PEIR Main Report Vol28-Beckton-STW

Preliminary environmental information report
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works site assessment

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

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

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

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

List of contents Non technical summary Part A: Preliminary project information Volume 1 Volume 2 Volume 3 Volume 4 Volume 5 Volume 6 Volume 7 Volume 8 Volume 9 Volume 10 Volume 11 Volume 12 Volume 13 Volume 14 Volume 15 Volume 16 Volume 17 Volume 18 Volume 19 Volume 20 Volume 21 Volume 22 Volume 23 Volume 24 Introduction Proposed development Alternatives Scoping Opinions and technical engagement Assessment methodology Project-wide assessment Acton Storm Tanks CSO interception and main tunnel reception shaft site Hammersmith Pumping Station CSO interception site Barn Elms CSO interception site Putney Bridge Foreshore CSO interception site Dormay Street CSO interception and connection tunnel sequential drive site King Georges Park CSO interception and connection tunnel reception site Carnwath Road Riverside main tunnel drive and reception, and connection tunnel reception site Falconbrook Pumping Station CSO interception site Cremorne Wharf Depot CSO interception site Chelsea Embankment Foreshore CSO interception site Kirtling Street main tunnel double drive site Heathwall Pumping Station CSO interception site Albert Embankment Foreshore CSO interception site Victoria Embankment Foreshore CSO interception site Blackfriars Bridge Foreshore CSO interception site Chambers Wharf main tunnel drive and reception and connection tunnel reception site King Edward Memorial Park Foreshore CSO interception site Earl Pumping Station CSO interception site
Part B: Preliminary site information
Page i
Volume 25 Volume 26 Volume 27 Volume 28
Deptford Church Street CSO interception site Greenwich Pumping Station CSO interception and connection tunnel drive site Abbey Mills Pumping Station main tunnel reception site Beckton Sewage Treatment Works site (this document)
Page ii
Thames Tunnel Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works site assessment
List of contents
Page number
1 2
Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 Site context ....................................................................................................... 2 2.1 2.2 Site location ............................................................................................. 2 Environmental setting .............................................................................. 2 Overview.................................................................................................. 4 Operation ................................................................................................. 5 Construction ............................................................................................ 7 Design development and on site alternatives ........................................ 11 Base case .............................................................................................. 12 Introduction ............................................................................................ 14 Proposed development .......................................................................... 14 Assessment methodology...................................................................... 16 Baseline conditions................................................................................ 18 Construction assessment ...................................................................... 20 Operational assessment ........................................................................ 23 Approach to mitigation ........................................................................... 24 Assessment summary ........................................................................... 25 Assessment completion ......................................................................... 26 Introduction ............................................................................................ 27 Proposed development .......................................................................... 27 Assessment methodology...................................................................... 28 Baseline conditions................................................................................ 28 Construction assessment ...................................................................... 31 Operational assessment ........................................................................ 31 Approach to mitigation ........................................................................... 33 Assessment summary ........................................................................... 34
Proposed development.................................................................................... 4 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5
Air quality and odour ..................................................................................... 14 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9
Ecology - aquatic ........................................................................................... 27 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8
Page iii
5.9 6 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 7 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 8 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 9 9.1 9.2 9.3 10 10.1
Assessment completion ......................................................................... 35 Introduction ............................................................................................ 36 Proposed development .......................................................................... 36 Assessment methodology...................................................................... 37 Baseline conditions................................................................................ 40 Construction assessment ...................................................................... 46 Operational assessment ........................................................................ 49 Approach to mitigation ........................................................................... 49 Assessment summary ........................................................................... 50 Assessment completion ......................................................................... 52 Introduction ............................................................................................ 53 Proposed development .......................................................................... 53 Assessment methodology...................................................................... 54 Baseline conditions................................................................................ 55 Construction assessment ...................................................................... 68 Operational assessment ........................................................................ 71 Approach to mitigation ........................................................................... 71 Assessment summary ........................................................................... 73 Assessment completion ......................................................................... 75 Introduction ............................................................................................ 76 Proposed development .......................................................................... 76 Assessment methodology...................................................................... 77 Baseline conditions................................................................................ 77 Construction assessment ...................................................................... 84 Operational assessment ........................................................................ 88 Approach to mitigation ........................................................................... 89 Assessment summary ........................................................................... 90 Assessment completion ......................................................................... 91 Introduction ............................................................................................ 92 Proposed development .......................................................................... 92 Assessment methodology...................................................................... 93 Introduction ............................................................................................ 94
Ecology - terrestrial ....................................................................................... 36
Historic environment ..................................................................................... 53
Land quality .................................................................................................... 76
Noise and vibration ........................................................................................ 92
Socio-economics ........................................................................................... 94
Page iv
11
Townscape and visual ................................................................................... 95 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 Introduction ............................................................................................ 95 Assessment methodology...................................................................... 95 Proposed development .......................................................................... 95 Construction assessment ...................................................................... 96 Operational assessment ........................................................................ 96 Introduction ............................................................................................ 97 Proposed development .......................................................................... 97 Assessment methodology.................................................................... 101 Baseline conditions.............................................................................. 103 Construction assessment .................................................................... 108 Operational assessment ...................................................................... 113 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 118 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 120 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 122 Introduction .......................................................................................... 123 Proposed development ........................................................................ 123 Assessment methodology.................................................................... 125 Baseline conditions.............................................................................. 126 Construction assessment .................................................................... 129 Operational assessment ...................................................................... 133 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 134 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 136 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 138 Introduction .......................................................................................... 139 Proposed development ........................................................................ 139 Assessment methodology.................................................................... 141 Baseline conditions.............................................................................. 142 Construction assessment .................................................................... 144 Operational assessment ...................................................................... 146 Approach to mitigation ......................................................................... 146 Assessment summary ......................................................................... 147 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 148
12
Transport ........................................................................................................ 97 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 12.6 12.7 12.8 12.9
13
Water resources ground ........................................................................... 123 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 13.5 13.6 13.7 13.8 13.9
14
Water resources surface .......................................................................... 139 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 14.5 14.6 14.7 14.8 14.9
15
Water resources flood risk ....................................................................... 149
Page v
15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 15.5 15.6
Introduction .......................................................................................... 149 Policy considerations ........................................................................... 150 Regulatory position .............................................................................. 150 Assessment of flood risk ...................................................................... 153 Flood risk - design and mitigation ........................................................ 161 Assessment completion ....................................................................... 164
Appendix A : Historic environment ..................................................................... 167 Appendix B : Water resources - groundwater.................................................... 179 Appendix C : Noise and vibration ....................................................................... 190 Glossary ................................................................................................................ 191 References ............................................................................................................ 206
Page vi
List of figures
Page number
Vol 28 Figure 2.1.1 Site location plan ....................................................................... 2 Vol 28 Figure 2.2.1 Environmental setting ................................................................. 2 Vol 28 Figure 3.1.1 Construction phasing plan - site A .............................................. 4 Vol 28 Figure 3.1.2 Construction phasing plan - site B .............................................. 4 Vol 28 Figure 3.1.3 Construction phasing plan - site A - flow transfer ....................... 4 Vol 28 Figure 3.1.4 Permanent works layout ............................................................ 4 Vol 28 Figure 3.1.5 Permanent works - siphon tunnel outlet shaft & culvert .............. 4 Vol 28 Figure 3.1.6 Permanent works - siphon tunnel inlet shaft & valve chamber ... 4 Vol 28 Figure 3.1.7 Permanent works layout - inlet works & discharge chamber ...... 4 Vol 28 Figure 4.4.1 Air quality monitoring locations ................................................. 19 Vol 28 Figure 6.4.1 Terrestrial ecology - Phase 1 habitat survey ............................ 41 Vol 28 Figure 7.4.1 Historic environment features map ........................................... 56 Vol 28 Figure 8.4.1 Land quality contaminative land uses....................................... 78 Vol 28 Figure 8.4.2 Land quality proposed borehole locations ............................. 81 Vol 28 Figure 8.4.3 Land quality environmental records and waste sites ............. 83 Vol 28 Figure 12.2.1 Transport - construction traffic routes ..................................... 98 Vol 28 Figure 12.2.2 Transport - construction lorry profile ...................................... 100 Vol 28 Figure 12.4.1 Transport Site Plan ............................................................... 104 Vol 28 Figure 15.4.1 Flood risk EA flood zones .................................................. 153 Vol 28 Figure 15.4.2 Flood risk flood extents...................................................... 153
Page vii
List of tables
Page number
Vol 28 Table 3.3.1 Working hours ........................................................................... 11 Vol 28 Table 3.4.1 Design development at Beckton Sewage Treatment Works ...... 11 Vol 28 Table 4.3.1 Air quality and odour stakeholder engagement ......................... 17 Vol 28 Table 4.4.1 Air quality - measured NO2 concentrations ................................ 18 Vol 28 Table 4.4.2 Air quality - additional air quality monitoring locations ............... 19 Vol 28 Table 4.4.3 Air quality background pollutant concentrations ........................ 19 Vol 28 Table 4.4.4 Air quality receptors ................................................................... 20 Vol 28 Table 4.6.1 Odour impacts at ground level operation ................................. 23 Vol 28 Table 4.8.1 Air quality construction assessment .......................................... 25 Vol 28 Table 4.8.2 Odour operational assessment .................................................. 25 Vol 28 Table 5.4.1 Aquatic ecology receptors ......................................................... 30 Vol 28 Table 5.6.1 Aquatic ecology impacts - operation ......................................... 31 Vol 28 Table 5.8.1 Aquatic ecology operational assessment .................................. 34 Vol 28 Table 6.3.1 Terrestrial ecology stakeholder comments ................................ 37 Vol 28 Table 6.3.2 Terrestrial ecology notable species surveys .............................. 38 Vol 28 Table 6.4.1 Terrestrial ecology Phase 1 Habitat Survey............................... 41 Vol 28 Table 6.8.1 Terrestrial ecology construction assessment ............................. 50 Vol 28 Table 7.4.1 Historic environment receptors .................................................. 67 Vol 28 Table 7.5.1 Historic environment effects - construction ................................ 70 Vol 28 Table 7.8.1 Historic environment construction assessment.......................... 73 Vol 28 Table 8.4.1 Land quality contaminative land use summary .......................... 78 Vol 28 Table 8.4.2 Land quality - anticipated geology and hydrogeology ................ 79 Vol 28 Table 8.4.3 Land quality - environmental records and waste sites ............... 83 Vol 28 Table 8.5.1 Land quality impacts - construction ........................................... 87 Vol 28 Table 8.5.2 Land quality receptors - construction ......................................... 87 Vol 28 Table 8.5.3 Land quality effects - construction ............................................. 88 Vol 28 Table 8.6.1 Land quality impacts - operation ................................................ 89 Vol 28 Table 8.6.2 Land quality receptors - operation ............................................. 89 Vol 28 Table 8.6.3 Land quality effects - operation.................................................. 89 Vol 28 Table 8.8.1 Land quality construction assessment ....................................... 90 Vol 28 Table 8.8.2 Land quality operation assessment ........................................... 90 Vol 28 Table 12.2.1 site construction traffic details.................................................. 98
Page viii
Vol 28 Table 12.2.2 Transport - construction worker numbers .............................. 101 Vol 28 Table 12.3.1 Transport stakeholder engagement ....................................... 102 Vol 28 Table 12.4.1 Transport bus service frequency ........................................ 105 Vol 28 Table 12.4.2 Transport receptors .............................................................. 108 Vol 28 Table 12.5.1 Transport forecast construction vehicle movements ........... 111 Vol 28 Table 12.8.1 Transport construction assessment ....................................... 120 Vol 28 Table 12.8.2 Transport operational assessment ........................................ 121 Vol 28 Table 13.2.1 Groundwater - methods of construction ................................. 124 Vol 28 Table 13.4.1 Ground water anticipated ground / resources ........................ 126 Vol 28 Table 13.4.2 Groundwater r receptors ........................................................ 128 Vol 28 Table 13.5.1 Groundwater impacts -construction ....................................... 131 Vol 28 Table 13.5.2 Groundwater receptors -construction .................................... 132 Vol 28 Table 13.5.3 Groundwater effects - construction ........................................ 132 Vol 28 Table 13.6.1 Groundwater impacts- operation ........................................... 133 Vol 28 Table 13.6.2 Groundwater effects - operation ............................................ 134 Vol 28 Table 13.8.1 Groundwater construction assessment ................................. 136 Vol 28 Table 13.8.2 Groundwater operation assessment ...................................... 137 Vol 28 Table 14.2.1 Surface water discharge volumes.......................................... 141 Vol 28 Table 14.4.1 Surface water receptors......................................................... 142 Vol 28 Table 14.8.1 Surface water operational assessment .................................. 147 Vol 28 Table 15.4.1 Flood risk runoff rates onsite ................................................. 159 Vol 28 Table 15.4.2 Flood risk - estimated discharge volumes.............................. 160 Vol 28 Table 15.5.1 Flood risk runoff rates and preliminary attenuation volumes.. 162
Page ix
List of abbreviations AADT ACE AM AOD APZ AQEG AQMA AQO ARS ASR ASSI ATC ATD AURN BAP BGS BMWP BOD BPIP BPM BS CABE CAMS CCI CCSS CCTV CDA CEMP CIRIA CLR CoCP CoPA CROW Annual Average Daily Traffic Arts Culture and Entertainment Morning Above Ordnance Datum Archaeological Priority Zone Air Quality Expert Group Air Quality Management Area Air Quality Objective Artificial Recharge Scheme Aquifer Storage and Recovery Area of Special Scientific Interest Automated Traffic Counter Above Tunnel Datum (defined at ~100m AOD) Automatic Urban and Rural Network Biodiversity Action Plan British Geological Survey Biological Monitoring Working Party Biochemical Oxygen Demand Building Profile Input Programme Best Practicable Means British Standard Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy Community Conservation Index Community Consultation Strategy Closed Circuit Television Critical Drainage Area Construction Environment Management Programmes Construction Industry Research and Information Association Contaminated Land Report Code of Construction Practice Control of Pollution Act Countryside and Rights of Way
Page x
CSO dB dB LAeq,T
Combined Sewer Overflow Decibel a equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level having the same energy as a fluctuating sound over a specified time period T Department for Culture, Media and Sport Development Consent Order Department for Communities and Local Government Department for Culture media and Sport Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Department for Transport Development Management Plan Development Management Policies Document Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Dissolved Oxygen Development Plan Document Digital Terrain Mapping Environment Agency European Commission Ecological Impact Assessment Estimated Vibration Dose Value European Economic Area Environment Food and Rural Affairs Committee English Heritage Environmental Health Officer Environmental Impact Assessment European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme English Nature Environment Protection Agency Earth Pressure Balance Earth Pressure Balance Machine Equality Impact Assessment Environmental Quality Standard Environmental Statement European Union Frequently Asked Questions
Page xi
DCMS DCO DCLG DCMS Defra DfT DMP DMPD DMRB DO DPD DTM EA EC EcIA eVDV EEA EFRA EH EHO EIA EMEP EN EPA EPB EPBM EqIA EQS ES EU FAQ
FIDOR FRA GARDIT GI GiGL GIS GLA GLHER GQA GSHP GWB GWMU H2S ha HA HDV HEA HER HGV HIA HIAB HPA HQ HRA HTC HWR IEEM IEMA IMD IPC Iron Age JNCC kg km
Frequency, Intensity, Duration, Offensiveness, Receptor Flood Risk Assessment General Aquifer Research Development and Investigation Team Ground Investigation Greenspace Information for Greater London Geographical Information System Greater London Authority Greater London Historic Environment Record General Quality Assessment (EA water quality classification) Ground Source Heat Pump Groundwater Body: distinct volume of groundwater within an aquifer or aquifers Ground Water Management Unit Hydrogen sulphide hectares Highways Authority Heavy Duty Vehicle Historic Environmental Assessment Historic Environment Record Heavy Goods Vehicle Health Impact Assessment Hydrauliska Industri AB Company Health Protection Agency Headquarter Habitats Regulations Assessment Hammersmith Town Centre Hazardous Waste Regulations (2005) Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment Index of Multiple Deprivation Infrastructure Planning Commission 600 BC AD 43 Joint Nature Conservation Committee kilograms kilometre
Page xii
kVA kW l/d l/s LA LAARC LAQM LAQN LB LBAP LDF LGV LHA LMB LNR loWR LSB LtB LTI LTT LUL LVMF m m AOD m ATD m/s MAGIC Mbgl MEICA Ml/d MoD MOL MOLA NE NESR
kilo watt amperes kilowatt litres per day litres per second Local Authority London Archaeological Archive and Research Centre Local Air Quality Management London Air Quality Network London Borough Local Biodiversity Action Plan Local Development Framework Light Goods Vehicle Local Highway Authority Lambeth Mottled Beds Local Nature Reserve List of Wastes Regulations 2005 Lower Shelly Beds Laminated Beds London Tideway Improvements London Tideway Tunnels London Underground Limited London View Management Framework metre metres above Ordinance Datum (see AOD) metres above temporary datum, (see ATD) metres per second Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside Metres below ground level Mechanical Electrical Instrumentation Controls Automation Megalitres per day (million litres per day) Ministry of Defence Metropolitan Open Land Museum of London Archaeology Natural England North East Storm Relief
Page xiii
NCR NGR NMR NNR NO2 NOx NPPF NPS NRMM NSIP NSRA NTS OCU Ofwat OS OUE PAH PCB PEI PEIR PEL PICP PIP PLA PM PM10 PPC PPE PPG PPS PPV PRoW PS pSPA PWS
National Cycle Route National Grid Reference National Monuments Record National Nature Reserve Nitrogen dioxide Oxides of nitrogen National Planning Policy Framework National Policy Statement Non Road Mobile Machinery Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project National Small-bore Rifle Association Non Technical Summary Odour Control Unit The Water Services Regulations Authority Ordnance Survey European Odour Unit Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons Polychlorinated Biphenyl Preliminary Environmental Information Preliminary Environmental Information Report Probable Effect Levels Pollution Incident Control Plan Project Information Paper Port of London Authority Afternoon Particles on the order of ~10 micrometers or less Pollution Prevention and Control Personal Protective Equipment Pollution Prevention Guidance Planning Policy Statement Peak Particle Velocity Public Rights of Way Pumping Station Potential Special Protected Area Public Water Supply
Page xiv
RAMS RAMSAR RB RBKC RBMP RDB RHS RPG RSPB RDB RTC RTD SA SAC SAM SCI SCL SFRA SI SINC SMI SNCI SO2 SoCC SPA SPD S-P-R SPZ SR SRN SSR SSSI STW SUDS
Risk Assessment Method Statement The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Royal Borough Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea River Basin Management Plans Red Data Book Royal Horticultural Society Regional Planning Guidance Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Red data book Real Time Control River Terrace Deposits Sustainability Appraisal Special Area of Conservation Scheduled Ancient Monument. More commonly referred to as Scheduled Monument Statement of Community Involvement Sprayed Concrete Lining Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Statutory Instrument Site of Importance for Nature Conservation Site of Metropolitan Importance Site Nature Conservation Importance Sulphur dioxide Statement of Community Consultation Special Protection Area Supplementary Planning Document Source-pathway-receptor Source Protection Zone Storm Relief Strategic Road Network Site Suitability Report Site of Special Scientific Interest Sewage Treatment Works Sustainable (Urban) Drainage Systems
Page xv
SWMP SWMP t TA TAS TBC TBM TDP TEBP TEL TfL TFRM TH TLRN Tpa TPO TT TTQI TTSS TWU UDP UK UKHO UMB UPN UWWTD UWWTR UXO VDV VNEB OA WCA WEEE WFD WIA WRAP
waste - Site Waste Management Plan water Surface Water Management Plan tonne Transport Assessment Thames Archaeological Survey To be confirmed Tunnel Boring Machine Thames Discovery Programme Thames Estuary Benthic Programme Threshold Effect Levels Transport for London Tideway Fish Risk Model Tower Hamlets Transport for London Road Network tonnes per annum Tree Preservation Order Thames Tunnel Thames Tideway Quality Improvements Thames Tideway Strategic Study 2005 Thames Water Utilities Unitary Development Plan United Kingdom United Kingdom Hydrographic Office Upper Mottled Beds Upnor Formation Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations Unexploded Ordnance Vibration Dose Value Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea Opportunity Area Wildlife and Countryside Act Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive Water Framework Directive Water Industry Act 1991 Waste Resources Action Programme
Page xvi
WSI WWT ZTV ZVI
Written Scheme of Investigation Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust Zone of Theoretical Visibility Zone of Visual Influence
Page xvii
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works
Section 1: Introduction
1
1.1.1 1.1.2
Introduction
This volume presents the preliminary environmental information for the Thames Tunnel proposals at Beckton Sewage Treatment Works (STW). This document reports the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant environmental effects of the Thames Tunnel project at Beckton Sewage Treatment Works. The planned activities to assist in completing the environmental impact assessment (EIA) include: a. conclude baseline environmental surveys b. confirm final design, informed by, amongst other things, feedback from public consultation c. undertake design of possible mitigation to address adverse effects.
1.1.3
Once complete, the findings of the EIA will be reported in full in the Environmental Statement which will be submitted with the consent application. It describes the site and environmental context in Section 2. The proposed development including construction and operation is described in Section 3. The design evolution for this site is set out in Section 3.4. Finally, Section 3.5 refers to other development schemes which have been submitted or with extant planning approval within or in proximity to the site. The development at Beckton STW would be constructed to cater for additional flows from the Thames Tunnel over and above those from the Lee Tunnel. A description of the Thames Tunnel is included in Volume 2. This includes the planning context for the project as well as local planning policies relevant to this site. The alternatives which have been considered are described in Volume 3. Scoping and technical engagement is covered in Volume 4, while Volume 5 sets out the technical assessment methodology. A project-wide assessment is provided in Volume 6. The remaining Volumes 7 to 28 contain the site specific assessments.
1.1.4
1.1.5
1.1.6
Page 1
Section 2: Site context
2 2.1
2.1.1
Site context Site location

The site is located in the London Borough of Newham, immediately to the west of the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham. All works will be contained within the existing Thames Water site. The working area would comprise 12.6 hectares which will be made up of two distinct areas of 10.2 hectares (Site Area A) and 2.4 hectares (Site Area B). Together they are collectively referred to as the site (as shown in Vol 28 Figure 2.1.1). Vol 28 Figure 2.1.1 Site location plan (see Volume 28 Figures document)
2.1.2
The STW is bound by the A13 (Alfreds Way) trunk road to the north and Barking Creek to the east. The sites eastern boundary is the tidal confluence of the River Roding and the River Thames. East of Barking Creek is a large timber yard and other warehouse uses. To the south of the STW is the River Thames, and to the west there is a tract of derelict land, and a mixture of business parks and retail parks. The site is approximately 480m from the closest residential property. Access to the site is via Jenkins Lane which joins on to the A13. The closest station to the site is Gallions Reach DLR (approximately 1km from the STW). A green chain route and a recreational permissive footpath (which is a Public Right of Way (PRoW)) are located along the Barking Creek. Within the construction site within a functioning sewage treatment works and is comprises hardstanding. The site is surrounded by sewerage treatment infrastructure.
2.1.3
2.1.4 2.1.5
2.2
2.2.1
Environmental setting
Environmental designations for the site and immediate surrounds are shown in Vol 28 Figure 2.2.1. Vol 28 Figure 2.2.1 Environmental setting (see Volume 28 Figures document)
2.2.2
The River Thames and Tidal Tributaries Site of Importance Nature Conservation (SINC) lies within the development site and the Greenway and the Old Fort Nature Reserve SINC runs through the site. Ripple local nature reserve (LNR) is within 2km of site. The site contains habitat which is known to support a number of protected species, including bat species, reptiles and waterfowl. There are no statutory heritage designations covering the site but the Roding Valley Archaeology Priority Area, designated by the London Borough of Newham, does extend across the site. A number of archaeological finds have been recorded at Beckton Sewage Works including Mesolithic animal remains, a Neolithic axe, Neolithic peat, two Bronze Age axes, a Bronze Age sword and the site of 15th-century Gallions Cottages.
2.2.3
Page 2
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works 2.2.4 2.2.5 There are no Tree Protection Orders on site.
Section 2: Site context
The site does not sit within an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). The main access route to the site, Royal Docks Road and the A13 are covered by an AQMA designated for annual exceedences of NO2 and PM10 thresholds. The site has historically been used as a sewage treatment works and the surrounding land uses include a gas works, waste treatment sites and industrial estates. It is considered that the site has a high potential for contamination. The local geology comprises 11m Superficial deposits and made ground, 8m of London Clay (unproductive strata), 17m Lambeth Group (secondary aquifer), 14m of Thanet Sand (secondary aquifer) and chalk at depth (principal aquifer). The site is located in defended Flood Zone 3 (tidal River Thames, and tidal Barking Creek). Defences have a 1 in a 1000 year standard of protection; therefore, flood risk at the site during construction is the residual risk from defence breach or overtopping.
2.2.6
2.2.7
Page 3
Section 3: Proposed development
3 3.1
3.1.1
Proposed development Overview

The proposed development at Beckton STW would cater for the additional diverted CSO discharges transported via the main tunnel to the STW. Vol 28 Figure 3.1.1 to Vol 28 Figure 3.1.7 show the construction phasing and permanent works plans. Vol 28 Figure 3.1.1 Construction phasing plan - site A Vol 28 Figure 3.1.2 Construction phasing plan - site B Vol 28 Figure 3.1.3 Construction phasing plan - site A - flow transfer Vol 28 Figure 3.1.4 Permanent works layout Vol 28 Figure 3.1.5 Permanent works - siphon tunnel outlet shaft & culvert Vol 28 Figure 3.1.6 Permanent works - siphon tunnel inlet shaft & valve chamber
Vol 28 Figure 3.1.7 Permanent works layout - inlet works & discharge chamber (see Volume 28 Figures document) 3.1.2 Construction of the main works at this site is scheduled to commence in mid 2018 (year 1) and be completed in 2022, taking approximately four years. Early works, such as utility connections and diversions may be undertaken in advance of the main works. The site would be operational in 2023. Further detail of the programme is described in Section 3.2 and 3.3 a. Year 1 Site setup (approximately 1 month) b. Year 1 - Shaft construction (approximately 9 months) c. Years 1 to 2 - Tunnelling (approximately 10 months) d. Years 2 to 4 Construction of other structures (approximately 19 months) e. Years 3 to 4 Completion of works and site restoration (approximately 14 months). 3.1.3 3.1.4 System-wide commissioning would take place following site restoration and is not included in the above programme. The following structures are required at this site: a. Duplicate grit removal gantries b. Siphon inlet shaft c. Siphon tunnel and outlet shaft d. Two additional pumps and associated equipment in the existing Tideway Pumping Station e. Additional electrical control equipment f. A tunnel pump-out discharge chamber g. An underground pipeline
Page 4
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works h. A connection tunnel i. j. 3.1.5 3.1.6 A connection culvert
A valve chamber on the connection culvert
Further details of these elements are given in section 3.2 where these are relevant to the technical assessments that follow. The following construction facilities and methods would be required: a. Gates to site entrance and exit. b. Hoardings and other means of enclosure, barrier or screening. c. Office and welfare accommodation and facilities. d. Workshops and stores. e. Plant and machinery. f. Material storage and handling areas and treatment facilities. g. Bentonite plant, power supply, and steel reinforcement preparation area. h. The carrying out or maintenance of other such works.
3.1.7
Further details of these facilities and methods and the relevant phases are given in Section 3.2 where these are relevant to the technical assessments that follow.
3.2
3.2.1
Operation
Once developed the project would divert the majority of current CSO discharges via the CSO shaft and connection tunnel to the main tunnel for treatment at Beckton STW. The works at Beckton under this project are provided to empty the main tunnel into the treatment units at Beckton, after a storm event. Most of the works required at Beckton STW are currently under construction under the STW extension and Lee Tunnel project; but some additional works would be constructed under the Thames Tunnel project to cater for the additional volume of the extended tunnel, over and above that of the Lee Tunnel. The overflow from the tunnel, constructed as a gravity overflow under the Lee Tunnel project, would be re-configured as a pumped overflow under this project to prevent risk of flooding from shafts which are located in areas with low ground levels.
3.2.2
3.2.3
Permanent structures
3.2.4 A plan of the permanent structures is appended in Vol 28 Figure 3.1.4 to Vol 28 Figure 3.1.7. The area of operational land required by the project is less than that required for the construction phase, but both are wholly within the current Thames Water operational site. The land which is not required for Thames Tunnel operational purposes would revert to other Thames Water operational uses.
Page 5
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works 3.2.5 3.2.6
Once constructed and operational there would remain on site the structures listed in the following sections. The design and finishing proposed for the above ground features would be further developed during the period up to the application. Inlet works duplicate grit removal gantries The new grit removal gantries would be approximately 9m long, 5m high and 4m wide. These would operate as standby units to the existing gantries, and would be operated and maintained by the same on-site operation and maintenance teams. Siphon inlet shaft The inlet shaft would have an internal diameter of 9m. The shaft would be approximately 35m deep. Normal operation would be fully automatic, monitored from the STW control room. Siphon tunnel and outlet shaft The siphon tunnel would have an internal diameter of 2.8m. The tunnel would be 35m deep and would connect the Tideway Pumping Station (PS) to the outlet shaft. The outlet shaft would carry bypass flows from the pumping station to a storm outfall.
3.2.7
3.2.8
3.2.9
Ventilation structures
3.2.10 3.2.11 The works under this project would be connected into the odour control and ventilation structures constructed under the Lee Tunnel project. Provisionally this consists of five odour control facilities: a. b. c. Ventilation and odour control plant with a capacity of 10m3/s at the Connection Shaft adjacent to the tunnel pump-out pumping station. Ventilation and odour control plant with a capacity of 10m3/s at the Overflow Shaft close to the final effluent outfall at the river. Two bell-mouth chamber ventilation and odour control plant each with a capacity of about 6m3/s adjacent to the tunnel pump-out pumping station. An inlet chamber ventilation and odour control plant at the inlet works with an approximate capacity of 3m3/s.
d.
Paved areas
3.2.12 The area around the siphon inlet and outlet shafts would be finished with hardstanding to allow access to the shafts.
Access and maintenance works

3.2.13 3.2.14 Beckton STW would continue to be accessed from the A13 via its existing access roads via Jenkins Lane, and the existing internal site roads. The Tideway PS would be accessed via the roads and hardstanding constructed under the Lee Tunnel project. The inlet works and adjacent discharge structure would be accessed via the existing access roads and paths to the inlet works.
Page 6
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works 3.2.15
Maintenance visits for the structures proposed under the Thames Tunnel would be incorporated into the existing maintenance programme at Beckton STW. Visits to the siphon and inlet shaft would be required approximately every three months for inspection and routine maintenance of valves, ventilation plant, instruments and lifting equipment. This would be undertaken by operation and maintenance staff based at Beckton STW. Six-monthly statutory inspections of the lifting equipment would be undertaken by an off-site inspector, during visits to inspect all lifting equipment at Beckton STW. No additional maintenance visits would be required for the additional two pumps and associated electrical equipment to be installed in the existing Tideway PS under this project.
3.2.16
3.2.17
3.3
3.3.1
Construction
The construction works at this site would encompass the existing Thames Water STW. Vol 28 Figure 3.1.1 to Vol 28 Figure 3.1.3 show the construction phasing to be undertaken at the site. The methods, order and timing of the construction work outlined below are indicative only, but representative of a practical method to construct the works. It is recognised that, following further design development alternate methodologies and scheduling may be proposed. The following sections describe: a. Construction works including early works, construction of the shaft and tunnel and working methods to be applied b. Access and movement c. Construction programme and working hours
3.3.2
3.3.3
Code of construction practice

3.3.4 3.3.5 All works would be undertaken in accordance with the Thames Tunnel Code of Construction Practice (a draft is appended to Volume 2). The Code of Construction Practice sets out a series of measures to protect the environment and limit disturbance from construction activities as far as reasonably practicable. These measures would be applied throughout the construction process at this site and any measures particularly relevant to particular phases of construction are highlighted below.
3.3.6
Construction works
3.3.7 The following physical construction works are described: a. Site set up b. Shaft construction Tunnelling c. Construction of other works
Page 7
Construction processes
Site setup 3.3.8 Hoarding would be erected to an appropriate height around areas of heavy construction works. Office and welfare facilities would be set up for the project. Shaft construction 3.3.1 Plant and material storage areas (including displaced slurry storage), excavated material handling area and delivery vehicle turning area would be set up on site. Craneage, diaphragm wall rig, bentonite silos, water tanks, mixing pan, compressor, air receiver, excavator and dumper are among the items of plant that would be required on site. The shaft would be constructed by diaphragm wall construction techniques and have a cast in-situ secondary lining. The first stage in the construction of each panel of diaphragm wall would be the excavation and setting of inner and outer guide walls. These guide walls would provide a support between which excavation for the diaphragm walls would be undertaken. During excavation the void would be filled with bentonite for ground support and steel bar reinforcement cages are lowered in before concrete is pumped into the base of the wall to create a panel. This process would then be repeated to create a full circle of diaphragm wall The diaphragm wall would be taken to a depth suitable to reduce the flow of water into the shaft (which could be into the chalk). Grouting at the toe of the diaphragm wall may also be required to reduce the flow of water. The shaft excavation commences after the diaphragm walls are complete with the working platform within the guide walls being broken out, and the shaft excavated exposing the walls. The excavator would load shaft skips hoisted by crawler crane, depositing the excavated material within the excavated material handling area. A steel reinforced concrete base plug would be formed at the base of the shaft. The whole shaft would be mined through water bearing ground and dewatering would be required at the site. For the shaft dewatering wells would be drilled from the surface (external to the shaft). These pumps would be operational during shaft sinking. Approval would be sought from the EA and Thames Water Operations so that extracted ground water can be discharged into the existing sewer system or by pipeline to the Thames. Ground treatment would also be required during the interception and CSO works. Tunnelling 3.3.10 Approximately 0.8km of tunnel would be driven from the 9m shaft. The tunnel would have an internal diameter of 2.8m, constructed by a 3.5m slurry tunnel boring machine (TBM).
3.3.2 3.3.3
3.3.4
3.3.5
3.3.6 3.3.7
3.3.8
3.3.9
Page 8
On completion of the shaft construction the worksite layout would be reconfigured to support the tunnelling works. This includes: a. Slurry processing plant. b. Excavated material storage areas including conveyors. c. Tunnel lining storage areas including gantry cranes. d. Materials laydown areas. Including slurry/water pipes, ventilation bagging, tunnel railway track, power cable drums, TBM consumables. e. Workshops/stores. f. Grout batching plant g. Labour welfare facilities.
3.3.12
Once launched the TBM cuts the ground by rotating the cutter head whilst hydraulic shove rams propel it forward. The excavated material is turned into slurry. The slurry is then pumped to the surface treatment plant where the solids are separated and the excavated material transported off site. Construction of other structures - Flow transfer and inlet works Approximately 0.5km of 2.1m internal diameter pipe line would be constructed for flow transfer to the inlet works above and below ground. The discharge chamber which connects the flow transfer pipeline to the existing elevated inlet works would include a weir chamber and distribution pipes. The 9m diameter siphon inlet shaft would be connected to the flow transfer pipeline by two 2.1m diameter pipes constructed in open trench. The siphon inlet shaft would also have two 600mm ID approximately 30m long drain-down pipes connecting to the existing connection shaft at a depth of approximately 35m. Prior to constructing the pipes, eyes would be formed in the base of the siphon inlet shaft and in the connection shaft and the ground in between treated to control groundwater. The 7m siphon outlet shaft would be connected to the Lee Tunnel overflow shaft via a reinforced concrete valve chamber and connecting culvert, constructed using an open trench approach. The outlet shaft would be connected to the Tideway PS by a 2.8m diameter siphon tunnel. Additional pumps and associated equipment Two additional pumps and motors, pipe work and controls are required in the pumping station currently under construction by the Lee Tunnel project. The Lee Tunnel project will install four of the six pumps required (with the Thames Tunnel installing the two additional pumps). A mobile crane would be used to lower the pumps and motors to the base of the pumping station dry well, the existing station crane (located near the base of the station) would then be used to move the pumps and motors into their final positions. The transformers, control panels and associated equipment to be installed in the existing Power Complex building would be delivered by lorry and offloaded and moved into position using a mobile crane.
3.3.13
3.3.14 3.3.15
3.3.16
3.3.17
3.3.18
Page 9
The three duplicate grit removal gantries for the inlet works grit channels would be fabricated off-site, delivered to site on low-loaders and craned into position using a mobile crane.
Access and movement

3.3.20 For the purposes of this report one vehicle movement is defined as a vehicle either accessing or egressing the site. For the purposes of construction logistics, site traffic is measured in units of lorries or barges where one lorry/barge is equivalent to a single lorry/barge accessing and then egressing the site. The highest lorry movements at the site would occur during shaft excavation. The peak daily vehicle movements at this time, averaged over a one month period, would be 40 HGV movements per day. Access to the site is via the existing Beckton STW route, via Jenkins Lane from the A13 and the existing internal site roads. A traffic management plan for the site would be prepared. An option has been included for the use of a barge at Beckton. However, this has not been assessed in the PEIR and will be considered in the ES
3.3.21
3.3.22 3.3.23 3.3.24
Reinstatement and commissioning

3.3.25 Once the main elements of construction are completed, the final landscaping works would be undertaken including final treatments and surfaces. Testing and commissioning would also be undertaken once construction is complete. For the purposes of the PEIR, completion of the commissioning stage represents the end of construction and the commencement of the operational development.
3.3.26
Construction programme and working hours

Construction programme 3.3.27 Construction at Beckton Sewage Treatment Works is anticipated to take approximately four years and would involve the following steps (with some overlaps): a. Year 1 Site setup (approximately 1 month) b. Year 1 - Shaft construction (approximately 9 months) c. Years 1 to 2 - Tunnelling (approximately 10 months) d. Years 2 to 4 Construction of other structures (approximately 19 months) e. Years 3 to 4 Completion of works and site restoration (approximately 14 months). f. System-wide commissioning would take place following site restoration and is not included in the above programme.
Page 10
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works Working hours 3.3.28
The following working hours set out in the table below would apply for the construction at this site. Vol 28 Table 3.3.1 Working hours Key activities Core working hours Extended standard working hours Hours 08:00 to 18:00 Weekdays 08:00 to 13:00 Saturdays These are intermittent and are required to cover certain construction activities that require more than the standard working hours to be completed. 18.00 to 22.00 Weekdays 13.00 to 17.00 Saturdays Maintenance and support period Mobilisation period 13:00 to 17:00 Saturdays 10:00 to 16:00 Sundays Up to 1 hour before and after the core working hours 07:00 to 08:00 and 18:00 to 19:00 Weekdays 07:00 to 08:00 and 13:00 to 14:00 Saturday Tunnel excavation Continuous Working 24 hour working. Monday to Sunday
3.4
3.4.1
Design development and on site alternatives

The design presented here was completed in advance of the completion of all surveys and technical studies. The final design may alter significantly in response to this as well as feedback from phase two consultation. The design of the proposals has developed since phase one consultation as described in the table below
3.4.2
Vol 28 Table 3.4.1 Design development at Beckton Sewage Treatment Works Design development Extension of the inlet works has been replaced by duplication of the three grit removal gantries on the existing inlet works (i.e. provision of three additional gantries). Reason Study into inlet works resilience revealed that the grit channels themselves were satisfactory and that the principal issue was the reliability of the grit pumps. Duplicating the gantries provides more standby than the additional
Page 11
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works Design development
Section 3: Proposed development Reason channels, and at lower cost Revised design reduces loading on existing structures and avoids diversion of elevated roadway at edge of sewage treatment works Improved flexibility and resilience in operation, reduced impact on existing sewage treatment works
The discharge chamber near the inlet works for the transfer pipe has been redesigned. The part of the chamber which is above-ground is now north of the Northern Outfall Sewer rather than on top of it A new siphon tunnel has been added together with an associated inlet shaft near the Tideway Pumping Station, and an outlet shaft near the Lee Tunnel overflow shaft. This siphon tunnel is to take flows directly to the overflow shaft rather than via the treatment works. The siphon tunnel inlet shaft will have a single storey building above-ground level. There will be short buried connection pipes/culverts from the shafts to adjacent existing structures, and hardstanding around the shafts 3.4.3
Further information on how the design has evolved at this site is included in the Design Development Report, which is also available as part of phase two consultation. Design development information, and the reasons for the choice of the final design at this site, including environmental design factors, will also be provided in the ES.
3.4.4
3.5
3.5.1
Base case
The assessment undertaken for this site takes account of relevant development projects which have been submitted or with extant planning permission. The Lee Tunnel and the Thames Tideway Quality Improvement (TTQI) projects (improvement works at Mogden, Beckton, Crossness, Long Reach and Riverside Sewage Treatment Works) will be operational by the time construction of the Thames Tunnel commences. The base case would therefore be the water quality in the Tideway with the TTQI projects and the Lee Tunnel in place. Because of the other developments the future environmental conditions within and around this site irrespective of the Thames Tunnel are likely to change. This is termed the base case. The projected spill volumes and spill frequencies for the baseline conditions for the Thames Tunnel (which is with the improvements applied to the STWs, and the Lee Tunnel in place) would still not be a sufficient
3.5.2
3.5.3
3.5.4
Page 12
level of CSO control to meet the UWWTD (see also Volume 2, Section 2.6). 3.5.5 The assessment also assumes that by 2022 Barking Riverside, a mixed use / residential scheme (1500 units, 25,000,000m2 employment, 9,500m2 hotel) to the south west of the site is built out.
Page 13
Section 4: Air quality and odour
4 4.1
4.1.1
Air quality and odour Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant air quality and odour effects at the Beckton Sewage Treatment Works site. Area A is located to the west of the Beckton STW facility; Area B is located to the south-east of the facility. The proposed development has the potential to affect the air quality and odour in the following ways: a. Construction traffic on the road (air quality). b. Temporary closure of lanes during construction (air quality). c. Emissions from construction plant (air quality). d. Construction-generated dust (air quality). e. Operation of the tunnel (odour).
4.1.2
4.1.3
Each of these is considered within the assessment. This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment, and sets out what will be provided in the ES when the full assessment is available. Operational air quality effects associated with transport have been scoped out of the assessment due to the very limited number of maintenance visits required and hence the low number of vehicular movements.
4.1.4
4.2
4.2.1
Proposed development
The proposed development is described in section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to air quality and odour are as follows.
Construction
Road traffic 4.2.2 4.2.3 During the proposed construction period, there would be road traffic movements in and out of the Beckton STW sites. The highest number of lorry movements at the Beckton STW sites would occur during shaft excavation (Year 1 of construction). The peak number of vehicle movements at that time would be 40 lorry movements per day averaged over a one month period. This is based on all material being transported by road. The construction traffic routes for the key material supply stages, traffic management and access to the site can be found in the section 12 of this volume. River barges 4.2.4 An option for barging has been included in the drawings as an option for contractors. This will be assessed in the ES should it be retained. Construction plant 4.2.5 There are a number of items of plant to be used on site that may produce emissions that could affect local air quality. Appropriate emission factors
Page 14
will be assigned to each item of plant and the effects of the plant on local air quality predicted dependent upon the duration of operation. Construction dust 4.2.6 Activities with the potential to give rise to dust emissions from the proposed development during construction are as follows: a. Site preparation and establishment. b. Demolition of existing infrastructure and buildings (not significant at this site). c. 4.2.7 Materials handling. The potential for these processes to impact at sensitive receptors is dependent on many factors including the following: a. Location of the construction site. b. Proximity of sensitive receptors. c. Extent of demolition. d. Extent of any intended excavation. e. Nature, location and size of stockpiles and length of time they are on site. f. Occurrence and scale of dust generating activities; necessity for onsite concrete crusher or cement batcher.
g. Number and type of vehicles and plant required on site. h. Potential for dirt or mud to be made airborne through vehicle movements. i. 4.2.8 Weather conditions. Appropriate dust and emission control measures are included in the draft CoCP in accordance with the London Councils Best Practice Guidance. Measures incorporated into the CoCP to reduce air quality impacts include measures in relation to vehicle and plant emissions, measures to reduce dust formation and resuspension, measures to control dust present and to reduce particulate emissions. These would be observed across all phases of demolition and construction.
Operation
4.2.9 There will be two separate main ventilation sites for the Tideway tunnels within Beckton sewage treatment works, Beckton Connection and Beckton Overflow sites, constructed under the Lee Tunnel project and thus existing at the start of the Thames Tunnel construction. The Beckton Connection shaft would have three air release ventilation structures: a. A vent stack which would release treated air after passing through the odour control unit (OCU). It would have a capacity of 10m3/s and would be used for 242 hours in a Typical Year.
4.2.10
Page 15
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works b.
A vent box with weighted louvres which would act as a bypass when the OCU is operating at capacity and would be used for a total of 30 hours during a Typical Year over 25 separate events. An air pressure release vent box with more heavily weighted louvres. This would operate infrequently during extreme rapid tunnel filling which causes extreme air displacement
c.
4.2.11 4.2.12
The maximum air flow during a typical year would be about 27m3/s. In addition there is an air inlet structure with weighted dampers to allow air into the shaft when the wastewater is pumped out. This ventilation plant is also used to treat air displaced from the filling of the tunnel used for diverting by-pass flows from the pump-out pumping station to the river. This would occur for about half an hour at the start of the by-pass event about three times during the typical year. The Beckton Overflow site would be similar to the connection shaft plant with three ventilation air release structures. a. One vent stack which would release air after treatment in the OCU. It would have a capacity of 10m3/s and would be used for 257 hours in a typical year. A vent box with weighted louvres which would act as a bypass when the OCU is operating at capacity and would be used for a total of 30 hours during a Typical Year over 25 separate events. An air pressure release vent box with more heavily weighted louvres. This would operate infrequently during extreme rapid tunnel filling which causes extreme air displacement
4.2.11
b.
c.
4.2.13 4.2.14
The maximum air flow during a typical year would be about 27m3/s. In addition there is an air inlet structure with weighted dampers to allow air into the shaft when the wastewater is pumped out. This ventilation plant is also used to treat air displaced from the filling of the tunnel used for diverting by-pass flows from the pump-out pumping station to the river. This would occur for about half an hour at the start of the by-pass event about three times during the typical year. Three other small ventilation and odour control plant (two at the bell-mouth chambers where the pump-out pumping station discharges and one at the inlet works) will operate when air is purged from the pump-out pipework. These would operate for about half an hour at the start of the pump-out about 72 times during the typical year. This information on the ventilation structures provided input data to the dispersion model used to assess odour dispersion at the site.
4.2.12
4.2.15
4.3
4.3.1
Assessment methodology Scoping and engagement

Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. All consultee comments relevant to this site are presented in the table below.
Page 16
Vol 28 Table 4.3.1 Air quality and odour stakeholder engagement Organisation Comment LB Newham The adoption of a 1.5ouE Standard is welcomed. This standard should be applied at the site boundary at the nearest point to the flue or louvre unless local conditions make this excessive. This will prevent the presence of the emission point constraining future off-site development. LB Newham Monitoring locations Odour complaints Response Concentrations have been assessed throughout the study area with a 5m receptor grid resolution so includes predictions at and beyond the site boundary at all sites.
Locations agreed with Pollution Control Officer. Sent through by Principal Environmental Health Officer.
Baseline
4.3.2 The baseline methodology follows the standard methodology described in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.
Construction
4.3.3 The construction phase methodology follows the standard methodology described in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.
Operation
4.3.4 The operational phase methodology follows a different methodology to that described in Volume 5. As the Thames Tunnel ventilation buildings would be located at a sewage treatment works (STW) which is a significant source of odour, odour sources within the STW have been included in the modelling so that the total odour concentrations are predicted. Three scenarios have been modelled: a. b. c. 4.3.5 4.3.6 Existing situation. Future scenario with the Lee Tunnel, Tidal Thames Quality Improvement project and associated works in operation. Future scenario with the Thames Tunnel in operation in addition to the projects listed above.
The area predicted to have concentrations above the 98th percentile of hourly values of 1.5 ouE/m3 was predicted for each of the scenarios. As the results are presented as the change in area predicted to exceed the odour criterion, an alternative set of significance criteria for impact magnitude have been developed. These are based on the percentage change in concentrations used in the EPUK guidance for local air quality 1. These are: Negligible: < 1% change in area predicted to exceed the criterion
Page 17
Small:1-5% change in area predicted to exceed the criterion Medium:5-10% change in area predicted to exceed the criterion Large: > 10% change in area predicted to exceed the criterion
Assumptions and limitations

4.3.7 It has been assumed that there is a significant background odour and so the Beckton STW and planned works have been included in the modelling.
4.4
Baseline conditions Local air quality

Pollutant concentrations
4.4.1 4.4.2
The current conditions with regard to local air quality are best established through long-term air quality monitoring. As part of their duties under Part IV of the Environment Act 1995, local authorities, especially in urban areas where air quality is a significant issue, undertake long-term air quality monitoring within their administrative areas. There are no continuous monitoring stations which collect data pertinent to the Beckton STW sites and associated construction traffic routes operated by LB Newham. There is one diffusion tube site although this is located over 1km from the Beckton STW sites. The data for this site are included in the table below. Vol 28 Table 4.4.1 Air quality - measured NO2 concentrations Monitoring Site Gallions Roundabout Site Type Roadside Annual Mean (g/m3) 2010 44 2009 2008 2007 48 51
3
4.4.3
46
Emboldened figures indicate an exceedence of the objective/limit value which is 40g/m for the annual mean.
4.4.4
The NO2 monitoring at the Gallions Roundabout indicates exceedences of the annual mean NO2 standard (40g/m3) in all years, although it is noted that the tube is a roadside site and is not particularly representative of the conditions around the Beckton STW sites. As a result of previous exceedences of air quality objectives, LB Newham has previously designated Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) along the main road corridors across the Borough for NO2 and PM10. The Beckton STW sites are not in the AQMAs, although the A13 corridor to the north of the sites is part of one of the Newham AQMAs. Diffusion tube monitoring has been set up as part of the project to monitor NO2 concentrations in the vicinity of the Beckton STW site. This monitoring comprises three diffusion tubes based at the locations detailed in the table below. Beckton 1 is located in LB Barking and Dagenham. All new sites relating to the Beckton STW sites are shown in Vol 28 Figure 4.4.1.
4.4.5
4.4.6
Page 18
Vol 28 Figure 4.4.1 Air quality monitoring locations (see Volume 28 Figures document) Vol 28 Table 4.4.2 Air quality - additional air quality monitoring locations Monitoring Site A406 North Circular (Beckton 1) A13 Alfreds Way (Beckton 2) A13 Newham Way (Beckton 3) 4.4.7 Grid Reference 543712, 183820 544675, 183105 543183, 182341
This monitoring will be used in conjunction with existing local authority monitoring to provide the baseline situation and also provide input to model verification. A full baseline will be reported in the ES. In addition to monitoring data, an indication of baseline pollutant concentrations in the vicinity of the site can also be obtained from looking at background data on the air quality section of the Defra website where mapped background pollutant concentrations are available for each 1km by 1km grid square within every local authoritys administrative area for the years 2008 to 2020 2. The background data relating to the Beckton STW site are given in the table below for 2010 (baseline year). Vol 28 Table 4.4.3 Air quality background pollutant concentrations Pollutant NOX (g/m3) NO2 (g/m3) PM10 (g/m3) Receptors 2010 48.2 30.0 21.4
4.4.8
4.4.9
The Beckton STW sites are located in an area comprising commercial and industrial premises. The closest commercial receptors are located 150m south of Area A, and 200m west of Area B. There are no existing residential properties within 400m of the site boundaries. These receptors are relevant, albeit to different levels of sensitivity, to the emissions sources identified in the local air quality assessment. The sensitivity of identified receptors has been determined using the criteria detailed in Volume 5 this identifies their sensitivity in relation to both local air quality and dust nuisance, as shown in the table below. These receptors are relevant to the assessment of emissions from construction road traffic and construction plant, as well as the assessment of construction dust.
4.4.10
Page 19
Vol 28 Table 4.4.4 Air quality receptors Receptors (relating to all identified emissions sources) Commercial/industrial Value/sensitivity and justification
Exposure is relevant for the daily mean and hourly mean standards. Low sensitivity to local air quality. Medium sensitivity to dust nuisance.
Odour
4.4.11 There have been numerous complaints about odour from Beckton STW. LB Newham has received 49 complaints since 2006 and LB Barking and Dagenham has received 66 complaints over the same period 3. Information from the Thames Water odour database is not available. The nearest sensitive receptors are described in paragraph 4.4.9 above. For the purposes of the odour assessment, the sensitivity of these receptors has been determined in accordance with the criteria in Volume 5 which indicates that the residential properties (beyond 500m of the site boundaries) are of high sensitivity whilst the commercial/industrial premises are of medium sensitivity.
4.4.12
4.5
4.5.1
Construction assessment Construction base and development cases

The peak construction year (Year 1 of construction) is used as the year of assessment for construction effects (road transport, construction plant and construction dust) in which the development case will be assessed against the base case to identify likely significant effects for the Thames Tunnel project. The base case conditions for the construction assessment year will change from the current conditions due to modifications to the sources of the air pollution in the intervening period. For road vehicles, there will be a change in the penetration of new Euro standards to the fleet composition between the current situation and the future peak construction year. The uptake of newer vehicles with improved emission controls should lead to a reduction in existing NO2 and PM10 concentrations. However, the uptake of newer vehicles has not improved NO2 concentrations greatly in the last ten years in London, so as a worst case the NOx contribution from diesel vehicles was assumed to be the same for Euro 1 to 5 vehicles in line with Defra advice 4. Reduced emission factors from the introduction of Euro 6 diesel vehicles in the future will reduce the base case concentrations when compared to the 2010 baseline. Other emissions sources should also reduce due to local and national policies. Therefore, the non-road sources of the background concentrations used in the modelling will be reduced in line with Defra guidance LAQM.TG(09) 5.
4.5.2
4.5.3
4.5.4
Page 20
It is noted that the local air quality assessment does not specifically consider the Barking Riverside development (see Section 3.5) as the development is located over 400m from the Beckton STW so would unaffected by construction works at the site.
Assessment area
4.5.6 The assessment area for the local air quality study covers a square area of 1000m by 1000m centred on each Beckton STW site. This assessment area is used for the assessment of road transport, construction plant and construction dust and has been selected on the basis of professional judgement to ensure that the effects of the Beckton STW site are fully assessed. A distance of 200m is generally considered sufficient to ensure that any significant effects are considered the selected assessment area exceeds this by some margin.
Construction effects
Emissions from road traffic 4.5.7 Road traffic is likely to affect local air quality in two ways: from emissions from the construction traffic; and from enhanced emissions from other road vehicles due to congestion or re-routing due to lane closures. A qualitative assessment of road traffic effects has been undertaken for the PEIR. When traffic surveys are complete, a more detailed quantitative assessment using air quality modelling will be undertaken, the findings of which will be reported in the ES. Based on professional judgement for the purposes of the PEIR, it is however predicted that the impacts due to construction traffic are expected to be negligible (ie, negligible magnitude of change according to Volume 5) due to the low number of additional lorries during construction in the context of the existing traffic flows on the local road network. Given that the commercial/industrial properties have a low sensitivity to local air quality (as identified in section 4.4), the likely significance of the effect of construction traffic is a negligible (according to Volume 5). Emissions from plant 4.5.11 Construction plant is likely to affect local air quality in two ways: from direct exhaust emissions; and from construction dust associated with the use and movement of the plant around the site. This part of the assessment considers exhaust emissions while construction dust from plant movement is considered in the following section. Emission factors are being assigned to each item of plant. More data are being gathered regarding the operation of these items of plant in terms of expected usage through the construction phase. A qualitative assessment has been undertaken to date. Modelling is currently being undertaken, the findings of which will be reported in the ES. Based on professional judgement, it is noted that the impacts due to construction plant are expected to be small (ie, negligible magnitude of
4.5.8
4.5.9
4.5.10
4.5.12
4.5.13
4.5.14
Page 21
change according to the criteria in Volume 5), given the localised nature of the emissions, ie emissions are only generated on the construction site and the distance to receptors. Compared to the traffic flows in the surrounding area, the amount of plant and their emissions are likely to have a negligible impact. 4.5.15 At the commercial/industrial premises, which have a low sensitivity to local air quality (as identified in section 4.4), the likely significance of the effect of construction traffic is a negligible (according to Volume 5). Construction dust 4.5.16 4.5.17 Construction dust would be generated from both on-site activities and from road vehicles assessing and servicing the site. Dust sensitive receptors have been identified in the vicinity of the Beckton STW site in accordance with Volume 5, as described in Vol 28 Table 4.4.4. In line with the London Councils guidance 6, the site has been categorised using the criteria given in Volume 5 which takes into account the area taken up by the development and the potential impact of the development on sensitive receptors close to the development. The specific site details relating to the site with respect to the criteria set are: a. Area A would have a maximum construction area of approximately 102,000m2. b. Area B would have a maximum construction area of approximately 24,000m2. c. The project is a non-residential development. d. Main construction at the site would last approximately four years. e. There are likely intermittent impacts on identified sensitive receptors. 4.5.20 4.5.21 On this basis, the development has been classified as a high risk site. Given that the receptor sensitivity is identified as medium for commercial/industrial properties and the distance to these sensitive receptors is over 100m, but within 200m of the site boundaries, the likely significance of the effect of construction dust is deemed to be a minor adverse effect (according to the criteria detailed in Volume 5). These effects would be reduced by the implementation of the measures contained in the CoCP (see section 4.2). This would result in a negligible effect at the commercial/industrial properties. Overall construction effects 4.5.23 When considering the overall local air quality construction effects (ie, effects from construction road traffic and plant), it is concluded that the overall significance of effects is likely to be negligible at commercial/industrial premises. With regard to construction dust, the likely significance of effects is negligible at commercial/industrial premises.
4.5.18
4.5.19
4.5.22
4.5.24
Page 22
On this basis no significant construction effects are predicted.
4.6
4.6.1 4.6.2
Operational assessment Operational base and development cases

The assessment undertaken for a typical use year (as described in Volume 5) applies equally to all operational years. Base and development cases have been developed for modelling purposes. Both future cases are expected to differ significantly from existing conditions as the STW is currently undergoing improvement works to increase its capacity and to reduce odour from on-site activities. Odour will be reduced by covering the 16 primary settlement tanks and installing Odour Control Units on-site. As part of these works, the Lee Tunnel will be built to prevent storm water flowing into the River Lee (reflected in the base case). For the development case, the works outlined and underway for Beckton STW have been included as well as emissions associated with the Thames Tunnel.
Operational assessment area

4.6.3 Odour dispersion modelling was carried out over an area of 11km by 7km centred on the site. Emissions from the existing STW were modelled as well as those from the ventilation shafts. The assessment area was selected on the basis of it being larger than the area affected by the STW.
Operational effects
4.6.4 The table below shows the area predicted to have concentrations above the 1.5 ouE/m3 contour line for the 98th percentile of hourly average concentrations for each of the three scenarios assessed. Vol 28 Table 4.6.1 Odour impacts at ground level operation Scenario Area (km2) predicted to exceed 1.5 ouE/m3 for the 98th percentile of hourly values 38.8 12.7 13.1
Existing case Future base case Development case 4.6.5
The Thames Tunnel is predicted to slightly increase the area exceeding the odour standard by 3% compared with the area that would exceed in the future without the Thames Tunnel. However, even with the Thames tunnel in operation, the area predicted to exceed the standard would be 66% smaller than the area currently exceeding the standard due to the improvement works that are currently underway. Low, medium and high sensitivity receptors would exceed the odour standard both with and without the Thames Tunnel. However, the increase due to the Thames Tunnel would be 3% so would be classed as small for impact magnitude. With regard to the significance of effects, it is
4.6.6
Page 23
considered that an overall significance effects would be minor adverse in relation to Beckton. On this basis no significant effects are predicted.
4.7
4.7.1
Approach to mitigation Construction

All measures embedded in the draft CoCP of relevance to air quality and odour are summarised in section 4.2. No mitigation is required.
Operation
4.7.2 No mitigation is required.
Page 24
4.8
Vol 28 Table 4.8.1 Air quality construction assessment Effect Negligible Negligible None required Negligible None required Negligible Significance Mitigation Residual significance
Assessment summary
Receptor
Commercial/ industrial
Local air quality effects from construction road traffic and plant emissions
Effects from construction dust Vol 28 Table 4.8.2 Odour operational assessment Significance Minor adverse None required Mitigation
Receptor
Effect
Residual significance Minor adverse
Commercial/industrial
Odour
Page 25
4.9
4.9.1
Assessment completion
The following work is required in order to complete the local air quality and odour assessment for the Beckton STW site: a. Diffusion tube monitoring has been set up at three sites to monitor NO2 concentrations in the vicinity of the Beckton STW site. This monitoring will be used to provide a baseline to the assessment and as an input for model verification. b. For the assessment of road traffic emissions, air quality modelling will be undertaken to predict the effects on local air quality. c. The nature, quantities and operation of the construction plant are being finalised. The appropriate emission factors will then be applied to the plant in order to initialise the modelling work. These models will then be run and the effects of construction plant on local air quality predicted.
d. The assessment of cumulative and in combination effects will be undertaken and reported in the ES. e. Following completion of the assessment the mitigation approaches for air quality and odour within the project will be finalised and reported in the ES.
Page 26
Section 5: Ecology - aquatic
5 5.1
5.1.1
Ecology - aquatic Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant aquatic ecology effects at the Beckton Sewage Treatment Works site. For the purposes of the assessment of the Thames Tunnel project aquatic ecology includes plants and animals that live in and depend on the tidal River Thames and its tidal tributaries (known collectively as the Thames Tideway). The topic includes the habitats, mammals, fish, invertebrates and algae which occur in the Thames Tideway in the vicinity of the site. Animals, plants and habitats which occur above the mean high water level are assessed in the Terrestrial Ecology section. Waterfowl, including those which occur on the Thames Tideway are also included under Terrestrial Ecology. Further details of the scope of the assessment are provided in Volume 6. This assessment considers the operational effects of water quality on aquatic ecology receptors in the Thames Tideway as a result of the discharge of the additional diverted CSO discharges transported via the main tunnel to the Beckton STW. The construction phase was scoped out of the assessment during the scoping stage as there would be no in river works associated with this site. Thus construction is not considered in this assessment.
5.1.2
5.1.3
5.2
5.2.1
The proposed development is described in section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to aquatic ecology are as follows.
Operation
5.2.2 The Beckton Sewage Treatment Works final effluent channel discharges into the River Thames in the London Borough of Newham. There is anticipated to be an increase in the volume of treated effluent discharged at Beckton as a result of the Thames Tunnel. Based on the base case (which includes permitted Thames Tideway sewage treatment works upgrades, and the Lee Tunnel project, as well as projected population increases) discharges at Beckton are anticipated to be 515,000,000m3 per typical year in 2021, increasing to 530,000,000m3 per typical year once the Thames Tunnel is operational ie, an increase of approximately 3%. Further information about projected changes in discharge as a result of the project are presented in Volume 2. The actual quality of the effluent discharged from the Beckton STW is not expected to differ from the 2021 baseline as all effluent would all be treated to the same standard before being discharged. The assessment of operational impacts on the Thames Tideway as a whole are contained within the project-wide assessment (Volume 6). A small increase in the discharge volume at Beckton STW may have
5.2.3
Page 27
implications for aquatic ecology receptors in the immediate vicinity of the outfall and that is assessed in this report.
5.3
5.3.1

Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. There were no site specific comments from consultees for this particular site relating to aquatic ecology.
Baseline methodology
5.3.2 5.3.3 Details of the approach to baseline collection and the assessment are presented in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site. Details of the background data sets are provided in Volume 5. Invertebrate and fish data are available from the Environment Agency for the immediate vicinity of Beckton Sewage Treatment Works. Algal data is anticipated and will be reported in the ES.
5.3.4
Operation
5.3.5 The operational phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site. The contribution that this increase in discharge may make to receptors at a Tideway wide scale is considered in Volume 6 (Project-wide assessment).

5.3.6 There are no site specific assumptions and limitations.
5.4
5.4.1 5.4.2
Baseline conditions Designations

There are no aquatic statutory nature conservation sites within the local area of this site. The Beckton Sewage Treatment Works outfall discharges directly into the non statutory River Thames Tidal Tributaries Site of Metropolitan Importance (SMI). The SMI (Site Reference: M31), which is adopted by all Boroughs which border the River Thames, recognises the range and quality of estuarine habitats including mud flat, shingle beach, reedbeds and the river channel itself. Over 120 species of fish have been recorded in the Tideway, though many of these are only occasional visitors. The more common species include dace (Leuciscus leuciscus), bream (Abramis brama) and roach (Rutilus rutilus) in the freshwater reaches, and sand-smelt (Atherina presbyter), flounder (Platichtyhys flesus) and Dover sole (Solea solea) in the estuarine reaches. Important migratory species include Twaite shad (Alosa fallax), European eel (Anguilla anguilla), smelt (Osmerus eperlanus), salmon (Salmo salar) and sea trout (S. trutta). A number of nationally rare snails occur, including the brackish water snail Pseudamnicola confusa, and an important assemblage of wetland and wading birds.
Page 28
The Tidal Thames is also the subject of a Habitat Action Plan under the London Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) 7. The Habitat Action Plan (HAP) identifies a number of flagship habitats and species which characterise the estuary, such as gravel foreshore, mudflat and saltmarsh. A number of these habitats and species, including mudflat, are also the subject of action plans under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan.
Habitats
5.4.4 The river is divided into three zones within the Tidal Thames Habitat Action Plan; freshwater, brackish and marine. Beckton Sewage Treatment Works is in the brackish zone. The habitat is identified as the UKBAP priority habitat mudflat on the Natural England website www.natureonthemap.co.uk and forms one of the most extensive areas of intertidal mudflat in this part of the River Thames. Although not specifically identified on the website there are small stands of sea club rush Bolboschoenus maritimus at the crest of the foreshore which fall within the definition of saltmarsh (also a UKBAP habitat). London Borough of Newham also has a Habitat Action Plan (HAP) for Rivers and Wetlands includes the River Thames.
5.4.5
Marine mammals
5.4.6 Records compiled by the Zoological Society of London for 2003 2011 indicate that harbour porpoise, bottlenose dolphin and various seal species (grey and common) migrate through the Tideway. Common seal and harbour porpoise have both been recorded in small numbers near Beckton Sewage Treatment Works. There is however very little intertidal habitat available for use as a haul out site by seals.
Fish
5.4.7 The Environment Agency carry out annual surveys for fish within the Thames Tideway using a variety of methods including trawling and seine netting. Methodologies for the survey are provided in Volume 5. The nearest sampling site to the Beckton outfall is at Beckton itself. Agency data for 2002-2003 shows that flounder, goby, bass and smelt dominated the fauna whilst bream and roach were found on one occasion only. This implies that freshwater fish may occasionally be present in the Beckton effluent plume. In general, Tideway fish populations are mobile and wide ranging, and hence any analysis of population data needs to be based on an understanding of the ecological requirements and migratory habits of individual species. Although the abundance and diversity of fish at any one site may provide some indication of the habitat quality offered at that site it is important to consider the data within the context of sites throughout the Thames Tideway, since the factors influencing distribution are likely to be acting at this wider scale. Effects at this scale are assessed in Volume 6 (Project-wide effects assessment).
5.4.8
5.4.9
Page 29
Invertebrates
5.4.10 Environment Agency samples are taken using a number of techniques, including cores and kick sampling in the intertidal and day grab and core samples in the subtidal. The benthic invertebrate community of the intertidal shore close to the Beckton outfall, from 1989 to 2002, showed the Beckton shore to be considerably different from adjacent sites. It contains predominately upper estuary and freshwater species compared to the more marine/middle estuary species that dominate in the adjacent sites. The numbers of individuals were on average much lower than in adjacent sites. This was interpreted as the effect of large volumes of freshwater entering the River Thames at this location from the discharged effluent and Barking Creek. Samples taken from the normal Beckton intertidal and subtidal sites away from the areas influenced directly by the outfall show a rich fauna in terms of both species and individuals, dominated by estuarine Oligochaeta worms, Polychaeta worms and bottom-living shrimps (Crustacea). Thus the local effects of the Beckton outfall are clearly defined and localised. The dominance of each sample by a small number of very abundant taxa characterises them as being from organically polluted areas.
5.4.11
5.4.12
5.4.13
Algae
5.4.14 Existing algae data has been requested. An assessment will be carried out and reported in the ES.
Aquatic ecology receptor values and sensitivities

5.4.15 Using the baseline set out above the value accorded to each receptor considered in this assessment is set out in the table below. The definitions of the receptor values and sensitivities used in this evaluation are set out in Volume 5. Vol 28 Table 5.4.1 Aquatic ecology receptors Receptor Foreshore habitat (including intertidal and subtidal habitat)/designated sites) Mammals Value/sensitivity and justification Medium (Metropolitan) value. Habitats form part of a major Site of Metropolitan Importance. Low (Local) value. Only occasional records of common seal and harbour porpoise exist from the area. Low-Medium (Borough) value. Low-Medium (Borough) value due to the limited invertebrate diversity. To be completed for ES.
Fish Invertebrates Algae
Page 30
5.5
5.5.1
Construction assessment
As stated in para. 5.1.3, there are no in-river works associated with this site and thus no significant construction phase effects on aquatic ecology are anticipated. No further consideration of the impacts associated with construction is therefore relevant for aquatic ecology.
5.6
5.6.1
Operational assessment Operational Impacts

The potential impact arising from operation of the project at this site would be a small increase in the volume of effluent discharged per day from the outfall. This impact is described below. The definitions of the different magnitudes of impact referred to in this assessment are given in Volume 6. Increase in the volume of sewage effluent discharged from the Beckton Sewage Treatment Works outfall.
5.6.2
Discharge volumes from the Beckton Sewage Treatment Works outfall are anticipated to have increased to 515,000,000 m3 per typical year by 2021 (without the Thames Tunnel). They are anticipated to further increase to 530,000,000m3 per typical year once the Thames Tunnel is operational due to the discharge of additional treated effluent which would otherwise be discharged untreated from the CSOs that are being intercepted by the project. The additional effluent to be discharged as a result of the Thames Tunnel would be of the same quality to the operational baseline since it would be treated to the same standard as all other effluent discharged from the Sewage Treatment Works; there would thus be no water quality impacts associated with the increased discharge volume. However, a 3% increase in the daily average discharge volume may lead to an increase in localised scour. The magnitude of the impact is considered to be negligible, certain and permanent. Vol 28 Table 5.6.1 Aquatic ecology impacts - operation Impact Increase in the volume of sewage effluent discharged from the Beckton outfall. Magnitude, and justification Negligible impact. Permanent. Certain.
5.6.3
5.6.4
Operational Effects
5.6.5 The effects of the operational activities on ecological receptors are described in detail below. The way in which the magnitude and reversibility of each impact has been combined with the value of each receptor to determine the significance of the effect is set out in Volume 6. Whereas the other site-specific operational assessments use two operational assessment years due to a predicted lag time in water quality
Page 31
benefits of CSO interception being realised, in the case of Beckton, only one operational year is assessed since the impact would be arise at full magnitude as soon as the Tunnel is operational. Habitats Direct habitat loss through increased scour at the Beckton outfall. 5.6.6 The existing discharge from the Beckton outfall has resulted in the development of a substantial scour hole immediately in front of the outfall, but has left the majority of the Beckton foreshore (over 95% of the intertidal mudflat) entirely unaffected. A 3% increase in discharge rates/volumes may result in an increase in this scour hole of a similar order of magnitude. This is to be confirmed for the ES but is considered a reasonable assumption for this assessment. This would result in a similarly small additional loss of mudflat and continue to leave the majority of the Beckton mudflats unaffected. Saltmarsh habitat would also be entirely unaffected since it lies on sections of mudflat that are over 100m away from the outfall and landwards of the discharge point. As such there would be a negligible effect on habitats. Mammals 5.6.7 Increased discharge volumes from the outfall are not expected to result in effects on marine mammals. Fish Direct loss of feeding habitat due to increased scour. 5.6.8 A 3% increase in discharge rates/volumes may result in a small increase in the existing scour hole. If so, it would result in a similarly small loss of mudflat and continue to leave the vast majority of the Beckton mudflats entirely unaffected. As such, there would be a negligible effect on fish due to habitat loss. Change in relative abundance of marine and freshwater species. 5.6.9 It is considered that an increase in the volume of freshwater discharged from the outfall into the River Thames could (if the resulting dilution of the salt concentrations in the river was sufficiently great) result in a shift to a greater abundance of freshwater species and a lower abundance of marine species in the immediate locality of the outfall. The vicinity of the Beckton outfall already shows a generally greater abundance of freshwater than marine species due to the large volumes of freshwater that are discharged into the River from the outfall and the adjacent confluence with the Barking Creek (River Roding). However, since the increase in freshwater volumes discharged from the outfall would only be 3% greater than the operational baseline, there is likely to be a negligible effect on the relative abundance of saline/freshwater fish in the immediate locality. This is also likely to be the case since a significant proportion of the freshwater discharged into this section of the River Thames derives from the Barking Creek further reducing the influence of the 3% increase in discharge volumes.
Page 32
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works Invertebrates Direct loss of habitat due to increased scour. 5.6.10
A 3% increase in discharge rates/volumes could potentially result in a small increase in the existing scour hole. This would result in a similarly small loss of mudflat and continue to leave the vast majority of the Beckton mudflats entirely unaffected. As such, there would be a negligible effect on invertebrates due to habitat loss. Change in relative abundance of marine and freshwater species.
5.6.11
As with fish, an increase in the volume of freshwater discharged from the outfall into the River Thames could theoretically (if the resulting dilution of the salt concentrations in the river was sufficiently great) result in a shift to a greater abundance of freshwater species and a lower abundance of marine species in the immediate locality of the outfall. The vicinity of the Beckton outfall already shows a generally greater abundance of freshwater than marine species due to the large volumes of freshwater that is discharged into the River from the outfall. However, since the increase in freshwater volumes discharged from the outfall would only be 3% greater than the operational baseline, there is likely to be a negligible effect on the relative abundance of saline/freshwater invertebrates in the immediate locality. Algae
5.6.12
Effects on algae will be reported in the ES.
5.7
5.7.1
Approach to mitigation
The assessment results indicate that effects at this site are likely to be negligible, subject to confirmation in the final assessment. On this basis, mitigation measures are not required.
Page 33
5.8
Vol 28 Table 5.8.1 Aquatic ecology operational assessment Significance of effect Negligible None required Negligible Mitigation
Assessment summary
Operation
Significance of residual effect
Receptor
Description of effect
Habitats
Direct habitat loss through increased scour at the Beckton outfall. N/A Negligible Negligible Negligible. Negligible None required None required None required None required None required N/A Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
Mammals
N/A
Fish
Direct loss of feeding habitat due to increased scour. Change in relative abundance of marine and freshwater species
Invertebrates
Direct loss of habitat due to increased scour.
Change in relative abundance of marine and freshwater species
Algae
To be completed for the ES.
Page 34
5.9
5.9.1
Algal data and assessment of effects on algae will be reported in the ES. Further analysis of Environment Agency fish and invertebrate data may enable a fuller assessment of benefits for the Environmental Statement. Assessment of cumulative effects will be undertaken as part of the ES. No mitigation is required since only negligible effects are anticipated.
Page 35
Section 6: Ecology - terrestrial
6 6.1
6.1.1
Ecology - terrestrial Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant terrestrial ecology effects at the Beckton Sewage Treatment Works site. Likely significant effects on aquatic ecology are reported in section 5. The assessment of terrestrial ecology during operation was scoped out for the Beckton Sewage Treatment Works site at the scoping stage. Operational activity would remain limited to occasional maintenance works, which are considered unlikely to have significant effects on terrestrial ecology receptors. The operational phase is therefore not considered further in this assessment.
6.1.2
6.2
6.2.1
The proposed development is described in section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to terrestrial ecology are as follows.
Construction
6.2.2 Full construction works are detailed in Volume 2. There are two discreet proposed working areas within the site. One within the east section of Beckton Sewage Treatment Works and termed site area B and one within the south central to south west area of Beckton Sewage Treatment Works and termed site area A (this also included the Flow Transfer Site). The following construction activities are relevant to terrestrial ecology and apply to both of the discrete sites: a. Site mobilisation including clearance activities during the construction phase, commencing in year one of construction. b. Noise, vibration and lighting associated with construction works and the movement of construction workers and machinery. c. 24 hour working during tunnel excavation (above ground activities only such as the movement of construction workers and vehicles to and from the site).
Code of Construction Practice 6.2.3 Measures incorporated into the draft CoCP to reduce terrestrial ecology effects include those that would ensure that terrestrial ecology receptors are appropriately managed during construction. The document sets out procedures that would be adhered to both project wide and at individual sites. The draft CoCP outlines that where appropriate, works would be undertaken in compliance with legislation, and with due regard to relevant nature conservation policies and guidance, including the Mayors Biodiversity Strategy 8 and local Biodiversity Action Plans. Each site would have an Ecological Management Plan, which would detail the approach to management of effects on ecological receptors with reference to the
6.2.4
Page 36
results of the terrestrial ecology assessment. Where species are protected by specific legislation, approved guidance would be followed, appropriate mitigation would be proposed and any necessary licences or consents obtained. 6.2.5 Measures not specifically outlined under the Ecology section of the draft CoCP are also of relevance, for example the management of noise and vibration, and water resources.
6.3
6.3.1

Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. All consultee comments relevant to this site are presented in the table below. Further stakeholder engagement was undertaken through biodiversity technical workshops with statutory consultees. No site specific comments were received. Vol 28 Table 6.3.1 Terrestrial ecology stakeholder comments Organisation Comments The Beckton Lands South SINC needs inclusion in the designation considerations. Newham Borough Council The likelihood of invasive species occurring is high; these will need to be surveyed. Response This has now been included in section 6.4.2b
6.3.2
Invasive species were noted during the Phase 1 Habitat Survey, an invasive species survey to map the extent has been undertaken (August 2011). Further details will be provided within the ES.
Baseline methodology
6.3.3 Baseline data collection has followed the methodology detailed in Volume 5. Baseline data presented within this assessment is derived from a desk study, the Phase 1 Habitat Survey and preliminary wintering bird and bat triggering surveys. All subsequent survey data will be reported in the EIA. This is described further in Vol 28 Table 6.3.2. In summary, the following baseline data are included in the assessment: a. Desk study including data base searches (for ecological records within a 2km radius from the site boundary, which is the industry standard), web-based searches and review of existing available documents in relation to protected and notable species and habitats. Desk study data within 500m of the site are reported here as the works are unlikely to affect species and designated sites beyond this distance. Records dated prior to 2000 have not been included as the information
6.3.4
Page 37
since this date provides the most appropriate data to assess the site baseline conditions. b. Phase 1 Habitat Survey on 25th November 2010 following the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) Standard Phase 1 Habitat Survey Methodology, 2010. The survey included the site and any adjacent habitat considered, using professional judgement, to be potentially affected by the proposed works. c. Wintering bird survey visits were undertaken in December 2010, and January, February and March 2011. The survey visits included the site and adjacent habitat considered, using professional judgement, to be potentially affected by the proposed works. These surveys will resume in October 2011 at the start of the next winter season.
d. A bat triggering survey was carried out in May 2011. This is an initial survey using remote recording equipment (Anabat detectors) to determine whether subsequent activity/dawn surveys were required. The survey area includes the site and adjacent features that are assessed (using professional judgement) to be potentially affected by the project. Further surveys were required and preliminary results of the bat triggering surveys have been provided. 6.3.5 The species surveys identified as being required following the desk study and Phase 1 Habitat Survey have commenced and are detailed in the table below. The results of these surveys will be provided in the ES. Vol 28 Table 6.3.2 Terrestrial ecology notable species surveys Survey Bat activity and dawn surveys Survey area Around suitable features within and immediately adjacent to the site Suitable features within and immediately adjacent to the site Around suitable features within and immediately adjacent to the site The survey area includes the site and adjacent features that are assessed to be potentially affected by the project. Timing June to October 2011
Black redstart surveys
Five fortnightly visits from mid-April to the end of June 2011 Three visits between April and July 2011.
Breeding bird surveys
Completion of wintering bird surveys
One visit in October 2011 and one visit in November 2011
Page 38
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works Survey Reptile surveys Survey area
Section 6: Ecology - terrestrial Timing Ten days between June and September 2011 One visit in August 2011
Within suitable habitat in the Beckton Sewage Treatment Works site boundary. The survey area included the site and areas within 10m of the site boundary
Invasive plant survey
Construction methodology
6.3.6 The construction phase assessment methodology follows this standard methodology provided in Volume 5, which is based on IEEM. Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom. Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2006) 9. The following ecological receptors are assessed for this site: a. Designated sites b. Habitats c. Bats d. Black redstart e. Breeding birds f. 6.3.7 Wintering birds g. Reptiles The potential presence of Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica) noted in paragraph 6.4.6 is not considered within the assessment as measures to eradicate and control this, and other invasive species, prior to construction are contained within the CoCP (see paras. 6.2.3 - 6.2.5). The findings of the mapping survey will be reported in the EIA. While notable plants have previously been found on the wider Beckton Sewage Treatment Works site, no notable plants have been found on site and no adverse effects are anticipated. Therefore, notable plants are not considered further in this assessment. As contaminated runoff and atmospheric pollution would be controlled through the implementation of the CoCP, no likely significant effects are anticipated on ecological receptors. Therefore, this is not considered any further in the assessment. The assessment year for construction is year one, which is the start of construction activities on site. This is likely to be the peak year for effects on terrestrial ecology as this is when initial site clearance would occur. Site clearance has already been undertaken for the Beckton Sewage Treatment Works extensions and Lee Tunnel project. Cleared areas would be replaced with buildings and structures by the start of construction year one. This would not result in a change to the ecology baseline.
6.3.8
6.3.9
6.3.10
6.3.11
Page 39
Assuming that the remainder of the site and any nearby designated sites would continue to be managed as they are at present, then the base case is considered to be the same as the current baseline conditions as described in section 6.4.

