PEIR Main Report Vol10 Putney Bridge Foreshore

Preliminary environmental information report
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore site assessment

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

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

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

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

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

List of contents
Page number
1. 2
Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 Site context ....................................................................................................... 2 2.1 2.2 Site location ............................................................................................. 2 Environmental setting .............................................................................. 3 Overview.................................................................................................. 4 Operation ................................................................................................. 5 Construction ............................................................................................ 7 Design development and on site alternatives ........................................ 12 Base case .............................................................................................. 13 Introduction ............................................................................................ 14 Proposed development .......................................................................... 14 Assessment methodology...................................................................... 16 Baseline conditions................................................................................ 17 Construction assessment ...................................................................... 20 Operational assessment ........................................................................ 23 Approach to mitigation ........................................................................... 25 Assessment summary ........................................................................... 26 Assessment completion ......................................................................... 28 Introduction ............................................................................................ 29 Proposed development .......................................................................... 29 Assessment methodology...................................................................... 30 Baseline conditions................................................................................ 31 Construction assessment ...................................................................... 38 Operational assessment ........................................................................ 45 Approach to mitigation ........................................................................... 50
Proposed development.................................................................................... 4 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5
Air quality and odour ..................................................................................... 14 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9
Ecology - aquatic ........................................................................................... 29 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7
Page iii
5.8 5.9 6 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 7 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 8 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 9 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4
Assessment summary ........................................................................... 53 Assessment completion ......................................................................... 58 Introduction ............................................................................................ 59 Proposed development .......................................................................... 59 Assessment methodology...................................................................... 60 Baseline conditions................................................................................ 62 Construction assessment ...................................................................... 65 Operation assessment ........................................................................... 67 Approach to mitigation ........................................................................... 67 Assessment summary ........................................................................... 68 Assessment completion ......................................................................... 70 Introduction ............................................................................................ 71 Proposed development .......................................................................... 71 Assessment methodology...................................................................... 72 Baseline conditions................................................................................ 73 Construction assessment ...................................................................... 91 Operational assessment ........................................................................ 98 Approach to mitigation ........................................................................... 99 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 102 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 106 Introduction .......................................................................................... 107 Proposed development ........................................................................ 107 Assessment methodology.................................................................... 107 Baseline conditions.............................................................................. 108 Construction assessment .................................................................... 113 Operational assessment ...................................................................... 116 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 117 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 118 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 119 Introduction .......................................................................................... 120 Proposed development ........................................................................ 120 Assessment methodology.................................................................... 122 Baseline conditions.............................................................................. 123
Ecology terrestrial....................................................................................... 59
Historic Environment ..................................................................................... 71
Land quality .................................................................................................. 107
Noise and vibration ...................................................................................... 120
Page iv
9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.9 10 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 10.7 10.8 10.9 11 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6 11.7 11.8 11.9 12 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 12.6 12.7 12.8 12.9 13 13.1
Construction assessment .................................................................... 126 Operational assessment ...................................................................... 136 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 139 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 141 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 143 Introduction .......................................................................................... 144 Proposed development ........................................................................ 144 Assessment methodology.................................................................... 145 Baseline conditions.............................................................................. 147 Construction assessment .................................................................... 156 Operational assessment ...................................................................... 167 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 168 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 170 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 172 Introduction .......................................................................................... 173 Proposed development ........................................................................ 173 Assessment methodology.................................................................... 174 Baseline conditions.............................................................................. 176 Construction assessment .................................................................... 197 Operational assessment ...................................................................... 212 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 224 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 225 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 237 Introduction .......................................................................................... 238 Proposed development ........................................................................ 238 Assessment methodology.................................................................... 243 Baseline conditions.............................................................................. 245 Construction assessment .................................................................... 252 Operational assessment ...................................................................... 259 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 264 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 267 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 271 Introduction .......................................................................................... 272
Socio-economics ......................................................................................... 144
Townscape and visual ................................................................................. 173
Transport ...................................................................................................... 238
Water resources groundwater ................................................................. 272
Page v
13.2 13.3 13.4 13.5 13.6 13.7 13.8 13.9 14 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 14.5 14.6 14.7 14.8 14.9 15 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 15.5 15.6
Proposed development ........................................................................ 272 Assessment methodology.................................................................... 273 Baseline conditions.............................................................................. 274 Construction assessment .................................................................... 276 Operational assessment ...................................................................... 278 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 279 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 280 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 281 Introduction .......................................................................................... 282 Proposed development ........................................................................ 282 Assessment methodology.................................................................... 284 Baseline conditions.............................................................................. 285 Construction assessment .................................................................... 288 Operational assessment ...................................................................... 295 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 301 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 303 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 304 Introduction .......................................................................................... 305 Policy considerations ........................................................................... 306 Regulatory Position ............................................................................. 306 Assessment of flood risk ...................................................................... 308 Flood risk design and mitigation ....................................................... 315 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 316
Water resources surface water ................................................................ 282
Water resources flood risk ....................................................................... 305
Appendices ........................................................................................................... 318 Appendix A Historic environment ....................................................................... 320 Appendix B Land quality...................................................................................... 336 Appendix C Noise and vibration ......................................................................... 338 Appendix D Townscape and visual ..................................................................... 343 Appendix E Water resources - ground ............................................................... 353 Glossary ................................................................................................................ 364 References ............................................................................................................ 377
Page vi
List of figures
Page number
Vol 10 Figure 2.1.1 Site location plan ........................................................................ 2 Vol 10 Figure 2.2.1 Environmental setting ................................................................. 3 Vol 10 Figure 3.1.1 Demolition and site clearance plan 1 .......................................... 4 Vol 10 Figure 3.1.2 Demolition and site clearance plan 2 .......................................... 4 Vol 10 Figure 3.1.3 Construction phasing plan - site setup ....................................... 4 Vol 10 Figure 3.1.4 Construction - shaft construction & tunnelling ............................ 4 Vol 10 Figure 3.1.5 Construction - construction of other structures ........................... 4 Vol 10 Figure 3.1.6 Construction phasing plan - slipway construction ....................... 4 Vol 10 Figure 3.1.7 Permanent works layout 1 .......................................................... 4 Vol 10 Figure 3.1.8 Permanent works layout 2 .......................................................... 4 Vol 10 Figure 4.4.1 Air quality monitoring locations ................................................. 18 Vol 10 Figure 5.4.1 Aquatic ecology sampling locations.......................................... 33 Vol 10 Figure 5.4.2 Aquatic ecology EA total fish catches ....................................... 35 Vol 10 Figure 6.4.1 Terrestrial ecology Phase 1 habitat survey............................ 63 Vol 10 Figure 7.4.1 Historic environment features map ........................................... 74 Vol 10 Figure 8.4.1 Land quality contaminative land use ...................................... 108 Vol 10 Figure 8.4.2 Land quality - proposed borehole locations ............................ 111 Vol 10 Figure 8.4.3 Land quality - environmental records and waste sites ............ 112 Vol 10 Figure 9.4.1 Noise and vibration residential receptors................................ 123 Vol 10 Figure 10.4.1 Socio-economics context...................................................... 154 Vol 10 Figure 11.4.1 Townscape - development pattern and scale ....................... 176 Vol 10 Figure 11.4.2 Townscape - pattern and extent of vegetation...................... 177 Vol 10 Figure 11.4.3 Townscape - open space distribution and type .................... 177 Vol 10 Figure 11.4.4 Townscape transport network ........................................... 179 Vol 10 Figure 11.4.5 Townscape - character areas ............................................... 181 Vol 10 Figure 11.4.6 Townscape - viewpoint locations .......................................... 192 Vol 10 Figure 12.2.1 Transport construction traffic routes .................................. 239 Vol 10 Figure 12.2.2 Transport construction lorry profile .................................... 241 Vol 10 Figure 12.2.3 Transport - construction barge profile ................................... 242 Vol 10 Figure 12.4.1 Transport - site plan.............................................................. 245 Vol 10 Figure 15.4.1 Flood risk - EA flood risk zones ............................................ 308
Page vii
List of tables
Page number
Vol 10 Table 3.3.1 Working hours ........................................................................... 11 Vol 10 Table 3.4.1 Design development at Putney Bridge Foreshore ..................... 12 Vol 10 Table 4.3.1 Air quality and odour stakeholder engagement ......................... 16 Vol 10 Table 4.4.1 Air quality - measured NO2 concentrations ................................ 17 Vol 10 Table 4.4.2 Air quality measured PM10 concentrations................................. 18 Vol 10 Table 4.4.3 Air quality - additional monitoring locations................................ 18 Vol 10 Table 4.4.4 Air quality background pollutant concentrations ........................ 19 Vol 10 Table 4.4.5 Air quality receptors - construction ............................................ 20 Vol 10 Table 4.6.1 Odour impacts at ground level - operation ................................. 24 Vol 10 Table 4.6.2 Odour impacts at buildings - operation ...................................... 24 Vol 10 Table 4.8.1 Air quality and odour assessment - construction ....................... 26 Vol 10 Table 4.8.2 Air quality and odour assessment - operational ......................... 27 Vol 10 Table 5.4.1 Aquatic ecology - habitat and substrate ..................................... 32 Vol 10 Table 5.4.2: Aquatic ecology fish survey ...................................................... 34 Vol 10 Table 5.4.3 Aquatic ecology Invertebrate fauna ........................................... 36 Vol 10 Table 5.4.4 Aquatic ecology receptors ......................................................... 38 Vol 10 Table 5.5.1 Aquatic ecology impacts - construction ..................................... 40 Vol 10 Table 5.6.1 Aquatic ecology impacts - operation .......................................... 47 Vol 10 Table 5.8.1 Aquatic ecology construction assessment ................................. 53 Vol 10 Table 5.8.2 Aquatic ecology operation assessment ..................................... 56 Vol 10 Table 6.3.1 Terrestrial ecology stakeholder comments ................................ 60 Vol 10 Table 6.3.2 Terrestrial ecology notable species surveys .............................. 61 Vol 10 Table 6.4.1 Terrestrial ecology Phase 1 habitat survey ............................. 63 Vol 10 Table 6.8.1 Terrestrial ecology construction assessment ............................. 68 Vol 10 Table 7.4.1 Historic environment receptors .................................................. 90 Vol 10 Table 7.5.1 Historic environment effects - construction ................................ 95 Vol 10 Table 7.6.1 Historic environment effects operation ...................................... 99 Vol 10 Table 7.8.1 Historic environment - construction assessment ..................... 102 Vol 10 Table 7.8.2 Historic environment operational assessment ...................... 105 Vol 10 Table 8.4.1 Land quality contaminative land use........................................ 108 Vol 10 Table 8.4.2 Land quality site geology and hydrogeology ............................ 110 Vol 10 Table 8.4.3 Land quality ground investigation data .................................... 111
Page viii
Vol 10 Table 8.4.4 Land quality sediment data ...................................................... 111 Vol 10 Table 8.4.5 Land quality environmental records and waste sites ............... 112 Vol 10 Table 8.6.1 Land quality impacts - operation .............................................. 117 Vol 10 Table 8.6.2 Land quality receptors - operation ........................................... 117 Vol 10 Table 8.6.3 Land quality effects - operation................................................ 117 Vol 10 Table 8.8.1 Land quality construction assessment ..................................... 118 Vol 10 Table 8.8.2 Land quality assessment - operation ....................................... 118 Vol 10 Table 9.4.1 Noise and vibration noise surveys ........................................... 124 Vol 10 Table 9.4.2 Noise and vibration receptors .................................................. 125 Vol 10 Table 9.4.3 Noise assessment categories - construction ........................... 125 Vol 10 Table 9.5.1 Noise at PB1, Star & Garter Mansions -construction ............... 127 Vol 10 Table 9.5.2 Noise at PB2, 1-24 Kenilworth Court - construction ................. 128 Vol 10 Table 9.5.3 Noise at PB3 - construction ..................................................... 128 Vol 10 Table 9.5.4 Noise at PB4, St Marys Church - construction ........................ 130 Vol 10 Table 9.5.5 Noise at PB5, 1-67 Putney Wharf Tower - construction........... 130 Vol 10 Table 9.5.6 Noise construction impacts PB6 Residential Moorings ............ 131 Vol 10 Table 9.5.7 Noise at PB6, Caf at 2 Putney High Street construction ..... 132 Vol 10 Table 9.5.8 Vibration impacts - construction............................................... 134 Vol 10 Table 9.5.9 Vibration and human response ................................................ 135 Vol 10 Table 9.5.10 Noise and vibration effects - construction .............................. 136 Vol 10 Table 9.6.1 Airborne noise impacts- operation ........................................... 137 Vol 10 Table 9.6.2 Noise and vibration effects -operation ..................................... 139 Vol 10 Table 9.8.1 Noise and vibration construction assessment.......................... 141 Vol 10 Table 9.8.2 Noise and vibration operational assessment ........................... 142 Vol 10 Table 10.3.1 Socio-economics stakeholder engagement ........................... 145 Vol 10 Table 10.4.1 Socio-economics receptors ................................................... 155 Vol 10 Table 10.5.1 Socio economics construction effects .................................... 165 Vol 10 Table 10.6.1 Socio economics operational effects ..................................... 168 Vol 10 Table 10.8.1 Socio economics construction assessment ........................... 170 Vol 10 Table 10.8.2 Socio economics operational assessment ............................ 171 Vol 10 Table 11.4.1 Townscape - open space type and distribution...................... 177 Vol 10 Table 11.4.2 Townscape site components ................................................. 180 Vol 10 Table 11.4.3 Townscape sensitivities to change ........................................ 191 Vol 10 Table 11.4.4 Visual viewpoints sensitivities to change ............................... 196 Vol 10 Table 11.5.1 Townscape effects site components - construction ............... 198
Page ix
Vol 10 Table 11.5.2 Townscape character effects - construction .......................... 204 Vol 10 Table 11.5.3 Visual effects - construction ................................................... 210 Vol 10 Table 11.6.1 Townscape site components effects - year one operation ..... 212 Vol 10 Table 11.6.2 Townscape character effects - year one operation ................ 217 Vol 10 Table 11.6.3 Visual effects - year one operation ........................................ 222 Vol 10 Table 11.8.1 Townscape assessment - construction .................................. 225 Vol 10 Table 11.8.2 Visual assessment - construction .......................................... 227 Vol 10 Table 11.8.3 Townscape assessment year one of operation ................... 229 Vol 10 Table 11.8.4 Visual assessment year one of operation ............................ 233 Vol 10 Table 12.2.1 Site construction traffic .......................................................... 238 Vol 10 Table 12.2.2 Transport - construction worker numbers .............................. 243 Vol 10 Table 12.3.1 Transport stakeholder engagement ....................................... 244 Vol 10 Table 12.4.1 Transport - bus service frequency ......................................... 246 Vol 10 Table 12.4.2 Transport receptors ............................................................... 252 Vol 10 Table 12.5.1 Transport forecast construction vehicle movements ........... 255 Vol 10 Table 12.8.1 Transport construction assessment ....................................... 267 Vol 10 Table 12.8.2 Transport operational assessment ........................................ 269 Vol 10 Table 13.2.1 Groundwater resources methods of construction .................. 273 Vol 10 Table 13.4.1 Groundwater anticipated ground conditions .......................... 274 Vol 10 Table 13.4.2 Groundwater receptors .......................................................... 276 Vol 10 Table 13.5.1 Groundwater impacts-construction ........................................ 277 Vol 10 Table 13.5.2 Groundwater receptors- construction .................................... 277 Vol 10 Table 13.5.3 Groundwater effects - construction ......................................... 278 Vol 10 Table 13.6.1 Groundwater impacts-operation ............................................ 278 Vol 10 Table 13.6.2 Groundwater receptors-operation .......................................... 279 Vol 10 Table 13.6.3 Groundwater effects - operation ............................................ 279 Vol 10 Table 13.8.1 Groundwater construction assessment ................................. 280 Vol 10 Table 13.8.2 Groundwater operation assessment ...................................... 280 Vol 10 Table 14.4.1 Surface water receptors......................................................... 285 Vol 10 Table 14.5.1 Surface water impacts- construction ...................................... 292 Vol 10 Table 14.5.2 Surface water effects- construction ....................................... 295 Vol 10 Table 14.6.1 Surface water impacts-operation ........................................... 298 Vol 10 Table 14.6.2 Surface water effects- operation ............................................ 301 Vol 10 Table 14.8.1 Surface water construction assessment ................................ 303 Vol 10 Table 14.8.2 Surface water operational assessment .................................. 303
Page x
Vol 10 Table 15.4.1 Flood risk - runoff rates onsite ............................................... 313
Page xi
List of abbreviations AADT ACE AM AOD APZ AQEG AQMA AQO ARS ASR ASSI ATC ATD AURN BAP BGS BMWP BOD BPIP BPM BS CABE CAMS CCI CCSS CCTV CDA CEMP CIRIA CLR CoCP Annual Average Daily Traffic Arts Culture and Entertainment Morning Above Ordnance Datum Archaeological Priority Zone Air Quality Expert Group Air Quality Management Area Air Quality Objective Artificial Recharge Scheme Aquifer Storage and Recovery Area of Special Scientific Interest Automated Traffic Counter Above Tunnel Datum (defined at ~100m AOD) Automatic Urban and Rural Network Biodiversity Action Plan British Geological Survey Biological Monitoring Working Party Biochemical Oxygen Demand Building Profile Input Programme Best Practicable Means British Standard Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy Community Conservation Index Community Consultation Strategy Closed Circuit Television Critical Drainage Area Construction Environment Management Programmes Construction Industry Research and Information Association Contaminated Land Report Code of Construction Practice
Page xii
CoPA CROW CSO dB dB LAeq,T
Control of Pollution Act Countryside and Rights of Way Combined Sewer Overflow Decibel a equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level having the same energy as a fluctuating sound over a specified time period T Department for Culture, Media and Sport Development Consent Order Department for Communities and Local Government Department for Culture media and Sport Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Department for Transport Development Management Plan Development Management Policies Document Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Dissolved Oxygen Development Plan Document Digital Terrain Mapping Environment Agency European Commission Ecological Impact Assessment Estimated Vibration Dose Value European Economic Area Environment Food and Rural Affairs Committee English Heritage Environmental Health Officer Environmental Impact Assessment European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme English Nature Environment Protection Agency Earth Pressure Balance Earth Pressure Balance Machine
Page xiii
DCMS DCO DCLG DCMS Defra DfT DMP DMPD DMRB DO DPD DTM EA EC EcIA eVDV EEA EFRA EH EHO EIA EMEP EN EPA EPB EPBM
EqIA EQS ES EU FAQ FIDOR FRA GARDIT GI GiGL GIS GLA GLHER GQA GSHP GWB GWMU H2S ha HA HDV HEA HER HGV HIA HIAB HPA HQ HRA HTC HWR IEEM
Equality Impact Assessment Environmental Quality Standard Environmental Statement European Union Frequently Asked Questions Frequency, Intensity, Duration, Offensiveness, Receptor Flood Risk Assessment General Aquifer Research Development and Investigation Team Ground Investigation Greenspace Information for Greater London Geographical Information System Greater London Authority Greater London Historic Environment Record General Quality Assessment (EA water quality classification) Ground Source Heat Pump Groundwater Body: distinct volume of groundwater within an aquifer or aquifers Ground Water Management Unit Hydrogen sulphide hectares Highways Authority Heavy Duty Vehicle Historic Environmental Assessment Historic Environment Record Heavy Goods Vehicle Health Impact Assessment Hydrauliska Industri AB Company Health Protection Agency Headquarter Habitats Regulations Assessment Hammersmith Town Centre Hazardous Waste Regulations (2005) Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
Page xiv
IEMA IMD IPC Iron Age JNCC kg km kVA kW l/d l/s LA LAARC LAQM LAQN LB LBAP LDF LGV LHA LMB LNR loWR LSB LtB LTI LTT LUL LVMF m m AOD m ATD m/s
Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment Index of Multiple Deprivation Infrastructure Planning Commission 600 BC AD 43 Joint Nature Conservation Committee kilograms kilometre kilo watt amperes kilowatt litres per day litres per second Local Authority London Archaeological Archive and Research Centre Local Air Quality Management London Air Quality Network London Borough Local Biodiversity Action Plan Local Development Framework Light Goods Vehicle Local Highway Authority Lambeth Mottled Beds Local Nature Reserve List of Wastes Regulations 2005 Lower Shelly Beds Laminated Beds London Tideway Improvements London Tideway Tunnels London Underground Limited London View Management Framework metre metres above Ordinance Datum (see AOD) metres above temporary datum, (see ATD) metres per second
Page xv
MAGIC Mbgl MEICA Ml/d MoD MOL MOLA NE NESR NCR NGR NMR NNR NO2 NOx NPPF NPS NRMM NSIP NSRA NTS OCU Ofwat OS OUE PAH PCB PEI PEIR PEL PICP PIP PLA
Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside Metres below ground level Mechanical Electrical Instrumentation Controls Automation Megalitres per day (million litres per day) Ministry of Defence Metropolitan Open Land Museum of London Archaeology Natural England North East Storm Relief National Cycle Route National Grid Reference National Monuments Record National Nature Reserve Nitrogen dioxide Oxides of nitrogen National Planning Policy Framework National Policy Statement Non Road Mobile Machinery Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project National Small-bore Rifle Association Non Technical Summary Odour Control Unit The Water Services Regulations Authority Ordnance Survey European Odour Unit Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons Polychlorinated Biphenyl Preliminary Environmental Information Preliminary Environmental Information Report Probable Effect Levels Pollution Incident Control Plan Project Information Paper Port of London Authority
Page xvi
PM PM10 PPC PPE PPG PPS PPV PRoW PS pSPA PWS RAMS RAMSAR RB RBKC RBMP RDB RHS RPG RSPB RDB RTC RTD SA SAC SAM SCI SCL SFRA SI SINC SMI
Afternoon Particles on the order of ~10 micrometers or less Pollution Prevention and Control Personal Protective Equipment Pollution Prevention Guidance Planning Policy Statement Peak Particle Velocity Public Rights of Way Pumping Station Potential Special Protected Area Public Water Supply Risk Assessment Method Statement The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Royal Borough Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea River Basin Management Plans Red Data Book Royal Horticultural Society Regional Planning Guidance Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Red data book Real Time Control River Terrace Deposits Sustainability Appraisal Special Area of Conservation Scheduled Ancient Monument. More commonly referred to as Scheduled Monument Statement of Community Involvement Sprayed Concrete Lining Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Statutory Instrument Site of Importance for Nature Conservation Site of Metropolitan Importance
Page xvii
SNCI SO2 SoCC SPA SPD S-P-R SPZ SR SRN SSR SSSI STW SUDS SWMP SWMP t TA TAS TBC TBM TDP TEBP TEL TfL TFRM TH TLRN Tpa TPO TT TTQI TTSS TWU
Site Nature Conservation Importance Sulphur dioxide Statement of Community Consultation Special Protection Area Supplementary Planning Document Source-pathway-receptor Source Protection Zone Storm Relief Strategic Road Network Site Suitability Report Site of Special Scientific Interest Sewage Treatment Works Sustainable (Urban) Drainage Systems waste - Site Waste Management Plan water Surface Water Management Plan tonne Transport Assessment Thames Archaeological Survey To be confirmed Tunnel Boring Machine Thames Discovery Programme Thames Estuary Benthic Programme Threshold Effect Levels Transport for London Tideway Fish Risk Model Tower Hamlets Transport for London Road Network tonnes per annum Tree Preservation Order Thames Tunnel Thames Tideway Quality Improvements Thames Tideway Strategic Study 2005 Thames Water Utilities
Page xviii
UDP UK UKHO UMB UPN UWWTD UWWTR UXO VDV VNEB OA WCA WEEE WFD WIA WRAP WSI WWT ZTV ZVI
Unitary Development Plan United Kingdom United Kingdom Hydrographic Office Upper Mottled Beds Upnor Formation Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations Unexploded Ordnance Vibration Dose Value Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea Opportunity Area Wildlife and Countryside Act Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive Water Framework Directive Water Industry Act 1991 Waste Resources Action Programme Written Scheme of Investigation Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust Zone of Theoretical Visibility Zone of Visual Influence
Page xix
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore
Section 1: Introduction
1.
1.1.1
Introduction
This volume presents the preliminary environmental information for the Thames Tunnel proposal at Putney Bridge Foreshore CSO interception site. This document reports the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant environmental effects of the Thames Tunnel project at Putney Bridge Foreshore. The planned activities to assist in completing the environmental impact assessment (EIA) include: a. conclude baseline environmental surveys b. confirm final design, informed by, amongst other things, feedback from public consultation c. undertake design of possible mitigation to address adverse effects.
1.1.2
1.1.3
Once complete, the findings of the EIA will be reported in full in the Environmental Statement which will be submitted with the consent application This volume describes the site and environmental context in Section 2. The proposed development including construction and operation is described in Section 3. The design evolution for this site is set out in Section 3.4. Finally, Section 3.5 refers to other development schemes which have been submitted or with extant planning approval within or in proximity to the site. The works at Putney Bridge would intercept flows from the Putney Bridge Storm Outlet CSO and convey these to the Thames Tunnel. The CSO currently discharges approximately 33 times a year at approximately 68,100m3 per year. A description of the Thames Tunnel is included in Volume 2. This includes the planning context for the project as well as local planning policies relevant to this site. The alternatives which have been considered are described in Volume 3. Scoping and technical engagement is covered in Volume 4, while Volume 5 sets out the assessment methodology. A project-wide assessment is provided in Volume 6. The remaining Volumes 7 to 28 contain the site specific assessments.
1.1.4
1.1.5
1.1.6
Page 1
Section 2: Site context
2 2.1
2.1.1
Site context Site location

The site is located in the London Borough of Wandsworth. It comprises an area of foreshore running approximately 120m to the west from Putney Bridge and 30m to the east from the bridge, with a further site area (for a temporary slipway) adjacent to the Embankment located approximately 300m west of Putney Bridge (the road running parallel to the River Thames). The existing Putney Bridge slipway within the main site is parallel to the river providing ease of access for the launching of boats. The slipway is also used on a regular (weekly) basis for commercial vessel loading purposes The site covers an area of 1.7 hectares (with the main site being 1ha and the site of the temporary slipway 0.7ha). The site location is shown in Vol 10 Figure 2.1.1. Vol 10 Figure 2.1.1 Site location plan (see Volume 10 Figures document)
2.1.2
2.1.3
2.1.4
The main site is bounded by the River Thames to the north, with the site extending approximately 30m to the east of Putney Bridge. Embankment and the Lower Richmond Road form the southern boundary of the site. The western boundary of the site is within the River Thames, approximately 10m from the point at which Putney Pier adjoins Embankment (n.b. at the riverward end of Putney Pier, the separation distance between the Pier and site boundary is approximately 30m). To the south of the site, a two storey modern building in restaurant use is located at the junction of Embankment and Lower Richmond Road. The wider area comprises residential, commercial and retail uses, including Putney town centre. The site of the temporary slipway is located on the foreshore of the River Thames approximately 300m west of Putney Bridge. It is bounded by Embankment to the south, and the River Thames on all other sides. The temporary slipway would be used for commercial loading vessel purposes during construction, before returning to the existing slipway once work is complete. Between the main site and the site of the temporary slip is an existing pier which has two residential moorings. Access to the site, via the road network, is from Embankment. In terms of the wider road network, the site is close to both Putney High Street (A219) and the Transport for London Road Network (the A205, Upper Richmond Road). The nearest railway station is Putney (0.7km), and the nearest London Underground station is Putney Bridge. There are no existing wharfage/jetty facilities at the site, although there is an existing slipway, and Putney Pier is located to the west. In terms of Public Rights of Way, the Thames Path runs along the southern boundary of the site.
2.1.5
2.1.6 2.1.7
2.1.8
Page 2
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore 2.1.9
Section 2: Site context
The main site and the site of the temporary slipway include areas of foreshore, made up of shingle and silt substrate and a gently shelving shoreline. There is no marginal vegetation and the bank is a vertical river wall. The main site also includes a small area of pavement along Embankment, an existing slipway and Watermans Green, a small linear and elevated area of open space containing mature trees (Vol 10 Figure 2.1.1 shows the site plan and contextual photographs).
2.2
2.2.1
Environmental setting
Environmental designations for the site and immediate surrounds are shown in Vol 10 Figure 2.2.1. Vol 10 Figure 2.2.1 Environmental setting (see Volume 10 Figures document)
2.2.2
The River Thames is designated as a Site of Metropolitan Importance for nature conservation and is the subject of a Habitat Action Plan. Barnes Common Local Nature Reserve and Barnes Wetland Centre Site of Special Scientific Interest are within 2km. Putney Bridge is Grade II listed, and three bollards at the junction of Lower Richmond Road are also Grade II listed. There are several listed buildings in the vicinity, including the Grade II* St Marys Church 20m to the southeast, the Grade Il listed White Lion Hotel 40m to the south and the Dukes Head public house 105m to the northwest. The site lies within Wandsworth Thames Riverside Archaeological Priority Area and within the Putney Embankment Conservation Area. Mature trees, protected by tree preservation orders are a key component of the wider townscape, particularly along the river frontage. All trees within Putney Embankment Conservation Area, regardless of whether they are protected by TPOs, are indirectly protected due to their location within a conservation area. The site is in the Wandsworth Air Quality Management Area. Local roadside monitoring indicates exceedences of the nitrogen dioxide (NO2) air quality standards in the locality. The nearest monitoring is undertaken along Putney High Street, approximately 300m from the site. The ambient noise environment is dominated by road traffic. Local geology comprises 1m of river terrace deposits, 47m of London Clay, 17m of Lambeth Group (secondary aquifer) and 19m of Thanet Sand (secondary aquifer). Given the sites location within the foreshore of the River Thames, the potential for contamination to be present is considered to be low. The surrounding area was historically occupied by small industrial works, typical of an urban area. The site is located within the Thames Tideway Foreshore and hence is considered to be functional flood plain (Flood Zone 3b).
2.2.3
2.2.4 2.2.5
2.2.6
2.2.7
2.2.8
Page 3
Section 3: Proposed development
3 3.1
3.1.1
Proposed development Overview

The development at Putney Bridge Foreshore would intercept flows from the Putney Bridge Storm Outlet CSO and convey these to the Thames Tunnel. Vol 10 Figure 3.1.1 - Vol 10 Figure 3.1.4 show the demolition and site clearance, construction phasing and permanent works plans. Vol 10 Figure 3.1.1 Demolition and site clearance plan 1 Vol 10 Figure 3.1.2 Demolition and site clearance plan 2 Vol 10 Figure 3.1.3 Construction phasing plan - site setup Vol 10 Figure 3.1.4 Construction - shaft construction & tunnelling Vol 10 Figure 3.1.5 Construction - construction of other structures Vol 10 Figure 3.1.6 Construction phasing plan - slipway construction Vol 10 Figure 3.1.7 Permanent works layout 1 Vol 10 Figure 3.1.8 Permanent works layout 2 (see Volume 10 Figures document)
3.1.2
Construction of the main works at this site is scheduled to commence in early 2017 (year 1) and be completed by 2020, taking approximately three and a half years. Early works, such as utility connections and diversions and construction of a temporary slipway would be undertaken in advance of the main works. The site would be operational in 2023. Information on the programme is described in Section 3.3. The following permanent structures would be required at this site: a. A drop shaft b. An interception chamber c. A connection culvert d. A valve chamber e. A connection tunnel from the drop shaft to the main tunnel f. A 5m high ventilation column g. A 4m high ventilation structure h. Passive filter chamber i. j. k. An electrical control kiosk cabinet Foreshore reinforcement Permanent restoration of the temporary construction site, comprising levelling, infilling and making good, and landscaping works to incorporate maintenance vehicle hardstanding and access to chamber covers.
3.1.3
3.1.4
Further details of these elements are given in section 3.2 where these are relevant to the technical assessments that follow.
Page 4
Temporary construction features required to support the construction of the permanent structures at the site include: a. A temporary slipway b. A temporary cofferdam c. A temporary working area on the foreshore d. Gates to site entrance and exit e. Hoardings and other means of enclosure, barrier or screening f. Office and welfare accommodation and facilities g. Workshops and stores h. Plant and machinery i. j. k. l. Power generation plant and lighting Highways access Material storage and handling areas The placement and removal of a temporary barge grid/campshed on the foreshore outside the cofferdams, suitable for a 350 tonne barge
m. Associated regular barge movements and resting on the barge grid/campshed (with a peak monthly average of four per day) 3.1.6 Further details of the proposed methods and the relevant phases are given in section 3.3 where these are relevant to the technical assessments that follow.
3.2
3.2.1
Operation
Once developed the project would divert the majority of current CSO discharges via the CSO shaft and connection tunnel to the main tunnel for treatment at Beckton Sewage Treatment Works. The number of CSO discharges would be reduced from 33 spill events to once a year of approximately 1,600m3 per year.
Permanent structures
3.2.2 A plan of the permanent structures is included as Vol 10 Figure 3.1.4. The area of operational land required by the project is less than that required for the construction phase. The land which is not required for operational purposes would be returned to river foreshore upon completion of construction. Once constructed and operational the structures listed in the following sections would remain on site. The design and finishing proposed for the above ground features would be further developed during the period up to the application. Shaft 3.2.4 The CSO drop shaft would have an internal diameter of 6m and be approximately 36m deep. The CSO drop shaft would be constructed offline to the main tunnel, with a connection tunnel to transfer flows from the
3.2.3
Page 5
shaft to the main tunnel. A number of access openings would be located within the shaft cover slab. 3.2.5 The shaft would be finished to a level approximately 5m above the level of the existing foreshore. The elevation of this cover level would ensure that the access covers are located above high tide level. Interception Chamber and culverts 3.2.6 The interception chamber would be located beneath the southern shore arch of Putney Bridge. The upper section of the interception chamber would protrude above the existing level of the foreshore, such that at certain tidal states, the interception chamber would be visible above the water line, or foreshore. Due to clearance restrictions beneath the arch of the bridge, it is not possible to have access openings within the cover slab of the interception chamber. It has been assumed that the connection culvert would be open cut beneath the foreshore to convey flows from the interception chamber to the valve chamber and drop shaft. Once constructed, the connection culvert would not be visible. The valve chamber would be located adjacent to the shaft and finished at the same ground level as the new hardstanding area. It would have a number of access openings. Tunnel 3.2.10 The connection tunnel would be constructed using spray concrete lining tunnelling techniques from the drop shaft to the main tunnel situated beneath the River Thames. Ventilation Structures 3.2.11 The 4m high ventilation structure would be located within the new hardstanding operational maintenance area, adjacent to the drop shaft and valve chamber. The 5m high ventilation column would be located on Putney Bridge. This would require below ground ducting to be installed within the structure of the bridge, where the stack passes through the fabric of the bridge. Electrical Kiosk 3.2.13 The electrical control and monitoring equipment would be located within an electrical control kiosk, located on Watermans Green,adjacent to the existing stairway to the disused public convenience. The location of the kiosk would be such as to maintain an existing air vent which is situated to the west of the access stairway. Paved Areas 3.2.14 The area around the shaft, valve chamber, passive ventilation chamber and ventilation structure would be finished in hardstanding to allow crane access to the shaft and chambers. This hardstanding would provide an operational maintenance area, and also new public realm.
3.2.7
3.2.8
3.2.9
3.2.12
Page 6
Thames Water would retain a right of access to the area and consequently install temporary security fencing during maintenance periods. Access and maintenance works Operational maintenance access would be from the junction of Lower Richmond Road and Embankment. It is possible that access to the public slipway would be restricted during maintenance periods, although Thames Water would endeavour to maintain access during this period where possible. Regular maintenance would be conducted approximately every three to six months, lasting approximately half a day to a day. This would be conducted during normal working hours and involve attendance by a number of personnel accessing the site via light commercial vehicles. No aerial lighting would be required. Once every ten years, maintenance involving two mobile crane units would be required. This maintenance would again be conducted during normal working hours. No aerial lighting would be required. Tree pruning may be required to facilitate overhead clearance. Access for unplanned maintenance or repairs would also be required.
3.2.16
3.2.17
3.2.18
3.2.19
3.3
3.3.1
Construction
The construction works at this site would encompass work within the foreshore of the River Thames and adjacent to the existing river wall, and around the public slipway and Watermans Green. Construction of a temporary slipway would also be undertaken. Vol 10 Figure 3.1.1 - Vol 10 Figure 3.1.4 show the demolition and site clearance and construction phasing to be undertaken at the site. The methods, sequence and timing of the construction work outlined herewith are indicative only, but are representative of a practical method to construct the works and suitable on which this assessment is based. It is recognised that, following further design development and selection of contracts, alternate methodology and scheduling may be proposed. The following sections describe: a. Processes to be applied during construction via a Code of Construction Practice b. Construction works including early works and the construction of the shaft, tunnel and CSO interception and the process c. Access and movement d. Construction programme and working hours
3.3.2 3.3.3
3.3.4
Code of construction practice

3.3.5 All works would be undertaken in accordance with the Thames Tunnel Code of Construction Practice (a draft is appended to Volume 2).
Page 7
The CoCP sets out a series of measures to protect the environment and limit disturbance from construction activities as far as reasonably practicable. These measures would be applied throughout the construction at this site.
3.3.7
Construction works
3.3.8 The following physical construction works are described: a. Site setup b. Shaft construction c. e. 3.3.9 Tunnelling Reinstatement and commissioning d. Construction of other structures Site setup Prior to any works commencing, the site boundary would be established and secured. The boundary would be built to an appropriate height for the site. Welfare and office facilities would also be set up within this and utility and power connections installed. Prior to commencement of the main construction works, a temporary slipway, located approximately 300m west of Putney Bridge, would be constructed, to enable public access to the river whilst the permanent slipway is inaccessible. This would require the installation of a temporary sheet pile cofferdam and subsequent infilling with granular material. Plant and material storage areas would be set up on site. The river boundary would be established by driving sheet piles from a jack-up barge to form a cofferdam. For the purpose of this assessment it is assumed that the piles would be driven using silent piling techniques. On completion the cofferdam would be backfilled with granular material. Localised removal of sections of the existing slipway would be required to enable the construction of the permanent hardstanding area. The existing granite paving would be removed, stored and reinstated where possible. Sections of the existing riverwall by the slipway would be removed to enable construction of permanent works. A number of trees would be cut back and pruned. Shaft construction 3.3.16 3.3.17 3.3.18 3.3.19 A piling rig would drive sheet piles through the terrace gravels to cut off ground water ingress. The shaft would be excavated using a tracked excavator loading excavated material into a shaft skip. A concrete slab would be positioned adjacent to the shaft as a working platform for the crane to service the shaft. The shaft would be constructed using sprayed concrete lining (SCL) for the primary lining. The concrete would either be batched on site or
3.3.10
3.3.11 3.3.12
3.3.13
3.3.14 3.3.15
Page 8
delivered by ready mix mixer trucks. The SCL shaft lining would be built up in even layers until the required profile is achieved. 3.3.20 3.3.21 3.3.22 The process of excavating and spraying would be repeated until the shaft is of the required depth. A steel bar reinforced portal would be incorporated within the shaft lining to accommodate construction of the connecting tunnel. A steel reinforced concrete base plug would be formed at the base of the shaft. The reinforcement would be lowered to the shaft base by crane. Tunnelling 3.3.23 To connect the shaft to the main Thames Tunnel, a 2.2m internal diameter connection tunnel of approximately 65m would be constructed using SCL techniques. Connection tunnel construction would be from the drop shaft, with the direction of construction of the tunnel being from within the drop shaft towards the main tunnel. Construction of other structures 3.3.25 3.3.26 Construction of the interception chamber would take place beneath the southern shorearch of Putney Bridge. The existing storm relief sewers that outfall to the River Thames would be extended to the temporary piled caisson wall, to maintain flows during the works. The temporary extension would be in the form of steel structures and flumes and would be fully enclosed with flap valves fitted to prevent tidal ingress either to the working site or existing pipe work. Fill material would be excavated around the temporary flumes, and the interception chamber constructed from in-situ concrete. The connection culvert would then either be constructed in situ in concrete or from pre-cast concrete sections. The excavation would be filled with granular fill material and compacted in suitable sized layers to the top of the culverts. A steel bar reinforced concrete capping slab would then be constructed over the culverts. The valve chamber would then be constructed from in-situ concrete. On completion of the shaft and connection chambers, the permanent river walls would be constructed. The area between the temporary cofferdam and permanent cofferdam would be excavated. The temporary riverside sheet pile cofferdam would be tied and supported off the permanent sheet wall as required. Upon completion, the areas of adjacent hard standing would be constructed and the above ground structures finished. Reinstatement and commissioning 3.3.33 Once the main elements of construction are completed, the final landscaping works would be undertaken, including final treatments and surfaces, planting and installation of street furniture. Areas of Watermans Green affected by construction works would also be reinstated.
3.3.24
3.3.27 3.3.28 3.3.29
3.3.30 3.3.31
3.3.32
Page 9
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore 3.3.34 3.3.35 3.3.36
Once works have been completed, the temporary slipway would be removed. Testing and commissioning would also be undertaken once construction is complete. For the purposes of this assessment, completion of the commissioning stage represents the end of construction and the commencement of the operational development.
Access and movement

3.3.37 For the purposes of this report one vehicle (or barge) movement is defined as a vehicle (or barge) either accessing or egressing the site. For the purposes of construction logistics, site traffic is measured in units of lorries or barges where one lorry/barge is equivalent to a single lorry/barge accessing and then egressing the site. It anticipated that the importation of 90% of granular fill for the formation of the temporary working area, and the subsequent removal of 90% of fill would be by barge. The highest barge movements would occur during cofferdam construction. Peak daily barge movements, averaged over a one month period, would be approximately four barge movements per day. The highest lorry movements at the site would occur during sewer connection works/fit out. The peak daily vehicle movements at this time, averaged over a one month period, would be 30 HGV movements per day. Vehicle access to the Putney Bridge site would be off Embankment. Vehicles would enter the site by turning onto Embankment from Lower Richmond Road and then turn right into the site. To facilitate access, it has been provisionally agreed with Transport for London that a short section (approximately 20m) of the existing one-way system would be temporarily suspended. Construction vehicles would turn left out of the site and onto Embankment, before turning onto Lower Richmond Road. It is anticipated that vehicles would travel from Lower Richmond Road, onto Putney High Street, before travelling along Putney Bridge Road to Upper Richmond Road and then to the Wandsworth one-way system. Access to the temporary slipway location would utilise Lower Richmond Road and Thames Place A traffic management plan for the site would be prepared.
3.3.38
3.3.39
3.3.40
3.3.41
3.3.42
3.3.43 3.3.44
Construction programme and working hours

Construction programme 3.3.45 Construction at Putney Bridge Foreshore is anticipated to take approximately three and a half years and would involve the following steps (with some overlaps): a. Year 1 Site setup (approximately 11 months) b. Years 1 to 2 - Shaft construction (approximately 6 months)
Page 10
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore c.
Year 2 - Tunnelling (approximately 3 months)
d. Year 2 to 3 Construction of other structures (approximately 25 months) e. Year 3 to 4 Completion of works and site restoration (approximately 9 months). f. 3.3.46 System-wide commissioning would take place following site restoration and is not included in the above programme.
Construction activity would peak during the construction of the drop shaft and the associated hydraulic chambers. Working hours The following working hours set out in the table below would apply for the construction at this site. Vol 10 Table 3.3.1 Working hours Overall construction works Standard working hours Consist of: Core working hours Extended standard working hours core working hours mobilisation period maintenance and support period.
3.3.47
08:00 to 18:00 Weekdays 08:00 to 13:00 Saturdays These are intermittent and are required to cover certain construction activities that require more than the Standard Working Hours to be completed. 18.00 to 22.00 Weekdays 13.00 to 17.00 Saturdays
Mobilisation period
Up to 1 hour before and after the core working hours 07:00 to 08:00 and 18:00 to 19:00 Weekdays 07:00 to 08:00 and 13:00 to 14:00 Saturday
Maintenance and support period
13:00 to 17:00 Saturdays 10:00 to 16:00 Sundays 24 Hour working. Monday to Sunday.
Connection tunnel works (if required) Continuous working
Page 11
3.4
3.4.1
Design development and on site alternatives

The design presented here was completed in advance of the completion of all surveys and technical studies. The final design may alter significantly in response to this as well as feedback from phase two consultation. The design of the proposals has developed since phase one consultation as described in the table below. Vol 10 Table 3.4.1 Design development at Putney Bridge Foreshore Design development Site moved westwards. Reason Proximity of the Grade II Listed Putney Bridge. The movement of the shaft also allows the slipway to be maintained/reinstated in its existing position Reduce encroachment of permanent structures into the River Thames and consequential impact on aquatic ecology and flood storage levels. Reduce visual impact on the wider Putney Embankment Conservation Area and impact on views from heritage assets. Relocated ventilation column onto the permanent platform area. Lower ventilation column from 10m to approximately 5m Interception chamber located beneath the shore arch of Putney Bridge designed as low as possible Protecting existing slipway location and alignment Electrical and control kiosk located within Watermans Green Reduce proximity to the Grade II Listed Putney Bridge Modified project-wide air management proposals and column height consistent with all CSO sites Reduce visual impact on the Grade II Listed Putney Bridge following comments received by the Design Council CABE Ensure the permanent operation of the slipway is not compromised for river users and that its existing alignment is retained. Minimise visual impact and avoid damage to important trees
3.4.2
Reduced area of permanent hardstanding optimised in shape
3.4.3
Further information on how the design has evolved at this site is included in the Design Development Report, which is also available as part of phase two consultation.
Page 12
Design development information, and the reasons for the choice of the final design at this site, including environmental design factors, will also be provided in the ES
3.5
3.5.1
Base case
The assessment undertaken for this site takes account of relevant development projects which have been submitted or with extant planning permission. Because of the other developments the future environmental conditions within and around this site irrespective of the Thames Tunnel are likely to change. This is termed the base case. The Lee Tunnel and the Thames Tideway Quality Improvement (TTQI) projects (improvement works at Mogden, Beckton, Crossness, Long Reach and Riverside Sewage Treatment Works) will be operational by the time construction of the Thames Tunnel commences. The base case would therefore be the water quality in the Tideway with the TTQI projects and the Lee Tunnel in place. As a result, by 2021 discharge from the CSO at the site will be 70,800m3 with 33 spills. The projected spill volumes and spill frequencies for the baseline conditions for the Thames Tunnel (which is with the improvements applied to the STWs, and the Lee Tunnel in place) would still not be a sufficient level of CSO control to meet the UWWTD (see also Volume 2, Section 2.6). By the start of construction it is assumed that development of the vaults at no. 2 Putney High Street (planning permission granted) will be complete. This will provide additional cafe floorspace within the existing basement vault and an opening in the river wall with flood barrier to provide access onto Watermans Green (between the steps and bridge). There is no major development known to be forthcoming in the immediate vicinity of the site.
3.5.2
3.5.3
3.5.4
3.5.5
3.5.6
Page 13
Section 4: Air quality and odour
4 4.1
4.1.1
Air quality and odour Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant air quality and odour effects at the Putney Bridge Foreshore site. The proposed development has the potential to affect air quality and odour due to: a. construction traffic on the road (air quality). b. temporary closure of lanes during construction (air quality). c. emissions from barges (air quality). d. emissions from construction plant (air quality). e. construction-generated dust (air quality). f. operation of the tunnel (odour).
4.1.2
4.1.3
Each of these is considered within the assessment. This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment, and sets out what will be provided in the ES when the full assessment is available. Operational air quality effects from transport have been scoped out of the assessment due to the very limited number of maintenance visits required and hence the low number of vehicular movements.
4.1.4
4.2
4.2.1
Proposed development
The proposed development is described in section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to air quality and odour are as follows.
Construction
Road traffic 4.2.2 During the proposed construction period, there would be road traffic movements in and out of the site in addition to the movement of materials by barge. The highest number of lorry movements at the Putney Bridge Foreshore site would occur during the sewer connection works/fitout. The peak number of vehicle movements at that time would be 30 lorry movements per day averaged over a one month period. These traffic effects are based on 90% of cofferdam fill, in and out, being transported by barge. The construction traffic routes for the key material supply stages, traffic management and access to the site are detailed in section 12 of this volume. River barges 4.2.5 It is anticipated that approximately 90% of cofferdam fill material would be transported by barge with a mooring area for barges of up to approximately 350 tonne capacity to the west of the site. The peak
4.2.3
4.2.4
Page 14
number of barge movements would be four a day averaged over a one month period. Construction plant 4.2.6 There are a number of items of plant to be used on site that may produce emissions that could affect local air quality. Construction dust 4.2.7 Activities with the potential to give rise to dust emissions from the proposed development during construction are as follows: a. Site preparation and establishment. b. Demolition of existing infrastructure and buildings (not significant at this site). c. 4.2.8 Materials handling. The potential for these processes to impact at sensitive receptors is dependent on many factors including the following: a. Location of the construction site. b. Proximity of sensitive receptors. c. Extent of demolition. d. Extent of any intended excavation. e. Nature, location and size of stockpiles and length of time they are on site. f. Occurrence and scale of dust generating activities; necessity for onsite concrete crusher or cement batcher.
g. Number and type of vehicles and plant required on site. h. Potential for dirt or mud to be made airborne through vehicle movements. i. 4.2.9 Weather conditions. The Putney Bridge Foreshore site comprises two construction sites the main construction site and temporary slipway site. A separate construction dust assessment is undertaken for each of the sites. Appropriate dust and emission control measures are included in the draft CoCP in accordance with the London Councils Best Practice Guidance. Measures incorporated into the CoCP to reduce air quality impacts include measures in relation to vehicle and plant emissions, measures to reduce dust formation and resuspension, measures to control dust present and to reduce particulate emissions. These would be observed across all phases of demolition and construction.
4.2.10
Operation
4.2.11 The passive odour control filter would be housed in a below ground chamber. The passive filter would treat 0.5m3/s whereas the maximum air release rate during a typical year is expected to be less than 0.1m3/s, which is well within the capacity of the OCU.
Page 15
Treated air would be released from the ventilation column for 11 hours in the typical year, all of which would have passed through the filter. For the remaining hours, no air and no odour would be released. This information on the ventilation structures provided input data to the dispersion model used to assess odour dispersion at the site.
4.2.13
4.3
4.3.1
Assessment methodology Scoping and engagement

Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. All consultee comments relevant to this site are presented in the table below. Vol 10 Table 4.3.1 Air quality and odour stakeholder engagement Organisation LB Wandsworth Comment Monitoring locations Response Locations agreed with Environmental Health Officer. Complaints for food premises around Putney Bridge Foreshore provided by Team Leader (Environmental Initiatives).
Odour complaints
Baseline
4.3.2 The baseline methodology follows the standard methodology described in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.
Construction
4.3.3 The construction phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology described in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.
Operation
4.3.4 The operational phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology described in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.
Assumptions and limitations

4.3.5 For the purposes of the PEIR it has been assumed that background odour concentrations are negligible as there have been no complaints recorded in the surrounding area over recent years. This assumption will be supported by baseline hydrogen sulphide monitoring currently being undertaken at all sites (in August 2011 with repeat monitoring to be undertaken in Autumn 2011).
Page 16
4.4
Baseline conditions Local air quality

Pollutant concentrations
4.4.1 4.4.2
The current conditions with regard to local air quality are best established through long-term air quality monitoring. As part of their duties under Part IV of the Environment Act 1995, local authorities, especially in urban areas where air quality is a significant issue, undertake long-term air quality monitoring within their administrative areas. There are three continuous monitoring stations and two diffusion tubes which collect data pertinent to the Putney Bridge Foreshore site and associated construction traffic routes. The continuous monitoring stations and the diffusion tube sites are operated by LB Wandsworth. Some of the monitors were set up relatively recently - WA7 monitoring station was set up in July 2009, WA8 in April 2010 and the most recent is WA9 in January 2011. As a result, little or no data are available for these sites. Monitoring data for the sites are contained in Vol 10 Table 4.4.1 (NO2 concentrations) and Vol 10 Table 4.4.2 (PM10 concentrations) for the years 2007 to 2010. Vol 10 Table 4.4.1 Air quality - measured NO2 concentrations Annual Mean (g/m3) 2010* 200 9 155
+
4.4.3
4.4.4
4.4.5
Monitoring Site
Site Type
Number of Exceedences of Hourly Standard 2010* 2009 200 8 200 7
200 8
200 7
Continuous Monitoring Sites Putney High Street (WA7) Putney High Street Faade (WA8) Putney High Street (W9) Kerbside Roadside 137
X
166
NM
NM
2602
1109+ NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
1161X
NM
NM
NM
Diffusion Tube Monitoring Sites Roadside 110 41 103 38 119 44 114 37 NM NM
Urban Werter Road, backgroun Putney (W10) d
* Data not fully ratified. NM indicates not measured. X Data capture of 54%. + Data capture of 45%. Emboldened figures indicate an exceedence of the objective / limit value which is 40g/m3 for the annual mean and 200g/m3 for the hourly mean which can be exceeded 18 times per year.
Page 17
The NO2 monitoring in 2010 indicates an exceedence of the annual mean NO2 standard (40g/m3) at all four sites. Data for the previous years also indicate exceedences of the annual mean standard at Putney High Street and at Werter Road. It should be noted that three of the four sites are designated as roadside or kerbside sites and therefore higher concentrations will be expected than at the urban background site. The data for Werter Road (urban background site) are however still showing concentrations around the annual mean objective level. These results therefore suggest that some urban background areas, away from roadside locations, are also exceeding the annual mean standard. The number of exceedences of the hourly standard indicates that the standard was not achieved at the monitoring sites along Putney High Street. Vol 10 Table 4.4.2 Air quality measured PM10 concentrations Annual Mean (g/m3)
Monitoring Site Putney High Street (WA7) 4.4.7
Site Type Kerbside
Number of Exceedences of Daily Standard
2010* 2009 2008 2007 2010* 2009 2008 2007 29+ 30X NM NM 5+ 6X NM NM
* Data not fully ratified. NM indicates not measured. +Data capture of 88%. X Data capture of 42%.
The PM10 monitoring indicates that the annual and daily mean standards were met in 2009 and 2010, although it is noted that this is based on limited data sets (88% data capture for 2010 and 42% data capture in 2009). As a result of previous exceedences of air quality objectives, LB Wandsworth has declared the whole borough an AQMA for NO2 and PM10. In addition to the local authority monitoring, diffusion tube monitoring has been set up as part of the project to monitor NO2 concentrations in the vicinity of the Putney Bridge Foreshore site. This includes a triplicate site established next to a continuous monitoring station on Putney High Street (Putney 4) for bias adjustment purposes. This monitoring comprises five diffusion tubes based at the locations detailed in the table below. All identified existing and new sites relating to the Putney Bridge Foreshore site (as well as other sites where they are in close proximity) are shown in Vol 10 Figure 4.4.1. Vol 10 Figure 4.4.1 Air quality monitoring locations (see Volume 10 Figures document) Vol 10 Table 4.4.3 Air quality - additional monitoring locations Monitoring Site Embankment (Putney 1) Lower Richmond Road (Putney 2) Putney High Street (Putney 3) Putney High Street Triplicate (Putney 4) Grid Reference 523996, 175744 524110, 175641 524085, 175474 524031, 175333
4.4.8 4.4.9
Page 18
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Monitoring Site Montserrat Road (Putney 5) 4.4.10
Section 4: Air quality and odour Grid Reference 524133, 175282
This monitoring will be used in conjunction with existing local authority monitoring to provide the baseline situation and also provide input to model verification. A full baseline will be reported in the ES. In addition to monitoring data, an indication of baseline pollutant concentrations in the vicinity of the site can also be obtained from looking at background data on the air quality section of the Defra website where mapped background pollutant concentrations are available for each 1km by 1km grid square within every local authoritys administrative area for the years 2008 to 2020 1. The background data relating to the Putney Bridge Foreshore site are given in the table below for 2010 (baseline year). Vol 10 Table 4.4.4 Air quality background pollutant concentrations Pollutant NOX (g/m3) NO2 (g/m3) PM10 (g/m3) 2010 40.9 26.4 19.1
4.4.11
*Average of annual means for 1km grid squares centred on 524500, 175500 and 523500, 175500
Receptors 4.4.12 The Putney Bridge Foreshore site is located in a mixed use area comprising residential and commercial/office premises and a church. The closest residential receptors to the main construction site (Kenilworth Court) are located to the south of the site on Lower Richmond Road within 10m of the site boundary, as well as the two houseboats moored on Putney Pier. Commercial/office buildings are located within 10m to the west of the site boundary between Embankment and Lower Richmond Road. St Marys Church is located 20m to the south of the site boundary. Residential and commercial receptors along Embankment are within 10m of the secondary construction site for the temporary slipway. There is also the cafe at No. 2 Putney High Street for which it is assumed that premises will be extended to include seating on Watermans Green immediately adjacent to the temporary slipway construction site. It is noted thatconstruction works for the temporary slipway are likely to be of a much smaller scale than for the main construction site. All these receptors are relevant, albeit to different levels of sensitivity, to the emissions sources identified in the local air quality assessment. The sensitivity of identified receptors has been determined using the criteria detailed in Volume 5 this identifies their sensitivity in relation to both local air quality and dust nuisance, as shown in the table below. These receptors are relevant to the assessment of emissions from construction road traffic, river barges and construction plant, as well as the assessment of construction dust.
4.4.13
Page 19
Vol 10 Table 4.4.5 Air quality receptors - construction Receptors (relating to all identified emissions sources) Residential (including houseboats) Value/sensitivity and justification
Exposure relevant to annual mean and daily mean standards. High sensitivity to local air quality. Medium sensitivity to dust nuisance. Exposure is relevant for the daily mean and hourly mean standards. Low sensitivity to local air quality. Medium sensitivity to dust nuisance. Exposure relevant to hourly mean standard. Medium sensitivity to local air quality. Medium sensitivity to dust nuisance. Exposure relevant to annual mean and daily mean standards. Medium sensitivity to local air quality. Medium sensitivity to dust nuisance.
Commercial/offices
Caf
Church
Odour
4.4.14 While odour complaints have been made to the LB Wandsworth near the Putney Bridge Foreshore site regarding food premises2, there have been no complaints with regard to sewage odour. No odour complaints have been recorded in the Thames Water odour database within an area of 500m radius from the proposed site during the last five years. The nearest sensitive receptors are described in paragraphs 4.4.12 above. For the purposes of the odour assessment, the sensitivity of these receptors has been determined in accordance with the criteria in Volume 5. The residential properties (including houseboats) are of a high sensitivity to odour whilst the commercial/office premises, caf and church are of medium sensitivity. The users of the river and footpath (next to the site along Lower Richmond Road) are of low sensitivity.
4.4.15
4.5
4.5.1
Construction assessment Construction base and development cases

The peak construction year is used as the year of assessment for construction effects (road transport, river barges, construction plant and construction dust) in which the development case will be assessed against the base case to identify likely significant effects for the Thames Tunnel project. The base case conditions for the construction assessment year will change from the current conditions due to modifications to the sources of the air pollution in the intervening period.
4.5.2
Page 20
For road vehicles, there will be a change in the penetration of new Euro standards to the fleet composition between the current situation and the future peak construction year. The uptake of newer vehicles with improved emission controls should lead to a reduction in existing NO2 and PM10 concentrations. However, the uptake of newer vehicles has not improved NO2 concentrations greatly in the last ten years in London, so as a worst case the NOx contribution from diesel vehicles has been assumed to be the same for Euro 1 to 5 vehicles in line with Defra advice 3. Reduced emission factors from the introduction of Euro 6 vehicles in the future will reduce the base case concentrations when compared to the 2010 baseline. Other emissions sources should also reduce due to local and national policies. Therefore, the non-road sources of the background concentrations used in the modelling will be reduced in line with Defra guidance LAQM.TG(09) 4.
4.5.4
Construction assessment area

4.5.5 The assessment area for the local air quality study covers a square area of 600m by 600m centred on the Putney Bridge Foreshore site. This assessment area is used for the assessment of road transport, river barges, construction plant and construction dust and has been selected on the basis of professional judgement to ensure that the effects of the Putney Bridge Foreshore site are fully assessed. A distance of 200m is generally considered sufficient to ensure that any significant effects are considered the selected assessment area exceeds this by some margin.
Construction effects
Emissions from road traffic 4.5.6 Road traffic is likely to affect local air quality in two ways: from emissions from the construction traffic; and from enhanced emissions from other road vehicles due to congestion or re-routing due to lane closures. A qualitative assessment of road traffic effects has been undertaken for the PEIR. When traffic surveys are complete, a more detailed quantitative assessment using air quality modelling will be undertaken, the findings of which will be reported in the ES. Based on professional judgement for the purposes of the PEIR, it is however predicted that the impacts due to construction traffic are expected to be small (ie, small magnitude of change according to the criteria detailed in Volume 5) due to the low number of additional lorries during construction in the context of the existing traffic flows on the local road network. Given that the residential properties/moorings have a high sensitivity to local air quality (as identified in section 4.4), the likely significance of the effect of construction traffic is a minor adverse effect (according to the criteria detailed in Volume 5). At St Marys Church, the caf and commercial/office receptors, which have a medium and low sensitivity to local air quality, the significance of effect would be negligible.
4.5.7
4.5.8
4.5.9
Page 21
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Emissions from river barges 4.5.10 4.5.11
River barges are only expected to affect local air quality through direct emissions from the tugs pulling them. During the peak construction year for the Putney Bridge Foreshore site, the peak number of barge movements would be four a day averaged over a one month period. However, data regarding the river barges and the operation of these barges are still being gathered and so modelling has not yet been possible for the PEIR (but will be completed for inclusion in the ES). Based on professional judgement for the purposes of the PEIR, it is noted that the effects due to barge emissions are expected to be negligible (ie, negligible magnitude of change according to the criteria detailed in Volume 5) due to the low number of barges required during construction. At all receptors, the likely significance of the barge emissions on local air quality is a negligible effect (according to the criteria detailed in Volume 5). Emissions from plant Construction plant is likely to affect local air quality in two ways: from direct exhaust emissions; and from construction dust associated with the use and movement of the plant around the site. Emission factors are being assigned to each item of plant. More data are being gathered regarding the operation of these items of plant in terms of expected usage through the construction phase. A qualitative assessment has been undertaken for the PEIR. Modelling is currently being undertaken, the findings of which will be reported in the ES. Based on professional judgement for the purposes of the PEIR, it is noted that the impacts due to construction plant are expected to be small (ie, small magnitude of change according to the criteria in Volume 5), given the localised nature of the emissions ie emissions are only generated on the construction site. Compared to the traffic flows in the surrounding area, the amount of plant and their emissions are likely to have a negligible impact. At the residential properties/moorings, which have a high sensitivity to local air quality (as identified in section 4.4), the likely significance of the effect is a minor adverse effect (according to the criteria detailed in Volume 5). At St Marys Church, the caf and commercial/office receptors, which have a medium and low sensitivity to local air quality, the significance of effect would be negligible. Construction dust Construction dust would be generated from both on-site activities and from road vehicles assessing and servicing the site. Dust sensitive receptors have been identified in the vicinity of the Putney Bridge Foreshore site in accordance with Volume 5, as described in Vol 10 Table 4.4.5.
4.5.12
4.5.13
4.5.14
4.5.15
4.5.16
4.5.17
4.5.18
4.5.19 4.5.20
Page 22
In line with the London Councils guidance 5, the site has been categorised using the criteria given in Volume 5 which takes into account the area taken up by the development and the potential impact of the development on sensitive receptors close to the development. The site comprises two construction sites the main construction site and the temporary slipway construction site. The specific site details relating to the sites with respect to the criteria set are: a. Sites would have maximum construction areas of approximately 10,000m2 (main construction site) and 7,000m2 (temporary slipway construction site). b. The project is a non-residential development. c. Main construction at the site would last approximately three and a half years.
4.5.22
d. There are likely intermittent impacts on identified sensitive receptors. 4.5.23 4.5.24 On this basis, both of the construction sites have been classified as medium risk sites. Given that the receptor sensitivity is identified as medium for residential and commercial/office properties and the caf (as identified in section 4.4) and both are within 10m of the site boundary, the likely significance of the effect of construction dust is deemed to be a moderate adverse effect (according to the criteria detailed in Volume 5). For St Marys Church, which is further from the site, the effect is identified as minor adverse. These effects would be reduced by the implementation of measures contained in the CoCP (see section 4.2). This would result in a minor adverse effect at residential and commercial/office properties and the caf and a negligible effect at St Marys Church. Overall construction effects 4.5.26 When considering the overall local air quality construction effects (ie, effects from construction road traffic, river barges and plant), it is concluded that the overall significance of effects is likely to be minor adverse at the residential properties / houseboats and negligible at commercial/office receptors, the caf and St Marys Church. With regard to construction dust, the likely significance of effects is negligible at St Marys Church and minor adverse at commercial/offices, residential properties and the caf within 10m of the site boundary. On this basis no significant construction effects are predicted.
4.5.25
4.5.27
4.5.28
4.6
4.6.1 4.6.2
Operational assessment Operational base and development cases

The assessment undertaken for a typical use year (as described in Volume 5) applies equally to all operational years. Base and development cases have been developed for modelling purposes. Base case conditions have been assumed to be the same as
Page 23
baseline conditions with respect to background odour concentrations as no change in background odour concentrations is anticipated.
Operational assessment area

4.6.3 Odour dispersion modelling was carried out over an area of 300m by 250m centred on the site. The assessment area was selected on the basis of it being considered the potential maximum extent of the impact area.
Operational effects
4.6.4 Vol 10 Table 4.6.1 shows the predicted maximum ground level odour concentrations at the Putney Bridge Foreshore site. These are the highest concentrations that could occur at the worst affected ground level receptor at or near the site. In accordance with the odour criterion set up by the Environment Agency and in the draft NPS 6, results are presented for the 98th percentile of hourly average concentrations in the year (or the 176th highest concentration in the year), and the number of hours in a year with concentrations above 1.5ouE/m3. The number of hours with concentrations above 1.5ouE/m3 gives an indication of the number of hours in a year that an odour might be detectable at the worst affected receptor. The table also identifies the magnitude of the identified impacts in accordance with the criteria detailed in Volume 5. Vol 10 Table 4.6.2 gives similar results for the predicted impacts at the worst affected buildings, where concentrations at ground level and at height have been considered. Vol 10 Table 4.6.1 Odour impacts at ground level - operation Year Typical Maximum at ground level locations 98th percentile 0 (ouE/m3) No. of hours > 2 1.5ouE/m3 Impact magnitude and justification Negligible 98th percentile concentration is less than 1ouE/m3
Vol 10 Table 4.6.2 Odour impacts at buildings - operation Year Typical Maximum at buildings 98th percentile (ouE/m3) No. of hours > 1.5ouE/m3 4.6.5 0 0 Impact magnitude and justification Negligible 98th percentile concentration is less than 1ouE/m3
In both tables above, the 98th percentile is shown as zero as the number of hours with air released from the vent would be less than 176 and therefore the 98th percentile concentration would be zero at all locations, thus achieving the odour criterion at all locations. This represents an impact of negligible magnitude.
Page 24
The highest odour concentrations are expected to occur adjacent to the ventilation building. At the worst affected location adjacent to the building, odour would be above 1.5ouE/m3 for two hours in the year. Odour would not be detectable beyond the site boundary. With regard to the significance of effects at ground level and building locations, given that the predicted odour concentrations at all locations and at buildings do not exceed the 98th percentile criterion of 1.5ouE/m3, it is considered that an overall significance effects would be negligible in relation to the Putney Bridge Foreshore site. No significant effects are therefore predicted in relation to odour.
4.6.7
4.7
4.7.1
Approach to mitigation Construction

All measures embedded in the draft CoCP of relevance to air quality and odour are summarised in section 4.2. No mitigation is required.
Operation
4.7.2 No mitigation is required.
Page 25
4.8
Vol 10 Table 4.8.1 Air quality and odour assessment - construction Significance None required Mitigation Residual significance Minor adverse
Assessment summary
Receptor
Effect
Residential (including Local air quality Minor adverse houseboats) effects from construction road traffic, barges and plant emissions Minor adverse None required None required
Effects from construction dust
Minor adverse Negligible
Commercial/offices
Local air quality Negligible effects from construction road traffic, barges and plant emissions Minor adverse None required None required
Caf Watermans Green, No. 2 Putney High Street Minor adverse
Local air quality Negligible effects from construction road traffic, barges and plant emissions
None required None required
St Marys Church
Local air quality Negligible effects from construction road traffic, barges and plant emissions Negligible
Effects from
None required
Negligible
Page 26
construction dust
Vol 10 Table 4.8.2 Air quality and odour assessment - operational Significance Negligible None required Mitigation Residual significance Negligible
Receptor
Effect
Residential properties (including houseboats) Commercial/offices Negligible Negligible None required None required
Odour
Odour
Negligible Negligible
Caf Watermans Green, No. 2 Putney High Street St Marys Church River and footpath Negligible Negligible None required None required
Odour
Odour Odour
Negligible Negligible
Page 27
4.9
4.9.1
Assessment completion
The following work is required in order to complete the local air quality and odour assessment for the Putney Bridge Foreshore site: a. Diffusion tube monitoring has been set up at five sites to monitor NO2 concentrations in the vicinity of the Putney Bridge Foreshore site. This monitoring will be used to provide a baseline to the assessment and as an input for model verification. b. For the assessment of road transport emissions, air quality modelling will be undertaken to predict the effects on local air quality. c. Further information needs to be collected in relation to the types of barges being used and the most appropriate emission factors to use. These data will then be input into the model in order to predict the effects of barges on local air quality.
d. The nature, quantities and operation of the construction plant are being finalised. The appropriate emission factors will then be applied to the plant in order to initialise the modelling work. These models will then be run and the effects of construction plant on local air quality predicted. e. The assessment of cumulative and in combination effects will be undertaken and reported in the ES. f. Following completion of the assessment the mitigation approaches for air quality and odour within the project will be finalised and reported in the ES.
Page 28
Section 5: Ecology - aquatic
5 5.1
5.1.1
Ecology - aquatic Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant aquatic ecology effects at the Putney Bridge Foreshore site. For the purposes of the assessment of the Thames Tunnel project, aquatic ecology includes plants and animals that live in and depend on the tidal Thames and its tidal tributaries (known collectively as the Thames Tideway). In relation to the Putney Bridge Foreshore site, the topic includes the marine mammals, fish, invertebrates and algae which occur in the Thames Tideway in the vicinity of the site. Animals, plants and habitats which occur above the mean high water level are assessed in Terrestrial Ecology (Section 6). Waterfowl, including those which occur on the Thames Tideway are also included under Terrestrial Ecology. Further details of the scope of the assessment are provided in Volume 5.
5.1.2
5.2
5.2.1
The proposed development is described in section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to aquatic ecology are as follows. Construction The CSO construction site at Putney Bridge is located predominantly on the foreshore. The elements of construction relevant to the assessment are: a. The installation of sheet piling to create two separate cofferdams on the foreshore for the CSO (combined sewer overflows) interception works and subsequent removal of the temporary cofferdams b. The installation of temporary sheet piling for a temporary slipway approximately 300m west of Putney Bridge c. The temporary usage of an area of intertidal foreshore (including both the CSO works and the temporary slipway works) and its occupation by granular fill and subsequent excavation and removal of the same
5.2.2
d. The placement and removal of a temporary barge grid/campshed on the foreshore outside the cofferdams, suitable for a 350 tonne barge e. Associated regular barge movements and resting on the barge grid/campshed (with a peak monthly average of four movements per day) f. 5.2.3 The presence of a jack-up barge on the foreshore to install the cofferdams.
Measures incorporated into the CoCP to reduce aquatic ecology impacts include the following elements, which are considered to be an integral part of the project for the purposes of this assessment: a. Avoiding piling at night to ensure opportunities to allow fish to migrate past the site within each 24-hour period
Page 29
b. Limiting allowable noise and vibration levels at the mid-point of the navigable channel to leave part of the river cross-section passable by fish at all times c. Undertaking in-river cofferdam/piling works at or around low tide where possible to avoid transmission of noise and vibration through the water column
d. Utilising low noise/vibration cofferdam or pile/pier installation techniques such as pressing or vibro-piling rather than impact/percussive piling. Where vibro-piling is used, slowly increasing the power of the driving over a 5 minute period would enable those fish that are able to swim away to leave the area before the full power of the pile driver is felt through the river e. Where predictions indicate that best practice limits would not be achievable, confining as much of the underwater noise generating activities as possible to outside peak fish migration periods should be considered f. Appropriate measures would be taken to prevent the spread of nonnative invasive species in accordance with current good practice
g. Avoidance of pollution of the river. EA approval would be required for works which would be likely to affect any surface or groundwater resource. Discharge to watercourses would only be permitted where discharge consent or other relevant approval has been obtained. Measures to avoid pollution would accord with the principles set out in industry guidelines, including as the EAs guidance PPG05: Works in, near or liable to affect water courses and CIRIAs report C532: Control of water pollution from construction sites. Operation 5.1.1 The following are relevant to the assessment of operational effects for aquatic ecology: a. The presence of a permanent CSO interception structure in the river b. Discharges from the Putney Bridge CSO would be intercepted as part of the project. Based on the base case (which includes permitted Thames Tideway sewage treatment works upgrades, and the Lee Tunnel project) discharges from the Putney Bridge CSO are anticipated to be 70,800m3 by 2021. With the Thames Tunnel project in place, discharges at Putney Bridge are projected to reduce to 1,600m3.
5.3
5.1.2

Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. There were no site specific comments from consultees for the Putney Bridge Foreshore site relating to aquatic ecology.
Page 30
Baseline
5.1.3 Details of the approach to the assessment are presented in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site. Details of the background data sets are provided in Volume 5. Existing algal data has been requested and will be assessed and reported in the ES.
Construction
5.1.4 The methodology for assessing construction effects is described in Volume 5.There are no deviations from the standard assessment methodology.
Operation
5.1.5 The methodology for assessing operational effects is described in Volume 5. There are no deviations from the standard assessment methodology.

