Cremorne Wharf Site Suitability Report

Transcription

Strategic Sewer Site Assessment Stage 3:
Site Suitability Report:
SS219 Cremorne Wharf Depot
Document Number C680-AH-00535-RP
January 2016
Counters Creek
Strategic Sewer Flood Alleviation Scheme
Protecting residents from flooding COUNTERS CREEK STRATEGIC FLOOD ALLEVIATION SCHEME
STRATEGIC SEWER SITE ASSESSMENT STAGE 3: SITE SUITABILITY REPORT:
SS219 CREMORNE WHARF DEPOT
Document Ref
Status
Document Type
Title/Subject
Project
Authors
Keywords
C680-AH-00535-RP
Issued
Report
Strategic Sewer Site Assessment Stage 3: SSR
Counters Creek Strategic Flood Alleviation Scheme
TWUL / Aecom / Adams Hendry / Bruton Knowles / London Bridge
Associates / Mott MacDonald
Cremorne Wharf Depot Site Suitability Report
REQUIRED APPROVALS
Co-ordinator
Reviewer
Approver
Chris Colloff
Associate,
Savills
Mark
Mathews
Town
Planning
Manager,
TWUL
Martin
Bennett
Project
Lead, TWUL
Date
December
2015
Date
January
2016
Date
January
2016
Counters Creek Strategic Storm Relief Sewer/ Site Selection Methodology/ Stage 3/ SS219 SSR: November 2015
Document Number: C680-AH-00535-RP COUNTERS CREEK STRATEGIC FLOOD ALLEVIATION SCHEME
STRATEGIC SEWER SITE ASSESSMENT STAGE 3: SITE SUITABILITY REPORT:
SS219 CREMORNE WHARF
LIST OF CONTENTS
PAGE
0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1
1
INTRODUCTION
3
1.1
PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
3
1.2
STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT
4
2
3
4
5
6
7
SITE INFORMATION
6
2.1
6
SITE AND SURROUNDINGS
PROPOSED USE OF SITE – CONSTRUCTION PHASE
8
3.1
CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS
8
3.2
CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMME
10
3.3
CONSTRUCTION WORKING HOURS
10
3.4
ACCESS AND MATERIAL MOVEMENTS
11
3.5
CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGY AND ASSOCIATED DIMENSIONS
13
PROPOSED USE OF SITE – OPERATIONAL PHASE
20
4.1
PERMANENT INSTALLATIONS
20
4.2
MAINTENANCE ACCESS
20
4.3
RESTORATION AND AFTER-USE
20
ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT
21
5.1
CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC
21
5.2
CONSTRUCTION WORKS CONSIDERATIONS
21
5.3
PERMANENT WORKS CONSIDERATIONS
22
5.4
HEALTH AND SAFETY
22
5.5
SUMMARY
22
PLANNING ASSESSMENT
24
6.1
INTRODUCTION
24
6.2
PLANNING APPLICATION AND PERMISSIONS
24
6.3
PLANNING POLICY
25
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
29
7.1
INTRODUCTION
29
7.2
TRANSPORT
29
7.3
NOISE
29
Document Number: C680-AH-00535-RP 8
9
10
7.4
WATER RESOURCES - HYDROGEOLOGY
30
7.5
WATER RESOURCES – SURFACE WATER AND FLOOD RISK
30
7.6
AIR QUALITY
30
7.7
ARCHAEOLOGY
30
7.8
BUILT HERITAGE
30
7.9
TOWNSCAPE AND VIEWS
31
7.10
ECOLOGY
31
7.11
LAND QUALITY
31
7.12
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
32
SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT
33
8.1
SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE
33
8.2
ISSUES AND IMPACTS
33
8.3
POTENTIAL INTEREST GROUPS
34
8.4
SUMMARY
34
PROPERTY ASSESSMENT
35
9.1
INTRODUCTION
35
9.2
CROWN LAND AND SPECIAL LAND COMMENTS
35
9.3
LAND TO BE ACQUIRED
35
9.4
ASSOCIATED PROPERTY COSTS TO PROJECT
35
9.5
COMPENSATION
36
9.6
SUMMARY
36
CONCLUSION
37
10.1
ENGINEERING
37
10.2
PLANNING
37
10.3
ENVIRONMENT
37
10.4
SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY
38
10.5
PROPERTY
38
10.6
RECOMMENDATION
38
APPENDIX 1
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
APPENDIX 2
SITE LOCATION PLAN
APPENDIX 3
INDICATIVE CONSTRUCTION LAYOUT PLANS
APPENDIX 4
INDICATIVE OPERATIONAL LAYOUT PLANS
APPENDIX 5
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT PLANS
APPENDIX 6
RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY
APPENDIX 7
ENVIRONMENTAL APPRAISAL TABLES
Document Number: C680-AH-00535-RP Strategic Sewer Stage 3 Site Suitability Report: SS219 Cremorne Wharf
0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
0.1.1
The Counters Creek Strategic Flood Alleviation Scheme is required to protect
properties from basement flooding within the Counters Creek catchment in the
London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham and the Royal Borough of
Kensington and Chelsea. The present Counters Creek Flooding Register1 shows
that over 1,700 properties are subject to flooding.
0.1.2
A number of strategic solutions are being pursued, each of which plays a role in
providing the relief necessary to guard against basement flooding. The strategic
solutions comprise the provision of flooding local improvement projects (FLIPS),
the introduction of pilot Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) schemes, the
implementation of sewer upgrade works and the construction of a strategic storm
relief sewer (the ‘strategic sewer’ or ‘the scheme’).
0.1.3
This report relates to the further assessment of sites which have been identified as
being potentially suitable for development as part of the delivery of the strategic
sewer. It builds on work undertaken to inform the phase 1 and interim engagement
variants of the proposed strategic sewer, and the outcomes of the consultation
processes held on those proposals.
0.1.4
Feedback from the interim engagement process identified concerns about a
number of the sites which Thames Water had consulted on. Thames Water has
taken the opportunity to consider these issues alongside and other alternative sites
suggested by respondents through the interim engagement process, alongside
ongoing scheme development and modeling work. An alternative site to intercept
the Counters Creek sewer has also been investigated by Thames Water.
0.1.5
Further longlist and shortlist assessment work was undertaken between JulyOctober 2015. A list of 16 sites were subjected to the longlist site assessment
process, through which five sites were disregarded. The remaining 11 sites were
then subjected to further assessment through the shortlist assessment stage and it
was concluded that Site Suitability Reports (SSRs) would be prepared for two of
those sites.
0.1.6
In addition, Thames Water has updated SSRs for two sites considered as part of
the phase 1 consultation and / or interim engagement processes (SS222 Tesco
Hammersmith Superstore Car Park and SS241 Maclise Road Car Park and
Woodland adjacent to Kensington Olympia Station) to reflect potential changes to
the proposed use of the sites. Further updating work has also been carried out in
respect of proposals for the use of site SS219 Cremorne Wharf Depot.
0.1.7
This SSR relates to site SS219, Cremorne Wharf located in the Royal Borough of
Kensington & Chelsea (RBKC) and updates the SSR issued in November 2014.
The purpose of this report is to provide a strategic assessment of the opportunities
and constraints associated with developing the site for use as a drive site to launch
the tunnel boring machine (TBM), a pumping station site, interception site and to
connect to the existing combined overflow sewer and the Thames Tideway Tunnel.
1
The Counters Creek flood register is a register of all the properties in the Counters Creek Catchment that have been recorded
as being flooded at some point in the past. This register is taken from the Thames Water Sewer Flooding History Database
(SFHD). Properties are added to the register based on reported flooding incidents. Incidents are assessed to confirm whether
or not the flood event was caused by an operational problem (i.e. a blockage), an extreme rainfall occurrence (greater than the
current design criteria), or by a lack of capacity in the sewer.
Counters Creek Strategic Sewer/ Site Selection Methodology/ Stage 3/ SS219 SSR: January 2016
Document Number: C680-AH-00535-RP
1
Strategic Sewer Stage 3 Site Suitability Report: SS219 Cremorne Wharf
0.1.8
In summary, the site has been assessed as being less suitable yet capable of
mitigation in engineering, planning and environment terms and suitable in property
terms. None of the assessments identified the site as being unsuitable.
0.1.9
Accordingly, the site is considered to be less suitable overall yet able to be
mitigated if developed and it is recommended that the site is retained as a possible
construction site.
2
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Purpose of this report
1.1.1
The purpose of this report is to provide a strategic assessment of the suitability of
Strategic Site SS219 Cremorne Wharf as a construction site for the Counters
Creek strategic storm relief sewer (the ‘strategic sewer’ or ‘the scheme’), which
forms part of the Counters Creek Flood Alleviation Scheme. The wider background
to the scheme is provided in Appendix 1 to this report.
1.1.2
This report assesses the potential for this site to be used as a drive site to launch
the tunnel boring machine (TBM), a pumping station site, interception site and to
connect to the existing combined overflow sewer and the Thames Tideway Tunnel.
1.1.3
Section 2 of this report describes the site and its surroundings and Sections 3 and
4 of this report provide details on the proposed use of the site during the
construction and operational phase.
1.1.4
This report forms part of the site and options assessment process that has been
undertaken by the Counters Creek team. It builds on work undertaken to inform
the phase 1 and interim engagement variants of the proposed strategic sewer, and
the outcomes of the consultation processes held on those proposals.
1.1.5
Feedback from the interim engagement process identified concerns about a
number of the sites which Thames Water had consulted on. Thames Water has
taken the opportunity to consider these issues alongside and other alternative sites
suggested by respondents through the interim engagement process, alongside
ongoing scheme development and modeling work. An alternative site to intercept
the Counters Creek sewer has also been investigated by Thames Water.
1.1.6
Further longlist and shortlist assessment work was undertaken between JulyOctober 2015. A list of 16 sites were subjected to the longlist site assessment
process, through which five sites were disregarded. The remaining 11 sites were
then subjected to further assessment through the shortlist assessment stage and it
was concluded that Site Suitability Reports (SSRs) would be prepared for two of
those sites.
1.1.7
In addition, Thames Water has updated SSRs for two sites considered as part of
the phase 1 consultation and / or interim engagement processes (SS222 Tesco
Hammersmith Superstore Car Park and SS241 Maclise Road Car Park and
Woodland adjacent to Kensington Olympia Station) to reflect potential changes to
the proposed use of the sites. Further updating work has also been carried out in
respect of proposals for the use of site SS219 Cremorne Wharf Depot.
1.1.8
This report assesses the suitability of the site in respect of the proposed use,
considering engineering issues, planning issues, potential environmental, noise
and transport effects, community issues and property matters. In brief, the
suitability of the site will be considered in the following way:
•
Suitable: the site is expected to experience minimal constraint or conflict
with the surrounding environment, or encounter minimal constraints in
respect of existing conditions at the site, although there may be a
requirement for some form of compromise, mitigation and compensation.
3
•
•
Less Suitable: the site is considered to experience constraints or conflicts
with the surrounding environment, or encounter constraints in respect of
existing conditions at the site, which will require mitigation and
compensation and are anticipated to affect the design and use of the site. It
may be necessary to consider the use of this site alongside the availability
of alternative locations.
Unsuitable: the site is considered to experience substantial constraints or
conflicts with the surrounding environment, or encounter considerable
constraints in respect of existing conditions at the site, which are unlikely to
be capable of being mitigated or compensated. An alternative site(s) should
be sought.
1.1.9
These individual assessments then enable an overall judgment to be made, having
regard to all engineering, planning, environment, transport and property issues,
whether the site is suitable for the intended use. That overall assessment will also
identify any issues where further investigation or mitigation measures may need to
be considered and addressed.
1.1.10
The SSRs will assist Thames Water to engage with stakeholders, and to inform
decisions on the preferred route option and associated sites for the Phase 2 public
consultation due to take place in early 2016.
1.2
Structure of this Report
1.2.1
The report is structured as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Section 2 – site information: This section provides general information
that relates to the site, as the basis for the assessment that follows.
Section 3 – proposed use of the site – construction phase: This section
provides an explanation of how the site would be used during the
construction phase if selected, identifying any assumptions that have been
made.
Section 4 – proposed use of the site – operational phase: This section
provides an explanation of how the site would be used during the
operational phase if selected, identifying any assumptions that have been
made.
Section 5 – engineering assessment: This section provides an
engineering assessment based on the information in Sections 2, 3 and 4,
identifying any assumptions that have been made.
Section 6 – planning assessment: This section provides a planning
assessment of the site and its relationship with relevant planning
applications and permissions and with relevant planning policies and
designations.
Section 7 – environmental appraisals: This section provides an appraisal
of specific environmental topics relevant to the site. An appraisal of
potential impacts is provided, along with the identification of potential
mitigation measures that may be required. This is based on professional
judgment,,site investigations and the plans and assumptions included in
this SSR.
Section 8 – socio-economic assessment: This section provides a socioeconomic assessment, including consideration of potential community
impacts and issues. This is based on professional judgment, site
investigations and the plans and assumptions included in this SSR.
4
•
•
Section 9 – property assessment: This section provides a property
assessment that includes landownership, land acquisition processes,
acquisition risks, and the potential for compensation events.
Section 10 – conclusions: This section provides conclusions for each of
the assessments, together with the overall assessment of the suitability of
the site.
5
2
SITE INFORMATION
2.1
Site and surroundings
2.1.1
The site lies within the administrative boundary of the Royal Borough of
Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC). A site location plan is attached at Appendix 2.
2.1.2
The site is located in Chelsea adjacent to the River Thames foreshore on the
south side of Lots Road. The site comprises Cremorne Wharf depot, the existing
Thames Water Lots Road sewage pumping station and the existing jetty that
extends into the River Thames. 2.1.3
Cremorne Wharf depot is owned by the RBKC and has been leased to Thames
Water for use in connection with the construction of the Thames Tideway Tunnel
(TTT), for which a Development Consent Order was made in September 2014.
Prior to the site being leased to Thames Water, it was used for the storage of
highway department materials and vehicles, and for waste management.
2.1.4
Cremorne Wharf is occupied by a depot building (large shed / warehouse), which
is clad in corrugated sheet metal. There is also an office, welfare facility, two
weighbridges, associated hardstanding and a jetty in the river. The depot building
will be demolished as part of the TTT project and shall be reinstated on completion
unless agreed otherwise with the landowner (RBKC).
2.1.5
The site includes the jetty/berth facility. Cremorne Wharf is a safeguarded wharf by
development plan policy. The site is also allocated as a waste management site
although such uses do not currently take place.
2.1.6
The Grade II listed Lots Road Pumping Station, which is positioned on the existing
trunk sewer (Counters Creek Sewer Main Line and Walham Green sewers), is
owned and operated by Thames Water as an unmanned emergency pumping
station. The pumping station is a red brick building which fronts onto Lots Road.
2.1.7
To the north / northwest of the site is Lots Road, which is a single carriageway
road (30mph) with two-way traffic flows. Cremorne Road to the north and east of
Lots Road is designated as a Red Route. National Cycle Route (NCR) 4 passes
through Lots Road. Wandsworth Town railway station is approximately 2.5km to
the south of the site and Imperial Wharf Tube Station is located 300m to the south
west of the site.
2.1.8
There is a mix of land uses surrounding and in close proximity to the site, including
residential, commercial, retail, industrial and educational as well as areas of open
space. Lots Road itself is predominantly residential in the vicinity of the site (3 – 4
storey Victorian properties) with a few commercial units.
2.1.9
Lots Road Power Station, located to the southwest of the site and including land to
the south of Chelsea Creek, is currently being redeveloped. The proposals include
the retention of much of the power station building and its refurbishment into mixed
use, along with the construction of additional buildings on adjacent land within the
construction site to provide residential accommodation, commercial uses and
community uses.
6
2.1.10
To the east of the Lots Road Pumping Station is Station House, a four storey red
brick building, which was built as the Chief Engineer’s house associated with the
pumping station.
2.1.11
Beyond Station House is Chelsea Wharf, which includes the original 19th century
warehouse building that has been converted and extended for commercial and
residential uses. To the east / north east lies Cremorne Gardens and the
Cremorne Riverside Centre.
2.1.12
Chelsea Academy, a secondary school, is located approximately 250 metres to the
southwest of the site along Lots Road.
2.1.13
Based on the initial construction layouts, the nearest existing residential properties
are located immediately to the east of the site at Chelsea Wharf and to the north
along Lots Road. Future residential units will be located immediately to the west
once the power station redevelopment is complete.
2.1.14
In addition to its safeguarded wharf status the site is covered by a number of other
planning and environmental designations in the RBKC Consolidated Local Plan
(July 2015). All of the mapped designations are shown on the plans in Appendix 5
and include a designated Employment Zone (Lots Road Employment Zone) and
safeguarded waste use on the site. The site is also located within Flood Zone 2
and 3.
2.1.15
The Thames Path currently runs to the east of the site along Lots Road, the RBKC
proposals map includes a proposed extension to the Thames Path across
Cremorne Gardens and then along the southern boundary of Chelsea Wharf and
Cremonre Wharf adjacent to the River Thames. The site is also located within the
Thames Policy Area.
2.1.16
The site includes the existing jetty at Cremorne Wharf and the proposals include a
removal of this, its replacement during construction with a larger temporary deck in
the River Thames, and, post construction, the reinstatement of a jetty. This part of
the site that extends into the River Thames is designated as a Nature
Conservation Area, and along its foreshore adjacent to the site the River Thames
is designated as an Area of Metropolitan Importance and a Green Corridor.
Cremorne Wharf depot and Lots Road pumping station are located within the Lots
Village Conservation Area. The existing jetty and foreshore is located in the
Thames Conservation Area.
7
3
PROPOSED USE OF SITE – CONSTRUCTION PHASE
3.1
Construction requirements
Site area and use
3.1.1
Following the lifting of the previously safeguarded Crossrail 2 route alignment, the
level of the new strategic sewer can be raised at the southern end from the
alignment presented in the phase 1 consultation, enabling the full main sewer
length to be driven from this site.
3.1.2
The proposed site would occupy an area of approximately 3,800m2 on land with an
additional area of approximately 3,360m2 created by a temporary platform built out
over the River Thames.
3.1.3
Two additional temporary site extensions into Lots Road with a single lane closure
at the two entrances to the site will also be required for short periods, with areas of
100m2 and 140m2.
3.1.4
The site is being considered as:
•
•
•
•
•
A pumping station site:
§ Minor refurbishment works directly linked to the new storm relief sewer
are proposed to the existing pumping station. An additional temporary
pumping station would be installed below ground.
A drive site for the strategic sewer tunnel bore northwards
An interception site for:
§ The Walham Green Storm Relief Sewer
§ The Low Level No 1 Interceptor sewer
A discharge connection to the Low Level No 1 Interceptor sewer
Jetty demolition and construction of a temporary deck in the river and the
provision of two campsheds and some temporary protection to the outfall
apron on the foreshore. This will be dismantled and reinstated at the end of
the works.
3.1.5
In addition to the above, minor refurbishment works are required to the existing
pumping station and an application for Listed Building Consent may also need to
be submitted.
3.1.6
Separate to the Counters Creek project and under the Development Consent
Order for the Thames Tideway Tunnel (TTT) the following works will also take
place at this site:
•
•
•
The interception of the Counters Creek Sewer (CSO)
TTT drop shaft
Tunnelled connection from the TTT drop shaft to the TTT
Scope of the permanent works
3.1.7
The proposed construction phase layouts for this site are attached in Appendix 4,
based on preliminary assessments undertaken to date.
3.1.8
The following works are proposed:
8
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
3.1.9
The following works will be undertaken to the Lots Road Pumping Station:
•
3.1.10
Construction of a new jetty to replace the existing one that will have been
demolished to facilitate construction of the temporary platform
Construction of a number of shafts:
§ Connections to the Walham Green SRS and Low Level No 1 sewer
§ Intermediate vortex drop shaft
§ Tunnel drive shaft
Drive an approximately 5.1km long 4.0m Internal Diameter tunnel to the
north using a tunnel boring machine (TBM)
Excavation of connections between the shafts
Construction of a discharge connection to the Low Level No 1 Interceptor
sewer, requiring an excavation within Lots Road
Construction of below ground air management chambers, ducting, and
connecting pipework and installation of 2 no. vent stacks
Provision of ancillary equipment (eg power supplies and control equipment)
Replacement of motors on the five diesel pumps within the existing Lots
Road Pumping Station, and other refurbishment works to and within the
existing pumping station
Order for the TTT the following works will also take place at this site:
•
•
•
Construction of a chamber on the existing Counters Creek Sewer
TTT drop shaft
Connection tunnel from TTT drop shaft to TTT
Temporary structures within the site
3.1.11
During the construction period, the site is anticipated to require the following large
structures and plant:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
3.1.12
•
Platform out into the river to provide barge mooring and loading facilities
2 or 3 No Piling rigs
2 or 3 Jack up barges
1 No tower crane
2 or 3 No Gantry Cranes
Various mobile and crawler cranes
Conveyor system from the tunnelling shaft to the barge loader
3 or 4 cement silos, approximately 12m high
3 or 4 shotcrete silos, approximately 8m high
An acoustically clad steel framed building approximately 12m high over the
drive shaft to reduce the noise from these works
Triple stacked offices and welfare
During the construction phase, the following plant within the site would be required
to operate 24 hours per day, 7 days per week:
•
•
•
•
Gantry cranes
Conveyor system and discharge into a barge
Barge changeover and transportation
Shaft pump and discharge
9
•
•
•
•
•
•
Shaft and tunnel ventilation
Grout plant
Shotcrete plant
Shaft personnel hoist
Water cooling and recycling systems
Generators and compressors, though a generator would be necessary only
as a safety standby if a suitable connection to mains power can be made
3.1.13
An acoustically clad steel framed building would cover the majority of those items
of plant and equipment required during evenings and nights.
3.2
Construction programme
3.2.1
The site would be required for a total construction period of approximately 4 years.
3.2.2
