Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/177144255/110-RG-PNC-S72HF-000618
Timestamp: 2017-04-26 11:11:48
Document Index: 598741766

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 1']

110-RG-PNC-S72HF-000618
ScribdBrowseInterestsPolitics & Current AffairsCareer & MoneyPersonal GrowthFictionHealth & FitnessLifestyleEntertainmentBiographies & HistoryScience & TechBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoin110-RG-PNC-S72HF-000618Uploaded by thamestunnel0.0 (0)DownloadEmbedView MoreCopyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentAutumn 2011Site suitability report S72HF
Fulham Depot, next to Wandsworth Bridge, Townmead Road
110-RG-PNC-S72HF-000618 | Autumn 2011
Site suitability report S72HF
Site suitability report S72HF Fulham Depot, next to Wandsworth Bridge, Townmead Road
Following phase one consultation, a ‘back-check’ process was carried out for all the main tunnel sites in main tunnel zone S1-4. As part of this process, this site suitability report was reviewed by all disciplines (engineering, planning, environment, community and property), but the text was not updated. The overall conclusions reached in Section 10 did not change in any significant manner. It should be noted that the conclusions in Section 10, along with comments below, are drawn from each discipline’s assessment, and are designed to inform the workshop where a final conclusion is reached on whether the site can be taken forward as a potential preferred site, subject to its fit with possible tunnelling drive strategies for the main tunnel. General observations by disciplines are as follows: • • Engineering – There are no significant factors that would alter the conclusion for a reception/intermediate site, so it remains unchanged as suitable. Planning – The current planning policy context for the site is provided from the saved September 2007 policies from the Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan, adopted August 2003. Several planning designations and policies from this development plan are applicable to the site. Policies from the emerging Core Strategy are also applicable and this plan is expected to be formally adopted by the council in October 2011. Due to the advanced stage of the LDF documents, we consider the policies within the emerging development plan documents to be of material weight. The site is designated within the wider South Fulham Riverside regeneration area, which has ambitious housing and job targets. The temporary use of the site is not expected to cause detriment to the delivery of these regeneration aims, and consideration of the shaft location and permanent structures, in close discussion with the council and landowners, will be necessary. The emerging Core Strategy Policy SFR and South Fulham Riverside draft SPD is relevant to this site. In terms of regional policy, reference is made to the adopted London Plan (July 2011). These policies’ changes do not alter the conclusions for this site from a planning point of view, so it remains unchanged as suitable. • • • Environment – There are no significant factors that would alter the conclusions for a reception/intermediate site, so it remains unchanged as suitable. Community – There are no significant factors that would alter the conclusions for a reception/intermediate site, so it remains unchanged as suitable. Property – There are no significant factors that would alter the conclusions for a reception/intermediate site, so it remains unchanged as suitable.
In terms of the next steps in the site selection process, it should be noted at this point in the process that the above conclusions do not represent an overall recommendation on the suitability of a site. The disciplines discuss their site suitability report conclusions at optioneering workshops, along with main tunnel drive strategy options. Therefore, a preferred site can only be identified through a series of
main tunnel option comparisons. The outcome of this two-step process (sites and then drive option comparisons) is set out in the Phase two scheme development report. In this case, the site remains shortlisted as a main tunnel reception/ intermediate site. Site Suitability Report S72HF, Fulham Depot, next to Wandsworth Bridge, Townmead Road, (document number 100-RG-PNC-S72HF-90001), Spring 2010, is attached as Appendix A. The introduction in the attachment has been superseded by the following section and this should be read in preference.
Introduction Purpose and structure of the report
The Site selection methodology paper (May 2009 and revised August 2011) a outlines the process to be used to create the preferred list of main tunnel sites, and this process also applies to CSO sites. Paragraph 2.3.31 lists the type of general considerations that will be addressed in each site suitability report. Whether a consideration is relevant to the assessment of a site will depend on available information and professional judgement. This report was prepared through the assessment of information from the perspective of a number of technical disciplines: engineering, planning, environment, property and community. The reports have been prepared on the basis of the information listed in Appendix 1 and this level of information is considered to be appropriate to this stage of assessment. The Site selection background technical paper provides information on the requirements for different types of sites, their sizes and typical activities/ facilities within the sites. Each site suitability report considers a particular site on its own merits. In addition, an Engineering options report was produced, which relates to main tunnel and connection tunnel options. Information from both of these reports will feed into the technical assessment of how well the site may fit in with tunnel design options, ensuring combinations of sites spread across the length of the tunnel route provide a reasonable spatial distribution of sites (that will best assist with the construction of the tunnel, operation and maintenance). The outcomes are reported in the Phase two scheme development report.
The process for selecting sites is set out in the Site selection methodology paper. All sites have previously passed through the following parts of Stage 1: • • Part 1A – Creation of the long list of potential main tunnel (and CSO) sites Part 1B – Creation of a short list of potential main tunnel (and CSO) sites o o o Table 2.2: Long list of main tunnel (and CSO) sites – an assessment against set considerations and values Table 2.3: Draft short list of main tunnel (and CSO) sites – assessment against a list of more detailed considerations Workshops to consider each site to arrive at a short list of sites.
The amendments made in August 2011 do not change the site selection methodology process. The amendments only related to the introduction of a second phase of consultation (paragraphs 2.3.13-2.4.15) and minor factual updates.
Site suitability report S72HF 1.2.2 The final part of Stage 1 includes this report. The following is an overall summary of all elements that apply to all the sites on the final short list: • Part 1C – Creation of the preferred list of main tunnel (and CSO) sites – site data, site visits, site suitability reports, engineering options report and optioneering workshops that are reported in the Phase two scheme development report.
The Site selection methodology paper also contains a provision for a back-check process in paragraph 2.5.6 that states: “If any sites for any of the main tunnel sites or intermediate sites (or CSO site) are eliminated for any reason, if there are significant changes of circumstances in relation to existing sites or combinations of sites, if new or replacement sites are required or found or if the engineering design develops in unexpected ways then a targeted repeat of stages 1-3 will need to be undertaken in order to fill in any site gaps.”
Thames Water’s approach to engagement and consultation for the Thames Tunnel project is outlined in the Statement of Community Consultation and the accompanying Community Consultation Strategy. Thames Water has engaged regularly with all potentially affected London local authorities, other stakeholders and interested parties on sites and the project. Phase one consultation has been completed for all the preferred and shortlisted sites along with the three main tunnel route options. The analysis of the consultation responses is set out in the Report on phase one consultation and Interim engagement report. Any relevant site comments were considered at the post phase one consultation optioneering workshops. The outcomes of these workshops are reported in the Phase two scheme development report. After the workshops, engagement on sites has continued with key stakeholders, and the engineering design for sites has also continued in parallel. In autumn 2011, phase two consultation will provide another opportunity for people to comment on sites.
Site suitability report S72HF – Appendix A
Appendix A – Site suitability report S72HF Spring 2010
100-RG-PNC-S72HF-900001 | Spring 2010
Page Number 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 1.2 1.3 2 Purpose and structure of the report Background Consultation 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 11
ENVIRONMENTAL APPRAISAL 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 7.10 Introduction Transport Archaeology Built heritage and townscape Water resources – hydrogeology and surface water Ecology Flood risk Air quality Noise Land quality
PROPERTY ASSESSMENT 9.1 9.2 Introduction Crown Land and Special Land comments
100-RG-PNC-S72HF-900001.doc
9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 10
Land to be acquired Property valuation comments Disturbance compensation comments Offsite statutory compensation comments Site acquisition cost assessment
11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 13 14
INTRODUCTION Purpose and structure of the report The Site Selection Methodology (May 2009) paper (paragraphs 2.3.29 - 2.3.34) outlines the process to be used to create the preferred list of shaft sites, and this process also applies to CSO sites. Paragraph 2.3.31 lists the type of general considerations that will be addressed in each site suitability report, but they depend on the relevance to the site and professional judgement made in the assessments. This report was prepared through the assessment of information from the perspective of a number of technical disciplines: Engineering, Planning, Environment, Property and Community. The reports have been prepared on the basis of the information listed in Appendix 1 - Sources of Information, and this level of information is considered to be appropriate to the current stage. The Background Technical Paper provides information on the requirements for different site types, their sizes and typical activities/facilities within the sites. Each site suitability report considers a particular site on its own merits. In addition, an engineering options report was produced. Information from both of these reports will feed into the technical assessment of how well the site may fit in with tunnel design options, ensuring combinations of sites spread across the length of the tunnel route provide a reasonable spatial distribution of sites (that will best assist with the construction of the tunnel, operation and maintenance). This is considered in the Preferred Scheme Report. Background The process for selecting sites is set out in the Site Selection Methodology (May 2009) paper. All sites have previously passed through the following parts of Stage 1: Part 1A - Creation of the long list of potential shaft (and CSO) sites Part 1B - Creation of a short list of potential shaft (and CSO) sites o o o Table 2.2: Long list of shaft (and CSO) sites - an assessment against set considerations and values Table 2.3: Draft short list of shaft (and CSO) sites - assessment against a list of detailed considerations Workshops to consider each site to arrive at a short list of sites.
The final part of Stage 1 includes this report. The following is an overall summary of all elements that apply to all the sites on the final short list: Part 1C - Creation of the Preferred List of shaft (and CSO) sites - site data, site visits, site suitability reports, engineering options report and optioneering workshops that will result in the Preferred Scheme Report.
