110 RG PNC C04XN 000583

Autumn 2011
Site suitability report

C04XN
Hammersmith Pumping Station
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
Inspectorate’s web site.
110-RG-PNC-C04XN-000583 | Autumn 2011
Site suitability report

C04XN
Site suitability report C04XN
Thames Tunnel

List of contents
Page number
1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Purpose and structure of the report ......................................................... 1
1.2 Background ............................................................................................. 1
1.3 Consultation............................................................................................. 2
2 Site information ................................................................................................ 2
2.1 Site and surroundings .............................................................................. 2
2.2 Type of site .............................................................................................. 4
3 Proposed use of site – construction phase ................................................... 4
4 Proposed use of site – operational phase ..................................................... 5
4.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 5
4.2 Restoration and after-use ........................................................................ 6
5 Engineering assessment ................................................................................. 6
5.1 Access ..................................................................................................... 6
5.2 Construction works considerations .......................................................... 7
5.3 Permanent works considerations............................................................. 7
5.4 Health and safety..................................................................................... 7
6 Planning assessment ...................................................................................... 7
6.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 7
6.2 Planning applications and permissions.................................................... 7
6.3 Planning context ...................................................................................... 9
6.4 Planning comments ............................................................................... 10
7 Environmental appraisal ............................................................................... 12
7.1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 12
7.2 Transport ............................................................................................... 12
7.3 Archaeology........................................................................................... 12
7.4 Built heritage and townscape................................................................. 12
7.5 Water resources – hydrogeology and surface water ............................. 13
7.6 Ecology .................................................................................................. 13
7.7 Flood risk ............................................................................................... 13
7.8 Air quality ............................................................................................... 13
Site suitability report C04XN i

7.9 Noise ..................................................................................................... 13
7.10 Land quality ........................................................................................... 13
8 Socio-economic and community assessment............................................. 14
8.1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 14
8.2 Socio-economic profile .......................................................................... 14
8.3 Issues and impacts ................................................................................ 15
9 Property assessment ..................................................................................... 15
9.1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 15
9.2 Crown land and special land comments ................................................ 15
9.3 Land to be acquired ............................................................................... 15
9.4 Property valuation comments ................................................................ 16
9.5 Disturbance compensation comments................................................... 16
9.6 Discretionary purchase costs comments ............................................... 17
9.7 Offsite statutory compensation comments ............................................. 17
9.8 Site acquisition cost assessment ........................................................... 17
10 Site conclusions by discipline ...................................................................... 17
10.1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 17
10.2 Engineering ........................................................................................... 17
10.3 Planning................................................................................................. 17
10.4 Environment .......................................................................................... 18
10.5 Socio-economic and community ............................................................ 18
10.6 Property ................................................................................................. 18
Appendices ............................................................................................................. 21
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 tables
Site suitability report C04XN ii

List of tables
Page number
Table 3.1 Construction phase data ............................................................................ 5

Table 4.1 Operational phase data ............................................................................. 6
List of abbreviations
AOD above Ordnance Datum

BAP biodiversity action plan
BT British Telecom
CPO compulsory purchase order
CSO combined sewer overflow
DLR Docklands Light Railway
EA Environment Agency
GLA Greater London Authority
HGV heavy goods vehicle
LNR local nature reserve
LPA local planning authority
LU London Underground
m metre/metres
MOL Metropolitan Open Land
ONS Office of National Statistics
ORN Olympic Route Network
PLA Port of London Authority
POS public open space
PTAL public transport accessibility level
SAM scheduled ancient monument
SINC site of importance for nature conservation
SNCI site(s) of nature conservation importance
SSR site suitability report
SSSI site(s) of special scientific interest
SUDS sustainable urban drainage systems
TfL Transport for London
TD tunnel datum
Site suitability report C04XN iii

TLRN Transport for London Road Network
TPA Thames Policy Area
UDP unitary development plan
UXO unexploded ordnance
Site suitability report C04XN iv

1 Introduction
1.1 Purpose and structure of the report

1.1.1 The Site selection methodology paper (May 2009 and revised August
2011) a outlines the process to be used to create the preferred list of main
tunnel 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. Whether a consideration is relevant to the assessment of
a site will depend on available information and professional judgement.
1.1.2 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 and this level of
information is considered to be appropriate to this stage of assessment.
1.1.3 The Site selection background technical paper provides information on the
requirements for different types of sites, their sizes and typical activities/
facilities within the sites.
1.1.4 Each site suitability report considers a particular site on its own merits. In
addition, an Engineering options report was produced, which relates to
main tunnel and connection tunnel options. 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). The outcomes are reported in the Phase two
scheme development report.
1.2 Background
1.2.1 The process for selecting sites is set out in the Site selection methodology
paper. All sites have previously passed through the following parts of
Stage 1:
• Part 1A – Creation of the long list of potential main tunnel (and CSO)
sites
• Part 1B – Creation of a short list of potential main tunnel (and CSO)
sites
o Table 2.2: Long list of main tunnel (and CSO) sites – an
assessment against set considerations and values
o Table 2.3: Draft short list of main tunnel (and CSO) sites –
assessment against a list of more detailed considerations
o Workshops to consider each site to arrive at a short list of sites.
a
The amendments made in August 2011 do not change the site selection methodology process. The
amendments only related to the introduction of a second phase of consultation (paragraphs 2.3.13-2.4.15) and
minor factual updates.
Site suitability report C04XN Page 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 main tunnel (and CSO) sites
– site data, site visits, site suitability reports, engineering options report
and optioneering workshops that are reported in the Phase two
scheme development report.
1.2.3 The Site selection methodology paper also contains a provision for a
back-check process in paragraph 2.5.6 that states:
“If any sites for any of the main tunnel sites or intermediate sites (or CSO
site) are eliminated for any reason, if there are significant changes of
circumstances in relation to existing sites or combinations of sites, if new
or replacement sites are required or found or if the engineering design
develops in unexpected ways then a targeted repeat of stages 1-3 will
need to be undertaken in order to fill in any site gaps.”
1.3 Consultation
1.3.1 Thames Water’s approach to engagement and consultation for the
Thames Tunnel project is outlined in the Statement of Community
Consultation and the accompanying Community Consultation Strategy.
Thames Water has engaged regularly with all potentially affected London
local authorities, other stakeholders and interested parties on sites and the
project.
1.3.2 Phase one consultation has been completed for all the preferred and
shortlisted sites along with the three main tunnel route options. The
analysis of the consultation responses is set out in the Report on phase
one consultation and Interim engagement report. Any relevant site
comments were considered at the post phase one consultation
optioneering workshops. The outcomes of these workshops are reported
in the Phase two scheme development report. After the workshops,
engagement on sites has continued with key stakeholders, and the
engineering design for sites has also continued in parallel. In autumn
2011, phase two consultation will provide another opportunity for people to
comment on sites.
2 Site information
2.1 Site and surroundings

2.1.1 This site is one of the back-check shortlisted sites for Hammersmith
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.
2.1.2 The site C04XN is enclosed within a vacant former industrial site known as
Hammersmith Embankment, located in the London Borough of
Hammersmith and Fulham. The site is L-shaped and forms part of the
larger redevelopment site. The site is accessible from Chancellor’s Road
or Distillery Road. A site location plan is attached as Appendix 2.

2.1.3 The surrounding area is predominantly residential, but includes a mix of

other uses. The site is bounded to the north by Chancellor’s Road and is
immediately adjacent to the eastern boundary of an existing Thames
Water Pumping Station. A number of three-storey terraced and two-storey
semi-detached dwellings are located approximately 20 metres to the north
of the site, on the opposite side of Chancellor’s Road. This site is
approximately 114 metres and 130 metres from the rear facades of the
public house and properties fronting Fulham Palace Road (A219)
respectively. Modern office developments are located both to the
northwest and southwest of the site, and the River Thames is located to
the west.
2.1.4 Frank Banfield Park lies immediately opposite the site to the east,
separated from the proposed works area by the four-metre-wide Distillery
Road. The park underwent improvement works and reopened in October
2008 with a new play area, landscaping, lighting, benches and CCTV
provision. The park is also the site of a children’s and young people’s
centre known as the Distillery Lane Centre. Riverside Studios is in close
proximity to the site, located to the northwest.
2.1.5 The site has been cleared of all other buildings apart from the pumping
station and appears to be ready for redevelopment, surrounded by
hoarding.
2.1.6 The site is within a number of designated areas under the Hammersmith
and Fulham Unitary Development Plan, including Thames Policy Area, the
Winslow Road Archaeological Priority Area and the Fulham Reach
Conservation Area. All the mapped designations, where data was
available, are shown on the planning and environment plans in Appendix
3.
2.1.7 Photographs of the site and surroundings, together with an aerial
photograph of the site, are attached as Appendix 4.
2.1.8 The site is 1.2km from the TLRN (A4), with road access to the site along
main roads A219 and A306, then Chancellor’s Road and Distillery Road.
The routes may pass under one bridge. There is no rail network local to
the site. The nearest London Underground station is Hammersmith,
0.5km from the site. There are no existing wharfage/jetty facilities at the
site – the site is about 200m from the river and access to the river is very
difficult in this area. A preliminary transport plan for the site is attached as
Appendix 5.
2.1.9 Third-party assets and significant utilities are listed below and are shown
on the services and geology plan in Appendix 6:
• HV cable running through the site in the proposed location of the CSO
drop shaft
• Electricity transmission cable outside the northern part of the site
(maximum clearance to proposed drop shaft location approximately
20m)

• Thames Lee Valley 2.59mID water tunnel outside the south-eastern

part of the site (maximum clearance to proposed drop shaft location
approximately 60m)
• Gas main in Chancellor’s Road and Distillery Road.
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 drop shaft would be founded in London Clay.
2.2 Type of site

2.2.1 The site C04XN is being considered as a CSO site to intercept the
Hammersmith Storm Relief CSO (CS04X).
3 Proposed use of site – construction phase

3.1.1 The proposed construction phase layouts for the CSO site are located in
Appendix 7 – Construction phase layout, and are based on a preliminary
assessment.
3.1.2 The construction phase layout drawings are illustrative and show:
• the layout as a 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.
3.1.4 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).
3.1.5 Preliminary data associated with the construction phase are provided in
Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 Construction phase data

Activity CSO site
Length of construction period 2 - 4 years
Likely working hours, ie,
12 hrs from 7am to 7pm
(night/day/weekend)
Working days Mon to Sat
Primary means of transporting excavated
Road
material away from site
Primary means of transporting materials
Road
to site
4 Proposed use of site – operational phase
4.1 Introduction
4.1.1 The indicative operational phase layout for the CSO site is located in
Appendix 8 – Operational phase layout, and is based on a preliminary
assessment.
4.1.2 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.
4.1.3 The underground infrastructure at this site would likely comprise an
interception chamber, flap valve chamber and a drop shaft with access
openings.
4.1.4 The above-ground infrastructure at this site would likely comprise a
ventilation column and electrical control kiosk.
4.1.5 The top structures are envisaged to be finished at a minimum level of
104.5m(AOD+100), and since the ground mean level at this site is
105m(AOD+100), the top structures would be flush with the current ground
level. The top structure is to provide access and egress into the drop shaft
and flap valve chamber.
4.1.6 The drop shaft would be located within the St George’s redevelopment
site. Access will be from Distillery Road and across an open area of hard
landscaping between two proposed semi high-rise blocks.
4.1.7 A hardstanding would be provided to the top structures. The site would
not be fenced.
4.1.8 Preliminary data associated with the operational phase are provided in
Table 4.1.

Table 4.1 Operational phase data

Level of inspections and One daytime visit every six months for
maintenance and likely electrical/instrument inspection.
working hours, ie, (night/day/ An additional one-week maintenance
weekend) – frequency of period for tunnel/shaft inspection
visits required per ten years that could be
night/day/weekend working.
No. of traffic movements One van visit every six months.
An additional one-week period of two to
ten movements per day (estimated
several vans and two cranes) every ten
years.
4.2 Restoration and after-use

4.2.1 The portion of the site not occupied by the permanent works would be
restored to its original condition on completion of the construction works.
5 Engineering assessment
5.1 Access
5.1.1 This section should be read in conjunction with Section 7.2.
Road
5.1.2 The site is 1.2km from TLRN (A4), with road access to the site along main
roads A219 and A306, then Chancellor’s Road and Distillery Road. The
route may pass under one bridge.
5.1.3 For the construction phase, there would be two access points to the site:
one to provide access from Chancellor’s Road and the other for egress to
Distillery Road to form a one-way system.
5.1.4 For the operational phase, there would be a single access from Distillery
Road. The extent of space required for operations has been assessed
and is being ring-fenced within an agreement between Thames Water and
St George.
Rail
5.1.5 There would be no rail network local to this site. The nearest London
Underground station would be Hammersmith, 0.5km from the 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. In addition, the site is approximately 200m from the river and
access to the river is difficult in this area.

