PEIR Main Report Vol18 Heathwall Pumping Station

Preliminary environmental information report
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station site assessment

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

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

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

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

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

List of contents
Page number
1 2
Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 Site context ....................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Site location ............................................................................................. 2 2.2 Environmental context ............................................................................. 2 Proposed development.................................................................................... 4 3.1 Overview.................................................................................................. 4 3.2 Operation ................................................................................................. 5 3.3 Construction ............................................................................................ 7 3.4 Design development and on site alternatives ........................................ 11 3.5 Base case .............................................................................................. 12 Air quality and odour ..................................................................................... 14 4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 14 4.2 Proposed development .......................................................................... 14 4.3 Assessment methodology...................................................................... 15 4.4 Baseline conditions................................................................................ 16 4.5 Construction assessment ...................................................................... 20 4.6 Operational assessment ........................................................................ 22 4.7 Approach to mitigation ........................................................................... 24 4.8 Assessment summary ........................................................................... 25 4.9 Assessment completion ......................................................................... 27 Ecology - aquatic ........................................................................................... 28 5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 28 5.2 Proposed development .......................................................................... 28 5.3 Assessment methodology...................................................................... 29 5.4 Baseline conditions................................................................................ 30 5.5 Construction assessment ...................................................................... 36 5.6 Operational assessment ........................................................................ 42 5.7 Approach to mitigation ........................................................................... 46 5.8 Assessment summary ........................................................................... 48 5.9 Assessment completion ......................................................................... 53 Ecology - terrestrial ....................................................................................... 54 6.1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 54 6.2 Proposed development .......................................................................... 54 6.3 Assessment methodology...................................................................... 54
Page iii
10
6.4 Baseline conditions................................................................................ 57 6.5 Construction assessment ...................................................................... 59 6.6 Operational assessment ........................................................................ 60 6.7 Approach to mitigation ........................................................................... 60 6.8 Assessment summary ........................................................................... 61 6.9 Assessment completion ......................................................................... 62 Historic Environment ..................................................................................... 63 7.1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 63 7.2 Proposed development .......................................................................... 63 7.3 Assessment methodology...................................................................... 64 7.4 Baseline conditions................................................................................ 65 7.5 Construction assessment ...................................................................... 81 7.6 Operational assessment ........................................................................ 86 7.7 Approach to mitigation ........................................................................... 87 7.8 Assessment summary ........................................................................... 90 7.9 Assessment completion ......................................................................... 94 Land quality .................................................................................................... 95 8.1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 95 8.2 Proposed development .......................................................................... 95 8.3 Assessment methodology...................................................................... 95 8.4 Baseline conditions................................................................................ 96 8.5 Construction assessment .................................................................... 105 8.6 Operational assessment ...................................................................... 107 8.7 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 109 8.8 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 110 8.9 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 111 Noise and vibration ...................................................................................... 112 9.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 112 9.2 Proposed development ........................................................................ 112 9.3 Assessment methodology.................................................................... 113 9.4 Baseline conditions.............................................................................. 115 9.5 Construction assessment .................................................................... 116 9.6 Operational assessment ...................................................................... 124 9.7 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 126 9.8 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 128 9.9 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 130 Socio-economics ......................................................................................... 131 10.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 131 10.2 Proposed development ........................................................................ 131 10.3 Assessment methodology.................................................................... 131 10.4 Baseline conditions.............................................................................. 134
Page iv
11
12
13
14
10.5 Construction assessment .................................................................... 139 10.6 Operational assessment ...................................................................... 147 10.7 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 151 10.8 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 152 10.9 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 154 Townscape and visual ................................................................................. 155 11.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 155 11.2 Proposed development ........................................................................ 155 11.3 Assessment methodology.................................................................... 156 11.4 Baseline conditions.............................................................................. 158 11.5 Construction assessment .................................................................... 176 11.6 Operational assessment ...................................................................... 190 11.7 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 202 11.8 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 203 11.9 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 213 Transport ...................................................................................................... 214 12.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 214 12.2 Proposed development ........................................................................ 214 12.3 Assessment methodology.................................................................... 218 12.4 Baseline conditions.............................................................................. 220 12.5 Construction assessment .................................................................... 225 12.6 Operational assessment ...................................................................... 230 12.7 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 235 12.8 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 237 12.9 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 240 Water resources groundwater ................................................................. 241 13.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 241 13.2 Proposed development ........................................................................ 241 13.3 Assessment methodology.................................................................... 242 13.4 Baseline conditions.............................................................................. 243 13.5 Construction assessment .................................................................... 246 13.6 Operational assessment ...................................................................... 249 13.7 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 250 13.8 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 252 13.9 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 254 Water resources surface water ................................................................ 255 14.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 255 14.2 Proposed development ........................................................................ 255 14.3 Assessment methodology.................................................................... 257 14.4 Baseline conditions.............................................................................. 257 14.5 Construction effects assessment ......................................................... 260
Page v
14.6 Operational assessment ...................................................................... 266 14.7 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 273 14.8 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 275 14.9 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 276 15 Water resources flood risk ....................................................................... 277 15.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 277 15.2 Policy considerations ........................................................................... 278 15.3 Regulatory position .............................................................................. 278 15.4 Assessment of flood risk ...................................................................... 280 15.5 Flood risk - design and mitigation ........................................................ 288 15.6 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 291 Appendices ........................................................................................................... 293 Appendix A Historic environment ....................................................................... 295 Appendix B Land quality...................................................................................... 312 Appendix C Noise and vibration ......................................................................... 314 Appendix D Townscape and visual ..................................................................... 315 Appendix E Water resources - groundwater ...................................................... 319 Glossary ................................................................................................................ 333 References ............................................................................................................ 348
Page vi
List of figures
Page number
Vol 18 Figure 2.1.1 Site location plan ........................................................................ 2 Vol 18 Figure 2.2.1 Environmental designations ....................................................... 2 Vol 18 Figure 3.1.1 Demolition and site clearance plan............................................. 4 Vol 18 Figure 3.1.2 Construction - site setup, shaft construction & tunnelling ........... 4 Vol 18 Figure 3.1.3 Construction - construction of other structures ........................... 4 Vol 18 Figure 3.1.4 Permanent works layout ............................................................. 4 Vol 18 Figure 4.4.1 Air quality - monitoring sites ..................................................... 18 Vol 18 Figure 5.4.1 Aquatic ecology sampling locations....................................... 32 Vol 18 Figure 5.4.2 Aquatic ecology EA total fish catches from Battersea ........... 33 Vol 18 Figure 6.4.1 Terrestrial ecology Phase 1 Habitat Survey ............................. 57 Vol 18 Figure 7.4.1 Historic environment features map ........................................... 66 Vol 18 Figure 8.4.1 Land quality - contaminative land uses .................................... 96 Vol 18 Figure 8.4.2 Land quality - proposed borehole locations ............................ 103 Vol 18 Figure 8.4.3 Land quality - environmental records and waste sites ............ 103 Vol 18 Figure 9.4.1 Noise and vibration - residential receptors ............................. 115 Vol 18 Figure 10.4.1 Socio-economic context ....................................................... 135 Vol 18 Figure 11.4.1 Townscape - development pattern and scale ....................... 158 Vol 18 Figure 11.4.2 Townscape - pattern and extent of vegetation...................... 159 Vol 18 Figure 11.4.3 Townscape - open space distribution and type .................... 159 Vol 18 Figure 11.4.4 Townscape and visual transport network .......................... 160 Vol 18 Figure 11.4.5 Townscape and visual - character areas .............................. 161 Vol 18 Figure 11.4.6 Townscape and visual - viewpoint locations ......................... 171 Vol 18 Figure 12.2.1 Transport construction traffic routes .................................. 215 Vol 18 Figure 12.2.2 Transport - construction lorry profile ..................................... 216 Vol 18 Figure 12.2.3 Transport - construction barge profile ................................... 217 Vol 18 Figure 12.4.1 Transport - site plan.............................................................. 220 Vol 18 Figure 15.4.1 Flood risk EA flood zones .................................................. 280
Page vii
List of tables
Page number
Vol 18 Table 3.3.1 Working hours ........................................................................... 11 Vol 18 Table 3.4.1 Design development at Heathwall ............................................. 12 Vol 18 Table 4.3.1 Air quality and odour stakeholder engagement ......................... 16 Vol 18 Table 4.4.1 Air quality measured NO2 concentrations .................................. 17 Vol 18 Table 4.4.2 Air quality measured PM10 concentrations................................. 17 Vol 18 Table 4.4.3 Air quality - additional monitoring locations in LB Wandsworth.. 18 Vol 18 Table 4.4.4 Air quality background pollutant concentrations ........................ 18 Vol 18 Table 4.4.5 Air quality receptors - construction ............................................ 19 Vol 18 Table 4.6.1 Air quality odour impacts at ground level - operation ................. 23 Vol 18 Table 4.6.2 Air quality odour impacts at buildings - operation ...................... 23 Vol 18 Table 4.8.1 Air quality construction assessment .......................................... 25 Vol 18 Table 4.8.2 Odour operational assessment .................................................. 26 Vol 18 Table 5.4.1 Aquatic ecology habitat and substrate at Tideway Walk............ 31 Vol 18 Table 5.4.2 Aquatic ecology autumn 2010 fish survey - Tideway Walk ........ 32 Vol 18 Table 5.4.3 Aquatic ecology - invertebrate fauna ......................................... 34 Vol 18 Table 5.4.4 Aquatic ecology receptors and values/sensitivities .................... 36 Vol 18 Table 5.5.1 Aquatic ecology impacts and magnitudes during construction .. 38 Vol 18 Table 5.6.1 Aquatic ecology impacts and magnitudes - operation ............... 43 Vol 18 Table 5.8.1 Aquatic ecology construction assessment ................................. 48 Vol 18 Table 5.8.2 Aquatic ecology summary of operation assessment.................. 51 Vol 18 Table 6.3.1 Terrestrial ecology Scoping Opinions ........................................ 55 Vol 18 Table 6.3.2 Terrestrial ecology notable species surveys .............................. 56 Vol 18 Table 6.4.1 Terrestrial ecology Phase 1 Habitat Survey............................... 57 Vol 18 Table 6.8.1 Terrestrial ecology construction assessment ............................. 61 Vol 18 Table 7.4.1 Historic environment - receptors and significance ..................... 80 Vol 18 Table 7.5.1 Historic environment construction effects .................................. 85 Vol 18 Table 7.6.1 Historic environment operational effects .................................... 87 Vol 18 Table 7.8.1 Historic environment summary of construction assessment ...... 90 Vol 18 Table 7.8.2 Historic environment operational assessment ........................... 93 Vol 18 Table 8.4.1 Land quality - contaminative land uses...................................... 96 Vol 18 Table 8.4.2 Land quality site geology and hydrogeology ............................ 101 Vol 18 Table 8.4.3 Land quality summary of ground investigation data................. 103 Vol 18 Table 8.4.4 Land quality environmental records and waste sites ............... 103 Vol 18 Table 8.5.1 Land quality impacts and magnitudes - construction .............. 106 Vol 18 Table 8.5.2 Land quality receptors and values/sensitivities - construction . 107 Vol 18 Table 8.5.3 Land quality significance of effects - construction ................... 107 Vol 18 Table 8.6.1 Land quality impacts and magnitudes - operation ................... 108 Vol 18 Table 8.6.2 Land quality receptors and values/sensitivities - operation ...... 108
Page viii
Vol18 Table 8.6.3 Land quality - significance of effects - operation ....................... 108 Vol 18 Table 8.8.1 Land quality summary of construction assessment ................. 110 Vol 18 Table 8.8.2 Land quality summary of operational assessment ................... 110 Vol 18 Table 9.4.1 Noise and vibration receptor locations ..................................... 116 Vol 18 Table 9.4.2 Noise and vibration receptors/airborne construction noise ...... 116 Vol 18 Table 9.5.1 Noise construction impacts at receptor HP1, Elm Quay .......... 117 Vol 18 Table 9.5.2 Noise construction impacts at receptor HP2, House boats ...... 118 Vol 18 Table 9.5.3 Noise impacts at receptor HP3 construction ......................... 119 Vol 18 Table 9.5.4 Noise construction impacts/magnitudes at HP4 ...................... 120 Vol 18 Table 9.5.5 Vibration building impacts and magnitudes - construction ....... 121 Vol 18 Table 9.5.6 Vibration impacts and magnitudes - construction .................... 122 Vol 18 Table 9.5.7 Noise and vibration construction effects .................................. 123 Vol 18 Table 9.6.1 Noise airborne impacts and magnitudes - operation ............... 125 Vol 18 Table 9.6.2 Noise and vibration summary of operational effects ................ 126 Vol 18 Table 9.8.1 Noise and vibration summary of construction assessment ...... 128 Vol 18 Table 9.8.2 Noise and vibration summary of operational assessment........ 129 Vol 18 Table 10.3.1 Socio-economics stakeholder engagement ........................... 131 Vol 18 Table 10.4.1 Socio-economics receptors and their values/sensitivities ...... 138 Vol 18 Table 10.5.1 Socio-economics summary of construction effects ................ 146 Vol 18 Table 10.6.1 Socio-economics summary of operational effects ................. 150 Vol 18 Table 10.8.1 Socio-economics summary of construction assessment ....... 152 Vol 18 Table 10.8.2 Socio-economics summary of operational assessment ......... 153 Vol 18 Table 11.3.1 Townscape and visual - stakeholder engagement ................. 156 Vol 18 Table 11.4.1 Townscape and visual - open space type and distribution..... 159 Vol 18 Table 11.4.2 Townscape and visual - site components .............................. 161 Vol 18 Table 11.4.3 Townscape sensitivities to change ........................................ 170 Vol 18 Table 11.4.4 Visual viewpoints sensitivities to change ............................... 175 Vol 18 Table 11.5.1 Townscape site components effects - construction ............... 177 Vol 18 Table 11.5.2 Townscape effects on character areas -construction ............ 182 Vol 18 Table 11.5.3 Townscape viewpoints during construction ........................... 189 Vol 18 Table 11.6.1 Townscape site component effects operation..................... 191 Vol 18 Table 11.6.2 Townscape character areas effects operation .................... 195 Vol 18 Table 11.6.3 Townscape effects on viewpoints - Year 1 of operation ........ 200 Vol 18 Table 11.8.1 Townscape summary of construction assessment ................ 203 Vol 18 Table 11.8.2 Visual assessment summary of construction assessment ..... 205 Vol 18 Table 11.8.3 Townscape operational assessment Year 1 of operation .... 208 Vol 18 Table 11.8.4 Visual assessment operational assessment operation ....... 210 Vol 18 Table 12.2.1: Transport - construction traffic details .................................... 215 Vol 18 Table 12.2.2 Transport - construction worker numbers .............................. 218 Vol 18 Table 12.3.1 Transport stakeholder engagement ....................................... 219 Vol 18 Table 12.4.1 Transport - bus service frequency ......................................... 221
Page ix
Vol 18 Table 12.4.2 Vol 18 Table 12.5.1 Vol 18 Table 12.8.1 Vol 18 Table 12.8.2 Vol 18 Table 13.2.1 Vol 18 Table 13.4.1 Vol 18 Table 13.4.2 Vol 18 Table 13.5.1 Vol 18 Table 13.5.2 Vol 18 Table 13.5.3 Vol 18 Table 13.6.1 Vol 18 Table 13.6.2 Vol 18 Table 13.8.1 Vol 18 Table 13.8.2 Vol 18 Table 14.4.1 Vol 18 Table 14.5.1 Vol 18 Table 14.5.2 Vol 18 Table 14.6.1 Vol 18 Table 14.6.2 Vol 18 Table 14.8.1 Vol 18 Table 14.8.2 Vol 18 Table 15.4.1 Vol 18 Table 15.5.1
Transport receptor values/sensitivities................................... 225 Transport forecast construction vehicle movements ........... 227 Transport summary of construction assessment ................... 237 Transport summary of operational assessment .................. 239 Groundwater resources methods of construction .................. 242 Groundwater resources Anticipated Ground Conditions ...... 243 Groundwater resources identification of receptors ................ 245 Groundwater resources impacts/magnitudes -construction ... 248 Groundwater receptor values/sensitivities - construction .... 248 Groundwater significance of effects - construction ................ 249 Groundwater resources impacts and magnitudes - operation 250 Groundwater resources significance of effects - operation .... 250 Groundwater summary of construction assessment .............. 252 Groundwater summary of operation assessment .................. 253 Surface water - receptors ...................................................... 258 Surface water construction impact assessment.................. 264 Surface water significance of effects - construction ............... 266 Surface water impact assessment - operation ....................... 270 Surface water significance of effects - operation ................... 273 Surface water summary of construction assessment ............ 275 Surface water summary of operation assessment ................. 275 Flood risk - runoff rates onsite ............................................... 286 Flood risk - runoff rates / preliminary attenuation volumes .... 290
Page x
AADT ACE AM AOD APZ AQEG AQMA AQO ARS ASR ASSI ATC ATD AURN BAP BGS BMWP BOD BPIP BPM BS CABE CAMS CCI CCSS CCTV CDA CEMP CIRIA CLR CoCP CoPA CROW CSO dB dB LAeq,T
DCMS
List of abbreviations Annual Average Daily Traffic Arts Culture and Entertainment Morning Above Ordnance Datum Archaeological Priority Zone Air Quality Expert Group Air Quality Management Area Air Quality Objective Artificial Recharge Scheme Aquifer Storage and Recovery Area of Special Scientific Interest Automated Traffic Counter Above Tunnel Datum (defined at ~100m AOD) Automatic Urban and Rural Network Biodiversity Action Plan British Geological Survey Biological Monitoring Working Party Biochemical Oxygen Demand Building Profile Input Programme Best Practicable Means British Standard Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy Community Conservation Index Community Consultation Strategy Closed Circuit Television Critical Drainage Area Construction Environment Management Programmes Construction Industry Research and Information Association Contaminated Land Report Code of Construction Practice Control of Pollution Act Countryside and Rights of Way Combined Sewer Overflow Decibel a equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level having the same energy as a fluctuating sound over a specified time period T Department for Culture, Media and Sport
Page xi
DCO DCLG DCMS Defra DfT DMP DMPD DMRB DO DPD DTM EA EC EcIA eVDV EEA EFRA EH EHO EIA EMEP EN EPA EPB EPBM EqIA EQS ES EU FAQ FIDOR FRA GARDIT GI GiGL GIS GLA GLHER GQA GSHP GWB
Development Consent Order Department for Communities and Local Government Department for Culture media and Sport Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Department for Transport Development Management Plan Development Management Policies Document Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Dissolved Oxygen Development Plan Document Digital Terrain Mapping Environment Agency European Commission Ecological Impact Assessment Estimated Vibration Dose Value European Economic Area Environment Food and Rural Affairs Committee English Heritage Environmental Health Officer Environmental Impact Assessment European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme English Nature Environment Protection Agency Earth Pressure Balance Earth Pressure Balance Machine Equality Impact Assessment Environmental Quality Standard Environmental Statement European Union Frequently Asked Questions Frequency, Intensity, Duration, Offensiveness, Receptor Flood Risk Assessment General Aquifer Research Development and Investigation Team Ground Investigation Greenspace Information for Greater London Geographical Information System Greater London Authority Greater London Historic Environment Record General Quality Assessment (EA water quality classification) Ground Source Heat Pump Groundwater Body: distinct volume of groundwater within an
Page xii
GWMU H2S ha HA HDV HEA HER HGV HIA HIAB HPA HQ HRA HTC HWR IEEM IEMA IMD IPC Iron Age JNCC kg km kVA kW l/d l/s LA LAARC LAQM LAQN LB LBAP LDF LGV LHA LMB LNR loWR LSB
aquifer or aquifers Ground Water Management Unit Hydrogen sulphide hectares Highways Authority Heavy Duty Vehicle Historic Environmental Assessment Historic Environment Record Heavy Goods Vehicle Health Impact Assessment Hydrauliska Industri AB Company Health Protection Agency Headquarter Habitats Regulations Assessment Hammersmith Town Centre Hazardous Waste Regulations (2005) Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment Index of Multiple Deprivation Infrastructure Planning Commission 600 BC AD 43 Joint Nature Conservation Committee kilograms kilometre kilo watt amperes kilowatt litres per day litres per second Local Authority London Archaeological Archive and Research Centre Local Air Quality Management London Air Quality Network London Borough Local Biodiversity Action Plan Local Development Framework Light Goods Vehicle Local Highway Authority Lambeth Mottled Beds Local Nature Reserve List of Wastes Regulations 2005 Lower Shelly Beds
Page xiii
LtB LTI LTT LUL LVMF m m AOD m ATD m/s MAGIC Mbgl MEICA Ml/d MoD MOL MOLA NE NESR NCR NGR NMR NNR NO2 NOx NPPF NPS NRMM NSIP NSRA NTS OCU Ofwat OS OUE PAH PCB PEI PEIR PEL PICP PIP
Laminated Beds London Tideway Improvements London Tideway Tunnels London Underground Limited London View Management Framework metre metres above Ordinance Datum (see AOD) metres above temporary datum, (see ATD) metres per second Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside Metres below ground level Mechanical Electrical Instrumentation Controls Automation Megalitres per day (million litres per day) Ministry of Defence Metropolitan Open Land Museum of London Archaeology Natural England North East Storm Relief National Cycle Route National Grid Reference National Monuments Record National Nature Reserve Nitrogen dioxide Oxides of nitrogen National Planning Policy Framework National Policy Statement Non Road Mobile Machinery Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project National Small-bore Rifle Association Non Technical Summary Odour Control Unit The Water Services Regulations Authority Ordnance Survey European Odour Unit Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons Polychlorinated Biphenyl Preliminary Environmental Information Preliminary Environmental Information Report Probable Effect Levels Pollution Incident Control Plan Project Information Paper
Page xiv
PLA PM PM10 PPC PPE PPG PPS PPV PRoW PS pSPA PWS RAMS RAMSAR RB RBKC RBMP RDB RHS RPG RSPB RDB RTC RTD SA SAC SAM SCI SCL SFRA SI SINC SMI SNCI SO2 SoCC SPA SPD S-P-R SPZ
Port of London Authority Afternoon Particles on the order of ~10 micrometers or less Pollution Prevention and Control Personal Protective Equipment Pollution Prevention Guidance Planning Policy Statement Peak Particle Velocity Public Rights of Way Pumping Station Potential Special Protected Area Public Water Supply Risk Assessment Method Statement The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Royal Borough Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea River Basin Management Plans Red Data Book Royal Horticultural Society Regional Planning Guidance Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Red data book Real Time Control River Terrace Deposits Sustainability Appraisal Special Area of Conservation Scheduled Ancient Monument. More commonly referred to as Scheduled Monument Statement of Community Involvement Sprayed Concrete Lining Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Statutory Instrument Site of Importance for Nature Conservation Site of Metropolitan Importance Site Nature Conservation Importance Sulphur dioxide Statement of Community Consultation Special Protection Area Supplementary Planning Document Source-pathway-receptor Source Protection Zone
Page xv
SR SRN SSR SSSI STW SUDS SWMP SWMP t TA TAS TBC TBM TDP TEBP TEL TfL TFRM TH TLRN Tpa TPO TT TTQI TTSS TWU UDP UK UKHO UMB UPN UWWTD UWWTR UXO VDV VNEB OA WCA WEEE WFD WIA WRAP
Storm Relief Strategic Road Network Site Suitability Report Site of Special Scientific Interest Sewage Treatment Works Sustainable (Urban) Drainage Systems waste - Site Waste Management Plan water Surface Water Management Plan tonne Transport Assessment Thames Archaeological Survey To be confirmed Tunnel Boring Machine Thames Discovery Programme Thames Estuary Benthic Programme Threshold Effect Levels Transport for London Tideway Fish Risk Model Tower Hamlets Transport for London Road Network tonnes per annum Tree Preservation Order Thames Tunnel Thames Tideway Quality Improvements Thames Tideway Strategic Study 2005 Thames Water Utilities Unitary Development Plan United Kingdom United Kingdom Hydrographic Office Upper Mottled Beds Upnor Formation Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations Unexploded Ordnance Vibration Dose Value Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea Opportunity Area Wildlife and Countryside Act Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive Water Framework Directive Water Industry Act 1991 Waste Resources Action Programme
Page xvi
WSI WWT ZTV ZVI
Written Scheme of Investigation Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust Zone of Theoretical Visibility Zone of Visual Influence
Page xvii
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station
Section 1: Introduction
1
1.1.1 1.1.2
Introduction
This volume presents the preliminary environmental information for the Thames Tunnel proposal at Heathwall Pumping Station. This document reports the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant environmental effects of the Thames Tunnel project at Heathwall Pumping Station. The planned activities to assist in completing the environmental impact assessment (EIA) include: a. conclude baseline environmental surveys b. confirm final design, informed by, amongst other things, feedback from public consultation c. undertake design of possible mitigation to address adverse effects. Once complete, the findings of the EIA will be reported in full in the Environmental Statement which will be submitted with the consent application. This volume describes the site and environmental context in Section 2. The proposed development including construction and operation is described in Section 3. The design evolution for this site is set out in Section 3.4. Finally, Section 3.4.1 refers to other development schemes which have been submitted or with extant planning approval within or in proximity to the site. The development at Heathwall would link the Heathwall Pumping Station (PS) CSO and the Southwest Storm Relief CSO to a drop shaft connected to the Thames Tunnel. The two CSOs combined currently discharge approximately 46 times a year at approximately 882,800m3 per year. This is made up of 227,900m3 and 12 times a year from the South West (SW) Storm Relief CSO and 654,900m3 and 34 times a year from Heathwall. It is noted that the Scoping Report issued in March 2011 was prepared before Heathwall Pumping Station was identified as a potential alternative site. This site has therefore not been the subject of formal scoping. The scope of the assessment set out in this volume has drawn on the scoping response received from the London Borough of Wandsworth (in particular relating to the Tideway Walk site, which was included at the scoping stage and which is in close proximity to Heathwall Pumping Station), feedback from other statutory consultees as well as professional judgement. A description of the Thames Tunnel is included in Volume 2. This includes the planning context for the project as well as local planning policies relevant to this site. The alternatives which have been considered are described in Volume 3. Scoping and technical engagement is covered in Volume 4, while Volume 5 sets out the technical assessment methodology. A project-wide assessment is provided in Volume 6. The remaining Volumes 7 to 28 contain the site specific assessments.
1.1.3
1.1.4
1.1.5
1.1.6
1.1.7
Page 1
Section 2: Site context
2 2.1
2.1.1
Site context Site location

The site is located in the London Borough of Wandsworth. It comprises Thames Waters Heathwall Pumping Station, which is an operational foul and storm water pumping station, and incorporates Middle Wharf covering an area of 0.9ha. The site is shown in Vol 18 Figure 2.1.1. Vol 18 Figure 2.1.1 Site location plan (see Volume 18 Figures document) Middle Wharf is a designated Safeguarded Wharf. The site is bounded to the north by the River Thames, to the south by Nine Elms Lane, the west by the Tideway Industrial estate (now a redevelopment site) and to the east by open space and further along Elm Quay residential block. Access to the site is from Nine Elms Lane, A3205. The nearest rail stations are at Battersea Park and Vauxhall and the nearest underground station is at Vauxhall. The Thames Path Public Right of Way (PRoW) runs around the sites eastern (William Henry Walk), southern (Nine Elms Lane) and western boundary (Tideway Walk). Within the site is a Thames Water operational site (Heathwall PS) and a former concrete batching works, now cleared (Middle Wharf) all hard standing.
2.1.2 2.1.3
2.1.4
2.1.5
2.1.6
2.2
2.2.1
Environmental context
Environmental designations for the site and immediate surrounds are shown in Vol 18 Figure 2.2.1. Vol 18 Figure 2.2.1 Environmental designations (see Volume 18 Figures document) There are no statutory nature conservation designations on or within 2km of the site. The site is adjacent to the River Thames and Tidal Tributaries Site of Metropolitan Importance for nature conservation. The site lies close (immediately downstream) of a stretch known to be used by dace for spawning. The combined-sewer overflow (CSO) to be intercepted discharges to the River Thames in front of Heathwall Pumping Station. There are no listed buildings on or within 250m of the site. The site is not within a conservation area. Three Conservation Areas are located on the opposite side of the River Thames within the vicinity of the site: Dolphin Square, Millbank and Pimlico Conservation Areas. The site lies within the Wandsworth Archaeological Priority Area. No known archaeological receptors have been recorded within the site The site is within the Wandsworth Air Quality Management Area. The air quality objective for NO2 is exceeded on major roads in the vicinity of the site. Land quality at the site is influenced by historical onsite activities specifically a lime/whiting works, sewage pumping station and as an operational wharf. Offsite activities which might have influenced the land quality on site include a gasworks and wharfs. The local geology is made
2.2.2
2.2.3
2.2.4
2.2.5
Page 2
Section 2: Site context
2.2.6
up of superficial geology and made ground and River Terrace Gravels (7.8m), London Clay (31.5m), Lambeth Group (17.2m) and Thanet sand (9m). The site is located partially within the River Thames foreshore/tideway and is therefore within flood zone 3b (functional floodplain).
Page 3
Section 3: Proposed development
3 3.1
3.1.1
Proposed development Overview

The development at Heathwall Pumping Station and Middle Wharf consists of two interception structures and one CSO drop shaft. The drop shaft is at Middle Wharf which is immediately to the east of Heathwall PS. Middle Wharf is designated a safeguarded wharf and it is assumed that it would return to its original function on completion of the Thames tunnel works. Vol 18 Figure 3.1.1 to Vol 18 Figure 3.1.4 show the demolition and site clearance, construction phasing and permanent works plans. Vol 18 Figure 3.1.1 Demolition and site clearance plan Vol 18 Figure 3.1.2 Construction - site setup, shaft construction & tunnelling Vol 18 Figure 3.1.3 Construction - construction of other structures Vol 18 Figure 3.1.4 Permanent works layout (see Volume 18 Figures document) Construction of the main works at this site is scheduled to commence in mid 2017 (Year 1) and be completed by 2020, taking approximately three years. Early works, such as utility connections and diversions may be undertaken in advance of the main works. The site would be operational in 2023. Further detail of the programme is described in Section 3.3. The following lists the structures required at this site: a. an offline CSO drop shaft b. a connection tunnel to the main tunnel c. two interception chambers to the existing CSOs, Heathwall and South West Storm Relief d. an intermediate drop shaft, a connection culvert from the Heathwall PS CSO Interception to the CSO drop shaft e. two valve chambers f. An underground pressure relief release chamber with ground level access cover(s) g. A ventilation column h. Air management structures comprising an underground passive filter chamber and a ventilation column i. Underground culverts for ventilation of the shaft and pits and ducts for cables and hydraulic pipelines j. Permanent restoration of the temporary construction site comprising levelling, infilling and making good, and landscaping works to incorporate maintenance vehicle hard-standing and access to chamber covers. Further details of these elements are given in Section 3.2 and 3.3 where these are relevant to the technical assessments that follow. The following construction related elements would be required: a. The placement and removal of a temporary barge grid/campshed on the foreshore
Page 4
3.1.2
3.1.3
3.1.4
3.1.5
3.1.6 3.1.7
3.1.8
b. Gates to site entrance and exit c. Hoardings and other means of enclosure, barrier or screening d. Office and welfare accommodation and facilities e. Workshops and stores f. Plant and machinery g. Power generation plant and lighting h. Highways access and internal site roads i. Material storage, handling areas and steel reinforcement fixing area j. Power supply k. The carrying out or maintenance of other such works. Further details of these methods and the relevant phases are given in Section 3.2 and 3.3, where these are relevant to the technical assessments that follow.
3.2
3.2.1
Operation
Once developed the project would divert the majority of current CSO discharges via the CSO shaft and connection tunnel to the main tunnel for transfer to and treatment at Beckton Sewage Treatment Works. The number of CSO discharges would be reduced from 46 spill events a year to approximately 5 times a year at an average rate of 66,400m3 per year for both CSOs combined (62,500m3 per year for Heathwall PS and 3,900m3 per year for the South West Storm relief, at 4 and 1 events per year respectively).
Permanent structures
3.2.2 A plan of the permanent structures is shown in Vol 18 Figure 3.1.4. Once constructed the wharf will remain safeguarded, the area opened up to the public and the Thames Pathway (PRoW) routed along the riverside. Once constructed and operational there would remain on site the structures listed in the following sections. The design and finishing proposed for the above ground features would be further developed during the period up to the submission. Shaft The Middle Wharf CSO drop shaft will have an internal diameter of 16m and will be approximately 46m deep. The CSO shaft is off-line from the main tunnel. The shaft would be fnished off at existing ground level and there would be covers on the top of the shaft to allow access for inspection and maintenance. Interception chambers and culverts There would be two interception and valve chamber pieces constructed. One would intercept the Heathwall PS discharge outfall and would be built into the river. It would be approximately 16m by 15m in area to a depth of 12.5.m. The other would intercept the South West Storm Relief riser shaft to the west of the CSO shaft. It would be approximately 15.5m deep. The top of the Heathwall interception and valve chamber would be at current flood defence level. The structure would be designed so the flood
Page 5
3.2.3 3.2.4
3.2.5 3.2.6 3.2.7
3.2.8
3.2.9
3.2.10
3.2.11 3.2.12
3.2.13 3.2.14 3.2.15
3.2.16
3.2.17
3.2.18
3.2.19
defences can be raised at a later date. The South West Storm Relief valve chamber would be finished off at ground level and there would be covers on the top of the chamber to allow access for inspection and maintenance. Tunnel The CSO shaft would be connected to the main tunnel by an approximately 55m long 4.5m internal diameter connection tunnel. The Heathwall interception chamber would be connected to the Middle Wharf CSO drop shaft by a 45m long 2.5m internal diameter connection culvert via an intermediate drop shaft which would be adjacent to the interception chamber in the river. Ventilation structures An underground passive air filtration chamber would be constructed close to the drop shaft and connected to it by an underground duct. Two 4m high ventilation columns would be placed close to the Middle Wharf drop shaft. Three 6m high ventilation columns would be positioned on the river structure above the Heathwall interception chamber to vent different sections of the chamber. Electrical kiosk All electrical and hydraulic control equipment would be housed inside the existing Heathwall Pumping Station building. Paved areas The area around the shaft at Middle Wharf would be finished as hardstanding to allow crane access to the covers on top of the shaft. Thames Water would retain a right of access. Temporary security fencing would be installed when the area is used for shaft access. The Thames Path would be re-routed along the riverside in through Middle Wharf and in front of Heathwall Pumping Station. There would be access gates at each end to temporarily close off the path when operational access is required either through Middle Wharf or to the interception structure in front of Heathwall Pumping Station. The area within the pumping station would be returned to hard-standing to provide continued operational access within the pumping station. New gates would be added to the existing pumping station boundary, to allow access to the hard-standing around the shaft on the adjacent Middle Wharf.
Access and maintenance works

3.2.20 3.2.21 Access to the two interception chambers at Heathwall PS would be via the existing Thames Water access points off Nine Elms Lane. Access to the CSO shaft at Middle Wharf could either be through a gate in the boundary wall between Heathwall PS and Middle Wharf or off Nine Elms direct using either one the two Middle Wharfs access points. Access would be required for a light commercial vehicle on a three to six monthly maintenance schedule. This would be carried out during normal working hours. There would be no aerial lighting.
3.2.22
Page 6
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station 3.2.23
Additionally once every ten years, more significant maintenance work would be carried out. This would be carried out in normal working hours. Two cranes would be required for these visits.
3.3
3.3.1
Construction
The construction works at this site would encompass areas within the Thames Water compound both sides of Heathwall Pumping Station, the whole of the adjacent Middle Wharf site and a section of the river foreshore within a temporary cofferdam. Vol 18 Figure 3.1.1 to Vol 18 Figure 3.1.3 show the demolition and site clearance and construction phasing to be undertaken at the site. The methods, order and timing of the construction work outlined herewith are indicative only, but representative of a practical method to construct the works and suitable upon which to base the PEIR. It is recognised that, following further design development and selection of contractors, alternate methodology and scheduling may be proposed. The following sections describe: a. Construction works including construction of the shaft, tunnel and CSO interception and processes and working methods to be applied b. Access and movement c. Construction programme and working hours
3.3.2
3.3.3
Construction works
3.3.4 The following physical construction works are described: a. Site establishment and clearance (see Vol 18 Figure 3.1.1) b. Shaft construction (see Vol 18 Figure 3.1.2 to Vol 18 Figure 3.1.3) c. Tunnelling (see Vol 18 Figure 3.1.2 to Vol 18 Figure 3.1.3) d. Interception and CSO works (see Vol 18 Figure 3.1.2 to Vol 18 Figure 3.1.3). All works would be undertaken in accordance with the Thames Tunnel Code of Construction Practice (a draft is appended to Volume 2). The Code sets out a series of measures to protect the environment and limit disturbance from construction activities as far as reasonably practicable. These measures would be applied throughout the construction process at this site and any measures relevant to particular phases of construction are highlighted below Early works and site establishment The boundary wall between the Thames Water compound and Middle Wharf would need to be demolished and the Middle Wharf site levelled. Prior to any works commencing the site boundary would be established and secured. Welfare and office facilities would also be set up. River works Interception of the existing outfalls would require the river wall to be permanently realigned and hence a temporary cofferdam would be constructed through the foreshore at the location of the Heathwall PS outfall.
3.3.5 3.3.6
3.3.7
3.3.8 3.3.9
3.3.10
Page 7
3.3.12
3.3.13
3.3.14
3.3.15 3.3.16
3.3.17 3.3.18
3.3.19 3.3.20
3.3.21
3.3.22
3.3.23 3.3.24
A Navigational Risk Assessment would be agreed with the Port of London Authority (PLA) and a Notice to Mariners posted. All relevant licences for the occupation of the requisite site area within the river and the associated River Works Licence would also have been completed. River navigational aids such as lights, signage, dolphins and buoys would be installed. The temporary cofferdam would be constructed by installing a sheet piled wall. The temporary cofferdams would be twin walled with a horizontal support over the existing outfall. A jack up barge would be mobilised to site. For the purpose of this assessment it is assumed that the piles would be driven using silent piling techniques The bulk of the granular material to fill the cofferdam would be delivered to site by barges and unloaded utilising a long reach excavator working within the cofferdam. Shaft construction The main CSO shaft at Middle Wharf would be constructed with a primary lining of precast concrete segmental shaft linings. De-watering wells would be drilled into the Upnor Formation. Approval would be sought from the EA so that extracted ground water can be discharged directly into the River Thames. Extracted water would be sampled on a regular basis to check water quality. Excavated material would be loaded onto HGVs for onward disposal. Shaft construction would use a wet caisson technique. The shaft would be allowed to flood with ground water and excavation would be by excavator with telescopic grab. A constant pressure would be applied to the rams and the shaft evenly excavated. When the rams reach full extension the rams would be retracted and the next ring built. Once the shaft enters the London Clay underpinning techniques would be utilised. A steel reinforced concrete base plug would be formed at the base of the shaft. Prior to tunnelling works commencing a portal would be formed in the shaft lining. The shaft segments at the tunnel eye would be broken out and the eye concreted to stabilise the face. Tunnelling A connection tunnel of 4.5m internal diameter is required to connect the main CSO shaft to the main Thames Tunnel. The tunnel would be approximately 55m long. A second tunnel, of 2.5m internal diameter and 45m long, would be driven at a high level to connect into the intermediate interception shaft. Sprayed concrete lining (SCL) techniques would be used to construct the connection tunnel. Dewatering and ground treatment techniques would be required for tunnel construction. The crawler crane used for shaft construction would also be used to service the shaft during tunnel construction. The higher level 2.5m internal diameter tunnel from the foreshore intermediate shaft would also be constructed using SCL techniques in a similar manner but without the need for dewatering.
Page 8
3.3.26
3.3.27 3.3.28 3.3.29
3.3.30 3.3.31
3.3.32
3.3.33
3.3.34
3.3.35
3.3.36
3.3.37
A heavy duty false work system would be assembled in the main shaft to provide a working platform to construct this connection tunnel. Construction of other structures An interception and valve chamber would be built to intercept the existing outflows from Heathwall Pumping Station. The outfall is a twin box concrete structure below the foreshore. The interception chamber would be constructed over the existing outfall in suitable stages with the flows being maintained whilst sections are blocked off prior to construction and broken out during piling and excavation works. A 6m internal diameter shaft would be constructed adjacent to the outfall within the temporary cofferdam area in a similar manner to the main shaft. Secant piles would be driven to construct the valve chamber walls and connect to the 6m shaft within the cofferdam area. Localised submersible pumps within the chamber would be utilised to manage ground water ingress. The pumps would discharge to existing sewers after being treated through a settlement system. The interception chamber to the Southwest Storm Relief chamber would be constructed in a similar manner. The new access structure on top of the existing outfall chamber would be constructed in reinforced concrete to provide adequate inspection and maintenance. River wall construction On completion of the shaft and connection chambers the permanent river wall would be constructed. The area between the temporary cofferdam and permanent foreshore structure would be excavated. The riverside sheet pile cofferdam would be tied and supported off the permanent sheet wall. Concrete blinding would be installed and then the permanent river wall constructed. The design at this location would be precast concrete panels and an in-situ concrete structural fill between the panels and the steel sheet piles. Only when the permanent river wall is in place would the temporary Cofferdam on the riverside be removed so that the flood protection is maintained. Mechanical and electrical fit-out The penstocks and flap valves would be installed within the chambers prior to the chambers soffits being constructed. When the valve chamber is constructed access ladders and manhole covers would be installed. Electric motors and control systems for the penstocks would be installed and tested. A below ground air filter chamber and associated ducts and ventilation control structures would be built and commissioned. Two ventilation columns would be built by the CSO shaft and a further three on the foreshore interception structure. Control cabinets for operating the penstocks would be positioned within the existing Heathwall Pumping Station building.
Page 9
Access and movement

3.3.38 For the purposes of this report one vehicle movement is defined as a single lorry accessing or leaving the site. For the purposes of construction logistics, site traffic is measured in units of lorries or barges where one lorry/barge is equivalent to a single lorry/barge accessing and then egressing the site The highest lorry movements at the site would occur during shaft sinking works excavation when excavated material would be removed from the site by road. The daily vehicle movements, averaged over a one month period, would be 60 HGV movements per day. The highest barge movements would occur during the cofferdam construction when imported material for the cofferdam would be brought to the site by barge. Peak daily barge movements, averaged over a one month period, would be approximately two barge movements per day. Excavated material from the cofferdam would also be removed by barge after construction. Due to existing below ground infrastructure and the existing pumping station the area of land available for construction activities is restricted. As the site is aligned with the adjacent Kirtling Street site excavated material could be transferred a short distance by road to Kirtling Street for onward disposal. Construction HGVs would take the route of minimum impact to/from the Transport for London Route Network (TLRN). It is envisaged that lorries would access and egress directly to/from the A3205 Nine Elms Lane. As the site is restricted, a number of facilities and storage would be provided at Kirtling Street. There would therefore be some limited traffic movements between the two sites. The site would be serviced via two existing accesses off Nine Elms Lane. Both require widening and the dropped kerb around the eastern access would also need extending to provide sufficient turning space for larger vehicles. A traffic management plan for the site would be prepared.
3.3.39
3.3.40
3.3.41
3.3.42
3.3.43
3.3.44
3.3.45 3.3.46
Reinstatement and commissioning

Once the main elements of construction are completed, the final landscaping works would be undertaken including final treatments and surfaces, planting and installation of street furniture. Testing and commissioning would also be undertaken once construction is complete. For the purposes of the assessment, completion of the commissioning stage represents the end of Construction and the commencement of the Operational development.
3.3.47
Construction programme and working hours

3.3.48 Construction programme Construction at Heathwall Pumping Station is anticipated to take approximately three and a half years and would involve the following steps (with some overlaps): a. Year 1 Site setup (approximately 6 months)
Page 10
3.3.49
b. Year 1 - Shaft construction (approximately 9 months) c. Year 2 - Tunnelling (approximately 5 months) d. Years 2 to 3 Construction of other structures (approximately 26 months) e. Year 3 Completion of works and site restoration (approximately 7 months). f. System-wide commissioning would take place following site restoration and is not included in the above programme. Working hours The following working hours set out in the table below would apply for the construction at this site. Vol 18 Table 3.3.1 Working hours Overall Construction Works Standard Working Hours Consist of: Core Working Hours Mobilisation Period Maintenance and Support Period. 08:00 to 18:00 Weekdays 08:00 to 13:00 Saturdays Up to 1 hour before and after the Core Working Hours 07:00 to 08:00 and 18:00 to 19:00 Weekdays 07:00 to 08:00 and 13:00 to 14:00 Saturday 13:00 to 17:00 Saturdays 10:00 to 16:00 Sundays
Core working hours Mobilisation period
Maintenance and support period
Extended standard working These are intermittent and are required hours to cover certain construction activities that require more than the standard working hours to be completed. 18.00 to 22.00 Weekdays 13.00 to 17.00 Saturdays Connection Tunnel Excavation Continuous Working 24 Hour working. Monday to Friday. Limited duration.
3.4
3.4.1
Design development and on site alternatives

The design presented here was completed in advance of the completion of all surveys and technical studies. The final design may alter significantly in response to this as well as feedback from phase two consultation. The design of the proposals has developed since phase one consultation
3.4.2
Page 11
as described in the table below. Vol 18 Table 3.4.1 Design development at Heathwall Design development New area of permanent hardstanding projecting into the river foreshore. Reason To provide sufficient area for the construction of below-ground structures to intercept the Heathwall Pumping Station CSO. Creation of a new area of riverside public realm Local policy aspirations and the Design Council CABE comments to improve access to the River Thames. Use of weathered steel material to acknowledge the industrial history of the area
Potential opening up of the Thames Path
Finish material of the hard surfaces
3.4.3
3.4.4
Further information on how the design has evolved at this site is included in the Design Development Report, which is also available as part of phase two consultation. Design development information, and the reasons for the choice of the final design at this site, including environmental design factors, will also be provided in the ES.
3.5
3.5.1
Base case
The assessment undertaken for this site takes account of relevant development projects which have been submitted or with extant planning permission. The Lee Tunnel and the Thames Tideway Quality Improvement (TTQI) projects (improvement works at Mogden, Beckton, Crossness, Long Reach and Riverside Sewage Treatment Works) will be operational by the time construction of the Thames Tunnel commences. The base case would therefore be the water quality in the Tideway with the TTQI projects and the Lee Tunnel in place. As a result, by 2021 discharge from the two CSOs at the site will be 748,300m3 with 38 spills (Heathwall Pumping Station) and 238,400m3 with 13 spills (South West Storm Relief). Because of the other developments the future environmental conditions within and around this site irrespective of the Thames Tunnel are likely to change. This is termed the base case. The projected spill volumes and spill frequencies for the baseline conditions for the Thames Tunnel (which is with the improvements applied to the STWs, and the Lee Tunnel in place) would still not be a sufficient level of CSO control to meet the UWWTD (see also Volume 2, Section 2.6). Other base case developments also include: a. Battersea Power Station Redevelopment (outline approval for all phases; full for Phase 1). By 2015 it is assumed 15% will be complete; and by 2022 it is assumed that 70% will be complete.
3.5.2
3.5.3
3.5.4
3.5.5
Page 12
b. Development of Tideway Walk has already commenced. It is assumed that by 2015 this will be 66% complete and by 2016 100% complete. c. By 2016/2017 it is assumed that the American Embassy will be 100% complete. d. It is assumed that by 2015 the St James and Nine Elms Pier development of light pontoons for 41 house boats (application submitted) will be complete. e. It is assumed that by 2015 approximately 30% of the Nine Elms Parkside mixed use redevelopment of the Royal Mail sorting office (for which an application has been submitted) will be complete, with approximately 40% by 2020, and approximately 60% complete by 2022.
Page 13
Section 4: Air quality
4 4.1
4.1.1
Air quality and odour Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant air quality and odour effects at the Heathwall Pumping Station site. The proposed development has the potential to affect air quality and odour due to: a. Construction traffic on the road (air quality). b. Temporary closure of lanes during construction (air quality). c. Emissions from barges (air quality). d. Emissions from plant (air quality). e. Construction-generated dust (air quality). f. Operation of the tunnel (odour). Each of these is considered within the assessment. This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment, and sets out what will be provided in the ES when the full assessment is available. Operational air quality effects from transport have been scoped out of the assessment due to the very limited number of maintenance visits required and hence the low number of vehicular movements.
4.1.2
4.1.3
4.1.4
4.2
4.2.1
Proposed development
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to air quality and odour are as follows.
Construction
4.2.2 Road traffic During the proposed construction period, there would be road traffic movements in and out of the site in addition to the movement of materials by barge. The highest number of lorry movements at the Heathwall Pumping Station site would occur during shaft construction. The peak number of vehicle movements at that time would be 60 lorry movements per day averaged over a one month period. The construction traffic routes for the key material supply stages, traffic management and access to the site are detailed in Section 12 of this volume. River barges It is anticipated that approximately 90% of cofferdam fill material would be transported by barge with a mooring area for barges of up to 350t capacity to the east of the site. The peak number of barge movements would be two barge movements a day averaged over a one month period. Construction plant There are a number of items of plant to be used on site that may produce emissions that could affect local air quality.
4.2.3
4.2.4
4.2.5
4.2.6
Page 14
4.2.7
4.2.8
4.2.9
4.2.10
4.2.11
4.2.12
Construction dust Activities with the potential to give rise to dust emissions from the proposed development during construction are as follows: a. Site preparation and establishment. b. Demolition of existing infrastructure and buildings (not significant at this site). c. Materials handling. The potential for these processes to impact at sensitive receptors is dependent on many factors including the following: a. Location of the construction site. b. Proximity of sensitive receptors. c. Extent of demolition. d. Extent of any intended excavation. e. Nature, location and size of stockpiles and length of time they are on site. f. Occurrence and scale of dust generating activities; necessity for onsite concrete crusher or cement batcher. g. Number and type of vehicles and plant required on site. h. Potential for dirt or mud to be made airborne through vehicle movements. i. Weather conditions. Appropriate dust and emission control measures are included in the draft CoCP in accordance with the London Councils Best Practice Guidance. Measures incorporated into the CoCP to reduce air quality impacts include measures in relation to vehicle and plant emissions, measures to reduce dust formation and resuspension, measures to control dust present and to reduce particulate emissions. These would be observed across all phases of demolition and construction. Operation A below ground chamber with an above ground ventilation column would be constructed at the Heathwall Pumping Station site to release air from the tunnel. The chamber would house the odour control unit (OCU) comprising a passive carbon filter that would treat 1m3/s. The maximum air release rate during a typical year is expected to be 0.6m3/s, which is well within the capacity of the OCU. Air would be released from the vent column for 20 hours in the typical year scenario, all of which would have passed through the OCU. For the remaining hours, no air would be released. Information on the ventilation structure provided input data to the dispersion model used to assess odour dispersion at the site.
4.3
4.3.1
Assessment methodology Scoping and engagement

Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. All consultee comments relevant to this site are presented in the table below.
Page 15
Vol 18 Table 4.3.1 Air quality and odour stakeholder engagement Organisation LB Wandsworth Comment Monitoring locations Response Locations agreed with Environmental Health Officer. No odour complaints confirmed by Env Team Leader (Environmental Initiatives).
Odour complaints
Baseline
4.3.2 The baseline methodology follows the standard methodology described in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.
Construction
4.3.3 The construction phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology described in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.
Operation
4.3.4 The operational phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology described in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.
Assumptions and limitations

4.3.5 For the purposes of this assessment it has been assumed that background odour concentrations are negligible as there have been no complaints recorded in the surrounding area over recent years. This assumption will be supported by baseline hydrogen sulphide monitoring currently being undertaken at all sites (in August 2011 with repeat monitoring to be undertaken in autumn 2011).
4.4
Baseline conditions Local air quality

Pollutant concentrations The current conditions with regard to local air quality are best established through long-term air quality monitoring. As part of their duties under Part IV of the Environment Act 1995 , local authorities, especially in urban areas where air quality is a significant issue, undertake long-term air quality monitoring within their administrative areas. One site from the London Borough (LB) of Wandsworth diffusion tube survey collects data pertinent to the Heathwall Pumping Station site and associated construction traffic routes. A second site (continuous site) within LB Lambeth is also considered pertinent to the Heathwall Pumping Station site and associated construction traffic routes. The NO2 monitoring data are detailed in Vol 18 Table 4.4.1 and the PM10 monitoring data are given in Vol 18 Table 4.4.2 for the years 2007 to 2010.
4.4.1 4.4.2
4.4.3
Page 16
Vol 18 Table 4.4.1 Air quality measured NO2 concentrations Monitoring Site Site Type Annual Mean (g/m3) Number of Exceedances of Hourly Standard
2010* 2009 2008 2007 2010* 2009 2008 2007 Roadside 77 77X 83 82+ 17 12X 38 30+
Continuous Monitoring Sites Bondway Interchange (LB5)
Diffusion Tube Monitoring Sites Newton Prep Roadside School (W3) 53 59 67 64 NM
* 2010 data not fully ratified. NM indicates not measured. + Data capture for 2007 was 39%. X Data capture for 2009 was 88%. Emboldened figures indicate an exceedance of the objective / limit value which is 40g/m3 for the annual mean and 200g/m3 for the hourly mean which can be exceeded 18 times per year.
4.4.4
The NO2 monitoring at both sites indicates exceedances of the annual mean NO2 standard (40g/m3) over the last four years. The hourly standard (which cannot be assessed at the diffusion tube site) shows an exceedance in 2007 and 2008 at the Bondway Interchange site. Vol 18 Table 4.4.2 Air quality measured PM10 concentrations Site Type Annual Mean (g/m3) Number of Exceedances of Daily Standard
Monitoring Site Bondway Interchange (LB5)
2010 2009 2008 2007 2010 2009 2008 2007 Roadside 43*,O 42X 52 67+ 76*,O 71X 160 211+
* 2010 data not fully ratified. + As annual data capture is only 85%, the 90th percentile for the purpose of assessing against the daily mean has been presented instead of the number of exceedances. X Data capture for 2009 only 85%. O Data capture for 2009 only 78%. NM indicates not measured.
4.4.5
4.4.6
4.4.7
The PM10 monitoring indicates that the annual mean standard (40g/m3) was exceeded in 2010 and in the previous three years. The daily objective (more than 35 exceedances of the daily standard) was also exceeded in all four years. It is however noted that data capture at this site has been below 90% in every year except 2008. As a result of previous exceedances of air quality objectives, LB Wandsworth has declared the whole borough an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) for NO2 and PM10. The neighbouring Borough, LB Lambeth, has declared the northern part of its Borough as an AQMA for NO2. In addition to the local authority monitoring, diffusion tube monitoring has been set up as part of the project to monitor NO2 concentrations in the vicinity of the Heathwall Pumping Station site. This monitoring comprises seven diffusion tubes based at the locations detailed in the table below. All identified existing and new sites relating to the Heathwall Pumping
Page 17
Station site (as well as other sites where they are in close proximity) are shown in Vol 18 Figure 4.4.1. Vol 18 Figure 4.4.1 Air quality - monitoring sites (see Volume 18 Figures document) Vol 18 Table 4.4.3 Air quality - additional monitoring locations in LB Wandsworth Monitoring Site Nine Elms Lane (Nine Elms 1) Nine Elms Lane (Nine Elms 2) Cringle Street (Nine Elms 3) Kirtling Street (Nine Elms 4) Nine Elms Lane (Nine Elms 5) Battersea Park Road A3205 (Nine Elms 6) Battersea Park Road A3205 (Nine Elms 7) 4.4.8 Grid Reference 529838, 177749 529448, 177499 529325, 177446 529242, 177391 529333, 177371 529138, 177243 528971, 177144
4.4.9
This monitoring will be used in conjunction with existing local authority monitoring to provide the baseline situation and also provide input to model verification. A full baseline will be reported in the ES. In addition to monitoring data, an indication of baseline pollutant concentrations in the vicinity of the site can also be obtained from looking at background data on the air quality section of the Defra website where mapped background pollutant concentrations are available for each 1km by 1km grid square within every local authoritys administrative area for the years 2008 to 2020 1. The background data relating to the Heathwall Pumping Station site are given in the table below for 2010 (baseline year). Vol 18 Table 4.4.4 Air quality background pollutant concentrations Pollutant NOX (g/m3) NO2 (g/m3) PM10 (g/m3) 2010 54.8 33.1 21.0
* Annual mean for 1km grid square centred on 529500, 177500
4.4.10
Receptors The Heathwall Pumping Station site is located in a mixed use area comprising commercial, offices, industrial uses, residential properties and moorings. The closest existing residential receptors are the house boats located within 10m of the site. The nearest offices are located to the east of the site along the riverside in Nine Elms Lane 50m from the site boundary. Industrial premises are located to the west of the site adjacent to the site boundary, with commercial properties to the south of the site 25m from the site boundary. By the time construction is due to take place at the Heathwall Pumping Station site, it is assumed that there will be residential development at Tideway Walk, Nine Elms Pier, Nine Elms
Page 18
4.4.11
Parkside and Battersea Power Station as well as the American Embassy development. The residential properties at the Tideway Walk and Nine Elms Parkway developments may be within 10m of the site boundary. All these receptors are relevant, albeit to different levels of sensitivity, to the emissions sources identified in the local air quality assessment. The sensitivity of identified receptors has been determined using the criteria detailed in Volume 5 this identifies their sensitivity in relation to both local air quality and dust nuisance, as shown in the table below. These receptors are relevant to the assessment of emissions from construction road traffic, river barges and construction plant, as well as the assessment of construction dust. Vol 18 Table 4.4.5 Air quality receptors - construction Receptors (relating to all identified emissions sources) Residential properties and moorings Value/sensitivity and justification Exposure relevant to annual, daily and hourly mean standards. Directly affected by construction traffic. High sensitivity to local air quality. Medium sensitivity to dust nuisance. Occupational locations not including public exposure are not relevant for the air quality standards, so have low sensitivity to local air quality. Medium sensitivity to dust nuisance. Occupational locations not including public exposure are not relevant for the air quality standards, so have low sensitivity to local air quality. Low sensitivity to dust nuisance.
Commercial/office premises
Industrial premises
Odour
4.4.12 The LB Wandsworth has not received any odour complaints in the Heathwall Pumping Station area 2. No complaints have been recorded in the Thames Water odour database within an area of 500m radius from the site during the last five years. The nearest sensitive receptors are described in paras. 4.4.10 to 4.4.11 above. For the purposes of the odour assessment, the sensitivity of these receptors has been determined in accordance with the criteria in Volume 5 which indicates that the residential properties are of high sensitivity while the commercial/office and industrial premises are of medium sensitivity. The users of the river are of low sensitivity. The odour receptors include the proposed developments at Tideway Walk, Nine Elms Pier, Nine Elms Parkside, Battersea Power Station and the American Embassy development
4.4.13
Page 19
4.5
4.5.1
Construction assessment Construction base and development cases

The peak construction year is used as the year of assessment for construction effects (road transport, river barges, construction plant and construction dust) in which the development case will be assessed against the base case to identify likely significant effects for the Thames Tunnel project. The base case conditions for the construction assessment year will change from the current conditions due to modifications to the sources of the air pollution in the intervening period. For road vehicles, there will be a change in the penetration of new Euro standards to the fleet composition between the current situation and the future peak construction year. The uptake of newer vehicles with improved emission controls should lead to a reduction in existing NO2 and PM10 concentrations. However, the uptake of newer vehicles has not improved NO2 concentrations greatly in the last ten years in London, so as a worst case the NOx contribution from diesel vehicles was assumed to be the same for Euro 1 to 5 vehicles in line with Defra advice 3. Reduced emission factors from the introduction of Euro 6 diesel vehicles in the future will reduce the base case concentrations when compared to the 2010 baseline. Other emissions sources should also reduce due to local and national policies. Therefore, the non-road sources of the background concentrations used in the modelling will be reduced in line with Defra guidance LAQM.TG(09) 4. The base case will also consider new sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the site which are identified in the receptor description in Section 4.4.
4.5.2
4.5.3
4.5.4
4.5.5
Construction assessment area

4.5.6 The assessment area for the local air quality study covers a square area of 600m by 600m centred on the Heathwall Pumping Station site. This assessment area is used for the assessment of road transport, construction plant and construction dust and has been selected on the basis of professional judgement to ensure that the effects of the Heathwall Pumping Station site are fully assessed. A distance of 200m is generally considered sufficient to ensure that any significant effects are considered the selected assessment area exceeds this by some margin.
Construction effects
4.5.7 Emissions from road traffic Road traffic is likely to affect local air quality in two ways: from emissions from the construction traffic; and from enhanced emissions from other road vehicles due to congestion or re-routing due to lane closures. A qualitative assessment of road traffic effects has been undertaken for this assessment. When traffic surveys are complete, a more detailed quantitative assessment using air quality modelling will be undertaken, the findings of which will be reported in the ES. Based on professional judgement for the purposes of this assessment, it is however predicted that the impacts due to construction traffic are expected
Page 20
4.5.8
4.5.9
4.5.10
4.5.11 4.5.12
4.5.13
4.5.14
4.5.15
4.5.16
4.5.17
4.5.18
4.5.19
to be small (ie, small magnitude of change according to the criteria detailed in Volume 5) due to the low number of additional lorries during construction in the context of the existing traffic flows on the local road network. Given that the residential properties have a high sensitivity to local air quality (as identified in Section 4.4), the likely significance of the effect of construction traffic is a minor adverse effect (according to the criteria detailed in Volume 5). At the commercial/office and industrial premises, which have low sensitivity to local air quality, the significance of effect would be negligible. Emissions from river barges River barges are only expected likely to affect local air quality through direct emissions from the tugs pulling them. During the peak construction year for the Heathwall Pumping Station site, a peak monthly average of two barge movements per day is predicted. However, data regarding the river barges and the operation of these barges are still being gathered and so modelling has not yet been possible for the assessment (but will be completed for inclusion in the ES). Based on professional judgement for the purposes of the assessment, it is noted that the impacts due to barge emissions are expected to be negligible (ie, negligible magnitude of change according to the criteria detailed in Volume 5) due to the low number of barges required during construction. At all receptors the likely significance of the barge emissions on local air quality is a negligible effect (according to the criteria in Volume 5). Emissions from plant Construction plant is likely to affect local air quality in two ways: from direct exhaust emissions; and from construction dust associated with the use and movement of the plant around the site. Emission factors are being assigned to each item of plant. More data are being gathered regarding the operation of these items of plant in terms of expected usage through the construction phase. A qualitative assessment has been undertaken for this assessment. Modelling is currently being undertaken, the findings of which will be reported in the ES. Based on professional judgement for the purposes of this assessment, it is noted that the impacts due to construction plant are expected to be small (ie, small magnitude of change according to the criteria in Volume 5), given the localised nature of the emissions (ie, emissions are only generated on the construction site). Compared to the traffic flows in the surrounding area, the amount of plant and their emissions are likely to have a negligible impact. Given that the residential properties have a high sensitivity to local air quality (as identified in Section 4.4), the likely significance of the effect of construction plant is a minor adverse effect (according to the criteria detailed in Volume 5). At the commercial/office and industrial premises, which have low sensitivity to local air quality, the significance of effect would be negligible.
Page 21
4.5.20 4.5.21
4.5.22
4.5.23
4.5.24 4.5.25
4.5.26
4.5.27
4.5.28
4.5.29
Construction dust Construction dust would be generated from both on-site activities and from road vehicles accessing and servicing the site. Dust sensitive receptors have been identified in the vicinity of the Heathwall Pumping Station site in accordance with Volume 5, as described in Vol 18 Table 4.4.5. In line with the London Councils guidance 5, the site has been categorised using the criteria given in Volume 5 which takes into account the area taken up by the development and the potential impact of the development on sensitive receptors close to the development. The specific site details relating to the site with respect to the criteria set are: a. Site would have a maximum construction area of approximately 9,000m2. b. The project is a non-residential development. c. Main construction at the site would last approximately three years. d. There are likely intermittent impacts on identified sensitive receptors. On this basis, the development has been classified as a medium risk site. Apart from the industrial premises (which are categorised as low), the receptor sensitivity for all receptors is identified as medium (as identified in Section 4.4). The closest residential receptors during construction are likely to be in the house boats and new Tideway Walk and Nine Elms Parkside developments. These receptors would be within 10m of the site boundary, so the likely significance of the effect of construction dust is deemed to be a moderate adverse effect (according to the criteria detailed in Volume 5). The industrial and commercial/office receptors, which are between 10m and 50m from the site boundary, are all likely to see minor adverse effects (according to Volume 5). These effects would be reduced by the implementation of the measures contained in the CoCP (see Section 4.2). This would result in a minor adverse effect at the residential properties and negligible effects at all other receptors. Overall construction effects When considering the overall local air quality construction effects (ie, effects from construction road traffic, river barges and plant), it is concluded that the overall significance of effects is likely to be minor adverse at the residential properties, and negligible at the commercial/office and industrial premises. With regards to construction dust, the likely significance of effects is minor adverse for residential receptors within 10m of the site boundary and negligible at all other receptors. On this basis no significant construction effects are predicted.
4.6
4.6.1
Operational assessment Operational base and development cases

The assessment undertaken for a typical use year (as described in Volume 5) applies equally to all operational years.
Page 22
Base and development cases have been developed for modelling purposes. Base case conditions have been assumed to be the same as current conditions as no change in background odour concentrations is anticipated. Receptors considered (in both the base and development cases) include the new developments identified in Section 4.4.
Operational assessment area

4.6.3 Odour dispersion modelling was carried out over an area of 850m by 650m to cover both the Kirtling Street and Heathwall Pumping Station sites. The assessment area was selected on the basis of it being considered the potential maximum extent of the impact area.
Operational effects
4.6.4 Vol 18 Table 4.6.1 shows the predicted maximum ground level odour concentrations at the Heathwall Pumping Station site. These are the highest concentrations that could occur at the worst affected ground level receptor at or near the site. In accordance with the odour criterion set up by the Environment Agency and in the draft NPS 6, results are presented for the 98th percentile of hourly average concentrations in the year (or the 176th highest concentration in the year)and the number of hours in a year with concentrations above 1.5ouE/m3. The number of hours with concentrations above 1.5ouE/m3 gives an indication of the number of hours in a year that an odour might be detectable at the worst affected receptor. The table also identifies the magnitude of the identified impacts in accordance with the criteria detailed in Volume 5. Vol 18 Table 4.6.2 gives similar results for the predicted impacts at the worst affected buildings, where concentrations at ground level and at height have been considered. Vol 18 Table 4.6.1 Air quality odour impacts at ground level operation Year Typical Maximum locations* at ground 0 12 level Impact magnitude and justification Negligible 98th percentile concentration is less than 1ouE/m3
98th percentile (ouE/m3) No. of hours > 1.5ouE/m3
* beyond site boundary
Vol 18 Table 4.6.2 Air quality odour impacts at buildings - operation Year Typical Maximum at buildings* 98th percentile (ouE/m3) No. of hours > 1.5ouE/m3 4.6.5 0 0 Impact magnitude and justification Negligible 98th percentile concentration is less than 1ouE/m3
* beyond site boundary In both tables above, the 98th percentile is shown as zero as the number of hours with air released from the vent would be less than 176 and therefore
Page 23
4.6.6
4.6.7
the 98th percentile concentration would be zero at all locations, thus achieving the odour criterion at all locations. This represents an impact of negligible magnitude. The highest concentrations are predicted to occur close to the vent. No odour would be detectable at buildings, including the proposed Tideway Walk and Nine Elms Parkside residential developments. With regard to the significance of effects at ground level and building locations, given that the predicted odour concentrations at all locations and at buildings do not exceed the 98th percentile criterion of 1.5ouE/m3, it is considered that an overall significance effects would be negligible in relation to the Heathwall Pumping Station site. No significant effects are therefore predicted in relation to odour.
4.7
4.7.1
Approach to mitigation Construction

All measures embedded in the draft CoCP of relevance to air quality and odour are summarised in Section 4.2. No mitigation is required.
Operation
4.7.2 No mitigation is required.
Page 24
4.8
Vol 18 Table 4.8.1 Air quality construction assessment Effect Minor adverse None required Significance Mitigation Residual significance Minor adverse
Assessment summary
Receptor
Residential
Local air quality effects from construction road traffic and plant emissions Minor adverse Negligible None required None required
Effects from construction dust
Minor adverse Negligible
Commercial/offices
Local air quality effects from construction road traffic and plant emissions Negligible Negligible None required None required
Negligible Negligible
Industrial
Local air quality effects from construction road traffic and plant emissions Negligible
None required
Negligible
Page 25
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Vol 18 Table 4.8.2 Odour operational assessment Effect Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible None required None required None required None required Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Significance Mitigation Residual significance
Receptor
Residential
Odour
Commercial/offices
Odour
Industrial
Odour
River users
Odour
Page 26
Section 4: Air quality and odour
4.9
4.9.1
Assessment completion
The following work is required in order to complete the local air quality and odour assessment for the Heathwall Pumping Station site: a. Diffusion tube monitoring has been set up at seven sites to monitor NO2 concentrations in the vicinity of the Heathwall Pumping Station site. This monitoring will be used to provide a baseline to the assessment and as an input for model verification. b. For the assessment of road transport emissions, air quality modelling will be undertaken to predict the effects on local air quality. c. Further information is being collected in relation to the types of barges being used and the most appropriate emission factors to use. These data will then be input into the model in order to predict the effects of barges on local air quality. d. The nature, quantities and operation of the construction plant are being finalised. The appropriate emission factors would then be applied to the plant in order to initialise the modelling work. These models will then be run and the effects of construction plant on local air quality predicted. e. The assessment of cumulative and in combination effects will be undertaken and reported in the ES. f. Following completion of the assessment the mitigation approaches for air quality and odour within the project will be finalised and reported in the ES.
Page 27
Section 5: Ecology - aquatic
5 5.1
5.1.1
Ecology - aquatic Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant aquatic ecology effects at the Heathwall Pumping Station site. For the purposes of the assessment of the Thames Tunnel scheme aquatic ecology includes plants and animals that live in and depend on the tidal Thames and its tidal tributaries (known collectively as the Thames Tideway). In relation to the Heathwall Pumping Station site, the topic includes the marine mammals, fish, invertebrates and algae which occur in the Thames Tideway in the vicinity of the site. Animals, plants and habitats which occur above the mean high water level are assessed in Terrestrial Ecology (Section 6). Waterfowl, including those which occur on the Thames Tideway are also included under Terrestrial Ecology. Further details of the scope of the assessment are provided in Volume 5.
5.1.2
5.2
5.2.1
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to aquatic ecology are as follows. Construction The elements of construction relevant to this assessment are: a. The installation of temporary and permanent sheet piling to create cofferdams on the foreshore for the CSO interception works, and subsequent removal of the temporary cofferdams; b. The placement and removal of a temporary barge grid/campshed on the foreshore outside the cofferdams, suitable for a 350t barge; c. Associated regular barge movements (two barge movements per day peak monthly average) and resting on the barge grid/campshed; and d. The presence of a jack-up barge on the foreshore to install the cofferdams. Measures incorporated into the draft Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) to reduce aquatic ecology impacts include the following elements, which are considered to be an integral part of the project for the purposes of this assessment: a. Avoiding piling at night, to ensure noise-free periods when fish can undertake migrations past the site within each 24-hour period; b. Limiting allowable increases in noise and vibration levels at the midpoint of the navigable channel to leave part of the river cross-section passable by fish species at all times; c. Undertaking in-river cofferdam/piling works at or around low tide where possible to avoid transmission of noise and vibration through the water column; d. Utilising low noise/vibration cofferdam or pile/pier installation techniques, such as pressing or vibro-piling rather than impact/percussive piling. Where vibro-piling is used, slowly increasing the power of the driving over a 5-minute period would enable those
5.2.2
5.2.3
Page 28
5.2.4
fish or marine mammals in the vicinity to leave the area before the full power of the pile driver was achieved. This is known as a soft-start procedure; e. Where predictions indicate that best practice limits would not be achievable, confining as much of the underwater noise generating activities as possible to outside peak fish migration periods should be considered; f. Appropriate measures would be taken to prevent the spread of nonnative invasive species in accordance with current good practice; and g. Avoidance of pollution of the river. EA approval would be required for works which would be likely to affect any surface or groundwater resource. Discharge to watercourses would only be permitted where discharge consent or other relevant approval has been obtained. Measures to avoid pollution would accord with the principles set out in industry guidelines, including the EAs note PPG05: Works in, near or liable to affect water courses and CIRIAs report C532: Control of water pollution from construction sites. Operation The elements of operation relevant to this assessment are: a. Permanent landtake from the intertidal foreshore; and b. Discharges from the Heathwall Pumping Station CSO and South West Storm Relief CSO would be intercepted as part of the project. Based on the base case (which includes permitted Thames Tideway sewage treatment works upgrades and the Lee Tunnel scheme), discharges from the Heathwall Pumping Station CSO are anticipated to increase to 748,300m3 per annum over 38 spills. With the Thames Tunnel scheme in place, discharges are projected to reduce to 62,500m3 (ie, a 92% reduction) over four spills. Discharges from South West Storm Relief CSO are anticipated to increase to 238,400m3 per annum over 13 spills. With the Thames Tunnel scheme in place, discharges are projected to reduce to 3,900m3 (ie, a 98% reduction) over one spill.
5.3
5.3.1

Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. The selection of Heathwall Pumping Station as a preferred site post-dates the Scoping Report, so no specific responses of relevance to aquatic ecology were received for this site. The site this is replacing (Tideway Walk, which included part of the Kirtling Street site) was included in the Scoping Report but no specific responses on aquatic ecology were received for that site.
Baseline
5.3.2 Details of the approach to baseline data collection and assessment of sites are described in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site. Details of the background data sets are provided in Volume 5. Invertebrate data is available from the Environment Agency for Battersea, which is 350m upstream of Heathwall Pumping Station CSO and is the
Page 29
5.3.3
5.3.4
nearest EA site. Environment Agency fish data is available for Vauxhall but only for the early 1990s. Although the EA sampling sites are remote from the discharge point, the fish and invertebrate communities they reflect are considered to be representative of this section of the upper Tideway, and therefore they provide a robust baseline. Existing algal data has been requested and will be assessed and reported in the ES.
Construction
5.3.5 The methodology for assessing construction effects is described in Volume 5. There are no deviations from the standard assessment methodology.
Operation
5.3.6 The methodology for assessing operational effects is described in Volume 5. There are no deviations from the standard assessment methodology.