5.1.6 It has been assumed that: a. A frame barge grid would be used during construction rather than a solid concrete camp-shed and that only limited removal of sediment would be required to install it b. Reinforcement of the foreshore for erosion protection c. The new slipway would be temporary d. The area beyond the temporary cofferdam would be subject to disturbance and compaction. It has been assumed that this would be likely to have a low impact. This will be confirmed once details of construction methods, such as the likely loads associated with the barges and jack-up barges and timings are available.
5.4
5.4.1
Baseline conditions
Designations Putney Bridge Foreshore falls within the River Thames and Tidal Tributaries Site of Metropolitan Importance (Site Reference: M31). The designation, which is proposed by the Greater London Authority and adopted by all Boroughs which border the Thames, recognises the range and quality of estuarine habitats including mudflat, shingle beach, reedbeds and the river channel itself. Over 120 species of fish have been recorded in the Tideway, though many of these are only occasional visitors. The more common species include dace (Leuciscus leuciscus), bream (Abramis brama) and roach (Rutilus rutilus) in the freshwater reaches, and sand-smelt (Atherina presbyter), flounder (Platichtyhys flesus) and Dover sole (Solea solea) in the estuarine reaches. Important migratory species include Twaite shad (Alosa fallax), European eel (Anguilla anguilla), smelt (Osmerus eperlanus), salmon (Salmo salar) and sea trout (S. trutta). A number of nationally rare snails occur, including the brackish water snail Pseudamnicola confusa, and an important assemblage of wetland and wading birds.
Page 31
The Tidal Thames is also the subject of a Habitat Action Plan under the London Biodiversity Action Plan 7. London Borough of Wandsworth does not have a separate Biodiversity Action Plan. The London BAP Habitat Action Plan identifies a number of flagship habitats and species which characterise the estuary, such as gravel foreshore, mudflat and saltmarsh. A number of these habitats and species, including mudflat, are also the subject of action plans under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan. Habitats The river is divided into three zones within the Tidal Thames Habitat Action Plan; freshwater, brackish and marine (include plan of zones). The brackish zone is equivalent to the transitional water definition of the Water Framework Directive (WFD). Putney Bridge foreshore lies within the freshwater zone, which means that the fish and invertebrate communities which occur within the river at this location consists of freshwater species and more freshwater tolerant marine species. Invertebrate diversity is generally higher than in the brackish zone but species must be able to withstand some variations in salinity and a stressful environment. Stress is caused by the fluctuating tidal conditions, which means that flora and fauna have to be able to tolerate wide variations in their physical environment. During the survey of habitats within and immediately adjacent to the proposed CSO construction sites the intertidal habitat at Putney Bridge was recorded as consisting of a shingle foreshore. The site is located approximately 400m upstream of the nearest area of UK BAP priority habitat mudflats according to Natureonthemap.org.uk. Natural England (2011). A gravel foreshore was exposed at the low tide within the limits of the survey area. Substrate within this area was dominated by pebbles, shingle and sand. The river in this location is confined by a constructed vertical river wall, which was vegetated in some areas, and bridge abutments, above the exposed banks. Target habitats present included sublittoral sands and gravels and the river wall. Scattered vegetation was growing on the river wall. There was no marginal vegetation and relatively little intertidal habitat. The vertical river wall supported communities of macro and microalgae. Following the survey methodology, a summary of habitat types present, and other features of interest are presented in the table below. Vol 10 Table 5.4.1 Aquatic ecology - habitat and substrate Target habitats present and features of interest Gravel foreshore Sublittoral sand and gravels River wall Pier (Putney Pier) CSO outfall Substrate present in intertidal zone (approximate cover) Pebbles and shingles (85%) Sand, cobbles, silt (15%) Substrate present in subtidal samples Pebble, gravel Sand
5.4.3
5.4.4
5.4.5
5.4.6
Page 32
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Target habitats present and features of interest Scattered trees (above river wall) 5.4.7
Section 5: Ecology - aquatic Substrate present in intertidal zone (approximate cover) Substrate present in subtidal samples
The shallow river margins, which shift across the intertidal foreshore with the ebb and flood of the tides, provide an important migration route for juvenile fish along the estuarine corridor. The young of species such as eel (known as glass eels or elvers), flounder, dace and smelt rely upon access to these areas of lower water velocity to avoid being washed out by tides and to avoid predation by the larger fish that occur in deeper water. Migrants of larger fish tend to use faster mid-channel routes. Young fish also feed predominantly amongst the intertidal habitat. Marine mammals Records compiled by the Zoological Society of London for 2003-2011 indicate four records of seal (unknown species) have been observed at Putney Bridge. Fish A single day survey was undertaken at Putney Bridge Foreshore during October 2010. The extent of the survey and location of trawl and seine net hauls are presented in Vol 10 Table 5.4.1. Full details of the methodology are presented in Volume 5. Vol 10 Figure 5.4.1 Aquatic ecology sampling locations (see Volume 10 Figures document)
5.4.8
5.4.9
5.4.10
The survey recorded low fish abundance in the area of Putney Bridge Foreshore, with only forty individuals captured in total. The range of species recorded and the number of individuals is presented in the table below. Fish are routinely categorised into guilds according to their tolerance to salinity and habitat preference 8;9. The fish species which occur in the Thames Tideway can be divided into four guilds which are defined as follows: a. Freshwater Species which spend their complete lifecycle primarily in freshwater b. Estuarine resident Species which remain in the estuary for their complete lifecycle c. Diadromous Species which migrate through the estuary to spawn; d. Marine juvenile Species which spawn at sea but spend part of their lifecycle in the estuary.
Page 33
Vol 10 Table 5.4.2: Aquatic ecology fish survey Common name Flounder Common smelt Eel Common bream Dace Roach 5.4.11 Specific name Number of individuals 1 2 4 4 10 Guild Estuarine resident Diadromous Diadromous Freshwater Freshwater Freshwater
Platichthys flesus 19 Osmerus eperlanus Anguilla anguilla Abramis brama Leuciscus leuciscus Rutilus rutilus
This was a relatively low number in terms of absolute abundance of fish, compared with a catch exceeding 200 fish each at Barn Ems, Western Pumping Station and Cremorne Wharf, which had the highest abundance of fish of all sites surveyed in relation to the Thames Tunnel project. The lowest catch (at Albert Embankment) was of 19 individuals. The low abundance of freshwater species at Putney Bridge such as roach, bream and dace is explained by the site location, which is towards the downstream end of the freshwater zone (Volume 6 Figure 2.1.1), where salinity is relatively close to the tolerance threshold of freshwater species. The EA carry out annual surveys of fish within the Thames Tideway, with data available from 1992-2010. Methodologies for the survey are provided in Volume 5. There is an EA sampling site at Putney. The EA data at this location indicates that the most well represented species are dace, flounder, roach, sand-smelt and eels. EA data for the Putney site are, however, limited to 1992 and 1993. The EA annual data on abundance are in accordance with the findings of the October 2010 survey, in that the site appears to have low value for fish species. A more comprehensive survey dataset exists for Battersea, located 3km downstream, where EA surveys have been carried out every year from 1983 to 2010. Fifteen fish species are recorded for Battersea. These show fairly steady catches in from trawls but some indication of increasing seine-net catches in recent years (Vol 10 Figure 5.4.2). Catches are dominated by estuarine resident fish such as common goby, flounder and sand smelt, freshwater species including dace, common bream, perch and roach, and migratory species including eel and smelt. Other migratory species such as salmon and sea trout must pass through the area but are too infrequent to be detected by only one or two surveys per year. This concurs well with the more limited Putney Bridge data and probably gives a better view of the overall status of fish populations in the vicinity of the Putney Bridge Foreshore site.
5.4.12
5.4.13
5.4.14
Page 34
Vol 10 Figure 5.4.2 Aquatic ecology EA total fish catches
5.4.15
In general, Tideway fish populations are mobile and wide ranging, and hence any analysis of population data needs to be based on an understanding of the ecological requirements and migratory habits of individual species. Although the abundance and diversity of fish at any one site may provide some indication of the habitat quality offered at that site it is important to consider the data within the context of sites throughout the Thames Tideway, since the factors influencing distribution are likely to be acting at this wider scale. Effects at this scale are assessed in Volume 6 (Project-wide). Invertebrates A single day survey was undertaken at Putney Bridge Foreshore. The area covered by the survey is the same as that described for the fish survey above (paragraph 5.4.9) and illustrated in Figure 5.4.1. Further details of these methods can be found in Volume 5. Two intertidal and two subtidal samples were taken at each site. Benthic invertebrates are used in the freshwater, estuarine and marine environments as biological indicators of water and sediment quality since their abundance and distribution reflects natural or man-made fluctuations in environmental conditions. Species diversity is influenced by factors such as substrate and salinity, however high species diversity (or numbers of species) at any given site generally indicates good water and/or sediment quality, whilst low diversity may indicate poor quality. Whilst the abundance and diversity of invertebrate species at any one site provide a more accurate reflection of conditions at that site than site specific fish data, invertebrate populations and particularly those which occur in the water column (pelagic) are influenced by conditions
5.4.16
5.4.17
5.4.18
Page 35
throughout the estuary. The strongest influences on invertebrate distribution and density tend to be physical factors such as salinity, and substrate type followed by water quality and local habitat conditions. These factors are discussed below in relation to the site specific data. 5.4.19 The invertebrates collected during the October 2010 field surveys are presented in the table below. The Community Conservation Index (CCI) score 10 has initially been used to identify species of nature conservation importance. CCI classifies many groups of invertebrates of inland waters according to their scarcity and conservation value in Great Britain and relates closely to the Red Data Book (RDB) 11;12. Vol 10 Table 5.4.3 Aquatic ecology Invertebrate fauna No Individs subtidal samples AL1 AL2 38 20 45 65 3 40 90 2 1 100 32 1 CCI Score 3 1 1 1 2 20 1 5 27 1 1 7 750 10 1 8 1 No Individs Intertidal samples Q SW1 SW2 2 4 8 1 260 1 90 200 1
Taxa Theodoxus fluviatilis Potamopyrgus antipodarum Radix balthica Sphaeridae Sphaerium (corneum?) Pisidium spp. Dreissena polymorpha Oligochaeta Glossiphonia complanata Erpobdella testacea Crangon crangon Eriocheir sinensis Asellus aquaticus Acorophium lacustre Gammarus sp Gammarus zaddachi Tipulidae Number of taxa 5.4.20
2 1
16 1 2 1
120 10 4 1
3000 8 37
3 400 10 1 8 9 240 9 85 9
Putney Bridge samples were characterised relatively high diversity for the subtidal area. In addition to the typical pollution tolerant taxa, moderately pollution tolerant groups were abundant in both the subtidal and intertidal zones (Theodoxus fluviatilis, Gammarus and Corophium). The species generally considered most sensitive to organic pollution is the river neritid, Theodoxus fluviatilis (Neritidae). It was relatively abundant at Putney Bridge in both intertidal and subtidal samples. As other sites, all of the taxa present are brackish species or animals that have a varying tolerance to different levels of salinity from estuarine to near freshwater. No obligate freshwater or marine animals were present. The brackish nature of the water is demonstrated by species such as Gammarus zaddachi (a brackish species of shrimp, rather than its more
5.4.21
Page 36
commonly occurring freshwater homologue Gammarus pulex) and Crangon crangon (shrimps, typical of estuarine and brackish conditions). 5.4.22 The only species of high nature conservation importance was Acorophium lacustre (CCI 8). It is a RDB species. It was only present in low numbers at the site and limited to subtidal samples. Environment Agency data have shown C. lacustre to be common in the Thames Tideway. As such, we have not used its presence to elevate the relative value of the invertebrate community in this instance. Putney Bridge is located 3km upstream of the Environment Agency site at Battersea, which is the nearest sampling location with recent data (20052010). The Environment Agency samples are taken using a number of techniques, including cores and kick sampling in the intertidal and day grab and core samples in the subtidal. A total of 46 taxa were recorded at Battersea over the six year period in which samples were collected. The taxa Oligochaeta (worms), which is often used as an indicator of organic pollution, was relatively abundant, together with other pollution tolerant species such as the snail Potamopyrgus antipodarum. However, Gammarus zaddachi, a moderately pollution-sensitive species was also highly abundant and Theodoxus fluviatilis (pollution sensitive river neritid) was present most years. The basic invertebrate community structure at Putney Bridge was similar in Environment Agency samples from Battersea, compared with the samples taken at Putney Bridge. Higher species richness recorded in some sample years at Battersea is likely to reflect the greater sampling frequency. For example, in 2005, 26 animal species were recorded at Battersea, but this was from a total of 14 samples across the year. Other differences, notably the absence of Chironomidae and lower abundance of Potamopyrgus antipodarum at Putney Bridge are likely to reflect subtle differences in habitat, seasonal and sampling variation. Acorophium lacustre, the rare species of mud shrimp sampled at Putney Bridge, appears to be similarly abundant at Battersea. Chinese mitten crab (Eriocheir sinensis), an invasive species, was sampled in the intertidal zone of the site. Individual mitten crabs were captured at a number of sampling locations along the Thames Tideway, including Putney Bridge Foreshore. Mitten crabs can cause bank destabilisation and erosion, and also compete for food resources with other species. The former issue is less of a concern at this location, as much of the river bank comprises hard defences, but competition with other species could occur. The zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) was also identified. This species can establish in densities that crowd-out native invertebrates. It also colonises shells of native species, reducing the ability of the host to feed and burrow.
5.4.23
5.4.24
5.4.25
5.4.26 5.4.27
5.4.28
Page 37
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Algae 5.4.29
Existing algae data has been requested and will be assessed and reported in the ES. Aquatic ecology receptor values and sensitivities
5.4.30
Using the baseline set out above the value accorded to each receptor considered in this assessment is set out in the table below. The definitions of the different scales of importance used in this evaluation are set out in Volume 5. Vol 10 Table 5.4.4 Aquatic ecology receptors Receptor Foreshore habitat (intertidal and subtidal). Mammals Fish Value/sensitivity and justification Medium (Metropolitan) value as part of Tidal Thames Site of Metropolitan Importance. Low (Local) value due to low number of records. Low-medium (Borough) value. Putney Bridge Foreshore had one of the lowest fish catches of all the sites surveyed in October 2010. However, in a Borough context the fish populations are likely to notable. Low-medium (Borough) value. Although a RDB species is present, it is ubiquitous within the Tideway and therefore not considered to merit a higher value. Local diversity and abundance of invertebrates was limited. To be undertaken for the ES.
Invertebrates
Algae
5.5
5.5.1
Construction assessment Construction impacts

These impacts associated with the construction stage of the project (Year One to Year Four of construction) are described and summarised in Vol 10 Table 5.5.1. The definitions of the different magnitudes of impact referred to in this assessment are given in Volume 5. Temporary landtake. There would be a total of approximately 0.4ha of temporary landtake from intertidal habitats associated with the cofferdams, campshed / barge grid, and temporary slipway. The cofferdams would be filled with an imported granular material.
5.5.2 5.5.3
Page 38
It is assumed for the purposes of the assessment that reinstatement of the area affected by temporary landtake would involve the removal of the granular material to the surrounding foreshore level. Although the foreshore would re-establish through natural accretion there would be considerable compaction of the surface layers of sediment which may prevent colonisation by invertebrates until new sediment has accreted. Given the uncertainty over the timescale for natural accretion and thus reestablishment of the habitat, the impact of temporary landtake is considered to be negative and of medium magnitude. The probability of the impact occurring is considered to be certain Sediment disturbance and compaction. It has been assumed that the area between the outer edge of the cofferdams and the maximum extent of working area would be subject to disturbance and compaction. At Putney this represents an area of approximately 0.4ha outside cofferdams which would be affected by construction activities during the site establishment phase (Years One to Three of construction). The jack up barge would be operated around the outside of the temporary cofferdams, thus affecting intertidal and subtidal habitat. Furthermore, the area in the vicinity of the barge grid / campshed is likely to be affected by compaction and disturbance due to barge movements. At Putney Bridge there would be approximately a peak monthly average of four barge movements per day. Impacts on the intertidal and subtidal habitats are considered to be low negative, probable and temporary. This is a provisional assessment, subject to further information regarding the degree of compaction anticipated in this zone. Channel constriction and change to hydrodynamic regime. The presence of a temporary cofferdam would partially block channel flow along the intertidal foreshore resulting in a maximum reduction in the width of the intertidal foreshore from 30m to approximately 5m. There would be temporary loss of the small remaining area of intertidal habitat and some change to the hydrodynamic regime in the vicinity of the cofferdam. It is likely that the cofferdams and campsheds would impact on scour patterns while in place. Preliminary findings from the hydraulic modelling undertaken for the project indicate that there may be scour around the temporary cofferdams. These impacts will be assessed and reported in the ES following further investigation Waterborne noise and vibration. There would be approximately 350m of sheet piling installed for the permanent and temporary cofferdams including that around the temporary slipway. Piles would be driven using silent piling techniques, thus limiting the principal source of waterborne noise and vibration impacts. Further measures to limit noise and vibration impacts during the construction stage of the project have been incorporated into the Code of Construction Practice. These are described in Section 5.2.3.
5.5.5
5.5.6 5.5.7
5.5.8
5.5.9 5.5.10
5.5.11
5.5.12 5.5.13 5.5.14
Page 39
There would be additional sources of noise and vibration, including activities associated with construction of the shaft itself and vehicle and barge movements. Although background levels of noise and vibration within the Thames Tideway are likely to be moderately high due to existing boat movements, and ground-propagated noise from transport systems, the proximity of the works to the river and their scale means that underwater noise and vibration levels are likely to be elevated locally during construction. Noise and vibration have the potential to cause physical damage to fish, and disrupt behaviour and movement. However, in this case, given the piling techniques proposed and the extent of the works relative to the width of the channel this is considered to be a low negative impact, probable and temporary. Increase in suspended sediment loads. Construction of the barge grid, piling operations, and barge movements are likely to lead to localised increases in suspended sediment with the potential to affect local and downstream habitats. It is likely that the cofferdams and campsheds would impact on scour patterns while in place, which could cause the mobilisation of increased levels of suspended solids into the river. Background levels of suspended sediments in the Thames Tideway are relatively high, and increases associated with the project are unlikely to be significant, except on a localised basis. Impacts are considered to be low negative, probable and temporary. Measures and safeguards to minimise the risk of accidental releases of silty or contaminated discharges to the Thames Tideway are included in the Code of Construction Practice. No impacts from polluted discharges are anticipated provided with these control measures and safeguards in place. Vol 10 Table 5.5.1 Aquatic ecology impacts - construction Impact Loss of approximately 0.4 ha of intertidal habitat through the construction of temporary and permanent cofferdams, the temporary slipway and the placement of an approximately 420m2 temporary barge grid/campshed occupying intertidal and subtidal habitat outside the cofferdams. Disturbance and compaction of intertidal and subtidal sediments, due to barge movements. Magnitude Medium negative due to long period for re-establishment. Temporary. Certain.
5.5.16 5.5.17
5.5.18
5.5.19
5.5.20
Low negative impact for intertidal and subtidal habitat due relatively limited extent. Temporary. Probable. To be assessed in ES following
Constriction of channel and change
Page 40
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Impact to hydrodynamic regime, due to temporary structures in the intertidal. Potential for increases in velocity which may interfere with fish movements. Waterborne noise and vibration arising from the installation of temporary and permanent sheet piling and subsequent removal of temporary piling. This has potential to cause damage to fish and disrupt movements. Increase in suspended sediment loads due to construction activity, dredging, piling operations and barge movements. Potential for smothering of downstream habitats and reduced water quality.
Section 5: Ecology - aquatic Magnitude further investigation.
Low negative due to proposed silent piling methods and control measures. Temporary. Probable.
Low negative due to relatively high background levels of sediment. Temporary. Probable.
Construction Effects
5.5.21 The following section describes the effects of these impacts on aquatic ecology receptors based on the significance criteria set out in Volume 5. Effects of the project may also be detectable at the whole Thames Tideway level. These effects are discussed in Volume 6. Designated sites and habitats Loss of intertidal and subtidal habitat due to temporary landtake. 5.5.22 There would be a temporary loss of 0.4ha of intertidal habitat through cofferdams/the temporary slipway, and approximately 420m2 from a combination of intertidal and subtidal habitat due to presence of a barge grid / campshed. The intrinsic value of the habitats (i.e., the value of the habitat as an ecological feature in itself rather than simply in terms of the support it provides for fauna) in this area is considered to be relatively low, although they are considered to be of Metropolitan importance as part of the tidal Thames. Sediment is expected to naturally accrete following removal of the temporary cofferdams and granular fill material. However, the underlying sediment would remain compacted whilst any newly accreted material is likely to be unstable and prone to removal by scour. Recovery is therefore expected only in the medium (1-5 years) or long term (+5 years). The overall effect is considered to be moderate adverse. Disturbance and compaction of intertidal and subtidal habitat. 5.5.24 There would be disturbance and compaction of approximately 0.4ha outside the cofferdam during the site establishment phase due to the
5.5.23
Page 41
presence of a jack up barge to install the temporary cofferdams. Habitats within this zone are expected to recover within the short term (less than 12 months) following site establishment. Coupled with the low intrinsic value of the habitats in this area the effect is considered to be minor adverse due to the low magnitude of the impact. Marine mammals Interference with the migrations of marine mammals within the Tideway. 5.5.25 Noise, vibration and other construction activity has the potential to disturb mammals and deter them from passing the site. However, given the low value of the receptor, the silent piling methods used, the duration of the period when piling would be taking place, and the controls on underwater noise-generating activities described in the CoCP (para. 5.2.3 ) this is considered to be a negligible effect. Fish Direct mortality of fish due to temporary landtake, sediment disturbance and compaction. 5.5.26 Although there is a risk of mortality of fish as the cofferdams are installed, and as a result of compaction of the sediments this is considered to be low since even juvenile fish would move away from the source of the impact. There would be a greater risk of mortality if fish eggs were present, but since the site is not considered to offer spawning habitat, this risk can be discounted. The effect is considered to be negligible due to the low risk of mortality. Loss of feeding, resting and nursery habitat for fish due to temporary landtake. 5.5.27 The site is not considered to offer suitable spawning habitat for smelt, or any other fish species, and given the limited intertidal habitat, it is unlikely to provide significant feeding, resting or nursery habitat. This will be confirmed following further analysis of surveys and reported in the ES. Loss of foreshore habitat is considered to be a medium negative impact. The effect on fish is therefore considered to be minor adverse. Loss of feeding, resting and nursery habitat for fish due to sediment disturbance and compaction. 5.5.29 The area which would be subject to disturbance and compaction outside the cofferdam lies primarily in the intertidal zone. It is unlikely to offer feeding, resting or nursery habitat for juvenile fish. Given that recovery is likely to occur within the short term (less than 12 months) the effect is thus considered to be negligible. Interference with the migratory movements of fish. 5.5.30 Ordinarily the river channel should provide an uninterrupted route for juvenile fish migrations for species such as eel (Anguilla anguilla) as glass
5.5.28
Page 42
eels or elvers, dace (Leuciscus leuciscus), goby (e.g. Pomatoschitus spp.) and flounder (Platichthys flesus) as they move through the estuary. 5.5.31 In general, encroachment of structures such as cofferdams into the river channel may affect the river hydraulics, particularly at high discharges associated with heavy fluvial inputs or spring tides. Changes in water velocity caused by constriction of the hydraulic channel may hinder movements of fish against the tide, including their ability to withstand, or hold station in the flow. Constriction of the hydraulic channel, reduction of the intertidal zone and increased water velocities at project sites might cause some fish to be lost, for example by forcing them into deeper water with increased predation risk. Formation of eddy currents in the wake of structures may temporarily entrap fish and delay progress of migrations. Repeatedly delaying the successful daily migrations of fish past individual sites may also interfere with key life stage events such as spawning. The river is heavily constricted by the existing river defences at Putney Bridge Foreshore, such that velocities are already likely to affect the ability of juvenile fish of some species from holding station against the tide. Further encroachment by structures into the river is likely to exacerbate this problem. The effects of on fish migration of the Thames Tunnel structures, including at Putney Bridge Foreshore, are as yet unknown, and are being considered at a site specific and whole Thames Tideway level through the use of a predictive modelling technique (Volume 5). The assessment will be completed following this modelling exercise and will be reported in the ES. Effects of waterborne noise and vibration on fish. 5.5.34 The effects of waterborne noise and vibration on fish vary according to the proximity of the receptor to the source. Effects depend on distance from source, ranging from potential death at very close proximities, through injury, and behavioural disturbance with increasing distance from the source. The key source at Putney Bridge foreshore is the driving of sheet piles for the cofferdams. This would be undertaken using a silent piling technique from a jack up barge, thus minimising the level of noise and vibration. Furthermore, a series of control measures relating to the timing and duration of piling operations have been included in the CoCP(see Volume 10, paragraph 5.2.3 The site is not considered to support sensitive spawning habitat, and therefore there is only low receptor sensitivity, as no significant numbers of any fish species would be present for extended periods. The overall effect is negligible. Blanketing of feeding areas for fish and reduction in water column visibility due to suspended sediment. 5.5.36 Although the Thames Tideway is a sedimentary environment with high levels of suspended solids, construction activities such as dredging, piling
5.5.32
5.5.33
5.5.35
Page 43
and barge movements have the potential to generate high levels of suspended sediment which may cause disorientation of fish, and interfere with the feeding mechanisms of certain invertebrates. 5.5.37 Given the length and extent of cofferdams (approximately 250m of temporary cofferdam including that required for the temporary slipway), there is the potential for resuspended sediments to affect juvenile fish migrations, particularly when considered along with the hydraulic effects described above. Adult fish are considered to be less likely to be affected as they are able to move away from the turbid water. However, the value of the receptor is low-medium (Borough), and the impact is considered low negative and therefore the effect is considered to be negligible. Invertebrates Direct mortality of invertebrates due to temporary landtake, sediment disturbance and compaction. 5.5.38 There would be direct mortality of invertebrates within sediments removed or covered by the cofferdams, and due to compaction and disturbance of sediment due the site establishment phase. The effect is considered to be minor adverse due to the low-medium value of the receptor. Loss of burrowing and feeding habitat for invertebrates due to temporary landtake. 5.5.39 The area beneath the temporary cofferdams would also be lost as burrowing and feeding habitat for invertebrates during the entire construction period. The area would be subject to heavy compaction, and hence would be unavailable to burrowing invertebrates in the medium term (1-5 years) following removal of the cofferdams. However, the temporary structures may act like an artificial reef, providing new encrusting habitat for some invertebrate species. The overall effect is considered to be minor adverse, given the relatively limited loss of a burrowing and feeding resource, and the presence of possible new habitat provided by the temporary structures. Loss of feeding and burrowing habitat for invertebrates due to sediment disturbance and compaction. 5.5.41 Although the subtidal zone was found to support a larger number of taxa than the intertidal, the temporary compaction and disturbance to the habitat for burrowing invertebrates is considered to be a negligible effect, given the reversibility of the effect. Blanketing of feeding areas for invertebrates and reduction in water column visibility due to suspended sediment. 5.5.42 The risk of blanketing of invertebrate feeding habitats is considered to be low due to the nature of construction activities, and given the low value of the site for invertebrates the effect is considered to be negligible.
5.5.40
Page 44
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Algae 5.5.43
An assessment of algae will be undertaken and reported in the ES.
5.6
5.6.1
Operational assessment Operational impacts

The potential impacts arising from operation of the project are described below and summarised in
Page 45
Vol 10 Table 5.6.1. The definitions of the different magnitudes of impact referred to in this assessment are given in Volume 5. Permanent landtake due to the presence of permanent structures on the foreshore. 5.6.2 There would be approximately 400 m2 of landtake from intertidal habitats associated with permanent CSO structures. The permanent CSO structure would extend approximately 13m into the channel, and both would be entirely contained within the intertidal area. This would result in loss of feeding and resting habitat for fish and invertebrates. Permanent landtake is certain and is considered to have a low negative impact due to its small extent. Constriction of the channel due to permanent structures. 5.6.3 The permanent structures would extend approximately 13m into the channel and would be entirely contained within the intertidal area occupying approximately 40% of the intertidal zone. Hydraulic modelling has shown that cofferdams would impact on scour patterns. It is yet to be determined whether there would be an increase in velocity that may affect the fish movements past the structure. This will be investigated further, both for this site and cumulatively with other foreshore construction sites, and reported in the ES. The assessment will be undertaken following completion of modelling to predict the effects of foreshore structures on fish migration. Reduction in the volume sewage effluent discharged from the CSO. 5.6.5 Discharges from the Putney Bridge CSO are anticipated to increase to 70,800m3 by 2021. With the Thames Tunnel project in place discharges at Putney Bridge are projected to reduce to. 1,600m3. The improvements will help to achieve water quality standards set under the Water Framework Directive in relation to dissolved oxygen and inorganic nitrogen. The magnitude of the impact is considered to be medium positive and to be probable and permanent. This is a provisional assessment and will be verified based on the outputs from water quality modelling currently being undertaken.
5.6.4
5.6.6
Page 46
Vol 10 Table 5.6.1 Aquatic ecology impacts - operation Impact Permanent landtake, due to the presence of permanent structures on the foreshore. Constriction of the channel, due to permanent structures. Improvement of local water quality through CSO interception. Magnitude Low negative impact Permanent. Certain. To be completed for the ES Medium positive impact. Permanent. Probable.
Operational effects
5.6.7 The operational receptors and their value are identical to that of the construction receptors as outlined in Table Vol 10 Table 5.4.4, and are thus not reproduced here. The way in which the magnitude and reversibility of each impact has been combined with the value of each receptor to determine the significance of the effect is set out in Volume 5. Unless stated the effects described below apply to both year one of operation and year six of operation. Designated Sites and habitats Permanent loss of intertidal habitats 5.6.9 There would be a permanent loss of 400 m2 of intertidal habitat. The intrinsic value of the habitats in this area is considered to be relatively low, although they are considered to be of Metropolitan importance as part of the River Thames and Tidal Tributaries Site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation. The effect is considered to be minor adverse due to the magnitude of the impact (low negative) and the value of the receptor (Medium). Marine Mammals Increase in the number and/or change in the distribution of marine mammals 5.6.10 No changes are anticipated on marine mammals as a result of the water quality improvements associated with interception of a single CSO discharge. This is because they are a mobile receptor, and therefore able to move away from a point source discharge and they are relatively insensitive to the levels of pollution associated with a single source. Effects are considered negligible.
5.6.8
Page 47
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Fish
Permanent loss of intertidal feeding and resting habitat for fish due to landtake 5.6.11 The site is not considered to offer suitable spawning habitat for smelt, or any other fish species and given the limited intertidal habitat, it is unlikely to provide significant feeding, resting or nursery habitat. However, the temporary structures may act like an artificial reef, providing new feeding areas and shelter from the current. Loss of foreshore habitat is considered to be a low negative impact. The effect on fish is considered to be negligible. Interference with migratory movements of fish 5.6.13 As for the temporary structures the effects of the permanent encroachments on juvenile fish migration will be assessed following a predictive modelling exercise and reported in the ES. Reduction in the occurrence of dissolved oxygen related fish mortalities 5.6.14 The microbial activity associated with untreated sewage effluent (BOD) causes a depletion in the levels of dissolved oxygen downstream of a discharge (see para. 5.6.6). This is often referred to as an oxygen sag. Oxygen sags are more common in the summer months when water temperatures are higher and oxygen is less soluble. Impacts on fish health occur when dissolved oxygen levels drop beneath 4mg/l, and significant mortalities begin to occur when levels drop beneath this threshold. Such dissolved oxygen events are currently relatively common in the Thames Tideway, particularly during the summer months when heavy storms follow periods of low flow and water temperatures are relatively higher. Up to 2004, there had been at least 154 hypoxia events when dissolved oxygen levels were below 4mg/l 13. Interception of the CSOs throughout the Thames Tideway would improve sewerage system capacity and result in far fewer low dissolved oxygen events and therefore fewer mass fish mortalities. The exact number of anticipated events will be predicted using the Tideway Fish Risk Model and reported in the ES. Details of the Tideway Fish Risk Model are presented in Volume 5. Interception of the Putney Bridge Foreshore CSO would contribute to this Thames Tideway wide improvement, and would also result in improvements in the local area. Given that the impact is considered to be medium beneficial, and the value of the receptors is lowmedium (borough) at this stage the effect is considered to be minor beneficial. Improvements across the Thames Tideway as a whole will be assessed in the project-wide effects assessment (Volume 6).
5.6.12
5.6.15
5.6.16
Page 48
Increase in the distribution of pollution sensitive fish species 5.6.17 The Thames Tideway currently supports a small number of rare fish species such as salmon, sea trout, twaite shad and river lamprey. A number of factors limit the colonisation of habitats by these species, including salinity, substrate type and current, but pollution is known to be a significant factor in determining colonisation14. Improving water and sediment quality would facilitate the spread of those pollution sensitive species which are currently being impeded by poor water and sediment quality. EA data and bespoke project surveys have indicated no records of rare fish species in the vicinity of Putney Bridge Foreshore and habitat quality at this site is limited by confinement of the river channel between vertical river walls, which limits the extent of intertidal habitat and lead to increased current velocities. Given that the impact is considered to be medium positive, and the value of the receptors is low-medium (Borough), the effect is thus considered to be negligible in the short term (year one), and minor beneficial in the medium term (year six). Invertebrates Permanent loss of intertidal feeding and burrowing habitat for invertebrates due to landtake 5.6.19 The loss of habitat for burrowing invertebrates is considered to be a negligible effect given its small scale and therefore low impact. Localised improvements in invertebrate diversity and abundance 5.6.20 As well as causing low dissolved oxygen events, untreated sewage effluent contains nutrients which cause enrichment of the water column and sediments in the river. Excessive nutrient enrichment causes phenomenon such as algal blooms, and is known as eutrophication. Such enrichment tends to favour a small number of pollution tolerant species at the expense of a wider range of pollution sensitive species. For example, certain species of Oligochaete worm are indicative of polluted conditions because they are able to tolerate the low dissolved oxygen conditions and multiply rapidly in the enriched sediments. By intercepting the CSO the source of sewage related nutrients would be reduced and the sediments in the vicinity of the outfall would begin to return to a more natural state. As nutrients reduce in concentration a wider range of invertebrate species would begin to colonise the sediments. However, at Putney Bridge Foreshore, and other sites in the mid Thames Tideway, salinity is likely to be the over-riding factor controlling the range of species present. Given that the impact is considered to be medium beneficial, and the value of the receptors is low-medium (borough), the effect is considered to be minor beneficial.
5.6.18
5.6.21
Page 49
Increase in the distribution of pollution sensitive invertebrate species 5.6.22 The Thames Tideway currently supports a small number of rare invertebrate species, such as swollen spire snail and tentacled lagoon worm. A number of factors limit the colonisation of habitats by these species, including salinity, substrate type and current, but pollution is known to be a significant factor in determining. Improving water and sediment quality would facilitate the spread of those pollution sensitive species which are currently being impeded by poor water and sediment quality. EA data and bespoke project surveys have indicated one species of nationally rare (RDB) invertebrate (Acorophium lacustre) present in the vicinity of Putney Bridge Foreshore but this is locally very common, and habitat quality at this site is limited by a number of factors including the confinement of the river channel between vertical river walls. Given that the impact is considered to be medium positive, and the value of the receptors is low-medium (invertebrates), the effect is thus considered to be negligible in year one, and minor beneficial in year six. Algae 5.6.24 The effects on algae will be assessed and reported in the ES.
5.6.23
5.7
5.7.1
Approach to mitigation
The approach to mitigation will be informed by the Mitigation and Compensation Hierarchy discussed with the Thames Tunnel EA Biodiversity Working Group as a systematic and transparent decisionmaking process. The hierarchy is sequential and seeks to avoid adverse environmental effects. The hierarchy of avoid effect, minimise, control, compensate and enhance will be strictly applied in this sequence. The ES will describe how this hierarchy has been applied. The mitigation hierarchy is described in detail in Volume 5.
5.7.2
Mitigation of construction effects

5.7.3 Impacts during the construction stage would primarily be controlled through measures incorporated into the Code of Construction Practice. Measures already included in the CoCP(i.e. measures reduce water quality impacts and disturbance of fish during piling) are not repeated here and can be found in section 5.2.3 above. The areas of habitat affected by temporary cofferdams are expected to recover following removal of the sheet piling and fill material. The need for any specific restoration measures will be considered and reported in the ES. A bespoke solution to facilitate the movement of fish around the temporary structures is currently being considered. The application of this mitigation
5.7.4
5.7.5
Page 50
feature and individual sites will be determined once the magnitude of the hydrodynamic impact has been determined and potential effects on fish migration determined. This will be determined using hydraulic modelling data, applied at both a site specific level and project-wide level. Details of the mitigation measure and its application will be reported in the ES.
Mitigation of operational effects

5.7.6 The permanent loss of intertidal foreshore is considered to be a minor adverse effect. At this stage the footprint of the permanent structure has been minimised as far as possible to accommodate the necessary works therefore further mitigation is not possible at present. Consideration will be given to compensation as necessary in line with the mitigation hierarchy as outlined in Volume 5. This will be reported in the ES. If encroachment of the permanent structure is considered to result in a significant effect on fish migration similar bespoke mitigation as described in paragraph 5.7.5 above will be applied to the permanent structure. This will be determined using hydraulic modelling data as described above.
5.7.7
Page 51
Page 52
5.8
Vol 10 Table 5.8.1 Aquatic ecology construction assessment Significance Moderate adverse. Natural recovery anticipated. The need for site specific restoration measures will be investigated and reported in the ES. None viable Mitigation Significance of residual effect
Assessment summary
Construction
Receptor
Effect
Designated sites and Habitats
Loss of intertidal habitat due to temporary landtake
To be determined in the ES
Disturbance and compaction of intertidal and subtidal habitat Negligible
Minor adverse.
Minor adverse.
Marine mammals
Interference with the migrations of marine mammals within the Tideway. Negligible
None required
Negligible
Fish
Direct mortality of fish due to temporary landtake, and disturbance and compaction of sediment. Minor adverse
None required
Negligible
Loss of feeding, resting and nursery habitat for fish due to landtake
To be determined
Minor adverse
Loss of feeding, resting and nursery habitat for fish due to sediment compaction and
Negligible
None required
Negligible
Page 53
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Significance Mitigation Significance of residual effect
Receptor
Effect
disturbance. To be assessed in the ES Measures to facilitate To be assessed in ES fish movements passed structures currently under development None required Negligible.
Interference with migratory movements of fish due to partial blockage of the intertidal area by temporary structures, and barges. Negligible.
Direct mortality and/or disturbance to fish from waterborne noise and vibration leading to changes in behaviour and migratory patterns. Negligible. None required
Blanketing of feeding areas for fish and invertebrates and reduction in water column visibility due to suspended sediment. Minor adverse.
Negligible.
Invertebrates
Direct mortality of invertebrates due to temporary landtake and disturbance and compaction of sediment.
To be determined
Minor adverse
Loss of feeding/burrowing habitat for invertebrates due to landtake
Minor adverse effect.
To be determined
Minor adverse effect.
Loss of feeding/burrowing habitat for invertebrates due
Negligible.
None required
Negligible.
Page 54
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Significance Mitigation Significance of residual effect
Receptor
Effect
to sediment compaction and disturbance. Negligible. None required Negligible.
Blanketing of feeding areas for invertebrates and reduction in water column visibility due to suspended sediment.
Algae
To be confirmed in ES.
Page 55
Operation
Vol 10 Table 5.8.2 Aquatic ecology operation assessment Significance Year One Minor adverse Year Six No further mitigation To be determined in the ES possible None required. Negligible Mitigation Significance of residual effect
Receptor
Effect
Designated sites and Habitats Negligible Negligible
Permanent loss of Minor adverse designated intertidal habitat
Marine mammals
Increase in the number and/or change in the distribution of marine mammals. Negligible Negligible None required
Fish
Permanent loss of intertidal feeding and resting habitat for fish. To be assessed in the ES To be assessed in the ES
Negligible
Interference with migratory movements of fish due to blockage of the intertidal area by permanent structures. Minor beneficial Minor beneficial
Measures to facilitate fish movements past structures currently under development
To be assessed in ES
Reduction in the occurrence of low dissolved oxygen related fish
None required
Minor beneficial
Page 56
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Significance Negligible Minor beneficial None required Minor beneficial Mitigation Significance of residual effect
Receptor
Effect
mortalities.
Increase in the distribution of pollution sensitive fish species. Negligible Negligible None required. Negligible
Invertebrates
Permanent loss of intertidal feeding and burrowing habitat for invertebrates. Minor beneficial Minor beneficial None required
Localised improvements in invertebrate diversity and abundance. Negligible Minor beneficial None required
Minor beneficial effect.
Increase in the distribution of pollution sensitive invertebrate species.
Negligible in the short term and minor beneficial in the medium term.
Algae
To be confirmed in ES.
Page 57
5.9
5.9.1 5.9.2 5.9.3 5.9.4
Algal data and assessment of effects on algae will be reported in the ES. Additional fish and invertebrate surveys were undertaken during spring 2011 and will be reported in the ES. An assessment of cumulative effects will be undertaken as part of the ES. An assessment of the hydrodynamic effects of the temporary and permanent structures on fish migratory movements will be undertaken. This will use a technique called Individual Based Modelling based on the existing hydraulic model. Following this, the need for and further refinement of the design of a bespoke solution to facilitate the movement of fish will be considered. The suite of qualitative improvements and offsite habitat creation opportunities available will also be identified. Following completion of the assessment, the mitigation approaches for aquatic ecology within the project will be finalised and reported in the ES.
5.9.5
Page 58
Section 6: Ecology - terrestrial
6 6.1
6.1.1
Ecology terrestrial Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant terrestrial ecology effects at the Putney Bridge Foreshore site. The site is formed of two sites: the main site; and the temporary slipway. Unless otherwise stated, when referring to the site this includes both of the sites. Likely significant effects on aquatic ecology are reported in section 5. Elements of the proposed works that have particular relevance to terrestrial ecology comprise site clearance, piling, barge movements and construction activities. The assessment of terrestrial ecology during operation was scoped out for Putney Bridge Foreshore at the scoping stage. Operational activity would remain limited to occasional maintenance works which are considered unlikely to have significant effects on terrestrial ecology receptors. The operational phase is therefore not considered in this assessment.
6.1.2
6.1.3
6.2
6.2.1
The proposed development is described in section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to terrestrial ecology are as follows.
Construction
6.2.2 Construction works relevant to terrestrial ecology include the following: a. Site clearance including the pruning of trees adjacent to and on the site. b. The movement of construction workers and machinery, and construction activities that cause noise, vibration and lighting. c. Construction of temporary campsheds on the foreshore. d. Piling associated with the construction of the cofferdams and works within the foreshore. e. Barge movements to and from the site. f. Limited 24 hour working for a short period. Associated above ground lighting, and movement of construction works and machinery at night.
Code of Construction Practice 6.2.3 Measures incorporated into the CoCP to reduce terrestrial ecology effects include those that would ensure that terrestrial ecology receptors are appropriately managed during construction. The document sets out procedures that would be adhered to both project wide and at individual sites. The CoCP would ensure that where appropriate, works are undertaken in compliance with legislation, and with relevant nature conservation policies and guidance, including the Mayors Biodiversity Strategy 15 and local Biodiversity Action Plans. Where species are protected by specific
6.2.4
Page 59
legislation, approved guidance would be followed, appropriate mitigation would be proposed and any necessary licences or consents obtained. 6.2.5 Measures not specifically outlined under the Ecology section of the draft CoCP are also of relevance, for example the management of noise and vibration, and water resources.
6.3
6.3.1

Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. All consultee comments relevant to this site for terrestrial ecology are presented in the table below. Further stakeholder engagement was undertaken through biodiversity technical workshops with statutory consultees. No site specific comments were received for this site at the workshops. Vol 10 Table 6.3.1 Terrestrial ecology stakeholder comments Organisation London Borough of Wandsworth Comment Requested full justification as to why the operation phase has been scoped out for terrestrial ecology at the Putney Bridge Foreshore site. Response Activities during the operational phase are limited to maintenance visits every one to six months by personnel in one vehicle. There may be greater activity once every ten years for approximately three weeks. This is unlikely to have a significant effect on any of the terrestrial receptors at or adjacent to the site. The river wall as a terrestrial ecology receptor has been scoped out of the assessment for this site as both sections of wall affected by the works mainly comprise concrete and have very low potential to support notable species.
London Borough of Wandsworth Council
River walls and their value in supporting ecology have not been fully considered; this could be addressed in both aquatic and terrestrial surveys to find a baseline any issues arising from this baseline can then be suitably accounted for in subsequent documents.
Baseline
6.3.2 Baseline data collection has followed the methodology detailed in Volume 5. Baseline data presented within this assessment is derived from a desk study, a Phase 1 Habitat Survey and preliminary wintering bird and bat
Page 60
triggering surveys. All subsequent survey data will be reported in the ES. This is described further in Section 6.9 and in paragraph 6.3.4. 6.3.3 In summary the following baseline data has been reported in this section: a. Desk study including data base searches (for ecological records within a 2km radius from the site boundary, which is the industry standard), web-based searches and review of existing available documents in relation to protected and notable species and habitats. Desk study data within 500m of the site are reported here as the works are unlikely to affect species and designated sites beyond this distance. Records dated prior to 2000 have not been included as the information since this date provides the most appropriate data to assess the site baseline conditions. b. Phase 1 Habitat Survey on 24th November 2010 following the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) Standard Phase 1 Habitat Survey Methodology, 2010. The survey included the site (including both proposed sites) and any adjacent habitat considered, using professional judgement, to be potentially affected by the proposed works. c. Wintering bird survey visits were undertaken in December 2010, and January, February and March 2011. The survey visits included the site and adjacent habitat considered, using professional judgement, to be potentially affected by the proposed works. These surveys will resume in October 2011 at the start of the next winter season.
d. A bat triggering survey was carried out in May 2011. This is an initial survey using remote recording equipment (Anabat detectors) to determine whether subsequent activity/dawn surveys were required. The survey area includes the site and adjacent features that are considered (using professional judgement) to be potentially affected by the project. No further bat surveys are proposed as bat activity was found to be low. 6.3.4 The species surveys identified as being required following the desk study and Phase 1 Habitat Survey have commenced and are detailed in the table below. The results of these surveys will be provided in the ES. Vol 10 Table 6.3.2 Terrestrial ecology notable species surveys Survey Completion of wintering bird surveys Survey area The survey area includes the site and adjacent features that are assessed to be potentially affected by the project. Timing One visit in October 2011 and one visit in November 2011
Construction
6.3.5 The construction phase assessment methodology follows this standard methodology provided in Volume 5, which is based on Guidelines for
Page 61
Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom. Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM) (2006). 16 6.3.6 There are two designated sites within 500m of the site (para.6.4.4). Due to the localised nature of the proposed works and the isolation of the designated sites from the proposed works, no effects have been identified. Therefore, designated sites are not considered further in the assessment. The following ecological receptors are included in the assessment: a. Bats b. Breeding birds c. 6.3.8 Wintering birds As contaminated runoff and atmospheric pollution would be controlled through the implementation of the CoCP, no likely significant effects are anticipated on ecological receptors. Therefore, this is not assessed. The assessment year for construction is year one, the start of site clearance and construction activities on site. This is likely to be the peak year for effects on terrestrial ecology as this is when initial site clearance would occur. Assuming that the site and any nearby designated sites would continue to be managed as they are at present, then the base case is considered to be the same as the current baseline conditions as described in section 6.4.
6.3.7
6.3.9
6.3.10

6.3.11 It is assumed for the purposes of assessment that the current site management regime of the Putney Bridge Foreshore site would continue. The assessment assumes that the measures within the CoCP would be implemented as part of the development. All surveys have been and will be undertaken at appropriate times of the year. No other site specific limitations or assumptions have been identified.
6.4
6.4.1
Baseline conditions
The following section sets out the baseline conditions for terrestrial ecology receptors at the site and surrounds, including their value.
Designated sites
On site 6.4.2 6.4.3 No terrestrial designated sites are present on site. The site is within the River Thames and Tidal Tributaries SINC (Grade M i) and comprises inter-tidal habitat and river channel. The effects on the River Thames and Tidal Tributaries SINC are considered in the aquatic ecology section.
SINC (Grade M) = Site of Nature Conservation Importance (Grade II of Metropolitan importance)
Page 62
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Surrounding area 6.4.4
The following designated site have been identified as part of the desk study within 500m of the site: a. Wandsworth Park SINC (Grade L ii) 480m to the east of the site on the comprising woodland and grassland. This site is of local (low) value. b. Fulham Palace and Bishops Park SINC (Grade ;Lii) 160m to the north of the site on the opposite bank of the River Thames comprising parkland trees, grassland, scrub and waterbodies. This site is of local (low) value.
Habitats
6.4.5 The habitats recorded within the survey area during the Phase 1 Habitat Survey are detailed in the table below and shown on Vol 10 Figure 6.4.1. Vol 10 Figure 6.4.1 Terrestrial ecology Phase 1 habitat survey (see Volume 10 Figures document) Vol 10 Table 6.4.1 Terrestrial ecology Phase 1 habitat survey Habitat Running water and intertidal habitat Scattered trees Description Most of the survey area lies within the River Thames in the intertidal zone (considered further by the aquatic ecology assessment). Mature trees are planted adjacent to the foreshore within the survey area. There are also trees along the rivers edge footpath.
On site 6.4.6 The mature trees on site are mostly ornamental non-native species. They are not designated and are not listed on the local BAP. The trees adjacent to the site are considered to be of site (low) value. Surrounding area 6.4.7 Adjacent to the site, the row of trees along the footpath are mostly ornamental non-native species, and are not designated and or listed on the local BAP. These are considered to be of site (low) value.
Notable species
Bats On site 6.4.8 The results of the bat triggering surveys indicated that small numbers of soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus and common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus bats pass through the site. A maximum of 12 bat passes were recorded on one night with none of these close to sunset or sunrise, indicating that the movement was unlikely to be associated with a
ii
SINC (Grade L) = Site of Nature Conservation Importance (Grade I of Local importance)
Page 63
nearby bat roost. The site is considered to have local (low) value for commuting bats. Surrounding area 6.4.9 Three species of bat have been recorded within 500 metres of the site according to data search results: c. Soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus d. Common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus e. Noctule Bat Nyctalus noctula 6.4.10 The low level of bat activity may be associated with commuting and foraging bats adjacent to the site. The trees and foreshore adjacent to the site is considered to be of local (low) value for bats. Breeding birds On site 6.4.11 6.4.12 There are no features on site that could support nesting birds. Surrounding area The following species have been recorded within 500m of the site according to the data search results: f. Peregrine falcon Falco peregrines (London BAP priority species; WCA 1981 Schedule 1 Part 1, Green List iii)
g. Dunnock Prunella modularis (UK and London BAP priority species, Amber List) h. Common starling Sturnus vulgaris (UK and London BAP priority species, Red List)(most recent record 2006) i. j. k. l. 6.4.13 Song thrush Turdus philomelos (UK and London BAP Priority Species, Red List) Redwing Turdus iliacus (WCA 1981 Schedule 1 Part 1, Red List) House sparrow Passer domesticus (UK and London BAP priority species, Red List) Tree sparrow Passer montanus (UK and London BAP priority species, Red List)
The trees adjacent to the site are likely to support a small number of nesting birds during the bird breeding season, which may include a UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) or Local BAP bird species. Alternative habitat is available elsewhere within the local area such as the mature trees within the St Marys Churchyard to the southeast of the site. Therefore, the trees on site are considered to be of no more than site (low) value to breeding birds.
The UK's birds can be split into three categories of conservation importance - red, amber and green. Red is the highest conservation priority, with species needing urgent action. Amber is the next most critical group, followed by green. (http://www.rspb.org.uk. Page last updated on Monday 7 March 2011).
iii
Page 64
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Wintering birds On-site 6.4.14
The foreshore to the River Thames within and adjacent to the site has the potential to support populations and/or assemblages of wintering bird species. From preliminary wintering bird survey results, a total of 28 species of wintering bird were recorded at the site between December 2010 and March 2011. These included black-headed gull Chroicocephalus ridibundus (Amber List), common gull Larus canus (Amber List), lesser-black-backed gull Larus fuscus (Amber List) and herring gull Larus argentatus (Red List). Mandarin Aix galericulata duck was also recorded. No particularly rare or scarce species were noted during the surveys. The maximum count of individual birds was 465 recorded in February 2011. The value of the site to wintering birds will be assessed and reported in the ES. Surrounding area The adjacent River Thames foreshore provides potential foraging and roosting habitat for wintering birds. The value of the adjacent habitat to wintering birds will be assessed and reported in the ES.
6.4.15
6.5
Construction assessment Habitats

On-site
6.5.1
Trees within the site would require pruning where branches extend into the proposed works areas. Given that these trees would only be pruned and not removed, the effect on trees on site is unlikely to be significant (negligible). Surrounding area Trees immediately adjacent to the site would also require pruning of branches that would create an obstruction to the proposed works. The effect on trees on site is unlikely to be significant (negligible).
6.5.2
Notable species
Bats On site 6.5.3 6.5.4 As no roost sites have been identified on site, no bat roosts would be affected by disturbance during the daytime. Disturbance from noise, vibration and lighting on the construction site during night working may adversely affect the movement of bats through the site. The resulting localised displacement of bats is considered likely to be limited to displacement from the immediate foreshore and trees on site, as background lighting levels are relatively high at this location. Therefore, it is probable that the effect would be significant at the site level (minor adverse effect).
Page 65
The loss of a relatively small area of foraging habitat on the River Thames is likely to displace small numbers of bats to adjacent foraging resources. This is considered unlikely to affect bat populations beyond the site. Therefore, it is probable that the displacement effect would be significant at the site level (minor adverse effect). Surrounding area As existing background lighting levels are relatively high and noise control measures would be in place, disturbance during night working on bats using the adjacent habitats as a foraging resource is unlikely to result in displacement of bats from these areas. Therefore, the effect is unlikely to be significant (negligible). Breeding birds On site
6.5.6
6.5.7
The loss of some overhanging branches from the adjacent trees is unlikely to prevent this habitat from being used by nesting birds in the long-term. Therefore, the effect of the loss of tree branches on birds is unlikely to be significant (negligible). Temporary disturbance during construction could displace nesting birds from the trees during construction. This is unlikely to adversely affect the populations and assemblages of breeding birds in the local context due to the availability of mature trees elsewhere such as St Marys Church on the eastern side of the Bridge. It is probable that disturbance effects on breeding birds would be significant at the site level (minor adverse effect). Surrounding area Similarly, the loss of some overhanging branches on site, the loss of branches from adjacent trees is unlikely to be significant (negligible). Temporary disturbance during construction could displace nesting birds from a small number of trees immediately adjacent to the site during construction. This is unlikely to result in a significant effect on the populations and assemblages of breeding birds in the site and local context (negligible). Wintering birds On site
6.5.8
6.5.9 6.5.10
6.5.11
The works would result in permanent (long-term) and temporary (mediumterm) loss of an area of intertidal habitat, which would reduce the foraging resource for populations and assemblages of wildfowl and wading birds within the area. The significance of effects of intertidal habitat loss on wintering birds will be assessed and reported in the ES. Surrounding area The works would result in temporary (medium-term) disturbance from noise, lighting, vibration and movement of construction workers and machinery during construction to wintering birds using the adjacent intertidal habitat. The significance of effects of displacement of wintering birds from adjacent habitat will be assessed and reported in the ES.
6.5.12
Page 66
6.6
6.6.1
Operation assessment
As stated in para. 6.1.3, operational effects on terrestrial ecology are not anticipated to be significant therefore this has not been assessed.
6.7
6.7.1

All measures embedded in the draft CoCP of relevance to terrestrial ecology are found in paragraph 6.2.3. The ecological management plan described in the CoCP will include long-term management of habitats and species on site post-construction. It would be prepared following planning approval and prior to commencement of works on site. In addition to measures detailed in the CoCP, mitigation for the effects of intertidal habitat loss on bats and wintering birds would be required. Mitigation will be proposed in consultation with stakeholders, following completion of wintering bird surveys.
6.7.2
Page 67
6.8
Vol 10 Table 6.8.1 Terrestrial ecology construction assessment Significance of effect Mitigation Significance of residual effect
Assessment summary
Construction
Receptor
Description of effect
Habitats Not significant (negligible) Not required Not significant (negligible)
Trees
Pruning of adjacent trees
Notable species Probable, site level (minor adverse effect) Probable, site level (minor adverse effect) Habitat mitigation to be proposed following completion of surveys No further measures beyond those in the CoCP. The effect is temporary and it is probable that bats would return to the site after works. To be confirmed
Bats
Loss of foraging resource on site
Temporary disturbance from lighting on bats moving through the site.
Probable, site level (minor adverse effect)
Disturbance from lighting on Unlikely to be significant Not required bats adjacent to the site. (negligible)
Unlikely to be significant (negligible)
Page 68
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Significance of effect Probable, site level (minor adverse effect) No further measures Probable, site level beyond those in the (minor adverse effect) CoCP. The effect is temporary and it is probable that breeding birds would return to the site after works. Unlikely to be significant (negligible) Subject to survey results Subject to survey results Mitigation Significance of residual effect
Receptor
Breeding birds
Displacement of birds due to disturbance of trees on site.
Displacement of birds due to disturbance to trees adjacent to works. Subject to survey results Subject to survey results Subject to survey results
Unlikely to be significant Not required (negligible)
Wintering birds
Loss of intertidal habitat for foraging and refuge on site
Disturbance during works to Subject to survey adjacent foraging and results refuge resource
Page 69
6.9
6.9.1
Wintering bird surveys are ongoing in 2011 (Vol 10 Table 6.3.2). The data from these surveys will be used to inform the ES and further evaluation of effects on ecological receptors will be undertaken. Where necessary, appropriate mitigation to avoid or minimise effects to terrestrial ecological receptors will be developed in consultation with stakeholders and a final assessment will be made of the significance of any residual effects to ecological receptors in the ES. Consideration will be given to biodiversity enhancement measures in consultation with stakeholders. Where necessary, mitigation and enhancement measures will be embedded in the project design.
6.9.2
Page 70
Section 7: Historic environment
7 7.1
7.1.1
Historic Environment Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant effects on heritage assets at the Putney Bridge Foreshore site. These are aspects of the historic environment which are considered to be significant because of their historical, evidential, aesthetic or communal interest (these terms are defined in paragraph 7.4.56). These might comprise below and above ground archaeological remains, buildings, structures, monuments or heritage landscapes within or around the site 17. This section should be read in conjunction with Volume 6, which sets the site in its broad topographic, geological, archaeological and historical context and discusses the project-wide landscape and topic themes in respect of the historic environment. These themes are summarised in this section, where they are relevant to the site, to avoid repetition.
7.1.2
7.1.3
7.2
7.2.1
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to the historic environment are as follows.
Construction
7.2.2 Those aspects of specific relevance to the historic environment assessment, since they could lead to effects on heritage assets, are as follows: a. Enabling works would require dredging, construction of a temporary cofferdam (dewatering and infilling within the enclosed area), the establishment of a works compound, including hoarding, the diversion of existing services and a temporary slipway approximately 300m west of Putney Bridge. b. The main construction works would entail the construction of a Combined Sewage Overflow (CSO) drop shaft, deep excavations for an interception chamber, a valve chamber, an interception chamber; a connection tunnel between the CSO shaft and the main tunnel, ventilation structures and a control kiosk and possible reinforcing of the foreshore beneath Putney Bridge. 7.2.3 Measures incorporated into the draft CoCP to reduce impacts on the historic environment include protective measures where appropriate such as temporary support, hoardings, barriers and screening around heritage assets within and adjacent to work sites, and advance planning of plant and working methods for use where heritage assets are close to work sites, or attached to structures within work sites. The CoCP also includes provisions for the contractor to prepare a site specific Heritage Management Plan.
Page 71
Operation
7.2.4 The operation of the proposed infrastructure is described in Volume 3. The particular components that could potentially affect the setting of heritage assets, comprise the permanent structures visible above ground, namely the permanent change to the riverfront wall, and the design and siting of a control cabinet and ventilation structure adjacent to the eastern end of the existing cobbled slipway, and a ventilation column beside Putney Bridge.
7.3
7.3.1

Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. No consultation comments specific to this site were made by consultees. It should also be noted that Volume 5 details the approach to the assessment of effects on the historic setting of heritage assets which it has been agreed, following the formal scoping process, will be covered in the assessment of construction and operational effects.
7.3.2
Baseline
7.3.3 The baseline methodology follows that set out in Volume 5. A key component of this is a desk-based assessment, consulting a broad range of archaeological, documentary and cartographic sources, along with a site walkover survey. The results of geotechnical investigations, some of which were archaeologically monitored, have also been incorporated. The 200m-radius study area used for the assessment is considered through professional judgement to be most appropriate to characterise the historic environment potential of the site. There are occasional references to assets beyond the study area where appropriate, for example, where such assets are particularly important and/or where they contribute to current understanding of the site and its environs.
7.3.4
Construction
7.3.5 7.3.6 The construction phase methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. The methodology has been informed by an understanding of the nature and extent of proposed ground disturbance, in relation to known or potential heritage assets. In terms of the base case (future baseline) for the assessment of construction effects, no physical changes are anticipated to above ground heritage assets. Changes to the base case from other non-Thames Tunnel developments could affect the setting of above ground heritage assets. Any such changes will be detailed for the final assessment, to inform the assessment of effects on the historic setting of heritage assets, and presented in the ES.
7.3.7
Page 72
In terms of buried heritage assets, the only aspect of the resource that is likely to change in a future year base case, without the project in any particular assessment year is change to the condition of the assets due to ongoing fluvial processes (scouring and sediment deposition) on the foreshore, along with other unrelated proposed development schemes, on land or within the river. The base case is predicted as accurately as is possible, to ensure the robustness of the subsequent assessment. Data on existing fluvial processes will be reviewed in the ongoing EIA and will be reflected in the base case presented in the ES.
Operation
7.3.9 7.3.10 7.3.11 The operational phase methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. The operational phase assessment will be undertaken for year one of operation. In terms of the base case (future baseline) for the assessment of operational effects, no changes are anticipated in the condition or significance of above ground heritage assets. Changes to the base case from other non-Thames Tunnel developments could affect the setting of above ground heritage assets. Any such changes will be detailed for the final assessment and presented in the ES.

7.3.12 Volume 5: Methodology sets out the generic assumptions and limitations of the assessment. In summary, the main limitation is the nature of the archaeological resource (buried and not visible) and acknowledgement of the difficulty of attempting to predict the presence/extent, date, nature, survival and significance of possible, previously unrecorded, buried heritage assets, based solely on a desk-based study and site visit. In particular, no intrusive archaeological investigation has been carried out on the site in the past and few have been carried out in the study area around the site. Notwithstanding this limitation, the assessment presented here is robust, based on reasonably available information, and conforms to the requirements of local and national guidance and planning policy (as detailed in Volume 5). Typically, appropriate standard archaeological prospection and evaluation techniques are utilised post-consent to reduce the uncertainties inherent in any desk-based study, as part of an overall EIA mitigation strategy (see the section on Mitigation below for the proposed mitigation for works at this site).
7.4
7.4.1
Baseline conditions
The following description of baseline conditions comprises seven subsections which set out: a. A description of historic environment features, with an introduction to the features map (which shows the location of known historic environment features within the 200m-radius study area around the site) and the study area;
Page 73
b. A description of statutorily and locally designated assets within the site and its vicinity (ie, within a 100m-radius of the site); c. A description of the site location, topography and geology to set the context of the site;
d. A summary of past archaeological investigation within the study area, providing an indication of how well the area is understood archaeologically. e. A summary of the archaeological and historical background which sets out what is known about the site and its environs. f. A statement of significance for above ground assets within and around the site, describing the features which contribute to their significance.
g. A discussion of potential for buried heritage assets, taking account of factors affecting survival, and a statement of their potential significance. 7.4.2 A site walkover survey was carried out by specialists from MOLA Standing Buildings and EIA teams and the Thames Discovery Programme (TDP) on 21st March 2011. The light and weather conditions were bright and dry. The estimated low tide level was c. 98.0m ATD (above Tunnel Datum). The site was accessed directly via the boat slipway to the immediate west of Putney Bridge. Assets which are not currently recorded on GLHER were identified; these included a 1928 Flood PLA Marker, a deposit of chalk to the west of the bridge, and a previously unrecorded timber structure comprising, (as exposed), two squared pile timbers with a horizontal jointed timber running back towards the river frontage. Evidence of modern religious activity was apparent in the form of a small Hindu statue found on the foreshore surface. The additional heritage assets have been incorporated into the gazetteer in Appendix A. It was not possible to gain access to the late 19th century underground toilets which possibly extend into the site as they are not currently open to the public.
Historic environment features

7.4.3 The historic environment features map (Vol 10 Figure 7.4.1) shows the location of known historic environment features within the 200m-radius study area around the site, compiled from the baseline sources set out in the topic specific methodology in Vol 6. These have been allocated a unique historic environment assessment reference number (HEA 1, 2, etc), which is listed in the gazetteer in Appendix A. Vol 10 Figure 7.4.1 Historic environment features map (see Volume 10 Figures document) 7.4.4 Where there are a considerable number of listed buildings in the study area, only those within the vicinity of the site (ie, within a 100m-radius) are included on the map and in the gazetteer. The study area for assessing setting effects on heritage assets may be revised because setting effects are most likely to occur within the visual envelope of the site, which may differ from the study area defined for the purposes of the PEIR.
Page 74
Designated assets Statutory designations

7.4.5 The eastern edge of the site runs beneath the Grade II listed Putney Bridge (HEA 40). Some elements of the listed bridge structure are therefore incorporated within the site boundary, in particular two iron caged outlets (HEA 1K) are below the bridge and from part of the granite wall which emanates from the bridge westwards, between the pavement and the slipway. Within the southern edge of the site and within the retaining wall is a stone staircase leading down from the Lower Richmond Road/Putney Bridge Approach, to former subterranean public lavatories (HEA 1D). The lavatories may be associated with the structure of the Grade II listed Putney Bridge (HEA 40) and may extend into the boundary of the site, although their below ground extent is unclear at present as it was not possible to gain access as part of the site walkover survey. Their extent, date of construction and relationship to Putney Bridge (including possible listed status) is as yet unknown. Recent drilling into the north side of the retaining wall, undertaken by unknown contractors at a recent but unknown date, revealed brick arches below the Lower Richmond Road (HEA 1G). It is likely that the brick arches and the subterranean toilets are interconnected and form part of the same complex of rooms and vaults beneath the Lower Richmond Road although it was not possible to ascertain the exact relationship between the arches and toilets as it was not possible to gain access during the site walkover survey. The brick arches are potentially a heritage asset and liejust within the site boundary. There are a number of listed buildings in the study area. Those closest to the site comprise a group of three Grade II Listed bollards (HEA 43) at the western side of the site, the Grade II* St Marys Church (HEA 41) 20m to the southeast and the Grade Il listed White Lion Hotel (HEA 42), 40m to the south. . Local authority designations 7.4.10 The site lies within an LPA archaeological priority area as designated by Wandsworth Council. Remains from all periods are likely to be centred on the current High Street and parts of the Embankment, which were the focus of historic settlement due to their proximity to the ancient river crossing. The site also lies within the Putney Embankment Conservation Area. The conservation area is characterised by its riverside location, boathouses, former wharf and some of the oldest extant buildings in Putney, combined with the deliberate landscaping of the area in the 1890s (Wandsworth Conservation and Design Group 2010). Locally listed buildings close to the site comprise the Star and Garter Hotel (HEA 52) and Star and Garter Mansions (HEA 53) on Lower Richmond Road, both approximately 60m to the northwest.
7.4.6
7.4.7
7.4.8
7.4.9
7.4.11
Page 75
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Known burial grounds 7.4.12
There are no known burial grounds within the site or adjacent to it.
Site location, topography and geology

Site location 7.4.13 The site is located on the south bank of the Thames foreshore, beneath and to the west of Putney Bridge. It is bounded by the Thames embankment and Lower Richmond Road to the south, the River Thames and Thames foreshore to the north and west, and Putney Bridge to the east. The site lay in what was the ancient parish of Putney, and would have lain within the former boundary of the county of Surrey. The south-western part of the site is currently occupied by a cobbled 19th century slipway leading down from the eastern end of the Thames embankment. The remainder of the site is undeveloped and comprises part of the southern Thames foreshore to the west of Putney Bridge. Topography 7.4.15 The level of the surrounding area slopes gently down to the north-east, towards the Thames embankment, from 106.9m ATD (above Tunnel Datum; the equivalent of 6.9m Ordnance Datum) on Putney High Street, c. 165m to the south of the site, to 106.2m ATD at Lower Richmond Road, immediately south-west of the site. The slipway in the southern part of the site slopes down to the Thames foreshore from 104.8m ATD to 101.1m ATD. Along the foreshore the ground level drops down towards the Thames from 100.2m ATD to 99.7m ATD. Geology 7.4.16 The site is located on a narrow strip of shallow alluvium and gravel on the southern side of the Thames floodplain, between two significant tributaries, the Beverly Brook, 700m to the northwest, and the Wandle 1.3km to the south-east (British Geological Survey digital data). The Kempton Park gravel terrace slopes down towards the site from Upper Richmond Road, c. 1.4km to the south, with a break in slope c. 30m to the south of the site where they merge with the Shepperton gravels. The proximity of the gravel terrace to the river is significant in floodplain environments as it could have formed a focus for prehistoric human activity given the resources the river provides. Throughout all periods the well-drained terrace gravels would have been ideal for farming and occupation and beyond the level of inundation when the river was in flood. The stream to the northwest of the site, now known as the Beverley Brook, was far more powerful in the late Devensian and early Holocene. It is now a small (canalised) stream within a floodplain c. 200m wide which, at the confluence with the Thames, widens to c. 2.5 km across. Although the site lies to the extreme east of this confluence, the area as a whole would have been of significance in the prehistoric as rivers provided route ways through the thick deciduous woodlands occupying the gravel terrace to the fertile mosaic of wetlands at the convergence of the two rivers.
7.4.14
7.4.17
Page 76
The available borehole logs, although relatively numerous, are widely scattered around the site with the nearest (borehole number TQ27NW36) lying c. 70m east of the site area. However, with the exception of one 100m to the west (borehole SR1112), the borehole logs are antiquated and poor in detail. Although there is no direct borehole evidence for the site itself, one borehole (TQ27NW36), c. 50m to the east, is at a similar floodplain location and indicates the London Clay exists to c. 101.9m ATD overlain by made ground to 106.3m ATD. Borehole SR1112, again at a similar floodplain location but to the west, similarly indicates that alluvial deposits are not likely to be found on the site as (Shepperton) gravels exist to 99.9m ATD (probably truncated) overlain by made ground to 104.8m ATD. The lack of alluvium in either of the boreholes either reflects localised truncation associated with the made ground deposits, or is a result of fluvial erosion: the site lies on the outside of a wide meander of the Thames, hard up against the gravel terrace, where erosion of the finer material such as silts and clays would be at its greatest. It lies equidistant between two significant tributaries with the largest being the Beverley Brook, which, as mentioned above, has a wide mouth at the confluence with the Thames. These areas can act as sediment traps which would further reduce the net accumulation of sediment in the main river system around the site. The scouring erosion caused by the River Thames is likely to have removed alluvial deposits earlier than post-medieval date. The shallow alluvium overlying the predominantly gravel surface of the foreshore is likely to have been deposited through modern silting.
7.4.19
Past archaeological investigations within the study area

7.4.20 Numerous archaeological investigations have been carried out on the site in the past. The Wandsworth Historical Society (WHS) have surveyed the foreshore since the 1970s, and the Thames Archaeological Survey (TAS) undertook walkover, or Alpha, surveys during the 1990s. Most recently, the Thames Discovery Programme (TDP) has recorded the foreshore structures to the east of Putney Bridge (20092011). Within the site, a TAS survey carried out in 1999 identified the remains of post-medieval flood defences, in the form of a row of wooden piles (HEA 1C) located within the southern boundary of the site, and 19th century outfall gates (HEA 1K) for a sewer running beneath Putney Bridge, and post-medieval piles (HEA 1L) beneath the bridge approach piers in the eastern part of the site. To date, at least four archaeological investigations are known to have been carried out within the study area, all located to the south of the site. The two closest, (HEA 2 and 3), lie within 85m of the site. An evaluation at Putney Wharf, on Putney Bridge Road (HEA 2), c. 35m to the southeast of the site, uncovered prehistoric flint and a Roman coin and architectural remains, as well as medieval agricultural features cut by later 18th century domestic and agricultural features. At 24 Lower Road (HEA 3), c. 85m to the south-west of the site, the remains of three wharfs (possibly overlying earlier timber structures), dating to the 16th18th centuries were discovered, along with coins, pottery and other finds from
7.4.21
Page 77
the Roman, medieval and post-medieval periods. An evaluation at ICL House on Putney High Street (HEA 4), c. 110m to the south-east of the site, uncovered medieval ditches, the remains of 17th19th century cottages and associated agricultural features. 7.4.22 Investigations at Friends Provident on Brewhouse Street (HEA 5), c. 105m to the east of the site, uncovered no significant remains, perhaps due to 19th century terracing. Finds of prehistoric, Roman, medieval and post-medieval remains have been recorded from the foreshore (particularly to the east), along Putney Bridge, and adjacent to Putney High Street, often at the same location, attesting to continuous activity within the area from the prehistoric period onwards.
7.4.23
Archaeological and historical background of the site