5.2 Construction works considerations

5.2.1 No significant demolition would be required.
5.2.2 At the start of the site selection process, there were no neighbouring
third-party buildings around this site, including within the vacant land, so
mitigation of settlement of buildings was not a concern. However, due to
the proposed redevelopment of the site, collaborative working between
Thames Water and St George is underway, with the objective to control
and mitigate potential interactions, like settlement.
5.2.3 Data available on third-party assets and significant utilities show that the
main items of concern in this area are HV cables running through the site
in the approximate location of the shaft, the Thames Lee Valley 2.59m ID
water tunnel outside the south-eastern part of the site and the pumping
station and associated structures. Construction methods would be
adopted, as appropriate, to mitigate potential settlement of these assets.
5.2.4 It is likely that the proposed works can be constructed within the overall
construction programme.
5.2.5 The interception chamber and part of the connection culvert to the drop
shaft would be within the Hammersmith Pumping Station site, which is
owned by Thames Water. The remainder of the connection culvert and
the drop shaft would ultimately be surrounded by the new adjacent
proposed development. As currently envisioned, there should not be any
conflict between our worksite and adjacent proposed development.
5.3 Permanent works considerations

5.3.1 The top structures to the drop shaft and flap valve chamber would be flush
with ground level.
5.4 Health and safety

5.4.1 There are no unusual health and safety issues with this site.
6 Planning assessment
6.1 Introduction
6.1.1 The planning assessment builds on the advantages and disadvantages
reported in Table 2.3 and covers the following areas:
• Planning applications and permissions
• Planning context
• Planning comments.
6.2 Planning applications and permissions

6.2.1 An initial desktop search of the London Borough of Hammersmith and
Fulham online planning applications database identified a long history of
planning applications, both approved and currently pending decision, for
the comprehensive redevelopment of the wider site, including the CSO

area since 1989. At this time, the site was associated with the Lyons
foodstuff factory and a distillery site.
6.2.2 Numerous applications for redevelopment have been submitted and
granted approval since 2002. Planning consent was granted (reference
2000/01545/FUL) for the erection of eight buildings between three and six
storeys high for office use (class B1), as well as a single-storey café (class
A3), a three-storey terrace of 12 houses, provision of open space, new
access and landscaping.
6.2.3 Subsequent to this approval, a full planning application was granted
consent on 30 September 2005 (reference 2005/01604/FUL) for a series
of redevelopment enabling works. The approved works included removal
of buried obstructions, capping of wells, remediation of contaminated
ground (involving extraction and removal of spoil to a licensed landfill site)
and stopping up/backfilling storm drain, as well as the clearance of
material in advance of archaeological investigations.
6.2.4 These applications were followed by the grant of consent in March 2007
for a planning application (reference 2006/03176/FUL) which also
proposed the demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of the
site for a wider range of uses. Under this consent, redevelopment would
consist of offices (Class B1), residential (Class C3), retail (Class A1),
restaurants and café (Class A3), a water sports facility (Class D2) and
associated pontoon, exhibition space, car parking, and hard and soft
landscaped areas, including open space. Following the approval of this
application, several submissions of details have been made and approved,
pursuant to the pre-implementation conditions during 2007. These have
included external-facing material samples, a construction management
plan and method statement for works to the river wall. This consent was
not implemented and is believed to have now expired.
6.2.5 The most recent planning application for mixed-use redevelopment of the
site was validated on 1 March 2011(reference 2011/00407/COMB). The
application is a hybrid planning application (part outline/part detailed).
Outline consent is sought for eight blocks (ranging from three to nine
storeys in height) for 750 residential units, ancillary residents' gym and
pool, commercial floor space (Use classes A1-A4, B1, D1 and D2), boat
storage facility and ancillary boat club facilities (Use Class B1/A4/B8),
basement level parking, a pontoon extending into the Thames River and
landscaped open space. Approval is sought for access, layout and scale,
with matters of landscaping and appearance reserved for later
determination. Full details (access, layout, scale, appearance and
landscaping) have been submitted for Phase 1 which comprises 186
residential units, 1,511sqm of commercial floor space (Use classes A1-A4,
D1 and D2) and boat club/storage facility (Use classes B1/A4/B8) within a
nine-storey building, with podium level private amenity space (Block A),
Thames Path works, Thames River Pontoon, vehicle access to basement
parking level off Chancellor's Road and landscaping.
6.2.6 The planning statement which supports the planning application refers to
the ongoing negotiations between the Thames Tunnel project team and St
George, the current site owner and prospective developer. It also includes

a plan of the indicative working area required for the interception of the
Hammersmith Pumping Station CSO. Paragraphs 2.12 and 2.13 of the
statement are extracted below:
“It has been agreed between the two parties that if the site is preferred and
works commissioned by Thames Water then in due course a works area
could be located in the north east corner of the Application Site as
indicated in Appendix A. This would allow for construction to proceed on
the first phase of the Proposed Development.
“Both parties are working together to find a solution that in the event that
this is the preferred location and the works are commissioned, disruption
to the existing neighbourhood would be minimised whilst simultaneously
allowing construction of the Thames Tunnel and redevelopment of the
Application Site.”
6.2.7 As part of Thames Water’s statutory stakeholder response to the planning
application consultation, comments have been sent to the London
Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham which explain our intention to
continue to work with the developer to reach agreement over the use of
the site for temporary and permanent works. Amended drawings, which
accommodate both the temporary and permanent Thames Tunnel project
works, have been submitted to the applicant and the council for their
consideration. The consultation comments also suggested a condition
that could be attached to the planning consent which would require
provision to be made for the temporary and permanent Thames Tunnel
project works within the siting, layout and phasing of the new
development. A legal agreement to this effect is likely to be drawn up
between both parties.
6.3 Planning context

6.3.1 The current planning policy context for the site is provided by the saved
September 2007 policies of the Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary
Development Plan, adopted August 2003. Several planning designations
and policies from this development plan are applicable to the site and are
detailed below. Policies are also presented from the emerging Core
Strategy, which is subject to a binding Inspector’s report and anticipated
for formal adoption by the council in October 2011. Due to the advanced
stage of the Core Strategy, we consider the policies within the emerging
development plan document to be of material weight.
Emerging Core Strategy

6.3.2 Policy RTC1, The River Thames and Grand Union Canal – recognises the
benefit of the River Thames to Hammersmith and Fulham as well as its
strategic importance to London, particularly as a resource for sport,
recreation and ecology and as an important refuge for plants and wildlife.

6.3.3 Strategic Site and Housing Estate Regeneration Area 3 – HTC – allocates
the Hammersmith Embankment site for residential led development with
riverside leisure activities. The Submission Core Strategy (January 2011)
justification text for the policy paragraph 8.94 states:
“The site has planning permission for offices but it seems unlikely that
office development will take place. A residential led development is more
appropriate given the nature of the surrounding area. A part of this site
may be required to accommodate within the scheme layout and
programme, permanent and construction works required for the
construction of the Thames Tunnel.”
Saved UDP
Thames Policy Area
6.3.4 Policy EN31X requires all built development to be of a high-quality design
that respects the riverside location, is of a high urban design standard and
contributes to its surrounding environment.
Archaeological priority areas

6.3.5 Policy EN7, Archaeological Priority Areas – as the site is located wholly
within the Winslow Road Archaeological Priority Area, developers are
required, under Policy EN7, to conduct archaeological field investigations
and make provision for any remains on site to be protected, enhanced or
preserved.
Conservation area
6.3.6 The site is located within the Fulham Reach Conservation Area. UDP
Policy EN2 requires all development to preserve or enhance the character
or appearance of the conservation area, paying particular attention to the
historical context, quality of design, scale, bulk, massing and materials.
Amenity
6.3.7 Policy EN21, Environmental Nuisance – the site is in proximity to existing
residential properties and this policy seeks to ensure that no undue
detriment occurs to general amenities.
6.4 Planning comments

6.4.1 There are a number of planning designations and policies that are
applicable to the site. These designations and policies have been
identified and described in Section 6.3 and, of these, those relating to
heritage conservation and residential amenity are of most relevance to the
proposed development.
6.4.2 The site has been allocated for residential led development in the
emerging Core Strategy and a planning application which is consistent
with this allocation (details in Section 6.2) has been submitted to the
council. Due to the size of site required, it would be possible to use the
site for the Thames Tunnel project alongside the wider redevelopment of
the site and return any temporary working areas to the developer on

completion of the works. Detailed negotiations with the developer are

taking place to this effect and indicative construction and permanent works
drawings have been produced to illustrate how the Thames Tunnel project
works would interface with the current proposals for the site.
6.4.3 Use of the Hammersmith Embankment site for the Thames Tunnel project
is in accordance with the council’s emerging Core Strategy (Post
Submission Amendments, May 2011) allocation for Strategic Site and
Housing Estate Regeneration Area 3 – HTC Hammersmith Embankment
former office site. Therefore, continued negotiation with the developer to
agree temporary and permanent works areas on the site within the
phasing of their proposals is consistent with this emerging development
plan allocation.
6.4.4 The Thames Policy Area is unlikely to be significantly impacted upon since
the construction works and any remaining top structures should not result
in overly prominent development in this location, should not unacceptably
obstruct local views and are likely to be integrated within the proposed
development for the site. The project should, in principle, support the aims
of Policy RTC1 by enhancing the environmental quality of the River
Thames and therefore making it a more attractive resource for sport,
recreation, plants and wildlife.
6.4.5 Development within the designated archaeological priority area is also
unlikely to be unacceptable, with the implementation of agreed appropriate
onsite investigations and remediation. A more detailed appraisal of
archaeological potential is included in Section 7.
6.4.6 The proposal is also unlikely to a have an unacceptable impact on the
character or appearance of the Fulham Reach Conservation Area, on the
basis that the permanent structures associated with the Thames Tunnel
project should be integrated within the existing Thames Water Pumping
Station and underground, beneath the proposed residential development.
Appropriate mitigation may still be required to reduce potential impacts on
setting, appearance and local views of any permanent above-ground
structures; however, it is considered that the proposal should not cause an
unacceptable level of impact. A more detailed heritage assessment is
included in Section 7.
6.4.7 The nearest residential properties are situated 20m to the north of the site.
This separation distance may only be considered sufficient to safeguard
residential amenity with successful mitigation to avoid potential adverse
construction impacts such as noise, dust and traffic movements. Control
of construction working hours may also be required to safeguard amenity.
6.4.8 Mitigation may also be required during the construction works to ensure
the continued enjoyment by existing users of the Frank Banfield Park
(designated open space) located to the east of the site across Distillery
Road.

7 Environmental appraisal
7.1 Introduction
7.1.1 The following sections summarise specialist assessments which are
provided in Appendix 9 – Environmental appraisal tables.
7.2 Transport
7.2.1 The site is suitable for use as a CSO site. To provide unobstructed
access for construction vehicles, the removal of some parking bays and
traffic calming features in the vicinity of the access would be required.
There are several constraints along the potential road and rail access
routes which would need removing to enable movement of construction
vehicles, including on-street parking, traffic calming and a raised table.
However, rail transport is unlikely to be required due to the small quantities
of excavated material produced by the CSO site.
7.2.2 There is good public transport accessibility to the site for the workforce,
and some parking could potentially be provided within the site boundary.
However, nearby on-street parking is restricted to a maximum stay of four
hours.
7.3 Archaeology
7.3.1 This site is potentially suitable as a CSO site. Information currently
available indicates that one known archaeological receptor has previously
been identified within the site, comprising a find spot of Roman date.
There are further records of archaeological remains of medium/high value
in the immediate vicinity, and the site has been subjected to little major
disturbance in the recent past. It is therefore possible that archaeological
receptors of a high or medium value may still be present within the
location of the proposed drop shaft. Further research is required to
confirm the extent of previous excavations.
7.4 Built heritage and townscape

7.4.1 The CSO site is suitable from a built heritage perspective. However, there
is the potential for a direct impact upon the Fulham Reach Conservation
Area. There is also the potential for indirect impacts on one Grade II listed
building and a further two conservation areas, including the Hammersmith
Odeon Conservation Area.
7.4.2 This site is suitable from a townscape perspective with suitable mitigation
to integrate the permanent elements into the residential character of the
area.
7.4.3 These impacts could be mitigated through the implementation of a
high-quality scheme design and/or screening. Further desk-based
assessment is likely to be required to more closely define likely impacts on
the character or appearance of the Fulham Reach Conservation Area.

