100 RG PNC C31xa 900001

Spring 2010
Site Suitability Report C31XA

Foreshore, adjacent to boat yard and St. Georges Square
Please note: Further details are provided in the Final Report on Site Selection Process (doc ref: 7.05) that can be found on the Thames Tideway Tunnel section of the Planning Inspectorates web site. Correction: Helsinki Square in the title and text should read St. Georges Square.
100-RG-PNC-C31XA-900001 | Spring 2010

Foreshore, adjacent to boat yard and Helsinki Square
THAMES TUNNEL
SITE SUITABILITY REPORT C31XA

LIST OF CONTENTS
Page Number 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 1.2 1.3 2 Purpose and structure of the report Background Consultation 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 8 8 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12
SITE INFORMATION 2.1 2.2 Site and surroundings Type of site
3 4
PROPOSED USE OF SITE CONSTRUCTION PHASE PROPOSED USE OF SITE OPERATIONAL PHASE 4.1 4.2 Introduction Restoration and after-use
ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Access Construction works considerations Permanent works considerations Health and safety
PLANNING ASSESSMENT 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 Introduction Planning applications and permissions Planning context Consultation comments Planning comments
ENVIRONMENTAL APPRAISAL 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 7.10 Introduction Transport Archaeology Built heritage and townscape Water resources hydrogeology and surface water Ecology Flood risk Air quality Noise Land quality
SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT 8.1 8.2 Socio-economic profile Issues and impacts
PROPERTY ASSESSMENT 9.1 9.2 Introduction Crown Land and Special Land comments
100-RG-PNC-C31XA-900001.doc
9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 10
Land to be acquired Property valuation comments Disturbance compensation comments Offsite statutory compensation comments Site acquisition cost assessment
12 12 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 15 16
SITE CONCLUSIONS BY DISCIPLINE 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 Introduction Engineering Planning Environment Socio-economic and community Property
APPENDICES APPENDIX 1 SOURCES OF INFORMATION APPENDIX 2 SITE LOCATION PLAN APPENDIX 3 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT PLANS APPENDIX 4 PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS APPENDIX 5 TRANSPORT PLAN APPENDIX 6 SERVICES AND GEOLOGY PLAN APPENDIX 7 CONSTRUCTION PHASE LAYOUT APPENDIX 8 OPERATIONAL PHASE LAYOUT APPENDIX 9 ENVIRONMENTAL APPRAISAL TABLE
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AOD BAP BT CPO CSO DLR EA GLA HGV LNR LPA LU m MOL ONS ORN PLA POS PTAL SAM SINC SNCI SSR SSSI SuDS TfL TD TLRN TPA UDP UXO
above Ordnance Datum Biodiversity Action Plan British Telecom compulsory purchase order combined sewer overflow Docklands Light Railway Environment Agency Greater London Authority heavy goods vehicle local nature reserve local planning authority London Underground metre/metres Metropolitan Open Land Office of National Statistics Olympic Route Network Port of London Authority public open space public transport accessibility level scheduled ancient monument site of importance for nature conservation site(s) of nature conservation importance site suitability report site(s) of special scientific interest sustainable urban drainage systems Transport for London tunnel datum Transport for London Road Network Thames Policy Area unitary development plan unexploded ordnance
1 1.1 1.1.1
INTRODUCTION Purpose and structure of the report The Site Selection Methodology (May 2009) paper (paragraphs 2.3.29 - 2.3.34) outlines the process to be used to create the preferred list of shaft sites, and this process also applies to CSO sites. Paragraph 2.3.31 lists the type of general considerations that will be addressed in each site suitability report, but they depend on the relevance to the site and professional judgement made in the assessments. This report was prepared through the assessment of information from the perspective of a number of technical disciplines: Engineering, Planning, Environment, Property and Community. The reports have been prepared on the basis of the information listed in Appendix 1 - Sources of Information, and this level of information is considered to be appropriate to the current stage. The Background Technical Paper provides information on the requirements for different site types, their sizes and typical activities/facilities within the sites. Each site suitability report considers a particular site on its own merits. In addition, an engineering options report was produced. Information from both of these reports will feed into the technical assessment of how well the site may fit in with tunnel design options, ensuring combinations of sites spread across the length of the tunnel route provide a reasonable spatial distribution of sites (that will best assist with the construction of the tunnel, operation and maintenance). This is considered in the Preferred Scheme Report. Background The process for selecting sites is set out in the Site Selection Methodology (May 2009) paper. All sites have previously passed through the following parts of Stage 1: Part 1A - Creation of the long list of potential shaft (and CSO) sites Part 1B - Creation of a short list of potential shaft (and CSO) sites o o o Table 2.2: Long list of shaft (and CSO) sites - an assessment against set considerations and values Table 2.3: Draft short list of shaft (and CSO) sites - assessment against a list of detailed considerations Workshops to consider each site to arrive at a short list of sites.
1.1.2
1.1.3 1.1.4
1.2 1.2.1
1.2.2
The final part of Stage 1 includes this report. The following is an overall summary of all elements that apply to all the sites on the final short list: Part 1C - Creation of the Preferred List of shaft (and CSO) sites - site data, site visits, site suitability reports, engineering options report and optioneering workshops that will result in the Preferred Scheme Report.
1.3 1.3.1
Consultation The Thames Water project team held meetings with London local authorities, statutory and other stakeholders to review the provisional short list of shaft and CSO sites. All general and site specific comments can be found in a separate report titled Consultation on the Short List of Sites: Consultation Feedback Report. These comments were considered to help determine the final short list of sites, but they were also considered at the optioneering workshops. Further meetings were held with London local authorities, statutory and other stakeholders between January and March 2010. Comments are included in this report.
1.3.2
Page 1
2 2.1 2.1.1
SITE INFORMATION Site and surroundings This site is one of the shortlisted sites for Earl Pumping Station CSO. This section provides an overview of all the site information that will be used by one or more disciplines to assess the site in sections 3 to 9 of this report. The site C31XA is located on the foreshore, adjacent to a parking and seating area known as St Georges Square. It is roughly square in shape and accessed by Helsinki Square and Enterprize Way. The site is split between two boroughs, with more than half of its area within the London Borough of Lewisham boundary, while the rest of the site, to the north, is located in the London Borough of Southwark. A site location plan is attached as Appendix 2. The site is within a predominately residential area. The Thames Path runs along the western boundary of the site and separates it from St Georges Square. A Grade II listed feature, a parish boundary stone, is located on the riverside path to the northwest of the site. The western boundary of the site is 15m from the closest residential development, which consists of three-storey blocks with internal gardens. There is a boatyard located 10m away from the north-western boundary of the site. The site is within a number of Lewisham Unitary Development Plan (2004) designations, including the Thameside Policy Area and an area of archaeological priority, as well as several Southwark Unitary Development Plan (2007) designated areas, including archaeological priority zones and sites of nature conservation importance. All the mapped designations are shown on the planning and environment plans in Appendix 3. Photographs of the site and surroundings, together with an aerial photograph of the site, are attached as Appendix 4. There is access to the site via Plough Way, which is a traffic calmed road. There is no rail network local to the site. There are no existing wharfage/jetty facilities at the site. A transport plan for the site is attached as Appendix 5. Third-party assets and significant utilities are listed below and are shown on the services and geology plan in Appendix 6: Deptford Wharf building River wall Earl Storm Relief Sewer through the inside northern edge of the site (CSO connection is to this sewer).
2.1.2
2.1.3
2.1.4 2.1.5 2.1.6
2.1.7 2.1.8
2.1.9
2.1.10 The locations of other third-party assets, such as BT and fibre optic communication cables, are to be confirmed by further studies and utility searches and may not be shown on the services and geology plan. 2.1.11 Information on the geology specific to this site can be found within the services and geology plan, which is in Appendix 6. This plan shows that the shaft would be founded in the Chalk. 2.2 2.2.1 Type of site The site C31XA is being considered as: a large CSO site to intercept the Earl Pumping Station CSO (CS31X) a small CSO site for the same purpose. 3 3.1.1 PROPOSED USE OF SITE CONSTRUCTION PHASE The proposed construction phase layouts for the CSO site are located in Appendix 7 Construction Phase Layout, and are based on a preliminary assessment.
Page 2
3.1.2
The construction phase layout drawings are illustrative and show: the layout as a large CSO site the layout as a small CSO site potential access point.
3.1.3
These drawings provide initial preliminary schematic layouts that have not been optimised. If the site proceeds to the next stage as a preferred site, construction phase layouts would be optimised to minimise impacts. Photographs of typical activities associated with the CSO site construction phase are provided in Appendix 7. Potential above ground construction features include: approximately 3m high hoarding around the site boundary welfare facilities, temporary structures, approximately 3m high grout plant, approximately 3m to 5m high, including silos mobile crane, approximately 30m high (maximum and not for full construction duration).
3.1.4
3.1.5 3.1.6
Foreshore working would be required for this site and a cofferdam or similar construction works would be needed. Preliminary data associated with the construction phase are provided in Table 3.1 and are common to both the large site and small site scenarios. Table 3.1 Construction phase data Activity Length of construction period Likely working hours, ie, (night/day/weekend) Working days Primary means of transporting excavated material away from site Primary means of transporting materials to site
* There may be feasible opportunities to use barge transport for this site.
CSO site 0.5 to 2 years 12 hrs from 7am to 7pm Mon to Sat Road* Road*
4 4.1 4.1.1 4.1.2
PROPOSED USE OF SITE OPERATIONAL PHASE Introduction The indicative operational phase layout for the CSO site is located in Appendix 8 Operational Phase Layout, and is based on a preliminary assessment. The generic elevations of structures shown on the operational phase layout are located in Appendix 8 and provide an illustration of typical examples of the permanent structures which are applicable to CSO sites. For both CSO options, the above ground infrastructure at this site is likely to comprise a a ventilation column 10m high and 3m diameter, a ventilation building 5m x 15m x 5m high and a 20m x 10m top structure with openings. The top structure is to provide access and egress into the main shaft and flap valve chamber.
4.1.3
It was anticipated that the ventilation column at shaft sites would be 10m high when the assessment in this report was undertaken. Although this was subsequently changed to 15m high, the assessment was not revised as it was considered that the difference would not change any disciplines conclusion on the suitability of the site.
Page 3
4.1.4
The top structures are envisaged to be finished at a level of 107m tunnel datum (TD) (7mAOD), and since the ground level mean value at this site is 104mTD (4mAOD), the top structures would be raised to approximately 3m above the current ground level. For further information on the generic layout of this top structure, refer to Appendix 8. A hardstanding would be provided to the top structures. The site would not be fenced. Preliminary data associated with the operational phase are provided in Table 4.1. Table 4.1 Operational phase data Level of inspections and maintenance and likely working hours, ie, (night/day/weekend) frequency of visits 1 daytime visit every six months for electrical/instrument inspection. An additional 1 week maintenance period for tunnel/shaft inspection required per 10 years that could be night/day/weekend working. 1 van visit every six months. An additional 1 week period of 2 to 10 movements per day (estimated several vans and 2 cranes) every 10 years.
4.1.5 4.1.6
No of traffic movements
4.2 4.2.1
Restoration and after-use The portion of the site not occupied by the permanent works would be restored to its original condition on completion of the construction works. If any buildings were demolished, these would not be reinstated unless required. ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT Access This section should be read in conjunction with Section 7.2. Road
5 5.1 5.1.1
5.1.2
The site could be accessed via Plough Way which is a traffic calmed road. The site would be 2.7km away from the Transport for London Road Network A200. The route would pass over one bridge with no restrictions. For the construction phase, for both options, the access point would be from the south of St Georges Square. For the operational phase, access would be directly from St Georges Square. Rail
5.1.3 5.1.4
5.1.5
There would be no rail network local to this site. However, rail access is not considered to be a significant factor for CSO sites. River
5.1.6
River access and jetty/wharfage facilities are not a requirement for CSO sites. However, as the site is in the foreshore, there may be feasible opportunities to use barge transport.
It was anticipated that the elevation of top structures at both CSO and shaft sites would be finished at 107mTD when the assessment in this report was undertaken. Although this was subsequently changed to 104.5mTD, the assessment was not revised as it was considered that the difference would not change any disciplines conclusion on the suitability of the site.
Page 4
5.2 5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3 5.2.4 5.2.5 5.2.6 5.2.7
Construction works considerations The site would be in the foreshore and its size and shape could be adjusted if necessary. No demolition would be required. However, St Georges Stairs are within the site and may need to be removed. The interception chamber would be located by the outfall, which would be within the tidal zone of the river. As the site would be in the foreshore, a temporary cofferdam would be required and the contained area filled to provide a level site compound. Foreshore sites carry with them a higher risk than inland sites in respect of unexploded ordnance, notably near bridges, and this would need to be investigated. Foreshore sites carry with them a higher risk than inland sites of archaeological finds that might delay the construction programme. Data available on third-Party assets and significant utilities show that the main items of concern in this area are the three-storey building approximately to the southwest of the site, and the river wall. Construction methods would be adopted, as appropriate, to mitigate potential settlement of these assets. It is likely that the proposed works can be constructed within the overall construction programme. The interception chamber and connection culvert to the drop shaft would both be within the site and therefore require no additional consideration. Permanent works considerations The top structures to the drop shaft and flap valve chamber would be 2m above the riverbank ground level. The top structure to the interception chamber and drop shaft would be in the foreshore and a river wall matching and tied into the existing river wall would be provided around the permanent operational site. The site would be finished to the same level as the adjacent shore. The feasibility of structures in the foreshore from a navigational aspect would need to be discussed with the PLA. Health and safety As the site is in the foreshore, measures would need to be taken to mitigate the risks of flooding/site inundation and working over/near water. There are no other unusual health and safety issues associated with this site. PLANNING ASSESSMENT Introduction The planning assessment builds on the advantages and disadvantages reported in Table 2.3 and covers the following areas: Planning applications and permissions Planning context Planning comments.
5.2.8 5.2.9
5.3 5.3.1 5.3.2
5.3.3
5.4 5.4.1 5.4.2 6 6.1 6.1.1
Page 5
6.2 6.2.1