7.4.24 The following section presents a chronological summary of the archaeological and historical background of the site, drawing on the information collated above. Prehistoric period (700,000 BCAD 43) 7.4.25 A flint flake dating to the Upper Palaeolithic period (HEA 1A) was discovered on the foreshore within the site, c. 15m from the present Putney Embankment. Finds dating from the Lower Palaeolithic to the Iron Age have also been discovered within the study area, particularly on the foreshore and to the west of Putney Bridge. The objects suggest that the area was settled from the early prehistoric period on the site of a river crossing, with evidence of hunting, domestic activity, and pottery production. The naturally fertile and well-drained gravel terrace would have provided ideal settlement land and the Thames a reliable source of food and water. Putney was the only site between the Strand and Richmond where gravel terraces reached the rivers edge, providing a firm landing area for a river crossing which was not prone to flooding. The Thames at this location, in this period, was non-tidal and it is likely that a ford and a possible trackway may have existed close to the site in later prehistoric periods. 18 Flint artefacts and two axes dating to the Lower Palaeolithic period were discovered c. 25m to the north-east of the site, adjacent to Putney Bridge (HEA 11). A prehistoric struck flint (undated) was also discovered during an evaluation carried out at Putney Wharf, on Brewhouse Street (HEA 2), c. 35m to the south-east. An undated, struck flint tool was recovered from an evaluation carried out at ICL House on Putney High Street (HEA 4), c. 105m to the south-east of the site. Decorated Neolithic pottery is known to have been produced in Putney. An early Neolithic flint-knappers hearth was discovered at Felsham Road and pottery and flints from Bemish Road, c. 250m to the west of the site, The Platt area, c. 220m to the south-west, and Kingsmere Close, c. 150m to the south-west, suggest Neolithic settlement and activity in the area of the riverside west of Putney High Street. 19 The concentration of around forty objects, mainly late Neolithic to late Bronze Age axes, palstaves,
7.4.26
7.4.27
Page 78
swords, spearheads, pottery sherds, flint implements, pins, a ring, a razor and a bowl, were all discovered on the Fulham side of the Thames foreshore, opposite the site, c. 100m to the north (HEA 21). The quantity of finds suggests they were recovered as a result of dredging. 7.4.28 Iron Age pottery was discovered at 38 Felsham Road (HEA 31) c. 140m to the south-west of the site, perhaps from an early ditch in a later Roman settlement area 20, however, evidence for this period within the study area is scarce. Roman period (AD 43410) 7.4.29 There are no known archaeological remains dated to this period within the site. Concentrations of Roman remains have been discovered to the south-west, primarily pottery and coins. The fertile gravel terrace soils beside the River Thames would have provided ideal farming land. The Thames was not tidal at this location in this period 21, and the low risk of flooding also made the area to the south of the site ideal for settlement, and this is apparently confirmed by the finds from the area. Four or five sections of a metalled road on the line of the Upper Richmond Road, roughly parallel to, and c. 1.4km to the south of the site, have been discovered from its junction with Putney High Street, heading west. Felsham Road and The Platt, both within the study area, are also believed to have followed Roman roads22, suggesting a communication network within the area and across the Thames towards Londinium, c. 10.4km to the northeast of the site. At 38 Felsham Road (HEA 31), c. 140m to the south-west of the site, evidence of Roman settlement consisting of a ditch, and the remains of a hut with stakeholes, as well as rubbish pits were discovered. Quantities of slag, the remains of furnaces, and iron objects such as ladles and nails have been discovered at Felsham Road 23. The remains of a road and ditch (perhaps on the same alignment as Felsham Road), both dated to the 1st century, were uncovered at the Hippodrome Theatre car park (HEA 22), c. 90m to the south-west of the site. Further to the east, along Felsham Road adjacent to Wiemar Street (HEA 33), c. 160m to the south of the site, a Roman pit and ditch were discovered. A Roman ditch and post hole were also discovered at 6 Waterman Street (HEA 25), c. 75m to the west of the Site and Roman pot sherds and a coin were uncovered at 7 Waterman Street (HEA 26), c. 90m to the west. An evaluation at Putney Wharf, on Brewhouse Street (HEA 2), c. 30m to the south-east of the site, uncovered a Roman coin and Roman structural remains. Roman coins, pottery and other unspecified finds were also discovered at 24 Lower Richmond Road (HEA 3), c. 85m to the southwest of the site. Further finds of Roman pottery were made HEA 24, c. 65m to the west of the Site, at HEA 28, c. 130m to the south-west, HEA 30, c. 135m to the south-west, and at 3842 Gay Street (outside the study area), c. 150m to the south-west. Early medieval (Saxon) period (AD 4101066) 7.4.33 There are no known archaeological remains dated to this period within the Site or study area. It is possible that some of the undated medieval
7.4.30
7.4.31
7.4.32
Page 79
pottery and coins discovered at 2 Waterman Street (HEA 24), c. 65m to the west of the site, at 2225 Waterman Street (HEA 31), c. 120m to the south-west, and at 2438 The Platt (HEA 28), c. 130m to the south-west, may date to this period. 7.4.34 The main evidence of Saxon occupation of the local area is derived from place names. The current name of Putney is derived from the AngloSaxon name of Puttenhythe, meaning Puttas hythe or Puttas landing place. This emphasises the importance of the area adjacent to Putney Bridge as a river crossing. It is likely that an early medieval settlement, perhaps largely engaged in fishing and farming, was present along the riverfront and potentially within the area of the site. Nearby evidence of such activity includes an early Saxon fish trap, recorded c. 200m to the east of Putney Bridge (outside the study area). Later medieval period (AD 10661485) 7.4.35 Medieval pot sherd (HEA 1I), has been discovered within the Site, which may be related to nearby 13th century potsherds (HEA 17), discovered c. 30m to the east. Several find spots of scattered remains discovered within the study area and its immediate vicinity, and documentary evidence, suggest a continued area of settlement in Putney in this period. Putney is first mentioned in Domesday Book in 1086. The only reference relates to a toll from the fishery, received by Mortlake (now Wimbledon) manor. The ferry at Putney is mentioned as yielding 20s per annum to the lord of the manor24. The remains of a medieval ferry boat (HEA 15, exact date unknown) are believed to lay within the Thames, beneath Putney Bridge, c. 100m to the north-east of the site. It is possible that there may have subsequently been a wooden bridge across the Thames in the latter half of this period 25, perhaps the location of the later wooden bridge constructed in 17271729. The extent of the medieval settlement of Putney in relation to the site is uncertain, although it is likely that the site fell within the settlement itself and/or within an area of revetments and wharves, presumably located along the riverfront. It is likely that, as in the early 17th century, the site was used as a landing place for boats, to the west of an area of houses and shops located along the present Putney High Street, whilst the land to the south of the site was probably farmed. The St. Marys Church (HEA 41), c. 20m to the south-east of the site, dates to the 13th century, and, along with the river crossing, would have formed the focus of the village. The early foundations of the church were discovered during excavations carried out in 19751976 26. The remains of medieval window fittings (HEA 16) dating to the 15th century were recovered from the Thames beside the foreshore, c. 20m to the east of the site. Medieval ditches have been recorded as part of an evaluation at Putney Wharf on Brewhouse Street (HEA 2), c. 35m to the south-east of the site, and at ICL House, on Putney High Street (HEA 4) c. 105m to the southeast. Chance finds of medieval pottery and coins have been recovered c.
7.4.36
7.4.37
7.4.38
7.4.39
Page 80
65m to the west of the site (HEA 24), c. 120m to the south-west, (HEA 27), and c. 125m to the south-west (HEA 28). Post-medieval period (AD 1485present) 7.4.40 Several archaeological remains date to this period within the site. These include the remains of structural features associated with the construction of the former and present Putney Bridge, such as 19th century steps leading to the foreshore adjacent to the western side of the bridge (HEA 1C), a 19th century outfall drain beneath the bridge approach (HEA 1D), and an 18th century dump deposit (HEA 1F). The remains of an unclassified structure dating to the 19th century (HEA 1G) have also been discovered beneath the bridge approach; which could be the remains of cofferdams used in construction. A surface of consolidated chalk (HEA 1H), which probably represents a former barge bed, was discovered adjacent to the eastern side of the bridge approach. The remains of timber piles, forming a flood defence/river wall (HEA 1B), are located immediately behind the present embankment and slipway. Putney became an important thoroughfare between London and Westminster on to Richmond, Kingston and the west of England following the construction of the earlier wooden bridge in 17271729. The River Thames was a major route for communication and trade in the postmedieval period and the site itself may have been used as a landing or mooring place for boats. In the 17th and 18th centuries the site was situated to the west of the settled area of buildings clustered along the High Street. The land to the south of the site was occupied by cultivated fields and market gardens. The area to the south and south-west of the site developed rapidly as the town expanded from the area of the High Street, particularly from the mid-19th century, when the South Western Railway was constructed. A number of remains have been recovered from within the site and the study area, particularly to the immediate east of Putney Bridge on the Thames Foreshore between the present Putney Bridge, constructed in 18821886, and the earlier wooden bridge. The earliest post-medieval buildings within the study area include the tower of St. Marys Church (HEA 41), which dates to the mid-15th century and the chancel, dating to the 16th 27. The remains of cottages, documented from 16361888 (when they were demolished) were discovered during an excavation carried out at ICL House on Putney High Street, (HEA 4), along with the remains of a boundary wall, identifying an area in which probable refuse pits were discovered. The remains of bedding trenches were identified to the east of the wall. Foundations of a large house, represented on 17th19th century maps, and a postmedieval road (exact dates unknown) were also discovered on the site. The earliest map of the site is a pictorial estate map by Nicholas Lane, produced in 1636 (Appendix A) The area of the foreshore on which the site is situated is occupied by a linear feature; perhaps a line of mooring posts, as a boat appears to be moored to the three westernmost posts. The river wall is shown clearly within the site. Overlooking the river wall and the Thames is a row of houses, which continue eastwards and then southwards along both sides of Putney High Street. The open fields to the
7.4.41
7.4.42
7.4.43
Page 81
south of the river and east and west of the High Street are divided into agricultural strips. 7.4.44 An excavation carried out at 24 Lower Richmond Road (HEA 3), c. 85m to the south of the site, revealed the remains of three timber waterfronts, the earliest dating to the latter part of the 16th century and the latest to the end of the 17th or beginning of the 18th century. Traces of other, incomplete, timbers were also recovered but were not dated, and it is not known to which structures these belonged. In 1726, an Act was passed to allow the construction of a wooden bridge, c. 50m to the east of the current bridge. The bridge is shown on the Corris parish map of 1787 (Appendix A) which shows the majority of the present town of Putney still dominated by open fields, although a number of farm buildings are shown and houses and other buildings have spread outwards from the High Street and embankment along adjacent streets. The site is shown as lying within the Thames with three buildings marked along the embankment, within the study area, including Putney Point and The Eight Bells public house. In 1792, the cultivated land of Putney was described as principally arable, including 1200 acres occupied by market gardeners 28. The Tithe Map of 1846 (not reproduced) shows the site as undeveloped foreshore adjacent to the river wall. Two roads run parallel to the river wall, one along the embankment and the other along the line of the present Lower Richmond Road. Between the embankment and the road, adjacent to (outside) the site to the south, a large building and several smaller plots of land, are shown. The Tithe apportionment lists the majority of the land immediately to the south of the site as pleasure grounds, gardens and meadows. The first edition Ordnance Survey (OS) 25 map of 1862 (Appendix A) shows the site c. 75m to the west of the wooden bridge, and c. 25m west of an aqueduct. This was built by Chelsea Waterworks in 1854 and was later incorporated into the structure of the current Putney Bridge. Unspecified remains related to the 18th century bridge, including a dump deposit (HEA 9) were discovered on the foreshore, c. 35m to the east of the site (see above). The current Lower Richmond Road, immediately south of the site is named Windsor Street, and a public house is shown adjacent to the river wall in the location of the current Star and Garter Hotel, (HEA 52), c. 120m to the north-west of the site. South of Windsor Street, approximately a third of the land within the study area is made up of gardens to the rear of terraced houses and buildings fronting the main streets (still mainly one building deep), particularly within an area bounded by Windsor Lane to the north, Gardner Lane (the present Felsham Road), to the south, River Street (the present Waterman Street) to the west, and Putney High Street, to the east. This map also shows a major development within the wider area of Putney, with the construction of the London and South-Western Railway in 1846, c. 560m to the south of the Site (outside the study area). The second edition OS 25 map of 1894 (Appendix A) shows the southeastern corner of the site occupied by a slipway leading down from the current embankment. This was laid out in 18871888 as a recreational
7.4.45
7.4.46
7.4.47
7.4.48
Page 82
area focused on local rowing clubs and is shown on the map as a wide promenade planted with trees. A urinal is located between the river wall and the slipway with a descending staircase leading down to it. Within the wider study area, considerable change has occurred. The current Putney Bridge, (HEA 40), a Grade II listed structure constructed by Sir Joseph Bazalgette in 18821886, has now replaced the earlier 18th century wooden bridge which had been badly damaged by the collision of a river barge in 1870. The Metropolitan Board of Works purchased the 18th century bridge in 1879 and began to replace it with the current Putney Bridge post-1880. The current Putney Bridge formed part of Bazalgettes new sewerage system, with an intercepting sewer extending from Putney and joining with sewers from Upper Norwood and Clapham, joining at Deptford 29. Outfall gates (HEA 1K) for excess sewer water were constructed as part of the bridge beneath its southernmost pier. 7.4.49 The GLHER notes unspecified 18th- and 19th-century remains within the site (HEA 1M and HEA 1N) and immediately to the east (HEA 12 and HEA 13). Associated remains were observed during the walkover survey within the site, including the remains of a chalk barge bed (HEA 1I; Appendix A) and foundation piles (HEA 1J; Appendix A). Some of these structural remains may relate to the demolition of the earlier bridge and the construction of the current one, and include the remains of a timber cofferdam (HEA 46), adjacent to the northern site boundary. The OS map of 1894 also shows that to the south, in an area previously occupied by terraced houses and garden plots, between Windsor (Lower Richmond) Road and Gardner (Felsham) Road, the land has been divided into large plots following the clearance of cottages to the south of Windsor Street, adjacent to the southern boundary of the site. The third edition OS 25 map of 1913 (Appendix A) shows lavatories (separate from the existing urinal) located between the foreshore end of the slipway and the western side of Putney Bridge, as they are currently situated today (during the site visit, it was observed through pavement lights that the lavatories extend beneath Lower Richmond Road, to the south of the site). By 1913, Lower Richmond Road has developed into a tramway, linking it to Putney Bridge and the High Street. A large housing block, called Kenilworth Court, is located across Lower Richmond Road, adjacent to the south of the site. It was constructed on the site of the terraced houses in 19011903, with views over the Thames and Embankment. The LCC Bomb Damage Maps of 19391945 (not reproduced) shows no damage to the immediate vicinity of the site. The Ordnance Survey 25 map of 1947 (Appendix A) shows no significant changes to the Site, although mooring rings are now marked on the embankment, and the slipway is shown occupying the southwestern corner of the site. Land to the southwest of (outside) the site, previously occupied by houses and gardens, has been developed for engineering works and recreational facilities. Later OS maps (not reproduced) show no significant changes to the site or the study area.
7.4.50
7.4.51
7.4.52 7.4.53
Page 83
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore The current site 7.4.54
The site currently comprises an undeveloped section of the Thames foreshore, with part of the eastern end of a cobble stone slipway leading down from the Putney Embankment occupying its southwestern corner. Subterranean toilets are likely to occupy an area within and adjacent to the south-eastern boundary of the site, as marked on OS maps and identified during the site visit. Their extent is not currently known. Structural remains and other features were observed during the site visit on the foreshore at low tide dating from the 18th and 19th centuries. Some probably relate to the construction of the Putney Bridges, such as the timber pile foundations below Putney Bridge (HEA 1J) and a former barge beds of chalk rubble (HEA 1I). Also the remains of a post-medieval flood defence (HEA 1C), formed from timber piles and have been identified within the site. The early 18th-century bridge was the first crossing constructed on the Thames following the medieval London and Kingston Bridges. Such remains would be of low or medium significance. This would be derived from the evidential and historical value of such remains.
7.4.55
Statement of significance: above ground heritage assets

Introduction 7.4.56 In accordance with the national policy set out in PPS5, the following section provides a statement based on professional and expert judgement on the likely significance (which is a reflection of the value or importance) of heritage assets, derived from the perceived historical, evidential, aesthetic and communal value. These terms are fully defined in Volume 5 and are briefly summarised as follows: a. Evidential value: the potential of the physical remains to yield evidence of past human activity. This might take into account date; rarity; state of preservation; diversity/complexity; contribution to published priorities; supporting documentation; collective value and comparative potential. b. Aesthetic value: this derives from the ways in which people draw sensory and intellectual stimulation from the heritage asset, taking into account what other people have said or written. c. Historical value: the ways in which past people, events and aspects of life can be connected through heritage assets to the present, such a connection often being illustrative or associative;
d. Communal value: this derives from the meanings of a heritage asset for the people, who know about it, or for whom it figures in their collective experience or memory; communal values are closely bound up with historical, particularly associative, and aesthetic values, along with educational, social or economic values. 7.4.57 Built heritage and above ground archaeological remains (eg earthworks and landscapes) are visible and tangible and, where appropriate, their significance is considered in more detail. Built heritage refers to those aspects of the buildings visible on the site that possess noteworthy
Page 84
architectural or historical interest. These aspects have been identified and their interest broadly rated using the published criteria 30. Evidential and aesthetic values correspond most closely to architectural interest according to listing criteria, while historic and communal values correspond to historic interest Within the site 7.4.58 The site lies within the Putney Embankment Conservation Area as designated by Wandsworth Borough Council, which covers the Embankment, Putney High Street and Putney Bridge. The conservation area is divided into smaller areas, and the historic environment of each area is considered to be individual in its character. The site falls mainly within Area 3 (Lower Richmond Road), with part in Area 2 (Putney High Street) as described by the Putney Embankment Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Strategy document 31. Area 3 is described as having buildings of outstanding quality, rich in architecture and of diverse ages, with the overall density of buildings being low, providing a sense of space and attractive wide open vistas. The conservation area is a heritage asset of high significance, derived from its aesthetic, evidential, historical and communal values. Running along and just outside of the western edge of the site is a set of Grade II listed bollards (HEA 43). These are assets of high significance which are included within the conservation area and contribute to its character and significance. Within the site is a late 19th-early 20th century brick-built slipway with a granite cobbled surface (HEA 1F), including two central parallel lines of larger slabs, running almost the length of the slipway (Appendix A). A kerb of granite blocks runs along the slipways southern edge. It is c. 70m long and is well maintained and in good condition as it continues to provide access to the river. Along its northern edge are a series of large timbers, joined end to end along with large timber uprights. On the southern side of the slipway is a c. 70m-long brick wall (HEA 1E), of variable height, topped with a course of dark grey engineering bricks down to the foreshore. This supports iron railings at the top, which continue half the length of the slipway, where they are replaced by modern steel railings. The brick wall and iron railings are likely to be late 19th centuryearly 20th century and form part of the slipway. They are mentioned in the Putney Embankment Conservation Area Appraisal as a surviving example of an antiquated boundary treatment. The slipway is an element of a draw dock, where boats were drawn up on the foreshore and unloaded with the aid of carts which were pulled up the sloping ramp of the slipway by horses. It was of sufficient interest to feature in a recent book on tidal rivers 32. The slipway contributes positively to the character of the conservation area but also lies adjacent to the traditional staring point of the Oxford and Cambridge Boat Race, which has run from Putney Bridge to Mortlake since 1829 (see below). The slipway may well have provided access to the Thames for the Boat Race crews and officials, and may still do so. It is considered a heritage asset of high significance, not only for its evidential and historic value as a late 19th century structure, but also
7.4.59
7.4.60
Page 85
because it forms part of the backdrop for this world renowned sporting event. The significance also derives from its historical and communal value as a place directly connected to boat races of the past with a specific meaning for the crews and spectators, for whom it figures in their collective experience and memory. 7.4.61 The site lies adjacent to, and extends beneath the Grade II listed Putney Bridge (HEA 40), built by Joseph Bazalgette in 1884 to replace a former aqueduct and the older Fulham Bridge, to the east. Some elements of the bridge lie within the site boundary as the site continues below the bridge structure. Also within the site is a commemorative stone (HEA 1H), dated to 1884, set within the abutment of Bazalgettes bridge. The bridge is a heritage asset of very high historical and evidential value. The commemorative stone is part of the listed structure of the bridge and is also an asset of very high significance. Beneath Putney Bridge are two outlets (HEA 1K), covered by iron grills with domed tops (Appendix A).These are positioned on the western side of the bridge abutment and at first glance appear to be positioned asymmetrically and too far to the west. However it seems possible that Putney Bridge was built in two phases, the western carriageway being constructed first, whilst the abutment was probably built to its full and present extent, the eastern carriageway being added later. This is suggested by a clear break in build visible beneath the bridge between the eastern and western sides, with no such break being present in the masonry of the abutment. The iron cages are in fact centrally and symmetrically placed below what is likely to be the earliest part of the bridge. They are therefore probably original to Bazalgettes original design and their position may also indicate the method or phases of the bridges construction. They have evidential and historic value as independent features but are also part of the Grade II listed Putney Bridge structure and are therefore assets of very high significance. Putney Bridges western retaining wall curves around and continues along the Lower Richmond Road and runs within the southern edge of the site, joining up to the brick wall and railings described above (HEA 1E). The retaining wall has a gated opening leading down to subterranean toilets (HEA 1D; described below). The wall itself may have been an early 20th century modification as it appears in its present form for the first time on the 1913 OS map (Appendix A) and prior to this on the 1894 OS map (Appendix A) it is of a different shape in plan. Despite the possibility of it being an early 20th century modification, the bridges western retaining wall can be considered part of the Grade II structure and therefore an asset of high significance. Located within the southern edge of the site is a Port of London Authority marker (HEA 1Q) which is set into the brick riverside wall and records the high water level of the 1928 flood, the last catastrophic flooding event in Londons history. A combination of events led to a serious flood which killed 14 people and made thousands homeless. Other markers from the same flooding event are found at Greenwich. This is therefore a heritage
7.4.62
7.4.63
7.4.64
Page 86
asset with evidential, historical and group value and of medium significance. 7.4.65 Within the southern edge of the site and within the retaining wall is a stone staircase (Appendix A) leading down from the Lower Richmond Road/Bridge Approach to a former subterranean public lavatories (HEA 1D). The lavatories may well be associated with the structure of the Grade II listed bridge and may extend into the boundary of the site, although their below ground extent is unclear at present as it was not possible to gain access as part of the site walkover survey. The OS 3rd edition 25 map of 1913 (Appendix A) shows a staircase, and label for a lavatory and urinal, with the underground structure reflected in a bulge in the embankment retaining wall on the bridges western side. Although the urinal may form part of the Bazalgettes design, this may not be the case for the lavatories as they are not marked on the 1894 OS map (Appendix A). Recent drilling into the north side of the retaining wall, undertaken by unknown contractors at an unknown date, (Appendix A) reveals brick arches below the Lower Richmond Road (HEA 1G) (Appendix A). It is possible and indeed likely that the brick arches and the subterranean toilets are interconnected and form a complex of rooms and vaults beneath the Lower Richmond Road. The exact determination of their significance is problematic at present, as their extent, date of construction and relationship to the Grade II listed Bridge is as yet unknown, although it is likely that they are at least of medium significance and lie just within the site boundary. Also within the site is a recess in the river wall, adjacent to Putney Bridge, which may indicate the site of former river stairs (HEA 1H). These are of historical and evidential value and are of low to medium significance. Within the study area 7.4.67 The significance of the heritage assets within the study area, but outside the site (since such sites may be subject to indirect effects on their setting from the proposed project) requires further consideration and will be completed for the ES. The study area for offsite heritage assets may be revised because setting effects are most likely to occur within the visual envelope of the site, which may differ from the study area defined for the purposes of the PEIR.
7.4.66
Statement of significance: buried heritage assets on the site

Introduction 7.4.68 The following section discusses past impacts on the site which are likely to have compromised asset survival (generally from late 19th and 20th century developments, eg, building foundations or quarrying), identified primarily from historic maps, the site walkover survey, and information on the likely depth of deposits. In accordance with PPS5, this is followed by a statement on the likely potential for and significance of buried heritage assets within the site,
7.4.69
Page 87
derived from current understanding of the baseline conditions, past impacts, and professional judgement. Factors Affecting Survival 7.4.70 The archaeological survival potential of the site is low for prehistoric and palaeoenvironmental remains due to natural fluvial scouring/erosion of the foreshore alluvium. Survival potential is low to moderate for later medieval remains. Residual finds (ie, finds discovered outside their original context) dating to this period have been discovered within the study area, however, the potential for in situ finds is low due to scouring/erosion. The site visit and earlier surveys confirm the potential for surviving post-medieval structural remains. Other than fluvial scouring, past impacts include: a. The construction of the present Putney Bridge in 18821886, in the south-western part of the site. The southern bridgehead and southernmost pier (c. 30m wide) are located within the site and were constructed of granite on rows of deep piled foundations. The piles will have removed any remains from within the pile footprints. b. Subterranean toilets and unidentified vaults associated with the construction of the bridge lie adjacent to the embankment (the southern site boundary) and may extent within the southern half of the site. The excavation of these structures may is likely to have truncated or entirely removed any earlier archaeological remains. c. Foundations for the late 19th century slipway in the southwestern corner of the site will have caused localised truncation of any earlier archaeological remains, if present, either from deep strip footings or localised piling.
7.4.71
Taking into account the impacts above, the archaeological survival potential of the site is generally considered to be low for remains earlier than post-medieval. Asset potential and significance The statement takes into account the levels of natural geology and the level and nature of later disturbance and truncation. Palaeoenvironment The site has a low potential to contain palaeoenvironmental remains. Due to scouring caused by the movement of the River Thames in the area of the site, it is considered to have a low potential to preserve palaeoenvironmental remains. Such remains, if present, would be of low asset significance, as derived from their evidential value. Prehistoric The site has a low potential to contain remains dated to the prehistoric period. This is due to scouring caused by the River Thames, which is likely to have removed prehistoric alluvial deposits, based on the absence of alluvium noted in two nearby boreholes. Although a prehistoric flint flake was discovered within the site, this is probably residual (ie, deposited outside of its original context). Isolated residual artefacts, if present, would
7.4.72
7.4.73
7.4.74
Page 88
be of low asset significance, derived from the evidential value of such remains. Roman 7.4.75 The site has low potential to contain Roman remains. Archaeological evidence in the vicinity suggests an area of settlement and agricultural activity to the south of the site, on the higher and drier gravel terrace rather than the foreshore. It is possible that Roman remains related to an earlier river crossing, or residual artefacts, may survive on the site although the survival potential is probably low due to the fluvial scouring as noted above. Remains, if present, would be of low or medium asset significance, depending on their nature and degree of preservation. This would be derived from the evidential value of such remains. Early medieval 7.4.76 The site has a low potential to contain early medieval remains. The early medieval settlement to the south of the foreshore was probably largely engaged in fishing and farming, and it is possible that residual artefacts relating to fishing and a probable earlier river crossing may be discovered. However, the potential for this is considered to be low due to scouring by the Thames. Remains would be of low to high asset significance, depending on their nature and degree of preservation. This would be derived from the evidential and historical value of such remains. Later medieval 7.4.77 The site has a low or moderate potential to contain later medieval remains. Putney was a flourishing settlement with a probable river crossing in the vicinity of the site. It is likely that the riverfront adjacent to the site was developed, with revetments, wharves and associated buildings. The remains of medieval pottery, although likely to be residual, has been recovered from within the site, and scattered remains dating to this period have been made in the vicinity, to the south of the embankment and to the foreshore west of Putney Bridge. Isolated residual artefacts would be of low significance. Remains of revetments or other riverfront structures (none were visible on the site walkover inspection) would be of low or medium significance, depending on the nature and degree of preservation. This would be derived from the evidential and historical value of such remains. Post-medieval 7.4.78 The site has a high potential to contain remains dated to the post-medieval period. Remains include barge beds, flood defences and remains associated with the construction of Putney Bridge, which were identified during the walkover survey. Foreshore silts, hulks, isolated pottery and building materials might also be present on the foreshore. The remains of a hulked boat would potentially be of high significance depending on its degree of preservation. The remains of revetments or other riverfront structures would be of low or medium significance, whilst construction debris and residual, isolated artefacts would be of low asset significance, depending on the nature and degree of preservation. There is also a high potential for the remains of post-medieval buildings on the landward side
Page 89
of the riverwall, of low asset significance. This would be derived from the evidential and historical value of such remains.
Summary of asset significance

7.4.79 The table below provides a summary of the known or likely historic environment assets relevant to the proposed project. Vol 10 Table 7.4.1 Historic environment receptors Receptor (Asset) Putney Embankment Conservation Area Grade II listed Putney Bridge, including commemorative stone Sewer outfalls located beneath Putney Bridge Putney Bridge western retaining wall Slipway PLA 1928 flood marker Asset type Above ground/ within the site Above ground/ within the site Above ground/ within the site Above ground/ within the site Above ground/ within the site Above ground/ within the site Above ground/within the site Above ground/ outside the site Above ground/ within the site Buried/ within the site Buried/ within the site Buried/ within the site Significance (value/sensitivity) High
High
High
High High Medium
Grade II listed bollards
High
Public toilets and vaults beneath Lower Richmond Road Site of former river stairs/recess Low potential for palaeoenvironmental remains Low potential for Roman remains Low potential for isolated early medieval remains
Medium
Low or medium
Low (unlikely) Low or moderate (unlikely) Low (unlikely)
Page 90
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Receptor (Asset) Low potential for early medieval revetments/riverside structures Moderate potential for isolated later medieval artefacts Low to moderate potential for later medieval revetments and riverfront structures High potential for postmedieval construction debris and isolated artefacts High potential for postmedieval waterfront remains barge beds, flood defences and remains associated with the construction of Putney Bridge High potential for postmedieval buildings on the landward side of the river wall Low potential for postmedieval hulks
Section 7: Historic environment Asset type Buried/ within the site Significance (value/sensitivity) Low or moderate (unlikely)
Buried/ within the site Buried/ within the site
Low
Low or medium
Buried/ within the site
Low
Medium
Low
High (unlikely)
7.5
Construction assessment Above ground heritage assets

Within the site
7.5.1
The sewer outfalls beneath the Grade II listed Putney bridge (high asset significance) would be removed during the insertion of the interception chamber. The outfalls form an integral part of the bridge and their removal comprises a high magnitude of impact. Due to the high asset significance of the sewer outfalls, this would result in a major adverse effect. The ventilation column beside the southern abutment of the Grade II listed Putney Bridge (high asset significance) would, assuming that it is incorporated sensitively with the structure using appropriate materials, not
7.5.2
Page 91
have an impact on the fabric of the structure, with no environmental effect. This will be confirmed for the ES. 7.5.3 The Grade II listed bollards within the western boundary of the site (high asset significance) are to be temporarily removed and relocated to facilitate site access. They will be reinstated within the site following construction, although not in exactly the same locations. Due to the high asset significance of the bollards, their removal during construction would result in a temporary major adverse effect There would be a localised impact to the slipway (the majority of which would be protected during construction) and river wall, resulting from local demolition and reinstatement of some parts of them. The precise impact upon these assets would depend on the extent of the demolition and nature of the materials used to reinstate it. Given the projects commitment to high quality design (see Section 7.9 Assessment completion), it is assumed that the materials used to undertake any localised reconstruction of the slipway, should this be necessary, would be in keeping with the existing brick river wall and stone slipway and the magnitude of impact would therefore be negligible thus giving rise to a minor adverse effect. The environmental effect will be reviewed for the ES following the finalisation of architectural and landscape designs. The construction of the cofferdam, the filling of its structure and construction of the culverts between the interception chamber and CSO shaft may cause localised damage to the 1928 PLA flood marker and the former river stairs. This would reduce the significance of the asset to low and would comprise a medium magnitude of impact and a moderate adverse effect. There would be no impact on the Putney Bridge western retaining wall, which is of high asset significance, as no removal or demolition of this wall, including its parapet, is required. Within the study area 7.5.7 The assessment of indirect effects upon the historic setting of surrounding heritage assets within the study area, for example from the visual presence of construction machinery, requires further consideration and will be completed for the ES. This assessment is distinct from the assessment of effects on townscape character areas presented in Section 11, as it is based on criteria specific to the historic environment. The study area for assessing setting effects on heritage assets may be revised because historic setting effects are most likely to occur within the visual envelope of the site, which may differ from the study area defined for the purposes of the PEIR. The effects of other construction phase activities on particularly significant assets (i.e. statutorily designated/protected features) on or adjacent to the site, will also be assessed in the ongoing EIA for presentation in the ES. Construction impacts which may affect the setting of such assets might include vibration from piling, dust and disturbance from the movement of heavy goods vehicles.
7.5.4
7.5.5
7.5.6
7.5.8
Page 92
Buried heritage assets

Enabling works 7.5.9 Enabling works include the construction of two temporary cofferdams, around the main CSO site and a temporary slipway approximately 300m west of Putney Bridge. The cofferdams would be constructed using sheet piling filled with made ground to provide a stable platform. A campshed would be constructed at the north-western end of the main CSO site cofferdam. Up to 1m of foreshore material would be removed from within the temporary cofferdams and campshed, as assumed for the purposes of this assessment. The construction of the temporary cofferdam would potentially remove or truncate any archaeological remains within the cofferdam, reducing the heritage asset significance of those remains to negligible. This would constitute a high magnitude of impact for these assets. The effect would vary depending upon the original significance of the assets removed: a. There is a low potential for palaeoenvironmental remains of low asset significance. The removal of such remains would constitute a minor adverse effect (unlikely). b. There is a low potential for isolated, residual prehistoric remains of low asset significance. The removal of such remains would constitute a minor adverse effect (unlikely). c. There is a low potential for Roman remains of low or moderate asset significance. The removal of such remains would constitute a minor or moderate adverse effect (unlikely).
d. There is a low potential for early medieval remains of low asset significance (for isolated artefacts) or low or medium asset significance (for revetments or riverside structures). The removal of such remains would constitute minor or moderate adverse effects, respectively. e. There is a moderate potential for isolated later medieval artefacts of low asset significance. Where such remains are removed, there would be a minor adverse effect. f. There is a low to moderate potential for later medieval waterfront remains, including revetment, hulks and riverfront structures. Such remains would be of low to medium asset significance and their removal would lead to a moderate adverse effect.
g. There is a high potential for post-medieval construction debris and isolated artefacts of low asset significance. The removal of such remains would constitute a minor adverse effect. h. There is a high potential for post-medieval barge beds, flood defences and remains associated with the construction of Putney Bridge, some of which were observed during the site visit. They are of medium asset significance. Removal of such remains would constitute a moderate adverse effect. i. There is a low potential for post-medieval hulks, no evidence of which was observed during the site visit. Such remains would be of high
Page 93
asset significance and their removal would comprise a major adverse effect (unlikely). 7.5.10 The enabling works would include erection of hoarding supported by posts and the diversion of any existing services on the river bank in the eastern part of the site. Archaeological remains would potentially be locally truncated within the footprints of the hoarding posts. The diversion of services and the construction of new service trenches approximately 2m deep, as assumed for the purposes of this assessment, would locally truncate any surviving late 19th or 18th century remains of low asset significance within the made ground. This would locally reduce the significance of the assets to negligible and would constitute a minor adverse effect. The office and welfare facilities would be constructed within the footprint of the cofferdam on top of the made ground, thus they would have no impact on any archaeological remains. Construction works 7.5.12 An internal permanent cofferdam would be located within the temporary cofferdam in the western part of the site. Within the permanent cofferdam all alluvium would be removed from the foreshore to provide a solid foundation and prevent settling. This would remove the majority of any archaeological remains present within the footprint of these works, removing any remains within the alluvium and heavily truncating any surviving features cut into the underlying gravels. The significance of any assets affected would be reduced to negligible and would constitute a high magnitude of impact for these assets. The effect would vary depending upon the original significance of the assets removed. The affected assets and the resulting environmental effect are the same as those described for the temporary works in para 7.5.9 above. Excavation of the CSO shaft and base of the new river wall, would remove any remaining archaeological remains within the footprint of each construction, which had not previously been removed by stripping of the foreshore during construction of the cofferdams. This would be limited to features cut into the underlying gravel geology. The significance of affected assets would be reduced to negligible, constituting a high magnitude of impact for these assets. The affected assets and the resulting environmental effect are the same as those described for the temporary works in 7.5.9 above. The ventilation chamber, value chamber and ventilation structure formation levels would not extend beneath the truncation level within the permanent cofferdam and would have no additional archaeological impact. The interception chamber beneath Putney Bridge and connecting culvert along the foreshore, would remove or truncate any surviving archaeological remains within their footprint which had not previously been removed by stripping of the foreshore during construction of the temporary cofferdams. The significance of affected assets would be reduced to negligible, constituting a high magnitude of impact for these assets. The affected assets and the resulting environmental effect would be the same as for those described for the temporary works in para 7.5.9 above.
7.5.11
7.5.13
7.5.14
Page 94
The reinforced foreshore erosion protection in front of the permanent cofferdam would probably have no impact on archaeological remains as any archaeological remains would have previously been removed by the temporary cofferdam or campshed.
Significance of environmental effect

7.5.16 The table below summarises the magnitude of impact upon known and possible historic environment assets at the site (above ground and buried), during the construction phase, and the resulting environmental effect. This is the effect prior to the implementation of an agreed mitigation strategy. Vol 10 Table 7.5.1 Historic environment effects - construction Asset (resource) Impact (magnitude) Above ground heritage assets Sewer outfalls beneath Grade II listed Putney Bridge (High asset significance) Grade II listed Putney Bridge (High asset significance) Putney Bridge western retaining wall (High asset significance) Slipway (High asset significance) High Removal of the existing sewer outfalls during construction of the interception chamber. None Major adverse Effect (prior to mitigation)
Negligible
None
Negligible
Negligible Minor adverse Localised removal of cobble setts from slipway, mitigated by reusing setts and/or using sympathetic materials. Medium Possible damage to the marker during construction of the temporary cofferdam and culverts. Medium Possible damage during construction of the cofferdam and culverts. High Moderate adverse
PLA 1928 flood marker (Medium asset significance)
Site of former river stairs/recess (Low or medium asset significance) Grade II listed bollards
Minor or moderate adverse Temporary major
Page 95
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Asset (resource) (High asset significance) Setting of above ground heritage assets in the vicinity of the site, including nearby listed buildings. Low potential for palaeoenvironmental remains (Low asset significance)
Section 7: Historic environment Impact (magnitude) Effect (prior to mitigation) adverse
Temporary removal of the listed bollards may result in possible damage. To be assessed in the EIA.
To be assessed in the EIA.
Buried heritage assets High Impact from foreshore stripping, campshed, excavation for CSO shaft, interception shaft and connection culvert. Asset significance reduced to negligible High Impact from foreshore stripping, campshed, excavation for CSO shaft, interception shaft and connection culvert. Asset significance reduced to negligible High Impact from foreshore stripping, campshed, excavation for CSO shaft, interception shaft and connection culvert. Asset significance reduced to negligible High Impact from foreshore stripping, campshed, excavation for CSO shaft, interception shaft and connection culvert. Asset significance reduced to negligible High Minor adverse (unlikely)
Low potential for Roman remains (Low or medium asset significance)
Minor adverse (unlikely)
Low potential for isolated early medieval remains (Low asset significance)
Minor adverse adverse) (unlikely)
Low potential for early medieval revetments/riverside structures (Low or medium adverse significance)
Minor or moderate adverse (unlikely)
Moderate potential for isolated later medieval
Minor adverse
Page 96
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Asset (resource) artefacts (Low asset significance)
Section 7: Historic environment Impact (magnitude) Effect (prior to mitigation)
Impact from foreshore stripping, campshed, excavation for CSO shaft, interception shaft and connection culvert. Asset significance reduced to negligible High Impact from foreshore stripping, campshed, excavation for CSO shaft, interception shaft and connection culvert. Asset significance reduced to negligible. High Impact from foreshore stripping, campshed, excavation for CSO shaft, interception shaft and connection culvert. Asset significance reduced to negligible High Impact from foreshore stripping, campshed, excavation for CSO shaft, interception shaft and connection culvert. Asset significance reduced to negligible Low Localised truncation from services and foundations Moderate adverse
Low to moderate potential for later medieval revetments and riverfront structures (Low or medium asset significance)
High potential for postmedieval construction debris and isolated artefacts (Low asset significance)
Minor adverse
High potential for postmedieval waterfront remains barge beds, flood defences and remains associated with the construction of Putney Bridge (Medium asset significance) High potential for postmedieval buildings on the landward side of the river wall (Low asset significance) Low potential for postmedieval hulks (High asset significance)
Moderate adverse
Minor adverse
High Impact from foreshore stripping, campshed, excavation for CSO shaft, interception shaft and connection culvert. Asset
Major adverse (unlikely)
Page 97
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Asset (resource)
Section 7: Historic environment Impact (magnitude) Effect (prior to mitigation)
significance reduced to negligible
7.6
7.6.1
Operational assessment Above ground heritage assets

The particular components that are relevant to the assessment of operational effects on above ground assets are the permanent structures visible above ground. These components comprise: a. Permanent change to the riverfront wall with the construction of a permanent cofferdam; b. a control cabinet adjacent to the eastern end of the cobbled slipway; c. a ventilation structure adjacent to the cobbled slipway (within the eastern part of the area of permanent hardstanding); and
d. a ventilation column incorporated to the side of Putney Bridge; 7.6.2 The site is located within the Putney Embankment Conservation Area, which is of high significance. The proposed works would have an impact on the character of the conservation area. The construction of the new permanent cofferdam and modifications to the foreshore in this area would physically change the embankment, the foreshore, the setting of landmarks within the conservation area, such as the Grade II listed Putney Bridge (HEA 40) and the Grade II* listed St. Marys Church (HEA 41). The architectural and historic quality of the conservation area would also change through the possible need for localised removal of a short section of the slipway and construction of new projecting sections of embankment to contain the structures associated with the project. The final impact upon the special interest and character and appearance of the conservation area will depend upon the materials used to complete the proposals, which will be detailed in the architectural and landscape design. The impact and resultant environmental effect will be considered following the finalisation of the architectural and landscape design for inclusion in the final ES. The effect of the project upon the setting of heritage assets within the study area including the Grade II listed Putney Bridge (which may be affected by the presence of the cofferdam, control cabinet and ventilation structure) requires further consideration and will be assessed through the ongoing EIA for presentation in the ES. This assessment is distinct from the assessment of effects on townscape character areas presented in Section 11, as it is based on criteria specific to the historic environment. The study area for assessing setting effects on heritage assets may be revised because historic setting effects are most likely to occur within the visual envelope of the site, which may differ from the study area defined for the purposes of the PEIR.
7.6.3
Page 98

7.6.4 It is possible that as a result of the permanent cofferdams and new river walls, the fluvial regime of the river could change, resulting in different scouring patterns. This could potentially result in erosion or deposition of the foreshore and channel areas. The predicted impact upon the fluvial regime and any archaeological remains on the foreshore will be assessed following a review of hydrological modelling, along with a review of data on past dredging held by the Port of London Authority (any archaeological assets would have already been removed in areas of past capital dredging).This will be presented in the ES.
Significance of environmental effect

5.2.142 The table below summarises the historic environment assets at the site for which effects during the operational phase will be assessed through the ongoing EIA for presentation in the ES. Vol 10 Table 7.6.1 Historic environment effects operation Asset (resource) Putney Embankment Conservation Area (High asset significance) Impact (magnitude) To be assessed in the ES Effect (prior to mitigation) To be assessed in the ES
Setting of Grade II listed To be assessed in the ES Putney Bridge Setting of other statutorily listed buildings in the study area. To be assessed in the ES
To be assessed in the ES To be assessed in the ES
7.7
Approach to mitigation Above ground heritage assets

Within the site
7.7.1
The proposed mitigation strategy for any above ground heritage assets which would be removed or truncated or their environment altered (see below) will comprise a programme of standing structure survey and photographic recording, to ensure that a record of these assets is made. Assets of different significance will require different levels of standing structure survey and recording as detailed in the English Heritage specifications 33: a. The sewer outfalls beneath Putney Bridge would require a Level 3 programme of standing structure survey and recording, with additional archival and documentary research in recognition of their position in relation to the listed structure. This would reduce the severity of the
Page 99
environmental effect to minor adverse, but it would not remove it completely. This is because there is a presumption in favour of the conservation of assets of high/very high significance, including listed buildings. The proposal would be a permanent, visual, change to future public appreciation and understanding of the Putney Bridge, which could not be entirely mitigated by recording an element of the bridge (albeit not a significant element) prior to removal. b. Grade II listed bollards, PLA 1928 flood marker, river wall, slipway and former river stairs by Putney Bridge would require a programme of standing structure survey and photographic recording, equivalent to Level 2 of the specifications. This would reduce the adverse effect to negligible. c. The public toilets and vaults beneath Lower Richmond Road should be recorded by a programme standing structure survey and photographic recording, equivalent to Level 3 of the English Heritage specifications. This would reduce the adverse effect to negligible
7.7.2 7.7.3
In addition, where possible, the PLA 1928 flood marker and former river stairs will be protected during the works to ensure they are not damaged. The impact of the temporary removal of the bollards would be further mitigated through relocation sympathetic to their original position and layout Ongoing design work will be undertaken to ensure the minor adverse effect resulting from the partial localised removal and reinstatement of the slipway and river wall is reduced as far as possible by reusing the cobbles and/or the use of sympathetic materials. Within the study area Any mitigation which may be required for indirect effects on above ground heritage assets will be detailed in the ES, following consideration of the significance of these assets, their setting and the predicted effects. However, it is acknowledged that the scope for mitigation is likely to be limited, for example where effects on historic setting arise from the visible presence of construction machinery.
7.7.4
7.7.5

7.7.6 Based on this assessment, no heritage assets of very high significance are anticipated that might merit a mitigation strategy of permanent preservation in situ. It is therefore considered that the adverse environmental effects of the proposed development could be successfully mitigated by a suitable programme of archaeological investigation before and/or during construction, to achieve preservation by record (through advancing understanding of asset significance). The assessment presented here has identified potential effects on buried heritage assets resulting from ground works. Mitigation requirements would be informed by selective site-based assessment. This could include a variety of techniques, such as geotechnical investigation, geoarchaeologcial deposit modelling, archaeological test pits and trial trenches. This evaluation would enable a more targeted and precise
7.7.7
Page 100
mitigation strategy to be developed for the site post-consent and in advance of construction. 7.7.8 Subject to the findings of any subsequent field evaluation post-consent and well in advance of construction, mitigation of the adverse effects upon archaeological remains within the site is likely to include the following: a. An archaeological watching brief during site preparation and construction to mitigate impacts arising from service diversions and foundations for offices and welfare on the landward side of the existing river wall. b. Archaeological survey and excavation of the foreshore, within the footprints of the proposed temporary and permanent cofferdams, (along with the temporary slipway and campshed) in order to mitigate the effects on the river side of the existing river wall. The precise approach to survey and excavation will depend on the detailed construction methodology. c. For works taking place below low water on the outside of the cofferdams (such as construction of the campshed) conventional archaeological investigation may not be feasible. In such an eventuality other techniques would be employed, such as monitoring and scanning the material of the shaft excavation.
7.7.9
Both evaluation and mitigation would be carried out in accordance with a scope of works (Written Scheme of Investigation), agreed with statutory consultees prior to the commencement of construction. The Written Scheme of Investigation would be agreed prior to conducting any archaeological fieldwork prior to or during construction, to ensure that the scope and method of fieldwork are appropriate to satisfy requirements of the application.
Operation
Above ground heritage assets 7.7.10 Any mitigation which may be required for indirect effects on above ground heritage assets, such as the Putney Embankment Conservation Area and the setting of Putney Bridge, will be detailed in the ES, following consideration of the significance of these assets, their setting and the predicted effects. Mitigation might, for example, include changes to the proposed finishing materials of above ground structures, such as cladding and ground treatments. Buried heritage assets 7.7.11 A possible operational effect upon archaeological remains has been identified, comprising possible change to the scouring patterns of the river and consequent impacts upon downstream archaeological remains. The precise impact on the fluvial regime and any archaeological remains cannot be predicted at present, but hydrological modelling could provide further information on any possible effects (if any). Any mitigation strategy would depend on the results of hydrological modelling, but could comprise a programme of archaeological excavation and recording (ie, preservation by record) of any archaeological remains likely to be affected.
Page 101
Section 7: Historic Environment
7.8
Vol 10 Table 7.8.1 Historic environment - construction assessment Significance of effect Above ground heritage assets Major adverse Physical impact of removal could be partially mitigated by an English Heritage Level 3 Standing structure recording and photographic survey to form preservation by recording and advancing understanding of asset significance. None required None Minor adverse Mitigation Residual effect
Assessment summary
Construction
Asset (receptor)
Sewer outfalls beneath Grade II listed Putney Bridge (High asset significance)
Direct effect on Grade II listed Putney Bridge (High asset significance) None Minor adverse None required
None
Putney Bridge western retaining wall (High asset significance)
None Negligible
Slipway (High asset significance)
English Heritage Level 2 Standing structure recording and photographic survey. Choice of appropriate materials and landscaping to ensure sympathetic reinstatement at the end of construction. English Heritage Level 2 Standing structure recording and photographic survey and protection of the asset English Heritage Level 2 Standing
PLA 1928 flood marker (Medium asset significance) Temporary
Moderate adverse
Negligible
Grade II listed bollards (High asset
Negligible
Page 102
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Mitigation structure recording and photographic survey and protection of the asset. Sympathetic reinstatement in terms of position/layout at the end of construction. Negligible Residual effect
Asset (receptor)
significance)
Significance of effect major adverse
Site of former river stairs/recess (Low or medium asset significance)
Minor or moderate adverse Negligible Archaeological environmental sampling Archaeological investigation and recording of the area within the temporary cofferdams, ramp and campshed prior to the works Archaeological investigation and recording of the area within the temporary cofferdams, ramp and campshed prior to the works Archaeological investigation and recording of the area within the temporary cofferdams, ramp and campshed prior to the works Archaeological investigation and recording of the area within the temporary cofferdams, ramp and Negligible
English Heritage Level 2 Standing structure recording and photographic survey and protection of the asset Buried heritage assets
Low potential for palaeoenvironmental remains (Low asset significance) Minor or moderate adverse (unlikely) Minor adverse (unlikely)
Minor adverse (unlikely)
Low potential for Roman remains (Low or medium asset significance)
Low potential for isolated early medieval remains (Low asset significance) Minor or moderate adverse (unlikely) Minor adverse
Negligible
Low potential for early medieval revetments/riverside structures (Low or medium adverse significance)
Negligible
Moderate potential for isolated later medieval artefacts
Negligible
Page 103
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Significance of effect campshed prior to the works Minor or moderate adverse Archaeological investigation and recording of the area within the temporary cofferdams, ramp and campshed prior to the works Archaeological investigation and recording of any previously unrecorded remains, if present, to form preservation by record Archaeological investigation and recording of the area within the temporary cofferdams, ramp and campshed prior to the works Negligible Minor adverse Negligible Mitigation Residual effect
Asset (receptor)
(Low asset significance)
Low to moderate potential for later medieval revetments and riverfront structures (Low or medium asset significance)
High potential for post-medieval construction debris and isolated artefacts (Low asset significance)
High potential for post-medieval Moderate waterfront remains barge beds, flood adverse defences and remains associated with the construction of Putney Bridge (Medium asset significance) Minor adverse Archaeological watching brief during enabling works and construction
Negligible
High potential for post-medieval buildings on the landward side of the river wall (Low asset significance) Major adverse (unlikely)
Negligible
Low potential for post-medieval hulks (High asset significance)
Archaeological investigation and recording of the area within the temporary cofferdams, ramp and campshed prior to the works
Negligible
Page 104
Vol 10 Table 7.8.2 Historic environment operational assessment Mitigation To be identified in the ES To be identified in the ES To be identified in the ES To be assessed in the ES To be assessed in the ES Residual effect
Asset (receptor)
Significance of effect
Grade II listed Putney Bridge
To be assessed in the ES
Statutorily listed buildings in the visual envelope of the site.
Putney Embankment Conservation Area (High asset significance)
Page 105
7.9
7.9.1
In terms of desk-based sources, the following outstanding information will be collated for the EIA baseline: a. Port of London Authority (PLA) data on wrecks and obstructions within the River Thames channel and foreshore (these may be of archaeological nature), along with any information on past dredging (which will have removed any heritage assets). The full extent and nature of the data held by the PLA (and an appropriate area for which data can be obtained) on past dredging and information on wrecks and obstructions in the Thames channel which might be additional to the UK Hydrographic Office data (already obtained) is currently under discussion with the PLA. b. The results of geoarchaeological monitoring of geotechnical boreholes (clarifying depth and nature of deposits); c. Information on existing hydrological regimes of the River Thames (establishing where there is existing scouring or deposition).
7.9.2
The following information will also inform the final assessment: a. Potential ground settlement at the site. Possible effects of ground settlement resulting from deep constructions within the site, other than the tunnel itself (this will be discussed in Volume 6: project-wide effects) will be considered in the EIA and reported in the ES. b. Potential change to the hydrological regimes of the River Thames (increase in scour erosion or deposition).
7.9.3
The assessment of indirect construction and operational effects upon the historic setting of surrounding heritage assets within the study area requires further consideration and will be completed for the ES. This assessment is distinct from the assessment of effects on townscape character areas presented in Section 11, as it is based on criteria specific to the historic environment. The study area for assessing setting effects on heritage assets may be revised because historic setting effects are most likely to occur within the visual envelope of the site, which may differ from the study area defined for the purposes of the PEIR. Assessment of cumulative and in combination effects will be undertaken and reported in the ES. Following completion of the assessment, the mitigation approaches for the historic environment within the project will be finalised and reported in the ES.
7.9.4 7.9.5
Page 106
Section 8: Land quality
8 8.1
8.1.1 8.1.2
Land quality Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant land quality effects at the Putney Bridge Foreshore site. This section should be read in conjunction with Section 13 (Groundwater), Section 14 (Surface Water), Section 5 (Aquatic Ecology) and Section 6 (Terrestrial Ecology).
8.2
8.2.1
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to land quality are as follows: Temporary works include a campshed constructed on the foreshore, dredging and fenders. A connection tunnel would be constructed to the main tunnel. The tunnels would all be located within the London Clay Formation and it is not proposed that any dewatering or ground treatment would be undertaken at this location. Measures incorporated into the draft CoCP which aim to substantially reduce risks associated with construction activities include: a. the remediation of the site so it is fit for purpose (where required) b. the use of appropriate PPE as well as training and welfare for construction staff c. confined space working measures where applicable d. the employment of UXO specialist advice.
8.2.2
8.2.3
8.2.4
The CoCP includes measures to minimise the migration of dusts during construction activities. These include the use of wheel washing at site entrances, damping down during dry weather and covering and safe storage of potentially contaminating materials (if any).
8.3
8.3.1 8.3.2

Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. There were no site specific comments from consultees for this particular site.
Construction and operation

8.3.3 8.3.4 The construction and operational phase assessment methodology follows the methodology provided in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.
Page 107

8.3.5 The assumptions and limitations associated with this study are presented in Volume 5. There are no site specific assumptions and limitations for the site.
8.4
8.4.1
Baseline conditions
Baseline conditions have been determined for the development confines and for a distance of up to 250m beyond (in order to take into account off site contamination sources and receptors). The baseline data is sourced from the Thames Tunnel Geographical Information Systems (GIS) database, including historic maps and environmental records, together with a walkover survey and stakeholder consultation. A full list of the data sets drawn upon in this assessment is presented in Volume 5 methodology.
8.4.2
Site walkover
8.4.3 8.4.4 8.4.5 A site walkover of the site at Putney Bridge Foreshore was undertaken on the 4th November 2010. No potential contaminative sources were identified during the survey. No tidal outflows were visible within the river wall at the time of the survey. The site walkover notes are provided in Appendix B.
Site history and surroundings with potential for contaminants

8.4.6 The table below provides a summary of the site history, including potentially contaminative activities and principal contaminants of concern in and around the site. The table was produced following inspection of the historic mapping dating from the late 19th century to the present day held by the project, together with the site walkover in order to more fully understand the site and surrounding area. The locations of the sites described below are shown on Vol 10 Figure 8.4.1. Vol 10 Figure 8.4.1 Land quality contaminative land use (see Volume 10 Figures document) Vol 10 Table 8.4.1 Land quality contaminative land use Ref Item Inferred date of operation Potentially contaminative substances associated with item
8.4.7
On-site None Off-site Putney brewery (185m south) Volatile organic compounds, total petroleum hydrocarbons, heavy metals, ethanol/methanol, ammonia, chlorinated alkalis, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes
c1896-1969
Page 108
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Ref 2 3 Item Smithy (110m south) Wharves southern bank of River Thames (adjacent east) Wharves northern bank of River Thames (165m north east) Soap works (80m south) Sawing and planing mills (130m south east) Omnibus garages (110m south) Garage/omnibus depot (20m south east) Blind and shelter works (180m south) Electrical substation (130m south east) Sports equipment factory (115m south east) Engineering works (75m south east) Motor engineering works (115m south) Corporation yard (165m north east) Tank (130m south) Electrical substation (125m south west) Electrical substation 180m south west Works (195m north east) c1951-1966 c1951-1983 Inferred date of operation c1896 c1896-1988
Section 8: Land quality Potentially contaminative substances associated with item Heavy metals, PAHs
Hydrocarbons, heavy metals c1896-present c1896 c1896 c1916 c1916 c1951-1952 Phenols, PAHs, aromatic hydrocarbons Heavy metals, arsenic, boron, sulphate, phenol, acetone, aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs and cresols Oil/fuel hydrocarbons, aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, organolead compounds, heavy metals and asbestos Heavy metals, arsenic, boron, nitrate, sulphate, sulphide, asbestos, aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs, PCBs, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons. Oils, PCBs Heavy metals, solvents, hydrocarbons, asbestos, VOCs Heavy metals, arsenic, boron, nitrate, sulphate, sulphide, asbestos, aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs, PCBs, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons Tars, turpentine, creosote, zinc chloride, hydrocarbons. Contents unknown Oils, PCBs
4 5 6 7 8
10 11 12 13
c1951-1983 c1951
14 15 16 17
c1951-1966 c1951 c1966-present c1966-present
18
c1962
Heavy metals, arsenic, boron, nitrate, sulphate, sulphide, asbestos, aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs, PCBs, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons
8.4.8
In summary the historical mapping has identified no contaminative on site uses. Whilst the search radius has identified pockets of previous industrial activities in the surrounding area, it is considered unlikely that any would
Page 109
have significantly affected the soils in the location of the proposed worksite. Geology and hydrogeology 8.4.9 Data from British Geological Survey together with logs from boreholes excavated as part of previous investigations of the site indicate the geological succession summarised in the table below. Controlled waters (i.e. surface water and groundwater) can potentially represent a pathway for the spread of mobile contaminants as well as being a sensitive environmental receptor. The Environment Agency (EA) Aquifer Designation maps have been used to classify the geological units according to their aquifer status which is also presented in the table below. The site is classified by the EA as not being within a Source Protection Zone (SPZ) for groundwater that is extracted for potable supply. Vol 10 Table 8.4.2 Land quality site geology and hydrogeology Geological Unit/ Strata River Terrace Deposits Description Medium dense to dense to dense sand and gravel (predominantly quartz sand and flint gravel). Expected to be slightly sandy clay Sandy clay/ clayey sand Approximate depth below ground level (m) 0-0.40 Hydrogeological classification Secondary A Superficial Aquifer
8.4.10
8.4.11
London Clay Formation Harwich Formation (Swanscombe Member)
0.40-47.2
Unproductive strata Unproductive strata
47.2+
Unexploded ordnance 8.4.12 During World Wars I and II, the London area was subject to bombing. In some cases bombs failed to detonate on impact. During construction works, unexploded ordnance or bombs (UXO) are sometimes encountered and require safe disposal. A desk based assessment for UXO threat was undertaken for ground investigation works at the proposed development site. The report reviews information sources such as the Ministry of Defence (MoD), Public Records Office and the Port of London Authority (PLA). The report establishes that the nearby areas suffered severe bomb damage during the 1940 to 1941 bombing campaign and a number of direct hits in the surrounding area. Taking into account the findings of this study and the known extent of the proposed works, it was considered that
8.4.13
8.4.14
Page 110
there is an overall high threat from UXO at the Putney Bridge Foreshore site. Ground investigation 8.4.15 The following table summarises the Thames Tunnel ground investigation data from the boreholes located in the vicinity of the preferred site, Borehole SR1112 (land) and SR2083 (river). The table below and Vol 10 Figure 8.4.2 identifies the location of the boreholes in relation to the preferred site at Putney Bridge Foreshore. The results of the ground investigation have been compared against human health screening values for commercial/light industrial land and to Port of London Approved Sediment Quality Guidelines. Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) are used for the shallow aquifer / London Clay as the groundwater may be in continuity with the tidal River Thames. Vol 10 Figure 8.4.2 Land quality - proposed borehole locations (see Volume 10 Figures document) Vol 10 Table 8.4.3 Land quality ground investigation data Borehole refs. Soil contamination Testing SR1112 SR1112 no contaminants above human health screening values in the four samples of made ground that were tested. 8.4.17 Groundwater contamination testing No exeedances of EQS in groundwater sample taken from standpipe with response zone in the London Clay.
8.4.16
Soil gas testing was undertaken on a single occasion within the standpipe installed within the London Clay. Results of monitoring recorded 3.8 % volume of CO2, 0.2% volume of CH4 and 18.3% volume of O2. Gas flow rate was recorded at 5.4 l/hour. At Putney Bridge Foreshore, a single sample of River Terrace Deposits from 0.5m depth in borehole SR2083 was analysed for a range of common contaminants and compared against sediment guidelines. The results of the analysis showed that arsenic, cadmium and copper concentrations were recorded above the TEL (see table below). No results were recorded as having contaminant values above PEL. Vol 10 Table 8.4.4 Land quality sediment data Contaminant Concentration of contaminant (mg/kg) 15 0.9 25 Threshold Effects Level (TEL) (mg/kg) 7.24 0.7 18.7 Probable Effects Level (PEL) (mg/kg) 41.6 4.2 108
8.4.18
8.4.19 8.4.20
Arsenic Cadmium Copper
Page 111
Other environmental records

8.4.21 Details of environmental records for the vicinity of the site held by the EA and other bodies were obtained from the Thames Tunnel GIS which is partially sourced from Landmark Information Group. The information is summarised below. Significant records are discussed in further detail after the table below. (see Volume 10 Figures document) Vol 10 Table 8.4.5 Land quality environmental records and waste sites Activity Licensed industrial activities Hazardous substance sites Pollution incidents to controlled water* Waste treatment and disposal Sites Landfill sites Industrial authorisations (IPPC, COMAH) Past potential contaminated industrial uses 8.4.22 8.4.23 8.4.24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 On-site 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 Within 250m of site boundary
Vol 10 Figure 8.4.3 Land quality - environmental records and waste sites
There are no environmental records of potentially contaminating activities within the site boundary. Within a 250m radius of the preferred site at Putney Bridge Foreshore, there are three past potential contaminative uses recorded. Cross referencing with the historical mapping indicates that these relate to the former engineering works and wharves to the east and corporation yard to the north. These are discussed in more detail Vol 10 Table 8.4.1. There are also three recorded pollution incidents to controlled water; these are likely to be from sewage materials entering the river at the CSO and do not include the regular CSO discharges which occur at the site. Technical engagement Consultation with the London Borough of Wandsworth environmental health department was undertaken as part of the baseline data gathering. The local authority states that it is unlikely that there is an issue of land contamination at this part of the Putney Bridge foreshore. The land is not recorded within London Borough of Wandsworths Register of Contaminated Land under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The London Borough of Wandsworth database did not contain any events that may indicate that there is polluted land at the site, such as discoloration of soils or malodours.
8.4.25
8.4.26 8.4.27 8.4.28
8.4.29
Page 112
There were also two high explosive bombs recorded to have fallen in the area during the Second World War: one at the approximate national grid reference (NGR) 523971, 175787 and another at NGR 524226, 175485 (refer to UXO assessment in 8.4.12).
8.5
8.5.1
Construction assessment
For land quality, the assessment is based on the likely baseline conditions which would be experienced on commencement of construction in Year 1 of construction. It is not anticipated that land quality baseline conditions would alter significantly from those described above by the commencement of the construction.
8.5.2
Development of conceptual model

8.5.3 A key element of the preliminary risk assessment for land quality is the development of source-pathway-receptor conceptual model which aims to understand the presence and significance of potentially complete pollutant linkages. The methodology for undertaking this analysis is provided in Volume 5. The following section outlines the sources, pathways and receptors which are relevant to the land quality assessment at the site. Sources of contamination 8.5.6 8.5.7 The following sources of contamination have been identified: On site a. Naturally occurring sulphate within the London Clay Formation. b. Historic shallow contamination within foreshore sediments c. CSO discharge d. Potentially elevated land gas/ depleted oxygen within the River Terrace Deposits/ London Clay/ Lambeth Group e. Possible unexploded ordnance 8.5.8 Off site a. No viable contamination sources Pathways 8.5.9 The following pathways for contamination have been identified: a. human uptake through ground gas via migration through permeable strata and conduits; b. horizontal and vertical migration of leachable contaminants via groundwater within the alluvium and River Terrace Deposits; c. vertical migration of contaminants along preferential pathways created by excavation of diaphragm wall; d. mobilisation of contaminants in river water through disturbance of contaminated river bed sediments;
8.5.4 8.5.5
Page 113
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore e. direct runoff into the River Thames;
f. direct contact of soils with construction materials; g. gas migration through pipes/foundations and into structures; and h. accidental detonation of UXO during ground investigation or construction activities. Receptors 8.5.10 The following receptors for contamination have been identified: a. Construction workers b. Site end users (maintenance staff and public) c. Off site receptors - residents and workers d. Built environment e. Controlled waters - surface water f. Controlled waters - groundwater in shallow aquifer g. Aquatic ecology 8.5.11 8.5.12 The sensitivity of the land quality receptors are defined in Vol 5 Table 7.4.2. The following section discusses the potential impacts on receptors as a result of the existing land quality conditions at the site. Impacts and effects upon construction workers 8.5.13 Desk based information suggests that the soils at the site are unlikely to be significantly contaminated and thus are unlikely pose a risk to construction workers via direct contact pathways. There is however the potential for the build-up of asphyxiant or potentially explosive gases associated with confined space construction. Overall therefore the magnitude of the impact is likely to be negligible, giving a slight effect (not significant). Impacts and effects upon off-site receptors 8.5.14 The construction works may result in the creation of new pathways for contaminants to migrate to adjacent sites e.g. via wind-borne dust during excavated material handling and storage. So whilst the sensitivity of adjacent residential sites is moderate to high, the impact from this would be negligible giving a slight effect (not significant). Impacts and effects upon built environment 8.5.16 High levels of certain contaminants, if contained within subsurface materials, can lead to impacts on the built environment (both existing and proposed), including chemical attack on buried concrete structures. Additionally detonation of potential unidentified buried UXO could represent a risk during construction. The built environment is a low sensitivity receptor and following the proposed design procedures such as
8.5.15
Page 114
site investigation, UXO surveys and remediation, the magnitude of impact is considered to be negligible, giving a negligible effect (not significant). Impacts and effects on controlled waters - groundwater 8.5.17 The site is underlain by the River Terrace Deposits which represents the upper aquifer and is classified as a Secondary Aquifer and is a moderate sensitivity receptor. With the proposed design measures outlined in Volume 6, the magnitude of impact from construction works is expected to be negligible giving a negligible effect overall (not significant). Vol 10 Table 8.5.1 Land quality impacts-construction Impact Health impact on construction workers Magnitude Negligible soils unlikely to be contaminated plus design measures such as use of correct PPE, safety briefings and remediation of contaminated soils reduce impacts substantially. Negligible contaminated soils are unlikely to be encountered additionally design measures for dust suppression, correct storage of potentially contaminated materials, wheel washing at site entrance would substantially reduce impacts in the event of finding contamination. Negligible - design measures such as UXO specialists employed to advise staff reduce impacts substantially. Negligible - design measures such investigation for concrete mix design reduces impacts.
8.5.18
Health impact on off-site receptors- residents and workers
Damage to built environment existing structures
Damage to built environment proposed structures
Vol 10 Table 8.5.2 Land quality receptors - construction Receptor Construction workers Off-site receptors residents and workers Built environment - existing Built environment - proposed Value/sensitivity and justification High intensive below ground construction Moderate to High residential properties very close Low infrastructure Low infrastructure
Page 115
Vol 10 Table 8.5.3 Land quality effects construction Effect Slight effect on construction workers Slight effect on off-site receptors Negligible effect on built environment - existing Negligible effect on built environment - proposed Significance Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant
8.6
8.6.1
Operational assessment
Impacts and effects on future site users The future site users include maintenance workers who would be working on the site occasionally and members of the public who would be able to access the completed hardstanding above the shaft. These are low to moderate sensitivity receptors. Maintenance workers, as they will visit only very occasionally and will also be briefed, wear PPE etc, will be low sensitivity receptors, members of the public are considered moderate sensitivity receptors due to the treatment of the accessible area. As the operational site is some distance above the foreshore, there is not considered to be any impacts to the public from pre-existing contamination in the completed development. There is some potential for maintenance personnel to be impacted by elevated ground gases. The completed shaft is designed to have sophisticated gas and odour control measures as part of the design due to gassing source represented by the tunnel contents. Shaft design (including secondary lining) would ensure that any outflow from the shaft is unlikely and that there is a negligible impact to the identified receptors giving a negligible effect (not significant). Impacts and effects upon built environment The principal impact relates to the potential for the degradation of new structures by attack from deleterious substances which may in turn reduce the integrity of the structure (and could promote leakage of sewage through the walls of the shaft). The built environment is a low sensitivity receptor and with the inclusion of the proposed design measures and soil remediation (as necessary), the impact of the effect is low giving a negligible effect overall (not significant). In addition it is possible that elevated gases may be able to impact proposed above ground structures. These however are limited and design measures, such as site investigation, gas risk assessment and the incorporation of measures into building design (such as gas resistant
8.6.2
8.6.3
8.6.4
8.6.5
8.6.6
8.6.7
Page 116
membranes if necessary), mean the magnitude of impact is negligible. This gives a negligible effect (not significant). Vol 10 Table 8.6.1 Land quality impacts - operation Impact Health impact on site end users Magnitude Negligible design measures such as remediation of heavily contaminated soils and provision of capping layers as appropriate Negligible - design measures such as incorporation of gas membranes in buildings and suitable concrete mix design reduce impacts Negligible - design measures such as remediation of heavily contaminated soils reduce risks substantially.
Damage to built environment proposed structures
Damage to built environment existing structures
Vol 10 Table 8.6.2 Land quality receptors - operation Receptor Site end users Built environment existing Built environment - proposed Value/sensitivity and justification Low industrial/infrastructure end use Low industrial/infrastructure Low industrial/infrastructure
Vol 10 Table 8.6.3 Land quality effects - operation Effect Negligible effect on end users Negligible effect on built environment - existing Negligible effect on built environment proposed Significance Not significant Not significant Not significant
8.7
5.9.6
Construction The assessment has not identified the need for further site specific mitigation measures during the construction phase. Operation The assessment has not identified the need for further site specific mitigation measures during the operational phase.
8.7.1
Page 117
8.8
Vol 10 Table 8.8.1 Land quality construction assessment Significance of effect Not significant Not required Not required Not required Not required Not significant Not significant Not significant Mitigation
Assessment summary
Receptor
Construction workers
Slight effect on construction workers
Significance of residual effect No residual effects identified No residual effects identified No residual effects identified No residual effects identified
Off-site receptors residents and workers
Slight effect on off-site receptors
Built environment existing
Negligible effect on built environment - existing
Built environment proposed
Negligible effect on built environment - proposed
Vol 10 Table 8.8.2 Land quality assessment - operation Significance of effect Not significant Not significant Not significant Mitigation Not required Not required Not required
Receptor
Site end users
Negligible effect on end users
Significance of residual effect No residual effects identified No residual effects identified No residual effects identified
Built environment existing
Negligible effect on built environment - existing
Built environment proposed
Negligible effect on built environment - proposed
Page 118
8.9
8.9.1 8.9.2 8.9.3 8.9.4
New data from site investigations (including new boreholes and foreshore samplings) will be reviewed and the baseline updated as required. Assessment of cumulative and in combination effects will be undertaken and reported in the ES. Following completion of the assessment the mitigation approaches for land quality within the project will be finalised and reported in the ES. Impacts on groundwater, surface water and aquatic ecology will be assessed and reported in the ES.
Page 119
Section 9: Noise and vibration
9 9.1
9.1.1
Noise and vibration Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant noise and vibration effects at the Putney Bridge Foreshore site. This section includes an assessment of the following: a. Noise and vibration from the construction site activities b. Noise from construction traffic on roads outside the site c. Noise and vibration from the operation of the site.
9.1.2
9.1.3
The drive for the main tunnel does not run directly beneath this location. Noise and vibration from the tunnelling activities associated with the main tunnel are considered in (Volume 6).
9.2
9.2.1
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to noise and vibration are as follows. Construction Measures incorporated into the draft CoCP to reduce noise and vibration impacts include: a. careful selection of construction plant (conforming to the relevant SI), construction methods and programming b. equipment to be suitably sited so as to minimise noise impact on sensitive receptors c. use of site enclosures, and temporary stockpiles, where practicable and necessary, to provide acoustic screening
9.2.2
d. choice of routes and programming for the transportation of construction materials, excavated material and personnel to and from the site e. careful programming so that activities which may generate significant noise are planned with regard to local occupants and sensitive receptors. 9.2.3 9.2.4 It has been assumed for the purpose of this assessment that the hoarding height will be 2.4m at this location. Where the need for additional noise control measures (beyond standard best practicable means measures described in the CoCP) has been identified, these have not been assumed for the purposes of the assessment. Where that the assessment indicates that these are likely to be required, this information has been added to the section on mitigation. For the purposes of the noise and vibration assessment the construction activities have been grouped into the following stages of work: a. Enabling works (including demolition)
9.2.5
Page 120
b. Foreshore works (construction of temporary cofferdam and campsheds) c. Shaft sinking and tunnelling d. Interception and CSO works e. Completion work (including landscaping, and construction and fit-out of permanent facility). 9.2.6 9.2.7 The above ground works (activities a-c) have the potential to create airborne noise and vibration impacts. Stages a, b, c and e have the potential to generate groundborne noise and vibration impacts, namely from vibratory compaction and breaking out. For activity b, Silent piling methods are proposed for the cofferdam construction, and for stage d, the connection tunnel would be constructed by tunnel excavator and not tunnel boring machine. These are considered low noise and low vibration methods, and have not been quantitatively assessed as it is considered no significant effects would arise from these activities. Specific construction plant information for activities d and e (interception/CSO works and landscaping respectively) is not available at this stage of the design so these works have not been assessed at this stage. However, these activities are assumed to be much smaller in scale than the rest of the works, would not involve heavy construction operations and the in the case of the interception and CSO works, would in the main take place underground. This information will be assessed in the ES once the information becomes available. The phase two consultation logistics strategy considers the delivery and removal of 90% of cofferdam fill material by river, with all other materials transported by road. The barges will be moored on campsheds at the site. Estimated vehicle and barge movement numbers are presented in Section 3. Construction traffic would use the A219 (Putney Bridge High Street), Thames Place and the Embankment to transport materials and equipment to and from the site. All of the activities would be carried out during standard (core) hours as identified in Vol 10 Table 3.3.1. As such, only daytime working is considered at this location. The potential for 24-hour working has been proposed during the construction of the connection tunnel, however this work would be carried out below ground-level and as such it is considered that noise from these activities would not cause any disturbance. However, the potential for any associated activities at surface levels would be examined further in the ES when more information is available. Operation 9.2.13 The permanent installation includes structures to house ventilation equipment alongside electrical and control equipment. This plant equipment would be required to operate under various different scenarios
9.2.8
9.2.9
9.2.10
9.2.11
9.2.12
Page 121
dependent on the flows into and along the tunnel, with the potential to operate at any time of the day or night. The plant installed and the cascade events have the potential to create noise and vibration impacts. Likely impacts arising from operational maintenance are also considered in this assessment.
9.3
9.3.1
Assessment methodology
Scoping and engagement Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. There were no site specific comments from consultees for this particular site for noise and vibration. Baseline The baseline methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site. Construction The construction phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. Any site specific variations are described below. At this location, the construction activities have been assessed over the period of three and a half years. Baseline traffic data are not currently available, and therefore although peak traffic movements are known, it is not possible to calculate the change in noise level that would arise at the identified receptor locations. A qualitative assessment has therefore been undertaken to consider the likelihood of a significant effect given current traffic levels and considering the proposed peak daily lorry movements. Operation The operational phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site. Assumptions and limitations Noise-related environmental design measures have been assumed as defined in the CoCP. Those of relevance to noise and vibration are listed in Section 4.2 above. The assessment has been carried out based on the assumption that the noisiest two activities within any one stage could potentially occur onsite simultaneously for the duration of the stage. This is an extremely conservative approach, as the activities are unlikely to last the duration of any one stage. At the current level of construction planning, this is considered a reasonable assumption and would be refined as the construction methodology develops. The assessment of construction traffic effects has been based on predicted numbers of construction traffic movements (presented in Section
9.3.2
9.3.3
9.3.4 9.3.5
9.3.6
9.3.7
9.3.8
9.3.9
Page 122
3), using professional judgement at this stage. This assessment will be revisited and presented in the ES upon receipt of baseline traffic data. 9.3.10 While it is considered that there is a possibility for noise and vibration effects arising from water cascading during tunnel filling events at receptors very close to drop shafts, it has not been possible to adequately assess this as part of the PEIR. The likely noise and vibration emissions however be estimated as the cascade design develops and will be reported in the ES.
9.4
9.4.1
Baseline conditions
This section reviews the setting and receptor characteristics of the site for the purposes of this assessment. The site is located on the embankment and foreshore of the River Thames, within the Borough of Wandsworth. The site is bounded by the River Thames to the north, east and west. The nearest residences to the site are flats at Kenilworth Court and Richmond Mansions, located to the south of the site. To the west of the site are the Star and Garter Mansions and to the southeast is the new Putney Wharf Tower development. The potential for residential moorings situated to the northwest of the site at Putney Pier has also been identified and these have been included in the assessment. The residential properties selected for the noise and vibration assessment are identified in Vol 10 Table 9.4.1. These are shown in plan view in Vol 10 Figure 9.4.1 and selected to be representative of the range of noise climates where sensitive receivers are situated around the site. The approximate numbers of properties affected at each of these locations is indicated in Vol 10 Table 9.4.2. Beyond these receptors there are other residential locations which are screened from the site by intervening buildings. Vol 10 Figure 9.4.1 Noise and vibration residential receptors (see Volume 10 Figures document)
9.4.2
9.4.3
9.4.4
9.4.5
Vol 10 Table 9.4.1 also includes the other assessed non-residential noise sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the development; St Marys Church, a Grade 2 listed building, which lies to the southeast of the site. In addition to these locations, a caf at 2 Putney High Street has planning consent to extend its premises into a vault beneath Putney High Street which would front on to Watermans Green (a grassed area at the apex of Lower Richmond Road and Putney Bridge on the riverfront), via glazed doors. The consent allows for the use of the Green by caf customers The site is relatively noisy being dominated by road traffic noise from Putney High Street, Lower Richmond Road and other more distant roads around the site. A baseline noise survey has been carried out around the site according to the baseline measurement method set out in Volume 5, Section 2. The specific details of this survey, such as the measurement times, locations
9.4.6
9.4.7
9.4.8
Page 123
measured results and local conditions are described in Appendix C. The summarised noise level results are shown below in Vol 10 Table 9.4.1. Vol 10 Table 9.4.1 Noise and vibration noise surveys Ref Receptor addresses Local authority Measured daytime ambient noise level, dBLAeq, 671 741 741 Noise Survey Location
PB1 Star & Garter Mansions PB2 1-24 Kenilworth Court PB3 31-78 Kenilworth Court and 1-10 Richmond Mansions PB4 St Marys Church PB5 1-67 Putney Wharf Tower PB6 Residential moorings PB7 Caf 2 Putney High Street (proposed)
1
London Borough of Wandsworth London Borough of Wandsworth London Borough of Wandsworth
PWH1X Noise 4 PWH1X Noise 3 PWH1X Noise 3
London Borough of Wandsworth London Borough of Wandsworth London Borough of Wandsworth London Borough of Wandsworth
751 751 671 741
PWH1X Noise 2 PWH1X Noise 2 PWH1X Noise 4 PWH1X Noise 3
Faade Level
9.4.9
Baseline traffic data collection is ongoing and is thus not reported in the PEIR, and therefore although peak traffic movements are known it is not possible to calculate the quantitative change in noise level that would arise at the identified receptor locations. Manual traffic counts could not be taken during the noise survey at because of the high volumes of traffic. For vibration, significance is not based on existing vibration levels but an absolute level, considered in combination with other value judgements. The site at present does not have appreciable levels of vibration. It is considered that the levels of vibration around the site are low at present, and they are unlikely to rise for any reason between the present time and the future baseline.
9.4.10
Receptor sensitivity
9.4.11 The noise sensitive receptors have been assessed according to their sensitivity, according to the methodology outlined in Volume 5 Section 2. The sensitivities of all assessed receptors are presented in Vol 10 Table 9.4.2.
Page 124
All residential properties have been regarded as having high sensitivity. The remaining assessed building is a church which is considered to be of medium sensitivity. Vol 10 Table 9.4.2 Noise and vibration receptors Ref Receptor addresses Building Use Sensitivity No. of noise sensitive properties/ areas Residential Residential Residential High High High 14 24 53
PB1 PB2 PB3
Star & Garter Mansions 1-24 Kenilworth Court 31-78 Kenilworth Court and 1-10 Richmond Mansions St Marys Church 1-67 Putney Wharf Tower Residential Moorings Caf 2 Putney High Street (proposed
PB4 PB5 PB6 PB7
Place of worship Residential Residential Caf
Medium High High Medium
1 67 2 1
9.4.13
The criteria for determining the significance of noise effects from construction sources are dependent upon the existing ambient noise levels. From the ambient noise levels measured during the baseline survey, the assessment category and assessment noise threshold levels for the receptors near Putney Bridge foreshore worksite are as shown in the table below. As described in the assessment methodology, this follows the ABC method for determining construction noise significance defined in BS5228:2009 34. Vol 10 Table 9.4.3 Noise assessment categories - construction Ref Noise sensitive receptor Ambient noise level, rounded to nearest 5dBLAeq1 65 75 Assessment category1 Significance criterion threshold level1, dBLAeq, 10hour 70 75
PB1 PB2
Star & Garter Mansions 1-24 Kenilworth
B C
Page 125
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Court PB3 31-78 Kenilworth 75 Court and 1-10 Richmond Mansions St Marys Church 1-67 Putney Wharf Tower Residential Moorings Caf 2 Putney High Street (proposed 75 75 65 75
75
PB4 PB5 PB6 PB7