5.3.7 It has been assumed that: a. A frame barge grid would be used during construction rather than a solid concrete campshed and that only limited removal of sediment would be required to install it; and b. The area between the outer edge of the temporary cofferdams and the maximum extent of working area would be subject to disturbance and compaction. At this stage, the extent of the works footprint outside of the cofferdams ie, barge movements and sediment compaction and disturbance, is assumed to be likely to have a low impact.
5.4
5.4.1
Baseline conditions Designations

Heathwall Pumping Station falls within the River Thames and Tidal Tributaries Site of Metropolitan Importance (Site Reference: M31). The designation, adopted by all Boroughs which border the Thames, recognises the range and quality of estuarine habitats including mud flat, shingle beach, reedbeds and the river channel itself. The river supports over 120 species of fish, though many of these are only occasional visitors. The more common species include dace (Leuciscus leuciscus), common bream (Abramis brama) and roach (Rutilus rutilus) in the freshwater reaches, and sand-smelt (Atherina presbyter), flounder (Platichtyhys flesus) and Dover sole (Solea solea) in the estuarine reaches. Important migratory species include twaite shad (Alosa fallax), European eel (Anguilla anguilla), smelt (Osmerus eperlanus), salmon (Salmo salar) and sea trout (S. trutta). A number of nationally rare snails occur, including the brackish water snail Pseudamnicola confusa, and an important assemblage of wetland and wading birds. The Tidal Thames is also the subject of a Habitat Action Plan under the London Biodiversity Action Plan 7. The Habitat Action Plan identifies a number of flagship habitats and species which characterise the estuary, such as gravel foreshore, mudflat and saltmarsh. A number of these habitats and species, including mudflat, are also the subject of action plans under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan.
Page 30
5.4.2
Habitats
5.4.3 The river is divided into three zones within the Tidal Thames Habitat Action Plan: freshwater, brackish and marine. The boundary between the freshwater and brackish zone lies within Lambeth, at Vauxhall Bridge (Vol 6 Figure 3.4.1). The Heathwall Pumping Station site therefore lies in the freshwater zone. Mud is exposed at low tide at Heathwall Pumping Station. The foreshore at this site comprises the UK Biodiversity Action Plan priority habitat mudflats according to Natureonthemap.org.uk. Natural England (2011). The river is confined by a vertical river wall. There is no marginal, or high tide vegetation although the vertical river wall supports communities of macro- and microalgae. However, further survey of wall vegetation communities were undertaken during spring 2011. This data will be analysed and reported in the ES. The shallow river margins at lower tidal levels, which shift across the intertidal foreshore with the ebb and flood of the tides, provide an important migration route for juvenile fish along the estuarine corridor. The young of species such as eel (known as glass eels or elvers), flounder, dace and smelt rely upon access to these areas of lower water velocity to avoid being washed out by tides and to avoid predation by the larger fish that occur in deeper water. Migrants of larger fish tend to use faster mid-channel routes. Young fish also feed predominantly amongst the intertidal habitat. There was a large area of gravel foreshore exposed at the time of the survey (low tide) within the limits of the survey site. Substrate within this area was dominated by pebbles, with some cobbles, but some small areas were dominated by sand and silt. Target habitats present included sublittoral sands and gravels and the river wall. Following the survey methodology, a summary of habitat types present, and other features of interest are presented in the table below. Vol 18 Table 5.4.1 Aquatic ecology habitat and substrate at Tideway Walk Target habitats present and features of interest Gravel foreshore Sublittoral sand and gravels River wall Substrate present in intertidal zone (approximate cover) Pebbles (70%) Silt (15%) Sand, cobbles (15%) Substrate present in subtidal samples Sand Silt Gravel
5.4.4
5.4.5
5.4.6
5.4.7
5.4.8
Marine mammals
5.4.9 Records compiled by the Zoological Society of London for 2003 2011 indicate that harbour porpoise, bottlenose dolphin and various seal species (grey and common) migrate through the Tideway. Common seal has been recorded near the Heathwall Pumping Station and South West Storm Relief CSOs.
Page 31
Fish
5.4.10 A single days survey was undertaken at Tideway Walk during October 2010, which is close to Heathwall Pumping Station (see Vol 18 Figure 5.4.1). Vol 18 Figure 5.4.1 Aquatic ecology sampling locations (see Volume 18 Figures document) The survey recorded moderate fish abundance, with 86 individuals captured in total. The range of species recorded and the number of individuals is presented in the table below. This ranked in the middle of the 15 sampling locations along the Thames Tideway. The lowest catch (at Albert Embankment) was of 19 individuals. Seven species were identified, the majority being bream and roach. Fish are routinely categorised into four guilds according to their tolerance to salinity and habitat preference 8;9 which are defined as follows: a. Freshwater Species which spend their complete lifecycle primarily in freshwater b. Estuarine resident Species which remain in the estuary for their complete lifecycle c. Diadromous Species which migrate through the estuary to spawn; d. Marine juvenile Species which spawn at sea but spend part of their lifecycle in the estuary. Vol 18 Table 5.4.2 Aquatic ecology autumn 2010 fish survey Tideway Walk Common name Common bream Roach Common smelt Flounder Dace Sea bass Eel 5.4.12 Specific name Abramis brama Rutilus rutilus Osmerus eperlanus Leuciscus leuciscus Dicentrarchus labrax Anguilla anguilla Number of individuals 34 22 15 Guild Freshwater Freshwater Diadromous Estuarine resident Freshwater Estuarine resident Diadromous
5.4.11
Platichthys flesus 7 4 2 2
The distribution of salinity- sensitive species may shift seasonally and from year-to-year, depending on fluvial inputs, so that community composition can vary. There is relatively high salinity at this mid-Tideway location, which is towards the downstream end of the freshwater zone (Vol 6 Figure 3.4.1), where salinity is relatively close to the tolerance threshold of
Page 32
5.4.13
5.4.14
5.4.15
freshwater species. However, freshwater dace, common bream and roach are known to be present in the Thames Tideway from Teddington to Thamesmead, extending furthest downstream in wetter years. Although only four dace (a freshwater species) were recorded at Tideway Walk in October 2010, Environment Agency (EA) Water Framework Directive (WFD) data obtained during the desk study indicate that adult dace are known to utilise this stretch of river. The site is upstream of favoured areas for marine fish species, which explains the small number of such species other than smelt. Post-larval and juvenile fish of these species are known to move upstream during summer10. Individuals may be present year-round. The EA carry out multi-method surveys of fish within the Thames Tideway once or twice a year in spring and autumn, with data available from 19922010. The EA data for Vauxhall (the nearest EA sampling site) are limited to 1992 and 1993 records of juvenile dace and bass. However, the data collected in the 2010 surveys for this project are likely to be characteristic of this stretch of Tideway. A more comprehensive survey dataset exists for Battersea, located approximately 350m upstream, where EA surveys have been carried out every year from 1983 to 2010. Fifteen fish species are recorded for Battersea. These show fairly steady catches from trawls but some indication of increasing seine-net catches in recent years (see figure below). Catches are dominated by estuarine resident fish such as common goby, flounder and sand-smelt, freshwater species including dace, common bream, perch and roach, and migratory species including eel and smelt. Other migratory species such as salmon and sea trout must pass through the area but are too infrequent to be detected by only one or two surveys per year. These concur well with the more limited Tideway Walk and Vauxhall data and probably give a better view of the overall status of fish populations in the vicinity of the Heathwall Pumping Station site. Vol 18 Figure 5.4.2 Aquatic ecology EA total fish catches from Battersea
Page 33
5.4.16
In general, Thames Tideway fish populations are mobile and wide-ranging, hence any analysis of population data needs to be based on an understanding of the ecological requirements and migratory habits of individual species. Although the abundance and diversity of fish at any one site may provide some indication of the habitat quality offered at that site it is important to consider the data within the context of sites throughout the Thames Tideway, since the factors influencing distribution are likely to be acting at this wider scale.
Invertebrates
5.4.17 Sampling for invertebrates was undertaken in October 2010 at Tideway Walk, close to Heathwall Pumping Station. The area covered by the survey is the same as that described for the fish survey above (para. 5.5.10) and illustrated in Vol 18 Figure 5.4.1. Further details of these methods can be found in Volume 5. Two intertidal and two subtidal samples were taken at each site. Benthic invertebrates are used in the freshwater, estuarine and marine environments as biological indicators of water and sediment quality, since their abundance and distribution reflects natural or man-made fluctuations in environmental conditions. Species diversity is influenced by factors such as substrate and salinity, however, high species diversity (or numbers of species) at any given site generally indicates good water and/or sediment quality, whilst low diversity may indicate poor quality. Whilst the abundance and diversity of invertebrate species at any one site provide a more accurate reflection of conditions at that site than sitespecific fish data, invertebrate populations, particularly those which occur in the water column (pelagic) are nonetheless influenced by conditions over a wider part of the estuary, as a single tide may shift water by up to 13 km. The strongest influences on invertebrate distribution and density tend to be physical factors, such as salinity and substrate type, followed by water quality and local habitat conditions. These factors are discussed below in relation to the site-specific data. The invertebrates collected during the October 2010 field surveys are presented in the table below. Vol 18 Table 5.4.3 Aquatic ecology - invertebrate fauna Subtidal Samples AL1 2 24 1 5 59 750 8 1 85 8 1 AL2 Q 2 Intertidal Samples SW1 SW2 2 22 15 1 650 1000 2 5 42 34 CCI Score
5.4.18
5.4.19
5.4.20
Taxa Theodoxus fluviatilis Potamopyrgus antipodarum (?) Radix balthica Corbicula fluminea Oligochaeta Erpobdella sp.
3 1 1
Page 34
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Erpobdella damaged Erpobdella testacea Crangon crangon Eriocheir sinensis Acorophium lacustre Gammarus zaddachi No Taxa 5.4.21 8 1 2 1 8 5 1
1 17 2 300 97 9 5 4
1? 2 60 300 8
280 350 8
5.4.22
5.4.23
5.4.24 5.4.25
5.4.26
The invertebrate fauna of the Tideway Walk site is characterised by abundant common and pollution tolerant groups (Radix balthica, Oligochaeta, Erpobdella, Potamopyrgus). As at other sites, some moderately pollution sensitve groups were also present (Gammarus sp., Corophium), although the river Nerite (Thedoxus fluviatilis) was much less abundant than other similar sites. There was little significant difference between the different samples taken that might indicate local differences in habitat or water quality. It is important to note that the CSO outfalls present near to this sample site are submerged and discharge towards the central (subtidal) area of the channel. As other sites, all of the taxa present are brackish species or animals that have a varying tolerance to different levels of salinity from estuarine to near freshwater. No obligate freshwater or marine animals were present. The brackish nature of the water is demonstrated by the presence of species such as Gammarus zaddachi (a brackish species of shrimp) and Crangon crangon (shrimps, typical of estuarine and brackish conditions). Other species, such as the asiatic clam (Corbicula fluminea) are only able to survive high levels of salinity for a limited period. The Community Conservation Index (CCI) score (Chadd and Extence, 2004 11) has initially been used to assess whether any species of nature conservation importance are present. None of the species present were of high nature conservation importance, as demonstrated by their CCI scores, with the exception of Acorophium lacustre (CCI 8). It is a RDB 3 species (rare) and was only present in low numbers at the site and mostly limited to subtidal samples. Environment Agency data have shown C. lacustre to be common in the Thames Tideway. As such, we have not used its presence to elevate the relative value of the invertebrate community in this instance. Chinese mitten crab (Eriocheir sinensis) and the Asiatic clam (Corbicula fluminea), invasive species, were sampled at the site. The Heathwall Pumping Station and South West Storm Relief CSOs discharge 450m from the Tideway Walk site, such that the species composition of Tideway Walk will be influenced by the same CSO discharges as Heathwall Pumping Station, making the data comparable. Battersea has been regularly sampled by the Environment Agency since 2005 and it is nearest regular EA sampling site for invertebrates. The five most abundant taxa that have been recorded at Battersea since 2005 are
Page 35
Cochlipidae, Olgochaeta, Potamopyrgus antipodarum, Gammarus zaddachi and Crangon crangon.
Algae
5.4.27 5.4.28 Effects on algae will be assessed and reported in the ES.
Aquatic ecology receptor values and sensitivities

Using the baseline set out in Section 5.4, the value accorded to each receptor considered in this assessment is set out in the table below. The definitions of the different scales of importance used in this evaluation are set out in Volume 5. Vol 18 Table 5.4.4 Aquatic ecology receptors and values/sensitivities Receptor Foreshore habitat (intertidal and subtidal) Mammals Value/sensitivity and justification Medium (Metropolitan) value as part of Tidal Thames Site of Metropolitan Importance. Low (Local) value. Only occasional records of seal exist from the area and very little intertidal habitat is available for use as a haul out site by seals. Medium (Metropolitan) value. Tideway Walk (the closest survey site in 2010) had moderate fish catches. Low-medium (Borough) value. Local diversity and abundance of invertebrates was limited. However, in a Borough context the invertebrate populations are likely to notable. To be undertaken for the ES once baseline data received.
Fish
Invertebrates
Algae
5.5
5.5.1
Construction assessment Construction impacts

The impacts associated with the construction stage of the project (Year 1 to Year 4) are described in the following section and associated table. The definitions of the different magnitudes of impact referred to in this assessment are given in Volume 5. Temporary landtake There would be a total of approximately 280m2 of temporary landtake from intertidal habitats associated with the cofferdams and campshed/ barge grid. The cofferdams would be filled with an imported granular material. The structures would be in place for a total of three years. It is assumed for the purposes of the assessment that reinstatement of the area affected by temporary landtake would involve the removal of the
5.5.2
5.5.3
Page 36
5.5.4
5.5.5
5.5.6
5.5.7
5.5.8
5.5.9 5.5.10
5.5.11
granular material to the surrounding foreshore level. Although the foreshore would re-establish through natural accretion there would be considerable compaction of the surface layers of sediment which may prevent colonisation by invertebrates until new sediment has accreted. Despite the uncertainty over the timescale for natural accretion and thus re-establishment of the habitat, the scale of habitat loss is relatively small (the smallest of all the in river sites) such that the impact of temporary landtake is considered to be negative but of low magnitude. The probability of the impact occurring is considered to be certain. Sediment disturbance and compaction It has been assumed that the area between the outer edge of the cofferdams and the Maximum extent of working area would be subject to disturbance and compaction. At Heathwall Pumping Station this represents an area of approximately 0.2ha outside cofferdams which would be affected by construction activities during the site establishment phase (Year 1 to Year 2). The jack up barge would be operated around the outside of the temporary cofferdams, thus affecting intertidal habitat. Furthermore, the area in the vicinity of the barge grid/campshed is likely to be affected by compaction and disturbance due to barge movements. At Heathwall Pumping Station there would be approximately two barge movements per day at the peak during site establishment. Impacts on the intertidal habitats are considered to be low negative, probable and temporary. This is a provisional assessment, subject to further information regarding the degree of compaction anticipated in this zone. Channel constriction and change to hydrodynamic regime The presence of a temporary cofferdam would partially block channel flow along the intertidal foreshore for three years resulting in a maximum reduction in the width of the intertidal foreshore from 40m to approximately 20m. It is likely that the cofferdam and campshed would impact on scour patterns while in place. Preliminary findings from the hydraulic modelling undertaken for the project indicates that there may be scour around the temporary cofferdams and the piles for the steel platform. These impacts will be assessed and reported in the ES. Waterborne noise and vibration There would be approximately 649m of sheet piling installed for the permanent and temporary cofferdams. Piles would be driven using silent piling techniques, thus limiting the principal source of waterborne noise and vibration impacts. Further measures to limit noise and vibration impacts during the construction stage of the project have been incorporated into the Code of Construction Practice. These are described in para. 5.2.3. There would be additional sources of noise and vibration, including activities associated with construction of the shaft itself and vehicle and barge movements. Although background levels of noise and vibration within the Thames Tideway are likely to be moderately high due to existing boat movements, and ground-propagated noise from transport systems,
Page 37
5.5.12
5.5.13
5.5.14
5.5.15
the proximity of the works to the river and their scale means that underwater noise and vibration levels are likely to be elevated locally during construction. Noise and vibration have the potential to cause physical damage to fish (in extreme cases), and disrupt behaviour and movement. However, in this case, given the piling techniques proposed and the extent of the works relative to the width of the channel this is considered to be a low negative impact, probable and temporary. Increase in suspended sediment loads Construction of the barge grid, piling operations, and barge movements are likely to lead to localised increases in suspended sediment with the potential to affect local and downstream habitats. As stated in para. 5.5.8, it is likely that the cofferdams and campsheds would impact on scour patterns while in place. This may result in the mobilisation of increased levels of suspended solids into the river. Background levels of suspended sediments in the Thames Tideway are relatively high, and increases associated with the project are unlikely to be significant, except on a localised basis. Impacts are considered to be low negative, probable and temporary. Measures and safeguards to minimise the risk of accidental releases of silty or contaminated discharges to the Thames Tideway are included in the Code of Construction Practice. No impacts from polluted discharges are anticipated provided with these control measures and safeguards in place. Vol 18 Table 5.5.1 Aquatic ecology impacts and magnitudes during construction Impact Loss of approximately 280m of intertidal habitat through the construction of temporary cofferdam and the placement of a temporary barge grid/campshed in the subtidal outside the cofferdams. Disturbance and compaction of intertidal and subtidal sediments, due to barge movements.
2
Magnitude Low negative, since despite the long period for re-establishment the scale of loss is one of the smallest for all the in-river sites. Temporary. Certain. Low negative impact for intertidal habitat and for subtidal, due to existing scour. Temporary. Probable To be assessed and confirmed in the ES
Constriction of channel and change to hydrodynamic regime, due to structures in the intertidal and subtidal areas. Potential for increases in velocity which may interfere with fish movements. Waterborne noise and vibration arising from the installation of temporary and permanent sheet
Low negative, due to proposed silent piling methods and control measures.
Page 38
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Impact piling and subsequent removal of temporary piling. This has potential to cause damage to fish and disrupt fish movements. Increase in suspended sediment loads, due to construction activity, piling operations and barge movements. Potential for smothering of downstream habitats and reduced water quality.
Section 5: Ecology - aquatic Magnitude Temporary. Probable.
Low negative, due to relatively high background levels of sediment. Temporary. Probable.
5.5.16 The following section describes the effects of these impacts on aquatic ecology based on the significance criteria set out in Volume 5. Effects of the project may also be detectable at the whole Thames Tideway level. These effects are discussed in Volume 6. Habitats Loss of intertidal and subtidal habitat due to temporary landtake There would be a temporary loss of approximately 280m2 of intertidal habitat through cofferdams, and approximately 420m2 of intertidal habitat due to presence of a campshed. The intrinsic value of the habitats (ie,, the value of the habitat as an ecological feature in itself rather than simply in terms of the support it provides for fauna) in this area is considered to be relatively good and they are considered to be of Metropolitan importance as part of the tidal Thames. However, the impact is considered to be low due to the small amount and proportion of foreshore affected. The effect is considered to be minor adverse. Disturbance and compaction of intertidal and subtidal habitat There would be disturbance and compaction of approximately 0.2ha outside the cofferdam during the site establishment phase due to the presence of a jack up barge to install the temporary cofferdams. Habitats within this zone are expected to recover within the short term (less than 12 months) following site establishment. Coupled with the Medium (Metropolitan) intrinsic value of the habitat the effect is considered to be minor adverse due to the low magnitude of the impact. Marine mammals Interference with the migrations of marine mammals within the Tideway Noise, vibration and other construction activity has the potential to disturb mammals and deter them from passing the site. However, given the silent piling methods used, the duration of the period when piling would be taking place, and the controls on underwater noise-generating activities described in the CoCP this is considered to be a negligible effect. Fish Direct mortality of fish due to cofferdam installation, sediment disturbance and compaction
5.5.17
5.5.18
5.5.19
Page 39
5.5.21
5.5.22
5.5.23
5.5.24
5.5.25 5.5.26
5.5.27
Although there is a risk of mortality of fish as the cofferdams are installed, and as a result of compaction of the sediments this is considered to be low since even juvenile fish would move away from the source of the impact. There would be a greater risk of mortality if fish eggs were present, but since the site is not considered to offer spawning habitat, this risk can be discounted. The effect is considered to be negligible due to the low risk of mortality. Loss of feeding, resting and nursery habitat for fish due to temporary landtake Only a small proportion of the intertidal foreshore in this location would be affected by construction works. The area affected by temporary landtake is not considered to represent important feeding, resting and nursery habitat. Loss of foreshore habitat is considered to be a low negative impact. Based on the methodology described in Volume 5 an impact of low negative magnitude gives rise to minor adverse effects. However, due to the small scale of the landtake and the anticipated low value of the habitat at this site as feeding, resting and nursery habitat, the overall effect is considered to be negligible. Loss of feeding, resting and nursery habitat for fish due to sediment disturbance and compaction The area which would be subject to disturbance and compaction outside the cofferdam lies primarily in the intertidal zone. Given that recovery is likely to occur within the short term (less than 12 months) the effect is thus considered to be minor adverse. Interference with the migratory movements of fish Ordinarily the river channel should provide an uninterrupted route for juvenile fish migrations for species such as eel (Anguilla anguilla) as glass eels or elvers, dace (Leuciscus leuciscus), goby (eg, Pomatoschitus spp.) and flounder (Platichthys flesus) as they move through the estuary. In general, encroachment of structures such as cofferdams into the river channel may affect the river hydraulics, particularly at high discharges associated with heavy fluvial inputs or spring tides. For example, changes in water velocity caused by constriction of the hydraulic channel may hinder movements of fish against the tide, including their ability to withstand, or hold station in the flow. Constriction of the hydraulic channel, reduction of the intertidal zone and increased water velocities at project sites may also have an adverse effect on fish, for example by forcing them into deeper water with increased predation risk. Formation of eddy currents in the wake of structures may temporarily entrap fish and delay progress of migrations. The potential for such effects to result from the Thames Tunnel will be the subject of modelling. Repeatedly delaying the successful daily migrations of fish past individual sites may also interfere with key life stage events such as spawning. The river is less constricted by the existing river defences in the vicinity of Heathwall Pumping Station than in other locations and a large area of intertidal foreshore would remain even during construction (an approximately 20m width). The effects on fish migration of the Thames Tunnel structures, including at
Page 40
5.5.28
5.5.29
5.5.30
5.5.31
5.5.32
5.5.33
Heathwall pumping station on fish migration are as yet unknown, and are being considered at a site specific and whole Thames Tideway level through the use of a predictive modelling technique (Volume 5). The assessment will be completed following this modelling exercise and will be reported in the ES. Effects of waterborne noise and vibration on fish The effects of waterborne noise and vibration on fish vary according to the proximity of the receptor to the source. Effects depend on distance from source, ranging from potential death at very close proximities, through injury, and behavioural disturbance with increasing distance from the source. The key source at Heathwall Pumping Station is the driving of sheet piles for the cofferdams. This would be undertaken using a silent piling technique from a jack up barge, thus minimising the level of noise and vibration. Furthermore, a series of control measures relating to the timing and duration of piling operations have been included in the Code of Construction Practice. The site is not considered to support sensitive spawning habitat, and therefore there is only low receptor sensitivity, as no significant numbers of any fish species would be present for extended periods. The overall effect is negligible due to the small amount of piling required. Blanketing of feeding areas for fish and reduction in water column visibility due to suspended sediment Although the Thames Tideway is a sedimentary environment with high levels of suspended solids, construction activities such as dredging, piling and barge movements have the potential to generate high levels of suspended sediment which may cause disorientation of fish. There is some potential for re-suspended sediments to affect juvenile fish migrations, but the small area of temporary landtake would ensure this remains small. Adult fish are considered to be less likely to be affected as they are able to move away from the turbid water. Based on the methodology described in Volume 5 an impact of low negative magnitude gives rise to minor adverse effects. However, due to the small scale of the works area and the anticipated low value of the habitat at this site as feeding, resting and nursery habitat, the overall effect is considered to be negligible. Invertebrates Direct mortality of invertebrates due to temporary landtake, sediment disturbance and compaction There would be direct mortality of invertebrates within sediments removed or covered by the cofferdams, and due to compaction and disturbance of sediment due the site establishment phase. The effect is considered to be negligible due to the low scale of impact and low-medium value of the receptor. Loss of burrowing and feeding habitat for invertebrates due to temporary landtake The area beneath the temporary cofferdams would also be lost as burrowing and feeding habitat for invertebrates during the entire construction period (3 years). The area would be subject to heavy
Page 41
5.5.34
5.5.35
5.5.36
compaction, and hence would be unavailable to burrowing invertebrates in the medium term (1-3 years) following removal of the cofferdams. However, the temporary structures may act like an artificial reef, providing new encrusting habitat for some invertebrate species. The overall effect is considered to be negligible, given the relatively limited loss of a burrowing and feeding resource, and the presence of possible new habitat provided by the temporary structures. Loss of burrowing and feeding habitat for invertebrates due to sediment disturbance and compaction Although the subtidal zone was found to support a larger number of taxa than the intertidal, the temporary compaction and disturbance to the habitat for burrowing invertebrates is considered to be a negligible effect, given the reversibility of the effect. Blanketing of feeding areas for invertebrates and reduction in water column visibility due to suspended sediment The risk of blanketing of invertebrate feeding habitats is considered to be low due to the nature of construction activities, and given the relatively low value of the site for invertebrates the effect is considered to be negligible.
5.6
5.6.1
Operational assessment Operational impacts

The potential impacts arising from operation of the project are described below and summarised in Vol 18 Table 5.6.1. The definitions of the different magnitudes of impact referred to in this assessment are given in Volume 5. Permanent landtake due to the presence of permanent structures on the foreshore There would be a total of approximately 270m2 of landtake from intertidal habitats associated with cofferdam for the CSO works and permanent advancement of the river wall. The permanent CSO structure would extend approximately 12m into the channel and would be entirely contained within the intertidal area. This would result in some loss of feeding and resting habitat for fish and invertebrates but the vast majority of intertidal habitat in this area would be unaffected. Permanent landtake is certain and is considered to have a low negative impact due to its relatively small extent. Constriction of the channel due to permanent structures The permanent structures would extend approximately 12m into the channel and would be entirely contained within the intertidal area. However, this would leave a width of foreshore totalling over 25m available for fish movement and would not significantly reduce the width of the river channel in this area. It is yet to be determined whether there would be an increase in velocity that may affect the fish movements past the structure but is considered unlikely at this point. Assessment of this impact is currently being undertaken, both for this site and cumulatively with other foreshore construction sites. The assessment will be undertaken following completion of modelling to predict the effects of foreshore structures on fish migration (Volume 5).
5.6.2
5.6.3
5.6.4
Page 42
5.6.5
5.6.6
Reduction in the volume sewage effluent discharged from the CSO As described in para. 5.2.4 (b), with the Thames Tunnel in place, discharges from the Heathwall Pumping Station CSO are projected to reduce to 62,500m3 over four spills. Discharges from South West Storm Relief CSO are projected to reduce to 3,900m3 over one spill. The improvements would help to achieve water quality standards set under the Water Framework Directive in relation to dissolved oxygen and inorganic nitrogen. The magnitude of the impact is considered to be medium positive and to be probable and permanent. This will be verified based on the outputs from water quality modelling currently being undertaken. Vol 18 Table 5.6.1 Aquatic ecology impacts and magnitudes operation Impact Permanent landtake, due to the presence of permanent structures on the foreshore. Constriction of the channel, due to permanent structures. Improvement of local water quality through CSO interception. Magnitude Low negative impact. Permanent. Certain. To be assessed in ES. Medium positive impact. Permanent. Probable.
Operational effects
5.6.7 The operational receptors and their value are identical to that of the construction receptors as outlined in Section 5.4 and are thus not reproduced here. The way in which the magnitude and reversibility of each impact has been combined with the value of each receptor to determine the significance of the effect is set out in Volume 5. Unless stated the effects described below apply to both Year 1 of operation and Year 6 of operation. Habitats Permanent loss of intertidal habitats There would be a permanent loss of approximately 270m2 of intertidal habitat. The intrinsic value of the habitats in this area is considered to be relatively good and they are considered to be of Metropolitan importance as part of the River Thames and Tidal Tributaries Site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation. The effect is considered to be minor adverse due to the small magnitude of the impact (low negative) and the value of the receptor (Medium). The emerging architectural design for the permanent structure includes timber fendering of the outer face below the water line to provide microhabitat for sediment accretion, plants, fish and invertebrates. However, the value of these features in reducing the effect of the permanent structure cannot be determined until the designs are further advanced. This will therefore be considered further in the ES. This statement also applies to the value such terraces would have as fish and
Page 43
5.6.8
5.6.9
5.6.10
5.6.11
5.6.12
5.6.13
5.6.14
5.6.15
5.6.16
invertebrate habitat. Marine mammals Increase in the number and/or change in the distribution of marine mammals No changes are anticipated on marine mammals as a result of the water quality improvements associated with interception of a single CSO discharge. This is because they are a mobile receptor, and therefore able to move away from a point source discharge and they are relatively insensitive to the levels of pollution associated with a single source. Effects are considered negligible. Fish Permanent loss of intertidal feeding and resting habitat for fish due to landtake The quantum of permanent landtake is small compared with the total area of intertidal foreshore available at this site. Moreover, the permanent structures may act like an artificial reef, providing new feeding areas and shelter from the current. Loss of foreshore habitat is considered to be a low negative impact. The effect on fish is considered to be negligible (rather than minor adverse). Interference with migratory movements of fish As for the temporary structures the effects of the permanent encroachments on juvenile fish migration will be assessed following a predictive modelling exercise and reported in the ES. Reduction in the occurrence of dissolved oxygen related fish mortalities The microbial activity associated with untreated sewage effluent (BOD) causes a depletion in the levels of dissolved oxygen downstream of a discharge. This is often referred to as an oxygen sag. Oxygen sags are more common in the summer months when water temperatures are higher and oxygen is less soluble. Impacts on fish health occur when dissolved oxygen levels drop beneath 4mg/l, and significant mortalities begin to occur when levels drop beneath this threshold12. Such dissolved oxygen events are currently relatively common in the Thames Tideway, particularly during the summer months when heavy storms follow periods of low flow and water temperatures are relatively higher. Up to 2004, there had been at least 154 low dissolved oxygen events, in which fish mortalities have occurred. The CSOs are currently being monitored which will result in more information being available for the ES. Interception of the CSOs throughout the Thames Tideway would improve sewerage system capacity and result in far fewer low dissolved oxygen events and therefore fewer mass fish mortalities. The exact number of anticipated events will be predicted using the Tideway Fish Risk Model and reported in the ES. Details of the Tideway Fish Risk Model are presented in Volume 5. Interception of the Heathwall Pumping Station and South West Storm Relief CSOs would contribute to this Thames Tideway wide improvement, but would also result in improvements in the local area. Given that the impact is considered to be medium positive, and
Page 44
5.6.17
5.6.18
5.6.19
5.6.20
5.6.21
5.6.22
the value of the receptors is Medium (Metropolitan), the effect is considered to be moderate beneficial in Year 1 of operation and Year 6. Improvements across the Thames Tideway as a whole will be assessed in the project-wide effects assessment (Volume 6). Increase in the distribution of pollution sensitive fish species The Thames Tideway currently supports a small number of rare fish species such as salmon, sea trout, twaite shad and river lamprey. A number of factors limit the colonisation of habitats by these species, including salinity, substrate type and current, but pollution is known to be a significant factor in determining colonisation13. Improving water and sediment quality would facilitate the spread of those pollution sensitive species which are currently being impeded by poor water and sediment quality. EA data and bespoke project surveys have indicated no records of rare fish species in the vicinity of Heathwall Pumping Station. Given that the impact is considered to be medium positive, and the value of the receptors is Medium (Metropolitan), the effect is considered to be negligible in the short term (Year 1), and moderate beneficial in Year 6. Invertebrates Permanent loss of intertidal feeding and burrowing habitat for invertebrates due to landtake The loss of habitat for burrowing invertebrates is considered to be a negligible effect due to the small amount of habitat that is to be lost within the context of the large areas of foreshore that would remain at this site. Localised improvements in invertebrate diversity and abundance As well as causing low dissolved oxygen events, untreated sewage effluent contains nutrients which cause enrichment of the water column and sediments in the river. Excessive nutrient enrichment causes phenomenon such as algal blooms, and is known as eutrophication. Such enrichment tends to favour a small number of pollution tolerant species at the expense of a wider range of pollution sensitive species. For example, certain species of Oligochaete worm are indicative of polluted conditions because they are able to tolerate the low dissolved oxygen conditions and multiply rapidly in the enriched sediments. By intercepting the CSOs the source of sewage related nutrients would be reduced and the sediments in the vicinity of the outfall would begin to return to a more natural state. As nutrients reduce in concentration a wider range of invertebrate species would begin to colonise the sediments. However, at Heathwall Pumping Station, and other sites in the mid Thames Tideway, salinity is likely to be the over-riding factor controlling the range of species present. Given that the impact is considered to be medium positive, and the value of the receptors is low-medium (Borough) the effect is considered to be minor beneficial in Year 1 of operation and in Year 6. Increase in the distribution of pollution sensitive invertebrate species The Thames Tideway currently supports a small number of rare invertebrate species, such as swollen spire snail and tentacled lagoon worm. A number of factors limit the colonisation of habitats by these
Page 45
5.6.23
5.6.24
species, including salinity, substrate type and current, but pollution is known to be a significant factor in determining. Improving water and sediment quality would facilitate the spread of those pollution sensitive species which are currently being impeded by poor water and sediment quality. EA data and bespoke project surveys have indicated no records of rare invertebrate species in the vicinity of Heathwall Pumping Station and habitat quality at this site is limited by a number of factors including the confinement of the river channel between vertical river walls. Given that the impact is considered to be medium positive, and the value of the receptors is low-medium (invertebrates), the effect is thus considered to be negligible in the short term (Year 1), and minor beneficial in the medium term (Year 6). Algae Effects on algae will be assessed and reported in the ES.
5.7
5.7.1
Approach to mitigation
The approach to mitigation will be informed by the Mitigation and Compensation Hierarchy discussed with the Thames Tunnel EA Biodiversity Working Group as a systematic and transparent decisionmaking process. The hierarchy is sequential and seeks to avoid adverse environmental effects. The hierarchy of avoid effect, minimise, control compensate; and enhance will be strictly applied in this sequence. The ES will describe how this hierarchy has been applied. The mitigation hierarchy is described in detail in Volume 5.
5.7.2
Construction
5.7.3 Impacts during the construction stage would primarily be controlled through measures incorporated into the Code of Construction Practice. Measures already included in the Code of Construction Practice (ie, measures to avoid water quality impacts and disturbance of fish during piling) are not repeated here and can be found in para. 5.2.3 above. The areas of habitat affected by temporary cofferdams are expected to recover following removal of the sheet piling and fill material. The need for any specific restoration measures will be considered and reported in the ES. The potential for interference with fish migration due to the encroachment of the temporary structure has been identified as being of low significance and therefore will probably not require mitigation at this site.
5.7.4
5.7.5
Operation
5.7.6 The permanent loss of foreshore is considered to be a minor adverse effect. At this stage the footprint of the permanent structure has been minimised as far as possible to accommodate the necessary works therefore further mitigation is not possible at present. Consideration will be given to compensation as necessary in line with the mitigation hierarchy as outlined in Volume 5. Further mitigation ideas will be investigated following feedback from phase two consultation. If encroachment of the permanent structure is considered to result in a
Page 46
5.7.7
significant adverse effect on fish migration, bespoke mitigation will be applied to the permanent structure. This will be determined using hydraulic modelling data as described above.
Page 47
5.8
Vol 18 Table 5.8.1 Aquatic ecology construction assessment Significance Minor adverse Requirement for restoration beyond natural recovery to be determined and reported in the ES None viable Negligible Mitigation Residual significance
Assessment summary Construction
Receptor
Effect
Designated sites and Habitats
Loss of intertidal habitat due to temporary landtake
Disturbance and compaction of intertidal and subtidal habitat Negligible None required
Minor adverse
Minor adverse
Mammals
Interference with the migrations of marine mammals within the Tideway. Negligible
Negligible
Fish
Direct mortality of fish due to temporary landtake, and disturbance and compaction of sediment. Negligible
None required
Negligible
Loss of feeding, resting and nursery habitat for fish due to landtake Minor adverse
None required
Negligible
Loss of feeding, resting and nursery habitat for fish due to sediment compaction and disturbance.
None viable
Minor adverse
Interference with migratory movements of fish due to
To be assessed in ES following further

Page 48
Measures to facilitate To be reported in ES fish movements passed

Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Significance investigation. Mitigation structures currently under development None required Negligible Residual significance
Receptor
Effect partial blockage of the intertidal area by temporary structures, and barges. Negligible
Direct mortality and/or disturbance to fish from waterborne noise and vibration leading to changes in behaviour and migratory patterns. Negligible None required Negligible
Blanketing of feeding areas for fish and invertebrates and reduction in water column visibility due to suspended sediment. Negligible None required
Invertebrates
Direct mortality of invertebrates due to temporary landtake and disturbance and compaction of sediment. Negligible
Negligible
Loss of feeding/burrowing habitat for invertebrates due to landtake Negligible
None required
Negligible
Loss of feeding/burrowing habitat for invertebrates due to sediment compaction and disturbance.
None required
Negligible
Blanketing of feeding areas for invertebrates and
Negligible
None required
Negligible
Page 49
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Significance Mitigation Residual significance
Receptor
Effect reduction in water column visibility due to suspended sediment. To be completed for the ES To be completed for the ES
Algae
To be completed for the ES
Page 50
Operation
Vol 18 Table 5.8.2 Aquatic ecology summary of operation assessment Significance Year one Minor adverse Minor adverse No further mitigation possible None required Year six To be assessed in the ES Mitigation Residual significance
Receptor
Effect
Designated sites and Habitats Negligible
Permanent loss of designated intertidal habitat
Mammals
Increase in the Negligible number and/or change in the distribution of marine mammals. Negligible Negligible None required
Negligible
Fish
Permanent loss of intertidal feeding and resting habitat for fish. To be assessed in ES To be assessed in ES
Negligible
Interference with migratory movements of fish due to blockage of the intertidal area by permanent structures. Moderate beneficial Moderate beneficial
To be determined following predictive modelling
To be reported in ES
Reduction in the occurrence of low dissolved oxygen related fish
None required
Moderate beneficial effect.
Page 51
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Significance Negligible Moderate beneficial None required Moderate beneficial Mitigation Residual significance
Receptor
Effect mortalities.
Increase in the distribution of pollution sensitive fish species. Negligible Negligible None required Negligible.
Invertebrates
Permanent loss of intertidal feeding and burrowing habitat for invertebrates. Minor beneficial Minor beneficial None required
Localised improvements in invertebrate diversity and abundance. Negligible Minor beneficial
Minor beneficial
Increase in the distribution of pollution sensitive invertebrate species.
None required
Minor beneficial
Page 52
5.9
5.9.1 5.9.2 5.9.3 5.9.4
Algal data and assessment of effects on algae will be reported in the ES. Additional fish and invertebrate surveys were undertaken during spring 2011 and will be reported in the ES. Assessment of cumulative effects will be undertaken as part of the ES. An assessment of the hydrodynamic effects of the temporary and permanent structures on fish migratory movements will be undertaken. Following this, the need for and further refinement of the design of a bespoke solution to facilitate the movement of fish will be considered. The suite of qualitative improvements and off-site habitat creation opportunities available will also be identified. Following completion of the assessment, the mitigation approaches for aquatic ecology within the project will be finalised and reported in the ES.
5.9.5
Page 53
Section 6: Ecology - terrestrial
6 6.1
6.1.1
Ecology - terrestrial Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant terrestrial ecology effects at the Heathwall Pumping Station site. Likely significant effects on aquatic ecology are reported in Section 5. Elements of the proposed works that have particular relevance to terrestrial ecology comprise site clearance, piling, and wider construction activities. The operational phase is not considered in the terrestrial ecology assessment as operational activity would remain limited to occasional maintenance works, which are considered unlikely to have significant effects on terrestrial ecology receptors on and adjacent to the site.
6.1.2
6.1.3
6.2
6.2.1
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to terrestrial ecology are as follows.
Construction
6.2.2 Works at Heathwall Pumping Station relevant to the terrestrial ecology assessment include: a. The activity of construction workers and machinery, including works within the foreshore, which create noise, lighting, and vibration. b. Barge movements to and from the site. c. 24 hour working associated with excavation of the connection tunnel (activity below ground, with vehicle and people movements, and lighting above ground). Code of Construction Practice Measures incorporated into the draft CoCP to reduce terrestrial ecology effects include those that would ensure that terrestrial ecology receptors are appropriately managed during construction. The document sets out procedures that would be adhered to both scheme-wide and at individual sites. The CoCP would ensure that where appropriate, works are undertaken in compliance with legislation, and with relevant nature conservation policies and guidance, including the Mayors Biodiversity Strategy 14 and local Biodiversity Action Plans. It will be refined following on from the results of species surveys, which are being undertaken throughout 2011. Measures not specifically outlined under the Ecology section of the draft CoCP are also of relevance, for example the management of noise and vibration, and water resources.
6.2.3
6.2.4
6.2.5
6.3
6.3.1

The Scoping Report was prepared before the Heathwall Pumping Station site had been identified in its current form, although the site did form part of the Tideway Walk site presented in the Scoping Report. The scope for
Page 54
terrestrial ecology for this site has therefore drawn on the scoping response from the London Borough of Wandsworth and is based on professional judgement. Comments received pertinent to terrestrial ecology and this site are contained in the table below. This site was presented at a biodiversity working group on 22 March 2011 attended by local planning authorities, including the London Borough of Wandsworth, Vol 18 Table 6.3.1 Terrestrial ecology Scoping Opinions Organisation London Borough of Wandsworth Council Scoping opinion item River walls and their value in supporting ecology have not been fully considered; this could be addressed in both aquatic and terrestrial surveys to find a baseline any issues arising from this baseline can then be suitably accounted for in subsequent documents Response The river wall is considered in the assessment of aquatic ecology.
Baseline
6.3.2 Baseline data collection has followed the methodology detailed in Volume 5. Baseline data presented within this assessment is derived from a desk study, the Phase 1 Habitat Survey and preliminary wintering bird and bat triggering surveys. All subsequent survey data will be assessed reported in the ES. In summary the following baseline data has been reported: a. Desk study including data base searches (for ecological records within a 2km radius from the site boundary, which is the industry standard), web-based searches and review of existing available documents in relation to protected and notable species and habitats. Desk study data within 500m of the site are reported here as the works are unlikely to affect species and designated sites beyond this distance. Records dated prior to 2000 have not been included as the information since this date provides the most appropriate data to assess the site baseline conditions. b. Phase 1 Habitat Survey on 26th November 2010 following the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) Standard Phase 1 Habitat Survey Methodology, 2010. The survey included the site and any adjacent habitat considered to be potentially affected by the proposed works. c. Wintering bird survey visits were undertaken in December 2010, and January, February and March 2011. The survey visits included the site and adjacent habitat considered to be potentially affected by the proposed works. These surveys are still in progress and will resume in October 2011 at the start of the next winter season. d. A bat triggering survey was carried out in May 2011. This is an initial survey using remote recording equipment (Anabat detectors) to determine whether subsequent activity/dawn surveys were required.
6.3.3
Page 55
6.3.4
The survey area includes the site and adjacent features that are considered to be potentially affected by the project. Further surveys were required and preliminary results of the bat triggering surveys have been provided. The species surveys identified as being required following the desk study and Phase 1 Habitat Survey have commenced and are detailed in the table below. The results of these surveys will be provided in the ES. Vol 18 Table 6.3.2 Terrestrial ecology notable species surveys Survey Bat activity and dawn survey Survey area Around suitable features within and immediately adjacent to the site The site and adjacent suitable habitat that is considered to be potentially affected by the works The survey area includes the site and adjacent features that are assessed to be potentially affected by the project. Timing June to October 2011
Black redstart surveys
Five fortnightly visits between May and July 2011 (subject to suitable weather conditions at the time) One visit in October 2011 and one visit in November 2011
Completion of wintering bird surveys
Construction
6.3.5 The construction phase assessment methodology follows this standard methodology provided in Volume 5, which is based on Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom. Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2006). One designated site, St. Georges Square Gardens (para.6.4.3), has been identified within 500m of the site. Due to the localised nature of the proposed works and the isolation of the designated site from the proposed works, no effects have been identified. Therefore, designated sites are not considered further in the assessment. There are no notable habitats on site and no effects on terrestrial habitats are anticipated. The site is described in Section 6.4. Habitats are not considered any further in the assessment. The following ecological receptors are to be included in the assessment: a. Bats b. Black redstart c. Wintering birds. As contaminated runoff and atmospheric pollution would be controlled through the implementation of the CoCP, no likely significant effects are anticipated on ecological receptors. Therefore, this is not considered any further in the assessment.
6.3.6
6.3.7
6.3.8
Page 56
6.3.10
The assessment year is the construction Year 1, which is the start of construction activities on site. This is likely to be the peak year for effects on terrestrial ecology as this is when initial site clearance would occur. The base case is considered to be the same as the current baseline conditions as described in Section 6.4. This assumes that the site would continue to be managed as it is at present.

6.3.11 It is assumed for the purposes of assessment that the current site management regime of the Heathwall Pumping Station site would continue. The assessment assumes that the measures within the CoCP would be implemented as part of the development. All surveys have been and will be undertaken at appropriate times of the year. No other site specific limitations or assumptions have been identified.
6.4
6.4.1
Baseline conditions
The following section sets out the baseline conditions for terrestrial ecology receptors at the site and surrounds, including their value.
Designated sites
6.4.2 On site The site is within and adjacent to the River Thames and Tidal Tributaries SINC (Grade Mi) and comprises foreshore habitat and river channel. This designated site is assessed in the aquatic ecology section and is not considered further here. Surrounding area St Georges Square Gardens SINC (Grade L ii) 300m to the northeast of the site comprises amenity grassland, ornamental shrubs and scattered trees. This site is of local (low) value.
6.4.3
Habitats
6.4.4 The habitats recorded within the survey area during the Phase 1 Habitat Survey are detailed in the table below and shown on Vol 18 Figure 6.4.1. Vol 18 Figure 6.4.1 Terrestrial ecology Phase 1 Habitat Survey (see Volume 18 Figures document) Vol 18 Table 6.4.1 Terrestrial ecology Phase 1 Habitat Survey Habitat type / feature of note Buildings Habitat description The survey area has a number of modern buildings present and these appear in good condition and are considered to be sub-optimal for bats. Hardstanding is present around the survey area in the form of pathways.
Hardstanding
Running water and The River Thames intertidal zone lies within the
i ii
SINC (Grade M) = Site of Nature Conservation Importance (Grade III of Metropolitan importance) SINC (Grade L) = Site of Nature Conservation Importance (Grade I of Local importance)
Page 57
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Habitat type / feature of note intertidal zone Trees (adjacent)
Section 6: Ecology - terrestrial Habitat description
survey area (assessed in the aquatic ecology section). Several trees are present to the west of the survey area boundary.
6.4.5
No features of intrinsic ecological value are present on site and no effects are anticipated. Therefore, habitats are not considered further in this assessment.
Notable species
Bats On site All bats comprise European Protected Species under the Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. All species (with the exception of common pipistrelle) are listed as priority species on the UK BAP and all species are listed on the London BAP. The bat triggering survey results indicate that there is some activity around the site, in particular association with the River Thames, including common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus, soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus and Nathusius pipistrelle Pipistrellus nathusii bats. However, the potential for bats to roost on or immediately adjacent to the site is low. The value of the site to bats will be assessed and reported in the ES Surrounding area Two bat species have been recorded within 500m of the site according to data search results: a. Common Pipistrelle b. Noctule bat Nyctalus sp. Trees on and adjacent to the site and the river corridor are likely to provide foraging habitat and commuting routes for bats. The value of the surrounding area to bats will be assessed and reported in the ES. Black redstart On site The black redstart Phoenicurus ochruros (London and UK BAP Priority Species, WCA 1981 Schedule 1 Part 1 species) has been recorded on and around Battersea Power Station site, which is 200m to the west of Heathwall Pumping Station (Battersea Power Station A new energy for London: Environmental Statement for Outline Planning Application [July 2009]). The Heathwall Pumping Station site may therefore support nesting black redstart. The value of the site to black redstart will be assessed and reported in the ES. Surrounding area Black redstarts are known to be present in close proximity to the site. The value of the immediate surrounds for black redstart will be assessed and reported in the ES.
6.4.6
6.4.7
6.4.8
6.4.9
6.4.10
Page 58
6.4.11
6.4.12
Wintering birds On site The foreshore habitat on the River Thames within the site has the potential to support notable populations of wintering birds. From preliminary wintering bird survey results, a total of 21 species of wintering bird were recorded at the site between December 2010 and March 2011. Of these, the most notable were high numbers of cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo and the presence of the mandarin duck Aix galericulata. No rare or scarce species were noted during the surveys and the maximum count of individual birds was 164 recorded in January 2011. The value of the wintering bird resource on site will be assessed and reported in the ES. Surrounding area The foreshore to the River Thames within and adjacent to the site has the potential to support notable populations and/or assemblages of wintering bird species. The value of the surrounding area to wintering birds will be assessed and reported in the ES.
6.5
Construction assessment Notable species

Bats On site Lighting, noise and vibration on the construction site may adversely affect the movement of bats through the area and the use of the site as a foraging resource. The significance of effects on bats will be assessed and reported in the ES. Surrounding area Lighting, noise and vibration on the construction site may adversely affect the movement of bats along the River Thames and using the adjacent foreshore as a foraging resource. The significance of effects on bats will be assessed and reported in the ES. Black redstart On site If present, there could be temporary (medium term) disturbance from noise, lighting, vibration and movement of construction workers and machinery during construction to black redstarts nesting on site. The works could also result in the loss of black redstart nests. The significance of effects on black redstarts will be assessed and reported in the ES. Surrounding area If present, there could be temporary (medium term) disturbance from noise, lighting, vibration and movement of people and machinery during construction to black redstarts nesting immediately adjacent to the site. The significance of effects on black redstarts will be assessed and reported in the ES. Wintering birds On site The works could cause temporary (for the duration of construction) and permanent (long-term) loss of an area of foreshore foraging resource,
Page 59
6.5.1
6.5.2
6.5.3
6.5.4
6.5.5
6.5.6
which could displace birds and affect populations and assemblages of wildfowl and wading birds within the area. The significance of effects on wintering birds will be assessed and reported in the ES. Surrounding area There is likely to be temporary (medium term) disturbance from noise, lighting, vibration and movement of construction workers and machinery during construction to wintering birds using the adjacent foreshore habitat. The significant of effects on wintering birds will be assessed and reported in the ES.
6.6
6.6.1
Operational assessment
As stated in para. 6.1.3, operational effects on terrestrial ecology are not anticipated to be significant therefore this has not been assessed.
6.7
6.7.1

All measures embedded in the draft CoCP of relevance to terrestrial ecology are described in parad.6.2.3 -6.2.5. The ecological management plan described in the CoCP will include long-term management of habitats and species on site post-construction. It would be prepared following planning approval and prior to commencement of works on site. In addition to measures detailed in the CoCP the following are likely to be required: a. The creation of foreshore habitat that will be lost during the works to mitigate effects on wintering birds and bats. b. Specific measures in relation to bats, black redstart, and wintering birds may be identified following completion of surveys.
6.7.2
Page 60
6.8
Vol 18 Table 6.8.1 Terrestrial ecology construction assessment Significance of effect Mitigation Significance of residual effect
Receptor
Description of effect
Notable species Subject to survey results Subject to survey results Subject to survey results Subject to survey results Subject to survey results Subject to survey results
Bats
Loss of foraging resource on site
Disturbance from lighting, noise and vibration on bats on and adjacent to the site
Black redstarts
Loss of black redstart nesting habitat, if present
Subject to survey results Subject to survey results Subject to survey results
Disturbance from noise, lighting and vibration to black redstarts on and adjacent to the site
Wintering birds
Loss of onsite area of foreshore habitat for wintering birds
Disturbance from lighting, noise and vibration to birds adjacent to the site
Page 61
6.9
6.9.1
Bat, wintering bird and black redstart surveys are ongoing in 2011. The data from these surveys will be used to inform the assessment and further evaluation of effects on ecological receptors will be undertaken. Where required, appropriate mitigation to avoid or minimise impacts to terrestrial ecological receptors will be developed in consultation with stakeholders and a final assessment will be made of the significance of any residual effects to ecological receptors. Consideration will be given to biodiversity enhancement measures in consultation with stakeholders. Where necessary, the mitigation and enhancement measures will be embedded in the project design.
6.9.2
Page 62
Section 7: Historic environment
7 7.1
7.1.1
Historic Environment Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant effects on heritage assets at the Heathwall Pumping Station site. These are aspects of the historic environment which are considered to be significant because of their historical, evidential, aesthetic or communal interest (these terms are defined in Vol 5). These might comprise below and above ground archaeological remains, buildings, structures, monuments or heritage landscapes within or around the site 15. The chapter should be read in conjunction with Volume 6, which sets the site in its broad topographic, geological, archaeological and historical context and discusses the project-wide landscape and topic themes in respect of the historic environment. These themes are summarised in this section, where they are relevant to the site.
7.1.2
7.2
7.2.1
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to the historic environment are as follows.
Construction
7.2.2 Those aspects of specific relevance to the historic environment assessment, since they could lead to effects on heritage assets, are as follows: a. Enabling works will require the construction and dewatering of a temporary cofferdam extending into the Thames foreshore; the construction of a campshed on the north side of the temporary cofferdam; demolition of existing buildings on the work site; site stripping and the erection of hoarded fencing; construction of storage, office and welfare facilities and the diversion of existing services. b. Construction of a new section of river wall and foreshore structure, a Combined Sewage Overflow (CSO) drop shaft, an intermediate drop shaft, an interception chamber on the Heathwall Outfall, a connection culvert to the CSO drop shaft, an interception chamber on the Southwest Storm Relief Sewer, a connection tunnel from the CSO shaft to the main Thames Tunnel, an underground passive filter chamber and a ventilation column; and valve chamber. Measures incorporated into the draft CoCP to reduce impacts on the historic environment include protective measures where appropriate such as temporary support, hoardings, barriers and screening around heritage assets within and adjacent to work sites, and advance planning of plant and working methods for use where heritage assets are close to work sites, or attached to structures within work sites. The CoCP also includes provisions for the contractor to prepare a site specific Heritage Management Plan.
7.2.3
Operation
7.2.4 The particular components that are relevant to the assessment, in terms of historic environment setting, comprise the permanent structures visible
Page 63
above ground, in the form of the foreshore structure and modified river wall, the vent stack, riser shaft and value chamber cover.
7.3
7.3.1

Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. There were no site specific comments from consultees for this particular site. It should also be noted that Volume 5 details the approach to the assessment of effects on the historic setting of heritage assets which it has been agreed, following the formal scoping process, will be covered in the assessment of construction and operational effects. This assessment will be completed for the final ES.
7.3.2
Baseline
7.3.3 The baseline methodology follows that set out in Volume 5, with a key component being a desk based assessment, consulting a broad range of archaeological, documentary and cartographic sources, along with a site walkover survey. The results of geotechnical investigations, some of which were archaeologically monitored, have also been incorporated. The 600m-radius study area used for the assessment is considered through professional judgement to be most appropriate to characterise the historic environment potential of the site. There are occasional references to assets beyond the study area where appropriate, for example, where such assets are particularly important and/or where they contribute to current understanding of the site and its environs.
7.3.4
Construction
7.3.5 7.3.6 The construction phase methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. Any site specific variations are described below. Likely significant effects on the historic environment could arise throughout the construction phase from activities likely to remove, disturb or alter above ground or buried heritage assets, as a result of enabling or construction works. The methodology has entailed detailed scrutiny of the project design in order to establish the nature and extent of proposed ground disturbance, in relation to known or potential heritage assets. The existing baseline as at the time of data collection forms a current baseline. In terms of buried heritage assets, the only aspect of the resource that is likely to change in a future year base case, without the project in any particular assessment year, is change to the condition of the assets due to ongoing fluvial processes (scouring and sediment deposition) on the foreshore, along with other unrelated proposed development schemes, on land or within the river. Data on existing fluvial processes will be reviewed in the ongoing EIA and will be reflected in the base case presented in the final ES. No direct changes are anticipated to the condition of above ground heritage assets. However, it is possible that changes to the setting of heritage assets may occur during the construction period as a result of several nearby residential developments, including the Battersea Power
Page 64
7.3.7
7.3.8
7.3.9
Station Redevelopment, which is due for completion by 2025, and the Tideway Walk (Riverlight) residential development, due for completion in 2016. The effects of these developments will be detailed for the final assessment and presented in the ES.
Operation
7.3.10 7.3.11 7.3.12 The operational phase methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. Any site specific variations are described below. The operational phase assessment will be undertaken for Year 1 of operation. In terms of the base case (future baseline) for the assessment of operational effects, no changes are anticipated in the condition or significance of above ground heritage assets. However, changes to the base case from non-Thames Tunnel developments, such as the Battersea Power Station Redevelopment and the Tideway Walk (Riverlight) residential development, could affect the setting of above ground heritage assets. Any such changes will be detailed for the final assessment, to inform the assessment of effects on the historic setting of heritage assets, and presented in the ES.

7.3.13 Volume 5: Methodology sets out the generic assumptions and limitations of the assessment. In summary, the main limitation is the nature of the archaeological resource (buried and not visible) and acknowledgement of the difficulty of attempting to predict the presence/extent, date, nature, survival and significance of possible, previously unrecorded, buried heritage assets, based on a desk based study and site visit. In particular, no intrusive archaeological investigation has been carried out on the site in the past and few investigations have been carried out in the study area around the site. Notwithstanding this limitation, the assessment presented here is robust, based on reasonably available information, and conforms to the requirements of local and national guidance and planning policy (as detailed in Volume 5). Typically, appropriate standard archaeological prospection and evaluation techniques are utilised post-consent to reduce the uncertainties inherent in any desk based study, as part of an overall EIA mitigation strategy (see Mitigation section below for the proposed mitigation at this site).
7.3.14
7.4
7.4.1
Baseline conditions
The following description of baseline conditions comprises seven subsections which set out: a. A description of historic environment features, with an introduction to the features map (which shows the location of known historic environment features within the 600m-radius study area around the site) and the study area; b. A description of statutorily and locally designated assets within the site and its vicinity (ie, within a 100m-radius of the site); c. A description of the site location, topography and geology to set the context of the site;
Page 65
7.4.2
d. A summary of past archaeological investigation within the study area, providing an indication of how well the area is understood archaeologically. e. A summary of the archaeological and historical background which sets out what is known about the site and its environs. f. A statement of significance for above ground assets within and around the site, describing the features which contribute to their significance. g. A discussion of potential for buried heritage assets, taking account of factors affecting survival, and a statement of their likely significance. A site walkover survey was carried out by MOLA Historic Buildings, EIA specialists and the Thames Discovery Programme (TDP) in spring 2011. Although the site visit was carried out at very low tide at approximately 98.0m ATD (above Tunnel Datum), or 2.0m Ordnance Datum), it was not possible to access the entire foreshore during the visit due to muddy, waterlogged conditions. The walkover on the foreshore was therefore confined to the northeastern part of the site and the foreshore to the east. The site walkover survey identified a pier, two timber posts, a large concrete drain outfall, concrete rubble and structures associated with the dock to the west. Also identified were the remains of a Saxon fish trap (HEA 74), initially identified by the TDP in 2010, approximately 40m to the northeast of the site.
Historic environment features

7.4.3 The historic environment features map (Vol 18 Figure 7.4.1) shows the location of known historic environment features within the 600m-radius study area around the site, compiled from the baseline sources set out in the topic specific methodology in Volume 5. These historic environment features have been allocated a unique historic environment asset reference number (HEA 1, 2, etc), which is listed in the gazetteer in Appendix A. Vol 18 Figure 7.4.1 Historic environment features map (see Volume 18 Figures document) Where there are a considerable number of listed buildings in the study area, only those within the vicinity of the site (ie, 100m) are included on the map and in the gazetteer. The study area for assessing setting effects on heritage assets may be revised because setting effects are most likely to occur within the visual envelope of the site, which may differ from the study area defined for the purposes of this assessment. This will be captured and reported in the ES.
7.4.4
Designated assets
7.4.5 Statutory designations The site and the immediate vicinity (ie, within a 100m-radius) does not contain any nationally designated (statutorily protected) heritage assets, such as scheduled monuments, listed buildings, or registered parks and gardens. Local authority designations All but the southern part of the site is located within an archaeological priority area, as defined by Wandsworth Council in recognition of the
Page 66
7.4.6
7.4.7
archaeological potential of the Thames floodplain. The site does not lie within or adjacent to a conservation area, and contains no locally listed buildings. Known burial grounds There are no known burial grounds within the site or adjacent to it. The former burial ground of St. Georges Church lies approximately 250m to the southwest.
Site location, topography and geology

7.4.8 Site location The site is bounded by the southern Thames foreshore to the north, (on which the northern part of the site is situated), Nine Elms Lane to the south, a warehouse building to the west, and a paved riverside area belonging to Elm Quay Court, a block of residential flats, to the east. It is located in the northeastern corner of the London Borough of Wandsworth and formerly lay within the parish of St. Mary Battersea in the county of Surrey. The western part of the site houses Heathwall Pumping Station, whilst the eastern part of the site (Middle Wharf) is occupied by a compound which was formerly an RMC-Cemex concrete batching works (now owned by Thames Water), with an associated crane and jetty located at the northeastern corner of the site which extends from the foreshore into the Thames. The foreshore to the west of the site is occupied by piers and wharves for delivery and loading of materials. The riverbank is characterised by a mix of light industrial buildings and riverside flats. Topography The ground level of that part of the site which lies on the river bank is almost flat at approximately 103.7m ATD, (Tunnel Datum; the equivalent of 3.7m Ordnance Datum) in the southeastern corner, adjacent to Nine Elms Lane, rising slightly from east to west, to 104.8 ATD at the southwestern side of the Heathwall Pumping Station. This reflects a general slight rise in ground level up to the west along Nine Elms Lane, from approximately 103.1m ATD, approximately 10m to the southeast of the site, to approximately 103.9m ATD, approximately 35m to the southwest. On the foreshore, the ground slopes quite steeply downwards, south to north, from approximately 101.7m ATD, adjacent to the river wall, to approximately 96.8m ATD at the edge of the foreshore at low tide. Geology The site is located on a wide area of fine-grained alluvium on the southern side of the Thames floodplain (British Geological Survey digital data), above Shepperton floodplain gravels. It lies at the intersection of two former tributary channels of the Thames, the larger southwest to northeast aligned Battersea Channel, and the River Effra, approximately 450m to the east. The project is located almost centrally at the confluence of these rivers and, although the Battersea Channel had long stopped flowing or at least was reduced to a minor river by the early Holocene, it has since been occupied at its mouth by the River Effra, once a major tributary of the Thames but now diverted into sewers and culverts 16. These rivers eroded the Kempton Park gravels during the latter stages of
Page 67
7.4.9
7.4.10
7.4.11
7.4.12
7.4.13
7.4.14
7.4.15
7.4.16
7.4.17
the last Ice Age (Devensian), sculpting the subsurface topography of the floodplain area. The river terrace of Kempton Park Gravels lies 350m to the southwest and 480m to the southeast of the site. The confluence area would have provided rich natural resources for prehistoric peoples in particular and the closeness of the high ground of the terrace a focus point for settlement/occupation. Peats in low areas (below 98.7m ATD) found within the Battersea channel area at a site 900m to the southwest of the project, represent a swampy marshland which would have constituted an attractive area for exploitation. The peats were dated to the early Mesolithic when the channel and other areas of low ground away from the Thames silted up 17. As deforestation took place from the Neolithic with the rise of agriculture, thick alluvium/colluvium accumulating through sediment in-wash into the Thames and its tributaries would have lead to the creation of deep areas of alluvium with high potential for palaeo-environmental preservation. It is important to note that the Thames would have been freshwater until the late prehistoric when it became brackish and tidal due to the knock-on effects of rising relative sea level. In comparison, the higher, well drained river terrace probably remained largely dry throughout the Holocene (from the Mesolithic) and would have been utilised as arable land, with pasture and farms from the Neolithic onward. There are five boreholes spread across the site which, for the most part, are modern and detailed. The most southerly borehole (borehole no. SR1086) indicates the (Shepperton) gravels that underlie the floodplain area lie at 96.8m ATD, overlain by 3.7m of alluvium to 100.5m ATD, which in turn is overlain by 3.3m of made ground to 103.8m ATD at the surface. The most northerly borehole nearest to the Thames (borehole no. TQ27NE688, 28m north of SR1086), indicates that the surface of the gravel lay at similar levels at 96.9m ATD, although overlain by a thicker 5.4m of alluvium to 102.2m ATD, which in turn is overlain with approximately 2.0m of made ground at 104.2m ATD. All other boreholes show similar levels except for TQ27NE631 in the southwest of the site, where gravels lie at 98.4m ATD overlain by 3.7m of alluvium to 102.0m ATD which in turn is overlain by 3.2m of made ground to 105.2m ATD. The isolated area of higher gravels in the southwest of the site (borehole TQ27NE631) is probably due to the naturally undulating nature of the topography within the Thames floodplain as shaped in the late Devensian period when the river was characterised by numerous, shifting braided channels. Sand and gravel bars accumulated within the river, forming an irregular, hummocky topography. Such a landscape would have existed when the earliest Mesolithic peoples colonised the area utilising the natural resources provided by the freshwater Thames and its tributaries. Over the gravel high areas, remnant prehistoric land surfaces and soils might still exist, sealed beneath the alluvium. As sea levels rose and the Thames became wider and the floodplain wetter following the late prehistoric period, Roman and later medieval deposits likely to survive across the site will manifest themselves as the alluvium. The alluvium is commonly described in the borehole logs as having plant remains throughout which implies slow accumulation of sediment and good
Page 68
palaeoenvironmental preservation and would be useful for plant macro and microfossil evidence to track the changing vegetation environment through the late prehistoric, Roman and medieval periods. The alluvium could also contain artefactual materials associated with rivers, such as boats and fish traps. The borehole logs frequently describe the alluvium as mixed with chalk and wood within the upper levels (typically the first 2.0m) which is suggestive of barge beds and boat yard scatters, characteristic of the working, post-medieval foreshore environment.
Past archaeological investigations within the study area

7.4.18 7.4.19 No past archaeological investigations have been carried out within the site itself, although several have been carried out within the study area. The Thames Archaeological Survey (TAS) undertook walkover, or Alpha, surveys on the foreshore to the east of the site during the 1990s. These uncovered post-medieval remains, including flood defences, barge beds, former dock entrances and foreshore consolidation deposits, reflecting the commercial use of the foreshore in the vicinity of the site in the 19th century. In 2010, the TDP recorded a Saxon fish trap approximately 40m to the northeast of the site (HEA 74). The site walkover survey carried out as part of the present study confirmed that the feature was still present. Understanding of the site in the prehistoric, Roman and medieval periods is relatively limited, although the historic landscape and survival conditions of these periods may be better understood taking into account available geoarchaeological information. The results of past investigations allow for a better understanding of the site in the post-medieval period, particularly in the 18th20th centuries for which historic maps provide supporting evidence. In this period the site and its environs became part of an industrial/manufacturing area which expanded rapidly, particularly along the river bank. The closest archaeological field investigation to the site was carried out at Post Office Way on Ponton Road (HEA 2), approximately 150m to the southeast. This uncovered layers of 16th17th century soil, a 19th century brewery basement or cellar, and an 18th19th century well or cess pit. A watching brief carried out at Eastern Triangle, Wandsworth Road (HEA 3), approximately 485m to the southeast of the site, uncovered a postmedieval ditch, whilst an evaluation at 6668 Wandsworth Road, approximately 520m to the southeast of the site (HEA 4) revealed mid-late 19th century infill in old quarry pits. At Battersea Power Station and South Lambeth Goods Yard (HEA 6), approximately 540m to the southwest of the site, archaeological test pits and boreholes revealed extensive truncation by the construction of reservoirs and filtering beds belonging to the Southwark and Vauxhall Waterworks (HEA 17). In 2003, a standing building (HEA 5), approximately 430m to the southwest of the site, recorded the remains of the Battersea Waterworks pumping station, once part of the Southwark and Vauxhall Waterworks. The closest past investigation on the opposite bank of the Thames was carried out at Pimlico School on Lupus Street (HEA 7), approximately 510m to the north of the site, recording 18th19th century remains. The results of these investigations, along with other known sites and finds within the study area, are discussed by period, below.
Page 69
7.4.20
7.4.21
7.4.22
7.4.23
Archaeological and historical background of the site

