peir main report vol24 earl pumping station

8/3/2019 PEIR Main Report Vol24 Earl Pumping Station

1/307

Thames Tunnel

Preliminary environmentalinformation report

Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station siteassessmentCSO interception site

Regulations 2 and 10 of the Infrastructure Planning(Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009


2/307

Phase two consultation documentation

Project informationpapers

Build

Changes

Consultation

Design

Environment

Funding

Managingconstruction

Odour

Options

Overow

Regulatoryframework

Routeandtunnelalignment

Routetoconsent

Settlement

Siteselection

Timing Transport

Technical documents

Airmanagementplan

Bookofplans

CodeofconstructionpracticePartA:Generalrequirements

Consultationstrategyandstatementofcommunityconsultation

Designdevelopmentreport

Draftwastestrategy

Interimengagementreport

NeedsReport Phasetwoschemedevelopmentreport

Preliminary environmental information report

Reportonphaseoneconsultation

Backgroundtechnicalpaper

Siteselectionmethodologypaper

Site information papers AbbeyMillsPumpingStation

ActonStormTanks

AlbertEmbankmentForeshore

BarnElms

BecktonSewageTreatmentWorks

BekesbourneStreet

BlackfriarsBridgeForeshore

CarnwarthRoadRiverside

ChambersWharf

ChelseaEmbankmentForeshore

CremorneWharfDepot

DeptfordChrurchStreet

DormayStreet EarlPumpingStation

FalconbrookPumpingStation

GreenwichPumpingStation

HammersmithPumpingStation

HeathwallPumpingStation

JewsRow

KingEdwardMemorialParkForehore

KingGeorgesPark

KirtlingStreet

Otherworks

PutneyBridgeForeshore

ShadThamesPumpingStation

VictoriaEmbankment

Foreshore

General

Yourguidetophasetwoconsultation

WhydoesLondonneedtheThamesTunnel?

Feedbackform

Equalitiesform

Customeroverviewleaet


3/307

Thames Tunnel

Preliminary environmental information report

List of contents

Non technical summary

Part A: Preliminary project information

Volume 1 Introduction

Volume 2 Proposed development

Volume 3 Alternatives

Volume 4 Scoping Opinions and technical engagement

Volume 5 Assessment methodology

Volume 6 Project wide assessment

Part B: Preliminary site information

Volume 7 Acton Storm Tanks CSO interception and main tunnel reception site

Volume 8 Hammersmith Pumping Station CSO interception site

Volume 9 Barn Elms CSO interception site

Volume 10 Putney Bridge Foreshore CSO interception site

Volume 11 Dormay Street CSO interception and connection tunnel sequential

drive siteVolume 12 King Georges Park CSO interception and connection tunnel

reception site

Volume 13 Carnwath Road Riverside main tunnel drive and reception, andconnection tunnel reception site

Volume 14 Falconbrook Pumping Station CSO interception site

Volume 15 Cremorne Wharf Depot CSO interception site

Volume 16 Chelsea Embankment Foreshore CSO interception site

Volume 17 Kirtling Street main tunnel double drive site

Volume 18 Heathwall Pumping Station CSO interception site

Volume 19 Albert Embankment Foreshore CSO interception site

Volume 20 Victoria Embankment Foreshore CSO interception site

Volume 21 Blackfriars Bridge Foreshore CSO interception site

Volume 22 Chambers Wharf main tunnel drive and reception and connectiontunnel reception site

Volume 23 King Edward Memorial Park Foreshore CSO interception site

Volume 24 Earl Pumping Station CSO interception site (this document)

Volume 25 Deptford Church Street CSO interception site


4/307


5/307

Thames Tunnel

Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station site assessment

List of contents

Page number

1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 12 Site context ....................................................................................................... 2

2.1 Site location ............................................................................................. 22.2 Environmental setting .............................................................................. 2

3 Proposed development.................................................................................... 43.1 Overview.................................................................................................. 43.2 Operation ................................................................................................. 53.3 Construction ............................................................................................ 73.4 Design development and on site alternatives ........................................ 113.5 Base case .............................................................................................. 12

4 Air quality and odour ..................................................................................... 144.1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 144.2 Proposed development .......................................................................... 144.3 Assessment methodology...................................................................... 164.4 Baseline conditions ................................................................................ 164.5 Construction assessment ...................................................................... 204.6 Operational assessment ........................................................................ 234.7 Approach to mitigation ........................................................................... 244.8 Assessment summary ........................................................................... 264.9 Assessment completion ......................................................................... 27

5 Ecology - aquatic ........................................................................................... 285.1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 285.2 Proposed development .......................................................................... 285.3 Assessment methodology...................................................................... 295.4 Baseline conditions ................................................................................ 295.5 Construction assessment ...................................................................... 325.6 Operational assessment ........................................................................ 325.7 Approach to mitigation ........................................................................... 355.8 Assessment summary ........................................................................... 36


6/307

5.9 Assessment completion ......................................................................... 376 Ecology - terrestrial ....................................................................................... 38

6.1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 386.2 Proposed development .......................................................................... 386.3 Assessment methodology...................................................................... 396.4 Baseline conditions ................................................................................ 416.5 Construction assessment ...................................................................... 436.6 Operational assessment ........................................................................ 446.7 Approach to mitigation ........................................................................... 446.8 Assessment summary ........................................................................... 466.9 Assessment completion ......................................................................... 47

7 Historic environment ..................................................................................... 487.1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 487.2 Proposed development .......................................................................... 487.3 Assessment methodology...................................................................... 497.4 Baseline conditions ................................................................................ 507.5 Construction assessment ...................................................................... 627.6 Operational assessment ........................................................................ 677.7 Approach to mitigation ........................................................................... 677.8 Assessment summary ........................................................................... 697.9 Assessment completion ......................................................................... 72

8 Land quality .................................................................................................... 738.1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 738.2 Proposed development .......................................................................... 738.3 Assessment methodology...................................................................... 748.4 Baseline conditions ................................................................................ 748.5 Construction assessment ...................................................................... 828.6 Operational assessment ........................................................................ 858.7 Approach to mitigation ........................................................................... 878.8 Assessment summary ........................................................................... 888.9 Assessment completion ......................................................................... 89

9 Noise and vibration ........................................................................................ 909.1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 909.2 Proposed development .......................................................................... 909.3 Assessment methodology...................................................................... 929.4 Baseline conditions ................................................................................ 939.5 Construction assessment ...................................................................... 95


7/307

9.6 Operational assessment ...................................................................... 1029.7 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 1059.8 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 1079.9 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 109

10 Socio-economics ......................................................................................... 11010.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 11010.2 Proposed development ........................................................................ 11010.3 Assessment methodology.................................................................... 11110.4 Baseline conditions .............................................................................. 11110.5 Construction assessment .................................................................... 11410.6 Operational assessment ...................................................................... 11810.7 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 11810.8 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 12010.9 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 121

11 Townscape and visual ................................................................................. 12211.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 12211.2 Proposed development ........................................................................ 12211.3 Assessment methodology.................................................................... 12311.4 Baseline conditions .............................................................................. 12511.5 Construction assessment .................................................................... 13511.6 Operational assessment ...................................................................... 14211.7 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 14911.8 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 15111.9 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 156

12 Transport ...................................................................................................... 15712.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 15712.2 Proposed development ........................................................................ 15712.3 Assessment methodology.................................................................... 16112.4 Baseline conditions .............................................................................. 16312.5 Construction assessment .................................................................... 16712.6 Operational assessment ...................................................................... 17412.7 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 17812.8 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 18012.9 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 183

13 Water resources groundwater ................................................................. 18413.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 18413.2 Proposed development ........................................................................ 184


