wholesale.thameswater.co.uk...Counters Creek Strategic Storm Relief Sewer/ Site Selection...

Protecting residents from flooding

Strategic Sewer Site Assessment Stage 3: Site Suitability Report: SS219 Cremorne Wharf

Document Number C680-AH-00515-RP November 2014

Counters Creek Strategic Sewer Flood Alleviation Scheme

Counters Creek Strategic Storm Relief Sewer/ Site Selection Methodology/ Stage 3/ SS219 SSR: November 2014 Document Number: C680-AH-00515-RP

COUNTERS CREEK STRATEGIC FLOOD ALLEVIATION SCHEME

STRATEGIC SEWER SITE ASSESSMENT STAGE 3: SITE SUITABILITY REPORT: SS219 CREMORNE WHARF

Document Ref C680-AH-00515-RP Status Issued Document Type Report Title/Subject Strategic Sewer Site Assessment Stage 3: SSR Project Counters Creek Strategic Flood Alleviation Scheme Authors TWUL / Adams Hendry / Bruton Knowles / London Bridge

Associates / Mott MacDonald / URS Keywords Cremorne Wharf Site Suitability Report

REQUIRED APPROVALS

Co-ordinator Reviewer Approver

Chris Colloff Associate, Savills

Mark Mathews

Town Planning Manager, TWUL

Martin Bennett

Project Lead, TWUL

Date 7/11/14 Date 7/11/14 Date 7/11/14


COUNTERS CREEK STRATEGIC FLOOD ALLEVIATION SCHEME

STRATEGIC SEWER SITE ASSESSMENT STAGE 3: SITE SUITABILITY REPORT: SS219 CREMORNE WHARF

LIST OF CONTENTS

PAGE 0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1 INTRODUCTION 2

1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT 2

1.2 STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT 3

2 SITE INFORMATION 5 2.1 SITE AND SURROUNDINGS 5

3 PROPOSED USE OF SITE – CONSTRUCTION PHASE 7 3.1 CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS 7

3.2 CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMME 9

3.3 CONSTRUCTION WORKING HOURS 10

3.4 ACCESS AND MATERIAL MOVEMENTS 10

3.5 CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGY AND ASSOCIATED DIMENSIONS 12

4 PROPOSED USE OF SITE – OPERATIONAL PHASE 18 4.1 PERMANENT INSTALLATIONS 18

4.2 OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS 18

4.3 RESTORATION AND AFTER-USE 18

5 ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT 19 5.1 CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC 19

5.2 CONSTRUCTION WORK CONSIDERATIONS 19

5.3 PERMANENT WORKS CONSIDERATIONS 19

5.4 HEALTH AND SAFETY 19

5.5 SUMMARY 20

6 PLANNING ASSESSMENT 21 6.1 INTRODUCTION 21

6.2 PLANNING APPLICATION AND PERMISSIONS 21

6.3 PLANNING POLICY 22

7 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 26 7.1 INTRODUCTION 26

7.2 TRANSPORT 26

7.3 NOISE 26


7.4 WATER RESOURCES - HYDROGEOLOGY 27

7.5 WATER RESOURCES – SURFACE WATER AND FLOOD RISK 27

7.6 AIR QUALITY 27

7.7 ARCHAEOLOGY 27

7.8 BUILT HERITAGE

7.9 TOWNSCAPE AND VIEWS 28

7.10 ECOLOGY 28

7.11 LAND QUALITY 28

7.12 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 28

8 SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT 30 8.1 SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE 30

8.2 ISSUES AND IMPACTS 30

8.3 POTENTIAL INTEREST GROUPS 31

8.4 SUMMARY 31

9 PROPERTY ASSESSMENT 32 9.1 INTRODUCTION 32

9.2 CROWN LAND AND SPECIAL LAND COMMENTS 32

9.3 LAND TO BE ACQUIRED 32

9.4 ASSOCIATED PROPERTY COSTS TO PROJECT 32

9.5 COMPENSATION 33

9.6 SUMMARY 33

10 CONCLUSION 10.1 ENGINEERING 34

10.2 PLANNING 34

10.3 ENVIRONMENT 34

10.4 SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY 35

10.5 PROPERTY 35

10.6 RECOMMENDATION 35

APPENDIX 1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

APPENDIX 2 SITE LOCATION PLAN

APPENDIX 3 INDICATIVE CONSTRUCTION LAYOUT PLANS

APPENDIX 4 INDICATIVE OPERATIONAL LAYOUT PLANS

APPENDIX 5 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT PLANS

APPENDIX 6 RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY

APPENDIX 7 ENVIRONMENTAL APPRAISAL TABLES

Strategic Sewer Stage 3 Site Suitability Report: SS219 Cremorne Wharf


1

0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 0.1.1 The Counters Creek Strategic Flood Alleviation Scheme is required to protect

properties from basement flooding within the Counters Creek catchment in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. The present Counters Creek Flooding Register1 shows that over 1,700 properties are subject to flooding.

0.1.2 A number of strategic solutions are being pursued, each of which plays a role in

providing the relief necessary to guard against basement flooding. The strategic solutions comprise the provision of flooding local improvement projects (FLIPS), the introduction of pilot Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) schemes, the implementation of sewer upgrade works and the construction of a strategic storm relief sewer (the ‘strategic sewer’ or ‘the scheme’).

0.1.3 This report relates to the further assessment of sites which have been identified as

being potentially suitable for development as part of the delivery of the strategic sewer in accordance with the Counters Creek Strategic Sewer Site Selection Methodology Report (Document reference C680-AH-00504-RP). Those shortlisted sites, identified through the Stage 3 Site Selection shortlisting process, have been individually subjected to further assess the feasibility of their potential use as part of the scheme. The individual site assessments are documented in a series of Site Suitability Reports (SSRs). In total 12 SSRs have been prepared.

0.1.4 This SSR relates to site SS219 at Cremorne Wharf in the Royal Borough of

Kensington and Chelsea. The purpose of this report is to provide a strategic assessment of the opportunities and constraints associated with developing the site as a drive, reception, interception point, pumping station and sewer outfall site for the strategic sewer.

0.1.5 This SSR assesses two construction options:

• Option A – pumping station, sewer outfall, drive site, interception site and if there is an opportunity and it is required, make a connection to the consented Thames Tideway Tunnel.

• Option B – pumping station, sewer outfall, reception site, interception site and if there is an opportunity and it is required, make a connection to the consented Thames Tideway Tunnel.

0.1.6 As a result of the assessments reported in this SSR the site is concluded as being

less suitable for both Options.

0.1.7 It is recommended that the site is not promoted for use as a drive shaft (Option A), unless other locations assessed as being more suitable for the development of a drive site cannot be delivered.

0.1.8 It is recommended that the site is retained as a preferred site for an interception,

pumping station and reception site (Option B), subject to mitigation.

1 The Counters Creek flood register is a register of all the properties in the Counters Creek Catchment that have been recorded as being flooded at some point in the past. This register is taken from the Thames Water Sewer Flooding History Database (SFHD). Properties are added to the register based on reported flooding incidents. Incidents are assessed to confirm whether or not the flood event was caused by an operational problem (i.e. a blockage), an extreme rainfall occurrence (greater than the current design criteria), or by a lack of capacity in the sewer.



2

1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of this report 1.1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide a strategic assessment of the suitability of

Strategic Site SS219 Cremorne Wharf as a construction site for the Counters Creek strategic storm relief sewer (the ‘strategic sewer’ or ‘the scheme’), which forms part of the Counters Creek Flood Alleviation Scheme. The wider background to the scheme is provided in Appendix 1 to this report. This report assesses the potential to use the site for two options:

• Option A – pumping station, sewer outfall, drive site, interception site and if

there is an opportunity and it is required, make a connection to the consented Thames Tideway Tunnel.

• Option B – pumping station, sewer outfall, reception site, interception site and if there is an opportunity and it is required, make a connection to the consented Thames Tideway Tunnel.

1.1.2 Section 2 of this report describes the site and its surroundings and Sections 3 and

4 of this report provide details on the proposed use of the site during the construction and operational phase.

1.1.3 This report forms part of the site and options assessment process that has been

undertaken by the Counters Creek team to identify preferred sites for drive shafts, reception and interception shafts, a storm outfall and a pumping station, which are required to deliver a new storm relief sewer. Sites are also potentially required for construction compounds if insufficient space is available at individual construction sites.

1.1.4 The Cremorne Wharf site was identified as a potential site for development during

the longlist (Stage 2) site assessment process. Following further assessment as part of the shortlist (Stage 3) site assessment process it was concluded that the site warranted further testing through this Site Suitability Report (SSR) as to its suitability for use as a pumping station, sewer outfall, drive site, interception site and / or a reception site. Further detail regarding the site selection methodology can be found in the Strategic Sewer Site Selection Methodology Report (Document reference C680-AH-00504-RP), which is summarised in Appendix 1 of this report.

1.1.5 This report assesses the suitability of the site in respect of the proposed use,

considering engineering issues, planning issues, potential environmental, noise and transport effects, community issues and property matters. In brief, the suitability of the site will be considered in the following way: • Suitable: the site is expected to experience minimal constraint or conflict

with the surrounding environment, or encounter minimal constraints in respect of existing conditions at the site, although there may be a requirement for some form of compromise, mitigation and compensation.

• Less Suitable: the site is considered to experience constraints or conflicts with the surrounding environment, or encounter constraints in respect of existing conditions at the site, which will require mitigation and compensation and are anticipated to affect the design and use of the site. It may be necessary to consider the use of this site alongside the availability of alternative locations.



3

• Unsuitable: the site is considered to experience substantial constraints or conflicts with the surrounding environment, or encounter considerable constraints in respect of existing conditions at the site, which are unlikely to be capable of being mitigated or compensated. An alternative site(s) should be sought.

1.1.6 These individual assessments then enable an overall judgement to be made,

having regard to all engineering, planning, environment, transport and property issues, whether the site is suitable for the intended use. That overall assessment will also identify any issues where further investigation or mitigation measures may need to be considered and addressed. After the completion of the SSRs, the final outcome of Stage 3 of the site assessment process is for a preferred route option and associated sites to be identified. These will be reported through the Phase 1 public consultation process and feedback from the consultation process will be used to update and revisit preferred route and site outcomes, where necessary. Any updates to the sites recommended for inclusion as preferred sites will then be considered against engineering, planning, environment, noise, transport and property issues.

1.2 Structure of this Report 1.2.1 The report is structured as follows:

• Section 2 – site information: This section provides general information that relates to the site, as the basis for the assessment that follows.

• Section 3 – proposed use of the site – construction phase: This section provides an explanation of how the site would be used during the construction phase if selected, identifying any assumptions that have been made.

• Section 4 – proposed use of the site – operational phase: This section provides an explanation of how the site would be used during the operational phase if selected, identifying any assumptions that have been made.

• Section 5 – engineering assessment: This section provides an engineering assessment based on the information in Sections 2, 3 and 4, identifying any assumptions that have been made.

• Section 6 – planning assessment: This section provides a planning assessment of the site and its relationship with relevant planning applications and permissions and with relevant planning policies and designations.

• Section 7 – environmental appraisals: This section provides an appraisal of specific environmental topics relevant to the site. An appraisal of potential impacts is provided, along with the identification of potential mitigation measures that may be required. This is based on professional judgement, site investigations and the plans and assumptions included in this SSR.

• Section 8 – socio-economic assessment: This section provides a socio-economic assessment, including consideration of potential community impacts and issues. This is based on professional judgement, site investigations and the plans and assumptions included in this SSR.

• Section 9 – property assessment: This section provides a property assessment that includes landownership, land acquisition processes, acquisition risks, and the potential for compensation events.



4

• Section 10 – conclusions: This section provides conclusions for each of the assessments, together with the overall assessment of the suitability of the site.



5

2 SITE INFORMATION 2.1 Site and surroundings 2.1.1 The site lies within the administrative boundary of the Royal Borough of

Kensington and Chelsea (RBK&C). A site location plan is attached at Appendix 2. 2.1.2 Cremorne Wharf is located adjacent to the River Thames foreshore on the south

side of Lots Road. To the north of the site along Lots Road are mainly residential uses (3 – 4 storey Edwardian properties), with a few (2 – 3) commercial units.

2.1.3 Lots Road Power Station, located to the southwest of Cremorne Wharf, along with

adjacent land, including land to the south of Chelsea Creek, is being redeveloped. The proposals also include the construction of four additional buildings to provide residential accommodation, commercial and community uses. Construction has commenced on site.

2.1.4 Lots Road is a single carriageway road (30mph) with two-way traffic flows.

Cremorne Road to the north of Lots Road is designated as a Red Route. National Cycle Route (NCR) 4 passes through Lots Road. Wandsworth Town railway station is approximately 2.5km to the south of the sites and Imperial Wharf Tube Station is located 300m to the south west of the sites.

2.1.5 The site layout plans included in Appendix 3 include lorry holding areas along

Ashburnham Road, a residential street with on-street parking. 2.1.6 Cremorne Wharf is owned by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

(RBK&C). The site is currently leased to Thames Water for use in connection with the construction of the Thames Tideway Tunnel (TTT), for which a Development Consent Order was made in September 2014.

2.1.7 Prior to the site being leased to Thames Water, the site was used for the storage

of highway department material and vehicles, and for waste management uses. The site is mainly occupied by a depot building (large shed / warehouse), which is clad in corrugated sheet metal. There are also two weighbridges. The depot building will be demolished as part of the TTT project and shall be reinstated unless agreed otherwise with the landowner (RBK&C).

2.1.8 The site also includes the jetty/berth facility, safeguarded wharf by development

plan policy, which last handled cargo prior to 1997 (Annex 5 of the London Plan Safeguarded Wharf Review, Final Recommendation, March 2013). The site is also allocated as a waste management site although waste transfer no longer takes place at the site.

2.1.9 Immediately to the northwest of the site is the Grade II listed Lots Road Pumping Station, which is positioned on the existing trunk sewer (Counters Creek Sewer Main Line). It is owned and operated by Thames Water as an unmanned emergency pumping station.

2.1.10 Located to the north of the site are Station House and Chelsea Wharf apartments

which include offices and residential units. Station House is associated with the Lots Road Pumping Station and is used as staff accommodation. Cremorne Gardens lies beyond these buildings. To the southwest of the site is the Lots Road Power Station site and Chelsea Creek.



6

2.1.11 Based on the initial construction layouts, the nearest residential properties are located immediately to the north of the site at Station House and at Chelsea Wharf apartments.

2.1.12 In addition to its safeguarded wharf status the site is covered by a number of other

planning and environmental designations in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Core Strategy (December 2010). All the mapped designations are shown on the plans in Appendix 5 and include a designated Employment Zone and safeguarded waste use on the site. The site is also located within Flood Zone 3. The Thames Path currently runs to the north of the site along Lots Road, but as indicated in the RBK&C Core Strategy, the borough would like the Thames Path to run along the southern boundary of the site in the future to connect the Lots Road Power Station development with Chelsea Wharf. The sites are also located within the Thames Policy Area.

2.1.13 Immediately to the south of the site the River Thames is a designated Nature

Conservation Area, and along its foreshore adjacent to the site the River Thames is designated as an Area of Metropolitan Importance. In addition, the site lies adjacent to the Thames Conservation Area. The existing jetty and foreshore is included in the Thames Conservation Area.



7

3 PROPOSED USE OF SITE – CONSTRUCTION PHASE 3.1 Construction requirements

Option A site area and use

3.1.1 The site area to be used under Option A would be approximately 3,470m2. The site

is being considered as: • A permanent Pumping Station site. The Pumping Station would be below

ground with some above ground structures • A drive site for the strategic sewer tunnel bore northwards as far as the

Thames Water Lee Valley Water Main • A connection or alteration to the existing Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) • An interception site for:

§ The Walham Green sewer § The Low Level No 1 Interceptor sewer

3.1.2 The strategic sewer could be driven from this site no further than the Thames

Water Valley Water Main. This tunnel is at the same level as the strategic sewer and a level change in the strategic sewer is necessary to pass over it. This requires a shaft, from which a second tunnel drive for the strategic sewer must be taken on with a higher alignment. Thus it is not possible to drive the whole of the strategic sewer from Cremorne Wharf. Option A scope of permanent works

3.1.3 The proposed construction phase layout options for this site are located in Appendix 3 and are based on a preliminary assessment. If the site proceeds to the next stage as a preferred site, construction phase layouts would be optimised for efficiency and to minimise impacts.

3.1.4 The following works are proposed:

• Jetty and river wall works, and construction of a temporary deck in the river • Construction of a number of shafts:

§ Tunnel drive and vortex drop shaft § Pumping station shaft (Constructed after driving of the main tunnel is

completed) § Connections to the Walham Green and Low Level No 1 sewers

• Driving of a minimum 3.5mID tunnel to the north using a TBM (tunnel boring machine) to Olympia Car Park, Gwendwr Gardens or St Paul’s Gardens (153 Hammersmith Road), a distance of between 2.5km and 3.8km

• Excavation of connections to existing sewers and between the shafts • Construction of, and connection to, new outfall structure • Fit out of pumping station shaft and construction of surface structures • Provision of ventilation, odour control equipment and ancillary equipment Option A temporary structures within the site

3.1.5 During the construction period, the site is likely to include the following large structures:



8

• Platform out into the river to extend the site and provide barge mooring and loading facilities

• Piling rigs • Jack up barge • 1 or 2 No. tower cranes • 2 No. Gantry Cranes • Various mobile cranes • Storage bin for excavated material, approximately 8m high • Conveyor system from the tunnelling shaft to the excavated material

storage bin on site and on to a barge loader • 3 or 4 cement silos, approximately 12m high • 2 or 3 shotcrete silos, approximately 8m high • Triple stacked offices and welfare

Option B site area and use

3.1.6 The site area to be used under option B would be approximately 3,470m2. The site is being considered as:

• The permanent pumping station site. The Pumping Station would be below

ground with some above ground structures • The reception site for the strategic sewer tunnel drive from the north of the

catchment • A connection or alteration to the existing Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) • An interception site for:

§ The Walham Green sewer § The Low Level No 1 Interceptor sewer

Option B: scope of permanent works

3.1.7 The proposed construction phase layout options for this site are located in Appendix 3 and are based on a preliminary assessment. If the site proceeds to the next stage as a preferred site, construction phase layouts would be optimised for efficiency and to minimise impacts.

3.1.8 The following works are proposed:

• Jetty and river wall works, and construction of a temporary deck in the river • Construction of a number of shafts:

§ TBM reception and vortex drop shaft § Pumping Station § Connections to the Walham Green and Low Level sewers § Connection to intercept the outflow from the existing pumping station

• Receipt of a TBM (tunnel boring machine), used to drive the strategic sewer tunnel from the north

• Excavation of connections to existing sewers and between the shafts • Construction of, and connection to, a new outfall structure • Fit out of pumping station shaft and construction of surface structures • Provision of ventilation, odour control equipment and ancillary equipment



9

Option B: temporary structures within the site

3.1.9 During the construction period, the site is likely to include the following large structures:

• Platform out into the river to extend the site and provide barge mooring and

loading facilities • Piling rigs • Jack up barge • 1 or 2 No. tower cranes • Various mobile cranes • Storage bin for excavated material, approximately 4m high • 2 or 3 shotcrete silos, approximately 8m high • Triple stacked offices and welfare

3.2 Construction programme

Option A: construction programme

3.2.1 Due to the small size of the site and the consequent need to carry out activities in series rather in parallel, the site is likely to be required for construction for a period of approximately 5 to 6 years.

3.2.2 Further work would be required to develop the programme following further design work, which would improve the definition of the works required for the various connections.

3.2.3 The site work would be likely to be undertaken in a number of phases:

• Utility diversions if required (not included within the above programme) • Site mobilisation and demolition of the existing steel frame building • Construction of a new river wall, demolition of the existing jetty, and

construction of a temporary platform into the river (to extend the site and provide barge mooring and loading facilities)

• Shaft sinking • SCL tunnelling of the connections between the shafts, and for a TBM

launch chamber and backshunt • TBM tunnelling of the drive north • Construction of the large Pumping Station Shaft • Construction of the connections to the existing sewers, new outfall, and the

connection to new and old outfalls • Shaft fit out • Mechanical, electrical, and communications installations, followed by

commissioning and testing • Site demobilisation and site landscaping

Option B construction programme

3.2.4 The site would be required for construction for a period of approximately 4 to 4.5 years.

3.2.5 Due to the small size of the site, activities must be carried out in series rather than in parallel.



10

3.2.6 Further work would be required to develop the programme following further design work, which would improve the definition of the works required for the various connections.

Construction phases

3.2.7 The site work would be likely to be undertaken in a number of phases: • Utility diversions if required (not included within the above programme) • Site mobilisation and demolition of the existing steel frame building • Construction of a new river wall, demolition of the existing jetty, and

construction of a temporary platform into the river (to extend the site and provide barge mooring and loading facilities)

• Shaft sinking • SCL tunnelling of the connections between the shafts, and for a TBM

reception • Construction of the connections to the existing sewers, new outfall, and

connection to new and old outfalls • Shaft fit out • Mechanical, electrical, and communications installations, followed by

commissioning and testing • Site demobilisation and site landscaping

3.3 Construction working hours 3.3.1 The following working hours are anticipated for use of this site:

Days Hours of work

Site establishment, shaft sinking, fit out, finishings and demobilisation

Mon to Fri 07:00 to 19:00

Sat 07:00 to 13:00

Sun No work

Tunnelling Mon to Sun 24 hours Note: A single Working Day = 12 hours between 7am and 7pm. Working hours and days are dependent on the construction programme and local restrictions requiring further consideration with the Local Authority.

3.3.2 Lorry movements in and out of site would be restricted to weekday dayshift and

Saturday morning, except for special loads (e.g. those requiring police movement orders, which are often only granted for nights).

3.3.3 Barge loading would take place during working hours and it is anticipated that barge movements would need to be programmed to take place at any time 24hrs/day, 7days/week, to suit the high tide, subject to the views of the local authority and the Port of London Authority (who prefer barge movements to be undertaken at night).

3.4 Access and material movements

Excavated material from shafts and tunnels 3.4.1 The site is not close to a suitable rail depot or line, and the transportation of

excavated material or other materials by rail is not considered viable.



11

3.4.2 The site is adjacent to the River Thames, and the site has previously been used as a wharf. Barge transportation of bulk excavated material from the shafts and tunnels would therefore be employed. The actual design and frequency of use would be dependent upon the outcome of further studies, including discussions with the Port of London Authority, to ensure that barge transportation can be safely carried out at this location.

3.4.3 Material would be excavated and placed onto a conveyor which would load a

barge moored alongside the site extension into the river. During barge changeover times, excavated material would be stored in a small storage area on site for later loading into the barge.

3.4.4 Barges would be changed over during high tides, whenever this occurs during the

day or night. Changeover would make use of a temporary mooring post in the river.

3.4.5 A new ‘campshed’ would be required within the river. This is a concrete or stone

bed which the barge can sit on during low tide, without the fear that suction from the river bed would prevent the barge rising on the incoming tide.

