensitivity of residents to amenity effects experienced during daytime working hours, it is considered that the overall effect on residential amenity could be minor adverse and therefore not significant. Summary The preliminary findings of the socio-economic assessment are summarised in the tables below.

10.5.42

Page 126

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park Vol 12 Table 10.5.1 Socio-economics construction effects Magnitude Low well used park, but relatively small Minor adverse and contained section of open space to be not temporarily closed to access. Very small in significant proportion to overall park size. Significance

Section 10: Socio-economics

Impact

Sensitivity

Temporary loss of open space King Georges Park

Medium King Georges Park provides for district park level recreational opportunities to a wide catchment area; however the parks size means that alternative opportunities for recreation would be largely available within the rest of the park. Low affected area is very small in relation Minor adverse to the size of the park. Construction hours not would be limited to normal working hours. significant Low limited duration of exposure of community facility users to potentially intrusive aspects of development. Negligible

Amenity impacts on King Georges Park users

Medium as above

Amenity impacts on community facilities Penfold Day Centre

Low users and employees are likely to have only limited exposure to potentially intrusive aspects of development given they are located indoors

Amenity impacts on community facilities Integrated Childrens Centre

Medium children in particular may be more sensitive to construction related amenity impacts but usage of the Centre is expected to be limited.

Medium - air quality and construction dust effects could be minor adverse, and visual effects could be major adverse from one viewpoint although the centre is separated from the site by open lawn areas, the edge of the lake and some trees and children attending the centre may be there for short periods. Low site exposed to residential

Moderate adverse significant

Amenity impacts on

Medium residential

Minor adverse

Page 127

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park Magnitude development on three sides, but relatively limited number of closely located residential receptors. not significant Significance

Section 10: Socio-economics

Impact

Sensitivity

residents

receptors are sensitive, but less so during daytime hours

Page 128

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 10: Socio-economics

10.6

Operational assessment Operational base and development cases


Base case

10.6.1

It is assumed that the base case in the operational phase would be the same as the site baseline conditions, ie, the socio economic conditions at King Georges Park and the area surrounding the site would remain the same under a no development scenario. Development case Under the development case, it is expected that the following change to the baseline would occur: a. A number of permanent above-ground structures would remain on the site in the operational phase once construction work is complete. A publicly accessible area of hard standing, of approximately 0.05ha to 0.08ha, would also be created around the structures to allow for maintenance vehicle access. The remaining structures and hard standing area would be landscaped so as to minimise any impact on the surrounding area of open space.

10.6.2

Operational effects
Changes to, and potential loss of, open space functionality King Georges Park 10.6.3 As set out under the development case, a number of permanent structures will be constructed as well as an area of hard standing which will be created to allow access for maintenance vehicles. This area of the park that would be directly affected is likely to be between approximately 0.05ha and 0.1ha in total. This equates to less than half of one percent of the total area of King Georges Park. Although King Georges Park as a whole is assumed to be moderate to highly used, the number of users likely to be impacted by the changes in the affected open space is likely to be significantly few given its size and position relative to the rest of the park. The changes would result in the loss of an equivalent area of lawn area and several mature trees, and would change the character of the northern tip of the park. Environmental design measures would be likely to include some kind of architectural design and treatment of the structures and landscaping of the surrounding hard standing area so as to minimise any impact on the surrounding area of open space. Where possible and desirable, the design could incorporate features that integrate the infrastructure into the park in a manner that would be functional and beneficial to users such as utilising the area of hard standing to connect to existing, or create new pathways, and potentially to provide seating. The outcome is likely to resemble a small hard paved plaza area surrounded by the park with only a small footprint permanently lost to operational above ground structures.

10.6.4

10.6.5

10.6.6

Page 129

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park 10.6.7

Section 10: Socio-economics

In this manner, although the space will be converted from grass lawn to hard standing and some operational structures will remain, it is likely that the space will be landscaped in such a way that users will be able to continue to use it for passive recreational purposes. The main change would most likely be related to the way users make use of the space that was previously lawn and trees. It is not expected to result in any significant diminishment of recreational opportunities; and some users may find that the plaza-like space provides an alternative type of space and functionality to other parts of the park. . In this manner, it may even result in changes that are perceived as being beneficial by some users. In terms of accessibility, it is understood that the majority of the space (apart from a small area that would be taken up by permanent above ground structures) would be open to public access in the same way in which the park is except during occasional periods when access is required for maintenance of the operational infrastructure. On this basis and taking account of the fact that there would still be opportunity for recreation use of the rest of the park during maintenance events, the impact magnitude arising from the operational site is likely to be negligible. Taking account of the negligible magnitude of the potential impact and the medium sensitivity of King Georges Park users to amenity effects, it is considered that the overall effect on open space users amenity is negligible and therefore not significant. Vol 12 Table 10.6.1 Socio-economics operational effects Impact Changes to and potential loss of open space functionality King Georges Park Sensitivity Medium King Georges Park provides for district park level recreational opportunities to a wide catchment area; however the parks size means that alternative opportunities for recreation would be largely available within the rest of the Magnitude Negligible Only a very small area of space likely to be lost permanently to operational structures; while the remaining small area would change in character but still be accessible to the general public at all times except during occasional maintenance periods Some users may perceive the changes to be beneficial Significance Negligible

10.6.8

10.6.9

10.6.10

Page 130

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park Impact Sensitivity park. Magnitude

Section 10: Socio-economics Significance

10.7
10.7.1

Approach to mitigation Construction


The above assessment has arrived at a preliminary finding that there is a potential for moderate adverse effects to arise in relation to amenity effects on the Integrated Childrens Centre with King Georges Park. 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 for nearby sensitive receptors. Mitigation measures may include design alternatives or construction process and management changes that are typical of the sort usually identified to mitigate air quality, dust noise and vibration or visual impacts. For further information, 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

10.7.4

Operation
10.7.5 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 King Georges Park requiring additional mitigation.

Page 131

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 10: Socio-economics

10.8
Vol 12 Table 10.8.1 Socio-economics construction assessment Significance Minor adverse Not significant None required None required None required None required Moderate adverse Not significant Minor adverse Not significant Negligible Not significant Moderate adverse - significant Mitigation Residual significance No change No change No change No change

Assessment summary

Receptor

Effect

Users of open space King Georges Park

Temporary loss of use of open space King Georges Park

Users of open space King Georges Park

Amenity effects on the use of open space King Georges Park (outline findings)

Residents of nearby properties

Amenity effects on residential amenity (outline findings)

Users of community facilities - Penfold Day Centre

Amenity effects on users of community facilities - Penfold Day Centre (outline findings)

Users of community facilities - Integrated Childrens Centre

Amenity effects on users of community facilities Integrated Childrens Centre (outline findings)

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

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

Page 132

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park Significance impacts. Mitigation Residual significance effect significance to an acceptable level, a reduced residual adverse significance may result.

Section 10: Socio-economics

Receptor

Effect

Vol 12 Table 10.8.2 Socio-economics operation assessment Significance Negligible Not significant Mitigation None required Residual significance No change

Receptor

Effect

Users of open space King Georges Park

Changes to and potential loss of open space King Georges Park functionality

Page 133

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 10: Socio-economics

10.9
10.9.1

Assessment completion
Collection of baseline data on the use of social infrastructure will be completed during 2011. Information that may be collected includes: a. Usage data for King Georges Park b. Usage data for community facilities Penfold Day Centre and Integrated Childrens Centre c. Traffic count data for Buckhold Road and Neville Gill Close.

10.9.2

Pending receipt of the above data and the results of assessments by other EIA topics, it is likely that updates to the baseline data and results of the following assessments will be made: a. The assessment regarding the construction phase loss of open space in King Georges Park b. The assessment of amenity effects on open space users amenity c. The assessment of amenity effects on residential amenity d. The assessment of amenity effects on community facilities amenity

10.9.3 10.9.4

No detailed site specific mitigation and enhancement/offsetting measures have been identified as no mitigation is assessed as being required. As there are no significant effects requiring mitigation, there are no outstanding activities for the identification and characterisation of residual effects and/or monitoring requirements. Assessment of cumulative and in combination effects will be undertaken and reported in the ES. Following completion of the assessment the mitigation approaches for socio economics within the project, if applicable, will be finalised and reported in the ES.

10.9.5 10.9.6

Page 134

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 11: Townscape and visual

11 11.1
11.1.1

Townscape and visual Introduction


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

11.1.2

11.2
11.2.1

Proposed development
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to the townscape and visual assessment are as follows. Construction The method of construction for the proposed development is described in Volume 3. The peak phase construction phase for this topic relates to the time when the shaft is being constructed, involving the presence of cranes at the site and the export of material by road. For this site, this equates to Year 1 of construction, within a total construction period of approximately two and a half years. Similar effects would arise during the secondary tunnel lining, which would occur during Year 2 of construction. The site would be under construction during standard working hours only, defined in Section 3. The specific construction activities which may give rise to effects on townscape character, tranquillity and visual receptors are: a. Removal of existing trees and clearance of vegetation b. Vehicular construction access to the site off Neville Gill Close c. Establishment of hoardings around the boundary of the construction site

11.2.2

11.2.3

d. Use of cranes during shaft sinking and secondary lining of the tunnel e. Provision of construction staff welfare facilities f. 11.2.4 Lighting of the site when required. Measures incorporated into the draft CoCP to reduce townscape and visual impacts include appropriate protection of trees and vegetation in line with BS5837 Trees in relation to construction Recommendations.

Page 135

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park Operation 11.2.5

Section 11: Townscape and visual

The proposed operation of the infrastructure at King Georges Park is described in Volume 3. The particular components that are of importance to the this topic include the design and siting of the shaft, which protrudes approximately 1m above ground level, ventilation structures (2.5m, 4m and 6m high) and electrical kiosk (2.5m high).

11.3
11.3.1 11.3.2

Assessment methodology
Scoping and engagement Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. In addition to the formal scoping process the London Borough of Wandsworth and English Heritage have been consulted on the detailed scope of the townscape and visual impact assessment, including the number and location of viewpoints. All consultee comments relevant to this site are presented in the table below. Vol 12 Table 11.3.1 Townscape and visual stakeholder engagement Organisation English Heritage Comment English Heritage have confirmed acceptance of the proposed viewpoints. Requested that one verifiable photomontage location be moved to the main public footpath in the park, and that another be added along Buckhold Road. Response Noted.

London Borough of Wandsworth

These viewpoints have been included in the visual assessment, and the photomontages will be prepared for the ES

Baseline 11.3.3 The assessment area, defined using the standard methodology provided in Volume 6, is indicated by the extents of the drawing frame on Vol 12 Figure 11.5.1 to Vol 12 Figure 11.5.6. The scale of the assessment area has been set by the maximum extent of the ZTV, excepting those locations to the south of the site where the visibility is in reality largely obscured by mature tree planting and the components of the project would be barely perceptible. The methodology for establishing the townscape and visual baseline follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 6. With specific reference to the King Georges Park site, baseline information has been gathered through a review of the London Borough of Wandsworths Unitary Development Plan (UDP), Wandsworth Town Conservation Area Appraisal (Draft) and West Hill Road Conservation Area Appraisal (Draft).

11.3.4 11.3.5

Page 136

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park Construction 11.3.6

Section 11: Townscape and visual

The construction phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. Any site specific variations are described below. With reference to the King Georges Park site, the peak construction phase for this topic would be Year 1 of construction, when the shaft would be under construction, cranes would be present at the site and material would be being taken away by road. This has therefore been used as the assessment year for townscape and visual effects. The intensity of construction activities would be similar during Year 2 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 there would be the following changes in the townscape and visual baseline between 2011 and Year 1 of construction: a. Business Village mixed use development, comprising four to sixteen storey buildings along Broomhill Road to the north of the site, would be under construction (approximately 25% complete); and b. Cockpen House mixed use development, comprising five to sixteen storey buildings along Buckhold Road to the north of the site, would be under construction (approximately 25% complete). Operation methodology

11.3.7

11.3.8

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 three verifiable photomontages, from locations agreed in advance with the London Borough of Wandsworth. These will be produced and presented in the final ES. The operational phase assessment has been undertaken for Year 1 of operation and Year 15 of operation. For the purposes of the assessment, it is assumed that there would be no substantial change in the townscape and visual baseline between 2011 and Year 1 of operation. Further work will be undertaken for the ES to identify any potential changes in the base case for Year 15 of operation. For the purposes of the operation Year 1 assessment, it is assumed that both developments close to King Georges Park (described in para. 11.3.8) would remain under construction and be approximately 60% complete. Assumptions and limitations For this site, there are no site specific townscape and visual assessment limitations beyond the generic ones listed in Volume 6. Assumptions made on the base case for the construction and operational phase assessments are described in para. 11.3.8. These assumptions are based on known planning applications and planning policy within the

11.3.10

11.3.11

11.3.12

11.3.13 11.3.14

Page 137

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 11: Townscape and visual

assessment area, interpreted using professional judgement to understand what the base case may be in Year 1 of construction and Year 1 of operation without the project (ie the do nothing scenario). 11.3.15 11.3.16 Assumptions will be made in the ES regarding what the base case may be in Year 15 of operation without the project. 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 operational effects in Year 1 and Year 15 which will be presented in the ES.

11.4
11.4.1

Baseline conditions Townscape baseline


The site is located in the northern tip of King Georges Park, adjacent to Buckhold Road and Neville Gill Close. The surrounding townscape is a mix of commercial, retail and residential properties. Physical elements The physical elements of the townscape in the assessment area are described below. Topography The site and its surrounding area are relatively flat and low lying, within the floodplain of the River Wandle. To the west and east the land gradually rises towards Wimbledon Common and Wandsworth Common respectively, beyond the extents of the assessment area. Land use The predominant land use surrounding the site is the public open green space of King Georges Park, which extends to the south. The area to the north of the site is dominated by commercial and retail uses in Wandsworth Town Centre. To the east the land use is a mix of residential and retail, dominated by the Southside Shopping Centre. To the west, the land use is predominantly residential. Development pattern and scale Vol 12 Figure 11.4.1 Townscape pattern and scale (see Volume 12 Figures document)

11.4.2

11.4.3

11.4.4

11.4.5 11.4.6

Vol 12 Figure 11.4.1 illustrates the pattern and scale of development within the assessment area and also indicates building heights. The development pattern of the surrounding area is highly diverse, broadly dividing into three categories:

Page 138

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 11: Townscape and visual

a. Medium density residential development along Buckhold Road and Merton Road to the west of the site, characterised by two to three storey properties with large rear gardens; b. Denser urban residential and commercial terraced development along Wandsworth High Street and in residential areas west of King Georges Park; and c. Large commercial and residential blocks to the north and east of King Georges Park, including the Southside Shopping Centre and residential towers.

11.4.7

King Georges Park is characterised by a variety of different uses, including pleasure gardens, sports pitches, an ornamental lake and childrens play space. Vegetation patterns and extents Vol 12 Figure 11.4.2 Townscape vegetation pattern and extent (see Volume 12 Figures document)

11.4.8 11.4.9

Vol 12 Figure 11.4.2 illustrates the pattern and extent of vegetation within the assessment area, including tree cover. Street trees are generally absent throughout the assessment area, although rear gardens provide relatively green outlooks to the residential areas to the west of the site. However, King Georges Park, which forms a dominant component of the areas overall character, is characterised by dense mature tree planting, particularly along the park boundaries, around the ornamental lake and in the northern tip of the park. There are several groups of trees with Tree Preservation Orders in the vicinity of the site. In addition, trees within Wandsworth Town and West Hill Road Conservation Areas are indirectly protected via the designation. Open space distribution and type Vol 12 Figure 11.4.3 Townscape open space (see Volume 12 Figures document)

11.4.10

11.4.11

Vol 12 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. Public open spaces in the assessment area are limited to King Georges Park, extending south of the site, and Garratt Lane Burial Ground to the east of the site. These spaces are described in Vol 12 Table 11.4.1. Private and semi-private open spaces are limited to residential rear gardens. Vol 12 Table 11.4.1 Open space type and distribution Open space King Georges Park Distance from site n/a Character summary Large public open space, formally on the Historic Parks and Gardens Register, characterised by large areas of open

11.4.12

Page 139

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park Open space Distance from site

Section 11: Townscape and visual Character summary amenity grass, sports pitches, play equipment, formal gardens, scattered mature tree cover and a lake. The park is designated as Metropolitan Open Land.

Garratt Lane Burial Ground

200m E

Old burial ground characterised by open grassland and mature tree planting along the boundaries. The space is designated as an Other larger protected open space by the London Borough of Wandsworth.

Transport routes Vol 12 Figure 11.4.4 Townscape - transport network (see Volume 12 Figures document) 11.4.13 Vol 12 Figure 11.4.4 illustrates the transport network within the assessment area, including cycleways, footpaths and Public Rights of Way. The road network immediately around the site is generally residential in nature, with the exception of three strategic routes running north-south and linking with Wandsworth High Street; Merton Road, Buckhold Road and Garratt Lane. Parking is generally restricted to residential use only. The residential roads surrounding the site are generally not used extensively by heavy good vehicles (HGV). There is a network of cycle routes in the wider area, including National Cycle Route 20, which passes through King Georges Park. No Public Rights of Way are present within the assessment area. King Georges Park itself is characterised by a network of internal footpaths focused around a main north-south spine that passes through the western edge of the site. Site character assessment 11.4.17 The site is located within the northern tip of King Georges Park, bordered to the north by Buckhold Road, the east by Neville Gill Close, the south by the ornamental lake and to the west by an area of dense mature tree planting. This part of the park is characterised by open grassland and scattered mature trees, including a large avenue of trees along the eastern boundary with Neville Gill Close and an avenue of flowering cherry trees along the main footpath and northern entrance to the site. The northern boundary of the site is characterised by low level dense evergreen vegetation, screening Buckhold Road. The eastern boundary of the site comprises palisade style black painted metal railings. The site is fully publicly accessible. The site falls within the wider Metropolitan Open Land designation applied to King Georges Park. The setting of the site is dominated by the Southside Shopping Centre. The components of the site are described in the table below:

11.4.14

11.4.15

11.4.16

11.4.18

Page 140

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 11: Townscape and visual

Vol 12 Table 11.4.2 Townscape site components ID 01 Component Avenue of mature cherry trees Description Formal avenue of mature cherry trees with wide canopies, lining the main footpath running south through the park. Condition To be confirmed following the completion of a tree survey To be confirmed following the completion of a tree survey To be confirmed following the completion of a tree survey Good condition

02

Mature parkland trees

Cluster of mature and semi-mature trees within the main open space of the site, comprising deciduous and coniferous and native and non-native species.

03

Mature avenue along eastern boundary

Mature London plane and poplar trees along the eastern boundary.

04

Ornamental shrub planting and lawns Internal footpaths Mature ornamental entrance trees

Combination of discrete shrub planting along the lake and park boundaries and well maintained lawn areas.

05

Asphalt footpaths within the site, including Good a semi-circle at the northern entrance to condition the park laid out in concrete slabs. Mature ornamental trees in grilles at the northern entrance to the park, forming distinctive components. To be confirmed following the completion of a tree survey

06

07

Site railings

Black metal railings along the boundary of Good the park condition

11.4.19

The condition of the townscape within the site is generally good, with the landscape and planting generally well maintained. Therefore, the site has limited potential for enhancement, although it does represent one of the least used corners of the park.

Page 141

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park 11.4.20

Section 11: Townscape and visual

The site is largely open and green in character, with strong vegetated enclosures to the boundaries and a clear vista over the ornamental lake. Therefore, the site has a high level of tranquillity. Despite the Metropolitan Open Land designation (which typically suggests a regional draw), the site is valued at the Borough scale by virtue of its size and location providing predominantly for people who live in the local area. Due to the good condition and Borough value of the townscape, and high levels of tranquillity, the site has a high sensitivity to change. At night, the site is unlit, although the density of the surrounding built environment means that the site is slightly influenced by light spill from street lights and residential properties. However, this provides a dimly lit setting and therefore the sensitivity of this site to additional lighting is high. Townscape character assessment Vol 12 Figure 11.4.5 Townscape character areas (see Volume 12 Figures document)

11.4.21

11.4.22 11.4.23

11.4.24

The Townscape Character Areas surrounding the site are identified on Vol 12 Figure 11.4.5. Townscape character areas are ordered beginning to the north of the site and continuing around the site in a clockwise direction. Each area is described below. Wandsworth Town Centre This area is characterised by two and three storey former factories and warehouses with some retail units along Buckhold Road, dating mostly from the 19th century with some 20th century refurbishment. The units generally have a large footprint and the area is characterised by a distinct lack of vegetation. The pattern of development is introspective in character. The buildings and streetscape of the area are in a fairly poor state of repair. The condition of the townscape is therefore poor. Tranquillity within the area is limited by its the commercial use, the relatively high levels of traffic along Buckhold Road and the lack of public open spaces and vegetation. The townscape has limited amenity value to the community due to the type of land use, the lack of public realm and the lack of valued components. Therefore due to the introspective pattern of the development, limited amenity value of the townscape and the limited tranquillity of the area, it is considered that 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.

11.4.25

11.4.26 11.4.27

11.4.28

11.4.29

11.4.30

Page 142

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 11: Townscape and visual

Wandsworth Town Conservation Area 11.4.31 This area comprises Wandsworth Town Conservation Area, characterised by a linear cluster of historic buildings lining Wandsworth High Street, including a number of Grade II and II* listed properties. Wandsworth High Street dominates the character of the area, characterised by high levels of traffic and an absence of street trees. The pattern of development is entirely focused on the High Street, and hence introspective in character. The buildings and streetscape of the area are relatively well maintained. The condition of the townscape is therefore good. The area has low levels of tranquillity due to the dominance of traffic along Wandsworth High Street, the commercial/retail use of the area and the lack of street trees or open spaces. The townscape of the area is valued at the Borough level by virtue of the conservation area designation. Therefore, despite the conservation area designation and Borough value of the townscape, the introspective character and limited tranquillity of the 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. Wandsworth Town Hall 11.4.37 This character area is defined by the extents of the eight storey Wandsworth Town Hall and surrounding car parking, bounded by the Wandsworth Town Conservation Area boundary. The area has a lack of vegetation and is entirely introspective, focused on the town hall building. The buildings and streetscape of the area are relatively well maintained. The condition of the townscape is therefore good. The area has low levels of tranquillity due to the presence of relatively high levels of traffic and car parking, the commercial use of the area and the lack of street trees or open spaces. The townscape has limited amenity value to the community due to the type of land use, the lack of public realm and the lack of valued components. Therefore due to the introspective pattern of the development, limited amenity value of the townscape and the limited tranquillity of the area, it is considered that 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. Southside Retail Centre and Residential 11.4.43 This character area comprises the extensive footprint of the Southside Shopping Centre, which is distinctly different in character to the surrounding pattern of development. The shopping centre is characterised by extensive blank faades on all sides except for the Garratt Lane

11.4.32 11.4.33

11.4.34 11.4.35

11.4.36

11.4.38 11.4.39

11.4.40

11.4.41

11.4.42

Page 143

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 11: Townscape and visual

frontage, facing away from the site. The development pattern is characterised by a series of flat roof buildings set at different heights, interspersed with high-rise residential towers up to approximately 20 storeys in height. The character area also encompasses a recent large supermarket development, east of Garratt Lane. The area is characterised by a general lack of vegetation, although some street trees are present alongside residential blocks and the recent supermarket development. The area is introspective in character. 11.4.44 11.4.45 The buildings and streetscape of the area are relatively well maintained. The condition of the townscape is therefore good. The area has low levels of tranquillity due to the dominance of traffic along Garratt Lane, the commercial/retail use of the area and the lack of street trees or open spaces. The townscape has limited amenity value to the community due to the type of land use, the lack of public realm and the lack of valued components. Therefore due to the introspective pattern of the development, limited amenity value of the townscape and the limited tranquillity of the area, it is considered that 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. Garratt Lane Residential 11.4.49 This area is characterised by three to five storey residential apartments east of the Southside Shopping Centre complex. The residential apartments are generally organised on a grid formation interspersed with open spaces, residential courtyards and mature tree planting. The materials, building style, density and scale of development are generally consistent throughout the character area, with the exception of more recent developments along Garratt Lane. Due to the pattern of development and orientation of buildings focused towards each other across communal green spaces, the area is introspective in character. The area has moderate levels of tranquillity due to the residential land use, the presence of vegetation and open spaces, and limited volumes of traffic throughout the character area. The area is likely to be valued by local residents, by virtue of the presence of open spaces and mature trees that provide a pleasant setting to the residential properties. Due to the moderate level of tranquillity and residential character, strengthened by intermittent mature planting and open spaces, this character area has a medium sensitivity to change. At night the area is lit by street lighting and indirectly from buildings, providing a fairly lowly lit character. Therefore, the sensitivity of this area to additional lighting is medium.