7.5 Water resources – hydrogeology and surface water

7.5.1 In terms of hydrogeology, this CSO site is suitable because the drop shaft
is to be constructed in London Clay (unproductive strata). No impact on
the Chalk aquifer is expected. The superficial deposits at the site
comprise Kempton Gravel, which is classified as a secondary aquifer, and
which could be subject to a limited impact on flow due to sheet piling.
7.5.2 In terms of surface water resources, this site is suitable because there is
no direct pathway to the River Thames for pollution, and standard
mitigation would be required.
7.6 Ecology
7.6.1 This site is suitable as a CSO site as it would only be likely to require basic
ecological surveys and potentially some limited habitat mitigation or
compensation for loss of wasteland BAP habitat.
7.7 Flood risk

7.7.1 This site is suitable from a flood risk perspective as the site is protected
from the one-in-1,000-year flood level, and the underlying geology and
potential space on the site means that infiltration SUDS are likely to be
suitable.
7.8 Air quality

7.8.1 This site is less suitable for use as a CSO site. There are residential
properties in close proximity to the site, and therefore there is potential for
fugitive emissions of dust during construction 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 can be somewhat mitigated by minimising the
movement of HGVs during peak hours.
7.9 Noise
7.9.1 This site is less suitable for use as a CSO site due to the proximity of the
residential receptors to the north of the site. Any shielding afforded by the
site perimeter barriers is likely to be largely ineffectual due to the height of
some of the receptors. In addition, the number of vehicles associated with
the construction phase and the proposed access route is likely to cause
noise impacts on the residential properties on Chancellor’s Road and
Winslow Road.
7.10 Land quality

7.10.1 The site is less suitable for use as a CSO site based of the medium
potential for contamination of the site to have occurred, specifically from
the chemical storage depot and tanks on site, and the fuel tanks, sugar
refinery, pumping station and gasometer in the near vicinity of the site. As
the site is located at the rear of the former chemical storage facility (where
fewer operations appear to have occurred), this is expected to have

resulted in less contamination compared to further south, where the bulk

of operations appear to have occurred.
7.10.2 This has the potential to impact on site workers and adjacent human
receptors through direct contact exposure pathways and, to a lesser
extent, volatilisation. Additionally, the potential exists for contaminants to
be drawn to the deeper aquifer if deep drilling/construction is undertaken
on the site.
7.10.3 There is a potential for unexploded ordnance to be present on site as
historical information indicates that nearby areas have been cleared of
ordnance (dates unknown). It would therefore be prudent for a UXO
survey (or equivalent) to be conducted at the site if not done so already.
8 Socio-economic and community assessment
8.1 Introduction
8.1.1 The socio-economic and community assessment builds on the advantages
and disadvantages reported in Table 2.3 and covers the following areas:
• Socio-economic profile
• Socio-economic and community issues and impacts.
8.2 Socio-economic profile

8.2.1 The site is located within the Fulham Reach ward of the London Borough
of Hammersmith and Fulham. Statistics from the Office of National
Statistics (ONS) 2001 Census data show the following indicators for the
ward, in comparison to the rest of Hammersmith and Fulham, London and
England as a whole:
• Higher rate of economically active, aged people that are full-time
employees
• A higher proportion having achieved Level 4 or 5 educational
qualifications and a corresponding high proportion of people in
associated technical and professional occupations
• A higher proportion of housing rented from the local council and a
lower than London or England average of households owner occupied
• A higher proportion of people aged 20 to 44, with fewer children and
older people than average
• Approximately 62% of ward residents were born in the UK and there is
a higher proportion of white British people than in the rest of the
borough, although lower than in London or England. There is also a
slightly higher proportion of people from Chinese ethnic groups.
8.2.2 The surrounding area has a mixed population with a range of ages, ethnic
backgrounds and economic conditions represented. Site visits established
that Frank Banfield Park appears to be well used by sections of the local
community including groups of youths and individual adults on their lunch
hour, as well as family groups.

8.3 Issues and impacts

8.3.1 Due to the proposed CSO site location on brownfield land adjacent to the
existing Thames Water Pumping Station, the greatest impact from a
community impacts perspective is likely to be on Frank Banfield Park,
opposite the site to the east, and the residential properties on Chancellor’s
Road, especially those immediately opposite the proposed access to the
site. However, some properties on Chancellor’s Road appear likely to be
screened from the main works area by the existing pumping station
building.
8.3.2 The park contains a play area and has been identified by the council as an
important cut-through so any impact on the park could affect community
cohesion as well as the health and wellbeing of the local community.
8.3.3 The Distillery Lane Centre (a centre for children and young people) is also
located in the park and could be affected by noise from the site. This
could lead to a disproportionate impact on young people in the area.
8.3.4 Further residential properties are located in the vicinity of the proposed
site and the Riverside Studios are located to the northwest.
8.3.5 However, it is recognised that this vacant site is a redevelopment site that
will result in substantial construction activities. It may be possible to
co-ordinate the activities to better manage the potential local impacts.
9 Property assessment
9.1 Introduction
9.1.1 This report builds on the advantages and disadvantages in Table 2.3 and
this assessment provides more up-to-date information.
9.1.2 This site is currently a vacant development site to the east and south of
the Thames Water pumping station.
9.2 Crown land and special land comments

9.2.1 A small part of the site is owned by Thames Water. The bulk of the site is
part of a development site owned by St George Plc, a subsidiary of
Berkeley Homes. Therefore, the site is neither Crown land nor special
land. There should therefore be no procedural difficulty in acquiring the
land using compulsory purchase powers. However, if development
commences, in practical terms the site may no longer be available for
acquisition, which represents a significant risk to the project.
9.3 Land to be acquired

9.3.1 The compensation assessment assumes that the majority of the worksite
outside Thames Water’s ownership would be acquired temporarily, via the
acquisition of new rights for the period of the works stated in the
engineering section above.
9.3.2 A smaller area within the worksite would need to be acquired permanently
for operational purposes. This area is located in the southern part of the
worksite.

9.3.3 The works phase and operational phase will also require the acquisition of
subsoil for the connection tunnel.
9.3.4 A right of way to enable access to the operational land will also need to be
acquired.
9.4 Property valuation comments

9.4.1 Compensation is assessed on a diminution in value basis for the new
rights (temporary occupation during works, access rights during works,
access rights for operational purposes) and on a market value basis for
the permanent acquisition.
9.4.2 As outlined in the planning section of this report, the most recent planning
application in relation to the St George land is for combined full and outline
planning for a mixed-use development including 750 residential units,
commercial floor space and boating facilities. The full planning application
has been made in relation to Phase 1 of the proposed development
fronting the Thames, which abuts the western site boundary. It comprises
a nine-storey building with 186 residential units, commercial space and
boating facilities. Residential development of this site is likely to be
significantly more profitable than the previously proposed office-led
mixed-use development. This will significantly increase acquisition costs.
9.4.3 There is a significant risk that by the time the Thames Tunnel project has
progressed to the land acquisition stage, planning permission may have
been granted and development of the site could have commenced.
However, Thames Water is having ongoing discussions with St George to
ensure that, if this site is chosen as a preferred site, both the Thames
Tunnel project and the redevelopment of the wider St George site could
occur concurrently. Discussions to date have been focussed around
appropriate phasing of the redevelopment of the site.
9.4.4 While an agreement between Thames Water and St George has not yet
been formalised, this appears imminent and, supporting this, St George’s
recent planning application focuses Phase 1 development away from the
possible CSO interception worksite.
9.4.5 Nevertheless, until agreement between Thames Water and St George is
formalised, there is a risk that the works phase and operational phase
could restrict development on the rest of the St George site, resulting in a
significantly higher acquisition cost than currently estimated.
9.4.6 There is a risk that the acquisition of subsoil for the connection tunnel
could restrict development on the rest of the St George site, resulting in a
significantly higher acquisition cost.
9.4.7 The acquisition cost has been assessed as high although acceptable.
9.5 Disturbance compensation comments

9.5.1 While the site remains undeveloped and unoccupied, the disturbance cost
is likely to be low.

9.6 Discretionary purchase costs comments

9.6.1 Works on the site is likely to be limited to 12-hour working Monday to
Saturday. Therefore, it is unlikely there will be any significant discretionary
purchase costs. However, there is some potential for discretionary
purchase costs in relation to the residential property on Chancellor’s Road.
9.7 Offsite statutory compensation comments

9.7.1 There should be limited potential for offsite statutory compensation under
S.10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965, as there is unlikely to be any
physical interference with public or private property rights.
9.7.2 There should also be limited potential for claims under the Land
Compensation Act 1973 Part 1, as the completed works are unlikely to
result in diminution in value to property.
9.8 Site acquisition cost assessment

9.8.1 The site forms part of a high-value development site and therefore the
acquisition cost may be significant, but should be acceptable. However, if
works prejudice the proposed development of the site, site acquisition
costs could increase significantly.
10 Site conclusions by discipline

10.1 Introduction
10.1.1 The conclusions presented in this section are drawn from each discipline’s
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
10.2.1 This site is suitable as a CSO site because it would be of adequate size,
currently poses no insurmountable technical or health and safety issues
unique to this site and would have reasonable access by road during
construction. By making the provision of operational access a condition of
the legal agreement between Thames Water and St George, any concerns
over operational access have been headed off.
10.3 Planning
10.3.1 On balance, this site is considered suitable as a CSO site.
10.3.2 The site is within several planning and environmental policy designated
areas. However, with appropriate mitigation, potential impacts on these
policies should be kept to a minimum.
10.3.3 The close proximity of residential dwellings may be more problematic.
However, with appropriate mitigation, the temporary loss of residential
amenity during the construction works could be significantly reduced.

10.3.4 Further negotiations with the land owner will be required in order to agree
the use of the site for the temporary and permanent Thames Tunnel
project works and phasing of the redevelopment proposals.
10.4 Environment
10.4.1 Overall, the site is considered suitable as a CSO site, although mitigation
would be required.
10.4.2 Based on current information, the site is suitable from the perspective of
transport, archaeology, built heritage, townscape, water resources
(hydrogeology and surface water), ecology and flood risk.
10.4.3 This site is considered less suitable from the perspective of air quality,
noise and land quality.
10.4.4 Overall, the site is considered suitable, subject to further investigation of
whether air quality, noise and land quality impacts can be adequately
mitigated. Likely mitigation considerations would include:
• 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
• Land quality – any required remediation of contamination (at this
medium risk site) and/or measures to ensure no mobilisation of
contaminants retained in situ.
10.5 Socio-economic and community

10.5.1 The site is less suitable from a community impacts perspective, due to
the proximity of the worksite to Frank Banfield Park, which is likely to be a
locally valued public open space. From a site visit, the area has been
identified as reasonably quiet and therefore, there may be noise impacts
on the park and also on residential properties opposite the site. Mitigation
may involve discussions around noise minimisation and potentially
restricting working hours. However, this may depend on the timing of the
proposed redevelopment of the site.
10.6 Property
10.6.1 The advantages and disadvantages of the site are as follows.
10.6.2 Advantages:
• The property is in private ownership and therefore there should be no
procedural difficulty in acquiring the land in its current state
• The acquisition cost is likely to be high but acceptable.
10.6.3 Disadvantages:
• If development commences, the site may no longer be available,
which represents a risk to the project

• If Thames Tunnel project works prejudice development, acquisition

costs are likely to increase significantly.
10.6.4 This site is classified less suitable on cost grounds.
10.6.5 Discussions with the owner should be ongoing to establish on what
grounds acquisition may be agreed.


Site suitability report C04XN – Appendices
Appendices

Site suitability report C04XN – Appendices

Site suitability report C04XN – Appendix 1
Appendix 1 – Sources of information
Engineering
• Traffic Management and Access Roads/Rail – URS Scott Wilson
• Access River – BMT Isis
• Services (Utilities) and Third Party Assets – Thames Tunnel and utility
companies
• Geology – British Geological Society and Thames Tunnel
• Construction and Operational Layout Template – Thames Tunnel
• Site selection background technical paper – Thames Tunnel
Planning
• London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham online planning
applications database
• Saved policies in the Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development
Plan, adopted in 1993
• Policies from the emerging Core Strategy, Post Submission
Amendments arising during Examination published May 2011
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
Archaeology
• Historic Environment data from Greater London Archaeology Advisory
Service (GLAAS)
• National Monuments Record – for some additional information
regarding registered historic parks and gardens
• London Archaeological Archive and Research Centre (LAARC)
Site suitability report C04XN Appendix 1 – Page 1

• Local authority websites

• Bing maps
Built heritage and townscape

• Local authority lists of Locally Listed Buildings
• National Monuments Record – for some additional information
regarding registered historic parks and gardens
• Unitary development plan and DPDs
• Bing maps
Water resources – hydrogeology and surface water

• Local authority details of unlicensed abstractors
• Environment Agency abstraction licence details
• Environment Agency groundwater levels and contour maps (2009-11)
• Environment Agency water quality (surface water and groundwater)
• Environment Agency Groundwater Source Protection Zones
• Environment Agency Flood Map – www.environment-agency.gov.uk
• Envirocheck
• British Geological Survey (BGS) logs
• BGS 1:50,000 Geological Sheets – Solid and Drift Editions (England
and Wales)
• BGS Geology of London – Special Memoir for 1:50,000 Geological
sheets 256 (North London), 257 (Romford), 270 (South London) and
271 (Dartford) (England and Wales)
• Crossrail (2005) – Assessment of Water Impacts Technical Report:
Appendix C – Baseline Data. Figure C.4: Extent of Saline Intrusion
based on 177 mg/l *5mmol/l) Isochlor
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 – wildweb.london.gov.uk - non-statutory site of
importance for nature conservation
• Black redstart distribution in London – www.blackredstarts.org.uk/
pages/.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
• Environment Agency National Flood and Coastal Defence Database
• Envirocheck
Air quality
• London Air Quality Network – www.londonair.org.uk
• Defra UK-AIR, air quality information resource – www.airquality.co.uk
• Defra Air Quality Management Areas – http://aqma.defra.gov.uk
• Defra Local Air Quality Management – http://laqm.defra.gov.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
• Envirocheck Data Sheets provided as a GIS Database
• British Geological Survey (BGS) logs
Socio-economic and community

• Statistics from the Office of National Statistics 2001 Census data
• Frank Banfield Park upgrade www.lbhf.gov.uk/Directory/
News_Archive/Press_releases/_Newly_developed_Frank_Banfield_
Park_open_to_the_public.asp
• PPG17 www.lbhf.gov.uk/Images/OS_Audits_Final_Report_Final%
20for%20web_tcm21-108674.pdf

• Fulham Reach Conservatives Newsletter www.shaunbailey.co.uk/

media/pdfs/FR0309.pdf
• Petition from Hammersmith and Fulham council to oppose Thames
Tunnel plans www.gopetition.co.uk/online/21660.html
• Frank Banfield Park www.lbhf.gov.uk/Directory/_and_Planning/
Parks_and_open_spaces/Find_a_park/_Frank_Banfield_Park.asp
Property
• Mouchel Land Registry information
• Valuation Office Agency (VOA) website
• London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham online planning
applications database
• Multimap

