PEIR Main Report Vol22-Chambers-Wharf

Preliminary environmental information report
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf site assessment

Main tunnel drive and reception site 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 Introduction Proposed development Alternatives Scoping Opinions and technical engagement Assessment methodology Project-wide assessment Acton Storm Tanks CSO interception and main tunnel reception shaft site Hammersmith Pumping Station CSO interception site Barn Elms CSO interception site Putney Bridge Foreshore CSO interception site Dormay Street CSO interception and connection tunnel sequential drive site King Georges Park CSO interception and connection tunnel reception site Carnwath Road Riverside main tunnel drive and reception, and connection tunnel reception site Falconbrook Pumping Station CSO interception site Cremorne Wharf Depot CSO interception site Chelsea Embankment Foreshore CSO interception site Kirtling Street main tunnel double drive site Heathwall Pumping Station CSO interception site Albert Embankment Foreshore CSO interception site Victoria Embankment Foreshore CSO interception site Blackfriars Bridge Foreshore CSO interception site Chambers Wharf main tunnel drive and reception and connection tunnel reception site (this document) King Edward Memorial Park Foreshore CSO interception site Earl Pumping Station CSO interception site
Part B: Preliminary site information
Page i
Volume 25 Volume 26 Volume 27 Volume 28
Deptford Church Street CSO interception site Greenwich Pumping Station CSO interception and connection tunnel drive site Abbey Mills Pumping Station main tunnel reception site Beckton Sewage Treatment Works site
Page ii
Thames Tunnel Volume 22: Chambers Wharf site assessment

List of contents
Page number
1 2
Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 Site context ....................................................................................................... 2 2.1 2.2 Site location ............................................................................................. 2 Environmental setting .............................................................................. 2 Overview.................................................................................................. 4 Operation ................................................................................................. 5 Construction ............................................................................................ 7 Design development and on-site alternatives ........................................ 13 Base case .............................................................................................. 13 Introduction ............................................................................................ 15 Proposed development .......................................................................... 15 Assessment methodology...................................................................... 17 Baseline conditions................................................................................ 18 Construction assessment ...................................................................... 20 Operational assessment ........................................................................ 23 Approach to mitigation ........................................................................... 25 Assessment summary ........................................................................... 26 Assessment completion ......................................................................... 28 Introduction ............................................................................................ 29 Proposed development .......................................................................... 29 Assessment methodology...................................................................... 30 Baseline conditions................................................................................ 31 Construction assessment ...................................................................... 36 Operational assessment ........................................................................ 42 Approach to mitigation ........................................................................... 42 Assessment summary ........................................................................... 44 Assessment completion ......................................................................... 47
Proposed development.................................................................................... 4 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5
Air quality and odour ..................................................................................... 15 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9
Ecology - aquatic ........................................................................................... 29 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9
Page iii
Ecology - terrestrial ....................................................................................... 48 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 Introduction ............................................................................................ 48 Proposed development .......................................................................... 48 Assessment methodology...................................................................... 49 Baseline conditions................................................................................ 51 Construction assessment ...................................................................... 54 Operational assessment ........................................................................ 56 Approach to mitigation ........................................................................... 56 Assessment summary ........................................................................... 58 Assessment completion ......................................................................... 60 Introduction ............................................................................................ 61 Proposed development .......................................................................... 61 Assessment methodology...................................................................... 62 Baseline conditions................................................................................ 63 Construction assessment ...................................................................... 77 Operational assessment ........................................................................ 82 Approach to mitigation ........................................................................... 83 Assessment summary ........................................................................... 85 Assessment completion ......................................................................... 88 Introduction ............................................................................................ 89 Proposed development .......................................................................... 89 Assessment methodology...................................................................... 90 Baseline conditions................................................................................ 90 Construction assessment ...................................................................... 96 Operational assessment ........................................................................ 99 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 101 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 102 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 103 Introduction .......................................................................................... 104 Proposed development ........................................................................ 104 Assessment methodology.................................................................... 106 Baseline conditions.............................................................................. 107 Construction assessment .................................................................... 109 Operational assessment ...................................................................... 123
Historic Environment ..................................................................................... 61 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9
Land quality .................................................................................................... 89 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9
Noise and vibration ...................................................................................... 104 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6
Page iv
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 13.3
Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 126 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 128 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 131 Introduction .......................................................................................... 132 Proposed development ........................................................................ 132 Assessment methodology.................................................................... 132 Baseline conditions.............................................................................. 134 Construction assessment .................................................................... 138 Operational assessment ...................................................................... 145 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 145 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 146 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 147 Introduction .......................................................................................... 148 Proposed development ........................................................................ 148 Assessment methodology.................................................................... 149 Baseline conditions.............................................................................. 151 Construction assessment .................................................................... 165 Operational assessment ...................................................................... 176 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 185 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 186 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 193 Introduction .......................................................................................... 194 Proposed development ........................................................................ 194 Assessment methodology.................................................................... 198 Baseline conditions.............................................................................. 200 Construction assessment .................................................................... 204 Operational assessment ...................................................................... 210 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 214 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 217 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 220 Introduction .......................................................................................... 221 Proposed development ........................................................................ 221 Assessment methodology.................................................................... 223
Socio-economics ......................................................................................... 132
Townscape and visual ................................................................................. 148
Transport ...................................................................................................... 194
Water resources groundwater ................................................................. 221
Page v
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
Baseline conditions.............................................................................. 223 Construction assessment .................................................................... 226 Operational assessment ...................................................................... 230 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 232 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 234 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 236 Introduction .......................................................................................... 237 Proposed development ........................................................................ 237 Assessment methodology.................................................................... 239 Baseline conditions.............................................................................. 239 Construction assessment .................................................................... 241 Operational assessment ...................................................................... 248 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 248 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 250 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 251 Introduction .......................................................................................... 252 Policy considerations ........................................................................... 253 Regulatory position .............................................................................. 253 Assessment of flood risk ...................................................................... 255 Flood risk design and mitigation ....................................................... 263 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 266
Water resources surface water ................................................................ 237
Water resources flood risk ....................................................................... 252
Appendices ........................................................................................................... 268 Appendix A : Historic environment ..................................................................... 270 Appendix B : Land quality ................................................................................... 284 Appendix C : Noise and vibration ....................................................................... 286 Appendix D : Townscape and visual .................................................................. 287 Appendix E : Water resources - groundwater .................................................... 294 Glossary ................................................................................................................ 309 References ............................................................................................................ 324
Page vi
List of figures
Page number
Vol 22 Figure 2.1.1 Site location plan ........................................................................ 2 Vol 22 Figure 2.2.1 Environmental setting ................................................................. 2 Vol 22 Figure 3.1.1 Demolition and site clearance plan............................................. 4 Vol 22 Figure 3.1.2 Construction phasing plan - site setup ....................................... 4 Vol 22 Figure 3.1.3 Construction phasing plan - shaft construction ........................... 4 Vol 22 Figure 3.1.4 Construction phasing plan - tunnelling ....................................... 4 Vol 22 Figure 3.1.5 Construction phasing plan - secondary lining ............................. 4 Vol 22 Figure 3.1.6 Permanent works layout (land) ................................................... 4 Vol 22 Figure 4.4.1 Air quality monitoring locations ................................................. 18 Vol 22 Figure 5.4.1 Aquatic ecology sampling locations.......................................... 32 Vol 22 Figure 6.4.1 Terrestrial ecology phase 1 habitat survey ............................... 52 Vol 22 Figure 7.4.1 Historic environment features map ........................................... 64 Vol 22 Figure 8.4.1 Land quality contaminative land uses....................................... 90 Vol 22 Figure 8.4.2 Land quality - proposed borehole locations .............................. 94 Vol 22 Figure 8.4.3 Land quality - environmental records and waste sites .............. 95 Vol 22 Figure 9.4.1 Noise and vibration closest residential receptors ................... 107 Vol 22 Figure 10.4.1 Socio-economic context ....................................................... 134 Vol 22 Figure 11.4.1 Townscape - development pattern and scale ....................... 151 Vol 22 Figure 11.4.2 Townscape - pattern and extent of vegetation...................... 152 Vol 22 Figure 11.4.3 Townscape - open space distribution and type .................... 152 Vol 22 Figure 11.4.4 Townscape and visual transport network .......................... 153 Vol 22 Figure 11.4.5 Townscape character areas ................................................. 154 Vol 22 Figure 11.4.6 Visual assessment - viewpoint locations .............................. 161 Vol 22 Figure 12.2.1 Transport - construction traffic routes ................................... 195 Vol 22 Figure 12.2.2 Transport - construction lorry profile ..................................... 196 Vol 22 Figure 12.2.3 Transport - construction barge profile ................................... 197 Vol 22 Figure 12.4.1 Transport site plan ................................................................ 200 Vol 22 Figure 15.4.1 Flood risk EA flood zones .................................................. 260
Page vii
List of tables
Page number
Vol 22 Table 3.3.1 Standard working hours ............................................................. 12 Vol 22 Table 3.4.1 Design development at Chambers Wharf .................................. 13 Vol 22 Table 4.4.1 Air quality - additional monitoring locations................................ 18 Vol 22 Table 4.4.2 Air quality background pollutant concentrations ........................ 19 Vol 22 Table 4.4.3 Air quality receptors - construction ............................................ 19 Vol 22 Table 4.6.1 Odour impacts and magnitude at ground level - operation ........ 24 Vol 22 Table 4.6.2 Odour impacts and magnitude at buildings - operation ............. 24 Vol 22 Table 4.8.1 Air quality and odour summary of construction assessment ...... 26 Vol 22 Table 4.8.2 Air quality and odour summary of operational assessment ....... 27 Vol 22 Table 5.4.1 Aquatic ecology autumn 2010 fish survey ................................. 32 Vol 22 Table 5.4.2 Aquatic ecology abundance data............................................... 33 Vol 22 Table 5.4.3 Aquatic ecology invertebrate fauna ........................................... 34 Vol 22 Table 5.4.4 Aquatic ecology receptor values/sensitivities............................. 35 Vol 22 Table 5.5.1 Aquatic ecology impacts and magnitudes - construction ........... 38 Vol 22 Table 5.8.1 Aquatic ecology construction assessment summary ................. 44 Vol 22 Table 6.3.1 Terrestrial ecology notable species surveys .............................. 50 Vol 22 Table 6.4.1 Terrestrial ecology habitats phase 1 habitat survey................... 52 Vol 22 Table 6.8.1 Terrestrial ecology construction assessment ............................. 58 Vol 22 Table 7.4.1 Historic receptors (assets) and significance (value) .................. 76 Vol 22 Table 7.5.1 Historic environment construction effects .................................. 81 Vol 22 Table 7.6.1 Historic environment operational effects .................................... 83 Vol 22 Table 7.8.1 Historic environment assessment summary - construction ........ 85 Vol 22 Table 7.8.2 Historic environment assessment summary - operational ......... 87 Vol 22 Table 8.4.1 Land quality contaminative land uses ........................................ 91 Vol 22 Table 8.4.2 Land quality anticipated site geology ......................................... 93 Vol 22 Table 8.4.3 Land quality shallow soil/sediment data for borehole SR2034... 94 Vol 22 Table 8.4.4 Land quality environmental records and waste sites ................. 96 Vol 22 Table 8.5.1 Land quality impact magnitudes - construction .......................... 98 Vol 22 Table 8.5.2 Land quality receptor values/sensitivities - construction ............ 99 Vol 22 Table 8.5.3 Land quality significance of effects -construction....................... 99 Vol 22 Table 8.6.1 Land quality impact magnitudes - operation ............................ 100 Vol 22 Table 8.6.2 Land quality receptor values/sensitivities - operation .............. 100
Page viii
Vol 22 Table 8.6.3 Land quality significance of effects - operation ........................ 101 Vol 10 Table 8.8.1 Land quality construction assessment ..................................... 102 Vol 10 Table 8.8.2 Land quality operational assessment ...................................... 102 Vol 22 Table 9.4.1 Noise and vibration receptors and sensitivities ........................ 108 Vol 22 Table 9.4.2 Noise (airborne) receptors - construction................................. 109 Vol 22 Table 9.5.1 Noise impacts at CW01 Luna House ....................................... 110 Vol 22 Table 9.5.2 Noise impacts at CW02 Axis Court .......................................... 112 Vol 22 Table 9.5.3 Noise impacts at CW03 10-28 Chambers Street ..................... 113 Vol 22 Table 9.5.4 Noise impacts at CW05 10-28 Chambers Wharf (South) ........ 114 Vol 22 Table 9.5.5 Noise impacts at CW06 1-13 Bevington Street........................ 115 Vol 22 Table 9.5.6 Noise impacts at CW07 210-212 Bermondsey Wall East ........ 116 Vol 22 Table 9.5.7 Noise impacts at CW08 8-14 Fountain Green Square ............. 117 Vol 22 Table 9.5.8 Noise impacts at CW09 35 Wapping High Street .................... 119 Vol 22 Table 9.5.9 Noise impacts at CW04, St Michaels Catholic College ........... 120 Vol 22 Table 9.5.10 Vibration impacts (buildings / structures)- construction ......... 121 Vol 22 Table 9.5.11 Vibration impacts (human) - construction .............................. 122 Vol 22 Table 9.5.12 Noise and vibration construction effects ................................ 123 Vol 22 Table 9.6.1 Airborne noise impact magnitudes -operation ......................... 124 Vol 22 Table 9.6.2 Noise and vibration operational effects .................................... 125 Vol 22 Table 9.8.1 Noise and vibration assessment summary - construction ........ 128 Vol 22 Table 9.8.2 Noise and vibration assessment summary - operation ............ 129 Vol 22 Table 10.3.1 Socio-economics stakeholder engagement ........................... 133 Vol 22 Table 10.4.1 Socio-economics receptor values/sensitivities....................... 137 Vol 22 Table 10.5.1 Socio-economics construction effects ................................... 144 Vol 22 Table 10.8.1 Socio-economics construction assessment ........................... 146 Vol 22 Table 11.4.1 Townscape - open space type and distribution...................... 152 Vol 22 Table 11.4.2 Townscape site components ................................................. 154 Vol 22 Table 11.4.3 Townscape sensitivities to change ........................................ 161 Vol 22 Table 11.4.4 Visual viewpoint sensitivities to change ................................. 164 Vol 22 Table 11.5.1 Townscape effects on site components - construction .......... 166 Vol 22 Table 11.5.2 Townscape significance of effects - construction................... 171 Vol 22 Table 11.5.3 Visual significance of effects - construction ........................... 175 Vol 22 Table 11.6.1 Townscape site components effects, Year 1 - operation ....... 176 Vol 22 Table 11.6.2 Townscape significance of effects Year 1 -operation ............ 180 Vol 22 Table 11.6.3 Visual significance of effects Year 1 - operation .................... 183
Page ix
Vol 22 Table 11.8.1 Townscape assessment summary - construction .................. 186 Vol 22 Table 11.8.2 Visual assessment summary - construction........................... 187 Vol 22 Table 11.8.3 Townscape assessment summary Year 1 of operation ....... 189 Vol 22 Table 11.8.4 Visual assessment summary Year 1 of operation................ 191 Vol 22 Table 12.2.1 Transport - site construction traffic details ............................. 195 Vol 22 Table 12.3.1 Transport stakeholder engagement ....................................... 199 Vol 22 Table 12.4.1 Transport - bus routes and frequencies ................................. 201 Vol 22 Table 12.4.2 Transport receptor values/sensitivities................................... 204 Vol 22 Table 12.5.1 Transport forecast construction vehicle movements ........... 207 Vol 22 Table 12.8.1 Transport assessment summary - construction ..................... 217 Vol 22 Table 12.8.2 Transport assessment summary - operation ......................... 218 Vol 22 Table 13.2.1 Groundwater - methods of construction ................................. 222 Vol 22 Table 13.4.1 Ground water - ground conditions/hydrogeology ................... 223 Vol 22 Table 13.4.2 Groundwater receptors .......................................................... 226 Vol 22 Table 13.5.1 Groundwater impact magnitudes - construction .................... 229 Vol 22 Table 13.5.2 Groundwater receptor values/sensitivities - construction ....... 230 Vol 22 Table 13.5.3 Groundwater significance of effects - construction ................ 230 Vol 22 Table 13.6.1 Groundwater impact magnitudes -operation .......................... 231 Vol 22 Table 13.6.2 Groundwater significance of effects -operation...................... 232 Vol 22 Table 13.8.1 Groundwater construction assessment ................................. 234 Vol 22 Table 13.8.2 Groundwater operational assessment ................................... 235 Vol 22 Table 14.4.1 Surface water identification of receptors ............................... 240 Vol 22 Table 14.5.1 Surface water impact assessment - construction .................. 246 Vol 22 Table 14.5.2 Surface water significance of effects - construction ............... 248 Vol 22 Table 14.8.1 Surface water construction assessment ................................ 250 Vol 22 Table 14.8.2 Surface water operational assessment .................................. 250 Vol 22 Table 15.4.1 Flood risk - development / greenfield runoff rates.................. 262 Vol 22 Table 15.5.1 Flood risk - runoff and attenuation volumes ........................... 265
Page x
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 CSO 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 Combined Sewer Overflow
Page xi
dB dB LAeq,T
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 Frequency, Intensity, Duration, Offensiveness, Receptor
Page xii
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 kVA
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 kilo watt amperes
Page xiii
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 NCR
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 National Cycle Route
Page xiv
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 RAMS
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 Risk Assessment Method Statement
Page xv
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 SWMP
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 waste - Site Waste Management Plan
Page xvi
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 WSI
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 Written Scheme of Investigation
Page xvii
WWT ZTV ZVI
Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust Zone of Theoretical Visibility Zone of Visual Influence
Page xviii
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf
Section 1: Introduction
1
1.1.1 1.1.2
Introduction
This volume presents the preliminary environmental information for the Thames Tunnel proposals at Chambers Wharf. This document reports the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant environmental effects of the Thames Tunnel project at Chambers Wharf. 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 refers to other development schemes which have been submitted or with extant planning approval within or in proximity to the site. The proposed development at Chambers Wharf would be a main shaft from which the main tunnel would be driven to Abbey Mills. It would also be a reception site for the TBM driven from Kirtling Street and for the TBM driven from Greenwich Pumping Station used to construct the long connection tunnel. There is no interception of a CSO at Chambers Wharf. 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. It should be noted that the Scoping Report issued in March 2011 was prepared before Chambers Wharf was identified as a potential alternative site. This site has therefore not been the subject of formal scoping. The scope of the assessment set out in this volume has drawn on the scoping response received from the London Borough of Southwark, feedback from other statutory consultees as well as professional judgement.
1.1.4
1.1.5
1.1.6
1.1.7
Page 1
Section 2: Site context
2 2.1
2.1.1
Site context Site location

The site is located on the southern bank of the River Thames in the Riverside Ward of the London Borough of Southwark. The London Borough of Tower Hamlets is to the north of the river. The proposed construction site is situated partly on previously developed land (which has recently been cleared in preparation for development) and adjacent foreshore and covers an area of approximately 2.6ha (including the area adjacent to the work site required for barging and cofferdam construction) which has recently been cleared in preparation for development and partly in the Thames foreshore and in total covers an area of 2.6ha. The site is shown in Vol 22 Figure 2.1.1. Vol 22 Figure 2.1.1 Site location plan (see Volume 22 Figures document)
2.1.2
2.1.3
The southern boundary of the site is Chambers Street while Loftie Street lies directly to the east (a full description of what constitutes the site is provided in Section 3). To the west of the site, off Bermondsey Wall West are a number of residential developments of up to 8 storeys (Luna House and Axis House face the site). On the riverbank to the north of Loftie Street are two three story residential blocks in Fountain Block Square. On the southern side of Chambers Street, an area of cleared brownfield land is part of the existing Chambers Wharf planning permission. Immediately to the south of the area of brownfield land to the south of Chambers Street lies St Michaels Catholic College. Vol 22 Figure 2.1.1 provides a land use plan for the site and surrounding land. Access to the site would be from Jamaica Road (A200) via Chambers Street. Bermondsey London Underground station lies on Jamaica Road and links to the Jubilee Line. London Bridge Station, 800m to the west provides links to national rail services as well as the Northern Line.
2.1.4
2.1.5
2.2
2.2.1
Environmental setting
Environmental designations for the site and immediate surrounds are shown in Vol 22 Figure 2.2.1. Vol 22 Figure 2.2.1 Environmental setting (see Volume 22 Figures document)
2.2.2
The site is currently hard standing and has limited ecological potential. The site is immediately adjacent to the River Thames which is a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) of metropolitan value. Southwark Park (SINC) lies 500m to the south east of the site, St Marys Gardens, Rotherhithe (SINC) lies 750m to the east of the site and St Mary Magdalane Churchyard (SINC) lies 900m to the south east. The site does not lie within a Conservation Area; however, St Saviours Dock Conservation Area is 140m (from the site) to the west and Alfred
2.2.3
Page 2
Section 2: Site context
Salter (Wilson Grove) Conservation Area is 90m to the east of the site. There are four Grade II listed buildings within 150m of the site; these being East Lane Stairs (130m), Bermondsey Wall West (140m), 48 Farncombe Street (120m) and Riverside School (140m). The Moated manor house of Edward III, Rotherhithe is a Scheduled Monument and lies 330m to the east of the site. The whole site is within the Borough, Bermondsey and River Archaeological Priority Zone. 2.2.4 2.2.5 There are no Tree Preservations Orders on the site. The Thames Path runs along Loftie Street and Chambers Street. The site lies within an Air Quality Management Area which covers the northern part of the London Borough of Southwark and was declared for NO2 and PM10. The site has historically been the site of a granary wharf since the late 19th century and this is unlikely to have effected soils. The docks, adjacent to the site, may however lead to contamination of the soils below the site. Local geology comprises 8m of superficial deposits and made ground, 2.5m of London Clay, 2m of Harwich Formation, 16.5m of Lambeth Group (secondary aquifer), 12.5m of Thanet Sand (secondary aquifer), and chalk at depth (principal aquifer). The site is located in defended Flood Zone 3 (tidal River Thames). Defences have a 1 in a 1000 year standard of protection meaning that the flood risk at the site is the residual risk from defence breach or overtopping.
2.2.6
2.2.7
Page 3
Section 3: Proposed development
3 3.1
3.1.1
Proposed development Overview

The proposed development at Chambers Wharf would be a main tunnel drive site and a reception site for both the main tunnel drive from Kirtling Street and the long connection tunnel from Greenwich Pumping Station. Vol 22 Figure 3.1.1 - Vol 22 Figure 3.1.6 show the demolition and site clearance, construction phasing and permanent works plans. Vol 22 Figure 3.1.1 Demolition and site clearance plan Vol 22 Figure 3.1.2 Construction phasing plan - site setup Vol 22 Figure 3.1.3 Construction phasing plan - shaft construction Vol 22 Figure 3.1.4 Construction phasing plan - tunnelling Vol 22 Figure 3.1.5 Construction phasing plan - secondary lining Vol 22 Figure 3.1.6 Permanent works layout (land) (see Volume 22 Figures document)
3.1.2
Construction of the main works at this site is scheduled to commence in early 2017 (year 1) and be completed by 2022, taking approximately six 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 3.2 and 3.3. The following lists the structures required at this site: a. An underground shaft with ground level access cover(s), the shaft would be finished at ground level b. A new river wall c. Modification of the remaining section of concrete decking would be required to ensure integrity of the river flood defence wall
3.1.3
d. Permanent restoration of the temporary construction site comprising levelling, infilling and making good, and landscaping works to incorporate maintenance vehicle hardstanding and access to shaft and chamber covers e. Air management structures comprising an underground passive filter chamber with ground level access cover(s), a ventilation structure, and a ventilation column f. Underground culverts for ventilation of the shaft and pits and ducts for cables and hydraulic pipelines
g. A plant enclosure housing gas monitors, electrical and control panels and metering equipment. 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. To facilitate the construction of these works the following construction related elements would be required:
Page 4
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf a. Gates to site entrance and exit
b. Hoardings and other means of enclosure, barrier or screening c. Office and welfare accommodation and facilities d. Workshops and stores e. Plant and machinery f. Power generation plant and lighting g. Highways access and internal site roads h. A sheet piled cofferdam in the River Thames i. j. k. l. 3.1.6 Material storage and handling areas and treatment facilities Barge loading equipment Bentonite plant, power supply, and cage laydown area The carrying out or maintenance of other such works.
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 collected in the Long Connection Tunnel from Greenwich Pumping Station to the main tunnel for treatment at Beckton Sewage Treatment Works. This includes material that would otherwise have been discharged at Greenwich PS and Earl PS via the Deptford Storm Relief sewer. The site is not a CSO interception site.
Permanent structures
3.2.2 A plan of the permanent structures is shown in Vol 22 Figure 3.1.6. The area of operational land required by the project is less than that required for the construction phase. Once complete the site would be used for development of residential apartments. Most of the operational structures at the site would be below ground; however, the air release structure would need to be finished about 1.2m above ground level. It is envisaged that this structure would be incorporated into a viewing platform. Ventilation columns would be a minimum of 4m above the surrounding area. The design and finishing proposed for the above ground features is not yet fully developed. Shaft 3.2.4 The main tunnel drive shaft would have an internal diameter of 25m and a depth of approximately 57m. The shaft at Chambers Wharf would be located on the main tunnel at its junction with the Long Greenwich Connection Tunnel. A full description of these tunnels is provided in Volume 2.
3.2.3
Page 5
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf 3.2.5
Ground level access covers on the shaft would be used for access/egress by maintenance vehicles and personnel during planned inspections of either tunnel. Interception chambers and culverts There is no CSO interception at Chambers Wharf. Culverts are required for ventilation of the shaft and pits and ducts for cables and hydraulic pipelines. Tunnel The shaft would be on the line with the tunnel route. The main tunnel drive from Kirtling Street would be received at the site, as would the long connection tunnel driven from Greenwich Pumping Station. A full description of the main tunnel and the long connection tunnel are included in Volume 2. River wall A new river wall would be constructed along the length of the site foreshore. The wall would be constructed to the flood defence level and tied in with existing flood defences at both ends. Ventilation structures Air management structures comprising an underground passive filter chamber, ventilation columns and underground culverts for ventilation. Access covers on these chambers would be used for personnel and materials access during routine maintenance. The air release structure would be finished about 1.2m above ground level to vent on the river wall above the flood defence level. This structure would be used as a viewing platform. Air from the passive filter would discharge through a set of ventilation columns to be elevated on the viewing platform in the north eastern section of the site. These columns would be a minimum height of 4m above the platform. Electrical kiosk A kiosk containing gas monitors, electrical and control panels and metering equipment would be positioned at the north east corner of the site. Paved area The area around the shaft would be left as hardstanding to allow crane access to the covers on top of the shaft. 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 shaft access. The final finished surface would be the responsibility of the developers who would develop the site, once the Thames Tunnel is complete.
3.2.6
3.2.7
3.2.8
3.2.9 3.2.10 3.2.11
3.2.12
3.2.13
3.2.14
Page 6
Access and maintenance works

3.2.15 3.2.16 Access to the site would be via a new vehicle access located on the corner of Loftie Street and Bermondsey Wall East. Access would be required for a light commercial vehicle on a three to six monthly maintenance schedule. This would be carried out during normal working hours. Additionally once every ten years, more significant maintenance work would be carried out. This would be carried out in normal working hours. Two cranes would be required for these visits.
3.2.17
3.3
3.3.1
Construction
The proposed construction works at Chambers Wharf would encompass the existing cleared Chambers Wharf site and a section of the adjacent foreshore. Vol 22 Figure 3.1.1 to Vol 22 Figure 3.1.5 show the demolition and site clearance and construction phasing to be undertaken at the site. The methods, order and timing of the construction work outlined below are indicative only, but representative of a practical method to construct the works. It is recognised that, following further design development, alternate methodologies and scheduling may be proposed. The following sections describe: a. Construction works including construction of the shaft, tunnel and the processes and working methods to be applied ; b. Access and movement c. Construction programme and working hours
3.3.2
3.3.3
Construction works
3.3.4 The following physical construction works are described: a. Site establishment and clearance b. River works c. Shaft construction d. Tunnelling e. Secondary Lining f. 3.3.5 3.3.6 Construction of other structures All works would be undertaken in accordance with the Thames Tunnel Code of Construction Practice (a draft is appended to Volume 2). The Code sets out a series of measures to protect the environment and limit disturbance from construction activities as far as reasonably practicable. These measures would be applied throughout the construction process at this site and any measures particularly relevant to particular phases of construction are highlighted within this volume.
3.3.7
Page 7
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf Site establishment and clearance 3.3.8
The two known utilities (11kv supply to an existing on site substation and a strategic 300mm water main) would be moved off the site prior to construction. A water supply and an electrical supply would be required to service the TBM, this would include an electrical substation. Prior to any works commencing the site boundary would consist of close boarded hoarding panels to an appropriate height. Welfare and office facilities would also be set up in this phase. River works A Navigational Risk Assessment would be agreed with the Port of London Authority (PLA) and a Notice to Mariners posted. All relevant licences for the occupation of the requisite site area within the river and the associated River Works Licence would also have been completed. A temporary works cofferdam would extend around the existing wharf and tie back at each end to the existing river wall allowing the existing wharf to be removed. The temporary cofferdam would extend out from the river wall. It is anticipated that dredging would not be required. The temporary piles would be driven at least 2m through the London Clay and into the Upper Mottled Beds of the Lambeth formation and would maintain the current flood defence level. For the purpose of this assessment it is assumed that the piles would be driven using silent piling techniques. The bulk of the granular material to fill the cofferdam would be brought to site by barge. A drain sump would be maintained within the filled cofferdam to enable any water entering the cofferdam to be pumped back to river. The existing wharf and river wall would be removed as required prior to shaft excavation. On completion of the main tunnel works the new permanent river wall would be constructed. Only when the permanent river wall is in place would the temporary cofferdam on the riverside be removed ensuring that flood protection is maintained throughout. Shaft construction Plant and material storage areas for shaft and tunnel connection works and delivery vehicle turning area would be set up on site. Major plant required for the diaphragm wall works include craneage, clamshell grab, diaphragm wall rig, bentonite silos, water tanks, mixing pan, compressor, air receiver, excavator and dumper. The shaft would be constructed by diaphragm wall construction techniques and have a cast in situ secondary lining. The first stage in the construction of each panel of diaphragm wall would be the excavation and setting of inner and outer guide walls. These guide walls would provide a secure supports between which excavation for the
3.3.9
3.3.10
3.3.11
3.3.12
3.3.13
3.3.14 3.3.15 3.3.16
3.3.17
3.3.18 3.3.19
Page 8
diaphragm walls would be undertaken. During excavation the void would be filled with bentonite for ground support, and steel bar reinforcement cages lowered in before concrete is pumped into the base of the wall to create a panel. This process would then be repeated to create a full circle. 3.3.20 The diaphragm wall would be taken to a depth suitable to reduce the flow of water into the shaft. Grouting at the toe of the diaphragm wall may also be required to reduce the flow of water. The shaft excavation commences after the diaphragm walls are complete with the working platform. The guide walls would be broken out, and the shaft excavated exposing the walls. The excavator would load shaft skips hoisted by crawler crane, depositing excavated material within the excavated material handling area. A steel reinforced concrete base plug would be formed at the base of the shaft. Dewatering wells would be drilled and groundwater extracted via pumps. These pumps would be operational during shaft sinking. For the purpose of this assessment it has been assumed that the pumps would be maintained to ease the reception of the TBM from Kirtling Street and the launch of the TBM to Abbey Mills. Pressure-relief wells drilled ahead of the shaft base would be required to dewater perched water tables in the Lambeth Group. Approval would be sought from the EA so that extracted ground water can be discharged directly into the River Thames after being treated through a settlement system. Extracted water would be sampled on a regular basis to check water quality. It is anticipated that ground treatment would be required within the Chalk. Depending on the depth of the diaphragm walls fissure grouting to the chalk immediately below the toe, of the wall, may be required. In addition, treated blocks would be constructed on each side of the shaft to facilitate main TBM break in / break out and also for the long connection tunnel reception. Tunnelling 3.3.27 Approximately 5.5km of 7.2m internal diameter tunnel would be driven east by an 8.8m External Diameter slurry TBM to be received at Abbey Mills. On completion of the shaft construction the worksite layout would be reconfigured to support the tunnelling works. This includes: a. Slurry processing plant b. Excavated material storage areas including conveyors c. Tunnel lining storage areas including gantry cranes (which would lower the lining sections into the shaft)
3.3.21
3.3.22 3.3.23
3.3.24 3.3.25 3.3.26
3.3.28
d. A tunnel noise enclosure over the shaft and gantry crane area to mitigate potential noise effects
Page 9
e. Materials laydown areas. Including slurry/water pipes, ventilation bagging, tunnel railway track, power cable drums and TBM consumables f. Workshops / stores g. Grout batching plant h. Labour welfare facilities. 3.3.29 Once launched the TBM cuts the ground by rotating the cutter head whilst hydraulic shove rams propel it forward. The excavated material is turned into slurry. The slurry is then pumped to the surface treatment plant where the solids are separated and the excavated material transported off site. The TBM would move forward and a railway built behind it as the TBM proceeds. Slurry treatment would consist of centrifuges, hydro-cyclones and filterpresses together with attendant storage and treatment tanks. Lime dosing of the processed chalk has been assumed for this assessment. At the end of the process a solid cake would be formed and taken away by excavator or conveyors to barges moored alongside the coffer dam. The majority of the water removed from slurry material is recycled back into the slurry system. The Chambers Wharf site would also be used as a reception site for the main tunnel TBM from Kirtling Street and also the connection tunnel TBM from Greenwich. The TBMs would break into the shaft via preformed tunnel openings through the shaft wall. Large mobile cranes would be used to raise the TBM sections from the shaft for removal offsite. Secondary lining 3.3.32 On completion of main tunnelling, a batching plant would be mobilised to site. The plant would service the secondary lining of the tunnel. Concrete would be batched on surface and pumped or skipped to the tunnel. The underground railway may be used to transport the concrete and reinforcement to the area of the pour. The tunnel enclosure installed over the shaft and gantry crane area during tunnelling would remain in situ during secondary lining. Ventilation structure 3.3.33 Air management structures comprising an underground passive filter chamber, ventilation column and underground louvre chambers for ventilation control would be present on the site. Air from the passive filter would discharge through a ventilation column to be elevated on the viewing platform in the north-eastern section of the site. This column would be minimum height of 4m above the platform. Sheet pile walls would be used to provide ground support within which the underground chambers would be constructed. Walls would be driven to depth to minimise water ingress into the excavation under the wall, but ground treatment and dewatering is still anticipated. The walls of the chambers would be formed by insitu concrete techniques. Ready mixed concrete (or onsite batched concrete if available) would be
3.3.30
3.3.31
3.3.34
3.3.35
3.3.36
Page 10
pumped or skipped to the chamber. The piled wall would be extended to the shaft to allow the connecting culvert to be constructed in a similar manner to the chambers. New river wall 3.3.37 The new river wall would be constructed using steel sheet piles. It is envisaged that a double skin of tied piles would be driven to maintain the current flood defence level. These works would be undertaken prior to the removal of the temporary cofferdam.
Access and movement

3.3.38 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 extent of river usage and transport is to be determined. However, it is currently anticipated that 90% of cofferdam fill would be delivered to and removed from the site by barge, and 90% of excavated material from the main tunnel would also be removed from the site by barge. All other plant and material deliveries would be by road. The highest lorry movements at the site would occur during shaft construction when excavated material would be removed from the site by road. The peak daily vehicle movements, averaged over a one month period, would be 90 heavy goods vehicle (HGV) movements per day. The highest barge movements would occur during the cofferdam construction when imported material for the cofferdam would be removed from the site by barge. Peak daily barge movements, averaged over a one month period, would be approximately six barge movements per day. Access gates would provide access off Chambers Street. The gates would be manned by a security contractor.
3.3.39
3.3.40
3.3.41
3.3.42
Construction programme and working hours

3.3.43 Construction at Chambers Wharf is anticipated to take approximately six years and would involve the following steps (with some overlaps): a. Year 1 Site setup (approximately 8 months) b. Years 1 to 2- Shaft construction (approximately 14 months) c. Years 2 to 4 - Tunnelling (approximately 25 months) d. Years 4 to 5 Secondary lining (approximately 10 months) e. Years 5 to 6 Construction of other structures (approximately 12 months) f. 3.3.44 Year 6 Completion of works and site reinstatement (approximately 5 months)
System-wide commissioning would take place following site reinstatement and is not included in the above programme.
Page 11
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf Working hours 3.3.45
It is anticipated that the working hours as shown in the table below would be used at this location and have been assumed for the purpose of the assessment. Vol 22 Table 3.3.1 Standard working hours Overall construction works Standard working hours Consist of: Core working hours Mobilisation period Core working hours Mobilisation period Maintenance and support period.
08:00 to 18:00 Weekdays 08:00 to 13:00 Saturdays Up to 1 hour before and after the core working hours 07:00 to 08:00 and 18:00 to 19:00 Weekdays 07:00 to 08:00 and 13:00 to 14:00 Saturday
Maintenance and support period
13:00 to 17:00 Saturdays 10:00 to 16:00 Sundays Extended standard hours up to 22.00 Weekdays. A limited number of extensions would be required for major concrete pours.
Major concrete works, inc diaphragm wall and base slab Extended working hours
Main tunnel excavation Continuous working Tunnel secondary linings Continuous working 24 Hour working. Monday to Sunday 24 Hour working. Monday to Sunday
Reinstatement and commissioning

3.3.46 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. On completion of the works the site would be transferred to the developer of the residential site. It is understood that apartments would then be
3.3.47 3.3.48
Page 12
developed on the site. The location of the development would be compatible with the shaft and tunnel works.
3.4
3.4.1
Design development and on-site alternatives

The design presented here was completed in advance of the completion of all surveys and technical studies. The final design may alter significantly in response to this as well as feedback from phase two consultation. The design of the proposals at this site has developed as described in the table below since the Design Council CABE reviews. Vol 22 Table 3.4.1 Design development at Chambers Wharf Design development The shaft is partially located underneath one of the proposed residential blocks Provision of viewing platform Reason To prevent encroachment into the River Thames Provides an opportunity to enhance the public realm encourages use of the space and makes the most of the river views afforded by the location. Reduces the visual impact of the electrical and control kiosk.
3.4.2
Location of the electrical and control kiosk on the eastern boundary of the site. 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. 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
3.5.2
3.5.3
3.5.4
Page 13
level of CSO control to meet the UWWTD (see also Volume 2, Section 2.6). 3.5.5 It is assumed that by 2015 the St James Group would have built housing to the south of Chambers Street which is currently consented for 180 units.
Page 14
Section 4: Air quality and odour
4 4.1
4.1.1 4.1.2
Air quality and odour Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant air quality and odour effects at the Chambers Wharf site. The proposed development has the potential to affect air quality and odour due to: a. Construction traffic on the road (air quality). b. Temporary closure of lanes during construction (air quality). c. Emissions from barges (air quality). d. Emissions from construction plant (air quality). e. Construction-generated dust (air quality). f. Operation of the tunnel (odour).
4.1.3
Each of these is considered within the assessment. This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment, and sets out what will be provided in the ES when the full assessment is available. Operational air quality effects from transport have been scoped out of the assessment due to the very limited number of maintenance visits required and hence the low number of associated vehicular movements.
4.1.4
4.2
4.2.1
Proposed development
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to air quality and odour are as follows.
Construction
Road traffic 4.2.2 During the proposed construction period, there would be construction traffic movements in and out of the site in addition to the movement of cofferdam fill and excavated materials by barge. The highest number of lorry movements at the Chambers Wharf site would occur during shaft and cofferdam construction (Year 1 of construction). The peak number of vehicle movements at that time would be 90 lorry movements per day averaged over a one month period. This is based on 90% of excavated materials from the main tunnel being transported by barge and 90% cofferdam fill both in and out being transported by barge with the remaining 10% of movements by road. The construction traffic routes for the key material supply stages, traffic management and access to the site are detailed in Section 12 of this volume. River barges 4.2.5 It is anticipated that 90% of main tunnel excavated material and cofferdam fill out would be transported by 1,500 tonne capacity barge, and cofferdam
4.2.3
4.2.4
Page 15
fill in by 1,000 tonne barge. The peak number of barge movements would be six barge movements a day averaged over a one month period. 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. Appropriate emission factors will be assigned to each item of plant and the effects of the plant on local air quality predicted dependent upon the duration of operation. Construction dust 4.2.7 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. 4.2.8 Materials handling. 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 A below ground chamber would be constructed at the Chambers Wharf site to house the odour control use (OCU) comprising a passive filter that would treat 3m3/s of air. The maximum air release rate during a typical year is expected to be 2.1m3/s, which is well within the capacity of the OCU.
Page 16
Air would be released from the ventilation column for 41 hours in a typical year, all of which would have passed through the OCU. For the remaining hours, no air would be released. This information on the ventilation structure provided input data to the dispersion model used to assess odour dispersion at the site.
4.2.12
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 22 Table 4.3.1 Air quality and odour stakeholder engagement Organisation LB Southwark Comment Monitoring locations should be agreed Odour complaints in the area should be considered Response Locations agreed with Environmental Heath Officer. No odour complaints around Chambers Wharf - confirmed by Environmental Health Officer
Baseline
4.3.2 The baseline methodology follows the standard methodology described in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.
Construction
4.3.3 The construction phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology described in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.
Operation
4.3.4 The operational phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology described in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.
Assumptions and limitations

4.3.5 For the purposes of the PEIR 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).
Page 17
4.4
Baseline conditions Local air quality

Pollutant concentrations
4.4.1 4.4.2
The current conditions with regard to local air quality are best established through long-term air quality monitoring. As part of their duties under Part IV of the Environment Act 1995, local authorities, especially in urban areas where air quality is a significant issue, undertake long-term air quality monitoring within their administrative areas. There are no continuous monitoring station or diffusion tubes which collect data directly relevant to the Chambers Wharf site and associated construction traffic routes. As a result of previous exceedences of air quality objectives, LB Southwark has declared an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) for NO2 and PM10. The area encompasses the entire northern part of the borough, extending from Rotherhithe to Walworth and Camberwell and up to the boundary on the River Thames. The area is along the A2, A200, A215 and A202 south to the A205. The Chambers Wharf site in therefore in this AQMA. In the absence of local authority monitoring, diffusion tube monitoring has been set up as part of the project to monitor NO2 concentrations in the vicinity of the Chambers Wharf site. This monitoring comprises four 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 the Chambers Wharf site (as well as other sites where they are in close proximity) are shown in Vol 22 Figure 4.4.1. Vol 22 Figure 4.4.1 Air quality monitoring locations (see Volume 22 Figures document) Vol 22 Table 4.4.1 Air quality - additional monitoring locations Monitoring Site George Row (Southwark 7) Chambers Street (Southwark 8) Loftie Street (Southwark 9) Bevington Street (Southwark 10) Grid Reference 534136, 179623 534220, 179752 534399, 179701 534340, 179539
4.4.3
4.4.4
4.4.5
4.4.6
This monitoring will be used in conjunction with existing local authority monitoring to define the baseline situation and also to provide input to model verification. A full baseline will be reported in the ES. In addition to monitoring data, an indication of baseline pollutant concentrations in the vicinity of the site can also be obtained from
4.4.7
Page 18
background data on the air quality section of the Defra website. 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 Chambers Wharf site are given in the table below for 2010 (baseline year). Vol 22 Table 4.4.2 Air quality background pollutant concentrations Pollutant NOX (g/m ) NO2 (g/m ) PM10 (g/m ) Receptors 4.4.8 The Chambers Wharf site is located in a mixed use area comprising residential properties, commercial/office premises and several schools. The closest residential receptors are located to the west of the site (Axis Court) in East Lane, to the east of the site at Fountain Green, along Loftie Street and in Chambers Street, all of which are within 10m of the site boundary. More residential properties are located to the east of the site between Bevington Street and Farncombe Street 50m from the site boundary. Commercial/office premises on the ground floor of Luna House, (which also includes residential floors) are located to the west of the site, adjacent to the site boundary. St Michaels Catholic College is located to the south-west of the site 25m from the site boundary. While there are other schools in the vicinity of the site (Riverside Primary School and St Josephs RC Primary School), St Michaels Catholic College is the closest to the site and therefore is considered as a receptor in the air quality assessment All these receptors are relevant, albeit with different levels of sensitivity, to the emissions sources identified in the local air quality assessment. The sensitivity of identified receptors has been determined using the criteria detailed in Volume 5 this identifies their sensitivity in relation to both local air quality and dust nuisance, as shown in the table below. These receptors are relevant to the assessment of emissions from construction road traffic, river barges and construction plant, as well as the assessment of construction dust. Vol 22 Table 4.4.3 Air quality receptors - construction Receptors (relating to all identified emissions sources) Residential Value/sensitivity and justification
3 3 3
2010 50.5 31.2 20.3
* Annual mean for 1km grid square centred on 534500, 179500.
4.4.9
Exposure relevant to annual mean and daily mean standards. High sensitivity to local air quality. Medium sensitivity to dust nuisance.
Page 19
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf Receptors (relating to all identified emissions sources) Commercial/offices
Section 4: Air quality and odour Value/sensitivity and justification
Exposure is relevant for the hourly mean standards. Low sensitivity to local air quality. Medium sensitivity to dust nuisance. Exposure relevant to annual mean and daily mean standards. High sensitivity to local air quality. Medium sensitivity to dust nuisance.
St Michaels Catholic College
Odour
4.4.10 The LB Southwark has not received any odour complaints for the area around the Chambers Wharf site 2. No complaints have been recorded in the Thames Water odour database within an area of 500m radius from the site during the last five years. The nearest sensitive receptors are described in paragraph 4.4.8 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 and St Michaels Catholic College are of high sensitivity, the commercial/office buildings are of medium sensitivity and the users of the river are of low sensitivity.
4.4.11
4.5
4.5.1
Construction assessment Construction base and development cases

The peak construction year (Year 1 of construction) is used as the year of assessment for construction effects (road transport, construction plant, river barges and construction dust) in which the development case will be assessed against the base case to identify likely significant effects for the Thames Tunnel project. The base case conditions for the construction assessment year will change from the current conditions due to modifications to the sources of the air pollution in the intervening period. For road vehicles, there will be a change in the penetration of new Euro standards to the fleet composition between the current situation and the future peak construction year. The uptake of newer vehicles with improved emission controls should lead to a reduction in existing NO2 and PM10 concentrations. However, the uptake of newer vehicles has not improved NO2 concentrations greatly in the last ten years in London, so as a worst case the NOx contribution from diesel vehicles 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.
4.5.2
4.5.3
Page 20
Other emissions sources should also reduce due to local and national policies. Therefore, the non-road sources of the background concentrations used in the modelling will be reduced in line with Defra guidance LAQM.TG(09) 4. It is noted that the local air quality assessment does not specifically consider the proposed housing development to the south of Chambers Street (see Section 3.5) as the development is further from the site than other assessed residential receptors.
4.5.5
Construction assessment area

4.5.6 The assessment area for local air quality covers an area of 650m by 650m centred on the Chambers Wharf site. This assessment area is used for the assessment of road transport, river barges, construction plant and construction dust and has been selected on the basis of professional judgement to ensure that the effects of the Chambers Wharf site are fully assessed. A distance of 200m is generally considered sufficient to ensure that any significant effects are considered and the selected assessment area exceeds this by some margin.
Construction effects
Emissions from road traffic 4.5.7 Road traffic is likely to affect local air quality in two ways: from emissions from the construction traffic; and from increased emissions from other road vehicles due to congestion or re-routing due to lane closures. A qualitative assessment of road traffic effects has been undertaken for this section. 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 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 and St Michaels Catholic College have a high sensitivity to local air quality (as identified in section 4.4), the likely significance of the effect of construction traffic is a minor adverse effect (according to the criteria detailed in Volume 5). At the commercial/office premises, which have a low sensitivity to local air quality, the significance of effect is likely to be negligible. Emissions from river barges 4.5.11 4.5.12 River barges are only likely to affect local air quality through direct emissions from the tugs pulling them. During the peak construction year for the Chambers Wharf site, the peak number of barge movements would be six barge movements a day
4.5.8
4.5.9
4.5.10
Page 21
averaged over a one month period. However, data regarding the river barges and the operation of these barges are still being gathered and so modelling has not yet been possible (but will be completed for inclusion in the ES). 4.5.13 Based on professional judgement, the impacts due to barge emissions are expected to be negligible (i.e., negligible magnitude of change according to the criteria in Volume 5) due to the low number of barges required during construction. At all receptors the likely significance of the barge emissions on local air quality is a negligible effect (according to the criteria in Volume 5). Emissions from plant 4.5.15 Construction plant is likely to affect local air quality in two ways: from direct exhaust emissions; and from construction dust associated with the use and movement of the plant around the site. Emission factors are being assigned to each item of plant and more data are being gathered regarding the expected operation of these items of plant. A qualitative assessment has been undertaken for the PEIR. Modelling is currently being undertaken, the findings of which will be reported in the ES. Based on professional judgement, 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 emissions coming from the plant are likely to have a negligible impact. At the residential properties and St Michaels Catholic College, which have a high sensitivity to local air quality (as identified in section 4.4), the likely significance of the effect of construction traffic is determined as a minor adverse effect (according to the criteria detailed in Volume 5). At the commercial/office premises, which have a low sensitivity to local air quality, the significance of effect would be negligible. Construction dust 4.5.20 4.5.21 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 Chambers Wharf site in accordance with the criteria in Volume 5, as described in Vol 22 Table 4.4.3. 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:
4.5.14
4.5.16
4.5.17
4.5.18
4.5.19
4.5.22
4.5.23
Page 22
a. Site would have a maximum construction area of approximately 26,000m2 (including the whole of the land to be acquired or used). b. The project is a non-residential development. c. 4.5.24 4.5.25 Main construction at the site would last approximately six years. d. There are likely intermittent impacts on identified sensitive receptors. On this basis, the development has been classified as a high risk site. The receptor sensitivity is identified as medium for residential properties, St Michaels Catholic College and the commercial/office premises (as identified in section 4.4). As all these receptors are within 50m of the site boundary, the likely significance of the effect of construction dust is determined to be a moderate adverse effect. These effects would be reduced by the implementation of measures contained in the CoCP (see section 4.2). This would result in a minor adverse effect at all receptors. Overall construction effects 4.5.27 When considering the overall local air quality construction effects (ie, effects from construction road traffic, river barges and plant), it is concluded that the overall significance of effects is likely to be minor adverse at residential properties and St Michaels Catholic College, and negligible at commercial/office premises. With regard to construction dust, the significance of effects is likely to be minor adverse at residential properties, St Michaels Catholic College and at commercial/office premises, which are within 50m of the site boundary. On this basis no significant construction effects are predicted.
4.5.26
4.5.28
4.5.29
4.6
Operational assessment Operational base and development cases
4.6.1
The assessment undertaken for a typical use year (as described in Volume 5) applies equally to all operational years including year 1 of operation. Base and development cases have been developed for modelling purposes. Base case conditions have been assumed to be the same as baseline conditions with respect to background odour concentrations as no change in background odour concentrations is anticipated.
4.6.2
Operational assessment area

4.6.3 Odour dispersion modelling was carried out over an area of 260m by 220m centred on the proposed location of the ventilation columns at the Chambers Wharf site. The assessment area was selected on the basis of it being considered the maximum possible extent of impact.
Operational effects
4.6.4 Vol 22 Table 4.6.1 shows the predicted maximum ground level odour concentrations at the Chambers Wharf site. These are the highest
Page 23
concentrations that could occur at the worst affected ground level receptor at or near the site in a typical year. In accordance with the odour criterion set by the Environment Agency and in the draft NPS 6, results are presented for the 98th percentile of hourly average concentrations in the year (or the 176th highest hourly concentration in the year) and the number of hours in a year with concentrations above 1.5ouE/m3. The 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 22 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 22 Table 4.6.1 Odour impacts and magnitude at ground level operation Year Typical Maximum at ground level locations 98th percentile 0 3 (ouE/m ) No. of hours > 2 3 1.5ouE/m Impact magnitude and justification Negligible 98th percentile concentration is less than 1ouE/m3
Vol 22 Table 4.6.2 Odour impacts and magnitude at buildings operation 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. The highest concentrations are predicted to occur close to the ventilation building where odour would be above 1.5ouE/m3 for two hours per year. Odour would not exceed this level at any buildings. With regard to the significance of effects at ground level and building locations, given that the predicted odour concentrations at all locations and at buildings would not exceed the 98th percentile criterion of 1.5ouE/m3, it is considered that an overall significance would be negligible in relation to the Chambers Wharf site. No significant effects are therefore predicted in relation to odour.
4.6.6
4.6.7
Page 24
4.7
4.7.1
Approach to mitigation Construction

All measures embedded in the draft CoCP of relevance to air quality and odour are summarised in section 4.2. No mitigation is required.
Operation
4.7.2 No mitigation is required.
Page 25
4.8
Effect Minor adverse None required Significance Mitigation Residual significance Minor adverse
Assessment summary
Vol 22 Table 4.8.1 Air quality and odour summary of construction assessment
Receptor
Residential
Local air quality effects from construction road traffic and plant emissions Minor adverse Negligible None required None required
Effects from construction dust
Minor adverse Negligible
Commercial/offices
Local air quality effects from construction road traffic and plant emissions Minor adverse Minor adverse None required None required
Minor adverse Minor adverse
St Michaels Catholic College Minor adverse
Local air quality effects from construction road traffic and plant emissions
None required
Minor adverse
Page 26
Vol 22 Table 4.8.2 Air quality and odour summary of operational assessment Effect Negligible Negligible Negligible None required Negligible None required Negligible None required Negligible Significance Mitigation Residual significance
Receptor
Residential properties
Odour
Commercial/offices
Odour
Odour
Page 27
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 Chambers Wharf site: a. Diffusion tube monitoring has been set up to monitor NO2 concentrations at five sites in the vicinity of the Chambers Wharf 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. Further information is being collected in relation to the types of barges being used and the most appropriate emission factors to use. These data will then be input into the model in order to predict the effects of barges on local air quality.
d. The nature, quantities and operation of the construction plant is being finalised. The appropriate emission factors will then be applied to the plant in order to initialise the modelling work. These models will then be run and the effects of construction plant on local air quality predicted. e. The assessment of cumulative and in combination effects will be undertaken and reported in the ES. f. Following completion of the assessment the mitigation approaches for air quality and odour within the project will be finalised and reported in the ES.
Page 28
Section 5: Ecology - aquatic
5 5.1
5.1.1
Ecology - aquatic Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant aquatic ecology effects at the Chambers Wharf site. For the purposes of the assessment of the Thames Tunnel project aquatic ecology includes plants and animals that live in and depend on the tidal River Thames and its tidal tributaries (known collectively as the Thames Tideway). The topic includes the habitats, mammals, fish, invertebrates and algae which occur in the Thames Tideway in the vicinity of the site. Animals, plants and habitats which occur above the mean high water level are assessed 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 construction impacts on aquatic ecology receptors in the Thames Tideway as a result of Thames Tunnel construction. There would be no CSO interception at Chambers Wharf, or any permanent in river works, so the operational phase is not considered any further in this assessment.
5.1.2
5.1.3
5.2
5.2.1
The proposed development is described in section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to aquatic ecology are as follows. Construction The elements relevant to the aquatic ecology assessment are: a. The removal of the existing concrete-deck piled jetty. b. The installation of sheet piling to create a single cofferdam on the foreshore. c. The presence of a jack-up barge on the foreshore to install the cofferdam.
5.2.2
5.2.3
Measures incorporated into the draft CoCP to reduce aquatic ecology impacts include the following elements which are considered to be an integral part of the environmental design of the project for the purposes of this assessment: a. Avoiding piling at night, to ensure free windows of opportunity to allow fish to migrate past the site within each 24-hour period; b. Undertaking in river cofferdam/piling works at or around low tide where possible to avoid transmission of noise and vibration through the water column; c. Utilising low noise/vibration cofferdam or pile/pier installation techniques such as pressing or vibro-piling rather than impact/percussive piling. Where vibro-piling is used, slowly increasing the power of the driving over a 5 minute period would enable those
Page 29
fish that are able to swim away to leave the area before the full power of the pile driver is felt through the river; d. Where predictions indicate that best practice limits would not be achievable, confining as much of the underwater noise generating activities as possible to outside peak fish migration periods should be considered; e. Limiting in noise and vibration levels at the mid-point of the navigable channel to leave part of the river cross-section passable by fish at all times; and f. Avoidance of pollution of the river. EA approval would be required for works which would be likely to affect any surface or groundwater resource. Discharge to watercourses would only be permitted where discharge consent or other relevant approval has been obtained. Measures to avoid pollution measures would accord with the principles set out in industry guidelines including as the EAs guidance PPG05: Works in near or liable to affect water courses and CIRIAs report C532: Control of water pollution from construction sites.
5.3
5.3.1
Assessment methodology
Scoping and engagement Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. The Scoping Report was prepared before the Chambers Wharf site had been identified as a site and therefore it has not been the subject of formal scoping. The scope for aquatic ecology for this site has therefore drawn on the scoping response from the London Borough of Southwark in relation to another site, engagement with the EA and on professional judgement. This site was discussed at a biodiversity working group in March 2011 attended by local planning authorities, including the London Borough of Southwark. Baseline Details of the approach to baseline collection and the assessment are presented in Volume 5. This site has been surveyed for habitats, fish and invertebrates during 2011 and the data will be reported in the ES. Surveys for habitats, fish and invertebrates were also undertaken at nearby King Stairs Gardens, (less than 1km downstream) during October 2010. The data for fish and invertebrates from King Stairs Gardens thus provides an indicative baseline for Chambers Wharf for the purposes of this assessment. Routine monitoring for fish and invertebrates is also undertaken by the Environment Agency at a series of locations through the Thames Tideway. Invertebrate data are available for South Bank Centre (4.2km upstream), and fish data for Greenwich (6km downstream). Although these sampling sites are remote from site, the fish and invertebrate communities they reflect are considered to be representative of this section of the Tideway, and therefore they provide a robust baseline.
5.3.2 5.3.3
5.3.4
Page 30
Baseline data for habitats has been obtained from a review of aerial imagery and the Tidal Thames Habitat Action Plan 7 and Southwark Biodiversity Action Plan 8. Baseline data for designated sites and mammals was obtained from the desk study sources described in Vol 5. Existing algal data has been requested and will be assessed and reported in the ES.
5.3.6
Construction
5.3.7 The methodology for assessing construction effects is described in Volume 5. There are no deviations from the standard assessment methodology.

