application reference number: wwo10001 final report on ... · the lee tunnel would then transfer...

Hard copy available in

Final Report on Site Selection ProcessDoc Ref: 7.05

Volume 15APFP Regulations 2009: Regulation 5(2)(q)

Box 47 Folder B January 2013

Volu

me

15

Thames Tideway Tunnel Thames Water Utilities Limited

Application for Development ConsentApplication Reference Number: WWO10001

This page is intentionally left blank

Thames Tideway Tunnel

Final Report on Site Selection Process

List of volumes Volume 1: Main report Volume 2: Background papers

1. Site selection methodology paper (Summer 2011) 2. Site selection background technical paper (Summer 2011)

Volume 3: Acton Storm Tanks Volume 4: Hammersmith Pumping Station Volume 5: Barn Elms Volume 6: Putney Embankment Foreshore (formerly Putney Bridge Foreshore) Volume 7: Dormay Street (formerly Bell Lane Creek) Volume 8: King George’s Park Volume 9: Carnwath Road Riverside (formerly Barn Elms) Volume 10: Falconbrook Pumping Station (formerly Bridges Court Car Park) Volume 11: Cremorne Wharf Depot (formerly Cremorne Wharf Foreshore) Volume 12: Chelsea Embankment Foreshore Volume 13: Kirtling Street (formerly Tideway Walk) Volume 14: Heathwall Pumping Station (formerly part of Tideway Walk) Volume 15: Albert Embankment Foreshore (this document) Volume 16: Victoria Embankment Foreshore Volume 17: Blackfriars Bridge Foreshore Volume 18: Chambers Wharf (formerly King’s Stairs Gardens) Volume 19: King Edward Memorial Park Foreshore Volume 20: Earl Pumping Station Volume 21: Deptford Church Street (formerly Borthwick Wharf Foreshore) Volume 22: Greenwich Pumping Station Volume 23: Abbey Mills Pumping Station

Final Report on Site Selection Process i Volume 15: Albert Embankment Foreshore


Final Report on Site Selection Process ii Volume 15: Albert Embankment Foreshore

Thames Tideway Tunnel

Final Report on Site Selection Process Volume 15: Albert Embankment Foreshore

List of contents

Page number

1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Introduction to the Thames Tideway Tunnel project ................................ 1

1.2 Introduction to this volume ....................................................................... 1

1.3 Type of site .............................................................................................. 2

1.4 Site selection process .............................................................................. 2

2 Phase one consultation preferred CSO site: Site selection process ......... 5

2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 5

2.2 Assessment of the long list sites .............................................................. 5

2.3 Assessment of draft short list sites .......................................................... 9

2.4 Assessment of the final short list sites ................................................... 11

2.5 Identification of the phase one consultation preferred site ..................... 14

3 Phase two consultation preferred CSO site: Scheme development and site selection process .................................................................................... 17

3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 17

3.2 Summary of phase one consultation feedback ...................................... 17

3.3 Phase two consultation preferred site .................................................... 18

4 Post phase two consultation: Review and confirmation of proposed CSO site for Section 48 publicity ........................................................................... 19

4.1 Introduction to the review....................................................................... 19

4.2 Summary of phase two consultation feedback ...................................... 19

4.3 Consideration of project design or new information ............................... 20

4.4 Review of post phase two targeted consultation feedback .................... 20

4.5 Proposed site for Section 48 publicity .................................................... 21

5 Post Section 48 publicity: Review and final selection of CSO site for the application ...................................................................................................... 23

5.1 Introduction to the review....................................................................... 23

5.2 Summary of Section 48 publicity feedback ............................................ 23

5.3 Consideration of project design or new information ............................... 24

5.4 Final review of shortlisted CSO sites ..................................................... 24

5.5 Selected site for the application ............................................................. 26

Final Report on Site Selection Process iii Volume 15: Albert Embankment Foreshore

Appendix 1 .............................................................................................................. 29

Appendix 2 .............................................................................................................. 31

Appendix 3 .............................................................................................................. 33

Appendix 4 .............................................................................................................. 35

List of tables

Page number Table 1.1 Summary of sites identified at each phase of the pre-application process 2

Table 2.1 Long list to draft short list SSMP Table 2.2 assessment ............................ 6

Table 2.2 Draft short list to final short list SSMP Table 2.3 assessment .................. 10

Table 2.3 Preferred site and use for phase one consultation................................... 15

Table 3.1 Preferred site and use for phase two consultation ................................... 18

Table 4.1 Proposed site and use for Section 48 publicity ........................................ 21

Table 5.1 Selected site and use for the application ................................................. 27

Final Report on Site Selection Process iv Volume 15: Albert Embankment Foreshore

1 Introduction

1 Introduction

1.1 Introduction to the Thames Tideway Tunnel project 1.1.1 At present, untreated sewage mixed with rainwater (combined sewage)

regularly overflows into the tidal reaches of the River Thames from London’s Victorian sewerage system via combined sewer overflows (CSOs).

1.1.2 Combined sewage discharges must be reduced in order to comply with relevant wastewater legislation. The primary objective of the proposed Thames Tideway Tunnel project (the ‘project’) is to control discharges from CSOs in order to meet the requirements of the European Union’s Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC) (UWWTD) and the related United Kingdom legislation.

1.1.3 The Environment Agency has identified 34 ‘unsatisfactory’ CSOs that the project needs to address. The project would control CSO discharges by intercepting and diverting combined sewage flows into a new storage and transfer tunnel. The ‘main tunnel’ would run from west London to Abbey Mills in the east where it would connect to the Lee Tunnel. The Lee Tunnel would then transfer the flows to Beckton Sewage Treatment Works for treatment.

1.2 Introduction to this volume 1.2.1 The Site selection methodology paper states that the project team shall

produce a final report that sets out the site selection process in full. This Final Report on Site Selection Process was prepared for that purpose. Volume 1 of this report explains our approach to identifying and determining the sites required to construct and operate the project and includes a glossary of relevant terminology. Volume 2 comprises the complete Site selection methodology paper and Site selection background technical paper, which were the main documents that guided the site selection process. Volumes 3 to 23 describe the site selection process for each of the sites considered on the Abbey Mills route.

1.2.2 This volume sets out the site selection process that was followed to identify the most suitable site to intercept the Clapham Storm Relief and Brixton Storm Relief CSOs at each phase of the pre-application process. This is summarised below in Table 1.1.