8/307


9/307

List of figures

Page number

Vol 24 Figure 2.1.1 Site location plan ........................................................................ 2Vol 24 Figure 2.2.1 Environmental setting ................................................................. 2Vol 24 Figure 3.1.1 Demolition and site clearance plan ............................................. 4Vol 24 Figure 3.1.2 Construction - site setup & shaft construction ............................ 4Vol 24 Figure 3.1.3 Construction - construction of other structures ........................... 4Vol 24 Figure 3.1.4 Permanent works layout ............................................................. 4Vol 24 Figure 4.4.1 Air quality monitoring locations ................................................. 18Vol 24 Figure 6.4.1 Terrestrial ecology Phase 1 Habitat Survey ............................. 41Vol 24 Figure 7.4.1 Historic environment features map ........................................... 51Vol 24 Figure 8.4.1 Land quality - contaminative land uses .................................... 75Vol 24 Figure 8.4.2 Land quality - proposed borehole locations .............................. 79Vol 24 Figure 8.4.3 Land quality - environmental records and waste sites .............. 80Vol 24 Figure 9.4.1 Noise and vibration receptors ................................................... 93Vol 24 Figure 10.4.1 Socio-economic context ....................................................... 112Vol 24 Figure 11.4.1 Townscape - development pattern and scale ....................... 125Vol 24 Figure 11.4.2 Townscape - pattern and extent of vegetation ...................... 126Vol 24 Figure 11.4.3 Townscape - open space distribution and type .................... 126Vol 24 Figure 11.4.4 Townscape and visual - transport network ........................... 127Vol 24 Figure 11.4.5 Townscape character areas ................................................. 129Vol 24 Figure 11.4.6 Visual assessment viewpoint locations.............................. 132Vol 24 Figure 12.2.1 Transport - construction traffic routes ................................... 159Vol 24 Figure 12.2.2 Transport - construction traffic profile ................................... 160Vol 24 Figure 12.4.1 Transport local site plan ....................................................... 163Vol 24 Figure 15.4.1 Flood risk EA flood zones .................................................. 217


10/307

List of tables

Page number

Vol 24 Table 3.3.1 Standard working hours ............................................................. 11Vol 24 Table 3.4.1 Design development at Earl Pumping Station ........................... 11Vol 24 Table 4.3.1 Air quality and odour stakeholder engagement ......................... 16Vol 24 Table 4.4.1 Air quality - measured NO2 concentrations ................................ 17Vol 24 Table 4.4.2 Air quality - measured PM10 concentrations............................... 17Vol 24 Table 4.4.3 Air quality - additional air quality monitoring locations ............... 18Vol 24 Table 4.4.4 Air quality - background pollutant concentrations ...................... 19Vol 24 Table 4.4.5 Air quality receptors - construction ............................................ 19Vol 24 Table 4.6.1 Odour impacts at ground level - operation ................................. 24Vol 24 Table 4.6.2 Odour impacts at buildings - operation ...................................... 24Vol 24 Table 4.8.1 Air quality construction assessment .......................................... 26Vol 24 Table 4.8.2 Odour operational assessment .................................................. 26Vol 24 Table 5.4.1 Aquatic ecology receptors ......................................................... 31Vol 24 Table 5.6.1 Aquatic ecology impacts - operation .......................................... 32Vol 24 Table 5.8.1 Aquatic ecology operational assessment .................................. 36Vol 24 Table 6.3.1 Terrestrial ecology stakeholder comments ................................. 39Vol 24 Table 6.4.1 Terrestrial ecology Phase 1 Habitat Survey ............................... 42Vol 24 Table 6.8.1 Terrestrial ecology construction assessment ............................. 46Vol 24 Table 7.4.1 Historic environment receptor significance ................................ 62Vol 24 Table 7.5.1 Historic environment construction effects .................................. 65Vol 24 Table 7.8.1 Historic environment assessment summary - construction ........ 69Vol 24 Table 8.4.1 Land quality - contaminative land use ....................................... 75Vol 24 Table 8.4.2 Land quality - anticipated site geology ....................................... 78Vol 24 Table 8.4.3 Land quality - environmental records and waste sites ............... 80Vol 24 Table 8.5.1 Land quality impacts - construction ........................................... 84Vol 24 Table 8.5.2 Land quality receptors - construction ......................................... 85Vol 24 Table 8.5.3 Land quality effects - construction ............................................. 85Vol 24 Table 8.6.1 Land quality impacts - operation ................................................ 86Vol 24 Table 8.6.2 Land quality receptors - operation ............................................. 86Vol 24 Table 8.6.3 Land quality effects - operation .................................................. 87Vol 24 Table 8.8.1 Land quality assessment - construction ..................................... 88Vol 24 Table 8.8.2 Land quality assessment - operational ...................................... 88


11/307

Vol 24 Table 9.4.1 Noise and vibration receptors locations ..................................... 94Vol 24 Table 9.4.2 Noise and vibration receptors .................................................... 94Vol 24 Table 9.4.3 Noise (airboiurbe) categories - construction .............................. 95Vol 24 Table 9.5.1 Noise impacts at EP1, 18-32 Yeoman Street - construction ...... 96Vol 24 Table 9.5.2 Noise impacts at EP2, 1-39 Chilton Grove - construction .......... 97Vol 24 Table 9.5.3 Noise impacts at EP3, 108 -136 Chilton Grove - construction ... 97Vol 24 Table 9.5.4 Noise impacts at EP4, 52 62 Croft Street construction ........... 98Vol 24 Table 9.5.5 Noise impacts at EP5, Offices on Yeoman Street construction . 99Vol 24 Table 9.5.6 Vibration impacts at buildings/structures - construction ........... 100Vol 24 Table 9.5.7 Vibration, human impacts -construction ................................... 101Vol 24 Table 9.5.8 Noise and vibration construction effects .................................. 102Vol 24 Table 9.6.1 Airborne noise impacts -operation ........................................... 103Vol 24 Table 9.6.2 Noise and vibration effects - operation .................................... 104Vol 24 Table 9.8.1 Noise and vibration construction assessment .......................... 107Vol 24 Table 9.8.2 Noise and vibration operational assessment ........................... 108Vol 24 Table 10.4.1 Socio-economics receptors ................................................... 114Vol 24 Table 10.5.1 Socio economics effects - construction ................................. 117Vol 24 Table 10.8.1 Socio economics construction assessment ........................... 120Vol 24 Table 11.4.1 Open space type and distribution .......................................... 127Vol 24 Table 11.4.2 Townscape site components ................................................. 128Vol 24 Table 11.4.3 Townscape character areas - sensitivity ................................ 131Vol 24 Table 11.4.4 Visual assessment viewpoints -sensitivity ............................. 134Vol 24 Table 11.5.1 Townscape site components effects - construction ............... 135Vol 24 Table 11.5.2 Townscape effects - construction .......................................... 138Vol 24 Table 11.5.3 Viewpoint effects - construction ............................................. 141Vol 24 Table 11.6.1 Townscape site component effects - Year 1 of operation ...... 143Vol 24 Table 11.6.2 Townscape effects - Year 1 of operation ............................... 145Vol 24 Table 11.6.3 Viewpoint effects - Year 1 of operation .................................. 148Vol 24 Table 11.8.1 Townscape summary of construction assessment ................ 151Vol 24 Table 11.8.2 Visual assessment summary of construction assessment ..... 151Vol 24 Table 11.8.3 Townscape operational assessment Year 1 of operation .... 153Vol 24 Table 11.8.4 Visual operational assessment Year 1 of operation ............. 154Vol 24 Table 12.2.1 Transport - construction traffic details .................................... 158Vol 24 Table 12.2.2 Transport - construction worker numbers .............................. 161Vol 24 Table 12.3.1 Transport stakeholder engagement ....................................... 162


12/307


13/307

List of abbreviations

AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic

ACE Arts Culture and Entertainment

AM MorningAOD Above Ordnance Datum

APZ Archaeological Priority Zone

AQEG Air Quality Expert Group

AQMA Air Quality Management Area

AQO Air Quality Objective

ARS Artificial Recharge Scheme

ASR Aquifer Storage and Recovery

ASSI Area of Special Scientific Interest

ATC Automated Traffic Counter

ATD Above Tunnel Datum (defined at ~100m AOD)