11.4.46

11.4.47

11.4.48

11.4.50

11.4.51

11.4.52

11.4.53

Page 144

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 11: Townscape and visual

King Georges Park Heritage Green Space 11.4.54 This character area is defined by the historic core of King Georges Park, designated as Metropolitan Open Land and formerly registered as a Historic Park and Garden. The area is characterised by a diversity of different spaces including an ornamental lake, areas of formal planting beds, a childrens play space, avenues of flowering cherry trees, areas of open lawn, tennis courts and scattered mature trees. The park is characterised by densely vegetated boundaries, providing relative seclusion from the surrounding residential and commercial areas. The landscape of the area is well maintained. The condition of the townscape is therefore good. The area has high levels of tranquillity due to the seclusion provided by the scale of the green space and the abundance of mature trees and vegetation. Despite the Metropolitan Open Land designation (which typically suggests a regional draw), the site is valued at the Borough scale by virtue of its size and location providing predominantly for people who live in the local area. Due to the good condition and Borough value of the townscape, and high levels of tranquillity, the site has a high sensitivity to change. At night, the site is unlit, although the density of the surrounding built environment means that the site is slightly influenced by light spill from street lights and residential properties. However, this provides a dimly lit setting and therefore the sensitivity of this site to additional lighting is high. King Georges Park Sports Ground 11.4.60 This character area is defined by the large area of open amenity grass forming the southern end of King Georges Park, designated as Metropolitan Open Land. The area is dominated by open amenity grassland used informally for active sports. The character area extends southwards, beyond the assessment area. The open space is characterised by intermittent avenues of mature trees along the boundaries, providing some seclusion from the surrounding residential and commercial areas. The character area also incorporates two half size pitches to the east of the area, bounded to the east by a dense band of tree planting. The landscape of the area is well maintained. The condition of the townscape is therefore good. The area has high levels of tranquillity due to the seclusion provided by the scale of the green space and the abundance of mature trees and vegetation. Despite the Metropolitan Open Land designation, the site is valued at the Borough scale by virtue of its size and location providing predominantly for people who live in the general area, rather than acting as a wider regional draw.

11.4.55 11.4.56

11.4.57

11.4.58 11.4.59

11.4.61 11.4.62

11.4.63

Page 145

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park 11.4.64 11.4.65

Section 11: Townscape and visual

Due to the good condition and Borough value of the townscape, and high levels of tranquillity, the site has a high sensitivity to change. At night, the site is unlit, although the density of the surrounding built environment means that the site is slightly influenced by light spill from street lights and residential properties. However, this provides a dimly lit setting and therefore the sensitivity of this site to additional lighting is high. Wandsworth Town Residential This character area incorporates part of West Hill Road Conservation Area, alongside an extensive residential area broadly similar in character, to the west of King Georges Park. The area is characterised by two to three storey residential properties, ranging from medium density development along Buckhold Road, with large rear gardens, to dense 19th and 20th century terraces throughout the rest of the area. The terraced properties are aligned on a grid formation, characterised by relatively narrow residential streets. Towards the south of the area, the street pattern is more informal, responding to the rising contours towards West Hill. The materials, building style, density and scale of development area generally consistent throughout the character area. The area is further characterised by a lack of open spaces or street trees. The pattern of development is generally introspective in character. The buildings and streetscape of the area are relatively well maintained. The condition of the townscape is therefore good. The area has moderate levels of tranquillity due to the residential land use and limited volumes of traffic throughout the character area. The townscape of the southern part of the character area is valued at the Borough level by virtue of the conservation area designation. However, the majority of the area is likely to be valued by locally by residents of the area. Therefore, despite the conservation area designation of part of the area, the introspective character and local value of the townscape means the 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. The sensitivity to change of the townscape character areas is summarised in the table below. Vol 12 Table 11.4.3 Townscape character area sensitivity Townscape character area The site Wandsworth Town Centre Wandsworth Town Conservation Area Wandsworth Town Hall Southside Retail Centre and Residential Sensitivity High Low Medium Low Low

11.4.66

11.4.67 11.4.68 11.4.69

11.4.70

11.4.71

11.4.72

Page 146

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park Townscape character area Garratt Lane Residential

Section 11: Townscape and visual Sensitivity Medium High High Medium

King Georges Park Heritage Green Space King Georges Park Sports Ground Wandsworth Town Residential

Visual baseline
Vol 12 Figure 11.4.6 Visual assessment viewpoints (see Volume 12 Figures document) 11.4.73 Vol 12 Figure 11.4.6 indicates the location of viewpoints referenced below. All residential and recreational receptors have a high sensitivity to change, and transport receptors have a medium 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). Residential 11.4.74 Residential receptors have a high sensitivity to change. Therefore the visual baseline in respect of residential receptors has been represented by a series of viewpoints which have been agreed with the consultees. These viewpoints are described below. Viewpoint 1.1: View east from residences on Buckhold Road 11.4.75 This viewpoint is representative of a direct view from residential properties along Buckhold Road, adjacent to the site. The view is dominated by the mature vegetation and ornamental entrance gates along the northern boundary of King Georges Park. The presence of mature vegetation, including evergreen species, largely obscures views into the site. Viewpoint 1.2: View north east from residences on Buckhold Road close to the junction with Broomhill Road 11.4.76 This viewpoint is representative of the oblique view from residential properties along Buckhold Road, close to the junction with Broomhill Road to the south west of the site. The view is a linear view along Buckhold Road, framed by residential properties along both sides. Views towards the site are largely obscured by buildings along the east side of Buckhold Road, and mature tree planting along the northern boundary of King Georges Park. Viewpoint 1.3: View north east from residences on Buckhold Road at the footpath connecting to Merton Road 11.4.77 This viewpoint is representative of the oblique view from residential apartments along Buckhold Road at the footpath connecting to Merton Road to the south west of the site. The view is dominated by the streetscape of Buckhold Road, focused on residential properties along the western edge of the road, which largely obscure views towards the site.

Page 147

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 11: Townscape and visual

Viewpoint 1.4: View north east from Merton Road close to the junction with Buckhold Road 11.4.78 This viewpoint is representative of the oblique distant view from residential properties along Merton Road, close to the junction with Buckhold Road to the south west of the site. The view is dominated by the streetscape of Merton Road, focused on properties along the western edge of the road, which largely obscure views towards the site. Boundary vegetation along the western edge of King Georges Park is intermittently visible above the roofline of the intervening buildings. Viewpoint 1.5: View north east from residences on Merton Road at the footpath connecting to Buckhold Road 11.4.79 This viewpoint is representative of the view from residential properties along Merton Road situated at an elevated position close to the footpath that passes between residences to Buckhold Road. The view is characterised by residential properties along Buckhold Road and the boundary vegetation of King Georges Park beyond. Views towards the site are largely obscured by the intervening buildings and mature boundary vegetation. Viewpoint 1.6: View east from residences on Merton Road close to Lebanon Gardens 11.4.80 This viewpoint is representative of the view from residential properties along Merton Road, close to Lebanon Gardens. The view towards the site is framed to the north by the gable end of Broomhill Road Primary School, and to the south by residential properties along Merton Road and Broomhill Road. Views of the site are largely obscured by residential buildings along the northern end of Buckhold Road and mature vegetation along the northern boundary of King Georges Park. Viewpoint 1.7: View east from residences along Broomhill Road 11.4.81 This viewpoint is representative of the elevated view from residential properties along Broomhill Road. The view towards the site is characterised by the rear of properties along the northern end of Buckhold Road. Views of the site are largely obscured by intervening residential buildings and the mature vegetation along the northern boundary of King Georges Park. Recreational 11.4.82 Recreational receptors (excepting those engaged in active sports) generally have a high sensitivity to change, as attention is focused on enjoyment of the townscape. The visual baseline in respect of recreational receptors is discussed below. Viewpoint 2.1: View north from the Chinese bridge in King Georges Park 11.4.83 This viewpoint is representative of the view for recreational users of the Chinese footbridge crossing the lake in King Georges Park. The view is a linear one along the footpath, framed by mature tree planting on both sides of the route. Views towards the site are partially filtered by mature

Page 148

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 11: Townscape and visual

tree planting around the periphery of the lake. This view forms part of a sequence of views towards the site, experienced by pedestrians using the network of footpaths within the park. Viewpoint 2.2: View north from the lakeside footpath close to the tennis courts 11.4.84 This viewpoint is representative of the view for recreational users of the footpath adjacent to the lake in King Georges Park, close to the tennis courts. The view is characterised by an open vista over the lake, framed by mature tree planting on both sides of the view. Views towards the site are partially filtered by mature tree planting around the periphery of the lake. This view forms part of a sequence of views towards the site, experienced by pedestrians using the network of footpaths within the park. Viewpoint 2.3: View north west from the River Wandle corridor 11.4.85 This viewpoint is representative of the view for pedestrians at the River Wandle corridor adjacent to five-a-side pitches south of Mapleton Road. The foreground of the view is characterised by dense tree cover. Views towards the site are largely obscured by intervening buildings and dense planting along the boundary of King Georges Park. Viewpoint 2.4: View north from National Cycle Route 20 on the eastern boundary of King Georges Park 11.4.86 This viewpoint is representative of the view for cyclists using the National Cycle Route 20 which runs along a marked track on the eastern boundary of King Georges Park, connecting with Neville Gill Close. The view is a linear view up the path, framed by a double avenue of mature trees. Views towards the site are largely obscured by mature vegetation along the eastern boundary of King Georges Park. Viewpoint 2.5: View north from the amenity green space in the southern section of King Georges Park 11.4.87 This viewpoint is representative of the view for recreational users of the open amenity grassland in the southern section of King Georges Park. The view is a wide open panorama of the amenity space, partially used for active sports but also for informal recreation where attention is focused on the landscape. The view is partially enclosed by an intermittent avenue of mature trees along Fosters Walk. Views towards the site are partially filtered by this tree cover, and further obscured by mature tree planting throughout King Georges Park, particularly around the ornamental lake. Viewpoint 2.6: View north from the Fosters Walk entrance to King Georges Park 11.4.88 This viewpoint is representative of the view for pedestrians at the Fosters Walk entrance to King Georges Park. The foreground of the view is dominated by tennis courts immediately adjacent to the entrance, set amongst the wider park setting. Views towards the site are partially filtered by intervening mature tree planting throughout King Georges Park, particularly around the western edge of the ornamental lake.

Page 149

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 11: Townscape and visual

Viewpoint 2.7: View north from the lakeside footpath close to the childrens playground 11.4.89 This viewpoint is representative of the view for recreational users of the footpath adjacent to the lake in King Georges Park, close to the childrens playground. The view is characterised by an open vista over the lake, partially filtered by mature tree planting along the western edge of the water body. Views towards the site are partially filtered by this mature tree planting around the periphery of the lake. This view forms part of a sequence of views towards the site, experienced by pedestrians using the network of footpaths within the park. Transport 11.4.90 People travelling through an area generally have a medium sensitivity to change, although it is often the means by which the greatest numbers of people view the townscape. Viewpoint 3.1: View south from Wandsworth High Street at the junction with Buckhold Road 11.4.91 This viewpoint is representative of the oblique glanced view from people travelling along Wandsworth High Street, as they pass Buckhold Road. The view is framed on both sides by buildings along Buckhold Road. Mature trees along the northern boundary of King Georges Park form the background focus of the view, filtering views further into the site. Viewpoint 3.2: View north west from Neville Gill Close near to the site 11.4.92 This viewpoint is representative of the direct view from people travelling along north on Neville Gill Close, in close proximity to the site. The view is framed to the east by the rear faade of Southside Shopping Centre and to the west by the avenue of mature trees on the edge of King Georges Park. Views into the site are partially filtered by mature tree planting along the park boundary. Viewpoint 3.3: View north west from Neville Gill Close at the southern residential tower 11.4.93 This viewpoint is representative of the direct view from people travelling along north on Neville Gill Close, at the southern of three residential towers along the road. The view is framed to the east by the rear faade of Southside Shopping Centre and to the west by the avenue of mature trees on the edge of King Georges Park. Views into the site are largely filtered by mature tree planting along the park boundary. Viewpoint 3.4: View south east from Broomhill Road 11.4.94 This viewpoint is representative of the glanced view from people travelling along Broomhill Road. The view towards the site is partially obscured by buildings along the eastern edge of Broomhill Road, and further filtered by mature vegetation along the northern boundary of King Georges Park. The sensitivity to change of the viewpoints is summarised in the table below.

11.4.95

Page 150

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 11: Townscape and visual

Vol 12 Table 11.4.4 Viewpoint sensitivity Viewpoint Residential Viewpoint 1.1: View east from residences on Buckhold Road Viewpoint 1.2: View north east from residences on Buckhold Road close to the junction with Broomhill Road Viewpoint 1.3: View north east from residences on Buckhold Road at the footpath connecting to Merton Road Viewpoint 1.4: View north east from Merton Road close to the junction with Buckhold Road Viewpoint 1.5: View north east from residences on Merton Road at the footpath connecting to Buckhold Road Viewpoint 1.6: View east from residences on Merton Road close to Lebanon Gardens Viewpoint 1.7: View east from residences along Broomhill Road Recreational Viewpoint 2.1: View north from the Chinese Bridge in King Georges Park Viewpoint 2.2: View north from the lakeside footpath close to the tennis courts Viewpoint 2.3: View north west from the River Wandle corridor Viewpoint 2.4: View north from National Cycle Route 20 on the eastern boundary of King Georges Park Viewpoint 2.5: View north from the amenity green space in the southern section of King Georges Park Viewpoint 2.6: View north from the Fosters Walk entrance to King Georges Park Viewpoint 2.7: View north from the lakeside footpath close to the childrens playground Transport Viewpoint 3.1: View south from Wandsworth High Street at the junction with Buckhold Road Medium High High High High High High High High High Sensitivity

High

High High

High High

Viewpoint 3.2: View north west from Neville Gill Close Medium near to the site

Page 151

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park Viewpoint

Section 11: Townscape and visual Sensitivity

Viewpoint 3.3: View north west from Neville Gill Close Medium at the southern residential tower Viewpoint 3.4: View south east from Broomhill Road Medium

11.5
11.5.1

Construction assessment
Effects during the construction phase would be temporary, although medium term due to the scale and necessary phasing of the proposed development. The proposed phasing of the development will result in intense periods of activity within relatively quieter phases. Construction phase site assessment Direct effects on the townscape of the site would arise from the felling of 12 mature trees and clearance of vegetation, creation of a new access point from Neville Gill Close, diversion of the existing footpath within the park, erection of site hoardings and construction activity associated with the construction of the shaft and secondary lining of the tunnel. The effects on specific components of the site are described below: Vol 12 Table 11.5.1 Townscape site component effects -construction ID 01 Component Avenue of mature cherry trees Mature parkland trees Effects Trees within the site boundary removed, with the remainder of the avenue protected as necessary (to be confirmed following the completion of a tree survey). 12 trees removed as part of the works, clearing the majority of the area to the east of the footpath and north of the lake. A further 10 trees pruned. Trees to be retained would be protected during the works (to be confirmed following the completion of a tree survey). Trees retained and protected (to be confirmed following the completion of a tree survey). The majority of the shrub planting would be retained. Grassed areas would be cleared entirely to form the site. Northern section of the footpath, within the site boundary, would be removed as part of the site establishment. Trees retained and protected (to be confirmed following the completion of a tree survey). The majority of boundary railings would be retained, except for a stretch along Neville Gill

11.5.2

02

03

Mature avenue along eastern boundary Ornamental shrub planting and lawns Internal footpaths Mature ornamental entrance trees Site railings

04

05

06

07

Page 152

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park ID Component

Section 11: Townscape and visual Effects Close which would require removal to facilitate construction access.

11.5.3

The magnitude of change to the site during the construction period is considered to be high due to the substantial clearance of vegetation required to form the construction site, including the felling of existing mature trees, and the level of activity during construction in an area currently only used by pedestrians for recreational purposes. The site has a high level of tranquillity, which would experience a high magnitude of change due to the intensity of construction activities at the site. The high magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the site to change, means the effect of the proposed construction activity on the townscape resource of the site would be of major adverse significance. Construction phase townscape assessment Wandsworth Town Centre

11.5.4

11.5.5

11.5.6

The proposed site forms part of the setting of this character area, although the area is largely introspective. The presence of cranes, construction activity and road based transport would affect the setting, although the construction activity at ground level would be partially screened by mature planting along the northern boundary of King Georges Park, minimising the change to setting. The construction phase base case also assumes ongoing construction work in the majority of this character area (see para. 11.3.8), meaning the effect of construction activities at the site would be further minimised. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be low. The area has low levels of tranquillity at presence, which would be slightly altered by the presence of intense construction activity at the site and increased HGV movements. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be low. Given the low magnitude of change and the low sensitivity of this character area, the proposed construction activity would give rise to a negligible effect on Wandsworth Town Centre. Wandsworth Town Conservation Area The proposed site would not form a substantial component in the wider setting of this character area, which is largely introspective in character. The wider setting would be intermittently affected by the presence of cranes at the site, but would not be considered to lead to any discernible change in setting. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The low levels of tranquillity in the character area at present would be largely unaffected by construction activities at the site. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible.

11.5.7

11.5.8

11.5.9

11.5.10

Page 153

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park 11.5.11

Section 11: Townscape and visual

Given the negligible magnitude of change and the medium sensitivity of this character area, the proposed construction activity would give rise to negligible effects on Wandsworth Town Conservation Area. Wandsworth Town Hall The proposed site would not form a substantial component in the wider setting of this character area, which is largely introspective in character. The wider setting would be intermittently affected by the presence of cranes at the site, but would not be considered to lead to any discernible change in setting. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The low levels of tranquillity in the character area at present would be largely unaffected by construction activities at the site. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible. Given the negligible magnitude of change and the low sensitivity of this character area, the proposed construction activity would give rise to negligible effects on Wandsworth Town Hall. Southside Retail Centre and Residential The proposed site would not substantially change the setting of this character area, due to the frontage being located on Garratt Lane and facing away from the site, and the entirely introspective character of the area. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The low levels of tranquillity in the character area at present would be affected to a limited extent by construction activities at the site and road based transport. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be low. Given the negligible magnitude of change and the low sensitivity of this character area, the proposed construction activity would give rise to negligible effects on Southside Retail Centre and Residential. Garratt Lane Residential The proposed site would not alter the setting of this character area, which is largely introspective and located in excess of 400m to the east of the site, beyond the Southside Shopping Centre which borders the site. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The moderate levels of tranquillity in the character area at present would be largely unaffected by construction activities at the site. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible. Given the negligible magnitude of change and the medium sensitivity of this character area, the proposed construction activity would give rise to negligible effects on Garratt Lane Residential. King Georges Park Heritage Green Space The proposed site is set directly north of this character area, introducing substantial levels of construction activity into King Georges Park, entirely altering the character of the northern end for the duration of construction. The setting of the wider King Georges Park Heritage Green Space would

11.5.12

11.5.13

11.5.14

11.5.15

11.5.16

11.5.17

11.5.18

11.5.19

11.5.20

11.5.21

Page 154

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 11: Townscape and visual

be principally affected by the presence of cranes and site hoardings in the immediate setting, and the loss of 12 mature trees at the northern end of the park, within the site boundary. The effect on setting would be partially minimised by the retention of mature planting around the periphery of the site boundary, and through ensuring construction vehicles are confined to the site and exit directly onto Neville Gill Close. However, the magnitude of change would remain high. 11.5.22 The high levels of tranquillity in the area would be altered substantially through the introduction of intense construction activity into a relatively quiet corner of the park and the loss of 12 mature trees. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity would 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 King Georges Park Heritage Green Space would be of major adverse significance. King Georges Park Sports Ground 11.5.24 The proposed site forms part of the northern green setting of this character area, and would introduce substantial levels of construction activity into the northern end of King Georges Park, entirely altering the background setting for the duration of construction. The setting of the wider King Georges Park Heritage Green Space would be principally affected by the presence of cranes and site hoardings in the wider setting of this area, and the loss of 12 mature trees at the northern end of the park, within the site boundary. The effect on setting would be partially minimised by the retention of mature planting around the periphery of the site boundary, the filtering effect of further mature trees throughout King Georges Park, and through ensuring construction vehicles are confined to the site and exit directly onto Neville Gill Close. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be medium. The high levels of tranquillity in the area would be altered to a limited extent through the introduction of intense construction activity into a relatively quiet corner of the northern end of King Georges Park and the loss of 12 mature trees. However, the construction activity would be set against other background noises such as traffic on Buckhold Road and Garratt Lane. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity would be low. Given the medium magnitude of change and the high sensitivity of this character area to a change in setting, the effect of the proposed construction activity on King Georges Park Heritage Green Space would be of moderate adverse significance. Wandsworth Town Residential 11.5.27 The proposed site forms part of the setting of this character area, although the area is generally introspective. The presence of cranes, construction activity and road based transport would affect the setting, although the construction activity at ground level would be partially screened by mature planting along the northern boundary of King Georges Park, minimising

11.5.23

11.5.25

11.5.26

Page 155

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 11: Townscape and visual

the change to setting. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be moderate. 11.5.28 The area has moderate levels of tranquillity at present, which would be altered to a limited extent by the presence of intense construction activity at the site and increased HGV movements. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be low. Given the medium magnitude of change and the medium sensitivity of this character area, the effect of the proposed construction activity on Wandsworth Town Residential would be of moderate adverse significance. The assessment of townscape effects during construction is summarised in the table below. Vol 12 Table 11.5.2 Townscape character areas effects - construction Townscape character area The site Wandsworth Town Centre Wandsworth Town Conservation Area Wandsworth Town Hall Southside Retail Centre and Residential Garratt Lane Residential King Georges Park Heritage Green Space King Georges Park Sports Ground Wandsworth Town Residential Sensitivity Magnitude Effect High Low Medium Low Low Medium High High Medium High Low Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible High Medium Medium Major adverse Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Major adverse Moderate adverse Moderate adverse

11.5.29

11.5.30

Construction phase townscape assessment night time effects 11.5.31 There are likely to be limited effects on night time character due to the proposed limit of 12 hour working at the site (10 hours of core working plus one hour of mobilisation at the beginning and end of the day). 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 (Section 1.1). Construction phase visual assessment Residential Viewpoint 1.1: View east from residences on Buckhold Road 11.5.32 Views from residences towards the site would be affected during construction. The construction site would be directly visible in the foreground of the view, encompassing the cranes, other construction

Page 156

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 11: Townscape and visual

plant, site hoardings, welfare facilities and road based transport. The view would be altered by the removal of 12 mature trees within the site, also serving to open up views of construction activity from upper storeys. The effect on the view would be reduced by the retention of vegetation along the northern boundary of King Georges Park. However, the magnitude of change would remain high. 11.5.33 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 1.2: View north east from residences on Buckhold Road close to the junction with Broomhill Road 11.5.34 Views from residences towards the site would be affected to a limited extent through the visibility of cranes at the site, and the clearance of 12 mature trees. However, the intervening buildings along Buckhold Road and mature vegetation along the boundary of King Georges Park would largely screen views of other construction activities at the site. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be low. The low magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of minor adverse significance. Viewpoint 1.3: View north east from residences on Buckhold Road at the footpath connecting to Merton Road 11.5.36 Views from residences towards the site would be affected to a limited extent to a limited extent through the visibility of cranes at the site, and the clearance of 12 mature trees. However, the intervening buildings along Buckhold Road and mature vegetation along the boundary of King Georges Park would largely screen views of other construction activities at the site. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be low. The low magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of minor adverse significance. Viewpoint 1.4: View north east from Merton Road close to the junction with Buckhold Road 11.5.38 Views from residences towards the site would be affected to a limited extent through the visibility of cranes at the site, which would form an inconspicuous element of the view set amongst the wider panorama which would be unchanged. 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 negligible effects on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 1.5: View north east from residences on Merton Road at the footpath connecting to Buckhold Road 11.5.40 Views from residences towards the site would be affected to a limited extent through the visibility of cranes at the site, and the clearance of 12

11.5.35

11.5.37

11.5.39

Page 157

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 11: Townscape and visual

mature trees. However, the intervening buildings along Merton Road and Buckhold Road, and mature vegetation along the boundary of King Georges Park would largely screen views of other construction activities at the site. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be low. 11.5.41 The low magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of minor adverse significance. Viewpoint 1.6: View east from residences on Merton Road close to Lebanon Gardens 11.5.42 Views from residences towards the site would be affected to a limited extent through the visibility of cranes at the site, and the clearance of 12 mature trees. However, the intervening buildings along Merton Road and Buckhold Road, and mature vegetation along the northern boundary of King Georges Park would largely screen views of other construction activities at the site. An increase in HGV traffic along Buckhold Road arising from construction activity would be barely perceptible from this location. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be low. The low magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of minor adverse significance. Viewpoint 1.7: View east from residences along Broomhill Road 11.5.44 Views from residences towards the site would be affected to a limited extent through the visibility of cranes at the site, and the clearance of 12 mature trees. However, the intervening buildings fronting onto Buckhold Road, and mature vegetation along the northern boundary of King Georges Park would largely screen views of other construction activities at the site. An increase in HGV traffic along Buckhold Road arising from construction activity would be discernible from this location for relatively short durations. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be low. The low magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of minor adverse significance. Recreational Viewpoint 2.1: View north from the Chinese bridge in King Georges Park 11.5.46 Views from this location would be affected during construction. The main change in the view would arise from the site hoardings defining the boundary of the construction working area, and the removal of 12 mature trees in the northern corner of King Georges Park. The view would also encompass cranes, other large construction plant and welfare facilities within the site boundary. Therefore, despite some views towards the site being partially filtered by mature planting around the lake, the magnitude of change is considered to be high.