Other materials 3.4.6 Studies would be carried out to examine the possibility of the transfer of certain

construction materials to site by barge. These are most likely to be the tunnel segments, and possibly the steel reinforcing cages for the secant pile walls of the new pumping station shaft. It is however, possible that due to the restricted size of the site and river frontage, that such transportation could not be successfully achieved without compromising site safety due to increased site congestion.

3.4.7 It is therefore assumed that all materials other than the bulk excavated material, would be delivered to site, and removed from site, by road.

Access and egress

3.4.8 For construction Options A and B, two access options into the site have been

identified: Access option 1:

• Drive along the A3220 from the South East • Turn left into Ashburnham Road (nearly a ‘U-turn’). Minor works are likely to

be required to the pavement line at the junction to improve access for HGVs • Park in a lorry holding area on Ashburnham Road to wait until called into site • Drive into the site entrance directly across Lots Road Access option 2:

• Drive down Cremorne Road (A3220) from North East • Turn Left into Lots Road. Minor works are likely to be required to the

pavement line at the junction to improve access for HGVs • Turn Left into site • A swept path analysis would be carried out on this junction for the likely types

of delivery vehicles



12

3.4.9 Exit from site under construction Option A would be proposed as follows:

• Using a turning space within the site • Exit site out of the eastern access • Drive up Ashburnham Road to the North West, crossing Lots Road

3.4.10 Exit from site under construction Option B would be proposed as follows:

• Vehicles would leave the site through the gate to the west of the existing Pumping Station.

• The brick wall in front of Pumping Station is likely to require temporary removal at its western end and the curve of the pavement line at the junction is likely to require modification to improve access for HGVs. The wall appears to be much newer than the Pumping Station

• A swept path analysis would be carried out on this junction for the likely types of delivery vehicles

• Turn left onto A3220 Cremorne Road, travelling North East (works are likely to be required to ‘sweeten’ this junction, to improve access for HGVs)

Alternative exit

3.4.11 During the excavation for and construction of the sewer connections, the road to the south west of the pumping station would be inaccessible, requiring vehicles to turn on site and exit via the site entrance (to the west of the existing Pumping Station).

Site management and workforce

3.4.12 The site is not sufficiently large to contain a large site car park, and hence it is important that most people arrive by public transport. A minibus pickup service from a local station would be required. This is likely to be from Imperial Wharf and Fulham Broadway.

3.4.13 It is unlikely that the main project offices can be accommodated on site, but there

appears to be suitable commercial property lets in the area. 3.5 Construction methodology and associated dimensions

Preparation works, and works within the river

3.5.1 The existing waste recycling centre would be demolished, the weighbridges removed and the site cleared.

3.5.2 To facilitate the use of the Cremorne Wharf site outlined above it is anticipated that the existing jetty into the river would be demolished prior to works being carried out to the outfall and river wall. This would be carried out at low tide using a land based crane and excavator, or from a jack up barge.

3.5.3 It is likely that work would be required to the existing river wall at Cremorne Wharf. The method of reconstruction would be agreed with the Port of London Authority and Environment Agency, but is likely to include the installation a sheet piled wall within the river, forming a cofferdam behind which the existing wall can be repaired



13

or replaced. Sheet piling is likely to employ percussive piling plant from a land or jack up barge based crane.

3.5.4 The platform into the river would be constructed using a piling rig on a jack up

barge, placing tubular steel piles placed within the river. Steel beams and steel decking or pre-cast concrete planks would be placed on these and secured, to form a platform out into the river and between the two sites. The platform side furthest from the shore would be equipped as a quay, where barges would be moored and loaded.

3.5.5 A ‘campshed’ would be constructed on the river bed adjacent to the new quay.

This is a level platform on the river bed onto which the barge can sit at low tide, without fear that suction from the river bed would prevent it floating again when the tide rises. This would consist of a level bed of stone or concrete and may include a sheet piled containment wall. It is likely that some dredging (to level the river bed) would be required prior to the construction of the campshed.

3.5.6 Barge loading facilities would be constructed. This may consist of a loading

conveyor, or be a storage area on the decking from which one or more excavators load the barge.

3.5.7 On completion of the works, the platform over the river would be dismantled and

the tubular steel piles extracted.

TBM drive / reception and vortex drop shaft 3.5.8 The TBM drive / reception shaft (which is also the vortex dropshaft) is likely to be

12.5m in diameter and approximately 45m deep. It is likely to be constructed using a combination of, underpinning and Sprayed Concrete Lining (SCL) shaft sinking methods from within a secant piled cofferdam.

3.5.9 A large piling rig would be used to drill and case holes which are filled with concrete to form secant piles. A continuous ring of such piles are constructed to form a cut off wall, preventing the inflow of groundwater during excavation.

3.5.10 In the underpinning method, the shaft is excavated dry with excavation plant within the shaft serviced by a crane on surface. Additional pre-cast concrete shaft lining segments are built at the shaft base, hanging from the previous ones.

3.5.11 It is likely that the lower sections of the shaft would be constructed using the SCL

technique. Earth is removed by an excavator, and rapid setting concrete sprayed onto the exposed ground to form a primary structural lining. The shaft structure is completed with a cast in-situ reinforced concrete base slab and secondary lining

3.5.12 The shaft would then be used for the driving of the main tunnel, or the reception of

the TBM from the north.

3.5.13 A thick reinforced concrete base plug would be cast at the bottom of the shaft, sized so as to prevent floatation of the shaft from the groundwater pressure.

3.5.14 The shaft would be capped with a cover slab placed just below surface, and

ladders, landings, and a penstock would be installed. A concrete vortex chamber and Glass Reinforced Plastic (GRP) drop pipe would be installed to take the



14

incoming flow and twist it down the pipe to reduce turbulence and noise. A stilling basin at the base of the shaft would be formed to slow the flow before passing through the connection tunnel into the strategic sewer.

3.5.15 The choice of method depends on the ground and groundwater conditions, which

would be the subject of more detailed site investigation boreholes.

Potential linkage works with Thames Tideway Tunnel 3.5.16 Further work would be undertaken to investigate integration options for the

Counters Creek strategic sewer with TTT.

Strategic sewer tunnel bore 3.5.17 The strategic sewer tunnel would be driven by a tunnel boring machine (TBM),

which would excavate the ground using a slowly rotating cutterhead fitted with tungsten carbide tipped steel teeth. The excavated material would be transferred by conveyor to skips forming a train on a temporary construction railway running in the tunnel invert. The skips would be tipped at the drive shaft and the excavated material lifted from the shaft by conveyor or using a skip hoisted by the shaft crane.

3.5.18 As the tunnel is excavated, the TBM erects a tunnel lining consisting of a ring of precast concrete segments. These are erected mechanically within a steel can at the rear of the TBM, to ensure the ground remains fully supported. The concrete segments are cast to a very high standard in a specialist manufacturing facility off site and delivered to site.

3.5.19 As excavation progresses, the void between the rear of the concrete ring and the

ground is filled with a cementitious grout, which is batched in a site batching plant. The cement and pulverized fly ash (PFA) for this are delivered to site in bulk tankers and stored on site in silos.

3.5.20 The TBM would be erected in sections, weighing up to 120t each. These would be

delivered to site as special loads with the required escorts. A 400 or 500t mobile crane would be used to lower the sections down the shaft, where they would be connected, and the various systems tested and commissioned. A large number of back up gantries are towed behind the TBM, housing plant and equipment and welfare units. These would be delivered to site in sections and assembled before lowering into the shaft.

3.5.21 When the TBM reaches the reception shaft, it is dismantled again, and the

constituent parts lifted and transported off site. Connections between the shafts

3.5.22 The connections between the various shafts would be tunnelled, using SCL

techniques, where the earth is removed by an excavator in a defined sequence, and rapid setting concrete sprayed onto the exposed ground to form a structural lining. The tunnel is then completed with a cast in situ reinforced concrete secondary lining.



15

Connections to the existing sewers

3.5.23 A number of small diameter shafts and connecting tunnels are required for the connections to the existing sewers.

Pumping Station shaft

3.5.24 The new pumping station would be underground. The large pumping station shaft

is likely to be built within a secant piled cofferdam, approximately 35m in diameter. The majority of the shaft would be 27m in diameter, and the final depth would be approximately 48m below ground level.

3.5.25 Secant piles would be constructed by drilling holes into the ground, and filling these up with concrete. Every second pile is constructed first, with the intermediate piles cutting into the earlier piles, thus forming a continuous ring around the shaft. The secant piles would be likely to be between 12 and 18m long.

3.5.26 Upon completion of piling, the ground within the piles would be excavated, initially

with excavators from surface, and later with excavators within the shafts loading skips which are lifted to surface and tipped.

3.5.27 Excavation below the secant piles would progress using sprayed concrete lining

(SCL) techniques. Earth is removed by an excavator, and rapid setting concrete sprayed onto the exposed ground to form a primary structural lining. In this way, the shaft would be excavated to final depth, with an internal diameter of approximately 28m.

3.5.28 A thick reinforced concrete base plug would be cast at the bottom of the shaft,

sized so as to prevent floatation of the shaft from the groundwater pressure.

3.5.29 A reinforced concrete lining would be cast in situ, forming the final structural lining to the shaft. An internal ring of concrete would be cast within the shaft, to segregate the ‘wet’ well (where the water would be) and ‘dry’ well (where the pumps and pipework would be). The internal structure would also include pump plinths, thrust blocks, landings, access stairs, and plant rooms.

3.5.30 The shaft would be capped by a roof slab a little below ground level, with this

constructed from a combination of cast in situ concrete and pre-cast slabs. Precast units would be used to raise the access covers to ground level, and the remainder of the roof slab would be backfilled over.

Construction of the new outfall structure

3.5.31 The new outfall structure would be constructed as a reinforced concrete structure

within the sheet piled cofferdam for the river wall construction described above.

3.5.32 The new outfall would be extended out into the river as a concrete apron placed on the river bed, providing scour protection.

Fit out of Pumping Station shaft and construction of surface structures

3.5.33 During the final stages of the concreting works within the pumping station shaft, the permanent pumps would be installed, along with the necessary valves and



16

pipework. Electrical power and control and monitoring equipment would be installed, along with the necessary cable management trays. Building services (such as low voltage power, lights, ventilation, air conditioning, atmosphere monitoring and fire detection) equipment would be installed, tested and commissioned.

3.5.34 Excavations would take place for buried pipework and ducts, and for the concrete foundations of the various permanent buildings. These buildings are likely to be constructed using steel frames, infilled with brick or cladding panels, to suit the architectural requirements. The ventilation fans, odour control equipment and pipework would be installed and commissioned, along with the required building services within each structure.

3.5.35 Cables would be brought into site by EDF and a sub-station constructed, to supply

the power to the pumps and other equipment. Alongside this, transformers, switchgear, and control equipment would be installed, tested, and commissioned. These would be housed within steel framed or concrete structure buildings. Odour control and Ventilation

3.5.36 Ventilation and odour control would be required at this site. A system of active mechanical plant and passive installations would be used to manage the air transfer into and out of the sewer network during standing and operational use. The active sites would extract air to create air flow along the length of the sewer. The passive sites would draw air in as a negative pressure is created by the active sites, thus completing a process of air change. The system would aim to accommodate 1 air change per day.

3.5.37 The scale of installation at each of the sites would depend on its function and whether it is an active site or a passive site. At this point there has been no dispersion or computational fluid dynamic (CFD) modelling at any of the sites. However, it is currently anticipated that Cremorne Wharf would be likely to be an active site. This is anticipated to include construction of below ground odour control chambers each of which would have the following: • 3 No. 750mm x 750mm access manholes • 1 No. 1.5m x 800mm materials access manhole • Up to 12 No. 450mm x 450mm inspection covers

3.5.38 The odour control processes anticipated to be installed during construction would also comprise the following:

• 1 No. 1.2m diameter pressure release vent stack minimum 4m high; • 1 No. 1m diameter pressure medium and low pressure inlet vent structure

estimated at minimum of 2m high • 1 No. 1.5m diameter ventilation column for the release of treated air and for

air inflow (passive site only).

3.5.39 For both passive and active types of system the following equipment would be installed during construction:

• Carbon panel filters odour control units (within a below ground concrete

structure or above ground building)



17

• Controlled air inlet structure (assumed as 2m x2m x 2m above ground structure)

• High pressure release structure (assumed as 3m x 2m x 2m above ground structure)

• Below ground access ducting • Common drainage points from panel filter structure and vent structure to

local drains • Hydrogen Sulphide (H2S) sampling points before and after the filter panels

3.5.40 The sizes of the passive filters have been standardised as far as possible with a range from approximately 4.9m x 1.9m to 7.7m x 4m (internal plan dimensions) with depth chambers varying from 2.5m to 4.5m deep. It should be noted that these sizes are indicative at this stage and dependent on future dispersion and air flow (CFD) modelling, as well as background monitoring of the individual sites to establish current ventilation arrangements that may contribute to satisfying the requirements indicated above. Of equal significance is the layout of buildings and location of these sites as well as the type of use of the buildings. Other criteria such as exit velocities from the ventilation structures would need to be considered and would dictate the actual sizes adopted in the final design. Ancillary equipment

3.5.41 To facilitate the operation of mechanical equipment installed at the site a GRP

(glass reinforced plastic) kiosk measuring 2m x 1.5m x 2m high would also be installed above ground to house telemetry, and control panels for penstock operation.



18

4 PROPOSED USE OF SITE – OPERATIONAL PHASE 4.1 Permanent installations

4.1.1 The pumping station, shafts, outfall and connecting structures would remain as

permanent structures, and access would be required for maintenance and for changing pumps. Permanent crane access would be required. One or more permanent structures housing the power supply and control equipment would be required. An odour control stack would be required. The operational layout is provided in Appendix 4.

4.2 Maintenance access 4.2.1 Maintenance access would be required at all shaft locations, below ground

structures, kiosks and weir structures. A full inspection of the main sewer alignment is expected to be required at least once every 10 years. This activity would require the use of a mobile crane and support vehicles to enable safe operation.

4.2.2 Regular maintenance of penstocks would be required on a more frequent basis

and it should be anticipated that access would be required to operate and maintain penstocks on a 2-yearly basis.

4.2.3 Access to the control kiosk would be required at all times. Hydrogen sulphide

sampling equipment would be housed in the kiosk and it anticipated that access would be required at various point throughout the year. The actual frequency would be dictated by the operation of the sewer, concentration of the odorous gases, odour control media, and ventilation equipment.

4.2.4 Access to the odour control chamber would be required at all times. Odorous

gasses would be monitored and filter media would be changed as and when required. This would be dictated by the sampled gases leaving the chamber, which would be monitored at regular intervals. CFD and dispersion modelling, together with process design would be used to ascertain the effective design life of the carbon filter media before it requires replenishing/replacement to establish a maintenance regime.

4.2.5 It is anticipated that a number of these maintenance visits would be scheduled to

coincide with each other. 4.2.6 Maintenance access would require vehicular access to the site. The operational

activity being carried out would dictate the number of vehicles and personnel required at any one time. It would also dictate when the operation can be carried out. With all sewer operations there is a high probability that night time access may be required at some point.

4.3 Restoration and after-use 4.3.1 The site would require above ground structures as set out above. Access and

maintenance requirements would necessitate the need for hard standing areas around the shaft and buried chambers.

4.3.2 Access to the Wharf would be reinstated following construction of the new

pumping station to reflect the requirements of the sites safeguarded wharf status.



19

5 ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

5.1 Construction traffic Transport of excavated material, materials, plant and equipment

5.1.1 The site is not suitable for rail transport.

5.1.2 Bulk excavated material from the construction of the shafts and tunnels would be removed from site by barge. This would be facilitated by the construction of temporary mooring, campshed, handling and loading facilities into the river. Studies would be carried out on possible movement of other materials by barge, but as these are not confirmed, it is currently assumed that all other materials to and from site would be transported by road.

5.2 Construction works considerations

Pavement closure

5.2.1 The closure of the pavement along the south/east of Lots Road would be advisable in order to ensure the safety of pedestrians during access and egress to site. Pedestrians could be re-directed along the pavement to the north/west of Lots Road. Lorry holding area

5.2.2 As the site is very small, vehicles would need to arrive and be loaded / unloaded immediately. Therefore, a lorry holding area would be required. A possible location for this could be Ashburnham Road, with vehicles held in marked bays until required on site. This would restrict parking on the road, but through traffic flow would remain. Suspension of parking

5.2.3 Suspension of some parking on Lots Road would be required in order to facilitate HGV movements through the site entrance / exits.

5.3 Permanent works considerations 5.3.1 Operational and maintenance access would be required at this site. Above ground

structures are detailed in sections 3 and 4 and are envisaged to be required at this time. Permanent works would be minimised during the design development where possible, to reduce the impact on the site location, and wider area.

5.4 Health and safety

5.4.1 In addition to those risks that are normally associated with this type of works, the

following health and safety risks must be managed:

Congestion

5.4.2 A large quantity of works is planned on a very small site. The resulting congestion must be managed safely.



20

Working over and adjacent to water

5.4.3 The risks associated with working over and adjacent to water (which is tidal and can have very strong currents) must be managed.

Vehicle movements

5.4.4 The site would be extremely congested, and vehicle and pedestrian segregation must be carefully managed. This would be particularly the case due to the western usual site access being blocked. Breaking into the sewers and outfall

5.4.5 A safe methodology must be adopted for breaking into the existing sewers and outfall, ensuring the safety of the workforce and preventing flooding of the works.

5.5 Summary

5.5.1 The site is adjacent to the existing pumping station and outfall, and is the only

identified location for the connections to these. The site allows direct access for the interception of the Walham Green and Low Level No 1 Sewers. It is likely that relatively few service diversions would be required to facilitate the works, though demolition of existing facilities is required. The site does not appear to have a readily available electrical power supply for the driving of the TBM, and would require the installation of a new supply.

5.5.2 Site access is difficult and may restrict the sizes of delivery vehicles. However, the

site’s position adjacent to the river is likely to allow the removal of excavated material by barge.

5.5.3 The site is smaller than is recommended for a good tunnelling or pumping station

site, but the useable site area can be increased by building out into the river (a structure that would also provide barge loading facilities). The scheme proposes a large amount of construction on a relatively small site. The programme adopted for the work must take this into account to avoid congestion and ensure safe working.

5.5.4 If the site is used as a drive site (Option One), the programme of works for the site

is extended by approximately 12 to 18 months. This extends the overall programme for the project by the same quantity.

5.5.5 If Cremorne Wharf were used as a drive shaft site for the construction of the

strategic sewer tunnel, only the southern (lower) section of the main tunnel, as far as a change in level point, could be constructed. A further drive shaft site would be required to construct the northern (higher) section of the route.

5.5.6 In summary:

• It is considered that Cremorne Wharf Option A (use of the site as a drive

site) is less suitable in engineering terms. • It is considered that Cremorne Wharf Option B (use of the site as an

interception, reception and pumping station site) is suitable in engineering terms.



21

6 PLANNING ASSESSMENT 6.1 Introduction 6.1.1 The planning assessment covers the following areas:

• Planning applications and permissions • Planning Policy

6.2 Planning applications and permissions

Cremorne Wharf (Site SS219)

6.2.1 The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s (RBK&C) Corporate Property Department submitted an application in June 2012 for the demolition of existing buildings, construction of a 9 storey building (including 2 basement levels) and a stand-alone two storey building to provide B1 accommodation and C3 class (residential) units (planning application reference PP/12/02224). The application was withdrawn in May 2013.

6.2.2 The Thames Water Utilities Limited (Thames Tideway Tunnel) Order 2014 came into force on 24th September 2014. Cremorne Wharf Depot is identified as the site to intercept the existing Lots Road pumping station CSO and connect it to the main Thames Tunnel.

Land adjacent to site SS219 - Lots Road Power Station 6.2.3 The Lots Road Power Station situated immediately adjacent to site SS219 was

granted planning permission by the Secretary of State in 2006. The site includes Lots Road Power Station and surrounding land (land within the RBK&C) and land to the south of Chelsea Creek (land within London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham).

6.2.4 Planning permission was granted for the conversion of the power station building

to accommodate residential development and ancillary leisure, retail, business, community and health facilities, the part demolition of the power station building and the provision of two other residential buildings. The planning application reference numbers are 2002/03132/FUL (London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (LBH&F)) and PP/02/01324 (RBK&C).

6.2.5 In September 2011 a planning application was submitted (LBH&F planning

application reference: 2011/03122/FUL) to vary condition 2 of permission 2002/03132/FUL to seek approval of revised drawings showing alterations to the scheme. The changes included a re-distribution of non-residential uses, revisions to the mix of residential units in the power station building and other scheme design changes. This application was approved in March 2012. Similarly, in July 2013 an application (PP/13/04082) was submitted to the RBK&C to vary Condition 2 of planning permission PP/02/01324. The application is still pending consideration (as at October 2014). Details have been submitted to discharge the planning conditions and works have commenced on site.



22

Summary 6.2.6 Cremorne Wharf is identified as a construction and operational site for the Thames

Tideway Tunnel (TTT). Although it is considered that there could be opportunities to support the objectives of both the TTT scheme and the Counters Creek scheme at this site, should this site be selected as a preferred site for development further work would be undertaken to investigate integration options and possible ways to rationalise the combined use of the site whilst having due regard to the site's status as a safeguarded wharf. Consequently, it is considered that the site is less suitable for development.

6.3 Planning policy 6.3.1 The strategic spatial planning strategy for the area is provided in the London Plan

Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London (July 2011) and the Revised Early Minor Alterations to the London Plan (October 2013). The Examination in Public (EiP) on the Draft Further Alterations to the London Plan (January 2014) closed at the end of September 2014.

6.3.2 The local planning policy context is provided in the RBK&C Adopted Core Strategy

(8th December 2010), saved policies in the Kensington and Chelsea Unitary Development Plan (UDP) (May 2002) and adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) and Documents (SPD).

6.3.3 The RBK&C are undertaking a partial review of the Core Strategy. The

conservation and design policies are part of this review and once adopted will become part of the Core Strategy. The ‘Submission Conservation and Design policies’ were submitted to the Secretary of State on 29 April 2014 for examination. The Examination in Public (EiP) on the Conservation and Design policies closed in September 2014. In addition, RBK&C consulted on the proposals for a new conservation area – Lots Village Conservation Area during the summer 2014. A decision will be made in November 2014 on whether the Conservation Area will be adopted by the Council.

6.3.4 The following analysis does not include the assessment of national planning policy

or guidance, nor borough wide SPGs and SPDs. An assessment of these will be conducted at a later stage once the sites for development have been selected. This assessment does however include analysis of SPDs or SPGs that are site specific and relevant to the site being addressed.