Appendix 2 – Site location plan

AL
TI
EN
D
FI
Area of
N Main Map
O
C
&
Legend
T
Local Authority Boundary

AF
Short Listed CSO Site

R
!
( CSO (Directly Controlled)
D
#
* Pumping Station

HAMMERSMITH & FULHAM
*
# C04XN
CS04X 0 10 20 40
± 60 80 100
Hammersmith Pumping Station Meters
!
(
Mapping reproduced by permission of Ordnance
Survey on behalf of HMSO. © Crown copyright
and database right 2011. 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.
RICHMOND UPON THAMES Map Ref : ............................ 1PL04-SS-01968

Date : .................................. 2011/11/02
Projection : .......................... British National Grid
Thames Water Utilities
The Point, 7th Floor,

37 North Wharf Road,
Paddington, London W2 1AF
Title:
APPENDIX 2
SITE LOCATION PLAN
This is an indicative working draft plan which has been produced for the purpose of confidential discussions only. Accordingly, the draft plan must not be copied, distributed or shown to any third party without the express written C04XN SITE
permission of Thames Water Utilities Limited. It provides an indication of sites that, following discussions with local authorities and other stakeholders, may be confirmed as being on the shortlist of construction sites for the
proposed Thames Tunnel. Inclusion of a site on this draft plan should not be taken to mean that such site will be selected as a construction site to form part of the Thames Tunnel scheme.
Appendix 3 – Planning and environment plans

AL
WO Legend
TI
R
BRIDGEVIEW
LID
G ES Protected/Strategic Views
EN
TR
EE Protected/Strategic Views
T
Thames Policy Area
D
D
OA
FI
AD
N ERG RO
Area of
M Main Map
HA
O ID
T LD
BR
EE YE
C
R
ST
TH
E
LIN
MI
&
RO Legend
S
TH
ER
CA
T
E
N
MM
EE Local Authority Boundary
SQ
AF
QU AD
HA
UA
O Short Listed CSO Site
YR
RE
ET CA
R
RE BIS !
ST
D
CR
RS #
* Pumping Station
LO
IS
EL
P
NC
RO
HA
AD
C E
ET Y LAN AD
RE D LER RO
ST OA TIL RY
L
S 'S
R DIS BE
ME R
JA LO
ST C EL AD
AN RO
CH N' S
TA
NS
HAMMERSMITH & FULHAM Hammersmith Pumping Station ST
D U
±
FU
L
*
#
HA
0 15 30 60 90 120
C04XN
DI
M
ST
Metres
PA
ILL
LA
ER
CE
Y
RO
CS04X
RO
AD
AD
AD and database right 2011. All rights reserved.
!
( RO Ordnance Survey Licence number 100019345
OW
SL CH2M HILL accept no responsibility for any
IN
W circumstances, which arise from the reproduction
ET
T RE Map Ref : ............................ 1PL04-SS-02118
ES Date : .................................. 2011/06/14
LIN
MA
T Projection : .......................... British National Grid

HA EE
NB
C TR
LO YS
RE
E
FR Thames Water Utilities
RO
R
PA
AD

RICHMOND UPON THAMES Title:

APPENDIX 3A
D
R OA PLANNING &
ITH
LW
CO or shown to any third party without the express written
This is an indicative working draft plan which has been produced for the purpose of confidential discussions only. Accordingly, the draft plan must not be copied, distributed
ENVIRONMENT PLAN
permission of Thames Water Utilities Limited. It provides an indication of sites that, following discussions with local authorities and other stakeholders, may be confirmed as being on the shortlist of construction sites for the C04XN SITE
AL
WO Legend
TI
R
BRIDGEVIEW
LID
G ES Metropolitan Open Land
EN
TR
EE Sites of Metropolitan
T
Nature Conservation Importance
! ! !
D
D
Flood Risk Zone 3
OA
FI
AD
ER
Flood Risk Zone 2 Area of
N G RO
M Main Map
HA
O ID
T LD
BR
EE YE
C
R
ST
TH
E
LIN
MI
&
RO Legend
S
TH
ER
CA
T
E
N
MM
SQ
AF
QU AD
HA
UA
YR
RE
ET CA
R
RE BIS !
ST
D
CR
RS #
* Pumping Station
LO
IS
EL
P
NC
RO
HA
AD
C E
ET Y LAN AD
RE D LER RO
ST OA TIL RY
L
S 'S
R DIS BE
ME R
JA LO
ST C EL AD
AN RO
CH N' S
TA
NS
D U
±
FU
L
*
#
HA
0 15 30 60 90 120
C04XN
DI
M
ST
Metres
PA
ILL
LA
ER
CE
Y
RO
CS04X
RO
AD
AD
!
( RO Ordnance Survey Licence number 100019345
OW
IN
ET
T RE Map Ref : ............................ 1PL04-SS-02075
ES Date : .................................. 2011/11/02
LIN
MA

HA EE
NB
C TR
LO YS
RE
E
RO
R
PA
AD


APPENDIX 3B
D
R OA PLANNING &
ITH
LW
ENVIRONMENT PLAN
AL
WO Legend
TI
R
BRIDGEVIEW
LID
G ES ! Listed Building (point)
EN
TR
EE !
T Listed Building (polygon)
D
Archaeological Areas
D
OA
FI
Conservation Areas
AD
N ERG RO
Area of
AM Main Map
H
O ID
T LD
BR
EE YE
C
R
ST
TH
E
LIN
MI
&
RO Legend
S
TH
ER
CA
T
E
N
MM
SQ
AF
QU AD
HA
UA
YR
RE
ET CA
R
RE BIS !
ST
D
CR
RS #
* Pumping Station
LO
IS
EL
P
NC
RO
HA
AD
C E
ET Y LAN AD
RE D LER RO
ST OA TIL RY
L
S 'S
R DIS BE
ME R
JA LO
ST C EL AD
AN RO
CH N' S
TA
NS
D U
±
FU
L
*
#
HA
0 15 30 60 90 120
C04XN
DI
M
ST
Metres
PA
ILL
LA
ER
CE
Y
RO
CS04X
RO
AD
AD
!
( RO ! Ordnance Survey Licence number 100019345
OW
IN
ET
T RE Map Ref : ............................ 1PL04-SS-02037
ES Date : .................................. 2011/06/14
LIN
MA

HA EE
NB
C TR
LO YS
RE
E
RO
R
PA
AD
! The Point, 7th Floor,


APPENDIX 3C
D
R OA PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT
ITH
LW
HERITAGE PLAN
Appendix 4 – Photographs of the site and surroundings

AL
TI
EN
D
FI
Area of
N Main Map
O
C
&
Legend
T

AF

R
CSO (Directly Controlled)

D
!
(
#
* Pumping Station

*
# C04XN
CS04X 0 10 20 40
± 60 80 100
Hammersmith Pumping Station Metres
!
(
CH2M HILL accept no responsibility for any

RICHMOND UPON THAMES Map Ref : ............................ 1PL04-SS-01969

Date : .................................. 2011/10/24
Projection : .......................... British National Grid

Title:
APPENDIX 4
AERIAL PLAN
View of the site and the existing Hammersmith Pumping Station looking
northwest.
View of the site looking northeast. The photograph also shows

boundary fencing and residential properties along Chancellors Road.


Appendix 5 – Transport plan

AL
TI
EN
D
FI
Area of
N Main Map
O
C
&
Legend
T

AF

R
!
D
#
* Pumping Station
Transport Access Route
TfL Road Network
Thames Path
London Cycle Routes

0 25 50
±
100 150 200
Speed Cushions Metres

On Street Parking CH2M HILL accept no responsibility for any

Raised Table
* C04XN
# Map Ref : ............................ 1PL04-SS-02000
Date : .................................. 2011/10/26
CS04X Projection : .......................... British National Grid
Hammersmith Pumping Station On Street Parking
& Speed Cushion
!
( Thames Water Utilities
RICHMOND UPON THAMES The Point, 7th Floor,

Title:
APPENDIX 5
TRANSPORT PLAN
Appendix 6 – Services and geology plan

BANDO
125mm
1 2 3 4 5 6
ABANDONED
6304
NED
IL-0.67m
180mm
S
N CON 133N R DO NOT SCALE - IF IN DOUBT ASK
IE
SP GEOLOGY
6" N
L
6"
2675 12 IL-0.75m
PP
3" Status:
19 1146
D
1138 FOR INFORMATION
SU
NE
ED
DO
WO
TER
DC
914
Keyplan:
AN
N
ME
D
FVA
BA PS
AB
m
E
3"
ER
0m
8
N
ND 1 THIS DRAWING
80
2
SE
O
OM
18
2683 ON
x 610
mm
D
1308 E1314
D
N
IL-6.98m
ST
1315 9 VT Ground level
VMH
A
0
m
B
2647
CU
LS A m CL5.06m 105 (m OD + 100)
A
B
A
N IL-1.26m
D
AB
9"
O
N
m
E
0m
mm
AN 25m 812
2681 D
A 4202
CI
12
30 B
9
VT
25
0 A SE
DO
N Base of Made Ground and Superficial
1
20
D
10
DO
m
CL5.57m
CL
0214 18
NE
N
5m
m 95 (m OD + 100)
0m
21
m
E 2205
x
1 0m
180mm
21 m 4206
O
IL-1.58m D
0m
& 4"
5
OS
9 m
x
D
12
D
"
1
m
x SE 12
N
18
81 IL-0.95m
E-
A 3
B
00
A
IL-1.45m 2206
2685
F
IL-7.32m 3
"
VT
IT
4
MAPPING REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF ORDNANCE SURVEY
6
mm
FV
3
2202
AB
ON BEHALF OF HMSO. ' CROWN COPYRIGHT AND DATABASE
m
324
0207 SE
m
x 52
AN
H
SE RIGHT 2011. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ORDNANCE SURVEY LICENCE
IL-1.05m
LI
DO
1
m VT NUMBER 100019345
ST 0m
NE
IL-1.56m
NE
D
M
18 E CL4.74m
D
0201 1145 2204
D
2
E
0204 N
E
D
9
O IL-1.59m
R
N
D THIS IS AN INDICATIVE WORKING DRAFT PLAN WHICH HAS BEEN
0m
H
SE
S
N
m
O
WI
IT
A 25mm 6208
M
PRODUCED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONFIDENTIAL DISCUSSIONS
0m
D
m
B 1
re
IT
N
A " Fi Suggested invert level of shaft

W
ONLY. ACCORDINGLY, THE DRAFT PLAN MUST NOT BE COPIED,
TH
9
4
A
CON 2N IL-1.55m 2
H
B
IL-6.26m 6 IL-1.15m DISTRIBUTED OR SHOWN TO ANY THIRD PARTY WITHOUT THE

mm 74.31 (m OD + 100)
A
7 1139 80
1
12 8
22
x EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THAMES WATER UTILITIES
x
96
RE
D
FI
T
19 13
NE
3 LIMITED. IT PROVIDES AN INDICATION OF SITES THAT,
5m
IL-0.21m 4 IL-7.37m IL-7.36m
28
11
R
LI
FOLLOWING DISCUSSIONS WITH LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND OTHER

m
mm
m
1524
m
90 STAKEHOLDERS, MAY BE CONFIRMED AS BEING ON THE

5
2676 IL-1.59m 975

IP
R
12
SHORTLIST OF CONSTRUCTION SITES FOR THE PROPOSED
E
SL
PE
THAMES TUNNEL. INCLUSION OF A SITE ON THIS DRAFT PLAN
IE
25
4
R SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN TO MEAN THAT SUCH SITE WILL BE

CI
100
SP IL-7.38m
2
mm m IL-1.34m
D 4207
F
0m E IL-7.38m
15
N 6" SELECTED AS A CONSTRUCTION SITE TO FORM PART OF THE

D
18 O
4"
3
E
ZBV205999
S
2 1144 D ZBV205608 THAMES TUNNEL SCHEME.
9
SD
N
N
E
A 4123
0
m ZBV205995
O
18
W
)
m
1102 A
D
Base of London Clay Formation
R2
E
m
E
17
E
N
2
R I IP
R
A
48 (m OD + 100) COORDINATES ARE TO ORDNANCE SURVEY DATUM OSGB36.