Any necessary utility diversion works to enable the construction of the shafts and
other structures would need to be carried out by the relevant utility provider in
advance of these works, and is not included in the overall 4 years duration above.
3.2.3
The site work would be likely to be undertaken in a number of phases:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
3.2.4
Utility diversions and connections (not included in the above programme)
Site mobilisation and clearance
Demolition of the existing jetty, and construction of a temporary platform
into the river (to provide barge mooring and loading facilities)
Piling
Shaft sinking
Tunnelling of the connections between the shafts, and for a TBM launch
chamber and backshunt
TBM tunnelling of the drive north
Refurbishment works to the existing pumping station
Construction of the connections to the existing sewers
Construction of the air management and valve chambers
Construction of 2 No. ventilation stacks.
Fit out of the shafts and other structures
Mechanical, electrical, and communications installations, followed by
commissioning and testing
Site demobilisation (including removal of the temporary platform within the
river), reinstatement and site landscaping
The following phases will be carried out under the Development Consent Order for
the Thames Tideway Tunnel:
•
•
•
The connection to the existing Counters Creek sewer (CSO)
Shaft sinking and tunnelling of the connection tunnel to the main TTT tunnel
beneath the River Thames
Construction of an air management system
3.3
Construction working hours
3.3.1
The following working hours are anticipated for use of this site:
10
Site establishment, piling, fit out,
finishings and demobilisation
Shaft sinking, tunnelling and
finishings. Barge operations
Days
Hours of work
Mon to Fri
07:00 to 19:00
Sat
07:00 to 13:00
Sun
No work
Mon to Sun
24 hours
Note: A single Working Day = 12 hours between 7am and 7pm. Working hours and days are
dependent on the construction programme and local restrictions requiring further consideration with
the Local Authority.
3.3.2
Lorry movements in and out of site would be restricted to weekday dayshift and
Saturday morning, except for special loads (e.g. those requiring police movement
orders, which are often only granted for nights).
3.3.3
Barge loading (including the operation of the conveyor), whilst not continuous,
would take place during working hours to suit the generation of excavated material
from the tunnels and shafts. The transfer conveyor will be enclosed within an
acoustic shroud, and the barge loading conveyor will be shielded with an acoustic
shroud.
3.3.4
Barge movements (changeover of barges on the quays) would need to take place
to suit the tide, and could be at any time 24hrs/day, 7days/week, subject to
authorisation from the Local Planning Authority and the Port of London Authority.
3.4
Access and material movements
Transport of excavated material
3.4.1
The site is not close to a suitable rail depot or line, and the transportation of
excavated material or other materials by rail is not considered viable.
3.4.2
The site is adjacent to the River Thames, and the site has previously been used as
a wharf. Barge transportation of bulk excavated material from the main storm relief
sewer tunnel is therefore proposed.
3.4.3
The actual design and frequency of use would be dependent upon the outcome of
further studies, including discussions with the Port of London Authority, and other
river users, to ensure that barge transportation can be safely carried out at this
location, and that there is sufficient capacity to service these works.
3.4.4
Material would be excavated and placed onto a conveyor which would load a
barge moored alongside the platform over the river.
3.4.5
Barges would be changed over at high tide or near to it, during the day or during
the night. Changeover would make use of one or more mooring post(s) in the river.
3.4.6
Two new ‘campsheds’ would be required within the river. These are a level
concrete or stone bed (generally surrounded by sheet piles) which the barges can
sit on during low tide, without the fear of overturning or that suction from the river
bed would prevent the barge rising on the incoming tide.
11
Other materials
3.4.7
Measures to enable the delivery of tunnel segments to a riverside site where they
can be stored, sorted and prepared for onward delivery by barge to Cremorne
Wharf Depot are being investigated.
3.4.8
All other materials, plant and equipment would be delivered to and removed from
the site by road.
Access and egress
3.4.9
The following access and egress options have been identified:
3.4.10
The proposed access route to the site is:
•
•
•
Drive down Cremorne Road (A3220)
Turn into Lots Road. Minor works are likely to be required to the pavement
line at the junction to improve access for HGVs
Turn Left into site (using the north eastern entrance)
3.4.11
During certain phases of the works, it would not be possible to use the north
eastern entrance into site (e.g. during excavation for a discharge pipe to the Low
Level Interceptor Sewer No 1, which passes down this access route). During these
times, the south western entrance would be used.
3.4.12
The proposed exit route from site is:
•
•
•
•
3.4.13
Vehicles would leave the site through the gate to the south west of the
existing Pumping Station
A section of the brick wall in front of Pumping Station may require
temporary removal at its western end and the curve of the pavement line at
the junction is likely to require modification to improve access for HGVs.
Turn right onto Lots Road
Turn left onto A3220 Cremorne Road, travelling North East (works are likely
to be required to ‘sweeten’ this junction, to improve access for HGVs)
During certain phases of the works, it would not be possible to use the south
western exit from site (e.g. during construction of the chambers to intercept the
overflow from the Low Level Interceptor Sewer No 1 and the Walham Green
sewer, which would block this access route). During these times, the north eastern
entrance would be used as an exit.
3.4.14
Traffic lights or a similar alternative would be installed within site to prevent
vehicles leaving site as other vehicles were approaching ready to turn in and to
avoid congestion on Lots Road.
3.4.15
Large items of plant and equipment (such as the TBM sections, gantry and other
cranes, piling rigs, grout silos) may be delivered and collected on low loaders that
are unable to negotiate the turn from Lots Road into site. For these, delivery times
would be agreed with the transport authorities and one of the following routes
would be used:
3.4.16
Option One (a relatively quick operation, taking just a couple of hours, and suitable
for self propelled plant and outside peak and school traffic hours, only):
12
•
•
•
3.4.17
Under the control of Traffic Marshalls, the low loader would stop on Lots
Road outside the pumping station. Two-way traffic flow would be directed
around this using ‘stop/go’ boards
The road surface would be protected and the load (e.g. a piling rig) would
be driven off the low loader and into site
The low loader would depart
Option Two:
•
•
•
Drive down Cremorne Road (A3220) from the North East, and continue to
the North West
Stop at the entrance to Ashburnham Road
Under a short-term road closure and parking suspension, reverse down
Ashburnham Road, crossing Lots Road and into site
Site management and workforce
3.4.18
The site is not sufficiently large to contain a large site car park, and hence it would
be necessary that the majority of the construction workforce arrive by public
transport. A minibus pickup service from a local station would be required. This is
likely to be from Imperial Wharf and Fulham Broadway.
3.4.19
It is unlikely that the main project offices can be accommodated on site, but there
appears to be suitable commercial property lets in the area.
3.5
Construction methodology and associated dimensions
Preparation works, and works within the river
3.5.1
The existing jetty into the river would be demolished. This would be carried out at
low tide using a land based crane and excavator, or from a jack up barge. The
existing piles would be extracted or cut off below the river bed level.
3.5.2
Sheet piles will be placed to divert the flow from the outfall channel a little way
downstream, away from the barge loading position. Pre-cast concrete channel and
apron units will be placed to prevent scour.
3.5.3
The platform into the river would be constructed using a piling rig on a jack up
barge, placing tubular steel piles within the river. It is anticipated that vibratory
piling would be sufficient to achieve the required pile depths (without the need for
impact or percussive piling), and ‘soft start’ techniques would be used to minimise
the impact on marine life.
3.5.4
Steel beams and steel decking or pre-cast concrete planks would be placed on the
tubular piles and secured. The platform would be equipped with quays, where
barges would be moored and loaded / unloaded.
3.5.5
‘Campsheds’ would be constructed on the river bed adjacent to the new quays.
These are level platforms on the river bed onto which the barge can sit at low tide,
without fear of over-turning or that suction from the river bed would prevent it
floating again when the tide rises. This would consist of a level bed of stone or
concrete and may include a sheet piled containment wall. It is likely that some
13
dredging (to level the river bed) would be required prior to the construction of the
campsheds.
3.5.6
Excavation of the river bed (dredging) for the campsheds or for the removal of
piles will be carried out at low tide when the river bed will be exposed. This will
avoid the majority of suspended solids (clouding of the water) that is a normal
consequence of dredging.
3.5.7
It is likely that periodic dredging of sediment that builds up on the campshed may
be necessary.
3.5.8
Barge loading facilities would be constructed. This is likely to consist of a system of
conveyors leading to a loading conveyor, but initially would consist of a storage
area on the decking from which one or more excavators load the barge.
3.5.9
On completion of the works, the platform over the river would be dismantled and
the tubular steel piles extracted or cut off below river bed level. A small section of
the platform will be left in place to replace the existing jetty and to protect the
outfall.
Shaft sinking
3.5.10
The following shafts would be required:
•
•
TBM drive shaft, which would be 15.0m internal diameter and
approximately 45m deep
The Intermediate vortex drop shaft, which would be 9.5m internal diameter
and approximately 45m deep
3.5.11
These shafts are likely to be constructed using a combination of underpinning and
Sprayed Concrete Lining (SCL) shaft sinking methods from within a secant piled
cofferdam.
3.5.12
A large piling rig would be used to drill and case over-lapping holes which are filled
with concrete to form secant piles. A continuous ring of such piles are constructed
to form a cut off wall, preventing the inflow of groundwater and ground during
excavation. The material within the cofferdam is initially removed by a large
excavator sitting on surface, and later by a smaller excavator within the cofferdam
loading skips which are lifted to surface by the service crane.
3.5.13
As excavation proceeds steel or concrete walings may be require to support the
exposed secant piles. Near to the base of the secant piles, a ring of pre-cast
concrete shaft segments would be built, and the annulus between this and the
secant piles filled with concrete. The shaft would then be continued by
underpinning.
3.5.14
In the underpinning method, the shaft is excavated using excavation plant within
the shaft serviced by a crane on surface. Additional pre-cast concrete shaft lining
segments are built at the shaft base, with each ring hanging from the previous one.
The annulus between shaft ring and cut ground is then filled with a cementitious
grout.
14
3.5.15
It is likely that the lower sections of the shaft would be constructed using the SCL
technique. Earth is removed by an excavator, and rapid setting concrete sprayed
onto the exposed ground to form a primary structural lining. The shaft lining is later
completed with a cast in-situ reinforced concrete base slab and secondary lining.
3.5.16
When the TBM drive shaft reaches the appropriate levels, the following tunnels
would be constructed, also using SCL techniques:
•
•
•
•
A connection tunnel to the Intermediate vortex drop shaft
A launch chamber in which the TBM for the main tunnel will be assembled
A backshunt on the opposite side of the shaft to the launch chamber, for
the construction railway operation
A connection tunnel to the TTT drop shaft
3.5.17
The choice of construction method depends on the ground and groundwater
conditions, which would be the subject of site investigation boreholes. It is
anticipated that the base of the shafts will be close to the base of the London Clay,
and therefore passive dewatering is proposed prior to the excavation of the lower
portion.
3.5.18
A thick reinforced concrete base plug would be cast at the bottom of the shaft,
sized so as to prevent floatation of the shaft from the groundwater pressure.
3.5.19
The TBM drive shaft would then be used for the driving of the main tunnel to the
north.
3.5.20
The TBM drive shaft would later be fitted out with in-situ concrete dividing walls
and slabs. A stilling basin at the base of the shaft would be formed to slow the flow
and remove air.
3.5.21
The intermediate vortex drop shaft would have vortex drop chambers and drop
pipes installed to take the incoming flow and twist is down the pipe to reduce
turbulence and noise. This is the same as the design for the TTT drop shaft being
constructed under a separate consent. A stilling basin at the base of the
intermediate vortex drop shaft would be formed to slow the flow and remove air.
3.5.22
The shafts would then be capped with a cover slab placed 1 to 2m below surface,
and ladders, landings, and penstocks would be installed.
3.5.23
Backfill would be placed on the shaft cover slab, with ‘chimneys’ of pre-cast
concrete or brickwork placed to bring the required openings to surface.
3.5.24
It is estimated that the following covers would remain permanently on surface
(note some hatches are set within larger hatches):
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
4 No. 750x750 Access hatch
4 No. 675x675mm Access hatch
6 No. 675x675 CCTV inspection hatch
1 No. 750x950 Ladder access hatch
5 No. 2000x3000 Materials and man rider access hatches
2 No. 675x4000 Maintenance access for safety grille
2 No. 2000x2500 pump access hatch
8 No. 2000x2000 Isolation gate access hatches
2 No. 675x675 Instrumentation and monitoring hatch
15
•
•
•
3.5.25
1 No. 3000x2000 Vortex access hatch
1 No. 675x675 Air treatment drainage manhole
1 No. approx. 3000x3000 Air management hatch
Adjacent to the TBM drive shaft will be a valve chamber approx. 6m x 4m x 3-5m
deep. This would be constructed within a sheet piled cofferdam. It is estimated that
the following covers would remain permanently on surface:
•
•
•
1 No. 750x950 Ladder access hatch
2 No. 1400x3000 Maintenance access hatch
1 No. 600x1800 Maintenance access hatch
Strategic sewer tunnel bore
3.5.26
The strategic sewer tunnel would be driven by a tunnel boring machine (TBM),
which would excavate the ground using a slowly rotating cutterhead fitted with
tungsten carbide tipped steel teeth.
3.5.27
The excavated material would be transferred by conveyor to skips forming a train
on a temporary construction railway running in the tunnel invert (floor). The skips
would be tipped at the drive shaft and the excavated material lifted from the shaft
by conveyor or using a skip hoisted by the shaft crane.
3.5.28
As the tunnel is excavated, the TBM erects a tunnel lining consisting of a ring of
precast concrete segments. These are erected mechanically within a steel can at
the rear of the TBM, to ensure the ground remains fully supported. The concrete
segments are cast to a very high standard in a specialist manufacturing facility off
site.
3.5.29
As excavation progresses, the void between the rear of the concrete ring and the
ground is filled with a cementitious grout, which is batched in a site batching plant.
The cement and pulverized fly ash (PFA) for this are delivered to site in bulk
tankers and stored on site in silos.
3.5.30
The TBM would be erected in sections, weighing up to 120t each. These would be
delivered to site as special loads with the required escorts. A 400 or 500t mobile
crane or a specialised heavy lift gantry would be used to lower the sections down
the shaft, where they would be connected, and the various systems tested and
commissioned. A large number of back up gantries are towed behind the TBM,
housing plant and equipment and welfare units. These would be delivered to site in
sections and assembled before lowering into the shaft.
3.5.31
When the TBM reaches the reception shaft it is dismantled and the constituent
parts lifted and transported off site.
Connections between the shafts
3.5.32
The connections between the various shafts would be tunnelled, using SCL
techniques, as described above. The tunnels are completed with a cast in situ,
reinforced concrete secondary lining.
16
Connections to the existing sewers
3.5.33
Small diameter shafts and connecting tunnels are required for the connections to
the existing sewers: •
•
The overflow from the Low level No 1 Interceptor sewer. This connection
would be located within the site, on the roadway to the west of the existing
pumping station
The Walham Green Stormwater sewer. This connection would be located
within the site, on the roadway to the south west of the existing pumping
station
3.5.34
These shafts would require small sheet piled cofferdams and be of in-situ
reinforced concrete construction. 3.5.35
It is estimated that the following covers would remain permanently on surface
(note some hatches are set within larger hatches):
•
•
•
•
•
•
1 No. 675x675 access hatch
1 No. 675x4500 Penstock hatch
2 No. 675x3600 Penstock hatch
2 No. 750x950 Ladder Access hatch
2 No. 1500x1500 Materials and man rider access hatch
1 No. approx. 675x3000 Penstock hatch
Fit out of Pumping Station shaft and construction of surface structures
3.5.36
During the final stages of the concreting works within the drop shaft, the temporary
pumps would be installed, along with the necessary valves and pipework.
Electrical power and control and monitoring equipment would be installed, along
with the necessary cable management trays. Building services (such as low
voltage power, lights, ventilation, air conditioning, atmosphere monitoring and fire
detection) equipment would be installed, tested and commissioned.
3.5.37
Excavations would take place for buried pipework and ducts, and for the concrete
foundations of the necessary permanent buildings.
3.5.38
This would include the construction of a connection for a discharge pipeline into
the Low Level No 1 Sewer which runs beneath Lots Road. The connection would
make use of an existing chamber within Lots Road to minimise disruption.
3.5.39
Cables would be brought into site by EDF and a new sub-station constructed, to
supply the power to the pumps and other equipment. Alongside this, transformers,
switchgear, and control equipment would be installed, tested, and commissioned.
Thames Tunnel Tideway (TTT)
3.5.40
Order for the TTT the following works will also take place at this site:
•
The existing waste recycling centre would be demolished, the weighbridges
removed and the site cleared.
17
•
•
•
Construction of the TTT vortex drop shaft, which would be 8m internal
diameter and approximately 43m deep.
A tunnel would be driven from the TTT shaft a distance of approximately
170m, to meet with the new TTT tunnel beneath the Thames. This tunnel
would be 5m in diameter, reducing to 4m after approximately 50m length,
and would be constructed using SCL techniques. The connection between the outfall structure and TTT would be constructed
as a reinforced concrete structure within a sheet piled cofferdam. Ventilation and Air management
3.5.41
It is currently anticipated that a passive air management system would be required
at this site, however further development of the ventilation mechanism of the
tunnel system would be a key aspect in the next design stage.
3.5.42
For the tunnel as a whole, a system of active mechanical plant and passive
installations would be used to manage the air transfer into and out of the sewer
network.
3.5.43
The active sites would extract air to create air flow along the length of the sewer
creating a negative pressure. Under tunnel empty conditions and most of the time
in typical year conditions air would be drawn in at the passive sites as a result of
the negative pressure created by the active sites, thus completing a process of air
change. The system would aim to provide 1 air change per day.
3.5.44
The scale of installation at this site will depend on its function and whether it is an
active site or a passive site. At this time it is likely that Cremorne Wharf would be a
passive site, which will include construction of a below ground air treatment and
management chamber.
3.5.45
This structure would be a reinforced concrete box structure approximately 6m
long, 4m wide, and 3m deep, which would be constructed within a sheet pile
cofferdam as described above.
3.5.46
It is estimated that the following covers would remain permanently on surface:
•
•
•
•
•
3.5.47
4 No. 675x675 Access hatch
1 No. 675x2500 Damper access hatch
1 No. 1500x800 Carbon filter access hatch
6 No. 450x450 Filter media access hatch
2 No. 300x300 Fire suppression hatch
The air management equipment is also anticipated to include the following:
•
•
•
•
•
2 No. ventilation column (no greater than 0.9m diameter and approximately
4m high) for the release of treated air, bypassed untreated air, and for air
inflow
Carbon panel filter units (within the below ground concrete structure)
High pressure emergency relief dampers that bypass the carbon filter
panels (within the below ground concrete structure)
Below ground access ducting
Air sampling points before and after the filter panels
18
3.5.48
The sizes of the passive filters have been standardised as far as possible with a
range from approximately 4.9m x 1.9m to 7.7m x 4m (internal plan dimensions),
with depth chambers varying from 2.5m to 4.5m deep. It should be noted that
these sizes are indicative at this stage and dependent on future CFD modelling, as
well as background monitoring of the individual sites to establish current ventilation
arrangements that may contribute to satisfying the requirements indicated above.
3.5.49
Of equal significance is the layout, type and location of buildings, and the need to
consider exit velocities from the ventilation structures, all of which would dictate the
actual sizes adopted in the final design.
Ancillary equipment
3.5.50
To facilitate the operation of mechanical equipment installed at the site, controls
would be installed within the existing Lots Road Pumping Station.
Works within the existing Pumping Station
3.5.51
The following works are anticipated within the existing Lots Road Pumping Station
that are directly linked to the new strategic sewer:
•
•
•
3.5.52
Installation of new power supply and control equipment.
Replacement of the diesel engines for the existing pumps
Replacement of the priming system to enable a faster and more reliable
start
Listed building consent would be sought for these works where necessary.
19
4
PROPOSED USE OF SITE – OPERATIONAL PHASE
4.1
Permanent installations
4.1.1
The existing pumping station, shafts, outfall, air management chamber and
connecting structures would remain as permanent structures, and access would be
required for maintenance and for changing pumps. Permanent crane access would
be required. In total two vent stacks would be required. The operational layout is
provided in Appendix 4.
4.2
Maintenance access
4.2.1
Maintenance access would be required at all shaft locations, below ground
structures, kiosks and weir structures. A full inspection of the main sewer
alignment is expected to be required at least once every 10 years. This activity
would require the use of a mobile crane and support vehicles to enable safe
operation.
4.2.2
Routine planned maintenance of penstocks would be required on a more frequent
basis and it should be anticipated that access would be required to operate and
maintain penstocks on a 6 monthly basis.
4.2.3
The carbon filter media in the ventiallation equipment would be changed as and
when required. This would be dictated by the sampled air leaving the chamber,
which would be monitored at regular intervals. This is likely to be at a frequency of