6.3.12 It is assumed for the purposes of assessment that the current site management regime of the Beckton Sewage Treatment Works and the site would continue. It is also assumed that the Beckton Sewage Treatment Works extensions and Lee Tunnel project will not affect future baseline conditions. The assessment assumes that the measures within the CoCP would be implemented as part of the development. All surveys have been and will be undertaken at appropriate times of the year. No other site specific limitations or assumptions have been identified.
6.4
6.4.1
Baseline conditions
The following section sets out the baseline conditions for terrestrial ecology receptors at the site and surrounds, including their value.
Designated sites
On site 6.4.2 The following designated sites are on site: a. The River Thames and Tidal Tributaries SINC (Grade Mi) is within and adjacent to the site, along the eastern and southern boundaries. The site comprises foreshore habitat and river channel. This site is assessed as part of the aquatic ecology assessment and is not considered further here. b. Beckton Lands South SINC (Grade B) lies within and adjacent to the site to the north. However, the habitat for which the SINC was designated is no longer present and therefore this does not comprise an ecological resource (negligible value). c. The Greenway and Old Ford Nature Reserve SINC (Grade B ii) runs west to east through the site. A section of grassland and scrub from this site is within the site. This SINC is considered to be of district (medium) value.
Surrounding area 6.4.3 The following designated sites are within 500m of the site: a. Beckton Sewage Treatment Works northern settling lagoon SINC (Grade L) is 290m to the north of the site. This site is of local (low) value.
Habitats
6.4.4
i ii
The Beckton Sewage Treatment Works encompasses a number of London BAP habitats, namely Rivers and Streams, Mudflats, Reedbed
SINC (Grade M) = Site of Nature Conservation Importance (Grade of Metropolitan importance) SINC (Grade B) = Site of Nature Conservation Importance (Grade of Borough importance)
Page 40
and The Tidal Thames. The habitats recorded on site during the Phase 1 Habitat Survey are detailed in the table below and shown on Vol 28 Figure 6.4.1. Target notes (TN#) are indicated on this figure and are referred to within the text below. Vol 28 Figure 6.4.1 Terrestrial ecology - Phase 1 habitat survey (see Volume 28 Figures document) Vol 28 Table 6.4.1 Terrestrial ecology Phase 1 Habitat Survey Habitats Hard standing Habitat Description A large proportion of the site comprises hard standing vehicle routes, pathways and parking areas. The site is subject to a high level of disturbance as a result of construction works being undertaken for the Lee Tunnel. Buildings Buildings within the site boundary comprise a mixture of steel framed industrial structures, brick built office units, and infrastructure associated with the sewage works, such as chimneys. Areas of mown amenity grassland are located within Beckton Sewage Treatment works outside the site, alongside vehicle and pedestrian routes and in distinct lawn areas associated with buildings and infrastructure. An area of semi-improved rough grassland is within and adjacent to the site. Numerous trees are planted around the Beckton Sewage Treatment works (outside the site boundary) for ornamental purposes, for example alongside roadways, and are generally semi-mature and mature in age. Species include London plane Platanus acerifolia, ash Fraxinus excelsior, leylandii, alder Alnus glutinosa, oak Quercus sp., rowan Sorbus aucuparia and sycamore Acer pseudoplatanus (TN1). Located to the north of the main SPG building (TN2) (outside the site boundary) is a small area of dense tree and scrub planting amongst amenity grassland. Species include poplar Populus sp. and cotoneasteriii Cotoneaster sp.
Amenity grassland
Semi-improved grassland Scattered trees
Plantation woodland
iii
Five species of cotoneaster are classified as invasive species listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
Page 41
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works Habitats Introduced shrub
Section 6: Ecology - terrestrial Habitat Description
Ornamental shrub planting is located around vehicle parking areas outside the site boundary. Areas of dense scrub and ruderal vegetation are scattered around Beckton Sewage Treatment Works with a small area within the site (TN3, TN7). Species include buddleia Buddleia davidii, bramble Rubus fruticosus, elder Sambucus nigra, teasel Dipsacus fullonum, common nettle Urtica dioica, thistles Cirsium sp. and docks Rumex sp. Tanks associated with the sewage treatment works are located adjacent to the site. These comprise open structures (the majority of which are being covered as part of an odour control associated with other ongoing projects at the site) and are located in the east, south east and north west of the sewage treatment works (TN4). To the east of the survey area. To the east as part of the sewage works are canalised channels (some of which are being covered as part of an odour control associated with other ongoing projects at the site). These comprise concrete channels devoid of vegetation, at a higher ground level, scrub and ruderal vegetation runs alongside the channel. Adjacent to the east of these channels is the River Roding and Barking Creek. A relatively large rubble pile comprising boulders and pieces of broken hard standing material is located to the north east of the survey area (TN5).
Ruderal vegetation and scrub
Standing water
Running water and intertidal habitat
Other
On site 6.4.5 The area of semi-improved grassland and scrub on site that is within the The Greenway and Old Ford Nature Reserve SINC is a relatively small area of this SINC and the habitats on site are considered to be of local (low) value. Japanese knotweed was recorded on the site over 2005-2007 by Scott Wilson in the Environmental Statement undertaken for the Lee Tunnel. Detail on the current locations and extents of Japanese knotweed and other invasive plants will be provided in the ES.
6.4.6
Page 42
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works Surrounding area 6.4.7
The Greenway and Old Ford Nature Reserve SINC habitats adjacent to the site are considered to be of district (medium) value. These include running water, trees, scrub and grassland, and provide a corridor for wildlife. The running water and inter-tidal habitat near to the site are considered as part of the aquatic ecology section. Semi-improved grassland is not a BAP priority habitat although it can have supporting functions for invertebrates and species that feed on invertebrates. The habitat is considered to be of local (low) value. Introduced shrubs, ruderal vegetation and scrub are not BAP priority habitats although they can have supporting functions for invertebrates and birds for nesting, refuge and feeding purposes. The habitat is considered to be of local (low) value. The amenity grassland is species-poor and provides limited supporting ecological function. Therefore, this habitat is of site (low) value. The standing water (in the form of tanks) is of limited intrinsic value although has potential to provide a supporting ecological function for birds and invertebrates. The habitat is considered to be of local (low) value. Scattered trees and plantation woodland include some native species. These trees have limited intrinsic value and are not UK or London BAP priority species. Therefore, the trees are considered to be of local (low) value. Other semi-natural habitat adjacent to the site may provide a resource for ecological receptors such as birds, bats and invertebrates. This is considered to be of local (low) value. Japanese knotweed was identified in the east of the site (TN6). This comprises a relatively extensive stand (approximately 10m x 5m) located on a bank amongst scrub, scattered trees and ruderal vegetation. A second area of Japanese knotweed was also identified in the west of the site (TN7). It is understood that this area is undergoing treatment to eradicate it.
6.4.8 6.4.9
6.4.10
6.4.11 6.4.12
6.4.13
6.4.14
6.4.15
6.4.16
Notable species
6.4.17 Species surveys were undertaken at the site to support the Lee Tunnel and Beckton Sewage Treatment Works extension between 2005 and 2008 (Scott Wilson, May 2008, Lee Tunnel and Beckton STW Extension Environmental Statement). This data provides a general background and is summarised below, along with results of the recent data search. Bats On site 6.4.18 In 2006, Scott Wilson recorded small numbers of foraging pipistrelle bats Pipistrellus sp. around the site. No bat roosts were identified on the site.
Page 43
With the exception of newer steel units, all of the buildings on site are considered to have some potential to support roosting bats. The areas of scrub, tree lines, standing and running water on site have the potential to support commuting and foraging bats. Full baseline data and valuation will be provided in the ES. However, bat triggering surveys carried out to date have suggested the presence of high levels of (foraging) bat activity involving at least two species (common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus and soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus). Surrounding area No records of bats have been identified during the data search in relation to the surrounding area. However, habitat adjacent to the site has the potential to support bats, such as watercourses (east and south). The value of the bat resource in the surrounding area will be assessed and reported in the ES. Black redstart On site
6.4.20
6.4.21
6.4.22
Historic records indicate that black redstarts Phoenicurus ochruros have bred on and adjacent to the site. This species was not present at Beckton Sewage Treatment works during surveys undertaken by Scott Wilson in 2006. The value of the site for black redstart will be assessed and reported in the ES. Surrounding area Black redstarts (Schedule 1 WCA 1981, Amber List) have been recorded within 500m of the site. The value of the surrounding area for black redstart will be assessed and reported in the ES. Breeding birds On site
6.4.23
6.4.24
Breeding bird surveys undertaken by Scott Wilson in 2008 identified a range of breeding bird species, including notable species on the Amber and Red Lists. The value of the site for breeding birds will be assessed and reported. Surrounding area The value of the adjacent area for breeding birds will be assessed and reported in the ES. Wintering birds On site
6.4.25
6.4.26
No significant wintering bird resource is present within the proposed works areas. Surrounding area A data search of notable species indicated the use of the adjacent foreshore habitats by a range of wintering birds including:
6.4.27
Page 44
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works a. Pintail Anas acuta (Amber List iv)
b. Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta (Amber List, WCA 1981 Schedule 1 Part 1 species) c. Black-tailed godwit Limosa limosa (Red List, WCA 1981 Schedule 1 Part 1 species, UK BAP Prioirty Species)
d. Green sandpiper Tringa ochropus (Amber List, WCA 1981 Schedule 1 Part 1 species) e. Herring gull Larus argentatus (Red List, UK and London BAP Priority Species) 6.4.28 Scott Wilson in the ES carried out for the Lee Tunnel concluded that the foreshore at Beckton Sewage Treatment Works is of district (medium) value following wintering bird surveys undertaken during the winter of 2007/2008. Incidental observations of birds made during the Phase 1 Habitat Survey include: a. Canada goose Branta Canadensis (Green List) b. Teal Anas crecca (Amber List) c. Mallard Anas platyrhynchos (Amber List) d. Kestrel Falco tinnunculus (Amber List) e. Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus (Red List, Wildlife and Countryside Act (WCA) 1981 Schedule 1 Part 1 species) f. Greenshank Tringa nebularia (Green List, WCA 1981 Schedule 1 Part 1 species)
6.4.29
g. Black headed gull Chroicocephalus ridibundus (Amber List) h. Lesser black backed gull Larus fuscus (Amber List) i. j. k. l. Herring gull Larus argentatus (Red List, London BAP Priority Species) Great black backed gull Larus marinus (Amber List) Pied wagtail Motacilla alba (Green List) Robin Erithacus rubecula (Green List)
m. Blackbird Turdus merula (Green List) n. Magpie Pica pica (Green List) 6.4.30 From preliminary wintering bird survey results, a total of 33 species of wintering bird were recorded at the site between December 2010 and March 2011. The highest maximum count was 952 individual birds recorded in February. The most notable was the high numbers of the following species: a. Gadwall Anas strepera (Amber status)
iv
The UK's birds can be split into three categories of conservation importance - red, amber and green. Red is the highest conservation priority, with species needing urgent action. Amber is the next most critical group, followed by green. (http://www.rspb.org.uk. Page last updated on Monday 7 March 2011).
Page 45
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works b. Teal c. Shoveler Anas clypeata (Amber status)
d. Shelduck Tadorna tadorna (Amber status) e. Tufted duck Aythya fuligula (Amber status) f. Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo (Green status) g. Mallard h. Coot Fulica atra (Green status) i. j. k. l. 6.4.31 6.4.32 Redshank Tringa totanus (Amber status) Black-headed gull Herring gull Lesser black-backed gull
The presence of great black-backed gull (a notable species) was also recorded. No rare or scarce species were noted during the surveys. The value of the wintering bird resource will be assessed in the EIA. Reptiles On site
6.4.33
A reptile survey report by Scott Wilson included as part of the ES for the Lee Tunnel references a previous survey of Beckton Sewage Treatment Works that identified grass snake Natrix natrix in the southern half of the site, which may have been within the proposed works area. There is the potential that other reptiles species, such as slow-worm Anguis fragilis, may be present within Greenway and Old Ford Nature Reserve SINC near the Inlet Works in the west of the site (TN3), particularly on south-facing slopes with a bare ground/grassland/scrub mosaic. The value of the reptile resource on site will be assessed in the EIA. Surrounding area Surveys undertaken by Scott Wilson between 2005 and 2008 identified grass snakes in the Northern Sludge Lagoon and the Creekside near the site. Habitat within areas of the Greenway and Old Ford Nature Reserve SINC beyond the site has the potential for slow worm and grass snake. The value of the reptile resource within the surrounding area will be assessed in the EIA.
6.4.34
6.4.35 6.4.36
6.5
Construction assessment Designated sites

On site
6.5.1
A small area of grassland and scrub would be lost from the Greenway and Old Ford Nature Reserve SINC. This is unlikely to affect the designation of the site as a whole, but would reduce the extent of the site. Therefore,
Page 46
it is considered certain that the effect would be significant at the local level (minor adverse effect). Surrounding area 6.5.2 Effects on the River Thames and Tidal Tributaries SINC (Grade M) will be addressed within the aquatic ecology section. Beckton Sewage Treatment Works northern settling lagoon SINC is considered unlikely to be affected by the works.
Habitats
On site 6.5.3 There are two areas within the site that would be affected by the works: a. Site area A The works would result in the permanent loss of a small area of introduced scrub and a strip of semi-improved grassland and bramble scrub along the embankment on the southern boundary. It is certain that the loss of this local (low) value habitat is considered to be significant at the local level (minor adverse effect). b. Site area B As this area comprises buildings and hardstanding, no notable habitats would be affected. Surrounding area 6.5.4 No effects on adjacent habitats are anticipated.
Notable species
Bats On site 6.5.5 6.5.6 The works could result in the loss of bat foraging habitat. There are likely to be temporary (medium term) adverse disturbance effects to bats foraging on site, resulting from noise, lighting, vibration and movement of people and machinery during works, where bats are present. The significance of effects will be assessed and reported in the ES. Surrounding area 6.5.7 Disturbance effects on bats roosting and foraging in adjacent habitat, if present, may be significant and will be assessed and reported in the ES. Black redstart On site 6.5.8 If present, the works could result in the loss of black redstart nests and breeding habitat from the site. The significance of effects on black redstart will be assessed and reported in the ES. Surrounding area 6.5.9 There is the potential for temporary (medium term) adverse disturbance from noise, lighting, vibration and movement of people to nesting black redstarts, if present, using the buildings adjacent to the site, and to
Page 47
foraging areas around the sewage treatment works site. The significance of effects on black redstart will be assessed and reported in the ES. Breeding Birds On site 6.5.10 Likely effects on breeding birds include the following: a. Loss of nesting habitat for breeding birds within buildings and vegetation on site. The significance of effects will be assessed and reported in the ES. b. Temporary (medium term) adverse disturbance from noise, lighting, vibration and movement of people and machinery during construction to breeding birds. The significance of disturbance effects on breeding birds will be assessed and reported in the ES. Surrounding area 6.5.11 Displacement of birds from suitable habitat may render a small area of nesting and foraging habitat unsuitable to birds. This is considered unlikely to affect the breeding ability of these birds as the area of disturbance is limited and alternative habitat is available within the wider area. Therefore, the effect is unlikely to be significant. Wintering birds On site 6.5.12 There is potential for temporary (medium term) adverse disturbance from noise, lighting, vibration and movement of people and machinery during construction to wintering birds using the adjacent intertidal habitat for roosting and feeding purposes. The significance of the effects on wintering birds will be assessed and reported in the ES. Surrounding area 6.5.13 Temporary (medium term) adverse disturbance from noise, lighting, vibration and movement of people and machinery during construction to wintering birds using the adjacent intertidal habitat for roosting and feeding purposes. The significance of the effects on wintering birds will be assessed and reported in the ES. Reptiles On site 6.5.14 Effects on reptiles include permanent habitat loss (an area of south facing slope with a bare ground/grassland/scrub mosaic) on site. The significance of effects on reptiles will be assessed and reported in the ES. Surrounding area 6.5.15 The works may result in temporary (medium term) disturbance from noise, vibration and movement of people and machinery during works. The significance of effects on reptile populations in the surrounding area will be assessed and reported in the ES.
Page 48
6.6
6.6.1
Operational assessment
As stated in para. 6.1.2, significant operational effects on terrestrial ecology are not anticipated therefore this has not been assessed.
6.7
6.7.1

The ecological management plan described in the CoCP will include longterm management of habitats and species on site post-construction. It would be prepared following planning approval and prior to commencement of works on site. In addition to measures detailed in the CoCP, the following measures are likely to be required: a. Disturbance minimisation measures specific to the site, and the bird and bat species identified during the surveys e.g. site lighting project. b. Reptile habitat creation and translocation of reptiles from the works area if present. c. Mitigation specific to effects on bat roosts, if present. d. Replacement planting to mitigate habitat loss and effects on the Greenway and Old Ford Nature Reserve SINC.
6.7.2
Page 49
6.8
Vol 28 Table 6.8.1 Terrestrial ecology construction assessment Significance of effect Certain, local (minor adverse effect) Replacement planting Mitigation Significance of residual effect Subject to details of the mitigation proposals.
Assessment summary
Construction
Receptor
Designated sites
Loss of a small area of vegetation from Greenway and Old Ford Nature Reserve SINC Certain, local (minor adverse effect) Replacement planting
Habitats Unlikely to be significant (negligible)
Trees
Removal of scrub, semi-improved grassland and bramble scrub vegetation from site Subject to survey results
Notable species Subject to survey results Subject to survey results Subject to survey results Subject to survey results
Bats
Loss of foraging resource on site
Disturbance from Subject to survey lighting, noise and results vibration to bats on and adjacent to the site. Subject to surveys
Black redstarts
Loss of nesting, perching and foraging habitat on site
Subject to surveys
Subject to surveys
Page 50
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works Significance of effect Subject to surveys Subject to surveys Subject to surveys Subject to surveys Subject to surveys Subject to surveys Mitigation Significance of residual effect
Receptor
Breeding birds
Loss of a small area of nesting habitat on site
Disturbance from lighting, noise and vibration on and adjacent to the site Subject to survey results Subject to survey results
Wintering birds
Disturbance from lighting, noise and vibration on and adjacent to the site Subject to survey results Subject to survey results Subject to survey results
Subject to survey results
Reptiles
Loss of a small area of reptile habitat on site
Subject to survey results Subject to survey results
Disturbance from Subject to survey noise, vibration and the results movement of construction workers and machinery on reptiles adjacent to the site.
Page 51
6.9
6.9.1
Bat, reptile, black redstart, wintering bird and invasive plant surveys are ongoing in 2011 as summarised in Vol 28 Table 6.3.2. The data from these surveys will be used to inform the full EIA and further evaluation of effects on ecological receptors will be undertaken. Where required, appropriate mitigation to avoid or minimise effects to terrestrial ecological receptors will be developed in consultation with stakeholders and a final assessment will be made of the significance of any residual effects to ecological receptors in the ES. Consideration will be given to biodiversity enhancement measures in consultation with stakeholders. Where possible, mitigation and enhancement measures will be embedded in the project design.
6.9.2
Page 52
Section 7: Historic Environment
7 7.1
7.1.1
Historic environment Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant effects on heritage assets at the Beckton Sewage Treatment Works site. These are aspects of the historic environment which are considered to be significant because of their historical, evidential, aesthetic or communal interest (these terms are defined in Volume 5). These might comprise below or above ground archaeological remains, buildings, structures, monuments or heritage landscapes within or around the site 10. The section should be read in conjunction with Volume 6, which sets the site in its broad topographic, geological, archaeological and historical context and discusses the project-wide landscape and topic themes in respect of the historic environment. These themes are only touched upon briefly here where they are relevant to the site. The site comprises two separate areas which for the purpose of this report are defined as Site 1 (the northwestern area) and Site 2 (the southeastern area). Together they are collectively referred to as the site.
7.1.2
7.1.3
7.2
7.2.1
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to the historic environment are as follows.
Construction
7.2.2 Those aspects of specific relevance to the historic environment assessment, since they could lead to effects on heritage assets, are as follows: a. Enabling works which would require site preparation; the establishment of a works compound; new service connections; foundations of the grit removal gantries and any other above ground structures not founded on subterranean constructions and construction of crane bases, including a concrete foundation within guide walls. b. Permanent works which would comprise dewatering wells; the discharge chamber and associated subterranean pump out discharge structure, the construction of a 9m (internal) diameter siphon inlet shaft, including perimeter walls and inner and outer guide walls, a discharge chamber, grit removal gantries, pipeline, valve chamber and odour control ducts at Site 1; and a siphon outlet shaft, including perimeter walls and inner and outer guide walls, penstock chamber, culvert and ducts at Site 2. A bored tunnel would join the two siphon shafts. 7.2.3 Measures incorporated into the draft CoCP to reduce impacts on the historic environment include protective measures where appropriate such as temporary support, hoardings, barriers and screening around heritage
Page 53
assets within and adjacent to work sites, and advance planning of plant and working methods for use where heritage assets are close to work sites, or attached to structures within work sites. The CoCP also includes provisions for the contractor to prepare a site specific Heritage Management Plan.
Operation
7.2.4 No disturbance to heritage assets is anticipated during the operational phase and consequently there are no significant potential effects on the historic environment. Operation effects on heritage assets have therefore been scoped out.
7.3
7.3.1 7.3.2

Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. Consultation has been carried out with English Heritage in respect of the assessment of historic environment setting of heritage assets. No sensitive above ground assets have been identified within the boundary of the site. Bazalgettes sewer wall is located within the study area, adjacent to Site 2 but its setting will not be affected during the operation phase. Setting is therefore not covered in the assessment, and operational effects remain scoped out.
Baseline
7.3.3 The baseline methodology follows that set out in Volume 5, with a key component being a desk-based assessment, consulting a broad range of archaeological, documentary and cartographic sources, along with a site walkover survey. The results of geotechnical investigations, some of which were archaeologically monitored, have also been incorporated. Any further baseline data relevant to the site which becomes available as a result of current archaeological recording for the works currently being carried out for the Lee Tunnel will be incorporated into this assessment as part of the EIA and incorporated into the final ES. A 1km buffer around the full Thames Water Beckton Sewage Treatment Works site comprises the study area used for the assessment and is considered through professional judgement to be most appropriate to characterise the historic environment potential of the site. There are occasional references to assets beyond the study area where appropriate, for example, where such assets are particularly important and/or where they contribute to current understanding of the site and its environs.
7.3.4
7.3.5
Construction
7.3.6 7.3.7 The construction phase methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. Any site specific variations are described below. Potential effects on the historic environment could arise throughout the five year construction phase and are concerned principally with activities
Page 54
likely to remove, disturb or alter above ground or buried heritage assets, as a result of enabling or construction works. 7.3.8 The methodology has been informed by an understanding of the nature and extent of proposed ground disturbance, in relation to known or potential heritage assets. It is likely that the base case (future baseline) may change due to the ongoing construction works within the southern half of the site as part of the Lee Tunnel extension project. This work is predicted to end in 2014. The impact of the Lee Tunnel project on the archaeological baseline will be considered in the ES.
7.3.9

7.3.10 Volume 5: Methodology sets out the generic assumptions and limitations of the assessment. In summary, the main limitation is the nature of the archaeological resource (buried and not visible) and acknowledgement of the difficulty of attempting to predict the presence/extent, date, nature, survival and significance of possible, previously unrecorded, buried heritage assets, based on a desk-based study and site visit. Notwithstanding this limitation, the assessment presented here is robust, based on reasonably available information, and conforms to the requirements of local and national guidance and planning policy (as detailed in Volume 5). Typically, appropriate standard archaeological prospection and evaluation techniques are utilised post-consent to reduce the uncertainties inherent in any desk-based study, as part of an overall EIA mitigation strategy (see Mitigation section below for the proposed mitigation at this site).
7.3.11
7.4
7.4.1
Baseline conditions
The following description of baseline conditions comprises seven subsections which set out: a. A description of historic environment features, with an introduction to the features map (which shows the location of known historic environment features within the 1km-buffer study area around the site) and the study area; b. A description of statutorily and locally designated assets within the site and its vicinity (ie, within a 100m-radius of the site); c. A description of the site location, topography and geology to set the context of the site;
d. A summary of past archaeological investigation within the study area, providing an indication of how well the area is understood archaeologically. e. A summary of the archaeological and historical background which sets out what is known about the site and its environs. f. A statement of significance for above ground assets within and around the site, describing the features which contribute to their significance.
Page 55
g. A discussion of potential for buried heritage assets, taking account of factors affecting survival, and a statement of their potential significance. 7.4.2 A site visit was carried out by MOLA Historic Buildings and EIA specialists in spring 2011. The site itself (which is currently in use for construction of the Lee Tunnel and Beckton Sewage Treatment Works extension), and buildings located within and around it were not accessed for health and safety reasons. Site 1 was a construction site at the time of the site walkover inspection and was viewed from the perimeter railings. Site 2 was viewed from the roadway to the northeast. No evidence of previously unrecorded upstanding remains was noted.
Historic environment features

7.4.3 The historic environment features map (Vol 28 Figure 7.5.1) shows the location of known historic environment features within the 1km-buffer study area around the site, compiled from the baseline sources set out in the topic specific methodology in Volume 5. These historic environment features have been allocated a unique historic environment asset reference number (HEA 1, 2, etc), which is listed in the gazetteer in Appendix A.4. Vol 28 Figure 7.4.1 Historic environment features map (see Volume 28 Figures document) 7.4.4 Where there are a considerable number of listed buildings in the study area, only those within the vicinity of the site (ie, 100m) are included on the map and in the gazetteer.
Designated assets
Statutory designations 7.4.5 The site contains a Grade II listed chimney, constructed by Joseph Bazalgette as part of the sewage works in 18871889. The wider study area does not contain any nationally designated (statutorily protected) heritage assets, such as scheduled monuments, listed buildings, or registered parks and gardens. Local authority designations 7.4.6 The site lies within the large Archaeological Priority Area which covers the Thames floodplain in recognition of the Thames floodplains high potential for palaeoenvironmental and other archaeological remains. The site does not lie within a conservation area and contains no locally listed buildings. Known burial grounds 7.4.7 There are no known burial grounds within the site or adjacent to it.
Site location, topography and geology

Site location 7.4.8 The site comprises two areas. Site 1 lies to the east of Royal Docks Road and is bounded by part of the Sewage Treatment Works to the north and
Page 56
east, and Galleons Reach shopping park to the south. Site 2 lies within the south-east of the Sewage Treatment Works site and is bounded by the mudflats of the River Thames to the south. Topography 7.4.9 No topographic surveys have been carried out within the site, although a basic understanding of the topography can be determined from current Ordnance Survey Mastermap data. The site is located on the Thames alluvial floodplain, the top of which is naturally flat, and any variations in level ground will be artificial. Ground levels within Site 1 vary, generally sloping down towards the centre of the site from both east and west. The western part of Site 2 lies at c. 107.0m ATD (above Tunnel Datum; the equivalent of 7.0m Ordnance Datum), the eastern part lies at c. 105.0m ATD, whilst the central area lies at c. 102.0m ATD. Ground level within Site 2 slopes gently down from the northeast to the southwest. The northeastern edge lies at c. 106.9m ATD while the southwestern edge lies at c. 105.6m ATD. Geology 7.4.12 The site is located entirely on floodplain alluvium, over gravel geology. The ground levels have been raised artificially in the past, by several metres, following drainage and reclamation of the intertidal marshes in the medieval and post-medieval periods. A recent MOLA geoarchaeological deposit model covering the two areas of the site 11 indicates that the surface of the subsurface gravel both undulates and dips away from a high of 98.5m ATD in the north to 91.0m ATD in the south of the site, toward the Thames, where it probably encountered a former route of the Barking Creek. The alluvial sequence lying over the gravels consisted of alluvium with thick peats and estuarine clays. Peat (the rotted vegetation of a former landsurface) extended to an average height of 99.0m ATD and estuarine clays to an average height of 101.0m ATD in the north and 102.5m ATD in the south (depending upon truncation of made ground). Overlying the alluvial sequence was made ground, rising from 102.3m ATD in the north to a maximum of 108.0m ATD in the south. Geotechnical data from boreholes carried out as part of the Lee Tunnel and Beckton Sewage Treatment Works extension will be considered in the ongoing EIA and will be presented in the final ES. The deposit model reveals a complex sequence of strata underlying the site, with the subsurface gravels generally sloping down from north to south. The southern part of the site has been extensively raised by up to 5.5m of made ground, probably to provide a high platform above the level of the tide. Below this lies 3.5m of estuarine clay and 8.0m of peat, reflecting the changing river environment of seasonal inundation. The northern part of the site has only been raised by c. 1.3m of made ground, but beneath this lies 2.0m of estuarine clay and 0.5m of peat. This reflects the original higher land surface on the northern part of the site, which was nonetheless subject to some inundation, which produced the peat and clay deposits.
7.4.10
7.4.11
7.4.13
7.4.14
Page 57
The gravels were laid down by fast flowing braided river channels of the Ice Age Thames, but as sea levels rose the environment changed and alluvial deposits would have built up. Furthermore within the general pattern, there may be subsidiary channels and small inlets which could locally affect the relative heights and levels of gravel, peat and alluvial deposits within the site.
Past archaeological investigations within the study area

7.4.16 In 2008, the mid to late 19th-century Old Engine House of Beckton Sewage Works within Site 2 was subject to archaeological standing building recording prior to demolition (HEA 1d). In 2009, MOLA carried out an archaeological evaluation (HEA 1b) at the Triangle Site as part of the Lee Tunnel development, just north of Site 1. This recorded peat and alluvial deposits. The characteristics of the peat reflect the sites location within, or adjacent to, ancient river channels. Alluvial clays and silts accumulated during the Iron Age and later historic periods, in seasonally flooded meadowland or estuarine environments. A compressed layer of topsoil and turf was found representing (undated) historic open grassland at the top of the alluvial sequence. Modern made ground sealed the alluvial sequence. The trench showed no evidence of human activity. Within the rest of the study area, beyond the site boundary, six other archaeological investigations have taken place: In 1994, an archaeological excavation (HEA 8), c. 470m to the east of Site 1 and c. 180m to the north of Site 2, recorded part of a northsouth river channel filled with alluvial clays. Deposits of peat lying on silty sand were recorded. At the interface between these layers a water-worn burnt flint was found. Higher in the peat were the remains of four yew trees, which were probably part of the great prehistoric forest. In 1999, an archaeological evaluation (HEA 17), c. 140m to the west of Site 1 and c. 1.0km to the northwest of Site 2, recorded a series of prehistoric peat and alluvial horizons. In 2004, standing structure recording (HEA 6), c. 520m to the east of Site 1 and c. 390m north of Site 2, recorded elements of the 1860s Beckton sewage works. In 2004, an archaeological diving survey (HEA 25), c. 920m to the south of Site 1 and c. 650m to the southwest of Site 2, recorded mostly modern dumping within the Thames and a sunken vessel of the late 19th to early 20th century date. In 2007, a watching brief (HEA 2), c. 970m to the east of Site 1 and c. 480m to the northeast of Site 2, recorded estuarine alluvium overlaid by modern silts/debris. In 2007, a watching brief (HEA 12), c. 970m to the northwest of Site 1 and Site 2, recorded a part of a timber revetment.
7.4.17
7.4.18
Page 58
The results of these investigations, along with other known sites and finds within the study area, are discussed by period, below.
Archaeological and historical background of the site

7.4.20 The following section presents a chronological summary of the archaeological and historical background of the site, drawing on the information collated above. Prehistoric period (700,000 BCAD 43) 7.4.21 During the early prehistoric, the Thames comprised a braided river, with channels spanning a wide area of the current Thames floodplain. The site, located close to the modern channel of the Thames and the Barking Creek (the confluence of the River Roding with the Thames) would have been within an area which may have comprised marsh, dry land and river channel at different times (the prehistoric landscape of marshes and river channels is a project-wide theme and is discussed in the route overview, Volume 6). The geological deposit model of the area indicates that, generally the gravel slopes down from north to south towards the Thames, with alluvial peats and clays and made ground overlying the gravel. However, within this general model, there may be much variation, resulting from palaeochannels (buried channel systems) of the Thames and Roding. These could have locally removed gravel deposits, leaving a variable subsurface topography. The Greater London Historic Environment Record (GLHER) contains a number of records for the prehistoric period. These comprise the chance find of a Palaeolithic (c 700,00010,000 BC) flint flake (HEA 15), c. 540m to the south of Site 1 and c. 680m to the southwest of Site 2; and the chance find of an unspecified Palaeolithic flint artefact (HEA 27), c. 790m to the west of Site 1 and c. 1.7km to the northwest of Site 2. During the Mesolithic period (10,0004,000BC) sea levels rose after the last Ice Age and the area would have been increasingly subject to flooding and alluvial sedimentation. Radiocarbon dating of the peats in the area indicate they probably began to develop across the southern part of the site initially in the early Mesolithic as water levels in the Thames and its tributaries were rising due to the effects of relative sea level rise. The peats expanded onto the higher ground, waterlogging the previously dry land surfaces until the early Iron Age (around 3000 years ago). Pollen analysis indicated the peats represented a range of wetland environments from alder carr wet woodland to reed swamp (HEA 1a). These environments may have been exploited for food, water and building materials, but evidence of activity for the Mesolithic period is typically characterised by flint tools rather than structural remains. Animal remains dating to the Mesolithic period (HEA 9) have been recorded c. 330m to the north of Site 1 and c. 760m to the northwest of Site 2. The environment of the Thames in the later prehistoric became more settled with the area of the site, which probably remained marshy. An investigation (HEA 17), c. 140m to the west of Site 1 and c. 1.0km to the northwest of Site 2, recorded a number of peat horizons dating from the
7.4.22
7.4.23
Page 59
Neolithic to the Bronze Age, indicating that there were episodes of lower sea levels which enabled vegetation to grow on dry land surfaces. 7.4.24 Wooden trackways, built to provide access across the marshes, have been discovered at various times on the Lower Thames Estuary. Some may have been associated with ritual activity and votive deposits. Although no trackways have been recorded during archaeological investigations in the study area, the chance discovery of a number of Neolithic and Bronze Age artefacts might suggest some activity, such as votive deposition, in the area. A late Neolithic/early Bronze Age stone axe/hammer, a Bronze Age sword and two Bronze Age socketed axes (HEA 4) were found c. 830m to the northeast of Site 1 and c. 800m to the north of Site 2. A Bronze Age axe (HEA 9) was recorded c. 330m to the north of Site 1 and c. 760m to the northwest of Site 2, and a Bronze Age sword (HEA 26) was found in the river Thames c. 1.1km to the south of Site 1 and c. 930m to the southwest of Site 2. A Neolithic axe (HEA 11) has been recorded c. 930m to the northeast of Site 1 and c. 1.2km to the north of Site 2. An archaeological investigation (HEA 8), c. 470m to the east of Site 1 and c. 180m to the north of Site 2, revealed water-worn burnt flint. By the early Iron Age, sea level rise brought brackish water to the Beckton area resulting in a transition from vegetated wetland deposits to tidal mudflats and salt marsh environments. Deposits laid down by successive sea level rises, have buried earlier landsurfaces at considerable depth. At the northern end of Site 1, close to the drier land, prehistoric droveways for moving sheep and cattle on to the marshes may have been buried by seasonal inundation. Roman period (AD 43410) 7.4.27 The site lay c. 11.0km to the east of the Roman settlement of Londinium. The nearest Roman road to the site was the main road which ran northeast from London to Colchester12, and lay c. 4.5km to the north of the site. Rising water levels from the late prehistoric suggest that during the Roman period the site was prone to flooding and probably lay in open marshland or on the foreshore, or even partly within the Thames channel. As such it would not have been suitable for settlement, but may have been exploited for a number of intertidal/marshland resources, in some places on an industrial scale (e.g. pottery, kilns, salt production from evaporation, fish processing etc). No Roman finds or features have been recorded through archaeological investigation. The GLHER does however record the site of a possible Roman dock which is believed to have been located along the Barking Creek (HEA 10), c. 730m to the north of Site 1 and c. 1.2km to the northwest of Site 2. Early medieval (Saxon) period (AD 4101066) 7.4.29 The site lies within the ancient Saxon manor of Hamme, first mentioned in AD 958 when King Edgar granted land to an Ealdorman Athelstan of East Anglia. The name Ham refers to an area of low-lying pasture and the
7.4.25 7.4.26
7.4.28
Page 60
more than half of the land, in the south and west of the manor, lay in marshland below the level of ordinary spring tides 13. 7.4.30 The main settlement probably grew up on, or in the vicinity of, the later medieval village of East Ham, c. 1.7km to the west of the site 14. St Marys church dates to the 12th century, but was probably located on the site of an earlier church, and formed the focus of the settlement 15. No sites or finds dating to this period have been identified within the vicinity of the church. Neither the GLHER, nor the archaeological investigations within the site or study area have recorded archaeological remains or finds dating to the early medieval period. Like much of the manor, the site was probably located in marshland, which was developing into water meadows consisting of semi-terrestrial accretionary floodplain soils deposited through seasonal overbank flooding of the Thames and the Roding. It would have provided valuable pasture. Later medieval period (AD 10661485) 7.4.32 The complex inheritance pattern of the main landlords in Hamme throughout the 13th and 14th centuries resulted in the sub-division of East Ham into two unequal portions. The larger included the site and became known as the manor of East Ham and lay mainly in the south of the parish, the smaller was known under a number of names and lay in the north 16 (Appendix A) most of the site lay in the county of Kent, implying a detached area of marshland under separate ownership of a Kent parish. The main settlement in East Ham grew up along High Street South, c. 1.6km to the west of the site, beside the 12th century church of St Mary. The coastal marsh in the southern part of the parish (including the site) would have been used for grazing. It is likely that the marshland in which the site was located began to be drained and reclaimed in this period. This initially took the form of drainage channels dug around parcels of land. The purpose of reclamation would have been primarily economic, providing good-quality grazing for livestock and fertile land for crops. It is clear that the coastal marshes were important for sheep pasture in that inland parishes often owned a detached portion of the coastal marshes in order to provide quality grazing land 17. Reclamation is likely to have taken place in stages, with a number of successive sea walls being constructed as more and more of the marshland was reclaimed out from the edge of the higher ground. Consequently the more inland Site 1 is likely to have been reclaimed earlier that Site 2, which may have continued to be exploited as marsh for a variety of purposes. The importance of coastal trading, fish and shellfish in the later medieval (and post-medieval) period is well known 18. Reclamation would have improved the general living environment of those people living near the edge of the marshes or in some cases, on islands of higher ground within the marsh. Flood prevention was sometimes hampered by the complexities of feudal tenure, which could make it difficult to assign responsibility to small landowners. Even reclaimed
7.4.31
7.4.33
7.4.34
7.4.35
7.4.36
Page 61
marshland may have been prone to flooding and in the 14th and 15th centuries the marshes in East Ham suffered from severe flooding, which would have greatly reduced the amount of pasture 19. 7.4.37 None of the archaeological investigations which have taken place within the site have recorded evidence of later medieval activity. The GLHER does however record the site of a medieval house (HEA 7) called Galyonshope (possibly associated with the Galyan family in c. 1466) located c. 610m to the east of Site 1 and c. 420m to the north of Site 2. Additionally a medieval dock called Dampers Dock (HEA 5) has been recorded by the GLHER on the banks of the Barking Creek c. 920m to the northeast of Site 1 and c. 740m to the north of Site 2. Walls around the 13th-century St Margarets churchyard (HEA 18) have been recorded c. 950m to the north of Site 1 and c. 1.6km to the northwest of Site 2. This may be a slight misplacement of the point by the GLHER as the Barking parish church of St Margaret (formerly the Barking Abbey formed in the 7th century) lies c. 1.7km to the north of Site 1 and c. 2.2km to the northwest of Site 2. The site would have been in open fields of reclaimed marsh, possibly with drainage ditches and river embankments. No upstanding banks were noted on the site walkover survey, and any such features would lie beneath subsequent ground raising. Post-medieval period (AD 1485present) 7.4.39 The earliest map of the site is by Chapman and Andr in 1777 (Appendix A1 A1.1) and shows that half of Site 1 and all of Site 2 fell within part of the County of Kent (see above), and whilst no detail is shown, although it certainly comprised reclaimed marshland with a river wall running along the river embankment. The rest of Site 1 was located in Essex and is shown as marsh. That the site comprised reclaimed marsh at the end of the 18th century is evident from the Ordnance Survey (OS) 1:mile map of 1805 (Appendix A),which shows the site within the reclaimed marshland. The map shows a number of linear north-south trackways across the marsh from the higher gravel terrace to the north. These would have been on raised embankments, which would also have served as flood defence embankments, and are probably of medieval origin. The OS 1st edition 25:mile map of 1862 (Appendix A) also shows the site in detail, within an area of reclaimed marshland. In Site 1 drainage ditches cross the site. A strip of marshy land crosses the eastern part of the site on a north-south alignment, and this is likely to be a partly silted up creek. The western end of a river wall crosses the northern tip of Site 1. In the southernwestern part of the site is the line of the Bazalgette Northern Outfall Sewer; under construction during the period when this map was produced (this is project-wide theme and is discussed in the route overview, Volume 6). In Site 2 are irrigation dams, part of a river wall and part of the northern outfall reservoir of the Bazalgette scheme at its southeast corner.
7.4.38
7.4.40
7.4.41
Page 62
The OS 2nd edition 5ft:mile map of 18969 (Appendix A) shows the site in an area of completed sewage works. These were to become the largest of its kind in Europe 20. The Northern Outfall Sewer extends along the southern side of Site 1 which is otherwise mainly occupied by drainage ditches. Just outside the southern boundary of Site 1 is a small sewage works. A small group of sewage works buildings are located in Site 2, along with railway sidings. Hachures indicate extensive ground disturbance. The map shows a large new gasworks owned by the Gas Light and Coke Company to the south of Site 1, on the opposite site of the outfall sewer. The gasworks, which opened in 1870, served the capital and became the largest in Europe. The works and the area were named after the governor of the company, Simon Adams Beck. The works had its own riverside piers and railway and had huge by-products works, producing tar, ammonia, fertilizers and dyes 21. The OS 3rd edition 25:mile map of 19091920 (Appendix A) shows little change within Site 1, although there are a couple areas of possible ponding. Likewise there is little change within Site 2. The Ordnance Survey 1:10,000 scale map of 193446 (not reproduced) shows no change within the site. The maps all show further development of the gasworks to the south of Site 1/west of Site 2. The OS 1:10,000 scale map of 195469 (Appendix A) shows the first sign of development within Site 1, in the form of minor infrastructure associated with the sewage treatment works. A small linear building lies within the southern edge of the western half of the site within areas of hardstanding and access. A small building has been constructed at the northern end of the eastern half of Site 1 with a drain to the south and a small amount of landscaping through the planting or trees. Over head power lines also cross Site 1. This map also shows further development in Site 2. Additional sewage works buildings had been constructed in the northwestern part of the area and so had a small linear building towards the northern end of the site. Two circular tanks had also been created in the southeast corner. The OS 1:10,000 scale map of 19727 (Appendix A) shows an area of gravel and rock in the northern part of the western half of Site 1. This is probably associated with ground raising. In the eastern part Site 1 two parallel linear buildings have been constructed along the southern edge of the site. There is no change within Site 2. The large Beckton gasworks complex has shrunken considerably. The works had closed in 1969 due to the introduction of natural gas, although a storage and distribution plant remained 22. The OS 1:10,000 scale map of 197988 (Appendix A) shows that the buildings in the eastern part of Site 1 had been demolished, while there is no change to the western half of the area. There is also no change within Site 2. Historic works as executed drawings relating to Beckton STW, dating back to the 1860s, will be reviewed for the ES.
7.4.43
7.4.44
7.4.45
7.4.46
7.4.47
Page 63
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works Current area of the site 7.4.48
Site 1 currently contains sewage treatment works in the southwestern part of the site. Site 2 contains the buildings shown on earlier maps which now form part of the Beckton Sewage Treatment Works.
Above ground heritage assets

Introduction 7.4.49 In accordance with the national policy set out in PPS5, the following section provides a statement based on professional and expert judgement on the likely significance (which is a reflection of the value or importance) of heritage assets, derived from the perceived historical, evidential, aesthetic and communal value. These terms are defined in Volume 5. Within the site 7.4.50 7.4.51 Within Site 1, the area has been cleared for building works (Appendix A2 Photograph A2.1). No above ground heritage assets remain within Site 1. There are no buildings remaining in Site 2 (Appendix A2 Photograph A2.2). A statutorily designated Grade II chimney and a pumping station building within this area have been removed to facilitate the construction of the Lee Tunnel extension (although the listed chimney will be reinstated). The chimney was constructed in 18871889 for the Metropolitan Board of Works, by Sir Joseph Bazalgette as part of the London sewage works with minor alterations at a later date. It is a heritage asset of medium significance due to its historical and evidential values. At the time of inspection, this area was an active construction site (Appendix A2 Photograph A2.3). No above ground assets of heritage significance remain within Site 2. Within the study area 7.4.53 Adjacent to Site 2, there is a wall (HEA 30) following the curve of the northeastern boundary of the site (Appendix A2 Photograph A2.4), which runs from the northern corner to halfway down the northeastern boundary. The wall is constructed of yellow stock brick, in English bond, and appears to be part of a covered linear structure which runs to the south towards the Thames. The feature is formed of two lines of brick wall with a void in the centre and has been capped with a pored concrete slab. It may have once held pipes or ducting for the sewers. There is evidence of repair and tie-plates located 0.5m from the ground which suggests there were problems with the stability of the wall. Rectangular vents bounded by shuttered concrete are located at the top of the wall at regular intervals (Appendix A2 Photograph A2.5). It is likely that this feature dates to sometime in the midlate 19th century and relates to the pioneering Northern Outfall Sewer of Sir Joseph Bazalgette, Chief Engineer of the Metropolitan Board of Works. The site has been redeveloped since this time but has retained its key functions as sewage works for over 150 years. Due to its association with Bazalgette and the Northern Outfall Sewer, this feature is of evidential and historical value and is of low asset significance.
7.4.52
Page 64
Buried heritage assets on the site