5.3.8 It has been assumed that: a. The removal of the existing piled jetty would include cutting off the piles at bed level; and b. There would be no dredging at the construction site.
5.4
5.4.1
Baseline conditions
Designations There are no statutory nature conservation sites within the local area of this site. The jetty and conveyor would be located within the River Thames and Tidal Tributaries Site of Metropolitan Importance. This site is described below. The River Thames and Tidal Tributaries Site of Metropolitan Importance (Site Reference: M31) is adopted by all Boroughs which border the River Thames. The designation recognises the range and quality of estuarine habitats including mud flat, shingle beach, reedbeds and the river channel itself. Over 120 species of fish have been recorded in the Tideway, though many of these are only occasional visitors. The more common species include dace (Leuciscus leuciscus), bream (Abramis brama) and roach (Rutilus rutilus) in the freshwater reaches, and 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 confuse, and an important assemblage of wetland and wading birds. Habitats The intertidal habitat is relatively broad in this section of the river (approximately 30m wide) and composed primarily of shingle. The London Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP)7 divides the river into the zones; freshwater, brackish and marine. Chambers Wharf is in the brackish zone. The brackish zone is equivalent to the transitional water definition of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and means that the fish and invertebrate communities which occur within the river at this location
5.4.2
5.4.3
Page 31
consist of a mixture of more saline-tolerant freshwater species and more freshwater tolerant marine species. 5.4.4 The distribution of salinity- sensitive species may shift seasonally and from year-to-year, depending on fluvial inputs, so that community composition can vary. Invertebrate diversity is generally the lowest in the brackish zone out of the three zones because species must be able to withstand wide variations in salinity and a stressful environment. Stress is caused by the fluctuating conditions, which means that flora and fauna have to be able to tolerate wide variations in salinity. Mammals 5.4.5 Records compiled by the Zoological Society of London for 2003 2011 indicate that harbour porpoise, bottlenose dolphin and various seal species (grey and common) migrate through the Tideway. The data indicate that common seal and grey seal have both been recorded in small numbers in the vicinity of Chambers Wharf. Fish 5.4.6 The single days survey undertaken at nearby Kings Stairs Gardens recorded low numbers of fish with a total of 18 individuals. This was the lowest number of individuals recorded at any site during the October 2010 surveys. This was considered to be at least partially due to difficult sampling conditions at this site. The range of species and number of individuals is presented in the table below, and the survey locations are included in the figure below. Vol 22 Figure 5.4.1 Aquatic ecology sampling locations (see Volume 22 Figures document) 5.4.7 Fish are routinely categorised into four guilds according to their tolerance to salinity and habitat preference 9;10): a. Freshwater Species which spend their complete lifecycle primarily in freshwater b. Estuarine resident Species which remain in the estuary for their complete lifecycle c. Diadromous Species which migrate through the estuary to spawn; d. Marine juvenile Species which spawn at sea but spend part of their lifecycle in the estuary. Vol 22 Table 5.4.1 Aquatic ecology autumn 2010 fish survey Common name Roach Common smelt Common goby Specific name Rutilus rutilus Osmerus eperlanus Pomatoschistus microps Number of individuals 6 5 4 Guild Freshwater Diadromous Estuarine resident
Page 32
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf Common name Flounder Common bream 5.4.8 Specific name Number of individuals 1
Section 5: Ecology - aquatic Guild Estuarine resident Freshwater

Note: at King Stairs Gardens
Platichthys flesus 2 Abramis brama
The assemblage of species recorded reflects the mid Tideway location, with a range of guilds represented. The low numbers of individuals may reflect the difficult sampling conditions at this site. A range of freshwater and estuarine resident fish species were recorded at the Greenwich EA sampling site (6km downstream of the Chambers Wharf site) over the 18-year period. The commonest species are presented in the table below. Common bream, dace, thin-lipped grey mullet (Liza ramada), and sand-smelt were also relatively common. Vol 22 Table 5.4.2 Aquatic ecology abundance data Common name Flounder Common goby Common smelt Roach Bass Sand goby Eel Specific name Number of individuals 490 399 337 310 280 246 Guild Estuarine resident Estuarine resident Diadromous Freshwater Marine juvenile Estuarine resident Diadromous (migrating from freshwater to sea to spawn) Freshwater
5.4.9
Platichthys flesus 1385 Pomatoschistus microps Osmerus eperlanus Rutilus rutilus Dicentrarchus labrax P. minutus
Common bream
Abramis brama
Note: EA sampling site at Greenwich (1993 to 2010)
5.4.10
Only small numbers of fish (10-30 individuals for all species) were recorded during each sampling visit throughout the period. All of these species are widespread in the Thames Tideway, with freshwater species such as roach and common bream most frequent in the upper Tideway, and estuarine residents such as sand-smelt and flounder common in the lower Tideway. The age classes represented most widely in the dataset are flounder (0+,1+, i.e. 0 -1 year old, and 1-2 year old fish), bream dace and roach (range of age classes), smelt (0+,1+), gobies (0+), thin-lipped grey mullet and eels (range of age classes).
Page 33
In general, Tideway fish populations are mobile and wide ranging, and so any analysis of population data needs to be based on an understanding of the ecological requirements and migratory habits of individual species. Although the abundance and diversity of fish at any one site may provide some indication of the habitat quality offered at that site it is important to consider the data within the context of sites throughout the Thames Tideway, since the factors influencing distribution are likely to be acting at this wider scale. Effects at this scale are assessed in Volume 6 (Projectwide). Invertebrates The invertebrates collected during the October 2010 field surveys at nearby are presented in the table below. Vol 22 Table 5.4.3 Aquatic ecology invertebrate fauna Intertidal Subtidal Samples Samples AL1 AL2 AL3 AL4 SW1 SW2 Q 50 1 150 1 15 150 60 5 12 3 28 5 4 1 4 10 14 2 35 250 2 80 420 4 1 2 CCI Score
5.4.12
Taxa Potamopyrgus antipodarum (?) Sphaerium (corneum?) Oligochaeta Erpobdella testacea Crangon crangon Acorophium lacustre Gammarus zaddachi No Taxa
Note: at Kings Stairs Gardens
1 1 5 8 1
5.4.13
Subtidal and intertidal samples taken were characterised by poor invertebrate diversity, although this may be linked to difficult sampling conditions at the site. Key pollution sensitive taxa Theodoxus fluviatilis (river neritid) were absent from samples, although Gammarus zaddachi and Corophium (relatively pollution sensitive) were present in high numbers, notably in intertidal samples. As other sites, the taxa present are brackish species, with varying tolerance of different levels of salinity from estuarine to near freshwater. The Community Conservation Index (CCI) score (Chadd and Extence, 2004 11) has initially been used to assess whether any species of nature conservation importance are present. The only species of high nature conservation importance was Acorophium lacustre (CCI 8), a species of mud shrimp. It is a RDB 3 species (nationally rare) and was only present in low numbers at the site and mostly limited to subtidal samples although Environment Agency data have shown C. lacustre to be common in the Thames Tideway. In view of this, its presence does not elevate the relative value of the invertebrate community in this instance. South Bank Centre, the nearest Environment Agency sampling site for which recent data were available, was sampled ten times in 2005 using a 0.1 m core sampler, six times in 2006 using a 0.01m grab sampler and 31 times in 2007 using a grab sampler. There are no records for
5.4.14 5.4.15
5.4.16
Page 34
invertebrates at South Bank Centre since 2007. The five most abundant taxa recorded at South Bank Centre between 2005 and 2007 were Gammarus zaddachi, , Cochliopidae, Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri, Nais elinguis and Potamopyrgus antipodarum. 5.4.17 Pollution tolerant species such as the snail Potamopyrgus antipodarum were relatively abundant. However, Gammarus zaddachi, a moderately pollution-sensitive species was also abundant. In addition to the native G. zaddachi, the amphipod G. tigrinus, of North American origin, was recorded at South Bank Centre. Other non native species recorded by the Environment Agency include Asiatic clam (Corbicula fluminea), zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) and the chinese mitten crab (Eriocheir sinensis). Acorophium lacustre was abundant at the Environment Agency sampling site at the South Bank Centre. Algae 5.4.20 Existing algae data has been requested and will be assessed and reported in the ES.
5.4.18
5.4.19
Aquatic ecology receptors values and sensitivities

5.4.21 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 22 Table 5.4.4 Aquatic ecology receptor values/sensitivities Receptor Foreshore habitat (including intertidal and subtidal habitat) Mammals Value/sensitivity and justification Medium (Metropolitan) value. Habitats form part of a Site of Metropolitan Importance. Low (Local) value. Only occasional records of seal exist from the area and there is no evidence of regular use of Chambers Wharf foreshore as a haul out site by seals. Low-medium (Borough) value based on low abundance and diversity of freshwater and estuarine species. Low-medium (Borough) value based on low overall abundance and presence of pollution tolerant species only. To be undertaken once baseline data received.
Fish
Invertebrates
Algae
Page 35
5.5
5.5.1
Construction assessment
Construction Impacts The potential impacts arising from construction stage of the project (year one year six) are described and summarised in Vol 22 Table 5.5.1. The definitions of the different magnitudes of impact referred to in this assessment are given in Volume 5. Temporary landtake. There would be a total of approximately 0.8ha of temporary landtake from intertidal and subtidal habitats associated with cofferdams. It is assumed for the purposes of the assessment that reinstatement of the area affected by temporary landtake would involve the removal of the granular material. Although the foreshore would re-establish through natural accretion there would be considerable compaction of the surface layers of sediment which may prevent colonisation by invertebrates until new sediment has accreted. Rates of accretion have yet to be established. Of the approximately 0.8ha of habitat that would be subject to temporary landtake, 0.2ha is already occupied by a jetty that would be removed for construction and will already therefore be subject to some reduction in quality. Moreover, the existing jetty would not be replaced on completion of work so there would be a net qualitative gain in the long term. However, given the uncertainty over the timescale for natural accretion and thus re-establishment of the habitat, the impact of temporary landtake is considered to be negative and of medium magnitude. The probability of the impact occurring is considered to be certain. Sediment disturbance and compaction. There would be a zone of approximately 0.4ha outside the temporary cofferdams which would be affected by construction activities during the site establishment phase (a three month period in year one). The jack up barge would be operated around the outside of the temporary cofferdams, affecting subtidal and intertidal habitat. Impacts on the subtidal and intertidal habitats are considered to be low negative, probable and temporary. This is a provisional assessment, subject to further information regarding the degree of compaction anticipated in this zone. Channel constriction and change to hydrodynamic regime. The construction phase would result in a total blockage of the intertidal foreshore on the south bank for a distance of approximately 200m. It is likely that the cofferdams would impact on scour patterns while in place. Preliminary findings from the hydraulic modelling indicate that there may be scour around the temporary cofferdams and the piles for the steel platform. These impacts will be assessed and reported in the ES following further investigation
5.5.2 5.5.3
5.5.4
5.5.5
5.5.6
5.5.7 5.5.8
5.5.9
Page 36
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf Waterborne noise and vibration. 5.5.10
Sheet piling would be installed for the permanent and temporary cofferdams. Where feasible sheet piles would be driven using silent piling techniques, thus limiting the principal source of waterborne noise and vibration impacts. Measures to limit noise and vibration impacts during the construction stage of the project have been incorporated into the Code of Construction Practice. These are described in section 5.2.3 There would be additional sources of noise and vibration, including activities associated with construction of the shaft itself and vehicle and barge movements. Although background levels of noise and vibration within the Thames Tideway are likely to be moderately high due to existing boat movements, and ground-propagated noise from transport systems, the proximity of the works to the river and their scale means that noise and vibration levels are likely to be elevated during construction. Noise and vibration have the potential to cause physical damage to fish, and disrupt behaviour. However, in this case, given the piling techniques proposed and the extent of the works relative to the width of the channel this is considered to be a low negative impact, probable and temporary. Increase in suspended sediment loads. Piling operations are likely to lead to localised increases in suspended sediment with the potential to affect local and downstream habitats. It is likely that the cofferdams would impact on scour patterns while in place, which could cause the mobilisation of increased levels of suspended solids into the river. Background levels of suspended sediments in the Thames Tideway are relatively high, and increases associated with the project are unlikely to be significant except on a very localised basis. Impacts are considered to be low negative, probable and temporary. Measures and safeguards to minimise the risk of accidental releases of silty or contaminated discharges to the Thames Tideway are included in the Code of Construction Practice. No impacts from polluted discharges are anticipated provided with these control measures and safeguards in place. Illumination of the river. During construction the site would be a 24 hour operation which would lead to some illumination of the river, although lighting would be directed into the construction site as much as possible to avoid wastage of light and power. The illumination of the river is likely to be of low intensity given that most lighting would be on land and directed away from the water. As such the impact is considered to be of low magnitude, probable and temporary.
5.5.11
5.5.12 5.5.13
5.5.14
5.5.15
5.5.16
Page 37
Vol 22 Table 5.5.1 Aquatic ecology impacts and magnitudes construction Impact Loss of approximately 0.8 hectares of intertidal habitat through the presence of temporary cofferdam. Magnitude Medium negative due to large scale of landtake and long period for reestablishment. Temporary. Certain. Low negative impact for intertidal and subtidal habitat due relatively limited extent. Temporary. Probable. To be assessed in ES following further investigation.
Disturbance and compaction of intertidal and subtidal sediments during cofferdam construction
Change to hydrodynamic regime due to temporary structures in the intertidal. Potential for increases in velocity which may interfere with fish movements. Waterborne noise and vibration arising from the installation of temporary and permanent piling and subsequent removal of temporary piling. This has potential to cause damage to fish and disrupt movements. Increase in suspended sediment loads due to construction activity and piling operations. Potential for smothering of downstream habitats and reduced water quality. Illumination of the river
Low negative due to proposed silent piling methods and control measures. Temporary. Probable.
Low negative due to lack of dredging and relatively high background levels of sediment. Temporary. Probable. Low negative since would be largely directed away from the river. Temporary Probable
5.5.17 The following section describes the effects on aquatic ecology based on the significance criteria set out in Volume 5. Effects of the project may also be detectable at the whole Thames Tideway level. These effects are discussed in Volume 6. Designated sites and habitats Loss of intertidal and subtidal habitat due to temporary landtake. 5.5.18 There would be a temporary loss of approximately 0.8ha of intertidal and subtidal habitat. The intrinsic value of the habitats (ie, the value of the
Page 38
habitat as an ecological feature in itself rather than simply in terms of the support it provides for fauna) in this area is considered to be relatively low, although they are considered to be of Metropolitan importance as part of the tidal Thames. 5.5.19 Sediment is expected to naturally accrete following removal of the temporary cofferdams and granular fill material. However, the underlying sediment would remain compacted over a large area whilst any newly accreted material is likely to be unstable and prone to removal by scour. Recovery is therefore expected only in the medium (1-5 years) or long term (+5 years). The overall effect is considered to be moderate adverse. Disturbance and compaction of intertidal and subtidal habitat. 5.5.20 There would be disturbance and compaction of approximately 0.4ha outside the cofferdam during the site establishment phase due to the presence of a jack up barge to install the temporary cofferdams. Habitats within this zone are expected to recover within the short term (less than 12 months) following site establishment. The effect is considered to be minor adverse. Mammals Interference with the migrations of marine mammals within the Tideway. 5.5.21 Noise, vibration and other construction activity has the potential to disturb mammals and deter them from passing the site. However, given the approach to silent piling and the controls on underwater noise-generating activities described in the CoCP and the low value of the receptor this is considered to be a negligible effect. Fish Direct mortality of fish due to temporary landtake, sediment disturbance and compaction. 5.5.22 Although there is a risk of mortality of fish as the cofferdams are installed, and as a result of compaction of the sediments this is considered to be low since even juvenile fish would move away from the source of the impact. There would be a greater risk of mortality if fish eggs were present, but since the site is not considered to offer spawning habitat, this risk can be discounted. The effect is considered to be negligible due to the low risk of mortality. Loss of feeding, resting and nursery habitat for fish due to temporary landtake. 5.5.23 The site lies outside the reach of the River Thames considered to be important for smelt spawning. The foreshore offers little potential as feeding as significant feeding, resting or nursery habitat. This will be confirmed following analysis of further surveys and reported in the ES.
Page 39
However, the temporary structures may act like an artificial reef, providing new feeding areas and shelter from the current. 5.5.24 Loss of foreshore habitat is considered to be a medium negative impact, but taking into account the low-medium (Borough) value of the receptor the effect is considered to be minor adverse. Loss of feeding, resting and nursery habitat for fish due to sediment disturbance and compaction. 5.5.25 The area which would be subject to disturbance and compaction outside the cofferdam lies within the intertidal zone. Although the intertidal zone could offer feeding, resting or nursery habitat for juvenile fish, given that recovery is likely to occur within the short term (less than 12 months) the effect is thus considered to be negligible. Interference with the migratory movements of fish. 5.5.26 Ordinarily the river channel should provide an uninterrupted route for juvenile fish migrations for species such as eel (Anguilla anguilla) as glass eels or elvers, dace (Leuciscus leuciscus), goby (e.g. Pomatoschitus spp.) and flounder (Platichthys flesus) as they move through the estuary. Encroachment of structures such as cofferdams into the river channel may affect the river hydraulics, particularly during periods of high flows associated with heavy fluvial inputs or spring tides. Changes in water velocity caused by constriction of the hydraulic channel may hinder movements of fish, including their ability to withstand, or hold station in the flow. Constriction of the hydraulic channel, reduction of the intertidal zone and increased water velocities might cause some fish to be lost, for example by forcing them into deeper water with increased predation risk. Formation of eddy currents in the wake of structures may temporarily entrap fish and delay progress of migrations. Such losses are difficult to quantify. Repeatedly delaying the successful daily migrations of fish past individual sites may also interfere with key life stage events such as spawning. The effects of on fish migration of the Thames Tunnel structures, including at Chambers Wharf, are as yet unknown, and are being considered at a site specific and whole Thames Tideway level through the use of a predictive modelling technique (Volume 5). The assessment will be completed following this modelling exercise and will be reported in the ES. Effects of waterborne noise and vibration on fish. 5.5.30 The effects of waterborne noise and vibration on fish vary according to the proximity of the receptor to the source. Effects depend on distance from source, ranging from potential death at very close proximities, through injury, and behavioural disturbance with increasing distance from the source. The key source at Chambers Wharf is the driving of sheet piles for the cofferdams. This would be undertaken using a silent piling
5.5.27
5.5.28 5.5.29
Page 40
technique from a jack up barge, thus minimising the level of noise and vibration. Furthermore, a series of control measures relating to the timing and duration of piling operations have been included in the Code of Construction Practice (para. 5.2.3). 5.5.31 The site is not considered to support sensitive spawning habitat, and therefore there is only low receptor sensitivity, as no significant numbers of any fish species would be present for extended periods. The overall effect is negligible. Blanketing of feeding areas for fish and reduction in water column visibility due to suspended sediment. 5.5.32 Although the Thames Tideway is a sedimentary environment with high levels of suspended solids, construction activities such as dredging, piling and barge movements have the potential to generate high levels of suspended sediment which may cause disorientation of fish. No dredging would be undertaken at this site as part of the temporary works. Given the length and extent of cofferdams, there is the potential for re-suspended sediments to affect juvenile fish migrations, particularly when considered along with the hydraulic effects described above. Adult fish are considered to be less likely to be affected as they are able to move away from the turbid water. Effects on juvenile fish are thus considered to be negligible. Potential disturbance due to illumination of the river. 5.5.34 Although fish behaviour can be altered through lighting, the illumination associated with the 24hr construction would be primarily land-side and directed away from the river. Illumination of the river is likely to be highly localised in extent. Since it is considered an impact of low magnitude on a receptor of low-medium value, this results in a negligible effect. Invertebrates Direct mortality of invertebrates due to temporary landtake, sediment disturbance and compaction. 5.5.35 There would be direct mortality of invertebrates within sediments removed or covered by the cofferdams, and due to compaction and disturbance of sediment due the site establishment phase. The effect is considered to be minor adverse due to the low-medium value of the receptor and the certainty of the effect. Loss of feeding and burrowing habitat for invertebrates due to temporary landtake. 5.5.36 The area beneath the temporary cofferdam would also be lost as burrowing and feeding habitat for invertebrates during the entire construction period. The area would be subject to heavy compaction, and hence would be unavailable to burrowing invertebrates in the medium term
5.5.33
Page 41
(1-5 years) following removal of the cofferdams. However, the temporary structures may act like an artificial reef, providing new encrusting habitat for some invertebrate species. 5.5.37 The overall effect is considered to be minor adverse, given the relatively limited loss of a burrowing and feeding resource, and the presence of possible new habitat provided by the temporary structures. Loss of feeding and burrowing habitat for invertebrates due to sediment disturbance and compaction. 5.5.38 The subtidal zone was found to support a larger number of taxa than the intertidal, and as the temporary compaction and disturbance to the habitat for burrowing invertebrates is limited to the intertidal zone, this is considered to be a negligible effect, given the reversibility of the effect. Blanketing of feeding areas for invertebrates and reduction in water column visibility due to suspended sediment. 5.5.39 The risk of blanketing of invertebrate feeding habitats is considered to be low due to the nature of construction activities, and given the low value of the site for invertebrates the effect is considered to be negligible. Potential disturbance due to illumination of the river. 5.5.40 Although invertebrates can be affected by lighting, the illumination associated with the 24 hour construction would be primarily land-side and directed away from the river. Moreover, much of the invertebrate interest of the area is benthic and unlikely to be affected by illumination, while any Illumination is likely to be highly localised in extent. Since it is considered an impact of low magnitude on a receptor of Low-Medium (Borough) value, this results in a negligible effect.
5.6
5.6.1
Operational assessment
As stated in para. 5.1.3, there would be no CSO interception at Chambers Wharf, or any permanent in-river works, thus no significant operation phase effects on aquatic ecology are anticipated. Therefore the operational phase has not been assessed.
5.7
5.7.1
Approach to mitigation
The approach to mitigation will be informed by the Mitigation and Compensation Hierarchy discussed with the Thames Tunnel EA Biodiversity Working Group as a systematic and transparent decisionmaking process. The hierarchy is sequential and seeks to avoid adverse environmental effects. The hierarchy of avoid effect, minimise, control compensate, and enhance will be strictly applied in this sequence. The ES will describe how this hierarchy has been applied. The mitigation hierarchy is described in detail in Volume 5.
5.7.2
Page 42
Construction
5.7.3 Impacts during the construction stage would primarily be controlled through measures incorporated into the Code of Construction Practice. Measures already included in the Code of Construction Practice (i.e. measures to avoid water quality impacts and disturbance of fish during piling) are not repeated here and can be found in para. 5.2.3. The areas of habitat affected by temporary cofferdams are expected to recover following removal of the sheet piling and fill material. The need for any specific restoration measures will be considered and reported in the ES. The potential for interference with fish migration due to the encroachment of the temporary structure may require mitigation at the construction stage. A bespoke solution to facilitate the movement of fish around the temporary structures is currently being considered. The application of this mitigation feature and individual sites will be determined once the magnitude of the hydrodynamic impact has been determined. This will be determined using hydraulic modelling data, applied at both a site specific level and projectwide level. Details of the mitigation measure and its application will be reported in the ES.
5.7.4
5.7.5
Page 43
5.8
Vol 22 Table 5.8.1 Aquatic ecology construction assessment summary Significance Mitigation Significance of residual effect
Assessment summary
Receptor
Effect
Habitats
Loss of intertidal habitat due to Moderate adverse temporary landtake
Disturbance and compaction of intertidal and subtidal habitat None required
Minor adverse
Natural recovery To be determined in the anticipated. The ES need for site specific restoration measures will be investigated and reported in the ES. None viable Minor adverse
Marine mammals
Interference with the Negligible effect. migrations of marine mammals within the Tideway.
Negligible
Fish
Direct mortality of fish due to Negligible temporary landtake, and disturbance and compaction of sediment. Minor adverse.
None required
Negligible
Loss of feeding, resting and nursery habitat for fish due to landtake
Natural recovery To be determined in the anticipated. The ES need for site specific restoration measures will be investigated and reported in the ES.
Page 44
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf Significance Negligible None required Negligible. Mitigation Significance of residual effect
Receptor
Effect
Loss of feeding, resting and nursery habitat for fish due to sediment compaction and disturbance. Minor adverse. None viable Minor adverse.
Blanketing of feeding areas for fish and invertebrates and reduction in water column visibility due to suspended sediment. To be assessed in ES following further investigation. To be determined and reported in ES
Interference with migratory movements of fish due to partial blockage of the intertidal area by temporary structures, and barges. None required
To be reported in ES
Direct mortality and/or Negligible disturbance to fish from waterborne noise and vibration leading to changes in behaviour and migratory patterns.
Negligible effect.
Disturbance due to illumination Negligible
None required None viable
Negligible Minor adverse
Invertebrates
Direct mortality of Minor adverse invertebrates due to temporary landtake and disturbance and compaction of sediment. Minor adverse
Loss of feeding/burrowing habitat for invertebrates due to
Natural recovery anticipated. The
To be determined in the ES
Page 45
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf Significance need for site specific restoration measures will be investigated and reported in the ES. Negligible None required Negligible Mitigation Significance of residual effect
Receptor
Effect
landtake.
Loss of feeding/burrowing habitat for invertebrates due to sediment compaction and disturbance. Negligible None required
Blanketing of feeding areas for invertebrates and reduction in water column visibility due to suspended sediment. None required
Negligible.
Disturbance due to illumination Negligible
Negligible
Algae
To be completed for the ES.
Page 46
5.9
5.9.1 5.9.2 5.9.3 5.9.4 5.9.5
Additional fish and invertebrate surveys undertaken during spring 2011 will be reported in the ES. Algal data and effects on algae will also be assessed and reported in the ES. An assessment of cumulative effects will be undertaken as part of the ES. The hydrodynamic effects of the temporary and permanent structures on fish migratory movements will be assessed. Following completion of the assessment, the mitigation approaches for aquatic ecology within the project will be finalised and reported in the ES.
Page 47
Section 6: Ecology - terrestrial
6 6.1
6.1.1
Ecology - terrestrial Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant terrestrial ecology effects at the Chambers Wharf site. Likely effects on aquatic ecology are reported in section 5. Elements of the proposed works that have particular relevance to terrestrial ecology comprise site clearance, piling, and wider construction activities. The operational phase is not considered in the terrestrial ecology assessment as operational activity would remain limited to occasional maintenance works which are considered unlikely to have significant effects on terrestrial ecology receptors on and adjacent to the site. Operational effects are therefore not considered further in this assessment.
6.1.2
6.1.3
6.2
6.2.1
The proposed development is described in section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to terrestrial ecology are as follows.
Construction
6.2.2 The proposed works at Chambers Wharf that are relevant to terrestrial ecology include: a. Site mobilisation, including clearance activities commencing in the first year of construction. b. The construction of a temporary cofferdam and works to realign the river wall. c. Ground excavation and construction traffic movements and the use of construction machinery (including piling) will involve noise, vibration and lighting.
d. Barge movements to and from the site and works within the foreshore e. Site working hours will include 24 hour working. Whilst the majority of night-time activities will be conducted underground, there is likely to be a degree of movement of vehicles and people above ground. Code of Construction Practice 6.2.3 Measures incorporated into the draft CoCP to reduce terrestrial ecology effects include those that would ensure that terrestrial ecology receptors are appropriately managed during construction. The document sets out procedures that would be adhered to both project wide and at individual sites. The CoCP would ensure that where appropriate, works are undertaken in compliance with legislation, and with relevant nature conservation policies and guidance, including the Mayors Biodiversity Strategy 12 and local Biodiversity Action Plans. Where species are protected by specific
6.2.4
Page 48
legislation, approved guidance would be followed, appropriate mitigation would be proposed and any necessary licences or consents obtained. 6.2.5 Measures not specifically outlined under the Ecology section of the draft CoCP are also of relevance, for example the management of noise and vibration, and water resources.
6.3
6.3.1

Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. The Scoping Report was prepared before the Chambers Wharf site had been identified as a site and therefore the site has not been the subject of formal scoping. The scope for terrestrial ecology for this site has therefore drawn on the scoping response from the London Borough of Southwark in relation to another site, engagement with other stakeholders and on professional judgement. This site was discussed at a biodiversity working group in March 2011 attended by local planning authorities, including the London Borough of Southwark.
Baseline
6.3.2 Baseline data collection has followed the methodology detailed in Volume 5. Baseline data presented within this assessment is derived from desk study data, Phase 1 Habitat Survey data and preliminary bat survey data. All subsequent survey data will be reported in the ES. In summary, the following baseline data has been reported in this assessment: a. Desk study including data base searches (for ecological records within a 2km radius from the site boundary 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. A Phase 1 Habitat Survey undertaken on 20th May 2011 following the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) Standard Phase 1 Habitat Survey Methodology, 2010. The survey included the site and adjacent habitat considered, using professional judgement, to be potentially affected by the proposed works. c. A bat triggering survey was carried out in June 2011. This was an initial survey using remote recording equipment (Anabat detectors) to determine whether subsequent activity/dawn surveys were required. The survey area includes the site and adjacent features that are assessed (using professional judgement) to be potentially affected by the project. Further surveys were determined as being required and preliminary results of the bat triggering surveys have been provided.
6.3.3
6.3.4
The species surveys identified as being required following the desk study, Phase 1 Habitat Survey and preliminary bat survey have commenced and
Page 49
are detailed in the table below. The results of these surveys will be provided in the EIA. Vol 22 Table 6.3.1 Terrestrial ecology notable species surveys Survey Bat activity and dawn surveys dependent on the results of the triggering surveys Wintering bird surveys Survey area Around suitable features within and immediately adjacent to the site. The survey area includes the site and adjacent features that are assessed to be potentially affected by the project. Suitable features within and immediately adjacent to the site. On site and areas within 10m of the site boundary. Timing July to October 2011
Monthly intervals from October 2011 to March 2012 inclusive
Black redstart
Five fortnightly visits from mid-May to the end of July 2011 One visit in August 2011
Invasive plant species
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) 13. There are three designated sites within 500m of the site. Due to the localised nature of the proposed works and the relative isolation of the designated sites from the proposed works, no effects have been identified. Therefore, designated sites are not considered further in the assessment. The potential presence of Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica) is not considered within the assessment as measures to eradicate and control this, and other invasive species, prior to construction commencing are contained within the CoCP (see paras. 6.2.3 - 6.2.5). The findings of the mapping survey will be reported in the ES. The following ecological receptors are assessed as part of the assessment: a. Habitats b. Bats c. Black redstart d. Breeding birds e. Wintering birds
6.3.6
6.3.7
Page 50
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf f. 6.3.8 Other notable species
g. Invertebrates As contaminated runoff and atmospheric pollution would be controlled through the implementation of the CoCP, no likely significant effects are anticipated on ecological receptors. Therefore, this is not considered any further in the assessment. The assessment year for construction is the start of site preparation works in construction year one. This is likely to be the peak year for impacts on terrestrial ecology as this is when initial site clearance would occur. Assuming that the site and any nearby designated sites would continue to be managed as they are at present then the base case for is considered to be the same as the current baseline conditions as described in section 6.4.
6.3.9
6.3.10

6.3.11 It is assumed for the purposes of assessment that the current site management regime of the Chambers Wharf site would continue. The assessment assumes that the measures within the CoCP would be implemented as part of the development. All surveys have been and will be undertaken at appropriate times of the year. No other site specific limitations or assumptions have been identified.
6.4
6.4.1
Baseline conditions
The following section sets out the baseline conditions for terrestrial ecology receptors at the site and surrounds, including their value.
Designated Sites
On site 6.4.2 The site is partially within the River Thames and Tidal Tributaries SINC (Grade M i) which comprises inter-tidal habitat and river channel. This designated site is included in the aquatic ecology assessment and is not considered further in this assessment. Surrounding area 6.4.3 The following SINCs have been identified within 500m as part of the desk study: a. Hermitage Basin SINC (Grade L ii) located approximately 370m north comprising part of the London dock network. This site is of local (low) value. b. Wapping Park SINC (Grade L) located approximately 380m north east is an area of open space and parkland. This site is of local (low) value.
i ii
SINC (Grade M) = Site of Nature Conservation Importance (Grade II of Metropolitan importance) SINC (Grade L) = Site of Nature Conservation Importance (Grade I of Local importance)
Page 51
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf c.
Southwark Park SINC (Grade B iii) located approximately 470m south east and comprises an area of parkland and open space in Bermondsey. This site is of district (medium) value.
Habitats
6.4.4 The site includes London Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) habitat Built up Areas and Gardens. The habitats recorded within the survey area are detailed in the table below and shown on Vol 22 Figure 6.4.1. Target notes (TN#) indicated on the map are described below. Vol 22 Figure 6.4.1 Terrestrial ecology phase 1 habitat survey (see Volume 22 Figures document) Vol 22 Table 6.4.1 Terrestrial ecology habitats phase 1 habitat survey Habitats Buildings Habitat Description The survey area was vacant at the time of the Phase 1 Habitat Survey and was occupied by a disused brick built building towards the south west of the site, in a state of some disrepair. A grey wagtail Motacilla cinerea was recorded flying into the part demolished building during the Phase 1 Habitat Survey and it is considered that this bird may have been using the building for nesting purposes. Ephemeral and short perennial vegetation Scattered scrub A range of common plant species were present within the survey area, located predominantly in the east. Scattered scrub was present across the eastern part of the survey area and in the north west of the site. It was characterised by buddleia Buddleia davidii, bramble Rubus fruticosus agg. and grey willow Salix cinerea. A large tarpaulin covered mound was located in the east and south of the survey area. This comprised rubble/made ground.
Other
On site 6.4.5 The common plant species that make up the ephemeral and short perennial vegetation on site do not comprise a BAP priority habitat, and is of low intrinsic value. The habitat is considered to be of site (low) value. The scattered scrub on site has limited intrinsic value and does not comprise UK or London BAP priority species. Therefore, the scrub on site is considered to be of site (low) value.
6.4.6
iii
SINC (Grade B) = Site of Nature Conservation Importance (Grade of Borough importance)
Page 52
Japanese knotweed, a noxious and invasive weed, was observed on site (TN1). This is considered to be of negative value at the local (low) level. This is not considered further within this assessment as the eradication and control of such invasive species would be managed by the measures set out in the CoCP, as discussed in paragraph 6.3.6. Surrounding area No notable habitat was observed adjacent to the site.
6.4.8
Notable species
Bats On site 6.4.9 There is some potential for bats to use the site for commuting and foraging purposes. The building on site is considered to be sub-optimal as roosting habitat as it is in a poor state of repair; therefore, it does not provide enough shelter or temperature stability for roosting bats. However, preliminary bat survey data indicates the presence of (foraging) bat activity involving at least two species (common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus and a large bat species likely to be either Noctule Nyctalus noctula, Leislers Nyctalus leisleri or Serotine Eptesicus serotinus).The value of the site for bats will be assessed and reported in the ES. Surrounding area 6.4.11 Data search records have not identified any bat within 500m of the site. Trees and buildings near to the site may support roosting bats. The value of the bat resource in the surrounding area will be assessed andreported in the ES. Black redstart On site 6.4.12 No records of black redstart Phoenicurus ochruros have been identified in relation to the site. However, suitable foraging habitat is present on site that is considered suitable for supporting this species for foraging and refuge purposes. The value of the site for black redstart will be reported in the ES. Surrounding area 6.4.13 No records of black redstart have been identified within 500m of the site. However, habitat is present within the surrounding area that is considered suitable for supporting this species. The value of the surrounding area for black redstart will be provided in the ES. Breeding birds On site 6.4.14 Birds that are likely to be nesting within site vegetation and in the disused building are likely to comprise bird species common to the area, potentially including some species that are listed as London and UK BAP priority species. The building on site is in a state of disrepair and appeared at the time of the Phase 1 Habitat Survey to be used for nesting purposes.
6.4.10
Page 53
However, the number of nests that the structures and vegetation could support is considered to be relatively small. The bird resource on site is therefore considered to be of local (low) value. Surrounding area 6.4.15 Data searches have identified that the house sparrow Passer domesticus (Red status iv, London BAP species) has been recorded within 500m of the site, in addition to dunnock Prunella modularis (Amber statusiv, London BAP species) and starling Sturnus vulgaris (Red statusiv, London BAP species). It is considered likely that the wider area provides some nesting habitat for small numbers of birds during the breeding season. Therefore, the bird resource adjacent to the surrounding area and within the locality is considered to be of local (low) value. Wintering birds On site 6.4.16 The foreshore of the River Thames within and adjacent to the site has the potential to support populations and/or assemblages of wintering bird species. The baseline and value of the wintering bird resource on the site will be assessed and reported in the ES. Surrounding area 6.4.17 The baseline and value of the wintering bird resource in the surrounding area will be assessed and reported in the ES. Other notable species On site 6.4.18 The habitat on site is considered to be sub-optimal for a notable assemblage of invertebrate species. Therefore, the invertebrate resource is considered to be of site (low) value. Surrounding area 6.4.19 Data search records include records of stag beetle Lucanus cervus within 500m of the site. Habitat within the vicinity of the site is considered to be of local (low) value for invertebrates
6.5
Construction assessment Habitats

On site
6.5.1
Construction would lead to the permanent loss of semi-natural habitat comprising ephemeral and perennial species of site (low) value and scrub of site (low) value. It is probable that the effect would be significant at the site level (minor adverse effect).
iv
The UK's birds can be split into three categories of conservation importance - red, amber and green. Red is the highest conservation priority, with species needing urgent action. Amber is the next most critical group, followed by green. (http://www.rspb.org.uk. Page last accessed on Monday 7 March 2011).
Page 54
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf Surrounding area 6.5.2
No significant effects to habitat in the surrounding area have been identified (negligible).
Notable species
Bats On site 6.5.3 Site clearance would result in a permanent loss of semi-natural vegetation that may provide a foraging resource for bats. Effects such as lighting, noise and vibration from the works could cause disturbance to bats leading to displacement from foraging areas. The loss of potential bat foraging habitat and disturbance to bats from noise, vibration and lighting may be potentially significant. The significance of effects will be assessed and reported in the ES. Surrounding area 6.5.5 Disturbance effects on bats roosting and foraging in adjacent habitat may be potentially significant and will be assessed and reported in the ES. Breeding birds On-site 6.5.6 Site clearance would result in the loss of scrub vegetation that could provide nesting habitat for a range of common bird species including some species listed on the UK and London BAPs. Activities on site that cause temporary effects, such as noise, vibration and lighting, could disturb birds that use the site for refuge or feeding purposes. It is considered probable that the loss of bird nesting and foraging habitat of site (low) value is significant for birds at the site level (minor adverse effect). Surrounding area 6.5.8 Displacement of birds from adjacent habitat may render a small area of nesting habitat unsuitable to birds. This is unlikely to affect the breeding ability of these birds as alternative habitat is available within the area. Therefore it is unlikely that the effect on birds would be significant (negligible). Wintering birds On site 6.5.9 The works would result in temporary (medium term) adverse disturbance from noise, lighting, vibration and movement of people and machinery during construction to wintering birds using the intertidal habitat for refuge and feeding purposes. The magnitude of the effects will depend on the timing of works. The significance of effects will be assessed and reported in the ES.
6.5.4
6.5.7
Page 55
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf Surrounding area 6.5.10
Disturbance effects on wintering birds using the adjacent inter-tidal habitat may be significant and will be assessed and reported in the ES. Black redstart On site
6.5.11
If black redstart is present on site, the works would potentially result in the direct permanent loss of potential foraging habitat as a result of habitat clearance. Indirect temporary (medium term) adverse disturbance from noise, lighting, vibration and movement of people and machinery, potentially leading to displacement. The magnitude of the effects would depend on the timing of works. The significance of effects will be assessed and reported in the ES. Surrounding area If black redstart is present in the surrounding area, potential disturbance effects from noise, lighting, vibration and movement of people and machinery, will be assessed and reported in the ES Other notable species On-site
6.5.12
6.5.13
6.5.14
Site clearance would result in the loss of semi-natural habitat that may potentially provide habitat for a range of invertebrate species. It is probable that the loss of invertebrate habitat of site (low) value would be significant for invertebrates at the site level (minor adverse effect). Surrounding area The loss of a small area of invertebrate habitat on site is unlikely to have a significant effect (negligible) on populations of invertebrates within the surrounding area.
6.5.15
6.6
6.6.1
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

All measures embedded in the draft CoCP of relevance to terrestrial ecology are found in paras. 6.2.3 - 6.2.5. The ecological management plan described in the CoCP will include long-term management of habitats and species on site post-construction. It would be prepared following planning approval and prior to commencement of works on site. In addition to measures detailed in the CoCP, the following measures are likely to be required: a. Disturbance minimisation measures, specific to the site and the faunal species identified during the surveys.
6.7.2
Page 56
b. Mitigation for likely significant effects associated with the presence of protected species (subject to the results of surveys) if required. c. Replacement planting to mitigate for effects on habitats, birds and invertebrates.
Page 57
6.8
Vol 22 Table 6.8.1 Terrestrial ecology construction assessment Significance of effect Mitigation Significance of residual effect
Assessment summary
Construction
Receptor
Description of effect
Habitats Probable site level (minor adverse effect) Probable site level (minor adverse effect) Replacement planting Replacement planting Unlikely to be significant (negligible) Unlikely to be significant (negligible)
Ephemeral and perennial
Permanent loss on site
Scrub
Permanent loss on site
Notable species Subject to survey results Subject to survey results Subject to survey results Subject to survey results Subject to survey results Subject to survey results
Bats
Loss of foraging resource on site
Disturbance from lighting, noise and vibration on site and adjacent to the site Probable site level (minor adverse effect)
Breeding birds
Loss of a foraging and nesting habitat on site
Replacement planting on site or in the local area
Unlikely to be significant (negligible)
Wintering birds
Disturbance to birds onsite and adjacent to the site from construction noise, vibration and lighting
Subject to survey results Subject to survey results Subject to survey results
Page 58
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf Significance of effect Mitigation Significance of residual effect
Receptor
Black redstart
Dsturbance effects from noise, lighting, vibration and movement of people and machinery both on site and in the surrounding area Probable site level (minor adverse effect) Provision of habitat piles. Replacement planting.
Subject to survey results Subject to survey results Subject to survey results
Other notable species Invertebrates
Loss of invertebrate habitat on site
Unlikely to be significant (negligible)
Page 59
6.9
6.9.1
Bat, wintering birds, black redstart and invasive plant species surveys are ongoing in 2011 and 2012. The data from these surveys will be used to inform the EIA and further evaluation of effects on ecological receptors will be undertaken and reported in the ES. Where required, appropriate mitigation to avoid or minimise impacts to terrestrial ecological receptors will be developed in consultation with stakeholders and a final assessment will be made of the significance of any residual effects to ecological receptors in the 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 60
Section 7: Historic environment
7 7.1
7.1.1
Historic Environment Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant effects on heritage assets at the Chambers Wharf site. These are aspects of the historic environment which are considered to be significant because of their historical, evidential, aesthetic or communal interest (these terms are defined in Volume 5). These might comprise below or above ground archaeological remains, buildings, structures, monuments or heritage landscapes within or around the site 14. This section should be read in conjunction with Volume 6, which sets the site in its broad topographic, geological, archaeological and historical context and discusses the project-wide landscape and topic themes in respect of the historic environment. These themes are summarised in this section, where they are relevant to the site.
7.1.2
7.2
7.2.1
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, which could lead to effects on heritage assets, are as follows: a. Site establishment and river works would entail the demolition of the remaining structure in the southwest of the site; the removal of the existing jetty; removal of two basements of previous structures and the mound of demolition material in the southeast; the establishment of a works compound; the diversion of existing services and the construction of a temporary coffer dam. b. Permanent works comprise the construction of a main tunnel drive site (which would also function as a connection tunnel reception shaft), new river wall; above and below ground air management structures; ventilation culverts; control kiosk and associated hard landscaping. 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 provisions for the contractor to prepare a site specific Heritage Management Plan.
Operation
7.2.4 The operation of the proposed infrastructure is described in Section 3. The particular components that are relevant to the assessment, in terms of historic environment setting, comprise the permanent structures visible
Page 61
above ground, in the form of the design and siting of the new river wall, the above ground ventilation structure, ventilation columns and the control kiosk.
7.3
7.3.1

Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. There were no site specific comments from consultees for this particular site. It should also be noted that Volume 5 details the approach to the assessment of effects on the historic setting of heritage assets which it has been agreed with consultees, 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, and includes 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 200m-radius study area used for the assessment is considered to be most appropriate to characterise the historic environment potential of the site. There are occasional references to assets beyond the study area where appropriate, for example, where such assets are particularly important and/or where they contribute to current understanding of the site and its environs.
7.3.4
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. Potential effects on the historic environment would arise throughout the construction phase from activities likely to remove, disturb or alter above ground or buried heritage assets, as a result of enabling or construction works. The methodology has been informed by an understanding of the nature and extent of proposed ground disturbance, in relation to known or potential heritage assets. In terms of the base case (future baseline) for buried heritage assets, the only aspect of the resource that is likely to change, without the project, is change to the condition of assets due to ongoing fluvial processes (scouring and sediment deposition) on the foreshore, along with other unrelated proposed development projects, on land or within the river. Data on existing fluvial processes will be reviewed in the ongoing EIA and will be reflected in the base case presented in the final ES.
7.3.7
7.3.8
Page 62
In terms of the base case (future baseline) for 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. It is possible that changes to the setting of heritage assets may occur during the construction period as a result of the St. James Group residential development, located south of the site and due for completion by 2020. 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.
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 one of operation (2020). In terms of the base case (future baseline) during the assessment year, 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.