SITE INFORMATION Site and surroundings This section provides an overview of all the site information that will be used by one or more disciplines to assess the site in sections 3 to 9 of this report. The site S72HF covers sites known as Swedish Wharf, Comley Wharf and Albert Wharf, located in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. Existing access to the site is taken from Townmead Road and Wandsworth Bridge. A site location plan is enclosed at Appendix 2. The site is covered in a mix of industrial buildings, warehouses, a motor car auction business and a company known as Fuel Oils Ltd and its associated oil tanks. The surrounding area is characterised by a mix of large warehouses, retail units, a supermarket and residential properties. The site is bounded to the north by Townmead Road, which is a single carriageway that separates the site from two- to seven-storey residential flats and terraced properties. The site is bounded to the east by a number of large industrial warehouse buildings on a site known as Fulham Wharf. The site is bounded to the south by the Thames Path and River Thames, and to the west by Wandsworth Bridge. Beyond Wandsworth Bridge, further west are two large retail units, currently occupied by Currys and PC World, and their associated car parking facilities. The boundary of the temporary shaft working area is proposed within approximately 50 metres of the front facade of residential flats located along Townmead Road, to the north of the site. The site is covered by various planning and environment designations in the Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan, adopted August 2003, and the Consolidated London Plan, adopted February 2008. All the mapped designations are shown on the planning and environment plans in Appendix 3. Photographs of the site and surroundings, together with an aerial photograph of the site, are attached as Appendix 4. Road access to the site is from Townmead Road. There is no rail network local to the site. Wandsworth Town rail station is about 1km from the site. Clapham Junction is also about 1km away. There are existing wharfage facilities at the site, serving Swedish Wharf, Albert Wharf and Comley Wharf (the three together form the site). A transport plan for the site is attached as Appendix 5. Third-party assets and significant utilities are listed below and are shown on the services and geology plan in Appendix 6: Wandsworth Bridge at the outside western edge of the site CEMEX cement yard building, seven-storey office building at the northern quarter of the site Hurlingham Retail Park (one- to two-storey buildings with a large footprint) at the outer western part of the site 1-26 Dwyer House, seven-storey building, at the outer northern part of the site Two electrical substations: one at the north-eastern part of the site, the other at the eastern part of the site One well potentially within the site River wall.
2.1.10 The locations of other third-party assets, such as BT and fibre optic communication cables, are to be confirmed by further studies and utility searches and may not be shown on the services and geology plan.
2.1.11 Information on the geology specific to this site can be found within the services and geology plan, which is in Appendix 6. This plan shows that the shaft would be founded in London Clay. 2.1.12 It is understood that the National Grid is planning to build a cable tunnel, which would run through the outside northern part of the site. If this site is selected, there would be dialogue with National Grid to consider matters if applicable, such as timing, engineering constraints, cumulative effects of the projects, potential for site sharing, etc. 2.2 2.2.1 3 3.1.1 3.1.2 Type of site The site S72HF is being considered as an intermediate shaft site. PROPOSED USE OF SITE – CONSTRUCTION PHASE The proposed construction phase layouts for the shaft sites are located in Appendix 7 – Construction Phase Layout, and are based on a preliminary assessment. The construction phase layout drawings are illustrative and show: the layout as an intermediate shaft site potential access point. 3.1.3 These drawings provide initial preliminary schematic layouts that have not been optimised. If the site proceeds to the next stage as a preferred site, construction phase layouts would be optimised to minimise impacts. Drawings of typical activities associated with the shaft construction phase are provided in Appendix 7. Potential above ground construction features (dependent on shaft type) include: approximately 3m high hoarding around the site boundary welfare facilities, temporary structures, approximately 3m high grout plant, approximately 3m to 5m high, including silos mobile crane, approximately 30m high gantry crane, approximately 8m high. 3.1.5 Preliminary data associated with the construction phase are provided in Table 3.1 Table 3.1 Construction phase data Activity Length of construction period Likely working hours, ie, (night/day/weekend) Working days Primary means of transporting excavated material away from site Primary means of transporting materials to site Intermediate shaft site 4 years 24 hours Mon to Sun Road* Road*
*There may be feasible opportunities to use barge transport if used as an intermediate shaft site.
PROPOSED USE OF SITE – OPERATIONAL PHASE Operational requirements The indicative operational phase layouts for the shaft sites are located in Appendix 8 – Operational Phase Layout, and are based on a preliminary assessment.
The generic elevations of structures shown on the operational phase layout are located in Appendix 8 and provide an illustration of typical examples of the permanent structures which are applicable to shaft sites. The underground infrastructure at this site is likely to be made up of a shaft, double flap a valve chamber and a 10m wide overflow culvert . The above ground infrastructure at this site is likely to comprise a ventilation column 10m high and 3m diameter, a ventilation building 5m x 15m x 5m high and a 20m x 10m top structure with openings. The top structure is to provide access and egress into the main shaft and flap valve chamber.
The top structures are envisaged to be finished at a level of 107m tunnel datum (TD) (7mAOD), and since the ground level mean value at this site is 104mTD (4mAOD), the top structures would be raised to approximately 3m above the current ground level. For further information on the generic layout of this top structure, refer to Appendix 8. Hardstanding would be provided to the top structures. The site would be fenced. Preliminary data associated with the operational phase are provided in Table 4.1. Table 4.1 Operational phase data Level of inspections and maintenance and likely working hours, ie, (night/day/weekend) frequency of visits 1 daytime visit every six months for electrical/instrument inspection. An additional 1 week maintenance period for tunnel/shaft inspection required per 10 years that could be night/day/weekend working. 1 van visit every six months. An additional 1 week period of 2 to 10 movements per day (estimated several vans and 2 cranes) every 10 years.
No of traffic movements
Restoration and after-use The portion of the site not occupied by the permanent works would be restored to its original condition on completion of the construction works. If any buildings were demolished, these would not be reinstated unless required. ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT Access This section should be read in conjunction with Section 7.2.
It was anticipated that an overflow culvert would be required at shaft sites when the assessment in this report was undertaken. Although this was subsequently changed with overflow culverts no longer required at all sites, the assessment was not revised as it was considered that the difference would not change any discipline’s conclusion on the suitability of the site. b It was anticipated that the ventilation column at shafts sites would be 10m high when the assessment in this report was undertaken. Although this was subsequently changed to 15m high, the assessment was not revised as it was considered that the difference would not change any discipline’s conclusion on the suitability of the site. c It was anticipated that the elevation of top structures at both CSO and shaft sites would be finished at 107mTD when the assessment in this report was undertaken. Although this was subsequently changed to 104.5mTD, the assessment was not revised as it was considered that the difference would not change any discipline’s conclusion on the suitability of the site.
Road 5.1.2 5.1.3 Access to the site would be from Townmead Road, a traffic calmed road, approximately 8m wide. For the both the construction and operational phases, access would be from Townmead Road. Rail 5.1.4 The nearest rail facility would be Wandsworth Town rail station which, would be about 1km from the site. Clapham Junction would also be approximately 1km away. River 5.1.5 Material movement for an intermediate shaft site would likely be by road. However, as the site is adjacent to the river, there may be feasible opportunities to use barge transport as the existing wharfage at the site is active. Construction works considerations The demolition of a disused warehouse would be necessary. There would be five wells potentially within the site, two of which have abstraction licenses. Wandsworth Bridge would be at the outside south-western edge of the site. The location of the shaft is such that the tunnel alignment would be as far as possible from the bridge’s abutment wall and foundations. Data available on third-party assets and significant utilities show that the main items of concern in this area are the proposed National Grid cable tunnel (which runs along the northern edge of the site under Townmead Road), Wandsworth Bridge, the river wall and the industrial units to the east of the site. Construction methods would be adopted, as appropriate, to mitigate potential settlement of these assets. The shaft location would be close to the river and the deviation of the tunnel alignment from the centre of the river would therefore be minimised. It is likely that the works can be constructed within the overall construction programme. Permanent works considerations The top structure to the shaft and flap valve chamber would be 2m above ground level. Health and safety There are no unusual health and safety issues associated with this site. PLANNING ASSESSMENT Introduction The planning assessment builds on the advantages and disadvantages reported in Table 2.3 and covers the following areas: Planning applications and permissions Planning context Planning comments.
5.2.5 5.2.6 5.3 5.3.1 5.4 5.4.1 6 6.1 6.1.1
Planning applications and permissions An initial desktop search of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham online planning applications database did not identify any planning applications submitted within the last five years applicable to the site. Applications found on the database related to minor development, such as antenna installations and signage. Planning context The following is a summary of the relevant local planning policies and designations affecting the site and is taken from the current statutory development plan for the borough. The local plan comprises the saved policies from the Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan, adopted August 2003, and the Consolidated London Plan, adopted February 2008. The majority of the site is protected as a safeguarded wharf. The council protects these sites for wharf related uses by applying the following policy: Policy TN31, Freight and Servicing – Use of Water, supports proposals for the provision of wharves or piers to facilitate river-based transport and protects sites identified for wharf related uses against development that could preclude their future use for the transhipment of freight, including waste and aggregates, and for related activities. Policy 4C.9 of the London Plan states that the mayor will, and boroughs should, protect safeguarded wharves for cargo-handling uses. The policy also states that the mayor will, and the boroughs should, encourage appropriate temporary uses of vacant safeguarded wharves and where they do not preclude a wharf being reused for cargo handling uses. Development next to or opposite safeguarded wharves should be designed to minimise potential conflicts of use or disturbance. Redevelopment will only be acceptable where safeguarded wharves are no longer viable or capable of being used for cargo-handling, in accordance with criteria set out in the plan. Policy EN31X, Thames Policy Area, covers the majority of the site and requires all built development to be of a high quality design that respects the riverside location and contributes to its surrounding environment. Policy EN2, Conservation Areas – the site is located within the Sands End Conservation Area. Policy EN2 requires all development to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area, paying particular attention to the historical context, quality of design, scale, bulk, massing and materials. Policy EN31, Important Views Along, Across, and From the River – the site is located within an important view of, and from, Wandsworth Bridge. The above policy seeks to protect identified views from development if it would cause demonstrable harm to the view and/or views of local landmarks or their settings. The policy states that the view from Wandsworth Bridge includes the view up and downstream of the river, its foreshore and banks, and of commercial wharves and riverside buildings. Policy EN27, Nature Conservation Areas – the site is adjacent to the River Thames, which is designated along its entire stretch. This policy protects nature conservation sites from development that does not contribute to physical, social and economic regeneration objectives of the UDP, or that may result in harm to wildlife value. Policy EN34, The Riverside Walk – a proposed route for a new riverside walk which would run along the southern boundary of the site along the River Thames. This policy seeks a continuous riverside walk through the borough alongside the River Thames and safeguards the route from development likely to prejudice its construction and completion.