1 2
n/a2 C B n/a2
n/a2 75 70 n/a2
From ABC method BS5228:2009 ABC method BS5228:2009 does not apply directly to non-residential receptors
9.5
9.5.1

The noise level for the base case for the assessment is expected to be as measured during the baseline noise surveys conducted in 2011. Where there is a variation in the conditions during the first year of construction, it is likely that the noise levels would increase very slightly compared to the measured data from 2011 (due to natural traffic growth), and as such, an assessment based on data from 2011 would be worst case. It is not considered that there are any other circumstances at this location that would cause the baseline noise levels at the receptor locations to change significantly between 2011 and the first year of construction. For vibration, it is considered that the levels of vibration around the site are low at present, and they are unlikely to change between the present time and the future base case. As noted, a caf at 2 Putney High Street has planning consent to extend its premises into a vault beneath Putney High Street. The consent allows for use of part of Watermans Green in association with the caf The development case is therefore assumed to be the base case as identified in 2011 with the proposed caf receptor described above plus any additional noise and vibration sources associated.
9.5.2
9.5.3
9.5.4
9.5.5 Predictions of construction noise have been carried out based on the information available to date and presented in Section 3. Noise measures included in the CoCP have been assumed for the purposes of the assessment. Construction noise 9.5.6 The results of the assessment of construction noise are presented in Vol 10 Table 9.5.1 to Vol 10 Table 9.5.5.
Page 126
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Star & Garter Mansions 9.5.7
At these residential receptors, the impact criterion is not exceeded at the ground or upper floor levels. Based on the BS5228 criterion this would not be rated as a significant impact for any part of the works. Vol 10 Table 9.5.1 Noise at PB1, Star & Garter Mansions construction Receptor No. of noise Value/sensitivity sensitive properties 14 Residential Significance criterion, dBLAeq Magnitude/ justification Excess above criterion, dBLAeq -11 -21 -16 -12 Approx. activity duration, months 6 9 6 3
Star & Garter Mansions Activity Impact (noise level1, dBLAeq)
Ground Floor Enabling works Foreshore works Shaft sinking Connection tunnels 4th Floor2 Enabling works Foreshore works Shaft sinking Connection tunnels
1 2
59 49 54 58
70 70 70 70
69 59 64 68
70 70 70 70
-1 -11 -6 -2
6 9 6 3
Construction noise only
Assessment floor level is for a worst case scenario, which is not necessarily the highest floor level
1-24 Kenilworth Court 9.5.8 At these residences, the impact criterion threshold is exceeded at the top floors for nine months. This is due to the absence of attenuation from screening on upper floors of the building and the proximity of the building to the works. Based on the BS5228 criterion this would be rated as significant impact for the higher floors for all stages of the work with the exception of the foreshore works and shaft sinking.
Page 127
Vol 10 Table 9.5.2 Noise at PB2, 1-24 Kenilworth Court - construction Receptor No. of noise sensitive properties 24 Significance criterion, dBLAeq Value/sensitivity
1-24 Kenilworth Court Activity Impact (noise level1, dBLAeq)
Residential Magnitude/ justification Excess above criterion, dBLAeq -6 -15 -10 -6 Approx. activity duration, months 6 9 6 3
Ground Floor Enabling works Foreshore works Shaft sinking Connection tunnels 4th Floor2 Enabling works Foreshore works Shaft sinking Connection tunnels
1 2
69 60 65 69
75 75 75 75
79 70 75 79
75 75 75 75
+4 -5 0 +4
6 9 6 3
31-78 Kenilworth Court and 1-10 Richmond Mansions 9.5.9 At these residences, the impact criterion threshold is exceeded at the top floors for nine months. This is due to the absence of attenuation from screening on upper floors of the building and the proximity of the building to the works. Based on the BS5228 criterion this would be rated as significant impact for the higher floors for all stages of the work with the exception of the foreshore works and shaft sinking. Vol 10 Table 9.5.3 Noise at PB3 - construction Receptor No. of noise sensitive properties 53 Value/sensitivity
31-78 Kenilworth Court and 1-10 Richmond Mansions
Residential
Page 128
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Activity Impact (noise level1, dBLAeq)
Section 9: Noise and vibration Significance criterion, dBLAeq Magnitude/ justification Excess above criterion, dBLAeq -6 -15 -10 -6 Approx. activity duration, months 6 9 6 3
Ground floor Enabling works Foreshore works Shaft sinking Connection tunnels 4th Floor2 Enabling works Foreshore works Shaft sinking Connection tunnels
1 2
69 60 65 69
75 75 75 75
79 70 75 79
75 75 75 75
+4 -5 0 +4
6 9 6 3
St Marys Church 9.5.10 It should be noted that the BS5228 ABC method does not apply directly to non-residential receptors; hence impact has been evaluated based on the absolute noise level and the predicted noise level relative to the ambient noise. At this receptor, there is no predicted increase from ambient noise levels for the majority of activities. Therefore the impact is of low magnitude and would not be expected to cause disturbance.
9.5.11
Page 129
Vol 10 Table 9.5.4 Noise at PB4, St Marys Church - construction Receptor No. of noise sensitive properties 1 Impact (noise level1, dBLAeq) 63 Ambient baseline dBLAeq Value/ sensitivity Medium Magnitude/ justification
St Marys Church Activity
Ground Level Enabling Works Foreshore Works Shaft Sinking 75 Construction noise does not exceed baseline ambient noise level over 6 months Construction noise does not exceed baseline ambient noise level over 9 months Construction noise does not exceed baseline ambient noise level over 6 months Construction noise does not exceed baseline ambient noise level over 3 months
53
75
58
75
Connection Tunnels
1
62
75
1-67 Putney Wharf Tower 9.5.12 At these residential receptors, the impact criterion is not exceeded at any floor for the duration of the works. Based on the BS5228 criterion this would not be considered a significant impact. Vol 10 Table 9.5.5 Noise at PB5, 1-67 Putney Wharf Tower construction Receptor No. of noise sensitive properties 67 Significance criterion, dBLAeq Value/sensitivity
1-67 Putney Wharf Tower Activity Impact (noise level1, dBLAeq)
Residential Magnitude/ justification Excess above criterion, dBLAeq -16 Approx. activity duration, months 6
Ground floor Enabling works 59 75
Page 130
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Receptor
Section 9: Noise and vibration No. of noise sensitive properties 67 Significance criterion, dBLAeq Value/sensitivity
1-67 Putney Wharf Tower Activity Impact (noise level1, dBLAeq)
Residential Magnitude/ justification Excess above criterion, dBLAeq -26 -21 -17 Approx. activity duration, months 9 6 3
Foreshore works Shaft sinking Connection tunnels 6th Floor2 Enabling works Foreshore works Shaft sinking Connection tunnels
1 2
49 54 58
75 75 75
69 59 64 68
75 75 75 75
-6 -16 -11 -7
6 9 6 3
Residential Moorings 9.5.13 At these residential moorings, the impact criterion is not exceeded. Based on the BS5228 criterion this would not be rated as a significant impact for any part of the works Vol 10 Table 9.5.6 Noise construction impacts PB6 Residential Moorings Receptor No. of noise Value/sensitivity sensitive properties 2 Residential Significance criterion, dBLAeq Magnitude/ justification Excess above criterion, dBLAeq Approx. activity duration, months
Residential Moorings Activity Impact (noise level1, dBLAeq)
Page 131
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Receptor
Section 9: Noise and vibration No. of noise Value/sensitivity sensitive properties 2 Residential Significance criterion, dBLAeq Magnitude/ justification Excess above criterion, dBLAeq -7 -17 -12 -8 Approx. activity duration, months 6 9 6 3
Residential Moorings Activity Impact (noise level1, dBLAeq)
Enabling works Foreshore works Shaft sinking Connection tunnels

1 2
63 53 58 62
70 70 70 70
Proposed caf at 2 Putney High Street 9.5.14 It should be noted that the BS5228 ABC method does not apply directly to non-residential receptors; hence impact has been evaluated based on the absolute noise level and the predicted noise level relative to the ambient noise. This ground-level location would be screened by the site hoarding. Given the predicted noise level at this location and that there would be little or no noise increase, the impact is considered to be of low magnitude. This would not be expected to cause disturbance to caf users occupying the basement level space leading from the caf, or caf users on Watermans Green. Vol 10 Table 9.5.7 Noise at PB6, Caf at 2 Putney High Street construction
Receptor No. of noise sensitive properties 1 Ambient baseline dBLAeq Value/ sensitivity Medium Magnitude/ justification
9.5.15
Cafe -2 Putney High Street Activity Impact (noise level1, dBLAeq)
Ground Level Enabling Works 69 75 Construction noise does not exceed baseline ambient noise level over 6 months
Page 132

Receptor

No. of noise sensitive properties 1 Ambient baseline dBLAeq 75 Value/ sensitivity Medium Magnitude/ justification
Cafe -2 Putney High Street Activity Impact (noise level1, dBLAeq) 60
Foreshore Works Shaft Sinking
Construction noise does not exceed baseline ambient noise level over 9 months Construction noise does not exceed baseline ambient noise level over 6 months Construction noise does not exceed baseline ambient noise level over 3 months
65
75
Connection Tunnels
1 2
69
75
Construction traffic 9.5.16 For construction traffic, noise from the barges would be of limited duration and would mostly consist of engine noise of tug boats. Considering the peak number of movements identified in Section 3, it is considered that the increase in noise level would create a low level of impact. For road traffic, the routes around the site all carry heavy traffic flows, except for Embankment and Thames Place. The use of barges greatly reduces the number of lorry movements per day (see Section 3), and the noise impact associated with the increase in HGV traffic is therefore likely to be slight in magnitude. As discussed above this is a qualitative assessment made in the absence of traffic data and would be assessed in more detail in the ES. Construction vibration 9.5.18 The assessment of construction vibration considers events which have the potential to result in damage to buildings or structures and human response to vibration separately using different parameters. The assessment of potential construction vibration impacts at adjacent buildings / structures has been assessed using the predicted Peak Particle Velocity (PPV), the results of the assessment of construction vibration are presented in the table below. PPV (peak particle velocity) vibration levels have been estimated using the method described in BS5228: Part 2: 2009.
9.5.17
9.5.19
Page 133
Vol 10 Table 9.5.8 Vibration impacts - construction Ref Receptor Impact (highest predicted PPV across all activities, mm/s) 0.5 Value/ sensitivity Magnitude and justification
PB1
Star & Garter Mansions
High
No impact: Below threshold for potential cosmetic damage No impact: Below threshold for potential cosmetic damage No impact: Below threshold for potential cosmetic damage No impact: Below threshold for potential cosmetic damage No impact: Below threshold for potential cosmetic damage No impact: Below threshold for potential damage. No impact: Below threshold for potential cosmetic damage
PB2
1-24 Kenilworth Court
2.1
High
PB3
31-78 Kenilworth Court and 1-10 Richmond Mansions St Marys Church
2.1
High
PB4
0.8
Medium
PB5
1-67 Putney Wharf Tower
0.5
High
PB6
Residential Moorings
0.8
High
PB7
Caf 2 Putney High Street (proposed)
2.1
Medium
9.5.20
The vibration levels reported here are all well below the levels likely to cause building damage according to the criteria described in Volume 5 Section 2.
Page 134
The assessment of potential construction vibration impacts due to human response at neighbouring receptor has been assessed using the predicted Vibration Dose Value (VDV), the results from the assessment are presented in the table below. Vol 10 Table 9.5.9 Vibration and human response Ref Receptor Impact (highest predicted VDV across all activities, m/s1.75)1 0.08 Value/ sensitivity Magnitude and justification2
PB1
High
No impact; below Low Probability of Adverse Comment Impact; Low Probability of Adverse Comment Impact; Low Probability of Adverse Comment Non-residential no impact; below Low Probability of Adverse Comment No impact; below Low Probability of Adverse Comment No impact: below Low Probability of Adverse Comment Non-residential no impact; below Low Probability of Adverse Comment
PB2
0.301
High
PB3
31-78 Kenilworth Court and 1-10 Richmond Mansions St Marys Church
0.301
High
PB4
0.17
Medium
PB5
0.081
High
PB6
0.17
High
PB7
0.30
Medium
Worst affected floor Categorisation of magnitude as defined in Volume 5 Section 2
9.5.22
The predicted eVDV levels range from below the Low Probability of Adverse Comment to Low Probability of Adverse Comment as described
Page 135
in Volume 5 Section 2. It should be noted that these predicted levels are based upon the worst case conditions that may arise during vibration intense activities within the site compound. 9.5.23 The precise methods used for this procedure would be considered in more detail in the EIA to verify the predictions. However, this PEIR assessment indicates that there is a risk of some vibration disturbance at some sites but this is categorised as Low Probability of Adverse Comment. In order to reduce the levels as far as possible, the methodology for providing compaction at this location will need to be developed carefully as the design progresses. Summary of construction effects 9.5.24 9.5.25 The table below outlines the significance of effects from all sources of noise and vibration based on the extent of impacts identified above. As described in the general methodology Volume 5 Section 2, the significance of noise effects is based on the predicted impact and other factors, ie the total noise level relative to the significance threshold, the numbers and types of receptors affected and the duration of impact. The significance of vibration effects is assessed on the magnitude of exposure relative to guidance thresholds for disturbance as well as other factors including the number of affected receptors and their uses. Vol 10 Table 9.5.10 Noise and vibration effects - construction Receptor Noise Star & Garter Mansions 1-24 Kenilworth Court 31-78 Kenilworth Court and 1-10 Richmond Mansions St Marys Church 1-67 Putney Wharf Tower Residential Moorings Not significant Significant Significant Significance Vibration Not significant Significant Significant
Not significant Not significant
Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant
Not significant Caf 2 Putney High Street Not significant (proposed) 9.5.26
The assessment identifies significant impacts at 1-24 Kenilworth Court and 31-78 Kenilworth Court and 1-10 Richmond Mansions.
9.6
9.6.1

As discussed in Section 9.5.1, there is likely to be only a small variation in baseline noise levels between the baseline survey and the future baseline year. The noise levels measured in 2011 are therefore likely to form the
Page 136
basis of a conservative assessment, as road traffic noise levels would increase along with traffic increases. 9.6.2 For vibration, no change is assumed between the present time and future base case.
Operational effects
9.6.3 Noise control measures would be included on all plant items as part of the design process to limit noise increases to within appropriate noise limits to avoid disturbance. These limits will help inform the ongoing design of the project, will be relative to the existing background noise levels at each receptor using the methodology in BS4142:1997 35 and will be established in negotiation with the local authority to ensure the limits proposed are acceptable and achievable. Discussions with the local authority are ongoing and will be presented in the ES. It is not possible to quantify the overall change in noise level until this process is complete. However, it is considered that it will be possible to control noise emissions to within appropriate noise limits defined by the local authority to prevent significant effects. The table below contains a summary of the assessment results for the operational noise period. Vol 10 Table 9.6.1 Airborne noise impacts- operation Ref Receptor Impact Value/ sensitivity High Magnitude and justification Change in ambient subject to local authority limits no adverse impact Change in ambient subject to local authority limits no adverse impact Change in ambient subject to local authority limits no adverse impact Change in ambient subject to local authority limits
9.6.4
PB1
Noise level controlled to prevent adverse impact as per BS4142* Noise level controlled to prevent adverse impact as per BS4142* Noise level controlled to prevent adverse impact as per BS4142* Noise level controlled to prevent adverse
PB2
High
PB3
High
PB4
St Marys Church
Medium
Page 137
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Ref Receptor Impact
Section 9: Noise and vibration Value/ sensitivity Magnitude and justification no adverse impact Change in ambient subject to local authority limits no adverse impact Change in ambient subject to local authority limits no adverse impact Change in ambient subject to local authority limits no adverse impact
impact as per BS4142* PB5 1-67 Putney Wharf Tower Noise level controlled to prevent adverse impact as per BS4142* Noise level controlled to prevent adverse impact as per BS4142* Noise level controlled to prevent adverse impact as per BS4142* High
PB6
High
PB7
Medium
BS 4142:1997
9.6.5
As part of the operation of the tunnel, there would need to be routine but infrequent maintenance carried out at the site. This is described further in Section 3. A crane would be required for 10 yearly shaft inspections. This would be carried out during normal working hours, using equipment which is likely to increase ambient noise levels. Given the infrequency of this operation, it is considered that a significant noise effect would not occur. Routine inspections, lasting approximately half a day, would occur every three to six months and would not require heavy plant. As this would be carried out during the daytime with minimal noisy equipment operating over short periods of time, it is considered that further assessment of noise generated by this activity is not required. As no impacts have been identified from the operation of the site, no significant effects have been identified.
9.6.6
9.6.7
9.6.8
Page 138
Vol 10 Table 9.6.2 Noise and vibration effects -operation Receptor Significance Noise from surface site ventilation plant Star & Garter Mansions 1-24 Kenilworth Court 31-78 Kenilworth Court and 1-10 Richmond Mansions St Marys Church 1-67 Putney Wharf Tower Residential Moorings Not significant Not significant Not significant Noise from maintenance operations Not significant Not significant Not significant
Not significant Not significant Not significant
Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant
Caf 2 Putney High Street Not significant (proposed) 9.6.9
At this location, no significant effects are predicted at any of the receptors. This is subject to the equipment being specified with appropriate noise control measures to ensure that the targets in BS4142 are met as outlined in Volume 5, Section 2.
9.7
9.7.1 9.7.2

All measures embedded in the draft CoCP of relevance to noise and vibration are found in Volume 2. Significant effects as a result of construction noise have been identified at two receptors. This is based on a worst case assessment where the two noisiest activities in any stage happen concurrently and over the entire duration of the stage. This is a conservative approach considered appropriate for the level of information provided at the PEIR and will be refined once further information is available for the ES. The buildings affected are all more than two storeys high, and close to the site, and as such the site hoarding only provides screening to the ground floor of the properties. For all properties with significant noise effects, the hoarding height would need to be extremely high to reduce the noise levels at these properties. It is likely that hoarding at a height to provide effective screening would not be practicable. Significant vibration effects have also been identified at the same two receptors and additional mitigation would be applied where practicable and effective at these locations. All stages of works assessed as having the potential to give rise to likely significant effects (enabling works and connection tunnel) would require additional mitigation, if practicable, to supplement the best practicable
9.7.3
9.7.4
9.7.5
Page 139
means (BPM) environmental design measures assumed for all sites. The quantitative assessment has assumed only general BPM measures, as far as it is possible to incorporate these in the noise and vibration prediction exercises. These include site boundary screening, careful selection of modern construction plant, and positioning of equipment. 9.7.6 To address significant effects, specific solutions will be developed as appropriate to provide additional mitigation targeted on those noise and vibration sources generating the highest noise/vibration levels at the relevant receptor. For example, within this more detailed mitigation design, the use of localised screens and customised enclosures around the item of plant or the process would be considered. For the purposes of the PEIR and at this stage of the design, site specific additional mitigation beyond BPM measures has not been identified in the assessment. However, when the potential mitigation options for the illustrative project can be confirmed, this will be presented in the ES.
Operational
9.7.7 9.7.8 No significant effects as a result of the operation of the site have been identified; hence no additional mitigation is required at this location. It should be noted that operational plant for the ventilation of the tunnel would be designed to meet noise limits agreed with the local authority to avoid significant effects.
Page 140
9.8
Vol 10 Table 9.8.1 Noise and vibration construction assessment Significance Not significant Not significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant None required None required None required None required None required None required None required None required Mitigation to be reported in the ES Mitigation to be reported in the ES Mitigation to be reported in the ES Not significant Potentially significant (subject to mitigation options) Potentially Significant (subject to mitigation options) Potentially significant (subject to mitigation options) Potentially Significant (subject to mitigation options) Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant None required Mitigation to be reported in the ES None required Not significant Mitigation Residual significance
Assessment summary
Receptor
Effect
Noise
Vibration
Noise
Vibration
Noise
Vibration
St Marys Church
Noise
Vibration
Noise
Vibration
Noise
Vibration
Noise
Vibration
Page 141
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Vol 10 Table 9.8.2 Noise and vibration operational assessment Significance Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant None required None required None required None required None required None required None required None required None required None required None required Not significant Not significant Not significant None required Not significant None required Not significant Not significant Mitigation None required Residual significance
Receptor
Effect
Noise
Vibration
Noise
Vibration
Noise
31-78 Kenilworth Court and 1-10 Richmond Mansions Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant
Vibration
St Marys Church
Noise
Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant
Vibration
Noise
Vibration
Noise
Vibration
Noise
Vibration
Page 142
9.9
9.9.1
The completion of the assessment to an appropriate level of detail is subject to further information on baseline and construction road traffic. When the transport analysis is complete this will be assessed and any effects identified in the ES. The level of detail of this PEIR site assessment reflects the available information on methods and programme. The next stage of the assessment work will be more detailed in profiling the variation in construction noise levels across the programmes of work and the range of receptors at each surface site. It has not been possible to adequately assess the potential for noise and vibration from water cascading down drop shafts during tunnel filling events. The likely noise and vibration emission will be estimated as the cascade design develops and will be included in the ES. As the illustrative construction methodology develops more indepth assessment work for the ES will allow more detailed mitigation design. Following the development of more refined mitigation design as described above, it would be possible to carry out a more detailed assessment of residual effects. The effectiveness of more specific mitigation measures will be fully assessed and reported in the ES.
9.9.2
9.9.3
9.9.4
9.9.5 9.9.6
Assessment of cumulative and in combination effects will be undertaken and reported in the ES. Following completion of the assessment the mitigation approaches for noise and vibration within the project will be finalised and reported in the ES.
Page 143
Section 10: Socio-economics
10 10.1
10.1.1
Socio-economics Introduction
This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant socio-economic effects at the Putney Bridge Foreshore site. At the time of scoping, no significant operational effects were scoped in for the site for the following reasons: a. The design, size, and location of the operational structures were likely to occupy less than 0.1ha and therefore were not likely to result in any significant loss or gain in function for amenity for users of the open space, water space or slipway (public draw dock). b. Potential air quality, noise and vibration, and visual effects during the operational phase, if occurring at all, are likely to be relatively low or not significant and able to be readily mitigated. As a result, they are unlikely to cause deterioration in the amenity experienced by users of nearby open spaces or nearby residents. Accordingly, they were scoped out within the Scoping Report and have not been considered further within this assessment.
10.1.2
10.1.3
Since the scoping exercise was undertaken, the proposal for the development has evolved and there is now likely to be a gain in public amenity space in the operational phase of the project. Accordingly, and in keeping with other site specific assessments, consideration of the socioeconomic effects associated with the proposed additional amenity space are included in the operational phase.
10.2
10.2.1
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to socio-economics are as follows. Construction Measures incorporated into the draft CoCP to limit, and in some cases eliminate, sdignificant adverse air quality, noise, vibration and visual impacts could also reduce socio-economic impacts, particularly amenity impacts. See Section 4 Air Quality and Odour, Section 9 Noise and Vibration, and Section 11 Townscape and Visual within this volume, for more detail on the type of measures that may be employed. The existing slipway (public draw dock) would not be accessible to users during the construction works. The slipway would become accessible again during the operational phase in its current location. A temporary slipway would be constructed to the west of the project site on Putney Embankment providing replacement access to the river during the construction period.
10.2.2
10.2.3
10.2.4
10.2.5
Page 144
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore 10.2.6 10.2.7
The construction of a cofferdam within the foreshore would cause a loss of water space within the foreshore, thus affecting any users of this space. Works would be likely to cause a temporary loss of access to part of the Watermans Green public open space, causing a loss of recreational opportunities for its users. A short section of the Thames Path, which runs alongside the National Cycle Route 4 (NCR4) in this location, on the north side of Putney Embankment is likely to be closed to pedestrians and diverted for the duration of the construction period. Both the construction related activities and traffic (including lorry movements) could result in amenity or in combination effects being experienced by a range of sensitive receptors in proximity to the proposed activities. Operation The requirement for above-ground structures in the operational phase would necessitate the extension of the existing river wall out into the River Thames, thereby creating a new area of public amenity space adjacent to the slipway entrance at the same level as the existing Thames Path. The Putney Bridge slipway would become accessible again to users as per its original baseline condition.
10.2.8
10.2.9
10.2.10
10.2.11
10.3
10.3.1
Scoping and engagement Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. All consultee comments relevant to this site are presented in the table below. Vol 10 Table 10.3.1 Socio-economics stakeholder engagement Organisation Environment Agency Comment It is considered that the use of foreshore sites is likely to lead to a number of detrimental effects in relation to flood risk management, biodiversity and recreation. The impact of the realigned slipway in relation to its use during construction and operation needs to be considered. Response Consideration of the impact of the proposed development at the site on recreational facilities has been considered within this socio-economic assessment (within this PEIR) as appropriate.
LB Wandsworth
The impact of the loss of the slipway during construction was scoped in as a likely significant effect and has been considered in the assessment. There would be a temporary loss of access to the slipway however a temporary slipway would be provided in the
Page 145
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Organisation Comment
Section 10: Socio-economics Response locality during the construction phase.
LB Wandsworth
Consideration needs to be given to the planning permission for A3 use adjacent to the proposed Putney site and what impact the works here may have on that use.
Planning permission is included in the development case and considered within the impact assessment.
10.3.2
Since the scoping exercise, consultation has been on-going for the project. Two issues of relevance to potential socio-economic effects have arisen through this consultation that relate to the proposed development in the context of Putney Bridge Foreshore. These are: a. Potential effects on the use of the river for leisure purposes during the construction phase b. Potential effects arising on amenity for users of the NCR4 cycle route during the construction phase - highlighted within the Mayors Response to Thames Tunnel36.
10.3.3
These potential construction phase effects have been considered within this assessment. Baseline The baseline methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site. Construction The construction phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. Any site specific variations are described below: a. The assessment years used for consider the potential for socioeconomic effects in terms of construction activity have covered the period from the establishment of the site and ending approximately three and a half years later. Operation
10.3.4
10.3.5
10.3.6
The construction phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.

10.3.7 The following assumptions and limitations apply to findings of the assessment of socio-economic effects:
Page 146
a. Watermans Green is used infrequently. It is also assumed that its main use is likely to be as a passive recreation space. (See section 10.4 for more information.) b. This section of the river foreshore is reasonably well used by recreational/leisure users. c. The slipway is reasonably well used, albeit by only a small number of regular users.
d. Prior to summer survey data becoming available, observations of the Thames Path and NCR4 in this location indicate it to be moderately well used in the existing baseline situation and that usage levels are likely to remain the same under the construction base case. 10.3.8 Preliminary technical assessments of likely significant air quality, noise and vibration, and visual effects, and associated design and mitigation measures, have been undertaken by each of those topic areas (see sections 4, 9 and 11 respectively). The socio-economic assessment has been informed by the preliminary findings of these topic assessments.
10.4
10.4.1
Baseline conditions
Public Open Space Watermans Green Watermans Green is a functioning area of public open space that is located on a narrow strip of land between the Putney Bridge slipway and Lower Richmond Road. It is approximately 0.05ha in size. This area of open space comprises a long and narrow (approximately 5m wide) strip of grass with a number of mature trees planted in a line running the length of the strip. There is only one active entrance/exit to this open space, which offers limited opportunity for active and passive recreation. The open space is overshadowed on its southern boundary by a retaining wall (above which is the pavement and Lower Richmond Road, with a ramp up to Putney High Street) that gradually increases in height from west to east. Due to its size, layout and position, its main use is likely to be as a passive recreation space, predominantly for sitting during warmer weather; dog walking is prohibited 37. The open space was not surveyed as part of the Wandsworth Open Space Study 2007, however LB Wandsworth described the space as little used in a 2004 report discussing the future use of the open space. Field surveys to more formally assess the quality of and usage levels of the open space are to be concluded during 2011. With regard to the sensitivity of users to any impacts or changes which would reduce or affect access to an open space and the recreational opportunities it affords, the following factors are pertinent. Watermans Green is of pocket park size as defined in the London Plans Open Space Hierarchy 38. Being a pocket park, Watermans Green provides basic open space provision for an area within 400m walking distance of it. There are some areas within 400m of the park that are identified within LB Wandsworths Core Strategy as being deficient in open
10.4.2
10.4.3
10.4.4
10.4.5
10.4.6
Page 147
space because they are outside of a 400m catchment area of a local park of size greater than 2ha 39. 10.4.7 The deficiency of provision of such types of spaces in nearby areas would suggest that users of the open space would be sensitive to losses of open space. However, the size of Watermans Green is such that it does not currently provide the functionality that allows it to meet a recognised deficiency threshold within the borough, as set out in both the LB Wandsworth Core Strategy and London Plan. Indeed, it is likely that the parks size and its low utilisation were factors in its omission within the Wandsworth Open Space Study. In terms of alternatives, the nearest open spaces of local park size to the proposed site are Fulham Palace Gardens/Bishops Park (in LB Hammersmith and Fulham) and Wandsworth Park (in LB Wandsworth), which are within 500 and 600m of the site respectively. Also, the neighbouring Thames Path and River Thames function together as a form of open space in so far as they provide for a publicly accessible area with wide, unencumbered vistas and a sense of openness for the area. People are able to sit on benches nearby on the Thames Path promenade (located immediately to the west of Watermans Green) or at other local parks further afield. This means that there are additional opportunities for sitting and viewing the river in the local area. Users of the space that live in nearby residential complexes with shared private open spaces within their building courtyards, such as Kenilworth Court, also have an alternative resource that can help meet their open space requirements. The combination of these factors indicates that the sensitivity of users to any temporary loss of access to the pocket park public open space at Watermans Green would be low. River Thames water space leisure use 10.4.10 The River Thames in this location is used predominantly for recreational uses rather than commercial uses. Users of the section include rowers and sailors, both those affiliated to clubs (many of which are based along Putney Embankment) and casual users. Detailed information on leisure clubs and facilities making use of the river, timetables of their use and event details are being collected and observed during 2011. For the purposes of this PEIR, without the benefit of the survey information, it is assumed that this section of the river is reasonably well used. Leisure events are held throughout the year on the river to the west of Putney Bridge, within which the site falls, including the University Boat Race and the Heads of the River race series (rowing events) and the Winter Points races (sailing event). The University Boat Race, which starts from a position close to the nearby Putney Pier, is a particular example which draws large crowds on the last Saturday in March each year. These crowds stretch past the site to the west as people make their way to and from viewing points along the river further upstream. In terms of the sensitivity of users of the river space at this location, it is likely that those people using this stretch of the river are able to alter their
10.4.8
10.4.9
10.4.11
10.4.12
10.4.13
Page 148
rowing and sailing courses to avoid this section of river without significant inconvenience. The pattern of the tide dictates that users are not always able to make use of the river space at the site location as the foreshore itself is not always submerged or there is insufficient depth to prevent grounding. The University Boat Race and Heads of the River race start approximately 80m north of the construction works area, in the centre of the watercourse, but do not use the immediate section of river space identified for the construction works 10.4.14 On the basis of these factors, users of the river space in the vicinity of the site location are likely to have a medium level of sensitivity to the loss of the space. Slipway (public draw dock) 10.4.15 The slipway (public draw dock) within the proposed construction site is used by leisure users and commercial businesses for the launching of boats. The slipway provides opportunity for vehicle transport to directly approach the river itself, without encountering difficulties in turning or parking on Putney Embankment. The slipway is for public use and is understood to be used primarily by three different users, one for leisure (yachting) and two for business purposes (cargo deliveries/collections, and private hire boat launching and landing). It is accessed at varying times during the week, which are heavily dependent on tidal conditions. At lower tide levels the water level drops and a rocky river bed of approximately 20m is exposed preventing users of the slipway from launching boats. The main factor affecting the sensitivity of users of the slipway to access restrictions is the availability of other slipways. The nearest alternative slipway - Putney Embankment public slipway - is located approximately 200m to the west of the site. It does not however offer users the same capabilities, in terms of being able to reverse and launch longer boats/vehicles into the river, as the Putney Bridge slipway. (It is worth noting that there is no other comparable slipway available for public use within London which provides such access to the river in London). Based on these factors the sensitivity of users to the loss of the slipway is likely to be high. Thames Path 10.4.17 The Thames Path is level with the road as it crosses over Putney Bridge and Putney High Street. From there it runs north-west, down and past the rear of the proposed construction area along Lower Richmond Road, along the pavement. At the intersection of Lower Richmond Road and Embankment, the path turns towards the river and continues northwestwards. From this point onward, to the west of the site, the path runs on the river embankment between the adjacent roadway and the edge of the raised embankment. The path itself, particularly to the west of the proposed project site, is a well maintained pedestrian promenade and is planted with mature trees and has seating, including two bench seats within 100m of the proposed construction site. The path provides for unencumbered views across the river.
10.4.16
10.4.18
Page 149
Reconnaissance surveys have been undertaken and detailed surveys of the Thames Path usage levels are ongoing and will be concluded during 2011. In the interim and for the purpose of the assessment, it is assumed that the section of the Thames Path in this location is moderately well used. This assumption will be verified once usage survey data has been collected and analysed. The main factor affecting the sensitivity of users of the Thames Path to access restrictions is the availability of other routes. Pedestrians are currently able to use the pavement on the south side of the Putney Embankment roadway to walk through this area. This pavement provides an unencumbered alternative right of way to the path,the use of which would only entail very marginally or no longer journey times or significant inconvenience. There are also further streets a short distance back from the river (approximately 150m) that run parallel to the Lower Richmond Road and which could serve as alternative routes if necessary. In considering the sensitivity of users to impacts which could cause loss of amenity, it is relevant to consider the duration of time that users are likely to spend in the vicinity of the site or using the diversion. Given that pedestrians using the Thames Path are only likely to be near the site for the time that it takes them to walk past the site (likely to be one or two minutes for most users), the duration for which users are likely to experience amenity related effects would be limited. Taking both considerations into account, it is deemed that users of the Thames Path in this location would have a low level of sensitivity to impacts that would cause a loss of access to the path or a loss of amenity. Thames Path-associated public amenity space There is currently no public amenity space provided with the Thames Path; however as set out in paragraph 10.2.10, there would be in the operational phase. To determine the sensitivity of future users of amenity space to the provision of that new space, it is helpful to consider the availability of alternative amenity spaces in proximity to the site. There are some opportunities for passive recreation in the immediate vicinity of the proposed new amenity space both along the rest of the Thames Path and also within Watermans Green that would be offered by any new amenity space. There are also opportunities further afield in Barn Elms and on the opposite bank of the River Thames within the Prior Bank Gardens. Despite this, it is noteworthy also that the LB Wandsworth Core Strategy identified areas within 400m to the west of the site as being deficient in open space because they are outside of a 400m catchment area of a local park of size greater than 2ha 40. Watermans Green is itself limited in functionality and the available evidence indicates that it is not favoured by the public in its current state.
10.4.20
10.4.21
10.4.22
10.4.23
10.4.24
10.4.25
10.4.26
Page 150
Although new public amenity space on the Thames Path would be likely to benefit the local community and its users in an area of deficiency, such amenity space does not provide the full functionality of a local park. Taking all factors into account, it is considered that Thames Path users are likely to have a low level of sensitivity to changes in the supply of new public amenity space. National Cycle Route 4 At this location, the NCR4 cycle route is divided separately into two distinct west-east and east-west routes. The west-east route is a clearly marked cycle lane running on its own immediately between the Thames Path and the Embankment road carriageway, directly adjacent to the construction site. It forms a narrow strip that is differentiated from both the Thames Path and roadway by slightly raised differentiated texture and colour surface treatment. In an east-west direction, the route is located within the Putney Embankment roadway. Reconnaissance surveys have been undertaken and detailed surveys of the NCR4 usage levels are ongoing and will be concluded during 2011. In the interim and for the purpose of the assessment, it is assumed that the section of NCR4 in this location is moderately well used. This assumption will be verified once usage survey data has been collected and analysed. Additionally, there are 10 cycle-racks located on the pavement between the Embankment roadway and the river foreshore, approximately three metres to the west of the entrance from the Embankment onto the slipway. The main factor affecting the sensitivity of users of the NCR4 to access restrictions is the availability of other routes. Cyclists travelling in the west-east direction are currently able to use the Putney Embankment roadway itself should they need to, in the same manner in which east-west route users do 41. In terms of the duration for which cyclists might be exposed to any amenity impacts, cyclists using the route at this location are only likely to be in the vicinity of the site for the time that it takes them to cycle past it (likely to be less than a minute for most users) the duration for which they would potentially experience impacts would therefore be very limited. This reduces their sensitivity to disturbance. Taking both considerations into account, it is deemed that users of the NCR4 in this location have a low level of sensitivity to impacts that would cause a loss of access to the route or a loss of amenity. Residential Residential dwellings are located on the south side of Lower Richmond Road approximately 20m from Watermans Green. Some of the dwellings are located above retail businesses wrapped around the corner of Putney High Street and Lower Richmond Road (the retail businesses extend along the street frontage for approximately 30 to 40m from the corner of Putney High Street). These residences occupy four storeys above the existing commercial space at ground floor level (making five levels in total).
10.4.28
10.4.29
10.4.30
10.4.31
10.4.32
10.4.33
10.4.34 10.4.35
Page 151
To the west of the ground floor commercial space, the residential dwellings form part of Kenilworth Court. This is a complex of purpose built mansion block style flats comprised of six stories (inclusive of lower ground/ground floors). Those properties fronting on to Lower Richmond Road have direct views of the river and Putney Bridge, especially from residences situated on the upper floors. Properties fronting on to Lower Richmond Road directly overlook the proposed construction site. They are physically separated from the work area boundary by the road itself, Watermans Green and a pedestrian footpath which connects with the Thames Path. In additional to residential buildings, two houseboats are moored to the north-west of the site at Putney Pier. In terms of the potential sensitivity of the occupants of the dwellings in the area, it is considered that overall, residents are likely to be vulnerable to amenity impacts arising from the construction process. This is due to the fact that residents cannot easily take steps to avoid any in combination amenity effects that may arise. Residents are likely to be less sensitive to any noise disturbance during the day and more sensitive during the evening and at night-time, particularly during sleeping hours. The sensitivity of residents to amenity impacts may be mediated by character and mix of uses currently existing in the area. Taking these factors into account, and given that the construction processes would be limited to daytime working hours, it is assessed that the residents are likely to have a medium level of to amenity impacts that may arise as a result of the construction process. Business activity Business activity in the area surrounding the site comprises commercial, retail and restaurant premises. Cafes and small commercial businesses occupy the ground floor, shopfront units of the residential buildings wrapping around the corner of Putney High Street and extending approximately 30m down Lower Richmond Road. The businesses include a retail outlet, a hairdressing salon and an estate agency. After this point the ground floor use becomes purely residential (forming part of Kenilworth Court). There is a two storey restaurant (Thai Square) situated directly to the west of the site, approximately 10m away from the boundary across the junction of Lower Richmond Road and Putney Embankment. The restaurant has extensive glazing allowing for views of the river from its inside dining area and a two metre decked outdoor seating area that wraps around the buildings edge. Further west of Thai Square there is another food and drink establishment the Star and Garter bar/restaurant. This business does not have outdoor seating but patrons of the business do congregate on the pavement outside. The sensitivity of these identified businesses to potential changes in amenity resulting from construction activities is likely to depend on the
10.4.37
10.4.38 10.4.39
10.4.40 10.4.41
10.4.42
10.4.43
10.4.44
Page 152
type of business in question. Restaurants may be more sensitive to changes in amenity owing to the fact that, at this location, they have outdoor seating areas. However, these restaurants have the majority of their seating inside and such areas are sheltered from noise, dust and other impacts that effect the external environment. 10.4.45 Other businesses such as retail/service outlets are likely to be less vulnerable and have a low sensitivity. On the basis of the range of factors considered above, it is assessed that the sensitivity of potentially affected businesses (ie, those within range of the proposed construction site such that they would potentially experience a loss of amenity) is medium. Amenity effects on Watermans Green open space users 10.4.46 Air quality, noise and vibration, and visual impacts arising as a result of the proposed construction works and construction related traffic may act individually or in combination to reduce the environmental amenity experienced by users of Watermans Green. Preliminary assessments have been undertaken to examine the potential air quality, noise and vibration, and visual effects on receptors at the open space. With respect to the proposed works at the site, the preliminary findings of likely effect significance from these assessments are summarised below: Air quality and construction dust effects on receptors at Watermans Green are not assessed. However air quality and construction dust effects at a residential receptor opposite Watermans Green to the south (Kenilworth Court) are assessed as likely to be minor adverse. It is stressed that this is not an air quality and construction dust receptor which specifically relates to the open space at Watermans Green. Accordingly, these results should be interpreted with caution, in terms of considering their relevance to users of the open space. Noise and vibration effects on receptors at Watermans Green are not assessed. However noise and vibration effects on one of the closest residential receptors opposite Watermans Green to the south (the receptor is 31-78 Kenilworth Court and 1-10 Richmond Mansions) are assessed as likely to be significant for both noise and vibration effects. It is stressed that this is not a noise and vibration receptor which specifically relates to the open space at Watermans Green. Accordingly, these results should be interpreted with caution, in terms of considering their relevance to users of the open space. Visual effects on receptors at Watermans Green are not assessed. However the visual effect on a residential receptor opposite Watermans Green to the south (Viewpoint 1.2: view north from residences in Kenilworth Court) is assessed as likely to be major adverse. It is stressed that this is not a visual receptor which specifically relates to the open space at Watermans Green. Accordingly, these results should be interpreted with caution, in terms of considering their relevance to users of the open space. For further information, refer to Section 4 Air Quality and Odour, Section 9 Noise and Vibration, and Section 11 Townscape and Visual.
10.4.47
10.4.48
10.4.49
10.4.50
10.4.51
Page 153
The above findings regarding air quality and construction dust, noise and vibration, and visual effects have been taken into consideration in undertaking an assessment of the overall magnitude of impact for amenity impacts on recreational receptors below. The preliminary findings of the assessment balance the above findings considering the contribution that each assessed element (eg, the quality of the air, the quality of a view) makes to a receptors overall experience of amenity, together with other considerations presented below. While the above assessments did not identify air quality and dust, noise and vibration, and visual impacts in association with Watermans Green; it is noted that residential receptors in the immediate vicinity of the site were identified and that at least some impacts were recorded for these receptors (see the residential amenity assessment below). Given that Watermans Green is immediately adjacent the proposed construction site, it is reasonable to assume that similar impacts could affect users of the Green. Most of the factors affecting the magnitude of the potential amenity impacts, including duration and consistency, are the same as per those explained above with regard to the amenity effects on other nearby sensitive receptors (see previous sub-sections). An exception to this is the indications from the baseline, that Watermans Green is little used. As such, it is likely that any amenity impacts would only affect a relatively small number of users. On this basis, the magnitude of the impact arising from the temporary loss of open space at the site is likely to be low. Users of Watermans Green are also likely to already experience visual and other impacts associated with traffic levels in and around the local area, which in turn may act to limit the magnitude of the impact as experienced by them during the construction process. Given the above factors, it is considered that the magnitude of overall amenity impacts in this location could be medium. As noted in above, the sensitivity of users of Watermans Green to changes in amenity is likely to be low. Taking account of this and the medium magnitude of the impact it is considered that the effect on users of Watermans Green could be minor adverse and therefore not significant. It is stressed that this is a preliminary and outline finding only at this stage. Summary See Vol 10 Figure 10.4.1 for a baseline plan which indicates the features identified above. Vol 10 Figure 10.4.1 Socio-economics context (see Volume 10 Figures document)
10.4.53
10.4.54
10.4.55
10.4.56
10.4.57 10.4.58
10.4.59
10.4.60
A summary of receptors as described in the baseline and their sensitivity is provided in the table below.
Page 154
Vol 10 Table 10.4.1 Socio-economics receptors Receptor Users of open space - Watermans Green Value/sensitivity and justification Low recreational opportunity provided by the open space is available at neighbouring locations; site is underused according to 2004 LB Wandsworth audit Medium scale and level of use of rowing and sailing clubs of this section of the Thames; regular occurrence of events on this section of the Thames High no alternative facilities providing the same functionality are available to current users Low easy accessible and convenient alternative right of way is available for users within a short distance and users would be near the site for only a short duration Low although users are likely to derive benefit from new amenity space, there is already existing provision of open and amenity space in the immediate local area (eg, existing Thames Path-related amenity space and Watermans Green) offering similar opportunities for passive recreation to what the new space would provide. Low easy accessible and convenient alternative routes are available and users would be near the site for only a short duration Medium residents less able to avoid effects but less sensitive during the day when the effects would be experienced Medium outdoor dining space at restaurants in the vicinity of the site
Users of river foreshore space
Users of the slipway (public draw dock) Users of the Thames Path
Users of (future) public amenity space
Users of the NCR4
Residents of nearby properties
Occupants of nearby businesses
Page 155
10.5

Base case
10.5.1
The base case is the situation without the Thames Tunnel. For this site, the base case year corresponds to year 1 of the construction works. This is the year when site establishment is proposed to commence and marks the start of the assessment period for socio-economic effects. There may potentially be changes to the baseline conditions on-site as a result of the following: a. Consented planning permission for the redevelopment of a business space (restaurant) at 2 Putney High Street. The consent allows for redevelopment of part of Watermans Green (in front of an area of vault space) to be decked and used in association with the restaurant use. If the consent is implemented, then the future baseline position would see a small reduction in the area given over to public open space. It would also see a new commercial operation in the form of a restaurant in this location.
10.5.2
10.5.3
There may also be other changes in the number and type of businesses located in the area, eg, businesses may open or close and sites that are currently occupied may become unoccupied. It is not possible however to forecast this with any accuracy. Other than the above, it is assumed that the base case would be largely the same ie, the socio economic conditions at the site would remain the same as existing conditions. Development case Under the development case, it is expected that the following changes to the baseline would occur: a. Access to Watermans Green would be temporarily closed off during the works on an ad hoc basis, with part of the Green being hoarded off during Phase 3 of the works. The majority of the Green itself is likely to remain in its current physical state during the construction phase (ie, it is not proposed to be paved over or used for the storage of any materials and only a small section of it would be used for the construction of a control point). b. The existing slipway would be unavailable for use for the duration of the works. Works would include provision of a temporary replacement slipway to the west of the site on Putney Embankment to ensure uninterrupted access to the river in the local area during the construction phase. c. A short section of the Thames Path would be likely to be temporarily closed and diverted a short distance across Putney Embankment where it intersects with Lower Richmond Road to run along the north side of Putney Embankment until half way along the frontage of Thai Square. At this point it would cross over Putney Embankment and rejoin the existing path route.
10.5.4
10.5.5
Page 156
d. A very short section of the NCR4 cycle route could also experience some temporary disruption; although the path route itself is likely to remain outside of the site boundary. Cyclists may occasionally find that they need to ride on the roadway itself rather than the semisegregated cycle path that runs between the roadway and the pedestrian Thames Path. e. The proposals for the development of business space presented in the base case would be affected by the proposed development case construction works. Although the space within the basement vault would remain developable for the proposed use, it would be in close proximity of the proposed construction site and the external space proposed on Watermans Green is within the maximum extent of the proposed working area. 10.5.6 Other than the above, it is assumed that the development case for other socio-economic conditions at the site would be the same as set out in the baseline conditions and base case above.
Temporary restrictions on use of open space Watermans Green 10.5.7 As set out under the development case, the construction works would be likely to result in closure of the access way to Watermans Green on an ad hoc basis during the works resulting in temporary prevention of public access to, and use of, 0.05ha of public open space, thereby restricting opportunities for use of the site for passive recreation. Although the impact could last for up to approximately three and a half years, making it a medium term impact, the number of users likely to be impacted by the access restrictions to the open space is likely to be relatively few given that the space was described as little used in a 2004 report discussing the future use of the open space and given its small size. It is also possible that a portion of the space would be converted for use to caf/restaurant space as part of a consented planning application by the time construction works start. On this basis, the magnitude of the impact arising from the temporary loss of open space at the site is likely to be low. Given the low sensitivity of open space users and the low magnitude of the impact, it is assessed that the effect on users of the open space is likely to be a negligible and therefore not significant. Temporary loss of river foreshore space 10.5.10 The construction works would result in the temporary loss of river space/foreshore at the site for the duration of the construction works. This would potentially limit opportunities for using this stretch of the river, as part of a longer route or course, for activities such as rowing and sailing. The magnitude of the impact is influenced by several factors. The area of river affected is relatively small, being restricted to the work area within the foreshore. The number of recreational users, including rowing and sailing club users, in this section of the river is understood to be fewer than further upstream. Further details on the level of use the river will follow once baseline river traffic surveys have been completed during 2011. The
10.5.8
10.5.9
10.5.11
Page 157
impact would be temporary, reversible at the end of the construction period, and be medium term (approximately three and a half years). On this basis, the magnitude of the impact arising from the loss of river foreshore space is likely to be low. 10.5.12 Taking account of the medium sensitivity and the low magnitude of the impact, it is assessed that the effect on users of the river foreshore space is likely to be minor adverse, and therefore not significant. It is stressed that this assessment is preliminary at this stage and subject to completion of further baseline data collection. Temporary loss of social/economic infrastructure slipway (public draw dock) 10.5.13 As set out under the development case, the proposed construction works would result in the temporary loss of access to the existing slipway for a period lasting up to approximately three and a half years. After this period, the slipway would be accessible as it is in its current condition. As part of the project, a temporary slipway offering similar characteristics in terms of its functionality and capacity would be provided a short distance upstream (northwest) of the existing slipway. The magnitude of the impact would be limited by the proposal to provide an alternative slipway during the construction phase only a short distance from the existing slipway. The temporary slipway would provide the similar functionality for users to the existing slipway in terms of allowing users. It would be provided only a short distance from the site and would therefore serve the same local catchment. Taking these factors into account the magnitude of the impact is assessed as being negligible. Given the high sensitivity of users to the loss of the slipway but the negligible impact magnitude, it is deemed that the effect on users of the slipway (public draw dock) would be minor adverse and therefore not significant. Although a minor adverse effect is recorded, it should be noted that this result arises as a result of automatic product of the combination of the impact magnitude and sensitivity; that latter of which was assessed to be high. However, the provision of the alternative temporary slipway a short distance away means that users are very unlikely to experience any adverse impacts. Temporary restriction of access to social infrastructure Thames Path 10.5.17 As set out under the development case, the Thames Path would be likely to be partly closed and temporarily diverted at this location during the construction works. As stated in the baseline, usage surveys are ongoing during 2011 and for the purpose of this assessment, it is assumed that the Thames Path is moderately well used at this location. The route followed by the diversion is only very slightly changed from the existing route, and so would not result in longer journey times or significant inconvenience for users.
10.5.14
10.5.15
10.5.16
10.5.18
Page 158
On this basis, and taking account of the temporary nature of the impact, it is considered that the magnitude of the impact would be negligible. Taking account of the negligible magnitude of the impact and the low sensitivity of users to the loss of a small section of the Thames Path, it is assessed that there is likely to be a negligible and therefore not significant effect on users of the Thames Path at this location. Amenity effects on Thames Path and NCR4 users Air quality, noise and vibration, and visual impacts arising as a result of the propose construction works and construction related traffic may act individually or in combination to reduce the environmental amenity experienced by users of the Thames Path and NCR4 cycle route in this location. Assessments have been undertaken to examine the likely significant air quality, noise and vibration, and visual effects on receptors along the path. With respect to the proposed works at the site, the preliminary findings of these assessments are summarised below: a. No air quality or construction dust receptors were identified as requiring assessment at the project site in relation to users of the Thames Path. It is therefore assumed for the purpose of this assessment that it is not likely that there would be any significant effects from construction noise and vibration issues. b. No noise and vibration receptors were identified as requiring assessment at the project site in relation to users of the Thames Path. It is therefore assumed for the purpose of this assessment that it is not likely that there would be any significant effects from construction noise and vibration issues. c. The Thames Path falls within the Putney Embankment Conservation Area and Putney Bridge Conservation Area. Visual effects are likely to be major adverse at two of the five viewpoints identified and moderate adverse at the remaining three viewpoints for the duration of the construction period (viewpoints 2.1, 2.5 and 2.4, 2.6 and 2.7 respectively).
10.5.21
10.5.22
10.5.23
Refer to Section 4 Air Quality and Odour, Section 9 Noise and Vibration, and Section 11 Townscape and Visual within this volume for further information. The above findings regarding air quality, dust, noise and vibration, and visual effects have been taken into consideration in undertaking an assessment of the overall magnitude of impact for amenity impacts on recreational receptors below. The preliminary findings of the assessment balance the above findings considering the contribution that each assessed element (eg, the quality of the air, the quality of a view) makes to a receptors overall experience of amenity together with other considerations presented below. Given the likely diversion route for the Thames Path during the construction period, users of both this route and the NCR4 would only likely experience the types of impacts noted above for the short distance
10.5.24
10.5.25
Page 159
where the routes are adjacent/proximate to the main construction site and temporary slipway site. 10.5.26 In terms of duration, the potential for impacts which may reduce amenity experienced by users of the Thames Path and NCR4 would last during the construction period a medium term period of up to approximately three and a half years. Users of the Thames Path and NCR4 are also likely to already experience visual and other impacts associated with traffic levels in and around the local area, which in turn would act to limit the magnitude of the impact as experienced by them during the construction process. Given the above factors, it is considered that the magnitude of overall amenity impacts in this location would be low. As noted in above, the sensitivity of Thames Path and NCR4 users to changes in amenity is likely to be low. Taking account of this and the low magnitude of the impact it is considered that the effect on users of the Thames Path and NCR4 would be negligible and therefore not significant. It is stressed that this is a preliminary and outline finding only at this stage. Effects on residential amenity 10.5.29 Air quality, noise and vibration, and visual impacts arising as a result of the proposed construction works and construction related traffic may potentially act individually or in combination with one another to reduce the environmental amenity experienced by residents living nearby the site, on Lower Richmond Road and at the houseboats moored at Putney Pier. Assessments have been undertaken to examine the likely significant air quality, noise and vibration, and visual effects on surrounding local residential receptors. With respect to the proposed works at Putney Bridge Foreshore, the preliminary findings of these assessments are summarised below: a. Air quality and construction dust effects are likely to be minor adverse and are therefore likely to result in a significant effect on residents for the duration of the construction period. b. Noise effects on residents have been measured as likely to be significant at two of a total of four residential receptors identified. Vibration (human response) effects are not likely to be significant at any of the four receptors for the duration of the construction period. c. Visual effects are likely to be major adverse from viewpoint 1.2 (from residences in Kenilworth Court, fronting on to Lower Richmond Road), for the duration of the construction period.
10.5.27 10.5.28
10.5.30
10.5.31
For further information, please refer to Section 4 Air Quality and Odour, Section 9 Noise and Vibration, and Section 11 Townscape and Visual within this volume. The above findings regarding air quality, dust, noise and vibration, and visual effects have been taken into consideration in undertaking an assessment of the overall magnitude of impact for amenity impacts on residential receptors below. The preliminary findings of the assessment balance the above findings considering the contribution that each
10.5.32
Page 160
assessed element (eg, the quality of the air, the quality of a view) makes to a receptors overall experience of amenity together with other findings presented below. 10.5.33 Most of the other factors affecting the magnitude of potential amenity impacts are the same as those explained above with regard to Thames Path and NCR4 users amenity. The main exceptions to consider are the duration of the impacts, number of people that could potentially be affected, their physical relationship with the proposed construction site and their current amenity experience. In terms of the duration of the construction-activity related impacts, as well as being generally restricted to day-time working hours, certain amenity impacts are not likely to be continual over the working day, but are likely to rise and fall as different activities of the construction process take place throughout the day. Similarly, the nature of the construction activity/process being undertaken would determine whether the different types of impacts arise simultaneously or whether only one or two impacts arise at any one time. In terms of the numbers of residents and the physical relationship of dwellings to the construction site, there are a limited number of dwellings that directly overlook the site and which could also be subject to air quality or noise impacts. This is due to the layout of the surrounding area, the screening and roadways between the site and the surrounding residential development, and the varying proximity of residential development from the site. Given the relationship of the residential dwellings in relation to the proposed construction site area, any potential impacts on amenity are likely to affect a relatively small number of dwellings. Given the above factors, it is considered that the potential magnitude of impacts could be medium. Taking account of the potential for a medium magnitude of impact and the medium sensitivity of residents, it is considered that the overall effect on residential amenity would be medium term moderate adverse and therefore significant. This is a preliminary and outline finding only at this stage. Amenity effects on business activities 10.5.38 Air quality, noise and vibration and visual impacts arising as a result of the proposed construction works and construction related traffic may potentially act individually or in combination with one another to reduce the environmental amenity experienced by nearby businesses. At this location, the construction works would take place in close proximity to two restaurants situated on Putney Embankment, and retail/service businesses wrapping around the corner of Lower Richmond Road and Putney Bridge Road. As set out in the base case, there would also likely be business space occupying the eastern portion of Watermans Green, if a consented planning permission at No. 2 Putney High Street is implemented.
10.5.34
10.5.35
10.5.36 10.5.37
10.5.39
Page 161
Assessments have been undertaken to examine the likely significant air quality, noise and vibration, and visual effects on surrounding business receptors. With respect to the proposed works at Putney Bridge Foreshore, the preliminary findings of these assessments are summarised below: a. Air quality effects are likely to be negligible and construction dust effects are likely to be minor adverse. Construction dust effects arising as a result of the proposed works are therefore likely to result in a significant effect on businesses for the duration of the construction period, while air quality effects are not likely to have a significant effect on businesses. b. No noise and vibration receptors were identified as requiring assessment at the site in relation to businesses. There are therefore not likely to be any significant effects from construction noise and vibration issues. c. No commercial visual receptors were explicitly identified, but viewpoints 2.4, 2.5, and 2.7 are considered most relevant to the commercial businesses in question. Visual effects were identified as likely to be moderate adverse at two of these three viewpoints, and major adverse at the remaining viewpoint (viewpoints 2.5 view east from eastern end of Embankment).
10.5.41 10.5.42
For further information, refer to Section 4 Air Quality and Odour, Section 9 Noise and Vibration, and Section 11 Townscape and Visual in this volume. The above findings regarding air quality, dust, noise and vibration, and visual effects have been taken into consideration in undertaking an assessment of the overall magnitude of impact for amenity impacts on commercial receptors below. The preliminary findings of the assessment balance the above findings considering the contribution that each assessed element (eg, the quality of the air, the quality of a view) makes to a receptors overall experience of amenity. Most of the factors affecting the impact magnitude of potential amenity impacts are the same as per those explained above with regard to residential amenity (see previous sub-section). The exceptions generally relate to the relationship of the commercial premises in relation to the proposed construction site area. Given the layout of the surrounding area, the screening and roadways between the site and the commercial development, and the varying proximity of commercial premises to the site, any potential amenity impacts would only likely affect a relatively small number of businesses. If the consented planning permission is implemented at No. 2 Putney High Street, part of the business space developed would be located directly adjacent to the proposed construction works site. Given the proximity of the space to the site, it is considered likely that amenity related effects would be experienced by a business located here and its patrons. It is noted that the consent has not yet been implemented however, if impacts were experienced, the outdoor business space would only constitute a portion of the proposed business space, as the remaining
10.5.43
10.5.44
10.5.45
Page 162
commercial space lies indoors within the vaults and would be largely screened and less exposed to any potential impacts. 10.5.46 10.5.47 On the basis of these factors, it is assessed that the magnitude of impacts on businesses at this location could be of medium magnitude. Taking account of the medium magnitude of the impact and the medium sensitivity of businesses to changes in amenity, it is considered that the effect on the amenity of businesses could potentially be moderate adverse and therefore significant. Effects on amenity of users of Watermans Green open space 10.5.48 Air quality, noise and vibration, and visual impacts arising as a result of the proposed construction works and construction related traffic may act individually or in combination to reduce the environmental amenity experienced by users of Watermans Green. Preliminary assessments have been undertaken to examine the potential air quality, noise and vibration, and visual effects on receptors at the open space. With respect to the proposed works at the site, the preliminary findings of these assessments are summarised below: Air quality and construction dust effects on receptors at Watermans Green are not assessed. However air quality and construction dust effects at a residential receptor opposite Watermans Green to the south (Kenilworth Court) are assessed as likely to be minor adverse for both air quality and construction dust effects. It is noted that this is not an air quality and construction dust receptor which specifically relates to the open space at Watermans Green. Accordingly, these results should be interpreted with caution, in terms of considering their relevance to users of the open space. Noise and vibration effects on receptors at Watermans Green are not assessed. However noise and vibration effects on one of the closest residential receptors opposite Watermans Green to the south (the receptor is 31-78 Kenilworth Court and 1-10 Richmond Mansions) are assessed as likely to be significant for both noise and vibration effects. As this is not a noise and vibration receptor which specifically relates to the open space at Watermans Green, these results should be interpreted with caution, in terms of considering their relevance to users of the open space. Visual effects on receptors at Watermans Green are not assessed. However the visual effect on a residential receptor opposite Watermans Green to the south (Viewpoint 1.2: view north from residences in Kenilworth Court) is assessed as likely to be major adverse. As this is not a visual receptor which specifically relates to the open space at Watermans Green, these results should be interpreted with caution, in terms of considering their relevance to users of the open space. For further information, refer to Section 4 Air Quality and Odour, Section 9 Noise and Vibration, and Section 11 Townscape and Visual in this volume. The above findings regarding air quality and construction dust, noise and vibration, and visual effects have been taken into consideration in undertaking an assessment of the overall magnitude of impact for amenity impacts on recreational receptors below. The preliminary findings of the
10.5.49
10.5.50
10.5.51
10.5.52
10.5.53 10.5.54
Page 163
assessment balance the above findings considering the contribution that each assessed element (eg, the quality of the air, the quality of a view) makes to a receptors overall experience of amenity, together with other considerations presented below. 10.5.55 While the above assessments did not identify air quality and dust, noise and vibration, and visual impacts in association with Watermans Green; it is noted that residential receptors in the immediate vicinity of the site were identified and that at least some impacts were recorded for these receptors (see the residential amenity assessment below). Given that Watermans Green is immediately adjacent the proposed construction site, it is reasonable to assume that similar impacts could affect users of the Green. Most of the factors affecting the magnitude of the potential amenity impacts, including duration and consistency, are the same as per those explained above with regard to the amenity effects on other nearby sensitive receptors (see previous sub-sections). An exception to this is the indications from the baseline, that Watermans Green is little used. As such, it is likely that any amenity impacts would only affect a relatively small number of users. On this basis, the magnitude of the impact arising from the temporary loss of open space at the site is likely to be low. Users of Watermans Green are also likely to already experience visual and other impacts associated with traffic levels in and around the local area, which in turn may act to limit the magnitude of the impact as experienced by them during the construction process. Given the above factors, it is considered that the magnitude of overall amenity impacts in this location could be medium. As noted in above, the sensitivity of users of Watermans Green to changes in amenity is likely to be low. Taking account of this and the medium magnitude of the impact it is considered that the effect on users of Watermans Green could be minor adverse and therefore not significant. It is stressed that this is a preliminary and outline finding only at this stage. Summary 10.5.61 The preliminary findings of the socio-economic assessment relating to construction impacts and effects are summarised in the table below.
10.5.56
10.5.57
10.5.58
10.5.59 10.5.60
Page 164
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Vol 10 Table 10.5.1 Socio economics construction effects Magnitude Low small size of the open space being temporarily closed to access (0.05ha) and provides only limited recreation opportunities in its existing state, thereby limiting the number and type of users affected. Low relatively small area lost; and temporary, medium term reversible impact; the space at present is not usable at lowtide. Negligible proposed provision of replacement slipway 200m away during construction works would rectify temporary loss of capacity. Negligible proposed diversion is of similar in length to existing route. Significance Negligible - not significant
Impact
Sensitivity
Temporary loss of use of open space Watermans Green
Low recreational opportunity provided by the open space is available at neighbouring locations; site is underused according to 2004 LB Wandsworth audit
Temporary loss of river Medium scale and level of use of foreshore Space rowing and sailing clubs of this section of the Thames; regular occurrence of events on this section of the Thames
Minor adverse not significant
Temporary closure of existing slipway and provision of replacement facility
High no alternative facilities providing the same functionality are available to current users
Minor adverse not significant
Temporary closure and diversion of a section of Thames Path
Low easy accessible and convenient alternative right of way is available for users within 15m and users would be near the site for only a short duration
Negligible - not significant
Amenity impacts on Thames Path and NCR4 users amenity (outline findings)
Low easy accessible and convenient alternative routes are available and users would be near the site for only a short duration
Low Moderately high number of users but low potential for prolonged exposure due to the nature of the use of the path and cycle route. It is also possible that users already experience some negative amenity impacts from the presence of surrounding traffic.
Negligible - not significant
Amenity impacts on residential amenity (outline findings)
Medium residents less able to avoid Medium potential for significant effects in effects but less sensitive during the day respect of air quality and construction dust, when the effects would be experienced noise and vibration and visual at a limited
Moderate adverse - significant
Page 165
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Magnitude number of residential properties over a medium term period. Medium potential for moderate adverse or Moderate adverse significant effects in respect of construction - significant dust and both moderate and major adverse visual effects at a small number of nearby commercial properties over a medium term period. Medium potential for adverse effects in Minor adverse respect of noise, vibration and visual effects not significant at Watermans Green over a medium term period, although likely to only affect a very limited number of users. Significance
Impact
Sensitivity
Amenity impacts on commercial amenity (outline findings)
Medium outdoor dining space at restaurants in the vicinity of the site
Amenity impacts on Watermans Green users amenity (outline findings)
Low recreational opportunity provided by the open space is available at neighbouring locations; site is underused according to 2004 LB Wandsworth audit
Page 166
10.6