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. 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 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: 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 200m-radius study area around the site);
Page 63
b. A description of statutorily and locally designated assets within the site and its vicinity (ie, within a 100m-radius of the site); c. A description of the site location, topography and geology to set the context of the site;
d. A summary of past archaeological investigation within the study area, providing an indication of how well the area is understood archaeologically. e. A summary of the archaeological and historical background which sets out what is known about the site and its environs. f. A statement of significance for above ground assets within and around the site, describing the features which contribute to their significance.
g. A discussion of potential for buried heritage assets, taking account of factors affecting survival, and a statement of their potential significance. 7.4.2 A site walkover inspection of Chambers Wharf foreshore will be carried out for the EIA following receipt of a Port of London Authority permit. Any potential heritage assets that may be identified during the site visit will be added to the baseline and the assessment will be reviewed in the light of any newly identified assets, if applicable.
Historic environment features

7.4.3 The historic environment features map (Vol 22 Figure 7.4.1) shows the location of known historic environment features within the 200m-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.4. Vol 22 Figure 7.4.1 Historic environment features map (see Volume 22 Figures document) 7.4.4 Where there are a considerable number of listed buildings in the study area, only those within the vicinity of the site (ie, 100m) are included on the map and in the gazetteer. The study area for assessing setting effects on heritage assets may be revised because setting effects are most likely to occur within the visual envelope of the site, which may differ from the study area defined for the purposes of the PEIR.
Designated assets
Statutory designations 7.4.5 The site does not contain any nationally designated (statutorily protected) heritage assets, such as scheduled monuments, listed buildings, or registered parks and gardens. The nearest listed structure to the site is the Grade II listed East Lane Stairs and Grade II listed Nos. 38 and 40 Bermondsey Wall West, approximately 30m to the west of the site. A Scheduled Monument, the moated manor house of King Edward III, is located outside the study area, 370m to the east.
Page 64
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf Local authority designations 7.4.6
The site does not lie within a conservation area. The St Saviours Dock Conservation Area, is however located immediately west of the site. The site lies 250m to the northwest of the Wilson Grove Conservation Area and 360m to the west of the Rotherhithe Conservation Area. The site lies within the Borough, Bermondsey and River Archaeological Priority Zone. Known burial grounds There are no known burial grounds within the Chambers Wharf site or adjacent to it.
7.4.7
Site location, topography and geology

Site location 7.4.8 The site falls within the historic parish of Bermondsey and lay within the county of Surrey prior to being absorbed into the administration of London Borough of Southwark. Topography 7.4.9 The terrestrial part of the site and the surrounding area is flat. Ground level on Chambers Wharf lies at 103.0104.0m ATD (above Tunnel Datum; the equivalent of 3.04.0m Ordnance Datum). The high edge of the foreshore in the northern part of the site drops down to 100.0m ATD. There is no levels data for the level of the foreshore at low tide. Geology 7.4.10 The site lies entirely on the alluvial floodplain of the Thames (British Geological Survey Drift Geology sheet 256), 150m to the west of the northern tip of a high area of sands known as the Bermondsey Eyot. Extensive archaeological and geoarchaeological investigations in the study area around the site have confirmed the underlying geology of the area as comprising alluvial silts overlying a number of similar small largely sand islands or eyots separated by a complex network of channels 15. These eyots would have been formed during the latter stages of the Pleistocene when the Thames was a high-energy braided river system, rather than a single channel. In this environment the irregular topography of high and low gravel areas were sculpted through rapid channel migration (Appendix A). As the climate changed at the end of the Pleistocene (up to 10,000 BP) the river energy decreased and sand instead of gravel was deposited within the channels and over the higher gravels. As the Holocene progressed (ie, from 10,000 BP), the river channels stabilised and some incised the underlying gravels. As a consequence, areas of high, sand covered gravels (the eyots) were left elevated and exposed, forming a dry land surface suitable for occupation. The lower ground, including that to the west of the Bermondsey Eyot on which the site is located, and the channels that separated the eyots, would have remained marginal or water-filled for much of the early to midHolocene. Within these lower lying channels fluvially deposited sands and silts would have accumulated with peats and organic clays developing along the channel margins. The peats have, at other locations, been
7.4.11
Page 65
dated to the Bronze Age and associated with a reduction in water levels recorded along the Thames and known as the Devoys Tibury IV marine regression event 16. 7.4.12 No borehole data exists for the site itself although in 2006, Museum of London Archaeology (MOLA) carried out investigations to the south of Chambers Street, immediately to the south of the site (HEA 3). Monitoring of test pits revealed a palaeochannel (ancient channel) containing alluvial silts and peats to the west and the top of the underlying gravels at 98.3m ATD, overlain by silts and peats to the east. Truncated alluvial silty clays were survived as high as 102.0m ATD, overlain by made ground to a maximum of 103.7mTD. Archaeological evidence suggests the eyots were utilised from the Mesolithic onward with seasonal occupation giving way to agricultural activity over time 17. It is possible that in higher areas, on the southern part of the site, early Holocene dryland soils might have developed in which possible flint scatters and mounds of burnt flint may be encountered particularly along the edges of the channel areas. Later prehistoric use and exploitation of the wetlands near the river channels may have occurred and could be represented by the presence of trackways, platforms or other timber structures used to access and transverse the wetlands. Such structures may be encountered within the lower alluvial deposits. By the Roman period evidence from maximum mean tidal head measurements indicates that only land over 101.0m ATD would lie above the tidal range 18. It is thought that the consequent ponding back of the Thames through the upstream migration of the tidal head was the cause of the increase in the wetland areas around the margins of the high ground. By the medieval and post medieval periods, the channels developed into tidal creeks where estuarine silts and clays were deposited in a salt marsh or mudflat environment with overbank flooding sealing much of the higher ground with alluvial deposits. Riverside or channel edge structures such as drains, revetments, bridges, jetties, wharfs, boats or fishtraps relating to the historic period may occur within the alluvial clays and channel fills.
7.4.13
7.4.14
Past archaeological investigations within the study area

7.4.15 The foreshore within and beyond the site was surveyed in 1990s as part of the Alpha Survey of the Thames Archaeological Survey (TAS). This revealed a considerable number of finds and features within the site (HEA 1B1Z and 2A2I), comprising prehistoric features and remains associated with a post-medieval shipyard, re-used ship and boat timbers at Chambers Wharf, prehistoric silts and peat, and post-medieval riverfront flood defences. In addition to the foreshore surveys, MOLA carried out a standing building recording within the site in 2008 (HEA 1A).The oldest structural remains were in the east of the site, where the substantial remains of an 18th to19th-century warehouse were visible along Loftie Street. Further 19thcentury wall fragments were noted in other areas of the site, incorporated into the 20th-century buildings. During the 1930s large cold storage
7.4.16
Page 66
warehouses were built, including a dock along the Thames riverbank. Later additions to Chambers Wharf were made in the 1950s. All structures recorded within the site during the survey were subsequently demolished.
Archaeological and historical background of the site

7.4.17 The following section presents a chronological summary of the archaeological and historical background of the site, drawing on the information collated above. Prehistoric period (700,000 BCAD 43) 7.4.18 During the early prehistoric, the Thames comprised braided river channels crossing a broad floodplain. Within these channels were gravel eyots, such as the Bermondsey and Horselydown Eyots close to the site, which were increasingly subject to flooding and alluvial sedimentation as sea levels rose. The mixed marshy and dry land of this part of the Thames valley would have been especially favoured in providing variable resources including a predictable source of food (from hunting and fishing) and water, as well as a means of transport and communication. Finds from the site include a number of prehistoric artefacts, recovered from the foreshore in the northern part of the site during the 1990s TAS survey. These include Mesolithic worked flint (HEA 1C); a macehead worked from a naturally perforated stone, which may be Neolithic in date; flint tempered pottery of likely earlier Neolithic date; and a sherd of Late Neolithic Peterborough Ware. Burnt flint, molluscs, and human bone were also found (HEA 1C). It was thought that this material may have been derived from erosion of in situ horizons, which may well extend southwards within the well-preserved foreshore sequence under the jetty on the northern side of the site. Such deposits may represent activity on the shoreline, when the river level may have been slightly lower and the area of the site would have been seasonally dry land. From the late Mesolithic, rising water levels would have meant that the location of the site on the edge of the Bermondsey Eyot would have been too low and marshy to be suitable for settlement. The marshland would however have important and possibly exploited for a broad range of activities including grazing, fishing, fowling, salt making, exploitation of sources of craft materials (willows, reeds and rushes) and pottery manufacture 19. Discoveries in the Thames estuary include remains of wooden boats, fish traps, wharves and trackways, dating from the Bronze Age onwards. In areas of Southwark, where eyots rose above marshy terrain, wooden trackways and platforms were built to cross wet areas. Some were possibly associated with ritual activity, as the wetland and the river channels are thought to have been a focus of ritual activity, and the probable origin of many of the prehistoric metal objects found along the Thames. Within the site, Bronze Age activity is limited to individual finds recorded on the foreshore: a Bronze Age dagger (HEA 2J) and part of a scabbard
7.4.19
7.4.20
7.4.21
7.4.22
Page 67
(HEA 1C). Bronze Age peat layers containing lithic implements were also recorded within the site (HEA 2M) and also 20m to the west (HEA 6). Investigations in Southwark, beyond the study area, have produced further evidence of activity on low-lying areas off the eyots 20. These include a Bronze Age cooking pit and cultivation soil at Phoenix Wharf, 450m to the west of the site (Museum of London site code PHW88) and ploughmarks at Wolseley Street, 270m west of the site (Museum of London site code WOY94). Evidence of trackways, leading across the marshes, has been found at Bramcote Grove, 1.5km to the southwest. 7.4.23 Rising tidal levels in the Thames, corresponding to the Tilbury IV marine regression (a period of falling sea level), meant greater inundation of the marshland during the late Bronze Age and Iron Age. Iron Age remains are scarce on sites in similar topographic locations. Iron Age pottery and flint flakes from pits and deposits were recovered at Cherry Gardens Pier, 100m east of the site, on an area of higher gravels on the edge of the Bermondsy Eyot (HEA 9). Evidence for Iron Age occupation was recorded on the Horseleydown Eyot, 500m to the west of the site at 283 and 271281 Tooley Street, and on the northern edge of Bermondsey Eyot, 500m southwest of the site at Abbey Street/Neckinger. Roman period (AD 43410) 7.4.24 Following the Roman invasion and conquest of AD 43, an important Roman town developed at London (Londinium), which later became the capital of the province. A bridge led across the Thames from Londinium to the largest of the gravel islands on the South Bank, to a settlement in the Borough area of modern Southwark. It was thought that the Roman settlement in Southwark was small small-scale, and focussed around the approach to London Bridge (present day Borough High Street) but excavations in recent years have revealed remains of a large settlement that was probably viewed as an extension of Roman London 21. The site lay about 1.3km east of the Roman settlement in north Southwark. It also lay 1.2km to the northeast of Watling Street, a major Roman road that connected London and Canterbury 22. The projected line of Watling Street ran roughly parallel to and between Great Dover Street and Tabard Street and then along Old Kent Road 23. During the later Roman period further rise in water levels meant that marginal areas, such as the site, became more heavily inundated, and were probably only exploited for its natural resources, and not settled or cultivated. This is reflected in the limited number of finds dating to this period from the study area, all of which come from areas of higher gravels. In 1987, archaeological excavations at the Cherry Garden Project, 100m east of the site (HEA 9) located two Roman ditches of uncertain function, and three cremation burials. As Roman law forbade burial within settlements, cemeteries were usually sited alongside roads, and Roman burials have been found alongside Watling Street 1.3km to the southwest of the site 24. An investigation at St Michaels Catholic College on John Felton Road, southwest of the site, revealed Roman pottery fragments and possibly a pit (HEA 7). The remains were located on slightly higher
7.4.25
Page 68
ground, possibly the northern edge of the Bermondsey Eyot, or part of a different eyot. Early medieval (Saxon) period (AD 4101066) 7.4.26 Following the withdrawal of the Roman army from England in the early 5th century AD, the whole country fell into an extended period of socioeconomic decline. The Roman city was apparently abandoned and the main early to mid Saxon settlement of Lundenwic shifted westwards to what is now Covent Garden and the Strand, 2km northwest of the site. In AD 866, in response to threats from Viking invaders, King Alfred moved the town back within the walls of the Roman city, establishing Lundenburh as the medieval city of London. The name Bermondsey is thought to be from the Saxon name Beormund, the Saxon lord of the district, and ea, or eye, an island. Documentary evidence suggests that a Minster church stood in the area of Bermondsey Square, 1km southwest of the site, in the early 8th century. This may have been a precursor of the later Benedictine Bermondsey monastery 25. The main settlement in the area during this time would have been at Southwark, 1.5km to the northwest of the site. It is first mentioned in AD 910920, when it is included in the Burghal Hideage, a document listing all burhs (fortified settlements). Southwark or Suthringa Geweorc means fortification of the men of the southern province. It was probably constructed in order to defend the southern bridgehead following the resettlement of the Roman city and the re-establishment of the bridge crossing, and may have been built by King Alfred himself 26.The exact extent of the burh is uncertain. It probably occupied much of the northern end of the main eyot beside the bridgehead. The site would have been intertidal marshland prone to regular flooding. It may have been used for rough grazing, and it is possible that fishtraps were constructed here, as have recorded at similar locations along the River Thames. Evidence dating to this period comprises a clay-filled channel with a large Saxon timber resting against a wattle structure, possibly the remains of a revetment, recorded 100m to the east of the site at Cherry Garden Pier (HEA 9). Later medieval period (AD 10661485) 7.4.30 The manor (estate) of Bermondsey, within which the site lies, was held before the Conquest (AD 1066) by Earl Harold, and by in AD 1086 by William the Conqueror. In AD 1089, the Monastery at Bermondsey was founded 1km to the southwest of the site, and became one of the main centres of Cluniac influence in the country27. The closest main settlement to the site was at Southwark, around the southern bridgehead of London Bridge, 1.5km to the northwest of the site. In Domesday Book (1086) it was described as having at least a dozen houses, a dock, trading shore, fishery and a Minster 28. Although settlement developed along the southern bank of the River Thames, but is unlikely to have extended as far as the site.
7.4.27
7.4.28
7.4.29
7.4.31
Page 69
It is likely that widespread marshland drainage and reclamation took place in the later medieval period. This took the form of drainage channels and embankments that served as sea walls around parcels of land. The purpose would have been primarily economic, to provide good-quality grazing for livestock and fertile land for crops. The river wall had mixed success, and breaches appear to have occurred occasionally. In 1230, the Annals of Bermondsey mention the repairs of the Breach of Rotherhithe, and in 1294 and 1304 there is reference to flooding around Bermondsey 29. In the TAS survey of the 1990s, a later medieval or post-medieval timber revetment or structure was recorded at 96.997.5m ATD on the foreshore at the site (HEA 1C), as well as a fishtrap, dam and embankment (HEA 2M). At Adlades Wharf, 70m west of the site, a medieval embankment and associated defences were recorded (HEA 12). A fishtrap and possible barge bed were recorded at Bermondsey Wall (HEA 6), 10m west of the site. Throughout the later medieval period, the site was located outside the settled area in land that was reclaimed, probably for agriculture or improved pasture, following the construction of a river wall. Post-medieval period (AD 1485present) The growth of modern Bermondsey was due to the leather trade which was flourishing in the early part of the 17th century. Its location by the river meant easy access to a water supply and the water power used by tanners and leather-dressers 30. The south side of the river was entirely developed, with numerous tanneries, fellmongers, curriers, leatherdressers and parchment makers. The waterfront was occupied by small docks and associated trades such as rope makers, anchor smiths, stave merchants and boat builders 31. The land to the south, beyond the riverfront, remained open fields and market gardens until the 19th century. Faithorne and Newcourts map of 1658 (Appendix A) is a pictorial map and therefore not particularly accurate. The site is shown on the Thames riverfront, which is entirely developed. The main road east-west Rotherhithe Road, crosses the southern half of the site. The northern part of the site extends into the Thames foreshore area. Morgans map of 1682 (Appendix A) is a fairly detailed. Where previously the river frontage within the site was shown as densely built up, Morgans map indicates that only about half of the river frontage was occupied by buildings, and fewer buildings were located to the south of Rotherhithe Road. Morgan labels the stairs down to the river on the west and east sides of (just outside) the site as East Stairs (East Lane Stairs on later maps) and Three Mariners Stairs respectively. Rocques map of 1746 (Appendix A) is small scale and shows general detail only. The map shows increasing occupation extending back from the river frontage. The road immediately behind the river frontage running east-west through the site is labelled as Rotherhith or Redriff Wall. A number of the buildings previously shown fronting the road on the northern side, appear to have been demolished and replaced by a timber yard. A
7.4.33
7.4.34
7.4.35
7.4.36
7.4.37
7.4.38
Page 70
lot of the area to the south of the site is now being used as gardens and orchards, associated with buildings fronting onto the roads. 7.4.39 Horwoods map of 1799 (Appendix A) reflects increasing development. The river frontage within the site is now occupied by larger buildings, probably warehouses associated with industry along the river. A number of new buildings are shown within the southern part of the site, including Hucks Cooperage in the southeast. The map shows a large fishpond outside the site to the immediate south, its northern end is located within the site. The wealthier residents had left the area by the mid 19th century. The district along the waterside had an industrial character, heavily populated by workers, who typically slept four or five persons to one room 32. The Ordnance Survey (OS) 1st edition 25 scale map of 186295 (Appendix A) shows the buildings on site in more detail. Some land reclamation had occurred along the waterfront since 1799, and most of the northern part of the site is now shown within the foreshore, whilst the southern part is shown as located on the adjacent embankment. The former Rotherhithe Road is now labelled as Bermondsey Wall. The foreshore to the north of this is occupied with a number of buildings. In the west, part of the Fore & Aft Dry Dock extends into the site. Extending eastwards along the waterfront within the site is East Lane Wharf, Glendennings Wharf, three buildings labelled Granaries, Sunderland wharf, and a further Granary, as well as four unnamed buildings. The area to the south of Bermondsey Wall has been extensively redeveloped. A number of large buildings now occupy the centre south of the site, labelled as granaries. A large linear building labelled as the Parent Rope Manufactory is shown running through the whole southwest of the study area, its northern end located in the southwestern corner of the site. A number of new roads provide access to the buildings. These are Mansell Row to the west, and an Alley (later Loftie Street) to the east. Cloyne Row runs along the southern boundary of the site. By this time the whole of the surrounding area had become densely built upon, with little open land remaining. The OS 2nd edition 25 map of 189698 of (Appendix A) and OS 3rd edition 25 map of 190920 (Appendix A) show no significant changes within the site. The whole southern part of the site is built over, intersected by smaller access roads. The northern part of the site is located half on the foreshore, and half within the Thames. The OS 1:2500 scale map of 194772 (Appendix A) shows some changes within the site. The former granary buildings in the centre south of the site are now labelled Chambers Wharf. In the northern part of the site, on the foreshore, a jetty has been added to the north of the wharf buildings. The OS 1:2500 scale map of 195272 (Appendix A) shows that major changes had been made to the buildings and road layout in and around the site. A complex of new buildings forming Chambers Wharf had been built, and along the foreshore, the jetty has been extended and an extensive new wharf and buildings built on land reclaimed from the river. Further buildings had been constructed around open yards and alleys to
7.4.40
7.4.41
7.4.42
7.4.43
7.4.44
Page 71
the south of the site. A new road, Chambers Street, had been driven through earlier terraced houses, which had been replaced by new buildings. This layout has mostly survived to the present day, although buildings at the western and eastern ends of the river frontage have since been demolished. 7.4.45 There are a large number of records from the site and its immediate vicinity, relating to 17th19th century wharves, stairs, bollards, barges, and other features. These are mostly related to the foreshore and activity on the adjacent bank (Vol 22 Figure 7.4.1). The current site 7.4.46 The site is currently mostly unoccupied with the exception of a single structure located in the southwest. A mound of building demolition waste is present in the southeastern part of the site. The remainder of the site is covered in hardstanding. At the time of writing it was not possible to undertake a site walkover survey, and this will be carried out for the EIA. The following description of above ground heritage assets is informed by combining previous MOLA studies in the area and desktop research.
7.4.47
Statement of significance: above ground heritage assets

Introduction 7.4.48 In accordance with the national policy set out in PPS5, the following section provides a statement based on professional and expert judgement on the likely significance (which is a reflection of the value or importance) of heritage assets, derived from the perceived historical, evidential, aesthetic and communal value. These terms are defined in Volume 5. Within the site 7.4.49 Until recently the site was occupied by the warehouse buildings that made up Chambers Wharf (HEA 1A). These were subject to a programme of Standing Building Recording by MOLA prior to demolition and a report was issued (MOLA 2008). As far as is known no above ground elements of these buildings remain and it may be the case that the site contains only assets of negligible significance, in the form of features such as crane rails and other riverside elements. Outside the site 7.4.50 The site lies adjacent and to the east of the St Saviours Dock Conservation Area as designated by the London Borough of Southwark 33. The conservation area, designated in order to preserve and enhance the historic character of the area, includes Bermondsey Wall West to the west of the site where the early street layout and property boundaries survive well, along with numerous 19th-early 20th century warehouse buildings, converted to modern residential apartments. The typical long, narrow footprint of buildings ranged along the Thames is an early feature, possibly later medieval in origin and seen elsewhere along the south bank of the River Thames. Grade II listed structures in the area include East Lane Stairs (HEA 27), 29 Bermondsey Wall West (HEA 26), 33 Bermondsey
Page 72
Wall West (HEA 35), and 67 George Row (HEA 39), along with items of street furniture such as brick gate posts, bollards and cobbled surfaces that also survive in this area. These are heritage assets which have group historical, evidential and aesthetic value in their association with the former riverside docks and wharves that comprised the area. They also contribute to the character of the area. The St Saviours Dock Conservation Area and the listed buildings within the area are heritage assets of high significance. 7.4.51 7.4.52 The site lies 250m to the northwest of the Wilson Grove Conservation Area an asset of high significance. The site lies 360m to the west of King Edward IIIs Rotherhithe Conservation Area which contains the partially upstanding remains of a medieval moated manor. The manor was excavated in the 1980s and it is a scheduled monument. It is considered a feature of primary heritage significance within the conservation area 34. Other features include the Grade II listed Southwark park adjacent to the conservation area. The conservation area is a heritage asset of high significance. Other Grade II listed buildings are located within the 200m-radius study area, include Riverside School (HEA 4), and 48 Farncombe Street (HEA 25). These are heritage assets of high significance.
7.4.53
Statement of significance: buried heritage assets on the site

Introduction 7.4.54 The following section discusses past impacts on the site which are likely to have compromised asset survival (generally from late 19th and 20th century developments, eg, building foundations or quarrying), identified primarily from historic maps, the site walkover survey, and information on the likely depth of deposits. In accordance with PPS5, this is followed by a statement on the likely potential for and significance of buried heritage assets within the site, derived from current understanding of the baseline conditions, past impacts, and professional judgement. Factors Affecting Survival 7.4.56 Archaeological survival across the site is likely to be variable. It is generally likely to be moderate to high in the foreshore area in the northern part of the site, in particular for waterlogged remains. Remains within and beneath the foreshore silts and at the alluvial/gravel interface are potentially largely intact. Based on the number of finds from the foreshore, there is no evidence of modern capital dredging (this will be confirmed following examination of Port of London Authority records for the EIA). The extent of past and current fluvial erosion has yet to be established, but it is possible that scouring action due to the dynamic nature of the site within the intertidal zone, along with erosion from passing river traffic, will have affected archaeological deposits and/or structures. The survival of features on the foreshore, as noted by the earlier surveys, suggests that the level of erosion has been relatively low.
7.4.55
Page 73
The construction of the existing wharf would have entailed considerable ground disturbance, with the insertion of piled foundations. These will have locally removed any archaeological remains from within the pile footprints and will probably have caused disturbance of soft alluvial deposits around each pile. Within the southern part of the site survival potential is likely to be mixed. The former post-medieval buildings and later construction of Chambers Wharf buildings from the 19th-century onwards would have locally removed archaeological remains within the footprint of their foundations and services to a depth of 1.01.5mbgl (possibly deeper for pad foundations of the larger buildings). The impact would depend on the depth of made ground. It is possible that foundations extended through this and will have locally removed any remains at the top of the alluvium (e.g. any later medieval and post-medieval remains), although deeper (and earlier) assets potentially survive intact beneath this truncation. Historic maps show much of the southern half of the site developed with large buildings. Those constructed after the mid 20th century are likely to have had piled foundations. Piles would have completely removed any archaeological remains within the footprint of each pile. The severity of the impact would depend on the pile size and density, which is not currently known. It is possible that only the structural (external) walls of warehouses were piled. A plan of the existing site marks two existing basements of former buildings, within the centre of the site which might have extended to 3.0mbgl. These would have removed any archaeological remains within their footprint to this depth, although deeper remains may survive beneath this truncation. Asset potential and significance The following statement of asset significance takes into account the levels of natural geology at the site and the level and nature of disturbance and truncation. Palaeo-environment The site has a high potential to contain palaeoenvironmental remains. Prehistoric peat was recorded on the site (HEA 1C). 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. This would be derived from the evidential value of such remains.
7.4.58
7.4.59
7.4.60
7.4.61
7.4.62
Page 74
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf Prehistoric 7.4.63
The site has a high potential to contain archaeological remains dating to the prehistoric period. The site was probably located within the floodplain and would have been unsuitable for settlement, but its position on the edge of a number of surrounding higher, drier gravel islands and within reach of the predictable resources of the river, would have made it attractive for other activities. Finds dating to this period have been recorded from the foreshore within the site, some of which are thought to have derived from the erosion of in situ horizons. Peat layers, which have the potential to contain prehistoric finds, were also recorded within the site. The significance of prehistoric remains, if found, is currently uncertain and depends on the nature of the remains and their preservation. Isolated finds or redeposited finds would be of low significance. There is a moderate potential for well preserved remains, such as trackways and timber structures and evidence of marshland activities, which would be of high significance. This is based on their likely archaeological and historic value in providing evidence of past environments and human activity. Roman The site has a low potential to contain archaeological remains dating to the Roman period. The site is at some distance from the known centres of Roman settlement, around Southwark, and was located in intertidal marshes. Roman cremation burials have been recorded close by, 100m to the east of the site, and individual finds have been recorded in the study area. These indicate activity in the area and the river bank may have been used for riverside activities. Any Roman remains present are likely to be of low significance and comprise isolated redeposited artefacts, but more extensive remains, boats or cremations would be of high significance, if present. This is based on their likely archaeological and historic value in providing evidence of past environments and human activity. Early medieval The site has a low potential to contain early medieval remains. Evidence is limited to timber potentially associated with land reclamation. The northern part of site lay within the River Thames, and the southern part probably on reclaimed marshland throughout this period. The site is unlikely to have been suitable for habitation and may have been too marshy for much activity. Remains associated with river use, such as fish traps would be of medium significance, depending on the nature and extent of the remains. This is derived from the evidential and historical value of such remains. Later medieval The site has a high potential to contain later medieval remains. The site is likely to have been drained during this period and later medieval remains have been found within the site. These included evidence of fish traps and land reclamation. As the site lay at the riverbank, it is likely that the area was busy in terms of river traffic, and it is possible that wrecked boats, jetty structures, or artefacts survive within the site. Remains
7.4.64
7.4.65
7.4.66
Page 75
associated with river use (revetments, fish traps etc) would be of medium significance, depending on the nature and extent of the remains. The significance would be derived from the evidential and historical value of the remains. Post-medieval 7.4.67 The site has a high potential to contain archaeological remains dating to the post-medieval period. Historic maps indicate that the site was a focus of river frontage industry from at least the 17th century onwards. The southern part of the site was densely occupied with residential buildings, and later wharfs. Remains of any of these structures may be encountered on the site. Remains of post-medieval buildings and river front industry would be of low or medium significance, depending on the nature, extent and survival of the remains. This is based on their likely evidential and historic value.
Summary of asset significance

7.4.68 7.4.69 The table below provides a summary of the known or likely historic environment assets at the site. Further assets may also be added following the site visit, should any potential assets be observed. Vol 22 Table 7.4.1 Historic receptors (assets) and significance (value) Receptor (Asset) Possible remains of crane rails and other riverside elements within the site (to be confirmed following site visit) St Saviours Dock Conservation Area Wilson Grove Conservation Area Asset Type Above ground/within the site Significance (value) Negligible
Above High ground/outside the site Above High ground/outside the site Above High ground/outside the site Above High ground/outside the site Above High ground/outside the site
King Edward III Rotherhithe Conservation Area Grade II listed buildings within the study area Remains of a medieval moated manor (scheduled monument) within King Edward III Rotherhithe Conservation Area
Page 76
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf Receptor (Asset) High potential for Palaeoenvironmental remains High potential for isolated prehistoric finds Moderate potential for prehistoric trackways or other structures Low potential for isolated, redeposited Roman remains Low potential for evidence of Roman boats, riverfront structures and cremations Low potential for early medieval fishtraps High potential for evidence of later medieval land reclamation and riverside activity. High potential for buried remains from the 17th century onwards, including the footings of previous houses and wharf buildings on the site, associated with foreshore industries Low potential for unknown, unidentified, heritage assets, including those assets not yet identified through foreshore survey
Section 7: Historic environment Asset Type Buried / within the site Buried / within the site Buried/ within the site Buried/within the site Buried / within the site Buried / within the site Buried / within the site Buried / within the site Significance (value) Low or medium Low High Low High (unlikely) Medium Medium
Low or medium
Buried / within the site
Not known (low to high)
7.5
Construction assessment Above ground heritage assets

Within the site
7.5.1
The construction effects on any built heritage assets within the site will be assessed for the EIA, following the site walkover survey, including the foreshore area. 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
7.5.2
Page 77
presented in Section 11, as it is based on criteria specific to the historic environment. The study area for assessing setting effects on heritage assets may be revised because historic setting effects are most likely to occur within the visual envelope of the site, which may differ from the study area defined for the purposes of the current assessment. 7.5.3 The effects of other construction phase activities on particularly significant assets (i.e. statutorily designated/protected features) on or adjacent to the site, will also be assessed in the ongoing EIA for presentation in the ES. Construction impacts which may affect the setting of such assets might include vibration from piling, dust and disturbance from the movement of heavy goods vehicles.
Buried heritage assets

7.5.4 The following section describes the effects predicted from the enabling and construction works. Where the construction works would take place in an area already affected by enabling works, the overall effect on the heritage resource from both phases of works is summarised Vol 22 Table 7.5.1 in order to ensure effects are not double-counted. Site establishment 7.5.5 The predicted impact of each element of the enabling works is set out below. The proposal and magnitude of impact is described initially, with the resulting effects on the various buried heritage assets discussed at the end of the section. Enabling works which would impact on potential archaeological remains include the following: a. The existing structure in the southwest of the site (electrical equipment storage building) and the mound of building demolition waste in the southeast will be removed. There are two known basements on the site, remaining from previous (presumably modern) structures, which will also be removed. Considering the likely maximum depth of the excavations to facilitate removal of these structures, (which will already have removed archaeological remains to an assumed depth of 3.0mbgl), this would have a localised impact on any surviving 17thcentury and later remains in the southern part of the site, of low to medium asset significance. This would locally reduce the significance of the asset to negligible and constitute a low magnitude of impact. Considering the localised nature of the impact, this would result in a minor adverse effect. b. The construction of the works compound is likely to entail preliminary site stripping, assumed for the purposes of this assessment to extend to a depth of up to approximately 0.2mbgl. Any additional site fencing which is required would be erected, supported by timber posts in concrete foundations. Office, welfare facilities, site power and storage spaces will be constructed upon pad foundations to a depth assumed for the purposes of this assessment to be approximately 1,0mbgl. Such works would have a localised impact on any surviving 17thcentury and later remains in the southern part of the site (low to medium asset significance). This would locally reduce the significance
Page 78
of the asset to negligible and constitute a low magnitude of impact. This would result in a minor adverse effect. c. The existing jetty (concrete deck and piling) would be removed and a temporary coffer dam constructed on the foreshore using sheet piles. 1m of foreshore deposits would be removed during the construction in order to provide a firm foundation for the structures above. This would locally remove any archaeological remains within the footprint of the coffer dam and up to 1mbgl on the foreshore. This would reduce the significance of the remains to negligible and constitute a high magnitude of impact for these assets. The effect would vary depending upon the significance of the assets removed: i There is a high potential for palaeoenvironmental remains of low to medium asset significance. The localised removal of such remains would result in a minor adverse effect. There is a high potential for redeposited prehistoric artefacts of low asset significance. The removal of such remains would result in a minor adverse effect. There is a moderate potential for prehistoric trackways or other structures, of high asset significance. The removal of such remains would result in a major adverse effect. There is a low potential for isolated, residual Roman remains of low asset significance. The removal of such remains would result in a minor adverse effect. There is a low potential for Roman remains of boats, riverfront structures and cremations, which would be of high asset significance. The removal of such remains, if present, would result in a major adverse effect. There is low potential for early medieval fishtraps, of medium asset significance. The removal of such remains would result in a moderate adverse effect.
ii
iii
iv
vi
vii There is a high potential for evidence of later medieval land reclamation, river walls and revetments, of medium asset significance. The removal of such remains would result in a moderate adverse effect. viii There is a high potential for post-medieval waterfront features of low to medium asset significance. The removal of such remains would result in a minor or moderate adverse effect for assets of low or medium asset significance respectively. d. Dewatering could potentially have a wider impact upon any organic remains in the vicinity which are not removed by the construction or enabling works. By changing their environment, dewatering could cause nearby organic remains to decay and reduce their significance to negligible. This would result in a high magnitude of impact, but the effect would depend on the nature of the assets removed and would be the same as that described in 7.5.5 above.
Page 79
e. The site establishment works would require erection of hoarding supported by posts and the diversion of existing services on the river bank in the northeastern part of the site. The depth of the new service trenches would extend to 1.02.0mbgl (as assumed for the purposes of this assessment). Where these foundations and service diversions are located on the existing landward side of the current river wall, they would locally truncate remains of post-medieval buildings of low asset significance, reducing the asset significance to negligible within the affected area. This would comprise a low magnitude of impact, given the localised nature of the impact. This would result in a minor adverse effect. Construction works 7.5.6 Construction works with potential to impact on historic environment assets comprise the following: a. The shaft and diaphragm shaft perimeter wall and inner and outer guide walls. b. The air management and other underground structures. c. The 1.5mbgl foundations for the control kiosk and other above ground structures.
d. Construction of a crane base, including a concrete foundation within guide walls. 7.5.7 The construction works would entirely remove any archaeological remains within the footprint of the shaft. Within the footprint of the air management and other underground structures and foundations for above ground structures, any archaeological remains present above the formation level of the works would be removed, reducing the significance of any affected assets present 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. These assets could include those detailed in 7.5.5c above. The ventilation structure and ventilation duct leading from the CSO drop shaft would truncate or entirely remove archaeological remains from within their footprints, depending on the depth of alluvium/gravels in this part of the site. The significance of any assets would be reduced to negligible, constituting a high magnitude of impact. The environmental effect would vary depending upon the significance of the assets removed. These assets could include those detailed in 7.5.5c above. The tunnels would have no impact on archaeological remains as they would be bored beneath the existing foreshore at a level too deep to have any archaeological impact.
7.5.8
7.5.9
Significance of Environmental Effect

7.5.10 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.
Page 80
This is the effect prior to the implementation of an agreed mitigation strategy. Vol 22 Table 7.5.1 Historic environment construction effects Asset (resource) Setting of above ground assets within the study area High potential for palaeoenvironmental remains (Low or medium asset significance) High potential for isolated prehistoric finds (Low asset significance) Moderate potential for prehistoric trackways or other structures (High asset significance) Low potential for isolated, redeposited Roman remains Low potential for evidence of Roman boats, riverfront structures and cremations (High asset significance) Low potential for early medieval fishtraps (Medium asset significance) High potential for evidence of later medieval land reclamation and riverside activity (Medium asset significance) High potential for buried remains from the 17th century onwards, including the footings of previous houses and wharf buildings on the site, associated with foreshore industries. (Low or medium asset significance) High Removal by temporary coffer dam, shaft and other deep constructions. Impact (magnitude, and justification) To be assessed in the ES High Localised removal by shaft, temporary coffer dam and other deep constructions High Removal by temporary coffer dam, shaft and other deep constructions. Effect (prior to mitigation) To be assessed in the ES Minor adverse
Minor adverse
Major adverse
Minor adverse Major adverse (unlikely)
Moderate adverse (unlikely) Moderate adverse
High Removal by site strip, existing building removal, coffer dam, shaft, foundations and deep constructions
Minor or moderate adverse
Page 81
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf Asset (resource) Setting of above ground assets within the study area Low potential for unknown, unidentified, heritage assets (including those assets which have not yet been identified through foreshore survey). (Uncertain asset significance)
Section 7: Historic environment Impact (magnitude, and justification) To be assessed in the ES High Removal by temporary coffer dam, shaft and other deep constructions Effect (prior to mitigation) To be assessed in the ES Unknown (minor to major adverse)
7.6
7.6.1
Operational assessment Above ground heritage assets

The above ground heritage assets within the site have not yet been assessed, as a foreshore survey has not been carried out. Following a foreshore survey of the site, the impact of the project upon the historic appreciation, character and integrity of the assets within the site will be assessed in the ongoing EIA for presentation in the ES. The effect of the project upon the historic setting of designated/protected heritage assets within the study area requires further consideration and will be assessed through the ongoing EIA for presentation in the ES. This assessment is distinct from the assessment of effects on townscape character areas presented in Section 11, as it is based on criteria specific to the historic environment. The study area for assessing setting effects on heritage assets may be revised because historic setting effects are most likely to occur within the visual envelope of the site, which may differ from the study area defined for the purposes of the current assessment.
7.6.2

7.6.3 It is possible that as a result of the new foreshore structure and new river wall, the fluvial regime of the river would change resulting in different scouring patterns. This could potentially result erosion or deposition of the foreshore and channel areas. The predicted impact of changes in the fluvial regime on any archaeological remains on the foreshore will be assessed following the completion of hydrological modelling. This will be presented in the ES.
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.
Page 82
Vol 22 Table 7.6.1 Historic environment operational effects Asset (resource) Setting of St. Saviours Dock Conservation Area Setting of Wilson Grove Conservation Area Setting of King Edward III Rotherhithe Conservation Area 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 To be assessed in the ES To be assessed in the ES
To be assessed in the ES To be assessed in the ES
Setting of Grade II listed To be assessed in the ES buildings within the study area Setting of the medieval moated manor within King Edward III Rotherhithe Conservation Area Buried heritage assets in foreshore To be assessed in the ES
To be assessed in the ES
To be assessed in the ES
7.7
Approach to mitigation Construction Above ground heritage assets
7.7.1
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.

7.7.2 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 potential effects on buried heritage assets resulting from ground works. Mitigation requirements
7.7.3
Page 83
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 in advance of construction. 7.7.4 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 demolition and construction to mitigate the impacts on any 19th century remains, of low asset significance, on the landward side of the river wall. b. Archaeological survey and excavation of the foreshore, within the footprints of the proposed temporary cofferdam, in order to mitigate the effects on the river side of the existing river wall. The precise approach to survey and excavation will depend on the detailed construction methodology. c. Due to the depth of alluvium on the site, mitigation of the impacts of deeper proposed excavations on palaeoenvironmental and prehistoric remains would only become feasible following the insertion of the perimeter walls/shaft segments of each structure. Targeted archaeological investigation would proceed as the ground within the perimeter walls/shaft segments is excavated downwards.
7.7.5
Both evaluation and mitigation would be carried out in accordance with a scope of works (Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI)). The WSI will be agreed with statutory consultees prior to conducting any archaeological fieldwork prior to or during construction, to ensure that the scope and method of fieldwork are appropriate to satisfy requirements of the Development Consent Order.
Operation
Above ground heritage assets 7.7.6 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. Buried heritage assets 7.7.7 Any mitigation which may be required for buried heritage assets will be detailed in the final ES.
Page 84
7.8
Assessment summary
Construction
Significance of effect To be assessed in the ES Minor adverse Environmental sampling during archaeological investigation Negligible To be identified in the ES Mitigation Residual effect To be assessed in the ES
Vol 22 Table 7.8.1 Historic environment assessment summary - construction
Asset (receptor)
Setting of above ground assets within the study area
High potential for palaeoenvironmental remains (Low or medium asset significance) Minor adverse
High potential for isolated prehistoric finds (Low asset significance) Major adverse
Archaeological excavation and Negligible recording to form preservation by record Archaeological excavation and Negligible recording to form preservation by record Archaeological excavation and Negligible recording to form preservation by record Archaeological excavation and Negligible recording to form preservation by record Archaeological excavation and Negligible recording to form preservation
Moderate potential for prehistoric trackways or other structures (High asset significance) Minor adverse
Low potential for isolated, residual Roman finds (Low asset significance) Major adverse (unlikely)
Low potential for evidence of Roman boats, riverfront structures and cremations (High asset significance) Moderate adverse (unlikely)
Low potential for early medieval fishtraps
Page 85
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf Significance of effect To be assessed in the ES by record Moderate adverse Archaeological excavation and Negligible recording to form preservation by record Watching brief during site preparation and archaeological excavation and recording to form preservation by record Negligible To be identified in the ES To be assessed in the ES Mitigation Residual effect
Asset (receptor)
Setting of above ground assets within the study area (Medium asset significance)
High potential for evidence of later medieval land reclamation and riverside activity (Medium asset significance) Minor or moderate adverse
High potential for buried remains from the 17th century onwards, including the footings of previous houses and wharf buildings on the site, associated with foreshore industries. (Low or medium asset significance) Unknown
Low potential for unknown, unidentified, heritage assets. (Uncertain asset significance)
Archaeological excavation and Negligible recording to form preservation by record
Page 86
Operation
Significance of effect Mitigation To be assessed in the ES To be assessed in the ES To be assessed in the ES To be assessed in the ES To be assessed in the ES To be identified in the ES To be identified in the ES To be identified in the ES To be identified in the ES To be identified in the ES Residual effect To be assessed in the ES To be assessed in the ES To be assessed in the ES To be assessed in the ES To be assessed in the ES
Vol 22 Table 7.8.2 Historic environment assessment summary - operational
Asset (receptor)
St. Saviours Dock Conservation Area
Wilson Grove Conservation Area
King Edward III Rotherhithe Conservation Area
Setting of Grade II listed buildings within the study area
Setting of the medieval moated manor within King Edward III Rotherhithe Conservation Area
Page 87
7.9
7.9.1
In terms of desk-based sources, the following outstanding information will be collated for the EIA baseline: a. Port of London Authority (PLA) data on wrecks and obstructions within the River Thames channel and foreshore (these may be of an archaeological nature), along with any information on past dredging (which will have removed any heritage assets). The full extent and nature of the data held by the PLA (and an appropriate area for which data can be obtained) on past dredging and information on wrecks and obstructions in the Thames channel which might be additional to the UK Hydrographic Office data (already obtained) is currently under discussion with the PLA. b. The results of geoarchaeological monitoring of geotechnical boreholes (clarifying depth and nature of deposits); c. Information on existing hydrological regimes of the River Thames (establishing where there is existing scouring or deposition).
d. A site walkover survey of the site, including the foreshore area at low tide. 7.9.2 The following information will also inform the final assessment: a. Potential ground settlement at the site. Possible effects of ground settlement resulting from deep constructions within the site, other than the tunnel itself (this will be discussed in Volume 6: project-wide effects) will be considered in the EIA and reported in the ES. b. Potential change to the hydrological regimes of the River Thames (increase in scour erosion or deposition). c. 7.9.3 Additional assets identified in the site walkover survey. The assessment of indirect construction and operational effects upon the historic setting of surrounding designated/protected heritage assets within the study area requires further consideration and will be completed for the ES. This assessment is distinct from the assessment of effects on townscape character areas presented in Section 11, as it is based on criteria specific to the historic environment. The study area for assessing setting effects on heritage assets may be revised because historic setting effects are most likely to occur within the visual envelope of the site, which may differ from the study area defined for the purposes of the current assessment. Assessment of cumulative and in combination effects will be undertaken and reported in the ES. Following completion of the assessment, the mitigation approaches for the historic environment within the project will be finalised and reported in the ES.
7.9.4 7.9.5
Page 88
Section 8: Land quality
8 8.1
8.1.1 8.1.2
Land quality Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant land quality effects at the Chambers Wharf site. This section should be read in conjunction with Section 13 (Groundwater), Section 14 (Surface Water), Section 5 (Aquatic Ecology) and Section 6 (Terrestrial Ecology).
8.2
8.2.1
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to land quality are as follows: a. A slurry TBM will be driven to Abbey Mills. An EPB TBM will be received from Kirtling Street. In addition a slurry TBM will be received from Greenwich for the Greenwich Long connection tunnel. b. The base of the main shaft is within the Chalk so dewatering and/or ground treatment will be required within the Lambeth Group/ Thanet Sands/ Chalk. c. A temporary works cofferdam will to be constructed for enhanced working areas and to form a river wharf for use of the river for materials in and out.
8.2.2 8.2.3
The plan shown in Vol 22 Figure 3.1.1 to Vol 22 Figure 3.1.5 provides an indicative extent and layout of the construction site. On completion the permanent works area will be graded and surfaced with concrete and paving and incorporated into the proposed surrounding residential development. Construction workers involved in intensive below ground works are high sensitivity receptors. Measures incorporated into the draft CoCP which aim to substantially reduce risks associated with construction activities include: a. the remediation of the site so it is fit for purpose (where required) b. the use of appropriate PPE as well as training and welfare for construction staff c. confined space working measures where applicable d. the employment of UXO specialist advice.
8.2.4
8.2.5
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 89
8.3
8.3.1 8.3.2

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

8.3.3 8.3.4 The construction and operational phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. There are site specific variations for this site.

8.3.5 The assumptions and limitations associated with this study are presented in volume 5. There are no site specific assumptions and limitations for the site.
8.4
8.4.1
Baseline conditions
Baseline conditions have been assessed for the development confines and for a distance of up to 250m beyond (in order to take into account off site contamination sources and receptors). The baseline data has been collected including historic maps and environmental records. A full list of the data sets drawn upon in this assessment is presented in Volume 5 methodology. In addition information has been sourced from a walkover survey, stakeholder consultation and results from a preliminary intrusive ground investigation.
8.4.2
Site Walkover
8.4.3 A site walkover of the site was undertaken on 25 May 2011 and a site walkover report is presented in Appendix C.
Site history and surroundings with potential for contaminants

8.4.4 The table below provides a summary of the site history, including potentially contaminative activities and principal contaminants of concern in and around the site. The table was produced following inspection of the historic mapping dating from the late 19th century to the present day held by the project, together with a site walkover. Items in the table are also show in Vol 22 Figure 8.4.1. Vol 22 Figure 8.4.1 Land quality contaminative land uses (see Volume 22 Figures document)
8.4.5
Page 90
Vol 22 Table 8.4.1 Land quality contaminative land uses Ref Item Inferred date of operation c1878 - recent Potentially contaminative substances associated with item
On-site 1 Granaries/ Wharf (including electrical substation) Heavy metals, arsenic, asbestos, phenols, oil/fuels, hydrocarbons, PAHs, PCBs, sulphide, sulphate, chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons Heavy metals, arsenic, boron, sulphate, phenol, acetone, aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs, cresols. Heavy metals, PAHs Heavy metals, arsenic, asbestos, phenols, oil/fuels, hydrocarbons, PCBs, PAHs, sulphide, sulphate, chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons Benzene, glycols, chlorinated hydrocarbons. Ammonia, hydrogen chloride. Heavy metals, arsenic, asbestos, phenols, oil/fuels, hydrocarbons, PAHs, PCBs, sulphide, sulphate, chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons Oils, PCBs Oil/fuel hydrocarbons, aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, organolead compounds, heavy metals and asbestos. Oils, PCBs Heavy metals, arsenic, boron, sulphate, phenol, acetone, aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs, cresols. Use unknown Heavy metals, nitrates, sulphates,
Off-site 2 Timber yard (115m west) Brass foundry (50 south west) Dock (8m east) c1878
3 4
c1878 c1950
Medicinal manufactory c1950 (35m south) Wharves (closest 60m east and 30m west) c1978 recent
7 8
Electrical substation (100m east) Depot (75m east)
c1971c1986 c1986
9 10
Electrical substation (165m south east) Saw mills (100m east)
c1971c1986 c1950c1969 c1971c1986 c1950
11 12
Warehouse (125m west) Jam factory (125m
Page 91
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf Ref Item Inferred date of operation c1950c1969 c1971c1986 c1968 c1950c1969 c1971c1986 c1950c1969
Section 8: Land quality Potentially contaminative substances associated with item sulphides, asbestos, hydrocarbons, Oils, PCBs Hydrocarbons (oils and greases) associated with machinery. Use unknown Heavy metals, arsenic, nitrates, sulphates, sulphides, asbestos, solvents, TPH, PAH Oils, PCBs Heavy metals, arsenic, boron, nitrates, sulphates, sulphides, asbestos, aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs, PCBs, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons Use unknown
west) 13 14 15 16 17 18 Electrical substation (20m east) Flour mill (165m west) Warehouse (225m east) Factory (185m west) Electrical substation (200m south west) Engineering works (210m south west)
19
Warehouse (195m east)
c1968
8.4.6
The historic maps show a channel with wharves along the south bank of the River Thames. Chambers Wharf and the immediate wharves to the east consisted of granaries until 1978. Following use as a grain store it is understood the site was used for cold storage and then as a data centre. In summary the historical mapping has identified one site use that may give rise to potential contamination. The 250m search radius has also identified areas of previous industrial activities in close proximity to the site and other surrounding areas. This includes a dock immediately east of the site boundary, a medicine factory to the south and a flour mill to the west. A former vehicle repair garage is also understood to have recently operated on the south side of Chambers Road. It is unlikely that the activities in the surrounding area have significantly affected the soils in the location of the proposed construction site. However, contamination from the docks located adjacent to the site may have impacted the soils beneath the site. Geology and hydrogeology Data from British Geological Survey together with logs from boreholes excavated as part of previous investigations of the site indicate the geological succession as summarised in Vol 22 Table 8.4.2. Controlled waters (i.e. 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)
8.4.7 8.4.8
8.4.9
8.4.10
8.4.11
Page 92
Aquifer Designation maps have been used to classify the geological units according to their aquifer status which is also presented in the table below. 8.4.12 The site is classified by the Environment Agency as not being within a SPZ for groundwater that is extracted for potable supply. Vol 22 Table 8.4.2 Land quality anticipated site geology Geological Unit/ Strata Made ground Alluvium/Peat Very soft silt to silty clay River Terrace Deposits Generally very sandy gravel with sandy clay pockets, becoming more clayey with depth. Very firm to stiff silty clay Slightly sandy clay. 4.0-8.0 Description Variable Approximate depth below ground level (m) 0.0-1.0 1.0-4.0 Hydrogeological classification None Secondary A Superficial Aquifer Secondary A Superficial Aquifer Unproductive strata Unproductive strata Secondary A Bedrock Aquifer
London Clay Formation Harwich Formation
8.0-10.50 10.50-12.50
Lambeth Group
Very stiff fissured silty clay with bivalve shells and dense glauconitic sands with rounded black pebbles.
12.50-29.00
Thanet Sand Formation
Generally dense glauconitic silty fine sand with occasional rounded flint gravel.
29.00-41.50
Secondary A Bedrock Aquifer
Chalk Group
Weak fine grained limestone with nodular and tabular flints.
41.50unproven
Principal Bedrock Aquifer
Unexploded ordnance 8.4.13 During World Wars I and II, the London area was subject to bombing. In some cases bombs failed to detonate on impact. During construction works unexploded ordnance or bombs (UXO) are sometimes encountered and require safe disposal.
Page 93
A desk based assessment for unexploded ordnance (UXO) threat is to be undertaken. In the meantime it has been assumed that there will be some risk from UXO associated with the proposed construction at the site. Ground investigation As part of the ongoing ground investigations, information from a nearby borehole (SR2034) located in the River Thames in the vicinity of the preferred site was reviewed to provide preliminary information on the quality of the river sediments. No sediment data was available for the other nearby boreholes. Vol 22 Figure 8.4.2 provides an overview of the existing and proposed borehole locations. Data from the ongoing ground investigation programme will be incorporated in the ES assessment of land quality. A single sample of granular soils retrieved from 1.5m below the base of the river bed in borehole SR2034 was analysed for range of metal and PAH contaminants and the results compared against the Threshold Effect Levels (TEL) and Probable Effect Levels (PEL). The results of the analysis as summarised in the table below shows that four contaminants were recorded as having levels above the TEL, namely arsenic, copper and lead. No results were recorded as having contaminant values above PEL. Vol 22 Figure 8.4.2 Land quality - proposed borehole locations (see Volume 22 Figures document) Vol 22 Table 8.4.3 Land quality shallow soil/sediment data for borehole SR2034 Contaminant Concentration of contaminant (mg/kg) Arsenic 8.9 Copper Lead 48 40 Threshold Effect Level (mg/kg) 7.24 18.7 30.2
8.4.15
8.4.16
8.4.17
8.4.18
The testing shows some slightly elevated levels of metals of the river bed sediments, however it is possible that greater contamination exists in the shallower sediments closer to the foreshore site and the location of previous potentially contaminating sources/ outflows. At the time of writing, there has been no soil gas testing undertaken within the immediate vicinity of the site. However, it can also be reasonably expected that may be some minor elevated carbon dioxide/methane soil gas levels associated with the organic rich horizons within the shallow alluvial sediments. Other ground investigations A phased investigation of the Chambers Wharf site was undertaken by Clarke Bond in December 2008. The report presents the findings of an
8.4.19
8.4.20
Page 94
intrusive ground investigation covering the site and includes a desk study phase from which an initial site conceptual model has been generated. 8.4.21 The desk study highlights that the site has been used for granaries and latterly warehousing and a vehicle repair centre. It is understood that a buried fuel tank was present on the south side of Chambers Street where it may be associated with vehicle repair garage. The initial site conceptual model assess the site to have substantial risks from on-site historic activities including possible contamination by fuels, oils, VOCs, PAH, BTEX, MTBE as well as from heavy metals in the made ground. A lesser significant risk is attributed to off-site current and historical industrial activities. The intrusive phase of investigation comprised 13 cable percussion boreholes, 10 trial pits and nine window sampler boreholes. 31 soil samples (mostly comprising made ground) were tested for a range of common metal and semi-metal contaminants. Some elevated levels of lead and to a lesser extent arsenic were found in comparison with the screening values that were used. The values recorded are typical of made ground soils in older urban areas. 19 and 27 samples of soil were tested for TPH and PAH respectively. No widespread TPH contamination was found. Moderate PAHs were recorded in the samples that were tested. Three soil samples were tested for VOCs. No significantly elevated concentrations of these compounds were recorded. On the basis of the reviewed report, the soils tested at the site may be regarded as fairly typical of those in older urban environments. No gross soils contamination was found. The report details that seven groundwater samples were analysed for a suite of determinants, although it is unclear which samples were tested. Elevated TPH recorded up to 1.8mg/l was found by the analysis. Very marginally elevated PAH concentrations were also recorded by the analysis. No VOC or SVOC testing was undertaken. It is assumed that the testing represents only one round of sampling and analysis. Groundwater testing shows levels of metals, TPH and PAHs that may be regarded as typical of the shallow aquifer in the London area Other environmental records 8.4.31 Details of environmental records for the vicinity of the site held by the Environment Agency and other bodies were obtained from the Thames Tunnel GIS which is partially sourced from Landmark Information Group. Significant records are discussed in further detail after the summary table below. Items in the table below are also shown in Vol 22 Figure 8.4.3. Vol 22 Figure 8.4.3 Land quality - environmental records and waste sites (see Volume 22 Figures document)
8.4.22
8.4.23 8.4.24
8.4.25
8.4.26 8.4.27
8.4.28 8.4.29
8.4.30
8.4.32
Page 95
Vol 22 Table 8.4.4 Land quality environmental records and waste sites On-site Hazardous substance sites Pollution incidents to controlled water Waste treatment and disposal sites Landfill sites 0 0 0 0 Within 250m of site boundary 0 5 0 0 1 1
Local Authority Pollution 0 Prevention and Control Past potential contaminated land uses 8.4.33 2
Within a 250m radius of the site, inspection of the GIS mapping has identified five pollution incidents to controlled water. Four of these are located within the river and the third is located adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site. One incident is associated with a major impact to the river from oils and fuels. It is unclear what the other two entries relate to, but neither is considered to have impacts upon the terrestrial Chambers Wharf site. There may have been minor localised impacts to sediments depending upon the tides. In addition there are three areas of past potential contaminative uses recorded along the southern bank of the river (entries on the north side of the river have been discounted owing to the presence of the River). Inspection of the GIS mapping also identified one LA pollution prevention and control area, located 250m southeast of the site. This location is not of concern due to its distance from the site. Technical engagement The London Borough of Southwark was consulted with respect to land quality information for this area, although to date no information has been provided.
8.4.34
8.4.35
8.4.36
8.5
8.5.1 8.5.2
Assessment year: construction For land quality, the assessment is based on the likely baseline conditions which will be experienced in year one of construction. It is anticipated that land quality baseline conditions will not alter significantly from those described above by the commencement of the construction.
Page 96
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 5. The following section outlines the sources, pathways and receptors which are relevant to the land quality assessment at the site. Sources of contamination 8.5.6 8.5.7 The following sources of contamination have been identified: On site a. b. c. d. e. 8.5.8 a. 8.5.9 Historic shallow contamination of foreshore sediments associated with nearby historic activities Historic contamination of the site from previous wharf and substation usage Potentially elevated land gas within the alluvium/ shallow organic rich sediments. Naturally occurring sulphate within the London Clay Formation. Possible unexploded ordnance. No viable contamination sources.
8.5.4 8.5.5
Off site Pathways The following pathways for contamination have been identified: a. human uptake through: ingestion of exposed contaminated soils during construction; inhalation of soil/dust, volatilised compounds or ground gas via migration through permeable strata and conduits; or dermal contact with exposed soils during construction; horizontal and vertical migration of leachable contaminants via groundwater within the alluvium and River Terrace Deposits and lower aquifer; vertical migration of contaminants along preferential pathways created by excavation of diaphragm wall; mobilisation of contaminants in river water through disturbance of contaminated river bed sediments; direct runoff into the River Thames; direct contact of soils with construction materials; gas/vapour migration through pipes/foundations and into structures; and accidental detonation of UXO during ground investigation or construction activities.
b. c.
d. e. f. g. h. i.
Page 97
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf Receptors 8.5.10
The following receptors for contamination have been identified: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. Construction workers Site end users (maintenance staff and public) Off site receptors - residents and workers Built environment Controlled waters - surface water Controlled waters - groundwater in shallow aquifer Aquatic ecology.
8.5.11 8.5.12
The sensitivity of the land quality receptors are defined in Vol 5 Table 7.4.2. The following section discusses the potential impacts on receptors as a result of the existing land quality conditions at the site. Impacts and effects upon construction workers Desk based information suggests that the soils at the site may be locally contaminated and thus are may pose a risk to construction workers via direct contact pathways (such as inhalation, dermal contact and ingestion). There is also the low potential for the build-up of asphyxiant or potentially explosive gases associated with confined space construction. Overall the magnitude of the impact is likely to be negligible, giving a slight effect (not significant). Impacts and effects upon off-site receptors The construction works could result in the creation of new pathways for contaminants to migrate to adjacent sites e.g. via wind-borne dust during excavated material handling and storage. Whilst the sensitivity of adjacent commercial and residential sites is high, the impact will be negligible giving a slight effect (not significant). Impacts and effects upon built environment High levels of certain contaminants, if contained within subsurface materials, can lead to impacts on the built environment (both existing and proposed), including chemical attack on buried concrete structures. Additionally detonation of potential unidentified buried UXO could represent a risk during construction. The built environment is a low sensitivity receptor and following the proposed design procedures such as site investigation, UXO surveys and remediation, the magnitude of impact is considered to be negligible, giving a negligible effect (not significant). Vol 22 Table 8.5.1 Land quality impact magnitudes - construction Impact Health impacts to construction workers Magnitude, and justification Negligible measures such as use of correct PPE, safety briefings and remediation of contaminated soils
8.5.13
8.5.14
8.5.15
8.5.16
8.5.17
Page 98
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf Impact Health impacts to off-site receptorsresidents and workers
Section 8: Land quality Magnitude, and justification reduce impacts substantially. Negligible measures for dust suppression, correct storage of potentially contaminated materials, wheel washing at site entrance will substantially reduce impacts in the event of finding contamination. Negligible - measures such as UXO specialists employed to advise staff reduce impacts substantially. Negligible - design measures such investigation for selection of concrete mix reduce impacts.
Damage to built environment existing structures Damage to built environment proposed structures
Vol 22 Table 8.5.2 Land quality receptor values/sensitivities construction Receptor Construction workers Off-site receptors residents and workers Built environment - existing Built environment - proposed Value/sensitivity and justification High intensive below ground construction High residential properties close Low no buildings Low infrastructure
Vol 22 Table 8.5.3 Land quality significance of effects -construction Effect Slight effect on off-site receptors Negligible effect on built environment - existing Negligible effect on built environment - proposed Significance, and justification Not significant Not significant Not significant
Slight effect on construction workers Not significant
8.6
8.6.1
In the absence of appropriate measures, operational effects could include potential exposure to end users from contaminated soils and leakage of sewage from the shaft into the surrounding soils. Impacts and effects on future site users The future site users include maintenance workers, who would be working on the site occasionally, and members of the public who would be able to access the completed hardstanding above the shaft. These are low (e.g.
8.6.2
Page 99
maintenance workers visiting the site occasionally and wearing personal protection equipment) to high sensitivity receptors (e.g. members of the public). 8.6.3 There is minor potential for maintenance personnel to be impacted by elevated ground gases. The completed shaft is designed to have ventilation and odour control measures integrated as part of the design. Shaft design (including secondary lining) would ensure that any outflow from the shaft is unlikely and that there is a negligible impact to the identified receptors giving a negligible effect (not significant). Impacts and effects upon built environment 8.6.5 The principal impact relates to the potential for the degradation of new structures by attack from deleterious substances which may in turn reduce the integrity of the structure (and could promote leakage of sewage through the walls of the shaft). The built environment is a low sensitivity receptor and, with the inclusion of the proposed design measures and soil remediation (as necessary), the impact of the effect is low giving a negligible effect overall (not significant). In addition it is possible that elevated gases may be able to impact proposed above ground structures. These are limited and design measures, such as site investigation, gas risk assessment and the incorporation of measures into building design (such as gas resistant membranes if necessary), mean the magnitude of impact is negligible. This gives a negligible effect (not significant). Vol 22 Table 8.6.1 Land quality impact magnitudes - operation Impact Health impacts to site end users Magnitude, and justification Negligible to slight design measures such as remediation of heavily contaminated soils and provision of capping layers as appropriate Negligible - design measures such as incorporation of gas membranes in buildings and suitable concrete mix design reduce impacts Negligible - design measures such as remediation of heavily contaminated soils reduce risks substantially.
8.6.4
8.6.6
8.6.7
Damage to built environment proposed structures
Damage to built environment existing structures
Vol 22 Table 8.6.2 Land quality receptor values/sensitivities operation Receptor Site end users Value/sensitivity and justification Low to high primarily industrial/infrastructure end use,
Page 100
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf Receptor
Section 8: Land quality Value/sensitivity and justification however, members of the public will be able to access the above ground element of the completed works. Low industrial/infrastructure Low industrial/infrastructure
Built environment proposed structures Built environment existing structures
Vol 22 Table 8.6.3 Land quality significance of effects - operation Effect Negligible effect on end users Negligible effect on built environment - existing Negligible effect on built environment proposed Significance, and justification Not significant Not significant Not significant
8.7
8.7.1
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 101
8.8
Vol 10 Table 8.8.1 Land quality construction assessment Significance Not significant Not required Not required Not required Not required Not significant Not significant Not significant Mitigation Residual significance No residual effects identified No residual effects identified No residual effects identified No residual effects identified
Assessment summary
Receptor Construction workers
Effect Slight effect on construction workers
Off-site receptors residents and workers
Slight effect on off-site receptors
Built environment existing
Negligible effect on built environment - existing
Built environment proposed
Negligible effect on built environment - proposed
Vol 10 Table 8.8.2 Land quality operational assessment Significance Not significant Not significant Not significant Mitigation Not required Not required Not required Residual significance No residual effects identified No residual effects identified No residual effects identified
Receptor Site end users
Effect Negligible effect on end users
Slight effect on built environment - existing
Slight effect on built environment - proposed
Page 102
8.9
8.9.1 8.9.2 8.9.3 8.9.4
New data from site investigations (including new boreholes and foreshore samplings) 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 103
Section 9: Noise and vibration
9 9.1
9.1.1 9.1.2
Noise and vibration Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant noise and vibration effects at the Chambers Wharf site. This section includes an assessment of the following: a. Noise and vibration from the construction site activities. b. Noise from construction traffic on roads outside the site. c. Noise and vibration from the operation of the site. d. Noise and vibration from the underground tunnelling activities associated with the main tunnel are considered in (Volume 6).
9.2
9.2.1
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to noise and vibration are as follows. Construction Measures incorporated into the draft CoCP to reduce noise and vibration impacts include: a. careful selection of construction plant (conforming to the relevant SI), construction methods and programming b. equipment to be suitably sited so as to minimise noise impact on sensitive receptors c. use of site enclosures, and temporary stockpiles, where practicable and necessary, to provide acoustic screening
9.2.2
d. choice of routes and programming for the transportation of construction materials, excavated material and personnel to and from the site e. careful programming so that activities which may generate significant noise are planned with regard to local occupants and sensitive receptors. 9.2.3 9.2.4 It has been assumed for the purpose of this assessment that the hoarding height 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
9.2.5
Page 104
b. Foreshore works ( including construction of temporary cofferdam and associated structures) c. Shaft sinking d. Main tunnel drive (main activities enclosed by a noise enclosure) e. Secondary lining f. 9.2.6 9.2.7 Completion work (including construction of new river wall, landscaping, construction and fit-out of permanent facility).
The above-ground works (activities a-c and e-f) have the potential to create airborne noise and vibration impacts. During stages d and e, a noise enclosure would be installed over the shaft and gantry crane area to control noise from these activities. The final design of the enclosure is yet to be determined. However, for the purpose of this assessment the noise insulation performance of the enclosure has been estimated based on typical cladding material for this type of structure with consideration for ventilation and other openings. Activities b to f have the potential to generate groundborne noise and vibration impacts, namely from vibratory compaction and breaking out (and tunnel boring activities in the case of activity d). Silent piling methods are assumed at this location. This is considered to be a low vibration method, and has not been quantitatively assessed as it is considered no significant construction vibration effects would arise from these activities. Construction plant information for activity f is not available at this stage of the design so these works have not been assessed as part of the current assessment. However, these activities are assumed to be much smaller in scale than the rest of the works and it is assumed they would not involve heavy construction operations. The phase two consultation logistics strategy considers the delivery and removal of 90% of cofferdam fill material and the removal of 90% of tunnel excavated material by river barge with all other materials transported by road. Construction road traffic would use the main strategic road network (A200) via Chambers Street and Bevington Street to transport materials and equipment to and from the site. Estimated vehicle and barge movement numbers are presented in Section 3. The enabling, cofferdam and shaft construction and completion activities will, as far as practicable, be undertaken during standard (core) hours as identified in Vol 22 Table 3.3.1. There may be a requirement for extended hours to complete major concrete pours, however it is assumed that these events would be limited in duration. They may be required a number of times throughout the entire construction programme, but only periodically, such that receptors would not be exposed to continuous noise from this activity. Given the short term nature of this process it has not been included within this assessment. The tunnel drive and secondary lining activities have been identified as requiring 24-hour working.
9.2.8
9.2.9
9.2.10
9.2.11
9.2.12
Page 105
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf 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 has the potential to create noise and vibration impacts.
9.3
9.3.1
Scoping and engagement Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. There were no site specific comments from consultees for this particular site in relation to noise and vibration. Baseline The baseline methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site. Construction The construction phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. Any site specific variations are described below. At this location, the construction activities have been assessed over the period of six years. Baseline noise levels have not yet been measured, and as such the assessment has been carried out based on all residential receptors being in the most sensitive assessment category according to BS5228:2009 35. For non-residential receptors, comparison has been made to the daytime noise levels reported from road traffic in the DEFRA London Noise Maps 36. Although night-time working would take place during extended and 24 hour working for particular construction activities (see 9.2.11 and 9.2.12), this would not affect users of the non-residential receptors, hence the assessment in this case has only been made for the standard (core) working hours. The noise level has been assumed to be the lowest value in the reported range (with a facade correction). The noise levels reported in this document are indicative of the noise climate, however they are not intended to be used to indicate noise levels at a specific receptor. These noise levels will be updated with the measured data during the ES. Operation The operational phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.
9.3.2
9.3.3
9.3.4 9.3.5
9.3.6
9.3.7