6.3.5 There are a number of relevant planning policies and designations, which define

the proposed development on the site. These policies are tabulated in Appendix 6, and their requirements are summarised below. Key planning and environmental constraints relevant to policies listed below are shown on the planning and environmental constraint drawings provided at Appendix 5 to this report. Safeguarded wharves (Site SS219)

6.3.6 Cremorne Wharf is safeguarded from redevelopment into non-cargo handling uses

by a ministerial direction. The Greater London Authority Safeguarded Wharves Review Final Recommendation (March, 2013) identifies that in the medium term Cremorne Wharf may be required by Thames Water for TTT and following that it be able to contribute to the shortfall in wharf capacity in West London.



23

6.3.7 Paragraph 7.77 of the adopted London Plan (2011) sets out that “the redevelopment of safeguarded wharves should only be accepted if the wharf is no longer capable of being made available for waterborne freight handling. The only exception to this would be for a strategic proposal of essential benefit for London, which cannot be planned for and delivered on any other site in Greater London”. The viability of a wharf is dependent on the provisions set out in paragraph 7.77 of the London Plan. Proposals for appropriate temporary uses on vacant safeguarded wharves must be considered against the provisions set out in paragraph 7.78 of the London Plan.

6.3.8 In order to use this site as a construction site a robust case would have to be

made justifying why this site is required rather than an alternative site, in accordance with the requirements set out in paragraph 7.77 of the London Plan.

6.3.9 The use of the site by TTT is understood to be linked to a post construction restoration requirements to bring the site back to wharf use. It is anticipated that such controls and mitigation will also need to be considered as part of the Counters Creek strategic sewer development if this site is selected.

Retention of employment land and waste management site (site SS 219)

6.3.10 The use of Cremorne Wharf as a construction site conflicts with the sites location within the designated Lots Road Employment Zone. Paragraph 31.3.39 of the adopted RBK&C Core Strategy identifies that the Lots Road Employment Zones are one of the principal concentrations for the borough’s remaining light industrial uses, and which are important for local employment generation. RBK&C Core Strategy Policy CF5 ‘Location of Business Uses’ seeks to protect and promote employment zones.

6.3.11 The site is also designated as a waste management site in the RBK&C Core

Strategy. Policy CE3 ‘Waste’, seek to protect existing waste sites along with Cremorne Wharf, maximising its use for waste management, water transport and cargo-handling purposes.

6.3.12 The use of the site by TTT is understood to be linked to a post construction

restoration requirements to provide the site with the ability to operate for waste uses, thus complying with these policy provisions. It is anticipated that such controls and mitigation would also need to be considered as part of the Counters Creek strategic sewer development if this site is selected.

Heritage and Public Realm

6.3.13 The site’s location adjacent to a conservation area and the Grade II Listed Lots Road Pumping Station, would require sensitive consideration as part of any proposals. As such London Plan policies 7.4, 7.5 and 7.8, and Borough Plan policies CL1, CL3, CL4, CR3 and CR4 should be addressed.

6.3.14 The site lies within the Lots Road / World End area. The vision for the area is for

improvements to the built and natural environment. Investigations for the designation of a conservation area are an important element of this.

6.3.15 The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea recently consulted on the

proposals for a new conservation area – Lots Village Conservation Area, which includes Cremorne Wharf, but excludes the jetty. If the Conservation Area is



24

formally adopted by the Council in November 2014, the heritage policies in the London Plan and Borough Plan would have to be considered in terms of the proposals for this site as well as RBK&C policies CV18 and CP18.

Riverside Development, landscape, views and vistas

6.3.16 The sites’ riverside position requires assessment against London Plan policies

7.11 and 7.12 and Borough Plan policy CLP1 and CP18, Saved UDP policy CD1 and proposed policies CL11 and CL12 with regards to views into and across the site. The proposals for an outfall within the River Thames frontage would need to be considered alongside principles established as part of the Thames Policy Area, whereby such proposals must respect their riverside context and be mindful of the requirements for specific consideration by the Mayor, where applicable. Works in the foreshore to facilitate use of the existing outfall would also need to be considered in this regard.

Recreation and Amenity

6.3.17 The site would potentially lead to disruption of rights of access along the River Thames foreshore and the proposed extension of the Thames Path. The RBK&C Core Strategy shows the proposed Thames Path along the southern boundary of Cremorne Wharf. It is understood that the TTT project will leave a 4m clear strip along the river frontage for the future provision of the Thames path. The proposals would have to consider this future provision in terms of policy CT1, which seeks to ensure that new developments adjacent to the river improve opportunities for river transport and freight, and access to the river and riverside for recreation, walking and cycling. Policy CP 18 – Lots Road / World’s End is also relevant to consider in terms of connectivity to the riverside.

6.3.18 Use of the site would also affect a number of adjacent residential properties along

Lots Road. This range of effects could include those arising from noise, dust, air quality, vibration, access, visual and recreation impacts as well as the design of any permanent infrastructure. London Plan policies 3.16, 6.10, 7.5, 7.14 and 7.15, and Borough Plan policies CR4, CL1, CT1, CL5, CE5 and CE6 would therefore need to be addressed.

Sustainable Construction

6.3.19 The Development Plan requires development activities to work to the principles of

sustainable construction. In view of the sites proximity to housing, the constrictions regarding movement around and into the site and the proximity to the River Thames, London Plan policies 5.3, 5.18 and 5.21 and Borough policies CL5, CE3 and PU14 would be key.

Transportation & water freight

6.3.20 The site requires access from Borough roads, which may impose restrictions on

the number and intensity of deliveries and vehicle movements. There are also opportunities in respect of water freight. Bulk excavated material from the construction of the shafts and tunnels would be removed from site by barge. This would be facilitated by the construction of temporary mooring, campshed, handling and loading facilities into the river. Studies would also need to be carried out into the possible movement of other materials by barge. London Plan policies 6.14,



25

7.26 and 7.29, and borough plan policies CT1, CR4, STRAT35 and TR39 are relevant to the proposals. Water Quality and Flooding

6.3.21 The development plan generally approaches the issue of water quality and flood risk to ensure control over development that has potential to impact upon the water environment. However, support is also provided in this development plan for Counters Creek development proposals, which also needs to be taken into account. Therefore, London Plan policies 5.12, 5.13 and 5.14, and Borough plan policy CE2, along with infrastructure schedule on page 293 of the Core Strategy, would be key to any development.

Summary

6.3.22 Aside from strategic support in the development plan for the Counters Creek scheme as a whole there are no specific policies, or site allocations or safeguarded route alignments that benefit from promotion by development plan policy. Consequently, the strategic sewer development is not itself supported by specific provisions that identify this site and so use of this site for the purposes outlined in Sections 3 and 4 of this report would run counter to existing development plan provisions and require justification of its use by other relevant material considerations. For this reason, use of Site SS219 is considered less suitable for both options.

6.3.23 In particular, the proposals are likely to conflict with amenity policies such as London Plan policies 7.14 and 7.15, and Borough Plan policies CR4, CL1, CL5, CE5 and CE6. Site SS219 is considered less suitable as Cremorne Wharf is a Safeguarded Wharf, is located in an employment zone and is a designated waste management site. The requirements of paragraph 7.76-7.79 of the London Plan and RBK&C Core Strategy policies CE3 and CF5 would have to be addressed.

6.3.24 Notwithstanding these planning policy limitations it is also considered that there

exists the potential to address these issues and to appropriately mitigate their conflicts with the policies identified above.



26

7 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

7.1 Introduction 7.1.1 The following sections summarise specialist assessments which are provided in

Appendix 7 – Environmental Appraisal Tables. 7.2 Transport 7.2.1 For both Options A and B, site access could be provided from Lots Road arriving

either from Ashburnham Road or Cremorne Road (A3220). The alignment of the highway and access may need to be amended to facilitate HGVs and swept path analysis is required at the site access, in order to achieve a suitable configuration. Currently, a peak of 46 HGV movements is anticipated per day. The implications of this are subject to further investigation as part of the ongoing transport assessment.

7.2.2 There is no rail access, however the site is located next to the river, and barge transport is being considered as part of Options A and B. There is limited parking available on both Lots Road and Ashburnham Road, which are controlled by pay-and-display and permit parking. The site features a poor Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) score, indicating that the site is less accessible by public transport, and measures such as a minibus service may be required.

7.2.3 Traffic management measures may include the temporary closure of the footway along the south/east of Lots Road and the suspension of parking bays along Ashburnham Road to provide a waiting area for HGVs.

7.2.4 On the basis of the information available it is considered that the two options for the site are suitable, as they can be accessed from the existing highway network and are in close proximity to the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN). However this would be dependent on discussions with the highway authority and Transport for London (TfL), regarding the closure of footways and the suspension of parking bays, in addition to further work as to the suitability of junctions for accommodating HGVs.

7.3 Noise 7.3.1 This site is less suitable for both options due to the high noise level arising from

construction works and the difficulty in providing effective acoustic barriers. Substantial adverse effects are expected at the closest sensitive receptors due to construction noise impacts. Any shielding afforded by site perimeter barriers would be largely ineffectual due to the height of some of these receptors. Other mitigation, such as the provision of an acoustic enclosure around the site, is likely to be necessary to achieve an acceptable level of noise mitigation.

7.3.2 The noise model used has looked at the maximum construction noise level at the receptors, which is likely to be the same for both Options 1 and 2. However, the noise emissions by a drive site are higher than those for an interception site, so it is anticipated that at other points during the construction schedule the noise emissions from the site would be higher if Option A is selected. If Option A is selected the construction schedule would also be longer in duration and a higher number of vehicle movements is anticipated. Hence the effects of the construction noise impacts due to Option A are likely to be greater than those due to Option B.



27

7.4 Water resources - hydrogeology 7.4.1 In terms of hydrogeology, this site is suitable for both options because the shaft

and tunnel excavations would be through the Superficial Deposits (upper aquifer), which are classified as a secondary (undifferentiated) aquifer here, and founded in the London Clay Formation (aquiclude) and are not anticipated to extend into the Chalk Formation (lower aquifer), which is classified as a principal aquifer. Sheet piling is anticipated to be required to seal out the upper aquifer and seepages in the aquiclude. Therefore no impacts on groundwater levels or flows are anticipated on the upper aquifer.

7.4.2 There is a licensed groundwater abstraction within 100m of the shaft locations, which abstracts from the Chalk Formation (lower aquifer), which is classified as a principal aquifer. The excavations are not anticipated to extend into the Chalk Formation (lower aquifer) and therefore no dewatering should be required. Therefore no impacts on groundwater levels, flows or abstractions are anticipated on the lower aquifer. There are no Source Protection Zones (SPZs) or Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) within 1km of the shaft locations.

7.5 Water resources – surface water and flood risk 7.5.1 In terms of surface water resources, the site is less suitable because some work is

to be undertaken within the channel of the River Thames and mitigation would be required to prevent pollution. In terms of flood risk, the site is less suitable because part of the site is located within Flood Zone 3b functional flood plain. Any construction within the watercourse could result in a displacement of flood water and potentially affect the integrity of the flood defences resulting from scour and accretion.

7.6 Air quality 7.6.1 This site is considered less suitable for both options because the sensitivity of the

area to dust soiling effects associated with construction, earthworks and track-out is medium to high. It is likely that the site would require additional site specific mitigation beyond standard mitigation measures if selected to make it suitable.

7.7 Archaeology 7.7.1 There is evidence for post medieval archaeology (meadows) in the vicinity of

Cremorne Wharf, but these remains are likely to be of low significance and have probably been disturbed by modern construction. However, it is considered that the options currently proposed for this site are both less suitable based on the potential for waterlogged remains associated with post-medieval flood defences being present within the foreshore.

7.8 Built heritage 7.8.1 There is potential for the Thames Conservation Area to experience an impact on

its significance as a result of development within its boundaries, however, this impact is considered to be negligible, as the site is located within a modern industrial area, and is not likely to alter any key views which contribute to the significance of the Conservation Area. The proposals may also have an impact on the significance of the grade II listed Lots Road Pumping Station as a result of development within its setting, although the potential impact is considered to be



28

negligible as the site does not currently contribute to the significance of the listed building. The site is considered to be suitable for both options, as the impacts on the Conservation Area and Pumping Station would be negligible, and largely temporary in nature. .

7.9 Townscape and views 7.9.1 During construction there would be temporary adverse townscape and visual

impacts. Careful design and location of the permanent elements would minimise potential long-term impacts. It is considered that the site is suitable for both options.

7.10 Ecology 7.10.1 Both options are considered to be less suitable due to their proximity to the River

Thames and tidal tributaries SMI. It should be noted that Option A would result in greater impacts then Option B. This is because areas of mudflat habitat (BAP Priority habitat and within the SINC site) are to be directly impacted upon by the works. For both options where works are to be conducted within close proximity to or within aquatic habitats strict working practices should be adhered to with regards to water pollution and sediment/dust control. If BAP Priority habitat is lost or degraded (Option A), compensatory provision may be required to enable works to proceed within the site.

7.11 Land quality 7.11.1 On the basis of the information available, it is considered that the site is less

suitable for both options. The historical mapping indicates that land use on site has consisted of; wharf activity, a rubber works, pumping station and refuse tip/recycling operations. It is considered that there is a medium potential for contaminations of the shallow subsurface to have occurred particularly through fuel and chemical storage/use associated with wharf operations and spills/leaching of contaminants associated with former refuse tip activities.

7.11.2 The potential receptors to contamination include groundwater quality in the underlying Superficial Deposits (upper aquifer), the River Thames and the health of construction workers and the users of the site and surrounding land.

7.11.3 Although above a Secondary-A aquifer, the site is not within a SPZ and therefore

the sensitivity of the aquifer is reduced. However, the River Thames is immediately adjacent to the site and is likely to be in hydraulic connectivity with the shallow groundwater beneath the site. Good construction practice and site specific mitigation, as described under Air Quality, would be required to limit direct human exposure to potentially contaminated soil and soil dust.

7.12 Cumulative effects 7.12.1 The potential for cumulative effects of the Counters Creek scheme with other

proposed developments will be considered at the planning application stage. A cumulative environmental assessment will consider the likely impacts from other developments, which individually might be minor but when considered together, could give rise to more substantial cumulative effects. It will focus on the impacts of other nearby schemes where construction would be likely to take place during the construction phase of the Counters Creek scheme.



29

7.12.2 Other development considered will in most cases be limited to development which is in close proximity to the Counters Creek scheme and which has a valid planning permission but is yet to commence. For example, the Thames Tideway Tunnel and the Lots Road Power Station redevelopment will be considered as part of the future baseline at Cremorne Wharf.

7.12.3 Any committed developments within the local area, such as the redevelopment of

Earls Court and Kensington Olympia, or the promotion of Crossrail 2 (safeguarded route), are also likely to be considered for inclusion within the cumulative environmental assessment.

7.12.4 In particular, it is recognised that without mitigation there could be a cumulative

traffic impact on the surrounding road network and this is something which is being investigated as part of the ongoing transport and environmental assessments of the Counters Creek scheme.



30

8 SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT 8.1 Socio-economic profile 8.1.1 The site is within the Chelsea Riverside ward of the Royal Borough of Kensington

and Chelsea. The socio-economic profile is comprised of statistics from the former Cremorne ward, which was superseded by the Chelsea Riverside ward in May 2014.Statistics from the Office of National Statistics (ONS) 2011 Census data show the following indicators for the Cremorne ward. • Housing Tenure of 21.05% owner occupied (owns outright) homes, 27.88%

council rented with another 15.56% in other forms of social housing (Housing Associations / Registered Social Landlord)

• In terms of social mix, 55.63% of people in the ward were born in the UK and 67.45% are white (including white British and other)

• The median age of the population in the ward (39 years) is more than that of London (33 years) and equal to that of England (39 years).

8.1.2 This data also suggests that the site is located within a community with a high

concentration of professionals. The percentage of people (3.6%) with large employers and higher managerial and administrative occupations residing in the ward is more than those in London (2.5%) and in England (2.4%).

8.2 Issues and impacts 8.2.1 Use of the site would impact upon both a safeguarded wharves designation and an

allocation for waste use, although the site has now been leased to Thames Water for the construction of the Thames Tideway Tunnel. Nonetheless, the original and extant designations must be taken into account as well as the potential impact on local employment opportunities.

8.2.2 The RBK&C Core Strategy shows the proposed Thames Path along the southern

boundary of the site. It is understood that the TTT project will leave a 4m clear strip along the river frontage for the future provision of the Thames path. The proposals would have to consider this future provision in terms of riverside access for members of the public.

8.2.3 To the northeast of Cremorne Wharf are buildings that are offices and residential

use. The Lots Road Power Station and adjacent land is being redeveloped. The proposals also include the construction of four additional buildings to provide residential accommodation, commercial and community uses.

8.2.4 To the northeast of the site Cremorne Gardens and the Cremorne Riverside

Centre. To the north along Lots Road are residential uses. Chelsea Academy Secondary School is located north of Lots Road and west of Tetcott Road to the west of the site. It is not considered that the proposals would impact on theses community facilities.

8.2.5 Due to the close proximity of residential properties noise mitigation would be

required. 8.2.6 Lots Road south of Cremorne Road (A3220) would potentially be the access route

for the proposed works. The level of additional traffic associated with the construction of the works and possible temporary traffic management measures



31

may impact the residential properties along the route. Access to the site would require careful planning and management to avoid risk of damage to the listed pumping station and to conserve as far as possible existing trees.

8.3 Potential interest groups 8.3.1 There are a number of interest groups functioning in the area, these include the

following: • London Parks and Gardens Trust • The Fulham Society • The West London River Group • River Thames Society • The Kensington Society • Cremorne Residents Association • World’s End Residents Association • Imperial Wharf Residents Association • Chelsea Harbour Residents Association • Chelsea Bridge Wharf Residents Association • The Chelsea Society

8.3.2 To ensure that the views of these interest groups, along with those of the wider

public and of statutory stakeholders, are fully captured and addressed through any detailed development process, a detailed communications strategy will be developed that enables the opportunity for consultation on emerging sites, as the selected Scheme progresses towards submission as a planning application.

8.3.3 This process will need to ensure that consultation reaches both those who will

directly benefit from the development, and those who may not experience any direct benefit but will experience impacts during the construction process.

8.4 Summary 8.4.1 In terms of residential amenity impact the site is considered less suitable. Whilst

development of the site for the uses set out in section 3 of this report is unlikely to impact on community assets, it would have an impact upon an economic asset: the safeguarded wharf. At this stage the site is therefore considered less suitable in that regard.



32

9 PROPERTY ASSESSMENT 9.1 Introduction 9.1.1 The site, Cremorne Wharf is a disused recycling centre and a designated

safeguarded wharf. It is owned by and located in the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (RBK&C). The adjoining Lots Road former power station site is undergoing significant residential redevelopment.

9.1.2 The Thames Tideway Tunnel (TTT) project has secured necessary rights for use of Cremorne Wharf for the duration of the construction works and subsequent permanent infrastructure.

9.2 Crown Land and Special Land comments

9.2.1 There are no noted matters relating to Crown and Special Land in respect of the

use of this site. However, it is noted that the adjoining Thames Water Pumping Station is a Grade II listed building

9.3 Land to be acquired 9.3.1 Cremorne Wharf could potentially be used in conjunction with the TTT existing

lease in respect of the rights acquired from RBK&C. The occupation of the site includes provision of a (2013) ‘Collaboration Agreement’ which includes the prospect that the Counters Creek may require use of the Cremorne Wharf site It is proposed that a new pumping station would be required for the Counters Creek project.

9.3.2 Due to the nature and extent of the Counters Creek pumping station, Thames

Water would be unlikely to be in a position to use powers conferred under Sections 159 and 168 of the Water Industry Act (WIA) 1991 as the pumping station would likely exceed the definition of a relevant pipe under the WIA. Therefore as the TTT land rights are of insufficient extent for Counters Creek project, it is likely that either a long lease (150 years+) or freehold rights would be required alongside or in addition to temporary rights which may exist for the purpose of TTT.

9.3.3 Securing a riverside mooring at one of the sites would also be required to allow for

barge moorings for excavated material and incoming materials transportation by river. Changes, alterations or demolition to the jetty may be a head of claim for compensation depending on the nature and extent of land rights acquired.

9.4 Associated Property costs to project 9.4.1 The TTT project has already secured the temporary occupation of Cremorne Wharf

for the purpose of TTT, including provision for permanent rights exercised by General Vesting Declaration under the provisions of the TTT Order 2014. An arrangement would be required with Counters Creek project to share the costs and funding for the required interface between the respective projects.

9.4.2 Having liaised closely with the TTT team, it has emerged that a number of

assessments have been undertaken to determine the likely acquisition costs for Cremorne Wharf. With the TTT concurrent land interest, there may be a view



33

taken to share any subsequent costs for either project retaining permanent rights within the site.

9.4.3 The GLA designated safeguarded wharf status may impact on the RBK&C ability

to release the site for the purpose of Counters Creek project for permanent occupation. The Port of London Authority would need to be consulted in respect of the permanent impacts associated with the Counters Creek project and continued use as a safeguarded wharf. Subject to safeguarded wharf status and an ability to maximise development potential for the site, the land may need to be acquired for the purpose of Counters Creek project permanent pumping station infrastructure.

9.4.4 Subject to safeguarded wharf status and an ability to maximise development

potential for the site, the land may need to be acquired for the purpose of Counters Creek permanent pumping station infrastructure.

9.4.5 Due to the sites’ riverside location and the fact that there is significant residential

development approved in the area, the future potential for this site cannot be overlooked. The financial consideration, should this become a factor, would be high.

9.5 Compensation 9.5.1 In light of the above consideration must be given to the possibility of mitigation

costs arising from any s106 agreements. There are a number of yet undetermined variables where assumptions have been made (release of safeguarded wharf status/likely development potential). The details below assume a medium to high level of development is achievable. The financial considerations associated with this option are potentially high/very high.

9.6 Summary 9.6.1 The site as a stand alone option is quite small and its use may rely on securing

other provisions (works platform/pontoon on the river). Whilst future anticipated use may be limited, the site offers few property related restrictions beyond its size and safeguarded wharf status. Assuming these matters can be addressed, the site could be used as part of a workable design.

9.6.2 In summary it is considered that Cremorne Wharf site (Option A and B) is suitable

in property terms.



34

10 SITE CONCLUSIONS 10.1 Engineering 10.1.1 In summary it is considered that Cremorne Wharf Option A (use of the site as a

drive site) is less suitable in engineering terms, whilst Cremorne Wharf Option B (use of the site as a interception, reception and pumping station site) is suitable in engineering terms.

10.2 Planning 10.2.1 Site SS219 is considered less suitable in planning application terms as the TTT

DCO has now been made and includes use of this site.

10.2.2 It is also considered to be less suitable in planning policy terms as Cremorne Wharf is a Safeguarded Wharf, is located in an employment zone and is a waste management site. The requirements of paragraph 7.77 of the London Plan and RBK&C Core Strategy policies CE3 and CF5 would have to be overcome. The site also does not benefit from policy support for its use for the strategic sewer. These outcomes apply to both options.