approximately 3 years.
4.2.4
It is anticipated that a number of these maintenance visits would be scheduled to
coincide with each other.
4.2.5
Maintenance access would require vehicular access to the site. The operational
activity being carried out would dictate the number of vehicles and personnel
required at any one time. It would also dictate when the operation can be carried
out. As with all sewer operations there is a probability that night time access may
be required on occasion.
4.3
Restoration and after-use
4.3.1
The site would require ground level structures as set out above. Access and
maintenance requirements would necessitate the need for hard standing areas
around the shaft and buried chambers.
4.3.2
Access to the Wharf would be reinstated following construction to reflect the
requirements of the site’s safeguarded wharf status. This will include provision of
a new jetty to replace the existing one that will have been demolished to facilitate
construction of the temporary platform.
20
5
ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT
5.1
Construction traffic
Transport of excavated material, materials, plant and equipment
5.1.1
The site is not suitable for rail transport.
5.1.2
It is intended that bulk excavated material from the construction of the shafts and
tunnels would be removed from site by barge. This would be facilitated by the
construction of temporary mooring, campsheds, handling and loading facilities into
the river.
5.1.3
It is also intended that certain other materials would be transported to site by
barge. This could include tunnel segments, pile cages, and certain tunnelling
supply materials.
5.1.4
All other materials, plant and equipment to and from site would be transported by
road.
5.2
Construction works considerations
Traffic Management
5.2.1
For the works, the following traffic management is proposed:
Lots Road
5.2.2
Suspension of some parking on Lots Road would be required in order to facilitate
HGV movements through the site entrance / exits.
5.2.3
During the works for the interception of the overflow from the Low Level No 1
Interceptor Sewer, it would be necessary to close the westbound carriageway of
Lots Road for a period of approximately 4-5 months with works split under a
number of phases. Two-way traffic would be maintained by installing temporary
traffic lights.
5.2.4
During the works for the discharge connection to the Low Level No 1 Interceptor
Sewer, it would be necessary to close the westbound carriageway of Lots Road for
a period of approximately 1 months. Two-way traffic would be maintained by
installing temporary traffic lights.
5.2.5
These works are not date critical and their position within the overall programme
could be adjusted to suit other works on the site and other works that might affect
the local road network, thus minimising disruption.
5.2.6
The closure of the pavement along the south/east of Lots Road would be required
during the above lane closures in order to ensure the safety of pedestrians.
Pedestrians could be re-directed along the pavement to the north/west of Lots
Road.
21
Ashburnham Road
5.2.7
Short duration closures of Ashburnham Road would be required during the
delivery and collection of large items of plant and equipment (see section 3.4.15).
Delivery times would be agreed with the transport authorities in advance.
5.3
Permanent works considerations
5.3.1
Operational and maintenance access would be required at this site. Above ground
structures are detailed in sections 3 and 4 and are envisaged to be required at this
time. Permanent works would be minimised during the design development where
possible, to reduce the impact on the site location, and wider area.
5.4
Health and safety
5.4.1
In addition to those risks that are normally associated with this type of works, the
following health and safety risks must be managed:
Congestion
5.4.2
A large quantity of works is planned on a very small site and site circulation,
access and egress will need to be managed safely.
Working over and adjacent to water
5.4.3
The risks associated with working over and adjacent to water (which is tidal and
can have very strong currents) must be managed.
Vehicle movements
5.4.4
Vehicle and pedestrian segregation must be carefully managed. This would be
particularly the case during certain phases, when only one of the two access /
egress points are available. Breaking into the sewers and outfall
5.4.5
A safe methodology must be adopted for breaking into the existing sewers and
outfall, ensuring the safety of the workforce and preventing flooding of the works.
5.5
Summary
5.5.1
The site includes the existing pumping station and outfall, and is the only identified
location for the connections to these. The site allows direct access for the
intersection of the Walham Green and Low Level No 1 Sewers.
5.5.2
It is likely that relatively few service diversions would be required to facilitate the
works. The site does not have a readily available electrical power supply for the
driving of the TBM, and would require the installation of a new supply.
5.5.3
Site access is difficult and may restrict the sizes of delivery vehicles. However, the
site’s position adjacent to the river is likely to allow the removal excavated material
and delivery of certain materials by barge.
22
5.5.4
The site is smaller than is recommended for a good, efficient tunnelling site. The
scheme proposes a large amount of construction on a relatively small site. The
programme adopted for the work must take this into account to avoid congestion
and ensure safe working.
5.5.5
In summary it is considered that the Cremorne Wharf site (SS219) is less suitable
in engineering terms for use of the site as a drive site.
23
6
PLANNING ASSESSMENT
6.1
Introduction
6.1.1
The planning assessment covers the following areas:
•
•
6.2
Planning applications and permissions
Planning Policy
Planning applications and permissions
Cremorne Wharf depot
6.2.1
The Thames Water Utilities Limited (Thames Tideway Tunnel) Development
Consent Order (DCO) 2014 came into force on 24th September 2014. A
Correction Order and Correction Notice was issued on the 17th March 2015.
Cremorne Wharf Depot is identified as the site to intercept the existing Lots Road
pumping station CSO and connect it to the main Thames Tideway Tunnel.
6.2.2
In March 2015 the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s (RBKC) partially
discharged Schedule Requirement PW19 (parts (a) and (b) of the Thames Water
Utilities Limited (Thames Tideway Tunnel) Order 2014 with respect to baseline
noise monitoring locations and durations for works at Cremorne Wharf Depot site.
6.2.3
RBKC’s Corporate Property Department submitted an application in June 2012 for
the demolition of existing buildings, construction of a 9 storey building (including 2
basement levels) and a stand-alone two storey building to provide B1
accommodation and C3 class (residential) units (planning application reference
PP/12/02224). The application was withdrawn in May 2013.
Lots Road Power Station
6.2.4
The Lots Road Power Station situated immediately adjacent to site SS219 was
granted planning permission by the Secretary of State in 2006. The site includes
Lots Road Power Station and surrounding land (land within the RBKC) and to the
south of Chelsea Creek, land within London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
(LBHF).
6.2.5
Planning permission was granted for the conversion of the power station building
to accommodate residential development and ancillary leisure, retail, business,
community and health facilities, the part demolition of the power station building
and the provision of two other residential buildings. The planning application
reference numbers are 2002/03132/FUL (LBHF) and PP/02/01324 (RBKC).
6.2.6
In September 2011 a planning application was submitted (LBHF planning
application reference: 2011/03122/FUL) to vary condition 2 of permission
2002/03132/FUL to seek approval of revised drawings showing alterations to the
scheme. The changes included a re-distribution of non-residential uses, revisions
to the mix of residential units in the power station building and other scheme
design changes. This application was approved in March 2012. Similarly, in July
2013 an application (PP/13/04082) was submitted to the RBKC to vary Condition 2
of planning permission PP/02/01324. In March 2015, permission was granted
subject to the signing of the S.106. Works have commenced on site.
24
48 Lots Road
6.2.7
This site, 48 Lots Road, is located opposite the Lots Road Pumping Station. In
September 2015, planning permission was granted for the change of use of the
ground floor from nil use to A1 (retail) use (PP/15/04250).
Other planned developments
6.2.8
National Grid is replacing and upgrading gas mains in London and are planning
work in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and the London Borough of
Hammersmith and Fulham. The work is scheduled to start in February 2016 for a
period of five years.
Summary
6.2.9
Cremorne Wharf is identified as a construction and operational site for the Thames
Tideway Tunnel (TTT). Discussions have taken place with this project to establish
how the Counters Creek project and construction of TTT can be integrated, this is
set out in Sections 3-5 of this report.
6.2.10
There is the potential for impacts upon the ongoing construction works at Lots
Road Power Station from the construction of the Counters Creek strategic sewer,
which is programmed to commence in September 2017. There is also potential for
conflict with the National Grid gas main works, which are planned to commence in
February 2016 for a period of five years. Consequently, it is considered that the
site is less suitable for development but capable of being delivered with suitable
controls and mitigation in place.
6.3
Planning policy
6.3.1
The strategic spatial planning strategy for the area is provided in the London Plan
The Spatial Development Strategy for London Consolidated with alterations since
2011 (March 2015).
6.3.2
The local planning policy context is provided in the Royal Borough of Kensington
Consolidated Local Plan (July 2015), which combines alterations since the
adoption of the Core Strategy (December 2010) incorporating Pubs & Local
Character Review (October 2013), Miscellaneous Matters Review (December
2014), Conservation & Design Review (December 2014) and Basements Review
(January 2015), saved policies in the Kensington and Chelsea Unitary
Development Plan (UDP) (May 2002) and adopted Supplementary Planning
Guidance (SPG) and Documents (SPD).
6.3.3
The following analysis does not include the assessment of national planning policy
or guidance, nor borough wide SPGs and SPDs. An assessment of these will be
conducted at a later stage once the sites for development have been selected.
This assessment does however include analysis of SPDs or SPGs that are site
specific and relevant to the site being addressed.
6.3.4
There are a number of relevant planning policies and designations, which define
the proposed development on the site. These policies are tabulated in Appendix 6,
and their requirements are summarised below. Key planning and environmental
constraints relevant to policies listed below are shown on the planning and
environmental constraint drawings provided at Appendix 5 to this report.
25
Safeguarded wharves
6.3.5
Cremorne Wharf is safeguarded from redevelopment into non-cargo handling uses
by a ministerial direction. The Greater London Authority Safeguarded Wharves
Review Final Recommendation (March, 2013) identifies that in the medium term
Cremorne Wharf may be required by Thames Water for TTT and following that it
be able to contribute to the shortfall in wharf capacity in West London.
6.3.6
Paragraph 7.77 of the adopted London Plan (2011) sets out that “the
redevelopment of safeguarded wharves should only be accepted if the wharf is no
longer capable of being made available for waterborne freight handling uses. The
only exception to this would be for a strategic proposal of essential benefit for
London, which cannot be planned for and delivered on any other site in Greater
London”. The viability of a wharf is dependent on the provisions set out in
paragraph 7.77 of the London Plan. Proposals for appropriate temporary uses on
vacant safeguarded wharves must be considered against the provisions set out in
paragraph 7.78 of the London Plan.
6.3.7
In order to use this site as a construction site a robust case would have to be
made justifying why this site is required rather than an alternative site, in
accordance with the requirements set out in paragraph 7.77, 7.78 and policy 7.26
of the London Plan.
6.3.8
The use of the site by TTT is understood to be linked to a post construction
restoration requirements to bring the site back to wharf use. It is anticipated that
such controls and mitigation will also need to be considered as part of the
Counters Creek strategic sewer development if this site is selected.
Retention of employment land and waste management site
6.3.9
The use of Cremorne Wharf as a construction should be considered in light of the
site’s location within the designated Lots Road Employment Zone. Paragraph
31.3.39 of the adopted RBKC Local Plan identifies that the Lots Road employment
zone, along with the Kensal, Freston Road/Latimer Road Employment zones are
the principal concentrations for the borough’s remaining light industrial uses, and
which are important for local employment generation. RBKC Core Strategy Policy
CF5 ‘Location of Business Uses’ seeks to protect and promote employment zones.
London Plan policy 4.12 is also relevant.
6.3.10
The site is also designated as a waste management site in the RBKC Local Plan.
Policy CE3 ‘Waste’, seeks to protect existing waste management sites along with
Cremorne Wharf, maximising its use for waste management, water transport and
cargo-handling purposes.
6.3.11
The use of the site by TTT is understood to be linked to a post construction
restoration requirements to provide the site with the ability to operate for waste
uses, thus complying with these policy provisions. It is anticipated that such
controls and mitigation would also need to be considered as part of the Counters
Creek strategic sewer development if this site is selected.
Heritage and Public Realm
6.3.12
The site includes the Grade II Listed Lots Road Pumping Station. Cremorne
Wharf and Lots Road pumping are located within the Lots Village Conservation
26
Area. The existing jetty and foreshore is located in the Thames Conservation Area. The listed building and conservation area designation requires sensitive
consideration. As such London Plan policies 7.4, 7.5 and 7.8, and Borough Plan
policies CL1, CL2, CL3, CL4, CR3 and CR4 should be addressed.
6.3.13
The site lies within the Lots Road / World End area. The vision for the area in the
Local Plan is for improvements to the built and natural environment (Local Plan
policy CV18). The Council seeks to maintain, protect and enhance the character
of the area (CP18).
Riverside Development, landscape, views and vistas
6.3.14
The site’s riverside position requires assessment against London Plan policies
7.11 and 7.12 and Borough Plan policy CL1, CL2 and CL11. The proposals for an
outfall within the River Thames frontage would need to be considered alongside
principles established as part of the Thames Policy Area, whereby such proposals
must respect their riverside context and be mindful of the requirements for specific
consideration by the Mayor, where applicable.
6.3.15
Works in the foreshore to facilitate use of the existing outfall and the temporary
deck would also need to be considered in this regard as well as in the context of
London Plan policy 7.29 and Local Plan policy CR5 - Parks, Gardens, Open
Spaces and Waterways.
Nature conservation
6.3.16
The site includes the existing jetty at Cremorne Wharf and the proposals include a
temporary deck in the River Thames. This part of the site that extends into the
River Thames is designated as a Nature Conservation Area. As such London
Plan policy 7.19 and Borough Plan policy CE4 should be addressed.
Recreation and amenity
6.3.17
The site would potentially lead to disruption of rights of access along the River
Thames foreshore and the proposed extension of the Thames Path. The RBKC
Proposals Map (adopted December 2010) shows the proposed Thames Path
along the southern boundary of Cremorne Wharf. It is understood that the TTT
project will leave a 4m clear strip along the river frontage for the future provision of
the Thames path. The proposals would have to consider this future provision in
terms of policy CT1, which seeks to ensure that new developments adjacent to the
river improve opportunities for river transport and freight, and access to the river
and riverside for recreation, walking and cycling. Policy CP18 – Lots Road /
World’s End is also relevant to consider in terms of connectivity to the riverside.
6.3.18
Development within the River Thames requires consideration of London Plan
policies 7.27 and 7.29 and RBKC Local Plan Policy CR5 – Parks, Gardens, Open
Spaces and Waterways.
6.3.19
Use of the site would also affect a number of adjacent residential properties along
Lots Road and Chelsea Wharf. This range of effects could include those arising
from noise, dust, air quality, vibration, access, visual and recreation impacts as
well as the design of any permanent infrastructure. London Plan policies 6.10, 7.5,
7.14 and 7.15, and Borough Plan policies CR4, CL1, CT1, CL5, CE5 and CE6
would therefore need to be addressed.
27
Sustainable Construction
6.3.20
The Development Plan requires development activities to work to the principles of
sustainable construction. In view of the site’s proximity to housing, the
constrictions regarding movement around and into the site and the proximity to the
River Thames, London Plan policies 5.3, 5.18 and 5.21 and Local Plan policies
CL5 and CE3 would be key.
Transportation and water freight
6.3.21
The site requires access from Borough roads, which may impose restrictions on
the number and intensity of deliveries and vehicle movements. There are also
opportunities in respect of water freight. Bulk excavated material from the main
storm relief sewer tunnel is proposed to be removed from site by barge. This would
be facilitated by the construction of temporary mooring, campshed, handling and
loading facilities into the river. Measures to enable the delivery of tunnel
segments to a riverside site where they can be stored, sorted and prepared for
onward delivery by barge to Cremorne Wharf Depot are being investigated.
London Plan policies 5.2, 5.7, 5.10, 6.1, 6.3, 6.14, 7.26 and 7.29, and Borough
plan policies CT1 and CR4 are relevant to the proposals.
Water Quality and Flooding
6.3.22
The development plan generally approaches the issue of water quality and flood
risk to ensure control over development that has potential to impact upon the water
environment. However, support is also provided in this development plan for the
Counters Creek development proposals, which also needs to be taken into
account. Therefore, London Plan policies 5.12, 5.13 and 5.14, and Borough plan
policy CE2, along with the infrastructure schedule on page 246 of the Local Plan,
would be key to any development.
Summary
6.3.23
Aside from strategic support in the development plan for the Counters Creek
scheme as a whole there are no specific policies, or site allocations or
safeguarded route alignments that benefit from promotion by development plan
policy. Consequently, the strategic sewer development is not itself supported by
specific provisions that identify this site and so use of this site for the purposes
outlined in Sections 3 and 4 of this report would run counter to existing
development plan provisions and require justification of its use by other relevant
material considerations. For this reason, use of Site SS219 is considered less
suitable for both options.
6.3.24
In particular, the proposals are likely to conflict with amenity policies such as
London Plan policies 7.14 and 7.15, and Borough Plan policies CR4, CL1, CL5,
CE5 and CE6. Site SS219 is considered less suitable as Cremorne Wharf is a
Safeguarded Wharf, is located in an employment zone and is a designated waste
management site. Local Plan Strategy policies CE3 and CF5 would have to be
addressed. The site also includes the Grade II Listed Lots Road Pumping Station
and therefore heritage policies would need to be addressed.
6.3.25
Notwithstanding these planning policy limitations it is also considered that there
exists the potential to address these issues and to appropriately mitigate their
conflicts with the policies identified above.
28
7
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
7.1
Introduction
7.1.1
The following sections summarise specialist assessments which are provided in
Appendix 7 – Environmental Appraisal Tables.
7.2
Transport
7.2.1
Site access could be provided from Lots Road arriving from Cremorne Road
(A3220) for HGVs and from Ashburnham Road for occasional large items of plant
and equipment. The alignment of the junction between the A3220 and Lots Road
may need alteration to facilitate access for HGVs and a swept path analysis is
required at the site access, in order to determine a suitable configuration.
7.2.2
There is no rail access, however the site is located next to the river, and barge
transport is proposed for storm relief sewer tunnel spoil export. There is limited
parking available on both Lots Road and Ashburnham Road, which are controlled
by pay-and-display and permit parking. The site features a poor Public Transport
Accessibility Level (PTAL) score, indicating that the site is less accessible by
public transport, and measures such as a minibus service may be required.
7.2.3
Short duration closures of Ashburnham Road would be required during the
occasional delivery and collection of large items of plant and equipment. Some
parking on Lots Road would need to be suspended in order to facilitate HGV
movements through the site entrance / exits. Traffic management measures may
include the temporary closure of the footway along the south/east of Lots Road.
The temporary closure of the westbound carriageway of Lots Road would also be
required during the works for the interception of the overflow from the Low Level
No 1 Interceptor Sewer and the works for the discharge connection to the Low
Level No 1 Interceptor Sewer.
7.2.4
On the basis of the information available it is considered that the site is suitable,
as it can be accessed from the existing highway network and is in close proximity
to the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN). However, this will be
dependent on discussions with the highway authority and Transport for London
(TfL) regarding the temporary closure of the westbound carriageway of Lots Road,
the closure of footways and the suspension of parking bays, in addition to further
work as to the suitability of junctions for accommodating HGVs.
7.3
Noise
7.3.1
This site is less suitable due to the predicted noise level arising from the night
time shaft sinking works. Substantial adverse effects are expected at the closest
sensitive receptors due to these construction noise impacts. Any shielding afforded
by site perimeter barriers will be largely ineffectual due to the height of some of
these receptors. Other mitigation, such as upgrading the acoustic enclosure
around the site to improve noise attenuation performance, including use of sound
insulating cladding and elimination of gaps/holes where possible, and the provision
of the acoustic building is likely to be necessary to achieve an acceptable level of
noise mitigation.
29
7.3.2
However, during the day time construction hours the site is considered suitable as
the predicted noise levels will not cause substantial adverse effects at the nearest
noise sensitive receptors.
7.4
Water resources - hydrogeology
7.4.1
In terms of hydrogeology, this site is suitable because the shaft and tunnel
excavations would be through the Superficial Deposits (upper aquifer), which are
classified as a secondary (undifferentiated) aquifer here, and founded in the
London Clay Formation (aquiclude) and are not anticipated to extend into the
Chalk Formation (lower aquifer), which is classified as a principal aquifer. Sheet
piling is anticipated to be required to seal out the upper aquifer and seepages in
the aquiclude. Therefore no impacts on groundwater levels or flows are anticipated
on the upper aquifer.
7.4.2
There is a licensed groundwater abstraction within 100m of the shaft locations,
which abstracts from the Chalk Formation (lower aquifer), which is classified as a
principal aquifer. The excavations are not anticipated to extend into the Chalk