9.3.8 The assessment of noise from construction activities is not based on the measured ambient noise levels, as baseline data is at present unavailable. A programme of baseline measurements is currently in progress and data
Page 106
will be collected in line with the methodology in Volume 5. The ES will make use of this data to forecast the change in noise levels. The assessment has been based on the worst case scenario for residences, where all residences fall into the most sensitive category. 9.3.9 Noise-related environmental design measures have been assumed as defined in the CoCP. Those of relevance to noise and vibration are listed in Section 9.2 above. It has also been assumed that silent piling techniques would be employed at this site. 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 stages within any one activity could potentially occur onsite simultaneously for the duration of the activity. This is an extremely conservative approach, as the activities are unlikely to last the duration of any one stage. At the current level of construction planning, this is considered a reasonable assumption and would be refined as the construction methodology develops.
9.3.10
9.3.11
9.4
9.4.1 9.4.2 9.4.3
Baseline conditions
This section reviews the setting and receptor characteristics of the site for the purposes of this assessment. Residential premises are located to the east, west and south of the proposed site, as well as to the north on the opposite bank of the Thames. To the east, the nearest residential premises are numbers 8 to 14 Fountain Green Square, 210-212 Bermondsey Wall East and 1 to 13 Bevington Street (odd numbers only). To the south is one of the blocks which make up the proposed new Chambers Wharf residential development which has been included at an indicative location in the assessment. To the west is the residential block 10-28 Chambers Street. To the west are two residential blocks of flats known as Axis Court and Luna House. The residential properties selected for the noise and vibration assessment are identified in Vol 22 Table 9.4.1. These are shown in plan view in Vol 22 Figure 9.4.1 and are selected to be representative of the range of noise climates where sensitive receivers are situated around the site. The approximate numbers of properties affected at each of these locations is indicated in Vol 22 Table 9.4.1. Beyond these receptors there are other residential locations which are screened from the site by intervening buildings. Vol 22 Figure 9.4.1 Noise and vibration closest residential receptors (see Volume 22 Figures document)
9.4.4
9.4.5
The closest non-residential noise sensitive receptor which has been assessed is St Michaels Catholic College to the south of the site. It is noted that there are other schools in the vicinity of the site but St Michaels
Page 107
is the closest and therefore the noise assessment at this receptor offers a worst case scenario at this stage of the assessment. 9.4.6 The current noise climate on site is dominated by road traffic noise.
Receptor Sensitivity
9.4.7 The noise sensitive receptors have been assessed according to their sensitivity, using the methodology outlined in Volume 5 Section 2.3. The sensitivities of all assessed receptors are presented in the table below. All residential receptors have been assessed as having a high sensitivity. The only non-residential receptor assessed at this location is St Michaels Catholic College which has been assigned a medium sensitivity. Vol 22 Table 9.4.1 Noise and vibration receptors and sensitivities Ref Receptor addresses Building Use Sensitivity No. of noise sensitive properties /areas 47 59 18 1 Unknown at present 7 12 7 50
9.4.8
CW01 CW02 CW03 CW04 CW05 CW06 CW07 CW08
Luna House Axis Court 10-28 Chambers Street St Michaels Catholic College Chambers Wharf (South) (proposed development) 1-13 Bevington Street 210-212 Bermondsey Wall East 8-14 Fountain Green Square 35 Wapping High Street (north bank of the River Thames)
Residential High Residential High Residential High School Medium
Residential High Residential High Residential High Residential High Residential High
CW09 9.4.9
The criteria for determining the significance of noise effects from construction sources are dependent upon the existing ambient noise levels. As measured ambient noise levels are not currently available the lowest assessment category has been assumed for all receptors and the assessment noise threshold levels for the receptors near Chambers Wharf 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 BS5228:2009.
Page 108
Vol 22 Table 9.4.2 Noise (airborne) receptors - construction Ref Noise sensitive receptor Ambient noise level, rounded to nearest 5dBLAeq2 Assessment category1 Significance criterion threshold level1 Day, dBLAeq,
10hour
Night, dBLAeq
1hour
CW01 CW02 CW03 CW04 CW05 CW06 CW07
Luna House Axis Court 10-28 Chambers Street St Michaels Catholic College Chambers Wharf (new development) 1-13 Bevington Street 210-212 Bermondsey Wall East 8-14 Fountain Green Square 35 Wapping High Street
A A A n/a3 A A A
65 65 65 n/a3 65 65 65
45 45 45 n/a3 45 45 45
CW08 CW09
1 2
3
A A
65 65
45 45
From ABC method BS5228:2009
Baseline measurement data not available for the PEIR Construction effects
ABC method BS5228:2009 does not apply directly to non-residential receptors
9.5
9.5.1 9.5.2

Noise levels for the base case assessment are expected to be as assumed for the baseline noise levels for 2011. Where there is a variation in the conditions in 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.
9.5.3
Page 109
The development case is therefore assumed to be the base case plus any additional noise and vibration sources associated with the construction phase. As has previously been discussed, an additional residential receptor to the south of the site has been consented and is likely to be occupied during the construction process. As such, the development case has included this receptor in addition to those already existing.
9.5.5
9.5.6 Predictions of construction noise have been carried out based on information available to date and presented in Section 3. Noise measures incorporated in the CoCP have been assumed for the purposes of the assessment. Construction noise 9.5.7 The results of the assessment of construction noise are presented in Vol 22 Table 9.5.1 to Vol 22 Table 9.5.9. Luna House 9.5.8 9.5.9 Luna House is a six storey residential block of flats containing approximately 47 dwellings. The assessment predicts that the construction noise levels are greater than the assumed impact criterion proposed for the upper floor levels and therefore a significant impact is identified. It should be noted that this assessment is based upon an assumed worstcase assessment significance criterion threshold as measurement of the ambient noise level at this location are yet to be completed. The current ambient noise level at the receptor may be such that the impact threshold would be increased and the reassessment may result in the effect being redetermined as not significant. Vol 22 Table 9.5.1 Noise impacts at CW01 Luna House Receptor No. of noise sensitive properties 47 Construction Noise level, dBLAeq Significance criterion threshold level, dBLAeq Value/sensitivity
9.5.10
Luna House Activity
High Magnitude/ justification Excess above criterion, dBLAeq Approx. activity duration, months 3 6
Ground Floor Enabling Works Cofferdam 57 55 65 65
Page 110
Section 9: Noise and vibration No. of noise sensitive properties 47 Construction Noise level, dBLAeq Significance criterion threshold level, dBLAeq Value/sensitivity
Luna House Activity
High Magnitude/ justification Excess above criterion, dBLAeq Approx. activity duration, months 12 24 24 9 9 +2 +4 3 6 12 24 24 9 9
Shaft Sinking Main Tunnel Drive (day) Main Tunnel Drive (night) Secondary Lining (day) Secondary Lining (night) 6th Floor1 Enabling Works Cofferdam Shaft Sinking Main Tunnel Drive (day) Main Tunnel Drive (night) Secondary Lining (day) Secondary Lining (night)
1
59 27 27 26 26 67 65 69 37 37 36 36
65 65 45 65 45 65 65 65 65 45 65 45
Worst case floors assessed not necessarily the highest floor level.
Axis Court 9.5.11 9.5.12 Axis Court is a seven storey residential property containing approximately 59 dwellings. The assessment predicts that the construction noise levels would be greater than the assumed impact criterion proposed predominantly at the upper floor levels and therefore a significant impact is identified. It should be noted that this assessment is based upon an assumed worstcase assessment significance criterion threshold as measurements of the ambient noise level at this location are yet to be completed. The current ambient noise level at the receptor may be such that the impact threshold would be increased and the reassessment may result in the effect being redetermined as not significant.
9.5.13
Page 111
Vol 22 Table 9.5.2 Noise impacts at CW02 Axis Court Receptor No. of noise sensitive properties 59 Construction Noise level, dBLAeq Significance criterion threshold level, dBLAeq Value/sensitivity
Axis Court Activity
High Magnitude/ justification Excess above criterion, dBLAeq +5 Approx. activity duration, months 3 6 12 24 24 9 9 +15 +4 3 6 12 24 24 9 9
Ground Floor Enabling Works Cofferdam Shaft Sinking Main Tunnel Drive (day) Main Tunnel Drive (night) Secondary Lining (day) Secondary Lining (night) 7th Floor1 Enabling Works Cofferdam Shaft Sinking Main Tunnel Drive (day) Main Tunnel Drive (night) Secondary Lining (day) Secondary Lining (night)
1
70 50 59 26 26 26 26 80 60 69 36 36 36 36
65 65 65 65 45 65 45 65 65 65 65 45 65 45
10-28 Chambers Street 9.5.14 9.5.15 10-28 Chambers Street is a five storey residential property containing approximately 18 dwellings. The assessment predicts that the construction noise levels would be greater than the assumed impact criterion proposed predominantly at the upper floor levels and therefore a significant impact is identified. It should be noted that this assessment is based upon an assumed worstcase assessment significance criterion threshold as measurement of the ambient noise level at this location are yet to be completed. The current ambient noise level at the receptor may be such that the impact threshold
9.5.16
Page 112
would be increased and the reassessment may result in the effect being redetermined as not significant. Vol 22 Table 9.5.3 Noise impacts at CW03 10-28 Chambers Street Receptor No. of noise sensitive properties 18 Construction Noise level, dBLAeq Significance criterion threshold level, dBLAeq Value/sensitivity
10-28 Chambers Street Activity
1
66 47 58 24 24 23 23 76 57 68 24 24 23 23
65 65 65 65 45 65 45 65 65 65 65 45 65 45
Chambers Wharf (South) 9.5.17 Chambers Wharf (South) includes a planned new development to the south of Chambers Street, which is due for completion before the commencement of construction at this location. The development will include residential properties and will be at least five storeys high. The assessment predicts that the construction noise levels would be greater than the assumed impact criterion proposed predominantly at the upper floor levels and therefore a significant impact is identified.
9.5.18
Page 113
It should be noted that this assessment is based upon an assumed worstcase assessment significance criterion threshold as measurement of the ambient noise level at this location are yet to be completed. The current ambient noise level at the receptor may be such that the impact threshold would be increased and the reassessment may result in the effect being redetermined as not significant. Vol 22 Table 9.5.4 Noise impacts at CW05 10-28 Chambers Wharf (South) Receptor No. of noise sensitive properties Unknown at present Construction Noise level, dBLAeq Significance criterion threshold level, dBLAeq Value/sensitivity
Chambers Wharf (South) Activity
High Magnitude/ justification Excess above criterion, dBLAeq Approx. activity duration, months 3 6 12 24 24 9 9 +6 +7 3 6 12 24 24 9 9
Ground Floor Enabling Works Cofferdam Shaft Sinking Main Tunnel Drive (Day) Main Tunnel Drive (night) Secondary Lining (day) Secondary Lining (Night) 5th Floor1 Enabling Works Cofferdam Shaft Sinking Main Tunnel Drive (Day) Main Tunnel Drive (night) Secondary Lining (day) Secondary Lining (Night)
1
61 46 62 26 26 20 20 71 56 72 26 26 20 20
65 65 65 65 45 65 45 65 65 65 65 45 65 45
1-13 Bevington Street 9.5.20 1-13 Bevington Street are two storey residences, the receptor location is representative of seven properties.
Page 114
The assessment predicts that the construction noise levels greater than the assumed impact criterion proposed predominantly at the upper floor levels and therefore a significant impact is identified. It should be noted that this assessment is based upon an assumed worstcase assessment significance criterion threshold as measurement of the ambient noise level at this location are yet to be completed. The current ambient noise level at the receptor may be such that the impact threshold would be increased and the reassessment may result in the effect being redetermined as not significant. Vol 22 Table 9.5.5 Noise impacts at CW06 1-13 Bevington Street Receptor No. of noise sensitive properties 7 Construction Noise level, dBLAeq Significance criterion threshold level, dBLAeq Value/sensitivity
9.5.22
1-13 Bevington Street Activity
Ground Floor Enabling Works Cofferdam Shaft Sinking Main Tunnel Drive (day) Main Tunnel Drive (night) Secondary Lining (day) Secondary Lining (night) 2nd Floor Enabling Works Cofferdam Shaft Sinking Main Tunnel Drive (day) Main Tunnel Drive (night) Secondary Lining (day) Secondary Lining (night) 70 48 64 26 26 22 22 80 58 74 26 26 22 22 65 65 65 65 45 65 45 65 65 65 65 45 65 45
Page 115
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf 210-212 Bermondsey Wall East 9.5.23 9.5.24
210-212 Bermondsey Wall East are three storey residences, the receptor location is representative of 12 properties. The assessment predicts that the construction noise levels greater than the assumed impact criterion proposed predominantly at the upper floor levels and therefore a significant impact is identified. It should be noted that this assessment is based upon an assumed worstcase assessment significance criterion threshold as measurement of the ambient noise level at this location are yet to be completed. The current ambient noise level at the receptor may be such that the impact threshold would be increased and the reassessment may result in the effect being redetermined as not significant. Vol 22 Table 9.5.6 Noise impacts at CW07 210-212 Bermondsey Wall East Receptor No. of noise sensitive properties 12 Significance criterion threshold level, dBLAeq Value/sensitivity
9.5.25
210-212 Bermondsey Wall East Activity Construction Noise level, dBLAeq
High Magnitude/ justification Excess above criterion, dBLAeq +8 +5 Approx. activity duration, months 3 6 12 24 24 9 9 +18 +15 3 6 12 24 24 9
Ground Floor Enabling Works Cofferdam Shaft Sinking Main Tunnel Drive (day) Main Tunnel Drive (night) Secondary Lining (day) Secondary Lining (night) 3rd Floor1 Enabling Works Cofferdam Shaft Sinking Main Tunnel Drive (day) Main Tunnel Drive (night) Secondary Lining (day) 73 52 70 31 31 28 28 83 62 80 31 31 28 65 65 65 65 45 65 45 65 65 65 65 45 65
Page 116
Section 9: Noise and vibration No. of noise sensitive properties 12 Significance criterion threshold level, dBLAeq Value/sensitivity
210-212 Bermondsey Wall East Activity Construction Noise level, dBLAeq
High Magnitude/ justification Excess above criterion, dBLAeq Approx. activity duration, months 9
Secondary Lining (night)

1
28
45
8-14 Fountain Green Square 9.5.26 9.5.27 8-14 Fountain Green Square are three storey residences, the receptor location is representative of 7 properties. The assessment predicts that the construction noise levels would be greater than the assumed impact criterion proposed predominantly at the upper floor levels and therefore a significant impact is identified. It should be noted that this assessment is based upon an assumed worstcase assessment significance criterion threshold as measurement of the ambient noise level at this location are yet to be completed. The current ambient noise level at the receptor may be such that the impact threshold would be increased and the reassessment may result in the effect being redetermined as not significant. Vol 22 Table 9.5.7 Noise impacts at CW08 8-14 Fountain Green Square Receptor No. of noise sensitive properties 7 Construction Noise level, dBLAeq Significance criterion threshold level, dBLAeq Value/sensitivity
9.5.28
8-14 Fountain Green Square Activity
High Magnitude/ justification Excess above criterion, dBLAeq +1 +9 Approx. activity duration, months 3 6 12 24
Ground Floor Enabling Works Cofferdam Shaft Sinking Main Tunnel Drive (day) 66 55 74 35 65 65 65 65
Page 117
Section 9: Noise and vibration No. of noise sensitive properties 7 Construction Noise level, dBLAeq Significance criterion threshold level, dBLAeq Value/sensitivity
8-14 Fountain Green Square Activity
High Magnitude/ justification Excess above criterion, dBLAeq Approx. activity duration, months 24 9 9 +11 +19 3 6 12 24 24 9 9
Main Tunnel Drive (night) Secondary Lining (day) Secondary Lining (night) 3rd Floor1 Enabling Works Cofferdam Shaft Sinking Main Tunnel Drive (day) Main Tunnel Drive (night) Secondary Lining (day) Secondary Lining (night)
1
35 32 32 76 65 84 35 35 32 32
45 65 45 65 65 65 65 45 65 45
35 Wapping High Road 9.5.29 9.5.30 35 Wapping High Street are seven storey residences, the receptor location is representative of approximately 50 properties. The assessment predicts that the construction noise levels would not be greater than the assumed impact criterion proposed and hence a significant impact is not identified. It should be noted that this assessment is based upon an assumed worstcase assessment significance criterion threshold as measurement of the ambient noise level at this location are yet to be completed. The current ambient noise level at the receptor may be such that the impact threshold would be increased and the reassessment may result in the effect being redetermined as not significant.
9.5.31
Page 118
Vol 22 Table 9.5.8 Noise impacts at CW09 35 Wapping High Street Receptor No. of noise sensitive properties 50 Construction Noise level, dBLAeq Significance criterion threshold level, dBLAeq Value/sensitivity
35 Wapping High Street Activity
High Magnitude/ justification Excess above criterion, dBLAeq Approx. activity duration, months 3 6 12 24 24 9 9 3 6 12 24 24 9 9
1
50 43 52 15 15 10 10 55 48 57 15 15 10 10
65 65 65 65 45 65 45 65 65 65 65 45 65 45
St Michaels Catholic College 9.5.32 St Michaels Catholic College is made up of a number of buildings the closest to the construction site is a two storey structure. It should be noted that the specified assessment method does not apply directly to nonresidential receptors; hence impact has been evaluated based on the absolute noise level during the daytime and the predicted noise level relative to the ambient noise as indicated by the London Noise Maps. Given the non-residential nature of the receptor and the construction noise level and duration, it is not considered that this will cause excessive disturbance. The largest noise increase would occur for the enabling works although this is for a relatively short period of three months.
Page 119
Vol 22 Table 9.5.9 Noise impacts at CW04, St Michaels Catholic College Receptor St Michaels Catholic College Activity Construction noise level, dBLAeq 65 46 59 24 Assumed ambient1 baseline dBLAeq <55 <55 <55 <55 No. of noise sensitive properties 1 Value/ sensitivity Medium Magnitude/ justification
Enabling Works Cofferdam Shaft Sinking Main Tunnel Drive Secondary Lining
2
>10dB increase relative to assumed average baseline ambient level No increase relative to assumed average baseline ambient level >4dB increase relative to assumed average baseline ambient level No increase relative to assumed average baseline ambient level No increase relative to assumed average baseline ambient level
22
<55
Assumed ambient level from Defra Noise Maps for London
Construction traffic 9.5.33 For construction traffic, noise from the barges would be of limited duration and would arise from tug boat engines and moving materials. At this stage of the assessment, it is therefore considered that the increase in noise level would create a slight impact; however this would be assessed in greater detail in the ES once further information is available. For road traffic, the routes around the site all carry heavy traffic flows. The noise impact associated with the small proportionate increase in HGV traffic is therefore likely to be low in magnitude. As discussed above this is a qualitative assessment made in the absence of traffic data and would be assessed in more detail in the ES. Based on professional judgement and given the anticipated traffic flows on Chambers Road and Bevington Road, it is considered unlikely that effects on properties on these roads would be significant. However, this will be assessed in greater detail in the ES once traffic survey data and baseline noise data is available. Construction vibration 9.5.36 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
9.5.34
9.5.35
9.5.37
Page 120
Velocity (PPV), the results from the assessment are presented in Vol 22 Table 9.5.10. Vol 22 Table 9.5.10 Vibration impacts (buildings / structures)construction Ref Receptor Impact (highest predicted PPV across all activities, mm/s) 1.0 Value/ sensitivity Magnitude and justification
CW01
Luna House
High
No impact: Below threshold for potential cosmetic damage No impact: Below threshold for potential cosmetic damage No impact: Below threshold for potential cosmetic 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 damage No impact: Below threshold for potential cosmetic damage
CW02
Axis Court
0.5
High
CW03
10-28 Chambers Street St Michaels Catholic College Chambers Wharf (South) (new development) 1-13 Bevington Street 210-212 Bermondsey Wall East 8-14 Fountain Green Square 35 Wapping High Street
0.3
High
CW04
0.2
Medium
CW05
0.2
High
CW06
0.4
High
CW07
1.0
High
CW08
1.0
High
CW09
9.5.38
No impact: Below threshold for potential cosmetic damage At all residential receptors, the distance of the construction works from the receptor is larger than the range of validity for the method. In practice, the levels of vibration would be lower than these levels.
0.1
High
Page 121
The assessment of potential construction vibration impacts due to human response at neighbouring receptor has been assessed using the predicted Vibration Dose Value (VDV), the results from the assessment are presented in Vol 22 Table 9.5.11. Vol 22 Table 9.5.11 Vibration impacts (human) - construction
Ref
Receptor
Impact (highest predicted VDV across all activities, m/s1.75) 0.10
Value/ sensitivity
Magnitude and justification
CW01
Luna House
High
No impact: Below the low probability of adverse comment No impact: Below the low probability of adverse comment No impact: Below the low probability of adverse comment No impact: Below the low probability of adverse comment No impact: Below the low probability of adverse comment No impact: Below the low probability of adverse comment No impact: Below the low probability of adverse comment No impact: Below the low probability of adverse comment No impact:
CW02
Axis Court
0.05
High
CW03
10-28 Chambers Street
0.02
High
CW04
0.02
Medium
CW05
Chambers Wharf (South) (new development) 1-13 Bevington Street
0.02
High
CW06
0.04
High
CW07
210-212 Bermondsey Wall East 8-14 Fountain Green Square
0.1
High
CW08
0.1
High
CW09
35 Wapping High
0.0
High
Page 122
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf Ref Receptor Impact (highest predicted VDV across all activities, m/s1.75)
Section 9: Noise and vibration Value/ sensitivity Magnitude and justification
Street
Below the low probability of adverse comment
Summary of construction effects 9.5.40 Vol 22 Table 9.5.12 outlines the assessed significance of effects from all sources of noise and vibration based on the extent of impacts identified above. As described in the general methodology Volume 5 Section 2, the significance of noise effects is based on the predicted impact and other factors, ie the total noise level relative to the significance threshold, the 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 22 Table 9.5.12 Noise and vibration construction effects Ref CW01 CW02 CW03 CW04 CW05 CW06 CW07 CW08 CW09 Luna House Axis Court 10-28 Chambers Street St Michaels Catholic College Chambers Wharf (South) (new development) 1-13 Bevington Street 210-212 Bermondsey Wall East 8-14 Fountain Green Square 35 Wapping High Street Receptor Significance, and justification Noise Significant Significant Significant Not significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Vibration Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant
9.5.41
9.6
9.6.1
Operational assessment Operational base and development cases

As discussed in Section 9.5.1, there is likely to be only a small variation in baseline noise levels between 2011and the future base case year. The noise levels assumed in 2011 are therefore likely to form the basis of a conservative assessment, as road traffic noise levels would increase along with traffic increases.
Page 123
For vibration, no change is assumed between the present time and future base case.
Operational effects
9.6.3 Noise control measures would be included on all plant items as part of the design process to limit noise increases to within appropriate noise limits to avoid disturbance. These limits will help inform the ongoing design of the project, will be relative to the existing background noise levels at each receptor using the methodology in BS4142:1997 37 and will be established in negotiation with the local authority to ensure the limits proposed are acceptable and achievable. Discussions with the local authority are ongoing and will be presented in the ES. It is not possible to quantify the overall change in noise level until this process is complete. However, it is considered that it will be possible to control noise emissions to within appropriate noise limits defined by the local authority to prevent significant effects. Vol 22 Table 9.6.1 contains a summary of the assessment results for operational noise. Vol 22 Table 9.6.1 Airborne noise impact magnitudes -operation Ref CW01 Receptor Luna House Value/ Magnitude and sensitivity justification Noise level controlled High Change in ambient to prevent adverse subject to local impact as per authority limits BS4142 Noise level controlled to prevent adverse impact as per BS4142 Noise level controlled to prevent adverse impact as per BS4142 High Change in ambient subject to local authority limits Change in ambient subject to local authority limits no adverse impacts Change in ambient subject to local authority limits no adverse impacts Change in ambient subject to local authority limits no adverse impacts Change in ambient subject to local authority limits no adverse impacts Impact
9.6.4
CW02
Axis Court
CW03
High
CW04
Noise level controlled St Michaels Catholic College to prevent adverse impact as per BS4142 Chambers Wharf (South) (new development) 1-13 Bevington Street Noise level controlled to prevent adverse impact as per BS4142 Noise level controlled to prevent adverse impact as per BS4142
Medium
CW05
High
CW06
High
Page 124
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf Ref CW07 Receptor 210-212 Bermondsey Wall East 8-14 Fountain Green Square Impact 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
Section 9: Noise and vibration Value/ Magnitude and sensitivity justification High Change in ambient subject to local authority limits no adverse impacts High Change in ambient subject to local authority limits no adverse impacts Change in ambient subject to local authority limits no adverse impacts
CW08
CW09
35 Wapping High Street
High
9.6.5
As part of the operation of the tunnel, there would need to be routine but infrequent maintenance carried out at the site. This is described further in Section 3. A crane would be required for 10 yearly shaft inspections. This would be carried out during normal working hours, using equipment which is likely to increase ambient noise levels. Given the infrequency of this operation, it is considered that a significant noise effect would not occur. Routine inspections, lasting approximately half a day, would occur every three to six months and would not require heavy plant. As this would be carried out during the daytime with minimal noisy equipment operating over short periods of time, it is considered that further assessment of noise generated by this activity is not required. As no impacts have been identified from the operation of the site, no significant effects have been identified. Vol 22 Table 9.6.2 Noise and vibration operational effects
9.6.6
9.6.7
9.6.8
Ref
Receptor
Significance, and justification Noise from surface site ventilation plant Noise from maintenance operations. Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant
CW01 CW02 CW03 CW04 CW05 CW06 CW07
Luna House Axis Court 10-28 Chambers Street St Michaels Catholic College Chambers Wharf (South) (new development) 1-13 Bevington Street 210-212 Bermondsey Wall East
Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant
Page 125
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf Ref Receptor
Section 9: Noise and vibration Significance, and justification Noise from surface site ventilation plant Noise from maintenance operations. Not significant Not significant
CW08 CW09 9.6.9
8-14 Fountain Green Square 35 Wapping High Street
Not significant Not significant
At this location, no significant effects are predicted at any of the receptors. This is subject to the equipment being specified with appropriate noise control measures to ensure that the targets in BS4142 are met as outlined in Volume 5, Section 2.
9.7
9.7.1 9.7.2

All measures embedded in the draft CoCP of relevance to noise and vibration are found in section 9.2. Significant effects as a result of construction noise have been identified at a number of receptors. This is based on a worst case assessment where the two noisiest activities in any stage happen concurrently and over the entire duration of the stage. This is a conservative approach considered appropriate for the level of information provided at the PEIR and will be refined once further information is available at the ES stage. The buildings affected are all more than two stories high, and close to the site, and as such the standard site hoarding only provides screening to the ground floor of the properties. For all properties with significant noise effects, the hoarding height would need to be extremely high to reduce the noise levels at these properties. It is likely that hoarding at a height to provide effective screening would not be practicable. All stages of works assessed as having the potential to give rise to likely significant effects (enabling works and shaft sinking) would require additional mitigation, if practicable, to supplement the best practicable means (BPM) environmental design measures assumed for all sites. The quantitative assessment has assumed only general BPM measures, as far as it is possible to incorporate these in the noise prediction exercise. These include site boundary screening, careful selection of modern construction plant, and positioning of equipment. To address significant effects, specific solutions will be developed as appropriate to provide additional mitigation targeted on those noise sources generating the highest noise levels at the relevant receptor. For example, within this more detailed mitigation design, the use of localised screens and customised enclosures around the item of plant or the process would be considered. For the purposes of the PEIR and at this stage of the design, site specific additional mitigation beyond BPM measures has not been identified in the assessment. However, when the
9.7.3
9.7.4
9.7.5
Page 126
potential mitigation options for the illustrative project can be confirmed, this will be presented in the ES.
Operational
9.7.6 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.
9.7.7
Page 127
9.8
Significance Significant Mitigation to be reported in the ES None required Mitigation to be reported in the ES None required Mitigation to be reported in the ES None required None required None required Mitigation to be reported in the ES None required Mitigation to be reported in the ES None required Mitigation Residual significance Potentially significant (subject to mitigation options) Not significant Potentially significant (subject to mitigation options) Not significant Potentially significant (subject to mitigation options) Not significant Not significant Not significant Potentially significant (subject to mitigation options) Not significant Potentially significant (subject to mitigation options) Not significant
Assessment summary
Vol 22 Table 9.8.1 Noise and vibration assessment summary - construction
Receptor
Effect
Luna House
Noise
Vibration Significant
Not significant
Axis Court
Noise
Vibration Significant
Not significant
10-28 Chambers Street Not significant Not significant Not significant Significant
Noise
Vibration
Noise
Vibration
Chambers Wharf (South) (new development) Not significant Significant
Noise
Vibration
1-13 Bevington Street
Noise
Vibration
Not significant
Page 128
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf Significance Significant Mitigation to be reported in the ES None required Mitigation to be reported in the ES None required None required None required Not significant Potentially significant (subject to mitigation options) Not significant Not significant Not significant Potentially significant (subject to mitigation options) Mitigation Residual significance
Receptor
Effect
210-212 Bermondsey Wall East Not significant Significant
Noise
Vibration
8-14 Fountain Green Square Not significant Not significant Not significant
Noise
Vibration
Noise
Vibration
Vol 22 Table 9.8.2 Noise and vibration assessment summary - operation Effect Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Significance Mitigation None required None required None required None required None required None required None required None required None required None required Residual significance Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant
Receptor
Luna House
Noise
Vibration
Axis Court
Noise
Vibration
Noise
Vibration
St Michaels Catholic College Noise
Vibration
Chambers Wharf (South) (new development)
Noise
Vibration
Page 129
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf Effect 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 Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant None required Not significant None required Not significant Significance Mitigation Residual significance
Receptor
1-13 Bevington Street
Noise
Vibration
210-212 Bermondsey Wall East
Noise
Vibration
8-14 Fountain Green Square
Noise
Vibration
Noise
Vibration
Page 130
9.9
9.9.1
The completion of the assessment to an appropriate level of detail is subject to further information on baseline and construction ambient noise levels and road traffic counts. When the transport analysis is complete this will be assessed and any effects identified in the ES. The level of detail of this PEIR site assessment reflects the available information on methods and programme. The next stage of the assessment work will be more detailed in profiling the variation in construction noise levels across the programmes of work and the range of receptors at each surface site. As the illustrative construction methodology develops more indepth assessment work for the EIA will allow more detailed mitigation design. Following the development of more refined mitigation design as described above, it will be possible to carry out a more detailed assessment of residual effects. The effectiveness of more specific mitigation measures will be fully assessed and reported in the ES. Assessment of cumulative and in combination effects will be undertaken and reported in the ES. Following completion of the assessment the mitigation approaches for noise and vibration within the project will be finalised and reported in the ES.
9.9.2
9.9.3 9.9.4
9.9.5 9.9.6
Page 131
Section 10: Socio-economics
10 10.1
10.1.1 10.1.2
Socio-economics Introduction
This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant socio-economic effects at the Chambers Wharf site. This assessment considers construction effects only and does not include consideration of operational effects in socio-economic terms, for the following reasons: a. It is considered that the operational structures could be integrated into the landscaping of any future residential development scheme that could come forward on the site, and the above ground structures would not be likely to occupy more than 0.1 ha. On this basis they would not be likely to result in any significant take up or provision of amenity space. b. Potential air quality, noise, vibration, and visual impacts during the operational phase are likely to be relatively modest and able to be readily mitigated. As a result, they are unlikely to cause deterioration in the amenity experienced by residents or other sensitive receptors.
10.2
10.2.1
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to socio-economics are as follows. Construction Measures incorporated into the draft CoCP to limit, and in some cases eliminate, any unacceptable air quality, noise, vibration, and visual impacts could also reduce socio-economic impacts, particularly amenity impacts. See Section 4 Air Quality and Odour, Section 9 Noise and Vibration, and Section 11 Townscape and Visual within this Volume which provide detail on the type of measures that may be employed. The Thames Path and the National Cycle Route 4 (NCR4) both run adjacent to the site along Chambers Street and Loftie Street. Both the construction related activities and traffic (including lorry and barge movements) could result in amenity effects being experienced by a range of sensitive receptors in proximity to the proposed activities.
10.2.2
10.2.3
10.2.4 10.2.5
10.3
10.3.1
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 132
Vol 22 Table 10.3.1 Socio-economics stakeholder engagement Organisation Environment Agency Scoping opinion item It is considered that the use of foreshore sites is likely to lead to a number of detrimental effects in relation to flood risk management, biodiversity and recreation. The impact on the residential environment for adjoining and nearby properties needs to be scoped in. The impact on the quality and provision of open space and play areas for the local communities in the local environment needs to be scoped in. Response Consideration of the impact of the proposed development at the site on recreational facilities has been considered where appropriate.
LB Southwark
Consideration of the impact of the proposed development at the site on the residential environment has been considered. Consideration of the impact of the proposed development at the site on the quality and provision of open space and play areas for local communities has been considered as appropriate to each site.
LB Southwark
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 socio-economic effects are estimated to cover, approximately, a six year period.

10.3.4 The following socio-economic assumptions and limitations apply to the findings presented in this assessment: a. Prior to summer survey data becoming available, observations of the Thames Path and NCR4 in this location indicate it to be averagely to moderately well used. 10.3.5 Preliminary technical assessments of potential air quality, noise and vibration, and visual effects, and associated design and mitigation measures, have been undertaken by each of those topic areas (see sections 4, 9 and 11 respectively). The socio-economic assessment has
Page 133
had reference to the preliminary findings arising from these topic assessments to inform its own assessment of potential amenity effects arising during the construction phase. However, as these findings are preliminary at this stage, the sensitivity of receptors, magnitude of impact and effect significance in relation to amenity can only be assessed in outline based on the available information. For EIA purposes a more detailed assessment will be undertaken once more detailed design information is available.
10.4
10.4.1
Baseline conditions
Residential Development The western edge of the site is formed primarily by the rear of Luna House and Axis Court. Luna House fronts the river with Axis Court located to its rear, fronting East Lane. Properties to the rear of these buildings overlook this site. The eastern edge of the site is bounded by Loftie Street, and a number of properties back on to it. There are further residential developments to the southeast beyond Loftie Street. To the south, one of the blocks which would make up the proposed new Chambers Wharf residential development is included in the future base case (see section 3.5). The occupants of the dwellings in the area could be vulnerable to changes in amenity arising from the construction process as they cannot easily take steps to avoid any amenity effects that may arise. In general, 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. This consideration is relevant given the proposal for some night time working at the site in association with the tunnel excavation and tunnel secondary lining activities. Taking these factors into account, including the likelihood for continuous 24 hour working for certain activities, it is considered that the residents are likely to have a high level of sensitivity to adverse amenity impacts that may arise as a result of the construction process. See Vol 22 Figure 10.4.1 for a baseline plan which indicates the features identified above. Vol 22 Figure 10.4.1 Socio-economic context (see Volume 22 Figures document) Semi-private amenity green space at Wrayburn House
10.4.2
10.4.3
10.4.4
10.4.5
There is a small, semi-private amenity green space (as defined in LB Southwarks Open Space Study38) on the junction of Chambers Street and Bevington Street. The amenity green space is overlooked by the flats on the eastern side of Wrayburn House. This amenity green space does not have any status as a formal public open space. However, it may still provide opportunities for passive and informal active recreation, particularly for residents of Wrayburn House itself. The amenity green space is approximately 0.47 ha in size. It was
10.4.6
Page 134
not audited as part of the LB Southwark Open Space Study in 2002 or 2010. There are access points on the southern and eastern sides. 10.4.7 Taking account of the size of the space and the distance to other similar or larger sized publicly accessible open spaces (as opposed to smaller private or semi-private amenity green spaces), it is considered that the sensitivity of users of the green space to amenity impacts could be medium. See Vol 22 Figure 10.4.1 for a baseline plan which indicates the Wrayburn House green space and other nearby relevant open spaces. Local community facilities - schools 10.4.9 There are three schools within the area surrounding the site, of varying proximity. These are St Michaels Catholic College, Riverside Primary School and St Josephs RC Primary School. St. Michaels Catholic College is situated to the southwest of the site and is screened from the site by three to four storey residential flats. St Michael's College is a comprehensive college for boys and girls aged from eleven to sixteen. It has undergone major redevelopment recently including replacing the old school building and the creation of more space for sports facilities. Riverside Primary School and St Josephs RC Primary School cater for children aged three to 11 years old. St Josephs is located on Georges Row approximately 200m to the southwest of the site and Riverside is located between Bevington Street and Janeway Street to the southeast of the site. In considering the sensitivity of school users (primarily pupils and staff), there are no alternative learning spaces available other than those which the school occupies, and so pupils and staff are unable to move elsewhere to avoid any adverse amenity impacts as may arise. Children are generally considered to be more sensitive to certain amenity related impacts, particularly with regard to effects on their learning capabilities related to road traffic 39 and to effects on health arising from air pollution 40, in comparison to adults. On the other hand it is considered that the main timeframe of the pupils and employees exposure to the construction impacts would be during their arrival at and departure from the school, since most activities occur indoors. A further consideration is the hours that users of the school will be at the school sites; generally for approximately seven to nine hours per day. The respective school yard spaces are also at varying distances from the proposed construction site and would generally be used during (term-time) on weekdays at breaks and lunchtime (weather allowing), and less frequently during teaching hours for outdoor curricular activities. Taking account of the above factors, it is considered that pupils and employees of the schools could have a medium level of sensitivity to any potential adverse amenity impacts. See Vol 22 Figure 10.4.1 for a baseline plan which indicates the features identified above.
10.4.8
10.4.10
10.4.11
10.4.12
10.4.13
10.4.14
10.4.15
Page 135
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf Thames Path 10.4.16
The Thames Path in this location runs east-west connecting features such as City Hall and Shad Thames to the west with Kings Stairs Gardens and Rotherhithe to the east. A section of the path to the west runs crosses over St Savours Dock via a connection portal beneath residential apartment buildings. The following points summarise the current conditions that are relevant to the assessment of the Thames Path: a. The Thames Path in this area is routed around the site on Chambers Street and Loftie Street connecting stretches of the path to either side on Bermondsey Wall West and Bermondsey Wall East. b. There is little commercial development in the immediate vicinity and few significant tourist attractions, other than the Shad Thames area and Design Museum west of St Saviours Dock. c. Surveys will be undertaken later during 2011 to confirm the usage levels. Based on the route taken by the path away from the river, its distance from major attractions and reconnaissance visits to the site, for the purposes of this assessment it is assumed that the Thames Path in this location is averagely to moderately well used.
10.4.17
10.4.18
Pedestrians using the Thames Path are only likely to be near the site for the time that it takes them to walk past (likely to be a few minutes for most users). Therefore, the duration for which users are likely to experience amenity effects will be limited. Overall, given the short duration of time that users would be in proximity to the proposed construction site, it is considered that users of the Thames Path in this location would have a low level of sensitivity to potential amenity impacts that may arise as a result of the construction process. See Vol 22 Figure 10.4.1 for a baseline plan which indicates the features identified above. National Cycle Route 4 At this location, the NCR4 runs in parallel to the Thames Path along the road (Chambers Street and Loftie Street). It is assumed that to the west, cyclists familiar with the area and route would be likely to navigate a route around the southern end of St Saviours Dock along Jamaica Road if they wish to avoid the section of the Thames Path that leads across the pedestrian bridge at St Saviours Dock. Surveys will be undertaken later during 2011 to confirm the usage levels. For the purposes of this assessment it is assumed that the NCR4 in this location is averagely to moderately used. The NCR4 route at this point runs along the road and therefore no diversion would be required. Cyclists are likely to be in the vicinity of the site for the time that it takes them to cycle past (likely to be less than a minute for most users). Therefore, the duration for which users are likely to experience amenity effects will be very limited.
10.4.19
10.4.20
10.4.21 10.4.22
10.4.23
10.4.24
Page 136
Overall, given the short duration of time that users would be in proximity to the construction site, it is considered that users of NCR4 in this location would have a low level of sensitivity to potential amenity impacts that may arise as a result of the construction process. Vol 22 Figure 10.4.1 is a baseline plan which indicates the features identified above. Commercial Development The surrounding area is largely characterised by residential development, with very few businesses. However, the offices of Trac Group which are located in the ground floor of the Luna Building to the west of the site are considered a potential receptor. These offices overlook the River Thames. They also face onto the proposed construction site to the east, though a substantial existing hoarding provides a barrier to the site itself. Given the presence of only one business in the immediate vicinity of the site, and the location and nature of this business, it is considered that local commercial developments would have either no or very limited sensitivity to impacts that may arise as a result construction. They are not considered further within the socio-economic assessment. Summary A summary of receptors as described in the baseline and their sensitivity is provided in the table below. Vol 22 Table 10.4.1 Socio-economics receptor values/sensitivities Receptor Residents of nearby properties Value/sensitivity and justification High residents less able to avoid impacts, and while they are relatively less sensitive during the daytime, they are more sensitive during the night time. Medium limited availability of alternative publicly accessible open space in close proximity (ie, less than 400m). Medium College is relatively close to the project site although screened by residential flats; children are generally considered to be more sensitive to certain adverse amenity impacts Low assumed low usage in this section; there are already some amenity issues associated with noise and traffic along this sections of the path/cycle route; alternative routes are available.
10.4.26
10.4.27
10.4.28
10.4.29
Users of semi private amenity green space Wrayburn House Schools (pupils and employees)
Users of the Thames Path and NCR4
Page 137
10.5

Base case
10.5.1
For this site, the base case year is year 1 of the construction works. This is the year when site establishment would 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, i.e. the socio economic conditions at the site would remain the same as existing conditions, except for the consented development described in section 3.5. Development case Under the development case, it is expected that the following changes would occur: a. The construction area would be physically cordoned-off. The current jetty structure on the part of the foreshore occupied by the construction site would be demolished, and a cofferdam would be constructed extending out into the river foreshore. b. It is anticipated that there would be some modifications to the local road network to enable site vehicles to safely access the site although these have not yet been determined. At this stage the details are still under consideration and so there is insufficient information available to undertake an assessment of the potential for socio-economic-related effects in connection with this impact. This is likely to be assessed in further detail in the ES. c. Nearby residents and semi-private open space users, users of the Thames Path, the NCR4, and certain nearby community facilities may be subject to construction and construction-traffic related impacts such as air pollution, dust, noise, and/or visual disturbance. These impacts may occur individually or concurrently during the construction phase.
10.5.2
10.5.3
Effects on residential amenity 10.5.4 Air quality, noise and vibration, and visual impacts arising as a result of the proposed construction works and construction related traffic may reduce the environmental amenity experienced by residents living nearby the site. Preliminary assessments have been undertaken to examine the potential air quality, noise and vibration, and visual effects arising during the construction phase. With respect to the potential effect of the proposed works on nearby residents, the following points summarise the preliminary assessment findings of likely effect significance: a. Air quality and construction dust effects are likely to be minor adverse. Therefore, air quality and construction dust effects are likely to be significant for nearby residential receptors.
10.5.5
Page 138
b. Noise effects on residents have been measured as likely to be significant at six existing nearby residential receptors and at one proposed development receptor (a part of the Chambers Wharf development to the south, with number of noise sensitive properties still to be determined). Vibration (human response) effects are not likely to be significant at any of the residential receptors during the construction phase. c. Of the six nearby residential receptor viewpoints assessed on the southern side of the River Thames, visual effects were identified as being minor adverse at one viewpoint (viewpoint 1.7), moderate adverse at two viewpoints (viewpoints 1.4 and 1.5) and major adverse at three viewpoints (viewpoints 1.3, 1.6, and 1.8).
10.5.6
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. 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, tranquillity, the quality of a view) makes to a receptors overall experience of amenity. The assessment below also notes that the findings, as summarised from the other respective topics, do not always refer to precisely the same residential receptors in each case. For example, the findings on air pollution relate to dwellings within 10m of the proposed site, while some of the other receptors identified are further away from the site than this particularly those receptors identified for the visual impact assessment. The physical layout of the site and surrounding development means that there is little opportunity for existing buildings, structures or roadways to screen the site for those residential properties that are located adjacent to the site. The potential impacts that reduce amenity for residents at this location could last during the construction period, which at up to six years would constitute a long term impact. However, during this time, impacts are likely to rise and fall as different activities of the construction process take place. Likewise they are unlikely to be consistent for the entire duration of any given day, even during the peak of construction activity. It is noted that the environmental design measures identified in the CoCP have been accounted for in the assessments that have been summarised above, including particular measures for reducing potential amenity impacts associated with any night time working. On the basis of the above factors, it is considered that the magnitude of amenity impacts could be medium. Taking account of the medium magnitude of the impact and the high sensitivity of residents at this location, it is considered that the effect on
10.5.7
10.5.8
10.5.9
10.5.10
10.5.11
10.5.12 10.5.13
Page 139
their amenity could be major adverse and therefore significant. This is a preliminary and outline finding only at this stage and the impact will be reassessed when more detailed assessments of other topics, notably noise, have been completed. Amenity effects on semi-private amenity green space users 10.5.14 Air quality, noise and vibration, and visual impacts arising as a result of the proposed construction works and construction related traffic may reduce the environmental amenity experienced by users of the semi-private amenity green space at Wrayburn House. Assessments have been undertaken to examine the likely significant air quality, noise and vibration, and visual effects arising during the construction phase. The following points summarise the preliminary findings of the assessment: a. At this stage in the assessment no air quality and dust receptors were identified as requiring assessment at the project site in relation to users of the semi-private amenity green space. It is therefore assumed for the purposes of this assessment that it is not likely that there will be any significant effects from air quality and construction dust issues on open space users near the site. b. No noise and vibration receptors were identified as requiring assessment at the project site in relation to users of the semi-private amenity green space. It is therefore assumed for the purpose of this assessment that it is not likely that there will be any significant effects from construction noise and vibration issues on open space users near the site. c. No visual receptors were identified as requiring assessment in relation to users of the semi-private amenity green space in the immediate vicinity of the site which lies closest to the proposed development. However, it is noted that one residential viewpoint on Chambers Street, close to the northern perimeter of the semi-private open space, was identified as being likely to experience moderate adverse effects (at viewpoint 1.4). It is stressed that this viewpoint is not a recreational viewpoint. Accordingly, this result should be interpreted with caution, in terms of considering its relevance to users of the semi-private amenity green space.
10.5.15
10.5.16
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. The above findings regarding 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 a view) makes to a receptors overall experience of amenity.
10.5.17
Page 140
Most of the factors, such as the length of the impact construction phase and potential for impacts are similar to those explained above in regard to residential amenity effects. The main exception concerns the positioning and layout of the amenity green space. Due to the length and layout of the space and the relative location of the proposed construction site (located across Chambers Street to the northwest of the amenity green space), it is considered that any adverse amenity impacts would only affect a relatively small number of open space users in the northern end of the amenity green space; and that the potential for impacts would reduce further away from the proposed construction site towards the south. Given the above factors, it is considered that the overall magnitude of amenity impacts could be low. Taking account of the low magnitude of the potential impact and the medium sensitivity of semi-private amenity green space users to amenity effects, it is considered that the overall effect on users of the amenity green space could be minor adverse and therefore not significant. It is stressed that this is a preliminary and outline finding only at this stage. Amenity effects on community facilities St. Michaels Catholic College
10.5.19
10.5.20 10.5.21
10.5.22
Air quality, noise and vibration, and visual impacts arising as a result of the proposed construction and works and construction related traffic may reduce the environmental amenity experienced by students and employees of St Michaels Catholic College. Assessments have been undertaken to examine the likely significant air quality, noise and vibration, and visual effects arising during the construction phase. The following points summarise the preliminary findings of the assessment: a. Air quality and construction dust effects were considered for St Michaels Catholic College only. It was assessed that both air quality effects and construction dust effects are likely to be minor adverse at the school. Therefore, both air quality and construction dust effects are likely to be significant. b. Noise effects on pupils and staff have been measured as not likely to be significant at the one education receptor identified (St Michaels Catholic College). Vibration (human response) effects assessed as not likely to be significant at the receptor during the construction period. c. No visual receptors were identified as requiring assessment in relation to users of the school in the immediate vicinity of the site which lies closest to the proposed development.
10.5.23
10.5.24
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.
Page 141
The above findings regarding air quality, dust, noise and vibration, and visual effects have been taken into consideration in undertaking the assessment of the overall magnitude of impact for amenity impacts on nearby schools. 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. The impacts could be experienced in a similar manner to those experienced by other receptors near the site, such as residences, in terms of duration, consistency, and nature. However, St Michaels Catholic College is situated to the south of the project site across Chambers Street, but is mostly screened by three to four storey residential flats. This would limit the visual impacts in particular although the College could still be susceptible to noise and odour impacts, particularly when the outside areas of the College are used. Taking account of the above presented factors, it is considered that the overall amenity impact magnitude could be low. Taking account of the low magnitude of the potential impact and the medium sensitivity of users to adverse amenity effects, it is considered that the overall effect on users and employees at St. Michaels Catholic College could be long term minor adverse and therefore not significant. It is stressed that this is a preliminary and outline finding only at this stage. Amenity effects on Thames Path and NCR4 users Air quality, noise and vibration, and visual impacts arising as a result of the proposed construction works and construction related traffic may reduce the environmental amenity experienced by users of the Thames Path and NCR4 in this location. Assessments have been undertaken to examine the likely significant air quality, noise and vibration, and visual effects on receptors at the Thames Path. The following preliminary findings of these assessments are summarised below: a. At this stage in the assessment no air quality or construction dust receptors were identified as requiring assessment at the project site in relation to the Thames Path. It is therefore assumed for the purpose of this assessment that it is not likely that there will be any significant effects from construction air quality and dust impacts. b. At this stage in the assessment no noise and vibration receptors were identified as requiring assessment at the project site in relation to the Thames Path. It is therefore assumed for the purpose of this assessment that it is not likely that there will be any significant effects from construction air quality and dust impacts. c. There are likely to be major adverse visual effects from viewpoint 2.3 (view west from the Thames Path next to Fountain Green Square) for the duration of the construction period. It is noted that, at many of the residential receptor viewpoints along the Thames Path (viewpoints 1.3, 1.4, 1.6, 1.7, and 1.8) it was assessed that there would be a mix of
10.5.26
10.5.27
10.5.28 10.5.29
10.5.30
10.5.31
Page 142
minor, moderate and major adverse effects on the views from those residences (see paragraph 10.5.5c for further detail). It is stressed that these receptors are not recreational viewpoints and that views from the residential receptors will most likely enjoy a higher vantage point than Thames Path users. Accordingly, this assessment result should be interpreted with caution, in terms of considering its relevance to users of the Thames Path. 10.5.32 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. The above findings regarding air quality, dust, noise and vibration, and visual effects have been taken into consideration in undertaking the assessment of the overall magnitude of impact for amenity impacts on recreational receptors at the Thames Path 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. The impacts could be experienced in a similar manner to those experienced by other nearby sensitive receptors, such as residences, in terms of duration, consistency, and nature. A significant exception however to take into consideration is that users of both the Thames Path and NCR4 would only likely experience the types of impacts noted above for a short distance where the routes are adjacent/proximate to the site. Overall, taking account of the above presented factors, it is considered that the overall amenity impact magnitude could be low for users of the Thames Path and NCR. Taking into account the low magnitude of the potential impact and the low sensitivity of users of the Thames Path and NCR4 at this location, it is considered that the overall effect on users could be negligible and therefore not significant. It is stressed that this is a preliminary and outline finding only at this stage. Summary 10.5.37 The findings of the above preliminary assessments on potential construction phase socio-economic impacts and effects are summarised in the tables below.
10.5.33
10.5.34
10.5.35
10.5.36
Page 143
Vol 22 Table 10.5.1 Socio-economics construction effects Magnitude Medium minor adverse air quality and construction dust effects, significant noise effects, not significant vibration and a mix of minor, moderate and major adverse visual impacts for six viewpoints. Impact period is long term but most impacts are unlikely to occur consistently or simultaneously Low no receptors identified although noted that other nearby residential receptors are likely to experience some adverse effects. Relatively small portion of green space in close proximity to site; impacts likely to be long term but temporary and reversible. Low minor adverse air quality and construction dust effects, no significant noise, vibration or visual effects. St Michaels College mostly screened from site. Low major adverse visual effects identified. Moderate usage of the Path/NCR4 at this point; exposure limited to short distance. Significance Major adverse significant
Impact
Sensitivity
Amenity impacts on residential amenity (outline findings)
High residents less able to avoid impacts, and while they are typically less sensitive during the daytime, they are more sensitive during the night time.
Amenity impacts on semiMedium limited availability of private amenity green space alternative publicly accessible open users (outline findings) space in close proximity (ie, less than 400m).
Minor adverse not significant
Amenity impacts on community facilities schools (outline findings)
Medium College is relatively close to the project site although screened by residential flats; children are generally considered to be more sensitive to certain adverse amenity impacts
Amenity impacts on Thames Path and NCR4 users (outline findings)
Low assumed low usage in this section; there are already some amenity issues associated with noise and traffic along this sections of the path/cycle route; alternative routes are available.
Negligible
Page 144
10.6
10.6.1
As explained in Section 10.1, no significant operational effects have been scoped in for consideration in this PEIR.
10.7
10.7.1 10.7.2