6.3.10 Policy EN21, Environmental Nuisance – the site is in proximity to existing residential properties and this policy seeks to ensure that no undue detriment occurs to general amenities.
Consultation comments A series of consultations on the shortlisted sites were held with London local authorities, statutory and other pan-London stakeholders during July to September 2009 and January to March 2010. This section summarises factual comments that have been made by consultees, and which have informed the SSR assessments. London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
The council stated that the site is made up of three wharves (Swedish, Conley and Albert). CEMEX operates the middle site. The council advised that there were no objections to the use of the site in principle, but queried the removal of speed limits on the river to the west of Wandsworth Bridge. English Heritage
English Heritage advised that there are archaeological issues associated with the site. However, it is noted that the site has been heavily industrialised and so it is less likely for an archaeological issue to arise that would pose as a barrier to development. A desk-based assessment, including a modern disturbance plan, would be the next step if the site is taken forward. Environment Agency
The Environment Agency advised that there may be an opportunity for connection with the small aggregate loading facility on the other side. There are existing boat movements in this area and use of the site will increase activity in this area. Port of London Authority
The Port of London Authority (PLA) considers the site good for navigational purposes. One thousand tonne barges already operate to Pier Wharf. Barge operations could be tidally constrained. CEMEX currently operates from the site, which is a safeguarded wharf. Transport for London
The network assurance team would seek confirmation of construction traffic, construction traffic routes and possible traffic management requirements. The site is located near to the strategic road network – Wandsworth Bridge Road and the TLRN. Works would need to be co-ordinated as early as possible with other planned works/events on the network in the area and the neighbouring London Borough of Wandsworth. Residential properties are in close proximity to the site and noise considerations may lead to working hour restrictions by the local authority. Other statutory consultees
6.4.7 6.5 6.5.1
No comment. Planning comments There are a small number of planning designations and policies that are applicable both on and adjacent to the site. These designations and policies have been identified and described in section 6.3 and those relating to wharfage, heritage, conservation and residential amenity are likely to be of most relevance to the proposed development. The site covers the majority of a safeguarded wharf. The wharf may provide the opportunity to export and import construction material via the River Thames, which would reduce the need for vehicular traffic to and from the site. Similarly, once construction is complete, the site could be returned to a use that incorporates freight-based transport and is consistent with its current designated use. Further investigation may be required to
ensure the proposed works could retain and make use of this facility to avoid conflict with policies TN31 and 4C.9. 6.5.3 The site is within a mixed area of industrial uses and residential properties. The closest residences are within approximately 50m of the shaft working area. It is considered that, with appropriate mitigation, this separation distance may be considered sufficient in terms of safeguarding residential amenity from potential adverse construction impacts. In addition, control of site operation hours may be required. These hours typically include 8am to 6pm during weekdays, 9am to 1pm on Saturdays and not at all Sundays. The construction works themselves and remaining top structures, with appropriate mitigation, should also not result in overly prominent development in this location and should not unacceptably obstruct local views within the Thames Policy Area. The design of the remaining legacy structures would also require careful consideration to ensure they do not result in inappropriate development in this location. The site is located wholly within the Sands End Conservation Area. The use of the site would result in the loss of buildings and/or built features, and the contribution of these buildings to the character and appearance of the conservation area and the impact of their loss may require further consideration. With appropriate mitigation and detailed design consideration, potential impacts on character and appearance resulting from both the construction works and associated after-use top-structures should be reduced. A detailed heritage assessment can be found in Section 7. The site is adjacent to a site of metropolitan importance for nature conservation designation, which covers the entire River Thames. Given the extensive nature of this designation, the purpose of the Thames Tunnel Project to improve the environmental condition of the river, and the siting of the construction works adjacent the protected area, it is unlikely that this designation would be unacceptably impacted upon. A detailed assessment of the likely impact is included in Section 7. ENVIRONMENTAL APPRAISAL Introduction The following sections summarise specialist assessments which are provided in Appendix 9 – Environmental Appraisal Tables. Transport The site is suitable as an intermediate shaft site as access to the TLRN (A3205) and rail is suitable for HGVs passing over Wandsworth Bridge, with no visible restrictions identified at this stage. The site would utilise an existing access to the Fulham depot. The potential for the workforce to access the site by public transport is low; however, parking for the workforce could potentially be allocated within the site boundary. On-street parking on surrounding roads is unlikely to be suitable for the workforce as it is currently limited to a maximum stay of eight hours. Archaeology Based on current information, the site is potentially suitable as an intermediate site, as no records of archaeological remains being present within the site have been identified at this stage. However, due to a lack of previous investigations in the area, the nature and extent of archaeological receptors cannot be confidently predicted at this stage, and it is possible that archaeological receptors of potential high or medium value may be present within the site. Investigations in adjacent sites suggest that alluvial deposits containing archaeological material are likely to be present in the vicinity.
Built heritage and townscape The site is suitable as an intermediate site as there are a limited number of built heritage receptors within 250m of the site, and impacts on built heritage receptors are likely to be limited to the Sands End Conservation Area, within which the site is located. However, provided that a high-quality design scheme and/or screening is undertaken to ensure that the development preserves or enhances the conservation area, any adverse impacts are likely to be minimised. A more detailed assessment of the site would be required to determine the most suitable mitigation measures to enhance or preserve the character or appearance of Sands End. In terms of townscape considerations, there is some potential for adverse impacts on the river, its foreshore and the site, specifically during construction. There could be the potential for enhancements in visual amenity in the long term. Water resources – hydrogeology and surface water In terms of hydrogeology, the site is suitable because the intermediate shaft is to be constructed in London Clay (non-aquifer). The Chalk piezometric head is likely to be approximately 8.17m above the base of construction and should be taken into account in the engineering design. No impact on the Chalk aquifer is expected. Superficial deposits at the site comprise alluvium, which is classified as a minor aquifer, and which is likely to be subject to a limited impact on flow, due to the use of a diaphragm wall or caissons. In terms of surface water resources, this site is suitable as an intermediate site because there is no direct pathway for pollution to the Thames. However, standard mitigation would be required. Ecology The site is potentially suitable as an intermediate site, as impacts to ecological receptors are likely to be limited. There is some potential for buildings on the site to support roosting bats and should roosts be identified, then mitigation, possibly including offsite provision, would be required. The construction of an overflow culvert in the Thames is likely to require negotiation with the EA and may require compensatory habitat provision and post-works restoration. Given that this stretch of the river is known to be the only spawning area in the Tideway for smelt, the overflow culvert may also require detailed fish investigation and seasonal restrictions on working. Flood risk The site is suitable as an intermediate site because it is defended from flooding from the River Thames (to the one in 1,000-year level). There is likely to be space to accommodate SuDS onsite; however, further investigation is needed to determine if the site is suitable for infiltration SuDS as a result of the superficial geology. Air quality The site is suitable for use as an intermediate shaft site as, although there is potential for fugitive emissions of dust during construction to have a perceptible impact at residential receptors closest to the site, these impacts could be minimised with standard dust control measures. There is also the potential for HGV movements on the local road network to cause localised air quality impacts; however, this could be mitigated by minimising the movement of HGVs during peak hours. Noise The site is less suitable as an intermediate site as, although existing noise levels in the immediate surrounding area are relatively high, distances between the site and the residential properties to the north are relatively short. If the noisiest plant could be located to the south of the site, this would reduce the potential for disturbance at the residential properties. In addition, should use of this site be pursued, it is recommended that noisy
construction activities, or activities which may cause vibration, be undertaken during daytime hours only to reduce the noise impact during construction. 7.10 Land quality
7.10.1 The site is considered less suitable for use as an intermediate shaft site as it has been developed for previous industrial uses, namely petroleum industry works (with the historical storage of tanks having occurred on the site), as well as concrete works and electrical substations. In addition, offsite potentially contaminating activities include a brewery, warehouse, storage tanks and wharf operations. The potential sources may impact on construction workers, offsite persons, including adjacent residents, as well as groundwater and surface water (the River Thames) receptors. 8 8.1 8.1.1 SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT Socio-economic profile The site is within the Sands End ward of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. The ward has a higher proportion of unemployed people than in the UK and London, although a lower proportion than in the borough as a whole. The ward has an average proportion of people with high level qualifications that is higher than London and England. In terms of social mix, the area has a mostly white population (79.88%) with a higher proportion of people aged 20 to 44 than London and national averages. The younger population is roughly the same as the national average and there are fewer older people in the ward. The 2001 census data for the Sands End ward shows that the percentage of owner occupied homes is lower than the London or national average. The percentage of privately rented is greater than the London and national averages, as is the percentage of people in local authority housing. 8.1.2 8.1.3 The residential properties in the immediate neighbourhood of the site appear to be private rather than social housing. Site visits have confirmed the absence of any community related use associated with this site, apart from graffiti. At this stage, therefore, the profile of the local community appears to be irrelevant. Issues and impacts Use of the site as an intermediate shaft site would impact on the industrial and commercial uses operating out of the site, thereby affecting any local employers or workers. Mitigation may involve discussions around relocation and/or compensation. Opposite the site to the north is a row of terraced housing which faces the site. There is also a block of high-density flats opposite the site. There are likely to be noise and disruption issues which may need mitigation. PROPERTY ASSESSMENT Introduction The site under consideration as a potential intermediate shaft site comprises wharves and a mix of commercial and industrial uses, including an office building with telecommunications aerials, a showroom, warehouses and an oil storage depot. No inspection of the property has been undertaken for the purpose of preparing this property assessment. Maps, plans and aerial imagery have been relied upon.