Final Report on Site Selection Process 1 Volume 15: Albert Embankment Foreshore

1 Introduction

Table 1.1 Summary of sites identified at each phase of the pre-application process

Phase Site name Phase one consultation Albert Embankment Foreshore

Phase two consultation Albert Embankment Foreshore

Section 48 publicity Albert Embankment Foreshore

Submission of the application Albert Embankment Foreshore

1.2.3 This volume is structured as follows: a. This section describes the type of site needed and summarises how

the Site selection methodology paper was applied at each stage of the pre-application process.

b. Section 2 explains how we identified our preferred CSO site for phase one consultation.

c. Section 3 details the post phase one consultation site selection review and explains why we did not change our site for phase two consultation.

d. Section 4 describes the post phase two consultation site selection review and how we confirmed our proposed CSO site for Section 48 publicity.

e. Section 5 describes the post Section 48 publicity site selection review and confirms our selected CSO site for the application.

1.3 Type of site 1.3.1 We need a site to intercept the two local combined sewer overflows,

known as the Clapham Storm Relief CSO and Brixton Storm Relief CSO, and to connect these CSOs to the main tunnel.

1.4 Site selection process 1.4.1 All potential sites were identified in accordance with our Site selection

methodology paper, which involved a ‘sieving’ approach that commenced with the identification of all potentially suitable areas of land (excluding concentrated residential sites and World Heritage Sites). CSO sites also needed to be as close to the relevant existing sewer as practicable; therefore we followed a localised optioneering approach to identify potentially suitable sites in the vicinity of each sewer. The sites went through levels of increasingly detailed assessments. All the assessments were informed by a multidisciplinary approach that took account of engineering, planning, environmental, community and property considerations and our teams’ professional judgement.

1.4.2 Prior to phase one consultation, we applied our multidisciplinary sieving approach to all the assessments outlined in the Site selection


1 Introduction

methodology paper (summarised at paragraph 2.1.2) for all three main tunnel route options under consideration at this stage of the pre-application process. This process is set out below in Section 2.

1.4.3 Following phase one consultation, we reviewed the preferred site and decided that there was no need to carry out a ‘back-check’; however, we did undertake a general review of the preferred and shortlisted sites associated with the preferred Abbey Mills route prior to phase two consultation. This process is set out below in Section 3.

1.4.4 Following phase two consultation, we reviewed the possible CSO sites. This involved re-checking the selection of sites identified to be most suitable to intercept each CSO associated with the proposed Abbey Mills route in order to confirm the proposed CSO sites for Section 48 publicity. This process is set out below in Section 4.

1.4.5 Following Section 48 publicity, we reviewed our proposals having regard to the feedback from the publicity exercise. The purpose of this review was to define and decide any changes to our final proposals for the application. Every proposed CSO site on the Abbey Mills route was re-checked in order to confirm its selection for the application. This process is set out in Section 5.


1 Introduction



2 Phase one consultation preferred CSO site: Site selection process


2.1 Introduction 2.1.1 This section explains how the Site selection methodology paper was

implemented in order to select the preferred CSO site for phase one consultation. This stage took place from Spring 2009 to Summer 2010.

2.1.2 In order to arrive at the preferred site for phase one consultation, the site selection process comprised: a. identification of sites for inclusion on a long list b. assessment of sites on the long list to create a draft short list c. assessment of the draft shortlisted sites to create a final short list d. preparation of detailed site suitability reports for each final shortlisted

site e. a multidisciplinary optioneering workshop to compare the suitability of

each of the shortlisted sites and identify the preferred CSO site to intercept the Clapham Storm Relief and Brixton Storm Relief CSOs for phase one consultation.

2.1.3 The assessments described in this section were based on the information available at the time and the related stage in the pre-application process.

2.1.4 A plan that illustrates all the sites considered for the interception of the Clapham Storm Relief and Brixton Storm Relief CSOs and how they progressed through the site selection process is provided in Appendix 1.

2.2 Assessment of the long list sites 2.2.1 One long list of potential sites to intercept the Clapham Storm Relief CSO

and another one for the Brixton Storm Relief CSO were created by conducting a desktop survey of the land in the vicinity of the existing sewers.

2.2.2 The Clapham Storm Relief (CS19X) and Brixton Storm Relief (CS20X) CSOs are close together on either side of Vauxhall Bridge, and are therefore discussed here together.

2.2.3 In total, 28 sites were included on the long lists. The sites were assessed having regard to the high-level considerations set out in Table 2.2 of the Site selection methodology paper (hereafter referred to as SSMP Table 2.2), which included engineering (site size, site features, availability of a jetty/wharf, access and location (proximity to the sewer to be intercepted)), planning and environment (heritage, landscape/townscape, open space and ecology), and community and property (neighbouring land uses, site use, Special Land/Crown land and acquisition costs) considerations.


2 Phase one consultation preferred CSO site: Site selection process 2.2.4 Table 2.1 below provides a summary of the outcome of the SSMP

Table 2.2 assessment of the long list of sites considered for the interception of these CSOs. Sites that were identified to be the least constrained in light of the SSMP Table 2.2 considerations passed to the draft short list. This did not necessarily mean that these sites were ultimately judged to be suitable, but rather that no significant constraints were identified in relation to the high-level considerations set out in SSMP Table 2.2. Sites that were judged to be more constrained were not retained on the draft short list for more detailed assessment. The main rationale for excluding these sites at this stage is summarised below in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1 Long list to draft short list SSMP Table 2.2 assessment

Site ID Site name/description Recommendation and rationale

C19XA Foreshore, adjacent to St George Wharf and Vauxhall Bridge

Recommendation: To draft short list.

C19XB Spring Gardens Recommendation: Not to draft short list. Rationale: The engineering connection to the sewer would be long and difficult.

C19XC Large traffic island alongside of Wandsworth Road

Recommendation: Not to draft short list. Rationale: The site has very restricted working area and the engineering connection to the sewer would be long and difficult.

C19XD Small business area adjacent South Lambeth Road

Recommendation: Not to draft short list. Rationale: The site has very restricted working area.

C19XE Vauxhall Park Recommendation: To draft short list.

C19XF Gardens to properties along Fentiman Road

Recommendation: Not to draft short list. Rationale: The site is too narrow and the engineering connection to the sewer would be long and difficult.

C19XG Travis Perkins yard Recommendation: To draft short list.