Introduction 7.4.54 The following section discusses past impacts on the site which are likely to have compromised asset survival (generally from late 19th and 20th century developments, eg, building foundations or quarrying), identified primarily from historic maps, the site walkover survey, and information on the likely depth of deposits. In accordance with PPS5, this is followed by a statement on the likely potential for and significance of buried heritage assets within the site, derived from current understanding of the baseline conditions, past impacts, and professional judgement. Factors Affecting Survival 7.4.56 Archaeological survival potential across the site is likely to be high, but remains pre-dating the 19th century would be deeply buried due to the presence of (probably contaminated) made ground. Both Site 1 and 2 probably have disturbance from building development from the late 19th century onwards, but deeper remains within the alluvium beneath the made ground are likely to survive intact. In Site 2 there is likely to be a considerable depth of made ground present (potentially up to approximately 5.5m), which would have protected underlying archaeological remains from any previous truncation by all but piled foundations (which would have locally penetrated the made ground). In Site 1 the made ground may not be as deep, but is likely to be at least 1.3m. Late 19th-century drainage works buildings on Site 2 will have been constructed on strip or pad foundations. These are unlikely to have had any impact on deeply buried remains beneath the made ground. The 20th-century sewage works structures in both Site 1 and Site 2 may have had strip footings or a concrete raft, the construction of which is unlikely to have penetrated the made ground and would have had little impact. Piled foundations may have been used for some of the larger buildings in Site 2, which will have completely removed any archaeological remains within the footprint of each pile. The 20th century sewage works structures are unlikely to have had basements. If any of the 20th century sewage works buildings or tanks contained basements of subterranean areas, these would potentially have removed archaeological remains within their footprint. Whether remains were removed will depend on the depth of the basement and the depth of the made ground. Basements of less than 5.0m depth are unlikely to have penetrated the made ground on Site 2. Preliminary site preparation for the Lee Tunnel works would potentially have truncated post-medieval remains within the made ground. Asset potential and significance 7.4.61 This statement of asset significance takes into account the levels of natural geology and the level and nature of disturbance and truncation. It
7.4.55
7.4.57
7.4.58
7.4.59
7.4.60
Page 65
should be noted that the current construction works on Site 2 are likely to have had an impact upon any archaeological remains, but the nature of this impact is not known at the present time. Palaeoenvironment 7.4.62 The site has a high potential to contain palaeoenvironmental remains. The deposits recorded across the site as part of the previous investigations form part of the Thames floodplain sequence, which is well understood in the area of the site. Elsewhere these deposits have been shown to hold a record of environmental change and the evolving floodplain geomorphology stretching back to the Late Glacial period. The peat deposits have the potential to preserve a range of palaeoenvironmental proxy indicators (pollen, plant macro fossils), which if present can be utilised to reconstruct the past palaeoecology of the floodplain and environments within which prehistoric occupation occurred. Any fluvial and estuarine deposits also have the potential to preserve palaeoenvironmental remains (ostracods, foraminifera, diatoms) which can be utilised to reconstruct the past fluvial regimes and indicate the onset of tidal inundations and the transition to an estuarine river environment. The significance of any such remains would be low or medium, as derived from their evidential value. Prehistoric 7.4.63 The site (particularly Site 1) has a high potential for archaeological remains dating to the prehistoric period. Evidence of activity from a Mesolithic to possibly an early Bronze Age date may be expected to be found beneath the peat horizon across the scheme. Prehistoric use and exploitation of the wetlands may have occurred and could be represented by the presence of trackways, platforms or other timber structures used to access and transverse the wetlands. Such structures may be encountered within the peat deposits and also at the interface of the peat and the over and underlying clays. Furthermore, riverside or channel edge structures such as revetments, bridges, jetties, wharfs, boats or fishtraps relating to the historic period when the area became tidal may occur within the alluvial clays and minor channel fills. An archaeological investigation within the site has recorded layers of water-worn burnt flint dating to this period. This suggests that the site or at least the area around the site was utilised during the prehistoric period. Isolated, redeposited finds, due to their low evidential value would be of low significance, while any evidence of occupation, trackways or in situ deposits would be of greater evidential value and thus of high significance. Roman 7.4.65 The site has a low potential for archaeological remains dating to the Roman period. The site would have been within intertidal marshland prone to flooding and unsuitable for settlement. GLHER records the site of a possible Roman dock c. 730m to the north of Site 1. It is possible that the Romans used the creeks and fleets to cross the marsh, and there is potential for hulked vessels or revetments within silted creeks across the site. Such remains would be of high significance if well preserved, due to
7.4.64
Page 66
their evidential and historical value. The site also has low potential for evidence of economic activities known from other parts of the Lower Thames Estuary to be carried out in the intertidal marsh, including pottery and salt production, although there is no evidence for such in the study area. Such remains would be of medium or high significance, as derived from their evidential value. Medieval 7.4.66 The site has a low potential for archaeological remains dating to the early and later medieval periods. There may be some potential for features associated within drainage and reclamation of the marshes, which may have taken place piecemeal in the later medieval period. Such features would potentially comprise river walls/embankment or drainage ditches, buried beneath 19th/20th century made ground. Drainage ditches would be of low significance. Embankments would be of low or medium significance, based on the nature and extent of the remains. The significance of these assets would be derived from the evidential and historical value of the remains. Post-medieval 7.4.67 The site has a moderate potential for archaeological remains dating to the post-medieval period. Throughout much of the post-medieval period the site lay within reclaimed marshland. The main potential for Site 1 is for the remains of drainage ditches and river walls. Based on the low evidential value drainage features are considered to be of low significance. The main potential for Site 2 are the remains of mid- to late 19th-century irrigation dams, river wall and part of the northern outfall reservoir towards the southeast corner. These features have a slightly higher evidential value compared to other minor drainage features but they are still considered to be of low significance.
Summary of asset significance

7.4.68 The table below provides a summary of the known or likely historic environment assets relevant to the proposed project. Vol 28 Table 7.4.1 Historic environment receptors Receptor (Asset) Grade II listed Bazalgette chimney (HEA 1a) 19th century wall (HEA 30) High potential for palaeoenvironmental remains Asset type Above ground/ within the site Above ground/ outside the site Buried/ within the site Significance (value) Medium Low Low or medium
Page 67
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works Receptor (Asset) High potential for prehistoric remains
Section 7: Historic Environment Significance (value) Low (for isolated redeposited artefacts); high (for in situ evidence of occupation or trackways) Medium (for revetments and industrial activity); high (for hulked vessels; low probability), if present Low (ditches); medium (river walls)
Asset type Buried/ within the site
Low potential for Roman remains of hulked vessels, revetments and industrial activity. Low potential for early and later medieval remains of drainage ditches and river walls Moderate potential for postmedieval remains of drainage ditches and river walls and of remains associated with the 19th century sewage works
Buried/ within the site
Low
7.5
Construction assessment Above ground heritage assets

Within the site
7.5.1
No construction impacts on the reinstated Grade II listed chimney are predicted given that the works are located approximately 10m from the chimney, which would be protected by measures in the CoCP. Therefore a negligible effect is predicted. Within the study area No above ground heritage assets have been identified and so there would be no effects upon above ground heritage assets resulting from the construction of the project.
7.5.2
Buried heritage assets

Enabling works 7.5.3 7.5.4 The predicted impact of each element of the enabling works is set out below. The construction of the works compound is likely to entail preliminary site stripping, assumed for the purposes of this assessment to extend to a depth of up to 0.2mbgl. Site fencing will be erected, supported by timber posts in concrete foundations. Office, storage and welfare facilities will be constructed upon pad foundations, assumed for the purposes of this
Page 68
assessment to extend to a depth of up to approximately 1.0mbgl. It is assumed for the purposes of this assessment that new service connections would be approximately 1.02.0m deep. 7.5.5 These works would have a localised impact on any 19th century remains (drainage ditches and any buried remains of the Bazalgette scheme, of low asset significance) within the made ground. This would locally reduce the significance of the asset to negligible and comprise a medium magnitude of impact, resulting in a minor adverse effect. Construction works 7.5.6 The construction works would entirely remove any archaeological remains within the footprint of the shafts, reducing their significance to negligible. This would comprise a high magnitude of impact for these assets. The precise environmental effect would depend upon the type and significance of the assets removed: a. There is a high potential for palaeoenvironmental remains of low to medium asset significance. Removal of these remains would comprise a minor adverse effect. b. There is a high potential for prehistoric remains. These are most likely to include isolated redeposited artefacts of low asset significance, but could possibly include trackways or occupation remains of high asset significance. The removal of low significance redeposited artefacts would be a minor adverse effect. The removal of trackways or occupation remains (which are less likely to be present) of high significance would comprise a major adverse effect. c. There is a low potential for Roman remains of hulked vessels, revetments and evidence of industrial activity, which would be of medium or high asset significance, if present. The removal of these remains would comprise a major adverse effect.
d. There is a low potential for early and later medieval remains of drainage ditches and river walls. The removal of these remains of low or medium asset significance would comprise a minor or moderate adverse effect. e. If post-medieval drainage ditches of low asset significance were removed, this would comprise a minor adverse effect. f. There is some potential for post-medieval remains associated with the Bazalgette scheme on Site 2, but how much of these remains are likely to be present after the current construction works have finished is uncertain. Removal of these remains of low asset significance would result in a minor adverse effect.
7.5.7
Within the footprint of the valve chambers, buried pipes and ducts, connecting culvert, dewatering wells, foundations of grit removal gantries, above ground structures and crane bases, any archaeological remains present above the formation level of the works would be removed, reducing the significance of any affected assets present here to negligible. This would constitute a high magnitude of impact for these assets. The precise impact would depend upon the depth of made ground in the area
Page 69
of the proposed works. In the areas with the deepest archaeological sequence (i.e. with up to 5.5m of made ground and gravel deposits at 17.0mbgl) only the upper archaeological strata (i.e. any post-medieval and later medieval remains) are likely to be affected to by proposals and deeper remains (i.e. prehistoric and Roman) could potentially survive beneath this truncation. The environmental effect would vary depending upon the significance of the assets removed as described in 7.5.6. 7.5.8 Palaeoenvironmental remains are likely to be present within the alluvium (i.e. below the made ground 1.35.5mbgl) and are of low or medium asset significance. In addition to the physical removal of such remains by the deep constructions mentioned above, dewatering and changes in subsurface water levels is likely to have a wider impact. By changing their environment, dewatering could cause palaeoenvironmental (and organic) remains to decay and reduce their significance from low to medium to negligible locally. However, these remains are throughout the alluvium, which is extensive, and as only localised removal is proposed. The overall magnitude of impact would be low (as a resource, the overall asset significance would be little reduced), and would result in a minor adverse effect.
Significance of environmental effect

7.5.9 The table below summarises the magnitude of impact upon known and possible historic environment assets at the site (above ground and buried), during the construction phase, and the resulting environmental effect. This is the effect prior to the implementation of an agreed mitigation strategy. Vol 28 Table 7.5.1 Historic environment effects - construction Asset (resource) Impact (magnitude, and justification) None Buried heritage assets High potential for palaeoenvironmental remains (Low or medium asset significance) High potential for prehistoric remains (Low to high asset significance, depending on High Minor adverse Removal of remains within shafts and impact from dewatering, but area of overall asset affected is limited. High Removal of assets within shafts, possible impact from dewatering on organic remains. Minor to Major adverse, depending on the significance of the assets present. Effect (prior to mitigation)
Above ground heritage assets Grade II listed Bazalgette chimney Negligible
Page 70
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works Asset (resource)
Section 7: Historic Environment Effect (prior to mitigation)
Impact (magnitude, and justification)
Above ground heritage assets nature) Low potential for Roman remains of hulked vessels, revetments and industrial activity. (Medium or high asset significance if present) Low potential for early and later medieval remains of drainage ditches and river walls (Low or medium asset significance) Moderate potential for post-medieval remains of drainage ditches and river walls and of remains associated with the 19th century sewage works (Low asset significance) Moderate or major adverse (if assets are present) High (if present) Removal of assets by shafts and possibly other works where these penetrate beneath the made ground
Minor or moderate adverse
High Removal of assets by enabling works, shaft construction and other works, where these penetrate beneath the made ground.
Minor adverse
7.6
7.6.1
No disturbance to heritage assets, or effects on the setting of heritage assets, is anticipated during the operational phase and consequently there are no significant potential effects on the historic environment.
7.7
7.7.1

All measures embedded into the draft CoCP of relevance to the historic environment are found in Section 7.2.3. Additional mitigation measures required are detailed below.
Above ground heritage assets

7.7.2 No construction effects on above ground assets have been identified and so no mitigation is required.
Page 71
Buried heritage assets

7.7.3 Based on this assessment, no heritage assets of very high significance are anticipated that might merit a mitigation strategy of permanent preservation in situ. It is therefore considered that the adverse environmental effects of the proposed development could be successfully mitigated by a suitable programme of archaeological investigation before and/or during construction, to achieve preservation by record (through advancing understanding of asset significance). The assessment presented here has identified potential effects on buried heritage assets resulting from ground works. Mitigation requirements would be informed by selective site-based assessment. This could include a variety of techniques, such as geotechnical investigation, geoarchaeologcial deposit modelling, archaeological test pits and trial trenches. This evaluation would enable a more targeted and precise mitigation strategy to be developed for the site post-consent and in advance of construction. Subject to the findings of any subsequent field evaluation post-consent and prior to the start of construction, mitigation of the adverse effects upon archaeological remains within the site is likely to include the following: a. An archaeological watching brief during demolition and construction in order to mitigate the impacts on post-medieval remains, of low significance. b. Due to the depth of alluvium on the site, mitigation of the impacts of deeper proposed excavations on palaeoenvironmental, prehistoric and possible Roman remains would only become feasible following the insertion of the perimeter walls/shaft segments of each construction (the shaft, the chambers etc). Targeted archaeological investigation would proceed as the ground within the perimeter walls/shaft segments is excavated downwards. 7.7.6 Both evaluation and mitigation would be carried out in accordance with a scope of works (Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI)) which would be agreed with statutory consultees prior to conducting any archaeological fieldwork prior to or during construction, to ensure that the scope and method of fieldwork are appropriate to satisfy requirements of the application.
7.7.4
7.7.5
Page 72
7.8
Vol 28 Table 7.8.1 Historic environment construction assessment Significance of effect Above ground heritage assets Negligible Buried heritage assets Minor adverse Environmental sampling during archaeological investigation Archaeological investigation and recording as the shaft and other deep structures are excavated downwards following insertion of perimeter walls. Archaeological investigation and recording as the shaft and other deep structures are excavated downwards following insertion of perimeter walls. Negligible None required Negligible Mitigation Residual effect
Assessment summary
Asset (receptor)
Grade II listed Bazalgette chimney
High potential for palaeoenvironmental remains (Low or medium asset significance) Minor to Major adverse, depending on the significance of the assets present. Moderate or major adverse (if assets are present) Minor adverse
High potential for prehistoric remains (Low to high asset significance, depending on nature)
Negligible
Low potential for Roman remains of hulked vessels, revetments and industrial activity. (Medium or high asset significance if present)
Negligible
Low potential for early and later medieval remains of drainage ditches and river walls (Low asset significance) Minor adverse
Negligible
Moderate potential for post-medieval remains of drainage ditches and river walls and of remains associated with the 19th century sewage works
Archaeological watching brief during enabling works and construction, ensuring archaeological assets are not
Negligible
Page 73
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works removed without record.
(Low asset significance)
Page 74
7.9
7.9.1
In terms of desk-based sources, the outstanding information that will contribute to the EIA baseline comprises the results of geoarchaeological monitoring of geotechnical boreholes (clarifying depth and nature of deposits) and historic works as executed drawings relating to Beckton STW, dating back to the 1860s, which will be reviewed for the ES. Possible effects of ground settlement resulting from deep constructions within the site, other than the tunnel itself (this will be discussed in Volume 6: project-wide effects) will be considered in the EIA and reported in the ES. Assessment of cumulative and in combination effects will be undertaken and reported in the ES. Following completion of the assessment, the mitigation approaches for the historic environment within the project will be finalised and reported in the ES.
7.9.2
7.9.3 7.9.4
Page 75
Section 8: Land quality
8 8.1
8.1.1
Land quality Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant land quality effects at the Beckton Sewage Treatment Works site. This section should be read in conjunction with Section 13 (Groundwater), Section 14 (Surface Water), Section 5 (Aquatic Ecology) and Section 6 (Terrestrial Ecology).
8.1.2
8.2
8.2.1
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to land quality are as follows: The principal works that may involve ground break at Beckton Sewage Treatment Works include the following: a. b. c. d. e. installation of the above ground flow transfer to inlet pipeline extension of inlet structure and duplication of grit removal gantries tunnel inlet shaft tunnel outlet shaft construction of siphon tunnel between inlet and outlet shaft.
8.2.2
8.2.3
The base of the siphon tunnel and associated shafts are within the Thanet Sand Formation and Chalk so dewatering and/or ground treatment will be required within these strata. On completion, the structures will be incorporated into the operational infrastructure of the wider Beckton STW. Construction workers involved in intensive below ground works are high sensitivity receptors. Measures incorporated into the draft CoCP which aim to substantially reduce risks associated with construction activities include: a. the remediation of the site so it is fit for purpose (where required) b. the use of appropriate PPE as well as training and welfare for construction staff c. confined space working measures where applicable d. the employment of UXO specialist advice.
8.2.4 8.2.5
8.2.6
The CoCP includes measures to minimise the migration of dusts during construction activities. These include the use of wheel washing at site entrances, damping down during dry weather and covering and safe storage of potentially contaminating materials (if any).
Page 76
8.3
8.3.1 8.3.2

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

8.3.3 8.3.4 The construction and operational phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. There are site specific variations for this site.

8.3.5 The assumptions and limitations associated with this study are presented in Volume 5. There are no site specific assumptions and limitations for the site.
8.4
8.4.1
Baseline conditions
Baseline conditions have been assessed for the development confines and for a distance of up to 250m beyond (in order to take into account off site contamination sources and receptors). The baseline data was sourced from the Thames Tunnel Geographical Information Systems (GIS) database, including historic maps and environmental records. In addition information has been sourced from stakeholder consultation and results from a preliminary intrusive ground investigation undertaken by the Thames Tunnel project. A full list of the data sets drawn upon in this assessment is presented in Volume 5 methodology.
8.4.2
Site description
8.4.3 8.4.4 The Beckton site as a whole is located at the confluence of the River Roding and tidal River Thames in the London Borough of Newham. The proposed works at Beckton are located at two discrete points across the Beckton STW. These are detailed below are shown on the accompanying figure (Figure 3.2.2) A walkover survey is scheduled to be undertaken prior to the issuing of the ES. Site 1 8.4.6 8.4.7 8.4.8 Site A is the location of the proposed additional pumps and the siphon tunnel inlet shaft adjacent to the existing filter beds. A stand of Japanese Knotweed is present to the west of this area. The proposed above ground pipeline which terminates at the pumps crosses an apparent refuse tip, a materials storage compound and presently undeveloped land from the inlet works some 275m to the west.
8.4.5
Page 77
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works Site 2 8.4.9
Site 2 comprises the outlet shaft of the siphon tunnel which is to be constructed in the south eastern part of the site which is the location of the former derelict engine house. The area has been cleared and is presently occupied by the Lee Tunnel Beckton shaft construction work site.
Site history and surroundings with potential for contaminants

8.4.10 The table below provides a summary of the site history, including potentially contaminative activities and principal contaminants of concern in and around the site. The table was produced following inspection of the historic mapping dating from the late 19th century to the present day held by the project. Items listed in the table are also shown on Figure 8.5.1. Vol 28 Figure 8.4.1 Land quality contaminative land uses (see Volume 28 Figures document) Vol 28 Table 8.4.1 Land quality contaminative land use summary Ref Item Inferred Date of Operation c1860s present Potentially Contaminative Substances Associated with Item
8.4.11
On-site 1 Beckton sewage treatment works Off-site 2 Gas works and railway (adjacent south) 8.4.12
Heavy metals, arsenic, free cyanide, nitrates, ammonium, phosphates, sulphates, sulphides, asbestos, oil/fuel hydrocarbons, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbon, chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons, PCBs, pathogens Oil/fuel hydrocarbons, aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs, chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, organolead compounds, cyanides, ammoniacal liquors, phenols, heavy metals, asbestos, BTEX.
c1879 c1970
The available historic maps show that the site was first developed as a sewage treatment works prior to 1875, as part of Joseph Bazalgettes London sewerage system upgrade in the mid 19th Century. Although occupying a small area adjacent to the Thames at that time, it has grown considerably throughout the 19th and 20th Centuries to the modern day layout. The area to the south has a long history of industrialisation including a gas works (some of which is still present to the south of Gallions Reach Shopping Centre) and various other engineering works. Numerous tanks, chimneys, rail sidings and other potentially contaminative activities are present in this area. The Gallions reach retail development was constructed in the 2000s.
8.4.13
8.4.14
Page 78
Geology and hydrogeology

8.4.15 Data from British Geological survey provided to Thames Tunnel GIS and sourced from the published geological map of the area together with logs from boreholes excavated as part of the Lee Tunnel EIA Phase 2 Contamination Assessment of the site indicate the geological succession summarised in the table below. Several areas of Beckton STW were investigated as part of the Lee Tunnel EIA Phase 2 Contamination Assessment and the results from this are summarised in the table below. Vol 28 Table 8.4.2 Land quality - anticipated geology and hydrogeology Strata Depth Encountered (mbgl) Site 1 - up to 3mbgl (generally 1.5mbgl) in Site 2 -2.5-6.8m thickness thickening towards the south) Strata Description Hydrogeological classification Unclassified
8.4.16
Made Ground
Site 1 Southern area: clayey gravely sand within inclusion of varying proportions of brick, ash, flint, clinker, slag and concrete to around 3mbgl. Thereafter, made ground comprises of grey brown to black sandy gravely clay with inclusions of clay, wood, brick, concrete and flint. Black sandy gravely clay with inclusions of brick, ash, slag and clinker Site 2 Light brown to dark brown silty sandy clay or sandy gravel with inclusion of varying proportions of brick, concrete, charcoal, clinker, chert, rootlets, and wood. Although in certain areas, the following inclusions were also recorded: wire, glass, metal, cloth and plastic fragments.
Alluvium
2.9mbgl. increasing in depth eastwards, up to 10.6m Between 8.1m in the sludge thickening
Sandy silt and clay with frequent remains of wood and layers of peat that is fibrous in nature.
Secondary undifferentiated superficial aquifer
River Terrace Deposits
Loose to medium dense to very dense grey to brown sandy angular to subangular fine to coarse flint gravels, which
Secondary undifferentiated superficial aquifer
Page 79
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works Strata
Section 8: Land quality Hydrogeological classification
Depth Strata Description Encountered (mbgl) area to 13.5m in are occasionally clayey in nature. the Western Triangle and 19m within the vicinity of the Engine House. Thickness of between 7.611.8m. in Site 1 and absent within Site 2 Between 13.5 to 17.3mbgl. The stratum peters out towards the south of the site At depths of between 18m to 37mbgl. Top of stratum encountered at between 32.3 to 37.9mbgl Fissured blue grey slightly sandy clay with occasional partings of fine sand, pyritic nodules, pyritised fragments of wood, white shell fragments at depth and rare clusters of selenite crystals. Sandy clay with rare lenses of fine sand
London Clay
Unproductive strata
Lambeth Group
Secondary A Bedrock Aquifer
Thanet Sand Formation White Chalk Subgroup
Very dense slightly silty fine to medium sand
Secondary A Bedrock Aquifer
Weak, medium to high density white chalk
Principal Bedrock Aquifer
8.4.17
In the southern and eastern parts of the site, where the London Clay and Lambeth Group are absent, the upper aquifer in the Alluvium and River Terrace Deposits will be in hydraulic continuity with the Thanet Sand Formation and Chalk which form the lower aquifer. The site is not located within a designated source protection zone for groundwater supply.
8.4.18
Unexploded ordnance
8.4.19 During World Wars I and II the London area was subject to bombing. In some cases bombs failed to detonate on impact. During construction works unexploded ordnance or bombs (UXO) are sometimes encountered and require to be made safe and disposed of. A desk based assessment for UXO threat was undertaken for ground investigation works at the proposed development site. The report reviews information sources such as the Ministry of Defence (MoD), Public Records Office and the Port of London Authority.
8.4.20
Page 80
The UXO report is currently in preparation the EIA undertaken as part of the Lee Tunnel EIA gave the Beckton site low to medium rating.
Ground investigation data

General 8.4.22 No specific Thames Tunnel ground investigation has taken place within the site boundaries, the nearest borehole from TT investigation was borehole SR2001 located in the River to the south of the scheme (as shown in Figure 8.5.2. Vol 28 Figure 8.4.2 Land quality proposed borehole locations (see Volume 28 Figures document) 8.4.23 8.4.24 8.4.25 However, since 1996, a large number of ground investigations have been performed at Beckton STW within the proposed development areas. Gas and groundwater monitoring piezometers have been installed in a number of window samples holes and all boreholes throughout the site. Soil samples have been collected from within the Made Ground and natural strata (mainly the Alluvium and River Terrace Gravels, but also the London Clay and Lambeth Group) where they have been chemically tested for a range of inorganic and organic contaminants. An extensive groundwater monitoring programme is underway at Beckton as part of the Lee Tunnel works. This monitoring programme has thus far focused on twenty-five boreholes located within the proposed Lee Tunnel extension and temporary contractors stores plus a further eight boreholes located on other areas of the STW. The response zones of boreholes vary from the Alluvium and River Terrace Deposits (RTD) to the White Chalk Subgroup. Up to thirteen rounds of groundwater monitoring and sampling have been performed within these boreholes. Groundwater within the Chalk and Thanet Sands was sampled from three boreholes within Site 2 at the end of April 2008. Chemical testing of groundwater has involved an extensive suite of various organic and inorganic contaminants. In addition, chemical testing has been undertaken on selected soils to determine their leachability. Contamination sources 8.4.29 Assessment of the soil contamination test data has revealed widespread elevated concentrations of lead, the main areas of concern being as the grit screenings within the vicinity of the inelt works to the west of Site 1. Widespread sewage-related contamination, including microbes, ammoniacal nitrogen, nitrate and chloride has been identified within the grit screenings, and in made ground and alluvial soils along the route of the siphon tunnel and at an isolated locality within the made ground in Site 1.
8.4.26
8.4.27 8.4.28
8.4.30
Page 81
Widespread elevated results of phytotoxic copper and zinc have been encountered within the grit screenings on the secondary treatment area (to the west of Site 1) and along the route of the siphon tunnel. Total cyanide has been recorded within topsoil located above grit screenings within to the west of Site 1. Occasional elevated levels of organic compounds have also been found in different parts of the site. Comparison of groundwater and leachate results against corresponding Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) shows that to varying degrees, all development areas have some form of significantly elevated contamination. The highest contaminant concentrations have been observed within the grit screenings in which has widespread significant concentrations of copper, nickel and ammonium with isolated hotspots of arsenic, cadmium and lead. Contamination within the grit screenings and Alluvium of to the west of Site 1 does however not seem to be reflected within the underlying RTD. Significantly elevated ammonium concentrations present in the groundwater of the RTD, Alluvial deposits and Upper Chalk appear fairly consistent across the site. Although still elevated, during the most recent groundwater monitoring within April 2008, such ammonium concentrations encountered were significantly reduced within the two boreholes that were monitored within the Chalk along the alignment of the Lee Tunnel. Shallow groundwater from the Secondary Treatment area has been tested for microbial contamination. The highest populations of faecal streptococci and coliforms appear present within groundwater residing in the grit screenings. Groundwater present in the Alluvium has also shown some elevated microbial concentrations, albeit to a far lesser degree. A quantitative risk assessment (QRA) based on the grit screenings and reworked clay within the Beckton Rectangle has been undertaken (Scott Wilson, April 2008). The QRA has modelled the effect of contaminants within leachate derived from the grit screenings and reworked clay on the Thames Tideway as a receptor. The Chalk Aquifer has also been considered a receptor as hydraulic continuity between the aquifers is likely. The QRA has been modelled using the Remedial Targets Methodology provided by the Environment Agency. The report concludes that the following contaminants of concern have been identified: a. as a worst case scenario, ammonium, zinc and nickel were identified to present a potential risk to both the Thames Tideway and the Chalk aquifer receptors; and as a realistic scenario, the potential concentrations of ammonium and fluoranthene at the Chalk compliance point are also slightly elevated.
8.4.32 8.4.33 8.4.34
8.4.35
8.4.36
8.4.37
8.4.38
b. 8.4.39
The natural decomposition of grit screenings, sewage, peat, hydrocarbons and putrescible waste has the potential to generate ground gases including carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4).
Page 82
These gases can build up in the ground and can also cause depletion of oxygen levels and at certain concentrations, can pose a significant risk to human health in terms of asphyxiation and other health effects. Furthermore, concentrations of CH4 at a particular level may cause an explosion risk. Ground gases are an issue on this particular site in relation to the presence of sewage, peat lenses within the alluvium and hydrocarbon contamination noted within near surface soils and groundwater. Gas monitoring results from earlier work by Scott Wilson advised that gas protection measures will be included as part of the design within all new buildings and service trenches located within all development areas except Site 1. This includes buildings even where there may only be part time personnel in attendance. Site 1 appears to have been omitted due to the thinning of organic rich alluvial soils and reduced contamination in this area in comparison with other parts of the Beckton site. Further assessment will be undertaken as part of the Thames Tunnel works to confirm this.
8.4.41
8.4.42
Other environmental records

8.4.43 Details of environmental records for the vicinity of the site held by the EA and other bodies were obtained from the Thames Tunnel GIS which is partially sourced from Landmark Information Group. Significant records are discussed in further detail after the summary table below. Items in the table are also shown in Figure 8.5.3. Vol 28 Figure 8.4.3 Land quality environmental records and waste sites (see Volume 28 Figures document) Vol 28 Table 8.4.3 Land quality - environmental records and waste sites Item Licensed industrial activities Hazardous substance sites Pollution incidents to controlled water Waste treatment and disposal sites Landfill sites Industrial authorisations (IPPC, COMAH, PPC) Past potential contaminated On-site 0 0 0 0 0 0 Within 250m of site boundary 0 1 3 1 1 0
8.4.44
Majority of Site and 250m buffer classified as
Page 83
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works Item industrial uses Licensed abstractions On-site
Within 250m of site boundary past potentially contaminated industrial sites 0 0
8.4.45
Inspection of the GIS Mapping has identified no pollution incidents to controlled water within the development areas at the Beckton site. Three are located within the 250m buffer and are most likely related to the sewage treatment works activities on the site. Information provided by the EA shows that there have been several significant sewage pollution incidents on the southeast border of the site in the last ten years. A single waste management facility and historic landfill is identified located adjacent to Site 2 . No further facilities are noted in the 250m buffer. The numerous past potentially contaminative uses within the site boundary and extending beyond into the 250m buffer relate to the STW and other former gas works site. These are covered in more detail in Vol 28 Table 8.4.1. The historic landfill is also judged to relate to activities associated with the STW.
8.4.46 8.4.47
8.4.48
Technical engagement
8.4.49 8.4.50 The London Borough of Newham were consulted with respect to land quality data they held for the specified search area. The borough forwarded six packages of site investigation reports, associated correspondence, remediation statements and validation reports. These each relate to the redevelopment of various plots of land within the former Beckton Gasworks site to the south of the STW. The data indicates that the underlying soils at the Beckton Gasworks site had become impacted with common contaminants associated with this type of industrial activity, such as PAHs, TPH, heavy metals, cyanide. Various remediation schemes were adopted including source removal and the employment of capping layers. Contamination of perched groundwater within the made ground was found, and included elevated levels of mercury, PAHs, cyanide, phenols and ammonia.
8.4.51 8.4.52
8.4.53 8.4.54
8.5
8.5.1
Assessment year: construction For land quality, the assessment is based on the likely baseline conditions which will be experienced in Year 1 of construction.
Page 84
It is anticipated that land quality baseline conditions will not alter significantly from those described above by the commencement of the construction.
Development of conceptual model

8.5.3 A key element of the Preliminary Risk Assessment for land quality is the development of source-pathway-receptor conceptual model which aims to understand the presence and significance of potentially complete pollutant linkages. The methodology for undertaking this analysis is provided in Volume 6. The following section outlines the sources, pathways and receptors which are relevant to the land quality assessment at the site. Sources of contamination 8.5.6 8.5.7 The following potential sources of contamination have been identified: On site a. Sewage treatment works (including soil contamination with lead, microbes, ammoniacal nitrogen, nitrate and chloride as well as phytotoxic copper and zinc which have been encountered within the grit screenings (to the west of Site 1). Total cyanide has also been recorded within topsoil at the location and organic compounds have been noted locally across the remainder of the site. Possible unexploded ordnance Japanese knotweed Naturally occurring sulphates in the London Clay (eastern part of the site only). Residual contamination of shallow groundwater from previous adjacent site usage (including gas works)
8.5.4 8.5.5
b. c. d. 8.5.8
Off site a.
Pathways 8.5.9 The following pathways for contamination have been identified: a. human uptake through: ingestion of exposed contaminated soils during construction; inhalation of soil/dust, volatilised compounds or ground gas via migration through permeable strata and conduits; or dermal contact with exposed soils during construction; horizontal and vertical migration of leachable contaminants via groundwater within the upper aquifer in the River Terrace Deposits and lower aquifer in the Thanet Sand and Chalk; vertical migration of contaminants along preferential pathways created by excavation of diaphragm wall; direct contact of soils with construction materials; accidental detonation of UXO;
b. c.
d. e. f.
Page 85
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works g. h.
gas/vapour migration through pipes/foundations, along piles and into structures; and Direct contact with and spread of Japanese Knotweed rhizomes by construction activities
Receptors 8.5.10 The following receptors have been identified: a. b. c. d. e. f. 8.5.11 8.5.12 Construction workers Site end users (maintenance staff) Off site receptors - residents and workers Built environment Controlled waters - groundwater in upper and lower aquifer which may be in continuity Surface water
The sensitivity of the land quality receptors are defined in Vol 5 Table 7.4.2. The following section discusses the potential impacts on receptors as a result of the existing land quality conditions at the site. Impacts and effects upon construction workers Desk based information suggests that the soils beneath the site may be slightly contaminated, principally as a result of previous (historic) site usage. Additionally ongoing off-site sources such as residual contamination of the shallow aquifer may continue to contribute to contamination beneath the site. Such contamination may pose a risk to construction workers via a variety of pathways including, direct contact and vapour pathways. There is also the potential for the build-up of asphyxiant or explosive gases associated with contamination confined space construction. Although the strata recorded by the investigation do not appear to contain a significant biodegradable fraction, some elevated soil gas may be associated with thickness of alluvium that has been recorded and also by fuels contamination that has been recorded. Elevated methane was detected by previous investigations, principally in the eastern part of the site. Overall therefore the magnitude of the impact is likely to be negligible, giving a slight effect (not significant). Impacts and effects upon off-site receptors
8.5.13
8.5.14
8.5.15
The construction works may result in the creation of new pathways for contaminants to migrate to adjacent sites e.g. via wind-borne dust during spoil handling and storage or by migration of liquid contaminants through newly created service conduits.
Page 86
Whilst the sensitivity of adjacent commercial and residential sites is moderate to high, the impact from this will be negligible giving a slight effect (not significant). Impacts and effects upon built environment High levels of certain contaminants, if contained within subsurface materials, can lead to impacts on the built environment (both existing and proposed), including chemical attack on buried concrete structures. Additionally detonation of potential unidentified buried UXO could represent a risk during construction. The built environment is a low sensitivity receptor and following the proposed procedures such as site investigation, UXO surveys and remediation, the magnitude of impact is judged to be negligible, giving a negligible effect (not significant). Vol 28 Table 8.5.1 Land quality impacts - construction Impact Health impacts on construction workers Magnitude, and justification Negligible measures such as use of correct PPE, safety briefings and remediation of contaminated soils reduce impacts substantially Negligible measures for dust suppression, correct storage of potentially contaminated materials, wheel washing at site entrance will substantially reduce impacts in the event of finding contamination Negligible - measures such as UXO specialists employed to advise staff reduce impacts substantially Negligible - measures such investigation for selection of concrete mix for buried structures reduce impacts
8.5.17
8.5.18
Health impacts on off-site receptors - workers and members of the public
Damage to built environment existing structures Damage to built environment proposed structures
Vol 28 Table 8.5.2 Land quality receptors - construction Receptor Construction workers Off-site receptors - workers Built environment - existing Built environment - proposed Value/sensitivity and justification High intensive below ground construction Low commercial to high residential Low infrastructure Low infrastructure
Page 87
Vol 28 Table 8.5.3 Land quality effects - construction Effect Slight effect on off-site receptors Negligible effect on built environment - existing Negligible effect on built environment - proposed Significance, and justification Not significant Not significant Not significant
Slight effect on construction workers Not significant
8.6
8.6.1
Operational effects are likely to include potential exposure to end users from contaminated soils and for the leakage of sewage from the shaft into the surrounding soils. Impacts and effects on future site users The future site users include maintenance workers who would be working on the site occasionally. These are low sensitivity receptors. Following the design measures incorporated into the construction phase (investigation, soil and groundwater as necessary) as well as the placement of newly built hardstanding there is not considered to be any impacts to the workers at the sewage treatment site from pre-existing contamination in the completed development. Shaft design (including secondary lining) would ensure that any outflow from the shaft is unlikely and that there is a negligible impact to the identified receptors giving a negligible effect (not significant). Impacts and effects upon built environment The principal impact relates to the potential for the degradation of new structures by attack from deleterious substances which may in turn reduce the integrity of the structure (and could promote leakage of sewage through the walls of the shaft). The proposed built environment is a low sensitivity receptor and with the inclusion of the proposed measures such as suitable concrete mix design and soil remediation (as necessary), the impact of the effect is low giving a negligible effect overall (not significant). In addition investigation data suggests that it is possible that elevated gases may be able to impact proposed above ground structures. Measures, such as site investigation, gas risk assessment and the incorporation of measures into building design (such as gas resistant membranes if necessary), mean the magnitude of impact is negligible. This gives a negligible effect (not significant).
8.6.2 8.6.3
8.6.4
8.6.5
8.6.6
8.6.7
Page 88
Vol 28 Table 8.6.1 Land quality impacts - operation Impact Health impacts on site end users Magnitude, and justification Ventilation of shafts to ensure no gas build-up from sewage prevents risks to construction personnel from in-ground gases. Negligible - measures such as incorporation of gas membranes in buildings and suitable concrete mix design reduce impacts Negligible - measures such as remediation of heavily contaminated soils reduce risks substantially.
Damage to built environment proposed structures
Damage to built environment existing structures
Vol 28 Table 8.6.2 Land quality receptors - operation Receptor Site end users Value/sensitivity and justification Industrial/infrastructure end use may be considered as low sensitivity. Low industrial/infrastructure Low industrial/infrastructure
Built environment existing Built environment - proposed
Vol 28 Table 8.6.3 Land quality effects - operation Effect Negligible effect on end users Negligible effect on built environment - existing Negligible effect on built environment proposed Significance, and justification Not significant Not significant Not significant
8.7
8.7.1
Construction The assessment has not identified the need for further site specific mitigation measures during the construction phase. Operation The assessment has not identified the need for further site specific mitigation measures during the operational phase.
8.7.2
Page 89
8.8
Vol 28 Table 8.8.1 Land quality construction assessment Significance Mitigation Not Not required significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not required Not required Not required Residual significance No residual effects identified No residual effects identified No residual effects identified No residual effects identified
Assessment summary
Receptor Construction Workers
Effect Slight effect on construction workers
Off-Site Receptors residents and workers
Slight effect on off-site receptors
Built Environment Existing
Negligible effect on built environment - existing
Built Environment Proposed
Negligible effect on built environment - proposed
Vol 28 Table 8.8.2 Land quality operation assessment Significance Not significant Not significant Not significant Mitigation Not required Not required Not required Residual significance No residual effects identified No residual effects identified No residual effects identified
Receptor Site end users
Effect Negligible effect on end users
Built environment proposed
Negligible effect on built environment - existing
Built environment proposed
Negligible to slight effect on built environment proposed
Page 90
8.9
8.9.1 8.9.2 8.9.3 8.9.4 8.9.5
New data from site investigations (including new boreholes and foreshore samplings) will be reviewed and the baseline updated as required. Data from the Lee Tunnel construction and AMP5 works will be reviewed and incorporated into the baseline Assessment of cumulative and in combination effects will be undertaken and reported in the ES. Following completion of the assessment the mitigation approaches for land quality within the project will be finalised and reported in the ES. Impacts on groundwater, surface water and aquatic ecology will be assessed and reported in the ES.
Page 91
Section 9: Noise and vibration
9 9.1
9.1.1
Noise and vibration Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant noise and vibration effects at the Beckton Sewage Treatment Works site. The activities at Beckton Sewage Treatment works include: a. c. construction of the transfer pipes, a new control centre and b. flow diversion works, extension of the inlet, d. the installation of additional pumps and controls.
9.1.2
9.1.3
All works are to be undertaken within the existing Beckton Sewage Treatment Works.
9.2
9.2.1
The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to noise and vibration are as follows. Construction Measures incorporated into the draft CoCP to reduce noise and vibration impacts include: a. careful selection of construction plant (conforming to the relevant SI), construction methods and programming b. equipment to be suitably sited so as to minimise noise impact on sensitive receptors c. use of site enclosures, and temporary stockpiles, where practicable and necessary, to provide acoustic screening
9.2.2
d. choice of routes and programming for the transportation of construction materials, excavated material and personnel to and from the site e. careful programming so that activities which may generate significant noise are planned with regard to local occupants and sensitive receptors. 9.2.3 9.2.4 It has been assumed for the purpose of this assessment that the hoarding height will be 2.4m at this location. Where the need for additional noise control measures (beyond standard best practicable means measures described in the CoCP) has been identified, these have not been assumed for the purposes of the assessment. Where that the assessment indicates that these are likely to be required, this information has been added to the section on mitigation. All construction works are over 300m from nearby residential receptors. Volume 5 identifies that an assessment of construction impacts would only
9.2.5
Page 92
Section 9: Noise and vibration
be undertaken for sensitive receptors / resources with 300m of the construction worksites. 9.2.6 Only non-sensitive building uses including retail, warehouses and industrial facilities are located within 300m of any construction activities (ie the extent of the study area defined in Volume 5). It should be noted that these buildings are quite distant, ie over 200m from the construction works. As no sensitive receptors / resources are located within 300m, of the works, no construction assessment has been undertaken for this location for the PEIR. Operation 9.2.7 9.2.8 All permanent installations are located over 800m from nearby residential receptors. Only non-sensitive building uses are located within 300m of any of the permanent sources. These include supermarkets, shopping centres, warehouses and industrial facilities. Given the distance between the permanent installations and sensitive receptors, it is unlikely that the plant to be installed would result in noise and vibration impacts. Therefore no operational assessment has been undertaken.
9.2.9
9.3
9.3.1
Assessment methodology
Scoping and engagement Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. There were no site specific comments from consultees for this particular site in relation to noise and vibration. At the time the Scoping Report was issued, the potential area of the construction works was more extensive than the working area now defined for the PEIR assessment. Hence the site was scoped-in for assessment. However, noise sensitive receivers are now beyond the 300m study area defined in Volume 5 which has resulted in the site being scoped out of the PEIR in relation to noise and vibration.
9.3.2
Page 93
Section 10: Socio-economics
10 10.1
10.1.1
Socio-economics Introduction
The local socio-economic effects were scoped out of the assessment for the Beckton Sewage Treatment Works site at the scoping stage. Projectwide effects, such as employment, are assessed in Vol 6. This is owing to the existing character of the area and the fact that the works are being carried out on an existing sewage treatment works, in a very large industrial area.
10.1.2
Page 94
Section 11: Townscape and visual
11 11.1
11.1.1
Townscape and visual Introduction

