Site Suitability Report C22XA and CLLAC: Foreshore, Adjacent To Victoria Embankment Gardens, Victoria Embankment

Spring 2010
Site Suitability Report C22XA and CLLAC

Foreshore, adjacent to Victoria Embankment Gardens, Victoria Embankment
Please note: Further details are provided in the Final Report on Site Selection Process (doc ref: 7.05) that can be found on the Thames Tideway Tunnel section of the Planning Inspectorates web site.
100-RG-PNC-C22XA-900001 | Spring 2010
Site Suitability Report C22XA and CLLAC

Foreshore, adjacent to Victoria Embankment Gardens, Victoria Embankment
THAMES TUNNEL
SITE SUITABILITY REPORT C22XA AND CLLAC

LIST OF CONTENTS
Page Number 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 1.2 1.3 2 Purpose and structure of the report Background Consultation 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 8 9 9 9 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12
SITE INFORMATION 2.1 2.2 Site and surroundings Type of site
3 4
PROPOSED USE OF SITE CONSTRUCTION PHASE PROPOSED USE OF SITE OPERATIONAL PHASE 4.1 4.2 Introduction Restoration and after-use
ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Access Construction works considerations Permanent works considerations Health and safety
PLANNING ASSESSMENT 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 Introduction Planning applications and permissions Planning context Consultation comments Planning comments
ENVIRONMENTAL APPRAISAL 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 7.10 Introduction Transport Archaeology Built heritage and townscape Water resources hydrogeology and surface water Ecology Flood risk Air quality Noise Land quality
SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT 8.1 8.2 Socio-economic profile Issues and impacts
PROPERTY ASSESSMENT 9.1 9.2 Introduction Crown Land and Special Land comments
100-RG-PNC-C22XA-900001.doc
9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 10
Land to be acquired Property valuation comments Disturbance compensation comments Offsite statutory compensation comments Site acquisition cost assessment
13 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 15 15 16 17
SITE CONCLUSIONS BY DISCIPLINE 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 Introduction Engineering Planning Environment Socio-economic and community Property
APPENDICES APPENDIX 1 SOURCES OF INFORMATION APPENDIX 2 SITE LOCATION PLAN APPENDIX 3 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT PLANS APPENDIX 4 PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS APPENDIX 5 TRANSPORT PLAN APPENDIX 6 SERVICES AND GEOLOGY PLAN APPENDIX 7 CONSTRUCTION PHASE LAYOUT APPENDIX 8 OPERATIONAL PHASE LAYOUT APPENDIX 9 ENVIRONMENTAL APPRAISAL TABLE
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AOD BAP BT CPO CSO DLR EA GLA HGV LNR LPA LU m MOL ONS ORN PLA POS PTAL SAM SINC SNCI SSR SSSI SuDS TfL TD TLRN TPA UDP UXO
above Ordnance Datum Biodiversity Action Plan British Telecom compulsory purchase order combined sewer overflow Docklands Light Railway Environment Agency Greater London Authority heavy goods vehicle local nature reserve local planning authority London Underground metre/metres Metropolitan Open Land Office of National Statistics Olympic Route Network Port of London Authority public open space public transport accessibility level scheduled ancient monument site of importance for nature conservation site(s) of nature conservation importance site suitability report site(s) of special scientific interest sustainable urban drainage systems Transport for London tunnel datum Transport for London Road Network Thames Policy Area unitary development plan unexploded ordnance
Site Suitability Report C22XA
1 1.1 1.1.1
INTRODUCTION Purpose and structure of the report The Site Selection Methodology (May 2009) paper (paragraphs 2.3.29 - 2.3.34) outlines the process to be used to create the preferred list of shaft sites, and this process also applies to CSO sites. Paragraph 2.3.31 lists the type of general considerations that will be addressed in each site suitability report, but they depend on the relevance to the site and professional judgement made in the assessments. This report was prepared through the assessment of information from the perspective of a number of technical disciplines: Engineering, Planning, Environment, Property and Community. The reports have been prepared on the basis of the information listed in Appendix 1 - Sources of Information, and this level of information is considered to be appropriate to the current stage. The Background Technical Paper provides information on the requirements for different site types, their sizes and typical activities/facilities within the sites. Each site suitability report considers a particular site on its own merits. In addition, an engineering options report was produced. Information from both of these reports will feed into the technical assessment of how well the site may fit in with tunnel design options, ensuring combinations of sites spread across the length of the tunnel route provide a reasonable spatial distribution of sites (that will best assist with the construction of the tunnel, operation and maintenance). This is considered in the Preferred Scheme Report. Background The process for selecting sites is set out in the Site Selection Methodology (May 2009) paper. All sites have previously passed through the following parts of Stage 1: Part 1A - Creation of the long list of potential shaft (and CSO) sites Part 1B - Creation of a short list of potential shaft (and CSO) sites o o o Table 2.2: Long list of shaft (and CSO) sites - an assessment against set considerations and values Table 2.3: Draft short list of shaft (and CSO) sites - assessment against a list of detailed considerations Workshops to consider each site to arrive at a short list of sites.
1.1.2
1.1.3 1.1.4
1.2 1.2.1
1.2.2
The final part of Stage 1 includes this report. The following is an overall summary of all elements that apply to all the sites on the final short list: Part 1C - Creation of the Preferred List of shaft (and CSO) sites - site data, site visits, site suitability reports, engineering options report and optioneering workshops that will result in the Preferred Scheme Report.
1.3 1.3.1
Consultation The Thames Water project team held meetings with London local authorities, statutory and other stakeholders to review the provisional short list of shaft and CSO sites. All general and site specific comments can be found in a separate report titled Consultation on the Short List of Sites: Consultation Feedback Report. These comments were considered to help determine the final short list of sites, but they were also considered at the optioneering workshops. Further meetings were held with London local authorities, statutory and other stakeholders between January and March 2010. Comments are included in this report.
1.3.2
Page 1
2 2.1 2.1.1
SITE INFORMATION Site and surroundings This site is one of the shortlisted sites for the Regent Street CSO. This section provides an overview of all the site information that will be used by one or more disciplines to assess the site in sections 3 to 9 of this report. The site is located on the foreshore adjacent to, and south of, the Hungerford Bridge and Golden Jubilee footbridges, in the City of Westminster. The site area includes two permanently moored vessels: the Tattershall Castle and the Hispaniola Restaurant Ship. Embankment Pier and a mooring lie to the north of site and Embankment Station to the northwest. The west side of the site is bordered by Victoria Embankment (the A3211) and beyond the road is Victoria Embankment Gardens. A site location plan is attached as Appendix 2. The site and immediate adjacent surroundings are covered by various designations within the Westminster Unitary Development Plan. These include an archaeological area, a conservation area and an open space of metropolitan importance. All the mapped designations are shown on the planning and environment plans in Appendix 3. Photographs of the site and surroundings, together with an aerial photograph of the site, are attached as Appendix 4. The nearest residential area is located approximately 100m from the site at Whitehall Court. There is road access to the site directly off the TLRN A3211 Victoria Embankment. The nearest passenger railway station is Charing Cross (0.3km away) and the nearest London Underground station is Embankment (0.1km away). There are no existing wharf/jetty facilities on this site. A transport plan for the site is attached as Appendix 5. Third-party assets and significant utilities are listed below and are shown on the services and geology plan in Appendix 6: The Bakerloo underground tunnels are immediately to the north of the site and Northern underground tunnels are north of the site, on the other side of Hungerford Bridge. The Circle and District Line underground tunnels run outside to the west of the site. Embankment Underground Station on the outside northern part of the site. Hungerford (Golden Jubilee) footbridges on the outside northern part of the site. Northern Low Level Sewer No 1 is within the Embankment, on the western edge of the site. A service culvert is located directly above the northern Low Level Sewer No 1, in the Embankment. Northern Line 3.95m ID disused loop tunnel is north of Hungerford Bridge. St Martins Post Office 2.31m ID tunnel is north of the site, on the other side of Hungerford Bridge. The Northumberland Street storm outlet is located to the north of the site. The Regent Street storm outlet is located in the centre of the western boundary of the site (this is the CSO sewer to be intercepted).
2.1.2
2.1.3
2.1.4 2.1.5 2.1.6
2.1.7
2.1.8
The locations of other third-party assets, such as BT and fibre optic communication cables, are to be confirmed by further studies and utility searches and may not be shown on the services and geology plan. Information on the geology specific to this site can be found within the services and geology plan, which is in Appendix 6. This plan shows that the shaft would be founded in the Lambeth Group.
2.1.9
Page 2
2.2 2.2.1
Type of site The site C22XA is a potential site for the interception of the Regent Street CSO (CS22X). The site CLLAC is a potential site for the partial interception of northern Low Level Sewer No 1 (LL1). Although identified separately, the sites C22XA and CLLAC are in practice the same physical site and this site is now being considered to intercept both CS22X and LL1 as: a large CSO site to intercept the Regent Street CSO and provide relief to LL1 through an overflow weir a small CSO site to intercept the Regent Street CSO and provide relief to LL1 through an overflow weir.
3 3.1.1 3.1.2
PROPOSED USE OF SITE CONSTRUCTION PHASE The proposed construction phase layouts for the CSO site are located in Appendix 7 Construction Phase Layout, and are based on a preliminary assessment. The construction phase layout drawings are illustrative and show: the layout as a large CSO site the layouts as small CSO site potential access point.
3.1.3
These drawings provide initial preliminary schematic layouts that have not been optimised. If the site proceeds to the next stage as a preferred site, construction phase layouts would be optimised to minimise impacts. Photographs of typical activities associated with the shaft construction phase are provided in Appendix 7. Potential above ground construction features include: approximately 3m high hoarding around the site boundary welfare facilities, temporary structures, approximately 3m high grout plant, approximately 3m to 5m high, including silos mobile crane, approximately 30m high (maximum and not for full construction duration).
3.1.4
3.1.5 3.1.6 3.1.7
Foreshore working is required for this site and a cofferdam or similar construction works would be needed. A preliminary assessment of the traffic management which would be required is indicated on the temporary traffic management plan in Appendix 5. Preliminary data associated with the construction phase are provided in Table 3.1 and are common to both the large site and small site scenarios. Table 3.1 Construction phase data Activity Length of construction period Likely working hours, ie, (night/day/weekend) Working days Primary means of transporting excavated material away from site Primary means of transporting materials to site
*There may be opportunities to use barge transport for this site.
CSO site 0.5 to 2 years 12 hrs from 7am to 7pm Mon to Sat Road * Road *
Page 3
4 4.1 4.1.1 4.1.2
PROPOSED USE OF SITE OPERATIONAL PHASE Introduction The indicative operational phase layout for the CSO site is located in Appendix 8 Operational Phase Layout, and is based on a preliminary assessment. The generic elevations of structures shown on the operational phase layout are located in Appendix 8 and provide an illustration of typical examples of the permanent structures which are applicable to CSO sites. For both CSO options, the above ground infrastructure at this site is likely to comprise a a ventilation column 10m high and 3m diameter, a ventilation building 5m x 15m x 5m high and a 20m x 10m top structure with openings. The top structure is to provide access and egress into the main shaft and flap valve chamber. The top structures are envisaged to be finished at a level of 107m tunnel datum (TD) (7mAOD), and since the ground level mean value at this site is 104mTD (4mAOD), the top structures would be raised to approximately 3m above the current ground level. For further information on the generic layout of this top structure, refer to Appendix 8. A hardstanding would be provided to the top structures. The site would not be fenced. Preliminary data associated with the operational phase are provided in Table 4.1. Table 4.1 Operational phase data Level of inspections and maintenance and likely working hours, ie, (night/day/weekend) frequency of visits 1 daytime visit every six months for electrical/instrument inspection. An additional 1 week maintenance period for tunnel/shaft inspection required per 10 years that could be night/day/weekend working. 1 van visit every six months. An additional 1 week period of 2 to 10 movements per day (estimated several vans and 2 cranes) every 10 years.
b
4.1.3
4.1.4
4.1.5 4.1.6
No of traffic movements
4.2 4.2.1
Restoration and after-use The portion of the site not occupied by the permanent works would be restored to its original condition on completion of the construction works. If any buildings were demolished, these would not be reinstated unless required. ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT Access This section should be read in conjunction with Section 7.2. Road
5 5.1 5.1.1
5.1.2
a
The TLRN A3211, Victoria Embankment, is adjacent to the site.
It was anticipated that the ventilation column at shaft sites would be 10m high when the assessment in this report was undertaken. Although this was subsequently changed to 15m high, the assessment was not revised as it was considered that the difference would not change any disciplines conclusion on the suitability of the site. b It was anticipated that the elevation of top structures at both CSO and shaft sites would be finished at 107mTD when the assessment in this report was undertaken. Although this was subsequently changed to 104.5mTD, the assessment was not revised as it was considered that the difference would not change any disciplines conclusion on the suitability of the site.
Page 4
5.1.3 5.1.4
For the construction phase, there would be two access points and a one-way system would be employed. Access to both large and small sites would be the same. For the operational phase, the access to the permanent works would be directly from Victoria Embankment. Rail
5.1.5
Foot passengers can access the site via Charing Cross rail station or Embankment LU station. However, rail access is not considered to be a significant factor for CSO sites. River
5.1.6
River access and jetty/wharfage facilities are not a requirement for CSO sites. However, as the site is in the foreshore, there may be opportunities to use barge transport. It is noted that the site is close to Hungerford Bridge and this could be an issue for any wharfage/jetty facilities. Construction works considerations No demolition is needed, although extensive work to the river wall would be required. It would be necessary to move at least one of the boats currently moored at this site, possibly permanently. As the site is in the foreshore, a temporary cofferdam would be required and the contained area filled to provide a level site compound. Foreshore sites carry with them a higher risk than inland sites in respect of unexploded ordnance, notably near bridges, and this would need to be investigated. Foreshore sites carry with them a higher risk than inland sites of archaeological finds that might delay the construction programme. Data available on third-party assets and significant utilities show that the main items of concern at this site are the Bakerloo tunnels and the river wall. Construction methods would be adopted, as appropriate, to mitigate potential settlement of these assets. It is likely that the proposed works could be constructed within the overall construction programme. The interception chamber to the Regent Street storm outlet and connection culverts to the drop shaft would be within the site. The interception to LL1 lies outside the site boundary and a standard interception chamber arrangement for this is perhaps not viable, as there is a fully used services duct immediately above it and the final design for this would require separate consideration. Permanent works considerations As the top structures to the drop shaft and flap valve chamber would be finished at ground level, there would be no impacts associated with above ground structures. The top structure to the interception chamber and drop shaft would be in the foreshore, and a river wall matching and tied into the existing river wall would be provided around the permanent operational site. The site would be finished to the same level as the adjacent shore. The feasibility of structures in the foreshore from a navigation aspect would need to be discussed with the PLA. Health and safety As the site is in the foreshore, measures would need to be taken to mitigate the risks of working over/near water.
5.2 5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3 5.2.4 5.2.5 5.2.6
5.2.7 5.2.8
5.3 5.3.1 5.3.2
5.3.3
5.4 5.4.1
Page 5
5.4.2 6 6.1 6.1.1
There are no other unusual health and safety issues with this site. PLANNING ASSESSMENT Introduction The planning assessment builds on the advantages and disadvantages reported in Table 2.3 and covers the following areas: Planning applications and permissions Planning context Planning comments.
6.2 6.2.1