Formation (lower aquifer) and therefore no dewatering should be required.
Therefore no impacts on groundwater levels, flows or abstractions are anticipated
on the lower aquifer. There are no Source Protection Zones (SPZs) or Sites of
Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) within 1km of the shaft locations.
7.5
Water resources – surface water and flood risk
7.5.1
In terms of surface water resources, the site is less suitable because some work
is to be undertaken within the channel of the River Thames and mitigation would
be required to prevent pollution.
7.5.2
In terms of flood risk, the site is less suitable because part of the site is located
within Flood Zone 3b functional flood plain.
Any construction within the
watercourse could potentially impact on sediment erosion on the integrity of the
flood defences.
7.6
Air quality
7.6.1
This site is considered less suitable because the sensitivity of the area to dust
soiling effects associated with construction, earthworks and track-out is medium to
high. It is likely that the site would require additional site specific mitigation beyond
standard mitigation measures if selected to make it suitable.
7.7
Archaeology
7.7.1
There is evidence for post medieval archaeology (town meadows) in the vicinity of
Cremorne Wharf, but these remains are likely to be of low significance and have
probably been disturbed by modern construction. However, it is considered that
this site is less suitable based on the potential for waterlogged remains
associated with post-medieval flood defences being present within the foreshore.
7.8
Built heritage
7.8.1
There is potential for the Thames Conservation Area to experience an impact as a
result of development within its boundaries. However, this impact is considered to
be negligible, as the site is located within a modern industrial area, and is not likely
30
to alter any key views which contribute to the significance of the Conservation
Area. The proposals will also have an impact on the significance of the grade II
listed Lots Road Pumping Station as a result of the physical changes to the
structure and development within its setting. However, the site is considered to be
suitable as the impacts on the Conservation Area will be negligible and largely
temporary in nature. The works to the listed building will be adverse, but can be
mitigated.
7.9
Townscape and views
7.9.1
During construction there would be temporary (4 years), adverse townscape and
visual impacts. Careful design and location of the permanent structures would
minimise potential long-term impacts and on this basis it is considered that the site
is suitable.
7.10
Ecology
7.10.1
This site is considered to be less suitable due to its location within a Site of
Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) - the River Thames and Tidal
Tributaries Site of Metropolitan Importance (SMI). Areas of mudflat habitat
(Biodiversity Action Plan Priority habitat and within the SINC) are to be directly
impacted upon by the works. Where works are to be conducted within close
proximity to or within aquatic habitats strict working practices should be adhered to
with regards to water pollution and sediment/dust control. Any piling within the
river should be undertaken using low noise techniques such as push or vibropiling.
Where Biodiversity Action Plan Priority habitat is lost or degraded, compensatory
provision will be required to enable works to proceed within the site.
7.10.2
The site has been noted to support protected and notable species and habitats.
Vegetation and structures within the site have potential to support nesting common
birds and habitats within the site have been identified to support wintering bird
species. Aquatic invertebrates have been recorded within the survey area and in
terms of fish notable European smelt and European eel have been recorded within
the survey area. As such, species specific avoidance and mitigation measures will
be required. It is also recommended that black redstart bird surveys are
conducted within the site, and if access can be gained to the waste land to the
west of the site. If trees are to be retained, root protection zones should be
adhered to.
7.11
Land quality
7.11.1
On the basis of the information available, it is considered that the site is less
suitable. The historical mapping indicates that land use on site has consisted of;
wharf activity, a rubber works, pumping station and refuse tip/recycling operations.
It is considered that there is a medium potential for contamination of the shallow
subsurface to have occurred particularly through fuel and chemical storage/use
associated with wharf operations and spills/leaching of contaminants associated
with former refuse tip activities.
7.11.2
The potential receptors to contamination include groundwater quality in the
underlying Superficial Deposits (upper aquifer), the River Thames and the health
of construction workers and the users of the site and surrounding land.
31
7.11.3
Although above the Superficial Deposits (upper aquifer), the site is not within a
SPZ and therefore the sensitivity of the aquifer is reduced. However, the River
Thames is immediately adjacent to the site and is likely to be in hydraulic
connectivity with the shallow groundwater beneath the site. Good construction
practice and site specific mitigation would be required to limit direct human
exposure to potentially contaminated soil and soil dust.
7.12
Cumulative effects
7.12.1
The potential for cumulative effects of the Counters Creek scheme with other
proposed developments would be considered at the planning application stage. A
cumulative environmental assessment would consider the likely impacts from other
developments, which individually might be minor but when considered together,
could give rise to more substantial cumulative effects. It would focus on the
impacts of other nearby schemes where construction would be likely to take place
during the construction phase of the Counters Creek scheme.
7.12.2
Other development considered will in most cases be limited to development which
is in close proximity to the Counters Creek scheme and which has a valid planning
permission but is yet to commence. For example, the Thames Tideway Tunnel,
the Lots Road Power Station redevelopment and National Grid London gas mains
replacements planned for LBHF and RBKC will be considered as part of the future
baseline at Cremorne Wharf.
7.12.3
Any committed developments within the local area, such as the redevelopment of
Earls Court and Kensington Olympia are also likely to be considered for inclusion
within the cumulative environmental assessment.
7.12.4
In particular, it is recognised that without mitigation there could be a cumulative
traffic impact on the surrounding road network and this is something which is being
investigated as part of the ongoing transport and environmental assessments of
the Counters Creek scheme.
32
8
SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT
8.1
Socio-economic profile
8.1.1
The site is within the Chelsea Riverside ward of the Royal Borough of Kensington
and Chelsea. The socio-economic profile is comprised of statistics from the former
Cremorne ward, which was superseded by the Chelsea Riverside ward in May
2014.Statistics from the Office of National Statistics (ONS) 2011 Census data
show the following indicators for the Cremorne ward.
•
•
•
Housing Tenure of 21.05% owner occupied (owns outright) homes, 27.88%
council rented with another 15.56% in other forms of social housing
(Housing Associations / Registered Social Landlord)
In terms of social mix, 55.63% of people in the ward were born in the UK
and 67.45% are white (including white British and other)
The median age of the population in the ward (39 years) is more than that
of London (33 years) and equal to that of England (39 years).
8.1.2
This data also suggests that the site is located within a community with a high
concentration of professionals. The percentage of people (3.6%) with large
employers and higher managerial and administrative occupations residing in the
ward is more than those in London (2.5%) and in England (2.4%).
8.2
Issues and impacts
8.2.1
Use of the site would impact upon both the safeguarded wharf designation and the
sites allocation for waste use, although the site has now been leased to Thames
Water for the construction of the Thames Tideway Tunnel. Nonetheless, the
original and extant designations must be taken into account as well as the
potential impact on local employment opportunities.
8.2.2
The RBKC Proposals Map (2010) shows the proposed Thames Path along the
southern boundary of the site. It is understood that the TTT project will leave a 4m
clear strip along the river frontage for the future provision of the Thames path. The
proposals would have to consider this future provision in terms of riverside access
for members of the public.
8.2.3
To the northeast of Cremorne Wharf is Chelsea Wharf, which is occupied by
commercial and residential uses. To the southwest of the site the Lots Road
Power Station and adjacent land is being redeveloped. The proposals also include
the construction of additional buildings to provide residential accommodation,
commercial and community uses.
8.2.4
To the east / northeast of the site is Cremorne Gardens and the Cremorne
Riverside Centre. Along Lots Road are residential, educational and retail uses.
Chelsea Academy Secondary School is located along Lots Road to the southwest
of the site. It is not considered that the proposals would impact on theses
community facilities.
8.2.5
Due to the close proximity of residential properties noise mitigation would be
required.
8.2.6
Lots Road south of Cremorne Road (A3220) would be the access route for the
proposed works. The level of additional traffic associated with the construction of
33
the works and possible temporary traffic management measures may impact the
residential properties along the route. Access to the site would require careful
planning and management to avoid risk of damage to the listed pumping station
and to conserve as far as possible existing trees.
8.3
Potential interest groups
8.3.1
There are a number of interest groups functioning in the area, these include the
following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
London Parks and Gardens Trust
The Fulham Society
The West London River Group
River Thames Society
The Kensington Society
Cremorne Residents Association
World’s End Residents Association
Imperial Wharf Residents Association
Chelsea Harbour Residents Association
Chelsea Bridge Wharf Residents Association
The Chelsea Society
8.3.2
To ensure that the views of these interest groups, along with those of the wider
public and of statutory stakeholders, are fully captured and addressed through any
detailed development process, a detailed communications strategy will be
developed that enables the opportunity for consultation on emerging sites, as the
selected Scheme progresses towards submission as a planning application.
8.3.3
This process will need to ensure that consultation reaches both those who will
directly benefit from the development, and those who may not experience any
direct benefit but will experience impacts during the construction process.
8.4
Summary
8.4.1
In terms of residential amenity impact the site is considered less suitable. Whilst
development of the site for the uses set out in section 3 of this report is unlikely to
impact on community assets, it would have an impact upon an economic asset:
the safeguarded wharf. At this stage the site is therefore considered less suitable
in that regard.
34
9
PROPERTY ASSESSMENT
9.1
Introduction
9.1.1
The site, Cremorne Wharf is a disused recycling centre and a designated
safeguarded wharf. It is owned by and located in the Royal Borough of Kensington
and Chelsea (RBKC). The adjoining Lots Road former power station site is
undergoing significant residential redevelopment.
9.1.2
The Thames Tideway Tunnel (TTT) project has secured necessary rights for use
of Cremorne Wharf for the duration of the construction works and subsequent
permanent infrastructure.
9.2
Crown Land and Special Land comments
9.2.1
There are no noted matters relating to Crown Land in respect of the use of this
site. However, the adjoining Thames Water Pumping Station is a Grade II listed
building. The proposal does include some minor works being carried out to the
pumping station that will require listed building consent.
9.3
Land to be acquired
9.3.1
Cremorne Wharf will be used in conjunction with the TTT existing lease in respect
of the rights acquired from RBKC. The occupation of the site includes provision of
a (2013) ‘Collaboration Agreement’ which includes the prospect that the Counters
Creek may require use of the Cremorne Wharf site. It is proposed that a new
temporary pumping station would be required for an interim period prior to TTT
becoming operational.
9.3.2
Due to the nature and extent of the Counters Creek pumping station, Thames
Water would be unlikely to be in a position to use powers conferred under Sections
159 and 168 of the Water Industry Act (WIA) 1991 as the pumping station would
likely exceed the definition of a relevant pipe under the WIA. Therefore as the TTT
land rights are of insufficient extent for Counters Creek project, it is likely that either
a long lease (150 years+) or freehold rights would be required alongside or in
addition to temporary rights which may exist for the purpose of TTT.
9.3.3
A riverside mooring is required to allow for barge moorings for excavated material
and incoming materials transportation by river. Changes, alterations or demolition
to the jetty may be a head of claim for compensation depending on the nature and
extent of land rights acquired.
9.4
Associated Property costs to project
9.4.1
The TTT project has already secured the temporary occupation of Cremorne Wharf
for the purpose of TTT, including provision for permanent rights exercised by
General Vesting Declaration under the provisions of the TTT Order 2014. An
arrangement would be required with Counters Creek project to share the costs and
funding for the required interface between the respective projects.
9.4.2
Having liaised closely with the TTT team, it has emerged that a number of
assessments have been undertaken to determine the likely acquisition costs for
35
Cremorne Wharf. With the TTT concurrent land interest, there may be a view
taken to share any subsequent costs for either project retaining permanent rights
within the site.
9.4.3
The GLA designated safeguarded wharf status may impact on the RBKC’s ability
to release the site for the purpose of Counters Creek project for permanent
occupation. The Port of London Authority would need to be consulted in respect of
the permanent impacts associated with the Counters Creek project and continued
use as a safeguarded wharf. Subject to safeguarded wharf status and an ability to
maximise development potential for the site, the land may need to be acquired for
the purpose of Counters Creek project permanent pumping station infrastructure.
9.4.4
Subject to safeguarded wharf status and an ability to maximise development
potential for the site, the land may need to be acquired for the purpose of Counters
Creek permanent pumping station infrastructure.
9.4.5
Due to the sites’ riverside location and the fact that there is significant residential
development approved in the area, the future potential for this site cannot be
overlooked. The financial consideration, should this become a factor, would be
high.
9.5
Compensation
9.5.1
In light of the above, consideration must be given to the possibility of mitigation
costs arising from any s106 agreements. There are a number of yet undetermined
variables where assumptions have been made (release of safeguarded wharf
status/likely development potential). The details below assume a medium to high
level of development is achievable. The financial considerations associated with
this option are potentially high/very high.
9.6
Summary
9.6.1
The site as a stand-alone option is quite small and its successful use will rely on
securing other provisions (works platform/pontoon on the river). Whilst future
anticipated use may be limited, the site offers few property related restrictions
beyond its size and safeguarded wharf status. Assuming these matters can be
addressed, the site could be used as part of a workable design.
9.6.2
In summary it is considered that Cremorne Wharf site is suitable in property
terms.
36
10
SITE CONCLUSIONS
10.1
Engineering
10.1.1
In summary it is considered that Cremorne Wharf site (SS219) is less suitable in
engineering terms for use of the site as a drive site.
10.2
Planning
10.2.1
There is potential for impacts upon the ongoing construction works at Lots Road
Power Station from the construction of the Counters Creek strategic sewer, which
is programmed to commence in September 2017. There is also potential for
conflict with the National Grid gas main works, which are planned to commence in
February 2016 for a period of five years. Consequently, it is considered that the
site is less suitable for development but capable of being delivered with suitable
controls and mitigation in place.
10.2.2
It is also considered to be less suitable in planning policy terms as Cremorne
Wharf is a Safeguarded Wharf, is located in an employment zone and is a waste
management site. The requirements of paragraph 7.77 of the London Plan and
RBKC Local Plan policies CE3 and CF5 would have to be overcome. The site also
does not benefit from policy support for its use for the strategic sewer. These
outcomes apply to both options.
10.3
Environment
10.3.1
From a transport perspective the site is suitable, as it is accessible from the
existing highway network and is in close proximity to the Transport for London
Road Network. Discussion with the highways authority and Transport for London
should take place to determine the feasibility of the proposed access and the
temporary closure of the westbound carriageway of Lots Road.
10.3.2
From a noise perspective the site is less suitable, because of the predicted noise
level arising from the night time shaft sinking works. Mitigation measures of site
perimeter barriers are expected to be largely ineffectual due to the height of the
neighboring receptors. Other mitigation, such as upgrading the proposed acoustic
enclosure around the site to improve noise attenuation performance is likely to be
necessary to achieve an acceptable level of noise mitigation.
10.3.3
From a wider environment perspective, the site is suitable from the perspective of
hydrogeology, built heritage and townscape and visual. The site is considered less
suitable from the perspective of archaeology, ecology, surface water and flood
risk, air quality and land quality.
10.3.4
Overall the site is considered less suitable. Further investigation would be
required as to whether archaeology, ecology, surface water and flood risk, air
quality and land quality could be adequately mitigated. Likely mitigation
considerations could include the following:
•
Ecology: Minimise the footprint of development within the mudflat habitat and
the designated site. Habitat compensation will be required. Use of
appropriate piling methods within the river and other species specific
avoidance and mitigation measures will be required;
37
•
•
•
•
Surface Water and Flood Risk: Application of Environment Agency Pollution
Prevention Guidelines 1 and 5, together with Planning Policy Statement 23.
Assessment for the impact of sediment erosion on the integrity of flood
defences;
Air Quality: Measures to ensure dust is adequately mitigated for closest
receptors;
Land Quality: Any required remediation of contamination (at this medium risk
site) and/or measures to ensure no mobilisation of contaminants retained in
situ; and
Archaeology: Further investigation regarding the potential for waterlogged
archaeological remains in the foreshore.
10.4
Socio-economic and community
10.4.1
In terms of residential amenity impact the site is considered less suitable. Whilst
development of the site for the uses set out in section 3 of this report is unlikely to
impact on community assets, it would have an impact upon an economic asset:
the safeguarded wharf. At this stage the site is therefore considered less suitable
in that regard.
10.5
Property
10.5.1
In summary it is considered that Cremorne Wharf site is suitable in property
terms.
10.6
Recommendation
10.6.1
Generally the site has been considered to be less suitable yet capable of
mitigation in engineering, planning, environment, socio-economic and community
terms, and suitable in property terms.
10.6.2
It is noted that none of the assessments identified the site as being unsuitable.
10.6.3
Accordingly, the site is considered to be less suitable yet able to be mitigated if
developed.
10.6.4
It is recommended that the site is retained as a drive, interception and a pumping
station site and a site to connect to the existing combined overflow sewer.
38
APPENDIX 1
BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1.1
Background to the project
The Counters Creek Catchment
1.1.1
Counters Creek is one of the ‘lost rivers’ of London. It was culverted over in the
mid 19th Century and connected into the interceptor sewerage network then being
developed for London by Sir Joseph Bazelgette. The Counters Creek sewer
catchment encompasses parts of Hammersmith and Fulham and Kensington and
Chelsea and extends as far north as Westminster, Camden, Brent and Ealing.
1.1.2
This former river, its catchment and the sewer system form part of Thames Water’s
sewerage network, drains all surface water from buildings and roads, as well as
wastewater.
1.1.3
The sewerage system was constructed to take flows to Beckton Sewage
Treatment Works. In early 20th Century, as London grew and the amount of land
lying under impermeable surfaces increased, the volumes of flows in times of
storms increased significantly.
1.1.4
Since then an extensive and complex sewer system comprising a series of storm
relief sewers (as shown on Figure 1) has been constructed to transfer excess
storm flows to the River Thames when the sewers become full. This system has
evolved to protect the low-lying land from an increasing risk of flooding caused by
urban development.
1.1.5
As Hammersmith and Fulham and part of Kensington and Chelsea are low lying
areas in relation to the tidal river levels, it was not possible for the storm relief
sewers to discharge into the river by gravity (without pumping). Hammersmith, Lots
Road and the Western pumping stations were subsequently constructed to serve
the storm relief sewers within the two boroughs (as shown on Figure 1).
Figure 1
The development of the interceptor and storm relief
sewerage systems in the Counters Creek Catchment.
N Key and timeline for Figure 1
1850 Counters Creek
1930s Walham Green
Hammersmith Brook Green
1860s Low Level Nos. 1& 2 Interceptors
(dashed green line) – Kings Scholars
Pond.
1940s Hammersmith Brook Green
1880s – Ranelagh
1950s Walham Parsons Green
1900s Mid Level 1 & 2 Interceptors
(dashed purple line)
1960s Hammersmith, Counters Creek
Duplicate
1920s Hammersmith Main Line – North
Western
1980s North Western
1.1.6
The continuing growth of outer London resulted in the extension of the sewer
system northward and hence additional flows from the upper catchment entering
the sewer system serving the low lying Counters Creek areas.
1.1.7
The additional flows have led to overloading and water levels within the existing
sewers and manholes to rise. The increase in the water levels has in turn led to
flows backing up the connection pipework into basements that were built at almost
the same level as the sewer. The ever-increasing redevelopment of basements
from storage areas into habitable properties in recent years has now brought this
problem to the fore.
The basement flooding problem
1.1.8
Thames Water began investigating the flooding problem following the storms of
2004 and 2007, when the majority of the basement flooding complaints were
received. Information was recorded in the Counters Creek flood register, a register
of all the properties in the Counters Creek Catchment that have been recorded as
being flooded at some point in the past.
1.1.9
This register is in turn taken from the Thames Water Sewer Flooding History
Database (SFHD). Properties are added to the register based on reported
flooding incidents. Incidents are assessed to confirm whether or not the flood
event was caused by an operational problem (i.e. a blockage), an extreme rainfall
occurrence (greater than the current design criteria), or by a lack of capacity in the
sewer.
1.1.10
The Counters Creek Flooding Register currently shows that over 1,700 properties
are subject to flooding within the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.