11.5.43

11.5.45

Page 158

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park 11.5.47

Section 11: Townscape and visual

The high magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of major adverse significance. Viewpoint 2.2: View north from the lakeside footpath close to the tennis courts

11.5.48

Views from this location would be affected during construction. The main change in the view would arise from the site hoardings defining the boundary of the construction working area, and the removal of 12 mature trees in the northern corner of King Georges Park. The view would also encompass cranes, other large construction plant and welfare facilities within the site boundary. Therefore, despite some views towards the site being partially filtered by mature planting around the lake and along the footpath, the magnitude of change is considered to 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 2.3: View north west from the River Wandle corridor Views from this location would be marginally affected through the visibility of cranes at the site, which would form an inconspicuous element of the background of the view. Views of the rest of the construction activity at the site would be obscured by intervening vegetation and buildings. 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 negligible effects on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 2.4: View north from National Cycle Route 20 on the eastern boundary of King Georges Park

11.5.49

11.5.50

11.5.51

11.5.52

Views from this location would be marginally affected through the visibility of cranes at the site, which would form an inconspicuous element of the background of the view. Views of the rest of the construction activity at the site would be obscured by intervening vegetation and buildings. 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 negligible effects on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 2.5: View north from the amenity green space in the southern section of King Georges Park

11.5.53

11.5.54

Views from this location would be affected during construction. The main change in the view would arise from the visibility of site hoardings defining the boundary of the construction working area, and the removal of 12 mature trees in the northern corner of King Georges Park, forming the background of the view. The distant view would also encompass cranes, other large construction plant and welfare facilities within the site boundary. However, views towards the site would be heavily filtered by intervening mature tree planting throughout King Georges Park, and the

Page 159

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 11: Townscape and visual

majority of the open panorama would remain unchanged. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be low. 11.5.55 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 2.6: View north from the Fosters Walk entrance to King Georges Park 11.5.56 Views from this location would be affected during construction. The main change in the view would arise from the visibility of site hoardings defining the boundary of the construction working area, and the removal of 12 mature trees in the northern corner of King Georges Park, forming the background of the view. The distant view would also encompass cranes, other large construction plant and welfare facilities within the site boundary. However, views towards the site would be partially filtered by intervening mature tree planting along the main footpath and around the lake. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be medium. The medium magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of moderate adverse significance. Viewpoint 2.7: View north from the lakeside footpath close to the childrens playground 11.5.58 Views from this location would be affected during construction. The main change in the view would arise from the site hoardings defining the boundary of the construction working area, and the removal of 12 mature trees in the northern corner of King Georges Park. The view would also encompass cranes, other large construction plant and welfare facilities within the site boundary. Therefore, despite some views towards the site being partially filtered by mature planting around the lake, the magnitude of change is considered to 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. Transport Viewpoint 3.1: View south from Wandsworth High Street at the junction with Buckhold Road 11.5.60 Views from this location would be affected to a limited extent through the visibility of cranes at the site, and the clearance of 12 mature trees. The retention of vegetation along the northern boundary of the site would partially filter views of some construction activities, although works would be visible through the eastern boundary of the site due to the clearance required to create an access off Neville Gill Close. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be medium. The medium magnitude of change assessed alongside the medium sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of moderate adverse significance.

11.5.57

11.5.59

11.5.61

Page 160

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 11: Townscape and visual

Viewpoint 3.2: View north west from Neville Gill Close near to the site 11.5.62 Views from this location would be affected during construction. The main change in the view would arise from the site hoardings defining the boundary of the construction working area, and the removal of 12 mature trees in the northern corner of King Georges Park. The view would also encompass cranes, other large construction plant and welfare facilities within the site boundary, and road based transport along Neville Gill Close. Therefore, despite some views towards the site being partially filtered by mature planting around the lake, the magnitude of change is considered to be high. The high magnitude of change assessed alongside the medium sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of major adverse significance. Viewpoint 3.3: View north west from Neville Gill Close at the southern residential tower 11.5.64 Views from this location would be affected during construction. The main change in the view would arise from the site hoardings defining the boundary of the construction working area, and the removal of 12 mature trees in the northern corner of King Georges Park. The view would also encompass cranes, other large construction plant and welfare facilities within the site boundary, and road based transport along Neville Gill Close. Views towards the site would be fairly heavily filtered by mature tree planting along the eastern boundary of King Georges Park and around the lake. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be medium. The medium magnitude of change assessed alongside the medium sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of moderate adverse significance. Viewpoint 3.4: View south east from Broomhill Road 11.5.66 Views from this location would be affected to a limited extent by the visibility of cranes at the site, and the clearance of 12 mature trees. However, the intervening buildings along Broomhill Road and Buckhold Road, and mature vegetation along the northern boundary of King Georges Park would largely screen views of other construction activities at the site. An increase in HGV traffic along Buckhold Road arising from construction activity would be barely perceptible from this location. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be low. The low magnitude of change assessed alongside the medium sensitivity of the receptor means the proposed construction phase would give rise to negligible effects on this viewpoint. The assessment of visual effects during construction is summarised in the table below.

11.5.63

11.5.65

11.5.67

11.5.68

Page 161

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 11: Townscape and visual

Vol 12 Table 11.5.3 Viewpoint effects - construction Viewpoint Residential Viewpoint 1.1: View east from residences on Buckhold Road Viewpoint 1.2: View north east from residences on Buckhold Road close to the junction with Broomhill Road Viewpoint 1.3: View north east from residences on Buckhold Road at the footpath connecting to Merton Road Viewpoint 1.4: View north east from Merton Road close to the junction with Buckhold Road Viewpoint 1.5: View north east from residences on Merton Road at the footpath connecting to Buckhold Road Viewpoint 1.6: View east from residences on Merton Road close to Lebanon Gardens Viewpoint 1.7: View east from residences along Broomhill Road Recreational Viewpoint 2.1: View north from the Chinese Bridge in King Georges Park Viewpoint 2.2: View north from the lakeside footpath close to the tennis courts Viewpoint 2.3: View north west from the River Wandle corridor Viewpoint 2.4: View north from National Cycle Route 20 on the eastern boundary of King Georges Park Viewpoint 2.5: View north from the amenity green space in the southern section of King Georges Park High High Major adverse Major adverse Negligible Negligible High High High Low Major adverse Minor adverse Sensitivity Magnitude Effect

High

Low

Minor adverse

High

Negligible

Negligible

High

Low

Minor adverse

High

Low

Minor adverse Minor adverse

High

Low

High

High

High High

Negligible Negligible

High

Low

Minor adverse

Page 162

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park Viewpoint Viewpoint 2.6: View north from the Fosters Walk entrance to King Georges Park Viewpoint 2.7: View north from the lakeside footpath close to the childrens playground Transport Viewpoint 3.1: View south from Wandsworth High Street at the junction with Buckhold Road Viewpoint 3.2: View north west from Neville Gill Close near to the site Viewpoint 3.3: View north west from Neville Gill Close at the southern residential tower Viewpoint 3.4: View south east from Broomhill Road

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

High

High

Medium

Medium

Moderate adverse Major adverse Moderate adverse Negligible

Medium

High

Medium

Medium

Medium

Low

11.6
11.6.1

Operational assessment Operational assessment results Year 1 of operation


The operational assessment below describes effects during daylight hours. The operational project would have little activity associated with it, aside from infrequent maintenance visits approximately every ten years. Therefore, for all townscape character areas it is considered that the proposed development would have a negligible effect on tranquillity. Operational effects on the site and surrounding character areas are discussed further below. Operational phase site assessment Year 1 of operation The proposed development would have a direct and permanent effect on the townscape resource of the site. The permanent works layout would result in the site being returned to public use as part of the landscape of the park. The shaft, which would protrude above ground by approximately 0.5m, would have mounding up to it to blend it into the wider landscape, and would form an elevated area of hard surface. The above ground structures would be incorporated along the eastern boundary of the site, with the ventilation column attached to a small kiosk, designed to provide an amenity for the users of the park. The entrance created off Neville Gill Close during construction would be retained and formalised as a new park entrance. The remainder of the site used during construction would be returned to its original condition, including replacement of trees lost. The effects on specific components of the site are described below:

11.6.2

Page 163

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 11: Townscape and visual

Vol 12 Table 11.6.1 Townscape site component effects Year 1 of operation ID 01 Component Avenue of mature cherry trees Mature parkland trees Mature avenue along eastern boundary Ornamental shrub planting and lawns Internal footpaths Mature ornamental entrance trees Site railings Effects Trees lost during construction replanted along the footpath (to be confirmed following the tree survey). Replacement of trees lost during construction in line with a new landscape design for this part of the park (to be confirmed following the tree survey). No operational effects.

02

03

04

No operational effects to shrubs retained during construction. As much of the site area as possible would be returned to grass after the works. Footpaths fully reinstated following the works. No operational effects (to be confirmed following the completion of a tree survey). Reestablishment of railings along the boundary with Neville Gill Close, incorporating a new entrance to the park that could also facilitate access for maintenance vehicles.

05 06

07

11.6.3

The magnitude of change and significance of effect on the site will be dependent on the design and finish of the public realm, boundary treatments and above ground structures. The magnitude of change is likely to range from low to medium. Assuming the high quality design of the public realm 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. Operational phase townscape assessment Year 1 of operation Wandsworth Town Centre

11.6.4

11.6.5 11.6.6

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 Wandsworth Town Centre. Wandsworth Town Conservation Area The proposed development is not likely to alter the setting of this character area. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible.

11.6.7

Page 164

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park 11.6.8

Section 11: Townscape and visual

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 Wandsworth Town Conservation Area. Wandsworth Town Hall 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 Wandsworth Town Hall. Southside Retail Centre and 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 low sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed development would give rise to a negligible effect on Southside Retail Centre and Residential. Garratt Lane 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 Garratt Lane Residential. King Georges Park Heritage Green Space The proposed development would result in changes to the setting of this character area through the loss of mature trees, and introduction of hard surfaces and above ground structures in an area currently characterised by open grassland. The magnitude of change and significance of effect on the area will be dependent on the design and finish of the public realm, boundary treatments and above ground structures. The magnitude of change is likely to range from low to medium. Assuming the high quality design of the public realm 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. King Georges Park Sports Ground 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 King Georges Park Sports Ground.

11.6.9 11.6.10

11.6.11 11.6.12

11.6.13 11.6.14

11.6.15

11.6.16

11.6.17

11.6.18 11.6.19

Page 165

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park Wandsworth Town Residential 11.6.20 11.6.21

Section 11: Townscape and visual

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 Wandsworth Town Residential. The assessment of townscape effects during Year 1 of operation is summarised in the table below. Vol 12 Table 11.6.2 Townscape character areas effects Year 1 of operation Townscape character area The site Sensitivity High Magnitude Effect Low to medium Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Low to medium Negligible Negligible Minor to moderate beneficial Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Minor to moderate beneficial Negligible Negligible

11.6.22

Wandsworth Town Centre Wandsworth Town Conservation Area Wandsworth Town Hall Southside Retail Centre and Residential Garratt Lane Residential King Georges Park Heritage Green Space King Georges Park Sports Ground Wandsworth Town Residential

Low Medium Low Low Medium High

High Medium

Operational phase townscape assessment Year 1 of operation night time effects 11.6.23 It is likely that the operational project would have no substantial lighting requirements. Therefore, for all townscape character areas it is considered that the proposed development would have a negligible effect on night time character. Operational phase visual assessment Year 1 of operation Residential Viewpoint 1.1: View east from residences on Buckhold Road 11.6.24 The elements of the proposed development would be barely discernible from this location due to screening provided by existing vegetation along the northern boundary of King Georges Park. However, the loss of

Page 166

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 11: Townscape and visual

mature trees as a result of the construction of the works would slightly alter the green character of this view. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view is considered to be low. 11.6.25 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 north east from residences on Buckhold Road close to the junction with Broomhill Road 11.6.26 The elements of the proposed development would not be visible from this location due to screening provided by existing vegetation along the northern boundary of King Georges Park. The loss of mature trees as a result of the construction of the works would make no perceptible change to the green character of this view, due to the retention of densely planted mature trees west of the main park footpath. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor, means the proposed development would give rise to negligible effects on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 1.3: View north east from residences on Buckhold Road at the footpath connecting to Merton Road 11.6.28 The elements of the proposed development would not be visible from this location due to screening provided by existing vegetation along the northern boundary of King Georges Park. The loss of mature trees as a result of the construction of the works would make no perceptible change to the green character of this view, due to the retention of densely planted mature trees west of the main park footpath. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor, means the proposed development would give rise to negligible effects on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 1.4: View north east from Merton Road close to the junction with Buckhold Road 11.6.30 The elements of the proposed development would not be visible from this location due to screening provided by existing vegetation along the northern boundary of King Georges Park. The loss of mature trees as a result of the construction of the works would make no perceptible change to the green character of this view, due to the retention of densely planted mature trees west of the main park footpath. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor, means the proposed development would give rise to negligible effects on this viewpoint.

11.6.27

11.6.29

11.6.31

Page 167

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 11: Townscape and visual

Viewpoint 1.5: View north east from residences on Merton Road at the footpath connecting to Buckhold Road 11.6.32 The elements of the proposed development would not be visible from this location due to screening provided by existing vegetation along the northern boundary of King Georges Park. The loss of mature trees as a result of the construction of the works would make no perceptible change to the green character of this view, due to the retention of densely planted mature trees west of the main park footpath. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor, means the proposed development would give rise to negligible effects on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 1.6: View east from residences on Merton Road close to Lebanon Gardens 11.6.34 The elements of the proposed development would not be visible from this location due to screening provided by existing vegetation along the northern boundary of King Georges Park. The loss of mature trees as a result of the construction of the works would make no perceptible change to the green character of this view, due to the retention of densely planted mature trees west of the main park footpath. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor, means the proposed development would give rise to negligible effects on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 1.7: View east from residences along Broomhill Road 11.6.36 The elements of the proposed development would not be visible from this location due to screening provided by existing vegetation along the northern boundary of King Georges Park. The loss of mature trees as a result of the construction of the works would make no perceptible change to the green character of this view, due to the retention of densely planted mature trees west of the main park footpath. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor, means the proposed development would give rise to negligible effects on this viewpoint. Recreational Viewpoint 2.1: View north from the Chinese bridge in King Georges Park 11.6.38 Views from this location would be affected by the loss of mature trees at the site, the design of the public realm and the siting and appearance of the above ground structures. The new structures would be likely to be partially screened by existing and newly planted vegetation. The magnitude of change and significance of effect on this viewpoint will be dependent on the design and finish of the public realm, boundary treatments and above ground structures.

11.6.33

11.6.35

11.6.37

11.6.39

Page 168

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park 11.6.40

Section 11: Townscape and visual

The magnitude of change is likely to range from low to medium. Assuming the high quality design of the public realm 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 2.2: View north from the lakeside footpath close to the tennis courts

11.6.41

Views from this location would be affected by the loss of mature trees at the site, the design of the public realm and the siting and appearance of the above ground structures. The new structures would be likely to be partially screened by existing and newly planted vegetation. The magnitude of change and significance of effect on this viewpoint will be dependent on the design and finish of the public realm, boundary treatments and above ground structures. The magnitude of change is likely to range from low to medium. Assuming the high quality design of the public realm 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 2.3: View north west from the River Wandle corridor The elements of the proposed development would not be visible from this location due to screening provided by existing vegetation along the eastern boundary of King Georges Park. The loss of mature trees as a result of the construction of the works would make no perceptible change to the green character of this view, due to the retention of mature trees throughout the remainder of the park. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor, means the proposed development would give rise to negligible effects on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 2.4: View north from National Cycle Route 20 on the eastern boundary of King Georges Park

11.6.42

11.6.43

11.6.44

11.6.45

11.6.46

The elements of the proposed development would be barely discernible from this location due to screening provided by existing vegetation along the eastern boundary of King Georges Park. The loss of mature trees as a result of the construction of the works would make no perceptible change to the green character of this view, due to the retention of mature trees throughout the remainder of the park. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor, means the proposed development would give rise to negligible effects on this viewpoint.

11.6.47

Page 169

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 11: Townscape and visual

Viewpoint 2.5: View north from the amenity green space in the southern section of King Georges Park 11.6.48 The elements of the proposed development would be barely discernible from this location due to screening provided by existing vegetation along the eastern boundary of King Georges Park. The loss of mature trees as a result of the construction of the works would make no perceptible change to the green character of this view, due to the retention of mature trees throughout the remainder of the park. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor, means the proposed development would give rise to negligible effects on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 2.6: View north from the Fosters Walk entrance to King Georges Park 11.6.50 The elements of the proposed development would be barely discernible from this location due to screening provided by existing vegetation along the eastern boundary of King Georges Park. The loss of mature trees as a result of the construction of the works would make no perceptible change to the green character of this view, due to the retention of mature trees throughout the remainder of the park. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor, means the proposed development would give rise to negligible effects on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 2.7: View north from the lakeside footpath close to the childrens playground 11.6.52 Views from this location would be affected by the loss of mature trees at the site, the design of the public realm and the siting and appearance of the above ground structures. The new structures would be likely to be partially screened by existing and newly planted vegetation. The magnitude of change and significance of effect on this viewpoint will be dependent on the design and finish of the public realm, boundary treatments and above ground structures. The magnitude of change is likely to range from low to medium. Assuming the high quality design of the public realm 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. Transport Viewpoint 3.1: View south from Wandsworth High Street at the junction with Buckhold Road 11.6.55 The elements of the proposed development would not be visible from this location due to screening provided by existing vegetation along the northern boundary of King Georges Park. The loss of mature trees as a result of the construction of the works would make no perceptible change

11.6.49

11.6.51

11.6.53

11.6.54

Page 170

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 11: Townscape and visual

to the green character of this view, due to the retention of densely planted along the northern boundary and throughout the remainder of the park. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view is considered to be negligible. 11.6.56 The negligible magnitude of change, assessed alongside the medium sensitivity of the receptor, means the proposed development would give rise to negligible effects on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 3.2: View north west from Neville Gill Close near to the site 11.6.57 Views from this location would be affected by the loss of mature trees at the site, the design of the public realm and the siting and appearance of the above ground structures. The new structures would be likely to be partially screened by existing and newly planted vegetation. The magnitude of change and significance of effect on this viewpoint will be dependent on the design and finish of the public realm, boundary treatments and above ground structures. The magnitude of change is likely to range from low to medium. Assuming the high quality design of the public realm in particular, effects are likely to have a beneficial effect on this viewpoint. Assessing this alongside the medium sensitivity of the receptor means the proposed development would give rise to negligible or minor beneficial effects on this viewpoint. The assessment of magnitude of change and therefore significance of effect will be refined for the submitted project and reflected in the final ES. Viewpoint 3.3: View north west from Neville Gill Close at the southern residential tower 11.6.61 Views from this location would be affected by the loss of mature trees at the site, the design of the public realm and the siting and appearance of the above ground structures. The new structures would be likely to be partially screened by existing and newly planted vegetation. The magnitude of change and significance of effect on this viewpoint will be dependent on the design and finish of the public realm, boundary treatments and above ground structures. The magnitude of change is likely to range from low to medium. Assuming the high quality design of the public realm in particular, effects are likely to have a beneficial effect on this viewpoint. Assessing this alongside the medium sensitivity of the receptor means the proposed development would give rise to negligible or minor beneficial effects on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 3.4: View south east from Broomhill Road 11.6.64 The elements of the proposed development would not be visible from this location due to screening provided by existing vegetation along the northern boundary of King Georges Park. The loss of mature trees as a result of the construction of the works would make no perceptible change to the green character of this view, due to the retention of densely planted mature trees west of the main park footpath. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view is considered to be negligible.

11.6.58

11.6.59

11.6.60

11.6.62

11.6.63

Page 171

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park 11.6.65

Section 11: Townscape and visual

The negligible magnitude of change, assessed alongside the medium sensitivity of the receptor, means the proposed development would give rise to negligible effects on this viewpoint. The assessment of visual effects during Year 1 of operation is summarised in the table below. Vol 12 Table 11.6.3 Viewpoint effects Year 1 operation Viewpoint Residential Viewpoint 1.1: View east from residences on Buckhold Road Viewpoint 1.2: View north east from residences on Buckhold Road close to the junction with Broomhill Road Viewpoint 1.3: View north east from residences on Buckhold Road at the footpath connecting to Merton Road Viewpoint 1.4: View north east from Merton Road close to the junction with Buckhold Road Viewpoint 1.5: View north east from residences on Merton Road at the footpath connecting to Buckhold Road Viewpoint 1.6: View east from residences on Merton Road close to Lebanon Gardens Viewpoint 1.7: View east from residences along Broomhill Road Recreational Viewpoint 2.1: View north from the Chinese Bridge in King Georges Park Viewpoint 2.2: View north from the lakeside footpath close to the tennis courts Viewpoint 2.3: View north west from the River Wandle corridor Viewpoint 2.4: View north from National Cycle Route 20 on the eastern boundary of King Low to medium Low to medium Negligible Negligible High Minor to moderate beneficial Minor to moderate beneficial Negligible Negligible Low Negligible High High Minor adverse Negligible Magnitude Sensitivity Effect

11.6.66

Negligible

High

Negligible

Negligible

High

Negligible

Negligible

High

Negligible

Negligible

High

Negligible

Negligible

High

Negligible

High

High High

Page 172

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park Viewpoint Georges Park Viewpoint 2.5: View north from the amenity green space in the southern section of King Georges Park Viewpoint 2.6: View north from the Fosters Walk entrance to King Georges Park Viewpoint 2.7: View north from the lakeside footpath close to the childrens playground Transport Viewpoint 3.1: View south from Wandsworth High Street at the junction with Buckhold Road Viewpoint 3.2: View north west from Neville Gill Close near to the site Viewpoint 3.3: View north west from Neville Gill Close at the southern residential tower Viewpoint 3.4: View south east from Broomhill Road

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

Negligible

High

Negligible

Low to medium

High

Minor to moderate beneficial Negligible

Negligible

Medium

Low to medium Low to medium Negligible

Medium

Negligible to minor beneficial Negligible to minor beneficial Negligible

Medium

Medium

Operational assessment results Year 15 of operation


11.6.67 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 further 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

Approach to mitigation Construction


All measures embedded in the draft CoCP of relevance to townscape and visual amenity are found in Section 11.2. In addition, a process of iterative design and assessment has been employed to reduce adverse effects arising during construction. Significant adverse effects arising during construction cannot be further mitigated because the scale of construction activities, primarily the height of cranes, and also construction deliveries,

Page 173

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 11: Townscape and visual

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 and maximise beneficial effects during operation. It is likely that the projects ongoing commitment to high quality design would maximise beneficial effects and minimise adverse effects on the townscape resource of the site.

Page 174

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 11: Townscape and visual

11.8
Vol 12 Table 11.8.1 Townscape summary of construction assessment Significance of effect Major adverse Not required No mitigation possible Mitigation

Assessment summary
Significance of residual effect Major adverse

Receptor

Description of effect

The site

Change to character due to clearance of vegetation, presence of site hoardings and intensity of construction activity.

Wandsworth Town Centre

Marginal change to setting due to the presence of Negligible cranes and road transport, set against the ongoing presence of construction activities within Wandsworth Town Centre. Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Major adverse Moderate adverse Moderate adverse

Negligible

Wandsworth Town Conservation Area

No significant change in setting.

Not required

Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Major adverse

Wandsworth Town Hall

No significant change in setting.

Southside Retail Centre and Residential

No significant change in setting.

Not required Not required

Garratt Lane Residential

No significant change in setting.

King Georges Park Heritage Green Space

Change to setting due to vegetation clearance and the presence of cranes, site hoardings and construction activity.

Not required No mitigation possible No mitigation possible No mitigation possible

King Georges Park Sports Ground

Change to wider setting due to vegetation clearance and the presence of cranes, site hoardings and construction activity.

Moderate adverse Moderate adverse

Wandsworth Town Residential

Change to setting due to the presence of cranes, construction activity and road transport.

Page 175

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 11: Townscape and visual

Vol 12 Table 11.8.2 Visual assessment summary of construction assessment Description of effect Significance of effect Major adverse Minor adverse Minor adverse Negligible No mitigation possible No mitigation possible Not required No mitigation possible Minor adverse Minor adverse No mitigation possible No mitigation possible Major No further mitigation No mitigation possible Mitigation Significance of residual effect Major adverse

Receptor

Residential Visibility of tree clearance, site hoardings, cranes and construction traffic. Visibility of cranes and tree clearance.

Viewpoint 1.1: View east from residences on Buckhold Road

Viewpoint 1.2: View north east from residences on Buckhold Road close to the junction with Broomhill Road Visibility of cranes and tree clearance.

Minor adverse

Viewpoint 1.3: View north east from residences on Buckhold Road at the footpath connecting to Merton Road Marginal visibility of cranes.

Minor adverse

Viewpoint 1.4: View north east from Merton Road close to the junction with Buckhold Road Visibility of cranes and tree clearance.

Negligible

Viewpoint 1.5: View north east from residences on Merton Road at the footpath connecting to Buckhold Road Visibility of cranes and tree clearance.

Minor adverse

Minor adverse

Viewpoint 1.6: View east from residences on Merton Road close to Lebanon Gardens

Minor adverse

Viewpoint 1.7: View east from residences along Broomhill Road

Visibility of cranes and tree clearance.