AURN Automatic Urban and Rural Network

BAP Biodiversity Action Plan

BGS British Geological Survey

BMWP Biological Monitoring Working Party

BOD Biochemical Oxygen DemandBPIP Building Profile Input Programme

BPM Best Practicable Means

BS British Standard

CABE Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment

CAMS Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy

CCI Community Conservation Index

CCSS Community Consultation Strategy

CCTV Closed Circuit Television

CDA Critical Drainage Area

CEMP Construction Environment Management Programmes

CIRIA Construction Industry Research and Information Association

CLR Contaminated Land Report

CoCP Code of Construction Practice

CoPA Control of Pollution Act

CROW Countryside and Rights of WayCSO Combined Sewer Overflow


14/307


15/307

FRA Flood Risk Assessment

GARDIT General Aquifer Research Development and Investigation Team

GI Ground Investigation

GiGL Greenspace Information for Greater London

GIS Geographical Information System

GLA Greater London Authority

GLHER Greater London Historic Environment Record

GQA General Quality Assessment (EA water quality classification)

GSHP Ground Source Heat Pump

GWB Groundwater Body: distinct volume of groundwater within anaquifer or aquifers

GWMU Ground Water Management UnitH2S Hydrogen sulphide

ha hectares

HA Highways Authority

HDV Heavy Duty Vehicle

HEA Historic Environmental Assessment

HER Historic Environment Record

HGV Heavy Goods Vehicle

HIA Health Impact Assessment

HIAB Hydrauliska Industri AB Company

HPA Health Protection Agency

HQ Headquarter

HRA Habitats Regulations Assessment

HTC Hammersmith Town Centre

HWR Hazardous Waste Regulations (2005)

IEEM Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management

IEMA Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment

IMD Index of Multiple Deprivation

IPC Infrastructure Planning Commission

Iron Age 600 BC AD 43

JNCC Joint Nature Conservation Committee

kg kilograms

km kilometre

kVA kilo watt amperes


16/307

kW kilowatt

l/d litres per day

l/s litres per second

LA Local Authority

LAARC London Archaeological Archive and Research Centre

LAQM Local Air Quality Management

LAQN London Air Quality Network

LB London Borough

LBAP Local Biodiversity Action Plan

LDF Local Development Framework

LGV Light Goods Vehicle

LHA Local Highway AuthorityLMB Lambeth Mottled Beds

LNR Local Nature Reserve

loWR List of Wastes Regulations 2005

LSB Lower Shelly Beds

LtB Laminated Beds

LTI London Tideway Improvements

LTT London Tideway Tunnels

LUL London Underground Limited

LVMF London View Management Framework

m metre

m AOD metres above Ordinance Datum (see AOD)

m ATD metres above temporary datum, (see ATD)

m/s metres per second

MAGIC Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside

Mbgl Metres below ground levelMEICA Mechanical Electrical Instrumentation Controls Automation

Ml/d Megalitres per day (million litres per day)

MoD Ministry of Defence

MOL Metropolitan Open Land

MOLA Museum of London Archaeology

NE Natural England

NESR North East Storm Relief

NCR National Cycle Route


17/307


18/307

RAMSAR The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance

RB Royal Borough

RBKC Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

RBMP River Basin Management Plans

RDB Red Data Book

RHS Royal Horticultural Society

RPG Regional Planning Guidance

RSPB Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

RDB Red data book

RTC Real Time Control

RTD River Terrace Deposits

SA Sustainability AppraisalSAC Special Area of Conservation

SAM Scheduled Ancient Monument. More commonly referred to asScheduled Monument

SCI Statement of Community Involvement

SCL Sprayed Concrete Lining

SFRA Strategic Flood Risk Assessment

SI Statutory Instrument

SINC Site of Importance for Nature Conservation

SMI Site of Metropolitan Importance

SNCI Site Nature Conservation Importance

SO2 Sulphur dioxide

SoCC Statement of Community Consultation

SPA Special Protection Area

SPD Supplementary Planning Document

S-P-R Source-pathway-receptor

SPZ Source Protection Zone

SR Storm Relief

SRN Strategic Road Network

SSR Site Suitability Report

SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest

STW Sewage Treatment Works

SUDS Sustainable (Urban) Drainage Systems

SWMP waste - Site Waste Management Plan


19/307

SWMP water Surface Water Management Plan

t tonne

TA Transport Assessment

TAS Thames Archaeological Survey

TBC To be confirmed

TBM Tunnel Boring Machine

TDP Thames Discovery Programme

TEBP Thames Estuary Benthic Programme

TEL Threshold Effect Levels

TfL Transport for London

TFRM Tideway Fish Risk Model

TH Tower HamletsTLRN Transport for London Road Network

Tpa tonnes per annum

TPO Tree Preservation Order

TT Thames Tunnel

TTQI Thames Tideway Quality Improvements

TTSS Thames Tideway Strategic Study 2005

TWU Thames Water Utilities

UDP Unitary Development Plan

UK United Kingdom

UKHO United Kingdom Hydrographic Office

UMB Upper Mottled Beds

UPN Upnor Formation

UWWTD Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive

UWWTR Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations

UXO Unexploded OrdnanceVDV Vibration Dose Value

VNEB OA Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea Opportunity Area

WCA Wildlife and Countryside Act

WEEE Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive

WFD Water Framework Directive

WIA Water Industry Act 1991

WRAP Waste Resources Action Programme

WSI Written Scheme of Investigation


20/307

WWT Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust

ZTV Zone of Theoretical Visibility

ZVI Zone of Visual Influence


21/307


22/307


23/307

Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Section 2: Site context

Page 3 Preliminary environmental informationreport

2.2.4 The site is not within a Conservation Area. The site is within the northwestern edge of the Deptford - Strand, Sayes Court and The Royal NavalDockyard Area of Archaeological Priority.

2.2.5 There are no Tree Protection Orders or Public Rights of Way (PRoW) onthe site.

2.2.6 The site is within the Lewisham Air Quality Management Area (AQMA)which was declared for particulate matter PM10 and NO2.

2.2.7 Land quality at the site is influenced historical onsite and offsite activitiesspecifically asphalt works, tar works and a garage formerly located on thesite to the south. Local geology comprises 9m of superficial deposits andmade ground, 10m of Thanet Sand (secondary aquifer), and chalk atdepth (principal aquifer).

2.2.8 The site is located in defended Flood Zone 3 (tidal River Thames).Defences have a 1 in a 1000 year standard of protection; therefore, flood

risk at the site is the residual risk from defence breach or overtopping.


24/307


25/307

Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Section 3: Proposed development


f. Power generation plant and lighting.

g. Highways access and internal site roads.

h. Material storage and handling areas and treatment facilities.

i. Bentonite plant, power supply, and steel reinforcement preparation

area.

j. The carrying out or maintenance of other such works.

3.1.6 Further details of these methods and the relevant phases are given inSection 3.2 where these are relevant to the technical assessments thatfollow.

3.2 Operation

3.2.1 Once developed the project would divert the majority of current CSOdischarges via the CSO shaft and connection tunnel to the main tunnel fortreatment at Beckton Sewage Treatment Works. The number of CSOdischarges would be reduced by 22 spill events to approximately 4 times ayear at an average rate of 50,500m3 per year.

Permanent structures

3.2.2 A plan of the permanent structures is shown in Vol 24 Figure 3.1.4. Thearea of operational land required by the project is less than that requiredfor the construction phase. The land which is not required for operationalpurposes would be returned to its previous use following completion ofconstruction.

3.2.3 Once constructed and operational there would remain on site the

structures listed in the following sections.

3.2.4 Much of the operational structure at the site would be below ground.However the shaft and valve chamber need to be finished toapproximately 3m above ground level due to hydraulic requirements.These structures would be brick clad and the shaft would have a brownroof.

Shaft

3.2.5 The CSO drop shaft would have an internal diameter of 17m. The shaftwould be approximately 50m deep. The Earl Pumping Station CSO shaft

would be constructed on the line of the long connection tunnel that wouldrun from Greenwich connection tunnel, a full description of this tunnel isprovided in Volume 3.

3.2.6 The shaft would be finished to approximately 3m above ground with aparapet wall extending an additional 1m above this. The walls of the shaftwould be clad with a textured brick finish.