10.3 Environment 10.3.1 From a transport perspective the site is suitable, as both options are accessible

from the existing highway network and are in close proximity to the TLRN. Discussion with the highways authority and Transport for London (TfL) should take place to determine the feasibility of the proposed access.

10.3.2 From a noise perspective the site is less suitable, primarily because the high noise

level arising from construction works and the difficulty in providing effective acoustic barriers. Mitigation measures of site perimeter barriers are expected to be largely ineffectual due to the height of the neighboring receptors.

10.3.3 Other mitigation, such as the provision of an acoustic enclosure around the site, is

likely to be necessary to achieve an acceptable level of noise mitigation. From a wider environment perspective, the site is suitable from the perspective of hydrogeology, built heritage and townscape and visual. The site is considered less suitable from the perspective of archaeology, ecology, surface water and flood risk, air quality and land quality.

10.3.4 Overall the site is considered less suitable for both options. Likely mitigation

consideration could include the following:

• Ecology: undertaking works outside the breeding bird season and the use of appropriate piling methods;

• Surface water and flood risk: application of Environment Agency Pollution Prevention Guidelines 1 and 5, together with Planning Policy Statement 23;

• Air Quality: measures to ensure dust is adequately mitigated; and • Land Quality: Any required remediation of contamination (at this medium risk

site) and/or measures to ensure no mobilisation of contaminants retained in situ.

• Archaeology: Further investigation regarding the potential for waterlogged archaeological remains in the foreshore.



35

10.4 Socio-economic and community 10.4.1 In terms of residential amenity impact the site is considered less suitable. Whilst

development of the site for the uses set out in section 3 of this report is unlikely to impact on community assets, it would have an impact upon an economic asset: the safeguarded wharf. At this stage the site is therefore considered less suitable in that regard.

10.5 Property 10.5.1 In summary it is considered that Cremorne Wharf site (Option A and B) is suitable

in property terms. 10.6 Recommendation 10.6.1 As a drive site option (Option A) the site is considered to be generally less suitable

across all assessments except property and requiring mitigation to make it acceptable.

10.6.2 Option B fares more favourably, particularly in engineering terms under which it is assessed to be a suitable interception, pumping station and reception site. Nonetheless, when all assessment outcomes for Option B are taken into account the site remains less suitable and requiring of mitigation.

10.6.3 It is noted that none of the assessments identified the site as being unsuitable for

either Option A or Option B. 10.6.4 Given these outcomes it is recommended that the site is not promoted for Option

A, unless other locations assessed as being more suitable for the development of a drive site cannot be delivered.

10.6.5 It is recommended that the site is retained as an interception, pumping station and

reception site (Option B), subject to mitigation.

APPENDIX 1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1.1 Background to the project

The Counters Creek Catchment

1.1.1 Counters Creek is one of the ‘lost rivers’ of London. It was culverted over in the mid 19th Century and connected into the interceptor sewerage network then being developed for London by Sir Joseph Bazelgette. The Counters Creek sewer catchment encompasses parts of Hammersmith and Fulham and Kensington and Chelsea and extends as far north as Westminster, Camden, Brent and Ealing.

1.1.2 This former river, its catchment and the sewer system form part of Thames Water’s sewerage network, drains all surface water from buildings and roads, as well as wastewater.

1.1.3 The sewerage system was constructed to take flows to Beckton Sewage Treatment Works. In early 20th Century, as London grew and the amount of land lying under impermeable surfaces increased, the volumes of flows in times of storms increased significantly.

1.1.4 Since then an extensive and complex sewer system comprising a series of storm

relief sewers (as shown on Figure 1) has been constructed to transfer excess storm flows to the River Thames when the sewers become full. This system has evolved to protect the low-lying land from an increasing risk of flooding caused by urban development.

1.1.5 As Hammersmith and Fulham and part of Kensington and Chelsea are low lying areas in relation to the tidal river levels, it was not possible for the storm relief sewers to discharge into the river by gravity (without pumping). Hammersmith, Lots Road and the Western pumping stations were subsequently constructed to serve the storm relief sewers within the two boroughs (as shown on Figure 1).

Figure 1 The development of the interceptor and storm relief sewerage systems in the Counters Creek Catchment.

Key and timeline for Figure 1

1850 Counters Creek

1930s Walham Green Hammersmith Brook Green

1860s Low Level Nos. 1& 2 Interceptors (dashed green line) – Kings Scholars Pond.

1940s Hammersmith Brook Green

1880s – Ranelagh

1950s Walham Parsons Green

1900s Mid Level 1 & 2 Interceptors (dashed purple line)

1960s Hammersmith, Counters Creek Duplicate

1920s Hammersmith Main Line – North Western

1980s North Western

1.1.6 The continuing growth of outer London resulted in the extension of the sewer

system northward and hence additional flows from the upper catchment entering the sewer system serving the low lying Counters Creek areas.

1.1.7 The additional flows have led to overloading and water levels within the existing sewers and manholes to rise. The increase in the water levels has in turn led to flows backing up the connection pipework into basements that were built at almost the same level as the sewer. The ever-increasing redevelopment of basements from storage areas into habitable properties in recent years has now brought this problem to the fore. The basement flooding problem

1.1.8 Thames Water began investigating the flooding problem following the storms of

2004 and 2007, when the majority of the basement flooding complaints were received. Information was recorded in the Counters Creek flood register, a register

N

of all the properties in the Counters Creek Catchment that have been recorded as being flooded at some point in the past.

1.1.9 This register is in turn taken from the Thames Water Sewer Flooding History Database (SFHD). Properties are added to the register based on reported flooding incidents. Incidents are assessed to confirm whether or not the flood event was caused by an operational problem (i.e. a blockage), an extreme rainfall occurrence (greater than the current design criteria), or by a lack of capacity in the sewer.

1.1.10 The Counters Creek Flooding Register currently shows that over 1,700 properties

are subject to flooding within the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.

1.1.11 Sophisticated hydraulic models were used to simulate and verify the extent of basement flooding in the area and the results confirmed the existence of a widespread problem. Thames Water has examined the cause of flooding and determined that whilst there was no single cause, the flooding is generally caused by two main factors:

i. When sewers become inundated by storm water runoff, local sewer water

levels rise and back up the connection pipework into basements properties. ii. For many other properties, the hydraulic analysis indicated that flooding

was not solely caused by local surface water inundating the local sewerage network. Under certain storm conditions, storm relief sewers in the area run at full capacity (generally from the flows entering the system from the upper parts of the catchments), leaving inadequate capacity to provide relief for storm flows in the lower parts of the catchment. Therefore, flows build and back up into the connection pipework and then into basement properties.

1.2 Developing a strategic solution to the problem 1.2.1 Figure 2 below shows the locations of properties that have reported basement

flooding (the coloured dots), illustrating that the locations at which flooding occurs are widespread throughout the two boroughs.

1.2.2 The different coloured dots shown in Figure 2 indicate the type of solution proposed for a specific location. The Strategic Options Report (C680-TW-00503-RP) describes how each solution works, how they have been identified, the role they can play, and which solutions have been progressed.

1.2.3 The solutions comprise a strategic storm relief sewer (the strategic sewer) and

associated sewer upgrade works (properties protected by these are represented by purple dots), local package pumping systems known as ‘flooding local improvement projects’ (FLIPs – blue and red dots), local sewer upgrade works (green dots) and Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS – yellow dots).

Figure 2 Proposed solutions to reported basement flooding

1.2.4 The widespread nature of the basement flooding problem coupled with the fact

that there is no single cause of flooding, means that there can be no single solution. For this reason a “bottom up” approach to addressing the problem has been adopted whereby each local flooding area (cluster) has been analysed to identify a viable solution and to establish the role that might be played in each area by flow storage, sewer upsizing, FLIPs, and SuDS.

1.2.5 Consideration was then given to the opportunities for combining and rationalising

these solutions as part of the process of establishing a strategy for managing flooding in the two boroughs and flows within the catchment.

1.2.6 Whilst this approach would provide protection for some properties through the use

flow storage, sewer upsizing, FLIPs, and SuDS, it cannot do so for all properties affected by the basement flooding problem. This is because the incoming flows into an area via sewers from the adjoining areas are so significant that those incoming flows need to be intercepted, cut off, or otherwise substantially reduced.

1.2.7 It was therefore concluded that, to robustly provide for the fullest possible coverage of the flooding problem a strategic sewer is required to intercept and store the major flows that are causing sewer overloading. This strategic sewer will, when provided alongside FLIPS, SuDS and the sewer upgrade works lower the top water levels in the sewer over the whole catchment to levels that are below the level of most of the basements thereby providing flooding protection.

1.3 Summary of the site selection process 1.3.1 A site selection process has been developed to assess and identify the most

suitable locations for the range of construction sites required to deliver the

strategic sewer, namely drive shaft site(s), reception shaft site(s), interception shaft site(s), sewer outfall connections or new sewer outfalls, a pumping station and construction compounds.

1.3.2 The process takes account of engineering, environment (including noise and

transport), planning, property, socio-economic and community issues relevant to the selection of the most suitable combination of sites.

1.3.3 It draws upon other methodologies utilised for the Deephams Sewage Works Upgrade and for the Thames Tideway Tunnel to ensure that the approach and issues covered reflect best practice. Regard has also been had to the National Planning Policy Framework and the Development Plan for the area, along with key considerations affecting engineering decision-making and property assessment, when the assessment criteria in the methodology were identified. The methodology is shown diagrammatically in Figure 3 below.

Figure 3 Site Selection Methodology

1.3.4 The methodology follows a sequential multi-stage process, with some stages

undertaken in parallel. There is an iterative relationship between site selection, route alignment and engineering design whereby as the engineering team refines the route options for the storm relief sewer associated restrictions on or requirements for sites are fed into the concurrent site selection process.

1.3.5 An essential part of the methodology is the use of an ongoing review process to revisit and check the validity of previous assessments. This is undertaken as each key stage of the assessment process is completed through document review and stage workshops and enables the assessment of sites (and concurrent assessment of options reported separately) to remain valid as information changes and new information is obtained.

1.3.6 Where, for example, route alignment parameters change or available sites become restricted over time, stages in the process may be repeated (or back-checked) in order to take account of new information or other changes in circumstance.

1.4 Approach to consultation and stakeholder engagement 1.4.1 Community engagement is a key part of the strategic sewer scheme and the public

will be fully engaged with once the assessment work in Stage 3 is completed and sufficient information is available to begin public consultation under Stage 4a.

1.5 Project Programme 1.5.1 The current provisional project programme for the strategic sewer is:

• Evidence gathering / scheme development and testing: Jan – Oct 2014 • Phase 1 consultation on options: Nov 2014 – Jan 2015 • Environmental and planning assessments: July 2014 – May 2015 • Confirmation of the preferred option: May / June 2015 • Phase 2 pre-application consultation: May / June – July / Aug 2015 • Final design, planning and environmental work: July – Oct 2015 • Submission of application(s) for Planning Permission: Nov 2015 • Target for planning permission: July 2016 • Planning Conditions / Obligations discharged / procurement complete: Dec

2016 • Anticipated start on site: Jan 2017

APPENDIX 2 SITE LOCATION PLAN

APPENDIX 3 INDICATIVE CONSTRUCTION LAYOUT PLANS

APPENDIX 4 INDICATIVE OPERATIONAL LAYOUT PLANS

APPENDIX 5 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT PLANS

Mean Low Water

PARK

STRE

ET

THAMES AVENUE

Harbour Yard

6.3m

El Lock

Bollards

5.2m

Car Park

17

Chelsea Harbour Design Centre

SL

5.4m

El Sub Sta

4.5m

Shingle

100

The Quadrangle

1 to 37

Mean High Water

Weir

House

517

CHELSEA HARBOUR DRIVE

114

1 to 184.9m

9

Conrad Hotel

60

52

101

5.5m

58

43

65

Day Nursery

38

70

503

12a

1 to 12

TCP

59

26 to 47

69

11 to 28

13 to

14

RILEY

5337.8m

SUNBURY LANE

Water

Batte

rsea R

each

Admiral Square

Chelsea HarbourThamesPontoon

Carlyle

Creek

The Chambers

Nursery

464.1m

Station House

34

WB

WHISTLERS AVENUE

1 to 51

Chelsea Wharf

112

117

PCs

Cremorne Gardens

Albert Gray

1 to 65

102

Sparkford House

157

River

Tham

es

Montevetro

Shepton Court

39

19

Westfield Park

LB

2523

11 44

113

136

El Sub

203

75

78

28

12

7

116

DAMER TERRACE

Pier

47

4

122

Dartrey

51

11.4m

Munro Terrace CHEYNE WALK

15

Sloping

masonry

to

Place

22

Pumping

Water Screens

Landing21

122a

5

CRES

CENT

Recycling Centre

Blantyre Walk

Wharf

Brunel House

Pond

5.3m

40

Mud and Shingle

Beren

ger W

alk

3.8m

Play Area

1 to 25

53

5381 to 3

42

32

75 to 81

107

PH

WESTFIELD CLOSE

535

Carlyle Building

109103

536

TETCOTT ROAD

29

Sta

37 to 53

P

LOTS ROAD

29 to 44

542

6

30

Tank

SM

71 to 73

Brickbarn Close

Stone

26 to 31

149

493b

POOLES LANE

5.6m

57

FERNSHAW ROAD

3

81 to 100

48 to 56

493

GUNTER GROVE TCB

63

31

2

(below)

1 to 2

8

MP

5.0m

4.7m

Mud

4.2m

Posts

Whistler

90

18

College

Children's Home

1 to 80

89 to 105

Church

Tower

Winch House

61 to 80

81

Playground

DW

71 to 88

Ship House

Battersea Prichard CtChy

Centre

Edith Yard

Knight's

36

48

35

FB

KING'S ROAD

124

49 to 56

TCBs

1 to 8

14

37

104

9 to 16

26

531

7 to 8

Selworthy

141

8

1

139

1 to 21

BOLINGBROKE WALK

Blomfield Court

Burnett Court

Bowstead Court

AVEN

UE

Games Court

24

125 to 131

159

27

529

1a

502

Tanks

1 to 52

ASHBURNHAM ROAD

Court

10

36 to 55

CREMORNE ROAD

1 to 61

161

1 to 6

Caple House

Ashburnham

132

STREET16

Mansions

Battersea Bridge

The Coach House

C Creek

Auction Rooms

86

55

50

134

7433

459

500

20

1 to 62

EDITH GROVE

41

UVERDALE ROAD

1 to

Craigie Villas

92

PARKHAM STREET

BS

Def

67

13

6.1m

62

492

49

4561

73

1 to 14

Mean High & Mean Low Water

Pontoons

Chelwood

Station

CCLW

Mews

MLW

Post

1 to 36

79 to 89

CR CWUnd

CF

Primary

(Primary)

(Secondary School)

1 to 54

550

This document was prepared by Mott MacDonald Limited under assignment from Thames Water and the content should not be relied on or used for purposes other than those assigned,without verification from Thames Water. Mott MacDonald Limited does not accept responsibility or liability for use of this document other than that for which it was originally intended.

DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION

FIRST ISSUEDescription Dsgnr Chkd Appd Date

Thames Water UtilitiesRose Kiln CourtRose Kiln Lane, Reading RG2 0HP

CAPITAL DELIVERY

TQ2277OS Reference:

UBRSecurity Reference: Drawn By:

N/ALocation Code:

PLANNINGProject Group

SITE SELECTIONSub Process:

Location/Town:Site Name:COUNTERS CREEK FLOOD ALLEVIATION SCHEMEProject Name:

MAIN CONTRACTContract Name:

APPENDIX 5A PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT PLAN 1Drawing Title:

ARev:

A3Sheet Size:

1:3000Scale:

C680-AH-00601-DRDrawing No:

CREMORNE WHARFHAMMERSMITH & FULHAM

AIss

© Thames Water Utilities Ltd 2006

DO NOT SCALE - IF IN DOUBT ASK

© COPYRIGHT: UNAUTHORISED REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED.BASED ON THE ORDNANCE SURVEY MAP WITH THE SANCTIONOF H.M. STATIONERY OFFICE - LICENCE No. 100019345

X

0 30 60 90 12015

Metres

LegendExisting Thames PathProposed Thames PathCremorne WharfThames Policy AreaEmployment ZonesCremorne Wharf SiteBoundaryLocal Authority Boundary

10/09/2014GB/CB CC





CAPITAL DELIVERY

TQ2277OS Reference:


N/ALocation Code:





APPENDIX 5B PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT PLAN 2Drawing Title:

ARev:

A3Sheet Size:

1:3000Scale:



AIss




X

0 30 60 90 12015

Metres

LegendSites of Importance for NatureConservation

Sites of Borough Importance- Grade ISites of Local ImportanceSites of MetropolitanImportanceCremorne Wharf SiteBoundaryLocal Authority Boundary

10/09/2014GB/CB CC

Mean Low Water

6074

THAMES AVENUE

Harbour Yard

6.3m

Lock

Gas HolderBollards

5.2m

Car Park

17


Laboratory SL

5.4m

El Sub Sta

4.5m

Shingle

100

The Quadrangle

1 to 37

Mean High Water

Weir

517


114

1 to 184.9m

9

Conrad Hotel

71

52

101

5.5m

58

43

65

Day Nursery

3845

70

25

503

12a

26 to 47

69

11 to 28

533

Stone

SUNBURY LANE

Water

Batte

rsea R

each

Admiral Square


Carlyle

Creek

The Chambers

5

Nursery

4.1m

Station House

34

WB

WHISTLERS AVENUE

1 to 51

Chelsea Wharf

112

117

104a

PCs

Cremorne Gardens

1 to 65

102

Sparkford House

157

River

Tham

es

Montevetro

Shepton Court

39

19

Westfield Park

LB

23

11 44

113

136203

75

78

28

12

7

116

DAMER TERRACE

2

Pier

47

122

Dartrey

51

11.4m

CHEYNE WALK

15

Sloping

masonry

to

Place

22

Pumping

Water Screens

Landing21

1 to 5

122a

CRES

CENT

Recycling Centre

1 to 17

Blantyre Walk

Wharf

441 to 457

Brunel House

Pond

5.3m

40

Mud and Shingle

Beren

ger W

alk

Play Area

1 to 25

53

5381 to 3

42

32

75 to 81

107

PH

WESTFIELD CLOSE

5357.4m

Carlyle Building

109103

536

TETCOTT ROAD

29

Sta

37 to 53

P

59

LOTS ROAD

29 to 44

542

30

Tank

SM

71 to 73

Brickbarn Close

149

493b

POOLES LANE

5.6m

57

FERNSHAW ROAD

3

81 to 100

48 to 56

46

493

1 to 30

GUNTER GROVE TCB

63

31

Sanford

(below)

1 to 2

8

MP

5.0m

4.7m

Mud

4.2m

Whistler

90

18

College

Children's Home

Devonshire

1 to 80

89 to 105

Church

Coleridge

Tennis Court

Tower

Winch House

61 to 80

Playground

DW71 to 88

Ship House


4.0m

Centre

1

Edith Yard

Knight's

36

48

35

FB

KING'S ROAD

124

49 to 56

6

TCBs

1 to 8

14

37

104

9 to 16

26

531

7 to 8

Selworthy

141

8

139

1 to 21

4

AVEN

UE

Games Court

24

125 to 131

159

27

529

1a

502512

Tanks

1 to 52

ASHBURNHAM ROAD

56El

Court

10

36 to 55

CREMORNE ROAD

1 to 61

161

1 to 6

Caple House

Ashburnham

132

STREET

16

Mansions

C Creek

Auction Rooms

86

490

55Posts

50

134

33

459

500

20

1 to 62

EDITH GROVE

41

UVERDALE ROAD

1 to

Craigie Villas

92

BS

Und

Def

67

13

World's End

6.1m

62

492

49

61

73

1 to 14

1 to 12

Mathison House


Pontoons

Chelwood

CCLW

Mews

MLW

Post

1 to 36

79 to 89

CR

Ward Bdy

CW CF

(Primary)

(Secondary School)

House

1 to 54

550

459a

The Collegeof St Mark& St John

Sloane/StanleyCheyne

Thames

MoorePark

SandsEnd

ImperialSquare &Gasworks





CAPITAL DELIVERY

TQ2277OS Reference:


N/ALocation Code:





APPENDIX 5C HERITAGE PLANDrawing Title:

ARev:

A3Sheet Size:

1:3000Scale:



AIss




X

0 30 60 90 12015

Metres

LegendListed BuildingArchaeological PriorityConservationCremorne Wharf SiteBoundaryLocal Authority

10/09/2014GB/CB CC

Mean Low Water

6074

THAMES AVENUE

Harbour Yard

6.3m

Lock

Gas HolderBollards

5.2m

Car Park

17


Laboratory SL

5.4m

El Sub Sta

4.5m

Shingle

100

The Quadrangle

1 to 37

Mean High Water

Weir

517


114

1 to 184.9m

9

Conrad Hotel

71

52

101

5.5m

58

43

65

Day Nursery

3845

70

25

503

12a

26 to 47

69

11 to 28

533

Stone

SUNBURY LANE

Water

Batte

rsea R

each

Admiral Square


Carlyle

Creek

The Chambers

5

Nursery

4.1m

Station House

34

WB

WHISTLERS AVENUE

1 to 51

Chelsea Wharf

112

117

104a

PCs

Cremorne Gardens

1 to 65

102

Sparkford House

157

River

Tham

es

Montevetro

Shepton Court

39

19

Westfield Park

LB

23

11 44

113

136203

75

78

28

12

7

116

DAMER TERRACE

2

Pier

47

122

Dartrey

51

11.4m

CHEYNE WALK

15

Sloping

masonry

to

Place

22

Pumping

Water Screens

Landing21

1 to 5

122a

CRES

CENT

Recycling Centre

1 to 17

Blantyre Walk

Wharf

441 to 457

Brunel House

Pond

5.3m

40

Mud and Shingle

Beren

ger W

alk

Play Area

1 to 25

53

5381 to 3

42

32

75 to 81

107

PH

WESTFIELD CLOSE

5357.4m

Carlyle Building

109103

536

TETCOTT ROAD

29

Sta

37 to 53

P

59

LOTS ROAD

29 to 44

542

30

Tank

SM

71 to 73

Brickbarn Close

149

493b

POOLES LANE

5.6m

57

FERNSHAW ROAD

3

81 to 100

48 to 56

46

493

1 to 30

GUNTER GROVE TCB

63

31

Sanford

(below)

1 to 2

8

MP

5.0m

4.7m

Mud

4.2m

Whistler

90

18

College

Children's Home

Devonshire

1 to 80

89 to 105

Church

Coleridge

Tennis Court

Tower

Winch House

61 to 80

541

Playground

DW71 to 88

Ship House


4.0m

Centre

1

Edith Yard

Knight's

36

48

35

FB

KING'S ROAD

124

49 to 56

6

TCBs

1 to 8

14

37

104

9 to 16

26

531

7 to 8

Selworthy

141

8

139

1 to 21

4

AVEN

UE

Games Court

24

125 to 131

159

27

529

1a

502512

Tanks

1 to 52

ASHBURNHAM ROAD

56El

Court

10

36 to 55

CREMORNE ROAD

1 to 61

161

1 to 6

Caple House

Ashburnham

132

STREET

16

Mansions

C Creek

Auction Rooms

86

490

55Posts

50

134

33

459

500

20

1 to 62

EDITH GROVE

41

UVERDALE ROAD

1 to

Craigie Villas

92

BS

Und

Def

67

13

World's End

6.1m

62

492

49

61

73

1 to 14

1 to 12

Mathison House


Pontoons

Chelwood

Station

CCLW

Mews

MLW

Post

1 to 36

79 to 89

CR

Ward Bdy

CW CF

(Primary)

(Secondary School)

House

1 to 54

550

459a





CAPITAL DELIVERY

TQ2277OS Reference:


N/ALocation Code:





APPENDIX 5D TRANSPORT PLANDrawing Title:

ARev:

A3Sheet Size:

1:3000Scale:



AIss




X

0 30 60 90 12015

Metres

LegendLocal Access RoadsLondon Distributor RoadsStrategic RoadsRed RoutesCremorne Wharf SiteBoundaryLocal Authority Boundary

10/09/2014GB/CB CC

APPENDIX 6 RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY

Policy / paragraph Reference

Policy title / Paragraph subject

Summary of relevant policy

London Plan Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London (July 2011) and the London Plan Revised Early Minor Alterations (October 2013) Draft Further Alterations to the London Plan (Jan 2014, include July 2014 modifications)1

Policy 4.12 Improving opportunities for all

The policy seeks to improve employment opportunities for Londoners, to remove barriers to employment and progression and to tackle low participation in the labour market. Strategic development proposals should support local employment, skills development and training opportunities.