C19XH Area at junction of Wyvil Road and Kings House


C19XJ Area of gardens behind block Recommendation: Not to draft short




of flats fronting Wandsworth Road

list. Rationale: The site has very restricted working area and the engineering connection to the sewer would be long and difficult.

C19XK Parking and access area to flats adjacent Luscombe Way


C19XL Gardens to properties adjacent Wyvil Road

Recommendation: Not to draft short list. Rationale: The site has very poor access.

C20XA Foreshore, adjacent to Vauxhall Cross Building and Vauxhall Bridge

Recommendation: To draft shortlist.

C20XB Traffic island adjacent Wandsworth Road

Recommendation: Not to draft shortlist. Rationale: The engineering connection to the sewer would be long and difficult.

C20XC Spring Gardens Park Recommendation: To draft short list.

C20XD Playing fields at St Anne's Roman Catholic Primary School on Harleyford Road


C20XE Community Gardens Recommendation: To draft short list.

C20XF St Marks Church of England Primary School and grounds

Recommendation: Not to draft short list. Rationale: The site comprises a school and its grounds. This is Special Land and the acquisition costs were likely to be relatively high.

C20XG Car parking to flats Recommendation: Not to draft short list. Rationale: The site is very irregular shape and working would be very restricted.

C20XH Open Space, Claylands Road Recommendation: To draft short list.

C20XJ Gardens to flats Recommendation: Not to draft short




list. Rationale: The site is too narrow and the engineering connection to the sewer would be long and difficult.

C20XK Gardens to flats Recommendation: Not to draft short list. Rationale: The engineering connection to the sewer would be long and difficult.

C20XL Parking adjacent business unit Recommendation: Not to draft short list. Rationale: The site is too small and narrow and the engineering connection to the sewer would be long and difficult.

C20XM Grounds of Orchard Hill Developed College

Recommendation: Not to draft short list. Rationale: The engineering connection to the sewer would be long and difficult.

C20XN Grass fronting flats on Kennington Lane


C20XP Gardens between flats on Kennington Lane

Recommendation: Not to draft short list. Rationale: The engineering connection to the sewer would be long and difficult.

C20XQ Parking within blocks of flats off Brockwall House


C20XR Parking for gasometers Recommendation: Not to draft short list. Rationale: The engineering connection to the sewer would be long and difficult.

C20XS Albert Embankment Foreshore Recommendation: To draft short list. NB: The site ID and site name/description were used as an internal mechanism to record and describe the site but were updated where necessary.


2 Phase one consultation preferred CSO site: Site selection process 2.2.5 Of the 28 sites on the long list, ten were assessed as potentially suitable

and passed to the draft short list, and 18 sites were eliminated as they were unsuitable.

2.2.6 Hydraulic modelling of the sewer network system indicated that, in order to achieve the required reduction in CSO flows from the Clapham Storm Relief CSO, it would be necessary to intercept the flow downstream of the connection between the Clapham Sewer and the southern Low Level Sewer No.1. Therefore, any sites that would necessitate intercepting the Clapham Sewer upstream of this connection would not be suitable.

2.2.7 The following three sites on the draft short list were ‘parked’ and were not assessed at the next stage. a. C19XE: Vauxhall Park b. C19XG: Travis Perkins yard c. C19XH: Area at junction of Wyvil Road and Kings House.

2.3 Assessment of draft short list sites 2.3.1 The remaining seven draft short list sites identified for further assessment

at the next stage were: a. C19XA: Foreshore, adjacent to St George Wharf and Vauxhall Bridge b. C20XA: Foreshore, adjacent to Vauxhall Cross Building and Vauxhall

Bridge c. C20XC: Spring Gardens Park d. C20XD: Playing fields at St Anne's Roman Catholic Primary School on

Harleyford Road e. C20XE: Community Gardens f. C20XH: Open Space, Claylands Road g. C20XS: Albert Embankment Foreshore.

2.3.2 These sites were further assessed by the engineering, planning, environment, community, and property disciplines, having regard to the considerations set out in Table 2.3 of the Site selection methodology paper (hereafter referred to as SSMP Table 2.3) which included: engineering (site size, distance and route to the river, jetty/wharf facilities, means of road/rail access, site features, site efficiency, tunnelling, systems engineering requirements and connection feasibility), planning and environment (planning applications/permissions, London Plan/UDP/LDF allocations or special policy areas, heritage designations, landscape/open space designations, ecological designation, transport and amenity), property (ownership of site, tenant on site, estimated acquisition cost, Crown land and special land, access and material transfer rights) and community (proximity to sensitive receptors, social, economic, health and equality considerations). This stage of the process built on the information gathered and the assessment undertaken at the long list stage but focussed on more detailed local considerations.


2 Phase one consultation preferred CSO site: Site selection process 2.3.3 At this stage, we also consulted with each of the London local authorities

along the route of the project and other pan-London stakeholders, such as the Environment Agency and English Heritage, to seek their views on the suitability of the sites for the short list.

2.3.4 Table 2.2 below summarises the outcome of the SSMP Table 2.3 assessment of the draft short list of sites. Sites that were assessed as being the least constrained in light of the SSMP Table 2.3 considerations were retained on the short list and passed to the next stage of assessment. This did not necessarily mean that a site was ultimately judged suitable, but rather that no significant constraints were identified in relation to the considerations set out at SSMP Table 2.3. Sites that were judged to be more constrained were not retained on the short list for more detailed assessment. The decision of whether or not to retain a site on the short list was taken at a multidisciplinary workshop. The main rationale for excluding sites at this stage is summarised below in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2 Draft short list to final short list SSMP Table 2.3 assessment


C19XA Foreshore, adjacent to St George Wharf and Vauxhall Bridge

Recommendation: To short list.

C20XA Foreshore, adjacent to Vauxhall Cross Building and Vauxhall Bridge


C20XC Spring Gardens Park Recommendation: Not to short list. Rationale: • Engineering: This would be a very

difficult tunnel connection that might have a considerable impact on the public highway.

• Community: There would be an impact on the park and City Farm, but the site is large so it might be possible to mitigate impacts and locate the site so as to reduce disruption.

C20XD Playing fields at St Anne's Roman Catholic Primary School on Harleyford Road

Recommendation: Not to short list Rationale: • Planning/Environment: There

would be impacts on a number of designations including open space and sports facilities.

• Property: The playing fields have a good quality surface which means




that replacement costs could be significant.

• Community: There would be a temporary loss of playing fields, which would likely impact on community cohesion and children as an equality group.