The above assessment identifies a potential for a major adverse effect to arise in relation to effects on residential amenity. As per the significance criteria, major 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 and dust, noise and vibration and visual impacts (if any) that unacceptably reduce environmental amenity. Mitigation measures have been suggested, where possible, in the Air Quality and Odour, Noise and Vibration and Townscape and Visual assessments which would help to address significant amenity impacts. For further information on these mitigation measures, refer to Section 4 Air Quality and Odour, Section 9 Noise and Vibration, and Section 11 Townscape and Visual, within this volume.
10.7.3
Page 145
10.8
Vol 22 Table 10.8.1 Socio-economics construction assessment Significance Major adverse significant Mitigation measures including design alternatives or construction process and management changes that mitigate air quality, noise or visual impacts. Mitigation Residual significance
Assessment summary
Receptor
Effect
Residents of nearby properties
Amenity impacts on residential amenity (outline findings)
If mitigation measures suggested in the air quality, noise and vibration and visual assessments to minimise adverse impacts are able to be implemented and achieve a reduction in the assessment of effect significance, a reduced residual adverse significance may result. No change
Users of semi private open space Wrayburn House Minor adverse not significant Negligible not significant None required
Amenity impacts on semi-private open space users (outline findings)
None required
Pupils and employees of nearby schools
Amenity impacts on community facilities schools (outline findings)
No change
Users of the Thames Path and NCR4
Amenity impacts on Thames Path and NCR4 users (outline findings)
None required
No change
Page 146
10.9
10.9.1
Collection of baseline data on the use of social infrastructure is likely to be completed during 2011. Information to be collected includes: a. Usage data for Thames Path and NCR4 Pending the receipt of data on the usage levels of the Thames Path and also the results of assessments by other EIA topics, it is likely that updates would be made to the baseline data and results of the assessments. Pending the results of assessments by other EIA topics there is potential for updates to be made to the detailed site-specific mitigation and enhancement/offsetting measures in relation to amenity (individual and in combination) effects on residential receptors. Given that this assessment has identified significant adverse amenity effects, a reassessment of the potential residual effects after mitigation would be undertaken using the same approach as has been set out above in Section 10.5. Assessment of cumulative and in combination effects will be undertaken and reported in the ES. Following completion of the assessment the mitigation approaches for socio economics within the project, if applicable, will be finalised and reported in the ES.
10.9.2
10.9.3
10.9.4
10.9.5 10.9.6
Page 147
Section 11: Townscape and visual
11 11.1
11.1.1
Townscape and visual Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant townscape and visual amenity effects at the Chambers Wharf site. The assessment describes the current conditions found within the area the nature and pattern of buildings, streets, open space and vegetation and their interrelationships within the built environment, and the changes that would be introduced as a result of the proposed development. The assessment also identifies mitigation measures where appropriate. Townscape and visual assessments are made up of two separate, although linked, procedures; the townscape baseline and its analysis contribute to the baseline for visual amenity. Each section of the assessment is structured so that townscape aspects are described first, followed by visual.
11.1.2
11.2
11.2.1
The proposed development is described in section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to the townscape and visual assessment are as follows. Construction The peak construction phase for this topic relates to the time when the main tunnel would be being driven to Abbey Mills, involving 24 hour working, the presence of cranes at the site and export of materials by river. For this site, this equates to year two of construction, within a total construction period of approximately six years. Similar effects would arise during the secondary tunnel lining, which would occur during year five of construction. The construction of the shaft would typically take place during standard working hours only. However, some activities, such as the diaphragm wall works, are likely to require extended standard working hours, as defined in Section 3. The construction of the main tunnel, including secondary lining would be undertaken continuously (24 hour working, Monday to Sunday). This would involve export of excavated material via conveyor to barges, and import of material for the secondary lining, via road transport. The specific construction activities which may give rise to effects on townscape character, tranquillity and visual receptors are: a. Demolition of existing structures and the piled deck over the river; b. Vehicular construction access to the site off Chambers Street; c. River transport and associated infrastructure; d. Establishment of hoardings around the boundary of the construction site; e. Use of cranes during shaft sinking, the main tunnel drives and secondary lining of the tunnel;
11.2.2
11.2.3
Page 148
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf f.
Use of a piling rig during construction of the cofferdam, encroaching into the river; and
g. Lighting of the site, where required, to facilitate 24 hour working. 11.2.4 Measures incorporated into the draft CoCP to reduce townscape and visual impacts include use of capped and directional lighting, only when required. Operation 11.2.5 The proposed operation of the infrastructure at Chambers Wharf is described in Volume 3. The particular components of importance to this topic include the design of the river wall and the design and siting of the air management structures (including the ventilation columns).
11.3
11.3.1 11.3.2
Scoping and engagement Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. In addition to the formal scoping process, the London Borough of Southwark, London Borough of Tower Hamlets and English Heritage have been consulted on the detailed scope of the townscape and visual impact assessment, including the number and location of viewpoints. English Heritage have confirmed acceptance of the proposed viewpoints. Baseline The assessment area, defined using the standard methodology provided in Volume 6, is indicated by the extent of the drawing frame on Vol 22 Figure 11.4.1 to Vol 22 Figure 11.4.6. The scale of the assessment area has been set by the maximum extent of the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV), apart from those locations upstream of the site where the visibility is in reality obscured by Tower Bridge, and downstream of the site where the visibility of the proposed components of the project would be barely perceptible. The methodology for establishing the townscape and visual baseline follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. With specific reference to the Chambers Wharf site, baseline information has been gathered through a review of: a. The Unitary Development Plans (UDPs) for the London Borough of Southwark and the neighbouring London Borough of Tower Hamlets; b. St Saviours Dock and Tower Bridge Conservation Area Appraisals, produced by the London Borough of Southwark; and c. Wapping Wall and The Tower of London Conservation Area Character Appraisals and Management Guidelines, produced by the London Borough of Tower Hamlets.
11.3.3
11.3.4 11.3.5
Page 149
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf Construction 11.3.6
The construction phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. Any site specific variations are described below. With reference to the Chambers Wharf site, the peak construction phase relevant to this topic would be from year two to year five of construction, during the main tunnel drive and subsequent secondary lining, including 24 hour working, the presence of cranes at the site, export of material by river and import of material by road. These have therefore been used as the assessment years for townscape and visual effects. The construction phase visual assessment for this site will be supported through the preparation of a verifiable photomontage from a representative residential receptor adjacent to the site on Fountain Green Square (shown on Vol 22 Figure 11.4.6. This will be produced and presented in the ES. For the purposes of the construction phase assessment, it is assumed that the area immediately to the south of the site will have been developed into a residential scheme, which is anticipated to be fully built and occupied by year two of construction and so forms part of the base case. Operation 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 residential receptors on either side of the site and on the opposite river bank (shown on Vol 22 Figure 11.4.6). These will be produced and presented in the final ES. The operational phase assessment has been undertaken for year one of operation and year fifteen of operation. For the purposes of the year one assessment, the base case is assumed to be the same as in years two to five of construction (refer to paragraph 11.3.9). Further work will be undertaken for the ES to identify any potential change in the base case for year 15 of operation.
11.3.7
11.3.8
11.3.9
11.3.10
11.3.11
11.3.12
11.3.13

11.3.14 11.3.15 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 paragraph 11.3.9. These assumptions are based on known planning applications and planning policy within the assessment area, interpreted using professional judgement to understand what the base case may be in years two to five of construction and year one of operation without the project (ie the do nothing scenario).
Page 150
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf 11.3.16 11.3.17
Assumptions will be made in the ES regarding what the base case may be in year fifteen 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 one and year 15 which will be presented in the ES.
11.4
11.4.1
Baseline conditions Townscape baseline

The surrounding townscape is dominated by residential uses on both sides of the river, interspersed with some commercial, retail and leisure uses, particularly towards Tower Bridge in the west of the assessment area. Physical elements The physical elements of the townscape in the assessment area are described below. Topography The terrestrial part of the proposed site is located on relatively flat ground on the south bank of River Thames, with no notable topographic features in the vicinity of the site or across the assessment area. Land use In the vicinity of the site, both banks of the river are dominated by residential development, interspersed with small scale commercial, retail and leisure uses, particularly close to Tower Bridge. There are also a number of schools within the assessment area, including St Michaels Catholic College to the south of the site. Development patterns and scale Vol 22 Figure 11.4.1 illustrates the pattern and scale of development within the assessment area and also indicates building heights. Vol 22 Figure 11.4.1 Townscape - development pattern and scale (see Volume 22 Figures document)
11.4.2
11.4.3
11.4.4
11.4.5
11.4.6
The assessment area is dominated by dense urban development characterised by a mix of building styles and scales. The north bank of the river is characterised by two to three storey residential terraces and properties, with larger scale buildings along the riverfront, up to around eight storeys. On the south bank, to the south east of the site, the townscape is dominated by two to four storey terraces and four to eight storey residential apartments. To the south and south west of the site, the townscape is characterised by substantial blocks with large footprints up to
11.4.7
Page 151
approximately eight storeys, apart from three 17 to 20 storey residential towers, south of Jamaica Road. Vegetation patterns and extents 11.4.8 Vol 22 Figure 11.4.2 illustrates the pattern and extent of vegetation, including tree cover and known Tree Preservation Orders, within the assessment area. Vol 22 Figure 11.4.2 Townscape - pattern and extent of vegetation (see Volume 22 Figures document) 11.4.9 The study area has an increasingly green character towards the east, away from the dense urban development of Central London closer to Tower Bridge. The western edge of the study area, characterised by dense development along narrow streets on the south bank, and St Katherines Dock on the north bank, has few street trees or other vegetative cover. The townscape to the south and south east of the site is characterised by dense tree cover along streets, in public open spaces and within private gardens. The area to the north and north east of the site is also characterised by widespread tree cover, although to a lesser extent than on the south bank of the river. There are no known Tree Preservation Orders within the site, based on local authority information received by the project to date, but trees within conservation areas on both sides of the river are indirectly protected. Open space distribution and type 11.4.11 Vol 22 Figure 11.4.3 illustrates the distribution of different open space types within the assessment area, indicating all relevant statutory, nonstatutory and local plan designations. Vol 22 Figure 11.4.3 Townscape - open space distribution and type (see Volume 22 Figures document) 11.4.12 The assessment area is characterised by a number of incidental small green spaces, communal areas and private gardens, reducing in frequency from east to west. There are also a number of medium and large sized public open spaces, which are described in more detail in the table below. Vol 22 Table 11.4.1 Townscape - open space type and distribution Open space Thameside Green Distance from site 300m NW (north of river) 450m NE (north of river) Character summary Medium sized riverside open green space characterised by open grassland and a network of paths, with a number of small scattered trees and shrubs. All-weather football pitch bordered by terraced seating to the east and a clump of mature trees and shrubs to the west.
11.4.10
Knighton Street Open Space
Page 152
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf Open space Wapping Gardens Distance from site 500m NE (north of river)
Section 11: Townscape and visual Character summary Medium sized public park characterised by a wide variety of facilities including play areas for different age groups, a small football pitch and tennis courts set within a densely treed open space. Riverside public park characterised by amenity grassland, including a grassed mound within the space, and a large number of mature trees, including avenues of London plane trees. Designated as Metropolitan Open Land. Large public park with a wide range of sporting facilities, a caf, art gallery, boating lake and play facilities set amongst extensive areas of amenity grassland with dense tree cover. Designated as Metropolitan Open Land.
Kings Stairs Gardens
400m E (south of river)
Southwark Park
450m SE (south of river)
Transport routes 11.4.13 Vol 22 Figure 11.4.4 illustrates the transport network within the assessment area, including cycleways, footpaths and Public Rights of Way. Vol 22 Figure 11.4.4 Townscape and visual transport network (see Volume 22 Figures document) 11.4.14 The site is located to the north of Jamaica Road within an area of residential streets. Apart from Jamaica Road, to the south of the site, and Tower Bridge to the west, the remainder of the streets are generally fairly narrow and characterised by relatively light flows of traffic, on both sides of the river. The townscape to the south of the site is bisected by the railway running between London Bridge mainline station and East London. On the south bank, the Thames Path generally runs along the riverside, apart from a diversion inland around the site. To the north, the Thames Path partially runs along the river frontage, but is diverted inland around a long stretch of residential and commercial development from Thameside Green to King Edward Memorial Park, beyond the assessment area for this site. Site character assessment 11.4.16 The site is located partially within a cleared post-industrial plot of land on the south bank of the River Thames, and partially within the river corridor itself. The land based part of the site includes the components described in the table below. The foreshore is relatively wide along this stretch of the river, although within the site boundary it is obscured by the piled deck. The site is partially located within a protected London Panorama (5A.2) from Greenwich Park, in the London View Management Framework
11.4.15
11.4.17 11.4.18
Page 153
(LVMF). The protected vista is from the General Wolfe statue towards St Pauls Cathedral. Vol 22 Table 11.4.2 Townscape site components ID 01 02 Component Piled deck Description Concrete piled deck over the river. Condition Poor condition Poor condition Poor condition Fair condition
Hardstanding Derelict area of hardstanding across the site, including a pile of building rubble from previous demolition works Substation building Site hoardings Small substation building within the centre of the site Blue painted 2.4m high hoardings surrounding the site.
03 04
11.4.19 11.4.20 11.4.21 11.4.22
The condition of the townscape within the site is generally poor, with good potential for enhancement, due to the disused nature of the site. Due to the dominance of hardstanding, the heavily overlooked aspect and lack of vegetation, the site has a low level of tranquillity. The site also has limited townscape value due to the disused nature of the area. Due to the poor condition and limited townscape value, the site has a low sensitivity to change. Townscape character assessment The Townscape Character Areas surrounding the site are identified on Vol 22 Figure 11.4.5; they are ordered from the north of the site and continue around the site in a clockwise direction. Each area is described below. Vol 22 Figure 11.4.5 Townscape character areas (see Volume 22 Figures document) River Thames Tower of London Reach
11.4.23
11.4.24
This reach of the River Thames extends from upstream of the Tower of London, beyond the assessment area for this site, to the edge of The Tower Conservation Area, designated by the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. The reach is dominated by the Tower of London and Tower Bridge, two of Londons iconic landmarks, the former being designated as HM Royal Palace and Fortress of the Tower of London World Heritage Site. The river itself is characterised by numerous jetties, setbacks and incursions into the channel, particularly along the north bank with the entrances to St Katherines Dock and Hermitage Basin. The banks of the river have little or no foreshore. The river wall, jetties, decks and bridges are generally very well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good.
11.4.25
11.4.26
Page 154
Tranquillity within the area is limited by the density of activity on the river, which is used by commercial and industrial boats, river taxis and pleasure craft. This reach is an internationally valued stretch of the river, experienced by large numbers of people, including tourists, with particular attention given to the World Heritage Site, which is the dominant component of the areas setting, alongside Tower Bridge. Due to the good condition and international value of the townscape, this character area has a high sensitivity to change. River Thames East London Reach This reach of the River Thames begins at Hermitage Basin in the west, and continues east beyond the stretch of river assessed by this project. In the assessment area, the reach is characterised by dense residential development along both banks, including both heritage terraces and modern apartment blocks. The river itself is characterised by numerous jetties, inlets, docks and former docks. The north bank of the river has a wide area of foreshore, while the foreshore along the southern bank is wide at first and then tapers away as the river goes round a natural meander to the east. The overall character is largely urban, with very little planting along the banks of the river, with the exception of the green frontage of Kings Stairs Gardens. The jetties, river wall and bridges are generally fairly well maintained. The overall townscape condition is fair. This reach has a moderate level of tranquillity, due to the limited usage of the river, offset against the limited level of vegetation or tree cover along both banks. This reach is a regionally valued stretch of the river, providing the setting to a number of conservation areas on both banks. Therefore, despite the regional value of the reach, due to the fair condition and moderate levels of tranquillity, this character area has a medium sensitivity to change. Hermitage Wall Residential This area is characterised by modern residential apartment buildings on either side of Wapping High Street between Wapping Pierhead to the east and the entrance to Hermitage Basin in the west. The four to eight storey largely glazed apartments of Cinnabar Wharf provide a strong river frontage, behind which the remainder of the area is characterised by two to three storey properties with private rear gardens. The area includes Thameside Green, a riverside park which is partially on a piled deck over the river. The buildings and public realm within the area are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. The area has moderate levels of tranquillity by virtue of the residential character, slightly moderated by the presence of the relatively busy Wapping High Street running through the character area.
11.4.28
11.4.29
11.4.30
11.4.31
11.4.32 11.4.33
11.4.34 11.4.35
11.4.36
11.4.37 11.4.38
Page 155
The area is likely to be locally valued by residents within the character area. Due to the good condition and local value of the townscape, and the moderate levels of tranquillity, this area has a medium sensitivity to change. Spirit Quay Residential This area is characterised by three storey residential terraced properties with off-street parking and communal open space, set amongst schools and sports facilities, including Hermitage Primary School and the John Orwell Sports Centre. The north of the area is characterised by Spirit Quay, a tree lined canal bordered by hard surfaced public realm on either side and surrounded by residential developments. The buildings and public realm within the area are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. The area has moderate levels of tranquillity by virtue of the residential character, slightly moderated by the presence of the schools and active sports facilities. The area is likely to be locally valued by residents within the character area. Due to the good condition and local value of the townscape, and the moderate levels of tranquillity, this area has a medium sensitivity to change. Wapping Pierhead Conservation Area This area comprises Wapping Pierhead Conservation Area, which is characterised by four to five storey warehouses set amongst smaller scale residential terraces and historic public houses. The piecemeal redevelopment of the area over the last 100 years has resulted in a range of development patterns, materials and architectural styles. The area is heavily influenced by the riverside position, and is further characterised by commercial moorings along the frontage. The buildings and public realm within the area are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. Due to the residential character and riverside location, this character area has a moderate level of tranquillity. The character of the area is valued at the borough level by virtue of the conservation area designation. Due to the good condition and borough value of the townscape, this character area has a high sensitivity to change. Shadwell Residential South This character area comprises a mix of residential apartment blocks and two to three storey residential terraces. The area has an abundance of mature tree cover within open spaces, particularly the public open green space of Wapping Woods, which dominates the centre of the character area. The Highway, characterised by heavy traffic, forms the northern
11.4.41
11.4.42 11.4.43
11.4.44 11.4.45
11.4.46
11.4.47 11.4.48 11.4.49 11.4.50
11.4.51
Page 156
boundary to the character area, while the remainder is characterised by quiet residential streets with traffic calming. The area is largely introspective in character. 11.4.52 11.4.53 The buildings and public realm within the area are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. Due to the residential character, low levels of traffic and abundance of mature trees, offset against the presence of The Highway along the northern boundary, this character area has a moderate level of tranquillity. The area is likely to be locally valued by residents within the character area. Due to the good condition and local value of the townscape, this character area has a medium sensitivity to change. Kings Stairs Gardens and Southwark Park 11.4.56 This character area lies partially within, and extends beyond, the assessment area for this site, and comprises Kings Stairs Gardens and Southwark Park, two large open spaces forming a green corridor inland from the River Thames. The area is partially designated as Edward IIIs Rotherhithe Conservation Area, which largely covers Kings Stairs Gardens. The open spaces are also designated as Metropolitan Open Land. The riverside open space is characterised by scattered mature trees, open grassland, a large grassed mound, an enclosed childrens playground and a network of tree lined paths. Southwark Park is characterised by dense tree cover and a multitude of facilities. The landscape of the open space is well managed. The overall townscape condition is good. The area has a high level of tranquillity due to the widespread presence of tree planting, limited levels of activity and seclusion offered from the surrounding built environment. The area is valued at a regional scale due to the scale of the interconnected open spaces and the Metropolitan Open Land designation. Due to the good condition and regional value of the townscape, a high level of tranquillity, this character area has a high sensitivity to change. Bermondsey Wall East Residential 11.4.61 This area is characterised by modern two to four storey residential apartments with off-street parking and garages. The area is dominated by the widespread presence of mature trees along streets, in communal open spaces and within private gardens. The river frontage widens out from the Thames Path into a small public open space known as Cherry Gardens, again characterised by the presence of mature trees. The area is inward looking in character. The buildings and public realm within the area are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. Due to the residential use, riverside location and widespread presence of mature tree cover, this area has a high level of tranquillity.
11.4.54 11.4.55
11.4.57 11.4.58
11.4.59 11.4.60
11.4.62 11.4.63
Page 157
The townscape of the character area is likely to be locally valued by residents within the area, particularly with regard to the green outlook provided by the presence of mature trees. Due to the local value attributed to the townscape and inward looking nature of the built environment, this character area has a medium sensitivity to change. Jamaica Road Residential This area is characterised by 20th century four to seven storey residential apartments, enclosing a small area of two storey residential semidetached properties, designated as Wilson Grove Conservation Area by the London Borough of Southwark. The pattern of development is inward looking, with residential buildings surrounded by mature street trees and generally focused on internal green spaces, characterised by open amenity grassland. The density of tree cover serves to extend the green corridor of Southwark Park, on the eastern boundary, through the residential area. The buildings and public realm within the area are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. Due to the residential use, the location adjacent to Southwark Park and the widespread presence of mature tree cover, this area has a high level of tranquillity. Wilson Grove Conservation Area is valued at the borough level by virtue of the designation, whereas the majority of this character area is likely to be locally valued by residents. Due to the local value attributed to the majority of the townscape and inward looking nature of the built environment, this character area has a medium sensitivity to change. Bermondsey Residential This area is characterised by a series of two to six storey residential estates interspersed with communal soft and hard landscaped open spaces and car parking. The area is bisected by the railway connecting London Bridge and East London, which is elevated on a viaduct through this character area. Jamaica Road also serves to bisect the area, characterised by relatively high levels of traffic. The area also includes other uses including St Michaels Catholic College, St James Primary School, St James Church (Grade II listed) and small retail units along the main roads. The area is further characterised by the widespread presence of mature trees along streets and in communal green spaces. The pattern of development, organised into a series of residential estates, is largely inward looking. The buildings and public realm within the area are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. The tranquillity associated with the residential land use and widespread presence of mature trees is moderated by the presence of Jamaica Road
11.4.65
11.4.66
11.4.67 11.4.68
11.4.69
11.4.70
11.4.71
11.4.72 11.4.73
Page 158
and the elevated railway cutting through the area. Therefore, the area has a moderate level of tranquillity. 11.4.74 The townscape of the character area is likely to be locally valued by residents within the area, particularly with regard to the green outlook provided by the presence of mature trees. Due to the local value attributed to the majority of the townscape and the inward looking nature of the built environment, this character area has a medium sensitivity to change. Old Jamaica Road Industrial 11.4.76 This area is characterised by commercial and light industrial units located on either side of the elevated railway line between London Bridge and East London, and also within the railway arches themselves. The area includes the Dockley Road Industrial Estate and Voyager Business Estate to the south west of the railway, and the Discovery Business Park and various storage and business facilities to the north. The commercial premises are generally one to two storeys high and surrounded by large areas of hardstanding used for car parking and storage. The area is generally poorly maintained, and therefore the overall townscape condition is poor. Due to the industrial use divided by a wide railway line, the area has a low level of tranquillity. In addition, due to the type of use, with an inherent lack of public amenity, the area has limited townscape value. Due to the poor condition, low levels of tranquillity and limited townscape value, this character area has a low sensitivity to change. St Saviours Dock Conservation Area 11.4.81 This area comprises St Saviours Dock Conservation Area, designated by the London Borough of Southwark. The area is characterised by a tight frontage of warehouses along St Saviours Dock and the River Thames. The narrow waterbody of St Saviours Dock is further enclosed by the close vertical urban development along the banks, creating a canal-like appearance. The majority of the warehouses have been converted into residential use, while retaining their strong architectural character. The remainder of the area is characterised by a series of residential apartment blocks set amongst areas of communal amenity grass. The pattern of development is largely inward looking. The buildings and public realm within the area are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. Despite the presence of Jamaica Road along the southern boundary of the area, the townscape has moderate levels of tranquillity due to the residential character and inward looking nature of the area. The townscape of the character area is valued at the borough level, by virtue of the conservation area designation.
11.4.75
11.4.77 11.4.78 11.4.79 11.4.80
11.4.82 11.4.83
11.4.84
Page 159
Therefore, despite the borough value attributed to the townscape, due to the inward looking nature of the built environment and moderate levels of tranquillity, this character area has a medium sensitivity to change. Tower Bridge Conservation Area This area comprises Tower Bridge Conservation Area, designated by the London Borough of Southwark. The area is characterised by dense urban development along narrow streets. The density of development means that there is very little public space within the area, apart from along the Thames Path which is on a piled deck. There is also very little private or communal open space, apart from some internal courtyards, which are mostly used for car parking. Despite a mix of architectural styles and ages of buildings, the pattern of development tightly follows a grid network of narrow streets, and buildings are all of similar heights ranging from five to seven storeys. Vegetation is almost entirely absent from the area, apart from within some internal courtyards. The pattern of development is highly inward looking. The buildings and public realm within the area are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. Due to the densely developed character, with little or no open space or vegetation, and high numbers of pedestrians, this area has a low level of tranquillity. The townscape of the character area is valued at the borough level, by virtue of the conservation area designation. Therefore, despite the borough value attributed to the townscape, due to the inward looking nature of the built environment and low level of tranquillity, this character area has a medium sensitivity to change. The Tower of London Conservation Area This area comprises The Tower of London Conservation Area, designated by the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. The main focus of the designation, the Tower of London, is located in the west of the conservation area, beyond the assessment area for this site. Within the assessment area, this area is dominated by the character of St Katherines Docks and the surrounding buildings, including a residential development along St Anthonys Close and Burr Close, which is set within a high density of mature trees. The remainder of the dockside buildings have a mix of uses including residential, commercial, retail and leisure. The character of the area is also dominated by the 8 to 15 storey Thistle Hotel located on the riverside, adjacent to Tower Bridge. The buildings and public realm within the area are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. Due to the presence of public open spaces, widespread tree cover and the enclosed nature of the docks, this area has a relatively high level of tranquillity. The townscape of the character area is valued at the borough level, by virtue of the conservation area designation.
11.4.86
11.4.87 11.4.88
11.4.89 11.4.90
11.4.91
11.4.92 11.4.93
11.4.94
Page 160
Due to the good condition and borough value of the townscape, and high level of tranquillity, this character area has a high sensitivity to change. The sensitivity to change of the townscape character areas is summarised in the table below. Vol 22 Table 11.4.3 Townscape sensitivities to change Townscape character area The site River Thames Tower of London Reach River Thames East London Reach Hermitage Wall Residential Spirit Quay Residential Wapping Pierhead Conservation Area Shadwell Residential South Kings Stairs Gardens and Southwark Park Bermondsey Wall East Residential Jamaica Road Residential Bermondsey Residential Old Jamaica Road Industrial St Saviours Dock Conservation Area Tower Bridge Conservation Area The Tower of London Conservation Area Sensitivity Low High Medium Medium Medium High Medium High Medium Medium Medium Low Medium Medium High
Visual baseline
11.4.97 Vol 22 Figure 11.4.6 indicates the location of viewpoints referenced below. All residential and recreational receptors and LVMF London Panoramas have a high sensitivity to change. Appendix D contains illustrative winter photographs from selected viewpoints (the ES will include winter and summer photos for each character area and viewpoint). Vol 22 Figure 11.4.6 Visual assessment - viewpoint locations (see Volume 22 Figures document) London View Management Framework London Panoramas London Panorama 5A.2 Greenwich Park: north east of the General Wolfe statue to St Pauls Cathedral 11.4.98 This London Panorama, designated in the London View Management Framework (July 2007), passes through the foreshore part of the site and has a high sensitivity to change. The distant view towards St Pauls Cathedral is framed by tall buildings at different points in the panorama. Maritime Greenwich (the historic town centre, Royal Park, and related institutional buildings, together also
11.4.99
Page 161
comprising a World Heritage Site) and the cluster of tall buildings at Canary Wharf form dominant components of the view. The site is located below the frame of view, screened by intervening buildings and structures. Residential 11.4.100 Residential receptors have a high sensitivity to change, as attention is often focused on the townscape surrounding the property rather than on another focused activity (as would be the case in predominantly employment or industrial areas). The visual baseline in respect of residential receptors (represented by a series of viewpoints, agreed with consultees) is described below. Viewpoint 1.1: View south east from residences on St Katharines Way 11.4.101 This viewpoint is representative of the view from residential properties adjacent to the Thames Path on the north bank of the River Thames, on St Katherines Way. The view is an open panorama over the River Thames from Tower Bridge to the west and Kings Stairs Garden open space to the east. The view is characterised by the dense urban frontage along the south bank of the river. Views of the site, partially located on the foreshore, are unobstructed from this viewpoint. Viewpoint 1.2: View south west from residences on Wapping High Street next to Pier Head 11.4.102 This viewpoint is representative of the view from residential properties adjacent to the Thames Path on the north bank of the River Thames, on Wapping High Street, adjacent to Pier Head. The view is an open panorama over the River Thames from Tower Bridge to the west and Kings Stairs Gardens open space to the east. The view is characterised by the dense urban frontage along the south bank of the river. The existing cleared site at Chambers Wharf forms a dominant component of the view across the river, by virtue of being an undeveloped site in an otherwise heavily developed river frontage. Views of the site, partially located on the foreshore, are unobstructed from this viewpoint. Viewpoint 1.3: View west from residences on Fountain Green Square 11.4.103 This viewpoint is representative of the view from residential properties adjacent to the site on Fountain Green Square. The foreground of the view is at present characterised by site hoardings along the boundary of the site. Views from upper storeys are characterised by open panoramas over the River Thames, with the cleared development site in the foreground. Views of the site are unobstructed from this location. Viewpoint 1.4: View west from residences on Chambers Street at the junction with Bevington Street 11.4.104 This viewpoint is representative of the oblique view from residential properties close to the site on Chambers Street, at the junction with Bevington Street. The view is a linear view along Chambers Street, largely open to the south but enclosed to the north by hoardings along the site boundary. Views of the site from this location are partially obscured by residences along Bevington Street and Loftie Street.
Page 162
Viewpoint 1.5: View north from residences on Llewellyn Street 11.4.105 This viewpoint is representative of the oblique view from residential properties south of the site on Llewellyn Street. The view is a linear view up Llewellyn Street, largely open to the west but enclosed to the east by residences along Llewellyn Street. The existing site hoardings form the background of the view. Views of the site are largely unobstructed from this location. Viewpoint 1.6: View north east from residences along Chambers Street at the junction with Flockton Street 11.4.106 This viewpoint is representative of the view from residential properties close to the site on the south side of Chambers Street, near the junction with Bevington Street. The foreground of the view is characterised by the residential development on the corner of Chambers Street and Flockton Street, and the existing hoardings along the site boundary. Views of the site are largely unobstructed from this location. Viewpoint 1.7: View east from residences on Bermondsey Wall West at the junction with Flockton Street 11.4.107 This viewpoint is representative of the oblique view from residential properties close to the site on the north side of Bermondsey Wall West, at the junction with Flockton Street. The foreground of the view is characterised by the residential development along Flockton Street, with glimpsed views through to the hoarding surrounding the site. Views of the site are glimpsed from this location, and otherwise largely obstructed by foreground buildings. Viewpoint 1.8: View east from riverfront residences on the corner of Flockton Street and Bermondsey Wall West 11.4.108 This viewpoint is representative of the view from residences fronting onto the river, adjacent to the site at the corner of Flockton Street and Bermondsey Wall West. The view is an open panorama over the River Thames from Tower Bridge in the west and for a considerable length down the river to the east. The view is characterised by the series of developments and small open spaces along the opposite bank of the river. The majority of the existing site is obscured from this location, apart from the piled deck which forms part of the periphery of the view. Recreational 11.4.109 Recreational receptors (apart from those engaged in active sports) generally have a high sensitivity to change, as attention is focused on enjoyment of the townscape. Tourists engaged in activities whereby attention is focused on the surrounding townscape also have a high sensitivity to change. The visual baseline in respect of recreational receptors, including tourists, is discussed below. Viewpoint 2.1: View south east from Thameside Green 11.4.110 This viewpoint is representative of the view for recreational users of Thameside Green on the north bank of the River Thames. The view is an open panorama over the River Thames from Tower Bridge to the west and
Page 163
Kings Stairs Garden open space to the east. The view is characterised by the dense urban frontage along the south bank of the river. Views of the site, partially located on the foreshore, are unobstructed from this viewpoint. Viewpoint 2.2: View west from Kings Stairs Garden 11.4.111 This viewpoint is representative of the view for recreational users of Kings Stairs Garden on the south bank of the River Thames. The view is an open panorama over the River Thames from Tower Bridge to the west and King Edward Memorial Park to the east. The view is characterised by the dense urban frontage and jetties along the south bank of the river. The site Chambers Wharf is on the periphery of the panorama, and views in that direction are partially obscured by intervening piers and moorings. Viewpoint 2.3: View west from the Thames Path next to Fountain Green Square 11.4.112 This viewpoint is representative of the view for recreational users of the Thames Path, on the stretch in front of Fountain Green Square, adjacent to the site. The view is an open panorama over the River Thames from Tower Bridge to the west and King Edward Memorial Park to the east. The view is characterised by the series of developments and small open spaces along the opposite bank of the river. The site is highly visible in the foreground of the view. Viewpoint 2.4: View south east from Tower Bridge 11.4.113 This viewpoint is representative of the view for pedestrians crossing Tower Bridge, at the northern pier. This is a linear view down the River Thames towards Kings Stairs Gardens in the background of the riverside view. The Chambers Wharf site is visible as a component of the view due to the undeveloped nature of the plot, in stark contrast to the surrounding densely developed river frontage. Views of the site are largely unobstructed from this location, although set in the middle ground of the view. 11.4.114 The sensitivity to change of the viewpoints is summarised in the table below. Vol 22 Table 11.4.4 Visual viewpoint sensitivities to change Viewpoint London View Management Framework London Panoramas London Panorama 5A.2 Greenwich Park: the General Wolfe statue north east of the statue, to St Pauls Cathedral Residential Viewpoint 1.1: View south east from residences on St Katherines Way Viewpoint 1.2: View south west from residences on High High High Sensitivity
Page 164
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf Viewpoint Wapping High Street next to Pier Head
Section 11: Townscape and visual Sensitivity High High
Viewpoint 1.3: View west from residences on Fountain Green Square Viewpoint 1.4: View west from residences on Chambers Street at the junction with Bevington Street Viewpoint 1.5: View north from residences on Llewellyn Street Viewpoint 1.6: View north east from residences along Chambers Street at the junction with Flockton Street Viewpoint 1.7: View east from residences on Bermondsey Wall West at the junction with Flockton Street Viewpoint 1.8: View east from riverfront residences on the corner of Flockton Street and Bermondsey Wall West Recreational Viewpoint 2.1: View south east from Thameside Green Viewpoint 2.2: View west from Kings Stairs Garden Viewpoint 2.3: View west from the Thames Path next to Fountain Green Square Viewpoint 2.4: View south east from Tower Bridge
High High High
High
High High High High
11.5
11.5.1
Effects during the construction phase would be temporary, although medium term due to the duration and necessary phasing of the proposed development. The proposed phasing of the development would result in intense periods of activity within relatively quieter phases. Construction phase site assessment Direct effects on the townscape character of the site would arise from clearance of the site and construction activity associated with the construction of the cofferdam, shaft and ventilation equipment (standard working hours with occasional extended working hours), and the main tunnel drive and secondary lining (24 hour working). The effects on specific components of the site are described in the table below:
11.5.2
Page 165
Vol 22 Table 11.5.1 Townscape effects on site components construction ID 01 02 03 04 11.5.3 Component Piled deck Hardstanding Substation building Site hoardings Effects Removed during construction. Cleared as necessary during construction. Demolished during construction.
Removed and replaced with new hoardings to define the site boundaries. The magnitude of change to the site during the construction period is considered to be high due to the clearance required to form the construction site, including formation of the cofferdam in the river, and the level of activity during construction. The existing site has a low level of tranquillity, which would be substantially altered due to introduction of construction vehicles, plant equipment and high levels of activity in an area and part of the river not currently intensively used. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be high. The high magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the low sensitivity of the site to change, means the effect of the proposed construction activity on the townscape resource of the site would be of moderate adverse significance. Construction phase townscape assessment River Thames Tower of London Reach
11.5.4
11.5.5
11.5.6
The proposed site is approximately 700m east of this reach of the river, separated by Tower Bridge. Construction activity would take place within the wider setting of this character area, partially screened by the presence of Westminster Bridge. The setting would be affected to a limited extent by the site cofferdam, presence of cranes and use of river transport. The majority of the setting would be unaltered. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be low. The area has low levels of tranquillity at present, which would be largely unchanged. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible. The low magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the high sensitivity of this character area, means the effect of the proposed construction activity on the River Thames Tower of London Reach would be of minor adverse significance. River Thames East London Reach The proposed site is within this reach of the river, introducing high levels of construction activity within a part of the river currently affected only by the piled deck. The setting would be affected by the site cofferdam, construction activity, presence of cranes and river transport. However, the
11.5.7
11.5.8
11.5.9
Page 166
river is already characterised by numerous existing protrusions, and the site cofferdam would therefore not be significantly out of keeping here. The magnitude of change is therefore considered to be medium. 11.5.10 Although the area has low levels of tranquillity at present, the introduction of construction activity, including piling, demolition and river based transport means the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be high. Given the medium magnitude of change and the medium sensitivity of this character area to a change in setting, the effect of the proposed construction activity on the River Thames East London Reach would be of moderate adverse significance. Hermitage Wall Residential 11.5.12 The proposed site forms a direct part of the riverside setting of this character area. The presence of cranes, construction plant, the site cofferdam and river transport would affect the riverward setting of this character area. However, the protrusion into the river would not be substantially out of keeping with the existing character of the Thames in this location. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be medium. The area has moderate levels of tranquillity at present, which would be largely unchanged. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible. Given the medium magnitude of change and the medium sensitivity of this character area to a change in setting, the effect of the proposed construction activity on Hermitage Wall Residential would be of moderate adverse significance. Spirit Quay Residential 11.5.15 The proposed site does not form part of the setting for this character area, which is largely inward looking and unlikely to be indirectly affected by the presence of cranes or construction traffic. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The area has moderate levels of tranquillity at present, which would be unchanged. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change and medium sensitivity of this character area means the proposed construction activity would give rise to a negligible effect on Spirit Quay Residential. Wapping Pierhead Conservation Area 11.5.18 The proposed site at Chambers Wharf forms a direct part of the riverside setting of this character area. The presence of cranes, construction plant, the site cofferdam and river transport would affect the riverward setting of this character area. However, the protrusion into the river would not be substantially out of keeping with the existing character of the Thames in this location. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be medium.
11.5.11
11.5.13
11.5.14
11.5.16
11.5.17
Page 167
The area has moderate levels of tranquillity at present, which would be largely unchanged. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible. 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 Wapping Pierhead Conservation Area would be of moderate adverse significance. Shadwell Residential South The proposed site does not form part of the setting for this character area, which is largely inward looking and unlikely to be indirectly affected by the presence of cranes or construction traffic. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The area has moderate levels of tranquillity at present, which would be unchanged. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change and medium sensitivity of this character area means the proposed construction activity would give rise to a negligible effect on Shadwell Residential South. Kings Stairs Gardens and Southwark Park The proposed site forms part of the wider riverside setting of this character area. The presence of cranes, construction plant, the site cofferdam and river transport would affect the riverward setting of the character area to a limited extent. The majority of the areas riverward setting would remain largely unchanged. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be low. The area has high levels of tranquillity at present, which would be unchanged. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible. Given the low magnitude of change and the high sensitivity of this character area to a change in setting, the effect of the proposed construction activity on Kings Stairs Garden and Southwark Park would be of minor adverse significance. Bermondsey Wall East Residential The proposed site forms part of the immediate riverside setting of this character area. The presence of cranes, construction plant, the site cofferdam, and road and river transport would affect the setting of this character area. However, the protrusion into the river would not be substantially out of keeping with the existing character of the Thames in this location. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be medium. The area has a moderate level of tranquillity at present, which would be altered to a limited extent by the introduction of construction activity, including piling, demolition, and road and river based transport in the wider area. Therefore the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be low.
11.5.20
11.5.21
11.5.22
11.5.23
11.5.24
11.5.25
11.5.26
11.5.27
11.5.28
Page 168
Given the medium magnitude of change and the medium sensitivity of this character area to a change in setting, the effect of the proposed construction activity on Bermondsey Wall East Residential would be of moderate adverse significance. Jamaica Road Residential The proposed site does not form part of the setting for this character area, which is largely inward looking and unlikely to be indirectly affected by the presence of cranes or construction traffic. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The area has high levels of tranquillity at present, which would be unchanged. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change and medium sensitivity of this character area means the proposed construction activity would give rise to a negligible effect on Jamaica Road Residential. Bermondsey Residential The proposed site forms part of the wider setting of this character area, despite the character being largely inward looking. Based on the assumptions for the construction phase assessment year (2017 refer to paragraph 11.3.9), the area to the south of the site will have been developed into a residential block. This would serve to further heighten the inward looking character of this character area. However, the localised setting of the area would still be affected to a limited extent by road transport and the presence of cranes at the site. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be low. The area has a moderate level of tranquillity at present, which would be affected to a limited extent by road transport. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be low. Given the low magnitude of change and the medium sensitivity of this character area, the effect of the proposed construction activity on Bermondsey Residential would be of minor adverse significance. Old Jamaica Road Industrial The proposed site does not form part of the setting for this character area, which is largely inward looking and unlikely to be indirectly affected by the presence of cranes or construction traffic. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The area has a low level of tranquillity at present, which would be unchanged. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change and low sensitivity of this character area means the proposed construction activity would give rise to a negligible effect on Old Jamaica Road Industrial.
11.5.30
11.5.31
11.5.32
11.5.33
11.5.34
11.5.35
11.5.36
11.5.37
11.5.38
Page 169
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf St Saviours Dock Conservation Area 11.5.39
The proposed site forms part of the immediate riverside setting of this character area. The presence of cranes, construction plant, the site cofferdam, and road and river transport would affect the setting of this character area. However, the protrusion into the river would not be significantly out of keeping with the existing character of the Thames in this location. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be medium. The area has a moderate level of tranquillity at present, which would be altered to a limited extent by the introduction of construction activity, including piling, demolition, and road and river based transport in the wider area. 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 to a change in setting, the effect of the proposed construction activity on St Saviours Dock Conservation Area would be of moderate adverse significance. Tower Bridge Conservation Area The proposed site forms part of the wider riverside setting of this character area. The presence of cranes, construction plant, the site cofferdam and river transport would affect the riverward setting of the character area to a limited extent. The majority of the areas riverward setting would remain largely unchanged. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be low. The area has low levels of tranquillity at present, which would be unchanged. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible. Given the low magnitude of change and the medium sensitivity of this character area, the effect of the proposed construction activity on Tower Bridge Conservation Area would be of minor adverse significance. The Tower of London Conservation Area The proposed site forms a direct part of the riverside setting of this character area. The presence of cranes, construction plant, the site cofferdam and river transport would affect the riverward setting of this character area. However, the protrusion into the river would not be substantially out of keeping with the existing character of the Thames in this location. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be medium. The area has high levels of tranquillity at present, which would be largely unchanged. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible. Given the medium magnitude of change and the high sensitivity of this character area, the effect of the proposed construction activity on The Tower of London Conservation Area would be of moderate adverse significance.
11.5.40
11.5.41
11.5.42
11.5.43
11.5.44
11.5.45
11.5.46
11.5.47
Page 170
The assessment of townscape effects during construction is summarised in the table below. Vol 22 Table 11.5.2 Townscape significance of effects - construction Townscape character area The site River Thames Tower of London Reach River Thames East London Reach Hermitage Wall Residential Spirit Quay Residential Wapping Pierhead Conservation Area Shadwell Residential South Kings Stairs Gardens and Southwark Park Bermondsey Wall East Residential Jamaica Road Residential Bermondsey Residential Old Jamaica Road Industrial St Saviours Dock Conservation Area Tower Bridge Conservation Area The Tower of London Conservation Area Sensitivity Low High Medium Medium Medium High Medium High Medium Medium Medium Low Medium Medium High Magnitude High Low Medium Medium Negligible Medium Negligible Low Medium Negligible Low Negligible Medium Low Medium Effect Moderate adverse Minor adverse Moderate adverse Moderate adverse Negligible Moderate adverse Negligible Minor adverse Moderate adverse Negligible Minor adverse Negligible Moderate adverse Minor adverse Moderate adverse
Construction phase townscape assessment night time effects 11.5.49 During construction of the shaft, there are likely to be limited effects on night time character due to the proposed limit of 12 hour working at the site, with occasional extended standard working hours to facilitate construction of the diaphragm walls. However, this would mean that some lighting of the site would be required in the early morning and evening during winter. During the main tunnel drive and secondary lining, the site would be under construction for 24 hours a day, which would be likely to give rise to
11.5.50
Page 171
effects on night time character. Effects on night time character will be further defined in the ES. Construction phase visual assessment London View Management Framework London Panoramas London Panorama 5A.2 Greenwich Park: the General Wolfe statue north east of the statue to St Pauls Cathedral 11.5.51 During construction, activity at the site, including cranes, would be almost entirely obscured by the intervening low-rise buildings and structures. 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 construction phase would give rise to a negligible effect on this London Panorama. Residential Viewpoint 1.1: View south east from residences on St Katharines Way 11.5.53 Views from residences towards the site would be affected during construction. Panoramic views over the river would be affected by the presence of cranes, the site cofferdam, construction plant and river transport. However, the protrusion into the river would not be substantially out of keeping with the existing character of the river, and similarly the construction works would be compatible with the existing site character. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be medium. The medium magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of moderate adverse significance. Viewpoint 1.2: View south west from residences on Wapping High Street next to Pier Head 11.5.55 Views from residences towards the site would be affected during construction. Panoramic views over the river would be affected by the presence of cranes, the site cofferdam, construction plant and river transport. However, the protrusion into the river would not be substantially out of keeping with the existing character of the river, and similarly the construction works would be compatible with the existing site character. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be medium. The medium magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of moderate adverse significance. Viewpoint 1.3: View west from residences on Fountain Green Square 11.5.57 Views from residences towards the site would be affected during construction. The foreground of views would continue to be dominated by site hoardings, but construction activity would be highly visible beyond, particularly from upper storeys. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be high.
11.5.52
11.5.54
11.5.56
Page 172
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 1.4: View west from residences on Chambers Street at the junction with Bevington Street
11.5.59
Views from residences towards the site would be affected during construction. The foreground of views would be affected by new site hoardings and an increase in HGV traffic along Chambers Street. However, construction activity in the main part of the site would be largely obscured by foreground buildings along Bevington Street and Loftie Street. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be medium. The medium magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of moderate adverse significance. Viewpoint 1.5: View north from residences on Llewellyn Street Views from residences towards the site would be affected during construction. The middle ground of views would continue to be characterised by site hoardings, but construction activity and cranes would be highly visible beyond, particularly from upper storeys. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be medium. The medium magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of moderate adverse significance. Viewpoint 1.6: View north east from residences along Chambers Street at the junction with Flockton Street
11.5.60
11.5.61
11.5.62
11.5.63
Views from residences towards the site would be affected during construction. The foreground of views would be dominated by site hoardings, but construction activity would be highly visible beyond, particularly from upper storeys. Therefore, 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 1.7: View east from residences on Bermondsey Wall West at the junction with Flockton Street
11.5.64
11.5.65
Views from residences towards the site would be affected to a limited extent during construction. The foreground of views would be largely unchanged, apart from the installation of new site hoardings. Construction activity and cranes would be intermittently apparent through the glimpsed views of the site. The majority of construction activities would be obscured by the foreground buildings along Flockton Street. 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.
11.5.66
Page 173
Viewpoint 1.8: View east from riverfront residences on the corner of Flockton Street and Bermondsey Wall West 11.5.67 Views from residences towards the site would be affected during construction. The foreground of views would be dominated by the site cofferdam and construction activity based in that part of the site, including 24 hour loading of barges. Therefore, 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. Recreational Viewpoint 2.1: View south east from Thameside Green 11.5.69 Views from this location towards the site would be affected during construction. Panoramic views over the river would be affected by the presence of cranes, the site cofferdam, construction plant and river transport. However, the protrusion into the river would not be substantially out of keeping with the existing character of the river, and similarly the construction works would be compatible with the existing site character. 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 2.2: View west from Kings Stairs Garden 11.5.71 Views from this location towards the site would be affected to a limited extent during construction, due to the background visibility of the site cofferdam, cranes and river transport. The features in the background of the view would be partially obscured by moorings along an intervening river jetty. 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 2.3: View west from the Thames Path next to Fountain Green Square 11.5.73 Views from this location towards the site would be affected during construction. The foreground of views would be dominated by the site cofferdam and construction activity based in that part of the site, including 24 hour loading of barges. Therefore, 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 2.4: View south east from Tower Bridge 11.5.75 Views from this location towards the site would be affected to a limited extent during construction, due to the background visibility of the site
11.5.68
11.5.70
11.5.72
11.5.74
Page 174
cofferdam, cranes and river transport. Construction activity in the background of the view would seen as one of a series of components along the river rather than appearing as a dominant feature. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be low. 11.5.76 The low magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of minor adverse significance. The assessment of visual effects during construction is summarised in the table below. Vol 22 Table 11.5.3 Visual significance of effects - construction Viewpoint London View Management Framework London Panoramas London Panorama 5A.2 Greenwich Park: the General Wolfe statue north east of the statue, to St Pauls Cathedral Residential Viewpoint 1.1: View south east from residences on St Katherines Way Viewpoint 1.2: View south west from residences on Wapping High Street next to Pier Head Viewpoint 1.3: View west from residences on Fountain Green Square Viewpoint 1.4: View west from residences on Chambers Street at the junction with Bevington Street Viewpoint 1.5: View north from residences on Llewellyn Street Viewpoint 1.6: View north east from residences along Chambers Street at the junction with Flockton Street High Medium Moderate adverse Moderate adverse Major adverse Moderate adverse High Negligible Negligible Sensitivity Magnitude Effect
11.5.77
High
Medium
High
High
High
Medium
High High
Medium High
Moderate adverse Major adverse
Viewpoint 1.7: View east from High residences on Bermondsey Wall West at the junction with Flockton Street Viewpoint 1.8: View east from High
Low
Minor adverse
High
Major
Page 175
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf Viewpoint riverfront residences on the corner of Flockton Street and Bermondsey Wall West Recreational Viewpoint 2.1: View south east from Thameside Green Viewpoint 2.2: View west from Kings Stairs Garden Viewpoint 2.3: View west from the Thames Path next to Fountain Green Square Viewpoint 2.4: View south east from Tower Bridge High High High
Section 11: Townscape and visual Sensitivity Magnitude Effect adverse
Medium Low High
Moderate adverse Minor adverse Major adverse Minor adverse
High
Low
11.6
11.6.1
Operational assessment Year one of operation