32m
6
IL-0.23m IL-1.49m D L SE P 5105
B
5 S m
0131 IL-1.95m mł ALL LEVELS ARE IN METRES AND RELATE TO THE TUNNEL DATUM
A
7 IN
(W
IL-1.55m 4104
18
0122 0 50
90mm AT DEPTH 0.3m 3 10 A D20 WHICH IS 100 METRES BELOW ORDNANCE DATUM NEWLYN.
m
SEIL-0.2m T 13
0m
E M WW E
E
P ( S N
R
S
0130 BS O
m
m
IL-7.43m .1 IL-7.39m U VT D 986
17 B
T
AB
AN 1111 R 0m N
o
E 4102 A
N
0128 FV D 9 WO P CL4.71m B NOTES:
DO IL-1.92m
B
S I A
NE IL-5.78m 6 m R P
R
D 0113 m PS 0 2134 E D E 5106 Base of Lambeth Group
3 D 10 H m E ) PIP
A
SE m 0 5 W E
m 9 7 E IL-1.73m E IT E 305 ł 0m
N
O ED N 1. LIMITED FIBRE OPTIC AND BT COMMUNICATION CABLES
N
0112 N 1103 P 37 (m OD + 100)
0114 3 O W S 3 8 D N I
C
IL-6.93m SE D 1140 1 1 N L
SE D L 8 A DO SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING. DETAILS OF THESE CABLES
H
N E
FV A IRSE m E 00 2107 E ZBV050133 B
A AN I N
IL-0.36m IN
)
WO B m 3 x AND OTHER SERVICES AND THIRD PARTY ASSETS TO BE
FV A F 0 L 2106 SE V B A
0125 9m E A M CONFIRMED BY FURTHER STUDIES AND UTILITY SEARCHES.
0111 0127 " R 2135
IP L 19 ( ED 5109 mm
0
SE 3 P H 0m 2 4116 ON 25
00
0115 S T 9 L 1 R 5104 D 1
IL-2.51m SE I S W E E WO AN
W O P B 2. INVERT LEVEL OF SHAFT SHOWN. BASE OF CONSTRUCTION
2
B " I0 L I W A
IL-0.38m O 3 C0 HAMMERSMITH OLD SPS (ABANDONED) P E EV EEK
C PE
0
3 1107 "3 IL-7.39m S - R WILL BE BELOW THIS LEVEL AND WILL DEPEND ON
D0 4 2131 ł C PI VT Base of Thanet Sand Formation
45
04 E0 - 17
2132 F RS
< EV CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUE. THIS IS ONLY PROVISIONAL AS
AB
VMH 3
2
7 IN 8 E P
E
974 E EV DR ł
4
0116 I S 0 23 (m OD + 100)
L I NT 4106 30
AN
3 DESIGN IS AT EARLY PRELIMINARY STAGE.
3
IL-1.85m L P 00
EL
SE 2103 WO 4
1
626
IP E OU E1 5110
8
DO
D
2 ł C
L BOC 3027 VMH E R P
6
NN
B N D D PE
NE
S D
AN4120
ł
BS O E 5 I
81
D N RM
100M
E 3101T 7 mł P LEGEND
6
I T N
D
m
N DO E
TU
C 3 m
81
VMH S O S
P
T
3
18
A O 35
m
CA
12
R D R
" B N
A BA ST 30
6
IP
CL5.93m 5
ABA
19
U N U
4 LI
0m
B 2 A B H
m
IL-1.64m P 5113
19
2 T
19
M -
E
B
E
A I
WO E A 2116 E H DU WO W
m
IL-1.97m ED FOUL WATER
LE
180 NED
IP 2115 IP
FW FW
SE IT R
NDO "
P P E DBV014264 ON
W
P
M
x 80
HW SE 4119 D D
S-
e SE
121
1110 IL-1.65m S 4117 NE
r mm AN
21
IP
m PS m
mm
i R I ED
1
4"
F 5 0m5 2133 2117 0m
DS F PE L AB
8 m
E E SURFACE WATER
E
mm
E
PI I ON
SW SW
12 9 2 8 I P
M EL
13
WW 1
AM
1143 25 D D
9
2 L
m
em SE M R ł S NE AN
B
1
4
r
i 3006 CON 3N A M 0
F 0m " AB
U
0 O
TH
H R
5
4
O 3 ND
12
R
x
18 ST CLEAN WATER
4
FV 3011 4118 BA
W W
5
H A
T
1141 IL-7.4m T
"
m
2033 MI E
813
9"
10 98
IP
2
Chalk
m
RS
32
D
10
E P G G GAS
0
E
MM E
IP
(1
P
m
N D
HA IP
CI
00
O E ł
m
IP
E
9 D N P
0366 N
1 A3 D O 0
E
0 5004
D
ł 5
12 A8B1 N
7
FIBRE OPTICS
37
CABTV CABTV
CL
3
I
)
IL-1.76m A
00
A
4"
B
L
B
x A
18
3
B
O
U
OS
3013 3008
10
W
R
m
10
E
N
m T T TELECOMMUNICATIONS
S
m
0
E-
0 ) 2002 IP
A
0
3010
D
m
T
m
L
7 IL-2.01m
m
B
1 2
O
.
m
8 FL
E
VMH T
m
No
A
FI
N
9 S ł
P
IL-9.02m
V
12
(1 3009 mm
N
R
E
3012
D
IP
5 LOW VOLTAGE CABLES

D
T U 80
LV LV
E
T
D
D
19
ER PE
9
I
B 1
I
L
O 0m
8 0393
10
1821 81
IL-1.71m
10
2
2
LV E
N m
PI D SYNTHETIC GEOLOGICAL PROFILE DERIVED FROM THE BGS
LI
IP
0
S
2
(1
E
CU HW
C04XN
0
WO
D
m
ł N
E
P
x
5
LONDON LITHOFRAME50 MODEL, HISTORICAL BOREHOLES
D
HIGH VOLTAGE CABLES
m
NE
9
2001 O HV HV
I(
"
m
W
Y 438 D
m
m
8
ER
10
VMH 0m N 2029 AND BERRY (1979). PLEASE NOTE, GROUND CONDITIONS MAY
E
U
7
2
19
D
V
R
0
8 B
)
LI 1 VARY AND THIS DATA SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR DETAILED

D
3
A FL
m
HAMMERSMITH STORM SPS
P
8
WO EXISTING TUNNELS
DE
I
2031 2041
m
N
7
IP
2017 ENGINEERING PURPOSES
(3286m†)HAMMP1ZZ
o
1 1142 SE VMH E
D
.
W
IL-8.89m
1
8 DB IP
I
18 VMH 973
P
IT
24 DB
(M
>
AB
C 3 ł -
1015 IL-1.26m 2020 8 -
A
H
0 IL-0.9m 5003
B ł 00 UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
IN
E FL
AN
1016 DS SE . IP PI 3 0
12 ON
FV 5
22
D 1
6
1012 N o P PE DS 4
D
E 5010
L
1022 FV 4008
3
A N
5m ED
ł IP IL-2.9m AC
IN
5m
m
1016 9 P T 2010
DC 5 ST
12
m
R DM09556
E
3
m
E FV IL-1.33m 0 2 R ł E NAME NK SPS 4003 5009
m
IP
)
19
DC FV 3 2 U V 3560 WATER - ALL TW ASSETS
3
P 1003 B 5 L LOC CODE NK "
FV 9 U IL-2.05m
0
C
PE
ł O E 8 C 0 3 E
x
E1018 SE 2 5
8
1 IP
DC B
1028 IP Y 4 IR STORM & - ALL TW ASSETS
10
VT P R F
8
P 0
19 E 1004 E E 5012
13
m 5 FOUL SEWERS
IP LIV
0
ł IP 0m 4
1 P P
2
8 9 E
SD
4007
ABANDONED
D
1"
ł D
19 ł E
2 4"
1 E N OTHER SIGNIFICANT UTILITIES ARE DEFINED AS:
9
5
9 mm
IP Omm
R
8 2
0
19 SITE BOUNDARY D
"
P 2 5901
26
FH N 0 D 5902
A 8 NE DBV014262
125mm
ł B 1 O 450D SE TELECOMS - ONLY FIBRE OPTIC CABLES
1 A D NE 4903
8 N
19 B
A DO
C A AN ELECTRICITY - HIGH VOLTAGE CABLES
200m m
4902 B
A - LARGE BANKS OF LOW VOLTAGE CABLES
2
0 5905
5
1"
4 3558
GAS - LOW PRESSURE ABOVE 300mm DIAMETER
4901 971 - INTERMEDIATE, MEDIUM OR HIGH PRESSURE
12
0
9 0
19
DBV014261
2 "
0
" m
3
5
IL-2.13m
6
970 10 m 0 100 m
4
5904
3
"
x
0 5
m
5
m
m
4
8
m
m
13
5 SCALE 1 : 1000
D 12 17
VT 00 E R
3ON ED D
D ON m S
3902 D N 0Revision History
E A ND 0m ED 10
N mm D B
VT DO 80 E A BA 18 ON P
E
N 1 N A D
O
L
Iss Description Dsgnr Chkd Appd Date
A
B 1
3903
N
D 00 A
N
O
A 38 A 3 1079 B m
12
5 B A m AA FIRST ISSUE JNHM PSTV JSWE 28/10/2011
W
0 A 5906 3
3 6
150
19
H
L
3559 IT
4905
E
W
V
m
A
5m "
l
00 D
B
E
12
81
3 IL-2.19m E
A
IN
L
N
D L
3
E
ia
D
18
N IP
S
O
O
D L
0m
W
N S
A
E
00 B "
nt
m
R
D
3 A 4
D
E D RE
N
N E "FI
O N
O
3801 5801 6801 5 7
D DO R1
3
1
N
A N m E SD
00
9" 0m
1081
25
B A m N 00
de
4"
A AB 80 DO 00
M
3 1
5 1 N PE
A
2 A WO
2 B
IN
m
A
mm
fi
3802
RE 63
100
m 1080
FI
L
0m 2
5
" ITH
IN
18
30
0 4
m
m mm 2
30
W
90
A0B
E
2
on
D
1 e
r 4" NE
A
Fi LI
ND
IP
SL
IL-2.24m
ON
SU 4802
4" The Point, 7th Floor,
ED
C
m 37 North Wharf Road,
0 m ED
21
0 5 Paddington, London W2 1AF
312 ON
31
30
"
"
9" m m
25
AN
21
4" Location Code: OS Reference: Security Reference: Drawn By:
AB
0
d
12
0
D
9
N/A TQ2877 UBR JYAS
5
an
mm
x
Project Group: Sub Process:
WO
4801 1082 LONDON TIDEWAY TUNNELS WASTE
81
5802
50
Location / Town:
3
HAMMERSMITH & FULHAM - CSO4X-HAMMERMITH PS
EL
ft
Site Name: C04XN - HAMMERSMITH PS
63
NN
3650 5 Project Name:

TU
mm
FH 22
ra
DBV014260 4" 9" THAMES TUNNEL
2
DBV014533
2
LE
Contract Name:
22
STIL-2.27m
5
2
S-
SITE SUITABILITY REPORT

5
2
D
5
22
E
5702 6704 Drawing Title:

AM
4
5
"
WO
SERVICES AND GEOLOGY PLAN
TH
4" 968
5 C04XN
22
2"
21"
22 4"
6702
Drawing No.: Scale: Sheet Size: Rev:
9"
10
0701 SE
4"
VT 100-DL-PNC-C04XN-143001 1:1000 A1 AA
0
0702 DM09557
PLOTTED ON 02/11/2011 BY LOCATION : e:\async working dir\pw-ttp\_pdf_svc_2\dms04386\100-DL-PNC-C04XN-143001.dgn c Thames Water Utilities Ltd 2008
Appendix 7 – Construction phase layout

1 2 3 4 5 6
N DO NOT SCALE - IF IN DOUBT ASK
Status:
FOR INFORMATION
Keyplan: N
THIS DRAWING
A
HAMMERSMITH
STORM RELIEF
EGRESS SEWERS
RIGHT 2011. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ORDNANCE SURVEY LICENCE
NUMBER 100019345
THIS IS AN INDICATIVE WORKING DRAFT PLAN WHICH HAS BEEN

DISTRIBUTED OR SHOWN TO ANY THIRD PARTY WITHOUT THE
EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THAMES WATER UTILITIES
LIMITED. IT PROVIDES AN INDICATION OF SITES THAT,
STAKEHOLDERS, MAY BE CONFIRMED AS BEING ON THE
SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN TO MEAN THAT SUCH SITE WILL BE
SELECTED AS A CONSTRUCTION SITE TO FORM PART OF THE
THAMES TUNNEL SCHEME.
100m†
100m†
300m†
INTERCEPTION/VALVE
CHAMBER KEY:
EXCAVATED MATERIAL, SLURRY

PROCESSING AND SEPARATION PLANT,
STORAGE AND HANDLING AREA
STOCKYARD, WORKSHOP AND STORES
OFFICES, WELFARE AND CANTEEN
CSO DROP SHAFT, CSO CONNECTION

CULVERT, PRIMARY CRANE, SECONDARY
HAMMERSMITH
CRANE AND CSO INTERCEPTION CHAMBER
PUMPING STATION
ACCESS
DISCLAIMER:
INDICATIVE CONSTRUCTION PHASE ARRANGEMENT.
BASED ON PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT.
200m m
10 m 0 10 m
SCALE 1 : 200
Revision History
1050m†
AA FIRST ISSUE JNHM PSTV JSWE 28/10/2011
150
SECONDARY CRANE
l
TEMPORARY WORKING
ia
AREA = 3170m†
nt
SITE BOUNDARY
de
AREA = 3170m†
fi
100
on
SHAFT 15m ID
C
Location Code: OS Reference: Security Reference: Drawn By:
d
D PRIMARY CRANE JYAS
N/A TQ2877 UBR
an
LONDON TIDEWAY TUNNELS WASTE
50
Location / Town: HAMMERSMITH & FULHAM-CS04X-HAMMERSMITH PS
ft
Project Name:
ra
THAMES TUNNEL
Contract Name:
4m ID CONNECTION
TUNNEL SITE SUITABILITY REPORT
D
Drawing Title:
CONSTRUCTION PHASE LAYOUT

C04XN
100-DL-PNC-C04XN-143002 1:200 A1 AA
0
Appendix 8 – Operational phase layout

1 2 3 4 5 6
N DO NOT SCALE - IF IN DOUBT ASK
Status:
FOR INFORMATION
Keyplan: N
THIS DRAWING
A
HAMMERSMITH STORM
RIGHT 2011. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ORDNANCE SURVEY LICENCE
RELIEF SEWERS
NUMBER 100019345
THIS IS AN INDICATIVE WORKING DRAFT PLAN WHICH HAS BEEN