3.2.7 There would be covers on top of the shaft to allow access and inspection.

3.2.8 There would be high pressure air release and air inlet structures on top ofthe shaft.


26/307


27/307


28/307



3.3.7 The Code sets out a series of measures to protect the environment andlimit disturbance from construction activities as far as reasonablypracticable.

3.3.8 These measures would be applied throughout the construction at this site.

Site setup3.3.9 Trees to the west of the existing pumping station adjacent to Croft Street

may require maintenance and pruning in advance of the works.

3.3.10 Part of the proposed site is currently occupied by businesses which wouldneed to be relocated.

3.3.11 Prior to any works commencing the site boundary would be establishedand secured. The boundary would be built to an appropriate height for thesite. Welfare and office facilities would also be set up with utility andpower connections installed.

Shaft construction3.3.12 Plant and material storage areas (including displaced slurry storage),

waste skips, muck bin and delivery vehicle turning area would beestablished. Craneage, bentonite silos, water tanks, mixing pan,compressor, air receiver, excavator and dumper for excavated materialhandling are among the items of plant that would all be required on site.

3.3.13 The shaft would be constructed by diaphragm wall construction techniquesand have a cast in situsecondary lining.

3.3.14 The first stage in the construction of each section of diaphragm wall wouldbe the excavation and setting of inner and outer guide walls. These guide

walls would provide a secure situation between which excavation for thediaphragm walls would be undertaken. During excavation the void is filledwith bentonite for ground support; steel bar reinforcement cages arelowered in before concrete is pumped into the base of the wall. Thisprocess is repeated to create a full circle.

3.3.15 The diaphragm wall would be taken to a depth suitable to reduce the flowof water into the shaft. Grouting at the toe of the diaphragm wall may alsobe required to reduce the flow of water.

3.3.16 The shaft excavation commences after the diaphragm walls are completewith the working platform within the guide walls being broken out, and theshaft excavated exposing the walls. The excavator would load shaft skipshoisted by crawler crane, depositing the excavated material within theexcavated material handling area.

3.3.17 A steel reinforced concrete base plug would be formed at the base of theshaft.

3.3.18 The whole shaft would be mined through water bearing ground anddewatering would be required at the site. For the shaft dewatering wellswould be drilled from the surface (external to the shaft). These pumpswould be operational during shaft sinking. For the purpose of thisassessment it has been assumed that the pumps would be maintained toease the reception and launch of the TBM en route to Southwark.


29/307



3.3.19 Approval would be sought from the EA and Thames Water Operations sothat extracted ground water can be discharged into the existing sewersystem via the dry weather pumping station. Extracted water would besampled on a regular basis to check water quality.

3.3.20 Dewatering would also be required during the construction of the otherstructures for the interception works.

3.3.21 It is assumed that ground treatment would be required within the Chalk.

3.3.22 Depending on the depth of the diaphragm walls fissure grouting to thechalk immediately below the toe would be required.

3.3.23 Grouting would additionally be required either side of the shaft to facilitatetunnel boring machine (TBM) break in / break out. This would consist of ablock of treated ground, external to the shaft and would be constructedusing fissure grouting techniques from within the excavated shaft.

3.3.24 Ground treatment would also be required during the interception and CSO

works.

Tunnelling

3.3.25 As the Earl PS shaft would be online with the Greenwich connectiontunnel drive, there is no connection tunnel to be constructed. A temporarycradle would be constructed to receive the tunnel boring machine (TBM)from Deptford Church Street and re-launch to Chambers Wharf.

3.3.26 Tunnel portals with the launch and reception seals would be formed in theshaft lining. The portals would consist of cast in-situ concrete portal withseals tied to the shaft lining.

Construction of other structures

3.3.27 An interception chamber, culvert and valve chamber would intercept thesewer running into the existing pumping station.

3.3.28 Secant and sheet pile walls would be used to provide ground supportwithin which the interception and valve chamber walls would beconstructed. Walls would be driven to depth to minimise water ingressinto the excavation under the wall. But ground treatment and dewateringis anticipated.

3.3.29 The chamber would be excavated exposing the sewer. The sewer would

be internally lined and supported during excavation. Localisedsubmersible pumps within the chamber would be utilised to manageground water ingress. The pumps would discharge to the sewer afterbeing treated through a settlement system.

3.3.30 The walls of the interception chamber would be formed by in situconcretetechniques. Ready mixed concrete would be delivered to site fromexternal supplier and either pumped or skipped to the chamber. The piledwall would be extended to the shaft to allow the connecting culvert andvalve chamber to be constructed in a similar manner to the interceptionchamber.

3.3.31 The main shaft would have internal secondary lining and internalstructures constructed in a similar manner.


30/307



3.3.32 On completion the site area would be reinstated and above groundstructures finished.

Access and movement

3.3.33 For the purposes of this report one vehicle movement is defined as a

vehicle either accessing or leaving the site. For the purposes ofconstruction logistics, site traffic is measured in units of lorries or bargeswhere one lorry/barge is equivalent to a single lorry/barge accessing andthen egressing the site

3.3.34 The highest lorry movements at the site would occur during shaftexcavation when excavated material would be removed from the site byroad. The peak daily vehicle movements at this time, averaged over a onemonth period, would be 50 HGV movements per day.

3.3.35 The site has two separate access points with one from Yeoman St and theother onto Croft Street. The access point is via a right turn into the site

from Yeoman St and the egress is a right turn out onto Croft Street.During construction the access would be overseen by a site securityguard.

3.3.36 Lorries would access via Plough Way turning right into Yeoman Street.Construction traffic would egress along Chilton Grove to turn left ontoLower Road (A200) and most likely proceed southbound along the A200towards the A2.

3.3.37 To depart to the north, construction traffic would take the left turn and thenuse the A200 gyratory of Bestwood St and Bush Road before continuingnorthbound along the A200.

3.3.38 A traffic management plan for the site would be prepared.

Reinstatement and commissioning

3.3.39 Once the main elements of construction are completed, the finallandscaping works would be undertaken including final treatments andsurfaces, planting and installation of street furniture.

3.3.40 Testing and commissioning would also be undertaken once construction iscomplete. For the purposes of this report, completion of thecommissioning stage represents the end of Construction and the

commencement of the Operational development.Construction programme and working hours

Construction programme

3.3.41 Construction at Earl Pumping Station is anticipated to take approximatelyfour years and would involve the following steps (with some overlaps):

a. Year 1 Site setup (approximately 3 months)

b. Year 1 to 2 - Shaft construction (approximately 12 months)

c. Year 2 to 4 Construction of other structures (approximately 26

months)


31/307



d. Year 4 Completion of works and site restoration (approximately 7months).

e. System-wide commissioning would take place following siterestoration and is not included in the above programme.

3.3.42 Construction activities at Earl Pumping Station would peak during shaftconstruction.

Working hours

3.3.43 It is anticipated that the working hours shown below would apply forconstruction at this site.

Vol 24 Table 3.3.1 Standard working hours

Key activities Hours

Core Working Hours 08:00 to 18:00 Weekdays

08:00 to 13:00 SaturdaysMobilisation Period Up to 1 hour before and after the Core

Working Hours

07:00 to 08:00 and 18:00 to 19:00Weekdays

07:00 to 08:00 and 13:00 to 14:00Saturday

Maintenance and SupportPeriod

13:00 to 17:00 Saturdays

10:00 to 16:00 Sundays

Major Concrete Works, inc diaphragm wall and base slab

Extended working hours Extended Standard hours up to 22.00Weekdays.

3.4 Design development and on site alternatives

3.4.1 The design presented here was completed in advance of the completion ofall surveys and technical studies. The final design may alter significantlyin response to this as well as feedback from phase two consultation.

3.4.2 The design of the proposals has developed since phase one consultationas described in the table below.

Vol 24 Table 3.4.1 Design development at Earl Pumping Station

Design development Reason

Refinement of landscapingproposals

Amendments to layout toaccommodate a design more inkeeping with existing context, andopportunity for integration withwider redevelopment proposals onsite.