Planning applications and permissions An initial desktop search of the London Borough of Lewisham and Southwark online planning application databases did not identify any planning applications submitted within the last five years applicable to the site. Planning context The following is a summary of the relevant local planning policies and designations affecting the site and are taken from the current statutory development plans for the London Boroughs of Lewisham and Southwark. The local plans comprise the policies from the Lewisham Unitary Development Plan, adopted July 2004, and the Southwark Unitary Development Plan, adopted July 2007. The overarching policies according to the Lewisham UDP are listed below. The site is within a wider area of archaeological priority. Policy URB21, Archaeology, states that the council will promote the conservation, protection and enhancement of the archaeological heritage of the borough and its interpretation and presentation to the public. The site is located within the Thames Policy Area. Policy URB24, Thames Policy Area, states that the council will seek a high quality of design, respecting the special character of the river within the designated Thames Policy Area shown on the proposals map. Proposals which involve encroachment into the River Thames and its foreshore will be resisted. Thameside proposals should examine opportunities to retreat the flood defence to increase flood storage, wildlife and aesthetic value and visual connections with the river. The site is located on the River Thames foreshore, a designated site of nature conservation importance and special character area. Policy OS12, Nature Conservation and Designated Sites, states development on or within the sites of nature conservation importance, identified as sites of metropolitan, borough or local nature conservation importance by the London Ecology Unit, will not be permitted if it is likely to destroy, damage or adversely affect the protected environment. Policy OS13, Nature Conservation, states that the council will have regard to the nature conservation value of all sites in the borough that are proposed to be developed and seek to protect and enhance these, either through the imposition of planning conditions or through ensuring alternative equivalent new habitat provision nearby. Development proposals for these sites should be accompanied by an environmental appraisal, including methods of mitigation and proposals for compensation.
6.3 6.3.1
6.3.2 6.3.3 6.3.4
6.3.5 6.3.6
6.3.7 6.3.8
6.3.9
6.3.10 The site is within an area of special character, an extensive designation that covers the wider area. 6.3.11 Policy URB27, Areas of Special Character, states that the council will continue to maintain and enhance the strategic qualities of the designated areas of special character by resisting development proposals which are detrimental to the character of the areas. 6.3.12 The site is within a wider local open space deficiency area. 6.3.13 Policy OS8, Areas of Public Open Space Deficiency, states in areas identified as being deficient in public open space, the council will concentrate its efforts to create new open space and enhance public access to existing open space, and to negotiate with developers for new provision. Areas of public open space will be sought within housing schemes. 6.3.14 The site is located within a strategic wider viewing corridor. 6.3.15 Policy URB23, Strategic Views, seeks to protect and enhance the strategic views of St Pauls Cathedral illustrated on the proposals map, stating the council will protect and enhance the foreground, background and wider setting of the strategic views of St Pauls. 6.3.16 The Thames Path runs along the western boundary of the site.
Page 6
6.3.17 Policy URB25, Thames Footpath, supports the concept of a continuous Thames Path as part of the Thames National Trail. Opportunities should be taken when and if they arise to realign the Thames Path onto the riverfront, providing there are no conflicts with river-related operations. Provision should be made where possible for both pedestrians and cyclists. 6.3.18 The site is in close proximity to residential properties. 6.3.19 Policies HSG4, ENV.PRO9 and ENV.PRO11 all seek to safeguard the amenity of existing residential uses by, among other things, resisting incompatible development and reducing the effects of nuisance, including that arising from noise and pollution. 6.3.20 The overarching policies according to the Southwark UDP are listed below. 6.3.21 The site is within the wider Thames Special Policy Area, within which special controls of developments adjacent to the riverside will be imposed in order to enhance the character of the area and ensure continued and improved access to the river. 6.3.22 Policy 3.29, Development within the Thames Policy Area, requires all developments within the Thames Policy Area to reflect the strategic importance of the River Thames and its hinterland, protecting and enhancing the area. Proposals that will have an adverse impact on the River Thames and/or the Thameside area, or adversely impact on the character of the Thameside area, will not be acceptable. 6.3.23 The site is located within the wider Borough, Bermondsey and Rivers Archaeological Priority Zone (site reference 1A, Appendix 8: Archaeological Priority Areas Schedule, of the Southwark Unitary Development Plan, 2007). 6.3.24 Policy 3.19, Archaeology, requires that planning applications in such sites will include an archaeological assessment and evaluation of the impact of the development. There may subsequently be a requirement for preservation in situ or, where the development is deemed necessary, conditions to secure the excavation and recording of remains before development begins. 6.3.25 A Grade II listed feature (parish boundary stone) lies on the riverside path to the northwest of the site. 6.3.26 Policy 3.17, Listed Buildings, states that development proposals involving a listed building should preserve the building and its features of special architectural or historic interest. 6.3.27 The site is located within a wider air quality management area. 6.3.28 Policy 3.6, Air Quality, states that planning permission will not be granted for development that would lead to a reduction in air quality. 6.3.29 The site is located on the River Thames foreshore, which is a designated a site of importance for nature conservation (SINC). 6.3.30 Policy 3.28, Biodiversity, states that developments will not be permitted which would damage the nature conservation value of sites of importance for nature conservation and local nature reserves (LNRs) and/or damage habitats, populations of protected species or priority habitats/species identified in the United Kingdom, London or the Southwark biodiversity action plan. Where, exceptionally, such developments are permitted, the council will seek mitigation and/or compensation for the damage to biodiversity. 6.3.31 The site is adjacent to a proposals site, with uses required of a boatyard and other acceptable uses listed as A1, A3, A4 and a laundrette, with no other uses allowed stated. 6.3.32 Strategic Policy 20 states the uses required within the proposals map schedule (Appendix 3) must be included within any development on sites designated on the proposals map. Planning permission may be granted for other acceptable uses within this schedule, provided that development for the uses required is, has been, or is thereby, secured. Temporary planning permission may be granted to allow good use to be made of a vacant site prior to the commencement of a permanent scheme.
Page 7
6.4 6.4.1
Consultation comments A series of consultations on the shortlisted sites were held with London local authorities, statutory and other pan-London stakeholders during July to September 2009 and January to March 2010. This section summarises factual comments that have been made by consultees, and which have informed the SSR assessments. London Borough of Lewisham
6.4.2
The council raised the issue of considering what is left onsite during and after the construction period. English Heritage
6.4.3
English Heritage advised that the site is associated with a listed building and deep archaeological issues. Environment Agency
6.4.4
No comment. Port of London Authority
6.4.5
The Port of London Authority stated that there are no unique concerns associated with the site. Transport for London
6.4.6
No comment. Other statutory consultees
6.4.7 6.5 6.5.1
No comment. Planning comments There are several planning designations and policies that are applicable both on and adjacent to the sites. These designations and policies have been identified and described in Section 6.3 and of these designations, those relating to nature conservation, heritage, riverside policies, air quality, residential amenity and development proposals are of most relevance to the proposed development. The proposal site is within the River Thames, a designated site of importance for nature conservation. This is a strategic designation, covering the entire river. Given the extensive nature of this designation and the purpose of the Thames Tunnel Project to improve the environmental condition of the river, on balance, and with appropriate mitigation, the construction works should not result in unacceptable development. However, a detailed assessment of the likely impacts is included in Section 7. Plant machinery and screening boards required during construction are likely to obscure some views of the river. There may also be reduced access along the river frontage adjacent to the working area throughout the construction period. This would be contrary to the aims of the Thames Policy Area and area of special character designations and would require mitigation. The construction works and remaining onsite after-use structures should not be of a height or scale to result in overly prominent development, in terms of obstructing the strategic viewing corridor of St Pauls Cathedral. The site is located within a wider air quality management area. Policy 3.6 seeks to prevent development that would lead to a reduction in air quality. Mitigation would be required to ensure the construction works did not lead to a reduction in air quality within the designated
6.5.2
6.5.3
6.5.4
6.5.5
Page 8
area, in accordance with Policy 3.6. A further assessment on this consideration has been made in Section 7. 6.5.6 The site falls within a designated archaeological priority zone. The appropriate level of site investigation should be agreed with the LPA in accordance with policies URB21 and 3.19. Further appraisal of the archaeological potential on the site is provided in Section 7 of this report. The nearest residential properties are located 15m away from the western boundary of the site, about 35m to 40m from the small CSO main working area and 15m from the large CSO working area. The separation distance in the case of the small CSO may be considered sufficient to safeguard against impacts on residential amenity. However, some mitigation for noise, dust and traffic movements may still be required. However, the proximity and scale of works proposed for the larger CSO site are likely to have more of an impact on the adjacent properties, particularly in terms of visual amenity and outlook from the dwellings towards the river, in order to comply with policies HSG4, ENV.PRO9 and ENV.PRO11. In either case, the hours of operation of the construction works may also be restricted to those normally operated within residential areas, which are typically 8am to 6pm during weekdays, 9am to 1pm on Saturdays and not at all on Sundays. The site is adjacent to a Grade II listed parish boundary stone. With appropriate mitigation, it is unlikely that use of the site would unacceptably impact on the listed feature in terms of setting. A more detailed heritage assessment is made in Section 7 of this report.
6.5.7
6.5.8
6.5.9
6.5.10 The South Dock Marina boatyard is located to the northwest of the site and is allocated as a strategic policy proposals site for uses associated with a boatyard and/or other uses within classes A1, A3 and A4. The current status of the redevelopment of the site is uncertain at this stage, since there are no records of planning applications submitted for the site. However, it is unlikely that use of the foreshore would have an unacceptable impact on this land allocation. 7 7.1 7.1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL APPRAISAL Introduction The following sections summarise specialist assessments which are provided in Appendix 9 Environmental Appraisal Tables. Transport The site is suitable as a small or large CSO site, albeit requiring the construction of a new access onto St Georges Square car park (leading to Calypso Way) through an existing wall from the foreshore. Several bollards would require removing. The potential road access route to the TLRN (A200) is possible, but does contain traffic calming (speed cushions) and passes through a residential area. The access route to the old London Bridge rail site is also possible, although this requires the removal of a raised crossing on St Jamess Road. However, rail transport is unlikely to be required due to the small volumes of excavated material produced by a CSO site. The site is located in the river and therefore allows for direct river access. This is not essential for a CSO site. There is a low possibility for the workforce to utilise public transport to access the site and while no parking could be provided onsite, unrestricted parking is available within the adjacent car park, as well as on surrounding roads. Archaeology Based on current information, this site is suitable for use as a small or large CSO site because no archaeological receptors have been identified. However, it is possible that archaeological receptors of high or medium value could be located on or near the site and further investigation would be required.
7.2 7.2.1
7.2.2
7.2.3
7.3 7.3.1
Page 9
7.3.2
While no direct evidence has been revealed, peat deposits containing archaeological material may be present at depth. These have been commonly recorded throughout London in a similar proximity to the River Thames. Given the location of the site, and wider evidence for historical occupation along the river, it is a reasonable assumption to suggest that waterlogged remains of archaeological value may be present. Built heritage and townscape This site is less suitable for use as a small or large CSO site. Although it would result in relatively few impacts upon the built historic environment, it has the potential to have an adverse impact upon the character of the local townscape and the River Thames and its frontage during both construction and operation. Opportunities to mitigate such impacts are limited, due to the location of the site. Other potential effects would be restricted to indirect impacts upon the setting of four Grade II listed structures and these impacts could be mitigated through the implementation of a high-quality scheme design and/or screening. Water resources hydrogeology and surface water In terms of hydrogeology, this site is suitable for use as either a small or large CSO site because although the construction of the drop shaft would take place within Chalk (major aquifer), the site does not lie within the 400-day capture zones of licensed abstractions. No long-term impact on the Chalk aquifer is expected, although dewatering of the Chalk and Thanet Sand would be required during the construction phase. The Chalk piezometric head is likely to be approximately 37 metres above the base of construction and should be taken into account in the engineering design. The superficial deposits are alluvium, which is classified as a non-aquifer at the shaft site. Therefore, no impact is expected at shallow depth. In terms of surface water resources, this site is less suitable as a small or large CSO site because the work is to be undertaken within the channel of the River Thames. As such, specific mitigation would be required to prevent pollution. Ecology This site is less suitable for use as a small or large CSO site. Due to the requirement for temporary and permanent land-take from the River Thames, the site has heightened sensitivity. There may also be a need for offsite mitigation/compensation solutions, as well as potentially arduous post-works restoration requirements. Flood risk This site is less suitable for use as a small or large CSO site because it requires specific mitigation to protect it from flood levels. This has the potential to cause displacement with respect to the working areas being in the river and could increase flood risk elsewhere locally. Air quality This site is less suitable for use as a small or large CSO site, due to the shaft location being in close proximity to residences on Enterprize Way. During construction, there is potential for fugitive emissions of dust to have a perceptible impact at these properties. These impacts could be minimised with standard dust control measures. There is potential for HGV movements on the local road network to cause localised air quality impacts in areas of already poor air quality. This could be somewhat mitigated by minimising the movement of HGVs during peak hours.
7.4 7.4.1
7.4.2
7.5 7.5.1
7.5.2
7.6 7.6.1
7.7 7.7.1
7.8 7.8.1
7.8.2
Page 10
7.9 7.9.1