Beckton STW is an existing very large industrial site with frequent construction activity and improvement works, and as such is judged to be of limited townscape value with no heritage or listed features present. The site is subject to constant activity and a high level of disturbance visually, and also in terms of noise. This is also generally true of the surrounding townscape which is predominantly industrial and commercial. It is therefore judged that the tranquillity of the site is low and its sensitivity to change is also low.
11.2
11.2.1
Assessment methodology Scoping and technical engagement

Townscape and visual effects were scoped out of the assessment for Beckton STW at the scoping stage. Stakeholders were consulted on the Scoping Report (as detailed in Volume 5) and no comments specific to Beckton STW were received. Gateway Retail Park and Gallions Reach Shopping Park are the nearest commercial receptors but these have a low sensitivity to change and are visually introspective. The nearest highly sensitive receptors (residential) are approximately 480m away on Henry Addlington Close, with further properties approximately 900m away to the north east on Westminster Gardens and 1km away to the northwest on the other side of the A13 dual carriageway and A406/A1020 junction. These receptors do not have clear views towards the proposed site due to their orientation and also intervening buildings, landform, roads and vegetation. No significant adverse effects on townscape character or visual receptors are anticipated for either construction or operation. By year one of construction (the year in which the intensity of construction activities at the site would be greatest) the Lee Tunnel project will have been completed, extending the existing site considerably and surrounding the proposed Thames Tunnel works by developing the land adjacent to Royal Docks Road.
11.2.2
11.2.3
11.3
11.3.1
The proposed works, including the tunnelling operations, will generally be in keeping with present activities on site and the magnitude of change associated with these works, given the existing industrial nature of the site and presence of ongoing construction works, is judged to be low. The justification for this is based on the proposed construction works comprising: a. b. Additional components that form largely inconspicuous elements that are characteristic of the existing setting of the townscape; and Additional components that are largely characteristic of the existing visual composition and are viewed as one of a series of components in the wider panorama. The components would also be largely
Page 95
Section 11: Townscape and visual
obscured from surrounding visual receptors by intervening vegetation, industrial structures and buildings.
11.4
11.4.1
The low value, low sensitivity, low level of tranquillity and low magnitude of change would give rise to a negligible effect on the site, surrounding townscape character areas and surrounding visual receptors. As a result of this, the townscape and visual assessment of construction effects has been scoped out.
11.4.2
11.5
11.5.1
The permanent works would consist of predominantly below ground structures capped off with concrete and paving, and around which the ground will be graded to existing levels. Above ground structures will generally not exceed 3m in height, set amongst existing industrial structures similar in character. The low value, low sensitivity, low level of tranquillity and negligible magnitude of change would give rise to a negligible effect on the site, surrounding townscape character areas and surrounding visual receptors. As a result of this, the townscape and visual assessment of operational effects has been scoped out.
11.5.2
11.5.3
Page 96
Section 12: Transport
12 12.1
12.1.1
Transport Introduction
This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant transport effects at the Beckton Sewage Treatment Works site. The site has the potential to affect transport in the following ways: a. Effects on pedestrian routes. b. Effects on cycle routes. c. Effects on bus routes and patronage. d. Effects on London Underground and National Rail services. e. Effects on river services and patronage. f. Effects on car and coach parking. g. Effects on highway layout, operation and capacity.
12.1.2
12.1.3 12.1.4
Each of these effects is considered within the assessment for both construction and operational phases of the project. This section details the site-specific findings for the Beckton STW site. As detailed in Volume 5, the transport assessment also comprises assessment at borough (sub area) and project-wide levels these assessments are contained in Volume 6. More detailed analysis of all three levels of assessment (site-specific, borough level and project-wide) will be presented in the ES. This assessment provides a commentary on the anticipated transport effects of the project. When baseline data collection and analysis is complete a full quantitative transport assessment will be carried out. The assessment and mitigation contained within this section is therefore based on professional judgement using available information at the time of writing.
12.1.5
12.2
12.2.1
The proposed development in described in section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to transport are as follows. Construction Construction details for the site relevant to the construction transport assessment are summarised in the table below.
12.2.2
Page 97
Vol 28 Table 12.2.1 site construction traffic details Description Assumed peak period of construction lorry movements Assumed average peak daily construction lorry vehicle movements Types of lorry requiring access Assumption Year 1 of construction 40 movements per day (20 two-way lorry trips) Office lorries Pipe/Track/Oils lorries Plant deliveries Concrete Readymix Rebar lorries Excavation lorries
Note: a movement represents a one way trip.
12.2.3
Vehicle movements would take place during the typical day shift of ten hours on weekdays (08:00 to 18:00) and five hours on Saturdays (08:00 to 13:00) with up to one hour before and after these hours for mobilisation of staff. Mobilisation may include: loading; unloading; and arrival and departure of workforce and staff at site and movement to and from the place of work. During construction it is assumed that all materials would be transported by road. An option has been retained for barges to be used at the site. This will be considered as part of the ES. Lorry routing during construction phasing The site is 1.2km from a Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) route on Newham Way (A13). The route option between the site and the TLRN and Strategic Road Network (SRN) would be the same as is being employed for the Lee Tunnel works. The proposed routing strategy would use the grade-separated roundabout at the junction of the North Circular Road (A406), Newham Way (A13) and Royal Docks Road (A1020) which then allows access to Jenkins Lane via the A13 eastbound slip road. Jenkins Lane leads to the site access point to the south. Vol 28 Figure 12.2.1.indicates the construction traffic routes for access to/from the Beckton STW site. Construction routes are being discussed with both Transport for London and the Local Highway Authority (LHA). Vol 28 Figure 12.2.1 Transport - construction traffic routes (see Volume 28 Figures document)
12.2.4
12.2.5
12.2.6
12.2.7
12.2.8
The site would use the existing access point on Jenkins Lane that serves the existing Thames Water facility.
Page 98
The histogram in Vol 28 Table 12.2.2 below shows that peak activity at the Beckton STW site would occur in year 1 of construction. This peak is earlier than the overall project-wide construction peak activity year of 2019.
Page 99
Vol 28 Figure 12.2.2 Transport - construction lorry profile
Note: Figure shows indicative volumes and movements based upon assumed timings for the works. It is not a schedule and remains subject to change
Page 100
Construction workers 12.2.10 The construction site is expected to require a maximum workforce of approximately 44 people at any one time. The number and type of workers is shown in the table below. Vol 28 Table 12.2.2 Transport - construction worker numbers Contractor Staff 08:00-18:00 20 12.2.11 Labour 08:00-18:00 20 Client Staff 08:00-18:00 4
It is difficult to predict with certainty the direction that workers would arrive/depart to and from the site. Staff could potentially be based in the local area or in the wider Greater London area and are unlikely to have the same trip attraction to primary routes as construction lorries. The method of distribution of worker trips on the transport networks, including the public transport services, is to be agreed with the Local Highway Authority (LHA) and Transport for London (TfL). Code of construction practice Measures incorporated into the CoCP to reduce transport impacts include measures in relation to HGV management and control such as specific vehicle routes to sites and holding areas for construction vehicles. They also include provision for management plans in relation to construction worker journeys to and from the site. The implementation of these measures has been assumed for the assessment of construction effects. Operation The operational structure would be located within the existing Thames Water sewage treatment works. Access for maintenance vehicles would be via the access on Jenkins Lane created for use during the construction phase. Maintenance visits would be incorporated into the existing maintenance programme at Beckton STW. Access would be required for a light commercial vehicle on a three to six monthly maintenance schedule. Additionally there would be more significant maintenance visits every ten years which would require access to enable two cranes to be brought to the site.
12.2.12
12.2.13
12.2.14
12.2.15 12.2.16
12.2.17
12.3
12.3.1

Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. All consultee comments relevant to this site are presented in the table below.
Page 101
It is noted that it was reported in the Scoping Report that operational traffic effects were scoped out of the EIA. However, while the environmental effects associated with transport for the operational phase are not expected to be significant or adverse, the Transport Assessment which will accompany the ES as part of the application, will examine the operational phase in order to satisfy the relevant stakeholders that technical issues have been addressed (for example, those associated with access for maintenance activities). As this also allows conclusions in relation to environmental effects to be drawn, these have been included in the PEIR for completeness. Vol 28 Table 12.3.1 Transport stakeholder engagement Organisation Comment The assessment should include any interaction with Crossrail construction traffic where the two project programmes overlap The assessment should include arrangements for dealing with construction arisings, in particular maximising the use of waterborne transport for muck away, and the import of construction materials where possible LB Newham The assessment should address minimising impacts on local residents, particularly in respect of parking arrangements and highway routes used for site access. Travel Plans should be included Response The topic methodology already takes account of major new development as part of the assessment. The Transport Assessment work both informs the logistics strategy and assesses the proposed strategy for the purposes of the application. The topic methodology already envisages addressing effects related to changes to parking, access routes and associated facilities. This forms part of the environmental design of the project, including management processes for construction activity, and is a consideration in determining mitigation required. This is considered as part of the base case.
Transport for London
Barking Riverside development - proposed residential development will
Page 102
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works Organisation Comment be under construction at approximately the same time New bus service from Gallions Reach as part of the Barking Riverside development
Section 12: Transport Response
This is considered as part of the base case.
Renwick Road bridge This is considered as improvement works also due part of the base case. within construction timescale
Baseline
12.3.3 The baseline methodology follows the standard methodology described in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.
Construction
12.3.4 The construction phase methodology follows the standard methodology described in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.
Operation
12.3.5 The operational phase methodology follows the standard methodology described in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.

12.3.6 The assumptions made for the transport assessment are as listed in Volume 5. Site specific assumptions and limitations for the site will be provided in the ES when the detailed assessment is presented. The preliminary assessment findings reported in the PEIR are qualitative and based on professional judgement.
12.3.7
12.4
12.4.1 12.4.2
Baseline conditions
The site is located in the London Borough of Newham. The Thames Water Beckton STW is on the north bank of the River Thames. The River Roding bounds the site to the east. A green chain route, which is a designated public right of way and recreational footpath, is located along the river, on the sites eastern boundary. Beyond this is a large timber yard and other warehouse uses. To the south of the site is the River Thames. To the west of the site is a tract of derelict land and a mixture of business parks and retail parks. The closest residential dwellings to the proposed works are on Henry Addlington Close approximately 480m from the site. Lee Tunnel construction works are currently taking place on site, along with a number of other improvement projects and existing STW activities. The following sub-sections describe the baseline conditions of the site in relation to pedestrians, public transport and highways. Sensitive receptors
12.4.3
12.4.4
Page 103
in the vicinity of the site are also identified. Volume 28 Figure 12.4.1 shows the Transport Site Plan. Vol 28 Figure 12.4.1 Transport Site Plan (see Volume 28 Figures document)
Pedestrian routes
12.4.5 There are no pedestrian routes that pass immediately close to the site but a green chain route, which is a designated public right of way and recreational footpath, is located along the River Roding on the sites eastern boundary.
Cycle routes
12.4.6 Barclays Cycle Superhighway route CS3 runs between Barking and Tower Gateway. The route begins to the east of the site at the junction of Alfreds Way (A13) / River Road and passes along the A13 to East India where it continues on less trafficked roads to Tower Gateway.
Bus routes
12.4.7 The site is designated as having a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) rating of 2. This indicates that the public transport provision is low in the vicinity of the site. Bus route 101 stops at Gallions Reach Shopping Centre (stop AP), located approximately 500m to the west of the site. It provides a service which operates between Woodbine Place and Gallions Reach Shopping Park. Route 101 has a frequency of six buses per hour during the AM peak, PM peak, inter-peak and five buses per hour on Saturdays. This reduces to four buses an hour on Sundays. Bus route 262 and 366 also stop at Gallions Reach Shopping Centre (stop S), approximately 500m west of the site. Route 262 provides a service between Stratford Bus Station and Sainsburys East Beckton. Route 262 has a frequency of six buses per hour during the AM peak, PM peak, interpeak, Saturday and four buses per hour on Sundays. Bus route 366 provides a service between Falmouth Gardens and Beckton Bus Station. Route 366 has an hourly frequency of six buses during the AM peak, PM peak, inter-peak, Saturday and four buses on Sunday. Volume 28 Figure 12.4.1 shows the location of the bus stops in the vicinity of the site. The destinations and frequency of the routes are detailed in the table below.
12.4.8
12.4.9
12.4.10
Page 104
Vol 28 Table 12.4.1 Transport bus service frequency Route Number 101 Distance from site (metres) and Location of Bus Stop 500m (Gallions Reach Shopping Park) 500m (Gallions Reach Shopping Park) 500m (Gallions Reach Shopping Park) Origin Destination Woodbine Place to Gallions Reach Shopping Park Stratford Bus Station to Sainsburys East Beckton Falmouth Gardens to Beckton Bus Station AM Peak (07:00-10:00) buses per hour 6
262
366
Total
17
Docklands Light Railway, London Underground and National Rail stations

12.4.11 Gallions Reach is the nearest Docklands Light Railway (DLR) station, approximately 500m west of the site. Gallions Reach DLR station provides access to the DLR serving Beckton to the north and Tower Gateway and Bank in the west. The additional line running between Beckton and Stratford International is due to open in 2011. DLR services from Gallions Reach are every eight minutes during the AM and PM peaks in each direction. Barking station is approximately 2.4km from the site. Barking station is served by the London Underground, London Overground and National Rail services. Barking Underground is on the Hammersmith and City line (services to Hammersmith) as well as the District line (services to Ealing Broadway, Edgware Road and Wimbledon). In the AM and PM peaks there are approximately 12 eastbound trains per hour and 24 westbound trains per hour. The Overground line operates from Barking to Gospel Oak. In the AM and PM peaks there are approximately two eastbound trains and two westbound trains per hour. C2C National Rail services run from Barking westwards to Fenchurch Street and eastwards to Shoeburyness and Southend Central. In the AM and PM peaks there are approximately 12 eastbound trains and 14 westbound trains per hour.
12.4.12
12.4.13
12.4.14
River services
12.4.15 There are no nearby river services for Beckton STW, although the site has direct access to river frontage and there are existing wharfage/jetty facilities at the site.
Page 105
Parking
Existing on-street car parking 12.4.16 There is a surplus of parking within the Thames Water site at Beckton Sewage Treatment Works. Existing off-street / private car parking 12.4.17 There is some car parking provision within the existing site. There are substantial car parks serving the Gallions Reach Shopping Park and Beckton Showcase Cinemas nearby though it is assumed these would be for use with the retail outlets only.
Highway network
12.4.18 The site is 1.2km from the TLRN (A13). Vehicular access to the Beckton STW from the strategic road network is gained via the grade-separated roundabout at the junction of the North Circular Road (A406), Newham Way (A13) and Royal Docks Road (A1020). From all directions, drivers take the A13 eastbound on slip and turn left at a left in / left out junction before joining the main carriageway into Spur Road. At the T-junction, drivers turn right into Jenkins Lane, and pass under the A13. They continue straight on at the roundabout and the site is located on the left. Egress from the site for destinations east along the A13 is via the reverse of the route. For all other destinations, drivers turn left at the first Spur Road roundabout to join the A13 grade-separated roundabout. Spur Road acts as the on/off slip from the A13 Alfreds Way on to Jenkins Lane. Both the on/off slips intersect with roundabouts accessing Jenkins Lane. The junction of A13 Spur Road (south) and Jenkins Lane is a small diameter roundabout and forms the access junction with the Hollywood Bowl Leisure Park. The junction of A13 Spur Road (north) and Jenkins Lane is a give-way junction with Jenkins Lane (north) forming the minor arm and also provides access to the Newham Council Depot. Access from Jenkins Lane to Spur Road north involves passing under the A13 Alfreds Way and is subject to a height restriction of 4.95m (163). Jenkins Lane runs from north to south joining the A406 North Circular in the north and to the south, a number of small contractor units and the Beckton STW. Jenkins Lane runs under the A13 Alfreds Way. Jenkins Lane and the A13 Spur Road predominantly accommodate heavy goods vehicle traffic associated with the waste transfer station and Thames Water operations. The northern section of Jenkins Lane also serves Leisure Park private car traffic, which peaks in the evenings and at weekends. However, the Leisure Park also generates some traffic associated with matinee film showings.
12.4.19
12.4.20
12.4.21
Survey data
Description of surveys 12.4.22 Transport surveys were undertaken in May and June 2011 to establish the existing transport movements in the area. Manual and automated traffic
Page 106
surveys were undertaken to establish specific traffic, pedestrian and cycle movements including parking surveys, turning volumes, queue lengths, saturation flows, degree of saturation and traffic signal timings 12.4.23 The following junction surveys were undertaken in the vicinity of the Beckton STW site to understand highway operation in the area: a. Spur Road / Jenkins Lane North b. Spur Road / Jenkins Lane South 12.4.24 An Automated Traffic Counter (ATC) was placed on Jenkins Lane (in between Spur Road and Eric Clarke Lane) to obtain data on traffic flows at this location. A pedestrian and cycle survey was undertaken in the vicinity of Beckton STW along Jenkins Lane. A parking survey was undertaken in the area surrounding the site to establish occupancy of parking spaces at Showcase Cinemas on Jenkins Lane. Results of surveys 12.4.27 Data obtained from the surveys were being processed at the time of writing and will be reported fully in the ES.
12.4.25
12.4.26
Data from third party sources

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

12.4.29 The receptors and their sensitivities in the vicinity of the Beckton STW site are summarised in the table below. The transport receptor sensitivity is defined as high, medium or low using the criteria as detailed in Volume 5. As the assessment undertaken for the PEIR is judgement based (rather than being based on quantitative analysis), it has not been possible to identify the effects at individual receptors. A commentary is however provided on the effects upon individual receptor groups; namely pedestrians and cyclists in the local area and users/operators of the local bus services, rail network, river services, parking and local highway network. A full assessment will be provided in the ES.
12.4.30
Page 107
Vol 28 Table 12.4.2 Transport receptors Value/sensitivity and justification High Receptor Residents on Westminster Gardens and Curzon Crescent. Pedestrians and cyclists using the A13 or Jenkins Lane for access and as a through route. Emergency vehicles accessing the commercial and residential units within the local area. Business and workplace occupiers along Jenkins Lane, Gallions Reach Shopping Park and the existing Thames Water facility itself. Private vehicle users in the area using the local highways or parking. Bus routes 101, 262 and 366 and passengers using these services
Medium
Low
12.5
12.5.1
At this stage in the assessment process a qualitative assessment has been undertaken based on discussions with TfL and the LHAs, knowledge of the transport networks and their operational characteristics in the vicinity of each site and knowledge of the construction programme, duration and levels of construction activity. These elements have been considered in the context of the range of receptors present in each location and the significance criteria identified. Professional judgement has been applied to determine qualitatively the likely effects and their significance in each location being assessed. The Transport Assessment will include full quantitative and qualitative analysis and the transport effects reported in the ES will be based on that detailed analysis.
12.5.2
Construction base and development cases

Assessment year 12.5.3 As described in Volume 5, 2019 has been used as the reference construction base year (as agreed with TfL), from which the base and development cases for 2019 have been derived The peak period for vehicle trips to the site is predicted to be in year 1 of construction which will be the assessment year for local network assessments and will be contained in the ES. For the PEIR the assessment is undertaken for the network-wide 2019 assessment year.
12.5.4
12.5.5
Page 108
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works Assessment area 12.5.6 12.5.7
The area being assessed for the Beckton STW site is based on discussions with LB Newham and Transport for London. Local roads and junctions included in the assessment are as follows: a. b. c. Jenkins Lane Spur Road / Jenkins Lane (north) Spur Road / Jenkins Lane (south)
12.5.8
These roads and junctions would be assessed for highway, cycle and pedestrian impacts. Local bus and rail services, as identified on Vol 28 Figure 12.4.1, would also be assessed.
Construction base case

12.5.9 The construction base case takes into account traffic growth and major new developments within the local area by 2019. This includes the developments described in section 3.4.1, namely: a. The Lee Tunnel and Beckton STW extension b. The Barking Riverside development 12.5.10 The following sub-sections detail what is assumed to change between the baseline and base case scenarios with respect to the different transport aspects considered. Pedestrian routes 12.5.11 Pedestrian routes are not anticipated to change from baseline conditions. The base case therefore assumes the same pedestrian routes as set out in section 12.4 Cycle routes 12.5.12 Cycle routes are not anticipated to change from baseline conditions and therefore the base case assumes the same cycle routes as set out in section 12.4 Bus routes and patronage 12.5.13 Bus routes are not anticipated to change from baseline conditions and therefore are assumed to be the same in the base case. Bus patronage is anticipated to increase, the effect of which will be detailed in the Transport Assessment. DLR, London Underground and National Rail and patronage 12.5.14 DLR routes are assumed to be the same as baseline conditions as no changes are anticipated. DLR patronage is anticipated to increase, the effect of which will be detailed in the Transport Assessment London Underground routes are assumed to be the same as baseline conditions as no changes are anticipated. LUL patronage is anticipated to increase, the effect of which will be detailed in the Transport Assessment.
12.5.15
Page 109
National Rail routes are not anticipated to change from baseline conditions. National Rail patronage is anticipated to increase, the effect of which will be detailed in the Transport Assessment. River services and patronage River services and patronage are not relevant at this site. Parking Coach and car parking provision is assumed to be the same as baseline conditions as no changes are anticipated. Highway layout The physical arrangement of the highway network is not anticipated to change from baseline conditions and therefore the base case assumed the same highway layout. Highway operation Population growth and development in the wider area will result in an increase in traffic on the surrounding highway network. As a result of this increase, it is anticipated that traffic flows may be heavier and queues longer. Highway capacity analysis Baseline traffic flows (from junction surveys) will be used and forecasting carried out to understand the capacity on the highway network in the vicinity of Beckton STW site in 2019 without the Thames Tunnel project. The scope of this analysis is being agreed with LB Newham and Transport for London. The full assessment of the highway operation and capacity analysis will be undertaken in the ES.
12.5.17 12.5.18
12.5.19
12.5.20
12.5.21
12.5.22
Construction development case

12.5.23 12.5.24 The construction development case comprises the base case plus construction activities associated with the Beckton STW site. This section addresses the changes that would arise as a result of the Thames Tunnel construction activities at the Beckton STW site. Construction vehicle movements 12.5.25 It has been assumed for the purposes of the assessment that construction lorry movements are limited to the day shift only (08:00 to 18:00). The table below shows the construction lorry movement assumptions for the local peak traffic periods. These are based on the peak months of construction activity at this site. The table also shows the construction worker movements expected to be generated by the site. These movements are based on the assumption that all material is transported to and from the site by road.
12.5.26
Page 110
Vol 28 Table 12.5.1 Transport forecast construction vehicle movements Vehicle movements per time period Vehicle type Total Daily 0700 to 0800 0800 to 0900 1700 to 1800 1800 to 1900 0 33
Construction vehicle movements 10%* Worker vehicle movements
40
0 33
4 5
4 5
76
Total 116 33 9 9 33 * As explained in Volume 5, it has been assumed that a maximum of 10% of daily construction
vehicle movements associated with materials would take place in each of the peak hours.
12.5.27
Assuming all excavated material and other material is taken by road, an average peak flow of 116 vehicle movements a day is expected during the months of greatest activity at this site. At other times in the construction period, vehicle flows would be lower than this average peak figure. Modal split The Beckton Sewage Treatment Works site has a PTAL of 2. Parking would be provided on site for workers. It is assumed that some travel to site or between sites is required (for maintenance, client supervision etc) therefore it has been assumed that 80% of staff and 90% of labour staff could drive to the site. Workers who are unable to drive to the site would use other modes. Information regarding the travel arrangements of these workers would be included in the Construction Management Plan and Work Place Travel Plan documents for the site (to be submitted as part of the application). Pedestrian routes There would be no change to the footways in the nearby vicinity of the site. Cycle routes No cycle routes run through the site and therefore none would be impacted on directly by the construction site development. Bus routes and patronage No bus services run through the site and therefore none would be impacted on by the construction site development. DLR, London Underground and National Rail stations and patronage No DLR, underground or rail services run through the site and therefore none would be impacted on by the construction site development.
12.5.28
12.5.29
12.5.30
12.5.31
12.5.32
Page 111
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works River services and patronage 12.5.33
No river services run through the site and therefore none would be impacted on by the construction site development. Parking No public parking would be impacted on by the worksite area. Highway layout No highway layout modifications would be required for the worksite area. Highway operation Highway operation would not be altered by the worksite area.
12.5.34 12.5.35
Construction effects
12.5.36 This section summarises the preliminary findings of the assessment undertaken for the 2019 assessment year based on professional judgement. A more detailed assessment will be presented in the ES. Pedestrian routes 12.5.37 No footways would be affected by the construction works. The effect on pedestrian routes would therefore be negligible. Cycle routes 12.5.38 The level of construction traffic is not likely to be significant enough to affect cycle routes. It is expected the effect on cycle routes would therefore be negligible. Bus routes and patronage 12.5.39 12.5.40 The routing of bus services in the area would not be affected by the construction works at the Beckton STW site. It is anticipated that there would be a proportion of labourers and staff using buses to access the site during construction, however, it is expected that the effect on bus routes and patronage would be negligible. DLR, London Underground and National Rail and patronage 12.5.41 The DLR services at Gallions Reach or London Underground, London Overground and National Rail services from Barking are not likely to be affected by the construction works at the Beckton STW site. It is anticipated that there would be a proportion of labourers and staff using DLR, rail and underground to access the site during construction, however, it is expected that the effect on London Underground, Overground and National Rail services would be negligible. River services and patronage 12.5.43 Construction materials to/from the Beckton STW site would not be transported by river and therefore would not alter or affect any river services. There would therefore be no effect on river services.
12.5.42
Page 112
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works Parking 12.5.44
Existing parking on site would be able to accommodate the construction workers arriving on site by private vehicle. Other staff would be brought in via a shuttle bus. It is expected that the effect on parking would be negligible. Highway layout No modification to highway or junction layouts would be required as a result of construction activity at Beckton STW. The effect on local highway layout would therefore be negligible. Highway operation No modification to highway or junction operation would be required as a result of construction activity at Beckton STW. The effect on local highway operation would therefore be negligible. Highway capacity analysis The levels of construction vehicle movement expected at this site are comparatively low in the context of the amount of traffic already using the road network in the surrounding area. Due to the overall increase in vehicles accessing the site, it is expected that the effect on highway capacity would be minor adverse. Significance of effects The significance of the transport effects described above has been determined as part of the ongoing assessment and analysis. With regard to the application of the IEMA criteria detailed in Volume 5, this is based on professional judgement for the purposes of the PEIR assessment. During construction, the number of heavy goods vehicle movements would be consistent with current levels. The nature of the construction site layout at this location is considered likely to result in a minor adverse effect on road network operation and delay. Effects on pedestrian and cyclist amenity and safety are expected to be negligible.
12.5.45
12.5.46
12.5.47
12.5.48
12.5.49
12.6
12.6.1
This section summarises the preliminary findings of the assessment based on professional judgement. The results summarised below will be presented in more detail in the ES. A qualitative approach to the assessment is appropriate due to the transport activity during the operational phase being very low. The transport elements have been considered in the context of the range of receptors present in each location and the significance criteria identified. Professional judgement has been applied to determine qualitatively the likely effects and their significance in each location being assessed. The transport effects reported in the ES will be based on more detailed information and qualitative analysis where this is appropriate.
12.6.2
Page 113
Operational base and development cases

Assessment year 12.6.3 As outlined in Volume 5 the operational assessment year has been taken as year 1 of operation. As transport activity associated with the operational phase is very low, there is no requirement to assess any other year beyond that date. Assessment area 12.6.4 The assessment area for the operational assessment remains the same as for the construction assessment as set out above. This includes those roads and junctions which lead to/from the Beckton STW site to the SRN and TRLN. Operational base case 12.6.5 12.6.6 12.6.7 The operational base case takes into account traffic growth and major new developments within the local area by year 1 of operation. The new developments in the vicinity of the site that have been included in the base case are as detailed in Section 12.5. The following sub-sections detail what is assumed to change between the baseline and base case scenario with respect to the different transport aspects considered. Pedestrian routes 12.6.8 Pedestrian routes are not anticipated to change from baseline conditions. The base case therefore assumes the same pedestrian routes as set out in section 12.4. Cycle routes 12.6.9 Cycle routes are not anticipated to change from baseline conditions and therefore the base case assumes the same cycle routes as set out in section 12.4. Bus routes and patronage 12.6.10 12.6.11 Bus routes are not anticipated to change from baseline conditions and therefore are assumed to be the same in the base case. Bus patronage is anticipated to increase between 2011 (baseline) and year 1 of operation and this assessment will be detailed further in the Transport Assessment. DLR, London Underground and National Rail and patronage 12.6.12 12.6.13 DLR routes are assumed to be the same as baseline conditions as no changes are anticipated. It is anticipated that DLR patronage will increase between 2011 and year 1 of operation and this assessment will be detailed further in the Transport Assessment. London Underground routes are assumed to be the same as baseline conditions as no changes are anticipated.
12.6.14
Page 114
It is anticipated that LUL patronage will increase between 2011 and year 1 of operation and this assessment will be detailed further in the Transport Assessment. National Rail and London Overground routes are not anticipated to change from baseline conditions. It is anticipated that National Rail and London Overground patronage will increase between the baseline and year 1 of operation and this assessment will be detailed further in the Transport Assessment. River services and patronage River services and patronage are assumed to increase between the baseline and year 1 of operation, however due to the distance from river services this would not be relevant to the assessment. Parking Parking provision is not anticipated to change from baseline conditions. Highway layout The physical layout of the highway network is not anticipated to change from baseline conditions. Highway operation Population growth and development in the surrounding area will result in an increase in traffic on the surrounding highway network. As a result of this increase, it is anticipated that traffic flows may be heavier and queues longer. Highway capacity analysis Baseline traffic flows (from junction surveys) are being used and forecasting carried out to understand the capacity on the highway network in the vicinity of Beckton STW site in year 1 of operation without the Thames Tunnel project. The scope of this analysis is being agreed with LB Newham and Transport for London and will be reported in the ES.
12.6.16
12.6.17
12.6.18 12.6.19
12.6.20
12.6.21
Operational development case

12.6.22 The operational development case assessment for the site includes any permanent changes in the vicinity of Beckton STW, as a result of the Thames Tunnel project and also takes into consideration the occasional maintenance activities required at the site in addition to the major new developments outlined in the operational base case. Trip generation 12.6.23 For routine three or six monthly inspections and equipment exercising, vehicular access would be required for light commercial vehicles. In most cases this would be typically a transit van. On occasion there may be a consequent need for small flatbed vehicles with lifting cranes, for example to removing plant from the site. During 10 yearly inspections, sites for placing two large cranes would be required. The cranes would facilitate lowering and recovery of tunnel inspection vehicles and to provide duty/standby access for personnel.
12.6.24
Page 115
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works Modal split 12.6.25
It is anticipated that all trips during the operational phase would be using transit van or large construction vehicles. No trips would be made by public transport, walking or cycling due to the nature of maintenance requiring equipment that can only be transported by vehicles. Pedestrian routes There would be no adjustment to footways and kerb alignments in the construction phase and therefore no need for any re-adjustments during the operation phase. Cycle routes The designated cycle routes within the area would be maintained and would not be affected during the operational phase. Bus routes and patronage No change is expected to any bus services in the operational phase and it is not anticipated that operational staff journeys would be made by bus. DLR, London Underground and National Rail and patronage No change is expected to any DLR, London Underground, National Rail and London Overground services in the operational phase and it is not anticipated that operational staff journeys would be made by these services. River services and patronage No change is expected to any river services as a result of the operational phase. Parking No change is expected to car parking in the vicinity of the site, compared to the base case, as a result of the operational phase arrangements at Beckton STW. Highway layout The site would be accessed via Spur Road and Jenkins Lane from the A13 during the operational phase. This reflects the current access arrangements for the Beckton STW. Highway operation Occasional maintenance vehicles would service Beckton STW every three to six months. When larger vehicles are required to service the site, there may be some temporary, short-term delay to other road users.
12.6.26
12.6.27
12.6.28
12.6.29
12.6.30
12.6.31
12.6.32
12.6.33 12.6.34
Operational effects
12.6.35 This section summarises the preliminary findings of the operational assessment undertaken for the year 1 of operation assessment year. The results summarised below will be presented in more detail in the ES. Pedestrian routes
Page 116
As a result of the occasional maintenance trips anticipated at Beckton STW during the operational phase, there would be a negligible effect on pedestrian routes in the area and footways adjacent to the site with no modifications required. Cycle routes As a result of the occasional maintenance trips anticipated at Beckton STW during the operational phase, there would be a negligible effect on cycle routes in the area and on the roads surrounding the site. Bus routes and patronage The occasional maintenance trips anticipated at Beckton STW during the operational phase would have a negligible effect on bus routes. DLR, London Underground and National Rail and patronage The occasional maintenance trips anticipated at Beckton STW during the operational phase would have no effect on DLR, London Underground, National Rail and London Overground services in the local area. River services and patronage Due to the distance of river services from the site, they would not be affected by the occasional maintenance trips anticipated at Beckton STW. Parking As a result of the occasional maintenance trips anticipated at Beckton STW during the operational phase, there would be a negligible effect on on-street parking in the local area. Highway layout In the operational phase the current highway layout would be restored, resulting in a negligible impact on the local highway layout. Highway operation During the operational phase there may be some delay to road users when large maintenance vehicles are required at Beckton STW, however this is likely to be infrequent, and the effect would therefore be negligible. Highway capacity It is expected that the effect on highway capacity would be negligible. Significance of effects The significance of the transport effects described above has been determined as part of the ongoing assessment and analysis. With regard to the application of the IEMA criteria detailed in Volume 5, this is based on professional judgement for the purposes of the PEIR assessment. During the operational phase there would be very occasional vehicle trips to and from the site for maintenance activities but these would have a negligible effect on the surrounding transport networks (in terms of delay and safety) and pedestrian/cyclists.
12.6.37
12.6.38
12.6.39
12.6.40
12.6.41
12.6.42
12.6.43
12.6.44 12.6.45
12.6.46
Page 117
12.7
12.7.1 12.7.2

Measures contained in the draft CoCP of relevance to transport are summarised in section 12.2. The project has been designed to limit the effects on the transport networks as far as possible and many measures have been included directly in the design of the project. Any mitigation which is required is detailed below Pedestrian routes No mitigation measures would be required for pedestrians. Cycle routes No mitigation measures would be required for cyclists. Bus routes and patronage No mitigation measures would be required for bus services. DLR, London Underground and National Rail services and patronage No mitigation measures would be required for DLR, London Underground, National Rail or London Overground services. River services and patronage No mitigation measures would be required for river services. Parking No additional mitigation measures would be required for parking. Highway layout No mitigation measures would be required for the highway layout. Highway operation No mitigation measures would be required for highway operation. Highway capacity No mitigation measures would be required for highway capacity.
12.7.3 12.7.4 12.7.5 12.7.6
12.7.7 12.7.8 12.7.9 12.7.10 12.7.11
Operation
Pedestrian routes 12.7.12 No modification to footways would occur in either construction or operational phase and as a result, no mitigation would be required for the operational phase. Cycle routes 12.7.13 Cycle routes would not be significantly affected by the operation of Beckton STW, and therefore no mitigation would be required. Bus routes and patronage
Page 118
Bus services would not be significantly affected by the operation of Beckton STW therefore no mitigation would be required. DLR, London Underground and National Rail and patronage DLR, London Underground, National Rail and London Overground services would not be affected by the operation of Beckton STW therefore no mitigation would be required. River services and patronage River services would not be affected by the operation of Beckton STW therefore no mitigation would be required. Parking No mitigation would be required in relation to parking. Highway layout The highway layout would be unchanged in the operational phase and as a result no mitigation would be required. Highway operation On the basis of the assessment results no mitigation would be required in relation to highway operation. Highway capacity As the level of operational vehicles would be negligible, there would be no requirement for highway improvement mitigation to increase capacity of local junctions.
12.7.15
12.7.16
12.7.17 12.7.18
12.7.19
12.7.20
Page 119
12.8
Vol 28 Table 12.8.1 Transport construction assessment Effect No effects anticipated Significance Negligible Mitigation None required Residual significance Negligible
Assessment summary
Receptor
Pedestrians in the local area / Pedestrians using the Thames Path No effects anticipated Some additional patronage from construction workers. Negligible None required Negligible None required Negligible None required Negligible Negligible
Cyclists in the local area
Bus users and operators
Rail users and operators Negligible Negligible Some parking required for construction workers. Some additional construction vehicles on the network. Minor adverse None required None required
Negligible
River users and operators
Some additional patronage from construction workers. No effect
Negligible Negligible
Parking
All road users
None required
Minor adverse
Page 120
Vol 28 Table 12.8.2 Transport operational assessment Effect Occasional maintenance trips. Occasional maintenance trips. Occasional maintenance trips. No effect No effect Occasional maintenance trips. Occasional delay to road users when large maintenance vehicles accessing site. Negligible Negligible Negligible None required None required None required Negligible None required Negligible None required Negligible None required Negligible None required Negligible Significance Mitigation Residual significance
Receptor
Pedestrians in the local area / Pedestrians using the Thames Path Cyclists in the local area
Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
Bus users and operators
Rail users and operators
River users and operators
Parking users
All road users
Page 121
12.9
12.9.1
In addition to the baseline survey data collected and data obtained from Transport for London (strategic model data and additional ATC and junction count data), there is a need for additional data to supplement the data set. The baseline data collection was in the process of being collated at the time of writing. When baseline data collection (including data from third party sources) and analysis is complete a full transport assessment will be carried out. This will include a detailed analysis of all three levels of assessment (sitespecific, borough level and project-wide) and will include an assessment of cumulative and in combination effects. The scope of analysis will be agreed with TfL and the LHA and will include the identification of effects at individual receptors. This full assessment will be reported in the ES (and Transport Assessment). Following completion of the assessment the mitigation approaches for transport within the project will be finalised and reported in the ES and Transport Assessment.
12.9.2
12.9.3
Page 122
Section 13: Water resources ground
13 13.1
13.1.1
Water resources ground Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant groundwater effects at the Beckton Sewage Treatment Works site. The Scoping Report identified that, in the absence of mitigation, there is potential for effects on groundwater resources from both construction and operational phases at the site. This preliminary assessment identifies these measures in order to assess the effects (if any) on groundwater resources that might then require mitigation.
13.1.2
13.2
13.2.1
The proposed development is described in section 3 of this volume. The elements of the proposed development relevant to groundwater are as follows. Construction The main infrastructure at the site, relevant to the consideration of groundwater, would include: a. Two drop shafts (9m internal diameter for drive shaft and 7m internal diameter for reception shaft). The depth of shafts would be approximately 32m and 30m (excluding a 4m thick base slab once constructed). The shafts would be connected to the Lee Tunnel main drop shaft at the eastern end of the site via a short connection tunnel (approximately 30m long). The shafts and tunnels would have a secondary lining; b. Two 600mm ID approximately 30m long, 35m deep, micro-tunnels between connection shaft and siphon inlet shaft, with ground pretreatment (grouting); c. A siphon connection tunnel between the two drop shafts would be 2.85m internal diameter and approximately 0.8km long;
13.2.2
d. The inlet works would be above ground. No CSO overflows would be intercepted at the site; e. 2.1m ID pipeline from Tideway PS to inlet works, part buried, 3.5m deep to invert. 13.2.3 The proposed methods of construction for the various elements of the site of relevance to the groundwater assessment are summarised in the Vol 28 Table 13.2.1. Also contained in this table are approximate time-scales and depths.
Page 123
Vol 28 Table 13.2.1 Groundwater - methods of construction Design Element Method of Construction Diaphragm wall with secondary lining; dewatering from outside the perimeter Construction Periods Construction Depth
2 Drop Shafts (DS)
1-2 years
Deep
600mm ID approx 30m long, 35m deep, 2 microtunnels between connection shaft and siphon inlet shaft Siphon Connection Tunnel between two DS, 2.85m ID, approx 0.8km long
With ground pretreatment (grouting);
<1 year
Deep
Slurry TBM
<1 year
Deep
Above ground section installed on the cradle constructed as part 2.1m ID pipeline from Tideway PS to of the Lee Tunnel contract; inlet works, part <1 year Shallow buried, 3.5m deep Below ground to invert. section installed by 600mm diameter CFA pile, excavated Note: In terms of construction depth - Shallow (means <10m) and Deep (>10m) 13.2.4 Dewatering would take place from boreholes drilled outside of the perimeter of the diaphragm wall. Depressurisation may be required ahead of the shaft base through the Lambeth Group. These pumps would be operational during the shaft sinking and could be maintained to ease the reception and launch of the Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM). The time period for duration of dewatering could be up to 18 months (1.5 years) at this site. As part of the environmental design, dewatering amounts would be minimised where practicable. Depending on ground conditions found by the further GI work to be undertaken, consideration may be given to deepening the diaphragm walls by between 6-8m (from the current design depth of approximately 4m below the base level of 70mATD ie 66mATD). It is anticipated that ground treatment would required within the gravels. Grouting on either side of the shaft would enable the TBM to break into
13.2.5
13.2.6
Page 124
and out of the shaft. Grouting may also be necessary along the microtunnels between connection shaft and siphon inlet shaft. Operation 13.2.7 During operation the presence of below ground structures at the site could interfere with shallow groundwater movements and potentially act as a barrier to flow locally around the site. If it occurs, the build up of groundwater can cause problems of groundwater flooding. The preliminary assessment that follows assesses this issue in order to determine the need for any mitigation. The presence of other below ground structures at the site would also be considered when determining the impact new below ground structures.
13.3
13.3.1 13.3.2

Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process which has been undertaken. There were no site specific comments from consultees for this particular site. Construction
13.3.3 13.3.4 13.3.5 13.3.6
The construction phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site. Operation The operational phase assessment methodology follows the standard methodology provided in Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.