9.1.3 9.1.4 9.2 9.2.1
There are currently seven entries in the 2005 Rating List for the property, with an aggregate rateable value of £371,500. There have been no significant planning applications on the site in the past five years. Crown Land and Special Land comments The site does not include Crown Land or Special Land within the meaning of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981. Land to be acquired The compensation assessment assumes that the working areas would be acquired temporarily via the acquisition of new rights for the period of the works stated in the engineering section above. A smaller area would need to be acquired permanently for the operational works, measuring approximately 40m by 50m, and located in the centre of the site. There is direct access to the site from the public highway and no rights of way or easements have been included in our assessment of this site acquisition cost. Rights would be required to construct and operate an overflow culvert from the shaft to the river. Property valuation comments The referencing exercise has not revealed the number of interests in the site but the number of rating assessments is an indication of the number of occupiers. It is not known whether the properties are owner occupied or leased and, if the latter, the lease details are not known. The operational site, as shown on the current drawing, would necessitate the demolition of the showroom fronting Wandsworth Bridge Road and the storage depot at Swedish Wharf. While they are within the overall site of S72HF, the adjacent ready-mix concrete depot and the shop fronting Townmead Road are not directly affected by the current proposal for the construction site, and should be able to remain operational during and after the works. It is understood that the land would be reinstated after the works are complete as part of the engineering work and therefore, reinstatement costs are not included in the compensation assessment. This reinstatement is assumed, however, to leave the site in a condition suitable for rebuilding, but is also assumed not to include actual reconstruction. Compensation would be assessed on a diminution in value basis for the new rights (temporary occupation during works, access rights during works, access rights for operational purposes) and on a market value basis for the permanent acquisition. While details of tenure are not known, the freeholder(s) and any leaseholder(s) would be entitled to a claim for the value of their interest. For the purpose of this assessment, it is assumed that any property occupied under lease is occupied at current market rental levels, so the leasehold interests are of no significant value. Disturbance compensation comments Use of this site would involve the relocation or extinguishment of at least two businesses, so significant disturbance compensation is anticipated and reflected in the assessment. This is particularly the case with the storage depot, which appears to include significant specialist plant and machinery. Offsite statutory compensation comments There should be limited potential for offsite statutory compensation under Section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965, as there is unlikely to be any physical interference with public or private property rights.
There should also be limited potential for claims under Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973, as the completed works are unlikely to emit ‘physical factors’ such as noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, artificial lighting and discharge of solids or liquids, which may cause a diminution in value to property. Site acquisition cost assessment The statutory acquisition cost is assessed as significant but within acceptable limits. SITE CONCLUSIONS BY DISCIPLINE Introduction
9.7 9.7.1 10 10.1
10.2.1 This site is suitable as an intermediate shaft site because it is of adequate size and has good vehicular road access. 10.3 Planning
10.3.1 This site is considered suitable for use as an intermediate shaft site. 10.3.2 Site S72HF is the subject of a number of onsite and adjacent sensitive receptors, such as a conservation area and nature conservation area, and residential properties. It is considered that the current proposed layout of the construction works should provide a sufficient separation distance with residential properties and, when combined with other mitigation measures and controlled working hours, should not lead to an unacceptable impact on residential amenity. Further to this, mitigation related to potential impacts on the conservation area and nature conservation area may also be required. 10.4 Environment
10.4.1 Overall, the site is considered to be suitable as an intermediate shaft site, although mitigation would be required. 10.4.2 Based on current information, the site is suitable from the perspectives of transport, archaeology, built heritage, townscape, water resources, ecology, air quality and flood risk. 10.4.3 This site is considered less suitable from the perspectives of noise and land quality. 10.4.4 Overall, the site is considered suitable, subject to further investigation of whether noise and land quality impacts could be adequately mitigated. Likely mitigation considerations would include: Noise – standard noise barriers are unlikely to be entirely effective and other techniques may be required to reduce construction noise to acceptable levels Land quality – any required remediation of contamination (at this high risk site) and/or measures to ensure no mobilisation of contaminants retained in situ. 10.5 Socio-economic and community
10.5.1 On balance, the site is suitable as an intermediate shaft site, though mitigation against loss of business activity may be needed. 10.5.2 Apart from this, the use of the site appears likely to have a limited impact on the local community as there are few potential sensitive receptors in its immediate vicinity.
10.5.3 As there is potential for the residential area opposite the site to the north to be affected by the use of this site, mitigation may need to address noise disturbance from the works. 10.6 Property
10.6.1 The site is considered to be suitable as an intermediate shaft site from a property perspective. 10.6.2 The advantage of this site is that while significant, the acquisition costs should not be unacceptable. The disadvantage is that it would involve the permanent loss of at least two businesses, including one using specialist plant and machinery.
Site Suitability Report S72HF - Appendices
Site Suitability Report S72HF – Appendix 1
APPENDIX 1 – SOURCES OF INFORMATION Engineering Traffic Management and Access Roads/Rail – Scott Wilson Access River – BMT Third Parties (Shafts/CSOs) – Mott MacDonald and AECOM Geology – Thames Water Utilities – Thames Water and AECOM Construction and Operational Layout Template – London Tideway Tunnels. Background Technical Paper – London Tideway Tunnels Planning London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham online planning applications database Saved policies in the Hammersmith and Fulham Unitary Development Plan, adopted in August 2003, and the Consolidated London Plan, adopted in February 2008 Environment Transport Map of Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) - www.tfl.gov.uk Bus Route Maps: North-east, north-west, south-west, south-east - www.tfl.gov.uk Crossrail Plans - www.crossrail.co.uk/crossrail-bill-documents PTAL scores - Obtained from Table 2.3 information Thames Path map - www.walklondon.org.uk Capital Ring - www.walklondon.org.uk Cycle Routes - www.sustrans.org.uk and Local Cycling Guides 1-14 Design Manual for Roads and Bridge TD 42/95, Highways Agency Built heritage and townscape Hammersmith and Fulham list of Conservation Areas Hammersmith and Borough list of Open Spaces National Monuments Record - for some additional information regarding registered historic parks and gardens Unitary development plans Local authority websites Bing maps Water resources – hydrogeology and surface water Environment Agency abstraction licence details Environment Agency groundwater levels Local authority details of unlicensed abstractors Environment Agency Flood Map – www.environment-agency.gov.uk Envirocheck
Appendix 1 - Page 1
Ecology Thames Estuary Partnership (2002) Tidal Thames Habitat Action Plan London Biodiversity Action Plan - www.lbp.org.uk Hammersmith and Fulham Biodiversity Action Plan (2003) Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) www.magic.gov.uk - statutory designated sites London Wildweb - http://wildweb.london.gov.uk - non-statutory site of importance for nature conservation Black redstart distribution in London - www.blackredstarts.org.uk/pages/ londonmap.html National Biodiversity Network - http://searchnbn.net - distribution of protected species Google Maps - aerial views of habitat features BAP habitats - www.natureonthemap.org.uk Priority habitats and species on national and local scales - www.ukbap.org.uk Flood risk Environment Agency Flood Map – www.environment-agency.gov.uk Envirocheck Air quality Local authority websites www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/default.asp?la_id=&showbulletins=&width=1680 www.airquality.co.uk Noise Envirocheck - Identification of receptors Promap - Calculation of distances between site and receptors Multimap - Aerial photography – www.multimap.co.uk Defra noise maps - Identification of existing noise levels Land quality Google Maps/Earth Site walkover information
Socio-economic and community Statistics from the Office of National Statistics 2001 Census data
Property Multimap Mouchel referencing data
Appendix 1 - Page 2
Site Suitability Report S72HF – Appendix 2
Appendix 2 - Page 1
200 Metres 300 400
Map Ref : .......101PL-SS-01059 Date : .............2009/11/26 Projection : .....British National Grid
APPENDIX 2 S72HF SITE SITE LOCATION PLAN
Site Suitability Report S72HF – Appendix 3
GIS data could not be obtained from London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (see section 6.3 for planning context)
Appendix 3 - Page 1
Site Suitability Report S72HF – Appendix 4
Appendix 4 - Page 1
Map Ref : .......101PL-SS-01028 Date : .............2009/11/26 Projection : .....British National Grid
APPENDIX 4 S72HF SITE AERIAL PLAN
Site Suitability Report S72HF– Appendix 4
View of the site looking north from Wandsworth Bridge.
View of an existing entrance to the site looking south from Townmead Road.