7.4.24 The following section presents a chronological summary of the archaeological and historical background of the site, drawing on the information collated above. Prehistoric period (700,000 BCAD 43) There are no known remains dating to the prehistoric period within the site. The site lay within the confluence of the Thames and an ancient tributary, the Battersea Channel/River Effra (now approximately 450m to the east of the site). Although unsuitable for settlement, the confluence area may have been utilised for hunting, fishing or for the gathering of building materials and for pottery manufacture 18; such activities are suggested by the prehistoric tools recovered from the vicinity, and the fresh water composition of the Thames and its tributaries in the early prehistoric period. The deep alluvial deposits on which the site lies have the potential to preserve similar remains related to these activities. It is possible that wooden trackways, as used in other parts of the Lower Thames Estuary, may have been located on the higher ground in the vicinity of the site. Within the study area, remains dating to the Mesolithic and Neolithic have been discovered within the Thames channel, to the north of the site. Two Mesolithic axes (HEA 13 and 14) were recovered from the river, approximately 230m and approximately 115m to the northwest and north of the site respectively, presumably during dredging. A Neolithic axe and a flint pick (HEA 12) were also recovered close to the present foreshore, approximately 195m to the northwest of the site. This suggests possible hunting activity in the vicinity of the site. Roman period (AD 43410) There are no known remains dating to the Roman period within either the site or its immediate vicinity, which would have lain within the Thames floodplain and been prone to frequent flooding. Following the late prehistoric, a rise in relative sea level led to the Thames becoming brackish and tidal, which would have made the site and the dry ground immediately adjacent less suitable as a settlement area. The provincial capital of Londinium lay on the north bank of the Thames, approximately 3.9km to the northeast of the site, whilst on the south bank a settlement existed at Southwark, approximately 3.7km to the northeast. The nearest Roman road to the site lay approximately 1.3km to the southeast. The closest Roman find to the site, (lying outside the study area) was a 2nd century coin, found approximately 780m to the southwest in Battersea Fields. A possible Roman anchor, iron spearhead, javelin head or dart, the soles of several shoes, and a sword sheath were also found during the construction of Chelsea Bridge, approximately 1.0km to the west of the site. The general lack of finds within the immediate study area suggests that it was not a focus for Roman settlement. The intertidal marshes may have been exploited for a range of predictable resources, although there is currently no evidence for such in the area of the site. Early medieval (Saxon) period (AD 4101066) There are no known remains dated to this period within the site. During
7.4.25
7.4.26
7.4.27
7.4.28
7.4.29
Page 70
7.4.30
7.4.31
7.4.32
7.4.33
7.4.34
this period, as in the late prehistoric and Roman periods, the site lay within low-lying floodplain, prone to flooding. Although the land would not have been suitable for settlement, the marshes would have continued to provide valuable resources of food and building materials. In 2010, the TDP identified a group of six wooden stakes, in two parallel lines and standing at an approximate height of 0.10.2m (HEA 74; Appendix A Photograph A2.1), approximately 40m to the northeast of the site, the presence of which was confirmed by the site walkover survey for the present study. The stakes are thought to be the remains of a Saxon fish trap. This location at the mouth of a Thames tributary may have been ideal for fishing, and other fish traps potentially survive in this area, but are obscured by the foreshore silts/mud. The GLHER notes the site of a dyke, dating to the Saxon period (HEA 18), approximately 525m to the east of the site, indicating flood defences were being built in this period to protect a settlement and/or nearby farmland. Battersea, or Patrick-sey, is said to have taken its name from St. Patrick or St. Peter, having formerly belonged to the Abbey of St. Peter at Westminster. St. Marys Church at Battersea, approximately 2.8km to the west of the site, is known to have existed by the beginning of the 9th century. Earl Harold held Battersea (sometimes known as the Manor of Battersea and Wandsworth) prior to AD1066. The closest known settlement of Saxon date to the site centred on Vauxhall in Lambeth, approximately 1.1km to the northeast, and at Battersea Village, probably centred on St. Marys Church. The site therefore lay outside the areas of likely occupation in this period, and was probably marshland that may have been used for pasture. As noted above, a Saxon fish trap was identified during the site visit approximately 40m northeast of the site (HEA 74). Later medieval period (AD 10661485) There are no known remains dated to this period within the site or study area. The marshes on which the site was situated probably began to be reclaimed in stages, with the construction of successive sea walls and drainage ditches, and the fertile land to be used for pasture and cultivation. The site probably continued to lie within open, undeveloped land between the medieval parishes of Battersea and Lambeth. Earl Harolds manor had been acquired by the abbey of Westminster before 1086. In the time of Earl Harold, Battersea was assessed at 72 hides (a hide being the amount of arable land sufficient to support a family for a year) but by 1086 this area had fallen to just 18 hides. In 1225 Battersea was assigned to the monks of Westminster for their maintenance in bread and ale. From an account of the steward of the manor in 1303, it appears that the manors (estate) lands were directly farmed by the monks 19. The remains of a manor house of medieval date are noted by the GLHER (HEA 8), approximately 30m to the west of the site, although there are no further details related to it. No manor is recorded in the area in the Domesday Book. Rocques map of 1746 shows a building at the western end of Nine Elms Lane which may represent the manor house, however, it is unlikely that such a building would have been constructed here prior to
Page 71
7.4.35
7.4.36
7.4.37
7.4.38
7.4.39
reclamation, and there is no evidence that Nine Elms was a medieval road. It seems likely, therefore, that this building is of post-medieval date. Post-medieval period (AD 1485present) The remains of buildings associated with several post-medieval industries have been discovered within the study area and, as described above, available geological information suggests chalk and wood deposits from within the site, indicative of barge beds and boat yard scatters. During the site walkover survey, three unidentified structures were observed just outside the site boundary. One structure consisted of two timber piles, which may be the remains of a slipway (HEA 73; Appendix A Photograph A2.2), approximately 10m to the north of the site. The development of industry and manufacturing in the vicinity of the site began to accelerate in the latter half of the 18th century, with the construction of a bridge between Battersea and Chelsea, on the north bank of the Thames, approximately 915m to the west of the site, in 1865. Prior to this, in the 16th and 17th centuries, the land northeast of the main settlement of Battersea was a well-known cultivation area due to its fertile soils. Corn mills were established in Battersea Fields by the late 17th century 20, and the remains of a 17th century windmill or post mill (HEA 11) were discovered approximately 200m to the west of the site, approximately 10m south of the present foreshore. The area of Nine Elms became a centre of industries with several windmills lining the river bank, which was surrounded by fields and osier beds 21. The earliest map of the site consulted is Rocques map of 1762 (Appendix A). Although it is small-scale it indicates built-up areas and main roads. The land to the north of Nine Elms Lane, on which the site was situated, is shown as a built-up area and contained several buildings, possibly including the aforementioned manor house (HEA 8), approximately 30m to the west of the site, represented as a large square building or cluster of buildings. Presumably docks and landing areas served the riverside buildings and were used to process and transport goods, although the map is too small in scale to illustrate this. The site lay adjacent to the northeastern corner of Battersea Common Field; a large area of drained and reclaimed open land which may have been used for pasture. The land to the south of Nine Elms Lane was subdivided into formal market gardens. In the 19th century, the area between Nine Elms and the town of Battersea was subject to many developments. In 17711772, a wooden bridge which became known as Old Battersea Bridge was constructed approximately 750m to the west of the site (outside the study area). This replaced a ferry between Chelsea and Battersea. The new means of communication and transport helped to stimulate the growth of industries in the area during the late 18th and 19th centuries. Greenwoods map of 18241826 (Appendix A) shows the southern part of the site occupied by the Stone Wharf Factory, with the northern part lying on the undeveloped foreshore. The site is located approximately 85m to the east of four Timber Docks constructed for the transportation of local grain and timber. A tide mill is located approximately 40m to the west of the site, on the river bank, and was
Page 72
7.4.40
7.4.41
7.4.42
probably used for grinding grain. A number of buildings are located to the west; probably warehouses used to process and pack timber and grain. Battersea New Town, which began to be constructed in the 1790s for the housing of the expanding labour force in the area, is shown as a scatter of houses aligned along a small street network, approximately 400m to the southeast of the site. Stanfords map of 1862 (Appendix A) shows the timber docks to the west of the site filled in, and the southern part of the site occupied by the Whiting and Lime Works, which has a dock at its centre; part of a line of wharves, mills and docks fronting the Thames. A mill pond was constructed in the 1820s, approximately 200m to the southwest of the site; the river dock (the Nine Elms Mill Tide Dock) lies approximately 50m to the west and the Mill Pond Bridge approximately 60m to the southwest. This was gradually filled in during the later 19th century, with part of it converted into a riverside dock for the London Gas Works, constructed by the Gas Light and Coke Company in 1833, approximately 20m to the south of the site on the opposite side of Nine Elms Lane. The map shows the areas of greatest change to the south and east of the site, with the construction of the South Western Railway Goods Depot, approximately 300m to the east of the site. Although an area of market gardens still exists to the south of the site, the beginnings of residential building in the area bounded by Nine Elms Lane and the railway are evident, with two rows of terrace houses located approximately 65m to the southeast of the site. The Southwark and Vauxhall Water Works (HEA 17; now disused), approximately 440m to the west of the site, including the Battersea Water Pumping Station (HEA 23), were built in 1839, and its filter beds and reservoirs occupied the westernmost part of the study area. The Ordnance Survey (OS) 1st edition 25 to one mile map of 1874 (Appendix A) shows the southwestern part of the site still occupied by the Whiting and Lime Works and its dock, with a row of cottages and gardens called Jordan Cottages and a pottery located in the southeastern part. The northern part of the site is situated on the open foreshore. Further to the east, along the riverbank, the number of docks and wharves has increased, with most of the available riverside space occupied. Rows of terraced houses now occupy the majority of the land bounded by the Water Works, the large complex making up the London Gas Works, the railway line, and the docks and wharves fronting the Thames bank. This expansion was facilitated by the construction of the Railway Bridge (outside the study area) in 1865 and the growth of the railway goods yard and works, approximately 300m to the southeast of the site. Remains related to 19th century commercial docks to the east of the site were uncovered during the Alpha walkover surveys carried out by the Thames Archaeological Survey in the 1990s, including a dock entrance (HEA 60), noted approximately 215m to the east of the site, at the location of the former Nine Elms Coal Wharf, marked on the OS map of 1874. Another dock entrance (HEA 65) was observed approximately 35m to the east opposite the former Newcastle Wharf, constructed between 1874 and 1894. Two post-medieval riverfront defences, one of brick, and the other consisting of a line of vertical timber posts (HEA 62) were observed approximately 155m to the east of the site, adjacent to the former Palace
Page 73
7.4.43
7.4.44
7.4.45
7.4.46
7.4.47
Wharf, also shown on the OS map of 1874. Consolidation layers or possible barge beds (HEA 68 and HEA 72), of uncertain post-medieval date, were also noted along the foreshore, approximately 70m and 220m to the east of the site respectively. The OS 2nd edition 25 to one mile map of 18941896 (Appendix A) shows the northern part of the site still located on the undeveloped Thames foreshore, with a small channel running to the Thames from the dock, called Heathwall Dock (built in 1855). The southern part of the site continues to be occupied by industrial and/or storage buildings, although the larger buildings fronting the dock have been subdivided. The areas occupied by cottages in the eastern part of the site have become part of the factory/wharf buildings and the pottery now forms the western side of White Swan Wharf. The map shows no major changes to land use within the wider study area. The OS 3rd edition 25 to one mile map of 1916 (Appendix A) shows the site continuing to be occupied by dockside warehouse buildings. Heathwall Dock has been separated into two wharves, Mill Pond Wharf to the west, and Middle Wharf to the east. A jetty has been constructed within the northwestern part of the site, and a sewage pumping station (the LCC Heathwall Pumping Station, with its outlet direct into a culvert in the dock, replacing the Heathwall Sluice) is now located adjacent to its southwest boundary. To the south of the site, land continues to be occupied by the London Gas Works and the much expanded railway. The waterworks (HEA 17) and its pumping station (HEA 23), to the west of the site, are no longer in use and the filtering beds and reservoir to the north have been filled in and replaced with a goods depot leading from the railway line to the west. The LCC Bomb Damage Maps 19391945 (not reproduced) show no damage to the majority of the site, although Jacksons Wharf, lying partially within the eastern site boundary, is marked as seriously damaged. The OS 25 to one mile map of 1947 (Appendix A) shows smaller buildings have replaced the former dockside warehouses, although the presence of hoppers (chutes) on the edge of the river bank to the east, and a weighing machine along the western side of the dock shows it was still used for the transportation of goods coke from the London Gas Works. The jetty in the northwestern part of the site has been extended to the current northern site boundary. No major changes are shown to the east of the site. To the west, a major development had taken place in the construction of Station A of the Battersea Power Station (HEA 22), approximately 510m to the west of the site, marked Electricity Works on the map. (Station B, located to the east of Station A, was not completed until 1953). The OS 1:1250 scale map of 1952 (Appendix A) shows the site largely in its current layout. The Heathwall Pumping Station, occupying the centre of the site, was constructed over the in-filled, enclosed Heathwall Dock in the early 1960s to lift foul water from the Heathwall Sewer into the Southern Low Level Sewer and storm sewage overflow to the river. The former dockside buildings and goods-handling structures were removed and a tank and three small buildings constructed in the eastern part of the site.
Page 74
7.4.48 7.4.49
The former jetty in the north-western part was demolished. Middle Wharf, with a jetty and crane, was constructed in the north-eastern corner of the site and an outfall sewer tunnel across the foreshore in the north-western part. Later OS maps (not reproduced) show no significant changes to the site. The current site The western part of the site is occupied by Heathwall Pumping Station, the current structure on the site being no more than 50 years old. The eastern part of the site (Middle Wharf) with an associated crane and jetty are located at the north-eastern corner of the site and extend from the foreshore into the Thames channel.
Statement of significance: above ground heritage assets

7.4.50 Introduction In accordance with national policy set out in PPS5, the following section provides a statement based on professional and expert judgement on the likely significance (which is a reflection of the value or importance) of heritage assets, derived from their perceived historical, evidential, aesthetic and communal value. These terms are defined in Volume 5. The site is currently occupied by the modern brick-built Heathwall Pumping Station (Appendix A Photograph A2.3), with an open yard with a concrete surface to the east, known as the Cemex Compound (Appendix A Photograph A2.4). The Pumping station building, along with a group of cabins on brick supports to the east of the pumping station building wall, between the pumping station compound and the Cemex Compound structures, are not more than 40 years old and are of negligible heritage significance. They are therefore not considered further in the assessment. The northern boundary of the site extends onto the foreshore and includes storm outlet pipes and associated timber and concrete jetty structures projecting from the shore into the river (Appendix A Photograph A2.5). These are topped by a service walkway and former crane platform. Two concrete columns are present to the west of the outlet, presumably from an earlier, but recent structure. These structures have a negligible significance as heritage assets, and are not considered further in the assessment. Within the study area The area around the site remained relatively undeveloped (with the exception of small river docks and the occasional timber yard) until the mid 19th century. Industrialisation and the need for housing led to the general area around the site being occupied by paint works, gasometers, retort houses, docks and water pumping stations, set side by side with 19th century terraced housing (Appendix A Photograph A2.6). The last great industrial building in the area, and the most prominent is Battersea Power Station, built in 19291935. Very little else of this 19th/early 20th century industrial/residential landscape survives within the immediate environs of the site. The heritage assets around the site are assessed below in terms of their historical, evidential, communal and architectural values. Directly adjacent to the east of the site is a small public garden along the riverfront (HEA 75), the western end of which terminates in a high, foliage
Page 75
7.4.51
7.4.52
7.4.53
7.4.54
7.4.55
7.4.56
7.4.57
covered wall, which goes some way towards shielding it from the pumping station to the west (Appendix A Photograph A2.7). The river wall that is present in the garden is brick built and probably dates to the late19th/early 20th century. There appear to be various phases of construction to the river wall and it has value as evidence of riverside industrial activity. The garden, with its communal value, and the river wall, are considered heritage assets of low or medium significance. To the west the riverfront is accessible via a pedestrian path from Nine Elms lane that runs along the western side of the Pumping Station to the Tideway Walk. The riverfront in this area partly retains its 19th century shape in the form of a dock or inlet formerly Tide Mill Dock (HEA 76), with what was once Canada / Imperial Wharf along side to the east. Tide Mill Dock served as the entrance to a canal that ran under Tide Mill Pond Bridge to the south. This former entrance has been blocked and the surviving brick built river walls in this area and the former Tide Mill Dock are remnants of the areas industrial past. These riverside walls and docks are still currently used by a small river-boat community. The value of these features as heritage assets can therefore be expressed in terms not only of evidential value, illustrating the areas history, but also of communal value, as there is still a close relationship between the current residents and the few surviving remnants of their industrial and historic surroundings, despite the modern redevelopment of the area around the site, and the loss of the 19th century residential and industrial buildings. Therefore, as heritage assets, the surviving brick built river walls and the former Tide Mill Dock are of low or medium asset significance. Within the environs of the site, to the west, are some of the few surviving 19th20th century industrial buildings remaining in the area. The first group occupy one block bounded by Cringle Street to the south, and Kirtling Street to the west, north and east and are situated approximately 200m to the west of the Heathwall Pumping Station site. The buildings housed the lead, paint and colour works of Farmiloe Ltd established in 1886 (HEA 11). The lead works extended to the riverside, presumably with docking, unloading and storage facilities onto the Thames, but these riverside buildings have been demolished. The single storey buildings on the east side of the block date from 18861894, whilst the southern building with the large blocked doorway was added post 1903. Though unlisted, these buildings are of sufficient historical interest to be considered of medium significance as heritage assets. To the southwest on the opposite corner of the junction between Cringle Street and Kirtling Street there is a four storey warehouse, brick wall and entrance with brick gate posts, probably late 19th century in date. They are located approximately 330m to the southwest of the Heathwall Pumping Station site. As heritage assets, these surviving 19th century industrial buildings are considered to be of low or medium significance. The significance of further heritage assets within the study area, but outside the site (since such sites may be subject to indirect effects on their setting from the proposed scheme) requires further consideration and will be completed for the ES. These include the setting of the Grade II* listed Battersea Power Station, Grade II listed Battersea Water Pumping Station, and Churchill Gardens Conservation Area on the north bank of the
Page 76
Thames, directly opposite the site. The study area for offsite heritage assets may be revised because setting effects are most likely to occur within the visual envelope of the site, which may extend beyond the study area defined for the purposes of this assessment.
Statement of significance: buried heritage assets on the site

7.4.58 Introduction The following section discusses past impacts on the site which are likely to have compromised asset survival (generally from late 19th and 20th century developments, eg, building foundations or quarrying), identified primarily from historic maps, the site walkover survey, and information on the likely depth of deposits. In accordance with PPS5, this is followed by a statement on the likely potential for and significance of buried heritage assets within the site, derived from current understanding of the baseline conditions, past impacts, and professional judgement. Factors affecting survival Archaeological survival potential across the site is variable. Around half of the site is on the foreshore area and whilst the current hydrological regime (ie, scouring or deposition) has yet to be established, the site walkover surveys, and earlier surveys to the east, confirm the potential for surviving post-medieval structural remains on the foreshore. It is likely that some scouring is taking place, as the Saxon fish trap approximately 40m to the northeast of the site (HEA 74), identified in 2010, was not visible when the foreshore was surveyed as part of the TAS some 10 years ago, suggesting that erosion of the overlying silts has been taking place. Other than erosion, past impacts include: a. The excavation of a dock in the centre of the site (occupying approximately 1015% of the total site area) in the mid-19th century, which will have entirely removed earlier archaeological remains from within its footprint. Across the rest of the site, on the landward side of the river wall, deeply buried prehistoric and palaeoenvironmental remains, beneath the made ground, might survive intact. b. Historic maps from the mid 18th century show a number of buildings on the site, outside the Mill Dock footprint. These are unlikely to have had basements or piled foundations, and were probably constructed on pad or strip footings, which would have probably extended into made ground used to consolidate the land behind the river wall in the 18th century (or earlier). These constructions would have locally truncated post-medieval remains post-dating the 18th century (or earlier) made ground but deeper, earlier, archaeological remains in the alluvium beneath the made ground probably survive intact. c. The Heathwall Pumping Station was largely constructed over the former dock, and its associated pumps, tanks and culverts will have necessitated localised excavation for service trenches, although this will have been mainly through modern dock infill. Other past impacts, which will have caused localised truncation of archaeological remains comprise:
Page 77
7.4.59
7.4.60
7.4.61
7.4.62
7.4.63
a. Several foul and surface water drains which run north-south through the south western part of the site on either side of the pumping station (The South Western Storm Relief outfall and Heathwall Pumping Station outfall). These run into sewage outfall culverts located below the foreshore. These will have been excavated to a depth of approximately 5mbgl and will have removed archaeological remains from the top of the alluvial sequence (eg, medieval and post-medieval remains). Earlier remains may survive intact. b. Seazone data shows two subterranean pipelines run north-south from the river bank, across the foreshore and into the Thames channel. It is assumed that these will have been excavated to a depth of approximately 5.0m and will have removed archaeological remains from the top of the alluvial sequence within the area not already affected by the 19th century dock excavations. A steel and timber piled cofferdam was used in the construction of the pipelines. Archaeological remains would have been entirely removed from within the footprint of cofferdam walls, if used. c. The southeastern part of the site has much fewer service trenches, all of which are located at the very southern end of the site, alongside Nine Elms Lane, excavated to an assumed depth of 0.52.0mbgl. Although these will have locally removed later archaeological remains, services in this part of the site will have had much less impact. The types of building foundations used in this part of the site are currently unknown. Considering the likely depth of the alluvium, shallow footings should only have removed possible remains from the top of the alluvial sequence (eg, later medieval and post-medieval remains) with earlier remains preserved intact. Pile foundations (depending on their depth) are likely to have removed any remains within the pile footprints. d. The construction of a piled jetty on the foreshore in the northwestern part of the site (now demolished) will have locally removed archaeological remains within the footprints of the piles. The construction of the present Middle Wharf, presumably on piles and possibly within a de-watered cofferdam, will have entirely removed archaeological remains within the footprints of the piles and, possibly, cofferdam walls. Asset potential and significance This statement of asset significance takes into account the levels of natural geology and the level and nature of later disturbance and truncation. Palaeo-environment The site has a high potential to contain palaeoenvironmental remains. The site is located entirely on the alluvial floodplain and partially on the foreshore of the River Thames at the confluence of the Thames and an ancient tributary, the Battersea Channel/the later River Effra. That part of the site not affected by the excavation of a dock in the mid-19th century has a high potential to preserve palaeoenvironmental remains in good condition within deep alluvial sediments. Such remains would potentially be of low or medium significance depending on their nature and condition.
Page 78
7.4.64
7.4.65
7.4.66
7.4.67
This is derived from the evidential value of such remains. Prehistoric The site has a moderate to high potential to contain prehistoric remains. Although the site was low-lying, prone to flooding, and therefore probably unsuitable for settlement, the wetland would have provided a range of resources which may have been exploited in this period. Any surviving remains would be within and possibly beneath the alluvium, which may survive intact beneath the made ground on the landward side of the river wall, and possibly within the foreshore/channel silts. Waterlogged conditions potentially provide excellent conditions for the preservation of organic prehistoric remains such as timber trackways, revetments or boats. Redeposited finds would be of low significance. Localised settlement evidence would be of medium or high significance, in-situ timber structures or the remains of boats (low probability) would potentially be of high significance, depending on their nature, extent and condition. This would be derived from the evidential value of such remains. Roman The site has a low potential to contain Roman remains. The site lay within the Thames floodplain and was prone to flooding. A lack of known remains within the site and its vicinity suggests that it was not an area of settlement. The potential of the site to contain Roman remains is therefore considered to be low. Isolated artefacts and features would be of low or medium significance, depending on the nature and extent, eg, if remains indicating use of the marshes were present. This would be derived from the evidential value of such remains. Early medieval The site has a moderate potential to contain early medieval remains. The site lay within the Thames floodplain and was prone to frequent flooding throughout this period. The main potential is for further remains of Saxon fish traps, such as the one noted on the site visit walkover survey, approximately 40m to the northeast of the site (HEA 74). The location of the site, at the mouth of a Thames tributary, may have been ideal for fishing, and other fish traps may survive in this area within the foreshore silts/mud. The site would not have been in an area of settlement, although the presence of a nearby Saxon dyke suggests early attempts had been made to reclaim the marshes at some locations. Saxon fish traps, if present, would be of medium or high significance (depending on preservation). This would be derived from the evidential and historical value. Later medieval The site has a low potential to contain later medieval remains. Towards the end of the period the marshland probably began to be reclaimed to be used as agricultural land. It is possible that reclamation river walls and drainage channels may survive and the waterlogged conditions of the majority of the site may have the potential to preserve timber structures such as windmills, although past impacts from the construction of a 19th century dock and 20th century sewage tunnels will probably have locally removed such remains. Remains of reclamation and flood defence would
Page 79
7.4.68
be of low or medium significance depending on their nature, extent and condition of the remains. This would be derived from the evidential and historical value of such remains. Post-medieval The site has a high potential to contain post-medieval remains. The site and its immediate surroundings developed into an area of concentrated industrial activity from the 18th century onwards. This is reflected in the available geological borehole information which confirms the presence of the likely remains of barge beds and boat yard scatters. The site has potential to contain footings of various industrial buildings, an infilled dock, and related structures, with the remains of barge beds on the foreshore. The remains of docks and industrial buildings would potentially be of low or medium significance depending on their nature, extent and condition. This would be derived from the evidential and historical value of such remains.
Summary of asset significance

7.4.69 The table below provides a summary of the known or likely historic environment assets relevant to the proposed scheme. Vol 18 Table 7.4.1 Historic environment - receptors and significance Receptor (Asset) Remnants of the riverfront, including revetments, infilled 19th-century dock in the centre of the site, and steel piled retaining wall in western part of site Public garden and river wall adjacent to the east of the site 19th/20th century buildings to the west of the site, including the former 19th century Farmiloe Ltd lead works High potential for palaeoenvironmental remains within the alluvium Moderate to high potential for isolated prehistoric artefacts Moderate to high potential for prehistoric activity or settlement Asset type Above ground/ outside the site Significance (value) Low or medium
Above ground/ outside the site Above ground/ outside the site
Low or medium
Low or medium
Buried/within the site Buried/within the site Buried/within the site
Low or medium
Low
Medium or high
Page 80
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Receptor (Asset) Low potential for prehistoric timber trackways Low potential for Roman isolated artefacts or remains of marshland activity. Moderate potential for early medieval (Saxon) fish traps, an example of which was recorded close to the site
Section 7: Historic environment Asset type Buried/within the site Buried/within the site Significance (value) High (unlikely) Low or medium
Buried/within the site
Medium or high
Low potential for remains of Buried/within the later medieval reclamation site and flood defence High potential for buried 18th and 19th century remains, including the footings of industrial buildings and yards, an infilled dock and bargebeds on the foreshore. Low potential for unknown, unidentified, heritage assets. Buried/within the site
Low or medium
Low or medium
Buried/within the site
Not known
7.5
Construction assessment Above ground heritage assets

Within the site A section of the existing river wall would be locally demolished in the centre of the site. This section is of 20th century date and is associated with the construction of the Heathwall Pumping Station and would therefore not lead to an effect on historic assets. Within the study area The assessment of effects upon the historic setting of surrounding designated/protected heritage assets within the study area, for example from the visual presence of construction machinery, requires further consideration and will be completed for the ES. This assessment is distinct from the assessment of effects on townscape character areas presented in Section 11, as it is based on criteria specific to the historic environment. The study area for assessing setting effects on heritage assets may be revised because historic setting effects are most likely to occur within the visual envelope of the site, which may differ from the
Page 81
7.5.1
7.5.2
7.5.3
study area defined for the purposes of this assessment. The effects of other construction phase activities on particularly significant assets (ie, statutorily designated/protected features) on or adjacent to the site, will also be assessed in the ongoing EIA for presentation in the ES. Construction impacts which may affect the setting of such assets might include vibration from piling, dust and disturbance from the movement of heavy goods vehicles.
Buried heritage assets

7.5.4 7.5.5 Enabling works The predicted impact of each element of the enabling works is set out below. The cabins and wall between the former Cemex Compound (Middle Wharf) and the Heathwall Pumping Station would be demolished. It is assumed for the purposes of this assessment that the construction of the works compound would entail site stripping extending up to 0. 2mbgl. Site fencing will be erected, supported by timber posts in concrete foundations. Office, storage and welfare facilities will be constructed upon pad foundations are assumed for the purposes of this assessment to be up 1.0mbgl. These works would have a localised impact on any surviving late 19th or 18th century remains of low to medium asset significance within the made ground. This would locally reduce the significance of the asset to negligible and constitute a low magnitude of impact. This would constitute a minor adverse effect. The enabling works would entail the diversion of existing services and the construction of new service trenches approximately 1.02.0m deep. These works would locally truncate any surviving late 18th or 19th century remains of low or medium asset significance within the made ground. This would locally reduce the significance of the assets to negligible and would amount to a medium magnitude of impact. Considering the low or medium significance of the assets and the localised nature of the impact, this would constitute a minor or moderate adverse effect. Other proposed temporary works would have an impact upon a larger area, including the foreshore: a. A temporary cofferdam will be constructed in the western part of the site on the foreshore, using sheet piling filled with made ground to provide a stable platform. A cofferdam may also need to be constructed around the outfall culvert in the northern part of the site (which extends into the Thames channel) in order to carry out interception works. Up to approximately 1.0m of the foreshore would be removed within the footprint of the temporary cofferdam to ensure there was no settling of the new embankment. Some ground disturbance is also assumed outside the footprint of the temporary cofferdam and resulting from its construction. This would remove any archaeological remains, reducing the significance of those remains to negligible. This would constitute a high magnitude of impact for these assets. b. Dewatering within the cofferdams could potentially have a wider impact upon any organic remains in the vicinity which are not removed
7.5.6
7.5.7
Page 82
7.5.8
by the construction or enabling works. By changing their environment, dewatering could cause nearby organic remains to decay and reduce their significance to negligible. This would result in a high magnitude of impact. c. Granular fill will be transported to the cofferdam using barges and a long-reach excavator positioned within the site will be used to extract the material. The movement of the barges could potentially cause scouring and reduce the significance of archaeological remains, (including organic remains), within the Thames channel close to the foreshore to negligible. This would result in a high magnitude of impact. d. A campshed for barges would be constructed on the foreshore to the north of the temporary cofferdam. The construction of the campshed would require removal of c. 1.0m of the foreshore to provide a firm bed for barges. This would locally remove or truncate any archaeological remains within its footprint, reducing their significance to negligible, and would have a high impact for any affected assets. These temporary works could have an impact upon various different types of archaeological assets and the environmental effect would depend upon the significance of the assets removed: a. There is a high potential for palaeoenvironmental remains of low to medium asset significance. Removal of such remains (ie, within the footprint of the temporary cofferdam) would reduce their significance to negligible and would result in a minor adverse effect. b. There is overall a moderate to high potential for isolated prehistoric remains of low asset significance and for remains of prehistoric activity, or settlement, of medium or high asset significance. The removal of such remains would reduce asset significance to negligible, and comprise minor or moderate effects respectively. c. There is a low potential for prehistoric trackways of high asset significance. If present, the removal of such remains would reduce their significance to negligible and comprise a major adverse effect (unlikely). d. There is a low potential for isolated Roman remains of low asset significance and remains of marshland activity of moderate asset significance. The removal of such remains would reduce asset significance to negligible, and comprise minor or moderate effects respectively. e. There is a moderate potential for early medieval fish traps similar to the one recorded to the northeast of the site. Such remains would be of medium or high asset significance. The asset significance would be reduced to negligible, which would comprise a major adverse effect. f. There is a low potential for later medieval remains associated with land reclamation. Such remains would be of low or medium asset significance, if present. Removal of such remains would reduce their significance to negligible and comprise a minor or moderate adverse effect. g. There is a high potential for post-medieval remains on the foreshore
Page 83
7.5.9
7.5.10
7.5.11
7.5.12
7.5.13
comprising barge beds, wharves and jetties. These would be of low to medium asset significance and their removal would reduce their significance to negligible, and would result in a moderate adverse effect. h. There is a low potential for possible, previously unrecorded remains of unknown asset significance. This could be low to high, depending on the nature, date, extent and survival of the remains. Removal of such remains would comprise a minor to major adverse effect, depending on asset significance. Construction works An internal permanent foreshore structure would be located within the temporary cofferdam. Within the footprint of the foreshore structure all alluvium would be removed to provide a solid foundation and prevent settling. This would remove the majority of any archaeological remains present within the footprint of these works, removing any remains within the alluvium and heavily truncating any surviving features cut into the underlying gravels. The significance of any assets affected would be reduced to negligible and would constitute a high magnitude of impact for these assets. The affected assets and the resulting environmental effect for this, and for the construction works listed below, are the same as those described for the temporary works in 7.5.7 above. The effect would vary depending upon the original significance of the assets removed. Construction of the intermediate drop shaft, interception chamber, valve chamber and culvert would potentially remove or truncate any surviving archaeological remains within their footprint which had not previously been removed by stripping of the foreshore during construction of the cofferdams. The significance of affected assets would be reduced to negligible, constituting a high magnitude of impact for affected assets. The CSO drop shaft, interception chamber, valve chamber; passive filter chamber and culvert landward of the river would remove any remaining archaeological remains within their footprints. The significance of affected assets would be reduced to negligible, constituting a high magnitude of impact for these assets. The affected assets and the resulting environmental effect are the same as those described for the temporary works in 7.5.7 above, but could also include post-medieval remains of 18th and 19th century riverfront, including buried remains of Mill Dock, wharves, warehouses and industrial buildings of low or medium asset significance. The removal of such remains would reduce the significance of any affected assets to negligible and would comprise a high magnitude of impact. Allowing for the low to medium significance of the assets, this would result in a minor adverse effect. The connection tunnel between the CSO drop shaft and Thames Tunnel would have no impact on archaeological remains as it would be bored beneath the existing foreshore and river bed at a level too deep to have any archaeological impact. On completion of the shaft and connection chambers, the permanent river wall would be constructed. The area between the temporary cofferdam and the permanent foreshore structure would be excavated. All alluvial material would be removed from this area to provide a solid foundation
Page 84
and prevent settling. This would remove any archaeological remains within the footprint of the excavation, reducing the significance of those remains to negligible. This would constitute a high magnitude of impact for these assets.
Significance of environmental effect

7.5.14 The table below summarises the magnitude of impact upon known and possible historic environment assets at the site (above ground and buried), during the construction phase, and the resulting environmental effect. This is the effect prior to the implementation of an agreed mitigation strategy. Vol 18 Table 7.5.1 Historic environment construction effects Asset (resource) Impact (magnitude, and justification) None Effect (prior to mitigation) None
Above ground heritage assets Public garden and river wall adjacent to the east of the site (Low or medium asset significance) 19th/20th century buildings to the west of the site, including the former 19th century Farmiloe Ltd lead works (Low or medium asset significance) High potential for palaeoenvironmental remains within the alluvium. (Low or medium asset significance) Moderate to high potential for isolated prehistoric remains (Low asset significance) Moderate to high potential for prehistoric activity or settlement remains (Medium or high asset significance) Low potential for prehistoric timber trackways (High asset significance) Low potential for isolated Roman remains and remains
Page 85
None
None
Buried heritage assets Minor adverse
High Assets removed by stripping of the foreshore, piling, excavation for CSO shaft, interception chamber, valve chambers, culverts and ventilation structures. Asset significance reduced to negligible
Minor adverse
Moderate or major adverse
Major adverse (unlikely) Minor or moderate
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Asset (resource)
Section 7: Historic environment Impact (magnitude, and justification) Effect (prior to mitigation) adverse
Above ground heritage assets of marshland activity (Low or medium asset significance) Moderate potential for early medieval (Saxon) fish traps. (Medium or high asset significance) Low potential for remains of later medieval land reclamation and flood defence (Low or medium asset significance) High potential for buried 18th and 19th century remains, including the footings of industrial buildings and yards and an infilled dock on the land; and bargebeds, wharves and jetties on the foreshore. (Low to medium asset significance) High Assets removed by stripping of the foreshore, piling, excavation for CSO shaft, interception chamber, valve chambers, culverts and ventilation structures. Asset significance reduced to negligible Uncertain
Minor or moderate adverse
Minor or Moderate adverse
Low potential for unknown, unidentified, heritage assets. (Unknown asset significance)
Uncertain
7.6
7.6.1
Operational assessment Above ground heritage assets

The effect of the project upon the historic setting of designated/protected heritage assets within the study area requires further consideration and will be assessed through the ongoing EIA for presentation in the ES. This assessment is distinct from the assessment of effects on townscape character areas presented in Section 11, as it is based on criteria specific to the historic environment. The study area for assessing setting effects on heritage assets may be revised because historic setting effects are most likely to occur within the visual envelope of the site, which may differ from the study area defined for the purposes of this assessment.

7.6.2 It is possible that as a result of the permanent foreshore structure and new river walls, the fluvial regime of the river would change resulting in different
Page 86
scouring patterns. This could potentially result in scouring of archaeological remains elsewhere along the foreshore, which have not previously been affected by natural or human activity. The predicted impact upon the fluvial regime and any archaeological remains on the foreshore will be assessed following a review of hydrological modelling, along with a review of data on past dredging held by the Port of London Authority (any archaeological assets would have already been removed in areas of past capital dredging).
Significance of environmental effect

7.6.3 The table below summarises the historic environment assets at the site for which effects during the operational phase will be assessed through the ongoing EIA for presentation in the ES. Vol 18 Table 7.6.1 Historic environment operational effects Asset (resource) The setting of the Churchill Gardens Conservation Area (outside the site; on the north bank of the Thames) (High asset significance) Impact (magnitude, and justification) To be assessed for the ES Effect (prior to mitigation) To be assessed for the ES
The setting of the Grade To be assessed for the II* listed Battersea ES Power Station (outside the site) (Very high asset significance) The setting of the Grade To be assessed for the II listed Battersea Water ES Pumping Station (outside the site) (High asset significance)
To be assessed for the ES
7.7
7.7.1

Mitigation measures required are detailed below.
Above ground heritage assets

7.7.2 Within the site No significant adverse effects requiring mitigation have been identified, so no mitigation is required.
Page 87
7.7.3
Within the study area Any mitigation which may be required for indirect effects on above ground heritage assets will be detailed in the final ES, following consideration of the significance of these assets, their setting and the predicted effects. However, it is acknowledged that the scope for mitigation is likely to be limited, for example where effects on historic setting arise from the visible presence of construction machinery.

7.7.4 Based on this assessment, no heritage assets of very high significance are anticipated that might merit a mitigation strategy of permanent preservation in situ. It is therefore considered that the adverse environmental effects of the proposed development could be successfully mitigated by a suitable programme of archaeological investigation before and/or during construction, to achieve preservation by record (through advancing understanding of asset significance). The assessment presented here has identified likely significant effects on buried heritage assets resulting from ground works. Mitigation requirements would be informed by selective site based assessment. This could include a variety of techniques, such as geotechnical investigation, geoarchaeologcial deposit modelling, archaeological test pits and trial trenches. This evaluation would enable a more targeted and precise mitigation strategy to be developed for the site post-consent and in advance of construction. Subject to the findings of any subsequent field evaluation and the construction methodology, it is suggested that mitigation of the adverse effects upon archaeological remains within the site could include the following: a. An archaeological watching brief during site preparation and construction to mitigate impacts arising from service diversions and foundations for offices and welfare on the landward side of the existing river wall. b. Archaeological survey and excavation of the foreshore, within the footprints of the proposed temporary cofferdam and the permanent foreshore structure, in order to mitigate the effects on the river side of the existing river wall. The precise approach to survey and excavation will depend on the detailed construction methodology. c. Due to the depth of alluvium on the site, mitigation of the impacts of deeper proposed excavations (ie, CSO drop shaft, interception chamber, valve chamber; passive filter chamber and culvert) landward of the river would only become feasible following the insertion of the perimeter walls/shaft segments of each construction (the shaft, the chambers etc). Targeted archaeological investigation would proceed as the ground within the perimeter walls/shaft segments is excavated downwards. Both evaluation and mitigation would be carried out in accordance with a scope of works (Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI)) which would be agreed with statutory consultees prior to conducting any archaeological fieldwork prior to or during construction, to ensure that the scope and
7.7.5
7.7.6
7.7.7
Page 88
method of fieldwork are appropriate to satisfy requirements of the application.
Operation
7.7.8 Above ground heritage assets Any mitigation which may be required for indirect effects on above ground heritage assets will be detailed in the final ES, following consideration of the significance of these assets, their setting and the predicted effects. Mitigation might, for example, include changes to the proposed finishing materials of above ground structures, such as cladding and ground treatments. Buried heritage assets A possible operational effect upon archaeological remains has been identified, comprising possible change to the scouring patterns of the river and consequent impacts upon downstream archaeological remains. The precise impact on the fluvial regime and any archaeological remains cannot be predicted at present, but hydrological modelling could provide further information on any possible effects (if any). Any mitigation strategy would depend on the results of hydrological modelling, but could comprise a programme of archaeological excavation and recording (ie, preservation by record) of any archaeological remains likely to be affected.
7.7.9
Page 89
7.8

Significance of effect Mitigation Residual effect
Vol 18 Table 7.8.1 Historic environment summary of construction assessment
Asset (receptor)
Above ground heritage assets None None required None
Public garden and river wall adjacent to the east of the site (Low or medium asset significance) None None required
19th/20th century buildings to the west of the site, including the former 19th century Farmiloe Ltd lead works (Low or medium asset significance) Buried heritage assets Minor adverse
None
High potential for palaeoenvironmental remains within the alluvium. (Low or medium asset significance) Minor adverse
Environmental sampling during archaeological investigation
Negligible
Moderate to high potential for isolated prehistoric remains (Low asset significance)
Negligible
Moderate potential for prehistoric activity or settlement (Medium or high asset significance) Major adverse (unlikely)
Negligible
Low potential for prehistoric timber trackways (High asset significance)
Archaeological investigation and recording of the area within the temporary cofferdam on the foreshore and within the CSO drop shaft, interception chamber, valve chamber; passive filter chamber and culvert landward of the river to form preservation by record.
Negligible
Page 90
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Significance of effect Minor adverse Moderate or major adverse Negligible Negligible Mitigation Residual effect
Asset (receptor)
Low potential for isolated Roman remains (Low asset significance)
Moderate potential for early medieval (Saxon) fish traps. (Medium or high asset significance) Minor or moderate adverse
Low potential for remains of later medieval reclamation and flood defence (Low or medium asset significance) Minor or Moderate adverse
Negligible
High potential for buried 18th and 19th century remains, including the footings of industrial buildings and yards and an infilled dock on the land; and bargebeds, wharves and jetties on the foreshore. (Low or medium asset significance)
Archaeological investigation and recording of the area within the temporary cofferdam on the foreshore and within the CSO drop shaft, interception chamber, valve chamber; passive filter chamber and culvert landward of the river to form preservation by record. Archaeological investigation and recording of the area within the temporary cofferdam on the foreshore and within the CSO drop shaft, interception chamber, valve chamber; passive filter chamber and culvert landward of the river to form preservation by record.
Negligible
Low potential for unknown unidentified remains (Unknown asset significance)
Uncertain
Negligible
Page 91
Page 92
Operation
Vol 18 Table 7.8.2 Historic environment operational assessment Effect (prior to mitigation) To be assessed for the ES To be identified for the ES To be assessed for the ES Mitigation Residual effect (after mitigation)
Asset
The setting of the Churchill Gardens Conservation Area (outside the site; on the north bank of the Thames) (High asset significance) To be assessed for the ES To be identified for the ES
The setting of the Grade II* listed Battersea Power Station (outside the site) (Very high asset significance) To be assessed for the ES To be identified for the ES
The setting of the Grade II listed Battersea Water Pumping Station (outside the site) (High asset significance)
Page 93
7.9
7.9.1
In terms of desk based sources, the following outstanding information will be collated for the EIA baseline: a. Port of London Authority (PLA) data on wrecks and obstructions within the River Thames channel and foreshore (these may be of an archaeological nature), along with any information on past dredging (which will have removed any heritage assets) which might be additional to the UK Hydrographic Office data (already obtained) is currently under discussion with the PLA. b. The results of geoarchaeological monitoring of geotechnical boreholes (clarifying depth and nature of deposits); c. Information on existing hydrological regimes of the River Thames (establishing where there is existing scouring or deposition). Possible effects of ground settlement resulting from deep constructions within the site, other than the tunnel itself (this will be discussed in Volume 6: project-wide effects) will be considered in the EIA and reported in the ES. The assessment of indirect construction and operational effects upon the historic setting of surrounding designated/protected heritage assets within the study area requires further consideration and will be completed for the ES. This assessment is distinct from the assessment of effects on townscape character areas presented in Section 11, as it is based on criteria specific to the historic environment. The study area for assessing setting effects on heritage assets may be revised because historic setting effects are most likely to occur within the visual envelope of the site, which may differ from the study area defined for the purposes of this assessment. Assessment of the cumulative and in combination effects will be undertaken and reported in the ES. Following completion of the assessment, the mitigation approaches for the historic environment within the project will be finalised and reported in the ES.
7.9.2
7.9.3
7.9.4 7.9.5
Page 94
Section 8: Land quality
8 8.1
8.1.1 8.1.2
Land quality Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant land quality effects at the Heathwall Pumping Station site. This section should be read in conjunction with Section 13 (Groundwater), Section 14 (Surface Water), Section 5 (Aquatic Ecology) and Section 6 (Terrestrial Ecology).
8.2
8.2.1
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to land quality are as follows: Interception of the existing outfalls will require the river wall to be permanently realigned and hence a temporary cofferdam must be constructed through the foreshore at the location of the Heathwall Pumping Station. Permanent works at Heathwall Pumping Station include: a. a CSO drop shaft; b. an interception chamber on the Heathwall outfall and shallow drop shaft; c. a connection culvert from the drop shaft to the main CSO drop shaft; d. an interception chamber on the Southwest Storm Relief Sewer; e. connection culvert to the main CSO drop shaft; f. valve chambers; and g. a connection tunnel from the CSO shaft to the main tunnel. The plan shown in Vol 18 Figure 3.1.1 to Vol 18 Figure 3.1.3 provides an indicative extent and layout of the construction site. Construction workers involved in intensive below ground works are high sensitivity receptors. Measures incorporated into the draft CoCP which aim to substantially reduce risks associated with construction activities include: a. the remediation of the site so it is fit for purpose (where required) b. the use of appropriate PPE as well as training and welfare for construction staff c. confined space working measures where applicable d. the employment of UXO specialist advice. The CoCP includes measures to minimise the migration of dusts during construction activities. These include the use of wheel washing at site entrances, damping down during dry weather and covering and safe storage of potentially contaminating materials (if any).
8.2.2
8.2.3
8.2.4 8.2.5
8.2.6
8.3
8.3.1 8.3.2

Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. There were no site specific comments from consultees for this particular
Page 95
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station site.
Construction and operation

8.3.3 8.3.4 8.3.5 The construction and operational phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.
Assessment assumptions and limitations

The assumptions and limitations associated with this study are presented in Volume 5. There are no site specific assumptions and limitations for the site.
8.4
8.4.1
Baseline conditions
Baseline conditions have been determined for the development confines and for a distance of up to 250m beyond (in order to take into account off site contamination sources and receptors). The baseline data is sourced from the Thames Tunnel Geographical Information Systems (GIS) database, including historic maps and environmental records, together with a walkover survey and stakeholder consultation. A full list of the data sets drawn upon in this assessment is presented in Volume 5 methodology.
8.4.2
Site walkover
8.4.3 8.4.4 A site walkover was undertaken in spring 2010. The proposed site is currently utilised by Heathwall Pumping Station and an adjacent disused jetty area housing a crane, hopper and tank. The contents of the tank are currently unknown. The eastern side of Heathwall Pumping Station is currently vacant land. A double skinned fuel storage tank and a chemical storage area are also present in this area. A garage was identified approximately 125m southeast of the site. The site walkover notes are provided in Appendix B.
8.4.5
8.4.6 8.4.7
Site history and surroundings with potential for contaminants

8.4.8 The table below provides a summary of the site history, including potentially contaminative activities and principal contaminants of concern in and around the site. The table was produced following inspection of the historic mapping dating from the late 19th century to the present day held by the project, together with the site walkover. The locations of the sites described below are shown on Vol 18 Figure 8.4.1. Vol 18 Figure 8.4.1 Land quality - contaminative land uses (see Volume 18 Figures document) Vol 18 Table 8.4.1 Land quality - contaminative land uses Item Inferred Date Potentially Contaminative of Operation Substances Associated with Item
8.4.9
Ref
On-site
Page 96
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Ref Item
Section 8: Land quality Inferred Date Potentially Contaminative of Operation Substances Associated with Item Heavy metals, arsenic, asbestos, phenols, oil/fuels, hydrocarbons, PCBs, PAHs, sulphide, sulphate, chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons Heavy metals, arsenic, free cyanide, nitrates, ammonium, phosphates, sulphates, sulphides, asbestos, oil/fuel hydrocarbons, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbon, chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons, PCBs, pathogens Heavy metals, arsenic, free cyanide, nitrates, ammonium, phosphates, sulphates, sulphides, asbestos, oil/fuel hydrocarbons, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbon, chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons, PCBs, pathogens
(a) Lime works and dock
Prior to c1875 to c1896
(b) Sewage pumping station including dock 1
c1916 c1951
(c) Existing sewage pumping station
c1951 to present
Manor house wharf and other various wharves
Heavy metals, arsenic, asbestos, phenols, oil/fuels, hydrocarbons, PAHs, c1896 to c1975 PCBs, sulphide, sulphate, chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons Oil/fuel hydrocarbons, aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, organolead compounds, cyanides, ammonia, phenols, heavy metals, asbestos
Off-site
a) London gas works (15m south)
Pre c1875 c1976
b) Sorting office and
c1976-onwards Heavy metals, arsenic, asbestos, phenols, oil/fuels,

Page 97
Section 8: Land quality Inferred Date Potentially Contaminative of Operation Substances Associated with Item hydrocarbons, PAHs, PCBs, sulphide, sulphate, chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons PAHs, heavy metals, phenols, sulphates, fuel oil, lubricating oil, greases, PCBs, solvents, asbestos, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, sulphates Heavy metals, arsenic, asbestos, phenols, oil/fuels, hydrocarbons, PAHs, PCBs, sulphide, sulphate, chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons Heavy metals, boron, asbestos, nitrate, sulphate, phenol, acetone, oil/fuel hydrocarbon, aromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, dieldrin, PCBs Oil/fuel hydrocarbons, aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, organolead compounds, heavy metals and asbestos. Heavy metals, arsenic, asbestos, phenols, oil/fuels, hydrocarbons, PAHs, PCBs, sulphide, sulphate, chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons Heavy metals, boron, asbestos, nitrate, sulphate, phenol, acetone, oil/fuel hydrocarbon, aromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons,
warehouses (15m south)
Railway (225m south)
(a) Unspecified industrial/commercial buildings (185m west)
c1896-c1916
(b) Paint and colour works (185m west)
c1916-c1952
(c) Various works and depots (185m west)
c1952- present
(a) Unspecified industrial/commercial buildings (190m west) 6
c1896-c1916
(b) Paint and colour works (190m west)
c1916-c1952
Page 98
Section 8: Land quality Inferred Date Potentially Contaminative of Operation Substances Associated with Item dieldrin, PCBs Heavy metals, arsenic, asbestos, phenols, oil/fuel hydrocarbons, PAHs, PCBs, sulphides, sulphates, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons Heavy metals, arsenic, asbestos, phenols, oil/fuels, hydrocarbons, PAHs, PCBs, sulphide, sulphate, chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons Heavy metals, arsenic, asbestos, phenols, oil/fuels, hydrocarbons, PAHs, PCBs, sulphide, sulphate, chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons Heavy metals, arsenic, asbestos, phenols, oil/fuels, hydrocarbons, PAHs, PCBs, sulphide, sulphate, chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons Heavy metals, arsenic, asbestos, phenols, oil/fuel hydrocarbon, PAHS, sulphides, sulphates, chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, hexachlorocyclohexane Oil/fuel hydrocarbons, aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, organolead compounds, cyanides, ammonia, phenols, heavy metals, asbestos
(c) Various works and depots (190m west)
c1952-present
(a) Various wharves including imperial wharf and jam factory (75m west)
(b) North Thames gas board offices (75m west)
c1975-c1987
(c) Nine Elms/Tideway Industrial Estate and depot (75m west)
c1987- present
Dock - including lock and brine mill pond (45m west)
Tanks associated with gas works (35m east)
c1966
Page 99
Section 8: Land quality Inferred Date Potentially Contaminative of Operation Substances Associated with Item Volatile organic compounds, total petroleum hydrocarbons, heavy metals, ethanol/methanol, ammonia, chlorinated alkalis, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes Heavy metals, arsenic, asbestos, phenols, oil/fuels, hydrocarbons, PAHs, PCBs, sulphide, sulphate, chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons
10
a) Brewery (200m east)
b) warehousing (200m east)
c1976 to c1984 Use unknown
11
Warehousing and sorting office (65m east)
c1984 to present
8.4.10
8.4.11
8.4.12
8.4.13
8.4.14
8.4.15
Historic mapping has indicated the presence of a former dock, lock and mill pond located approximately 50m to the west of the Heathwall Pumping Station site. The mill pond and lock were not present by 1961 and the dock by 1990, indicating that a degree of infilling may have taken place in this area. This is further supported by the presence of artificial ground in this area on the BGS mapping. In summary the historical mapping has identified potentially contaminative on site uses including an unidentified works and the presence of a tank (contents unknown). In addition to the Heathwall Pumping Station, the site also comprises a wharf and jetty and is currently utilised by a waste operative for waste transfer activities. The 250m search radius has identified that historically the surrounding area at Heathwall Pumping Station has been predominantly industrial with pockets of commercially used properties. Notably, there was an extensive Gas Works located approximately 25m south of the site, between 1875 and 1976. Historic industrial activities both on and adjacent to the site may have, to some degree, impacted the soils beneath the site. Geology and hydrogeology Data from British Geological survey, the published geological map of the area and logs from boreholes excavated as part of previous investigations of the site indicates the geological succession summarised in the table below. Controlled waters (ie, surface water and groundwater) can potentially represent a pathway for the spread of mobile contaminants as well as being a sensitive environmental receptor. The Environment Agency (EA) Aquifer Designation maps have been used to classify the geological units according to their aquifer status which is also presented in the table below.
Page 100
The Heathwall Pumping Station site is classified by the Environment Agency as being within Source Protection Zone 1 (SPZ) for groundwater that is extracted for potable supply. This is an inner protection zone defined as having a 50 day travel time from any point below the water table to the source. This zone has a minimum radius of 50m. Vol 18 Table 8.4.2 Land quality site geology and hydrogeology Unit/ Description Granular fill comprising sand and gravel or brick with some fragments of timber. Locally clay soils predominate. Medium dense to dense sand and gravel (predominantly quartz sand and flint gravel). Medium dense to dense sand and gravel (predominantly quartz sand and flint gravel). Expected to be slightly sandy clay. Approximate depth below Hydrogeological ground level classification (m) 0-4.5 Non applicable
Geological Strata Made ground
Alluvium
4.5-6.0
Secondary A Superficial Aquifer
River Terrace Deposits
6.0 -7.8
Secondary A Superficial Aquifer
London Clay Formation
7.8-39.17 39.17-39.82 39.82- 41.02 41.02-47.02
Unproductive strata Secondary A Bedrock Aquifer. Upnor Formation where in continuity with underlying Thanet Sand and Chalk may be regarded as a Principal Bedrock Aquifer
Lambeth Group (Upper The Lower and Shelly Beds) Upper Mottled Beds Lambeth Group (Upper comprise mottled or Mottled Beds) multicoloured, stiff or very stiff fissured Lambeth Group clay, compact silt, (Laminated and dense or very Beds/Lower Shelly dense sand Beds) Upnor Formation is a Lambeth Group (Lower fine grained Mottled Beds) glauconitic sand. Lambeth Group (Upnor Formation) Thanet Sand Formation/Bullhead Beds Generally dense glauconitic silty fine sand with occasional
Page 101
47.02-53.12 53.12-57.00 57.0-66.5
Secondary A Bedrock Aquifer - in continuity with underlying Chalk
Section 8: Land quality Approximate depth below Hydrogeological ground level classification (m)
Geological Strata
Unit/
Description rounded flint gravel. The Bullhead Beds which mark the base of the formation comprise green stained gravel and cobbles of flint.
Chalk Group
Weak fine grained limestone with nodular and tabular flints.
66.5 unproven
Principal Bedrock Aquifer
8.4.17
8.4.18
8.4.19
8.4.20 8.4.21
8.4.22
8.4.23
Unexploded ordnance During World Wars I and II the London area was subject to bombing. In some cases bombs failed to detonate on impact. During construction works unexploded ordnance or bombs (UXO) are sometimes encountered and are required to be made safe and disposed of. A desk based assessment for UXO threat was previously undertaken by specialists for previous ground investigation works (boreholes SR1085 and PR1086) on part of the proposed development site. The report reviews information sources such as the Ministry of Defence (MoD), Public Records Office and the Port of London Authority (PLA). The report established that no damage from WWII bombing was recorded in the immediate vicinity of the boreholes but that one bomb was reported within the exploratory site and numerous bombs were reported within a 100m radius. It is considered that there is an overall low to medium threat from UXO within a 25m radius of the exploratory holes at the site. Thames Tunnel ground investigation The following section summarises the soil, soil gas and groundwater testing undertaken as part of the Thames Tunnel Ground Investigation. The following table summarises the Thames Tunnel Ground Investigation data from the boreholes located in the vicinity of the preferred site. These comprise boreholes, SA1082 and SR1086. Additional boreholes have been excavated in the vicinity of Heathwall Pumping Station and are illustrated on Vol 18 Figure 8.4.2 but are not considered relevant to the land quality assessment either due to their distance from the shaft location or because certain boreholes were excavated purely for geotechnical purposes. The results of the soil analyses from the ground investigation have been compared against human health screening values and to PLA Approved Sediment Quality Guidelines. Coastal and estuarine Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) criteria are used for the shallow aquifer as it is in continuity with adjacent tidal watercourses.
Page 102
The borehole locations are shown in Vol 18 Figure 8.4.2. Vol 18 Figure 8.4.2 Land quality - proposed borehole locations (see Volume 18 Figures document) Vol 18 Table 8.4.3 Land quality summary of ground investigation data Soil contamination testing No contaminants above human health screening values in the five samples tested between made ground and River Terrace Deposits. No contaminants above human health screening values in the four samples tested between Alluvium and Thanet Sand Formation. Groundwater testing contamination
Borehole Refs. SR1086
Contamination results from two groundwater samples tested in the London Clay Formation and the base of the Lambeth Group. No contaminants found in water that exceed the DWS/EQS Contamination results from groundwater testing undertaken from within either London Clay Formation or Thanet Sand Formation/Bullhead Beds. No contaminants found in water that exceed the DWS/EQS
SA1082
8.4.25
8.4.26 8.4.27
8.4.28
Gas monitoring installations in borehole SR1086 were screened at depth and below the groundwater level. No soil gas testing results were available for shallow soils or wells screened above or across the water level. No soil gas testing results were available for borehole SA1082. As part of the investigation, a number of samples of materials that make up the river bed were analysed for common contaminants. Although none were sampled in the immediate vicinity of Heathwall Pumping Station, data shows some local contamination with heavy metals (arsenic, copper and lead) above PLA threshold effect levels (defined as the possible effect range within which adverse effects occasionally occur). Very few results exceeded the probable effects level (defined as the concentration above which adverse effects frequently occur). Other environmental records Details of environmental records for the vicinity of the site held by the Environment Agency and other bodies were obtained from the Thames Tunnel GIS which is partially sourced from Landmark Information Group. Significant records are discussed in further detail after the summary table below and associated Vol 18 Figure 8.4.3. Vol 18 Figure 8.4.3 Land quality - environmental records and waste sites (see Volume 18 Figures document) Vol 18 Table 8.4.4 Land quality environmental records and waste
Page 103
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station sites Item Licensed Industrial Activities Hazardous Substance Sites Pollution incidents to controlled water Waste Treatment and Disposal Sites Landfill sites Industrial authorisations (IPPC, COMAH) Past Potential Contaminated Uses On-site 0 0 0 0 0 0
Within 250m of site boundary 0 0 3 0 0 0
Entire 250m search radius classified as past potentially contaminated industrial uses, there are three further past potential contaminated land uses identified on the GIS mapping. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Registered Waste Transfer Sites Licensed Waste Management Facilities Licence Abstractions Local Authority Pollution Prevention & Controls 8.4.29 8.4.30
8.4.31
8.4.32
8.4.33 8.4.34
The proposed site at Heathwall Pumping Station is identified as being within an area of past potentially contaminating industrial uses. Within a 250m radius of the preferred site at Heathwall Pumping Station, inspection of the GIS mapping has identified three pollution incidences to controlled water. These are located in the River Thames, two of the incidences are located approximately 50m north of the pumping station and Jetty and the third is located in the middle of the river (approximately 140m north). Two Local Authority Pollution Prevention and Controls are located within a Garage compound, 140m southeast of the site, and adjacent to the north of the pumping station at the jetty on Middle Wharf. Inspection of the GIS mapping also identified three past potential contaminated land uses, two of these were located on Elm Quay, 100m and 175m east of the site, and the third situated north of the river at River Lodge, approximately 225m from the site. Technical engagement The London Borough of Wandsworth was contacted with regard to land quality records held by the council for this site. They confirmed the land development history which is outlined in the table above and concluded that soils and groundwater in the area of interest
Page 104
may be contaminated as a result of historical industrial uses and infill materials.
8.5
8.5.1 8.5.2
Construction assessment
Assessment year: construction For land quality, the assessment is based on the likely baseline conditions which will be experienced on commencement in Year 1 of construction. No significant changes to the baseline conditions detailed above are considered likely between now and the commencement of construction.
Development of conceptual model

8.5.3 A key element of the Preliminary Risk Assessment for Land Quality is the development of source-pathway-receptor conceptual model which aims to understand the presence and significance of potentially complete pollutant linkages. The methodology for undertaking this analysis is provided in Volume 5. The following section outlines the sources, pathways and receptors which are relevant to the land quality assessment at the site. Sources of contamination The following sources of contamination have been identified: On site a. Current potential contamination, part of the site area is currently utilised by a waste operative. b. Potential soil and groundwater contamination associated with historical land-use, for example an unidentified works with associated tanks. Off site a. Adjacent past potential contaminated land uses, including the presence of extensive gas works 25m south from the site. Pathways The following pathways for contamination have been identified: b. human uptake through: ingestion of exposed contaminated soils during construction; inhalation of soil/dust, volatilised compounds or ground gas via migration through permeable strata and conduits; or c. dermal contact with exposed soils during construction; d. horizontal and vertical migration of leachable contaminants via groundwater within the Alluvium and River Terrace Deposits; e. vertical migration of contaminants along preferential pathways created by excavation of diaphragm wall; f. direct runoff into the River Thames; g. direct contact of soils with construction materials; and h. gas/vapour migration through pipes/foundations, along piles and into structures. i. mobilisation of contaminants in river water through disturbance of contaminated river bed sediments; Receptors The following receptors for contamination have been identified:
8.5.4 8.5.5
8.5.6 8.5.7
8.5.8
8.5.9
8.5.10
Page 105
8.5.11 8.5.12
8.5.13
8.5.14
8.5.15
8.5.16
a. Construction workers b. Off-site receptors nearby industrial/commercial premises and future residential receptors c. Future site users d. Built environment e. Controlled waters - surface water f. Controlled waters - groundwater in shallow and deep aquifers g. Aquatic ecology The sensitivity of the land quality receptors are defined in Vol 5 Table 7.4.2. The following section discusses the potential impacts on receptors as a result of the existing land quality conditions at the site. Impacts and effects upon construction workers Construction workers may be in contact with soils or other contaminated materials during demolition, groundworks and shaft excavation works and therefore there is the potential for human uptake (via ingestion, inhalation and dermal contact) of contaminants, although any effects are likely to be short term only. Given the application of these measures, the magnitude of the impact is likely to be negligible, resulting in a slight effect (not significant). Impacts and effects upon off-site receptors The construction works may result in the creation of new pathways for contaminants to migrate to adjacent sites eg, via wind-borne dust during excavated material handling and storage. Thus whilst the sensitivity of adjacent industrial and future residential sites is low to high, given the application of these measures, the impact from this will be negligible resulting in a negligible to slight effect (not significant). This is summarised in the tables below. Vol 18 Table 8.5.1 Land quality impacts and magnitudes construction Impact Health impact on construction workers Magnitude, and justification Negligible CoCP measures such as use of correct PPE, safety briefings and remediation of contaminated soils reduce impacts substantially.
Health impact on off-site receptors Negligible - CoCP measures such residents and workers as dust suppression, correct storage of potentially contaminated materials, wheel washing at site entrance reduce impacts substantially. Damage to built environment existing structures Negligible - CoCP measures such as UXO specialists employed to advise staff reduce impacts
Page 106
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Impact Damage to built environment proposed structures
Section 8: Land quality Magnitude, and justification substantially. Negligible - measures such as remediation of heavily contaminated soils and reduce impacts substantially.
Vol 18 Table 8.5.2 Land quality receptors and values/sensitivities construction Receptor Construction workers Off-site receptors Built environment - existing Built environment - proposed Effect Slight effect on off-site receptors Negligible effect on built environment - existing Negligible effect on built environment - proposed Value/sensitivity and justification High intensive below ground construction Low to High mixture of industrial and future residential properties Low infrastructure Low infrastructure Significance, and justification Not significant Not significant Not significant
Vol 18 Table 8.5.3 Land quality significance of effects - construction Slight effect on construction workers Not significant
8.6
8.6.1
Operational effects could theoretically include potential exposure to end users from contaminated soils and for the leakage of sewage from the shaft into the surrounding soils Impacts and effects on future site users The future site users include maintenance workers who would be working on the site occasionally and other staff within the Heathwall Pumping Station facility. Given the nature of their work on the site, they are considered here to be low sensitivity receptors. The principal risk would relate to exposure to previously contaminated soils and groundwater (via ingestion, dermal contact and inhalation pathways). Contaminated soils and groundwater will be assessed and dealt with as part of the construction works and accidental leakage will be reduced by operational control systems. Given the application of these measures, a negligible impact to the identified receptors is predicted, resulting in a negligible effect (not significant).
8.6.2
8.6.3
Page 107
8.6.4
8.6.5
8.6.6
Impacts and effects upon built environment The principal impact relates to the potential for the degradation of new structures by attack from deleterious substances which may in turn reduce the integrity of the structure (and could promote leakage of sewage through the walls of the shaft). All below ground structures will be required to be ventilated due to the gassing nature of the tunnel contents, therefore any additional minor ingress of land gas or vapours will be mitigated. The built environment is a low sensitivity receptor and with the inclusion of the proposed measures such as soil remediation, the impact is low, resulting in a negligible effect overall (not significant). This is summarised in the tables below. Vol 18 Table 8.6.1 Land quality impacts and magnitudes - operation Impact Health impact on site end users Magnitude, and justification Negligible design measures such as remediation of heavily contaminated soils and provision of capping layers as appropriate. Below ground structures will require to be ventilated due to gassing nature of tunnel contents. No above ground structures. Negligible - design measures such as remediation of heavily contaminated soils, concrete mix design and ventilation reduce impacts substantially. Negligible - design measures such as remediation of heavily contaminated soils, reduce impacts substantially.
Damage to built environment proposed structures
Damage to built Environment existing structures
Vol 18 Table 8.6.2 Land quality receptors and values/sensitivities operation Receptor Site end users Built environment existing Built environment - proposed Effect Negligible effect on end users Negligible effect on built environment existing Value/sensitivity and justification Low industrial/infrastructure end use Low industrial/infrastructure Low industrial/infrastructure Significance, and justification Not significant Not significant
Vol18 Table 8.6.3 Land quality - significance of effects - operation
Page 108
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Effect Negligible effect on built environment proposed
Section 8: Land quality Significance, and justification Not significant
8.7
8.7.1
Construction The assessment has not identified the need for further site specific mitigation measures during the construction phase. Operation The assessment has not identified the need for further site specific mitigation measures during the operational phase.
8.7.2
Page 109
8.8
Effect Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not required Not required Not required Not required Significance Mitigation Residual significance No residual effects identified No residual effects identified No residual effects identified No residual effects identified
Assessment summary
Vol 18 Table 8.8.1 Land quality summary of construction assessment
Receptor
Construction workers
Slight effect on construction workers
Off-site receptors residents and workers
Slight effect on off-site receptors
Built environment existing
Negligible effect on built environment - existing
Built environment proposed
Negligible effect on built environment - proposed
Vol 18 Table 8.8.2 Land quality summary of operational assessment Effect Not significant Not significant Not significant Significance Mitigation Not required Not required Not required Residual significance No residual effects identified No residual effects identified No residual effects identified
Receptor
Site end users
Negligible effect on end users
Slight effect on built environment - existing
Slight effect on built environment - proposed
Page 110
8.9
8.9.1 8.9.2 8.9.3 8.9.4
New data from site investigations (including new boreholes and foreshore samplings) will be reviewed and the baseline updated as required. Assessment of cumulative and in combination effects will be undertaken and reported in the ES. Following completion of the assessment the mitigation approaches for land quality within the project will be finalised and reported in the ES. Impacts on groundwater, surface water and aquatic ecology will be assessed and reported in the ES.
Page 111
Section 9: Noise and vibration
9 9.1
9.1.1
Noise and vibration Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant noise and vibration effects at the Heathwall Pumping Station site. This section includes an assessment of the following: a. Noise and vibration from the construction site activities b. Noise from construction traffic on roads outside the site c. Noise and vibration from the operation of the site. The tunnel drive for the main sewer does not run beneath this location. Noise and vibration from the tunnelling activities associated with the main tunnel are considered in (Volume 6).
9.1.2
9.1.3
9.2
9.2.1
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to noise and vibration are as follows. Construction Noise-related environmental design measures incorporated in the CoCP, which have been assumed for the purposes of the assessment include: a. careful selection of construction plant (conforming to the relevant SI), construction methods and programming b. equipment to be suitably sited so as to minimise noise impact on sensitive receptors c. use of site enclosures, and temporary stockpiles, where practicable and necessary, to provide acoustic screening d. choice of routes and programming for the transportation of construction materials, excavated material and personnel to and from the site e. careful programming so that activities which may generate significant noise are planned with regard to local occupants and sensitive receptors. It has been assumed for the purpose of this assessment that the hoarding height will be 2.4m at this location. Where the need for additional noise control measures (beyond standard best practicable means measures described in the CoCP) has been identified, these have not been assumed for the purposes of the assessment. Where that the assessment indicates that these are likely to be required, this information has been added to the section on mitigation. For the purposes of the noise and vibration assessment the construction activities have been grouped into the following stages of work: a. Enabling works (including demolition) b. Foreshore works (construction of temporary cofferdam and campsheds) c. Shaft sinking d. Construction of connection tunnels
Page 112
9.2.2
9.2.3 9.2.4
9.2.5
9.2.6 9.2.7
9.2.8
9.2.9
9.2.10
9.2.11
9.2.12
e. Completion work (including landscaping, and construction and fit-out of permanent facility). The above-ground works (stages a-c) have the potential to create airborne noise and vibration impacts. Stages a to e have the potential to generate groundborne noise and vibration impacts, namely from vibratory compaction and breaking out. Silent piling methods are assumed for the cofferdam construction which is considered a low noise and low vibration method, and has not been quantitatively assessed as it is considered no significant effects would arise from these stages. The connection tunnel would be constructed by tunnel excavator and not tunnel boring machine in this location. Of the two methods the tunnel excavator would give rise to much lower vibration and noise levels. Specific construction plant information for stage e (completion works) is not available at this stage of the design so these works have not been assessed as part of this report. However, this stage is assumed to be much smaller in scale than the rest of the works and is assumed to not involve heavy construction operations. The phase two consultation logistics strategy considers the delivery and removal of 90% of cofferdam fill material by river, with all other materials transported by road. The barges will be moored on campsheds at the site. The strategic road network would be used to move materials to and from the site. Estimated vehicle and barge movement numbers are presented in Section 3.3. It is assumed that all of the activities would be carried out during standard (core) hours as identified in Vol 18 Table 3.3.1. As such, only daytime working is considered at this location. The potential for 24-hour working has been proposed during the construction of the connection tunnel, however this work would be carried out below ground-level and as such it is considered that noise from these activities would not cause any disturbance. However, the potential for any associated activities at surface levels would be examined further in the ES when more information is available. Operation The permanent installation would have above ground structures housing passive ventilation equipment. The additional electrical and control equipment would be housed within the existing pumping station building. This equipment would be required to operate under various different scenarios dependent on the flows into and along the tunnel, with the potential to operate at any time of the day or night. The plant installed and the cascade events have the potential to create noise and vibration impacts.
9.3
9.3.1
Assessment methodology Scoping and consultation

Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. There were no site specific comments from consultees for this particular site in relation to noise and vibration.
Page 113
Baseline
9.3.2 The baseline methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.
Construction
9.3.3 The construction phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. Any site specific variations are described below: At this location, the construction activities have been assessed over the period of three years. Baseline noise levels have not yet been measured, and as such the assessment has been carried out based on all residential receptors being in the most sensitive assessment category according to BS5228 22. For non-residential receptors, comparison has been made to the noise levels reported from road traffic in the DEFRA London Noise Maps (2007)23. The level reported in these maps is based on an average over a longer period (7am to 11pm) than the standard (core) construction hours at this location, which is likely to be lower than the measured noise level and therefore a worst case iii. The noise level has been assumed to be the lowest value in the reported range (with a facade correction). The noise levels reported in this document are indicative of the noise climate; however they are not intended to be used to indicate noise levels at a specific receptor. These noise levels will be updated with the measured data during the ES.
9.3.4 9.3.5
9.3.6
Operation
9.3.7 The operational phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.