13.3.7 13.3.8 13.3.9 At this stage, all assessments are based on a qualitative approach only. The list of receptors is based on the best available information from the Environment Agency on abstractions (both licensed and GSHP schemes). A quantifiable assessment of the ground contamination of the site would be established as part of the on-going ground investigation (GI) as the site. The site has been used for large scale sewage treatment for over 150 years. Furthermore, historic contaminant migration from the nearby Beckton Gasworks is understood to pose a threat to groundwater quality beneath the site. Dewatering may affect plume migration and ground disturbance may remobilise contaminants. Groundwater may derive directly from the upper aquifer; from the lower aquifer; or interact with either the River Thames or the Barking Creek. The source of the water and associated quality would affect the quality of the abstracted water and the risk to groundwater quality deterioration during the dewatering operation.
13.3.10
Page 125
13.4
13.4.1
Baseline conditions
Current conditions The two shafts at the site would pass through made ground, Alluvium, River Terrace Deposits, Lambeth Group (Woolwich Beds; undifferentiated - namely the Upper Shelly Beds, Laminated Beds, Lower Shelly Beds) and the Thanet Sand Formation as summarised in the table below. The presence of the Greenwich fault zone passing close to the site means also there may be hydraulic interaction between the structures and the Seaford Chalk Formation beneath the Thanet Sand Formation. Vol 28 Table 13.4.1 Ground water anticipated ground / resources
Formation Made Ground Alluvium River Terrace Deposits London Clay

(present beneath the siphon inlet shaft but not at the siphon outlet shaft)
Elevation mATD 101.9 99.1 98.0

90.6
Depth below ground level (m bgl) 0.0 2.8 3.9

11.3
Thickness (m) 2.8 1.1 7.4

7.7
Hydrogeology Perched Water Upper Aquifer
Aquiclude
82.9 19.0 3.5
Harwich Formation Lambeth Group [undifferentiated]

USB LtB/LSB UPN (Gv) UPN
Aquiclude/Aquifer Aquitards / Aquifers
79.4
22.5
14.5
Thanet Sand Seaford Chalk
64.9 49.8
37.0 52.1
15.1 not proven
Lower Aquifer
USBUpper Shelly Beds; LtBLaminated Beds; LSB-Lower Shelly Beds; UPN (Gv)Upnor Formation (Gravel); UPN-Upnor Formation Information from Beckton PS Shaft BH02B-1 (GL 1.9mOD)
13.4.2 13.4.3
The River Terrace Deposits, combined with Alluvium Deposits, form the upper aquifer, both of which are classified as a secondary A aquifer v. The Thanet Sands and the Upnor Bed (the lower unit of the Lambeth Group) are referred to as the Basal Sands and are in hydraulic continuity with the Chalk aquifer beneath London. The Basal Sands, forming a secondary A aquifer, and the Chalk, forming a principal aquifer, have hydraulic connectivity and are referred to as the lower aquifer.
Secondary Aquifers are either permeable strata capable of supporting local supplies or low permeability strata with localised features such as fissures. The term Secondary Aquifer replaces the previously used name of Minor Aquifer.
Page 126
At the site, the depth of the shaft would be at 72mATD (with the base slab down to about 68mATD once constructed). The base of the shaft would be within the Upnor Beds, with approximately 5m separation distance between the base of the shaft at 72mATD and the top of the Thanet Sands at 64.9mATD (and approximately 1m between the base of the base slab and the Thanet Sands). The lower unit of the Lambeth Group the Upnor Beds has an unknown thickness at the site. The base slab, and possibly the shaft, extends into the Upnor Beds, considered part of the lower aquifer. Groundwater levels in the Chalk have historically been between approximately 97.7 and 100.7mATD; between 10.7m and 13.7m above the top of the Thanet Sands. The monitoring of groundwater levels is being undertaken by the project at GI boreholes in the vicinity of the site. Data for water level monitoring of discrete geological units in the upper and lower aquifer at and around the site is unavailable; therefore comparison of piezometric head with depth and geology has not been possible for the site. The EA monitor groundwater levels in the lower aquifer levels representative of the Seaford Chalk, which provides good baseline. The nearest EA monitoring borehole is located within the site around 400m to the north of the shaft. This borehole records levels in the lower aquifer and has a record extending back to 1978. The EA groundwater monitoring of the Chalk aquifer shows a rising groundwater trend from 1978 or before to 2000, reflecting decline of abstraction used for industrial purposes and an increased risk from groundwater flooding. However, with increased abstraction since 2000, groundwater levels dropped to pre-1980 levels and although rising from their 2003/04 trough, levels remain below mid-1980s levels. The Chalk piezometric levels vary annually by less than 0.5m (based on recent years). Historically the EA borehole shows a greater range of up to 0.9m (in 1981), which is assumed to be in response to abstractions at that time. Significant construction and dewatering at and close to the site have affected both short term and longer trends in the groundwater hydrograph beneath the site. Monitoring locations and hydrographs are included in Appendix D. Discrete monitoring is required to establish whether there is hydraulic separation between the upper and lower aquifers at the site and whether the Thanet Sand Formation has good hydraulic connectivity with the Seaford Chalk Formation. Monitoring is continuing and further data would help to clarify conditions. In order to dewater the Seaford Chalk to a depth to enable construction, the Thanet Sands and Lambeth Group would also be dewatered. The high transmissivity of the lower aquifer notably from fissure flow within the Chalk, in hydraulic continuity with the Thanet Sand and Lambeth Group above would mean substantial volumes would need to be abstracted to establish the requisite cone of depression.
13.4.5
13.4.6
13.4.7
13.4.8 13.4.9
13.4.10
Page 127
The site does not lie within any SPZ as defined by the EA. The nearest SPZ is 2km to the north-northwest which is not in the direction of groundwater flow expected beneath the site. The site is not located within the catchment areas of any licensed groundwater abstractions. There are no licensed or groundwater abstractions within the vicinity (0.5km) of the site; based on information provided by the EA. Nonetheless, however, Thames Waters desalination plant abstracts from the River Thames at Beckton. There are no unlicensed abstractions near to the site based on information provided by the London Borough of Newham. There is one licensed Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP) scheme approximately 2km northnorthwest from the site. At this distance, it is unlikely to be affected by activities at the site. There are no other environmental designations relevant to groundwater in the vicinity of the site. Appendix D contains a summary of the water quality information from the land quality assessment. The data reviewed to date shows there are no exceedences recorded of drinking water standards or environmental quality standards (EQS) at the site borehole. However, available water quality monitoring data and land quality assessment data from the GI is sparse (see Appendix D); and recent assessment at the site and Beckton Gas Works indicate the presence of contaminants within the ground and groundwater; therefore exceedence of relevant standards within the groundwater and soil samples have not been established as part of this study for the site. The flood risk assessment states that there are no groundwater flooding incidents within the vicinity of the site, based on information from the London Borough of Newham SFRA. Further details on the baseline conditions at the site, including the depth of boreholes and response zone are provided in Appendix D. Monitoring is continuing and would extend the baseline which would inform the assessment in the ES.
13.4.12
13.4.13
13.4.14
13.4.15
13.4.16
Receptor summary
13.4.17 Groundwater receptors which could be affected during construction or operation are summarised in the table below. Vol 28 Table 13.4.2 Groundwater r receptors Receptor Groundwater Body Upper Aquifer Groundwater Body Lower Aquifer Abstractions Licensed Abstractions Construction Operation Comment Penetrated by shaft Shaft into Thanet Sand, with base slab into Chalk No abstractions with 500m None identified
Page 128
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works Receptor Unlicensed GSHP Schemes Construction
Section 13: Water resources ground Operation Comment One GSHP from Chalk, 2km to the north-northwest
Note: Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP)
13.5
13.5.1
The shaft would be constructed through the upper aquifer and into the Thanet Sand/Chalk (lower aquifer). Dewatering would be required from outside the periphery of the diaphragm wall. There would also be dewatering associated with the construction of the two 600mm pipes. The extent of dewatering is being minimised by the construction techniques. The diaphragm wall would prevent direct flow of groundwater into the shaft for example, and deepening the diaphragm wall and constructing a base slab would further reduce inflows as required. The site is in an area of identified saline intrusion so brackish water may be abstracted during dewatering and would be disposed of in accordance with good practice and the CoCP; and with possible utilisation the STW treatment processes. The 150 year history of sewage treatment at the site; storage and management of waste such as sewage sludge at the siphon outlet shaft; and migration of known contaminants in the groundwater from the nearby gas works indicates that both the ground and groundwater have contamination. The extent and expected impact in terms of the proposed construction and spread of pollution as a result of the works creating a linkage, or as a result of dewatering, would be quantified as data from the GI is assessed. Activities involving grout would only use products that are acceptable to the EA and would be covered by the CoCP to minimise the risk of pollution. The nearest Chalk abstraction is at a distance greater than 2km and not down hydraulic gradient from the site. The construction works lie beyond the estimated catchment of licensed abstractions so turbidity associated with physical disturbance of the aquifer is not anticipated. Impact magnitude Since the Chalk is a high value receptor, the dewatering impact magnitude would have to be minimised in order to reduce the effect on the aquifer. The impact magnitude is considered in the context of the London Groundwater Licensing Policy (EA, 2006)23. The balance between recharge and abstraction from the Chalk aquifer in London formed part of the groundwater resource assessment of the London Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy (CAMS), (EA, 2006). The Thames Tunnel falls within groundwater management unit 7 (GWMU7 Confined Chalk) which was classed as over licensed.
13.5.2
13.5.3
13.5.4
13.5.5
13.5.6
13.5.7
13.5.8
Page 129
The London Groundwater Licensing Policy (EA, 2006) was produced to restrict further abstraction in areas approaching their sustainable limit. This policy was incorporated into the London CAMS licensing policy which identified areas where further licences are restricted. The site lies outside the areas defined as East London, Central and South London, and South East London. The policy states that, every application would be assessed on its own merits, be subject to a detailed local hydrogeological assessment and require the submission of the necessary supporting justification and reports for a decision to be made on an individual scheme. The detailed assessment would take into account the following. The preliminary assessment is completed below: Has there been any long-term (several years) downward trend in the groundwater level in the vicinity of the application? a. Preliminary response: The hydrograph in Appendix B for an EA observation borehole at the site shows the groundwater level to have been stable with no downward trend since 2000.
13.5.10
13.5.11 13.5.12
13.5.13
The groundwater level in relation to the base of the London Clay. If the groundwater level is near the base of the London Clay, then the EA would be unlikely to grant the abstraction licence. The EA would use discretion if there is a significant thickness of the Lambeth Group below the London Clay, but the aim is to manage abstraction to keep groundwater levels above the Thanet Sands. a. Preliminary response: For the siphon inlet set, and much of the Beckton STW site, there is no London Clay present, such that the test applied is whether the Thanet Sands are dewatered since this can create groundwater quality issues. Groundwater levels are historically between approximately 97.7 and 100.7mATD; between 32.8m and 35.8m above the top of the Thanet Sands at 64.9 mATD. More recently groundwater levels have remained constant at around 98m so if dewatering is less than approximately 23 m, groundwater levels would remain above the Thanet Sands. At the siphon inlet site, London Clay is present at a sufficient thickness to establish a localised hydraulic barrier between the upper and lower aquifers.
13.5.14
Any recent abstraction development in the same area. If groundwater levels have not yet responded to a recent change in abstraction, the EA may not grant further licences in that area. a. Preliminary response: The Lee Tunnel is the main large recent development in the vicinity of the site. Substantial localised dewatering of the aquifer to enable construction has been licensed by the EA as part of this development. The site is not located within the catchment areas of any licensed groundwater abstractions. The two nearest licensed Chalk abstractions are at a distance of 600 m to the north and 800m to the northwest. Further details of these licensed abstractions are given in Appendix D. There are no unlicensed groundwater abstractions within a 1 km radius of the site and no
Page 130
Ground Source Heat Pump schemes either proposed or under investigation locally. 13.5.15 Other proposals in the area that have been refused for water resource reasons in the last five years. a. Preliminary response: No refusals known. 13.5.16 Proximity of the proposal to an existing or proposed Artificial Recharge Scheme (ARS). Artificial Recharge scheme proposals would be treated as a special case as they involve the management of groundwater levels to provide additional resource to the scheme operator. a. Preliminary response: No known ARS in the vicinity. 13.5.17 On the basis of this preliminary assessment it is concluded that, providing groundwater levels remain above the top of the Thanet Sands at around 87mATD, a temporary abstraction for dewatering purposes could have a minor impact on groundwater resources. Furthermore, due to the difference in the scale, it is noted that the dewatering necessary to install the siphon tunnel is expected to be considerably less than that established for the Lee Tunnel. The drawdown as a result of dewatering has yet to be quantified. Once modelling is complete, as described in Volume 5, the impact on the aquifer and on nearby abstractors can be quantified. A summary of the impacts and likely magnitude is provided in the table below. Vol 28 Table 13.5.1 Groundwater impacts -construction Impact Dewatering of upper aquifer Dewatering of lower aquifer Magnitude Impact to be quantified Negligible providing groundwater levels remain above the top of the Thanet Sands. To be quantified. Negligible if use/integrity of abstraction source is unaffected.
13.5.18
13.5.19
13.5.20
Lowering of groundwater levels in vicinity of Chalk abstractions
Creation of a pathway for pollution To be quantified. Moderate/Minor, subject to assessment of extent and impact of ground and groundwater contamination reflecting historic land use for sewage treatment nearby gas works Induced groundwater movement (lower aquifer) Minor if the groundwater levels are kept above the top of the Thanet Sands. Moderate/major if water levels drawn below this level.
Page 131
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works Impact Pollution through use grout or other ground treatment Risk of migration of [historic] contamination from Beckton Gas Works
Magnitude Negligible; CoCP will identify acceptable materials To be quantified. Moderate / Minor, subject to assessment of impact of dewatering on contaminant movement in groundwater
Receptor sensitivity 13.5.21 The upper aquifer is a secondary aquifer but not used locally so is categorised as being of medium importance. The lower aquifer is of high importance where it is not in use and high to very high importance where it is being used, as summarised in the table below. Vol 28 Table 13.5.2 Groundwater receptors -construction Receptor Upper Aquifer Lower Aquifer Value/sensitivity and justification Medium importance; secondary aquifer of limited thickness and use High value, principal aquifer (pending further water quality information)
Significance of effects 13.5.22 A summary of significance of the effects is shown in the table below. Vol 28 Table 13.5.3 Groundwater effects - construction Effect Dewatering of upper aquifer Dewatering of lower aquifer Significance Impact yet to be quantified Minor adverse providing groundwater levels remain above the top of the Thanet Sands. Minor adverse if potential future use/integrity of abstraction source is unaffected. To be quantified. Moderate/minor adverse (subject to confirmation of further GI) Major/Moderate adverse (subject to confirmation of further GI) Moderate/minor adverse (subject to findings from further GI)due to
Chalk abstractions
Effect on groundwater quality as a result of pathway creation or dewatering - upper aquifer Effect on groundwater quality as a result of pathway creation or dewatering - lower aquifer Effect on groundwater quality due to introduction of pollutants such
Page 132
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works Effect introduction of grout - upper aquifer Effect on groundwater quality due to introduction of pollutants - lower aquifer Effect on groundwater quality due to migration of [historic] contaminant plume from Beckton Gas Works
Section 13: Water resources ground Significance
control measures being in place by CoCP Major/Moderate adverse (subject to findings from further GI) Moderate/Minor adverse (subject to findings from further assessment)
13.6
13.6.1
The base case and operational development case are derived from current baseline conditions as described in Section 13.4 and the supporting appendix. The possible future change from current baseline conditions is taken into account by considering a range of groundwater levels in the assessments. The Water Framework Directive commits EU member states to achieve good qualitative and quantitative status of all water bodies (including marine waters up to kilometre from shore) by 2015. The Directive defines 'surface water status' as the general expression of the status of a body of surface water, determined by the poorer of its ecological status and its chemical status. Thus, to achieve 'good surface water status' both the ecological status and the chemical status of a surface water body need to be at least 'good'.
13.6.2
Operational assessment results

13.6.3 The impact of the drop shafts, micro-tunnels, siphon connection tunnel between and pipeline from Tideway PS to inlet works on groundwater flows in the upper aquifer has yet to be quantified. In terms of seepage out of the shafts into the upper and lower aquifers, given that the shaft would be full on only relatively few occasions, the magnitude of impact is expected to be negligible. Seepage out of the siphon tunnel and connection tunnels into the lower aquifer may have a greater impact due to the variability of pressure head within, and therefore may be regarded as negligible / minor impact, subject to design. Seepage into the shafts from the upper and lower aquifers and siphon and connection tunnels from the lower aquifer may have a negligible impact on groundwater resources of the respective aquifers, where they interface. A summary of the impacts and their likely magnitude is provided in the table below. Vol 28 Table 13.6.1 Groundwater impacts- operation Impact Physical obstruction to flow in the upper aquifer and resultant rise in groundwater level Magnitude To be quantified
13.6.4
13.6.5
Page 133
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works Impact Seepage out of the shafts affecting groundwater quality -both aquifers Seepage into the shafts affecting groundwater resource - both aquifers Seepage out of the siphon and connection tunnels affecting groundwater quality - upper aquifer Seepage into the siphon and connection tunnels affecting groundwater resource lower aquifer 13.6.6 13.6.7
Magnitude Negligible, design of shaft would include a secondary lining Negligible, design of shaft would include a secondary lining Negligible / minor impact.
Negligible
The value of the groundwater receptors remains as defined in Vol 28 Table 13.5.2. A summary of significance of the effects is shown in the table below. Vol 28 Table 13.6.2 Groundwater effects - operation Effect Change in groundwater storage and flood risk as a result of physical obstruction in upper aquifer Deterioration in water quality from seepage out of shaft upper aquifer Significance Awaiting modelling
Negligible effect
Deterioration in water resources Negligible effect from seepage into the shafts lower aquifer Deterioration in water quality from seepage out of shaft, siphon and connector tunnelslower aquifer Minor adverse
Deterioration in water resources Minor adverse from seepage in to the shafts, siphon and connection tunnels lower aquifer
13.7
13.7.1
The scheme has a large number of environmental design elements already included in the design. This section contains the extra mitigation
Page 134
measures to be taken to address the impacts identified within the assessment.
Construction
13.7.2 The dewatering of the lower aquifer would be minimised where practicable. A diaphragm wall would reduce the amount of dewatering required, although if up flows into the diaphragm wall are significant, then this may require either ground treatment to be used or the installation of recharge wells located around the diaphragm walls. Deepening of the diaphragm wall may increase the risks to nearby abstractions in the lower aquifer. The dewatering of the lower aquifer could also take place from within the diaphragm wall, in order to reduce drawdown effects in the surrounding area. The historic and current use of the site and nearby gasworks means that contamination of the groundwater and ground is expected in the upper aquifer. Therefore, further quantification of impacts is required to determine whether mitigation is needed.
13.7.3
13.7.4
13.7.5
Operational
13.7.6 No effects are identified in the operational assessment and therefore no mitigation is required.
Page 135
13.8
Vol 28 Table 13.8.1 Groundwater construction assessment Significance Impact yet to be quantified Minor adverse providing groundwater levels remain above the top of the Thanet Sands. Negligible effect None required
Assessment summary
Receptor
Effect
Upper aquifer
Dewatering
Mitigation Residual Significance No mitigation proposed at Yet to be quantified this point No mitigation proposed at Yet to be quantified this point
Lower aquifer
Dewatering
Upper aquifer Minor adverse Minor adverse if water table remains above top of Thanet Sands; Major adverse if water table drawn below this level. Negligible effect
Obstruction to groundwater flows causing a rise in groundwater levels
Negligible effect
Chalk abstractions
Lowering of the groundwater levels as a result of dewatering
No mitigation proposed at Yet to be quantified this point Further assessment for ES To be determined
Lower aquifer
Groundwater quality deterioration from induced groundwater movement as a result of dewatering (lower aquifer)
Upper aquifer Minor adverse Negligible effect
Deterioration in groundwater quality caused by creation of a pathway
Lower aquifer
No mitigation proposed at Negligible effect this point (subject to further SI) No mitigation proposed at Yet to be quantified this point No mitigation proposed at Negligible effect this point
Upper aquifer
Pollution through use of grout or other ground treatment
Page 136
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works Significance Minor adverse Negligible effect No mitigation proposed at Negligible effect this point No mitigation proposed at Yet to be quantified this point Mitigation Residual Significance No mitigation proposed at Yet to be quantified this point
Receptor
Effect
Lower aquifer
Upper aquifer Minor adverse
Migration and remobilisation of [historic] contamination from Beckton Gas Works
Lower aquifer Vol 28 Table 13.8.2 Groundwater operation assessment Significance To be modelled Mitigation No mitigation proposed at this point
Receptor
Upper aquifer
Effect Change in groundwater storage and flood risk as a result of physical obstruction in upper aquifer Negligible effect Minor Adverse
Residual Significance Awaiting modelling
Upper aquifer
No mitigation proposed at this point No mitigation proposed at this point No mitigation proposed at this point No mitigation proposed at this point
Negligible effect Yet to be quantified
Deterioration in groundwater quality caused by seepage out of the shaft, Lower siphon and connection aquifer/Chalk tunnels abstractions Negligible effect, design of shaft includes double lining Minor adverse, design of shaft includes double lining
Upper aquifer
Lower aquifer/Chalk abstractions
Seepage into shaft, siphon and connection tunnels affecting groundwater resources
Negligible effect
Yet to be quantified
Page 137
13.9
13.9.1
The ES will contain quantitative calculations on the amount of dewatering and the effects on the lower aquifer/GSHP abstractions. No modelling of groundwater abstractions will take place as part of the PEIR. The impact of the physical obstruction post construction will be modelled. Further information from water quality monitoring programme is required to define the baseline status. Assessment of cumulative and in combination effects will be undertaken and reported in the ES. Following completion of the assessment the mitigation approaches for groundwater within the project will be finalised and reported in the ES.
13.9.2 13.9.3 13.9.4 13.9.5
Page 138
Section14: Water resources surface
14 14.1
14.1.1
Water resources surface Introduction

This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant surface water effects at the Beckton Sewage Treatment Works site. This assessment: a. identifies the existing water resources baseline conditions; b. identifies the future base case conditions against which the project should be assessed; c. identifies both the beneficial and adverse effects of the project during construction and operation and assess the significance of the effects; and
d. identifies any residual effects with respect to surface water resources potentially affected by the project, both during construction and operation. 14.1.2 Groundwater resources are assessed separately in Section 13. Similarly land quality is addressed in Section 8. A Level 1 Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been carried out separately and is included in Section 15. In addition, it should be noted that this assessment only covers the effects of the work at the Beckton STW site. The catchment-wide effects on the Thames Tideway, particularly the water quality improvements anticipated from the project are assessed separately in Volume 6.
14.1.3
14.2
14.2.1
Construction The Beckton STW site is located adjacent to the Thames Tideway and the confluence of the River Roding with the Thames. Adjacent to the site, the River Roding is also known as the Barking Creek. The base of the siphon tunnel shafts would be within the Thanet Sands and therefore dewatering and/or ground treatment would be required within this formation. Disposal of dewatering effluent can have a significant impact on surface water resources. See groundwater resources (Volume 28, Section 13) for further details of dewatering requirements. Construction controls To prevent pollution from leaks or spillages, contaminating substances would be stored in leakproof containers, with secondary containment equal to 110% of the volume of the container, in a safe and secure building or compound. Areas for transfer of contaminating substances, including refuelling, oiling and greasing, would be similarly protected and activities would take place above drip trays or on an impermeable surface with sealed drainage or oil interceptor. All wash down of vehicles (including wheel washing) and equipment would take place in designated areas and washwater would be prevented from passing untreated into
14.2.2
14.2.3
Page 139
drains or holding areas prior to pumping. These measures will be detailed in the CoCP. 14.2.4 The CoCP would be adhered to at all times and good construction techniques followed to ensure protection against pollution incidents. In addition, relevant Environment Agency guidance would be followed, including the following: a. General Guide to the Prevention of Pollution: PPG 1; b. Works and maintenance in or near water: PPG 5; c. PPG 6 Pollution prevention guidance for working at construction and demolition sites;
d. Vehicle washing and cleaning: PPG 13; e. Dewatering of Underground Ducts and Chambers: PPG 20; f. Incident Response Planning: PPG 21; and g. Storage and handling of drums and intermediate bulk containers (IBCs): PPG 26. 14.2.5 14.2.6 Appropriate maintenance of vehicles and plant would also minimise pollution during construction. Suitable spill kits would be provided and positioned in vulnerable areas and staff would be trained in their use and a record should be kept of all pollution incidents or near-misses, to ensure appropriate action is taken and lessons are learned from incidents. Regular toolbox talks would be held to raise staff awareness of pollution prevention and share lessons learned from any recorded incidents. There would be written procedures in place for dealing with spillages and pollution (The Pollution Incident Control Plan or PICP). The PICP would contain the following as a minimum: a. guidance on the storage and use of hazardous materials with the aim of preventing and containing spills and releases; b. guidelines on the degrees of containment which take account of the nature of the materials and the sensitivity of the environment; c. procedures to be adopted in the event of a pollution incident, to contain and limit any adverse effects;
d. procedures and appropriate information required in the event of any incident such as a spillage or release of a potentially hazardous material; e. systems for notifying appropriate emergency services, the Environment Agency and other relevant authorities, Thames Water and the Contractor's personnel; f. arrangements for notifying appropriate statutory bodies and local authorities of pollution incidents where required to by legislation; and
g. relevant procedures and contacts for each work site for forwarding to the emergency services, and appropriate authorities.
Page 140
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works Operation 14.2.7
The operation of the Thames Tunnel would result in the following changes to the discharge from Beckton STW during in storm conditions: a. a greater volume of discharge after a storm event due to tunnel pump out of treated sewage via the existing final effluent outfall (being volume not discharged as storm sewage during the storm event at overflows into the River Thames); and b. a decrease in peak overflow rate from the tunnel via bypass pumping to the existing storm outfall (the Northern Outfall Sewer).
14.2.8
The table below shows the changes in estimated discharge volumes caused by the proposed Thames Tunnel. Vol 28 Table 14.2.1 Surface water discharge volumes Estimated discharge volumes Typical Year (m3) Beckton STW, Lee tunnel and Beckton STW and Thames tunnel Baseline (2006) Lee tunnel (2021) (2021) 445,000,000 515,000,000 530,000,000 n/a 610,000 700,000
Beckton STW Tideway CSO
14.3
14.3.1
Assessment methodology
The topic specific methodology for the assessment of effects on surface water resources can be found in Volume 5; reference should be made to this volume for details of the assessment process.
Scoping and engagement

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

14.3.3 Definition of Tideway conditions and CSO operation during future base and development cases are reliant on model simulations. All model simulations are only a representation of the future conditions and have degrees of error that must be considered. Future climate change simulations have not been completed at the time of writing, therefore the impact of climate change on the beneficial impacts of the project will not be available until the ES is completed.
14.3.4
Page 141
14.4
Baseline conditions Current conditions

Surface water receptors
14.4.1
A list of surface water receptors and their status under the Water Framework Directive (WFD) is included in the table below, which are either within the vicinity of the site, or downstream of the site and therefore have the potential to be affected by the proposed project. Due to the dilution effect of the Tideway, the effects of construction activities would be localised to the waterbodies listed below and this chapter assesses only the impacts local to the proposed site. Therefore, only the Thames Middle waterbody is considered in this assessment. In addition to the Thames Tideway and River Roding, there are a network of surface water ditches and pools on the Beckton Rectangle in the northern part of the STW site. However, these are due to be infilled as part of the Lee Tunnel construction works and will therefore not be considered further within this assessment. Vol 28 Table 14.4.1 Surface water receptors Water Body Name/ID 2015 2015 Hydromor Current Current Predicted Predicted phologica Ecologica Chemical Ecologica Chemical l Status l Quality Quality l Quality Quality Moderate Potential Fail Moderate Potential Fail
14.4.2
14.4.3
Thames Middle Heavily GB53060391140 Modified 2 River Roding
Not assessed under the WFD but included within the Thames Middle Waterbody
14.4.4
The Thames Middle (which stretches from Battersea Bridge to Mucking Flats and includes the River Roding) can be considered to be high value waterbody as although its current and predicted status in 2015 (target date from River Basin Management Plan) is moderate potential, there is a status objective of good by 2027. In addition, the Thames is a valuable resource and plays an important role as a water resource, habitat provision, amenity, recreation, and transport throughout London. The River Roding is not assessed under the WFD. However, as it forms part of the Thames Middle waterbody, which has a target status of good by 2027, the River Roding should also be assumed to have a target status of good. It is therefore considered to be a high value waterbody, due to the target of good status. Current CSO operation There is no new CSO connection required at this site, although there is an existing storm overflow from the Beckton STW. A significant reduction in storm overflows from the STW would be achieved by the works currently
14.4.5
14.4.6
Page 142
under construction under the 8W8F STW Extension project. CSO spills at Abbey Mills PS will be reduced by the Lee Tunnel project from the current frequency of 56 to three (in the Typical Year), which will be displaced from Abbey Mills to Beckton. 14.4.7 However, as this work will be completed before the proposed start of construction for the Thames Tunnel and is not connected with the Thames Tunnel, it is considered to be the base case for this PEIR and will not be assessed within this PEIR. Receptors designated sites 14.4.8 The River Thames and Tidal Tributaries are designated as a Site of Metropolitan Importance. There are no internationally designated hydrologically linked conservation sites in proximity to the proposed site that could be affected by construction. The project-wide effects of the overall project on the internationally designated sites in the Lower Thames Estuary are covered separately in Volume 6. There is one designated hydraulically linked conservation site within 2 km of the proposed construction site that could be affected by the construction, namely Crossness LNR. This is a 20 hectare site containing one of the last remaining areas of grazing marsh in Greater London, and the largest reedbed in Bexley. Other habitats on the LNR site include a network of ditches and open water, scrub and rough grassland. Receptors discharges and abstractions 14.4.10 The discharge point for treated effluent from Beckton STW lies approximately 500m from the site. The Thames Water operated desalination plant abstracts surface water from the Tideway adjacent to the site. Contamination 14.4.11 The site has been operated as a sewage works since the 1860s and assessment of the soil contamination test data has revealed widespread elevated concentrations of numerous contaminants on site. The area to the south of the treatment works has a long legacy of previous industrial usage including a substantial gas works, which is thought to be the major source of contaminants migrating onto the Beckton STW site. Comparison of groundwater and leachate results against corresponding Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) shows that to varying degrees, all development areas have some form of significantly elevated contamination, including copper, nickel and ammonium with isolated hotspots of arsenic, cadmium and lead. In addition, GIS mapping has identified four significant or major pollution incidents within a 250m radius of the site caused by oils / petrochemicals, atmospheric pollutants and inert materials in the last ten years. Information provided by the EA shows that there have been several significant sewage pollution incidents on the southeast border of the site in the last ten years. See the Land Quality assessment in Section 6 for full details of on-site contamination
14.4.9
14.4.12
14.4.13
Page 143
Base case
Construction base case 14.4.14 The Lee Tunnel and the TTQI projects (improvement works at Mogden, Beckton, Crossness, Long Reach and Riverside STWs) would be operational by the time construction commences. Significant improvements in the water quality in the Tideway are anticipated as a result of these projects. The construction base case is therefore the water quality in the Tideway with the TTQI and Lee Tunnel projects in place. Results from modelled simulations of conditions in 2021 (as simulated model runs are only available for 2006 and 2021) with the TTQI and Lee Tunnel in place have therefore been used for the base case. Operation base case 14.4.16 For the assessment of operational impacts, the effects have been assessed against a base case of year one of operation. As described in the methodology section in Volume 5, this base case year takes account of the effects that other major schemes would have on the quality of the Thames Tideway as explained in the construction base case above. Results from modelled simulations of conditions in 2021 with the TTQI and Lee Tunnel in place have therefore been used for the base case.
14.4.15
14.4.17
14.5
14.5.1
As described in Volume 5, the construction effects at Beckton STW have been assessed for significance against the relevant WFD objectives as well as their significance locally on other legislative drivers. The WFD objectives as taken from Article 4 of the WFD are as follows: a. WFD1 Prevent deterioration of the status of all bodies of surface water. b. WFD2 Protect, enhance and restore all bodies of surface water, with the aim of achieving good surface water status by 2015. c. WFD3 Protect and enhance all artificial and heavily modified bodies of water, with the aim of achieving good ecological potential and good surface water chemical status by 2015.
14.5.2
d. WFD4 Reduce pollution from priority substances and cease or phase out emissions, discharges and losses of priority hazardous substances.
Identification of construction impacts and effects

14.5.3 Raised formal flood defence walls are present along the frontage of the Thames Tideway and River Roding. The presence of these walls forms a physical barrier to any potential contaminants reaching the watercourses via overland routes, as all surface water drainage within the Beckton STW site drains to the STW process and is therefore treated. The main pathways for impact and effect on surface water resources and associated receptors during construction at the Beckton STW location are
14.5.4
Page 144
as a result of the general construction of the proposed on-site infrastructure. There is not currently any in-river works proposed at Beckon. In the event of any in-river works being proposed during more detailed site designs, these would utilise (and potentially upgrade) existing infrastructure such as the jetties or wharfs. However, these are not proposed at present and therefore not assessed within this EIA. 14.5.5 The proposed construction works on site would be undertaken in accordance with relevant guidelines such as the London Tunnels Code of Construction Practice. The Code sets out objectives and measures to limit disturbance and environmental impact as far as reasonably practical. It is envisaged that during construction the required pumping of rainwater during use of the construction areas would be diverted to the existing STW and therefore not create a direct pathway to the adjacent watercourses. Site drainage 14.5.7 Site surface water runoff has the potential to become polluted with a number of substances during construction activities, which may include the following: a. silt and suspended solids from earthworks and exposed soils; b. oil and fuels from machinery and equipment maintenance and refuelling; c. concrete or cement from spillages during spraying and pouring; and d. hazardous substances from ground contamination exposed during earthworks and construction. 14.5.8 However, as all site drainage would drain to the STW treatment process there would be no impact pathway for effects from site drainage, which will therefore not be considered further within this assessment. It is considered that via the adherence to the measures detailed in section 14.2 during construction works, combined with the treatment of all site drainage via the STW treatment process, the pollution pathway can be managed sufficiently to reduce the pollution risk to negligible. Contamination and dewatering 14.5.10 Diaphragm walling techniques are to be used to construct the shafts and pressure-relief wells drilled ahead of the shaft base may be required to dewater perched water tables in the Lambeth Group. Dewatering to allow excavation of the base of the shaft may also be required. Groundwater testing results show that all development areas have some form of significantly elevated contamination. Should significant levels of contamination be identified during the site preparation works the dewatering effluent may require treatment before discharge to surface watercourses. Should this be the case, the effluent would be discharged to the STW treatment process. There would therefore be no discharge of contaminated groundwater from the site and this effect will not be considered further as part of this assessment.
14.5.6
14.5.9
14.5.11
14.5.12
Page 145
Assessment of impacts
Impact assessment 14.5.13 Environmental design measures have resulted in all the identified effects being reduced to negligible and therefore the effects of construction activities will not be considered further in this assessment.
14.6
14.6.1
As with the construction effects, the assessment has defined the WFD objectives and the waterbodies affected.
Identification of operation impacts and effects

Impact assessment 14.6.2 As discussed, overall Tideway-wide benefits are discussed in Volume 6 and this section only assesses the beneficial impacts local to the proposed site at Beckton STW. Therefore, with respect to the Thames Tideway waterbody, only the Thames Middle (including River Roding) waterbody is considered in this assessment. The Thames Tunnel project would divert flows that would previously have been discharged as combined sewage to the Tideway during rainfall events, to be discharged from Beckton STW as treated effluent. However, no effects on the discharge quality from the Beckton STW outfall would result from the project. There would be a slight increase in the discharge volume from Beckton STW following operation of the Thames Tunnel project, which would increase from 515,000,000m3 per typical year to 530,000,000 m3 per typical year. This equates an increase of approximately 3% from the Lee Tunnel baseline, which is not considered to have an effect on the receiving watercourse. The EIA carried out for the Lee Tunnel and the revised Consent to Discharge for Beckton STW have both assessed the effects of the Thames Tunnel on Beckton STW, which will therefore not be considered further as part of this assessment.
14.6.3
14.6.4
14.7
14.7.1
The assessment of significance of effect for both construction and operation has highlighted there would be no significant adverse impact associated with the site.
Page 146
Section 14: Water resources surface
14.8
Vol 28 Table 14.8.1 Surface water operational assessment Significance of effect Major beneficial None required Mitigation
Assessment summary
Significance of residual effect Major beneficial
Receptor
Thames Middle Moderate beneficial None required
Thames Middle Moderate beneficial None required
Moderate beneficial Moderated beneficial
Thames Middle
Reduced spill frequency, duration and volume from the Beckton STW. Reduced bacterial loadings of the river giving health improvements to river users Reduced sewage litter discharge
Page 147
Section 14: Water resources surface
14.9
14.9.1
Any additional information on potential contamination of the site, collected as part of new site investigations (see section 8 land quality), will be used to inform the baseline for the ES. At the time of writing, further water quality modelling was underway to determine the relative beneficial improvements that would accrue for other water quality improvements such as Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Ammoniacal Nitrogen. These results for baseline and assessment will be available for the ES. Assessment of cumulative and in combination effects will be undertaken and reported in the ES.
14.9.2
Page 148
Section 15: Water resources flood risk
15 15.1
15.1.1
Water resources flood risk Introduction

This section presents a Level 1 FRA which assesses the flood risk from all flood sources both to and from the proposed Beckton Sewage Treatment Works site as a result of development. This Level 1 Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) is in line with the requirements of Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk (PPS25) 24 and covers the construction and operation phases. This assessment makes use of the PPS25 Practice Guide 25 and is consistent with the outputs and findings of the Thames Estuary 2100 Plan (TE2100)26 and the policy requirements of the London Plan 27. Borough specific documents have been reviewed in addition to other relevant flood risk planning, policy and legislative documents. This Level 1 FRA is supported by 2D hydrodynamic modelling, undertaken to assess flood risk effects for the project as a whole (as described in Volume 5) and for specific sites (Volumes 7 to 28). The FRA comprises four parts, which can be found in the following volumes of the PEIR: a. Volume 5 contains Part A of the FRA: Common sections relevant to all sites, including assessment methodology. b. Volume 6 contains Part B of the FRA: Project-wide risk assessment section. c. Volumes 7-28 contain Part C and Part D of the FRA: Individual risk assessment sections for every site (Part C) where flood risk is considered as an issue, organised according to London Borough (this Part) which precede the conclusions for each site (Part D).
15.1.2
15.1.3
15.1.4
15.1.5
15.1.6
As explained in Volume 5, a Level 1 FRA is an assessment of flood risk based on information available at the time of undertaking the assessment. Where further detailed assessment (including modelling and calculations) is required to define flood risk or required mitigation, this is undertaken to support a Level 2 or more detailed Level 3 FRA. The aim of this section of the Level 1 FRA is to assess the effects of flood risk from all sources at the site, both to the site and from the site to surrounding areas. This section is not suitable for submission with the eventual application for the project. The purpose of this section is to highlight the key issues for the design team and provide a preliminary assessment of flood risk issues. Considering the nature of the project, the length of construction period at the site and the location of the site within the Thames Tideway, it is important that flood risk is assessed both during the construction phase and the operational phase taking into consideration climate change over the lifetime of the project. The project involves the construction at many sites throughout London. Many of these sites are situated within close proximity to, or within, the
15.1.7
15.1.8
15.1.9
15.1.10
Page 149
River Thames or other watercourses. According to PPS25, any development located within Flood Zones 2 vi or 3 vii or greater than 1 hectare and situated within Flood Zone 1 viii should be accompanied by a FRA. The FRA will be required to demonstrate how flood risk from all sources of flooding to the development and from the development will be managed now and in the future as a consequence of climate change for the lifetime of the development. 15.1.11 The objectives of this section are to satisfy the requirements of PPS25 in relation to this site.
15.2
15.2.1
Policy considerations
The proposed development of shafts and associated structures are classified as water and sewage transmission infrastructure including docks, marinas and wharfs which is classified as water-compatible development and compatible within all flood zones within PPS25. The current sewage treatment works at Beckton is classified as less vulnerable which is compatible with all flood zones with the exception of Flood Zone 3b Functional Floodplain.
15.2.2
15.3
15.3.1
Regulatory position Overview

General policy documents (eg PPS25) have been reviewed within Volume 5 of this Level 1 FRA. The following should be read in conjunction with that Part in order that the reader is familiar with the background to each form of policy document.
Local policy
Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) 15.3.2 The Beckton STW site lies within the London Borough of Newham. The London Borough of Newham has produced a Level 1 and Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) 28. This outlines the main flood sources to the Borough. The Newham SFRA confirms that there is no actual risk of tidal flooding in the 0.5% AEP return period event. The risk of fluvial flooding is considered low to moderate in the 1% AEP event. As the River Roding approaches The Thames the 1% AEP event generally remains within bank. According to the SFRA: a. The site lies close to the edge of the Environment Agency (EA) Flood Zone 3, the site may also partially lie within Flood Zone 1.
Flood Zone 2 is defined as medium probability, assessed as having between a 1% and 0.1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) of river flooding or between a 0.5% and 0.1% AEP of sea flooding in any year vii Flood Zone 3 is defined as high probability, assessed as having a 1% or greater AEP of river flooding or a 0.5% or greater AEP of sea flooding in any year viii Flood Zone 1 is defined as low probability, assessed as having less than a 0.1% AEP of river or sea flooding in any year
vi
15.3.3
15.3.4
Page 150
b. The surrounding area is bordered by man-made raised defences. c. The site is defended against inundation from The Thames during the 0.1% AEP; however there remains a residual risk of flooding from overtopping or a breach in the defences. The proximity of the site to the flood defences means there is potential for deep, fast flowing water in the event of a nearby breach.
d. There is a medium/high risk of groundwater flooding. e. There is no data or 0 surface water flooding incidents within the vicinity in the last 10 years. f. 15.3.5 Safe access/egress is required from the site to a suitable location within Flood Zone 1.
The SFRA promotes the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) suitable to specific site locations within the Borough, depending on underlying geology. These must however be adopted and adequately maintained post-construction to ensure design operation into the future. Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) The Council is working in partnership with the Greater London Authority (GLA), Thames Water and the EA to produce a SWMP as part of the Drain London Project. This is scheduled for completion in Autumn 2011.
15.3.6
Environment Agency policy