Noise This site is less suitable for use as a small or large CSO site because distances between the site and the nearest residential receptors are relatively short. Therefore, adverse noise and vibration impacts are likely. There is also a fairly high density of residential dwellings around the site. The number of vehicles associated with the construction phase is anticipated to be relatively high and is likely to cause an adverse noise impact to properties located on Plough Road and other residential streets. Perimeter hoarding would reduce potential noise impact but would be relatively ineffective at shielding noise from the upper floor properties at the nearest residential dwellings. Land quality
7.9.2
7.10
7.10.1 The site is suitable for use as both a small or large CSO site as it is directly adjacent to the River Thames, where no contaminating activities appear to have occurred. The distance and direction of potentially contaminating activities to the site is unlikely to have resulted in significant contamination. 8 8.1 8.1.1 SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT Socio-economic profile The site is within the Surrey Docks ward of Lewisham. Statistics from the Office of National Statistics (ONS) 2001 Census data show the following indicators for the ward, in comparison to the rest of Lewisham, London and England as a whole: Higher rate of economically active, aged people that are full-time employees, with a corresponding lower proportion of unemployed people. A higher proportion having achieved Level 4 or 5 educational qualifications and a corresponding high proportion of people in managerial or professional occupations. A higher proportion of privately rented households. A higher proportion of people aged between 20 and 44. A high proportion of people born in the UK and a higher proportion of white British people compared to the borough or London. 8.1.2 These statistics indicate people in this area are largely highly educated working professionals. Issues and impacts Due to the engineering requirements for either a large or small CSO site in this location, the greatest potential impact from a community perspective appears likely to be the loss of the viewing area extending into the River Thames. The memorial plaque located on this platform is likely to be of importance to the local community. It also appears likely that the local residents, especially those in Deptford Wharf, which is adjacent to the southwest of the site, are likely to be affected by the noise and visual disturbance from the site. The level of disturbance to residential properties is likely to be significantly greater if the site is used for a large CSO, as the works would be positioned closer to some of the properties. The Thames Path, which runs along the western boundary of the site, is also likely to be disrupted. The boatyard to the northwest of the site may be affected by the noise from the site and access to and from the river may be potentially restricted. Workers at the boatyard may face some disruption.
8.2 8.2.1
8.2.2
8.2.3 8.2.4
Page 11
9 9.1 9.1.1 9.1.2
PROPERTY ASSESSMENT Introduction The site comprises part of the foreshore of the River Thames off St Georges Square (a small public square situated in-between residential flats and houses) and a boatyard. The site is under consideration as both a small and large CSO site, the principal difference between the two options being the size of the temporary construction site, while the operational phase works are common to both options. From a property perspective, the assessment principles are effectively the same, but comment will be made on specific options in the following sections as appropriate. The site and surrounding area was visited by Lambert Smith Hampton on 28th July 2009. From the land referencing exercise carried out by Mouchel, the owner of site C31XA is unknown but is believed to be Crown Land administered by the PLA. Planning enquiries reveal no recent planning history. Crown Land and Special Land comments The site forms part of the River Thames and will therefore either be Crown Land, Special Land, or both. Access from the public highway will cross Special Land in the form of St Georges Square. Prior to selection of the site, the responsible authorities will need to be consulted in order to establish whether or not there are any fundamental issues arising which may prejudice the practicability of using the land. Assuming there is co-operation from the PLA and/or Crown and the local authorities, there should theoretically be no risk to the project. However, if any of these bodies raises justifiable objections to the selection of this site, this would add significant risk to the project and consequently result in substantial delays, with no measurable timescale for resolving and overcoming the objections. The project involves construction of a permanent structure within the river, to which the PLA may object on navigational grounds. The land is also open space and may therefore be designated as Special Land under Section 19 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981. If this is the case and an acquisition cannot be agreed, a special parliamentary procedure may be required before a Compulsory Purchase Order is confirmed, with the attendant risk of delay to the project programme. Land to be acquired The compensation assessment assumes that the worksite and access to it would be acquired temporarily, via the acquisition of new rights for the period of the works stated in the engineering section above. At the end of the works, a smaller area would need to be acquired permanently. For both site options, the operational phase would require an area measuring approximately 20m into the river by 22m along the frontage, comprising an extension to the existing river wall, with permanent access leading from St Georges Square. The site is currently accessible from the public square and no allowance has therefore been made in the assessment of acquisition cost for rights of way or easements. Property valuation comments Compensation for the acquisition of new rights is normally based on the diminution in value to the land caused by the acquisition. Compensation for the permanent acquisition of land is normally based on market value. However, compensation for the permanent acquisition of unusual types of property, where there is no general market, can be assessed on the basis of the cost of equivalent reinstatement at a new site, but there must be a genuine intention to reinstate. If compensation is assessed on a diminution in value basis for the new rights (temporary occupation during works, access rights during works, access rights for operational Page 12
9.1.3 9.1.4 9.1.5 9.2 9.2.1
9.2.2
9.2.3
9.3 9.3.1
9.3.2
9.3.3
9.4 9.4.1
9.4.2
purposes) and on a market value basis for the permanent acquisition, the costs are likely to be relatively low and therefore acceptable. 9.4.3 The market value of this site would be low, given that it is part of the foreshore and is not occupied by moorings or similar revenue-generating uses. Disturbance compensation comments There is no sign of any occupation or use on this site. Until consultations with the relevant authorities and the Crown have been conducted, it is difficult to establish the operational impact the site may have on navigation in the river and mooring. The current assumption is that the extent of the disturbance would be limited and that any such costs would not be material in the assessment of this site. The proposed temporary access would cross land in public ownership which is currently used as public open space. Offsite statutory compensation comments The site is overlooked by riverside apartments/houses and, in both site options, access is likely to be via the adjacent public square, leading inevitably to some disruption to the public and local residents. The access route would need careful consideration and every effort should be made to mitigate the effects of such a major construction site by controlling, as far as possible, noise, dust, lighting, etc. The risk of significant statutory claims being established under either Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 or Section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 as a direct result of this site being selected is considered to be low. Site acquisition cost assessment The acquisition cost is currently considered to be relatively low for both site options. SITE CONCLUSIONS BY DISCIPLINE Introduction
9.5 9.5.1
9.5.2
9.6 9.6.1
9.6.2
9.7 9.7.1 10 10.1
10.1.1 The conclusions presented in this section are drawn from each disciplines assessment, and are designed to inform the workshop where a final conclusion on whether the site moves forward as one of the preferred sites or not. 10.2 Engineering Large CSO site 10.2.1 This site is suitable as a large CSO site because it would be of adequate size and would have good vehicular access. The site would be in close proximity to the assumed alignment of the main tunnel. There would be no requirement for demolition except possibly part removal of St Georges stairs. Small CSO site 10.2.2 As the site is suitable as a large CSO site, it is also suitable as a small CSO site. 10.2.3 Whether a large or small CSO site would be appropriate or not for the interception of the Earl Pumping Station CSO would be considered at the next stage, in conjunction with the drive strategy that is developed in the Engineering Options Report.
Page 13
10.3
Planning Large CSO site
10.3.1 The site is considered less suitable for a large CSO site. 10.3.2 There are a number of applicable planning and environmental designations affecting the site. Although mitigation should reduce any potential adverse impacts arising from the construction works, the proximity of residential properties to the larger worksite and likely impact on views towards the river mean that this site is considered less suitable. Small CSO site 10.3.3 It is considered that the site is suitable for a small CSO site. 10.3.4 On balance, with appropriate mitigation to avoid unacceptable impacts on nature conservation, air quality, residential amenity and built heritage, the site is considered suitable for a small CSO site. 10.4 Environment
10.4.1 Overall, the site may be suitable as either a small or a large CSO site, although mitigation would be required to enable the site to be used for either purpose. 10.4.2 Based on current information, the site is suitable for both site sizes from the perspectives of transport, archaeology, water resources (hydrogeology) and land quality. 10.4.3 This site is considered less suitable for both site sizes from the perspective of built heritage and townscape, water resources (surface water), ecology, flood risk, air quality and noise. 10.4.4 Overall, the site may be suitable, subject to further investigation of whether built heritage and townscape, surface water, ecology, flood risk, air quality and noise impacts could be mitigated. Likely mitigation considerations would include the following: Built heritage and townscape careful consideration of the site layout and a high-quality scheme design and/or screening of the site to minimise adverse impacts on the Grade II listed structures, local townscape, River Thames and its frontage. Flood risk and surface water mitigation to reduce flood risk to the worksite and elsewhere (loss of capacity) and specific mitigation to reduce the impacts of in-river working. Ecology mitigation for foreshore habitats. Air quality measures to ensure dust is adequately mitigated for the closest receptors. Noise standard noise barriers are unlikely to be entirely effective and other techniques may be required to reduce construction noise to acceptable levels. 10.5 Socio-economic and community Large CSO site 10.5.1 From a community impacts perspective, this site appears less suitable for use as a large CSO site. Use of the site appears likely to lead to the loss of a viewing area which extends into the river, and a significant impact on users of the adjacent Thames Path and residential properties in Deptford Wharf. Mitigation may involve discussions around minimising noise disturbance and potentially limiting working hours. 10.5.2 The memorial plaque located on the viewing platform may be of importance to the local community. Mitigation may involve discussions around relocation of the plaque to avoid damage during the works and to ensure it can still be seen by the community.
Page 14
10.5.3 The boatyard may be affected by the noise from the site and the works may potentially impact on access to and from the river. Mitigation may involve discussions around access to the river. 10.5.4 The after-use structure should ensure public access is available to an extended viewing area. Small CSO site 10.5.5 From a community impacts perspective, this site appears suitable for use as a small CSO site. Use of the site appears likely to lead to the loss of viewing area which extends into the river and some impact on users of the adjacent Thames Path and residential properties in Deptford Wharf. Mitigation may involve discussions around minimising noise disturbance and potentially limiting working hours. 10.5.6 The memorial plaque located on the viewing platform may be of importance to the local community. Mitigation may involve discussions around relocation of the plaque to avoid damage during the works and to ensure it can still be seen by the community. 10.5.7 The boatyard appears less likely to be affected by the noise from the site due to the smaller scale works, although works could potentially still impact on access to and from the river. Mitigation may involve discussions around access to the river. 10.5.8 The after-use structure should ensure public access is available to an extended viewing area. 10.6 Property
10.6.1 The site is considered suitable for use as either a small or large CSO site option at an acceptable acquisition cost, given that in both cases, the site is wholly within the foreshore.
Page 15
Site Suitability Report C31XA Appendices
APPENDICES
Page 16
Site Suitability Report C31XA Appendix 1
APPENDIX 1 SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Engineering Traffic Management and Access Roads/Rail Scott Wilson Access River BMT Third Parties (Shafts/CSOs) Mott MacDonald and AECOM Geology Thames Water Utilities Thames Water and AECOM Construction and Operational Layout Template London Tideway Tunnels Background Technical Paper London Tideway Tunnels Planning London Borough of Lewisham and Southwark online planning applications databases Saved policies in the Lewisham Unitary Development Plan, adopted in July 2004 and the Southwark Unitary Development Plan, adopted in July 2007
Environment Transport Map of Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) - www.tfl.gov.uk Bus Route Maps: North-east, north-west, south-west, south-east - www.tfl.gov.uk Crossrail Plans - www.crossrail.co.uk/crossrail-bill-documents PTAL scores - Obtained from Table 2.3 information Thames Path map - www.walklondon.org.uk Capital Ring - www.walklondon.org.uk Cycle Routes - www.sustrans.org.uk and Local Cycling Guides, 1-14 Design Manual for Roads and Bridge TD 42/95, Highways Agency Built heritage and townscape National Monuments Record - for some additional information regarding registered historic parks and gardens Unitary development plans Local authority websites Bing maps Water resources hydrogeology and surface water Environment Agency abstraction licence details Environment Agency groundwater levels Local authority details of unlicensed abstractors Environment Agency Flood Map www.environment-agency.gov.uk Envirocheck
Appendix 1 - Page 1
Ecology Thames Estuary Partnership (2002) Tidal Thames Habitat Action Plan London Biodiversity Action Plan - www.lbp.org.uk Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) www.magic.gov.uk - statutory designated sites London Wildweb - http://wildweb.london.gov.uk - non-statutory site of importance for nature conservation Black redstart distribution in London - www.blackredstarts.org.uk/pages/ londonmap.html National Biodiversity Network - http://searchnbn.net - distribution of protected species Google Maps - aerial views of habitat features BAP habitats - www.natureonthemap.org.uk Priority habitats and species on national and local scales - www.ukbap.org.uk Flood risk Environment Agency Flood Map www.environment-agency.gov.uk Envirocheck Air quality Local authority websites www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/default.asp?la_id=&showbulletins=&width=1680 www.airquality.co.uk Noise Envirocheck - Identification of receptors Promap - Calculation of distances between site and receptors Multimap - Aerial photography www.multimap.co.uk Defra noise maps - Identification of existing noise levels Land quality Google Maps/Earth Site walkover information
Socio-economic and community Statistics from the Office of National Statistics (ONS) 2001 Census data Lewisham Homes - www.lewishamhomes.org.uk/sitemap.html and www.lewishamhomes.org.uk/about-lewisham-homes.html Lewisham Strategic Partnership - www.lewishamstrategicpartnership.org.uk/ partnerships.asp Pepys Community Forum - www.urbandesigncompendium.co.uk/ thepepyscommunityforum St. Georges Square Improvements - www.lewishamhomes.org.uk/editpics/13441.pdf Appendix 1 - Page 2
Property Site visit Promap, Ordnance Survey and A-Z mapping Multimap/Google Earth aerial/satellite photographs Valuation Office Agency rating lists and summary valuations Focus and EGi Mouchel referencing
Appendix 1 - Page 3
APPENDIX 2 SITE LOCATION PLAN
Appendix 2 - Page 1
FI D
EN
TI AL
Area of Main Map
AF T
&
Legend
Local Authority Boundary
SOUTHWARK
Short Listed CSO Sites
# *
CS31X Earl Pumping Station CSO
TOWER HAMLETS
! (
CSO (Directly Controlled) Pumping Station
! (
C31XA
# * Earl Pumping Station