View of the existing Porcelanosa business located on site at the corner of Townmead Road and Wandsworth Bridge Road.
Site Suitability Report S72HF – Appendix 5
Appendix 5 - Page 1
Local Authority Boundary Short Listed Shaft Sites Transport Access Routes TfL Road Network Thames Path
0 40 80 160
Map Ref : ........... 101PL-SS-00812 Date : ................. 2009/11/19 Projection : ......... British National Grid
APPENDIX 5 S72HF SITE TRANSPORT PLAN
Site Suitability Report S72HF – Appendix 6
Appendix 6 - Page 1
8101 9102
0102 VT 9101
2104 2105 2106 2108 2109
VT 6102
WO 1001 3825 SU SE 1003 VT
3.6m 4.1m
Ground level 105(m OD + 100 )
1096 VT
VT 0001 SU 7012 IL2.01m 9004 400 1221 8009 WO
IL1.87m
7013 VT WO VT
VT 3326
100(m OD + 100) Base of Made Ground and Superficial
WO WO 6002
0005 8005 9003 VT SU IL1.64m 1006 1004
VT 7006 1097 6001 7007 VT
2001 8001 9002 SU IL2.19m 7004 SU 399 IL1.93m 8002 0002 1274
FALCON BROOK OUTLET
405 WO 2901 2902 0903 8901 7902 SU WO IL2.2m 1237
St Mathew’s Church
Suggested invert level of shaft 65.83(m OD + 100)
COORDINATES ARE TO ORDNANCE SURVEY DATUM OSGB36. ALL LEVELS ARE IN METRES AND RELATE TO A LOCAL HEIGHT DATUM WHICH IS 100 METRES BELOW ORDNANCE DATUM NEWLYN.
7901 6901
Base of London Clay Formation
NOTE: 1. INVERT LEVEL OF SHAFT SHOWN. BASE OF CONSTRUCTION WILL BE BELOW THIS LEVEL AND WILL DEPEND ON CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUE. THIS IS ONLY PROVISIONAL AS DESIGN IS AT EARLY PRELIMINARY STAGE.
2905 FH
58(m OD + 100 )
VT 8902 8906
9905 1756
0902 VT WO
WO 2904
0901 SU 1272 0338
Works LB
Lensbury House
Base of Lambeth Group 41(m OD + 100)
IL1.95m VT
9901 WO WO 100mm
DM09567 7905 WO
DBV198104 FB 80K
to 76 FB
Base of Thanet Sand Formation 30(m OD + 100)
032 0802
Superstore Jetty
6801 3347
0340 9804
3646 6802
8802 WO
IL2.44m WO 6806
7709 SU
Warehouses El Sub Sta
9703 SU IL2.23m
1 to 26 Warehouses
VT 1071
1755 9702
7702 SU 7710 IL2.44m WO 8701 3913
DBV198070
El Sub Sta Warehouse 11 to 121 5.1m Warehouse
DBV014296
6261 4751
Comley’s Wharf
8704 3348 1107 7701
Warehouse El Sub Sta
- ALL TW ASSETS - ALL TW ASSETS
Tank Shingle
4750 6437
406 6701
OTHER SIGNIFICANT UTILITIES ARE DEFINED AS: TELECOMS ELECTRICITY - ONLY FIBRE OPTIC CABLES - HIGH VOLTAGE CABLES - LARGE BANKS OF LOW VOLTAGE CABLES - LOW PRESSURE ABOVE 300mm DIAMETER - INTERMEDIATE, MEDIUM OR HIGH PRESSURE 200mm 10 m
Works Works Laboratory
FB 4.7m Tanks FB Bollard Mud
9601 7601
3605 3604 6332 ZBV083075
Works El Sub Sta
6832 3603 6603 6604 6602 3599
4601 4776 WO WO
4502 2824
18-12-09 10-07-09
PROPOSED NATIONAL GRID WIMBLEDON TO KENSAL GREEN CABLE LINE
2411 2410 2412
SUPPLIES OFF 2403 4501 WO WO
4413 4416 2768
WO Weald Location Code:
1 to 18 Olney
2409 4402
4414House
3 x 1829mm
2408 2414
ZBV030256 TCB 3401 WO 3405 2843 3407
Doris Emmerton Court
1 to 19 Norwood House
(SM 2182 B)
3 x 1500mm SQUARE CULVERTS
FV FV FV PS PS JEWS ROW WANDSWORTH SPS JEWSP1ZZ
PLOTTED ON 16\12\09 BY Andy.Purdy LOCATION : Thames Tideway Tunnel
FV FV PS 9407 SV
2413 3406 PROPOSED NETWORK PENDING ADOPTION AGREEMENT/ST. GEORGE’S LONDON/10-26728 BATTERSEA REACH - YORK ROAD LB 2406 2407 BD 0403 WO
SERVICES AND GEOLOGY PLAN S72HF
2415 2401
2829 0401 9401
HW x:\project\371840\cad\design data\cad thames\drawings\planning-consents\Routewide\100-DL-PNC-S72HF-100001.dgn
2405 SE
7200 4415
100-DL-PNC-S72HF-100001
FWSTO
Site Suitability Report S72HF – Appendix 7
Appendix 7 - Page 1
Site Suitability Report S72HF – Appendix 8
Appendix 8 - Page 1
Site Suitability Report S72HF – Appendix 9
Transport Site considerations Access to road network Comments Site accesses onto Townmead Road from Fulham Depot site using an existing access. Double yellow lines prevent on street parking near the access. Townmead Road is subject to a 30mph speed limit and is street lit. It has a carriageway width of 8m with bus stops in close proximity to the access. Visibility is achievable up to the junction with Wandsworth Bridge Road to the west (40m away), and 90m to the east. Access to the A3205 (TLRN strategic highway network) along Townmead Road onto and across Wandsworth Bridge. There are no visible restrictions over Wandsworth Bridge. Distance to TLRN 0.7km. See Transport Access Plan in Appendix 5. Access to river Located directly adjacent to the river. Intermediate shaft site – river access not essential as road will be used to transport excavated material to main shaft site. Access to existing railway sidings at Clapham Junction uses the same route to the TLRN (A3205) and continues across the gyratory between the A217 and A3205 onto the A214. The route then leads onto East Hill following onto St John’s Hill before turning onto Plough Road for the Clapham Junction, Traincare Depot railway sidings. The route passes through a high street area along St John’s Hill and there are no visible restrictions under the rail bridge on Trinity Road. Distance 2.1km to rail access point from shaft site. River access not required. Excavated material will be transported away by road. Mitigation required and conclusions Road access to the site is suitable for HGVs. The access route to the TLRN (A3205) passes over Wandsworth Bridge with no visible restrictions.
Route to possible rail link at Clapham Junction runs through a high street area along St John’s Hill and under a rail bridge with no visible restrictions. Clapham Junction railway sidings at the Traincare Depot accessible using Plough Road.
Appendix 9 - Page 1
Transport Site considerations Parking Comments Some parking could be provided on site for workforce. On street parking is available on Townmead Road and De Morgan Road for pay & display users Mon-Sat 09:00-17:00 at £1.80/hr for a maximum 8hrs (may not be suitable for workforce as costly). PTAL 1-2 (low), as identified within Table 2.3. Mitigation required and conclusions Some parking for workforce could be provided within site boundary. On street parking on surrounding roads may not be suitable as maximum stay 8hrs at £1.80/hr. Low potential for workforce to utilise public transport, however transport could be provided. No traffic management identified at this stage.
No traffic management identified at this stage.
Summary: The site is suitable as an intermediate shaft site as access to the TLRN (A3205) and rail is suitable for HGVs, passing over Wandsworth Bridge with no visible restrictions identified at this stage. The site would utilise an existing access to the Fulham Depot. The potential for the workforce to access the site by public transport is low, however parking for the workforce could potentially be allocated within the site boundary. On street parking on surrounding roads is unlikely to be suitable for the workforce as it is currently limited to a maximum stay of 8hrs.
Appendix 9 - Page 2
Archaeology Site considerations Designations, including Archaeological Priority Areas Summary of historical uses Comments No designations within the site boundary. The site is shown as meadow and marked ‘liable to flood’ on th maps dated to the late 19 century. By 1986 the site was occupied by two building marked as ‘Mills’, was later developed for warehouses and is currently predominantly open hard standing. No archaeological receptors are recorded within the area of the site. This does not preclude the possibility of unrecorded archaeological receptors of high value being present within the site. No archaeological receptors are recorded within the area of the site. This does not preclude the possibility of unrecorded archaeological receptors of medium value being present within the site. Dewatering of potential waterlogged deposits may be an issue considering the close proximity of the site to the Thames. The site appears to have undergone extensive development which may have adversely impacted any archaeological material which may be present. Borehole data for the area indicates a localised depth of made ground of 5 m. Potential issues Detailed design proposals, and an outline method statement will be required to enable initial assessment of development impacts, and to inform mitigation proposals. With the currently available information it is not possible to highlight specific potential issues. Mitigation methods could include: Desk based assessment Production of deposits model Archaeological monitoring of geotechnical investigations Mitigation required and conclusions N/A A detailed desk based assessment is required to sufficiently understand the archaeological resource and define risk to potential development.
A detailed desk based assessment is required to sufficiently understand the archaeological resource and define risk to potential development. A detailed desk based assessment is required to sufficiently understand the archaeological resource and define risk to potential development. A detailed desk based assessment is required to sufficiently understand the archaeological resource and define risk to potential development. A detailed desk based assessment is required to sufficiently understand the archaeological resource and define risk to potential development.