Base case
10.6.1 10.6.2
The base case year for the operational phase is assumed to be year 1 of operation. On the basis of available planning information, it is assumed that the base case would be the same as per the base case set out for the construction phase in section 10.5. Development case Under the development case, it is expected that the following changes to the baseline would occur: a. The slipway would be accessible and made available for full use as in the baseline condition. b. The existing river wall would be extended out into the foreshore and River Thames. The extension would enable the installation of permanent infrastructure required to allow for servicing and maintenance of the Thames Tunnel once construction work is complete and this infrastructure would form part of the permanent physical environment. These works could provide for new public amenity space in tandem with the Thames Path, potentially including seating, landscaped amenity space and viewing points over the River Thames.
10.6.3
10.6.4
The temporary slipway, located approximately 300m west of Putney Bridge, would be removed once the existing slipway becomes accessible again.
Operational effects
Permanent gain of public amenity space 10.6.5 As set out under the development case, a new river wall would be extended out in to the foreshore and River Thames to allow for the installation of tunnel-related infrastructure and resulting in the permanent provision of an increased area of public amenity space The proposed extension of the river wall and creation of new public amenity space alongside the Thames Path would provide permanent and additional opportunities to users for passive recreation and an increased level of amenity along this section of the Thames Path. The additional space is likely to be relatively small and so would provide a modest amount of new public amenity area for the local area. It is assumed that the space will be used by, and benefit, a moderate number of people considering what is known and assumed about usage levels of the adjacent Thames Path. Its proximity to the river is likely to make it more attractive to users than the nearby Watermans Green. The spaces location means that it is likely to be used mostly by local residents and workers and also potentially by Thames Path users.
10.6.6
10.6.7
Page 167
Overall, taking account of the above factors, most particularly the permanent nature of the impact and the recreational opportunities that it would afford users, it is considered that the magnitude of the impact is likely to be medium. Taking account of the medium magnitude of the impact and the low sensitivity of the potential future users it is considered that the effect on future users of the new public amenity space is likely to be minor beneficial and not significant. Summary The preliminary findings of the operational phase assessment are summarised in the table below. Vol 10 Table 10.6.1 Socio economics operational effects Impact Sensitivity Magnitude Significance Permanent gain Low although of public amenity users are likely space to derive benefit from new amenity space, there is some limited existing provision of amenity space in the local area and users would likely only be at any new space for a short duration Medium Minor beneficial permanent area - not significant of new amenity space likely to benefit a high number of users.
10.6.9
10.6.10
10.7
10.7.1
The above assessment has arrived at a preliminary finding that there is a potential for moderate adverse effects to arise in relation to amenity effects on residential and commercial amenity. As per the significance criteria, moderate adverse impacts constitute significant effects. There is a continuing opportunity for further consideration of the potential for employing any viable additional measures to minimise the potential for significant adverse air quality, noise and visual impacts (if any) to act individually or in combination in a manner that unacceptably reduces environmental amenity for residents. Mitigation measures have been suggested, where possible, by Air Quality and Odour, Noise and Vibration and Townscape and Visual which would help to address significant amenity impacts. For further information on these mitigation measures, refer to Section 4 Air Quality and Odour,
10.7.2
10.7.3
Page 168
Section 9 Noise and Vibration, and Section 11 Townscape and Visual, within this volume.
Operational
10.7.4 The above assessment has arrived at a preliminary finding that there are not likely to be any significant adverse effects (that is major or moderate effects) in the operational phase at the site requiring additional mitigation.
Page 169
10.8
Vol 10 Table 10.8.1 Socio economics construction assessment Significance None required No change Mitigation Residual significance
Assessment summary
Receptor
Effect
Users of open space Watermans Green No change
Temporary loss of use Negligible- Not of open space significant Watermans Green
Users of river foreshore space Minor adverse None required Not significant Negligible Not None required significant Negligible Not None required significant Moderate adverse significant Mitigation measures including design alternatives or construction process and management changes that are typical of the sort usually identified to mitigate air quality, noise or visual impacts. No change No change
Temporary loss of use Minor adverse None required of river foreshore Not significant space
Users of the slipway
Temporary relocation of slipway
Users of the Thames Path
Temporary disruption to use of the Thames Path
Users of the Thames Path and NCR4
Amenity effects on Thames Path and NCR4 users amenity
No change
Residents of nearby properties
Amenity effects on residential amenity
If mitigation measures suggested in the air quality, noise and vibration and visual assessments to minimise adverse impacts are able to be implemented and achieve a reduction in the assessment of effect significance to an acceptable level, a
Page 170
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Significance reduced residual adverse significance may result. Moderate adverse Significant Mitigation measures including design alternatives or construction process and management changes that are typical of the sort usually identified to mitigate air quality, noise or visual impacts. If mitigation measures suggested in the air quality, noise and vibration and visual assessments to minimise adverse impacts are able to be implemented and achieve a reduction in the assessment of effect significance to an acceptable level, a reduced residual adverse significance may result. Mitigation Residual significance
Receptor
Effect
Nearby businesses
Amenity effects on commercial amenity
Vol 10 Table 10.8.2 Socio economics operational assessment Significance Minor beneficial - Not significant Mitigation None required Residual significance No change
Receptor
Effect
Users of (future) public amenity space
Permanent gain of public amenity space
Page 171
10.9
10.9.1
The following assessments would be updated, once additional data, as specified, become available: a. b. The assessment regarding the loss of access to Watermans Green open space The assessment regarding the construction phase diversion of the Thames Path and the operation phase gain of public amenity space on the Thames Path.
10.9.2
Pending the results of assessments by other EIA topics, updates to the baseline data and results of the indicative individual and in combination assessments would be made for the following: a. amenity effects on Thames Path and NCR4 users b. amenity effects on residents c. amenity effects on commercial businesses d. amenity effects on Watermans Green users.
10.9.3
Pending the results of assessments by other EIA topics there is potential for updates to be made to the detailed site-specific mitigation and enhancement/offsetting measures in relation to amenity effects on residential receptors. Given that this assessment has identified significant adverse amenity effects, following the identification of required mitigations measures a reassessment of the residual effects after mitigation would be undertaken using the same approach as has been set out above in Section 10.5. Assessment of cumulative and in combination effects will be undertaken and reported in the ES. Following completion of the assessment, mitigation for socio economics within the project, if applicable, will be finalised and reported in the ES.
10.9.4
10.9.5 10.9.6
Page 172
Section 11: Townscape and visual
11 11.1
11.1.1
Townscape and visual Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant townscape and visual amenity effects at the Putney Bridge Foreshore site. The assessment describes the current conditions found within the area the nature and pattern of buildings, streets, open space and vegetation and their interrelationships within the built environment, and the changes that would be introduced as a result of the proposed development. The assessment also identifies mitigation measures where appropriate. Townscape and visual assessments are made up of two separate, although linked, procedures; the townscape baseline and its analysis contribute to the baseline for visual amenity. Each section of the assessment is structured so that townscape aspects are described first, followed by the visual baseline.
11.1.2
11.2
11.2.1
Construction The method of construction for the proposed development is described in Volume 3. The peak construction phase for this topic relates to the time when the shaft is being constructed, involving the presence of cranes at the site and the export of material by road. This equates to year two of construction, within a total construction period of approximately three and a half years. Similar effects would arise during the secondary tunnel lining, which would also occur during year two of construction. The site would be under construction during standard working hours only. The specific construction activities which may give rise to effects on townscape character, tranquillity and visual receptors are: a. vehicular construction access to the site off Embankment and Lower Richmond Road b. establishment of hoardings around the boundary of the construction site c. use of cranes during shaft sinking and secondary lining of the tunnel; d. use of a piling rig during construction of the cofferdam, encroaching into the river by approximately 30m e. construction of a temporary slipway f. provision of welfare facilities g. lighting of the site when required.
11.2.2
11.2.3
Measures incorporated into the draft CoCP to reduce townscape and visual impacts include appropriate protection of listed structures and use of appropriate capped and directional lighting when required.
Page 173
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Operation 11.2.4
The proposed operation of the infrastructure at Putney Bridge Foreshore is described in Section 3. The particular components that are of importance to this topic include the design of the river wall and public realm, and the design and siting of the ventilation columns and electrical kiosk.
11.3
11.3.1 11.3.2
Scoping and engagement Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. In addition to the formal scoping process, the London Borough of Wandsworth, London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, London Borough of Richmond and English Heritage have been consulted on the detailed scope of this topic for this site, including the number and location of viewpoints. The London Borough of Wandsworth requested an additional viewpoint from Lower Richmond Road and an additional verifiable photomontage from the Grade II* listed St Marys Church. Both of these have been included in the visual assessment. English Heritage have confirmed acceptance of the proposed viewpoints. Baseline The assessment area, defined using the standard methodology provided in Volume 6, is indicated by the extent of the drawing frame on Vol 10 Figure 11.4.1 to Vol 10 Figure 11.4.6. The scale of the assessment area has been set by the maximum extent of the zone of theoretical visibility (ZTV), excepting those locations downstream of the site where the visibility is in reality obscured by Putney Bridge and Putney Railway Bridge, and upstream of the site where the visibility of the proposed components of the project would be barely perceptible. The methodology for establishing the townscape and visual baseline follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. With specific reference to the Putney Bridge Foreshore site, baseline information has been gathered through a review of: a. The Unitary Development Plans (UDP) for the London Borough of Wandsworth, and the neighbouring London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham and London Borough of Richmond; b. Putney Embankment, Landford Road, Charlwood Road and Lifford Street, Oxford Road, Parkfields and Deodar Road Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Strategies, produced by the London Borough of Wandsworth; c. Bishops Park, Fulham Reach, Central Fulham, Fulham Park Gardens, Colehill Gardens, Hurlingham and Putney Bridge Conservation Area Character Profiles, produced by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham; and
11.3.3
11.3.4 11.3.5
d. The Thames Strategy Kew to Chelsea.
Page 174
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Construction 11.3.6 11.3.7
The construction phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 6. With reference to the Putney Bridge Foreshore site, the peak construction phase for this topic would be in year two of construction, when the shaft would be under construction, cranes would be present at the site and material would be being taken away by road. The secondary lining would also occur during year two of construction, involving the import of materials by road. For the purposes of the construction phase assessment, it is assumed that there would be no substantial change in the townscape and visual baseline between 2011 and year two of construction, apart from the development of the vaults adjacent to the site into caf use. Therefore the base case for the assessment of construction effects is as per the current baseline presented below. Operation The operational phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. The operational phase visual assessment for this site will be supported through the preparation of three verifiable photomontages from recreational receptors surrounding the site (shown on Vol 10 Figure 11.4.6). These will be produced and presented in the ES. The operational phase assessment has been undertaken for year one of operation and year fifteen of operation. For the purposes of the year one assessment, it is assumed that there would be no substantial change in the townscape and visual baseline between 2011 and year one of operation, therefore the base case for the assessment of operational effects is as per the current baseline presented below. Further work will be undertaken for the ES to identify any potential changes in the base case for year 15 of operation.
11.3.8
11.3.9 11.3.10
11.3.11

11.3.12 11.3.13 For this site, there are no site specific townscape and visual assessment limitations beyond the generic ones listed in Volume 5. The preliminary assessment of operational effects is based on the engineering design of the proposed development. The assessment recognises that the project is committed to high quality design, and this forms the basis of the preliminary assessment of likely significant effects presented here. The details of the project design and landscaping, to be provided for the planning submission, will inform the assessment of operational effects in year one and year 15 which will be presented in the ES. Assumptions made on the base case for the construction and operational phase assessments are described in paragraph 11.3.8. These assumptions are based on known planning applications and planning policy within the assessment area, interpreted using professional
11.3.14
Page 175
judgement to understand what the base case may be in year two of construction and year one of operation without the project (ie the do nothing scenario). 11.3.15 Assumptions will be made in the ES regarding what the base case may be in year 15 of operation without the project.
11.4
11.4.1
Baseline conditions Townscape baseline

The proposed development is located partially on Embankment at the site of an existing slipway and partially within the River Thames. The surrounding townscape is predominantly residential set amongst some large open spaces, with areas of retail along Putney and Fulham high streets. Physical elements The physical elements of the townscape in the assessment area are described below. Topography The site is located on a relatively flat plateau along Embankment, with no notable topographic features. To the south, the ground rises away from the river. Land use In the vicinity of the site, the south bank of the river is strongly characterised by residential areas with a prominent linear band of commercial and retail premises forming Putney High Street that runs south. Along the riverfront there are intermittent leisure and retail uses, including boat houses, restaurants and pubs. On the north bank of the river, land use along the river is dominated by the large open spaces of Bishops Park and Hurlingham Park. Land further away from the river is predominantly residential, with the exception of a small cluster of retail units around Fulham High Street. Development patterns and scale Vol 10 Figure 11.4.1 illustrates the pattern and scale of development within the assessment area and also indicates building heights. Vol 10 Figure 11.4.1 Townscape - development pattern and scale (see Volume 10 Figures document)
11.4.2
11.4.3
11.4.4
11.4.5
11.4.6
Within the assessment area, the south bank of the river is characterised by relatively dense residential development, comprising two to three storey terraces inland from the river and three to six storey properties along the river frontage. The streets are generally narrow and laid out on a grid formation, aligned approximately with Putney High Street. East of Putney Bridge, on Brewhouse Street, a 20 storey residential block forms a dominant element fronting onto the river. On the north bank of the river, opposite the site, the residential development away from the river reflects the pattern on the south bank,
11.4.7
Page 176
although the streets are generally aligned to Bishops Park and Hurlingham Park, and are also influenced by the overground District Line railway. To the north east of Putney Bridge and Putney Railway Bridge larger residential blocks around Ranelagh Gardens form dominant components of the riverside development pattern. Vegetation patterns and extents 11.4.8 Vol 10 Figure 11.4.2 illustrates the pattern and extent of vegetation within the assessment area, including tree cover. Vol 10 Figure 11.4.2 Townscape - pattern and extent of vegetation (see Volume 10 Figures document) 11.4.9 There are few street trees within the assessment area on the south bank of the river, although the riverfront is intermittently lined with mature London plane trees. These trees increase in density towards Barn Elms upstream of the site, where there is also greater diversity of species. Gaps in this tree line occur where there are active river uses associated with the boat houses along Embankment. In contrast mature tree cover is a key characteristic of the townscape on the north bank of the river, opposite the site. Both Bishops Park and Hurlingham Park are characterised by mature tree cover, which extends into residential areas such as the Ranelagh Gardens development to the north of the river in Fulham. In terms of Tree Preservation Orders, trees are indirectly protected within the various Conservation Areas covering much of the surrounding area, including the site itself. In summary vegetation is not a key component of the general character of the area, apart from the avenue along Embankment, which continues further west beyond the assessment area. Open space distribution and type Vol 10 Figure 11.4.3 Townscape - open space distribution and type (see Volume 10 Figures document) 11.4.13 Vol 10 Figure 11.4.3 illustrates the distribution of different open space types within the assessment area, indicating all relevant statutory, nonstatutory and local plan designations. Most of the surrounding townscape is characterised by dense residential development, with few significant public or private open spaces apart from back gardens. However, this is offset by the presence of several large public and private open spaces, described in more detail in the table below. A number of these open spaces are designated as Metropolitan Open Land and Historic Parks and Gardens. Vol 10 Table 11.4.1 Townscape - open space type and distribution Open space South River Distance from site 0-1km W Character summary A 4-5m wide hard surfaced linear space along
11.4.10
11.4.11
11.4.12
11.4.14
Page 177
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Open space Bank Bishops Park
Distance Character summary from site (south of the riverfront, characterised by an intermittent river) single avenue of London plane trees. 200m N (north of river) Large public park along the riverfront, characterised by open grassland, mature tree cover, including a riverfront avenue and sports pitches. Designated Grade II Registered Historic Park and Garden. Designated Metropolitan Open Land. Large area of relatively well maintained allotment gardens. Designated Grade II Registered Historic Park and Garden. Designated Metropolitan Open Land. Formally arranged open space, integral to Bishops Park, characterised by planting beds and a riverfront seating area adjacent to Putney Bridge. Designated Grade II Registered Historic Park and Garden. Designated Metropolitan Open Land. Fenced courtyard to All Saints Church, characterised by dense mature tree cover. Designated Grade II Registered Historic Park and Garden. Designated Metropolitan Open Land. Linear riverfront semi-private amenity space, set in front of a residential development.
Fulham Palace Allotments
450m N (north of river)
Prior Bank Gardens
All Saints Churchyard
Ranelagh Gardens Amenity Space Hurlingham Gardens Amenity Space Hurlingham Gardens
400 NE (north of river) 450m NE (north of river) 600m NE (north of river)
Small semi-private open space within a residential development.
Large private (members only) riverfront park characterised by mature tree cover, a large lake and sports pitches. Designated Grade II Registered Historic Park and Garden. Designated Metropolitan Open Land. Public park set inland of Hurlingham Gardens, characterised by scattered trees, sports pitches
Hurlingham Park
700m NE (north of
Page 178
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Open space
Distance Character summary from site river) and large areas of amenity grassland. Designated Grade II Registered Historic Park and Garden. Designated Metropolitan Open Land. Large public riverfront park characterised by large areas of amenity grassland with scattered trees and planting beds. Designated Grade II Registered Historic Park and Garden. Designated Metropolitan Open Land. Small public park alongside Embankment, characterised by open grassland, scattered mature trees and play equipment. Large area of private playing fields, surrounded by mature tree cover along the River Thames and Beverley Brook corridors. Designated Metropolitan Open Land.
Wandsworth 1km E Park (south of river)
Leaders Gardens
800m NW (south of river) 1km NW (south of river)
Barn Elms Sports Ground
Transport routes 11.4.15 Vol 10 Figure 11.4.4 illustrates the transport network within the assessment area, including cycleways, footpaths and Public Rights of Way. Vol 10 Figure 11.4.4 Townscape transport network (see Volume 10 Figures document) 11.4.16 The site is located immediately adjacent to Lower Richmond Road and the junction with Putney High Street, which are characterised by high levels of traffic. The wider road network in the assessment area is generally residential in nature and has relatively limited volumes of traffic. East of the site, the townscape is dissected by the overground District Line railway, running north-south. The Thames Path runs along both banks of the river, diverting away from the river to the east of the site where the riverside is characterised by private residential frontages and also Hurlingham Gardens. There is a public pier close to the site identified as a Transport for London water bus stop. Site character assessment 11.4.20 The site is located within Putney Embankment Conservation Area in the London Borough of Wandsworth, immediately west of the Grade II listed Putney Bridge. The majority of the site is located within an area of foreshore on the River Thames, with the remainder located partially on a
11.4.17 11.4.18
11.4.19
Page 179
stretch of pavement along Embankment, the historic slipway and a linear green space at the foot of Putney Bridge known as Watermans Green. . 11.4.21 The slipway, surfaced with granite setts and marked with vertical fenders along the riverward edge, represents an important historic component of the townscape character of the wider area. Watermans Green is characterised by open grassland with a short avenue of semi-mature trees, culminating in a large London plane tree at the junction of Lower Richmond Road and Embankment. The site is bounded to the south by the Grade II listed wall which represents a visual extension of Putney Bridge along the slipway connecting with Lower Richmond Road. The river in this location is characterised by a relatively wide area of foreshore. The components of the site are described in more detail in the table below. Vol 10 Table 11.4.2 Townscape site components ID 01 Component Trees within Watermans Green Description Short avenue of semi-mature and mature trees along Watermans Green open space at the foot of Putney Bridge Condition To be confirmed following the tree survey Fair condition
11.4.22 11.4.23
02
Retaining wall to slipway Slipway Upright timber fenders Grade II listed bollards River wall
Ashlar stone and London brick retaining wall between the slipway and Watermans Green, with ornamental railings on top to provide safe access to the open space Historic slipway surfaced with granite setts and sawn finish cart treads Series of fenders along the riverward edge of the slipway, protruding above the ground level. Victorian painted cast iron bollards to mark the beginning/end of Embankment. In need of some repair and repainting.
03 04
Good condition Fair condition Fair condition
05
06
11.4.24
Vertical river wall with white and blue Good painted railings on top along condition Embankment The condition of the townscape within the site is good, with limited potential for enhancement due to the existing integrity and good condition of the townscape components. Despite the sites location close to the interchange of Putney High Street, Putney Bridge and Lower Richmond Road, dominated by heavy traffic, the riverside location has moderate levels of tranquillity. This is due to the enclosure provided by the wall of the Lower Richmond Road slipway. The wall is elevated above the level of the site and strengthens the sites continuity with the river and the setting of Bishops Park on the opposite
11.4.25
Page 180
bank. In addition, the river is mainly used for leisure uses at this location, rather than high levels of commercial traffic. 11.4.26 The site is located within a nationally significant historical and cultural stretch of the River Thames, experienced by large numbers of people, particularly during events such as the Oxford and Cambridge boat race. Although the character of the site is locally common within the assessment area, it is nationally valued as part of the wider character of the River Thames. Due to the good condition and national significance of the sites character, the site has a high sensitivity to change. At night, the site is largely unlit, although it is slightly affected by light spill from the adjacent roads, buildings and Putney Bridge. The river beyond the existing flood defence, and opposite river bank are characterised by low levels of light. Therefore, the sensitivity of this site to additional lighting is high. Townscape character assessment 11.4.29 The Townscape Character Areas surrounding the site are identified on Vol 10 Figure 11.4.5. Townscape character areas are ordered beginning to the north of the site and continuing around the site in a clockwise direction. Each area is described below. Vol 10 Figure 11.4.5 Townscape - character areas (see Volume 10 Figures document) River Thames Fulham and Barn Elms Reach 11.4.30 This reach of the River Thames extends from the northern end of the London Wetland Centre to the southern end of Barn Elms playing fields and the mouth of Beverley Brook. The reach is dominated by the open spaces and green frontage of the wetland centre and playing fields, offset against the urban residential frontage along the north bank of the river. In the assessment area, the character is locally dominated by the Fulham football club stadium. The river itself, within the assessment area, is characterised by a straight sweeping embankment with very few incursions into the river. Both banks have a relatively wide area of foreshore at low tide. The character of the river is formed by the dominance of the open spaces that frame the river through this character area. The river walls and structures are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. Due to the surrounding residential character, the dominance of vegetation and open spaces, and the relatively light levels of river traffic, this area has a high level of tranquillity. This reach is a regionally valued stretch of the river, providing the setting to a number of residential and open space conservation areas on both sides of the river.
11.4.27 11.4.28
11.4.31
11.4.32 11.4.33
11.4.34
Page 181
Due to the good condition and regional value of the townscape, this character area has a high sensitivity to change. At night, the area receives relatively low levels of light spill from river traffic, street lighting and riverside developments. Therefore, the sensitivity of this area to additional lighting is high. River Thames Putney and Fulham Palace Reach This reach of the River Thames extends from Beverley Brook and Bishops Park in the west, to Wandsworth Park and Hurlingham Gardens in the east. The reach is largely characterised by riverfront residential and leisure uses set amongst the extensive Bishops Park open space. The river itself is characterised by numerous incursions and setbacks along the river wall, including jetties, slipways, stepped river access and brook inlets. Both banks have a relatively wide area of foreshore at low tide. The reach is crossed by Putney Bridge and Putney Railway Bridge. The jetties, river walls and bridges are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. Due to the surrounding residential character, the dominance of vegetation and open spaces, and the relatively light levels of river traffic, this area has a high level of tranquillity. This reach is a regionally valued stretch of the river, providing the setting to a number of residential and open space conservation areas on both sides of the river. Due to the good condition and regional value of the townscape, this character area has a high sensitivity to change. At night, the area receives relatively low levels of light spill from river traffic, street lighting and riverside developments. Therefore, the sensitivity of this area to additional lighting is high. River Thames Wandsworth and Sands End Reach This reach of the River Thames extends from Wandsworth Park in the west, to the railway bridge south of Chelsea Creek to the east, beyond the assessment area of this site. The reach is largely characterised by the green frontage provided by Hurlingham Gardens and Wandsworth Park. The river itself, within the assessment area, is characterised by a straight sweeping embankment with very few incursions into the river. Both banks have a relatively wide area of foreshore at low tide. The character of the river is formed by the dominance of the open spaces that frame the river through this character area. The river walls and structures are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. Due to the green, vegetated character along both banks, and low levels of river traffic, this area has high levels of tranquillity. This reach is a regionally valued stretch of the river, forming the backdrop to a sizeable regeneration area in London.
11.4.37
11.4.38
11.4.39 11.4.40
11.4.41
11.4.42 11.4.43
11.4.44
11.4.45
11.4.46 11.4.47 11.4.48
Page 182
Due to the good condition and regional value of the townscape, and high levels of tranquillity, this character area has a high sensitivity to change. At night, the area receives relatively low levels of light spill from river traffic, street lighting and riverside developments. Therefore, the sensitivity of this area to additional lighting is high. Bishops Park This area comprises Bishops Park, the grounds of Fulham Palace and the Warren, together forming a large open space designated as Metropolitan Open Land and a Grade II Registered Historic Park and Garden, and within a larger Bishops Park Conservation Area designation (the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham UDP). The character area extends along the River Thames from Fulham football club in the west to Putney Bridge in the east. Bishops Park comprises five distinct areas providing a variety of formal and informal recreational spaces, including: a. a formal riverside linear park characterised by mature trees b. an area of amenity grassland c. a play area d. sports pitches e. a hard surfaced riverside promenade.
11.4.51
11.4.52
11.4.53
Fulham Palace Grounds and the Warren are a Scheduled Ancient Monument set alongside the Grade I listed Fulham Palace. The townscape is characterised by mature specimen trees and rare botanical species, including on ornamental gardens, an 18th century walled garden and an orchard. The character area is almost entirely surrounded by residential development, aside from the long river frontage. The landscape, buildings and structures within the area are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. Due to the extensive areas of green open space, the widespread presence of mature planting and the seclusion afforded from the dense urban development surrounding the character area, this area has a high level of tranquillity. By virtue of the Metropolitan Open Land and Historic Park and Garden designations, this area is regionally valued. Due to the good condition of the townscape, its regional value, and high levels of tranquillity, this character area has a high sensitivity to change. At night the area is largely unlit, although slightly influenced indirectly from surrounding street lighting and light spill from buildings. However, this provides a low lit setting, strengthened by the long river frontage which is also lowly lit. Therefore, the sensitivity of this area to additional lighting is high.
11.4.54 11.4.55 11.4.56
11.4.57 11.4.58 11.4.59
Page 183
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Fulham Palace Allotments 11.4.60
This area is enclosed by Bishops Park character area, and falls within the same Metropolitan Open Land, Grade II Registered Historic Park and Garden and Bishops Park Conservation Area designations. Despite the location, enclosed by the surrounding character area, the allotments form an entirely separate area to the grounds of Fulham Palace and Bishops Park itself. The boundary of the site is characterised by mature tree planting, while internally it is broadly open, used for allotments. This boundary treatment leads to the character area being entirely introspective in nature. The character area is bounded to the north by an 11 storey residential block. The landscape, buildings and structures within the area are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. Due to the extensive areas of green open space, the widespread presence of mature planting and the seclusion afforded from the dense urban development surrounding the character area, this area has a high level of tranquillity. By virtue of the Metropolitan Open Land and Historic Park and Garden designations, this area is regionally valued. Therefore, despite the good condition of the townscape, its regional value, and high levels of tranquillity, this character area has a medium sensitivity to change due to the introspective nature of the area, which is largely uninfluenced by changes in the wider setting. At night the area is largely unlit, although slightly influenced indirectly from surrounding street lighting and light spill from buildings. However, this provides a low lit setting. Therefore, the sensitivity of this area to additional lighting is high. Fulham Football Club This character area is located within Fulham Reach Conservation Area, which extends further upstream, and entirely comprises the Fulham Football Club stadium. The stadium is situated directly adjacent to the river. It forms a dominant structure and is characterised by white clad terraces and extensive floodlighting. The structure is entirely introspective in character. The townscape within the area is generally fairly poorly maintained. The overall townscape condition is poor. Tranquillity in the area is limited by the dominance of the football stadium and the use associated with it. Therefore, the area has low levels of tranquillity. The area is valued at the borough level by virtue of the Conservation Area designation and the nature of the use as a stadium for a major football team. Despite the borough value of the townscape, due to the introspective nature and poor condition of the built environment , this character area has a low sensitivity to change.
11.4.61 11.4.62
11.4.63 11.4.64
11.4.65
11.4.66
11.4.67 11.4.68
11.4.69
11.4.70
Page 184
At night the area is intermittently lit by the football stadium floodlighting, providing a brightly lit character. Therefore, the sensitivity of this area to additional lighting is low. Hurlingham and Fulham Residential This character area includes the following Conservation Areas: a. Central Fulham Conservation Area b. Fulham Park Gardens Conservation Area c. Colehill Gardens Conservation Area d. Hurlingham Conservation Area e. Bishops Park Conservation Area.
11.4.72
11.4.73
This area is dominated by two to three storey 19th century residential terraces, set out on a grid formation. The materials, building style, density and scale of development are generally consistent throughout this character area. There is a general absence of street trees or green open space throughout. The buildings and public realm within the area are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. Tranquillity within the area is limited by the presence of some busy roads and the railway line, and the lack of street trees and open space. However, due to the residential nature of the area, it has moderate levels of tranquillity. The area is valued at the borough level by virtue of the Conservation Area designations. Due to the good condition and borough value of the townscape, this area has a high sensitivity to change. At night the area is lit directly by street lighting and indirectly from buildings, providing a fairly brightly lit character. Therefore, the sensitivity of this area to additional lighting is low. Fulham High Street Retail This area is characterised by a non-cohesive diversity of building styles and heights distributed along Fulham High Street, a wide road dominated by vehicular use. There is a mix of retail, office and some residential use within the area. The area has a distinct absence of street trees or other vegetation. The buildings and public realm within the area are relatively poorly maintained. The overall townscape condition is poor. Tranquillity within the area is limited due to the high levels of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, a lack of street trees and the commercial and retail land uses. The townscape has limited value due to the retail/commercial land use and the lack of amenity space or vegetation.
11.4.74 11.4.75
11.4.76 11.4.77 11.4.78
11.4.79
11.4.80 11.4.81
11.4.82
Page 185
Due to the poor condition and limited value of the townscape, this area has a low sensitivity to change. At night the area is lit directly by street lighting and indirectly from buildings, providing a fairly brightly lit character. Therefore, the sensitivity of this area to additional lighting is low. Putney Bridge Conservation Area This area is broadly defined by the Putney Bridge Conservation Area boundary, but also incorporates All Saints Church which has a direct architectural relationship with Putney Bridge and St Marys Church on the opposite side of the river. All Saints Church falls within the Bishops Park Conservation Area. The area is characterised by residential uses located between Putney Bridge and Putney Railway Bridge to the east, partially built around a small inlet. This residential area is known as Carrara Wharf. The buildings and public realm within the area are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. Tranquillity within the area is limited by high levels of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, particularly along Putney Bridge and Fulham High Street, and a lack of street trees and open spaces. The area is valued at the borough level by virtue of the Conservation Area designations. Due to the good condition and borough value of the townscape, this area has a high sensitivity to change. At night the area is lit directly by street lighting and indirectly from buildings, providing a fairly brightly lit character. However, the church grounds and river frontage are characterised by low levels of light. Therefore, the sensitivity of this area to additional lighting is moderate. Ranelagh Gardens Residential This area is located within Hurlingham Conservation Area and is characterised by two residential gated developments set amongst communal open spaces along the riverfront, east of Putney Railway Bridge. The large residential blocks range from five to ten storeys. The River Thames frontage in this location is not publically accessible. The buildings and public realm within the area are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. Due to the riverfront residential character of the area, with limited levels of pedestrian or vehicular traffic, this area has a high level of tranquillity. The area is valued at the borough level by virtue of the Conservation Area designations. Due to the good condition and borough value of the townscape, this area has a high sensitivity to change. At night the area is lit directly by street lighting and indirectly from buildings, providing a fairly brightly lit character. However, the river frontage is characterised by low levels of light. Therefore, the sensitivity of this area to additional lighting is moderate.
11.4.85
11.4.86 11.4.87
11.4.88 11.4.89 11.4.90
11.4.91
11.4.92 11.4.93 11.4.94 11.4.95 11.4.96
Page 186
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Hurlingham Park 11.4.97
This area is located within Hurlingham Conservation Area and is characterised by Hurlingham Gardens, a members only open space, and Hurlingham Park, a public amenity space. The area is dominated by sports pitches and open amenity grassland with scattered mature trees, including a densely planted boundary along the River Thames. The river edge is naturalised in places, with no discernible flood defence structure. The character area is designated as Metropolitan Open Land. Despite the riverside location, the open space is distinctly inward looking and not heavily influenced by changes in the wider setting. The landscape, buildings and structures within the area are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. Due to the extensive areas of green open space, the widespread presence of mature planting and the seclusion afforded from the dense urban development surrounding the character area, this area has a high level of tranquillity.
11.4.98 11.4.99
11.4.100 By virtue of the Metropolitan Open Land designation, this area is regionally valued. 11.4.101 Therefore, despite the good condition of the townscape, its regional value, and high levels of tranquillity, this character area has a medium sensitivity to change due to the introspective nature of the area, which is largely uninfluenced by changes in the wider setting. 11.4.102 At night the area is largely unlit, although it is influenced indirectly from surrounding street lighting and light spill from buildings to a limited extent. However, this provides a low lit setting. Therefore, the sensitivity of this area to additional lighting is high. Wandsworth Park 11.4.103 This area comprises Wandsworth Park, which is designated as Metropolitan Open Land and a Grade II Registered Historic Park and Garden. The area is located along the river frontage, east of Putney Railway Bridge, and is characterised by open amenity grassland and sports pitches with mature tree planting along the river front and park boundaries. The park is one of only two Grade II listed parks within the London Borough of Wandsworth, the other being Battersea Park. The character area is almost entirely surrounded by residential development, aside from the long river frontage. 11.4.104 The landscape, buildings and structures within the area are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. 11.4.105 Due to the extensive areas of green open space, the widespread presence of mature planting and the seclusion afforded from the dense urban development surrounding the character area, this area has a high level of tranquillity. 11.4.106 By virtue of the Metropolitan Open Land and Historic Park and Garden designations, this area is regionally valued.
Page 187
11.4.107 Due to the good condition of the townscape, its regional value, and high levels of tranquillity, this character area has a high sensitivity to change. 11.4.108 At night the area is largely unlit, although slightly influenced indirectly from surrounding street lighting and light spill from buildings. However, this provides a low-lit setting, strengthened by the long river frontage that is also lowly lit. Therefore, the sensitivity of this area to additional lighting is high. Deodar Road Conservation Area 11.4.109 This area is defined by the Deodar Road Conservation Area boundary and is characterised by a terrace of distinctive late Victorian residential properties fronting onto Deodar Road, with rear gardens backing onto the River Thames. The character area is divided by the overground District Line railway but maintains its cohesiveness despite this. Due to the linear nature and orientation of development within this area, the character is influenced by the neighbouring residential areas (Putney Residential character area). 11.4.110 The buildings and gardens within the area are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. 11.4.111 Due to the riverfront residential character of the area, with limited levels of pedestrian or vehicular traffic, this area has a high level of tranquillity. 11.4.112 The area is valued at the borough level by virtue of the Conservation Area designations. 11.4.113 Due to the good condition and borough value of the townscape, this area has a high sensitivity to change. 11.4.114 At night the area is lit directly by street lighting and indirectly from buildings, providing a fairly brightly lit character. However, the river frontage is characterised by low levels of light. Therefore, the sensitivity of this area to additional lighting is medium. Putney Residential 11.4.115 This character area includes the following Conservation Areas: a. Landford Road Conservation Area b. Charlwood Road and Lifford Street Conservation Area c. Oxford Road Conservation Area d. Parkfields Conservation Area. 11.4.116 This area is dominated by two to three storey 19th century residential terraces, set out on a grid formation. The materials, building style, density and scale of development are generally consistent throughout this character area. There is a general absence of street trees or green open space throughout. 11.4.117 The buildings and public realm within the area are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. 11.4.118 Tranquillity within the area is limited by the presence of some busy roads and the railway line, and the lack of street trees and open space.
Page 188
However, due to the residential nature of the area, it has moderate levels of tranquillity. 11.4.119 The area is valued at the borough level by virtue of the Conservation Area designations. 11.4.120 Due to the good condition and borough value of the townscape, this area has a high sensitivity to change. 11.4.121 At night the area is lit directly by street lighting and indirectly from buildings, providing a fairly brightly lit character. Therefore, the sensitivity of this area to additional lighting is low. Putney High Street 11.4.122 This area is characterised by a linear strip of retail and commercial uses along both sides of Putney High Street. The street frontage is characterised by a mix of 19th century shop fronts alongside more recent commercial interventions. The area is dominated by the traffic along Putney High Street, which is characterised by relatively narrow footpaths along its length. Buildings are typically two to three storeys high, although there are also some larger units. There is a general absence of street trees or green open space throughout. 11.4.123 The buildings and public realm within the area are in a reasonable condition, although some components would benefit from repair and refurbishment. The overall townscape condition is fair. 11.4.124 Tranquillity within the area is limited by high levels of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, a lack of street trees and the commercial and retail land uses. 11.4.125 The townscape has limited value due to the retail/commercial land use and the lack of amenity space or vegetation. 11.4.126 Due to the fair condition and limited value of the townscape, this area has a low sensitivity to change. 11.4.127 At night the area is lit directly by street lighting and indirectly from buildings, providing a fairly brightly lit character. Therefore, the sensitivity of this area to additional lighting is low. Putney Embankment Conservation Area 11.4.128 This area is defined by the Putney Embankment Conservation Area boundary and is characterised by a linear band of residential and leisure uses fronting onto Embankment and the River Thames. The area is dominated by its close relationship with the character of the river and the visual connectivity with Putney Bridge, along a gentle bend in the Thames. The eastern extent of the character area is marked by the Grade II* listed landmark of St Marys Church, adjacent to Putney Bridge. Further west, six storey high 19th century residential properties give way to active leisure uses associated with the river, including numerous boat houses. Apart from of the frontages formed by these active uses, Embankment is lined with an avenue of mature London plane trees. 11.4.129 The buildings and public realm within the area are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good.
Page 189
11.4.130 Despite relatively high levels of pedestrian use, associated with active riverfront uses, the riverfront residential character of the area and limited levels of vehicular traffic means this area has a moderate level of tranquillity. 11.4.131 The area is valued at the borough level by virtue of the Conservation Area designations. 11.4.132 Due to the good condition and borough value of the townscape, this area has a high sensitivity to change. 11.4.133 At night the area is lit directly by some street lighting and indirectly from buildings, providing a fairly brightly lit character. However, the river frontage is characterised by low levels of light. Therefore, the sensitivity of this area to additional lighting is medium. Leaders Gardens 11.4.134 This character area comprises Leaders Gardens, a small public park on the riverfront, and the Beverley Brook corridor. Part of the area falls within Putney Embankment Conservation Area. Leaders Gardens is a Victorian riverside park, characterised by open amenity grassland, a network of paths and mature tree planting. The Beverley Brook corridor is heavily vegetated with mature tree cover and is characterised by a series of sluice and weir structures, preventing it from being a tidal brook. In the vicinity of the tidal sluice, the Environment Agency has recently undertaken tree clearance works to increase the ecological value of the watercourse and encourage more marginal vegetation. The character area is bounded to the south and west by residential properties, to the north by Barn Elms playing fields and to the east by the River Thames. The Thames Path crosses a small pedestrian bridge at the mouth of the Beverley Brook. 11.4.135 The buildings and public realm within the area are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. 11.4.136 Due to the dominance of green open space, the widespread presence of mature planting, the riverside location and the seclusion afforded from the dense urban development surrounding the character area, this area has a high level of tranquillity. 11.4.137 The area is valued at the borough level by virtue of the Conservation Area designation that occupies the majority of the area. 11.4.138 Due to the good condition of the townscape, its borough value, and high levels of tranquillity, this character area has a high sensitivity to change. 11.4.139 At night the area is largely unlit, although influenced indirectly from surrounding street lighting and light spill from buildings. However, this provides a low lit setting, strengthened by the river frontage which is also lowly lit. Therefore, the sensitivity of this area to additional lighting is high. Barn Elms 11.4.140 This character area comprises the Barn Elms playing fields, a large area of open recreational space designated as Metropolitan Open Land. The majority of the character area is not publically accessible, with the exception of the Thames Path which runs along the river frontage in this
Page 190
location. The playing fields are enclosed by mature tree planting on all boundaries, which also forms a dense avenue along the Thames Path and river frontage. 11.4.141 The buildings and landscape within the area are generally well maintained. The overall townscape condition is good. 11.4.142 Due to the dominance of green open space, the widespread presence of mature planting enclosing the area and the riverside location, this area has relatively high levels of tranquillity. However, the sites primary use as an area for active outdoor sports limits the tranquillity of the majority of the character area. Therefore, the area has moderate levels of tranquillity. 11.4.143 This area is regionally valued by virtue of its Metropolitan Open Land designation, 11.4.144 Due to the good condition of the townscape, its regional value, and moderate levels of tranquillity, this character area has a high sensitivity to change. 11.4.145 At night the area is largely unlit and is only slightly affected by light from surrounding development. This provides a dark setting, strengthened by the long river frontage which is also unlit. However, the sites function as sports pitches means that flood lighting is occasionally used. Therefore, the sensitivity of this area to additional lighting is medium. 11.4.146 The sensitivity to change of the townscape character areas is summarised in the table below. Vol 10 Table 11.4.3 Townscape sensitivities to change Townscape character area The site River Thames Fulham and Barn Elms Reach River Thames Putney and Fulham Palace Reach River Thames Wandsworth and Sands End Reach Bishops Park Fulham Palace Allotments Fulham Football Club Hurlingham and Fulham Residential Fulham High Street Retail Putney Bridge Conservation Area Ranelagh Gardens Residential Hurlingham Park Wandsworth Park Deodar Road Conservation Area Putney Residential Sensitivity High High High High High Medium Low High Low High High Medium High High High
Page 191
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Townscape character area Putney High Street Putney Embankment Conservation Area Leaders Gardens Barn Elms
Section 11: Townscape and visual Sensitivity Low High High High
Visual baseline
11.4.147 Vol 10 Figure 11.4.6 indicates the location of viewpoints referenced below. All residential and recreational receptors have a high sensitivity to change, transport receptors have a medium sensitivity to change and employment and other institution receptors have a low sensitivity to change. Appendix D contains illustrative winter photographs from selected viewpoints (the ES will include winter and summer photos for each character area and viewpoint). Vol 10 Figure 11.4.6 Townscape - viewpoint locations (see Volume 10 Figures document) Residential 11.4.148 Residential receptors have a high sensitivity to change, as attention is often focused on the townscape surrounding the property rather than on another focused activity (as would be the case in predominantly employment or industrial areas). The visual baseline in respect of residential receptors (represented by a series of viewpoints, agreed with consultees) is described below. Viewpoint 1.1: View south west from residences in Carrara Wharf 11.4.149 This viewpoint is representative of the view from riverside residential properties in Carrara Wharf on the north bank of the River Thames, east of Putney Bridge. The view is characterised by a narrow panorama across the river, framed by Putney Bridge to the west and Putney Railway Bridge to the east. Putney Bridge and St Marys Church form dominant components of the view, alongside high-rise residential development along Putneys riverfront. Views towards the site are largely obstructed by the arches of Putney Bridge. Viewpoint 1.2: View north from residences in Kenilworth Court 11.4.150 This viewpoint is representative of the direct view from residential properties in Kenilworth Court on Lower Richmond Road, adjacent to the site. The view is dominated by Putney Bridge and a wide panorama over the River Thames, particularly from upper storeys. Bishops Park forms a dominant component of the background of the view. The site forms the foreground of the view, largely hidden from view from the ground floor, but directly visible from the first floor upwards, slightly filtered by the short avenue of mature trees along the edge of the site.
Page 192
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Recreational
11.4.151 Recreational receptors (apart from those engaged in active sports) generally have a high sensitivity to change, as attention is focused on enjoyment of the townscape. Tourists engaged in activities whereby attention is focused on the surrounding townscape also have a high sensitivity to change. The visual baseline in respect of recreational receptors, including tourists, is discussed below. Viewpoint 2.1: View south west from Putney Bridge 11.4.152 This viewpoint is representative of the view pedestrians experience while crossing Putney Bridge. The view is characterised by a linear view up the River Thames towards Barn Elms in the background. To the south, the view is framed by the buildings and mature London plane trees along Embankment. To the north, the view is framed by dense mature tree planting within Bishops Park. The site, set against the backdrop of the Lower Richmond Road slip road wall, forms a dominant component of the foreground of the view. Views of the site are unobstructed from this location. Viewpoint 2.2: View west from Wandsworth Park 11.4.153 This viewpoint is representative of the view from recreational users of the Thames Path at the western extent of Wandsworth Park. The view is a wide open panorama over the River Thames, foreshortened to the west by Putney Railway Bridge, which dominates the view. The view is framed to the south by the rear gardens of residential properties along Deodar Road and to the north by mature vegetation within Hurlingham Gardens and residential blocks along Ranelagh Gardens. Views towards the site are largely obscured by the arches of Putney Railway Bridge and Putney Bridge. Viewpoint 2.3: View north from Putney High Street 11.4.154 This viewpoint is representative of the view for pedestrians along the eastern side of Putney High Street. The view is a linear view along Putney High Street, which culminates in Putney Bridge. The view is framed by shop frontages along both sides of the road. The site is set at a lower level than the view as it is obscured by the Lower Richmond Road slip road leading to Putney Bridge. Views towards the site are also partially blocked by residential buildings along Putney High Street and Lower Richmond Road. Viewpoint 2.4: View north west from Putney High Street outside St Marys Church 11.4.155 This viewpoint is representative of the view for pedestrians along the eastern side of Putney High Street, immediately outside the grounds of St Marys Church. The view is characterised by two linear views, one along Lower Richmond Road and Embankment, and another across Putney Bridge. Views towards the site are largely obscured by the level change, given that the site is located at the foot of Putney Bridge and the Lower Richmond Road slip road.
Page 193
Viewpoint 2.5: View east from the eastern end of Embankment 11.4.156 This viewpoint is representative of the view for recreational users of the Thames Path along Embankment, adjacent to the existing slipway at the site. The view is a wide open panorama across the river, although it is primarily focused on the historic slipway, Watermans Green linear open space and Putney Bridge. The viewpoint represents the most westerly in a sequence of views focused on Putney Bridge along the route of Embankment. Views of the site are unobstructed from this location. Viewpoint 2.6: View east from Lower Richmond Road outside the Star and Garter restaurant 11.4.157 This viewpoint is representative of the view for pedestrians along Lower Richmond Road outside the Star and Garter restaurant. The view is a linear view down Lower Richmond Road towards the site and Putney Bridge. The view down Lower Richmond Road is framed to the south by the Star and Garter restaurant, which partially obscures the site, and to the north by residential frontages. Views towards the site are partially filtered by mature London plane trees in Watermans Green at the edge of the site. Viewpoint 2.7: View south east from Embankment outside the Dukes Head 11.4.158 This viewpoint is representative of the view for recreational users of the Thames Path along Embankment, adjacent to The Dukes Head public house. The view is a wide open panorama across the river, although it is primarily focused on Putney Bridge. The viewpoint represents one in a sequence of views focused on Putney Bridge along the route of Embankment. Views of the site are largely unobstructed from this location, aside from Putney Pier which slightly obstructs visibility. Viewpoint 2.8: View south east from Embankment outside Leaders Gardens 11.4.159 This viewpoint is representative of the view for recreational users of the Thames Path along Embankment, outside Leaders Gardens. The view is a wide open panorama across the river, although it is primarily focused on Putney Bridge and Bishops Park. The viewpoint represents one in a sequence of views focused on Putney Bridge along the route of Embankment. Views of the site are largely unobstructed from this location, aside from Putney Pier which slightly obstructs visibility. Viewpoint 2.9: View south east from Leaders Gardens 11.4.160 This viewpoint is representative of the view for recreational users of Leaders Gardens. The foreground of the view is characterised by the mature tree planting within the park, filtering wider panoramic views of the river and towards Putney Bridge and the site. Views of the site are largely obstructed by mature tree planting within Leaders Gardens, buildings along Embankment and Putney Pier. Viewpoint 2.10: View south east from Embankment at Beverley Brook 11.4.161 This viewpoint is representative of the view for recreational users of the Thames Path along Embankment, on the bridge across the mouth of
Page 194
Beverley Brook. The view is an open panorama across the river, although it is primarily focused on Putney Bridge and Bishops Park. The viewpoint represents the most easterly in a sequence of views focused on Putney Bridge along the route of Embankment. Views of the site are largely unobstructed from this location, apart from Putney Pier which slightly obstructs visibility in the background of the view. Viewpoint 2.11: View south east from the western extent of Bishops Park 11.4.162 This viewpoint is representative of the view for recreational users of the Thames Path on the north bank of the river in Bishops Park. The view is an open panorama over the River Thames, characterised by the green frontage of Barn Elms and the mixed residential and active leisure uses frontage of Putney Embankment Conservation Area. Putney Bridge and the site form the background of the view down the river. Views of the site from this location are unobstructed. Viewpoint 2.12: View south east from Bishops Park close to Bishops Avenue 11.4.163 This viewpoint is representative of the view for recreational users of the Thames Path on the north bank of the river in Bishops Park, close to Bishops Avenue. The view is an open panorama over the River Thames, characterised by the green frontage of Barn Elms and the mixed residential and active leisure uses frontage of Putney Embankment Conservation Area. Putney Bridge and the site form the background of the view down the river. Views of the site from this location are largely unobstructed, apart from Putney Pier which slightly obstructs visibility. Viewpoint 2.13: View south east from Fulham Palace 11.4.164 This viewpoint is representative of the view for recreational users of Bishops Park in the vicinity of Fulham Palace. The foreground of the view is characterised by mature tree planting within Bishops Park, which heavily filters views towards the river. Views towards the site are therefore also heavily filtered by this planting. Viewpoint 2.14: View south east from Bishops Park riverside 11.4.165 This viewpoint is representative of the view for recreational users of the Thames Path on the north bank of the river in Bishops Park. The view is an open panorama over the River Thames, characterised by the mixed residential and active leisure uses frontage of Putney Embankment Conservation Area. Putney Bridge and the site form the eastern extent of the view down the river. Views of the site from this location are largely unobstructed, apart from Putney Pier which slightly obstructs visibility. Viewpoint 2.15: View south from Prior Gardens Bank 11.4.166 This viewpoint is representative of the view for recreational users of the Thames Path on the north bank of the river in Priors Garden Bank. The view is an open panorama over the River Thames, characterised by the mixed residential and active leisure uses frontage of Putney Embankment Conservation Area. Putney Bridge and the site form the eastern extent of
Page 195
the view down the river. Views of the site from this location are unobstructed. Transport 11.4.167 People travelling through an area generally have a medium sensitivity to change, although it is often the means by which the greatest numbers of people view the townscape. Viewpoint 3.1: View south from the junction of Fulham High Street and New Kings Road 11.4.168 This viewpoint is representative of the view from people travelling towards the site along Fulham High Street. The view is a linear view down Fulham High Street and Putney Bridge, framed to the west by All Saints Church and to the east by retail frontages. Due to the site being located at the foot of Putney Bridge, views are largely obstructed due to the change in level. Employment and other institutions 11.4.169 People at work are the least sensitive receptors, as their attention is likely to be focused on their work activity. These receptors have a low sensitivity to change. Viewpoint 4.1: View west from St Marys Church riverside 11.4.170 This viewpoint is representative of the view for users of the riverside courtyard within the grounds of St Marys Church, immediately east of the site. The view is dominated by Putney Bridge to the west and a clear panorama of the river to the east. Views of the site are largely unobstructed from this location by Putney Bridge, apart from the element of the site that extends to the bridge itself. 11.4.171 The sensitivity to change of the viewpoints is summarised in the table below. Vol 10 Table 11.4.4 Visual viewpoints sensitivities to change Viewpoint Residential Viewpoint 1.1: View south west from residences in Carrara Wharf Viewpoint 1.2: View north from residences in Kenilworth Court Recreational Viewpoint 2.1: View south west from Putney Bridge Viewpoint 2.2: View west from Wandsworth Park Viewpoint 2.3: View north from Putney High Street Viewpoint 2.4: View north west from Putney High Street outside St Marys Church Viewpoint 2.5: View east from the eastern end of High High High High High High High Sensitivity
Page 196
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Viewpoint Embankment
Section 11: Townscape and visual Sensitivity High High High High
Viewpoint 2.6: View east from Lower Richmond Road outside the Star and Garter Viewpoint 2.7: View south east from Embankment outside The Dukes Head Viewpoint 2.8: View south east from Embankment outside Leaders Gardens Viewpoint 2.9: View south east from Leaders Gardens
Viewpoint 2.10: View south east from Embankment at High Beverley Brook Viewpoint 2.11: View south east from the western extent of Bishops Park Viewpoint 2.12: View south east from Bishops Park close to Bishops Avenue Viewpoint 2.13: View south east from Fulham Palace Viewpoint 2.14: View south east from Bishops Park riverside Viewpoint 2.15: View south from Prior Gardens Bank Transport Viewpoint 3.1: View south from the junction of Fulham High Street and New Kings Road Employment and other institutions Viewpoint 4.1: View west from St Marys Church riverside Low Medium High High High High High
11.5
11.5.1
Effects during the construction phase would be temporary, although medium term due to the scale and necessary phasing of the proposed development. This would result in intense periods of activity within relatively less intense phases. Construction phase site assessment Direct effects on the townscape of the site would arise from works to the river wall, erection of site hoardings, construction of a temporary slipway and construction activity associated with the construction of the cofferdam, shaft and ventilation equipment, and secondary lining of the tunnel. The effects on specific components of the site are described below:
11.5.2
Page 197
Vol 10 Table 11.5.1 Townscape effects site components construction ID 01 Component Trees within Watermans Green Effects Existing trees retained and protected, although some pruning would be required to facilitate access during construction (to be confirmed following the completion of a tree survey).
02 03 04 05
Retaining wall to Retained and protected. slipway Slipway Upright timber fenders Grade II listed bollards Retained and protected. Retained and protected. Retained and protected.
11.5.3
06 River wall Retained and protected. The magnitude of change to the site during the construction period is considered to be high due to the construction of the cofferdam in the river, and the level of activity during construction. Although the existing site has moderate levels of tranquillity, the magnitude of change to the tranquillity of the site is considered to be high due to introduction of construction vehicles, plant equipment and high levels of activity in a part of the river and Thames Path not currently intensively used. The high magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the site to change, means the effect of the proposed construction activity on the townscape resource of the site would be of major adverse significance. Construction phase townscape assessment River Thames Fulham and Barn Elms Reach
11.5.4
11.5.5
11.5.6
The proposed site is approximately 800m south of this reach of the river. Construction activity would be set within the wider setting of this character area, partially screened by the bend in the river and the location of Putney Pier. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be medium. The area has high levels of tranquillity at present, which would be largely unchanged. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible. In summary, the medium magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the high sensitivity of this character area, means the effect of the proposed construction activity on the River Thames Fulham and Barn Elms Reach would be of moderate adverse significance. River Thames Putney and Fulham Palace Reach The proposed site is located within this reach of the river. The proposed development would introduce high levels of construction activity within the
11.5.7
11.5.8
11.5.9
Page 198
river corridor, in an area currently characterised by open space and leisure uses associated with the slipway and Watermans Green. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be high. 11.5.10 The area has high levels of tranquillity at present, which would be affected by construction activity and vehicle movements. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be high. In summary, the high magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the high sensitivity of this character area, means the effect of the proposed construction activity on the River Thames Putney and Fulham Palace Reach would be of major adverse significance. River Thames Wandsworth and Sands End Reach 11.5.12 The proposed site is approximately 500m west of this reach of the river, separated by Putney Bridge and Putney Railway Bridge. Construction activity would be set within the wider setting of this character area, largely screened by the presence of the two bridges. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be low. The area has high levels of tranquillity at present, which would be largely unchanged. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible. In summary, the low magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the high sensitivity of this character area, means the effect of the proposed construction activity on the River Thames Wandsworth and Sands End Reach would be of minor adverse significance. Bishops Park 11.5.15 The proposed site forms a direct part of the riverside setting of this character area. The presence of cranes, construction plant and the site cofferdams would affect the riverward setting of this area, a key element of the areas character. Construction associated with the temporary slipway on Embankment would also affect the riverward setting. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be high. The level of construction activity on the river would have a moderate effect on the tranquillity of the character area, characterised at present by high levels of tranquillity. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be medium. In summary, given the high magnitude of change and the high sensitivity of this character area to a change in setting, the effect of the proposed construction activity on Bishops Park would be of major adverse significance. Fulham Palace Allotments 11.5.18 The proposed site does not form part of the setting for this character area, which is largely introspective and unlikely to be indirectly affected by construction traffic. The presence of cranes is not likely to alter the setting of the area significantly. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible.
11.5.11
11.5.13
11.5.14
11.5.16
11.5.17
Page 199
The area has high levels of tranquillity at present, which would be likely to be unchanged. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible. In summary, the negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the medium sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed construction activity would give rise to a negligible effect on Fulham Palace Allotments. Fulham Football Club The proposed site does not form part of the setting for this character area, which is entirely introspective and unlikely to be indirectly affected by construction traffic. The presence of cranes is not likely to alter the setting of the area significantly. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The area has low levels of tranquillity at present, which would be likely to be unchanged. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible. In summary, the negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the low sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed construction activity would give rise to a negligible effect on Fulham Football Club Hurlingham and Fulham Residential The proposed site does not form part of the setting for this character area, which is largely introspective and unlikely to be indirectly affected by construction traffic. The presence of cranes is not likely to alter the setting of the area significantly. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The area has moderate levels of tranquillity at present, which would be likely to remain unchanged. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible. In summary, the negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the high sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed construction activity would give rise to a negligible effect on Hurlingham and Fulham Residential. Fulham High Street Retail The proposed site does not form part of the setting for this character area, which is largely introspective and unlikely to be indirectly affected by construction traffic. The presence of cranes is not likely to alter the setting of the area significantly. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The area has low levels of tranquillity at present, which would be likely to be unchanged. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible. In summary, the negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the low sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed construction activity would give rise to a negligible effect.
11.5.20
11.5.21
11.5.22
11.5.23
11.5.24
11.5.25
11.5.26
11.5.27
11.5.28
11.5.29
Page 200
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Putney Bridge Conservation Area 11.5.30
The proposed site forms a component of the riverside setting of this character area, albeit set beyond Putney Bridge. The presence of cranes, construction plant and the site cofferdams would affect the riverward setting of this area. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be medium. The area has low levels of tranquillity at present, which would be likely to remain unchanged. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible. In summary, the medium magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the high sensitivity of this character area, means the effect of the proposed construction activity on Putney Bridge Conservation Area would be of moderate adverse significance. Ranelagh Gardens Residential The proposed site forms a component of the wider riverside setting of this character area, set beyond both Putney Bridge and Putney Railway Bridge. The presence of cranes, construction plant and the site cofferdams would slightly affect the riverward setting of this area. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be low. The area has high levels of tranquillity at present, which would be likely to remain largely unchanged. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible. In summary, the low magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the medium sensitivity of this character area, means the effect of the proposed construction activity on Ranelagh Garden Residential would be of minor adverse significance. Hurlingham Park The proposed site does not form part of the setting for this character area, which is almost entirely introspective and unlikely to be indirectly affected by construction traffic. The presence of cranes is not likely to alter the setting of the area significantly. The character area is also set east of both Putney Bridge and Putney Railway Bridge. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The area has high levels of tranquillity at present, which would be likely to remain largely unchanged. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible. In summary, the negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the medium sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed construction activity would give rise to a negligible effect on Hurlingham Park. Wandsworth Park The proposed site forms a component of the wider oblique riverside setting of this character area, set beyond both Putney Bridge and Putney Railway Bridge. The presence of cranes, construction plant and the site cofferdams would be unlikely to significantly affect the riverward setting of
11.5.31
11.5.32
11.5.33
11.5.34
11.5.35
11.5.36
11.5.37
11.5.38
11.5.39
Page 201
this area, due to the distance from the site, the oblique nature of the relationship to setting and the intervening bridges. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. 11.5.40 The area has high levels of tranquillity at present, which would be likely to remain largely unchanged. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible. In summary, the negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the high sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed construction activity would give rise to a negligible effect on Wandsworth Park. Deodar Road Conservation Area 11.5.42 The proposed site forms a component of the riverside setting of this character area, albeit set beyond Putney Bridge and partially beyond Putney Railway Bridge. The presence of cranes, construction plant and the site cofferdams would affect the riverward setting of this area. However, this character area is predominantly focused towards residential properties further away from the river. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be low. The level of construction activity on the river would have a slight effect on the tranquillity of the character area that currently experiences high levels of tranquillity. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be low. In summary, the low magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the high sensitivity of this character area, means the effect of the proposed construction activity on Deodar Road Conservation Area would be of minor adverse significance. Putney Residential 11.5.45 Despite this character area being largely introspective in nature, the proposed site would slightly alter the riverward setting, through the introduction of cranes and construction plant. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be low. The area has moderate levels of tranquillity at present, which would be likely to remain largely unchanged. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible. In summary, the low magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the high sensitivity of this character area, means the effect of the proposed construction activity on Putney Residential would be of minor adverse significance. Putney High Street 11.5.48 The proposed site does not form part of the setting for this character area, which is largely introspective and unlikely to be indirectly affected by construction traffic. The presence of cranes is not likely to alter the setting of the area significantly. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible.
11.5.41
11.5.43
11.5.44
11.5.46
11.5.47
Page 202
The area has low levels of tranquillity at present, which would be likely to remain unchanged. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible. In summary, the negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the low sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed construction activity would give rise to a negligible effect on Putney High Street. Putney Embankment Conservation Area The proposed site forms a direct part of the riverside setting of this character area, in close proximity to Putney Bridge, a key component of the areas character. The presence of cranes, construction plant, the site cofferdams and road transport would significantly affect the riverward setting of this area. Construction associated with the temporary slipway on Embankment would also affect the riverward setting. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be high. The level of construction activity on the river would have a large effect on the tranquillity of the character area, characterised at present by moderate levels of tranquillity. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be high. In summary, given the high magnitude of change and the high sensitivity of this character area to a change in setting, the effect of the proposed construction activity on Bishops Park would be of major adverse significance. Leaders Gardens The proposed site forms a component of the wider riverside setting of this character area. The presence of cranes, construction plant and the site cofferdams in the distance would slightly affect the riverward setting of this area. The majority of the riverside setting of this character area would remain unaffected by the proposed construction at the site. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be low. The area has high levels of tranquillity at present, which would be likely to remain largely unchanged. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible. In summary, the low magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the high sensitivity of this character area, means the effect of the proposed construction activity on Leaders Gardens would be of minor adverse significance. Barn Elms The proposed site does not form part of the setting for this character area, which is almost entirely introspective and unlikely to be indirectly affected by construction traffic. The presence of cranes is not likely to alter the setting of the area significantly. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible.
11.5.50
11.5.51
11.5.52
11.5.53
11.5.54
11.5.55
11.5.56
11.5.57
Page 203
The area has high levels of tranquillity at present, which would be likely to be largely unchanged. Therefore, the magnitude of change to tranquillity is considered to be negligible. In summary, the negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the medium sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed construction activity on Barn Elms would give rise to a negligible effect. The assessment of townscape effects during construction is summarised in the table below. Vol 10 Table 11.5.2 Townscape character effects - construction Townscape character area The site River Thames Fulham and Barn Elms Reach River Thames Putney and Fulham Palace Reach River Thames Wandsworth and Sands End Reach Bishops Park Fulham Palace Allotments Fulham Football Club Hurlingham and Fulham Residential Fulham High Street Retail Putney Bridge Conservation Area Ranelagh Gardens Residential Hurlingham Park Wandsworth Park Deodar Road Conservation Area Putney Residential Putney High Street Putney Embankment Conservation Area Leaders Gardens Sensitivity Magnitude High High High High High Medium Low High Low High Medium Medium High High High Low High High High Medium High Low High Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Medium Low Negligible Negligible Low Low Negligible High Low Effect Major adverse Moderate adverse Major adverse Minor adverse Major adverse Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Moderate adverse Minor adverse Negligible Negligible Minor adverse Minor adverse Negligible Major adverse Minor
11.5.59
11.5.60
Page 204
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Townscape character area Barn Elms
Section 11: Townscape and visual Sensitivity Magnitude Medium Negligible Effect adverse Negligible
Construction phase townscape assessment night time effects 11.5.61 There are likely to be limited effects on night time character due to the proposed limit of 12 hour working at the site. However, this would mean that there would be some lighting of the site in the early morning and evening during winter. Effects on night time character will be considered in the ES (section 5.1). Construction phase visual assessment Residential Viewpoint 1.1: View south west from residences in Carrara Wharf 11.5.62 Views from residences towards the site would be affected during construction. The main site working area, cranes, piling rig and other construction plant adjacent to the top of the existing slipway would be intermittently visible through the arches of Putney Bridge. The cofferdam and construction activity associated with the CSO interception works at Putney Bridge would be highly visible in the background of the view, although these works would be less visually intrusive than the construction of the shaft. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view would be medium. The medium magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of moderate adverse significance. Viewpoint 1.2: View north from residences in Kenilworth Court 11.5.65 Views from residences towards the site would be affected during construction. The construction of the shaft would be set directly in front of the properties, restricting views of Putney Bridge and the river. The view would be characterised by site hoardings, construction activity and the presence of the cranes and piling rigs. From the lower storeys, interception works at Putney Bridge would be partially screened by the level change between Lower Richmond Road and the site. The retention of mature trees along Watermans Green would help to partially filter views of the site from lower storeys. However, from upper storeys there would be a direct view of all the main site and interception works. Views from slightly further west along Lower Richmond Road would be partially screened by the existing low level restaurant unit on the riverside. Construction phase road transport would also be highly visible. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view would be high. The high magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of major adverse significance.
11.5.63
11.5.64
11.5.66
Page 205
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Recreational
Viewpoint 2.1: View south west from Putney Bridge 11.5.67 Views from this location would be affected during construction. Due to the elevated location of the viewpoint on Putney Bridge, construction activity within the site would be clearly visible beyond the hoardings at the site boundary. Construction plant, including the crane and piling rig, would partially obscure views of the historic building faade along Lower Richmond Road, although the main activity (at the shaft) would be set in front of the more recent restaurant unit on the riverfront. Works associated with the CSO interception on Putney Bridge would also form part of the view. Construction phase road transport would also be highly visible. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view is considered to be high. The high magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of major adverse significance. Viewpoint 2.2: View west from Wandsworth Park 11.5.69 Construction activity at the shaft would largely be obscured by the arches of Putney Bridge and Putney Railway Bridge in views from this location, although the cranes would be visible in the background of the linear view up the river. Interception works at Putney Bridge would be intermittently visible, but partially obscured by Putney Railway Bridge and less visually intrusive in nature than the main site works. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view would be low, given the screening provided by Putney Bridge and Putney Railway Bridge. The low magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of minor adverse significance. Viewpoint 2.3: View north from Putney High Street 11.5.71 Views from this location would be slightly affected during construction due to the introduction of cranes and also road based transport along Putney High Street. The majority of the works at the site would be screened by the level change between the viewpoint and the site and the buildings along the west side of Putney High Street. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view would be low. The low magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of minor adverse significance. Viewpoint 2.4: View north west from Putney High Street outside St Marys Church 11.5.73 Views from this location would be affected during construction. Cranes, construction plant, the piling rig, and road based transport would be highly visible from this location. However, due to the level change between the viewpoint and the site, low level works such as storage of materials and general activity would be largely obscured. The retention of mature trees
11.5.68
11.5.70
11.5.72
Page 206
along Watermans Green would further help to filter views towards the site. Therefore, the magnitude of change to this view would be medium. 11.5.74 The medium magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of moderate adverse significance. Viewpoint 2.5: View east from the eastern end of Embankment 11.5.75 Views from this location would be affected during construction. The construction of the shaft would be set directly in the foreground of the view, restricting views of Putney Bridge and the river. The view would be dominated by site hoardings and further characterised by construction activity and the presence of the cranes and piling rigs. Construction phase road transport would also be highly visible. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view would be high. The high magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of major adverse significance. Viewpoint 2.6: View east from Lower Richmond Road outside the Star and Garter restaurant 11.5.77 Views from this location would be affected during construction. The construction activity in the eastern part of the site would be set in the background of the linear view down Lower Richmond Road. Cranes, piling rigs and other construction plant would partially obscure views of Putney Bridge. Construction activity, focused around the shaft, would be largely obscured by the riverside restaurant. Views of the rest of the site would be partially filtered by the mature trees along Watermans Green. Construction phase road transport would also be visible. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view would be medium. The medium magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of moderate adverse significance. Viewpoint 2.7: View south east from Embankment outside the Dukes Head 11.5.79 Views from this location towards the site and Putney Bridge would be affected during construction. The main site working area would be set in the middle ground of the view, restricting views of Putney Bridge. The view would be characterised by site hoardings, construction activity and the presence of the cranes and piling rigs. Construction phase road transport would also be highly visible. Views would be partially obscured by Putney Pier, which would remain throughout the works, and the line of mature London plane trees along Embankment. The wider panorama of the river would be largely unaffected. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view would be medium. The medium magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of moderate adverse significance.
11.5.76
11.5.78
11.5.80
Page 207
Viewpoint 2.8: View south east from Embankment outside Leaders Gardens 11.5.81 Views from this location towards the site and Putney Bridge would be affected during construction. The main site working area would be set in the background of the view, restricting views of the southern end of Putney Bridge. The distant view would be characterised by the presence of the cranes and piling rigs. Views would be partially obscured by Putney Pier, which would remain throughout the works, and the line of mature London plane trees along Embankment. The wider panorama of the river would be largely unaffected. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view would be low. The low magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of minor adverse significance. Viewpoint 2.9: View south east from Leaders Gardens 11.5.83 Views from this location towards the site would be largely obscured by mature tree planting within the park, buildings along Embankment and Putney Pier. The cranes and piling rig at the site would form a relatively indistinct component of the wider filtered view of the river. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the proposed construction phase would give rise to negligible effects on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 2.10: View south east from Embankment at Beverley Brook 11.5.85 Views from this location towards the site and Putney Bridge would be affected during construction. The site cofferdam would be set in the background of the view, restricting views of the southern end of Putney Bridge. The distant view would be characterised by the presence of the cranes and piling rigs. Views would be partially obscured by Putney Pier, which would remain throughout the works, and the line of mature London plane trees along Embankment. The wider panorama of the river would be largely unaffected. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view would be low. The low magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of minor adverse significance. Viewpoint 2.11: View south east from the western extent of Bishops Park 11.5.87 Distant views from this location towards the site and Putney Bridge would be largely obscured by mature tree planting along the river frontage of Bishops Park and also Putney Pier. The site working area would form a relatively indistinct component of the background of the view, and would not be set directly in front of Putney Bridge. The distant view would be characterised by the presence of the cranes and piling rigs. The wider panorama of the river, which is the main focus of the view, would be
11.5.82
11.5.84
11.5.86
Page 208
unaffected. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view would be negligible. 11.5.88 The negligible magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the proposed construction phase would give rise to negligible effects on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 2.12: View south east from Bishops Park close to Bishops Avenue 11.5.89 Views from this location towards the site and Putney Bridge would be affected during construction. The site cofferdam would be set in the background of the view, although not directly in front of Putney Bridge. The view would be characterised by the presence of the cranes and piling rigs. Views would be partially obscured by Putney Pier (which would remain throughout the works), and the line of mature London plane trees along Bishops Park riverside. The wider panorama of the river would be largely unaffected. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view would be low. The low magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of minor adverse significance. Viewpoint 2.13: View south east from Fulham Palace 11.5.91 Views from this location towards the site would be largely obscured by mature tree planting within the park and along the river front, and also the structure of Putney Pier. The cranes and piling rig at the main site would form a relatively indistinct component of the wider filtered view of the river. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the proposed construction phase would give rise to negligible effects on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 2.14: View south east from Bishops Park riverside 11.5.93 Views from this location towards the site and Putney Bridge would be affected during construction. The site cofferdam would be set in the middle ground of the view, partially restricting views of Putney Bridge and largely obscuring views of the historic faade along Lower Richmond Road. The view would be characterised by site hoardings, construction activity and the presence of the cranes and piling rigs. Construction phase road transport would also be highly visible. Views would be partially obscured by Putney Pier (which would remain throughout the works), and the line of mature London plane trees along Bishops Park riverside. The wider panorama of the river would be largely unaffected. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view would be medium. The medium magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of moderate adverse significance.
11.5.90
11.5.92
11.5.94
Page 209
Viewpoint 2.15: View south from Prior Gardens Bank 11.5.95 Views from this location towards the site and Putney Bridge would be directly affected during construction. The site cofferdam would form the main focus of the view across the river, partially obscuring views of the historic faade along Lower Richmond Road. The view would be characterised by site hoardings, construction activity and the presence of the cranes and piling rigs. Construction phase road transport would also be highly visible. Views of the site would be directly and unfiltered. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view would be high. The high magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the visual effect of the proposed construction phase would be of major adverse significance. Transport Viewpoint 3.1: View south from the junction of Fulham High Street and New Kings Road 11.5.97 Views from this location would be slightly affected during construction due to the introduction of cranes, the piling rig and river based transport. The majority of the works at the site would be screened by the level change between the viewpoint and the site, the structure of Putney Bridge and buildings along the western edge of Fulham High Street. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view would be low. The low magnitude of change assessed alongside the medium sensitivity of the receptor means the proposed construction phase would give rise to a negligible effect from this viewpoint. Employment and other institutions Viewpoint 4.1: View west from St Marys Church riverside 11.5.99 Views of the main site from this location would be entirely obscured by Putney Bridge. However, works associated with the CSO interception under Putney Bridge would be directly visible in the foreground of the view. These works would be less visually intrusive in nature than those at the main site, and would also be short term rather than the longer construction duration at the main site. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view would be low.
11.5.96
11.5.98
11.5.100 The low magnitude of change assessed alongside the low sensitivity of the receptor means the proposed construction phase would give rise to a negligible effect on this viewpoint. 11.5.101 The assessment of visual effects during construction is summarised in the table below. Vol 10 Table 11.5.3 Visual effects - construction Viewpoint Residential Viewpoint 1.1: View south west from residences in Carrara High Medium Moderate adverse Sensitivity Magnitude Effect
Page 210
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Viewpoint Wharf Viewpoint 1.2: View north from residences in Kenilworth Court Recreational Viewpoint 2.1: View south west from Putney Bridge Viewpoint 2.2: View west from Wandsworth Park Viewpoint 2.3: View north from Putney High Street Viewpoint 2.4: View north west from Putney High Street outside St Marys Church Viewpoint 2.5: View east from the eastern end of Embankment Viewpoint 2.6: View east from Lower Richmond Road outside the Star and Garter Viewpoint 2.7: View south east from Embankment outside The Dukes Head Viewpoint 2.8: View south east from Embankment outside Leaders Gardens Viewpoint 2.9: View south east from Leaders Gardens Viewpoint 2.10: View south east from Embankment at Beverley Brook Viewpoint 2.11: View south east from the western extent of Bishops Park Viewpoint 2.12: View south east from Bishops Park close to Bishops Avenue Viewpoint 2.13: View south east from Fulham Palace Viewpoint 2.14: View south east from Bishops Park riverside High High High High High
Section 11: Townscape and visual Sensitivity Magnitude Effect High Major adverse Major adverse Minor adverse Minor adverse Moderate adverse Major adverse Moderate adverse Moderate adverse Minor adverse Negligible Minor adverse Negligible
High Low Low Medium
High High
High Medium
High
Medium
High
Low
High High
Negligible Low
High
Negligible
High
Low
Minor adverse Negligible Moderate adverse Major
High High
Negligible Medium High
Viewpoint 2.15: View south from High
Page 211
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Viewpoint Prior Gardens Bank Transport Viewpoint 3.1: View south from the junction of Fulham High Street and New Kings Road Employment and other institutions Viewpoint 4.1: View west from St Marys Church riverside Low
Section 11: Townscape and visual Sensitivity Magnitude Effect adverse Medium Low Negligible
Low
Negligible
11.6
11.6.1 11.6.2
Operational assessment Year one of operation