Area surrounding the dropshaft made publicly accessible

To allow the space around the dropshaft to be used by the public,


32/307



Design development Reason

rather than fenced off.Thames Water access to topof the drop shaft providedfrom stairs within the pumpingstation site

particularly as part of any potentialfuture development within the site.Although most Thames Watermaintenance would be carried outfrom within the pumping station site,Thames Water would retain theright of access over the land aroundthe drop shaft to allow infrequentcrane access when required

Repositioning of the structurecovering the drop shaft

To move the extent of the above-ground drop shaft structure awayfrom the footpath and maximise theamount of site left available forredevelopment

Repositioning of the dropshaft northwards towards thePumping Station.

To maximise the distance betweenthe houses to the south and thedrop shaft

Reduction of dimensions ofventilation column.

Functional design developments

Ventilation structuresrelocated within the existingThames Water compound

To minimise the scale of thepermanent structures on thesouthern part of the site andmaximise area available for futureredevelopment.

3.4.3 Further information on how the design has evolved at this site is includedin the Design Development Report, which is also available as part ofphase two consultation.

3.4.4 Design development information, and the reasons for the choice of thefinal design at this site, including environmental design factors, will also beprovided in the ES.

3.5 Base case

3.5.1 The assessment undertaken for this site takes account of relevantdevelopment projects which have been submitted or with extant planning

permission.

3.5.2 The Lee Tunnel and the Thames Tideway Quality Improvement (TTQI)projects (improvement works at Mogden, Beckton, Crossness, LongReach and Riverside Sewage Treatment Works) will be operational by thetime construction of the Thames Tunnel commences. The base casewould therefore be the water quality in the Tideway with the TTQI projectsand the Lee Tunnel in place. As a result, by 2021 discharge from the CSOat the site will be 593,900m3 with 30 spills.

3.5.3 Because of the other developments the future environmental conditionswithin and around this site irrespective of the Thames Tunnel are likely tochange. This is termed the base case.


33/307



3.5.4 The projected spill volumes and spill frequencies for the baselineconditions for the Thames Tunnel (which is with the improvements appliedto the STWs, and the Lee Tunnel in place) would still not be a sufficientlevel of CSO control to meet the UWWTD (see also Volume 2, Section2.6).

3.5.5 Other related developments include:

a. 2017-2022:Assume Marine Wharf West (resolution to grant planningpermission has been made by LB of Lewisham, subject to approval bythe Mayor) is built by 2022 (532 units plus business space);

b. Marine Wharf East (not yet submitted, estimated 500 units) is not builtout; Cannon Wharf (revised application submitted, 696 units) is built by2022;

c. 1500 new homes predicted for wider "Plough Lane Strategic Area"(these three areas plus) by 2026 but no further details at the time of

writing.


34/307

Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Section 4: Air quality and odour


4 Air quality and odour

4.1 Introduction

4.1.1 This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of thelikely significant air quality and odour effects at the Earl Pumping Stationsite.

4.1.2 The proposed development has the potential to affect air quality and odourdue to:

a. Construction traffic on the road (air quality).

b. Temporary closure of road lanes during construction (air quality).

c. Emissions from construction plant (air quality).

d. Construction-generated dust (air quality).

e. Operation of the tunnel (odour).

4.1.3 Each of these is considered within the assessment. This section presentsthe preliminary findings of the assessment, and sets out what will beprovided in the ES when the full assessment is available.

4.1.4 Operational air quality effects from transport have been scoped out of theassessment due to the very limited number of maintenance visits requiredand hence the low number of vehicular movements.

4.2 Proposed development

4.2.1 The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. Theelements of the proposed development relevant to air quality and odourare as follows.

Construction

Road traffic

4.2.2 During the proposed construction period, there would be road trafficmovements in and out of the site.

4.2.3 The highest number of lorry movements at the Earl Pumping Station wouldoccur during the shaft excavation (Year 1 of construction). The peaknumber of vehicle movements at that time would be 50 lorry movementsper day averaged over a one month period. These traffic effects arebased on all materials being transported by road, given the non riversidelocation of the site.

4.2.4 The construction traffic routes for the key material supply stages, trafficmanagement and access to the site can be found in the Section 12 of thisvolume.

River barges

4.2.5 There is no access to the river at this site, so all transport would be byroad.


35/307


36/307



4.3 Assessment methodology

Scoping and engagement

4.3.1 Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement processwhich has been undertaken. All consultee comments relevant to this site

are presented in the table below.

Vol 24 Table 4.3.1 Air quality and odour stakeholder engagement

Organisation Comment Response

LB ofLewisham

Idling of constructionvehicle and plant must notbe allowed at sites in LB ofLewisham.

Idling will also be dealtwith through the CoCP.

LB ofLewisham

Monitoring locations Locations agreed withSenior Air Quality Officer.

Odour complaints No odour complaintsmade to LB of Lewishamnear Earl Pumping Stationin recent years; confirmedby Environmental.Protection Officer.

Baseline

4.3.2 The baseline methodology follows the standard methodology described inVolume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.

Construction4.3.3 The construction phase 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 methodology follows the standard methodologydescribed in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.

Assumptions and limitations

4.3.5 It has been assumed that background odour concentrations are negligible

as there have been few complaints recorded in the surrounding area overrecent years. This assumption will be supported by baseline hydrogensulphide monitoring currently being undertaken at all sites (in August 2011with repeat monitoring to be undertaken in autumn 2011).

4.4 Baseline conditions

Local air quality

Pollutant concentrations

4.4.1 The current conditions with regard to local air quality are best established

through long-term air quality monitoring.


37/307



4.4.2 As part of their duties under Part IV of the Environment Act 1995, localauthorities, especially in urban areas where air quality is a significantissue, undertake long-term air quality monitoring within their administrativeareas.

4.4.3 There is one continuous monitoring station and five diffusion tubes whichcollect data pertinent to the Earl Pumping Station site and associatedconstruction traffic routes. The continuous monitoring station and four ofthe diffusion tube sites are operated by LB of Lewisham while one of thediffusion tube sites is located in LB of Greenwich.

4.4.4 As LB of Lewishams NO2 diffusion tube monitoring was only set up at thebeginning of 2011, no data are currently available for the four diffusiontube sites. Monitoring data for the LB of Greenwich diffusion tube siteand continuous monitoring site are contained in Vol 24 Table 4.4.1 (NO2concentrations) and Vol 24 Table 4.4.2 (PM10 concentrations). It is notedthat only PM10 monitoring is undertaken at the continuous monitoring site.

Vol 24 Table 4.4.1 Air quality - measured NO2 concentrations

MonitoringSite

SiteType

Annual Mean (g/m3) Number of Exceedancesof Hourly Standard

2010* 2009 2008 2007 2010* 2009 2008 2007

Greenwich(GW43)

Roadside41 59 58 62 NM NM NM NM

* 2010 data not fully ratified. NM indicates not measured.Emboldened figures indicate an exceedance of the objective / limit value which is40g/m

3for the annual mean and 200g/m

3for the hourly mean which can be exceeded

18 times per year.

4.4.5 The NO2 monitoring in 2010 at GW43 indicates a slight exceedance of theannual mean NO2 standard (40g/m

3). The previous three years alsoindicate exceedances of the annual mean standard.

Vol 24 Table 4.4.2 Air quality - measured PM10 concentrations

MonitoringSite

SiteType

Annual Mean (g/m3) Number of Exceedancesof Daily Standard

2010* 2009 2008 2007 2010* 2009 2008 2007

Mercury WayLW3

Industrial23 NM NM NM 44+ NM NM NM

* 2010 data not fully ratified. +As annual data capture is only 72%, the 90th

percentile forthe purpose of assessing against the daily mean, has been presented instead of thenumber of exceedances.Embolden figures indicate an exceedance of the objective/ limit value which is 40g/m

3

for the annual mean and 50g/m3

for the daily mean which can be exceeded 35 times peryear.