1.1.11
Sophisticated hydraulic models were used to simulate and verify the extent of
basement flooding in the area and the results confirmed the existence of a
widespread problem. Thames Water has examined the cause of flooding and
determined that whilst there was no single cause, the flooding is generally caused
by two main factors:
i.
ii.
When sewers become inundated by storm water runoff, local sewer water
levels rise and back up the connection pipework into basements properties.
For many other properties, the hydraulic analysis indicated that flooding
was not solely caused by local surface water inundating the local sewerage
network. Under certain storm conditions, storm relief sewers in the area run
at full capacity (generally from the flows entering the system from the upper
parts of the catchments), leaving inadequate capacity to provide relief for
storm flows in the lower parts of the catchment. Therefore, flows build and
back up into the connection pipework and then into basement properties.
1.2
Developing a strategic solution to the problem
1.2.1
Figure 2 below shows the locations of properties that have reported basement
flooding (the coloured dots), illustrating that the locations at which flooding occurs
are widespread throughout the two boroughs.
1.2.2
The different coloured dots shown in Figure 2 indicate the type of solution
proposed for a specific location. The Strategic Options Report (C680-TW-00503RP) describes how each solution works, how they have been identified, the role
they can play, and which solutions have been progressed.
1.2.3
The solutions comprise a strategic storm relief sewer (the strategic sewer) and
associated sewer upgrade works (properties protected by these are represented
by purple dots), local package pumping systems known as ‘flooding local
improvement projects’ (FLIPs – blue and red dots), local sewer upgrade works
(green dots) and Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS – yellow dots).
Figure 2
Proposed solutions to reported basement flooding
1.2.4
The widespread nature of the basement flooding problem coupled with the fact
that there is no single cause of flooding, means that there can be no single
solution. For this reason a “bottom up” approach to addressing the problem has
been adopted whereby each local flooding area (cluster) has been analysed to
identify a viable solution and to establish the role that might be played in each area
by flow storage, sewer upsizing, FLIPs, and SuDS.
1.2.5
Consideration was then given to the opportunities for combining and rationalising
these solutions as part of the process of establishing a strategy for managing
flooding in the two boroughs and flows within the catchment.
1.2.6
Whilst this approach would provide protection for some properties through the use
flow storage, sewer upsizing, FLIPs, and SuDS, it cannot do so for all properties
affected by the basement flooding problem. This is because the incoming flows
into an area via sewers from the adjoining areas are so significant that those
incoming flows need to be intercepted, cut off, or otherwise substantially reduced.
1.2.7
It was therefore concluded that, to robustly provide for the fullest possible
coverage of the flooding problem a strategic sewer is required to intercept and
store the major flows that are causing sewer overloading. This strategic sewer will,
when provided alongside FLIPS, SuDS and the sewer upgrade works lower the
top water levels in the sewer over the whole catchment to levels that are below the
level of most of the basements thereby providing flooding protection.
1.3
Summary of the site selection process
1.3.1
A site selection process has been developed to assess and identify the most
suitable locations for the range of construction sites required to deliver the
strategic sewer, namely drive shaft site(s), reception shaft site(s), interception shaft
site(s), sewer outfall connections or new sewer outfalls, a pumping station and
construction compounds.
1.3.2
The process takes account of engineering, environment (including noise and
transport), planning, property, socio-economic and community issues relevant to
the selection of the most suitable combination of sites.
1.3.3
It draws upon other methodologies utilised for the Deephams Sewage Works
Upgrade and for the Thames Tideway Tunnel to ensure that the approach and
issues covered reflect best practice. Regard has also been had to the National
Planning Policy Framework and the Development Plan for the area, along with key
considerations affecting engineering decision-making and property assessment,
when the assessment criteria in the methodology were identified. The
methodology is shown diagrammatically in Figure 3 below.
Figure 3
Site Selection Methodology
1.3.4
The methodology follows a sequential multi-stage process, with some stages
undertaken in parallel. There is an iterative relationship between site selection,
route alignment and engineering design whereby as the engineering team refines
the route options for the storm relief sewer associated restrictions on or
requirements for sites are fed into the concurrent site selection process.
1.3.5
An essential part of the methodology is the use of an ongoing review process to
revisit and check the validity of previous assessments. This is undertaken as each
key stage of the assessment process is completed through document review and
stage workshops and enables the assessment of sites (and concurrent
assessment of options reported separately) to remain valid as information changes
and new information is obtained.
1.3.6
Where, for example, route alignment parameters change or available sites become
restricted over time, stages in the process may be repeated (or back-checked) in
order to take account of new information or other changes in circumstance.
1.4
Approach to consultation and stakeholder engagement
1.4.1
Community engagement is a key part of the strategic sewer scheme and the public
will be fully engaged with once the assessment work in Stage 3 is completed and
sufficient information is available to begin public consultation under Stage 4a.
1.5
Project Programme
1.5.1
The current provisional project programme for the strategic sewer is:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Evidence gathering / scheme development and testing: Jan – Oct 2014
Phase 1 consultation on options: Nov 2014 – Jan 2015
Environmental and planning assessments: July 2014 – May 2015
Confirmation of the preferred option: May / June 2015
Phase 2 pre-application consultation: May / June – July / Aug 2015
Final design, planning and environmental work: July – Oct 2015
Submission of application(s) for Planning Permission: Nov 2015
Target for planning permission: July 2016
Planning Conditions / Obligations discharged / procurement complete: Dec
2016
Anticipated start on site: Jan 2017
APPENDIX 2
SITE LOCATION PLAN APPENDIX 3
INDICATIVE CONSTRUCTION LAYOUT PLANS APPENDIX 4
INDICATIVE OPERATIONAL LAYOUT PLANS APPENDIX 5
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT PLANS APPENDIX 6
RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY Policy /
paragraph
Reference
Policy title /
Paragraph subject
Summary of relevant policy
The London Plan – The Spatial Development Strategy for London (consolidated with alterations since 2011)
1
(March 2015)
Policy 4.12
Improving
opportunities for all
The policy seeks to improve employment opportunities for Londoners, to
remove barriers to employment and progression and to tackle low participation
in the labour market. Strategic development proposals should support local
employment, skills development and training opportunities.
Policy 5.2
Minimising carbon
dioxide emissions
The policy requires development proposals to make the fullest contribution to
minimising carbon dioxide emissions in accordance with the energy hierarchy.
All major development proposals should meet the targets set out in the policy
for carbon dioxide emissions reduction in buildings. In addition, major
proposals should include detailed energy assessment to demonstrate how the
minimum targets for carbon dioxide emissions reduction are met.
Policy 5.3
Sustainable design
and construction
The highest standards of sustainable design and construction should be
achieved in London to improve the environmental performance of new
development and to adapt to the effects of climate change over their lifetime.
Development proposals should demonstrate that sustainable design standards
are integral to the proposal, including its construction and operation, and
ensure that they are considered at the beginning of the design process.
Policy 5.7
Renewable energy
The Mayor seeks to increase the proportion of energy generated from
renewable sources, and expects that the projections for installed renewable
energy capacity outlined in the Climate Change Mitigation and Energy Strategy
and in supplementary planning guidance will be achieved in London. Major
development proposals should provide a reduction in expected carbon dioxide
emissions through the use of onsite renewable energy generation, where
feasible.
Policy 5.9
Overheating and
cooling
Major development proposals should demonstrate how the design, materials,
construction and operation of the development would minimize overheating
and also meet its cooling needs.
Policy 5.10
Urban Greening
The Mayor will promote and support urban greening, such as new planting to
the public realm (including streets, squares and plazas) and green
infrastructure, to contribute to the adaption to, and mitigation of, the effects of
climate change.
Policy 5.12
Flood Risk
Management
Development proposals must comply with the flood risk assessment and
management requirements set out in the NPPF and the associated Technical
Guidance on flood risk over the lifetime of the development and have regard to
measures proposed in Thames Estuary 2100 and Catchment Flood
Management Plans.
Policy 5.13
Sustainable
Drainage
Development should utilise sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS)
unless there are practical reasons for not doing so and should aim to achieve
Greenfield run-off rates and ensure that surface water runoff is managed as
close to its source as possible.
Policy 5.14
Water quality and
sewerage
infrastructure
Development proposals must ensure that adequate sewerage infrastructure
capacity is available. Proposals that would benefit water quality, the delivery of
policies in the London Plan and of the Thames River Basin Management Plan
should be supported while those with adverse impacts should be refused.
Development proposals to upgrade London’s sewerage (including sludge)
treatment capacity should be supported provided they utilise the best available
technology and energy capture.
The London Plan – The Spatial Development Strategy for London (consolidated with alterations since 2011) (March 2015)
comprises: The London Plan 2011 consolidated with Revised Early Minor Alterations to the London Plan (October 2013) and
the Further Alterations to the London Plan (March 2015).
1
Policy /
paragraph
Reference
Policy title /
Paragraph subject
Policy 5.18
Construction,
excavation and
demolition waste
Major development sites are required to recycle CE&D waste on-site, wherever
practicable, supported through planning conditions. Waste should be removed
from construction sites, and materials brought to the site, by water or rail
transport wherever that is practicable.
Policy 5.21
Contaminated Land
Appropriate measures should be taken to ensure that development on
previously contaminated land does not activate or spread contamination.
Policy 6.1
Transport –
Strategic approach
The Mayor will work with all relevant partners to encourage the closer
integration of transport and development through a range of means including
facilitating the efficient distribution of freight whilst minimising its impact on the
transport network and seeking to increase the use of the Blue Ribbon Network,
especially the Thames, for passenger and freight use.
Policy 6.3
Assessing effects
of development on
transport capacity
Development proposals should ensure that impacts on transport capacity and
the transport network, at both a corridor and local level are fully assessed.
Where existing transport capacity is insufficient to allow for the travel
generated by proposed developments, and no firm plans exist for an increase
in capacity to cater for this, boroughs should ensure that development
proposals are phased until it is known these requirements can be met,
otherwise they may be refused.
The cumulative impacts of development on transport requirements must be
taken into account. Transport assessments will be required in accordance with
TfL’s Transport Assessment Best Practice Guidance for major planning
applications. Workplace and/or Residential Travel Plans should be provided for
planning applications exceeding the thresholds in, and produced in accordance
with, the relevant TfL guidance. Construction logistics plans and delivery &
servicing plans should be secured in line with the London Freight Plans and
should be coordinated with Travel Plans.
Policy 6.10
Walking
Ensure pedestrian environments in and around new developments emphasise
the quality of pedestrian and street space.
Policy 6.14
Freight
Development proposals that locate developments that generate high numbers
of freight movements close to the major transport routes that promote the
uptake of the Freight Operations Recognition Scheme, construction logistics
plans and delivery & servicing plans, and increase the use of the Blue Ribbon
Network for freight transport, will be encouraged.
Policy 7.1
Lifetime
Neighbourhoods
Development should be designed so that the layout, tenure, and mix of uses
interface with surrounding land and improve people’s access to social and
community infrastructure (including green spaces), the Blue Ribbon Network,
local shops, employment and training opportunities, commercial services and
public transport.
Policy 7.2
An inclusive
environment
The Mayor will require all new development in London to achieve the highest
standards of accessible and inclusive design. Development proposals should
meet the highest standards of accessible and inclusive design and should
demonstrate that they meet the principles of inclusive design.
Policy 7.4
Local Character
Development should have regard to the form, function and structure of an area,
place or street and the scale, mass and orientation of surrounding buildings. It
should improve an area’s visual or physical connection with natural features.
Policy 7.5
Public Realm
Development should make the public realm comprehensible at a human scale,
using gateways, focal points and landmarks to help people find their way.
Landscape treatment, furniture and infrastructure should be of the highest
quality, have a clear purpose, maintain uncluttered spaces and should
contribute to the easy movement of people through the space.
Opportunities for the integration of high quality public art should be considered,
and opportunities for greening such as through planting of trees and other soft
landscaping wherever possible, should be maximised. Treatment of the public
Policy /
paragraph
Reference
Policy title /
Paragraph subject
realm should be informed by the heritage values of the place, where
appropriate. Development should incorporate local social infrastructure such as
public toilets, drinking water fountains and seating, where appropriate.
Development should also reinforce the connection between public spaces and
existing local features such as the Blue Ribbon Network and parks and other
that may be of heritage significance.
Policy 7.6
Architecture
Buildings and structures should:
•
be of the highest architectural quality
•
be of a proportion, composition, scale and orientation that enhances,
activates and appropriately encloses the public realm
•
compromise details and materials that complement, not necessarily
replicate, the local architectural character
•
not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of surrounding land and
buildings, particularly residential buildings, in relation to privacy,
overshadowing, wind and microclimate.
•
incorporate best practice in resource management and climate change
mitigation and adaptation
•
provide high quality indoor and outdoor spaces and integrate well with the
surrounding streets and open spaces
•
be adaptable to different activities and land uses, particularly at ground
level
•
meet the principles of inclusive design
Policy 7.8
Heritage assets
and archaeology
Development should incorporate measures that identify, record, interpret,
protect and, where appropriate, present, the site’s archaeology. Development
should preserve, refurbish and incorporate heritage assets, where appropriate.
New development in the setting of heritage assets, and conservation areas
should be sympathetic to their form, scale, materials and architectural detail.
Policy 7.11
London View
Management
Framework
The Mayor has designated a list of strategic views that he will keep under
review. These views are seen from places that are publicly accessible and well
used. They include significant buildings or urban landscapes that help to define
London at a strategic level. These views represent at least one of the following
categories: panoramas across substantial parts of London; views from an
urban space of a building or group of buildings within a townscape setting
(including narrow, linear views to a defined object); or broad prospects along
the river Thames. Development will be assessed for its impact on the
designated view if falls within the foreground, middle ground or background of
that view.
Policy 7.12
Implementing the
London View
Management
Framework
New development should not harm and where possible should make a positive
contribution to the characteristics and composition of the strategic views and
their landmark elements. It should also, where possible, preserve viewers’
ability to recognise and to appreciate Strategically Important Landmarks in
these views and, where appropriate, protect the silhouette of landmark
elements of World Heritage Sites as seen from designated viewing places.
Policy 7.14
Improving Air
Quality
Development proposals should promote sustainable design and construction to
reduce emissions from the demolition and construction of buildings.
Development proposals need to be at least ‘air quality neutral’ and not lead to
further deterioration of existing poor air quality.
Policy 7.15
Reducing noise and
managing noise,
improving and
enhancing the
acoustic
environment and
Development proposals should seek to manage noise by; avoiding significant
adverse noise impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new
development; mitigating and minimising the existing and potential adverse
impacts of noise on, from, within, as a result of, or in the vicinity of new
development without placing unreasonable restrictions on development or
adding unduly to the costs and administrative burdens on existing of
Policy title /
Paragraph subject
promoting
appropriate
soundscapes
businesses; and promoting new technologies and improved practices to reduce
noise at source and on the transmission path from source to receiver.
Policy 7.19
Biodiversity and
access to nature
Development proposals wherever possible should make a positive contribution
to the protection, promotion and management of biodiversity. On sites of
Importance for Nature Conservation, the policy gives the highest protection to
sites with existing or proposed international designations (SACs, SPAs,
Ramsar sites) and national designations (SSSIs, NNRs). The London Plan
gives strong protection to Sites of Metropolitan Importance for Nature
Conservation (SMIs) and gives Sites of Borough and Local Importance for
Nature Conservation the level of protection commensurate with their
importance.
Policy 7.26
Increasing the use
of the Blue Ribbon
Network for freight
transport
Development proposals should protect existing facilities for waterborne freight
traffic, in particular safeguarded wharves should only be used for waterborne
freight handling use. The redevelopment of safeguarded wharves for other
land uses should only be accepted if the wharf is no longer viable or capable of
being made viable for waterborne freight handling, (criteria for assessing the
viability of wharves are set out in paragraph 7.77).
Temporary uses should only be allowed where they do not preclude the wharf
being reused for waterborne freight handling uses (see paragraph 7.78).
Increased use of safeguarded wharves for waterborne freight transport,
especially on wharves which are currently not handling freight by water, will be
supported. Development proposals close to navigable waterways should
maximise water transport for bulk materials, particularly during demolition and
construction phases.
Paragraph
7.76-7.79
Safeguarded
wharfs
7.76 The safeguarding of a number of wharves is a well-established aspect of
planning in London. The safeguarding directions, some of which have been in
existence since 1997, have successfully maintained a number of sites which
can now be used to transport goods through London. The Mayor will support
positive action, including the use of compulsory purchase powers where
necessary, to bring inactive sites into use. The specific sites that are
safeguarded are set out in the Safeguarded Wharves Implementation Report
January 2005. Appropriate access to the highway network and relevant freight
handling infrastructure such as jetties should also be protected. The
safeguarding will be reviewed and updated approximately every five years. The
next review will look at opportunities to consolidate wharves, expand the use of
water freight and consider whether it is appropriate to safeguard any wharf
facilities on London’s canal network.
Policy /
paragraph
Reference
7.77 The redevelopment of safeguarded wharves should only be accepted if
the wharf is no longer viable or capable of being made viable for waterborne
freight handling uses. The only exception to this would be for a strategic
proposal of essential benefit for London, which cannot be planned for and
delivered on any other site in Greater London. The viability of a wharf is
dependent on:
• its size, shape, navigational access, road access, rail access (where
possible), planning history, environmental impact and surrounding land use
context • its geographical location, in terms of proximity and connections to
existing and potential market areas
• the existing and potential contribution it can make towards reducing road
based freight movements
• existing and potential relationships between the wharf and other freight
handling sites or land uses
• the location and availability of capacity at comparable alternative wharves,
having regard to current and projected Port of London and wharf capacity and
market demands.
Policy /
paragraph
Reference
Policy title /
Paragraph subject
7.78 Appropriate temporary uses on vacant safeguarded wharves can ensure
that investment in the wharf is maintained and image problems are minimised
for the wider area. Temporary uses must maintain the existing freight handling
infrastructure to a specified standard, be limited by a temporary permission
with a specific end date and priority should be given to uses which require a
waterside location. Temporary uses should not be permitted where a
permanent freight handling use is available.
7.79 Some wharves are increasingly surrounded by different land uses that do
not have an industrial or freight purpose. Many wharves are in the opportunity
areas identified in Chapter 2. The challenge is to minimize conflict between the
new and the old land uses. This must be met through modifications and
safeguards built into new and established developments. Wharf operators
should use appropriate available means to mitigate the environmental impacts
of freight handling. New development next to or opposite wharves should
utilise the layout, use and environmental credentials of buildings to design
away these potential conflicts. Appropriate highway access to wharves for
commercial vehicles needs to be maintained when considering proposals for
development of neighbouring sites.
Policy 7.27
Blue Ribbon
Network:
Supporting
infrastructure and
recreational use
Development proposals should enhance the use of the Blue Ribbon Network.
in particular proposals should, amongst other things,
a) that result in the loss of existing facilities for waterborne sport and leisure
should be refused, unless suitable replacement facilities are provided
b) should protect and improve existing access points to (including from land
into water such as slipways and steps) or alongside the Blue Ribbon Network
(including paths). New access infrastructure into and alongside the Blue