C20XE Community Gardens Recommendation: Not to short list. Rationale: • Engineering: The site is very

constrained. • Planning/Environment: The site is

disadvantaged due to the potential significant cumulative impact on heritage, landscape and ecological designations.

• Community: The site is a community garden in the midst of a combination of potentially sensitive receptors, which made the site less suitable due to the likely impact on community cohesion and health and well-being of the local community.

C20XH Open Space, Claylands Road Recommendation: To short list.

C20XS Albert Embankment Foreshore.


NB: The site ID and site name/description were used as an internal mechanism to record and describe the site but were updated where necessary.

2.3.5 Of the seven sites on the short list, four were assessed as potentially suitable and passed to the final short list, and three sites did not proceed to the final short list.

2.4 Assessment of the final short list sites 2.4.1 The four sites identified for inclusion on the final short list and assessment

at the next stage were: a. C19XA: Foreshore, adjacent to St George Wharf and Vauxhall Bridge b. C20XA: Foreshore, adjacent to Vauxhall Cross Building and Vauxhall

Bridge c. C20XH: Open Space, Claylands Road d. C20XS: Albert Embankment Foreshore.

2.4.2 A site suitability report was prepared for each of the final shortlisted sites. These reports contain an assessment of each site’s suitability in the light



of engineering, planning, environment, community and property considerations. At this stage in the process, no comparisons were drawn between sites; they were assessed in isolation and with no regard to tunnelling strategy. Sites were evaluated by each discipline using our teams’ technical knowledge and professional judgement as appropriate, and assessed as suitable, less suitable or not suitable from that discipline’s perspective.

2.4.3 A summary of the conclusions of each discipline’s assessment from the site suitability reports is provided below.

C19XA: Foreshore, adjacent to St George Wharf and Vauxhall Bridge

2.4.4 Site C19XA is located on the foreshore of the River Thames in the Vauxhall area of the London Borough of Lambeth.

2.4.5 The site is situated to the south of Vauxhall Bridge adjacent to a large high-rise residential development.

2.4.6 Engineering: The site was considered less suitable as it has no viable land-based access.

2.4.7 Planning: On balance, the site was considered less suitable because it is in close proximity to residential properties and its prominent location might impact on the conservation area.

2.4.8 Environment: Overall, the site was assessed as less suitable due to substantial environmental constraints. The site was considered likely to be less suitable from the perspectives of all environmental disciplines: archaeology, built heritage groundwater, transport, townscape, surface water, ecology, flood risk, noise, air quality and land quality.

2.4.9 Socio-economic and community: The site was considered less suitable due to its proximity to residences and businesses in the St George Wharf development, which would be affected throughout construction. Users of the Thames Path would also likely be impacted.

2.4.10 Property: The site was considered suitable as the acquisition cost should be low and the site is undeveloped. However, there were risks of delays in acquisition.

C20XA: Foreshore, adjacent to Vauxhall Cross Building and Vauxhall Bridge

2.4.11 Site C20XA is located on the foreshore of the tidal Thames in the Vauxhall area of the London Borough of Lambeth.

2.4.12 The site is situated to the north of Vauxhall Bridge, adjacent to the southeast side of the Vauxhall Cross building.

2.4.13 Engineering: The site was considered less suitable as it has no viable land-based access if road access through Lack’s Dock is not permitted. The proximity to Vauxhall Bridge presented additional difficulties.


2 Phase one consultation preferred CSO site: Site selection process 2.4.14 Planning: On balance, the site was considered less suitable because it is

in close proximity to office buildings and its prominent location might impact on the conservation area.

2.4.15 Environment: Overall, the site was assessed as suitable, although mitigation measures would be required. The site was considered likely to be suitable from the perspective of transport, subject to constructing a new site access and widening the existing slipway. The site was also suitable from the perspectives of archaeology, air quality and noise. The site was considered less suitable from the perspectives of built heritage, groundwater, townscape, surface water, ecology, flood risk and land quality.

2.4.16 Socio-economic and community: The site was considered suitable, although there would likely be impacts on the Vauxhall Cross building and other buildings overlooking the site. The Lack’s Dock slipway to the north might also be affected. However, these impacts could be mitigated.

2.4.17 Property: The site was considered suitable as the acquisition cost should be low and the site is undeveloped. However, there was a risk of delays in acquisition.

C20XH: Open Space, Claylands Road 2.4.18 Site C20XH is situated on an area of communal gardens and car parking

serving local authority flats in the Oval area of the London Borough of Lambeth.

2.4.19 The site is situated in a predominantly residential area, bounded on all sides by multi-storey flats. A community hall and playground also lie adjacent to the site.

2.4.20 Engineering: The site was considered less suitable as a CSO site because it is situated too far from the river and it would be difficult to intercept the sewer.

2.4.21 Planning: On balance, the site was considered not suitable because it is in close proximity to residential dwellings and use of the site would result in a loss of residential amenity.

2.4.22 Environment: Overall, the site was assessed as suitable. The site was considered likely to be suitable from the perspectives of archaeology, water resources (both hydrogeology and surface water), ecology, flood risk and land quality. The site was considered less suitable from the perspectives of transport, built heritage and townscape, air quality and noise.

2.4.23 Socio-economic and community: The site was considered not suitable. There would be significant construction impacts on adjacent residents and a garden and parking facilities would be lost. Permanent features would restrict long-term restoration of the area. A community hall adjacent to the site would be heavily disrupted.

2.4.24 Property: The site was considered suitable.



C20XS: Albert Embankment Foreshore 2.4.25 Site C20XS is located on the foreshore of the tidal Thames in the Vauxhall

area of the London Borough of Lambeth. 2.4.26 The site is situated to the north of Vauxhall Bridge and to the west of a

high-rise office building. 2.4.27 Engineering: The site was considered suitable as it could accommodate

the required works, would require no demolition and is likely to be close to the main tunnel alignment. Road access would be required outside the site boundary via Lack’s Dock. If this were not possible, river access would be required.

2.4.28 Planning: On balance, the site was considered suitable because it was unlikely to impact on any planning designations and minor impacts could be appropriately mitigated.

2.4.29 Environment: Overall, the site was assessed as suitable. The site was considered likely to be suitable from the perspectives of transport, archaeology, air quality, noise and land quality. The site was considered less suitable from the perspectives of built heritage, groundwater, townscape, surface water, ecology and flood risk. However, the site was suitable if those impacts could be adequately mitigated.