Minor adverse

Recreational Visibility of tree clearance, site hoardings, cranes and construction Major adverse

Viewpoint 2.1: View north from the

Page 176

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park Description of effect traffic. Visibility of tree clearance, site hoardings, cranes and construction traffic. Marginal visibility of cranes. Marginal visibility of cranes. Negligible Not required No mitigation possible No mitigation possible Major adverse No mitigation possible Moderate adverse Major adverse No mitigation possible No mitigation possible Negligible Not required Major adverse No mitigation possible adverse possible Major adverse Significance of effect Mitigation Significance of residual effect

Section 11: Townscape and visual

Receptor

Chinese Bridge in King Georges Park

Viewpoint 2.2: View north from the lakeside footpath close to the tennis courts

Viewpoint 2.3: View north west from the River Wandle corridor

Negligible Negligible

Viewpoint 2.4: View north from National Cycle Route 20 on the eastern boundary of King Georges Park Background visibility of cranes, tree clearance, site hoardings and construction activity. Visibility of tree clearance, cranes, construction plant and site hoardings. Visibility of tree clearance, cranes, construction activity and site hoardings. Moderate adverse Minor adverse

Viewpoint 2.5: View north from the amenity green space in the southern section of King Georges Park

Minor adverse

Viewpoint 2.6: View north from the Fosters Walk entrance to King Georges Park

Moderate adverse Major adverse

Viewpoint 2.7: View north from the lakeside footpath close to the childrens playground

Transport Visibility of tree clearance, cranes and construction activity. Visibility of tree clearance, cranes, construction activity, site hoardings and construction traffic. Moderate adverse Major adverse

Viewpoint 3.1: View south from Wandsworth High Street at the junction with Buckhold Road

Viewpoint 3.2: View north west from Neville Gill Close near to the site

Page 177

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park Description of effect Visibility of tree clearance, cranes, construction activity, site hoardings and construction traffic. Marginal visibility of cranes and tree clearance. Vol 12 Table 11.8.3 Townscape Year 1 of operation Significance of effect Minor to moderate beneficial Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Minor to moderate beneficial Mitigation Not required Significance of residual effect Minor to moderate beneficial Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Minor to moderate beneficial Negligible Not required Negligible Moderate adverse No mitigation possible Moderate adverse Significance of effect Mitigation Significance of residual effect

Section 11: Townscape and visual

Receptor

Viewpoint 3.3: View north west from Neville Gill Close at the southern residential tower

Viewpoint 3.4: View south east from Broomhill Road

Receptor

Description of effect

The site

Change in character through the clearance of trees and introduction of hard surfaces and built elements.

Wandsworth Town Centre

No significant change in setting.

Wandsworth Town Conservation Area

No significant change in setting.

Not required Not required

Wandsworth Town Hall

No significant change in setting.

Southside Retail Centre and Residential

No significant change in setting.

Not required Not required

Garratt Lane Residential

No significant change in setting.

King Georges Park Heritage Green Space

Change in setting through the clearance of trees and introduction of hard surfaces and built elements.

Not required Not required

Page 178

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park Significance of effect Negligible Negligible Not required Negligible Not required Negligible Mitigation Significance of residual effect

Section 11: Townscape and visual

Receptor

Description of effect

King Georges Park Sports Ground

No significant change in setting.

Wandsworth Town Residential Vol 12 Table 11.8.4 Visual assessment Year 1 of operation Description of effect Significance of effect Minor adverse Negligible Mitigation

No significant change in setting.

Receptor

Significance of residual effect Minor adverse No mitigation possible Not required

Residential Intermittent visibility of area of cleared trees. No visibility.

Viewpoint 1.1: View east from residences on Buckhold Road

Viewpoint 1.2: View north east from residences on Buckhold Road close to the junction with Broomhill Road No visibility.

Negligible

Viewpoint 1.3: View north east from residences on Buckhold Road at the footpath connecting to Merton Road No visibility.

Negligible

Not required Negligible Not required Negligible Not required

Negligible

Viewpoint 1.4: View north east from Merton Road close to the junction with Buckhold Road No visibility.

Negligible

Viewpoint 1.5: View north east from residences on Merton Road at the footpath connecting to Buckhold Road

Negligible

Page 179

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park Description of effect No visibility. Negligible Not required Not required Not required Not required Not required Negligible Not required Negligible Not required Negligible Not required Not required Negligible Significance of effect Mitigation Significance of residual effect

Section 11: Townscape and visual

Receptor

Viewpoint 1.6: View east from residences on Merton Road close to Lebanon Gardens No visibility. Negligible Negligible

Viewpoint 1.7: View east from residences along Broomhill Road Minor to moderate beneficial Minor to moderate beneficial Negligible

Recreational Visibility of cleared trees, area of hardstanding and above ground structures. Visibility of cleared trees, area of hardstanding and above ground structures. No visibility. No visibility. Minor to moderate beneficial Minor to moderate beneficial Negligible Negligible

Viewpoint 2.1: View north from the Chinese Bridge in King Georges Park

Viewpoint 2.2: View north from the lakeside footpath close to the tennis courts

Viewpoint 2.3: View north west from the River Wandle corridor

Viewpoint 2.4: View north from National Cycle Route 20 on the eastern boundary of King Georges Park No visibility.

Viewpoint 2.5: View north from the amenity green space in the southern section of King Georges Park No visibility.

Negligible

Viewpoint 2.6: View north from the Fosters Walk entrance to King Georges Park

Negligible

Viewpoint 2.7: View north from the lakeside footpath close to the childrens

Visibility of cleared trees, area of public Minor to moderate realm and above ground structures.

Minor to moderate

Page 180

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park Description of effect beneficial Negligible Not required Not required Not required Not required Negligible beneficial Significance of effect Mitigation Significance of residual effect

Section 11: Townscape and visual

Receptor

playground

Transport No visibility.

Viewpoint 3.1: View south from Wandsworth High Street at the junction with Buckhold Road Visibility of cleared trees, area of public Negligible to minor realm and above ground structures. beneficial Visibility of cleared trees, area of public Negligible to minor realm and above ground structures. beneficial No visibility. Negligible

Viewpoint 3.2: View north west from Neville Gill Close near to the site

Negligible to minor beneficial Negligible to minor beneficial Negligible

Viewpoint 3.3: View north west from Neville Gill Close at the southern residential tower

Viewpoint 3.4: View south east from Broomhill Road

Page 181

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 11: Townscape and visual

11.9
11.9.1

Assessment completion
The baseline data collection is complete for this site, aside from establishing a baseline for the night time character of the assessment area. The ES will include the summer baseline for each of the character areas and viewpoints. It will also include winter and summer photos for each character area and viewpoint. The study area for the assessment will be reviewed for the ES, based on the findings of this report. It may be appropriate to reduce the study area to focus the assessment on likely significant effects. Further work will be undertaken to establish a base case for the Year 15 operational assessment, using professional judgement aligned with future developments. The construction and operational assessments will be completed, including an assessment against the night time baseline. Three verifiable photomontages will be produced for the ES, in the locations indicated on Vol 12 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 project in operation. Where possible, these will be embedded in the proposed development. Details of the project design and landscaping will be provided for the planning submission. Further work will be undertaken for the ES to establish the effects of the proposed development after the architectural and landscape design has been fully worked up. This will inform the assessment of operational effects in Year 1 and Year 15. Residual effects remaining after mitigation measures have been identified will be identified and recorded. Assessment of cumulative and in combination effects will be undertaken and reported in the ES.

11.9.2

11.9.3

11.9.4 11.9.5 11.9.6

11.9.7

11.9.8 11.9.9

Page 182

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 12: Transport

12 12.1
12.1.1

Transport Introduction
This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the transport effects of the Thames Tunnel project at the King George's Park 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 King George's Park site. As detailed in Volume 5, the transport assessment also comprises assessment at Borough (sub area) and project-wide levels these assessments are contained in Volume 6. More detailed analysis of all three levels of assessment (site-specific, Borough level and project-wide) will be presented in the ES. This assessment provides a commentary on the anticipated transport effects of the project. When baseline data collection and analysis is complete a full quantitative transport assessment will be carried out. The assessment and mitigation text contained within this section is therefore based on professional judgement using available information at the time of writing.

12.1.5

12.2
12.2.1

Proposed development
The proposed development 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 183

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 12: Transport

Vol 12 Table 12.2.1 Construction traffic details Description Assumed peak period of construction lorry movements Assumed average peak daily construction lorry vehicle movements Types of lorry requiring access Assumption Year 1 of construction

20 movements per day (10 two-way lorry trips) Excavation lorries Concrete lorries Rebar lorries Office lorries Pipe/Track/Oils lorries Plant 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. During construction it is assumed that all materials would be transported by road. Lorry routing during construction phasing Construction lorries would take the route of minimum impact to/from the Transport for London Route Network (TLRN). It is envisaged that lorries would access and egress via the A3, A205, and A217 corridors and locally via Buckhold Road and Neville Gill Close. Vol 12 Figure 12.2.1 indicates the construction traffic routes for access to/from the King George's Park site. Construction routes are being discussed with both TfL and the Local Highway Authority (LHA). Vol 12 Figure 12.2.1 Transport - construction traffic routes (see Volume 12 Figures document) The histogram in the figure below shows that peak activity at the King George's Park site would occur in Year 1 of construction. This peak is earlier than the overall project-wide construction peak activity year of 2019.

12.2.4

12.2.5

12.2.6

12.2.7

Page 184

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park Vol 12 Figure 12.2.2 Transport - construction lorry profile

Section 12: Transport

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 185

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park Construction workers 12.2.8

Section 12: Transport

The construction site is expected to require a maximum workforce of approximately 40 people at any one time. The number and type of workers is shown in the table below. Vol 12 Table 12.2.2 Construction worker numbers Contractor Staff 08:00 18:00 15 Labour 08:00 18:00 20 Client Staff 08:00 18:00 5

12.2.9

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.

12.2.10

12.2.11

12.2.12

Operation
12.2.13 12.2.14 12.2.15 The operational structure would be located within King George's Park. Access for maintenance vehicles would be Neville Gill Close. Access would be required for a light commercial vehicle on a three to six monthly maintenance schedule. Additionally there would be more significant maintenance visits every ten years which would require access to enable two cranes to be brought to the site, which may require temporary suspension of on-street parking in the vicinity of the site.

12.3
12.3.1

Assessment methodology Scoping and engagement


Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. All consultee comments relevant to this site are presented in the table below. 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

12.3.2

Page 186

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 12: Transport

effects associated with transport for the operational phase are not expected to be significant or adverse, the Transport Assessment which will accompany the ES as part of the application, will examine the operational phase in order to satisfy the relevant stakeholders that technical issues have been addressed (for example, those associated with access for maintenance activities). As this also allows conclusions in relation to environmental effects to be drawn, these have been included for completeness. Vol 12 Table 12.3.1 Transport stakeholder engagement Organisation LB of Wandsworth Scoping opinion / consultation comment Restricted access means that smaller vans likely to be utilised on this site although tracking suggests the suggested routing is manageable, a traffic island may need to be removed. Response Swept path analysis has been undertaken and to determine accessibility.

LB of Wandsworth LB of Wandsworth

Works may impact on access This is addressed in to the park and this should the assessment. be limited. Site assessment should take consideration of proposals for the redevelopment of Cockpen House and the Brewery Site. Consideration should be given to the interface between vehicles and pedestrians at access point given proximity of day centre on Neville Gill Close. If existing parking bays are to be suspended, alternative locations for the parking should be found if required. This is addressed in the assessment.

Transport for London

This will be managed through the design of the access. Any additional mitigation required will be identified as part of the assessment. Alternative locations for the disabled parking bay in Neville Gill Close would be found if it is required to be suspended in its current location.

Transport for London

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

Page 187

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 12: Transport

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

Operation
12.3.5 The operational phase methodology follows the standard methodology described in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.

Assessment assumptions and limitations


12.3.6 The assumptions and limitations made for the transport assessment are as listed in Volume 5. Site specific assumptions for the site will be provided in the ES when the detailed assessment is presented. The preliminary assessment findings reported are qualitative and based on professional judgement.

12.3.7

12.4
12.4.1

Baseline conditions
The site occupies the northern tip of King Georges Park and is located within LB of Wandsworth approximately 0.17km south of the Wandsworth Gyratory. 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 12 Figure 12.4.1 shows the local transport site plan. Vol 12 Figure 12.4.1 Transport local site plan (see Volume 12 Figures document)

12.4.2

Pedestrian routes
12.4.3 There is an existing pedestrian access to King Georges Park located at the north end of the park. This is one of the primary pedestrian access points to the park. There are dropped kerbs and tactile paving on Neville Gill Close where it meets Buckhold Road. A signalised pedestrian crossing is located on Buckhold Road approximately 70m south-west of the Neville Gill Close/Buckhold Road junction. Southside Shopping Centre is located to the east of the site and can be accessed by pedestrians from Neville Gill Close. The Wandsworth Medical Centre is located to the south of the shopping centre and can be accessed from Garrett Lane. The Thames Path does not route in the vicinity of the site.

12.4.4 12.4.5

12.4.6

12.4.7

Cycle routes
12.4.8 There is a designated London Cycle Route that runs along Neville Gill Close and passes the proposed site entrance. This route continues north along Buckhold Road and then east along Wandsworth High Street.

Page 188

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park 12.4.9

Section 12: Transport

There are cycle parking facilities available at Southside Shopping Centre

Bus routes
12.4.10 The site is classified as having a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 4. This indicates that there is a moderately good provision of public transport in the vicinity of the site. There are northbound and southbound bus stops located on Buckhold Road, a short distance from the site, and these stops service routes 39, 156 and 639. Vol 12 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 12 Table 12.4.1 Bus service frequency Distance from Site (metres) and Origin- Destination Location of Bus Stop 75m (Broomhill Road) 105m (Broomhill Road) 75m (Broomhill Road) 105m (Broomhill Road) Putney Bridge Station to Clapham Junction Station / Falcon Road Clapham Junction Station / Falcon Road to Putney Bridge Station Sir Cyril Black Way to Vauxhall Bus Station Vauxhall Bus Station to Wimbledon Station AM Peak (0700 to 2200) buses per hour
8

12.4.11

12.4.12

Route Number
39

39

156

156

Total

26

London Underground and National Rail Stations


12.4.13 There are no underground stations within reasonable walking distance of the site. Putney East is accessible however by buses which run along Wandsworth High Street. Wandsworth Town Rail Station is located approximately 1.3km to the north-west of the site and services Waterloo Station and Staines. In the AM and PM peak hour, eight trains service Waterloo from Wandsworth Town Rail Station and five trains and six trains service westbound routes in the AM and PM peaks respectively.

12.4.14 12.4.15

Page 189

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 12: Transport

River services
12.4.16 12.4.17 The King Georges Site is located approximately 0.9km south from Wandsworth Riverside Quarter pier on the South Bank. Wandsworth Riverside Quarter pier is served by the TfL River Bus which operates both east- and westbound. The eastbound service operates from Monday to Friday during peak hours (06:25, 07:35 and 08:10 in AM peak and 18:15 in PM peak). The westbound service operates from Monday to Friday during peak hours with no service in the morning and 17:55, 19:10 and 19:50 services in the PM.

Parking
Existing on-street car parking 12.4.18 There is on-street parking located on the eastern side of Neville Gill Close which is designated for use by disabled drivers. These bays are restricted to use by disabled badge holders only and loading is not permitted. Existing off-street/private car parking 12.4.19 There is a surface car park located at the southern end of Neville Gill Close which is subject to a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ). The car park is available to the public on a pay and display basis and operates from 09:30 to 16:30, Monday to Friday with a maximum stay of four hours. There is a Traders Hall multi-storey car park located on Buckhold Road which is open 06:00 to 23:00 Monday to Friday, 06:00 to 21:00 Saturdays and Sundays. There is capacity available for 315 spaces and there is a charge of 1.20 per hour and a maximum charge of 20.20 per 24 hours. It is situated directly across the road from the site entrance. There is a Southside Shopping Centre multi-storey car park located on Mapleton Crescent which is open 24 hours Monday to Sunday. There is capacity available for 875 spaces and there is a charge of 1.20 per hour and a maximum charge of 20.20 per 24 hours for its use. It is just under 0.3km walk to this car park from the site entrance. There is a also a Sainsburys car park located on 45 Garratt Lane which is open 08:00 to 22:00 Monday to Saturday and 11:00 to 17:00 Sunday. There is capacity available for 423 spaces and there is no charge for store customers. It is situated within 0.6km walking distance from the site entrance. There are no coach parking within the vicinity of the site, with the nearest being Earls Court coach park 4.3km north of the site.

12.4.20

12.4.21

12.4.22

12.4.23

Highway network
12.4.24 A site visit was undertaken on Tuesday 10th May 2011 between the hours of 07:30 and 08:00 to observe the peak hour traffic volumes on the road network adjacent to the proposed site access. Buckhold Road is a single lane north-east / south-west carriageway with a speed limit of 30mph.

12.4.25

Page 190

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park 12.4.26

Section 12: Transport

To the north-east of the site, Buckhold Road joins the A3 which forms part of the TLRN and is a section of the Wandsworth Gyratory.

Survey data
Description of surveys 12.4.27 Baseline survey data for the King George's Park site were collected in May and June 2011 to establish the existing transport movements in the area. Manual and automated traffic surveys were undertaken to establish specific traffic, pedestrian and cycle movements including turning volumes, queue lengths, saturation flows, degree of saturation and traffic signal timings. A number of junction surveys were undertaken round the Wandsworth Gyratory, those particularly pertinent to the King George's Park site include: a. A218 Buckhold Road / Neville Gill Close b. A3 Wandsworth High St / A218 Buckhold Road c. A3 Armoury Way / Dormay Street d. A3 Old York Road / Ram Street / A3 Armoury Way 12.4.29 An Automated Traffic Counter (ATC) was placed on the A217 Swandon Way to obtain traffic flow data. Results of surveys 12.4.30 Data obtained from the surveys were being processed at the time of writing and will be reported fully in the ES.

12.4.28

Data from third party sources


12.4.31 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


12.4.32 The receptors and their sensitivities in the vicinity of the King George's Park site are summarised in the table below. The transport receptor sensitivity is defined as high, medium or low using the criteria detailed in Volume 5. 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, river services, parking and local highway network. A full assessment will be provided in the ES.

12.4.33

Page 191

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 12: Transport

Vol 12 Table 12.4.2 Transport receptors Value/sensitivity and justification High Receptor * Residents on Buckhold Road * Park users required to use alternative access point. Emergency vehicles accessing the commercial and units within the local area * Business owners, commercial units and workplace occupiers that back onto Neville Gill Close. * Private vehicle users in the area using the local highways or parking * No receptors with low sensitivity

Medium

Low

12.5
12.5.1

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

12.5.2

Construction base and development cases


Assessment year 12.5.3 As described in Volume 5, 2019 has been used as the construction assessment year for all sites, as agreed with TfL, to enable a networkwide assessment. The peak period for vehicle trips to the site is predicted to be in Year 1 of construction which will be the assessment year for local network assessments and will be contained in the ES. The assessment is undertaken for the network-wide 2019 assessment year. Assessment area 12.5.6 12.5.7 The area being assessed for the King George's Park site is based on discussions with LB of Wandsworth and Transport for London. Local roads and junctions included in the assessment are as follows: a. A218 Buckhold Road / Neville Gill Close

12.5.4

12.5.5

Page 192

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park b. A3 Wandsworth High St / A218 Buckhold Road c. A3 Wandsworth High St / A217

Section 12: Transport

d. A3 Armoury Way / Wandsworth High Street / A3 West Hill e. Armoury Way / A3 W Hill / Putney Bridge Road f. Armoury Way / A217 / Frogmore g. Wandsworth High Street / A217 Garratt Lane h. A3 Old York Road / Ram St / A3 Armoury Way i. j. 12.5.8 Old York Road / Fairfield St / A217 Swandon Way A3 E Hill / St Anns Hill / A3 Wandsworth High St / A3 Fairfield St

These roads and junctions would be assessed for highway, cycle and pedestrian impacts. Local bus and rail services, as identified on Vol 12 Figure 12.4.1 would also be assessed. Construction base case

12.5.9

The construction base case takes into account traffic growth and new developments within the local area by 2019. This includes the developments described in Section 3.5, namely: a. Business Village, Broomhill Road. b. Cockpen House.

12.5.10

The following sub-sections detail what is assumed to change between the baseline and base case scenarios with respect to the different transport aspects considered. Pedestrian routes Pedestrian routes are not anticipated to change from baseline conditions. The base case therefore assumes the same pedestrian routes as set out in Section 12.4. Cycle routes Cycle routes are not anticipated to change from baseline conditions and therefore the base case assumes the same cycle routes as set out in Section 12.4. Bus routes and patronage Bus routes are not anticipated to change from baseline conditions and therefore are assumed to be the same in the base case. Bus patronage is anticipated to increase, the effect of which will be detailed in the Transport Assessment. London Underground and 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.

12.5.11

12.5.12

12.5.13

12.5.14

Page 193

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park 12.5.15

Section 12: Transport

National Rail routes are not anticipated to change from baseline conditions. National Rail patronage is anticipated to increase, the effect of which will be detailed in the Transport Assessment. River services and patronage River services 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 King George's Park site in 2019 without the Thames Tunnel project. The scope of this analysis is being agreed with LB of Wandsworth and Transport for London. The full assessment of the highway operation and capacity analysis will be undertaken in the ES. Construction development case

12.5.16

12.5.17

12.5.18

12.5.19

12.5.20

12.5.21

12.5.22 12.5.23

The construction development case comprises the base case plus construction activities associated with the King George's Park site. This section addresses the changes that would arise as a result of the Thames Tunnel construction activities at the King George's Park 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). The table below shows the construction lorry movement assumptions for the local peak traffic periods. These are based on the peak months of construction activity at this site. The table also shows the construction worker movements expected to be generated by the site. These movements are based on the assumption that all material is transported to and from the site by road.

12.5.24

12.5.25

Page 194

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 12: Transport

Vol 12 Table 12.5.1 Transport forecasts construction vehicle movements Vehicle movements per time period Vehicle type Construction vehicle movements 10%* Worker vehicle movements Total Total Daily 20 12 32 07:00 to 08:00 0 6 6 08:00 to 09:00 2 0 2 17:00 to 18:00 2 0 2 18:00 to 19:00 0 6 6

* 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 excavated material and other material is taken by road, an average peak flow of 32 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 King George's Park site has a PTAL of 4 which indicates a moderately good provision of public transport. It is unlikely that parking would be provided on site for workers and there is no parking around the site because of Red Route and local restrictions. It is assumed that some travel to site or between sites is required (for maintenance, client supervision etc) therefore it has been assumed that 20% of staff and 10% of labour staff could drive to the site. Workers who are unable to drive to the site would use other modes. Information regarding the travel arrangements of these workers would be included in the Construction Management Plan and Work Place Travel Plan documents for the site (to be submitted as part of the application). Pedestrian routes The intended site area is adjacent to the existing pedestrian access located at the northern end of the Park. This access would be maintained during the construction phase with the existing path diverted to avoid the construction site. Cycle routes No cycle routes run through the site and therefore none would be impacted on directly by the construction site development. Bus routes and patronage Bus routes operate close to the site along Buckhold Road however, no bus services run through the site and therefore none would be impacted on by the construction site development.

12.5.27

12.5.28

12.5.29

12.5.30

Page 195

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 12: Transport

London Underground and National Rail and patronage 12.5.31 No underground or rail services run through the site and therefore none would be impacted on by the construction site development. River services and patronage 12.5.32 No river services are present at the site and therefore none would be impacted on by the construction site development. Parking 12.5.33 No public parking would be impacted on by the worksite area. However, parking close by in Neville Gill Close would be impacted. Highway layout 12.5.34 Highway layout would alter to allow a new access point on Neville Gill Close. Highway operation 12.5.35 Highway operation would not be impacted on by the worksite area

Construction effects
12.5.36 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 12.5.37 As the diversion of the path at the park entrance would be required, this would result in some pedestrians having further to walk to gain entry/exit the park. This is expected to have a minor adverse effect. Cycle routes 12.5.38 There would be an increase in construction vehicles on Neville Gill Close and this is currently a designated cycle route. However, as the number of construction vehicles would be very low, the existing cycle route would not be significantly impacted. It is therefore expected that the effect on cycle routes would be negligible. Bus routes and patronage 12.5.40 12.5.41 The routing of bus services in the area should not be affected by the construction works at the King George's Park site. 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 12.5.42 12.5.43 The National Rail service at Wandsworth Town is not likely to be affected by the construction works at the King George's Park. It is anticipated that there would be a proportion of labourers and staff using rail to access the site during construction, however, it is expected

12.5.39

Page 196

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 12: Transport

that the effect on London Underground, Overground and National Rail services would be negligible. River services and patronage 12.5.44 Construction materials to/from the King George's Park site would not be transported by river and therefore would not alter or affect any river services. It is therefore expected that the effect on river services would be negligible. Parking 12.5.45 It is anticipated that a section of existing on-street parking including a disabled parking bay would need to be removed on Neville Gill Close in order to allow heavy vehicles to access/egress the site. This on-street would be relocated in the local area if required. On this basis it is expected that the effect on car parking would be minor adverse. Highway layout 12.5.47 12.5.48 A new site access is required on Neville Gill Close. It is likely that it would only be possible to accommodate one-way vehicle flow at any one time on Neville Gill Close as it would be necessary for vehicles to encroach on the opposing traffic lane once they enter Neville Gill Close due to the width of carriageway and the turning movements that the vehicles are likely to be required to undertake over the short distance from the Buckhold Road / Neville Gill Close junction and the site access. In order for construction vehicles to complete the right turn into the site and left turn out of the site from/to Neville Gill Close it is likely that a section of on-street parking on the eastern side of Neville Gill Close would therefore need to be removed. The site access is likely to only be able to accommodate one-way traffic flow due to its width and there is likely to only be one vehicle permitted on site at a time due to the restricted turning area. The works to create the site access point are likely to require short term pedestrian and traffic management. Therefore, it is expected that the effect on the local highway layout would be minor adverse. Highway operation 12.5.52 Construction lorries would take the route of minimum impact between the site and TLRN. Vehicles would access the site along Neville Gill Close, via Buckhold Road and then either west or east along Wandsworth High Street (A3) depending on the journey purpose. As a result of the required traffic management, its effect on the ease of vehicle movements, and it is expected that the effect on highway operation would be minor adverse.

12.5.46

12.5.49

12.5.50

12.5.51

12.5.53

Page 197

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park Highway capacity analysis 12.5.54

Section 12: Transport

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. Given the low construction traffic movements and it is expected that the effect on highway capacity would be minor adverse. Significance of effects

12.5.55

12.5.56

The significance of the transport effects described above has been determined as part of the ongoing assessment and analysis. With regard to the application of the IEMA criteria detailed in Volume 5, this is based on professional judgement. During construction, the number of heavy goods vehicle movements would be low. The nature of the construction site layout at this location is considered likely to result in a minor to moderate adverse effect on road network operation and delay. Effects on pedestrian amenity and safety are expected to be minor adverse and on cyclist amenity and safety to be negligible.