4.4.6 The PM10 monitoring shown above indicates that the annual meanstandard (40g/m3) was not exceeded in 2010. The daily objective (more

than 35 exceedances of the daily standard) was exceeded in 2010,


38/307



although it is noted that this is based on a limited data set (72% datacapture for 2010).

4.4.7 As a result of previous exceedances of air quality objectives, LB ofLewisham has declared five Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) forNO2 and PM10. The AQMAs consist of four large AQMAs to the north ofthe Borough and a series of ribbon roads to the south. Earl PumpingStation is located within AQMA 1.

4.4.8 The site is close to the boundaries with the LB of Greenwich and the LB ofSouthwark. Both have declared AQMAs for NO2 and PM10 - LB ofGreenwich has declared the whole Borough and LB of Southwark hasdeclared most of the Borough.

4.4.9 In addition to the local authority monitoring, diffusion tube monitoring hasbeen set up as part of the project to monitor NO2 concentrations in thevicinity of the site. This monitoring comprises seven diffusion tubesbased at the locations detailed in Vol 24 Table 4.4.3. A triplicate site hasbeen established next to a continuous monitoring station in Putney for biasadjustment purposes; otherwise all the monitoring locations have singletubes. All identified existing and new sites relating to the Earl PumpingStation site (as well as other sites where they are in close proximity) areshown in Vol 24 Figure 4.4.1.

Vol 24 Figure 4.4.1 Air quality monitoring locations

(see Volume 24 Figures document)

Vol 24 Table 4.4.3 Air quality - additional air quality monitoringlocations

Monitoring Site Grid Reference

A200 Lower Road (1) (Earl 1) 535520, 179069

A200 Lower Road (2) (Earl 2) 535706, 178931

A200 Bush Road (Earl 3) 535828, 178708

B206 Plough Way (Earl 4) 535991, 178863

A200 Lower Road (3) (Earl 5) 535912, 178707

Chilton Grove (Earl 6) 536083, 178811

A200 Evelyn Street (Earl 7) 536111, 178541

4.4.10 This monitoring will be used in conjunction with existing local authoritymonitoring to provide the baseline situation and also provide input tomodel verification. A full baseline will be reported in the ES.

4.4.11 In addition to monitoring data, an indication of baseline pollutantconcentrations in the vicinity of the site can also be obtained from lookingat background data on the air quality section of the Defra website wheremapped background pollutant concentrations are available for each 1kmby 1km grid square within every local authoritys administrative area for

the years 2008 to 20201. The background data relating to the EarlPumping Station site are given in the table below for 2010 (baseline year).


39/307


40/307


41/307



emission factors from the introduction of Euro 6 diesel vehicles in thefuture and an ongoing tightening of Euro standards for petrol enginevehicles will reduce the base case concentrations when compared to the2010 baseline.

4.5.4 Other emissions sources should also reduce due to local and nationalpolicies. Therefore, the non-road sources of the backgroundconcentrations used in the modelling will be reduced in line with Defraguidance LAQM.TG(09)4

4.5.5 The base case will also consider new sensitive receptors associated withthe Cannon Wharf development as identified in the receptor description inSection

.

4.4. The local air quality assessment does not specificallyconsider the Marine Wharf West and East developments (see Section 3.5)as the developments are further from the site than other assessedresidential receptors.

Assessment area4.5.6 The assessment area for the local air quality study covers a square area

of 600m by 600m centred on the site. This assessment area is used forthe assessment of road transport, construction plant and construction dustand has been selected on the basis of professional judgement to ensurethat the effects of the proposed development are fully assessed. Adistance of 200m is generally considered sufficient to ensure that anysignificant effects are considered the selected assessment area exceedsthis by some margin.

Construction effects

Emissions from road traffic

4.5.7 Road traffic is likely to affect local air quality in two ways: from emissionsfrom the construction traffic; and from enhanced emissions from otherroad vehicles due to congestion or re-routing due to lane closures.

4.5.8 A qualitative assessment of road traffic effects has been undertaken.When traffic surveys are complete, a more detailed quantitativeassessment using air quality modelling will be undertaken, the findings ofwhich will be reported in the ES.

4.5.9 Based on professional judgement, the impacts due to construction traffic

are expected to be small (ie, small magnitude of change according to thecriteria detailed in Volume 5) due to the low number of additional lorriesduring construction. The greatest impacts are likely to be during laneclosures.

4.5.10 Given that the residential properties (existing and proposed) have a highsensitivity to local air quality (as identified in Section 4.4), the likelysignificance of the effect of construction traffic is a minor adverse effect.At the commercial and industrial receptors, which have a low sensitivity tolocal air quality, the significance of effect would be negligible.


42/307


43/307


44/307



accordance with the criteria detailed in Volume 5. Vol 24 Table 4.6.2gives similar results for the predicted impacts at the worst affectedbuildings, where concentrations at ground level and at height have beenconsidered.

Vol 24 Table 4.6.1 Odour impacts at ground level - operation

Year Maximum at ground levellocations*

Impact magnitudeand justification

Typical 98t percentile

(ouE/m3)

0 Negligible

98th percentileconcentration is lessthan 1ouE/m

3

No. of hours >1.5ouE/m

39

* beyond the site boundary

Vol 24 Table 4.6.2 Odour impacts at buildings - operation

Year Maximum at buildings Impact magnitudeand justification

Typical 98th percentile(ouE/m

3)0 Negligible

98th percentileconcentration is lessthan 1ouE/m

3No. of hours >1.5ouE/m

32

4.6.5 In both Vol 24 Table 4.6.1 and Vol 24 Table 4.6.2, the 98th percentile isshown as zero as the number of hours with air released from the ventwould be less than 176 and therefore the 98th percentile concentrationwould be zero at all locations, thus achieving the odour criterion at alllocations. This represents an impact of negligible magnitude.

4.6.6 Beyond the site boundary, the highest concentrations are predicted tooccur to the west of the site in Croft Street where odour would be above1.5ouE/m

3 for nine hours in the year. In terms of residential properties(high sensitivity), the flats on the western side of Croft Street and south ofChilton Grove are predicted to have the two hours of odour above thislevel in the year.

4.6.7 With regard to the significance of effects at ground level and building

locations, given that the predicted odour concentrations at all locationsand at buildings do not exceed the 98th percentile criterion of 1.5ouE/m3, it

is considered that an overall significance effects would be negligible inrelation to the Earl Pumping Station site. No significant effects aretherefore predicted in relation to odour.

4.7 Approach to mitigation

Construction

4.7.1 All environmental design measures embedded in the draft CoCP ofrelevance to air quality and odour are summarised in Section 4.2. No

mitigation is required.


45/307


46/307


47/307


48/307

Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Section 5: Ecology - aquatic


5 Ecology - aquatic

5.1 Introduction

5.1.1 This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of thelikely significant aquatic ecology effects at the Earl Pumping Station site.For the purposes of the assessment of the Thames Tunnel project aquaticecology includes plants and animals that live in and depend on the tidalRiver Thames and its tidal tributaries (known collectively as the ThamesTideway). The topic includes the habitats, mammals, fish, invertebratesand algae which occur in the Thames Tideway in the vicinity of the site.

5.1.2 Animals, plants and habitats which occur above the mean high water levelare assessed in the Terrestrial Ecology chapter (Section 6). Waterfowl,including those which occur on the Thames Tideway are also includedunder Terrestrial Ecology. Further details of the scope of the assessmentare provided in Volume 5.

5.1.3 This assessment considers the operational improvements on water qualityon aquatic ecology receptors in the Thames Tideway as a result of theCSO interception. There would be no in river works associated with thissite, which is located 600m inland from the River Thames.

5.2 Proposed development

5.2.1 The proposed development is described in Section 1 of this volume. Theelements of the proposed development relevant to aquatic ecology are asfollows.

Construction5.2.2 There would be no in river works associated with this site. No further

consideration of the impacts associated with construction is thereforerelevant for aquatic ecology.