2.4.30 Socio-economic and community: The site was considered suitable. There would be impacts on the Thames Path and the two large office buildings opposite the site. The open space adjacent to the Vauxhall Cross and use of the existing slipway to the north might also be disrupted.

2.4.31 Property: The site was considered suitable with an acceptable acquisition cost.

2.5 Identification of the phase one consultation preferred site

2.5.1 Following the completion of the site suitability reports, we held a multidisciplinary workshop to compare the suitability of each shortlisted site based on the site suitability report assessment and to make a recommendation as to which site should be identified as the preferred site.

2.5.2 Of the four shortlisted sites, C20XS: Albert Embankment Foreshore was identified as the preferred site at phase one consultation for a number of reasons, which are summarised below (not in order of importance): a. Interception of the Brixton Storm Relief would be difficult from site

C20XH, which therefore had to be considered in conjunction with C19XA. Use of C20XH would result in substantial impacts on adjacent residential properties, including noise, vibration, dust and traffic movements, as well as a temporary loss of public open space and residential parking. This would lead to conflict with planning policies in the London Borough of Lambeth’s Unitary Development Plan. In addition, the sewer interception works would be complex and disruptive, and an additional 700m connection tunnel would be required to connect the site to the main tunnel. For these reasons,



and also the fact that site C19XA would also be required, C20XH was not preferred.

b. C19XA is also situated adjacent to a large residential development, which would cause disruption to businesses and residents. Furthermore, there would be impacts on a conservation area, archaeological resources and river ecology. These impacts would lead to conflict with planning policies in the London Borough of Lambeth’s Unitary Development Plan. Access to this site is also difficult; therefore C19XA was not preferred.

c. C20XA was not preferred for similar reasons to C19XA. Access to the site would be very difficult and disruptive, and there would be impacts on the Albert Embankment Conservation Area and amenity, which would conflict with planning policy.

d. C20XS offers a location where the new foreshore structure would be less prominent and minimise fluvial impact. A temporary access route along the foreshore from Albert Embankment Gardens would have to be provided to site C20XS during construction, as the owner of Vauxhall Cross indicated that it was unlikely that the use of the slipway in Lack’s Docks would be acceptable for construction purposes. However, permanent access would be facilitated via Lack’s Dock.

2.5.3 Table 2.3 below sets out the preferred site and use. Table 2.3 Preferred site and use for phase one consultation

Site: C20XS: Albert Embankment Foreshore Use: To intercept the Clapham Storm Relief and Brixton Storm Relief CSOs and connect them to the main tunnel.


3 Phase two consultation preferred CSO site: Scheme development and site selection process

3 Phase two consultation preferred CSO site: Scheme development and site selection process

3.1 Introduction 3.1.1 This section explains how we implemented the Site selection methodology

paper in order to arrive at the preferred CSO site for phase two consultation. This stage took place from Winter 2010 to Autumn 2011.

3.1.2 Following phase one consultation and prior to phase two consultation, the site selection process comprised: a. a review of comments from phase one consultation b. consideration of any ongoing project design and/or new information c. a multidisciplinary optioneering workshop to identify the preferred CSO

site to intercept the Clapham Storm Relief and Brixton Storm Relief CSOs for phase two consultation.

3.1.3 The assessments described in this section were based on the information available at the time and the related stage in the pre-application process.

3.1.4 A plan that illustrates all the sites considered for the interception of the Clapham Storm Relief and Brixton Storm Relief CSOs is provided in Appendix 2.

3.2 Summary of phase one consultation feedback 3.2.1 Details of the consultation comments related to this site and our responses

are provided in the Report on phase one consultation. The main concerns raised relevant to site selection can be summarised as follows: a. loss of open space at Albert Embankment Gardens from the access

road b. impact on the conservation area, and listed buildings and structures c. impact on residential amenity d. an alternative access e. design of the permanent structures for the site.

3.2.2 The main comments received in support of the phase one consultation preferred site included: a. It is the most sensible of the four options consulted on. b. In principle, the site will be suitable once completed.


3 Phase two consultation preferred CSO site: Scheme development and site selection process 3.3 Phase two consultation preferred site 3.3.1 Having taken all comments received at phase one consultation into

account and because no new information or change of circumstances that would necessitate a back-check had come to light, at a multidisciplinary workshop prior to phase two consultation we re-confirmed that C20XS: Albert Embankment Foreshore was the preferred site to intercept the Clapham Storm Relief and Brixton Storm Relief CSOs.

3.3.2 On balance, the potential impacts of the use of this site appeared likely to be less than the other possible options identified during the site selection process. We did not believe that there were any suitable alternative land-based sites. We recognised that concerns were raised, including measures to minimise potential impacts, and took these into account in developing the scheme further. As a result, we explored whether an alternative access via Lack’s Dock would be possible and whether the size of the ventilation column for this site could be reduced.

3.3.3 The above points were based on the information available at the time and the related stage in the pre-application process. The points therefore comprise a historic representation of the process prior to phase two consultation.

3.3.4 Table 3.1 below sets out the preferred site and use. Table 3.1 Preferred site and use for phase two consultation



4 Post phase two consultation: Review and confirmation of proposed CSO site for Section 48 publicity


4.1 Introduction to the review 4.1.1 This section explains how we implemented the requirement in the Site

selection methodology paper to review the preferred site following phase two consultation and prior to Section 48 publicity. This stage took place from Spring 2012 to Summer 2012.

4.1.2 The review at this stage of the site selection process comprised: a. a review of comments from phase two consultation b. consideration of any ongoing project design and/or new technical

information c. a review of targeted consultation comments d. multidisciplinary reviews and workshops to identify the proposed CSO

sites and uses for Section 48 publicity. 4.1.3 The assessments described in this section were based on the information

available at the time and the related stage in the pre-application process. 4.1.4 A plan that illustrates all the sites considered for the interception of the

Clapham Storm Relief and Brixton Storm Relief CSOs is provided in Appendix 3.

4.2 Summary of phase two consultation feedback 4.2.1 Details of the consultation comments related to this site and our responses

are provided in the Report on phase two consultation. The main concerns raised relevant to site selection can be summarised as follows: a. Opposed in principle to the use of any foreshore structures along the

tidal Thames as this is likely to lead to a number of detrimental effects of flood risk management, biodiversity and recreation.

b. Query why shortlisted sites were not shown. c. Do not support changes to the extent of the preferred site since phase

one consultation/do not support the specific location of the site. d. Concerns regarding the effects of construction on the structure of, and

amenity and working conditions in the office building adjacent to the preferred site, and the potential effect on the working environment from the installation of ventilation columns as part of the permanent works.

e. Can the project legally acquire the necessary property rights for the use of the preferred site?