Planning applications and permissions An initial desktop search of the City of Westminster online planning applications database did not identify any planning applications submitted within the last five years applicable to the site. Planning context The current planning policy context for the site is provided from the saved policies in the Westminster Unitary Development Plan, adopted in January 2007, and the Consolidated London Plan, adopted February 2008. The planning designations and policies that are applicable to the site are detailed below. Policies DES14 and DES15, London Views Management Framework the site includes a viewing corridor: King Henry VIII's Mound to St Pauls Cathedral. Policy DES14 states that permission will normally be refused for developments within the viewing corridor where the proposed development will interrupt the strategic views. Policy DES15 similarly restricts permission for developments likely to have an adverse effect upon important views of, among others, important buildings, monuments and statues, parks, squares and gardens, and the River Thames. Policies 4B.17 and 4B.18 of the Consolidated London Plan also highlight strategic linear views, including the above viewing corridor, panoramas, townscape views and important river prospects, such as the views upstream from the Hungerford Bridge and Golden Jubilee footbridges. Policy DES11, Archaeological Areas the site is located entirely within Lundenwic and Thorney Island Archaeological Area. Policy DES11 outlines circumstances where planning permission will be granted where scheduled ancient monuments or their settings, or areas and sites of special archaeological priority, may be affected. Policy DES10, Listed Buildings the site contains a Grade II listed memorial, three other Grade II listed buildings located adjacent to the site in Victoria Embankment Gardens (two statues and one memorial) and listed centenary lamp standards located along the Embankment adjacent to the site. Policy DES10 outlines restrictions regarding the demolition of listed buildings, changes of use of listed buildings and the setting of listed buildings. Policy DES9, Conservation Areas the site lies wholly within the Whitehall Conservation Area. In addition, two other conservation areas are located near to the site: Savoy to the north and Trafalgar Square to the northwest. Policy DES9 states that development will not be permitted which, although not wholly or partly located within a designated conservation area, might nevertheless have a visibly adverse effect upon the areas recognised special character or appearance, including intrusiveness with respect to any recognised and recorded familiar local views into, out of, within or across the area. It also states that additional details may be required regarding the physical impact of the proposed development to allow for a full assessment, and refers to applications involving demolition or affecting the setting of conservation areas.
6.3 6.3.1
6.3.2
6.3.3
6.3.4
6.3.5
6.3.6
Page 6
6.3.7 6.3.8
The site is within the foreshore of the River Thames, which is designated as a metropolitan site of importance for nature conservation. The following policy is therefore applicable. Policy ENV17, Nature Conservation and Biodiversity, seeks to ensure developers take measures to ensure protected species and their habitats are not harmed and that areas of designated nature conservation value are protected and enhanced. Where it can be demonstrated that there are reasons for the proposal that outweigh the need to safeguard the nature conservation value of the site and development is approved, mitigation will be required. Policy ENV14, Open Space of Metropolitan Importance 1/2 most of the site lies within the River Thames Open Space Site of Metropolitan Importance. Policy ENV15, Public and Private Open Space, states that permission will not be granted for development on, or under, public or private open space of amenity, recreational or nature conservation value, unless the development is essential and ancillary to maintaining or enhancing that land as valuable open space.
6.3.9
6.3.10 Policy ENV9, Flood Zones 2 and 3 part of the western side of the site is located in these designated flood zones. Policy ENV9 states that the City of Westminster council will seek to protect and conserve water by ensuring that developments use techniques to control surface water runoff. 6.3.11 Policy TRANS19, Underground Tunnels underground tunnels for the Bakerloo, Circle, District and Northern lines run partly beneath the site. Policy TRANS19 states that the City of Westminster council will generally restrict the lateral and vertical extent of new or extended basement areas under the adjacent highway so that there remains a minimum vertical depth below the footway or carriageway of about 900mm, and the extent of the new or extended basement area does not encroach more than about 1.8m under any part of the adjacent highway. 6.3.12 In addition to the planning designations onsite, there are a number of policies adjacent to the site, which are identified and described below. 6.3.13 The Thames Path runs along the northern boundary of the site. Policy RIV1 expects a public riverside path in development sites next to the river, and will not allow boardwalks or other structures over the river to create a riverside path. 6.3.14 Policy RIV2, Views, states that developments that would have a significant adverse effect on views from, of, across or along the River Thames will be refused. 6.3.15 Policy RIV5, Development on the River development that builds into or over the river and its foreshore will normally be refused. Transport related structures may be acceptable. 6.3.16 Policy RIV8, Permanently Moored Vessels, states that proposals for permanently moored vessels will only be permitted where they: are open to the public and help the public to enjoy the river, including disabled people; are of national importance, or have some special association with London or the Thames, or some special maritime interest, and whose external appearance is retained as far as possible in its original condition; have adequate servicing arrangements, including drainage, waste disposal and car/coach parking; do not harm local residential amenity; do not compromise views of the river and the setting of listed buildings and structures; and do not jeopardise the long-term use of existing purpose-designed pier recesses for their original purpose. 6.3.17 Victoria Embankment Gardens, located adjacent to the west of the site, is a Grade II registered garden and open space site of local importance. Policy DES12, Parks, Gardens and Squares, outlines where permission will be granted for development adjacent to open spaces, and that development must: safeguard their appearance, wider setting and ecological value; preserve their historic integrity; and protect views into and out of these spaces, and will not project above existing tree or building lines. 6.4 6.4.1 Consultation comments A series of consultations on the shortlisted sites were held with London local authorities, statutory and other pan-London stakeholders during July to September 2009 and January
Page 7
to March 2010. This section summarises factual comments that have been made by consultees, and which have informed the SSR assessments. City of Westminster 6.4.2 The council advised that the Grade II listed embankment wall is also a flood defence wall and therefore it is not possible to breach it. The site is within the Government Security Zone, close to the Northern and Bakerloo lines and a 7m tidal shaft. There may also be unexploded ordnance in the foreshore. The site would also be contrary to encroachment policy. The area contains historic moorings but no historic ships, and is subject to the Thames Special Policy. The potential for using a pontoon for sinking the shaft was raised by the council. It will be necessary to consider the implications and cost of removing the permanently moored vessels and the requirement for compensation, bearing in mind the policy regarding their siting on the river. The council raised a number of constraints including lighting, the piped subway, Victoria Embankment Road, the District and Circle Line and mid/low level sewer. There are potential scour problems with Waterloo Bridge. It will be necessary to consider the impact upon the Grade II listed buildings, including the embankment wall and the wider setting. English Heritage 6.4.5 English Heritage advised that the site is the original Strand and it is an area known for Saxon deposits. There is the potential for some benefits and positive PR from the restoration of the listed wall. Environment Agency 6.4.6 No comment. Port of London Authority 6.4.7 The Port of London Authority (PLA) advised that it will not be possible to go out further than one arch on Hungerford Bridge and there would be a need to remove two moored vessels (Hispaniola and Tattersall Castle). During the construction of the bridge, the vessels were moved but the mooring they were relocated to is no longer in existence. It will be necessary to consider compensation for loss of earnings for the vessels. The PLA stated that the shape of the site would need to be considered as there are very fast flows and this part of the riverbed is very prone to scouring. There may be a requirement for more fluvial modelling for the site. The PLA advised that it would be better to move the site slightly further south. Transport for London 6.4.8 No comment. Other statutory consultees 6.4.9 6.5 6.5.1 No comment. Planning comments A number of planning and environmental designations are applicable both on and adjacent to the site from the Westminster Unitary Development Plan. These designations have been identified and described in Section 6.3. The designations and policies relating to heritage, river setting and nature conservation are of most relevance to the proposed development. The site is within the foreshore of the River Thames, which is designated as a site of metropolitan importance for nature conservation. This is a strategic designation covering
6.4.3
6.4.4
6.5.2
Page 8
the entire river. The purpose of the Thames Tunnel Project is to improve the overall environmental condition of the river which, among other gains, will promote biodiversity in line with the general aims of Policy ENV17. Construction activity adjacent to and within the river, with the appropriate level of mitigation, is considered unlikely to adversely impact upon or conflict with this policy. However, a fuller assessment of the likely impact on the immediate location is included in Section 7. 6.5.3 The majority of the site is within the King Henry VIII's Mound to St Pauls Cathedral viewing corridor. The works proposed within the viewing corridor should not be of a height to unacceptably interrupt or have an adverse impact on the strategic view; however, mitigation may still be required in accordance with Policy DES14. There may be conflict with the adopted Consolidated London Plan view management policies 4B.17 and 4B.18, in terms of river prospects upstream from the Hungerford Bridge and Golden Jubilee footbridges. There may also be conflict with Policy DES15, which seeks to protect views of monuments and statues, parks, squares and gardens and the River Thames, particularly in the case of the larger CSO site. Mitigation may be required to reduce the impact on local views in and around the site. The site is adjacent to, but separated by Victoria Embankment from a Grade II registered garden and a number of Grade II and Grade II* listed buildings. The separation distance and screening provided by mature trees along the boundary of the gardens may be sufficient to avoid potential impacts on setting; however, some mitigation may be required. Consultation with the City of Westminster has also highlighted that the embankment wall is Grade II listed. Mitigation may be required under listed building Policy DES10 in terms of the setting of the wall. Mitigation may also be required to avoid potential adverse impacts from noise and dust on the adjacent registered garden. A construction site in the location proposed would inevitably have an impact on the existing setting of the Whitehall Conservation Area. Again, suitable mitigation should reduce some of the potential impacts on appearance and setting. However, it may be more difficult to mitigate against the likely loss of mature trees located along Victoria Embankment, particularly in the case of the larger CSO site. The degree of impact on setting which may be caused by the loss of mature trees would be an important consideration under conservation area Policy DES9. Further heritage and landscape considerations can be found in Section 7. The nearest residential properties are located 100m from the site, within White Hall Court and The National Liberal Club. This separation distance between the site and residences is likely to be considered sufficient to protect against potential impacts on amenity. The site includes two existing commercial moorings. The current policy relating to permanently moored vessels is set out in Policy RIV8, and may mean that permission would not be forthcoming for their relocation or reinstatement on completion of the construction works. Further assessment into the potential for reprovision of such facilities would therefore be required. Access to the site would be taken via Victoria Embankment and may involve the temporary diversion of the Thames Path. A detailed assessment of transport considerations is provided in Section 7. ENVIRONMENTAL APPRAISAL Introduction The following sections summarise specialist assessments which are provided in Appendix 9 Environmental Appraisal Tables. Transport The site is less suitable as a small or large CSO site, requiring the partial closure of the Embankment and shared cycle/footway in order to construct the interception chamber.
6.5.4
6.5.5
6.5.6
6.5.7
6.5.8
7 7.1 7.1.1
7.2 7.2.1
Page 9
7.2.2
The small CSO site would require the construction of a new site access. The site access would directly onto the TLRN at Victoria Embankment (A3211), which is a dual carriageway. The construction/permanent access would require the removal of several loading bays and coach parking bays. The large CSO site would require the construction of a new site access/egress, which would require left-in/left-out type arrangements as the site access leads directly onto the TLRN at Victoria Embankment (A3211), which is a dual carriageway. The construction and permanent accesses would require the removal of several loading bays and a coach bay. For both sites, a temporary closure of the shared foot/cycleway (which experiences high pedestrian levels and is used by the Thames Path) would be required to allow for the construction of the sites interception chamber. It is likely that a larger area including part of the Victoria Embankment southbound carriageway would also require closure during the construction of the interception chamber. A new crossing would need to be provided to the south of the closure to provide a diversion route for pedestrians and cyclists along the western footway of Victoria Embankment. The Thames Path would need to be temporarily diverted along this route, and several on-street loading/coach parking bays would require removal to accommodate the new crossing. A potential rail access route is possible for HGVs, and the site directly accesses the TLRN (A3211). Archaeology Based on current information, this site is suitable for either a small or large CSO site as no known archaeological receptors are present. However, it is possible that archaeological receptors of high or medium value could be located on or near the site. While no direct evidence has been revealed, peat deposits containing archaeological material may be present at depth. These have been commonly recorded throughout London in a similar proximity to the Thames. Given the location of the site, and wider evidence of historical occupation along the river, it is a reasonable assumption to suggest that waterlogged remains of archaeological value may be present. English Heritage has commented that the wider area is known for Saxon deposits. Built heritage and townscape The site is less suitable as either a small or large CSO site, due to the direct and indirect adverse impacts it would have on a large number of listed structures, conservation areas, registered historic parks and gardens and protected views. This site would potentially have a severe adverse impact on the townscape character and local and strategic views during both construction and operation. Due to the highly sensitive location of the site, mitigation to reduce these potential adverse impacts upon all of these receptors would be difficult to satisfactorily achieve. Water resources hydrogeology and surface water In terms of hydrogeology, this site is less suitable as either a small or large CSO site because the drop shaft is to be constructed in Lambeth Group (minor aquifer), which is in hydraulic continuity with Chalk (major aquifer), and also the site lies within the catchment area of two EA licensed abstraction boreholes. The proximity of the shaft depth to the piezometric surface in the Chalk means that if the shaft depth was to go deeper or the piezometric head was found to be higher, then dewatering may be required during construction. The Chalk piezometric head may potentially need to be taken into account in the engineering design. The superficial deposits are alluvium, which is classified as a minor aquifer at the shaft site. There is likely to be limited impact on flow in the shallow aquifer due to sheet piling. In terms of surface water resources, this site is less suitable as either a small or large CSO site because the work is to be undertaken within the channel of the River Thames. As such, specific mitigation would be required to prevent pollution.
7.2.3
7.2.4
7.3 7.3.1
7.4 7.4.1
7.5 7.5.1
7.5.2
Page 10
7.6 7.6.1
Ecology This site is less suitable for either a small or large CSO site, due to the requirement for temporary and permanent land-take from the River Thames. There may also be a need for offsite mitigation/compensation solutions, as well as potentially extensive post-works restoration requirements. Flood risk This site is less suitable as either a small or large CSO site because the site requires specific mitigation to protect it from flood levels and this has the potential to cause displacement with respect to the working areas being in the river, which could increase flood risk elsewhere locally. Air quality This site is suitable for use as either a small or large CSO site as there is sufficient distance from the site to potential dust sensitive receptors. There would be a low risk of perceptible impact at the nearest residential receptors, provided standard dust control measures are in place. There is potential for HGV movements on the local road network to cause localised air quality impacts; however, this could be mitigated by minimising the movement of HGVs during peak hours. Noise This site is suitable for either a small or large CSO site. Although the distance between the site and the nearest receptors are relatively short, a large number of HGVs would be visiting the site each day, therefore the noise climate in the area could be considerably high. Any shielding afforded by the site perimeter barriers would be largely ineffectual due to the height of the receptors at Whitehall Court. Land quality
7.7 7.7.1
7.8 7.8.1
7.9 7.9.1
7.10
7.10.1 The site is considered suitable as a small or large CSO site with respect to land quality, based on the low potential for contamination to have occurred. The site is located directly adjacent to the River Thames, it has not been developed for previous industrial use, and offsite potentially contaminating activities are limited to made ground and railway operations. 8 8.1 8.1.1 SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT Socio-economic profile The site is within the St Jamess ward of the City of Westminster. Statistics from the Office of National Statistic (ONS) 2001 Census data show the following indicators for the ward, in comparison to the rest of Westminster, London and England as a whole: A higher proportion of people employed in full-time work, fewer people employed part-time and a higher proportion of people unemployed than the London or England average. A higher proportion with high-level qualifications. There is a higher proportion of people aged between 20 and 44. The majority of the people in the ward (approximately 64%) were born in the UK and 59% of people are white British. These proportions are higher than average for the borough and London. Housing tenure data shows that a higher proportion of people rent from housing associations. Private renting is higher than in London or England and fewer people are owner occupiers than the national or London averages.