Policy 5.2 Minimising carbon dioxide emissions

The policy requires development proposals to make the fullest contribution to minimising carbon dioxide emissions in accordance with the energy hierarchy. All major development proposals should meet the targets set out in the policy for carbon dioxide emissions reduction in buildings. In addition, major proposals should include detailed energy assessment to demonstrate how the minimum targets for carbon dioxide emissions reduction are met.

Policy 5.3 Sustainable design and construction

The highest standards of sustainable design and construction should be achieved in London to improve the environmental performance of new development and to adapt to the effects of climate change over their lifetime. Development proposals should demonstrate that sustainable design standards are integral to the proposal, including its construction and operation, and ensure that they are considered at the beginning of the design process.

Policy 5.6 Decentralised energy in development proposals

Development proposals should evaluate the feasibility of Combined Heat and Power (CHP) systems, and where a new CHP is appropriate examine opportunities to extend the system beyond the site boundary to adjacent sites.

Policy 5.7 Renewable energy The Mayor seeks to increase the proportion of energy generated from renewable sources, and expects that the projections for installed renewable energy capacity outlined in the Climate Change Mitigation and Energy Strategy and in supplementary planning guidance will be achieved in London. Major development proposals should provide a reduction in expected carbon dioxide emissions through the use of onsite renewable energy generation, where feasible.

Policy 5.9 Overheating and cooling

Major development proposals should demonstrate how the design, materials, construction and operation of the development would minimize overheating and also meet its cooling needs.

Policy 5.10 Urban Greening The Mayor will promote and support urban greening, such as new planting to the public realm (including streets, squares and plazas) and green infrastructure, to contribute to the adaption to, and mitigation of, the effects of climate change.

Policy 5.12 Flood Risk Management

Development proposals must comply with the flood risk assessment and management requirements set out in the NPPF and the associated Technical Guidance on flood risk over the lifetime of the development and have regard to measures proposed in Thames Estuary 2100 and Catchment Flood Management Plans.

Policy 5.13 Sustainable Drainage

Development should utilise sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) unless there are practical reasons for not doing so and should aim to achieve Greenfield run-off rates and ensure that surface water runoff is managed as close to its source as possible.

Policy 5.14 Water quality and sewerage

Development proposals must ensure that adequate sewerage infrastructure capacity is available. Proposals that would benefit water quality, the delivery of

1 The Examination in Public (EiP) on the Draft Further Alterations to the London Plan (January 2014) closed at the end of September 2014. Policies in Appendix 6 marked with an asterisk (*) are proposed to be modified as part of this process. Once the Draft Further Alterations to the London Plan have been adopted, the relevant policies in the table will be updated.




infrastructure policies in the London Plan and of the Thames River Basin Management Plan should be supported while those with adverse impacts should be refused. Development proposals to upgrade London’s sewerage (including sludge) treatment capacity should be supported provided they utilise the best available technology and energy capture.

Policy 5.18 Construction, excavation and demolition waste

Major development sites are required to recycle CE&D waste on-site, wherever practicable, supported through planning conditions. Waste should be removed from construction sites, and materials brought to the site, by water or rail transport wherever that is practicable.

Policy 5.21 Contaminated Land Appropriate measures should be taken to ensure that development on previously contaminated land does not activate or spread contamination.

Policy 6.1 Transport – Strategic approach

The Mayor will work with all relevant partners to encourage the closer integration of transport and development through a range of means including facilitating the efficient distribution of freight whilst minimising its impact on the transport network and seeking to increase the use of the Blue Ribbon Network, especially the Thames, for passenger and freight use.

Policy 6.3 Assessing effects of development on transport capacity

Development proposals should ensure that impacts on transport capacity and the transport network, at both a corridor and local level are fully assessed. Where existing transport capacity is insufficient to allow for the travel generated by proposed developments, and no firm plans exist for an increase in capacity to cater for this, boroughs should ensure that development proposals are phased until it is known these requirements can be met, otherwise they may be refused. The cumulative impacts of development on transport requirements must be taken into account. Transport assessments will be required in accordance with TfL’s Transport Assessment Best Practice Guidance for major planning applications. Workplace and/or Residential Travel Plans should be provided for planning applications exceeding the thresholds in, and produced in accordance with, the relevant TfL guidance. Construction logistics plans and delivery & servicing plans should be secured in line with the London Freight Plans and should be coordinated with Travel Plans.

Policy 6.10* Walking Ensure pedestrian environments in and around new developments emphasise the quality of pedestrian and street space.

Policy 6.14* Freight Development proposals that locate developments that generate high numbers of freight movements close to the major transport routes that promote the uptake of the Freight Operations Recognition Scheme, construction logistics plans and delivery & servicing plans, and increase the use of the Blue Ribbon Network for freight transport, will be encouraged.

Policy 7.1* Building London’s Neighbourhoods and communities

Development should be designed so that the layout, tenure, and mix of uses interface with surrounding land and improve people’s access to social and community infrastructure (including green spaces), the Blue Ribbon Network, local shops, employment opportunities, commercial services and public transport.

Policy 7.2 An inclusive environment

The Mayor will require all new development in London to achieve the highest standards of accessible and inclusive design. Development proposals should meet the highest standards of accessible and inclusive design and should demonstrate that they meet the principles of inclusive design.

Policy 7.4 Local Character Development should have regard to the form, function and structure of an area, place or street and the scale, mass and orientation of surrounding buildings. It should improve an area’s visual or physical connection with natural features.

Policy 7.5* Public Realm Development should make the public realm comprehensible at a human scale, using gateways, focal points and landmarks to help people find their way. Landscape treatment, furniture and infrastructure should be of the highest




quality, have a clear purpose, maintain uncluttered spaces and should contribute to the easy movement of people through the space. Opportunities for the integration of high quality public art should be considered, and opportunities for greening such as through planting of trees and other soft landscaping wherever possible, should be maximized. Treatment of the public realm should be informed by the history of the place. Development should incorporate local social infrastructure such as public toilets, drinking water fountains and seating, where appropriate. It should also reinforce the connection between public spaces and existing local features such as heritage landmarks, the Blue Ribbon Network and parks.

Policy 7.6 Architecture Buildings and structures should: • be of the highest architectural quality • be of a proportion, composition, scale and orientation that enhances,

activates and appropriately encloses the public realm • compromise details and materials that complement, not necessarily

replicate, the local architectural character • not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of surrounding land and

buildings, particularly residential buildings, in relation to privacy, overshadowing, wind and microclimate.

• incorporate best practice in resource management and climate change mitigation and adaptation

• provide high quality indoor and outdoor spaces and integrate well with the surrounding streets and open spaces

• be adaptable to different activities and land uses, particularly at ground level

• meet the principles of inclusive design

Policy 7.8 Heritage assets and archaeology

Development should incorporate measures that identify, record, interpret, protect and, where appropriate, present, the site’s archaeology. Development should preserve, refurbish and incorporate heritage assets, where appropriate. New development in the setting of heritage assets, and conservation areas should be sympathetic to their form, scale, materials and architectural detail.

Policy 7.11 London View Management Framework

The Mayor has designated a list of strategic views that he will keep under review. These views are seen from places that are publicly accessible and well used. They include significant buildings or urban landscapes that help to define London at a strategic level. These views represent at least one of the following categories: panoramas across substantial parts of London; views from an urban space of a building or group of buildings within a townscape setting (including narrow, linear views to a defined object); or broad prospects along the river Thames. Development will be assessed for its impact on the designated view if falls within the foreground, middle ground or background of that view.

Policy 7.12 Implementing the London View Management Framework

New development should not harm and where possible should make a positive contribution to the characteristics and composition of the strategic views and their landmark elements. It should also, where possible, preserve viewers’ ability to recognise and to appreciate Strategically Important Landmarks in these views and, where appropriate, protect the silhouette of landmark elements of World Heritage Sites as seen from designated Viewing Places.

Policy 7.14 Improving Air Quality

Development proposals should promote sustainable design and construction to reduce emissions from the demolition and construction of buildings. Development proposals need to be at least ‘air quality neutral’ and not lead to further deterioration of existing poor air quality.

Policy 7.15* Reducing noise and enhancing

Development proposals should seek to reduce noise by minimising the existing and potential adverse impacts of noise on, from, within, or in the vicinity of,




soundscapes development proposals. In addition development proposals should promote new technologies and improved practices to reduce noise at source.

Policy 7.19* Biodiversity and access to nature

Development proposals wherever possible should make a positive contribution to the protection, promotion and management of biodiversity. On sites of Importance for Nature Conservation, the policy gives the highest protection to sites with existing or proposed international designations (SACs, SPAs, Ramsar sites) and national designations (SSSIs, NNRs). The London Plan gives strong protection to Sites of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation (SMIs) and gives Sites of Borough and Local Importance for Nature Conservation the level of protection commensurate with their importance.

Policy 7.21* Trees and Woodlands

Existing trees of value should be retained and any loss as the result of development should be replaced following the principle of ‘right place, right tree’. Wherever possible the planting of additional trees should be included in new developments, particularly large canopied species.

Policy 7.26 Increasing the use of the Blue Ribbon Network for freight transport

Development proposals should protect existing facilities for waterborne freight traffic, in particular safeguarded wharves should only be used for waterborne freight handling use. Increased use of safeguarded wharves for waterborne freight transport, especially on wharves which are currently not handling freight by water, will be supported. Development proposals close to navigable waterways should maximise water transport for bulk materials, particularly during demolition and construction phases.

Paragraph 7.76-7.79

Safeguarded wharfs

7.76 The safeguarding of a number of wharves is a well established aspect of planning in London. The safeguarding directions, some of which have been in existence since 1997, have successfully maintained a number of sites which can now be used to transport goods through London. The Mayor will support positive action, including the use of compulsory purchase powers where necessary, to bring inactive sites into use. The specific sites that are safeguarded are set out in the Safeguarded Wharves Implementation Report January 2005. Appropriate access to the highway network and relevant freight handling infrastructure such as jetties should also be protected. The safeguarding will be reviewed and updated approximately every five years. The next review will look at opportunities to consolidate wharves, expand the use of water freight and consider whether it is appropriate to safeguard any wharf facilities on London’s canal network. 7.77 The redevelopment of safeguarded wharves should only be accepted if the wharf is no longer viable or capable of being made viable for waterborne freight handling uses. The only exception to this would be for a strategic proposal of essential benefit for London, which cannot be planned for and delivered on any other site in Greater London. The viability of a wharf is dependant on:

• its size, shape, navigational access, road access, rail access (where possible), planning history, environmental impact and surrounding land use context

• its geographical location, in terms of proximity and connections to existing and potential market areas

• the existing and potential contribution it can make towards reducing road based freight movements

• existing and potential relationships between the wharf and other freight handling sites or land uses

• the location and availability of capacity at comparable alternative wharves, having regard to current and projected Port of London and wharf capacity and market demands.

7.78 Appropriate temporary uses on vacant safeguarded wharves can ensure that investment in the wharf is maintained and image problems are minimised for the wider area. Temporary uses must maintain the existing




freight handling infrastructure to a specified standard, be limited by a temporary permission with a specific end date and priority should be given to uses which require a waterside location. Temporary uses should not be permitted where a permanent freight handling use is available. 7.79 Some wharves are increasingly surrounded by different land uses that do not have an industrial or freight purpose. Many wharves are in the opportunity areas identified in Chapter 2. The challenge is to minimize conflict between the new and the old land uses. This must be met through modifications and safeguards built into new and established developments. Wharf operators should use appropriate available means to mitigate the environmental impacts of freight handling. New development next to or opposite wharves should utilise the layout, use and environmental credentials of buildings to design away these potential conflicts. Appropriate highway access to wharves for commercial vehicles needs to be maintained when considering proposals for development of neighbouring sites.

Policy 7.29 The River Thames Development proposals along the River Thames should be consistent with the relevant Thames Policy Area appraisal.

Safeguarded Wharves on the River Thames – London Plan Implementation Report (January 2005) and the London Plan Safeguarded Wharves Review Final Recommendation (2013)

The Safeguarded Wharves Implementation Plan (2005) recommended that Cremorne Wharf is retained as a safeguarded wharf and that it is viable or capable of being viable for cargo-handling. The Safeguarded Wharves Review Final Recommendation (March, 2013) seeks to safeguard wharves against future redevelopment. Table 7.1 sets out the proposed safeguarding or release of individual wharves and on page 83 and 84, it proposes the retention of Cremorne Wharf, identifying that it may be required for the Thames Tideway Tunnel (TTT) for the medium term, following that it should be able to contribute to the shortfall in wharf capacity in West London.

Royal Borough of Kensington’s and Chelsea’s Adopted Core Strategy (December 2010) Conservation and Design Policy Review - Partial Review of the Core Strategy Publication Planning Policies (April 2014)2

Vision CV 18 Vision for Lots Road/World’s End in 2028

The vision is for improvements to the built and natural environment, investigating the designation of a conservation area in the Lots Road area is an important part of this. The Lots Road Power Station site development will play a vital role in improving the vitality of the area. The vision proposes better links from Lots Road to the World’s End shops and improved connectivity to the riverside.

Policy CP18 Lots Road / World’s End

The Council proposes to maintain, protect and enhance the character of the area by supporting better local shopping facilities, social and community uses, small cultural and creative uses and requiring improvements to connectivity and integration within the place, the wider area and the river. In addition, connectivity to the riverside will be supported by the completion of the Thames Path and the use of the Cremorne Railway Bridge by pedestrian and cyclists.

Policy C1 Infrastructure Delivery and Planning Obligation

New development will be coordinated with the provision of appropriate infrastructure to support development. The Council will require that there is adequate infrastructure to serve developments, including through the use of planning obligations, working with infrastructure providers and stakeholders to identify requirements.

Policy CR3 Street and Outdoor Life

The Council will require proposals affecting pavements to maintain the free, safe and secure passage of pedestrians.

Policy CF5 Location of Seeks to protect and promote employment zones for a range of small and

2 The Examination in Public (EiP) on the Conservation and Design policies (part of the partial review of the Core Strategy) closed in September 2014. Policies in Appendix 6 marked with a double asterisk (**) are proposed to be modified as part of this process. Once Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea have adopted the Conservation and Design Publication policies the table will be updated to reflect the changes.




Business Uses medium sized business activities, including offices and light industrial uses that’s support the function and character of the zone. Paragraph 31.3.39 of the adopted Core Strategy sets out that the Lots Road Employment Zones are one of the principal concentrations for the borough’s remaining light industrial uses, and which are important for local employment generation.

Policy CR3 Street and Outdoor Life

The Council will require proposals affecting pavements to maintain the free, safe and secure passage of pedestrians.

Policy CR4** Streetscape The Council require all works to, or affecting, the public highway, to be carried out in accordance with the Council’s adopted Streetscape Guidance; retain and maintain historic street furniture; no harm to the appearance of the building or streetscene, and does not adversely affect amenity, or public or road safety, and require all major development to provide new public art that is of high quality and either incorporate into the external design of the new building or carefully located within the public realm.

Policy CL1** Context and Character

The Council will require all development to respect the existing context, character, and appearance, taking opportunities available to improve the quality and character of buildings and the area and the way it functions, including being inclusive for all.

Policy CL2

New buildings, extensions and modifications to existing buildings

The Council requires new buildings, extensions and modifications to existing buildings to be the highest architectural and urban design.

Policy CL2** Design Quality The Council will require all development to be of the highest architectural and urban design quality, taking opportunities to improve the quality and character of buildings and the area and the way it functions.

Policy CL3** Heritage Assets - Conservation Areas and Historic Spaces

The Council will require development to preserve and to take opportunities to enhance the character or appearance of conservation areas, historic places, spaces and townscapes, and their settings. Conservation and Design Policy Review - Partial Review of the Core Strategy Publication Planning Policies (April 2014) i. in the case of substantial harm or loss to the significance of a heritage asset it is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss; ii. in the case of less than substantial harm to the significance of a heritage asset, that the public benefits, including securing the optimum viable use, outweigh that harm;

Policy CL4** Heritage Assets - Listed Buildings, Scheduled Ancient Monuments and Archaeology

Development to preserve or enhance the special architectural or historic interest of listed buildings and scheduled ancient monuments and their settings, and the conservation and protection of sites of archaeological interest. The policy also requires development to protect the setting of listed buildings, scheduled ancient monuments or sites of archeological interest. The policy requires development to protect the setting of listed buildings, scheduled ancient monuments or sites of archaeological interest.

Policy CL5 Amenity Policy requires that there is no significant impact on the use of buildings and spaces due to increase in traffic, parking, noise, odours or vibrations or local microclimatic effects.

Proposed Policy CL11**

Views The Council will require all development to protect and enhance views, vistas gaps and the skyline that contribute to the character and quality of the area.

Proposed Policy CL12**

Building Heights The Council will require new buildings to respect the setting of the Borough's valued townscapes and landscapes, through appropriate building heights.

Policy CE1 Climate Change Council recognises the Government’s targets to reduce national Carbon Dioxide emissions by 26% against 1990 levels by 2020 in order to meet a 60%




reduction by 2050 and will require development to make a significant contribution towards this target.

Policy CE2 Flooding Council requires development to adapt to fluvial flooding and mitigate the effects of, and adapt to surface water and sewer flooding. The policy also requires development adjacent to the Thames to be set back from the Thames flood defence to enable the sustainable and cost-effective upgrade of flood defences over the next 50 to 100 years. The policy also states that works associated with the construction of the Thames Tideway Tunnel should not compromise the future of Cremorne Wharf which is a safeguarded wharf.

Policy CE3 Waste Council requires provision of adequate refuse and recycling storage space which allows for ease of collection in all development and that development proposals make use of the rail and waterway network for the transportation of construction waste and other waste. The policy also states that the council will safeguard the existing waste management sites along with Cremorne Wharf, maximizing its use for waste management, water transport and cargo-handling purposes.

Policy CE4 Biodiversity Council will protect the biodiversity in, and adjacent to, the Borough’s Sites of Nature Conservation Importance and require opportunities to be taken to enhance and attract biodiversity.

Policy CE5 Air Quality Council will carefully control the impact of development on air quality, including the consideration of pollution from vehicles, construction and the heating and cooling of buildings. Developments to be carried out in a way that minimizes the impact on air quality and mitigate exceedences of air pollution.

Policy CE6 Noise and Vibration Council will carefully control the impact of noise and vibration generating sources which affect amenity. The Council will require new noise and vibration sensitive developments to mitigate and protect occupiers against existing sources of noise and vibration. The infrastructure schedule on page 293 of the adopted Core Strategy sets out the key infrastructure requirements within the Borough, which include Counters Creek. The Core Strategy states that the Counters Creek sewer upgrade scheme would relieve existing and overcome localised surface flooding problems.

Policy CT 1 Improving alternatives to car use

CT 1(n) requires new development adjacent to the River Thames to take full advantage of, and improve opportunities for freight on the water, access to the water for recreation and walking and cycling alongside it. CT 1(p) requires development to ensure it does not reduce access to, or the attractiveness of, existing footways and footpaths or land which the public have right of way.

Kensington and Chelsea Unitary Development Plan (UDP) Saved Policies (May 2002)

Saved UDP Policy STRAT35

Strategic Policy - Transport

The Council supports an effective London-wide control of night-time and weekend lorry movement.

Saved UDP Policy TR39

Transportation - Access to non-residential development

The policy permits only small-scale development on sites in Local Areas or where access is from a Local Road. Development can have a significant impact on the traffic in and environment of Local Areas. These impacts, in the form of local congestion and noise created by the additional traffic generated on Local Roads, are particularly noticeable for developments that generate Coach and Heavy Goods Vehicle traffic. Only small developments will be permitted where access to the site is from a Local Road.

Saved UDP Policy PU3

Environment - Contaminated land

Requires developers to submit information in association with development proposals on land that is or might be contaminated, including specifying measures to negate or minimize the effect of the contamination.





Environment - Contaminated land

Requires that developments of contaminated land include appropriate measures to protect future users and amongst other things new structures and services.


Environment - re-use of construction materials

Encourages the re-use of construction materials in development schemes.

Saved UDP Policy CD1

Conservation & Development

To protect and enhance views and vistas along the riverside, which includes river views of Chelsea Embankment.

Saved UDP Policy CD 63

Development in Conservation Areas

To consider the effect of proposals on views identified in the Council’s Conservation Area Proposals Statements, and generally within, into and out of conservations area, and the effect of development on sites adjacent to such areas.

Safeguarded Wharves Review Final Recommendation (2013) London Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance

The Safeguarded Wharves Review Final Recommendation (2013) seeks to safeguard wharves against future redevelopment. Table 7.1 sets out the proposed safeguarding or release of individual wharves and on page 83 and 84, it proposes the retention of Cremorne Wharf, identifying that it may be required for the Thames Tideway Tunnel (TTT) for the medium term, following that it should be able to contribute to the shortfall in wharf capacity in West London.

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Proposed Lots Village Conservation Area Designation The Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea consulted on the proposals for a new conservation area – Lots Village Conservation Area – during summer 2014. A decision will be made in November 2014 on whether the Conservation Area will be adopted by the Council. The Lots Village Conservation Area boundary proposed by the Council includes Cremorne Wharf, but excludes the jetty. If the Conservation Area is formally adopted in November 2014, the heritage policies in the London Plan and Core Strategy policies on heritage will apply.