9.3.8 Noise-related environmental design measures have been assumed as defined in the CoCP. Those of relevance to noise and vibration are listed in Section 4.2 above. The assessment has been carried out based on the assumption that the noisiest two activities within any one stage could potentially occur onsite simultaneously for the duration of the stage. This is an extremely conservative approach, as the activities are unlikely to last the duration of any one stage. At the current level of construction planning, this is considered a reasonable assumption for the purposes of the assessment and would be refined as the construction methodology develops. The assessment of construction traffic effects has been based on predicted numbers of construction traffic movements (presented in Section 3), using professional judgement at this stage. This assessment will be revisited and presented in the ES upon receipt of baseline traffic data While it is considered that there is a possibility for noise and vibration effects arising from water cascading during tunnel filling events at
9.3.9
9.3.10
9.3.11
iii
See 9.2.11 for a discussion of 24 hour working.
Page 114
receptors very close to drop shafts, it has not been possible to adequately assess this as part of this report. The likely noise and vibration emissions however be estimated as the cascade design develops and will be reported in the ES.
9.4
9.4.1
Baseline conditions
This section reviews the setting and receptor characteristics of the site for the purposes of this assessment. The site is located within the Nine Elms Industrial Area of the London Borough of Wandsworth. The site consists of the existing Thames Water Heathwall pumping station and the adjacent plot, Middle Wharf that was a ready mix concrete depot but is currently unoccupied. A small wharf structure extends into the river. The site is bounded to the north by the River Thames, fronts to the south onto Nine Elms Lane and is situated between Tideway Walk to the west and Elms Quay, a nine-storey apartment complex, which is the nearest residential receptor to the site to the east. The Tideway Industrial Estate on Tideway Walk is currently being redeveloped for mixed use and is referred to in this assessment as Tideway Walk. This will include residential and commercial space half of which will be complete by the final year of construction. Twenty-two houseboats are also moored close to this site, and there is a submitted application for additional moorings. Until this application is consented, the present figure of 22 has been used in this assessment. Further north of the site, on the opposite bank of the River Thames are the residential developments, River Lodge and Icon Apartments. The residential properties selected for the noise and vibration assessment are identified in Vol 18 Table 9.4.1. These are shown in plan view in Vol 18 Figure 9.4.1 and selected to be representative of the range of noise climates where sensitive receptors are situated around the site. The approximate numbers of properties affected at each of these locations is indicated in Vol 18 Table 9.4.1. Beyond these receptors there are other residential locations which are screened from the site by intervening buildings. Vol 18 Figure 9.4.1 Noise and vibration - residential receptors (see Volume 18 Figures document) Distant road traffic noise dominates the site, along with construction noise from the nearby Tideway Walk development.
9.4.2
9.4.3
9.4.4 9.4.5
9.4.6
Receptor Sensitivity
9.4.7 The noise sensitive receptors have been assessed according to their sensitivity, according to the methodology outlined in Volume 5 Section 2.3. The sensitivities of all assessed receptors are presented in Vol 18 Table 9.4.1. All residential receptors have been assessed as having a high sensitivity.
9.4.8
Page 115
Vol 18 Table 9.4.1 Noise and vibration receptor locations Ref Receptor addresses Building Use Sensitivity No. of noise sensitive properties/ areas 60 41 120 376
HP1 HP2 HP3 HP4 9.4.9
Elm Quay House Boats River Lodge and Icon Apartments Tideway Walk
Residential Residential Residential Residential
High High High High
The criteria for determining the significance of noise effects from construction sources at residential properties are dependent upon the existing ambient noise levels. As measured ambient noise levels are not currently available the lowest assessment category has been assumed for all receptors and the assessment noise threshold levels for the receptors near the Heathwall pumping station worksite are as shown in Vol 18 Table 9.4.2. Vol 18 Table 9.4.2 Noise and vibration receptors/airborne construction noise Ref Noise sensitive receptor Ambient noise level, rounded to nearest 5dBLAeq** Assessment category* Significance criterion threshold level*, dBLAeq, 10hour 65 65 65 65
HP1 HP2 HP 3 HP 4
* **
Elm Quay House Boats River Lodge and Icon Apartments Tideway Walk
A A A A
From ABC method BS5228:2009 Baseline measurement data not available for this report
9.5
9.5.1 9.5.2

The noise level for the base case for the assessment is expected to be as assumed for the baseline noise levels for 2011. Noise levels for the development case assessment are expected to be as per 2011 noise levels. Construction noise associated with the Tideway Walk development will still be present in the first year of construction. Where there is a variation in the conditions in the first year of construction, it is likely that the noise levels would increase very slightly compared to the measured data from 2011 (due to natural traffic growth), and as such,
Page 116
9.5.3
9.5.4
9.5.5
9.5.6
an assessment based on data from 2011 would be worst case. The area is currently subject to a number of planning applications and permissions for developments, including the new American Embassy, Post Office building and Battersea Power station redevelopment. These schemes are considered too far from the site for inclusion in this assessment because there are closer receptors. The Tideway Walk development is currently onsite and has been considered as a receptor. It is not considered that there are any other circumstances at this location that would cause the baseline noise levels at the receptor locations to change significantly between 2011 and the first year of construction. For vibration, it is considered that the levels of vibration around the site are low at present, and they are unlikely to change between the present time and the future base case. The development case is therefore assumed to be the base case plus any additional noise and vibration sources associated with the construction phase.
9.5.7 Predictions of construction noise have been carried out based on information available to date and presented in Section 3. Noise measures incorporated in the CoCP have been assumed for the purposes of the assessment. At all locations, the upper floor of permanent residences would directly overlook the site despite the site hoarding. The house boats would be screened from all noise sources. Construction noise The results of the assessment of construction noise are presented in Vol 18 Table 9.5.1 to Vol 18 Table 9.5.4. Elm Quay The predicted noise levels at these properties exceed the assumed impact criterion threshold considerably at the upper floors, for a total duration of 20 months. The upper floors are not screened from the works, and so the excess at these properties is much higher. Based on the BS5228 criterion this would be rated as a significant impact. Vol 18 Table 9.5.1 Noise construction impacts at receptor HP1, Elm Quay Receptor No. of noise sensitive properties 60 Impact noise level*, dBLAeq Significance criterion threshold level**, dBLAeq Value/sensitivity
9.5.8
9.5.9
9.5.10
Elm Quay Activity
High Magnitude/ justification Excess above criterion, dBLAeq Approx. activity duration, months
Page 117
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Receptor
Section 9: Noise and vibration No. of noise sensitive properties 60 Significance criterion threshold level**, dBLAeq Value/sensitivity
Elm Quay Activity Impact noise level*, dBLAeq
High Magnitude/ justification Excess above criterion, dBLAeq -4 -13 -8 -4 Approx. activity duration, months 6 6 9 5
Ground Floor Enabling Works Foreshore Works Shaft Sinking Connection Tunnels 4th Floor Enabling Works Foreshore Works Shaft Sinking Connection Tunnels
* **
61 52 57 61
65 65 65 65
71 62 67 71
65 65 65 65
+6 -3 +2 +6
6 6 9 5
Construction noise level only Assumed ambient level equivalent to Category A values
9.5.11
House boats At ground floor level, which is the general level considered for house boats, the impact criterion is not exceeded, and so based on the BS5228 criterion the impact would not be rated as significant. Vol 18 Table 9.5.2 Noise construction impacts at receptor HP2, House boats Receptor No. of noise sensitive properties 41 Impact noise level*, dBLAeq Significance criterion threshold level**, dBLAeq Value/sensitivity
House boats Activity
High Magnitude/ justification Excess above criterion, dBLAeq Approx. activity duration, months
Page 118
House boats Activity Impact noise level*, dBLAeq
High Magnitude/ justification Excess above criterion, dBLAeq 0 -10 -5 -1 Approx. activity duration, months 6 6 9 5
Ground Floor Enabling Works Foreshore Works Shaft Sinking Connection Tunnels
* **
65 55 60 64
65 65 65 65
Construction noise level only Assumed ambient level equivalent to category A values
9.5.12
River Lodge and Icon Apartments The predicted noise levels at these properties do not exceed the impact criterion at any of the floors. Based on the BS5228 criterion this would not be rated as a significant impact. Vol 18 Table 9.5.3 Noise impacts at receptor HP3 construction River lodge and Icon Apartments Receptor No. of noise sensitive properties 120 Impact noise level*, dBLAeq Significance criterion threshold level**, dBLAeq Value/sensitivity
Icon Apartments Activity
Ground Floor Enabling Works Foreshore Works Shaft Sinking Connection Tunnels 51 42 47 51 65 65 65 65
Page 119
Icon Apartments Activity Impact noise level*, dBLAeq
4th Floor Enabling Works Foreshore Works Shaft Sinking Connection Tunnels
* **
61 52 57 61
65 65 65 65
Construction noise level only Assumed ambient level equivalent to category A values
9.5.13
Tideway Walk The predicted noise levels at these properties exceed the assumed impact criterion threshold by a small margin at the upper floors, for a total duration of 11 months. Based on the BS5228 criterion this would be rated as a significant impact. Vol 18 Table 9.5.4 Noise construction impacts/magnitudes at HP4 Receptor No. of noise sensitive properties 376 Impact noise level*, dBLAeq Significance criterion threshold level**, dBLAeq Value/sensitivity
Tideway Walk Activity
Ground Floor Enabling Works Foreshore Works Shaft Sinking Connection Tunnels 57 47 52 56 65 65 65 65
Page 120
Tideway Walk Activity Impact noise level*, dBLAeq
High Magnitude/ justification Excess above criterion, dBLAeq +2 -8 -3 +1 Approx. activity duration, months 6 6 9 5
4th Floor Enabling Works Foreshore Works Shaft Sinking Connection Tunnels
* **
67 57 62 66
65 65 65 65
Construction noise level only Assumed ambient level from Defra Noise Maps for London
9.5.14
9.5.15
9.5.16
Construction traffic For construction traffic, the construction traffic noise impact is considered to be low in magnitude, based on the fact that the industrial units to the west of the development site include several haulage firms, and so a disproportionately high amount of heavy good vehicles are likely to already be using Nine Elms Lane, where the site entrance is located. This can be assessed in more detail in the ES when the traffic assessment data is available. Construction vibration The assessment of construction vibration considers events which have the potential to result in damage to buildings or structures and human response to vibration separately using different parameters. The assessment of potential construction vibration impacts at adjacent buildings / structures has been assessed using the predicted Peak Particle Velocity (PPV); the results from the assessment are presented in Vol 18 Table 9.5.5. Vol 18 Table 9.5.5 Vibration building impacts and magnitudes construction Ref Receptor Impact (highest predicted PPV across all activities, mm/s) Value/ sensitivity Magnitude and justification
Page 121
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Ref Receptor Impact (highest predicted PPV across all activities, mm/s) 0.7
Section 9: Noise and vibration Value/ sensitivity Magnitude and justification
HP1
Elm Quay
High
No impact: Below threshold for potential cosmetic damage No impact: Below threshold for potential cosmetic damage No impact: Below threshold for potential cosmetic damage No impact: Below threshold for potential cosmetic damage
HP2
House boats
1.5*
High
HP 3
River Lodge and Icon Apartments
0.4
High
HP 4
Tideway Walk
0.4
High
Predicted vibration levels assume groundborne transmission. For boats moored in the river it is expected that vibration transmission would be reduced and the vibration levels would be lower than those estimated
9.5.18 9.5.19
The vibration levels reported here are perceptible however they are well below the levels likely to cause building damage. The assessment of potential construction vibration impacts due to human response at neighbouring receptor has been assessed using the predicted estimated Vibration Dose Value (eVDV), the results from the assessment are presented in Vol 18 Table 9.5.6. Vol 18 Table 9.5.6 Vibration impacts and magnitudes - construction Ref Receptor Impact Value/ (highest sensitivity predicted eVDV across all activities, m/s1.75)* 0.15 High Magnitude and justification**
HP1
Elm Quay
No impact: below low probability of adverse
Page 122
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Ref Receptor
Section 9: Noise and vibration Magnitude and justification**
Impact Value/ (highest sensitivity predicted eVDV across all activities, m/s1.75)* 0.1
***
comment HP2 House boats High No impact: below low probability of adverse comment No impact: below low probability of adverse comment No impact: below low probability of adverse comment
HP 3
0.07
High
HP 4
Tideway Walk
0.07
High
Worst affected floor
Categorisation of magnitude as defined in Volume 5 Section 2 Predicted vibration levels assume groundborne transmission. For boats moored in the river it is expected that vibration transmission would be reduced and the vibration levels would be lower than those estimated.
***
**
9.5.20
9.5.21
9.5.22
Summary of construction effects Vol 18 Table 9.5.7 outlines the assessed significance of effects from all sources of noise and vibration based on the extent of impacts identified above. As described in the general methodology Volume 5 Section 2, the significance of noise effects is based on the predicted impact and other factors, ie, the construction noise level relative to the significance threshold, the numbers and types of receptors affected and the duration of impact. The significance of vibration effects is assessed on the magnitude of exposure relative to guidance thresholds for disturbance as well as other factors including the number of affected receptors and their uses. Vol 18 Table 9.5.7 Noise and vibration construction effects Ref HP1 HP2 Receptor Elm Quay House boats Significance, and justification Noise Significant Not significant Vibration Not significant Not significant
Page 123
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Ref HP 3 HP 4 9.5.23 Receptor River Lodge and Icon Apartments Tideway Walk
Section 9: Noise and vibration Significance, and justification Noise Not significant Significant Vibration Not significant Not significant
The assessment identifies significant noise effects at Elm Quay and Tideway Walk, and no significant vibration effects.
9.6
9.6.1

As discussed in Section 9.5.1, there is likely to be only a small variation in baseline noise levels between 2011 and the future base case year. The noise levels assumed in 2011 are therefore likely to form the basis of a conservative assessment, as road traffic noise levels would increase along with traffic increases. For vibration, no change is assumed between the present time and future base case.
9.6.2
Operational effects
9.6.3 Noise control measures would be included on all plant items as part of the design process to limit noise increases to within appropriate noise limits to avoid disturbance. These limits have not been set, and are currently under discussion with the local authority and will be relative to the existing background noise levels at each receptor (using the methodology in BS4142:1997 24. It is not possible to quantify the overall change in noise level until this process is complete. However, it is considered that it will be possible to control noise emissions to within appropriate noise limits defined by the local authority to prevent significant effects. Vol 18 Table 9.6.1 contains a summary of the assessment results for operational noise.
9.6.4
Page 124
Vol 18 Table 9.6.1 Noise airborne impacts and magnitudes operation Ref Receptor Impact Value/ sensitivity High Magnitude and justification Change in ambient subject to local authority limits no adverse impact Change in ambient subject to local authority limits no adverse impact Change in ambient subject to local authority limits no adverse impact Change in ambient subject to local authority limits no adverse impact
HP1
Elm Quay
Noise level controlled to prevent adverse impact as per BS4142* Noise level controlled to prevent adverse impact as per BS4142* Noise level controlled to prevent adverse impact as per BS4142* Noise level controlled to prevent adverse impact as per BS4142*
HP2
House boats
High
HP 3
High
HP 4
Tideway Walk
Medium
BS4142:1997
9.6.5
9.6.6
9.6.7
9.6.8
During the design process, noise levels would be controlled to meet the limits currently being negotiated with the local authority to prevent adverse impact at sensitive receptors. Therefore, no impacts are identified at this location. It is noted that at this location there are likely to be several additional developments near the site, as outlined in Section 9.5.3. The design process would also include assessment of these properties (where consented) to reduce risk of adverse impact. As part of the operation of the tunnel, there would need to be routine but infrequent maintenance carried out at the site. This is described further in Section 3. A crane would be required for 10 yearly shaft inspections. This would be carried out during normal working hours, using equipment which is likely to
Page 125
9.6.9
9.6.10
increase ambient noise levels. Given the infrequency of this operation, it is considered that a significant noise effect would not occur. Routine inspections, lasting approximately half a day, would occur every three to six months and would not require heavy plant. As this would be carried out during the daytime with minimal noisy equipment operating over short periods of time, it is considered that further assessment of noise generated by this activity is not required. As no impacts have been identified from the operation of the site, no significant effects have been identified. Vol 18 Table 9.6.2 Noise and vibration summary of operational effects Ref Receptor Significance, and justification Noise from surface site ventilation plant HP1 HP2 HP 3 HP 4 Elm Quay House boats River Lodge and Icon Apartments Tideway Walk Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Noise from maintenance operations. Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant
9.6.11
At this location, no significant effects are predicted at any of the receptors. This is subject to the equipment being specified with appropriate noise control measures to ensure that the targets in BS4142 are met as outlined in Volume 5, Section 2.
9.7
9.7.1 9.7.2

All measures embedded in the draft CoCP of relevance to noise and vibration are found in Section 9.2 Significant construction effects have been predicted at two assessed receptors around the site. This is based on a worst case assessment where the two noisiest activities in any stage happen concurrently and over the entire duration of the stage. This is a conservative approach considered appropriate for the level of information provided in this assessment and will be refined once further information is available for the ES. The affected buildings are all more than two stories high, and close to the site, and as such the standard site hoarding only provides screening to the ground floor of the properties. At this site, the properties at Elm Quay and River Lodge and Icon Apartments would benefit from an increased site hoarding height on the eastern edge of the site. All stages of works assessed as having the potential to give rise to likely significant effects (enabling works, foreshore works, shaft sinking and connection tunnels) would require additional mitigation, if practicable, to
9.7.3
9.7.4
Page 126
9.7.5
supplement the best practicable means (BPM) environmental design measures assumed for all sites. The quantitative assessment has assumed only general BPM measures, as far as it is possible to incorporate these in the noise prediction exercise. These include site boundary screening, careful selection of modern construction plant, and positioning of equipment. To address significant effects, specific solutions will be developed as appropriate to provide additional mitigation targeted on those noise sources generating the highest noise levels at the relevant receptor. For example, within this more detailed mitigation design, the use of localised screens and customised enclosures around the item of plant or the process would be considered. For the purposes of this assessment and at this stage of the design, site specific additional mitigation beyond BPM measures has not been identified in the assessment. However, when the potential mitigation options for the illustrative scheme can be confirmed, this will be presented in the ES.
Operational
9.7.6 No significant effects as a result of the operation of the site have been identified; hence no additional permanent noise mitigation is required at this location. It should be noted that operational plant design for the ventilation of the tunnel would include environmental design measures to meet noise limits agreed with the local authority to avoid significant effects.
9.7.7
Page 127
9.8

Significance Significant Mitigation to be reported in the ES Mitigation Residual significance Potentially significant (subject to mitigation options) Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Potentially significant (subject to mitigation options) Not significant
Vol 18 Table 9.8.1 Noise and vibration summary of construction assessment
Receptor
Effect
Elm Quay
Noise
Vibration Not significant Not Significant Not significant Not significant Significant Mitigation to be reported in the ES None required None required None required None required
Not significant
None required
House boats
Noise
Vibration
Noise
Vibration
Tideway Walk
Noise
Vibration
Not significant
None required
Page 128
Operation
Significance Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant None required None required None required None required None required None required None required None required Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Mitigation Residual significance
Vol 18 Table 9.8.2 Noise and vibration summary of operational assessment
Receptor
Effect
Elm Quay
Noise
Vibration
House boats
Noise
Vibration
Noise
Vibration
Tideway Walk
Noise
Vibration
Page 129
9.9
9.9.1
The completion of the assessment to an appropriate level of detail is subject to further information on baseline noise levels and construction road traffic. When the transport analysis is complete this will be assessed and any effects identified in the ES. The level of detail of this site assessment reflects the available information on methods and programme. The next stage of the assessment work will be more detailed in profiling the variation in construction noise levels across the programmes of work and the range of receptors at each surface site. It has not been possible to adequately assess the potential for noise and vibration from water cascading down drop shafts during tunnel filling events. The likely noise and vibration emission would be estimated as the cascade design develops and will be included in the ES. As the illustrative construction methodology develops more indepth assessment work for the EIA will allow more detailed mitigation design. Following the development of more refined mitigation design as described above, it would be possible to carry out a more detailed assessment of residual effects. The effectiveness of more specific mitigation measures will be fully assessed and reported in the ES. Assessment of cumulative and in combination effects will be undertaken and reported in the ES. Following completion of the assessment the mitigation approaches for noise and vibration within the project will be finalised and reported in the ES.
9.9.2
9.9.3
9.9.4 9.9.5
9.9.6 9.9.7
Page 130
Section 10: Socio-economics
10 10.1
10.1.1
Socio-economics Introduction
This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant socio-economic effects at the Heathwall Pumping Station site.
10.2
10.2.1
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to socio-economics are as follows: Construction Measures incorporated into the draft CoCP to limit, and in some cases eliminate, significant adverse air quality, noise, vibration, and visual impacts could reduce socio-economic impacts, particularly amenity impacts. See Section 4 Air Quality and Odour, Section 9 Noise and Vibration, and Section 11 Townscape and Visual within this volume for detail on the type of measures that may be employed. Both the construction related activities and lorry movements could result in amenity or in combination effects being experienced by sensitive receptors in proximity to the proposed activities. Operation The Thames Path (PRoW) would be re-routed along the riverside through Middle Wharf and in front of Heathwall Pumping Station. The existing river wall in front of the Heathwall Pumping Station would be extended out a short distance into the foreshore of the River Thames, to accommodate the installation of permanent operational infrastructure, thereby creating a new area of public amenity space, as an extension to the existing Thames Path. Middle Wharf would remain safeguarded, and there would be no public access to this area of land.
10.2.2
10.2.3
10.2.4
10.2.5 10.2.6
10.2.7
10.3
10.3.1

Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. All consultee comments relevant to this site are presented in the table below. Vol 18 Table 10.3.1 Socio-economics stakeholder engagement Organisation Environment Agency Comment It is considered that the use of foreshore sites is likely to lead to a number of detrimental effects in relation to flood risk management, biodiversity and recreation. Response Consideration of the impact of the proposed development at the site on recreational facilities has been considered where appropriate.
Page 131
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Organisation LB Wandsworth Comment
Section 10: Socio-economics Response Although the identified site to which this comment applies is no longer included in the project, the assessment has considered the potential impacts on the Tideway Walk (Riverlight) residential development.
Consideration needs to be given to the fact that the proposals for the Tideway Walk (Riverlight) residential development could be the first to occur in the Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea (VNEB) opportunity area. This development could therefore potentially act as a catalyst for development in the wider VNEB opportunity area. Consideration needs to be given to the impact on housing provision and the VNEB opportunity area designation for residential intensification 25 at the site, and in light of the impact that may occur as a result of loss of industrial and development potential of the site. Noise, air quality and visual effects should be scoped in, and considered in relation to impact on existing house boats and expected nearby future development (at Tideway Industrial Estate and Battersea Power Station).
LB Wandsworth
The identified site to which this comment applies is no longer included in the project. However, the assessment has considered the potential impacts on residential development where necessary.
LB Wandsworth
An assessment of amenity effects caused by air quality, noise and visual impacts was scoped in, and has been undertaken in this report. The assessment has considered all residential receptors present in the base case, including future developments and house boats, as appropriate. While there are proposals under consideration to develop Nine Elms Pier, it is not currently known whether these proposals will be permitted or the phasing for the proposed pier redevelopment. For the purpose of this assessment, it has been
LB Wandsworth
It is indicated that alternatives for the existing house boat moorings would be considered, the full impact of these alternatives and impact on the house boats needs to be considered in the ES.
Page 132
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Organisation Comment
Section 10: Socio-economics Response assumed that permission will be granted and that the house boats will be present during the construction phase. Accordingly, assessment of alternative house boat moorings has not been considered. Amenity impacts on all residential receptors nearby the site have however been considered.
Construction
10.3.2 The construction phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. Any site specific variations are described below: a. The assessment years used for socio-economic effects in terms of construction activity are estimated to cover approximately a three year period.
Operation
10.3.3 The operational methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.

10.3.4 The following socio-economic assumptions and limitations apply to the findings presented in this report: a. That the Thames Path experiences relatively low levels of use in the existing baseline situation; however usage levels are likely to increase through the construction base case, due to the amount of residential development that is proceeding and proposed in the Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea (VNEB) opportunity area. (See para. 10.5.2 for further information regarding the assumed level of development.) b. That the works at the Tideway Walk site, as described in para. 10.4.26, would necessitate the diversion of a section of the Thames Path which runs around the northern perimeter of the Tideway Walk site. It is further assumed that a diversion would be implemented along Nine Elms Lane in conjunction with the proposed development works at Kirtling Street and Heathwall Pumping Station. Preliminary technical assessments of potential air quality, noise and vibration, and visual effects, and associated design and mitigation measures, have been undertaken by each of those topic areas (see Sections 4, 9 and 11 respectively). The socio-economic assessment has been informed by the preliminary findings of these topic assessments.
10.3.5
Page 133
10.4
10.4.1
Baseline conditions Thames Path

The Thames Path at this location runs along the riverside and then routes south away from the river between Heathwall Pumping Station and the former Tideway Industrial Estate for approximately 60m (on the western boundary of the construction site). From here it runs east-west along the footpath of Nine Elms Lane for approximately 80m in front of Heathwall Pumping Station and the former Cemex site. It then heads north for approximately 30m through a small area of public open space to the east of the construction site boundary (that separates the proposed site with the Elm Quay residential building), back to the riverside from where the path continues along the riverfront to the east, passing an area of grassed amenity space and Elm Quay to the northeast. For the duration of its length as it passes the construction site, between the eastern boundary of the construction works area (within the small area of open space) and northern portion of Kirtling Street (approximately 180m to the west of the construction site boundary), this section of the Thames Path is known as Tideway Walk. The nature and appearance of the path varies in this area. Where the path follows the footpath of Nine Elms Lane, the path is relatively wide but is worn, unevenly paved and without any soft landscaping. A narrow cycle lane is marked out along the pavement immediately adjacent to the roadside in order to provide cyclists with an off road alternative to travelling on Nine Elms Lane. Where the path passes between Heathwall Pumping Station and the former Tideway Industrial Estate (the site of the consented Tideway Walk (Riverlight) redevelopment) it is narrow with high walls on either side. There is limited landscaping nearer to the river and limited sight lines where the path turns at the river side. Additionally, security features such as window grills and wire mesh fencing along the walls affect the appearance and layout of the path. Many users are likely to consider that the path looks unpleasant and feels intimidating and unsafe. 26 The path does not have views over the River Thames at this location (see figure in Appendix A). This section of the Thames Path does not have any seating for the duration of its length, and is not well lit. It follows a tarmac or paved path, approximately two metres in width, which is uneven and cracked in places. The character of the path varies in its surroundings and views, but is generally not pleasant for pedestrians to use. During two reconnaissance site visits it has been observed that the path is not well-used. The few pedestrians who made use of the path appeared to be local residents. It is assumed that this is reflective of the usual use of the path given the industrial and warehousing character of the area, relative lack of residential development, the absence of any significant tourism attractions and the distance from a public transport hub at this location. Further path usage-level surveys will be undertaken later in 2011. The main factor affecting the sensitivity of Thames Path users to the
10.4.2
10.4.3
10.4.4
10.4.5
10.4.6
10.4.7
Page 134
10.4.8 10.4.9
10.4.10
potential occurrence of adverse amenity impacts is the availability and amenity of other routes. While pedestrian exposure to amenity effects is possible as the diversion route remains in close proximity to the construction site, pedestrians using the Thames Path are only likely to be in the vicinity for the time that it takes them to walk past the site (assumed to be only a minute or two for most users). Therefore the duration for which users are likely to experience effects would be limited. On the basis of these factors, it is considered that the sensitivity of Thames Path users to disruption from amenity effects is likely to be low. Likewise the sensitivity of Thames Path users to the permanent realignment of the Thames Path in the operational phase of the development is likely to be low also, given that the existing route via Nine Elms Lane exists as an alternative, albeit less pleasant. See Vol 18 Figure 10.4.1 for a baseline plan which indicates the features identified above. Vol 18 Figure 10.4.1 Socio-economic context (see Volume 18 Figures document)
Public open space

10.4.11 A small area of open amenity space is situated south of the River Thames, directly to the east of the proposed site and to the west of Elm Quay residential building. The site is a functioning area of public open space that is approximately 0.15ha in size and is classified as a pocket park under the GLA Open Space Hierarchy27. The size and layout of the site means that it is likely to mainly cater for passive recreation. This area of open space is roughly grassed, has a litter bin and is planted with trees and shrubs on the southern perimeter of the site. The Thames Path runs around the northern and western perimeters of the open space. There are two entrance/ exit points to this open space. The area is bounded by a low wall to the south and the embankment wall to the north, however is open 24 hours a day and does not have restricted access. Trees planted on the edge of the grassed area within this open space help to provide a partial barrier between traffic on Nine Elms Lane and users of the park. The open space is overlooked on its eastern boundary by windows and balconies on the Elm Quay residential building to the east. In terms of the numbers of people using the site, it has been observed on reconnaissance visits that the garden experiences low usage levels. It is most likely to be frequented by pedestrians passing through this open space via the Thames Path (which runs along the northern and western perimeter of the site), rather than people who come specifically to use the space for recreation purposes. Users of the space may be in the vicinity of the construction site for short periods (such as the time it takes to walk from one end to the other) or possibly for longer periods (ie, if a longer time is spent within the garden). In considering the sensitivity of users of the space to the potential adverse amenity impacts arising on an adjacent site, the size of the open space, its position near to Nine Elms Lane and the availability of alternative spaces are key factors. These factors are considered below:
10.4.12
10.4.13
10.4.14
10.4.15
Page 135
10.4.16
a. The size of the open space is small and means that users would only ever be a short distance (less than 100m) away from any nearby amenity impacts arising at the proposed construction site. b. The site is located adjacent to Nine Elms Lane and this means that users are already likely to experience adverse amenity effects as a result of existing traffic (see Section 12 Transport for further details). c. The availability of these alternatives reduces the sensitivity of users to the impacts of construction effects, as they offer comparable facilities within close proximity. Taking account of these above factors it is considered that the sensitivity of users of the open space to disruption from construction effects is likely to be low.
Public amenity / open space (future) associated with the Thames Path and Elm Quay public open space
10.4.17 As set out in Section 4.2, a new area of public amenity/ open space would be created in the operational phase as a result of the construction of a new promontory into the River Thames. This space would be accessed by the realigned Thames Path route in the operation phase of the development. Access to public amenity space in central London can often be at a premium and this is likely to continue to be the case in the operational phase base case year under consideration given the number of residential dwellings that are due to come forward in the VNEB opportunity area (as outlined in para. 10.6.2). This means that an additional area of public amenity space of the size and type envisaged is likely to be of benefit to potential users. In terms of the value of the new space and the consequent sensitivity of users, the availability (and subsequent adequacy or deficiency) of existing and future base case condition alternatives is a key factor to consider. a. In the existing baseline condition - the river in this location (ie, upstream of Vauxhall Bridge and downstream of the Battersea railway bridge) is flanked on both sides by a relatively small number of public amenity areas associated with the Thames Path and some open amenity spaces. As such, there are only a limited number of opportunities in the immediate vicinity of the proposed new amenity space for passive recreation and for sitting and taking in views of the River Thames and its environs. b. In the future operational base case - the range of opportunities is expected to increase substantially as former industrial sites are redeveloped for residential and mixed use developments in the VNEB opportunity area. These sites are likely to each provide new public amenity and open spaces for residents, workers and visitors to the wider area. Taking these factors into account, it is considered that the sensitivity of users to the creation of a new public amenity space is likely to be low. See Vol 18 Figure 10.4.1 for a baseline plan which indicates the features identified above.
10.4.18
10.4.19
10.4.20 10.4.21
Page 136
Residential Development
10.4.22 There are two existing residential developments near the proposed site at the present time. These are: a. Nine Elms Pier a pier serving approximately 25 residential house boat moorings to the west. b. Elm Quay a residential apartment block to the east. Nine Elms Pier is situated in the foreshore immediately to the northeast of the proposed construction site iv. Nine Elms Pier currently has moorings for approximately 20 residential barges, the majority of which are two storeys and offer some outside deck space. Elm Quay lies approximately 70m to the east of the proposed site. The building stretches out along the river and is orientated to take advantage of river views. The closest part of the building to the construction site is seven storeys, with nine storey (including the ground floor) sections located further towards the centre of the building. Behind the residential block is Nine Elms Lane. All properties within the block are flats, and many have balconies that overlook the river. Four balconies over four levels are situated on the western corner of the building closest to the proposed site. Residents overlook Nine Elms Lane to the south, an open public amenity space to the west, service buildings and a car park to the east and the River Thames to the north. The existing amenity of properties within Elm Quay is likely to be somewhat compromised by the presence of Nine Elms Road which lies adjacent to the block to the south. Residents are likely to experience relatively poorer air quality and higher noise levels compared to properties away from the road. As well as the existing residential dwellings, a new residential-led mixed use development is also under construction on the former Tideway Walk (Riverlight) industrial estate. This development is located to the west of the site, approximately eight metres from the works boundary and it will eventually provide approximately 800 residential units, and a hotel. For further information regarding this development, see Section 3.4.1. In terms of the potential sensitivity of the occupants of the dwellings in the area, it is considered that overall, residents are likely to be vulnerable to amenity impacts arising from the construction process. This is due to the fact that residents cannot easily take steps to avoid in combination amenity effects that may arise. Residents are likely to be less sensitive to any noise disturbance during the day and more sensitive during the evening and at night-time, particularly during sleeping hours. The sensitivity of residents to amenity impacts may be mediated by character and mix of uses currently existing in the area. Taking these factors into account, and given that the construction processes would be limited to daytime working hours at this site, it is assessed that the residents are likely to have a medium level of sensitivity
10.4.23
10.4.24
10.4.25
10.4.26
10.4.27
10.4.28
iv
Proposals for the redevelopment of Nine Elms Pier are currently under consideration, this may necessitate the relocation of all the boats currently moored there. However, as these proposals have not yet been determined there is the potential for the boats to remain in-situ in the development (baseline construction) case, dependant on the outcome.
Page 137
overall to amenity impacts that may arise as a result of construction activity.
Summary
10.4.29 A summary of receptors as described in the baseline conditions and their sensitivity is provided in the table below. Vol 18 Table 10.4.1 Socio-economics receptors and their values/sensitivities Receptor Users of the Thames Path Value/sensitivity and justification Low in terms of amenity impacts, users would be near the site for a short duration and pavements along Nine Elms Lane provide for alternative routes, should amenity effects occur. Low there are two comparable amenity spaces easily accessible from the site. Low it is assumed that users would be likely to have access to an increased range of public amenity and open spaces in the future operational base case condition but would nevertheless derive benefit from additional public amenity space. Medium residents less able to avoid effects but less sensitive during the day when the effects will be experienced
Users of open space
Users of future public amenity space (created as a result of the project)
Residents of nearby properties
Page 138
10.5

Base case For this site, the base case year is Year 1 of the construction works. This is the year when site establishment is proposed to commence and marks the start of the assessment period for socio-economic effects. The base case scenario is assumed to be considerably different to the site baseline conditions in the following ways: a. Battersea Power Station Proposals for the development of the Battersea Power Station site were granted planning permission in 2011. The development is set to comprise approximately 3,000 residential units and associated community and social facilities, retail and entertainment provision (including an event and conference arena), a hotel, a number of commercial units, a new public park and a variety of smaller recreational spaces 28. It is assumed that the development would be approximately 15% complete around the time of the construction base case year. The proposed development would include: i The main parcel of land anchored on the former Power Station itself. It is assumed that development would start within this main section. ii Three other small parcels of land which are located within the proposed Thames Tunnel Kirtling Street construction site. It is assumed that these parcels would not be developed until after the completion of construction works (as outlined in Section 3.4.1). b. Tideway Walk - Construction is currently underway for the redevelopment of the former Tideway Industrial Estate, a parcel of land approximately 10 metres east of the construction works boundary. The proposed development comprises approximately 800 one, two or three bedroom apartments within six residential towers, a hotel will be accommodated in a further tower29. When completed, it is expected that the Thames Path would reopen along the river front. It is assumed that the development will be approximately 66% completely by around the time of the construction base case year. c. It is assumed that that the St James and Nine Elms Pier development of light pontoons for 41 house boats (application submitted) will be complete by the construction base case year. d. The American Embassy it is assumed that the Embassy will be 100% complete by around, or very soon after, the base case year. e. Nine Elms Parkside The Royal Mail Group site; situated to the southwest of the construction area boundary across Nine Elms Lane(near Cringle Street) and between the proposed American Embassy site and entrance site to New Covent Garden Market is likely to be in the process of being redeveloped. The site is likely to comprise a mixed use, residential led development including residential and office space (up to a maximum of 23 storeys high), with a maximum overall floorspace of approximately 222,120m. It is
10.5.1
10.5.2
Page 139
10.5.3
10.5.4
10.5.5
10.5.6
10.5.7
assumed that the Nine Elms Parkside mixed use redevelopment of the Royal Mail sorting office (for which an application has been submitted) will be approximately 30% complete in the construction base case year. The developments along the riverside (particularly Battersea Power Station and Tideway Walk) can be expected to result in the gradual opening up of the riverfront for amenity space and the extension of the Thames Path. Furthermore, these developments, plus other plans and proposals in the wider VNEB Opportunity Area, are likely to increase pedestrian and cyclist use of the Thames Path and of the small river front open space located to the east of the proposed construction site and result in a moderately higher, and growing, number of users of these facilities in the base case year of these facilities compared to the baseline condition. It is assumed that user numbers would not approach their potential peaks however until sometime after the completion of proposed construction works in the operational base case year. Development cases The proposals for the development of residential, commercial and hotel space presented in the base case would still be relevant in the development case, as none of the proposals are directly precluded by the proposed development. Under the development case, it is expected that the following changes to the baseline would occur: a. It is assumed that in the development case, the route of the Thames Path would be diverted as a result of the construction works being undertaken at the nearby Kirtling Street Thames Tunnel site, Tideway Walk (Riverlight) and Heathwall Pumping Station. As such, during the construction phase of the development, the Thames Path would run along Nine Elms Lane for the duration of the construction works. The diversion would mean pedestrians would follow the Thames Path along a diverted route once they had passed the southern boundary of the construction site, continuing along Nine Elms Lane to the west, rather than diverting north along the western boundary of the construction site. b. Nearby residents (including house boat residents) and users of the Thames Path may be subject to construction and construction-traffic related impacts such as air pollution, dust, noise, and/or visual disturbance. This could include impacts on new nearby residential units completed and occupied prior to or during the construction phase. It is assumed that under the development case, the Kirtling Street site to the west would also become a Thames Tunnel construction site. Construction at the Kirtling Street site is expected to start at approximately the same time or slightly earlier and finish approximately two years later than works at the Heathwall Pumping Station site (see Volume 17 for further information). Compound effects could possibly occur as a result of the simultaneous construction activities at both sites. These will be
Page 140
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station assessed further in the ES.
10.5.8 Amenity effects on Thames Path users (outline findings) Air quality, noise and vibration and visual impacts arising as a result of the proposed construction works and related construction traffic may potentially act individually or in combination with one another to reduce the environmental amenity experienced by users of the Thames Path. Preliminary assessments have been undertaken to examine the potential air quality, noise and vibration, and visual effects arising during the construction phase. With respect to the potential effect of the proposed works on nearby sections of the Thames Path, the following points summarise the preliminary assessment findings of likely effect significance: a. No air quality or construction dust receptors were identified as requiring assessment at the project site in relation to the Thames Path. It is therefore assumed for the purpose of this assessment that it is not likely that there will be any significant effects from air quality or construction dust issues. b. No noise and vibration (human response) receptors were identified as requiring assessment at the project site in relation to the Thames Path. It is therefore assumed for the purpose of this assessment that it is not likely that there will be any significant effects from construction noise and vibration issues. c. Visual effects on receptors at the Thames Path immediately adjacent to the site are not assessed. However, visual effects on two transport receptors from viewpoints on Nine Elms Lane (immediately adjacent to the pedestrian footpath which forms part of the Thames Path near to the site) are assessed as likely to be negligible at both viewpoints (3.1 and 3.2), for the duration of the construction period. For further information, refer to Section 4 Air Quality and Odour, Section 9 Noise and Vibration and Section 11 Townscape and Visual within this report. The above findings regarding visual effects have been taken into consideration in undertaking a preliminary assessment of the overall magnitude of impact for amenity impacts on users of the Thames Path below. This preliminary assessment balances the above findings considering the contribution that each assessed element (eg, the quality of a view) makes to a receptors overall experience of amenity, together with other considerations presented below. As noted under the base case, the number of users of the Thames Path that could be affected would likely be moderately higher than the baseline condition and would continue growing as residential dwellings were completed and occupied during the construction phase (see para. 10.5.4). In terms of duration, the potential for impacts which reduce the amenity for users of the Thames Path would only last during the construction period a medium term period of up to approximately three years. While the above assessments did not identify air quality and noise impacts
10.5.9
10.5.10
10.5.11
10.5.12
10.5.13
10.5.14
Page 141
10.5.15
10.5.16 10.5.17
10.5.18
10.5.19
10.5.20
in association with the Thames Path in this location; it is noted that residential receptors in the immediate vicinity of the site were identified and that at least some impacts were recorded for these receptors (see the residential amenity assessment below). Accordingly, it is noted that there is still a potential for effects on users going along the Thames Path route past the site. It is likely that the Thames Path users also already experience a compromised level of amenity, given the industrial character of the area and traffic levels along Nine Elms Lane, particularly along those sections of the Thames Path closest to the proposed construction site. As noted in the visual assessment, the construction activities would be similar in nature to views of the majority of the local area. A substantial level of other construction that will be taking place in the surrounding area in the base case year and thereafter. These factors are also likely to mean that the effect of construction activities at the site would be reduced to some degree on users of the Thames Path. Given all of these above factors, it is considered that the magnitude of impacts in this location would be low. Taking account of the low magnitude of impact and the low sensitivity of users, it is considered that the effect on Thames Path users could be negligible and therefore not significant. It is stressed that this is a preliminary and outline finding only at this stage. Amenity effects on adjacent open space users Air quality, noise and vibration and visual impacts arising as a result of the proposed construction works and related construction traffic may potentially act individually or in combination with one another to reduce the environmental amenity experienced by users of the open space adjacent to the project site. Preliminary assessments have been undertaken to examine the potential air quality, noise and vibration, and visual effects arising during the construction phase. With respect to the potential effect of the proposed works on nearby public open space and associated facilities, the following points summarise the preliminary assessment findings of likely effect significance: a. No air quality and construction dust receptors were identified as requiring assessment at the project site in relation to users of the open space. It is therefore assumed for the purpose of this assessment that it is not likely that there will be any significant effects from air quality and construction dust issues. b. No noise and vibration (human response) receptors were identified as requiring assessment at the project site in relation to users of the open space. It is therefore assumed for the purpose of this assessment that it is not likely that there will be any significant effects from construction noise and vibration issues. c. Visual effects on receptors are not assessed. For further information, please refer to Section 4 Air Quality and Odour, Section 9 Noise and Vibration and Section 11 Townscape and Visual within this report.
Page 142
10.5.22
10.5.23
10.5.24
10.5.25
10.5.26
10.5.27
10.5.28
The above findings regarding air quality, dust, noise and vibration, and visual effects have been taken into consideration in undertaking an assessment of the overall magnitude of impact for amenity impacts on office receptors below. This preliminary assessment balances the above findings considering the contribution that each assessed element (eg, the quality of the air, the quality of a view) makes to a receptors overall experience of amenity, together with other considerations presented below. Although no receptors were identified within the air quality, noise and vibration, and visual impact assessments for the open space itself, for the purposes of the assessment, it is noted that the open space is immediately adjacent to the eastern side of the proposed construction site. It is further noted that some significant effects were assessed on residential receptors that are located in turn to the immediate east of the open space (see residential amenity effect section below). It is noted that the results of the assessments on dwellings are for a different type of receptor to that of the open space, which as a recreational facility is likely to have different types of and potentially lower levels of sensitivity. As such, the results of the residential assessment need to be interpreted with caution in terms of considering their relevance to users of the open space. Most of the other factors affecting the magnitude of potential amenity impacts are the same as per those explained above with regard to Thames Path users (see previous sub-section). This includes the observation that traffic on Nine Elms Lane and the substantial level of construction activity taking place in the surrounding area is likely to mean that the effects of construction activities at the site would be reduced to some degree on users of the park. This includes the fact that the open space is likely to see a moderate increase in the number of potential users (albeit from an assumed low level) as nearby residential developments are completed and occupied leading up to the base case year (see para. 10.5.4). The main exception to the similarities with the effects on users of the Thames Path relates to the physical relationship of the open space in question with the proposed construction site. Due to the small size of the open space (with the furthest part of the space falling within approximately 75m of the proposed construction works area) and its close proximity to the proposed construction site, any adverse impacts, if occurring, are likely to be experienced by users across the entire open space. On the basis of the above factors, including taking account of the medium term and temporary nature of the impact, it is considered that the magnitude of overall amenity impacts could be low. Taking account of the possible low magnitude of potential adverse amenity impacts and the low sensitivity of the open space users, it is considered that the effect on open space users could be negligible and therefore not significant. It is stressed that this is a preliminary and outline finding only at this stage. Effects on residential amenity Air quality, noise and vibration and visual impacts arising as a result of the
Page 143
10.5.29
10.5.30
10.5.31
10.5.32
10.5.33
10.5.34
proposed construction works and related construction traffic may potentially act individually or in combination with one another to reduce the amenity experienced by residents living in the vicinity of the site (as described in Section 10.4). Preliminary assessments have been undertaken to examine the potential air quality, noise and vibration, and visual effects arising during the construction phase. With respect to the potential effect of the proposed works on residential receptors, the following points summarise the preliminary assessment findings of likely effect significance: a. Air quality and construction dust effects are likely to be minor adverse. Such effects arising as a result of the proposed works are therefore likely to result in a significant effect on dwellings for the duration of the construction period. b. Noise effects on residents have been assessed as likely to be significant at one of two residential receptors identified, for the duration of the construction period. Vibration (human response) effects are not likely to be significant at either of the residential receptors. The significantly affected residential receptor contains 60 noise sensitive properties. c. Visual receptors were found to be negligible at viewpoint 1.7 (view southwest from dwellings along Nine Elms Lane, close to the site), for the duration of the construction period. For further information, refer to Section 4 Air Quality and Odour, Section 9 Noise and Vibration, and Section 11 Townscape and Visual within this volume. The above findings regarding air quality, dust, noise and vibration effects have been taken into consideration in undertaking a preliminary assessment of the overall magnitude of impact for amenity impacts on residential receptors below. This preliminary assessment balances the above findings considering the contribution that each assessed element (eg, the quality of the air, the quality of a view) makes to a receptors overall experience of amenity, together with other considerations presented below. Other factors affecting the magnitude of potential amenity impacts are the same as those explained above with regard to the Thames Path and the adjacent open space (see previous sub-sections). One exception to consider relates in particular to the potential for adverse air quality, construction dust and noise effects over the approximate three year duration of the construction period. During this time, as well as being restricted to day-time working hours, these impacts are not likely to be continual over the working day, but are likely to rise and fall as different activities of the construction process take place throughout the day. Similarly, the nature of the construction activity/process being undertaken would determine whether the different types of impacts arise simultaneously or whether only one or two impacts arise at any one time. Other exceptions to consider are the number of residents that could be impacted by potential amenity impacts, their physical relationship with the proposed construction site and their base case amenity experience.
Page 144
10.5.35
10.5.36
These exceptions are discussed in turn: a. While there are currently only a limited number of dwellings that are nearby to and look out directly on to the site, this assessment considers the number of residents that there are likely to be in the base case. As set out, development at Tideway Walk (Riverlight) and potentially to the south of Nine Elms Lane could mean that there are likely to be more dwellings overlooking the site and potentially within range of adverse amenity impacts. b. However, the site layout and typical floorplans for Tideway Walk (Riverlight) indicate that the residential building closest to the proposed site is both one of the smallest buildings proposed as part of the development and that there would typically only be two apartments per floor with an eastward orientation overlooking the proposed construction site. These two factors would reduce the number of dwellings within the Tideway Walk (Riverlight) development that would be directly exposed to any potential impacts. c. Finally, traffic along Nine Elms Lane and the substantial level of construction activity taking place in the surrounding area is likely to mean that the effects of construction activities at the site would be reduced to some degree. On the basis of the above factors, it is considered that the potential for amenity and in combination impacts to adversely impact on nearby residents of could be medium. Taking account of the potential for a medium magnitude of impact and the medium sensitivity of residents, it is considered that the overall effect on residential amenity could be medium term moderate adverse and therefore significant. It is stressed that this is a preliminary and outline finding only at this stage.
Summary
10.5.37 The preliminary findings of the above assessments are summarised in the tables below.
Page 145
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Vol 18 Table 10.5.1 Socio-economics summary of construction effects Magnitude Negligible no direct receptors identified for air quality, construction dust, noise, vibration or visual effects. However the Thames Path runs immediately adjacent to the proposed construction site. A moderate number of users but low potential for prolonged exposure due to the nature of the use of the path and its potential diversion to the other side of Nine Elms Lane. It is likely that nearby traffic and other construction activity will minimise the effect of the proposed works on the amenity experienced by Thames Path users in the base case. Significance Negligible not significant.
Impact
Sensitivity
Amenity effects on Thames Path users (outline findings)
Low in terms of amenity impacts, users would be near the site for a short duration and pavements along Nine Elms Lane provide for alternative routes, should amenity effects occur.
Amenity effects on adjacent open space users (outline findings)
Low there are two Low no direct receptors identified for air quality, comparable amenity spaces construction dust, noise, vibration or visual effects. However easily accessible from the site. the open space is immediately adjacent to the proposed construction site. Likely to affect a moderate and increasing number of users. It is likely that nearby traffic and other construction activity will minimise the effect of the proposed works on the amenity experienced by Thames Path users in the base case. Medium minor adverse air quality and construction dust effects and significant noise effects at one of two residential receptors. Negligible visual impacts on nearby residents. A limited number of residences within close proximity of the construction works area, although it is likely that nearby traffic and other construction activity will minimise the effect of the proposed works on the amenity experienced by base case residents.
Negligible not significant.
Amenity effects on residential amenity (outline findings)
Medium residents less able to avoid effects but less sensitive during the day when the effects will be experienced
Moderate adverse significant.
Page 146
10.6

Base case The base case year for the operational phase is assumed to be Year 1 of operation. As per the construction base case, the operational base case scenario is assumed to be considerably different to the site baseline conditions. It is expected that many of the neighbouring development schemes identified in the construction base case will have progressed substantially from the construction base case, and that the operational base case will differ from the baseline in the following ways: a. Battersea Power Station it is expected that approximately 70% complete by the operational base case year. b. Tideway Walk, St James - it is assumed that the development will be completed during the construction phase and so will be 100% complete by the operational base case year. c. St James and Nine Elms Pier development of light pontoons for 41 house boats - it is assumed that that the development will be complete. d. American Embassy it is expected will be 100% complete by around, or very soon after, the base case year. e. Nine Elms Parkside It is expected that the development will be approximately 40% by 2020, and approximately 60% complete by 2022. These proposals, plus proposals in the wider Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea area are likely to result in a significantly higher volume of people living in the area, and accordingly lead to an equally significant increase in pedestrian and cyclist use of the Thames Path. It is assumed that user numbers would not approach their potential peaks however until sometime after the completion of proposed construction works in the operational base case year. It is expected that all other conditions as noted in the baseline would remain the same. Development case Under the development case, it is expected that the following changes to the baseline would occur: a. The Thames Path (PRoW) would be re-routed from its existing (baseline) route via Nine Elms Lane to a new route along the riverside in through Middle Wharf and in front of Heathwall Pumping Station. There would be access gates at each end to temporarily close off the path when operational access is required either through Middle Wharf or to the interception structure in front of Heathwall Pumping Station. b. The existing river wall in front of the Heathwall Pumping Station would also be extended out a short distance into the foreshore of the River Thames to create a small irregular shaped promontory. The extension would enable the installation of permanent infrastructure required to allow for servicing and maintenance of the Thames Tunnel once
Page 147
10.6.1 10.6.2
10.6.3
10.6.4
10.6.5
c.
construction work is complete and this infrastructure would form part of the permanent physical environment. These works would create a new area of public amenity space, as an extension to the existing Thames Path with the potential for seating and viewing points. Middle Wharf would remain safeguarded, and the area around the shaft at Middle Wharf would be finished as hard-standing to allow crane access to the covers on top of the shaft. There would be no public access to this area of land.
Operational effects
Permanent gain of public amenity space and rerouting of the Thames Path As set out under the development case, the Thames Path would be rerouted along the riverside and the proposed extension of the river wall would create a small new area of public amenity space in association with the Thames Path. This new area of public amenity space would most likely equate in size to the area of a small pocket park under the Mayors Public Open Space Hierarchy 30. Accordingly, it would be likely to serve a catchment area of up to 400m for local residents. The new amenity space would provide permanent and additional opportunities for passive recreation, although the likely shape and position means that it would function more as an extension of the Thames Path rather than purely as a public amenity space. The space would nonetheless contribute to an increased level of amenity along this section of the Thames Path, potentially including new seating areas and a new viewpoint over the River Thames. The permanent rerouting of the Thames Path along the river front would create a more direct route for pedestrians. This would also result in a reduction in overall walking distance of approximately 90m and reduced journey times. The re-routing would result in improved amenity for users and associated opportunities to take in views of the River Thames while using the Thames Path instead of the existing less-pleasant route away from the river along Nine Elms Lane, as well as generally improved opportunities for passive recreation. Given the high numbers of new residents likely to be living in the area once the development becomes operational (and increasing thereafter), the new amenity space and rerouted Thames Path are likely to benefit a high number of users from the local community. Together with other improvements to the Thames Path at St Georges Wharf and Tideway Walk (Riverlight), which would be in place by the operational base case year, the Thames Path and new space is also likely to be used by an increased number of users from the wider area as well. Taking account of the above discussed factors including the permanent and long term nature, size of the new area, the type and number of users that are likely to benefit, and the location, it is considered that the magnitude of the impact would be medium. Taking account of the medium magnitude of the impact and the low sensitivity of users to the permanent gain of public amenity space, it is considered that there is likely to be a minor beneficial effect on users of
10.6.6
10.6.7
10.6.8
10.6.9
10.6.10
10.6.11
Page 148
10.6.12
open space at this location. Summary The findings of the above preliminary assessments on the potential operational phase socio-economic impacts and effects are summarised in the tables below.
Page 149
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Vol 18 Table 10.6.1 Socio-economics summary of operational effects Magnitude Medium The addition of a new small area of amenity space and rerouting of the Thames Path is likely to have a modest but permanent and long term additional benefit for a high number of users. Significance Minor beneficial significant
Impact
Sensitivity
Permanent gain of public amenity space and rerouting of the Thames Path
Low it is assumed that users would be likely to have access to an increased range of public amenity and open spaces in the future operational base case condition but would nevertheless derive benefit from additional public amenity space.
Page 150
10.7
10.7.1

The above assessment has arrived at a preliminary finding that there is a potential for a moderate adverse effect to arise in relation to amenity effects on residential amenity. As per the significance criteria, moderate adverse impacts constitute significant effects. There is a continuing opportunity for further consideration of the potential for employing viable additional measures to minimise the potential for significant adverse air quality, noise and visual impacts to act individually or in combination in a manner that reduces environmental amenity. Mitigation measures may include design alternatives or construction process and management changes (via the Code of Construction Practice) that are typical of the sort usually identified to mitigate air quality, dust noise and vibration or visual impacts. For further information, refer to Section 4 Air Quality and Odour, Section 9 Noise and Vibration, and Section 11 Townscape and Visual, within this volume.
10.7.2
10.7.3
10.7.4
Operational
10.7.5 The above assessment has arrived at a preliminary finding that there are not likely to be any significant adverse effects (that is major or moderate effects) in the operational phase at the site requiring additional mitigation.
Page 151
10.8
Significance Negligible not significant Negligible not significant Moderate adverse significant Mitigation measures including design alternatives or construction process and management changes (via the CoCP) that are typical of the sort usually identified to mitigate air quality, noise or visual impacts. None required No change None required No change Mitigation Residual significance
Assessment summary
Vol 18 Table 10.8.1 Socio-economics summary of construction assessment
Receptor
Effect
Users of the Thames Path
Amenity effects on Thames Path users
Users of open space
Amenity effects on open space users
Residents of nearby properties
Amenity effects on residents
If mitigation measures suggested in the air quality, noise and vibration and visual assessments to minimise adverse impacts are able to be implemented and achieve a reduction in the assessment of effect significance to an acceptable level, a reduced residual adverse significance may result.
Page 152
Vol 18 Table 10.8.2 Socio-economics summary of operational assessment Significance Minor beneficial not significant None required No change Mitigation Residual significance
Receptor
Effect
Future users of open space
Permanent gain of a new public amenity space and rerouting of the Thames Path
Page 153
10.9
10.9.1
Collection of baseline data on the use of social infrastructure is likely to be completed later during 2011. Information to be collected includes: a. Pedestrian count data for the Thames Path Pending the collection of the above data and the results of assessments by other EIA topics, it is likely that updates to the baseline data and results of the outline amenity effects assessments will be able to be made for the following: a. Amenity effects on Thames Path users b. Amenity effects on open space users c. Amenity effects on residents Pending the results of assessments by other EIA topics there is potential for updates to be made to the detailed site-specific mitigation and enhancement/offsetting measures in relation to amenity (individual and in combination) effects on residential receptors. Given that this assessment has identified significant adverse amenity effects, following the identification of required mitigation measures a reassessment of the potential residual effects after mitigation would be undertaken using the same approach as has been set out above in Section 10.5. Assessment of cumulative and in combination effects will be undertaken and reported in the ES. Following completion of the assessment the mitigation approaches for socio economics within the project, if applicable, will be finalised and reported in the ES.
10.9.2
10.9.3
10.9.4
10.9.5 10.9.6
Page 154
Section 11: Townscape and Visual
11 11.1
11.1.1
Townscape and visual Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant townscape and visual amenity effects at the Heathwall Pumping Station site. The assessment describes the current conditions found within the area the nature and pattern of buildings, streets, open space and vegetation and their interrelationships within the built environment, and the changes that would be introduced as a result of the proposed development. The assessment also identifies mitigation measures where appropriate. Townscape and visual assessments are made up of two separate, although linked, procedures; the townscape baseline and its analysis contribute to the baseline for visual amenity. Each section of the assessment is structured so that townscape aspects are described first, followed by visual.
11.1.2
11.2
11.2.1
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to the townscape and visual assessment are as follows. Construction The method of construction for the proposed development is described in Volume 3. The peak construction phase for this topic relates to the time when the shaft is being constructed, involving the presence of cranes at the site. For this site, this equates to Year 2 of construction, within a total construction period of approximately three years. Similar effects would arise during the secondary tunnel lining, which would occur during Year 3 of construction. The site would be under construction during standard working hours only, defined in Section 3. The specific construction activities which may give rise to effects on townscape character, tranquillity and visual receptors are: a. Vehicular construction access to the site off Nine Elms Lane; b. Establishment of hoardings around the boundary of the construction site; c. Use of cranes during shaft sinking and secondary lining of the tunnel; d. Use of a piling rig during construction of the cofferdam, encroaching into the river by approximately 20m; and e. Lighting of the site when required. Measures incorporated into the draft CoCP to reduce townscape and visual impacts include use of capped and directional lighting, only when required. Operation The proposed operation of the infrastructure at Heathwall Pumping Station is described in Volume 3. The particular components that are of importance to this topic include the design of the river wall and public realm, and the design and siting of the ventilation structures (6m high).
11.2.2
11.2.3
11.2.4
11.2.5
Page 155
11.3
11.3.1 11.3.2
Assessment methodology
Scoping and engagement Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. In addition to the formal scoping process, the London Borough of Wandsworth, London Borough of Lambeth, City of Westminster and English Heritage have been consulted on the scope of this topic, including the number and location of viewpoints. All site specific consultee comments relevant to this site are presented in the table below. Vol 18 Table 11.3.1 Townscape and visual - stakeholder engagement Organisation The London Borough of Lambeth Comment Requested an additional view from the centre of Vauxhall Bridge Confirmed acceptance of the proposed viewpoints Confirmed acceptance of the proposed viewpoints Confirmed acceptance of the proposed viewpoints Response Incorporated (refer to Vol 18 Figure 11.4.6).
The London Borough of Wandsworth City of Westminster
English Heritage
11.3.3
11.3.4 11.3.5
Baseline The assessment area, defined using the standard methodology provided in Volume 6, is indicated by the extents of the drawing frame on Vol 18 Figure 11.4.1 to Vol 18 Figure 11.4.6. The scale of the assessment area has been set by the maximum extent of the ZTV, excepting those locations upstream of the site where the visibility is in reality obscured by Chelsea railway bridge, and downstream of the site where visibility is in reality obscured by Vauxhall Bridge. The methodology for establishing the townscape and visual baseline follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. With specific reference to the Heathwall Pumping Station site, baseline information has been gathered through a review of: a. The Unitary Development Plans (UDP) for the London Borough of Lambeth and City of Westminster; b. The Core Strategy for the London Borough of Wandsworth c. Pimlico, Peabody Avenue, Churchill Gardens, Dolphin Square, Lillington Gardens, Millbank and Regency Street Conservation Area
Page 156
11.3.6
11.3.7
11.3.8
11.3.9
11.3.10
11.3.11
11.3.12
11.3.13 11.3.14
General Information Leaflets, produced by the City of Westminster. Construction The construction phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. Any site specific variations are described below. With reference to the Heathwall Pumping Station site, the peak construction phase for this topic would be Year 2 of construction, when the shaft would be under construction, cranes would be present at the site and material would be being taken away by road. This has therefore been used as the assessment year for townscape and visual effects. The intensity of construction activities would be similar in Year 3 of construction, during the secondary lining of the tunnel, involving import of materials by road. The construction phase visual assessment for this site will be supported through the preparation of two verifiable photomontages from recreational users of the Thames Path on both sides of the river (shown on Vol 18 Figure 11.4.6). These will be produced and presented in the final ES. For the purposes of the construction phase assessment, it is assumed that much of the surrounding townscape will be undergoing redevelopment into residential, retail, leisure and commercial developments. More detail on specific planning applications is provided Section 3.4.1. Operation methodology The operational phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. Any site specific variations are described below. The operational phase visual assessment for this site will be supported through the preparation of two verifiable photomontages from recreational users of the Thames Path on both sides of the river (shown on Vol 18 Figure 11.4.6). These will be produced and presented in the final ES. The operational phase assessment has been undertaken for Year 1 of operation and Year 15 operation. For the purposes of the Year 1 assessment, it has been assumed, as per the Base Case schemes set out in Section 3.4.1, that Tideway Walk mixed use development will be fully complete and occupied; Battersea Power Station mixed use development will be partially complete and occupied; the US Embassy mixed use development will be fully complete and occupied; the Nine Elms Parkside mixed use redevelopment of the Royal Mail sorting office will be partially complete and occupied and the development of light pontoons for 41 house boats will be fully complete and occupied. Assumptions and limitations For this site, there are no site specific townscape and visual assessment limitations beyond the generic ones listed in Volume 5. Assumptions made on the base case for the construction and operational phase assessments are described in para. 11.3.9. These assumptions are based on known planning applications and planning policy within the assessment area, interpreted using professional judgement to understand what the base case may be in Year 2 of construction and Year 1 of operation without the project (ie the do nothing scenario).
Page 157
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station 11.3.15 11.3.16
Assumptions will be made in the ES regarding what the base case may be in Year 15 of operation without the project. The preliminary assessment of operational effects is based on the engineering design of the proposed development. The assessment recognises that the project is committed to high quality design, and this forms the basis of the preliminary assessment of likely significant effects presented here. The details of the project design and landscaping, to be provided for the planning submission, will inform the assessment of operational effects in Year 1 and Year 15 which will be presented in the ES.
11.4
11.4.1
Baseline conditions Townscape baseline