The operational assessment below describes effects during daylight hours. The operational project would have little activity associated with it, aside from infrequent maintenance visits. Therefore, for all townscape character areas it is considered that the proposed development would have a negligible effect on tranquillity. Operational phase townscape site assessment year one of operation
11.6.3
The proposed development would have a direct and permanent effect on the townscape resource of the site. The permanent works layout would result in a new public realm along Embankment protruding into the river. The ventilation column would introduce built elements into an area currently devoid of structures. The control kiosk would introduce a new built element set against the Lower Richmond Road retaining wall, in Watermans Green. There would also be a narrow ventilation column attached to the western side of Putney Bridge, similar in proportion to a lighting column. For the purposes of this assessment it is assumed that this would rise 6m above the pavement level of the bridge. There would additionally be a new encroachment at the CSO interception site under Putney Bridge. The historic slipway and other land based areas of the construction site would be returned to their original condition at completion of construction. The temporary slipway located close to Ruvigny Gardens to the west of the site, would be entirely removed upon completion. The effects on specific components of the site are described below: Vol 10 Table 11.6.1 Townscape site components effects - year one operation ID 01 02 Component Trees within Watermans Green Retaining wall to slipway Effects No operational effects. No operational effects.
Page 212
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore ID 03 04 Component Slipway Upright timber fenders
Section 11: Townscape and visual Effects No operational effects. Partially retained in the original position and partially removed along the length of the permanent encroachment into the river. Restored and reinstated on site.
05 06 11.6.4
Grade II listed bollards River wall
Partially obscured behind a new river wall The magnitude of change and significance of effect on the site would be dependent on the design and finish of the public realm, river wall and above ground structures. The magnitude of change is likely to range from low to medium. Assessing this alongside the high sensitivity of the site means the effect of the proposed development would be of minor to moderate adverse significance. Operational phase townscape assessment year one of operation River Thames Fulham and Barn Elms Reach
11.6.5
11.6.6
The proposed development would result in changes to the wider riverward setting of this character area, due to the permanent encroachment resulting from the shaft construction and interception works. The proposed works in front of the existing river wall, and introduction of built elements in the currently undeveloped river channel would give rise to adverse effects on the setting of this character area. The magnitude of change is likely to be negligible to low, given that the majority of the setting of the character area would be unaffected. Assessing this alongside the high sensitivity of the character area means the proposed development would give rise to negligible to minor adverse effects on the River Thames Fulham and Barn Elms Reach. River Thames Putney and Fulham Palace Reach The proposed development would result in changes to the direct riverward setting of this character area, due to the permanent encroachment resulting from the shaft construction and interception works under Putney Bridge. The proposed works in front of the existing river wall, and introduction of built elements in the currently undeveloped river channel would give rise to adverse effects on the setting of this character area. The magnitude of change is likely to range from low to medium. Assessing this alongside the high sensitivity of the character area means the effect of the proposed development would be of minor to moderate adverse significance. River Thames Wandsworth and Sands End Reach The proposed development would result in changes to the wider riverward setting of this character area, due to the permanent encroachment
11.6.7
11.6.8
11.6.9
11.6.10
Page 213
resulting from the shaft construction and interception works. The proposed works in front of the existing river wall, and introduction of built elements in the currently undeveloped river channel would give rise to adverse effects on the setting of this character area. However, these effects would be partially screened due to the presence of Putney Bridge and Putney Railway Bridge which divide this character area from the site. 11.6.11 The magnitude of change is likely to be negligible to low, given that the majority of the setting of the character area would be unaffected. Assessing this alongside the high sensitivity of the character area means the proposed development would give rise to negligible to minor adverse effects on the River Thames Wandsworth and Sands End Reach. Bishops Park 11.6.12 The proposed development would result in changes to the direct riverward setting of this character area, due to the permanent encroachment resulting from the shaft construction and interception works under Putney Bridge. The proposed works in front of the existing river wall, and introduction of built elements in the currently undeveloped river channel would give rise to adverse effects on the setting of this character area. The magnitude of change is likely to range from low to medium. Assessing this alongside the high sensitivity of the character area means the effect of the proposed development would be of minor to moderate adverse significance. Fulham Palace Allotments 11.6.14 11.6.15 The proposed development is not likely to alter the setting of this character area. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the medium sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed development would give rise to a negligible effect on Fulham Palace Allotments. Fulham Football Club 11.6.16 11.6.17 The proposed development is not likely to alter the setting of this character area. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the low sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed development would give rise to a negligible effect on Fulham Football Club. Hurlingham and Fulham Residential 11.6.18 11.6.19 The proposed development is not likely to alter the setting of this character area. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the high sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed development would give rise to a negligible effect on Hurlingham and Fulham Residential. Fulham High Street Retail 11.6.20 The proposed development is not likely to alter the setting of this character area. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible.
11.6.13
Page 214
The negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the low sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed development would give rise to a negligible effect on Fulham High Street Retail. Putney Bridge Conservation Area The proposed development would result in changes to the wider riverward setting of this character area, due to the permanent encroachment resulting from the shaft construction and interception works under Putney Bridge. The proposed works in front of the existing river wall, and introduction of built elements in the currently undeveloped river channel would give rise to adverse effects on the setting of this character area. The magnitude of change is likely to range from low to medium. Assessing this alongside the high sensitivity of the character area means the effect of the proposed development would be of minor to moderate adverse significance. Ranelagh Garden Residential The proposed development is not likely to alter the setting of this character area. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the high sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed development would give rise to a negligible effect on Ranelagh Gardens Residential. Hurlingham Park The proposed development is not likely to alter the setting of this character area. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the medium sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed development would give rise to a negligible effect on Hurlingham Park. Wandsworth Park The proposed development is not likely to alter the setting of this character area. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the high sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed development would give rise to a negligible effect on Wandsworth Park. Deodar Road Conservation Area The proposed development is not likely to alter the setting of this character area, which is primarily focused landward rather than on the river. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the high sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed development would give rise to a negligible effect on Deodar Road Conservation Area. Putney Residential The proposed development is not likely to alter the setting of this character area. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible.
11.6.22
11.6.23
11.6.24 11.6.25
11.6.26 11.6.27
11.6.28 11.6.29
11.6.30
11.6.31
11.6.32
Page 215
The negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the high sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed development would give rise to a negligible effect on Putney Residential. Putney High Street The proposed development is not likely to alter the setting of this character area. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the low sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed development would give rise to a negligible effect on Putney High Street. Putney Embankment Conservation Area The proposed development would result in changes to the direct riverward setting of this character area, due to the permanent encroachment resulting from the shaft construction and interception works under Putney Bridge. The proposed works in front of the existing river wall, and introduction of built elements in the currently undeveloped river channel would give rise to adverse effects on the setting of this character area. The magnitude of change is likely to range from low to medium. Assessing this alongside the high sensitivity of the character area means the effect of the proposed development would be of minor to moderate adverse significance. Leaders Gardens The proposed development is not likely to alter the setting of this character area. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the high sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed development would give rise to a negligible effect on Leaders Gardens. Barn Elms The proposed development is not likely to alter the setting of this character area. Therefore, the magnitude of change is considered to be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change, when assessed alongside the high sensitivity of this character area, means the proposed development would give rise to a negligible effect on Barn Elms. The assessment of townscape effects during year one of operation is summarised in the table below.
11.6.34 11.6.35
11.6.36
11.6.37
11.6.38 11.6.39
11.6.40 11.6.41
11.6.42
Page 216
Vol 10 Table 11.6.2 Townscape character effects - year one operation Townscape character area The site Sensitivity Magnitude High Low to medium Negligible to low Low to medium Negligible to low Low to medium Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Low to medium Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Low to medium Negligible Negligible Effect iv Minor to moderate adverse Negligible to minor adverse Minor to moderate adverse Negligible to minor adverse Minor to moderate adverse Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Minor to moderate adverse Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Minor to moderate adverse Negligible Negligible
River Thames Fulham and Barn Elms Reach River Thames Putney and Fulham Palace Reach River Thames Wandsworth and Sands End Reach Bishops Park
High
High
High
High
Fulham Palace Allotments Fulham Football Club Hurlingham and Fulham Residential Fulham High Street Retail Putney Bridge Conservation Area
Medium Low High Low High
Ranelagh Gardens Residential High Hurlingham Park Wandsworth Park Deodar Road Conservation Area Putney Residential Putney High Street Putney Embankment Conservation Area Leaders Gardens Barn Elms Medium High High High Low High
High High
The potential range of magnitude and effect has been identified based on the engineering design and will be refined for the ES based on the developed architectural and landscape design.
iv
Page 217
Operational phase townscape assessment year one of operation night time effects 11.6.43 In terms of the effects during the night, it is likely that the operational project would have no substantial lighting requirements. Therefore, for all townscape character areas it is considered that the proposed development would have a negligible effect on night time character. Operational phase visual assessment year one of operation Residential Viewpoint 1.1: View south west from residences in Carrara Wharf 11.6.44 Views from residences towards the site would be largely obscured by the arches of Putney Bridge, although the encroachment forming the CSO interception under the bridge would be directly visible. The level of visual intrusion arising from the interception chamber under the bridge would depend heavily on the architectural design. The magnitude of change is likely to range from negligible to low. Assessing this alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the proposed development would give rise to negligible to minor adverse effects on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 1.2: View north from residences in Kenilworth Court 11.6.46 Views from residences towards the site would be affected by the design of the public realm, above ground structures and interception chamber under Putney Bridge. The new site and structures would form dominant components in the foreground of the view, partially obscuring views of the river and Putney Bridge. The magnitude of change is likely to range from low to medium. Assessing this alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the effect of the proposed development would be of minor to moderate adverse significance. Recreational Viewpoint 2.1: View south west from Putney Bridge 11.6.48 Views towards the site from this location would be affected by the design of the river wall, public realm and the above ground structures. The new site and structures would form dominant components in the foreground of the view, partially obscuring views of the historic faade along Lower Richmond Road. The magnitude of change is likely to range from low to medium. Assessing this alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the effect of the proposed development would be of minor to moderate adverse significance. Viewpoint 2.2: View west from Wandsworth Park 11.6.50 Views from towards the main site from this location would be largely obscured by the arches of Putney Bridge and Putney Railway Bridge, although the encroachment forming the CSO interception under the bridge would be barely perceptible given the distance between the site and the
11.6.45
11.6.47
11.6.49
Page 218
viewpoint. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view would be negligible. 11.6.51 The negligible magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the proposed development would give rise to negligible effects on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 2.3: View north from Putney High Street 11.6.52 Views from this location would be almost entirely obscured by the buildings along Putney High Street and the level change between the viewpoint and the site. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view would be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the proposed development would give rise to negligible effects on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 2.4: View north west from Putney High Street outside St Marys Church 11.6.54 Views from this location would be almost entirely obscured by the level change between the viewpoint and the site, and further filtered by the density of street furniture and other structures along Putney High Street and Lower Richmond Road. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view would be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the proposed development would give rise to negligible effects on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 2.5: View east from the eastern end of Embankment 11.6.56 Views towards the site from this location would be affected by the design of the river wall, public realm, above ground structures and the interception chamber under Putney Bridge. The new site and structures would form dominant components in the foreground of the view, partially obscuring views of the river, historic slipway and Putney Bridge. The magnitude of change is likely to range from low to medium. Assessing this alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the effect of the proposed development would be of minor to moderate adverse significance. Viewpoint 2.6: View east from Lower Richmond Road outside the Star and Garter 11.6.58 Views from towards the main site from this location would be partially obscured by riverside restaurant along the northern side of Lower Richmond Road. The view towards the bridge would however be slightly affected by the design of the ventilation column located close to the shaft. The level of visual intrusion arising from the above ground structures would depend heavily on the architectural design. The magnitude of change is likely to range from negligible to low. Assessing this alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the proposed development would give rise to negligible to minor adverse effects on this viewpoint.
11.6.53
11.6.55
11.6.57
11.6.59
Page 219
Viewpoint 2.7: View south east from Embankment outside The Dukes Head 11.6.60 Views towards the site from this location would be affected by the design of the river wall, above ground structures and, to a lesser extent, the interception chamber under Putney Bridge. The new site and structures would form dominant components in the middle ground of the view, partially obscuring views of Putney Bridge. The magnitude of change is likely to range from low to medium. Assessing this alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the effect of the proposed development would be of minor to moderate adverse significance. Viewpoint 2.8: View south east from Embankment outside Leaders Gardens 11.6.62 Views towards the site from this location would be affected by the design of the river wall, above ground structures and, to a lesser extent, the interception chamber under Putney Bridge. The new site and structures would form components in the background of the view, partially obscuring views of the southern end of Putney Bridge. The magnitude of change is likely to range from negligible to low, due to the distance between the site and viewpoint. Assessing this alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the proposed development would give rise to negligible to minor adverse effects on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 2.9: View south east from Leaders Gardens 11.6.64 Views from this location would be almost entirely obscured by the mature planting within the gardens and along Embankment. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view would be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the proposed development would give rise to negligible effects on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 2.10: View south east from Embankment at Beverley Brook 11.6.66 Views towards the site from this location would be affected by the design of the river wall, above ground structures and, to a lesser extent, the interception chamber under Putney Bridge. The new site and structures would form components in the background of the view, partially obscuring views of the southern end of Putney Bridge. The magnitude of change is likely to range from negligible to low, due to the distance between the site and viewpoint. Assessing this alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the proposed development would give rise to negligible to minor adverse effects on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 2.11: View south east from the western extent of Bishops Park 11.6.68 Distant views from this location towards the site and Putney Bridge would be largely obscured by mature tree planting along the river frontage of Bishops Park and also Putney Pier. The new river wall and above ground structures would form relatively indistinct components of the background
11.6.61
11.6.63
11.6.65
11.6.67
Page 220
of the view, and would not be set directly in front of Putney Bridge. The wider panorama of the river, which is the main focus of the view, would be unaffected. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view would be negligible. 11.6.69 The negligible magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the proposed development would give rise to negligible effects on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 2.12: View south east from Bishops Park close to Bishops Avenue 11.6.70 Views towards the site from this location would be affected by the design of the river wall, above ground structures and, to a lesser extent, the interception chamber under Putney Bridge. The new site and structures would form components in the background of the view, although not set in front of Putney Bridge. The wider panorama of the river would be unaffected. The magnitude of change is likely to range from negligible to low, due to the distance between the site and viewpoint. Assessing this alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the proposed development would give rise to negligible to minor adverse effects on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 2.13: View south east from Fulham Palace 11.6.72 Views from this location would be almost entirely obscured by the mature planting within the park and along the river frontage. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view would be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change assessed alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the proposed development would give rise to negligible effects on this viewpoint. Viewpoint 2.14: View south east from Bishops Park riverside 11.6.74 Views towards the site from this location would be affected by the design of the river wall, above ground structures and, to a lesser extent, the interception chamber under Putney Bridge. The new site and structures would form dominant components in the background of the view towards the site, although not set in front of Putney Bridge. The wider panorama of the river would be unaffected. The magnitude of change is likely to range from low to medium. Assessing this alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the effect of the proposed development would be of minor to moderate adverse significance. Viewpoint 2.15: View south from Prior Gardens Bank 11.6.76 Views towards the site from this location would be affected by the design of the river wall, public realm, above ground structures and the interception chamber under Putney Bridge. The new site and structures would form dominant components in the direct view across the river, partially obscuring views of the historic faade along Lower Richmond Road.
11.6.71
11.6.73
11.6.75
Page 221
The magnitude of change is likely to range from low to medium. Assessing this alongside the high sensitivity of the receptor means the effect of the proposed development would be of minor to moderate adverse significance. Transport Viewpoint 3.1: View south from the junction of Fulham High Street and New Kings Road
11.6.78
Views from this location would be almost entirely obscured by the level change between the viewpoint and the site, and further filtered by the density of street furniture and other structures along Fulham High Street and Putney Bridge. Therefore, the magnitude of change on this view would be negligible. The negligible magnitude of change assessed alongside the medium sensitivity of the receptor means the proposed development would give rise to negligible effects on this viewpoint. Employment and other institutions Viewpoint 4.1: View west from St Marys Church riverside
11.6.79
11.6.80
Views of the main site from this location would be entirely obscured by Putney Bridge. However, the interception chamber under Putney Bridge would be directly visible in the foreground of the view. The level of visual intrusion arising from the interception chamber under the bridge would depend heavily on the architectural design. The magnitude of change is likely to range from low to medium. Assessing this alongside the low sensitivity of the receptor means the effect of the proposed development would give rise to negligible to minor adverse effects on this viewpoint. The assessment of visual effects during year one of operation is summarised in the table below. Vol 10 Table 11.6.3 Visual effects - year one operation Viewpoint Residential Viewpoint 1.1: View south west from residences in Carrara Wharf Viewpoint 1.2: View north from residences in Kenilworth Court Recreational Viewpoint 2.1: View south west from Putney Bridge Viewpoint 2.2: View west from High Low to medium Negligible Minor to moderate adverse Negligible High Negligible to low Low to medium Negligible to minor adverse Minor to moderate adverse Sensitivity Magnitude Effect
11.6.81
11.6.82
High
High
Page 222
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Viewpoint Wandsworth Park Viewpoint 2.3: View north from Putney High Street Viewpoint 2.4: View north west from Putney High Street outside St Marys Church Viewpoint 2.5: View east from the eastern end of Embankment High High
Section 11: Townscape and visual Sensitivity Magnitude Effect Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
High
Low to medium Negligible to low Low to medium Negligible to low Negligible Negligible to low Negligible
Minor to moderate adverse Negligible to minor adverse Minor to moderate adverse Negligible to minor adverse Negligible Negligible to minor adverse Negligible
Viewpoint 2.6: View east from High Lower Richmond Road outside the Star and Garter Viewpoint 2.7: View south east High from Embankment outside The Dukes Head Viewpoint 2.8: View south east from Embankment outside Leaders Gardens Viewpoint 2.9: View south east from Leaders Gardens Viewpoint 2.10: View south east from Embankment at Beverley Brook Viewpoint 2.11: View south east from the western extent of Bishops Park Viewpoint 2.12: View south east from Bishops Park close to Bishops Avenue Viewpoint 2.13: View south east from Fulham Palace Viewpoint 2.14: View south east from Bishops Park riverside Viewpoint 2.15: View south from Prior Gardens Bank Transport Viewpoint 3.1: View south from the junction of Fulham High Street and New Kings Medium High
High High
High
High
Negligible to low Negligible Low to medium Low to medium
Negligible to minor adverse Negligible Minor to moderate adverse Minor to moderate adverse Negligible
High High
High
Negligible
Page 223
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Viewpoint Road Employment and other institutions Viewpoint 4.1: View west from St Marys Church riverside Low
Section 11: Townscape and visual Sensitivity Magnitude Effect
Low to medium
Negligible to minor adverse
Year 15 of operation
11.6.83 Townscape and visual effects arising from the proposed development, 15 years after completion may be altered by growth of vegetation established as part of the project, growth of vegetation in the wider assessment area or changes in the base case arising from redevelopment in the vicinity of the site. These may contribute to reducing adverse effects and generating beneficial effects on the surrounding townscape and visual receptors. This is to be defined further as part of the ongoing design development and will be reflected in the final assessment presented in the ES.
11.7
11.7.1
Approach to mitigation Mitigation of construction effects

Mitigation measures during the construction phase have been incorporated as far as possible into the CoCP. In addition, a process of iterative design and assessment has been employed to reduce adverse effects arising during construction. Significant adverse effects arising during construction cannot be further mitigated because the scale of construction activities, primarily the height of cranes, and also construction deliveries, would obstruct views and adversely alter the townscape character. Therefore no further mitigation measures are proposed.
Mitigation of operational effects

11.7.2 A process of iterative design and assessment has been employed to reduce adverse effects arising during operation and it is likely that the projects commitment to high quality design would minimise adverse effects effects on the townscape resource of the site. Operational effects depend heavily on the architectural and landscape design of built elements, public realm and the river wall, which form part of the project design. Therefore no additional mitigation is proposed.
11.7.3
Page 224
11.8
Vol 10 Table 11.8.1 Townscape assessment - construction Significance of effect Major adverse No mitigation possible No mitigation possible No mitigation possible No mitigation possible Major adverse Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Moderate adverse No mitigation possible Moderate adverse Major adverse Minor adverse Mitigation Significance of residual effect Major adverse
Assessment summary
Receptor
The site
Change to character due to construction of the site cofferdam, hoardings, temporary slipway and intensity of construction activity.
River Thames Fulham and Barn Elms Reach
Change to setting due to the presence of construction activity in the river.
Moderate adverse Major adverse
River Thames Putney and Fulham Palace Reach
Change to setting due to the presence of construction activity in the river.
River Thames Wandsworth and Sands End Reach
Minimal change to setting due to the background presence of construction activity in the river.
Minor adverse
Bishops Park
Change to setting due to the presence of cranes and construction activity.
Major adverse
Fulham Palace Allotments
No significant change in setting.
Fulham Football Club
Not required Negligible Not required Negligible Not required Negligible
Hurlingham and Fulham Residential
Fulham High Street Retail
Putney Bridge Conservation Change to setting due to the presence of cranes Area and construction activity.
Not required Negligible Moderate No adverse mitigation
Page 225
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Significance of effect possible Minor adverse No mitigation possible Negligible Negligible Minor adverse Minor adverse Negligible Major adverse Minor adverse Negligible Minor adverse Mitigation Significance of residual effect
Receptor
Ranelagh Gardens Residential
Change to setting due to the presence of cranes and construction activity, minimised by the presence of Putney Bridge.
Hurlingham Park
No significant change in setting. No mitigation possible No mitigation possible
Wandsworth Park
Not required Negligible Not required Negligible Minor adverse
Deodar Road Conservation Area
Change to setting due to the presence of cranes and construction activity, minimised by the presence of Putney Bridge.
Putney Residential
Change to riverside setting due to the presence of cranes and construction plant.
Minor adverse
Putney High Street
Putney Embankment Conservation Area
Change to setting due to the presence of cranes and construction activity.
Leaders Gardens
Minimal change to setting due to the background presence of cranes and construction activity.
Barn Elms
Not required Negligible Major adverse No mitigation possible Minor adverse No mitigation possible Not required Negligible
Page 226
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Vol 10 Table 11.8.2 Visual assessment - construction Description of effect Significance of effect Moderate adverse No mitigation possible No mitigation possible No mitigation possible No mitigation possible Minor adverse Moderate adverse Major adverse Moderate No mitigation possible No mitigation possible No mitigation possible No Major adverse Moderate adverse Major adverse Mitigation Significance of residual effect
Receptor
Residential Visibility of site cofferdam, construction activity and cranes. Visibility of site cofferdam, hoardings, construction activity and cranes.
Viewpoint 1.1: View south west from residences in Carrara Wharf
Viewpoint 1.2: View north from residences in Kenilworth Court
Recreational Visibility of site cofferdam, construction activity and cranes. Oblique visibility of cranes. Minor adverse Major adverse Major adverse
Viewpoint 2.1: View south west from Putney Bridge
Viewpoint 2.2: View west from Wandsworth Park Intermittent visibility of cranes, construction plant and road transport. Visibility of cranes, construction plant and road transport. Visibility of site cofferdam, construction activity and cranes. Visibility of site cofferdam, construction
Minor adverse
Viewpoint 2.3: View north from Putney High Street
Minor adverse
Viewpoint 2.4: View north west from Putney High Street outside St Marys Church
Moderate adverse Major adverse
Viewpoint 2.5: View east from the eastern end of Embankment
Viewpoint 2.6: View east from Lower
Moderate
Page 227
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Description of effect activity and cranes. Moderate adverse No mitigation possible No mitigation possible Minor adverse Negligible Minor adverse Negligible Minor adverse Negligible Moderate adverse Major adverse Moderate adverse Minor adverse adverse mitigation possible adverse Significance of effect Mitigation Significance of residual effect
Receptor
Richmond Road outside the Star and Garter
Viewpoint 2.7: View south east from Visibility of site cofferdam, hoardings, Embankment outside The Dukes Head construction activity and cranes. Background visibility of site cofferdam, construction activity and cranes. No significant visibility of construction. Background visibility of site cofferdam, construction activity and cranes. No significant visibility of construction. Background visibility of site cofferdam, construction activity and cranes. No significant visibility of construction. Visibility of site cofferdam, hoardings, construction activity and cranes. Visibility of site cofferdam, hoardings, construction activity and cranes.
Viewpoint 2.8: View south east from Embankment outside Leaders Gardens
Viewpoint 2.9: View south east from Leaders Gardens
Not required Negligible No mitigation possible Minor adverse
Viewpoint 2.10: View south east from Embankment at Beverley Brook
Viewpoint 2.11: View south east from the western extent of Bishops Park
Not required Negligible No mitigation possible Minor adverse
Viewpoint 2.12: View south east from Bishops Park close to Bishops Avenue
Viewpoint 2.13: View south east from Fulham Palace
Not required Negligible No mitigation possible No mitigation Moderate adverse Major adverse
Viewpoint 2.14: View south east from Bishops Park riverside
Viewpoint 2.15: View south from Prior Gardens Bank
Page 228
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Description of effect possible No significant visibility of construction. Negligible Not required Negligible Significance of effect Mitigation Significance of residual effect
Receptor
Transport
Viewpoint 3.1: View south from the junction of Fulham High Street and New Kings Road Negligible
Employment and other institutions No significant visibility of construction, aside from some interception works on Putney Bridge. Not required Negligible
Viewpoint 4.1: View west from St Marys Church riverside
Vol 10 Table 11.8.3 Townscape assessment year one of operation Description of effect Change in character through the introduction of new public realm and above ground structures in an area previously part of the river. Significance of effect Minor to moderate adverse Mitigation Ongoing design work will reduce effects as far as possible, which will be reflected in the final project subject to EIA Negligible to Ongoing Significance of residual effect To be determined
Receptor
The site
River Thames Fulham and Barn
Change to setting through the
To be
Page 229
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Description of effect introduction of new public realm and above ground structures in an area previously part of the river. minor adverse design work will reduce effects as far as possible, which will be reflected in the final project subject to EIA Ongoing design work will reduce effects as far as possible, which will be reflected in the final project subject to EIA Negligible to minor adverse Ongoing design work will reduce effects as far as possible, determined Significance of effect Mitigation Significance of residual effect
Receptor
Elms Reach
River Thames Putney and Fulham Palace Reach Change to setting through the introduction of new public realm and above ground structures in an area previously part of the river.
Minor to moderate adverse
To be determined
River Thames Wandsworth and Sands End Reach
Change to setting through the introduction of new public realm and above ground structures in an area previously part of the river.
To be determined
Page 230
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Description of effect which will be reflected in the final project subject to EIA Change to setting through the introduction of new public realm and above ground structures in an area previously part of the river. Minor to moderate adverse Ongoing design work will reduce effects as far as possible, which will be reflected in the final project subject to EIA Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Minor to moderate adverse To be determined Significance of effect Mitigation Significance of residual effect
Receptor
Bishops Park
Fulham Palace Allotments No significant effects. No significant effects. No significant effects. No significant effects.
Fulham Football Club
Not required Negligible Not required Negligible Not required Negligible Not required Negligible Ongoing design work will reduce effects as far as To be determined
Hurlingham and Fulham Residential
Fulham High Street Retail
Putney Bridge Conservation Area
Change to setting through the introduction of new public realm and above ground structures in an area previously part of the river.
Page 231
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Description of effect possible, which will be reflected in the final project subject to EIA No significant effects. No significant effects. No significant effects. No significant effects. No significant effects. No significant effects. Change to setting through the introduction of new public realm and above ground structures in an area previously part of the river. Negligible Negligible Minor to moderate adverse Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Not required Negligible Not required Negligible Not required Negligible Not required Negligible Not required Negligible Not required Negligible Ongoing design work will reduce effects as far as possible, which will be reflected in the final project subject to EIA Negligible To be determined Significance of effect Mitigation Significance of residual effect
Receptor
Ranelagh Gardens Residential
Hurlingham Park
Wandsworth Park
Deodar Road Conservation Area
Putney Residential
Putney High Street
Putney Embankment Conservation Area
Leaders Gardens
No significant effects.
Not required Negligible
Page 232
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Description of effect No significant effects. Vol 10 Table 11.8.4 Visual assessment year one of operation Description of effect Significance of effect Negligible to minor adverse Mitigation Significance of residual effect Negligible Not required Negligible Significance of effect Mitigation Significance of residual effect
Receptor
Barn Elms
Receptor
Residential Visibility of the interception chamber, partially obscured by Putney Bridge.
Viewpoint 1.1: View south west from residences in Carrara Wharf
Viewpoint 1.2: View north from residences in Kenilworth Court Visibility of the ventilation column, public realm and interception chamber.
Ongoing design work To be will reduce effects as determined far as possible, which will be reflected in the final project subject to EIA Ongoing design work To be will reduce effects as determined far as possible, which will be reflected in the final project subject to EIA Minor to moderate adverse Ongoing design work To be will reduce effects as determined far as possible, which will be reflected in the final project subject to EIA
Recreational Visibility of the new river wall, ventilation column and public realm.
Viewpoint 2.1: View south west from Putney Bridge
Page 233
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Description of effect Oblique visibility of the new river wall and interception chamber. No visibility. No visibility. Negligible Not required Negligible Not required Negligible Not required Negligible Negligible Negligible Significance of effect Mitigation Significance of residual effect
Receptor
Viewpoint 2.2: View west from Wandsworth Park
Viewpoint 2.3: View north from Putney High Street
Viewpoint 2.4: View north west from Putney High Street outside St Marys Church Visibility of the new river wall, ventilation column and public realm. Minor to moderate adverse
Viewpoint 2.5: View east from the eastern end of Embankment
Viewpoint 2.6: View east from Lower Richmond Road outside the Star and Garter Visibility of the new river wall, ventilation column and public realm.
Negligible to minor adverse
Viewpoint 2.7: View south east from Embankment outside The Dukes Head Visibility of the new river wall, ventilation column and public realm.
Viewpoint 2.8: View south east from Embankment outside Leaders
Visibility of the new river wall, ventilation column and public
Negligible to minor
Ongoing design work To be will reduce effects as determined far as possible, which will be reflected in the final project subject to EIA Ongoing design work To be will reduce effects as determined far as possible, which will be reflected in the final project subject to EIA Ongoing design work To be will reduce effects as determined far as possible, which will be reflected in the final project subject to EIA Ongoing design work To be will reduce effects as determined
Page 234
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Description of effect realm. adverse far as possible, which will be reflected in the final project subject to EIA Not required Negligible Significance of effect Mitigation Significance of residual effect
Receptor
Gardens
Viewpoint 2.9: View south east from Leaders Gardens No visibility. Background visibility of the new Negligible to river wall, ventilation column and minor adverse public realm.
Negligible
Viewpoint 2.10: View south east from Embankment at Beverley Brook
Viewpoint 2.11: View south east from the western extent of Bishops Park No visibility. Visibility of the new river wall, ventilation column and public realm. Negligible to minor adverse
Negligible
Ongoing design work To be will reduce effects as determined far as possible, which will be reflected in the final project subject to EIA Negligible Not required
Viewpoint 2.12: View south east from Bishops Park close to Bishops Avenue
Viewpoint 2.13: View south east from Fulham Palace No visibility.
Negligible Minor to moderate adverse
Ongoing design work To be will reduce effects as determined far as possible, which will be reflected in the final project subject to EIA Negligible Not required Ongoing design work To be will reduce effects as determined far as possible, which will be reflected in the final project subject to
Viewpoint 2.14: View south east from Bishops Park riverside
Visibility of the new river wall, ventilation column and public realm.
Page 235
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Description of effect EIA Minor to moderate adverse Ongoing design work To be will reduce effects as determined far as possible, which will be reflected in the final project subject to EIA Not required Negligible Significance of effect Mitigation Significance of residual effect
Receptor
Viewpoint 2.15: View south from Prior Visibility of the new river wall, Gardens Bank ventilation column and public realm.
Transport No visibility. Negligible
Viewpoint 3.1: View south from the junction of Fulham High Street and New Kings Road
Employment and other institutions Visibility of the interception chamber under Putney Bridge. Negligible to minor adverse Ongoing design work To be will reduce effects as determined far as possible, which will be reflected in the final project subject to EIA
Viewpoint 4.1: View west from St Marys Church riverside
Page 236
11.9
11.9.1
The baseline data collection is complete for this site, aside from establishing a baseline for the night time character of the assessment area. The ES will include the summer baseline for each of the character areas and viewpoints. It will also include winter and summer photos for each character area and viewpoint. The study area for the assessment will be reviewed for the ES, based on the findings of the PEIR. It may be appropriate to reduce the study area to focus the assessment on likely significant effects. Further work will be undertaken to establish a base case for the year 15 operational assessment, using professional judgement aligned with future developments. Three verifiable photomontages will be produced for the ES, in the locations indicated on Vol 10 Figure 11.4.6. Ongoing work will be undertaken throughout the assessment process to identify design measures to minimise adverse effects arising from the proposed project in operation. Where possible, these will be embedded in the proposed development. Details of the project design and landscaping will be provided for the planning submission. Further work will be undertaken for the ES to establish the effects of the proposed development after the architectural and landscape design has been fully worked up. This will inform the assessment of operational effects in year one and year 15. Residual effects remaining after mitigation measures have been identified will be identified and recorded. Assessment of cumulative and in combination effects will be undertaken and reported in the ES.
11.9.2
11.9.3
11.9.4 11.9.5
11.9.6
11.9.7 11.9.8
Page 237
Section 12: Transport
12 12.1
12.1.1 12.1.2
Transport Introduction
This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant transport effects at the Putney Bridge Foreshore site. The site has the potential to affect transport in the following ways: a. effects on pedestrian routes. b. effects on cycle routes. c. effects on bus routes and patronage. d. effects on London Underground and National Rail services. e. effects on river services and patronage. f. effects on car and coach parking. g. effects on highway layout, operation and capacity.
12.1.3 12.1.4
Each of these effects is considered within the PEIR assessment for both construction and operational phases of the project. This section details the site-specific findings for the Putney Bridge Foreshore site. As detailed in Volume 5, the transport assessment also comprises assessment at borough (sub area) and project-wide levels these assessments are contained in Volume 6. More detailed analysis of all three levels of assessment (site-specific, borough level and projectwide) will be presented in the ES. This assessment provides a commentary on the anticipated transport effects of the project. When baseline data collection and analysis is complete a full quantitative transport assessment will be carried out. The assessment and mitigation text contained within this assessment is therefore based on professional judgement using available information at the time of writing.
12.1.5
12.2
12.2.1
The proposed development is described in section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to transport are as follows.
Construction
12.2.2 Construction details for the site relevant to the construction transport assessment are summarised in the table below. Vol 10 Table 12.2.1 Site construction traffic Description Assumed peak period of construction lorry movements Assumed average peak daily construction lorry vehicle movements Assumption Year 2 of construction 30 movements per day (15 two-way lorry trips)
Page 238
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Description Types of lorry requiring access
Section 12: Transport Assumption Excavation lorries Concrete lorries Rebar lorries Office lorries Pipe/Track/Oils lorries Grout/Materials lorries
Note: a movement represents a one way trip.
12.2.3
Vehicle movements would take place during the typical day shift of ten hours on weekdays (08:00 to 18:00) and five hours on Saturdays (08:00 to 13:00) with up to one hour before and after these hours for mobilisation of staff. Mobilisation may include: loading; unloading; and arrival and departure of workforce and staff at site and movement to and from the place of work. During construction it is assumed that 90% of cofferdam fill would be brought and taken from the site by barge and all other construction material would be transported by road. Lorry routing during construction phasing Access to the Putney Bridge CSO site is proposed via a new access in close proximity to the junction between The Embankment and Lower Richmond Road carriageways. Vehicles would enter and exit the site via the junction of Embankment and Lower Richmond Road. A short length of the existing one way system on the Embankment carriageway would be temporarily removed during the construction period. This would enable construction vehicles to exit the site directly via the Lower Richmond Road / Embankment junction and minimise construction vehicles travelling westbound along the Embankment. Access to the temporary slipway location would utilise Lower Richmond Road and Thames Place. The primary access route would utilise Lower Richmond Road, a short section of Putney High Street and the A3209 Putney Bridge Road, prior the A3 West Hill. A secondary access route utilising the A219 Putney High Street and the A205 Upper Richmond Road is being considered. Construction routes are being discussed with TfL and the Local Highway Authority (LHA). Vol 10 Figure 12.2.1 indicates the construction traffic routes for access to/from the Putney Bridge Foreshore site. Vol 10 Figure 12.2.1 Transport construction traffic routes (see Volume 10 Figures document)
12.2.4
12.2.5
12.2.6 12.2.7
12.2.8 12.2.9
12.2.10 12.2.11 12.2.12
12.2.13
The histogram in Vol 10 Figure 12.2.2 below shows that peak activity at the Putney Bridge Foreshore site would occur in year 2 of construction.
Page 239
This peak is earlier than the overall project-wide construction peak activity year of 2019. 12.2.14 The histogram in Vol 10 Figure 12.2.3 below shows the peak activity for barge movements would occur in year 1 of construction.
Page 240
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Vol 10 Figure 12.2.2 Transport construction lorry profile
Note: Figure shows indicative volumes and movements based upon assumed timings for the works. It is not a schedule and remains subject to change
Page 241
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Vol 10 Figure 12.2.3 Transport - construction barge profile
Note: Figure shows indicative volumes and movements based upon assumed timings for the works. It is not a schedule and remains subject to change.
Page 242
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Construction workers 12.2.15
The construction site is expected to require a maximum workforce of approximately 50 people at any one time. The number and type of workers is shown in the table below. Vol 10 Table 12.2.2 Transport - construction worker numbers Contractor Staff 08:00-18:00 20 Labour 08:00-18:00 20 Client Staff 08:00-18:00 10
12.2.16
It is difficult to predict with certainty the direction that workers would arrive/depart to and from the site. Staff could potentially be based in the local area or in the wider Greater London area and are unlikely to have the same trip attraction to primary routes as construction lorries. The method of distribution of worker trips on the transport networks, including the public transport services, is to be agreed with the Local Highway Authority (LHA) and Transport for London (TfL). Code of construction practice Measures incorporated into the CoCP to reduce transport impacts include measures in relation to HGV management and control such as specific vehicle routes to sites and holding areas for construction vehicles. They also include provision for management plans in relation to construction worker journeys to and from the site. The implementation of these measures has been assumed for the assessment of construction effects.
12.2.17
12.2.18
12.2.19
Operation
12.2.20 12.2.21 12.2.22 The operational structure would be located within the foreshore adjacent to the slipway to the west of Putney Bridge. Access for maintenance vehicles would be via the Embankment and the slipway which would be used as an access during the construction phase. Access would be required for a light commercial vehicle on a three to six monthly maintenance schedule. Additionally there would be more significant maintenance visits every ten years which would require access to enable two cranes to be brought to the site, which may require temporary suspension of on-street parking in the vicinity of the site.
12.3
12.3.1

Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. All consultee comments relevant to this site are presented in the table below.
Page 243
It is noted that it was reported in the Scoping Report that operational traffic effects were scoped out of the EIA. However, while the environmental effects associated with transport for the operational phase are not expected to be significant or adverse, the Transport Assessment which will accompany the ES as part of the application, will examine the operational phase in order to satisfy the relevant stakeholders that technical issues have been addressed (for example, those associated with access for maintenance activities). As this also allows conclusions in relation to environmental effects to be drawn, these have been included in the PEIR for completeness. Vol 10 Table 12.3.1 Transport stakeholder engagement Organisation LB Wandsworth Comment Details of traffic generation for all sites during operational and construction phases would be provided. The EIA should consider noise, pollution, access and working times related to the transport arrangements. Response This already forms part of the topic methodology. The topic methodology already includes the need to address these issues where directly relevant to the topic, or to inform other topic assessments. The topic methodology already addresses both site-specific and cumulative transport effects. Vehicle tracking has been carried out to test feasibility. Further design and discussions will be held as part of the Transport Assessment. Discussions with Transport for London regarding buses will be held at the transport assessment stage. Routing options are being considered, therefore full impact on parking bays will be determined at the transport assessment
LB Wandsworth
LB Wandsworth
Both individual and cumulative impacts should be considered where necessary.
Transport for London
The feasibility of operating twoway movement on a section of Embankment should be investigated.
Whether bus stops on Lower Richmond Road require relocation should be determined. Whether parking bays on Embankment require suspension should be determined. If so, relocation must be considered.
Page 244
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Organisation Comment
Section 12: Transport Response stage.
Baseline
12.3.3 The baseline methodology follows the standard methodology described in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.
Construction
12.3.4 The construction phase methodology follows the standard methodology described in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.
Operation
12.3.5 The operational phase methodology follows the standard methodology described in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.

12.3.6 The assumptions and limitations made for the transport assessment are as listed in Volume 5. Site specific assumptions and limitations for the site will be provided in the ES when the detailed assessment is presented. The preliminary findings reported in the PEIR are qualitative and based on professional judgement.
12.3.7
12.4
12.4.1
Baseline conditions
The Putney Bridge Foreshore site is located in the southern foreshore of the River Thames to the west of Putney Bridge within LB Wandsworth. The site is currently open space with the River Thames to the north and a slipway to the south. The surrounding area is predominantly residential, commercial and retail in character with the nearest residents to the site situated on the southern side of Lower Richmond Road. There is road access to the site via Lower Richmond Road and Embankment. The existing slipway at the east end of The Embankment would be used to access the construction area located in the foreshore. The following sub-sections describe the baseline conditions of the site in relation to pedestrians, public transport and highways. Sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the site are also identified. Vol 10 Figure 12.4.1 shows the Transport Site Plan. Vol 10 Figure 12.4.1 Transport - site plan (see Volume 10 Figures document)
12.4.2
12.4.3
12.4.4
Pedestrian routes
12.4.5 There are footpaths in place on both sides of the Embankment. The footpath on the northern side is approximately 5.3m wide and accommodates several benches while the footpath on the southern side is 2m wide.
Page 245
There is an informal pedestrian crossing located on the Embankment to the west of the slipway which includes dropped kerbs and tactile paving. Footpaths are also in place on both sides of Lower Richmond Road and pedestrian crossing facilities are included within the signalised junction of Lower Richmond Road and Putney High Street. The Thames Path routes along the Embankment and continues along the section of Lower Richmond Road to the south of the site. At the junction of Lower Richmond Road / Putney High Street there are signalised pedestrian facilities on each arm including pedestrian refuges on all arms. The signal timings operate with an all-red pedestrian phase in each signal cycle.
12.4.8 12.4.9
Cycle routes
12.4.10 A designated London Cycle Route routes along the Embankment to the west of the site and continues north and southbound along Putney High Street. The extent of the cycle network in the vicinity of the site can be seen in Vol 10 Figure 12.4.1. Cycle parking facilities are currently located at the eastern end of the Embankment.
12.4.11
Bus routes
12.4.12 The site is classified as having a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 6a which indicates that public transport provision in the vicinity is excellent. There are bus stops located on both sides of Upper Richmond Road approximately 65m and 130m from the site. These stops service routes 22, 265 and 485. Vol 10 Figure 12.4.1shows the exact location of these bus stops and the destinations and frequency of the routes are detailed in the table below. Vol 10 Table 12.4.1 Transport - bus service frequency Route Number 14 Distance from site (metres) and Location of Bus Stop AM Peak (07:00-10:00) buses per hour 9
12.4.13
Origin Destination
210m Putney Heath/Green Man Putney/St Marys to Warren Street Church 185m Warren Street to Putney Putney/St Marys Heath/Green Man Church 45m - The Embankment 25m - The Embankment Putney Common to Piccadilly Circus Piccadilly Circus to Putney Common
14
22 22
7 7
Page 246
Section 12: Transport AM Peak (07:00-10:00) buses per hour 8
Route Number 39
Distance from site (metres) and Location of Bus Stop
Origin Destination
210m Putney Bridge Station to Putney/St Marys Clapham Junction Church Station/Falcon Road 185m Clapham Junction Putney/St Marys Station/Falcon Road to Church Putney Bridge Station 210m Putney Bridge Station to Putney/St Marys Baker Street Station Church 185m Baker Street Station to Putney/St Marys Putney Bridge Station Church 210m Kingston Hall Road to Putney/St Marys Putney Bridge Station Church 185m Putney Bridge Station to Putney/St Marys Kingston Hall Road Church 210m Priory Road to Putney Putney/St Marys Bridge Station Church 185m Putney Bridge Station to Putney/St Marys Priory Road Church 185m Willesden Junction Putney/St Marys Station to Mapleton Church Crescent 210m Mapleton Crescent to Putney/St Marys Willesden Junction Church Station 25m - The Embankment 45m - The Embankment Putney Bridge Station to Tolworth/King Charles Road Tolworth/King Charles Road to Putney Bridge Station
39
74
10
74
10
85
85
93
10
93
10
220
10
220
10
265
265
270
185m Putney Bridge Station to Putney/St Marys Madeira Road Church
Page 247
Section 12: Transport AM Peak (07:00-10:00) buses per hour 6
Route Number 270
Distance from site (metres) and Location of Bus Stop
Origin Destination
210m Madeira Road to Putney Putney/St Marys Bridge Station Church 210m Putney Heath/Green Man Putney/St Marys to Stevenage Road/ Church Fulham Football Club 185m Stevenage Road/ Fulham Putney/St Marys Football Club to Putney Church Heath/Green Man Danebury 210m Avenue/Minstead Putney/St Marys Gardens to South Church Kensington Station South Kensington Station 185m to Danebury Putney/St Marys Avenue/Minstead Church Gardens 45m - The Embankment 25m - The Embankment Hammersmith Bus Station to Ram Street Ram Street to Hammersmith Bus Station -
424
424
430
430
485 485
2 2
Total 12.4.14
172
There are also additional bus stops located on Putney High Street, a short distance from the site. The destinations of these services include Warren Street, Clapham Junction, Baker Street, Kingston, Cheam, Hammersmith, Kensington, Mitcham, Fulham and Kensal Green.
London Underground and National Rail stations

12.4.15 Putney Rail Station is situated approximately 700m to the south-east of the site and services Waterloo Station and Staines. In the AM and PM peaks hour, ten trains and eight trains respectively service Waterloo from Putney Rail Station and six trains and eight trains service westbound routes in the AM and PM peaks respectively. East Putney Underground Station, which lies on the District Line, is located approximately 1km to the south-east of the site. Trains servicing this stop route north to Earls Court and south to Wimbledon. In the AM and PM peak hour, the frequency of northbound and southbound tubes is approximately every four minutes.
12.4.16
Page 248
The location of the Rail and Underground stations can be seen in Vol 10 Figure 12.4.1.
River services
12.4.18 12.4.19 The Putney Bridge Foreshore site is to the east of Putney Pier which is served by the TfL River Bus. This service operates from Putney to Blackfriars from Monday to Friday during peak hours. Eastbound services from Putney operate at 06:20, 07:30 and 08:00 in the AM peak. Westbound services from Blackfriars do not service Putney in the AM peak period. In the PM peak there is one eastbound service from Putney to Blackfriars at 18:10 and three westbound services from Blackfriars to Putney at 17:20, 18:25 and 19:10.
12.4.20
Parking
Existing on-street parking 12.4.21 On-street parking is provided on both sides of Embankment and is subject to a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) which operates from 08:00 to 18:30, Monday to Saturday. Parking here is permitted on a pay and display basis or by permit with a maximum stay of four hours. There is also on-street parking available on the northern side of the Lower Richmond Road to the west of Embankment / Lower Richmond Road junction. This is also subject to a CPZ which operates from 10am to 4pm Monday to Saturday on a pay and display basis only. This area of parking can also be used for loading Monday to Saturday from 07:00 to 10:00 and 16:00 to 19:00. The pier is also used by private charters. Existing off-street / private parking 12.4.25 There is a multi-storey car park located approximately 500m from Putney Bridge at the Exchange Shopping Centre which is available to members of the public from 08:00 to 20:00 Monday to Saturdays and 11:00 to 17:00 on Sundays. The capacity of the car park is 250 vehicles and there is a charge of 2 per hour with a maximum charge of 25 for a day. Coach parking 12.4.26 There is no coach parking available in the immediate vicinity of the site.
12.4.22
12.4.23 12.4.24
Highway network
12.4.27 A site visit was undertaken on 6 October 2010 between the hours of 08:00 and 09:00 and 17:00 and 18:00 to observe the peak hour traffic volumes on the road network adjacent to the proposed site access. The Embankment is a one-way narrow road with parking on both sides of the road. Wide footways, a cycle lane and cycle parking are present on the northern side of the road. The Embankment is unsuitable for long and heavy vehicles due to the restricted road width as a result of on-street parking.
12.4.28
Page 249
Lower Richmond Road has one lane eastbound and two lanes westbound with a 30mph speed limit. There are no weight restrictions on this road. The junction between Lower Richmond Road and the Embankment is an unsignalised priority junction with traffic permitted to enter from Lower Richmond Road into the Embankment. Thames Place is a two-way single-lane carriageway that links the Embankment to Lower Richmond Road. A zebra crossing is located on Lower Richmond Road to the west of the Lower Richmond Road / Thames Place junction. The junction between Lower Richmond Road, Putney High Street and Putney Bridge Approach is a three arm signalised crossroads. Lower Richmond Road has three lanes on entry and one exit to the junction, Putney High Street has two entry and two exit lanes and Putney Bridge approach has two entry and one exit lane to the junction.
12.4.31
12.4.32
Survey data
Description of surveys 12.4.33 Baseline survey data for the Putney Bridge Foreshore site were collected in May to July 2011 to establish the existing traffic movements in the area. Manual and automated traffic surveys were undertaken to establish specific traffic, pedestrian and cycle movements such as parking surveys, turning volumes, queue lengths, saturation flows, degree of saturation and traffic signal timings. The following junction surveys were undertaken in the vicinity of Putney Bridge Foreshore in order to understand highway operation in the area: a. A219 Putney Hill Slip / A205 Upper Richmond Road / Putney Hill b. A219 Putney Bridge Approach / Putney High St / B306 Lower Richmond Road c. B306 Lower Richmond Road / Embankment d. B306 Lower Richmond Road / Thames Place e. Putney Hill / Putney Bridge Road 12.4.35 12.4.36 A pedestrian survey was undertaken at the following location: a. Tow Path / Putney Pier Embankment in front of Star and Garter A parking survey was undertaken in the roads surrounding the site to establish occupancy of on-street parking spaces on the following roads: a. Festing Road b. Roskell Road c. Rotherwood Road d. Salvin Road e. Gladwyn Road f. Bendemeer Road
12.4.34
Page 250
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore g. Henry Jackson Road h. Biggs Row i. j. l. Glendarvon Street Weiss Road Bemish Road
k. Ruvigny Gardens m. Ardshield Close n. Waterman Street o. Thames Place p. Kingsmere Close q. Weimar Street r. Felsham Road (from Putney High Street to Roskell Road) s. Lower Richmond Road (from Festing Road to Putney high Street) t. Embankment (from Festing Road to Lower Richmond Road). Results of surveys 12.4.37 Data obtained from the surveys were being processed at the time of writing and will be reported fully in the ES.
Data from third party sources

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

12.4.39 The receptors and their sensitivities in the vicinity of the Putney Bridge Foreshore site are summarised in the table below. The transport receptor sensitivity is defined as high, medium or low using the criteria detailed in Volume 5. As the assessment undertaken for the PEIR is judgement based (rather than being based on quantitative analysis), it has not been possible to identify the effects at individual receptors. A commentary is however provided on the effects upon individual receptor groups; namely pedestrians and cyclists in the local area and users/operators of the local bus services, rail network, river services, parking and local highway network. A full assessment will be provided in the ES.
12.4.40
Page 251
Vol 10 Table 12.4.2 Transport receptors Value/sensitivity and justification High Receptor Residents on Lower Richmond Road. Pedestrians and cyclists using the Thames Path which runs along Embankment. Private vehicle users in the area using the local highways or parking. Emergency vehicles requiring access to Embankment from Lower Richmond Road. Business owners and workplace occupiers along Lower Richmond Road, Embankment and Putney High Street. Public transport users (passengers) bus, taxi, river and rail services travelling to, from and through the Putney Bridge area. No receptors with low sensitivity
Medium
Low
12.5
12.5.1
At this stage in the assessment process a qualitative assessment has been undertaken based on discussions with TfL and the LHAs, knowledge of the transport networks and their operational characteristics in the vicinity of each site and knowledge of the construction programme, duration and levels of construction activity. These elements have been considered in the context of the range of receptors present in each location and the significance criteria identified. Professional judgement has been applied to determine qualitatively the likely effects and their significance in each location being assessed. The Transport Assessment will include full quantitative and qualitative analysis and the transport effects reported in the ES will be based on that detailed analysis.
12.5.2
Construction base and development cases

Assessment year 12.5.3 As described in Volume 5, 2019 has been used as the construction assessment year for all sites, as agreed with TfL, to enable a networkwide assessment. The peak period for vehicle trips to the site is predicted to be in year 2 of construction which will be the assessment year for local network assessments and will be contained in the ES. For the PEIR the assessment is undertaken for the network-wide 2019 assessment year.
12.5.4
12.5.5
Page 252
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Assessment area 12.5.6 12.5.7
The area being assessed for the Putney Bridge Foreshore site is based on discussions with LB Wandsworth and Transport for London. Local roads and junctions included in the assessment are as follows: a. Embankment / Lower Richmond Road b. Thames Place / Lower Richmond Road c. Lower Richmond Road / A219 Putney High Street d. A219 Putney High Street / A3209 Putney Bridge Road
12.5.8
These roads and junctions would be assessed for highway, cycle and pedestrian impacts. The Thames Path would also be included within the assessment due to its proximity to the development site. Local bus and rail services, as identified on Vol 10 Figure 12.4.1 would also be assessed. Construction base case The construction base case takes into account traffic growth and new developments within the local area by 2019. Research has identified that there are no major new developments in the immediate vicinity of the Putney Bridge Foreshore site that are likely to influence transport conditions for the construction base case. The following sub-sections detail what is assumed to change between the baseline and base case scenarios with respect to the different transport aspects considered. Pedestrian routes Pedestrian routes are not anticipated to change from baseline conditions. The base case therefore assumes the same pedestrian routes as set out in section 12.4. Cycle routes Cycle routes are not anticipated to change from baseline conditions and therefore the base case assumes the same cycle routes as set out in section 12.4. Bus routes and patronage Bus routes are not anticipated to change from baseline conditions and therefore are assumed to be the same in the base case. Bus patronage is anticipated to increase, the effect of which will be detailed in the Transport Assessment. London Underground and National Rail and patronage London Underground routes are assumed to be the same as baseline conditions as no changes are anticipated. LUL patronage is anticipated to increase, the effect of which will be detailed in the Transport Assessment. National Rail routes are not anticipated to change from baseline conditions. National Rail patronage is anticipated to increase, the effect of which will be detailed in the Transport Assessment.
12.5.9 12.5.10
12.5.11
12.5.12
12.5.13
12.5.14
12.5.15
12.5.16
Page 253
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore River services and patronage 12.5.17
River services are assumed to be the same as baseline conditions as no changes are anticipated. River service patronage is anticipated to increase, the effect of which will be detailed in the Transport Assessment. Parking Coach and car parking provision is assumed to be the same as baseline conditions as no changes are anticipated. Highway layout The physical layout of the highway network is not anticipated to change from baseline conditions and therefore the base case assumed the same highway layout. Highway operation Population growth and development in the wider area will result in an increase in traffic on the surrounding highway network. As a result of this increase, it is anticipated that traffic flows may be heavier and queues longer. Highway capacity analysis Baseline traffic flows (from the junction surveys) will be used and forecasting carried out to understand the capacity on the highway network in the vicinity of the Putney Bridge Foreshore site in 2019 without the Thames Tunnel project. The scope of this analysis is being agreed with LB Wandsworth and Transport for London. The full assessment of the highway operation and capacity analysis will be undertaken in the ES. Construction development case The construction development case comprises the base case plus construction activities associated with the Putney Bridge Foreshore site. This section addresses the changes that would arise as a result of the Thames Tunnel construction activities at the Putney Bridge Foreshore site. Construction vehicle movements It has been assumed for the purposes of the assessment that construction lorry movements are limited to the day shift only (08:00 to 18:00). The table below shows the construction lorry movement assumptions for the local peak traffic periods. These are based on the peak months of construction activity at this site. The table also shows the construction worker movements expected to be generated by the site. These movements are based on the assumption that all material is transported to and from the site by road.
12.5.18
12.5.19
12.5.20
12.5.21
12.5.22
12.5.23 12.5.24
12.5.25
12.5.26
Page 254
Vol 10 Table 12.5.1 Transport forecast construction vehicle movements Vehicle movements per time period Vehicle type Construction vehicle movements 10%* Worker vehicle movements Total Total Daily 30 0 30 0700 to 0800 0 0 0 0800 to 0900 3 0 3 1700 to 1800 3 0 3 1800 to 1900 0 0 0
* As explained in Volume 5 it has been assumed that a maximum of 10% of daily construction vehicle movements associated with materials would take place in each of the peak hours.
12.5.27
Assuming 90% of cofferdam fill would be transported to/from the site by barge, an average peak flow of 30 vehicle movements a day is expected during the months of greatest activity at this site. At other times in the construction period, vehicle flows would be lower than this average peak figure. Modal split The PTAL for the site is 6a which indicates excellent public transport accessibility. Given the lack of available parking at this site workers would be expected to travel to the site by means other than the private car. Any worker journeys by private car are expected to be nominal and therefore no worker car trips have been assumed for this assessment. Information regarding the travel arrangements of these workers will be included in the Worker Travel Plan documents for the site (to be submitted as part of the application). Pedestrian routes Pedestrian access to the foreshore via the slipway to the west of Putney Bridge would be closed to members of the public as the slipway would form part of the site. A temporary slipway would be provided approximately 300m to the west. Cycle routes No cycle routes run through the site and therefore none would be impacted on directly by the construction site development. Bus routes and patronage There are bus stops located on Lower Richmond Road and Putney High Street however bus services do not run through the site and therefore would not be impacted on by the construction site development. London Underground and National Rail and patronage No underground or rail services run through the site and therefore none would be impacted on by the construction site development.
12.5.28
12.5.29
12.5.30
12.5.31
12.5.32
Page 255
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore River services and patronage 12.5.33 12.5.34
No river services run through the site and therefore none would be impacted on by the construction site development. The slipway to the west of Putney Bridge would form part of the site and therefore would not be accessible to members of the public for recreational use. A temporary slipway would be provided approximately 300m to the west. Parking No public parking would be impacted on by the worksite area. Highway layout Highway layout would not be impacted on by the worksite area. Highway operation Highway operation would not be impacted on by the worksite area.
12.5.35 12.5.36 12.5.37
12.5.38 This section summarises the preliminary findings of the assessment undertaken for the 2019 assessment year based on professional judgement. A more detailed assessment will be presented in the ES. Pedestrian routes 12.5.39 Construction vehicles would cross the Thames Path to enter/exit the site, potentially affecting pedestrian movements. While it would be possible for pedestrians to remain on the existing Thames Path route, they would be required to cross Embankment to avoid construction vehicle movements as they arrive and depart. Alternatively, the Thames Path may be diverted away from the site access. In this case signage would be provided to inform pedestrians of the diversion route and safe crossing facilities would be provided. Where junction widening would be required at the junction of Embankment / Lower Richmond Road and Thames Place / Lower Richmond Road, a reduction in footpath widths and an increase in crossing distances would result. There would be an increase in vehicle movements on the Embankment causing a potential hazard to pedestrians. As a result of the widened crossing distances and narrowed pavements combined with low construction vehicle movements which would cross the Thames Path, it is expected that the effect on pedestrian routes would be moderate adverse. Cycle routes 12.5.43 Construction vehicles crossing the Thames Path to enter/exit the site might also affect cycle movements. However it may be possible for cyclists to remain on the existing Thames Path route if appropriately managed crossing facilities are put in place at the site access or if the Thames Path is diverted (with appropriate signposting) away from the site access.
12.5.40
12.5.41 12.5.42
Page 256
The increase in vehicle movements on the Embankment and Lower Richmond Road would also represent a minor additional hazard to cyclists. With the potential impact upon the Thames Path combined with the additional (low) construction vehicle movements, it is expected that the effect on cycle routes would be minor adverse. Bus routes and patronage The routing of bus services in the area should not be affected by the construction works at the Putney Bridge Foreshore site. There may be a slight delay to buses on Putney High Street and Lower Richmond Road due to the increase in vehicle numbers. It is anticipated that there would be a proportion of labourers and staff using buses to access the site during construction, however, it is expected that the overall effect on bus routes and patronage would be negligible. London Underground and National Rail and patronage The underground service at East Putney is not likely to be affected by the construction works at the Putney Bridge Foreshore site, nor National Rail services at the Putney Rail Station either. It is anticipated that there would be a proportion of labourers and staff using rail and underground to access the site during construction, however, it is expected that the effect on London Underground and National Rail services would be negligible. River services and patronage There are a small number of river services that operate from Putney Pier during peak hours and access to the pier is likely to remain unchanged during the construction period. A loading / unloading area would be provided within the site for the removal of excavated material and the delivery of fill which would not impact on the activities taking place at Putney Pier. The temporary slipway provided on the Embankment to the west of Thames Place for recreational users would require signage directing users from its current location at the proposed main construction site. The temporary replacement of the public slipway would mean a change to current usage. It is expected that the effect on river services would be minor adverse. Parking It is anticipated that some on-street parking on the Embankment, close to Lower Richmond Road and north of Thames Place would need to be suspended in order to accommodate the heavy vehicles which would require access to the site. The suspension of some on street parking for the duration of the construction works would reduce the overall parking availability and
12.5.45
12.5.46 12.5.47 12.5.48
12.5.49
12.5.50
12.5.51
12.5.52
12.5.53
12.5.54
12.5.55
12.5.56
Page 257
require residents to use bays in neighbouring streets, although parking would be re-provided where possible in the surrounding area. 12.5.57 Based on vehicle swept path analysis and professional judgement, it is expected that the effect of the construction works on car parking would be minor adverse. Highway layout 12.5.58 Vehicles would access/egress the site at the junction between Lower Richmond Road and the Embankment. This junction would need to be widened in order to allow construction vehicles to enter the site. The junctions of Thames Place with both Embankment and Lower Richmond Road would also require widening along with carriageway widening along the length of Thames Place. Footpaths widths would however be maintained at a minimum width of 1.5m or above. The works to modify the access point and adjacent junction are likely to require short term pedestrian and traffic management. On-street parking would also be suspended which would be replaced with additional onstreet parking close by where possible. Therefore, it is expected that the effect on local highway layout would be moderate adverse. Highway operation 12.5.61 It would be appropriate to change a short section (approximately 20m) of the existing one-way operation on Embankment close to the junction with Lower Richmond Road into a two-way operation for construction vehicles. Construction vehicles would therefore be permitted to enter Embankment from Lower Richmond Road and either drive into the site or reverse into the site under the supervision of a banksman. Upon exit, construction vehicles could turn left out of the site onto Embankment in forward gear then straight onto Lower Richmond Road. This change of operation is being discussed with LB Wandsworth and TfL. A traffic management system would need to be implemented on the Embankment to ensure that construction vehicles egressing the site do not conflict with construction vehicles accessing the site. Road markings and signage would be changed to inform drivers of the temporary change in traffic flow arrangements on the Embankment. Further traffic management would be required on Thames Place and Embankment between Lower Richmond Road and the site entrance during construction of the temporary slipway. As a result of the traffic management requirements, it is expected that the effect on highway operation (specifically the ease of vehicle movements) would be minor adverse. Highway capacity analysis 12.5.65 The levels of construction vehicle movement expected at this site are comparatively low in the context of the amount of traffic already using the road network in the surrounding area. Given the low construction traffic movements, it is expected that the effect on highway capacity would be minor adverse.
12.5.59
12.5.60
12.5.62
12.5.63
12.5.64
Page 258
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Significance of effects 12.5.66
The significance of the transport effects described above has been determined as part of the ongoing assessment and analysis. With regard to the application of the IEMA criteria detailed in Volume 5, this is based on professional judgement for the purposes of the PEIR assessment. During construction, the number of heavy goods vehicle movements would be low. The nature of the construction site layout at this location is considered likely to result in a minor to moderate adverse effect on road network operation and delay. Effects on pedestrian and cyclist amenity and safety are expected to be moderate adverse.
12.5.67
12.6
12.6.1
This section summarises the preliminary findings of the assessment based on professional judgement. The results summarised below will be presented in more detail in the ES. A qualitative approach to the assessment is appropriate due to the transport activity during the operational phase being very low. The transport elements have been considered in the context of the range of receptors present in each location and the significance criteria identified. Professional judgement has been applied to determine qualitatively the likely effects and their significance in each location being assessed. The transport effects reported in the ES will be based on more detailed information and qualitative analysis where this is appropriate.
12.6.2
Operational base and development cases

Assessment year 12.6.3 As outlined in Volume 5 the operational assessment year has been taken as year 1 of operation. As transport activity associated with the operational phase is very low, there is no requirement to assess any other year beyond that date. Assessment area 12.6.4 The assessment area for the operational assessment remains the same as for the construction assessment as set out in paragraphs 12.5.6-12.5.7. This includes those roads and junctions which lead to/from the Putney Bridge Foreshore site to the SRN and TRLN. Operational base case 12.6.5 The operational base case takes into account traffic growth within the local area by year 1 of operation (no new developments are anticipated to affect base case flows see paragraph 12.5.10). The following sub-sections detail what is assumed to change between the baseline and base case scenario with respect to the different transport aspects considered.
12.6.6
Page 259
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Pedestrian routes 12.6.7
Pedestrian routes are not anticipated to change from baseline conditions. The base case therefore assumes the same pedestrian routes as set out in Section 12.4. Cycle routes Cycle routes are not anticipated to change from baseline conditions and therefore the base case assumes the same cycle routes as set out in Section 12.4. Bus routes and patronage Bus routes are not anticipated to change from baseline conditions and therefore are assumed to be the same in the base case. Bus patronage is anticipated to increase between 2011 (baseline) and year 1 of operation and this assessment will be detailed further in the Transport Assessment. London Underground and National Rail and patronage London Underground routes are assumed to be the same as baseline conditions as no changes are anticipated. It is anticipated that LUL patronage will increase between 2011 and year 1 of operation and this assessment will be detailed further in the Transport Assessment. National Rail routes are not anticipated to change from baseline conditions. It is anticipated that National Rail patronage will increase between the baseline and year 1 of operation and this assessment will be detailed further in the Transport Assessment. River services and patronage River service routes are assumed to be the same as baseline conditions as no changes are anticipated. It is anticipated that river service patronage will increase between 2011 and year 1 of operation and this assessment will be detailed further in the Transport Assessment. Parking Parking provision is not anticipated to change from baseline conditions. Highway layout The physical layout of the highway network is not anticipated to change from baseline conditions. Highway operation Population growth and development in the surrounding area will result in an increase in traffic on the surrounding highway network. As a result of this increase, it is anticipated that traffic flows may be heavier and queues longer.
12.6.8
12.6.9 12.6.10
12.6.11 12.6.12
12.6.13 12.6.14
12.6.15 12.6.16
12.6.17 12.6.18
12.6.19
Page 260
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Highway capacity analysis 12.6.20
Baseline traffic flows (from the junction surveys) are being used and forecasting carried out to understand the capacity on the highway network in the vicinity of Putney Bridge Foreshore site in year 1 of operation without the Thames Tunnel project. The scope of this analysis is being agreed with LB Wandsworth and Transport for London and will be reported in the ES. Operational development case The operational development case for the site includes any permanent changes in the vicinity of the Putney Bridge Foreshore site as a result of the Thames Tunnel project and takes into consideration the occasional maintenance activities required at the site. Trip generation For routine three or six monthly inspections and equipment exercising, vehicular access would be required for light commercial vehicles. In most cases this would be typically a transit van. On occasion there may be a consequent need for small flatbed vehicles with lifting cranes, for example to removing plant from the site. During 10 yearly inspections, sites for placing two large cranes would be required. The cranes would facilitate lowering and recovery of tunnel inspection vehicles and to provide duty/standby access for personnel. Modal split It is anticipated that all trips during the operational phase would be using transit van or large construction vehicles. No trips would be made by public transport, walking or cycling due to the nature of maintenance requiring equipment that can only be transported by vehicles. Pedestrian routes There would be an additional public realm area to the north of the existing slipway where the operational structure would be located. Cycle routes The designated cycle routes within the area would be maintained and would not be affected during the operational phase. There would also be additional cycle parking located within the new public realm area. Bus routes and patronage No change is expected to any bus services in the operational phase and it is not anticipated that operational staff journeys would be made by bus. London Underground and National Rail and patronage No change is expected to any London Underground or National Rail service in the operational phase and it is not anticipated that operational staff journeys would be made by rail.
12.6.21
12.6.22
12.6.23
12.6.24
12.6.25
12.6.26 12.6.27
12.6.28
12.6.29
Page 261
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore River services and patronage 12.6.30
No change is expected to any river services as a result of the operational phase. Parking No change is expected to car parking in the vicinity of the site, compared to the base case, as a result of the operational phase arrangements at Putney Bridge Foreshore. When large vehicles are required to service the site, some parking may have to be suspended to ensure the vehicles have sufficient space to manoeuvre into the site. Highway layout The site would be accessed via the Embankment and slipway during the operational phase in line. Given the low frequency of maintenance vehicles, it is not intended that the highway layout would need to be changed from the base case layout. When large vehicles are required to service the site, some parking may have to be suspended to ensure the vehicles have sufficient space to manoeuvre into the site. Highway operation Occasional maintenance vehicles would service Putney Bridge Foreshore every three to six months. When larger vehicles are required to service the site, there may be some temporary, short-term delay to other road users. It may also be necessary for two way operation to be permitted on a temporary basis in the Embankment in order to allow maintenance vehicles to access and egress via the Embankment / Lower Richmond Road junction.
12.6.31
12.6.32
12.6.33
12.6.34
12.6.35 12.6.36
Operational effects
12.6.37 This section summarises the preliminary findings of the operational assessment undertaken for year 1 of operation. Pedestrian routes 12.6.38 12.6.39 12.6.40 The footways and kerb alignments adjacent to the Putney Bridge Foreshore site would be reinstated following the construction phase. There would be a new area of public realm created to the north of the slipway as part of the operational structure. As a result of the occasional maintenance trips anticipated at Putney Bridge Foreshore during the operational phase, balanced against the improved public realm, there would be a minor benefit to pedestrian routes and services in the area and footways adjacent to the site. Cycle routes 12.6.41 As part of the new public realm it would be possible to provide cycle stands.
Page 262
As a result of the occasional maintenance trips anticipated at Putney Bridge Foreshore during the operational phase, balanced against the additional cycle stand facilities, there would be a minor benefit to cycle routes and services in the area and on the roads surrounding the site. Bus routes and patronage Based on professional judgement and as a result of the occasional maintenance trips anticipated at Putney Bridge Foreshore during the operational phase, there would be a negligible effect on bus routes and patronage. London Underground and National Rail and patronage London Underground and National Rail services would not be affected by the occasional maintenance trips anticipated at Putney Bridge Foreshore during the operational phase. River services and patronage Public access to the existing slipway would be reinstated. River services would not be affected by the occasional maintenance trips anticipated at Putney Bridge Foreshore during the operational phase. Parking During maintenance where larger vehicles are required, some parking may be temporarily suspended to enable vehicles to access the site which would be re-provided in a safe location away from turning vehicles. As a result of the highly infrequent maintenance trips anticipated at Putney Bridge Foreshore during the operational phase, there would be a negligible effect on on-street parking in the local area. Highway layout No highway alterations are proposed for the operational phase. Access for larger maintenance vehicles through the Lower Richmond Road junction with Embankment would have a negligible impact on the local highway layout. Highway operation During the operational phase it would be necessary to allow temporary two-way working on a short section of the Embankment to allow large maintenance vehicles to access/egress the site. There may be some delay to road users and temporary suspension of parking on the Embankment when large maintenance vehicles are required at Putney Bridge Foreshore, however this is likely to be highly infrequent, and the effect is therefore deemed to be negligible. Highway capacity analysis It is expected that the effect on highway capacity would be negligible. Significance of effects The significance of the transport effects described above has been determined as part of the ongoing assessment and analysis. With regard
12.6.43
12.6.44
12.6.45 12.6.46
12.6.47
12.6.48
12.6.49 12.6.50
12.6.51
12.6.52
12.6.53 12.6.54
Page 263
to the application of the IEMA criteria detailed in Volume 5, this is based on professional judgement for the purposes of the PEIR assessment. 12.6.55 During the operational phase there would be very occasional vehicle trips to and from the site for maintenance activities but these would have a negligible effect on the surrounding transport networks (in terms of delay and safety) and pedestrian/cyclists.
12.7
12.7.1 12.7.2