12.5.57

12.6
12.6.1

Operational assessment
This section summarises the preliminary findings of the assessment based on professional judgement. The results summarised below will be presented in more detail in the ES. A qualitative approach to the assessment is appropriate due to the transport activity during the operational phase being very low. The transport elements have been considered in the context of the range of receptors present in each location and the significance criteria identified. Professional judgement has been applied to determine qualitatively the likely effects and their significance in each location being assessed. The transport effects reported in the ES will be based on more detailed information and qualitative analysis where this is appropriate.

12.6.2

Operational base and development cases


Assessment year 12.6.3 As outlined in Volume 5 the operational assessment year has been taken as Year 1 of operation which is the year in which it is assumed that the Thames Tunnel would become operational. As transport activity associated with the operational phase is very low, there is no requirement to assess any other year beyond that date. Assessment area 12.6.4 The assessment area for the operational assessment remains the same as for the construction assessment as set out in paras. 12.5.6-12.5.7. This includes those roads and junctions which lead to/from the King George's Park site to the SRN and TRLN.

Page 198

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park Operational base case 12.6.5 12.6.6

Section 12: Transport

The operational base case takes into account traffic growth and identified new developments within the local area by Year 1 of operation. 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. 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 LUL 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.

12.6.7

12.6.8

12.6.9 12.6.10

12.6.11 12.6.12

12.6.13 12.6.14

12.6.15

12.6.16 12.6.17

Page 199

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park Highway operation 12.6.18

Section 12: Transport

Population growth and development in the surrounding area will result in an increase in traffic on the surrounding highway network. As a result of this increase, it is anticipated that traffic flows may be heavier and queues longer. Highway capacity analysis Baseline traffic flows (from the junction surveys) are being used and forecasting carried out to understand the capacity on the highway network in the vicinity of King George's Park site in Year 1 of operation without the Thames Tunnel project. The scope of this analysis is being agreed with LB of Wandsworth and Transport for London and will be reported in the ES. Operational development case

12.6.19

12.6.20

The operational development case for the site includes any permanent changes in the vicinity of King Georges Park site as a result of the Thames Tunnel project and takes into consideration the occasional maintenance activities required at the site. Trip generation For routine three or six monthly inspections and equipment exercising, vehicular access would be required for light commercial vehicles. In most cases this would be typically a transit van. On occasion there may be a consequent need for small flatbed vehicles with lifting cranes, for example to remove plant from the site. During 10 yearly inspections, sites for placing two large tonne cranes would be required. The cranes would facilitate lowering and recovery of tunnel inspection vehicles and to provide duty / standby access for personnel. Modal split It is anticipated that all trips during the operational phase would be using transit van or large construction vehicles. No trips would be made by public transport, walking or cycling due to the nature of maintenance requiring equipment that can only be transported by vehicles. Pedestrian routes The footways and kerb alignments adjacent to the King George's Park site would be reinstated following the construction phase. Cycle routes The designated cycle routes within the area would be maintained and would not be affected during the operational phase. Bus routes and patronage No change is expected to any bus services in the operational phase and it is not anticipated that operational staff journeys would be made by bus.

12.6.21

12.6.22

12.6.23

12.6.24

12.6.25

12.6.26

Page 200

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 12: Transport

London Underground and National Rail and patronage 12.6.27 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 12.6.28 No change is expected to any river services as a result of the operational phase. Parking 12.6.29 No impact is expected on parking as a result of the King George's Park site during operation. Highway layout 12.6.30 The site access is likely to be located on Neville Gill Close which would result in vehicles undertaking a left turn from Buckhold Road to Neville Gill Close in order to access the site and a right turn from Neville Gill Close to Buckhold Road in order to route back to the A3. Highway operation 12.6.31 12.6.32 Occasional maintenance vehicles would service King George's Park 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.

Operational effects
12.6.33 This section summarises the preliminary findings of the operational assessment undertaken for the Year 1 of operation assessment year. Pedestrian routes 12.6.34 As a result of the occasional maintenance trips anticipated at King George's Park during the operational phase, there would be a negligible effect on pedestrian routes in the area and footways adjacent to the site. Cycle routes 12.6.35 As a result of the occasional maintenance trips anticipated at King George's Park 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 12.6.36 As a result of the occasional maintenance trips anticipated at King George's Park during the operational phase, there would be a negligible effect on bus routes and patronage. London Underground and National Rail and patronage 12.6.37 London Underground and National Rail services would not be affected by the occasional maintenance trips anticipated at King George's Park during the operational phase.

Page 201

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park River services and patronage 12.6.38

Section 12: Transport

River services would not be affected by the occasional maintenance trips anticipated at King George's Park during the operational phase. Parking As a result of the highly infrequent maintenance trips anticipated at King George's Park during the operational phase, there would be a negligible effect on on-street parking in the local area. During maintenance where larger vehicles are required, some parking may be temporarily suspended to enable vehicles to access the site which would be relocated in the local area if demand requires. Highway layout In the operational phase the current highway layout would be restored, with the construction access retained, resulting in a negligible impact on the local highway layout. Highway operation As a result of the occasional maintenance trips anticipated at King George's Park during the operational phase, there would be a negligible impact on highway operation. Highway capacity analysis It is expected that the effect on highway capacity would be negligible. Significance of effects The significance of the transport effects described above has been determined as part of the ongoing assessment and analysis. With regard to the application of the IEMA criteria detailed in Volume 5, this is based on professional judgement. During the operational phase there would be very occasional vehicle trips to and from the site for maintenance activities but these would have a negligible effect on the surrounding transport networks (in terms of delay and safety) and pedestrian/cyclists.

12.6.39

12.6.40

12.6.41

12.6.42 12.6.43

12.6.44

12.7
12.7.1 12.7.2

Approach to mitigation Construction


Measures contained in the draft CoCP of relevance to transport are summarised in Section 12.2. The project has been designed to limit the effects on the transport networks as far as possible and many measures have been included directly in the design of the project. Any mitigation which is required is detailed below. Pedestrian routes At this location, mitigation measures during the construction phase are likely to be required to provide safe crossing points for pedestrians at the site access.

12.7.3

Page 202

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park Cycle routes 12.7.4 12.7.5 12.7.6

Section 12: Transport

No mitigation measures are likely to be required for cyclists. Bus routes No mitigation measures are likely to be required for bus services. London Underground and National Rail No mitigation measures are likely to be required for underground or rail services. River services No mitigation measures are likely to be required for river services. Parking Assuming that the removed on-street parking (including a disabled parking bay) if relocated if needed, no mitigation would be required. Highway layout No mitigation measures are likely to be required for the local highway layout. Highway operation No mitigation measures are likely to be required for the local highway operation. Highway capacity No mitigation measures are likely to be required for highway capacity.

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 is required for the operational phase. Cycle routes 12.7.13 Cycle routes would not be affected by the operation of King George's Park, and no mitigation would be required. Bus routes 12.7.14 Bus services and patronage would not be affected by the operation of King George's Park 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 King George's Park site therefore no mitigation would be required. River services 12.7.16 River services and patronage would not be affected by the operation of King George's Park therefore no mitigation would be required.

Page 203

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park Parking 12.7.17

Section 12: Transport

On-street parking would be restored to the existing layout for the majority of the operational phase. When large maintenance vehicles are required at the King George's Park site, temporary parking bay suspension may be required to accommodate vehicle movements which would be re-provided in a safe location away from turning vehicles if demand requires. No mitigation would therefore be required. Highway layout The highway layout would be restored to the existing layout and therefore would not be affected by the operation of King George's Park. As a result no mitigation would be required for the operational phase. Highway operation The number of trips associated with King George's Park during the operational phase would be very low and infrequent and for maintenance purposes only. No mitigation would therefore be required. 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 the capacity of local junctions.

12.7.18

12.7.19

12.7.20

Page 204

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 12: Transport

12.8
Vol 12 Table 12.8.1 Transport construction assessment Effect Removal of pedestrian entrance to park resulting in diversions. Negligible Negligible Significance Minor adverse Residual significance Minor adverse

Assessment summary

Receptor

Pedestrians in the local area

Cyclists in the local area Negligible None required

Mitigation Provision of safe crossing points at site access where required. None required

Bus users and operators

Increased vehicle movements along cycle route. Some additional patronage from construction workers. Some additional patronage from construction workers. No effect Negligible Minor adverse Loss of on-street parking to be re-provided in local area. Movement of large construction vehicles Highway layout changes requiring short-term pedestrian and traffic management at site access Delay to journey time. Minor adverse Negligible None required

Negligible

Rail users and operators

Negligible

River users and operators

None required None required

Negligible Minor adverse

Parking

All road users

None required

Minor adverse

Page 205

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 12: Transport

Vol 12 Table 12.8.2 Transport summary of operational assessment Effect Negligible None required Negligible Significance Mitigation Residual significance

Receptor

Pedestrians in the local area / Pedestrians using the Thames Path Cyclists in the local area Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible None required None required None required None required None required

Occasional maintenance trips.

Occasional maintenance trips.

Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible

Bus users and operators

Occasional maintenance trips.

Rail users and operators

No effect.

River users and operators

No effect.

Parking users

Occasional temporary suspension of on-street parking in the immediate vicinity of the site during maintenance (to be reprovided if demand requires). Negligible

All road users

Occasional delay to road users when large maintenance vehicles accessing site.

None required

Negligible

Page 206

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 12: Transport

12.9
12.9.1

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

12.9.2

12.9.3

Page 207

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

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 effects on groundwater resources (quantity and quality) at King Georges Park. This groundwater assessment has some overlap with the land quality assessment. Water quality information from the land quality assessment is included in the appendices to this section of the report.

13.1.2

13.2
13.2.1

Proposed development
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to groundwater are as follows. Construction The main infrastructure at the site, relevant to the consideration of groundwater, will include: a. A 9m diameter drop shaft (approximate diameters 9m (internal) or 10m (external) to a depth of approximately 84.90mATD (approximately 20.44m below ground level)). b. An interception chamber for the existing CSO. c. A connection culvert to the drop shaft (dimensions approximately 2.5m long and 7m deep).

13.2.2

13.2.3

The proposed methods of construction for the various elements of the site, of relevance to the groundwater assessment, are summarised in the table below. Also contained in this table are approximate time-scales and depths. Vol 12 Table 13.2.1 Groundwater methods of construction

Design Elements

Method of Construction Sheet Piling through superficial depositsSprayed Concrete Lining (SCL) through London Clay Sheet piles

Construction Periods

Construction Depth

CSO Drop shaft

<1 year

Deep

Interception chambers and Culverts 13.2.4

<1 year

Shallow

Note: In terms of construction depth - Shallow (means <10m) and Deep (>10m)

Very limited dewatering and groundwater treatment would be required as the shaft and connection tunnel would be constructed mainly within London Clay.

Page 208

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park Operation 13.2.5

Section 13: Water resources - ground

During operation the presence of below ground structures could interfere with any shallow groundwater movements and potentially act as a barrier to flow locally around the site. If it occurs, the build up of groundwater can cause problems of groundwater flooding.

13.3
13.3.1 13.3.2

Assessment methodology Scoping and engagement


Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. All consultee comments relevant to this site are presented in the table below. Vol 12 Table 13.3.1 Groundwater stakeholder engagement Organisation Borough of Wandsworth Comment Wandsworth stated that full justification for scoping out groundwater for King Georges Park needs to be provided Response An assessment of the constructional and operational impacts on groundwater quality, levels and flow has been scoped into the assessment.

Construction 13.3.3 13.3.4 13.3.5 13.3.6 13.3.7 13.3.8 The construction phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site. Operation 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 assessment is based on a qualitative approach only. A more detailed assessment will be carried out and reported in the ES. The list of receptors is based on the best available information as of March 2011, from the Environment Agency for both licensed abstractions and GSHP schemes; and from the local authority for unlicensed abstractions.

13.4
13.4.1

Baseline conditions
The CSO drop shaft to the Frogmore Connection Tunnel is likely to pass through made ground, Alluvium, River Terrace Deposits and London Clay as summarised in the table below.

Page 209

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 13: Water resources - ground

Vol 12 Table 13.4.1 Groundwater ground conditions and hydrogeology Top of Formation Formation Elevation of Strata (mATD) 105.34 101.74 101.34 Depth below ground level (m) 0.00 3.60 4.00 Thickness (m) Hydrogeology

Made Ground Alluvium River Terrace Deposits London Clay B A3ii A3i A2 Harwich

3.60 0.40 0.50

Perched Water Upper Aquifer Upper Aquifer

100.84 73.34 61.34 58.84 57.84

4.50 32.00 44.00 46.50 47.50

27.50 12.00 2.50 11.00 0.80

Aquiclude

Aquitard / Aquifer

13.4.2

The shaft would be founded in London Clay and would be constructed using a sheet pile cut-off (to seal out the upper aquifer) and sprayed concrete lining (SCL) with placed segments to form a secondary lining. The River Terrace Deposits or upper aquifer is classified as a secondary A aquifer iii. The thickness of River Terrace Deposits is likely to be thin at about 0.5m at the site on the basis of ground investigation boreholes. The shaft would not extend down into the lower aquifer. As the shaft is within the London Clay, with a substantial separation distance (>30m) between the base of the shaft and the top of the Upnor Formation (top of lower aquifer), the lower aquifer is not expected to be affected by the shaft. Water level monitoring in ground investigation boreholes indicates that piezometric heads in more permeable units of London Clay (A3ii) are above the base of the shaft. Inflows may therefore impact on the excavations. Water level monitoring would strengthen the understanding of this risk. The high piezometric heads above the invert level of the shaft were recorded in the Upper Shelly Beds (top of the Lambeth Group). However,

13.4.3

13.4.4

13.4.5

13.4.6

iii

Secondary A aquifers are permeable layers capable of supporting water supplies at a local scale (rather than strategic scale) and in some cases forming an important source of base flow to rivers. These are generally aquifers formerly classified as minor aquifers.

Page 210

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 13: Water resources - ground

the level of the shaft invert is considered to be sufficiently high enough in the London Clay to avoid any groundwater effects from this unit. 13.4.7 The site does not lie within any Source Protection Zone (SPZ) as defined by the EA. The nearest SPZ, also in the Chalk lies 3km away to the southeast. The regional direction of groundwater flow in the Chalk is to the north-northeast, towards central London. There is one licensed groundwater abstraction for industrial, commercial and public services from the confined Chalk approximately 0.15km to the southeast of the site. There are no unlicensed abstractions near to the site based on information provided by the local authority. The nearest Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP) schemes licensed from the Chalk is located approximately 0.8km to the north (identified as the second entry in . Vol 12 Table 13.4.1). The site is locally designated as a site of importance for nature conservation (SINC). It is assumed that the artificial lake within the site is lined and not in hydraulic connection with the upper aquifer. The lake is apparently topped up with water which is abstracted from a local Chalk groundwater source. The water quality of the lake would not be affected as the shaft would be founded in London Clay. There are no other environmental designations relevant to groundwater in the vicinity of the site Slight exceedances above the environmental quality standards (EQS) on one occasion in 2009 for Copper (Cu) were recorded in water samples taken from GI borehole where standpipe installation is within Made Ground/ Alluvium/ River Terrace Deposits. There were also slight exceedances above the drinking water standards (DWS) for Poly-Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) and Benzo (a) pyrene in the same boreholes where standpipe installation is within London Clay. The Environment Agency groundwater quality monitoring borehole within the Chalk located within the site indicates some exceedances of the EQS for Ammonia, Silver and also some pesticides. The flood risk assessment states that there are no groundwater flooding incidents within the vicinity of the site, based on information from the London Borough of Wandsworth SFRA. Further details on the baseline conditions at the site are provided in Appendices E. Appendix E contains a summary of the water quality information from the land quality assessment. Monitoring is continuing and would extend the baseline which would inform the assessment in the ES.

13.4.8

13.4.9 13.4.10

13.4.11 13.4.12

13.4.13

13.4.14

13.4.15

Receptor summary
13.4.16 Groundwater receptors which could be affected during construction or operation are summarised in the table below.

Page 211

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 13: Water resources - ground

Vol 12 Table 13.4.2 Groundwater receptors Receptor Groundwater Resources Upper Aquifer Lower Aquifer Construction

Operation

Comment Penetrated by shaft

Base of shaft >50m above the lower aquifer Nearest abstractions 150m to the south east from the Chalk (lower aquifer) and no construction taking place within the Chalk None identified Nearest Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP) schemes 0.8km to the north from the Chalk (lower aquifer) Not hydraulically connected to upper aquifer

Abstractions Licensed

Abstractions Unlicensed GSHP Schemes

King Georges Park artificial lake

13.5
13.5.1

Construction assessment
The drop shaft passes for most of its depth through London Clay so no groundwater issues are expected in connection with construction of the shaft and no dewatering or depressurisation is proposed. The main potential effects could arise as a result of the interception chamber and connection culvert creating a physical obstruction to flow in the upper aquifer for a period of less than one year. 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 is not a significant groundwater contamination in the upper aquifer and the excavations would not create a pathway for migration of contamination into the lower aquifer as the shaft would be founded in London Clay. Impact magnitude The magnitude of the impact would be confirmed once the local groundwater conditions are established by local ground investigation, and

13.5.2

13.5.3

13.5.4

Page 212

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 13: Water resources - ground

the direction of groundwater flow relative to the interception chamber and connection culvert is known. 13.5.5 The magnitude of the impact on groundwater levels is currently expected to be negligible ie, a slight rise in groundwater levels may take place on the upstream/ southern side of the structure. The impacts are mitigated by removal of the sheet pile walls around the excavations (or at least cut off at a level above the base of the upper aquifer) following construction. Some contamination has been identified in the near surface. The upper aquifer is identified as being a receptor of medium importance. It is important that contamination in the near surface does not migrate down into the upper aquifer. The magnitude of impact is assessed as minor. The assessed significance would be minor adverse. The lower aquifer is not at risk as construction would not reach into this layer. A summary of the impacts and likely magnitude is provided in the table below. Vol 12 Table 13.5.1 Groundwater impacts - construction Impact Physical obstruction to flow in the upper aquifer and resultant rise in groundwater level Creation of pathway for pollution Magnitude Negligible, thin deposits and water levels at least 2m below ground surface Minor in upper aquifer as some contamination in the near surface. No pathway into lower aquifer Receptor sensitivity 13.5.9 In terms of receptors, the upper aquifer is a secondary aquifer and is categorised in Volume 5 as being of medium importance, as summarised in the table below. Vol 12 Table 13.5.2 Groundwater receptors - construction Receptor Upper aquifer Significance of effects 13.5.10 A summary of significance of the effects is shown in the table below. There are negligible effects on groundwater movement as a result of activities at King Georges Park. The presence of contaminated groundwater may result in minor adverse effects on groundwater quality in the upper aquifer. Value/sensitivity Medium importance; secondary aquifer

13.5.6

13.5.7

13.5.8

Page 213

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 13: Water resources - ground

Vol 12 Table 13.5.3 Groundwater effects - construction Effect Change in groundwater storage and flood risk as a result of physical obstruction in upper aquifer Deterioration in groundwater quality caused by creation of a pathway upper aquifer Significance Negligible effect

Minor adverse

13.6
13.6.1

Operational assessment
The base case and operational development case are derived from current baseline conditions as described in Section 13.4 and the supporting appendix. The possible future change from current baseline conditions is taken into account by considering a range of groundwater levels in the assessments. 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'. In order to ensure that no build up of groundwater takes place around the underground structures, the sheet pile walls to be put in around the interception chambers and culvert tunnel would be cut down. If necessary, the pile can be piped through at a low level to allow through flow and prevent a build up of groundwater levels. The impact is considered to be of negligible magnitude resulting in a negligible effect. Seepage out of the shaft into the upper aquifer is expected to be negligible given that the shaft will be full on relatively few occasions (which increase the risk of seepage). The shafts would also have a secondary lining to minimise the risk to the upper aquifer. No other operational effects are envisaged. A summary of the impacts and likely magnitude is provided in the table below. Vol 12 Table 13.6.1 Groundwater impacts - operation Magnitude Negligible; sheet piles cut down.

13.6.2

13.6.3

13.6.4

13.6.5

Impact Physical obstruction to flow in the upper aquifer and resultant rise in groundwater level Deterioration in groundwater quality caused by seepage out of the shaft

Negligible, design of shaft would include a secondary lining

Page 214

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park Receptor sensitivity 13.6.6

Section 13: Water resources - ground

In terms of receptors, the upper aquifer is a secondary aquifer and is categorised in Volume 5 being of medium importance, as summarised in the table below. Vol 12 Table 13.6.2 Groundwater receptors - operation Value/sensitivity Medium importance; secondary aquifer

Receptor Upper aquifer Significance of effects 13.6.7

A summary of significance of the effects is shown in the table below. Vol 12 Table 13.6.3 Groundwater effects - operation Significance Negligible effect due to negligible impact and medium value of upper aquifer Negligible effect due to negligible impact and medium value of upper aquifer

Effect Change in groundwater storage and flood risk as a result of physical obstruction in upper aquifer Seepage out of the shaft affecting groundwater quality (upper aquifer)

13.7
13.7.1

Approach to mitigation
The project includes a large number of environmental design elements already included in the design. This section contains the extra mitigation measures to be taken to address the impacts identified within the assessment.

Construction
13.7.2 The possible build up of groundwater in the upper aquifer would be addressed by the environmental design. Near surface pollution identified by the land quality assessments should be cleaned-up before any construction takes place. No other effects were identified therefore no mitigation is required. Monitoring of groundwater levels and water quality will be part of the environmental design and should be continued for some time beyond the construction period.

13.7.3 13.7.4

Operation
13.7.5 No effects were identified therefore no mitigation is required.

Page 215

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 13: Water resources - ground

13.8
Vol 12 Table 13.8.1 Groundwater construction assessment Effect Negligible effect None required Significance Mitigation Residual Significance Negligible effect

Assessment summary

Receptor

Upper aquifer

Obstruction to groundwater flows Minor adverse Site clean-up ahead of construction

Upper aquifer

Deterioration in groundwater quality caused by creation of a pathway

Negligible effect

Vol 12 Table 13.8.2 Groundwater operational assessment Effect Negligible effect Significance Mitigation None required Residual Significance Negligible effect

Receptor

Upper aquifer

Change in groundwater levels

Upper aquifer

Deterioration in groundwater quality caused by seepage out of the shaft

Negligible effect, design of shaft will include a secondary lining

None required

Negligible effect

Page 216

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 13: Water resources - ground

13.9
13.9.1 13.9.2 13.9.3 13.9.4

Assessment completion
No additional data collection is required at the site. At this stage, it is not envisaged that any quantitative assessment will be required at the site. 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.

Page 217

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 14: Water resources - surface

14 14.1
14.1.1

Water resources surface water Introduction


This assessment covers the effects of the proposed work at the King Georges Park site on surface water receptors. This assessment: a. identifies the existing surface 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; and

d. identifies any residual effects with respect to surface water resources potentially affected by the project, both during construction and operation. 14.1.2 Groundwater resources are assessed separately in Section 13. Similarly land quality is addressed in Section 8. A Level 1 Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been carried out separately and is included in Section 15. In addition, it should be noted that this assessment only covers the effects of the work at the King Georges Park 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

Proposed development
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to surface water resources are described in the following sections. The Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) includes a number of measures that are important in protecting water quality and these are referred to as appropriate. Construction The site lies within King Georges Park, a small area of amenity grassland in the Borough of Wandsworth. The site lies approximately 1 km from the Tideway to the north and approximately 200m from the River Wandle, which lies to the east of the proposed site. The site lies within the undefended Flood Zone 3a from the Wandle and is also known to suffer from surface water flooding during periods of heavy rainfall, when the capacity of the surface water drainage system may be exceeded. In addition these two watercourses, there is a lake located within King Georges Park; this is assumed to be an artificial lake, which is manually filled and not hydraulically linked to the Wandle or its tributaries. The shaft is expected to be constructed almost entirely within London Clay and it is therefore only very limited dewatering or ground treatment may be required at this location.

14.2.2

14.2.3

14.2.4

Page 218

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park Construction controls 14.2.5

Section 14: Water resources - surface

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 would take place above drip trays or on an impermeable surface with sealed drainage or oil interceptor. All wash down of vehicles (including wheel washing) and equipment would take place in designated areas and washwater would be prevented from passing untreated into drains or holding areas prior to pumping. These measures will be detailed in the CoCP. 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

14.2.6

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. 14.2.7 14.2.8 Appropriate maintenance of vehicles and plant would also minimise pollution during construction. Suitable spill kits would be provided and positioned in vulnerable areas and staff would be trained in their use and a record should be kept of all pollution incidents or near-misses, to ensure appropriate action is taken and lessons are learned from incidents. Regular toolbox talks would be held to raise staff awareness of pollution prevention and share lessons learned from any recorded incidents. There would be written procedures in place for dealing with spillages and pollution (The Pollution Incident Control Plan or PICP). The PICP would contain the following as a minimum: a. guidance on the storage and use of hazardous materials with the aim of preventing and containing spills and releases; b. guidelines on the degrees of containment which take account of the nature of the materials and the sensitivity of the environment; c. procedures to be adopted in the event of a pollution incident, to contain and limit any adverse effects;

Page 219

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 14: Water resources - surface

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; and

g. relevant procedures and contacts for each work site for forwarding to the emergency services, and appropriate authorities. Operation 14.2.9 The operation of the tunnel would allow interception of flows which would otherwise discharge to the Frogmore Storm Relief Buckhold Road CSO. There would therefore be a reduction in the frequency, duration and volume of spills from the Frogmore Storm Relief Buckhold Road CSO.