Thames Estuary 2100 (TE2100) 15.3.7 Beckton STW lies within the Royal Docks Policy Unit which has been assigned the P4 flood risk management policy within the TE2100 Plan meaning that further action will be taken to sustain the current scale of flood risk into the future. The TE2100 Plan identifies the local sources of flood risk (relative to the Beckton STW site) as including: a. tidal flooding from the River Thames and River Roding/Barking Creek. b. surface water (heavy rainfall) and urban drainage sources. 15.3.9 Defence systems currently managing flooding from these sources include: a. the Barking Barrier and tidal defences along the Thames frontage (both making up the Thames Tidal Defences) b. Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) for mitigation of urban drainage c. 15.3.10 flood forecasting and warning. The TE2100 Plan seeks to promote, where possible, defence improvements that are sensitive to ensure views are maintained and impacts to river access/views are minimised, and to improve the appearance of the river frontage and provide environmental enhancement and amenity opportunities by using opportunities provided by future development to modify the layout of flood defences. Where defence raising in the future as a consequence of climate change is not possible,
15.3.8
Page 151
secondary defences and floodplain management should be introduced. There is also the vision to increase flood risk awareness within the area. Thames Region Catchment Flood Management Plan (CFMP) 15.3.11 The Thames Region Catchment Flood Management Plan (CFMP) 29 covers fluvial and non-tidal sections of the River Thames, ie the River Thames upstream of Teddington weir and tributaries of the River Thames (eg River Roding). The Thames Region CFMP advocates the reduction in flood risk through the design and layout of developments within the floodplain; redevelopment should be compatible with its location within the floodplain (ie flood resilience measures should be incorporated). This should be achieved through re-creating more natural river systems and giving space for flood water, aiming for a balance between attenuation and conveyance. The specific messages for developed flood plain with typical river channels are as follows: a. There is a need to re-create river corridors so there is more space for the river to flow and flood naturally (generally an 8m setback from top of bank). b. Flood risk management planning should be linked closely with regeneration and redevelopment so that the location and layout of development can help to reduce flood risk. c. There is a large and increasing residual flood risk in these floodplain areas. PPS25 sets out a range of measures that can reduce the impacts of residual flood risk, such as making buildings resilient to flooding.
15.3.12
15.3.13
d. The impacts of climate change on flood sources should be taken into consideration. e. Organisations need to work together to manage all flood sources: fluvial, tidal, surface water and sewer flooding. London Regional Flood Risk Appraisal (RFRA) 15.3.14 For the reach between the Thames Barrier and Tilbury Docks (Regeneration Reach) the London RFRA 30 encourages small scale set back of development from the river walls where possible. The aim of this is to enable modification, raising and maintenance in a sustainable, environmentally acceptable and cost effective way. Development should be designed in such a way as to take opportunities to reduce flood risk and include resilience. Large areas of currently undeveloped land could be used as strategic flood storage areas, to store storm surge flood water. There is particular concern surrounding confluences and the interactions between tidal and fluvial flows in the future due to climate change. This should be taken into consideration during the re-development process. The RFRA indicates that SUDS should be included within developments to reduce surface water discharge.
15.3.15 15.3.16
15.3.17
Page 152
15.4
15.4.1
Assessment of flood risk Overview

The flood risk from all potential flood sources (as listed in Annex C of PPS25) to the site, and from the site as a result of the development, is assessed in the following section. FRAs and associated flood risk work at Beckton has been undertaken in support of various proposed works, including the Desalination Plant, TTQI and Lee Tunnel proposals. This Level 1 utilises the conclusions from these existing FRAs. The work undertaken includes: a. FRAs for the Desalination Plant, TTQI and Lee Tunnel projects. b. 2D hydraulic modelling of a breach in the tidal defences, undertaken in 2010 to provide a site specific analysis of the SFRA modelling. c. 2D rainfall runoff modelling of the site, undertaken in 2010.
15.4.2
15.4.3
For a discussion on project-wide effects see Volume 6. In summary, initial hydraulic computation modelling indicates that the influence of the project as a whole on the River Thames (tidal and fluvial) flood levels is minimal and is unlikely to exacerbate flood risk. .
Flood Sources
Flooding from sea (and tidal sources) Flood risk to the site 15.4.4 The site is situated within the boundary of the existing Beckton STW site, within three areas: a. the inlet works and tunnel pump-out discharge chamber in the south west of the site b. the siphon tunnel inlet shaft and valve chamber in the central area of the site c. 15.4.5 the siphon tunnel outlet shaft and culvert in the central east area of the site.
The Beckton STW site lies adjacent to the confluence between the River Roding (also known at this location as the Barking Creek) and the Thames Tideway. The site is entirely within Flood Zone 3a, albeit benefiting from the presence of formal flood defences. Vol 28 Figure 15.4.1 Flood risk EA flood zones Vol 28 Figure 15.4.2 Flood risk flood extents (see Volume 28 Figures document)
15.4.6
The local flood defences are aligned to the south and east of the site along the southern and eastern boundaries of the overall Beckton STW site. In addition, the Barking Barrier offers additional protection to the River Roding against storm surges. The design standard of these defences is stated by the EA to be at the 0.1% AEP level. In reality, the defence levels
Page 153
along the River Thames vary and are generally in excess of the 0.1% AEP standard of protection with a freeboard. 15.4.7 The EA has stated that the defence level within the vicinity of the site is 7.2mAOD for the Thames Tideway. The site is not protected by the Thames Barrier, which is located upstream of this site. The relevant proposed levels within the site are: a. the inlet works extension and tunnel pump-out discharge chamber: i ii iii proposed discharge chamber: 9.0mAOD proposed tunnel pump out discharge structure: 7.0mAOD local ground level: 7mAOD.
15.4.8
b. the siphon tunnel inlet shaft and valve chamber in the central area of the site: i ii iii c. permanent works ground level: 3.5mOAD siphon inlet shaft cover level: 8.5mAOD valve chamber cover level: 5.5mOAD.
the siphon tunnel outlet shaft and culvert in the central east area of the site: i ii iii permanent works ground level: 6.0mOAD shaft top cover level: 8.0mAOD penstock chamber cover level: 9.1mOAD.
15.4.9
The most extreme flood risk to the site in this location would be as a result of a high tide combined with a storm surge on the River Thames; this is considered to be the design event. The EA design event Tidal flood levels within the River Thames are: a. 6.15mAOD for the 0.5% AEP 2005 b. 6.98mAOD for the 0.5% AEP 2107 (i.e. inclusive of climate change).
15.4.10
15.4.11
This data is taken from the EA Tidal Thames Defences Joint Probability Extreme Water Levels Study 31. The predicted flood levels are below the crest levels of the formal flood defences. Therefore, the site is protected against tidal flooding, including an allowance for climate change. As a result, the primary flood risk posed to the site is residual, following a breach or failure in the local defences. The majority of the proposed ground levels are above the design tidal flood levels so if there was a breach in the local flood defences, higher ground levels would be above the flood level and would not be inundated. The few ground levels below the design tidal flood levels would be inundated following a breach in the local defences. In order to refine and assess the residual risk posed to the site, results from 2D hydraulic modelling undertaken to inform the TTQI works at Beckton have been utilised. This modelling assumed the following:
15.4.12
15.4.13
Page 154
a. A tidal curve was generated assuming a peak of 6.15mAOD for the 0.5% annual probability event, and 6.98mAOD inclusive of climate change. b. In order to comply with PPS25, the climate change scenario includes the rise in sea level predicted to occur over the next 100 years. c. The model was run assuming the defence walls were breached (removed) to ground level.
d. As with the London Borough of Newham SFRA, the breach was located in the south eastern corner of the site as this was assumed to be the most likely location for a breach to occur. e. It was assumed the breach was present before the start of the tidal cycles. f. The modelled breach has a width of 20m. g. The model was run for 36 hours in order to include three peaks in tidal levels. 15.4.14 The modelling indicated that during the 0.5% AEP event, with and without climate change, the Beckton STW site would become inundated with floodwater. During the worst case (inclusive of climate change), the results indicate the following: a. Flooding within the vicinity of the majority of the proposed siphon inlet shaft, including transfer pipes and pumps would be in the region of 12m. b. During a breach scenario and due to the flow paths operating on site, flood water would take approximately 3 hours to reach the proposed control centre and approximately 5 hours to reach the other proposed works. c. Once inundated, the proposed works would remain underwater for at least 30 hours (according to the modelling and not taking into consideration any pumping stations).
15.4.15
As a result of the above, it is evident that residual flooding would potentially have a high impact on the site. However, it is deemed very unlikely to occur due to the required circumstance of a breach in the defence walls coinciding with an extreme event (0.5% AEP) in the Thames Tideway. The TE2100 Plan indicates that a higher level of protection would be required to protect areas along the river in light of sea level rise. Local defences would be required to be raised which would contribute to the continual protection of the site from tidal flooding into the future. The London Borough of Newham SFRA shows that there are no records of flooding of the site area during any historic flood events (note, this does not mean the site was not flooded, only that no data is held). The standard of protection of the current defences is such that tidal flooding up to the EA flood design event (0.5% AEP 2107) does not pose a direct flood risk to the site.
15.4.16
15.4.17
15.4.18
Page 155
Flood risk to the site from tidal sources is therefore residual in the event that there is a breach (or failure) of the existing defences and tidal water could enter the site. In the rare event that a breach in the local defences occurs simultaneously with an extreme tidal event, the proposed (and overall STW) site would become inundated with floodwater. The floodwater would take at least three to five hours to inundate the various parts of the site and be approximately 1-2m in depth. The flood water could potentially cover the shafts and inundate any ventilation, monitoring or associated operation equipment. As the shaft lids are covered (although not watertight) there would be a limited amount of water that could enter the tunnel though the space between the lid and the shaft. Ventilation and monitoring equipment may be damaged by flood water (if not installed above the flood level); however, this quantity would not endanger the primary function of the tunnel which is to collect, store and transfer discharges from CSOs. More importantly, flooding at Beckton STW would result in the inundation of the substation serving the site. Consequently the site would lose all power and lead to massive sewer flooding. Flood risk from the site The excavation process to construct the tunnel using TBMs has the potential to impact on settlement in some cases which could affect the level of some of the defences. The inlet works and discharge chamber, and siphon tunnel inlet shaft and valve chamber are located over 700m from the defences. As a result these works would not impact the local defences. The siphon tunnel outlet shaft and culvert is however located within close proximity of the local defences (approximately 50m). A project-wide study into the potential impacts of the tunnel excavation on settlement of the defences is being undertaken but has not been completed in time to inform this Level 1 FRA. When complete, any relevant assessment for Beckton STW defences will be included in the Level 2 FRA prepared to support the development control order application and Environmental Statement. Due to the proximity of the siphon tunnel outlet shaft and culvert to the defences at Beckton STW, the risk of impact to flood defences and hence flood risk at this site is considered to be medium. The flow within the Thames Tideway could be modified due to an increase in the treated effluent outflow discharge from Beckton STW. This may lead to an increase in scour on adjacent areas within the river and to river structures and defences. Although it is unlikely to be significant, this will be considered further and reported within the water resources section of the PEIR. Until further work is undertaken, the induced flood risk from this source (ie scour erodes local flood defences) is considered to be low.
15.4.20
15.4.21
15.4.22
15.4.23
15.4.24
15.4.25
15.4.26
Page 156
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works Flooding from rivers 15.4.27
The Beckton STW site is situated to the west of the tidal reach of the River Roding (Barking Creek). The tidal influence of this watercourse extends upstream of the Beckton STW and is protected by the Barking Barrier. The Newham SFRA states that the risk of fluvial flooding is considered low to moderate in the 1% AEP event; as the River Roding approaches The Thames the 1% AEP event generally remains within bank. It is therefore assumed that flood levels within the River Thames would be higher than within Barking Creek under any scenario, including a high fluvial flow (this will be confirmed during the Level 2 FRA for this site following receipt of the Lower River Roding modelling from the EA). The EA Tidal Thames Defences Joint Probability Extreme Water Levels Study uses a combination of different factors including astronomical tides, tide surge and fluvial river flows to produce an estimation of the peak high water levels within the Tidal Thames during a combined event. This methodology assumes that no combination of fluvial events with tidal conditions produces a higher flood level than the worst case combined tidal storm surge conditions. Water levels influenced by high fluvial flow alone will therefore be lower than the combined event assessed and hence the assessment of fluvial risk from the Thames is considered to be included within the assessment of flood risk from tidal sources in the previous section. Flood risk to the site from fluvial sources alone is therefore considered to be low. Flooding from land and surface water runoff Flood risk to the site
15.4.28
15.4.29
15.4.30
15.4.31
15.4.32
15.4.33
Surface water flooding could originate from any surrounding hardstanding land where infiltration (into the ground or the local sewer network) is exceeded or the local sewer is at capacity and surcharging occurs. The Newham SFRA indicates that the site is situated within an area with increased risk of surface water ponding based on topography, geology and historic flooding records. There are however no surface water flooding hot spots within the vicinity of the site. As part of the TTQI improvements at Beckton, a study undertook direct rainfall modelling using 2D hydraulic modelling software (TUFLOW). The results of this indicate that surface water ponding within the vicinity of the proposed works could potentially result in approximately 0 to 100mm of water during a 1% annual probability storm, inclusive of climate change. The modelling approach used is believed to be conservative for the following reasons: a. It does not take into account the permeability of the underlying ground, and hence assumes that no infiltration of rainwater occurs. b. It does not take into account the existing surface water drainage system that serves the existing built development on site.
15.4.34
15.4.35
15.4.36
Page 157
Surface water flooding may occur at high tide levels as surface water would not be able to discharge at more than 17m3/s at river levels above 4.5mAOD. As a result of the above assumptions coupled with the relatively low depths of water predicted (ie generally less than 10mm), flooding from this source is considered to be low. Flood risk from the site PPS25 states that runoff post development should not be greater than runoff pre development in order to not increase the risk of flooding either downstream or on surrounding land. The London Plan aims towards greenfield runoff rates and the Mayors Draft Water Strategy 32 also aims for greenfield runoff and has an essential standard of 50% attenuation to the undeveloped sites surface water runoff at peak times (see Volume 5). The Beckton STW site is located on the northern river frontage of the River Thames. The proposed permanent works consists of two main development areas; the first being the siphon tunnel inlet shaft (including valve chamber) and the second being the siphon tunnel outlet shaft and culvert (the above ground modifications to the inlet works and discharge chamber are minimal and associated with current infrastructure so are not considered in this assessment). The siphon tunnel inlet shaft area and the outlet shaft area are currently 100% impermeable therefore no additional hardstanding areas are proposed. Surface water generated on existing hardstanding areas would drain either to the nearest surface water drain or runoff to immediately adjacent land. Surface water runoff rates and attenuation volumes are indicative and would be confirmed during the subsequent Level 2 FRA. Existing and post development runoff rates have been calculated for both the proposed siphon tunnel inlet shaft area (approximated as 2500m2) and siphon tunnel outlet shaft area (approximated as 1800m2) within the site. The undeveloped greenfield surface water runoff rate for the 1% AEP event plus 30% for climate change has been calculated using the ICP SUDS rural runoff method in Micro Drainage WinDes Version 12.5 software. A soil factor of 0.45, which represents a clayey, poorly drained soil, has been used within this method to represent the undeveloped greenfield runoff rate at the siphon tunnel inlet and outlet shaft areas. The existing impermeable and post development impermeable surface water runoff rate for the 1% AEP climate change event has been calculated using the Modified Rational Method. In accordance with PPS25 Table B.2 the post development surface water runoff rate includes a 30% increase in peak rainfall intensity to account for the anticipated impact of climate change over the developments lifetime. The greenfield runoff is required to identify the volume of attenuation necessary to meet the Mayor of London preferred standard for SUDS (i.e. reduce runoff from the development to greenfield rates).
15.4.38
15.4.39
15.4.40
15.4.41
15.4.42 15.4.43
15.4.44
15.4.45
15.4.46
15.4.47
Page 158
The existing, post development and Greenfield runoff rates for the 1% AEP event are provided in the table below. Vol 28 Table 15.4.1 Flood risk runoff rates onsite Site Status Siphon Tunnel Inlet Shaft Existing Siphon Tunnel Inlet Shaft Post Development Siphon Tunnel Inlet Shaft Greenfield Siphon Tunnel Outlet Shaft Existing Siphon Tunnel Outlet Shaft Post Development Siphon Tunnel Outlet Shaft Greenfield Rainfall Runoff Event 1% AEP + 30% Climate Change 1% AEP + 30% Climate Change 1% AEP + 30% Climate Change 1% AEP + 30% Climate Change 1% AEP + 30% Climate Change 1% AEP + 30% Climate Change Runoff Rate (l/s)
48.84 See existing as site is currently hardstanding
3.64 35.17 See existing as site is currently hardstanding 2.60
15.4.49 15.4.50
As the existing areas are currently 100% impermeable, no additional runoff is generated post development. However if the project wishes to reduce surface water runoff, potential mitigation measures relating to surface water drainage are provided in Section 15.5. Flooding from groundwater The TE2100 Plan states that there may be a risk of groundwater flooding originating from superficial strata underlying the Beckton STW site during high water level conditions within the Thames. Because the underlying strata are in hydraulic connectivity with the river levels in the Thames, the groundwater levels vary on a diurnal basis with the changing tide levels. Therefore, during high water level conditions within the Thames there is the potential for groundwater to reach ground level at the site. However, there are no recorded incidents of groundwater flooding within the vicinity of the site shown within the London Borough of Newham SFRA. The sites over 700m from the River Thames are unlikely to be in hydraulic conductivity with the river levels but the siphon tunnel outlet shaft and culvert may be. Historical FRAs undertaken at Beckton have appreciated the presence of groundwater within the underlying River Terrace Deposits. However, these have been known to be somewhat confined by the overlying strata and made ground.
15.4.51
15.4.52
Page 159
Potential mechanisms for groundwater flooding will be explored further including local water levels from ongoing monitoring and data collection as part of the EIA. This will inform the assessment of groundwater flood risk to this site and will be reported in the Level 2 FRA for the Beckton STW site. Flood risk to the site from this source is considered to be low, as there is no evidence from the Newham SFRA to suggest that groundwater flooding has occurred in the past and made ground may confine the potentially groundwater yielding River Terrace Deposits. Flooding from sewers The London Borough of Newham SFRA shows that there have been no flooding incidents recorded by Thames Water in the last 10 years in the vicinity of the site. The proposed site area is located within the overall Beckton STW, which is served by an existing surface water sewer system. It is believed that this system routes surface water runoff through the STW for treatment prior to discharge via treated effluent discharge. There are no records available detailing that the site has flooded in the past. In addition, it could be assumed that the results from the direct rainfall modelling (described above) indicate the outcome following a 100% blockage in the surface water drainage system (ie all drainage gullies or collection systems completely blocked). During such an event, (which would be extremely unlikely, especially as there are surface water pumping stations on the site), the proposed site would not be significantly inundated with surface water. The estimated discharge volumes from Beckton STW during a typical year are presented within the table below. Vol 28 Table 15.4.2 Flood risk - estimated discharge volumes Estimated discharge volumes Typical Year (m3) Base (2006) Beckton STW Lee Tunnel Outfall Culvert 445,000,000 STW + Lee (2021) 515,000,000 610,000 STW + Lee + Thames (2021) 530,000,000 700,000
15.4.54
15.4.55
15.4.56
15.4.57
Note: the discharge associated with the Thames Tunnel is approximately 3% of the existing discharge (in 2021) 15.4.58 A major failure in plant (eg substation failure) as well as a failure of the NOS should also be considered as these events would cause major sewer flooding on the site. Flood risk from this source is considered to be low. Flooding from artificial sources 15.4.59 There are no artificial flood sources within proximity to this site; therefore there is no flood risk from this source.
Page 160
15.5
15.5.1
Flood risk - design and mitigation Overview

This assessment has identified the following sources of flood risk related to the site: a. residual risk of flooding to the site from tidal sources as a result of a breach in the existing defences b. medium risk of an increase in tidal flooding due to the potential for settlement during construction of the tunnel to impact on food defences. c. medium risk of impact on flood defences as a result of scour from an increased discharge into the River Thames from the Beckton STW during operation
d. low risk of flooding to the site from fluvial sources e. low risk of surface water flooding (or ponding) to the site as a result of runoff from surrounding land f. low risk of groundwater flooding to the site associated with water levels in the underlying geological strata
g. low risk of sewer flooding to the site 15.5.2 This section describes flood mitigation methods that have been highlighted as being required specifically to address flood risk effects as a result of development at Beckton STW. Flood mitigation methods in this context are defined as being required to alleviate the effect of the development of a site on any consequential (increase in) flood risk.
Flood prevention
Flood resilience/resistance during operation 15.5.3 The London RFRA states that flood risk should be reduced where possible and flood resistance and resilience measure should be built into the development. Given that the project is a water compatible development type (see Volume 28, Section 15.2.1), there is no project-wide intension to provide flood resistance and resilience measures for residual flood risk as it is considered that the primary operational function of the Tunnel would not be affected by flooding as a result of a breach. Surface water flood risk has been classified as low as modelling predicts relatively low depths of surface water flooding (generally less than 10mm). Flooding from this source could however still be minimised through flood prevention measures in the form of: raising any sensitive equipment above the local surface water flood level; using flood resistant techniques where it is beneficial to exclude surface flood water; using flood resilient building materials where possible; raising thresholds of site offices/kiosks 300mm above the ground. These methods would also reduce sewer flood risk. Construction and emergency planning 15.5.5 It is understood that the Beckton STW site has an emergency plan established for the safe evacuation of on-site staff during emergencies. It
15.5.4
Page 161
is also understood that the Beckton site is already signed up to the EAs flood warning system. It is recommended that the proposed Thames Tunnel works and prospective site staff or operations are included in this evacuation plan, using the conclusions and recommendations highlighted within this report and the Hydraulic Modelling report produced for the TTQI works. The current plan will be used to develop a flood risk Emergency Plan for the Beckton STW site which will be included within the subsequent Level 2 FRA, with specific attention to flood risk, appropriate working practices and appropriate access/egress routes in the event of a flood warning. The London Borough of Newham will be required to comment on the Emergency Plan.
Design and mitigation

Surface water discharge 15.5.6 The existing Beckton STW surface water system would be used at this site to ensure surface water is positively drained from this site post development. The capacity of this existing system would not be altered as part of the Thames Tunnel works. The preliminary calculations shown in the table below are based on attenuation, assuming zero infiltration (the feasibility of SUDS infiltration techniques onsite is currently unknown but will be investigated as part of the Level 2 FRA work). PPS25 states that runoff post development should not be greater than runoff pre development in order to not increase the risk of flooding either downstream or on surrounding land. The attenuation volume is based on this Policy. In addition and in accordance with the Mayors Draft Water Strategy, the preferred standard and essential standard have also been considered. To take into account the effects of climate change over the developments lifetime a 30% increase in peak rainfall intensity has been included when considering post development runoff and the associated attenuation volumes. Vol 28 Table 15.5.1 Flood risk runoff rates and preliminary attenuation volumes 1% AEP Rainfall Event Siphon Tunnel Inlet Shaft Preferred Standard (attenuation to greenfield runoff rate) Siphon Tunnel Inlet Shaft Essential Standard (attenuation to 50% of undeveloped runoff rate) Runoff Rate (l/s) Attenuation Volume* (m3)
15.5.7
15.5.8
3.64
147 195
24.42
82 118
Page 162
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works 1% AEP Rainfall Event PPS25 Standard Inlet Shaft (no increase in runoff post development) Siphon Tunnel Outlet Shaft Preferred Standard (attenuation to greenfield runoff rate) Siphon Tunnel Outlet Shaft Essential Standard (attenuation to 50% of undeveloped runoff rate) PPS25 Standard Outlet Shaft (no increase in runoff post development)
Section 15: Water resources flood risk Attenuation Volume* (m3)
Runoff Rate (l/s)
48.84
2.60
106 140
17.59
62 89
35.17
*Volumes should be viewed in comparison to the total process unit volumes on the site 5 3 which is greater than 10 m
15.5.9
The table above indicates that to meet PPS25 standards no attenuation storage would be required as the site areas are currently 100% hardstanding, and will remain so post development. It is important to note that the attenuation volumes provided in the table above are based on preliminary calculations and will be subject to refinement at outline and detailed design stage. Both the need and the potential to deliver this level of attenuation at the site will be determined during the Level 2 FRA and reported in the ES, which will ensure that the requirements of PPS25 are met at all times and the aspirations of the London Plan are met where practicable. Until soakaway tests and a contamination study are carried out the feasibility of SUDS infiltration techniques are unknown. The following surface water mitigation measures should be considered for incorporation into the development design: a. In the event of return periods in excess of 3.3% AEP storm, the layout and the landscaping of the sites should aim to route water away from vulnerable property/infrastructure, and avoid creating hazards to access egress routes, whilst not increasing flood risk to third parties. b. If surface water is discharged into the River Thames or Barking Creek (discharge at present is via the NOS), additional scour protection be required at the outfall. c. Surface water runoff may be required to pass through an oil interceptor, or similar, prior to discharge to the chosen surface water receptor.
15.5.10
15.5.11 15.5.12
Page 163
d. During the construction phase appropriate mitigation should be provided to ensure surface water is managed in a controlled manner. 15.5.13 The surface water runoff calculations have been completed assuming that there would be no increase in impermeable area on the site. However it is considered that if some minor additional hardstanding is proposed, then this is likely to be a very small percentage of the site as a whole. Any additional runoff generated from a small increase in hardstanding would not have any insignificant impact on the overall surface water discharge from the site. It is also considered that there would not be any significant negative impacts at the discharge point, ie the tidal Thames Estuary. This will be confirmed during the subsequent Level 2 FRA.
15.5.14
15.6
15.6.1 15.6.2
A Level 2 FRA will be prepared for the site which will outline further specific design approaches and measures. It is considered that a Level 2 FRA will be sufficient to assess the impact of flood risk for the final site design (ie no Level 3 specific site modelling is required). This will be prepared for the site and incorporated into the ES. The Level 2 FRA will use the data collected as part of the Level 1 FRA and build upon the preliminary findings of this assessment once further information is available from the EA and other assessments being undertaken to support the FRA and the EIA. In summary, the following additional assessment elements will be undertaken: a. Confirmation of existing River Thames and Barking Creek defence levels local to the site following receipt of the EA survey information of flood defencesix. This will be used to reassess the standard of protection at the site and effect on flood risk (if the actual defence levels differ to the statutory defence levels). It will also inform flood prevention design. b. Assessment of lower River Roding modelled flood levels and comparison with Tidal Thames Joint Probability levels to determine the worst case in terms of flood levels for the Beckton STW site. c. A project-wide study into the potential impacts of the tunnel excavation on the integrity of the flood defences is being undertaken. Any relevant assessment for the defences at the Beckton STW site will be included in the Beckton STW site Level 2 FRA section.
15.6.3
d. Groundwater flood risk and any required flood risk prevention measures will be reassessed when the groundwater resources impact assessment is complete. This will be included in the Level 2 FRA. e. An emergency plan will be developed for the Thames Tunnel works which will build on the current Beckton STW plan or the existing emergency plan will be updated to include the new works. This will support the Level 2 FRA and the CoCP.
Actual flood defence heights often differ from statutory heights due to movement etc so levels will need to be confirmed.
ix
Page 164
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works f.
Further detail of site specific mitigation and flood prevention measures required to manage both residual risk and direct flood risk based on the final site design.
15.6.4
It is not anticipated that further primary data collection (assuming outstanding data from the EA is supplied) or any modelling will be required at this site as part of future work and hence a Level 2 FRA will be sufficient to support the ES and application specific to the Beckton STW site.
Page 165
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works Appendices Appendix A Historic environment Appendix B Water resources groundwater List of figures
Appendix A: Historic environment
Page number
Figure A.1: Chapman and Andrs Map of Essex, 1777 ........................................ 167 Figure A.2: OS 1:mile map of 1805 ...................................................................... 167 Figure A.3: OS 1st edition 25 scale map of 1862 ................................................. 168 Figure A.4: OS 2nd edition 25 scale map of 18969 ............................................ 168 Figure A.5: OS 3rd edition 25 scale map of 190920 ........................................... 169 Figure A.6: OS 1:10,000 scale map of 195469 .................................................... 169 Figure A.7: OS 1:10,000 scale map of 19727 ...................................................... 170 Figure A.8: OS 1:10,000 scale map of 197988 .................................................... 170 Photo A.1: View of Area 1...................................................................................... 171 Photo A.2: View of Area 2 from the southern extent of the boundary ..................... 171 Photo A.3: View of Area 2 from the northern extent of the boundary...................... 172 Photo A.4: View of 19th century wall located to the northeast of Area 2 ............... 172 Photo A.5: Detailed view of the 19th century wall to the northeast of Area 2 ........ 173 Figure B.1 Groundwater superficial geology ........................................................ 179 Figure B.2 Groundwater solid geology ................................................................ 179 Figure B.3 Groundwater EA monitoring locations ................................................ 184 Figure B.4 Groundwater Level Hydrographs for EA OBH near the site .................. 186 Figure B.5 Licensing Areas (EA, 2006) .................................................................. 189
List of tables
Page number
Table B.1 Summary of anticipated Siphon Tunnel geological succession .............. 179 Table B.2 Anticipated Ground Conditions at the site .............................................. 180 Table B.3 Hydrogeology at the site......................................................................... 182 Table B.4 Depth and Strata penetrated by on-site monitoring boreholes ............... 184
Page 166
Appendix A: Historic environment A.1 Historic maps

Figure A.1: Chapman and Andrs Map of Essex, 1777
Figure A.2: OS 1:mile map of 1805
Page 167
Figure A.3: OS 1st edition 25 scale map of 1862
(not to scale) Figure A.4: OS 2nd edition 25 scale map of 18969
(not to scale)
Page 168
Figure A.5: OS 3rd edition 25 scale map of 190920
(not to scale) Figure A.6: OS 1:10,000 scale map of 195469
(not to scale)
Page 169
Figure A.7: OS 1:10,000 scale map of 19727
(not to scale) Figure A.8: OS 1:10,000 scale map of 197988
(not to scale)
Page 170
A.2
Photographs
Photo A.1: View of Area 1
looking southwest, standard lens Photo A.2: View of Area 2 from the southern extent of the boundary
looking northwest, standard lens
Page 171
Photo A.3: View of Area 2 from the northern extent of the boundary
looking south, standard lens Photo A.4: View of 19th century wall located to the northeast of Area 2
from southeast corner of the boundary, looking northwest, standard lens
Page 172
Photo A.5: Detailed view of the 19th century wall to the northeast of Area 2
from the northeast corner of the boundary, looking east, standard lens
Page 173
A.3
A.3.1 HEA Ref no. 1a
Gazetteer of known heritage assets

The location of known heritage assets is shown on the historic environment features map (see Vol 28 Figure 7.4.1). Description Site code/ HER ref: 100791 List entry number: 1393160 UID: 506196 LBT09
The site of a former grade II listed chimney, constructed in 18879 for the Metropolitan Board of Works, by Sir Joseph Bazalgette as part of the London sewage works with minor alterations at a later date. The chimney has been demolished. Lee Tunnel, Triangle site Beckton Sewage Treatment Works, Jenkins Lane, Beckton, IG11. An archaeological evaluation by MOLA in 2009. A single evaluation trench was excavated on the site of The Lee Tunnel access shaft at Thames Water Beckton Sewage Treatment Works (STW). An adjacent geoarchaeological borehole recorded the presence of late Pleistocene gravels at 97.8m TD (4.5m below ground level). The surface of (fluvial) sandy clay/clay sand channel deposits of potential late Pleistocene/early Holocene date formed the trench base, at 99.1m TD. Root bowls and tree bases (probably alder) were recorded truncating the layer along the east face of the trench. Peat was present throughout the trench extent to a surface height of 99.8m OD. The characteristics of the peat reflect the sites location within, or adjacent to, ancient river channels. Alluvial clays and silts accumulated above the organic deposits, probably during the Iron Age and later historic periods which might represent seasonally flooded meadowland or estuarine environments. A compressed layer of topsoil and turf representing (undated) historic open grassland survived at the top of the alluvial profile at 101.2m TD. Modern made ground, c. 1.3m thick sealed the alluvial sequence. The trench showed no evidence of prehistoric human activity or environmental interaction. However, the deposits examined have good potential for reconstructing the prehistoric environment. This is the site of the Beckton Sewage Works, the UK's biggest sewage works, responsible for much of the waste from the London area. By 1884 the population growth resulted in massive discharge of raw sewage into the Thames from Beckton, which was no longer a remote location and was gaining a population of its own. In 1887 raw sewage discharge ceased, and Bazalgette designed a treatment system at Beckton and Crossness where the sewage was treated before the remains were loaded onto ships and discharged into the sea, a practice
1b
1c
99424
Page 174
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works HEA Ref no. Description
Appendix A: Historic environment Site code/ HER ref:
which continued until 1998. As a result, Beckton sewage treatment works has grown considerably since its initial inception, and is now the largest in the UK. When the site changed from the simple reservoir function of storing then releasing raw sewage into the Thames, to a sewage treatment works, there was a significant amount of building and construction to implement the processing of sewage. The buildings that can be seen to survive on the site are those from this second phase of development in the late 1880s, and the continual development and refining of this process until the 1950s. There is evidence of later alterations on the site that took place in the second half of the 20th century, but no significant building. On the wider Beckton site there has been significant enlargement and improvement to the STW, which accounts for the redundancy of the Old Engine House site from the 1990s. The Beckton STW remains the largest sewage treatment works in the UK. Its evolution is significant because it began with development under Sir Joseph Bazalgette and has continued to modernise and adopt new technology and methods of processing as they arose for over 150 years. 1d Jenkins Lane (Beckton Sewage Treatment Works), Newham. An archaeological standing structure recording by SW in 2009. An historic building recording was undertaken on structures at the Old Engine House site of Beckton Sewage Works, off Royal Docks Road, Newham. The building has subsequently been demolished. Debden Wharf, Barking Creek, 5458 River Road, Barking IG11. An archaeological watching brief by WA in 2007. Estuarine alluvium, overlain by modern silts that contained an abundance of modern debris, was recorded. Documentary sources state that Barking Magazine was first constructed in c. 1719. It was built to store gunpowder and was transferred to private ownership by 1881. Recorded on the GLHER. Unspecified works in Barking Creek prior to 1914 revealed a stone axe-hammer dating to the late Neolithic/early Bronze Age. Recorded on the GLHER. The remains of a bronze sword hilt dating to the Bronze Age were found in the Roding 1.5km to the west of Barking. Recorded on the GLHER. Unspecified works near Barking Creek revealed a bronze socketed axe dating to the Bronze Age. Recorded on the GLHER. BSJ08
DDW07
060625
060625 060195 060193 060194
Page 175
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works HEA Ref no. Description
Appendix A: Historic environment Site code/ HER ref:
Unspecified works in the Barking Marshes area in around 1862 revealed a bronze looped square socketed axe dating to the Bronze Age. Recorded on the GLHER. 5 6 The site of the Dampers Dock dating to the medieval period through to the 17th century. Recorded on the GLHER. Beckton Sewage Works, Precipitation and Re-Aeration Lanes, Alfreds Way, Beckton, E6. An archaeological standing structure recording by OA in 2004. The original works at Beckton, forming the end of the Northern Outfall of Joseph Bazalgette's London's sewage system, were examined and found to have been constructed in the 1860's. In 1887 precipitation lanes were constructed to treat the sewage chemically, with the sludge being removed in ships and dumped at sea. These structures, as well as the valve and pump rooms, were recorded. The eastern section of these lanes, which was largely demolished in the 1960's to form re-aeration lanes, was also examined. The site of a medieval and post-medieval house called Galyonshope, probably associated with the families of John and Richard Galyan (Galyon) in 1466. In 1906 the house was called Gallions. Recorded on the GLHER. Beckton Sewage Works, East Ham, E6. An archaeological excavation by PCA in 1994. Two trenches were excavated. The first revealed part of a north-south river channel filled with alluvial clays. Other features were modern. The 2nd trench contained deposits of peat lying on silty sand at a depth of about 7m from ground level. At the interface between these layers a water-worn burnt flint was found. Higher in the peat were the remains of four yew trees, all naturally fallen, probably part of the great yew forest that grew along the Thames in the prehistoric period. The chance find of Mesolithic animal remains and a Bronze Age axe from the site of the Beckton Sewage Works. Recorded on the GLHER. The site of a Roman dock along the Barking Creek Recorded on the GLHER. The chance find of a Neolithic axe. Recorded on the GLHER. Marley Waterproofing, 8 River Road, Barking IG11. An archaeological watching brief by MoLAS in 2007. Work on replacing sheet piling along the E bank of Barking Creek (River Roding) was monitored. A number of timbers were recorded in the short time allowed by tidal inundations; they are interpreted as part of a revetment which was dismantled 061084 AFW04
061080
HESW94
061748 061749 061648 060189 RIE07
10 11 12
Page 176
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works HEA Ref no. 13 14 15 16 17 Description
Appendix A: Historic environment Site code/ HER ref: ----060573 062763 NEY99
in the 1930s when a river wall was installed. A pile or post obstruction recorded by Seazone. A group of posts which previously formed part of a jetty. Recorded by Seazone. The chance find of a Palaeolithic flint flake. Recorded by the GLHER. The site of a post-medieval landfill site. recorded on the GLHER. A13/A406 junction, Newham Way, E6. An archaeological evaluation by MoLAS in 1999. Gravel, peat and alluvial horizons were mapped from borehole data. Cores from a borehole situated furthest from the River Thames provided confirmatory carbon-14 dates of 2,475-2,040 BC (Neolithic) for the lower and 1,880-1,450 BC (Bronze Age) for the uppermost horizon of the area's significant peaty layer. The site of the 13th-century wall of St Margarets Churchyard. Recorded on the GLHER. Two obstructions recorded by Seazone. One is said to have been removed (dead) while the other is believed to still be extant (live). An obstruction of debris which is still extant has been recorded by Seazone. The site of the Barking Jute Factory. Recorded on the GLHER. Jute is a fibrous plant grown in India that has been processed to make rope and coarse canvas material. The site of a dangerous wreck which is thought to no longer be extant (dead) by Seazone An obstruction comprising a pile or post recorded by Seazone. The remains of a number of posts which previously formed a jetty. Recorded by Seazone. Thames Gateway Bridge, Gallions Reach. An archaeological diving survey by WA in 2004. A programme of targeted diving was carried out to clarify four acoustic anomalies identified during a geophysical survey carried out by Wessex Archaeology in August 2004. The results of the survey revealed that three targets were of no archaeological significance and represented modern material, probably the result of dumping. However, the fourth, consisting of articulated timber planks and frames, possibly the remains of a steam boiler, was identified as a substantial vessel, likely to GDK05 060663
18 19
060939
20 21
22 23 24 25
Page 177
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works HEA Ref no. 26 27 28 Description
Appendix A: Historic environment Site code/ HER ref: 060197 061771
be of late 19th- or early 20th-century date. A chance find of a Bronze Age sword from the River Thames. Recorded on the GLHER. The chance find of an unspecified Palaeolithic flint artefact. Recorded on the GLHER. The site of a dangerous wreck called the Halo which sank in 1941. The wreck however has been lifted. Recorded by Seazone. The site of a wreck which is still extant (live). The wreck is of the Princess Alice which sank in 1878. Recorded on Seazone. 19th century wall, close to Site Area B and probably associated with the Bazalgette scheme
29
30
Page 178
Appendix B: Water resources ground
Appendix B: Water resources - groundwater B.1

B.1.1
Geology
A summary of the anticipated geology succession to be encountered by the siphon tunnel is shown in the table below.
Table B.1 Summary of anticipated Siphon Tunnel geological succession Period Series Holocene Quaternary Pleistocene Eocene Thames Group Formation Made ground Superficial Deposits Alluvium Langley Silt River Terrace Deposits London Clay Harwich Upper Shelly Beds Laminated Beds Palaeogene Palaeocene Lambeth Mid-Lambeth Hiatus* Lower Shelly Beds Upnor No group Cretaceous Upper Cretaceous White Chalk Subgroup Thanet Sand Seaford Chalk** Lewes Nodular Chalk
* Not a Formation but an important depositional feature ** Subdivided into the Haven Brow, Cuckmere and Belle Tout members.
B.1.2
Vol 28 Figure B.1 shows the superficial geology and Vol 28 Figure B.2 shows the solid geology beneath the site. Figure B.1 Groundwater superficial geology Figure B.2 Groundwater solid geology (see Volume 28 Figures document) The Ground Investigation (GI) was undertaken for Thames Tunnel project and has involved drilling boreholes both on the banks and within the main river channel (TT, 2010)33. The locations of boreholes around the site are shown in Vol 28 Figure B.2. The depths and thicknesses of geological layers encountered is summarised in the following table.
B.1.3
Page 179
Table B.2 Anticipated Ground Conditions at the site Formation Made Ground Alluvium River Terrace Deposits London Clay
(present beneath the siphon inlet shaft but not at the siphon outlet shaft)
Elevation mATD 101.9 99.1 98.0