The operational project would have little activity associated with it, apart from infrequent maintenance visits. 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 one 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 clearance of existing derelict components of the site, and would also set the flood defence line back to the original river wall, revealing an area of foreshore. The air management structures would be accommodated into the new river wall, although the ventilation columns and electrical control kiosk would introduce new built elements into the north eastern corner of the site. The remainder of the construction phase working area would be returned to its original condition, or improved with new surfacing. The temporary cofferdam established during construction would be entirely removed. The effects on specific components of the site are described below: Vol 22 Table 11.6.1 Townscape site components effects, Year 1 operation ID 01 02 03 Component Piled deck Hardstanding Substation building Effects Removed during construction. Not reinstated. Left as a newly surfaced hardstanding. Demolished during construction. Not reinstated
11.6.2
Page 176
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf ID 04 Component Site hoardings
Section 11: Townscape and visual Effects Left at the end of construction until the site is fully developed for subsequent residential development.
11.6.3
The magnitude of change to the site is considered to be medium, principally due to the removal of the piled deck over the river, setting the flood defence line back and revealing an area of foreshore. It is considered that this would be a positive change. Assessing this alongside the clearance of other derelict features at the site, it is concluded that the proposed development would be of overall benefit to the character of the site. The beneficial effect of removing the piled deck and clearing unattractive derelict features is also reflected in several of the character area assessments below. The medium magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the low sensitivity of the site, means the effect of the proposed development would be of minor beneficial significance. Operational phase townscape assessment year one of operation River Thames Tower of London Reach
11.6.4
11.6.5
11.6.6 11.6.7
The proposed development is not likely to alter the setting of this character area. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the high sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed development would give rise to a negligible effect on the River Thames Tower of London Reach. River Thames East London Reach The proposed development would locally alter the setting of this character area through the removal of the existing piled deck and the clearance of derelict structures in the site. However, the majority of the setting of this area would be unaltered by the proposed development. The proposed above ground structures would be barely perceptible in the wider setting. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be low. The low magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the medium sensitivity of this character area, means the effect of the proposed development on the River Thames East London Reach would be of minor beneficial significance. Hermitage Wall Residential The proposed development would alter the wider setting of this character area to a limited extent through the removal of the existing piled deck and the clearance of derelict structures in the site. However, the majority of the setting of this area would be unaltered by the proposed development. The proposed above ground structures would be barely perceptible in the wider setting. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be low.
11.6.8
11.6.9
11.6.10
Page 177
The low magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the medium sensitivity of this character area, means the effect of the proposed development on Hermitage Wall Residential would be of minor beneficial significance. Spirit Quay 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 Spirit Quay Residential. Wapping Pierhead 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. 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 Wapping Pierhead Conservation Area. Shadwell Residential South 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 Shadwell Residential South. Kings Stairs Garden and Southwark Park 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 Kings Stairs Garden and Southwark Park. Bermondsey Wall East Residential The proposed development would alter the wider setting of this character area to a limited extent through the removal of the existing piled deck and the clearance of derelict structures in the site. However, the majority of the setting of this area would be unaltered by the proposed development. The proposed above ground structures would be barely perceptible in the wider setting. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be low. The low magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the medium sensitivity of this character area, means the effect of the proposed development on Bermondsey Wall East Residential would be of minor beneficial significance.
11.6.12 11.6.13
11.6.14 11.6.15
11.6.16 11.6.17
11.6.18 11.6.19
11.6.20
11.6.21
Page 178
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf Jamaica Road Residential 11.6.22 11.6.23
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 Jamaica Road Residential. Bermondsey 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 Bermondsey Residential. Old Jamaica Road Industrial 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 Old Jamaica Road Industrial. St Saviours Dock Conservation Area The proposed development would alter the wider setting of this character area to a limited extent through the removal of the existing piled deck and the clearance of derelict structures in the site. However, the majority of the setting of this area would be unaltered by the proposed development. The proposed above ground structures would be barely perceptible in the wider setting. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be low. The low magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the medium sensitivity of this character area, means the effect of the proposed development on St Saviours Dock Conservation Area would be of minor beneficial significance. Tower Bridge 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. 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 Tower Bridge Conservation Area. The Tower of London 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.
11.6.24 11.6.25
11.6.26 11.6.27
11.6.28
11.6.29
11.6.30 11.6.31
11.6.32
Page 179
The negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the high sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed development would give rise to a negligible effect on The Tower of London Conservation Area. The assessment of townscape effects during year one of operation is summarised in the table below. Vol 22 Table 11.6.2 Townscape significance of effects Year 1 operation Townscape character area The site River Thames Tower of London Reach River Thames East London Reach Hermitage Wall Residential Spirit Quay Residential Wapping Pierhead Conservation Area Shadwell Residential South Kings Stairs Gardens and Southwark Park Bermondsey Wall East Residential Jamaica Road Residential Bermondsey Residential Old Jamaica Road Industrial St Saviours Dock Conservation Area Tower Bridge Conservation Area The Tower of London Conservation Area Sensitivity Magnitude Effect Low High Medium Medium Medium High Medium High Medium Medium Medium Low Medium Medium High Medium Negligible Low Low Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Low Negligible Negligible Negligible Low Negligible Negligible Minor beneficial Negligible Minor beneficial Minor beneficial Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Minor beneficial Negligible Negligible Negligible Minor beneficial Negligible Negligible
11.6.34
Operational phase townscape assessment year one of operation night time effects 11.6.35 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. This will be re-assessed within the ongoing EIA once the project design is finalised, and reported in the ES.
Page 180
Operational phase visual assessment year one of operation London View Management Framework London Panoramas London Panorama 5A.2 Greenwich Park: the General Wolfe statue north east of the statue to St Pauls Cathedral 11.6.36 The proposed above ground structures at the site are low in height and would therefore be obscured by the intervening buildings and infrastructure. 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 a negligible effect on this London Panorama. Residential Viewpoint 1.1: View south east from residences on St Katharines Way 11.6.38 Views from residences towards the site would be positively affected, to a limited extent, by the removal of the existing piled deck over the river and the clearance of derelict structures on the site. However, the view would still encompass a cleared development site. The above ground structures would form barely perceptible components of the wider panorama. 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 beneficial significance. Viewpoint 1.2: View south west from residences on Wapping High Street next to Pier Head 11.6.40 Views from residences towards the site would be positively affected, to a limited extent, by the removal of the existing piled deck over the river and the clearance of derelict structures on the site. However, the view would still encompass a cleared development site. The above ground structures would form barely perceptible components of the wider panorama. 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 beneficial significance. Viewpoint 1.3: View west from residences on Fountain Green Square 11.6.42 Views from residences towards the site would be affected positively by the removal of the existing piled deck and clearance of derelict structures. However, the new above ground structures would be visible in the foreground of the view. The magnitude of change and significance of effect on this view would be dependent on the design and finish of the above ground structures. The magnitude of change is likely to be low, given that the majority of the view would remain dominated by the cleared development plot. Assessing this
11.6.37
11.6.39
11.6.41
11.6.43
Page 181
along the high sensitivity of the receptor means the effect of the proposed development would be of minor beneficial significance. Viewpoint 1.4: View west from residences on Chambers Street at the junction with Bevington Street 11.6.44 Views from this location would not be affected by the components of the proposed development in operation. 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 development would give rise to negligible effects on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 1.5: View north from residences on Llewellyn Street 11.6.46 Views from this location would not be affected by the components of the proposed development in operation. 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 development would give rise to negligible effects on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 1.6: View north east from residences along Chambers Street at the junction with Flockton Street 11.6.48 Views from this location would not be affected by the components of the proposed development in operation. 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 development would give rise to negligible effects on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 1.7: View east from residences on Bermondsey Wall West at the junction with Flockton Street 11.6.50 Views from this location would not be affected by the components of the proposed development in operation. 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 development would give rise to negligible effects on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 1.8: View east from riverfront residences on the corner of Flockton Street and Bermondsey Wall West 11.6.52 Views from residences towards the site would be positively affected by the removal of the existing piled deck over the river and the clearance of derelict structures in the site, improving the view over the river. The remainder of the site and proposed above ground structures would be barely perceptible in the periphery of the view. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be low. The low magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of minor beneficial significance.
11.6.45
11.6.47
11.6.49
11.6.51
11.6.53
Page 182
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf Recreational
Viewpoint 2.1: View south east from Thameside Green 11.6.54 Views from this location towards the site would be positively affected, to a limited extent, by the removal of the existing piled deck over the river and the clearance of derelict structures on the site. However, the view would still encompass a cleared development site. The above ground structures would form barely perceptible components of the wider panorama. 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 beneficial significance. Viewpoint 2.2: View west from Kings Stairs Garden 11.6.56 Views from this location would not be affected by the components of the proposed development in operation. 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 development would give rise to negligible effects on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 2.3: View west from the Thames Path next to Fountain Green Square 11.6.58 Views from this location towards the site would be positively affected by the removal of the existing piled deck over the river and the clearance of derelict structures in the site, improving the view over the river. The remainder of the site and proposed above ground structures would be barely perceptible in the periphery of the view. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be low. The low magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of minor beneficial significance. Viewpoint 2.4: View south east from Tower Bridge 11.6.60 Views from this location would not be affected by the components of the proposed development in operation, which would be barely perceptible in the background of the view. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor, means the proposed development would give rise to negligible effects on this viewpoint. The assessment of visual effects during year one of operation is summarised in the table below. Vol 22 Table 11.6.3 Visual significance of effects Year 1 - operation Viewpoint London View Management Framework London Panoramas Sensitivity Magnitude Effect
11.6.55
11.6.57
11.6.59
11.6.61
11.6.62
Page 183
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf Viewpoint London Panorama 5A.2 Greenwich Park: the General Wolfe statue north east of the statue, to St Pauls Cathedral Residential Viewpoint 1.1: View south east from residences on St Katherines Way Viewpoint 1.2: View south west from residences on Wapping High Street next to Pier Head Viewpoint 1.3: View west from residences on Fountain Green Square Viewpoint 1.4: View west from residences on Chambers Street at the junction with Bevington Street Viewpoint 1.5: View north from residences on Llewellyn Street Viewpoint 1.6: View north east from residences along Chambers Street at the junction with Flockton Street Viewpoint 1.7: View east from residences on Bermondsey Wall West at the junction with Flockton Street Viewpoint 1.8: View east from riverfront residences on the corner of Flockton Street and Bermondsey Wall West Recreational Viewpoint 2.1: View south east from Thameside Green Viewpoint 2.2: View west from Kings Stairs Garden Viewpoint 2.3: View west from the Thames Path next to Fountain Green Square Viewpoint 2.4: View south east from Tower Bridge
Section 11: Townscape and visual Sensitivity Magnitude Effect High Negligible Negligible
High
Low
Minor beneficial Minor beneficial Minor beneficial Negligible
High
Low
High
Low
High
Negligible
High High
Negligible Negligible
High
Negligible
Negligible
High
Low
Minor beneficial
High High High
Low Negligible Low
Minor beneficial Negligible Minor beneficial Negligible
High
Negligible
Page 184
Operational assessment results year 15 of operation

11.6.63 Townscape and visual effects arising from the proposed development, 15 years after completion may be altered by growth of any 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 further to generating beneficial effects on the surrounding townscape and visual receptors. This is to be defined further as part of the ongoing design development and will be reflected in the final assessment presented in the ES.
11.7
11.7.1

Mitigation measures during the construction phase have been incorporated as far as possible into the CoCP. In addition, a process of iterative design and assessment has been employed to reduce adverse effects arising during construction. Significant adverse effects arising during construction cannot be further mitigated because the scale of construction activities, primarily the height of cranes, and also construction deliveries, would obstruct views and adversely alter the townscape character. Therefore no further mitigation measures are proposed.
Operation
11.7.2 There are no adverse effects so no mitigation is required. However, further enhancement opportunities will be explored as appropriate.
Page 185
11.8
Significance of effect Moderate adverse Minor adverse Moderate adverse Moderate adverse Negligible Moderate adverse Negligible Minor adverse Moderate No mitigation possible No mitigation possible No mitigation possible Not required No mitigation possible Not required No mitigation possible No No mitigation possible Mitigation Significance of residual effect Moderate adverse Minor adverse
Assessment summary
Vol 22 Table 11.8.1 Townscape assessment summary - construction
Receptor
The site
Change to character due to construction of the site cofferdam and intensity of construction activity.
River Thames Tower of London Reach
Slight change to setting due to the presence of cranes, construction activity, the site cofferdam and river transport.
River Thames East London Reach
Change to setting due to the presence of cranes, construction activity, the site cofferdam and river transport.
Moderate adverse Moderate adverse Negligible Moderate adverse Negligible Minor adverse
Hermitage Wall Residential
Spirit Quay Residential
No significant effects.
Wapping Pierhead Conservation Area
Shadwell Residential South
Kings Stairs Gardens and Southwark Park
Bermondsey Wall East
Change to setting due to the presence of cranes,
Moderate
Page 186
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf Significance of effect adverse Negligible Minor adverse Negligible Moderate adverse Minor adverse Moderate adverse Not required No mitigation possible No mitigation possible No mitigation possible No mitigation possible Not required Negligible Minor adverse mitigation possible adverse Mitigation Significance of residual effect
Receptor
Residential
construction activity, the site cofferdam, and road and river transport.
Jamaica Road Residential
Bermondsey Residential
Slight change to setting due to the presence of cranes and road transport.
Old Jamaica Road Industrial
Negligible Moderate adverse Minor adverse
St Saviours Dock Conservation Area
Tower Bridge Conservation Area
The Tower of London Conservation Area
Moderate adverse
Vol 22 Table 11.8.2 Visual assessment summary - construction Description of effect Significance of effect Mitigation Significance of residual effect
Receptor
London View Management Framework London Panoramas No significant effects. Negligible Not Negligible
London Panorama 5A.2 Greenwich Park: the General Wolfe statue
Page 187
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf Description of effect required Significance of effect Mitigation Significance of residual effect
Receptor
north east of the statue, to St Pauls Cathedral Visibility of site cofferdam, construction activity, cranes and river transport. Moderate adverse No mitigation possible No mitigation possible No mitigation possible No mitigation possible Moderate adverse Major adverse Minor adverse No mitigation possible No mitigation possible No mitigation possible Moderate adverse
Residential
Viewpoint 1.1: View south east from residences on St Katherines Way
Viewpoint 1.2: View south west from residences on Wapping High Street next to Pier Head Foreground visibility of site hoardings, construction activity and cranes. Foreground visibility of site hoardings and road transport. Middle ground visibility of site hoardings, construction activity and cranes. Foreground visibility of site hoardings, construction activity and cranes. Slight visibility of site hoardings and cranes. Major adverse Moderate adverse
Visibility of site cofferdam, construction activity, cranes and river transport.
Moderate adverse
Moderate adverse Major adverse
Viewpoint 1.3: View west from residences on Fountain Green Square
Viewpoint 1.4: View west from residences on Chambers Street at the junction with Bevington Street
Moderate adverse Moderate adverse Major adverse
Viewpoint 1.5: View north from residences on Llewellyn Street
Viewpoint 1.6: View north east from residences along Chambers Street at the junction with Flockton Street
Viewpoint 1.7: View east from residences on Bermondsey Wall West at the junction with Flockton Street
Minor adverse
Page 188
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf Description of effect Foreground visibility of the site cofferdam, site hoardings, construction activity and cranes. Major adverse No mitigation possible Major adverse Significance of effect Mitigation Significance of residual effect
Receptor
Viewpoint 1.8: View east from riverfront residences on the corner of Flockton Street and Bermondsey Wall West Visibility of site cofferdam, construction activity, cranes and river transport. Slight visibility of site cofferdam, construction activity, cranes and river transport. Foreground visibility of the site cofferdam, construction activity, cranes and river transport. Slight visibility of site cofferdam, construction activity, cranes and river transport. Major adverse Minor adverse Minor adverse Moderate adverse No mitigation possible No mitigation possible No mitigation possible No mitigation possible Moderate adverse
Recreational
Viewpoint 2.1: View south east from Thameside Green
Viewpoint 2.2: View west from Kings Stairs Garden
Minor adverse
Viewpoint 2.3: View west from the Thames Path next to Fountain Green Square
Major adverse
Viewpoint 2.4: View south east from Tower Bridge
Minor adverse
Vol 22 Table 11.8.3 Townscape assessment summary Year 1 of operation Significance of effect Minor beneficial Negligible Mitigation Not required Not required Significance of residual effect Minor beneficial Negligible
Receptor
The site
Change in character through removal of piled deck and clearance of derelict structures.
River Thames Tower of London Reach
Page 189
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf Significance of effect Minor beneficial Minor beneficial Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Minor beneficial Negligible Negligible Negligible Minor beneficial Negligible Negligible Not required Not required Minor beneficial Minor beneficial Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Not required Minor beneficial Negligible Negligible Negligible Minor beneficial Not required Not required Negligible Negligible Mitigation Significance of residual effect
Receptor
River Thames East London Reach
Slight change to setting through removal of piled deck and clearance of derelict structures.
Hermitage Wall Residential
Spirit Quay Residential
Wapping Pierhead Conservation Area
Not required Not required
Shadwell Residential South
Kings Stairs Gardens and Southwark Park
Not required Not required
Bermondsey Wall East Residential
Jamaica Road Residential
Bermondsey Residential
Old Jamaica Road Industrial
St Saviours Dock Conservation Area
Not required Not required Not required Not required
Tower Bridge Conservation Area
The Tower of London Conservation Area
Page 190
Vol 22 Table 11.8.4 Visual assessment summary Year 1 of operation Description of effect Significance of effect Mitigation Significance of residual effect
Receptor
London View Management Framework London Panoramas No significant effects. Negligible Not required Negligible
London Panorama 5A.2 Greenwich Park: the General Wolfe statue north east of the statue, to St Pauls Cathedral Visibility of the cleared deck and derelict structures. Visibility of the cleared deck and derelict structures. Visibility of the cleared deck and derelict structures, and of the new above ground structures. No significant effects. Minor beneficial Minor beneficial Negligible Minor beneficial Not required Not required Not required Not required Negligible Negligible Not required Not required
Residential Minor beneficial Minor beneficial
Viewpoint 1.1: View south east from residences on St Katherines Way
Viewpoint 1.2: View south west from residences on Wapping High Street next to Pier Head
Viewpoint 1.3: View west from residences on Fountain Green Square
Minor beneficial
Viewpoint 1.4: View west from residences on Chambers Street at the junction with Bevington Street No significant effects. No significant effects.
Negligible
Viewpoint 1.5: View north from residences on Llewellyn Street
Viewpoint 1.6: View north east from residences along Chambers Street at the junction with Flockton Street
Page 191
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf Description of effect No significant effects. Negligible Not required Negligible Significance of effect Mitigation Significance of residual effect
Receptor
Viewpoint 1.7: View east from residences on Bermondsey Wall West at the junction with Flockton Street Visibility of the cleared deck and derelict structures. Minor beneficial Not required
Viewpoint 1.8: View east from riverfront residences on the corner of Flockton Street and Bermondsey Wall West Visibility of the cleared deck and derelict structures. No significant effects. Visibility of the cleared deck and derelict structures. No significant effects. Negligible Minor beneficial Negligible Minor beneficial Not required Not required Not required Not required
Minor beneficial
Recreational Minor beneficial Negligible Minor beneficial
Viewpoint 2.1: View south east from Thameside Green
Viewpoint 2.2: View west from Kings Stairs Garden
Viewpoint 2.3: View west from the Thames Path next to Fountain Green Square
Viewpoint 2.4: View south east from Tower Bridge
Negligible
Page 192
11.9
11.9.1
The baseline data collection is complete for this site, aside from establishing a baseline for the night time character of the assessment area. The ES will include the summer baseline for each of the character areas and viewpoints. It will also include winter and summer photos for each character area and viewpoint. The study area for the assessment will be reviewed for the ES, based on the findings of the PEIR. 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. Four verifiable photomontages will be produced for the ES, in the locations indicated on Vol 22 Figure 11.4.6. One will cover the construction phase assessment and the other three will be produced for the operation year one assessment. 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 one 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 193
Section 12: Transport
12 12.1
12.1.1 12.1.2
Transport Introduction
This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant transport effects at the proposed Chambers Wharf site. The site has the potential to affect transport in the following ways: a. Effects on pedestrian routes. b. Effects on cycle routes. c. Effects on bus routes and patronage. d. Effects on London Underground and National Rail services. e. Effects on river services and patronage. f. Effects on car and coach parking. g. Effects on highway layout, operation and capacity.
12.1.3
This section details the site-specific findings for Chambers Wharf 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 Transport Assessment which will be submitted as part of the application. 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 assessment is therefore based on professional judgement using available information at the time of writing.
12.1.4
12.2
12.2.1
The proposed development is described in section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to transport are as follows.
Construction
12.2.2 Construction details for the site relevant to the assessment are summarised in the table below.
Page 194
Vol 22 Table 12.2.1 Transport - site 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 90 movements per day (45 two way lorry trips) Rings lorries Office lorries Pipe/Track/Oils lorries Plant deliveries Cement lorries Grout-PFA lorries Grout-Sand lorries Concrete Sand lorries Concrete Aggregate lorries Concrete lorries Rebar 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 90% of cofferdam fill and 90% of main tunnel excavated material would be transported by barge and all other materials would be transported by road. Lorry routing during construction phases During all the construction phases vehicles would access and egress the site from Chambers Street in a right turn in, left turn out arrangement. Chambers Street is accessed from Bevington Street, connecting to Jamaica Road (A200). Vol 22 Figure 12.2.1 indicates the construction traffic routes for access to/from Chambers Wharf. Construction routes are being discussed with both Transport for London and the Local Highway Authority (LHA). Vol 22 Figure 12.2.1 Transport - construction traffic routes (see Volume 22 Figures document)
12.2.4
12.2.5
12.2.6
12.2.7
The histograms in Vol 22 Figure 12.2.2 and Vol 22 Figure 12.2.3 below show anticipated lorry and barge movements during construction and indicate that peak activity at the Chambers Wharf site would occur in year 1 of construction. This peak is earlier than the overall project-wide construction peak activity year of 2019.
Page 195
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf Vol 22 Figure 12.2.2 Transport - construction lorry profile
Note: Figure shows indicative volumes and movements based upon assumed timings for the works. It is not a schedule and remains subject to change.
Page 196
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf Vol 22 Figure 12.2.3 Transport - construction barge profile
Note: Figure shows indicative volumes and movements based upon assumed timings for the works. It is not a schedule and remains subject to change.
Page 197
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf Construction workers 12.2.8
The construction site is expected to require a maximum workforce of approximately 165 people at any one time. The number and type of workers is shown in the table below Vol 22 Table 12.2.2 Transport - construction worker numbers Contractor Staff 08:00-18:00 60 60 Labour 08:00-18:00 15:00-23:00 60 Client Staff 08:00-18:00 45
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 The site would be accessed from Chambers Street during the operational phase. The proposed access for maintenance vehicles is via Jamaica Road (A200) and Bevington Street. 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
12.2.14
12.3
12.3.1

Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. All consultee comments relevant to this site are presented in the table below. It is noted that it was reported in the Scoping Report that operational traffic effects were scoped out of the EIA (for all sites). However, while the
12.3.2
Page 198
environmental effects associated with transport for the operational phase are not expected to be significant or adverse, the Transport Assessment which will accompany the ES as part of the application, will examine the operational phase in order to satisfy the relevant stakeholders that technical issues have been addressed (for example, those associated with access for maintenance activities). As this also allows conclusions in relation to environmental effects to be drawn, these have been included in the PEIR for completeness. Vol 22 Table 12.3.1 Transport stakeholder engagement Organisation Scoping opinion / consultation comment Oppose HGV any further west due to 10T limit on Tower Bridge Rolling programme of closure along St Thomas Road for bridge Ensure that the construction impact does not impede the operation of the SRN/TLRN in the vicinity of Chambers Wharf. Consider use of A2208 as an alternative route for site vehicles to avoid Evelyn Road / Lower Road route Protection of pedestrian routes and /or diversion of them to safeguard against HGV movements. Parking relocation should be identified and provision made of for school time drop-off and pick up. Response Noted.
London Borough of Southwark
Construction vehicles are not proposed to use this route. Ongoing consultation with TfL in regards to modelling and analysis.
Transport for London
This will be considered as part of the strategic construction vehicle routing. School travel plan for works duration would be identified as part of Transport Assessment. This will be assessed in the Transport Assessment.
Baseline methodology
12.3.4 The baseline methodology follows the standard methodology described in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.
Construction methodology
12.3.5 The construction phase methodology follows the standard methodology described in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.
Page 199
Operation methodology
12.3.6 The operational phase methodology follows the standard methodology described in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.

12.3.7 The assumptions and limitations made for the transport assessment are as listed in Volume 5. Site specific assumptions and limitations for the site will be provided in the ES when the detailed assessment is presented. The preliminary assessment findings reported in the PEIR are qualitative and based on professional judgement.
12.3.8
12.4
12.4.1
Baseline conditions
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 22 Figure 12.4.1 shows the Transport Site Plan. Vol 22 Figure 12.4.1 Transport site plan (see Volume 22 Figures document)
Pedestrian routes
12.4.2 The Thames Path runs from Tower Bridge to the Thames Barrier. From Shad Thames it cuts in to Bermondsey Wall West, to East Street and along Chambers Street.
Cycle routes
12.4.3 12.4.4 12.4.5 12.4.6 National Cycle Route 4 runs between Tower Bridge and Greenwich and runs along Chambers Street. Advanced stop lines are provided on all arms of the Jamaica Road (A200) / Bevington Street / St James Road junction. Chambers Street is a TfL designated cycle route which leads from Jamaica Road to Bermondsey Wall East. There are no Barclays Cycle Hire docking stations within the area. The closest docking station is located on Curlew Street, Shad Thames to the west of the site.
Bus routes
12.4.7 The site is designated as having a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) rating of three. This indicates that the public transport provision is moderate in the vicinity of the site. There are four bus routes in the local area: 47, 188, 381 and C10, details of which are given in the table below. Bus stops within the area are located on Jamaica Road (A200). Vol 22 Figure 12.4.1 indicates the location of these bus stops.
12.4.8
Page 200
Vol 22 Table 12.4.1 Transport - bus routes and frequencies Distance from site (metres) and Location of Bus Stop 500m (Jamaica Road) 500m (Jamaica Road) 500m (Jamaica Road) 500m (Jamaica Road) Origin Destination AM Peak (07:00-10:00) buses per hour 5-8
Route Number
47
Shoreditch to/from Catford
188
381
North Greenwich 6-10 to/from Russell Square County Hall to/from 5-9 Peckham Canada Water bus station to/from Victoria 5-8
C10
London Underground and National Rail stations

12.4.9 Bermondsey is the nearest London Underground station, approximately 0.5km from the site. Bermondsey station provides access to the London Underground Jubilee Line serving Stanmore and Wembley in the west and Greenwich and Stratford in the east. Jubilee Line services are every three to five minutes during the AM and PM peaks in each direction. The closest National Rail station is London Bridge which is approximately 2km to the west of the site. South Bermondsey National Rail station is approximately 2.25km south of the site. London Bridge station is served by First Capital Connect, Southeastern and Southern train operators. Routes include trains to Bedford, Brighton, Charing Cross, Cannon Street, Sevenoaks, Lewisham, Tunbridge Wells, Ashford International, Crystal Palace and Redhill. In the AM and PM peak hours there are approximately 82 two-way train services from London Bridge. South Bermondsey station is served by Southern trains with routes to London Bridge, Victoria, West Croydon, Beckenham Junction, Selhurst and Crystal Palace. There are approximately 12 two-way train services during the AM and PM peak hours. The location of the rail services in the local area are shown in Vol 22 Figure 12.4.1
12.4.10
12.4.11
12.4.12
River services
12.4.13 12.4.14 The Chambers Wharf site is approximately 2km east of the London Bridge City Pier which is served by the TfL River Bus services. The TfL River Bus serves Embankment in the west to North Greenwich / Woolwich Arsenal in the east. During the morning weekday peak, westbound River Bus service begins at 6.40am and there are services every 30 minutes during the AM peak hour. Eastbound River Bus services
Page 201
from London Bridge City Pier start at approximately 7am with a frequency of approximately every 30 minutes. During the afternoon weekday peak there are services every 30 minutes both directions. 12.4.15 Weekend River Bus services at London Bridge City Pier begin at approximately 10am and arrive every 30mins until the last River Boat at approximately 11:30pm. TfL River Tours do not serve London Bridge City Pier.
12.4.16
Parking
12.4.17 12.4.18 Chambers Street has parking bays on both sides of the road. These are limited to residential permit holders from Monday to Friday, 0800-1830. Bevington Street has parking has for much of its length. These bays are limited to residential permit holders from Monday to Friday, 0800-1830. The exception to this is a bay at the southern end which allows general parking for approximately 9 cars for a one hour period, between the hours of Monday to Friday, 0800 1830. George Road is similar to Bevington Street with residential parking along much of its length and the same parking restriction periods. In addition there are five parking meter bays along George Row and Wolseley Street and five Pay and Display bays east of the site along Wilson Grove. Both the parking meters and Pay and Display bays charge 2.10 per hour with a maximum stay of four hours. There are motorcycle parking bays located on the neighbouring streets. Existing off-street / private car parking 12.4.21 The properties in the local area are mainly blocks of residential apartments and some areas of terraced housing with some off-street parking provision.
12.4.19
12.4.20
Highway network
12.4.22 Jamaica Road (A200) and Tower Bridge Road (A100) are part of the TLRN. Tooley Street (A200) begins as a single carriageway road with bus lanes and becomes a dual carriageway east towards Bermondsey. Jamaica Road (A200) links to Tower Bridge Road (A100) to the west and the A2 in the south east. Bevington Street, Chambers Street and George Row are all two-way residential roads.
12.4.23 12.4.24
Survey data
Description of surveys 12.4.25 Baseline survey data were collected in May, June and July 2011 to establish the existing transport movements in the area. Manual and automated traffic surveys were undertaken to establish specific traffic, pedestrian and cycle movements including turning volumes, queue lengths, saturation flows, degree of saturation and traffic signal timings.
Page 202
The following junction surveys were undertaken in the vicinity of the Chambers Wharf site to understand highway operation in the area: a. A200 Tooley Street / Druid Street / Jamaica Road b. A200 Jamaica Road / Abbey Street c. A200 Jamaica Road / St Jamess Road / Bevington Street d. Bevington Street / Scott Lidgett Crescent e. Bevington Street / Chambers Street f. A200 Jamaica Road / B205 Brunel Road / A101 Rotherhithe Tunnel / A200 Lower Road (roundabout).
12.4.27
Automatic Traffic Counters (ATCs) were placed at the following locations to obtain data on traffic flows: a. A200 Jamaica Road east of the junction with Keetons Road. Pedestrian and cycle surveys were undertaken in the vicinity of the site in the following locations: a. Pedestrian crossing on Jamaica Road, west of the junction with Parkers Row. b. Pedestrian crossing on Jamaica Road, west of the junction with George Row. c. Pedestrian crossing on Jamaica Road, west of the junction with Keetons Road.
12.4.28
12.4.29
A parking survey was undertaken in the roads surrounding the site to establish occupancy of on-street parking spaces in the following areas: a. The area bounded by Bermondsey Wall West/East, Railway Avenue, Jamaica Road (A200) and Mill Street. 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. Data from third party sources 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.
12.4.31
Transport receptors and sensitivity

12.4.32 The receptors and their sensitivities in the vicinity of the Chambers Wharf 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 in this section 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
12.4.33
Page 203
bus services, rail network, river services, parking and local highway network. A full assessment will be provided in the ES. Vol 22 Table 12.4.2 Transport receptor values/sensitivities Value/sensitivity and justification High Receptor Residents along Bevington Street and Chambers Street. Pupils at St Michaels Catholic College, Riverside Primary School and St Josephs RC Primary School. Pedestrians and cyclists using the Thames Path and Jamaica Road (A200) Emergency vehicles requiring access to Bevington Street and adjoining residential streets. Business and workplace occupiers on Bevington Street Private vehicle users in the area using the local highways or parking. Public transport users (passengers) on bus, taxi, river and rail services travelling to, from and through the Chambers Wharf area.
Medium
Low
12.5
12.5.1
At this stage in the assessment process a qualitative assessment has been undertaken based on discussions with TfL and the LHAs, knowledge of the transport networks and their operational characteristics in the vicinity of each site and knowledge of the construction programme, duration and levels of construction activity. These elements have been considered in the context of the range of receptors present in each location and the significance criteria identified. Professional judgement has been applied to determine qualitatively the likely effects and their significance in each location being assessed. The Transport Assessment will include full quantitative and qualitative analysis and the transport effects reported in the ES will be based on that detailed analysis.
12.5.2
Construction base and development cases

Assessment year 12.5.3 As described in Volume 5, 2019 has been used as the construction assessment year for all sites, as agreed with TfL, to enable a networkwide assessment. The peak period for vehicle trips to the Chambers Wharf site is however predicted to be in Year 1 of construction which will be the assessment year for local network assessments and will be contained in the ES.
12.5.4
Page 204
For the PEIR the assessment is undertaken for the network-wide 2019 assessment year. Assessment area The area being assessed for Chambers Wharf site is based on discussions with LB Southwark and TfL and includes the immediate site access from Jamaica Road (A200) via Bevington Street and Chambers Street. Further local roads and junctions to be modelled and included in the assessment area as follows: A200 Tooley Street / Druid Street / Jamaica Road; A200 Jamaica Road / Abbey Street; A200 Jamaica Road / St Jamess Road / Bevington Street; Bevington Street / Scott Lidgett Crescent; Bevington Street / Chambers Street; and A200 Jamaica Road / B205 Brunel Road / A101 Rotherhithe Tunnel / A200 Lower Road (roundabout).
12.5.6
12.5.7
These roads and junctions will be assessed for highway, cycle and pedestrian impacts. The Thames Path will also be included within the assessment due to its proximity to the development site. Local bus and rail services, as identified in Vol 22 Figure 12.4.1, will also be assessed.
Construction base case

12.5.8 The construction base case takes into account traffic growth and proposed developments within the local area by 2019. This includes the developments described in section 3.4.1, namely the new housing to the south of Chambers Street. The following sub-sections detail what is assumed to change between the baseline and base case scenarios with respect to the different transport aspects considered. Pedestrian routes 12.5.10 Pedestrian routes are not anticipated to change from baseline conditions. The base case therefore assumes the same pedestrian routes as set out in section 12.4. Cycle routes 12.5.11 Cycle routes are not anticipated to change from baseline conditions and therefore the base case assumes the same cycle routes as set out in section 12.4. Bus routes and patronage 12.5.12 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.
12.5.9
Page 205
London Underground and National Rail and patronage 12.5.13 London Underground and National Rail routes are assumed to be the same as baseline conditions as no changes are anticipated. Patronage of both is anticipated to increase, the effect of which will be detailed in the Transport Assessment. River services and patronage 12.5.14 River services are assumed to be the same as baseline conditions as no changes are anticipated. River patronage is anticipated to increase, the effect of which will be detailed in the Transport Assessment. Parking 12.5.15 Car parking provision is assumed to be the same as baseline conditions as no changes are anticipated. Highway layout 12.5.16 The physical layout of the highway network is not anticipated to change from baseline conditions and therefore the base case assumes the same highway layout. Highway operation 12.5.17 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 are likely to be heavier and queues longer. Highway capacity analysis 12.5.18 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 Chambers Wharf site in 2019 without the Thames Tunnel project. The scope of this analysis is being agreed with London Borough of Southwark and Transport for London. The full assessment of the highway operation and capacity analysis will be undertaken in the ES.
12.5.19
Construction development case

12.5.20 The construction development case comprises the base case plus construction activities associated with the Chambers Wharf site. This section addresses the changes that would arise as a result of the Thames Tunnel construction activities. Construction vehicle movements 12.5.21 It has been assumed for the purposes of the assessment that construction lorry movements are limited to the day shift only (08:00 to 18:00), Vol 22 Table 12.5.1 shows the construction lorry movement assumptions for the local peak traffic periods. These are based on the peak months of construction activity at this site. The table also shows the construction worker movements expected to be generated by the site. These movements are based on the assumption that 90% of main tunnel excavated material and cofferdam fill are transported to and from the site
12.5.22
Page 206
by barge and all other materials are transported to and from the site by road. Vol 22 Table 12.5.1 Transport forecast construction vehicle movements Vehicle type Construction vehicle movements 10%* Worker vehicle movements Total Vehicle movements per time period Total Daily 90 07000800 9 08000900 9 17001800 9 18001900 9
41 131
27 36
9 18
4 13
21 30
* 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.
12.5.23
An average peak figure of 131 vehicle movements a day is expected during the months of greatest activity at this site. At other times in the construction period, vehicle flows will be lower than this average peak figure. Modal split The site has a PTAL of 3. A limited amount of parking might be provided on site for workers. 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 will be included in the CoCP, Construction Management Plan and Work Place Travel Plan documents for the site (to be submitted as part of the application). Pedestrian routes The northern side of the footway along Chambers Street would be impacted upon by the works during the construction period. For the duration of the works, the Thames Path would be diverted to the footway on the southern side of Chambers Street. Cycle routes Although the construction phases would not alter the existing advisory cycle route along Chambers Street, there would be an effect on cyclists due to the increase in construction traffic. Bus routes and patronage No bus services run through the site and therefore none would be impacted on by the construction site development.
12.5.24
12.5.25
12.5.26
12.5.27
Page 207
London Underground and National Rail Patronage 12.5.28 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 12.5.29 No river services run through the site and therefore none would be impacted on by the construction site development. Parking 12.5.30 No public parking in the immediate vicinity of the site would be impacted on by the worksite area. However, parking along the construction traffic routes may be affected. Highway layout 12.5.31 12.5.32 A new access from Chambers Street would be provided into the site. Highway operation Highway operation would not be impacted on by the worksite area.
12.5.33 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 12.5.34 There would be additional construction vehicle movements along Bevington Street. Also, if the northern footway on Chambers Street section of the Thames Path is diverted, pedestrians would be diverted to the southern footway. Pedestrians would be guided to suitable crossing points or alternative routes. The potential diversion of pedestrian routes to the adjacent footway would lead to a small increase in journey time for pedestrians due to the increase in walking distance. There would also be an increase in the number of lorries passing in close proximity to pedestrians along Bevington Street and additional pedestrian crossing movements. It is expected that the effect on pedestrian routes would be moderate adverse. Cycle routes 12.5.36 The cycle route along Chambers Street (Thames Path) would be affected by the works. The level of construction traffic may be significant enough in frequency to require local diversion of the existing cycle route along Chambers Street. The increase in construction traffic would result in increases to journey times and increased risks to cyclists. It is expected that the effect on cycle routes would be minor adverse. Bus routes and patronage 12.5.38 The routing of bus services in the area should not be impacted by the location of a construction site at Chambers Wharf.
12.5.35
12.5.37
Page 208
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 The underground service at Bermondsey and National Rail service at South Bermondsey are not likely to be affected by the construction works at the site. It is anticipated that there would be a proportion of labourers and staff using rail and underground to access the site during construction, however, it is expected that the effect on London Underground and National Rail services would be negligible. River services and patronage Barge movements to/from the Chambers Wharf site would not alter or affect any river services. It is expected that the effect on river services would be negligible. Parking It is proposed that the site would be accessed from Chambers Street via Bevington Street. Some of the on-street parking on Bevington Street would need to be removed or relocated to create passing bays and manoeuvring room for two-way construction vehicle movements. It is not anticipated that on-street parking bays would need to be removed during all the construction phases. On this basis it is expected that the effect of the construction works on car parking would be moderate adverse. Highway layout The junction of Jamaica Road and Bevington Street may require some modification to better accommodate right turn lorry movements into Bevington Street. The construction works to modify the layout of this junction are likely to require short term pedestrian and traffic management. Therefore it is expected that the effect on local highway layout would be minor adverse. Highway operation The use of Bevington Street by construction vehicles may restrict other vehicles using this route due to an increase in vehicle conflicts. Due to the overall increase in vehicles using Bevington Street and it is expected that the effect on highway operation (specifically the ease of vehicle movements) would be minor adverse. Highway capacity analysis The levels of construction vehicle movement expected at this site are likely to be moderate in the context of the amount of traffic already using the road network in the surrounding area.
12.5.40
12.5.41
12.5.42 12.5.43 12.5.44
12.5.45
12.5.46
12.5.47
12.5.48 12.5.49
12.5.50
Page 209
Due to this overall increase in vehicles using the Bevington Street and Jamaica Road junction, it is expected that the effect on highway capacity would be minor adverse
Significance of effects
12.5.52 The significance of the transport effects described above has been determined as part of the ongoing assessment and analysis. With regard to the application of the IEMA criteria detailed in Volume 5, this is based on professional judgement for the purposes of the PEIR assessment. During construction, the number of heavy goods vehicle movements would be moderate. The nature of the construction site layout at this location is considered likely to result in a minor to moderate adverse effect on road network operation and delay. Effects on pedestrian and cyclist amenity and safety are expected to be moderate adverse.
12.5.53
12.6
12.6.1
Operational assessment Assessment year

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. 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 paragraphs 12.5.6-12.5.7. This includes those roads and junctions which lead to/from the Chambers Wharf site to the SRN and TRLN. Operational base case 12.6.5 The operational base case takes into account traffic growth and proposed developments within the local area by year 1 of operation (see section 3.5).
Page 210
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 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 are assumed to be the same as baseline conditions as no changes are anticipated. It is anticipated that river services patronage will increase between 2011 and year 1 of operation and this assessment will be detailed further in the Transport Assessment. Parking Parking is not anticipated to change from the baseline conditions. Highway layout Highway layout is not anticipated to change from the baseline conditions. Highway operation Population growth and development in the surrounding area will result in an increase in traffic on the surrounding highway network. As a result of this increase, it is anticipated that traffic flows are likely to be heavier and queues longer.
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 12.6.18
Page 211
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf Highway capacity analysis 12.6.19
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 Chambers Wharf site in year 1 of operation. The scope of this analysis is being agreed with LB Southwark and Transport for London and will be reported in the Transport Assessment. Operational development case
12.6.20
The operational development case for the site includes any permanent changes in the vicinity of the Chambers Wharf site as a result of the Thames Tunnel project and takes into consideration the occasional maintenance activities required at the site. Trip generation For routine three or six monthly inspections and equipment exercising, vehicular access would be required for light commercial vehicles. In most cases this would be typically a transit van. On occasion there may be a consequent need for small flatbed vehicles with lifting cranes, for example to remove plant from the site. During 10 yearly inspections, sites for placing two large cranes would be required. The cranes would facilitate lowering and recovery of tunnel inspection vehicles and to provide duty/standby access for personnel. Modal split It is anticipated that all trips during the operational phase would be using transit van or large construction vehicles. No trips would be made by public transport, walking or cycling due to the nature of maintenance requiring equipment that can only be transported by vehicles Pedestrian routes The footways and kerb alignments adjacent to the Chambers Wharf site would be reinstated following the construction phase. There would be an additional dropped kerb at the new access on Chambers Street to provide site access for construction and subsequent maintenance vehicles. Cycle routes The designated cycle routes within the area would be maintained and would not be affected during the operational phase. Bus routes and patronage No change is expected to any bus services in the operational phase and it is not anticipated that operational staff journeys would be made by bus. London Underground and National Rail patronage 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.
12.6.21
12.6.22
12.6.23
12.6.24
12.6.25
12.6.26
12.6.27
Page 212
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf River services and patronage 12.6.28
No change is expected to any river services as a result of the operational phase. Parking No change is expected to car parking in the vicinity of the site, compared to the base case, as a result of the operational phase arrangements at Chambers Wharf. When large vehicles are required to service the site, some parking may have to be suspended to ensure the vehicles have sufficient space to manoeuvre into the site. Highway layout The site would be accessed via Bermondsey Wall East and Loftie Street during the operational phase. When large vehicles are required to service the site, some parking may have to be suspended to ensure the vehicles have sufficient space to manoeuvre into the site. Highway operation Occasional maintenance vehicles would service Chambers Wharf every three to six months. When larger vehicles are required to service the site, there may be some temporary, short-term delay to other road users.
12.6.29
12.6.30
12.6.31 12.6.32
12.6.33 12.6.34
Operational effects
12.6.35 This section summarises the preliminary findings of the operational assessment undertaken for the year 1 of operation assessment year. The results summarised below will be presented in more detail in the ES. Pedestrian routes 12.6.36 As a result of the occasional maintenance trips anticipated at Chambers Wharf during the operational phase, there would be a negligible effect on pedestrian routes in the area and footways adjacent to the site. Cycle routes 12.6.37 As a result of occasional maintenance vehicles that are required at Chambers Wharf, temporary disruption to cyclists may occur but due to the low frequency of such events, the impacts would be minimal. There would therefore be a negligible effect on cycle routes in the area and on the roads surrounding the site. Bus routes and patronage 12.6.38 As a result of occasional maintenance trips during the operational phase, there would be a negligible effect on bus routes and patronage.
Page 213
London Underground and National Rail and patronage 12.6.39 The occasional maintenance trips associated with the operational phase, would have no effect on London Underground and National Rail services in the local area. River services and patronage 12.6.40 As a result of occasional maintenance trips during the operational phase, there would be a no effect on river services. Parking 12.6.41 As a result of occasional maintenance trips and temporary infrequent parking suspensions to allow access by large vehicles anticipated at Chambers Wharf during the operational phase, there would be a negligible effect on parking in the local area. Where there are on-street parking suspensions, bays would be re-provided in a safe location away from turning vehicles. Highway layout 12.6.42 In the operational phase the current highway layout would be restored, with the construction access retained. Some road widening at the junction of Bermondsey Wall East and Bevington Street may be required to allow access for large vehicles occasionally visiting Chambers Wharf for maintenance. As a result of the occasional maintenance trips, there would be a negligible effect on the local highway layout. Highway operation 12.6.43 During the operational phase there may be some minor delay to road users when large maintenance vehicles are required at Chambers Wharf. As a result of the occasional maintenance trips, there would be a negligible effect on the local highway operation. Highway capacity analysis 12.6.44 12.6.45 It is expected that the effect on highway capacity would be negligible. Significance of effects The significance of the transport effects described above has been determined as part of the ongoing assessment and analysis. With regard to the application of the IEMA criteria detailed in Volume 5, this is based on professional judgement for the purposes of the PEIR assessment. During the operational phase there would be very occasional vehicle trips to and from the site for maintenance activities but these would have a negligible effect on the surrounding transport networks (in terms of delay and safety) and pedestrian/cyclists.
12.6.46
12.7
12.7.1

Measures contained in the draft CoCP of relevance to transport are summarised in section 12.2.
Page 214
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 On the basis that safe and appropriate diversion routes, safe crossing facilities and protection for pedestrians are provided along Bevington Street and Chambers Street (as described in section 12.5), no mitigation is required. Cycle routes Assuming that safe and appropriate diversion routes are provided for cyclists, no mitigation is deemed to be required. 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 With alternative provision to be made for on-street parking bays when suspension is necessary, no mitigation is required. Highway layout Assuming the modification of the road markings at the Jamaica Road / Bevington Street traffic signal junction to ensure safe manoeuvre of lorries during construction, no mitigation is required. Highway operation Optimisation of the signals at the junction with Bevington Street and Jamaica Road may be required to increase capacity at the junction and improve pedestrian crossing time. Highway capacity Modification to the traffic signal timings at the junction of Bevington Street and Jamaica Road may be required to improve junction capacity.
12.7.3
12.7.4
12.7.5 12.7.6
12.7.7 12.7.8
12.7.9
12.7.10
12.7.11
Operation
Pedestrian routes 12.7.12 No mitigation is likely to be required for pedestrian routes in the operational phase. Cycle routes 12.7.13 No mitigation is likely to be required for cycle routes in the operational phase.
Page 215
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf Bus routes 12.7.14
Bus services and patronage would not be affected by the operation of Chambers Wharf and therefore no mitigation would be required. London Underground and National Rail London Underground and London Overground services would not be affected by the operation of the Chambers Wharf site and therefore no mitigation would be required. River services River services and patronage would not be affected by the operation of Chambers Wharf and therefore no mitigation would be required. Parking On the basis that on-street parking bays would be re-provided in a safe location away from turning vehicles if temporary suspensions are necessary, no mitigation would be required. Highway layout Effects on highway layout would be negligible and therefore no mitigation would be required for the operational phase. Highway operation The number of trips associated with Chambers Wharf during the operational phase would be very low and infrequent and for maintenance purposes only and no mitigation would therefore be required. Highway capacity Effects on highway capacity would be negligible. Therefore there would be no requirement for highway improvement mitigation to increase capacity of local junctions.
12.7.15
12.7.16
12.7.17
12.7.18
12.7.19
12.7.20
Page 216
12.8
Vol 22 Table 12.8.1 Transport assessment summary - construction Effect Significance Moderate adverse Mitigation None required Residual significance Moderate adverse
Assessment summary
Receptor
Pedestrians in the local area / Pedestrians using the Thames Path
Cyclists in the local area Some additional patronage from construction workers. Negligible Negligible None required
Minor adverse None required
Loss of footway Movement of large construction vehicles Local diversions and provision of suitable crossing points. Movement of large construction vehicles Delays to journey time Local diversions Negligible
Minor adverse
Bus users and operators
Rail users and operators Negligible
None required
Negligible
River users and operators
Some additional patronage from construction workers. Some additional patronage from construction workers. Loss of on-street parking (to be relocated) Movement of large construction vehicles Highway layout Moderate adverse Minor adverse
None required
Negligible
Parking users
None identified
Moderate adverse
All road users
Where appropriate, Minor adverse signal optimisation may be undertaken to
Page 217
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf Effect changes including junction modifications. Delay to journey time. Significance Mitigation improve pedestrian crossing time and junction capacity. Residual significance
Receptor
Vol 22 Table 12.8.2 Transport assessment summary - operation Significance Mitigation Negligible None required Residual significance Negligible
Receptor
Effect
Pedestrians in the local area / Pedestrians using the Thames Path Negligible None required
Occasional maintenance trips.
Cyclists in the local area / Cyclists using the Thames Path Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
Negligible
Bus users and operators
None required None required None required None required
Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
Rail users and operators
No effect.
River users and operators
No effect.
Parking users
Occasional suspension of onstreet parking in the immediate vicinity of the site during maintenance (to be relocated).
All road users
Occasional suspension of onstreet parking in the
Negligible
None required
Negligible
Page 218
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf Significance Mitigation Residual significance
Receptor
Effect
immediate vicinity of the site during maintenance (to be reprovided). Occasional delay to road users when large maintenance vehicles accessing site.
Page 219
12.9
12.9.1
In addition to the baseline survey data collected and data obtained from Transport for London (strategic model data and additional ATC and junction count data), additional data will be collected to supplement the data set. The baseline data collection were 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 220
Section 13: Water resources - ground
13 13.1
13.1.1 13.1.2
Water resources groundwater Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant groundwater effects at the Chambers Wharf site. 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.
13.2
13.2.1
The proposed development is described in section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to groundwater are as follows.
Construction
13.2.2 The main infrastructure at the site, relevant to the consideration of groundwater, would include; Shaft and Tunnel Construction a. A large diameter shaft (approximate diameter 25m (internal) or 31.8m (external) and with a depth of approximately 57.25m below ground level (excluding a 6m thick base slab). The shaft will be both a drive and a reception site for the main tunnel drives. The main tunnel will be driven by a 7.2m ID, 8.8m OD slurry TBM to Abbey Mills that will be launched from Chambers Wharf. The site will also receive a 7.2m ID EPB TBM from Kirtling Street. The shaft would also be a reception site for the Greenwich connection tunnel that would be driven by a 5m diameter slurry TBM from Greenwich. b. A surface treatment plant, with lime dosing, for tunnel slurry material would be located at the site. 13.2.3 During shaft construction, dewatering would take place from boreholes drilled outside the diaphragm wall. The dewatering pumps would be operational during shaft sinking and could be maintained to ease the reception and launch of the TBM. The time period for duration of dewatering could be up to 36 months (3 years) at this site, consisting of an initial period of up to two years to allow for dewatering in advance of, and during shaft construction; either a break or continuing dewatering; and then dewatering for reception of the TBM from Kirtling Street. The water removed would be pumped directly to the river via any required treatment and subject to EA approvals. Pressure relief wells may be required to dewater zones of high pressure in the Lambeth Group. As part of the environmental design, dewatering amounts would be minimised where practicable. Depending on ground conditions found by the further GI work to be undertaken, consideration may be given to deepening the diaphragm walls by between 6 and 8m in order to reduce flows up into the diaphragm wall.
13.2.4 13.2.5
Page 221
The site extends partly into the river and this part of the site would be protected from inundation by tidal river water by a cofferdam. The cofferdam would be constructed from two sheet pile walls separated by 2.5m. The toe level of the sheet piles would be 2m below the base of the London Clay and finishing in the Upper Mottled Beds of the Lambeth Formation. The toe level is estimated to be at 92.4 mATD. Water entering through the cofferdam would be pumped back to the river via any required treatment. It is anticipated that ground treatment would required within the Chalk and may include fissure grouting below the base of the shaft. Fissure grouting around the full circumference of the shaft in a 5m by 1.5m block would enable the TBM to break into and out of the shaft. 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 22 Table 13.2.1 Groundwater - methods of construction Method of Construction Diaphragm wall with dewatering from outside Treatment plant for tunnel slurry material Dewatering to ease EPB TBM Sheet pile walls with dewatering Fissure grouting at base of shaft Construction Periods Up to 2 years Construction Depths Deep
13.2.7
13.2.8
Design Element
Drop Shaft
Tunnel excavated material Tunnel Reception and relaunch Coffer dam Ground treatment
18 months
Surface
3 months Temporary works 3 months
Deep Shallow Deep
Note: In terms of construction depth - Shallow (means <10m) and Deep (>10m) Earth Pressure Balancing (EPB) Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) Operation 13.2.9 There are no CSO interception works as the shaft is not in a CSO location. The presence of the shaft and other underground structures may interfere with shallow groundwater 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.
Page 222
13.3
13.3.1 13.3.2

Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. There were no site specific comments from consultees for this particular site relating to ground water resources. Construction The construction phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site. Operation The operational phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site. Assumptions and limitations At this stage, all assessments are based on a qualitative approach only. The list of receptors is based on the best available information from the Environment Agency on abstractions (both licensed and GSHP schemes). The site does not have any dedicated GI boreholes in the immediate area and so it is not possible to state whether there is any contamination at the Chambers Wharf site. The nearest GI boreholes that lie to the west and east do not show any significant groundwater contamination. The land quality Section 8 and Appendix E contains further details.
13.3.3 13.3.4 13.3.5 13.3.6 13.3.7 13.3.8 13.3.9
13.4
13.4.1
Baseline conditions
The shaft would pass through made ground, Alluvium, River Terrace Deposits, London Clay, Lambeth Group, Thanet Sand and Seaford Chalk as summarised in the table below. Vol 22 Table 13.4.1 Ground water - ground conditions/hydrogeology Top of Stratum Stratum Elevation mATD 102.4 101.4 98.4 94.4 Depth below ground level (m) 0.0 1.0 4.0 8.0 Thickness (m) Hydrogeology
Made Ground Alluvium / Peat River Terrace Deposits London Clay Formation
1.0 3.0 4.0 2.5
Perched Water Aquiclude Upper Aquifer Aquiclude
Page 223
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf Top of Stratum Stratum Elevation mATD 91.9 89.9 73.4 60.9 Depth below ground level (m) 10.5 12.5 29.0 41.5
Thickness (m)
Hydrogeology
Harwich Formation Lambeth Group Thanet Sand Formation Seaford Chalk 13.4.2 13.4.3
2.0 16.5 12.5 Not proven
Aquitard Aquitards/ Aquifers Lower Aquifer
The River Terrace Deposits or upper aquifer is classified as a secondary A aquifer v. The Thanet Sands and the Upnor Beds (lower unit of the Lambeth Group) are known as the Basal Sands and are in hydraulic continuity with the Chalk aquifer beneath London. The Chalk is a principal aquifervi and, together with the Basal Sands, is referred to as the lower aquifer. At the Chambers Wharf site, the depth of the shaft would be at 47.25 mATD (with the base slab down to 41.25 mATD). The base of the shaft, the main tunnel and the Greenwich tunnel would be within the Seaford Chalk Formation and would extend around 32m into the lower aquifer (from approximately 73.4 mATD at the top of the Thanet Sands to the base of the slab at 41.2 mATD). Note the thickness of the Upnor Beds (the top of the lower aquifer is unknown at present). The base of the diaphragm wall would be at approximately 31mATD; about 10m lower than the bottom of the shaft base slab. The geology at this depth would be confirmed by ground investigation. There are, at present, no project GI boreholes at the site which could be used to provide water level monitoring data. The nearest project GI monitoring boreholes record groundwater levels in the upper aquifer and lower aquifer; to the west of the site at SA1056, SR1057 and, to the east of the site, at SR1055 and SR1054A. The holes monitor discrete layers in the Lambeth Group and Seaford Chalk. Further GI monitoring boreholes are proposed at this site. Monitoring locations and hydrographs are included in Appendix E. The monitoring shows that there is hydraulic separation between the lower aquifer and the upper part of Lambeth Group where heads of around
13.4.4
13.4.5
13.4.6 13.4.7
13.4.8 13.4.9
Secondary Aquifers are either permeable strata capable of supporting local supplies or low permeability strata with localised features such as fissures. The term Secondary Aquifer replaces the previously used name of Minor Aquifer. vi A Principal Aquifer is a geological strata that exhibits high intergranular and/or fracture permeability. This strata has the ability to support water supply and/or river base flow on a strategic scale. Principal Aquifers equate in most cases to aquifers previously referred to as Major Aquifers.
Page 224
95mATD are recorded. Heads in the Lower Mottled Beds of the Lambeth Group are similar to those in the Seaford Chalk, implying hydraulic connectivity between these formations and the intervening Thanet Sands. 13.4.10 There is a notable difference between the regional groundwater levels produced by the EA for the London Basin, and the local EA observations. The lower aquifer water levels from the TT monitoring boreholes are broadly in agreement with the EA regional groundwater levels. The expected groundwater level at Chambers Wharf would be around 82mATD. This level is within the Lambeth Group, around 9m above the top of the Thanet Sands, so there may be some confinement of the lower aquifer by lower permeability formations of the Lambeth Group. The Chalk piezometric levels vary annually by less than 1m (based on recent years). Historically the EA borehole shows a greater range of up to 10 m (between 1996 and 1998), which is assumed to be in response to abstractions at that time. Details of groundwater abstractions and protected rights are included in Appendix A2 Section A.6. The site does not lie within any SPZ as defined by the EA. The nearest SPZ is over 5 km to the southeast which is in the opposite direction to the groundwater flow direction expected beneath the site. The site is not located within the catchment areas of any licensed groundwater abstractions. There are no unlicensed abstractions near to the site based on information provided by the local council. There are no other GSH schemes, either proposed or under investigation locally. There are no environmental designations relevant to groundwater in the vicinity of the site. Appendix A.9 contains a summary of the water quality information from the land quality assessment. There are some exceedences of drinking water standards or environmental quality standards (EQS) at nearby locations with respect to petroleum hydrocarbons. Chloride is also elevated above 250mg/l (drinking water standard) at one of the locations; possibly indicative of the proximity of the site to the known area of saline intrusion to the east of London. The groundwater quality at Chambers Wharf would be confirmed during the forthcoming ground investigation. Further details of potential contamination are contained in the land quality section. The flood risk assessment states that there are no groundwater flooding incidents within the vicinity of the site, based on information from the Southwark SFRA. Further details on the baseline conditions at the Chambers Wharf site are provided in Appendix E. Monitoring is continuing and would extend the baseline which would inform the assessment in the ES.
13.4.11
13.4.12
13.4.13
13.4.14
13.4.15
13.4.16
13.4.17
13.4.18
13.4.19
Page 225
Receptor summary
13.4.20 Groundwater receptors which could be affected during construction or operation are summarised in the table below. Vol 22 Table 13.4.2 Groundwater receptors Receptor Groundwater Body upper aquifer Groundwater Body Lower Aquifer Abstractions Licensed Abstractions Unlicensed Construction Operation Comment Penetrated by shaft; treatment plant for slurry material at surface; coffer dam. Shaft into Chalk None identified within 1 km None identified None identified
GSHP Schemes Note: Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP)
13.5
13.5.1
The shaft would be constructed through the upper aquifer and around 42m into the lower aquifer (Upnor Beds/Thanet Sand/Chalk). Dewatering would be undertaken from outside the diaphragm wall. The diaphragm wall with secondary lining would prevent direct flow of groundwater into the shaft for example, and deepening the diaphragm wall as required and ground treatment would be used to reduce inflows to the diaphragm wall. In addition to dewatering for shaft construction, any inflows to the coffer dam would be pumped out and may result in localised temporary changes in groundwater level in the upper aquifer. The site is close to the area of identified saline intrusion so brackish water may be abstracted during dewatering and would be disposed of in accordance with good practice and the CoCP. Further details of the effects of disposal on the water environment are contained in the surface water section. Large quantities of tunnel slurry material would be handled at the site and passed though the treatment works. Lime dosing would be used and there is the possibility that some of the tunnel excavated material would be contaminated. Ground investigation is required to establish the status of the groundwater and soil at the site. The spread of pollution as a result of the works, and the potential impact of dewatering on groundwater quality cannot be quantified at this stage.
13.5.2
13.5.3
13.5.4
13.5.5
13.5.6
Page 226
The nearest Chalk abstraction is at a distance of 1km, down hydraulic gradient from the site. The construction works lie beyond the estimated catchment of licensed abstractions so turbidity associated with physical disturbance of the aquifer is not anticipated. Impact magnitude The potential for contamination of the lower aquifer by works at the surface is minimised by the presence of around 2.5m of London Clay and the underlying low permeability formations of the Lambeth Group, so is not considered further. The treatment works design would protect the upper aquifer from runoff and infiltration to ground of contaminants associated with the tunnel excavated material so the impact of the treatment works at the site would be negligible. Similarly the works on the coffer dam, which have the potential to affect the upper aquifer, would be taken into account in the design. For example, once the ground investigation is complete, ground conditions near to the existing river wall would be better understood and measures can be taken to ensure that groundwater does not back up behind the coffer dam or discharge at an unacceptable rate into the works. The main impact is likely to be the dewatering that would be required during shaft construction. Since there are no groundwater users in the immediate vicinity, the impact magnitude is initially considered in the context of the London Groundwater Licensing Policy (EA, 2006)41. The balance between recharge and abstraction from the Chalk aquifer in London formed part of the groundwater resource assessment of the London Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy (CAMS), (EA, 2006). The Thames Tunnel falls within groundwater management unit 7 (GWMU7 Confined Chalk) which was classed as over licensed. The London Groundwater Licensing Policy (EA, 2006) was produced to restrict further abstraction in areas approaching their sustainable limit. This policy was incorporated into the London CAMS licensing policy which identified areas where further licences are restricted. Chambers Wharf lies close to the boundary of the Central and South London area (Appendix E). Over this section the policy states that new consumptive licenses are restricted to < 0.2 Ml/d annual average, subject to the local assessment being favourable. However, the policy also states that, every application would be assessed on its own merits, be subject to a detailed local hydrogeological assessment and require the submission of the necessary supporting justification and reports for a decision to be made on an individual scheme. The detailed groundwater assessment to be included within the ES would take into account the following. A preliminary assessment is completed below: a. Has there been any long-term (several years) downward trend in the groundwater level in the vicinity of the application?
13.5.8
13.5.9
13.5.10
13.5.11
13.5.12
13.5.13
13.5.14
13.5.15
Page 227
b. Preliminary response: The hydrograph in Appendix E for EA observation boreholes in the vicinity of the site show the groundwater level to have been broadly stable with no downward trend since 2000. c. The groundwater level in relation to the base of the London Clay. If the groundwater level is near the base of the London Clay, then the EA would be unlikely to grant the abstraction licence. The EA would use discretion if there is a significant thickness of the Lambeth Group below the London Clay, but the aim is to manage abstraction to keep groundwater levels above the Thanet Sands.
d. Preliminary response: The water level in the lower aquifer is expected to be at about 82mATD and around 9m above the top of the Thanet Sand Formation. The dewatering activity associated with the shaft construction could locally lower the water level below the top of the Thanet Sand. e. Any recent abstraction development in the same area. If groundwater levels have not yet responded to a recent change in abstraction, we may not grant further licences in that area. f. Preliminary response: No recent developments are known. Chambers Wharf is not located within the catchment areas of any licensed groundwater abstractions. The nearest licensed Chalk abstractions are at a distance of 1.0 km to the west. Further details of these licensed abstractions are given in Appendix A2 and Table A.1. There are no unlicensed groundwater abstractions within a 1 km radius of the site and no Ground Source Heat Pump schemes either proposed or under investigation locally.
g. Other proposals in the area that have been refused for water resource reasons in the last five years. h. Preliminary response: No refusals known. i. Proximity of the proposal to an existing or proposed Artificial Recharge Scheme (ARS). Artificial Recharge scheme proposals would be treated as a special case as they involve the management of groundwater levels to provide additional resource to the scheme operator. Preliminary response: No known ARS in the vicinity.
j. 13.5.16
On the basis of this preliminary assessment it is concluded that, a temporary abstraction for dewatering purposes would not be locally detrimental to groundwater resources. A quantitative assessment is will be undertaken and will form part of the EIA. Once modelling is complete, as described in Volume 5, the impact can be quantified. In the case of the physical obstruction to flow in the upper aquifer, the magnitude of the impact on groundwater levels is currently expected to be minor ie a slight rise in groundwater levels may take place on the upstream (south-western side) of the structure. Potential deterioration in groundwater quality may occur as a result of dewatering if groundwater levels fall below the top of the Thanet Sands
13.5.17
13.5.18
Page 228
and/or groundwater is drawn from an area of poorer quality towards an area of better quality. Again, this impact will be quantified once the extent of dewatering is known. 13.5.19 Ground treatment proposed as part of the design would help to reduce the impact of dewatering. Activities involving grout would only use products that are acceptable to the EA and would be covered by the CoCP to minimise the risk of pollution. The duration of dewatering is also important as the radius of influence spreads further with time. The separation of dewatering into two phases; first for the shaft and tunnel drive; and secondly for the TBM reception, (with a period of recovery between), may also reduce the impact of dewatering and will be considered further in the ES. A summary of the impacts and likely magnitude is provided in the table below. Vol 22 Table 13.5.1 Groundwater impact magnitudes - construction Impact Groundwater control in upper aquifer during coffer dam construction Dewatering of lower aquifer Magnitude Impact to be quantified To be quantified but potentially moderate if groundwater levels fall below the top of the Thanet Sands and/or brackish water is drawn in. Negligible if use/integrity of abstraction source is unaffected. Yet to be investigated, no knowledge as to contamination at surface. Measures in place to prevent cross contamination between aquifers. Negligible if the groundwater levels are kept above the top of the Thanet Sands. Moderate if water levels drawn below this level. Negligible; pollution prevention measures included in treatment works design and CoCP Negligible; CoCP will identify acceptable materials
13.5.20
13.5.21
Lowering of groundwater levels in vicinity of Chalk abstractions Creation of a pathway for pollution upper aquifer and lower aquifer
Induced groundwater movement (lower aquifer)
Treatment of tunnel slurry material
Pollution through use of grout or other ground treatment lower aquifer/Chalk abstractions Receptor sensitivity 13.5.22
The upper aquifer is a secondary aquifer but not used locally so is categorised as being of medium value. The lower aquifer is of high value, as summarised in the table below.
Page 229
Vol 22 Table 13.5.2 Groundwater receptor values/sensitivities construction Receptor Upper Aquifer Lower Aquifer Chalk abstractions Significance of effects 13.5.23 A summary of significance of the effects is shown in the table below. Vol 22 Table 13.5.3 Groundwater significance of effects construction Effect Change in groundwater flow conditions in upper aquifer as a result of coffer dam construction Deterioration of groundwater quality as a result of dewatering of lower aquifer Significance Impact yet to be quantified but effect expected to be minor adverse due to minor impact on medium value receptor. Preliminary assessment major adverse effect; arising from moderate impact on groundwater quality of high value receptor if groundwater levels fall below the top of the Thanet Sands and/or brackish water is drawn in. Minor adverse effect if use/integrity of abstraction source is unaffected. To be quantified. Ground investigation yet to be carried out but remediation and environmental control measures in place to minimise impact so negligible or minor adverse effect. Negligible effect due to control measures being in place. Minor adverse effect; usage controlled by CoCP Value/sensitivity Medium value; secondary aquifer High value, principal aquifer High value; although aquifer not used for abstraction purposes locally
Loss of groundwater resource or Chalk abstractions as a result of dewatering Pollution of upper or lower aquifer
Deterioration in groundwater quality from treatment of tunnel slurry Deterioration in groundwater quality from grouting in and around shaft lower aquifer
13.6
13.6.1
The base case and operational development case are derived from current baseline conditions as described in Section 13.4 and the supporting Appendix. The possible future change from current baseline conditions is taken into account by considering a range of groundwater levels in the assessments.
Page 230
The Water Framework Directive commits EU member states to achieve good qualitative and quantitative status of all water bodies (including marine waters up to kilometre from shore) by 2015. The Directive defines 'surface water status' as the general expression of the status of a body of surface water, determined by the poorer of its ecological status and its chemical status. Thus, to achieve 'good surface water status' both the ecological status and the chemical status of a surface water body need to be at least 'good'.
Operational assessment results

Impact magnitude 13.6.3 The presence of the shaft may interfere with shallow groundwater, forming a barrier to flow locally around the site. The impact of the shaft on groundwater flows in the upper aquifer has yet to be quantified. In terms of seepage out of the shaft into the upper aquifer, given that the shaft would be full on only relatively few occasions, the magnitude of impact is expected to be negligible. The secondary lining of the shaft would also minimise the risk to the upper aquifer. The magnitude of seepage out of the shaft into the lower aquifer is assessed as negligible as there would generally be higher heads outside the shaft than within it. The secondary lining of the shaft would also minimise the risk to lower aquifer. Seepage into the shaft would be prevented by the double lining, this should ensure that this risk is fully minimised over the asset life. A summary of the impacts and their likely magnitude is provided in the table below. Vol 22 Table 13.6.1 Groundwater impact magnitudes -operation Impact Physical obstruction to flow in the upper aquifer from the presence of the shaft and river wall sheet piles Seepage out of the shaft affecting groundwater quality (both aquifers) Seepage into the shaft affecting groundwater resource (both aquifers) Receptor sensitivity 13.6.8 The value of the groundwater receptors remains as defined in Vol 22 Table 13.5.2 (see Section 13.6.17). Significance of effects 13.6.9 A summary of significance of the effects is shown in the table below. Magnitude To be quantified
13.6.4
13.6.5
13.6.6 13.6.7
Negligible, design of shaft would include a secondary lining Negligible, design of shaft would include a secondary lining
Page 231
Vol 22 Table 13.6.2 Groundwater significance of effects -operation Effect Change in groundwater storage and flood risk as a result of physical obstruction in upper aquifer Significance Negligible effect due to negligible impact and medium value of upper aquifer
Change in groundwater storage Minor adverse arise from and flood risk as a result of negligible impact on a high physical obstruction in the lower value receptor. aquifer/Chalk abstractions Deterioration in water quality in the upper aquifer from seepage out of the shaft Deterioration in water quality in the lower aquifer/Chalk abstractions from seepage out of shaft Negligible effect due to negligible impact and medium value of upper aquifer Minor adverse arising from negligible impact on a high value receptor.
13.7
13.7.1
The project includes a number of environmental design elements (see 13.4). The following section contains the extra mitigation measures to be taken to address the effects identified within the assessment.
Construction
13.7.2 The dewatering of the lower aquifer could also take place from within the diaphragm wall, in order to reduce drawdown effects in the surrounding area. The need for this approach would be informed by ongoing assessment work and reported in the ES. The effects of dewatering can also be lessened by reducing the duration of pumping. A period of recovery may therefore be appropriate after shaft completion and before its use as a reception shaft for the TBM from Kirtling Street. The suitability for this approach will be informed by ongoing assessment. Provided that no contamination is identified in the upper aquifer, no mitigation would be required (in respect of this issue). Residual effects 13.7.5 Provided good construction practice (outlined in the CoCP a draft of which is appended to Volume 2) is adopted there should be no residual effects on the upper aquifer. Post-dewatering it may take some time for the lower aquifer to recover fully. By adapting the ground treatment techniques it would be possible to ensure no residual quality effects on the lower aquifer/Chalk abstractions.
13.7.3
13.7.4
13.7.6
Page 232
Operation
13.7.7 No effects are identified in the operational assessment and therefore no mitigation is required.
Page 233
13.8
Vol 22 Table 13.8.1 Groundwater construction assessment
Assessment summary
Residual Significance Negligible effect, yet to be quantified
Receptor
Upper aquifer
Effect Change in groundwater flow conditions in upper aquifer as a result of coffer dam construction
Significance Impact yet to be quantified but effect expected to be minor adverse due to minor impact on medium value receptor.
Mitigation No mitigation proposed at this point
Lower aquifer
Yet to be quantified
Lower aquifer and Chalk abstractions Negligible or minor adverse effect to be confirmed once GI is complete at the site; remediation and control measures in place
Deterioration of groundwater Preliminary assessment major quality as a result of adverse effect arising from moderate dewatering of lower aquifer impact on groundwater quality of high value receptor if groundwater levels fall below the top of the Thanet Sands and/or brackish water is drawn in Lowering of the groundwater Minor adverse if use/integrity of levels as a result of abstraction source is unaffected. To dewatering be quantified. No mitigation proposed at this point
Possible measures could include additional ground treatment, recharge wells and period of water level recovery No mitigation proposed at this point
Negligible effect
Both aquifers
Creation of a pathway for pollution
Negligible effect
Upper aquifer
Deterioration in groundwater Negligible effect due to control quality from treatment of measures being in place. tunnel slurry Minor adverse effect; usage controlled by CoCP
No mitigation proposed at this point No mitigation proposed at this point
Negligible effect
Lower aquifer/Chalk abstractions
Pollution through use of grout or other ground treatment
Negligible effect
Page 234
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf Vol 22 Table 13.8.2 Groundwater operational assessment Significance Negligible effect Minor adverse effects No mitigation proposed at this point Mitigation to be investigated No mitigation proposed at this point Mitigation to be investigated No mitigation proposed at this point Mitigation Residual Significance Negligible effect Yet to be quantified Negligible effect Yet to be quantified
Receptor
Effect
Upper aquifer
Lower aquifer/Chalk abstractions Negligible effect, design of shaft would include a secondary lining Minor adverse effects, design of shaft would include a secondary lining Negligible effect upper aquifer and minor adverse lower aquifer, design of shaft includes double lining
Change in groundwater storage and flood risk as a result of physical obstruction in upper aquifer
Upper aquifer
Lower aquifer/Chalk abstractions
Seepage out of the shaft affecting groundwater quality
Both aquifers
Seepage into shaft affecting groundwater resources
Negligible effect upper aquifer and minor adverse lower aquifer
Page 235
Section 13: Water resources ground
13.9
13.9.1
A ground investigation has yet to be completed at the Chambers Wharf site. The proposed boreholes will be used to monitor water quality and levels and any available data will be used to inform the EIA. The ES will contain quantitative calculations on the amount of dewatering and the effects on the Lower aquifer/Chalk abstractions. The impact of the physical obstruction post construction has yet to be modelled. Assessment of cumulative and in combination effects will be undertaken and reported in the ES. Following completion of the assessment the mitigation approaches for groundwater within the project will be finalised and reported in the ES.
13.9.2 13.9.3 13.9.4 13.9.5
Page 236
Section 14: Water resources surface
14 14.1
14.1.1
Water resources surface water Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant surface water effects at the Chambers Wharf site. The assessment: a. identifies the existing water resources baseline conditions; b. identifies the future base case conditions against which the project should be assessed; c. identifies both the beneficial and adverse effects of the project during construction and operation and assess the significance of the effects; 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 arsing at the Site. The project-wide effects on the Thames Tideway, particularly the water quality improvements anticipated from the project are assessed separately in Volume 6.
14.1.3
14.2
14.2.1
The proposed development is described in section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to surface water resources are described in the following sections. The Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) includes a number of measures that are important in protecting water quality and these are referred to as appropriate. Construction The site is partially located within the River Thames foreshore, which means that some of the proposed working area would be within the river channel. Permanent works at Chambers Wharf consist of an online shaft only; there are no CSO interception works. A temporary cofferdam will be constructed in the foreshore to enable construction of the permanent works site. Other temporary works the removal of a piled deck currently located in the foreshore, on the edge of which lies the current flood defence line. See Section 3 above for a description of the proposals at the site. The base of the main shaft is expected to be within Chalk, thus requiring dewatering. Disposal of dewatering effluent can have an impact on surface water resources. See Groundwater Resources (Section 13) for further details of dewatering requirements.
14.2.2
14.2.3
Page 237
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf Construction controls 14.2.4
To prevent pollution from leaks or spillages, contaminating substances would be stored in leakproof containers, with secondary containment equal to 110% of the volume of the container, in a safe and secure building or compound. Areas for transfer of contaminating substances, including refuelling, oiling and greasing, would be similarly protected and activities will take place above drip trays or on an impermeable surface with sealed drainage or oil interceptor. All wash down of vehicles (including wheel washing) and equipment will take place in designated areas and washwater will be prevented from passing untreated into drains or holding areas prior to pumping. These measures will be detailed in the CoCP (volume 3). 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;
14.2.5
d. Vehicle washing and cleaning: PPG 13; e. Dewatering of Underground Ducts and Chambers: PPG 20; f. Incident Response Planning: PPG 21; and g. Storage and handling of drums and intermediate bulk containers (IBCs): PPG 26. 14.2.6 14.2.7 Appropriate maintenance of barges, vehicles and plant will also minimise pollution during construction. Suitable spill kits would be provided and positioned in vulnerable areas and staff would be trained in their use and a record should be kept of all pollution incidents or near-misses, to ensure appropriate action is taken and lessons are learned from incidents. Regular toolbox talks would be held to raise staff awareness of pollution prevention and share lessons learned from any recorded incidents. There would be written procedures in place for dealing with spillages and pollution (the Pollution Incident Control Plan or PICP). The PICP would contain the following as a minimum: a. guidance on the storage and use of hazardous materials with the aim of preventing and containing spills and releases; b. guidelines on the degrees of containment which take account of the nature of the materials and the sensitivity of the environment; c. procedures to be adopted in the event of a pollution incident, to contain and limit any adverse effects;
Page 238
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; and f. arrangements for notifying appropriate statutory bodies and local authorities of pollution incidents where required to by legislation.
Operation 14.2.8 The river walls to the north of the site would be realigned under the proposed operational project and would be incorporated into the new flood defences and embankment wall which would be constructed around the permanent works area.
14.3
14.3.1
The construction/operational phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.
Scoping and engagement

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

14.3.3 Full results from project ground investigations were not available at the time of undertaking this assessment and assessment of contamination risk from works on the foreshore (eg sediments) and from intrusive ground works at the site have relied on existing records of contamination (see section 8 Land Quality). At the time of undertaking this assessment, no modelling work had been carried out of potential scour from the temporary cofferdam.
14.3.4
14.4
14.4.1
Baseline conditions
Surface water receptors A list of surface water receptors and their status under the Water Framework Directive (WFD) is included in the table below, which are either within the vicinity of the site, or downstream of the site and therefore have the potential to be affected by the proposed project. Due to the dilution effect of the Tideway, the effects of construction activities would be localised to the waterbodies listed below and this chapter assesses only the impacts local to the proposed site at Chambers Wharf. Therefore, in respect to the Thames Tideway only the Thames Middle and Regents Canal waterbodies are considered in this assessment.
14.4.2
Page 239
Vol 22 Table 14.4.1 Surface water identification of receptors Hydrom Current Current Water Body orpholo Ecological Chemical Name/ID gical Quality Quality Status Thames Heavily Middle Modified GB53060391 1402 Regents Artificial Canal, lower section GB70610510 Water quality 14.4.3 The Thames Middle (which stretches from Battersea Bridge to Mucking Flats) can be considered to be a high value waterbody as although its current and predicted status in 2015 (target date from River Basin Management Plan) is moderate potential, there is a status objective of good by 2027 42. 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 Regents Canal lies downstream of the site and could therefore be affected by the proposed construction. However, lock gates in the Limehouse Basin at the confluence of the Regents Canal and the Tideway prevent water movement for the majority of the time. They are only opened intermittently for the passage of individual boats for four hours either side of high tide. It is therefore considered that there is no pathway for impacts from the site to affect the Regents Canal, and it is not be considered further within this assessment. Receptors designated sites 14.4.5 The River Thames and Tidal Tributaries are designated as a Site of Metropolitan Importance. There are no internationally designated hydrologically linked conservation sites within a 2 km radius of the site that could be affected by construction. The project-wide effects of the overall project on the internationally designated sites in the Lower Thames are covered separately in Volume 6. Receptors abstractions 14.4.6 14.4.7 There are no licensed surface water abstractions within 1 km of the site. Contamination The historical mapping has identified one potentially contaminative historic on site use. In addition, the search radius has also identified areas of previous industrial activities in close proximity to the site. Sediment samples analysed for contaminants found arsenic, copper and lead in concentrations exceeding threshold values. Arsenic was found at Moderate Potential Fail 2015 Predicted Ecological Quality Moderate Potential 2015 Predicted Chemical Quality Fail
Moderate Potential
Does not require assessme nt
Moderate Potential
Does not require assessme nt
14.4.4
14.4.8
Page 240
a concentration of 8.9 mg/kg (TEL 7.24), Copper concentration 48mg/kg (TEL 18.7) and Lead concentration 40mg/kg (TEL 30.2). See Land Quality assessment in Section 8 for details of on-site contamination. 14.4.9 The base of the main shaft is expected to be within Chalk, thus requiring dewatering and ground treatment within Lambeth Group/ Thanet Sands and Chalk (see section 13). The contaminants detected could potentially cause pollution of the receiving watercourse, if present in groundwater discharged during dewatering. Foreshore 14.4.10 During the time between high and low tide, the foreshore of the Tideway at Chambers Wharf is exposed. Based on mean high and low water levels, there are approximately 30 m of exposed foreshore in the locality of this site. Construction base case 14.4.11 The Lee Tunnel and the TTQI projects (improvement works at Mogden, Beckton, Crossness, Long Reach and Riverside STWs) would be operational by the time construction commences. Significant improvements in the water quality in the Tideway are anticipated as a result of these projects. The construction base case would therefore be the water quality in the Tideway with the TTQI projects and the Lee Tunnel in place. Results from modelled simulations of conditions in 2021 (as simulated model runs are only available for 2006 and 2021) with the TTQI and Lee Tunnel in place have therefore been used for the base case. Operation base case 14.4.13 For the assessment of operational impacts, the effects have been assessed against a base case of year one 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.
14.4.12
14.4.14
14.5
14.5.1
As described in Volume 5, the construction effects at the site have been assessed for significance against the relevant WFD objectives as well as their significance locally or against targets set by other legislation. Surface water receptors are identified in Vol 22 Table 14.4.1. The WFD objectives as taken from Article 4 of the WFD are as follows: a. WFD1 Prevent deterioration of the status of all bodies of surface water. b. WFD2 Protect, enhance and restore all bodies of surface water, with the aim of achieving good surface water status by 2015.
14.5.2
Page 241
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.
d. WFD4 Reduce pollution from priority substances and cease or phase out emissions, discharges and losses of priority hazardous substances.
Identification of construction impacts and effects

Site set-up 14.5.3 The main pathways for impact and effect on surface water resources and associated receptors during construction at the Chambers Wharf location are as a result of the requirement for a cofferdam to be constructed in the foreshore for both the main construction work and to house the permanent structures required for operation once tunnelling is complete. The cofferdam would be constructed by driving sheetpiles into the river bed, which would be sealed and the water pumped out into the river channel. The cofferdam area would be backfilled with granular material loaded from a barge and the fill material spread and compacted using a tracked excavator and twin drum vibratory roller. As the works would be in the foreshore, there is a direct pathway for pollution during the construction of the cofferdam. Once constructed, the cofferdam area and the shaft construction work within it would be protected from flooding to ensure the construction activity is not affected by high water levels. This would require the cofferdam walls to be raised above the working area within the cofferdam to the required level of flood defence. Surface water from rainfall during use of the tunnelling area would therefore accumulate during the construction period and would need to be pumped periodically to ensure the working activities are not affected by ponding of rainwater. The construction of these working areas and the required pumping of rainwater during use of the construction areas therefore create a direct pathway to the river for contaminated run-off, high suspended solids and other pollution from the site during construction of the shaft and other construction works. Before release to the river, the dewatering effluent to be pumped from behind the cofferdam would be subject to settlement (using a lagoon/pond, silt trap or other suitable method) to ensure excessive levels of suspended solids are not discharged to the Tideway. In addition, the discharge would be carried out on an outgoing tide and high flows if possible, to ensure maximum mixing of the discharge and minimum impact of any increased levels of suspended solids in the discharged water. It is considered that via the proposed management of pumping out the cofferdam area, the pollution pathway can be managed sufficiently to reduce the pollution risk to negligible and the potential effect would not be considered further in this assessment. It is likely that the cofferdam would impact on scour patterns while in place, which could cause the mobilisation of increased levels of
14.5.4
14.5.5
14.5.6
14.5.7
14.5.8
Page 242
suspended solids into the river. There may also be an effect on downstream river structures if the pattern of sediment movement is greatly changed. In addition, should the cofferdam cause the channel width to be significantly altered, the flow velocity of the river at this point may increase, thereby increasing contraction scour across the whole channel bed. The degree to which the cofferdam affects the scour and sediment movement in the channel would be largely dependent on the shape of the structures; the more angular the shape and the more they protrude into the channel, the greater the impact would be. 14.5.9 The site was identified after the early scour study had been undertaken, therefore it is not possible to determine the extent of the potential scour at this point. The foreshore would be reinstated after removal of temporary structures. Due to the natural circulation of sediments within the estuary, the accumulation of silts and estuarine muds is likely to occur naturally following the removal of the temporary structures. In addition, the structures would be designed and engineered to allow unimpeded flow and minimise conflict and slack water between the working site and other in-river structures where practicable. Good practice design would reduce the effects of scour at the face of the cofferdam rip-rap or gabions may be required to prevent damage to structures. Such measures would not remove the impact pathway and hence the effects are considered in this section for their significance and requirement for specific mitigation. Site drainage 14.5.12 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. 14.5.13 These pollutants could leak to the Tideway or be directly discharged to it as part of the surface water discharge. Any effects on the Tideway from leakage or discharges would be adverse, although of short duration before remedial action was taken. The likelihood of pollution effects occurring would be greatly reduced by the use of sealed site drainage for the cofferdam area. Where possible, all site drainage would be drained and discharged to mains foul or combined sewers and where this is not practicable, the site would be drained such that accumulating surface water would be directed to holding or settling tanks, separators and other measures prior to discharge to the Tideway via pumps over the cofferdam wall.
14.5.10
14.5.11
14.5.14
Page 243
Foul drainage from the site welfare facilities would be connected to the mains foul or combined sewer. There should therefore be no impact pathway from the routine discharge of foul drainage from the site and there is considered to be no effect on the Thames Middle waterbody. It is considered that via the proposed drainage management, the pollution pathway can be managed sufficiently to reduce the pollution risk to negligible. There is the potential for pollution of the Thames Tideway if materials are dropped or spilled during the loading and unloading of barges. There is also the potential for pollution from the barges themselves, such as oil or diesel spillages. Any effects on the adjacent Tideway from this impact would be adverse. It is considered that via the adherence to the measures detailed in 14.2 during construction works, the pollution pathway can be managed sufficiently to reduce the pollution risk to negligible. Contamination and dewatering Historical mapping has identified one potentially contaminative historic on site use. In addition, the search radius has also identified areas of previous industrial activities in close proximity to the site (see section 8 Land Quality). Sediment samples analysed for contaminants found arsenic, copper and lead in concentrations exceeding threshold values. Arsenic was found at a concentration of 8.9 mg/kg (TEL 7.24), Copper concentration 48mg/kg (TEL 18.7) and Lead concentration 40mg/kg (TEL 30.2). See Land Quality assessment for details of on-site contamination. The base of the main shaft is expected to be within Chalk, thus requiring dewatering within Lambeth Group/ Thanet Sands and Chalk. The contaminants detected could potentially cause pollution of the receiving watercourse, if present in groundwater discharged during dewatering. The discharge would require a Consent to Discharge from the Environment Agency, which would set limits on the discharge ensuring no pollution of the receiving waters. Settlement of suspended solids within the dewatering would minimise the levels of contaminants within the effluent, which tend to be associated with particulates, but additional treatment of the dewatering effluent, or remediation of groundwater, may be required. The Tideway would provide considerable dilution of the dewatering effluent and it is therefore thought unlikely that any environmental quality standards would be breached by contaminants present within the discharged water.
14.5.16
14.5.17
14.5.18
14.5.19
14.5.20
14.5.21
14.5.22
Assessment of impacts
14.5.23 The table below provides the assessment of effects during construction at Chambers Wharf against: a. WFD environmental objectives: b. local impacts; and
Page 244
whether other legislative targets are likely to be affected.
Page 245
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf Vol 22 Table 14.5.1 Surface water impact assessment - construction WFD Objectives met?
WFD1 WFD2 WFD3 WFD4
Impact N/A Temporary until end of construction. Reversible as it is assumed permanent works would be land based. The effect The change in on is not the foreshore is considered considered to to result in have an impact deterioratio local to n of the Chambers Wharf. Thames Upper status. The Thames Upper is a heavily modified waterbod y and only needs to achieve good potential.
Water body Duration and Reversibility
Assessment and likely effect
Local effects or Other Legislative effects Although the effect would potentially prevent enhanceme nt and protection of the Thames Upper, the effect is considered to be reversible and temporary.
Compaction of foreshore and change in geomorphology (cofferdam construction).
Thames Middle
Landtake from the river channel with an associated temporary loss of foreshore.
Whilst this would be re-instated postconstruction, there would be a period of time where the geomorphology of the foreshore is altered until foreshore mud is redeposited via natural process.
Page 246
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf WFD Objectives met?

WFD1 WFD2 WFD3 WFD4
Impact N/A Temporary until end of construction. Reversible as it is assumed permanent works would be land based. The scour rates could have an effect locally and more widely in terms of potential effect on the structural integrity of flood defences The change in the foreshore is considered to have an impact local to the site. The effect on morpholog y is not considered to result in deterioratio n of the Thames Middle status. The Thames Upper is a heavily modified waterbod y and only needs to achieve good potential. Although the effect would potentially prevent enhanceme nt and protection of the morphology of the Thames Middle, the effect is considered to be reversible and temporary.
Water body Duration and Reversibility
Assessment and likely effect
Local effects or Other Legislative effects
Increased scour and changes to sediment movement which may affect nearby infrastructure in the foreshore (cofferdams).
Thames Middle
Loss of river bed and increased suspended solids from scour around the base of the cofferdam. Changes to sediment movement which may remove sediment at other sites.
Page 247
Significance of effects
14.5.25 The table below identifies the significance of the effects identified in accordance with the criteria set out in Volume 5. Vol 22 Table 14.5.2 Surface water significance of effects construction Effect Significance and justification Minor adverse All WFD objectives can be met. Reinstatement would be possible postconstruction and natural process would result in re-deposition and recovery of foreshore from the construction area. The effect is considered to have a local effect during recovery as the morphology of the foreshore would be altered, but the effect is reversible and not considered to be significant. Moderate adverse Increased scour and changes to sediment movement which may affect nearby sites (due to the cofferdam) Potential scour is not considered to adversely affect attainment of WFD objectives, but it is considered significant at the local scale and could impact on integrity of flood defences. Further assessment will be undertaken in the ES. Minor adverse The water quality effect would not prevent WFD objectives being met, and the water impact is considered to have a local effect that is reversible once construction is complete.
Damage to and temporary loss of foreshore (due to the cofferdam construction)
Alteration of flow regime which may cause slack or dead water, leading to the accumulation of debris or pollutants
14.6
14.6.1
There is no CSO interception at this site and no permanent foreshore extension. The operational effects are considered to be negligible.
14.7
14.7.1
The assessment of effects for construction has highlighted three adverse effects that would require mitigation to reduce their significance: a. damage to and temporary loss of foreshore during cofferdam construction;
Page 248
b. increased scour and changes to sediment movement which may affect nearby sites, as a result of cofferdam construction; and c. 14.7.2 alteration of flow regime which may cause slack or dead water, leading to the accumulation of debris or pollutants.
Modelling of some of the required foreshore sites is underway which will be used to inform potential impact at Chambers Wharf and the mitigation required; however results were not available to inform the design to mitigate the effects on scour. This assessment and any proposals for mitigation will therefore be updated and included in the ES. Any mitigation for protection of flood defences and the Chambers Wharf abutment will be identified once the physical modelling results are available and the scour assessment has been concluded. Any mitigation is likely to take the form of gabions or other protective measures at the base of flood defences and bridge abutments to minimise scour effects.
14.7.3
Page 249
14.8
Vol 22 Table 14.8.1 Surface water construction assessment Effect Minor adverse Moderate adverse Minor adverse As yet undefined As yet undefined As yet undefined Significance Mitigation Residual significance To be confirmed To be confirmed
Assessment summary
Receptor
Thames Middle
Damage to and temporary loss of foreshore (cofferdam construction)
Thames Middle
Increased scour and changes to sediment movement which may affect nearby sites (cofferdam)
To be confirmed
Thames Middle
Alteration of flow regime which may cause slack or dead water, leading to the accumulation of debris or pollutants
Vol 22 Table 14.8.2 Surface water operational assessment Effect Significance Moderate adverse Mitigation As yet undefined Residual significance Moderate adverse
Receptor
Thames Middle
Geomorphological changes as a result of permanent land take
Page 250
Section14: Water resources surface water
14.9
14.9.1
Any additional information on potential contamination of the site, collected as part of new site investigations (see section 8 land quality), will be used to inform the baseline for the ES. Physical modelling of some of the foreshore sites is underway; however results were not available to inform the design to mitigate the effects on scour. Following completion of the assessment the mitigation approaches for surface water resources within the project will be finalised and reported in the ES Mitigation for protection of flood defences and the Chambers Wharf abutment will be identified once the physical modelling results are available and the scour assessment has been concluded. This will allow assessment of significance of any residual effect after mitigation has been developed for the final project design.
14.9.2
14.9.3
14.9.4
Page 251
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 Chambers Wharf 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) 43 and covers the construction and operation phases. This assessment makes use of the PPS25 Practice Guide 44 and is consistent with the outputs and findings of the Thames Estuary 2100 Plan (TE2100)45 and the policy requirements of the London Plan 46. Borough specific documents have been reviewed in addition to other relevant flood risk planning, policy and legislative documents. This Level 1 FRA is supported by 2D hydrodynamic modelling, undertaken to assess flood risk effects for the project as a whole (as described in Volume 5) and for specific sites (Volumes 7 to 28). The FRA comprises four parts, which can be found in the following volumes of the PEIR: a. Volume 5 contains Part A of the FRA: Common sections relevant to all sites, including assessment methodology. b. Volume 6 contains Part B of the FRA: Project-wide risk assessment section. c. Volumes 7-28 contain Part C and Part D of the FRA: Individual risk assessment sections for every site (Part C) where flood risk is considered as an issue, organised according to London Borough (this Part) which precede the conclusions for each site (Part D).
15.1.2
15.1.3
15.1.4
15.1.5
15.1.6
As explained in Volume 5, a Level 1 FRA is an assessment of flood risk based on information available at the time of undertaking the assessment. Where further detailed assessment (including modelling and calculations) is required to define flood risk or required mitigation, this is undertaken to support a Level 2 or more detailed Level 3 FRA. The aim of this part of the Level 1 FRA is to assess the effects of flood risk from all sources at the site, both to the site and from the site to surrounding areas. The purpose of this section is to highlight the key issues for the design team and provide a preliminary assessment of flood risk issues. A more detailed assessment will be completed in the ES. Considering the nature of the project, the length of construction period at the site and the location of the site within the Thames Tideway, it is important that flood risk is assessed both during the construction phase and the operation phase taking into consideration climate change over the lifetime of the project. The project involves construction works 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 252
River Thames or other watercourses. According to PPS25, any development located within Flood Zones 2 vii or 3 viii or greater than 1 hectare and situated within Flood Zone 1 ix should be accompanied by a FRA. The FRA will be required to demonstrate how flood risk from all sources of flooding to the development and from the development 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 Chambers Wharf site lies within London Borough of Southwark. London Borough of Southwark Council has produced a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) 47. This outlines the main flood sources to the Borough and presents the outcomes of the hydraulic modelling 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% AEP x. The risk of flooding is therefore a residual risk associated with a breach or overtopping of 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:
15.3.3
15.3.4
15.3.5
vii
Flood Zone 2 is defined as medium probability, assessed as having between a 1% and 0.1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) of river flooding or between a 0.5% and 0.1% AEP of sea flooding in any year viii Flood Zone 3 is defined as high probability, assessed as having a 1% or greater AEP of river flooding or a 0.5% or greater AEP of sea flooding in any year ix Flood Zone 1 is defined as low probability, assessed as having less than a 0.1% AEP of river or sea flooding in any year x AEP if the Annual Exceedance Probability and is the probability associated with a return period. An event with a 50 year return period has an AEP of 1/T or 0.02 or 2%.
Page 253
a. The site overlies Alluvium drift geology and London Clay bedrock geology. b. The primary risk from flooding within the Borough of Southwark is tidal from the River Thames; other sources of flooding include sewer surcharging and surface water flooding as a result of heavy rainfall. c. The current area of the site (excluding foreshore area for temporary cofferdam) benefits from defences, however should a breach in Thames defences occur the area will be inundated within 6 hours with a significant degree of flood hazard.
d. There have been no sewer flooding incidences recorded by Thames Water in the last 10 years within the vicinity. e. Areas were flooded in the Thames 1928 event when defences along the River Thames were breached. f. The current site (excluding foreshore area for temporary cofferdam) is in the EA Flood Zone 3a.
g. Safe access/egress is required from the site to a suitable location within Flood Zone 1. 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 The Chambers Wharf site lies within the Wandsworth to Deptford Policy Unit which has been assigned the P5 flood risk management policy within the TE2100 Plan meaning that further action will be taken to reduce flood risk beyond that required to keep pace with climate change. The TE2100 Plan identifies the local sources of flood risk at this location as including: a. tidal flooding from the River Thames b. heavy rainfall and urban drainage sources c. 15.3.10 a risk of groundwater flooding from superficial strata which is possibly connected to high water levels in the Thames.
15.3.9
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. Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) for mitigation of urban drainage
Page 254
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf 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 defences and floodplain management should be introduced. There is also the vision to increase flood risk awareness within the area. There is an acknowledgement that erosion of the river bed is occurring at Southwark and it may be necessary to set the defence line back when the defences are upgraded to avoid erosion damage to the defences.
15.3.12
Regional policy
London Regional Flood Risk Appraisal (RFRA) 15.3.13 For the reach between Hammersmith Bridge and the Thames Barrier (City Reach) the London RFRA 48 encourages small scale set back of development from the river walls where possible. The aim of this is to enable modification, raising and maintenance in a sustainable, environmentally acceptable and cost effective way. Development should be designed in such a way as to take opportunities to reduce flood risk and include resilience. There is particular concern surrounding confluences and the interactions between tidal and fluvial flows in the future due to climate change. This should be taken into consideration during the re-development process. The RFRA indicates that SUDS should be included within developments to reduce surface water discharge.
15.3.14
15.3.15
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 indicates that the influence of the project as a whole on the River Thames (tidal and fluvial) flood levels is minimal and is unlikely to exacerbate flood risk.
15.4.2
Flood sources
Flooding from sea (and tidal sources) Flood risk to the site 15.4.3 The site is situated to the north of Chambers Street, on the south bank of the River Thames and the temporary construction area includes an area of the foreshore adjacent to the site. The current site and permanent site
Page 255
(not including the foreshore where the temporary cofferdam is proposed) is presently within Flood Zone 3a xi. 15.4.4 The Thames Tidal flood defences are aligned along the boundary between the jetty and the River Thames, ie on top of the concrete deck. The defences currently provide protection from the River Thamesxii to the site (with the exception of the foreshore area). At present the site is vacant and partially demolished with hoarding erected around the boundary. Remaining on site would be a building housing electrical equipment, some basement areas and a mound of demolition waste. There is also a jetty (with a concrete deck) located within the north of the site and extending along the entire frontage of the existing site. The jetty is supported on approximately 360 piles. The permanent works at Chambers Wharf currently consist of a main online shaft of diameter 25m situated within the north eastern corner of the site xiii. A temporary works cofferdam would be constructed to create sufficient working area for construction. The existing jetty would be removed and the area infilled behind the new temporary and the current defences associated with the piled jetty would be removed to allow site access. The temporary cofferdam would be installed to the existing flood defence level present along the north of the site and tied into the retained defences at the western and eastern ends to ensure no gaps in the defence. There would be deep berth barge moorings along the northern boundary of the cofferdam for the transport of materials in and out. All temporary works adopt a defence level analogous with the existing local defence levels and where existing defences are removed. Replacement defences are constructed to an appropriate standard and tied in with the local flood defences along the frontage prior to removal of the existing defences. This would ensure the protection of the temporary working area to the same standard as the surrounding area and ensure the local area is protected from flood risk originating from the River Thames at all times as is currently the case. The smaller permanent operational area would also be protected from flooding through the provision of defences to a level analogous with the existing local defence levels. The defences would be reinstated along the indicative line of the existing river wall (ie the jetty would not be restored post construction) and would tie with the existing surrounding defences, providing a continuous defence line along the River Thames frontage at all times. The removal of a section of defence, the tie of the new flood defences for construction and operational sites, and the construction of a replacement defence would require works to the existing defences and consequently
15.4.5
15.4.6
15.4.7
15.4.8
15.4.9
The location of the shaft may become more complex and a portion of the site may be situated within the existing foreshore with a slight set back adjacent to compensate. If this design is taken forward, it will be assessed in the Level 2 FRA for this site. xii For reference, the indicative line of the existing river wall is situated approximately 20m to the south of the northern jetty boundary. xiii The location of the shaft may be slightly altered (see above footnote)
xi
Page 256
would require Flood Defence Consent from the EA (Flood Defence Consent has to be obtained prior to any works on the flood defences, or around the flood defences with the potential to impact these structures). An existing planning consent exists on the site which includes the removal of the piled jetty and reinstatement of the river wall. 15.4.10 The structural integrity of the defences would be maintained throughout the project. Defences and the river wall (temporary or permanent) would be designed to take all potential loadings (applied or accidental). The new flood defences and site layout would be designed such that they are easily accessible for maintenance purposes into the future (eg if the wall has an architectural finish applied, there should be removable areas to allow inspection of the defence wall behind). Where possible, the walls would be designed so that they can be inspected from the land. The design standard of the existing defences is stated by the EA to be at the 0.1% AEP level. There would be an additional freeboard on top of the crest level. In reality, the defence levels along the River Thames vary and are generally in excess of the 0.1% AEP standard of protection with a freeboard. The EA has stated that the defence level at this location is 5.28mAOD and this defence level would be maintained for the cofferdam during construction and the permanent site during operation. This existing level will be confirmed with defence survey information, requested from the EA for the Level 2 FRA to be prepared for the ES. The most extreme flood risk to the site in this location would be as a result of a high tide combined with a storm surge (with the Thames Barrier operational); this is considered to be the design event. Ground levels on the proposed site (currently elevated above the foreshore) are approximately 4.0mAOD adjacent to the River Thames, and 2.0mAOD towards Chambers Street (to be confirmed following a site survey and included within the Level 2). Ground levels within the existing foreshore adjacent to the piled pier (proposed location for the temporary works cofferdam) are approximately less than 0mAOD (a thorough topographic survey is recommended to refine levels). It is proposed to situate the shaft at a level of 4mOAD with surrounding hardstanding land at 5mOAD. The EA flood design event tidal flood levels within the River Thames (closest node to the site) are: a. b. 15.4.16 4.9mAOD for the 0.5% AEP 2005 4.9mAOD for the 0.5% AEP 2107 (ie with climate change).
15.4.11
15.4.12
15.4.13
15.4.14
15.4.15
This data is taken from the EA Tidal Thames Joint Probability Extreme Water Levels Study 49. This indicates that the proposed shaft location which would benefit from the current Thames Tidal Defence would not flood under the above return periods due to the protection afforded by the defences at 5.28mAOD. If however there was a breach in the local Thames Tidal Defences, the site could flood as the above flood water levels are higher than the ground
15.4.17
Page 257
level and proposed shaft level of 4.0mAOD. It should be noted that water levels decrease in the future due to the Thames Barrier closure rule (see Volume 5) such that the 2005 scenario produces the highest water levels. 15.4.18 The TE2100 Plan indicates that a higher level of protection would be required to protect areas along the river. This is due to a greater number of Barrier closures being necessary as water levels increase and due to the possibility that higher tides could propagate upstream of the Barrier should the Barrier fail. In line with the requirements of TE2100, defences in the vicinity of the Chambers Wharf site would be required to be raised to 5.85mAOD and 6.35mAOD for 2065 and 2100 respectively. Part of the TE2100 Plan is to consider ways in which this future raising would be achieved for current flood defences. In association with this, new defences constructed for the operation of the Chambers Wharf site would be designed such that defence raising in the future to match these levels as indicated in the TE2100 Plan can be achieved in a sympathetic way and views of the river can be maintained. The EA has also used the Tidal Thames Joint Probability Extreme Water Levels Study to investigate water levels within the Thames in the absence of the Thames Barrier, ie when the Barrier is not closed (it is assumed that a partial closure would influence flood levels upstream of the barrier). This shows tidal flood levels within the River Thames are 5.88mAOD for the 0.5% AEP 2005 and 6.77mAOD for the 0.5% AEP 2107. Under this modelled scenario, the site would be flooded as the water level is above the existing local flood defence level and that proposed for the construction site and operational site. However, because the Thames Barrier is a key component of the Thames Tidal defences, these levels are not used for the EA flood design event when considering the required flood prevention measures for new development. As part of the Southwark SFRA, 2D hydrodynamic modelling was undertaken at 9 locations along the Thames frontage, specified by the EA, to simulate the impact of a breach in the flood defences. Two of the selected breach locations are located either side of the Chambers Wharf site. The results from this modelling indicate that the site would be affected by floodwaters in the event of a breach during the 0.5% AEP return period for 2005; flood depths in the vicinity of the site are indicated to reach approximately 1m which correspond to a hazard rating of Significant. Significant hazard can be described as dangerous for most people and is calculated as a function of velocity and depth in accordance with FD2320 guidance 50. The SFRA shows that there are no records of flooding of the site area during any historic flood events (note, this does not mean the site was not flooded, only that no data is held). As part of the construction works the existing defences would be removed. Replacement defences would be constructed prior to removal of current defences to ensure flood protection at all times. The defences would be maintained both during construction and operation to a level
15.4.19
15.4.20
15.4.21
15.4.22
15.4.23
15.4.24
Page 258
commensurate with the standard of protection afforded by the existing defences. 15.4.25 The standard of protection of the current defences, replacement defences and the operation of the Thames Barrier are such that tidal flooding up to the design event (0.5% AEP 2005) does not pose a direct flood risk to the site. Flood risk to the site from tidal sources is therefore residual in the event that there is a breach (or failure) of the existing defences and tidal water could enter the site. If there was a localised breach in the defences adjacent to a site, flood water could flow on to the site, cover the shaft and inundate any ventilation, monitoring or associated operation equipment. As the shaft lids are covered (although not watertight) there would be a limited amount of water that could enter the tunnel though the space between the lid and the shaft. Ventilation and monitoring equipment may be damaged by flood water (if not installed above the flood level); however, this quantity would not endanger the primary function of the tunnel which is to collect, store and transfer discharges from CSOs. Flood risk from the site 15.4.28 The proposals for the temporary works on the site include the construction of a temporary cofferdam extending into the foreshore of the River Thames. The flow within the River Thames may be modified by the presence of this temporary structure which may lead to an increase in scour or deposition rates on adjacent areas within the river, including flood defences. It is likely that the cofferdam would impact on scour and deposition patterns while in place. There may also be an effect on downstream river structures if the pattern of sediment movement is greatly changed. In addition, should the temporary works (cofferdam) cause the channel width to be significantly altered, the flow velocity of the river at this point may increase. The Chambers Wharf site was not included in the Scour study undertaken to date and it is therefore not possible to determine the extent of the potential scour at this point. An assessment of the potential scour from the temporary works cofferdam will be undertaken. Until this is complete, it is considered that the risk of scour or deposition (as a consequence of the presence of the cofferdam) impacting on the flood defences would be considered as medium xiv. The presence of temporary cofferdam within the foreshore associated with the construction of the Chambers Wharf site has the potential to reduce the available flood storage within the channel of the Tidal Thames (while in situ). This impact of reduced flood storage could have the effect of increasing water levels during certain hydrological conditions (high fluvial
15.4.26
15.4.27
15.4.29
15.4.30
15.4.31
xiv
The assessment of flood risk is a qualitative assessment based on expert opinion see Volume 5 Part A of the Level 1 FRA for further details.
Page 259
flows or high tides), thereby increasing flood levels and potentially increasing the risk of flooding. 15.4.32 The effect of removal of flood storage on flood levels is not one felt directly at a local level as a result of the proposed development at the site alone. The effect is propagated throughout the hydrological unit of the Thames reach and therefore it is not possible to say what effect the encroachment at Chambers Wharf would have on water levels in the vicinity of the site. Instead, the encroachment impact on flood storage and the resultant effect on water levels and flood risk have been considered on a cumulative basis for all foreshore sites xv using 2D hydraulic computational modelling and the effects on flood risk are assessed on a project-wide basis and reported in Volume 6. The excavation process using TBMs to construct the tunnel has the potential to impact on settlement in some cases which could affect the level of some of the defences. A project-wide study into the potential impacts of the tunnel excavation on settlement of third party assets including flood defences is being undertaken and will be reported in the ES. The proposed main tunnel alignment passes under the existing defences at Chambers Wharf at two points. The project-wide effects of excavation will be assessed for flood defence impact when complete and any relevant assessment for Chambers Wharf defences will be included in the Level 2 FRA prepared to support the ES. Until further information is available, the risk of impact to flood defences and hence potential increase in flood risk at this site due to structural modifications of the defences due to the tunnelling is considered to be medium.
15.4.33
15.4.34
15.4.35
Flooding from rivers