Page 11
8.1.2
The statistics show a high proportion of social housing as well as private rented housing, with correspondingly lower owner occupiers. This may indicate a more transient population. In addition, from the statistics, many residents seem to be young professionals. Site visits however, show that non-residents are more likely to frequent the neighbourhood of the site. Issues and impacts Due to the proposed location of the CSO engineering works, the mooring site for the Tattershall Castle and the Hispaniola Restaurant Ship appears likely to be lost. From the site visit, the boats appear to be busy there are advertisements for the bar and for stand-up comedy nights onboard. The loss of the mooring position would be likely to impact on the business, especially as the mooring may not be available after the works period, due to the permanent features and the new river wall structure that is likely to be required. Victoria Embankment, the Hungerford Bridge and Golden Jubilee footbridges are busy pedestrian routes and provide views to several key London landmarks (eg, the London Eye). Any disruption to these routes and the views they provide may impact on both local users and visitors. The Victoria Embankment Gardens appear unlikely to be affected, due to their distance from the works and separation by Embankment Road. Both large and small sites are adjacent to Embankment Pier to the north. Services from this pier may be affected by the use of the site, which may impact on tourist and corporate event boat services and those using the pier for commuting. The footbridges are busy pedestrian linkages between the north and south banks of the River Thames in Central London, and pass adjacent to the edge of the site. Site works would be highly visible and, to an extent, audible from the bridge. This may have an impact on bridge users, including Londoners, visitors and tourists, many of whom come simply to admire the views, in addition to daily commuters. As the bridge runs parallel to a railway bridge, noise from the CSO site is unlikely to have a significant additional impact on pedestrians. PROPERTY ASSESSMENT Introduction Two options are under consideration at this site for large and small CSO sites. Both site options are situated on the foreshore, involving connections to the Regent Street sewer and the low level sewer close to Hungerford Bridge, with common permanent structures. The effective difference between the two options is the size of the working compound during the construction phase. The property considerations are the same for both options, but where the size differential is relevant, an appropriate comment would be made in the following sections. This site comprises an area of foreshore in the River Thames immediately to the south of Hungerford Bridge, currently where the restaurant ships Hispaniola and Tattershall Castle are moored. Crown Land and Special Land comments The referencing exercise has not established the ownership of the site but, as foreshore, it will be owned by the PLA on behalf of the Crown. Under the provisions of Section 8(1) of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, the PLA is a statutory undertaker and ministerial approval would be required for the acquisition of this land by another statutory undertaker, Thames Water, unless the acquisition is by agreement. There is a risk that, if terms cannot be agreed, ministerial approval may delay the scheme or may not be forthcoming at all. Early discussions should be held with the PLA to establish whether acquisition is likely to be agreed. With co-operation of the authority, there should be no risk to the project. However, with justifiable objections to the selection of this site, the Crown or PLA could prevent it from Page 12
8.2 8.2.1
8.2.2
8.2.3
8.2.4
8.2.5
9 9.1 9.1.1
9.1.2
9.2 9.2.1
9.2.2
being used for this purpose. Risk to the project then becomes significant, with no measurable timescale for addressing and overcoming the objections. 9.2.3 The land may also be considered as open space and therefore it may be classified as Special Land under Section 19 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981. If this is the case. and if an acquisition cannot be agreed, a special parliamentary procedure may be needed before the Order is confirmed. On account of the temporary nature of the majority of the area to be acquired, no difficulties are anticipated with the special procedure and there should be no consequential delay to the programme. The river wall in this location is owned by the City of Westminster, with whom access arrangements would need to be made. The highway authority for Victoria Embankment is TfL. Structures within 50 feet of the railway bridge would require consent from Network Rail. Land to be acquired For both site options, the compensation assessment assumes that the worksite and access to it would be acquired temporarily, via the acquisition of new rights for the period of the works stated in the engineering section above. It assumes that, at the end of the works, a smaller area would need to be acquired permanently. The site includes an area of the foreshore currently occupied by the permanently moored restaurant ships Hispaniola and Tattershall Castle, the latter affected only by the large CSO site. This acquisition would require the relocation of one or both ships during the construction phase, and it is possible that they would not be able to return to the site on completion of the works. It is noted from the engineering drawings that the operational site would comprise an extension to the existing river wall, approximately 50m long and projecting 15m beyond the existing wall. Property valuation comments Compensation for the acquisition of new rights is normally based on the diminution in value to the land caused by the acquisition. Compensation for the permanent acquisition of land is normally based on market value. However, compensation for the permanent acquisition of unusual types of property, where there is no general market, can be assessed on the basis of the cost of equivalent reinstatement at a new site, but there must be a genuine intention to reinstate. If compensation is assessed on a diminution in value basis for the new rights (temporary occupation during works, access rights during works, access rights for operational purposes) and on a market value basis for the permanent acquisition, the costs are likely to be relatively low and therefore acceptable. In the case of foreshore, there is, by its nature, an inability to acquire land elsewhere to reinstate the lost Special Land, so compensation has not been assessed on an equivalent reinstatement basis. The foreshore is occupied by moorings or similar revenue generating uses which would contribute to the market value of this site, although the value is expected to be relatively low. Acquisition is subject to the procedural risks identified above. The City of Westminster derives commercial revenue from licences to the ship operators permitting access across the river wall, and a compensation claim in respect of lost income is therefore to be anticipated. No rights of way or easements have been included in the assessment of this site acquisition cost.
9.2.4
9.3 9.3.1
9.3.2
9.3.3
9.3.4
9.4 9.4.1
9.4.2
9.4.3
9.4.4
9.4.5
9.4.6
Page 13
9.5 9.5.1
Disturbance compensation comments The use of this site would have significant implications for the restaurant ship Hispaniola, and for the large CSO option the Tattershall Castle as well, which would have to be relocated during the construction phase. Compensation claims for business interruption are therefore anticipated. If either ship is unable to return to the site on completion of the project due to the presence of the permanent works, a claim for business extinguishment is to be expected. These disturbance costs are likely to be considerable, although they are expected to fall within an acceptable range. Valuations have been based on the assumption that the ships can be located within close proximity of the current moorings on a temporary basis. Offsite statutory compensation comments The risk that statutory claims under either Part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973 or Section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 will be founded as a direct consequence of selecting this site is considered to be low. The site is relatively close to Embankment Pier, which is situated downstream just beyond Hungerford Bridge. The design of the site arrangement would need to be agreed with the PLA in order not to impede navigation beneath the bridge and access to Embankment Pier. Site acquisition cost assessment For both site options, the acquisition costs are assessed as significant but within acceptable limits. SITE CONCLUSIONS BY DISCIPLINE Introduction
9.5.2
9.6 9.6.1
9.6.2
9.7 9.7.1
10 10.1
10.1.1 The conclusions presented in this section are drawn from each disciplines assessment, and are designed to inform the workshop where a final conclusion on whether the site moves forward as one of the preferred sites or not. 10.2 Engineering Large CSO site 10.2.1 This site is suitable as a large CSO site because access is directly from a major highway. It incorporates the Regent Street CSO outlet and, being a foreshore site, is relatively unrestricted in size and shape. Small CSO site 10.2.2 As the site is suitable as a large CSO site, it is also suitable as a small CSO site. 10.2.3 Whether a small CSO site is appropriate or not for the interception of the Regent Street CSO and to provide relief to Low Level Sewer No 1 through an overflow weir would be considered at the next stage, in conjunction with the drive strategy that is developed in the Engineering Options Report. 10.3 Planning Large CSO site 10.3.1 The site is considered less suitable for use as a large CSO site.
Page 14
10.3.2 The site is within a prominent and sensitive location, particularly in terms of heritage and nature conservation considerations. Due to the cumulative heritage impacts, including the potential loss of a significant number of mature trees along Victoria Embankment, and the reduced scope for suitable mitigation, including the relocation of commercial moorings, the site is considered less suitable for a large CSO site. Small CSO site 10.3.3 The site is considered suitable for use as a small CSO site. 10.3.4 It is considered that, although there are a number of planning designations applicable to the site, the potential impacts from construction works associated with the smaller CSO could be sufficiently mitigable and therefore the site is considered suitable. Nevertheless, the relocation of the existing commercial moorings may be difficult to accommodate. 10.4 Environment
10.4.1 The site is less suitable as either a small or a large CSO site, given the substantial environmental constraints identified, most notably the substantial built heritage and townscape constraints. 10.4.2 Based on current information, the site is suitable for both site sizes from the perspectives of archaeology, noise, air quality and land quality. 10.4.3 This site is considered less suitable for both site sizes from the perspectives of transport, built heritage and townscape, water resources (hydrogeology and surface water), ecology and flood risk. 10.4.4 Overall, the site is considered to be less suitable as a small or large CSO site and further investigation would be required as to whether transport, built heritage and townscape, water resources, ecology and flood risk impacts could all be adequately mitigated. Likely mitigation considerations would include the following: Transport construction of a new access/egress requiring left-in/left-out arrangements for the large CSO site and construction of a new site access for the small CSO site. Both would require provision of a new crossing. Built heritage and townscape careful consideration of site layout and a high-quality scheme design and/or screening of the site. Due to the highly sensitive location of the site, mitigation to reduce potential adverse impacts would be difficult to satisfactorily achieve. Flood risk and surface water measures to protect the site from flooding and to avoid potential for pollution of the River Thames. Hydrogeology further investigation to determine whether or not drop shaft construction can take place within a minor aquifer, given it is in hydraulic continuity with a major Chalk aquifer and the site lies within the catchment area of two Environment Agency licensed abstraction boreholes. Ecology offsite mitigation/compensation solutions to mitigate for loss of foreshore habitat. 10.5 Socio-economic and community
10.5.1 This site appears less suitable from a community impacts perspective for use as both a large and small CSO site. Use of the site is likely to cause the loss of the moorings for the two bar-restaurant boats, which may have a significant impact on the businesses. Mitigation may involve finding a new location for the boats, which may be difficult in a city centre location, and in the context of adopted planning policy. The need for permanent hardstanding and other after-use features appear likely to make it difficult to reinstate this mooring after the works.
Page 15
10.5.2 The works would also be likely to impact on pedestrians using the Victoria Embankment due to noise levels and visual disturbance. Visual disturbance may be a particular problem due to the views over the river to the London Eye and other landmarks. 10.5.3 The site is adjacent to Embankment Pier. Services from this pier may be affected by the use of the site, and mitigation may involve negotiation of site working times and access to the riverside and river. 10.6 Property
10.6.1 For both site options, the site is assessed as suitable, at acceptable acquisition cost. Higher costs would be incurred with the large site option. Early consultation with the Crown and/or PLA is strongly recommended.
Page 16
Site Suitability Report C22XA Appendices
APPENDICES
Page 17
Site Suitability Report C22XA Appendix 1
APPENDIX 1 SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Engineering Traffic Management and Access Roads/Rail Scott Wilson Access River BMT Third Parties (Shafts/CSOs) Mott MacDonald and AECOM Geology Thames Water Utilities Thames Water and AECOM Construction and Operational Layout Template London Tideway Tunnels Background Technical Paper London Tideway Tunnels
Planning City of Westminster online planning applications database Saved policies in the Westminster Unitary Development Plan, adopted in January 2007
Environment Transport Map of Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) - www.tfl.gov.uk Bus Route Maps: North-east, north-west, south-west, south-east - www.tfl.gov.uk Crossrail Plans - www.crossrail.co.uk/crossrail-bill-documents PTAL scores - Obtained from Table 2.3 information Thames Path map - www.walklondon.org.uk Capital Ring - www.walklondon.org.uk Cycle Routes - www.sustrans.org.uk and Local Cycling Guides, 1-14 Design Manual for Roads and Bridge TD 42/95, Highways Agency Built heritage and townscape Westminster Open Spaces Strategy National Monuments Record - for some additional information regarding registered historic parks and gardens Unitary development plans Local authority websites Bing maps Water resources hydrogeology and surface water Environment Agency abstraction licence details Environment Agency groundwater levels Local authority details of unlicensed abstractors
Appendix 1 - Page 1
Environment Agency Flood Map www.environment-agency.gov.uk Envirocheck Ecology Thames Estuary Partnership (2002) Tidal Thames Habitat Action Plan London Biodiversity Action Plan - www.lbp.org.uk Westminster Biodiversity Action Plan (2007) Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) www.magic.gov.uk - statutory designated sites London Wildweb - http://wildweb.london.gov.uk/ - non-statutory site of importance for nature conservation Black redstart distribution in London - www.blackredstarts.org.uk/pages/ londonmap.html National Biodiversity Network - http://searchnbn.net - distribution of protected species Google Maps - aerial views of habitat features BAP habitats - www.natureonthemap.org.uk Priority habitats and species on national and local scales - www.ukbap.org.uk Flood risk Environment Agency Flood Map www.environment-agency.gov.uk Envirocheck Air quality Local authority websites www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/default.asp?la_id=&showbulletins=&width=1680 www.airquality.co.uk Noise Envirocheck - Identification of receptors Promap - Calculation of distances between site and receptors Multimap - Aerial photography www.multimap.co.uk Defra noise maps - Identification of existing noise levels Land quality Google Maps/Earth Site walkover information
Socio-economic and community Statistics from the Office of National Statistics (ONS) 2001 Census data PS Tattershall Castle - www.thetattershallcastle.co.uk www.theheritagetrail.co.uk/maritime/ps%20tattershall%20castle.htm
Appendix 1 - Page 2
Westminster City Partnership - westminstercitypartnership.org.uk/partnerships/ Pages/WCPNetworks.aspx
Property Mouchel referencing data Multimap VOA website
Appendix 1 - Page 3
APPENDIX 2 SITE LOCATION PLAN
Appendix 2 - Page 1
FI D
EN
TI A
CITY OF LONDON
&
Area of Main Map
AF T
Legend
Local Authority Boundary Short Listed CSO Sites
( !
CSO (Directly Controlled)
CITY OF WESTMINSTER
CS22X Regent Street CSO
( !
CLLAC
C22XA
0 50 100
200 Metres 300 400
Mapping reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. (c) Crown copyright and database right 2009. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100019345
LAMBETH
CH2M HILL accept no responsibility for any circumstances, which arise from the reproduction of this map after alteration, amendment or abbreviation or if it issued in part or issued incomplete in any way.
Map Ref : .......1PL04-SS-01480 Date : .............2010/05/24 Projection : .....British National Grid
Thames Water Utilities
SOUTHWARK
The Point, 7th Floo r, 37 North Wharf Ro ad, Padding ton, London W2 1AF
Title:
APPENDIX 2 C22XA SITES SITE LOCATION PLAN
APPENDIX 3 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT PLANS
Appendix 3 - Page 1
TI AL
EN
Legend
Thames Policy Area
FI D
Protected/Strategic Views MOD Safeguarding Area Central Activity Zones
Background Assessment Areas
Area of Main Map
AF T
Legend
Local Authority Boundary Short Listed CSO Sites CSO (Directly Controlled)
&
! (
CITY OF WESTMINSTER
! (
C22XA CLLAC
10
20
40
60
80
Metres
Mapping reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. (c) Crown copyright and database right 2009. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100019345 CH2M HILL accept no responsibility for any circumstances, which arise from the reproduction of this map after alteration, amendment or abbreviation or if it issued in part or issued incomplete in any way.
LAMBETH
This plan is a strategic and standardised overview based on an interpretation of GIS policy and designation layers provided by affected London local authorities. Please refer to the text in the SSRs for the full planning and environment assessments.