The proposed development is located partially within the Nine Elms industrial area within the confines of Heathwall Pumping Station and the adjacent safeguarded Middle Wharf, and partially on the foreshore of the River Thames. The surrounding townscape is dominated by industrial and commercial uses undergoing transformation into mixed use schemes on the south bank, and residential uses on the north bank of the river. Physical elements The physical elements of the townscape in the assessment area are described below. Topography The site is located on relatively flat ground on the south bank of River Thames, with no notably topographic features in the vicinity of the site and across the assessment area. Land use In the vicinity of the site, the south bank of the river is characterised by commercial uses along the railway line between Vauxhall and London Waterloo mainline stations, with the exception of the extensive St Georges Wharf residential development south of Vauxhall Bridge. Further away from the river, land use is predominantly residential. On the north bank of the river, land use is predominantly residential aside from some educational, leisure and tourism related uses. Development patterns and scale Vol 18 Figure 11.4.1 illustrates the pattern and scale of development within the assessment area and also indicates building heights. Vol 18 Figure 11.4.1 Townscape - development pattern and scale (see Volume 18 Figures document) Within the assessment area, the south bank river frontage is characterised by dense blocks of buildings with large footprints, many of which are above 40m high. Residential buildings are typically orientated towards the river and back onto the railway line between Clapham Junction and Vauxhall/London Waterloo mainline stations. Industrial buildings form a large area of inward looking development with closed faades. South of the railway line, a mix of dense residential properties are aligned on an informal street pattern, set amongst large open spaces.
11.4.2
11.4.3
11.4.4
11.4.5
11.4.6
11.4.7
Page 158
11.4.9
11.4.10
11.4.11
11.4.12
11.4.13
11.4.14
11.4.15
On the north bank of the river, opposite the site, residential properties are generally arranged on a grid formation, dominated by two to four storey terraces with intermittent high-rise developments. The development pattern is heavily influenced by large open spaces, such as Warwick Square and St Georges Square Gardens. Vegetation patterns and extents Vol 18 Figure 11.4.2 illustrates the pattern and extent of vegetation, including tree cover and known tree preservation orders, within the assessment area. Vol 18 Figure 11.4.2 Townscape - pattern and extent of vegetation (see Volume 18 Figures document) South of the river, street trees are fairly uncommon within the assessment area, with the exception of some along the river frontage. Vegetation on the southern bank of the river is concentrated into public and private open spaces, including residential rear gardens. Street trees are a more important element of the character of the townscape on the northern bank, with numerous roads densely planted with mature avenues. Mature tree planting is also a key characteristic of the public and private open spaces throughout the area. A number of trees in the assessment area are protected by Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs), and trees within conservation areas on both sides of the river are indirectly protected. In general, vegetation is a more important element of the character of the northern bank of the river, while the south bank has a noticeable absence of vegetation. Open space distribution and type Vol 18 Figure 11.4.3 illustrates the distribution of different open space types within the assessment area, indicating all relevant statutory, nonstatutory and local plan designations. Vol 18 Figure 11.4.3 Townscape - open space distribution and type (see Volume 18 Figures document) The assessment area south of the river is characterised by a notable absence of spaces, aside from a small number of spaces alongside the Thames Path to the east of the site. Open spaces to the north of the river are broadly limited to Millbank, St Georges Square Gardens and Warwick Square. These are described in more detail in Vol 18 Table 11.3.1 below. Vol 18 Table 11.4.1 Townscape and visual - open space type and distribution Open space St Georges Square Gardens Distance from site 250m NE (north of river) Character summary Small linear public open space characterised by formal gardens, including mature London plane trees, amenity lawns, flower beds and an ornamental fountain. Located in Pimlico Conservation Area. Designated Open Space in the City of
Page 159
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Open space Millbank Distance from site 500m NE (north of river) 0m E (south of river) 1.2km W (north of river)
Section 11: Townscape and Visual Character summary
Westminsters UDP. Small public open space with a formal terraced grass area and scattered trees along the western boundary. Located in Millbank Conservation Area. Linear hard surfaced public route along the south bank of the river, with occasional open spaces along its length, designated as a Green Chain. Small private open space characterised by amenity grassland and scattered mature trees. The space also includes tennis courts and childrens play equipment. Located in Pimlico Conservation Area. Designated Open Space in the City of Westminsters UDP.
South River Bank Warwick Square
11.4.16
11.4.17
11.4.18
11.4.19
11.4.20
11.4.21
Transport routes Vol 18 Figure 11.4.4 illustrates the transport network within the assessment area, including cycleways, footpaths and Public Rights of Way. Vol 18 Figure 11.4.4 Townscape and visual transport network (see Volume 18 Figures document) The site is located to the north of Nine Elms Lane, which is characterised by high levels of traffic. The wider area on the south bank of the river is dominated by transport infrastructure, including the railway line running east-west, connecting Clapham Junction and Vauxhall/London Waterloo mainline stations, and the railway running north-south, connecting Clapham Junction and Victoria mainline stations. The north bank of the river is characterised by Grosvenor Road running along the river frontage, dominated by relatively heavy traffic. The remainder of the area is predominantly characterised by quiet residential streets. On the north bank, the Thames Path generally runs along the riverside. To the south, the Thames Path partially runs along the river frontage, but is diverted inland around St Georges Wharf residential development to the east of the site, and the Battersea Power Station industrial area to the west. The Thames Path is also locally diverted around the site at present. Site character assessment The site is located partially on land, in the confines of Heathwall Pumping Station and the adjacent unoccupied safeguarded wharf, Middle Wharf, and partially within the River Thames. The site boundary incorporates: a. Heathwall pumping station and the surrounding hardstanding within the walled compound;
Page 160
11.4.22 11.4.23
b. Middle Wharf walled compound, comprising hardstanding; c. Middle Wharf jetty structure, comprising a disused piled deck; and d. An electrical substation along Nine Elms Lane. The components of the site are described in more detail in the following table. The river is characterised by a wide area of foreshore in the site boundary. Vol 18 Table 11.4.2 Townscape and visual - site components ID 01 02 Component River wall Boundary planting Heathwall Pumping Station Middle Wharf Middle Wharf jetty Electrical substation Description Sheet piled wall. Line of small trees and shrubs forming the eastern boundary of the site, alongside a high brick wall. Brick and concrete built flat roofed pumping station set within a walled compound. Area of hardstanding enclosed by brick walls. Long linear concrete piled deck. Small brick built, flat roofed electrical substation building on the boundary with Nine Elms Lane Townscape Condition Poor condition Poor condition Poor condition Poor condition Poor condition Poor condition
03
04 05 06
11.4.24
11.4.25
11.4.26 11.4.27
11.4.28
The condition of the townscape within the site is generally poor, with good potential for enhancement, due to the industrial use of the pumping station and disused nature of Middle Wharf. The industrial use of the site, set amongst the wider industrial area and adjacent to the busy Nine Elms Lane, means the site has a low level of tranquillity. The site has limited townscape value due to the lack of open space and the industrial use of the area. Due to the poor condition and limited townscape value, the site has a low sensitivity to change. Townscape character assessment The Townscape Character Areas surrounding the site are identified on Vol 18 Figure 11.4.5. Townscape character areas are ordered beginning to the north of the site and continuing around the site in a clockwise direction. Each area is described below. Vol 18 Figure 11.4.5 Townscape and visual - character areas (see Volume 18 Figures document)
Page 161
11.4.29
11.4.30
11.4.31 11.4.32
11.4.33
11.4.34 11.4.35
11.4.36
11.4.37
11.4.38 11.4.39
11.4.40 11.4.41 11.4.42
River Thames Nine Elms Reach This reach of the River Thames extends from Chelsea Bridge in the west, just beyond the assessment area for this site, to Vauxhall Bridge in the east. The reach is largely characterised by residential development, set against the changing character of the area in the vicinity of Battersea Power Station, which is planned for redevelopment. The river itself, within the assessment area, is characterised by a varying frontage with different river wall characters and numerous piers, jetties and small inlets. Both banks have a relatively wide area of foreshore at low tide. The river walls and structures are generally fairly well maintained. The overall townscape condition is fair. Despite the residential character along parts of the river frontage, the presence of heavy industries in the immediate area, in turn generating industrial river transport, means the reach has a moderate level of tranquillity. The reach is a regionally valued stretch of the river, forming the backdrop to a number of conservation areas on the north side of the river, in addition to one of the highest profile regeneration projects in London, Battersea Power Station. Due to the fair condition and moderate levels of tranquillity, this character area has a medium sensitivity to change. At night, the area receives relatively low levels of light spill from river traffic, street lighting and riverside developments. Therefore, the sensitivity of this area to additional lighting is high. River Thames Vauxhall and Pimlico Reach This reach of the River Thames extends from Vauxhall Bridge in the west, east of the site, to Lambeth Bridge in the east, beyond the assessment area for this site. The reach is largely characterised by a mixed use riverfront, comprising commercial, residential and institutional uses. The river itself is characterised by a relatively straight sweep around the bend of the river, with only two piers forming incursions, and Lacks Dock forming an inlet close to Vauxhall Bridge. Both banks have a relatively wide area of foreshore at low tide. The river walls and structures are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. Despite the residential character of part of the river frontage, the presence of commercial uses and high-rise development means the reach has a moderate level of tranquillity. The reach is a regionally valued stretch of the river, forming the setting to a number of conservation areas along both sides of the river. Due to the good condition and regional value of the townscape, this character area has a high sensitivity to change. At night, the area receives relatively low levels of light spill from river traffic, street lighting and riverside developments. Therefore, the sensitivity of this area to additional lighting is high.
Page 162
11.4.43
11.4.44 11.4.45
11.4.46 11.4.47
11.4.48
11.4.49
11.4.50 11.4.51
11.4.52
11.4.53 11.4.54
Nine Elms Lane Residential This character area comprises a narrow band of residential apartments along the riverfront, bounded to the south by Nine Elms Lane and the industrial and commercial units further inland. The residential buildings are brick built and seven to nine storeys high. The Thames Path runs along the river, connecting small areas of public open space at either end of the area, characterised by amenity grassland and scattered mature and semi-mature trees. The buildings and public realm within the area are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. Tranquillity within the area is limited by pedestrian movements along the riverside path and the presence of Nine Elms Lane, although this is partially moderated by the presence of green open spaces and the residential character. Therefore, the area has moderate levels of tranquillity. The area is likely to be locally valued by residents within the character area, but has limited value in the wider area. Due to the good condition and local value of the townscape, and the moderate levels of tranquillity, this area has a medium sensitivity to change. At night the area is lit directly by street lighting and indirectly from buildings, providing a fairly brightly lit character. Therefore, the sensitivity of this area to additional lighting is low. St Georges Wharf St Georges Wharf is characterised by a recent residential development comprising five 22 storey towers orientated towards the River Thames and set amongst extensive semi-private open space. The character area also incorporates Market Towers, a 23 storey commercial tower. Part of the area is currently undergoing redevelopment with the construction of a residential tower. The buildings and public realm within the area are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. The area has moderate levels of tranquillity by virtue of the residential character and density of open space amongst the residential blocks, slightly moderated by the presence of the busy Nine Elms Lane running through the character area. The area is located within a regionally valued stretch of the River Thames, currently undergoing significant change. The high rise riverfront development is a particularly distinctive contribution to the wider riverside setting. The area is also experienced by many residents and visitors by virtue of recreational tours such as Duck Tours and attractions such as Tate Britain on the opposite river bank. Due to the good condition and regional value of the townscape, this area has a high sensitivity to change. At night the area is lit directly by street lighting and indirectly from buildings, providing a fairly brightly lit character. Therefore, the sensitivity of this area to additional lighting is low.
Page 163
11.4.55
11.4.56 11.4.57
11.4.58 11.4.59 11.4.60
11.4.61
11.4.62 11.4.63
11.4.64
Nine Elms Lane Commercial This character area is dominated by commercial and industrial uses focused around the railway line between Clapham Junction, Vauxhall and London Waterloo mainline stations. Commercial premises are generally four to five storeys high, with the exception of one 16 storey high-rise office. Industrial units, further south are generally one to three storeys high. The railway arches also incorporate small mixed industrial and commercial uses. The area is characterised by a distinct lack of public open space, with spaces between buildings typically hard surfaced and used for car parking or storage. There are few mature or semi-mature trees present in the area. The pattern of development is focused around the railway and generally introspective, segregated from the river by residential uses. Buildings include the Royal Mail depot and Flower Market. The buildings and public realm within the area are generally relatively poorly maintained. The overall townscape condition is poor. Tranquillity within the area is limited by high levels of vehicular traffic, the presence of the busy railway line, a lack of street trees and open spaces, and the commercial land uses. The area has limited townscape value by virtue of the poor condition of the public realm and the commercial land use. Due to the poor condition and limited value of the area, this character area has a low sensitivity to change. At night the area is lit directly by street lighting and indirectly from buildings, providing a fairly brightly lit character. Therefore, the sensitivity of this area to additional lighting is low. Albert Embankment Commercial This area comprises predominantly commercial uses and includes part of the Albert Embankment Conservation Area designated by the London Borough of Lambeth. The area is characterised by large high-rise commercial premises, including the MI6 building and Camelford House, the latter representing the tallest building in this character area at 18 storeys. The buildings are orientated towards the river and back onto the railway line between Vauxhall and London Waterloo mainline stations. The area has a lack of street trees apart from in front of the post-modern style MI6 building. The river frontage forms a strong, consistent sweep, interrupted by the inlet at Lacks Dock and the encroachment of the MI6 building. The buildings and public realm within the area are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. Tranquillity within the area is limited by the commercial land use, presence of high levels of vehicular traffic, the busy railway line nearby and the lack of street trees or other vegetation. The character area is located within a stretch of the River Thames, with a historical and cultural value of national significance, experienced by large numbers of people and located within a protected viewing corridor towards St Pauls Cathedral. Although the character of the site is typical of this assessment area, it is nationally valued as part of the wider character of
Page 164
11.4.65
11.4.66 11.4.67
11.4.68
11.4.69 11.4.70
11.4.71 11.4.72
11.4.73
11.4.74
the River Thames. The character is located within a regionally valued stretch of the River Thames, with the MI6 building in particular contributing to a wellrecognised London panorama along the river. The area is also experienced by many residents and visitors by virtue of recreational tours such as Duck Tours and attractions such as Tate Britain on the opposite river bank. Due to the good condition of the townscape and its national value, this character area has a high sensitivity to change. At night, the area is illuminated, although not strongly, by the lamp standards along the Thames Path, but is also affected by light spill from the adjacent roads, buildings and Vauxhall Bridge. However, the river beyond the existing river wall is generally characterised by low levels of light. Therefore, the sensitivity of this site to additional lighting is medium. Lambeth Residential This area is dominated by residential uses alongside some retail, public houses and schools, although the majority of the area is characterised by a diversity of residential properties, including three to four storey terraces and seven to eight storey high-rise blocks. Residential properties are typically characterised by yellow and red brick construction with clay tile or natural slate roofs. The area is recorded as containing a number of listed buildings which are of exceptional quality. Open spaces are generally limited to private front and rear residential gardens, providing a low level of informal planting, partially compensating for the absence of street trees. The area is heavily influenced by the railway line running along the western boundary, which has more than 15 trains an hour passing along. However, the majority of the area is largely introspective in character. The buildings and public realm within the area are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. Despite the presence of the railway line along the western boundary of this area, the townscape has moderate levels of tranquillity due to the residential character and introspective nature of the area. The townscape of the character area is likely to be locally valued by residents within the area. Due to the local level value attributed to the townscape, introspective nature of the built environment and moderate levels of tranquillity, this character area has a medium sensitivity to change. At night the area is lit directly by street lighting and indirectly from buildings, providing a fairly brightly lit character. However, due to the residential character, the sensitivity of this area to additional lighting is medium. Battersea Residential This area is comprises a residential area surrounded by industrial uses around Battersea Power Station and along Battersea Park Road/Nine Elms Lane and the railway running between Clapham Junction and Vauxhall/London Waterloo mainline stations. The area is characterised by three to five storey high terraced housing set amongst small areas of communal and private open spaces with intermittent tree planting. The
Page 165
11.4.75 11.4.76
11.4.77 11.4.78
11.4.79
11.4.80
11.4.81 11.4.82 11.4.83
11.4.84
11.4.85 11.4.86
11.4.87
11.4.88
area is largely introspective in character. The buildings and public realm within the area are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. Despite the presence of the railway line along the southern boundary of this area, and the presence of busy roads and industrial uses to the north and west, the townscape has moderate levels of tranquillity due to the residential character, density of mature planting and open spaces and the introspective nature of the area. The townscape of the character area is likely to be locally valued by residents within the area. Due to the local level value attributed to the townscape, introspective nature of the built environment and moderate levels of tranquillity, this character area has a medium sensitivity to change. At night the area is lit directly by street lighting and indirectly from buildings, providing a fairly brightly lit character. However, due to the residential character, the sensitivity of this area to additional lighting is medium. Battersea Industrial This character area is dominated by commercial and industrial uses, and brownfield land focused around the Grade II listed Battersea Power Station. The area comprises a large area of open hardstanding around the power station, a waste transfer station and cement factory on the riverfront and a series of low lying commercial warehouses, depots and offices, including in the Tideway Industrial Estate adjacent to the site. The entirety of the area is likely to undergo significant redevelopment, as described in Section 11.3. The buildings and public realm within the area are generally relatively poorly maintained. The overall townscape condition is poor. Tranquillity within the area is limited by high levels of vehicular traffic, the presence of the busy railway line, a lack of street trees and open spaces, and the commercial land uses. The area has limited townscape value by virtue of the poor condition of the public realm and the commercial land use. However, Battersea Power Station represents a component of the character area that is regionally valued by virtue of its contribution of Londons skyline. Due to the poor condition and overall limited value of the area, this character area has a low sensitivity to change. At night the area is lit directly by street lighting and indirectly from buildings, providing a fairly brightly lit character. Therefore, the sensitivity of this area to additional lighting is low. Grosvenor Bridge Rail This area comprises a wide rail corridor which passes between residential areas and crosses the River Thames over Grosvenor Bridge, connecting Clapham Junction and Victoria mainline railway stations. The area is generally poorly maintained, and therefore the overall townscape condition is poor.
Page 166
Due to the type of use as a busy railway corridor, the area has a low level of tranquillity. 11.4.90 In addition, due to the type of use, with an inherent lack of public amenity, the area has limited townscape value. 11.4.91 Due to the poor condition, low levels of tranquillity and limited townscape value, this character area has a low sensitivity to change. 11.4.92 Due to the type of use as a busy railway corridor, the area has a low sensitivity to additional lighting. Pimlico Residential 11.4.93 This area is dominated by residential uses and incorporates the following conservation areas: a. Pimlico Conservation Area; b. Peabody Avenue Conservation Area; c. Churchill Gardens Conservation Area; d. Dolphin Square Conservation Area; and e. Lillington Gardens Conservation Area. 11.4.94 The character of the area is dominated by residential terraces aligned on a grid formation, although there are also parades of small retail units, churches (including the Grade I listed St James-the-Less) and some leisure uses. Churchill Gardens, Dolphin Square and Lillington Gardens Conservation Areas each form introspective residential estates, with small areas of public and private open space. There is a general abundance of mature street trees and dense vegetation in open spaces, providing a green character to the area. The development pattern comprises a mix of large blocks up to around nine to eleven storeys, set amongst terraces of two to four storey properties. The area is largely introspective in character. 11.4.95 The buildings and public realm within the area are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. 11.4.96 Despite the presence of some busy roads through the area, the townscape has moderate levels of tranquillity due to the residential character and introspective nature of the area. 11.4.97 The townscape of the character area is valued at the Borough level, by virtue of the conservation area designations. 11.4.98 Therefore, despite the Borough level value attributed to the townscape, due to the introspective nature of the built environment and moderate levels of tranquillity, this character area has a medium sensitivity to change. 11.4.99 At night the area is lit directly by street lighting and indirectly from buildings, providing a fairly brightly lit character. However, due to the residential character, the sensitivity of this area to additional lighting is medium. Pimlico Academy 11.4.100 This character area comprises a mixed secondary school characterised by a large school building, surrounded by sports pitches and small grassed areas with scattered mature and semi-mature trees. The area is bounded
Page 167
11.4.101 11.4.102
11.4.103 11.4.104 11.4.105
11.4.106
11.4.107 11.4.108
11.4.109 11.4.110
11.4.111
11.4.112
11.4.113 11.4.114
by Pimlico Conservation Area to the north, east and west, and by Dolphin Square Conservation Area to the south. The area is introspective in character. The buildings and public realm within the area are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. Tranquillity within the area is limited by the intensity of activity during the school day, and the dominance of the school building on the character of the area. The area is likely to be locally valued by pupils of the school and their families, but has limited value in the wider area. Due to the introspective nature of the built environment and local level value of the townscape, the area has a medium sensitivity to change. At night the area is lit indirectly from street lighting and buildings, providing a fairly dimly lit character. Therefore, the sensitivity of this area to additional lighting is high. Bessborough Residential This area is characterised by five to seven storey residential apartments set amongst a series of semi-private open spaces with an abundance of mature tree planting. The area also includes Westminster Cathedral Primary School, Pimlico underground station and some commercial uses. The area is largely introspective in character. The buildings and public realm within the area are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. Despite the presence of busy traffic along Grosvenor Road and Vauxhall Bridge Road at the edge of the area, the townscape has moderate levels of tranquillity due to the residential character and introspective nature of the area. The area is likely to be locally valued by residents within the character area, but has limited value in the wider area. Due to the good condition and local value of the townscape, and the moderate levels of tranquillity, this area has a medium sensitivity to change. At night the area is lit directly by street lighting and indirectly from buildings, providing a fairly brightly lit character. However, due to the residential character, the sensitivity of this area to additional lighting is medium. Residential Waterfront - West This area is characterised by four to eight storey modern residential apartments, alongside a 20 storey residential tower at the corner of Grosvenor Road and Vauxhall Bridge Road, and a 13 storey commercial tower north of Vauxhall Bridge Road. The development pattern is orientated towards the river and further characterised by areas of private and communal open space, with scattered mature trees. The Thames Path follows the river, in front of the residential developments. The buildings and public realm within the area are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. Despite the presence of busy traffic along Grosvenor Road and Vauxhall
Page 168
11.4.115
11.4.116 11.4.117
11.4.118
11.4.119 11.4.120
11.4.121 11.4.122 11.4.123
11.4.124
Bridge Road, the townscape has moderate levels of tranquillity due to the residential character and abundance of open space and mature tree planting. The character is located within a regionally valued stretch of the River Thames, currently undergoing significant change. The high rise riverfront development is a particularly distinctive contribution to the wider riverside setting. The area is also experienced by many residents and visitors by virtue of recreational tours such as Duck Tours and attractions such as Tate Britain. Due to the good condition and regional value of the townscape, this area has a high sensitivity to change. At night the area is lit directly by street lighting and indirectly from buildings, providing a fairly brightly lit character. Therefore, the sensitivity of this area to additional lighting is low. Westminster Residential This area is dominated by residential uses and incorporates Millbank Conservation Area and a small proportion of Regency Street Conservation Area. The area is characterised by residential uses, dominated by three to seven storey Edwardian and post World War I red and yellow brick buildings organised on a grid formation. The area is further characterised by intermittent small private, semi-private and public open spaces. Street trees are present across most of the area, providing an overall green character to the area. The area is largely introspective in character, focused on public and private spaces internal to the area, although the river frontage is heavily influenced by the character of the River Thames and opposite bank. The buildings and public realm within the area are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. Despite the presence of the some busy roads through the area, the townscape has moderate levels of tranquillity due to the residential character and introspective nature of the area. The townscape of the character area is valued at the Borough level, by virtue of the conservation area designations. Due to the good condition and Borough level value of the townscape, this character area has a high sensitivity to change. At night the area is lit directly by street lighting and indirectly from buildings, providing a fairly brightly lit character. However, due to the residential character, the sensitivity of this area to additional lighting is medium. Millbank Conservation Area - Institutional This area comprises part of Millbank Conservation Area characterised by institutional uses, including Tate Britain art gallery, the Royal Army Medical College and the former Queen Alexandra Military Hospital. This area is divided from the rest of the character area (dominated by residential uses similar in character to the surrounding areas and incorporated into Westminster Residential TCA) by John Islip Street. Millbank Embankment is characterised by a pedestrian route alongside the busy road, with Grade II listed lamp standards and mature London plane
Page 169
11.4.125 11.4.126 11.4.127
11.4.128 11.4.129
11.4.130
trees along the frontage. The character area is set directly adjacent to the river. The buildings and public realm within the area are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. Tranquillity within the area is limited by the presence of high levels of vehicular traffic and pedestrian movements. The character is located within a regionally valued stretch of the River Thames, currently undergoing significant change. The high rise riverfront development is a particularly distinctive contribution to the wider riverside setting. The area is also experienced by many residents and visitors by virtue of recreational tours such as Duck Tours and attractions such as Tate Britain art gallery. Due to the good condition and regional value of the townscape, this area has a high sensitivity to change. At night the area is lit directly by street lighting and indirectly from buildings, providing a fairly brightly lit character. Therefore, the sensitivity of this area to additional lighting is low. The sensitivity to change of the townscape character areas is summarised in the table below. Vol 18 Table 11.4.3 Townscape sensitivities to change Townscape character area The site River Thames Nine Elms Reach River Thames Vauxhall and Pimlico Reach Nine Elms Lane Residential St Georges Wharf Nine Elms Lane Commercial Albert Embankment Commercial Lambeth Residential Battersea Residential Battersea Industrial Grosvenor Bridge Rail Pimlico Residential Pimlico Academy Bessborough Residential Residential Waterfront West Westminster Residential Millbank Conservation Area Institutional Sensitivity Low Medium High Medium High Low High Medium Medium Low Low Medium Medium Medium High High High
Page 170
Visual baseline
11.4.131 Vol 18 Figure 11.4.6 indicates the location of viewpoints referenced below. All residential and recreational receptors have a high sensitivity to change, and transport receptors have a medium sensitivity to change. Appendix D contains illustrative winter photographs from selected viewpoints (the ES will include winter and summer photos for each character area and viewpoint). Vol 18 Figure 11.4.6 Townscape and visual - viewpoint locations (see Volume 18 Figures document) Residential 11.4.132 Residential receptors have a high sensitivity to change, as attention is often focused on the townscape surrounding the property rather than on another focused activity (as would be the case in predominantly employment or industrial areas). The visual baseline in respect of residential receptors (represented by a series of viewpoints, agreed with consultees) is described below. Viewpoint 1.1: View south from residences on Grosvenor Road opposite Claverton Street 11.4.133 This viewpoint is representative of the view from residential properties adjacent to the Thames Path on the north bank of the River Thames, on Grosvenor Road opposite Claverton Street. The view is an open panorama over the River Thames from Chelsea railway bridge to the west and Vauxhall Bridge to the east. The view is characterised by industrial buildings along the south bank of the river, with Battersea Power Station (to the west) and the St Georges Wharf development (to the east) forming dominant components of the view. The existing Heathwall pumping station is visible set amongst other industrial buildings similar in character. Views of the site, largely located on the foreshore, are unobstructed from this viewpoint. Viewpoint 1.2: View southwest from residences on Grosvenor Road opposite St Georges Square 11.4.134 This viewpoint is representative of the oblique view from residential properties adjacent to the Thames Path on the north bank of the River Thames, on Grosvenor Road opposite St Georges Square. The view is an open panorama over the River Thames from Chelsea railway bridge to the west and Vauxhall Bridge to the east. The view is characterised by industrial buildings along the south bank of the river, with Battersea Power Station (to the west) and the St Georges Wharf development (to the east) forming dominant components of the view. The existing Heathwall pumping station is visible set amongst other industrial buildings similar in character. Views of the site from this viewpoint are partially obscured by an existing pier in the foreground of the view. Viewpoint 1.3: View southwest from residences on Grosvenor Road near Balvaird Place 11.4.135 This viewpoint is representative of the oblique view from residential properties adjacent to the Thames Path on the north bank of the River Thames, on Grosvenor Road, near Balvaird Place. The view is an open panorama over the River Thames from Battersea Power Station to the
Page 171
west and Vauxhall Bridge to the east. The view is characterised by industrial buildings along the south bank of the river, alongside St Georges Wharf residential development adjacent to Vauxhall Bridge, and residences along Nine Elms Lane. The St Georges Wharf development forms the most dominant component of the view. The existing Heathwall pumping station is visible set amongst other industrial buildings similar in character. Views of the site, largely located on the foreshore, are unobstructed from this viewpoint. Viewpoint 1.4: View southwest from residences on Grosvenor Road near Vauxhall Bridge 11.4.136 This viewpoint is representative of the oblique view from residential properties adjacent to the Thames Path on the north bank of the River Thames, on Grosvenor Road, near Vauxhall Bridge. The view is an open panorama over the River Thames from Battersea Power Station to the west and Vauxhall Bridge to the east. The view is characterised by industrial buildings along the south bank of the river, alongside St Georges Wharf residential development adjacent to Vauxhall Bridge, and residences along Nine Elms Lane. The St Georges Wharf development forms the most dominant component of the view. The existing Heathwall pumping station is visible set amongst other industrial buildings similar in character. Views of the site, largely located on the foreshore, are unobstructed from this viewpoint. Viewpoint 1.5: View southwest from residences in St Georges Wharf 11.4.137 This viewpoint is representative of the view from the southwest facing windows in the southern block of the St Georges Wharf riverside development, adjacent to Vauxhall Bridge. The view is a wide open panorama over the River Thames, focused on Chelsea railway bridge and Battersea Power Station in the background. The view from lower storeys is focused on Nine Elms Lane, bounded by residential properties to the north and commercial premises to the south. The view from upper storeys is characterised by an expanse of commercial and industrial buildings along Nine Elms Lane and the mainline railway. The existing Heathwall pumping station is visible set amongst other industrial buildings similar in character. Views of the site are largely obscured from lower storeys, but visible above the roof line from upper storeys. Viewpoint 1.6: View southwest from residences along Nine Elms Lane 11.4.138 This viewpoint is representative of the oblique view from residences between the Thames Path and Nine Elms Lane. The view is a wide open panorama over the River Thames, from Chelsea railway bridge to the west and Vauxhall Bridge to the east. The view is focused on residential properties on the opposite side of the river, but also encompasses oblique views in the direction of Battersea Power Station and the site. Views of the parts of the site located on the foreshore are visible from this location, although the rest of the site further inland, including Heathwall pumping station, is obscured.
Page 172
11.4.139
11.4.140
11.4.141
11.4.142
11.4.143
Viewpoint 1.7: View southwest from residences along Nine Elms Lane, close to the site This viewpoint is representative of the oblique view from residences between the Thames Path and Nine Elms Lane. The view is a wide open panorama over the River Thames, from Chelsea railway bridge to the west and Vauxhall Bridge to the east. The view is focused on residential properties on the opposite side of the river, but also encompasses oblique views in the direction of Battersea Power Station and the site. Views of the parts of the site located on the foreshore are visible from this location, although the rest of the site further inland, including Heathwall pumping station, is obscured. Viewpoint 1.8: View northeast from residences along Battersea Park Road This viewpoint is representative of the view from residences at the junction of Battersea Park Road and Sleaford Street. The view is a linear view up Nine Elms Lane, bounded to the north and south by industrial and commercial premises lining the road. The wall surrounding Heathwall pumping station and Middle Wharf is visible in the background of the view. Views of the site are largely obscured from this location by the existing pumping station and boundary walls. Viewpoint 1.9: View southeast from residences along Grosvenor Road, close to Telford Terrace This viewpoint is representative of the oblique view from residences along Grosvenor Road, close to Telford Terrace on the north bank of the river. The view is an open panorama over the River Thames, focused on Battersea Power Station on the opposite side of the river, and framed to the west by Chelsea railway bridge. The view is characterised by industrial and commercial premises along the south bank of the river, including Heathwall pumping station. Views of the site, largely located on the foreshore, are unobstructed from this location. Viewpoint 1.10: View southeast from residences along Grosvenor Road, close to Churchill Gardens Estate This viewpoint is representative of the view from residential properties adjacent to the Thames Path on the north bank of the River Thames, on Grosvenor Road opposite Claverton Street. The view is an open panorama over the River Thames from Chelsea railway bridge to the west and Vauxhall Bridge to the east. The view is characterised by industrial buildings along the south bank of the river, with Battersea Power Station (to the west) and the St Georges Wharf development (to the east) forming dominant components of the view. The existing Heathwall pumping station is visible set amongst other industrial buildings similar in character. Views of the site, largely located on the foreshore, are unobstructed from this viewpoint. Recreational Recreational receptors (apart from those engaged in active sports) generally have a high sensitivity to change, as attention is focused on enjoyment of the townscape. Tourists engaged in activities whereby attention is focused on the surrounding townscape also have a high
Page 173
11.4.144
11.4.145
11.4.146
11.4.147
sensitivity to change. The visual baseline in respect of recreational receptors, including tourists, is discussed below. Viewpoint 2.1: View southwest from the northern end of Vauxhall Bridge This viewpoint is representative of the view from pedestrians crossing Vauxhall Bridge, towards the northern end of the bridge. The view is a linear view up the River Thames towards Battersea Power Station to the west. The view is characterised by industrial buildings along the south bank of the river, alongside St Georges Wharf residential development adjacent to Vauxhall Bridge, and residences along Nine Elms Lane. The St Georges Wharf development forms the most dominant component of the view. The existing Heathwall pumping station is visible set amongst other industrial buildings similar in character. Views of the site, largely located on the foreshore, are unobstructed from this viewpoint. Viewpoint 2.2: View southwest from the centre of Vauxhall Bridge This viewpoint is representative of the view from pedestrians crossing Vauxhall Bridge, from the centre of the bridge. The view is a linear view up the River Thames towards Battersea Power Station to the west. The view is characterised by industrial buildings along the south bank of the river, alongside St Georges Wharf residential development adjacent to Vauxhall Bridge, and residences along Nine Elms Lane. The St Georges Wharf development forms the most dominant component of the view. The existing Heathwall pumping station is visible set amongst other industrial buildings similar in character. Views of the site, largely located on the foreshore, are unobstructed from this viewpoint. Viewpoint 2.3: View southwest from the southern end of Vauxhall Bridge This viewpoint is representative of the view from pedestrians crossing Vauxhall Bridge, towards the southern end of the bridge. The view is a linear view up the River Thames towards Battersea Power Station to the west. The view is characterised by industrial buildings along the south bank of the river, alongside St Georges Wharf residential development adjacent to Vauxhall Bridge, and residences along Nine Elms Lane. The St Georges Wharf development forms the most dominant component in the foreground of the view. The existing Heathwall pumping station is visible set amongst other industrial buildings similar in character. Views of the site, largely located on the foreshore, are unobstructed from this viewpoint. Viewpoint 2.4: View southwest from the Thames Path in front of the St Georges Wharf development This viewpoint is representative of the view from recreational users of the Thames Path and open spaces in front of the St Georges Wharf residential development. The view is a wide open panorama over the River Thames, focused on Battersea Power Station in the background. The view is focused on residential properties along Nine Elms Lane, set beyond the foreground of the river frontage of St Georges Wharf. The existing Heathwall pumping station is visible set amongst other industrial buildings similar in character. Views of the site are partially obscured,
Page 174
11.4.148
11.4.149
11.4.150
11.4.151
11.4.152
although views of the foreshore part of the site are largely unobstructed. Viewpoint 2.5: View southeast from the Thames Path on the north bank of the river, opposite Lupus Street This viewpoint is representative of the view from recreational users of the Thames Path on the north bank of the river opposite Lupus Street. The view is an open panorama over the River Thames, focused on Battersea Power Station on the opposite side of the river, and framed to the west by Chelsea railway bridge. The view is characterised by industrial and commercial premises along the south bank of the river, including Heathwall pumping station. Views of the site, largely located on the foreshore, are unobstructed from this location. Transport People travelling through an area generally have a medium sensitivity to change, although it is often the means by which the greatest numbers of people view the townscape. Viewpoint 3.1: View west from the westbound carriageway of Nine Elms Lane This viewpoint is representative of the view from people travelling west towards the site along Nine Elms Lane. The view is a linear view down Nine Elms Lane, contained on both sides by industrial and commercial premises. The boundary wall to Middle Wharf and Heathwall pumping station forms the foreground to the view, obscuring views to the remainder of the site. Viewpoint 3.2: View northeast from the eastbound carriageway of Nine Elms Lane This viewpoint is representative of the view from people travelling east towards the site along Nine Elms Lane. The view is a linear view up Nine Elms Lane, contained on both sides by industrial and commercial premises. The boundary wall to Middle Wharf and Heathwall pumping station forms part of the foreground to the view, obscuring views to the remainder of the site. The sensitivity to change of the viewpoints is summarised in the table below. Vol 18 Table 11.4.4 Visual viewpoints sensitivities to change Viewpoint Residential Viewpoint 1.1: View south from residences on Grosvenor Road opposite Claverton Street Viewpoint 1.2: View southwest from residences on Grosvenor Road opposite St Georges Square Viewpoint 1.3: View southwest from residences on Grosvenor Road near Balvaird Place Viewpoint 1.4: View southwest from residences on Grosvenor Road near Vauxhall Bridge High High High High Sensitivity
Page 175
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Viewpoint
Section 11: Townscape and Visual Sensitivity High High High High High High
Viewpoint 1.5: View southwest from residences in St Georges Wharf Viewpoint 1.6: View southwest from residences along Nine Elms Lane Viewpoint 1.7: View southwest from residences along Nine Elms Lane, close to the site Viewpoint 1.8: View northeast from residences along Battersea Park Road Viewpoint 1.9: View southeast from residences along Grosvenor Road, close to Telford Terrace Viewpoint 1.10: View southeast from residences along Grosvenor Road, close to Churchill Gardens Estate Recreational Viewpoint 2.1: View southwest from the northern end of Vauxhall Bridge Viewpoint 2.2: View southwest from the centre of Vauxhall Bridge Viewpoint 2.3: View southwest from the southern end of Vauxhall Bridge
High High High
Viewpoint 2.4: View southwest from the Thames Path High in front of the St Georges Wharf development Viewpoint 2.5: View southeast from the Thames Path on the north bank of the river, opposite Lupus Street Transport Viewpoint 3.1: View west from the westbound carriageway of Nine Elms Lane Viewpoint 3.2: View east from the eastbound carriageway of Nine Elms Lane Medium Medium High
11.5
11.5.1
Effects during the construction phase would be temporary, although medium term due to the scale and necessary phasing of the proposed development. The proposed phasing of the development would result in intense periods of activity within relatively quieter phases. Construction phase site assessment Direct effects on the townscape of the site would arise from partial removal of the river wall and other structures, clearance of some vegetation and construction activity associated with the construction of the cofferdam, shaft and ventilation equipment, and secondary lining of the tunnel. The effects on specific components of the site are described below:
11.5.2
Page 176
Vol 18 Table 11.5.1 Townscape site components effects construction ID 01 Component River wall Effects Parts of the existing river wall would be removed to facilitate construction of the site cofferdam into the river and the construction of permanent infrastructure within the cofferdam. Vegetation within the site boundary would be cleared prior to construction.
02 03
Boundary planting
Heathwall This building would be retained during Pumping Station construction, and would remain operational throughout. Middle Wharf The hardstanding of Middle Wharf would be used as the location for shaft at this site, largely maintaining its existing character. This would remain unaffected during construction. This would remain unaffected during construction.
04
05 06
Middle Wharf jetty Electrical substation
11.5.3
11.5.4
11.5.5
11.5.6
11.5.7
The magnitude of change to the site during the construction period is considered to be high due to the clearance required to form the construction site, including formation of the cofferdam in the river, and the level of activity during construction. The existing site has a low level of tranquillity, which would be substantially altered due to introduction of construction vehicles, plant equipment and high levels of activity in a park and part of the river not currently intensively used. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be high. The high magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the low sensitivity of the site to change, means the effect of the proposed construction activity on the townscape resource of the site would be of moderate adverse significance. Construction phase townscape assessment River Thames Nine Elms Reach The proposed site is within this reach of the river, introducing high levels of construction activity within a part of the river not currently developed. However, the base case during Year 2 of construction would comprise significant levels of construction activity on the south bank of the river from Chelsea railway bridge to the site. Therefore, the level of activity introduced during construction of the proposed development would be typical of the character of the remainder of the reach. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be low. The baseline section describes this reach of the river as having moderate levels of tranquillity. Due to the anticipated change in the base case by
Page 177
11.5.8
11.5.9
11.5.10
11.5.11
11.5.12
11.5.13
11.5.14
11.5.15
Year 2 of construction, this reach would have a low level of tranquillity as a result of the substantial level of construction along the south bank of the river. The effect of construction activities at the site, including piling, demolition and river based transport, would therefore be minimised. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be low. Given the low magnitude of change and the medium sensitivity of this character area to change, the effect of the proposed construction activity on the River Thames Nine Elms Reach would be of minor adverse significance. River Thames Vauxhall and Pimlico Reach The proposed site is approximately 800m upstream of this reach of the river, separated by Vauxhall Bridge. Construction activity would be set within the wider setting of this area, largely screened by the presence of Vauxhall Bridge and set against the context of ongoing construction activities upstream of the site. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The area has moderate levels of tranquillity at present, which would be largely unchanged. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the high sensitivity of this character, means the proposed construction would give rise to negligible effects on the River Thames Vauxhall and Pimlico Reach. Nine Elms Lane Residential The proposed site is set directly west of this character area. The setting of the area would be partially affected by the presence of construction activity, traffic and cranes. However, the majority of the riverside setting would be largely unaffected. In addition, the change in setting would be typical of the character of the wider area for the construction phase assessment year. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be low. The baseline section describes this character area as having moderate levels of tranquillity. Due to the anticipated change in the base case by Year 2 of construction, this reach would have a low level of tranquillity as a result of the substantial level of construction in close vicinity to the area. The effect of construction activities at the site, including piling and demolition, would therefore be minimised. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be low. Given the low magnitude of change and the medium sensitivity of this character area to change, the effect of the proposed construction activity on Nine Elms Lane Residential would be of minor adverse significance. St Georges Wharf The proposed site forms part of the wider setting of this character area. The setting of the area would be partially affected by the presence of construction activity and cranes. However, the majority of the riverside setting would be largely unaffected, apart from by river transport. In addition, the change in setting would be typical of the character of the wider area for the construction phase assessment year, due to the
Page 178
11.5.16
11.5.17
11.5.18
11.5.19
11.5.20
11.5.21
11.5.22
11.5.23
11.5.24
11.5.25
anticipated substantial regeneration of the area. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be low. The baseline section describes this character area as having moderate levels of tranquillity. Due to the anticipated change in the base case by Year 2 of construction, this reach would have a low level of tranquillity as a result of the substantial level of construction in close vicinity to the area. The effect of construction activities at the site, including piling and demolition, would therefore be minimised. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be low. Given the low magnitude of change and the high sensitivity of this character area to change, the effect of the proposed construction activity on St Georges Wharf would be of minor adverse significance. Nine Elms Lane Commercial The proposed site is set directly north of this character area, separating the area from the river. The setting of the area would be affected by the presence of construction activity, cranes and road transport. However, the change in setting would be typical of the character of the wider area for the construction phase assessment year, due to the anticipated substantial regeneration of the area. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be low. The baseline section describes this character area as having a low level of tranquillity, which would be further reduced by surrounding construction activities in the construction phase assessment year. The effect of construction activities at the site, including piling and demolition, would therefore be minimised. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be low. Given the low magnitude of change and the low sensitivity of this character area to change, the proposed construction activity would give rise to negligible effects on Nine Elms Lane Commercial. Albert Embankment Commercial The proposed site does not form part of the setting for this character area, which is largely introspective, set beyond Vauxhall Bridge and unlikely to be indirectly affected by construction traffic to any significant degree. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The area has a low level of tranquillity at present, which is unlikely to change, given the careful routing of construction traffic. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the high sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed construction activity would give rise to a negligible effect on Albert Embankment Commercial. Lambeth Residential The proposed site does not form part of the setting for this character area, which is largely introspective, set behind the national railway line and unlikely to be indirectly affected by construction traffic to any significant degree. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The area has a moderate level of tranquillity at present, which is unlikely to
Page 179
11.5.26
11.5.27
11.5.28
11.5.29
11.5.30
11.5.31
11.5.32
11.5.33
11.5.34
11.5.35
11.5.36
change, given the careful routing of construction traffic. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the medium sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed construction activity would give rise to a negligible effect on Lambeth Residential. Battersea Residential The proposed site does not form part of the setting for this character area, which is largely introspective, set beyond the substantial industrial area around Nine Elms Lane and the mainline railway, and unlikely to be indirectly affected by construction traffic. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The area has a moderate level of tranquillity at present, which is unlikely to change, given the careful routing of construction traffic. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the medium sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed construction activity would give rise to a negligible effect on Battersea Residential. Battersea Industrial The proposed site is set directly east of this character area. The setting of the area would be affected by the presence of construction activity, cranes and road transport. However, the change in setting would be typical of the character of the wider area for the construction phase assessment year, due to the anticipated substantial regeneration of the area. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be low. The baseline section describes this character area as having a low level of tranquillity, which would be further reduced by surrounding construction activities in the construction phase assessment year. The effect of construction activities at the site, including piling and demolition, would therefore be minimised. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be low. Given the low magnitude of change and the low sensitivity of this character area to change, the proposed construction activity would give rise to negligible effects on Battersea Industrial. Grosvenor Bridge Rail The proposed site does not form part of the setting for this character area, which is entirely introspective in character. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The area has a low level of tranquillity at present, which would be unaffected during construction. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the low sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed construction activity would give rise to a negligible effect on Grosvenor Bridge Rail. Pimlico Residential The proposed site forms a direct part of the riverside setting of this
Page 180
11.5.37
11.5.38
11.5.39
11.5.40
11.5.41
11.5.42
11.5.43
11.5.44
11.5.45
character area. The presence of cranes, construction plant, the site cofferdam and piling rig would affect the riverside setting of this character area. However, the change in setting would be typical of the character of the wider area for the construction phase assessment year, due to the anticipated substantial regeneration of the area. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be low. The area has moderate levels of tranquillity at present, which would be largely unaffected. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible. Given the low magnitude of change and the medium sensitivity of this character area to change, the effect of the proposed construction activity on Pimlico Residential would be of minor adverse significance. Pimlico Academy The proposed site does not form part of the setting for this character area, which is largely introspective and unlikely to be indirectly affected by construction traffic. The presence of cranes is not likely to alter the setting of the area. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The area has low levels of tranquillity at present, which would be unchanged. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the medium sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed construction activity would give rise to negligible effects on Pimlico Academy. Bessborough Residential The proposed site does not form part of the setting for this character area, which is largely introspective and unlikely to be indirectly affected by construction traffic. The presence of cranes is not likely to alter the setting of the area. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The area has moderate levels of tranquillity at present, which would be unchanged. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the medium sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed construction activity would give rise to negligible effects on Bessborough Residential. Residential Waterfront - West The proposed site forms part of the wider riverside setting of this character area. The presence of cranes, construction plant, the site cofferdam and piling rig would affect the riverside setting of this character area. However, the change in setting would be typical of the character of the wider area for the construction phase assessment year, due to the anticipated substantial regeneration of the area. In addition, the majority of the immediate riverside setting around Vauxhall Bridge would be unaffected. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible.
Page 181
11.5.47
11.5.48
11.5.49
11.5.50
11.5.51
11.5.52
11.5.53
11.5.54
The area has moderate levels of tranquillity at present, which would be largely unaffected. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible. Given the negligible magnitude of change and the high sensitivity of this character area to change, the proposed construction activity would give rise to negligible effects on Residential Waterfront West. Westminster Residential The proposed site does not form part of the setting for this character area, which is largely introspective and unlikely to be indirectly affected by construction traffic. The presence of cranes is not likely to alter the setting of the area. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The area has moderate levels of tranquillity at present, which would be unchanged. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the high sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed construction activity would give rise to negligible effects on Westminster Residential. Millbank Conservation Area - Institutional The proposed site does not form part of the setting for this character area, which is largely introspective and unlikely to be indirectly affected by construction traffic. The presence of cranes is not likely to alter the setting of the area. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The area has low levels of tranquillity at present, which would be unchanged. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the high sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed construction activity would give rise to negligible effects on Millbank Conservation Area Institutional. The assessment of townscape effects during construction is summarised in the table below. Vol 18 Table 11.5.2 Townscape effects on character areas construction Townscape character area The site River Thames Nine Elms Reach River Thames Vauxhall and Pimlico Reach Nine Elms Lane Residential St Georges Wharf Sensitivity Low Medium High Medium High Magnitude High Low Negligible Low Low Effect Moderate adverse Minor adverse Negligible Minor adverse Minor
Page 182
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Townscape character area Nine Elms Lane Commercial Albert Embankment Commercial Lambeth Residential Battersea Residential Battersea Industrial Grosvenor Bridge Rail Pimlico Residential Pimlico Academy Bessborough Residential Residential Waterfront West Westminster Residential Millbank Conservation Area Institutional 11.5.55
Section 11: Townscape and Visual Sensitivity Low High Medium Medium Low Low Medium Medium Medium High High High Magnitude Low Negligible Negligible Negligible Low Negligible Low Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Effect adverse Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Minor adverse Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
11.5.56
11.5.57
Construction phase townscape assessment night time effects There are likely to be limited effects on night time character due to the proposed limit of 12 hour working at the site. However, this would mean that there would be some lighting of the site in the early morning and evening during winter. Effects on night time character will be considered in the ES (Section 11.9). Construction phase visual assessment Residential Viewpoint 1.1: View south from residences on Grosvenor Road opposite Claverton Street Views from residences towards the site would be affected during construction. Panoramic views over the river would be affected by the presence of cranes, construction plant, the site cofferdam and piling rig. However, the construction activities would be similar in nature to views across to the majority of the south bank of the river, due to the substantial regeneration that would be underway in Year 2 of construction, as described in Section 11.3. The construction activity at the site would be both set in front of and surrounded by similar construction activities. In addition, components of the existing view, including Heathwall pumping station and the jetty at Middle Wharf, would remain unchanged. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be low. The low magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of minor adverse significance.
Page 183
11.5.58
11.5.59
11.5.60
11.5.61
11.5.62
Viewpoint 1.2: View southwest from residences on Grosvenor Road opposite St Georges Square Views from residences towards the site would be affected during construction. Panoramic views over the river would be affected by the presence of cranes, construction plant, the site cofferdam and piling rig. However, the construction activities would be similar in nature to views across to the majority of the south bank of the river, due to the substantial regeneration that would be underway in Year 2 of construction, as described in Section 11.3. The construction activity at the site would be both set in front of and surrounded by similar construction activities. In addition, components of the existing view, including Heathwall pumping station and the jetty at Middle Wharf, would remain unchanged. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be low. The low magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of minor adverse significance. Viewpoint 1.3: View southwest from residences on Grosvenor Road near Balvaird Place Views from residences towards the site would be affected during construction. Panoramic views over the river would be affected by the presence of cranes, construction plant, the site cofferdam and piling rig. However, the construction activities would be similar in nature to views across to the majority of the south bank of the river, due to the substantial regeneration that would be underway in Year 2 of construction, as described in Section 11.3. The construction activity at the site would be both set in front of and surrounded by similar construction activities. In addition, components of the existing view, including Heathwall pumping station and the jetty at Middle Wharf would remain unchanged. The majority of the panorama directly across the river and towards Vauxhall Bridge would remain unchanged. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be low. The low magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of minor adverse significance. Viewpoint 1.4: View southwest from residences on Grosvenor Road near Vauxhall Bridge Views from residences towards the site would be affected during construction. Panoramic views over the river would be affected by the presence of cranes, construction plant, the site cofferdam and piling rig. However, the construction activities would be similar in nature to views across to the majority of the south bank of the river, due to the substantial regeneration that would be underway in Year 2 of construction, as described in Section 11.3. The construction activity at the site would be both set in front of and surrounded by similar construction activities. In addition, components of the existing view, including Heathwall pumping station and the jetty at Middle Wharf would remain unchanged. The majority of the panorama directly across the river and towards Vauxhall Bridge would remain unchanged. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be low.
Page 184
11.5.64
11.5.65
11.5.66
11.5.67
11.5.68
11.5.69
The low magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of minor adverse significance. Viewpoint 1.5: View southwest from residences in St Georges Wharf Views from residences towards the site would be affected to a limited extent during construction. Views up the river would be affected by the presence of cranes, construction plant, the site cofferdam and piling rig. However, the construction activities would be surrounded by similar construction activities, due to the substantial regeneration that would be underway in Year 2 of construction, as described in Section 11.3. In addition, components of the existing view, including Heathwall pumping station and the jetty at Middle Wharf would remain unchanged. The majority of the panorama directly across the river and towards Vauxhall Bridge would remain unchanged. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the proposed construction phase would give rise to negligible effects on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 1.6: View southwest from residences along Nine Elms Lane Oblique views from residences towards the site would be affected to a limited extent during construction. Views up the river would be affected by the presence of cranes, construction plant, the site cofferdam and piling rig. However, the construction activities would be surrounded by similar construction activities, due to the substantial regeneration that would be underway in Year 2 of construction, as described in Section 11.3. Inland construction activities would be obscured by intervening buildings along the riverfront. The majority of the panorama directly across the river and towards Vauxhall Bridge would remain unchanged. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the proposed construction phase would give rise to negligible effects on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 1.7: View southwest from residences along Nine Elms Lane, close to the site Oblique views from residences towards the site would be affected to a limited extent during construction. Views up the river would be affected by the presence of cranes, construction plant, the site cofferdam and piling rig. However, the construction activities would be surrounded by similar construction activities, due to the substantial regeneration that would be underway in Year 2 of construction, as described in Section 11.3. Inland construction activities would be obscured by intervening buildings along the riverfront. Activities on the foreshore would be partially obscured by the existing jetty on Middle Wharf. The majority of the panorama directly across the river and towards Vauxhall Bridge would remain unchanged. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the proposed construction phase would
Page 185
11.5.70
11.5.71
11.5.72
11.5.73
11.5.74
11.5.75
give rise to negligible effects on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 1.8: View northeast from residences along Battersea Park Road Construction activity at the site would be barely perceptible from this location, due to the buildings and construction activity along Nine Elms Lane and mature trees obscuring the view towards the site and the river. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view would be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the proposed construction phase would give rise to negligible effects on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 1.9: View southeast from residences along Grosvenor Road, close to Telford Terrace Views from residences towards the site would be affected during construction. Panoramic views over the river would be affected by the presence of cranes, construction plant, the site cofferdam and piling rig. However, the construction activities would be similar in nature to views across to the majority of the south bank of the river, due to the substantial regeneration that would be underway in Year 2 of construction, as described in Section 11.3. The construction activity at the site would be both set in front of and surrounded by similar construction activities. In addition, components of the existing view, including Heathwall pumping station and the jetty at Middle Wharf would remain unchanged. The majority of the panorama directly across the river and towards Battersea Power Station would remain unchanged. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be low. The low magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of minor adverse significance. Viewpoint 1.10: View southeast from residences along Grosvenor Road, close to Churchill Gardens Estate Views from residences towards the site would be affected during construction. Panoramic views over the river would be affected by the presence of cranes, construction plant, the site cofferdam and piling rig. However, the construction activities would be similar in nature to views across to the majority of the south bank of the river, due to the substantial regeneration that would be underway in Year 2 of construction, as described in Section 11.3. The construction activity at the site would be both set in front of and surrounded by similar construction activities. In addition, components of the existing view, including Heathwall pumping station and the jetty at Middle Wharf would remain unchanged. The majority of the panorama directly across the river and towards Battersea Power Station would remain unchanged. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be low. The low magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of minor adverse significance.
Page 186
11.5.76
11.5.77
11.5.78
11.5.79
11.5.80
Recreational Viewpoint 2.1: View southwest from the northern end of Vauxhall Bridge Views from this location towards the site would be affected during construction. Views up the river would be affected by the presence of cranes, construction plant, the site cofferdam and piling rig. However, the construction activities would be similar in nature to views across to the majority of the south bank of the river, due to the substantial regeneration that would be underway in Year 2 of construction, as described in Section 11.3. The construction activity at the site would be both set in front of and surrounded by similar construction activities. In addition, components of the existing view, including Heathwall pumping station and the jetty at Middle Wharf would remain unchanged. The majority of the foreground of the view up the river would remain unchanged. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be low. The low magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of minor adverse significance. Viewpoint 2.2: View southwest from the centre of Vauxhall Bridge Views from this location towards the site would be affected during construction. Views up the river would be affected by the presence of cranes, construction plant, the site cofferdam and piling rig. However, the construction activities would be similar in nature to views across to the majority of the south bank of the river, due to the substantial regeneration that would be underway in Year 2 of construction, as described in Section 11.3. The construction activity at the site would be both set in front of and surrounded by similar construction activities. In addition, components of the existing view, including Heathwall pumping station and the jetty at Middle Wharf would remain unchanged. The majority of the foreground of the view up the river would remain unchanged. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be low. The low magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of minor adverse significance. Viewpoint 2.3: View southwest from the southern end of Vauxhall Bridge Views from this location towards the site would be affected during construction. Views up the river would be affected by the presence of cranes, construction plant, the site cofferdam and piling rig. However, the construction activities would be similar in nature to views across to the majority of the south bank of the river, due to the substantial regeneration that would be underway in Year 2 of construction, as described in Section 11.3. The construction activity at the site would be both set in front of and surrounded by similar construction activities. In addition, components of the existing view, including Heathwall pumping station and the jetty at Middle Wharf would remain unchanged. The majority of the foreground of the view up the river would remain unchanged. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be low.
Page 187
11.5.82
11.5.83
11.5.84
11.5.85
11.5.86
The low magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of minor adverse significance. Viewpoint 2.4: View southwest from the Thames Path in front of the St Georges Wharf development Views from this location towards the site would be affected to a limited extent during construction. Views up the river would be affected by the presence of cranes, construction plant, the site cofferdam and piling rig. However, the construction activities would be similar in nature to views across to the majority of the south bank of the river, due to the substantial regeneration that would be underway in Year 2 of construction, as described in Section 11.3. The construction activity at the site would be both set in front of and surrounded by similar construction activities. Construction activities on the inland portion of the site would be largely obscured by intervening buildings along the riverfront. The majority of the foreground of the view up the river would remain unchanged. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the proposed construction phase would give rise to negligible effects on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 2.5: View southeast from the Thames Path on the north bank of the river, opposite Lupus Street Views from this location towards the site would be affected to a limited extent during construction. Panoramic views over the river would be affected by the presence of cranes, construction plant, the site cofferdam and piling rig. However, the construction activities would be similar in nature to views across to the majority of the south bank of the river, due to the substantial regeneration that would be underway in Year 2 of construction, as described in Section 11.3. The construction activity at the site would be both set in front of and surrounded by similar construction activities. In addition, components of the existing view, including Heathwall pumping station and the jetty at Middle Wharf would remain unchanged. The majority of the panorama directly across the river and towards Battersea Power Station would remain unchanged. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be low. The low magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of minor adverse significance. Transport Viewpoint 3.1: View west from the westbound carriageway of Nine Elms Lane Views from this location towards the site would be affected to a limited extent during construction due to the presence of cranes beyond the boundary wall to Middle Wharf and Heathwall pumping station, and road construction traffic along Nine Elms Lane. However, the construction activities would be similar in nature to views of the majority of the local area, due to the substantial regeneration that would be underway in Year 2 of construction, as described in Section 11.3. In addition, components of
Page 188
11.5.87
11.5.88
11.5.89
11.5.90
the existing view, including Heathwall pumping station and the boundary walling, would remain unchanged. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be low. The low magnitude of change assessed alongside the medium sensitivity of the receptor means the proposed construction phase would give rise to negligible effects on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 3.2: View northeast from the eastbound carriageway of Nine Elms Lane Views from this location towards the site would be affected to a limited extent during construction due to the presence of cranes beyond the boundary wall to Middle Wharf and Heathwall pumping station, and road construction traffic along Nine Elms Lane. However, the construction activities would be similar in nature to views of the majority of the local area, due to the substantial regeneration that would be underway in Year 2 of construction, as described in Section 11.3. In addition, components of the existing view, including Heathwall pumping station and the boundary walling, would remain unchanged. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be low. The low magnitude of change assessed alongside the medium sensitivity of the receptor means the proposed construction phase would give rise to negligible effects on this viewpoint. The assessment of visual effects during construction is summarised in the table below. Vol 18 Table 11.5.3 Townscape viewpoints during construction Viewpoint Residential Viewpoint 1.1: View south from residences on Grosvenor Road opposite Claverton Street Viewpoint 1.2: View southwest from residences on Grosvenor Road opposite St Georges Square Viewpoint 1.3: View southwest from residences on Grosvenor Road near Balvaird Place Viewpoint 1.4: View southwest from residences on Grosvenor Road near Vauxhall Bridge Viewpoint 1.5: View southwest from residences in St Georges Wharf Viewpoint 1.6: View southwest from residences along Nine Elms Lane High Low Minor adverse Minor adverse Sensitivity Magnitude Effect
High
Low
High
Low
Minor adverse Minor adverse Negligible
High
Low
High
Negligible
High
Negligible
Negligible
Page 189
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Viewpoint Viewpoint 1.7: View southwest from residences along Nine Elms Lane, close to the site Viewpoint 1.8: View northeast from residences along Battersea Park Road Viewpoint 1.9: View southeast from residences along Grosvenor Road, close to Telford Terrace Viewpoint 1.10: View southeast from residences along Grosvenor Road, close to Churchill Gardens Estate Recreational Viewpoint 2.1: View southwest from the northern end of Vauxhall Bridge Viewpoint 2.2: View southwest from the centre of Vauxhall Bridge Viewpoint 2.3: View southwest from the southern end of Vauxhall Bridge High
Section 11: Townscape and Visual Sensitivity High Magnitude Effect Negligible Negligible
High
Negligible
Negligible
High
Low
Minor adverse
High
Low
Minor adverse
Low
Minor adverse Minor adverse Minor adverse Negligible
High
Low
High
Low
Viewpoint 2.4: View southwest High from the Thames Path in front of the St Georges Wharf development Viewpoint 2.5: View southeast from the Thames Path on the north bank of the river, opposite Lupus Street Transport Viewpoint 3.1: View west from the westbound carriageway of Nine Elms Lane Viewpoint 3.2: View east from the eastbound carriageway of Nine Elms Lane Medium High
Negligible
Low
Minor adverse
Low
Negligible
Medium
Low
Negligible
11.6
11.6.1
Operational assessment Year one of operation

The operational scheme would have little activity associated with it, aside
Page 190
11.6.2
from infrequent maintenance visits. Therefore, for all townscape character areas it is considered that the proposed development would have a negligible effect on tranquillity. Operational effects on the site and surrounding character areas are discussed further below. Operational phase site assessment Year 1 of operation The proposed development would have a direct and permanent effect on the townscape resource of the site. The permanent works layout would result in a new area of public realm in front of Heathwall pumping station, protruding into the river by approximately 20m, forming a continuation of the Thames Path. The ventilation column would introduce an additional built element close to the pumping station in the confines of the safeguarded Middle Wharf, which would remain surrounded by walls. The remainder of the construction phase working area would be returned to its original condition, or improved with new surfacing as part of the extension of the Thames Path around the pumping station. The works would result in an improvement to the public realm around Heathwall pumping station and Middle Wharf. The effects on specific components of the site are described below: Vol 18 Table 11.6.1 Townscape site component effects operation ID 01 02 03 04 05 06 Component River wall Boundary planting Effects* A new river wall would form the flood defence line around the cofferdam forming the site. Vegetation would be reinstated in line with a landscape strategy for the site.
Heathwall No operational effects. Pumping Station Middle Wharf Middle Wharf jetty Electrical substation No operational effects. No operational effects. No operational effects.
*Year 1 of operation
11.6.3
11.6.4
The magnitude of change and significance of effect on the site would be dependent on the design and finish of the public realm, river wall and above ground structures. Although the historic line of the river wall would be altered by the introduction of the new promontory, it is likely that the proposals would lead to beneficial effects on the townscape resource of the site. The magnitude of change is likely to range from low to medium. Assuming the high quality design of the public realm and interception chamber in particular, effects are likely to be of benefit to the townscape resource of the area. Assessing this alongside the low sensitivity of the character area means the proposed development would be likely to give rise to negligible or minor beneficial effects.
Page 191
11.6.5
11.6.6
11.6.7
11.6.8
11.6.9
11.6.10
11.6.11 11.6.12
Operational phase townscape assessment Year 1 of operation River Thames Nine Elms Reach The proposed development would locally alter the setting of this character area through creating a public pedestrian frontage along the river, in front of Heathwall pumping station, and partially screening the existing pumping station through new planting and structures. However, the majority of the setting of this reach would be unaltered by the proposed development. Therefore, the magnitude of change would be low. The design of the site, removing and partially screening existing features which are detrimental to the character of this stretch of river, would be beneficial to this character area. In addition, this would be contiguous with the operational phase base case, which assumes the redevelopment of the majority of the south bank into mixed use schemes with public river frontages. Given the low magnitude of change and the medium sensitivity of this character area, the effect of the proposed development on the River Thames Nine Elms Reach would be of minor beneficial significance. River Thames Vauxhall and Pimlico Reach Due to the low height of the proposed above ground structures, the proposed development would not be likely to alter the setting of this character area. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the high sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed development would give rise to a negligible effect on the River Thames Vauxhall and Pimlico Reach. Nine Elms Lane Residential The proposed development would locally alter the setting of this character area through improving the boundary to Middle Wharf, partially screening Heathwall pumping station and creating public access along the wharf and in front of the pumping station. However, the majority of the setting of this reach would be unaltered by the proposed development. Therefore, the magnitude of change would be low. The design of the site, removing and partially screening existing features which are detrimental to the setting of this area, would be beneficial to this character area. In addition, this would be contiguous with the operational phase base case, which assumes the redevelopment of the majority of the south bank into mixed use schemes with public river frontages. Given the low magnitude of change and the medium sensitivity of this character area, the effect of the proposed development on Nine Elms Lane Residential would be of minor beneficial significance. St Georges Wharf The proposed development is not likely to alter the setting of this character area. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the high sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed development would give rise to a negligible effect on St Georges Wharf.
Page 192
11.6.13
11.6.14
11.6.15 11.6.16
11.6.17 11.6.18
11.6.19 11.6.20
11.6.21
11.6.22
Nine Elms Lane Commercial The proposed development would locally alter the setting of this character area through improving the boundary to Middle Wharf, partially screening Heathwall pumping station and creating public access along the wharf and in front of the pumping station. However, the majority of the setting of this reach would be unaltered by the proposed development. Therefore, the magnitude of change would be low. The design of the site, removing and partially screening existing features which are detrimental to the setting of this area, would be beneficial to this character area, particularly in the context of the operational phase base case, which assumes the redevelopment of the majority of this character area into mixed use schemes with public river frontages. Due to this substantial change in the base case for operation, this character area would have medium sensitivity to change (increased from a low sensitivity to change), by virtue of the likely good condition and local value of the townscape and moderate levels of tranquillity associated with a largely residential area. Given the low magnitude of change and the medium sensitivity of this character area, the effect of the proposed development on Nine Elms Lane Commercial would be of minor beneficial significance. Albert Embankment Commercial The proposed development is not likely to alter the setting of this character area. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the high sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed development would give rise to a negligible effect on Albert Embankment Commercial. Lambeth Residential The proposed development is not likely to alter the setting of this character area. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the medium sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed development would give rise to a negligible effect on Lambeth Residential. Battersea Residential The proposed development is not likely to alter the setting of this character area. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the medium sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed development would give rise to a negligible effect on Battersea Residential. Battersea Industrial The proposed development would locally alter the setting of this character area through improving the boundary to Middle Wharf, partially screening Heathwall pumping station and creating public access along the wharf and in front of the pumping station. However, the majority of the setting of this reach would be unaltered by the proposed development. Therefore, the magnitude of change would be low. The design of the site, removing and partially screening existing features which are detrimental to the setting of this area, would be beneficial to this
Page 193
11.6.23 11.6.24
11.6.25
11.6.26
11.6.27 11.6.28
11.6.29 11.6.30
11.6.31
character area, particularly in the context of the operational phase base case, which assumes the redevelopment of the majority of this character area into mixed use schemes with public river frontages. Due to this substantial change in the base case for operation, this character area would have medium sensitivity to change (increased from a low sensitivity to change), by virtue of the likely good condition and local value of the townscape and moderate levels of tranquillity associated with a largely residential area. Given the low magnitude of change and the medium sensitivity of this character area, the effect of the proposed development on Battersea Industrial would be of minor beneficial significance. Grosvenor Bridge Rail The proposed development is not likely to alter the setting of this character area. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the low sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed development would give rise to a negligible effect on Grosvenor Bridge Rail. Pimlico Residential The proposed development would result in changes to the riverside setting of this character area, due to the permanent encroachment resulting from the works in front of Heathwall pumping station, creating a public pedestrian frontage along the river and partially screening the existing pumping station through new planting and structures. However, the majority of the setting of this reach would be unaltered by the proposed development. Therefore, the magnitude of change would be low. The design of the site, removing and partially screening existing features which are detrimental to the setting of this area, would be beneficial to this character area. In addition, this would be contiguous with the operational phase base case, which assumes the redevelopment of the majority of the south bank into mixed use schemes with public river frontages. Given the low magnitude of change and the medium sensitivity of this character area, the effect of the proposed development on Pimlico Residential would be of minor beneficial significance. Pimlico Academy The proposed development is not likely to alter the setting of this character area. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the medium sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed development would give rise to a negligible effect on Pimlico Academy. Bessborough Residential The proposed development is not likely to alter the setting of this character area. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the medium sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed development would give rise to a negligible effect on Bessborough Residential. Residential Waterfront - West The proposed development is not likely to alter the majority of the setting
Page 194
11.6.32
11.6.33 11.6.34
11.6.35 11.6.36
11.6.37
of this character area. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the high sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed development would give rise to a negligible effect on Residential Waterfront West. Westminster Residential The proposed development is not likely to alter the setting of this character area. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the high sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed development would give rise to a negligible effect on Westminster Residential. Millbank Conservation Area - Institutional The proposed development is not likely to alter the setting of this character area. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the high sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed development would give rise to a negligible effect on Millbank Conservation Area - Institutional. The assessment of townscape effects during Year 1 of operation is summarised in the table below. Vol 18 Table 11.6.2 Townscape character areas effects operation Townscape character area The site River Thames Nine Elms Reach River Thames Vauxhall and Pimlico Reach Nine Elms Lane Residential St Georges Wharf Nine Elms Lane Commercial Albert Embankment Commercial Lambeth Residential Battersea Residential Battersea Industrial Grosvenor Bridge Rail Pimlico Residential Pimlico Academy Bessborough Residential Residential Waterfront West Sensitivity Magnitude Effect* Low Medium High Medium High Medium High Medium Medium Medium Low Medium Medium Medium High Low to medium Low Negligible Low Negligible Low Negligible Negligible Negligible Low Negligible Low Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible to minor beneficial Minor beneficial Negligible Minor beneficial Negligible Minor beneficial Negligible Negligible Negligible Minor beneficial Negligible Minor beneficial Negligible Negligible Negligible
Page 195
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Townscape character area Westminster Residential Millbank Conservation Area Institutional
*Year 1 of operation
Section 11: Townscape and Visual Sensitivity Magnitude Effect* High High Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
11.6.38
11.6.39
11.6.40
11.6.41
11.6.42
11.6.43
Operational phase townscape assessment Year 1 of operation night time effects It is likely that the operational scheme would have no substantial lighting requirements. Therefore, for all townscape character areas it is considered that the proposed development would have a negligible effect on night time character. Operational phase visual assessment Year 1 of operation Residential Viewpoint 1.1: View south from residences on Grosvenor Road opposite Claverton Street Views from residences towards the site would be affected to a limited extent by the design of the new river wall, public realm, above ground structures and site boundaries. The site would form an indistinct component in the panoramic view, set against the context of the surrounding redevelopment which would be similar in character, comprising a public river frontage. The view of the existing pumping station would be partially screened. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be low. Given the low magnitude of change and the high sensitivity of the receptor, the visual effect of the proposed development would be of minor beneficial significance to this viewpoint. Viewpoint 1.2: View southwest from residences on Grosvenor Road opposite St Georges Square Views from residences towards the site would be affected by the design of the new river wall, public realm, above ground structures and site boundaries. The site would form an relatively indistinct component in the panoramic view, set against the context of the surrounding redevelopment which would be similar in character, comprising a public river frontage. The view of the existing pumping station would be partially screened. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be low. Given the low magnitude of change and the high sensitivity of the receptor, the visual effect of the proposed development would be of minor beneficial significance to this viewpoint. Viewpoint 1.3: View southwest from residences on Grosvenor Road near Balvaird Place Oblique views from residences towards the site would be affected to a limited extent by the design of the new river wall, public realm, above ground structures and site boundaries. The site would form an indistinct component in the periphery of the panoramic view, set against the context of the surrounding redevelopment which would be similar in character, comprising a public river frontage. In addition, the majority of the river
Page 196
11.6.44
11.6.45
11.6.46
11.6.47
11.6.48
11.6.49
11.6.50
11.6.51
panorama would be unaffected. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. Given the negligible magnitude of change and the high sensitivity of the receptor, the proposed development would give rise to negligible effects on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 1.4: View southwest from residences on Grosvenor Road near Vauxhall Bridge Views from residences towards the site would be affected to a limited extent by the design of the new river wall, public realm, above ground structures and site boundaries. The site would form an indistinct component in the background of the panoramic view, set against the context of the surrounding redevelopment which would be similar in character, comprising a public river frontage. In addition, the majority of the river panorama would be unaffected. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. Given the negligible magnitude of change and the high sensitivity of the receptor, the proposed development would give rise to negligible effects on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 1.5: View southwest from residences in St Georges Wharf Views from residences towards the site would be affected to a limited extent by the design of the new river wall, public realm, above ground structures and site boundaries. The site would form an indistinct component in the background of the panoramic view, set against the context of the surrounding redevelopment which would be similar in character, comprising a public river frontage. In addition, the majority of the river panorama would be unaffected. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. Given the negligible magnitude of change and the high sensitivity of the receptor, the proposed development would give rise to negligible effects on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 1.6: View southwest from residences along Nine Elms Lane Oblique views from residences towards the site would be affected to a limited extent by the design of the new river wall, public realm, above ground structures and site boundaries. The site would form an indistinct component in the background of the panoramic view, set against the context of the surrounding redevelopment which would be similar in character, comprising a public river frontage. In addition, the majority of the river panorama would be unaffected. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. Given the negligible magnitude of change and the high sensitivity of the receptor, the proposed development would give rise to negligible effects on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 1.7: View southwest from residences along Nine Elms Lane, close to the site Oblique views from residences towards the site would be affected to a limited extent by the design of the new river wall, public realm, above ground structures and site boundaries. The site would form an indistinct
Page 197
11.6.52
11.6.53
11.6.54
11.6.55
11.6.56
11.6.57
11.6.58
11.6.59
component in the background of the panoramic view, set against the context of the surrounding redevelopment which would be similar in character, comprising a public river frontage. In addition, the majority of the river panorama would be unaffected. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. Given the negligible magnitude of change and the high sensitivity of the receptor, the proposed development would give rise to negligible effects on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 1.8: View northeast from residences along Battersea Park Road Views from residences towards the site would be largely obscured by intervening buildings and the boundary walls to Heathwall pumping station and Middle Wharf, which would remain unaltered by the proposed works. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the proposed construction phase would give rise to a negligible effect on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 1.9: View southeast from residences along Grosvenor Road, close to Telford Terrace Views from residences towards the site would be affected to a limited extent by the design of the new river wall, public realm, above ground structures and site boundaries. The site would form an indistinct component in the panoramic view, set against the context of the surrounding redevelopment which would be similar in character, comprising a public river frontage. The view of the existing pumping station would also be partially screened. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be low. Given the low magnitude of change and the high sensitivity of the receptor, the visual effect of the proposed development would be of minor beneficial significance to this viewpoint. Viewpoint 1.10: View southeast from residences along Grosvenor Road, close to Churchill Gardens Estate Views from residences towards the site would be affected to a limited extent by the design of the new river wall, public realm, above ground structures and site boundaries. The site would form an indistinct component in the panoramic view, set against the context of the surrounding redevelopment which would be similar in character, comprising a public river frontage. The view of the existing pumping station would also be partially screened. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be low. Given the low magnitude of change and the high sensitivity of the receptor, the visual effect of the proposed development would be of minor beneficial significance to this viewpoint. Recreational Viewpoint 2.1: View southwest from the northern end of Vauxhall Bridge Views from this location towards the site would be affected to a limited
Page 198
11.6.60
11.6.61
11.6.62
11.6.63
11.6.64
11.6.65
11.6.66
11.6.67
extent by the design of the new river wall, public realm, above ground structures and site boundaries. The site would form an indistinct component in the background of the panoramic view, set against the context of the surrounding redevelopment which would be similar in character, comprising a public river frontage. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. Given the negligible magnitude of change and the high sensitivity of the receptor, the proposed development would give rise to negligible effects on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 2.2: View southwest from the centre of Vauxhall Bridge Views from this location towards the site would be affected to a limited extent by the design of the new river wall, public realm, above ground structures and site boundaries. The site would form an indistinct component in the background of the panoramic view, set against the context of the surrounding redevelopment which would be similar in character, comprising a public river frontage. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. Given the negligible magnitude of change and the high sensitivity of the receptor, the proposed development would give rise to negligible effects on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 2.3: View southwest from the southern end of Vauxhall Bridge Views from this location towards the site would be affected to a limited extent by the design of the new river wall, public realm, above ground structures and site boundaries. The site would form an indistinct component in the background of the panoramic view, set against the context of the surrounding redevelopment which would be similar in character, comprising a public river frontage. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. Given the negligible magnitude of change and the high sensitivity of the receptor, the proposed development would give rise to negligible effects on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 2.4: View southwest from the Thames Path in front of the St Georges Wharf development Views from this location towards the site would be affected to a limited extent by the design of the new river wall, public realm, above ground structures and site boundaries. The site would form an indistinct component in the background of the panoramic view, set against the context of the surrounding redevelopment which would be similar in character, comprising a public river frontage. In addition, the majority of the river panorama would be unaffected. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. Given the negligible magnitude of change and the high sensitivity of the receptor, the proposed development would give rise to negligible effects on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 2.5: View southeast from the Thames Path on the north bank of the river, opposite Lupus Street Views from this location towards the site would be affected to a limited
Page 199
11.6.68
11.6.69
11.6.70
11.6.71
11.6.72
11.6.73
extent by the design of the new river wall, public realm, above ground structures and site boundaries. The site would form an indistinct component in the background of the panoramic view, set against the context of the surrounding redevelopment which would be similar in character, comprising a public river frontage. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. Given the negligible magnitude of change and the high sensitivity of the receptor, the proposed development would give rise to negligible effects on this viewpoint. Transport Viewpoint 3.1: View west from the westbound carriageway of Nine Elms Lane Views from residences towards the site would be largely obscured by intervening buildings and the boundary walls to Heathwall pumping station and Middle Wharf, which would remain unaltered by the proposed works. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change assessed alongside the medium sensitivity of the receptor means the proposed construction phase would give rise to a negligible effect on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 3.2: View northeast from the eastbound carriageway of Nine Elms Lane Views from residences towards the site would be largely obscured by intervening buildings and the boundary walls to Heathwall pumping station and Middle Wharf, which would remain unaltered by the proposed works. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change assessed alongside the medium sensitivity of the receptor means the proposed construction phase would give rise to a negligible effect on this viewpoint. The assessment of visual effects during Year 1 of operation is summarised in the table below. Vol 18 Table 11.6.3 Townscape effects on viewpoints - Year 1 of operation Viewpoint Residential Viewpoint 1.1: View south from residences on Grosvenor Road opposite Claverton Street Viewpoint 1.2: View southwest from residences on Grosvenor Road opposite St Georges Square Viewpoint 1.3: View southwest from residences on Grosvenor Road near Balvaird Place Viewpoint 1.4: View southwest High Low Minor beneficial Minor beneficial Sensitivity Magnitude Effect
High
Low
High
Negligible
Negligible
High
Negligible
Negligible
Page 200
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Viewpoint from residences on Grosvenor Road near Vauxhall Bridge Viewpoint 1.5: View southwest from residences in St Georges Wharf Viewpoint 1.6: View southwest from residences along Nine Elms Lane Viewpoint 1.7: View southwest from residences along Nine Elms Lane, close to the site
Section 11: Townscape and Visual Sensitivity Magnitude Effect
High
Negligible
Negligible
High
Negligible
Negligible
High
Negligible
Negligible
Viewpoint 1.8: View northeast from High residences along Battersea Park Road Viewpoint 1.9: View southeast from residences along Grosvenor Road, close to Telford Terrace Viewpoint 1.10: View southeast from residences along Grosvenor Road, close to Churchill Gardens Estate Recreational Viewpoint 2.1: View southwest from the northern end of Vauxhall Bridge Viewpoint 2.2: View southwest from the centre of Vauxhall Bridge Viewpoint 2.3: View southwest from the southern end of Vauxhall Bridge Viewpoint 2.4: View southwest from the Thames Path in front of the St Georges Wharf development Viewpoint 2.5: View southeast from the Thames Path on the north bank of the river, opposite Lupus Street Transport Viewpoint 3.1: View west from the westbound carriageway of Nine Elms Lane Medium High High
Negligible
Negligible
Low
Minor beneficial Minor beneficial
High
Low
Negligible
Negligible
High High
High
Negligible
Negligible
High
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Page 201
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Viewpoint Viewpoint 3.2: View east from the eastbound carriageway of Nine Elms Lane 11.6.74
Section 11: Townscape and Visual Sensitivity Magnitude Effect Medium Negligible Negligible
Operational assessment results Year 15 of operation