0 50 100
200 Metres 300 400
Mapping reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. (c) Crown copyright and database right 2009. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100019345 CH2M HILL accept no responsibility for any circumstances, which arise from the reproduction of this map after alteration, amendment or abbreviation or if it issued in part or issued incomplete in any way.
LEWISHAM
Map Ref : .......101PL-SS-01043 Date : .............2009/11/26 Projection : .....British National Grid
Thames Water Utilities

MAJOR PROJECTS
The Point, 7th Floor, 37 North Wharf Road, Paddington, London W2 1AF
GREENWICH
Title:
APPENDIX 2 C31XA SITE SITE LOCATION PLAN
APPENDIX 3 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT PLANS
Appendix 3 - Page 1
d Bon in g
NO R WA
Y ard
TI AL
1 to 24
12
Pond Weir
21 to
59
10
VE R GULLI STR EET

63
GUL L
IV E R
ST
RE
1 to 24
ET
# * # * * # * #
9
* # * # * #
LB
# * # *
DO
* # * # * #
1 4
* # * #
2.2 m Ship and Whale

(PH)
Lo we
Ran da
es r Od
ar sa Wh
94
ATE YG
Wa
36
to
FB
EN
TE RE
ST RE E T
T he Quebec Curve
RE
DR
IF
RO
AD
61 59 60
62
18
16
31
FI D
1 to
El Sub Sta
46 39 to
16
5. 4m
1 to
W ML
142
1 to
78
84
132
Rus sell Plac e

6
PH
23 17 to 1 to 16 30 24 to
37 Co nd 31 to Ala
ur t
44 38 to
MLW
&
122
AF T
21
112
to
114 120
Bol Cn
Tavistock Tower
Cn Bol
Bol
Lan
d in
ta gS
ge
20
39 31 to
MHW
10
Bol
Ch
FB dge g Bri (S win
Bol Bol Bol

Ste
71 67 to 66 62 to
72
Lan ding Stage
Sw e
25 21 to
dis
a h Qu
ys
35 31 to
to 61
56
80 to 84
11 1 to
96
1 to
10
97
to 41
42
36
55 to 89 90 92 50 93 95 85
Lan ding Stage Bascule Bri dge Cn
Bol lards
15 to 20
South Dock (Ma rina )

Cn Bol lards
Lan ding Stage
14
47 1 4 9
5
5.6 m
* #
Sand
55
69 68
* # * # * #
Crane
Sports Centre
* #
* #
TCP
South Dock (Marina)
RO
PE
ST
RE
ET
Lan ding Stages
Hor nblower Close
RO
74
PE
ST
RE
ET
Mud
Und
South Dock (Marina)

SW
St George's Wharf
14
15
13
5
25
23 21
29 31
1 to
AY
20
4. 8m
37
35
Caroni a Court
61
7.0 m
24
17
63 49 to
1 to
39
Nursery
CH
p De
8 10 to 13 6
26 to 34
Ps
ON I LT
ot
79
1 to
Works
El Sub Sta
15
245 t o 273
20
23
4. 4m
248
69
CH
57
16
1 to 8
6t o8
40 to
1. 9m
31
16
25
26
! * # ! * #
Merry Cri cketers (P H)
!
BE R ST ST
Protected/Strategic Views ! ! !
8 to 23
30
Crofters Court
El Sub Sta
23
13
Ma rathon House
TC B
Vi
27
Playgrou nd
EE
1 to 8
Be 1 nc to 53 e Ho us e
Depot
SA
PP
67
H IR
BA
RF
LE
UR
B Ho e n c u se e
PP
H IR
1 to
96
RO
14
Court
Crandle y
Games Court
1 to
Riv e rs ide Youth C lub
2 to
14
Da
u be
ne
w To
er
R IV
21 to 29
LL
56
13
28
11
!
16
Trin 1 to ity 9 C ou rt
C LA
YT
39
to
22
ON
36 to 51
11
42
! !
! !
21
185 t o 195
Depot
Fr ob Co is he ur r t
1 to
to
Depot
Areas of Opportunity
14
1
2.1 m
5.5 m 7.0 m
80
OX E S TAL
L S R OA D
1 to 6 Ra Co le ig ur h t
2. 0m
1 to
85
1 to Co 6 Co ok ur t
De ptf Pri ord m Pa ary rk Sc ho ol
!
O X E S TA
!
Cro wn Wh arf
BO
DI
T CH
15
SA
1 to
26
24
18
97
to
10
Strategic View Wider Consultation Zone

! ! ! ! !
1 to 53
!
de n Ho us e
!
1 to 53
30
1 to
80
Gra ns de n Hous e
16
RO
to
Eddysto ne Tower
2. 1m
to
45
LA
31
Air Quality Management Area

1
NE
to
60
Co m m u n it y C
en t r e
46
2.0 m
Play
l5 to 20
RA
IN
SB
RO
UG
gr
nd ou
Crandley C ourt
1 to 96
Co m m u n it y C en t r e
* #
89 to 96
E AV
10
men Cle
to
9 to 14
UE
88
Development Sites
E
1 to
3 to 4
53
o us tH
Jame s Lind Hous e
!
1 to
n Ho
87
Po st
5 to 10
LY
to
73
FB
!
64
FO
RE
!
1 to 12 ar le Ho us e
S HO
Pe py s Park
b em Al
!
Pe py s P a rk
66
EV
se
RE
6 to
o n 12 a H ou
to
Cl ini c
LO
to 72
Po
58
Defined Employment Area ! ! !

35
1.9 m
Pe
n de
1 to
n ni
os Arg
NG
S HO
RE
57
53
1 to
to
53
yH
43
* #
Proposals Sites
y sl
11
Ha ze lw 1 oo to 90 d Ho
us e
22
1 to
31
Chy
Cannon Wharf Business Centre
to 18
13
1. 4m
33
25
to
10
WB
Gro ve Medical Centre Gro ve Medical Centre
!
El Sub Sta
!
o us sH e
18
23
24
to 29
31
Me lv ille Court
Regeneration Areas
9 to
43
26
1t o6 Lim e Tree House
12
34
!
16
!
14
41t o53
231
Saw Mill
Works
36
T ank
CA
RT
E RE
AY
12
!
Al lotment Gardens
!
LB 3. 0m
23
!
5
1 to
Th
e Co
lo n
na
de
6 to 8
El Sub Sta
!
W I ND L AS
P LA
CE
1 to 53
!
FB
WI NDL AS
S P LA CE
2. 5m
Lan ya r d
H ous e
Lan ya rd
1 to 53 H ou se
1 to 53 Bem b ri d ge Ho u se
!
FB
se ou
Ha rm
26
24
14
2 to 12
! Policy ! Area Thames

O FT M EW S
56
CR
46
46
FT
1 to 15
48
38
O I LT
2 to
RO
VE
Legend
30
2
Depo t
Linberry Walk
238
1 to 11
13
23
35
51 37 to
1 to
2 to
!
Depot
El Sub Sta
!
S TR E ET
!
52
!
64 to 78
!
GRO V E S TRE E T
!
JOD ANE RO AD
19
23
4 to 11
12 to 17
12 to 17
WB
1 to
15
17
19
27
to
39
ROAD
1 to 3
17
KE
MPTH ORNE
to 31
KE M P TH
ORN E
1 to
R OA D
260
TA RR
IF F
CR
ES
CE
NT
67 53 to
us e Ho in g me ) Fl em g Ho rsin (Nu
El Sub Sta
!
1 to Th e Te 20 ce
LO NG S HO RE
r ra
!
1 to
10
10 11
12
G RO
16
VE
91
36
24
!
Em pi
1 to
!
es Fr
1 to
!
70 to
1. 4m
Pu
tio rl Ea S ta ng pi
Depot
El Sub Sta
47 33 to
2a 1a 21a 11a 41a 31a
1 to
280
T anks
Hoc kett Clo se
Hoc kett
Cl o se
2. 7m
270
1 to
11
# * Earl Station ! Pumping ! !

AN ST RE ET
15
13
2b 1b 21b 4a 11b 41b 3a 22a 31b 12a 42a 32a us e a Ho Jur 30
16
32
41 27 to
CA
PS
!
20
18
2 to
57 43 to
25
23
19
10
40 to 48
22c 42c 12c 21d 32c 3c 41d 11d 4c 31d 2d 1d
18
49
Ju r
ou a H
se
Plough Bridge
Marine Wharf
TA N
R OA
18
10
50 68
22d 42d 12d 32d 3d 4d
!
21c 41c 11c 31c 1c 2c
2.1 m
58 76
65
!
YE OM
!
282
19
67
151
153
66 84
71
TCP
Ice la nd Wharf
3
Posts
155
157
St.
20
Ge
75
1 to
86
to 12
ard Cun
Wa l
LI GH
TE R
C LO
SE
167
16 9
Posts
4
7
3.5 m
290
or ge
ew 's M
16
11
73
21
1 to 69
171
* #
* #
* #
1 to
81
!
20
11 12
LB
12
83
173
175
1. 9m
El Sub Sta
Posts
320
302
33
81
183
Posts
314
!
1 to 15
20
27
19 17
ar Cun d Wa lk
91
1 to 11
* #
Carin thi a Court
16
93
357
25
26 27
Cab
to 13
u l e Co
rt
* # !
PL O UG H
Tav
# * !
5. 4m
e rn
ua y
Lan
13
GR
EE
N LA
10
Trafa lgar Close
15
80
ND
QU
AY
11
1 7 3
Swedish Yard
Baltic Quay
Mulhe rry Quay
Sta ding
ges
4. 9m
5 4
209
CF
3
2
193
BOAT
LI FT
ER
WA
!
rt Cou
!
TR A
189 191
# * !
195
CR
PL O
UG
H WA
* #
Und
Und
* #
EK
Bor
, GL Co nst
As ly
Const
Po s
ts
ST GEORGE'S SQU ARE
Po s
ts
* # !
ts
& LB
Bdy
C31XA
Dol phin
! (
Mud
!
and
1 to
* #
!
Dol phin
!
T er Riv
Lim o eh
!
As ns t ly Co & LB Bdy
16
DE
P TF
O RD
WH
A RF
!
1 to 6
!
le i ng d Sh d an Mu
2 12
!
AD
GE
O RG
EA EB
RD
RO
Aragon Towe r
LEWISHAM
steps
!
De pt
steps
MLW
Posts
!
63
Posts
Library
!
W ML
!
Gre
!
ro Bo Co ns t, G LA
CC LW
!
C sly st on
4. 7m
Posts
5
3
7 to
69
!
MLW Posts Post
!
Mud d an
4. 5m
!
Playground
!
Riv
lla Bo rd
lla Bo rd
!
G re er en T w es h am e a ch R h ic
4.6 m
Bol lard
!
h W at er
53
81
86
37
GR
1 to
36
!
GR
!
30
EE
N LA
ND
QU
43
AY
50
49
48
Greenl an d Dock (dis)
51
GR
EE
N LA
ND
QU
AY
*! #
* !#
# * !
E DE ATE N G
CS31X * # * Station # * * # ! Pumping ! ! # ! Earl CSO

4. 7m Lan ding Stages Bol lard
* #
* #
4.9 m
South Dock
(Mari na)
Jetties
t o 327
to 77
1 to 98
Cn Bol lard
gl e
Mud
Mud Bol lard
4.9 m
South Dock Lock
Bol
s lard
Cn Bol lard
Sli pway
Mud Shin gle
3.8 m
! * # * #
St George's Wha rf
As , GL Co nst nst ly Co & LB
Und
!
Bdy
TOWER HAMLETS
! !
!
1 to 53
Boro
Montcalm House
Montcalm House
21
10
22
310
11
BR
1 to
UN
S WI
CK
10
Q UA
SOUTHWARK
Greenlan d Do ck
1 to
1 to
10
to 61
RA
I NB
51
OW
1 to
10
Q UA
Do cks
1 to 1 to 10
11 101
100
ST RE ET
10 1 to 99
RO
PE
31
41
Surrey Commercial
1 to
1 to
10
42
Surrey Commercial Docks
11
29
RA
1 to
50
to
52
60
I NB
Q UA OW
25
96 104 to
106
7 to
19
13
Statue
4 5
Marin a
Lan ding Stag e
Bol
1 to
19
Pr ince 's Court

32 to 55
Gre enla nd Doc k (Ma rina )

Y
Mud
1 to 61
1 to
S WI BR UN
CK
lards
Arn hem W harf
86 to 92
* #
* #
BR UN S WI CK
* #
72
11
QUAY
Fin
lan d
Qu a
Bol Cn
Bols
W ML
Me an H ig h W ater
64 to 70
29 28
117
5. 4m
127
121
* #
2 to 6 8
Q UA
EE N LA ND QU AY
# *
i ck nsw Bru se Hou
* #
182
144 to 154
184 t o194
198
* #
El Sub Sta
17
18
Fin
FB
67 52 to
lan d
Lan
ding
e Stag
Cn
W ML
W ML
Bol lards
180
200 to 210
15 13 to 8 7 to
5 6
3 6
24 19 to
25
26
Qu a
51 45 to
Bol
37 38
156
168 t o 178
32 27 to
FI NL
yE
a st
33 36
AN
5.5 m
s Bol lard
W ML
M LW
166
33
34
RE ST
34 31 to
40 35 to
41
ET
HE
LS I
NK
47
I S QU
27 to 30
16
42
AR
Fi
d nl an
Qu
ay
W ML
MLW
FB
Bol
s lard
Gre enla nd Doc k (disused)
Cn
Bol
5.3 m
50
Bol lard
5. 2m
41 17 to
5. 5m
43
to 55
60
26
61
E ast
22
23
81
# *
ada Can se Hou
1
* #
FB FB
Weir
FB
FB
12
Pond
71
FI NL
AN
T D S
RE
ET
5. 0m
2 1
8 I S QU AR E
Queen Of Denma rk Court