Measures contained in the draft CoCP of relevance to transport are summarised in section 12.2. The project has been designed to limit the effects on the transport networks as far as possible and many measures have been included directly in the design of the project. Any mitigation which is required is detailed below. Pedestrian routes At this location, mitigation measures during the construction phase are likely to be required to provide safety. Construction vehicles would cross the Thames Path to enter/exit the site, thus potentially impacting pedestrian movements. This would be managed by a banks man. A safety audit would need to be carried out at the site entrance to ensure sufficient sightlines are provided. Cycle routes Assuming that safe crossing facilities or signposted diversions are provided for users of the Thames Path, no mitigation is required for cyclists. Bus routes No mitigation measures are likely to be required for bus services. London Underground and National Rail No mitigation measures are likely to be required for underground or rail services. River services On the basis that a temporary slipway, with appropriate signage, would be provided to address the temporary lack of access to the public slipway, no mitigation is required. Parking Assuming that temporarily suspended parking on Embankment is relocated in the surrounding area where possible, no mitigation is required.
12.7.3 12.7.4
12.7.5
12.7.6
12.7.7 12.7.8
12.7.9
12.7.10
Page 264
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Highway layout 12.7.11
Assuming that footway widths are maintained and temporarily suspended parking is re-provided where possible, no mitigation is required. Highway operation On the basis that the road markings and signage would be changed to inform drivers of the temporary change in traffic flow arrangements on the Embankment, no mitigation is required. Highway capacity There may be an increase in congestion on Putney High Street as a result of additional traffic; however, the volume of construction vehicles is expected to be low and no mitigation would be required for this.
12.7.12
12.7.13
Operation
Pedestrian routes 12.7.14 Footways would be returned to their original routes for operation. As a result, no mitigation would be required for the operational phase. Cycle routes 12.7.15 Cycle routes would not be affected by the operation of Putney Bridge Foreshore and there would be additional cycle stand facilities. As a result, no mitigation would be required. Bus routes 12.7.16 Bus services and patronage would not be significantly affected by the operation of Putney Bridge Foreshore therefore no mitigation would be required. London Underground and National Rail 12.7.17 London Underground and London Overground services would not be affected by the operation of the Putney Bridge Foreshore site therefore no mitigation would be required. River services 12.7.18 River services and patronage would not be affected by the operation of Putney Bridge Foreshore therefore no mitigation would be required. Parking 12.7.19 Assuming that temporarily suspended parking bays are re-provided in a safe location away from turning vehicles, no mitigation would be required. Highway layout 12.7.20 In order that junctions and carriageways could be returned to their original layout in the operational phase, access for larger maintenance vehicles through the Lower Richmond Road junction with Embankment would be managed by a banksman.
Page 265
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Highway operation 12.7.21
The number of trips associated with Putney Bridge Foreshore during the operational phase would be very low and infrequent and for maintenance purposes only. No mitigation would therefore be required. Highway capacity As the local highway network would not experience a significant detrimental effect from the operational proposals, there would be no requirement for highway improvement mitigation to increase capacity of local junctions.
12.7.22
Page 266
12.8
Vol 10 Table 12.8.1 Transport construction assessment Effect Significance Moderate adverse
Assessment summary
Receptor
Pedestrians in the local area / Pedestrians using the Thames Path Safety audit Minor adverse None required
Mitigation Residual significance Banksman to manage Moderate adverse construction vehicle and pedestrian movements.
Cyclists in the local area
Narrowed footways Increase in crossing distances and local diversions. Potential hazard of increased vehicle movements. Local diversions Delay to journey time Potential hazard of increased vehicle movements. Negligible None required Negligible
Minor adverse
Bus users and operators
Some additional patronage from construction workers. Delay to journey time due to construction traffic. Negligible
Rail users and operators
None required
Negligible
River users and operators
Some additional patronage from construction workers. Some additional patronage from construction workers. Temporary lack of public access to
Minor adverse
None required
Minor adverse
267
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Effect existing slipway, with temporary river access provided via a temporary slipway 300m to the west Loss of on-street parking to be reprovided in alternative locations where possible. Moderate adverse None Minor adverse None required Minor adverse Significance Mitigation Residual significance
Receptor
Parking
All road users Movement of large construction vehicles Highway layout changes including junction modifications Change to traffic operation on Embankment.
Moderate adverse
268
Vol 10 Table 12.8.2 Transport operational assessment Significance Mitigation Minor Occasional beneficial maintenance trips. New public realm area. Minor beneficial None required None required Residual significance Minor beneficial
Receptor Occasional maintenance trips. No effect. No effect Occasional suspension of onstreet parking in the immediate vicinity of the site during maintenance. Occasional suspension of onstreet parking in the immediate vicinity of the site during maintenance. Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible None required None required None required Negligible None required Occasional maintenance trips. Additional cycle parking.
Effect
Pedestrians in the local area / Pedestrians using the Thames Path
Cyclists in the local area / Cyclists using the Thames Path
Minor beneficial
Bus users and operators
Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
Rail users and operators
River users and operators
Parking users
All road users
Banksman to manage access for large maintenance vehicles.
Negligible
269
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Significance Mitigation Residual significance
Receptor
Effect
Occasional delay to road users when large maintenance vehicles accessing site. Temporary change in operation on short section of Embankment to twoway.
270
12.9
12.9.1
In addition to the baseline survey data collected and data obtained from Transport for London (strategic model data and additional ATC and junction count data), there is a need for additional data to supplement the data set. The baseline data collection was in the process of being collated at the time of writing. When baseline data collection (including data from third party sources) and analysis is complete a full transport assessment will be carried out. This will include a detailed analysis of all three levels of assessment (sitespecific, borough level and project-wide) and will include an assessment of cumulative and in combination effects. The scope of analysis will be agreed with TfL and the LHA and will include the identification of effects at individual receptors. This full assessment will be reported in the ES (and Transport Assessment). Following completion of the assessment the mitigation approaches for transport within the project will be finalised and reported in the ES and Transport Assessment.
12.9.2
12.9.3
Page 271
Section 13: Water resources - groundwater
13 13.1
13.1.1 13.1.2
Water resources groundwater Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant groundwater effects at the Putney Bridge Foreshore site. The Scoping Report identified that in the absence of appropriate measures within the design, there is potential for effects on groundwater resources from both construction and operational phases at the site. This preliminary assessment identifies these measures in order to assess the effects (if any) on groundwater resources that might then require mitigation.
13.2
13.2.1
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to groundwater are as follows. Construction The main infrastructure at the site, relevant to the consideration of groundwater, would include: a. A 6m diameter drop shaft70mATD (36m) below ground level; excluding a 2m thick base slab. b. An interception chamber for the existing CSO beneath the site would be fed into the drop shaft. A connection culvert to the drop shaft (dimensions approximately 65m long and 4-6m deep). c. A connection tunnel (approximately 2.2m in diameter and 50m long) would be constructed under the river from the base of the drop shaft to the main Thames Tunnel.
13.2.2
13.2.3
The proposed methods of construction for the various elements of the site, of relevance to the groundwater assessment, are summarised in the table below. Also contained in this table are approximate time-scales and depths.
Page 272
Vol 10 Table 13.2.1 Groundwater resources methods of construction Design Elements Method of Construction Sheet Piling through superficial deposits Sprayed Concrete Lining (SCL) through London Clay Sheet piles Construction Periods Construction Depth
Drop shaft
1 year
Deep
Interception Chambers and Culverts Connection tunnel (to main tunnel) Temporary slipway
<1 year
Shallow
Sprayed Concrete Lining
<1 year
Deep
Sheet piles
1-2 years
Shallow
Note: In terms of construction depth - Shallow (means <10m) and Deep (>10m). New pontoon would involve minimal sub-surface work.
13.2.4 13.2.5
No dewatering is anticipated would be required as the shaft would be constructed mainly within London Clay (non-aquifer). No ground treatment would be needed for construction of the drop shaft or connection tunnel to the main tunnel. Operation During operation the presence of below ground structures could interfere with any shallow groundwater movements and potentially act as a barrier to flow locally around the site. If it occurs, the build up of groundwater can cause problems of groundwater flooding. The preliminary assessment that follows assesses this issue in order to determine the need for any mitigation.
13.2.6
13.3
13.3.1

Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. Construction The construction phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.
13.3.2 13.3.3
Page 273
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Operation 13.3.4 13.3.5 13.3.6 13.3.7 13.3.8
The operational phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site. Assumptions and limitations At this stage, all assessments are based on a qualitative approach only. There is no borehole installed within the River Terrace Deposits at the site for groundwater baseline monitoring. The list of receptors is based on the best available information as of March 2011, from the Environment Agency for both licensed abstractions and GSHP schemes; and from the local authority for unlicensed abstractions.
13.4
13.4.1
Baseline conditions
The CSO drop shaft to the main tunnel is likely to pass through made ground, Langley Silt, River Terrace Deposits and London Clay as summarised in the table below. Vol 10 Table 13.4.1 Groundwater anticipated ground conditions Top of Formation Formation Elevation mATD Depth below river bed (m) undefined 100.0 0.0 0.4 Thickness (m) Hydrogeology
Made Ground River Terrace Deposits London Clay B A3ii A3i A2 Harwich
Perched Water Upper Aquifer
99.6 77.5 65.3 63.4 52.8
0.4 22.5 34.7 36.6 47.2
22.1 12.2 1.9 10.6 0.1
Aquiclude
Aquitard / Aquifer
13.4.2
The shaft would be founded in London Clay and would be constructed using a sheet pile cut-off (to seal out the upper aquifer) and sprayed concrete lining (SCL) with placed segments to form a secondary lining. The River Terrace Deposits or upper aquifer is classified as a secondary A aquifer. The thickness of River Terrace Deposits is likely to be thin at about 0.5m at the site on the basis of ground investigation boreholes.
13.4.3
Page 274
The marine seismic survey indicated the presence of a significant fault in the near vicinity; it is unclear at this stage, whether this feature could facilitate hydraulic connection with the River Thames. The shaft would not extend down into the lower aquifer. As the shaft is within the London Clay, with a substantial separation distance (>30m) between the base of the shaft and the top of the Upnor Formation (top of lower aquifer), the lower aquifer is not expected to be affected by the shaft. Water level monitoring at the base of London Clay Formation (LCF) and upper parts of the Lambeth Group shows high piezometric heads. However, the level of the shaft invert would be sufficiently high to avoid groundwater effects from these units. The site does not lie within any Source Protection Zone (SPZ) as defined by the EA. The nearest Source Protection Zone (SPZ), also in the Chalk, lies 5km to the northeast. There is one licensed groundwater abstraction from sand and gravels (River Terrace Deposits-upper aquifer) for industrial, commercial and public services approximately 750m to the northeast of the site. The nearest Chalk abstraction is 0.9km to the northwest. The regional direction of groundwater flow in the Chalk is to the northnortheast, towards central London. There are no unlicensed abstractions near to the site based on information provided by the London Borough of Wandsworth. There is one Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP) scheme licensed from the Chalk and located 1.2km to the southeast. There are two SSSIs and four LNRs which are water dependent identified within 2km of the site. The land quality assessment at the site Foreshore shows no exceedances of parameters tested. There is no borehole installed within the River Terrace deposits (upper aquifer) at the site for groundwater baseline monitoring. The flood risk assessment states that there are no groundwater flooding incidents within the vicinity of the site, based on information from the London Borough of Wandsworth Strategic Flood Risk Assessment. Further details on the baseline conditions at the site are provided in Appendix E. Monitoring is continuing and would extend the baseline which would inform the assessment in the ES.
13.4.5
13.4.6
13.4.7
13.4.8
13.4.9 13.4.10 13.4.11 13.4.12 13.4.13 13.4.14 13.4.15
13.4.16
Receptor summary
13.4.17 Groundwater receptors which could be affected during construction or operation are summarised in the table below.
Page 275
Vol 10 Table 13.4.2 Groundwater receptors Receptor Groundwater Resources Upper Aquifer Lower Aquifer Construction
Operation
Comment Penetrated by shaft, two gravel abstractions 0.7km to the northeast Base of shaft >30m above the lower aquifer Nearest a river gravel (upper aquifer) abstraction about 0.7km to the northeast; Nearest abstraction from Chalk is 0.9km to the northwest, but not affected as construction would not reach this layer
Abstractions Licensed

Abstractions Unlicensed
None identified Nearest GSHP scheme in Chalk, 1.2km to the eastsoutheast, lower aquifer not reached by construction
GSHP Schemes
Note: Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP)
13.5
13.5.1
The drop shaft passes for most of its depth through London Clay so no groundwater issues are expected in connection with construction of the shaft and no dewatering or depressurisation is proposed. The likely significant potential effects could arise as a result of the interceptor chambers and connection culvert creating a physical obstruction to flow in the upper aquifer for a period of less than one year. This could cause a rise in groundwater level up gradient and consequent change in groundwater storage and flood risk. Impact magnitude The magnitude of the impact would be confirmed once the local groundwater conditions are established by local ground investigation (if the information is available from the upper aquifer), and the direction of
13.5.2
13.5.3
Page 276
groundwater flow relative to the interception chambers and connection culvert is known. 13.5.4 The magnitude of the impact on groundwater levels is currently expected to be minor or negligible ie a slight rise in groundwater levels may take place on the upstream/south-eastern side of the structure. The impacts are mitigated by removal of the sheet pile walls around the excavations (or at least cut down or piped through at a low level to prevent build up of water in the upper aquifer) following construction. There is no known contamination in the upper aquifer (see Appendix E) so the magnitude of any impact associated with groundwater quality is negligible. A summary of the impacts and likely magnitude is provided in the table below . Vol 10 Table 13.5.1 Groundwater impacts-construction Impact Physical obstruction to flow in the upper aquifer and resultant rise in groundwater level Dewatering of upper aquifer Creation of pathway for pollution Receptor sensitivity 13.5.8 In terms of receptors, the upper aquifer is a secondary aquifer and is categorised in Volume 5 as being of medium importance, as summarised in the table below. Vol 10 Table 13.5.2 Groundwater receptors- construction Receptor Upper aquifer Significance of effects 13.5.9 A summary of significance of the effects is shown in the table below. There are negligible effects on groundwater as a result of activities at the site. Value/sensitivity and justification Medium importance; secondary aquifer Magnitude Minor or negligible; to be confirmed following ground investigation.
13.5.5
13.5.6
13.5.7
Minor or negligible; impact to be quantified Negligible; no pollution near surface and no pathway into lower aquifer
Page 277
Vol 10 Table 13.5.3 Groundwater effects - construction Effect Change in groundwater storage and flood risk as a result of physical obstruction in upper aquifer Dewatering of upper aquifer Creation of pathway for pollution Significance Minor adverse or negligible effect, to be confirmed following GI
Minor adverse or negligible effect; impact yet to be quantified Negligible effect
13.6
13.6.1
The base case and operational development case are derived from current baseline conditions as described in Section 4.4 and the supporting appendix. The possible future change from current baseline conditions is taken into account by considering a range of groundwater levels in the assessments. The Water Framework Directive commits EU member states to achieve good qualitative and quantitative status of all water bodies (including marine waters up to kilometre from shore) by 2015. The Directive defines 'surface water status' as the general expression of the status of a body of surface water, determined by the poorer of its ecological status and its chemical status. Thus, to achieve 'good surface water status' both the ecological status and the chemical status of a surface water body need to be at least 'good'. In order to ensure that no build up of groundwater takes place around the underground structures, the sheet pile walls to be put in around the interception chambers and culvert tunnel would be cut down. If necessary, the pile can be piped through at a low level to allow through flow and prevent a build up of groundwater levels. The impact is considered to be of negligible magnitude resulting in a negligible effect. No other operational effects are envisaged. A summary of the impacts and likely magnitude is provided in the table below. Vol 10 Table 13.6.1 Groundwater impacts-operation Impact Physical obstruction to flow in the upper aquifer and resultant rise in groundwater level Receptor sensitivity Magnitude Negligible; sheet piles cut down.
13.6.2
13.6.3
13.6.4
13.6.5
In terms of receptors, the upper aquifer is a secondary aquifer and is categorised in Volume 5 as being of medium importance, as summarised in the table below.
Page 278
Vol 10 Table 13.6.2 Groundwater receptors-operation Receptor Upper aquifer Significance of effects 13.6.6 A summary of significance of the effects is shown in the table below. Vol 10 Table 13.6.3 Groundwater effects - operation Effect Significance Change in groundwater storage and Negligible effect due to negligible flood risk as a result of physical impact and medium value of obstruction in upper aquifer upper aquifer Value/sensitivity and justification Medium importance; secondary aquifer
13.7
13.7.1

The possible build up of groundwater in the upper aquifer would be addressed by the environmental design. No other effects were identified therefore no mitigation is required.
Operation
13.7.2 13.7.3 No effects are identified in the operational assessment and therefore no mitigation is required. No residual effects are expected.
Page 279
Section 13: Water resources groundwater
13.8
Vol 10 Table 13.8.1 Groundwater construction assessment Effect Minor Minor - if use/ integrity of abstraction source is unaffected. To be quantified. Negligible effect None required None required, if use / integrity of abstraction source is unaffected. To be quantified. None required Significance Mitigation
Assessment summary
Residual Significance Negligible effect Negligible effect, to be quantified.
Receptor
Upper aquifer
Obstruction to groundwater flows
Upper aquifer
Licensed abstraction from the River Terrace Gravels
Upper aquifer
Deterioration in groundwater quality caused by creation of a pathway
Negligible effect
Vol 10 Table 13.8.2 Groundwater operation assessment Effect Negligible effect Significance Mitigation None required Residual Significance Negligible effect
Receptor
Upper aquifer
Change in groundwater levels
Page 280
Section 13: Water resources groundwater
13.9
13.9.1 13.9.2
No additional data collection is required for the site. The impact of the physical obstruction post construction will be modelled. The ES will include consideration of cumulative effects from the project. Assessment of cumulative and in combination effects will be undertaken and reported in the ES. Following completion of the assessment the mitigation approaches for groundwater within the project will be finalised and reported in the ES.
13.9.3
Page 281
Section 14: Water resources surface
14 14.1
14.1.1
Water resources surface water Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant surface water effects at the Putney Bridge Foreshore site. This assessment: a. identifies the existing water resources baseline conditions; b. identifies the future base case conditions against which the project should be assessed; c. identifies both the beneficial and adverse effects of the project during construction and operation and assess the significance of the effects; and
d. identifies any residual effects with respect to surface water resources potentially affected by the project, both during construction and operation. 14.1.2 Groundwater resources are assessed separately in Section 13. Similarly land quality is addressed in Section 8. A Level 1 Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been carried out separately and is included in Section 15. In addition, it should be noted that this assessment only covers the effects of the work at the Putney Foreshore Site. The project-wide effects on the Thames Tideway, particularly the water quality improvements anticipated from the project are assessed separately in Volume 6.
14.1.3
14.2
14.2.1
The proposed development is described in section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to surface water resources are described in the following sections. The Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) includes a number of measures that are important in protecting water quality and these are referred to as appropriate, Construction The Putney Bridge site is located within the River Thames foreshore, which means that some of the proposed working area would be within the river channel. Permanent works at Putney Bridge Foreshore include a CSO drop shaft (offline), an interception chamber, a connection culvert and a valve chamber and a temporary slipway. A temporary cofferdam would be constructed in the foreshore to enable construction of the permanent works site. Other temporary works include a campshed to be constructed on the foreshore. The shaft is expected to be constructed almost entirely within London Clay, with the exception of an initial thin layer of River Terrace Deposits and it is not thought that any dewatering or ground treatment would be required at this location. Disposal of dewatering effluent can have an impact on surface water resources. See Groundwater Resources (Volume Section 13) for further details of dewatering requirements.
14.2.2
14.2.3
Page 282
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Construction controls 14.2.4
To prevent pollution from leaks or spillages, contaminating substances would be stored in leakproof containers, with secondary containment equal to 110% of the volume of the container, in a safe and secure building or compound. Areas for transfer of contaminating substances, including refuelling, oiling and greasing, would be similarly protected and activities would take place above drip trays or on an impermeable surface with sealed drainage or oil interceptor. All wash down of vehicles (including wheel washing) and equipment would take place in designated areas and washwater would be prevented from passing untreated into drains or holding areas prior to pumping. These measures will be detailed in the CoCP. The CoCP would be adhered to at all times and good construction techniques followed to ensure protection against pollution incidents. In addition, relevant Environment Agency guidance would be followed, including the following: a. General Guide to the Prevention of Pollution: PPG 1; b. Works and maintenance in or near water: PPG 5; c. PPG 6 Pollution prevention guidance for working at construction and demolition sites;
14.2.5
d. Vehicle washing and cleaning: PPG 13; e. Dewatering of Underground Ducts and Chambers: PPG 20; f. Incident Response Planning: PPG 21; and g. Storage and handling of drums and intermediate bulk containers (IBCs): PPG 26. 14.2.6 14.2.7 Appropriate maintenance of barges, vehicles and plant would also minimise pollution during construction. Suitable spill kits would be provided and positioned in vulnerable areas and staff would be trained in their use and a record should be kept of all pollution incidents or near-misses, to ensure appropriate action is taken and lessons are learned from incidents. Regular toolbox talks would be held to raise staff awareness of pollution prevention and share lessons learned from any recorded incidents. There would be written procedures in place for dealing with spillages and pollution (The Pollution Incident Control Plan or PICP). The PICP would contain the following as a minimum: a. guidance on the storage and use of hazardous materials with the aim of preventing and containing spills and releases; b. guidelines on the degrees of containment which take account of the nature of the materials and the sensitivity of the environment; c. procedures to be adopted in the event of a pollution incident, to contain and limit any adverse effects;
Page 283
d. procedures and appropriate information required in the event of any incident such as a spillage or release of a potentially hazardous material; e. systems for notifying appropriate emergency services, the Environment Agency and other relevant authorities, Thames Water and the Contractor's personnel; and f. arrangements for notifying appropriate statutory bodies and local authorities of pollution incidents where required to by legislation.
Operation 14.2.8 The operation of the tunnel would allow interception of flows which would otherwise discharge to the Putney Bridge CSO. There would therefore be a reduction in the frequency, duration and volume of spills from the Putney Bridge CSO.
14.3
14.3.1
The construction/operational phase assessment methodology follows the methodology provided in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.
Scoping and engagement

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

14.3.3 Full results from project ground investigations were not available at the time of undertaking this assessment and as such, assessment of contamination risk from works on the foreshore (eg sediments) and from intrusive ground works at the site have relied on existing records of contamination (see section 8 Land Quality assessment for further details). The assessment of impact of river channel works on scour and sedimentation has made use of preliminary 2-dimensional hydrodynamic modelling undertaken in support of the project design and EIA. At the time of compiling this assessment, this computational modelling work was being supported by the construction of physical models of in river works at Putney Bridge; however, outputs from the physical model were not available to inform this assessment. Definition of Tideway conditions and current CSO operation during future base case and development cases are reliant on model simulations. The model simulations are therefore performed to show the relative change in CSO discharges with a consistent set of catchment and sewer system assumptions. Future climate change simulations have not been completed at the time of compiling this assessment and the impact of climate change on the beneficial impacts of the project will not be available until the ES is completed.
14.3.4
14.3.5
14.3.6
Page 284
The assessment of the beneficial effect of a reduction in sewage derived litter and pathogens discharged to the Tideway has been inferred from catchment modelling simulations of the reduction in discharge volume, frequency and duration and have not been directly modelled. Effects of discharges on dissolved oxygen levels in the river have been simulated using the catchment model and the Tidal Thames QUESTS model.
14.4
14.4.1
Baseline conditions
Surface water receptors A list of surface water receptors and their status under the Water Framework Directive (WFD) is included in the table below, which are either within the vicinity of the site, or downstream of the site and therefore have the potential to be affected by the project. Due to the dilution effect of the Tideway, the effects of construction activities would be localised to the waterbodies listed and this section assesses only the impacts local to the proposed site. Therefore, only the Thames Upper and Thames Middle waterbodies are considered in the assessment for Putney Bridge. Vol 10 Table 14.4.1 Surface water receptors Water Hydromor Current Current Body phological Ecological Chemical Name/ID Status Quality Quality Thames Upper GB530603 911403 Thames Middle GB530603 911402 Heavily Modified Moderate Potential Good 2015 Predicted Ecological Quality Moderate Potential 2015 Predicted Chemical Quality Good
14.4.2
Heavily Modified
Moderate Potential
Fail
Moderate Potential
Fail
Water quality 14.4.3 The Thames Upper (which stretches from Teddington to Battersea Bridge) and Middle (which stretches from Battersea Bridge to Mucking Flats) waterbodies can be considered to be high value waterbodies as although their current and predicted status in 2015 (target date from River Basin Management Plan) is moderate potential, there is a status objective of good by 2027 42. In addition, the Thames is a valuable resource and plays an important role as a water resource, habitat provision, amenity, recreation and transport throughout London. The River Thames and Tidal Tributaries are designated as a Site of Metropolitan Importance. Additionally, the Thames at Putney is particularly important for recreational and competitive rowing (section 10 socio-economics).
14.4.4
Page 285
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Current CSO operation 14.4.5
Using the June 2011 catchment model of the sewer system, the current operation of the Putney Bridge CSO has been characterised and the annual average duration, frequency and volume of spill has been defined as follows: a. the CSO spills on average of 33 times per year; b. the CSO spills for an average duration of 107 hours per year; and c. the spill volume from the CSO is approximately 68,100 m3 per year.
14.4.6
The polluting load data that is discharged from the CSO (Biochemical Oxygen Demand BOD, Ammoniacal-N and Total Oxidised Nitrogen TON) will be provided in time to inform the ES. Dissolved oxygen The existing discharge from Putney Bridge CSO has an effect of depleting dissolved oxygen in the Thames as a result of the biological breakdown of organic matter in the discharges. This causes both a localised effect (at Putney) and more widespread (Tideway wide) effect of rapidly dropping dissolved oxygen levels. The half tide plots showing the oxygen depleting effects of the CSO, treatment works and other discharges to the Tideway will be included in the ES. Exposure to pathogens Each CSO discharge also increases the risk of exposure to pathogens for river users who come into contact with water. An assessment of health impacts upon recreational users of the River Thames was conducted and reported by the Health Protection Agency in 2007 43. This concluded that risk of infection can remain for two to four days following a spill as the water containing the spill moves back and forward with the tide. The same study also noted that analysis of the illness events reported against discharges on the Tideway shows that 77% of cases had been rowing in three days of CSO discharge. Assuming the average 33 spills per annum occur on separate days, this could lead to a maximum of 132 days per year where recreational river users are at risk of exposure to pathogens in the Putney locality. Sewage derived litter The operation of Putney Bridge CSO results in the discharge of sewage litter along with the discharge of effluent. It was estimated by the TTSS 44 that overflows from the combined sewers introduce approximately 10,000 tonnes of sewage derived solid material to the Thames Tideway annually. June 2011 catchment modelling of the current CSO operation defined the average volume of discharge from Putney Bridge CSO was 68,100m3, representing 0.17% of the total volume discharged to the Thames Tideway annually. This suggests about 17 tonnes of sewage derived litter is currently discharged from Putney Bridge annually.
14.4.7
14.4.8
14.4.9
14.4.10
14.4.11 14.4.12
Page 286
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Receptors designated sites 14.4.13
There are no internationally designated hydrologically linked conservation sites in proximity to the proposed site that could be affected by construction. The project-wide effects of the overall project on the internationally designated sites in the Lower Thames are covered separately in Volume 6. The following nationally and locally designated conservation sites are located within a 2 km search radius of the proposed development and are water dependent; these could potentially be affected by the proposed project: a. Barn Elms Wetland Centre Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) - a mosaic of different wetland habitats created on the site of redundant artificial reservoir basins comprising areas of standing open water, grazing marsh and reedbed; and b. Barnes Common Local Nature Reserve. Receptors discharges and abstractions
14.4.14
14.4.15
Other than the Putney Bridge CSO there are no consented discharges within 1 km of the site; there are no licensed abstractions within 1 km of the site. Contamination No particular sources of contaminated land have been identified at this site. Whilst the search radius of historical mapping has identified pockets of previous industrial activities in the surrounding area, it is considered unlikely that any would have significantly affected the soils in the location of the proposed worksite. See the Land Quality assessment in Section 8 for details of on-site contamination. Foreshore During the time between high and low tide, the foreshore of the Tideway at Putney is exposed. Based on mean high and low water levels, there are approximately 6 m of exposed foreshore in the locality of the site and this stretch of foreshore would contain some of both the construction site and the operational site once construction is complete.
14.4.16
14.4.17
Base case
Construction base case 14.4.18 The Lee Tunnel and the TTQI projects (improvement works at Mogden, Beckton, Crossness, Long Reach and Riverside STWs) would be operational by the time construction commences. Significant improvements in the water quality in the Tideway are anticipated as a result of these projects. The construction base case would therefore be the future water quality in the Tideway with the TTQI projects and the Lee Tunnel in place. Results from modelled simulations of conditions in 2021 (as simulated model runs are only available for 2006 and 2021) with the TTQI and Lee Tunnel in place have therefore been used for the base case.
14.4.19
Page 287
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Operation base case 14.4.20
For the assessment of operational impacts, the effects have been assessed against a base case of year one of operation. As described in the methodology section in Volume 5, this base case year takes account of the effects that other major schemes would have on the quality of the Thames Tideway as explained in the construction base case above. Results from modelled simulations of conditions in 2021 with the TTQI and Lee Tunnel in place have therefore been used for the base case.
14.4.21
14.5
14.5.1
As described in Volume 5, the construction effects at each site (including Putney Bridge) have been assessed for significance against the relevant WFD objectives as well as their significance against targets set by other legislation. Surface water receptors are identified in Vol 10 Table 14.4.1. The WFD objectives as taken from Article 4 of the WFD are as follows: a. WFD1 Prevent deterioration of the status of all bodies of surface water b. WFD2 Protect, enhance and restore all bodies of surface water, with the aim of achieving good surface water status by 2015 c. WFD3 Protect and enhance all artificial and heavily modified bodies of water, with the aim of achieving good ecological potential and good surface water chemical status by 2015
14.5.2
d. WFD4 Reduce pollution from priority substances and cease or phase out emissions, discharges and losses of priority hazardous substances
Identification of construction impacts and effects

Site set-up 14.5.3 The main pathways for impact and effect on surface water resources and associated receptors during construction at the Putney Bridge location are as a result of the requirement for a cofferdam to be constructed in the foreshore for both the main construction work and to house the permanent structures required for operation of the project at the Putney Bridge CSO connection once construction is complete. The cofferdam would be constructed by driving sheetpiles into the river bed, which would be sealed and the water pumped out into the river channel. The cofferdam area would be backfilled with granular material loaded from a barge and the fill material spread and compacted using a tracked excavator and twin drum vibratory roller. As the works would be in the foreshore, there is a direct pathway for pollution during the construction of the cofferdam. Once constructed, the cofferdam area and the shaft construction work within it would be protected from flooding to ensure the construction activity is not affected by high water levels. This would require the cofferdam walls to be raised above the working area within the cofferdam to the required level of flood defence. Surface water from rainfall during
14.5.4
14.5.5
Page 288
use of shaft construction area would therefore accumulate during the construction period and would need to be pumped periodically to ensure the working activities are not affected by ponding of rainwater. 14.5.6 The construction of these working areas and the required pumping of rainwater during use of the construction areas therefore create a direct pathway to the river for contaminated run-off, high suspended solids and other pollution from the site during construction of the shaft and other construction works. Before release to the river, the dewatering effluent to be pumped from behind the cofferdam would be subject to settlement (using a lagoon/pond, silt trap or other suitable method) to ensure excessive levels of suspended solids are not discharged to the Tideway. In addition, the discharge would be carried out on an outgoing tide and high flows if possible, to ensure maximum mixing of the discharge and minimum impact of any increased levels of suspended solids in the discharged water. It is considered that via the proposed management of pumping out the cofferdam area, the pollution pathway can be managed sufficiently to reduce the pollution risk to negligible. It is proposed that river transport would be used to import and export 90% of the cofferdam fill, although excavated material from the site would be removed by road. In order to facilitate this, temporary campsheds would be constructed, which would allow the barges to moor up adjacent to the site while loading and unloading occurs. The campsheds would be located on the foreshore and would therefore cause a temporary loss of foreshore while they are in place. It is likely that the cofferdam and campsheds would impact on scour patterns while in place, which could cause the mobilisation of increased levels of suspended solids into the river. There may also be an effect on downstream river structures if the pattern of sediment movement is greatly changed. In addition, should the cofferdam and campsheds cause the channel width to be significantly altered, the flow velocity of the river at this point may increase, thereby increasing contraction scour across the whole channel bed. The degree to which the cofferdam and campsheds affect the scour and sediment movement in the channel would be largely dependent on the shape of the structures; the more angular the shape and the more they protrude into the channel, the greater the impact would be. Early modelling for this site in relation to scour suggests that some scouring of existing bed deposits is likely to occur. The extent of this scour will be evaluated by further modelling and will be reported in the ES, at which stage any mitigation required will also be defined. It is possible that scour protection may be required under the new CSO outfall point. However, due to the predicted low spill frequency of the Putney Bridge CSO post-tunnel construction (a single spill is predicted in an average year) a hard structure in line with the surface of the foreshore may not be appropriate. The scour protection could therefore be installed at a deeper level, which would ensure CSO spills do not undermine the cofferdam structure, but allow the natural foreshore accretion processes to occur under the CSO outlet, should scour occur during a CSO spill event
14.5.7
14.5.8
14.5.9
14.5.10
Page 289
at low tide when the foreshore is exposed. The exact design and nature of the scour protection at the Putney Foreshore CSO will be established for the ES. 14.5.11 There is the potential for the cofferdam and campsheds at the Putney Foreshore site to interact with the adjacent Putney Pier, causing an area of slack dead water between the two. Floating debris, oils and other pollutants could build up in the area as the flow of the river would not clear the accumulation due to the shelter provided by the Pier and cofferdam. The foreshore would be reinstated after removal of temporary structures. Due to the natural circulation of sediments within the estuary, the accumulation of silts and estuarine muds is likely to occur naturally following the removal of the temporary structures. In addition, the structures would be designed and engineered to allow unimpeded flow and minimise conflict and slack water between Putney Bridge, the working site and Putney Pier, where practicable. Good practice design would reduce the effects of scour at the face of the cofferdam and campsheds, and rip-rap or gabions may be required to prevent damage to structures. This is especially important at this site, where preliminary work suggests that some scouring of existing bed deposits is likely to occur around the temporary works cofferdam. Such measures would not remove the impact pathway, the effects are considered in this section for their significance and requirement for specific mitigation. Site drainage 14.5.14 Site runoff has the potential to become polluted with a number of substances during construction activities, which may include the following: a. silt and suspended solids from earthworks and exposed soils; b. oil and fuels from machinery and equipment maintenance and refuelling; c. concrete or cement from spillages during spraying and pouring; and d. hazardous substances from ground contamination exposed during earthworks and construction. 14.5.15 These pollutants could leak to the Tideway or be directly discharged to it as part of the surface water discharge. Any effects on the adjacent Tideway from leakage or discharges would be adverse, although of short duration before remedial action was taken. The likelihood of pollution effects occurring would be greatly reduced by the use of sealed site drainage for the cofferdam area. Where possible, all site drainage would be drained and discharged to mains foul or combined sewers and where this is not practicable, the site would be drained such that accumulating surface water would be directed to holding or settling tanks, separators and other measures prior to discharge to the Tideway via pumps over the cofferdam wall. It is understood that foul drainage from the site welfare facilities would be connected to the mains foul or combined sewer, which is located in Lower
14.5.12
14.5.13
14.5.16
14.5.17
Page 290
Richmond Road, to the south of the proposed working area. There should therefore be no impact pathway from the routine discharge of foul drainage from the site and there is considered to be no effect on the Thames Upper or Thames Middle waterbodies. 14.5.18 It is considered that via the proposed drainage management, the pollution pathway can be managed sufficiently to reduce the pollution risk to negligible. There is the potential for pollution of the Thames Tideway if materials are dropped or spilled during the loading and unloading of barges. There is also the potential for pollution from the barges themselves, such as oil or diesel spillages. Any effects on the adjacent Tideway from this impact would be adverse, although of very short duration before remedial action was taken It is considered that via the adherence to the measures detailed in section 14.2, the pollution pathway can be managed sufficiently to reduce the pollution risk to negligible. Contamination and dewatering 14.5.21 Historical mapping has identified no contaminative on-site uses (land or foreshore, (land or foreshore, see section 14.4 and section 8, Land Quality). Should significant levels of contamination be identified during the site preparation works and piling, the water pumped from behind the sheet piling would be tankered away for off-site treatment disposal at an appropriate and licensed waste treatment and disposal facility Further ground investigation work is to be undertaken in 2011 on the foreshore to inform preparation of the ES. Until results from this work are available, there remains a small possibility that the release of hazardous substances into the river from the exposure of previously undetected foreshore contamination could occur during campshed and cofferdam construction and general earthworks at the site. This information will be assessed and reported in the ES. The assumption in this assessment is that there is no contamination risk from disturbance of foreshore sediment at Putney.
14.5.19
14.5.20
14.5.22
Assessment of impacts
14.5.23 The table below provides the assessment of effects during construction at Putney Bridge Foreshore against: a. WFD environmental objectives: b. local impacts; and c. whether other legislative targets are likely to be affected.
Page 291
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Vol 10 Table 14.5.1 Surface water impacts- construction WFD Objectives met? WFD1 WFD2 WFD3 WFD4
Section 14: Water resources - surface
Impact
Water body Duration and Reversibility N/A Temporary until end of construction. Largely reversible as some foreshore reinstatement would occur.
Assessment and likely effect
Local effects or Other Legislative effects
Compacti on of foreshore and change in geomorpholo gy (campsh ed and cofferda m constructi on).
Upper Thames
Landtake from the river channel with an associated temporary loss of foreshore. Whilst this would be reinstated postconstruction, there would be a period of time where the geomorphology of the foreshore is altered until foreshore mud is redeposited via natural process.
Although The change in the The effect The is not the effect foreshore is Thames considered Upper is a would considered to to result in potentially have an impact heavily deterioratio modified prevent local to Putney. n of the enhanceme waterbody Thames nt and and only Upper protection of needs to status. the achieve morphology good of the potential. Thames Upper, the effect is considered to be reversible and temporary.
Page 292
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore WFD Objectives met? WFD1 WFD2 WFD3 WFD4
Impact
Water body Duration and Reversibility N/A Temporary until end of construction. Largely reversible as some foreshore reinstatement would occur. The scour rates are considered to have an effect locally and more widely in terms of potential effect on the structural integrity of flood defences and the Putney Bridge abutments The change in the foreshore is considered to have an impact local to Putney.
Increase Upper d scour Thames and changes to sediment moveme nt which may affect nearby infrastruc ture in the foreshore (campsh eds and cofferda ms). Temporary effect. Reversible as The water quality and aesthetic effect is The effect on water quality and
Loss of river bed and increased suspended solids from scour around the base of the cofferdam and campsheds. Changes to sediment movement which may remove sediment at other sites.
The effect Although The is not the effect Thames considered Upper is a would to result in potentially heavily deterioratio modified prevent n of the enhanceme waterbody Thames nt and and only Upper protection of needs to the Thames status. achieve Upper, the good effect is potential. considered to be reversible and temporary.
N/A The Thames Upper is a The effect would not
Alteration of flow regime
Upper Thames
The proximity of the upstream Putney Pier could lead to
Page 293
Impact
Water body Duration and Reversibility construction cofferdam area would be removed when construction complete. considered to have an effect locally in the context of local river users. aesthetics heavily is not modified considered waterbody to result in and only deterioratio needs to n of the achieve Thames good Upper potential. status of moderate. alter overall water quality in the Thames Upper.
which may cause slack or dead water, leading to the accumula tion of debris or pollutants
the accumulation of debris or pollutants between the cofferdam and the pier.
Page 294
Significance of effect
14.5.24 Vol 10 Table 14.5.2 identifies the significance of the effects identified in accordance with the criteria set out in Volume 5. Vol 10 Table 14.5.2 Surface water effects- construction Effect Significance and justification Minor adverse All WFD objectives can be met. Reinstatement would be possible postconstruction and natural process would result in re-deposition and recovery of foreshore from the construction area. The effect is considered to have a local effect during recovery as the morphology of the foreshore would be altered, but the effect is reversible and not considered to be significant. Moderate adverse Increased scour and Modelling has shown that scour may occur changes to sediment at cofferdam. This is not considered to movement which may affect adversely affect attainment of WFD nearby sites (due to objectives, but it is considered significant at campsheds and the local scale and could impact on integrity cofferdams) of flood defences and the Putney Bridge abutments. Further assessment will be undertaken and reported in the ES. Minor adverse Alteration of flow regime which may cause slack or dead water, leading to the accumulation of debris or pollutants The water quality effect would not prevent WFD objectives being met, and the water impact is considered to have a local effect that is reversible once construction is complete.
Damage to and temporary loss of foreshore (due to campshed and cofferdam construction)
14.6
14.6.1
As with the construction effects, the assessment has defined the WFD objectives and the waterbodies affected.
Page 295
Identification of operational impacts and effects

Permanent foreshore development 14.6.2 Following construction of the shaft and the connection of the Putney Bridge CSO to the main tunnel, the shaft would continue to provide an operational function for the project, and as described in Section 3 above, would require a permanent access point to the shaft and other above ground structures. This would require a permanent area of land to be created around the shaft and above ground features which would include a new flood defence line to maintain the standard of protection. The requirement for the permanent structures within the river would result in a direct loss of foreshore (approximately 460 m2, exact area to be confirmed for the ES) from the hydro-morphology of the river. As for the temporary works, it is also likely that the landtake would impact on scour patterns which could alter the geomorphology of the foreshore and may also have an effect on downstream river structures if the pattern of sediment movement is greatly changed. In addition, should the permanent landtake cause the channel width to be significantly altered, the flow velocity of the river at this point may increase, thereby increasing contraction scour across the whole channel bed. The degree to which the landtake affects the scour and sediment movement in the channel would be largely dependent on the shape of the final structures and the more angular the shape and the more it protrudes into the channel, the greater the impact would be. The area of permanent landtake has been designed and engineered to minimise the change in velocity around the structure and hence minimise subsequent effects of scour and sedimentation around the structure and downstream. The design has also minimised the extent of land take to reduce encroachment into foreshore (in keeping with EA policy on foreshore encroachment). However, this approach would still not entirely remove the impact pathway, the effects are considered in this section for their significance and requirement for specific mitigation. Reduction in CSO spills 14.6.6 The operation of the Putney Bridge CSO connection as part of the project as a whole would have a beneficial effect on water quality, bacteriological quality and aesthetic value in the Putney Bridge locality and beyond, by substantially reducing the frequency, duration and volume of discharges from the Putney Bridge CSO. June 2011 catchment modelling of the operational base case has simulated that by year one of operation (assessed to be 2021 to use modelled assumptions) the frequency, duration and volume of the Putney Bridge CSO would have increased (as a result of increased population) beyond the current baseline to the following: a. the CSO would spill on average of 33 times in the Typical Year (the same as the current baseline); b. the CSO would spill for an average duration of 111 hours in the Typical Year (4 hours greater than the current baseline); and
14.6.3
14.6.4
14.6.5
14.6.7
Page 296
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore c. 14.6.8
the spill volume from the CSO would be approximately 70,800m3 in the Typical Year (2,700m3 greater than the current baseline).
The number of risk days for river users being exposed to pathogens during the base case year would be up to a maximum of 132 days in the Typical Year. June 2011 catchment modelling of the operational development case has simulated that by year one of operation (assessed to be 2021 to use modelled assumptions) with the project in place the frequency, duration and volume of the Putney Bridge CSO would have substantially decreased (as a result of the capture of wastewater flow into the tunnel) to the following: a. the CSO would spill on average only once in the Typical Year (32 times less than the base case); b. the CSO would spill for an average duration of 3 hours in the Typical Year (108 hours less than the base case); and c. the spill volume from the CSO would be approximately 1,600m3 in the Typical Year (69,200m3 less than the current baseline).
14.6.9
14.6.10
The frequency, duration and volume of CSO discharge spill at Putney would therefore be reduced by approximately 98% in the Typical Year as a result of the project. The number of risk days for river users being exposed to pathogens during the development case year is predicted to be a maximum of 4 days in the Typical Year (a reduction of up to 104 days of risk of exposure). In addition, the tonnage of sewage derived litter can be expected to be reduced by approximately 98% from 17 tonnes to less than half a tonne in the Typical Year. The data for the reduction in polluting load that is discharged from the CSO (Biochemical Oxygen Demand BOD, Ammoniacal-N and Total Oxidised Nitrogen TON) will be provided included in the ES.
14.6.11
14.6.12
14.6.13
Assessment impact
14.6.14 The table below gives a summary of the assessment of impacts during operation of the Putney Bridge foreshore site against: a. WFD environmental objectives: b. local impacts; and c. 14.6.15 whether other legislative targets are likely to be affected. As discussed, overall Tideway-wide benefits are assessed in Volume 6 and this section only assesses the beneficial impacts local to the proposed site at Putney Bridge Foreshore. Therefore only the Thames Upper and Thames Middle waterbodies are considered in the assessment for Putney Bridge Foreshore CSO.
Page 297
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore Vol 10 Table 14.6.1 Surface water impacts-operation WFD Objectives met? WFD1 WFD2 WFD3 WFD4
Impact
Water body Duration and Reversibility Permanent. Not reversible. The change in geomorphology of the foreshore is considered to have an impact local to Putney x
Geomorphol Upper ogical Thames changes as a result of permanent land take
Landtake from the river channel with an associated permanent loss of foreshore
River velocities likely to be altered having an adverse impact on scour and sedimentation, potentially affecting flood defences and structure integrity of downstream infrastructure. The scour rates may have an effect locally and more widely in terms of potential effect on the structural integrity of flood defences and the Putney Bridge abutments
Although the effect would be limited to the Putney Due to the N/A Bridge size of the locality, permanent The permanent landtake, Thames encroachmen the effect s Upper is a t may prevent not heavily considered modified morphologica l to result in waterbody deterioratio and only enhancement and would n of the needs to result in Thames achieve permanent Upper good loss of status via potential. foreshore hydromorp within the hology. channel morphology.
Page 298
Impact
Water body Duration and Reversibility
Reduced spill frequency, duration and volume from the Putney Bridge CSO.
Upper Thames and Thames Middle
Improved water Permanent quality in the vicinity of the Putney Bridge Reversibility CSO by reduced depends on the pollutant loading and not decreasing operation of the tunnel. dissolved oxygen levels.
Contribution to the overall Tidewaywide water quality improvements
The water quality local to Putney would be improved and would ensure that the operation of the Putney CSO complies with the requirements of the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive
Along with the project as a whole, the N/A Capture Putney of the The Bridge CSO Putney Thames connection Bridge Upper is a would CSO heavily enhance the would modified water quality reduce waterbody of the pollution and only tideway from needs to helping to priority achieve move the substance good Upper s at potential Thames Putney towards good ecological status
Upper Thames Reversibility depends on the operation of the
Permanent
N/A The effect is not relevant to WFD objectives
Reduced bacterial loadings of the river giving health
Risk of exposure days to pathogens would be reduced to 2-4 days in the Typical Year (a reduction of up to
The bacteriological improvement effect is considered to have an effect
Page 299
Impact
Water body Duration and Reversibility tunnel. locally in the context of local river users.
improvemen ts to river users
104 days of risk of exposure).
Upper Thames Not reversible
Permanent
N/A The effect is not relevant to WFD objectives
Reduced sewage litter discharge
Sewage derived litter discharge at Putney would be reduced by 98% in the Typical Year improving the aesthetic quality of the river locally.
The sewage derived litter reduction effect is considered to have an effect locally in the context of local river users.
Page 300
Significance of operational effect

Vol 10 Table 14.6.2 Surface water effects- operation Effect Significance and justification Moderate adverse Geomorphological changes as a result of permanent land take WFD objective 3 may be prevented from being attained. Major beneficial The improvements would allow for the future attainment of good status under WFD objective 3 in combination with the improvements elsewhere in the Tideway and would also ensure that operation of the Putney CSO complies with the requirements of the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive. Moderate beneficial The improvements would not adversely affect WFD or other legislative drivers, but would significantly improve conditions for river users at Putney and in the Thames Upper as a whole. Moderate beneficial The improvements would not adversely affect WFD or other legislative drivers, but would significantly improve aesthetic conditions for river users at Putney and in the Thames Upper as a whole.
Reduced spill frequency, duration and volume from the Putney Bridge CSO.
Reduced bacterial loadings of the river giving health improvements to river users
14.7
14.7.1
The assessment of significant effects for both construction and operation has highlighted two adverse effects that would require mitigation to reduce their significance: a. damage to and temporary loss of foreshore during campshed and cofferdam construction; b. increased scour and changes to sediment movement which may affect nearby sites, during campsheds and cofferdams construction.
14.7.2
Physical modelling of some of the required foreshore sites is underway which will be used to inform potential impact at Putney Bridge and the
Page 301
mitigation required; however results were not available to inform the design to mitigate the effects on scour. This assessment and any proposals for mitigation will therefore be updated and included in the ES. 14.7.3 Mitigation for protection of flood defences and the Putney Bridge abutment will be identified once the physical modelling results are available and the scour assessment has been concluded. Any mitigation is likely to take the form of gabions or other protective measures at the base of flood defences and bridge abutments to minimise scour effects.
Page 302
Section 14: Water resources surface water
14.8
Vol 10 Table 14.8.1 Surface water construction assessment Effect Minor adverse Moderate adverse Minor adverse As yet undefined As yet undefined As yet undefined Significance Mitigation Residual significance As yet undefined As yet undefined
Assessment summary
Receptor
Thames Upper
Damage to and temporary loss of foreshore (campshed and cofferdam construction)
Thames Upper
Increased scour and changes to sediment movement which may affect nearby sites (campsheds and cofferdams)
Thames Upper
Alteration of flow regime which may cause slack or dead water, leading to the accumulation of debris or pollutants
As yet undefined
Vol 10 Table 14.8.2 Surface water operational assessment Effect Significance Moderate adverse Major beneficial Moderate beneficial Moderate beneficial Mitigation Residual significance Moderate adverse As yet undefined None required None required None required Major beneficial Moderate beneficial Moderate beneficial
Receptor
Thames Upper
Thames Middle Upper and Middle
Geomorphological changes as a result of permanent land take Reduced spill frequency, duration and volume from the Putney Bridge CSO.
Reduced bacterial loadings of the river giving health improvements to river users
Page 303
Section14: Water resources surface
14.9
14.9.1
Information on potential contamination of the foreshore will be collected as part of the land quality scope and used to inform the baseline for the surface water assessment for the ES. At the time of completing this assessment, further water quality modelling was underway to determine the relative beneficial improvements that would accrue for other water quality improvements such as Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Ammoniacal Nitrogen. These results will be included in the ES, as will the assessment of cumulative and in combination effects. This will include the impact of climate change on the beneficial impacts of the project. Physical modelling of some of the foreshore sites is underway; however results were not available to inform the design to mitigate the effects on scour. Following completion of the assessment the mitigation approaches for surface water resources within the project will be finalised and reported in the ES. Mitigation for protection of flood defences and the Putney Bridge abutment will be identified once the physical modelling results are available and the scour assessment has been concluded. This will allow assessment of significance of any residual effect after mitigation has been developed for the final project design.
14.9.2
14.9.3
14.9.4
Page 304
Section 15: Water resources flood risk
15 15.1
15.1.1
Water resources flood risk Introduction

This section presents a Level 1 FRA which assesses the flood risk from all flood sources both to and from the proposed Putney Bridge Foreshore site as a result of development. This Level 1 Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) is in line with the requirements of Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk (PPS25) 45 and covers the construction and operation phases. This assessment makes use of the PPS25 Practice Guide 46 and is consistent with the outputs and findings of the Thames Estuary 2100 Plan (TE2100)47 and the policy requirements of the London Plan 48. Borough specific documents have been reviewed in addition to other relevant flood risk planning, policy and legislative documents. This Level 1 FRA is supported by 2D hydrodynamic modelling, undertaken to assess flood risk effects for the project as a whole (as described in Volume 5) and for specific sites (Volumes 7 to 28). The FRA comprises four parts, which can be found in the following volumes of the PEIR: a. Volume 5 contains Part A of the FRA: Common sections relevant to all sites, including assessment methodology. b. Volume 6 contains Part B of the FRA: Project-wide risk assessment section. c. Volumes 7-28 contain Part C and Part D of the FRA: Individual risk assessment sections for every site (Part C) where flood risk is considered as an issue, organised according to London Borough (this Part) which precede the conclusions for each site (Part D).
15.1.2
15.1.3
15.1.4
15.1.5
15.1.6
As explained in Volume 5, a Level 1 FRA is an assessment of flood risk based on information available at the time of undertaking the assessment. Where further detailed assessment (including modelling and calculations) is required to define flood risk or required mitigation, this is undertaken to support a Level 2 or more detailed Level 3 FRA. The aim of this part of the Level 1 FRA is to assess the effects of flood risk from all sources at the site, both to the site and from the site to surrounding areas. The purpose of this section is to highlight the key issues for the design team and provide a preliminary assessment of flood risk issues. A more detailed assessment will be completed in the ES. Considering the nature of the project, the length of construction period at the site and the location of the site within the Thames Tideway, it is important that flood risk is assessed both during the construction phase and the operation phase taking into consideration climate change over the lifetime of the project. The project involves the construction at many sites throughout London. Many of these sites are situated within close proximity to, or within, the
15.1.7
15.1.8
15.1.9
15.1.10
Page 305
River Thames or other watercourses. According to PPS25, any development located within Flood Zones 2 v or 3 vi or greater than 1 hectare and situated within Flood Zone 1 vii should be accompanied by a FRA. The FRA will be required to demonstrate how flood risk from all sources of flooding to the development and from the development will be managed now and in the future as a consequence of climate change for the lifetime of the development. 15.1.11 The objectives of this section are to satisfy the requirements of PPS25 in relation to this site.
15.2
15.2.1
Policy considerations
The proposed development of a shaft and associated structures is classified as water and sewage transmission infrastructure including docks, marinas and wharfs which is classified as water-compatible development and compatible within all flood zones within PPS25.
15.3
15.3.1
Regulatory Position Overview

General policy documents (eg PPS25) have been reviewed within Volume 5. The following should be read in conjunction with that Volume.
Local policy
Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) 15.3.2 The Putney Bridge foreshore site lies within the London Borough of Wandsworth. The London Borough of Wandsworth has produced a Level 1 and Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) 49. This outlines the main flood sources to the Borough and includes hydraulic modelling completed as part of the Level 2 study to investigate the residual risk of breaches in the Thames Tideway Defences at a number of locations along the River Thames. The Wandsworth SFRA confirms that the Thames Tidal Defence network (Thames Barrier and Tidal flood defence walls) reduces the annual probability of flooding from the Thames to less than 0.1%. The risk of flooding is therefore a residual risk associated with a breach in the defences. The SFRA advocates the use of flood resilience and resistant measures. These should be adopted during the construction and operation phases of the project. According to the SFRA:
15.3.3
15.3.4
15.3.5
v
Flood Zone 2 is defined as medium probability, assessed as having between a 1% and 0.1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) of river flooding or between a 0.5% and 0.1% AEP of sea flooding in any year vi Flood Zone 3 is defined as high probability, assessed as having a 1% or greater AEP of river flooding or a 0.5% or greater AEP of sea flooding in any year vii Flood Zone 1 is defined as low probability, assessed as having less than a 0.1% AEP of river or sea flooding in any year
Page 306
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore a. the site overlies London Clay
b. it is within the Richmond and Barnes Tidal Flood Warning Area and Environment Agency (EA) Flood Zone 3 c. there have been between 1-2 sewer flooding incidences recorded by Thames Water in the last 10 years in the vicinity
d. the site is situated within an area identified as having increased risk of surface water ponding based on topography, geology and historic flooding records e. safe access/egress is required from the site to a suitable location within Flood Zone 1. There are a number of schools within the locality which could act as rest centres during times of flood. In terms of emergency planning during the construction phase, the SFRA has identified rest and reception centres as Leisure Centre, Churches, Schools and Community Centres. 15.3.6 The SFRA promotes the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) suitable to specific site locations within the Borough, depending on underlying geology. These must however be adopted and adequately maintained post-construction to ensure design operation into the future. Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) 15.3.7 The Council is working in partnership with the Greater London Authority (GLA), Thames Water and the EA to produce a SWMP as part of the Drain London Project. This is scheduled for completion in Autumn 2011.
Environment Agency policy

Thames Estuary 2100 (TE2100) 15.3.8 Putney lies within the Barnes and Kew Policy Unit which has been assigned the P5 flood risk management policy within the TE2100 Plan 50, meaning that further action will be taken to reduce flood risk beyond that required to keep pace with climate change. The TE2100 Plan identifies the local sources of flood risk at this location as including tidal flooding from the River Thames, and a risk of groundwater flooding from superficial strata which is possibly connected to high water levels in the Thames. Defences from these sources include: a. the Thames Barrier and secondary tidal defences along the Thames frontage (both making up the Thames Tidal Defences); b. Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) for mitigation of urban drainage; c. 15.3.11 flood forecasting and warning. The TE2100 Plan seeks to promote, where possible, defence improvements that are sensitive to ensure views are maintained and impacts to river access/views are minimised. Where defence raising in the future as a consequence of climate change is not possible, secondary defences and floodplain management should be introduced. There is also the vision to increase flood risk awareness within the area.
15.3.9
15.3.10
Page 307
There is an acknowledgement in the TE2100 Plan that natural accretion of the river bed is occurring in Putney which may lead to opportunities for frontage and ecological improvements.
London Regional Flood Risk Appraisal (RFRA)

15.3.13 For the reach between Hammersmith Bridge and the Thames Barrier (City Reach) the London RFRA 51 encourages small scale set back of development from the river walls where possible. The aim of this is to enable modification, raising and maintenance in a sustainable, environmentally acceptable and cost effective way. Development should be designed in such a way as to take opportunities to reduce flood risk and include resilience. There is particular concern surrounding confluences and the interactions between tidal and fluvial flows in the future due to climate change. This should be taken into consideration during the development process. The RFRA indicates that SUDS should be included within developments to reduce surface water discharge.
15.3.14
15.3.15
15.4
15.4.1
Assessment of flood risk Overview

The flood risk from all potential flood sources (as listed in Annex C of PPS25) to the site, and from the site as a result of the development, is assessed in the following section. For a discussion on project-wide effects see Volume 6. In summary, initial hydraulic computation modelling indicates that the influence of the project as a whole on the River Thames (tidal and fluvial) flood levels is minimal and is unlikely to exacerbate flood risk.
15.4.2
Flood sources
Flooding from sea (and tidal sources) Flood risk to the site 15.4.3 The site is situated within the channel of the River Thames, on the southern foreshore area to the west of Putney Bridge. Currently, the local flood defences are aligned to the south of the site along the southern edge of the Embankment (ie the site is not defended from the River Thames other than by the Thames Barrier itself). The site is therefore considered to be within Flood Zone 3b of the River Thames: Flood Zone 3b is defined as land where water has to flow or be stored in times of flood. This is shown in Vol 10 Figure 15.4.1. Vol 10 Figure 15.4.1 Flood risk - EA flood risk zones (see Volume 10 Figures document) 15.4.4 The construction area would be protected by a cofferdam constructed with a crest level at the existing flood defence level. All temporary works would adopt a defence level analogous with the existing local defence levels and the proposed cofferdam would tie in with the local flood defences along the frontage (whilst maintaining the presence of the existing defences). This
Page 308
would ensure the protection of the temporary working area to the same standard as the surrounding area. 15.4.5 The smaller permanent operational area would be finished at the flood defence level in order to protect the new foreshore structure from flooding. The new structure would tie into the existing river wall, but the flood defence line would continue to run along the southern extent of the Embankment, ie the flood defence line would not be altered from the existing situation. The construction of the temporary slipway to the west would also not have any impact on the existing flood defence line. The construction works would require a Flood Defence Consent from the EA, which has to be obtained prior to the commencement of any works within 16m of the river, to ensure there is no adverse impact on the defence structures. The design standard of the existing defences is stated by the EA to be at the 0.1% AEP level. There would be an additional freeboard on top of the crest level. In reality, the defence levels along the River Thames vary and are generally in excess of the 0.1% AEP standard of protection with a freeboard. The EA has stated that the flood defence level at Putney Bridge is 5.54mAOD. This level would be provided by the cofferdam structures during the construction period and by the permanent foreshore structure during operation. This existing level would be confirmed with defence survey information, requested from the EA for the Level 2 FRA to be prepared for the ES. The most extreme flood risk to the site in this location would be as a result of a high tide combined with a storm surge (with the Thames Barrier operational); this is considered to be the EA flood design event. Ground levels at the top of the existing slipway where the proposed site is to be situated are approximately 5.6mAOD. Levels decrease to the north west and at the location of the proposed temporary slipway, ground levels vary between 4.2 and 4.3mAOD. The tidal flood levels within the River Thames at Putney for the EA flood design event are: a. b. 15.4.12 5.10mAOD for the 0.5% AEP 2005, and 5.06mAOD for the 0.5% AEP 2107 (ie, with climate change).
15.4.6
15.4.7
15.4.8
15.4.9
15.4.10
15.4.11
This data is taken from the EA Tidal Thames Joint Probability Extreme Water Levels Study52. This indicates that the proposed site for the shaft (assuming that it would be defended to the same level as the existing defences), would not flood under the above return periods. The temporary slipway would however flood as it is situated at a lower level but, along with the site itself, this structure is water compatible in nature. It should be noted that water levels decrease in the future due to the Thames Barrier closure rule (see Volume 5) such that the 2005 scenario produces the highest water levels. The TE2100 Plan indicates that a higher level of protection would be required to protect areas along the river. This is due to a greater number
15.4.13
Page 309
of Barrier closures being necessary as water levels increase and due to the possibility that higher tides could propagate upstream of the Barrier should the Barrier fail. 15.4.14 At the Putney Bridge, defences would be required to be raised to 5.95mAOD and 6.40mAOD for 2065 and 2100 respectively in line with the requirements of the TE2100 Plan. Part of the TE2100 Plan is to consider ways in which this future raising would be achieved for current flood defences. In association with this, new defences constructed for the operation of Putney Bridge foreshore site would be designed such that defence raising in the future to match these levels as indicated in the TE2100 Plan can be achieved in a sympathetic way and views of the river can be maintained. The EA has also used the EA Joint Probability Extreme Water Levels Study to investigate water levels within the Thames in the absence of the Thames Barrier, ie when the Barrier is not closed (it is assumed that a partial closure would influence flood levels upstream of the barrier). This shows tidal flood levels within the River Thames are 6.03mAOD for the 0.5% AEP 2005 and 6.87mAOD for the 0.5% AEP 2107. Under this modelled scenario, the site would be flooded as the water level is above the existing local flood defence level and that proposed for the construction site and operational site. However, because the Thames Barrier is a key component of the Thames Tidal defences, these levels are not used for the EA flood design event when considering the required flood prevention measures for new development. The SFRA shows that there are no records of flooding of the site area during any historic flood events (note, this does not mean the site was not flooded, only that no data is held). Although the site is to be constructed and operated on the channel side of the defences, new defences would be built and maintained both during construction and operation to a level commensurate with the standard of protection afforded by the existing defences. The standard of protection of the current defences (and hence new defences) and the operation of the Thames Barrier are such that tidal flooding up to the EA flood design event (0.5% AEP 2005) does not pose a direct flood risk to the site. Flood risk to the site from tidal sources is therefore residual in the event that tidal levels exceed the EA flood design event. If this scenario was to occur, water would cover the shaft and inundate any ventilation, monitoring or associated operation equipment. As the shaft lids are covered (although not watertight) there would be a limited volume of water that could enter the tunnel though the space between the lid and the shaft. It is unlikely that a significant depth of water (above the EA design flood event) would be present on the shaft lid, and the period of time that the shaft would be underwater would be restricted to a relatively short period during the peak of the tide.
15.4.15
15.4.16
15.4.17
15.4.18
15.4.19
15.4.20
15.4.21
Page 310
It is therefore considered unlikely that the potential volume of tidal flood water that could enter the shaft would endanger the primary function of the tunnel which is to collect, store and transfer discharges from CSOs. However ventilation and monitoring equipment may be damaged by flood water if the EA design flood level is exceeded. Flood risk from the site The flow within the River Thames would be modified by the presence of the temporary and permanent works. This may lead to an increase in scour or deposition rates on adjacent areas within the river and to river structures, including flood defences There may also be an effect on downstream flood defences and river structures if the pattern of sediment movement is greatly changed. In addition, should the permanent and temporary works cause the channel width to be significantly altered, the flow velocity of the river at this point may increase, thereby increasing contraction scour across the whole channel bed. The Scour study undertaken to date concludes that localised scouring could occur around the temporary works, which could cause increased damage to the foreshore and have a significant effect on the integrity of the cofferdam and flood defences adjacent to the working areas. At the time of compiling the Level 1 FRA, the scour modelling was being supported by the construction of physical models of foreshore works at several foreshore sites; however, outputs from the physical models are not available to inform the Level 1 FRA, and would be used to support the development of specific mitigation in the Level 2 FRA (to be included within the ES). Until the physical modelling and updated scour assessment is undertaken, it is considered that the risk of scour or deposition impacting on the flood defences should be considered as medium viii. The presence of temporary and permanent structures within the foreshore has the potential to reduce the available flood storage within the channel of the Tidal Thames. This impact of reduced flood storage could have the effect of increasing water levels during certain hydrological conditions (high fluvial flows or high tides), thereby increasing flood levels and potentially increasing the risk of flooding. The effect of removal of flood storage on flood levels is not one felt directly at a local level at Putney as a result of the proposed site alone. The effect is propagated throughout the hydrological unit of the Thames reach and therefore it is not possible to say what effect the foreshore encroachment at Putney Bridge would have on water levels local to the site. Instead, the foreshore encroachment impact on flood storage and the resultant effect on water levels and flood risk have therefore been considered on a cumulative basis for all foreshore sites using 2D hydraulic computational
15.4.23
15.4.24
15.4.25
15.4.26
15.4.27
15.4.28
15.4.29
viii
The assessment of flood risk is a qualitative assessment based on expert opinion see Volume 5 for further details.
Page 311
modelling and the effects on flood risk are assessed on a project-wide basis and reported in Volume 6 of this flood risk assessment. 15.4.30 The excavation process using TBMs to construct the tunnel has the potential to impact on settlement in some cases which could affect the level of some of the defences. A project-wide study into the potential impacts of the tunnel excavation on settlement of third party assets including flood defences is being undertaken. The proposed tunnel alignment does not pass under the existing defences in the immediate vicinity of the Putney Bridge foreshore site; however, the project-wide effects of excavation would be assessed for flood defence impact when complete and any relevant assessment for Putney Bridge defences would be included in the Level 2 FRA included within the ES. Due to the distance of the tunnel alignment from the defences at Putney, the risk of impact to flood defences and hence flood risk at this site is considered to be low. Flooding from rivers 15.4.33 Aside from the impact of fluvial flows on flood levels of the River Thames at Putney, the Putney Bridge foreshore site is not situated within the floodplain of any fluvial watercourses. The EA Joint Probability Extreme Water Levels Study uses a combination of different factors including astronomical tides, tide surge and fluvial river flows to produce an estimation of the peak high water levels within the Tidal Thames during a combined event. This methodology assumes that no combination of fluvial events with tidal conditions produces a higher flood level than the worst case combined tidal storm surge conditions. Water levels influenced by high fluvial flow alone would therefore be lower than the combined event assessed and hence the assessment of fluvial risk from the Thames is considered to be included within the assessment of flood risk from tidal sources in the previous section. Flood risk to the site from fluvial sources alone is therefore considered to be negligible. Flooding from land and surface water runoff Flood risk to the site 15.4.37 The Wandsworth SFRA shows that the site is situated within an area with increased risk of surface water ponding based on topography, geology and historic flooding records. According to the Wandsworth SFRA, there are no surface water flooding hot spots within the vicinity of the site. This assessment would be updated for the Level 2 FRA when Critical drainage Area (CDA) mapping is made available for the Wandsworth SWMP through the Drain London Project later in 2011. Surface water flooding could originate from any surrounding hardstanding land where infiltration (into the ground or the local sewer network) is exceeded or the local sewer is at capacity and surcharging occurs. There is a decline in ground levels from the south to the site and so there is the
15.4.31
15.4.32
15.4.34
15.4.35
15.4.36
15.4.38
Page 312
potential for overland flow, generated in surrounding hard standing areas, flowing onto the site. 15.4.39 15.4.40 Flood risk to the site from this source is considered to be low. Flood risk from the site The creation of the permanent site would increase the area of hardstanding at Putney and increase the runoff rates and volumes generated as a result PPS25 states that runoff post development should not be greater than runoff pre development in order to not increase the risk of flooding either downstream or on surrounding land. The London Plan aims towards greenfield runoff rates and the Mayors Draft Water Strategy 53 also aims for greenfield runoff and has an essential standard of 50% attenuation to the undeveloped sites surface water runoff at peak times (see Volume 5). The Putney Bridge Foreshore site is located on the southern foreshore of the River Thames and is considered as an undeveloped greenfield site in terms of surface water management. Due to the site foreshore location surface water runoff naturally drains directly to the River Thames without inundating surrounding land. Surface water runoff rates and attenuation volumes are indicative and will be confirmed during the subsequent Level 2 FRA. Based on a development footprint of 460 m2, the existing undeveloped greenfield surface water runoff rate for the 1% AEP event plus 30% for climate change has been calculated using the ICP SUDS rural runoff method in Micro Drainage WinDes Version 12.5 software. A soil factor of 0.4, which represents moderately draining silty soils, has been used within this method. Post development the site would be 100% impermeable. The post development surface water runoff rate for the 1% AEP climate change event has been calculated using the Modified Rational Method. In accordance with PPS25 Table B.2 the post development surface water runoff rate includes a 30% increase in peak rainfall intensity to account for the anticipated impact of climate change over the developments lifetime. Both existing and post development runoff rates for the 1% AEP climate change event are provided in the table below. Vol 10 Table 15.4.1 Flood risk - runoff rates onsite Site Status Existing Post Development Rainfall Runoff Event 1% AEP + 30% Climate Change 1% AEP + 30% Climate Change Runoff Rate (l/s) 0.52
15.4.41
15.4.42
15.4.43 15.4.44 15.4.45
15.4.46
15.4.47
15.4.48
8.60
Page 313
By subtracting the existing undeveloped greenfield runoff rate from the post development runoff rate for the 1% AEP climate change event, an additional runoff rate of 8.08l/s is predicted post development. As the site is located on the foreshore of the River Thames no pathways exist for surface water to inundate surrounding third party land. The surface water drainage system would ensure conveyance of rainfall events up to the 3.3% AEP event. If the design standard of the drainage system is exceeded, the runoff would be discharged directly to the River Thames through an overflow outfall. The volume and runoff rate generated on the site is insignificant in relation to the flow and volume of storage in the tidal Thames, therefore it is considered that there would be no increase in downstream flood risk. Whilst this is contrary to policy set out in PPS25, the London Plan and the Mayors Draft Water Strategy for London, these policies on surface water management are put in place to reduce downstream flood risk and this assessment has demonstrated that there is no such increase in flood risk. The surface water flood risk as a result of the development is considered to be negligible. Flooding from groundwater The TE2100 Plan states that there may be a risk of groundwater flooding at the site originating from superficial strata underlying the site. Because the underlying strata are in hydraulic connectivity with the river levels in the Thames, the groundwater levels vary on a diurnal basis with the changing tide levels. Therefore, during high water level conditions within the Thames there is the potential for groundwater to reach ground level at the site. However, there are no recorded incidents of groundwater flooding within the vicinity of the site shown within the Wandsworth SFRA. Potential mechanisms for groundwater flooding would be explored further, including local water levels from ongoing monitoring and data collection, as part of the EIA. This would inform the assessment of groundwater flood risk to this site and will be reported in the Level 2 FRA for the site. Until further information is available, flood risk to the site from this source is considered to be low, as although the TE2100 Plan suggests a flooding mechanism, there is no evidence from the Wandsworth SFRA to suggest that groundwater flooding has occurred in the past. Flooding from sewers The Wandsworth SFRA shows that there have been between 1 and 2 sewer flooding incidents recorded by Thames Water in the last 10 years in the area from Putney High Street, to Upper Richmond Road, Barnes Common and the River Thames, therefore covering a significant area. The local sewer network has been investigated to determine whether there are any capacity issues that may lead to an increase in the potential for sewer flooding to the site. There is a large combined sewer to the south of the site, running from west to east along Lower Richmond Road. The dimensions are 1372mm by 914mm. This sewer is located in a relatively low area. If the capacity of this system was exceeded, the combined
15.4.50
15.4.51
15.4.52
15.4.53
15.4.54
15.4.55
15.4.56
15.4.57
Page 314
sewer would surcharge throughout outlets such as manholes and gullies located along the length of the sewer. The pathway for this surcharged combined water would be north, into the river and through the site. 15.4.58 15.4.59 Flood risk from this source is considered to be low. Flooding from artificial sources There are no artificial flood sources within proximity to the site and so there is no flood risk from this type of source.
15.5
15.5.1
Flood risk design and mitigation Overview

This assessment has identified the following sources of flood risk related to the site: a. residual risk of flooding to the site from tidal sources if the EA design flood level is exceeded b. medium risk of impact on flood defences as a result of scour and deposition of foreshore sediment associated with the cofferdam area for construction and the permanent operational land take from the foreshore c. low risk of surface water flooding (or ponding) to the site as a result of runoff from surrounding land.
d. low risk of groundwater flooding to the site associated with water levels in the underlying geological strata e. low risk of sewer flooding to the site 15.5.2 This section describes flood mitigation methods that have been highlighted as being required specifically to address flood risk effects as a result of development at Putney Bridge. Flood mitigation methods in this context are defined as being required to alleviate the effect of the development of a site on any consequential (increase in) flood risk.
Flood prevention
Flood resilience/resistance during operation 15.5.3 The London RFRA states that flood risk should be reduced where possible and flood resistance and resilience measure should be built into the development. Given that the project is a water compatible development type (see Volume 10, Paragraph 15.2.1 above), there is no project-wide intention to provide flood resistance and resilience measures for residual flood risk. Construction and emergency planning 15.5.4 The subsequent Level 2 FRA will include the production of a site Emergency Plan in relation to Flood Risk outlining appropriate working practices and appropriate access/egress routes in the event of a flood warning. The London Borough of Wandsworth would be required to comment on the Emergency Plan.
Page 315
Design and mitigation