Ribbon Network will be sought.
c) should protect and enhance waterway support infrastructure such as
boatyards, moorings, jetties and safety equipment etc. New infrastructure to
support water dependent uses will be sought. New mooring facilities should
normally be off line from main navigation routes, ie in basins or docks.
Policy 7.29
The River Thames
Development proposals along the River Thames should be consistent with the
relevant Thames Policy Area appraisal.
Safeguarded Wharves on the River Thames – London Plan Implementation Report (January 2005) and the
London Plan Safeguarded Wharves Review Final Recommendation (2013)
The Safeguarded Wharves Implementation Plan (2005) recommended that Cremorne Wharf is retained as a
safeguarded wharf and that it is viable or capable of being viable for cargo-handling.
The Safeguarded Wharves Review Final Recommendation (March, 2013) seeks to safeguard wharves against future
redevelopment. Table 7.1 sets out the proposed safeguarding or release of individual wharves and on page 83 and 84,
it proposes the retention of Cremorne Wharf, identifying that it may be required for the Thames Tideway Tunnel (TTT)
for the medium term, following that it should be able to contribute to the shortfall in wharf capacity in West London.
Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s Adopted Consolidated Local Plan (July 2015)
2
Vision CV18
Vision for Lots
Road/World’s End
in 2028
The vision is for improvements to the built and natural environment,
investigating the designation of a conservation area in the Lots Road area is an
important part of this. The Lots Road Power Station site development will play
a vital role in improving the vitality of the area. The vision proposes better links
from Lots Road to the World’s End shops and improved connectivity to the
riverside.
Policy CP18
Lots Road / World’s
End
The Council proposes to maintain, protect and enhance the character of the
area by supporting better local shopping facilities, social and community uses,
small cultural and creative uses and requiring improvements to connectivity
2 The Consolidated Local Plan (July 2015) combines alterations since the Core Strategy adoption (December 2010)
incorporating the Pubs & Local Character Review (October 2013), the Miscellaneous Matters Review (December 2014), the
Conservation & Design Review (December 2014) and the Basements Review (January 2015). Policy /
paragraph
Reference
Policy title /
Paragraph subject
and integration within the place, the wider area and the river. In addition,
connectivity to the riverside will be supported by the completion of the Thames
Path and the use of the Cremorne Railway Bridge by pedestrian and cyclists.
Policy C1
Infrastructure
Delivery and
Planning Obligation
New development will be coordinated with the provision of appropriate
infrastructure to support development. The Council will require that there is
adequate infrastructure to serve developments, including through the use of
planning obligations, working with infrastructure providers and stakeholders to
identify requirements.
Policy CF5
Location of
Business Uses
Seeks to protect and promote employment zones for a range of small and
medium sized business activities, including offices and light industrial uses
that’s support the function and character of the zone. Paragraph 31.3.39 of the
adopted Core Strategy sets out that the Lots Road Employment Zones are one
of the principal concentrations for the borough’s remaining light industrial uses,
and which are important for local employment generation.
Policy CR3
Street and Outdoor
Life
The Council will require proposals affecting pavements to maintain the free,
safe and secure passage of pedestrians.
Policy CR4
Streetscape
The Council require all works to, or affecting, the public highway, to be carried
out in accordance with the Council’s adopted Streetscape Guidance; retain and
maintain historic street furniture; no harm to the appearance of the building or
streetscene, and does not adversely affect amenity, or public or road safety,
and require all major development to provide new public art that is of high
quality and either incorporate into the external design of the new building or
carefully located within the public realm.
Policy CR5
Parks,
Gardens,
Open Spaces and
Waterways
The Council will protect, enhance and make the most of existing parks,
gardens and open spaces to be provided. To deliver this the Council will, in
relation to waterways:
Require opportunities to be taken to improve public access to, and along the
Thames and promote their use for education, tourism, leisure and recreation,
health and well-being and transport. Resist permanently moored vessels on
the river except in certain circumstances.
Policy CL1
Context and
Character
The Council will require all development to respect the existing context,
character, and appearance, taking opportunities available to improve the
quality and character of buildings and the area and the way it functions,
including being inclusive for all.
Policy CL2
Design Quality
The Council will require all development to be of the highest architectural and
urban design quality, taking opportunities to improve the quality and character
of buildings and the area and the way it functions. The policy sets outs
requirements for development.
Policy CL3
Heritage Assets –
Conservation Areas
and Historic
Spaces
The Council will require development to preserve and to take opportunities to
enhance the cherished and familiar local scene. The policy sets out the
requirements for development, including amongst other things, for
development to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the
conservation area and protect the special architectural or historic interest of the
area and its setting.
Policy CL4
Heritage Assets –
Listed Buildings,
Scheduled Ancient
Monuments and
Archaeology
The Council will require development to protect the heritage significance of
listed buildings, scheduled ancient monuments and sites of archaeological
interest. The policy also requires all development and any works for alterations
or extensions related to listed buildings, scheduled ancient monuments and
sites of archeological interest, to preserve the heritage significance of the
building, monument or site of their setting or any features of special
architectural or historic interest.
Policy CL5
Living Conditions
Policy requires that there is no significant impact on the use of buildings and
spaces due to increase in traffic, parking, noise, odours or vibrations or local
Policy /
paragraph
Reference
Policy title /
Paragraph subject
microclimatic effects.
Policy CL11
Views
The Council will require all development to protect and enhance views, vistas
gaps and the skyline that contribute to the character and quality of the area.
Policy CE1
Climate Change
Council recognises the Government’s targets to reduce national Carbon
Dioxide emissions by 26% against 1990 levels by 2020 in order to meet a 60%
reduction by 2050 and will require development to make a significant
contribution towards this target.
Policy CE2
Flooding
Council requires development to adapt to fluvial flooding and mitigate the
effects of, and adapt to surface water and sewer flooding. The policy also
requires development adjacent to the Thames to be set back from the Thames
flood defence to enable the sustainable and cost-effective upgrade of flood
defences over the next 50 to 100 years. The policy also states that works
associated with the construction of the Thames Tideway Tunnel should not
compromise the future of Cremorne Wharf, which is a safeguarded wharf.
Policy CE3
Waste
Council requires provision of adequate refuse and recycling storage space
which allows for ease of collection in all development and that development
proposals make use of the rail and waterway network for the transportation of
construction waste and other waste.
Policy CE4
Biodiversity
Council will protect the biodiversity in, and adjacent to, the Borough’s Sites of
Nature Conservation Importance and require opportunities to be taken to
enhance and attract biodiversity.
Policy CE5
Air Quality
Council will carefully control the impact of development on air quality, including
the consideration of pollution from vehicles, construction and the heating and
cooling of buildings. Developments to be carried out in a way that minimizes
the impact on air quality and mitigates exceedences of air pollutants.
Policy CE6
Noise and Vibration
Council will carefully control the impact of noise and vibration generating
sources which affect amenity both during the construction and operational
phases. The Council will require new noise and vibration sensitive
developments to mitigate and protect occupiers against existing sources of
noise and vibration.
Policy CE7
Contaminated Land
The Council will consider the potential risks of contaminated land and will
ensure that it is adequately mitigated before development proceeds. To deliver
this the Council requires reports and investigations to be carried out by a
competent person; requires a desk top study and preliminary risk assessment;
site investigation and detailed risk assessment in line with current best
practice; remediation strategy; validation report once remediation has taken
place.
Policy CT1
Improving
alternatives to car
use
CT 1(n) requires new development adjacent to the River Thames to take full
advantage of, and improve opportunities for freight on the water, access to the
water for recreation and walking and cycling alongside it.
CT 1(p) requires development to ensure it does not reduce access to, or the
attractiveness of, existing footways and footpaths or land which the public have
right of way.
Kensington and Chelsea Unitary Development Plan (UDP) Extant Policies (May 2002)
Saved UDP
Policy
STRAT35
Strategic Policy Transport
The Council supports an effective London-wide control of night-time and
weekend lorry movement.
This policy has not been saved. The Consolidated Local Plan (2015) identifies
that this policy will be moved to Highways and Transportation document.
APPENDIX 7
ENVIRONMENTAL APPRAISAL TABLES Cremorne Wharf Depot - Appendix 7 Environmental Appraisal Tables
Transport
Site Considerations
Comments
Methodology
A number of criteria are used when appraising the suitability of the site. These include access to the road
network, which encompasses whether the site is considered to be accessible for HGVs, whether vehicles
could potentially access and egress the site (allowing for mitigation / traffic management where
appropriate) and the proximity to the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN). Other criteria include
whether the site has good connections to public transport and the potential to utilise rail lines or river
transport, as well as the availability of parking for the workforce, the extent of traffic management that
would be required and the potential requirement to deliver mitigation. Taking account of these factors and
using professional judgement, a balanced view is taken on the suitability of the site.
To access the site, vehicles will drive along Works are also likely to be required to amend the
Cremorne Road (A3220) from the north east, curve of the junction between the A3220 and Lots
turning left into Lots Road and left into the site.
Road to improve access for HGVs.
Access to road network
Vehicles exiting the site will leave through the
gate to the west of the existing pumping station,
which will require temporary removal of the brick
wall in front of the pumping station at its western
end and enhancement of the junction. From the
gate vehicles will turn right onto Lots Road
followed by a left onto the A3220 Cremorne
Road, travelling north east.
Mitigation required and Conclusions
Swept path analysis is required to be carried out on
the junction from Lots Road into the site for the likely
types of vehicles that will access and egress the site.
Parking on both sides of Lots Road creates a narrow
two way carriageway which may restrict movement.
Delivery times for the large items of plant and
equipment would be agreed with the highway authority
For some periods during the excavation and and Transport for London (TfL).
construction of the sewer connections, the road
to the west of the pumping station will be
inaccessible, and vehicles will be required to turn
on site and exit via the eastern site entrance.
Large items of plant and equipment (such as the
TBM sections, gantry and other cranes, piling
Transport
Site Considerations
Comments
rigs, grout silos) may be delivered and collected
on low loaders that are unable to negotiate the
turn from Lots Road into site. These vehicles
would drive along Cremorne Road (A3220) from
the north east and stop at the entrance to
Ashburnham Road, where a short-term road
closure and parking suspension would be in
place to allow the vehicles to reverse down
Ashburnham Road under supervision, crossing
Lots Road and into the site.
The area is lit, there is a 30mph speed limit,
footways are a suitable width and visibility is
good.
It is currently anticipated that peak HGV
movements during the construction period will be
32 per day with spoil removed from the site by
barge. The implications of this level of movement
are being investigated as part of the ongoing
transport assessment.
Access to river
The site is adjacent to the River Thames;
however the existing jetty is in very poor
condition. There is potential for materials to be
transported to the site and spoil to be removed
from the site by barge, which would require the
construction of a new platform over the river and
the use of two new campsheds.
The site is located adjacent to the river, and there is
potential to remove spoil by barge. This will require
agreement from the Port of London Authority (PLA), a
suitable spoil reception site and suitable river
conditions to allow the construction of a new platform
over the river without unacceptable disturbance.
Further studies are required to determine the
feasibility of barge transport.
Transport
Site Considerations
Comments
Access to rail
The site is not located in close proximity to an The site is not considered suitable for rail transport.
existing rail line and would require road transport
to and from the site.
Parking
There is pay-and-display parking on both sides There is limited access to parking within the vicinity of
of Lots Road, with a maximum stay of four the site. The site is also not sufficiently large to contain
hours.
a large car park, so the workforce will be encouraged
to use public transport.
Parking is restricted to resident permit holders
only on Ashburnham Road.
Public transport accessibility
There are no bus routes on Lots Road within the The site is not sufficiently large enough to contain a
vicinity of the site.
large site car park; therefore it is important that most
personnel arrive by public transport. Considering the
The site specific PTAL score is 2, which is low PTAL score, a minibus service from a local rail
classified as poor. The site therefore has poor station (e.g. Imperial Wharf and Fulham Broadway)
access to public transport.
will be required.
Traffic Management
It is likely that the footway along the south/east A traffic management plan should be submitted with
of Lots Road will be closed for periods of time to any proposal.
ensure safe access and egress to the site.
Pedestrians will be redirected along the footway
to the north/west of Lots Road.
The temporary closure of the westbound
carriageway of Lots Road would also be required
during the works for the interception of the
overflow from the Low Level No 1 Interceptor
Sewer and the works for the discharge
connection to the Low Level No 1 Interceptor
Sewer. Two-way traffic would be maintained by
Transport
Site Considerations
Comments
installing temporary traffic signals.
Summary:
Site access could be provided from Lots Road arriving from Cremorne Road (A3220) for HGVs and from Ashburnham Road for occasional large
items of plant and equipment. The alignment of the junction between the A3220 and Lots Road may need alteration to facilitate access for
HGVs and a swept path analysis is required at the site access, in order to determine a suitable configuration.
There is no rail access, however the site is located next to the river, and barge transport is proposed. There is limited parking available on both
Lots Road and Ashburnham Road, which are controlled by pay-and-display and permit parking. The site features a poor Public Transport
Accessibility Level (PTAL) score, indicating that the site is less accessible by public transport, and measures such as a minibus service may be
required.
Short duration closures of Ashburnham Road would be required during the occasional delivery and collection of large items of plant and
equipment. Some parking on Lots Road would need to be suspended in order to facilitate HGV movements through the site entrance / exits.
Traffic management measures may include the temporary closure of the footway along the south/east of Lots Road. The temporary closure of
the westbound carriageway of Lots Road would also be required during the works for the interception of the overflow from the Low Level No 1
Interceptor Sewer and the works for the discharge connection to the Low Level No 1 Interceptor Sewer.
On the basis of the information available it is considered that the site is suitable, as it can be accessed from the existing highway network and
is in close proximity to the TLRN. However this will be dependent on discussions with the highway authority and TfL regarding the temporary
closure of the westbound carriageway of Lots Road, the closure of footways and the suspension of parking bays, in addition to further work as
to the suitability of junctions for accommodating HGVs.
Noise
Site Considerations
Comments
Methodology
A noise model is used to predict the noise levels likely at the nearest sensitive receptor due to the noise
emissions from the anticipated construction works equipment. This model is based on the methodology
and information within BS 5228 -1:2009+A1:2014 ‘Code of practice for noise and vibration control on
construction and open sites – Part 1: Noise’. When appraising the suitability of the site, a professional
judgment is used by taking the predicted noise levels and the following factors into account:
• Number of sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the site;
• Whether there are sensitive receptors at higher floors;
• Prevailing noise levels (taken from the DEFRA noise maps);
• Potential for noise shielding from construction works;
• Likely duration of construction works;
• Whether there will be night-time working; and
• Potential for locating noisy plant away from sensitive receptors.
Information from Defra noise maps indicates Not applicable.
daytime road traffic noise levels of less than
55 dB(A) LAeq, at residential properties on Lots
Road.
To the north west of the proposed site, there is a Not applicable.
row of three or four-floor terrace residential
properties located on Lots Road. The nearest
receptor is the building immediately north of the
site which is around 33m from the centre of the
proposed site. Also located to the north of the
site is Station House and Chelsea Wharf which
includes offices and residential units.
Noise band level (from Defra noise
maps)
Sensitive Receptors
The site access route is proposed to be Lots
Road arriving from Cremorne Road (A3220) for
HGVs and from Ashburnham Road for the
occasional large items of plant and equipment.
Both access routes are through a residential area
Noise
Site Considerations
Comments
Existing traffic issues
Existing sources
noise emissions
of
significant
Predicted construction noise level
at receptor
which is sensitive to noise, however the distance
from the main road will be minimised. Hence the
access route will minimise potential noise impacts
due to construction traffic.
Local road traffic, including the road traffic on Lots
Road to the north.
According to the Defra noise maps the dominant
source of noise in the vicinity is Lots Road to the
north.
The construction noise levels at the most exposed
receptor have been predicted using the
methodology in BS 5228-1:2009+A1:2014 ‘Code
of practice for noise and vibration control on
construction and open sites – Part 1: Noise’.
During the excavation of the shafts, an acoustic
building will surround the works to provide
mitigation. Due to there being no line of sight
between the source and receptor it has been
assumed that the acoustic building will provide a
minimum attenuation of 10 dB. The predicted
noise level at the façade of the most exposed
receptor is predicted to be 66 dB(A). It should be
noted that the predicted noise levels are indicative
only, for the purposes of comparison between the
sites, and are based on an indicative distance
between the centre of the site and the nearest
receptor. In addition to the above impacts the
loading and operation of barges will emit noise.
These activities have not been incorporated into
the predictions as they will not occur at any other
site, hence they will not inform the comparative
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Noise
Site Considerations
NOAEL / LOAEL / SOAEL
Potential issues
Comments
exercise.
According to the criteria applied to the HS2
Environmental
Impact
Assessment
for
construction noise impacts, the Significant
Observed Adverse Effect Level (SOAEL) is
defined as ‘Noise outside dwellings from the
Proposed Scheme at the facade: 75 dB (LpAeq,12hr)
during the day; 65 dB (LpAeq,1hr) during the
evening; or 55 dB (LpAeq,1hr) during the night, or
above the existing ambient if this is higher.’ The
predicted construction noise levels at the most
exposed receptor exceeds this criterion during the
night time shaft sinking that is proposed.
According to the Explanatory Note to the Noise
Policy Statement for England, this indicates that
exposure to these construction noise impacts will
result in ‘significant adverse effects on health and
quality of life’.
The construction period is estimated at 4 years.
The working hours for the works at surface level
(site establishment, piling, fit out, finishings and
demobilisation) will be 12 hours (7am – 7pm)
Monday to Friday, and 6 hours (7am – 1pm) on
Saturday. This has the potential to result in
adverse noise impacts to any sensitive receptors
in close proximity to the site.
Working hours for the shaft sinking, tunnelling
activities and barge operations will be 24 hours
Monday to Sunday. The tunnelling activities will
be underground, hence no adverse noise impacts
Not applicable.
Adherence to the good site practices provided in
BS5228.
Siting of noisy equipment and construction activities
as far as is practicable from sensitive receptors.
Provision of site boundary noise fences in addition to
the proposed acoustic building. Other mitigation,
such as upgrading the acoustic enclosure around the
site to improve noise attenuation performance,
including use of sound insulating cladding and
elimination of gaps/holes where possible, is likely to
be necessary to achieve an acceptable level of noise
Noise
Site Considerations
Comments
due to these activities are anticipated.
mitigation during the night time construction hours.
A maximum peak of 32 HGV movements per day
are anticipated. This number of vehicle
movements is likely to result in adverse noise
impacts on nearby sensitive receptors.
The site area is small, and bounded on the north
and western sides by sensitive receptors. Whilst
the location of the shafts may be fixed, ancillary
plant should be sited as far as is practicable from
surrounding sensitive receptors. Situating plant in
the southern area of the site would maximise the
distance between them and the nearest sensitive
receptors that are at higher floor levels, and
hence minimise potential disturbance.
Vibration resulting from general construction
works is not anticipated to result in an adverse
impact. The nearest receptors to the three
proposed shaft locations are at a distance of
approximately 33m to the centre of the site and it
is unlikely that vibration levels will result in minor
cosmetic damage during shaft sinking, but may
give rise to annoyance. Vibration from tunneling
should be considered on a case by case basis at
particular sensitive locations.
Summary:
This site is less suitable due to the predicted noise level arising from the night time shaft sinking works. Substantial adverse effects are
expected at the closest sensitive receptors due to these construction noise impacts. Any shielding afforded by site perimeter barriers will be
Noise
Site Considerations
Comments
largely ineffectual due to the height of some of these receptors. Other mitigation, such as upgrading the acoustic enclosure around the site to