New Atl as W h arf
HE
NK LS I
Me an H ig h W ater
PL
26
2 to
39
QUE B E C WAY
Atla nta se Hou
lk
20
Ru ssia Dock Woodland
nts ll s Re
41 45 to
134
4 2
Pla ygr
136
El Sub Sta
7
al Roy C ou rt
12
d oun
BE RG EN
1 to
30
34
FB
King Fre de rick IX Tower
12
RE SQUA
142
15 to 19
10
3 1
144
13
150
Cn Bol lards
MLW
!
Limehou se Reach
& LB Bdy Boro Co nst, GL Asly Const
!
River Thames
Shingle
Bol
1 to 151
ON EG A GA TE
Lan Sta ding ge
SO UT E H S TR A S EE T
ML W
Bol lard
ARN H
L ACE EM P
MLW
s Bol lard
5.2 m
El Sub Sta
Ar nhe
ar m Wh
a f P rim
ry S c
hoo l
Area of Main Map
CCLW
20 18 to o 12 11 t
5.2 m
54
Legend
f
224
FB
20
m Boo
22 30 32 to 40
!
Gre enla nd Pier
!
's Klein W h ar
Navigation Light
(Fi xed Red )
Bol lards
Bol lard
Sh in
1 to 29
# *
! (
1 to
RA I NB OW
10
el yar d Cu t
Q UA Y
ou se Limeh
Riv er Tha m es
Reach
Sli pw ay
25
50
CA
LY P
SO
100
150
200
W AY
WI ND
1 2
SO CK
DU NN
CL
Metres
OS
AG
25 22 21
E CR ES CE
Po s
EK
DU NN AG
Mapping reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. (c) Crown copyright and database right 2009. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100019345 CH2M HILL accept no responsibility for any circumstances, which arise from the reproduction of this map after alteration, amendment or abbreviation or if it issued in part or issued incomplete in any way. This plan is a strategic and standardised overview based on an interpretation of GIS policy and designation layers provided by affected London local authorities. Please refer to the text in the SSRs for the full planning and environment assessments.
NT
Rus tter hcu rt Cou s
E CR ES CE NT
Ma st
NS OM CL OS
7
8
296
1 to
GR EE N LA ND QU AY
ro Bo Co ns t, GL As ns ly Co t& LB y Bd
42 32
Shi ngle
6 1 to 8 1 to 6 1 to 6
eh ou Lim se Re
ach
h Wat n Hig Mea er
Boro Co ns t, GL
b Sta El Su
CC LW
s me ha
e us
h ac Re
Hu
1 to 24
EN
sb
TE R
o rn
P RI
G ra
1 to 24
e H ou
ZE
ve
WA
ly
1 to
se
H ou se
w ic
23
kH e o us
18
n gh
23
De an sh
am Ho
74
1 to
e
an
u se
1 to
us 23 Ho g er
10
CR
1 to
80 to 90
62
58 to 62
W O OD CR
T er Riv
AC
AC
234
IA
CL
me ha
SE
fo rd
e M
to 40
Stra
lv
ill
e C t
nd
31 7
CR
16 14
Me an High

MAJOR PROJECTS
1 to 42
Wa te r
ro Bo ns Co
ns Co L t&
A L G t, Bdy B
CR
ca
ra
SM
on
&
53
w ic en
LB
Ho
nd P l ac e Go ld en Hi
y Bd
us e
BO W DI T CH
hR
61
ch ea
El
(be
a b St Su ) l ow
Title:
APPENDIX 3A C31XA SITE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT PLAN
Pe li ca
53
u se
le i ng Sh
Ed dy st e To on wer
Pe li ca n Ho
u se
Gra ns
M ud an d S h in
lla Bo s rd
11 6
g le
DW
MI L LA RD RO AD
an Me H ig
TI AL
EN
Legend
Green Corridor/Chains
FI D
Metropolitan Open Land District Park Deficiency Green Space

Area of Main Map
&
Sites of Nature Conservation Importance

! !
AF T
Sites of Metropolitan Nature Conservation Importance Open Space Deficiency Areas

! ! !
Legend
Local Authority Boundary Short Listed CSO Sites CSO (Directly Controlled) Pumping Station
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
SOUTHWARK
Open Spaces
Borough Open Land
# *
! (
Flood Protection Areas
TOWER HAMLETS
25
50
100
150
200
Metres
C31XA
! (

LEWISHAM

MAJOR PROJECTS
Title:
APPENDIX 3B C31XA SITE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT PLAN
Wal ker
n tr e ) (Co m m un i ty Ce
OS
TI AL
Bar k an t in e Ha ll
LO
36
Post
26
27
ODE S S A S T RE E T
1t o116
PL
New C aledonia n Wharf
FA
110
Limeh ou se
River Tham es
3. 1m
Redriff Es tate
1 to 60
RO
Reach
12
78 44 to
EN
36
FI D
1 to 24
12
Pond Weir
21 to
59
10
VE R GULLI STR EET

63
GUL L
IV E R
ST
RE
Ru ssia Dock Woodland
ET
FB
R ED
IF
RO
AD
61 59 60
62
18
16
31
1 to
El Sub Sta
24 to 29
&
46 39 to
i ck nsw Bru se Hou
182
AF T
144 to 154
El Sub Sta
17
18
1 to
184 t o194
W ML
142
198
132
Rus sell Plac e

6
PH
23 17 to 1 to 16 30 24 to
37 Co nd 31 to Ala
ur t
44 38 to
MLW
122
20
112 106
to
114 120
MHW
10
Lan ding Stage
Sw e
25 21 to
dis
a h Qu
ys
35 31 to
to 61
56
66 62 to 80 to 84
Bol
11 1 to 96
1 to
10
97
Bol lard
Mud
Mud
4.9 m
Me an H ig h W ater
Sli pway
to 41
42
36
55 to 89 90 92 50 93 85
Lan ding Stage Bascule Bri dge Cn
Bol lards
South Dock Lock
Bol
s lard
15 to 20
!
Cn
Bol lard
Sli pway
Bol lard
Mud Shin gle
South Dock (Ma rina )

Cn Bol lards
Lan ding Stage
14
47 1
95
3.8 m
Crane
South Dock (Marina)
Sports Centre
9
5
5.6 m
Sli pw
RO
PE
ST
RE
ET
Lan ding Stages
Hor nblower Close

74
RO
ST PE
RE
ET
Mud
Und
South Dock (Marina)

SW
St George's Wharf
9
13
Carin thi a Court 1 to 11
13 1 to e Co u rt l
Cab
Tav
e rn
Q ua
ar Cun
d Wa
lk
1 to
AY
20
4. 8m
1 to
7.0 m
19
151
24
17
16
63 49 to
32
1 to
1 to
39
1. 4m
Pu
tio rl Ea S ta ng pi
Depot
El Sub Sta
47 33 to
280
DE
P TF
O RD
CH
p De
8 10 to 13 6
26 to 34
ON I LT
ot
79
1 to
Works
El Sub Sta
15
245 t o 273
20
23
4. 4m
248
69
19
Depo t
Linberry Walk
238
1 to 11
13
23
35
51 37 to
1 to
57
16
1 to 8
12
9 to
231
43
33
10
WB
Gro ve Medical Centre Gro ve Medical Centre
31
30
El Sub Sta Playgrou nd
23
13
1 to 8
Be 1 nc to 53 e Ho us e
SA
PP
67
H IR
BA
RF
LE
UR
B Ho e n c u se e
PP
H IR
1 to
E RO A D
96
15
SA
9
30
1 to
1 to
80
Gra ns de n Hous e
16
RO
to
Eddysto ne Tower
2. 1m
to
45
LA
31
NE
to
60
Co m m u n it y C
en t r e
46
2.0 m
Play
l5 to 20
RA
IN
SB
RO
UG
AV
gr
nd ou
Crandley C ourt
1 to 96
Co m m u n it y C en t r e
10
EN
men Cle
to
9 to 14
UE
88
1 to
3 to 4
53
o us tH
e
El
Jame s Lind Hous e
87
Po st
5 to 10
LY
to
73
FB
FO
RE
S HO
64
1 to
12 ar
Pe py s Park
b em Al
le
66
EV
se
RE
Ho
6 to
o n 12 a H ou
to
Cl ini c
LO
to 72
Po
58
Pe
n de
1 to
n ni
os Arg
NG
S HO
RE
57
53
1 to
to
53
43
Ha ze lw 1 oo to 90 d Ho
Chy
Cannon Wharf Business Centre

El Sub Sta
us e
o us sH
26
Saw Mill
Works
36
T ank
CA
RT
E RE
AY
12
23
3. 0m
Al lotment Gardens
!! !
1 to
LB
Th
e Co
lo n
na
de
6 to 8
El Sub Sta
WI NDL AS
P LA CE
1 to 53
S P LA CE
2. 5m
1 to 53 ge Ho u se Bem b ri d
I ND
L AS
FB
Lan ya r d
H ous e
Lan ya rd
1 to 53 H ou se
FB
se ou yH
Ha rm
26
24
14
2 to 12
56
CR
46
18
13
to 18
46
FT
1 to 15
48
El Sub Sta
S TR
EE
23
4 to 11
12 to 17
12 to 17
WB
JOD ANE
RO AD
1 to
15
17
19
27
to
39
1 to 3
ORNE KE MPTH ROAD
31 17 to
KE M P TH
ORN E
1 to
R OA D
260
TA RR
IF F
CR
ES
CE
NT
67 53 to
us e Ho in g me ) Fl em g Ho rsin (Nu
!
1 to 20 Th e Te r ra
ce
LO
NG
S HO
RE
10
10
11
12
G RO
16
VE
91
36
El Sub Sta
24
T anks
Hoc kett Clo se
Hoc kett
Cl o se
2. 7m
270
20
18
2 to
16
WH
A RF
El Sub Sta
Me rcury Court
1 to 27
1 to 23
Pose idon Court
Neptune Court
1 to 27
1 to 15
Artem is Court
12
GE
O RG
EA EB
RD
RO
AD
Aragon Towe r
LEWISHAM
steps
to 17
1 to
11

AN ST RE ET
41 27 to
CA
PS
57 43 to
Plough Bridge
Marine Wharf
18
TA N
R OA
18
25
153
23
19
15
10
13
22
23
24
to 29
18
66 84
TCP
Ice la nd Wharf
3
Posts
155
157
20
LI GH
St.
1 to
TE R
Ge
75
C LO
SE
167
16 9
Posts
3.5 m
290
or ge
ew 's M
11
po
73
171
88
21
llo
1 to 69
81
to
LB
12
in ild
83
173
175
1. 9m
El Sub Sta
Posts
320
302
81
183
Posts
314
91
93
PL
UG
5. 4m
BOAT
LI FT
ER
WA
Mulhe rry Quay

4
193
H WA Y
Und
EK Und
Bor
GL nst, o Co
As ly
Const
& LB
54 in g 1 to il d Bu va 3 No
357
Lan
86
to 12
80
11
1 7 3
Swedish Yard
Baltic Quay
Sta ding
ges
4. 9m
209
CF
195
Bdy
CR
PL O
UG
Po s
ts
C31XA
Dol phin
189
191
ST GEORGE'S SQU ARE
Po s
ts
Dol phin
16
11
12
MLW
steps
Posts
Posts
Library
! ! ! !
4. 7m Posts
7 to
69
MLW
Posts
Post
us
4. 5m
1 to
53
69
68
55
51
GR
EE
N LA
ND
QU
AY
Sand
TCP
CS31X Earl Pumping! Station CSO ! ! (

4. 7m Lan ding Stages Bol lard
4.9 m
St George's Wha rf
South Dock
(Mari na)
Jetties
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
1 to
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Boro
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
As , GL Co nst
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
nst ly Co
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Und
& LB
Bdy
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
TOWER HAMLETS
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Playground
Pos
ts
1 to 53
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! Montcalm House ! Montcalm ! House ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

1 to 53
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Posts
Sub Sta
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Ps El
Ps
Montrose Hou se
Mo n
tro se
Ho us
12
17
GA V
E RI
CK
ME
WS
El Sub Sta
Car P ark
Orion P oint
1 to 101
71 67 to
72
t o 327
to 77
1 to 98
Cn
gl e
21
10
22
310
Bol
Bol lards
Sh in
Bol
10 1 to 99
RO
PE
1 to 29
12
15
Bol
Ch
!
Ste
FB dge g Bri (S win
10
1 to
11
Greenlan d Do ck
1 to
10
RA
I NB
OW
1 to
10
Q UA
3
11
Do cks
1 to 10 1 to
11 101
100
ST RE ET
31
Surrey Commercial
1 to
1 to
10
Surrey Commercial Docks

5
Gre enla nd Pier
's Klein
W h ar
f
WA TE
1
122
11
RA
t o 126
1 to
I NB
OW
25
Q UA
104
SOUTHWARK
!
Bol Cn
Tavistock Tower
1 to
7 to
13
Statue
4 5
Marin a
Lan ding Stag e
lar Bol
1 to
19
1 to 61
ds
Arn hem W harf
Fin
lan d
Qu a
Bol Cn
Bols
W ML
Gre enla nd Doc k (disused)
5.2 m
Cn
Bol
5.3 m
!
50
Me an H ig h W ater
200 to 210
15 13 to 8 7 to
67 52 to
51 45 to
Bol
!
FB
Fin
lan d
Lan
16
ding
e Stag
Cn
W ML
Bol lards
180
24 19 to
Qu a
5.5 m
5 6
Bol
s lard
!
FB Bol lard
W ML
MLW
W ML
ML W
ARN H
L ACE EM P
MLW
s Bol lard
5.2 m
Bol lard
El Sub Sta
m Ar nhe
Wh ar
a f P rim
ry S c
hoo l
54
Cn Bol
Bol
Lan
d in
ta gS
ge
Pr ince 's Court

32 to 55
El Sub Sta

Y
Mud
2.2 m
5. 2m
Depot
Navigation Light
(Fi xed Red ) Bol lard
OL D BE L LG ATE W HARF
1 to 22
Posts
6 to
E a st
Car Par k
1 to
Michigan House
CR
EW
ST
1 to 89 Galax y Building
17
25
El Sub Sta
25
RE
ET
26
37 38
1 4
156
168 t o 178
32 27 to
FI NL
33 36
AN
s Bol lard
W ML
M LW
166
33
34
T D S
RE
18 to 23
34 31 to
40 35 to
41
ET
HE
LS I
NK
47
I S QU
27 to 30
16
42
AR
Fi nl
an d
Qu
ay
41 17 to
5. 5m
55 43 to
60
26
61
E ast
22
23
81
FB FB
Weir
FB
FB
12
Pond
71
FI NL
AN
RE ST
ET
5. 0m
2 1
8 I S QU AR E
Queen Of Denma rk Court
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Cn Bol lards
MLW
Area of Special Character

Bol
New Atl as W h arf
Me an H ig h W ater
PL
26
2 to
39
18 to 23
Water
22
94
to
34
FB
2 to
24
11
Quebec Industrial Estate
28
RO
SQ
H ou se
AD
U AR
36
10
LB
Mud 1.8 m 2.2 m

1 to 24
Legend
EL G AR
34
S T RE
El Sub Sta 1 to 82
12 0
ET
Lo we
sa Od es
Wh ar
Ship and Whale