4.2.2 The main comments received in support of the phase two consultation

preferred site included: a. Support for the use of the preferred site. b. Sufficiently far away from residential areas. c. Generally in the right location, although the structure in the tidal

Thames has not been designed to take account of navigational risk. d. Accept the necessity of using this site provided that adverse impacts

on the site and on heritage assets are properly mitigated. 4.2.3 Having taken all comments received at phase two consultation into

account, we still believed that C20XS: Albert Embankment Foreshore was the most suitable site to intercept the Clapham Storm Relief and Brixton Storm Relief CSOs.

4.2.4 We recognised the concerns that were raised, including the use of a foreshore site and the impact on adjacent land uses, and we took these into account in developing the scheme further, including measures that could be put in place to minimise any significant potential impacts.

4.3 Consideration of project design or new information 4.3.1 Feedback was received from the occupants of Vauxhall Cross that we

could not make public for national security reasons. We confirmed, however, that the issues mainly related to the means of achieving construction access, rather than the location of the construction site.

4.3.2 In addition to the above, a new passenger service pier, St George Wharf pier, was constructed adjacent to site C19XA.

4.3.3 Having considered this new information, we still believed that C20XS: Albert Embankment Foreshore was the most suitable site to intercept the Clapham Storm Relief and Brixton Storm Relief CSOs.

4.4 Review of post phase two targeted consultation feedback

4.4.1 Phase two consultation feedback was received from the occupants of Vauxhall Cross that related to specific national security issues. The issues raised mainly related to the means of construction access rather than the actual construction works. As a result of this feedback, we decided to undertake a targeted consultation in Summer 2012 as part of our pre-application review. We requested specific feedback on a possible alternative access route for construction vehicles from Albert Embankment via a temporary road between Camelford House and Tintagel House. All other aspects of our phase two consultation proposals for the Albert Embankment Foreshore site remained the same.

4.4.2 All comments received during targeted consultation in relation to the Albert Embankment Foreshore site were reviewed at a workshop. Having taken all comments received into account, we still considered that C20XS: Albert Embankment Foreshore was the most suitable site.



4.4.3 Due to the unique local circumstances of this site, we took both access

routes forward to Section 48 publicity. We considered these access route options when developing the scheme further, including measures that could be put in place to minimise any significant potential impacts.

4.5 Proposed site for Section 48 publicity 4.5.1 Having completed the site selection review described above, we held a

further multidisciplinary workshop prior to Section 48 publicity. On balance, the review process did not identify any considerations that would have caused us to change our preferred site from phase two consultation. Therefore, C20XS: Albert Embankment Foreshore was identified as the proposed CSO site for Section 48 publicity for the following reasons (not in order of importance): a. The site has access from Albert Embankment (A3036) which forms

part of the Transport for London Road Netwrok (TLRN). b. Use of this site minimises the potential impact on the Victoria line

tunnels. c. The site allows for segregation of construction vehicle access from

Duck Tours slipway access, which means that the Duck Tours could continue to operate.

d. The site allows both CSOs to be intercepted in one location. e. Out of the foreshore sites, it would have the least impact on the listed

Vauxhall Bridge and its setting. f. The site would have the least impact on fluvial flows and is furthest

from the authorised navigation channel. g. The site would have less impact on local residential properties as the

site of the main shaft would be located further away from these receptors.

h. The proposed structure could incorporate new habitat to offset, in part, habitat that would be lost.

i. Whilst we recognised the potential effects of foreshore sites, the construction of the tunnel would deliver improvements to river-wide and local river water quality, which would result in positive effects on river ecology, including habitat improvements and reduced fish kills. We will continue to seek to minimise the effects of our proposals.

4.5.2 Table 4.1 below sets out the proposed site and use. Table 4.1 Proposed site and use for Section 48 publicity



5 Post Section 48 publicity: Review and final selection of CSO site for the application


5.1 Introduction to the review 5.1.1 This section explains how we conducted a site selection review in order to

arrive at the final selection of sites to be included in the application. This stage took place during Autumn 2012.

5.1.2 The final review comprised: a. review of comments from Section 48 publicity b. consideration of any ongoing project design and/or new technical

information c. final multidisciplinary reviews and workshops to re-consider the

comparisons of sites and the rationale for selecting the CSO site for the application.

5.1.3 A plan that illustrates all the sites considered for the interception of the Clapham Storm Relief and Brixton Storm Relief CSOs is provided in Appendix 4.

5.2 Summary of Section 48 publicity feedback 5.2.1 Details of the comments to Section 48 publicity related to this site and our

responses are provided in the Consultation report. The main concerns raised relevant to site selection can be summarised as follows: a. Object to the use of the proposed site. Should use/ consider an

alternative site. b. Selection of the proposed site has been poorly justified/ inadequately

explained. c. One of the shortlisted sites put forward at phase one consultation,

phase two consultation or post phase two consultation is more suitable. Specifically, the Foreshore adjacent to Vauxhall Cross

d. Site selection has not incorporated and/or addressed comments and objections from phase two consultation.

e. Do not support changes in the extent of preferred site since phase one consultation/ do not support the specific location of the site.

5.2.2 The main comments received in support of the proposed site included: a. Support the use of the proposed site.

5.2.3 Relevant Section 48 publicity comments were taken into account in the review of shortlisted CSO sites set out in Section 5.4 below.



5.3 Consideration of project design or new information 5.3.1 The review of this site confirmed that there was no new project design

and/or technical information relevant to site selection.

5.4 Final review of shortlisted CSO sites 5.4.1 As part of the final review process, all the phase two shortlisted sites for

this CSO were reviewed and compared following Section 48 publicity. 5.4.2 Below is the final list of shortlisted sites followed by a summary of the

points that distinguished between the sites (comparisons are not in order of importance): a. C19XA: Foreshore, adjacent to St George Wharf and Vauxhall Bridge b. C20XA: Foreshore, adjacent to Vauxhall Cross Building and Vauxhall

Bridge c. C20XH: Open Space, Claylands Road d. C20XS: Albert Embankment Foreshore.