APPENDIX 7 ENVIRONMENTAL APPRAISAL TABLES

Cremorne Wharf - Appendix 7 Environmental Appraisal Tables Transport

Site Considerations

Option A Option B

Comments Mitigation required and Conclusions


Methodology A number of criteria are used when appraising the suitability of the site. These include access to the road network, which encompasses whether the site is considered to be accessible for HGVs, whether vehicles could potentially access and egress the site (allowing for mitigation / traffic management where appropriate) and the proximity to the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN). Other criteria include whether the site has good connections to public transport and the potential to utilise rail lines or river transport, as well as the availability of parking for the workforce, the extent of traffic management that would be required and the potential requirement to deliver mitigation. Taking account of these factors and using professional judgement, a balanced view is taken on the suitability of the site.

Access to road network

Two options have been identified for site access. Option A involves accessing the site by driving along the A3220 (a TfL TLRN) from the south east, turning into Ashburnham Road and parking in a lorry holding area on Ashburnham Road to wait until called into the site. Once called the vehicles would drive into the site entrance directly across Lots Road.

Works are likely to be required to amend the curve of the junction between A3220 and Ashburnham Road to improve access for HGVs (the junction is nearly a ‘U-turn’). Works are also likely to be required to amend the curve of the junction between the A3220 and Lots Road. Swept path analysis is required to be carried out

Two options have been identified for site access. Option A involves accessing the site by driving along the A3220 (a TfL TLRN) from the south east, turning into Ashburnham Road and parking in a lorry holding area on Ashburnham Road to wait until called into the site. Once called the vehicles would drive into the site entrance directly across Lots Road.

Works are likely to be required to amend the curve of the junction between A3220 and Ashburnham Road to improve access for HGVs (the junction is nearly a ‘U-turn’). Works are also likely to be required to amend the curve of the junction between the A3220 and Lots Road. Swept path analysis is required to be carried out

Transport

Site Considerations

Option A Option B



Option B would be to drive along Cremorne Road (A3220) from the north east, turning left into Lots Road and left into the site. Vehicles would exit the site using a turning space within the site and would drive up Ashburnham Road to the north west, crossing Lots Road. During excavation and construction of the sewer connections, the road to the south west of the pumping station will be inaccessible, and vehicles will be required to turn on site and exit via the site entrance. The eastern entrance will therefore be used as the main form of access and egress to the site.

on the junction from Lots Road into the site for the likely types of vehicles that will access and egress the site. Parking on both sides of Lots Road creates a narrow two way carriageway which may restrict movement.

Option B would be to drive along Cremorne Road (A3220) from the north east, turning left into Lots Road and left into the site. Vehicles exiting the site will leave through the gate to the west of the existing pumping station, which will require temporary removal of the brick wall in front of the pumping station at its western end and enhancement of the junction. From the gate vehicles will turn right onto Lots Road followed by a left onto the A3220 Cremorne Road, travelling north east. During excavation and construction of the sewer connections, the road to the south west of the pumping station will be inaccessible, and vehicles

on the junction from Lots Road into the site for the likely types of vehicles that will access and egress the site. Parking on both sides of Lots Road creates a narrow two way carriageway which may restrict movement.

Transport

Site Considerations

Option A Option B



The area is lit, there is a 30mph speed limit, footways are a suitable width and visibility is good.

It is currently anticipated that peak HGV movements during the construction period will be 46 per day with spoil removed from the site by barge. The implications of this level of movement are being investigated as part of the ongoing transport assessment.

will be required to turn on site and exit via the site entrance. The area is lit, there is a 30mph speed limit, footways are a suitable width and visibility is good. It is currently anticipated that peak HGV movements during the construction period will be 46 per day with spoil removed from the site by barge. The implications of this level of movement are being investigated as part of the ongoing transport assessment.

Access to river

The site is adjacent to the River Thames, however the existing jetty is in very poor condition. There is potential for spoil to be removed from the site by barge, which would

The site is located adjacent to the river and there is potential to remove spoil by barge. This will require agreement from the Port of London Authority

The site is adjacent to the River Thames; however the existing jetty is in very poor condition. There is potential for spoil to be removed from the site by barge, which would

The site is located adjacent to the river, and there is potential to remove spoil by barge. This will require agreement from the Port of London Authority

Transport

Site Considerations

Option A Option B



require the construction of a new jetty/wharf..

(PLA), a suitable spoil reception site and suitable river conditions to allow the construction of a new jetty without unacceptable disturbance. Further studies are required to determine the feasibility of barge transport.

require the construction of a new jetty/wharf.

(PLA), a suitable spoil reception site and suitable river conditions to allow the construction of a new jetty without unacceptable disturbance. Further studies are required to determine the feasibility of barge transport.

Access to rail

The site is not located in close proximity to an existing rail line and would require road transport to and from the site.

The site is not considered suitable for rail transport.

The site is not located in close proximity to an existing rail line and would require road transport to and from the site.

The site is not considered suitable for rail transport.

Parking

There is pay-and-display parking on both sides of Lots Road, with a maximum stay of four hours. Parking is restricted to resident permit holders only on Ashburnham Road.

There is limited access to parking within the vicinity of the site. The site is also not sufficiently large to contain a large car park, so the workforce will be encouraged to use public transport.

There is pay-and-display parking on both sides of Lots Road, with a maximum stay of four hours. Parking is restricted to resident permit holders only on Ashburnham Road.

There is limited access to parking within the vicinity of the site. The site is also not sufficiently large to contain a large car park, so the workforce will be encouraged to use public transport.

Transport

Site Considerations

Option A Option B



Public transport accessibility

There are no bus routes on Lots Road within the vicinity of the site. The site specific PTAL score is 2, which is classified as poor. The site therefore has poor access to public transport.

The site is not sufficiently large enough to contain a large site car park; therefore it is important that most personnel arrive by public transport. Considering the low PTAL score, a minibus service from a local rail station (e.g. Imperial Wharf and Fulham Broadway) or similar alternative arrangement, will be required.

There are no bus routes on Lots Road within the vicinity of the site. The site specific PTAL score is 2, which is classified as poor. The site therefore has poor access to public transport.

The site is not sufficiently large enough to contain a large site car park; therefore it is important that most personnel arrive by public transport. Considering the low PTAL score, a minibus service from a local rail station (e.g. Imperial Wharf and Fulham Broadway) will be required.

Traffic Management

It is likely that the footway along the south/east of Lots Road will be closed to ensure safe access and egress to the site. Pedestrians will be redirected along the footway to the north/west of Lots Road.

In site access Option A, vehicles arriving may have to wait in a holding

A traffic management plan should be submitted with any proposal.

It is likely that the footway along the south/east of Lots Road will be closed to ensure safe access and egress to the site. Pedestrians will be redirected along the footway to the north/west of Lots Road.

In site access Option A, vehicles arriving may have to wait in a holding

A traffic management plan should be submitted with any proposal.

Transport

Site Considerations

Option A Option B



area on Ashburnham Road until required on site. This would necessitate the suspension of parking bays but allow through traffic.

area on Ashburnham Road until required on site. This would necessitate the suspension of parking bays but allow through traffic.

Summary:

For both Options A and B, site access could be provided from Lots Road arriving either from Ashburnham Road or Cremorne Road (A3220). The alignment of the highway and access may need to be amended to facilitate HGVs and swept path analysis is required at the site access, in order to achieve a suitable configuration. Currently, a peak of 46 HGV movements is anticipated per day. The implications of this are subject to further investigation as part of the ongoing transport assessment.

There is no rail access, however the site is located next to the river, and barge transport is being considered as part of Options A and B. There is limited parking available on both Lots Road and Ashburnham Road, which are controlled by pay-and-display and permit parking. The site features a poor Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) score, indicating that the site is less accessible by public transport, and measures such as a minibus service may be required. Traffic management measures may include the temporary closure of the footway along the south/east of Lots Road and the suspension of parking bays along Ashburnham Road to provide a waiting area for HGVs. On the basis of the information available it is considered that the two options for the site are suitable, as they can be accessed from the existing highway network and are in close proximity to the TLRN. However this will be dependent on discussions with the highway authority and TfL, regarding the closure of footways and the suspension of parking bays, in addition to further work as to the suitability of junctions for accommodating HGVs.

Transport

Site Considerations

Option A Option B



Noise

Site Considerations

Option A Option B



Methodology A noise model is used to predict the noise levels likely at the nearest sensitive receptor due to the noise emissions from the anticipated construction works equipment. This model is based on the methodology and information within BS 5228 -1:2009+A1:2014 ‘Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites – Part 1: Noise’. When appraising the suitability of the site, a professional judgment is used by taking the predicted noise levels and the following factors into account:

• Number of sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the site; • Whether there are sensitive receptors at higher floors; • Prevailing noise levels (taken from the DEFRA noise maps); • Potential for noise shielding from construction works; • Likely duration of construction works; • Whether there will be night-time working; and • Potential for locating noisy plant away from sensitive receptors.

Noise band level (from Defra noise maps)

Information from Defra noise maps indicates daytime road traffic noise levels of less than 55 dB(A) LAeq, at residential properties on Lots Road.

Not applicable. Information from Defra noise maps indicates daytime road traffic noise levels of less than 55 dB(A) LAeq, at residential properties on Lots Road.

Not applicable.

Sensitive Receptors

To the north west of the proposed site, there is a row of three or four-floor terraced residential properties located on Lots Road. The nearest receptor is Station House which is around 44m from the centre of the

Drivers should be advised to switch off their engines when they are in the holding area.

To the north west of the proposed site, there is a row of three or four-floor terrace residential properties located on Lots Road. The nearest receptor is Station House which is around 44m from the centre of the

Drivers should be advised to switch off their engines when they are in the holding area.

Noise

Site Considerations

Option A Option B



proposed site.

The site access route is proposed to be from either Ashburnham Road or Lots Road. Both access routes are through a residential area which is sensitive to noise, however the distance from the main road will be minimised. Hence the access route will minimise potential noise impacts due to construction traffic. There are also two proposed lorry holding areas on Ashburnham Road.

proposed site.

The site access route is proposed to be from either Ashburnham Road or Lots Road. Both access routes are through a residential area which is sensitive to noise, however the distance from the main road will be minimised. Hence the access route will minimise potential noise impacts due to construction traffic. There are also two proposed lorry holding areas on Ashburnham Road.

Existing traffic issues

Local road traffic, including the road traffic on Lots Road to the north.

Not applicable. Local road traffic, including the road traffic on Lots Road to the north.

Not applicable.

Existing sources of significant noise emissions

According to the Defra noise maps the dominant source of noise in the vicinity is Lots Road to the north.

Not applicable. According to the Defra noise maps the dominant source of noise in the vicinity is Lots Road to the north.

Not applicable.

Noise

Site Considerations

Option A Option B



Predicted construction noise level at receptor

The construction noise levels at the most exposed receptor have been predicted using the methodology in BS 5228-1:2009+A1:2014 ‘Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites – Part 1: Noise’. During the excavation of the pumping station shaft, the predicted noise level at the façade of the most exposed receptor is predicted to be 77 dB(A). It should be noted that the predicted noise levels are indicative only, for the purposes of comparison between the sites, and are based on an indicative distance between the centre of the site and the nearest receptor. In addition to the above impacts the loading and operation of

Not applicable. The construction noise levels at the most exposed receptor have been predicted using the methodology in BS 5228-1:2009+A1:2014 ‘Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites – Part 1: Noise’. During the excavation of the pumping station shaft, the predicted noise level at the façade of the most exposed receptor is predicted to be 77 dB(A). It should be noted that the predicted noise levels are indicative only, for the purposes of comparison between the sites, and are based on an indicative distance between the centre of the site and the nearest receptor. In addition to the above impacts the loading and operation of

Noise

Site Considerations

Option A Option B



barges will emit noise. These activities have not been incorporated into the predictions as they will not occur at any other site, hence they will not inform the comparative exercise.

barges will emit noise. These activities have not been incorporated into the predictions as they will not occur at any other site, hence they will not inform the comparative exercise.

NOAEL / LOAEL / SOAEL According to the criteria applied to the HS2 Environmental Impact Assessment for construction noise impacts, the Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level (SOAEL) is defined as ‘Noise outside dwellings from the Proposed Scheme at the facade: 75 dB (LpAeq,12hr) during the day; 65 dB (LpAeq,1hr) during the evening; or 55 dB (LpAeq,1hr) during the night, or above the existing ambient if this is higher.’ The predicted construction noise levels

Not applicable. According to the criteria applied to the HS2 Environmental Impact Assessment for construction noise impacts, the Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level (SOAEL) is defined as ‘Noise outside dwellings from the Proposed Scheme at the facade: 75 dB (LpAeq,12hr) during the day; 65 dB (LpAeq,1hr) during the evening; or 55 dB (LpAeq,1hr) during the night, or above the existing ambient if this is higher.’ The predicted construction noise levels

Noise

Site Considerations

Option A Option B



at the most exposed receptor exceeds this criterion, which, according to the Explanatory Note to the Noise Policy Statement for England, indicates that exposure to these construction noise impacts will result in ‘significant adverse effects on health and quality of life’.

at the most exposed receptor exceeds this criterion, which, according to the Explanatory Note to the Noise Policy Statement for England, indicates that exposure to these construction noise impacts will result in ‘significant adverse effects on health and quality of life’.

Potential issues

The construction period is estimated at 5-6 years. The working hours for the works at surface level (site establishment, shaft sinking, finishings and demobilization) will be will be 12 hours (7am – 7pm) Monday to Friday, and 6 hours (7am – 1pm) on Saturday. This has the potential to result in adverse noise impacts to any sensitive receptors in close proximity to the site.

Adherence to the good site practices provided in BS5228.

Siting of noisy equipment and construction activities as far as is practicable from sensitive receptors.

Provision of site boundary noise fences in addition to the proposed acoustic building.

The construction period is estimated at 4-4.5 years. The working hours for the works at surface level (site establishment, shaft sinking, finishings and demobilization) will be will be 12 hours (7am – 7pm) Monday to Friday, and 6 hours (7am – 1pm) on Saturday. This has the potential to result in adverse noise impacts to any sensitive receptors in close proximity to the site.

Adherence to the good site practices provided in BS5228.

Siting of noisy equipment and construction activities as far as is practicable from sensitive receptors.

Provision of site boundary noise fences in addition to the proposed acoustic building.

Noise

Site Considerations

Option A Option B



Working hours for the tunnelling activities will be 24 hours Monday to Sunday. However, these activities will be underground, hence no adverse noise impacts due to these activities are anticipated.

A maximum of 46 HGV movements per day are anticipated. This number of vehicle movements is likely to result in adverse noise impacts on nearby sensitive receptors.

The site area is small, and bounded on the north and western sides by sensitive receptors. Whilst the location of the shafts may be fixed, ancillary plant should be sited as far as is practicable from surrounding sensitive receptors. Situating plant

Working hours for the tunnelling activities will be 24 hours Monday to Sunday. However, these activities will be underground, hence no adverse noise impacts due to these activities are anticipated.

A maximum of 46 HGV movements per day are anticipated. This number of vehicle movements is likely to result in adverse noise impacts on nearby sensitive receptors.

The site area is small, and bounded on the north and western sides by sensitive receptors. Whilst the location of the shafts may be fixed, ancillary plant should be sited as far as is practicable from surrounding sensitive receptors. Situating plant

Noise

Site Considerations

Option A Option B



in the southern area of the site would maximise the distance between them and the nearest sensitive receptors that are at higher floor levels, and hence minimise potential disturbance.

Vibration resulting from general construction works is not anticipated to result in an adverse impact. The nearest receptors to the three proposed shaft locations are at a distance of approximately 44m to the centre of the site and it is unlikely that vibration levels will result in minor cosmetic damage during shaft sinking, but may give rise to annoyance. Vibration from tunneling should be considered on a case by case basis at particular sensitive locations.

in the southern area of the site would maximise the distance between them and the nearest sensitive receptors that are at higher floor levels, and hence minimise potential disturbance.

Vibration resulting from general construction works is not anticipated to result in an adverse impact. The nearest receptors to the three proposed shaft locations are at a distance of approximately 44m to the centre of the site and it is unlikely that vibration levels will result in minor cosmetic damage during shaft sinking, but may give rise to annoyance. Vibration from tunneling should be considered on a case by case basis at particular sensitive locations.

Noise

Site Considerations

Option A Option B



Operation:

The existing pumping station at Lots Road is to be decommissioned along with all existing diesel pumps. The electric pumps in the small part of the pumping station will remain unless a hydraulic pumping solution can be commissioned. It is worth noting that the electric pumps are likely to be quieter than the existing diesel pumps and will potentially bring about an improvement in the operational noise levels.

Summary:

This site is less suitable for both options due to the high noise level arising from construction works and the difficulty in providing effective acoustic barriers. Substantial adverse effects are expected at the closest sensitive receptors due to construction noise impacts. Any shielding afforded by site perimeter barriers will be largely ineffectual due to the height of some of these receptors. Other mitigation, such as the provision of an acoustic enclosure around the site, is likely to be necessary to achieve an acceptable level of noise mitigation.

The noise model used has looked at the maximum construction noise level at the receptors, which is likely to be the same for both Options A and B. However, the noise emissions by a drive site are higher than those for an interception site, so it is anticipated that at other points during the construction schedule the noise emissions from the site will be higher if Option A is selected. If Option A is selected the construction schedule will also be longer in duration and a higher number of vehicle movements is anticipated. Hence the effects of the construction noise impacts due to Option A are likely to be greater than those due to Option B.

Water Resources - Hydrogeology

Site Considerations Option A and B


Methodology The appraisal refers to information on geology, hydrogeology, and source protection zones (SPZ), groundwater users, surface water bodies and wetland sites. It considers the below ground construction proposed at each site, in terms of depth and diameter and the method of installation. A conceptual model of the site is developed and the suitability of the site is appraised through assessing the possible mechanisms by which construction could influence the receptors identified.

Hydro-geological conditions

Geology (thickness)* • Made ground (3m) • Superficial Deposits (4m) • London Clay Formation (47m) • Lambeth Group (26m) • Chalk (>65m) * Geology based on thicknesses from British Geological Survey borehole TQ27NE129 on site, approx. 40m from the existing pumping station and TBM drive shaft locations. Hydrogeology • Superficial Deposits classified as a

secondary (undifferentiated) aquifer here • London Clay acts an as aquiclude • Chalk Formation classified as a principal

aquifer • Water level in the river terrace deposits

(upper aquifer) approximately 2.3mbgl (3mAOD)**

• Water level in the London Clay (aquiclude***) 0.5mbgl (4.8mAOD)**

Excavations • Shaft One (pumping station shaft): 27mID,

approx. 40m deep. • Shaft Two (TBM drive and vortex drop shaft):

15mID, approx. 38m deep. • Shaft Three (connection to Walham Green

and Low Level sewers): • Tunnel to north for distance of between 2.5

and 3.8km: 3.5mID, assumed to be 38m deep.

• Excavation of connecting tunnels between shafts: assumed to be 8mID, approx. 40m deep.

Key points • Excavations would be founded in the London

Clay (aquiclude). • Water level in Superficial Deposits at least

37m above base of excavations. • Water level in London Clay at least 39m

above base of excavations. • Significant thickness of the underlying London

Clay (at least 47m).




• Based on limited data, the groundwater flow direction in the upper aquifer at this site is likely to be to the south west, towards the River Thames.

** Based on maximum water levels recorded in Thames Tunnel monitoring borehole SA1098 located within the site between Oct. 2009 to May 2013 *** An aquiclude is an impermeable body of rock or stratum of sediment that acts as a barrier to the flow of groundwater.

Excavations remain at least 47m above the top of the Chalk formation or lower aquifer.

SPZs and groundwater users

Source Protection Zone • Nearest SPZ’s are at approximately 1.9km to

the east-north-east and to the north of the shaft locations.

EA Licensed groundwater abstractions • Licensed abstraction (28/39/39/0157) within

approx.100m of shaft locations to southwest, used for production of energy.

• This borehole abstracts from the Chalk Formation.

Local Authorities (LA) unlicensed groundwater abstractions • Unlicensed abstraction at Park Gate Road in

Wandsworth within approx. 800m to the east of the shaft locations.

This borehole is likely to abstract from the Chalk

• Licensed abstraction within 100m of shaft locations, but abstracts from Chalk (lower aquifer).

• Unlicensed abstraction within 800m of shaft locations, but likely to abstract from Chalk (lower aquifer).

• No SPZ’s within 1km of the shaft locations.




Formation. Borehole locations and depths

There are 23 historical records of water wells on BGS Geoindex within 1km of the shaft locations: 4 shallow wells within the Superficial Deposits and 19 deep wells within the Chalk Formation.

• Licensed abstraction within 100m of shaft locations.

Potential impacts on groundwater (resources and quality)

Upper aquifer & aquiclude • Lowering of groundwater levels. • Creation of pathway for pollution. • Obstruction to groundwater flows. • Groundwater flooding. • Seepage into and out of shaft. • Increased turbidity. Lower aquifer None anticipated.

Upper aquifer & aquiclude • Sealing off upper aquifer & aquiclude by sheet

piling or similar. • Water management in line with Code of

Construction Practice. • Breaking out of sheet piling or piping through

of flows at end of construction. • Secondary lining of shaft. • Permeable materials placed around pipe

works. • Quick setting grout products and approval by

Environment Agency. Lower aquifer None required.

Potential impacts on hydro-ecological features.

There is a SSSI (Barn Elms Wetland Centre) located approximately 3.3km to the west. Please refer to ecological section for potentially sensitive ecological features.

• No SSSI’s within 1km of shaft locations. Please refer to ecological section.




Potential issues Upper aquifer & aquiclude • Potential ingress of groundwater during

construction. • Potential management of contaminated/ poor

quality groundwater during construction. Lower aquifer None anticipated.

See above (likely types of mitigation measures that would be required).

Summary:

In terms of hydrogeology, this site is suitable for both options because the shaft and tunnel excavations would be through the Superficial Deposits (upper aquifer), which are classified as a secondary (undifferentiated) aquifer here, and founded in the London Clay Formation (aquiclude). Sheet piling is anticipated to be required to seal out the upper aquifer and seepages in the aquiclude. Therefore no impacts on groundwater levels or flows are anticipated on the upper aquifer.

There is a licensed groundwater abstraction within 100m of the shaft locations, which abstracts from the Chalk Formation (lower aquifer), which is classified as a principal aquifer. The excavations are not anticipated to extend into the Chalk Formation (lower aquifer) and therefore no dewatering should be required. Therefore no impacts on groundwater levels, flows or abstractions are anticipated on the lower aquifer. There are no SPZs or SSSIs within 1km of the shaft locations.

Water Resources - Surface Water & Flood Risk Assessment

Site Considerations Option A Option B



Methodology The Environment Agency updated Flood Map for Surface Water and the Flood Map for Planning (Rivers and Sea) are used to determine the suitability of the site. The appraisal has regard to the level of risk of surface water flooding. It also considers if the site is located within the river channel and Flood Zone 3b, which would mean there is a direct pathway for pollution to the River Thames and any construction within the watercourse could potentially result in a displacement of flood water and impact on sediment erosion on the integrity of the flood defences.