(PH)
Ran da
nts ll s Re
! Listed Buildings
Sir Joh n McDougal Gardens
Bo wsprit Point
26
Shelter
89 to 133
d Bon in g
130
NO R WA
Y ard
47
12
to
17
1 to
20
132
ATE YG
Wa lk
20
El Sub Sta
7
al Roy C ou rt
12
1 to
30
King Fre de rick IX Tower
Archaeological Areas
1 to 151 3
2.0 m
9 18
41 45 to
134
34
81
50
86
49
48
58 76
4 2
224
ro Bo Co ns
Pla ygr
136
d oun
BE RG EN
Shelter
12
RE SQUA
142
15 to 19
10
3 1
1.7 m
40 30 to
41 to 46
47 to 50
HE
LS I
NK
Shingle
Area of Main Map
144
13
150
CARAVEL C LOSE
1.7 m
Legend
Local Authority Boundary Short Listed CSO Sites CSO (Directly Controlled) Pumping Station
ON EG A GA TE
Lan Sta ding ge
SO UT E H S TR A S EE T
Limehou se Reach
& LB Bdy Boro Co nst, GL Asly Const
River Thames
WE S T FE R RY RO AD
CCLW
20 18 to o 12 11 t
FB
m Boo
# *
7
! (
R IDG OS E CL E
1 to
RA I NB OW
10
el yar d Cu t
Q UA Y
25
50
ou se Limeh
Riv er Tha m es
Reach
100
150
200
Metres
ay
CA
LY P
SO
W AY
WI ND
SO
E DE ATE N G
CK
DU
CL
NN
OS
AG E CR ES CE
Po s
ts
EK
DU NN AG
NT
Rus tter hcu rt Cou s

TR A
E CR ES CE NT
NE WT ON PL
Ma st rt Cou
AC
NS OM CL OS E
7
8
296
1 to 6
Mud
and
42
1 to
t, GL As ns ly Co t& LB y Bd
Shi ngle
eh ou Lim
1 to 8
se Re
32
1 to
ach
h Wat n Hig Mea
Boro
Co
282
ns t, GL
er
As
b Sta El Su
ns t ly Co
CC
YE OM
T er Riv
LW
20
Lim
& LB
o eh
Bdy
me ha
e us
h ac Re
EN TE R P RI ZE WA Y
Aphrodite
1 to
18
1 to 6
1 to 23
Hera Court
Me an
74
CR
62
H ig
1 to
ate hW
10
1 to
80 to 90
64 to 78
GRO V E
52
S TRE E
58 to 62

MAJOR PROJECTS
W O OD CR O FT
M EW S
T er Riv
AC AC IA CL O SE
234
me ha
De
pt fo rd
Stra
nd
16 14
4
Me an High
1 to
42
Wa
te r
Title:
APPENDIX 3C C31XA SITE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT HERITAGE PLAN
W ML
ro Bo
G re
Co ns t, G
en w ic h
LA
Re
C sly
35
1 to 53
a ch
SM
CC
Gre
st on
LW
1 to 53
63
on
&
w ic en
LB
Ho
nd P l ac e Go ld en Hi
y Bd
us e
BO W DI T CH
hR
61
ch ea
(be
a b St Su ) l ow
Pe li ca n Ho
1 to
Mud
53
d an
u se
le i ng Sh
Ed dy st e To on wer
1 to
Pe li ca n
53
Ho u se
APPENDIX 4 PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SITE AND SURROUNDINGS
Appendix 4 - Page 1
FI D
EN
TI AL
Area of Main Map
Legend
AF T
&
SOUTHWARK
# *
C31XA TOWER HAMLETS
! (
! (

0 50 100
200
300
400
Metres
Mapping reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. (c) Crown copyright and database right 2009. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100019345 CH2M HILL accept no responsibility for any circumstances, which arise from the reproduction of this map after alteration, amendment or abbreviation or if it issued in part or issued incomplete in any way.
LEWISHAM

MAJOR PROJECTS
GREENWICH
Title:
APPENDIX 4 C31XA SITE AERIAL PLAN
View of the site within the River Thames foreshore looking southeast.
Appendix 4
100-RG-PNC-C31XA-900001
APPENDIX 5 TRANSPORT PLAN
Appendix 5 - Page 1
FI D
TOWER HAMLETS
EN
TI AL
Area of Main Map
&
Legend
AF T
Local Authority Boundary Short Listed CSO Sites CSO (Directly Controlled) Pumping Station Transport Access Routes TfL Road Network Thames Path
# *
! (
London Cycle Routes
SOUTHWARK
0 40 80 160
Meters
Traffic calming at various points along access route
240
320
400
Residential area
Mapping reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. (c) Crown copyright and database right 2009. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100019345
C31XA
! (
CH2M HILL accept no responsibility for any circumstances, which arise from the reproduction of this map after alteration, amendment or abbreviation or if it issued in part or issued incomplete in any way.
# *Earl Pumping Station

LEWISHAM
Map Ref : ........... 101PL-SS-00721 Date : ................. 2009/11/19 Projection : ......... British National Grid

MAJOR PROJECTS
Title:
APPENDIX 5 C31XA SITE TRANSPORT PLAN
APPENDIX 6 SERVICES AND GEOLOGY PLAN
Appendix 6 - Page 1
APPENDIX 7 CONSTRUCTION PHASE LAYOUT
Appendix 7 - Page 1
6
DO NOT SCALE - IF IN DOUBT ASK
Status:
WORK IN PROGRESS
Keyplan:
N
St Georges Wharf
A
DRAWING LOCATION
MAPPING REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF ORDNANCE SURVEY ON BEHALF OF HMSO. ' CROWN COPYRIGHT AND DATABASE RIGHT 2008. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ORDNANCE SURVEY LICENCE NUMBER 100019345
COORDINATES ARE TO ORDNANCE SURVEY DATUM OSGB36. ALL LEVELS ARE IN METRES AND RELATE TO A LOCAL HEIGHT DATUM WHICH IS 100 METRES BELOW ORDNANCE DATUM NEWLYN.
Mud
es Wharf
CSO INTERCEPTION CHAMBER SITE BOUNDARY AREA= 7500m 5m x10m
CSO FLAP VALVE CHAMBER
KEY:
EXCAVATED MATERIAL AND HANDLING AREA
STOCKYARD, WORKSHOP AND STORES EARL STORM OUTLET 20m x20m 5m x10m TEMPORARY WORKING AREA = 1705m CSO DROP SHAFT, CSO CONNECTION CULVERT, PRIMARY CRANE, SECONDARY CRANE AND CSO INTERCEPTION CHAMBER OFFICES, WELFARE AND CANTEEN
CSO DROP SHAFT 8m ID
SECONDARY CRANE
100m PRIMARY CRANE
DISCLAIMER: INDICATIVE CONSTRUCTION PHASE ARRANGEMENT. BASED ON PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT.
EGRESS
ACCESS
10 m
10 m
SCALE 1 : 250
ST GEORGES SQUARE
150 AC AB DRAFT-THIRD ISSUE DRAFT-SECOND ISSUE IL RS SS
Dsgnr
GT DS RS
Chkd
GT CH CH
Appd
08-01-10 14-08-09 19-06-09

Date
AA DRAFT-FIRST ISSUE
Iss Description
Location Code: OS Reference: Security Reference: Drawn By:
N/A
Project Group:
UBR
Sub Process:
AP
LTTDT
Location / Town: Site Name: Project Name:
WASTE LONDON N/A 50

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

Drawing Title:
CONSTRUCTION PHASE LAYOUT EARL PS - C31XA SMALL SITE

Drawing No.:
PLOTTED ON
18\01\10
BY
Andy.Purdy
LOCATION :
Thames Tideway Tunnel
x:\project\371840\cad\design data\cad thames\drawings\planning-consents\CS31X\100-DL-PNC-C31XA-171002.dgn
c Thames Water Utilities Ltd 2008
100-DL-PNC-C31XA-171002
1:250
A1
AC
100
200mm
Dolphin
6
Status:
WORK IN PROGRESS
Keyplan:
N
St Georges Wharf
A
DRAWING LOCATION
MAPPING REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF ORDNANCE SURVEY ON BEHALF OF HMSO. ' CROWN COPYRIGHT AND DATABASE RIGHT 2008. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ORDNANCE SURVEY LICENCE NUMBER 100019345
3500m
Mud
es Wharf
CSO INTERCEPTION CHAMBER
CSO FLAP VALVE CHAMBER
KEY: SLURRY PROCESSING AND EXCAVATED MATERIAL SEPERATION PLANT, STORAGE AND HANDLING AREA WORKSHOP AND STORES AREA
3500m
1000m
500m
PARKING / VEHICLE MARSHALLING, OFFICES, WELFARE, CANTEEN AND MEDICAL
SHAFT, PRIMARY AND SECONDARY CRANE

1200m
1200m
CSO DROP SHAFT 8m ID
DISCLAIMER: PRIMARY CRANE INDICATIVE CONSTRUCTION ARRANGEMENT. BASED ON PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT.
SECONDARY CRANE EARL STORM OUTLET
EGRESS ACCESS
1000m
10 m
10 m
SCALE 1 : 250
ST GEORGES SQUARE
150 AB DRAFT-SECOND ISSUE IL RS
Dsgnr
GT DS
Chkd
GT CH
Appd
08-01-10 11-08-09
Date
Iss Description
SITE BOUNDARY TEMPORARY WORKING AREA = 7500m 100

500m
N/A
Project Group:
UBR
Sub Process:
AP
LTTDT
WASTE LONDON N/A 50

THAMES TUNNEL
Contract Name:

Drawing Title:
CONSTRUCTION PHASE LAYOUT EARL PS - C31XA - LARGE SITE

Drawing No.:
PLOTTED ON
18\01\10
BY
Andy.Purdy
LOCATION :
X:\Project\371840\CAD\Design Data\CAD Thames\Drawings\Planning-Consents\CS31X\100-DL-PNC-C31XA-171012.dgn
100-DL-PNC-C31XA-171012
1:250
A1
AB
200mm
Dolphin
APPENDIX 8 OPERATIONAL PHASE LAYOUT
Appendix 8 - Page 1
6
VENTILATION COLUMN (CSO)
Status:
WORK IN PROGRESS
Keyplan:
N
A
MAPPING REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF ORDNANCE SURVEY ON BEHALF OF HMSO. ' CROWN COPYRIGHT AND 107m (AOD +100) REMOVABLE COVER ABOVE WEIR (LOCKABLE) DATABASE RIGHT 2008. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ORDNANCE SURVEY LICENCE NUMBER 100019345
NOTE:
4m
3m
6m
1. STRUCTURE TO BE PROTECTED BY REMOVABLE HANDRAILS IN THE TEMPORARY CASE. 2. POSITION OF COVERS ARE VARIABLE WITHIN 10m FROM THE EDGE OF THE STRUCTURE, AND THE LOCATION IS BASED ON SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT 3. CLADDING OF VENTILLATION BUILDING TO SUIT LOCATION AND AESTHETICS. 4. ALL TOP STRUCTURES TO HAVE:ACCESS STAIRS/LADDER TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT HAND RAILING 5. ALL DIMENSIONS IN MILLIMETRES UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED. GROUND LEVEL
10000
5m
REMOVABLE COVERS ARE SPLIT UP INTO SECTIONS AND SUPPORTED BY BEAMS, WHICH ARE ALSO REMOVABLE
1m DIA
SCALE 1:50
DIAGRAMMATIC REPRESENTATION OF TOP STRUCTURE ABOVE CSO SHAFTS ELECTRICAL CONTROL KIOSK (CSO)
- - - - - - 1500 - - AB DRAFT-SECOND ISSUE IL RS

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

THAMES TUNNEL
Contract Name:

Drawing Title:
SCALE 1:25
GENERIC ELEVATION AND TOP STRUCTURE FOR OPERATIONAL PHASE LAYOUT - CSO SITES
Drawing No.:
PLOTTED ON
04\12\09
BY
Andy.Purdy
LOCATION :
x:\project\371840\cad\design data\cad thames\drawings\planning-consents\Routewide\100-DH-GEN-00000-000001.dgn
100-DH-GEN-00000-000001
NTS
A1
AB
100
150
200mm
VARIBLE DEPENDING ON
APPENDIX 9 ENVIRONMENTAL APPRAISAL TABLES
Transport Site considerations Comments Access to road network Site is located on the foreshore and accesses/egresses onto the car park in St Georges Square, requiring the construction of a new access/egress through an existing wall. Several bollards would require removal upon accessing the car park which leads to Calypso Way to the northwest from an existing access. Calypso Way is subject to a 30mph speed limit and is street lit. It has a carriageway width of 6.1m which is reduced to an effective width of 4.1m due to on street parking. Visibility splays are not required for accessing onto the car park, although no visibility problems appear to exist. Access to the A200 (TLRN strategic highway network) from Calypso Way onto Plough Way then onto Lower Road towards the A200. The route runs through a residential area and is traffic calmed (speed cushions) along Plough Way. Distance of 2.1km to TLRN. See Transport Access Plan in Appendix 5. Access to river Site located in the river. Potential for direct access, although not essential for a CSO site as road would be used to transport excavated material. Use of rail is unlikely to be feasible due to the small quantities of excavated material produced by a CSO site. Access to old London Bridge station site for rail access (approximately 1km southeast of London Bridge station) from TLRN (A200) onto St James Road. The route passes through a 20mph zone with traffic calming (speed cushions and raised crossing) as well as a residential area. The raised crossing would require removal. Appendix 9 - Page 1
Small and large Mitigation required and conclusions Road access to site possible for HGVs requiring the construction of a new access through an existing wall. Several bollards require removal. Access route to the TLRN (A200) is traffic calmed (speed cushions) and passes through a residential area.
River access not required. Excavated material would be transported away by road for CSO site. Route to potential rail link at old London Bridge station site possible. Requires the removal of the raised crossing on St James Road. The site is likely to have limited use during the night and a means of transporting material from the construction vehicles to the rail site would need to be provided.
Access to rail
Transport Site considerations Comments Old London Bridge station site is likely to have very limited night use being on the main line with no space for sidings on the viaduct. Distance 3.2km to rail access point at old London Bridge station site. Parking No parking could be provided within the site boundary as the site is located on the foreshore. The car park in St Georges Square provides approximately 16 unrestricted parking bays (other than for buses and HGVs) which could be utilised by the workforce. All the bays were empty on the day of the site visit. Informal on street parking is also available on surrounding roads. PTAL 1-2 (low), as identified within Table 2.3. Site access requires construction through an existing wall. Removal of several bollards to access the car park. Removal of raised crossing on St James Road if rail access used. Diversion of Thames Path around the site due to close proximity to access/egress. Summary The site is suitable as a small or large CSO site, albeit requiring the construction of a new access onto St Georges Square car park (leading to Calypso Way) through an existing wall from the foreshore. Several bollards would require removing. The potential road access route to the TLRN (A200) is possible, but does contain traffic calming (speed cushions) and passes through a residential area. The access route to the old London Bridge rail site is also possible, although this requires the removal of a raised crossing on St James Road. However, rail transport is unlikely to be required due to the small volumes of excavated material produced by a CSO site. The site is located in the river and so allows for direct river access. This is not essential for a CSO site. There is a low possibility for the workforce to utilise public transport to access the site and whilst no parking could be provided onsite, unrestricted parking is available within the adjacent car park as well as on surrounding roads. No parking available onsite for workforce. Parking available within car park and on surrounding roads. Small and large Mitigation required and conclusions
Public transport accessibility Traffic Management
Low possibility of workforce being able to use public transport to access the site. A new site access requires construction with the removal of several bollards. The raised crossing on St James Road also requires removal if rail access utilised. Thames Path requires diversion.
Appendix 9 - Page 2
Archaeology Site considerations Comments Designations, including Archaeological Priority Areas Summary of historical uses The site is within the Lewisham Archaeological Priority Area. The 1st Edition OS map (1868) shows the site to be located on the Thames foreshore with St Georges steps being the only development within the site. The steps appear to remain to the present. No archaeological receptors of high value are recorded within the site. This does not preclude the possibility of unrecorded archaeological receptors of High value being present within the site. Deptford Wharf Slipway (MLO63322) is shown in the far western edge of the site This does not preclude the possibility of unrecorded archaeological receptors of Medium value being present within the site. Construction impacts on potentially waterlogged deposits containing archaeological remains may cause dewatering. This potential impact should be considered given the site is in close proximity to the River Thames There does not appear to have been any previous disturbance to the foreshore. Borehole data in the area suggests made ground of 9m some of which could be archaeological in nature. Detailed design proposals, and an outline method statement would be required to enable initial assessment of development impacts, and to inform mitigation proposals. Small and large Mitigation required and conclusions Not applicable. A detailed desk based assessment is required to sufficiently understand the archaeological resource and define risk to potential development. A detailed desk based assessment is required to sufficiently understand the archaeological resource and define risk to potential development.
Potential receptors of very high or high value with the potential to be directly affected
Potential receptors of medium value with the potential to be directly affected
A detailed desk based assessment is required to sufficiently understand the archaeological resource and define risk to potential development.
Other receptors with the potential to be directly affected Extent of existing disturbance (if known)
A detailed desk based assessment is required to sufficiently understand the archaeological resource and define risk to potential development. A detailed desk based assessment is required to sufficiently understand the archaeological resource and define risk to potential development. Mitigation methods could include: Review/production of existing desk based assessments Production of deposits model
Potential issues
Appendix 9 - Page 1
Archaeology Site considerations Comments With the currently available information it is not possible to highlight specific potential issues. Small and large Mitigation required and conclusions Archaeological monitoring of geotechnical investigations Archaeological evaluation Archaeological watching brief Archaeological excavation. Summary Based on current information, this site is suitable for use as a small or large CSO site because no archaeological receptors have been identified. However, it is possible that archaeological receptors of high or medium value could be located on or near the site and further investigation would be required. While no direct evidence has been revealed peat deposits containing archaeological material may be present at depth. These have been commonly recorded throughout London in a similar proximity to the River Thames. Given the location of the site, and wider evidence for historical occupation along the river, it is a reasonable assumption to suggest waterlogged remains of archaeological value may be present.
Appendix 9 - Page 2
Built heritage and townscape Site considerations Comments Designations including conservation areas, including trees Listed Buildings Parish boundary stone, St Georges Wharf, Grade II: 20m South Lock, hydraulic capstans and mooring bollards, South Docks, Grade II: 120m Parish boundary stone, wall and pier, St Georges Wharf, Grade II: 85m Lock Keepers Cabin and Storeroom on south quay of Greenland Dock, Surrey Dock, Grade II: 245m Tide Gauge House on south quay of Greenland Dock, Surrey Docks, Grade II: 245m The Terrace, Grove Street, Grade II: 245m Locally Listed Buildings The borough of Southwark does not maintain a local list. In contrast, the borough of Lewisham does maintain a local list but it was not available at the time of this assessment. The borough of Tower Hamlets does maintain a local list but there are no locally listed buildings within the borough and within 250m of C31XA. Conservation Areas There are no conservation areas within 250m of C31XA. Registered Historic Parks and Gardens There are no registered historic parks and gardens within 250m of C31XA. Small and large Mitigation required and conclusions In the case of listed buildings, a high quality scheme design and adequate screening for the development may be required as discussed below. A detailed desk-based assessment in conjunction with archaeology work would be required to further inform the likely impact of the development and to determine more detailed mitigation proposals.
Appendix 9 - Page 3
Built heritage and townscape Site considerations Comments Locally Listed Parks and Gardens There are no locally listed parks and gardens within 250m of C31XA. Protected Views C31XA is located 250m away from the Greenwich Park protected view (as designated in the London Views Management Framework). Potential receptors of medium to very high importance with the potential to be directly affected Other receptors of lesser importance with the potential to be directly affected Potential receptors of medium to very high importance with the potential to be indirectly affected Not Applicable Not Applicable Small and large Mitigation required and conclusions
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
There is the potential for 6 Grade II listed buildings and 1 protected view to be indirectly affected by the development.
Of the 6 Grade II listed buildings which have the potential to be indirectly affected by the development, only 4 (Parish boundary stone, St Georges Wharf; South Lock hydraulic capstans and mooring bollards, South Docks; Parish boundary stone, wall and pier, St Georges Wharf; and the Tide Gauge House on south quay of Greenland Dock, Surrey Docks) are likely to share a visual relationship with C31XA. As the development could therefore impact upon the setting of these listed structures mitigation in the form of a high quality scheme design and/or screening is likely to be required. In the case of the other 2 Grade II Listed structures (Lock Keepers Cabin and Storeroom on south quay of Greenland Dock, Surrey Dock; and The Terrace, Grove Street), they do
Appendix 9 - Page 4
Built heritage and townscape Site considerations Comments Small and large Mitigation required and conclusions not share a visual relationship with C31XA because of screening provided by existing buildings. These 2 listed structures would therefore not experience any impact as a result of the development and no mitigation would be required. The Greenwich Park protected view lies 250m from C31XA and is not intercepted by the site. Development at C31XA would therefore not impact upon this protected view and therefore no mitigation would be required. Other receptors of lesser importance with the potential to be indirectly affected Sensitive landscape character areas likely to be affected, including trees and TPOs Not Applicable Not Applicable
Green corridor runs through the site, Thames footpath runs along part of western boundary of the site, the majority of the site is in an Area of Special Character, part of the site lies in a Local Open Space Deficiency Area, the majority of the site is designated as a Site of Nature Conservation Importance, the majority of the site is in Thameside Policy Area, the majority of the site is designated as an Area for Regeneration, a small part of the site is in a District Park Deficiency Area, the site is within an area designated as a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment 'Opportunity Area'. Site on southern foreshore of the River Thames. River Thames to the north and east with residential properties further east along the north bank, River Thames to the south, mainly residential and some commercial development to the west, north-west and south-west of the site along the south bank of the River and beyond, Helsinki Square adjacent to the western boundary of the site.
Retention of trees where possible and protection in accordance with BS 5837. The excavated material could be stockpiled around the periphery of the site in order to reduce the impact of the proposals on the character of the River, its foreshore and frontage. Introduction of landscape scheme to include appropriate surface treatments and planting along the River frontage to enhance the character of the River frontage. This site is less suitable since the permanent elements protrude into the River which would accentuate the impact on the character of the River and its frontage. It would have an indirect, adverse impact on the character of Helsinki Square.
Appendix 9 - Page 5
Built heritage and townscape Site considerations Comments The presence and operation of machinery, materials stores and buildings would result in temporary, adverse direct impacts on the character of the River foreshore and temporary, adverse indirect impacts on neighbouring areas. Permanent elements would have an adverse impact on the character of the River foreshore. Potential views likely to be affected Open views from the River, its north frontage and the properties along it, the boat yard to the north-west, residential properties to the south-west, Helsinki Square, Enterprize Way, Grove Street, Deptford Wharf and Plough Way. Partially interrupted views from Calypso way, Old Bellgate Place, and Crews Street. During construction, a view of cranes from the properties listed above, South Docks, Millwall Outer Dock, Greenland Docks, Ecological Park, and Canary Wharf. Permanent elements would mainly be visible from the River, the boat yard to the north-west, residential properties to the south-west along Deptford Wharf, Plough Way, Grove Street and Helsinki Square. During construction, the use of hoardings and appropriate lighting would minimise visual impact at least from street level and lower floors of residential property to the south-west. Design of top structure, safety handrails, vent column, and electrical kiosk to be given careful consideration. Planting to screen permanent plant. Integrated landscape scheme along River frontage to enhance visual amenity and reduce visual impact. This site is not suitable as it would have a visual impact on the River and surroundings of the site. The protrusion into the River would further accentuate the visual impact. Mitigation measures would be limited given the location of the site. For the large site, the excavated material could be used as a bund around the periphery of the site, for screening. Particular considerations on sites where new permanent structures are required Any permanent structures at the site have the potential to cause an indirect impact upon four Grade II listed structures and the character of the local townscape and the River Thames and its frontage. The design and location of any permanent structures within the site would need to be given careful consideration and some screening and landscaping during construction and operation may be required. Any permanent structures would need to be of a high quality design, sensitively located and/or screened and landscaped in order that any impacts upon four Grade II listed structures and the character of the local townscape and the River Thames and its frontage are minimised. Small and large Mitigation required and conclusions
Appendix 9 - Page 6
Built heritage and townscape Site considerations Comments Potential issues Construction and operation of the development could result in an impact upon four Grade II listed structures and upon the character of the local townscape and the River Thames and its frontage. However, there is the potential to mitigate any adverse impacts through a high quality scheme design and/or screening and landscaping. Small and large Mitigation required and conclusions The scheme design would need to be of a sufficiently high quality and may need to incorporate some screening and landscaping in order that potential impacts of the development upon four Grade II listed structures and the character of the local townscape and the River Thames and its frontage are minimised.
Summary
This site is less suitable for use as a small or large CSO site. Although it would result in relatively few impacts upon the built historic environment, it has the potential to have an adverse impact upon the character of the local townscape and the River Thames and its frontage during both construction and operation. Opportunities to mitigate such impacts are limited due to the location of the site. Other potential effects would be restricted to indirect impacts upon the setting of four Grade II listed structures and these impacts could be mitigated through the implementation of a high quality scheme design and/or screening.
Appendix 9 - Page 7
Water resources hydrogeology and surface water Site considerations Comments Hydrogeological conditions (Groundwater and Surface Water) From BGS Geological Model giving average ground condition profile. Local near surface conditions may vary, particularly within the river Geology (thickness) Superficial Geology and Made Ground (9m) Thanet Sand (13m) Chalk (to beyond the depth of shaft) Hydrogeology Piezometric Level in Chalk Aquifer: ~ -12mAOD (~12 mbgl) from EA Jan 08 water level contouring Groundwater Monitoring Location EA Hydrometry Sites: TQ37-268 645 m west of the site (water levels to Nov 2007) TQ37-276 1.73 km northwest of the site (water levels to March 2009) TQ37-254A, BL, BU 1.98 km southeast of the site (water levels to May 2009) Watercourses Within the River Thames SPZs and groundwater users SPZ Not located in a Source Protection Zone defined by EA EA Licensed Groundwater Abstractions and Details 7 licensed abstraction borehole within 2km radius
Licence Numbers: 1. 28/39/39/0234 (1 borehole) 2. 28/39/42/0043 (1 borehole)
Small and large Mitigation required and conclusions The drop shaft would be constructed to an invert level of approximately 48.83mbgl therefore the shaft would be (1) founded in the Chalk. Piezometric head in Chalk would be approximately 36.83m above the base of the construction. Therefore, dewatering would be required and should be considered as part of geotechnical design.
A simple volumetric approach has been used to calculate the 400 days travel times of the abstraction borehole. A conservative mean annual recharge of 100 mm/year was used to calculate a radius for licensed abstraction boreholes as follows:
1. 250m 2. 690m 3. 258m
Appendix 9 - Page 8
Water resources hydrogeology and surface water Site considerations Comments

3. 28/39/42/0048 (3 boreholes) 4. 28/39/42/0073 (2 boreholes) Locations: 1. 1.15km northeast of the site 2. 1.87km southwest of the site 3. 1.2km northwest of the site 4. 836m northwest of the site Operator: 1. Britannia Hotels Limited 2. National Grid Co Plc 3. London Borough Of Southwark 4. Harmsworth Quays Printing Limited Abstracted Aquifer Unit: 1. Chalk 2. Chalk 3. Chalk 4. Chalk Abstraction Purposes: 1. Industrial, commercial and public services (hotels, public houses and conference centres- drinking, cooking, sanitary, washing) 2. Industrial, commercial and public services (non-evaporative cooling) 3. Amenity (industrial/commercial/energy/public services- make-up or top up water0 4. Industrial, commercial and public services (paper and printing- process water and drinking, cooking, sanitary, washing Abstraction Quantity (annual): 4. 203m
Small and large Mitigation required and conclusions
The shaft is not located within any of these catchment areas.
Appendix 9 - Page 9
Water resources hydrogeology and surface water Site considerations Comments