Scour and deposition impacts on defences 15.5.5 Good practice design would reduce the effects of scour at the face of the temporary and permanent works (cofferdam and campsheds), and rip-rap or gabions may be required to prevent damage to structures. This is especially important at this site, where the study of scour to date concludes there is a potential for localised scour around the temporary works cofferdam. The shape of the protrusion for the permanent works would be designed to impose minimal impact on river hydrology and the flow regime of the Tidal Thames. Specific mitigation in this regard is to be developed for scour and downstream infrastructure protection following completion of the physical modelling of key foreshore sites and conclusion of the scour study. This will be included in the Level 2 FRA for this site within the ES. Ground levels around the temporary slipway should not be modified to ensure potential flow pathways are not changed which could lead to increased risk of flooding to surrounding areas. Surface water discharge 15.5.8 The site is situated within an area that currently drains into the River Thames. The surface water drainage system would be designed to accommodate the 3.3% AEP event for the site. During more extreme events which exceed the 3.3% AEP, runoff would be discharged directly to the river via an overflow outfall. If required, appropriate scour protection measures would be provided to ensure the outfall would not cause foreshore scour.
15.5.6
15.5.7
15.5.9
15.6
15.6.1 15.6.2
A Level 2 will be prepared for the site which will outline further specific design approaches and measures. It is considered that a Level 2 FRA will be sufficient to assess the impact of flood risk for the final site design (ie no Level 3 specific site modelling is required). This will be prepared for the site and incorporated into the ES. The Level 2 FRA will use the data collected as part of the Level 1 FRA and build upon the preliminary findings of this assessment once further information is available from the EA and other assessments being undertaken to support the FRA and the EIA. In summary, the following additional assessment elements will be undertaken: a. Proposals for the construction site to only be defended to 0.5% AEP as opposed to 0.1% AEP as is the case for existing defences at Putney Bridge. b. Confirmation of existing defence level following receipt of the EA survey information of flood defences. This will be used to reassess the standard of protection at the site and effect on tidal flood risk. It will also inform flood prevention design in terms of the design level of
15.6.3
Page 316
defences proposed for construction and operation of the Putney Bridge foreshore site. c. Use of the physical modelling results and scour study to assess the effect on flood levels as a result of impact on flood defence integrity of scour and deposition caused by the foreshore encroachment (construction and operation). This will also inform definition of specific mitigation required.
d. A project-wide study into the potential impacts of the tunnel excavation on the integrity of the flood defences is being undertaken. Any relevant assessment for Putney Bridge defences will be included in the Level 2 FRA. e. The assessment of surface water flood risk to the site will be completed when the final surface water flood maps are available from the Drain London Project. f. Groundwater flood risk and any required flood risk prevention measures will be reassessed when the groundwater resources impact assessment is complete. This will be included in the Level 2 FRA.
g. An emergency plan will be developed to support the Level 2 FRA and the CoCP. h. Further detail of any site specific mitigation and flood prevention measures that may be required to manage flood risk based on the final site design. i. It is not anticipated that further primary data collection (assuming outstanding data from the EA and Thames Tideway is supplied) or any modelling will be required at this site as part of future work and hence a Level 2 FRA will be sufficient to support the ES and application specific to the Putney Bridge foreshore site
Page 317
Appendices
Appendices
List of figures
Page number
Figure A.1 Historic environment - Nicholas Lane Estate map of 1636.................... 320 Figure A.2 Historic environment - Corris Parish map of 1787 ................................. 320 Figure A.3 Historic environment - OS 1st edition 25 scale map of 1862 ............... 321 Figure A.4 Historic environment - OS 2nd edition 25 scale map of 1894 .............. 321 Figure A.5 Historic environment - OS 3rd edition 25 scale map of 1913 ............... 322 Figure A.6 Historic environment - OS 25 scale map of 1947 ................................. 322 Figure A.7 Historic environment - remains of a post-medieval chalk barge bed ..... 323 Figure A.8 Historic environment - remains of wooden foundation piles .................. 323 Figure A.9 Historic environment - granite cobbled slipway and brick wall .............. 324 Figure A.10 Historic environment - Late 19th century sewer outlets....................... 324 Figure A.11 Historic environment - late 19th century stone staircase ..................... 325 Figure A.12 Historic environment - modern drilling ................................................. 325 Figure A.13 Historic environment - brick arch revealed behind modern drill hole ... 326 Figure C.1 Noise and vibration - measurement locations ...................................... 339 Figure C.2 Noise monitoring at PWH1X footpath ................................................... 341 Figure C.3 Noise monitoring at PWH1X footpath ................................................... 341 Figure C.4 Noise monitoring at PWH1X footpath ................................................... 341 Figure C.5 Noise monitoring at PWH1X footpath ................................................... 342 Figure D.1 Townscape and visual - viewpoint 1.1 .................................................. 343 Figure D.2 Townscape and visual - viewpoint 1.2 .................................................. 344 Figure D.3 Townscape and visual - viewpoint 2.1 .................................................. 344 Figure D.4 Townscape and visual - viewpoint 2.3 .................................................. 345 Figure D.5 Townscape and visual - viewpoint 2.4 .................................................. 345 Figure D.6 Townscape and visual - viewpoint 2.5 .................................................. 346 Figure D.7 Townscape and visual - viewpoint 2.6 .................................................. 347 Figure D.8 Townscape and visual - viewpoint 2.7 .................................................. 347 Figure D.9 Townscape and visual - viewpoint 2.8 .................................................. 348 Figure D.10 Townscape and visual - viewpoint 2.10 .............................................. 349 Figure D.11 Townscape and visual - viewpoint 2.14 View south east from Bishops Park riverside ................................................................................................. 350 Figure D.12 Townscape and visual - viewpoint 2.15 .............................................. 351 Figure D.13 Townscape and visual - viewpoint 4.1 ................................................ 352 Figure E.1 Groundwater superficial geology ........................................................ 353
Page 318
Appendices
Figure E.2 Groundwater solid geology ................................................................ 353 Figure E.3 Groundwater EA monitoring locations ................................................ 356 Figure E.4 Groundwater Level Hydrograph Putney Bridge Foreshore ................... 358 Figure E.5 Groundwater Level Hydrograph Putney Bridge Foreshore ................... 360 Figure E.6 Groundwater ground source heat pumps ........................................... 362 List of tables
Page number
Table C.1 Noise and vibration - measurement locations ........................................ 339 Table C.2 Noise and vibration noise survey measurements ................................ 340 Table E.1 Groundwater - anticipated TT geological succession ............................. 353 Table E.1 Groundwater - anticipated ground conditions ......................................... 354 Table E.2 Groundwater - anticipated hydrogeology................................................ 355 Table E.3 Groundwater - depth and strata (on-site monitoring boreholes) ............. 356 Table E.4 Groundwater - licensed abstractions ...................................................... 361 Table E.5 Groundwater - licensed Abstractions for GSHP schemes ...................... 362 Table E.6 Groundwater - detections by EA at King Georges Park......................... 363
Page 319
Appendix A: Historic environment
Appendix A Historic environment A.1 Historic maps
Figure A.1 Historic environment - Nicholas Lane Estate map of 1636
Figure A.2 Historic environment - Corris Parish map of 1787
Page 320
Figure A.3 Historic environment - OS 1st edition 25 scale map of 1862 (not to scale)
Figure A.4 Historic environment - OS 2nd edition 25 scale map of 1894 (not to scale)
Page 321
Figure A.5 Historic environment - OS 3rd edition 25 scale map of 1913 (not to scale)
Figure A.6 Historic environment - OS 25 scale map of 1947 (not to scale)
Page 322
A.2
Historic environment photographs
Figure A.7 Historic environment - remains of a post-medieval chalk barge bed Note: Within the site, March 2011; standard lens
Figure A.8 Historic environment - remains of wooden foundation piles Note: Beneath Putney Bridge, March 2011; standard lens
Page 323
Figure A.9 Historic environment - granite cobbled slipway and brick wall Note: Late 19th early 20th century, March 2011; standard lens
Figure A.10 Historic environment - Late 19th century sewer outlets Note: Beneath Putney Bridge, March 2011; standard lens; looking south
Page 324
Figure A.11 Historic environment - late 19th century stone staircase Note: West of Putney bridge, adjacent to Putney Embankment, leading to subterranean toilets, March 2011; standard lens
Figure A.12 Historic environment - modern drilling Note: North side of Putney Embankment wall, March 2011; standard lens
Page 325
Figure A.13 Historic environment - brick arch revealed behind modern drill hole Note: believed to date to the 19th century, contemporary with Putney Bridge, March 2011; standard lens
Page 326
A.3
A.3.1 HEA Ref no. 1A
Gazetteer of known heritage assets

The location of known heritage assets is shown on the historic environment features map (Vol 10 Figure 7.4.1). Description Site code/ HER ref: ---
Thames Foreshore, at the junction of Putney Embankment and Lower Richmond Road The foundation of the river wall, with the remains of round wooden timbers surrounding. Observed during site visit. Thames Foreshore, adjacent to Lower Richmond Road A flint flake (MLO26796) dating to the upper Palaeolithic period and an undated ring (MLO26921; presumably prehistoric) were discovered here. Thames Foreshore, immediately behind the slipway to the west of Putney Bridge The remains of timber piles which formed a post-medieval flood defence/river wall. Located immediately behind the present embankment and slipway Subterranean toilets, adjacent to Putney Embankment The location of subterranean toilets dating to the late 19th century, contemporary with Putney Bridge. Now disused, they were observed through pavement lights during the site visit. Garden wall, between Putney Embankment and slipway A low stone wall, dating to the 19th century, located between the Putney Embankment river wall and 19th century slipway Cobbled slipway, adjacent to Putney Embankment A cobbled stone and granite slipway leading down to the foreshore, dated to the later 19th century and still in use. Remains of brick arches, adjacent to Putney Embankment, beneath Lower Richmond Road The remains of brick arches were observed during the site visit through an existing hole bored into the river wall. These may be related to subterranean vaults beneath Lower Richmond Road. Junction of Lower Richmond Road and Putney High Street The remains of 19th century steps with a commemorative stone dating to 1884, leading to the Thames foreshore are located here, to the west of Putney Bridge.
1B
106039 MLO267 96 MLO269 21 FWW02
1C
1D
---
1E
---
1F
---
1G
---
1H
022688 MLO700 80
Page 327
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore HEA Ref no. 1I Description
Appendix A: Historic environment Site code/ HER ref: ---
Thames foreshore, to the west of Putney Bridge The remains of a chalk barge bed which was probably used in the construction of Putney Bridge. Thames foreshore, beneath Putney Bridge The remains of foundation piles, composed of grouped square wooden timbers, probably used in the construction of Putney Bridge. Beneath the approach to Putney Bridge The remains of a 19th century outfall drain beneath Putney Bridge with a metal, grilled outlet. Beneath the approach to Putney Bridge The remains of three post-medieval metal, circular piles driven into the foreshore; possibly the remains of the 18th century viaduct. Putney Bridge The 19th century remains of Putney Bridge (MLO70096; MLO70098). An unclassified 19th century dump deposit was discovered also here. No further information listed in the HER. Thames Foreshore, immediately east of Putney Bridge The remains of a 19th century structure (MLO70087) and drain (MLO70088) were discovered here.
1J
---
1K
FWW03
1L
FWW03
1M
022108 022678 MLO700 89 022694 MLO700 87 MLO700 88 MLO100 53 106049 MLO269 22 --6370000 0113401 5 6370000 0113401 2
1N
1O
Thames Foreshore, to the east of Putney Bridge The spot of a hard chalk consolidation layer perhaps the remains of a barge bed. Dated to the 19th century. Thames Foreshore, to the east of Putney Bridge Medieval pot sherd was discovered here. Port of London Authority marker set into the brick riverside wall recording the high water level of the 1928 flood. A swamped mooring (No. 115) described by a PLA survey as consisting of a mooring screw and chain. A swamped mooring (No. 116) described by a PLA survey as consisting of a mooring screw and chain.
1P
1Q 1R
1S
Page 328
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore HEA Ref no. 2 Description
Appendix A: Historic environment Site code/ HER ref: PHT01 MLO776 27 MLO759 78 MLO776 24 MLO776 25 LWR96
Putney Wharf, Brewhouse Street, Putney Bridge Road An evaluation of the site was carried out by CA in 2001. A medieval ditch (MLO75978) and cut feature were found beneath plough soil which contained finds dating to the mid18th century. Above the plough soil was a brick wall which separated the more domestic activity on the west side of the site including a series of 18th century pits from agricultural activity on the east side. A prehistoric struck flint (MLO77224), a Roman coin and Roman architectural remains (MLO77625) were also uncovered on the site. 24 Lower Richmond Road An archaeological watching brief and excavation was carried out by Sutton Archaeological Services in 1996, in advance of development. The 18th century and later deposits were removed by machine, with the final 1.0m being removed by a combination of machine (under archaeological supervision) and hand excavation. At least three timber waterfronts were revealed, the first dating from the latter part of the 16th century and the third probably from the latter part of the 17th or early 18th century. There is as yet no firm date for the second waterfront, but it probably dates to 17th century. Traces of other, incomplete, timbers were also recovered, but it is not known to what structures or dates they belonged. The site was stripped down to the natural river gravels and alluvial clay. Coins, pottery and other finds from the Roman, medieval and post-medieval periods were recovered. ICL House, Putney High Street An evaluation and watching brief was carried out by PCA in 1998. Natural sand was discovered to have been cut by two medieval ditches (HER 025336; MLO072853) and HER025337; MLO072852), possibly boundaries, the larger of which was backfilled in the 16th century. In the west of the site the remains of structures (HER 025338; MLO072854) were found; these are identified as cottages, documented from 1636 to 1888, when they were demolished. A boundary wall (HER 025341; MLO72857) defined an area of intense pitting (HER 025339; MLO072855) that probably represents domestic refuse disposal. To the east of the wall were features of a horticultural nature, perhaps bedding trenches (HER 025343; MLO72859) with some very fragmentary remains of a large house (HER 025342; MLO72858), probably that represented on 17th19th century maps. One residual struck flint tool was recovered. The remains of a post-medieval road (MLO72856) were also discovered.
PTY98 025336 025337 025338 025339 025340 025341 025342 025343 MLO728 56
Page 329
Appendix A: Historic environment Site code/ HER ref: BWS97
Friends Provident, Brewhouse Street An evaluation of the site was carried out by Foundations Archaeology in 1997. No features or artefacts of archaeological significance were noted, probably due to terracing, carried out when the brewery was built in the 19th century. Waterman Street Method statements were produced for unspecified archaeological investigations carried out on Waterman Street in 1962, 1963 and 1966 by the Wandsworth Historical Society. No further information listed in the HER. Gay Street Method statements were produced for unspecified archaeological investigations carried out on Gay Street in 1962 by the Wandsworth Historical Society. No further information listed in the HER. Thames Foreshore, immediately to the south-east of Putney Bridge The remains of 19th century brick and stone flood defences. At the bottom of the steps down to the foreshore, immediately to the east of the bridge, was a deposit of stone rubble, perhaps associated with a drain outlet. Site of the St. Marys Church The site of the St. Marys Church, dating to the 13th century. The church and churchyard date to the 15th century. Roman tile (HER 031304) was discovered on the site. Thames Foreshore, immediately to the east of Putney Bridge Unclassified 18th century remains. No further information listed in the HER. Thames Foreshore, immediately to the east of Putney Bridge Flint artefacts (MLO19296; 25011) and two axes (MLO26120; 19970), dating to the Lower Palaeolithic period, were discovered here. Thames Foreshore, to the east of Putney Bridge Later 18th century remains related to Putney Bridge were discovered here. Thames Foreshore, to the east of Putney Bridge Unclassified remains dating to the later 18th century. No further information listed in the HER. Thames Foreshore, to the east of Putney Bridge
GAY1/2/6 GAY8/63; GAY9/66
GAY4/5/7 /62
022689 MLO700 81 FWW03
031366 212227 031304 022681 MLO700 73 106066
10
11
12
022700
13
022685 MLO700 77 022690
14
Page 330
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore HEA Ref no. Description
Appendix A: Historic environment Site code/ HER ref: MLO700 82 031581 MLO171 11 022697 MLO700 91 106050 MLO267 79 022682 MLO700 74 022687 MLO700 79 022683 MLO700 75 100165 100191; 100033; 10043 5
The remains of 19th century flood defences are located here. 15 River Thames, to the east of Putney Bridge The remains of a medieval ferry boat are located here. Thames Foreshore, to the east of Putney Bridge The remains of medieval window fittings, dating to the 15th century, were discovered here. Thames Foreshore, to the east of Putney Bridge Medieval pot sherd, dated to the 13th century, was discovered here. Thames Foreshore, to the east of Putney Bridge The remains of a post-medieval drain were discovered here. Riverside Walk, opposite Brewhouse Lane The remains of a 19th century slipway. Riverside Walk, east of Putney Bridge The remains of a causeway structure, dated to the 18th century. Thames foreshore, west of the northern end of Putney Bridge Around 40 objects, mainly dating from the late Neolithic to the late Bronze Age, consisting of axes, palstaves, swords, spearheads, pot sherd, flint implements, pins, a ring, a razor and a bowl were all discovered within this area. They may have been uncovered as a result of dredging in this part of the Thames foreshore. Hippodrome Theatre car park, west of Weimar Street The remains of a Roman road (HER 020736; MLO19068) and a ditch (HER 020823; MLO27480), both dated to the 1st century, were discovered here. 16 Mount Court, Weimar Street Unclassified Roman remains, of unknown date, were discovered here. No further information listed in the HER. 2 Waterman Street, near University Mansions A Roman pottery assemblage (HER 031331), a medieval pot sherd (HER 031376), and a post medieval pottery assemblage (HER 031488) were discovered here. 6 Waterman Street
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
020736 020823 MLO190 68 020754 MLO167 31 031331 031376 031488 020748
23
24
25
Page 331
Appendix A: Historic environment Site code/ HER ref: MLO148 0 020751 MLO167 25 020741 020742 MLO148 7 031336 031379 020757 MLO231 05 020756 MLO167 47 031277; 0313101 03; 031318; 020743
A Roman ditch and a post hole were discovered here. 26 7 Waterman Street Roman pot sherd and a Roman coin were discovered here, to the south-west of a nearby Roman ditch and post hole, discovered at 6 Waterman Street. 2225 Waterman Street Unclassified Roman and medieval finds, a medieval coin and pot, and a post-medieval coin and pottery were discovered here. 2438 The Platt Roman and medieval pot sherds were discovered here. Junction of Waterman Street (nos. 1314) Roman potsherd was discovered here. 3842 Gay Street The remains of a Roman pot were discovered here. 38 Felsham Road A Roman settlement (HER 031318) was discovered here, with the remains of a hut with stakeholes (HER 03131802; MLO38308; MLO38310), a ditch (HER 03131803; MLO38309), a road (HER 03131801; MLO52641) and rubbish pits (MLO46692). Iron Age pottery (HER 031277; MLO9562) and a medieval lynchet (HER 020743; MLO3232) were also discovered on the site. Felsham Street, adjacent to Weimar Street A Roman pit and ditch were discovered here. South-west of Putney High Street The approximate centre point of the medieval settlement at Putney. Brewhouse Street The location of unspecified negative evidence. No further information listed in HER. 329 Putney High Street The location of an unknown, unspecified find/monument. No further information. Thames Foreshore, to the east of Putney Bridge The spot of an unknown/unspecified find/monument. No
27
28 29
30
31
32 33
020866 MLO733 13 MLO716 44 MLO364 6 MLO100 40
34
35
36
Page 332
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore HEA Ref no. further information. 37 Description
Appendix A: Historic environment Site code/ HER ref: MLO100 44-47 MLO100 48 FWW03 MLO100 65 207104
Thames Foreshore, to the east of Putney Bridge The spot of four unknown/unspecified finds/monuments. No further information. Thames Foreshore, to the east of Putney Bridge The remains of a post-medieval timber-lined drain. River Thames, to the north-west of Putney Bridge The spot of an unknown/unspecified find/monument. No further information. Putney Bridge (the part within Wandsworth) Putney Bridge is a Grade II listed building and was constructed in 1884 by Sir Joseph Bazalgette; modelled on Rennies London Bridge. It is a rusticated, granite-faced bridge, with four cutwaters and buttresses. It has five spans with false voussoirs and stepped extrados. It has a bold cornice and plain parapet. On the parapets are iron lamp standards with foliate bases and three foliate branches; the original lamps have been replaced. The north half of the bridge lies within the London Borough of Hammersmith, SW6; LBS 201856. St. Marys Church, Putney High Street (north) St. Marys Church is a grade II* listed building. The tower dates to the 15th century but has been much restored. It is of three stages with an embattled parapet in ragstone with limestone dressings. Bishop Wests Chapel dated to the early 16th century: it is of two bays with a fan vault which was removed to the north side of the chancel during an 1878 rebuilding. The body of the church was rebuilt by Edward Lapidge in 1836 to 1837 of stock brick. The building is in the perpendicular style, of lean proportions. The interior is galleried and flat-roofed, and has been much restored. The tower is an important landmark from the Thames and forms a group feature with Putney Bridge and the tower of Fulham parish church at the north end. Following a fire in June 1973, the church became derelict. The White Lion Hotel and Public House, no. 14 Putney High Street The hotel/public house is a grade II listed building, dated to 1887. It is of a symmetrical layout, with three bays and four storeys with dormer windows. The building was constructed of red brick, with stone dressings. It has a French pavilion slate roof with elaborate iron cresting. The ground floor has
38
39
40
41
207109
42
207110
Page 333
Appendix A: Historic environment Site code/ HER ref:
been altered. The upper floors form a succession of pilaster orders. The first and second floors, have a two-storey canted bow with stone balconies and iron balustrades. The third floor has a pedimented central bay, and the fourth floor, a tripartite centre window surmounted by dated blocking and a stone figure of lion passant. 43 Three bollards at the junction with Lower Richmond Road, Putney Embankment Grade II listed cast iron bollards, dating to the 19th century. Thames Foreshore, to the west of Putney Bridge The remains of a post-medieval timber causeway or slipway. Thames Foreshore, to the west of Putney Bridge Putney Pier post medieval Beneath the approach to Putney Bridge The remains of an 18th century timber structure; possibly the remains of a temporary cofferdam used in the construction of the bridge. Thames foreshore, to the east of Putney Bridge The remains of post-medieval, rectangular timber posts. Thames foreshore, Fulham The find spot of an artefact scatter, including Roman building material. Thames foreshore, Fulham The remains of a vertical, squared post-medieval timber stake. Thames foreshore, Fulham Findspot of the remains of a prehistoric tree root. Thames foreshore, Fulham The remains of a post-medieval mooring feature/chain. Star and Garter Hotel, Putney Embankment A locally listed building dating to the later 19th century. It continues to function as a hotel and public house. Star and Garter Mansions, Putney Embankment A locally listed building dating to the later 19th century and currently functioning as residential mansion flats. Thames foreshore, to the east of Putney Bridge The remains of a post-medieval stone slipway were observed during the site visit. 207107
44 45 46
FWW02 FWW02 FWW03
47 48
FWW03 FHM07
49
FHM07
50 51 52
FHM07 FHM07 Locally Listed Locally Listed ---
53
54
Page 334
Appendix A: Historic environment Site code/ HER ref: ---
Thames foreshore, to the east of Putney Bridge The find spot of a worked stone block, observed during the site visit The University Boat Race stone that marks the starting line of the Oxford and Cambridge Boat Race that was first held in 1829. It is situated on the south bank adjacent and to the west of the site. Central Thames channel, to the west of Putney Bridge. The location of a swamped mooring (No. 114).
56
---
57
6370000 0113400 1
Page 335
Appendix B: Land quality
Appendix B Land quality

B.1 Site Walkover Report Item Details Site Ref PWH1X Site Name Putney Bridge Foreshore Date of walkover 4th November 2010 / name(s) of specialist Site location The proposed work site is located on the foreshore of the River (Address & Thames at the junction of the B306 (Lower Richmond Road), Access) Putney Bridge Approach/Putney High Street (A219). The work site will be adjacent to Putney Bridge. Access across the entirety of the site. Size and Record elevation in Topography is multileveled, the topography of relation to surroundings, worksite encompasses the foreshore, site and any hummocks, breaks of the cobbled slipway which is at an surroundings slope etc. angle to meet the street level and also includes the raised Watermans Green Park area. Neighbouring North The area is populated with a mixture site use (in of retail, commercial and residential particular note properties. The closest property is any potentially Richmond Mansions. It is occupied contaminative by retail use at ground floor level with activities or residential properties above. sensitive South River Thames receptors) East The area is populated with a mixture of retail, commercial and residential properties. West The area is populated with a mixture of retail, commercial and residential properties. Site buildings Record extent, size, type No and usage. Any boiler rooms, electrical switchgear? Surfacing Record type and The site also utilises the existing condition cobbled slipway and Watermans Green park area which leads onto the wide foreshore area consisting of mud and shingle (clay, sand and gravel). Vegetation Any evidence of distress, N/A unusual growth or invasive species such as Japanese Knotweed? Services Evidence of buried No services? Fuels or Types/ quantities? N/A
Page 336
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore chemicals on site Tanks (above ground or below ground) Containment systems (e.g. bund, drainage interceptors). Record condition and standing liquids Refill points located inside bunds or on impermeable surfaces etc? Vehicle servicing Record locations, tanks or refuelling and inspection pits etc. onsite Waste Adequate storage and generated/stored security? Fly tipping? onsite Surface water Record on-site or nearby standing water Site drainage Is the site drained, if so to where? Evidence of flooding? Evidence of Eg trial pits, borehole previous site covers. investigations Evidence of land Evidence of discoloured contamination ground, seepage of liquids, strong odours? Summary of potential contamination sources Any other Eg access restrictions/ comments limitations No No
Appendix B: Land quality
No
No
N/A
River Thames No tidal outflows were visible within the river wall at the time of the survey. No
No
No potential contaminative sources were identified during the survey.
N/A
Page 337
Appendix C: Noise and vibration
Appendix C Noise and vibration C.1 C.2

C.2.1
Noise survey Introduction

A baseline noise survey was completed on 6th April 2011. As described in Volume 5, the main purpose of the noise survey was to determine representative ambient and background noise levels at a number of different types of noise sensitive receptor. These include (but are not restricted to): a. dwellings b. community buildings c. hospitals/health care buildings d. hotels/hostels e. offices f. open/public amenity space g. premises with noise/vibration sensitive equipment h. places of worship i. j. recording studios; and schools/educational institutions.
C.2.2
The nearest identified receptors to Putney Bridge foreshore are the dwellings and commercial buildings close to the site.
C.3
C.3.1
Survey Methodology
Short term attended noise monitoring was completed at all measurement positions. Measurements were undertaken during the interpeak periods of 10am-12pm and 2pm-4pm so that the baseline data is representative of the quieter periods where any disturbance from construction would be most noticeable. It is understood that Putney Bridge will be used for standard hours working and therefore no evening or night time measurements were undertaken. At locations 1 and 4 a Brel and Kjr sound level meter, Type 2250 (serial number 2626230), fitted with Brel and Kjr Type 4189 -inch free field microphone (serial number 2656209) wasused for all measurements. At locations 2 and 3 a Brel and Kjr sound level meter, Type 2250 (serial number 2626231), fitted with Brel and Kjr Type 4189 -inch free field microphone (serial number2621208) was used for all measurements. The microphones were fitted with a windshield during the measurements. Prior to and on completion of the survey, the sound level meter and microphone calibration was checked using a Brel and Kjr sound level meter calibrator Type 4231 (serial numbers 2619374 and 2619375 respectively). On-site calibration checks were performed before and after
C.3.2 C.3.3
C.3.4
C.3.5 C.3.6
Page 338
all measurements with no significant deviation being observed. The sound level meters and calibrators have valid laboratory calibration certificates. C.3.7 The sound level meter was tripod-mounted with the microphone approximately 1.3m above ground level. A windshield was fitted over the microphone at all times during the survey period to minimise the effects of any wind induced noise. Weather conditions were dry during the survey. The weather was dry, calm and warm with an occasional light breeze. The average temperature was 17oC.
C.3.8
C.4
C.4.1
Measurement locations
The table below details the measurement locations. Figure C.1 Noise and vibration - measurement locations (see Volume 10 Figures document) Table C.1 Noise and vibration - measurement locations
Measurement Location Number
Co-ordinates Description X 523978 524153 524061 524032 Y
PWH1X Noise 1 Footpath adjacent to Lower Richmond Rd (west) (University Mansions) PWH1X Noise 2 Footpath adjacent to Putney High St close to St Marys church PWH1X Noise 3 Footpath adjacent to Lower Richmond Rd (east) PWH1X Noise 4 Footpath adjacent to Embankment and Star and Garter PH.
175727 175580 175674 175728
Page 339
C.5
C.5.1
Results
A summary of the results of the noise survey measurements are presented in the table below. Table C.2 Noise and vibration noise survey measurements
Measurement Location Number Description
dBLAeq,15 Measured average daytime ambient noise level, dBLAeq,15

min min
(rounded to nearest 5dB)
Free field Footpath adjacent to Lower PWH1X Noise 1 Richmond Rd (west) (University Mansions) Footpath adjacent to Putney PWH1X Noise 2 High St close to St Marys church PWH1X Noise 3 Footpath adjacent to Lower Richmond Rd (east) 73
Facade 76 75
72 71 64
75 74 67
75 75 65
Footpath adjacent to PWH1X Noise 4 Embankment and Star and Garter PH.
Page 340
C.6
Baseline condition photographs specific to topics

Figure C.2 Noise monitoring at PWH1X footpath Note: adjacent to Lower Richmond Rd (west)
Figure C.3 Noise monitoring at PWH1X footpath Note: adjacent to Putney High St close to St Marys church
Figure C.4 Noise monitoring at PWH1X footpath Note: adjacent to Lower Richmond Rd (east)
Page 341
Figure C.5 Noise monitoring at PWH1X footpath Note: adjacent to Embankment and Star and Garter PH
Page 342
Appendix D: Townscape and visual
Appendix D Townscape and visual D.6 Winter photographs for selected viewpoints
Figure D.1 Townscape and visual - viewpoint 1.1 View south west from residences in Carrara Wharf
Page 343
Figure D.2 Townscape and visual - viewpoint 1.2 View north from residences in Kenilworth Court
Figure D.3 Townscape and visual - viewpoint 2.1 Panorama view south west from Putney Bridge
Page 344
Figure D.4 Townscape and visual - viewpoint 2.3 View north from Putney High Street
Figure D.5 Townscape and visual - viewpoint 2.4 Panorama view north west from Putney High Street outside St Marys Church
Page 345
Figure D.6 Townscape and visual - viewpoint 2.5 View east from the eastern end of Embankment
Page 346
Figure D.7 Townscape and visual - viewpoint 2.6 View east from Lower Richmond Road outside the Star and Garter restaurant
Figure D.8 Townscape and visual - viewpoint 2.7 Panorama view south east from Embankment outside the Dukes Head
Page 347
Figure D.9 Townscape and visual - viewpoint 2.8 View south east from Embankment outside Leaders Gardens
Page 348
Figure D.10 Townscape and visual - viewpoint 2.10 View south east from Embankment at Beverley Brook
Page 349
Figure D.11 Townscape and visual - viewpoint 2.14 View south east from Bishops Park riverside
Page 350
Figure D.12 Townscape and visual - viewpoint 2.15 View south from Prior Gardens Bank
Page 351
Figure D.13 Townscape and visual - viewpoint 4.1 View west from St Marys Church riverside
Page 352
Appendix E: Water resources groundwater
Appendix E Water resources - ground E.1

E.1.1
Baseline data review - Geology

A summary of the anticipated geology succession to be encountered by the Thames Tunnel is shown in the table below.
Table E.1 Groundwater - anticipated TT geological succession Period Series Holocene Quaternary Pleistocene Eocene Thames Group Formation Made ground Superficial Deposits Alluvium Langley Silt River Terrace Deposits London Clay Harwich Upper Shelly Beds Upper Mottled Beds Laminated Beds Palaeogene Palaeocene Lambeth Lower Shelly Beds Mid-Lambeth Hiatus* Lower Mottled Beds Upnor No group Cretaceous Upper Cretaceous White Chalk Subgroup Thanet Sand Seaford Chalk**
Lewes Nodular Chalk * Not a Formation but an important depositional feature ** Subdivided into the Haven Brow, Cuckmere and Belle Tout members. E.1.2 Figure E.1 and Figure E.2 shows the superficial geology solid geology beneath the site. Figure E.1 Groundwater superficial geology Figure E.2 Groundwater solid geology (see Volume 10 Figures document) E.1.3 The Ground Investigation (GI) was undertaken for Thames Tunnel project and has involved drilling boreholes both on the banks and within the main river channel (TT, 2010). The locations of boreholes around the site are shown in Vol 10 Figure A.2. The depths and thicknesses of geological layers encountered is summarised in the table below.
Page 353
Table E.1 Groundwater - anticipated ground conditions Top of Formation Formation River Terrace Deposits London Clay B A3ii A3i A2 Harwich E.1.4 Elevation mATD 100.0 Depth below river bed (m) 0.0 Thickness (m)
0.4
99.6 77.5 65.3 63.4 52.8
0.4 22.5 34.7 36.6 47.2
22.1 12.2 1.9 10.6 0.1
At the site, the depth of the shaft will be 69.28mATD (with base slab down to 67.28mATD). The base of the shaft will be within the London Clay Formation, as will the nearby tunnel section. River Terrace Deposits are extensive alluvial sand and gravel deposits laid down in a braided river system of approximately 5km width, in river terraces since the Anglian glaciation. Phases of down-cutting and intervening deposition during colder periods and subsequent meltwaters increased river flows and sediment load. Seven terraces are distinguishable in London in terms of their altitude, rather than distinguishing lithological features, ranging in thickness from around 2.5 to 28m. The River Terrace Deposits at the site is much less than this it around 0.4m indicative of some post-depositional erosion. Borehole logs indicate the made ground contains brick-like rubble. Although the River Terrace Deposits commonly has very fine-grained sand, silt and clayey silt 'Brickearth' deposits above, the thickness of the River Terrace Deposits at the site and geological descriptions indicate the Brickearth is not present or significant at this site. The London Clay comprises clayey silt beds grading to an increasing number of silty fine-grained sand westward; and increase in homogeneity upwards through the deposit. The upper sandier formation is informally referred to as the Claygate Member to distinguish its coarser-grained nature. The Harwich Formation comprises of fine-grained glauconitic sand and rounded black flinty pebble beds, commonly deposited in a series of superimposed channels. The two GI boreholes (SR1112 and SR2083) were drilled to a much greater depths to prove the thicknesses of the Lambeth Group and Thanet Sand Formation, and to prove the depth of the Chalk. The thicknesses were 19.6 and 7.5 m respectively, with the depth to the Chalk of around 74.3 m below river bed (25.7 mATD).
E.1.5
E.1.6
E.1.7
E.1.8
E.1.9
Page 354
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore E.1.10
The marine seismic survey has indicated a significant northwest southeast trending geological fault zone, straddling the area between the proposed CSO shaft and Putney road and railway bridges. This will potentially intersect the short connection tunnel and caution should be adhered to the possibility of fissure (and thus hydraulic) connection with the overlying River Thames (TT,2011d)54.
E.2
E.2.2
Hydrogeology
A summary of the anticipated hydrogeological properties of the different geologies to be encountered by the Thames Tunnel is shown in the table below. Table E.2 Groundwater - anticipated hydrogeology Group Superficial Deposits Formation (Made Ground) Alluvium River Terrace Deposits London Clay Thames Harwich Upper Shelly Beds Upper Mottled Beds Laminated Beds Lower Shelly Beds -----Mid Lambeth Hiatus---Lower Mottled Beds Upnor Thanet Sand Seaford Chalk White Chalk Subgroup White Chalk Lewes Nodular Chalk New Pit Chalk Lower Aquifer Hydrogeology Perched Water Upper Aquifer Aquiclude Aquitard / Aquifer
Lambeth
Aquitards/ Aquifers
No group
E.2.3
The lower aquifer comprises the Upnor Formation, the Thanet Sands (secondary A aquifer) and the Chalk (principal aquifer) ix comprising of the Seaford Chalk; as the shaft is not sufficiently deep to encounter the Lewes Nodular Chalk and New Pit Chalk formations beneath. The upper aquifer (River Terrace Deposits) is defined as a secondary A aquifer. According the GI boreholes the River Terrace Deposits (upper aquifer) are very thin at less than 0.4m thick at the site. The depth of shaft will not
E.2.4
The terms Principal and Secondary Aquifers were previously known as Major and Minor Aquifers (EA, 2010)
ix
Page 355
extend down into the lower aquifer. The London Clay acts as an aquiclude that separates the upper aquifer from the lower aquifer, with a substantial separation distance (approximately 33m) between the base of shaft and the top of the Thanet Sands. E.2.5 Within the London Clay Formation, any groundwater present is likely to consist of localised seepages and/or minor flows. The GI borehole log (TT, 2010) for borehole SR1122 shows that the A3ii division of the London Clay is present, and it is understood to be the most porous section of London Clay. The base of the London Clay has less sand fraction, and is therefore regarded as the less permeable and more compacted part of the London Clay, thereby forming an effective retardation to groundwater flow from the lower aquifer.
E.3
E.3.2
Groundwater Levels
The monitoring of groundwater levels is being undertaken by Thames Tunnel team and data has been provided by them. In addition, the EA has a network of observation monitoring boreholes across London for which records are available dating back to1963. Figure E.3 Groundwater EA monitoring locations (see Volume 10 Figures document)
E.3.3
The on-site monitoring borehole in SR1112, at location shown in the figure above, records groundwater levels in two discrete horizons. A borehole was scheduled for the upper aquifer but withdrawn from the GI programme (TT, 2011b), presumably because of thinness of the River Terrace Deposits. There is no monitoring of the lower aquifer at the site.
Table E.3 Groundwater - depth and strata (on-site monitoring boreholes) Borehole Response Zone Depths mATD Strata Base of London Clay Formation (A2) / Harwich Formation / upper layers of Lambeth Group (LG) LG Upper Mottled Beds (Clay) Monitoring
SR1112
69.84-59.84
Monthly Dips and Logger
SR1112
52.84-50.34
Fortnightly Dips
E.3.4
The figure below shows the monitoring undertaken in the London Clay Formation /Harwich Formation / upper parts of the Lambeth Group at the site. The discrete monitoring at the base of LCF/upper parts of Lambeth Group and UMB (clay rich) is shown in the figure below. The high piezometric heads observed in both horizons indicates that the LCF is confining water held within the lower layers. A rise of 3m in the pressure heads takes
E.3.5
Page 356
place over the entire period of record and remains consistently above the 100 mATD (0.0 mAOD) through this period.
Page 357
Figure E.4 Groundwater Level Hydrograph Putney Bridge Foreshore
Page 358
The nearest EA monitoring borehole is located at Youngs Brewery (TQ 2561 7467), approximately 1.7km to the southeast (see Vol 10 Figure E.3). This borehole records levels in the lower aquifer (mainly Chalk). A groundwater level hydrograph from this observation borehole is shown in Groundwater Level Hydrograph Putney Bridge Foreshore .
E.3.7
Page 359
Figure E.5 Groundwater Level Hydrograph Putney Bridge Foreshore
Page 360
The level in the Chalk represents the piezometric head, this is the level to which water would rise if a borehole were drilled down into the Chalk. The fact that these levels or heads are always above the level for the top of Chalk of 25.7mATD (see Section A.2.9) for the entire period record shows that confined conditions are present within the Chalk aquifer. A marked rise and then a marked fall has taken place in piezometric levels has taken place and which reflects the changes in abstractions i.e. reductions in groundwater abstractions in central London due to the closure of heavy industries. The recent lowering of levels in central London reflects increase use of groundwater in recent years. The latest levels from this borehole in January 2010 were around 78 mATD (-22 mAOD) (EA, 2010)55. The Environment Agency has produced a groundwater contour map of the confined Chalk piezometric heads at a snap-shot in time in January 2010. According to this map (EA, 2010), the regional direction of groundwater flow around the site is to the northeast locally, towards a low point in central London.
E.3.9
E.3.10 E.3.11
E.4
E.4.2
Groundwater Abstractions and Protected Rights

Groundwater abstractions within a radius of influence of up to 2km around the site have been identified. Their precise locations are not presented due to data restrictions on licence abstractions held by the EA. The nearest licensed groundwater abstractions to the site is a river gravel source lying about 0.7km to the northeast. The Licence Number for this source is 28/39/39/0177 and the annual licensed quantity is 15,000m3 (from two boreholes). The use of this source is for industrial, commercial or public services and is licensed to the Trustees of the Hurlingham Club. The nearest Chalk abstraction source, Licence No. 28/39/39/0221 is located 0.9km to the northwest. This source is licensed to Fulham Football Club and their annual licence quantity is 6,500m3. Further details of all these licensed abstractions are given in . Table E.4 Groundwater - licensed abstractions
E.4.3
E.4.4
Licence Number
Licence Holder Trustees of the Hurlingham Club Fulham Football Club Limited
Purpose Industrial, Commercial and Public Services Industrial, Commercial and Public Services
Aquifer River Terrace Gravels
Licensed Volume [m3/annum] 15,000
28/39/39/0177
28/39/39/0221
Chalk
6,500
Page 361
Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore E.4.5 E.4.6
There are no known unlicensed groundwater abstractions within a 1km radius of the site. There is one licensed Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP) at a distance of 1.2km to the east-southeast of the site. This scheme is located within the confined Chalk. The location of this scheme is shown in Vol 10 Figure E.6. Further details of these licensed abstractions for GSHP are given in Vol 10 Figure E.6. Figure E.6 Groundwater ground source heat pumps (see Volume 10 Figures document) Table E.5 Groundwater - licensed Abstractions for GSHP schemes
Licence Number
Licence Holder Frasers Riverside Quarter Ltd
Purpose Combined Heating Cooling
Aquifer
Licensed Volume [m3/annum] 390,000
28/39/41/0001
Chalk
E.5
E.5.2 E.5.3
Groundwater Source Protection Zones

The EA defines Source Protection Zones (SPZ) around all major public water supply abstractions sources and large licensed private abstractions. The nearest SPZ to the site lies about 5km away to the northeast.
E.6
E.6.2
Other Designations e.g. SSSI or SAC

There are two SSSIs and four LNRs which are water dependent within 2km of the site. Further details are included in the Surface Water Resources Assessment of the PEIR. There are no other environmental designations relevant to groundwater in the vicinity of the site
E.7
E.7.2
Groundwater Quality
The EA monitors groundwater quality at number of points across London. The nearest EA monitoring is at King Georges Park, Wandsworth (PGWU1514). The distance of this monitoring point from the site is approximately 2km. The quality of water is typical of Chalk (Na-HCO3 water type). The higher than normal sodium (Na) is due to ion exchange by the clay minerals within the Chalk matrix and Lower London Tertiaries (Lambeth Group) (EA, 2006) 56. contains the parameters and the number of occasions which they have breached either the Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) or UK drinking water standards at the EA monitoring borehole at King Georges Park. The water quality information is available for the period July 1997 to November 2010.
E.7.3
Page 362
Table E.6 Groundwater - detections by EA at King Georges Park Parameter Ammonia Chlorofenvinphos Dichlorvos Diazinon Silver Propetamphos Benzo(a)pyrene E.7.4 E.7.5 Number of breaches 28* 14* 5* 5* 8* 5* 1** Number of Samples 28 14 5 14 8 14 3
Note * above EQS; **above UK drinking water standards
Information provided by the Thames Tunnel team on land quality at the site shows no exceedences of parameters tested (TT, 2010). Further monitoring of groundwater quality is being undertaken as part of the Thames Tunnel project monitoring programme. Further information will be presented in the ES.
Page 363
Glossary
Glossary
Term A-weighted sound Description A-weighted decibels, abbreviated dBA, or dBa, or dB(a), are an expression of the relative loudness of sounds in air as perceived by the human ear. Ground elevation is measured relative to the mean sea level at Newlyn in Cornwall, referred to as Ordnance Datum (OD), such that heights are reported in metres above or below OD. Removal of water from a source of supply (surface or groundwater). Areas where the local authority determines the national air quality objectives are not likely to be achieved by the relevant deadlines. People, property or designated sites for nature conservation that may be at risk from exposure to air pollutants that could potentially arise as a result of the proposed development/project. Sediment laid down by a river. Can range from sands and gravels deposited by fast flowing water and clays that settle out of suspension during overbank flooding. Other deposits found on a valley floor are usually included in the term alluvium (eg, peat). The average (mean) of the hourly pollutant concentrations measured or predicted for a one year period. Originating as a result of human activities. A hydrogeological unit which, that allows groundwater movement at negligible rates, even though porous and capable of storing water. Groundwater movement insufficient to allow appreciable supply to a borehole or spring. Aquicludes tend to act as an impermeable barrier. A permeable geological stratum or formation that is capable of both storing and transmitting water in significant amounts. Areas of archaeological priority, significance, potential or other title, often designated by the local authority. The contribution to the total measured or predicted concentration of a pollutant that does not originate directly from local sources of emissions. The Upnor Beds (the lower unit of the Lambeth Group) and the Thanet Sands. The base case for the assessment is a future case, without the project, in a particular assessment year. The component of river flow derived from groundwater sources rather than surface run-off. The existing conditions against which the likely significant effects due to a proposed development are assessed. Invertebrates which are found within or on the river bed.
Above Ordinance Datum abstraction Air Quality Management Area air quality sensitive receptors alluvium
Annual Mean Concentration anthropogenic aquiclude
aquifer Archaeological Priority Area/Zone background concentration Basal Sands base case baseflow baseline benthic invertebrates
Page 364

Term Bentonite Description
Glossary
An absorbent aluminium phyllosilicate, in general, impure clay consisting mostly of montmorillonite. Mixed with water, it forms a slurry commonly used as drilling fluid and ground support in tunnelling. A hole drilled into the ground for geological investigation or for the exploitation of geological deposits or groundwater. An abstraction borehole is a well sunk into an aquifer from which water will be pumped. Wind-blown dust deposited under extremely cold, dry post - glacial conditions suitable for making bricks. Produced by the BSI Group in order to set up standards of quality for goods and services. 2,000600 BC. Recording of historic buildings (by a competent archaeological organisation) is undertaken to document buildings, or parts of buildings, which may be lost as a result of demolition, alteration or neglect, amongst other reasons. Four levels of recording are defined by Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England (RCHME) and English Heritage. Level 1 (basic visual record); Level 2 (descriptive record), Level 3 (analytical record), and Level 4 (comprehensive analytical record). Also called a bund wall, bunding is a separated area within a structure designed to prevent inundation or breaches of various types. An area of stone, concrete or timber laid on the river / sea bed, that is exposed at low tide, allowing vessels to rest safely and securely in place. The area from which surface water and/or groundwater will collect and contribute to the flow of a specific river, abstraction or other specific discharge boundary. Can be prefixed by surface water or groundwater to indicate the specific nature of the catchment. The Environment Agencys strategy for water resources management in England and Wales through licensing water abstraction. CAMS is used to inform the public on water resources and licensing practice; provide a consistent approach to local water resources management; and help to balance the needs of water-users and the environment. A curve formed by a perfectly flexible, uniformly dense, and inextensible cable suspended from its endpoints. Whales, dolphins and porpoises. A soft white limestone (calcium carbonate) formed from the skeletal remains of sea creatures. Method for evaluating invertebrate communities based on species rarity, diversity and abundance.
borehole
brickearth British Standard Bronze Age Building recording
bunding
campshed
catchment
Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy (CAMS)
catenary Cetaceans Chalk Community Conservation Index. (CCI)
Page 365

Term cofferdam Description
Glossary
A temporary or permanent enclosure built across a body of water to allow the enclosed area to be pumped out creating a dry work environment. A sewer conveying waste water of domestic or industrial origin and rain water. A structure, or series of structures, designed to allow spillage of excess waste water from a combined sewer under high rainfall conditions. Flows may discharge by gravity or by pumping. A simplified representation or qualified description of the behaviour of the hydrogeological system. A quantitative conceptual model includes preliminary calculations and flow and mass balances. Conservation areas defined by Local Planning Authorities according to the provisions of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The area of site that would be used during the construction phase. The statutory plan which sets out a boroughs planning policies in relation to the management of development and land use. Supersedes the Unitary Development Plan in Boroughs where it has been adopted. A mobile crane, usually with caterpillar tracks. The flow from the existing CSO is diverted to the location of the drop shaft. The drop shaft location requires suitable access for construction and maintenance. The flow from the drop shaft is transferred to the Thames Tunnel through a connection tunnel. These vary in diameter from 2.2m to 5.0m Long connection tunnels can be up to 4,615m in length. The shaft connects the flow down to the Thames Tunnel. The shaft sizes depend on the amount of flow to be intercepted and the de-aeration requirements and the depth depends on the location of the Thames Tunnel. The size ranges from 6m to 25m and depth from 25 to 75m. Site where the flows from an existing CSO would be redirected to the main Thames Tunnel. An area of land or structures around a dwelling or other structure. Excavated material to be re-used within the development as fill or removed off-site. the equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level having the same energy as a fluctuating sound over a specified time period T. An area within the shaft and/or associated pipe work, where air is removed from liquids. Logarithmic ratio used to relate sound pressure level to a standard reference level. Influencing or determining elements or factors.
combined sewer combined sewer overflow (CSO) conceptual model
Conservation area
construction site Core Strategy
crawler crane CSO connection culvert
CSO connection tunnel
CSO drop shaft
CSO interception site curtilage cut dB LAeq,T
de-aeration chamber decibel (dB) determinands
Page 366

Term Development Plan dewatering wells diaphragm wall Description
Glossary
In London these refer to the borough Unitary Development Plans. A system used to locally lower groundwater levels around the worksite to provide stable working conditions when excavating. A diaphragm wall is a reinforced concrete retaining wall that is constructed in-situ. A deep trench is excavated and supported with bentonite slurry, and then reinforcing steel is inserted into the trench. Concrete is poured into the trench and only after this does excavation in front of the retained earth commence. The release of substances (eg, water, sewage, etc.) into surface waters, ground or sewer. A lowering of the water level in a borehole or aquifer, usually in response to abstraction. Legal standards set in Europe in the Drinking Water Directive 1998 together with UK national standards to maintain wholesomeness of potable water. AD 410 1066. Also referred to as the Saxon period. The result of an impact on a particular resource or receptor. The treated wastewater discharged from the Sewage Treatment Works. An assessment of the likely significant effects that a proposed project may have on the environment, considering natural, social and economic aspects, prepared in accordance with the 2009 Infrastructure Planning EIA Regulations. The concentration of chemical pollutants assessed to have detrimental effects on water quality in terms of the health of aquatic plants and animals. EQS are established in the WFD (Annex V) through the testing of the toxicity of the substance on aquatic biology. A document to be prepared following an EIA which provides a systematic and objective account of the EIAs findings, prepared in accordance with the 2009 Infrastructure Planning EIA Regulations. A limited programme of nonintrusive and/or intrusive fieldwork which determines the presence or absence of archaeological features, structures, deposits, artefacts or ecofacts within a specified area. A programme of controlled, intrusive fieldwork with defined research objectives which examines, records and interprets archaeological remains, retrieves artefacts, ecofacts and other remains within a specified area. The records made and objects gathered are studied and the results published in detail appropriate to the project design. A structural planar fracture or discontinuity within lithological strata due to strain or compression, in which significant displacement is observable.
discharge drawdown Drinking Water Standards early medieval effect effluent Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
Environmental Quality Standards (EQS)
Environmental Statement (ES) Evaluation (archaeological)
Excavation (archaeological)
fault
Page 367

Term FIDOR Description
Glossary
Factors that will determine the severity of an odour as defined by the Environment Agency; Frequency, Intensity, Duration, Offensiveness, Receptor. Material required to raise existing ground levels. This can utilise cut material generated within the site, or necessitate the importation of material. The location at which an item was found. A sewer conveying waste water of domestic and/or industrial origin, but little or no rain water. A breakage in a rock mass. Present at any scale, but is generally used for large scale discontinuities. General Aquifer Research Development and Investigation Team (Thames Water, the Environment Agency and London Underground with the support of organisations such as the Corporation of London, Envirologic, the Association of British Insurers (ABI) and BT). The gradual increase in the temperature of the earth's atmosphere, believed to be due to the greenhouse effect, caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, and other pollutants. Benchmark national quality standard for parks and green spaces in the United Kingdom. Water contained in underground strata, predominantly in aquifers. Inundation of land or basements as groundwater levels rise and the groundwater discharges to the surface or underground structures. The rise in groundwater level that occurs after cessation of abstraction. Groundwater Body: distinct volume of groundwater within an aquifer or aquifers. A dark brown slightly glauconitic clay with localised fine sand. Temporary roads provided within the contractors site area to allow the transportation of material around the site. A building, monument, site, place, area or landscape positively identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions. Heritage assets are the valued components of the Historic environment. They include designated heritage assets and assets identified by the local planning authority (including local listing). Archaeological and built heritage database held and maintained by the County authority. Previously known as the Sites and Monuments Record.
fill
findspot foul sewer fracture GARDIT
global warming
Green Flag groundwater groundwater flooding
groundwater rebound GWB Harwich Formation haul roads heritage asset
Historic environment Record (HER) Homezone
Designated residential area with streets designed to operate primarily as a space for social use.
Page 368

Term Holywell Nodular Chalk Description
Glossary
Generally hard nodular chalks with thin flaser marls. In parts, there are significant proportions of shell debris. Inter-bedded coloured marl and chalk succession characteristic of the Plenus Marls Member are found at its base. Above this, the Melbourn Rock Member is distinguishable by its lack of shell material. A constant of proportionality in Darcys law that allows the calculation of the rate of groundwater flow from the hydraulic gradient. For a unit hydraulic gradient, the higher the hydraulic conductivity the higher the rate of groundwater flow. In an aquifer this is the rate of change of groundwater level per unit distance in a given direction. Groundwater flows in the direction of the decline in hydraulic gradient. A graph showing a plot of water flow or level with time, applicable to both surface water and groundwater. A physical or measurable change to the environment attributable to the project. This structure is required to be built around the existing overflow either on land or at the discharge point in the foreshore. The chamber has a weir and valves to divert the flow in to the Thames Tunnel system. It is likely to be a reinforced concrete cut and cover box structure. In some other cases the structure is required to be built adjacent to an inlet or sump of a pump station from which the flow is diverted 600 BC AD 43. A caisson is a retaining, water-tight structure open to the air. A jack is used to push the caisson into the ground, with the internal area then excavated. Equivalent continuous sound level is a notional steady sound level which would cause the same A-weighted sound energy to be received as that due to the actual and possibly fluctuating sound over a period of time (T). It can also be used to relate periods of exposure and noise level. Thus, for example, a halving or doubling of the period of exposure is equivalent in sound energy to a decrease or increase of 3dB(A) in the sound level for the original period. The maximum sound level measured on the A- weighted scale occurring during an event. Complex sequence of highly variable inter-bedded sediments which include clay, sands, pebble beds and Shelly beds. Fine to coarse sand or clay with occasional black organic matter. AD 1066 1500. The Lee Tunnel comprises a 7.2m diameter storage and transfer tunnel from Abbey Mills Pumping Station to Beckton STW and the interception of the Abbey Mills CSO.
hydraulic conductivity
hydraulic gradient
hydrograph impact interception chamber
Iron Age jacked caission
LAeq(T)
LAmax Lambeth Group Laminated Beds later medieval Lee Tunnel
Page 369

Term Lewes Nodular Chalk Description
Glossary
Hard to very hard nodular chalks and hardgrounds with interbedded soft to medium hard chalks and marls. More abundant softer chalks towards the top. Formal permit allowing the holder to engage in an activity (in the context of this report, usually abstraction), subject to conditions specified in the licence itself and the legislation under which it was issued. A structure of architectural and/or historical interest. These are included on the Secretary of State's list, which affords statutory protection. These are subdivided in to Grades I, II* and II (in descending importance). The general characteristics of a rock or sedimentary formation. Local areas where the local authority determines the national air quality objectives are not likely to be achieved by the relevant deadlines. Collection of planning documents prepared by the Local Planning Authority outlining the management of development and land use in a Borough. A structure of local architectural and/or historical interest. These are structures that are not included in the Secretary of States Listing but are considered by the local authority to have architectural and/or historical merit. An area specific plan to interpret and apply the strategy set out in the Structure Plan, to provide a detailed basis for the control of development, to provide a basis for co-ordinating new development and to bring planning issues before the public. Fine sandy silty clay to silty clay. The LTI comprise five separate improvement projects at Thames Waters five Tideway sewage treatment works (STWs): Mogden, Beckton, Crossness, Riverside and Long Reach. The LTT comprises two separate projects: the Lee Tunnel and the Thames Tunnel.
licence
listed building
lithology Local Air Quality Management (LAQM) Local Development Framework (LDF) locally listed building
Local Plan
London Clay London Tideway Improvements (LTI) London Tideway Tunnels (LTT)
Lower aquifer
made ground
Consisting of the Upnor Beds (the lowest unit of the Lambeth Group), the Thanet Sands and the Chalk.
Artificial deposit. An archaeologist would differentiate between modern made ground, containing identifiably modern inclusion such as concrete (but not brick or tile), and undated made ground, which may potentially contain deposits of archaeological interest. Site that would be used to insert and then drive the TBM. Site that would be used to remove the TBM from the Thames Tunnel at the end of the drive. 12,000 4,000 BC.
main tunnel drive shaft site main tunnel reception shaft site Mesolithic
Page 370

Term mitigation measures Neolithic New Pit Chalk nitrogen dioxide (and oxides NO2 and NO) Non-Technical Summary (NTS) Description
Glossary
Actions proposed to prevent or reduce adverse effects arising from the whole or specific elements of the development. 4,000 2,000 BC. Non-nodular chalk, massively bedded, with fairly regularly developed marl seams and sporadic flints. A product of combustion processes. Nitrogen dioxide is associated with adverse effects on human health. A report which briefly describes the main points discussed in the Environmental Statement in a clear manner without the use of technical jargon and phraseology. This report is a requirement of the 2009 Infrastructure Planning EIA Regulations. The Water Services Regulations Authority, a government body set up in 1989 to regulate the activities of the water companies in England and Wales. Odour panel sampling carried out in laboratory conditions. Related to past environments, ie, during the prehistoric and later periods. Such remains can be of archaeological interest, and often consist of organic remains such as pollen and plant macro fossils which can be used to reconstruct the past environment. 700,00012,000 BC. A Middle Bronze Age axe. Solid particles or liquid droplets suspended or carried in the air and includes the same matter after it has deposited onto a surface. For the purposes of this assessment the term includes all size fractions of suspended matter, such as dust, PM10 and PM2.5. A structure containing carbon which absorbs odour from air flowing out of the Tunnel, without the assistance of mechanical pumping. Preliminary Environmental Information Report is a document setting out initial environmental information. In accordance with the Planning Act 2008, it is a requirement that this is the subject of pre-application consultation. Invertebrates which are found in the water column. Is groundwater in an aquifer present above the regional water table, as a result of a (semi-)impermeable layer of rock or sediment above the main water table/aquifer, below the ground surface. The capacity of soil or porous rock to transmit water. A measure of the acidity or basicity of an aqueous solution. A borehole designed specifically to allow the measurement of groundwater level. The level or head to which groundwater would rise in a piezometer if it is free to seek equilibrium with the atmosphere.
Ofwat
olfactometry Palaeo-environmental
Palaeolithic palstave particulate matter (PM)
passive filter chamber
PEIR
pelagic invertebrates perched water
permeability pH piezometer piezometric surface
Page 371

Term Pollution Incident Control Plan porous Description
Glossary
Written procedures put in place for dealing with spillages and pollution. Containing void spaces. Most sedimentary rocks are porous to some extent, and the term is commonly applied in a relative sense, generally restricted to rocks which have significant effective porosity. Refers to Option 3 Abbey Mills route, which runs from Action Storm Tanks in west London to Limehouse then turns northeast to Abbey Mills Pumping Station, where it connects with the Lee Tunnel. Refers to the preferred route and construction sites. Sites assessed as most suitable following review of suitability of each shortlisted site by taking in to account engineering,planning, environment, property and community considerations. Preservation by recording and advancement of understanding of asset significance. This is a standard archaeological mitigation strategy where heritage assets remains are fully excavated and recorded archaeologically and the results published. For remains of lesser significance, preservation by record might comprise an archaeological watching brief. Archaeological mitigation strategy where nationally important (whether designated or not) heritage assets are conserved in situ for future generations, typically through modifications to design proposals to avoid damage or destruction of such remains. A geological stratum that exhibits high inter-granular and/or fracture permeability. This strata has the ability to support water supply and/or river base flow on a strategic scale. Principal Aquifers equate in most cases to aquifers previously referred to as Major Aquifers. Term used to describe the supply of water provided by a water company.
preferred route
preferred scheme preferred site
preservation by record
preservation in situ
Principal Aquifer
Public Water Supply
Putty Chalk
Putty chalk (clay characteristics) near the surface of the unit above firm to soft non-nodular chalk with flint (Upper Chalk undivided) above hard nodular chalk with flints (Lewes Chalk).
An international treaty for the conservation and sustainable utilisation of wetlands.
RAMSAR
Page 372

Term RBMP Description
Glossary
River Basin Management Plans these are the relevant plans that outline the state of water resources within a River Basin District relevant to the objectives of the WFD. The rarest and most threatened species are often listed in the Red Data Book of Insects x, within which there are three categories. Taxa in danger of extinction are referred to as RDB 1 species; those considered to be vulnerable and likely to move into the endangered category are listed under RDB 2, whilst rare species occur on RDB 3. Section of river between two points. Extensive alluvial sand and gravel deposits laid down in a braided river system in river terraces since the Anglian glaciations. Where live data is used to manipulate control equipment in order to best manage the flow of storm water and sewage within the capacity of the system. People (both individually and communally) and the socioeconomic systems they support. Water that percolates downwards from the surface to replenish the water table. The red route is a network of roads designated by Transport for London that carry heavy volumes of traffic and are essential for the movement of traffic and public transport. These comprise mainly of major routes into and around London. Transport for London are responsible for enforcing the red routes which include clearways, parking and loading bays, bus lanes, yellow box junctions and banned turns. Assessment of the risks associated with an activity or object and possible accidents involving a source or practice. This includes assessment of consequence. AD 43 410. Scheduled Ancient Monument. More commonly referred to as Scheduled Monument. Entry of brackish or salt water into an aquifer, from the sea or estuary. This may be natural or induced by excessive or uncontrolled groundwater abstraction. The zone in which the voids in a rock or soil are filled with water at a pressure greater than atmospheric pressure. An ancient monument or archaeological deposits designated by the Secretary of State as a Scheduled Ancient Monument and protected under the Ancient Monuments Act.
RDB3
reach River Terrace Deposits real time control (RTC)
receptors recharge Red route
risk assessment
Roman SAM saline intrusion
saturated zone Scheduled Monument
Bratton, (1991) Red Data Book for Insects
Page 373

Term Scoping Opinion Description
Glossary
The formal view of the determining authority on the range of topics and issues to be considered by the Environmental Impact Assessment, as referred to in the 2009 Infrastructure Planning EIA Regulations. The document prepared by the applicant setting out the proposed approach to the Environmental Impact Assessment, including the range of topics and issues to be addressed, as referred to in the 2009 Infrastructure Planning EIA Regulations. The formal view of the determining authority on the need for an Environmental Impact Assessment to be undertaken, as referred to in the 2009 Infrastructure Planning EIA Regulations. The upper unit of the White Chalk, comprising of as firm to soft non-nodular Chalk with flint beds. Thin marl seams are found towards its base and and absent higher up. A hard ground marks the top of the Seaford Chalk. Alternate piles in-filled with concrete to form a water-tight retaining wall. Either permeable strata capable of supporting local supplies or low permeability strata with localised features such as fissures. The term Secondary Aquifer replaces the previously used name of Minor Aquifer. There are two classes of Secondary Aquifer. Secondary A are capable of supporting water supplies at a local rather than strategic scale and Secondary B are lower permeability layers which may store and yield limited amounts of groundwater due to localised features such as fissures, thin permeable horizons and weathering. Sites idenitfied following an assessment of long list sites in accordance with the Site Selection Methodology. Site of Nature Conservation Importance (Grade II of Borough importance). Site of Nature Conservation Importance (Grade I of Local importance). Site of Nature Conservation Importance (Grade III of Metropolitan importance). For the purposes of the PEIR assessment, the site is deemed as the entire area located within the Limit of Land to be Acquired or Used. It should not be inferred that this entire site area will be physically separated (ie, hoarded or fenced) for the construction duration. An area given a statutory designation by English Nature or the Countryside Council for Wales because of its nature conservation value. Materials such as hard standing and vegetation including incidental topsoil (including potential contaminated soil). A record of sites of archaeological interest.
Scoping Report
Screening Opinion
Seaford Chalk
secant piles Secondary Aquifers
short listed sites SINC (Grade B) SINC (Grade L) SINC (Grade M) Site
Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) site strip Sites and Monuments Record
Page 374

Term sprayed concrete lining Description
Glossary
An efficient method for constructing the tunnel lining with a layer of sprayed concrete. This is instead of using pre-cast concrete segments. Layers of rock, including unconsolidated materials such as sands and gravels. The study of stratified rocks, their nature, their occurrence, their relationship to each other and their classification. A colourless gas with a choking smell, the main product of the combustion of sulphur contained in fuels. Overarching term for recent generally unconsolidated or loosely consolidated deposits of sand, gravel, silt, clay, etc on top of bedrock. Synonymous with drift generally supersedes the term. This is a general term used to describe all water features such as rivers, streams, springs, ponds and lakes. Water that travels across the ground rather than seeping in to the soil. The Thames Tunnel comprises a full-length storage and transfer tunnel from Acton Storm Tanks to Beckton Sewage Treatment Works in East London and the interception of specific CSOs along the Thames Tideway with a diameter between 6.5m and 7.2m. Coarsening upward sequence of well sortedfine grained sand which has a higher clay / silt content towards the lower part of the sequence, and evidence of intense bioturbation removing bedding structures. The Thames Tunnel project. Length of river channel swept by water from a discharge point in one tidal cycle. In the case of the River Thames this is considered to 13km up and downstream of the discharge point. Tool developed on behalf of Thames Water to assess the effects of lapses in water quality caused by CSO discharges on Tideway fish populations. The formal assessment of traffic and transportation issues relating to the proposed development. The findings are usually presented in a report which accompanies the planning application. Partially or wholly remove. In archaeological terms remains may have been truncated by previous construction activity. A typical year relates to an actual year, eg, the corresponding meteorological dataset for that year used in the modelling which was 1979-80. The corresponding meteorological dataset is used as it would give a better indication of conditions rather than using a recent year of data where the meteorological data may not be consistent with a rainfall event leading to the tunnel emissions. An enclosed space below the ground surface where air is released to atmosphere, should the pressure within the Tunnel exceed a set value.
strata stratigraphy sulphur dioxide (SO2) superficial deposits
surface water surface water runoff Thames Tunnel
Thanet Sands
The project tidal excursion
Tideway Fish Risk Model Transport Assessment (TA) truncate typical year
underground pressure release chamber
Page 375

Term Unitary Development Plan (UDP) unproductive strata Description
Glossary
The statutory plan which sets out a unitary authoritys planning policies.
These are rocks which are generally unable to provide usable water supplies and are unlikely to have surface water and wetland ecosystems dependent upon them.
Variably bioturbated fine- to medium-grained sand with glauconite, rounded flint pebbles and minor clay, with distinctive pebble beds and base and top. Comprising the water bearing strata above the London Clay, namely the River Terrace Deposits and the Alluvium. A bluish grey mottled with greenish brown clay. Contains shell fragments within a flinty gravel or a sandy clay The Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (1991) has the overall aim of protecting the environment from the adverse effects of urban waste water discharges. An underground structure on the sewer system containing valves which are used to isolate the flow between different parts of the sewer system. For example, flap valves prevent the flow from the river travelling back up the sewer or into the tunnel. A stack through which air is released. An EC Directive seeking to improve water quality in rivers and groundwater in an integrated way (2000). An archaeological watching brief is a formal programme of observation and investigation conducted during any operation carried out for nonarchaeological reasons. Level below which the ground is saturated with water. The water table elevation may vary with recharge and groundwater abstraction. The WEEE Directive aims to reduce the amount of electrical and electronic equipment going to landfill and to encourage everyone to reuse, recycle and recover it. Chalk with flints, with discrete marl seams, nodular chalk, spongerich and flint seams throughout. Flint typology and marl seam incidence is important for correlation. Comprises of Seaford Chalk, Lewes Nodular Chalk, New Pit Chalk and Holywell Nodular Chalk.
Upnor Formation
Upper aquifer Upper Mottled Beds Upper Shelly Beds Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive valve chamber
ventilation column Water Framework Directive (WFD) watching brief (archaeological) water table
Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (WEEE) White Chalk subgroup
Page 376
References
References
1 Defra, http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/review-and-assessment/tools/backgroundmaps.html, Accessed May 2011) 2 LB Wandsworth, Personal Communication with David Kennett, March and May 2011 3 Defra (2010), http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/documents/Measured-nitrogen-oxides(NOx)-and-or-nitrogen-dioxide-(NO2)-concentrations-do-not-appear-to-be-decliningin-line-with-national-forecastsv1.pdf, Accessed April 2011 4 Defra (2009) Local Air Quality Managemen t- Technical Guidance, LAQM.TG(09). 5 Greater London Authority and London Councils (2006) Best Practice Guidance: The Control of Dust and Emissions from Construction and Demolition, November 2006 6 Defra (2010) Draft National Policy Statement for Waste Water, November 2010. 7 Thames Estuary Partnership Biodiversity Action Group (2002) Tidal Thames Habitat Action Plan. London Biodiversity Partnership. 8 Elliott, M. & Hemingway, K. L. (2002). Fishes in Estuaries, London: Blackwell Science. 9 Elliott, M. and Taylor, C.J.L. (1989). The structure and functioning of an estuarine/marine fish community in the Forth estuary, Scotland. Proc. 21st European Marine Biological Symposium (Gdansk). Polish Academy of Sciences, Institute of Oceanology, Warsaw, Poland, 227-240. 10 Chadd, R and Extence, C (2004) The conservation of freshwater macroinvertebrate populations: a community based classification scheme. Aquatic Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 14: 597-624. 11 Bratton, J.H. (ed) (1991). British Red Data Books: 3. Invertebrates other than insects. JNCC, Peterborough. 12 Shirt, D.B. (editor) 1987. British Red Data Books: 2 Insects. Peterborough: Nature Conservancy Council. 13 Turnpenny, A.W.H., Clough, S.C., Holden, S.D.J., Bridges, M., Bird, H., OKeeffe, N.J., Johnson, D., Edmonds, M., Hinks, C. (2004). Thames Tideway Strategy: Experimental Studies on the Dissolved Oxygen Requirements of Fish Consultancy Report no.FCR374/04 to Thames Water Utilities, Ltd. Fawley Aquatic Research, Fawley Southampton, April, 2004. http://www.wfduk.org/LibraryPublicDocs/ThamesTidewayStrategyExperimentalStudie sontheDissolvedOxygenRequirementsofFish] 14 Maitland, PS and Hatton-Ellis, TW. Ecology of the Allis and Twaite Shad. Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers Ecology Series No. 3. English Nature, Peterborough (2003) 15 The Mayors Biodiversity Strategy Connecting with Nature (Great London Authority, July 2002) 16 Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom. Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM) (2006)
Page 377
References
17 Department of Communities and Local Government. Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment (March 2010), 1, 13 18 Gerhold D, Putney and Roehampton Past. Historical Publications (1994), 9 19 MacRobert S, A Brief History: Putney and Roehampton. The Putney Society, (2009), 3 20 MacRobert S, A Brief History: Putney and Roehampton, The Putney Society, (2009), 6 21 Gerhold D, Putney and Roehampton Past. Historical Publications (1994), 9 22 MacRobert S, A Brief History: Putney and Roehampton. The Putney Society (2009), 67 23 MacRobert S, A Brief History: Putney and Roehampton. The Putney Society (2009), 7 24 Lysons D, The Environs of London: vol 1: County of Surrey. Centre for Metropolitan History, (1792), 404435 25 Weinreb B, Hibbert C, Keay J and Keay J, The London Encyclopedia. Panmacmillan (2008), 669 26 MacRobert 2009, 11 27 Malden H E, A History of the County of Surrey: volume 4. Victoria County History (1912), 7883 28 Lysons D, The Environs of London: vol 1: County of Surrey. Centre for Metropolitan History, (1792), 404435 29 Walford E, Underground London: its railways, subways and sewers. Old and New London, Vol. 5. Centre for Metropolitan History (1878), 224242 30 In English Heritage conservation principles (EH 2008) and applicable guidance published by English Heritage on selected buildings for listing (or designation as heritage assets) (2007) and on investigating and recording buildings archaeologically (2006). For the criteria for listing please see Volume 5: Methodology 31 Wandsworth Conservation and Design Group, Wandsworth Council, Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Strategy (Nov 2010)) 32 Fletcher, E. Reading Tidal Rivers. Greenlight Publishing (Undated), 15 33 English Heritage Understanding historic buildings: a guide to good recording practice. Swindon (2006) 34 BS5228:2009 Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites 35 BS 4142 (1997): Method for rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas 36 GLA. Mayors Response to Thames Tunnel, February 2011 37 LB Wandsworth. Dog Control Orders http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/site/files/dogcontrol/WatermansGreen_v2.pdf. Accessed on 18/07/11
Page 378
References
38 GLA. London Plan Consolidated with Alterations since 2004, 2008, page 180 39 LB Wandsworth. LDF Core Strategy, 2010, page 38 40 LB Wandsworth. LDF Core Strategy, 2010, page 38 41 It should be noted that other sections of the NCR4 elsewhere within London are permanently located entirely within the roadway. 42 Thames River Basin Management Plan Annex B: Water Body Status Objectives, Environment Agency, 2011
43
The Thames Recreational Users Study Final Report (2007), a collaborative partnership project between the City of London Port Health Authority and the Health Protection Agency. 44 Thames Tideway Strategic Study, Thames Water, February 2005 45 Communities and Local Government (March 2010). Planning Policy Statement 25 Development and Flood Risk 46 Communities and Local Government (December 2009). Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk Practice Guide. 47 Environment Agency. Thames Estuary 2100 Flood Risk Management Plan. (Accessed Feb 2011 http://www.environmentagency.gov.uk/research/library/consultations/106100.aspx) 48 Greater London Authority (July 2011). The London Plan Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London. 49 London Boroughs of Wandsworth, Merton, Sutton and Croydon Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment. Scott Wilson Ltd (Dec 2008). London Boroughs of Wandsworth, Merton, Sutton and Croydon Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment. Scott Wilson Ltd (Apr 2009)). 50 Environment Agency. Thames Estuary 2100 Flood Risk Management Plan. (Accessed Feb 2011 http://www.environmentagency.gov.uk/research/library/consultations/106100.aspx) 51 London RFRA (London Regional Flood Risk Appraisal. Greater London Authority (Oct 2009)) 52 Thames Tidal Defences Joint Probability Extreme Water Levels 2008 Final Modelling Report. Environment Agency (Apr 2008) (Thames Barrier operational, Model Node 2.23)). 53 Mayors Draft Water Strategy. Mayor of London. Greater London Authority (Aug 2009) 54 TT (2011d) Ground Investigation Report Phase 1&2&3. Document No. 100RG-GEO-00000-000006Contract Reference No. WAL080092, February 2011 55 EA (2010) Management of London Basin Chalk Aquifer. Status Report 2010. 56 EA(2006) Groundwater Quality Review: London Basin Ref. No. GWQR22 [6441R6] November 2006.
Page 379

Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore site assessment
CSO interception site
Regulations 2 and 10 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009
Thames Tunnel
Phase two consultation documentation

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

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

Abbey Mills Pumping Station Acton Storm Tanks Albert Embankment Foreshore Barn Elms Beckton Sewage Treatment Works Bekesbourne Street Blackfriars Bridge Foreshore Carnwarth Road Riverside Chambers Wharf Chelsea Embankment Foreshore Cremorne Wharf Depot Deptford Chrurch Street Dormay Street Earl Pumping Station Falconbrook Pumping Station Greenwich Pumping Station Hammersmith Pumping Station Heathwall Pumping Station Jews Row King Edward Memorial Park Forehore King Georges Park Kirtling Street Other works Putney Bridge Foreshore Shad Thames Pumping Station Victoria Embankment Foreshore
Thames Tunn
Thames Tunn
110-RG-ENV-PWH1X-000018
Phase two consultation (Autumn 2011)
For further information see our website: www.thamestunnelconsultation.co.uk or call us on 0800 0721 086
Thames Tunn

PEIR Main Report Vol10 Putney Bridge Foreshore

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEIR Main Report Vol10 Putney Bridge Foreshore

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEIR Main Report Vol10 Putney Bridge Foreshore

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore site assessment

Phase two consultation documentation

Project information papers

Site information papers

Thames Tunnel Preliminary environmental information report

Part B: Preliminary site information

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 25 Volume 26 Volume 27 Volume 28

Preliminary environmental information report

Thames Tunnel Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore site assessment

Proposed development.................................................................................... 4 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5

Preliminary environmental information report

Historic Environment ..................................................................................... 71

Land quality .................................................................................................. 107

Noise and vibration ...................................................................................... 120

Preliminary environmental information report

Socio-economics ......................................................................................... 144

Townscape and visual ................................................................................. 173

Transport ...................................................................................................... 238

Water resources groundwater ................................................................. 272

Preliminary environmental information report

Water resources surface water ................................................................ 282

Water resources flood risk ....................................................................... 305

Preliminary environmental information report

Preliminary environmental information report

Preliminary environmental information report

Preliminary environmental information report

Preliminary environmental information report

Preliminary environmental information report

CoPA CROW CSO dB dB LAeq,T

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore

Section 2: Site context

Site context Site location

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore 2.1.9

Section 2: Site context

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore

Section 3: Proposed development

Proposed development Overview

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore 3.1.5

Section 3: Proposed development

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore

Section 3: Proposed development

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore 3.2.15

Section 3: Proposed development

Code of construction practice

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore 3.3.6

Section 3: Proposed development

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 10: Putney Bridge Foreshore

Section 3: Proposed development