Potential impacts on surface water features

A small section of the site is located within the River Thames and there is a direct pathway for pollution to the Thames.

Work needs to be undertaken in consideration of Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPG)-PPG 1, PPG 5 and PPS23.

A small section of the site is located within the River Thames and there is a direct pathway for pollution to the Thames.

Work needs to be undertaken in consideration of Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPG)-PPG 1, PPG 5 and PPS23.

Potential impacts on hydro-ecological features. (Note overlap with ecology)

None None None None

Surface Water Flood Risk According to the Environment Agency updated Flood Map for Surface Water, the majority of the site (located on the banks of the River Thames) is shown to be at a ‘very low’ chance of flooding from surface water (<1 in 1,000 year event).

The existing site is comprised of hard standing impermeable surfaces. Post construction surface water runoff rates from the site are likely to be similar to pre-construction rates; therefore no mitigation measures are required.

According to the Environment Agency updated Flood Map for Surface Water, the majority of the site (located on the banks of the River Thames) is shown to be at a ‘very low’ chance of flooding from surface water (<1 in 1,000 year event).

The existing site is comprised of hard standing impermeable surfaces. Post construction surface water runoff rates from the site are likely to be similar to pre-construction rates; therefore no mitigation measures are required.

Flood Risk Zone

A small section of the site is located within Flood Zone 3b functional flood plain.

If the site is to be developed with a coffer dam it should be protected to the 1 in 200 year tidal return period. An

A small section of the site is located within Flood Zone 3b functional flood plain.

If the site is to be developed with a coffer dam it should be protected to the 1 in 200 year tidal return period. An

Water Resources - Surface Water & Flood Risk Assessment




evacuation plan would be required for this site in the event the dam is breached. Mitigation may also be required for the impact of displacement of flood water as a result of defending the site on the foreshore. The impact of such a physical construction (the coffer dam or jetty) would also have to be assessed for the impact of sediment erosion on the integrity of the defences.

evacuation plan would be required for this site in the event the dam is breached. Mitigation may also be required for the impact of displacement of flood water as a result of defending the site on the foreshore. The impact of such a physical construction (the coffer dam or jetty) would also have to be assessed for the impact of sediment erosion on the integrity of the defences.

Potential issues None None None None

Summary: In terms of surface water resources, the site is less suitable because some work is to be undertaken within the channel of the River Thames and mitigation would be required to prevent pollution. In terms of flood risk, the site is less suitable because part of the site is located within Flood Zone 3b functional flood plain. Any construction within the watercourse could result in a displacement of flood water and potentially affect the integrity of the flood defences resulting from scour and accretion.

Air Quality

Site Considerations Option A Comments Option B Comments Mitigation required and Conclusions for Option A and B

Methodology The appraisal considers potential dust impacts using a qualitative risk assessment which is based on the Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM) Guidance for assessing impacts from construction activities. In this approach the risks of dust generation are considered for sensitive locations around a construction site and for the following activities: Demolition; Earthworks, including handling, working and storage of materials; Construction activities; and the Track-out (the transfer of dust making materials from the site onto the local road network).

Air Quality Management Area (AQMA)

A borough wide AQMA has been declared for NO2 and PM10.

A borough wide AQMA has been declared for NO2 and PM10.

There is a need for more site specific data.

Sensitive Receptors

There are between 1 and 10 residential receptors located along Lots Road which are less than 20 metres away. There are also offices located off Lots Road which are less than 20 metres away for all options. There are also between 10 and 100 residential receptors along Ashburnham Road which is a proposed access route for Option A. The site is located 170 metres south of Ashburnham Community Primary School. The Cremorne Wharf site is located 300 metres to the east of Chelsea Academy Secondary School.

There are between 1 and 10 residential receptors located along Lots Road which are less than 20 metres away. There are also offices located off Lots Road which are less than 20 metres away for all options. There are also between 10 and 100 residential receptors along Lots Road which is a proposed access route for Option B. The site is located 170 metres south of Ashburnham Community Primary School. The Cremorne Wharf site is located 300 metres to the east of Chelsea Academy Secondary School.

There are relevant air quality sensitive receptors present along the route that the construction traffic is likely to take and also close to the proposed construction works.

Air Quality


Existing traffic issues The main traffic issue in this area is exhaust emissions from the A3220 Cremorne Road, which is located 30 metres to the north east of the site. There may also be an issue of exhaust emissions from Lots Road which is located to the north of the site.

The main traffic issue in this area is exhaust emissions from the A3220 Cremorne Road, which is located 30 metres to the north east of the site. There may also be an issue of exhaust emissions from Lots Road which is located to the north of the site.

Additional vehicle emissions have a high potential to interfere with local air quality action plan policies due to current exceedances of the Air Quality Objective in the vicinity of the site.

Existing sources of significant air pollutants

Main sources of nitrogen oxides and small particle emissions in the area are road traffic, domestic and commercial gas boilers, and small industrial processes.

Main sources of nitrogen oxides and small particle emissions in the area are road traffic, domestic and commercial gas boilers, and small industrial processes.

See above

Notable gaps in existing air quality monitoring

The nearest available diffusion tube data is 270 metres from the site and indicated that the air quality objective value for NO2 was not exceeded in the area near to the diffusion tube. This site is located adjacent to Lots Road.

The nearest available diffusion tube data is 270 metres from the site and indicated that the air quality objective value for NO2 was not exceeded in the area near to the diffusion tube. This site is located adjacent to Lots Road.

Collect a minimum of 6 months diffusion tube data at the site access/egress or other point of access to the major road network. Additionally, hydrogen sulphide sampling has been proposed as an equipment requirement for each of the schemes.

Potential issues

The risk from additional exhaust emissions from construction HGVs is undefined at present. There are two proposed lorry

The risk from additional exhaust emissions from construction HGVs is undefined at present. There are two proposed lorry

Minimise HGV movements on the local road network during the peak hour. Local residents should be informed

Air Quality


holding areas located along Ashburnham Road. This would generate additional traffic emissions if the HGVs remain idle, therefore the HGVs should be switched off when they are waiting to access site to minimise the adverse impacts on nearby receptors. At the site the proposed works include a permanent pumping site, a drive site for main tunnel construction to the north, and interception site. A conveyor system will be running from tunneling shaft to an approximately 9 metre high discharge point over the spoil bin. Dropping material from such a height could generate dust and adversely affect the residential properties in the vicinity of the area. This impact can be reduced by covering the conveyor and minimising the drop height. There is the potential for additional exhaust emissions due to traffic

holding areas located along Ashburnham Road. This would generate additional traffic emissions if the HGVs remain idle, therefore the HGVs should be switched off when they are waiting to access site to minimise the adverse impacts on nearby receptors. At the site the proposed works include a permanent pumping site and reception site for the main tunnel drive. There is the potential for additional exhaust emissions due to traffic management required for the construction of the various stages outlined above for Option 2. The construction period for each option will approximately range from 4 to 4.5 years in duration. There are no ecologically sensitive receptors within 50 metres of the site. The potential for adverse impacts due to the construction phase of the assessment are defined below following the IAQM construction

in advance of the proposed works with an explanation that dust deposits over the 5 to 6 year construction period for Option 1 would be non-hazardous. Local residents should also be informed in advance of the proposed works of Option 2 with an explanation that the dust deposits over the 4 to 4.5 year construction period would be non-hazardous. Residents should be provided with contact details to use should they have any concerns. Standard dust control measures will minimise any effects of fugitive dust on nearby sensitive receptors. Odour control measures will be required during the operation of the site, and may take the form of either active or passive methods. The exact form of control required will be determined at a later date. Spoil for Options 1 and 2 could be removed from the site by barge if permission was granted for a new jetty this would reduce the dust emissions from track-out.

Air Quality


management required for the construction of the various stages outlined above for Option A. The construction period for each option will approximately range from 5 to 6 years in duration. There are no ecologically sensitive receptors within 50 metres of the site. The potential for adverse impacts due to the construction phase of the assessment are defined below following the IAQM construction dust guidance. Earthworks Spoil could be removed from the site by barge if permission was granted for a new jetty which is likely to be at Cremorne Wharf. As the total area for Option A is between 2,500 and 10,000m2, a medium dust emission magnitude is likely as a result of potential earthworks at the site. There are between 1 and 10 residential properties within 20 metres of the earthworks. Therefore the dust

dust guidance. Earthworks As the total area for Option B is between 2,500 and 10,000m2, a medium dust emission magnitude is likely as a result of potential earthworks at the site. There are between 1 and 10 residential properties within 20 metres of the earthworks. Therefore the dust soiling effects for earthworks is assessed as medium, without mitigation (IAQM, 2014). There are between 1 and 10 residential properties within 20m of the proposed earthworks, annual mean PM10 background concentrations at the site are currently between 24 and 28 µg/m3, which is well below the air quality objective. Sensitivity of the area to human health impacts due to earthworks is therefore medium. Construction As the total volume for Option B is

Air Quality


soiling effects for earthworks is assessed as medium, without mitigation (IAQM, 2014). There are between 1 and 10 residential properties within 20m of the proposed earthworks, annual mean PM10 background concentrations at the site are currently between 24 and 28 µg/m3, which is well below the air quality objective. Sensitivity of the area to human health impacts due to earthworks is therefore medium. Construction As the total volume for Option A is less than 25,000m3 threshold, a small dust emission magnitude is likely as a result of potential construction at the site. There are between 1 and 10 residential properties within 20 metres of the construction works. Therefore the dust soiling effects for construction is assessed as medium. There are between 1 and 10 residential properties within 20

less than 25,000m3 threshold, a small dust emission magnitude is likely as a result of potential construction at the site. There are between 1 and 10 residential properties within 20 metres of the construction works. Therefore the dust soiling effects for construction is assessed as medium. There are between 1 and 10 residential properties within 20 metres of the proposed construction works, annual mean PM10 background concentrations are currently between 24 and 28 µg/m3, which is well below the air quality objective. The sensitivity of the area to human health impacts due to construction is therefore medium. Track-out The following HGV numbers are discussed in terms of (IAQM) Guidance for assessing impacts from construction activities. There are expected to be between 10 and 50 HDV movements per day

Air Quality


metres of the proposed construction works, annual mean PM10 background concentrations are currently between 24 and 28 µg/m3, which is well below the air quality objective. The sensitivity of the area to human health impacts due to construction is therefore medium. Track-out The following HGV numbers are discussed in terms of (IAQM) Guidance for assessing impacts from construction activities. There are expected to be between 10 and 50 HDV movements per day for the majority of the construction period. This will results in a medium dust emission magnitude. There are between 10 and 100 residential properties within 20 metres of the track out route for Option A Option 1 along Ashburnham Road and for Option A Option 2 along Lots Road. Sensitivity of the area around the proposed site to dust soiling effects is considered high risk.

for the majority of the construction period. This will results in a medium dust emission magnitude. There are between 10 and 100 residential properties within 20 metres of the track out route for Option A Option 1 along Ashburnham Road and for Option A Option 2 along Lots Road. Sensitivity of the area around the proposed site to dust soiling effects is considered high risk. There are between 10 and 100 residential properties within 20m of the proposed track-out route along Ashburnham Road for Option B along Lots Road, annual mean PM10 background concentrations at the site are currently between 24 and 28 µg/m3, which is well below the air quality objective. Sensitivity of the area to human health impacts due to track-out is therefore high. Odour It is currently considered that ventilation and odour control

Air Quality


There are between 10 and 100 residential properties within 20m of the proposed track-out route along Ashburnham Road for Option A Option 1, for Option A Option 2 along Lots Road, annual mean PM10 background concentrations at the site are currently between 24 and 28 µg/m3, which is well below the air quality objective. Sensitivity of the area to human health impacts due to track-out is therefore high. Odour It is currently considered that ventilation and odour control requirements will be permanently required at the site. This is likely to take the form of an underground structure for odour control and two to three above ground ventilation stacks. Barge Spoil could be removed from the site by barge if permission was

requirements will be permanently required at the site. This is likely to take the form of an underground structure for odour control and two to three above ground ventilation stacks. Barge Spoil could be removed from the site by barge if permission was granted for a new jetty this would reduce the dust emissions from track-out.

Air Quality


granted for a new jetty this would reduce the dust emissions from track-out.

Summary: Option A The construction phase for Option A is predicted to range from 5 to 6 years in duration, and the construction site is small (IAQM, 2014). However, the sensitivity of the area to dust soiling effects associated with construction, earthworks and track-out is medium to high. The sensitivity of the area to human health impacts associated with construction works, earthworks and track-out is high. However, with standard dust control measures in place the risk of impacts on sensitive receptors can be reduced, but additional site specific measures are also likely to be required. There is potential for HGV movements on the local road network to cause localized air quality impacts in area of already poor air quality. This can be somewhat mitigated by minimizing the movement of HGVs during peak hours. There are two proposed lorry holding areas located along Ashburnham Road for Option A. This would generate additional traffic emissions if the HGVs remain idle, therefore the HGVs should be switched off when they are waiting to access site. There may be a possible further option of removing spoil from site via a barge along the River Thames. There is the potential for additional exhaust emissions due to traffic management required for the construction of Option A. These construction processes are predicted to have localised air quality impacts; these impacts are undefined at present. In summary this site is considered less suitable because the sensitivity of the area to dust soiling effects associated with construction, earthworks and track-out is medium to high. As described above, it is likely it would require additional site specific mitigation beyond standard mitigation measures if selected to make it suitable. Option B The construction phase for Option B is predicted to range from 4 to 4.5 years in duration, and the construction site is small (IAQM, 2014).

Air Quality


However, the sensitivity of the area to dust soiling effects associated with construction, earthworks and track-out is medium to high. The sensitivity of the area to human health impacts associated with construction works, earthworks and track-out is high. However, with standard dust control measures in place the risk of impacts on sensitive receptors can be reduced, but additional site specific measures are also likely to be required. There is potential for HGV movements on the local road network to cause localized air quality impacts in area of already poor air quality. This can be somewhat mitigated by minimizing the movement of HGVs during peak hours. There are two proposed lorry holding areas located along Ashburnham Road for Option 1 for both Options for Cremorne Wharf. This would generate additional traffic emissions if the HGVs remain idle, therefore the HGVs should be switched off when they are waiting to access site. There may be a possible further option of removing spoil from site via a barge along the River Thames. There is the potential for additional exhaust emissions due to traffic management required for the construction of Option B proposed works. These construction processes are predicted to have localised air quality impacts; these impacts are undefined at present. In summary this site is considered less suitable because the sensitivity of the area to dust soiling effects associated with construction, earthworks and track-out is medium to high. As described above, it is likely it would require additional site specific mitigation beyond standard mitigation measures if selected to make it suitable.

Archaeology

Site Considerations

Option A Option B



Methodology The appraisal uses current Greater London Historic Environment Record (GLHER) point data. The proximity of Archaeological Priority Areas and Conservation Areas is considered and the GLHER record for each receptor within 100m of the proposed site is accessed and interpreted in terms of ‘very high or high’, ‘medium’ or ‘other’ importance. When appraising the suitability of the site, the potential for receptors to extend to within the proposed site is considered. Historic OS mapping (limited to 19th and 20th century origin) is also inspected with a summary of recent historical uses provided to indicate the potential for previous on-site disturbance.

Designations, including Archaeological Priority Areas

The site is not within an Archaeological Priority Area.

The site is not within a Conservation Area.

Not Applicable The site is not within an Archaeological Priority Area.

The site is not within a Conservation Area.

Not Applicable

Summary of historical uses

The OS map for 1874 marks SS219 as part of Cremorne Gardens.

Not Applicable The OS map for 1874 marks SS219 as part of Cremorne Gardens.

Not Applicable

Potential receptors of very high or high value with the potential to be directly affected

There are no recorded archaeological receptors. This does preclude the possibility of their existence

Not Applicable There are no recorded archaeological receptors. This does preclude the possibility of their existence

Not Applicable

Potential receptors of medium value with the

There is a record for town meadows of post

Not Applicable There is a record for town meadows of post

Not Applicable

Archaeology

Site Considerations

Option A Option B



potential to be directly affected

medieval date MLO 40736, within SS219 to the south eastern side although in reality evidence associated is likely to cover a much wider area. There is a generic record for medium value post-medieval flood defences on the foreshore MLO70207 and a jetty MLO70200 immediately to the south of SS219.

medieval date MLO 40736, within SS219 to the south eastern side although in reality evidence associated is likely to cover a much wider area.

There is a generic record for medium value post-medieval flood defences on the foreshore MLO70207 and a jetty MLO70200 immediately to the south of SS219.

Other receptors with the potential to be directly affected

A record for town meadows MLO 40504 is located immediately to the east of SS219. A Palaeolithic flint was found on the foreshore close to the low tide mark to the south of SS219 (MLO12543)

Not Applicable A record for town meadows MLO 40504 is located immediately to the east of SS219. A Palaeolithic flint was found on the foreshore close to the low tide mark to the south of SS219 (MLO12543).There are several records for peat deposits in the area.

Not Applicable

Archaeology

Site Considerations

Option A Option B



Extent of existing disturbance (if known)

Likely disturbance of modern date but could be areas of preservation

Not Applicable Likely disturbance of modern date but could be areas of preservation

Not Applicable

Potential issues

Archaeological remains may exist at the site at depth. There is the potential that ground work excavations for the drop shaft site will disturb preserved material. Evidence for peat deposits suggests that deep groundworks would require some form of environmental sampling in agreement with the Borough Archaeologist and English Heritage science Advisor

In consultation with the Borough Archaeologist, further information (such as a desk based assessment) may be required to support a planning application.

Archaeological remains may exist at the site at depth. There is the potential that ground work excavations for the drop shaft site will disturb preserved material. Evidence for peat deposits suggests that deep groundworks would require some form of environmental sampling in agreement with the Borough Archaeologist and English Heritage science Advisor

In consultation with the Borough Archaeologist, further information (such as a desk based assessment) may be required to support a planning application.

Summary:

There is evidence for post medieval archaeology (meadows) in the vicinity of Cremorne Wharf, but these remains are likely to be of low significance and have probably been disturbed by modern construction. However, it is considered that the options currently proposed for this site are both less suitable based on the potential for waterlogged remains associated with post-medieval flood defences being present within the foreshore.

Built Heritage

Site Considerations

Option A Option B



Methodology The appraisal uses current Greater London Historic Environment Record (GLHER) point data. The proximity of Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings and Registered Parks and Gardens is stated and the GLHER record for each receptor within 250m of the proposed site with the potential to be directly affected is accessed and interpreted in terms of its importance. When appraising the suitability of the site, potential impacts on the significance of Conservation Areas are considered, alongside any potential perceived or direct impacts on Listed Buildings and their associated curtilage structure or the historic setting of a Listed Building.

Designations including Conservation Areas, including trees

Listed Buildings

The grade II listed Lots Road Pumping Station is located within the site.

Conservation Areas

Partially within the Thames Conservation Area.

The site is located within the proposed Lots Village Conservation Area.

Within 250m of the site to the south-west there is also the

Sand’s End Conservation Area – 250m south-west

Not Applicable Listed Buildings

The grade II listed Lots Road Pumping Station is located within the site.

Conservation Areas

Partially within the Thames Conservation Area.

Sand’s End Conservation Area – 250m south-west

Registered Parks and Gardens

There are no registered parks and gardens within 250m

Not Applicable

Built Heritage

Site Considerations

Option A Option B



Registered Parks and Gardens

There are no registered parks and gardens within 250m

Potential receptors of medium to very high importance with the potential to be directly affected

The grade II listed Lots Road Pumping Station could be physically impacted if its curtilage wall on its north-western side, which is part of the grade II listing, is removed.

The Pumping Station also has the potential for its significance to be impacted be development within its setting, although given that the site currently comprises a modern warehouse abutting the listed building, this potential is

Not Applicable The grade II listed Lots Road Pumping Station could be physically impacted if its curtilage wall on its north-western side, which is part of the grade II listing, is removed.

There is potential for the significance of the Thames Conservation Area to be directly impacted as a result of development within its boundaries and within its setting. However, the site is in a part of the Conservation Area which

Not Applicable

Built Heritage

Site Considerations

Option A Option B



considered to be negligible.

There is potential for the significance of the Thames Conservation Area to be directly impacted as a result of development within its boundaries and within its setting However, the site is in a part of the Conservation Area which is modern industrial in character, and the site is not likely to adversely impact upon any key views within or out of the Conservation Area.

is modern industrial in character, and the site is not likely to adversely impact upon any key views within or out of the Conservation Area.

Other receptors of lesser importance with the potential to be directly affected

There are no further built heritage receptors within 250m

Not Applicable There are no further built heritage receptors within 250m

Not Applicable

Built Heritage

Site Considerations

Option A Option B



Particular considerations on sites where new permanent structures are required

Any permanent elements have the potential to impact on the Conservation Area and grade II listed building.

High-quality design and careful siting of the permanent elements to minimise long term impacts.

Any permanent elements have the potential to impact on the Conservation Area and grade II listed building.

High-quality design and careful siting of the permanent elements to minimise long term impacts.

Potential issues The site is situated partially within a Conservation Area, and the site contains a grade II listed building.

The site is also located within a Proposed Conservation Area.

Use of hoardings during the construction period is not considered to alter the impact of the proposals on the designated heritage assets during this period.

The site is situated partially within a Conservation Area, and the site contains a grade II listed building.

Summary: There is potential for the Thames Conservation Area to experience an impact on its significance as a result of development within its boundaries, however, this impact is considered to be negligible, as the site is located within a modern industrial area, and is not likely to alter any key views which contribute to the significance of the Conservation Area. The proposals may also have an impact on the significance of the grade II listed Lots Road Pumping Station as a result of development within its setting, although the potential impact is considered to be negligible as the site does not currently contribute to the significance of the listed building. The site is considered to be

Built Heritage

Site Considerations

Option A Option B



suitable for both options, as the impacts on the Conservation Area and Pumping Station will be negligible, and largely temporary in nature.

Townscape and Views




Methodology The methodology used is based broadly on guidance within the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 3rd Edition (LI and IEMA 2013). Based on the nature of the proposed development, each site is appraised against its sensitivity to changes in townscape character and visual amenity. The sensitivity of townscape resources is determined by features such as Conservation Areas, trees and the quality of the space. Visual receptors are considered in relation to the type and activity of the viewer. Where the development could potentially involve the loss of mature trees, which could not be replaced in the short term, a time element has been considered to assist in appraising the suitability of the site.

Designations (including TPOs, Registered Historic Parks and Gardens and Protected Views)

There are no registered Historic Parks and Gardens within 250m of the site.

Within 250m of the site there are two Green Flag parks, Westfield Park to the north-west, and Cremorne Gardens to the north-east.