1. 78,840m
3
Small and large Mitigation required and conclusions
2. 598,980m3 3. 83,804m3 4. 52,000m3
Unlicensed Groundwater Abstractions and Details No abstraction borehole within 1km radius inside Tower Hamlet Council Boundary No abstraction borehole within 1km radius inside Southwark Council Boundary No abstraction borehole within 1km radius inside Lewisham Council Boundary Borehole locations and depths There are 7 historical records of water wells within 1km radius. Depth range: 6.09 201.78m Potential impacts on surface water features Potential impacts on groundwater (resources and quality) There is a direct pathway to the Thames due to the work being undertaken on the foreshore. An impact on groundwater at depth is likely since the drop shaft is to be constructed in Chalk (major aquifer) overlain by Thanet Sand (minor aquifer) which would need to be dewatered. At shallow depth, the shaft is located in Alluvium which is classified as a non aquifer. So no impact is expected. Mitigation unlikely to be required as construction of the drop shaft would not take place within the 400 day capture zone of licensed abstractions. The drop shaft to be excavated in Chalk below the piezometric head, therefore dewatering of the Chalk and Thanet Sand would be required during construction. Appendix 9 - Page 10
Not applicable
Work needs to be undertaken in consideration of Pollution Prevention Guidelines PPG1, PPG5 and PPS23. See below (likely types of mitigation measures that would be required).
Likely types of mitigation measures that would be required Potential issues
Not applicable
Piezometric head in Chalk to be considered as part of geotechnical design.
Water resources hydrogeology and surface water Site considerations Comments Small and large Mitigation required and conclusions The issue of the appropriate disposal of discharges from dewatering to be considered. Summary In terms of hydrogeology, this site is suitable for use as either a small or large CSO site because although the construction of the drop shaft would take place within Chalk (major aquifer), the site does not lie within the 400 day capture zones of licensed abstractions. No long term impact on the Chalk aquifer is expected, although dewatering of the Chalk and Thanet Sand would be required during the construction phase. The Chalk piezometric head is likely to be approximately 37 metres above the base of construction and should be taken into account in the engineering design. The superficial deposits are Alluvium which is classified as a non aquifer at the shaft site. Therefore, no impact is expected at shallow depth. In terms of surface water resources, this site is less suitable as a small or large CSO site because the work is to be undertaken within the channel of the River Thames. As such, specific mitigation would be required to prevent pollution.
(1) Piezometric head is a specific measurement of water pressure above a datum.
Appendix 9 - Page 11
Ecology (terrestrial and aquatic) Site considerations Comments Statutory designations Sue Godfrey Nature Park Local Nature Reserve (LNR), Mudchute Park Farm LNR and Lavender Pond LNR are within 2km. Site is within River Thames & Tidal Tributaries SMI. Small and large Mitigation required and conclusions None required.
Non-statutory designated wildlife sites
Any constructions or working methods affecting the Thames, particularly above ground features of a permanent nature, but also temporary or buried works would require compensatory habitat provision. Post-works restoration may also be required. Care would need to be taken to avoid discharge or run-off into the river. Any loss (particularly permanent loss) of mudflat would require compensatory habitat provision. This may involve an offsite solution which could affect feasibility. There may also be arduous post-works restoration requirements. Any buried constructions in the Thames would require careful habitat restoration and careful working methods. Negotiation may be required with the EA for the placement of structures (particularly permanent ones) in this location. Any constructions or dewatering in the Thames would require detailed aquatic invertebrate and fish investigation. There may be seasonal restrictions on working. Consideration needs to be given to the cumulative impacts on hydrodynamics with reference to known critical flow velocities for fish. Not considered significant at a site specific level.
CSO is approximately 100m from Greenland Dock BGII site. BAP priority habitats Foreshore consists of shingle banks and BAP habitat mudflats.
The Tidal Thames is a London BAP habitat. protected or otherwise notable species within the Study Area Foreshore may support uncommon aquatic invertebrate species.
Potential issues
The cumulative impact of all jetties and other above ground structures proposed within the Thames may increase flow velocity in the river with effects on juvenile migratory fish.
Summary
This site is less suitable for use as a small or large CSO site. Due to the requirement for temporary and permanent landtake from the River Thames, the site has heightened sensitivity. There may also be a need for offsite mitigation/compensation solutions as well as potentially arduous post-works restoration requirements.
Flood risk assessment Site considerations Comments Flood risk zone River Channel - therefore flood zone 3b, functional flood plain. Small and large Mitigation required and conclusions The site would be developed with a coffer dam and should be protected to the 1 in 200 year tidal return period as a minimum. An evacuation plan would be required for this site in the event the dam is breached. Mitigation may also be required for the impact of displacement of flood water as a result of defending the site on the foreshore. The impact of such a physical construction (the coffer dam) would also have to be assessed for the impact of sediment erosion on the integrity of the defences. Assessment of conditions for SuDS Potential issues Summary Not suitable for SuDS due to location within the Thames. No other issues Not applicable Not applicable
This site is less suitable for use as a small or large CSO site because it requires specific mitigation to protect it from flood levels. This has the potential to cause displacement with respect to the working areas being in the river and could increase flood risk elsewhere locally.
Air quality Site considerations Comments AQMA Sensitive Receptors The air quality objectives for NO2 are exceeded on major roads in the vicinity of the site. There are residential properties along Lower Road (A200), Plough Way (B206) and the access route to the site. There are residential properties within 30m on Enterprize Way. Existing traffic issues Existing sources of significant air pollutants Notable gaps in existing air quality monitoring Potential issues The main traffic issue in this area is exhaust emissions from vehicles along the A200 and A2208 corridors. See above There is no data at likely access to A200 and the nearest existing data indicates existing AQLV exceeded. The risk from additional exhaust emissions from construction HGVs is undefined at present. The risk from dust impacts at residential properties is low. Summary Small and large Mitigation required and conclusions There is a need for more site specific data. There are relevant air quality sensitive receptors present along the route the construction traffic is likely to take and close to the proposed construction works.
Additional vehicle emissions have a moderate potential to interfere with local air quality action plan policies. See above Collect a minimum of 6 months diffusion tube data at site access to the A200 or other point of access to major road network. Minimise HGV movements on the local road network during the peak hour. Standard dust control measures would minimise the effect of fugitive dust on nearby sensitive receptors.
This site is less suitable for use as a small or large CSO site, due to the shaft location being in close proximity to residences on Enterprize Way. During construction, there is potential for fugitive emissions of dust to have a perceptible impact at these properties. These impacts could be minimised with standard dust control measures. There is potential for HGV movements on the local road network to cause localised air quality impacts in areas of already poor air quality. This could be somewhat mitigated by minimising the movement of HGVs during peak hours.
Noise Site considerations Comments Noise band level (from Defra noise maps) Information from Defra noise maps indicates daytime noise levels of less than 58 dB LAeq and night-time noise levels of less than 50 dB to LAeq at the nearest residential properties located to the site. The residential properties closest to and facing the site are likely to experience relatively low daytime and night-time noise levels due to their distance from any major roads. Noise levels from the Defra noise maps provide an indication of prevailing noise levels only, and would not be employed in any detailed assessments for chosen sites. Sensitive receptors There are sensitive receptors close to the south west, west and north west of the site. The closest receptors are located at St Georges Square. Further residential properties are located on Enterprize Way and Plough Way. Sensitive receptors to the south of St Georges Square consist of 3 storey residential flats and dwellings. These are located approximately 15m from the temporary working area and 28m from the shaft location. Existing traffic issues Road traffic on local roads and more distant road traffic on the A200 to the west would contribute to the existing noise climate in the area. Road traffic on local roads and more distant road traffic on the A200 to the west would contribute to the existing noise climate in the area. There are no railways or significant industrial noise sources noted in the immediate surrounding area. Not applicable Not applicable Small and large Mitigation required and conclusions Not applicable
Existing sources of significant noise emissions
Not applicable
Noise Site considerations Comments Potential issues Construction: The construction period is estimated at 0.5 to 2 years and working hours would be 12 hours per day (7am-7pm) Monday to Saturday. This has the potential to result in adverse noise impacts to sensitive receptors surrounding the site. A relatively high number of daily HGV movements are anticipated. This has the potential to have an adverse impact on a large number of residential receptors located along Plough Road which is assumed to be the haul route to the A200. Whilst the shaft location within the site may be fixed, ancillary plant should be sited as far as is practicable from surrounding sensitive receptors. Situating plant in the eastern area of the site would maximise the distance between them and the nearest sensitive receptors and minimise potential disturbance. Proposed 3m site boundary fencing would provide useful noise mitigation to some plant and construction activities. Vibration resulting from general construction works is not anticipated to result in an adverse impact. The nearest receptors to the proposed shaft location are at a distance of approximately 28m and it is unlikely that vibration levels would result in minor cosmetic damage during shaft sinking but may give rise to annoyance. Vibration from tunnelling should be considered on a case by case basis at particular sensitive locations. Operation: With appropriate attenuation (if necessary), there is no Small and large Mitigation required and conclusions 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.
Noise Site considerations Comments reason why noise from the ventilation column and top chamber should result in adverse noise impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. Summary This site is less suitable for use as a small or large CSO site because distances between the site and the nearest residential receptors are relatively short. Therefore, adverse noise and vibration impacts are likely. There is also a fairly high density of residential dwellings around the site. The number of vehicles associated with the construction phase is anticipated to be relatively high and is likely to cause an adverse noise impact to properties located on Plough Road and other residential streets. Perimeter hoarding would reduce potential noise impact but would be relatively ineffective at shielding noise from the upper floor properties at the nearest residential dwellings. Small and large Mitigation required and conclusions
Land quality Site considerations Site location Current site use Topography Field evidence of contamination (ie, visual/olfactory) Current surrounding land use (immediately adjacent to site) Grid Reference: 536719, 178948 The site is an area on the foreshore of the Thames. Foreshore of River Thames. None observed Small and large
North: The foreshore extends to the north. To the northeast lies Thames Path with Grade II listed feature and a boatyard. East: The River Thames lies to the east. South: The foreshore extends to the south. West: A Thames Path borders the western boundary of the site with St Georges Square beyond (partly car park and tree lined walkway leading to river bank). 3-4 storey local authority houses lie to the SW.
Geological and hydrogeological information Geological strata

1
Superficial Geology and Made Ground (9m) Thanet sand (13m) Chalk (to beyond the depth of shaft)
Underlying aquifer classes
Non Aquifer: River Terrace Deposits Minor Aquifer: Thanet Sands Major Aquifer: Chalk River Terrace Deposits Non Aquifer
Groundwater vulnerability/ Soil classification (High/Intermediate/Low/ 2 Not applicable) Source Protection Zone details
Not located in a Source Protection Zone defined by EA.
Land quality Site considerations Surface water receptor River Thames (adjacent, south) Small and large
Relevant information within a 250m radius of the site Historical potentially contaminating activities (based on mapping data) Onsite Historical maps show the sites land use has remained largely unchanged. The site is located on mud and shingle adjacent to the River Thames and below the Mean High Water Level from 1862 onwards. Offsite Wharf operations (transport support and handling), (adjacent west), 1882-1995 Railway lines for wharf activities, (adjacent west), 1896-1972 Metal casting/foundry activity, (6m southwest), 1898 Several historical buildings listing potential fuel-related tanks use in the northwest direction, (closest located 71m northwest), 1887-1965 Unknown filled ground listed, (75m south), 1949 Military land, (108m south), 1882-1949 Unknown filled ground listed possible northern part of Deptford Wharf, (121m north), 1896 Areas cleared due to enemy action, (135m northwest), 1959-1965 Portion (south) of Deptford Wharf filled with land, (143m southeast), 1898-1916 Steel yard, (150m northwest), 1874-1916 Railway yard, (167m west), 1896 - 1916 One electrical sub-station, (188m southwest), 1970 Sawmilling, including timber treatment, (206m northwest), 1882 Historical building listed potential fuel use patent fuel stacked (204m northwest), 1887 Tanks - contents unknown (2No.) in southwest direction, (closest located 242m southwest), 1950-1951 Pollution incidents to controlled waters Two: Unknown sewage, minor incident (191m northwest) Oils - unknown, significant incident (220m northwest) Landfill sites None
Land quality Site considerations Other waste sites Registered radioactive substances Fuel stations/Depots Contemporary trade directory entries None None None None Small and large
Site classification based on above information Activity Potential site contaminants derived from surface sources (e.g. contaminants in made ground) 1) Some potential for made ground from potential filling operations during development 2) Wharf operations (transport support and cargo handling) 3) Railway lines Potential site contaminants derived from offsite sources and transported to site 1) Wharf operations (transport support and cargo handling) 2) Railway lines 3) 6m southwest 3) Metal casting/foundry Potential contamination pathways to site (Conceptual Site Model)
3
Distance and direction to site 1) Onsite and directly adjacent to site 2) Directly adjacent to site 3) Directly adjacent to site
Contaminants 1) Metals, PAHs, TPH 2) TPH, Metals, PAHs 3) Metals, PAHs, TPH
1) Adjacent, west 2) Adjacent, west
1) TPH, Metals, PAHs 2) Metals, PAHs, TPH 3) Metals, PAHs, TPH
Source 1: A1, A3, B4 Source 2: D6, E1, F7 Category 1 Assessed as Low Risk
Contamination category
Land quality Site considerations Summary Small and large The site is suitable for use as both a small or large CSO site, as it is directly adjacent to the River Thames, where no contaminating activities appear to have occurred. The distance and direction of potentially contaminating activities to the site is unlikely to have resulted in significant contamination.
Notes: 1. From BGS Geological Model giving average ground condition profile. Local near surface. 2. Soil information for urban areas is based on fewer observations than elsewhere in the country. Therefore a worst case vulnerability (H) is assumed until proven otherwise. 3. Refer to schematic Conceptual Site Model for explanation of site-specific source-pathway-receptors.
Contacts
For information about the Thames Tideway Tunnel Call: 0800 0721 086 Lines are open 24 hours a day Visit: www.thamestidewaytunnel.co.uk Email: info@tidewaytunnels.co.uk For our language interpretation service call 0800 0721 086
For information in Braille or large print call 0800 0721 086

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

100 RG PNC C31xa 900001

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

100 RG PNC C31xa 900001

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Spring 2010

Site Suitability Report C31XA