14.3
14.3.1

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 regarding surface water resources for this particular site

Assumptions and limitations


14.3.2 Full results from project ground investigations were not available at the time of writing and as such, assessment of contamination risk from intrusive ground works at the site have relied on existing records of contamination (see Section 8 Land Quality assessment for further details). 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 yet been completed; therefore the impact of climate change on the beneficial impacts of the project will be reported in the ES. The assessment of the beneficial effect of a reduction in sewage derived litter and pathogens discharged to the Tideway has been inferred from catchment modelling simulations of the reduction in discharge volume, frequency and duration and have not been directly modelled. Effects of discharges on dissolved oxygen levels in the river have been simulated using the catchment model and the Tidal Thames QUESTS model. The impacts identified and mitigation measures proposed are broad matters appropriate for this level of assessment. A more detailed assessment which identifies exact site-specific solutions will be carried out and reported in the ES.

14.3.3

14.3.4

14.3.5

14.3.6

Page 220

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 14: Water resources - surface

14.4
14.4.1

Baseline conditions Current conditions


A list of surface water receptors and their status under the Water Framework Directive is included in the table below, which are either within the vicinity of the site, or downstream of the site and therefore have the potential to be affected by the project. It is considered that the effects of construction activities at King Georges Park would be localised to the waterbodies listed below. Vol 12 Table 14.4.1 Surface water receptors Water Body Name/ID Hydromo Current Current 2015 2015 rphologic Ecologica Chemical Predicted Predicted al Status l Quality Quality Ecologica Chemical l Quality Quality Moderate Good Potential Moderate Fail Potential Poor Potential Good Moderate Good Potential Moderate Fail Potential Poor Potential Good

14.4.2

Thames Upper Heavily GB530603911403 Modified Thames Middle Heavily GB530603911402 Modified Wandle (Croydon Heavily to Wandsworth) Modified and the R. Gravney GB106039023460 Lake in King Georges Park Water Quality 14.4.3

Not assessed under the WFD

The Thames Upper (which stretches from Teddington to Battersea Bridge) and Middle (which stretches from Battersea Bridge to Mucking Flats) waterbodies can be considered to be high value waterbodies as although their current and predicted status in 2015 (target date from River Basin Management Plan) is moderate potential, there is a status objective of good by 2027 41. In addition, the Thames is a valuable resource and plays an important role as a water resource, habitat provision, amenity, recreation, and transport throughout London. The Wandle is currently classified as being at poor status, with an overall status objective of good by 2027. It is therefore considered to be a receptor of high value. The lake within the park is assumed to be artificial and levels within the lake are thought to be maintained manually with abstracted groundwater. The main value of the lake is thought to be amenity value and it is therefore considered to be a receptor of low value.

14.4.4

14.4.5

Page 221

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park Current CSO operation 14.4.6

Section 14: Water resources - surface

Using the June 2011 catchment model of the sewer system (to be updated for the ES), the current operation of the Frogmore Storm Relief Buckhold Road CSO has been characterised and the annual average duration, frequency and volume of spill has been defined as follows: a. the CSO spills on average of 19 times per year; b. the CSO spills for an average duration of 68 hours per year; and c. the spill volume from the CSO is approximately 85,600m3 per year.

14.4.7

The polluting load data that is discharged from the CSO (Biochemical Oxygen Demand BOD, Ammoniacal-N and Total Oxidised Nitrogen TON) will be provided in time to inform the ES. Dissolved oxygen The discharge from Frogmore Storm Relief Buckhold Road CSO has an effect of depleting dissolved oxygen in the Thames as a result of the biological breakdown of organic matter in the discharges. This causes both a localised 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 included in the ES. Exposure to pathogens Each discharge also increases the risk of exposure to pathogens for river users who come into contact with water. An assessment of health impacts upon recreational users of the River Thames was conducted and reported by the Health Protection Agency in 2007 42. This concluded that risk of infection can remain for two to four days following a spill as the water containing the spill moves back and forward with the tide. The same study also noted that analysis of the illness events reported against discharges on the Tideway shows that 77% of cases had been rowing in three days of CSO discharge. Assuming the average of 19 spills per annum occur on different days, there could be up to a maximum of 76 days per year where recreational users are at risk of exposure to pathogens in the Wandsworth locality. Sewage derived litter The operation of Frogmore Storm Relief Buckhold Road CSO results in the discharge of sewage litter along with the discharge of effluent. It was estimated by the TTSS 43 that overflows from the combined sewers introduce approximately 10,000t of sewage derived solid material to the Thames Tideway annually. June 2011 catchment modelling of the current CSO operation defined the average volume of discharge from the Frogmore Storm Relief Buckhold Road CSO was 85,600m3, representing 0.22% of the total volume discharged to the Thames Tideway annually. This suggests that 22t of sewage derived litter is currently discharged at Wandsworth annually.

14.4.8

14.4.9

14.4.10

14.4.11

14.4.12 14.4.13

Page 222

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park Receptors designated sites 14.4.14

Section 14: Water resources - surface

The River Thames and Tidal Tributaries are designated as a Site of Metropolitan Importance. There are no internationally designated hydraulically linked conservation sites in proximity to the proposed construction site that could be affected by the construction impacts. Note that the effects of the overall project on the internationally designated sites in the Lower Thames are covered separately in Volume 6. Receptors discharges and abstractions In addition to the Frogmore Storm Relief Buckhold Road CSO, which discharges to the Tideway approximately 200m from Wandsworth Bridge, there is one other CSO discharge at Wandsworth Bridge, namely the Wandle Valley storm relief sewer. There are no licensed surface water abstractions within 1 km of the site. Contamination No potential contamination sources have been identified from historical mapping, although groundwater testing has identified the following substances in the London Clay and Made Ground underlying the site: a. Copper = 0.007mg/l (EQS limit = 0.005mg/l); b. Ammoniacal Nitrogen = 9.7 mg/l (EQS limit = 0.012mg/l); c. Benzo(a)pyrene 0.02ug/l (DWS limit = 0.01ug/l); and d. PAHs 0.40ug/l.

14.4.15

14.4.16

14.4.17

Should dewatering be required there is the potential for effects from the discharge of contaminated dewatering effluent. See the land quality assessment in Section 8 for full details of on-site contamination.

Base case
Construction base case 14.4.18 The Lee Tunnel and the TTQI projects (improvement works at Mogden, Beckton, Crossness, Long Reach and Riverside STWs) would be operational by the time construction commences. Significant improvements in the water quality in the Tideway are anticipated as a result of these projects. The construction base case is therefore the water quality in the Tideway with the TTQI and Lee Tunnel schemes in place. Results from modelled simulations of conditions in 2021 (as simulated model runs are only available for 2006 and 2021) with the TTQI and Lee Tunnel in place have therefore been used for the base case. Operation base case 14.4.20 For the assessment of operational impacts, the effects have been assessed against a base case of Year 1 of operation. As described in the methodology Section in Volume 5, this base case year takes account of the effects that other major projects would have on the quality of the Thames Tideway as explained in the construction base case above. Results from modelled simulations of conditions in 2021 with the TTQI and Lee Tunnel in place have therefore been used for the base case.

14.4.19

14.4.21

Page 223

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 14: Water resources - surface

14.5
14.5.1

Construction assessment
As per the methodology described in Volume 5, the construction effects at King Georges Park have been assessed for significance against the relevant WFD objectives as well as their significance against targets set by other legislation. The WFD objectives as taken from Article 4 of the WFD are as follows: a. WFD1 Prevent deterioration of the status of all bodies of surface water. b. WFD2 Protect, enhance and restore all bodies of surface water, with the aim of achieving good surface water status by 2015. c. WFD3 Protect and enhance all artificial and heavily modified bodies of water, with the aim of achieving good ecological potential and good surface water chemical status by 2015.

14.5.2

d. WFD4 Reduce pollution from priority substances and cease or phase out emissions, discharges and losses of priority hazardous substances.

Identification of construction impacts and effects


14.5.3 As the proposed development site lies approximately 200m from the River Wandle it is considered that there is an indirect pathway to the Wandle via surface water drains on the site. The proposed working area lies adjacent to the lake in King Georges Park and there would be a direct pathway for pollutants to reach the lake via overland flow and surface runoff. Site drainage 14.5.4 Site runoff has the potential to become polluted with a number of substances during construction activities, which may include the following: a. silt and suspended solids from earthworks and exposed soils; b. oil and fuels from machinery and equipment maintenance and refuelling; c. concrete or cement from spillages during spraying and pouring; and d. hazardous substances from ground contamination exposed during earthworks and construction. 14.5.5 These pollutants could be indirectly discharged to the Wandle and the Tideway via surface water drains as part of the surface water discharge from the construction site. Any effects on the Wandle and Tideway from leakage or discharges would be adverse, although of short duration before remedial action was taken. Effects on the lake within the park would be longer term, as the lake does not have the natural flushing action of the rivers. However, the lake is low importance receptor and routine maintenance procedures could be used to mitigate the effects of spillages. 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

14.5.6

Page 224

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 14: Water resources - surface

to holding or settling tanks, separators and other measures prior to discharge to the Tideway surface water drains. 14.5.7 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 lake, the Wandle or the Thames Upper or Middle waterbodies. It is considered that via the proposed drainage management, the pollution pathway can be managed sufficiently to reduce the pollution risk to negligible. It is considered that via the adherence to the measured detailed in Section 14.2 during construction works, the pollution pathway can be managed sufficiently to reduce the pollution risk to negligible. Contamination and dewatering 14.5.10 The ground investigation identified the presence of contaminants within the groundwater at the King Georges Park site. However, the majority of the shaft would be excavated through the London Clay Formation. This is generally acknowledged as an aquiclude between the Upper and Lower Aquifers and the level of the shaft invert would be sufficiently high enough to avoid any groundwater effects from the Lower or Intermediate Aquifers. It is not thought that any dewatering or ground treatment would be required at this location and there is therefore considered that there is no pollution pathway for this effect, which will not be considered further as part of this assessment. Pollution from flooding 14.5.11 The proposed construction site at King Georges Park is located within the undefended Flood Zone 3 of the river Wandle. In addition, there are known surface water flooding problems in the area. There is therefore an additional pathway for pollution to reach the lake or the surface water drainage system leading to the River Wandle; stockpiles or machinery stored on site could release pollutants if submerged by floodwaters. These impacts would be adverse but short term in nature, as they would be limited by the duration of flood events. In accordance with the recommendations of the Flood Risk Assessment, the construction site would be designed to reduce the risk from flood waters. Site welfare facilities, plant storage and stockpiles would all be located above flood levels or outside of the flood zone where possible. It is considered that via the adherence to the recommendations of the Flood Risk Assessment, the pollution pathway can be managed sufficiently to reduce the pollution risk to negligible.

14.5.8

14.5.9

14.5.12 14.5.13

14.5.14

Assessment of impacts and effects


14.5.15 The previous stage of the assessment has not highlighted any significant adverse effects that would require additional mitigation beyond the environmental design measures.

Page 225

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 14: Water resources - surface

14.6
14.6.1

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

Identification of operation impacts and effects


Reduction in CSO spills 14.6.2 The operation of the Frogmore Storm Relief Buckhold Road CSO connection as part of the project as a whole would have a beneficial effect on water quality, bacteriological quality and aesthetic value in the Wandsworth locality and beyond by substantially reducing the frequency, duration and volume of discharges from the Frogmore Storm Relief Buckhold Road CSO. June 2011 catchment modelling of the operational base case has simulated that by Year 1 of operation (assessed to be 2021 to use modelled assumptions) the frequency, duration and volume of the Frogmore Storm Relief Buckhold Road CSO would have increased (as a result of increased population) beyond the current baseline to the following: a. the CSO would spill on average of 21 times in the typical year (as for the current baseline); b. the CSO would spill for an average duration of 72 hours in the typical year (4 hours greater than the current baseline); and c. 14.6.4 the spill volume from the CSO would be approximately 88,600m3 in the typical year (3,000m3 greater than the current baseline).

14.6.3

Following on from the interpretation of the current baseline the number of risk days for river users being exposed to pathogens during the base case year would be a maximum of 84 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 Frogmore Storm Relief Buckhold Road CSO would have substantially decreased (as a result of the capture of wastewater flow into the tunnel) to the following: a. the CSO would spill on average only in the typical year (20 times less than the base case); b. the CSO would spill for an average duration of 3 hours in the typical year (69 hours less than the base case); and c. the spill volume from the CSO would be approximately 1,500m3 in the typical year (87,100m3 less than the base case).

14.6.5

14.6.6

The frequency, duration and volume of spill at Frogmore Storm Relief Buckhold Road CSO would therefore be reduced by approximately 96% in the typical year as a result of the project.

Page 226

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park 14.6.7

Section 14: Water resources - surface

The number of risk days for river users being exposed to pathogens during the development case year would be a maximum of 4 days in the typical year (a reduction of up to 80 days of risk of exposure). In addition, the tonnage of sewage derived litter can be expected to be reduced by approximately 96% from 22t to less than a tonne in the typical year. The data for the reduction in polluting load that is discharged from the CSO (Biochemical Oxygen Demand BOD, Ammoniacal-N and Total Oxidised Nitrogen TON) will be provided in time to inform the ES.

14.6.8

14.6.9

Assessment of impacts
14.6.10 The table below provides the assessment of effects during operation of the King Georges Park site against: a. WFD environmental objectives b. local impacts c. whether other legislative targets are likely to be affected.

Page 227

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park Vol 12 Table 14.6.1 Surface water impacts - operation Duration and Reversibility WFD1 WFD2 WFD3 Permanent. Reversibility depends on the operation of the tunnel. N/A Local effects or Other Legislative effects WFD Objectives met? WFD4

Section 14: Water resources - surface

Impact

Water body

Assessment and likely effect

Reduced spill frequency, duration and volume from the Frogmore Storm Relief Buckhold Road CSO.

Upper Thames and Thames Middle

Improved water quality in the vicinity of the Frogmore Storm Relief Buckhold Road CSO by reduced pollutant loading and increased dissolved oxygen levels. The Thames Upper and Middle is a heavily modified waterbody and only needs to achieve good potential

Contribution to the overall Tidewaywide water quality improvement s Risk of exposure Permanent

The water quality local to Wandsworth would be improved and would ensure that the operation of the Frogmore Storm Relief Buckhold Road CSO complies with the requirements of the Urban Wastewater Treatment

Along with the project as a whole, the Frogmore Storm Relief Buckhold Capture of Road CSO the Frogmore connection Storm Relief would Buckhold enhance the Road CSO water quality would reduce of the pollution from Tideway priority helping to substances move the at upper Wandsworth Thames and Thames Middle towards good ecological status The bacteriological N/A

Reduced bacterial

Thames Upper and

Page 228

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park Duration and Reversibility WFD1 WFD2 WFD3 Local effects or Other Legislative effects WFD Objectives met? WFD4

Section 14: Water resources - surface

Impact

Water body

Assessment and likely effect

Middle Reversibility depends on the operation of the tunnel

loadings of the river giving health improvement s to river users

days to pathogens would be reduced to a maximum of 4 days in the typical year (a reduction of up to 72 days of risk of exposure). Permanent. Not reversible. N/A The sewage derived litter reduction effect is considered to have an effect locally in the context of local river users.

improvement effect is considered to have an effect locally in the context of local river users.

The effect is not relevant to WFD objectives

Reduced sewage litter discharge

Thames Upper and Middle

Sewage derived litter discharge at Wandsworth would be reduced by approximatel y 96% in the typical year improving the aesthetic quality of the river locally

The effect is not relevant to WFD objectives

Page 229

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 14: Water resources - surface

Significance of effect
14.6.11 The table below identifies the significance of the effects identified in accordance with the criteria set out in Volume 5. Vol 12 Table 14.6.2 Surface water effects - operation Effect Significance and justification Major beneficial Reduced spill frequency, duration and volume from the Frogmore Storm Relief Buckhold Road CSO. The improvements would allow for the future attainment of good status under objective 3 in combination with the improvements elsewhere in the Tideway Moderate beneficial The improvements would not adversely affect WFD or other legislative drivers, but would significantly improve conditions for river users at Wandsworth and in the Thames Upper as a whole and would also ensure that operation of the Frogmore Storm Relief Buckhold Road CSO complies with the requirements of the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive in only spilling during exceptionally heavy rainfall. 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 Wandsworth and in the Thames Upper as a whole

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

Reduced sewage litter discharge

14.7
14.7.1

Approach to mitigation
The assessment of significant effects for both construction and operation has not highlighted any significant adverse effects that would require mitigation.

Page 230

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 14: Water resources - surface

14.8
Vol 12 Table 14.8.1 Surface water operational assessment Effect Major beneficial None proposed Significance Mitigation Residual Significance Major beneficial

Assessment summary

Receptor

Thames Upper and Middle Moderate beneficial Moderate beneficial None proposed None proposed

Reduced spill frequency, duration and volume from the Frogmore Storm Relief Buckhold Road CSO.

Thames Upper and Middle

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

Moderate beneficial Moderate beneficial

Thames Upper and Middle

Reduced sewage litter discharge

Page 231

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 14: Water resources surface

14.9
14.9.1

Assessment completion
Any additional information on potential contamination of the site, collected as part of new site investigations (see Section 8 land quality), will be used to inform the baseline for the ES. At the time of writing, 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. Following completion of the assessment the mitigation approaches for surface water resources within the project will be finalised and reported in the ES.

14.9.2

14.9.3

Page 232

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 15: Water resources flood risk

15 15.1
15.1.1

Water resources flood risk Introduction


This section presents a Level 1 FRA which assesses the flood risk from all flood sources both to and from the proposed 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) 44 and covers the construction and operation phases. This assessment makes use of the PPS25 Practice Guide 45 and is consistent with the outputs and findings of the Thames Estuary 2100 Plan (TE2100)46 and the policy requirements of the London Plan 47. 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 (Volume 5) 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 operational phase taking into consideration climate change over the lifetime of the project. The project involves the construction at many sites throughout London. Many of these sites are situated within close proximity to, or within, the

15.1.7

15.1.8

15.1.9

15.1.10

Page 233

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 15: Water resources flood risk

River Thames or other watercourses. According to PPS25, any development located within Flood Zones 2 iv or 3 v or greater than 1ha and situated within Flood Zone 1 vi should be accompanied by a FRA. The FRA will be required to demonstrate how flood risk from all sources of flooding to the development and from the development will be managed now and in the future as a consequence of climate change for the lifetime of the development. 15.1.11 The objectives of this section are to satisfy the requirements of PPS25 in relation to this site.

15.2
15.2.1

Policy considerations
The proposed development of a shaft and associated structures is classified as water and sewage transmission infrastructure including docks, marinas and wharfs which is classified as water-compatible development and compatible within all flood zones within PPS25.

15.3
15.3.1

Regulatory position Overview


General policy documents (eg PPS25) have been reviewed within Volume 5. The following should be read in conjunction with that Volume.

Local policy
Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) 15.3.2 The King Georges Park site lies within the London Borough of Wandsworth. The London Borough of Wandsworth has produced Level 1 and Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessments (SFRA) 48. These outline the main flood sources to the Borough and the hydraulic modelling completed as part of the Level 2 study to investigate the residual risk of breaches in the Thames Tideway Defences at a number of locations along the River Thames. The SFRA confirms 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 risk of flooding is therefore a residual risk associated with a breach in the defences. The SFRA advocates the use of flood resilience and resistant measures. These should be adopted during the construction and operation phases of the project. According to the SFRA: a. the site overlies London Clay

15.3.3

15.3.4

15.3.5

iv

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 v 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 vi 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 234

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 15: Water resources flood risk

b. it is within the Wandsworth Tidal Flood Warning Area, the River Wandle from Colliers Wood to Wandsworth Fluvial Flood Warning Area and Environment Agency (EA) Flood Zone 3 c. there have been >5 sewer flooding incidences recorded by Thames Water in the last 10 years in the vicinity

d. the site is situated within an area identified as having increased risk of surface water ponding based on topography, geology and historic flooding records e. safe access/egress is required from the site to a suitable location within Flood Zone 1 and there are a number of schools within the locality which could act as rest centres during times of flood. In terms of emergency planning during the construction phase, the SFRA has identified rest and reception centres as Leisure Centre, Churches, Schools and Community Centres. 15.3.6 The SFRA promotes the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) suitable to specific site locations within the Borough, depending on underlying geology. These must however be adopted and adequately maintained post-construction to ensure design operation into the future. Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) 15.3.7 The Council is working in partnership with the Greater London Authority (GLA), Thames Water and the EA to produce a SWMP as part of the Drain London Project. This is scheduled for completion in autumn 2011.

Environment Agency policy


Thames Estuary 2100 (TE2100) 15.3.8 King Georges Park lies within the Wandsworth to Deptford Policy Unit which has been assigned the P5 flood risk management policy within the TE2100 Plan 49 meaning that further action will be taken to reduce flood risk beyond that required to keep pace with climate change. The TE2100 Plan identifies the local sources of flood risk (relative to the King Georges Park site) as including tidal flooding from the River Thames, fluvial from the River Wandle, surface water (heavy rainfall) and urban drainage sources, and a risk of groundwater flooding from superficial strata which is possibly connected to high water levels in the Thames. Defences from these sources include: a. the Thames Barrier and secondary tidal defences along the Thames frontage (both making up the Thames Tidal Defences); b. defences along the lower reach of the River Wandle; Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) for mitigation of urban drainage; c. 15.3.11 flood forecasting and warning. The TE2100 Plan seeks to promote, where possible, defence improvements that are sensitive to ensure views are maintained and impacts to river access/views are minimised. Where defence raising in the future as a consequence of climate change is not possible, secondary

15.3.9

15.3.10

Page 235

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 15: Water resources flood risk

defences and floodplain management should be introduced. There is also the vision to increase flood risk awareness within the area. 15.3.12 There is an acknowledgement in the TE2100 Plan that tidal defences on the River Wandle will require raising for estuary wide options. Thames Region Catchment Flood Management Plan (CFMP) 15.3.13 The Thames Region Catchment Flood Management Plan (CFMP) 50 covers fluvial and non-tidal sections of the River Thames, ie, the River Thames upstream of Teddington weir and tributaries to the River Thames. The Thames Region CFMP advocates the reduction in flood risk through the design and layout of developments within the floodplain; redevelopment should be compatible with its location within the floodplain (ie flood resilience measures should be incorporated). This should be achieved through re-creating more natural river systems and giving space for flood water, aiming for a balance between attenuation and conveyance. The specific messages for developed flood plain with typical river channels are: a. There is a need to re-create river corridors so there is more space for the river to flow and flood naturally (generally an 8m setback from top of bank). b. Flood risk management planning should be linked closely with regeneration and redevelopment so that the location and layout of development can help to reduce flood risk. c. There is a large and increasing residual flood risk in these floodplain areas. PPS25 sets out a range of measures that can reduce the impacts of residual flood risk, such as making buildings resilient to flooding.

15.3.14

15.3.15

d. Organisations need to work together to manage all flood sources: fluvial, tidal, surface water and sewer flooding. London Regional Flood Risk Appraisal (RFRA) 15.3.16 For the reach between Hammersmith Bridge and the Thames Barrier (City Reach) the London RFRA 51 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 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 states that current flood risk on the River Wandle should be sustained into the future. There is potential that some upstream areas of the River Wandle, south of Mitcham have the possibility of enabling catchment storage.

15.3.17

15.3.18

Page 236

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park 15.3.19

Section 15: Water resources flood risk

The RFRA indicates that SUDS should be included within developments to reduce surface water discharge.

15.4
15.4.1

Assessment of flood risk Overview


The flood risk from all potential flood sources (as listed in Annex C of PPS25) to the site, and from the site as a result of the development, is assessed in the following section. For a discussion on project-wide effects see Volume 6. In summary, initial hydraulic computation modelling undertaken 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 15.4.3 The site is situated approximately 800m to the south of the River Thames, however, ground levels on the site are below peak tidal flood levels therefore the site lie within the tidal Flood Zone 3a (see Vol 12 Figure 15.4.1. Vol 12 Figure 15.4.1 Flood Risk flood zone (see Volume 12 Figures document) 15.4.4 The Thames Tidal defences run along the banks of the River Thames, Bell Lane creek and the River Wandle up to Wandsworth High Street. These defences provide protection up to the 0.1% AEP tidal flood event. Due to the presence of the existing tidal flood defences and the distance of the site from tidal sources, the flood risk to the site is considered to be low. However there is a residual risk of tidal flooding in the event of a flood defence breach or failure. The principal source of flood risk to the site is from fluvial river systems, as discussed in the following section. Flooding from rivers Flood risk to the site 15.4.6 The site is situated within the floodplain (Flood Zone 3a) predominantly associated with the River Wandle (Vol 12 Figure 15.4.1). This river flows south to north, approximately 180m to the east of the King Georges Park site, within a man made channel comprised of various structures. The river then flows between two industrial/business parks off Garratt Lane and to the east of the pitches within the eastern area of King Georges Park. The river flows under a bridge on Mantle Court/Mapleton Road and north before entering a culvert under Southside Shopping Centre, (immediately to the east of the site the River Wandle flows within a culvert). The River Wandle re-emerges to the north of the Wandsworth High Street (A3) and continues to flow north before discharging into the River Thames at Bell Lane Creek.