DISTRIBUTED OR SHOWN TO ANY THIRD PARTY WITHOUT THE
EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THAMES WATER UTILITIES
LIMITED. IT PROVIDES AN INDICATION OF SITES THAT,
STAKEHOLDERS, MAY BE CONFIRMED AS BEING ON THE
SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN TO MEAN THAT SUCH SITE WILL BE
SELECTED AS A CONSTRUCTION SITE TO FORM PART OF THE
THAMES TUNNEL SCHEME.
PERMANENT
ACCESS
INTERCEPTION/
VALVE CHAMBER
HAMMERSMITH
PUMPING STATION
DISCLAIMER:
INDICATIVE OPERATION PHASE ARRANGEMENT.
BASED ON PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT.
VENTILATION
COLUMN
C
200m m
6m x 4m TOP
STRUCTURE
10 m 0 10 m
2.0m x 0.6m x 1.5m

HIGH ELECTRICAL
SCALE 1 : 200
CONTROL KIOSK
15m ID CSO
DROP SHAFT
Revision History
AA FIRST ISSUE JNHM PSTV JSWE 28/10/2011
150
EXISTING BOUNDARY
l
FENCE TO BE
REINSTATED
ia
nt
de
fi
100
on
C
PERMANENT Location Code: OS Reference: Security Reference: Drawn By:
d
D HARDSTANDING N/A TQ2877 UBR JYAS
FOR CRANE ACCESS
an
LONDON TIDEWAY TUNNELS WASTE
50
Location / Town: HAMMERSMITH & FULHAM - CSO4X-HAMMERMITH PS
ft
Project Name:
ra
THAMES TUNNEL
Contract Name:
CONNECTION TUNNEL
TO MAIN TUNNEL 4.0m ID SITE SUITABILITY REPORT
D
Drawing Title:
OPERATIONAL PHASE LAYOUT

C04XN
100-DL-PNC-C04XN-143003 1:200 A1 AA
0
1 2 3 4 5 6
DO NOT SCALE - IF IN DOUBT ASK
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 DATABASE RIGHT 2008. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ORDNANCE SURVEY LICENCE NUMBER 100019345
ABOVE WEIR (LOCKABLE)
COORDINATES ARE TO ORDNANCE SURVEY DATUM OSGB36.

ALL LEVELS ARE IN METRES AND RELATE TO A LOCAL HEIGHT
DATUM WHICH IS 100 METRES BELOW ORDNANCE DATUM NEWLYN.
NOTE:
4m
1. STRUCTURE TO BE PROTECTED BY REMOVABLE HANDRAILS
IN THE TEMPORARY CASE.
6m
3m
2. POSITION OF COVERS ARE VARIABLE WITHIN 10m FROM THE
EDGE OF THE STRUCTURE, AND THE LOCATION IS BASED ON
5m
10000
SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT
3. CLADDING OF VENTILLATION BUILDING TO

SUIT LOCATION AND AESTHETICS.
4. ALL TOP STRUCTURES TO HAVE:-
ACCESS STAIRS/LADDER
VARIBLE DEPENDING ON
TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT HAND RAILING
5. ALL DIMENSIONS IN MILLIMETRES UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED.
GROUND LEVEL
B
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)
200mm
- -
- -
150
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
1500
- -
AB DRAFT-SECOND ISSUE IL GT GT 27-11-09
- -
AA DRAFT-FIRST ISSUE RS DS CH 22-05-09
100
0
60
2000

Location Code: OS Reference: Security Reference: Drawn By:
D N/A --- UBR AP
LTTDT WASTE
50
Location / Town: LONDON
Site Name: N/A
Project Name:
THAMES TUNNEL
Contract Name:
SITE SUITABILITY REPORT

Drawing Title:
GENERIC ELEVATION AND TOP STRUCTURE FOR

SCALE 1:25 OPERATIONAL PHASE LAYOUT - CSO SITES
100-DH-GEN-00000-000001 NTS A1 AB
0
PLOTTED ON 04\12\09 BY Andy.Purdy LOCATION : Thames Tideway Tunnel x:\project\371840\cad\design data\cad thames\drawings\planning-consents\Routewide\100-DH-GEN-00000-000001.dgn c Thames Water Utilities Ltd 2008
Appendix 9 – Environmental appraisal tables
Transport
Site Mitigation required and
Comments
considerations conclusions
Access to road Construction site access Temporary construction access
network located on Distillery Road will require construction.
with egress onto Chancellor’s Removal of on-street parking on
Road. Both construction Chancellor’s Road will be
access and egress will required to provide passing
require construction and places and removal of on-street
some on-street parking parking on Chancellor’s Road
opposite the access and and Distillery Road to allow
egress will require removal to access for construction vehicles;
allow access by construction alternative on-street residential
vehicles. parking available within vicinity of
Permanent access proposed site.
on Distillery Road. Speed cushions on Distillery
Both Chancellor’s Road and Road/Chancellor’s Road and
Distillery Road are subject to raised table at Distillery Road/
a 30mph speed limit, feature Chancellor’s Road junction will
traffic calming (speed require removal to allow access
cushions, raised table) and for construction vehicles.
are street lit. Visibility from Several constraints to access the
the construction site egress is TLRN (A4), most notably the
considered adequate. on-street parking and traffic
Access to A4 (TLRN strategic calming (speed cushions) on
highway network) achievable Chancellor’s Road.
from Chancellor’s Road onto Conclusion: Temporary
Fulham Palace Road, then construction access will require
onto the Hammersmith construction, and speed
Gyratory (using the A306 for cushions close to temporary
westbound A4). The construction access will require
Hammersmith Gyratory is a removal to allow access by
town centre location. construction vehicles. Raised
Access to A4 (TLRN strategic table will require removal. Some
highway network) runs parking on Chancellor’s Road
through a residential area and Distillery Road will require
and high street and has removal to create passing places
constraints in the form of for construction vehicles and
traffic calming (speed allow access into the site for
cushions, raised table) and construction vehicles.
on-street parking on
Chancellor’s Road, which
reduces effective carriageway
width to 4m. Route passes
under the Hammersmith

Transport
Comments
flyover, with no visible height
restrictions. Distance to
TLRN 0.9km for westbound
A4 and 1.1km for eastbound
A4.
A preliminary Transport
Access Plan is attached as
Appendix 5.
Access to river River access not essential for River access not essential as
CSO site. excavated material will be
transported away by road.
Access to rail Access to rail unlikely to be Route to possible rail link (near
required due to small Barnes Bridge) runs along a
volumes of excavated narrow road, which is traffic
material produced by the site. calmed, adjacent to the River
Access to the Barnes railway Thames in addition to the
site uses the route to the constraints encountered upon
TLRN (A4), then follows the accessing TLRN (A4).
A4 and continues to the Railway sidings would need to be
junction with the A316, where constructed in order for the site
it heads south along the A316 to be utilised.
towards the junction with Distance 5.3km to rail access
Hartington Road. The route from site.
then follows a narrow road
adjacent to the River Thames
before reaching the site.
Constraints include those
encountered when accessing
the TLRN in addition to a
traffic calmed narrow road
alongside the river in close
proximity to the Barnes site.
Distance 5.3km to rail access
from site.
Parking Parking currently not Removal of on-street parking on
provided on plans within site; Distillery Road and Chancellor’s
however some parking could Road required. Alternative
potentially be made available parking available within vicinity of
within site boundary for site.
workforce. Limited parking is Some parking spaces could
also available on Distillery potentially be provided for the
Road for pay and display workforce on site. Alternative
users, although maximum on-street parking available (pay
stay of 8hrs (£2.40/hr). and display, maximum stay of

Transport
Comments
Parking on Chancellor’s Road 4-8hrs) which may be unsuitable
for pay and display users, for for workforce.
a maximum stay of 4hrs
(£2.40/hr), Mon-Sat
08:30-18:30; unsuitable for
workforce.
Public transport PTAL 5-6 (high), as identified Good possibility of workforce
accessibility within Table 2.3. being able to use public transport
to access site.
Traffic Temporary construction Removal of speed cushions,
management access will require some on-street parking, and
construction and speed raised table. Temporary
cushions close to temporary construction access will require
access will require removal. construction.
Removal of some on-street Alternative residential parking
parking on Distillery Road available on Distillery Road/
and Chancellor’s Road Chancellor’s Road.
required to allow access into
the site for construction
vehicles and to provide
passing places on
Chancellor’s Road for HGVs.
Raised table at the Distillery
Road/Chancellor’s Road
junction will require removal
to allow access for
construction vehicles.
Summary: The site is suitable for use as a CSO site. To provide unobstructed
access for construction vehicles, the removal of some parking bays and traffic
calming features in the vicinity of the access would be required. There are several
constraints along the potential road and rail access routes which would need
removing to enable movement of construction vehicles, including on-street parking,
traffic calming and a raised table. However, rail transport is unlikely to be required
due to the small quantities of excavated material produced by the CSO site.
There is good public transport accessibility to the site for the workforce, and some
parking could potentially be provided within the site boundary. However, nearby
on-street parking is restricted to a maximum stay of four hours.

Archaeology
Comments
Designations, The western border of the site is Not applicable.
including just within the Hammersmith and
archaeological Fulham Archaeological Priority
priority areas Area.
Summary of The site is located within the A detailed desk-based
historical uses historical grounds of Brandenburgh assessment is required to
House, which was erected by Sir sufficiently understand the
Nicholas Crispe in the 17th archaeological resource
century. The house was plundered and define risk to potential
by Parliamentarians during the development.
Civil War. In 1683 Prince Rupert
purchased the house and gave it to
his mistress, the actress Margaret
Hughes. In 1740 the house was
purchased by George Bubb
Dodington, afterwards Lord
Melcombe, who undertook
extensive renovations.
The Margrave of
Brandenburgh-Anspach purchased
the house in 1792. By the close of
the 18th century, the house still
contained a fair portion of the
original house built by Crispe in the
mid-17th century.
The site was cleared in the
mid-19th century but was not
developed with buildings possibly
associated with a distillery to the
west of the site.
On the southern edge of the
grounds of Brandenburgh House
(c.35m to the southwest outside
the site), early Saxon settlement
and later remains were discovered
during trial excavations in 1999,
2001 and 2005/7.
Potential No archaeological receptors of A detailed desk-based
receptors of very high or very high value are assessment is required to
high or high recorded within the site. sufficiently understand the
value with the This does not preclude the archaeological resource
potential to be possibility of unrecorded and define risk to potential
directly affected archaeological receptors of high development.
value being present within the site.

Archaeology
Comments
Potential A single find spot exists within the A detailed desk-based
receptors of site. The find consisted of residual assessment is required to
medium value or deliberately concealed Roman sufficiently understand the
with the potential artefacts which were recovered archaeological resource
to be directly from the site, including five copper and define risk to potential
affected alloy coins dating from development.
AD 260-385, a number of Roman
pottery shards and CBM
(MLO777778).
This does not preclude the
possibility of further unrecorded
archaeological receptors of
medium value being present within
the site.
Other receptors The dewatering of waterlogged Not applicable.
with the potential deposits is unlikely to be a major
to be directly issue as the site is located at some
affected distance from the Thames.
Extent of existing The historic map evidence shows A detailed desk-based
disturbance (if the construction of terraced assessment is required to
known) housing in the 19th century and sufficiently understand the
suggests there has been some archaeological resource
minor disturbance in the 20th and define risk to potential
century but whether this was development.
significant enough to disturb any
earlier archaeological remains
requires further investigation.
Borehole data in the area indicates
up to 10m of made ground, some
of which could be archaeological in
nature.
Potential issues The location of the site close to the Mitigation methods could
known remains of the 17th century include:
Brandenburgh House suggests the • desk-based assessment
possibility of remains relating to
• production of deposits
this structure. In addition, the
model
presence of a Saxon settlement in
relatively close proximity suggests • archaeological
the possibility of remains of this monitoring of
date also. geotechnical
Detailed design proposals and an investigations
outline method statement will be • archaeological
required to enable initial evaluation
assessment of development • archaeological watching

Archaeology
Comments
impacts, and to inform mitigation brief
proposals. • archaeological
excavation.
Summary: This site is potentially suitable as a CSO site. Information currently
available indicates that one known archaeological receptor has previously been
identified within the site, comprising a find spot of Roman date. There are further
records of archaeological remains of medium/high value in the immediate vicinity,
and the site has been subjected to little major disturbance in the recent past. It is
therefore possible that archaeological receptors of a high or medium value may still
be present within the location of the proposed drop shaft. Further research is
required to confirm the extent of previous excavations.