Other receptors with the potential to be directly affected
Appendix 9 - Page 3
Archaeology Site considerations Comments Mitigation required and conclusions Archaeological evaluation Archaeological watching brief Archaeological excavation. Summary: Based on current information, the site is potentially suitable as an intermediate site as no records of archaeological remains being present within the site have been identified at this stage. However due to a lack of previous investigations in the area, the nature and extent of archaeological receptors cannot be confidently predicted at this stage, and it is possible that archaeological receptors of potential high or medium value may be present within the site. Investigations in adjacent sites suggest that alluvial deposits containing archaeological material are likely to be present in the vicinity.
Appendix 9 - Page 4
Built heritage and townscape Site considerations Designations including Conservation Areas, including trees Comments Listed Buildings There are no listed buildings located within 250m of S72HF – Intermediate. Locally Listed Buildings Although the borough of Hammersmith and Fulham maintain a list of locally listed buildings, this data was not available at the time of this assessment. There are no locally listed buildings within 250m of S72HF – Intermediate and within the borough of Wandsworth. Conservation Areas Sands End Conservation Area: 0m Hurlingham Conservation Area: 210m Registered Historic Parks and Gardens There are no Registered Historic Parks and Gardens within 250m of S72HF – Intermediate. Locally Listed Parks and Gardens There are no locally listed parks and gardens or London squares within 250m of S72HF – Intermediate. Protected Views There are no protected views within 250m of S72HF – Intermediate and within the Borough of Wandsworth. Information on protected views is not currently available for the Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. Potential receptors of medium to very high importance with the potential to be directly affected The development has the potential to directly affect the Sands End Conservation Area as S72HF – Intermediate. Mitigation to enhance or preserve the character or appearance of Sands End conservation area would be required. This is likely to require a high quality scheme design and Mitigation required and conclusions In the case of conservation areas, a high quality scheme design and adequate screening for the development will be required as discussed below. A detailed desk based assessment in conjunction with archaeology work will be required to inform likely development impact and to determine more detailed mitigation proposals.
Appendix 9 - Page 5
Built heritage and townscape Site considerations Comments Mitigation required and conclusions possible screening in order to mitigate against potential adverse impacts upon the designated area. A more detailed assessment of the site is likely to be required in order to assess the potential of the development to affect the character or appearance of the conservation area and to establish suitable mitigation measures. Other receptors of lesser importance with the potential to be directly affected Potential receptors of medium to very high importance with the potential to be indirectly affected Not Applicable. Not Applicable.
There is the potential for the Hurlingham Conservation Area to be indirectly affected by S72HF – Intermediate.
S72HF – Intermediate is not within the visual envelope of the Hurlingham Conservation Area. No impact arising from the development is therefore anticipated and no mitigation will therefore be required. Not Applicable.
Other receptors of lesser importance with the potential to be indirectly affected
Sensitive landscape character areas likely to be affected, including trees and TPOs
The site is within the Thames Policy Area and Conservation Area. Site on industrial sites Comley’s Wharf, Swedish Wharf, and Fulham Wharf with warehouses, and concrete batching plant on the north bank of the River Thames. Densely built up residential properties to the north beyond Townmead Road, River Thames with Wandsworth Bridge Road to the south, derelict warehouses and superstore to the east and mix of industrial and densely built-up residential development to the west beyond Wandsworth Bridge Road. Demolition of buildings would increase openness and reduce isolation. The presence and operation of machinery,
Retention of trees where possible and protection in accordance with BS 5837. Introduction of landscape scheme to include appropriate surface treatments and planting to enhance the character of the adjacent river frontage. This site is suitable, since although construction would potentially have a severe adverse impact both on the river foreshore and the site; demolition of buildings could help create an opportunity for new green space and enhance the character of the River frontage with appropriate mitigation listed above.
Appendix 9 - Page 6
Built heritage and townscape Site considerations Comments materials stores and buildings would potentially result in temporary, adverse direct impacts on the character of the site and temporary, adverse indirect impacts on neighbouring areas. The jetties and conveyors protruding into the River would potentially result in a severe adverse impact on the character of the River. Permanent elements would potentially have an adverse impact on the streetscape of Wandsworth Bridge Road and Townmead Road. Potential views likely to be affected Partially interrupted views of the site from surrounding properties along Townmead Road to the north. Open views from the river, and bridge. During construction, views of cranes from surrounding residences along Townmead Road and De Morgan Road. View of permanent elements from Wandsworth Bridge Road and Townmead Road and users of the River. During construction, the use of hoardings and appropriate lighting would help minimse visual impact. Design of top structure, vent column, and electrical kiosk to be given careful consideration. Planting to screen permanent plant. Integrated landscape scheme to enhance visual amenity and reduce visual impact. This site is suitable, since adverse visual impact from the River is restricted to the construction phase. The demolition of warehouses could soften views with appropriate planting. This would aid permanent visual amenity. Particular considerations on sites where new permanent structures are required Any permanent structures at the site have the potential to cause a direct impact upon the Sands End Conservation Area and upon the character of the local townscape and local views. The design and location of any permanent structures within the site will need to be given careful consideration and some screening during construction and operation may be required. The structures should be of a high quality design to ensure that they preserve or enhance the visual appearance of the Sands End Conservation Area in accordance with English Heritage Guidance and planning policy. Further mitigation through screening may also be required. Landscape mitigation and attention to Mitigation required and conclusions
Appendix 9 - Page 7
Built heritage and townscape Site considerations Comments Mitigation required and conclusions the scheme design (as discussed above) would reduce impacts of the development upon the local townscape character and local views and could result in an enhancement of the permanent visual amenity of the site. Potential issues Construction and operation of S72HF – Intermediate could result in a direct impact upon the Sands End Conservation Area. However, there is some potential to mitigate against adverse impacts through a high quality scheme design and/or screening. The scheme design would need to be of a sufficiently high quality and may need to incorporate some screening in order that potential direct impacts of the development upon the Sands End Conservation Area are mitigated against. Furthermore, landscape mitigation and attention to the scheme design (as discussed above) would reduce impacts of the development upon the local townscape character and local views and could result in an enhancement of the permanent visual amenity of the site.
Summary: The site is suitable as an intermediate site as there are a limited number of built heritage receptors within 250m of the site, and impacts on built heritage receptors are likely to be limited to the Sands End Conservation Area, within which the site is located. However, provided that a high quality design scheme and/or screening is undertaken to ensure that the development preserves or enhances the conservation area, any adverse impacts are likely to be minimised. A more detailed assessment of the site would be required to determine the most suitable mitigation measures to enhance or preserve the character or appearance of Sands End. In terms of townscape considerations, there is some potential for adverse impacts on the river, its foreshore and the site, specifically during construction, there could be the potential for enhancements in visual amenity in the long-term.
Appendix 9 - Page 8
Water resources – hydrogeology and surface water Site considerations Hydrogeological conditions (Groundwater and Surface Water) From BGS Geological Model giving average ground condition profile. Local near surface conditions may vary, particularly within the river. Comments Geology (thickness) Superficial Geology and Made Ground (5 m) London Clay (42 m) Lambeth Group (17 m) Thanet sand (11 m) Hydrogeology Piezometric Level in Chalk Aquifer: ~ -26 mAOD (~31 mbgl) from EA Jan 08 water level contouring Groundwater Monitoring Location EA Hydrometry Sites: TQ27-159 - approximately 1.1 km southwest of the site (water levels to March 2009) Watercourses Adjacent to River Thames SPZs and groundwater users SPZ Not located in a Source Protection Zone EA Licensed Groundwater Abstractions and Details No public water supply 5 licensed abstraction borehole within 2 km radius
Licence Numbers: 1. 28/39/42/0071 (1 borehole) 2. 28/39/41/0081 (1 borehole) 3. 28/39/39/0177 (2 borehole) 4. 28/39/39/0157 (1 borehole) Locations: 1. 332 m south of the site 2. 1.44 km southwest of the 3. 1.05 km west of the site 4. 1.46 km northeast of the site Operator: 1. Hanson Quarry Prod Europe Ltd 2. London Borough of Wandsworth 3. Trustees of the Hurlingham Club 4. Circadian Limited Abstracted Aquifer Unit:
Mitigation required and conclusions The shaft will be constructed to an invert level of approximately 39.17mbgl therefore the shaft will be founded in the London Clay. Piezometric (1) head in Chalk will be approximately 8.17m above the base of the construction. Therefore, pressure would be expected during construction and is to be considered as part of geotechnical design.
A simple volumetric approach has been used to calculate the 400 days travel times of the abstraction borehole. A conservative mean annual recharge of 100mm/year was used to calculate a radius of 137m for licence 1, 80m for licence 2, 109 m for licence 3 and 425m for licence 4. As a result, the shaft is not located within any of these catchment areas.