90.6
Depth below ground level (m bgl) 0.0 2.8 3.9

11.3
Thickness (m) 2.8 1.1 7.4

7.7
Harwich Formation Lambeth Group [undifferentiated] a. USB b. LtB/LSB c. UPN (Gv) d. UPN Thanet Sand
82.9
19.0
3.5
79.4
22.5
14.5
64.9
37.0
15.1
Seaford Chalk 49.8 52.1 not proven USBUpper Shelly Beds; UMBUpper Mottled Beds; LtBLaminated Beds LSB-Lower Shelly Beds; LMB-Lower Mottled Beds; UPN (Gv)-Upnor Formation (Gravel); UPN-Upnor Formation information from TW 2008 - Lee Tunnel Environmental Assessment Report B.1.4 At the site, the depth of the shaft will be approximately 32m (with base slab down a further 4m). The base of the main shaft will be within the Thanet Sands Formation, passing through the most of the full thickness of the Thanet Sands Formation and the Lambeth Group (Woolwich Beds; undifferentiated). The base slab will be within the Seaford Chalk Formation. Considerable thickness 7m thick of made ground is identified at the site. This reflects decades of industrial use and land reclamations at this site. Made ground can act as a barrier to infiltration and may allow some groundwater storage and movement. As this site has been developed over a considerable period, the made ground may also have historic contamination hot spots reflecting historic industrial activities and pollution. Alluvium comprising silty clay and clayey silt, with occasional scatted pebbles and granules overlies the site. Within the Alluvium, local beds of fine to coarse-grained sand may be present, as laminar, lenticular or channel deposits, generally less than 1m thick but may reach up to 4m in thickness. The Alluvium Deposits at the site is approximately 2.5m thick.
B.1.5
B.1.6
Page 180
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works B.1.7
River Terrace Deposits are extensive alluvial sand and gravel deposits laid down in a braided river system of approximately 5km width, in river terraces since the Anglian glaciation. Phases of down-cutting and intervening deposition during colder periods and subsequent meltwaters increased river flows and sediment load. Seven terraces are distinguishable in London in terms of their altitude, rather than distinguishing lithological features, ranging in thickness from around 2.5 to 28m. The River Terrace Deposits at the site is 3.5m thick. Although the River Terrace Deposits commonly has very fine-grained sand, silt and clayey silt 'Brickearth' deposits (reclassified as the Langley Silt) above, the thickness of the River Terrace Deposits at the site and geological descriptions indicate the Langley Silt is not present or significant at this site. The London Clay comprises clayey silt beds grading to an increasing number of silty fine-grained sand westward; and increase in homogeneity upwards through the deposit. The upper sandier formation is informally referred to as the Claygate Member to distinguish its coarser-grained nature. The London Clay is divided into sub-units referred from oldest to youngest as A to E, with some of these sub-units dividing further, for example A1, A2, A3i-iii in age order. The London Clay is identified only within the Secondary Treatment Area of the site, and not present at the proposed shaft location. The Lee Tunnel and Beckton Environmental Statement identifies that the Woolwich Formation (comprising of the Upper Shelly Beds, the Laminated Beds; and the Lower Shelly Beds) of the Lambeth Beds has a variable thickness at the site of between 10m and 15m, with the top of the beds generally between 92 and 96mATD. The Lambeth Beds comprise stiff to very stiff dark grey sandy clay with shell fragments, becoming gravely with depth, the clay layers nearer the top of the formation are considered as impermeable; The Upper Shelly Beds comprising grey, shelly clays with scattered glauconite grains increasing to mainly sand in south-east London. Laminated Beds (LtB) comprise thinly interbedded fine to medium grained sand, silt and clay with shells, with sand lenses found locally in south-east London. The Lower Shelly Beds (LSB) comprise dark grey to black clay with abundant shells, with increasing sand content towards east London. A thin - less than 0.3m thick - seam of Lignite is commonly found at its base, although this was not found in the borehole logs at the site. The Upnor Formation (UPN) is a variably bioturbated fine- to mediumgrained sand with glauconite, rounded flint pebbles and minor clay, with distinctive pebble beds and base and top (Upn (Gv)). The Thanet Sand Formation defines the first marine transgression following erosion of the Chalk, and is found unconformably on the approximately planar eroded Chalk surface. The Thanet Sand Formation
B.1.8
B.1.9
B.1.10
B.1.11
B.1.12 B.1.13
B.1.14
B.1.15
B.1.16
Page 181
comprises well sorted, uniform sand, with evidence of intense bioturbation removing bedding structures. With approximately 10 per cent fine-grained sand at the base, the lower part is typically clayey and silty, coarsening and greater sorting upward to the upper beds containing as much as 60 per cent fine-grained sand. The base of the Thanet Sands is a unit known as the 'Bullhead Bed' - a pale to medium-grey to brownish-grey, fine to fine-grained sand; and a conglomerate up to 0.5m thick comprising rounded to angular flint cobble and gravel sized clasts set in a clayey, fine to coarse-grained sand matrix with glauconite pellets forming the basal bed of the Thanet Sand. The Bullhead Bed marks the Palaeocene/Cretaceous unconformity. B.1.17 The Seaford Chalk is the upper unit of the White Chalk, comprising of as firm to soft non-nodular Chalk with flint beds. Thin marl seams are found in the lower 8m and absent higher up. A hard ground marks the top of the Seaford Chalk. In terms of geological structure, it is noted that there is a series of northsouth faults forming the Greenwich Fault identified through the site around the siphon outlet shafts. The shafts at the site are to the southwest of the major fault, however, the siphon tunnel passes through a number of minor faults and fractures associated with the Greenwich Fault. These minor faults and fractures intercepted by the siphon tunnel and close proximity to the shafts have localised displacement. Faults may also enhance or impede groundwater movement.
B.1.18
B.2
B.2.1
Hydrogeology
A summary of the anticipated hydrogeological properties of the different geologies to be encountered by the Thames Tunnel is shown in the table below. Table B.3 Hydrogeology at the site Group Superficial Deposits Formation (Made Ground) Alluvium River Terrace Deposits London Clay Thames Harwich Upper Shelly Beds Laminated Beds Lower Shelly Beds Upnor Thanet Sand Seaford Chalk Hydrogeology Perched Water Upper Aquifer Aquiclude Aquitard / Aquifer Aquitards/ Aquifers
Lambeth
No group White Chalk
Lower Aquifer
Page 182
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works Group Subgroup Formation Lewes Nodular Chalk New Pit Chalk Holywell Nodular Chalk B.2.2 B.2.3
Appendix B: Water resources ground Hydrogeology
The upper aquifer, comprising of the Alluvium and River Terrace Deposits, is defined as a secondary A aquifer. The lower aquifer comprises Thanet Sands (secondary A aquifer) and the Chalk (principal aquifer) x comprising of the Seaford Chalk; as the shaft is not sufficiently deep to encounter the Lewes Nodular Chalk, New Pit Chalk and Nodular Chalk formations beneath. The depth of shaft will extend down into the lower aquifer, constructed down through the Lambeth Group, and the Thanet Sand Formation into the Seaford Chalk. Within the Lambeth Group, several confined groundwater bodies are expected to be encountered. Groundwater is expected during the excavation of through the Upper Shelly Beds (at the top of the Lambeth Group); and more significantly at sub-artesian pressures within the Laminated Beds (formerly part of the Woolwich Formation). Hydrographs from monitoring points close to the site will need to confirm this. The London Clay Formation is present in part of the site. The shaft will not pass through the London Clay; however the London Clay is present beneath the siphon inlet shaft. The London Clay Formation is generally acknowledged as an aquiclude between the upper and lower aquifers. Within the London Clay Formation, any groundwater present is likely to consist of localised seepages and/or minor flows. It is therefore possible that localised high pressure groundwater might be encountered within parts of the London Clay. The most porous section of London Clay the A3ii division - is present within the GI borehole logs. Groundwater movement through the London Clay Formation also occurs along horizontal bedding planes, resulting in localised seepages. The base of the London Clay has less sand fraction, and is therefore regarded as the less permeable and more compacted part of the London Clay, thereby forming an effective retardation to groundwater flow from the lower aquifer. Lateral seepages from the nearby London Clay at the site may provide a minor contribution to flows within the lower aquifer. As part of the GI, a series of observation boreholes were drilled within the main River Thames close to the site reference numbers SA2001, SA2002, SA2003 and SA2004. Very thin to no River Terrace Deposits (part of the upper aquifer) were recorded in these borehole logs, although alluvial deposits are present.
B.2.4
B.2.5
B.2.6
B.2.7
The terms principal and secondary aquifers were previously known as major and minor aquifers (EA, 2010)
Page 183
B.3
B.3.1
Groundwater Levels
The monitoring of groundwater levels is being undertaken by the Thames Tunnel team and data has been provided by them. In addition, the EA has a network of observation monitoring boreholes across London which records are available dating back to1963. No discrete monitoring horizons within monitoring boreholes are identified for the site to record groundwater levels in the following discrete layers see the table below. Figure B.3 Groundwater EA monitoring locations (see Volume 28 Figures document)
B.3.2
Table B.4 Depth and Strata penetrated by on-site monitoring boreholes Borehole SR2001 SR2002 B.3.3 Response Zone Depths mATD Not known Not known Strata Not known Not known Monitoring None None
Further monitoring points, piezometric monitoring and assessment for both the London Clay and its divisions; and the Lambeth Group horizons are recommended to validate the hydrographs and establish the requisite understanding of the hydrogeology local to the site. The three nearest EA monitoring boreholes are identified within the vicinity of the site EA reference numbers TQ48/88A, TQ48/88B, TQ48/88C. All three are located at the site and are in close proximity to one another; approximately 0.4km to the north of the site (see Vol 28 Figure B.3). Borehole level hydrograph for the Chalk aquifer from the EA Beckton STW observation borehole is shown below. Other EA monitoring boreholes in close proximity to Beckton STW include TQ48_57 approximately 1.2km north-northeast of the site, TQ48_59 approximately 1.2km to the north; TQ48_53 approximately 2km to the north northwest; TQ48_67 approximately 2km to the northwest and TQ48_97 approximately 2km to the northeast of the site (see Vol 28 Figure B.3). The figure below shows a range in piezomtric head from between 97.7 and 100.7mATD from 1978 to present; and indicates a long term trend of rising groundwater levels between 1978 (or before) and mid-2000, reflecting the changes in abstractions such as reductions in groundwater abstractions in central and east London due to the closure of heavy industries. Within this trend, the annual fluctuations in Chalk piezometric level varies by around 0.3 to 0.5m. Rising groundwater levels indicate an increased susceptibility to groundwater flooding risk. Although more recently some larger fluctuations of up to 1.2m (2004) and reduced water levels are observed, indicating that abstraction influences may be affecting the piezometric levels in this observation borehole. The recent lowering of levels reflects increase use of groundwater in central and east London,
B.3.4
B.3.5
B.3.6
Page 184
with groundwater levels dropped to pre-1980 levels. Although rising from their 2003/04 trough, levels remain below mid-1980s levels. Significant construction and dewatering at and close to the site have affected both short term and longer trends in the groundwater hydrograph beneath the site. The latest levels from this borehole in January 2010 were around 99.5mATD (EA, 2010)34. B.3.7 The water level at around 99.5mATD shows the water table lies within the made ground, above the alluvial deposits. This means that the water table is approximately 5m below the ground surface. Water table elevation is likely to be controlled by the nearby River Thames. As there is no hydraulic barrier between the upper and lower aquifer (the London Clay is only present over part of the site), the upper and lower aquifers are understood to have good hydraulic connectivity.
Page 185
Figure B.4 Groundwater Level Hydrographs for EA OBH near the site
Page 186
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works B.3.8
The EA have produced a groundwater contour map of the Chalk piezometric levels at a snap-shot in time in January 2010. According to this map (EA, 2010); the regional direction of groundwater flow around the site is to the west towards a low point within central London.
B.4
B.4.1 B.4.2
Groundwater Abstractions and Protected Rights

Groundwater abstractions within a radius of influence of up to 2km around the site have been identified. There are no licensed groundwater abstractions from the upper or lower aquifers nearby to the site. Note, however, Thames Water has a licence to abstract from the River Thames at Beckton for their desalination plant. There are no unlicensed abstractions identified within the vicinity of the site. There is one licensed Ground Source Heat (GSH) schemes approximately 2km north-northeast of the site. Due to its distance from the site, there is no expectation that this GSH scheme will be affected by construction or operation at the Beckton STW site.
B.4.3 B.4.4
B.5
B.5.1 B.5.2 B.5.3
Groundwater Source Protection Zones

The EA defines Source Protection Zones (SPZ) around all major public water supply abstractions sources and large licensed private abstractions. The site does not have a SPZ delineation. The nearest SPZ is over 2km to the north-northwest. Due to the substantial distance of the nearest large licensed abstraction, it is expected that licensed abstraction will not affect groundwater flow, gradient or direction beneath the site, such that groundwater flow will be consistent with the direction of regional groundwater flow expected beneath the site.
B.6
B.6.1
Other Designations eg SSSI or SAC

There are no other environmental designations relevant to groundwater in the vicinity of the site.
B.7
B.7.1
Groundwater Quality and Land Quality Assessment

The EA monitors groundwater quality at number of points across London. However, there is no EA monitoring for groundwater identified that represent groundwater quality at or close to the site. Without groundwater quality monitoring data, it has not been possible to ascertain the natural groundwater quality and whether they are determinants breaching respective potable and environmental quality standards. The information provided by the Thames Tunnel team to date on land quality and groundwater quality monitoring data at the site is sparse. Recent assessment at the site and Beckton Gas Works indicate the presence of contaminants within the ground and groundwater and
B.7.2
B.7.3
Page 187
therefore is yet to be determined whether there are any exceedences in groundwater samples and soil samples for any parameter tested. B.7.4 The site has been developed over a considerable period of time (over 150 years); it is therefore likely that the 7m of made ground will have historic contamination hot spots reflecting historic industrial activities, sewage treatment, waste storage and management and pollution, which may be remobilised with disturbance and rainwater flushing. Furthermore, the presence of contamination and associated pollution plumes associated with the Beckton Gas Works to the south of the site are understood to have an impact on the groundwater quality beneath the site. Further monitoring of groundwater quality is being undertaken as part of the Thames Tunnel project monitoring programme. Further information will be presented in the ES.
B.7.5
B.8
B.8.1
Groundwater Status
In 2009 the baseline results from the river basin management plan showed the status of the Greenwich Tertiaries as poor current quantitative and chemical quality with an upward chemical trend. The predicted quantitative and chemical quality was poor for 2015 due to being disproportionately expensive or technically infeasible. In the April 2011 update (EA website 11th May 2011) the results of further investigation referred to a point or diffuse source of pollution and confirmed good status.
B.8.2
Page 188
Figure B.5 Licensing Areas (EA, 2006)
Page 189
Appendix C: Noise and vibration
Appendix C: Noise and vibration

C.1.1 This section does not include noise and vibration monitoring as the baseline survey work has not yet been completed.
Page 190
Glossary
Glossary
Term A-weighted sound Description A-weighted decibels, abbreviated dBA, or dBa, or dB(a), are an expression of the relative loudness of sounds in air as perceived by the human ear. Ground elevation is measured relative to the mean sea level at Newlyn in Cornwall, referred to as Ordnance Datum (OD), such that heights are reported in metres above or below OD. Removal of water from a source of supply (surface or groundwater). Areas where the local authority determines the national air quality objectives are not likely to be achieved by the relevant deadlines. People, property or designated sites for nature conservation that may be at risk from exposure to air pollutants that could potentially arise as a result of the proposed development/project. Sediment laid down by a river. Can range from sands and gravels deposited by fast flowing water and clays that settle out of suspension during overbank flooding. Other deposits found on a valley floor are usually included in the term alluvium (eg, peat). The average (mean) of the hourly pollutant concentrations measured or predicted for a one year period. Originating as a result of human activities. A hydrogeological unit which, that allows groundwater movement at negligible rates, even though porous and capable of storing water. Groundwater movement insufficient to allow appreciable supply to a borehole or spring. Aquicludes tend to act as an impermeable barrier. A permeable geological stratum or formation that is capable of both storing and transmitting water in significant amounts.
Above Ordinance Datum abstraction Air Quality Management Area air quality sensitive receptors
alluvium
Annual Mean Concentration anthropogenic aquiclude
aquifer
Archaeological Priority Areas of archaeological priority, significance, potential or Area/Zone other title, often designated by the local authority. background concentration Basal Sands base case The contribution to the total measured or predicted concentration of a pollutant that does not originate directly from local sources of emissions. The Upnor Beds (the lower unit of the Lambeth Group) and the Thanet Sands. The base case for the assessment is a future case, without the project, in a particular assessment year.
Page 191
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works Term baseflow baseline benthic invertebrates Bentonite Description
Glossary
The component of river flow derived from groundwater sources rather than surface run-off. The existing conditions against which the likely significant effects due to a proposed development are assessed. Invertebrates which are found within or on the river bed. An absorbent aluminium phyllosilicate, in general, impure clay consisting mostly of montmorillonite. Mixed with water, it forms a slurry commonly used as drilling fluid and ground support in tunnelling. A hole drilled into the ground for geological investigation or for the exploitation of geological deposits or groundwater. An abstraction borehole is a well sunk into an aquifer from which water will be pumped. Wind-blown dust deposited under extremely cold, dry post glacial conditions suitable for making bricks. Produced by the BSI Group in order to set up standards of quality for goods and services. 2,000600 BC. Recording of historic buildings (by a competent archaeological organisation) is undertaken to document buildings, or parts of buildings, which may be lost as a result of demolition, alteration or neglect, amongst other reasons. Four levels of recording are defined by Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England (RCHME) and English Heritage. Level 1 (basic visual record); Level 2 (descriptive record), Level 3 (analytical record), and Level 4 (comprehensive analytical record). Also called a bund wall, bunding is a separated area within a structure designed to prevent inundation or breaches of various types. An area of stone, concrete or timber laid on the river / sea bed, that is exposed at low tide, allowing vessels to rest safely and securely in place. The area from which surface water and/or groundwater will collect and contribute to the flow of a specific river, abstraction or other specific discharge boundary. Can be prefixed by surface water or groundwater to indicate the specific nature of the catchment.
borehole
brickearth British Standard Bronze Age Building recording
bunding
campshed
catchment
Page 192
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works Term Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy (CAMS) Description
Glossary
The Environment Agencys strategy for water resources management in England and Wales through licensing water abstraction. CAMS is used to inform the public on water resources and licensing practice; provide a consistent approach to local water resources management; and help to balance the needs of water-users and the environment. A curve formed by a perfectly flexible, uniformly dense, and inextensible cable suspended from its endpoints. Whales, dolphins and porpoises. A soft white limestone (calcium carbonate) formed from the skeletal remains of sea creatures. Method for evaluating invertebrate communities based on species rarity, diversity and abundance. A temporary or permanent enclosure built across a body of water to allow the enclosed area to be pumped out creating a dry work environment. A sewer conveying waste water of domestic or industrial origin and rain water. A structure, or series of structures, designed to allow spillage of excess waste water from a combined sewer under high rainfall conditions. Flows may discharge by gravity or by pumping. A simplified representation or qualified description of the behaviour of the hydrogeological system. A quantitative conceptual model includes preliminary calculations and flow and mass balances. Conservation areas defined by Local Planning Authorities according to the provisions of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The area of site that would be used during the construction phase. The statutory plan which sets out a boroughs planning policies in relation to the management of development and land use. Supersedes the Unitary Development Plan in Boroughs where it has been adopted. A mobile crane, usually with caterpillar tracks. The flow from the existing CSO is diverted to the location of the drop shaft. The drop shaft location requires suitable access for construction and maintenance.
catenary Cetaceans Chalk Community Conservation Index. (CCI) cofferdam
combined sewer combined sewer overflow (CSO)
conceptual model
Conservation area
construction site Core Strategy
crawler crane CSO connection culvert
Page 193
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works Term CSO connection tunnel Description
Glossary
The flow from the drop shaft is transferred to the Thames Tunnel through a connection tunnel. These vary in diameter from 2.2m to 5.0m Long connection tunnels can be up to 4,615m in length. The shaft connects the flow down to the Thames Tunnel. The shaft sizes depend on the amount of flow to be intercepted and the de-aeration requirements and the depth depends on the location of the Thames Tunnel. The size ranges from 6m to 25m and depth from 25 to 75m. Site where the flows from an existing CSO would be redirected to the main Thames Tunnel. An area of land or structures around a dwelling or other structure. Excavated material to be re-used within the development as fill or removed off-site. the equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level having the same energy as a fluctuating sound over a specified time period T. An area within the shaft and/or associated pipe work, where air is removed from liquids. Logarithmic ratio used to relate sound pressure level to a standard reference level. Influencing or determining elements or factors. In London these refer to the borough Unitary Development Plans. A system used to locally lower groundwater levels around the worksite to provide stable working conditions when excavating. A diaphragm wall is a reinforced concrete retaining wall that is constructed in-situ. A deep trench is excavated and supported with bentonite slurry, and then reinforcing steel is inserted into the trench. Concrete is poured into the trench and only after this does excavation in front of the retained earth commence. The release of substances (eg, water, sewage, etc.) into surface waters, ground or sewer. A lowering of the water level in a borehole or aquifer, usually in response to abstraction. Legal standards set in Europe in the Drinking Water Directive 1998 together with UK national standards to maintain wholesomeness of potable water.
CSO drop shaft
CSO interception site curtilage cut dB LAeq,T
de-aeration chamber decibel (dB) determinands Development Plan dewatering wells
diaphragm wall
discharge drawdown Drinking Water Standards
Page 194
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works Term early medieval effect effluent Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Description
Glossary
AD 410 1066. Also referred to as the Saxon period. The result of an impact on a particular resource or receptor. The treated wastewater discharged from the Sewage Treatment Works. An assessment of the likely significant effects that a proposed project may have on the environment, considering natural, social and economic aspects, prepared in accordance with the 2009 Infrastructure Planning EIA Regulations. The concentration of chemical pollutants assessed to have detrimental effects on water quality in terms of the health of aquatic plants and animals. EQS are established in the WFD (Annex V) through the testing of the toxicity of the substance on aquatic biology. A document to be prepared following an EIA which provides a systematic and objective account of the EIAs findings, prepared in accordance with the 2009 Infrastructure Planning EIA Regulations. A limited programme of nonintrusive and/or intrusive fieldwork which determines the presence or absence of archaeological features, structures, deposits, artefacts or ecofacts within a specified area. A programme of controlled, intrusive fieldwork with defined research objectives which examines, records and interprets archaeological remains, retrieves artefacts, ecofacts and other remains within a specified area. The records made and objects gathered are studied and the results published in detail appropriate to the project design. A structural planar fracture or discontinuity within lithological strata due to strain or compression, in which significant displacement is observable. Factors that will determine the severity of an odour as defined by the Environment Agency; Frequency, Intensity, Duration, Offensiveness, Receptor. Material required to raise existing ground levels. This can utilise cut material generated within the site, or necessitate the importation of material. The location at which an item was found. A sewer conveying waste water of domestic and/or industrial origin, but little or no rain water. A breakage in a rock mass. Present at any scale, but is generally used for large scale discontinuities.
Environmental Quality Standards (EQS)
Environmental Statement (ES)
Evaluation (archaeological)
Excavation (archaeological)
fault
FIDOR
fill
findspot foul sewer fracture
Page 195
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works Term GARDIT Description
Glossary
General Aquifer Research Development and Investigation Team (Thames Water, the Environment Agency and London Underground with the support of organisations such as the Corporation of London, Envirologic, the Association of British Insurers (ABI) and BT). The gradual increase in the temperature of the earth's atmosphere, believed to be due to the greenhouse effect, caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, and other pollutants. Benchmark national quality standard for parks and green spaces in the United Kingdom. Water contained in underground strata, predominantly in aquifers. Inundation of land or basements as groundwater levels rise and the groundwater discharges to the surface or underground structures. The rise in groundwater level that occurs after cessation of abstraction. Groundwater Body: distinct volume of groundwater within an aquifer or aquifers. A dark brown slightly glauconitic clay with localised fine sand. Temporary roads provided within the contractors site area to allow the transportation of material around the site. A building, monument, site, place, area or landscape positively identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions. Heritage assets are the valued components of the Historic environment. They include designated heritage assets and assets identified by the local planning authority (including local listing). Archaeological and built heritage database held and maintained by the County authority. Previously known as the Sites and Monuments Record. Designated residential area with streets designed to operate primarily as a space for social use. Generally hard nodular chalks with thin flaser marls. In parts, there are significant proportions of shell debris. Inter-bedded coloured marl and chalk succession characteristic of the Plenus Marls Member are found at its base. Above this, the Melbourn Rock Member is distinguishable by its lack of shell material.
global warming
Green Flag groundwater groundwater flooding
groundwater rebound GWB Harwich Formation haul roads heritage asset
Historic environment Record (HER) Homezone Holywell Nodular Chalk
Page 196
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works Term hydraulic conductivity Description
Glossary
A constant of proportionality in Darcys law that allows the calculation of the rate of groundwater flow from the hydraulic gradient. For a unit hydraulic gradient, the higher the hydraulic conductivity the higher the rate of groundwater flow. In an aquifer this is the rate of change of groundwater level per unit distance in a given direction. Groundwater flows in the direction of the decline in hydraulic gradient. A graph showing a plot of water flow or level with time, applicable to both surface water and groundwater. A physical or measurable change to the environment attributable to the project. This structure is required to be built around the existing overflow either on land or at the discharge point in the foreshore. The chamber has a weir and valves to divert the flow in to the Thames Tunnel system. It is likely to be a reinforced concrete cut and cover box structure. In some other cases the structure is required to be built adjacent to an inlet or sump of a pump station from which the flow is diverted 600 BC AD 43. A caisson is a retaining, water-tight structure open to the air. A jack is used to push the caisson into the ground, with the internal area then excavated. Equivalent continuous sound level is a notional steady sound level which would cause the same A-weighted sound energy to be received as that due to the actual and possibly fluctuating sound over a period of time (T). It can also be used to relate periods of exposure and noise level. Thus, for example, a halving or doubling of the period of exposure is equivalent in sound energy to a decrease or increase of 3dB(A) in the sound level for the original period. The maximum sound level measured on the A- weighted scale occurring during an event. Complex sequence of highly variable inter-bedded sediments which include clay, sands, pebble beds and Shelly beds. Fine to coarse sand or clay with occasional black organic matter. AD 1066 1500. The Lee Tunnel comprises a 7.2m diameter storage and transfer tunnel from Abbey Mills Pumping Station to Beckton STW and the interception of the Abbey Mills CSO.
hydraulic gradient
hydrograph impact interception chamber
Iron Age jacked caission
LAeq(T)
LAmax Lambeth Group Laminated Beds later medieval Lee Tunnel
Page 197
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works Term Lewes Nodular Chalk Description
Glossary
Hard to very hard nodular chalks and hardgrounds with interbedded soft to medium hard chalks and marls. More abundant softer chalks towards the top. Formal permit allowing the holder to engage in an activity (in the context of this report, usually abstraction), subject to conditions specified in the licence itself and the legislation under which it was issued. A structure of architectural and/or historical interest. These are included on the Secretary of State's list, which affords statutory protection. These are subdivided in to Grades I, II* and II (in descending importance). The general characteristics of a rock or sedimentary formation. Local areas where the local authority determines the national air quality objectives are not likely to be achieved by the relevant deadlines. Collection of planning documents prepared by the Local Planning Authority outlining the management of development and land use in a Borough. A structure of local architectural and/or historical interest. These are structures that are not included in the Secretary of States Listing but are considered by the local authority to have architectural and/or historical merit. An area specific plan to interpret and apply the strategy set out in the Structure Plan, to provide a detailed basis for the control of development, to provide a basis for co-ordinating new development and to bring planning issues before the public. Fine sandy silty clay to silty clay. The LTI comprise five separate improvement projects at Thames Waters five Tideway sewage treatment works (STWs): Mogden, Beckton, Crossness, Riverside and Long Reach. The LTT comprises two separate projects: the Lee Tunnel and the Thames Tunnel. Consisting of the Upnor Beds (the lowest unit of the Lambeth Group), the Thanet Sands and the Chalk. Artificial deposit. An archaeologist would differentiate between modern made ground, containing identifiably modern inclusion such as concrete (but not brick or tile), and undated made ground, which may potentially contain deposits of archaeological interest.
licence
listed building
lithology Local Air Quality Management (LAQM) Local Development Framework (LDF) locally listed building
Local Plan
London Clay London Tideway Improvements (LTI)
London Tideway Tunnels (LTT) Lower aquifer made ground
Page 198
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works Term main tunnel drive shaft site main tunnel reception shaft site Mesolithic mitigation measures Description
Glossary
Site that would be used to insert and then drive the TBM. Site that would be used to remove the TBM from the Thames Tunnel at the end of the drive. 12,000 4,000 BC. Actions proposed to prevent or reduce adverse effects arising from the whole or specific elements of the development. 4,000 2,000 BC. Non-nodular chalk, massively bedded, with fairly regularly developed marl seams and sporadic flints. A product of combustion processes. Nitrogen dioxide is associated with adverse effects on human health. A report which briefly describes the main points discussed in the Environmental Statement in a clear manner without the use of technical jargon and phraseology. This report is a requirement of the 2009 Infrastructure Planning EIA Regulations. The Water Services Regulations Authority, a government body set up in 1989 to regulate the activities of the water companies in England and Wales. Odour panel sampling carried out in laboratory conditions. Related to past environments, ie, during the prehistoric and later periods. Such remains can be of archaeological interest, and often consist of organic remains such as pollen and plant macro fossils which can be used to reconstruct the past environment. 700,00012,000 BC. A Middle Bronze Age axe. Solid particles or liquid droplets suspended or carried in the air and includes the same matter after it has deposited onto a surface. For the purposes of this assessment the term includes all size fractions of suspended matter, such as dust, PM10 and PM2.5. A structure containing carbon which absorbs odour from air flowing out of the Tunnel, without the assistance of mechanical pumping. Preliminary Environmental Information Report is a document setting out initial environmental information. In accordance with the Planning Act 2008, it is a requirement that this is the subject of pre-application consultation.
Neolithic New Pit Chalk nitrogen dioxide (and oxides NO2 and NO) Non-Technical Summary (NTS)
Ofwat
olfactometry Palaeo-environmental
Palaeolithic palstave particulate matter (PM)
passive filter chamber
PEIR
Page 199
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works Term pelagic invertebrates perched water Description Invertebrates which are found in the water column.
Glossary
Is groundwater in an aquifer present above the regional water table, as a result of a (semi-)impermeable layer of rock or sediment above the main water table/aquifer, below the ground surface. The capacity of soil or porous rock to transmit water. A measure of the acidity or basicity of an aqueous solution. A borehole designed specifically to allow the measurement of groundwater level. The level or head to which groundwater would rise in a piezometer if it is free to seek equilibrium with the atmosphere. Written procedures put in place for dealing with spillages and pollution. Containing void spaces. Most sedimentary rocks are porous to some extent, and the term is commonly applied in a relative sense, generally restricted to rocks which have significant effective porosity. Refers to Option 3 Abbey Mills route, which runs from Action Storm Tanks in west London to Limehouse then turns northeast to Abbey Mills Pumping Station, where it connects with the Lee Tunnel. Refers to the preferred route and construction sites. Sites assessed as most suitable following review of suitability of each shortlisted site by taking in to account engineering,planning, environment, property and community considerations. Preservation by recording and advancement of understanding of asset significance. This is a standard archaeological mitigation strategy where heritage assets remains are fully excavated and recorded archaeologically and the results published. For remains of lesser significance, preservation by record might comprise an archaeological watching brief. Archaeological mitigation strategy where nationally important (whether designated or not) heritage assets are conserved in situ for future generations, typically through modifications to design proposals to avoid damage or destruction of such remains.
permeability pH piezometer piezometric surface
Pollution Incident Control Plan porous
preferred route
preferred scheme preferred site
preservation by record
preservation in situ
Page 200
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works Term Principal Aquifer Description
Glossary
A geological stratum that exhibits high inter-granular and/or fracture permeability. This strata has the ability to support water supply and/or river base flow on a strategic scale. Principal Aquifers equate in most cases to aquifers previously referred to as Major Aquifers. Term used to describe the supply of water provided by a water company. Putty chalk (clay characteristics) near the surface of the unit above firm to soft non-nodular chalk with flint (Upper Chalk undivided) above hard nodular chalk with flints (Lewes Chalk). An international treaty for the conservation and sustainable utilisation of wetlands. River Basin Management Plans these are the relevant plans that outline the state of water resources within a River Basin District relevant to the objectives of the WFD. The rarest and most threatened species are often listed in the Red Data Book of Insectsxi, within which there are three categories. Taxa in danger of extinction are referred to as RDB 1 species; those considered to be vulnerable and likely to move into the endangered category are listed under RDB 2, whilst rare species occur on RDB 3. Section of river between two points. Extensive alluvial sand and gravel deposits laid down in a braided river system in river terraces since the Anglian glaciations. Where live data is used to manipulate control equipment in order to best manage the flow of storm water and sewage within the capacity of the system. People (both individually and communally) and the socioeconomic systems they support. Water that percolates downwards from the surface to replenish the water table. The red route is a network of roads designated by Transport for London that carry heavy volumes of traffic and are essential for the movement of traffic and public transport. These comprise mainly of major routes into and around London. Transport for London are responsible for enforcing the red routes which include clearways, parking and loading bays, bus lanes, yellow box junctions and banned turns.
Public Water Supply Putty Chalk
RAMSAR RBMP
RDB3
reach River Terrace Deposits real time control (RTC) receptors recharge Red route
xi
Bratton, (1991) Red Data Book for Insects
Page 201
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works Term risk assessment Description
Glossary
Assessment of the risks associated with an activity or object and possible accidents involving a source or practice. This includes assessment of consequence. AD 43 410. Scheduled Ancient Monument. More commonly referred to as Scheduled Monument. Entry of brackish or salt water into an aquifer, from the sea or estuary. This may be natural or induced by excessive or uncontrolled groundwater abstraction. The zone in which the voids in a rock or soil are filled with water at a pressure greater than atmospheric pressure. An ancient monument or archaeological deposits designated by the Secretary of State as a Scheduled Ancient Monument and protected under the Ancient Monuments Act. The formal view of the determining authority on the range of topics and issues to be considered by the Environmental Impact Assessment, as referred to in the 2009 Infrastructure Planning EIA Regulations. The document prepared by the applicant setting out the proposed approach to the Environmental Impact Assessment, including the range of topics and issues to be addressed, as referred to in the 2009 Infrastructure Planning EIA Regulations. The formal view of the determining authority on the need for an Environmental Impact Assessment to be undertaken, as referred to in the 2009 Infrastructure Planning EIA Regulations. The upper unit of the White Chalk, comprising of as firm to soft non-nodular Chalk with flint beds. Thin marl seams are found towards its base and and absent higher up. A hard ground marks the top of the Seaford Chalk. Alternate piles in-filled with concrete to form a water-tight retaining wall. Either permeable strata capable of supporting local supplies or low permeability strata with localised features such as fissures. The term Secondary Aquifer replaces the previously used name of Minor Aquifer. There are two classes of Secondary Aquifer. Secondary A are capable of supporting water supplies at a local rather than strategic scale and Secondary B are lower permeability layers which may store and yield limited amounts of groundwater due to localised features such as fissures, thin permeable horizons and weathering.
Roman SAM saline intrusion
saturated zone Scheduled Monument
Scoping Opinion
Scoping Report
Screening Opinion
Seaford Chalk
secant piles Secondary Aquifers
Page 202
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works Term short listed sites SINC (Grade B) SINC (Grade L) SINC (Grade M) Site Description
Glossary
Sites idenitfied following an assessment of long list sites in accordance with the Site Selection Methodology. Site of Nature Conservation Importance (Grade II of Borough importance). Site of Nature Conservation Importance (Grade I of Local importance). Site of Nature Conservation Importance (Grade III of Metropolitan importance). For the purposes of the PEIR assessment, the site is deemed as the entire area located within the Limit of Land to be Acquired or Used. It should not be inferred that this entire site area will be physically separated (ie, hoarded or fenced) for the construction duration. An area given a statutory designation by English Nature or the Countryside Council for Wales because of its nature conservation value. Materials such as hard standing and vegetation including incidental topsoil (including potential contaminated soil). A record of sites of archaeological interest. An efficient method for constructing the tunnel lining with a layer of sprayed concrete. This is instead of using pre-cast concrete segments. Layers of rock, including unconsolidated materials such as sands and gravels. The study of stratified rocks, their nature, their occurrence, their relationship to each other and their classification. A colourless gas with a choking smell, the main product of the combustion of sulphur contained in fuels. Overarching term for recent generally unconsolidated or loosely consolidated deposits of sand, gravel, silt, clay, etc on top of bedrock. Synonymous with drift generally supersedes the term. This is a general term used to describe all water features such as rivers, streams, springs, ponds and lakes. Water that travels across the ground rather than seeping in to the soil.
Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) site strip Sites and Monuments Record sprayed concrete lining strata stratigraphy sulphur dioxide (SO2) superficial deposits
surface water surface water runoff
Page 203
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works Term Thames Tunnel Description
Glossary
The Thames Tunnel comprises a full-length storage and transfer tunnel from Acton Storm Tanks to Beckton Sewage Treatment Works in East London and the interception of specific CSOs along the Thames Tideway with a diameter between 6.5m and 7.2m. Coarsening upward sequence of well sortedfine grained sand which has a higher clay / silt content towards the lower part of the sequence, and evidence of intense bioturbation removing bedding structures. The Thames Tunnel project. Length of river channel swept by water from a discharge point in one tidal cycle. In the case of the River Thames this is considered to 13km up and downstream of the discharge point. Tool developed on behalf of Thames Water to assess the effects of lapses in water quality caused by CSO discharges on Tideway fish populations. The formal assessment of traffic and transportation issues relating to the proposed development. The findings are usually presented in a report which accompanies the planning application. Partially or wholly remove. In archaeological terms remains may have been truncated by previous construction activity. A typical year relates to an actual year, eg, the corresponding meteorological dataset for that year used in the modelling which was 1979-80. The corresponding meteorological dataset is used as it would give a better indication of conditions rather than using a recent year of data where the meteorological data may not be consistent with a rainfall event leading to the tunnel emissions. An enclosed space below the ground surface where air is released to atmosphere, should the pressure within the Tunnel exceed a set value. The statutory plan which sets out a unitary authoritys planning policies. These are rocks which are generally unable to provide usable water supplies and are unlikely to have surface water and wetland ecosystems dependent upon them. Variably bioturbated fine- to medium-grained sand with glauconite, rounded flint pebbles and minor clay, with distinctive pebble beds and base and top.
Thanet Sands
The project tidal excursion
Tideway Fish Risk Model Transport Assessment (TA)
truncate typical year
underground pressure release chamber Unitary Development Plan (UDP) unproductive strata
Upnor Formation
Page 204
Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works Term Upper aquifer Upper Mottled Beds Upper Shelly Beds Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive valve chamber Description
Glossary
Comprising the water bearing strata above the London Clay, namely the River Terrace Deposits and the Alluvium. A bluish grey mottled with greenish brown clay. Contains shell fragments within a flinty gravel or a sandy clay The Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (1991) has the overall aim of protecting the environment from the adverse effects of urban waste water discharges. An underground structure on the sewer system containing valves which are used to isolate the flow between different parts of the sewer system. For example, flap valves prevent the flow from the river travelling back up the sewer or into the tunnel. A stack through which air is released. An EC Directive seeking to improve water quality in rivers and groundwater in an integrated way (2000). An archaeological watching brief is a formal programme of observation and investigation conducted during any operation carried out for nonarchaeological reasons. Level below which the ground is saturated with water. The water table elevation may vary with recharge and groundwater abstraction. The WEEE Directive aims to reduce the amount of electrical and electronic equipment going to landfill and to encourage everyone to reuse, recycle and recover it. Chalk with flints, with discrete marl seams, nodular chalk, sponge-rich and flint seams throughout. Flint typology and marl seam incidence is important for correlation. Comprises of Seaford Chalk, Lewes Nodular Chalk, New Pit Chalk and Holywell Nodular Chalk.
ventilation column Water Framework Directive (WFD) watching brief (archaeological) water table
Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (WEEE) White Chalk subgroup
Page 205
References
References
1 EPUK (2010) Development Control: Planning for Air Quality, 2010 Update. 2 Defra, http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/review-and-assessment/tools/backgroundmaps.html, Accessed May 2011) 3 (LB Newham, Personal Communication with Nick Marks EHO, April 2011 and LB Barking and Dagenham, Personal Communication with Ann Mark EHO, April 2011 4 Defra (2010), http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/documents/Measured-nitrogen-oxides(NOx)-and-or-nitrogen-dioxide-(NO2)-concentrations-do-not-appear-to-be-decliningin-line-with-national-forecastsv1.pdf, Accessed April 2011 5 Defra (2009) Local Air Quality Management - Technical Guidance, LAQM.TG(09). 6 Greater London Authority and London Councils (2006) Best Practice Guidance: The Control of Dust and Emissions from Construction and Demolition, November 2006 7 Thames Estuary Partnership Biodiversity Action Group (undated) Tidal Thames Habitat Action Plan. Thames Estuary Partnership. 8 The Mayors Biodiversity Strategy Connecting with Nature (Great London Authority, July 2002) 9 IEEM. Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom. Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2006) 10 Department of Communities and Local Government. Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment (March 2010), 1, 13 11 Halsey C, Lee Tunnel Thames Water Beckton Sewage Treatment Works, A Geoarchaeological Deposit Model. MOLA unpublished report (2009) 12 Margary ID, Roman Roads in Britain. London. John Baker Publishers Ltd (1967), 56 13 Victoria County History, A History of the County of Essex Vol. v (1966), 4350 14 Victoria County History, A History of the County of Essex Vol. v (1966), 4350 15 Victoria County History, A History of the County of Essex Vol. v (1966), 2531; GLHER 221601/02 16 Victoria County History, A History of the County of Essex Vol. v (1966), 814). According to the Chapman and Andr Map of Essex, dated 1777 17 Rippon S, The Transformation of Coastal Wetlands. Oxford (2000), 15385 18 Thirsk J, Rural England, An illustrative history of the landscape. Oxford (2000), 15569 19 Victoria County History, A History of the County of Essex Vol. v (1966), 9396 20 Weinreb B, Hibbert C, Keay J and Keay J, The London Encyclopaedia. Macmillan. London (2008), 52 21 Weinreb B, Hibbert C, Keay J and Keay J, The London Encyclopaedia. Macmillan. London (2008), 52
Page 206
References
22 Weinreb B, Hibbert C, Keay J and Keay J, The London Encyclopaedia. Macmillan. London (2008), 52 23 EA(2006) Groundwater Quality Review: London Basin Ref. No. GWQR22 [6441R6] November 2006. 24 Communities and Local Government (March 2010). Planning Policy Statement 25 Development and Flood Risk 25 PPS25 Practice Guide (Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk Practice Guide. Communities and Local Government (Dec 2009) 26 Thames Estuary 2100 Plan (TE2100) (Thames Estuary 2100 Flood Risk Management Plan. Environment Agency. (Accessed Feb 2011) http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/library/consultations/106100.aspx) 27 London Plan (The London Plan Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London. Greater London Authority (Jul 2011) 28 London Borough of Newham Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Final Report. Capita Symonds (May 2010). 29 Thames Region Catchment Flood Management Plan Summary Document. Environment Agency (Jan 2007) 30 London Regional Flood Risk Appraisal. Greater London Authority (Oct 2009) 31 Thames Tidal Defences Joint Probability Extreme Water Levels 2008 Final Modelling Report. Environment Agency (Apr 2008) (Thames Barrier operational, Model Node 2.23)). 32 Mayors Draft Water Strategy. Mayor of London. Greater London Authority (Aug 2009) 33 TT (2010) Ground Investigation LTT-Thames Tunnel-NESR to Beckton Phase 1 Volume 2 (Project no: F1541). 34 EA (2010) Management of London Basin Chalk Aquifer. Status Report 2010
Page 207
Thames Tunn
110-RG-ENV-PNM1X-000036
Phase two consultation (Autumn 2011)
For further information see our website: www.thamestunnelconsultation.co.uk or call us on 0800 0721 086
Thames Tunn

PEIR Main Report Vol28-Beckton-STW

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEIR Main Report Vol28-Beckton-STW

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works site assessment

Phase two consultation documentation

Project information papers

Site information papers

Thames Tunnel Preliminary environmental information report

Part B: Preliminary site information

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 25 Volume 26 Volume 27 Volume 28

Preliminary environmental information report

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

Preliminary environmental information report

Ecology - terrestrial ....................................................................................... 36

Historic environment ..................................................................................... 53

Land quality .................................................................................................... 76

Noise and vibration ........................................................................................ 92

Preliminary environmental information report

Water resources flood risk ....................................................................... 149

Preliminary environmental information report

15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 15.5 15.6

Preliminary environmental information report

Preliminary environmental information report

Preliminary environmental information report

Preliminary environmental information report

WSI WWT ZTV ZVI

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works

Section 2: Site context

Site context Site location

Preliminary environmental information report

Section 2: Site context

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works

Section 3: Proposed development

Proposed development Overview

Preliminary environmental information report

Section 3: Proposed development

A valve chamber on the connection culvert

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works 3.2.5 3.2.6

Section 3: Proposed development

Access and maintenance works

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works 3.2.15

Section 3: Proposed development

Code of construction practice

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works

Section 3: Proposed development

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works 3.3.11

Section 3: Proposed development

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works 3.3.19

Section 3: Proposed development

Access and movement

3.3.22 3.3.23 3.3.24

Reinstatement and commissioning

Construction programme and working hours

Preliminary environmental information report

Volume 28: Beckton Sewage Treatment Works Working hours 3.3.28