5.4.3 Foreshore sites are not generally preferred where viable land-based alternatives exist due to increased health and safety risks, construction costs association with working in a river and impact to foreshore habitats. However, in this location, the foreshore sites (C19XA, C20XA and C20XS) allow the interception of both CSOs in one location. In comparison, due to the location of the sewers, C20XH (the land based site) would only allow for interception of the Brixton Storm Relief CSO and would need to be utilised in conjunction with C19XA, which would be required to intercept the Clapham Storm Relief CSO. In this respect, C20XH is at a relative disadvantage to the other shortlisted sites in the foreshore.

5.4.4 C20XH is a constrained site and its use, in comparison to the other shortlisted sites, would result in substantial impacts upon adjacent residential properties, including: noise, vibration, dust and vehicle movements. Furthermore, there would be a temporary loss of public open space and residents’ parking, and a 700m long connection tunnel would be required to connect the site to the main tunnel.

5.4.5 In terms of considering the foreshore sites relative to each other, for sites C19XA and C20XA, the interception chamber and drop shaft to connect the CSO to the main tunnel would be constructed adjacent to Vauxhall Bridge due to the location of the existing CSO outfalls (one on either side of Vauxhall Bridge). Locating the interception chamber and drop shaft together, in one of these two sites, would result in greater efficiency – due to having a shorter connection culvert to the outfalls than the other foreshore site (C20XS). However, the need to position the interception chamber and drop shaft on one site would require the construction of a much larger structure in the river which would have a greater impact on the Grade II* listed Vauxhall Bridge; as well as affecting river flow, scour and potentially the authorised navigation channel.



5.4.6 In comparison, the other foreshore site (C20XS) is further away from the

Grade II* listed Vauxhall Bridge, thereby minimising the impact on the bridge and its setting. The interception structures required below the bridge can be smaller in scale and can therefore be profiled to minimise the potential impact on the bridge and its setting and river flow in the vicinity of the bridge.

5.4.7 The London Underground Victoria Line tunnels run under C19XA, which means that a deep CSO drop shaft would need to be built at the south of the site, where a new passenger service pier (St Georges Wharf pier) is located. Furthermore, the environment disciplines judged C19XA to be less suitable in respect of transport, archaeology, built heritage and townscape, groundwater, surface water, ecology, flood risk, air quality, noise and land quality; and overall less suitable than the other foreshore sites.

5.4.8 C19XA is situated adjacent to a large residential and commercial development, whilst C20XA is adjacent to the Vauxhall Cross Building, the occupants of which have raised significant concerns regarding national security. C20XS is adjacent to a large commercial office, in multiple occupancy and an older building, which could be sensitive to noise effects.

5.4.9 There is no direct existing vehicle access route to C19XA, due to the built-up residential and commercial buildings adjacent to the site. The access to C20XA would be the same as for C20XS, except it is probable that construction vehicle access to C20XA would close Lack’s Dock to the Duck Tours operations, whereas use of C20XS would allow segregation of construction vehicle access from Duck Tours slipway access, meaning that the Duck Tours could continue to operate.

5.4.10 There have been a number of changes to the access to C20XS due to the sensitivity of national security of the Vauxhall Cross building and effects on adjacent occupiers. The proposed access during phase one consultation was along the foreshore and used Albert Embankment Gardens to gain access from the A3036 Albert Embankment (part of the TLRN). However, this access route was not pursued due to the impact on the gardens, amenity and extensive work in the foreshore. At phase two consultation we proposed Lack’s Dock as the access route to C20XS, which addressed the issues associated with the phase one consultation access route, but national security issues remained to be addressed. Phase two consultation feedback was received from the occupants of Vauxhall Cross who again highlighted concerns over national security issues related to the Lack’s Dock access to C20XS. As a result of this feedback, we undertook targeted consultation in Summer 2012 as part of our pre-application review.

5.4.11 At Section 48 publicity, two options for construction site access were proposed for the site: (i) Lack’s Dock off Albert Embankment (A3036), in between Vauxhall Cross and Camelford House, and the access-way continues down to the River Thames via a privately-owned slipway; and (ii) a temporary road constructed in between Camelford House and Tintagel House. Both these options eliminated the effect of the access route on Albert Embankment Gardens and the listed embankment wall;



reduced the effects on nearby residential properties at Peninsula Heights; and reduced the extent of the temporary works required in the foreshore. During operation, maintenance vehicles would access the site using the existing entrance to Lack’s Dock off Albert Embankment. There was a preference to use Lack’s Dock for the construction and operational access, but if Lack’s Dock was not available for construction access then the second option would also be acceptable.

5.4.12 The river wall is set back further at C20XS than it is at C19XA or C20XA, meaning that a new permanent structure in the foreshore would be less prominent and, overall the effects on river flow (and consequent scour effects) would be minimised. Furthermore, on this set back location, the permanent structures are also further from the authorised navigation channel.

5.5 Selected site for the application 5.5.1 In summary, we reviewed and considered:

a. Section 48 publicity feedback b. any relevant changes and/or new information c. shortlisted site comparisons.

5.5.2 The final site selection review described above, culminated in a multidisciplinary workshop following Section 48 publicity. On balance, the review process did not identify any new considerations that would have caused us to change our proposed site from Section 48 publicity. Therefore, C20XS: Albert Embankment Foreshore (with two construction access options)1 was selected as the CSO site for the application for the following reasons (not in order of importance): a. The site is acceptable from the perspective of national security. b. Both construction access routes for the site are off Albert Embankment

(A3036) which forms part of the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN).

c. Use of this site minimises the potential impact on the Victoria line tunnels.

d. The site allows for segregation of construction vehicle access from Duck Tours slipway access, which means that the Duck Tours can continue to operate.

e. The site allows both CSOs to be intercepted in one location. f. Out of the foreshore sites, it would have the least impact on the Grade

II* listed Vauxhall Bridge and its setting.

1 It should be noted that two alternative options (Lack’s Dock, and between Camelford House and Tintagel House) for construction site access are included in the application. Both options would use the existing entrance to Lack’s Dock off Albert Embankment for operational site access. The Secretary of State will be asked to decide which construction access option should be provided in any decision to grant development consent for the project.



g. The site would have the least impact on fluvial flows and is furthest

from the authorised navigation channel. h. The site would have less impact on local residential properties as the

site of the main shaft would be located further away from these receptors.

i. Whilst we recognised the potential effects of foreshore sites, the construction of the tunnel would deliver improvements to river-wide and local river water quality, which would result in positive effects on river ecology, including habitat improvements and reduced fish kills. We will continue to seek to minimise the effects of our proposals.