The Point, 7th Floor, 37 North Wharf Road, Paddington, London W2 1AF
Title:
APPENDIX 3A C22XA SITES PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT PLAN
TI AL
EN
Legend
FI D
Metropolitan Open Land Green Corridor/Chains Open Spaces Flood Zone 2 Flood Zone 3
Area of Main Map
! !
! !
! !
! !
AF T
&
Sites of Metropolitan Nature Conservation Importance
Legend
! (
CITY OF WESTMINSTER
! (
C22XA CLLAC
10
20
40
60
80
Metres
LAMBETH

Title:
APPENDIX 3B C22XA SITES PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT PLAN
NT
TI AL
Su b
Cr av en
10
LB
25
24
EN
23 22
FI D
BA NK ME PL A NT CE
EM
&
Nigeria House
Bo ro
SB r
Co
1 TCBs 1 to 1
ns
MLW
CC LW
t, G L
AF T
ic er v il S b Civ Clu
13
15
11
DW
GR
CO TS EA
R YA ND LA
D
FB
VICT ORIA
!
4.7m
WH
York Place
Cour
URT
m en t
CITY OF WESTMINSTER
!ns
G ar de
(site of)
CS22X Regent Street CSO ( !! ! ! C22XA

! ! !
Statue
EMB AN
FB
ITE
HA
LL
PL
E AC
KME NT
en nm iro nv ir s fE ffa to en u r al A tm r R p a an d 10 De od Fo
ria E m bank
L CO
EHAL
Whit
ehall
Victo
WHIT
's Re ach
Ra ilway
r Tha
Statue
4.6m
! !
Mean
High W ater
mes
War Office
4
Rive
ro un d
Whitehall Stairs
(site of)
Statue
Palace Gate
Whitehall Palace
(site of)
HORSE
The Great Hall
(site of)
GUAR
(site of)
DS A VENU
(site of)
Un de rg
King
Queen Mary's Steps
LB
4.6m
!
Ramp
Statue
Boro Cons t, GL A sly Con st & LB Bdy CCLW
Royal United Service Institution
Mu d
Northumberland House
ND A VEN
Co
NOR
THU
UE
Conservation Areas
SL SG an t ry SB r
er f or (F o d Br ot ) id g e
As ly
MBE
RLA
TCB
The Playhouse
ns
Dolphin
Hu
Archaeological Areas
ng
Ri ve
t&
16
LB
TCB
Bd
17 to
21
MLW
23
Registered Historic Parks and Gardens

Embankment Pier
y
rT ha m
Area of Main Map
Royal Commonwealth Society
27
Transport)
(London
Metropole Buildings Ministry of Defence
TCB's
SG an t ry
Navigation Lights
(fixed red)
4.5m
Legend
Local Authority Boundary
Hu ng er f or d Br
! !
Navigation Lights
(fixed red)
MLW
Memorial
Hu
ng
4.9m
Statue
er f
or d
Br
id g
e(
id g
fo o
e(
t)
Fo
! (
ot )
Navigation Lights
National Liberal Club
(fixed red)
MP .25
SL
Navigation Lights
(fixed red)
es
Short Listed CSO Sites CSO (Directly Controlled)
(site of)
TCPs
1 Embankment Place
Embankment Station
Legend ! ! Listed Buildings
Sh e
Pa
PH
ss ag e
PL
EM
lt e
Hungerford Stairs
Hu ng e Ho rfo rd us e
ME
BA
ay
NK
AC
Po
lic
eS
i ta t on
SC ND LA OT E AC PL
Hu
ng
er f
or d
Br
id g
e(
fo o
t)
10
20
40
60
80
Metres
4.6m
CLLAC
2a
3
MLW
LAMBETH
Chapel
4.6m
rvice ed Se l Unit seum Roya Mu
WHIT L EHAL GARD E NS
Ban qu

et ing
Ho us
Ministry of Defence
Statue
Victoria Embankment Gardens
!
4.4m
Title:
!
Memorial
Whitehall Stairs
Whitehall Stairs
APPENDIX 3C C22XA SITES PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT HERITAGE PLAN
Gwydyr Hou se
MLW
APPENDIX 4 PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS
Appendix 4 - Page 1
FI D
EN
TI A
CITY OF LONDON
Area of Main Map
AF T
Legend
&
( !
CITY OF WESTMINSTER
CS22X ( ! C22XA Regent StreetCLLAC CSO
50
100
200
300
400
Metres
LAMBETH

SOUTHWARK
Title:
APPENDIX 4 C22XA SITES AERIAL PLAN
View of the site from Hungerford footbridge looking west.
View of the site and embankment from Hungerford footbridge looking south.
Appendix 4
APPENDIX 5 TRANSPORT PLAN
Appendix 5 - Page 1
FI D
EN
TI A
CITY OF LONDON
CS25X CS26X
Legend
Area of Main Map
&
( !
CSO Directly Controlled
AF T
Local Authority Boundary Transport Access Routes Short Listed CSO Sites
CS24X
Transport for London Road Network Thames Path
Transport for London DBFO Network London Cycle Routes Jubilee Walkway
CITY OF WESTMINSTER

C22XA
( !
CLLAC C22XA / CLLAC Site access straight on to TLRN
0 0.0375 0.075
0.15
Km
0.225
0.3
0.375
LAMBETH
Map Ref : ........... 1PL04-SS-01545 Date : ................. 2010/04/26 Projection : ......... British National Grid

SOUTHWARK
Title:
APPENDIX 5 C22XA SITES TRANSPORT PLAN
NO
1
RTH
LAN
EM
Nigeria House
S
TCBs
A
l ivi Se rv
ice
15
Cl
ub
13
11
GR
T EA
T CO
D AN
YA
DW
RD
W
FB
HI
EH
L AL
PL
BA NK ME
n irs fE o ffa t A en al ur rtm a R p d 10 De an d o Fo
E AC

LOW LEVEL SEWER INTERCEPTION CHAMBERS
NT
INDICATIVE AREA OF EXCAVATION
EM
B 4.7m
LOW LEVEL SEWER CONNECTION CULVERT
TO RIA
York Place
(site of)
VIC
ll Co urt
ent G arde n
RT
COU
teha
ALL
ankm
Emb
ITEH
Whi
oria
SUSPENSION OF COACH PARKING AS NECESSARY
er T ham es Kin g
WH
Vict
s Re ach
War
C
Statue
d Rail w
ay
Office
Wate r
Riv
Mean
10 m
40 m
groun
SCALE 1 : 500
Under
4.6m
Revision History
FOOTWAY CLOSURE
Iss
Description
Dsgnr
Chkd
Appd
Date
AA
FIRST ISSUE
IL
GT
GT
07.04.10
(site of)
HORSE
Whitehall Palace
(site of)
GUA
The Great Hall
(site of)
RDS
ce Gate
AVE
NUE
4.6m
PEDESTRIAN DIVERSION ROUTE
Chapel
(site of)
Queen Marys Steps
The Point, 7th Floor,
Boro Con st, GL Asl y Const & LB Bdy CCLW
37 North Wharf Road, Paddington, London W2 1AF

Location Code: OS Reference: Security Reference: Drawn By:
4.6m
LB
N/A
Project Group:
UBR
Sub Process:
AP
LTTDT
Location / Town: Site Name: Project Name:
WASTE LONDON N/A 50

Scale: Sheet Size: Rev:
Statue
THAMES TUNNEL
Contract Name:
SITE SUITABILITY REPORT

Drawing Title:
TEMPORARY TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN REGENT STREET - C22XA

Drawing No.:
PLOTTED ON
Royal
20\04\10
BY
Andy.Purdy
LOCATION :
Thames Tideway Tunnel
X:\Project\371840\CAD\Design Data\CAD Thames\Drawings\Infrastructure\Routewide\100-DE-TRA-C22XA-863202.dgn
c Thames Water Utilities Ltd 2008
100-DE-TRA-C22XA-863202
1:500
A1
AA
100
150
Whitehall Stairs
Statue
200mm
High
nd House
DA V
ENU
BA N PL KME AC NT E
UM
BER
6
DO NOT SCALE - IF IN DOUBT ASK
Hu
MLW TCBs
11 to 14
ng
erf
or
Status:
Br
dB rid ge (fo ot)
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION

Keyplan:
N
THIS DRAWING
Ga
nt
ry SL
Metropole Buildings
4.5m
Ministry of Defence
S
MAPPING REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF ORDNANCE SURVEY ON BEHALF OF HMSO. ' CROWN COPYRIGHT AND DATABASE RIGHT 2008. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Ga
nt
S ry
Br
ORDNANCE SURVEY LICENCE NUMBER 100019345
COORDINATES ARE TO ORDNANCE SURVEY DATUM OSGB36.
MLW
ALL LEVELS ARE IN METRES AND RELATE TO A LOCAL HEIGHT DATUM WHICH IS 100 METRES BELOW ORDNANCE DATUM NEWLYN.
Memorial FB
Hu
ng
NOTES
4.9m
nt
Statue
dB rid ge (fo ot) FOOTWAY

CLOSURE
erf
or
o vir
e nm
THE EXACT LOCATION AND ALIGNMENT OF THE EXISTING CSO AND LOW LEVEL SEWERS ARE TO BE DETERMINED. THESE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROPOSALS ARE BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE LOW LEVEL SEWER IS LOCATED BENEATH THE SOUTHBOUND CARRIAGEWAY/FOOTWAY OF VICTORIA EMBANKMENT AND THE CSO IS LOCATED BENEATH THE WESTBOUND CARRIAGEWAY OF Navigation NORTHUMBERLAND AVENUE.
ND LA OT SC CE
Lights
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT OVERVIEW: 1. 2. COACH PARKING SUSPENSION NECESSARY. FOOTWAY CLOSURES NECESSARY, DIVERSIONS VIA EXISTING CROSSING POINTS PROVIDED.
A PL
STOCKYARD, STORES AND WORKSHOP
PROVISIONAL DURATIONS: MAIN SITE - 18-20 MONTHS PARKING CLOSURE - 4-5 MONTHS TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PHASES - 1 EXCAVATED MATERIAL AND HANDLING
CSO DROP SHAFT
2
CSO CONNECTION CULVERT
Statue
4.6m
OFFICES, WELFARE AND CANTEEN
2a
KEY
CSO INTERCEPTION CHAMBER AREA OF ROAD/ FOOTWAY CLOSURE SITE AREA
AREA OF ACCESS ONLY
TRAFFIC DIVERSION ROUTE
MLW
AREA OF TEMPORARY WORKS
AREA OF EXCAVATION (INDICATIVE)
ALTERNATIVE ACCESS ROUTE
TE WHI
Roy ic Serv nited al U e
Ban quet ing
HAL NS RDE L GA
Ramp
Hou se
APPENDIX 6 SERVICES AND GEOLOGY PLAN
Appendix 6 - Page 1
1
2401 2402 AH
2
3409
6
Status: 14.9m
2535
N
3408 IL-0.97m
York Water
GEOLOGY
0767
Hungerford House
6.8m

N
VT RWH 2511 FB 1404 2534 IL4.32m RWH 1402 2518 NF 2519 2512 2524 3404 CL9.87m
(Site of)
TUE IL-2.36m 5431 3405 SE

Embankment
PC
Keyplan:
CL4.87m IL-0.86m VMH LS CL5.58m IL-0.21m 4404
DRAWING LOCATION
Ground level TUE NF 100 (m OD + 100) LUL NORTHERN LINE LOOP
PCs
Dolphin
SE RWH TUE
Theatre
80MM KM IL-1.04m IL-2.4m
92 (m OD + 100) Base of Made Ground and Superficial MAPPING REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF ORDNANCE SURVEY ON BEHALF OF HMSO. ' CROWN COPYRIGHT AND DATABASE RIGHT 2008. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ORDNANCE SURVEY LICENCE NUMBER 100019345
IL1.85m 4301 5432
nd Buildings
2523
2307 RWH 2521 IL-0.7m
1301 VMH
3304 SE
AV
COORDINATES ARE TO ORDNANCE SURVEY DATUM OSGB36. ALL LEVELS ARE IN METRES AND RELATE TO A LOCAL HEIGHT DATUM WHICH IS 100 METRES BELOW ORDNANCE DATUM NEWLYN.
2518 IL1.97m
Hungerford Stairs
(site of)
Base of London Clay Formation