Townscape and visual effects arising from the proposed development, 15 years after completion may be altered by growth of vegetation established as part of the project, growth of vegetation in the wider assessment area or changes in the base case arising from redevelopment in the vicinity of the site. These may contribute to further generating beneficial effects on the surrounding townscape and visual receptors. This is to be defined further as part of the ongoing design development and will be reflected in the final assessment presented in the ES.
11.7
11.7.1

A number of measures are embedded in the draft CoCP of relevance to townscape and visual amenity. In addition, a process of iterative design and assessment has been employed to reduce adverse effects arising during construction. Significant adverse effects arising during construction cannot be further mitigated because the scale of construction activities, primarily the height of cranes, and also construction deliveries, would obstruct views and adversely alter the townscape character. Therefore no further mitigation measures are proposed.
Operation
11.7.2 A process of iterative design and assessment has been employed to reduce adverse effects during operation, which will continue through the ongoing EIA. Operational effects depend heavily on the architectural and landscape design of built elements, public realm and the river wall, which form part of the project design. Therefore no additional mitigation is proposed.
Page 202
11.8
Vol 18 Table 11.8.1 Townscape summary of construction assessment Significance of effect Moderate adverse No mitigation possible Not required No mitigation possible No mitigation possible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Not required Not required Not required Not required No mitigation possible Mitigation Significance of residual effect Moderate adverse Minor adverse
Assessment summary
Receptor
The site
Change to character due to construction of the site cofferdam and intensity of construction activity.
River Thames Nine Elms Slight change to setting due to the presence of cranes Minor Reach and construction activity. adverse Negligible
River Thames Vauxhall and Pimlico Reach
No significant change to setting.
Negligible Minor adverse
Nine Elms Lane Residential
Slight change to setting due to the presence of cranes Minor and construction activity. adverse
St Georges Wharf
Slight change to setting due to the presence of cranes Minor and construction activity. adverse
Minor adverse
Nine Elms Lane Commercial
Slight effect from cranes and construction activity, but no significant change to setting.
Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
Albert Embankment Commercial
Lambeth Residential
Battersea Residential
Page 203
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Negligible Negligible Minor adverse Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Not required Not required Not required Not required Not required No mitigation possible Not required Negligible Minor adverse Not required Negligible
Battersea Industrial
Grosvenor Bridge Rail
Pimlico Residential
Slight change to setting due to the presence of cranes, construction activity and river transport.
Pimlico Academy
Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
Bessborough Residential
Residential Waterfront West
Westminster Residential
Millbank Conservation Area Institutional
Page 204
Vol 18 Table 11.8.2 Visual assessment summary of construction assessment Significance of effect Minor adverse No mitigation possible No mitigation possible Mitigation Significance of residual effect Minor adverse
Receptor
Residential
Viewpoint 1.1: View south from residences on Grosvenor Road opposite Claverton Street Minor adverse
Visibility of site cofferdam, construction activity and cranes set against other construction activities in the area.
Viewpoint 1.2: View Visibility of site cofferdam, construction activity and southwest from residences cranes set against other construction activities in the on Grosvenor Road area. opposite St Georges Square Minor adverse
Minor adverse
Viewpoint 1.3: View Visibility of site cofferdam, construction activity and southwest from residences cranes set against other construction activities in the on Grosvenor Road near area. Balvaird Place
No mitigation possible Minor adverse No mitigation possible Negligible Not required Negligible Not required
Minor adverse
Viewpoint 1.4: View Visibility of site cofferdam, construction activity and southwest from residences cranes set against other construction activities in the on Grosvenor Road near area. Vauxhall Bridge
Minor adverse
Viewpoint 1.5: View No significant effects, set within the context of wider southwest from residences substantial regeneration. in St Georges Wharf
Negligible
Viewpoint 1.6: View No significant effects, set within the context of wider southwest from residences substantial regeneration. along Nine Elms Lane
Negligible
Page 205
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Significance of effect Negligible Not required Negligible Mitigation Significance of residual effect
Receptor
Viewpoint 1.7: View No significant effects, set within the context of wider southwest from residences substantial regeneration. along Nine Elms Lane, close to the site Negligible Not required
Viewpoint 1.8: View northeast from residences along Battersea Park Road Minor adverse No mitigation possible No mitigation possible
No significant effects.
Negligible
Viewpoint 1.9: View southeast from residences along Grosvenor Road, close to Telford Terrace Minor adverse
Minor adverse
Viewpoint 1.10: View southeast from residences along Grosvenor Road, close to Churchill Gardens Estate
Minor adverse
Recreational Minor adverse No mitigation possible Minor adverse Minor No mitigation possible No Minor adverse
Viewpoint 2.1: View southwest from the northern end of Vauxhall Bridge
Viewpoint 2.2: View southwest from the centre of Vauxhall Bridge
Minor adverse
Viewpoint 2.3: View
Visibility of site cofferdam, construction activity and
Minor adverse
Page 206
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Significance of effect adverse mitigation possible Not required Negligible Mitigation Significance of residual effect
Receptor
southwest from the southern end of Vauxhall Bridge Negligible
cranes set against other construction activities in the area.
Viewpoint 2.4: View southwest from the Thames Path in front of the St Georges Wharf development Minor adverse No mitigation possible
No significant effects, set within the context of wider substantial regeneration.
Viewpoint 2.5: View southeast from the Thames Path on the north bank of the river, opposite Lupus Street Negligible
Minor adverse
Transport Not required Negligible
Viewpoint 3.1: View west from the westbound carriageway of Nine Elms Lane
Viewpoint 3.2: View east from the eastbound carriageway of Nine Elms Lane
Negligible
Not required
Negligible
Page 207
Vol 18 Table 11.8.3 Townscape operational assessment Year 1 of operation Significance of effect Negligible to minor beneficial Minor beneficial Negligible Minor beneficial Negligible Minor beneficial Negligible Negligible Negligible Minor
Page 208
Receptor Not required Not required Not required Not required Not required Not required Not required Not required Not required Not
Mitigation
Significance of residual effect Negligible to minor beneficial Minor beneficial
The site
Change in character through creation of new public realm and screening of some existing structures.
River Thames Nine Elms Slight change to setting due to creation of riverside Reach public realm and screening of some existing structures.
River Thames Vauxhall and Pimlico Reach
Negligible Minor beneficial
Nine Elms Lane Residential
Slight change to setting due to creation of riverside public realm and screening of some existing structures.
St Georges Wharf
Negligible Minor beneficial
Nine Elms Lane Commercial
Albert Embankment Commercial
Negligible Negligible Negligible Minor beneficial

Lambeth Residential
Battersea Residential
Battersea Industrial
Slight change to setting due to creation of riverside
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Significance of effect beneficial required Not required Not required Not required Not required Not required Not required Negligible Not required Negligible Minor beneficial Negligible Minor beneficial Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Mitigation Significance of residual effect
Receptor
public realm and screening of some existing structures.
Grosvenor Bridge Rail
Pimlico Residential
Pimlico Academy
Bessborough Residential
Residential Waterfront West
Westminster Residential
Millbank Conservation Area Institutional
Page 209
Operational phase visual assessment

Description of effect Significance of effect Minor beneficial Minor beneficial Not required Not required Not required Not required Not required Not required Negligible Not required Not required Mitigation Significance of residual effect Minor beneficial
Vol 18 Table 11.8.4 Visual assessment operational assessment operation
Receptor
Residential Visibility of the new river wall, above ground structures and screening of the existing pumping station. Visibility of the new river wall, above ground structures and screening of the existing pumping station. No significant effects, and the majority of the Negligible river panorama would be unaffected. No significant effects, and the majority of the Negligible river panorama would be unaffected. No significant effects, and the majority of the Negligible river panorama would be unaffected. No significant effects, and the majority of the Negligible river panorama would be unaffected. No significant effects, and the majority of the Negligible river panorama would be unaffected. No significant effects.
Viewpoint 1.1: View south from residences on Grosvenor Road opposite Claverton Street
Viewpoint 1.2: View southwest from residences on Grosvenor Road opposite St Georges Square
Minor beneficial
Viewpoint 1.3: View southwest from residences on Grosvenor Road near Balvaird Place
Negligible
Viewpoint 1.4: View southwest from residences on Grosvenor Road near Vauxhall Bridge
Negligible
Viewpoint 1.5: View southwest from residences in St Georges Wharf
Negligible Negligible Negligible
Viewpoint 1.6: View southwest from residences along Nine Elms Lane
Viewpoint 1.7: View southwest from residences along Nine Elms Lane, close to the site
Viewpoint 1.8: View northeast from residences along Battersea Park Road
Negligible
Page 210
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Description of effect Visibility of the new river wall, above ground structures and screening of the existing pumping station. Visibility of the new river wall, above ground structures and screening of the existing pumping station. Minor beneficial Not required Minor beneficial Not required Minor beneficial Significance of effect Mitigation Significance of residual effect
Receptor
Viewpoint 1.9: View southeast from residences along Grosvenor Road, close to Telford Terrace
Viewpoint 1.10: View southeast from residences along Grosvenor Road, close to Churchill Gardens Estate No significant effects. No significant effects. No significant effects. No significant effects. Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Not required Not required Not required Not required Negligible Not required
Minor beneficial
Recreational Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
Viewpoint 2.1: View southwest from the northern end of Vauxhall Bridge
Viewpoint 2.2: View southwest from the centre of Vauxhall Bridge
Viewpoint 2.3: View southwest from the southern end of Vauxhall Bridge
Viewpoint 2.4: View southwest from the Thames Path in front of the St Georges Wharf development No significant effects.
Viewpoint 2.5: View southeast from the Thames Path on the north bank of the river, opposite Lupus Street No significant effects.
Negligible
Transport Negligible Not required Negligible

Page 211
Viewpoint 3.1: View west from the westbound carriageway of Nine Elms Lane
Negligible
Viewpoint 3.2: View east from the
No significant effects.
Not
Negligible
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Description of effect required Significance of effect Mitigation Significance of residual effect
Receptor
eastbound carriageway of Nine Elms Lane
* Year 1 of operation
Page 212
Section 11: Townscape and visual
11.9
11.9.1
The baseline data collection is complete for this site, aside from establishing a baseline for the night time character of the assessment area. The ES will include the summer baseline for each of the character areas and viewpoints. It will also include winter and summer photos for each character area and viewpoint. The study area for the assessment will be reviewed for the ES, based on the findings of this assessment. It may be appropriate to reduce the study area to focus the assessment on likely significant effects. Further work will be undertaken to establish a base case for the Year 15 operational assessment, using professional judgement aligned with future developments. The construction and operational assessments will be completed, including an assessment against the night time baseline. Two verifiable photomontages will be produced for the ES, in the locations indicated on Vol 18 Figure 11.4.6. These will be produced for the construction and operation Year 1 assessments. Ongoing work will be undertaken throughout the assessment process to identify design measures to minimise adverse effects arising from the proposed scheme in operation. Where possible, these will be embedded in the proposed development. Details of the project design and landscaping will be provided for the planning submission. Further work will be undertaken for the ES to establish the effects of the proposed development after the architectural and landscape design has been fully worked up. This will inform the assessment of operational effects in Year 1 and Year 15. Residual effects remaining after mitigation measures have been identified will be identified and recorded. Assessment of cumulative and in combination effects will be undertaken and reported in the ES.
11.9.2
11.9.3
11.9.4 11.9.5
11.9.6
11.9.7
11.9.8 11.9.9
Page 213
Section 12: Transport
12 12.1
12.1.1 12.1.2
Transport Introduction
This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant transport effects at the Heathwall Pumping Station site. The site has the potential to affect transport in the following ways: a. Effects on pedestrian routes. b. Effects on cycle routes. c. Effects on bus routes and patronage. d. Effects on London Underground and National Rail services. e. Effects on river services and patronage. f. Effects on car and coach parking. g. Effects on highway layout, operation and capacity. Each of these effects is considered within the assessment for both construction and operational phases of the project. This section details the site-specific findings for Heathwall Pumping Station site. As detailed in Volume 5, the transport assessment also comprises assessment at Borough (sub area) and project-wide levels these assessments are contained in Volume 6. More detailed analysis of all three levels of assessment (site-specific, Borough level and projectwide) will be presented in the ES. This assessment provides a commentary on the anticipated transport effects of the project. As the baseline data collection was still on-going at the time of writing, the analysis and full transport assessment has not yet been carried out. The assessment and mitigation text contained within this section is therefore based on professional judgement using available information at the time of writing.
12.1.3 12.1.4
12.1.5
12.2
12.2.1
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to transport are as follows.
Construction
12.2.2 Construction details for the site relevant to the construction transport assessment are summarised in the table below.
Page 214
Vol 18 Table 12.2.1: Transport - construction traffic details Description Assumed peak period of construction lorry movements Assumed average peak daily construction lorry vehicle movements Types of lorry requiring access Assumption Year 1 of construction 60 movements per day (30 two-way lorry trips) Imported fill lorries Concrete lorries Rebar/Ring lorries Office lorries Pipe/Track/Oils lorries Excavation lorries
Note: a movement represents a one way trip.
12.2.3
12.2.4
12.2.5
12.2.6
12.2.7
12.2.8
Vehicle movements would take place during the typical day shift of ten hours on weekdays (08:00 to 18:00) and five hours on Saturdays (08:00 to 13:00) with up to one hour before and after these hours for mobilisation of staff. Mobilisation may include: loading; unloading; and arrival and departure of workforce and staff at site and movement to and from the place of work. During construction at Heathwall Pumping Station, it is assumed that 90% of cofferdam fill would be transported by barge and all other materials will be transported by road. Lorry routing during construction phasing Vehicles accessing and egressing the site would do so on a left in/left out basis from Nine Elms Lane. Vehicles would route to the site from the west along Nine Elms Lane (A3205) and egress the site to the east along Nine Elms Lane. Nine Elms Lane links to the Vauxhall Cross to the west and Battersea Park Road to the east. There would be two accesses into the Heathwall site from Nine Elms Lane. Both access points would only be able to accommodate one construction vehicle at a time due to the restricted site area. Vol 18 Figure 12.2.1 indicates the construction traffic routes for access to/from the Heathwall Pumping Station site. Construction routes are being discussed with both Transport for London and the Local Highway Authority (LHA). Vol 18 Figure 12.2.1 Transport construction traffic routes (see Volume 18 Figures document) The histogram below shows that peak lorry activity at the Heathwall Pumping Station site would occur in Year 1 of construction. This peak is earlier than the overall project-wide construction peak activity year of 2019. Vol 18 Figure 12.2.3 shows the barge profile.
Page 215
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Vol 18 Figure 12.2.2 Transport - construction lorry profile
Note: Figure shows indicative volumes and movements based upon assumed timings for the works. It is not a schedule and remains subject to change.
Page 216
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Vol 18 Figure 12.2.3 Transport - construction barge profile
Page 217
12.2.9
Construction workers The construction site is expected to require a maximum workforce of approximately 40 people during the standard day shift. The number and type of workers is shown in the table below. Vol 18 Table 12.2.2 Transport - construction worker numbers Contractor Staff 08:00-18:00 15 Labour 08:00-18:00 20 Client Staff 08:00-18:00 5
12.2.10
12.2.11
12.2.12
12.2.13
It is difficult to predict with certainty the direction that workers would arrive/depart to and from the site. Staff could potentially be based in the local area or in the wider Greater London area and are unlikely to have the same trip attraction to primary routes as construction lorries. The method of distribution of worker trips on the transport networks, including the public transport services, is to be agreed with the Local Highway Authority (LHA) and Transport for London (TfL). Code of construction practice Measures incorporated into the CoCP to reduce transport impacts include measures in relation to HGV management and control such as specific vehicle routes to sites and holding areas for construction vehicles. They also include provision for management plans in relation to construction worker journeys to and from the site. The implementation of these measures has been assumed for the assessment of construction effects.
Operation
12.2.14 The operational structure would be located in the foreshore to the north of the Heathwall Pumping Station and also directly to the east of the pumping station. Both areas would be accessed from Nine Elms Lane via existing access points. Access would be required for a light commercial vehicle on a three to six monthly maintenance schedule. Additionally there would be more significant maintenance visits every ten years which would require access to enable two cranes to be brought to the site.
12.2.15
12.3
12.3.1

Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. All consultee comments relevant to this site are presented in the table below. It is noted that it was reported in the Scoping Report that operational traffic effects were scoped out of the EIA. However, while the environmental effects associated with transport for the operational phase are not expected to be significant or adverse, the Transport Assessment which will accompany the ES as part of the application, will examine the operational
12.3.2
Page 218
phase in order to satisfy the relevant stakeholders that technical issues have been addressed (for example, those associated with access for maintenance activities). As this also allows conclusions in relation to environmental effects to be drawn, these have been included in this report for completeness. Vol 18 Table 12.3.1 Transport stakeholder engagement Organisation LB Wandsworth LB Wandsworth LB Wandsworth Scoping opinion / consultation comment Prefer the use wherever possible. of Response barge Barges are included within the assessment.
Interest in vehicle type and CO2 Consider the use of (eg, Euro iV etc) such vehicles. Details of traffic generation for all sites during operational and construction phases should be provided. The EIA should consider noise, pollution, access and working times related to the transport arrangements. This already forms part of the topic methodology. The topic methodology already includes the need to address these issues where directly relevant to the topic, or to inform other topic assessments. The topic methodology already addresses both site-specific and cumulative transport effects. Ongoing consultation with TfL in regards to modelling and analysis. Kirtling Street is not considered as a hub site for Heathwall as part of this assessment. This will be investigated within the Transport Assessment when survey data is available. For the purposes of this assessment it is assumed the site accesses operate on a
LB Wandsworth
LB Wandsworth
Both individual and cumulative impacts should be considered where necessary.
Transport for London Transport for London
Ensure that the construction impact does not impede the operation of the SRN/TLRN. The number of vehicle movements between sites must be determined and assessed if Kirtling Street is used as a hub site for Heathwall. Investigate whether all movements for vehicles is feasible at the site entrances on Nine Elms Lane.
Transport for London
Page 219
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Organisation Scoping opinion / consultation comment The gates at the site accesses must be set back from the highway to a distance that would allow a construction vehicle to wait off the highway if the gate is closed when they arrive.
Section 12: Transport Response left-in, left-out basis.
Transport for London
This is noted and will be incorporated into the final construction site layout.
Baseline
12.3.3 The baseline methodology follows the standard methodology described in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.
Construction
12.3.4 The construction phase methodology follows the standard methodology described in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.
Operation
12.3.5 The operational phase methodology follows the standard methodology described in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.

12.3.6 The assumptions and limitations made for the transport assessment are as listed in Volume 5. Site specific assumptions and limitations for the site will be provided in the ES when the detailed assessment is presented. The preliminary assessment findings reported in this report are qualitative and based on professional judgement.
12.3.7
12.4
12.4.1
Baseline conditions
The Heathwall Pumping Station site is located within the LB Wandsworth on land which currently accommodates industrial units and the existing Thames Water Heathwall Pumping Station. The site is bounded to the north by the River Thames, to the south by Nine Elms Lane, the west by the Tideway Industrial estate (now a redevelopment site) and to the east by open space and further along Elm Quay residential block. The following sub-sections describe the baseline conditions of the site in relation to pedestrians, public transport and highways. Sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the site are also identified. Vol 18 Figure 12.4.1 shows the Transport Site Plan. Vol 18 Figure 12.4.1 Transport - site plan (see Volume 18 Figures document)
12.4.2
Pedestrian routes
12.4.3 12.4.4 There are footpaths in place on both sides of Nine Elms Lane. At the junction formed by Kirtling Street and Nine Elms Lane there is a signalised pedestrian crossing in place on the Kirtling Street arm and the Nine Elms Lane arm to the east of Kirtling Street. These crossing points include tactile paving and dropped kerbs.
Page 220
12.4.6
12.4.7
At the junction of Cringle Street and Nine Elms Lane there is no formal crossing point provided however there are dropped kerbs on the Cringle Street arm of the junction. There are also no formal crossing points located at the existing access points to Heathwall Pumping Station and the vacant land to the east of the pumping station which would form part of the construction site. The carriageway is raised to footway level at these crossing points and there is no tactile paving in place. The Thames Path runs along the eastern (William Henry Walk), southern (Nine Elms Lane) and western site boundaries (Tideway Walk).
Cycle routes
12.4.8 There is a designated London Cycle Route that routes eastwards and westwards along Nine Elms Lane. The cycle path is shared with the footpath and is not segregated from the walkway. Road markings and signage are in place to alert people to the presence of the cycle path. Advanced stop line for cyclists are in place on Kirtling Street and Nine Elms Lane at their junction.
12.4.9
Bus routes
12.4.10 The site is classified as having a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of between three and four which indicates that public transport provision in the vicinity is moderate. There is a westbound bus stop located on Nine Elms Lane opposite the Cringle Street junction. The closest eastbound bus stop to the site is located on Nine Elms Lane, approximately 50m to the east of Cringle Street. Vauxhall bus station is located approximately 900m to the east of the construction site. This bus station serves a large number of bus services. The table below shows the location of the bus stops in the vicinity of the site. The destinations and frequency of the routes are detailed in Vol 18 Table 12.4.1. Vol 18 Table 12.4.1 Transport - bus service frequency
Route Number Distance from site (metres) and Location of Bus Stop Origin - Destination AM Peak (07:00-10:00) Buses per Hour
12.4.11
12.4.12 12.4.13
920m (Vauxhall Bus Station) 920m (Vauxhall Bus Station) 920m (Vauxhall Bus Station) 920m (Vauxhall Bus
Marylebone Station to Norwood Bus Garage Norwood Bus Garage to Marylebone Station Claremont Road to New Cross Bus Garage New Cross Bus Garage to Queens Park Station
Page 221
36
10
36
10

Distance from site (metres) and Location of Bus Stop
Route Number
Origin - Destination
AM Peak (07:00-10:00) Buses per Hour
Station) 77 785m (Covent Waterloo Station to Tooting Garden Market Station East Side) 995m (Covent Tooting Station to Waterloo Garden Market Station East Side) 995m (Covent Wandsworth Plain to Aldwych Garden Market East Side) 5
77
87
87
785m (Covent Aldwych to Wandsworth Plain 6 Garden Market East Side) 920m (Vauxhall Bus Station) 920m (Vauxhall Bus Station) 170m (Elm Quay Court) 140m (Elm Quay Court) 920m (Vauxhall Bus Station) 920m (Vauxhall Bus Station) 170m (Elm Quay Court) 140m (Elm Quay Court) 920m (Vauxhall Bus Station) 920m (Vauxhall Bus Station) Camden Gardens to Clapham Common Old Town Clapham Common Old Town to Camden Gardens Sir Cyril Black Way to Vauxhall Bus Station Vauxhall Bus Station to Wimbledon Station Elephant & Castle/Newington Causeway to Norwood Junction Station Norwood Junction Station to Elephant & Castle/Newington Causeway Clapham Junction Station/Falcon Road to Appold Street Appold Street to Clapham Junction Station/Falcon Road Elephant & Castle/Newington Causeway to Prince Consort Road/Imperial College Prince Consort Road/Imperial College to Elephant & Castle/Newington Causeway
Page 222
88
88
156 156 196
5 5 5
196
344
344 360
8 5
360

Distance from site (metres) and Location of Bus Stop
Route Number
Origin - Destination
AM Peak (07:00-10:00) Buses per Hour
P5
945m (Ascalon Elephant & Castle/Newington Street) Causeway to Patmore Estate/Drury House 1030m (Patmore Estate/Drury House) Patmore Estate/Drury House to Elephant & Castle/Newington Causeway
P5
Total
126
London Underground and National Rail Stations

12.4.14 Vauxhall underground station is located approximately 900m east of the site and services the Victoria line to Brixton and Walthamstow. Trains run southbound and northbound approximately every two to three minutes in peak hours. Vauxhall rail station is located adjacent to the underground station. This station services Clapham Junction, Waterloo and Woking, Guildford and Staines. In the AM and PM peaks, trains serve Vauxhall rail station towards Waterloo approximately every three to four minutes. This is the same for westbound trains during peak hours.
12.4.15
12.4.16
River services
12.4.17 12.4.18 There are no existing wharfage/ jetty facilities at the Heathwall Pumping Station site. The nearest river service can be accessed at Cadogan Pier which is located on the north bank of the river approximately 2.9km to the northwest of the site.
Parking
12.4.19 12.4.20 Existing on-street car parking There is no on-street parking permitted along Nine Elms Lane. Existing off-street / private car parking There is a Sainsburys Car park at 62 Wandsworth Road which is available from 07:00 to 23:00 Monday to Fridays, 07:00 to 22:00 Saturdays and 12:00 to 18:00 Sundays. There is capacity available for 450 spaces and there is no charge for a customer that purchases within the store. It is over 800m walking distance from the site. There are 25 coach parking bays at Nine Elms Lane Coach Park which is immediately southwest of the site at the junction between Kirtling Street and A3205 Battersea Park Road. There is a charge of 16 for 12 hours use or 32 for 24 hours use.
12.4.21
Highway network
12.4.22 Nine Elms Lane, which forms part of the TLRN, is an eastbound/ westbound dual carriageway of which one lane on both sides of the road is
Page 223
a bus lane. A 30mph speed limit is enforced along Nine Elms Lane.
Survey data
12.4.23 Description of surveys Baseline survey data for the Heathwall Pumping Station site were collected between May and July 2011 to establish the existing transport movements in the area. Manual and automated traffic surveys were undertaken to establish specific traffic, pedestrian and cycle movements including turning volumes, queue lengths, saturation flows, degree of saturation and traffic signal timings. The following junction surveys were undertaken in the vicinity of the Heathwall Pumping Station site to understand highway operation in the area. a. A3205 Battersea Park Road / Nine Elms Lane / Kirtling Street b. Nine Elms Lane / Cringle Street. An Automated Traffic Counter (ATC) was placed at the following location to obtain data on traffic flows: a. Nine Elms Lane to the east of Ponton Road. Pedestrian and cycle surveys were undertaken in the following locations: a. Battersea Barge between Chelsea Bridge Road and Vauxhall Bridge Road b. Battersea Park Road Thessaly Road, Sleaford Street. A parking survey was undertaken in the roads surrounding the site to establish occupancy of on-street parking spaces on the following roads: a. Kirtling Street b. Cringle Street. c. Sleaford Street Results of surveys Data obtained from the surveys were being processed at the time of writing and will be reported fully in the ES.
12.4.24
12.4.25
12.4.26
12.4.27
12.4.28
Data from third party sources

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

12.4.30 The receptors and their sensitivities in the vicinity of the Heathwall Pumping Station site are summarised the table below. The transport receptor sensitivity is defined as high, medium or low using the criteria detailed in Volume 5. As the assessment undertaken for this report is judgement based (rather than being based on quantitative analysis), it has not been possible to identify the effects at individual receptors. A commentary is however provided on the effects upon individual receptor groups; namely pedestrians and cyclists in the local area and users/operators of the local bus services, rail network, river services, parking and local highway network. A full assessment will be provided in the ES.
Page 224
12.4.31
Vol 18 Table 12.4.2 Transport receptor values/sensitivities Value/sensitivity and justification High Receptor Pedestrians and cyclists using the Thames Path in the vicinity. Private vehicle users in the area using the local highways or parking. Emergency vehicles accessing the commercial and residential units within the local area. Business owners, small commercial units and workplace occupiers along Kirtling Street and Cringle Street. Residents in the vicinity of Nine Elms Lane. No receptors with low sensitivity
Medium
Low
12.5
12.5.1
For this report, sufficient baseline data has not been available to enable a full quantitative analysis to be undertaken to support the assessment of likely transport effects. The assessment outcomes reported in this report have therefore been developed based on discussions with TfL and the LHAs, knowledge of the transport networks and their operational characteristics in the vicinity of each site and knowledge of the construction programme, duration and levels of construction activity. These elements have been considered in the context of the range of receptors present in each location and the significance criteria identified. Professional judgement has been applied to determine qualitatively the likely effects and their significance in each location being assessed. The Transport Assessment will include full quantitative and qualitative analysis and the transport effects reported in the ES will be based on that detailed analysis.
12.5.2
Construction base and development cases

12.5.3 Assessment year As described in Volume 5, 2019 has been used as the construction assessment year for all sites, as agreed with TfL, to enable a networkwide assessment. The peak period for vehicle trips to the site is predicted to be in Year 1 of construction which will be the assessment year for local network assessments and will be contained in the ES. For this report the assessment is undertaken for the network-wide 2019 assessment year. Assessment area The area being assessed for the Heathwall Pumping Station site is based
12.5.4
12.5.5
12.5.6
Page 225
12.5.7
12.5.8
12.5.9
12.5.10
12.5.11
12.5.12
12.5.13
12.5.14
12.5.15
on discussions with LB Wandsworth and Transport for London. Local roads and junctions included in the assessment are as follows: a. Kirtling Street / Nine Elms Lane / New Covent Garden Market. b. Cringle Street/ Nine Elms Lane c. Battersea Park / Queenstown Road d. Nine Elms Lane / Wandsworth Road. These roads and junctions would be assessed for highway, cycle and pedestrian impacts. The Thames Path would also be included within the assessment due to its proximity to the development site. Local bus and rail services, as identified on Vol 18 Figure 12.4.1, would also be assessed. Construction base case The construction base case takes into account traffic growth and proposed new developments within the local area by 2019. This includes the developments in Section 3.4.1, namely: a. Battersea Power Station Redevelopment b. Tideway Walk c. American Embassy d. St James and Nine Elms Pier e. Nine Elms Parkside The following sub-sections detail what is assumed to change between the baseline and base case scenarios with respect to the different transport aspects considered. Pedestrian routes Pedestrian routes are not anticipated to change from baseline conditions. The base case therefore assumes the same pedestrian routes as set out in Section 12.4. Cycle routes Cycle routes are not anticipated to change from baseline conditions and therefore the base case assumes the same cycle routes as set out in Section 12.4. Bus routes and patronage Bus routes are not anticipated to change from baseline conditions and therefore are assumed to be the same in the base case. Bus patronage is anticipated to increase, the effect of which will be detailed in the Transport Assessment. London Underground and National Rail and patronage The London Underground Northern Line Service will be extended as part of the Battersea Power Station development and a station will be located on the Battersea Power Station site. This station is due to be operational from 2016. LUL patronage is anticipated to increase, the effect of which will be detailed in the Transport Assessment. National Rail routes are not anticipated to change from baseline conditions. National Rail patronage is anticipated to increase, the effect of which will be detailed in the Transport Assessment.
Page 226
12.5.16
12.5.17
12.5.18
12.5.19
12.5.20
12.5.21
12.5.22 12.5.23
12.5.24
12.5.25
River services and patronage River services and patronage are assumed to be the same as baseline conditions as no changes are anticipated. Parking Car parking provision is assumed to be the same as baseline conditions as no changes are anticipated. Highway layout The physical layout of the highway network is not anticipated to change from baseline conditions and therefore the base case assumed the same highway layout. Highway operation Population growth and development in the wider area will result in an increase in traffic on the surrounding highway network. As a result of this increase, it is anticipated that traffic flows may be heavier and queues longer. Highway capacity analysis Baseline traffic flows (from the junction surveys) will be used and forecasting carried out to understand the capacity on the highway network in the vicinity of the Heathwall Pumping Station site in 2019 without the Thames Tunnel project. The scope of this analysis is being agreed with LB Wandsworth and Transport for London. The full assessment of the highway operation and capacity analysis will be undertaken in the ES. Construction development case The construction development case comprises the base case plus construction activities associated with the Heathwall Pumping Station site. This section addresses the changes that would arise as a result of the Thames Tunnel construction activities at the Heathwall Pumping Station site. Construction vehicle movements It is assumed for the purposes of the assessment that construction lorry movements are limited to the day shift only (08:00 to 18:00). The following table shows the construction lorry movement assumptions for the local peak traffic periods. These are based on the peak months of construction activity at this site. The table also shows the construction worker movements expected to be generated by the site. These movements are based on the assumption that 90% of cofferdam fill would be transported by barge with all remaining materials transported by road. Vol 18 Table 12.5.1 Transport forecast construction vehicle movements Vehicle movements per time period Vehicle type Construction Total Daily 60 07:00 to 08:00 0
Page 227
08:00 to 09:00 6
17:00 to 18:00 6
18:00 to 19:00 0
Vehicle movements per time period Vehicle type vehicle movements 10%* Worker vehicle movements Total 6 66 3 3 0 6 0 6 3 3 Total Daily 07:00 to 08:00 08:00 to 09:00 17:00 to 18:00 18:00 to 19:00
* As explained in Volume 5 it has been assumed that a maximum of 10% of daily construction vehicle movements associated with materials would take place in each of the peak hours
12.5.26
12.5.27
12.5.28
12.5.29
12.5.30
12.5.31
12.5.32
12.5.33 12.5.34
Assuming the use of the river to transport cofferdam fill, an average peak flow of 66 vehicle movements a day is expected during the months of greatest activity at this site. At other times in the construction period, vehicle flows would be lower than this average peak figure. Modal split The Heathwall Pumping Station site has a PTAL of between 3 and 4 indicating moderate public transport access. It has been assumed that 10% of staff and 5% of labour staff could drive to the site. Information regarding the travel arrangements of these workers would be included in the CoCP, Construction Management Plan and Work Place Travel Plan documents for the site (to be submitted as part of the application). Pedestrian routes The Thames Path currently routes through the site and would need to be rerouted via Nine Elms Lane during the construction phase. Cycle routes No cycle only routes run through the site and therefore none would be impacted on directly by the construction site development, however, the Thames Path (used by cyclists) currently routes through the site and would need to be rerouted via Nine Elms Lane during the construction phase. Bus routes and patronage No bus services run through the site and therefore none would be impacted on by the construction site development. London Underground and National Rail and patronage No underground or rail services run through the site and therefore none would be impacted on by the construction site development. River services and patronage No river services run through the site and therefore none would be impacted on by the construction site development. Parking No public parking would be impacted on by the worksite area. Highway layout The site would be serviced via two existing accesses off Nine Elms Lane.
Page 228
12.5.35
12.5.36
Both would require widening and the dropped kerb around the eastern access would also need extending to provide sufficient turning space for larger vehicles. Highway operation As the site is restricted, a number of contractor facilities and storage would be provided at Kirtling Street. There would therefore be some limited traffic and pedestrian movements between the two sites. The overall highway operation would not be impacted on by the worksite area.
12.5.37 This section summarises the preliminary findings of the assessment undertaken for the 2019 assessment year based on professional judgement. A more detailed assessment will be presented in the ES. Pedestrian routes There may be a small loss of footway where the existing site accesses are widened, which would create a minor increase in crossing distance for pedestrians. An increase in turning movements into the site from Nine Elms Lane would increase the number of vehicle/pedestrians conflicts at the site accesses. However, construction vehicle movements at this site would be low. Given the potential loss of footway and widened crossing distance, coupled with a low increase in vehicle movements, it is expected that the effect on pedestrian routes would be minor adverse. Cycle routes There would be an increase in vehicle flows on the highway network. Furthermore, there would also be an increase in the number of vehicles turning into the site entrances, resulting in an increase in vehicle/cycle conflicts. However, as mentioned above, the number of construction vehicle movements, and therefore conflicts, would be low. As a result of the low increase in cycle/vehicle conflicting movements, it is expected that the effect on cycle routes would be minor adverse. Bus routes and patronage The routing of bus services in the area are not expected to be affected by the construction works at the Heathwall Pumping Station site. The number of vehicles turning into the site across the bus lane would increase and therefore the potential for delay to buses would increase. However, construction vehicle/bus conflicts are expected to be low considering the low number of construction vehicles. It is anticipated that there would be a proportion of labourers and staff using buses to access the site during construction. Overall it is considered that the effect on bus routes and patronage would be negligible. London Underground and National Rail and patronage The underground service at Vauxhall Station is not likely to be affected by the construction works at the Heathwall Pumping Station site, nor National Rail services at Vauxhall Station either.
Page 229
12.5.38
12.5.39
12.5.40
12.5.41
12.5.42
12.5.43 12.5.44
12.5.45 12.5.46
12.5.47
12.5.49
12.5.50 12.5.51 12.5.52
12.5.53 12.5.54
12.5.55
12.5.56
12.5.57
It is anticipated that there would be a proportion of labourers and staff using rail and underground to access the site during construction, however, it is expected that the effect on London Underground and National Rail services would be negligible. River services and patronage There are no river services in the immediate vicinity of the site and services in the area should therefore not be affected by the construction works at the Heathwall Pumping Station site. Parking No effect on parking is expected during construction at the site. Highway layout The existing site accesses would be widened to facilitate the movement of large construction vehicles. The works to modify the site access points are likely to require short term pedestrian and traffic management. Therefore, it is expected that the effect on the local highway layout would be minor adverse. Highway operation The increase in turning movements from Nine Elms Lane into the site may cause delay to general traffic. As a result of the increased traffic, its effect on the ease of vehicle movements, it is expected that the effect on highway operation would be minor adverse. Highway capacity analysis The levels of construction vehicle movement expected at this site are comparatively low in the context of the amount of traffic already using the road network in the surrounding area. Given this context of a low increase in the volume of traffic, it is expected that the effect on highway capacity would be minor adverse. Significance of effects The significance of the transport effects described above has been determined as part of the ongoing assessment and analysis. With regard to the application of the IEMA criteria detailed in Volume 5, this is based on professional judgement for the purposes of the assessment. During construction, the number of heavy goods vehicle movements would be low. The nature of the construction site layout at this location is considered likely to result in a minor adverse effect on road network operation and delay. Effects on pedestrian and cyclist amenity and safety are expected to be minor adverse.
12.6
12.6.1
This section summarises the preliminary findings of the assessment based on professional judgement. The results summarised below will be presented in more detail in the ES. A qualitative approach to the assessment is appropriate due to the transport activity during the operational phase being very low. The transport elements have been considered in the context of the range of receptors present in each location and the significance criteria
12.6.2
Page 230
identified. Professional judgement has been applied to determine qualitatively the likely effects and their significance in each location being assessed. The transport effects reported in the ES will be based on more detailed information and qualitative analysis where this is appropriate.
Operational base and development cases

12.6.3 Assessment year As outlined in Volume 5 the operational assessment year has been taken as Year 1 of operation. As transport activity associated with the operational phase is very low, there is no requirement to assess any other year beyond that date. Assessment area The assessment area for the operational assessment remains the same as for the construction assessment as set out in paras. 12.5.6-12.5.7. This includes those roads and junctions which lead to/from the Heathwall Pumping Station site to the SRN and TRLN. Operational base case The operational base case takes into account traffic growth and proposed developments within the local area by Year 1 of operation. The proposed developments in the vicinity of the site that have been included in the base case are the same as set out in para. 12.5.9. The following sub-sections detail what is assumed to change between the baseline and base case scenario with respect to the different transport aspects considered. Pedestrian routes Pedestrian routes are not anticipated to change from baseline conditions. The base case therefore assumes the same pedestrian routes as set out in Section 12.4. Cycle routes Cycle routes are not anticipated to change from baseline conditions and therefore the base case assumes the same cycle routes as set out in Section 12.4. Bus routes and patronage Bus routes are not anticipated to change from baseline conditions and therefore are assumed to be the same in the base case. Bus patronage is anticipated to increase between 2011 (baseline) and Year 1 of operation and this assessment will be detailed further in the Transport Assessment. London Underground and National Rail and patronage The London Underground Northern Line Service will be extended as part of the Battersea Power Station development and a station will be located on the Battersea Power Station site. This station is due to be operational from 2016. It is anticipated that LUL patronage will increase between 2011 and Year 1 of operation and this assessment will be detailed further in the Transport Assessment. National Rail routes are not anticipated to change from baseline
Page 231
12.6.4
12.6.5 12.6.6 12.6.7
12.6.8
12.6.9
12.6.10 12.6.11
12.6.12
12.6.13
12.6.14
12.6.15
12.6.16
12.6.17 12.6.18
12.6.19
12.6.20
12.6.21
12.6.22
12.6.23
12.6.24
12.6.25
conditions. It is anticipated that National Rail patronage will increase between the baseline and Year 1 of operation and this assessment will be detailed further in the Transport Assessment. River services and patronage River services and patronage are assumed to be the same as baseline conditions as no changes are anticipated. Parking Parking provision is not anticipated to change from baseline conditions. Highway layout The physical layout of the highway network is not anticipated to change from baseline conditions. Highway operation Population growth and development in the surrounding area will result in an increase in traffic on the surrounding highway network. As a result of this increase, it is anticipated that traffic flows may be heavier and queues longer. Highway capacity analysis Baseline traffic flows (from the junction surveys) are being used and forecasting carried out to understand the capacity on the highway network in the vicinity of the Heathwall Pumping Station site in Year 1 of operation without the Thames Tunnel project. The scope of this analysis is being agreed with LB Wandsworth and Transport for London and will be reported in the ES. Operational development case The operational development case for the site includes any permanent changes in the vicinity of the Heathwall Pumping Station site as a result of the Thames Tunnel project and takes into consideration the occasional maintenance activities required at the site. Trip generation For routine three or six monthly inspections and equipment exercising, vehicular access would be required for light commercial vehicles. In most cases this would be typically a transit van. On occasion there may be a consequent need for small flatbed lorries with lifting cranes, for example to remove plant from the site. During 10 yearly inspections, sites for placing two large cranes would be required. The cranes would facilitate lowering and recovery of tunnel inspection vehicles and to provide duty/standby access for personnel. Modal split It is anticipated that all trips during the operational phase would be using transit van or large construction vehicles. No trips would be made by public transport, walking or cycling due to the nature of maintenance requiring equipment that can only be transported by vehicles. Pedestrian routes The Thames Path would be re-routed along the riverside through Middle Wharf and in front of Heathwall Pumping Station. There would be access
Page 232
12.6.26
12.6.27
12.6.28
12.6.29
12.6.30
12.6.31
12.6.32
12.6.33 12.6.34
gates at each end to temporarily close off the path when operational access is required either through Middle Wharf or to the interception structure in front of Heathwall Pumping Station. Cycle routes The Thames Path would be re-routed along the riverside through Middle Wharf and in front of Heathwall Pumping Station. There would be access gates at each end to temporarily close off the path when operational access is required either through Middle Wharf or to the interception structure in front of Heathwall Pumping Station. Bus routes and patronage No change is expected to any bus services in the operational phase and it is not anticipated that operational staff journeys would be made by bus. London Underground and National Rail and patronage No change is expected to any London Underground or National Rail service in the operational phase and it is not anticipated that operational staff journeys would be made by rail. River services and patronage No change is expected to any river services as a result of the operational phase. Parking No change is expected to car parking in the vicinity of the site, compared to the base case, as a result of the operational phase arrangements at Heathwall Pumping Station. When large vehicles are required to service the site, some parking within the site may have to be suspended to ensure the vehicles have sufficient space to manoeuvre into the site. Highway layout The site would be accessed via existing access points off Nine Elms Lane during the operational phase. Highway operation Occasional maintenance vehicles would service Heathwall Pumping Station every three to six months. When larger vehicles are required to service the site, there may be some temporary, short-term delay to other road users.
Operational effects
12.6.35 This section summarises the preliminary findings of the operational assessment undertaken for the Year 1 of operation assessment year. Pedestrian routes The Thames Path would be reinstated to the riverside adjacent to the northern boundary of the operational site for the operational phase, which would provide a shorter Thames Path route for pedestrians and one that does not route along the highway. Given this shorter pedestrian route away from the highway balanced against the occasional maintenance trips anticipated at Heathwall Pumping Station during the operational phase there would be a minor
12.6.36
12.6.37
Page 233
12.6.38
12.6.39
12.6.40
12.6.41
12.6.42
12.6.43 12.6.44
12.6.45
12.6.46
12.6.47 12.6.48
12.6.49
beneficial effect on pedestrian routes in the area and footways adjacent to the site. Cycle routes The Thames Path would be reinstated to the riverside adjacent to the northern boundary of the operational site for the operational phase, thus providing a more direct route for cyclists that does not route along the highway. As a result of the reinstating of the Thames Path along a more direct route away from the highway balanced against the occasional maintenance trips anticipated at Heathwall Pumping Station during the operational phase, there would be a minor beneficial effect on cycle routes in the area and on the roads surrounding the site. Bus routes and patronage As a result of the occasional maintenance trips anticipated at Heathwall Pumping Station during the operational phase, there would be a negligible effect on bus routes and patronage. London Underground and National Rail and patronage London Underground and National Rail services would not be affected by the occasional maintenance trips anticipated at Heathwall Pumping Station during the operational phase. River services and patronage River services would not be affected by the occasional maintenance trips anticipated at Heathwall Pumping Station during the operational phase. Parking There is no on-street parking in the immediate vicinity of the site. As a result of the highly infrequent maintenance trips anticipated at Heathwall Pumping Station during the operational phase, there would be a negligible effect on on-street parking in the local area. Highway layout In the operational phase the current highway layout would be restored, with the existing access retained, resulting in a negligible effect on the local highway layout. Highway operation During the operational phase there may be some delay to road users when large maintenance vehicles are required at Heathwall Pumping Station, however this is likely to be highly infrequent, and the effect is therefore deemed to be negligible. Highway capacity analysis It is expected that the effect on highway capacity would be negligible. Significance of effects The significance of the transport effects described above has been determined as part of the ongoing assessment and analysis. With regard to the application of the IEMA criteria detailed in Volume 5, this is based on professional judgement for the purposes of this assessment. During the operational phase there would be very occasional vehicle trips to and from the site for maintenance activities but these would have a
Page 234
negligible effect on the surrounding transport networks (in terms of delay and safety) and pedestrian/cyclists.
12.7
12.7.1 12.7.2

Measures contained in the draft CoCP of relevance to transport are summarised in Section 12.2. The project has been designed to limit the effects on the transport networks as far as possible and many measures have been included directly in the design of the project. Any mitigation which is required is detailed below Pedestrian routes Measures to ensure safe crossing facilities at the site access would be provided. A safety audit would also be undertaken at the site accesses as part of this process. Cycle routes Measures to ensure safe crossing facilities at the site access would be provided. A safety audit would also be undertaken at the site accesses as part of this process. Bus routes No mitigation measures are likely to be required for bus services. London Underground and National Rail No mitigation measures are likely to be required for underground or rail services. River services No mitigation measures are likely to be required for river services. Parking No mitigation measures are likely to be required for parking. Highway layout A safety audit would also be undertaken at the site accesses. Highway operation No mitigation measures would be required for highway operation. Highway capacity No mitigation measures would be required for highway capacity.
12.7.3
12.7.4
12.7.5 12.7.6
12.7.7 12.7.8 12.7.9 12.7.10 12.7.11
Operation
12.7.12 Pedestrian routes The Thames Path would be reinstated to the riverside. As a result, no mitigation is required for the operational phase. Cycle routes The Thames Path would be reinstated to the riverside. As a result, no mitigation is required for the operational phase. Bus routes Bus services and patronage would not be significantly affected by the operation of Heathwall Pumping Station therefore no mitigation would be
12.7.13
12.7.14
Page 235
12.7.15
12.7.16
12.7.17
12.7.18
12.7.19
12.7.20
required. London Underground and National Rail London Underground and London Overground services would not be affected by the operation of the Heathwall Pumping Station site therefore no mitigation would be required. River services River services and patronage would not be affected by the operation of Heathwall Pumping Station therefore no mitigation would be required. Parking Parking would not be significantly affected by the operation of Heathwall Pumping Station therefore no mitigation would be required. Highway layout The widened site accesses would be maintained during the operation of the site. As a result no mitigation is required for the operational phase. Highway operation The number of trips associated with Heathwall Pumping Station during the operational phase would be very low and infrequent and for maintenance purposes only. No mitigation would be required during the operational phase. Highway capacity The level of operational vehicles is negligible; as a result the local highway network would not experience a significant detrimental effect from the operational proposals. There would be no requirement for highway improvement mitigation to increase capacity of local junctions
Page 236
12.8
Vol 18 Table 12.8.1 Transport summary of construction assessment Effect Safe crossing points Safety audit of site accesses. Safe crossing points Safety audit of site accesses. None required Negligible Minor adverse Minor adverse Significance Mitigation Residual significance
Assessment summary
Receptor
Pedestrians in the local area and using the Thames Path
Loss of footway at site Minor adverse accesses Possible conflict at site accesses
Cyclists in the local area
Possible conflict at site Minor adverse accesses
Bus users and operators
Negligible Possible delays Some additional patronage from construction workers
Rail users and operators
Some additional Negligible patronage from construction workers Negligible Negligible
None required
Negligible
River users and operators
No effect
None required None required Safety audit of site accesses.
Negligible Negligible Minor adverse
Parking
No effect
All road users
Movement of large Minor adverse construction vehicles Delay to journey time Widening of site accesses requiring short-term pedestrian
Page 237
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station traffic
and management.
Page 238
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Vol 18 Table 12.8.2 Transport summary of operational assessment Effect None required Minor beneficial Significance Mitigation Residual significance
Receptor
Pedestrians in the local area and using the Thames Path
Thames Path to be Minor beneficial reinstated providing shorter route Occasional maintenance trips None required Minor beneficial
Cyclists in the local area
Thames Path to be Minor beneficial reinstated providing shorter route Occasional maintenance trips Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible None required None required None required None required None required
Bus users and operators
Occasional maintenance trips
Rail users and operators
No effect
River users and operators
No effect
Parking
No effect
All road users
Occasional delay to Negligible road users when large maintenance vehicles accessing site
Page 239
12.9
12.9.1
In addition to the baseline survey data collected and data obtained from Transport for London (strategic model data and additional ATC and junction count data), there is a need for additional data to supplement the data set. The baseline data collection was in the process of being collated at the time of writing. When baseline data collection (including data from third party sources) and analysis is complete a full transport assessment will be carried out. This will include a detailed analysis of all three levels of assessment (sitespecific, Borough level and project-wide) and will include an assessment of cumulative and in combination effects. The scope of analysis will be agreed with TfL and the LHA and will include the identification of effects at individual receptors. This full assessment will be reported in the ES (and Transport Assessment). Following completion of the assessment the mitigation approaches for transport within the project will be finalised and reported in the ES and Transport Assessment.
12.9.2
12.9.3
Page 240
Section 13: Water resources - groundwater
13 13.1
13.1.1
Water resources groundwater Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant groundwater effects at the Heathwall Pumping Station site. The controlled surface water and land quality assessments are completed elsewhere in this report (Sections 14 and 8 respectively). Some water quality information from the land quality assessment is included in the appendices to this section of the report.
13.1.2
13.2
13.2.1
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to groundwater are as follows. Construction The main infrastructure at the site would include: a. A 16m diameter (internal) drop shaft, with a depth of approximately 46.36m (excluding a 4m thick base slab when constructed) to be constructed in a working area close by the river. The shaft would have a secondary lining. b. An intermediate drop shaft (6m ID and depth) within a temporary coffer dam wall on the foreshore. c. An interception chamber for the existing CSO overflow (the Southwest Storm Relief Sewer) would be fed into the intermediate drop shaft, and from there to the main drop shaft. The connection culvert to the drop shaft (dimensions approximately 45m long and 4-6m deep). d. A connection tunnel (approximately 4.5m in internal diameter and 55m long) would be constructed under the river from the base of the main drop shaft to the main Thames Tunnel. The proposed methods of construction for the various elements of the site are summarised in the table below. Also contained in this table are approximate time-scales and depths.
13.2.2
13.2.3
Page 241
Vol 18 Table 13.2.1 Groundwater resources methods of construction Design Element Method of Construction Caisson with bottom underpinning and major depressurisation Sheet piles Sheet piles Sprayed Concrete Lining Construction Periods Construction Depth
CSO Drop shaft (DS) Intermediate drop shaft (IDS) Chambers and Culverts Connection tunnel (to main tunnel)
<1 year
Deep
<1 year <1 year <1year
Shallow Shallow Deep
Note: In terms of construction depth - Shallow (means <10m) and Deep (>10m)
13.2.4
13.2.5 13.2.6 13.2.7
13.2.8
13.2.9
The depth of drop shaft would mean that it would extend down into a strata (lower part of the Lambeth Group), at which it is expected that several horizons would yield substantial quantities of the water. It is expected that this formation would need to undergo major depressurisation ahead of construction taking place within this layer. A series of ejector wells, potentially up to 6 in number may be constructed from the surface around the shaft periphery. The duration of pumping would be determined by ground conditions but is likely to be in the order of up to one year, the time to build and excavate the shaft. As part of the environmental design, dewatering amounts would be minimised where practically possible. The break into the main tunnel by the tunnel boring machine is expected to require grouting up of the ground around the tunnel. In order to ensure that no build up of groundwater takes place around the underground structures, the sheet piled wall to be put in around the excavations should be removed or at least cut down at a level below that of the upper aquifer. Operation The operation of various elements at the site may interfere with shallow groundwater forming a barrier to flow locally around the site. The build up of groundwater can cause problems of groundwater flooding. The operation of the tunnel and shafts at the site could also result in the leakage of wastewater into the groundwater system. The tunnel design would help to minimise this risk.
13.3
13.3.1

Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. There were no site specific comments from consultees relating to this topic for this particular site.
Page 242
13.3.2 13.3.3 13.3.4 13.3.5 13.3.6 13.3.7 13.3.8
Construction The construction phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site. Operation The operational phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site. Assumptions and limitations At this stage, all assessments are based on a qualitative approach only. The list of receptors is based on the best available information from the Environment Agency on abstractions (both licensed and GSHP schemes). The groundwater level monitoring undertaken for the Thames Tunnel project is some distance away from the site. The ground conditions may vary from this point and the site.
13.4
13.4.1
Baseline conditions
The CSO drop shaft at the site would pass through made ground, Alluvium, River Terrace Deposits, London Clay and Lambeth Group namely the Laminated Beds, Lower Shelly Beds and Lower Mottled Beds. The invert of the tunnel would be within the lower part of the Lambeth Group, in the Lower Mottled Beds, as summarised in the table below. The shaft would be constructed using a caisson with bottom underpinning and major depressurisation. Construction would also take place within a foreshore cofferdam. Vol 18 Table 13.4.1 Groundwater resources Anticipated Ground Conditions Elevation mATD 104.40 99.90 98.40 Depth below ground level (m) 0.00 4.50 6.00 Thickness (m) 4.50 1.40 1.90 Hydrogeology Perched Water Upper Aquifer Upper Aquifer
Formation Made Ground Alluvium River Terrace Deposits London Clay B A3ii A3i A2 Harwich Formation
96.60 89.40 79.48 77.13 66.23
7.580 15.00 24.92 27.27 30.17
7.20 9.92 2.35 11.90 0.65
Aquiclude
Aquitard / Aquifer
Page 243
Formation Lambeth Group USB UMB LtB/LSB LMB UPN (Gv) UPN Thanet Sand Seaford Chalk
Elevation mATD
Depth below ground level (m)
Thickness (m)
Hydrogeology
64.58 63.38 59.98 57.38 51.28 50.28 47.40 37.90
39.82 41.02 44.42 47.02 53.12 54.12 57.00 66.50
1.20 3.40 2.60 6.10 1.00 2.88 9.50 Not proven
Aquitards / Aquifers
Lower Aquifer
USBUpper Shelly Beds; UMBUpper Mottled Beds; LtBLaminated Beds LSB-Lower Shelly Beds; LMB-Lower Mottled Beds; UPN (Gv)-Upnor Formation (Gravel); UPN-Upnor Formation
13.4.2 13.4.3
13.4.4
13.4.5
13.4.6
The River Terrace Deposits or upper aquifer is classified as a secondary A aquifer v. The thickness is 1.9m at the site. The Thanet Sands and the Upnor Bed (the lower unit of the Lambeth Group) are known as the Basal Sands and are in hydraulic continuity with the Chalk aquifer beneath London. The Basal Sands, forming a secondary A aquifer, and the Chalk, forming a principal aquifer, have hydraulic connectivity and are referred to as the lower aquifer. Certain horizons within the Lambeth Group (notably the Upper Shelly Beds and more significantly the Laminated Beds) may contain significant quantities of water and at pressures of up to 25m of head due to the confinement by the London Clay. Given that the drop shaft would pass through the entire thickness of the London Clay Formation and into the Lower Mottled Beds, significant upward pressures would be encountered during the shaft construction. Water level monitoring shows higher heads within the Lambeth Group than in the Thanet Sand (based on limited data from a monitoring borehole in the Laminated Beds of the Lambeth Group). Certain horizons within the Lambeth Group (notably the Upper Shelly Beds and more significantly the Laminated Beds) may contain significant quantities of water and at pressures of up to 25m of head due to the confinement by the London Clay. The Chalk piezometric heads in May 2010 are similar to the head in the Thanet Sand Formation, with the latter approximately 1.2m above the former; with the same signal from nearby abstraction; suggesting that these formations are in close hydraulic continuity. Both the Chalk and
Secondary A aquifers are permeable layers capable of supporting water supplies at a local scale (rather than strategic scale) and in some cases forming an important source of base flow to rivers. These are generally aquifers formerly classified as minor aquifers.
Page 244
13.4.7
13.4.8
13.4.9
13.4.10
13.4.11
Thanet Sands have pressures in excess of 25m of head due to the confinement of the London Clay Formation and less transmissive units of the Lambeth Group. Further details on water levels are contained in Appendix A. In terms of local receptors, the site lies within the Source Protection Zone (SPZ) 1 of a Thames Water Utility source located approximately 0.3km away to the southwest. There is also a SPZ located 0.3km to the north. The regional direction of groundwater flow in the Chalk is northwards towards a low point within central London. However, the close proximity to the nearby SPZ 1 may influence the local groundwater gradient to a more west-northwesterly direction. See the figures and tables in the Appendices. Two other abstraction lying approximately 0.3 km to the west, currently have no information available. There are no unlicensed abstractions near to the site based on information provided by the local authority. There are two Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP) schemes licensed from located 0.3km to the west and 0.7km to the northeast. Both of these schemes abstract from the Chalk. There are no other environmental designations relevant to groundwater in the vicinity of the site. The flood risk assessment states that there are no groundwater flooding incidents within the vicinity of the site, based on information from the London Borough of Wandsworth SFRA. Further details on the baseline conditions at the site are provided in Appendix A. Monitoring is continuing and would extend the baseline which would inform the assessment in the ES.
Receptor Summary
13.4.12 Groundwater receptors which could be affected during construction or operation are summarised in the following table. Vol 18 Table 13.4.2 Groundwater resources identification of receptors Construction Operation Comment Penetrated by shaft, intermediate shaft and interception chamber Base of shaft into the lower part of Lambeth Group Within a SPZ1 for TWUL source. Also another SPZ1 at a distance of 0.3km to the north, potentially in direction of
Receptor Groundwater Resources Upper Aquifer
Lower Aquifer
Abstractions Licensed
Page 245
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Receptor Abstractions Unlicensed GSHP Schemes Construction
Section 13: Water resources - groundwater Operation Comment groundwater flow None identified Nearest GSHP scheme 0.2 km to the west
Note: Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP)
13.5
13.5.1
The drop shaft (including base slab) would extend down into the lower part of the Lambeth Group, which would be in hydraulic connection with the lower aquifer. Major depressurisation of the Lambeth Group would be required to sink the shaft. Ground treatment is not expected generally to be needed for construction of the shaft but may be required for the connection to the main tunnel. A potential effect could arise as a result of the interceptor chambers creating a physical obstruction to flow in the upper aquifer for a period of up to one year. Impact magnitude The upper aquifer is likely to be thin (<2m) and is assessed to be of medium importance. The magnitude of any effect is assessed as minor, such that for example a slight rise in groundwater levels may take place on the upstream/ south side of the structure. The assessed significance would be a minor adverse effect. The balance between recharge and abstraction from the Chalk aquifer in London formed part of the groundwater resource assessment of the London Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy (CAMS), (EA, 2006) 31. The Thames Tunnel falls within groundwater management unit 7 (GWMU7 Confined Chalk) which was classed as over licensed. The London Groundwater Licensing Policy (EA, 2006) was produced to restrict further abstraction in areas approaching their sustainable limit. This policy was incorporated into the London CAMS licensing policy which identified areas where further licences are restricted. Heathwall PS falls within the Central and South London area (see Appendix E). Over this section the policy states that new consumptive licences are restricted to less than 0.2 Ml/d annual average, subject to the local assessment being favourable and no other new abstractions in the Battersea area. However, the policy states that, every application would be assessed on its own merits, be subject to a detailed local hydrogeological assessment and require the submission of the necessary supporting justification and reports for a decision to be made on an individual scheme. The detailed assessment would take into account the following. A preliminary assessment is completed below: Has there been any long-term (several years) downward trend in the groundwater level in the vicinity of the application? a. Preliminary response: The hydrograph in Appendix E for an EA
Page 246
13.5.2
13.5.3
13.5.4
13.5.5
13.5.6
13.5.7 13.5.8
13.5.9
13.5.10
13.5.11
13.5.12
13.5.13
13.5.14
13.5.15
13.5.16
observation borehole at the site shows the groundwater level increased from 1986 to 2000; displayed a downward trend from 2000 to 2004 and started to rise again in 2009. The groundwater level in relation to the base of the London Clay. If the groundwater level is near the base of the London Clay, then the EA would be unlikely to grant the abstraction licence. The EA would use discretion if there is a significant thickness of the Lambeth Group below the London Clay, but the aim is to manage abstraction to keep groundwater levels above the Thanet Sands. a. Preliminary response: The EA data confirms that groundwater levels in measured in the Chalk by the EA have consistently remained between 76 to 89mATD between 1986 and 2000, declining to about 60mATD in 2001; between 1m below and 12m above the base of the London Clay between 1986 and 2000, dropping to a level corresponding the Upper Shelly Bed and Upper Mottled Beds since 2000. Whilst there would be a need to depressurise the lower aquifer, dewatering would be to above the top of the Thanet Sands and Upnor Beds. Any recent abstraction development in the same area. If groundwater levels have not yet responded to a recent change in abstraction, the EA may not grant further licences in that area. a. Preliminary response: No recent developments are known. Other proposals in the area that have been refused for water resource reasons in the last five years. a. Preliminary response: No refusals known. Proximity of the proposal to an existing or proposed Artificial Recharge Scheme (ARS). Artificial Recharge scheme proposals would be treated as a special case as they involve the management of groundwater levels to provide additional resource to the project operator. a. Preliminary response: No known ARS in the vicinity. On the basis of this preliminary assessment it is concluded that, providing groundwater levels remain above the top of the Thanet Sands at around 47.4 mATD, a temporary abstraction for dewatering purposes would not be detrimental to groundwater resources and the impact would be negligible. This assessment relates to the regional resource and is considered to be of less significance than the potential impact on current groundwater users. The drawdown and therefore the magnitude of impact on existing groundwater users as a result of dewatering have yet to be quantified. Once modelling is complete, as described in Volume 5, the impact can be quantified. No contamination is known to be present in the upper aquifer, which is assessed as being of medium importance. This aquifer would be cased out during construction at the site. The magnitude is therefore assessed as negligible. The assessed significance would be negligible effect. The lower aquifer and local Chalk abstractions receptors are of high and very high importance. Ground treatment may be required around the main tunnel as the connection tunnel breaks through into it. The magnitude of impact is assessed as negligible, as grouting would take place within the
Page 247
13.5.17
13.5.18
Lambeth Group. The assessed significance would be minor adverse effect. The impacts on groundwater quality within the lower aquifer are expected to be negligible if the groundwater levels are kept above the top of the Thanet Sands. However, if the water table is drawn below this level, moderate impacts may be expected. A summary of the impacts and likely magnitude is provided in the table below. Vol 18 Table 13.5.1 Groundwater resources impacts/magnitudes construction Magnitude Minor, as river terrace deposits found to be quite thin (<2m) at the site. Negligible providing groundwater levels remain above the top of the Thanet Sands and Upnor Beds. Negligible providing groundwater levels remain above the top of the Thanet Sands and Upnor Beds. Negligible; no known groundwater or soil contamination Negligible if the groundwater levels are kept above the top of the Thanet Sands. Moderate if water levels drawn below this level. Negligible; CoCP to identify acceptable materials and practices
Impact Physical obstruction to flow in the upper aquifer and resultant rise in groundwater level Dewatering of Lambeth Group and depressurisation of the lower aquifer affecting the lower aquifer Dewatering of Lambeth Group and depressurisation of the lower aquifer affecting nearby Chalk abstractions Creation of pathway for pollution Induced groundwater movement (lower aquifer)
Pollution through use of grout at connection into main tunnel 13.5.19
Receptor sensitivity In terms of receptors, the importance of these groundwater attributes is summarised in the table below. Vol 18 Table 13.5.2 Groundwater receptor values/sensitivities construction Value/sensitivity Medium importance, secondary aquifer High importance, principal aquifer used for PWS Very High importance, principal aquifer used for PWS
Receptor Upper Aquifer Lower Aquifer Chalk abstractions
13.5.20
Significance of effects A summary of significance of the effects is shown in the table below.
Page 248
Vol 18 Table 13.5.3 Groundwater significance of effects construction Effect Obstruction to groundwater flows causing a rise in groundwater levels Dewatering of lower aquifer Significance Minor adverse Minor adverse providing groundwater levels remain above the top of the Thanet Sands / Upnor Beds. Minor adverse if use/integrity of abstraction source is unaffected. (Potentially subject to change once quantified) Negligible effect due to no known groundwater pollution Minor adverse if water table remains above top of Thanet Sands; Major adverse if water table drawn below this level. Minor adverse
Chalk abstractions
Effect on groundwater quality as a result of pathway creation or dewatering (upper aquifer) Effect on groundwater quality from induced groundwater movement as a result of dewatering (lower aquifer) Deterioration in groundwater quality caused by ground treatment (lower aquifer)
Note: *Minor adverse is lowest categorisation for a receptor of very high importance.
13.6
13.6.1
The base case and operational development case are derived from current baseline conditions as described in Section 4.5 and the supporting appendix. The possible future change from current baseline conditions is taken into account by considering a range of groundwater levels in the assessments. The Water Framework Directive commits EU member states to achieve good qualitative and quantitative status of all water bodies (including marine waters up to kilometre from shore) by 2015. The Directive defines 'surface water status' as the general expression of the status of a body of surface water, determined by the poorer of its ecological status and its chemical status. Thus, to achieve 'good surface water status' both the ecological status and the chemical status of a surface water body need to be at least 'good'.
13.6.2
Operational assessment results

13.6.3 In order to ensure that no build up of groundwater takes place around the underground structures, the sheet pile walls to be put in around the interception chambers would be removed or at least cut off at a level below the base of the upper aquifer. The impact of groundwater build-up is considered to be of negligible magnitude resulting in a negligible effect.
13.6.4
Page 249
13.6.6
13.6.7 13.6.8 13.6.9
Seepage out of the shaft into the upper aquifer would be negligible given that the shaft will be full on relatively few occasions (which increases the risk of seepage). The shafts would also have a secondary lining to minimise the risk to the upper aquifer. The magnitude of seepage out of the shaft into the lower aquifer is assessed as negligible as there would generally be higher heads outside the shaft than within it. The secondary lining of the shaft would also minimise the risk to lower aquifer. Seepage into the shaft would be prevented by the double lining, this should ensure that this risk is fully minimised over the asset life. No other operational effects are envisaged Summary of effects A summary of the receptor and their likely magnitude of impact from different causes are shown in the table below. Vol 18 Table 13.6.1 Groundwater resources impacts and magnitudes - operation Magnitude Negligible; piles cut down or shortened. Negligible, design of shaft would include a secondary lining Negligible, design of shaft would include a secondary lining
Impact Physical obstruction to flow in the upper aquifer and resultant rise in groundwater level (both aquifers) Seepage out of the shaft affecting groundwater quality (both aquifers) Seepage into the shaft affecting groundwater resource 13.6.10 13.6.11
The importance of the groundwater attributes remains as defined in Vol 18 Table 13.5.2 (see Section 4.6.8). A summary of significance of the effects is shown in Vol 18 Table 13.6.2. Vol 18 Table 13.6.2 Groundwater resources significance of effects operation Significance To be modelled
Effect Change in groundwater storage and flood risk as a result of physical obstruction (upper aquifer) Deterioration in water quality from seepage out upper aquifer Deterioration in water quality from seepage out lower aquifer
Negligible effect Minor adverse
13.7
13.7.1
The project has includes a number of environmental design elements (see Section 4.2). This section contains the mitigation measures to be taken to address the impacts identified within the assessment.
Page 250
Construction
13.7.2 13.7.3 The dewatering of the lower aquifer would be minimised where practicable. The ground treatment techniques within the lower part of the Lambeth Group around the connection to the main tunnel should be adapted to ensure that migration of grout into the lower aquifer is minimised. Residual effects Provided appropriate mitigation is adopted there should be no residual effects on the upper aquifer. Monitoring of groundwater levels and water quality would be part of the environmental design and should be continued for some time beyond the construction period. Post depressurisation it may take some time for the groundwater levels to recover, although the effects on the lower aquifer are not expected to be significant, ie, fully recovery expected.
13.7.4 13.7.5
Operation
13.7.6 13.7.7 No effects on the upper aquifer are identified in the operational assessment therefore no mitigation is required. Regular groundwater level monitoring to observe effects on the lower aquifer would be part of environmental design.
Page 251
Section 13: Water resources -groundwater
13.8
Vol 18 Table 13.8.1 Groundwater summary of construction assessment Effect Minor adverse None required Significance Mitigation
Assessment summary
Residual Significance Minor adverse
Receptor
Upper aquifer
Obstruction to groundwater flows causing a rise in groundwater levels Minor adverse providing groundwater levels remain above the top of the Thanet Sands / Upnor Beds. Minimise depressurisation
Lower aquifer
Lowered groundwater levels caused by dewatering/ depressurisation
Yet to be determined
Chalk abstractions
Reduced abstractions caused Minor adverse if use/integrity of by dewatering/depressurisation abstraction source is unaffected (subject to modelling) (Potentially subject to change once quantified) Negligible effect due to no known groundwater pollution
Minimise depressurisation
Yet to be determined
Upper aquifer
Deterioration in groundwater quality caused by creation of a pathway
None required, provided no contamination is confirmed in additional GI boreholes Further assessment for ES
Negligible effect
Lower aquifer
Groundwater quality deterioration from induced groundwater movement as a result of dewatering (lower aquifer) Minor adverse
Minor adverse if water table remains above top of Thanet Sands; Major adverse if water table drawn below this level.
To be determined
Lower aquifer/Chalk abstractions
Deterioration in groundwater quality caused by ground treatment
Mitigation options to be Yet to be explored in the ES determined
Page 252
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Vol 18 Table 13.8.2 Groundwater summary of operation assessment
Section 13: Water resources -groundwater
Receptor
Effect
Significance
Mitigation
Residual Significance To be determined
Upper aquifer
Change in groundwater storage and flood risk as a result of physical obstruction in upper aquifer Negligible effect design of shaft would include a secondary lining Minor Adverse design of shaft would include a secondary lining Negligible effect, design of shaft includes double lining Minor adverse, design of shaft includes double lining
To be modelled
No mitigation proposed at this point
Upper aquifer
Deterioration in groundwater quality caused by seepage out of the shaft
No mitigation proposed at this point No mitigation proposed at this point. Further assessment for ES No mitigation proposed at this point Mitigation options to be explored in the ES
Negligible effect To be determined
Upper aquifer
Seepage into shaft affecting groundwater resources
Negligible effect Yet to be determined
Page 253
13.9
13.9.1 13.9.2
No additional data collection is required at the site. The ES will include quantitative calculations on the amount of dewatering and the effects on the lower aquifer/Chalk abstractions. The approach to be used will be based on theoretical drawdown estimates. The impact of the physical obstruction post construction has yet to be modelled. The ES will also include consideration of cumulative effects as well as any interaction between groundwater and surface water resources and flood risk. Assessment of cumulative and in combination effects will be undertaken and reported in the ES. Following completion of the assessment the mitigation approaches for groundwater within the project will be finalised and reported in the ES.
13.9.3 13.9.4
13.9.5 13.9.6
Page 254
Section 14: Water resources surface water
14 14.1
14.1.1
Water resources surface water Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant surface water effects at the Heathwall Pumping Station site. The scope of the assessment is to: a. identifies the existing water resources baseline conditions; b. identifies the future base case conditions against which the project should be assessed; c. identifies both the beneficial and adverse effects of the project during construction and operation and assess the significance of the effects; and d. identifies any residual effects with respect to surface water resources potentially affected by the project, both during construction and operation. Groundwater resources are assessed separately in Section 13. Similarly land quality is addressed in Section 8. A Level 1 Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been carried out separately and is included in Section 15. In addition, it should be noted that this assessment only covers the effects of the work at the Heathwall Pumping Station (PS) site. The project-wide effects on the Thames Tideway, particularly the water quality improvements anticipated from the project are assessed separately in Volume 6.
14.1.2
14.1.3
14.2
14.2.1
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to surface water resources are described in the following sections. The Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) includes a number of measures that are important in protecting water quality and these are referred to as appropriate. Construction The site is located within the River Thames foreshore, which means that some of the proposed working area would be located within the river channel. See Volume 3 for a full description of the site. The shaft would be constructed through the upper aquifer and therefore ground treatment and dewatering would be required at this location. Disposal of dewatering effluent can have an impact on surface water resources. See Groundwater Resources (Section 13) for further details of dewatering requirements. Construction controls To prevent pollution from leaks or spillages, contaminating substances would be stored in leakproof containers, with secondary containment equal to 110% of the volume of the container, in a safe and secure building or compound. Areas for transfer of contaminating substances, including refuelling, oiling and greasing, would be similarly protected and activities would take place above drip trays or on an impermeable surface with sealed drainage or oil interceptor. All wash down of vehicles
14.2.2
14.2.3
14.2.4
Page 255
14.2.5
14.2.6 14.2.7
14.2.8
(including wheel washing) and equipment would take place in designated areas and washwater would be prevented from passing untreated into drains or holding areas prior to pumping. These measures will be detailed in the CoCP. The CoCP would be adhered to at all times and good construction techniques followed to ensure protection against pollution incidents. In addition, relevant Environment Agency guidance would be followed, including the following: a. General Guide to the Prevention of Pollution: PPG 1; b. Works and maintenance in or near water: PPG 5; c. PPG 6 Pollution prevention guidance for working at construction and demolition sites; d. Vehicle washing and cleaning: PPG 13; e. Dewatering of Underground Ducts and Chambers: PPG 20; f. Incident Response Planning: PPG 21; and g. Storage and handling of drums and intermediate bulk containers (IBCs): PPG 26. Appropriate maintenance of barges, vehicles and plant would also minimise pollution during construction. Suitable spill kits would be provided and positioned in vulnerable areas and staff would be trained in their use and a record should be kept of all pollution incidents or near-misses, to ensure appropriate action is taken and lessons are learned from incidents. Regular toolbox talks would be held to raise staff awareness of pollution prevention and share lessons learned from any recorded incidents. There would be written procedures in place for dealing with spillages and pollution (The Pollution Incident Control Plan or PICP). The PICP would contain the following as a minimum: a. guidance on the storage and use of hazardous materials with the aim of preventing and containing spills and releases; b. guidelines on the degrees of containment which take account of the nature of the materials and the sensitivity of the environment; c. procedures to be adopted in the event of a pollution incident, to contain and limit any adverse effects; d. procedures and appropriate information required in the event of any incident such as a spillage or release of a potentially hazardous material; e. systems for notifying appropriate emergency services, the EA and other relevant authorities, Thames Water and the Contractor's personnel; and f. arrangements for notifying appropriate statutory bodies and local authorities of pollution incidents where required to by legislation. Operation The operation of the tunnel would enable the interception of flows which would otherwise discharge to the Heathwall PS CSO. There would therefore be a reduction in the frequency, duration and volume of spills
Page 256
from the South West Storm Relief Sewer and Heathwall PS CSOs.
14.3
14.3.1
Assessment methodology
The construction/operational phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.
Scoping and engagement