Appendix 9 - Page 9
Water resources – hydrogeology and surface water Site considerations
1. Chalk 2. Chalk 3. Gravel 4. Chalk Abstraction Purposes: 1. Industrial, commercial and public service (mineral products-general use) 2. Industrial, commercial and public service (municipal grounds-make up or top up water) 3. Industrial, commercial and public service (sports grounds/facilities- spray irrigation) 4. Production of energy (electricity-boiler feed) Abstraction Quantity (annual): 1. 23,515 m3 2. 8,000 m3 3. 15,000 m3 4. 227,300 m3
Mitigation required and conclusions
Local Authorities (LA) Unlicensed Groundwater Abstractions and Details Information pending from Hammersmith and Fulham Council No abstraction borehole within 1 km radius inside Wandsworth Council Boundary Borehole locations and depths There are 19 historical records of water wells: 16 deep wells and 3 shallow wells within 1 km radius. Depth range: 101.8 – 192.02m. Depth range: 6.8 – 9.1m. Potential impacts on surface water features The site is located adjacent to the River Thames. The site is behind flood defences so the pollution risk is through drainage to the Thames. No impact on groundwater at depth is likely since the intermediate shaft is to be constructed in London Clay (non aquifer). At shallow depth, the shaft is located in Alluvium which is classified as a minor aquifer. Limited impact on Work needs to be undertaken in consideration of Pollution Prevention Guidelines – PPG1, PPG5 and PPS23. See below (likely types of mitigation measures that will be required) Not applicable
Appendix 9 - Page 10
Water resources – hydrogeology and surface water Site considerations Comments shallow aquifer if water is excluded from the excavation by diaphragm wall or caissons. Likely types of mitigation measures that will be required Potential issues No mitigation required if groundwater is not impacted. The intermediate shaft to be excavated in London Clay but to below piezometric head in Chalk. Potential pressure effects. Limited impact on flow in shallow aquifer. Not applicable Confined head in Chalk to be considered as part of geotechnical design. Impact on and mitigation for shallow aquifer will depend on construction design. Mitigation required and conclusions
Summary: In terms of hydrogeology, the site is suitable because the intermediate shaft is to be constructed in London Clay (non aquifer). The Chalk piezometric head is likely to be approximately 8.17m above the base of construction and should be taken into account in the engineering design. No impact on the Chalk aquifer is expected. Superficial deposits at the site comprise Alluvium which is classified as a minor aquifer, and which is likely to be subject to a limited impact on flow due to diaphragm wall or caissons. In terms of surface water resources, this site is suitable as an intermediate site because there is no direct pathway for pollution to the Thames, however standard mitigation would be required.
(1) Piezometric head is a specific measurement of water pressure above a datum.
Appendix 9 - Page 11
Ecology (terrestrial and aquatic) Site considerations Statutory designations Non-statutory designated wildlife sites Comments No designated sites within 2km River Thames & Tidal Tributaries SMI lies adjacent to the development site Mitigation required and conclusions No mitigation required The construction of the overflow culvert is likely to affect the Thames and would potentially require negotiation with the EA, post-works restoration and compensatory habitat provision. The construction of the overflow culvert is likely to affect the Thames and would potentially require negotiation with the EA, post-works restoration and compensatory habitat provision. If bat roosts were found to be present, mitigation would be required for any buildings to be affected by works, possibly including off-site provision. Careful placement of lighting to minimise illumination of surrounding habitat is likely to be required. The construction of the overflow culvert may require detailed fish investigation. There may be seasonal restrictions on working, such as piling (avoiding March–April spawning period). Negotiation will be required with the EA. No other issues.
The foreshore on the Thames consists of BAP priority habitat ‘Mudflats’ The Tidal Thames is a London BAP habitat.
Buildings on site could have potential to support roosting bats.
Shallow water and marginal habitat within this stretch known to be only spawning area in Tideway for smelt. The area may also be utilised by uncommon aquatic invertebrates.
Summary: The site is potentially suitable as an intermediate site, as impacts to ecological receptors are likely to be limited. There is some potential for buildings on the site to support roosting bats, and should roosts be identified then mitigation, possibly including off-site provision, would be required. The construction of an overflow culvert in the Thames may is likely to require negotiation with the EA and may require compensatory habitat provision and post-works restoration. Given that this stretch of the river is known to be the only spawning area in Tideway for smelt, the overflow culvert may also require detailed fish investigation and seasonal restrictions on working.
Appendix 9 - Page 12
Flood risk assessment Site considerations Flood Risk Zone Comments Flood Zone 3 (1 in 200 year flood extent) but defended to the 1 in 1000 year flood level – there is a residual risk of a breach for which mitigation would need to be considered as part of the FRA. Sewage transmission infrastructure is considered to be water compatible according to table D.2 of PPS25 and hence suitable in this location. Assessment of conditions for SuDS There is some space for SuDS. More investigation is required to determine if the site is suitable for infiltration SuDS as a result of the superficial geology. No other issues. No other issues. N/A Mitigation required and conclusions A FRA would be required to assess the residual risk of flooding to the site.
Summary: The site is suitable as an intermediate site because it is defended from flooding from the River Thames (to the 1 in 1000 year level). There is likely to be space to accommodate SuDS on site, however further investigation is needed to determine if the site is suitable for infiltration SuDS as a result of the superficial geology.
Appendix 9 - Page 13
Air quality Site considerations AQMA Comments The air quality objective for NO2 is exceeded on major roads in vicinity of site. There are residential properties along Wandsworth Bridge Road (A217) and along the access route from the A217 to the site. There are residential properties within 90m of the proposed site. Existing traffic issues The main traffic issue in this area is exhaust emissions along the A217 corridor. Mitigation required and conclusions There is a need for more site specific data. There are relevant air quality sensitive receptors present along the route the construction traffic is likely to take and close to the proposed construction works. Additional vehicle emissions have a high potential to interfere with local air quality action plan policies. See above. Collect a minimum of 6 months diffusion tube data at site access to A217 or other point of access to major road network. Minimise HGV movements on the local road network during the peak hour. Standard dust control measures will minimise the effect of fugitive dust on nearby sensitive receptors.
See above. There is no data available at the likely access to A217 and the nearest existing data indicates existing AQLV exceeded. The risk from additional exhaust emissions from construction HGVs is undefined at present. The risk from dust impacts is low.
Summary: The site is suitable for use as an intermediate shaft site as although there is potential for fugitive emissions of dust during construction to have a perceptible impact at residential receptors closest to the site, these impacts could be minimised with standard dust control measures. There is also the potential for HGV movements on the local road network to cause localised air quality impacts, however this could be mitigated by minimising the movement of HGVs during peak hours.
Appendix 9 - Page 14
Noise Site considerations Noise band level (from Defra noise maps) Comments Information from Defra noise maps indicates daytime noise levels of up to 73 dB LAeq and night-time noise levels of up to 65 dB LAeq within the areas closest to Wandsworth Bridge Road. Noise levels from the Defra noise maps provide an indication of prevailing noise levels only, and will not be employed in any detailed assessments for chosen sites. Sensitive Receptors The area of the proposed site is currently in industrial use. To the north of the site is a residential development of 4-6 storeys, including Spackman House, Ismailia house and Dwyer House. To the west of the site, beyond Wandsworth Bridge Road, is a car park and industrial/retail building – not considered noise sensitive. To the east of the site are a number of warehouses on Fulham Wharf – not considered noise sensitive. Existing traffic issues Road traffic on Wandsworth Bridge Road to the west and Townmead Road to the north will contribute to the existing noise climate in the area. Road traffic on Wandsworth Bridge Road to the west and Townmead Road to the north is expected to dominate the existing noise climate in the area. Construction: The construction period is estimated at 4 to 5 years and working hours will be 24 hours per day Monday to Saturday. This has the potential to result in adverse noise impacts on sensitive receptors to the north of the site. n/a n/a Mitigation required and conclusions n/a
Adherence to the good site practices provided in BS5228. Siting of noisy equipment and construction activities as far as is practicable from sensitive receptors. Provision of site boundary noise fences.
Appendix 9 - Page 15
Noise Site considerations Comments HGV movements have the potential to have an adverse impact on residential receptors located to the north. Siting the noisiest plant in the southern area of the site would maximise the distance to nearest sensitive receptors and minimise potential disturbance. Proposed 3m site boundary fencing will provide useful noise mitigation to some plant and construction activities. Vibration resulting from general construction works is not anticipated to result in an adverse impact. The nearest receptors to the proposed shaft location are at a distance of approximately 70m and it is unlikely that vibration levels will result in minor cosmetic damage or annoyance during shaft sinking. Vibration from tunnelling should be considered on a case by case basis at particular sensitive locations. Operation: With appropriate attenuation (if necessary), there is no reason why noise from the ventilation column and top chamber should not result in adverse noise impacts on nearby sensitive receptors. Summary: The site is less suitable as an intermediate site as although existing noise levels in the immediate surrounding area are relatively high, distances between the site and the residential properties to the north are relatively short. If the noisiest plant could be located to the south of the site, this would reduce potential for disturbance at the residential properties. In addition, should use of this site be pursued, it is recommended that noisy construction activities, or activities which may cause vibration, be undertaken during daytime hours only to reduce the noise impact during construction. Mitigation required and conclusions Noisy construction activities, or activities which may cause vibration, be undertaken during daytime hours only to reduce the noise impact during nighttime construction.