15.4.36 Aside from the impact of fluvial flows on flood levels of the River Thames at this location, the Chambers Wharf site is not situated within the floodplain of any fluvial watercourses (see Vol 22 Figure 15.4.1). Vol 22 Figure 15.4.1 Flood risk EA flood zones (see Volume 22 Figures document) 15.4.37 The EA Tidal Thames Joint Probability Extreme Water Levels Study uses a combination of different factors including astronomical tides, tide surge and fluvial river flows to produce an estimation of the peak high water levels within the Tidal Thames during a combined event. This methodology assumes that no combination of fluvial events with tidal conditions produces a higher flood level than the worst case combined tidal storm surge conditions. Water levels influenced by high fluvial flow alone would therefore be lower than the combined event assessed and hence the assessment of fluvial risk from the Thames is considered to be
15.4.38
xv
The 2D modelling was carried out prior to the selection of the Chambers Wharf site. Therefore the presence of the temporary cofferdam has not been investigated. It is anticipated that additional work will be undertaken to update the modelling in line with the chosen scheme.
Page 260
included within the assessment of flood risk from tidal sources in the previous section. 15.4.39 Flood risk to the site from fluvial sources alone is therefore considered to be negligible. Flooding from land and surface water runoff Flood risk to the site 15.4.40 According to the Southwark SFRA, there is no surface water flooding hot spot within the vicinity of the site. This assessment will be updated for the Level 2 FRA when Critical Drainage Area (CDA) mapping is made available for the SWMP for London Borough of Southwark 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 exceeded or the local sewer is at capacity and surcharging occurs. There is a decline in ground levels from the north to the south of the current area of the site (excluding foreshore area for proposed temporary works cofferdam) so overland flow from the site would travel towards Chambers Street. There is the potential for overland flow, generated in surrounding hard standing areas, flowing onto the site from the west and the east. Flood risk to the site from this source is considered to be low. Flood risk from the site 15.4.43 PPS25 states that runoff post development should not be greater than runoff pre development in order to not increase the risk of flooding either downstream or on surrounding land. The London Plan aims towards greenfield runoff rates and the Mayors Draft Water Strategy 51 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 Chambers Wharf permanent site is currently 100% hardstanding and therefore no increase the proportion of hardstanding is being proposed. It is assumed the existing surface water runoff drains to an existing drainage network and surface water generated on the existing hardstanding areas would drain to the nearest surface water drain (this will be confirmed in the Level 2 FRA). Surface water runoff rates and attenuation volumes are indicative and will be confirmed during the subsequent Level 2 FRA. Based on a development footprint of 1960m2, the existing previously developed surface water runoff rate for the 1% AEP + 30% for climate change event has been calculated using the Modified Rational Method. The post development surface water runoff rate for the 1% AEP event has also been calculated based on the same development footprint. 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.
15.4.41
15.4.42
15.4.44 15.4.45
15.4.46 15.4.47
15.4.48 15.4.49
Page 261
The undeveloped greenfield runoff rate has also been calculated using the ICP SUDS rural runoff method in Micro Drainage WinDes Version 12.5 software. A soil factor of 0.4, which represents moderately draining silty soils, has been used within this method. The greenfield runoff is required to identify the volume of attenuation necessary to meet the Mayor of London preferred standard for SUDS (i.e. reduce runoff from the development to greenfield rates). The existing, post development and greenfield runoff rates for the 1% AEP event are provided in the table below. Vol 22 Table 15.4.1 Flood risk - development / greenfield runoff rates Site Status Existing Post Development Greenfield Rainfall Runoff Event 1% AEP + 30% Climate Change 1% AEP + 30% Climate Change 1% AEP + 30% Climate Change Runoff Rate (l/s)
15.4.51
15.4.52
38.4 38.4 2.3
15.4.53
By subtracting the existing runoff rate from the post development runoff rate for the 1% AEP event, no additional runoff is predicted post development (over the lifetime of the development) as the site is, and would remain post development, 100% hardstanding. When comparing the greenfield runoff rate with the post development runoff rate, an additional runoff rate of 36.1l/s is predicted post development (over the developments lifetime). As the site fronts the River Thames it is unlikely that pathways exist for surface waters to inundate surrounding third party land. Therefore, where the design standard of the drainage system (3.3% AEP) is exceeded, discharge to the River Thames, with no attenuation would be feasible, as the volume and runoff rate generated by the permanent site is insignificant in relation to the flow and volume of storage in the tidal Thames and it is considered that there would be no increase in downstream flood risk. Proposed mitigation measures relating to surface water management are provided in Volume 22, Section 15.5. Flooding from groundwater The TE2100 Plan states that there may be a risk of groundwater flooding at the Chambers Wharf site originating from superficial strata underlying the site. Because the underlying strata are in hydraulic connectivity with the river levels in the Thames, the groundwater levels vary on a diurnal basis with the changing tide levels. Therefore, during high water level conditions within the Thames there is the potential for groundwater to reach ground level at the site. However, there are no recorded incidents
15.4.54
15.4.55
15.4.56
15.4.57
Page 262
of groundwater flooding within the vicinity of the site shown within the Southwark SFRA. 15.4.58 Following the completion of the groundwater assessment, the potential mechanisms for groundwater flooding would be explored further including local water levels from ongoing monitoring and data collection as part of the EIA. This will inform the assessment of groundwater flood risk to this site and will be reported in the Level 2 FRA for the Chambers Wharf site. Until further information is available, flood risk to the site from this source is considered to be low, as although the TE2100 Plan suggests a flooding mechanism, there is no evidence from the Southwark SFRA to suggest that groundwater flooding has occurred in the past. Flooding from sewers 15.4.60 The Southwark SFRA shows that there have been no sewer flooding incidents recorded by Thames Water in the last 10 years in the area in which the site is situated. The local sewer network has been investigated to determine whether there are any capacity issues that may lead to an increase in the potential for sewer flooding to the site. This assessment shows that there is a combined sewer that passes along Loftiest Street to the east of the site. This sewer connects into a further combined sewer on Chambers Street. If the capacity of these sewers was exceeded, water could surcharge through outlets such as man holes and gullies located along the length of the sewer. The pathway for this surcharged combined water would be north, through the site and into the river. Flood risk from this source is considered to be low. Flooding from artificial sources 15.4.64 There are no artificial flood sources within proximity to the site and so there is no flood risk from this type of source.
15.4.59
15.4.61
15.4.62
15.4.63
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. residual risk of flooding to the site from tidal sources as a result of a breach in the existing or proposed new defences b. medium risk of impact on flood defences as a result of scour and deposition of foreshore sediment associated with the cofferdam for construction land take from the foreshore c. low risk of surface water flooding (or ponding) to the site as a result of runoff from surrounding land
d. medium risk of an increase in tidal flood risk due to the potential for settlement during construction of the tunnel to impact on food defences.
Page 263
e. low risk of groundwater flooding to the site associated with water levels in the underlying geological strata f. 15.5.2 low risk of sewer flooding to the site This section describes flood mitigation methods that have been highlighted as being required specifically to address flood risk effects as a result of development at the Chambers Wharf site. Flood mitigation methods in this context are defined as being required to alleviate the effect of the development of a site on any consequential (increase in) flood risk.
Flood prevention
Flood resilience/resistance during operation 15.5.3 The London RFRA states that flood risk should be reduced where possible and flood resistance and resilience measure should be built into the development. Given that the project is a water compatible development type (see Volume 22, Section 15.2.1), there is no project-wide intention to provide flood resistance and resilience measures for residual flood risk as it is considered that the primary operational function of the Tunnel would not be affected by flooding as a result of a breach. Construction and emergency planning 15.5.4 The subsequent Level 2 FRA will include the production of a site Emergency Plan in relation to Flood Risk outlining appropriate working practices and appropriate access/egress routes in the event of a flood warning. The local authority will be required to comment on the Emergency Plan.
Design and mitigation

Scour and deposition impacts on defences 15.5.5 Good practice design would reduce the effects of scour at the face of the temporary works (cofferdam), and rip-rap or gabions may be required to prevent damage to structures. An assessment of scour during the temporary works phase will inform the degree of potential scour at the site which will in turn determine the level of damage prevention necessary. The shape of the protrusion for the temporary works will be designed (where possible) to impose minimal impact on river hydrology and the flow regime of the Tidal Thames. Specific mitigation in this regard is to be developed for scour and downstream infrastructure protection following completion of the scour study. This will be included in the Level 2 FRA for this site (within the ES). Surface water discharge 15.5.7 An appropriate surface water management strategy is required to ensure surface water is positively drained from the site. Surface water drainage will be designed to the 3.3% AEP event for the site. The preliminary calculations shown in Vol 22 Table 15.4.1 are based on SUDS attenuation, assuming zero infiltration (the feasibility of SUDS infiltration techniques onsite is currently unknown). PPS25 states that runoff post development should not be greater than runoff pre
15.5.6
15.5.8
Page 264
development in order to not increase the risk of flooding either downstream or on surrounding land. The attenuation volume is based on this Policy. In addition, and in accordance with the Mayors Draft Water Strategy, the preferred standard and essential standard have been considered. 15.5.9 To take into account the effects of climate change over the developments lifetime a 30% increase in peak rainfall intensity has been included when considering post development runoff and the associated attenuation volumes. Vol 22 Table 15.5.1 Flood risk - runoff and attenuation volumes 1% AEP rainfall event Preferred standard (attenuation to greenfield runoff rate) Essential standard (attenuation to 50% of undeveloped runoff rate) PPS25 (no increase in runoff post development) 15.5.10 Runoff rate (l/s) Attenuation volume (m3) 122-162
2.3
19.2
66-96
38.4
The table above indicates that to meet the PPS25 runoff standard, no storage is required as the site is currently, and will be post development, 100% hardstanding. To meet the Mayors preferred and essential standards a storage volume between 122 162m3 and 66 96m3 would be required respectively, to provide sufficient storage to attenuate the 1% AEP event, inclusive of climate change. These values are presented as indicative of storage volumes that may be provided should the specified standards be sought. Storage options are outlined below. It is important to note that the attenuation volumes provided in Vol 22 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. Until soakaway tests and a contamination study are carried out the feasibility of SUDS infiltration techniques are unknown. The following surface water mitigation measures should also be considered for incorporation into the development design: a. In the event of return periods in excess of the 3.3% AEP storm, the layout and the landscaping of the site should aim to route water away
15.5.11
15.5.12 15.5.13
Page 265
from vulnerable property, and avoid creating hazards to access egress routes, whilst not increasing flood risk to third parties. b. Appropriate scour protection would be provided at the surface water discharge pipe outlet to the River Thames if this approach is adopted. c. 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 River Thames.
d. 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
A Level 2 will be prepared for the site which will outline further specific design approaches and measures. It is considered that a Level 2 FRA will be sufficient to assess the impact of flood risk for the final site design (ie no Level 3 specific site modelling is required). This will be prepared for the site and incorporated into the ES. The Level 2 FRA will use the data collected as part of the Level 1 FRA and build upon the preliminary findings of this assessment once further information is available from the EA and other assessments being undertaken to support the FRA and the EIA. In summary, the following additional assessment elements will be undertaken: a. Confirmation of existing defence level following receipt of the EA survey information of flood defences. This will be used to reassess the standard of protection at the site and effect on tidal flood risk (direct and residual), it will also inform flood prevention design. b. Assess the potential impact of scour and deposition caused by the presence of a cofferdam in the foreshore during construction on flood defence integrity. Where applicable, the scour study will be used. This will also inform definition of any specific mitigation required. c. 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 the defences at the Chambers Wharf site will be included in the Chambers Wharf Level 2 FRA.
15.6.3
d. Potential flood depths on the site will be confirmed following receipt of a site topographic survey. e. The assessment of surface water flood risk to the site will be completed when the final surface water flood maps are available from the Drain London Project. f. Groundwater flood risk and any required flood risk prevention measures will be reassessed when the groundwater resources impact assessment is complete. This will be included in the Level 2 FRA.
g. An emergency plan will be developed to support the Level 2 FRA and the CoCP.
Page 266
h. Further detail of any site specific mitigation and flood prevention measures that may be required to manage both residual risk and direct flood risk based on the final site design. 15.6.4 It is not anticipated that further primary data collection (assuming outstanding data from the EA is supplied) or any modelling will be required at this site as part of future work and hence a Level 2 FRA will be sufficient to support the ES and application specific to the Chambers Wharf site.
Page 267
Appendix A: Historic Environment
Appendices
List of figures
Page number
Figure A.1 Map showing the prehistoric topography of Southwark ......................... 270 Figure A.2 Faithhorne and Newcourts map of 1658............................................... 270 Figure A.3 Morgans map of approximately 1682 ................................................... 271 Figure A.4 Rocques map of 1746 .......................................................................... 271 Figure A.5 Horwoods map of 1799 ........................................................................ 272 Figure A.6 Ordnance Survey 1st edition 25 scale map of 186295 (not to scale) . 272 Figure A.7 Ordnance Survey 2nd edition 25 scale map of 189698 (not to scale) 273 Figure A.8 Ordnance Survey 3rd edition 25 scale map of 190920 (not to scale) . 273 Figure A.9 Ordnance Survey 1:2500 mile map of 194772 (not to scale) .............. 274 Figure A.10 Ordnance Survey 1:2500 mile map of 1952-72 (not to scale) ............. 274 Figure D.1 Viewpoint 1.3: View west from residences on Fountain Green Square . 287 Figure D.2 Viewpoint 1.4: View west from residences on Chambers Street ........... 288 Figure D.3 Viewpoint 1.6: View north east from residences, Chambers Street ...... 289 Figure D.4 Viewpoint 1.7: View east from residences on Bermondsey Wall West . 290 Figure D.5 Viewpoint 1.8: View east from riverfront residences ............................. 291 Figure D.6 Viewpoint 2.3: View west from the Thames Path .................................. 292 Figure D.7 Viewpoint 2.4: View south east from Tower Bridge ............................... 293 Figure E.1 Groundwater superficial geology ....................................................... 294 Figure E.2 Groundwater solid geology................................................................ 294 Figure E.3 Groundwater EA monitoring locations ............................................... 298 Figure E.4 Groundwater level hydrographs west of Chambers Wharf ................... 300 Figure E.5 Groundwater level hydrographs east of Chambers Wharf.................... 301 Figure E.6 Groundwater level hydrograph Chambers Wharf OBH ........................ 302 Figure E.7 Groundwater GSHP ......................................................................... 304 Figure E.8 Licensing Areas (EA, 2006).................................................................. 307
Page 268
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf List of tables
Page number
Table A.1 Gazetteer of known heritage assets ....................................................... 276 Table B.1 Land quality site walkover report ............................................................ 284 Table E.1 Summary of anticipated Thames Tunnel geological succession ............ 294 Table E.2 Chambers Wharf anticipated ground conditions .................................. 295 Table E.3 Summary of anticipated Thames Tunnel main hydrogeological units... 297 Table E.4 Groundwater - depth and strata of nearby monitoring boreholes ........... 298 Table E.5 Groundwater licensed abstractions ....................................................... 303 Table E.6 Groundwater quality results .................................................................... 304
Page 269
Appendix A: Historic environment Figures
Figure A.1 Map showing the prehistoric topography of Southwark Note: and the eyots surrounding the site
Figure A.2 Faithhorne and Newcourts map of 1658
Page 270
Figure A.3 Morgans map of approximately 1682
Figure A.4 Rocques map of 1746
Page 271
Figure A.5 Horwoods map of 1799
Figure A.6 Ordnance Survey 1st edition 25 scale map of 186295 (not to scale)
Page 272
Figure A.7 Ordnance Survey 2nd edition 25 scale map of 189698 (not to scale)
Figure A.8 Ordnance Survey 3rd edition 25 scale map of 190920 (not to scale)
Page 273
Figure A.9 Ordnance Survey 1:2500 mile map of 194772 (not to scale)
Figure A.10 Ordnance Survey 1:2500 mile map of 1952-72 (not to scale)
Page 274
Photographs
To be added after site visit (for ES).
Page 275
Appendix A: Historic environment
Gazetteer of known heritage assets

A.1.1 The location of known heritage assets is shown on the historic environment features map (Vol 22 Figure 7.4.1). Table A.1 Gazetteer of known heritage assets
HEA Ref no. Description Site code/ HER ref/ TDP no
1A
Chambers Wharf, Chambers Street. MOLAS standing structure survey 2008. The oldest structural remains were to the east where the substantial remains of an 18th to19th-century warehouse were visible along Loftie Street. Further 19th-century wall fragments were noted in other areas of the site, incorporated into the 20th-century buildings. During the 1930s large cold storage warehouses were built, including a dock along the Thames riverbank. Later additions to Chambers Wharf were made in the 1950s. All buildings surveyed at the time have been subsequently demolished. Related sites: FSW01 Southwark Foreshore, year not defined. UCLIA TAS; LARF; MOL foreshore survey 1995 and 2008 survey of prehistoric features, the post-medieval shipyard and re-used ship and boat timbers. The later foreshore observed features during the original survey of the site and the area of foreshore both in front of and underneath the jetty was mapped. A number of new features were also recorded. Related sites: CHJ06 Bermondsey Foreshore, 1993 LARF foreshore survey A variety of prehistoric material was found at the dead low water line on the foreshore in front of Chambers Wharf. This included a flint core of Mesolithic type, a macehead possibly Neolithic, pottery of likely Earlier Neolithic date, a sherd of Late Neolithic Peterborough Ware, and the bronze chape from a scabbard. Burnt flint, molluscs, and human bone were also found. It was thought that this material may have been derived from erosion of in situ bedded horizons. Traces of a timber revetment or structure, at 2.55m to 3.09m Ordnance Datum on the foreshore at the upstream end of Chambers Wharf, were previously thought to be of prehistoric date, but are now dated to the medieval or postmedieval periods. Chambers street. Medieval fish trap, dam, embankment, land reclamation; post-medieval ship timber; Bronze Age peat and alluvium and lithic implement
CHJ06
1B
FSW01 BMF93
1C
MLO77327 77328 77329 75370
Page 276

HEA Ref no. Description

Site code/ HER ref/ TDP no
1D 1E 1F
Post-medieval Nautical timbers. Re-used in A175. Post-medieval mooring block. Stone with metal ring. Post-medieval artefact scatter. Nails associated with A148. wharf, sawn Timber, drilled timber, remains of a stone surface and make up layer
FSW01 A175 FSW01 A164 FSW01 A171 A172 A173 A175 A174 FSW01 A163 FSW01 A162 A177 FSW01 A130 FSW01 A133 FSW01 A135 FSW01 A136 FSW01 A137 FSW01 A178 FSW01 A131 FSW01 A156 FSW01 A128 FSW01 A127 FSW01 A123 A180
1G 1H
Post-medieval nautical timber. Post-medieval structure. Probably stairs or a causeway. Timber revetment in form of 2 posts and plank. Nautical post-medieval clinker built floor frame. Post-medieval artefact scatter. Probably shipworking scatter/ shipyard Post-medieval structure. Rectangular box with central divide, possibly vessel engine box. Undated clay deposit. Unclassified post-medieval timber structure. Unassigned post-medieval feature, possibly shipworking scatter/ shipyard Undated watercraft vessel. Post-medieval tree trunk with bark, possibly shipworking scatter. Post-medieval timber, tree trunk cut, probably shipworking scatter Post-medieval group of timbers, probably shipworking scatter, shipyard. Gravel deposit. Raised bed of gravel, tufa with iron. Possibly prehistoric. Undated timber structure and unclassified vertical timber stakes, possibly prehistoric and of multiple phases.
1I 1J 1K 1L 1M
1N 1O 1P 1Q 1R
1S
Page 277


1T 1U 1V 1W
Unclassified timber feature comprising small verticals. Possibly prehistoric. Post-medieval mooring block. Timber anchor point or anchor. Post-medieval structure comprising timber verticals at shore level. Post-medieval structure, probably mooring feature comprising square timber, and timber probably representing shipworking scatter, or potential forest remains. Undated moored barge. Post-medieval consolidated ground. Undated unclassified timber structure. Undated moored barge. Undated aggradation. Gravel and soft mud layer. Undated aggradation. Gravel and soft mud layer. Post-medieval nautical timbers. Worked with bolts. Post-medieval nautical plank. Post-medieval consolidation timber structure comprising two vertical timbers. Undated aggradation. Gravel and soft mud layer. Post-medieval structure, probably riverfront defence comprising timber and revetment fragment Post-medieval mooring bollard, with graffiti. Jamaica Road (a Wharf off this road). A Bronze Age dagger is recorded on the GLHER Thames foreshore. Post-medieval structure Thames foreshore Unclassified deposit noted on the GLHER The (former) George Public House, George Row, Bermondsey 2003 GAP/PCA evaluation
FSW01 A122 FSW01 A126 FSW01 A121 FSW01 A124 A125 FSW01 A117 FSW01 A120 FSW01 A119 FSW01 A116 FSW01 A118 FSW01 A115 FSW01 A113 FSW01 A114 FSW01 A111 A112 FSW01 A110 FSW01 A167 FSW01 A165 114023 092500 092501 GPB03
1X 1Y 1Z 2A 2B 2C 2D 2E 2F
2G 2H 2I 2J 2K 2L 3
Page 278


A sequence of naturally laid deposits above former bars and eyots, and in former natural channels, was recorded. One of these deposits was a band of peat dating to the Neolithic and Iron Age periods. The sequence was sealed by a ground consolidation dump, dating to the 19th century 4 5 Farncombe Street. Riverside School, Grade II Listed Bermondsey Wall West, 53 George Row (corner of). 1996 PCA evaluation An apparently undisturbed sequence of alluvium and postmedieval dumped was recorded, the top of the alluvium being recorded at.2.0m OD. The naturally-deposited alluvium included a peat deposit 0.45m thick occurring at 0.48m OD. Alluvial deposits were truncated by a massive channel or pit, probably formed through erosion or other natural processes. In the early post-medieval period the channel was initially filled by probably alluvially-based deposits, and the purposely backfilled in the 17th or (more probably) 18th c, creating a ground surface at 102.7m TD. A timber drain apparently running into the channel and a deep 19th-c walled drain probably reflect the use of the channel for drainage. This feature is reflected by a 'dip' in Flockton Street immediately to the E of the site. Bermondsey Wall West (land at), Chambers Street. 2001 PCA evaluation; excavation; watching brief Natural alluvial silts with probable Bronze Age peat bands were recorded in a channel. A small assemblage of burnt and struck flint is probably associated with low scale human activity in the area. Medieval activity in form of postholes probably part of a fish trap or weir and a possible medieval barge bed was recorded. The channel was later dammed with timber beams, tiebacks and wattling, retaining an infill of redeposited clay and using this as part of a foundation for an embankment. The ground was later levelled and built over in the 17th and 18th centuries and associated with the development of wharfage in the area. The site was then levelled and truncated by 19th-c and modern industrial and docking activity. St Michael's Catholic College, John Felton Road. 2008 MOLA evaluation Auguring indicated the existence of one or more palaeochannels, where natural sand and gravel were overlain by alluvial silts. Higher sandy ground suggests the presence of an eyot in the area. A pit containing Roman LB_UID 470924 BWT96
BCB01
JFN08
Page 279


pottery was recorded. Alluvial silts were overlain by 17th19th-c deposits. A late 17th or early 18th-c, timberreinforced ditch, and a series of 18th-c cuts may relate to a fish pond shown on an 18th-c map. These features were truncated by 18th and 19th-c brick foundations, superseded by brick and concrete foundations of 19th and 20th-c industrial buildings. 8 Odessa Wharf, Bermondsey Wall West. 1995 MOLAS evaluation The earliest recorded layer was alluvium, above which was a thick modern reclamation dump behind the river wall. Into the alluvium were set two parallel timber revetments, possibly part of a water channel or of shoring for the construction of an adjacent 19th or 20th-century brick wall, abutted by a similar, but N-S wall, extending towards the river. These walls may have formed part of an earlier building foundation or were perhaps tie-backs associated with the river wall. Cherry Garden Project, Bermondsey Wall East. 1987 DGLA (S&L) excavation Several pits and deposits on the surface of the natural containing Iron Age pottery and flint flakes. Concentrated in a small area of higher ground were a Roman ditch and other features as well as three cremation burials. A clay-filled channel was found to contain a large Saxon timber resting against a wattle structure, possibly the remains of a revetment. Post-medieval features included a number of pits of mostly 18th-c date and containing large groups of domestic pottery Springall's Wharf, Bermondsey Wall West. 1991 DGLA (S&L) evaluation Remains of a timber waterfront covered by up to 3.5m or more of post-medieval deposits. Evidence of an inlet from the River Thames was also found. St James's Estate, St James's Road. 1990 DGLA (S&L) excavation Natural waterlaid clays and peats in part destroyed by 19thcentury industrial intrusion, and in places sealed by a thick layer of brick rubble and sand which was probably related to the construction of the nearby Surrey Canal. Adlarde's Wharf 1996 PCA evaluation, excavation, watching brief Natural alluvial deposits were at 0.2m OD. A chalk dump, ODW95
CG87
10
SPW91
11
SJR90
12
BWW96
Page 280


revetted with large secured timbers, was interpreted as part of the medieval embankment or associated defences which are thought to be represented by the line of Bermondsey Wall West. A sequence of waterfronts and associated land reclamation. timber revetments probably represent the early postmedieval development of the site. earliest phase of waterfront dating to the early 17th century. A total of 24 individual timber revetments and a brick-built wall were recorded, the timber being primarily re-used and derived from boats and ships. Cartographic evidence identified individual properties uncovered during the excavation dating back to at least the 17th century. For much of the early period development took place on a property by property basis, so that at any one time the contemporary waterfront consisted of several different lengths of revetment. Other notable features included a timber building, a circa 15th-c clinker boat, a crane-base, a slipway, three timber drains, two timber platforms and a cobbled surface. The fills between the revetments included two dumps from different phases of pottery kiln waste, including kiln furniture and structural evidence. 13 14 Post-medieval causeway, timber and stone, fountain stairs Gridiron. Post-medieval timbers for large sea going vessels. Consisting of re-used nautical timbers, including near complete rudders, rudder stock, keelson, deck beams etc. Post-Medieval timbers. Large block, possibly mooring post or work bench. Post-medieval gridiron. Apparently an earlier phase of A103. Consisting of re-used nautical timbers, including near complete rudders, keel Post-medieval structure. Several timbers possibly associated with, but not part of, gridiron A105. Aggradations of a gravel layer. Post-medieval gridiron. Apparently later than A103. Little exposed. Covered by gravel. Drain. Modern concrete outfall of ancient channel. Post-medieval timber. Tree trunk, vertical, with bark. 'Cut'. FSW01 A101 FASW01 A103 FWS01 A104 FSW01 A105 FSW01 A106 FSW01 A107 FSW01 A108 FSW01 A109 FSW01 A134
15 16
17 18 19 20 21
Page 281


Possibly shipworking scatter/ shipyard 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Post-medieval timber. Angled in clay. Possible shipworking scatter/ shipyard Tree root with bark, possibly remnants of prehistoric forest. 33 and 40 Bermondsey Wall west. 48 Farncombe Street. Grade II listed 29 Bermondsey Wall West. Chambers Wharf. Grade II listed Bermondsey Wall West. East Lane Stairs. Grade II listed Registered wreck. Post-medieval barge bed. Concrete sandbag construction. Post-medieval crane. Attached to waterfront building Post-medieval artefact scatter, industrial. Sugar refinery wares, pot. Post-medieval structure, possibly barge bed. Metal and timber revetment. Post-medieval mooring block. Vertical round wood post with metal ring. A windlass is built into A175 Post-medieval mooring block. Dolphin. Timber. 33 Bermondsey wall west. Grade II listed Odessa Wharf. Post-medieval wall and revetment. Bermondsey Wall West. Post-medieval occupation site, waterfront and undated watercourse. Chamber Street. Unclassified Roman find 67 George Row Grade II Listed building St. Saviours House, 21 Bermondsey Wall West, 60 George Row 2000 PCA watching brief Natural strata were not observed during the monitoring of excavations for beam slots, drain runs and a foundation FSW01 A156 FSW01 A179 FSW01 A158 FSW01 A159 FSW01 A175 A160 FSW01 A161 LB_UID36 470589 092223 092224 091493 091494 091489 090660 LB UID 470949 BYA00 FSW01 A138 FSW01 A139 LB_UID 470590 LB_UID 470923 LB_UID 470588 LB_UID 470591
34 35 36 37
38 39 40
Page 282


trench. Made ground, a brushwood surface of post-medieval to 18th century date, and the remains of foundations dating to the 19th and 20th centuries were recorded.
Page 283
Appendix B: Land quality
Appendix B: Land quality B.1 Site walkover report

Table B.1 Land quality site walkover report Item Site Ref Site Name Date of walkover / name(s) of specialist Site location (Address & Access) Details PSK3X Chambers Wharf 25th May 2011
Chambers Wharf located on Chamber Street. Access restricted, site observed from the eastern boundary of the site (Thames Path) and also from Chambers Street to the south. Size and topography of Record elevation in Site is flat and level with surrounding site and surroundings relation to land. surroundings, any hummocks, breaks of slope etc. Neighbouring site use North The River Thames forms the northern (in particular note any boundary of the site. potentially South Vacant area of recently cleared land. contaminative activities Earmarked for redevelopment. or sensitive receptors) The site is located on Chambers Street and can be accessed via Bermondsey Wall East Road. This is accessible from the main road, A200 Jamaica Road, by Bevington Street, south of the site. East Residential properties are situated on Loftie Street. West High rise residential/commercial properties Site buildings Record extent, Buildings onsite recently demolished. size, type and One partially demolished building usage. Any boiler remained at time observed, electrical rooms, electrical hazard warning signs on building switchgear? remnant. Surfacing Record type and Hard surfacing mostly crushed condition concrete across the entirety of the site, the site slightly extends over the Thames onto a wooded decked area with a concrete surfacing. Vegetation Any evidence of None from distance observed. distress, unusual growth or invasive species such as Japanese Knotweed? Services Evidence of buried N/A
Page 284
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf Item Fuels or chemicals on site services? Types/ quantities? Tanks (above ground or below ground) Containment systems (e.g. bund, drainage interceptors). Record condition and standing liquids Refill points located inside bunds or on impermeable surfaces etc? Record locations, tanks and inspection pits etc. Adequate storage and security? Fly tipping ? Record on-site or nearby standing water Is the site drained, if so to where? Evidence of flooding? Eg trial pits, borehole covers. Evidence of discoloured ground, seepage of liquids, strong odours? Details No N/A
Appendix B: Land quality
N/A
N/A
Vehicle servicing or refuelling onsite Waste generated/stored onsite Surface water
No
Demolition waste stored on site at time of observation. Site fenced off so adequately secured. The River Thames forms the northern boundary of the site. N/A
Site drainage
Evidence of previous site investigations Evidence of land contamination
No None from distance observed, however site partially covered with stockpiled materials.
Summary of potential contamination sources Any other comments
Eg access restrictions/ limitations
Demolition wastes, mostly comprising crushed concrete and hard surfacing. Site access restricted, site observation restricted due to hoarding, site observed from the Thames Path. Site vacant, evidence of recent demolition and stockpiled demolition waste. Other evidence of clearance at adjacent site to the south.
Page 285
Appendix C: Noise and vibration
Appendix C: Noise and vibration

C.1.1 This section does not include noise and vibration monitoring as the baseline survey work has not yet been completed.
Page 286
Appendix D: Townscape and visual
Appendix D: Townscape and visual D.1 Winter photographs for selected viewpoints
Figure D.1 Viewpoint 1.3: View west from residences on Fountain Green Square
Page 287
Figure D.2 Viewpoint 1.4: View west from residences on Chambers Street Note: at the junction with Bevington Street
Page 288
Figure D.3 Viewpoint 1.6: View north east from residences, Chambers Street Note: at the junction with Flockton Street
Page 289
Figure D.4 Viewpoint 1.7: View east from residences on Bermondsey Wall West Note: at the junction with Flockton Street
Page 290
Figure D.5 Viewpoint 1.8: View east from riverfront residences Note: on the corner of Flockton Street and Bermondsey Wall West
Page 291
Figure D.6 Viewpoint 2.3: View west from the Thames Path Note: next to Fountain Green Square
Page 292
Figure D.7 Viewpoint 2.4: View south east from Tower Bridge
Page 293
Appendix E: Water resources - ground
Appendix E: Water resources - groundwater E.1

E.1.1
Geology
A summary of the anticipated geological succession to be encountered by the Thames Tunnel is shown below.
Table E.1 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 Thanet Sand Seaford Chalk** Cretaceous Upper Cretaceous White Chalk Subgroup Lewes Nodular Chalk New Pit Chalk
Holywell Nodular Chalk * Not a Formation but an important depositional feature ** Subdivided into the Haven Brow, Cuckmere and Belle Tout members. E.2.2 Figure E.1 shows the superficial and Figure E.2 shows the solid geology beneath the site. Figure E.1 Groundwater superficial geology Figure E.2 Groundwater solid geology (see Volume 22 Figures document)
Page 294
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf E.2.3
The project Ground Investigation (GI) at the site will involve drilling three boreholes on shore and one within the main river channel. The proposed locations of boreholes around the site are shown in Vol 22 Figure E.2. The depths and thicknesses of geological layers are extrapolated from other GI holes at some distance to the site and are summarised below. Table E.2 Chambers Wharf anticipated ground conditions Top of Stratum Stratum Elevation mATD 102.4 101.4 98.4 94.4 91.9 89.9 73.4 60.9 Depth below ground level (m) 0.0 1.0 4.0 8.0 10.5 12.5 29.0 41.5 Thickness (m)
Made Ground Alluvium / Peat River Terrace Deposits London Clay Formation Harwich Formation Lambeth Group Thanet Sand Formation Seaford Chalk E.2.4
1.0 3.0 4.0 2.5 2.0 16.5 12.5 Not proven
At the site, the depth of the shaft will be at 47.25 mATD (with base slab down to 41.25 mATD). The base of the shaft and the Main Tunnel and Greenwich Tunnel will all be within Seaford Chalk Formation. There are no on-site GI boreholes at the site. It is planned that three onshore holes will be used to confirm the geology and a further hole will be drilled within the river both during a latter phase of investigations. The summary of the geological conditions are based upon the geology encountered in boreholes drilled about 0.5 km to the west and east of the site. River Terrace Deposits are extensive alluvial sand and gravel deposits laid down in a braided river system of approximately 5km width, in river terraces since the Anglian glaciation. Phases of down-cutting and intervening deposition during colder periods and subsequent meltwaters increased river flows and sediment load. Seven terraces are distinguishable in London in terms of their altitude, rather than distinguishing lithological features, ranging in thickness from around 2.5 to 28m. The River Terrace Deposits at the site are expected to be 4m thick. The London Clay Formation is expected to be very thin at the site. In the eastern part of London the formation is absent, and at the site it is very
E.2.5
E.2.6
E.2.7
Page 295
near the feather edge of this strata. To the west of the site the formation is known to be 7.6 m thick and to the east it is absent. It is expected that at the site it will be 2.5 m thick. It is likely to comprise stiff brown silty clay with rare lenses and pockets of light brown silty sand. E.2.8 The Harwich Formation, possibly 2 m thick is expected under the London Clay Formation. It is likely to consist of a dark brown slightly glauconitic clay and possibly a fine sand. The Lambeth Group is possibly 16.5 m thick and comprises mottled clays, shelly clays, laminated clays and the possibility of sand bodies. The Upnor Formation (UPN) is a variably bioturbated fine- to mediumgrained sand with glauconite, rounded flint pebbles and minor clay, with distinctive pebble beds and base and top (Upn(Gv)). The Thanet Sand Formation defines the first marine transgression following erosion of the Chalk, and is round unconformably on the approximately planar eroded Chalk surface. The Thanet Sand Formation comprises well sorted, uniform sand, with evidence of intense bioturbation removing bedding structures. With approximately 10 per cent fine-grained sand at the base, the lower part is typically clayey and silty, coarsening and greater sorting upward to the upper beds containing as much as 60 per cent fine-grained sand. The base of the Thanet Sands is a unit known as the 'Bullhead Beds' - a pale to medium-grey to brownish-grey, fine to fine-grained sand; and a conglomerate up to 0.5m thick comprising rounded to angular flint cobble and gravel sized clasts set in a clayey, fine to coarse-grained sand matrix with glauconite pellets forming the basal bed of the Thanet Sand Formation. The Bullhead Bed, mark the Palaeocene/Cretaceous unconformity. The Seaford Chalk is the upper unit of the White Chalk, comprising of as firm to soft non-nodular Chalk with flint beds. Thin marl seams are found in the lower 8m and absent higher up. A hard ground marks the top of the Seaford Chalk.
E.2.9 E.2.10
E.2.11
E.2.12
E.3
E.3.1
Hydrogeology
A summary of the anticipated hydrogeological properties of the different geologies to be encountered by the Thames Tunnel is shown below.
Page 296
Table E.3 Summary of anticipated Thames Tunnel main hydrogeological units 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 Undivided mainly Seaford Chalk White Chalk Subgroup White Chalk Lewes Nodular Chalk New Pit Chalk Holywell Nodular Chalk E.3.2 It is interpolated from GI boreholes that the River Terrace Deposits (upper aquifer) are thin at about 4.0 m thick at Chambers Wharf. Below the RTD is a 31 m thick layer of London Clay, Harwich and Lambeth Group before the lower aquifer is reached. The Upnor Formation and possibly part of the Lower Mottled Beds are thought to be in hydraulic continuity with the lower aquifer. Construction on site will take place through the upper aquifer and into the lower aquifer beneath. The lower aquifer comprises the Upnor Formation, the Thanet Sands and the Chalk (principal aquifer) xvi comprising of the Seaford Chalk. The shaft is not sufficiently deep to encounter the Lewes Nodular Chalk and New Pit Chalk formations beneath. The upper aquifer (River Terrace Deposits) is defined as a secondary A aquifer. The shaft and base slab will extend around 33 m into the lower aquifer, from approximately 73.4 mATD at the top of the Thanet Sands (marking the top of the lower aquifer) to the base of the slab at 41.2mATD. The thickness of the slab is 6m. Lower Aquifer Hydrogeology Perched Water Upper Aquifer Aquiclude Aquitard / Aquifer
Lambeth
Aquitards/ Aquifers
No group
E.3.3
E.3.4
xvi
The terms Principal and Secondary Aquifers were previously known as Major and Minor Aquifers (EA, 2010)
Page 297
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf E.3.5
The type of White Chalk present in the face of tunnel excavation will be Seaford Chalk, and either Cuckmere Member and Belle Tout Member (TT, 2010) 52. The Seaford Chalk forms a highly transmissive aquifer, with rapid preferential flow commonly established along fissures and enhanced fractures, often along or above flint and marl layers within the Chalk. Transmissivity and groundwater storage therefore vary considerably both laterally and vertically.
E.4
E.4.1
Groundwater levels
The monitoring of groundwater levels is being undertaken by the project at GI boreholes. In addition, the EA has a network of observation monitoring boreholes across the London for which records are available dating back to1963 (in certain locations) (Figure E.3). Figure E.3 Groundwater EA monitoring locations (see Volume 22 Figures document)
E.4.2
The geotechnical investigation boreholes drilled for the Thames Tunnel project have been used to obtain hydrogeological information. Standpipes were installed to monitor groundwater levels in different horizons by means of data loggers and/or manual dips. Groundwater monitoring records from the completion of each borehole to January 2010 were provided for the PEIR. The monitoring boreholes record groundwater levels in the upper aquifer and lower aquifer. There are no monitoring boreholes at the site the nearest lie to the west of the site are at SA1056, SR1057 and the nearest to the east of the site are SR1055, SR1054A. The holes monitor the following discrete layers: Lambeth Group from the upper aquifer and Seaford Chalk from the lower aquifer. The manual dip and logger data collected from these monitoring boreholes is shown in Figures E.4 and E.5). Further GI monitoring boreholes are proposed as shown in Vol 22 Figure E.3.
E.4.3
Table E.4 Groundwater - depth and strata of nearby monitoring boreholes Borehole SR1055 SR1054A SA1056 SA1056 SR1057 SR1057 Tip Depth mATD 42.92 36.50 78.71 68.71 77.82 36.02 Strata Seaford Chalk Seaford Chalk Lambeth Group (Sand) Lower Mottled Beds (Sand) Lambeth Group (Sand) Seaford Chalk Monitoring Fortnightly Dip Fortnightly Dip & Logger Fortnightly Dip & Logger Fortnightly Dip & Logger Fortnightly Dip Fortnightly Dip
Page 298
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf E.4.4 E.4.5
Groundwater levels in the River Terrace Deposits are not measured at any of the monitoring locations. The piezometric heads in the Lambeth Group at borehole SA1056 LB-SD show a twice daily fluctuation of 3 to 4 m. This groundwater in the upper aquifer is responding to the tidal loading by the river. The average water level is about 95 mATD. The groundwater levels in the lower part of the Lambeth Group, as monitored in SA1056-LMB-GR and in the Chalk at SR1057-SCK are very similar and exhibit the same fluctuations. This indicates that these are in hydraulic conductivity. The Chalk and Thanet Sand Formation are fully saturated with a piezometric head of between 75 and 77 mATD during the monitoring period. The water levels as monitored in the Chalk to the east of the site are at 87 mATD in SR1054 as recorded by the logger and manual dips. The dip record at SR1055-SCK seems to be less consistent and the levels should be treated with caution. The hydraulic gradient in the Chalk at the site indicates a groundwater flow direction to the west north-west. The piezometric pressure under the site is anticipated to be at 82 mATD. The nearest EA monitoring borehole, TQ37_7E is located at TQ340790 to the south west of the site and a second EA monitoring borehole, TQ37_276 located at TQ352 798, to the east of the site. The location of these boreholes is shown on Vol 22 Figure A.3. These boreholes record levels in the lower aquifer (mainly Chalk). Groundwater level hydrographs are shown in Figure E.6. The water levels in these holes are, from recent data, about 96 mATD and 83 mATD respectively. The EA monitoring borehole water levels are significantly different to those expected from the EA contours for Jan 2009. The contours show that a water level of around 78 mATD would be anticipated at both TQ37_7E and TQ37_276. The water levels from the GI monitoring boreholes are broadly in agreement with the EA contours. The Chalk piezometric levels vary annually by less than 1m (based on reccent years). Historically the EA borehole shows a greater range of up to 10 m (between 1996 and 1998), which is assumed to be in response to abstractions at that time.
E.4.6
E.4.7
E.4.8
E.4.9
E.4.10
E.4.11
Page 299
Figure E.4 Groundwater level hydrographs west of Chambers Wharf

105 103 101 99 97 95 93 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 77 75 73 71 69 67 65 River Terrace Deposits Alluvium
SR 1057
Made Ground
Groundwater Level (mATD)
London Clay Formation
Harwich Formation & Lambeth Group
Upnor Thanet Sand Formation
May 2009
May 2010
Mar 2009
Nov 2009
Mar 2010
Nov 2010
Sep 2009
Sep 2010
SA1056 LB-SD(Dip)
SA1056 LB-SD(Logger)
Monitoring Borehole Data Currently no Geological Investigation Boreholes at the site. Monitoring data from nearby boreholes to the shaft site
SA1056 LMB-SD, LMB-GR(Dip)
SA1056 LMB-SD, LMB-GR(Logger)
SR1057 LB-SD(Dip)
SR1057 SCK-B1(Dip)
Page 300
Mar 2011
Jan 2009
Jul 2009
Jan 2010
Jul 2010
Jan 2011
Figure E.5 Groundwater level hydrographs east of Chambers Wharf

105
SR 1055
103 101 99 97 95 93 91 89 87 Lambeth Group 85 83 81 79 Upnor 77 75 73 71 69 67 65 Thanet Sand Formation Made Ground
Alluvium
River Terrace Deposits
May 2009
May 2010
Mar 2009
Nov 2009
Mar 2010
Nov 2010
Sep 2009
Sep 2010
Monitoring Borehole Data Currently no Geological Investigation Boreholes at the site.

SR1055 SCK-B1(Dip) SR1054A SCK-B1(Dip) SR1054A SCK-B1(Logger)
Monitoring data from nearby boreholes to the shaft site
Page 301
Mar 2011
Jan 2009
Jul 2009
Jan 2010
Jul 2010
Jan 2011
Figure E.6 Groundwater level hydrograph Chambers Wharf OBH

105 103 101 Alluvium 99 97 95 93 91 89 87 85 83 81 79 77 75 73 71 69 67 65 Thanet Sand Formation Interpolated for site Made Ground
River Terrace Deposits
London Clay Formation
Harwich Formation & Lambeth Group
Jan 1984
Jan 1986
Jan 1988
Jan 1990
Jan 1992
Jan 1994
Jan 1996
Jan 1998
Jan 2000
Jan 2002
Jan 2004
Jan 2006
Jan 2008
SA1056 LB-SD(Logger)
SA1056 LMB-SD, LMB-GR(Logger)
Monitoring Borehole Data Currently no Geological Investigation Boreholes at the site. Monitoring data from nearby boreholes to the shaft site
SR1057 SCK-B1(Dip)
TQ37/7E
TQ37/276
Page 302
Jan 2010
E.5
E.5.3
Groundwater abstractions and protected rights

Groundwater abstractions within a radius of influence of up to 2 km around the site have been identified. Their locations are not presented due to data restriction on licence abstraction locations held by the EA. Licensed Abstractions Chambers Wharf is not located within the catchment areas of any licensed groundwater abstractions. The nearest licensed abstraction is located 1 km to the west abstraction number 28/39/42/62 held by London Bridge Development Limited with an annual maximum abstraction of 424,600 m3. There are eight licences, some of which have multiple points of abstraction, located between 1 and 2 km distance from the site. These sources all abstract their water from the Chalk. Further details are given in the table below, the licences may relate to multiple abstraction points with various quantities and conditions and purposes, so the tabulation does not provide a full representation of the more complex licences. Table E.5 Groundwater licensed abstractions
E.5.4
Licence Nr 28/39/42/62 28/39/42/48 TH/39/39/17
Distance (km) 1.0 1.2 1.3
Daily (m3) 2920 229 n/a
Annual (m3) 424600 83804 n/a
Purpose
Licence Holder
Public London Bridge Administration Development Ltd Amenity Hotels, Public Houses & Conference Centre LB of Southwark Global Grange Ltd
28/39/39/2
1.3
91
28185
Industrial, Mars Pensions Commercial & Trustees Ltd Public Service Business Parks The One Plantation Place Unit Trust
28/39/39/11
1.6
208
36288
28/39/39/66
1.6
91
24821
Industrial, Commercial & DB6 Ltd Public Service Paper & Printing Harmsworth Quays Printing Ltd
28/39/42/73
1.7
150
52000
28/39/39/31
1.8
50
12574
Industrial, Shiatzu Holding Commercial & Ltd Public Service Industrial, Tokio Marine Commercial & Properties Ltd Public Service
28/39/39/151
1.9
70.
2240
Page 303
Figure E.7 Groundwater GSHP (see Volume 22 Figures document) E.5.5 E.5.6 Unlicensed Abstractions there are no unlicensed groundwater abstractions within a 1 km radius of the site. Ground Source Heat there are two GSH schemes locally. These are shown on Vol 22 Figure A.4. The GSH marked as 147 is about 1 km west at City Hall and is down hydraulic gradient from the site. The scheme has been licensed and active since 2001. The GSH marked as 79 is just under 1 km from the site at TQ 35488 80480 and was at planning application stage when the data was received.
E.6
E.6.3 E.6.4
Groundwater Source Protection Zones

The EA defines Source Protection Zones (SPZ) around all major public water supply abstractions sources and large licensed private abstractions. The nearest SPZ to Chambers Wharf is over 5 km away to the southeast. This source is in the opposite direction to the direction of groundwater flow expected beneath the Chambers Wharf site (see Section 5.12).
E.7
E.7.3
Other designations
There are no other environmental designations relevant to groundwater in the vicinity of the site.
E.8
E.8.3
Groundwater quality and land quality assessment

The EA monitors groundwater quality at a number of points across London. The nearest EA monitoring location is the Victoria Deepwater Terminal (PGWU1888), at a distance of approximately 3km to the east. The distance of this location from the Chambers Wharf site makes it difficult to extrapolate the quality observed at the EA monitoring location. As part of the GI, water quality testing was undertaken on a number of water samples taken from boreholes drilled on banks of the River Thames. The nearest boreholes are SR1055 that lies 320 m to the east and SR1057 that lies 490 m to the west. Neither of these boreholes has from the site to the east. Some of the results from these boreholes are shown in the table below. The table excludes a wide suite of organic compounds that were not detected. Table E.6 Groundwater quality results Parameter Units Maximum Concentration SR1055 Arsenic Boron Cadmium Chromium g/l g/l g/l g/l 2 320 <2 <5 SR1057 <1 390 <2 <5 Standard DWS 10 1000 5.0 50 2.5 EQS
E.8.4
Page 304
Appendix E: Water resources - ground Maximum Concentration SR1055 SR1057 <2 <0.05 <10 <4 <3 <1 <0.02 2.7 <0.1 180 360 2040 <1 **69 **18 1 10 10 30 10 5 0.05 20 3 <0.05 <10 4 <3 3 <0.02 0.43 1.1 170 160 1420 <1 **18
Parameter
Units
Standard DWS 5 0.3 30 25 EQS
Copper Mercury Nickel Lead Selenium Zinc Free Cyanice Ammonical Nitrogen as N Nitrate as N Sulphate Chloride Electrical Conductivity Benzene Total Aromatic TPH
g/l g/l g/l g/l g/l g/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l S/cm ug/l ug/l
Total Aliphatic ug/l <10 TPH Note ** Above water quality standard E.8.5
The table above shows there were exceedences with respect to total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) at both boreholes. However these two sampling locations are too far away from Chambers Wharf to indicate whether the groundwater at the site exceeds the relevant standards for water. There are further ground investigation boreholes proposed that lie very close to the Chambers Wharf site. The water quality information from these locations will provide a better picture of the conditions that exist under the site. Further monitoring of groundwater quality is being undertaken as part of the Thames Tunnel project monitoring programme. Further information will be presented in the ES.
E.8.6
E.8.7
E.9
E.9.4
Groundwater status
In 2009 the baseline results from the river basin management plan showed the status of the Greenwich Tertiaries as poor current quantitative and chemical quality with an upward chemical trend. The predicted
Page 305
quantitative and chemical quality was poor for 2015 due to being disproportionately expensive or technically infeasible to rectify. E.9.5 In the April 2011 update (EA website 11th May 2011) the results of further investigation referred to a point or diffuse source of pollution and confirmed good status. The balance between recharge and abstraction from the Chalk aquifer in London formed part of the groundwater resource assessment of the London Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy (CAMS), (EA, 2006). The Thames Tunnel falls within groundwater management unit 7 (GWMU7 Confined Chalk) which was classed as over licensed. The London Groundwater Licensing Policy (EA, 2006) was produced to restrict further abstraction in areas approaching their sustainable limit. This policy was incorporated into the London CAMS licensing policy which identified areas where further licences are restricted. Chambers Wharf lies close to the boundary of the Central and South London area (see Figure E.7).
E.9.6
E.9.7
Page 306
Figure E.8 Licensing Areas (EA, 2006)
Page 307
E.9
E.9.7
Assessment of effects technical information specific to topics

Dewatering assessment to be completed for ES
Page 308
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 309
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf 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 310
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf 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 311
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf 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 312
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf 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 313
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf 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 314
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf 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 315
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf 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 316
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf 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 317
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf 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 318
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf 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 Insectsxvii, 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
xvii
Bratton, (1991) Red Data Book for Insects
Page 319
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf 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 320
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf 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 321
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf 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 322
Volume 22: Chambers Wharf 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 323
References
References
1 Defra, http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/review-and-assessment/tools/backgroundmaps.html, Accessed May 2011) 2 LB Southwark, Personal Communication with Bill Legassick EHO, April 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 Managemen t- 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 (undated) Tidal Thames Habitat Action Plan. Thames Estuary Partnership. 8 London Borough of Southwark (2007) Working for Wildlife: The London Borough of Southwark Biodiversity Action Plan (2006-2010). 9 Elliott, M. & Hemingway, K. L. (2002). Fishes in Estuaries, London: Blackwell Science. 10 Elliott, M. and Taylor, C.J.L. (1989). The structure and functioning of an estuarine/marine fish community in the Forth estuary, Scotland. Proc. 21st European Marine Biological Symposium (Gdansk). Polish Academy of Sciences, Institute of Oceanology, Warsaw, Poland, 227-240. 11 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. 12 The Mayors Biodiversity Strategy Connecting with Nature (Great London Authority, July 2002) 13 IEEM. Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom. Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2006) 14 Department of Communities and Local Government. Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment (March 2010), 1, 13 15 Sidell EJ, Wilkinson K, Scaife R and Cameron N, The Holocene Evolution of the London Thames, MoLAS Monograph 5 (2000) 16 Halsey CJ, Lost islands and Early Prehistoric landscapes of Southwark: Geoarchaeological investigations at St Michaels School, Bermondsey, in London Archaeologist (2010) 17 Ridgeway V, Prehistoric finds at Hopton Street in Southwark in London Archaeologist 9, no. 3, (1999), 7276; Rogers W, Mesolithic and Neolithic flint toolmanufacturing areas buried beneath Roman Watling Street in Southwark, in London Archaeologist 6, no. 9 (1990), 22731
Page 324
References
18 Sidell EJ, Wilkinson K, Scaife R and Cameron N, The Holocene Evolution of the London Thames, MoLAS Monograph 5 (2000) 19 Rippon S, The Transformation of Coastal Wetlands: Exploitation and Management of Marshland Landscapes in North West Europe during the Roman and Medieval Periods. London: British Academy (2000) 20 Heard K, The hinterland of Roman Southwark in London Archaeologist 8 no. 3 1996 21 Cowan C, Seeley F, Wardle A, Westman A, Wheeler L, Roman Southwark settlement and economy. MOLA Monograph 42, (2009), 1213 22 Margary ID, Roman Roads in Britain (1967), 45 23 Mackinder A, A Romano-British cemetery on Watling Street: excavations at 156 Great Dover Street, Southwark. London, MoLAS Archaeol Stud Ser 4 (2000), 57 24 Heard K, The hinterland of Roman Southwark in London Archaeologist 8 no. 3 (1996) 25 Blair J, Early Medieval Surrey (1991) 26 Victoria County History A History of the County of Surrey. Volume 4: Southwark. HE Malden (Editor) (1912), 125135 27 Steele A, Sloane B The monastery of St Saviours Bermondsey. English Heritage/MOLA (1997) 28 Knight H, Aspects of medieval and later Southwark: Archaeological excavations (19918) for the London Underground Limited Jubilee Line Extension Project MoLAS Monograph 13 (2002) 29 Victoria County History A History of the County of Surrey. Volume 4: Southwark. HE Malden (Editor) (1912), 1424 30 Victoria County History A History of the County of Surrey. Volume 4: Southwark. HE Malden (Editor) (1912), 1424 31 Victoria County History A History of the County of Surrey. Volume 4: Southwark. HE Malden (Editor) (1912), 1424 32 Victoria County History A History of the County of Surrey. Volume 4: Southwark. HE Malden (Editor) (1912), 1424 33 http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/385/conservation_area_appraisal s 34 http://www.southwark.gov.uk/ downloads/file/5617/edward_iiis_rotherhithe_conservation_area 35 BS 5228:2009 (Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites) 36 Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (2007), London Noise Maps (http://services.defra.gov.uk/wps/portal/noise 37 BS 4142 (1997): Method for rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas
Page 325
References
38 LB Southwark. LB Southwark Open Space Study, 2010 39 Department for Transport. Transport Analysis Guidance WebTAG: Expert Guidance Document 3.3.2, accessed at http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/documents/expert/unit3.3.2.php, on 14/06/11 40 Greater London Authority. The State of Londons Children Report, 2007 page 74 41 EA(2006) Groundwater Quality Review: London Basin Ref. No. GWQR22 [6441R6] November 2006. 42 Thames River Basin Management Plan Annex B: Water Body Status Objectives, Environment Agency, 2011 43 Communities and Local Government (March 2010). Planning Policy Statement 25 Development and Flood Risk 44 PPS25 Practice Guide (Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk Practice Guide. Communities and Local Government (Dec 2009)) 45 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) 46 London Plan (The London Plan Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London. Greater London Authority (Jul 2011). 47 London Borough of Southwark, Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA). Final Report. Jacobs (Feb 2008). 48 London Regional Flood Risk Appraisal. Greater London Authority (Oct 2009) 49 Thames Tidal Defences Joint Probability Extreme Water Levels 2008 Final Modelling Report. Environment Agency (Apr 2008) (Thames Barrier operational, Model Node 2.23)). 50 Flood Risks to People FD2320. Defra and Environment Agency (2005) 51 Mayors Draft Water Strategy. Mayor of London. Greater London Authority (Aug 2009) 52 TT (2010) Ground Investigation Factual Report 100-RG-GEO-00000-000005-AB
Page 326
Thames Tunn
110-RG-ENV-PSK3X-000030
Phase two consultation (Autumn 2011)
For further information see our website: www.thamestunnelconsultation.co.uk or call us on 0800 0721 086
Thames Tunn

PEIR Main Report Vol22-Chambers-Wharf

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEIR Main Report Vol22-Chambers-Wharf

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 22: Chambers Wharf site assessment

Phase two consultation documentation

Project information papers

Site information papers

Thames Tunnel Preliminary environmental information report

Part B: Preliminary site information

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 25 Volume 26 Volume 27 Volume 28

Preliminary environmental information report

Thames Tunnel Volume 22: Chambers Wharf site assessment

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

Preliminary environmental information report

Preliminary environmental information report

Socio-economics ......................................................................................... 132

Townscape and visual ................................................................................. 148

Transport ...................................................................................................... 194

Water resources groundwater ................................................................. 221

Preliminary environmental information report

Water resources surface water ................................................................ 237

Water resources flood risk ....................................................................... 252

Preliminary environmental information report

Preliminary environmental information report

Preliminary environmental information report

Preliminary environmental information report

Preliminary environmental information report

WWT ZTV ZVI

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 22: Chambers Wharf

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 22: Chambers Wharf

Section 2: Site context

Site context Site location

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 22: Chambers Wharf

Section 2: Site context

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 22: Chambers Wharf

Section 3: Proposed development

Proposed development Overview

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 22: Chambers Wharf a. Gates to site entrance and exit

Section 3: Proposed development

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 22: Chambers Wharf 3.2.5

Section 3: Proposed development

3.2.9 3.2.10 3.2.11

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 22: Chambers Wharf

Section 3: Proposed development

Access and maintenance works

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 22: Chambers Wharf Site establishment and clearance 3.3.8

Section 3: Proposed development

3.3.14 3.3.15 3.3.16

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 22: Chambers Wharf

Section 3: Proposed development

3.3.24 3.3.25 3.3.26

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 22: Chambers Wharf

Section 3: Proposed development

Preliminary environmental information report