Embankment
2526 RWH CAPPED IL1.25m 2527 VT IN SUBWAY 2528 RWH BS 1310

TCB 2303 SE RWH 2529
66.00 (m OD + 100) IL-2.4m 4302
NOTES: 1. LIMITED FIBRE OPTIC AND BT COMMUNICATION CABLES SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING. DETAILS OF THESE CABLES AND OTHER SERVICES AND THIRD PARTY ASSETS TO BE CONFIRMED BY FURTHER STUDIES AND UTILITY SEARCHES. 2. INVERT LEVEL OF SHAFT SHOWN. BASE OF CONSTRUCTION WILL BE BELOW THIS LEVEL AND WILL DEPEND ON CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUE. THIS IS ONLY PROVISIONAL AS DESIGN IS AT EARLY PRELIMINARY STAGE.
1 Embankment Place
Commonwealth
Transport)
Festival Pier
Suggested invert level of shaft 61.38(m OD + 100)
3306 TUE SE IL0.51m
2532
IL1.46m
CL6.5m
Embankment
Base of Lambeth Group 50.00(m OD + 100)

Dolphin
VT DH CL6m NF IL-1.37m DH EV
LUL NORTHERN LINE
Northumberland House
DH IL0.66m
ST NF STEPS IL0.2m 2531 IL-1.8m

TCBs
MLW
Base of Thanet Sand Formation 40 (m OD + 100)
1311 DH
House
DH 4237 Metropole Buildings IN SUBWAY 2530 VMH LS
IL-2.36m
4216 SE
4.5m
(fixed red)
062 STEPS IL-0.98m
3222 SE
DH
FB
4213 SE
PS VT WW FV
LEGEND
DC 3386 4206 MLW
Navigation Lights
B
IL1.15m 0300
1201 SE
FV SE
POST OFFICE TUNNEL
FOUL WATER
WO
CHEL.HYD. CON17
Statue
SURFACE WATER
4.9m
IL1.12m
CLEAN WATER
2219
1613 VMH LS 3"RWH CL4.12m IL1.41m 3"RWH
2210
(fixed red)
South Bank
MP .25
GAS
2217 SE PS PS
DH FV CON190N
FIBRE OPTICS CON16
3207 SE
IL-2.38m
SL
Chalk TELECOMMUNICATIONS
1614 1208 ZBV036164 DH
(fixed red)
LOW VOLTAGE CABLES
1669
Royal Festival Hall

VT WW PS IL-2.33m
3218 SE
York Place
FV FV 3214 SE
HIGH VOLTAGE CABLES
DB EXISTING TUNNELS SYNTHETIC GEOLOGICAL PROFILE DERIVED FROM THE BGS LONDON LITHOFRAME50 MODEL, HISTORICAL BOREHOLES AND BERRY (1979). PLEASE NOTE, GROUND CONDITIONS MAY VARY AND THIS DATA SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR DETAILED ENGINEERING PURPOSES
IL-2.45m IL-2.45m
DH
Statue
C22XA
SITE BOUNDARY
SL
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
WATER - ALL TW ASSETS - ALL TW ASSETS
IL-2.29m
Statue
STORM & FOUL SEWERS
IL-1.58m HFR019 LS VMH CL4.69m IL-1.53m 1668 OTHER SIGNIFICANT UTILITIES ARE DEFINED AS: TELECOMS ELECTRICITY - ONLY FIBRE OPTIC CABLES - HIGH VOLTAGE CABLES - LARGE BANKS OF LOW VOLTAGE CABLES - LOW PRESSURE ABOVE 300mm DIAMETER - INTERMEDIATE, MEDIUM OR HIGH PRESSURE 200mm 0 100 m SCALE 1 : 1000 3"RWH 3101
Iss Description Dsgnr Chkd Appd Date
2104 SE
IL-1.52m
GAS
C
3"RWH VT VT IL-2.22m
Statue
8103 10 m
2102 VMH HW
Whitehall Palace Palace Gate
(site of)
HW
3"RWH BAKERLOO LINE
2110 1003 0252

(site of)
2101 SE
VMH
0253 2111
Steps Car Park
500
1105
3005 3006
4.6m
LB
Revision History
0321
IL-1.18m
SE 6002
PS IL1.52m
AA
DRAFT - FIRST ISSUE
AG
DD
GT
26.03.2010
DISTRICT & CIRCLE LINE IL-2.2m 6001 SE
2001
IL-1.26m VT
3"RWH
166
Royal United Service
Kings Gate
1001
CHEL.HYD.
7001
Statue
Ministry of Defence
IL-1.28m 100
Centre
Memorial
3001 SE
Embankment
DH
0306
4.4m Whitehall Stairs
IL-2.17m
115
1903 RWH
(site of)
Statue
3902 SE
Jubilee Gardens
N/A
Project Group:
OS
UBR
Sub Process:
AP
Ministry of Defence 2268
1904 1909 0358

Embankment
LTTDT
Location / Town:
WASTE LONDON N/A 50

(Whitehall
DC
3901 SE
Site Name:
1905
3918 SE
Statue
Project Name:
Extension)
THAMES TUNNEL
Contract Name:
IL-1.47m
Statue
IL-2.05m DC
Landing Stage
IL-1.38m
London Eye
3.9m

Drawing Title:
1906 1601 1143 x 762
Statue Monument
CON15
SERVICES AND GEOLOGY PLAN REGENT ST - C22XA

7901
Drawing No.:
PLOTTED ON
20\04\10
BY
Andy.Purdy
LOCATION :
3697 IL-1.71m x:\project\371840\cad\design data\cad thames\drawings\planning-consents\cs22x\100-DL-PNC-C22XA-162001.dgn IL-1.71m
3903 SE
LVHTCABGWF
WFGHV
484
100-DL-PNC-C22XA-162001
1:1000
A1
AA
150
SW
SWFGHV
APPENDIX 7 CONSTRUCTION PHASE LAYOUT
Appendix 7 - Page 1
6
N
Status:

Keyplan:
N
DRAWING LOCATION
Statue
A
MAPPING REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF ORDNANCE SURVEY ON BEHALF OF HMSO. ' CROWN COPYRIGHT AND DATABASE RIGHT 2008. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ORDNANCE SURVEY LICENCE NUMBER 100019345
COORDINATES ARE TO ORDNANCE SURVEY DATUM OSGB36. ALL LEVELS ARE IN METRES AND RELATE TO A LOCAL HEIGHT DATUM WHICH IS 100 METRES BELOW ORDNANCE DATUM NEWLYN. LUL BAKERLOO LINE CONNECTION CULVERT 2m SQUARE
LUL DISTRICT AND CIRCLE LINES
LOW LEVEL SEWER INTERCEPTION BY STANDARD INTERCEPTION CHAMBER UNLIKELY TO BE VIABLE. DESIGN TO BE DEVELOPED AND AGREED.
50m
REGENT ST SEWER LOW LEVEL SEWER INTERCEPTION CHAMBER 100m TEMPORARY WORKING AREA = 1530m
FLAP VALVE CHAMBERS
PRIMARY CRANE
400m
KEY: CSO DROP SHAFT 9m I.D. EXCAVATED MATERIAL AND HANDLING AREA
STOCKYARD, WORKSHOP AND STORES CONNECTION CULVERT 2m SQUARE SECONDARY CRANE
ACCESS
CSO DROP SHAFT, CSO CONNECTION CULVERT, PRIMARY CRANE, SECONDARY CRANE AND CSO INTERCEPTION CHAMBER
50m
Statue
DISCLAIMER: INDICATIVE CONSTRUCTION PHASE ARRANGEMENT. BASED ON PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT. SITE BOUNDARY AREA = 5155m 200mm 10 m OVERFLOW CULVERTS SCALE 1 : 250 0 10 m
Revision History Iss Description Dsgnr Chkd Appd Date
C
LOW LEVEL SEWER No.1
CSO INTERCEPTION CHAMBER
AA
DRAFT - FIRST ISSUE
AG
DD
GT
26.03.2010
N/A
Project Group:
OS
UBR
Sub Process:
AP
LTTDT
WASTE LONDON N/A 50

THAMES TUNNEL
Contract Name:

Drawing Title:
CONSTRUCTION PHASE LAYOUT REGENT ST - C22XA - SMALL SITE

Drawing No.:
PLOTTED ON
20\04\10
BY
Andy.Purdy
LOCATION :
x:\project\371840\cad\design data\cad thames\drawings\planning-consents\cs22x\100-DL-PNC-C22XA-162002.dgn
100-DL-PNC-C22XA-162002
1:250
A1
AA
100
150
6
N
Status:

Keyplan:
N
DRAWING LOCATION
Statue
A
500m REGENT ST SEWER LOW LEVEL SEWER INTERCEPTION CHAMBER
1200m
FLAP VALVE CHAMBERS
PRIMARY CRANE
KEY: CSO DROP SHAFT 9m I.D. EXCAVATED MATERIAL AND HANDLING AREA
STOCKYARD, WORKSHOP AND STORES CONNECTION CULVERT 2m SQUARE TEMPORARY WORKING/SIET BOUNDARY AREA = 5155m
ENTRY
CSO DROP SHAFT, CSO CONNECTION CULVERT, PRIMARY CRANE, SECONDARY CRANE AND CSO INTERCEPTION CHAMBER
SECONDARY CRANE
Statue
DISCLAIMER: INDICATIVE CONSTRUCTION PHASE ARRANGEMENT. BASED ON PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT.
10 m OVERFLOW CULVERTS
10 m
SCALE 1 : 250
Revision History
1000m
Iss Description Dsgnr Chkd Appd Date
AA
DRAFT - FIRST ISSUE
AG
DD
GT
26.03.2010
1000m
EGRESS
N/A
Project Group:
OS
UBR
Sub Process:
AP
LTTDT
WASTE LONDON N/A 50

THAMES TUNNEL
Contract Name:

Drawing Title:
CONSTRUCTION PHASE LAYOUT REGENT ST - C22XA - LARGE SITE

Drawing No.:
PLOTTED ON
20\04\10
BY
Andy.Purdy
LOCATION :
100-DL-PNC-C22XA-162012
1:250
A1
AA
100
150
200mm
APPENDIX 8 OPERATIONAL PHASE LAYOUT
Appendix 8 - Page 1
6
N
Status:

Keyplan:
N
DRAWING LOCATION
Statue
A
PROPOSED RIVER WALL. THE WALL BE TIED INTO THE EXISTING RIVER WALL REGENT ST SEWER LOW LEVEL SEWER INTERCEPTION CHAMBER 3m x 3m FLAP VALVE CHAMBER @ GROUND LEVEL
FLAP VALVE CHAMBERS
2m x 0.6m x 1.5m HIGH ELECTRICAL CONTROL KIOSK
PERMANENT ACCESS
10m HIGH VENTIALTION COLUMN
PERMANENT HARDSTANDING FOR FUTURE CRANE ACCESS
CSO DROP SHAFT 9m I.D.
CONNECTION CULVERT 2m SQUARE
6m x 4m TOP STRUCTURE @ GROUND LEVEL
3m x 3m FLAP VALVE CHAMBER @ GROUND LEVEL
Statue
DISCLAIMER: INDICATIVE OPERATIONAL PHASE ARRANGEMENT. BASED ON PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT.
10 m OVERFLOW CULVERTS
10 m
SCALE 1 : 250
Revision History
Iss
Description
Dsgnr
Chkd
Appd
Date
AA
DRAFT - FIRST ISSUE
AG
DD
GT
26.03.2010
N/A
Project Group:
OS
UBR
Sub Process:
AP
LTTDT
WASTE LONDON N/A 50

THAMES TUNNEL
Contract Name:

Drawing Title:
OPERATIONAL PHASE LAYOUT REGENT ST - C22XA

Drawing No.:
PLOTTED ON
20\04\10
BY
Andy.Purdy
LOCATION :
100-DL-PNC-C22XA-162003
1:250
A1
AA
100
150
200mm
6
VENTILATION COLUMN (CSO)
Status:
WORK IN PROGRESS
Keyplan:
N
A
MAPPING REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF ORDNANCE SURVEY ON BEHALF OF HMSO. ' CROWN COPYRIGHT AND 107m (AOD +100) REMOVABLE COVER ABOVE WEIR (LOCKABLE) DATABASE RIGHT 2008. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ORDNANCE SURVEY LICENCE NUMBER 100019345
COORDINATES ARE TO ORDNANCE SURVEY DATUM OSGB36. ALL LEVELS ARE IN METRES AND RELATE TO A LOCAL HEIGHT DATUM WHICH IS 100 METRES BELOW ORDNANCE DATUM NEWLYN.
NOTE:
4m
3m
6m
1. STRUCTURE TO BE PROTECTED BY REMOVABLE HANDRAILS IN THE TEMPORARY CASE. 2. POSITION OF COVERS ARE VARIABLE WITHIN 10m FROM THE EDGE OF THE STRUCTURE, AND THE LOCATION IS BASED ON SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT 3. CLADDING OF VENTILLATION BUILDING TO SUIT LOCATION AND AESTHETICS. 4. ALL TOP STRUCTURES TO HAVE:ACCESS STAIRS/LADDER TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT HAND RAILING 5. ALL DIMENSIONS IN MILLIMETRES UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED. GROUND LEVEL
10000
5m
REMOVABLE COVERS ARE SPLIT UP INTO SECTIONS AND SUPPORTED BY BEAMS, WHICH ARE ALSO REMOVABLE
1m DIA
SCALE 1:50
DIAGRAMMATIC REPRESENTATION OF TOP STRUCTURE ABOVE CSO SHAFTS ELECTRICAL CONTROL KIOSK (CSO)
- - - - - - 1500 - - AB DRAFT-SECOND ISSUE IL RS

Dsgnr
GT DS
Chkd
GT CH
Appd
27-11-09 - 22-05-09
Date
AA DRAFT-FIRST ISSUE
Iss Description
60
2000
N/A
Project Group:
---
UBR
Sub Process:
AP
LTTDT
WASTE LONDON N/A 50

THAMES TUNNEL
Contract Name:

Drawing Title:
SCALE 1:25
GENERIC ELEVATION AND TOP STRUCTURE FOR OPERATIONAL PHASE LAYOUT - CSO SITES
Drawing No.:
PLOTTED ON
04\12\09
BY
Andy.Purdy
LOCATION :
x:\project\371840\cad\design data\cad thames\drawings\planning-consents\Routewide\100-DH-GEN-00000-000001.dgn
100-DH-GEN-00000-000001
NTS
A1
AB
100
150
200mm
VARIBLE DEPENDING ON
APPENDIX 9 ENVIRONMENTAL APPRAISAL TABLES
Transport Small CSO site Site considerations Access to road network Comments Site is located on the foreshore and accesses onto the TLRN at Victoria Embankment (A3211). Site requires the construction of a temporary construction access in addition to a permanent access. Victoria Embankment (A3211) forms part of the TLRN and is a street lit dual carriageway subject to a 30mph speed limit. Visibility splays are achievable 90m to the north from the construction site access and permanent site access (not required to the south). A left in/left out type arrangement would be required for the site access. The construction site and permanent site access would require the removal of some loading bays/coach parking bays. Direct access onto the TLRN (A3211) is achievable for southbound travel. The A302 (from the A3211) towards the Appendix 9 - Page 1
Large CSO site Comments Same as for small site, see left with the following exceptions. A construction phase site access and egress is proposed. The construction site access and egress would both require the removal of several loading bays and coach parking bays. Mitigation required and conclusions Same as for small site, see left with the following exceptions. A construction phase site access and egress is proposed. The construction site access and egress would both require the removal of several loading bays and coach parking bays.
Mitigation required and conclusions Conclusion: Road access to site possible for HGVs. A new construction in addition to a permanent access would require construction. A left in/left out arrangement would be required for the site access point. The construction site access requires the removal of several on street loading bays and coach parking bays. Site accesses directly onto the TLRN (A3211). The northbound carriageway of the TLRN (A3211) can be accessed via the A302 (from the A3211) towards the gyratory onto Parliament Street then Whitehall, Trafalgar Square and Northumberland Avenue. This route however, is heavily congested throughout the day.
Transport Small CSO site Site considerations Comments gyratory onto Parliament Street then Whitehall, Trafalgar Square and Northumberland Avenue could be used to access the northbound carriageway of the TLRN (A3211). This route however, is heavily congested throughout the day. The interception chamber for the site is located in the shared foot/cycleway (used by Thames Path) which requires the temporary closure of the foot/cycleway. It is likely that a larger area including part of the Victoria Embankment southbound carriageway would also require closure during the construction of the interception chamber. A temporary crossing would need to be provided to the south to allow users to cross the road and bypass the closure. The Thames Path would need to be diverted and several loading/coach parking bays would require removal to accommodate the Mitigation required and conclusions Comments Large CSO site Mitigation required and conclusions
Appendix 9 - Page 2
Transport Small CSO site Site considerations Comments new crossing. See Transport Access Plan in Appendix 5. Access to river CSO site located on the foreshore. River access not essential as excavated material may be transported away by road. The R.S. Hispaniola (large boat with a bar and restaurant) located on the Thames would require relocating. Access to rail Use of rail is unlikely to be required due to the small quantities of excavated material produced by a CSO site. If required, access to Charing Cross station southbound along the TLRN (A3211) onto the A302 and around the gyratory onto Parliament Street then Whitehall, Trafalgar Square and The Strand. Route passes through high street areas and is highly congested throughout the day. Return route to the site is less constrained using The Strand and Northumberland Avenue Site located on foreshore however river access not essential as excavated material may be transported away by road. The R.S. Hispaniola (large boat) would require relocating. As for small, see left As for small, see left Mitigation required and conclusions Comments Large CSO site Mitigation required and conclusions
Use of rail is unlikely to be required due to the small quantities of excavated material produced by a CSO site. If required, route to potential rail link at Charing Cross station is possible although it passes through high street areas and is heavily congested throughout the day. Potential to use Charing Cross station in the off peak and night periods but significant use constraints and issues with loading would exist.
As for small, see left
Appendix 9 - Page 3
Transport Small CSO site Site considerations Comments to access the southbound carriageway of the TLRN (A3211). Potential to use Charing Cross station in the off peak and night periods but significant use constraints and issues with loading would exist. Distance 2.1km to rail access point from site and 0.6km from rail access point to site. Parking Very limited parking can be provided onsite for workforce as the site is on the foreshore. Limited on street parking available along Victoria Embankment (red route), however is unsuitable for workforce as the maximum stay is 4hrs (MonFri 08:30-18:30) at 4.40/hr. Some parking would need to be provided for workforce. Several loading/coach parking bays would require removal, with alternative bays available along Victoria Embankment. Very limited parking to be provided onsite for workforce and on street parking is unsuitable due to maximum stay of 4hrs. Some parking would therefore need to be provided for workforce. Several loading/coach parking bays would require removal, with alternative bays required along Victoria Embankment. As for small, see left As for small, see left Mitigation required and conclusions Comments Large CSO site Mitigation required and conclusions
Appendix 9 - Page 4
Transport Small CSO site Site considerations Public transport accessibility Comments PTAL 5-6 (high), as identified within Table 2.3. Construction of a construction site access, in addition to a permanent site access with left in/left out arrangements. A section of the foot/cycleway used by the Thames Path must be closed to allow for the construction of the sites interception chamber. It is likely that a larger area including part of the Victoria Embankment southbound carriageway would also require closure during the construction of the interception chamber. The footway and Thames Path therefore require a temporary diversion to accommodate the high number of pedestrians that currently use the foot/cycleway. The provision of a temporary crossing approximately 3040m south of the existing crossing would allow pedestrians and cyclists to use the footway on the Mitigation required and conclusions Good possibility for workforce to use public transport to access the site. Construction of a construction site access, in addition to a permanent site access with left in/left out arrangements. Several on street loading/coach parking bays require removal. Comments As for small, see left Large CSO site Mitigation required and conclusions As for small, see left
Traffic Management
As for small site, see left with the following exceptions. Construction of new site access and egress. Several on street loading/coach parking bays would require removal to accommodate the new crossing to the south of the foot/cycleway closure.
As for small site, see left with the following exceptions. Construction of new site access and egress. Several on street loading/coach parking bays would require removal to accommodate the new crossing to the south of the foot/cycleway closure.
Appendix 9 - Page 5
Transport Small CSO site Site considerations Comments western side of the road. The existing crossing on Victoria Embankment can then be used to rejoin the foot/cycleway beyond the closure. Several on street loading/coach parking bays require removal. Summary The site is less suitable as a small CSO site, requiring the partial closure of the Embankment and shared cycle/footway to construct the interception chamber. The site requires the construction of a new site access. The site accesses directly onto the TLRN at Victoria Embankment (A3211) which is a dual carriageway. The construction/permanent access requires the removal of several loading bays and coach parking bays. A temporary closure of the shared foot/cycleway (which experiences high pedestrian levels and is used by the Thames Path) is required to allow for the construction of the sites interception chamber. It is likely that a larger area including part of the Victoria Embankment southbound carriageway would also require closure during the construction of the interception chamber. A new crossing would need to be provided to the south of the closure to provide a diversion route for pedestrians and cyclists along the western footway of Victoria Embankment. The Thames Path would need to be temporarily diverted along this route and several on street loading/coach parking bays require removal to accommodate the new crossing. A potential rail access route is possible for HGVs and the site directly accesses the TLRN (A3211). Same as for small site with the following exception; The site requires the construction of a new site access and egress. The construction/permanent access requires the removal of several loading bays and coach parking bays. Mitigation required and conclusions Comments Large CSO site Mitigation required and conclusions
Appendix 9 - Page 6
Archaeology Site considerations Comments Designations, including Archaeological Priority Areas Summary of historical uses The site is within the Westminster Archaeological Priority Area (APAS). The 19th century OS maps indicate the site to be located on the Thames foreshore to the south of Hungerford Bridge (opened 1845). The historic maps suggest the site has remained undeveloped until the 1940s when a hard standing wharf appears to have been constructed There are no archaeological receptors of high value are recorded within the site. This does not preclude the possibility of unrecorded archaeological receptors of High value being within the site. There are no archaeological receptors of high value are recorded within the site. This does not preclude the possibility of unrecorded archaeological receptors of Medium value being within the site. Construction impact of potential waterlogged deposits containing archaeological remains may cause dewatering. This potential impact should be considered given the site is in close proximity to the Thames River. There is no evidence for construction impact of previous development. Construction of Hungerford Bridge may have disturbed earlier archaeological remains. No borehole data was available. Small CSO site/Large CSO site Mitigation required and conclusions Not applicable A detailed desk based assessment is required to sufficiently understand the archaeological resource and define risk to potential development.
Potential receptors of very high or high value with the potential to be directly affected Potential receptors of medium value with the potential to be directly affected
A detailed desk based assessment is required to sufficiently understand the archaeological resource and define risk to potential development.
A detailed desk based assessment is required to sufficiently understand the archaeological resource and define risk to potential development.
Other receptors with the potential to be directly affected Extent of existing disturbance (if known)
A detailed desk based assessment is required to sufficiently understand the archaeological resource and define risk to potential development. A detailed desk based assessment is required to sufficiently understand the archaeological resource and define risk to potential development.
Appendix 9 - Page 7
Archaeology Site considerations Comments Potential issues Detailed design proposals, and an outline method statement would be required to enable initial assessment of development impacts, and to inform mitigation proposals. With the currently available information it is not possible to highlight specific potential issues. Small CSO site/Large CSO site Mitigation required and conclusions Mitigation methods could include: Review/production of existing desk based assessments (Report exists) Production of deposits model Archaeological monitoring of geotechnical investigations Archaeological evaluation Archaeological watching brief Archaeological excavation. Summary Based on current information this site is suitable for either a small or large CSO site as no known archaeological receptors are present. It is, however, possible that archaeological receptors of high or medium value could be located on or near the site. While no direct evidence has been revealed peat deposits containing archaeological material may be present at depth. These have been commonly recorded throughout London in a similar proximity to the Thames. Given the location of the site, and wider evidence for historical occupation along the river, it is a reasonable assumption to suggest waterlogged remains of archaeological value may be present.
Appendix 9 - Page 8
Built heritage and townscape Site considerations Comments Designations including Conservation Areas, including trees Listed Buildings 55 Government Offices, Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food: Grade II*: 220m The National Liberal Club, Grade II*: 75m War Office, Grade II*: 145m Hungerford House, Grade II: 85 Northumberland House, Grade II: 230m 9 Northumberland Avenue, Grade II: 210m 3 Robert Street, Grade II*: 245m Whitehall Court, Grade II*, 70m Nos. 27 and 29, John Adam Street, Grade II: 240m Charring Cross Station Hotel, Grade II: 230m No. 1 Craven Passage, Grade II: 205m Nos. 2 and 3 Craven Passage, Grade II: 215m Nos. 11 and 12, Grade II: 240m Nos. 13 and 14, Grade II: 230m No 15, Craven Street, Grade II: 220m Playhouse Theatre, Grade II: 95m Nos 25 to 30 (consec), Craven Street, Grade II: 150m No. 31, Craven Street, Grade II: 180m No. 32, Craven Street, Grade II: 190m Small CSO site/Large CSO site Mitigation required and conclusions In the case of listed buildings, conservation areas, registered historic parks and gardens and protected views, a high quality scheme design and adequate screening for the development may be required, as discussed below. A detailed desk-based assessment in conjunction with archaeology work would be required to further determine the likely impact of the development and to inform more detailed mitigation proposals. On the basis of currently available information (August 2009) and on the basis of certain receptors not being present within 250m of C22XA mitigation would not be applicable in the case of locally listed buildings and locally listed parks and gardens.
Appendix 9 - Page 9
Built heritage and townscape Site considerations Comments Nos 33 and 34, Craven Street, Grade II: 200m No. 35 Craven Street, Grade II:220m No. 36 Craven Street, Grade II: 230m No. 37 Craven Street, Grade II: 235m No. 38 Craven Street, Grade II: 240m No. 39 Craven Street, Grade II: 245m 8 Buckingham Street, Grade II*: 240m 9 Buckingham Street, Grade II*: 235m 10 Buckingham Street, Grade II*: 230m 11 Buckingham Street, Grade II*: 220m 12 Buckingham Street, Grade I: 210m 13 Buckingham Street, Grade II*: 200m 14 Buckingham Street, Grade II*: 180m 17 Buckingham Street, Grade II*: 215m 18 Buckingham Street, Grade II*: 220m 19 Buckingham Street, Grade II*: 230m 20 Buckingham Street, Grade II*: 250m York Watergate, Buckingham Street, Grade I: 190m Nos. 6 and 7 York Buildings, Grade II: 245m Ministry of Defence, Grade I: 150m Banqueting House, Grade I: 245m Statue of Sir Wilfred Lawson, Grade II: 225m Small CSO site/Large CSO site Mitigation required and conclusions
Appendix 9 - Page 10
Built heritage and townscape Site considerations Comments Imperial Camel Corps Memorial, Grade II: 220m Cleopatras Needle, Grade I: 245m Statue of Sir Bartle Frere, Grade II: 55m Statue of General Gordon, Grade II: 150m Plimsoll Memorial, Grade II: 55m Memorial to Sir W S Gilbert, Grade II: 80m Royal Airforce Memorial Whitehall Stairs, Grade II: 180m Memorial to Sir J Bazalgette, Grade II: 0m Queen Marys steps and fragment of Whitehall Palace, Grade I: 160m K6 Telephone Kiosk by Hungerford Bridge, Grade II: 65m Statue of William Tyndale, Grade II: 50m Statue of Sir James Outram, Grade II: 90m Gateway and railings across south end of street with retaining wall steps down to Victoria Embankment Gardens, Grade II: 200m Embankment wall cast iron lamp standards, Victoria Embankment, Grade II: 0m Locally Listed Buildings There are no locally listed buildings within 250m of C22XA. Conservation Areas South Bank Conservation Area: 75m Savoy Conservation Area: 10m Small CSO site/Large CSO site Mitigation required and conclusions
Built heritage and townscape Site considerations Comments Trafalgar Square Conservation Area: 75m Adelphi Conservation Area: 170m Whitehall Conservation Area: 0m (the entire site is located within the conservation area). Registered Historic Parks and Garden Victoria Embankment Gardens, Grade II*: 30m Locally Listed Parks and Gardens There are no locally listed parks and gardens within 250m of C22XA Protected Views King Henry VIIIs Mound, Richmond Park: 0m Westminster Pier: 250m Parliament Hill to Palace of Westminster: 220m Potential receptors of medium to very high importance with the potential to be directly affected There is potential for one conservation area, two listed buildings and one protected view to be directly impacted upon by the development. The location of structures within the current work site would not have a direct impact on the grade II listed Memorial to Sir J Bazalgette. However, construction of the low level sewer inception sewer could have a direct impact upon the Grade II listed Embankment wall and associated lamp standards on Victoria Embankment. The proposed development would also directly impact on Whitehall Conservation Area, and Henry VIIIs Mound, Richmond Park protected view. Mitigation in the form of a high quality and sensitive scheme design and/or screening would be difficult to achieve due to the sensitive nature of the site. Small CSO site/Large CSO site Mitigation required and conclusions
Built heritage and townscape Site considerations Comments Other receptors of lesser importance with the potential to be directly affected Potential receptors of medium to very high importance with the potential to be indirectly affected Not Applicable Small CSO site/Large CSO site Mitigation required and conclusions Not Applicable
There is potential for 54 listed buildings, four conservation areas, two protected views and one registered historic park and garden to be indirectly affected by the development proposals.
Of the 54 listed structures identified only 7 would potentially be indirectly affected, these include a selection of the collectively listed thirty four catenary lamp standards, the playhouse theatre, the statue of Sir Bartle Frere, the statue of general Gordon, the Plimsoll memorial, the Royal Air Force Memorial Whitehall stairs, the statue of William Tyndale and the statue of Sir James Outram. The remaining listed buildings lie outside of the visual envelope of the site and would therefore not require any mitigation. The two protected views located some distance from the site and would not be visually impacted upon and as such would not require mitigation. Of the conservation areas identified the Savoy Conservation Area, Trafalgar Square Conservation Area and South Bank Conservation Area would be visible to and from the development site. Mitigation in the form of a high quality and sensitive scheme design and/or screening would be difficult to achieve due to the sensitive nature of the site. The Grade II* listed Victoria Embankment Gardens Registered Historic Park and Garden is not located within the visual envelope of the site and as such would not require any mitigation.
Other receptors of lesser importance with the potential to be indirectly affected Sensitive landscape character areas likely to be
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Site in Thames Policy Area, in Conservation Area, in Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) Importance 1 designation.
Retention of trees where possible and protection in accordance with BS 5837.
Built heritage and townscape Site considerations Comments affected, including trees and TPOs Sensitive site on the northern foreshore of River Thames. Hungerford foot and rail Bridge immediately to the north with the Victoria Embankment Gardens further north, Charing Cross station, administrative buildings and public open space to the west beyond Victoria Embankment, River Thames to the south, Riverside Walk and the London Eye to the east along the south bank of the River. The presence and operation of machinery, materials stores and buildings would result in temporary, severe adverse direct impacts on the character of the River and the streetscape of Victoria Embankment, and temporary, adverse indirect impacts on neighbouring areas. The permanent elements would have an adverse impact on the streetscape of Victoria Embankment and the River frontage. Potential views likely to be affected Majority of site in Strategic View. Open views from the River, Hungerford Bridge, Riverside Walk, the London Eye, Victoria Embankment and overlooking administrative properties. Partially interrupted views from Westminster Bridge and Waterloo Bridge. During construction, view of cranes from the venues listed above and Buckingham Palace. Permanent elements mainly visible from the River, the south bank of the River, Victoria Embankment and properties along it, Hungerford Bridge, London Eye. During construction, the use of hoardings and appropriate lighting would minimize visual impact. Design of finished appearance of top structure and ventilation column to be given careful consideration. Planting to screen permanent plant. Integrated landscape scheme in the Gardens to enhance visual amenity and reduce visual impact. This site is not suitable since the proposals would adversely impact the visual amenity from the River and key venues of tourist interest. The permanent elements would affect the visual amenity of Victoria Embankment and the river frontage. The proposals could potentially intercept the Strategic View. Small CSO site/Large CSO site Mitigation required and conclusions Introduction of landscape scheme to include appropriate surface treatments and planting to re-instate or enhance the character of the Gardens and relate to the river frontage. This site is in a sensitive river front location with prominent landmarks in the vicinity, hence, is not suitable. The proposals would have an adverse impact on the character of the Gardens and the River frontage and its surroundings. The temporary works area spreads across the Gardens which would have a further adverse impact on its character.
Built heritage and townscape Site considerations Comments Particular considerations on sites where new permanent structures are required Permanent structures at C22XA would have the potential to have a direct impact upon two grade II listed structures, one conservation area and one protected view and indirect impacts upon 7 listed buildings, three conservation areas and one registered historic park and garden and also to have an impact upon the local townscape character and local views. Construction and operation of the development could result in a direct impact upon two Grade II listed structures, one conservation area, one protected view and an indirect impact on the setting of 7 listed buildings, three conservation areas, one registered historic park and garden, the local townscape character and local views. Mitigation is highly unlikely due to the development sites sensitive location. Small CSO site/Large CSO site Mitigation required and conclusions The location of structures within the current work site would not have a direct impact upon the grade II listed structure. However mitigation in the form of a high quality and sensitive scheme design and/or screening would be extremely difficult to achieve due to the sensitive nature of the site. Due to development sites sensitive location, suitable mitigation is likely to be extremely difficult to satisfactorily achieve.
Potential issues
Summary
The site is less suitable as either a small or large CSO site due to the direct and indirect adverse impacts it would have on a large number of listed structures, conservation areas, registered historic parks and gardens and protected views. This site would potentially have a severe adverse impact on the townscape character and local and Strategic Views, during both construction and operation. Due to the highly sensitive location of the site, mitigation to reduce these potential adverse impacts upon all of these receptors would be difficult to satisfactorily achieve.
Water resources hydrogeology and surface water Site considerations Comments Hydrogeological conditions (Groundwater and Surface Water) From BGS Geological Model giving average ground condition profile. Local near surface conditions may vary, particularly within the river Geology (thickness) Superficial Geology and Made Ground (8m) London Clay (26m) Lambeth Group (16m) Thanet Sand (10m) Hydrogeology Piezometric Level in Chalk Aquifer: ~ -41mAOD (~41mbgl) from EA Jan 08 water level contouring Groundwater Monitoring Location EA Hydrometry Sites: No hydrometry site nearby Watercourses Within the River Thames SPZs and groundwater users SPZ Not located in a Source Protection Zone defined by EA EA Licensed Groundwater Abstractions and Details No public water supply borehole within 2km radius 24 licensed abstraction borehole within 2km radius
Licence Numbers: 1. 28/39/42/0076 (1 borehole) 2. 28/39/42/0069 (4 boreholes) 3. 28/39/42/0004 (2 boreholes) 4. 28/39/39/0236 (1 borehole)
Small CSO site/Large CSO site Mitigation required and conclusions The drop shaft would be constructed to an invert level of approximately 38.62mbgl therefore the shaft would be (1) founded in the Lambeth Group. Piezometric head in Chalk is approximately 2.38 m below the base of the construction. If the shaft depth was to go deeper or piezometric head was found to be higher, then dewatering would be required and should be considered as part of geotechnical design.
A simple volumetric approach has been used to calculate the 400 days travel times of the abstraction borehole. A conservative mean annual recharge of 100 mm/year was used to calculate a radius for licensed abstraction boreholes as follows:
Licensed abstraction boreholes 1. 472m 2. 452m 3. 165m 4. 203m 5. 472m 6. 241m
Water resources hydrogeology and surface water Site considerations Comments