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

14.3.3 Full results from project ground investigations were not available at the time of undertaking this assessment and as such, assessment of contamination risk from works on the foreshore (eg, sediments) and from intrusive ground works at the site have relied on existing records of contamination (see Section 8 Land Quality). The assessment of impact of foreshore works on scour and sedimentation of foreshore sediment has made use of preliminary 2-dimensional hydrodynamic modelling undertaken in support of the project design and EIA. However, Heathwall PS was not specifically modelled in the preliminary modelling and the outputs for the adjacent Tideway Walk site were used as a surrogate. Definition of Tideway conditions and current CSO operation during future base and development cases are reliant on model simulations. The model simulations are therefore performed to show the relative change in CSO discharges with a consistent set of catchment and sewer system assumptions. Future climate change simulations have not been completed at the time of compiling this report, therefore the impact of climate change on the beneficial impacts of the project will not be available until the ES is completed. The assessment of the beneficial effect of a reduction in sewage derived litter and pathogens discharged to the Tideway has been inferred from catchment modelling simulations of the reduction in discharge volume, frequency and duration and have not been directly modelled. Effects of discharges on dissolved oxygen levels in the river have been simulated using the catchment model and the Tidal Thames QUESTS model.
14.3.4
14.3.5
14.3.6
14.3.7
14.4
Baseline conditions Current conditions

Surface Water Receptors A list of surface water receptors and their status under the Water Framework Directive (WFD) is included in the table below, which are either within the vicinity of the site, or downstream of the site and therefore have the potential to be affected by the project. Due to the dilution effect of the Tideway, the effects of construction activities would be localised to the waterbodies listed below and this section only assesses the impacts local to the proposed site. Therefore,
14.4.1
14.4.2
Page 257
only the Thames Middle waterbody is considered in this assessment. Vol 18 Table 14.4.1 Surface water - receptors Water Body Name/ID Thames Middle GB5306039114 02 2015 Current Current Hydromorphological Predicted Ecological Chemical Status Ecological Quality Quality Quality Heavily Modified Moderate Potential Fail Moderate Potential 2015 Predicted Chemical Quality Fail
14.4.3
14.4.4
14.4.5
14.4.6
14.4.7
14.4.8
14.4.9
Water quality The Thames Middle waterbody (which stretches from Battersea Bridge to Mucking Flats) can be considered to be a high value water body as although its current and predicted status in 2015 (target date from River Basin Management Plan) is moderate potential, there is a status objective of good by 2027. In addition, the Thames is a valuable resource and plays an important role as a water resource and for habitat provision, amenity, recreation, and transport throughout London. Current CSO operation Using the June 2011 catchment model of the sewer system (to be updated for the ES), the current operation of the Southwest Storm Relief Sewer and Heathwall PS CSOs has been characterised and the annual average duration, frequency and volume of spill has been defined. For the Southwest Storm Relief Sewer CSO: a. the CSO spills on average of 12 times per year; b. the CSO spills for an average duration of 38 hours per year; and c. the spill volume from the CSO is approximately 227,900m3 per year. For the Heathwall PS CSO: a. the CSO spills on average of 34 times per year; b. the CSO spills for an average duration of 200 hours per year; and c. the spill volume from the CSO is approximately 654,900m3 per year. The polluting load data that is discharged from the CSO (Biochemical Oxygen Demand BOD, Ammoniacal-N and Total Oxidised Nitrogen TON) will be provided to inform the ES. Dissolved oxygen The discharges from Southwest Storm Relief Sewer and the Heathwall PS CSOs have an effect of depleting dissolved oxygen in the Thames as a result of the biological breakdown of organic matter in the discharges. This causes both a localised (at the Heathwall PS site) and more widespread (Tideway wide) cumulative effect of rapidly dropping dissolved oxygen levels. The half tide plots showing the oxygen depleting effects of the CSO discharges to the Tideway will be included in the ES.
Page 258
14.4.10
14.4.11
14.4.12
14.4.13
14.4.14
14.4.15
14.4.16
Exposure to pathogens Each discharge also increases the risk of exposure to pathogens for river users who come into contact with water. An assessment of health impacts upon recreational users of the River Thames was conducted and reported by the Health Protection Agency in 2007 (The Thames Recreational Users Study Final Report (2007), a collaborative partnership project between the City of London Port Health Authority and the Health Protection Agency). This concluded that risk of infection can remain for two to four days following a spill as the water containing the spill moves back and forward with the tide. The same study also noted that analysis of the illness events reported against discharges on the Tideway shows that 77% of cases had been rowing in three days of CSO discharge. Assuming the average 12 spills per annum at the location of the Southwest Storm Relief Sewer and 34 spills per annum at the location of the Heathwall PS CSO occur on separate days, this could lead to a maximum of 184 days per year where recreational users are at risk of exposure to pathogens in the locality. Sewage derived litter The operation of the Southwest Storm Relief Sewer and the Heathwall PS CSOs results in the discharge of sewage litter along with the discharge of effluent. It was estimated by the TTSS 32 that overflows from the combined sewers introduce approximately 10,000t of sewage derived solid material to the Thames Tideway annually. June 2011 catchment modelling of the current CSO operation defined the average volume of discharge from Southwest Storm Relief Sewer was 227,900 m3 and from the Heathwall PS CSO was 654,900m. Combined this represents approximately 2 % of the total annual volume discharged to the Thames Tideway. This suggests about 200t of sewage derived litter being discharged to the Thames Tideway from the Southwest Storm Relief Sewer and the Heathwall PS CSO annually. Receptors designated sites The River Thames and Tidal Tributaries are designated as a Site of Metropolitan Importance. There are no internationally designated hydraulically linked conservation sites within 2 km of the proposed construction site that could be affected by the construction. The effects of the overall scheme on the internationally designated sites in the Lower Thames are covered separately in Volume 6. Receptors discharges and abstractions Other than the Heathwall PS CSO and Southwest Storm Relief Sewer there are no consented discharges within 1 km of the site. There are no surface water abstractions within 1 km of the site. Contamination The search radius of historical mapping identified that the area surrounding the site has a history of past continual industrial use. GIS mapping also identified three past potential contaminated land uses, two of these were located on Elm Quay, 100m and 175m east of the site, and the third situated north of the river at River Lodge, approximately 225m
Page 259
14.4.17
14.4.18
from the site. Contamination results from groundwater testing undertaken indicated the presence of benzene in levels exceeding assessment criteria (0.01 mg/l). See land quality assessment in Section 8 for full details of on-site contamination. Foreshore During the time between high and low tide, the foreshore of the Tideway at Heathwall PS is exposed. Based on mean high and low water levels, there is up to approximately 40m of exposed foreshore and this stretch of foreshore would contain both the construction site and the operational site once construction is complete.
Base case
14.4.19 Construction base case The Lee Tunnel and the TTQI projects (improvement works at Mogden, Beckton, Crossness, Long Reach and Riverside STWs) would be operational by the time construction commences. Significant improvements in the water quality in the Tideway are anticipated as a result of these projects. The construction base case would therefore be the water quality in the Tideway with the TTQI and Lee Tunnel schemes in place. Results from modelled simulations of conditions in 2021 (as simulated model runs are only available for 2006 and 2021) with the TTQI and Lee Tunnel in place have therefore been used for the base case. Operation base case For the assessment of operational impacts, the effects have been assessed against a base case of Year 1 of operation. As described in the methodology section in Volume 5, this base case year takes account of the effects that other major schemes would have on the quality of the Thames Tideway as explained in the construction base case above. Results from modelled simulations of conditions in 2021 with the TTQI and Lee Tunnel in place have therefore been used for the base case.
14.4.20
14.4.21
14.4.22
14.5
14.5.1
Construction effects assessment

As described in Volume 5, the construction effects have been assessed for significance against the relevant WFD objectives as well as their significance against targets set by other legislation. Surface water receptors are identified in Vol 18 Table 14.4.1 . The WFD objectives as taken from Article 4 of the WFD are as follows: a. WFD1 Prevent deterioration of the status of all bodies of surface water. b. WFD2 Protect, enhance and restore all bodies of surface water, with the aim of achieving good surface water status by 2015. c. WFD3 Protect and enhance all artificial and heavily modified bodies of water, with the aim of achieving good ecological potential and good surface water chemical status by 2015. d. WFD4 Reduce pollution from priority substances and cease or phase out emissions, discharges and losses of priority hazardous
14.5.2
Page 260
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station substances.
Identification of construction impacts and effects

14.5.3 Site set-up The main pathways for impact and effect on surface water resources and associated receptors during construction at the Heathwall PS location are as a result of the requirement for a cofferdam to be constructed in the foreshore for both the main construction work and to house the permanent structures required for operation of the project at the Heathwall PS connection once construction is complete. The cofferdam would be constructed by driving sheetpiles into the river bed, which would be sealed and the water pumped out into the river channel. The cofferdam area would be backfilled with granular material loaded from a barge and the fill material spread and compacted using a tracked excavator and twin drum vibratory roller. As the works would be in the foreshore, there is a direct pathway for pollution during the construction of the cofferdam. Once constructed, the cofferdam area and the shaft construction work within it would be protected from flooding to ensure the construction activity is not affected by high water levels. This would require the cofferdam walls to be raised above the working area within the cofferdam to the required level of flood defence. Surface water from rainfall during use of the shaft construction area would therefore accumulate during the construction period and would need to be pumped periodically to ensure the working activities are not affected by ponding of rainwater. The construction of these working areas and the required pumping of rainwater during use of the construction areas therefore create a direct pathway to the river for contaminated run-off, high suspended solids and other pollution from the site during construction of the shaft and other construction works. Before release to the river, the dewatering effluent to be pumped from behind the cofferdam would be subject to settlement (using a lagoon/pond, silt trap or other suitable method) to ensure excessive levels of suspended solids are not discharged to the Tideway. In addition, the discharge would be carried out on an outgoing tide and high flows if possible, to ensure maximum mixing of the discharge and minimum impact of any increased levels of suspended solids in the discharged water. It is considered that via the proposed management of pumping out the cofferdam area, the pollution pathway can be managed sufficiently to reduce the pollution risk to negligible. It is likely that the cofferdam would impact on scour patterns while in place, which could cause the mobilisation of increased levels of suspended solids into the river. There may also be an effect on downstream river structures if the pattern of sediment movement is greatly changed. In addition, should the cofferdam cause the channel width to be significantly altered, the flow velocity of the river at this point may increase, thereby increasing contraction scour across the whole channel bed. The degree to which the cofferdam affect the scour and sediment movement in the channel would be largely dependent on the shape of the structures;
14.5.4
14.5.5
14.5.6
14.5.7
14.5.8
Page 261
14.5.9
14.5.10
14.5.11
14.5.12
14.5.13
14.5.14
14.5.15
14.5.16
the more angular the shape and the more they protrude into the channel, the greater the impact would be. Early modelling for the adjacent Tideway Walk is site in relation to scour suggests that some scouring of existing bed deposits is likely to occur. The extent of this scour will be evaluated by further modelling and will be reported in the ES, at which stage any mitigation required will also be defined. The foreshore would be reinstated after removal of temporary structures. Due to the natural circulation of sediments within the estuary, the accumulation of silts and estuarine muds is likely to occur naturally following the removal of the temporary structures. In addition, the structures would be designed and engineered to allow unimpeded flow and minimise conflict and slack water between the working site and other structures, where practicable. Good practice design would reduce the effects of scour at the face of the cofferdam, and rip-rap or gabions may be required to prevent damage to structures. This is especially important at this site, where preliminary work suggests that some scouring of existing bed deposits is likely to occur around the temporary works cofferdam. Such measures would not remove the impact pathway and hence the effects are considered in this section for their significance and requirement for specific mitigation. Site drainage Site runoff has the potential to become polluted with a number of substances during construction activities, which may include the following: a. silt and suspended solids from earthworks and exposed soils; b. oil and fuels from machinery and equipment maintenance and refuelling; c. concrete or cement from spillages during spraying and pouring; and d. hazardous substances from ground contamination exposed during earthworks and construction. These pollutants could leak to the Tideway or be directly discharged to it as part of the surface water discharge. Any effects on the adjacent Tideway from leakage or discharges would be adverse, although of short duration before remedial action was taken. The likelihood of pollution effects occurring would be greatly reduced by the use of sealed site drainage for the cofferdam area. Where possible, all site drainage would be drained and discharged to mains foul or combined sewers and where this is not practicable, the site would be drained such that accumulating surface water would be directed to holding or settling tanks, separators and other measures prior to discharge to the Tideway via pumps over the cofferdam wall. It is understood that foul drainage from the site welfare facilities would be connected to the mains foul or combined sewer. There should therefore be no impact pathway from the routine discharge of foul drainage from the site and there is considered to be no effect on the Thames Middle waterbody. It is considered that via the proposed drainage management, the pollution
Page 262
14.5.17
14.5.18
14.5.19
14.5.20
14.5.21
14.5.22
pathway can be managed sufficiently to reduce the pollution risk to negligible. There is the potential for pollution of the Thames Tideway if materials are dropped or spilled during the loading and unloading of barges, which would be moored against the existing jetty. There is also the potential for pollution from the barges themselves, such as oil or diesel spillages. Any effects on the adjacent Tideway from this impact would be adverse, although of very short duration before remedial action was taken. It is considered that via the adherence to the measures detailed in Section 14.2 during construction works, the pollution pathway can be managed sufficiently to reduce the pollution risk to negligible. Contamination and dewatering Contamination results from groundwater testing undertaken indicated the presence of benzene in levels exceeding assessment criteria (0.01 mg/l). Should significant levels of contamination be identified during the site preparation works and piling, the water pumped from behind the sheet piling would be tankered away for off-site treatment disposal at an appropriate and licensed waste treatment and disposal facility. Some dewatering of groundwater is anticipated at this site, as the shaft would be constructed through the river terrace gravels upper aquifer. The contaminants detected in the groundwater could potentially cause pollution of the receiving watercourse, if discharged at the concentrations detected in the above groundwater testing. The discharge would require a Consent to Discharge from the EA, which would set limits on the discharge ensuring no pollution of the receiving waters. Settlement of suspended solids within the dewatering would minimise the levels of contaminants within the effluent, which tend to be associated with particulates, but additional treatment of the dewatering effluent, or remediation of groundwater, may be required. The Tideway would provide dilution of the discharged groundwater and it is therefore thought unlikely that any environmental quality standards would be breached by contaminants present within the discharged water. It is considered that these measures would reduce the pollution pathway to negligible.
Assessment of impacts
14.5.23 The table below provides the assessment of effects during construction at Heathwall PS against: a. WFD environmental objectives: b. local impacts; and c. whether other legislative targets are likely to be affected.
Page 263
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Vol 18 Table 14.5.1 Surface water construction impact assessment Duration and Reversibility WFD1 WFD2 WFD3 Local effects or Other Legislative effects The change in f the foreshore is considered to have an impact local to Heathwall PS. The effect is not considered to result in deterioratio n of the Thames Middle status. N/A The Thames Middle is a heavily modified waterbody and only needs to achieve good potential. WFD Objectives met? WFD4
Impact
Water body
Assessment and likely effect
Compaction of foreshore and change in geomorphology (cofferdam construction)
Thames Middle
Landtake from the Temporary river channel with an until end of associated temporary construction. loss of foreshore Largely Whilst this would be reversible as re-instated postsome construction, there foreshore would be a period of reinstatemen time where the t would geomorphology of occur. the foreshore is altered until foreshore mud is redeposited via natural process. Temporary until end of construction. Largely reversible as some foreshore reinstatement would occur. The change in geomorphology of the foreshore is considered to have an impact local to Heathwall PS. The scour rates are considered The effect is not considered to result in deterioratio n of the Thames N/A The Thames Middle is a heavily modified waterbody and only needs to
Although the effect would potentially prevent enhanceme nt and protection of the Thames Middle, the effect is considered to be reversible and temporary. Although the effect would potentially prevent enhanceme nt and protection of the Thames
Increased scour and changes to sediment movement which may affect nearby infrastructure in the foreshore (campsheds
Thames Upper
Loss of river bed and increased suspended solids from scour around the base of the cofferdam and campsheds. Changes to sediment movement which may remove sediment at other
Page 264
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Duration and Reversibility WFD1 WFD2 WFD3 Local effects or Other Legislative effects to have an effect locally and more widely in terms of potential effect on the structural integrity of flood defences. Temporary effect. Reversible as construction cofferdam area would be removed when construction complete. The water quality and aesthetic effect is considered to have an effect locally in the context of local river users. The effect on water quality and aesthetics is not considered to result in deterioratio n of the Thames Middle status of moderate N/A The Thames Middle is a heavily modified waterbody and only needs to achieve good potential. Middle status. achieve good potential Middle, the effect is considered to be reversible and temporary. The effect would not alter overall water quality in the Thames Middle. WFD Objectives met? WFD4
Impact
Water body
and cofferdams)
sites.
Alteration of flow regime which may cause slack or dead water, leading to the accumulation of debris or pollutants
Thames Upper
The new cofferdam could lead to the accumulation of debris or pollutants between the cofferdam and other structures.
Page 265
Significance of effect
14.5.24 The table below identifies the significance of the effects identified in accordance with the criteria set out in Volume 5. Vol 18 Table 14.5.2 Surface water significance of effects construction
Effect
Significance and justification
Damage to and temporary loss of foreshore (due to campshed and cofferdam construction)
Minor adverse All WFD objectives can be met. Reinstatement would be possible postconstruction and natural process would result in re-deposition and recovery of foreshore from the construction area. The effect is considered to have a local effect during recovery as the morphology of the foreshore would be altered, but the effect is reversible and not considered to be significant. Moderate adverse Modelling has shown that scour may occur at cofferdam. This is not considered to adversely affect attainment of WFD objectives, but it is considered significant at the local scale and could impact on integrity of flood defences. Further assessment will be undertaken and reported in the ES. Minor adverse The water quality effect would not prevent WFD objectives being met, and the water impact is considered to have a local effect that is reversible once construction is complete.
Increased scour and changes to sediment movement which may affect nearby sites (due to campsheds and cofferdams)
Alteration of flow regime which may cause slack or dead water, leading to the accumulation of debris or pollutants
14.6
14.6.1
As with the construction effects, the assessment has defined the WFD objectives and the waterbodies affected.
Identification of operational impacts and effects

14.6.2 Permanent foreshore development Following construction of the shaft and the connection of the Southwest Storm Relief Sewer and Heathwall PS CSOs to the main tunnel, the shaft would continue to provide an operational function for the project, and as well as a permanent access point to the shaft, would require other above ground structures. This would require a permanent area of land to be created around the shaft and above ground features which would include a new defence line to maintain the standard of protection at the current site.
Page 266
14.6.4
14.6.5
14.6.6
14.6.7
14.6.8
This would result in a direct loss of foreshore (approximately 250m2, exact area to be confirmed for in the ES) from the hydro-morphology of the river. It is also likely that the new area of landtake would impact on scour patterns which could alter the geomorphology of the foreshore and may also have an effect on downstream river structures if the pattern of sediment movement is greatly changed. In addition, should the permanent landtake cause the channel width to be significantly altered, the flow velocity of the river at this point may increase, thereby increasing contraction scour across the whole channel bed. The degree to which the new area of landtake affects the scour and sediment movement in the channel would be largely dependent on the shape of the cofferdam; the more angular the shape and the more it protrudes into the channel, the greater the impact would be. The area of permanent landtake would be designed and engineered to minimise the change in velocity around the structure and hence minimise subsequent effects of scour and sedimentation around the structure and downstream. The design would need to take into account minimisation of land take to ensure minimal encroachment into foreshore (in keeping with EA policy on foreshore encroachment). However, the good practice design would not remove the impact pathway and hence the effects are considered in this section for their significance and requirement for specific mitigation. Reduction in CSO spills The operation of the Southwest Storm Relief Sewer and the Heathwall PS CSO connections as part of the project as a whole would have a beneficial effect on water quality, bacteriological quality and aesthetic value in the Heathwall PS locality and beyond by substantially reducing the frequency, duration and volume of discharges from the two CSOs into the Thames. June 2011 catchment modelling of the operational base case has simulated that by Year 1 of operation (assessed to be 2021 to use modelled assumptions) the frequency, duration and volume of the Southwest Storm Relief Sewer would have increased (as a result of increased population) beyond the current baseline to the following: a. the CSO would spill on average of 13 times in the typical year (the same as the current baseline); b. the CSO would spill for an average duration of 40 hours in the typical year (1 hour greater than the current baseline); and c. the spill volume from the CSO would be approximately 238,400m3 in the typical year (10,500m3 greater than the current baseline). For the Heathwall PS June 2011 catchment modelling shows that Year 1 of operation (assessed to be 2021 to use modelled assumptions) the frequency, duration and volume of discharge would have increased (as a result of an increased population) beyond the current baseline to the following: a. the CSO would spill on average of 38 times in the typical year (5 times more than the current baseline); b. the CSO would spill for an average duration of 246 hours in the typical year (46 hours greater than the current baseline); and
Page 267
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station c. 14.6.9
14.6.10
14.6.11
14.6.12
14.6.13
14.6.14 14.6.15
the spill volume from the CSO would be approximately 748,300m3 in the typical year (93,400m greater than the current baseline). The number of risk days for river users being exposed to pathogens from the two CSOs during the base case year would be a maximum of 204 days in the typical year. June 2011 catchment modelling of the operational development case has simulated that by Year 1 of operation (assessed to be 2021 to use modelled assumptions) with the project in place the frequency, duration and volume of the Southwest Storm Relief Sewer would have substantially decreased (as a result of the capture of wastewater flow into the tunnel) to the following: a. the CSO would spill on average once in the typical year (12 times less than the base case); b. the CSO would spill for an average duration of 3 hours in the typical year (35 hours less than the base case); and c. the spill volume from the CSO would be approximately 3,900m3 in the typical year (234, 500m3 less than the current baseline). With the project in place the frequency, duration and volume of the Heathwall PS CSO would also have substantially decreased (as a result of the capture of wastewater flow into the tunnel) to the following: a. the CSO would spill on average 4 times in the typical year (34 times less than the base case); b. the CSO would spill for an average duration of 26 hours in the typical year (220 hours less than the base case); and c. the spill volume from the CSO would be approximately 62,500m3 in the typical year (685,800m3 less than the current baseline). The frequency, duration and volume of spill from the Southwest Storm Relief Sewer and the Heathwall PS CSO at the Heathwall PS site would therefore be reduced by approximately 92%. The number of risk days for river users being exposed to pathogens at the Heathwall PS site during the development case year would be a maximum of 20 in the typical year (a reduction of up to 164 days of risk of exposure). In addition, the tonnage of sewage derived litter can be expected to be reduced by approximately 92%. From 200t to 16t in the typical year. The data for the reduction in polluting load that is discharged from the CSO (Biochemical Oxygen Demand BOD, Ammoniacal-N and Total Oxidised Nitrogen TON) will be provided in the ES.
Assessment of impacts
14.6.16 The table below provides the assessment of impacts during operation of the Heathwall PS site against: a. WFD environmental objectives b. local impacts c. whether other legislative targets are likely to be affected. As discussed, overall Tideway-wide benefits are discussed in Volume 6 and this section only assesses the beneficial impacts local to the proposed site at Heathwall PS. Therefore, only the Thames Upper and Middle
Page 268
14.6.17
waterbodies are considered in the assessment for Heathwall PS.
Page 269
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Vol 18 Table 14.6.1 Surface water impact assessment - operation Duration and Reversibility WFD 1 WFD 2 WFD 3 WFD Objectives met? WFD 4 Local effects or Other Legislative effects The change in f the foreshore is considered to have an impact local to Heathwall PS The scour rates may have an effect locally and more widely in terms of potential effect on the structural integrity of flood defences Due to the size of the permanent landtake, the effect is not considered to result in deterioratio n of the Thames Middle status via hydromorp hology. N/A The Thames Middle is a heavily modified waterbody and only needs to achieve good potential.
Impact
Water body
Geomorphol Thames ogical Middle changes as a result of permanent land take. Permanent. Not reversible.
Landtake from the river channel with an associated permanent loss of foreshore River velocities likely to be altered having an adverse impact on scour and sedimentation, potentially affecting flood defences and structure integrity of downstream infrastructure.
x Although the effect would limited to the Heathwall PS locality permanent encroachme nt may prevent morphologic al enhanceme nt and would result in permanent loss of foreshore within the channel morphology.
Page 270
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Duration and Reversibility WFD 1 WFD 2 WFD 3 WFD Objectives met? WFD 4 Local effects or Other Legislative effects The water quality local to Heathwall PS would be improved and would ensure that the operation of the Southwest Storm Relief Sewer and the Heathwall PS CSOs comply with the requirements of the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive N/A The Thames Middle is a heavily modified waterbody and only needs to achieve good potential Along with the project as a whole, the Southwest Storm Relief Sewer and Heathwall PS connections would enhance the water quality of the tideway helping to move the Thames Middle towards good ecological status The bacteriological improvement
Page 271
Impact
Water body
Reduced spill frequency, duration and volume from the Heathwall PS and Southwest Storm Relief Sewer CSOs. Permanent. Reversibility dependent on operation of the tunnel.
Thame s Middle
Improved water quality in the vicinity of the Heathwall PS CSO and the Southwest Storm Relief Sewer by reduced pollutant loading and not reducing dissolved oxygen levels. Contribution to the overall Tidewaywide water quality improvements
Capture of the Heathwa ll PS sewage and the Southwe st Storm Relief sewage would reduce pollution from priority substanc es at the Heathwa ll PS location
Reduced bacterial loadings of
Thames Upper and
Risk of exposure days to pathogens would be reduced
Permanent. Reversibility dependent on
N/A The effect is not relevant to WFD objectives
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Duration and Reversibility WFD 1 WFD 2 WFD 3 WFD Objectives met? WFD 4 Local effects or Other Legislative effects effect is considered to have an effect locally in the context of local river users. The sewage derived litter reduction effect is considered to have an effect locally in the context of local river users. N/A The effect is not relevant to WFD objectives
Impact
Water body
the river Middle giving health improvemen ts to river users Permanent Reversibility dependent on operation of the tunnel
to a maximum of 16 days in the typical year (a reduction of up to 176 days of risk of exposure)
operation of the tunnel.
Reduced sewage litter discharge
Thames Upper and Middle
Sewage derived litter discharge at Heathwall PS would be reduced by approximately 92% in the typical year improving the aesthetic quality of the river locally
Page 272
Significance of operational effect

14.6.18 The table identifies the significance of the effects identified in accordance with the criteria set out in Volume 5. Vol 18 Table 14.6.2 Surface water significance of effects - operation Significance and justification Moderate adverse WFD objective 3 may be prevented from being attained Major beneficial The improvements would allow for the future attainment of Good status under objective 3 in combination with the improvements elsewhere in the Tideway and would also ensure that operation of the Southwest Storm Relief Sewer complies with the requirements of the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive Moderate beneficial The improvements would not adversely affect WFD or other legislative drivers, but would significantly improve conditions for river users at Heathwall PS and in the Thames Upper and Middle as a whole Moderate beneficial The improvements would not adversely affect WFD or other legislative drivers, but would significantly improve aesthetic conditions for river users and recreational use at Heathwall PS and in the Thames Upper and Middle as a whole
Effect
Geomorphological changes as a result of permanent land take
Reduced spill frequency, duration and volume from the Southwest Storm Relief Sewer.
Reduced bacterial loadings of the river giving health improvements to river users
14.7
14.7.1
The assessment of significant effects for both construction and operation has highlighted two adverse effects that would require mitigation to reduce their significance: a. damage to and temporary loss of foreshore during campshed and cofferdam construction; b. increased scour and changes to sediment movement which may affect nearby sites, during campsheds and cofferdams construction. Additional modelling of some of the required foreshore sites is underway which would be used to inform potential impact at Heathwall PS and the mitigation required; however results were not available to inform the design to mitigate the effects on scour. This assessment and any
Page 273
14.7.2
14.7.3
proposal for mitigation would therefore be included in the ES. Mitigation for protection of flood defences would be identified once the modelling results are available and the scour assessment has been concluded. Any mitigation is likely to take the form of gabions or other protective measures at the base of flood defences and bridge abutments to minimise scour effects.
Page 274
14.8
Significance of effect Minor adverse As yet defined Moderate adverse As yet defined Minor adverse As yet defined As yet defined Mitigation Significance of residual effect As yet defined As yet defined
Assessment summary
Vol 18 Table 14.8.1 Surface water summary of construction assessment
Receptor
Thames Middle
Damage to and temporary loss of foreshore (campshed and cofferdam construction)
Thames Middle
Increased scour and changes to sediment movement which may affect nearby sites (campsheds and cofferdams)
Thames Middle
Alteration of flow regime which may cause slack or dead water, leading to the accumulation of debris or pollutants Significance of effect Major beneficial
Vol 18 Table 14.8.2 Surface water summary of operation assessment Mitigation Significance of residual effect None proposed Major beneficial
Receptor
Thames Middle
Reduced spill frequency, duration and volume from the Southwest Storm Relief Sewer
Thames Middle
Reduced bacterial loadings of the river giving health improvements to river users
Moderate beneficial Moderate beneficial
None proposed
Moderate beneficial None proposed Moderate beneficial
Thames Middle
Page 275
14.9
14.9.1
Any additional information on potential contamination of the site, collected as part of new site investigations (see Section 6 land quality), will be used to inform the baseline for the ES. At the time of writing this assessment, further water quality modelling was underway to determine the relative beneficial improvements that would accrue for other water quality improvements such as Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Ammoniacal Nitrogen. These results will be included in the ES, as will the assessment of cumulative and in combination effects. This will include the impact of climate change on the beneficial impacts of the project. Physical modelling of some of the foreshore sites is underway. Results were not available to inform the design to mitigate the effects on scour. Following completion of the assessment the mitigation approaches for surface water resources within the project will be finalised and reported in the ES. Mitigation for protection of flood defences will be identified once the physical modelling results are available and the scour assessment has been concluded. This will allow assessment of significance of any residual effect after mitigation has been developed for the final scheme design.
14.9.2
14.9.3 14.9.4
14.9.5
Page 276
Section 15: Water resources flood risk
15 15.1
15.1.1
Water resources flood risk Introduction

This section presents a Level 1 FRA which assesses the flood risk from all flood sources both to and from the proposed Heathwall Pumping Station site as a result of development. This Level 1 Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) is in line with the requirements of Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk (PPS25) vi and covers the construction and operation phases. This assessment makes use of the PPS25 Practice Guide 33 and is consistent with the outputs and findings of the Thames Estuary 2100 Plan (TE2100)34 and the policy requirements of the London Plan 35. Borough specific documents have been reviewed in addition to other relevant flood risk planning, policy and legislative documents. This Level 1 FRA is supported by 2D hydrodynamic modelling, undertaken to assess flood risk effects for the project as a whole (Volume 5) and for specific sites (Volumes 7 to 28). The FRA comprises four parts, which can be found in the following volumes: a. Volume 5 contains Part A of the FRA: Common sections relevant to all sites, including assessment methodology. b. Volume 6 contains Part B of the FRA: Project-wide risk assessment section. c. Volumes 7-28 contain Part C and Part D of the FRA: Individual risk assessment sections for every site (Part C) where flood risk is considered as an issue, organised according to London Borough (this Part) which precede the conclusions for each site (Part D). As explained in Volume 5, a Level 1 FRA is an assessment of flood risk based on information available at the time of undertaking the assessment. Where further detailed assessment (including modelling and calculations) is required to define flood risk or required mitigation, this is undertaken to support a Level 2 or more detailed Level 3 FRA. The aim of this part of the Level 1 FRA is to assess the effects of flood risk from all sources at the site, both to the site and from the site to surrounding areas. The purpose of this section is to highlight the key issues for the design team and provide a preliminary assessment of flood risk issues. A more detailed assessment will be completed in the ES. Considering the nature of the project, the length of construction period at the site and the location of the site within the Thames Tideway, it is important that flood risk is assessed both during the construction phase and the operational phase taking into consideration climate change over the lifetime of the project. The project involves construction works at many sites throughout London. Many of these sites are situated within close proximity to, or within, the
15.1.2
15.1.3
15.1.4
15.1.5
15.1.6
15.1.7
15.1.8
15.1.9
15.1.10
vi
Communities and Local Government (March 2010). Planning Policy Statement 25 Development and Flood Risk.
Page 277
15.1.11
River Thames or other watercourses. According to PPS25, any development located within Flood Zones 2 vii or 3 viii or greater than 1ha and situated within Flood Zone 1 ix should be accompanied by a FRA. The FRA will be required to demonstrate how flood risk from all sources of flooding to the development and from the development will be managed now and in the future as a consequence of climate change for the lifetime of the development. The objectives of this section are to satisfy the requirements of PPS25 in relation to this site.
15.2
15.2.1
Policy considerations
The proposed development of a shaft and associated structures is classified as water and sewage transmission infrastructure including docks, marinas and wharfs which is classified as water-compatible development and compatible within all flood zones within PPS25.Regulatory position
15.3
15.3.1
Regulatory position Overview

General policy documents (eg, PPS25) have been reviewed within Volume 5. The following should be read in conjunction with that Volume
Local policy
15.3.2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) The Heathwall PS site lies within the London Borough of Wandsworth. The Borough has produced Level 1 and Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessments (SFRA) 36. These outline the main flood sources to the Borough and present the outcomes of the hydraulic modelling completed as part of the Level 2 study to investigate the residual risk of breaches in the Thames Tideway Defences at a number of locations along the River Thames. The Wandsworth SFRA confirms that the Thames Tidal Defence network (Thames Barrier and Tidal flood defence walls) reduces the annual probability of flooding from the Thames to less than 0.1%. The risk of flooding is therefore a residual risk associated with a breach in the defences. The SFRA advocates the use of flood resilience and resistant measures. These should be adopted during the construction and operation phases of the project. According to the SFRA: a. the site overlies London Clay b. it is within the Bermondsey Tidal Flood Warning Area and the Environment Agency (EA) Flood Zone 3
15.3.3
15.3.4
15.3.5
vii
Flood Zone 2 is defined as medium probability, assessed as having between a 1% and 0.1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) of river flooding or between a 0.5% and 0.1% AEP of sea flooding in any year viii Flood Zone 3 is defined as high probability, assessed as having a 1% or greater AEP of river flooding or a 0.5% or greater AEP of sea flooding in any year ix Flood Zone 1 is defined as low probability, assessed as having less than a 0.1% AEP of river or sea flooding in any year
Page 278
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station c.
15.3.6
15.3.7
the site is situated within an area identified as having increased risk of surface water ponding based on topography, geology and historic flooding records d. safe access/egress is required from the site to a suitable location within Flood Zone 1. There are a number of schools within the locality which could act as rest centres during times of flood. In terms of emergency planning during the construction phase, the SFRA has identified rest and reception centres as Leisure Centre, Churches, Schools and Community Centres. The SFRA promotes the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) suitable to specific site locations within the Borough, depending on underlying geology. These must however be adopted and adequately maintained post-construction to ensure design operation into the future. Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) The Borough is working in partnership with the Greater London Authority (GLA), Thames Water and the EA to produce a SWMP as part of the Drain London Project. This is scheduled for completion in autumn 2011.
Environment Agency policy

15.3.8 Thames Estuary 2100 (TE2100) The site lies within the Wandsworth to Deptford Policy Unit which has been assigned the P5 flood risk management policy within the TE2100 Plan 37 meaning that further action will be taken to reduce flood risk beyond that required to keep pace with climate change. The TE2100 Plan identifies the local sources of flood risk (relative to the Heathwall PS site) as including: a. tidal flooding from the River Thames b. a risk of groundwater flooding from superficial strata which is possibly connected to high water levels in the Thames. Defences from these sources include: a. the Thames Barrier and secondary tidal defences along the Thames frontage (both making up the Thames Tidal Defences) b. Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) for mitigation of urban drainage c. flood forecasting and warning. The TE2100 Plan seeks to promote, where possible, defence improvements that are sensitive to ensure views are maintained and impacts to river access/views are minimised. Where defence raising in the future as a consequence of climate change is not possible, secondary defences and floodplain management should be introduced. There is also the vision to increase flood risk awareness within the area.
15.3.9
15.3.10
15.3.11
Regional policy
15.3.12 London Regional Flood Risk Appraisal (RFRA) For the reach between Hammersmith Bridge and the Thames Barrier (City Reach) the London RFRA 38 encourages small scale set back of development from the river walls where possible. The aim of this is to enable modification, raising and maintenance in a sustainable, environmentally acceptable and cost effective way. Development should
Page 279
15.3.13
15.3.14
be designed in such a way as to take opportunities to reduce flood risk and include resilience. There is particular concern surrounding confluences and the interactions between tidal and fluvial flows in the future due to climate change. This should be taken into consideration during the re-development process. The RFRA indicates that SUDS should be included within developments to reduce surface water discharge.
15.4
15.4.1
Assessment of flood risk Overview

The flood risk from all potential flood sources (as listed in Annex C of PPS25) to the site, and from the site as a result of the development, is assessed in the following section. For a discussion on project-wide effects see Volume 6. In summary, initial hydraulic computation modelling indicates that the influence of the project as a whole on the River Thames (tidal and fluvial) flood levels is minimal and is unlikely to exacerbate flood risk.
15.4.2
Flood sources
Flooding from sea (and tidal sources) Flood risk to the site The site is situated to the north of Nine Elms Lane and comprises two parts: western and eastern. The western construction part of the site is situated around the existing PS with the interception and valve chamber within the channel of the River Thames, on the southern foreshore area immediately to the north of the existing Heathwall PS. The eastern part of the site is situated on the River Thames frontage, behind the existing flood defence wall and adjacent to Nine Elms Lane. The eastern part of the site is known as Middle Wharf, which is designated as a safeguarded wharf. Currently, the local flood defences are aligned to the south of the western foreshore part of the site and to the north of the eastern part of the site (ie the western foreshore area of the site is not defended from the River Thames other than by the Thames Barrier itself, whereas the western land based construction area and Middle Wharf is protected by the Thames Barrier and local flood defences). The western foreshore part of the site is therefore considered to be within Flood Zone 3b of the River Thames: Flood Zone 3b is defined as land where water has to flow or be stored in times of flood. Middle Wharf is considered to be within Flood Zone 3a and benefits from the presence of flood defences. The location of the site in relation to the flood zones is illustrated in Vol 18 Figure 15.4.1. Vol 18 Figure 15.4.1 Flood risk EA flood zones (see Volume 18 Figures document) The western foreshore part of the site would therefore be at risk of flooding from tidal water levels if left undefended both during construction and operation. During the construction of the western site, the cofferdam area would be defended from flooding to the same standard as the existing local Thames
15.4.3
15.4.4
15.4.5
15.4.6
15.4.7
Page 280
15.4.8
15.4.9
15.4.10
15.4.11
15.4.12
15.4.13
15.4.14
15.4.15
Tidal Defences. The Thames Tidal Defences situated between the proposed foreshore area of the site and the land would be removed to allow site access. All temporary works would adopt a defence level equal with the existing local defence levels and where existing defences are removed, replacement defences are constructed to EA requirements, to an appropriate standard and tied in with the local flood defences along the frontage prior to removal of the existing defences. This would ensure the protection of the temporary working area to the same standard as the surrounding area and ensure the local area is protected from flood risk originating from the River Thames at all times. The smaller permanent operational area would also be protected from flooding through the provision of defences to a level analogous with the existing local defence levels. The defences to be provided along the periphery of the operational area would tie with the existing defences, providing a continuous defence line along the embankment at all times. The removal of a section of defence, the tie in of the new flood defences for construction and operational sites and the construction of a replacement defence would require works to the existing defences and consequently would require Flood Defence Consent from the EA (Flood Defence Consent has to be obtained prior to any works on the flood defences, or around the flood defences with the potential to impact these structures). The structural integrity of the defences would be maintained throughout the project. Defences and the river wall (temporary or permanent) would be designed to take all potential loadings (applied or accidental). The new flood defences and site layout would be designed such that they are easily accessible for maintenance purposes into the future (eg, if the wall is rendered, there should be removable areas to allow inspection of the defence wall behind). Where possible, the walls would be designed so that they can be inspected from the land. The design standard of the existing defences is stated by the EA to be at the 0.1% AEP level. There would be an additional freeboard on top of the crest level. In reality, the defence levels along the River Thames vary and are generally in excess of the 0.1% AEP standard of protection with a freeboard. The EA has stated that the defence level at this location is 5.41mAOD and this defence level would be maintained for the new defences constructed for the cofferdam during construction and the permanent site during operation. This existing level would be confirmed with defence survey information, requested from the EA for the Level 2 FRA to be prepared for the ES. The most extreme flood risk to the site in this location would be as a result of a high tide combined with a storm surge (with the Thames Barrier operational); this is considered to be the EA flood design event. Ground levels on the proposed site (not foreshore) are approximately 4.5mAOD (ground levels in the foreshore are generally less than 1mAOD and reduce further north and into the tideway). The proposed cover level
Page 281
15.4.16
15.4.17
15.4.18
15.4.19
15.4.20
15.4.21
15.4.22
15.4.23
15.4.24
of the shaft is therefore 4.5mAOD. The proposed level of the interception and valve chamber is 5.4mAOD, and a 100mm kicker would be constructed around the periphery to provide the 5.41mAOD flood defence level. The cover of the existing surface water storm relief riser shaft and flap valve chamber would be raised to 5.41mAOD. The tidal flood levels in the vicinity of the site for the EA flood design event are: a. 5.01mAOD for the 0.5% AEP 2005 b. 4.99mAOD for the 0.5% AEP 2107 (ie with climate change). This data is taken from the EA Tidal Thames Joint Probability Extreme Water Levels Study 39. This indicates that the proposed shaft location and interception and valve chamber, which would benefit from the current and new Thames Tidal Defences respectively, would not flood under the above return periods. If however there was a breach in the local Thames Tidal Defences, the site could flood as the above flood water levels are higher than the ground and proposed shaft level of 4.5mAOD. It should be noted that water levels decrease in the future due to the Thames Barrier closure rule (see Volume 5) such that the 2005 scenario produces the highest water levels. The TE2100 Plan indicates that a higher level of protection will be required to protect areas along the river. This is due to a greater number of Barrier closures being necessary as water levels increase and due to the possibility that higher tides could propagate upstream of the Barrier should the Barrier fail. At the Heathwall PS, defences would be required to be raised to 5.85mAOD and 6.35mAOD for 2065 and 2100 respectively in line with the requirements of the TE2100 Plan. Part of the TE2100 Plan is to consider ways in which this future raising will be achieved for current flood defences. In association with this, new defences constructed for the operation of the Heathwall PS site would be designed such that defence raising in the future to match these levels as indicated in the TE2100 Plan can be achieved. Where possible, views of the river should be maintained and amenity uses achieved. The EA has also used the Tidal Thames Joint Probability Extreme Water Levels Study to investigate water levels within the Thames in the absence of the Thames Barrier, ie, when the Barrier is not closed (it is assumed that a partial closure would influence flood levels upstream of the barrier). This shows tidal flood levels within the River Thames are 5.98mAOD for the 0.5% AEP 2005 and 6.84mAOD for the 0.5% AEP 2107. Under this modelled scenario, the site would be flooded as the water level is above the existing local flood defence level and that proposed for the construction site and operational site. However, because the Thames Barrier is a key component of the Thames Tidal defences, these levels are not used for the EA flood design event when considering the required flood prevention measures for new development. As part of the Wandsworth SFRA, 2D hydrodynamic modelling was undertaken at 6 locations along the Thames frontage, specified by the EA,
Page 282
15.4.25
15.4.26
15.4.27
15.4.28
15.4.29
15.4.30
15.4.31
15.4.32
to simulate the impact of a breach in the flood defences. One of the selected breach locations (P4) is located on the Heathwall PS site. The results from this modelling indicate that the eastern part of the site would be inundated by floodwaters. Maximum depths of approximately 0.7m would be experienced on the eastern site during the 0.5% AEP return period for 2005. It is noted that this modelling was completed in 2008 and uses conservative water levels, available prior to the update to the Tidal Thames Joint Probability Extreme Water Levels Study (2008) that have been referred to within this report. The SFRA shows that there are no records of flooding of the site area during any historic flood events (note, this does not mean the site was not flooded, only that no data is held). Although part of the site (ie the western part) is to be constructed and operated on the channel side of the defences, new defences would be built and maintained both during construction and operation to a level commensurate with the standard of protection afforded by the existing defences. At no point during the development of the site would the local defence line be broken. The standard of protection of the current defences (and hence new defences) and the operation of the Thames Barrier are such that tidal flooding up to the EA flood design event (0.5% AEP 2005) does not pose a direct flood risk to the site. Flood risk to the site from tidal sources is therefore residual in the event that there is a breach (or failure) of the existing or new defences to be constructed and tidal water could enter the site. If there was a localised breach in the defences adjacent to a site, flood water could flow on to the site, cover the shaft and inundate any ventilation, monitoring or associated operation equipment. As the shaft lids are covered (although not watertight) there would be a limited amount of water that could enter the tunnel though the space between the lid and the shaft. Ventilation and monitoring equipment may be damaged by flood water (if not installed above the flood level); however, this quantity would not endanger the primary function of the tunnel which is to collect, store and transfer discharges from CSOs. Flood risk from the site The flow within the River Thames would be modified by the presence of the permanent and temporary works. This may lead to an increase in scour or deposition rates on adjacent areas within the river and to river structures, including flood defences It is likely that the cofferdam would impact on scour and deposition patterns while in place. There may also be an effect on downstream flood defences and river structures if the pattern of sediment movement is greatly changed. In addition, should the permanent and temporary works (cofferdam) cause the channel width to be significantly altered, the flow velocity of the river at this point may increase, thereby increasing contraction scour across the whole channel bed. The Scour study undertaken to date concludes that localised scouring could occur around the temporary works, which could cause increased
Page 283
15.4.33
15.4.34
15.4.35
15.4.36
15.4.37
15.4.38
15.4.39
damage to the foreshore and have a significant effect on the integrity of the cofferdam and flood defences adjacent to the working areas. At the time of compiling this report, this modelling was being supported by the construction of physical models of foreshore works at several foreshore sites; however, outputs from the physical models were not available to inform the Level 1 FRA, and will be used to support the development of any specific mitigation in the Level 2 FRA within the ES. Until the physical modelling and updated scour assessment is undertaken, it is considered that the risk of scour or deposition impacting on the flood defences should be considered as medium x. The presence of temporary and permanent structures within the foreshore associated with the construction and operation of the Heathwall PS site has the potential to reduce the available flood storage within the channel of the Tidal Thames. This impact of reduced flood storage could have the effect of increasing water levels during certain hydrological conditions (high fluvial flows or high tides), thereby increasing flood levels and potentially increasing the risk of flooding. The effect of removal of flood storage on flood levels is not one felt directly at a local level as a result of the proposed site alone. The effect is propagated throughout the hydrological unit of the Thames reach and as a result it is not possible to say what effect the foreshore encroachment at Heathwall PS would have on water levels local to the site. Instead, the foreshore encroachment impact on flood storage and the resultant effect on water levels and flood risk have therefore been considered on a cumulative basis for all foreshore sites using 2D hydraulic computational modelling and the effects on flood risk are assessed on a project-wide basis and reported in Volume 6. The excavation process using TBMs to construct the tunnel has the potential to impact on settlement in some cases which could affect the level of some of the defences. A project-wide study into the potential impacts of the tunnel excavation on settlement of third party assets including flood defences is being undertaken. The proposed main shaft tunnel alignment does not pass under the existing defences in the immediate vicinity of the Heathwall PS site; however, the secondary tunnel connecting the shaft to flows from the north side of the river and to the main tunnel does pass under the Thames Tidal Defences in two locations at the Heathwall PS site. The project-wide effects of excavation will be assessed for flood defence impact when complete and any relevant assessment for Heathwall PS defences will be included in the Level 2 FRA within the ES. Until further information is available, the risk of impact to flood defences, and hence potential increase in flood risk at this site due to structural modifications of the defences due to the tunnelling, is considered to be medium.
The assessment of flood risk is a qualitative assessment based on expert opinion see Volume 5 for further details.
Page 284
15.4.40
15.4.41
15.4.42
15.4.43
15.4.44
15.4.45
15.4.46 15.4.47
15.4.48
15.4.49
Flooding from rivers Aside from the impact of fluvial flows on flood levels of the River Thames at this location, the Heathwall PS site is not situated within the floodplain of any fluvial watercourses. The EA Tidal Thames Defences Joint Probability Extreme Water Levels Study uses a combination of different factors including astronomical tides, tide surge and fluvial river flows to produce an estimation of the peak high water levels within the Tidal Thames during a combined event. This methodology assumes that no combination of fluvial events with tidal conditions produces a higher flood level than the worst case combined tidal storm surge conditions. Water levels influenced by high fluvial flow alone would therefore be lower than the combined event assessed and hence the assessment of fluvial risk from the Thames is considered to be included within the assessment of flood risk from tidal sources in the previous section. Flood risk to the site from fluvial sources alone is therefore considered to be negligible. Flooding from land and surface water runoff Flood risk to the site The Wandsworth SFRA shows that the site is situated within an area with increased risk of surface water ponding based on topography, geology and historic flooding records. According to the Wandsworth SFRA, there are no surface water flooding hot spots within the vicinity of the site. This assessment will be updated for the Level 2 FRA when Critical Drainage Area (CDA) mapping is made available for the Wandsworth SWMP through the Drain London Project later in 2011. Surface water flooding could originate from any surrounding hardstanding land where infiltration (into the ground or the local sewer network) is exceeded or the local sewer is at capacity and surcharging occurs. There is a decline in ground levels from the east to the site and so there is the potential for overland flow, generated in surrounding hard standing areas, flowing onto the site. Flood risk to the site from this source is considered to be low. Flood risk from the site The site comprises two elements; the western part which includes a permanent protrusion into the River Thames foreshore, and the eastern part (known as Middle Wharf) which is situated on the frontage and is currently entirely hardstanding. The proposed development on Middle Wharf would not increase the area of hardstanding. However, the creation of the permanent western site would increase the area of hardstanding and increase the runoff rates and volumes generated as a result. PPS25 states that runoff post development should not be greater than runoff pre development in order to not increase the risk of flooding either downstream or on surrounding land. The London Plan aims towards greenfield runoff rates and the Mayors Draft Water Strategy 40 also aims for greenfield runoff and has an essential standard of 50% attenuation to
Page 285
15.4.50
15.4.51
15.4.52 15.4.53 15.4.54
15.4.55
15.4.56
15.4.57
the undeveloped sites surface water runoff at peak times (see Volume 5). The western part of the Heathwall PS site is located on the southern foreshore of the River Thames and has been considered as an undeveloped greenfield site in terms of surface water management. Due to the foreshore location of the western part of the site, surface water runoff naturally drains directly to the River Thames without inundating surrounding land. Surface water runoff rates and attenuation volumes are indicative and will be confirmed during the subsequent Level 2 FRA. Existing and post development runoff rates have been calculated for both the river frontage area (700m2) and foreshore area (265m2) of the site. The undeveloped greenfield surface water runoff rates for the 1% AEP + 30% for climate change event have been calculated using the ICP SUDS rural runoff method in Micro Drainage WinDes Version 12.5 software. A soil factor of 0.4, which represents moderately draining silty soils, has been used within this method to represent the existing foreshore area. A soil factor of 0.45, which represents a clayey, poorly drained soil, has been used within this method to represent river frontage area. Post development the site would be 100% impermeable. The post development surface water runoff rate for the 1% AEP climate change event has been calculated using the Modified Rational Method. In accordance with PPS25 Table B.2 the post development surface water runoff rate includes a 30% increase in peak rainfall intensity to account for the anticipated impact of climate change over the developments lifetime. Both existing and post development runoff rates for the 1% AEP climate change event are provided in the table below (Volume 18). Vol 18 Table 15.4.1 Flood risk - runoff rates onsite Site Status Foreshore Existing Foreshore Post Development Foreshore Greenfield River Existing Frontage Rainfall Runoff Event 1% AEP + 30% Climate Change 1% AEP + 30% Climate Change 1% AEP + 30% Climate Change 1% AEP + 30% Climate Change 1% AEP + 30% Climate Change 1% AEP + 30% Climate Change Runoff Rate (l/s)
0.26 5.25 See existing 13.88 13.88 1.04
River Frontage Post Development River Frontage Greenfield 15.4.58
By subtracting the existing runoff rates from the post development runoff rates for the 1% AEP event, an additional runoff rate of 4.99l/s (foreshore)
Page 286
15.4.59
15.4.60
15.4.61
15.4.62
15.4.63
15.4.64
15.4.65
15.4.66
and 0 l/s (river frontage) is predicted post development (due to the existing, and post development 100% hardstanding land use). Foreshore site (western) Given that the western section of the site is located on the foreshore of the River Thames no pathways exist for surface waters to inundate surrounding third party land. The topography of the site would be such that surface water would be drained for all events up to the 3.3% AEP event. Where the design standard of the drainage system is exceeded, the runoff would be discharged to the River Thames directly through an overflow outfall and because the volume and runoff rate generated is insignificant in relation to the flow and volume of storage in the tidal Thames, it is considered that there would be no increase in downstream flood risk. Whilst this is contrary to policy set out in PPS25, the London Plan and the Mayors Draft Water Strategy for London, it is considered that these policies on surface water management are put in place to reduce downstream flood risk and this assessment has demonstrated that there is no such increase in flood risk. Attenuation of runoff for events greater than the 3.3% AEP event is therefore not required at the foreshore site and flood risk elsewhere as a result of the development is considered to be negligible. River frontage site (eastern) When comparing the existing runoff rate with the post development runoff rate it is apparent that there is no increase in runoff rate. The existing Middle Wharf area currently consists of impermeable hardstanding, and it would remain impermeable post development. Flooding from groundwater The TE2100 Plan states that there may be a risk of groundwater flooding at the Heathwall PS site originating from superficial strata underlying the site. Because the underlying strata are in hydraulic connectivity with the river levels in the Thames, the groundwater levels vary on a diurnal basis with the changing tide levels. Therefore, during high water level conditions within the Thames there is the potential for groundwater to reach ground level at the site. However, there are no recorded incidents of groundwater flooding within the vicinity of the site shown within the Wandsworth SFRA. Following the completion of the groundwater assessment for the ES, the potential mechanisms for groundwater flooding will be explored further including local water levels from ongoing monitoring and data collection as part of the EIA. This will inform the assessment of groundwater flood risk to this site and will be reported in the Level 2 FRA for the site. Until further information is available, flood risk to the site from this source is considered to be low, as although the TE2100 Plan suggests a flooding mechanism, there is no evidence from the Wandsworth SFRA to suggest that groundwater flooding has occurred in the past. Flooding from sewers The Wandsworth SFRA shows that there have been no sewer flooding incidents recorded by Thames Water in the last 10 years in the area in which the site is situated. The local sewer network has been investigated to determine whether there
Page 287
15.4.67 15.4.68
are any capacity issues that may lead to an increase in the potential for sewer flooding to the site. This assessment shows that the PS receives overflow from the Southern Low Level Sewer, a large combined sewer of capacity 1753mm from Nine Elms Road which is then pumped into the Thames. The site also receives flow from the South West Storm Relief Sewer, which discharges to the Thames by gravity through a inverted siphon, capacity 3455mm. There is also the Heathwall Sewer, a combined sewer running south west to north east of capacity 1905mm within Nine Elms Lane, the foul flow from which is pumped into the Low Level Sewer and storm overflow is pumped to the river. If the capacity of the smaller surface water sewers was exceeded, water would surcharge through outlets such as man holes and gullies located along the length of the sewer. The pathway for this surcharged combined water would be north, through the site and into the river. Flood risk from this source is considered to be low. Flooding from artificial sources There are no artificial flood sources within proximity to the site and so there is no flood risk from this type of source.
15.5
15.5.1
Flood risk - design and mitigation Overview

This assessment has identified the following sources of flood risk related to the site: a. residual risk of flooding to the site from tidal sources as a result of a breach in the existing or proposed new defences b. medium risk of impact on flood defences as a result of scour and deposition of foreshore sediment associated with the cofferdam area for construction and the permanent operational land take from the foreshore c. low risk of surface water flooding (or ponding) to the site as a result of runoff from surrounding land d. medium risk of an increase in tidal flooding due to the potential for settlement during construction of the tunnel to impact on food defences. e. low risk of groundwater flooding to the site associated with water levels in the underlying geological strata f. low risk of sewer flooding to the site This section describes flood mitigation methods that have been highlighted as being required specifically to address flood risk effects as a result of development at Heathwall PS. Flood mitigation methods in this context are defined as being required to alleviate the effect of the development of a site on any consequential (increase in) flood risk.
15.5.2
Flood prevention
15.5.3 Flood resilience/resistance during operation The London RFRA states that flood risk should be reduced where possible and flood resistance and resilience measure should be built into the development. Given that the project is a water compatible development
Page 288
15.5.4
type (see Section 15.2.1 ), there is no project-wide intention to provide flood resistance and resilience measures for residual flood risk as it is considered that the primary operational function of the Tunnel would not be affected by flooding as a result of a breach. Construction and emergency planning The subsequent Level 2 FRA will include the production of a site Emergency Plan in relation to Flood Risk outlining appropriate working practices and appropriate access/egress routes in the event of a flood warning. The London Borough of Wandsworth will be required to comment on the Emergency Plan.
Design and mitigation

15.5.5 Scour and deposition impacts on defences Good practice design would reduce the effects of scour at the face of the permanent and temporary works (cofferdam), and rip-rap or gabions may be required to prevent damage to structures. This is especially important at this site, where the Scour Screening Study concluded there was potential for localised scouring around the temporary works cofferdam. The shape of the protrusion for the permanent works in the western part of the site would be designed to impose minimal impact on river hydrology and the flow regime of the Tidal Thames. Specific mitigation in this regard is to be developed for scour and downstream infrastructure protection following completion of the physical modelling of key foreshore sites and the scour re-assessment. This will be included in the Level 2 FRA for this site. Surface water discharge Foreshore site (western) Surface water drainage would be designed to the 3.3% AEP event for the site. The western part of the site (foreshore) is situated within an area that currently drains into the River Thames. Controlled discharge of surface water from the site resulting from events greater than the 3.3% AEP storm into the River Thames would be designed and implemented, ensuring the runoff would not cause foreshore scour. River frontage site (eastern) An appropriate surface water management strategy is required to ensure surface water is positively drained from the Middle Wharf river frontage area of the site. Surface water drainage would be designed to the 3.3% AEP event for the site. The preliminary calculations shown in Vol 18 Table 15.5.1 are based on SUDS attenuation, assuming zero infiltration (infiltration rates and the feasibility of SUDS infiltration techniques onsite are currently unknown). PPS25 states that runoff post development should not be greater than runoff pre development in order to not increase the risk of flooding either downstream or on surrounding land. The attenuation volume is based on this Policy. In addition and in accordance with the Mayors Draft Water Strategy, the preferred standard and essential standard have been considered.
15.5.6
15.5.7 15.5.8
15.5.9
15.5.10
Page 289
To take into account the effects of climate change over the lifetime of the development, a 30% increase in peak rainfall intensity has been included when considering post development runoff and the associated attenuation volumes. Vol 18 Table 15.5.1 Flood risk - runoff rates / preliminary attenuation volumes 1% AEP Rainfall Event River Frontage Preferred Standard (attenuation to greenfield runoff rate) River Frontage Essential Standard (attenuation to 50% of undeveloped runoff rate) PPS25 (no increase in runoff post development) Runoff Rate (l/s) Attenuation Volume (m3)
1.04
44 62
6.94
24 36
13.88
15.5.12
15.5.13
15.5.14 15.5.15
For the river frontage area of the site, the table above indicates that to meet the PPS25 runoff standard, no storage is required as the site is currently, and would be post development, 100% hardstanding. To meet the Mayors preferred and essential standards a storage volume between 44 62m3 and 24 36m3 would be required respectively, to provide sufficient storage to attenuate the 1% AEP event, inclusive of climate change. These values are presented as indicative of storage volumes that may be provided should the specified standards be sought. Storage options are outlined below. It is important to note that the attenuation volumes provided in the table above are based on preliminary calculations and would be subject to refinement at outline and detailed design stage. Both the need and the potential to deliver this level of attenuation at the site will be determined during the Level 2 FRA and reported in the ES, which will ensure that the requirements of PPS25 are met at all times and the aspirations of the London Plan are met where practicable. Until soakaway tests and a contamination study are carried out the feasibility of SUDS infiltration techniques are unknown. The following surface water mitigation measures should also be considered for incorporation into the development design: a. In the event of return periods in excess of the 3.3% AEP storm, the layout and the landscaping of the site should aim to route water away from vulnerable property, and avoid creating hazards to access egress routes, whilst not increasing flood risk to third parties.
Page 290
b. Appropriate scour protection should be provided at the surface water discharge pipe outlet to the River Thames. c. Depending on operational activities at the site surface water runoff may be required to pass through an oil interceptor, or similar, prior to discharge to the River Thames. d. During the construction phase appropriate mitigation should be provided to ensure surface water is managed in a controlled manner.
15.6
15.6.1 15.6.2
A Level 2 will be prepared for the site which will outline further specific design approaches and measures. It is considered that a Level 2 FRA will be sufficient to assess the impact of flood risk for the final site design (ie no Level 3 specific site modelling is required). This will be prepared for the site and incorporated into the ES. The Level 2 FRA will use the data collected as part of the Level 1 FRA and build upon the preliminary findings of this assessment once further information is available from the EA and other assessments being undertaken to support the FRA and the EIA. In summary, the following additional assessment elements will be undertaken: a. Confirmation of existing defence level following receipt of the EA survey information of flood defences. This will be used to reassess the standard of protection at the site and effect on tidal flood risk (direct and residual). It will also inform flood prevention design in terms of the design level of new defences proposed for construction and operation of the site. b. Use of the physical modelling results and scour study to assess the effect on flood levels as a result of impact on flood defence integrity of scour and deposition caused by the foreshore encroachment (construction and operation). This will also inform definition of any specific mitigation required. c. A project-wide study into the potential impacts of the tunnel excavation on the integrity of third party assets including flood defences is being undertaken. Any relevant assessment for the defences at the site will be included in the Level 2 FRA. d. The assessment of surface water flood risk to the site will be completed when the final surface water flood maps are available from the Drain London Project. e. Groundwater flood risk and any required flood risk prevention measures will be reassessed when the groundwater resources impact assessment is complete. This will be included in the Level 2 FRA. f. An emergency plan will be developed to support the Level 2 FRA and the CoCP. g. Further detail of any site specific mitigation and flood prevention measures that may be required to manage both residual risk and direct flood risk based on the final site design. It is not anticipated that further primary data collection (assuming outstanding data from the EA and Thames Tideway modelling is supplied) or any modelling will be required at this site as part of future work and
15.6.3
15.6.4
Page 291
hence a Level 2 FRA will be sufficient to support the ES and application specific to the Heathwall PS site.
Page 292
Appendices
Appendices
List of figures
Page number
Figure A.1 Historic environment - Rocques map of 1762....................................... 295 Figure A.2 Historic environment - Greenwoods map of 18241826 ...................... 295 Figure A.3 Historic environment - Stanfords map of 1862 ..................................... 296 Figure A.4 Historic environment - OS 1st ed 25 to one mile map of 1874 ............. 296 Figure A.5 Historic environment - OS 2nd ed 25 to one mile map of 18941896 .. 297 Figure A.6 Historic environment - OS 3rd ed 25 to one mile map of 1916............. 297 Figure A.7 Historic environment - OS 25 to one mile map of 1947 ........................ 298 Figure A.8 Historic environment - OS 1:1250 scale map of 1952 ........................... 298 Figure A.9 Historic environment - remains of a fish trap ......................................... 299 Figure A.10 Historic environment - remains of a post-medieval slipway ................. 299 Figure A.11 Historic environment - Heathwall PS viewed Nine Elms Lane............. 300 Figure A.12 Historic environment - Cemex compound (east of Heathwall PS) ....... 300 Figure A.13 Historic environment - Structures on foreshore and outlets to Thames301 Figure A.14 Historic environment - Industrial unit currently occupied by FedEx ..... 301 Figure A.15 Historic environment - Site viewed from the east ................................ 302 Figure D.1 Townscape and visual - viewpoint 1.4 .................................................. 315 Figure D.2 Townscape and visual - viewpoint 1.6 .................................................. 316 Figure D.3 Townscape and visual - viewpoint 1.7 .................................................. 316 Figure D.4 Townscape and visual - viewpoint 1.8 .................................................. 316 Figure D.5 Townscape and visual - viewpoint 1.9 .................................................. 317 Figure D.6 Townscape and visual - viewpoint 1.10 ................................................ 317 Figure D.7 Townscape and visual - viewpoint 2.1 .................................................. 318 Figure D.8 Townscape and visual - viewpoint 2.2 .................................................. 318 Figure E.1 Groundwater superficial geology ........................................................ 319 Figure E.2 Groundwater solid geology................................................................. 319 Figure E.3 Groundwater EA monitoring locations ................................................ 323 Figure E.4 Groundwater - level hydrograph Heathwall PS ..................................... 326 Figure E.5 Groundwater -level hydrograph Battersea OBHs .................................. 327 Figure E.6 Groundwater GHSP ........................................................................... 330 Figure E.7 Groundwater SPZ .............................................................................. 330 Figure E.8 Groundwater - licensing areas (EA, 2006) ............................................ 332 List of tables
Page number
Table A.1 Historic environment gazetteer of known heritage assets ................... 303 Table B.1 Land quality site walkover report ......................................................... 312 Table E.1 Groundwater anticipated geological succession.................................. 319 Table E.2 Groundwater - anticipated Ground Conditions* ...................................... 320
Page 293
Appendices
Table E.3 Groundwater anticipated hydrogeology ............................................... 322 Table E.4 Groundwater onsite monitoring boreholes ........................................... 323 Table E.5 Groundwater licensed abstractions ..................................................... 328 Table E.6 Groundwater parameter at Dolphin Square ......................................... 330
Page 294
Appendix A: Historic environment
Appendix A Historic environment A.1 Figures
Figure A.1 Historic environment - Rocques map of 1762
Figure A.2 Historic environment - Greenwoods map of 18241826
Page 295
Figure A.3 Historic environment - Stanfords map of 1862
Figure A.4 Historic environment - OS 1st ed 25 to one mile map of 1874
Page 296
Figure A.5 Historic environment - OS 2nd ed 25 to one mile map of 18941896
Figure A.6 Historic environment - OS 3rd ed 25 to one mile map of 1916
Page 297
Figure A.7 Historic environment - OS 25 to one mile map of 1947
Figure A.8 Historic environment - OS 1:1250 scale map of 1952
Page 298
A.2
Photographs
Figure A.9 Historic environment - remains of a fish trap Note: Believed to be of Saxon date, standard lens; looking west
Figure A.10 Historic environment - remains of a post-medieval slipway Note standard lens; looking east
Page 299
Figure A.11 Historic environment - Heathwall PS viewed Nine Elms Lane Note: standard lens; looking north
Figure A.12 Historic environment - Cemex compound (east of Heathwall PS) Note: standard lens; through the gate entrance looking northwest
Page 300
Figure A.13 Historic environment - Structures on foreshore and outlets to Thames Note: in the northeastern part of the site; standard lens; looking west
Figure A.14 Historic environment - Industrial unit currently occupied by FedEx Note: standard lens; from Nine Elms Lane looking northwest
Page 301
Figure A.15 Historic environment - Site viewed from the east Note: With public garden and river wall, standard lens; looking west
Page 302
Appendix A: Historic Environment
A.3
A.3.1
Gazetteer of known heritage assets