Operation

5.2.3 The Earl Storm Relief sewer currently discharges into the River Thamessouth of South Dock and Greenland Dock on the boundary of Southwarkand Lewisham Boroughs. The sewer would be intercepted at EarlPumping Station as part of the proposed development. Based on thebase case (which includes permitted Thames Tideway sewage treatmentworks upgrades, and the Lee Tunnel project, as well as projectedpopulation increases) discharges from this CSO are anticipated to be593,900m3 per annum over a total of 30 discharge events (or spills) by2021. The discharge is projected to reduce to 50,500m3 per annum over atotal of 4 discharge events once the Thames Tideway project, includingthe Thames Tunnel, is operational. Further information about projectedchanges in discharge as a result of the project are presented in Volume 2.

5.2.4 Improvements in water quality are anticipated both in the local areaaround the discharge point for Earl Pumping Station CSO and in the widerThames Tideway. The assessment of operational impacts on the Thames

Tideway as a whole are contained within Volume 6: Project-wide. Water


49/307


50/307



water snail, Pseudamnicola confusa, and an important assemblage ofwetland and wading birds.

Greenland Dock SBI

5.4.3 Details of this SBI will be provided in the ES.

5.4.4 The London Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) includes a Habitat Action Plan(HAP) for the Thames Tideway which identifies a series of target habitatsand species. The HAP divides the river into the zones; freshwater,brackish and marine. The Earl Storm Relief discharge is in the brackishzone.

5.4.5 London Borough of Lewisham also has a Habitat Action Plan for rivers.

Fish

5.4.6 The Environment Agency carry out annual surveys for fish within theThames Tideway using a variety of methods including trawling and seine

netting, with data available over 18 years from 1992 to 2010. The nearestsampling site to the Earl Storm Relief discharge is Greenwich.

5.4.7 A range of freshwater and estuarine resident fish species were recorded atthis site over the 18 year period, including bass, bream, dace, roach,flounder, thin lipped grey mullet, smelt, sand smelt and eels. Only smallnumbers of fish (10-30 individuals for all species) were recorded duringeach sampling visit throughout the period. All of these species arewidespread in the Thames Tideway, with freshwater species such asroach and bream most frequent in the upper Tideway, and estuarineresidents such as sand smelt and flounder common in the lower Tideway.

The species age classes represented most widely in the data sets aredace (range of age classes), flounder (0+,1+, ie, 0 -1 year old, and 1-2year old fish), bream (range of age classes), roach (range of age classes),smelt (0+,1+), gobies (0+), thin-lipped grey mullet, eels.

Mammals

5.4.8 Records compiled by the Zoological Society of London for 2003 2011indicate that harbour porpoise, bottlenose dolphin and various sealspecies migrate through the Tideway. No specific habitat of value formarine mammals is believed to occur within the vicinity of the site.

Invertebrates5.4.9 The Environment Agency samples are taken using a number of

techniques, including cores and kick sampling in the intertidal and daygrab and core samples in the subtidal.

5.4.10 A total of 35 taxa were recorded at Greenwich over the seven year periodin which samples were collected. Oligochaeta worms, which are oftenused as an indicator of organic pollution, were most abundant, togetherwith other pollution tolerant species such as the snail Potamopyrgusantipodarum and many species of polychaeta worms. The shrimpGammarus zaddachi was also common.

5.4.11 In addition to the native G. zaddachi, the amphipod G. tigrinus, of NorthAmerican origin, was also relatively abundant in samples taken at


51/307



Greenwich. It is believed that this species arrived in English waters viaballast water from ships. It lives in fresh and brackish waters and canexpand rapidly, outcompeting local amphipods. However, based onavailable data, it appears to be much less abundant than the nativeGammarus zaddachi within the Tideway.

5.4.12 The majority of taxa present at Greenwich are brackish species, withvarying tolerance of different levels of salinity from estuarine to nearfreshwater. However, the increasing saline influence compared toupstream sites is demonstrated by the abundance of Lekanesphaerahookeri (a water louse) and various polychaete worms (notablyBoccardiella ligerica and Marenzelleria viridis), which are exclusivelyassociated with estuarine or marine conditions.

5.4.13 The Community Conservation Index (CCI) score (Chadd and Extence,20047) has initially been used to identify species of nature conservationimportance. CCI classifies many groups of invertebrates of inland waters

according to their scarcity and conservationvalue in Great Britain andrelates closely to the Red Data Book (RDB)8,9

5.4.14 The only species identified as being of high nature conservationimportance was Acorophium lacustre (CCI 8), an amphipod, or mudshrimp. It is a RDB species and was present in subtidal samples. Despiteits RDB status, Acorophium lacustre is highly abundant throughout thetideway.

.

Algae

5.4.15 Existing algae data has been requested and will be assessed and reported

in the ES.

Aquatic ecology receptor values and sensitivities

5.4.16 Using the baseline set out above the value accorded to each receptorconsidered in this assessment is set out in the table below. Thedefinitions of the receptor values and sensitivities used in this evaluationare set out in Volume 5.

Vol 24 Table 5.4.1 Aquatic ecology receptors

Receptor Value/sensitivity and justification

Foreshore habitat (includingintertidal and subtidal habitat) Medium (Metropolitan) value.Habitats form part of a Site ofMetropolitan Importance.

Fish Medium (Metropolitan) value basedon relatively high diversity offreshwater and estuarine species.

Invertebrates Low-Medium (Borough) value dueto the predominance of pollution-tolerant species.

Mammals Low (Local) value. Only occasional

records of seal and harbourporpoise exist from the area and


52/307



Receptor Value/sensitivity and justification

very little intertidal habitat isavailable for use as a haul out siteby seals.

Algae To be assessed following receipt ofbaseline data.

5.5 Construction assessment

5.5.1 As stated in para. 5.2.2, there are no in-river works associated with thissite and thus no significant construction phase effects on aquatic ecologyare anticipated. Therefore the construction phase has not been assessed.

5.6 Operational assessment

Operational Impacts

5.6.1 The likely impacts arising from operation of the project at this site would belarge reduction in the volume of sewage effluent discharged from theCSO.

5.6.2 These impacts are described below. The definitions of the differentmagnitudes of impact referred to in this assessment are given in Volume5.

Reduction in the volume sewage effluent discharged from the CSO.

5.6.3 Discharges from the Earl Storm Relief CSO are anticipated to haveincreased to 593,900m3 per annum by 2021. The discharge is projected

to reduce to 50,500m3 once the Thames Tideway project, including theThames Tunnel, is operational.

5.6.4 This would result in localised improvements in water quality, and acontribution to Thames Tideway wide improvements, as outlined in para.5.2.4. Water quality improvements would consist of increases in dissolvedoxygen concentrations, reduction in microbial activity (known asbiochemical oxygen demand (BOD)) and suspended solids, and areduction in sewage debris.

5.6.5 The magnitude of the impact is considered to be medium beneficial, and tobe probable and permanent. Impact magnitudes will be reviewed in light

of the updated water quality modelling data and reported in the ES.

Vol 24 Table 5.6.1 Aquatic ecology impacts - operation

Impact Magnitude

Improvement of local water qualitythrough CSO interception.

Medium positive impactPermanent.Probable.

Operational effects

5.6.6 The effects are described below for each individual receptor. The way inwhich the magnitude and reversibility of each impact has been combined


53/307


54/307



Increase in the distribution of pollution sensitive fish species.

5.6.12 The Tideway supports a number of rare fish species including salmon, seatrout and twaite shad and river lamprey. A number of factors limit thecolonisation of habitats by these species, including salinity, substrate typeand current, but pollution is known to be a significant factor in determiningcolonisation10

5.6.13 Changes in the diversity of fish communities, including recruitment of moresensitive species is a process which would occur at a wider scale, and willbe assessed in Volume 6 (Project-wide). As described in para.

.

5.6.5, theimpact is considered to be medium beneficial, and the value of thereceptors is medium, the effect is considered to be negligible in the shortterm (Year 1 of operation), increasing to moderate beneficial in Year 6 ofoperation.