5. 28/39/39/0232 (2 boreholes) 6. 28/39/39/0229 (1 borehole) 7. 28/39/39/0224 (4 boreholes) 8. 28/39/39/0223 (1 borehole) 9. 28/39/39/0212 ( 2 boreholes) 10. 28/39/39/0209 (1 borehole) 11. 28/39/39/0138 (2 boreholes) 12. 28/39/39/0046 (1 borehole) 13. 28/39/39/0006 (2 boreholes) Locations: 1. 2.0km southeast of the site 2. 325m southeast of the site 3. 1.18km northeast of the site 4. 455m northwest of the site 5. 1.94km southwest of the site 6. 1.7km northeast of the site 7. 560m southwest of the site 8. 1.85km southwest of the site 9. 533m northwest of the site 10. 1.53km southwest of the site 11. 1.79km northwest of the site 12. 840m southwest of the site 13. 948m west of the site Operator: 1. London Borough Of Southwark 7. 564m 8. 388m 9. 156m 10. 101m 11. 85m 12. 85m 13. 113m
Small CSO site/Large CSO site Mitigation required and conclusions
The shaft is located within the catchment area of two abstractions (28/39/42/0069 and 28/39/39/0224). These abstractions are both from the Chalk aquifer.

2. The South Bank Board Limited 3. Beetham Landmark London Ltd 4. St Martin-In-The Fields Limited 5. Terrace Hill (Wilton Road) Nominee No 1 & No 2 Limited 6. Global Grange Limited 7. Corporate Officer Of The House Of Commons 8. London Underground Ltd 9. The National Gallery 10. Westminster Gardens Limited 11. Great Capital Partnership (G.P.) Limited 12. The Central Hall 13. Army & Navy Club Abstracted Aquifer Unit: 1. Chalk 2. Chalk 3. Chalk 4. Chalk 5. Chalk 6. Chalk 7. Chalk 8. Gravel 9. Chalk 10. Chalk 11. Chalk 12. Chalk

13. Chalk Abstraction Purposes: 1. Industrial, commercial and public service (drinking, cooking, sanitary, washing) 2.Industrial, commercial and public service (business parks - non evaporative cooling and general use relating to secondary category) 3. Private water supply (process water and drinking, cooking, sanitary, washing) 4. Industrial, commercial and public service (heat pump) 5. Industrial, commercial and public service (non-evaporative cooling) 6. Industrial, commercial and public service (hotels, public houses and conference centres - drinking, cooking, sanitary, washing) 7. Industrial, commercial and public service (public administration -non evaporative cooling and drinking, cooking, sanitary, washing) 8. Industrial, commercial and public service (transport - non-evaporative cooling) 9. Industrial, commercial and public service (holiday sites, camp sites & tourist attractions - evaporative cooling and drinking, cooking, sanitary, washing) 10. Private water supply (drinking, cooking, sanitary, washing) 11. Industrial, commercial and public service (drinking, cooking, sanitary, washing) 12. Industrial, commercial and public service (drinking, cooking, sanitary, washing) 13. Industrial, commercial and public service (drinking, cooking, sanitary, washing) Abstraction Quantity (annual): 1. 280,000m3 2. 257,000m3 3. 34,095m3 4. 52,000m3