improve noise attenuation performance, including use of sound insulating cladding and elimination of gaps/holes where possible, is likely to be
necessary to achieve an acceptable level of noise mitigation.
However, during the day time construction hours the site is considered suitable as the predicted noise levels will not cause substantial adverse
effects at the nearest noise sensitive receptors.
Water Resources - Hydrogeology
Site Considerations
Comments
Methodology
The appraisal refers to information on geology, hydrogeology, and source protection zones (SPZ),
groundwater users, surface water bodies and wetland sites. It considers the below ground construction
proposed at each site, in terms of depth and diameter and the method of installation. A conceptual model
of the site is developed and the suitability of the site is appraised through assessing the possible
mechanisms by which construction could influence the receptors identified.
Geology (thickness)*
Excavations
Hydro-geological conditions
• Made ground (3m)
• Superficial Deposits (4m)
• London Clay Formation (47m)
• Lambeth Group (26m)
• Chalk (>65m)
* Geology based on thicknesses from British
Geological Survey borehole TQ27NE129 on site,
approx. 40m from the existing pumping station
and TBM drive shaft locations.
Hydrogeology
• Superficial Deposits (upper aquifer) classified
as a secondary (undifferentiated) aquifer here
• London Clay acts an as aquiclude
• Chalk Formation classified as a principal
aquifer
• Water level in the Superficial Deposits (upper
aquifer) approximately 2.3mbgl (3mAOD)**
• Water level in the London Clay (aquiclude***)
0.5mbgl (4.8mAOD)**
• Based on limited data, the groundwater flow
direction in the upper aquifer at this site is
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
TBM drive shaft: 15mID, approx. 45m deep.
Intermediate vortex drop shaft: 9.5mID, approx.
45m deep.
TT vortex drop shaft: 8mID, approx. 45m deep.
Tunnel to north for distance of 5.1km: 4mID,
assumed to be 45m deep.
Excavation of connecting tunnels between shafts:
assumed to be approx. 45m deep.
Below ground interception chambers.
Below ground air management chamber:
Approximately 6m by 4m by 3m deep.
Key points
• Excavations would be founded in the London Clay
(aquiclude).
• Water level in Superficial Deposits approximately
42.7m above base of excavations.
• Water level in London Clay approximately 44.5m
above base of excavations.
• Substantial thickness of the underlying London
Clay (approximately 47m) such that excavations
remain at least 35m above the top of the Chalk
formation or lower aquifer.
Site Considerations
Comments
SPZs and groundwater users
likely to be to the south west, towards the River
Thames.
** Based on maximum water levels recorded in
Thames Tunnel monitoring borehole SA1098
located within the site between Oct. 2009 to May
2013
*** An aquiclude is an impermeable body of rock
or stratum of sediment that acts as a barrier to the
flow of groundwater.
Source Protection Zone
• Nearest SPZ’s are at approximately 1.9km to
the east-north-east and to the north of the shaft
locations.
EA Licensed groundwater abstractions
• Licensed abstraction (28/39/39/0157) within
approx.100m of shaft locations to southwest,
used for production of energy.
• This borehole abstracts from the Chalk
Formation.
Local Authorities (LA) unlicensed groundwater
abstractions
Borehole locations and depths
• Unlicensed abstraction at Park Gate Road in
Wandsworth within approx. 800m to the east of
the shaft locations.
• This borehole is likely to abstract from the
Chalk Formation.
There are 23 historical records of water wells on
BGS Geoindex within 1km of the shaft locations: 4
shallow wells within the Superficial Deposits and
• Licensed abstraction within 100m of shaft
locations, but abstracts from Chalk (lower aquifer).
• Unlicensed abstraction within 800m of shaft
locations, but likely to abstract from Chalk (lower
aquifer).
• No SPZ’s within 1km of the shaft locations.
•
Licensed abstraction
locations.
within
100m
of
shaft
Site Considerations
Comments
19 deep wells within the Chalk Formation.
Potential impacts on groundwater Upper aquifer & aquiclude
(resources and quality)
• Lowering of groundwater levels.
• Creation of pathway for pollution.
• Obstruction to groundwater flows.
• Groundwater flooding.
• Seepage into and out of shaft.
• Increased turbidity.
Lower aquifer
None anticipated.
Potential impacts
ecological features.
Potential issues
on
hydro-
There is a SSSI (Barn Elms Wetland Centre)
located approximately 3.3km to the west.
Please refer to ecological section for potentially
sensitive ecological features.
Upper aquifer & aquiclude
• Potential ingress
construction.
of
groundwater
during
• Potential management of contaminated/ poor
quality groundwater during construction.
Lower aquifer
None anticipated.
Upper aquifer & aquiclude
• Sealing off upper aquifer and aquiclude by sheet
piling or similar.
• Water management in line with Code of
Construction Practice.
• Breaking out of sheet piling or piping through of
flows at end of construction.
• Secondary lining of shaft.
• Permeable materials placed around pipe works.
• Quick setting grout products and approval by
Environment Agency.
Lower aquifer
None required.
No SSSI’s within 1km of shaft locations.
Please refer to ecological section.
See above (likely types of mitigation measures that
would be required).
Site Considerations
Comments
Summary:
In terms of hydrogeology, this site is suitable because the shaft and tunnel excavations would be through the Superficial Deposits (upper
aquifer), which are classified as a secondary (undifferentiated) aquifer here, and founded in the London Clay Formation (aquiclude). Sheet piling
is anticipated to be required to seal out the upper aquifer and seepages in the aquiclude. Therefore no impacts on groundwater levels or flows
are anticipated on the upper aquifer.
There is a licensed groundwater abstraction within 100m of the shaft locations, which abstracts from the Chalk Formation (lower aquifer), which
is classified as a principal aquifer. The excavations are not anticipated to extend into the Chalk Formation (lower aquifer) and therefore no
dewatering should be required. Therefore no impacts on groundwater levels, flows or abstractions are anticipated on the lower aquifer. There
are no SPZs or SSSIs within 1km of the shaft locations.
Water Resources - Surface Water & Flood Risk Assessment
Site Considerations
Comments
Methodology
The Environment Agency updated Flood Map for Surface Water and the Flood Map for Planning (Rivers
and Sea) are used to determine the suitability of the site. The appraisal has regard to the level of risk of
surface water flooding. It also considers if the site is located within the river channel and Flood Zone 3b,
which would mean there is a direct pathway for pollution to the River Thames and any construction within
the watercourse could potentially result in a displacement of flood water and impact on sediment erosion
on the integrity of the flood defences.
A section of the site is located within the River Work needs to be undertaken in consideration of
Thames and there is a direct pathway for pollution Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPG) - PPG 1, PPG
to the Thames.
5 and PPS23.
Potential impacts on surface water
features
Potential impacts on hydroecological features.
(Note overlap with ecology)
None.
None.
Surface Water Flood Risk
According to the Environment Agency updated
Flood Map for Surface Water, the majority of the
site (located on the banks of the River Thames) is
shown to be at a ‘very low’ chance of flooding
from surface water (<1 in 1,000 year event).
A section of the site is located within Flood Zone
3b functional flood plain.
The existing site is comprised of hard standing
impermeable surfaces. Post construction surface
water runoff rates from the site are likely to be similar
to pre-construction rates; therefore no mitigation
measures are required.
A Flood Risk Assessment would be required to
assess the risk of flooding to the site. The impact of a
physical construction (the piled deck area) would also
have to be assessed for the impact of sediment
erosion on the integrity of the defences.
None.
Flood Risk Zone
Potential issues
Summary:
None.
In terms of surface water resources, the site is less suitable because some work is to be undertaken within the channel of the River Thames
and mitigation would be required to prevent pollution.
Water Resources - Surface Water & Flood Risk Assessment
Site Considerations
Comments
In terms of flood risk, the site is less suitable because part of the site is located within Flood Zone 3b functional flood plain. Any construction
within the watercourse could potentially impact on sediment erosion on the integrity of the flood defences.
Air Quality
Site Considerations
Comments
Methodology
The appraisal considers potential dust impacts using a qualitative risk assessment which is based on the
Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM) Guidance for assessing impacts from construction activities. In
this approach the risks of dust generation are considered for sensitive locations around a construction site
and for the following activities: Demolition; Earthworks, including handling, working and storage of
materials; Construction activities; and the Track-out (the transfer of dust making materials from the site
onto the local road network).
A borough wide AQMA has been declared for There is a need for more site specific data.
NO2 and PM10.
Air Quality Management Area
(AQMA)
Sensitive Receptors
There are between 1 and 10 residential receptors
located along Lots Road which are less than 20
metres away from the proposed site boundary.
There are also offices located off Lots Road which
are less than 20 metres away.
There are relevant air quality sensitive receptors
present along the route that the construction traffic is
likely to take and also close to the proposed
construction works.
There are also between 10 and 100 residential
receptors along Lots Road which is a proposed
access route.
The site is located 170 metres south of
Ashburnham Community Primary School. The
Cremorne Wharf site is located 300 metres to the
east of Chelsea Academy Secondary School.
Existing traffic issues
The main traffic issue in this area is exhaust
emissions from the A3220 Cremorne Road, which
is located to the north east of the site. There may
also be an issue of exhaust emissions from Lots
Road which is located to the north of the site.
Additional vehicle emissions have a high potential to
interfere with local air quality action plan policies due
to current exceedances of the Air Quality Objective in
the vicinity of the site.
Air Quality
Site Considerations
Comments
Existing sources of significant air
pollutants
Main sources of nitrogen oxides and small particle
emissions in the area are road traffic, domestic
and commercial gas boilers, and small industrial
processes.
See above.
Notable gaps in existing air quality
monitoring
The nearest available diffusion tube data is 270
metres from the site and indicated that the air
quality objective value for NO2 was not exceeded
in the area near to the diffusion tube. This site is
located adjacent to Lots Road.
Collect a minimum of 6 months diffusion tube data at
the site access/egress or other point of access to the
major road network.
Potential issues
The risk from additional exhaust emissions from
construction HGVs is undefined at present. There
is the potential for additional exhaust emissions
due to traffic management required for certain
stages of the construction programme which
require the temporary closure of the westbound
carriageway of Lots Road. The construction
period will be approximately 4 years in duration.
There are no ecologically sensitive receptors
within 50 metres of the site.
Minimise HGV movements on the local road network
during the peak hour.
The potential for adverse impacts due to the
construction phase of the assessment are defined
below following the IAQM (2014) construction
dust guidance.
Spoil could be removed from the site by barge if
permission is granted for this which would reduce the
dust emissions from track-out.
Earthworks
As the total site area is between 2,500 and
10,000m2, a medium dust emission magnitude is
Local residents should be informed in advance of the
proposed works with an explanation that the dust
deposits over the 4 year construction period would be
non-hazardous. Residents should be provided with
contact details to use should they have any concerns.
Standard dust control measures will minimise any
effects of fugitive dust on nearby sensitive receptors.
Air Quality
Site Considerations
Comments
likely as a result of potential earthworks at the
site. There are between 1 and 10 residential
properties within 20 metres of the earthworks.
Therefore the dust soiling effects for earthworks is
assessed as medium, without mitigation (IAQM,
2014).
There are between 1 and 10 residential properties
within 20m of the proposed earthworks, annual
mean PM10 background concentrations at the site
are currently between 24 and 28 µg/m3, which is
well below the air quality objective. Sensitivity of
the area to human health impacts due to
earthworks is therefore medium.
Construction
As the total volume is less than the 25,000m3
threshold, a small dust emission magnitude is
likely as a result of potential construction at the
site. There are between 1 and 10 residential
properties within 20 metres of the construction
works. Therefore the dust soiling effects for
construction is assessed as medium.
There are between 1 and 10 residential properties
within 20 metres of the proposed construction
background
works,
annual
mean
PM10
concentrations are currently between 24 and 28
µg/m3, which is well below the air quality
objective. The sensitivity of the area to human
Air Quality
Site Considerations
Comments
health impacts due to construction is therefore
medium.
Track-out
The following HGV numbers are discussed in
terms of (IAQM) Guidance for assessing impacts
from construction activities. There are expected
to be between 10 and 50 HDV movements per
day for approximately half of the construction
period. This will result in a medium dust emission
magnitude. There are expected to be less than
10 HDV movements per day for the remainder of
the construction period which results in a small
dust emission magnitude. There are between 10
and 100 residential properties within 20 metres of
the track out route along Ashburnham Road and
along Lots Road. Sensitivity of the area around
the proposed site to dust soiling effects is
considered high.
There are between 10 and 100 residential
properties within 20m of the proposed track-out
route along Ashburnham Road along Lots Road,
annual mean PM10 background concentrations at
the site are currently between 24 and 28µg/m3,
which is well below the air quality objective.
Sensitivity of the area to human health impacts
due to track-out is therefore high.
Barge
Air Quality
Site Considerations
Comments
Spoil could be removed from the site by barge if
permission was granted for a new jetty which
would reduce the dust emissions from track-out.
Summary:
The construction phase is predicted to be 4 years in duration, and the construction site is small (IAQM, 2014). However, the sensitivity of the
area to dust soiling effects associated with construction, earthworks and track-out is medium to high. The sensitivity of the area to human health
impacts associated with construction works, earthworks and track-out is also medium to high. However, with standard dust control measures in
place the risk of impacts on sensitive receptors can be reduced, but additional site specific measures are also likely to be required such as
ensuring vehicles entering and leaving sites are covered to prevent escape of materials during transport.
There is potential for HGV movements on the local road network to cause localised air quality impacts in area of already poor air quality. This
can be somewhat mitigated by minimising the movement of HGVs during peak hours. Spoil may also be removed from site via a barge along
the River Thames which would reduce the dust emissions from track-out.
There is the potential for additional exhaust emissions due to traffic management required during construction. These construction processes
are predicted to have localised air quality impacts; these impacts are undefined at present.
In summary this site is considered less suitable because the sensitivity of the area to dust soiling effects associated with construction,
earthworks and track-out is medium to high. As described above, it is likely it would require additional site specific mitigation beyond standard
mitigation measures if selected to make it suitable.
Archaeology
Site Considerations
Methodology
Designations, including
Archaeological Priority Areas
Summary of historical uses
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
Other receptors with the potential
to be directly affected
Comments
The appraisal uses current Greater London Historic Environment Record (GLHER) point data. The
proximity of Archaeological Priority Areas and Conservation Areas is considered and the GLHER record
for each receptor within 100m of the proposed site is accessed and interpreted in terms of ‘very high or
high’, ‘medium’ or ‘other’ importance. When appraising the suitability of the site, the potential for receptors
to extend to within the proposed site is considered. Historic OS mapping (limited to 19th and 20th century
origin) is also inspected with a summary of recent historical uses provided to indicate the potential for
previous on-site disturbance.
The site is not within an Archaeological Priority Area. Not applicable.
The site is partially within the Thames Conservation
Area.
The OS map for 1874 marks the site as part of Not applicable.
Cremorne Gardens.
There are no recorded archaeological receptors.
This does preclude the possibility of their existence
Not applicable.
There is a record for town meadows of post
medieval date MLO 40736, within the site to the
south eastern side although in reality evidence
associated is likely to cover a much wider area.
Not applicable.
There is a generic record for medium value postmedieval flood defences on the foreshore
MLO70207 and a jetty MLO70200 immediately to the
south of the site.
A record for town meadows MLO 40504 is located Not applicable.
immediately to the east of the site. A Palaeolithic flint
was found on the foreshore close to the low tide
mark to the south of the site (MLO12543).There are
several records for peat deposits in the area.
Archaeology
Site Considerations
Extent of existing disturbance (if
known)
Potential issues
Comments
Likely disturbance of modern date but could be
areas of preservation.
Archaeological remains may exist at the site at
depth. There is the potential that ground work
excavations for the site will disturb preserved
material. Evidence for peat deposits suggests that
deep groundworks would require some form of
environmental sampling in agreement with the
Borough Archaeologist and Historic England science
Advisor.
Not applicable.
In consultation with the Borough Archaeologist,
further information (such as a desk based
assessment) may be required to support a
planning application.
Summary:
There is evidence for post medieval archaeology (town meadows) in the vicinity of Cremorne Wharf, but these remains are likely to be of low
significance and have probably been disturbed by modern construction. However, it is considered that this site is less suitable based on the
potential for waterlogged remains associated with post-medieval flood defences being present within the foreshore.
Built Heritage
Site Considerations
Methodology
Designations including Conservation
Areas, including trees
Comments
The appraisal uses current Greater London Historic Environment Record (GLHER) point data. The
proximity of Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings and Registered Parks and Gardens is stated and the
GLHER record for each receptor within 250m of the proposed site with the potential to be directly
affected is accessed and interpreted in terms of its importance. When appraising the suitability of the
site, potential impacts on the significance of Conservation Areas are considered, alongside any potential
perceived or direct impacts on Listed Buildings and their associated curtilage structure or the historic
setting of a Listed Building.
Listed Buildings
Not applicable.
The grade II listed Lots Road Pumping Station is
located within the site.
Conservation Areas
The site is partially within the Thames Conservation
Area.
Sand’s End Conservation Area – 250m south-west.
Registered Parks and Gardens
There are no registered parks and gardens within
250m of the site.
Potential receptors of medium to
very high importance with the
potential to be directly affected
The grade II listed Lots Road Pumping Station Listed Building Consent will be required for works
could be physically impacted if its curtilage wall on to the grade II Lots Road Pumping Station.
its north-western side, which is part of the grade II
listing, is removed. The works will involve physical
changes to the listed structure, including the
replacement of existing machinery. The machinery
represents a significant element in the significance
Built Heritage
Site Considerations
Other receptors of lesser importance
with the potential to be directly
affected
Particular considerations on sites
where new permanent structures
are required
Potential issues
Comments
of the listed structure.
There is potential for the significance of the
Thames Conservation Area to be directly impacted
as a result of development within its boundaries
and within its setting. However, the site is in a part
of the Conservation Area which is modern industrial
in character, and the site is not likely to adversely
impact upon any key views within or out of the
Conservation Area.
There are no further built heritage receptors within Not applicable.
250m of the site.
Any permanent elements have the potential to High-quality design and careful siting of the
impact on the Thames Conservation Area. The permanent structures to minimise long term
replacement of machinery will have a permanent impacts.
effect on the grade II listed Pumping Station.
Mitigation strategy for the listed building, including
historic building recording and deposition of
removed material within a suitable repository.
The site is situated partially within a Conservation Listed Building Consent will be required.
Area, and the site contains a grade II listed
building.
Summary:
There is potential for the Thames Conservation Area to experience an impact as a result of development within its boundaries. However, this
impact is considered to be negligible, as the site is located within a modern industrial area, and is not likely to alter any key views which
contribute to the significance of the Conservation Area. The proposals will also have an impact on the significance of the grade II listed Lots
Road Pumping Station as a result of the physical changes to the structure and development within its setting. However, the site is considered to
be suitable, as the impacts on the Conservation Area will be negligible and largely temporary in nature. The works to the listed building will be
adverse, but can be mitigated.
Townscape and Views
Site Considerations
Comments
Methodology
The methodology used is based broadly on guidance within the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual
Impact Assessment 3rd Edition (LI and IEMA 2013). Based on the nature of the proposed development,
each site is appraised against its sensitivity to changes in townscape character and visual amenity. The
sensitivity of townscape resources is determined by features such as Conservation Areas, trees and the
quality of the space. Visual receptors are considered in relation to the type and activity of the viewer.
Where the development could potentially involve the loss of mature trees, which could not be replaced in
the short term, a time element has been considered to assist in appraising the suitability of the site.
There are no registered Historic Parks and There would be a short-term adverse impact on
Gardens within 250m of the site.
the character of the Thames Conservation Area,
and on views of this part of the north bank of the
Within 250m of the site there are two Green Flag River Thames from the south bank.
parks, Westfield Park to the north-west, and
Cremorne Gardens to the north-east.
Designations
(including TPOs, Registered Historic
Parks and Gardens and Protected
Views)
The site lies partially within the RBKC Thames
Conservation Area. Within 250m of the site to the
south-west there is also the RBHF Sand’s End
Conservation Area.