Mitigation required and
Site considerations Comments
conclusions
Designations including Listed buildings In the case of listed
conservation areas, Nurse’s Home on north side buildings, buildings of merit
including trees of Lochlaine Street (116 and conservation areas, a
Fulham Palace Road), high-quality scheme design
Grade II: 201m and adequate screening for
the development may be
Temple Lodge (No 51)
required, as discussed
Queen Caroline Street,
below.
Grade II: 220m
A detailed desk-based
Carling Apollo Theatre
assessment in conjunction
(Odeon Cinema), Queen
with archaeology work will be
Caroline Street, Grade II*:
required to further determine
245m
the likely impact of the
Buildings of local interest development and to inform
The London Borough of more detailed mitigation
Hammersmith and Fulham proposals.
holds a list of buildings of On the basis of currently
merit. One building of merit available information (July
is located within 250m of 2009) and on the basis of
C04XN. certain receptors not being
Water Pumping Station, St present within 250m of
James’ Street: 30m C04XN, mitigation will not be
There are no locally listed applicable in the case of
buildings within 250m of registered historic parks and
C04XN and within the gardens, locally listed parks
borough of Richmond. and gardens and protected
Conservation areas views.
Fulham Reach Conservation
Area: 0m (C04XN is located
within the designated area)
Crabtree Conservation
Area: 30m
Hammersmith Odeon
Conservation Area: 30m
Registered historic parks
and gardens
There are no registered
historic parks and gardens
within 250m of C04XN.
Locally listed parks and
gardens
There are no locally listed
parks and gardens with
250m of C04XN.


conclusions
Protected views
There are no protected
views within 250m of
C04XN.
Potential receptors of The Fulham Reach Mitigation in the form of a
medium to very high Conservation Area has the high-quality and sensitive
importance with the potential to be directly scheme design and/or
potential to be directly affected as C04XN lies screening would be required
affected within the boundaries of the to ensure that the
designated area. development preserves or
enhances the character or
appearance of the Fulham
Reach Conservation Area.
Further desk-based
assessment is likely to be
required to more accurately
define any impacts arising
from the development on the
character and appearance of
the conservation area.
Other receptors of Not applicable. Not applicable.
lesser importance with
the potential to be
directly affected
Potential receptors of There is the potential for Of the three listed buildings
medium to very high three listed buildings (one within 250m of C04XN, only
importance with the Grade II* and two Grade II one has the potential to
potential to be listed buildings) to be share a visual relationship
indirectly affected indirectly affected through with the site (Nurse’s Home
changes to their settings. on north side of Lochlaine
There is also the potential Street [116 Fulham Palace
for one building of merit and Road]). Consequently, the
two conservation areas to scheme has the potential to
be indirectly affected. have an adverse impact on
the settings of this listed
building. Mitigation in the
form of a high-quality
scheme design and/or
screening is therefore likely
to be required. The
remaining two listed buildings
do not share a visual
relationship with the site.
The development would
therefore not result in an


conclusions
impact on these listed
structures and mitigation
would not be required.
The Crabtree Conservation
Area and the Hammersmith
Odeon Conservation Area
are also likely to share a
visual relationship with the
site. The development
therefore has the potential to
have an adverse impact on
the setting of and views to
and from these designated
areas. Mitigation in the form
of a high-quality scheme
design and/or screening may
be required to reduce the
visual impact of the scheme
on these conservation areas.
There may be a visual
relationship between the
water pumping station and
the site; however, this is not
considered to be an adverse
impact due to the industrial
nature of the site.
Other receptors of Not applicable. Not applicable.
lesser importance with
the potential to be
indirectly affected
Sensitive landscape Site in Thames Policy Area, Retention of trees where
character areas likely strategic and local cycle possible and protection in
to be affected, route runs to the east of the accordance with BS 5837.
including trees and site, green open space to Introduction of landscape
TPOs the east of site. scheme to include
Site on industrial, derelict appropriate surface
land with a pumping station. treatments and planting to
Chancellor’s Road to the enhance the character of the
north with densely built-up site and relate to the
residential development streetscape of Chancellor’s
further north, Distillery Road Road and Distillery Road.
to the east with Frank The proposed works would
Banfield Park further east, have an indirect adverse
Winslow Road to the south impact on the residential


conclusions
with densely built-up character of the area. The
residential development permanent access and
further south, pumping elements would have a
station to the west with permanent impact on the
some mature and scrubby residential streetscape and
vegetation further west, the park without suitable
adjacent to the River mitigation. An appropriate
Thames. landscape scheme would
Possible loss of mature assist in integrating the
vegetation. proposal into the residential
The presence and operation area.
of machinery, materials
stores and buildings would
be in keeping with the
current derelict nature of the
site. However, construction
activities would result in
temporary, severe adverse
indirect impacts on the
residential character of the
area and the River Thames.
Permanent elements would
potentially have an adverse
impact on the character of
the streetscape of both
Chancellor’s Road and
Distillery Road.
Potential views likely Open views from Distillery During construction, the use
to be affected Road and residents along of hoardings and appropriate
Chancellor’s Road. lighting would minimise
Partially interrupted views visual impact.
from Winslow Road, Frank Design of top structure, vent
Banfield Park, Fulham column and electrical kiosk to
Palace Road, Charing Cross be given careful
Hospital and the River consideration.
Thames. Planting to screen permanent
During construction, views plant. Integrated landscape
of cranes from properties scheme to enhance visual
listed above. amenity and reduce visual
Permanent elements visible impact.
to residents along The construction site will be
Chancellor’s Road and from located within an already
within site. derelict vacant site.
Construction activities will be


conclusions
in keeping with the site but
will be visually intrusive to
the residential properties
along Chancellor’s Road.
Permanent elements will be
located off Distillery Road,
allowing for implementation
of screening between the
elements and the residential
properties on Chancellor’s
Road to minimise visual
intrusion. In addition, space
is available for screening
between Distillery Road and
the permanent elements to
minimise visual intrusion for
visitors to Frank Banfield
Park.
Particular Permanent structures at The design of the site and
considerations on C04XN have the potential to any permanent structures will
sites where new directly affect the character need to preserve or enhance
permanent structures or appearance of the the character or appearance
are required Fulham Reach Conservation of the Fulham Reach
Area. They may also have Conservation Area.
an indirect impact on the Furthermore, permanent
setting of two other structures would need to be
conservation areas (the of a high-quality design
Crabtree Conservation Area and/or screened in order that
and the Hammersmith any physical and/or visual
Odeon Conservation Area) impact on the setting and
and one Grade II listed views to and from the
building (Nurse’s Home on Crabtree Conservation Area
north side of Lochlaine and the Hammersmith
Street [116 Fulham Palace Odeon Conservation Area,
Road]) and on the and on one Grade II listed
streetscape of Distillery building and the local
Road and Banfield Park. townscape character are
The visual impact of the minimised.
development on these built
heritage receptors would
therefore have to be
carefully considered.


conclusions
Potential issues The development could The scheme design will need
result in a number of direct to be of a sufficiently high
and indirect impacts to the quality and may need to
local townscape character, incorporate some screening
conservation areas and one in order that it preserves or
listed building. There is the enhances the character of
potential to mitigate adverse the Fulham Reach
impacts through high-quality Conservation Area. Further
scheme design and/or desk-based assessment is
screening and landscaping likely to be required to more
of the site. accurately define any
impacts arising from the
development on the
character and appearance of
the conservation area,
particularly as the
development may involve the
demolition of undesignated
structures and the removal of
trees, which would require
specific planning consent.
Furthermore, mitigation in the
form of a high-quality
scheme design and/or
screening would also be
required to reduce any
potential impacts on the
setting of and views to and
from two further conservation
areas, one Grade II listed
building and on the local
townscape character.
Summary: The site is suitable from a built heritage perspective. However, there is
the potential for a direct impact on the Fulham Reach Conservation Area. There is
also the potential for indirect impacts on one Grade II listed building and a further two
conservation areas, including the Hammersmith Odeon Conservation Area.
This site is suitable from a townscape perspective with suitable mitigation to integrate
the permanent elements into the residential character of the area.
These impacts could be mitigated through the implementation of a high-quality
scheme design and/or screening. Further desk-based assessment is likely to be
required to more closely define likely impacts on the character or appearance of the
Fulham Reach Conservation Area.


conclusions
Hydrogeological Geology (thickness) The drop shaft will be
conditions • Superficial geology and made constructed to an invert
(groundwater and ground (10m) level of approximately
surface water) from 30.69mbgl, therefore the
• London Clay (47m)
BGS Geological shaft will be founded in the
Model, giving • Lambeth Group (11m) London Clay. Piezometric
average ground • Thanet Sand (14m). head(1) in the Chalk is
condition profile. approximately 6.31m
Local near surface below the base of the
Hydrogeology
conditions may vary, construction. Therefore,
particularly within the • Piezometric Level in Chalk there is no potential issue
river. Aquifer: ~ -32mAOD in terms of geotechnical
(~ 37mbgl) from EA Jan 08 design.
water level contouring.
Groundwater monitoring
location
• EA hydrometry sites:
No hydrometry site nearby.
Watercourses
• Adjacent to River Thames.
SPZs and SPZ A simple volumetric
groundwater users • Not located in a source approach has been used
protection zone defined by to calculate the total
EA. capture zone of the
abstraction borehole. A
conservative mean annual
EA licensed groundwater recharge of 100mm/year
abstractions and details was used to calculate a
• No public water supply radius for licensed
• Two licensed abstraction abstraction boreholes as
borehole within 2km radius. follows:
1. 72m
Licence numbers: 2. 255m
1. 28/39/39/0221 (1 borehole)
2. 28/39/39/0137 (1 borehole). As a result, the drop shaft
will not be located within
either of these catchment
Locations: areas.
1. 1.54km southeast of the site
2. 1.76km west of the site.


conclusions
Operator:
1. Fulham Football Club Ltd.
2. Fuller Smith & Turner Ltd.
Abstracted aquifer unit:

1. Chalk
2. Gravel.
Abstraction purposes:
1. Industrial, commercial and
public service (sports
grounds/facilities – spray
irrigation)
2. Industrial, commercial and
public service (food and drink –
nonevaporative cooling).
Abstraction quantity (annual):

1. 6,500 m3
2. 81,828 m3
Local authorities (LA)

unlicensed groundwater
abstractions and details
• No abstraction borehole
within 1km radius.
Borehole locations There are seven historical Not applicable
and depths records of water wells: Four
deep wells and three shallow
wells within 1 km radius.
Depth range: 96.9 – 167.6m.
Depth range: 5.5 – 9.5m.
Potential impacts on The site is located adjacent to Work needs to be
surface water the River Thames. The site is undertaken in
features behind flood defences so the consideration of Pollution
pollution risk is through drainage Prevention Guidelines –
to the Thames. PPG1, PPG5 and PPS23.


conclusions
Potential impacts on No impact on groundwater at See below (likely types of
groundwater depth is likely since the drop mitigation measures that
(resources and shaft is to be constructed in will be required)
quality) London Clay (unproductive
strata). At shallow depth, the
drop shaft is located in Kempton
Gravel, which is classified as a
secondary aquifer. Limited
impact on shallow aquifer if
water is excluded from the
excavation by sheet piling.
Likely types of No mitigation required if Not applicable
mitigation measures groundwater is not impacted.
that will be required
Potential issues Limited impact on flow in No mitigation required
shallow aquifer due to sheet
piling.
Summary: In terms of hydrogeology, this CSO site is suitable because the drop
shaft is to be constructed in London Clay (unproductive strata). No impact on the
Chalk aquifer is expected. The superficial deposits at the site comprise Kempton
Gravel, which is classified as a secondary aquifer at the CSO site and which could
be subject to a limited impact on flow due to sheet piling.
In terms of surface water resources, this site is suitable for use as a CSO site
because there is no direct pathway to the River Thames for pollution; standard
mitigation would be required.

Ecology (terrestrial and aquatic)

conclusions
Statutory designations Leg of Mutton Reservoir, None required
Chiswick Eyot and Barnes
Common LNRs are within
2km.
Barn Elms Wetland Centre
SSSI is within 2km.
Non-statutory Site lies within 200m of River None required
designated wildlife sites Thames and Tidal Tributaries
SMI. Chelsea Creek, which
forms part of the SMI, has
intertidal mudflats of value to
birds, fish and invertebrates.
BAP priority habitats Aerial photography indicates Loss of wasteland habitat
that the site appears to may require
support a small area of compensatory provision.
‘wasteland’ London BAP However, this is likely to
habitat. be a very small area.
Although the development
footprint is not large, due
to other planned
development in the
immediate vicinity,
compensatory habitat
may potentially involve
off-site solutions.
Protected or otherwise Buildings on site may have If bat roosts were found to
notable species within potential to support roosting be present, mitigation
the study area bats. would be required for any
buildings to be affected by
works, possibly including
off-site provision. Careful
placement of lighting to
minimise illumination of
Site has potential to support surrounding habitat is
reptiles and scarce/notable likely to be required.
birds and invertebrates. Mitigation will be possible
No direct impact on aquatic but may require off-site
receptors. provision.
Potential issues No further issues None required.
Summary: This site is suitable as a CSO site as it would only be likely to require
basic ecological surveys and potentially some limited habitat mitigation or
compensation for loss of wasteland BAP habitat.

Flood risk assessment

conclusions
Flood risk zone Flood Zone 3 (1 in 200-year flood An FRA would be
extent) but defended to the 1 in required to assess the
1,000-year flood level – there is a residual risk of flooding
residual risk of a breach for which to the site.
mitigation would need to be
considered as part of the FRA.
Sewage transmission
infrastructure is considered to be
water compatible according to
Table D.2 of PPS25.
Assessment of There is available space for N/A
conditions for SUDS SUDS and the geology of the site
is sand and gravel, and should
therefore be suitable for
infiltration SUDS.
Potential issues No further issues None required.
Summary: This site is suitable for use as a CSO site, as the site is protected from
the 1 in 1,000-year flood level, and the underlying geology and potential space on
the site means that infiltration SUDS are likely to be suitable.