The location of known heritage assets is shown on the historic environment features map (Vol 18 Figure 7.4.1). Table A.1 Historic environment gazetteer of known heritage assets Description Site code/ HER ref/ LBUID no Seazone ID 486000006 149153 Seazone ID 486000006 149153 Seazone ID 486000006 147284 PNO08 MLO 100457
HEA Ref no. 1A
Thames foreshore, to the northwest of Prescot Wharf. A pile/post located on the foreshore in the northern part of the site. Thames foreshore, to the west of Prescot Wharf. A pile/post located on the foreshore in the northern part of the site. Thames foreshore, within the western boundary of the site. The eastern end of a pontoon is located here, partially within the western site boundary. Post Office Way, Ponton Road A watching brief was carried out on this site by PCA in 2008. Natural Terrace gravels were sealed by a layer of alluvium in turn overlain by a layer of 16th/17th century agricultural soil with the exception of the south side of the site, where a layer of natural brickearth was recorded between the alluvium and the agricultural soil. Towards the centre of the site the foundations and a basement or cellar were recorded above the earlier deposits, which are probably part of the 19th century brewery that stood in the area. On the northeast edge of the site an undated structure cut into the natural gravel and was sealed by a layer of 18th/19th century made ground, whilst towards the north side an 18th /19th century well or cesspit was recorded. Modern made ground sealed the site. Eastern Triangle, Wandsworth Road An archaeological watching brief was carried out on the site by SLAEC in 1981. The remains of a post-medieval ditch were discovered (HER 091861). Sainsburys, 6668 Wandsworth Road An evaluation was carried out by MOLA in 1993. Natural gravels were not reached and the deep sequence of midlate 19th century deposits discovered were probably composed of the infill of quarry pits.
1B
1C
L436/81
SNE93
Page 303
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station HEA Ref no. 5 Description
Appendix A: Historic Environment Site code/ HER ref/ LBUID no BWK03
Pumphouse and former waterworks, Cringle Street, Battersea Standing building recording of the 19th century Battersea pumphouse and former waterworks structure was carried out here by CgMs Consulting in 2003. Battersea Power Station and South Lambeth Goods Yard An evaluation was carried out on the site by Sutton Archaeological Services in 1997. 37 test pits, 4 archaeological test pits, and 12 boreholes were undertaken. Most of the test pits showed that the nature of the construction of the reservoirs and filtering beds which had previously occupied the site had removed the potential for archaeological survival, as had the subsequent constructions associated with the Power Station. Significant exceptions to this were the test-pits immediately southeast and due south of the Power Station, where the natural terrace gravels were found to have survived above 0m OD (100m TD). It is likely that the gravels to the south have been truncated, but the large group of test pits to the east have significant worked alluvial soil deposits overlying the gravels. These lie outside the reservoir area and probably date from the period pre-1862 when this area was market gardens, a known and well-established agricultural industry in Battersea. The borehole data indicate that a palaeochannel runs west-east across the site, converging slightly with the current River Thames. On the basis that the underlying terrace gravels rise up to the south to a height above 3m OD (103m TD), this channel appears to represent the maximum southern extent of the River Thames at this point. Environmental evidence dating from the early Holocene to the middle to late Saxon was recovered. Pimlico School, Lupus Street During a watching brief carried out by PCA in 2008 natural brickearth was recorded, cut by a number of natural features which were overlaid by the remnants of a possible soil horizon. Above lay an 18th century dumped layer which, in the west and southwest corners of the site, was cut by various 18th century postholes, pits, a timber drain and an east-west aligned ditch, running parallel with modern day Lupus Street. The ditch was truncated by a north-south orientated construction cut, probably part of the foundation for an 18th century building, and by an 18th 19th century pit.
KTS97
PIM08
Page 304
Appendix A: Historic Environment Site code/ HER ref/ LBUID no MLO 3284
Site of a medieval manor house, Nine Elms Lane, west of the site The projected location of a medieval manor house, approximately in a location marked on old OS maps, but not verified by documentary or earlier cartographic sources. Former burial ground, site of St. Georges Church, Nine Elms Lane The location of a former graveyard; part of St. Georges Church. The church was built in 1828, altered and extended in 1874 and seriously damaged during World War II. It was closed in 1953 and destroyed by fire in 1960. The site is now part of an industrial estate. Depot between Cringle and Kirtling Street The remains of the 19th century Nine Elms White Lead Works which became paint works in the early 20th century. Northeastern corner of warehouse, Kirtling Street The remains of a 17th century windmill or post mill. Thames Channel, north of the site The remains of a Neolithic axe and a lithic implement. Thames Channel, off Pimlico The remains of a Mesolithic axe were discovered within the foreshore, to the northeast of the site. Thames Channel, off Pimlico, opposite Nine Elms Lane The remains of a Mesolithic axe were discovered within the foreshore, to the north of the site. Thames foreshore, adjacent to (north of) Nine Elms Lane The find spot of unspecified archaeological remains. Ponton Road, Nine Elms Lane Building foundations and the remains of a basement, possibly part of a former 19th century brewery were discovered during a watching brief carried out by PCA in 2008 (see HEA 1). Southwark and Vauxhall Water Works The remains of the 19th century Southwark and Vauxhall Water Works built by the Southwark and Vauxhall Water Company in 18391925. The remains of the 19th century engine house (MLO 65780) and 20th century engine (MLO 65782), workshop (MLO 65781), blacksmiths workshop (MLO 65783) and other unspecified 20th century remains
10
MLO 64086 MLO 12012 MLO 14603 MLO 14575 MLO 26771 MLO 100036 MLO 100457
11 12 13
14
15 16
17
MLO 65779
Page 305
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station HEA Ref no. Description
Appendix A: Historic Environment Site code/ HER ref/ LBUID no
(MLO 19935) were discovered here.
18
Thames bank, adjacent to Nine Elms Lane, east of the site towards Vauxhall The remains of a Saxon dyke. Recorded in the HER as Hesewall or Hetheswall. It was lately known as the Battersea Ditch and is now called the Heath Brook Sewer. Thames bank, adjacent to Nine Elms Lane, east of the site towards Vauxhall The HER records the site of a late 17th century windmill named Randals Mill, possibly the colour mill referred to in 1684. Later cartographic references to a mill in Battersea in 1688 and 1751 show it as a stone built tower mill on a wharf on the Thames foreshore, which may have been used for corn-grinding and/or for cement production in the early 19th century. It was last recorded in 1845. Wandsworth Road The site of Wood Bridge, known to have existed in 1592. Date of construction uncertain. Wandsworth Road The site of the post-medieval Vauxhall Well. Battersea Power Station A grade II* listed former electricity generating station. It was built in two principal phases between 19291935 and 19371941. It was completed in 1955. It is approximately square in plan and comprised two independently operating power stations (now disused): Station A, the western half and Station B, the eastern half. It is laid out on a symmetrical plan, comprising a pair of long central boiler houses with large square pavilions - the washing towers - to each corner, surmounted by chimneys, flanked by a pair of lower, set back, turbine houses; these in turn are flanked by set back blocks containing switch houses and other ancillary spaces. There are entrances to the southwest and southeast. A vast underground coal store lies between the building and the river. To the north, on a jetty parallel to the river wall, there are two cranes which were used to unload coal from collier boats. While of lesser significance, they were integral parts of the original complex and are now rare riverside features. Battersea Water Pumping Station, Cringle Street The site of a grade II listed water pumping station originally
Page 306
090149
19
090055
20
090135
21 22
090072 207028
23
422725
Appendix A: Historic Environment Site code/ HER ref/ LBUID no
built for the Southwark Water Company (now disused). It was extended in 1846 and 1856 for the Southwark and Vauxhall Water Company. It is constructed of yellow stock brick with Bath stone dressings and a slate roof. It has a rectangular, single-depth plan. It has two storeys. It formerly contained five Cornish (non-rotative) beam engines dating to 18571862. It is probably the second oldest surviving water pumping station and contains archaeological evidence of what may have been the largest water pumping engine in the country, the 112". The boiler house, stores and workshops, standpipe tower and chimney stood to the rear. It was listed in 1994 for its historic and technical interest. 24 105 Grosvenor Road, Westminster An early to mid 19th century terrace house with three storeys. It has a square-headed entrance just off centre with slightly projecting single storey block to right with planked garage door and balcony over and a first floor wrought iron balcony with cast iron filigree supports to tented ogeed canopied roof with projecting glazed portion over right hand projecting block. 106109 Grosvenor Road, Westminster A row of early 19th century houses of two storeys with half basements and attics. Nos. 106 and 109 have French casements to the ground floor. There is a continuous wrought iron balcony to the ground floor with decorative wrought iron supports to a tented canopy. Thames foreshore, to the west of the site. A post or pile located at a jetty to the west of the site. 209965
25
209966
26
Seazone ID 486000006 149420 SZID 637000001 135744 SZID 486000006 147117 SZID 486000006 147423 SZID 486000006 148599/90
27
Thames foreshore, to the east of the site. The location of an unspecified obstruction located on the foreshore. Thames foreshore, to the west of the site. The location of a pontoon adjacent to the river bank. Thames foreshore, to the west of the site. The location of a pontoon adjacent to the river bank. Thames foreshore, to the west of the site. The location of three pontoons on the site of the former 19th century Mill Dock.
28
29
30
Page 307
Appendix A: Historic Environment Site code/ HER ref/ LBUID no 06/6424
31
Thames foreshore, Pimlico river bank. The location of a pontoon adjacent to the river bank. Thames Channel, adjacent to Nine Elms riverbank, near Vauxhall. The location of two pontoons moored in the Thames Channel. Thames foreshore, Pimlico riverbank. A possible riverfront defence or cofferdam. Consisting of a line of large, squared, close-set piles which appear to predate the 19th century river wall. May be associated with the construction of the embankment. Thames foreshore, Pimlico riverbank. A post-medieval dock entrance. Thames foreshore, Pimlico riverbank. The location of a possible post-medieval tide gauge (a metal marker on a timber and concrete platform and a possible barge bed consisting of a double line of small stakes, high on the foreshore. Thames foreshore, Pimlico riverbank. 19th century brick landing steps contemporary with the river wall. Thames foreshore, Pimlico riverbank. A possible barge bed, consisting of a large squared timber lying horizontal and almost parallel to the river wall. Thames foreshore, Pimlico riverbank. Covered dock entrance. A packed timber raft forms the bottom of the dock entrance. Thames foreshore, Pimlico riverbank. A brick-built flood defence with a straight joint visible between two phases of building. Thames foreshore, Pimlico riverbank. A possible causeway of timber and concrete with no associated stair. Thames foreshore, Pimlico riverbank. A possible barge bed consisting of a rubble surface and mooring chain. Thames foreshore, Pimlico riverbank. A hard, possible barge bed consisting of close set, vertical planks at an angle to the river wall, with one large squared pile adjacent.
SZID 486000006 148962 SZID 486000006 148257/77 47 TDP Alpha Survey No. A116
32
33
34 35
Alpha No A115 Alpha No A117
36 37
Alpha No A101 Alpha No A102 Alpha No A103 Alpha No A105 Alpha No A106 Alpha No A107 Alpha No A101
38
39
40 41 42
Page 308
Appendix A: Historic Environment Site code/ HER ref/ LBUID no Alpha No A102 Alpha No A103 Alpha No A104 Alpha No A105 Alpha No A106 Alpha No A107 Alpha No A108 Alpha No A109 Alpha No A111 & A114 Alpha No A101 Alpha No A103
Thames foreshore, Pimlico riverbank. A possible barge bed, consisting of a line of small vertical piles and stone rubble. Thames foreshore, Pimlico riverbank. The remains of a timber revetted barge bed. Appears to be a later addition to A104. Thames foreshore, Pimlico riverbank. The remains of a timber revetted barge bed. Appears to pre-date A104. Thames foreshore, Pimlico riverbank. The remains of a timber revetted barge bed. Probably part of A106. Thames foreshore, Pimlico riverbank. The remains of a timber revetted barge bed. Probably part of A105. A107 is added to it. Thames foreshore, Pimlico riverbank. The remains of a sheet-piled barge bed. An addition of A106. Thames foreshore, Pimlico riverbank. The remains of a timber revetted barge bed. Thames foreshore, Pimlico riverbank. The remains of a buried vessel or fallen barge bed. Thames foreshore, Pimlico riverbank. The location of a brick-built outfall drain, with a timber mooring block at its entrance. Thames foreshore, Nine Elms riverbank, to the east of the site. The location of an unclassified structure with large, vertical squared posts exposed by barge scour (A102). Thames foreshore, Nine Elms riverbank, to the east of the site. The remains of an unclassified structure, possibly a crane base or mooring feature. A timber shuttered box with concrete. Thames foreshore, Nine Elms riverbank, to the east of the site. The location of a mooring block three vertical squared posts. Thames foreshore, Nine Elms riverbank, to the east of the site. A consolidation layer of concreted gravel. Thames foreshore, Nine Elms riverbank, to the east of the site. The remains of an unspecified structure, probably a crane base or mooring feature. Comprising four vertical posts. Probably the remains of A103.
44
45 46 47
48 49 50 51
52
53
54
Alpha No A104 Alpha No. A105 Alpha No A106
55 56
Page 309
Appendix A: Historic Environment Site code/ HER ref/ LBUID no Alpha No A107 Alpha No A108 Alpha No A109 Alpha No A110 Alpha No A111 Alpha No A112 & A113
Thames foreshore, Nine Elms riverbank, to the east of the site. A possible crane base or mooring feature. A timber shuttered box with concrete. Thames foreshore, Nine Elms riverbank, to the east of the site. A possible crane base or mooring feature. A timber shuttered box with concrete and stone slabs. Thames foreshore, Nine Elms riverbank, to the east of the site. A possible consolidation deposit of cobble-sized rocks. Thames foreshore, Nine Elms riverbank, to the east of the site. A post-medieval dock with a sheet-piled entrance. Thames foreshore, Nine Elms riverbank, to the east of the site. A post-medieval mooring block of two joined vertical posts. Thames foreshore, Nine Elms riverbank, to the east of the site. The location of two post-medieval riverfront defences, one brick-built with buttresses and the other consisting of a line of vertical timbers. Reused to form shuttering for concrete. Thames foreshore, Nine Elms riverbank, to the east of the site. A post-medieval outfall drain. Thames foreshore, Nine Elms riverbank, to the east of the site. A post-medieval drain of stone rubble and wire. Thames foreshore, Nine Elms riverbank, to the east of the site. A post-medieval sheet-piled dock entrance. Thames foreshore, Nine Elms riverbank, adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site at Prescot Wharf. A layer of sand. Thames foreshore, Nine Elms riverbank, to the east of the site. Small exposures of peat/clay deposit. Thames foreshore, Nine Elms riverbank, to the east of the site. A post-medieval consolidation layer of concreted gravel. Thames foreshore, Nine Elms riverbank, to the east of the site. A stone mooring block. Thames foreshore, Nine Elms riverbank, to the east of the site. A post-medieval timber flood defence below concrete.
58
59
60 61
62
63 64 65 66
Alpha No A114 Alpha No A115 Alpha No A116 Alpha No A117 Alpha No A118 Alpha No A119 Alpha No A120 Alpha No A121
67 68
69 70
Page 310
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station HEA Ref no. 71 72 73 Description
Appendix A: Historic Environment Site code/ HER ref/ LBUID no Alpha No A122 Alpha No 124 ---
Thames foreshore, Nine Elms riverbank, to the east of the site. Small exposures of peat/clay deposit. Thames foreshore, Nine Elms riverbank, to the east of the site. A consolidation layer of compacted chalk. Thames foreshore, Nine Elms riverbank, to the northeast of the site. The remains of two timber piles close to the edge of the foreshore (partially submerged), observed during the site survey walkover. Perhaps the remains of a slipway. Thames foreshore, Nine Elms riverbank, to the northeast of the site. A group of six upright, wooden stakes, observed during the site survey walkover, standing at an approximate height of 0.10.2m. These form part of a Saxon fish trap. The public garden and 19th century river wall adjacent and to the east of the site The river wall and remains of the entrance to Mill Dock to the west of the site
74
---
75 76
-----
Page 311
Appendix B: Land quality
Appendix B Land quality B.1 Site walkover report

Table B.1 Land quality site walkover report Item Site Ref Site Name Date of walkover Site location (Address & Access) 25th May 2011 Thames Water operated Heathwall Pumping Station, Nine Elms Lane, Wandsworth. Restricted access viewed from publicly accessible areas. Record elevation in Site is flat in relation to the relation to surroundings, surrounding areas. any hummocks, breaks of slope etc. North South River Thames. Commercial and industrial properties, the Royal Mail Sorting Office and warehouses. Closest residential properties are located on William Heath Walk. Tideway Industrial Estate which houses storage sheds. In addition there is an area of moored river boats adjacent to the sites western boundary. The proposed site is currently utilised by Heathwall Pumping Station and an adjacent jetty area housing a crane, hopper and tank. Hardstanding No vegetation observed. Details PWH10 Heathwall Pumping Station
Size and topography of site and surroundings Neighbouring site use (in particular note any potentially contaminative activities or sensitive receptors)
East West
Site buildings
Record extent, size, type and usage. Any boiler rooms, electrical switchgear? Record type and condition Any evidence of distress, unusual growth or invasive species such as Japanese Knotweed? Evidence of buried services? Types/ quantities?
Surfacing Vegetation
Services Fuels or
N/A None
Page 312
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station chemicals on site Tanks (above ground or below ground)
Appendix B: Land quality The eastern side of Heathwall Pumping Station is currently in use by a waste operative. A double skinned fuel storage tank and a chemical storage area are also present in this area. N/A
Containment systems (eg, bund, drainage interceptors). Record condition and standing liquids Refill points located inside bunds or on impermeable surfaces etc? Vehicle servicing or refuelling onsite Waste generated/stored onsite Surface water Site drainage Record locations, tanks and inspection pits etc. Adequate storage and security? Fly tipping? Record on-site or nearby standing water
N/A
None
None
River Thames is situated on the sites northern boundary.
Is the site drained, if so to N/A where? Evidence of flooding? Eg, trial pits, borehole covers. Evidence of discoloured ground, seepage of liquids, strong odours? None observed
Evidence of previous site investigations Evidence of land contamination Summary of potential contamination sources Any other comments
No obvious potential contaminative sources were identified during the survey. Adjacent jetty area Waste operation area to the east Double skinned fuel storage tank Chemical storage area
Eg, access restrictions/ limitations
Access restricted, site observed through security gates.
Page 313
Appendix C: Noise and vibration
Appendix C Noise and vibration

C.1.1 This section intentionally does not include additional noise and vibration baseline monitoring information as the survey work has not yet been completed.
Page 314
Appendix D: Townscape and visual
Appendix D Townscape and visual D.1 Winter photographs for selected viewpoints
Figure D.1 Townscape and visual - viewpoint 1.4 View southwest from residences on Grosvenor Road near Vauxhall Bridge
Page 315
Figure D.2 Townscape and visual - viewpoint 1.6 View southwest from residences along Nine Elms Lane
Figure D.3 Townscape and visual - viewpoint 1.7 Panoramic view southwest from residences along Nine Elms Lane, close to the site
Figure D.4 Townscape and visual - viewpoint 1.8 View northeast from residences along Battersea Park Road
Page 316
Figure D.5 Townscape and visual - viewpoint 1.9 View southwest from the northern end of Vauxhall Bridge
Figure D.6 Townscape and visual - viewpoint 1.10 Panoramic view southeast from residences along Grosvenor Road, close to Churchill Gardens Estate
Page 317
Figure D.7 Townscape and visual - viewpoint 2.1 View southwest from the northern end of Vauxhall Bridge
Figure D.8 Townscape and visual - viewpoint 2.2 View southwest from the centre of Vauxhall Bridge
Page 318
Appendix E: Groundwater
Appendix E Water resources - groundwater E.1 Baseline data review for the Heathwall PS site E.2 Geology
E.2.1 A summary of the anticipated geology succession to be encountered by the Thames Tunnel is shown in the table below. Table E.1 Groundwater anticipated geological succession Period Series Holocene Quaternary Pleistocene Eocene Thames Group Formation Made ground Superficial Deposits Alluvium Langley Silt River Terrace Deposits London Clay Harwich Upper Shelly Beds Upper Mottled Beds Laminated Beds Palaeogene Palaeocene Lambeth Lower Shelly Beds Mid-Lambeth Hiatus* Lower Mottled Beds Upnor No group Cretaceous Upper Cretaceous White Chalk Subgroup Thanet Sand Seaford Chalk** Lewes Nodular Chalk
E.2.2 E.2.3
* Not a Formation but an important depositional feature ** Subdivided into the Haven Brow, Cuckmere and Belle Tout members. Figure E.1 Groundwater superficial geology Figure E.2 Groundwater solid geology (see Volume 18 Figures document) Figure E. 1 and Figure E.2 show the superficial geology and the solid geology beneath the site. The Ground Investigation (GI) was undertaken for Thames Tunnel Project and has involved drilling boreholes both on the banks and within the main river channel (TT, 2010) 41. The locations of boreholes around the site are shown in Vol 18 Figure E.2. This figure shows there to be a lack of within river channel boreholes near to the site. The depths and thicknesses of geological layers encountered at Kirtling Street (the nearest site for which GI information is available) is summarised in the table below.
Page 319
Table E.2 Groundwater - anticipated Ground Conditions* Formation Made Ground Alluvium River Terrace Deposits London Clay B A3ii A3i A2 Harwich Formation Lambeth Group USB UMB LtB/LSB LMB UPN (Gv) UPN Thanet Sand Seaford Chalk Elevation mATD 104.40 99.90 98.40 Depth below ground level (m) 0.00 4.50 6.00 Thickness (m) 4.50 1.40 1.90
96.60 89.40 79.48 77.13 66.23
7.580 15.00 24.92 27.27 30.17
7.20 9.92 2.35 11.90 0.65
64.58 63.38 59.98 57.38 51.28 50.28 47.40 37.90
39.82 41.02 44.42 47.02 53.12 54.12 57.00 66.50
1.20 3.40 2.60 6.10 1.00 2.88 9.50 Not proven
(*based on information from Kirtling Street) USBUpper Shelly Beds; UMBUpper Mottled Beds; LtBLaminated Beds LSB-Lower Shelly Beds; LMB-Lower Mottled Beds; UPN (Gv)-Upnor Formation (Gravel); UPN-Upnor Formation
E.2.1
E.2.2
E.2.3
At the site, the depth of the shaft will be around 58.14 mATD (with base slab of 4m, this would be down to 54.14mATD). At this depth, the base of the shaft will be within the Lower Mottled Beds. River Terrace Deposits are extensive alluvial sand and gravel deposits laid down in a braided river system of approximately 5km width, in river terraces since the Anglian glaciation. Phases of down-cutting and intervening deposition during colder periods and subsequent meltwaters increased river flows and sediment load. Seven terraces are distinguishable in London in terms of their altitude, rather than distinguishing lithological features, ranging in thickness from around 2.5 to 28m. The River Terrace Deposits at the site is towards the lower end of this range at around 1.9m indicative of some post-depositional erosion. Borehole logs indicate the made ground contains brick-like rubble. Although the River Terrace Deposits commonly has very fine-grained
Page 320
E.2.4
E.2.5
E.2.6
E.2.7 E.2.8
E.2.9
E.2.10
E.2.11
E.2.12
E.2.13
sand, silt and clayey silt 'Brickearth' deposits above, the thickness of the River Terrace Deposits at the site and geological descriptions indicate the Brickearth is not present or significant at this site. The London Clay comprises clayey silt beds grading to an increasing number of silty fine-grained sand westward; and increase in homogeneity upwards through the deposit. The upper sandier formation is informally referred to as the Claygate Member to distinguish its coarser-grained nature. The London Clay is divided into sub-units referred from oldest to youngest as A to E, with some of these sub-units dividing further, for example A1, A2, A3i-iii in age order. The Harwich Formation comprises of fine-grained glauconitic sand and rounded black flinty pebble beds, commonly deposited in a series of superimposed channels. The Upper Shelly Beds comprising grey, shelly clays with scattered glauconite grains increasing to mainly sand in southeast London. The Upper Mottled Beds (UMB) of the Reading Beds comprise of silty clay and clay, generally un-bedded, fissured and blocky, with up to 50 per cent silt and sand. Laminated Beds (LtB) comprise thinly interbedded fine to medium grained sand, silt and clay with shells, with sand lenses found locally in southeast London. The Lower Shelly Beds (LSB) comprise dark grey to black clay with abundant shells, with increasing sand content towards east London. A thin - less than 0.3m thick - seam of Lignite is commonly found at its base, although this was not found in the borehole logs at the site and Kirtling Street. Lower Mottled Beds (LMB) of the Reading Beds comprise of silty clay and clay, generally un-bedded, fissured and blocky, with up to 50 per cent silt and sand. The Upnor Formation (UPN) is a variably bioturbated fine- to mediumgrained sand with glauconite, rounded flint pebbles and minor clay, with distinctive pebble beds and base and top (UPN (Gv)). The Thanet Sand Formation defines the first marine transgression following erosion of the Chalk, and is found unconformably on the approximately planar eroded Chalk surface. The Thanet Sand Formation comprises well sorted, uniform sand, with evidence of intense bioturbation removing bedding structures. With approximately 10 per cent fine-grained sand at the base, the lower part is typically clayey and silty, coarsening and greater sorting upward to the upper beds containing as much as 60 per cent fine-grained sand. The base of the Thanet Sands is a unit known as the 'Bullhead Bed' - a pale to medium-grey to brownish-grey, fine to fine-grained sand; and a conglomerate up to 0.5m thick comprising rounded to angular flint cobble and gravel sized clasts set in a clayey, fine to coarse-grained sand matrix with glauconite pellets forming the basal bed of the Thanet Sand. The Bullhead Bed marks the Palaeocene/Cretaceous unconformity.
Page 321
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station E.2.14
The Seaford Chalk is the upper unit of the White Chalk, comprising of as firm to soft non-nodular Chalk with flint beds. Thin marl seams are found in the lower 8m and absent higher up. A hard ground marks the top of the Seaford Chalk.
E.3
E.3.1
Hydrogeology
A summary of the anticipated hydrogeological properties of the different geologies to be encountered by the Thames Tunnel is shown in the table below. Table E.3 Groundwater anticipated hydrogeology Group Superficial Deposits Formation (Made Ground) Alluvium River Terrace Deposits London Clay Thames Harwich Upper Shelly Beds Upper Mottled Beds Laminated Beds Lower Shelly Beds -----Mid Lambeth Hiatus---Lower Mottled Beds Upnor Thanet Sand Seaford Chalk White Chalk Subgroup White Chalk Lewes Nodular Chalk New Pit Chalk Lower Aquifer Hydrogeology Perched Water Upper Aquifer Aquiclude Aquitard / Aquifer
Lambeth
Aquitards/ Aquifers
No group
E.3.1
E.3.2 E.3.3
The lower aquifer comprises the Upnor Beds, Thanet Sands (secondary A aquifer) and the Chalk (principal aquifer) comprising of the Seaford Chalk; as the shaft is not sufficiently deep to encounter the Lewes Nodular Chalk and New Pit Chalk formations beneath. The upper aquifer (River Terrace Deposits) is defined as a secondary A aquifer. The upper aquifer, comprising of the Alluvium and River Terrace Deposits, is defined as a secondary A aquifer. According the GI boreholes the River Terrace Deposits (upper aquifer) are thin at less than 2m thick at the site. The depth of shaft will not extend down into the lower aquifer, indeed the separation distance between the base of shaft and the top of the Thanet Sands will be around 30m. The Upnor Beds above the Thanet Sands is assumed to be the effective top of the lower aquifer, and have a thickness of 2.88m.
Page 322
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station E.3.4
E.3.5
E.3.6
E.3.7
Within the Lambeth Group, several confined groundwater bodies are expected to be encountered. Groundwater is expected during the excavation of through the Upper Shelly Beds (at the top of the Lambeth Group); and more significantly at sub-artesian pressures within the Laminated Beds (formerly part of the Woolwich Formation). Hydrographs for monitoring points close to the site confirm this. Above the Lambeth Group, the thin fine-grained sand and pebble beds of the Harwich Formation. Most models do not consider the Harwich Formation as an aquifer separate to the other formations above the Thanet Sand. However, the Harwich Formation may form a minor aquifer unit where it is isolated from the lower aquifer (Chalk / Thanet Sands) by the Lambeth Group. There may be limited connection via erosive features to the lower aquifer. The majority of the shaft will be excavated through the full sequence of the London Clay Formation (B, A3ii, A3ii and A2 sub divisions). This is generally acknowledged as an aquiclude between the upper and lower aquifers. It is expected that below the River Terrace Deposits, the shaft will be excavated in predominantly dry London Clay Formation with the exception of minor seepage at various horizons, namely silt or claystone horizons. Within the London Clay Formation, any groundwater present is likely to consist of localised seepages and/or minor flows. It is therefore possible that localised high pressure groundwater might be encountered within parts of the London Clay. The most porous section of London Clay the A3ii division - is present within the GI borehole logs. Groundwater movement through the London Clay Formation also occurs along horizontal bedding planes, resulting in localised seepages. The base of the London Clay has less sand fraction, and is therefore regarded as the less permeable and more compacted part of the London Clay, thereby forming an effective retardation to groundwater flow from the lower aquifer.
E.4
E.4.1
Groundwater levels
The monitoring of groundwater levels is being undertaken by Thames Tunnel team and data has been provided by them. In addition, the EA has a network of observation monitoring boreholes across London for which records are available dating back to 1963. There are no on-site monitoring boreholes currently at the site. Four boreholes were drilled as part of the ground investigational work for the site and 7 discrete horizons are currently monitored within these monitoring points; they are all located within 0.2km of the site as shown in the table below which provides a summary of the monitored horizons. Figure E.3 Groundwater EA monitoring locations (see Volume 18 Figures document) Table E.4 Groundwater onsite monitoring boreholes Response Zone Depths mATD Strata Monitoring
E.4.2
Borehole
Page 323
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Response Zone Depths mATD 59.06 57.66
Borehole PR1081
Strata Lambeth Group Laminated Beds Seaford Chalk Alluvium Lambeth Group Laminated Beds London Clay Thanet Sand River Terrace Deposits
Monitoring Monthly Dips Monthly Dips and 15min Logger data Fortnightly Dips Fortnightly Dips Monthly Dips and 15min Logger data Monthly Dips and 15min Logger data Fortnightly Dips
PR1081 PR1085 PR1085 SA1082 SA1082 SA1084
33.36 29.36 99.83 96.83 58.13 56.53 74.55 70.55 48.55 - 44.55 99.5 96.71
E.4.2
E.4.3
E.4.4
E.4.5
E.4.6 E.4.7
The table above shows the monitoring undertaken in the London Clay Formation/Harwich Formation/upper parts of the Lambeth Group at the site. The four nearest EA monitoring boreholes are identified within the vicinity of the site EA reference numbers TQ27/334, TQ27/284A, TQ27/284BU and TQ27/284BL. The latter three are located in close proximity to one another at Battersea (TQ 2905 7764), approximately 0.4km to the west of the site; TQ27/334 is located 0.8m to the northwest on the opposite side of the River Thames (see Vol 18 Figure E.3). Borehole level hydrograph for the Chalk aquifer from the EA Battersea observation borehole is shown in Figure E.5. The piezometric heads in the River Terrace Deposits are at or immediately beneath the top of the River Terrace deposits, reflecting the River Thames close proximity, hydraulic control and hydraulic connectivity with the upper aquifer. The levels in the Chalk represent the piezometric level, this is the level to which water will rise in borehole drilled down into the Chalk would reach. The fact that this level is always above the level for the top of Chalk of 37m ATD shows that confined conditions exist within the Chalk aquifer. Furthermore, the piezometric head within the Chalk aquifer is consistently above the base of the London Clay formation, ranging in head between 67 and 77mATD, therefore corresponding to A2 Division of the London Clay Formation. Fluctuations in the Chalk peizometric head hydrograph reflect the impact of fluctuation of nearby Chalk groundwater abstraction rates. Similar to the Seaford Chalk, the piezometric head within the Thanet Sands Formation corresponds to the depth of the London Clay, ranging in
Page 324
E.4.8
E.4.9
E.4.10
head between 76 to 79mATD. This is within the A3i and A2 Divisions of the London Clay Formation. The signal from nearby abstraction is also seen in the Thanet Sands Formation piezometric head hydrograph. The piezometric data since January 2010 supports the assertion that the Seaford Chalk and Thanet Sands Formation have strong hydraulic connectivity, and as such the piezometric head within the lower aquifer is shown to correspond with the lower divisions of the London Clay Formation. Piezometric heads within the Laminated Beds of the Lambeth Group is consistent with or immediately below the top of the River Terrace Deposits (upper aquifer). This is higher than might be expected, and may indicate some hydraulic connectivity between the upper aquifer and the Lambeth Group. Further monitoring points within the Lambeth Group close to the site would verify confidence in the data and whether the observed is representative of the local hydraulics of the Lambeth Group aquifer and respective geological units or not. Water level monitoring data for the London Clay is ambiguous. Water level dips are recorded for the A2 Division of the London Clay; however, it is unclear how to interpret the gradual but significant rise in water levels over the May to July 2009, with piezometric levels similar to the top of the River Terrace Deposits (upper aquifer) thereafter. Small fluctuations in water level within the logger data may be a result of hydrometric pressure variations; the impact of tidal and rainfall related water level changes in the River Thames; or abstraction from the upper aquifer. Further monitoring points, piezometric monitoring and assessment for both the London Clay and its divisions; and the Lambeth Group horizons are recommended to validate the hydrographs and establish the requisite understanding of the hydrogeology local to the site.
Page 325
Figure E.4 Groundwater - level hydrograph Heathwall PS
Page 326
Figure E.5 Groundwater -level hydrograph Battersea OBHs
E.4.11
The levels in the Chalk (red dots) represent the piezometric level, this is the level to which water will rise in borehole drilled down into the Chalk
Page 327
E.4.12
E.4.13
would reach. The fact that this level is always above the level for the top of Chalk of 38m ATD shows that confined conditions exist within the Chalk aquifer. The hydrograph above indicates a long term trend of rising groundwater levels between 1984 (or before) and mid-2000, reflecting the changes in abstractions such as reductions in groundwater abstractions in central London due to the closure of heavy industries. Within this trend, the annual fluctuations in Chalk piezometric level varies by around 1.5m. Although more recently some larger fluctuations has occurred of up to 15m (2004), indicating that abstraction influences may be affecting the piezometric levels in this observation borehole. It is noted that this influence on the long term trend of rising water table commenced in early 2001. The recent lowering of levels reflects increase use of groundwater in central London groundwater. The latest levels from this borehole in January 2010 were around 67mATD (-33mAOD) (EA, 2010). The EA have produced a groundwater contour map of the Chalk piezometric levels at a snap-shot in time in January 2010. According to this map (EA, 2010), the regional direction of groundwater flow around the site is to the northwards to a low point within central London. However, as the site is within a Source Protection Zone 1, the local groundwater gradient may be in a more west-northwesterly direction drawn towards this abstraction, particularly when abstraction is high, notably during peak demand periods.
E.5
D.2.1 D.2.2
Groundwater Abstractions and Protected Rights

Groundwater abstractions within a radius of influence of up to 2km around the site have been identified. Licensed Abstractions there are several groundwater abstractions from the Chalk nearby to the site, including two sources to the southwest and west, and one licence (with four abstractions points) to the north of the site. The largest licence abstraction (Licence Number 28/39/42/0072) is a Chalk source licensed to Thames Water Utility Ltd for public water supply use. The annual licensed quantity of this source is 2,555,000m3/annum. The other sources are also from the Chalk and are licensed to two companies for the purposes of water supply. Further details of these licensed abstractions are given in the table below. Table E.5 Groundwater licensed abstractions Licence Holder Allied Distillers Purpose Industrial, Commercial And Public Services Industrial, Commercial And Public Services Aquifer Licensed Volume [m3/annum] 44,232 Chalk 23,000 Chalk
E.5.2
Licence Number 28/39/42/0033
28/39/42/0070
Tarmac
Page 328
Appendix E: Groundwater Licensed Volume [m3/annum] 20,313
Licence Number
Licence Holder Cannons Health And Fitness Limited Panoramic Management Co Ltd Mantilla Limited Westminster Gardens Limited Royal Horticultural Society Goldstein Not known Terrace Hill (Wilton Road) Nominee No 1 & No 2 Limited Grosvenor Limited Halcyon Estates Limited Wandsworth Borough Council The Trustees of Abford House Unit Trust Lord & Lady Sainsbury
Purpose Industrial, Commercial And Public Services Industrial, Commercial And Public Services Water Supply Water Supply
Aquifer Chalk
28/39/39/0080
Chalk
28/39/39/0139
121,510 and 80,060
28/39/39/0141 28/39/39/0209
Chalk Chalk
258,967 12,810
Agriculture
Chalk
7,000
28/39/39/0225 28/39/39/0226 28/39/39/0227 28/39/39/0232
Water Supply Not known Industrial, Commercial And Public Services Industrial, Commercial And Public Services Water Supply Industrial, Commercial And Public Services Industrial, Commercial
Not known Not known Chalk Chalk
11,612 Not known 280,000
28/39/39/0238
184,896 1,989
28/39/42/0074
Chalk Not known
43,800 Not known
TH/039/0042/002 TH/039/0042/004
Chalk
200000
TH/039/0042/013
Industrial, Commercial
Chalk
70000
Note: Excludes Public Water Supply Sources
Page 329
E.5.3
E.5.4 E.5.5
To the west of the site is one licensed groundwater abstraction 28/39/42/0034 (one abstraction point) for which no details on either the aquifer from which abstractions take place nor their licensed quantities are presently available. Unlicensed Abstractions there are no unlicensed groundwater abstractions in the Borough of Wandsworth. Ground Source Heat there is one licensed GSH scheme within 0.2km west of the site and one scheme 0.6km to the northeast. Both are open loop systems, abstracting and discharging into the Chalk. These schemes are shown on Figure E.6. Figure E.6 Groundwater GHSP (see Volume 18 Figures document)
E.6
E.6.5 E.6.6
Groundwater source protection zones

The EA defines Source Protection Zones (SPZ) around all major public water supply abstractions sources and large licensed private abstractions. The site lies within the SPZ 1 for the Thames Water Utility source located approximately 0.3km away to the southwest (Figure E.7). There is also SPZ defined for the licensed abstractions to the north, and the SPZ1 for these sources are located at a distance of 0.3km. Figure E.7 Groundwater SPZ (see Volume 18 Figures document) The source to the north is in the direction of regional groundwater flow expected beneath the site, although the seasonal demand led abstraction from the Thames Water supply source at Battersea Pumping Station may affect the regional gradient (see Section 5.6).
E.6.4
E.7
E.7.3
Other designations
There are no other environmental designations relevant to groundwater in the vicinity of the site.
E.8
E.8.3
Groundwater quality
The EA monitors groundwater quality at number of points across London. The nearest EA monitoring is at Dolphin Square, which lies approximately 600m away to the northeast of the site, on the other side of the River Thames. The location of this borehole is shown in Vol 18 Figure E.3. The quality of water is typical of Chalk (Na-Ca-HCO3-SO4 water type). The higher than normal Na is due to ion exchange by the clay minerals within the Chalk matrix and Lower London Tertiaries (Lambeth Group) (EA, 2006). The table below contains the parameters and the number of occasions which they have breached the Drinking Water Standards at Dolphin Square. Table E.6 Groundwater parameter at Dolphin Square Parameter Ammonia Number of detections* 27
E.8.4
Page 330
Appendix E: Groundwater Number of detections* 1 25 16 1 4 1 2 3 1 1 3
Parameter Sulphate Potassium Various pesticides Benzene Silver Manganese Iron Benzopyrene Bromoxynil Copper Nickel
Note * above DWS
E.8.5
E.8.6
Information provided by the Thames Tunnel team on land quality at the site showed no exceedances of any parameter tested. A number of exceedances have been observed from boreholes drilled as part of the GI for the Kirtling Street site. Further monitoring of groundwater quality is being undertaken as part of the Thames Tunnel project monitoring programme. Further information will be presented in the ES.
E.9
E.9.3
Groundwater status
In 2009 the baseline results from the river basin management plan showed the status of the Greenwich Tertiaries as poor current quantitative and chemical quality with an upward chemical trend. The predicted quantitative and chemical quality was poor for 2015 due to being disproportionately expensive or technically infeasible. In the April 2011 update (EA website 11th May 2011) the results of further investigation referred to a point or diffuse source of pollution and confirmed good status.
E.9.4
Page 331
Figure E.8 Groundwater - licensing areas (EA, 2006)
E.10
E.10.3
Assessment of effects technical information specific to topics

Dewatering assessment to be completed for ES
Page 332
Glossary
Glossary
Term A-weighted sound Description A-weighted decibels, abbreviated dBA, or dBa, or dB(a), are an expression of the relative loudness of sounds in air as perceived by the human ear. Ground elevation is measured relative to the mean sea level at Newlyn in Cornwall, referred to as Ordnance Datum (OD), such that heights are reported in metres above or below OD. Removal of water from a source of supply (surface or groundwater). Areas where the local authority determines the national air quality objectives are not likely to be achieved by the relevant deadlines. People, property or designated sites for nature conservation that may be at risk from exposure to air pollutants that could potentially arise as a result of the proposed development/project. Sediment laid down by a river. Can range from sands and gravels deposited by fast flowing water and clays that settle out of suspension during overbank flooding. Other deposits found on a valley floor are usually included in the term alluvium (eg, peat). The average (mean) of the hourly pollutant concentrations measured or predicted for a one year period. Originating as a result of human activities. A hydrogeological unit which, that allows groundwater movement at negligible rates, even though porous and capable of storing water. Groundwater movement insufficient to allow appreciable supply to a borehole or spring. Aquicludes tend to act as an impermeable barrier. A permeable geological stratum or formation that is capable of both storing and transmitting water in significant amounts.
Above Ordinance Datum abstraction Air Quality Management Area air quality sensitive receptors
alluvium
Annual Mean Concentration anthropogenic aquiclude
aquifer
Archaeological Priority Areas of archaeological priority, significance, potential or Area/Zone other title, often designated by the local authority. background concentration Basal Sands base case The contribution to the total measured or predicted concentration of a pollutant that does not originate directly from local sources of emissions. The Upnor Beds (the lower unit of the Lambeth Group) and the Thanet Sands. The base case for the assessment is a future case, without the project, in a particular assessment year.
Page 333
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Term baseflow baseline benthic invertebrates Bentonite Description
Glossary
The component of river flow derived from groundwater sources rather than surface run-off. The existing conditions against which the likely significant effects due to a proposed development are assessed. Invertebrates which are found within or on the river bed. An absorbent aluminium phyllosilicate, in general, impure clay consisting mostly of montmorillonite. Mixed with water, it forms a slurry commonly used as drilling fluid and ground support in tunnelling. A hole drilled into the ground for geological investigation or for the exploitation of geological deposits or groundwater. An abstraction borehole is a well sunk into an aquifer from which water will be pumped. Wind-blown dust deposited under extremely cold, dry post glacial conditions suitable for making bricks. Produced by the BSI Group in order to set up standards of quality for goods and services. 2,000600 BC. Recording of historic buildings (by a competent archaeological organisation) is undertaken to document buildings, or parts of buildings, which may be lost as a result of demolition, alteration or neglect, amongst other reasons. Four levels of recording are defined by Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England (RCHME) and English Heritage. Level 1 (basic visual record); Level 2 (descriptive record), Level 3 (analytical record), and Level 4 (comprehensive analytical record). Also called a bund wall, bunding is a separated area within a structure designed to prevent inundation or breaches of various types. An area of stone, concrete or timber laid on the river / sea bed, that is exposed at low tide, allowing vessels to rest safely and securely in place. The area from which surface water and/or groundwater will collect and contribute to the flow of a specific river, abstraction or other specific discharge boundary. Can be prefixed by surface water or groundwater to indicate the specific nature of the catchment.
borehole
brickearth British Standard Bronze Age Building recording
bunding
campshed
catchment
Page 334
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Term Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy (CAMS) Description
Glossary
The Environment Agencys strategy for water resources management in England and Wales through licensing water abstraction. CAMS is used to inform the public on water resources and licensing practice; provide a consistent approach to local water resources management; and help to balance the needs of water-users and the environment. A curve formed by a perfectly flexible, uniformly dense, and inextensible cable suspended from its endpoints. Whales, dolphins and porpoises. A soft white limestone (calcium carbonate) formed from the skeletal remains of sea creatures. Method for evaluating invertebrate communities based on species rarity, diversity and abundance. A temporary or permanent enclosure built across a body of water to allow the enclosed area to be pumped out creating a dry work environment. A sewer conveying waste water of domestic or industrial origin and rain water. A structure, or series of structures, designed to allow spillage of excess waste water from a combined sewer under high rainfall conditions. Flows may discharge by gravity or by pumping. A simplified representation or qualified description of the behaviour of the hydrogeological system. A quantitative conceptual model includes preliminary calculations and flow and mass balances. Conservation areas defined by Local Planning Authorities according to the provisions of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The area of site that would be used during the construction phase. The statutory plan which sets out a boroughs planning policies in relation to the management of development and land use. Supersedes the Unitary Development Plan in Boroughs where it has been adopted. A mobile crane, usually with caterpillar tracks. The flow from the existing CSO is diverted to the location of the drop shaft. The drop shaft location requires suitable access for construction and maintenance.
catenary Cetaceans Chalk Community Conservation Index. (CCI) cofferdam
combined sewer combined sewer overflow (CSO)
conceptual model
Conservation area
construction site Core Strategy
crawler crane CSO connection culvert
Page 335
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Term CSO connection tunnel Description
Glossary
The flow from the drop shaft is transferred to the Thames Tunnel through a connection tunnel. These vary in diameter from 2.2m to 5.0m Long connection tunnels can be up to 4,615m in length. The shaft connects the flow down to the Thames Tunnel. The shaft sizes depend on the amount of flow to be intercepted and the de-aeration requirements and the depth depends on the location of the Thames Tunnel. The size ranges from 6m to 25m and depth from 25 to 75m. Site where the flows from an existing CSO would be redirected to the main Thames Tunnel. An area of land or structures around a dwelling or other structure. Excavated material to be re-used within the development as fill or removed off-site. the equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level having the same energy as a fluctuating sound over a specified time period T. An area within the shaft and/or associated pipe work, where air is removed from liquids. Logarithmic ratio used to relate sound pressure level to a standard reference level. Influencing or determining elements or factors. In London these refer to the borough Unitary Development Plans. A system used to locally lower groundwater levels around the worksite to provide stable working conditions when excavating. A diaphragm wall is a reinforced concrete retaining wall that is constructed in-situ. A deep trench is excavated and supported with bentonite slurry, and then reinforcing steel is inserted into the trench. Concrete is poured into the trench and only after this does excavation in front of the retained earth commence. The release of substances (eg, water, sewage, etc.) into surface waters, ground or sewer. A lowering of the water level in a borehole or aquifer, usually in response to abstraction. Legal standards set in Europe in the Drinking Water Directive 1998 together with UK national standards to maintain wholesomeness of potable water.
CSO drop shaft
CSO interception site curtilage cut dB LAeq,T
de-aeration chamber decibel (dB) determinands Development Plan dewatering wells
diaphragm wall
discharge drawdown Drinking Water Standards
Page 336
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Term early medieval effect effluent Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Description
Glossary
AD 410 1066. Also referred to as the Saxon period. The result of an impact on a particular resource or receptor. The treated wastewater discharged from the Sewage Treatment Works. An assessment of the likely significant effects that a proposed project may have on the environment, considering natural, social and economic aspects, prepared in accordance with the 2009 Infrastructure Planning EIA Regulations. The concentration of chemical pollutants assessed to have detrimental effects on water quality in terms of the health of aquatic plants and animals. EQS are established in the WFD (Annex V) through the testing of the toxicity of the substance on aquatic biology. A document to be prepared following an EIA which provides a systematic and objective account of the EIAs findings, prepared in accordance with the 2009 Infrastructure Planning EIA Regulations. A limited programme of nonintrusive and/or intrusive fieldwork which determines the presence or absence of archaeological features, structures, deposits, artefacts or ecofacts within a specified area. A programme of controlled, intrusive fieldwork with defined research objectives which examines, records and interprets archaeological remains, retrieves artefacts, ecofacts and other remains within a specified area. The records made and objects gathered are studied and the results published in detail appropriate to the project design. A structural planar fracture or discontinuity within lithological strata due to strain or compression, in which significant displacement is observable. Factors that will determine the severity of an odour as defined by the Environment Agency; Frequency, Intensity, Duration, Offensiveness, Receptor. Material required to raise existing ground levels. This can utilise cut material generated within the site, or necessitate the importation of material. The location at which an item was found. A sewer conveying waste water of domestic and/or industrial origin, but little or no rain water. A breakage in a rock mass. Present at any scale, but is generally used for large scale discontinuities.
Environmental Quality Standards (EQS)
Environmental Statement (ES)
Evaluation (archaeological)
Excavation (archaeological)
fault
FIDOR
fill
findspot foul sewer fracture
Page 337
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Term GARDIT Description
Glossary
General Aquifer Research Development and Investigation Team (Thames Water, the Environment Agency and London Underground with the support of organisations such as the Corporation of London, Envirologic, the Association of British Insurers (ABI) and BT). The gradual increase in the temperature of the earth's atmosphere, believed to be due to the greenhouse effect, caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, and other pollutants. Benchmark national quality standard for parks and green spaces in the United Kingdom. Water contained in underground strata, predominantly in aquifers. Inundation of land or basements as groundwater levels rise and the groundwater discharges to the surface or underground structures. The rise in groundwater level that occurs after cessation of abstraction. Groundwater Body: distinct volume of groundwater within an aquifer or aquifers. A dark brown slightly glauconitic clay with localised fine sand. Temporary roads provided within the contractors site area to allow the transportation of material around the site. A building, monument, site, place, area or landscape positively identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions. Heritage assets are the valued components of the Historic environment. They include designated heritage assets and assets identified by the local planning authority (including local listing). Archaeological and built heritage database held and maintained by the County authority. Previously known as the Sites and Monuments Record. Designated residential area with streets designed to operate primarily as a space for social use. Generally hard nodular chalks with thin flaser marls. In parts, there are significant proportions of shell debris. Inter-bedded coloured marl and chalk succession characteristic of the Plenus Marls Member are found at its base. Above this, the Melbourn Rock Member is distinguishable by its lack of shell material.
global warming
Green Flag groundwater groundwater flooding
groundwater rebound GWB Harwich Formation haul roads heritage asset
Historic environment Record (HER) Homezone Holywell Nodular Chalk
Page 338
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Term hydraulic conductivity Description
Glossary
A constant of proportionality in Darcys law that allows the calculation of the rate of groundwater flow from the hydraulic gradient. For a unit hydraulic gradient, the higher the hydraulic conductivity the higher the rate of groundwater flow. In an aquifer this is the rate of change of groundwater level per unit distance in a given direction. Groundwater flows in the direction of the decline in hydraulic gradient. A graph showing a plot of water flow or level with time, applicable to both surface water and groundwater. A physical or measurable change to the environment attributable to the project. This structure is required to be built around the existing overflow either on land or at the discharge point in the foreshore. The chamber has a weir and valves to divert the flow in to the Thames Tunnel system. It is likely to be a reinforced concrete cut and cover box structure. In some other cases the structure is required to be built adjacent to an inlet or sump of a pump station from which the flow is diverted 600 BC AD 43. A caisson is a retaining, water-tight structure open to the air. A jack is used to push the caisson into the ground, with the internal area then excavated. Equivalent continuous sound level is a notional steady sound level which would cause the same A-weighted sound energy to be received as that due to the actual and possibly fluctuating sound over a period of time (T). It can also be used to relate periods of exposure and noise level. Thus, for example, a halving or doubling of the period of exposure is equivalent in sound energy to a decrease or increase of 3dB(A) in the sound level for the original period. The maximum sound level measured on the A- weighted scale occurring during an event. Complex sequence of highly variable inter-bedded sediments which include clay, sands, pebble beds and Shelly beds. Fine to coarse sand or clay with occasional black organic matter. AD 1066 1500. The Lee Tunnel comprises a 7.2m diameter storage and transfer tunnel from Abbey Mills Pumping Station to Beckton STW and the interception of the Abbey Mills CSO.
hydraulic gradient
hydrograph impact interception chamber
Iron Age jacked caission
LAeq(T)
LAmax Lambeth Group Laminated Beds later medieval Lee Tunnel
Page 339
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Term Lewes Nodular Chalk Description
Glossary
Hard to very hard nodular chalks and hardgrounds with interbedded soft to medium hard chalks and marls. More abundant softer chalks towards the top. Formal permit allowing the holder to engage in an activity (in the context of this report, usually abstraction), subject to conditions specified in the licence itself and the legislation under which it was issued. A structure of architectural and/or historical interest. These are included on the Secretary of State's list, which affords statutory protection. These are subdivided in to Grades I, II* and II (in descending importance). The general characteristics of a rock or sedimentary formation. Local areas where the local authority determines the national air quality objectives are not likely to be achieved by the relevant deadlines. Collection of planning documents prepared by the Local Planning Authority outlining the management of development and land use in a Borough. A structure of local architectural and/or historical interest. These are structures that are not included in the Secretary of States Listing but are considered by the local authority to have architectural and/or historical merit. An area specific plan to interpret and apply the strategy set out in the Structure Plan, to provide a detailed basis for the control of development, to provide a basis for co-ordinating new development and to bring planning issues before the public. Fine sandy silty clay to silty clay. The LTI comprise five separate improvement projects at Thames Waters five Tideway sewage treatment works (STWs): Mogden, Beckton, Crossness, Riverside and Long Reach. The LTT comprises two separate projects: the Lee Tunnel and the Thames Tunnel. Consisting of the Upnor Beds (the lowest unit of the Lambeth Group), the Thanet Sands and the Chalk. Artificial deposit. An archaeologist would differentiate between modern made ground, containing identifiably modern inclusion such as concrete (but not brick or tile), and undated made ground, which may potentially contain deposits of archaeological interest.
licence
listed building
lithology Local Air Quality Management (LAQM) Local Development Framework (LDF) locally listed building
Local Plan
London Clay London Tideway Improvements (LTI)
London Tideway Tunnels (LTT) Lower aquifer made ground
Page 340
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Term main tunnel drive shaft site main tunnel reception shaft site Mesolithic mitigation measures Description
Glossary
Site that would be used to insert and then drive the TBM. Site that would be used to remove the TBM from the Thames Tunnel at the end of the drive. 12,000 4,000 BC. Actions proposed to prevent or reduce adverse effects arising from the whole or specific elements of the development. 4,000 2,000 BC. Non-nodular chalk, massively bedded, with fairly regularly developed marl seams and sporadic flints. A product of combustion processes. Nitrogen dioxide is associated with adverse effects on human health. A report which briefly describes the main points discussed in the Environmental Statement in a clear manner without the use of technical jargon and phraseology. This report is a requirement of the 2009 Infrastructure Planning EIA Regulations. The Water Services Regulations Authority, a government body set up in 1989 to regulate the activities of the water companies in England and Wales. Odour panel sampling carried out in laboratory conditions. Related to past environments, ie, during the prehistoric and later periods. Such remains can be of archaeological interest, and often consist of organic remains such as pollen and plant macro fossils which can be used to reconstruct the past environment. 700,00012,000 BC. A Middle Bronze Age axe. Solid particles or liquid droplets suspended or carried in the air and includes the same matter after it has deposited onto a surface. For the purposes of this assessment the term includes all size fractions of suspended matter, such as dust, PM10 and PM2.5. A structure containing carbon which absorbs odour from air flowing out of the Tunnel, without the assistance of mechanical pumping. Preliminary Environmental Information Report is a document setting out initial environmental information. In accordance with the Planning Act 2008, it is a requirement that this is the subject of pre-application consultation.
Neolithic New Pit Chalk nitrogen dioxide (and oxides NO2 and NO) Non-Technical Summary (NTS)
Ofwat
olfactometry Palaeo-environmental
Palaeolithic palstave particulate matter (PM)
passive filter chamber
PEIR
Page 341
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Term pelagic invertebrates perched water Description Invertebrates which are found in the water column.
Glossary
Is groundwater in an aquifer present above the regional water table, as a result of a (semi-)impermeable layer of rock or sediment above the main water table/aquifer, below the ground surface. The capacity of soil or porous rock to transmit water. A measure of the acidity or basicity of an aqueous solution. A borehole designed specifically to allow the measurement of groundwater level. The level or head to which groundwater would rise in a piezometer if it is free to seek equilibrium with the atmosphere. Written procedures put in place for dealing with spillages and pollution. Containing void spaces. Most sedimentary rocks are porous to some extent, and the term is commonly applied in a relative sense, generally restricted to rocks which have significant effective porosity. Refers to Option 3 Abbey Mills route, which runs from Action Storm Tanks in west London to Limehouse then turns northeast to Abbey Mills Pumping Station, where it connects with the Lee Tunnel. Refers to the preferred route and construction sites. Sites assessed as most suitable following review of suitability of each shortlisted site by taking in to account engineering,planning, environment, property and community considerations. Preservation by recording and advancement of understanding of asset significance. This is a standard archaeological mitigation strategy where heritage assets remains are fully excavated and recorded archaeologically and the results published. For remains of lesser significance, preservation by record might comprise an archaeological watching brief. Archaeological mitigation strategy where nationally important (whether designated or not) heritage assets are conserved in situ for future generations, typically through modifications to design proposals to avoid damage or destruction of such remains.
permeability pH piezometer piezometric surface
Pollution Incident Control Plan porous
preferred route
preferred scheme preferred site
preservation by record
preservation in situ
Page 342
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Term Principal Aquifer Description
Glossary
A geological stratum that exhibits high inter-granular and/or fracture permeability. This strata has the ability to support water supply and/or river base flow on a strategic scale. Principal Aquifers equate in most cases to aquifers previously referred to as Major Aquifers. Term used to describe the supply of water provided by a water company. Putty chalk (clay characteristics) near the surface of the unit above firm to soft non-nodular chalk with flint (Upper Chalk undivided) above hard nodular chalk with flints (Lewes Chalk). An international treaty for the conservation and sustainable utilisation of wetlands. River Basin Management Plans these are the relevant plans that outline the state of water resources within a River Basin District relevant to the objectives of the WFD. The rarest and most threatened species are often listed in the Red Data Book of Insectsxi, within which there are three categories. Taxa in danger of extinction are referred to as RDB 1 species; those considered to be vulnerable and likely to move into the endangered category are listed under RDB 2, whilst rare species occur on RDB 3. Section of river between two points. Extensive alluvial sand and gravel deposits laid down in a braided river system in river terraces since the Anglian glaciations. Where live data is used to manipulate control equipment in order to best manage the flow of storm water and sewage within the capacity of the system. People (both individually and communally) and the socioeconomic systems they support. Water that percolates downwards from the surface to replenish the water table. The red route is a network of roads designated by Transport for London that carry heavy volumes of traffic and are essential for the movement of traffic and public transport. These comprise mainly of major routes into and around London. Transport for London are responsible for enforcing the red routes which include clearways, parking and loading bays, bus lanes, yellow box junctions and banned turns.
Public Water Supply Putty Chalk
RAMSAR RBMP
RDB3
reach River Terrace Deposits real time control (RTC) receptors recharge Red route
xi
Bratton, (1991) Red Data Book for Insects
Page 343
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Term risk assessment Description
Glossary
Assessment of the risks associated with an activity or object and possible accidents involving a source or practice. This includes assessment of consequence. AD 43 410. Scheduled Ancient Monument. More commonly referred to as Scheduled Monument. Entry of brackish or salt water into an aquifer, from the sea or estuary. This may be natural or induced by excessive or uncontrolled groundwater abstraction. The zone in which the voids in a rock or soil are filled with water at a pressure greater than atmospheric pressure. An ancient monument or archaeological deposits designated by the Secretary of State as a Scheduled Ancient Monument and protected under the Ancient Monuments Act. The formal view of the determining authority on the range of topics and issues to be considered by the Environmental Impact Assessment, as referred to in the 2009 Infrastructure Planning EIA Regulations. The document prepared by the applicant setting out the proposed approach to the Environmental Impact Assessment, including the range of topics and issues to be addressed, as referred to in the 2009 Infrastructure Planning EIA Regulations. The formal view of the determining authority on the need for an Environmental Impact Assessment to be undertaken, as referred to in the 2009 Infrastructure Planning EIA Regulations. The upper unit of the White Chalk, comprising of as firm to soft non-nodular Chalk with flint beds. Thin marl seams are found towards its base and and absent higher up. A hard ground marks the top of the Seaford Chalk. Alternate piles in-filled with concrete to form a water-tight retaining wall. Either permeable strata capable of supporting local supplies or low permeability strata with localised features such as fissures. The term Secondary Aquifer replaces the previously used name of Minor Aquifer. There are two classes of Secondary Aquifer. Secondary A are capable of supporting water supplies at a local rather than strategic scale and Secondary B are lower permeability layers which may store and yield limited amounts of groundwater due to localised features such as fissures, thin permeable horizons and weathering.
Roman SAM saline intrusion
saturated zone Scheduled Monument
Scoping Opinion
Scoping Report
Screening Opinion
Seaford Chalk
secant piles Secondary Aquifers
Page 344
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Term short listed sites SINC (Grade B) SINC (Grade L) SINC (Grade M) Site Description
Glossary
Sites idenitfied following an assessment of long list sites in accordance with the Site Selection Methodology. Site of Nature Conservation Importance (Grade II of Borough importance). Site of Nature Conservation Importance (Grade I of Local importance). Site of Nature Conservation Importance (Grade III of Metropolitan importance). For the purposes of the PEIR assessment, the site is deemed as the entire area located within the Limit of Land to be Acquired or Used. It should not be inferred that this entire site area will be physically separated (ie, hoarded or fenced) for the construction duration. An area given a statutory designation by English Nature or the Countryside Council for Wales because of its nature conservation value. Materials such as hard standing and vegetation including incidental topsoil (including potential contaminated soil). A record of sites of archaeological interest. An efficient method for constructing the tunnel lining with a layer of sprayed concrete. This is instead of using pre-cast concrete segments. Layers of rock, including unconsolidated materials such as sands and gravels. The study of stratified rocks, their nature, their occurrence, their relationship to each other and their classification. A colourless gas with a choking smell, the main product of the combustion of sulphur contained in fuels. Overarching term for recent generally unconsolidated or loosely consolidated deposits of sand, gravel, silt, clay, etc on top of bedrock. Synonymous with drift generally supersedes the term. This is a general term used to describe all water features such as rivers, streams, springs, ponds and lakes. Water that travels across the ground rather than seeping in to the soil.
Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) site strip Sites and Monuments Record sprayed concrete lining strata stratigraphy sulphur dioxide (SO2) superficial deposits
surface water surface water runoff
Page 345
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Term Thames Tunnel Description
Glossary
The Thames Tunnel comprises a full-length storage and transfer tunnel from Acton Storm Tanks to Beckton Sewage Treatment Works in East London and the interception of specific CSOs along the Thames Tideway with a diameter between 6.5m and 7.2m. Coarsening upward sequence of well sortedfine grained sand which has a higher clay / silt content towards the lower part of the sequence, and evidence of intense bioturbation removing bedding structures. The Thames Tunnel project. Length of river channel swept by water from a discharge point in one tidal cycle. In the case of the River Thames this is considered to 13km up and downstream of the discharge point. Tool developed on behalf of Thames Water to assess the effects of lapses in water quality caused by CSO discharges on Tideway fish populations. The formal assessment of traffic and transportation issues relating to the proposed development. The findings are usually presented in a report which accompanies the planning application. Partially or wholly remove. In archaeological terms remains may have been truncated by previous construction activity. A typical year relates to an actual year, eg, the corresponding meteorological dataset for that year used in the modelling which was 1979-80. The corresponding meteorological dataset is used as it would give a better indication of conditions rather than using a recent year of data where the meteorological data may not be consistent with a rainfall event leading to the tunnel emissions. An enclosed space below the ground surface where air is released to atmosphere, should the pressure within the Tunnel exceed a set value. The statutory plan which sets out a unitary authoritys planning policies. These are rocks which are generally unable to provide usable water supplies and are unlikely to have surface water and wetland ecosystems dependent upon them. Variably bioturbated fine- to medium-grained sand with glauconite, rounded flint pebbles and minor clay, with distinctive pebble beds and base and top. Comprising the water bearing strata above the London Clay, namely the River Terrace Deposits and the Alluvium.
Page 346
Thanet Sands
The project tidal excursion
Tideway Fish Risk Model Transport Assessment (TA)
truncate typical year
underground pressure release chamber Unitary Development Plan (UDP) unproductive strata
Upnor Formation
Upper aquifer
Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station Term Upper Mottled Beds Upper Shelly Beds Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive valve chamber Description A bluish grey mottled with greenish brown clay.
Glossary
Contains shell fragments within a flinty gravel or a sandy clay The Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (1991) has the overall aim of protecting the environment from the adverse effects of urban waste water discharges. An underground structure on the sewer system containing valves which are used to isolate the flow between different parts of the sewer system. For example, flap valves prevent the flow from the river travelling back up the sewer or into the tunnel. A stack through which air is released. An EC Directive seeking to improve water quality in rivers and groundwater in an integrated way (2000). An archaeological watching brief is a formal programme of observation and investigation conducted during any operation carried out for nonarchaeological reasons. Level below which the ground is saturated with water. The water table elevation may vary with recharge and groundwater abstraction. The WEEE Directive aims to reduce the amount of electrical and electronic equipment going to landfill and to encourage everyone to reuse, recycle and recover it. Chalk with flints, with discrete marl seams, nodular chalk, sponge-rich and flint seams throughout. Flint typology and marl seam incidence is important for correlation. Comprises of Seaford Chalk, Lewes Nodular Chalk, New Pit Chalk and Holywell Nodular Chalk.
ventilation column Water Framework Directive (WFD) watching brief (archaeological) water table
Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (WEEE) White Chalk subgroup
Page 347
References
References
Defra, http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/review-and-assessment/tools/background-maps.html, Accessed May 2011)
2 3 1
LB Wandsworth, Personal Communication with David Kennett EHO, March 2011
Defra (2010), http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/documents/Measured-nitrogen-oxides-(NOx)and-or-nitrogen-dioxide-(NO2)-concentrations-do-not-appear-to-be-declining-in-linewith-national-forecastsv1.pdf, Accessed April 2011

4 5
Defra (2009) Local Air Quality Management- Technical Guidance, LAQM.TG(09).
Greater London Authority and London Councils (2006) Best Practice Guidance: The Control of Dust and Emissions from Construction and Demolition, November 2006
6 7
Defra (2010) Draft National Policy Statement for Waste Water, November 2010.
Thames Estuary Partnership Biodiversity Action Group (2002) Tidal Thames Habitat Action Plan. London Biodiversity Partnership.
8
Elliott, M. & Hemingway, K. L. (2002). Fishes in Estuaries, London: Blackwell Science.

9
Elliott, M. and Taylor, C.J.L. (1989). The structure and functioning of an estuarine/marine fish community in the Forth estuary, Scotland. Proc. 21st European Marine Biological Symposium (Gdansk). Polish Academy of Sciences, Institute of Oceanology, Warsaw, Poland, 227-240.
10
Colclough, S.R, Gray, G, Bark, A & Knights, B. Fish and fisheries of the tidal Thames: management of the modern resource, research aims and future pressures. Journal of Fish Biology (2002) 61 (Supplement A), pp 64-73
11
Chadd, R and Extence, C (2004). The conservation of freshwater macroinvertebrate populations: a community based classification scheme. Aquatic Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 14: 597-624. Turnpenny, A.W.H., Clough, S.C., Holden, S.D.J., Bridges, M., Bird, H., OKeeffe, N.J., Johnson, D., Edmonds, M., Hinks, C. (2004). Thames Tideway Strategy: Experimental Studies on the Dissolved Oxygen Requirements of Fish Consultancy Report no.FCR374/04 to Thames Water Utilities, Ltd. Fawley Aquatic Research, Fawley Southampton, April, 2004. http://www.wfduk.org/LibraryPublicDocs/ThamesTidewayStrategyExperimentalStudie sontheDissolvedOxygenRequirementsofFish] Maitland, PS and Hatton-Ellis, TW. Ecology of the Allis and Twaite Shad. Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers Ecology Series No. 3. English Nature, Peterborough (2003)
14 13 12
Mayor of London Connecting with Londons Nature The Mayors Biodiversity Strategy July 2002
15
Department of Communities and Local Government. Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment (March 2010), 1, 13
16 17
Barton N, The Lost Rivers Of London. Historical Publications, London (1992) Morley MW, The Battersea Channel: A Former Course of the River Thames? in
Page 348
References
London Archaeologist 12 (Winter 2009/2010), 188-194

18 19 20 21
Rippon S, The Transformation of Coastal Wetlands, Oxford (2000), 1 Victoria County History, A History of the County of Surrey: Volume 4 (1912), 817 Victoria County History, A History of the County of Surrey: Volume 4 (1912), 817
Weinreb B, Hibbert C, Keay J and Keay J, The London Encyclopaedia. Macmillan. London (2008), 46
22
BS5228:2009 Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites
23
Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (2007), London Noise Maps (http://services.defra.gov.uk/wps/portal/noise)
24
BS 4142: 1997 Method for rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas
25 26
Core Strategy (2010), LB Wandsworth, London
This description is based on observations made in early summer 2011. It should be noted that on-going construction works on the Tideway Industrial Estate for the Tideway Wharf (Riverlight) redevelopment mean that the character and appearance of the path is likely to be continually changing as construction work progresses to the immediate west of the path.
27
The London Plan (consolidated with alterations since 2004), (2008), Greater London Authority, London
28 29
Source: http://www.battersea-powerstation.com/, last accessed on 15/06/11
Source: http://www.tideway-wharf.co.uk/assets/pdfs/tideway_wharf_booklet.pdf, last accessed on 15/06/11

30
According to The Mayors London Open Space Hierarchy, a pocket park and small open space can be up to 0.4ha in area and serve a catchment of approximately 400m.
31
EA(2006) Groundwater Quality Review: London Basin Ref. No. GWQR22 [6441R6] November 2006.
32 33
Thames Tideway Strategic Study, Thames Water, February 2005
PPS25 Practice Guide (Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk Practice Guide. Communities and Local Government (Dec 2009)
34
Thames Estuary 2100 Flood Risk Management Plan. Environment Agency. Accessed Feb 2011 http://www.environmentagency.gov.uk/research/library/consultations/106100.aspx
35
Mayor of London, the London Plan Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London . (Jul 2011)
36
London Boroughs of Wandsworth, Merton, Sutton and Croydon Level 1 Final Report. Scott Wilson Ltd (Dec 2008). London Boroughs of Wandsworth, Merton, Sutton and Croydon Level 2 Final Report. Scott Wilson Ltd (Apr 2009)).
37
Thames Estuary 2100 Flood Risk Management Plan. Environment Agency.
Page 349
References
Accessed Feb 2011 http://www.environmentagency.gov.uk/research/library/consultations/106100.aspx

38 39
London Regional Flood Risk Appraisal. Greater London Authority (Oct 2009))
Thames Tidal Defences Joint Probability Extreme Water Levels 2008 Final Modelling Report. Environment Agency (Apr 2008) (Thames Barrier operational, Model Node 2.3).
40
Mayors Draft Water Strategy. Mayor of London. Greater London Authority (Aug 2009)
41
TT (2010) Ground Investigation Factual Report Contract Reference No. WAL080092
Page 350
Thames Tunn
110-RG-ENV-PWH10-000026
Phase two consultation (Autumn 2011)
For further information see our website: www.thamestunnelconsultation.co.uk or call us on 0800 0721 086
Thames Tunn

PEIR Main Report Vol18 Heathwall Pumping Station

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

PEIR Main Report Vol18 Heathwall Pumping Station

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station site assessment

Phase two consultation documentation

Project information papers

Site information papers

Thames Tunnel Preliminary environmental information report

Part B: Preliminary site information

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 26 Volume 27 Volume 28

Preliminary environmental information report

Thames Tunnel Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station site assessment

Preliminary environmental information report

Preliminary environmental information report

Preliminary environmental information report

Preliminary environmental information report

Preliminary environmental information report

Preliminary environmental information report

Preliminary environmental information report

Preliminary environmental information report

WSI WWT ZTV ZVI

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station

Section 2: Site context

Site context Site location

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station

Section 2: Site context

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station

Section 3: Proposed development

Proposed development Overview

Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station

Section 3: Proposed development

3.2.5 3.2.6 3.2.7

Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station

Section 3: Proposed development

3.2.13 3.2.14 3.2.15

Access and maintenance works

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station 3.2.23

Section 3: Proposed development

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station 3.3.11

Section 3: Proposed development

Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station 3.3.25

Section 3: Proposed development

3.3.27 3.3.28 3.3.29

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station

Section 3: Proposed development

Access and movement

Reinstatement and commissioning

Construction programme and working hours

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station

Section 3: Proposed development

Core working hours Mobilisation period

Maintenance and support period

Design development and on site alternatives

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 18: Heathwall Pumping Station