Appendix 9 - Page 16
Land Quality Site Location Current Site Use Topography Field Evidence of contamination (i.e. visual/olfactory) Current surrounding land use (immediately adjacent to site) Grid reference: 525934, 175708 The site is occupied by Albert Wharf (car auction business), Swedish Wharf (depot) and Comley’s Wharf (Works). The site appears relatively flat. Most of site inaccessible, none observed from what could be seen from site boundary. North: Townmead road and residential properties lie to the north. East: Derelict warehouses cover most of Fulham Wharf (site S73HF) to the east. South: The river Thames lies to the south. West: Wandsworth Bridge Road and commercial (retail) properties lie to the west. Geological and hydrogeological information Geological Strata
Superficial Geology and Made Ground (5 m) London Clay (42m) Lambeth Group (17m) Thanet sand (11m)
Non-Aquifer: London Clay Minor Aquifer: River Terrace Deposits, Lambeth Group, Thanet Sands, Harwich Formation, Major Aquifer: Chalk River Terrace Deposits - Minor Aquifer/London Clay – Non aquifer High Leaching Potential of Soils (U) Not located in a Source Protection Zone
River Thames (adjacent to southern boundary)
Relevant Information within a 250m radius of the site Historical Potentially Contaminating Activities (based on mapping data) Onsite Open land, riverside 1874 – 1880 Wharf operations (transport support and cargo handling) 1896 - present Oil storage listed on-site 1922 - 1970 Above ground fuel tanks located on-site 1922 – 1970 Historical plans listing ‘Gas Use’ 1922 Numerous electrical substations 1951 - present Underground fuel tanks present 1955 - 1972 Oil Industry – oil refinery (Total Oil Products (GB) Ltd) 1958 1964 Depot – present
Appendix 9 - Page 17
Land Quality RMC Readimix Ltd no mapping dates Fuel station no mapping dates Offsite Wharf - Transport support and cargo handling (directly adjacent to the site in the eastern and western directions) 1896 – present Warehouse (directly adjacent to site, east) 1950 - present Brewery (directly adjacent to site) 1896 - 1899 Electricity works/Generating station (125m northeast) 1967 – 1999 Superstore (175m northeast) 1999 – present Underground fuel tanks (closest located directly adjacent to site) 1951 – 1972 Historical plans listing ‘Gas Use’ (closest 15m east) 1922 Numerous historical plans listing electricity generation (closest 20m south) 1958 – 1964 Malthouse (26m northwest) 1896 Oil Industry – oil refinery (35m west) 1958 Fuel station (135m west) no mapping dates Electricity production and distribution – inc. large transformers (185m northwest) no mapping dates Pollution Incidents to controlled waters Two Oils – Unknown, Minor incident (on site) Unknown Sewage, Significant incident (150m north) Landfill Sites Other Waste Sites Registered Radioactive Substances Fuel Stations/Depots Contemporary Trade Directory Entries None None None One Shell Wandsworth Bridge Petrol Staton (on site) Five Fuel station, active (onsite) Oil industry, inactive (onsite) Brewery, inactive (directly adjacent to site, east) Superstore, active (175m northeast) Site classification based on above information Activity Potential Site Contaminants derived from surface sources (e.g. contaminants in made ground) 1) Made Ground 2) Wharf operations (transport support and cargo handling) 3) Tanks – contents unknown 4) Oil industry Distance and Direction to Site 1) Onsite, directly adjacent to site 2) Onsite, directly adjacent to site 3) Onsite, directly adjacent to site 4) Onsite, directly Contaminants 1) Metals, TPH, PAHs 2) Metals, TPH, PAHs 3) Metals, TPH, PAHs, Solvents 4) Metals, TPH, PAHs
Appendix 9 - Page 18
Land Quality 5) Electrical substations 6) Gas use 7) Cement works 8) Petroleum Depot 9) Fuel station adjacent to site 5) Onsite, directly adjacent to site 6) Onsite, directly adjacent to site 7) Onsite, directly adjacent to site 8) Onsite, directly adjacent to site 9) Onsite Potential Site Contaminants derived from off-site sources and transported to site 1) Brewery 2) Warehouse 3) Tanks – contents unknown 4) Wharf operations (transport support and cargo handling) 1) Closest directly adjacent to site, east 2) Closest directly adjacent to site, east 3) Closest directly adjacent to site 4) Closest directly adjacent to site Potential Contamination Pathways to Site (Conceptual Site Model)
5) PCBs 6) Metals, TPH, PAH, Phenols 7) Metals, TPH, PAHs 8) Metals, TPH, PAHs, Solvents 9) Metals, TPH, PAHs 1) Metals, TPH, PAHs nitrogen compounds 2) Metals, TPH, PAHs, Solvents 3) Metals, TPH, PAHs, Solvents 4) Metals, TPH, PAHs
Source 1: A1, A2, A3, B4 Source 2: D6, E1, F7 Category 3 – Assessed as High Risk
Summary: The site is considered less suitable for use as an intermediate shaft site as it has been developed for previous industrial uses, namely petroleum industry works (with the historical storage of tanks having occurred on the site), as well as concrete works and electrical substations. In addition, offsite potentially contaminating activities include a brewery, warehouse, storage tanks and wharf operations. The potential sources may impact on construction workers, off site persons including adjacent residents as well as groundwater and surface water (The River Thames) receptors. Notes: 1. Soil information for urban areas is based on fewer observations than elsewhere in the country. Therefore a worst case vulnerability (H) is assumed until proven otherwise. 2. Refer to schematic Conceptual Site Model for explanation of site-specific source-pathwayreceptors 3. From BGS Geological Model giving average ground condition profile. Local near surface conditions may vary, particularly within the river.
Appendix 9 - Page 19
Documents Similar To 110-RG-PNC-S72HF-000618xyzSkip carouselSection 48 Proposed Schedule of WorksFinite Element Analysis of Underground Metro TunnelsArtigo3_jet Grouting BrazilRevelation of Mystery Tunnel Leaves Too Much Unsaid DiMannoDrum Cabinet Manual SteamtunnelAn0401 Metro InstrumentationEvaluacion Hidrogeologica en Medios Fracturados4 Seismic Behavior of Underground Structures and Site Response64846_1950-1954Information Technology in ConstructionManaging_the.pdfDraft McM Public Benefits_Amenities 2014 05 09TunnelIjsetr Vol 2 Issue 1-82-95Construction Industry Round Table Letter to Chairman Issa - January 6, 201135727 UCEM PG QS Module Info 081215An ND Modelling Approach to Improve CommunicationMRL ConstructionUnbonded Post Tension Construction – Profitable and trustworthy selection for ConstructionAsia markets_‘Anyone who is not looking at Asia should be’City State and National Settlement CRESC WP101Surveying the Eupalinian Aqueduct in Samos IslandReport PRC Lead Market Construction France477 Main 484 S Front PILOT Application FINALA Survey of Thai Contractors Construction Claim Management2016 IB2MAC Lu Et Al Next Generation of EC8 Masonry ChapterCOST PLUS 1Tunnel Segment GasketRCC Retaining Wall1ReportDocuments About TunnelSkip carouselMockingbird Pedestrian Bridge presentationAs 4825-2011 Tunnel Fire SafetySEWER GRAVITY TUNNEL BREAKS THROUGHConstruction PamphletRevolutionary Atmosphere the Story of the Altitude Wind Tunnel and the Space Power ChambersThe High-Speed Frontier. Case Histories of Four NACA Programs, 1920 - 1950A Review Study on Methods of Tunneling in Hard RocksL Canarsie Tunnel ReconstructionRisehill, CumbriaNY B16 NYPD Radio Fdr- Transcript- City Wide 1- Tape 01- Draft 090Richards v. Washington Terminal Co., 233 U.S. 546 (1914)October 2016Scientific American, Volume XXIV., No. 12, March 18, 1871A Weekly Journal of Practical Information, Art, Science,Mechanics, Chemistry, and Manufactures. by VariousNY B30 PA Police Reports 2 of 2 Fdr- Giaramita Sgt Frank 318ARC International Wildlife Crossing Infrastructure Design CompetitionSafe driving in road tunnels for professionalsAlaskan Way Viaduct stakeholders' meeting presentation, December 2014NTSB DC Metro Smoke Incident ReportGreenfield letterTransactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. LXVIII, Sept. 1910The New York Tunnel Extension of the Pennsylvania Railroad.The Cross-Town Tunnels. Paper No. 1158 by Brace, James H.Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers, vol. LXVIII, Sept. 1910The Bergen Hill Tunnels. Paper No. 1154 by Lavis, F.NASA’s Wind TunnelsHinchey Seeks Fed Funds for Sinkhole on Kingston StreetMoffett Field Map (1991)Tunnels and Sky Bridges Network Task Force Final Report and Recommendations FINALIacobelli Construction, Inc. v. County of Monroe, Rochester Pure Waters District, and Calocerinos & Spina Consulting Engineers, P.C., 32 F.3d 19, 2d Cir. (1994)Tom Swift and His Big Tunnel, or, the Hidden City of the Andes by Appleton, Victor [pseud.]Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers, vol. LXVIII, Sept. 1910The New York Tunnel Extension of the Pennsylvania Railroad.The East River Tunnels. Paper No. 1159 by Brace, James H.Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers, vol. LXVIII, Sept. 1910The New York Tunnel Extension of the Pennsylvania RailroadThe Terminal Station - West by Cresson, Benjamin Franklin, 1873-1923Eurasia by Evans, Christopher, 1847-1917More From thamestunnelSkip carouselIndependent Advisory ServiceSettlement Information PaperSettlement DeedNon-statutory Off-site Mitigation and Compensation Policy Exceptional Hardship ProcedureCompensation – Help and advice for youCode of Construction Practice Part BCode of Construction Practice Part BCode of Construction Practice Part BCode of Construction Practice Part BCode of Construction Practice Part BCode of Construction Practice Part BCode of Construction Practice Part BCode of Construction Practice Part BCode of Construction Practice Part BCode of Construction Practice Part BCode of Construction Practice Part BCode of Construction Practice Part BCode of Construction Practice Part BCode of Construction Practice Part BCode of Construction Practice Part BCode of Construction Practice Part BCode of Construction Practice Part BCode of Construction Practice Part BCode of Construction Practice Part BCode of Construction Practice Part BCode of Construction Practice Part BCode of Construction Practice Part BCode of Construction Practice Part BCode of Construction Practice Part B