The site lies partially within the RBKC Thames Conservation Area. Within 250m of the site to the south-west there is also the RBHF Sand’s End

There would be a short-term adverse impact during construction on the character of the Thames Conservation Area, and on views of this part of the north bank of the River Thames from the south bank.



The site lies partially within the RBKC Thames Conservation Area. Within 250m of the site to the south-west there is also the RBHF Sand’s End Conservation Area.

All trees within conservation areas are protected to the equivalent level as TPOs.

Cremorne Gardens, to the north-

There would be a short-term adverse impact on the character of the Thames Conservation Area, and on views of this part of the north bank of the River Thames from the south bank.

Townscape and Views




Conservation Area.


Cremorne Gardens, to the north-east, and Lots Road Power Station, to the south-west, are landmark focal points from the south bank of the River Thames, noted in the Thames Conservation Area proposal statement.

The site is within the Thames Policy Area, which protects views along the river.

east, and Lots Road Power Station, to the south-west, are landmark focal points from the south bank of the River Thames, noted in the Thames Conservation Area proposal statement.

The site is within Cremorne Safeguarded Wharf.


Townscape The site is located on the northern bank of the River Thames at Chelsea in West

Use of hoarding around the site to minimise townscape impacts


There would be a short-term adverse impact during construction on the

Townscape and Views




London. It currently comprises a large metal-clad warehouse used as a waste transfer facility, and the Lots Road Pumping Station (Grade II listed), which fronts onto Lots Road. The previous industrial uses in the area are prominent, including the disused Lots Road Power Station. The site can be accessed from Lots Road and potentially the River Thames. There are recent 7/8-storey apartments located to the north-east of the site; to the north-west on the opposite side of Lots Road are terraced houses between 2 to 4-storeys. There is scrub vegetation and

during construction.

The site is suitable. With appropriate detailing and placement of the permanent elements it is not anticipated there would be long-term adverse impacts. There would be short-term (5 to 6 years) adverse impacts from construction.


The site lies partially within the RBKC Thames Conservation Area. Within 250m of the site to the south-west there is also the RBHF Sand’s End Conservation Area.


Cremorne Gardens, to the north-east, and Lots Road Power Station, to the south-west, are landmark focal points from the south bank of the River Thames, noted in the Thames Conservation Area proposal statement.


character of the Thames Conservation Area, and on views of this part of the north bank of the River Thames from the south bank.

Townscape and Views




a few semi-mature trees in the south of the site. The River Thames on the south-east boundary of the site creates an open character and therefore the existing large buildings alongside the waterfront do not feel noticeably out of scale with the space.

The presence and operation of machinery, materials stores and buildings would not be wholly out of character with the partially industrial area; however there would be a temporary, direct, adverse impact. HGV movements during construction would have an adverse impact on the

Townscape and Views




relatively quiet character of the surrounding roads to the north-west.

Permanent elements once the scheme is operational would include the retention of the shaft, with periodic access required for maintenance, and a small control building approximately 3m in height with an odour control stack approximately 6m in height. These elements would not be out of character with the existing site and would not have a noticeably adverse impact.

Views There are open views of the site from the

During construction the use of hoardings and

The site is located on the northern bank of the River Thames at

Use of hoarding around the site to

Townscape and Views




River Thames and from its immediate surroundings on Lots Road, which are largely obscured by the pumping station building. Views from beyond Lots Road towards the site are interrupted by intervening buildings. The site is overlooked by residential properties on the north-west side of Lots Road. Views from the southern bank of the River Thames, and boats, are of the site in the context of its adjacent industrial and residential land uses.

Construction activity and machinery would be out of character with existing views of the site. The tower

appropriate lighting would help minimise the visual impact. The design and location of permanent structures should be given careful consideration within an overall landscape scheme to protect long-term visual amenity.

The site is suitable as, in the long-term views of the permanent structures would not be uncharacteristic in this location. Temporary adverse visual effects anticipated during construction are reversible.

Chelsea in West London. It currently comprises a large metal-clad warehouse used as a waste transfer facility, and the Lots Road Pumping Station (Grade II listed), which fronts onto Lots Road. The previous industrial uses in the area are prominent, including the disused Lots Road Power Station. The site can be accessed from Lots Road and potentially the River Thames. There are recent 7/8-storey apartments located to the north-east of the site; to the north-west on the opposite side of Lots Road are terraced houses between 2 to 4-storeys. There is scrub vegetation and a few semi-mature trees in the south of the site. The River Thames on the south-east boundary of the site creates an open character and therefore the existing large buildings alongside the waterfront do not feel noticeably out of scale with the space.

The presence and operation of

minimise townscape impacts during construction.

The site is suitable. With appropriate detailing and placement of the permanent elements it is not anticipated there would be long-term adverse impacts. There would be temporary (4 to 4.5 years) adverse impacts from construction.

Townscape and Views




crane would be intermittently visible from the surrounding area, including along both banks of the River Thames. Views of construction would be from residential properties around the site and the south bank of the River Thames, and boats on the River. There would be temporary (5 to 6 years) adverse impacts.

Permanent elements would not be out of character with the site. It is unlikely that there would be substantial adverse visual impacts.

machinery, materials stores and buildings would not be wholly out of character with the partially industrial area; however there would be a temporary, direct, adverse impact. HGV movements during construction would have an adverse impact on the relatively quiet character of the surrounding roads to the north-west.

Permanent elements once the scheme is operational would include the retention of the shaft, with periodic access required for maintenance, and a small control building approximately 3m in height with an odour control stack approximately 6m in height. These elements would not be out of character with the existing site and would not have a noticeably adverse impact.

Townscape and Views




Photograph

Townscape and Views




View of the existing Lots Road Pumping Station, from Lots Road

Comments in relation to the site layout

- -

After use of the site There is an opportunity to improve the land following completion of the scheme. Redevelopment to a different use should be explored.

There is an opportunity to improve the land following completion of the scheme. Redevelopment to a different use should be explored.

Summary: Option A

During construction there would be temporary (5 to 6 years), adverse townscape and visual impacts. Careful design and location of the permanent elements would minimise potential long-term impacts. It is considered that the site is suitable.

Option B

During construction there would be temporary (4 to 4.5 years), adverse townscape and visual impacts. Careful design and location of the permanent elements would minimise potential long-term impacts. It is considered that the site is suitable.

Ecology (terrestrial and aquatic)

Site Considerations Comments Mitigation required and Conclusions

Methodology The ecological appraisal consists of a desk top study to identify habitats within and adjacent to the site. This includes a review of aerial photography and photographs taken within the site to determine habitats present and the potential for these habitats to support protected and/or notable species. Greenspace Information for Greater London (GIGL) data is used to search for records of Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) Priority habitats, Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) and records of protected and/or notable species within a 2km radius of the site. Natural England’s MAGIC website is also consulted to determine proximity to Statutory Designated sites (i.e. Sites of Special Scientific Interest and Local Nature Reserves). From reviewing the imagery, the GIGL data search and the MAGIC website, a judgement is made on the potential for the site to support protected and/or notable species and/or habitats. On this basis, the site is appraised in terms of its suitability.

Statutory designations

Battersea Park Nature Areas Local Nature Reserve (LNR) ~2km E

None required

Non-statutory designated wildlife sites

River Thames and Tidal Tributaries Site of Metropolitan Importance (SMI) ~ within the site

Battersea Park SMI

Natural History Museum Gardens Site of Borough Importance (SBI) Grade 2

West London Line in Brompton SBI Grade 1

West London Line south of Earl’s Court SBI Grade 1

District Line North of Fulham Broadway SBI Grade 1.

West London Line at Sands End SBI Grade 1

The site lies within the River Thames and tidal tributaries SMI. Minimise footprint of development within designated site. Habitat compensation may be required. Mitigation will include the use of low noise piling techniques to minimse impacts of underwater noise on marine mammals and fish, and adoption of standard construction practices for avoidance of pollution water quality and dust emissions).



Chelsea Physic Gardens SBI Grade 1

Eel Brook Common Site of Local Importance (SLI)

South Park SLI

British Gas Ponds SBI Grade 1

Kings College SLI

Normand Parks SLI

Moravian Burial Ground SBI Grade 2

Chelsea Royal Hospital South Lawn SBI Grade 1

Royal Hospital Old Burial Grounds SBI Grade 2.

Ranelagh Gardens SBI Grade 2

York Gardens SLI

Falcon Park and Shillington Street Open Space SLI

Clapham Junction Gardens SBI Grade 2

Brompton Cemetery SBI Grade 1 Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitats

Option A: Mudflats which are part of the ‘Tidal Thames’ one of the London BAP priority habitats are present within the Option A site. BAP Priority habitat are present within the south east of the site, where the jetty with barges is proposed to be located.

Loss of BAP habitat may require limited compensatory provision, particularly if permanent land take occurs.



Option B: Mudflats which are part of the ‘Tidal Thames’ BAP Priority habitat are located immediately adjacent to site. There are a large number of additional BAP Priority habitats within 2km of the site. These include: heathland, park and urban greenspaces, standing water, urban greenspaces, wasteland and woodland.

Protected or otherwise notable species within the Study Area

Protected species within 2km of the site: Invertebrates: stag beetle ~ 0.6km N Amphibians: great crested newt ~ 1.4km N Fish: European eel 1.4km N Birds: Bewick’s swan, Whooper swan, scaup, honey buzzard, green sandpiper, black tern, black redstart, fieldfare, redwing, firecrest, brambling, common crossbill, garganey, hobby, woodlark, golden oriole Bats: Daubenton’s, Leisler’s noctule, common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, Nathusius’s pipistrelle. Other Mammals: grey seal, common seal, common porpoise. Notable species within 2km of the site: Herring gull Larus argentatus (london BAP), common

Ecological assessment of trees and adjacent buildings to assess potential to support bats. Ecological assessment for the presence of dead wood both above ground and the potential for buried dead wood which may be used by stag beetles.



startling Sturnus vulgaris (London BAP), house sparrow Passer domesticus (London & UK BAP), hedge accentor Prunella modularis (London BAP), reed bunting Emberiza schoeniclus (London and UK BAP), song thrush Turdus philomelos (London BAP), spotted flycatcher Muscicapa striata (UK and London BAP), brindled beauty Lycia hirtaria (UK and London BAP), oak hook-tip Watsonalla binaria (UK and London BAP), cinnabar Tyria jacobaeae (UK and London BAP), small square-spot Diarsia rubi (UK and London BAP), white ermine Spilosoma lubricipeda (UK and London BAP), brown-spot pinion Agrochola litura (UK and London BAP).

Potential issues

Option A From reviewing aerial photography, the habitats on site (Option A and B) consist of buildings (the existing brick built with a tiled pitched roof pumping station and an open metal roofed construction), hard standing, scattered scrub and grassland adjacent to the Thames. Mudflat habitat is present within Option A only. Bats: Habitats present within the site have bat roost potential within the existing brick built pumping station adjacent to Lots Road. As such the site may have potential to support roosting bats. Without further inspection the presence of bat roosts within the site cannot be discounted. Nesting birds: Shrub vegetation and the round building present within the site have potential to support nesting birds during the breeding season.

Ecological assessment of the building (existing red brick pumping station) to determine if further bat surveys are required. Works should commence outside of the nesting bird season (nesting bird season is between March and September). If works are to commence during the nesting birds season, then vegetation should be checked by an ecologist for nesting activity immediately prior to the commencement of any works. If nesting birds are identified, a suitable buffer will need to be retained until after all chicks have fledged. It is recommended that black redstart bird surveys are conducted within the



Black redstart: Habitats adjacent to the site have potential to be utilized by black redstart for foraging and breeding. The presence of the open metal roofed construction within the site has potential to be used by black redstart. Aquatic habitats: There is the potential for permanent and temporary landtake from mudflat habitat, which forms part of the ‘tidal Thames’ BAP Priority habitat. Aquatic species: Temporary and permanent landtake will lead to the loss of feeding migratory habitat for juvenile fish, and feeding and burrowing habitat for benthic invertebrates. Option B From reviewing aerial photography, the habitats on site (option A and B) appear to consist of buildings (the existing brick built with a tiled pitched roof pumping station and an open metal roofed construction), hard standing, scattered scrub and grassland adjacent to the Thames. Mudflat habitat is present within Option A only. Bats: Habitats present within the site have bat roost potential within the existing brick built pumping station adjacent to Lots Road, although the warehousing does not appear suitable for bats. As such the site may have potential to support roosting bats. Without further inspection the presence of bat roosts within the site cannot be discounted. Nesting birds: Shrub vegetation and the round building present within the site have potential to support nesting

site, and if access can be gained to the waster land to the west of the site. Where works are to be conducted within close proximity to or within aquatic habitats strict working practices should be adhered to with regards to water pollution and sediment/dust control. Any piling within the river should be undertaken using low noise techniques such as push or vibropiling. Additional species surveys are recommended for option A in addition to those mentioned above. It is recommended that fish surveys and aquatic invertebrate surveys are conducted.



birds during the breeding season. Black redstart: Habitats adjacent to the site have potential to be utilized by black redstart for foraging and breeding. The presence of the open metal roofed construction within the site has potential to be used by black redstart. There will be no landtake from aquatic habitats as a result of this option.

Summary: There are 21 Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) within 2km of the site (Option A and B). The site lies adjacent to the River Thames and Tidal tributaries Site of Metropolitan Importance (SMI). One Statutory designated site, Battersea Park Nature Areas Local Nature Reserve (LNR) is located 2km east of the site. There were 66 occurrences of mute swan, 25 occurrences of gadwall, and 129 occurrences of grey heron within 64m of the site. There are number of records of protected species within 2km of the proposed site. These are six species of bat (the closest record is for Noctule, Leisler’s, and Pipistrelle bat each 1.4km north of the site), stag beetle, 17 species of protected bird, one record of great crested newt (1.4km north) and one record of European eel. In addition grey seal, common seal and common porpoise were recorded within 2km.

Both options are considered to be less suitable due to their proximity to the River Thames and tidal tributaries SMI. It should be noted that Option A would result in greater impacts then Option B. This is because areas of mudflat habitat (BAP Priority habitat and within the SINC site) are to be directly impacted upon by the works. For both options where works are to be conducted within close proximity to or within aquatic habitats strict working practices should be adhered to with regards to water pollution and sediment/dust control. If BAP Priority habitat is lost or degraded (Option A), compensatory provision may be required to enable works to proceed within the site.

The Option A site has potential to support protected species such as bats, black redstart, nesting birds, fish species and aquatic invertebrates. An ecological inspection of the brick built existing pumping station building is recommended for bats. The existing open metal roofed building and adjacent wasteland to the west if access is possible should be subject to a black redstart survey. The aquatic habitat to be impacted upon by the works in Option A should be subject to a fish survey and aquatic invertebrate survey. If any of these notable or protected species are identified to be utilising habitats to be impacted upon by proposed works within the site, avoidance and mitigation measures will be required

Option B site has potential to affect protected species such as bats, black redstart and nesting birds through the loss of roosting and nesting sites. An ecological inspection of the brick built existing pumping station building is recommended for bats and the existing open metal roofed



building and adjacent wasteland to the west if access is possible for black redstart. If any of these species are identified to be utilising habitats to be impacted upon by proposed works within the site, avoidance and mitigation measures will be required.

Land Quality

Option A and B

Methodology A concise summary of desktop study information including review of; current and historic land uses, geology, hydrogeology and hydrology, registered pollution incidents and contemporary trade entries is provided. A Conceptual Site Model (CSM) identifying potential pollutant-pathway-receptor linkages is used to assess potential contamination risks that could impact on the proposed development. A “Contamination Category” consisting of Category 1 (low risk) sites, Category 2 (medium risk) sites and Category 3 (high risk) sites, is assigned based on the level of risk and subsequently used to appraise the suitability of the site.

Site Location Cremorne Wharf

Current Site Use Cremorne Wharf is located adjacent to the River Thames foreshore on the south side of Lots Road. The site comprises the existing Lots Road Pumping Station building across the western third of the site. The remainder of Cremorne Wharf is operated by SITA as a waste transfer station and is mainly occupied by a large depot building. The site also includes a jetty/berth facility.

Topography Generally flat

Field Evidence of contamination (i.e. visual/olfactory)

Desk based assessment only - site visit not undertaken by Land Quality team.

Current surrounding land use (immediately adjacent to site)

To the north/north-east Is Chelsea Wharf warehouse building that has been converted for a mixed commercial and residential use, a block of flats and beyond this is Cremorne Gardens, an area of public open space. To the north-west of the site along Lots Road are Victorian townhouses.

The River Thames is located adjacent east of the site.

Immediately to the south and west of the site is the Lots Road Power station site which, along with land to the south of Chelsea Creek, is currently being redeveloped for residential and other community, retail leisure and business uses.

Land Quality

Option A and B

Geological and Hydro geological Information

Geological Strata • Made ground (3m) • Superficial Deposits (4m) • London Clay Formation (47m) • Lambeth Group (26m) • Chalk (>65m) * Geology based on thicknesses from British Geological Survey borehole TQ27NE129 on site, approx. 40m from the existing pumping station and TBM drive shaft locations.

Underlying Aquifer Classes The Superficial Deposits are classified as a upper aquifer by the Environment Agency. The London Clay is classified as unproductive aquiclude. The low permeability of this stratum will reduce the likelihood of vertical migration of groundwater to deeper aquifers.

Groundwater Vulnerability / Soil Classification (High / Intermediate / Low / Not Applicable)

The site is underlain by a Secondary Aquifer – Undifferentiated with soils of high leaching potential

Source Protection Zone Details The site is not located within a groundwater Source Protection Zone

Surface Water Receptor The nearest surface water feature is the River Thames located adjacent to the east of the site. The groundwater in the Superficial Deposits is likely to be in hydraulic connectivity with the River Thames.

Registered Abstraction Points There are two abstraction points within 250m of the site:

• 100m south: abstraction license registered to Seaboard Powerlink for spray irrigation • 200m south-west: abstraction license registered to Mitie Energy Ltd for use in a heat pump

within Chelsea Academy Relevant Information within a 250m radius of the site

Land Quality

Option A and B

Historical Potentially Contaminating Activities (based on mapping data)

On Site

• Historical mapping from 1862 shows the site as undeveloped except for a terrace of residential buildings on the north-western boundary.

• By 1896 Cremorne Wharf has been developed on the site.

• An electrical substation is shown adjacent to the south of the pumping station building from 1949.

• Mapping from 1950 shows Cremorne Wharf rubber works has been developed in the western section of the site and a pumping station is shown to cover the north-western section.

• 1952 mapping shows that the site comprises both the pumping station and a public refuse tip (waste transfer station) and these are labelled on current mapping, although the refuse tip is now situated within a large warehouse.

Off Site

• In 1862 the land to the north of the site is occupied by a maze associated with the Cremorne Gardens which extend toward the north-west.

• By 1896 the gardens have been redeveloped into wharfs (Durham Wharf) and there is little change in land use until the 1980s when the land is redeveloped into a public open space called Cremorne

Land Quality

Option A and B

Gardens.

• In 1862 the land to the south of the site was undeveloped until 1896 when it was developed into wharfs (Chelsea Vestry Wharf and dock and crown wharf) and warehouses. The 1909 mapping shows that the area has been redeveloped with unlabelled buildings. The 1947 mapping shows that travelling cranes and conveyor belts have been developed.

• A Water Screen is located 30m south of Cremorne Wharf (1947 – present)

• A large circular tank (use unknown – potentially a water tank) is located approximately 100m to the south west of the site (1947 – approx 1949).

• A garage is located 100m to the west of the site (1909 – 1947)

• A rubber factory is located on the site of the former garage (1947 – 1943) (labelled engineering works after 1949).

• An electricity works is located 100m south west of the site (1947 – currently being redeveloped).

• A Colour Works is located 130m to the south west of the site (1896 – 1909).

Pollution Controls Three Integrated Pollution Controls are registered to the former power station 100m to the south-west of the site. There are no Local Authority Pollution Prevention and Controls or Integrated Pollution Prevention and Controls within 250m of the site.

Landfill Sites There are no recorded historic or current landfill sites within 250m.

Registered Waste Licenses The Cremorne Wharf site is registered as a large waste transfer site which is currently operational and licensed to receive > 75,000 and < 250,000 tonnes of waste with no restrictions.

Land Quality

Option A and B

Registered Radioactive Substances There are no registered radioactive substance sites within 250m.

Fuel Stations/Depots Shell Chelsea Fuel Station (230m north-west – active)

Contemporary Trade Entries • Printers (15m north-east – active) • Furniture repairing & restoration (15m north – active) • Telecommunications equipment system (20m north-east – inactive) • Commercial cleaning services (20m north – inactive) • Garage services (90m north-west – active)

Site Classification Based on Above Information

Activity Distance and Direction to Site

Contaminants

Potential Site Contaminants derived from surface sources (e.g. contaminants in made ground)

1) Refuse tip and waste recycling operations 2) Wharf development (significant amount of made ground) 3) Electrical substation

4) Rubber works

1) On site 2) On site 3) Onsite

4) Onsite

1) Metals, PAHs, TPH, organic contaminants 2) Metals, PAHs, TPH 3) PCBs 4) Metals, PAHs, TPH, volatile organic compounds, solvents

Land Quality

Option A and B

Potential Site Contaminants derived from off-site sources and transported to site

1) Wharf operations

2) Water screen

3) Electricity works power station 4) Garage / rubber factory

1) On land adjacent to the north and south

2) 30m south

3) 100m south

4) 100m west

1) TPH, metals, PAHs

2) Metals, organic contaminants 3) PAHs, TPH, PCBs 4) TPH, PAHs, lubricants, paints, solvents, metals.

Potential Contamination Pathways to Site (Conceptual Site Model)1

- Source 1 – A1, A2, A3, B4 - Source 2 – D6, E1, F7

Contamination Category Category 2 (medium risk)

Land Quality

Option A and B

Conclusion: On the basis of the information available, it is considered that the site is less suitable for both options. The historical mapping indicates that land use on site has consisted of; wharf activity, a rubber works, pumping station and refuse tip/recycling operations. It is considered that there is a medium potential for contaminations of the shallow subsurface to have occurred particularly through fuel and chemical storage/use associated with wharf operations and spills/leaching of contaminants associated with former refuse tip activities.

The potential receptors to contamination include groundwater quality in the underlying Superficial Deposits (upper aquifer), the River Thames and the health of construction workers and the users of the site and surrounding land.

Although above a Secondary-A aquifer, the site is not within a SPZ and therefore the sensitivity of the aquifer is reduced. However, the River Thames is immediately adjacent to the site and is likely to be in hydraulic connectivity with the shallow groundwater beneath the site. Good construction practice and site specific mitigation, as described under Air Quality, would be required to limit direct human exposure to potentially contaminated soil and soil dust.

Notes: 1. Refer to schematic Conceptual Site Model for explanation of site-specific source-pathway-receptors.

wholesale.thameswater.co.uk...Counters Creek Strategic Storm Relief Sewer/ Site Selection...

Documents

Transcript of wholesale.thameswater.co.uk...Counters Creek Strategic Storm Relief Sewer/ Site Selection...