5.5.3 Table 5.1 below sets out the selected site and use. Table 5.1 Selected site and use for the application



Appendices

Appendix 1


Appendices



!(CS19X

LAMBETH

WANDSWORTH

CITY OF WESTMINSTERC19XB

C19XE

C19XG

C19XA

C19XC

C19XD

C19XKC19XL

C19XF

C19XJ

C19XH

FOR INFORMATION

50 0 5025 m

LocationCS19XClapham Storm ReliefDocument InformationPhase oneCSO sites 1PL04-SS-0255917 Dec 2012

Scale 1 : 3,500 at A3

±Keyplan:

Key

Local authority boundary (OS)

!( CSO directly controlledSite Selection

No at Table 2.2

Yes at Table 2.2, but parked

Not a preferred site

Mapping reproduced by permission of OrdnanceSurvey on behalf of HMSO. © Crown Copyright andDatabase right 2012. All rights reserved. OrdnanceSurvey licence number 100019345

© Thames Water Utilities Ltd 2008

!(CS20X

LAMBETH

WANDSWORTH

CITY OF WESTMINSTER

C20XC

C20XM

C20XR

C20XAC20XP

C20XK

C20XS

C20XB

C20XF

C20XH

C20XJ

C20XE

C20XQ

C20XG

C20XD

C20XN

C20XL

FOR INFORMATION

50 0 5025 m

LocationCS20XBrixton Storm ReliefDocument InformationPhase oneCSO sites 1PL04-SS-0256017 Dec 2012

Scale 1 : 3,000 at A3

±Keyplan:

Key



No at Table 2.2

No at Table 2.3Preferred site on thepreferred tunnel routeNot a preferred site



Appendices

Appendix 2


Appendices



!(

C19XB

C19XE

C19XG

C19XA

C19XC

C19XK

C19XD

C19XL

C19XF

C19XJ

C19XH

CS19X

LAMBETH

WANDSWORTH

CITY OF WESTMINSTER

FOR INFORMATION

50 0 5025 m

LocationCS19XClapham Storm ReliefDocument InformationPhase twoCSO sites 1PL04-SS-0247815 Nov 2012

Scale 1 : 3,500 at A3

±Keyplan:

Key



No at Table 2.2


No at Table 2.3

Not a preferred site



!( C20XC

C20XM

C20XR

C20XA C20XP

C20XK

C20XS

C20XB

C20XF

C20XH

C20XJ

C20XE

C20XG

C20XQ

C20XD

C20XN

C20XL

CS20X

LAMBETH

WANDSWORTH

CITY OF WESTMINSTER

FOR INFORMATION

50 0 5025 m

LocationCS20XBrixton Storm ReliefDocument InformationPhase twoCSO sites 1PL04-SS-0247915 Nov 2012

Scale 1 : 3,000 at A3

±Keyplan:

Key



No at Table 2.2

No at Table 2.3Preferred site for thepreferred tunnel routeNot a preferred site



Appendices

Appendix 3


Appendices



!(

C19XB

C19XE

C19XG

C19XA

C19XC

C19XK

C19XD

C19XL

C19XF

C19XJ

C19XH

CS19X

LAMBETH

WANDSWORTH

CITY OF WESTMINSTER

FOR INFORMATION

50 0 5025 m

LocationCS19XClapham South ReliefDocument InformationSection 48 publicityCSO sites

1PL04-SS-0249702 Nov 2012

Scale 1 : 3,500 at A3

±Keyplan:



Key



No at Table 2.2


No at Table 2.3

Not a proposed site

!( C20XC

C20XM

C20XR

C20XA C20XP

C20XK

C20XS

C20XB

C20XF

C20XH

C20XJ

C20XE

C20XG

C20XQ

C20XD

C20XN

C20XL

CS20X

LAMBETH

WANDSWORTH

CITY OF WESTMINSTER

FOR INFORMATION

50 0 5025 m

LocationCS20XBrixton Storm ReliefDocument InformationSection 48 publicityCSO sites

1PL04-SS-0249802 Nov 2012

Scale 1 : 3,000 at A3

±Keyplan:



Key



No at Table 2.2

No at Table 2.3Proposed site for theproposed tunnel routeNot a proposed site

Appendices

Appendix 4


Appendices


Final Report on Site Selection Process Volume 15: Albert Embankment Foreshore

!(

C19XB

C19XE

C19XG

C19XA

C19XC

C19XK

C19XD

C19XL

C19XF

C19XJ

C19XH

CS19X

LAMBETH

WANDSWORTH

CITY OF WESTMINSTER

FOR INFORMATION

50 0 5025 m

LocationCS19XClapham South ReliefDocument InformationSubmission of the applicationCSO sites

1PL04-SS-0251621 Nov 2012

Scale 1 : 3,500 at A3

±Keyplan:



Key



No at Table 2.2


No at Table 2.3

Not a selected site

!( C20XC

C20XM

C20XR

C20XA C20XP

C20XK

C20XS

C20XB

C20XF

C20XH

C20XJ

C20XE

C20XG

C20XQ

C20XD

C20XN

C20XL

CS20X

LAMBETH

WANDSWORTH

CITY OF WESTMINSTER

FOR INFORMATION

50 0 5025 m

LocationCS20XBrixton Storm ReliefDocument InformationSubmission of the applicationCSO sites

1PL04-SS-0251721 Nov 2012

Scale 1 : 3,000 at A3

±Keyplan:



Key



No at Table 2.2

No at Table 2.3

Selected site

Not a selected site

This page is intentionally blank

Copyright notice Copyright © Thames Water Utilities Limited January 2013. All rights reserved. Any plans, drawings, designs and materials (materials) submitted by Thames Water Utilities Limited (Thames Water) as part of this application for Development Consent to the Planning Inspectorate are protected by copyright. You may only use this material (including making copies of it) in order to (a) inspect those plans, drawings, designs and materials at a more convenient time or place; or (b) to facilitate the exercise of a right to participate in the pre-examination or examination stages of the application which is available under the Planning Act 2008 and related regulations. Use for any other purpose is prohibited and further copies must not be made without the prior written consent of Thames Water. Thames Water Utilities LimitedClearwater Court, Vastern Road, Reading RG1 8DB The Thames Water logo and Thames Tideway Tunnel logo are © Thames Water Utilities Limited. All rights reserved. DCO-DT-000-ZZZZZ-070500

application reference number: wwo10001 final report on ... · the lee tunnel would then transfer...

Documents