15.4.5

Page 237

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park 15.4.7

Section 15: Water resources flood risk

The EA has provided the results of a fluvial modelling study of the River Wandle (see Volume 5 for details). These results are in the form of: flood outlines, flood depth/ levels and hazard data. The flood depth mapping for the 1% AEP climate change flood event is shown in Vol 12 Figure 15.4.1 Vol 12 Figure 15.4.2 Flood depth (see Volume 12 Figures document)

15.4.8

The model results show that the site does not flood during the 5% and 2% AEP flood event. But the site is situated within the 1% AEP flood extent associated with the River Wandle (ie Flood Zone 3a). Within the site, the deepest flood depths are experienced in the southern area of the site where ground levels are approximately 4.6mAOD. Flood levels are approximately: a. 1.8m for the 0.1% AEP event b. 1.4m for the 1% AEP with climate change event c. 1.1m for the 1% AEP event.

15.4.9

15.4.10

Flood depths within the north of the site, where ground levels are approximately 5.6m AOD are: a. 0.8m for the 0.1% AEP event b. 0.4m for the 1% + 20% AEP for climate change event c. 0.1m for the 1% AEP event.

15.4.11

The hazard results have been created within the modelling software and based on the depth, velocity and a debris factor, in accordance with Flood Risks to People FD2320 52. The site is situated within: a. Moderate and significant hazard for the 1% AEP event b. Significant hazard zone for the 1% + 20% for climate change AEP event c. Extreme hazard for the 0.1% AEP event.

15.4.12

Hazard classifications are as follows: a. Low Caution, Flood zone with shallow flowing water or deep standing water (Flood Hazard = HR<0.75) b. Moderate Dangerous for some (ie children) Danger, flood zone with deep or fast flowing water (Flood Hazard = 0.75HR1.25) c. Significant Dangerous for most people. Danger, flood zone with deep fast flowing water (Flood Hazard = 1.25>HR2.0)

d. Extreme Dangerous for all. Extreme danger, flood zone with deep fast flowing water (Flood Hazard = HR>2.0) 15.4.13 The model results show that flood water present on the site originates from south east of the site, in the vicinity of Mapleton Road, Mantle Court/Mapleton Road and Garratt Lane industrial/business Park. An overland flow route then channels water west into King Georges Park and north around Southside Shopping Centre.

Page 238

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park 15.4.14

Section 15: Water resources flood risk

The site does not benefit from the protection afforded by any local flood defences according to the EA flood maps. However, the model results demonstrate that the channel capacity is sufficient to prevent flooding of the site during the 5% and 2% AEP flood events. There are defences present along the River Wandle to the south east of the site (prior to the entrance into the culverted section of the river under Southside Shopping Centre). These are in various forms including: brick wall with capping stones, brick wall with concrete facing, concrete retaining wall, cement bags, steel sheet piling, and toe boards (according to the NFCDD). These defences have a design standard between 5 years and 100 years which is not sufficient to be included within the EA flood maps as providing protection to the local area. The SFRA does not show that there has been any historic fluvial flooding in the locality. Flood risk from fluvial sources is considered to be moderate. The site is protected from tidal flood sources by the Thames Tidal defences which provide protection up to the 0.1% AEP flood event. The site could potentially be affected by tidal flooding in the event of a defence breach or failure, however the risk is considered to be low. The SFRA shows there are no historic records of fluvial flooding at the site, however it should be noted that this does not necessarily prove that the site was not flooded, only that no data was recorded. The River Wandle model results show that the site is not flooded during the 5% and 2% AEP events, but flooding occurs during the 1% AEP and more extreme events. If the capacity of the River Wandle local to the site was exceeded, there is the potential that flood water could inundate the site, potentially cover the shaft and inundate any ventilation, monitoring or associated operation equipment. As the shaft lids are covered (although not watertight) there would be a limited amount of water that could enter the tunnel though the space between the lid and the shaft. Ventilation and monitoring equipment may be damaged by flood water (if not installed above the flood level); however, this quantity would not endanger the primary function of the tunnel which is to collect, store and transfer discharges from CSOs. Flood risk from the site It has been identified that the site lies within Flood Zone 3a predominantly associated with the River Wandle. In addition, the site is not defended from floodwater to the 1% AEP event so is classified by the EA as undefended. The CSO at this site is located at ground level, and at some locations above ground level. Therefore a portion of the shaft would have to protrude above the ground level. In addition, infrastructure associated with the shaft would be positioned within the floodplain, (it is assumed that these would however be floodable ie, not exclude flood water, and not reduce flood storage). As a result, the development of this site would result in the modification of ground levels and the consequent loss of flood

15.4.15

15.4.16 15.4.17 15.4.18

15.4.19

15.4.20

15.4.21

15.4.22

15.4.23

Page 239

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 15: Water resources flood risk

plain storage volume. This may have the effect of increasing the floodplain extent locally, increasing flood depth, velocity or hazard locally, and inundating land that was previously situated within Flood Zone 1 or 2. 15.4.24 It may therefore be necessary to provide level for level (or volume for volume) floodplain storage compensation for any loss of floodplain within the site; the EA has a policy of no net loss of floodplain storage. When a watercourse bursts its banks, floodplains store and convey any floodwaters. This is an important process and floodplains are a key part of the hydrological system. There is a need to maintain the storage capacity of the floodplains, therefore, any developments situated within the floodplain which reduce floodplain storage capacity would be required to show that the ability of the floodplain to attenuate the full range of flood events is not reduced. This can be achieved by carrying out level for level (or volume for volume) floodwater compensation where proven necessary. If compensation volume is not fully available then it is necessary to determine the relative impact upon sensitive receptors as a means to determining acceptability of flood risk increase. The requirement for the excavation process to construct the tunnel has the potential to impact on settlement in some cases which could affect the level of some of the defences. A project-wide study into the potential impacts of the tunnel excavation on settlement of third party assets including flood defences is being undertaken but has not been completed in time to inform this Level 1 FRA. The tunnel alignment does not pass under the existing defences in the immediate vicinity of the King Georges Park site; however, the route of the tunnel to Dormay Street to the north of the site may pass close to River Wandle defences. Project-wide effects of excavation will be assessed for flood defence impact when complete and any relevant assessment for King Georges Park defences will be included in the Level 3 FRA prepared to support the ES. Until further information is available, due to the distance of the site from the local River Wandle defences, the risk of impact to flood defences and hence flood risk at this site is considered to be low. Flooding from land and surface water runoff Flood risk to the site 15.4.29 The Wandsworth SFRA shows that the site is situated within an area with increased risk of surface water ponding based on topography, geology and historic flooding records. According to the Wandsworth SFRA, there are three surface water flooding hot spots located to the north of Wandsworth High Street, approximately 450m to the north of the site. These sites are however located far enough away that it is not anticipated they would affect the site. This assessment will be updated for the Level 3 FRA when Critical Drainage Area (CDA) mapping is made available for Wandsworths SWMP through the Drain London Project later in 2011. Surface water flooding could originate from any surrounding hardstanding land where infiltration (into the ground or the local sewer network) is

15.4.25

15.4.26

15.4.27

15.4.28

15.4.30

Page 240

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 15: Water resources flood risk

exceeded or the local sewer is at capacity and surcharging occurs. There is a decline in ground levels from the north of the site to the south resulting in the potential for overland flow, (generated within the north of the site during high intensity rain events where the infiltration capacity of the greenfield land is exceeded), to flow to the south of the site. It is however assumed that the lake would receive any overland flow as this water body is lower than the land. 15.4.31 Ground levels within the park land to the west of the site are analogous with levels within the site. Therefore it is not anticipated that surface water would originate from these areas and flow onto the site. Flood risk to the site from this source is considered to be low. Flood risk from the site 15.4.33 The creation of the permanent site would increase the area of impermeable surfacing at King Georges Park and increase the surface water runoff rates and volumes generated as a result. As the site is currently greenfield in nature, the creation of any impermeable surfacing land within the site would have to be compensated for by providing adequate and appropriate surface water attenuation to greenfield levels. Proposed assets including the shaft and chambers would be impermeable, but the surrounding hardstanding itself is proposed to be permeable. 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 Water53 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 King Georges Park site is located in the northern corner of the park near the junction between Buckhold Road and Neville Gill Close. A large water body with an approximate surface area of 3000m2 is located immediately south of the site. The site is currently an undeveloped greenfield site with no official drainage network at the site. Therefore, surface water is thought to infiltrate directly into the ground, either onsite, or on adjacent land. Surface water runoff rates and attenuation volumes are indicative and will be confirmed during the subsequent Level 3 FRA. Based on a development footprint of 345m2, the existing undeveloped greenfield surface water runoff rate for the 1% AEP event plus 30% for climate change has been calculated using the ICP SUDS rural runoff method in Micro Drainage WinDes Version 12.5 software. A soil factor of 0.45, which represents poorly drained soils, has been used within this method. The post development surface water runoff rate for the 1% AEP climate change event has been calculated using the Modified Rational Method, on the basis that the site would be completely impermeable.

15.4.32

15.4.34

15.4.35

15.4.36

15.4.37

15.4.38 15.4.39

15.4.40

Page 241

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park 15.4.41

Section 15: Water resources flood risk

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 climate change events are provided in the table below. Vol 12 Table 15.4.1 Flood risk runoff rates on site Site Status Existing Post Development Rainfall Runoff Event 1% AEP + 30% Climate Change 1% AEP + 30% Climate Change Runoff Rate (l/s)

15.4.42

0.65 6.50

15.4.43

By subtracting the existing undeveloped greenfield runoff rate from the post development runoff rate for the 1% AEP climate change event, an additional runoff rate of 5.85l/s is predicted post development, assuming the site would be completely impermeable. Proposed mitigation measures relating to surface water drainage are provided in Volume 12, Section 15.5 Flooding from groundwater There are no incidents of groundwater flooding within the vicinity of the site shown within the Wandsworth SFRA. Potential mechanisms for groundwater flooding will be explored further including local water levels from ongoing monitoring and data collection and reported in the ES. This will inform the assessment of groundwater flood risk to this site and will be reported in the Level 3 FRA for the King Georges Park site. Until further information is available, flood risk to the site from this source is considered to be low, as there is no evidence from the Wandsworth SFRA to suggest that groundwater flooding has occurred in the past. Flooding from sewers The Wandsworth SFRA shows that there have been more than 5 sewer flooding incidents recorded by Thames Water in the last 10 years within the area of Wandsworth covering the River Wandle, Battersea and the area between Clapham Junction and Balham, a significant area. The local sewer network plans show there are two combined sewers situated to the north west of the site within Buckhold Road. These combine into one large combined sewer to the north of the site which continues north to Wandsworth High Street. The dimensions of this combined sewer are 1330mm by 920mm. In addition to the Storm Trunk Sewer the site is intercepting, there is an additional storm sewer to the north west of the site again within Buckhold

15.4.44

15.4.45 15.4.46

15.4.47

15.4.48

15.4.49

15.4.50

Page 242

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 15: Water resources flood risk

Road. This continues north and has a diameter of 1219mm to the north west of the site. 15.4.51 Buckhold Road is situated at a higher ground level than the site. If the capacity of this system was exceeded, the combined sewer would surcharge throughout outlets such as man holes and gullies located along the length of the sewer. The pathway for this surcharged combined water and sewage would be south, through the site and to lower ground and the lake. Flood risk from this source is considered to be low. Flooding from artificial sources 15.4.53 There is a lake situated immediately south of the site. This is not considered as a flood source as it is not thought to be in hydraulic connectivity with any water source. Preliminary assessment has indicated that the lake is fed by a borehole. Further information regarding the lake system will input to the Level 3 FRA (to be included within the ES). Flood risk from this source is considered to be low.

15.4.52

15.4.54

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. low risk of flooding to the site from tidal sources due to the Thames Tidal defences and distance of the site from this source b. medium risk of flooding to the site from fluvial sources as a result of the exceedance of River Wandle channel capacity c. low risk of groundwater flooding to the site associated with water levels in the underlying geological strata

d. low risk of sewer flooding to the site e. low risk of surface water flooding (or ponding) to the site as a result of runoff from surrounding land f. 15.5.2 low risk of artificial flooding as a result of the Lake to the south of the site.

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 King Georges Park. 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

Page 243

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 15: Water resources flood risk

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 Volume 12, Section 15.2.1), there is no project-wide intention to provide flood resistance and resilience measures for residual flood risk. Construction and emergency planning 15.5.5 The subsequent Level 3 FRA will include the production of a site Emergency Plan in relation to Flood Risk outlining appropriate working practices and appropriate access/egress routes in the event of a flood warning. The London Borough of Wandsworth will be required to comment on the Emergency Plan.

Design and mitigation


Flood storage compensation 15.5.6 It has been identified that the King Georges Park site is situated within the undefended floodplain of the River Wandle and therefore it must be proven that the proposed development does not displace floodwater and cause a detrimental effect to surrounding land. If it is identified that the site would be likely to increase the flood risk to surrounding land in a negative manner, floodplain compensation may be required. It is important that any areas identified for level for level (or volume for volume) compensation are connected to the floodplain. This is necessary to ensure the free flow of floodwater into these compensation areas at comparable times to the area lost due to development. Flood pathways need to be unmodified and maintained; where compensatory storage is provided, there must be a flow route/pathway from the flood risk source to the new storage. It is proposed at this stage in the project to model the River Wandle including modified ground levels within the site and compare the results from this study with the results from the existing situation. If, through the modification of ground levels at the site, there is an increase in flood levels throughout the surrounding areas, compensation storage will be investigated as a mitigation measure. This work will inform the subsequent Level 3 FRA for the King Georges Park site. Surface water discharge 15.5.10 15.5.11 An appropriate surface water management strategy is required to ensure surface water is positively drained from this site post development. The preliminary calculations, shown in Vol 12 Table 15.5.1, are based upon 100% impermeable surfacing and zero infiltration (the feasibility of SUDS infiltration techniques onsite is currently unknown). PPS25 states that runoff post development should not be greater than runoff pre development in order to not increase the risk of flooding either

15.5.7

15.5.8

15.5.9

15.5.12

Page 244

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 15: Water resources flood risk

downstream or on surrounding land. The attenuation volume is based on this policy. In addition and in accordance with the Mayors Draft Water Strategy, the preferred standard and essential standard have also been considered (NB the preferred standard is equivalent to PPS25 standard as the site is currently greenfield). 15.5.13 To take into account the effects of climate change over the lifetime of the development, a 30% increase in peak rainfall intensity has been included when considering post development runoff and the associated attenuation volumes. Vol 12 Table 15.5.1 Flood risk runoff rates and preliminary attenuation volumes 1% AEP Rainfall Event Preferred Standard (attenuation to greenfield runoff rate) Essential Standard* (attenuation to 50% of undeveloped runoff rate) PPS25 Standard (in increase in runoff post development) 15.5.14 Runoff Rate (l/s) Attenuation Volume (m3)

6.5

19-25

N/A

N/A

See preferred standard

*Not applicable as existing site should be considered as a greenfield site

The table above indicates that to meet PPS25 standards (synonymous to the Mayors preferred standard), a storage volume between 19 25m3 would be required to provide sufficient storage to attenuate the 1% AEP event, inclusive of climate change. It is important to note that the attenuation volumes provided in Vol 12 Table 15.5.1 are based on preliminary calculations and would be subject to refinement at outline and detailed design stage. Both the need and the potential to deliver this level of attenuation at the site will be determined during the Level 2 FRA and reported in the ES, which will ensure that the requirements of PPS25 are met at all times and the aspirations of the London Plan are met where practicable. A geotechnical investigation has been undertaken which will be reviewed to obtain further information regarding infiltration rates and contamination. The results will be used to determine whether the use of SUDS infiltration techniques will be feasible on the site. At the time of writing further information in relation to the viability of infiltration techniques is currently not available. Potential surface water management options to be considered are provided below:

15.5.15

15.5.16

15.5.17

Page 245

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 15: Water resources flood risk

a. Use of permeable surfacing around the impermeable shaft and chambers. b. During extreme rainfall events, the potential to discharge surface water runoff to the CSO drop shaft could be considered. c. A SUDS retention pond, detention basin or storage tank to attenuate surface water runoff could be constructed adjacent to the site within the park. This type of SUDS feature would require regular maintenance to ensure it remains operational. Based on the upper storage volume (25m3) shown in Vol 12 Table 15.5.1, a SUDS feature with a surface area of 23m2 and 1.1m deep would provide the required storage. It is important to note that these dimensions are based on preliminary calculations and would be subject to refinement at outline and detailed design stage.

d. Direct discharge of surface water runoff from the site to the water body located immediately south of the site. Taking into account the upper storage volume (25m3) shown in Vol 12 Table 15.5.1 and the water bodies surface area (3000m2) the additional depth of water across the water body due to this additional discharge would be less than 0.01m. 15.5.18 The following surface water mitigation measures should also be considered for incorporation into the development design: a. In the event of return periods in excess of the 3.3% AEP storm, the layout and the landscaping of the site should aim to route water away from vulnerable property, and avoid creating hazards to access egress routes, whilst not increasing flood risk to third parties. b. Depending on operational activities at the site surface water runoff may be required to pass through an oil interceptor, or similar, prior to discharge to the chosen surface water receptor. c. During the construction phase appropriate mitigation would be provided to ensure surface water is managed in a controlled manner.

15.6
15.6.1 15.6.2

Assessment completion
A Level 3 FRA will be prepared for the site which will outline further specific design approaches and measures. It is considered that a full Level 3 FRA is required to address the implications of the development on potential flood water displacement. The Level 3 FRA will be sufficiently detailed to assess the impact of flood risk for the final site design (ie Level 2 FRA work will be included within the Level 3 FRA to be undertaken for this site). This will be prepared for the site and incorporated into the ES. The Level 3 FRA will use the data collected as part of the Level 1 FRA and build upon the preliminary findings of this assessment once further information is available from the EA and other assessments being undertaken to support the FRA and the EIA. In summary, the following additional assessment elements will be undertaken: a. Confirmation of existing River Wandle defence levels local to the site following receipt of the EA survey information of flood defences. This

15.6.3

Page 246

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Section 15: Water resources flood risk

will be used to reassess the standard of protection at the site and effect on actual fluvial flood risk. It will also inform flood prevention design in terms of the design level of the shaft and associated infrastructure proposed for construction and operation of the King Georges Park site. b. Modelling of the River Wandle to determine potential impacts of ground levels changes within the site. The additional modelling results will quantify any potential changes in flood risk throughout the surrounding area, and confirm whether compensation storage will be required as a mitigation measure. c. Following the results of the River Wandle modelling, if flood compensation is required, this will be designed through consultation with the Thames Tunnel team and the EA.

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 King Georges Park defences will be included in the King Georges Park Level 3 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. The surface water drainage scheme will be assessed for suitability and conformity with the suggested surface water attenuation within this Level 1 FRA.

g. 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 3 FRA. h. Further detail on the lake situated to the south of the site will inform the analysis of this water body as a source of flood risk. i. j. An emergency plan will be developed to support the Level 3 FRA and the CoCP. Further detail of site specific mitigation and flood prevention measures required to manage both residual risk and direct flood risk based on the final site design.

15.6.4

It is not anticipated that further primary data collection (assuming outstanding data from the EA is supplied) will be necessary but it is expected that modelling of the River Wandle will be required to quantify the potential impact on flood water displacement and determine appropriate mitigation measures. The Level 3 FRA will be required at this site as part of future work to support the ES and application specific to the King Georges Park site.

Page 247

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Appendix A: Historic environment

Appendices
List of figures
Page number

Figure A.1: Rocques map of 1746 ......................................................................... 250 Figure A.2: Stanfords map of 1862 ........................................................................ 250 Figure A.3 OS 1st edition 25 scale map of 186295 ............................................. 251 Figure A.4: OS 2nd edition 25 scale map of 18968 ............................................. 251 Figure A.5: OS 25 scale map of 1947.................................................................... 252 Photo A.1: Northern gate of King Georges Park; ................................................... 253 Photo A.2: Railings along the north of King Georges Park .................................... 253 Photo A.3: King Georges Park and modern residential blocks to the west ............ 254 Figure C.1 Noise measurement locations at King Georges Park .......................... 260 Photo C.1: Noise monitoring at PWH3X - Noise 1 - ................................................ 263 Photo C.2: Noise monitoring at PWH3X - Noise 2 - ................................................ 263 Photo C.3: Noise monitoring at PWH3X - Noise 3 - ................................................ 263 Photo D.1 Viewpoint 1.1 ......................................................................................... 264 Photo D.2 Viewpoint 1.2 ......................................................................................... 264 Photo D.3: Viewpoint 1.5: ....................................................................................... 265 Photo D.4: Viewpoint 1.6: ....................................................................................... 265 PhotoD.5: Viewpoint 1.7 ......................................................................................... 266 Photo D.6: Viewpoint 2.2: ....................................................................................... 266 Photo D.7: Viewpoint 2.5 ........................................................................................ 267 Photo D.8: Viewpoint 2.7 ........................................................................................ 267 Photo D.9: Viewpoint 3.1 ........................................................................................ 268 Photo D.10: Viewpoint 3.2 ...................................................................................... 268 Photo D.11: Viewpoint 3.3 ...................................................................................... 269 Figure E.1 Groundwater superficial geology ........................................................ 270 Figure E.2 Groundwater solid geology................................................................. 270 Figure E.3 Groundwater EA monitoring locations ................................................ 273 Figure E.4 Groundwater Level Hydrograph ............................................................ 275 Figure E.5 Groundwater level hydrograph Youngs Brewery ................................ 277 Figure E.6 Groundwater GSHP ........................................................................... 278

Page 248

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park List of tables

Appendix A: Historic environment

Page number

Table C.1 Measurement locations for the baseline noise survey ............................ 261 Table C.2 Summary of noise survey results ........................................................... 262 Table E.1: Summary of anticipated Thames Tunnel geological succession ........... 270 Table E.2: Anticipated Ground Conditions .............................................................. 271 Table E.3: Anticipated Hydrogeology...................................................................... 272 Table E.4: Depth and Strata penetrated by on-site monitoring boreholes .............. 273 Table E.5: Licensed abstractions ............................................................................ 278 Table E.6: Licensed abstractions for GSH schemes............................................... 279 Table E.7: Groundwater detections by EA .............................................................. 279 Table E.8: Groundwater quality results from the GI ................................................ 280

Page 249

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Appendix A: Historic environment

Appendix A: Historic environment A.1 Historic Maps


Figure A.1: Rocques map of 1746

Figure A.2: Stanfords map of 1862

Page 250

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Appendix A: Historic environment

Figure A.3 OS 1st edition 25 scale map of 186295

(not to scale) Figure A.4: OS 2nd edition 25 scale map of 18968

(not to scale)

Page 251

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Appendix A: Historic environment

Figure A.5: OS 25 scale map of 1947

(not to scale)

Page 252

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Appendix A: Historic environment

A.2

Photographs
Photo A.1: Northern gate of King Georges Park;

March 2011; standard lens; looking south-west from Buckhold Road. Photo A.2: Railings along the north of King Georges Park

March 2011; standard lens; looking north-east along Buckhold Road.

Page 253

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Appendix A: Historic environment

Photo A.3: King Georges Park and modern residential blocks to the west

March 2011; standard lens; looking west from the site.

Page 254

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Appendix A: Historic environment

A.3
A.3.1 HEA Ref no. 1

Gazetteer of known heritage assets


The location of known heritage assets is shown on the historic environment features map (Vol 12 Figure 7.4.1). Description Site code/ HER ref: TAW92

Territorial Army Centre, Buckhold Road, Sw18. An archaeological evaluation and excavation by MoLAS in 1992. The site lies on the western edge of the Wandle Valley. London Clay was cut by two ditches, either field boundaries or drainage ditches, which predated a building interpreted as a boathouse, erected in the second half of the 17th century and completely rebuilt in the early 18th century. Both were constructed of brick, though the eastern wall of the later one may have been of timber; a Flemish tiled floor survived in this later building. Outside the east end of the building was a timber-lined watercourse, while to the north two watercourses were located: one containing 18th century material may have represented a diversion eastwards towards the River Wandle after the demolition of the boathouse, probably in the late 18th century. The site of the early medieval to 16th century settlement of Wandsworth. Recorded on the GLHER. Wandsworth Business Village, 39 Broomhill Road, SW18. An archaeological evaluation by SAS in 2007. One trench was excavated, revealing the remains of a 19th century wall and cobbled surface above the natural clay. Made-ground, from which medieval, 17th-18th and 19th century material was recovered, was recorded above the clay, as were modern services. Stimpsons Buildings. An archaeological excavation by WHS in 1969. The site of a building, a wall, a sewer dating from the medieval to 17th century and a quay, pilling, a midden and a dump deposit all dating to the post-medieval period. Recorded on the GLHER. The site of a post-medieval oil mill and corn mill. Recorded on the GLHER.