Invertebrates

Localised improvements invertebrate diversity and abundance.5.6.14 As well as causing low dissolved oxygen events, untreated sewage

effluent contains nutrients which cause enrichment of the water columnand sediments in the river. Excessive nutrient enrichment causesphenomenon such as algal blooms, and is known as eutrophication. Suchenrichment tends to favour a small number of pollution tolerant species atthe expense of a wider range of pollution sensitive species. For example,certain species of Oligochaete worm are indicative of polluted conditionsbecause they are able to tolerate the low dissolved oxygen conditions andmultiply rapidly in the enriched sediments.

5.6.15 By intercepting the CSO the source of sewage related nutrients would becut off and the sediments in the vicinity of the outfall would begin to returnto a more natural state. As nutrients reduce in concentration a widerrange of invertebrate species, including more pollution sensitive speciessuch as the river neretid (Theodoxus fluviatilis) would begin to colonise thesediments. The effect is considered to be negligible in Year 1 ofoperation, rising to minor beneficial in Year 6 of operation.

Increase in the distribution of rare and pollution sensitiveinvertebrate species.

5.6.16 The Thames Tideway currently supports a small number of rare

invertebrate species including swollen spire snail and tentacled lagoonworm. A number of factors limit the colonisation of habitats by thesespecies, including salinity, substrate type and current, but pollution isknown to be a significant factor in determining colonisation. Improvingwater and sediment quality would facilitate the spread of those pollutionsensitive species which are currently being impeded by poor water andsediment quality.

5.6.17 Effects on invertebrates diversity are considered to be negligible in Year 1of operation, increasing to minor beneficial by Year 6 of operation.


55/307


56/307


57/307


58/307


59/307

Volume 24: Earl Pumping Station Section 6: Ecology - terrestrial


protected by specific legislation, approved guidance would be followed,appropriate mitigation would be proposed and any necessary licences orconsents obtained.

6.2.3 Measures not specifically outlined under the ecology section of the draftCoCP are also of relevance, for example the management of noise andvibration, and water resources.

6.3 Assessment methodology

Scoping and engagement

6.3.1 Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement processwhich has been undertaken. All consultee comments relevant to this siterelating to terrestrial ecology are presented in the table below.

Vol 24 Table 6.3.1 Terrestrial ecology stakeholder comments

Organisation Comment Response

LondonBorough ofLewisham

Scoping response: In termsof ecology, there has beenno proper examination ofthat beyond the site itself,bearing in mind that theresidential properties reargardens may well containspecies such as nestingbirds which would beaffected by the construction

works.

The surrounding area hasbeen considered in theassessment. Theembedded CoCPmeasures for visualdisturbance and noisewould ensure that effectson nesting birds would benegligible and thesereceptors have now been

scoped out.

Baseline

6.3.2 The baseline data collection follows the methodology detailed in Volume 5.Baseline data presented within this assessment is derived from desk studyand Phase 1 Habitat Survey data. Following the Phase 1 survey, it wasfound that a further survey needs to be carried out for invasive speciesonly which will be reported in the ES.

6.3.3 In summary the following baseline data has been collated and ispresented in this volume:

a. Desk study including data base searches (for ecological records withina 2km radius from the site boundary, which is the industry standard),web-based searches and review of existing available documents inrelation to protected and notable species and habitats. Desk studydata within 500m of the site are reported here as the works areunlikely to affect species and designated sites beyond this distance.Records dated prior to 2000 have not been included as the informationsince this date provides the most appropriate data to assess the sitebaseline conditions

b. Phase 1 Habitat Survey undertaken on 25th November 2010 followingthe Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) Standard Phase 1Habitat Survey Methodology, 2010. The survey included the site and


60/307



any adjacent habitat considered, using professional judgement, to bepotentially affected by the proposed works.

6.3.4 Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica) mapping survey of the site andwithin 10m of the site has also been undertaken during spring 2011 andthe results will be reported in the ES.

6.3.5 No other species surveys have been identified as being required followingthe desk study and Phase 1 Habitat Survey.

Construction

6.3.6 The construction phase assessment methodology follows the standardmethodology provided in Volume 5 and is based on IEEM. Guidelines forEcological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom. Institute of Ecologyand Environmental Management (2006)11

6.3.7 The following ecological receptors are included in the assessment:

. This is the industry standardfor Ecological Impact Assessment. This method assesses the value ofecological receptors and significance of effects using a geographical frame

of reference. The effects are either not significant or significant at aparticular geographical scale.

a. Habitats

b. Breeding birds

c. Black redstart

6.3.8 Three designated sites have been identified within 500m of the site. Dueto the localised nature of the proposed works and the isolation of the

designated sites from the proposed works, no effects have been identified.Therefore, the designated sites outlined in para. 6.4.3 are not consideredfurther in the assessment.

6.3.9 The potential presence of Japanese knotweed noted in para. 6.3.4 is notconsidered within the assessment as measures to eradicate and controlthis, and other invasive species, prior to construction commencing arecontained within the CoCP (see paras.6.2.1 - 6.2.3). The findings of themapping survey will be reported in the ES.

6.3.10 As contaminated runoff and atmospheric pollution will be controlledthrough the implementation of the CoCP, no likely significant effects are

anticipated on ecological receptors. Therefore, this is not considered anyfurther in the assessment.

6.3.11 The assessment year for construction is the start of site preparation worksat the start of the construction phase (Year 1 of construction). This islikely to be the peak year for impacts on terrestrial ecology as this is wheninitial site clearance would occur.

6.3.12 Assuming that the site and any nearby designated sites would continue tobe managed as they are at present then the base case is considered to bethe same as the current baseline conditions as described in Section 6.4.


61/307



Assumptions and limitations

6.3.13 It is assumed for the purposes of assessment that the current sitemanagement regime of the Earl Pumping Station site would continue. Theassessment assumes that the measures within the draft CoCP would beimplemented as part of the development. All surveys have and will beundertaken at appropriate times of the year. No other site specificlimitations or assumptions have been identified.

6.4 Baseline conditions

6.4.1 The following section sets out the baseline conditions for terrestrialecology receptors at the site and surrounds, including their value.

Designated sites

On site

6.4.2 There are no designated sites on the site.

Surrounding area

6.4.3 The following designated sites were identified within 500m of the site:

a. Earl Pumping Station lies approximately 80m north west ofRainsborough Avenue Embankments SINC (Grade L i

b. Greenland Dock SINC (Grade B

). This sitecomprises a series of narrow, former railway embankments, with birchBetulasp. woodland, scrub and flower-rich acid grassland. This isconsidered to be of local (low) value.

ii

c. Russia Dock Woodland SINC (Grade B

) an area of open water located inRotherhithe, is located approximately 180m north of Earl PumpingStation. This is considered to be of district (medium) value.

ii) is located approximately480m north of Earl Pumping Station. It comprises a long narrow parkin Rotherhithe, London, created by the infilling of one of the formerSurrey Commercial Docks and planted as a 34.5-acre (140,000m2)woodland in 1980. This is considered to be of district (LondonBorough) (medium) value.

6.4.4 These are not considered further in the assessment due to their lack ofecological connectivity from the site and the localised nature of the works

at the Earl Pumping Station site, as outlined in para. 6.3.8.Habitats

6.4.5 The habitats recorded within the survey area during the Phase 1 HabitatSurvey undertaken are detailed in the table below and shown on Vol 24Figure 6.4.1. Target notes (TN#) are indicated on this figure and arereferred to within the text below.

Vol 24 Figure 6.4.1 Terrestrial ecology Phase 1 Habitat Survey

(see Volume 24 Figures document)

i SINC (Grade L) = Site of Nature Conservation Importance (Grade I of Local importance)

ii SINC (Grade B) = Site of Nature Conservation Importance (Grade B of Borough importance)


62/307


63/307



highly urban setting with limited semi-natural vegetation in the locality.Therefore, the trees adjacent to the site are considered to be of local (low)value.

Notable species

Breeding birds

On site

6.4.9 Desk study data of notable species indicated no records specific to thesite.

6.4.10 Few nesting or foraging opportunities for birds are present on the siteitself. Birds may use the scrub, scattered trees and/or buildings fornesting purposes and are likely to comprise species common to the areabut may i

peir main report vol24 earl pumping station

Documents