Air quality
conclusions
AQMA The air quality objective for There is a need for more
NO 2 is exceeded on major site specific data.
roads in vicinity of site.
Sensitive receptors There are residential There are relevant air
properties and a hospital along quality sensitive receptors
Fulham Palace Road (A219). present along the route the
There are residential construction traffic is likely
properties along Winslow Road to take and close to the
and Chancellor’s Road and proposed construction
adjacent to site access. works.
There are residential
properties within 25m of the
proposed site on Chancellor’s
Road.
Existing traffic issues The main traffic issue in this Additional vehicle
area is exhaust emissions on emissions have a high
A219 and A4 corridors. potential to interfere with
local air quality action plan
policies.
Existing sources of See above. See above.
significant air
pollutants
Notable gaps in There is no data available at Collect minimum six months
existing air quality the likely access to A219 and diffusion tube data at site
monitoring the nearest existing data access to A219 or other
indicates existing exceedance point of access to major
of AQLV. road network.
Potential issues The risk from additional Minimise HGV movements
exhaust emissions from on the local road network
construction HGVs is during peak hours.
undefined at present. Standard dust control
The risk from dust impacts is measures will minimise the
moderate. effect of fugitive dust on
nearby sensitive receptors.
Summary: This site is less suitable for use as a CSO site. There are residential
properties in close proximity to the site, and therefore there is potential for fugitive
emissions of dust during construction 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 can be somewhat
mitigated by minimising the movement of HGVs during peak hours.

Noise
Comments
Noise band level Information from Defra noise maps Not applicable
(from Defra noise indicates daytime noise levels of
maps) less than 58 dB L Aeq and night-time
noise levels of less than 50 dB L Aeq
at residential properties located
along Chancellor’s Road to the
north of the site. The residential
properties facing the site are likely
to experience relatively low
daytime and night-time noise levels
due to their distance from major
roads.
Noise levels from the Defra noise
maps provide an indication of
prevailing noise levels only, and
will not be employed in any
detailed assessments for chosen
sites.
Sensitive receptors There are sensitive receptors in Not applicable
close proximity to the northern
boundary of the site. Further
residential properties are located to
the east on Fulham Palace Road.
Residential properties are also
located to the south on Winslow
Road.
Sensitive receptors to the north
consist of two- and three-storey
residential dwellings at
Chancellor’s Road, at a distance of
approximately 20m from the
temporary working area and 55m
from the drop shaft location.
Sensitive receptors to the south on
Winslow Road are located
approximately 95m away from the
temporary working area and 110m
from the drop shaft location.
There are a number of sensitive
receptors adjacent to the site
access route, including
Chancellor’s Road, which will be
considerably affected by HGV
traffic.

Noise
Comments
There is the Frank Banfield Park
and associated playground
facilities located immediately to the
east of the site.
Existing traffic Local road traffic, coupled with Not applicable
issues more distant road traffic on the A4
to the north, the A306 to the west
and the A219 to the east, will
contribute to the local noise climate
in the area.
Existing sources of Local road traffic, coupled with Not applicable
significant noise more distant road traffic on the A4
emissions to the north, the A306 to the west
and the A219 to the east, will
contribute to the local noise climate
in the area.
A pumping station exists nearby on
Chancellor’s Road, although no
information with regard to this as a
source of noise is currently
available.
Potential issues Construction: Adherence to the good
The construction period is site practices provided in
estimated at up to two years, and BS5228.
working hours will be 12 hours per Siting of noisy equipment
day (7am to 7pm) Monday to and construction
Saturday. This has the potential to activities as far as is
result in adverse noise impacts to practicable from
the sensitive receptors surrounding sensitive receptors.
the site and, in particular, those on Provision of site
Chancellor’s Road and Winslow boundary noise fences.
Road. The Hammersmith
Pumping Station provides partial
screening to some of the receptors
on Chancellor’s Road.
A relatively large number of daily
HGV movements are anticipated,
and these have the potential to
result in adverse noise impacts
along the length of Chancellor’s
Road and Winslow Road,
depending on the proposed haul
route.
The immediate site area is fairly

Noise
Comments
small and, while the drop shaft
location may be fixed, ancillary
plant should be sited as far as is
practicable from surrounding
sensitive receptors. Situating plant
in the western area of the site
would maximise the distance
between them and the nearest
sensitive receptors, and minimise
potential disturbance.
Proposed 3m site boundary
fencing will 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 drop shaft location
are at a distance of approximately
55m and it is unlikely that vibration
levels will result in minor cosmetic
damage during shaft sinking but
may give rise to annoyance.
Vibration from tunnelling should be
considered on a case-by-case
basis at particular sensitive
locations.
Operation:
With appropriate attenuation (if
necessary), there is no reason why
noise from the ventilation column
and top chamber should result in
adverse noise impacts to nearby
sensitive receptors.
Summary: This site is less suitable for use as a CSO site due to the proximity of the
residential receptors to the north of the site. Any shielding afforded by the site
perimeter barriers is likely to be largely ineffectual due to the height of some of the
receptors. In addition, the number of vehicles associated with the construction
phase and the proposed access route is likely to cause noise impacts on the
residential properties on Chancellor’s Road and Winslow Road.

Land quality
Site location Grid reference: 523357, 178047
Current site use No site visit undertaken by a land quality specialist at
this stage
Topography No site visit undertaken by a land quality specialist at
this stage
Field evidence of None identified at this stage
contamination (ie, visual/
olfactory)
Current surrounding land North: Thames Water Pumping Station (northwest).
use (immediately adjacent Beyond this: Chancellor’s Road (6m wide) and
to site) commercial and residential uses beyond.
East: Distillery Road (4m wide) and public park
(Frank Banfield Park) beyond.
South: Remainder of vacant brownfield site,
demarcated for redevelopment. Winslow Road
beyond.
West: Remainder of vacant brownfield site,
demarcated for redevelopment.
Geological and hydrogeological information
Geological strata1 • Superficial geology and made ground (10m)
• London Clay (47m)
• Lambeth Group (11m)
• Thanet Sand (14m)
Underlying aquifer classes Unproductive strata: London Clay
Secondary aquifer: River terrace deposits,
Lambeth Group, Thanet Sand
Primary aquifer: Chalk
Groundwater vulnerability/ River terrace deposits – secondary aquifer
Soil classification High leaching potential of soils (U)2
(High/Intermediate/Low/Not
applicable)2
Source protection zone Not located in a source protection zone defined by
details EA
Surface water receptor River Thames (160m southwest)
Relevant information within a 250m radius of the site

Historical potentially On site
contaminating activities • Residential properties (northern region), 1862-
(based on mapping data) 1972

Land quality
• Site is located within the grounds of a spirit
distillery, 1862-1948
• Above ground tanks – contents unknown (central
region), 1896-1972
• Potential fuel related tanks (southwest of site),
1901
• Site is within the grounds of a chemical storage
depot, 1949-1991
• 2no. tanks – contents unknown (south), 1951-1952
• Asbestos (eastern site boundary and west), 1955-
1970
• Oil fuel boilers (west), 1970
• Cleared land, present.
Off site
• Sugar refinery (adjacent, south), 1974-1977
• Numerous tanks (contents unknown) in a
south-southwest direction (closest located 5m
south), 1952
• Historical building plans list numerous
above-ground and underground fuel-related tanks
in a south-southwest direction (closest located 6m
south), 1958-1964
• Water pumping station (13m northwest),
1974-present
• Areas cleared due to enemy action (19m
northeast), 1955
• Gasometer (35m southwest), 1869-1896
• Coal yard (42m south), 1951
• Electrical substation (65m southwest), 1972
• Sugar refinery (92m southwest), 1898-1978
• Metal casting/foundry (105m southwest), 1896-
1916
• Factory or works (105m northwest), 1938-1948
• Wharf (transport support and cargo handling),
(110m west), 1988
• Hospital (160m east), 1988
• Wharf (transport support and cargo handling),
(180m west), 1920
• Preserved food factory (190m southwest), 1951-
1978
• Joinery works (240m southwest), 1951-1952

Land quality
Pollution incidents to One
controlled waters • General – minor incident (245m west) within River
Thames
Landfill sites None
Other waste sites One registered waste disposal site:
• Scrap yard, very small (less than 10,000
tonne/year) – license listed as lapsed/cancelled,
1993 (155m northeast)
Registered radioactive None
substances
Fuel stations/depots None
Contemporary trade Eleven
directory entries • Car body repairs, inactive (50m south)
• Carpet, curtain and upholstery cleaning, active
(113 east)
• Domestic appliances – servicing, repairs and
parts, inactive (145m east)
• Precision engineers, inactive (150m east)
• Bottle manufacturers and suppliers, inactive (150m
east)
• Scrap metal merchants, inactive (157m northeast)
• Dry cleaners, inactive (157m northeast)
• Waste disposal services, inactive (157m
northeast)
• Cleaning Services – domestic, active (203m north)
• Waste disposal services, inactive (230m north)
• Medical equipment manufacturers, inactive (210m
northeast)
Site classification based on above information
Distance and
Activity direction to Contaminants
site
Potential site 1) Some 1) On site and 1) Metals,
contaminants derived from potential for directly adjacent PAHs, TPH
surface sources (eg, made ground to site
contaminants in made from potential 2) Metals,
ground) filling operations 2) On site and nitrogen
during directly adjacent compounds
development to site

Land quality
2) Spirit distilling 3) On site 3) TPH, PAHs,
metals,
solvents
3) Tanks – 4) On site and
contents directly adjacent
unknown/fuel to site 4) Chemicals -
tanks unknown
4) Chemical
storage depot
Potential site 1) Sugar 1) Adjacent, 1) Metals,
contaminants derived from refinery south nitrogen
offsite sources and compounds
transported to site 2) Tanks – 2) Closest
potential fuel located 5m 2) Metals, TPH,
related/contents south PAHs, solvents
unknown
3) 13m 3) Metals,
3) Pumping northwest phenols, PAHs,
station TPH,
4) 20m west
4) Oil boilers 4) Metals, TPH,
PAHs
5) 35m
5) Gasometer southwest
5) Metals,
PAHs, TPH,
6) Coal yard 6) 30m west
phenols,
sulphate,
cyanide
6) Metals, TPH,
PAHs
Potential contamination Source 1: A1, A2, A3, B4
pathways to site Source 2: E1, F7
(Conceptual Site Model)3
Contamination category Category 2 – assessed as medium risk
Summary: The site is less suitable as a CSO site with respect to land quality based
on the medium potential for contamination of the site to have occurred, specifically
from the chemical storage depot and potential fuel tanks on site and the fuel tanks,
sugar refinery, pumping station and gasometer in the near vicinity of the site. As the
site is located at the rear of the former chemical storage facility (where fewer
operations appear to have occurred), this is expected to have resulted in less
contamination compared to further south, where the bulk of operations appear to
have occurred.

Land quality
This has the potential to impact on site workers and adjacent human receptors
through direct contact exposure pathways and, to a lesser extent, volatilisation.
Additionally, the potential exists for contaminants to be drawn to the deeper aquifer if
deep drilling/construction is undertaken on the site.
There is potential for unexploded ordnance to be present on site as historical
information indicates that nearby areas have been cleared of ordnance (dates
unknown). It would therefore be prudent for a UXO survey (or equivalent) to be
conducted at the site if not done so already.
Notes:
1. From BGS Geological Model giving average ground condition profile. Local near
surface conditions may vary, particularly within the river.
2. Soil information for urban areas is based on fewer observations than elsewhere in
the country. Therefore, a worst case vulnerability (H) is assumed until proven
otherwise.
3. Refer to schematic Conceptual Site Model for explanation of site-specific source-
pathway-receptors.

Contacts
For information about the Thames Tideway Tunnel
Call: 0800 0721 086 Lines are open 24 hours a day

Visit: www.thamestidewaytunnel.co.uk
Email: 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

110 RG PNC C04XN 000583

Cargado por

Información del documento

Descripción original:

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

110 RG PNC C04XN 000583

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Autumn 2011

Site suitability report

Further details are provided in the Final Report on Site

Site suitability report

Site suitability report C04XN

Site suitability report C04XN i

Site suitability report C04XN ii

Table 3.1 Construction phase data ............................................................................ 5

AOD above Ordnance Datum

Site suitability report C04XN iii

Site suitability report C04XN iv

1.1 Purpose and structure of the report

Site suitability report C04XN Page 1

2.1 Site and surroundings

Site suitability report C04XN Page 2

2.1.3 The surrounding area is predominantly residential, but includes a mix of

Site suitability report C04XN Page 3

• Thames Lee Valley 2.59mID water tunnel outside the south-eastern

2.2 Type of site

3 Proposed use of site – construction phase

Site suitability report C04XN Page 4

Table 3.1 Construction phase data

4 Proposed use of site – operational phase

Site suitability report C04XN Page 5

Table 4.1 Operational phase data

4.2 Restoration and after-use

Site suitability report C04XN Page 6

5.2 Construction works considerations

5.3 Permanent works considerations

5.4 Health and safety

6.2 Planning applications and permissions

Site suitability report C04XN Page 7

Site suitability report C04XN Page 8

6.3 Planning context

Emerging Core Strategy

Site suitability report C04XN Page 9

Archaeological priority areas

6.4 Planning comments

Site suitability report C04XN Page 10

completion of the works. Detailed negotiations with the developer are

Site suitability report C04XN Page 11

7.4 Built heritage and townscape

Site suitability report C04XN Page 12

7.5 Water resources – hydrogeology and surface water

7.7 Flood risk

7.8 Air quality

7.10 Land quality

Site suitability report C04XN Page 13

resulted in less contamination compared to further south, where the bulk

8 Socio-economic and community assessment

8.2 Socio-economic profile

Site suitability report C04XN Page 14

8.3 Issues and impacts

9.2 Crown land and special land comments

9.3 Land to be acquired

Site suitability report C04XN Page 15

9.4 Property valuation comments

9.5 Disturbance compensation comments

Site suitability report C04XN Page 16

9.6 Discretionary purchase costs comments

9.7 Offsite statutory compensation comments

9.8 Site acquisition cost assessment