2 3

025283 WBV07

13013 13015 13127 23323 11669 11671 23329 8209 GLW01

Garratt Lane (Arndale Centre) Wandsworth, SW18. A geoarchaeological investigation carried out by the Museum of London Archaeology Service in 2001. Deposits spanning the Mesolithic to modern periods were excavated. Although no archaeological finds and features were encountered, environmental remains have provided a reconstruction of the

Page 255

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park HEA Ref no. Description

Appendix A: Historic environment Site code/ HER ref:

changing environment of the site and its surroundings and indirect evidence of past human activity. 7 Wandsworth Workshop, 8589 Garratt Lane, SW18. An archaeological watching brief by CA in 2000. Alluvial deposits of the River Wandle were located during hand augering; they appeared to be a mixture of undisturbed and redeposited material. 177 Wandsworth High Street, SW18. An archaeological evaluation by CA in 2005. Two fairly large pits produced evidence for early and later 18th century occupation, probably relating to houses on the adjacent High Street. There was no indication of commercial activity. The pottery was mainly of common domestic wares, but included one notable item in the form of a large slipware dish made in Isleworth or at Hanworth Road, Hounslow. Elsewhere modern activity had removed most deposits and had truncated the natural gravel. 19 Hardwicks Way, SW18. An archaeological evaluation by SAS in 2002. The natural gravel was overlaid by 19th-20th century made-ground. 26 Hardwicks Way, Wandsworth, SW18. An archaeological evaluation by SAS in 2004. Modern concrete and make-up were revealed above the natural gravels, the latter probably having been cut for gravel extraction in the area behind the High Street. In one of the trenches were found the patchy remains of several floors of a building which had been cut by four pits and a brick wall, all dated to the 18th century. Other pits and make-up seem to date to 16th-18th century. A 19th century pit was also recorded. The chance find of a Palaeolithic flint flake. Recorded on the GLHER. The chance find of a Palaeolithic flint flake and a Roman spoon. Recorded on the GLHER. The 17th century All Saint Church. Grade II listed building. The chance find of a medieval dagger, a Roman knife, a medieval horse harness, an Iron Age blade and an unclassified Roman object. Recorded on the GLHER. GTN00

WDI05

HWK02

10

HKW04

11 12 13 14

12247 10416 13100 207173 11010 13106 23215 24668 24774 10472 031273

15 16

The chance find of a Bronze Age blade. Recorded on the GLHER. The chance find of a Bronze Age spear head. Recorded on

Page 256

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park HEA Ref no. the GLHER. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Description

Appendix A: Historic environment Site code/ HER ref: 11967 --207074 491929 207170 207039 207168 207002 207171 207172 207176 207177 207178

The chance find of a number of Palaeolithic flint flakes. Recorded on the GLHER. The projected line of a medieval road. Down Lodge. Grade II listed. The Brewery Tap. Grade II listed. The Spread Eagle Public House. Grade II listed. Old County Court House. Grade II listed. 140142 Wandsworth High Street. Grade II listed. 16 Church Row. Grade II* listed. 70 Wandsworth High Street. Grade II listed. Former Ram (Youngs) Brewery Complex. Grade II* listed. 23, 25, 27, 29 and 32 West Hill. Grade II listed.

Page 257

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Appendix B: Land quality

Appendix B: Land quality B.1 Site walkover


Details PWH3X King Georges Park Dino Giordanelli/ Lorna Brooks

Item Site Ref Site Name Date of walkover / name(s) of specialist Site location (Address & Access) Size and topography of site and surroundings Neighbouring site use (in particular note any potentially contaminative activities or sensitive receptors)

9th November 2010

King Georges Park (Northern Entrance),Buckhold Road (A218) ,Wandsworth. Access across the entirety of the site. Record elevation in Relatively flat landscaped park land, relation to surroundings, 2m below surrounding street level. any hummocks, breaks of slope etc. North Buckhold Road (A218) forms northern boundary. Directly north of the site is a business park The Business Village (approximately 14m), Army Cadet Force and, adjoining this, Eurocar offices and a car repair garage. No evidence of petrol pumps or tanks were observed in this area during the survey. South To the south is further parkland. Within the park is a nursery school and play area approximately 96m south-west of the proposed worksite. East Neville Gill Close forms the eastern boundary and directly east of this is a retail area. West The road forming the northern entrance to the park forms the western boundary. The surrounding area is mixed with residential and commercial areas. Record extent, size, type No buildings onsite. and usage. Any boiler rooms, electrical switchgear? Record type and Parkland hard surfaced pathway condition through grassland and mature trees of the park. Any evidence of distress, Heavily vegetated with mature trees. unusual growth or invasive species such as Japanese Knotweed? Evidence of buried N/A

Site buildings

Surfacing

Vegetation

Services

Page 258

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park 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 N/A

N/A

No

No contaminating wastes, parkland only. Man made pond immediately south of the site. N/A

No

No

None

None access available across site.

Page 259

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Appendix C: Noise and vibration

Appendix C: Noise and vibration C.1


C.1.1

Baseline noise monitoring results


A baseline noise survey was completed on 7 April 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 schools/educational institutions.

Introduction

C.1.2

The nearest identified receptors to King Georges Park are the dwellings surrounding the site, Park Gardens nursery school, the Penfold Centre and people using the park.

Survey Methodology
C.1.3 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 King Georges Park would be used for standard hours working and therefore no evening or night time measurements were undertaken.

C.1.4

Measurement Locations
C.1.5 The co-ordinates of each of the measurement locations are provided in Table C.1. Figure C.1 Noise measurement locations at King Georges Park (see Volume 12 Figures document)

Page 260

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Appendix C: Noise and vibration

7 April 2011
C.1.6 At locations 1 and 2 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 2656212) was used for all measurements. At locations 3 and 4 a Brel and Kjr sound level meter, Type 2250 (serial number 2446918), fitted with Brel and Kjr Type 4189 -inch free field microphone (serial number 2440900) 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 2619373 respectively). On-site calibration checks were performed before and after all measurements with no significant deviation being observed. The sound level meters and calibrators had valid laboratory calibration certificates. 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. The weather was dry with a light south westerly breeze and the temperature range recorded was 20 - 24 oC. Table C.1 Measurement locations for the baseline noise survey Measurement Location Number PWH3X Noise 1 PWH3XNoise 2 PWH3X Noise 3 Description Co-ordinates X Footpath adjacent to Buckhold Road Footpath adjacent to Neville Gill Close Footpath within King Georges Park 525390 525496 525412 Y 174483 174440 174418

C.1.7

C.1.8 C.1.9

C.1.10

C.1.11

Page 261

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Appendix C: Noise and vibration

Results
C.1.12 The summary of the noise survey measurements is presented in the table below. Table C.2 Summary of noise survey results Measurement location number Measured average daytime ambient noise level, dBLAeq,15
min

Description

dBLAeq,15min (rounded to nearest 5dB)

Free field PWH3X Noise 1 PWH3X Noise 2 PWH3X Noise 3 Footpath adjacent to Buckhold Road Footpath adjacent to Neville Gill Close Footpath within King Georges Park 70 60 57

Facade 73 63 60 75 65 60

Page 262

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Appendix C: Noise and vibration

C.2

Noise survey photographs


Photo C.1: Noise monitoring at PWH3X - Noise 1 -

footpath adjacent to Buckhold Road Photo C.2: Noise monitoring at PWH3X - Noise 2 -

footpath adjacent to Neville Gill Close Photo C.3: Noise monitoring at PWH3X - Noise 3 -

footpath within King Georges Park

Page 263

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Appendix D: Townscape and visual

Appendix D: Townscape and visual D.1 Winter photographs


Photo D.1 Viewpoint 1.1

Panorama view east from residences on Buckhold Road Photo D.2 Viewpoint 1.2

View north east from residences on Buckhold Road close to the junction with Broomhill Road

Page 264

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Appendix D: Townscape and visual

Photo D.3: Viewpoint 1.5:

View north east from residences on Merton Road at the footpath connecting to Buckhold Road

Photo D.4: Viewpoint 1.6:

View east from residences on Merton Road close to Lebanon Gardens

Page 265

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Appendix D: Townscape and visual

PhotoD.5: Viewpoint 1.7

Panorama view east from residences along Broomhill Road

Photo D.6: Viewpoint 2.2:

View north from the lakeside footpath close to the tennis courts

Page 266

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Appendix D: Townscape and visual

Photo D.7: Viewpoint 2.5

View north from the amenity green space in the southern section of King Georges Park Photo D.8: Viewpoint 2.7

Panoramic view north from the lakeside footpath close to the childrens playground

Page 267

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Appendix D: Townscape and visual

Photo D.9: Viewpoint 3.1

View south from Wandsworth High Street at the junction with Buckhold Road Photo D.10: Viewpoint 3.2

View north west from Neville Gill Close near to the site

Page 268

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Appendix D: Townscape and visual

Photo D.11: Viewpoint 3.3

View north west from Neville Gill Close at the southern residential tower

Page 269

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Appendix E: Water resources groundwater

Appendix E: Water resources - groundwater E.1


E.1.1

Geology
A summary of the anticipated geology succession to be encountered by the Thames Tunnel is shown in the table below.

Table E.1: Summary of anticipated Thames Tunnel geological succession Period Series Holocene Quaternary Pleistocene Eocene Thames Group Formation Made ground Superficial Deposits Alluvium Langley Silt River Terrace Deposits London Clay Harwich Upper Shelly Beds Upper Mottled Beds Laminated Beds Palaeogene Palaeocene Lambeth Lower Shelly Beds Mid-Lambeth Hiatus* Lower Mottled Beds Upnor No group Cretaceous Upper Cretaceous White Chalk Subgroup Thanet Sand Seaford Chalk** Lewes Nodular Chalk

* Not a Formation but an important depositional feature ** Subdivided into the Haven Brow, Cuckmere and Belle Tout members.

E.1.2

Vol 12 Figure E.1 shows the superficial geology and Vol 12 Figure E.2 the solid geology beneath the site. Figure E.1 Groundwater superficial geology Figure E.2 Groundwater solid geology (see Volume 12 Figures document)

E.1.3

The Ground Investigation (GI) was undertaken for Thames Tunnel Project and has involved drilling boreholes both on the land and within the main river channel (TT, 2010) 54. The locations of boreholes around Kings George Park are shown in Vol 12 Figure E.2. The depths and thicknesses of geological layers encountered is summarised in the table below.

Page 270

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Appendix E: Water resources groundwater

Table E.2: Anticipated Ground Conditions Top of Formation Formation Elevation of Strata (mATD) 105.34 101.74 101.34 Depth below ground level (m) 0.00 3.60 4.00 Thickness (m)

Made Ground Alluvium River Terrace Deposits London Clay B A3ii A3i A2 Harwich E.1.4

3.60 0.40 0.50

100.84 73.34 61.34 58.84 57.84

4.50 32.00 44.00 46.50 47.50

27.50 12.00 2.50 11.00 0.80

At the site, the invert level of the shaft will be at 84.9 mATD and 2m thick reinforced concrete base plug will be formed at the base of the shaft. The shaft is expected to be constructed through the Made Ground, Alluvium and River Terrace Deposits then entirely through the London Clay Formation. The invert of the Frogmore connection tunnel will also be within the London Clay Formation. The made ground containing sandy gravely silt with occasional brick and concrete fragments is about 3.6m in thickness. Alluvium comprising silty clay and clayey silt, with occasional scattered pebbles and granules overlies the site. Within the Alluvium, local beds of fine to coarse-grained sand may be present, as laminar, lenticular or channel deposits, generally less than 1m thick but may reach up to 4m in thickness. The thickness of Alluvium is about 0.4m at Kings George Park site. River Terrace Deposits are extensive alluvial sand and gravel deposits laid down in a braided river system of approximately 5km width, in river terraces since the Anglian glaciation. Phases of down-cutting and intervening deposition during colder periods and subsequent meltwaters increased river flows and sediment load. Seven terraces are distinguishable in London in terms of their altitude, rather than distinguishing lithological features, ranging in thickness from around 2.5 to 28m. The River Terrace Deposits at Kings George Park is around 0.5m 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

E.1.5 E.1.6

E.1.7

E.1.8

Page 271

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Appendix E: Water resources groundwater

nature. The thickness of London Clay formation at site reaches up to 53m. E.1.9 The Harwich Formation comprises of fine-grained glauconitic sand and rounded black flinty pebble beds, commonly deposited in a series of superimposed channels.

E.2
E.2.1

Hydrogeology
A summary of the anticipated hydrogeological properties of the different geologies to be encountered by the Thames Tunnel is shown in the table below. Table E.3: Anticipated Hydrogeology Group Superficial Deposits Formation (Made Ground) Alluvium River Terrace Deposits London Clay Thames 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 White Chalk Lewes Nodular Chalk New Pit Chalk Lower Aquifer Hydrogeology Perched Water Upper Aquifer Aquiclude Aquitard / Aquifer

Lambeth

Aquitards/ Aquifers

No group

E.2.2

The lower aquifer comprises the Upnor Formation, the Thanet Sands (secondary A aquifer) and the Chalk (principal aquifer) vii 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. The London Clay acts as an aquiclude that separates the upper aquifer from the lower aquifer.

E.2.3

vii

The terms Principal and Secondary Aquifers were previously known as Major and Minor Aquifers (EA, 2010)

Page 272

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park E.2.4

Appendix E: Water resources groundwater

According the GI boreholes the River Terrace Deposits (upper aquifer) are thin at less than 0.5m thick at the site. The depth of shaft will not extend down into the lower aquifer. 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 (TT, 2010, Table E.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.

E.2.5

E.3
E.3.1

Groundwater Levels
The geotechnical investigation boreholes drilled for the Thames Tunnel project have been used to obtain hydrogeological information. Standpipes were installed to monitor groundwater levels in different horizon by means of data logger and/or manual dip. The monitoring is being undertaken by Thames Tunnel team and groundwater monitoring records from the completion of each borehole to January 2010 have been provided. In addition, the EA has a network of observation monitoring boreholes across London for which available historical and long term records have been provided up to September 2009 at the time of writing. The on-site monitoring boreholes (SA1110 and SR1109) with dual standpipe installations record groundwater levels in discrete horizons. The location of boreholes is presented in Vol 12 Figure E.1 and installation details for each standpipe are listed in the table below. Figure E.3 Groundwater EA monitoring locations (see Volume 12 Figures document) Table E.4: Depth and Strata penetrated by on-site monitoring boreholes

E.3.2

Borehole

Standpipe Diameter (mm) 50

Response Zone (mATD) 102.25-100.15

Strata

Monitoring Type and Frequency Monthly Dips and 15 min Logger Data Monthly Dips and 15 min Logger Data Fortnightly Manual Dips Fortnightly Manual Dips

SA1110

Made Ground/ Alluvium/River Terrace Deposits London Clay (Undifferentiated) London Clay (A3) Lambeth GroupUpper Shelly Beds

SA1110

25

73.25-69.15

SR1109 SR1109

25 25

67.49-65.39 48.49-46.39

Page 273

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Appendix E: Water resources groundwater

E.3.3

Figure E.4 shows the monitoring undertaken in the Made Ground/ Alluvium/River Terrace Deposits, London Clay and Lambeth Group Upper Shelly Beds at the site. The piezometric level in Made Ground/ Alluvium/River Terrace Deposits is approximately 102.5mATD, ranging between 102.35m ATD and 103.20 and consistently above the top of the River Terrace Deposits. The piezometric heads within two horizons of the London Clay Formation are lower than those in upper aquifer and heads in London Clay subdivision A3ii, the most porous section of London Clay, is above the base of the shaft. The piezometric head in USB of the Lambeth Group is about 98.5m ATD and within top of the London Clay. However, the level of the shaft invert is considered to be sufficiently high enough to avoid any groundwater effects.

E.3.4

E.3.5

E.3.6

Page 274

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Appendix E: Water resources groundwater

Figure E.4 Groundwater Level Hydrograph

Page 275

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park E.3.7

Appendix E: Water resources groundwater

The nearest EA monitoring borehole (TQ27/159) located at Youngs Brewery (TQ2561 7467), approximately 250m to the northeast (see Vol 12 Figure A.3). This borehole records levels in the lower aquifer (mainly Chalk). A groundwater level hydrograph from this observation borehole is shown in Figure E.5.

Page 276

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Appendix E: Water resources groundwater

Figure E.5 Groundwater level hydrograph Youngs Brewery

Page 277

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park E.3.8

Appendix E: Water resources groundwater

Figure E.5 indicates a long term trend of rising groundwater levels up to 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 vary by around 1.0m. The long term trend of rising water table commenced in early 2001. The recent lowering of levels reflects increased use of groundwater in central London. The latest levels from this borehole in December 2008 were around 78mATD (-22mAOD) (EA, 2010) 55. The Environment Agency has produced a groundwater contour map of the confined Chalk piezometric heads 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 northeast locally, towards a low point in central London.

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 precise locations are not presented due to data restrictions on licence abstractions held by the EA. There is one licensed groundwater abstraction from the confined Chalk approximately 0.15km to the southeast of the site. The licence lumber for this source is 28/39/41/0081 and the annual licensed quantity is 8,000m3. The use of this source is for industrial, commercial and public services and licensed to London Borough of Wandsworth. Details of this licensed abstraction is summarised in the table below. Table E.5: Licensed abstractions

E.4.2

Licence number

Licence holder Borough of Wandsworth

Purpose Industrial, Commercial and Public Services

Aquifer

Licensed volume [m3/annum] 8,000

28/39/41/0081

Chalk

Note: Excludes Public Water Supply Sources

E.4.3 E.4.4

There are no known unlicensed groundwater abstractions within a 1km radius of the site. The nearest Ground Source Heat (GSH) scheme to the site is approximately 0.8km to the north. The location of this GSH scheme is shown in Figure E.6. Further details of these licensed abstractions for GSH are given in the table below. Figure E.6 Groundwater GSHP (see Volume 12 Figures document)

Page 278

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

Appendix E: Water resources groundwater

Table E.6: Licensed abstractions for GSH schemes Licence Number Licence Holder Frasers Riverside Quarter Ltd Purpose Production of Energy Aquifer Licensed Volume [m3/annum] 390,000

TH/039/0041/001

Chalk

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. There is nearest SPZ to Kings Georges Park is approximately 3km to the southeast.

E.6
E.6.1 E.6.2

Other designations
King Georges Park is locally designated as site of importance for nature conservation (SINC). The lake within the northern part of the King Georges Park is understood to be lined water body. Whilst the water used to top up the lake water comes from the Chalk aquifer nearby, it is the case that the lake is not hydraulically connected to groundwater. There are no other environmental designations relevant to groundwater in the vicinity of the site.

E.6.3

E.7
E.7.1

Groundwater quality
The EA monitors groundwater quality at number of points across London. The nearest EA monitoring is within King Georges Park, Wandsworth (PGWU1514). The distance of this monitoring point from the site is approximately 0.15km (see Vol 12 Figure E.3). The quality of water is typical of Chalk (Na-HCO3 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)56. The table below contains the parameters and the number of occasions which they have breached either the Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) or UK drinking water standards at the EA monitoring borehole at King Georges Park. The water quality information is available for the period July 1997 to November 2010. Table E.7: Groundwater detections by EA Parameter Ammonia Chlorofenvinphos Dichlorvos Number of breaches 28* 14* 5* Number of Samples 28 14 5

E.7.2

Page 279

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park Number of breaches 5* 8* 5* 1**

Appendix E: Water resources groundwater Number of Samples 14 8 14 3

Parameter Diazinon Silver Propetamphos Benzo(a)pyrene

Note * above EQS; **above UK drinking water standards

Information provided by the Thames Tunnel team on land quality at Kings George Park shows exceedances in water samples of relevant standards. The samples were taken on one occasion in 2009 as part of the GI on the site (TT, 2010). E.7.3 Copper concentration as detected in water samples taken from Borehole SA1110 in which standpipe installation is within Made Ground / Alluvium / River Terrace Deposits. PAHs and Benzo (a) pyrene exceeded the standard at the same borehole in which standpipe installation is within London Clay. The table below contains the GI measured concentrations and the relevant standard for each of the above substances. Table E.8: Groundwater quality results from the GI Parameter Copper Benzo (a) pyrene PAHs E.7.4 E.7.5 Units mg/l mg/l mg/l Concentration 0.007 0.00002 0.0004 Standard 0.005** 0.00001* 0.0001*

Note * DWS; **EQS

A hydrocarbon odour in River Terrace Deposits was noted in engineering logs for borehole SR1109. 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.

Page 280

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

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 281

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park 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 282

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park 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 283

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park 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 284

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park 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 285

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park 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 286

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park 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 287

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park 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 288

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park 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 289

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park 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 290

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park 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 Insectsviii, 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

viii

Bratton, (1991) Red Data Book for Insects

Page 291

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park 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 292

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park 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 293

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park 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 294

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park 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 295

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

References

References

1 Defra, http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/review-and-assessment/tools/backgroundmaps.html , Accessed May 2011) 2 LB Wandsworth, Personal Communication with David Kennett EHO, March 2011 3 Defra (2010), http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/documents/Measured-nitrogen-oxides(NOx)-and-or-nitrogen-dioxide-(NO2)-concentrations-do-not-appear-to-be-decliningin-line-with-national-forecastsv1.pdf, Accessed April 2011 4 Defra (2009) Local Air Quality Management- Technical Guidance, LAQM.TG(09). 5 Greater London Authority and London Councils (2006) Best Practice Guidance: The Control of Dust and Emissions from Construction and Demolition, November 2006 6 Defra (2010) Draft National Policy Statement for Waste Water, November 2010. 7 Thames Estuary Partnership Biodiversity Action Group (2002) Tidal Thames Habitat Action Plan. London Biodiversity Partnership. 8 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. 9 Bratton, J.H. (ed) (1991). British Red Data Books: 3. Invertebrates other than insects. JNCC, PeterBorough. 10 Shirt, D.B. (editor) 1987. British Red Data Books: 2 Insects. PeterBorough: Nature Conservancy Council. 11 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. 12 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] 13 The Mayors Biodiversity Strategy Connecting with Nature (Great London Authority, July 2002) 14 IEEM. Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom. Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2006) 15 Department of Communities and Local Government. Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment (March 2010), 1, 13 16 Greenwood 1986 and Wymer 1991 quoted in Greenwood P, Foreshore Conference Proceedings (2009)

Page 296

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

References

17 Museum of London Archaeology Service, The Archaeology of Greater London. MoLAS and English Heritage (2000), 150 18 Farrant N, Roman roads in Wandsworth in The Wandsworth Historian Vol 13 Dec 1975. Wandsworth Historical Society (1975), fig 4 19 Gerhold D, Wandsworth Past. Historical Publications (1998), 13
20

Gerhold D, Wandsworth Past. Historical Publications (1998), 13 and Victoria County History, A History of the County of Surrey Vol IV. Victoria County History. London (1967), 108 21 Victoria County History, A History of the County of Surrey Vol IV. Victoria County History. London (1967), 108 22 Williams A and Martin GH, The Domesday Book, a complete translation. Penguin (2003), 84 23 Gerhold D, Wandsworth Past. Historical Publications (1998), 14 24 Cherry B and Pevsner N The Buildings of England: London 2: South. Yale University Press (1983), 701 25 Gerhold D, Wandsworth Past. Historical Publications (1998), 7 26 Weinreb B and Hibbert C, The London Encyclopaedia. Macmillan (1983), 947 27 Gerhold D, Wandsworth Past. Historical Publications (1998), 7 28 Gerhold D, Wandsworth Past. Historical Publications (1998), 11 29 Gerhold D, Wandsworth Past. Historical Publications (1998), 48 30 http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/downloads/file/3412/ king_georges_park; accessed 5th May 2011 31 Cherry B and Pevsner N The Buildings of England: London 2: South. Yale University Press (1983), 703 32 English Heritage Understanding historic buildings: a guide to good recording practice. Swindon (2006) 33 BS 5228:2009 Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites 34 BS4142: 1997 Method for rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas 35 Ref: Assistant Director of Technical Services, via email to Chris Stratford, 12th April 2011 36 Wandsworth Open Space Study, 2007 37 GLA (2008, as amended 2011) London Plan Consolidated with Alterations since 2004, page 180 38 LB Wandsworth (2010) LDF Core Strategy, page 38 39 Husselman, S. and Bourne, L. Childrens Centres what are they?, in Families, Jan/Feb 09, p. 33 [Last accessed in May 2011 at http://www.sarahhusselmann.com/Portfolio/ChildrensCentres_Jan09.pdf

Page 297

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 12: King Georges Park

References

40 LB Wandsworth Website, Service Provider Details King George's Park One O'clock Centre [Last accessed in May 2011 at http://wandsworth.childrensservicedirectory.org.uk/serviceprovider.htm?q=search&id =2739] 41 Thames River Basin Management Plan Annex B: Water Body Status Objectives, Environment Agency, 2011
42

the Thames Recreational Users Study Final Report (2007), a collaborative partnership project between the City of London Port Health Authority and the Health Protection Agency 43 Thames Tideway Strategic Study, Thames Water, February 2005 44 Communities and Local Government (March 2010). Planning Policy Statement 25 Development and Flood Risk. 45 PPS25 Practice Guide (Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk Practice Guide. Communities and Local Government (Dec 2009).
46

Thames Estuary 2100 Plan (TE2100) (Thames Estuary 2100 Flood Risk Management Plan. Environment Agency. Accessed Feb 2011 http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/library/consultations/106100.aspx) 47 GLA (2011) London Plan - The London Plan Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London 48 London Boroughs of Wandsworth, Merton, Sutton and Croydon Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Final Report. Scott Wilson Ltd (Dec 2008). London Boroughs of Wandsworth, Merton, Sutton and Croydon Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Final Report. Scott Wilson Ltd (Apr 2009). 49 Thames Estuary 2100 Plan (TE2100) (Thames Estuary 2100 Flood Risk Management Plan. Environment Agency. Accessed Feb 2011 http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/library/consultations/106100.aspx) 50 Thames Region Catchment Flood Management Plan (CFMP) (Thames Region Catchment Flood Management Plan Summary Report. Environment Agency (Jan 2007))

51 London Regional Flood Risk Appraisal. Greater London Authority (Oct 2009)) 52 Flood Risks to People FD2320. Defra and Environment Agency (2005). 53 The Mayors Draft Water Strategy. Mayor of London. Greater London Authority (Aug 2009) 54 TT (2010) Ground Investigation Factual Report Contract Reference No. WAL080092 55 EA (2010) Management of London Basin Chalk Aquifer. Status Report 2010. 56 EA(2006) Groundwater Quality Review: London Basin Ref. No. GWQR22 [6441R6] November 2006.

Page 298

Preliminary environmental information report

Thames Tunn
110-RG-ENV-PWH3X-000020

Phase two consultation (Autumn 2011)

For further information see our website: www.thamestunnelconsultation.co.uk or call us on 0800 0721 086

Thames Tunn