All trees within conservation areas are protected to
the equivalent level as TPOs.
Cremorne Gardens, to the north-east, and Lots
Road Power Station, to the south-west, are
landmark focal points from the south bank of the
River Thames, noted in the Thames Conservation
Area proposal statement.
The site is within the Cremorne Safeguarded
Wharf.
Townscape and Views
Site Considerations
Townscape
Comments
The site is within the Thames Policy Area, which
protects views along the river.
The site is located on the northern bank of the
River Thames at Chelsea in West London. It
currently comprises a large metal-clad warehouse
used as a waste transfer facility, and the Lots Road
Pumping Station (Grade II listed), which fronts onto
Lots Road. The previous industrial uses in the area
are prominent, including the disused Lots Road
Power Station. The site can be accessed from Lots
Road and potentially the River Thames. There are
recent 7/8-storey apartments located to the northeast of the site; to the north-west on the opposite
side of Lots Road are terraced houses between 2
to 4-storeys. There is scrub vegetation and a few
semi-mature trees in the south of the site. The
River Thames on the south-east boundary of the
site creates an open character and therefore the
existing large buildings alongside the waterfront do
not feel noticeably out of scale with the space.
The presence and operation of machinery,
materials stores and buildings would not be wholly
out of character with the partially industrial area;
however there would be a temporary, direct,
adverse
impact.
HGV
movements
during
construction would have an adverse impact on the
relatively quiet character of the surrounding roads
to the north-west.
Permanent
elements
once
the
scheme
is
Use of hoarding around the site to minimise
townscape impacts during construction.
The site is suitable. With appropriate detailing and
placement of the permanent structures it is not
anticipated there would be long-term adverse
impacts. There would be short-term (4 years)
adverse impacts from construction.
Townscape and Views
Site Considerations
Views
Comments
operational would include the retention of the
shafts, with periodic access required for
maintenance, and a small control building
approximately 2m x 1.5m x 2m high and two vent
stacks approximately 0.9m in diameter and 4m in
height. These structures would not be out of
character with the existing site and would not have
a noticeably adverse impact.
There are open views of the site from the River
Thames and from its immediate surroundings on
Lots Road, which are largely obscured by the
pumping station building. Views from beyond Lots
Road towards the site are interrupted by
intervening buildings. The site is overlooked by
residential properties on the north-west side of Lots
Road. Views from the southern bank of the River
Thames, and boats, are of the site in the context of
its adjacent industrial and residential land uses.
During construction the use of hoardings and
appropriate lighting would help minimise the visual
impact. The design and location of permanent
structures should be given careful consideration
within an overall landscape scheme to protect
long-term visual amenity.
The site is suitable as, in the long-term views of
the permanent structures would not be
uncharacteristic in this location. Temporary
adverse
visual
effects
anticipated
during
Construction activity and machinery would be out of construction are reversible.
character with existing views of the site. The tower
crane would be intermittently visible from the
surrounding area, including along both banks of the
River Thames. Views of construction would be from
residential properties around the site and the south
bank of the River Thames, and boats on the River.
There would be temporary (4 years) adverse
impacts.
Permanent structures would not be out of character
with the site and it is unlikely that there would be
Townscape and Views
Site Considerations
Comments
substantial adverse visual impacts.
Photograph
View of the existing Lots Road Pumping Station, from Lots Road
Comments in relation to the site Not applicable.
Not applicable.
layout
After use of the site
There is an opportunity to improve the land following completion of the scheme. Redevelopment to a
different use should be explored.
Townscape and Views
Site Considerations
Comments
Summary:
During construction there would be temporary (4 years), adverse townscape and visual impacts. Careful design and location of the permanent
structures would minimise potential long-term impacts and on this basis it is considered that the site is suitable.
Ecology (terrestrial and aquatic)
Site Considerations
Comments
Methodology
The ecological appraisal consists of a desk top study to identify habitats within and adjacent to the
site. This includes a review of aerial photography and photographs taken within the site to determine
habitats present and the potential for these habitats to support protected and/or notable
species. Greenspace Information for Greater London (GIGL) data is used to search for records of
Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) Priority habitats, Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) and
records of protected and/or notable species within a 2km radius of the site. Natural England’s MAGIC
website is also consulted to determine proximity to Statutory Designated sites (i.e. Sites of Special
Scientific Interest and Local Nature Reserves).
From reviewing the imagery, the GIGL data search and the MAGIC website, a judgement is made on
the potential for the site to support protected and/or notable species and/or habitats. On this basis, the
site is appraised in terms of its suitability.
Statutory designations
Non-statutory designated wildlife
sites
Baseline species surveys have also been undertaken at this site and so inform the preliminary
mitigation recommendations made in this report. These include a Phase 1 habitat survey (2015), bat
activity and bat roost surveys (2012, 2013, & 2015), wintering bird surveys (2015), aquatic invertebrates
surveys (2015) and fish surveys (2015).
Battersea Park Nature Areas Local Nature None required.
Reserve (LNR) ~ 2km E.
River Thames and Tidal Tributaries Site of The site lies within the River Thames and tidal
Metropolitan Importance (SMI) ~ within the site
tributaries SMI. It is recommended to minimise the
footprint of the development within the designated
Battersea Park SMI
site.
Loss of SINC habitat will require
compensatory
provision,
particularly
where
Natural History Museum Gardens Site of Borough permanent land take occurs.
Importance (SBI) Grade 2
Mitigation will include the use of low noise piling
West London Line in Brompton SBI Grade 1
techniques to minimise impacts of underwater
noise on marine mammals and fish, and adoption
West London Line south of Earl’s Court SBI Grade of standard construction practices for avoidance of
Site Considerations
Comments
1
pollution (water quality and dust emissions).
District Line North of Fulham Broadway SBI Grade
1.
West London Line at Sands End SBI Grade 1
Chelsea Physic Gardens SBI Grade 1
Eel Brook Common Site of Local Importance (SLI)
South Park SLI
British Gas Ponds SBI Grade 1
Kings College SLI
Normand Parks SLI
Moravian Burial Ground SBI Grade 2
Chelsea Royal Hospital South Lawn SBI Grade 1
Royal Hospital Old Burial Grounds SBI Grade 2.
Ranelagh Gardens SBI Grade 2
York Gardens SLI
Falcon Park and Shillington Street Open Space
SLI
Site Considerations
Comments
Clapham Junction Gardens SBI Grade 2
Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP)
priority habitats
Protected or otherwise notable
species within the Study Area
Brompton Cemetery SBI Grade 1
Mudflats which are part of the ‘Tidal Thames’ BAP
Priority habitat are located within and adjacent to
the site.
There are a large number of additional BAP
Priority habitats within 2km of the site. These
include: heathland, park and urban greenspaces,
standing water, urban greenspaces, wasteland
and woodland.
Protected species within 2km of the site:
Invertebrates: stag beetle ~ 0.6km N
Amphibians: great crested newt ~ 1.4km N
Fish: European eel 1.4km N
Birds: Bewick’s swan, Whooper swan, scaup,
honey buzzard, green sandpiper, black tern, black
redstart, fieldfare, redwing, firecrest, brambling,
common crossbill, garganey, hobby, woodlark,
golden oriole
Bats: Daubenton’s, Leisler’s noctule, common
pipistrelle,
soprano
pipistrelle,
Nathusius’s
pipistrelle.
Other
Mammals:
grey
seal,
common
seal,
Loss of BAP habitat will require compensatory
provision, particularly if permanent land take
occurs.
See the mitigation and conclusions provided under
‘Potential Issues’.
Site Considerations
Comments
common porpoise.
Notable species within 2km of the site:
Potential issues
Herring gull Larus argentatus (London BAP),
common startling Sturnus vulgaris (London BAP),
house sparrow Passer domesticus (London & UK
BAP), hedge accentor Prunella modularis (London
BAP), reed bunting Emberiza schoeniclus (London
and UK BAP), song thrush Turdus philomelos
(London BAP), spotted flycatcher Muscicapa
striata (UK and London BAP), brindled beauty
Lycia hirtaria (UK and London BAP), oak hook-tip
Watsonalla binaria (UK and London BAP),
cinnabar Tyria jacobaeae (UK and London BAP),
small square-spot Diarsia rubi (UK and London
BAP), white ermine Spilosoma lubricipeda (UK
and London BAP), brown-spot pinion Agrochola
litura (UK and London BAP).
Habitats present during the Phase 1 habitat survey
included hard standing, a brick built building and a
metal building with a corrugated metal roof, scrub,
and 3 trees. Intertidal mudflat (BAP Priority
habitat) is present within the eastern extent of the
site. Vegetation and structures have potential to
be used by common nesting birds. Habitats on site
appear suitable to support black redstart. No dead
wood was identified within the site and therefore
no further measures are required in relation to
stag beetle.
BAP Priority habitat: See above recommendations.
Trees: If trees are to be retained, root protection
zones should be adhered to.
Nesting birds: Works should commence outside of
the nesting bird season (nesting bird season is
between March and September). If works are to
commence during the nesting birds season, then
vegetation should be checked by an ecologist for
nesting activity immediately prior to the
commencement of any works. If nesting birds are
Site Considerations
Comments
Wintering bird surveys: Herring gull (NERC Act
Section 41 species) were recorded using the
shoreline and sandbar at Cremorne Wharf, in
addition to eight Birds of Conservation Concern
[black-headed gull (Chroicocephalus ridibundus),
common gull (Larus canus), great black-backed
gull (Larus marinus), gadwall (Anas strepera), teal
(Anas crecca), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos),
greylag goose (Anser anser) and dunnock
(Prunella modularis)].
identified, a suitable buffer will need to be retained
until after all chicks have fledged.
Black redstart: It is recommended that black
redstart bird surveys are conducted within the site,
and if access can be gained to the waste land to
the west of the site.
Wintering birds: It is recommended that works
should commence outside of the period of
November – February such that birds are not
Bat surveys: The recycling centre was confirmed displaced at a time of year when disturbance has
to be a transitory roost in 2013. The update survey the greatest likelihood of causing them to expend
in 2015 did not record any bats using the recycling energy locating alternative feeding areas. It is
centre. The bat activity surveys conducted in 2015 recommended that construction works are
detected low use of the site by common bat accompanied by a Construction Environmental
species.
Management Plan (CEMP) that specifies
measures to keep noise and visual disturbance
Aquatic invertebrate surveys: The survey at the (including river-ward lighting) to a minimum.
site was characterised by a low diversity of aquatic
invertebrates (10 taxa within the site) of relatively Bats: It has been agreed with Natural England that
low importance of nature conservation value. All the recycling centre structure will be demolished
species encountered are widespread throughout under a non-licenced method statement. This will
take place as part of the Thames Water Utilities
the River Thames.
Limited (Thames Tideway Tunnel) Order 2014 and
Fish surveys: Eleven species of fish were mitigation in the form of the provision of bat boxes
recorded during the fish surveys, including the within Cremorne Wharf Gardens has already been
protected European smelt Osmerus eperlanus and implemented.
European eel Anguilla Anguilla.
Aquatic invertebrates: Standard groundwater and
surface water protection measures should be
Site Considerations
Comments
adhered to.
Fish surveys: Mitigation for notable species
identified within the survey area include: avoid
piling during the sensitive period (April to
September inclusive) and avoid dredging during
the sensitive period (June to August inclusive).
The foreshore should be reinstated and enhanced
upon completion of works.
Summary:
There are 21 Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) within 2km of the site. The site lies within the River Thames and Tidal
Tributaries Site of Metropolitan Importance (SMI). One statutory designated site, Battersea Park Nature Areas Local Nature Reserve (LNR) is
located 2km east of the site. There were 66 occurrences of mute swan, 25 occurrences of gadwall, and 129 occurrences of grey heron within
64m of the site. There are a number of records of protected species within 2km of the proposed site. These are six species of bat (the closest
record is for Noctule, Leisler’s, and Pipistrelle bat each 1.4km north of the site), stag beetle, 17 species of protected bird, one record of great
crested newt (1.4km north) and one record of European eel. In addition grey seal, common seal and common porpoise were recorded within
2km.
This site is considered to be less suitable due to its location within the River Thames and Tidal Tributaries SMI. Areas of mudflat habitat (BAP
Priority habitat and within the SINC site) are to be directly impacted upon by the works. Where works are to be conducted within close proximity
to or within aquatic habitats strict working practices should be adhered to with regards to water pollution and sediment/dust control. Any piling
within the river should be undertaken using low noise techniques such as push or vibropiling. Where BAP Priority habitat is lost or degraded,
compensatory provision will be required to enable works to proceed within the site.
The site has been noted to support protected and notable species and habitats. Vegetation and structures within the site have potential to
support nesting common birds and habitats within the site have been identified to support wintering bird species. Aquatic invertebrates have
been recorded within the survey area and in terms of fish notable European smelt and European eel have been recorded within the survey area.
As such, species specific avoidance and mitigation measures will be required. It is also recommended that black redstart bird surveys are
conducted within the site, and if access can be gained to the waste land to the west of the site. If trees are to be retained, root protection zones
should be adhered to.
Land Quality
Methodology
Site Location
A concise summary of desktop study information including review of; current and historic land uses,
geology, hydrogeology and hydrology, registered pollution incidents and contemporary trade entries is
provided. A Conceptual Site Model (CSM) identifying potential pollutant-pathway-receptor linkages is
used to assess potential contamination risks that could impact on the proposed development. A
“Contamination Category” consisting of Category 1 (low risk) sites, Category 2 (medium risk) sites and
Category 3 (high risk) sites, is assigned based on the level of risk and subsequently used to appraise
the suitability of the site.
Cremorne Wharf
Current Site Use
Cremorne Wharf is located adjacent to and within the River Thames foreshore on the south side of
Lots Road. The site comprises the existing Lots Road Pumping Station building across the western
third of the site. The remainder of Cremorne Wharf has previously been operated as a waste transfer
station and is mainly occupied by a large depot building. The site also includes a jetty/berth facility.
Topography
Generally flat.
Field Evidence of contamination (i.e.
visual/olfactory)
Desk based assessment only - site visit not undertaken by Land Quality team.
Current surrounding land use
(immediately adjacent to site)
To the north/north-east Is Chelsea Wharf warehouse building that has been converted for a mixed
commercial and residential use, a block of flats and beyond this is Cremorne Gardens, an area of
public open space. To the north-west of the site along Lots Road are Victorian townhouses.
The River Thames is located adjacent east of the site.
Immediately to the south and west of the site is the Lots Road Power station site which, along with
land to the south of Chelsea Creek, is currently being redeveloped for residential and other
community, retail leisure and business uses.
Geological and Hydro geological Information
Land Quality
Geological Strata
Underlying Aquifer Classes
Groundwater Vulnerability / Soil
Classification
(High / Intermediate / Low / Not
Applicable)
• Made ground (3m)
• Superficial Deposits (4m)
• London Clay Formation (47m)
• Lambeth Group (26m)
• Chalk (>65m)
* Geology based on thicknesses from British Geological Survey borehole TQ27NE129 on site, approx.
40m from the existing pumping station and TBM drive shaft locations.
The Superficial Deposits (upper aquifer) are classified as a secondary (undifferentiated) aquifer by the
Environment Agency.
The London Clay is classified as an unproductive aquiclude. The low permeability of this stratum will
reduce the likelihood of vertical migration of groundwater to the deeper aquifers.
The site is underlain by a Secondary (undifferentiated) aquifer with soils of a high leaching potential.
Source Protection Zone Details
The site is not located within a groundwater Source Protection Zone.
Surface Water Receptor
The nearest surface water feature is the River Thames located adjacent to the east of the site. The
groundwater in the Superficial Deposits is likely to be in hydraulic connectivity with the River Thames.
Registered Abstraction Points
There are two abstraction points within 250m of the site:
100m south: abstraction license registered to Seaboard Powerlink for spray irrigation
200m south-west: abstraction license registered to Mitie Energy Ltd for use in a heat pump
within Chelsea Academy
Relevant Information within a 250m radius of the site
•
•
Historical Potentially Contaminating
Activities
(based on mapping data)
On Site
•
Historical mapping from 1862 shows the site as undeveloped except for a terrace of residential
Land Quality
buildings on the north-western boundary.
•
By 1896 Cremorne Wharf has been developed on the site.
•
An electrical substation is shown adjacent to the south of the pumping station building from 1949.
•
Mapping from 1950 shows Cremorne Wharf rubber works has been developed in the western
section of the site and a pumping station is shown to cover the north-western section.
•
1952 mapping shows that the site comprises both the pumping station and a public refuse tip
(waste transfer station) and these are labelled on current mapping, although the refuse tip is now
situated within a large warehouse.
Off Site
•
In 1862 the land to the north of the site is occupied by a maze associated with the Cremorne
Gardens which extend toward the north-west.
•
By 1896 the gardens have been redeveloped into wharfs (Durham Wharf) and there is little change
in land use until the 1980s when the land is redeveloped into a public open space called Cremorne
Gardens.
•
In 1862 the land to the south of the site was undeveloped until 1896 when it was developed into
wharfs (Chelsea Vestry Wharf and dock and crown wharf) and warehouses. The 1909 mapping
shows that the area has been redeveloped with unlabelled buildings. The 1947 mapping shows
that travelling cranes and conveyor belts have been developed.
•
A Water Screen is located 30m south of Cremorne Wharf (1947 – present)
•
A large circular tank (use unknown – potentially a water tank) is located approximately 100m to the
south west of the site (1947 – approximately 1949).
Land Quality
•
A garage is located 100m to the west of the site (1909 – 1947)
•
A rubber factory is located on the site of the former garage (1947 – 1943) (labelled engineering
works after 1949).
•
An electricity works is located 100m south west of the site (1947 – currently being redeveloped).
•
A Colour Works is located 130m to the south west of the site (1896 – 1909).
Pollution Controls
Three Integrated Pollution Controls are registered to the former power station 100m to the south-west
of the site.
There are no Local Authority Pollution Prevention and Controls or Integrated Pollution Prevention and
Controls within 250m of the site.
Landfill Sites
There are no recorded historic or current landfill sites within 250m.
Registered Waste Licenses
Registered Radioactive Substances
The Cremorne Wharf site is registered as a large waste transfer site which has been operational and
licensed to receive > 75,000 and < 250,000 tonnes of waste with no restrictions.
There are no registered radioactive substance sites within 250m.
Fuel Stations/Depots
Shell Chelsea Fuel Station (230m north-west – active)
Contemporary Trade Entries
•
•
•
•
•
Printers (15m north-east – active)
Furniture repairing & restoration (15m north – active)
Telecommunications equipment system (20m north-east – inactive)
Commercial cleaning services (20m north – inactive)
Garage services (90m north-west – active)
Site Classification Based on Above Information
Activity
Distance and Direction to
Site
Contaminants
Land Quality
Potential Site Contaminants derived
from surface sources (e.g.
contaminants in made ground)
1) Refuse tip and waste recycling
operations
1) On site
1) Metals, PAHs, TPH,
organic contaminants
2) Wharf development (significant
amount of made ground)
2) On site
2) Metals, PAHs, TPH
3) Electrical substation
3) Onsite
3) PCBs
4) Rubber works
Potential Site Contaminants derived
from off-site sources and transported
to site
1) Wharf operations
2) Water screen
4) Onsite
1) On land adjacent to the
north and south
2) 30m south
3) Electricity works power station
3) 100m south
4) Garage / rubber factory
4) 100m west
Potential Contamination Pathways to
Site
(Conceptual Site Model)1
-
Contamination Category
Category 2 (medium risk)
Source 1 – A1, A2, A3, B4
Source 2 – D6, E1, F7
4) Metals, PAHs, TPH,
volatile organic
compounds, solvents
1) TPH, metals, PAHs
2) Metals, organic
contaminants
3) PAHs, TPH, PCBs
4) TPH, PAHs,
lubricants, paints,
solvents, metals.
Land Quality
Conclusion:
On the basis of the information available, it is considered that the site is less suitable. The historical
mapping indicates that land use on site has consisted of; wharf activity, a rubber works, pumping
station and refuse tip/recycling operations. It is considered that there is a medium potential for
contamination of the shallow subsurface to have occurred particularly through fuel and chemical
storage/use associated with wharf operations and spills/leaching of contaminants associated with
former refuse tip activities.
The potential receptors to contamination include groundwater quality in the underlying Superficial
Deposits (upper aquifer), the River Thames and the health of construction workers and the users of
the site and surrounding land.
Although above the Superficial Deposits (upper aquifer), the site is not within a SPZ and therefore the
sensitivity of the aquifer is reduced. However, the River Thames is immediately adjacent to the site
and is likely to be in hydraulic connectivity with the shallow groundwater beneath the site. Good
construction practice and site specific mitigation would be required to limit direct human exposure to
potentially contaminated soil and soil dust.
Notes:
1. Refer to schematic Conceptual Site Model for explanation of site-specific source-pathway-receptors.

Cremorne Wharf Site Suitability Report

Transcription

Similar documents

battleon thethames - Majorca Daily Bulletin

every drop counts - San Francisco Public Utilities Commission

Laketown Wharf Resort Panama City Beach, Florida

Unseen Cinema 2016 - End Credits Film Club

verde creek ranch kerr county, tx - 287 ac +

All Warthog sewer tools are sold through StoneAge authorized

Chief Tecumseh Brochure - Chatham-Kent

Thames Festival River Pageant

Slotomania Big Win - Bingo Card Game For Ipad

3 EASY WAYS TO ORDER