5. 280,000m 6. 73,000m3 7. 400,000m3 8. 189,216m3 9. 30,558m3 10. 12,810m3 11. 9,126m3 12. 136,364m3 13. 15,911m3
3
Local Authorities (LA) Unlicensed Groundwater Abstractions and Details No abstraction borehole within 1km radius inside Westminster Council Boundary No abstraction borehole within 1km radius inside Lambeth Council Boundary Borehole locations and depths There are 34 historical records of water wells: 28 deep wells and 6 shallow wells within 1 km radius. Depth range: 65.0 244.14m Depth range: 7.7 17.37m Potential impacts on surface water features There is a direct pathway to the Thames due to the work being undertaken on the foreshore. Work needs to be undertaken in consideration of Pollution Prevention Guidelines PPG1, PPG5 and PPS23. Not applicable
Water resources hydrogeology and surface water Site considerations Comments Potential impacts on groundwater (resources and quality) Impact may be expected on groundwater at depth since the drop shaft is to be constructed in Lambeth Group (minor aquifer) which is in hydraulic continuity with Chalk. The proximity of the shaft depth to the piezometric surface in the Chalk means that if the shaft depth was to go deeper or piezometric head was found to be higher, then dewatering may be required during construction. At shallow depth, the shaft is located in Alluvium which is classified as a minor aquifer. Limited impact on shallow aquifer if water is excluded from the excavation by sheet piling. Mitigation may be required as construction of the shaft would take place within the 400 day capture zone of two EA licensed abstractions. If the shaft depth was to go deeper or piezometric head was found to be higher, then the dewatering required may affect water these two licensed abstractions. The drop shaft to be excavated in Lambeth Group above piezometric head in Chalk. If the shaft depth was to go deeper or piezometric head was found to be higher, then dewatering may be required during construction. Limited impact on flow in shallow aquifer due to sheet piling. Summary In terms of hydrogeology, this site is less suitable as either a small or large CSO site because the drop shaft is to be constructed in Lambeth Group (minor aquifer) which is in hydraulic continuity with Chalk (major aquifer), and also the site lies within the catchment area of two EA licensed abstraction boreholes. The proximity of the shaft depth to the piezometric surface in the Chalk means that if the shaft depth was to go deeper or piezometric head was found to be higher, then dewatering may be required during construction. The Chalk piezometric head may potentially need to be taken into account in the engineering design. The superficial deposits are Alluvium which is classified as a minor aquifer at the shaft site. Limited impact on flow in shallow aquifer due to sheet piling. In terms of surface water resources, this site is less suitable as either a small or large CSO site because the work is to be undertaken within the channel of the River Thames. As such, specific mitigation would be required to prevent pollution.
(1) Piezometric head is a specific measurement of water pressure above a datum
Small CSO site/Large CSO site Mitigation required and conclusions See below (likely types of mitigation measures that would be required).
Likely types of mitigation measures that would be required
Possible provision of alternative groundwater supply
Potential issues
Piezometric head in Chalk moat potentially need to be considered as part of geotechnical design.
Ecology (terrestrial and aquatic) Site considerations Comments Statutory designations Non-statutory designated wildlife sites None within 2km. Site is within the River Thames & Tidal Tributaries SMI This site is separated from Victoria Embankment Gardens: Whitehall Garden site of Local Importance by a road Small CSO site/Large CSO site Mitigation required and conclusions None required Any constructions or working methods affecting the Thames, particularly above ground features of a permanent nature, but also temporary or buried works would require compensatory habitat provision. There may also be postworks restoration required. None required BAP priority habitats The Tidal Thames is a London BAP habitat Any constructions or working methods affecting the Thames, particularly above ground features of a permanent nature, but also temporary or buried works would require compensatory habitat provision. There may also be postworks restoration required. Detailed negotiation may be required with the EA for the placement of structures (particularly permanent ones) in this location. Any constructions or dewatering in the Thames would require detailed aquatic invertebrate and fish investigation. There may be seasonal restrictions on working. Consideration needs to be given to the cumulative impacts on hydrodynamics with reference to known critical flow velocities for fish. Not considered significant at a site specific level.
Protected or otherwise notable species within the Study Area
Foreshore may support uncommon aquatic invertebrate species.
Potential issues
The cumulative impact of all jetties and other above ground structures proposed within the Thames may increase flow velocity in the river with effects on juvenile migratory fish
Summary
This site is less suitable for either a small or large CSO site due to the requirement for temporary and permanent landtake from the River Thames. There may also be a need offsite mitigation/compensation solutions as well as potentially extensive post-works restoration requirements.
Flood risk assessment Site considerations Comments Flood Risk Zone River Channel - therefore flood zone 3b, functional flood plain. Small CSO site/Large CSO site Mitigation required and conclusions The site would be developed with a coffer dam and should be protected to the 1 in 200 year tidal return period as a minimum. An evacuation plan would be required for this site in the event the dam is breached. Mitigation may also be required for the impact of displacement of flood water as a result of defending the site on the foreshore. The impact of such a physical construction (the coffer dam) would also have to be assessed for the impact of sediment erosion on the integrity of the defences. Assessment of conditions for SuDS Potential issues Not suitable for SuDS due to location within the Thames. In consultation the PLA commented that this part of the riverbed is prone to scouring. Not applicable The impact of works in the river (temporary or permanent) is likely to require assessment, potentially with 2D modelling, for the impact on velocity and hence sediment erosion on the integrity of the defences.
Summary
This site is less suitable as either a small or large CSO site because the site requires specific mitigation to protect it from flood levels and this has the potential to cause displacement with respect to the working areas being in the river which could increase flood risk elsewhere locally.
Air quality Site considerations Comments AQMA Sensitive Receptors The air quality objectives for NO2 exceeded on major roads in vicinity of site. There are residential properties and a hospital located on the A4. The nearest residential properties are located some distance from the site. The main traffic issue in this area is exhaust emissions from vehicles along the A4, A400, A3212 and A3211 corridors. See above There is no data at likely access to A3211 and the nearest existing data indicates existing exceedance of AQLV. The risk from additional exhaust emissions from construction HGVs is undefined at present. The risk from dust impacts at residential properties is low. Summary Small CSO site/Large CSO site Mitigation required and conclusions There is a need for more site specific data. There are few relevant air quality sensitive receptors present along the route the construction traffic is likely to take and close to the proposed construction works. Additional vehicle emissions have a moderate potential to interfere with local air quality action plan policies. See above Collect a minimum of 6 months diffusion tube data at site access to the A3211 or other point of access to major road network. Minimise HGV movements on the local road network during the peak hour. Standard dust control measures would minimise the effect of fugitive dust on nearby sensitive receptors.
Existing traffic issues
Existing sources of significant air pollutants Notable gaps in existing air quality monitoring Potential issues
This site is suitable for use as either a small or large CSO site because there is sufficient distance from the site to potential dust sensitive receptors that there is a low risk of a perceptible impact at the nearest residential receptors provided standard dust control measures are in place. There is potential for HGV movements on the local road network to cause localised air quality impacts, however this can be mitigated by minimising the movement of HGVs during peak hours.
Noise Small CSO site Site considerations Noise band level (from Defra noise maps) Comments Information from Defra noise maps indicates daytime noise levels of between 58 and 63 dB LAeq and night-time noise levels of between 50 and 55 dB LAeq at residential properties located at Whitehall Court next to the proposed site. The residential properties at Whitehall Court which face the site are likely to experience moderately high daytime and night-time noise levels due to the A400 and the mainline railway serving Charing Cross Station. Noise levels from the Defra noise maps provide an indication of prevailing noise levels only, and would not be employed in any detailed assessments for chosen sites. Sensitive Receptors There are sensitive receptors located to the west of the site at Whitehall Court. These consist of 8 storey high residential dwellings. Not applicable As for the small CSO site, except as follows: Sensitive receptors at Whitehall Court are located at As for large, see left Mitigation required and conclusions Not applicable Comments As for small, see left Large CSO site Mitigation required and conclusions As for small, see left
Noise Small CSO site Site considerations Comments Sensitive receptors at Whitehall Court are located at a distance of approximately 80m from the temporary working area and 85m from the shaft location. The site is also adjacent to Victoria Embankment Gardens The site access route is proposed to be from Victoria Embankment and may give rise to an adverse noise impact from HGV traffic on receptors at Whitehall Court. Existing traffic issues Local road traffic, including the road traffic on the A400 to the north. Local road traffic, including the road traffic on the A400 to the north and the mainline railway serving Charing Cross Station would contribute to the local noise climate in the area. Construction: The construction period is estimated at 0.5 to 2 years and working hours would be Not applicable As for small, see left As for small, see left Mitigation required and conclusions Comments a distance of approximately 70m from the temporary working area and 75m from the shaft location. Large CSO site Mitigation required and conclusions
Existing sources of significant noise emissions
Not applicable
Potential issues
Adherence to the good site practices provided in BS5228. Siting of noisy equipment and construction activities as far
Noise Small CSO site Site considerations Comments 12 hours (7am 7pm) Monday to Saturday. This has the potential to result in adverse noise impacts to any sensitive receptors in close proximity to the site. A relatively high number of daily HGV movements are anticipated. This number of vehicle movements is likely to result in adverse noise impacts on nearby sensitive receptors at Whitehall Court. The immediate site area is relatively large and, whilst the shaft location may be fixed, ancillary plant should be sited as far as is practicable from surrounding sensitive receptors. Situating plant in the eastern area of the site would maximise the distance between them and the nearest sensitive receptors and minimise potential disturbance. Proposed 3m site boundary fencing would provide useful noise mitigation to some plant and construction activities however it would not provide Mitigation required and conclusions as is practicable from sensitive receptors. Provision of site boundary noise fences. Comments Large CSO site Mitigation required and conclusions
Noise Small CSO site Site considerations Comments any attenuation to higher floor levels at residential flats located at Whitehall Court. Vibration resulting from general construction works is not anticipated to result in an adverse impact. The nearest receptors to the proposed shaft location are at a distance of approximately 15m and it is unlikely that vibration levels would result in minor cosmetic damage during shaft sinking but may give rise to annoyance. Vibration from tunnelling should be considered on a case by case basis at particular sensitive locations. Operation: With appropriate attenuation (if necessary), there is no reason why noise from the ventilation column and top chamber should not result in adverse noise impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. Mitigation required and conclusions Comments Large CSO site Mitigation required and conclusions
Noise Small CSO site Site considerations Summary Comments Mitigation required and conclusions Comments Large CSO site Mitigation required and conclusions
This site is suitable for either a small or large CSO site. Although the distance between the site and the nearest receptors are relatively short and a relatively large number of HGVs would be visiting the site each day, the noise climate in the area is relatively high. Any shielding afforded by the site perimeter barriers would be largely ineffectual due to the height of the receptors at Whitehall Court
Land quality Site considerations Site location Current site use Topography Field evidence of contamination (ie, visual/olfactory) Current surrounding land use (immediately adjacent to site)
1
Small CSO site Grid reference: 530438, 180252 Not available Not available Not available
Large CSO site Grid reference: 530340, 180193 As for small, see left As for small, see left As for small, see left
Not available
Geological and hydrogeological information Geological strata Superficial Geology and Made Ground (8m) London Clay (26m) Lambeth Group (16m) Thanet Sand (10m) Underlying aquifer classes Non-Aquifer: London Clay Minor Aquifer: River Terrace Deposits, Lambeth Group, Thanet Sands Major Aquifer: Chalk Groundwater vulnerability/Soil classification (High/Intermediate/ 2 Low/Not applicable) Source protection zone details Not located in a Source Protection Zone defined by EA As for small, see left River Terrace Deposits - Minor Aquifer High Leaching Potential of Soils (U)
1.
Superficial Geology and Made Ground (8m) London Clay (26m) Lambeth Group (16m) Thanet Sand (10m) Non-Aquifer: London Clay Minor Aquifer: River Terrace Deposits, Lambeth Group, Thanet Sands, Harwich Formation, Major Aquifer: Chalk As for small, see left
Land quality Site considerations Surface water receptor Small CSO site River Thames (directly adjacent to site) Large CSO site River Thames (35m east)
Relevant information within a 250m radius of the site Historical potentially contaminating activities (based on mapping data) Onsite Historical maps show the sites land use has remained largely unchanged. The site is located on sand and shingle adjacent to the River Thames and below the Mean High Water Level from 1862 onwards. A Fire Service Floating Repair Depot is shown onsite from 1896 until 1909 Offsite Chelsea Embankment (directly adjacent to site, west) 1862 present Metropolitan District Railway, later shown as underground railway (7m west) Hungerford Bridge (31m north) 1962 present Railway lines and Charing Cross Station (47m north) 1862 present Charing Cross pier (79m west) 1896 present Office buildings, later listed as government buildings, Ministry of Defence (87m west, 197m south, 224m west) 1896 present Numerous tanks contents unknown, potentially fuel related (closest located 105m west) 1958 - 1970 Numerous electrical substations (closest located 154m northwest) 1952 1970 Historical building plans listing oil storage (closest located 155m southwest) 1946 - 1970 Historical building plans listing potential fuel oil (156m Offsite Metropolitan District Railway, later shown as Underground railway (8m east) 1882 present Tanks including potential fuel related tanks to the west and northwest of the site (closest 27m west) 1888 - 1964 Railway lines (37m north) 1882 present Historical building plans listing numerous incidents of asbestos west, southwest and north of the site (closest 41m north) 1946 1970 Above ground fuel tanks west and northwest of site (closest 50m west) Hungerford Bridge (60m northeast) 1882 present Three Electrical substations (61m west, 103m southwest, 120m north) 1952 - 1964 Charing Cross Station (70m northwest) 1882 present Whitehall Stairs (97m southeast) 1882 present Charing Cross Pier (105m northeast) 1896 present Historical building plans listing oil use and oil storage (closest 113m north) 1958 - 1966 Onsite Historical maps show the land use has remained unchanged since 1882. The site is shown as being open land/gardens since 1882.
Land quality Site considerations Small CSO site southwest) 1958 - 1997 Office or works at Middle Scotland Yard (180m west) 1896 War Office (186m southwest) 1909 - present Whitehall Stairs (207m south) 1882 present York building (213m northwest) 1896 - present Large CSO site War Office (125m west) 1938 present Royal United Service Museum (130m southwest) 1966 present York Buildings (180m north) 1896 present Whitehall (200m west) 1896 present Swimming Bath (210m northeast) 1896 1898 Treasury Buildings, later Cabinet Office (223m southwest) 1896 - present Horse Guards Parade (235m west) 1882- present Buildings later listed as Government Buildings (Ministry of Defence) (28m south, 30m west, 156m west) 1896 present New Scotland Yard (250m south) 1896 - present Pollution incidents to controlled waters Two: Unknown sewage, minor incident (102m west) Oils unknown, minor incident (217m southeast) Landfill sites Other waste sites Registered radioactive substances Fuel stations/Depots Contemporary trade directory entries None None None None Two: Charing Cross Station, active (117m northwest) Government Buildings, active (closest located 87m west) Two: Unknown sewage, minor incident (18m east) Oils unknown, minor incident (188m southeast) As for small, see left As for small, see left As for small, see left As for small, see left Four: Charing Cross Station, active (70m northwest) Government Buildings, active (closest 28m south) Museum, active (130m southwest) New Scotland Yard, active (280m south).
Land quality Site considerations Site classification based on above information Activity Potential site contaminants derived from surface sources (e.g. contaminants in made ground) 1) Some potential for made ground from potential filling operations during development Distance and direction to site 1) Onsite and directly adjacent Contaminants 1) Metals, TPH, PAHs Activity 1) Not applicable as site remains unchanged natural ground. Distance and direction to site 1) Not applicable as site remains is unlikely to contain significant quantities of Made Ground 1) closest 27m west Contaminants 1) Not applicable as site remains is unlikely to contain significant quantities of Made Ground 1) TPH, Metals, PAHs, Solvents Small CSO site Large CSO site
Potential site contaminants derived from offsite sources and transported to site
1) Underground and above ground railway
1) 7m west and 47m north
1) Metals, TPH, PAHs
1) Underground/ above ground storage tanks 2) Railway operations 3) Electrical Substations 4) Charing Cross Station (including made ground)
2) 37m north
2) Metals, , TPH, PAHs, 3) PCBs
3) closest 61m west 4) 70m northwest
4) Metals, TPH, PAHs
Potential contamination pathways to site (Conceptual Site 3 Model) Contamination category
Source 1: A1, A3, B4 Source 2: D6, E1, F7
Source 1: A1, A3, B4, C5 Source 2: D6, E1, F7
Category 1 Assessed as Low Risk
Land quality Site considerations Summary Small CSO site The site is considered suitable as a small CSO site with respect to land quality, based on the low potential for contamination to have occurred, as the site is located directly adjacent to the Thames, has not been developed for previous industrial use, and offsite potentially contaminating activities are limited to potential Made Ground and railway operations. Large CSO site The site is suitable as a large CSO site for the same reasons given for the small CSO site, see left.
Notes: 1. From BGS Geological Model giving average ground condition profile. Local near surface conditions may vary, particularly within the river. 2. Soil information for urban areas is based on fewer observations than elsewhere in the country. Therefore a worst case vulnerability (H) is assumed until proven otherwise. 3. Refer to schematic Conceptual Site Model for explanation of site-specific source-pathway-receptors.
Contacts
For information about the Thames Tideway Tunnel Call: 0800 0721 086 Lines are open 24 hours a day Visit: www.thamestidewaytunnel.co.uk Email: [email protected] For our language interpretation service call 0800 0721 086
For information in Braille or large print call 0800 0721 086

For information about acceptance of our application and the examination process please contact the Planning Inspectorate. Call: 0303 444 5000 Visit: http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk

Site Suitability Report C22XA and CLLAC: Foreshore, Adjacent To Victoria Embankment Gardens, Victoria Embankment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Site Suitability Report C22XA and CLLAC: Foreshore, Adjacent To Victoria Embankment Gardens, Victoria Embankment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Site Suitability Report C22XA and CLLAC: Foreshore, Adjacent To Victoria Embankment Gardens, Victoria Embankment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Spring 2010

Site Suitability Report C22XA and CLLAC

100-RG-PNC-C22XA-900001 | Spring 2010

Site Suitability Report C22XA and CLLAC

SITE SUITABILITY REPORT C22XA AND CLLAC

SITE INFORMATION 2.1 2.2 Site and surroundings Type of site

9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 10

Site Suitability Report C22XA

Site Suitability Report C22XA

2.1.4 2.1.5 2.1.6

Site Suitability Report C22XA

3.1.5 3.1.6 3.1.7

Site Suitability Report C22XA

4 4.1 4.1.1 4.1.2

The TLRN A3211, Victoria Embankment, is adjacent to the site.

Site Suitability Report C22XA

5.2 5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3 5.2.4 5.2.5 5.2.6

5.3 5.3.1 5.3.2

Site Suitability Report C22XA

5.4.2 6 6.1 6.1.1

Site Suitability Report C22XA

Site Suitability Report C22XA

Site Suitability Report C22XA

Site Suitability Report C22XA

Site Suitability Report C22XA

Site Suitability Report C22XA

Site Suitability Report C22XA

Site Suitability Report C22XA

Site Suitability Report C22XA

Site Suitability Report C22XA

Site Suitability Report C22XA Appendices

Site Suitability Report C22XA Appendix 1

APPENDIX 1 SOURCES OF INFORMATION

Site Suitability Report C22XA Appendix 1

Site Suitability Report C22XA Appendix 1

Westminster City Partnership - westminstercitypartnership.org.uk/partnerships/ Pages/WCPNetworks.aspx

Property Mouchel referencing data Multimap VOA website

Site Suitability Report C22XA Appendix 2

APPENDIX 2 SITE LOCATION PLAN

Area of Main Map

CSO (Directly Controlled)

CS22X Regent Street CSO

200 Metres 300 400

Map Ref : .......1PL04-SS-01480 Date : .............2010/05/24 Projection : .....British National Grid

Thames Water Utilities

APPENDIX 2 C22XA SITES SITE LOCATION PLAN

Site Suitability Report C22XA Appendix 3

APPENDIX 3 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT PLANS

Thames Policy Area

Protected/Strategic Views MOD Safeguarding Area Central Activity Zones

Background Assessment Areas

Area of Main Map

Map Ref : .......1PL04-SS-01457 Date : .............2010/03/25 Projection : .....British National Grid

Thames Water Utilities

APPENDIX 3A C22XA SITES PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT PLAN

Sites of Metropolitan Nature Conservation Importance

Map Ref : .......1PL04-SS-01459 Date : .............2010/03/25 Projection : .....British National Grid

Thames Water Utilities

APPENDIX 3B C22XA SITES PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT PLAN